For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/researchtimes.php#8

India is the largest country where agriculture is the main source for people. Literally speaking agriculture means the production of crops and livestock on a farm. Generally speaking, agriculture is cultivation of crops. Agriculture is the back bone of our Indian economy. In Economics, agriculture means cultivation of crops along with animal husbandry, poultry, dairy farming, fishing and even forestry. Indian farming is mostly based on traditional way of agriculture. But the scenario is changing rapidly with the advent of ICT tools and also efficient use of the same in Agriculture. There is a vast changes in the agriculture farming. So to study the usage of ICT in agriculture among farmers of Mysore district, Karnataka had been chosen.

V.C.Patil, Ehud Gelb, AjitMaru, N T Yadaraju, M.Moni and HarekrishnaMisra, (2008) conducted study on “ Adoption of ICT for Agriculture: An Indian case study” This paper is based on Indian case study the study focused on ICT adoption and effectiveness in farmers where the study suggested a policy frame work for new agricultural ICT. Regular training to teachers, researchers in state agricultural universities should be strength for ICT and also KrishiVigynana Kendra (KVKS) should provide single window solution to farmers if these go on the ICT usage of farmers in agriculture will be more effective were some recommendation and suggestions by the study. 

UNDP Ethiopia, U. (2012). The Development brief series of UNDP Ethiopia worked on “Promoting ICT based agricultural knowledge management to increase production and productivity of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia” it briefly explains the Implementing modern approaches to knowledge management in the Ethiopian agriculture sector will not be without challenge. While recognizing that the country has several institutions and organizations engaged in the creation and dissemination of agricultural knowledge and information, effectiveness is inhibited by the coverage and inadequate usage of ICT. Ethiopia is currently far behind several African countries in the coverage and usage of ICT services, and efforts are needed to scale-up investments in physical ICT infrastructure and services across the country. At present, radio stands out as the most utilized medium among the various ICT platforms.

Joyous S Tata and Paul E McNamara (2016) in the article entitled,“Social factors that influence use of ICT in Agricultural Extension in Southern Africa” assesses - on a Farm book is an ICT applicant where it is used in extension of field agents. The application provides farmers with access to a business planning software that is focused to improve their product and market opportunity. The study says government role should be there for giving education to all extension staff. Here the highly educated extension staff could train on farm book technology. And also government should create more awareness of ICTs including farm book and such other technology related. 

Indian Council of Food and Agriculture (2017), National Round Table Conference- In the conference more than 67 eminent persons and participated for the purpose to discuss and take some awareness regarding ICT in Agriculture. Many recommendations were given from the conference to government. The present situation is taking place due to mobile technology where many farmers are using social media to connect for information. The access of mobile usage is increasing so that government should take some ICT to give awareness to improve for the socio-economic development said by the conference report.

Ishwar S Parmar, PeeyushSoni, John K M Kuwornu and Krishna R Salin (2019), work entitled, “Evaluating farmer’s access to agricultural information: Evidence from semi-arid region of Rajasthan State” the study focused on 3 districts of Rajasthan state. Where the researcher divided into ICT and Non-ICT users through questionnaire data was collected. The result shows that in the semi- arid region the ICT usage for marketing and for production information is very less. Middle age people use high in level. In the study Non –ICT respondents were shown negative in the usage of ICT.

Manjuprakash, H Philip and N Sriram (2017) in the article entitled “Farmers awareness level about ICT tools and services in Karnataka”, - the study was done in Koppal district, Karnataka. 120 respondents were selected through block wise. The result shows that medium numbers of farmers are aware of ICT in agriculture. The usages of ICT tools are aware to some extent. But the mobile advisory awareness of Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) was high.

For the study survey method is used. Through using close ended questions were asked to farmers. For the present research, a multi-stage sampling technique has been used. First stage of sampling consists of selection of district, at the second stage Taluks (Blocks) and the third stage, villages were selected. At the final stage respondents had been chosen. For this study 225 respondents were selected. The study area Mysore district comprises of 07 taluks, namely Mysore, Nanjangud, Tirumakudal-Narsipur, Hunsur, Heggadadevankote, Krishnarajanagara and Priyapatna. Out of this taluk 3 taluks were selected like developed, developing and under developed villages. In mysore district developed taluk is Mysore taluk in that vajamangala, Hanchya and halagayanahundi villages of three gram panchayats 75 respondents had been selected and also in developing taluk hunsur taluk had been selected in that hosaramanahalli, cholanahalli and rangaihana koppalu villages of three panchayats 75 respondents had chosen and also in under developed taluk H.D. Kote had been selected in that kyathanahalli, sindenahalli and masanakuppe villages of three panchayats 75 respondents have been chosen for the study. Total 225 respondents were selected for the study.

