a study of farmers perception on use of pesticides …...dealers are the major player in case of...

A STUDY OF FARMERS PERCEPTION ON USE OF

PESTICIDES IN MAJOR CEREALS IN RAIPUR DISTRICT OF

CHHATTISGARH

M.B.A (ABM) Project Report

by

Laxmi verma

DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-BUSINESS & RURAL MANAGEMENT

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE

INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh)

2016

A STUDY OF FARMERS PERCEPTION ON USE OF

PESTICIDES IN MAJOR CEREALS IN RAIPUR DISTRICT OF

CHHATTISGARH

Project Report

Submitted to the

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur

by

Laxmi verma

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF

Master of Business Administration

in

Agri-Business Management

V.V.ID.NO. 20141520409 ID. NO. 120114190

August, 2016

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

“Jai Budha Dev, I start in the name of God-who has bestowed upon me all the physical and

mental attributes that I possess and skills to cut through and heal a fellow human. “Education plays of

fundamental role in personal and social development and teacher plays a fundamental role in imparting

education. Teachers have crucial role in preparing young people not only to face the further with

confidence but also to build up it with purpose and responsibility. There is no substitute for teacher

pupil relationship”.

With great reverence I express my warmest feelings with deep sense of gratitude to my

advisor and chairman of my Advisory committee Dr. V.K.Choudhary Professor, Department of

Agriculture Economics, IGKV, Raipur. I have no words to express my heartfelt thanks to him for his

illuminating guidance, unfailing encouragement, scholarly suggestions, unique supervision, construction

criticism, sympathetic attitude and keep interest during the course of my research and preparation of

this manuscript. He is really worthy of reverence for his blessings, stead inspiration, expert guidance.

I have deep regards for members of my advisory committee Dr. A.K.Koshta Professor,

Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture Raipur for his kind supervision,

motivation and support by which I was pushed towards hard working and punctuality. I extend my

heartiest thanks to members of my advisory committee, Dr. Navneet Rana, Professor, Department of

Agricultural Entomology, Dr. M.L. Lakhera Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural

Statistics, Mathematics and Computer Science,

I am expressing my sincere thanks to Dr. K. N. S. Banafar, Professor and Head of

department Agricultural Economics, Dr. S.P. Gupta, principle scientist, Dr. Hulas Pathak, Assistant

Professor,Dr. B.C. Jain, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, IGKV, Raipur for their

unforgettable support and kind help during the course of the study.

I am highly thankful to Dr. S.K. Patil hon’ble Vice-chancellor, IGKV, Shri. K. C. Paikra,

Registrar, IGKV, Dr. J. S. Urkurkar, Director research services, IGKV, Dr. M. P. Thakur director

extension services, IGKV, Dr. S. S. Rao, dean, College of Agriculture, Raipur and Dr. S. S. Shaw,

director of instructions, IGKV, Raipur for providing necessary facilities to conduct this research work.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Capter Title Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES iv

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii

ABSTRACT Viii

ABSTRACT (HINDI) xi

I INTRODUCTION 1-4

1.1 Introduction 1

1.2 Objectives 3

1.3 Limitation of the study 3

1.4 Set up 4

II REVIEW OF LITRATURE 1-18

2.1 Economic of crop production 7

2.2 Consumption pattern of pesticide 12

2.3 Major Constraints in Paddy production 15

III MATERIAL AND METHODS 19-28

3.1 General profile of the study area 19

3.2. Brief profile of the stduy area 19

3.3. Description of Raipur district 21

3.4 Demographic features of raipur district 22

3.5 Distribution of land holding 23

3.6 Land use pattern 24

3.7 Cropping pattern of the study area 25

3.8 Irrigation 27

3.9 Administrative units 27

iv

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 29-55

4.1 Profile Characteristics of the Sample Households 29

4.2 Cropping pattern: 30

4.4 Consumption pattern of Agrochemicals 34

4.4.1 Use of Insecticide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha) 34

4.4.2 Use of Herbicide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha) 34

4.4.3 Use of Fungicide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha) 34

4.5 Economics of kharif paddy 44

4.5.1 Input wise Cost of cultivation of Kharif paddy 44

4.5.2 Operation wise cost of cultivation of Kharif paddy 46

4.5.3 Yield Value of Output and Cost of Production of Kharif

paddy 48

4.5.4 Measures of farm profit of Kharif paddy 50

4.5.5 Cost and Returns on the Basis of Cost Concept of

Kharif paddy 54

V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 56-59

5.1 Summary 56

5.2 Conclusions 57

REFERENCES 60-63

APPENDICES 64-74

Appendix- I 64

Appendix- II 73

VITA 75

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

3.2 Demographic features of RaipurDistrict. 22

3.3

Village wise number of respondents and their farm size in selected

villages ofRaipur District. 23

3.4 Land use pattern of Raipur District 24

3.5 Area, production and productivity of different crops in Raipur

District 25

3.6 Irrigation sources of Raipur District 26

4.1 General characteristics of sample household 30

4.2 Cropping pattern of sample household 31

4.3 Herbicide quantity used in different varieties during kharif season

(a.i. per ha) 35

4.4 Fungicide quantity used in different varieties during kharif season

(a.i.per/ha) 36

4.5 Effectiveness of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides in kharif

rice in percentages 38

4.6

Economics of kharif paddy on different size groups of farms

(Variety- Mahamaya) 45

4.7

Economics of kharif paddy on different size groups of farms

(Variety- Swarna) 46

4.8 Cost of cultivation of Kharif Paddy (Variety-Mahamaya) 47

4.9 Cost of cultivation of Kharif Paddy (Variety- Swarna) 48

4.10

Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per quintal

of Kharif paddy (Variety –Mahamaya) 49

4.11 Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per quintal

of Kharif paddy (Variety – Swarna) 50

4.12

Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different

group of farms (Variety- Mahamaya) 51

4.13

Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different group

of farms (Variety- Swarna) 51

4.14

Break-up of total cost, cost concept wise income over different cost in

kharif paddy (Variety-Mahamaya) 54

4.15

Break-up of total cost, cost concept wise income over different cost in

kharif paddy (Variety-Swarna) 55

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

3.1 Map of Chhattisgarh and Study area. 20-21

4.1 Caste wise no. of household 32

4.2 Average of family members 32

4.3 Average size of holding 33

4.4 Literacy per cent of sample household 33

4.5

Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for

different groups of farms (Variety- Mahamaya) 52

4.6

Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for

different groups of farms (Variety- Swarna) 53

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

qtl. Quintal

qt. Quantity

ha Hectare

% per cent

fig. figure

N Nitrogen

P Phosphorus

K Potash

a.i. active ingradient

ml milli litter

WP Weteble Powder

Kg. Kilo gramm

Fill Field input level

Rill Recommended input level

ix

size was 4.27 and literacy rate in the selected households was 85.83 per cent. The

sample households comprised pre-dominantly of Other backward cast (94.00 per cent)

followed by other General (5.00 per cent) and scheduled caste (1.00) per cent. Paddy

covered highest cropped area 64.77s per cent in kharif season. The use of insecticide

in kharif paddy was higher in case of Imidacloprid 17.8% SL (+40.70 per cent)

followed by Aciphate (+23.22) and lowest in Chloropyariphos50%+ Cypermethrin

(+6.6 per cent). The above insecticide was used for controlling of Stem borer,

Cutworm, Plant hopper and Leaf folder. The use of herbicide in kharif paddy gap was

higher in case of Chlorymuron10%+Metasulfuran (+125 per cent) followed by

Pyrozosulphuran (+77) and lowest in Butachlor (+1.62 per cent). The above herbicide

was used for controlling of Buti, Bhengra, Motha, Jalkumbhi, Narjava, Aaluban,

Sanva, Loung ghass, Chunchuniya, Jalkumbhi, Tinpatiya and Broad leaf weeds.The

use of fungicide in kharif paddy was higher in case of Tricyclazole (+41.67 per cent)

followed by Hexaconazile (+31.67 Tricyclazole) and lowest in Propiconazole 25% EC

(21.90 per cent).The above fungicide was used for controlling of Blast, Sheath blight,

Brown spot and BLB. The average yield of kharif paddy was 54.07 quintals. The per

hectare gross income of kharif paddy was Rs. 95898. The average cost of production

per quintal of kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 931.85.The average yield of kharif

paddy was 52.41 quintals. The per hectare gross income of kharif paddy was

Rs.193551.5. The average cost of production per quintal of kharif paddy was worked

out to Rs. 814.26.On an average the value of net income, family labour income and

farm business income are to Rs. 145405.26, Rs. 51986.96 and Rs. 62380.14 per

hectare from kharif paddy. The input-output ratio of kharif paddy was worked out to

.On an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm business

income are to Rs. 51288.68, Rs. 56999.76 and Rs. 118912.51 per hectare from paddy.

