Uses of Bio-Fertilizer

ABSTRACT: Bio-fertilizers are living cells of different types of micro-organisms (bacterial, algae and fungi), which have an ability to mobilize nutritionally important elements from non-usable to usable form. These micro-organisms require organic matter for their growth and activity in soil and provide valuable nutrients to the plants in the soil. Bio-fertilizers are seen as an important alternative technology, since the negative externalities of chemical fertilizers have become well known. The use of the latter has led to considerable environmental cost. Bio-fertilizers do not pollute the soil and do not disrupt the ecological balance, and hence are environment-friendly. An increasing number of farmers are using biofertilizers, and the numbers of bio-fertilizer manufacturing units have also grown considerably. However, the market for bio-fertilizers is still not well developed, and the biofertilizer industry has not had the growth that was anticipated. The use of bio-fertilizers has still not spread uniformly although there has been a steady rise in their use by certain groups of farmers. This paper explores the reasons for low rate of adoption of bio-fertilizers through the case studies of two organizations involved in the production and marketing of bio-fertilizers.

MARKETING OF BIO-FERTILIZERS INTRODUCTION: Bio-fertilizers are microbial inoculants for enhancing growth of plants. They act as catalysts in providing valuable nutrients to the plant through phosphate solubilising, nitrogen fixing and growth promoting microbes. The use of bio-fertilizers has gained credence, as the negative externalities of chemical fertilizers have become well known. Chemical fertilizers are costintensive and lead to high yield in the short run. In the long run, however, they erode soil fertility and harm the natural predators of pests in the biosphere. All this leads to even greater use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and therefore higher cost to farmers. The utility of bio-fertilizers has been validated through large-scale field trials by government and semi-government agencies as well as private bodies. The government has provided subsidies for production of bio-fertilizers for over two decades. Why then, has this technology not diffused to the extent estimated? The paper explores how the reasons for low rate of adoption of bio-fertilizers through case studies of two organizations marketing bio-

fertilizers. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

To explore the reasons for low rate of adoption of bio-fertilizers in Indian agriculture. To study the marketing activities of two organizations manufacturing bio-fertilizers in two talukas in Pune district.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES OF DATA: The paper draws on earlier studies conducted on bio-fertilizer usage in India, and supplements these with field interviews with farmers, dealers, extension workers and officers, of two organizations manufacturing and marketing biofertilizers. The officers were located in Pune, while the farmers, dealers, and extension workers were located in seven villages, Kunjirwadi, Inamdarwasti, Kedgaon, Delavadi, Pargaon, Dhorkin, Loni-Kalbhor, in two talukas- Haveli, Daund in Pune District. The basis for selecting these villages was, that both the organizations selected for case studies, have a presence in these areas, in terms of their marketing activities. In all, 15 farmers, 4 extension workers, 5 dealers, and 4 officers were interviewed. The interviews were conducted with the help of detailed schedules. The farmers, who were the target consumers, were diverse, having different education, scale of operations, and different size of landholding, ranging from 1 acre to 60 acres. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: The Response Hierarchy Models of Communication such as the AIDA Model (Strong, 1928), Hierarchy of Effects Model Landge and Steiner, 1961) and Innovation Adoption Model (Rogers, 1999) assume that buyers pass through three stages of decision making, before buying a product. These are the cognitive, affective, and behavioural stages. The rate of adoption of a product is influenced by the following factors:

Product features that satisfy an unmet need Characteristics of users of the product The value of the product in terms of cost and benefits attached to it Perceptions of the value of competing offerings Adoption of complementary products/technology Government policies and actions impacting the sale of the product

Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through channels over time among the members of a social system. An innovation is an idea, object, or practice that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption (Rogers, 1995) According to Rogers Innovation Diffusion Model, adoption of an innovation depends on the following 5 elements: 1. Relative advantage of the innovation over the earlier idea, objector practice 2. Compatibility of the innovation with the existing needs, values and experiences of the social system 3. Complexity: the extent to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand or use 4. Trialability: the extent to which an innovation may be tried out on a limited basis 5. Observability: the extent to which the results of an innovation are visible The Use-Diffusion Model (Shih and Venkatesh, 2004) classifies users into 4 categories based on rate of use of the product and variety of uses it can be put to. They are: 1. Intense users: They exhibit high usage rate and also put the product to a variety of uses 2. Specialised users: They exhibit high usage rate but use the product in a limited way 3. Non-specialised users: They exhibit low usage rate but try out the product for variety of uses.

