Home Farmers’ Use of the Mobile Phone for Accessing Agricultural Information in Haryana: An Analytical Study
Article Open Access

Farmers’ Use of the Mobile Phone for Accessing Agricultural Information in Haryana: An Analytical Study

  • Rajender Kumar EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 7, 2023
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

A mobile phone is an Internet-connected device used to share and discuss user-generated content, including opinion, audio, video, and multimedia. This has changed the way farmers engage and communicate across the country, even in rural areas. The purpose of this study is to examine Haryana farmers’ use of mobile phones to get agricultural information. This study was conducted in the six districts of North Haryana, i.e., Ambala, Yamuna Nagar, Kurukshetra, Karnal, Kaithal, and Panipat. Data were collected from a sample size of 300 respondents, including 50 farmers from two tehsils (subdistrict) of each district, through a structured questionnaire and an interview plan. According to the results of this study, most of the farmers have been using mobile phones for over 3 years, and all of them can read and write Hindi to collect and communicate information about agriculture, such as post-harvest, weeding, thinning, and storage. Farmers most commonly use the agricultural information platform, i.e., private agricultural solutions helplines, government agriculture officers/extension agents making calls/short messaging service (SMS), IFFCO Kisan Sanchar, private agricultural companies/pesticide dealers/staff making calls/SMS, and government agriculture department helplines. Kisan Suvidha Agriculture Mobile App, WhatsApp, and YouTube are commonly used by most farmers who believe these network technologies are most effective to increase their knowledge and understanding of modern agricultural technology, although the majority of farmers do and also had language difficulties and challenges in the mobile network.

1 Introduction

Traditionally, farmers relied on local channels to share information. For example, if there was a pest infestation, they would discuss it among themselves and try to find solutions through trial and error. Although farmers with experience could hold out for several years, the losses were heartbreaking. Information communication technology (ICT) has proved to be game-changing providing many opportunities to transfer knowledge and information. Technology serves as our interface to the information world. First, the spread of technology in all aspects of human existence has created the prospect of rapid, unrestricted access to vast amounts of knowledge that is constantly being updated, enriched, and modified (Kumar, 2020). Similarly, the use of ICT in agricultural advisory services, particularly mobile phone services, in the agricultural sector is providing information about the market, weather, transport, and agricultural techniques to be in contact with relevant authorities and departments. In recent years, mobile phones have offered farmers a new approach to making tentative decisions because of their access to a variety of communication methods. Current information and knowledge about markets, agricultural issues and problems, and suggestions for the development of the agricultural market can be obtained via mobile phones (Essay About the Usefulness of Mobile Phones for Farmers in Agriculture, 2022).

Mobile phone use leads to greater social cohesion and improved social relations between farmers and the business community. However, short messaging services (SMSs) and voice recording have led to improvements in social relationships. Mobile-based social networks in developing countries show the growing importance of this aspect. The mobile phone is seen as important for agricultural development as it is a simple device that puts the world right in the hands of users. All relevant data can be accessed with just a few taps on the screen. In an era driven by technology, information, and insight, smartphone penetration has been rapid across all sectors. Agriculture is no stranger to this revolution. Many futuristic apps can be downloaded for free on the smartphone, such as Kisan Suvidha, Krishi Mitra, aAqua Mini, mKrishi, Life Tools, Sanchar Shakti, Pusa Krishi, and Shetkari, which are specially designed to provide information about fertilizers, subsidies, new varieties of plants, pesticides, current weather, forecasts for the coming days, and market prices of commodities in nearby Mandis. Along with providing agricultural machinery information, they help in managing various farm operations like farm management and marketing in the local language of the farmer. Furthermore, these apps enable and encourage farmers to use ICT to promote improved agriculture. If a farmer finds any disturbances in the crop or wants to get information about farming, he can just take a picture and upload it or send a text SMS through the app. A team of experts immediately reviews the images or the text, and within minutes, a secured solution is sent back to the farmer. Smartphones have ensured that no matter what the problem, farmers can find a solution in a timely manner. They even can use the platforms such as YouTube and Google where farmers can learn from the many free farm management tutorials available. Many New Age start-ups are also working to develop apps that will make farmers’ lives less stressful. Some disruptive apps launched by these organizations include the Harvest Farm Calendar, which gives farmers all the insights needed for end-to-end cultivation.