The input-output ratio of paddy was worked out to .The per hectare break-up of cost

of kharif paddy variety (Mahamaya) on an average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2,

Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were worked to Rs. 33517.86, Rs. 33517.86, Rs.

33911.02, Rs. 43911.02, Rs. 39507.26, Rs.49507.26 and 42454.74 per hectare. The

average kharif paddy of income per hectare over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2,

x

Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were calculated to Rs. 62380.14, Rs. 62380.14, Rs.

61986.98, Rs. 51986.98, Rs. 56393.74, Rs. 46393.74 and Rs. 53443.26s. 36%

respondents thought that, there is lack of know- how about the application of

pesticides.78% respondents thought that, there is lack of recommended package of

practices for pesticides application in the region.85% respondents having lack of

resources application.90% respondents thought that they getting labour problem for

pesticide application.95% farmers know the recommended level of pesticide use in

cereal production. Majority of the farmers were participated in extension programme.

Dealers are the major player in case of purchase and use of pesticides in the study

area. Farmers are aware about the harmful effect of insecticides on soil, water and

human health. Farmers are using pesticides in cerals crops to reduce the losses due to

insect- pest. More awareness programme is needed for IPM practices.

xii

x;kA] [kjhQ /kkU; esa dhV uk”kdks esa lokZf/kd] mi;ksx ,ehMkDyksjihM+ 17-8% SL ¼$

40-70 izfr”kr½ dk ik;k x;k] tcfd U;wure mi;ksx DyksjksikbZjhQkl 50% $

lkbZijehfFku ¼$6-6 izfr”kr½ dk ik;k x;kA [kjhc /kkU; esa QQwanuk”kdksa esa lokZf/kd

mi;ksx VªkbZlkbZDyktksbZ- ¼$41-67 izfr”kr½ dk tcfd U;wure esa izksihdksuktksy 25%

EC ¼$ 21-90 izfr”kr½ dk ik;k x;kA [kjhQ /kkU; esa r`.kuk”kdksa esa mi;ksx

Dyksjksik;jhQkl 25% + esVklsY¶;wjksu ¼$ 12-05 izfr”kr½ tcfd U;wure izHkko”khyrk

Js.kh C;wVkDyksj 0&25 izfr”kr ¼$1-62 izfr”kr½ fdlkuksa }kjk /kkU; ds mRiknu es a eq[;

vojks/k Jfedksa dh deh] eagxh Jfed ykxr] eagxs vknku] dhV vkSj jksaxksa dk izdksi

crk;sa x;saA vknku vkSj ewY; lao/kZu ls v/;;u {ks= esa tSfod [ksrh dks c<+kok fn;k

tkuk pkfg;sA

1

CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

In modern agriculture plant protection plays a vital role. Fertilizers, plant

protection measures, irrigation and improved seeds are the key elements of new

agriculture of technology. The new technology is unfortunately associated with the

high pests and disease incidences. In the absence of adequate plant protection

measures, the positive contribution of improved seeds, fertilizers and irrigation to

output could be completely nullified and farmers may incur heavy losses. An Agro-

chemical includes such chemicals as insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and

fertilizer, which are used on plants, soil and water to control pest and diseases. The

use of pesticides to prevent pre-harvest and post-harvest losses has assumed a great

significance during the last two decades, in an attempt to provide sufficient nutritive

food for the ever growing world population. Unless production inputs are matched

with protection measures, yield increases are not possible. Slightly more than 50 per

cent of all yield increases in agriculturally advanced countries of the world today are

the result of agro-chemicals. India ranks 10th in the world in pesticides consumption

as its total consumption amounts to about 500 million tonnes. India is presently the

largest manufacturer of basic pesticides among the South Asian and African

countries, with an exception of Japan. The Indian pesticides market is the 12th

largest in the world (Anonymous, 2012).

Agriculture is the pillar of the Indian economy and contributes 18 per cent to

the GDP. Ensuring food security for more than 1.27 billion Indian populations with

diminishing cultivable land resource is a herculean task. In the process of achieving

the target pesticides play an important role in Indian agriculture. Pesticides, the

agrochemicals, are one of the invaluable inputs in sustaining the agricultural

production as substantial food production is lost due to insect pests, plant pathogens,

weeds etc. However since the green revolution (1966) has been started in India, the

application of these chemicals increased more than hundred times and causing

14

14

tremendous loss to environment and human health. Indiscriminate and excessive use

of toxic synthetic pesticides damaged not only environment and agriculture but has

also entered into the food chain thereby affecting all living beings. The recent

research findings on the presence of pesticide particles in the packaged water are

classic cases pointing out the nature and magnitude of the problem.(Bhardwaj et al.,)

Pesticides have substantially contributed for controlling of pests and

increasing crop yields.But over the years there is growing concern about

indiscriminate use of pesticides in agriculture. The consumption of chemical

pesticides in agriculture went up from 2,350 metric tones (technical grade) in 1950-

51 to 75,033 metric tones (MT) in 1990-91, and subsequently declined to 39,773.78

metric tones in 2005-06. The recent statistics on consumption of pesticides

(technical In India together they account for around 57% of the total pesticide

consumption. While the wheat and pulses contribute of about 4 %, vegetable 9 %

and the other plantation crops 7 % (Ministry of Agriculture, 2009). State wise

Andhra Pradesh is the highest pesticides consuming state (23%) followed by Punjab

& Maharashtra.grade) for the year 2005-06 shows that Uttar Pradesh is the leading

consumer of pesticides (6672 MT) followed by Punjab (5610 MT), Haryana (4560

MT), West Bengal (4250 MT) and Maharashtra (3198 MT).

The intensive cultivation of high yielding varieties, monoculture of

commercially important crops, overlapping of cropping seasons and excessive

application of agro-chemicals have further aggravated the incidence of pests and

diseases.

A Study on the perceptions of pesticide use, especially pesticide risks to

human health, is very important and necessary because it provides information on

the effects of farmers‘ decisions on the amount and methods of pesticide usage, and

the health problems that farmers might deal with if their pesticide use and crop

protection are inappropriate and irrelevant (Ntow et al., 2006).Beside the limited

information about farmer perceptions and pesticide use practices provided by

previous studies, the aim of this study is to provide more pictures of farmers‘

awareness of beneficial and harmful effects of pesticides, and to analyze the demand

15

15

of pesticides and identify factors affecting pesticide use agein the Mekong Delta,

Vietnam. The study provides policy makers and concerned people more useful

information about farmers‘ attitudes toward pesticide usage and hazards to issue and

implicate appreciate pesticide policies and issues. The paper is structured as follows.

The next section describes the way to collect and analyze the pesticide data. The

following section reports the results and some important discussions about farmers‘

perceptions and demand of pesticide use. The final section presents the conclusions

and proposes some useful recommendations.