Limited users: They exhibit low usage rate and also limited variety of use and are on the verge of dis-adoption.

In order to adopt a product, users must have the ability to cope with the uncertainty and risk associated with the outcome of using the product. Potential users should perceive higher value from product usage as compared to competing products. For the adoption process to be self-sustaining, early adopters, who make up 25% of the total potential users, must adopt the product. They evaluate the product and convey its benefits to other users. (Rogers, 1995) Response Hierarchy Models of Communication state that in the cognitive stage, users become aware of the product benefits and usage and develop an interest in it. In the affective stage, they develop beliefs and attitudes towards the product and evaluate it. In the behavioural stage, they buy the product initially on a limited basis (trial) before fully adopting it if it satisfies

needs better than competing products. The marketing environment plays an important role in the adoption of a product. In the marketing of products in rural India, Government intervention is significant, as commercial organizations have not been able to create an infrastructure to promote and distribute a variety of products. According to the Rural Marketing Model by Rao and Tagat, (1985), in rural marketing, the word rural connotes anenvironment, in which marketing activities take place. This context has technological, social, economic and political dimensions. Agriculture provides means of livelihood to majority of rural India. Again majority of land holdings are small leading to a vicious circle of low productivity, low income, low savings and low investment. Rao and Tagat suggest that since majority of rural consumers exhibit low income and low capacity to invest, they have to initially be induced through marketing exposures by private and voluntary organisations and government not merely towards purchase and consumption of goods and services but also towards social processes. But this process of induced change puts rural consumers more in the role of beneficiaries of patronage rather than autonomous buyers. The marketing of bio-fertilizers in India has been influenced by a variety of factors, including perceptions of farmers, Government intervention, and the difficulties in using the bio-fertilizer technology. Alam Ghayur (2000) presents the findings of a field study, conducted in two districts, Karnal and Bhiwai, of Haryana, to find out causes, as to why bio-fertilizers and biopesticides are not being adopted on a large scale. The study found that in spite of the Governments efforts to promote bio-fertilizers, they have gained little acceptance from the farmers. The problems of unavailability of biofertilizers and their poor quality are linked. On the one hand, the State Agricultural Department and shopkeepers are unwilling to stock and sell biofertilizers as they feel that their quality is unreliable. On the other hand, the low demand for bio-fertilizers has prevented investment in advanced production and storage facilities, which are required for improving the quality. The study concludes that the present policy of providing grants and low interest loans to bio-fertilizer producers should be abolished, as it has led to setting up of a large number of inefficient plants, which cannot produce good quality bio-fertilizers. The policy of marketing bio-fertilizers at very low prices should also be stopped, as these prices are too low to attract modern investment in modern manufacturing units. In addition to this, farmers feel that nothing so cheap can provide much nutrition to the plants. The storage and application of bio-fertilizers requires special facilities and skills, which most producers, shopkeepers and farmers do not possess. It is important that greater research efforts should be put in developing biofertilizers that are easier to store and apply.

