Pooja V¹*, Nagaraj KH², Shivlingaiah YN³, Manjunath Gowda⁴, D Shashikalabai⁵ and Mohan Kumar TL⁶

¹Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, India
²Professor and Editor, Communication Centre, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, India
³Dean (Agri.) and Director of Extension, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, India
⁴Professor, Department of Sericulture, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, India
⁵Associate Professor, ICAR-AICRP on PHET Scheme, UAS, GKVK, Bengaluru, India
⁶Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Statistics, Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, India

*Corresponding Author: Pooja V, Ph.D. Scholar, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bengaluru, India.

Received: September 03, 2026; Published: September 28, 2026

Abstract

Sericulture production and performance largely depend on how effectively farmers manage mulberry cultivation, silkworm rearing, pest and disease problems, etc. The present study conducted in 2026, compares the management approaches followed by sericulture farmers in high- and low-sericulture-production villages of Chitradurga district, Karnataka. An ex-post facto research design was adopted, and 120 sericulture farmers were selected through a multistage random sampling procedure from 12 villages of Mokalmuru and Chitradurga taluks. An index of management practices was developed with 5 indicators and farmers from high and low production villages were compared. High-production villages performed relatively better in important areas such as variety selection, irrigation, leaf harvesting, temperature management, chawki rearing, timely feeding, cocoon harvesting and waste management practice, whereas, low-production villages showed relatively better performance wrt soil testing, chemical fertilizer application, hygienic practices, bed cleaning, utilization of family labour, division of labour, women’s involvement and resource recovery. Among the five indicators of management practices, silkworm rearing management practice received the highest weight in both high-production (0.158) and low-production villages (0.153), whereas integrated waste management received the lowest weight. The overall weighted management index was marginally higher in high-production villages (0.570) than in low-production villages (0.563). The study indicates that differences in production status were mainly associated with variations in specific management practices rather than major differences in overall management. The findings highlight the need for location-specific and practice-oriented extension interventions to strengthen weaker areas of sericulture management.

Keywords: Management Practices; Indicators; Hygienic Practices; Cocoon Harvesting

References

1. Ahammed I., et al. “Impact of sericultural training on knowledge and adoption of sustainable mulberry cultivation practices among seri-farmers in eastern India”. Discover Agriculture 4 (2026): 136.
2. Ahmed O., et al. “Exploring the relationship between farmer characteristics and training effectiveness in sericulture cultivation”. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science2 (2024): 883-900.
3. Amarnatha N., et al. “Impact of adoption of mulberry and silkworm practice on yield and income of bivoltine hybrid silkworm rearing sericulturists of South Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka”. Journal of Advances in Biology and Biotechnology 9 (2024): 550-555.
4. Basavaiah and CS Kallimani. “Constraints faced in the adoption of technologies by Chawki Rearing Centre entrepreneurs”. Journal of Extension Education 2 (2020): 6520-6530.
5. Bharath Kumar KS., et al. “Growth and development of sericulture in non-traditional areas of Karnataka”. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences7 (2019): 1450-1458.
6. Dandin SB and MS Giridhar. “Integrated farming systems in sericulture for sustainable livelihood security”. Indian Silk4 (2012): 18-21.
7. Dayananda and P Kumaresan. “Impact of integrated sericultural technologies on cocoon productivity at farmer level”. Journal of Agricultural Extension Management 1 (2010): 97-106.
8. Geetha Devi RG., et al. “Role of extension services in adoption of improved sericulture technologies”. Indian Silk7 (2018): 20-24.
9. Geetha GS and RG Geetha Devi. “Technology adoption and training needs of sericulture farmers – A case study in NGO”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 3 (2008): 157-163.
10. Goswami C., et al. “Socio-economic profile and extent of adoption of sericulture technologies in Assam”. Journal of Rural and Agricultural Research 2 (2019): 112-116.
11. Hadimani DK., et al. “Constraints faced and suggestions by farmers to overcome constraints in adoption of improved sericulture production technologies of Bidar district of North Karnataka”. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2 (2019): 784-786.
12. Hadimani DK., et al. “Extent of adoption of improved sericulture production technologies by farmers of Bidar district of North Karnataka”. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2 (2019): 790-792.
13. Harisha N., et al. “Attitude of sericulture beneficiary farmers towards the activities of Technical Service Centres (TSCs) in Karnataka State of India”. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology 11 (2021): 114-122.
14. Hosamani V., et al. “Social betterment and economic empowerment of sericulture farmers in Northern Hilly Zone of Karnataka, India”. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics and Sociology 8 (2023): 127-133.
15. Jiragal I., et al. “Adoption level of bi-voltine silkworm rearing practices among farmers of Chitradurga District, India”. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 2 (2019): 2481-2488.
16. Krishnamoorthy SV., et al. “Adoption of improved sericulture technologies by farmers in Karnataka”. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3 (2014): 421-426.
17. Kumari KMV and RK Rajan. “Impact of training on knowledge and adoption levels of Chawki rearing centre owners of Karnataka state”. Agricultural Science Digest 3 (2015): 203-206.
18. Lakshmanan S., et al. “Adoption behaviour of sericulture farmers towards sustainable production technologies”. Journal of Extension Education 2 (2016): 5612-5618.
19. Manjunath L., et al. “Psychological characteristics influencing adoption behaviour of sericulture farmers”. Journal of Farm Sciences 2 (2019): 205-209.
20. Manohar KN., et al. “Constraints faced by the sericulture farmers in adoption of recommended sericulture cultivation practices in Northern Karnataka”. Agriculture Update 4 (2020): 289-292.
21. Moulasab and SN Sudhakara. “Problems faced by sericulture farmers by adoption of improved production technology practices from Koppal district of Karnataka”. Crop Research 6 (2017): 288-293.
22. Murali N., et al. “Adoption pattern of mulberry cultivation and silkworm rearing in the Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka, India”. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 8 (2020): 953-959.
23. Parameswaranaik J., et al. “Adoption of improved sericultural technologies among farmers of Mizoram State”. Journal of Agricultural Extension Management 2 (2020): 83-90.
24. Patil SP and A Kalal. “Adoption of sericulture production technologies in northern Karnataka”. Journal of Farm Sciences 4 (2020): 546-549.
25. Rabha P., et al. “Extent of livelihood opportunity of the sericulture farmers in Kamrup district of Assam”. Environment Conservation Journal1 (2023): 110-115.
26. Sharma S and K Bali. “Socio-economic impact of sericulture in rural development”. International Journal of Agricultural Science Research 3 (2018): 95-100.
27. Shatibarua D., et al. “Adoption behaviour of sericulture farmers regarding improved technologies of Jorhat district of Assam”. Indian Journal of Extension Education 1 (2022): 26-30.
28. Somashekar RK., et al. “Comparative analysis of sericulture practices in traditional and non-traditional regions of Karnataka”. International Journal of Rural Studies 1 (2018): 45-52.
29. Sridhar KB., et al. “Sericulture as a livelihood security enterprise in rural India”. Indian Silk9 (2016): 10-15.
30. Swamy MM., et al. “Adoption level of improved sericulture practices among farmers in Karnataka”. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology 18 (2021): 52-58.

Citation

Citation: Pooja V., et al. “Comparative Assessment of Management Approaches among Sericulture Farmers in High- and Low-Sericulture-Production Vil- lages of Chitradurga District, Karnataka". Acta Scientific Agriculture 10.7 (2026): 03-13.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2026 Pooja V., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.