2 Literature Review

Mobile phones have gained an important share in the agricultural sector because of their utility, simplicity of use, and cost. The adoption of social technology by smallholder farmers has been surprising, as WhatsApp and Facebook are widely used among them. This has led to an increase of 67.6% in smartphone use in rural markets (Khan, 2022). As Khan, Ray, Zhang, Osabuohien, and Ihtisham (2022) express, it is essential to speed up mobile internet technology adoption by wheat growers for agriculture or wheat productivity and food security, as mobile internet technology adoption will have a noteworthy positive impact on wheat productivity. Similarly, Khan et al. (2022) found that mobile and internet technology significantly improved the efficiency of choosing sales channels among farmers and impacted agricultural profits by 41%, with nonagricultural profits exceeding 31%. However, several factors constrain farmers’ adoption of mobile phone technology in developing countries, including mobile phone costs, insufficient infrastructure, and language barriers (Aparo, Odongo, & De Steur, 2022). In a study conducted by Perera, Sivashankar, and Mahaliyanaarachchi (2021), it was found that most farmers use mobile phones heavily and primarily for personal communication. This study concluded that mobile phones are helpful for farmers in using resources effectively for agricultural development. A lack of awareness about mobile phone-based information technology and attitudinal barriers makes it difficult for farmers to obtain agriculture-related information. According to Naveed and Hassan (2021), citrus farmers in Sargodha, Pakistan, require information about harvesting techniques, disease control, fertilizer applications, planting techniques, finance, government policies and programs, better pricing, labor information in the local area, agrochemicals, how to stop the weather, irrigation management, pesticide application, health and safety information, buyers, collectors, and traders. Furthermore, language barriers and inaccessibility were major obstacles to acquiring information. Kumar (2021) expressed that the emergence of Web 3.0, Web 4.0, and the high speed of the Internet are changing the way of thinking, behaving, communicating, working, and moving from the traditional style and offering various kinds of services that users enjoy. According to Krell et al. (2021), approximately 25% of the farmers use mobile phones to access information about agriculture and livestock, 23% to buy and sell products, and 18% to receive news updates. However, Khan et al. (2020) stated that expanding the use of mobile phones for easy and accurate agricultural knowledge exchange to the farming community can increase agricultural productivity, socioeconomic circumstances, and food security. Emeana, Trenchard, and Dehnen-Schmutz (2020) reviewed mobile-based m-Agri services in Africa and concluded that they are extremely likely to fail if deployed without taking into account the target users’ literacy, abilities, culture, and needs. Implementers should engage users in the design process, assess and understand the target environment, and design for scale and long-term goals to increase the sustainability of m-Agri services. Rahman, Haque, and Afrad (2020) reported that farmers in Bangladesh use mobile phones primarily for weather forecasts, market information, pest and disease information, and financial transactions. The lack of electricity, the lack of knowledge and skills, and the high cost of mobile phones and networks were some of the challenges they faced. Khan, Qijie, Ali, Shahbaz, and Shah (2019) found that 87.20% of the Pakistani farmers obtain agricultural information from private sector advisors. In terms of mobile phone use, market information, easy access to updated information, and connectivity with stakeholders ranked highest. Lack of awareness of information sources and limited aptitude for using mobile phones are major constraints. Based on a study conducted by Dharanipriya and Karthikeyan (2019), most farmers had access to smartphones for at least 3 years. Over half of the farmers regularly use social media networks such as WhatsApp and YouTube for information support in farming.

