Agricultural Reviews

  • Chief EditorPradeep K. Sharma

  • Print ISSN 0253-1496

  • Online ISSN 0976-0741

  • NAAS Rating 4.84

Frequency :
Quarterly (March, June, September & December)
Indexing Services :
AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Agricultural Reviews, volume 44 issue 4 (december 2023) : 441-450

A Critical Review and SWOT Analysis of Important Extension Agencies in India for Improving Extension Management

Rajesh K. Rana*,1, Ravneet Kaur1, Rajbir Singh1, Mahantesh Shirur2, R.N. Padaria3, Sarang Monga1, R.K. Singh4, Randhir Singh5, A.K. Singh1
1ICAR-Agricultural Technology Application Research Institute, Ludhiana-141 004, Punjab, India.
2National Institute of Agricultural Extension Management, Rajendra Nagar-500 030, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
3ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa-110 001, New Delhi, India.
4ICAR-Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla-171 001, Himachal Pradesh, India.
5Division of Agricultural Extension, Krishi Bhavan-1, ICAR, Pusa-110 001, New Delhi, India.
Cite article:- Rana K. Rajesh, Kaur Ravneet, Singh Rajbir, Shirur Mahantesh, Padaria R.N., Monga Sarang, Singh R.K., Singh Randhir, Singh A.K. (2023). A Critical Review and SWOT Analysis of Important Extension Agencies in India for Improving Extension Management . Agricultural Reviews. 44(4): 441-450. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2522.
The agricultural extension system in India has the daunting task of serving about 146.45 million farm families. Public extension systems comprising KVKs, ATMA, State Line Departments, SAUs and ICAR Institutes have been playing a pivotal role in extending extension services; of late, private players like input companies, credit and insurance firms, Corporate Social Responsibility units, NGOs, farmers’ associations (FBOs/FPOs) and commodity boards (Rubber, Coffee, etc.) have made a significant impact in this area. Despite such a vast network of public and private extension agencies, there is a wide gap in service delivery and extension education interventions. All these extension agencies have their strength and weaknesses but also hold promising dynamism for future challenges. As agricultural extension will be a very important determinant of future agricultural growth, the assessment of SWOT analysis of different extension agencies engaged in delivering extension services in India is imperative.
India had more than 146 million land holdings during 2015-16, out of which about 86 per cent were small and marginal farmers having a land holding of less than 2 ha (DAC and FW 2020). The number of land holdings has been continuously increasing during 2010-11 and 2015-16 compared to 2005-06, while marginal farmers were the only category where the proportion of farmers constantly increased (Table 1). 

Table 1: Proportion of land-holdings under different farm categories over the time.

Although agricultural extension in India has evolved over time while facing and combating various challenges (Dubey et al., 2011), ensuring farmers’ welfare through technological backstopping and extension advisories is a gigantic task because of farmers’ huge number and immense diversity in crops and activities undertaken in our country. India has a unique National Agricultural Research and Extension System (NARES) to address farmers’ specific needs. A functional depiction of NARES (Fig 1) reflects a very strong dependence of the extension system on the research system for technological backstopping.

Fig 1: Functional depiction of Indian national agricultural research and extension system (NARES).

Various extension agencies exist and complement each other in the extension system in India to make it able to work efficiently. Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs), ICAR Institutes, State/ Central/ private Agricultural Universities (SAUs), Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) along with all state line departments, private companies, farmers’ groups, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and input sellers are the major extension agencies in India. All these extension agencies have their strengths and weaknesses in handling the agricultural extension program. In order to have a right selection of an extension agency for a particular activity and target group, an insight into the strengths and weaknesses of these extension agencies, along with an analysis of their respective opportunities and threats, is very important. This article reviews 69 studies published between 2001 and 2022 on the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of different extension agencies operational in India. 
India has a vast network of 731 KVKs across the country (ICAR 2022a). The majority are hosted by SAUs, followed by NGOs, ICAR institutes and Central Agricultural Universities for technology assessment, demonstration and capacity development. Taking into consideration their vibrancy and pro-activeness in efficiently disseminating technological inputs to the farmers, the role of agricultural extension for KVKs was gradually broadened. KVKs, as the mainstream agricultural extension, have their areas of strengths and weaknesses that need to be understood thoroughly (Table 2). 

Table 2: SWOT analysis of KVKs as extension agency.