Table 1 – Gender-Wise Respondents in the Study Area

Gender		Mysore
Male	F	218
	%	96.9
Female	F	7
	%	3.1
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table and graph represent the gender-wise respondents in the study area. The table shows In Mysore, 96.9% of the respondents are males, and 3.1% are females, which indicates that most of the respondents are males.

Table 2 -Age-Wise Respondents in the Study Area

Gender		Mysore
18-24Years	F	25
	%	11.1
25-34Years	F	61
	%	27.1
35-44Years	F	56
	%	24.9
45-54Years	F	42
	%	18.7
55&above	F	41
	%	18.2
Total	F	225
	%	100

The age distribution of respondents in the study area is depicted in a table and graph. In the Mysore district, 18.2% of the respondents belong to the 55 and older age group. 24.9% are belongs to the 35 to 44 years age group, 27.1% belong to the 25 to 34 age group, and 18.2% of the respondents are from the 55 and older age group. Overall, 28.7% of respondents are between the ages of 35-44, 2.8% are between the ages of 25- 34, and 19.3% are between the ages of 45-54.

Table 3– Education Wise Respondents in the Study Area

Education		Mysore
Post-Graduation	F	5
	%	2.2
Graduation	F	33
	%	14.7
PUC	F	41
	%	18.2
SSLC	F	55
	%	24.4
Less than Matriculation	F	74
	%	32.9
Others	F	0
	%	0
Illiterate	F	17
	%	7.6
Total	F	225
	%	100

The table shows the education level of the respondents in the study area: In the Mysore district, 32.9% of the respondents have less than matriculation level education, 24.4% of the respondents have completed the SSLC, 18.22% of the respondents have PUC level education.14.7%  respondents have Graduation level education, 2.2% of the respondents have Post Graduation qualification among respondents. 7.6% of the respondents are illiterate. 

Table- 4 Family Type of The Respondents

Type of family		Mysore
Joint	F	162
	%	72
Nuclear	F	63
	%	28
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table shows the family type of respondents in the study area- 72.0% have joint families and 28.0% have nuclear families in the Mysore district.

Table 5– Income-Wise Respondents in The Study Area

Gender		Mysore
Low income (Up to 2.5 Lakhs)	F	219
	%	97.3
Middle income (2.5 to 5 Lakhs)	F	5
	%	2.2
Upper middle income (5 to 12 Lakhs)	F	1
	%	0.4
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table and graph depict the income level of respondents in the study area. In Mysore, 97.3% of respondents come from the lower income bracket, 2.2% from the middle- income bracket, and 04% from the upper middle-income bracket.

Table 6– Type of land of the Respondents in The Study Area

Type of land		Mysore
Wet Land	F	122
	%	54.2
Dry Land	F	103
	%	45.8
Others	F	0
	%	0
Total	F	225
	%	100

The type of land owned by the respondents in the study area- In Mysore, 54.2% of respondents are wetlands and 45.8% have dry land. It clearly indicates that the majority of the respondents have wetlands in the study area.

Table7 - Source of Irrigation in the Study Area

Source of Irrigation
		Mysore
Bore well	F	104
	%	46.2
Canal	F	18
	%	8
Rainfed	F	103
	%	45.8
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table and graph show the source of irrigation in the study area. In Mysore, 46.2% of respondents have borewell irrigation facilities, 45.8% rely on rainfall, and 8% access irrigation via canals.

Table 8– Respondent’s Opinions About Reading  Newspaper

Reading Newspaper
		Mysore
Yes	F	138
	%	61.3
No	F	87
	%	38.7
Total	F	225
	%	100

The table displays the respondents' attitudes toward newspaper reading. Newspapers are read In the Mysore district, 61.3% of the respondents read the newspaper, and 38.7% of the respondents were not reading the newspaper.