3 Haryana: A Brief Account

Haryana, the north Indian state, undoubtedly has a rich past and culture. On November 1, 1966, the state was established after being separated from the state of Punjab because of language differences. As has already been noted, the state has a very rich history. The term “Haryana” appears on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, a significant part of the present-day Haryana, where fought the legendary Mahabharata War. The state is near where India’s oldest fold mountains, the Aravalli Hills, end in the north. Lonely hills and rocky ridges are clearly visible in several areas of Haryana, including Gurgaon. Punjab and Himachal Pradesh border Haryana to the north, and it also borders Rajasthan to the west and south. The Yamuna River, which flows through Haryana and separates it from Uttarakhand to the east, forms its border. Haryana has historically been a center for advanced settlement and a wide range of activities. It had an important place during the Vedic and Indus Valley civilizations. Although Haryana’s indigenous dialect is spoken in most of the states, Hindi is the official language. The software industry, business process outsourcing, automotive industry, agricultural sector, and retail sector are the main driving forces of Haryana’s economy. A primarily agricultural state, Haryana has quickly built world-class infrastructure and attracted attention and investment from both the public and private sectors. Despite the recent industrial expansion, Haryana is predominantly an agricultural state. In Haryana, about 70% of the population engages in agriculture. The main crops are rice and wheat. Haryana is self-sufficient in terms of food production and ranks as the second-largest supplier of India’s main grain supply. Wheat, rice, sugarcane, cotton, oilseeds, chickpeas, barley, corn, millet, and other crops are the main agricultural products of Haryana. The two main agricultural seasons in Haryana are Rabi and Kharif.

Objectives:

  • To know the duration of mobile phone use by farmers.

  • Explore the most used language by farmers on mobile phones.

  • Explore farmers’ priority of agricultural information on the mobile phone.

  • Explore the platform used for agricultural information by farmers.

  • Explore the frequency of use of agricultural mobile apps/social media by farmers.

  • Explore the usefulness of mobile phones in agricultural information.

  • Explore challenges faced in mobile phone use in accessing agricultural information.

4 Methodology

This study was conducted in the northern regions of Haryana. The data were collected between the months of July and December 2022 in each of the six districts of Haryana. Districts of North Haryana were initially selected as the research area, and data were collected using a multistage sampling procedure. Six districts, i.e., Ambala, Yamuna Nagar, Kurukshetra, Karnal, Kaithal, and Panipat, were selected in the first phase, and two tehsils were randomly selected from each district in the second phase. For the third phase, five villages were randomly selected from each tehsil. Five farmers were selected from each village for the final round. Thus, 300 farmers having smart mobile phones were included in the overall survey sample. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and personal interviews. Prior to this study, a preliminary test was completed among ten farmers from two villages to check the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. During this survey, it took about 20 min to personally interview each farmer and obtain answers to the questionnaire. Farmers’ mother tongue was used for data collection, which was later translated into English. The collected data were then managed and analyzed using percentages, Likert scale means, and standard deviation using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences.

5 Data Analysis

In Table 1, the majority (47.3%) of farmers reported that they are using mobile phones more than 3 years ago, indicating that farmers have a better understanding of the basic functions of cellular phones. About 24% of the farmers have been using mobile phones for 6–9 years, and 17.3% of the farmers have been using mobile phones for less than 3 years. In comparison, 11.3% of the farmers have been using mobile phones for more than 9 years.

Table 1

Duration of mobile phone use

Sr. No. Duration Response = N (%)
1 >3 years 52 (17.3)
2 3–6 years 142 (47.3)
3 6–9 years 72 (24)
4 <9 years 34 (11.3)

Language allows the farmer to make a query from a mobile phone, which is a powerful tool for getting basic information about agriculture. Farmers were asked which language they used mostly on their mobile phones. Table 2 shows that all the farmers reported they can read and write the Hindi language to collect and share information about agriculture. According to them, they have an easy and understandable way of communicating with other farmers in Hindi by letting them know when agricultural products are available and in what quantities, so they can organize themselves to bulk up their produce and sell in bulk. However, 40 (13.3%) farmers read only the English language on the phone, 83 (27.7%) farmers can read and write the Punjabi language on mobile phones, and a very less than 10 (3.3%) farmers can read and write another language on their mobile phones.

Table 2

Use of language on mobile phones by farmers

Sr. No. Language Read N (%) Write N (%) Read and write N (%) Total N (%)
1 Hindi 300 300 (100)
2 English 40 40 (13.3)
3 Punjabi 83 83 (27.7)
4 Any others 10 10 (3.3)

This study tries to explore the priority of information access on mobile phones; all the farmers were asked what type of information they take on top priority in the use of mobile phones. Table 3 shows that the majority of farmers (90%) give the highest priority to collecting and accessing information on modern farming techniques such as disease management information and pesticide delivery (mean = 1.1, SD = 0.4): 84% of the farmers gave the highest priority to organizing and pooling labor for harvesting (mean = 1.2, SD = 0.5), followed by collecting and exchanging weather information (88.3%), postharvest, weeding, sorting, and storage of crops (83.3%), and 81.7% of the farmers give top priority to selling crops, checking the quality and price of new seeds. However, 56.7% of the farmers have a low priority in using mobile phones for irrigation systems (mean = 2.4, SD = 1.0), followed by consulting extension workers to get advice (41.7%), getting information on financial transactions (39.7%), and ordering seeds (50%).