KVKs have a well-established extension program based on a long experience and rigorous monitoring and evaluation mechanism (Joshi et al. 2018; Singh et al., 2019d) that generates very high returns to investment for the nation (NILERD, 2015; Joshi et al. 2015; Kumar et al., 2019). Similarly, KVKs have a well-funded extension infrastructure for optimal functioning and outcome (Joshi et al. 2018). Besides host organisations, KVKs disseminated technologies from other institutions (Mukherjee et al. 2015). KVKs deal with all aspects of farming and provide holistic solutions/technical services to the farmers. Being a public-funded extension agency, KVKs are not desperate to promote everything without looking at the interest of the farmers. It has put the private extension service and input delivery mechanism to augment their quality and provide services to the stakeholders at a competitive level. The mandates of on-farm testing and organizing frontline demonstrations, besides provisioning quality planting materials (especially seeds), have helped in the diffusion and adoption of better as well as appropriate varieties and technologies suitable for local conditions.
Limited manpower in KVKs limits their ability to reach a large number of farmers (Papnai et al. 2013; Singh et al. 2013a). With changing global scenario, the Government of India is contemplating KVKs as a One-Stop-Shop with integrated facilities of value addition and processing, market linkages, entrepreneurship development and incubation centres for which needed manpower of specialized skills is lacking in the KVKs. Further, Papnai et al., (2013) also pointed out the non-availability of Subject Matter Specialists in all subjects in all KVKs, especially in fishery, animal sciences and horticulture. Increasing non-mandated activities has adversely affected the mandated activities of KVKs over the years (Kumar and Kaur, 2015). Increasing workload and less scientific recognition of the extension activities induce talented KVK scientists to shift to the research system. Rapidly increasing reporting requirements have left meagre time for the KVK staff to handle the mandated activities (Reddy et al. 2018).
KVKs possess a multidisciplinary team for excellent technology transfer under the Farming System Approach of extension. The burning of national issues like crop residue burning has been addressed by the KVKs very efficiently (Singh et al., 2018a; 2018c; 2019a; 2019b; 2019c), which provides confidence regarding their ability to handle other issues of immediate national significance. KVKs have demonstrated their strong ability to provide innovative solutions (Singh et al. 2018b; Rana et al., 2019b; 2019c) and execute programs of national significance such as entrepreneurship development (Shirur et al., 2017; 2018; 2019), among rural youth (Rana et al., 2019a) and to establish convergence with other important agencies. All major ministries having a stake in the rural areas are keen to collaborate with KVKs. Hence, the KVKs have a very strong opportunity to converge with several agencies of national significance to ensure farmers’ welfare. They have also demonstrated their ability to perform during unexpected conditions like COVID-19 and similar situations can also be tackled by them in the future. Serious thinking is being given to establishing a system of outsourcing manpower and services at the KVKs to increase the quality and quantity of extension output. Recently, additional manpower has been provided to KVKs through various network projects and this trend is expected to strengthen in the future. Keeping in view the importance of KVKs, enhanced staff strength is quite likely at KVKs that will result in favourable extension output (Kokate et al., 2009).
Extension activities are considered to carry a relatively low scientific impact in terms of research products and publications compared to basic/fundamental/applied research. Considering the nature and extent of extension activities, the comparative weights for such activities should be revised vis-à-vis the research activities in the promotion process otherwise, it might pose a serious threat to the long-term vibrancy of the KVK system. A rapid increase in non-mandated activities for KVKs is another threat and if it continues, the quality of output of mandated activities might be adversely affected (Sulaiman and van-den-Ban, 2003; Kumar and Kaur, 2015). Recently the host organisations have been shifting the workload of their in-house extension system to KVKs, putting the additional workload on an already loaded system.
ATMA/line departments
The Training and Visit program introduced in 1974 lost its relevance in India because of administrative, technical, operational and accountability issues (Gowda, 2012). The conception of ATMA as an arm of state Departments of Agriculture was an effort to revitalise the country’s agriculture extension delivery mechanism (Gowda, 2012) and their SWOT have been thoroughly described in Table 3.

Table 3: SWOT analysis of ATMA/ line departments as extension agency.

A wider reach to farmers is an important strength of ATMA (DAC, 2010) as they run a large number of farmers’ welfare schemes and have good coordination with the farming community (Swanson et al., 2008; Mukherjee et al., 2015; DAC, 2018). They are a strong agency for input supply, especially for small farmers (Planning Commission, 2007). The decentralization of planning and implementation creates a bottom-up extension experience at ATMA.
Their tremendous time goes into general things and the quality of extension output gets compromised (Reddy et al., 2006). Dependence on inadequately trained temporary manpower and lack of specialists for highly technical enterprises force farmers to approach other extension agencies (Sulaiman and Hall, 2008). Isolated working of the line departments is another weakness of this extension agency (Sulaiman and Hall, 2008). The enhanced political interference and sub-optimal participation from chairpersons (DCs) weaken this extension agency.
Being headed by the highest administrator in the district is an opportunity to implement district agriculture plans better. Increased options for outsourcing manpower/services can spare their time for mandated activities (Swanson et al., 2008). The application of IT tools will also enhance their efficiency and output. Higher professionalism among farmers will replace supply-push-extension with demand-pull-extension, improving the quality of their service. ATMA is a strong platform for collaborations with various other extension agencies.
High quality of extension services by private/other extension agencies may make ATMA’s presence insignificant. Rapid enhancement in reporting/record-keeping might further reduce their core extension output (Raabe, 2008). Enhanced political interference in ATMA’s implementation might prove detrimental. Sub-optimal implementation and engrossment in routine activities might make them unimportant extension agencies (Singh, 2008).
India started establishing state agricultural universities (SAUs) as early as 1960 with the inception of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar (GBPUAT, 2022). India has sixty-three SAUs for generating location-specific agri-technologies and facilitating their dissemination among farmers (ICAR, 2022b). SAUs as an extension agency have their own SWOT (Table 4).

