MSc

The Agriclinics and Agri business Centres’ scheme was launched on 9th April, 2002 with the aim to supplement the public extension service to accelerate the transfer of technology process in agriculture and to provide self-employment openings to technically qualified personnel. Candidates eligible to the scheme are agriculture graduates / graduates in the allied agriculture subjects like horticulture, fisheries, dairy, veterinary, sericulture and forestry.
The study entitled “Multidimensional analysis of the performance of Agri- Clinics and Agri-Business Centres (ACABC) scheme in Kerala and Andhra Pradesh” was conducted during 2017-2019. The objective of the study was to comparatively scrutinize the functioning and performance of ACABC scheme of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh (AP). The study elicited the views and attitude of agripreneurs or prospective agripreneurs on the benefits and services accruing from these ventures. The constraints faced by agripreneurs and ACABC centres were also delineated and documented. The study sample comprised of 150 respondents with 30 agripreneurs, 30 agricultural graduates and 15 ACABC officials cum trainers were randomly selected each from Kerala and AP.
The results of the study on socio-economic profile of agripreneurs in Kerala and AP revealed that half of the agripreneurs were old aged (50%) in Kerala whereas 53.33 per cent were middle aged in Andhra Pradesh. Majority of agripreneurs were male from both Kerala (86.67%) and AP (93.33%). Furthermore 88.33 per cent of the total agripreneurs were married. 76.6 per cent of the agripreneurs belonged to General Category in Kerala, while 53.33 per cent belonged to Other Backward Castes in AP. The mean family size of the agripreneurs was 4.3 in Kerala whereas 5.3 in AP. When 53.33 per cent of the agripreneurs from Kerala had other occupation in addition to agripreneurship,
66.67 per cent of the respondents from AP had only agripreneurship as the sole occupation. Agripreneurs (40%) from Kerala had less than one acre of landholding as against 46.67 per cent of the agripreneurs in AP who possessed landholdings in the range of 2-4 acres. The total number of ventures established under ACABC scheme was 51 and 321 in Kerala and AP respectively. The


employment generation potential was high (7.03 venture-1) in AP as against 5.30 venture-1 in Kerala. The study also pointed out that 50 per cent of the agripreneurs in Kerala and 40 per cent of the agripreneurs in AP had an annual income in the range of 2-4 lakhs. However, the percentage of agripreneurs amplified in Kerala (56.67%) falling under the income category less than 2 lakhs considering the income from agripreneurship alone.
SWOC (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Challenge) analysis of the ventures as perceived by agripreneurs revealed that ‘vast domestic market’ under strength, ‘high requirement of working capital’ under weakness and ‘increasing market span’ under opportunity were ranked first by the respondents of both AP and Kerala. When ‘high level of competition’ was perceived to be one of the most important challenge faced by agripreneurs of AP, while unorganized market was the most important challenge faced by Kerala agripreneurs.
The study on training aspects found that major source of information regarding ACABC scheme was ‘newspapers’ and ‘friends’ in Kerala and AP respectively. ‘Drive to start own business’ was ranked the first for both AP and Kerala (with a cumulative frequency of 81 and 78 respectively) as the main motivational factor of agripreneurs for joining the ACABC training programme.
43.33 per cent of agripreneurs from AP and Kerala belonged to the category of high and medium level of motivation respectively. Majority of the respondents (80% and 63.33%) from AP and Kerala took the training seriously and belonged to the category of medium to high level of seriousness. Moreover, 56.67 per cent of the trainees from both states had rendered good to excellent feedback on the training institutes.
The dependent variables of the study were Key Performance Indicators (KPI), special performance indicators and attitude towards ACABC scheme. Majority (61.67%) of the agripreneurs perceived performance of the training centres as medium in terms of key performance indicators. Productivity was ranked ‘one’ with a weighted mean score of 4.2 and 4.1 for AP and Kerala under the leading performance indicators. Similarly, the time of training was the most important lagging performance indicator in AP and Kerala with a weighted mean


score of 4.1 and 4.07 respectively. Correlation of KPI with the 15 independent variables revealed that six variables in case of AP and five variables in case of Kerala had positive and significant relationship. The variables viz., stream, annual income and feedback were significant at one per cent level in Kerala; whereas variables viz., age, education, annual income, experience and feedback were significant at one per cent level in case of agripreneurs from AP. In case of correlation of independent variables with special performance indicators, it was found that 9 variables of AP agripreneurs and 6 variables of Kerala agripreneurs were positively and significantly correlated. The major special performance indicators were financial and satisfaction aspects in Kerala whereas financial and quality aspects were ranked important in AP.
Majority (65%) of the agripreneurs belonged to the category of ‘medium attitude’ towards ACABC scheme. Correlation analysis of agripreneurs from AP revealed that three independent variables viz., age, experience and annual income were significant at one per cent level however in case of Kerala none of the variables correlated at one per cent level of significance. The study on attitude of agricultural graduates towards ACABC scheme revealed that majority (69.38%) of them belonged to the category ‘medium attitude’ irrespective of the state. However, 18.33 per cent of them were unaware about ACABC scheme. Entrepreneurial intention of agricultural graduates correlated with attitude towards ACABC scheme at one per cent level of significance for both the states.
Finally the study explored the constraints for starting and running agriventures. Lack of resources for initial investment was one of the major constraints (Kerala-132 and AP-131) faced while starting agriventures. Competition from established ventures (Kerala-127 and AP-123) and high labour cost (Kerala-125 and AP-122) were the important constraints faced while running agriventures. The major constraint pointed out by trainers was that the trainees attend training for just name sake (AP-71 and Kerala-70). Major suggestion for the better performance of ACABC centres in Kerala is to augment the number of training centres and facilitate training for biological science graduates who are interested in agriculture through ACABC and thus to improve the enrollment rate.


Whereas, in AP, regulating the training centres under private sector and bringing more training centres under public sector will facilitate better acceptability of ACABC scheme.
To conclude, ACABC centres of AP perform better than Kerala. More number of ventures was established in AP even though the benefits and services through ACABC scheme remain the same for both Kerala and AP. Efforts must be initiated to encourage fresh agriculture graduates and agripreneurs to venture into agribusiness activities in agriculture and allied sectors of Kerala and AP for overcoming the rising unemployment of agri-graduates to ensue.