The paper goes on to make a strong remark that bio-fertilizer production should be suspended until bio-fertilizers of improved quality can be made available in adequate quantity. The present government policy of promoting bio-fertilizers without ensuring good quality has actually harmed their cause, creating a wide spread feeling among farmers and extension workers, that bio-fertilizers do not work. PRODUCTION OF BIO-FERTILIZERS IN INDIA:

Currently, there are about 114 producers of organic inputs and bio-fertilizers with an installed capacity of 18,500 tones. According to estimates of the National Bio-fertilizer Development Center (NBDC) and the Bio-Tech Consortium of India Ltd (BCIL) about 344,800-507,032 tones of bio-fertilizers are required for Indian agriculture. In reality, however, their use is limited. Types of Bio-fertilizers: There are four main types of bio-fertilizers Rhizobium, Azotobacter, Phosphate Solubilising bacteria (PSB) and Azospirillum. Rhizobium is suitable for leguminous crops such as pulses, oilseeds and fodder crops, Azotobactor for wheat, rice, vegetables and fruits, Azospirillum for rice and sugarcane and PSBs for all crops. Certification and Quality Control: The utility of bio-fertilizers has been validated by reputed agencies in India (such as NBDC and ICRISAT) and abroad. For instance field trials by NBDC have showed that application of azotobacter results in 3-25% increase in yield in cotton and 2-20% in wheat, in Haryana. But bio-fertilizer manufacturers find it difficult to consistently replicate results of bio-fertilizer usage. This is because agro-climatic conditions and soils are different in different parts of the country. Many strains do not survive in very hot temperatures. Bio-fertilizers are also prone to contamination if carriers (such as powder/liquid) are not sterilized. If farmers do not get consistent quality in bio-fertilizers it impacts yield. This further reduces their trust and consequently the purchase of bio-fertilizers. Quality control is an Achilles heel for many bio-fertilizer manufacturers as there is no standard process for isolating proper strain of microbes and also no standard technology for scaling up and fermentation. Moreover, bio-fertilizers are not a chemical formula. So manufacturers have to independently prove the merit of their product. This further increases marketing costs of bio-fertilizers. Also though Bio-fertilizers have to conform to BIS standards there is no proper certification process in place. THE CASE STUDIES:

BHARATIYA AGRO-INDUSTRIES FOUNDATION (BAIF)

General introduction: Bharatiya Agro-industries Foundation (BAIF), now renamed as BAIF Development Research Foundation, is a non-profit, non-political, professionally managed Public Charitable Trust, established in 1967. Its mission is to create opportunities for gainful self-employment for the rural families, especially disadvantaged sectors, ensuring sustainable livelihood, enriched environment, improved quality of life, and good human values. (www.baif.org) Its programmes cover around 20,00,000 people in 45,000 villages in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujrat, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, and Jharkhand, and covering around 20,00,000 families. The focus is on land development, improving skills and knowledge of farmers, welfare of women and family and formation of Self Help Groups (SHGs) to continue developmental efforts. Objectives: BAIF concentrates mainly on social objectives, and not just profits. Their focus is on low external input agriculture, neglected crops, and development of wastelands and marginally productive lands. It aims at providing livelihood support and to tries to make farmers economically self-sufficient. Target Farmers: The prime objective of BAIF is to work for the subsistence, small and marginal farmers. These segments are receptive to their interventions due to low yield per acre, low income and poor standard of living. Activities: As mentioned earlier, BAIF provides complete livelihood support through the Livelihood Support Programme to the farmer, and his entire family. It provides first inputs like neem cake, bone meal; then bio-fertilizers and then mixed fertilizers. Bio-fertilisers are thus a part of a package of inputs provided to the farmers. The focus is on the creation of self-sustaining units, where production of inputs, utilization of family labour, and generation of income takes place. The farmer, thus, gets income from various sources like forestry, horticulture, grasslands, vermi-compost, and so on. Thus, a complete capacity building activity is carried out. Along with the Livelihood Support Programme, BAIF also conducts the Natural Resource Management Programme. BAIF also conducts training programmes for NGOs, bankers, field workers, project managers, and so on. BAIF has also joined hands with the corporate sector, and is working with organizations like the Rourkela steel plant, ONGC, etc. towards their