Table 4: SWOT analysis of SAUs as extension agency.

Specialized departments and sections help the scientists acquire in-depth knowledge to generate and disseminate suitable technologies to the farmers. SAUs have used Kisan Melas very efficiently for showcasing and transferring such technologies (Singh et al., 2013b). The SAUs have been seen as an important inputs-supply agency for specialized inputs (Pardey and Roseboorn, 1989).
Biased promotion of SAUs’s technologies might omit better technologies to the farmers’ disadvantage. Strongly popularized latest varieties through mass/ social media are not supported by the adequate seed supply to meet farmers’ demand in Kisan Melas, creating awkward situations (Ramaswamy and Selvraj, 2007). Generally, the scientists responsible for technology generation have limited insight into the ground realities (Reddy et al., 2006). In SAUs, non-extensionists/social scientists acting as extension managers generally compromise the essence of the extension philosophy.
SAUs are developing two-way communication IT platforms to reach all farmers more efficiently and effectively (Planning Commission, 2007). However, the Common-Service-Centres in the Gram Panchayats already offer two-way communication through technical backup from KVKs, which SAUs might also use to improve their extension efficiency. Higher Public-Private-Partnership in agricultural extension is another strong opportunity for SAUs to effectively disseminate technologies of the private partners (Singh et al., 2013a).
Score-cards used for promotion assessment having inadequate weightage for extension activities is demotivating extension scientists (Ramaswamy and Selvraj, 2007). Many SAUs have weakened their in-house extension system with excessive dependence on the KVK system. Any policy change on the administrative structure of KVKs could be a terrible development for SAUs. The emergence of specialized universities is hampering systems approach to extension and creating gaps in the process (Tamboli and Nene, 2011).
ICAR institutes
India has a large number of Research Institutes (102) and Agricultural Technology Application Research Institutes (11) in the country (ICAR, 2022c). The country-wide network of ICAR institutes was created to generate technologies for various crops and geographies, however, they had to strengthen the in-house technology dissemination system as other agencies could not transfer technologies generated by these institutes. The SWOT of ICAR institutes as an extension has been presented in Table 5. 

Table 5: SWOT analysis of ICAR institutes as extension agency.

ICAR institutes are working on specialized commodities/components; hence, their technical inputs are also highly precise. Close coordination in technology generation and technology dissemination teams ensures high-quality dissemination/adoption. ICAR institutes are at an advantage in assimilating extension experiences from other states (Dash and Mishra, 2004). ICAR institutes act as excellent trainers of master-trainers for state departments.
Except few institutes, they provide crop/commodity-specific answers and farmers must depend on other agencies for complete solutions (Sulaiman and van-den-Ban, 2003). The ICAR institutes have limited reach among farmers and extension agents/personnel might face language problems resulting in inefficient extension efforts (Sulaiman and Hall, 2004). Sometimes the strongly popularised technologies, especially the varieties, are not backed-up with an adequate supply of quality seed resulting in inadequate adoption. Existing score-cards for the promotion of ICAR scientists give inadequate significance to the extension activities resulting in demotivation of extensionists. Lab scientists generally have limited insight into the farmers’ field realities (Reddy et al., 2006).
Outsourcing services/staff will help these institutes improve the management of their extension services (Dash and Mishra, 2004). Their technology generation strength will easily get collaboration from various extension agencies to better disseminate technologies (Sulaiman and Hall, 2004). Enhanced Public-Private-Partnership in future agricultural extension will be an opportunity for these institutes to generate funds by effectively disseminating technology from private research agencies (Singh et al., 2013a).
Highly specialized ICAR research institutes may not have a sustainable rapport with farmers. The fast-depleting Technical Staff and the fast-increasing research activities might deteriorate the quality of extension services by ICAR institutes (Sulaiman and van-den-Ban, 2003).
With its interest in selling a range of agri-inputs in India, the corporate sector has also contributed to the technology transfer process with its innovative methods and ICT applications. Though such efforts are sporadic in their spread, the private extension has a tremendous role to play in the future with their unique SWOTs (Table 6). 

Table 6: SWOT analysis of corporates as an extension agency.