The pattern and frequency of insecticide use by farmers could play a role in

the development of resistance in insect pest and also affect the health of humans and

the environment. Pesticides contamination has been detected in water, sediment,

crops and human fluids in areas of highly intensive crop production . Due to the

critical role of insecticides in crop production, there is the need to promote

appropriate insecticides use, storage and disposal practices by first understanding

current practices of farmers. This study assesses farmers‘ perception and practices of

pests management and insecticide usage pattern, storage and disposal methods.

1.2 Objective :

1. To work out the cost and return of major cereals in the study area.

2. To examine the consumption pattern of pesticide in major cereals.

3. To analyze the farmer perception on effectiveness of various pesticides used in

major cereals.

4. To find out the constraints in use of pesticide in major cereals and suggest

suitable measures to overcome them.

1.3 Limitations of the study

During the course of investigation several difficulties were faced in the

collection of data from cultivators. The cultivators generally did not maintain any

farm record and supply data on the basis of their memory, which may not be very

16

16

correct. The illiteracy of the farmers also added in this problem. Some of the farmers

did not co-operate in giving data because of some misunderstanding regarding

agricultural taxes, ceiling etc. they were biased in giving data giving towards higher

side of the investment and lower side towards productivity. However, sufficient care

was taken to collect the data by cross checking with the educated neighboring

farmers and other village leaders, Gram Panchayat Sarpanch etc.

1.4 Set-up

This thesis is divided into five chapters including the present chapter which

consists the introduction and objectives of the study. A review of literature of work

done in the past is given in chapter-II, chapter-III deals with materials and methods.

The result and discussion are presented in chapter-IV while the chapter-V includes

summary, conclusion and suggestion for future research work.

1

CHAPTER- II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Brief review of research work is presented in this chapter. The chapter is

divided into the chapters, first section covers consumption pattern of Pesticides,

second section deals with Compound Growth Rate and third section deals with

economics of crop production and fourth section deals with major constrain in

cereals production and consumption pattern of Agrochemical. The review provides

the basic background for formulation of the objectives and selection of appropriate

analytical tools for achievement of the same.

Yang et al (2005), reported that, farmers in Northern China were

interviewed during the 2002 season concerning their knowledge, perceptions and

practices on Btcotton. Farmers have some awareness of insect pests in Bt cotton,

especially on the resurgence of sucking pests such as red spider mites and aphids,

but 60% of farmers overestimated damage by Helicoverpa armigera, the cotton

bollworm in Bt cotton. Farmers‘ knowledge was very poor on the identification of

diseases and natural enemies of pests in cotton. Farmers‘ knowledge and perceptions

of Bt cotton were not significantly associated with their gender or formal education.

The results indicate that farmers were still over-utilizing pesticides in the control of

pests in Bt cotton. Farmers in small producer cotton systems need further training in

the identification of pests, natural enemies, basic ecology and integrated pest

management strategies to ensure sustainable production of Bt cotton.

Mahantesh and Singh (2009), reported that, this paper attempts to

understand the farmers‘ knowledge and perceptions of pests and pesticide use in

vegetable cultivation and analyzes the pesticide use practices and the intensity of

pesticide use in vegetable cultivation. The result shows that on an average 41 per

cent of the farmers were aware about pesticide hazards in vegetable cultivation.

Most of the farmers (88 per cent) perceived that frequency of insects and disease

infestation has increased over the past 10 years. It was also observed that farmers

have not followed adequate safety measures regarding pesticide application. The

high pesticide use cost was observed in vegetables especially in tomato and brinjal

18

18

and most of the pesticides belonged to high and moderate risk chemicals. Increasing

farmers‘ awareness of pesticide hazards to the environment and promotion of

alternative pest management strategies such as use of bio-pesticides and IPM is

essential for reducing adverse effect on environment.

Mojo et al (2010), reported that, perceptions of actors on changes in crop

productivity, quantity and quality of water, and determinants of their perception are

analyzed using descriptive statistics and ordered logit model. Data collected from

297 Ethiopian farmers and 103 agricultural professionals from December 2009 to

January 2010 are employed. Results show that the majority of the farmers and

professionals recognized decline in water resources, reasoning climate changes and

soil erosion as some of the causes. However, there is a variation in views on changes

in productivity. The household asset, education level, age and geographical positions

are found to affect farmers‘ perception on changes in crop productivity. more focus

shall be given on providing them different coping mechanisms and alternative

resource conserving technologies than educating about the problems.

Kazmi (2012), reported that, the project ―consumer perception and buying

behavior (the pasta study‖) is basically measures the development of perception

through different variables and identify those factors which stimulate buying

decision of consumer. Among various variables which effect consumer buying

pattern I choose AWARENESS and AVAILABILITY of the product as two main

variables which have strong effect on popularity and sale of pasta product. As my

research is totally based on qualitative method that‘s why I choose quota sampling

technique and collect data by interviewing house wives resides in different areas of

Karachi.The topic of my research project is ―consumer perception and buying

decisions -The Pasta study‖ without any promotional strategy any product cannot

run profitably in a market .Product awareness is the factor which impact the

popularity and usage rate of any product specially the food item.

Kabir and Rainis (2012), reported that nowadays, beside burgeoning

industrialization, modern agriculture is also polluting environment through using

assorted agro-chemicals especially pesticides. the present study is conducted to

19

19

determine the level of farmers‘ perception about harmful effects of pesticides on

environment. Attempt has also taken to analyze some socio-economic characteristics

that influence farmers‘ perception. Results showed that an overwhelming majority

(86.1 %) of the farmers had low to medium level of perception; while only 13.9%

farmers had high perception regarding adverse effects of pesticides on environment.

It is concluded that if policy makers and extension organizations concentrate on

these factors, then farmers‘ will be more aware about the adverse effects of

pesticides which is affirmative for sustainable environment as well as sustainable

agricultural production.

Khai (2014), reported that, rice farmers‘ perceptions and demand for

pesticide use were analyzed using survey data in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. The

study showed although the majority of farmers could recognize the harmful effects

of pesticides, they did not wear protective clothing suggested by WHO for pesticide

safety use because they did not feel comfortable to use under local climatic

conditions. Most of farmers declared that they asked for information or instructions

related to pesticide use and pest prevention from retailers (72.5 percent) and over

half of them (52.5 percent) sold their pesticide empty packages. The study also

investigated that an increase in output price or farmers who thought an increasing

tendency of insects and diseases had positive impacts on pesticides, while farmers

who had knowledge on natural enemies or took part in short trainings or workshops

applied less pesticides than others.

2.1 Economic of crop Production

Reddy (2002) analysed the trends in farm costs, income, factor shares, and

price-cost relationship in rice cultivation by size and zone in Andhra Pradesh, India,

during the period 1981-82 to 1991-92. The analysis has revealed that the relatively

lower prices of modern inputs (viz., fertilizers, mechanical inputs (tractors) in

relation to those of traditional inputs (namely manures and bullock labour) which is

partly due to subsidies given to modern inputs against traditional inputs, and thereby

to obtain higher yields at lower costs. The decline in per hectare labour input,

bullock labour and manure has pushed down the per hectare cost at the state as well

20

20

as in south coastal Andhra where rice is predominant crop. Net income of rice

cultivation at constant prices revealed an increasing trend at the state and zonal

level. The factor share analysis indicated a declining trend with respect to labour,

capital and current inputs. HYV technologies as well as the Minimum Support

Prices have played an important role in bringing parity between cost and support

prices and thereby ensuring reasonable returns to the farmers. It is also seen that the

spread of technology across regions and all classes of farmers brings convergence

with respect to costs, returns and profit.