corporate social responsibility (CSR) objectives. BAIF helps them in reaching out to people in rural areas. BAIF withdraws from any given area after 8 yrs, leaving trained farmers to train others. The role then changes from implementation to facilitation. Its activities basically revolve around 4 principles: Anna (Food), akshar (Education), arogya (Health) and acharan (Values). Research: BAIF has its own Central Research Station, where all research as well as production takes place. The Central Research Station is recognized as a centre for pursuing certificate and degree courses in Agriculture and related topics of the Yashwantrao Chavan, Maharashtra Open University, Nasik. BAIF is also in touch with other research institutes. It has tied up with IRDC for research in mycorhizzae. It has formulated ideas for manufacturing at grassroots level, trying to grow the bacteria on the field with the help of simple methods like using shade nets. BAIF is a Public Charitable Trust recognised as a Research Institution by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, University of Pune and South Gujarat University, Surat. Funding: BAIF gets finance from International Agencies like the Canadian International Development Agency, IDRC, EU, etc, donors, patrons, various bankers, and financial institutions. Products: BAIF manufactures 4 types of bio-fertilizers Rhizobium, Azotobacter, PSB and Mycorhizzae. Rhizobium is applied to roots or seeds; the rest may be applied to the soil. All the bio-fertilisers are powder (lignite) based. Transportation and Distribution: Bio-fertilisers are transported in the night, to maintain the temperature, especially in the hot summer months. They are taken to their depots and distributed directly to Government departments. Rhizobium is distributed directly to Zila Parishads and sold to farmers under the National Oilseeds Development Programme and National Pulses Development Programme wherein one packet is given to every farmer growing oilseeds and pulses. The other buyers include the farmers interested in organic farming and those who want to experiment with bio-fertilizers. BAIF addresses these largely through its own extension programmes like the Livelihood Support Programme. As bio-fertilizers are low in cost as compared to chemical fertilizers, farmers at times believe that they may not be as effective. BAIF gives a package of

inputs to farmers. When one input works well, bio-fertilizers are also seen positively.

Communication: BAIF communicates with farmers mainly through a channel of field workers. Field workers stay with farmers throughout a crop cycle and give farmers inputs in terms of knowledge as well as materials. The experience of lead farmers and model farms are also used to communicate with the other farmers. The prime objective of communication is to have more and more people adopt their programmes, which include use of bio-fertilizer and related technology. However, the motive is social, not economic. The media used are in the form of group discussions that the field workers conduct, pamphlets, demonstrations, and communicating the experiences of lead farmers. BAIF also invites farmers to its bio-fertilizer production facility to orient them better with this product.

KUMAR KRISHI MITRA BIO-PRODUCTS (I) PVT. LTD (KKM):

. General Introduction: Kumar Krishi Mitra Bio-products Pvt. Ltd. is a biotechnology company, which focuses on the use of beneficial microbes for environment friendly agriculture. It was established in 1993, with an aim of providing bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides for agriculture. It is a pioneer in the production of liquid bio-inoculants. It has an installed capacity of 3500 tones per annum, which is currently the largest in India, and a sales volume of around Rs. 3.5 crores. The company initially catered mainly to the export market, with almost 80% sales in foreign markets, while just 20% in the domestic market. However, currently its proportion of sales in the domestic and export markets is 50:50. KKM has set up a full-scale fermentation plant, and is currently the largest and only liquid bio-fertilizer producer in India. Objectives: KKM is a private sector company, which aims at enhanced profitability through increased sale of bio-fertilizers. It aims at providing safe inputs to farmers, to increase soil productivity and yield. It focuses on research, discovering, cultivating, and marketing safe and environmentally friendly microbial inputs for agriculture for domestic and foreign markets.