Corporates earmark resources to achieve desired extension output among targeted farmers (Swanson, 2009). The corporates are known for pushing extension mechanisms, especially under contract farming (Singh et al., 2011; Pandit et al., 2015) and guided by the profit motive, the companies take care of almost every need of the targeted farmer (Sulaiman, 2003).
The extension program of corporates is driven by the profit motive for selected crops, varieties and groups of farmers (Sulaiman and van-den-Ban, 2003). Due to vested interests, their personnel occasionally misguide farmers on the true potential of technologies of their competitors. Poor-quality companies recruit ill-trained manpower who mis-sell and over-recommend their products making false claims which inflict losses to the unsuspecting farmers (Dalwai, 2018).
With the rapid adoption of specialized agri-enterprises by farmers, the scope of extension by corporates will also increase (Sulaiman and Hall, 2004). The recently enacted Farm Acts will increase the scope of private extension and the reliable and good-quality private players with high credibility will seize the opportunity aptly.
With the power of social media in extension services, companies with poor standards pose a threat of enhanced misinformation and online/offline financial frauds/cheatings if an effective regulatory protective mechanism remains absent (Dalwai, 2018).
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as an extension agencies are quite prominent in other parts of the world (Bruntrup-Seidemann, 2011; Afrad et al., 2019). However, NGOs have limited areas of operation in India and they do have their specific SWOTs (Table 7).

Table 7: SWOT analysis of NGOs as extension agency.

Motivated NGOs are passionate about changing farmers’ lives as they focus on providing practical solutions and specialized inputs at the farmers’ doorsteps at reasonable prices (Wahab et al. 2011). Some NGOs refine and modify low-cost technologies based on the indigenous-technical knowledge, especially in locations having severe challenges and disadvantages (Glendenning et al., 2010, Kumar et al., 2022).
Large number of NGOs are interested only in garnering funds without corresponding delivery. Mostly the NGOs have financial and manpower constraints, so they cannot provide comprehensive solutions to the farmers (Kumar et al., 2022). They generally have a limited reach.
Policy action channelizing Corporate-Social-Responsibility funds for the agriculture sector will create opportunities for NGOs in agricultural extension too. Moreover, NGOs focus on agriculture as an integral part of the overall environment/health where funds flow might enhance. A higher extent of Public-Private-Partnership might create a strong opportunity for NGOs in future agricultural extension (Singh et al., 2013a).
The mushrooming growth of non-performing NGOs threatens them as an important extension agency. The NGOs focusing on traditional agricultural practices strongly oppose the current scientific practices and they are likely to be used by the political parties in opposition to the government for political reasons (Chirwa et al., 2005). Some NGOs might resort to activism and imparting unrest among farmers due to the compulsive nature or vested interests of the persons running such NGOs.
The government of India has recently laid very strong emphasis on establishing Farmers-Based-Organizations (FBOs) in general and Farmer-Producer-Organizations (FPOs) in particular to uplift farmers’ socio-economics (Singh et al., 2022a). National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), the leading agency in establishing FPOs in India, claims the establishment of more than 6000 FPOs, including the producer companies, in the past ten years and 10000 new FPOs are being established in the future with the major responsibility on the shoulders of NABARD and Small Farmers Agribusiness Consortium (SFAC) (TCI, 2022). The abstract of the SWOT of the FBOs/FPOs as an extension agency is presented in Table 8.

Table 8: SWOT analysis of FBOs/ FPOs as extension agency.

They accurately identify needs/ solutions for their members as they belong to a closely interactive group (Trebbin and Markus, 2012). They have very well-defined objectives with a clear focus (Van Herck, 2014). The government is contemplating the creation of 10000 FPOs in the country by 2023-24 (MoA and FW, 2020). They have an adequate number of experienced members in order to handle complicated and proficiency demanding activities (Salifu et al., 2010). They provide the best platform for income enhancement of the farmers and the farmer-to-farmer extension (Van Herck, 2014; Singh et al., 2022b).
Dominant member(s) in FBOs/FPOs take control of decision-making and financial affairs disempowering other members (Chirwa et al., 2005; Singh et al., 2022c). Acts of selfish/ dishonest leadership demotivate other members, seriously compromising the vibrancy of the group (Carney, 1994). The group members lack the technical know-how for all aspects of specialized farming activities.
FBOs/FPOs are the first choice of major extension agencies for collaborative programs due to their flexibility (Birner and Anderson, 2007). The government of India has a higher focus on agricultural/rural development for enhancing farmers’ income through various programs where these groups can play a decisive role (Birner and Anderson, 2007). These groups being very strong in food processing/ value addition, are expected to be specialized sources of technical dissemination (World Bank, 2008). The government’s facilitation to provide a state-of-the-art e-commerce platform for direct marketing of products manufactured by these groups may prove to be a strong boost for the sustainability and growth of these groups (Hazell et al., 2010; Rana et al., 2022).
Inability to find a proper market might restrict these groups from upscaling or continuing their businesses. (Barrett, 2008). The rapidly vanishing cooperative culture among people and lack of business skills among the majority of the farmers might pose serious threats for them as innovative marketing is essential here (Markelova et al., 2009).
Agricultural inputs sellers
There are 2.82 lakh agricultural input dealers in India who are one of the most important agencies providing technical information on farming to the farmers (DAC, 2014). The input sellers/dealers also constitute an important extension agency in India, having their own SWOT (Table 9). 