Table 3

Priority of information access by the farmers on mobile phones

Information needs in agriculture Top priority N (%) Middle priority N (%) Low priority N (%) No priority N (%) Mean SD
Modern cultivation techniques, such as post-harvest, weeding, thinning, and crop storage 250 (83.3) 40 (13.3) 10 (3.3) 0 (0) 1.2 0.5
Sell crops, check quality and price of new seeds 245 (81.7) 35 (11.7) 18 (6) 2 (0.7) 1.3 0.6
Information on disease management and supply of pesticides 270 (90) 25 (8.3) 5 (1.7) 0 (0) 1.1 0.4
Slurry and fertilizer management 156 (52) 80 (26.7) 55 (18.3) 9 (3) 1.7 0.9
Collection and exchange of weather information 265 (88.3) 30 (10) 5 (1.7) 0 (0) 1.1 0.4
Soil and water protection 180 (60) 75 (25) 36 (12) 9 (3) 1.6 0.8
irrigation system 90 (30) 24 (8) 170 (56.7) 16 (5.3) 2.4 1.0
Programs/information on agricultural inputs from the government 145 (48.3) 80 (26.7) 56 (18.7) 19 (6.3) 1.8 0.9
Search for available agricultural emergency safety information 153 (51) 50 (16.7) 89 (29.7) 8 (2.7) 1.8 0.9
Consult the sales representative for advice 45 (15) 80 (26.7) 125 (41.7) 50 (16.7) 2.6 0.9
Get information about financial transactions 65 (21.7) 93 (31) 119 (39.7) 23 (7.7) 2.3 0.9
Visiting market centers and dealers to check prices 190 (63.3) 70 (23.3) 22 (7.3) 18 (6) 1.6 0.9
Organizing and pooling labor for harvest 252 (84) 38 (12.7) 8 (2.7) 2 (0.7) 1.2 0.5
Determination of sowing and planting time 163 (54.3) 92 (30.7) 20 (6.7) 25 (8.3) 1.7 0.9
Checking fertilizer price with neighboring markets 192 (64) 80 (26.7) 28 (9.3) 0 (0) 1.5 0.7
Determination of labor costs for cultivation and weeding 156 (52) 73 (24.3) 35 (11.7) 36 (12) 1.8 1.0
Order seeds 56 (18.7) 68 (22.7) 150 (50) 26 (8.7) 2.5 0.9
Studying the prices of tractors for cultivation 168 (56) 65 (21.7) 60 (20) 7 (2.3) 1.7 0.9
Coordinating labor 190 (63.3) 53 (17.7) 40 (13.3) 17 (5.7) 1.6 0.9

By integrating the platform into mobile devices, farmers can get knowledge and information from experts. Here, it is essential to address farmers’ connecting platform with the required content or knowledge. As can be seen in Table 4, farmers in the study area have access to a platform for agricultural information. The farmers were asked about using mobile phone-based platforms to get information. According to the findings, private helplines for farming solutions (73.7%) with a mean value of 1.4 and an SD of 0.7 followed by government agriculture officers/extension agents making call/SMS (65%), IFFCO Kisan Sanchar (64%), private agricultural companies/pesticides dealers/staff making calls/SMS (52%), and government agriculture department helplines (45.3%) have the highest use of the platform as compared to the other platforms for information on agriculture, such as Livestock department helpline, aAqua Mini, mKrishi, Life Tools, and Sanchar Shakti. Moreover, private helplines for farming solutions showed a higher use as compared to government agriculture department helplines, which indicated their inefficiency.