Target Farmers: The company currently targets the farmers with irrigated land, out of which around 75-80% are engaged in horticulture. Revenues from this segment amount to around Rs.1.5 crores. These are the farmers who generally cater to the export market, and whose produce is rejected if high chemical residues are present. These farmers then serve as models for other farmers interested in bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides. Research: The research, development, and testing is done in-house, and new products are developed. The company also gets third party testing done from other research institutes. These include NBDC, Ghaziabad, NCL, Pune, and The International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria, Directorate of Agriculture, Maharashtra, India and ISO certified national and international laboratories, amongst others. It has also formulated a soil betterment technique called KREF to correct soil salinity and act as a catalyst to increase soil organic matter and productivity. The company provides a kit to farmers for this purpose. The Managing Director of the company is a member of a Planning Commission panel and is working towards developing the bio-fertilizer industry and to develop rural entrepreneurship and knowledge centers for agriculture. Products: KKM manufactures a range of liquid bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides. Bioplin is a liquid bio-fertilizer for Nitrogen supplementation and contains nitrogen-fixing strains of Azotobacter. Phosfert is a liquid bio-fertilizer for Phosphorus supplementation and contains phosphate solubilising strains of azotobacter and bacillus polymyxa. Vitormone is a liquid bio-fertilizer for foliar application and contains growth-promoting strains of azotobacter. Distribution: KKM operates through its network of 40 distributors and 500 dealers, in 6 states, viz., Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat, Chhatisgarh, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. The motivation for the distributors and dealers is commercial margins. The marketing is done through its own team of field officers, field managers, and marketing executives. Communication: Extension workers of the company have to convince the farmers about the technical efficacy of the product through field trials and demonstrations. The company has proposed knowledge centres for agriculture, which would

also be an important channel of communication. It has also set up trial farms, which are kept for experimentation, and where the farmers can themselves see the processes and techniques used and their effectiveness. Approximately two trial farms amounting to 5-10 acres are set up for every 500 acres. The media used are pamphlets, brochures, audio-visual material, advertisements, demonstrations, and setting up of trial/demo farms, dealer workshops and discussion forums. The company supplies inputs for the trial farms. The trial farms are meant to demonstrate beneficial effects of biofertilizers for different crops. For instance a trial farm for sugarcane would demonstrate increase in sugar content by 0.51%, increase in yield by 1015% and reduction of chemical fertiliser use by 25-30%. For grape cultivation a trial farm would demonstrate that the size of each grape increases with bio-fertilizer usage and also the grapes have uniform size. Both these factors are important for grape export along with the fact that bio-fertilizers are residue free.

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS: Overview

For the past four decades or so farmers have been using chemical fertilizers as an important farm input apart from seeds, farm implements, etc. For the farmer, a fertilizer is a substance, which provides vital nutrients for plant growth. The primary nutrients required for plant growth are nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Chemical fertilizers are chemical compounds, which provide these primary nutrients and therefore have a fixed formula. Chemical fertilizers are applied to soil in order to enrich it with required nutrients. Results of chemical fertilizer usage are easily and immediately visible in terms of increased yield per hectare. However, in the long run, they show diminishing returns. Our findings from interviews of farmers, dealers, extension workers, and officers, are as follows: Lack of Awareness about Bio-fertilizers Responses of Farmers Awareness of farmers about bio-fertilizers is low. (See Table No. I). Farmers are confused about what a bio-fertilizer really is and how it is different from not only chemical fertilizers but also herbal extracts or organic compost. It was observed, that most of the farmers could not distinguish between organic manures and bio-fertilizers, often mixing up between the two. This is because bio-fertilizers are added to slurry of cow dung or farm yard manure,