Hussain et. al. (2008) studied the comparative cost benefit analysis of per

acre rice production of different rice varieties at district Swat during 2007. Primary

data was collected through structured questionnaire. Five villages from three tehsils

namely Kabal, Barikot and Matta were randomly selected. A sample size of 100

farmers was used and the respondents were randomly selected. For comparison,

Cost-Benefit Analysis approach was used. The total per acre rice production of these

varieties was amounted to Rs. 40000, 52500, 33600, 34000, 30400, 30400 and

68750 respectively. The same average cost amounted to Rs. 13565 was observed for

all the varieties. The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of variety JP-5, Basmati-385, Sara

Saila, Dil Rosh-97, Swat-1 and Swat-2 and Fakhr-e- Malakand was 2.24, 3.20, 1.80,

1.80, 1.46, 1.54 and 4.36. The highest BCR value is observed for variety Fakhr-e-

Malakand indicted the most profitable variety in terms of net production. Awareness

about the cultivation of Fakhre- Malakand variety should be given as against the

growing traditional varieties in district Swat.

Tarar (2008) have studied the cost and returns, level of technology adoption,

yield gaps and constraints faced by the farmers in Kharif and summer paddy

production. Overall on an average yield of kharif paddy was 54.53 quintals and

summer paddy was 57.47 quintals, per hectare gross income of kharif paddy was Rs.

34381.04 and summer paddy was Rs.37169.24 and average cost of production per

quintal of kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 300.10 and summer paddy was

Rs.243.14. It indicates that the farmers could increase their paddy crop productivity

by balance use of inputs particularly seed and fertilizers. Pesticide consumption was

increased over the years in paddy crop due to the triple alliance of pests, pathogens

21

21

and weeds which cause substantial crop losses every year particularly in kharif

season. There is an urgent need for incorporating the use of chemical pesticides in

an Integrated Pest Management System. The development, introduction and

diffusion of environmentally safe and effective pesticide will be given priority.

Suitable quality control, safety evaluation and other regulatory systems would be

strengthened.

Nirmala and Muthuraman (2009) have investigated the major constraints

in rice cultivation in Kaithal district of Haryana during 2007-08. The study covered

four villages of two blocks and data on constraints and cost-return aspects of rice

cultivation were collected from 80 farmers. Total costs in rice production amounted

to be Rs. 33778.68/ha. Average yield was 4.99 t/ha. Benefit-cost ratio worked out to

be 1.27. Pests and disease incidence, lack of remunerative price and labour shortage

were the major constraints in rice production.

Yadav (2010) has worked in the Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh. Sixty

farmers were selected randomly from four villages namely Balood, Kuper, Ghotpal

and Hiranar. The major findings of this study revealed that the average size of

holding of the sample households was 1.78 hectare. Overall on an average the cost

of cultivation of upland rice was calculated as Rs.6963.44. Per hectare overall gross

income of Rs.15479.00. The overall on an average the value of net income, family

labour income, farm business income and input-output ratio was found to be

Rs.8515.00, Rs.10204.22, Rs.12049.56 and 1:2.22, respectively. The per hectare

breack-up cost of cultivation of upland rice in cost A, cost A1, cost B and cost C are

Rs.5274.78, Rs.5274.78, Rs.6774.76 and Rs.8463.00. Cost of production per quintal

of upland rice shows decreasing trend with increases in farm size where, as cost of

cultivation increases with the increases in the farm size. The major constraints

pertaining to cultivation of upland rice were lack of irrigation, grazing problem, lack

of awareness regarding production technology, low productivity, labour shortage,

low input use, and low price of produce were the major constraints to prevent for

obtaining potential farm yield of upland rice. Study suggested that the irrigation

facilities are to be developed in proper way in the study area so that farmers can

adopt HYVs Technology with assured irrigation facilities. Consumption of fertilizer

22

22

is far below (2-4 kg/ha.) to recommend dose, if it could be increased will be helpful

in enhancement of productivity of upland rice.

Alarima et. al. (2011) identified the constraints to adoption of sawah system

of rice production in Nigeria. Data were collected from 124 randomly selected

sawah-rice farmers. Data were analysed using correlation and regression analyses to

determine the relationships between the study variables. The results showed that

respondents were predominantly male (98.80%), married (98.80%) and had Quranic

education (62.70%). Farm size ranged from 0.03 to 10 hectares (0.5ha), mean

yieldwas 4.65 tonnes/ha, and mean income was $1,041.38. Production and on-farm

constraints affecting sawah development were water management and flood.

Sori (2011) has estimated the economics of production, marketing and

processing of paddy in Mahasamund district of Chhattisgarh state. Cost of

cultivation of paddy per hectare were calculated Rs. 31191.62, Rs.32696.80, Rs.

35286.05, Rs. 36214.35 and 33847.21 for marginal farms, small farms, medium

farms, large farms and overall respectively, exhibiting increasing trend with

increasing size of farms, witnessing a positive correlation with the size of farms.

Overall net income, Family labour income, Farm business income, Farm investment

income, were calculated Rs. 18452.79, Rs. 28035.6, Rs.41324.63 and Rs. 34818.84

respectively. Net return on per rupee investment was worked out. It was 1:1.55 for

all farm size. Study suggested that for improving the productivity of paddy, there is

a need to encourage the farmers to use of appropriate amount of inputs viz.,

fertilizers, improved, seed, pesticide and irrigation water. From the findings of

research work, in all categories of farm, the major chunk of expenditure was spent

on labour, the second priority goes to plant protection chemical and it can be

reduced only by the mechanization of agriculture and use of disease- pest resistant

variety.

Suneetha and Kumar (2013) studied the cost and return in the production

of paddy in the study area. The findings are the highest profit income is found the

small farmers in paddy production as a whole in the study area and hypothesis test

proves that there is a significant difference in the return of paddy and among the

23

23

groups of farmers in the study area. The nature of data used for study is both primary

and secondary data. Physiographically, the state of Andhra Pradesh is broadly

divided into three regions viz. Coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana. The

Rayalaseema region consists of the districts of Anantapur, Chittoor, Kadapa and

Kurnool,which occupies about 67.41 lakh sq. km of the total area of the state. A

multi stage random sampling method was adoptedfor the selection of sample farmers

in the study area. For the present study, two mandals from each district and one

village from each mandal has been selected. A Sample of 100 farmers is selected

from each district. Eight villages were selected randomly, out of which 400 sample

famers were selected for the study. The present study is based on an exclusive

interview method. The schedules has been prepared and canvassed for the collection

of data. The collected data were analyzed with appropriate statistical tools. Rice is

cultivated in all the districts of the Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh. The

highest profit income is found the small farmers in paddy production as a whole in

the study area. Hypothesis test proves that there is a significant difference in the

return of paddy and among the groups offarmers in the study area. It shows

efficiency gain in production in terms of labour under new production technology.

The total income generated in the paddy production and employment generation id

considerablysatisfaction in Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh.

Raufu (2014) examine the economic analysis of rice production under sawah

progamme in kwara state.out of 80 sawah rice farmers interviewed with the aid of a

well-structured interview schedule,the descriptive statistics revealed that majority of

the respondent are male with a year experience of the technology and are of

secondary level of education .Rice production under sawah system is profitable

going by the cots and return analysis.The expence structure is 0.924,while the gross

ratio is 0.149 indicating that for every N0.149 expended there is areturn of

N1.00.From the regression analysis,farming experience,fixed costs,farm size,cost of

labour and fertilizer were all significantly related to rice output under sawah

production at 1% significant level while the age of respondent is significant to the

output at 5% level.

24

24

2.2 Consumption Pattern of pesticides

Yogeshwari (2002) studied economics and environmental implications of

pesticide use in paddy in Shimoga district. The study revealed that the average

frequency of pesticide applications made by the sample farmers was 18 sprays with

range of 12 to 28 sprays during the paddy crop for period of 140 to 145 days as

against the 11sprays recommended. It was found that expenditure on pesticide (Rs.

