RA 00048.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

m a l s , to g r o w rapidly in f u t u r e . This w i l l have
implications for s o r g h u m breeding strategies in
t h e SAT in the 80s. In particular, there m a y be
merit in conducting separate breeding p r o g r a m s
for f o o d and f e e d purposes in t h e SAT countries,
perhaps also including evaluation of high sugar
s o r g h u m s being d e v e l o p e d in t h e U.S. and Brazil.
Adoption Studies
and Technology Design
High-yielding varieties (HYVs) of s o r g h u m have
b e e n available in India for s o m e 15 years. Latest
figures put t h e adoption rate at only 1 6 % of t h e
s o r g h u m area (Fig. 1). In their paper, v o n O p p e n
a n d Rao (1982) present data on trends in t h e
contribution of t h e various states to India's total
s o r g h u m production. W h e n t h e s e are c o m p a r e d
w i t h state yield trends, s o m e puzzles e m e r g e .
S o r g h u m yields in Gujarat and Karnataka have
b e e n g r o w i n g at rates far in e x c e s s of any other
state. Since 1 9 5 4 - 5 7 average yields in b o t h
states have d o u b l e d ; yet during t h e s a m e period
their shares in India's s o r g h u m area declined by 2
a n d 6.4 percentage points, respectively. 6
W h y did t h e s e states, w h e r e productivity has
b e e n g r o w i n g fastest, and w h i c h presumably
therefore had an increased comparative advant
a g e in s o r g h u m production, b e c o m e less important
s o r g h u m producers? W h y did Maharashtra
increase its share by m o r e than any other state (7
percentage points) during a period w h e n its
s o r g h u m yields increased by only 4 0 % ? Part of
t h e explanation for Karnataka's yield p e r f o r m a n c e
m a y b e t h e higher s o r g h u m prices v o n O p p e n a n d
Rao report for that state, w h i c h m i g h t have
caused it to record t h e highest rate of adoption of
HYVs (Fig. 1). But if s o r g h u m prices in Karnataka
have been so high, w h y has it had t h e l o w e s t
m a r k e t e d surplus (7.6%), and w h y has its share in
India's s o r g h u m production declined so substantially?
By contrast. Gujarat has t h e s e c o n d highest
m a r k e t e d surplus (23.4%), and only a 4% rate of
adoption of HYVs. yet its yields have b e e n
g r o w i n g at t h e highest rate. This requires further
study.
In countries like India w h e r e " m a t u r e " s o r g h u m
H Y V innovations have b e e n available for m a n y
years there is a n e e d n o w to s t u d y t h e reasons for
6. T h e s e w e r e t h e largest d e c l i n e s a m o n g t h e s t a t e s .
apparent ceiling rates of adoption. To d a t e , eight
hybrids and seven varieties have b e e n released by
t h e All India Coordinated S o r g h u m I m p r o v e m e n t
Project (Arakeri 1982). Experience in t h e ICRISAT
village-level studies (VLS) in South India w o u l d not
support Busch and Lacy's (1982) claim that m o s t
s o r g h u m f a r m e r s are u n a w a r e of t h e existence of
research and e x t e n s i o n services and of t h e H Y V s
t h e y purvey. Simply because adoption is l o w for
o n e crop in t h e farming s y s t e m d o e s not a l l o w
o n e t o conclude this. W e find that t h e s a m e Indian
f a r m e r s w h o g r o w hybrid c o t t o n , HYV castor and
paddy, and use fertilizers and chemical sprays on
t h e m , o f t e n d o not g r o w HYVs o f s o r g h u m .
Rastogi and Annamalai (1981) f o u n d that in t h e
rainy season in five dryland centers in India w e l l
served by extension agencies and scientists,
average adoption of HYVs of s o r g h u m w a s only
2 2 % , w i t h a range of f r o m zero to 1 0 0 % . This w a s
in spite of d e m o n s t r a t i o n plots w h i c h yielded
1 7 2 % m o r e t h a n traditional plots and increased
profits by 9 0 % (Rastogi 1981). Rastogi and
Annamalai f o u n d that adoption of r e c o m m e n d e d
fertilizers and plant protection m e a s u r e s w a s
equally poor (Table 4).
The high cost of i m p r o v e d s e e d s a n d susceptibility
of the high-yielding varieties to pests a n d
diseases w e r e t h e major reasons given by farm
e r s for nonadoption. High prices, fear of c r o p
failure if rains w e r e inadequate, and capital c o n ­
straints w e r e stated to be t h e reasons for n o n -
adoption of fertilizer r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . Plant protection
w a s ignored largely because of its high
cost, but also d u e to the lack of technical advice
on t i m i n g and spraying techniques. The q u e s t i o n
of nonadoption of " m a t u r e " innovations hence
w o u l d s e e m t o b e related m o r e t o t h e nature a n d
characteristics of t h e t e c h n o l o g y available rather
than to t h e availability of information and t h e
s o c i o e c o n o m i c characteristics of potential adopters.
In a s t u d y of t h e reasons for t h e leveling off of
adoption of hybrid maize at 5 5 % of t h e planted
area in El Salvador, W a l k e r (1980) f o u n d t h e m o s t
significant d e t e r m i n a n t of adoption w a s potential
drought stress in a region. Nonadopters w e r e
generally t h o s e w h o had t o c o n t e n d w i t h erratic
rainfall regimes a n d s h a l l o w soils in t h e production
of maize. Farm size, tenure, schooling, a n d u s e of
institutional credit d i d not constrain adoption as
m u c h as environmental variables related to location-specific
topographical, climatological, a n d
edaphic characteristics. The relative lack of d e -
702