Table 9: SWOT analysis of Input Dealers as extension agency.

The proximity of agricultural inputs sellers/dealers to farmers and the very strong inter-dependence between them creates a huge potential for extension through this agency, which has not been adequately documented and appreciated (Reddy et al., 2019).
The extension delivery by this agency is generally based on technically less competent and ill-trained persons who don’t understand the nuances and scientific basis of agriculture (Singh et al., 2016). They are likely to give wrong advice and recommend high-margin and unnecessary inputs leading to serious overuse of pesticides and fertilisers, resulting in economic losses to farmers and seriously damaging the environment and ecology (Bhushan et al., 2013).
Large number of inputs-sellers as extension agents are present even in the remotest parts and constitute a potent resource for technology transfer (Reddy et al., 2019). The diploma program in Agricultural Extension Services for Input Dealers (DAESI) by MANAGE aims at capacity building (Kumar et al., 2020). Adoption of good agriculture practices will make input sellers/ dealers change too.
The failure to design guidelines and to implement good practices for the input sellers by the regulator might lead to higher exploitation of farmers by mis-selling/ overselling in the future (DAC, 2014).
Multiple extension agencies are working in India to provide extension services on a highly diverse set of agricultural activities and crop enterprises to a large number of small and poor farmers. All these agencies have their respective strong and weak points along with future potentials and vulnerabilities when implementing extension programs in the field. Some agencies like ATMA and the state line departments can reach the entire farming community in the country but face difficulties in handling highly specific technical expertise on speciality enterprises. Similarly, SAUs and ICAR institutes have a high-quality technical knowledge base but do not have the needed network to reach all the farmers in the country. KVKs are known for providing extension services on all aspects of farming, but they have limited staff to reach only a small portion of the farming population. Corporates offer extension services to the farmers but have a highly focused approach and don’t attend to the non-focused farmers. Likewise, NGOs have a strong advantage of grassroots presence and also assessing the problems and needs of the targeted farming community, but their resources allow them only to reach a very small proportion of the farmers. FBOs and FPOs are very strong in farmer-to-farmer extension with highly precise solutions to the well-understood problems of their closely interactive group members. However, they are generally restricted to the group members and have to seek the assistance of other extension agencies to get solutions on all aspects of farming. All these agencies do have their respective future opportunities and potential threats. An in-depth understanding of the SWOT of all these extension agencies is imperative for designing flawless extension programs for the brighter future of agriculture in India. The article can significantly improve extension management in the future. 
This publication was inspired by the ICAR-Network project on New Extension Methodologies and Approaches. 
On behalf of all the authors I confirm and state that the authors have no conflict of interest.

  1. Afrad, S.I., Wadud, F. and Babu, S.C. (2019). Reforms in agricultural extension service system in Bangladesh. In Agricultural extension reforms in South Asia New Delhi: Academic Press. (pp. 13-40). 

  2. Barrett, C.B. (2008). Smallholder market participation: Concepts and evidence from eastern and southern Africa. Food Policy. 33(4): 299-317.

  3. Bhushan, C., Bhardwaj, A. and Misra, S.S. (2013). State of pesticide regulations in India. New Delhi Centre for Science and Environment. 33p. Retrieved from

  4. Birner, R. and Anderson, J.R. (2007). How to make agricultural extension demand driven? The case of India’s agricultural extension policy, IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00729. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC 20006-1002 US, 48 p. getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/125278/filename/125279. pdf.

  5. Bruntrup-Seidemann, S. (2011). Actual and potential roles of local NGOs in agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa. Quarterly journal of international agriculture. 50(1): 65-78. 

  6. Carney, D. (1994). Formal farmers organisations in the agricultural technology system: Current roles and future challenges. Natural Resource Perspectives. 14: 57-65. https://www. opinionfiles/2963.pdf.

  7. Chirwa, E., Dorward, A., Kachule, R., Kumwenda, I., Kydd, J., Pool, N. and Stockbridge, M. (2005). Farmer organisations for market access: Principles for policy and practice. Department  of Agricultural Sciences, Imperial College, London. 11p. 0860ed915d622c0012e1/R8275-040524-Policy Briefing Paper. pdf. 

  8. DAC. (2010). Information on policy framework for agricultural extension. Department of agriculture and cooperation. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. https://

  9. DAC. (2014). Guidelines for operationalization of diploma in agricultural extension services for input dealers (DAESI) program. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. 40p. https://agricoop. 

  10. DAC and FW. (2018). Support to State Extension Programmes for Extension Reforms (ATMA) Scheme. Directorate of Extension, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 104p. https://agricoop.