8389) formed the major portion (31%) of total cost of cultivation of paddy crop. The

total cost of cultivation of paddy was Rs. 27,258 per ha. Majority of the farmers

used pesticides in the form of organophosphorus and organochlorine and 23 per cent

farmers used organophosphorus chemical (monocrtophos) under the brand name

Novocron. It was observed that 12 per cent of farmers used weedicides, 9 per cent

farmers used weedicides in the form of 2- 4-D sodium salt followed by machete

(10%), 30 per cent of the farmers used fungicides. Most of them used fungicides in

the form of bavistin under the brand name Carbendizim (27%) followed by

mancozeb (7%) and copper oxychoride (6%).

Demircan and Ylmaz (2005) analysed the pesticide use in apple production

in Isparta, Turkey. The study was conducted in the main apple production villages of

Egirdir, Gelendost and Senirkent districts during the 2002-03 production season.

The data used in the study were obtained by questionnaires applied to 109 apple

producers. The average usage of pesticide was 2226 g active ingredient per decare.

The percentage of pesticides use was 74.32 per cent, 23.43 per cent and 2.25 per

cent for fungicide, insecticide and acaricides, respectively. It was reported that

pesticides, fungicides, insecticides and acaricides used were more than the

recommended dosages. It was reported that 48.37 per cent of average pesticide cost

per decare was due to the overuse of pesticides in apple production. The proportion

of plant protection cost in total production cost and variable costs was 21.64 percent

and 29.83 per cent respectively.

Engindeniz and Engindeniz (2006) analysed the cost and returns of

pesticide use on greenhouse cucumber growing in Menderes, Turkey during 2002.

Data were collected from 28 growers using the random sampling method. The

25

25

pesticide treatment index of growers varied between 0.2 and 2.5 and the number of

growers who used overdose of pesticides was 17 (61%). Average of quantity of

insecticides, fungicides, acaricides, and nematicides used in cucumber production

was 29.34 g, 256.62 g, 3.34 g and 1528.14 g, active ingredient per 100 m2

respectively. The average pesticide and pesticide application costs were found to be

$ 150/1000 meter square. The average pesticide and pesticide application costs

accounted for 11.72 percent of the variable costs and 9.53 per cent of the total costs,

respectively. The breakeven yield was worked out to be 1875 kg/1000 m2.

Abhilash and Singh (2009) have conducted a study on the Pesticide use and

application in Indian scenario and found that in the process of development of

agriculture, pesticides have become an important tool as a plant protection agent for

boosting food production. Further, pesticides play a significant role by keeping

many dreadful diseases. However, exposure to pesticides both occupationally and

environmentally causes a range of human health problems. It has been observed that

the pesticides exposures are increasingly linked to immune suppression, hormone

disruption, diminished intelligence, reproductive abnormalities and cancer. Pesticide

safety, regulation of pesticide use, proper application technologies, and integrated

pest management are some of the key strategies for minimizing human exposure to

pesticides.

Chalermphol and Shivakoti (2009) have worked on pesticide use and

prevention practices of tangerine growers in Fang district, Chiang Mai province in

Northern Thailand. Only 36% of the participants pursued the recommended

prevention practices every time they used pesticides. A Methomyl chemical was

used by 87.8% participants. Cultivating experience and pesticides use experience

contributed significantly to the use and prevention practices of growers, while the

attendance in the training program did not contribute in the same way. The farmers

rather believed in their experiences and those of their neighbours. Education,

training and research into harmful effects and the health and environmental costs of

pesticide use are needed. The extension workers can go directly to weak points and

narrow their intervention plan to alter the pesticide policy instead of providing basic

knowledge on pesticides again and again.

26

26

Uday (2009) reported that the total cost of cultivation of paddy was found to

be Rs 65591.53/ha of which the cost of pesticide accounted for 5.50 per cent. On an

average the expenditure on pesticides in paddy cultivation was Rs. 3607.57/ha. The

yield obtained by the sample farmers was 66.90 quintals. The farmers realized net

returns of Rs. 17145.14/ha of paddy cultivation. The elasticity coefficient of labour

and manures and fertilizers were negative and significant indicating that increase in

the use of labour, fertilizers and manures would lead to decrease in gross income.

The resources such as seeds and pesticides have contributed positively to the gross

income thus, indicated that there is scope for re-organization of the inputs for profit

maximization. About 50% of the farmers applied pesticides five times for paddy

during its production cycle. The number of pesticide application went up to even

seven times. The optimum quantity of pesticide was estimated to be 0.97 l/ha, where

as the farmers were found to be use (1.95 liter/ha) almost double the optimum

quantity. Number of pesticide applications and area under paddy were contributing

positively and significantly to the expenditure on plant protection chemicals. The

farmers should be educated to identify the threshold level of pest infestation and take

measures only after that instead of blindly following the neighboring farmers while

applying plant protection chemicals.

Singh and Varshney (2010) concluded that the yield level of rice which is

comparatively low at present need to be increased substantially. Higher rice

production can be achieved by adoption of all the recommended technologies by

large number of farmers. Adoption of rice production technology was studied during

2006-07 at Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh. Majority of the respondents (44%)

studied were found to be medium level adopters. Adoption of correct dosage of

fertilizers and manures as also the recommended variety was the highest (75 and

65% resp.) followed by seed treatment with fungicides (61%), plant protection

(53%) and weedicide application (52%). The least adoption was for recommended

nursery practices and plant population (8%, and 4% resp.).

27

27

2.3 Major Constraints in Paddy production

Gauraha and Jain(1982) conducted a study in Raipur district of Madhya

Pradesh during 1977-78 Kharif season, which the objectives to identify the

constraints responsible for yield difference of paddy between the farmers adopted

for the national demonstration scheme and non-demonstration farmers.

Study revealed a wide gap between the average yields obtained on the

demonstration and non-demonstration farms. An analysis of the average yields for

five consecutive years (1970-71 to 1975-76) indicated that the average per hectare

yields of demonstration farmers was nearly 6.4 times the districts average yield. The

lower yield on the nondemonstration farmers‘ plots were due to poor management

practices like low use of HYV, imbalanced and inadequate doses of fertilizers, fewer

irrigations, inadequate plant protection, lower plant population and lack of pre-

sowing treatment of seed. Non-demonstration farmers had less access to capital and

credit, which forced for limited use of modern inputs and machinery.

Sawant (1997) identified constraints experienced by farmer in adoption of

improved rice cultivation practices in Konkan region of Maharashtra State. The

study revealed that the constraints in cultivation work as disincentive for the farmers

and ultimately reduce the rate of adoption. The infrastructural network dealing with

supply services of credit and inputs need to be strengthened. By establishing a close

linkage between the researches, extension system and farming community, these

constraints could be overcome. Hence, all these efforts will go a long way in

reducing the gaps in cultivation of rice.

Thanhl and Singh (2006) find out the constraints faced by farmers to

propose Government's policies regulating to overcome the constraints of rice

production promotion and export in India and Vietnam. A study had surveyed on

100 farmers in Punjab and West Bengal states of India and An Giang and Vinh Long

provinces of Vietnam. It found that the agro-ecological constraints faced by farmers,

ranked from more to less serious were related to dependence on monsoon; land/soil

problems; environmental pollution; lack of water and small land holdings. Under

technical constraints, it was found those diseases (sheath blight, blast, and stem rot);

28

28

pests; lack of proper varieties; post-harvest technology constraint; storage problems

were the most serious constraints perceived by large percentage of respondents.

Fertilizer problems; plant protection constraints; weed problems; lack of labours and

poor processing were found to be other constraints as perceived by farmers. In case

of socio-economic constraints, the study found that poor infrastructures; high cost of

inputs; credit problems; low rice price; inadequate inputs and lack of trainings were

the most important constraints as perceived by large percentage of farmers. Other

constraints as perceived by lower percentages of farmers were poor extension

EServices; lack of information and lack of helpfulness from local

authorities/governments.