Table 9 – Respondent’s time spent Reading the Newspaper in the study area

Time spent Reading the Newspaper
		Mysore
Up to 30 minutes	F	75
	%	33.3
30-60 minutes	F	47
	%	20.9
60-90 minutes	F	14
	%	6.2
More than 90 minutes	F	4
	%	1.8
No	F	85
	%	37.8
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table and graph present the respondents' time spent reading the newspaper in the study area. In Mysore, 37.8% of respondents were not reading the newspaper, 33.3% were reading the newspaper for up to 30 minutes, 20.9% were reading the newspaper for 30 to 60 minutes, and 6.2% were reading the newspaper for 60 to 90 minutes.

Table 10–Status of Having Television by the Respondents

Place		Mysore
Yes	F	201
	%	89.7
No	F	23
	%	10.3
Total	F	224
	%	100

The following table shows the prevalence of television ownership among respondents: In Mysuru, 89.7% of the respondents had a TV in their homes, and 10.3% of the respondents did not have a TV. It indicates that the majority of the respondents have a TV at home

Table 11- Average amount of time devoted to watching every day

Place		Mysore
Up to 30 minutes	F	32
	%	14.2
30-60 minutes	F	58
	%	25.8
60-90 minutes	F	47
	%	20.9
More than 90 minutes	F	66
	%	29.3
No	F	22
	%	9.8
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table and graph show the average amount of time devoted to watching TV by the respondents in the study area. In the Mysore district, 29.3% of the respondents spent more than 90 minutes, 20.9% of the respondents spent 60–90 minutes, and 14.2% of the respondents spent up to 30 minutes watching TV every day.

Table 12– Respondent’s Opinions About Watching Agricultural Information on TV

Place		Mysore
Yes	F	165
	%	73.3
NO	F	60
	%	26.7
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table shows respondents' opinions about watching agriculture information on television in the study area. In Mysore, 73.3% of respondents watch agriculture information on television, while 26.7% do not. The majority of respondents in the area watched agriculture information on television.

Table 13- Respondent’s Status of Owning Radio

Place		Mysore
Yes	F	43
	%	19.1
No	F	182
	%	80.9
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table and Graph show the respondents' radio ownership status-19.1% of the respondents in Mysuru have radios, compared to 80.9% of the respondents not having radios in their homes.. Due to the use of mobile phones, the use of radio is declining.

Table 14- Average Amount of Time Devoted to Watch Radio every day

Place		Mysore
Up to 30 minutes	F	15
	%	6.7
30-60 minutes	F	21
	%	9.3
60-90 minutes	F	5
	%	2.2
More than 90 minutes	F	2
	%	0.9
No	F	182
	%	80.9
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table and graph show how much time respondents in the study area spent listening to the radio:In the Mysore district, 80.9% of the respondents were not listening to the radio,6.7% of the respondents spent upto 30 minutes,9.3% of the respondents spent 30 to 60 minutes, and 2.2% of the respondents spent 60 to 90 minutes listening to the radio. 

Table 15- Respondent’sdents Opinionsn About Listening Agricultural Information on Radio

Place		Mysore
Yes	F	36
	%	16
No	F	189
	%	84
Total	F	225
	%	100

The table shows how respondents feel about listening to agricultural information on the radio. In the Mysore district, 16% of the respondents listen to agriculture information on the radio, and 84% of the respondents do not listen.

Table 16- Status of Having Mobile Phone by the Respondents

Opinion		Mysore
Yes	F	211
	%	93.8
No	F	14
	%	6.2
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table 17- Type of Phone Owned by Respondents

Type of phone		Mysore
Conventional keypad phone	F	75
	%	33.3
Smartphone	F	136
	%	60.4
No	F	14
	%	6.2
Total	F	225
	%	100

The table- 16 shows the status of having a mobile phone among the respondents in the study area. In the Mysore district, 93.8% of those polled own a mobile phone, while 6.2% do not.while the table 17 shows that 60.4% use smartphones, 33.3%use conventional keypad phone and 6.2% respondents does not use any phones.

Table- Average Amount of Time spent on Everyday

Time spent		Mysore
Up to 30 minutes	F	65
	%	28.9
30-60 minutes	F	53
	%	23.6
60-90 minutes	F	36
	%	16
More than 90 minutes	F	57
	%	25.3
No	F	14
	%	6.2
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table and graph present the average amount of time respondents spent in the study area. 28.9% of Mysore respondents spent up to 30 minutes on their phones, 23.6% spent 30-60 minutes, 16% spent 60-90 minutes, and 25.3% spent more than 90 minutes.