and then added to the soil. Some sample responses of farmers were: We use bio-fertilizers. We have cattle and the cow dung is used as bio-fertilizers. We use bio-fertilizers such as cow dung, vermi-compost, etc. Using bio-fertilizers such as vermi-compost, etc. leads to better growth in crops. As a result of this farmers often perceive bio-fertilizers as being expensive as compared to chemical fertilizers. Organic manures are bulky in nature and are required in large quantities, which increase their cost. Bio-fertilizers are not required in such large quantities as organic manure. The cost per acre of bio-fertilizers is in fact much lesser than chemical fertilizers. (See Table II) Bio-fertilizer packs carry detailed instructions and precautions for storage and usage. In spite of this, usage methods are often not clear to farmers. The empirical data showed that most farmers have not done soil and water testing, and hence are not aware of the deficient nutrients in the soil (see table III). They keep adding urea as it is cheap, which often leads to aggravating the problem of soil fertility. Responses of Dealers: Most of the dealers have their own farms and can be said to be the agents of the diffusion process. Most of the dealers are educated in Agricultural Colleges, and hold a bachelors or Masters degree in Agriculture. They work for profit margins, and gather information from the producers regarding the usage of bio-fertilizers and recommend them to the farmers. Some of them also use bio-fertilizers on their own farms. In most cases, the farmers trust the dealers and use the bio-fertilizers recommended by them. The dealers also visit the farms and discuss the specific problem with the farmers. It was also observed that the farmers who said they were unaware of bio-fertilizers were actually using them on the recommendation of dealers. Of the 11 farmers who said that they were unaware of bio-fertilizers, 3 were using them on the recommendation of dealers. In most cases, it was observed, that the farmers completely trust the dealers, who recommend the use of certain bio-fertilizers and pesticides. However, there is another type of dealers, who do not recommend or suggest anything, and only sell what the farmers demand. The sale of bio-fertilizers in such cases is extremely low, almost negligible, as generally, farmers do not buy bio-fertilizers of their own accord. Responses of Officers and Extension Workers: As product awareness itself is low, brand awareness is non-existent. The extension workers try to create awareness about the use of bio-fertilizers. They visit farms, give demonstrations and also recommend the use of biofertilizers. They work along with the dealers, as the dealers have first hand information about the farmers. A field assistant visits 10 farmers a day, and

each farmer, three times a month. A sales officer visits 5 farmers per day, and each farmer twice a month.

Difficulty in Understanding and Usage:

Responses of Farmers: Farmers want a product that is easy to use. These days, bio-fertilizers come in two varieties powder (lignite/talc) based and liquid bio-fertilizers. They may be applied to seed and seedlings, root, foliage as well as soil. This is often difficult for farmers to accept and understand. Bio-fertilizers usage is not compatible with current farming practices. 4 out of 15 farmers feel that bio-fertilizers are difficult to understand and use. Dealers: 3 out of 5 feel that usage of bio-fertilizers needs to be demonstrated and continuous follow-up is necessary to reinforce understanding of the product. Responses of Officers and Extension workers: The officers and extension workers agree that demonstrations and follow-ups are necessary, but they lack adequate manpower.

Lack of Availability

Responses of Farmers: Bio-fertilizers are distributed through the Gram Panchayats. However, 3 out of 4 farmers who are currently using bio-fertilizers say that they are not available through the Gram Panchayat. The government sells bio-fertilizers at subsidized rates to farmers through its own distribution mechanism consisting of Block Development Officers, Taluka Krishi Adhikaris, Gram Sevaks and other types of extension workers who promote the Integrated Nutrient Management Programme. Bio-fertilizers are also available through the dealer network, but very few dealers stock bio-fertilizers. Some sample responses are: Packets of bio-fertilizers only reach Panchayat Samiti members. Ordinary farmers do not get them. There is only 1 Gram Sevak for 5 villages. Therefore, information and packets of bio-fertilizers do not reach us. The farmers do feel that bio-fertilizers are beneficial and should be used. According to them, using bio-fertilizers is the need of the hour, and a must if long-term soil fertility is to be maintained. However, lack of availability emerged as a deterrent. Responses of dealers: 2 out of 5 dealers do not stock bio-fertilizers, as there is no demand. They are also difficult to store and transport. Thus, it becomes a vicious circle of low demand and lack of availability. Responses of Officers and Extension workers: According to the officers and extension workers, dealers are not interested in promoting bio-fertilizers, as it needs demonstration and follow up. The

dealers feel that it costs them in terms of time and money. This is despite the fact, that bio-fertilizer manufacturers give higher margins (25%) as compared to chemical fertilizer manufacturers (5-10%).