Naing et. al (2008) identified yield constraints, input intensities and the

general practices of rice cultivation in Myanmar, a survey was conducted during the

wet seasons of 2001 and 2002. Although modern high yielding varieties were

introduced into Myanmar in the early 1980s, the national average of rice grain yield

has stagnated at 3.2-3.4 t ha-1. A total of 98 farmers from five townships in Upper

Myanmar and 16 in Lower Myanmar representing the most important areas of rice

production were questioned on their management practices, yields, and perceived

yield constraints over the previous four years. There was a recent decrease in the

overall average rate of fertilizer application, an increase in the prevalence of

ricelegume cropping systems, and only localized insect pest or disease problems.

Additionally, rice yields were found to be higher in Upper Myanmar, likely the

results of more suitable weather conditions, better irrigation, and ready market

access. Furthermore, a number of critical factors affecting production are identified

and possible solutions discussed.

Shivamurthy et. al. (2008) studied the Constraints in rainfed rice

production in the Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka, India, were studied during 2005.

Of the 24 taluks from 3 districts, 6 taluks (Kanakapura, Channapatna, Tumkur,

Gubbi, Kolar and Bangarpet) were selected based on the size of area under rice

cultivation. Onehundred rice farmers from 25 villages who cultivated rice during the

kharif of 2003-04 were interviewed. Of the farmers interviewed, 98

and89%expressed problems associated with high cost of inputs and cost of

29

29

cultivation, respectively. The other constraints in rice cultivation consisted of the

non-availability of loans (84%), high interest rate on loans (64%), inadequate

insurance coverage (48%), susceptibility of the area to droughtM (90%), pest and

disease epidemics (40%), lack of market facilities (71%), lack of transport facilities

(52%), lack of profitable marketing channels (79%), shortage in labour resources

(61.0%), high wages (51.0%) and shortage of skilled labourers (41.0%). Suggestions

to overcome constraints in rice production included the need for greater extension

efforts to increase adoption (85.0%); information campaigns to promote good

practices in pesticide usage; provision of marketing facilities to avoid exploitation

by middlemen (71.0%); continuous supply of inputs such as certified seeds, seed

varieties and fertilizers; provision of subsidies to reduce the costs of inputs (61.0%);

timely introduction of the minimum support price for rainfed rice and prompt

payment (57.0%); availability of drought-resistant cultivars during sowing to ensure

effective distribution (52.0%); and dissemination of information on the technical

aspects of rice cultivation (48.0%).

Nirmala and Muthuraman (2009) have investigated the major constraints

in rice cultivation in Kaithal district of Haryana during 2007-08. The study covered

four villages of two blocks and data on constraints and cost-return aspects of rice

cultivation were collected from 80 farmers. Total costs in rice production amounted

to be Rs. 33778.68/ha. Average yield was 4.99 t/ha. Benefit-cost ratio worked out to

be 1.27. Pests and disease incidence, lack of remunerative price and labour shortage

were the major constraints in rice production.

Singh and Varshney (2010) concluded that the majority of the farmers

showed medium level of overall adoption of recommended technology. Weedicide

application, pest and disease management in nursery maintaining plant population in

main field were not adopted by the majority of the farmers. ‗Non availability of high

yielding varieties‘, High cost of labour‘ ‗Lack of conviction in the new technology‘

and ‗Weak extension activities at the village level were the major constraints faced

by the farmers.

30

30

Yadav (2010) examined the constraints pertaining to cultivation of upland

rice were lack of irrigation, grazing problem, lack of awareness regarding production

technology, low productivity, labour shortage, low input use, and low price of

produce were the major constraints to prevent for obtaining potential farm yield of

upland rice. Study suggested that the irrigation facilities are to be developed in

proper way in the study area so that farmers can adopt HYVs Technology with

assured irrigation facilities. Consumption of fertilizer is far below (2-4 kg/ha.) to

recommend dose, if it could be increased will be helpful in enhancement of

productivity of upland rice.

Alarima et.al. (2011) examined the economic constraints faced by sawah

farmers were lack of viable financial agencies to support production, poor capital

base and non-availability of loan. This study concluded that problems faced by

farmers were interwoven in which existence of one relates with the other.

Addressing these problems will lead to increase in the rate of adoptiosn of sawah

rice productiontechnology and ultimately rice productivity in Nigeria.

1

CHAPTER – III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This chapter deal with the research methodology adopted for the present study

with respect to the selection of area, selection of respondents, collection of data and

analytical techniques. This chapter presents the statistics different aspects in order to

have

the knowledge of the study area. The present chapter consist the geographical

location,

land used pattern, source of irrigation, size and number of land holding and different

socio-Economic indicator of the study area. The details of the method and technique

adopted for the present study are described as below.

3.1 Selection of Study area

Chhattisgarh state consist 27 districts, out of which Raipur district is selected

purposely for the present study. There are four blocks namely Abhanpur, Arang,

Dharsiwa and Tilda. Out of these, Arang and Tilda block will be selected rendamly

as

they have larger area under Paddy crop.

3.2 Selection of Villages

The Arang and Tilda block has 165 and 131 number of villages. Out of these, two

villages are considered from each of the selected blocks. Nagpura and Badganv

villages from

Arang, Math and Kharora from Tilda block were selected randomly. In all, four

villages

in both block is selected for the study purpose.

3.3 Selection of respondents

Since there are large number of paddy producer farmers, 25 farmers from each of

the selected village were considered to collect the required information on cost of

cultivation.

32

32

These farmers are classified in to four different categories based on their land

holding

i.e. marginal (up to 1.00 ha.), small (up to 1.01 to 2 ha.), medium (2.01 to 4 ha.) and

large (above 4 ha.).

3.4 Method of enquiry and data collection

3.4.1 Primary data

Primary data from the farmers was collected through well prepared schedule and

questionnaire (Appendix-A.) It includes cost of different items of variable as well as

fixed cost. The primary data include information regarding demographic features of

sampled farms, land utilization pattern, cost of cultivation and source of irrigation

and

constraint in custom hiring of agricultural machinery and inventory. All the primary

data

belong to kharif 2014-15.

3.4.2 Secondary data

The secondary data related to Chhattisgarh state is collected from the Directorate

of Agriculture; Annual Agriculture Statistics, Raipur; Department of Agriculture,

Raipur

and District Planning and statistics Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3.5 Household Information

1. Total land holding.

2. Details about family members.

3. Crop Production.

4. Family labours.

5. Hired labours.

6. Cost and return of paddy crops.

3.6 Analytical Framework

The collected data were compiled and tabular analysis is made to work out the

different parameters, such as, utilization pattern of custom hiring of Agricultural

33

33

Machinery, cost concept, cost of production of paddy, comparative economics of

custom

hiring and traditional methods in different operation, per hectare gross return, net

return

and B:C ratio.

Analytical tools:

Cost of cultivation:

―To work out the cost of cultivation standard method of will be adopted. Which

includes cost A cost B and cost C.‖

Cost A1: Consist of following 16 items of costs:-

1. Value of hired human labour (permanent & casual)

2. Value of owned bullock labour

3. Value of hired bullock labour

4. Value of owned machinery

5. Hired machinery charged

6. Value of fertilizers

7. Value of manure (produced on farm and purchased)

8. Value of seed (both farm-produced and purchased)

9. Value of insecticides and fungicides.

10. Irrigation charges (both of the owned and hired tube wells, pumping sets etc.

11. Canal-water charges

12. Land revenue, cesses and other taxes

13. Depreciation on farm implements (both bullock drawn & worked with human

labour)

14. Depreciation on farm building, farm machinery.

15. Interest on the working capital.

16. Miscellaneous expenses (wages of artisans, and repairs to small farm

implements)

Cost A2 = Cost A1+Rent paid for Leased in Land.

