Which one of the following best describes the main objective of 'Seed Village Concept'?

Describes central/state missions aimed at ensuring availability of high-quality certified seeds to farmers, implying policy focus can be on distributing certified seed rather than promoting exclusively on-farm seed use.

A student could contrast this policy goal (make certified seeds available) with the claim about encouraging farm-saved seed to see if 'Seed Village' aligns more with distribution or self-reliance.

Notes that organic/natural farming encourages use of local/native seed varieties, providing a precedent where policy or practice promotes farm/local seed use.

One could extend this by checking whether 'Seed Village' is grouped with organic/local seed promotion programs or with national certified-seed programs.

Explains historical use of traditional (farm-saved) seeds which were readily available to farmers, giving context that farm-saved seeds have been a common objective in some agricultural practices.

Use this historical pattern plus a map/local surveys to judge whether 'Seed Village' revives traditional seed use or instead pushes modern HYV/certified seeds.

Points out that new high-yielding seeds need costly inputs and careful management, which can make farmers prefer resilient local/farm-saved seeds to avoid input costs.

A student could infer that a 'Seed Village' aimed at reducing input dependency might promote farm-saved/local seeds and then look for program texts to confirm.

Mentions problems where sponsors delay providing inputs or supply low-quality seeds, suggesting a rationale for programs that encourage farmer-controlled seed sources to reduce dependency on external suppliers.

Combine this pattern with local reports or program objectives to test whether 'Seed Village' was designed to mitigate such supplier risks by promoting on-farm seed production.

States a national mission objective to ensure availability of high-quality certified seeds at reasonable price and a scheme to produce/multiply quality seeds so they reach remote areas.

A student could infer that programmes aiming to increase local seed production (like 'seed villages') would align with this objective and check whether local farmer involvement/training is a common mechanism to achieve timely, affordable supply.

Describes the Sub-Mission covering the entire seed chain and emphasises adoption of quality seeds plus use of extension services (agri clinics, info centres) for dissemination.

One could extend this to expect that schemes promoting on‑farm seed production would include farmer training/extension to strengthen the seed chain and availability.

Lists key problems in the seed sector: lack of awareness about seed quality, inappropriate quality, untimely supply and monopolies driving high prices.

A student might reason that a concept aiming to fix these problems would plausibly train farmers in quality seed production and local distribution to improve timing and affordability.

Mentions capacity building, information dissemination and promoting availability of quality seeds as part of strategies to improve agricultural services.

This supports the idea that involving and training farmers (capacity building) is a recognized method to improve local availability of quality seeds.

Explains that new/high-yielding seeds are delicate and require careful management and inputs, implying a need for farmer skill/knowledge.

Combining this with seed‑availability goals suggests training farmers in seed production/management would be necessary for quality seed supply to others.

Central schemes (National Mission for Seeds and earlier 2005–06 scheme) explicitly aim at production and multiplication of high‑yielding certified/quality seeds and making them available even in remote areas.

A student could infer that to make certified seed available locally, policymakers might designate specific local production units (e.g., villages) and then check external sources for the explicit 'Seed Village' design and objectives.

The Sub‑Mission on Seed and Planting Material (SMSP) covers the entire seed chain from nucleus seed to supply to farmers, indicating policy focus on organized, end‑to‑end seed production and distribution.

One could reason that organizing the seed chain may involve geographic clustering (villages) for multiplication and then look up whether 'Seed Village' is a named instrument for that.

Documented problems include untimely and inadequate supply of seeds to farmers and lack of awareness about seed quality, suggesting a need for localised, reliable seed production/distribution solutions.

A student could link the supply/awareness problems to a policy of localising certified seed production (e.g., in selected villages) and then verify whether the Seed Village Concept is explicitly such a localisation measure.

Discussion of Seed Replacement Rates and constraints (including absence of coherent policy/participation issues) highlights that increasing certified seed availability often requires institutional arrangements and targeted interventions.

From this, one might posit that targeted interventions could include designating villages for seed production and then check curricular or policy texts to confirm the Seed Village Concept's stated objective.

The Draft Seeds Bill proposes regulation of seed quality, registration and standards—showing central intent to control and assure seed quality which could motivate designated production zones to ensure certified seed supply.

A student can combine the bill's regulatory push with the logistical aim of schemes to hypothesize that 'Seed Villages' may be used to operationalise certified seed production, and then seek a direct source naming that operational link.

Describes central schemes (National Mission for Seeds; Development and Strengthening of Infrastructure for Production and Distribution of Quality Seeds) whose objectives include production/multiplication and making quality seeds available even in remotest parts.

A student could infer that programmes aiming to decentralise seed production may involve local producers/entrepreneurs and then check whether Seed Village specifically targets entrepreneur identification and support.

ASPIRE is a government scheme explicitly aimed at promoting innovation and rural entrepreneurs by setting up technology and incubation centres.

Combine this pattern (govt sets up tech/incubation support for rural entrepreneurs) with knowledge of seed-sector programmes to evaluate if Seed Village likewise provides tech and incubation to seed entrepreneurs.

KVIC functions include providing training, supplying raw materials/implements, promoting research/technology and providing financial assistance to persons engaged in village industries.

Use this as an example of institutional support models for village-level enterprises and ask whether Seed Village follows a similar model (training, tech, finance) for seed production units.

States the general rule that infusion of appropriate technology, skills and easier access to credit fosters rural entrepreneurship and employment.

Apply this general principle to seeds: if a Seed Village scheme aims to boost local seed supply, one would expect components for technology transfer and credit to local entrepreneurs—this guides targeted verification.

Mentions a government challenge programme that aims to identify startups and provide seed funding, illustrating a pattern of government identifying entrepreneurs and offering seed finance.

By analogy, a student could consider whether Seed Village similarly involves identification plus seed finance for village-level seed companies and then seek direct sources about the Seed Village scheme.