  11. DAC and FW. (2020). Agriculture statistic at a glance-2019 (Agriculture  Census 2015-16, Phase-I). Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, GOI, New Delhi. https://eands Glance% 202019% 20 Eng. pdf. 

  12. Dash, A.K. and Mishra, M. (2004). Krishi Vigyan Kendra: The lighthouse  for rural people. Orissa Review. 11(October 2004): 52-56. 

  13. Dalwai, A. (2018). Empowering the farmers through extension and knowledge dissemination. Report of the Committee on Doubling Farmers’ Income. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, GOI. Vol. XI. 

  14. Dubey, S.K., Sah, U. and Singh, A.K. (2011). Linkage perspective in agricultural extension Pp. 272. Daya Publishing House, New Delhi.

  15. GBPUAT. (2022, March 11). About Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, US Nagar, Uttarakhand, India.

  16. Glendenning, C.J., Babu S.B. and Asenso-Okyere, K. (2010). Review of agricultural extension in India, are farmers’ information needs being met, IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01048. IFRPI for Eastern and Southern Africa regional zone, South Africa, 48 p. utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/7280/filename/7281.pdf.

  17. Gowda, K.N. (2012). Agricultural extension systems in India. Paper Presented at the Roundtable on Agricultural Extension in Asia, Beijing, 8p. beijing-roundtable-2012-papers. 

  18. Hazell, P., Poulton, C., Wiggins, S. and Dorward, A. (2010). The future of small farms: Trajectories and policy priorities. World Development. 38(10): 1349-1361.

  19. ICAR. (2022a). Zone and state-wise number of KVKs in India. Retrieved from  

  20. ICAR. (2022b). State-wise list of State Agricultural Universities. Retrieved from 

  21. ICAR. (2022). Deemed Universities, Institutions, Directorates/Project Directorates, National Bureaux, National Research Centres and Agricultural Technology Application Research Institutes of the ICAR. https://

  22. Joshi, S., Indrakumar, D. and Kumra, N. (Eds) (2018). Technology Transfer to the Farmers and Role of KVKs. In Reflecting on India’s Development (pp. 135-152). Springer, Singapore. 

  23. Joshi, S., Indrakumar, D. and Kumra, N. (2018). Technology transfer to the farmers and role of KVKs. In Reflecting on India’s Development (pp. 135-152). Springer, Singapore.

  24. Joshi, P.K., Kumar, P. and Parappurathu, S. (2015). Public investment in agricultural research and extension in India. European Journal of Development Research. 27: 438-451.

  25. Kokate, K.D., Singh, A.K. and Singh, L. (2009). Drought Mitigating Interventions of Krishi Vigyan Kendras. Zonal Project Directorate, Kanpur, 159p. 

  26. Kumar, A., Singh, A.K., Saroj, S., Madhavan, M.M. and Joshi, P.K. (2019). The Impact of India’s Farm Science Centers (KVKs) on Farm Households’ Economic Welfare-Evidence  from a National Farmers Survey. IFPRI, New Delhi, Discussion Paper 01832, April 2019, 34p. 

  27. Kumar, S.N., Reddy, P.G. and Ratnakar, R. (2022) SWOT analysis of NGO extension service providers in Andhra Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 11(2): 195-197.

  28. Kumar, P. and Kaur, P. (2015). Constraints faced by the subject matter specialist of selected Krishi Vigyan Kendras of Northern India. Journal of Krishi Vigyan. 4(1): 10-17.

  29. Kumar, S., Atal, R., Roy, S., Panda, C.K. and Sohane, R.K. (2020). Role of agri-input dealers in providing extension services to the farmers of Bihar (India) and their role expectation from government institutions. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 39(5): 1-7.

  30. Markelova, H., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hellin, J. and Dohrn, S. (2009). Collective action for smallholder market access. Food Policy. 34(1): 1-7.

  31. MoA and FW. (2020). New operational guidelines for formation and promotion of 10,000 Farmer Producer Organizations. PIB Delhi, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. 10 July 2020. ReleaseI frame Page. aspx? PRID=1637820.   

  32. Mukherjee, S., Acharya, S.K. and Mishra, G.C. (2015). Role of Krishi Vigyan Kendra and its Convergence. In: [Mohanty, B.K., Acharya, S.K., Mohanty, A.P. and Mishra, G.C. (Eds.)], KVK: The Light House. Krishi Sanskriti Publication, New Delhi. ISBN: 978-81-930585-6-5. 

  33. Nilerd. (2015). KVKs Impact on Dissemination of Improved Practices  and Technologies. National Institute of Labour Economics Research and Development, NITI Aayog, New Delhi. Retrived from uploadfile/kvk0final0report020150december022-1648. pdf.

  34. Pandit, A., Lal, B. and Rana, R.K. (2015). An assessment of potato contract farming in West Bengal state, India. Potato Research. 58(1): 1-14.