Results are not immediately seen:

Responses of Farmers: Results of bio-fertilizer usage are not immediately apparent and not easily attributable. 3 out of 4 farmers, who were aware of bio-fertilizers, feel that results are slow. Farmers classify results of bio-fertilizer usage under 3 heads: increase in soil fertility, increase in yield, and improvement in quality of produce. Without an exception, all farmers feel that results of bio-fertilizer usage are slow. Sample Response (soil fertility): Bio-fertilizer usage enhances soil fertility, but results of these are seen only after 2-3 years. Sample Response (yield): Yield of sugarcane went up from 35 tones to 60 tones over time. (Landholding 30 acres) Sample Response (quality of produce): Quality of figs has improved over time. Responses of Dealers: According to the dealers, farmers are reluctant in using bio-fertilizers as they feel that the result is slow. Hence, they do not invest in bio-fertilizers, which leads to low demand. Responses of Officers and Extension Workers: The manufacturers of bio-fertilizers have not been able to adequately demonstrate benefits of bio-fertilizer usage. When farmers use chemical fertilizers, they see immediate observable results (field turns green after use of Urea). However, the impact of bio-fertilizer usage on yield or quality of produce is seen only at the end of the crop cycle. Impact on soil fertility can be seen only if frequent soil testing is done. Even if yield and quality improves, farmers do not attribute it to bio-fertilizer usage.

Usage of Bio-fertilizers

Without exception, all dealers and extension workers report that bio-fertilizer usage is greater in cash crops vegetables, fruits and agricultural produce which is exported (grape, flowers, etc.). This is because prices are fixed according to the quality of produce (sugar content in sugarcane, size of fruit, etc,). In the case of exports, they are used because importing countries have strict norms regarding chemical residues.

Role of the Government:

Responses of Farmers:

Without exception, all farmers said that they have not got any information about bio-fertilizers from Government agencies, like Gram Sevaks andPanchayat Samitis. Response of Officers and Extension Workers: Prices of bio-fertilizers, sold through Government channels are lower than chemical fertilizers and farmers find it difficult to trust their efficacy. The farmer wonders why a farm input needs so much care and comes to the conclusion that this is a poor quality product with no utility. On the other hand because of this negative perception private bio-fertilizer manufacturers are unable to sell their products at a higher price. To add to the farmers woes, bio-fertilizer manufacturing companies mushroom and vanish frequently and therefore trust in this product diminishes. At times, they also supply products of poor quality. DISCUSSION: It is evident that the adoption of bio-fertilizers has been low, as it is complex to understand, is not compatible with current farming practices, and results of usage are not easily observable. Members of a social system readily understand some innovations; others are more complicated and will be adopted more slowly (Rogers, 1995). Chemical fertilizers belong to the former category, while bio-fertilizers fall in the latter. The processes and functions that bio-fertilizers perform are not easily understood. In addition to this, they cannot be used and stored as easily as chemicals. This has been the major deterrent in the adoption process. KKM has addressed the problem of complexity by producing liquid biofertilizers, which are more easy to use as compared to powder based ones. The proposed establishment of knowledge centers would also go a long way in increasing the awareness about bio-fertilizers. BAIF promotes the use of complimentary techniques and provides of input kits, so that use becomes easier. To address the issue of trialibility and observability (Rogers, 1995) of the new technology, KKM has set up field trials on tracts of land for which inputs are sponsored by them and also set up model farms, while BAIF has provided knowledge and material inputs through its Livelihood Support Programme. This has enhanced the diffusion process. KKM has set up field trials and demonstrations, with the help of dealers. BAIF has gone so far as training farmers and changing their own role over time, from implementation to facilitation, through the Livelihood Support Programme. This was with the intention of generating lead farmers, who would then influence other farmers and enhance the process of adoption. However, it was found out that, at times the lead farmer ideology fails, as there is often competition within the farmers, and they refuse to share information about their inputs and processes to their neighbouring farmers. In such cases, the adoption process becomes even more difficult.