Table 4

Platforms used for agricultural information by farmers through mobile phone

Sr. No. Information sources High access N (%) Access N (%) Low access N (%) No access N (%) Mean SD
1 Government agriculture officers/extension agents making call/SMS 195 (65) 56 (18.7) 21 (7) 28 (9.3) 1.6 1.0
2 Private agricultural companies/pesticide dealers/staff making calls/SMS 156 (52) 86 (28.7) 42 (14) 16 (5.3) 1.7 0.9
3 Private helplines for farming solutions 221 (73.7) 44 (14.7) 30 (10) 5 (1.7) 1.4 0.7
4 Government agriculture department helplines 136 (45.3) 76 (25.3) 21 (7) 67 (22.3) 2.1 1.2
5 Livestock department helpline 58 (19.3) 34 (11.3) 110 (36.7) 98 (32.7) 2.8 1.1
6 aAqua Mini 52 (17.3) 14 (4.7) 82 (27.3) 152 (50.7) 3.1 1.1
7 mKrishi 62 (20.7) 32 (10.7) 93 (31) 113 (37.7) 2.9 1.1
8 IFFCO Kisan Sanchar 192 (64) 66 (22) 30 (10) 12 84) 1.5 0.8
9 Life Tools 32 (10.7) 82 (27.3) 113 (37.7) 73 (24.3) 2.8 0.9
10 Sanchar Shakti 63 (21) 68 (22.7) 152 (50.7) 17 (5.7) 2.4 0.9

To identify the most frequently used agricultural mobile apps/social media, farmers were asked which apps/social media they accessed most frequently. It is clear from Table 5 that the Kisan Suvidha agricultural mobile app is frequently used by the majority of farmers (85.3%) with a mean value of 1.3 and an SD of 0.8 followed by crop insurance (55%) with a mean value of 1.9 and an SD of 1.1, and Pusa Krishi by 50% (mean = 2.1, SD = 1.3) of the farmers. It is found from the table that Krish-e is frequently used by less of farmers (1.3%) with a mean value of 3.8 and an SD of 0.5. Furthermore, the table shows that all the farmers frequently use WhatsApp with a mean value of 1.0 and an SD of 0.0 for getting agricultural information, followed by YouTube (95.3%) with a mean value of 1.1 and an SD of 0.3, and 93% of the farmers use Facebook to access the required information.

Table 5

Frequency of use of agriculture mobile apps/social media by farmers

Agriculture mobile apps Frequently N (%) Sometimes N (%) Occasionally N (%) Rarely N (%) Mean SD
Mobile Apps
Krish-e 4 (1.3) 2 (0.7) 54 (18) 240 (80) 3.8 0.5
IFFCO Kisan Agriculture 102 (34) 5 (1.7) 132 (44) 61 (20.3) 2.5 1.2
Pusa Krishi 150 (50) 35 (11.7) 40 (13.3) 75 (25) 2.1 1.3
Agri App 111 (37) 25 (8.3) 59 (19.7) 105 (35) 2.5 1.3
Crop Insurance 165 (55) 45 (15) 50 (16.7) 40 (13.3) 1.9 1.1
Kheti-Badi 95 (31.7) 65 (21.7) 88 (29.3) 52 (17.3) 2.3 1.1
Agri-Market 96 (32) 44 (14.7) 74 (24.7) 86 (28.7) 2.5 1.2
Shetkari 63 (21) 12 (4) 147 (49) 78 (26) 2.8 1.0
Kisan Suvidha 256 (85.3) 9 (3) 21 (7) 14 (4.7) 1.3 0.8
Social Media
YouTube 286 (95.3) 10 (3.3) 4 (1.3) 0 (0) 1.1 0.3
Facebook 279 (93) 9 (3) 12 (4) 0 (0) 1.1 0.4
WhatsApp 300 (100) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1.0 0.0

Mobile phones support farmers’ ability to get information at a moment’s notice and to deliver precise farming information. A mobile phone’s usefulness can be measured by how it is used. Table 6 shows that 52% of the farmers view that mobile phones are most useful in improving their knowledge in agriculture (mean = 1.5, SD = 0.5) followed by creating awareness about new technologies (46.3%). Furthermore, it is noticed from the table that mobile is useful in seed purchase and bed preparation (63%) with a mean value of 1.8 and an SD of 0.6, land preparation and planting (56%), effective in plant protection measures (52.7%), and decision to choose crop (50.7%). However, 46.3% of the farmers have the view that mobile phone is not useful in information on extension activities with a mean value of 2.3 and an SD of 0.7 followed by nutrient management (34%), selling of produce (28%), and effective in plant protection measures (23.3%).