  35. Papnai, G., Kashyap, S.K., Upadhyay, A.P., Singh, S.P. and Sunetha, S. (2013). Challenges of agricultural extension system in India: Review and A View. Agriways. 1: 49-53.

  36. Pardey, P.G. and Roseboom, J. (1989). A global database on national agricultural research systems. ISNAR Agricultural Indicator  Series, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.  

  37. Planning Commission. (2007). Recommendations of the working group on agricultural extension for the formulation of an Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12), Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi.

  38. Rana, R.K., Murai, A.S., Monga, S. and Kaur, R. (2019a). Attracting and Retaining Youth in Agriculture (ARYA). Annual Report. Pp62 ICAR-ATARI, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.

  39. Rana, R.K., Singh, R. and Kumar, A. (2019b). A compendium of International Training on Agricultural Extension Management  in India with key Lessons for the African Continent. Pp134, ICAR-ATARI, Ludhiana, Punjab. 

  40. Rana, R.K., Singh, R., Thakur, A.K., Chahal, V.P. and Singh, A.K. (2019c). Contemplating Agricultural Growth through Farmers’ Frugal Innovations. Pp159, ICAR-ATARI, Ludhiana, Punjab. ISBN: 978-81-941899-0-9. 

  41. Rana, R.K., Singh, R. and Singh A.K. (2022). Circumventing the intermediaries for economic empowerment of small farmers in Punjab-key suggestions for the horticultural sector. Current Science. 122(11): 1243-1246.

  42. Raabe, K. (2008). Reforming the agricultural extension system in India: What do we know about what works where and why? IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00775. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC 20006- 1002 US, 52 p. p15738coll2/id/12273/filename/12274.pdf. 

  43. Ramasamy, C. and Selvaraj, K.N. (2007). Prioritizing Agricultural Research and Extension. Asian Development Bank, New Delhi. Pp22 . 

  44. Reddy, G.P., Sontakki, B.S., Rao, V.K.J. and Shenoy, S. (2006).  Assessment Strategic Research Extension Plan (SREP) Methodology for Upscaling and Institutionalisation of R- E-F Linkages. AgEcon Search, Pp16. https://ageconsearch.   

  45. Reddy, P., Sasidhar, P.V.K. and Sastry, T.P. (2018). SWOT analysis of Krishi Vigyan Kendra: Implications for policy and future directions. Journal of Krishi Vigyan. 7(1): 203-208.

  46. Reddy, U.K.K., Gopal, P.S., Sailaja, V. and Prasad, S.V. (2019). Role of agri-input dealers in transfer of technology. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 8(2): 2383-2388.

  47. Salifu, A., Francesconi, G.N. and Kolavalli, S. (2010). A review of collective action in rural Ghana, IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00998. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC 20006-1002 US, 40 p. https://cites eer 1971 and rep=rep1andtype=pdf. 

  48. Shirur, M., Shivalingegowda, N.S., Chandregowda, M.J. and Rana, R.K. (2017). Socio-economic analysis of entrepreneurial behaviour of mushroom growers in Karnataka. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 87(6): 840-845.

  49. Shirur, M., Shivalingegowda, N.S., Chandregowda, M.J. and Rana, R.K. (2018). Performance Analysis of South-Indian mushroom units: Imperative Policy Implications for their Preparedness for Global Competitiveness. Current Science. 115(11): 2141-2146.

  50. Shirur, M., Shivalingegowda, N.S., Chandregowda, M.J., Manjunath, V. and Rana, R.K. (2019). Critical dimensions of entrepreneurship  and entrepreneurial behaviour among mushroom growers: Investigation through principal component analysis. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 53(5): 619-623.

  51. Singh, A.K., De, H.K. and Pal, P.P. (2016). Training needs of agro- input dealers in South 24 Parganas District of West Bengal. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 15(2): 7-10.

  52. Singh, B.P., Rana, R.K. and Kumar, M. (2011). Technology infusion through contact farming: Success story of potato. Indian Horticulture. 56: 49-52.

  53. Singh, K.M. (2008). Public-private partnership in agricultural extension  management: Experiences of ATMA model in Bihar and India. Social Science Research Network. Pp12. https:// 

  54. Singh, K.M., Meena, M.S. and Swanson, B. (2013a). Extension in India by public sector institutions: An overview. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Pp35. https://mpra.ub.uni- 

  55. Singh, K.M., Meena, M.S. and Swanson, B. (2013b). Role of https:/ / cfm? abstract-id=2254495 Agricultural Universities and Directorates of Extension Education in Agricultural Extension in India. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Pp25. https://mpra.ub.uni- 

  56. Singh, M., Tiwari, D., Monga, S. and Rana, R.K. (2022a). Behavioural  determinants of functionality of farmer producer organisations in Punjab. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 58(1): 130-135.