Cost B1 = Cost A1+Interest on value of Owned Capital

assets (excluding land)

Cost B2 = Cost B1+rental value of owned land (Net of land revenue)

and rent paid for leased-in land.

Cost C1 = Cost B1+ Imputed value of Family Labour.

Cost C2 = Cost B2+Imputed value of Family labour.

Cost C3 = Cost C2 +10% of C2 as managerial cost.

Brief profile of the study area

34

34

A brief description of various geographical and agriculture features of the study

area, i.e. Raipur district in Chhattisgarh state is being given in this section.

3.7.1 Description of Raipur district

Raipur District is situated in the fertile plains of Chhattisgarh Region. The District is

surrounded by Bilaspur in North, Bastar and part of Orissa state in South, Raigarh

and part of Orissa state in East and Durg in West. The district occupies the south

eastern part of the upper Mahanadi valley and the bordering hills in the south and the

east. Thus, the district is divided into two major physical divisions, Viz., the

Chhattisgarh plain and the Hilly Areas. This District is situated between 220 33'

North to 210 14' North Latitude and 82o 6' to 81o 38' East Longitude. Mahanadi is

the principal river of this district.

Chhattisgarh is rich in forest resources about 44 percent of the total area of the state

is under forest cover. Detailed information about the geographical area of Raipur is

given in (Table 3.9). Chhattisgarh is famous in the entire country for its Sal forest. In

addition teak, bamboo, saja, sarai, haldi etc are also found in large number tendu leaf

which is used in beedi making, is the principal forest of the state. Chhattisgarh

produce a large number of minor forest product as well. The climate of Chhattisgarh

is mainly of minor tropical, humid and sub- humid. The climate is hot because of its

positioning on the tropic of cancer. May is the hottest month and the December –

January is the coldest month. The state is completely dependent on monsoon for

rains. The average annual rainfall of Raipur district ism1370 mm. Raipur district has

4 blocks. The study was confined to the Arang and Tilda block of Raipur district of

Chhattisgarh (Map-II).

Demographic features of Raipur District

The total population of district is 2160876 (2011 census). The density of population

is 698 per Sq. Km. out of which 59.09 percent is urban and 40.91 percent is rural.

The population of schedule caste and schedule tribes constitutes 16.59 percent and

4.30 percent and 50.95 percent is male population and 49.05 percent is the female

35

35

population, respectively of the total population. The literacy rate in the district was

80.52 percent.

Table 3.2: Demographic features of Raipur District, Arang and Tilda block (2011)

S.

No.

Particulars Number

District Arang Tilda

1 Total population (census

2011)

2160876 314489 238157

a. Male 1100861 158515 119467

b. Female 1060015 155974 118690

c. Total population (census

2011)

2160876 314489 238157

d. Rural 884224 282591 198342

e. Urban 1276652 31898 43747

2 Percentage of rural

population to

total population (%)

40.00 89.85 81.92

3 No. of female per ‗000

males

963 984 993

4 Population density per Sq.

Km.

698 339 309

5 Decennial growth rate

percent

(2001-11)

6 Literacy rate (%) 80.52 73.98 74.61

7 Scheduled caste population

as

percentage to total

population (%)

16.59 26.60 19.41

8 Scheduled caste population 4.30 3.40 4.40

36

36

as

percentage to total

population (%)

Source: - Chhattisgarh Government Censes 2011.

3.7.3 Distribution of land holding

The distribution of land holding according to size and the total cultivated area in

each category are in the given Table 3.5. The largest number of land holding falls

under marginal category. It is clear from this table that concentration of marginal

farmers was more as compare to small, medium and large group, implying that the

majority of land owner were in marginal categories in the study area. The largest

number of land holding falls under marginal farm size category. However, farmers

in the category owned only a small proportion of the cultivated land.

Table 3.3: Distribution of land holding of Raipur district.

S. No. Size of holding Number of

holding

Area (ha.)

1. Marginal (up to 1.00 ha.) 106361

(71.01)

46640.69

(28.57)

2. Small (up to 1.01 to 2.00 ha.) 32748

(21.86)

45281.94

(27.47)

3. Medium (up to 2.01 to 4 ha.) 4972

(3.31)

30480.41

(18.49)

4. Large (Above 4.00 ha.) 5692

(3.82)

42405.48

(25.75)

Total 149773

(100)

164808.52

(100)

37

37

Note: Figure in parentheses indicates percentage to the total land holdings.

Source: Department of Agriculture Raipur, 2013-14.

Table 3.4: Distribution of land holding of Arang and Tilda block.

S.

No.

Size of holding Number of holding Area (ha.)

Arang Tilda Arang Tilda

1. Marginal (up to 1.00 ha.) 36013

(65.44)

27092

(64.28)

15946.25

(26.56)

11922.53

(24.19)

2. Small (up to 1.01 to 2.00

ha.)

11565

(21.01)

8926

(21.18)

15659.02

(26.08)

12400.15

(25.16)

3. Medium (up to 2.01 to 4

ha.)

5384

(9.78)

4194

(9.95)

14607.63

(24.33)

11393.41

(23.12)

4. Large (Above 4.00 ha.) 2095

(3.80)

1430

(3.39)

13818.51

(23.01)

13551.11

(27.50)

Total 55057

(100)

42142

(100)

60031.40

(100)

49267.20

(100)

Note: Figure in parentheses indicates percentage to the total land holdings.


3.7.4 Land use pattern

Raipur district has total geographical area of 289198 hectare. The forest area is 1551

hectare, which is 5.50 percent of the total geographical area. About 12.56 percent

area was covered by pasture land. While 7.11 under barren land and 74.73 percent

land is total cropped area and net cropped area 57.53 percent of the geographical

area. The cropping intensity is 129.89 percent. Arang and Tilda block has total

geographical area of 90039 hectare and 735300 hectare respectively.

38

38

Table 3.5: Land Utilization pattern at Raipur district (in hectare).

S.No. Particular Raipur district

Abhanpur Arang Dharsiwa Tilda Total

1 Geographical

area(ha)

60398 90039 65231 73530 289198

2 Area under

forest (ha)

271

(0.44)

448

(0.49)

0 832

(1.13)

1551

(0.53)

3 Net cropped

area

(ha)

38048

(62.99)

58593

(65.07)

25606

(39.25)

44150

(60.04)

166397

(57.53)

4 Double cropped

area (ha)

14310

(23.69)

24202

(26.87)

6257

(9.59)

11271

(15.32)

55860

(19.31)

5 Area under

kharif (ha)

37010

(61.27)

58480

(64.94)

25512

(39.11)

44000

(59.83)

165002

(57.05)

6 Area under rabi

(ha)

13886

(22.99)

23306

(25.88)

6147

(9.47)

9750

(13.25)

53089

(18.35)

7 Net irrigation

area (ha)

32585

(53.95)

37975

(42.17)

15521

(23.79)

18058

(24.55)

23075

(7.97)

8 Total cropped

area (ha)

52358

(86.39)

82795

(91.95)

31863

(48.84)

55421

(75.37)

21643

(74.73)

9 Cropping

intensity (%)

137.13 141.3 124.43 125.52 129.89

10 Pasture land

(ha)

9909

(16.40)

11021

(12.24)

7333

(11.24)

8071

(16.40)

3633

(12.56)

11 Barren land (ha) 2980

(4.93)

4773

(6.91)

7747

(11.87)

2980

(4.93)

20587

(7.11)

Note: Figure in parentheses indicates percentage to the total land holdings

39

39

3.8 Cropping pattern of the study area

Being a mono cropped region, paddy is the main cereal crop in the kharif season in

the study area. Though most of the area was covered by this crop, several others

crops are now being grown in kharif as well as rabi season in this region. The

existing crop area distribution in the district is shown in the Table.