Table – status of having a mobile phone to get agricultural information by respondents

Place		Mysore
Yes	F	121
	%	53.8
No	F	104
	%	46.2
Total	F	225
	%	100

The table shows how many respondents in the study area have a mobile phone to access agricultural information. In  Mysore district, 53.8% of respondents used their mobile phones to get agricultural information, while 46.2% does not use their phones to get agricultural information.

Table – Respondent’s Awareness level of Kisan call centre/SMS portal

		Mysore
Yes	F	89
	%	39.6
No	F	136
	%	60.4
Total	F	225
	%	100

Table and graph present the respondents' awareness level of the Kisan Call Center in the study area. 39.6% of the Mysore respondents knew about the Kisan call center, and 60.4% of the respondents were not aware.

		Mysore
Yes	F	31
	%	13.8
No	F	194

Table and graph show the current level of respondent awareness of the Raitamitra portal.. In the Mysore district, 13.8% of the respondents knew about the Raitamitra portal, and 86.2% of the respondents did not know about the Farmers Portal.

Table – Respondent’s Awareness of the online Market in the Study Area

		Mysore
Yes	F	52
	%	23.1
No	F	173
	%	76.9
Total	F	225
	%	100

The table shows the respondents' level of knowledge about the online market in the study area. 23.1% of the respondents knew about the online market, and 76.9% of the respondents did not know about the online market in Mysore.

Table- respondent’s awareness level of agriculture farmers Apps

Place		Mysore
Yes	F	103
	%	45.8
No	F	122
	%	54.2
Total	F	225
	%	100
	%	86.2
Total	F	225
	%	100

Regarding the level of awareness of agriculture farmers' applications in the study area, 45.8% of respondents were unaware of the agriculture farmer applications, while 54.2% were aware of the applications.

Table -respondent’s opinions about reasons for not adopting the ICT in agriculture

Reasons		Mysore
Lack of ICT skills and inability to use	F	4
	%	1.8
Lack of awareness	F	7
	%	3.1
Too hard to use	F	3
	%	1.3
Lack of ICT infrastructure Non- Availability of ICT	F	0
tools	%
		0
Not Interest	F	198
	%	88
Time Limitation	F	7
	%	3.1
Lack of Training	F	2
	%	0.9
Lack of network connectivity	F	0
	%	0
No	F	4
	%	1.8
Total	F	225
	%	100

The table depicts the reasons for not adopting the ICT in agriculture. In the Mysore district, 88.0% of respondents were uninterested in using ICT in agriculture, 3.1% were uninterested due to time constraints, and 3.1% were uninterested due to a lack of awareness. A total of 54.9% of the respondents were not interested in adopting ICT in agriculture, 22.7% were not aware of the ICT, 11.6% were not adopting the ICT in agriculture, and 4.4% were facing a lack of ICT skills and an inability to use the ICT.

Chi square results for association between gender and ICT use for agriculture

H₀= there is no impact of gender on use of ICT for agriculture

H₁= there is an impact of gender on use of ICT for agriculture

Gender

Name of the variable	Chi square vale	P value
Use of TV	1.599	0.206
Use of Radio	1.296	0.255
Use of mobile phone	0.150	0.699

The table shows the Chi-square results for the study area's association between gender and ICT use in agriculture. The chi square values for use of TV, radio, and mobile phone are statistically insignificant, which implies that there is no association between gender and use of ICT in agriculture. The null hypothesis that there is no effect of gender on the use of ICT for agriculture has been accepted based on chi-square results. It indicates that there is no association between gender and the use of ICT in agriculture.

Chi square results for association between age and ICT use

H₀= there is no impact of age of the respondents on use of ICT.

H₁= there is an impact of age of the respondents on use of ICT.