Table 6

Usefulness of mobile phones in agricultural information

S. no. Particulars Most useful N (%) Useful N (%) Not useful N (%) Mean SD
1. Improving the knowledge of agriculture 156 (52) 144 (48) 0 (0) 1.5 0.5
2. The decision to choose a crop 136 (45.3) 152 (50.7) 12 (4) 1.6 0.6
3. Seed purchase and seedbed preparation 92 (30.7) 189 (63) 19 (6.3) 1.8 0.6
4. Land preparation and planting 105 (35) 169 (56.3) 26 (8.7) 1.7 0.6
5. Nutrient management 86 (28.7) 112 (37.3) 102 (34) 2.1 0.8
6. Effective plant protection measures 72 (24) 158 (52.7) 70 (23.3) 2.0 0.7
7. Harvesting/picking and storing 112 (37.3) 123 (41) 65 (21.7) 1.8 0.8
8. Selling of produce 98 (32.7) 118 (39.3) 84 (28) 2.0 0.8
9. Creating awareness about new technologies 139 (46.3) 138 (46) 23 (7.7) 1.6 0.6
10. Information on extension activities 46 (15.3) 115 (38.3) 139 (46.3) 2.3 0.7

Table 7 shows the challenges faced by farmers while using mobile phones to access agricultural information. In this regard, farmers were asked the question of which type of problem they faced in the use of mobile phones. It is found that 65.3% of the farmers indicate that they face language barriers with a mean value of 1.5 and an SD of 0.8 followed by mobile network problems. Furthermore, the table shows the moderate facing problems among farmers are difficulties in connection with knowledge intermediaries (65.7%) with a mean value of 2.2 and an SD of 0.9. Mobile phone applications are not well understood or operated (61.3%), and lack of servicing center (60%). However, 61% of the farmers are natural in indicating the problems of lack of access to information with a mean value of 2.6 and an SD of 1.0 followed by lack of trust in SMSs (60%) and unexpected calls (56.3%). Lack of awareness (11.3%) with a mean value of 2.3 and an SD of 1.3, inappropriate subject content (6.3%), and technical problem with phones (4.3%) are the low-level facing problems among the farmers while they use mobile phones.

Table 7

Challenges faced while using mobile phones for accessing information

Challenges in using mobile phone High N (%) Moderate N (%) Neutral N (%) Low N (%) Not at all N (%) Mean SD
Mobile network problems 180 (60) 62 (20.7) 20 (6.7) 18 (6) 20 (6.7) 1.8 1.2
Mobile phone applications are not well understood or operated 85 (28.3) 185 (61.3) 11 (3.7) 15 (5) 4 (1.3) 1.9 0.8
Language barriers 196 (65.3) 69 (23) 28 (9.3) 7 (2.3) 0 (0) 1.5 0.8
Difficulties in connection with knowledge intermediaries 46 (15.3) 197 (65.7) 32 (10.7) 10 (3.3) 15 (5) 2.2 0.9
Lack of awareness 102 (34) 89 (29.7) 52 (17.3) 34 (11.3) 23 (7.7) 2.3 1.3
Inappropriate subject content 136 (45.3) 73 (24.3) 49 (16.3) 19 (6.3) 23 (7.7) 2.1 1.2
Lack of access to information 66 (22) 29 (9.7) 183 (61) 15 (5) 7 (2.3) 2.6 1.0
Lack of trust in SMSs 36 (12) 44 (14.7) 180 (60) 17 (5.7) 23 (7.7) 2.8 1.0
Lack of servicing center 59 (19.7) 180 (60) 16 (5.3) 33 (11) 12 (4) 2.2 1.0
The technical problem with the phone 119 (39.7) 28 (9.3) 135 (45) 13 (4.3) 5 (1.7) 2.2 1.1
Unexpected calls 92 (30.7) 13 (4.3) 169 (56.3) 12 (4) 14 (4.7) 2.5 1.1