Extension work is inadequate to cover all potential users of bio-fertilizers. KKM and BAIF do not have adequate resources for this. The data collected for this study suggests that bio-fertilizers are used primarily for cash crops and export oriented crops. Bio-fertilizers are not used in a variety of crops. Adoption of a product increases if its rate of use as well as the variety of uses it is put to be increased. A vast majority of farmers are non-specialized users in that they use limited quantities of the product but try them out for a variety of crops. This trial and error method often leads them to no observable results from the use of bio-fertilizers and therefore they reduce usage till they reach a stage of disadoption. (Shih and Venkatesh, 2004). The time element is also essential in the adoption process. In the early stages of the Green Revolution, chemical agriculture gave phenomenal results. Hence, the need was not felt either by the farmers, or the policy makers, to explore or develop a complimentary, alternative, or additional technology. As a result positive attitudes towards the use of bio-fertilizers did not develop. It was only later on, that chemical agriculture started having diminishing returns and negative effect on soil fertility. In addition to this, farmers interested in exports cannot afford to have chemical residues in their produce, as that leads to rejection in the international markets. This coupled with the to the worldwide organic farming movement has lead to increased adoption of bio-fertilizers. The objective of the Government in the adoption of any technology is of a socio-economic nature. The Indian Government has heavily subsidized and promoted the use of chemicals in agriculture, for over 4 decades. It also invested huge amounts in the research and development of the chemical technology. It also supported chemical agriculture with other mechanisms like the minimum support price and procurement price and subsidies. Fertilizer subsidy is the difference between net realization by fertilizer manufacturer (farmers price-distribution margin) and the ex-factory retention price fixed by the government. This was one of the prime reasons why diffusion of the chemical agriculture technology took place, during the Green Revolution of the 1960s. As against this, little has been done to promote the bio-fertilizer industry in terms of policy support. The Government started the National Project on the Development and Use of Bio-fertilizers during the 6 th plan. Financial assistance is given in the form of a non-recurring grant-in-aid up to Rs 20 lakhs for setting up bio-fertilizer production units of 150 metric tones capacity. However, this support is negligible as compared to the quantum and duration of support given to chemical agriculture. It has also given rise to inefficient manufacturers who manufacture poor quality of bio-fertilizers. Rural consumer behaviour for consumer products and farm inputs is vastly

different. Government intervention efforts for sale of farm inputs in the past decades has led to farmers thinking of themselves as beneficiaries rather than autonomous buyers. Indeed, this is how sale of chemical fertilisers was increased in the past. Government inputs are also required in terms of research and development and a proper system for certification of bio-fertilizers. CONCLUSIONS: It may be said that government as an entity is not merely an important factor in the environment in the rural marketing context but also a catalyst for the process of adoption of a product. A robust certification process endorsed by the government and reputed international agencies would enhance the adoption of this technology as only quality manufacturers will survive and the image of this product will improve. Bio-fertilizer manufacturers need to address segments where adoption can be hastened, such as cash crops, fruits and vegetables and export oriented crops. The communication should focus on commercial advantages of adopting this technology, (such as improvement in quality of produce leading to better prices, lesser residues leading to greater acceptance in export markets) rather than an environmental one (soil fertility and preserving the biosphere). Bio-fertilizers, as a product category, need to create an identity that is distinct from organic fertilizers. Bio-fertilizer manufacturers need to make the product simpler to use, to increase its adoption. Currently, there are small and medium enterprises producing bio-fertilizers. They do not have adequate resources for extension activities. There is a case for large-scale enterprises to enter manufacturing of bio-fertilizers, which would lead to economies of scale and make available resources for extension activities. This would solve the problem of availability, awareness and quality.