Name of the variable	Chi square vale	P value
Use of TV	37.607	0.000
Use of Radio	4.491	0.344
Use of mobile phone	18.219	0.001

The table shows the Chi-square results for the study area's association between age and ICT use in agriculture. The chi square values for TV use are 37.607, with a p value of 0.000. The chi square value for the association between age and use of mobile phones is 18.219, and the p value is 0.00. Both are statistically significant at the 1% level. It implies that there is an association between the use of a TV and a mobile phone. The chi square value for use of radio is statistically insignificant; it implies that there is no association between age and use of ICT in agriculture. Based on chi-square results, the null hypothesis that there is no impact of age on use of ICT for agriculture has been rejected in the case of TV and mobile phones. It demonstrates that there is a relationship between respondent age and use of TV and mobile phones for agriculture, but the null hypothesis is not rejected in the use of radio. It indicates that there is no association between the age and use of radio in agriculture.

Chi square results for association between education and ICT use

H₀= education level of the respondents does not impact on the use of ICT for agriculture.

H₁= education level of the respondent’s impact on the use of ICT for agriculture.

Education

Name of the variable	Chi square vale	P value
Use of TV	29.669	0.000
Use of Radio	14.044	0.029
Use of mobile phone	23.337	0.001

The table shows the chi-square results for respondents' use of ICT and education level in the study area. The chi square value for use of TV is 29.669, and the p value is 0.000; the chi square value for use of a mobile phone is 23.337, and the p value is 0.001; both are statistically significant at the 1 percent level. The chi square value for use of radio is 14.044 and the p value is 0.029; it is statistically significant at the 5% level. Based on the chi-square results, the null hypothesis that the education level of the respondents does not impact the use of ICT for agriculture has been rejected, which implies that there is an association between education and the use of ICT for agriculture.

Chi square Chi square results for association betweenIncome  and ICT use

H₀= Income of the respondents does not impact on the use of ICT for agriculture

H₁= Income of the respondent’spositive impact on the use of ICT for agriculture

Annual household income from all sources

Name of the variable	Chi square vale	P value
Use of TV	4.794	0.091
Use of Radio	14.044	0.001
Use of mobile phone	1.034	0.596

Table depicts the chi square results for use of ICT and income level of the respondents in the study area. The chi square value for use of TV is 4.794, and the p value is 0.091, making it statistically significant at the 10% level. The chi square value for use of radio is 14.044, and the p value is 0.001, making it statistically significant at the 1% level. It implies that there is an association between the income level of the respondents and the use of ICT for agriculture. The chi square value for use of a mobile phone is 1.034 and the p value is 0.596, which is statistically insignificant. The null hypothesis that respondents' income has no effect on their use of ICT for agriculture has been rejected based on the chi-square results, implying that there is an association between education and the use of TV and radio for agriculture. But the null hypothesis has not been rejected for income level and mobile phone use in agriculture.