6 Conclusion

Modern mobile technologies are evolving and expanding quickly. The phone is becoming an excellent tool for farmers to build strong relationships with all agro-industry stakeholders through communication, SMS, and email. Farmers who use mobile phones are more alert to agricultural management than those who do not use mobile phones. It is clear from this study that most farmers use cell phones to collect and exchange agricultural information. They claim to have an easy and clear method of communication with other farmers. All the farmers stated that they can read and write the Hindi language in order to gather and share agricultural information. Most farmers place a high value on gathering and gaining access to knowledge about current agricultural practices such as post-harvest, weeding, thinning, crop storage, determining the quality and pricing of new seeds, disease control information, and pesticide distribution. Collecting and exchanging meteorological data, as well as organizing and pooling labor for harvesting, may be accomplished through the use of private helplines for agricultural solutions, government agriculture officers/extension agents making call/SMS, IFFCO Kisan Sanchar, private agricultural companies/pesticide dealers/staff making calls/SMS, and government agriculture department helplines have the highest use of the platform. The Kisan Suvidha agriculture mobile app is frequently used by a majority of farmers. This study shows that all the farmers frequently use WhatsApp and YouTube to access the required information. The majority of farmers view mobile phones as useful in improving their knowledge of agriculture and creating awareness about new technologies. However, they face language barriers and mobile network problems in the use of mobile phones. It is concluded that because of the invention of the mobile phone, farmers can now take decisions much more easily than in the past. Farmers and the business community benefit from the use of mobile phones as increased social cohesion and better social relations. However, audio recording and SMS have improved social interaction. Mobile phone-based social networking showed the growing relevance of this factor in emerging countries. Mobile phones are considered important to advance agriculture.

  1. Conflict of interest: Author states no conflict of interest.

References

Aparo, N. O., Odongo, W., & De Steur, H. (2022). Unraveling heterogeneity in farmer’s adoption of mobile phone technologies: A systematic review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 185, 122048. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.122048 https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5290/.Search in Google Scholar

Dharanipriya, A., & Karthikeyan, C. (2019). Use of smartphones by farmers as a tool for information support in agriculture. Journal of Krishi Vigyan, 7, 251–256. doi: 10.5958/2349-4433.2019.00057.6.Search in Google Scholar

Emeana, E. M., Trenchard, L., & Dehnen-Schmutz, K. (2020). The revolution of mobile phone-enabled services for agricultural development (m-Agri services) in Africa: The challenges for sustainability. Sustainability, 12(2), 485. doi: 10.3390/su12020485.Search in Google Scholar

Essay About the Usefulness of Mobile Phones for Farmers in Agriculture. (2022, October 28). Edubirdie. Retrieved December 1, 2022, from https://edubirdie.com/examples/essay-about-the-usefulness-of-mobile-phones-for-farmers-in-agriculture/.Search in Google Scholar

Khan, N. A., Qijie, G., Ali, S., Shahbaz, B., & Shah, A. A. (2019). Farmers’ use of the mobile phone for accessing agricultural information in Pakistan. Ciência Rural, 49(10), 1–12. https://www.scielo.br/j/cr/a/v4VvTspq6JLYCKR5YdxM6PR/.10.1590/0103-8478cr20181016Search in Google Scholar

Khan, N., Ray, R. L., Kassem, H. S., Khan, F. U., Ihtisham, M., & Zhang, S. (2022). Does the adoption of mobile internet technology promote wheat productivity? Evidence from rural farmers. Sustainability, 14(13), 7614. doi: 10.3390/su14137614.Search in Google Scholar

Khan, N., Ray, R. L., Zhang, S., Osabuohien, E., & Ihtisham, M. (2022). Influence of mobile phone and internet technology on the income of rural farmers: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan. Technology in Society, 68, 101866. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101866.Search in Google Scholar

Khan, N., Siddiqui, B. N., Khan, N., Khan, F., Ullah, N., Ihtisham, M., … Muhammad, S. (2020). Analyzing mobile phone usage in agricultural modernization and rural development. International Journal of Agricultural Extension, 8(2), 139–147.10.33687/ijae.008.02.3255Search in Google Scholar

Khan, T. (2022, June 23). Are farmers harvesting the power of tech? The real tech penetration that has touched Bharat. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/author/tauseef-khan/.Search in Google Scholar

Krell, N. T., Giroux, S. A., Guido, Z., Hannah, C., Lopus, S. E., Caylor, K. K., & Evans, T. P. (2021). Smallholder farmers’ use of mobile phone services in central Kenya. Climate and Development, 13(3), 215–227. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2020.1748847.Search in Google Scholar