  57. Singh, M., Tiwari, D. and Rana, R.K. (2022b). Role of organizational structure and behaviour for ensuring the sustainability of farmer producer organisations in Punjab. Journal of Krishi Vigyan. 10(2): 283-289. 

  58. Singh, M., Tiwari, D., Sharma, A. and Rana, R.K. (2022c). Constraints  in Operationalizing FPOs in Punjab and Strategies to Mitigate Them. Agricultural Science Digest. Published online. DOI: 10.18805/ag.D-5494. https://arccjournals. com/journal/agricultural-science-digest/D-5494.

  59. Singh, R., Mahal, J.S., Rana, R.K., Kumar, A. and Murai, A.S. (2018a). Converging Harbingers of Agriculture, Allied Departments and KVKs for Demonstrating Excellence in Residue Management. Reflections and Recommendations. ICAR-ATARI, Ludhiana, Punjab. Pp16. 

  60. Singh, R., Rana, R.K., Chahal, V.P. and Singh, A.K. (2018b). Agri- Innovators: The Torch Bearers of Brighter Agriculture. ICAR-ATARI Zone-1, Ludhiana, Punjab, Pp140. ISBN: 978-93-5321-999-4. 

  61. Singh, R., Rana, R.K., Mahal, J.S., Chahal, V.P. and Singh, A.K. (2018c). Harbingers of Sustaining Farming Through Zero Stubble Burning in Punjab. ICAR-ATARI-1, Pp78, Ludhiana, Punjab. 

  62. Singh, R., Mahal, J.S., Rana, R.K., Kumar, A., Murai, A.S. and Sadawarti, K. (2019a). Environment Building against Residue Burning. Pp54, ICAR-ATARI, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. 

  63. Singh, R., Mahal, J.S., Rana, R.K., Kumar, A., Murai, A.S. and Sadawarti, K. (2019b). Stimulating Young Minds- Shunning  Stubble Burning. Pp26 ICAR-ATARI, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. 

  64. Singh, R., Mahal, J.S., Rana, R.K., Kumar, A., Murai, A.S., Sadawarti,  K. and Dhaliwal, P.S. (2019c). Capacity Building: Hands- on training on machines. Pp40 ICAR-ATARI, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. 

  65. Singh, R., Sidhu, R.S., Rana, R.K., Kumar, A., Chahal, V.P. and Singh, A.K. (2019d). Impact of Large-Scale Technology Application in NW India. Pp57, ICAR-ATARI, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. 

  66. Sulaiman, R.V. (2003). Agricultural Extension: Involvement of private sector. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Economic Analysis and Research, Mumbai. Pp109. 

  67. Sulaiman, R.V. and Hall, A. (2008). The fallacy of universal solutions in extension: Is ATMA the new TandV. LINK, UNU-MERIT News Bulletin. 1-4. http://crispindia. org/docs/LINKSept2008Bulletin.pdf.

  68. Sulaiman, R. and Van-den-Ban, A.W. (2003). Funding and delivering agricultural extension in India. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 10(1): 21-30.

  69. Sulaiman, V.R. and Hall, A. (2004). Towards Extension-plus: Opportunities  and Challenges-Policy Brief 17. ICAR-NCAP, New Delhi, Pp4. 

  70. Swanson, B.E. (2009). Changing extension paradigms within a rapidly changing global economy. In: [Paffarini, C. and Santucci, F.M. (Eds.)], Proceedings of the 19th European Seminar on Extension Education: Theory and Practice of Advisory Work in a Time of Turbulences. DSEEA, Facoltà di agraria, Perugia. 113-117. 

  71. Swanson, B.E., Singh, K.M. and Reddy, M.N. (2008). A decentralized, participatory, market-driven extension system: The ATMA model in India (October 10, 2008). Available at SSRN:

  72. Tamboli, P.M. and Nene, Y.L. (2011). Revitalizing higher agricultural education in India: Journey towards excellence. Asian Agri-History Foundation, Secunderabad, India. Pp316. 

  73. TCI, (2022). TCI Database for Indian Farmer Producer Organizations. Tata- Cornell Institute, New Delhi. https:/ /

  74. Trebbin, A. and Hassler, M. (2012). Farmers’ producer companies in India: A new concept for collective action? Environment and Planning. 44(2): 411-427.

  75. Van, Herck, K. (2014). Assessing efficiencies generated by agricultural  producer organizations. Directorate-General for Competition,  European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, ISBN 978- 92-79-39284-9, 136 Pp. publications/agricultural-producers-organisations-en.pdf

  76. Wahab, A.A.I., Issa, F.O., Baba, D., Kudingi, T.A., Adamu, M. and Ibegbulem, J.A. (2011). NGOs and CBOs structures and mechanisms for collaboration in agricultural extension delivery in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension. 15(2): 79-89.

  77. World Bank, (2008). Agriculture for Development. World Development  Report. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Editorial Board

View all (0)