1. World Bank’s (2012), e-sourcebook ICT in agriculture- connecting smallholder farmers to knowledge, networks and institutions. (online) available at https://web.archive.org/web/20160405001539/http://ictinagriculture.org/node/105(Accessed on -November 9, 2019) 2. Ministry of Agriculture and farmer’s welfare, Government of India (2018) - Annual Report. 3. Mittal. S 2012, Modern ICT for Agricultural Development and Risk Management in Smallholder Agriculture in India. Socioeconomics working paper 3. Mexico, D.F: CIMMYT. 4. V C Patil, Ehu Gelb, AjitMaru, N.T.Yadaraju, M. Moni and Harekrishna (2008), Adoption of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) forAgriculture: An Indian case study. IAALD (AFITA) WCCA, World Conference on Agricultural Information and IT, Tokyo, Japan. 5. RebekkaSyiem, Saravanan Raj (2015), Hungarian Association of Agricultural Informatics, European Federation for Information Technology in Agriculture, Food Environment- Access and usage of ICTs for Agriculture and Rural Development by the tribal farmers in Meghalaya State of North-East India. Journal of Agricultural, Volume 6, No.3 6. K P Raghuprasad, S C Devaraja and Y M Gopala, (2012), Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences – Attitude of farmers towards utilization of information Communication Technology (ICT) Tools in Farm Communication, ISSN: 0976-1675. 7. Anwesha Banerjee, (2011), - The ICT in Agriculture: Bridging Bharat with India, Global Media Journal- Indian Edition/ISSN 2249-5835, Volume 2/No.2. 8. Monika Jaiswal, Ajeet Singh, Kartikey Singh, Mohd.Mustafa and Bhupendra Singh, (2018), International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences- A Comparative study on Impact of ICT (KMAS) and Social Media (Whats App) on Transfer of Agricultural Technologies for Development of Farming Community, ISSN:2319-7692, Special Issue-7. 9. Shaik N Meera, Anita Jhamtani and D V M Rao (2004),- Information and communication technology in Agricultural Development: A comparative Analysis of three projects from India- Agricultural Research and Extension Network- Network Paper No. 135. 10. Dr.Nandeesha H K, 2016, Impact of Information and Communication Technology on Agricultural Sector in Karnataka: A case Study of Hassan District, University Of Mysore thesis, Mysore. 11. K. Lokeswari (2016), International Journal of Communication Research – A Study of the use of ICT among Rural Farmers. Volume 6, Issue 3. 12. Bowonder, B., Gupta, V., & Singh, A. (2003). Developing a rural market e-hub: The case study of e-Choupal experience of ITC. Planning Commission of India. 13. Chukwunonso, F., Mohammed, A., &Obidi, N. (2012). The Adoption of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in Agriculture in Adamawa State, Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research and Development, on, 5(3), 79–86. 14. Kakade, (2013). Credibility of Radio Programmes in the Dissemination of Agricultural Information: A Case Study of Air Dharwad, Karnataka. Journalof Humanities and Social Science, 12(3), 18–22. 15. Adama, Oluwadamilola&Kemi (2016), -The role of Information Technology on Agricultural Production in Nigeria: International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET), Volume 4 Issue VIII, ISSN: 2321-9653. 15. Ethiopia, U. (2012). Promoting ICT based agricultural knowledge management to increase production and productivity of smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. Development Brief, 3, 2013. 16. Dr.Suresha Kumara (2011), Kannada Dina PathrikegalalliKrushiSuddi, Sri Rajendra Publishers, Mysore. 17. Joyous S Tata and Paul E McNamara (2016), Social factors that influence use of ICT in Agricultural Extension in Southern Africa, MDPI. 18. M V Sajeev and P L Saroj (2014), Technology utilization and its Socio-Economic Determinants among Cashew Farmers of Karnataka, Indian Res. J. Ext. Edu. 14 (3). 19. Onkar Gouda Kakade and TahmeenaNigar Sultana Kolar (2014), Usage of Mobile Communication for Sustainable Agricultural Development in Karnataka. Journal of Media and Social Development, Volume2, Issue 3, ISSN 2320-8244. 20. Dr.OnkarGoudaKakade and NamrataRaut (2016), LangLitLatur (MS) India, ISSN 2349-5189, Volume 3, Issue 1. – The role of Kannada Newspapers in creating awareness about climate change- 21. BiswajitLahiri, Swapnali Borah, Natasha R Marak and T S Anurag (2017), Indian Research Jorunal of Extension Education- Development of mobile phone based agro-advisory system through ICT mediated extension approach in North-eastern Himalayan region of India. 22. R Saravanan (2010) ICTs for agricultural extension in India: Policy implications for developing countries 23. Manjuprakash, H Philip and N Sriram (2017), Journal of Extension Education, Farmers awareness level about ICT tools and services in Karnataka, Volume 29, NO-2. 24. VishwatejRudroju and Dr. J G Angadi (2013), Awareness, Accessibility and Utilisation pattern of ICT projects by farmers of Belgaum District, PhD thesis, UAS, Dharwad 25. Ishwar S Parmar, PeeyushSoni, John K M Kuwornu and Krishna R Salin (2019), Evaluating farmer’s access to agricultural information: Evidence from semi-arid region of Rajasthan State- Article, MDPI. 26. SushanChowhan and Shapla Rani Ghosh (June, 2020) Role of ICT on Agriculture and its future scope in Bangladesh-(Journal of Scientific Research and Reports – Article no- JSRR.57526, ISSN: 2320-0227. Reports 27. Indian Council of Food and Agriculture, National Round Table Conference- New Delhi, 4th July 2017. Internet Sources 28. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Usage-of-ICTs-for-Agriculture-and-Rural-Development-Syiem Raj/3553f0306a9e55bb96e40211c54cae3e5cc44d82 29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317285902 30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283007757_ICT_in_agriculture 31. https://doi.org/10.26725/JEE.2017.2.29.5870-5874