Kumar, R. (2020). Digital information literacy among the engineering students: A survey. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–7. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4326/.Search in Google Scholar

Kumar, R. (2021). Application of cloud computing technology for library re-designing: Moving beyond desktop applications. Library Philosophy and Practice, (e-journal). 5290. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5290/.Search in Google Scholar

Naveed, M. A., & Hassan, A. (2021). Sustaining agriculture with information: An assessment of rural citrus farmers’ information behavior. Information Development, 37(3), 496–510. doi: 10.1177/0266666920932994.Search in Google Scholar

Perera, G. D., Sivashankar, P., & Mahaliyanaarachchi, R. P. (2021). Mobile phone-based agricultural information for farming decisions: Evidence from up country vegetable farmers in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Agriculture Innovation, Technology, and Globalisation, 2(4), 300–317. doi: 10.1504/IJAITG.2021.122854.Search in Google Scholar

Rahman, M. S., Haque, M. E., & Afrad, M. S. I. (2020). Utility of mobile phone usage in agricultural information dissemination in Bangladesh. East African Scholars Journal of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 3(6), 154–170. https://www.easpublisher.com/media/features_articles/EASJALS_36_154-170.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-12-25
Revised: 2023-03-11
Accepted: 2023-03-24
Published Online: 2023-04-07

© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. An Empirical Evaluation of Research on “Library Management” at the Doctoral Level in India: A Study of the Last 50 Years from 1971 to 2020
  3. Social Unrest Prediction Through Sentiment Analysis on Twitter Using Support Vector Machine: Experimental Study on Nigeria’s #EndSARS
  4. Measuring the Concept of PID Literacy: User Perceptions and Understanding of PIDs in Support of Open Scholarly Infrastructure
  5. Culturally Responsive Librarians: Shifting Perspectives Toward Racial Empathy
  6. Farmers’ Use of the Mobile Phone for Accessing Agricultural Information in Haryana: An Analytical Study
  7. How European Research Libraries Can Support Citizen-Enhanced Open Science
  8. Research Image Management Practices Reported by Scientific Literature: An Analysis by Research Domain
  9. Adding Perspective to the Bibliometric Mapping Using Bidirected Graph
  10. Students’ Perspectives on the Application of Internet of Things for Redesigning Library Services at Kurukshetra University
  11. Whom Do I Ask? First-Time Postpartum Mothers in a Developing Economy
  12. The Effectiveness of Software Designed to Detect AI-Generated Writing: A Comparison of 16 AI Text Detectors
  13. Requirements of Digital Archiving in Saudi Libraries in the Light of International Standards: King Fahad National Library as a Model
  14. Analyzing Hate Speech Against Women on Instagram
  15. Adequacy of LIS Curriculum in Response to Global Trends: A Case Study of Tanzanian Universities
  16. COVID-19 Emergency Remote Teaching: Lessons Learned from Five EU Library and Information Science Departments
  17. Review Article
  18. Assessing Diversity in Academic Library Book Collections: Diversity Audit Principles and Methods
  19. Communications
  20. Twitter Interactions in the Era of the Virtual Academic Conference: A Comparison Between Years
  21. The Classification of Q1 SJR-Ranked Library and Information Science Journals by an AI-driven “Suspected Predatory” Journal Classifier
  22. Scopus-Based Study of Sustainability in the Syrian Higher Education Focusing on the Largest University
  23. Letter to the Editor
  24. Most Preprint Servers Allow the Publication of Opinion Papers
  25. SI Communicating Pandemics: COVID-19 in Mass Media
  26. COVID-19 in Mass Media: Manufacturing Mass Perceptions of the Virus among Older Adults
  27. Topical Issue: TI Information Behaviour and Information Ethics
  28. A Compass for What Matters: Applying Virtue Ethics to Information Behavior
  29. Studies on Information Users and Non-Users: An Alternative Proposal
  30. Ethical Issues of Human Information Behaviour and Human Information Interactions
  31. Ethics and Social Responsibility in Information Behavior, an Interdisciplinary Research in Uruguay
Downloaded on 2.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/opis-2022-0145/html?srsltid=AfmBOooakmGdDL6w36RU9L2JmrGSx65hbN6ejQaKHredLMeF1w-s5k-m
Scroll to top button