Table 3.6: Area under different crops in Raipur District

S.No. Particular Area in Hectare

A Cereals Raipur Arang Tilda

1 Paddy 160283 57298 41740

2 Wheat 2946 581 1514

3 Maize 103 22 18

4 Kodo- Kutki 1 0 1

5 Other 23450 11341 3589

Total Cereals 186783 67972 45157

B Pulses

1 Gram 5259 1213 2538

2 Pigeon pea 706 141 369

3 Urd 254 93 94

4 Lathyrus 18102 10429 3199

5 Other 669 54 285

Total Pulses 24990 11930 6485

C Oil seed

1 Soya bean 230 6 199

2 Til 501 59 170

3 Groundnut 11 0 4

4 Rai/Sarso 830 155 434

Total oil seed 1689 230 862

40

40

D Fruits & Vegetable 4564 1233 1138

E Spices 440 160 74

Total 218466 82795 55421

Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percent to the total area production.


3. 9: Irrigation

The different sources of irrigation in the Raipur district are shown in Table 3.7. The

Table clearly point out that the maximum area was irrigated by canals (1127740 ha.)

which is 79.34 percent of the total irrigation in the Raipur district followed by tube-

well (23842 ha.) which was 14.80 percent to the total irrigation in the district.

Nallah, stop dam, wells and other sources of irrigation were also prevailing in the

Raipur district. The number of Ponds was 2708 which is 2.71 percent to the total

irrigation in the district. The number of wells was 3933 which is 0.44 percent to the

total sources irrigation in the district.

Table 3.7: Source wise irrigation area of Raipur district

S.No. Source of irrigation Irrigated area (ha) Percent

1 Canals 127740 79.34

2 Ponds 4369 2.71

3 Tube-wells 23842 14.80

4 Wells 673 0.44

5 Irrigated area from other

source

4369 2.71

Total 160993 100

Source: - District statistical booklet (2013), District Planning and statistics

Department,

Raipur (C.G.)

3. 11 Administrative units

41

41

Administratively, Chhattisgarh state is administrative divided into 27 districts and

360 blocks. Out of these 85 blocks are tribal block. The state consist 20,308 villages.

Raipur district is administrative divided into 4 tehsil, 4 block i.e Abhanpur, Arang,

Dharsiwa and Tilda. Raipur district have 490 villages, in which 390 villages is gram

panchayat and 4 villages is janpad panchayat. The administrative units of Arang and

Tilda block in Raipur district is shown in (Table 3.9)

Table 3.9: Administrative units of the Raipur district

S.No. Particular Raipur district

Abhanpur Arang Dharsiwa Tilda Total

1 Geographical area

(Sq.km.)

603.98 900.39 652.31 735.3 2891.98

2 Total villages 105 165 89 131 490

3 Gram panchayat 90 125 84 91 390

4 Janpad panchayat 1 1 1 1 4

5 Nagar nigam 0 0 1 0 1

6 Nagar palika 1 0 1 1 3

7 Nagar panchyat 1 1 2 1 5

8 Revenue inspection

circle

2 2 4 2 10

9 Police station 3 2 24 2 31

10 Transport police

center

0 0 1 0 1

11 Electricity village 105 165 89 131 490

12 Drinking water

vacillated village

105 165 89 131 490

Source: - District statistical booklet (2013), District Planning and statistics

Department,

Raipur (C.G.)

29

CHAPTER – IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results obtained for various economic parameters related to

their magnitude and relationship on the objectives of study. It also involves the

discussion and interpretation of results on the following heads.

4.1 Profile characteristics of the sample households

4.2 Cropping pattern

4.3 Consumption pattern of Pesticides

4.4 Economic of crop production

4.5 Constraints

4.1 Profile Characteristics of the Sample Households

The general characteristics of the sample households are presented in (Table 4.1 and

Fig no. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4). It can be seen from the table that the total no. of sample

households was 100. The Average family member was 5.21. Average family

member in large farm households was considerably large (6.5) as compared to

marginal farm households (4.18). The literacy rate in the selected households was

55.82 per cent. Average size of holding was 2.31.

The sample households comprised predominantly of scheduled tribe (81.00 per

cent) followed by other backward caste (10.00 per cent), scheduled caste (9.00 per

cent).The average occupation working members was considerably agriculture (96.26

per cent) as compared to business (1.44) per cent and Service (2.30).

30

Table 4.1: General characteristics of sample household

S.N. Particulars marginal Small Medium Large Overall

1. Total no. of house hold 22 34 23 21 100

2. Cast wise no. of house hold

a. General 1 4 05

b. other backward cast 22 32 23 17 94

c. schedule cast 1 01

3. Total family member 104

(100)

165

(100)

89

(100)

128

(100)

486

(100)

Average of family member

4. Age group

a. below 18 year

Male 17 23 20 17 77

Female 18 20 13 17 68

b. 18-60 year

Male 26 37 20 49 132

Female 33 51 25 34 143

c. above 60 year

Male 7 9 4 6 26

Female 10 15 7 9 41

Note: Figure in the parenthesis indicate the percentages to total number of family

members.

4.2 Cropping pattern:

Table 4.2 shows that the area under crops and cropping intensity. It can be seen from

table that Paddy covered highest cropped area 64.77 per cent in kharif season. On an

average the total operated area was 66.05 compare to total cropped area (5.45) and

average the cropping intensity was found 151.38s per cent. It was also observed that

as the farm increase the cropping intensity was also increased.

31

Table 4.2: Cropping pattern of sample household

S.NO. Particulars Farm size ( in ha)

Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

A. Kharif session

a. Paddy

Mahamaya 0.4

(30.76)

1.08

(30.25)

1.72

(34.81)

5.33

(37.99)

1.97

(36.14)

Swarna 0.24

(18.32)

0.58

(16.24)

1.35

(27.32)

4.76

(33.92)

1.56

(28.62)

Total 0.64

(48.85)

1.66

(46.49)

3.07

(62.14)

10.09

(71.91)

3.53

(64.77)

b. Arhar 0.05

(3.81)

0.06

(1.68)

0.09

(1.82)

0.1

(0.71)

0.032

(0.58)

c. Urd 0.003

(.022)

0.01

(0.28)

0.03

(0.60)

0.05

(0.35)

0.025

(0.45)

d. Sesmum 0.04

(3.05)

0.09

(2.52)

0.08

(1.61)

0.09

(0.64)

0.0134

(0.23)

Total kharif 0.73

(55.72)

1.82

(50.98)

3.27

(66.19)

10.33

(73.62)

3.6

(66.05)

B. Rabi session

a. Wheat 0.39

(29.77)

1.48

(41.45)

1.33

(26.92)

3.06

(21.81)

1.66

(30.45)

b. Mustard 0.02

(1.52)

0.09

(2.52)

0.07

(1.41)

0.09

(0.64)

0.020

(0.36)

c. Gram 0.079

(6.03)

0.9

(25.21)

0.11

(2.22)

0.35

(2.49)

0.150

(2.75)

d. Lethayrus 0.074

(5.64)

0.08

(2.24)

0.09

(1.82)

0.10

(0.71)

0.02

(0.36)

e. Lentil 0.035

(2.67)

0.05

(1.40)

0.07

(1.41)

0.09

(0.64)

0.016

(0.29)

f. Pea 0.002

(0.15)

0.004

(0.11)

0.007

(0.14)

0.009

(0.064)

0.001

(0.018)

Total rabi 0.58

(44.27)

1.75

(49.01)

1.677

(33.94)

3.699

(26.36)

1.85

(33.94)

Total operated area 0.73

(55.72)

1.82

(50.98)

3.27

(66.19)

10.33

73.62

3.6

(66.05)

Total cropped area

(A+B+C)

1.31

(100)

3.57

(100)

4.94

(100)

14.03

(100)

5.45

(100)

Cropping intensity

(%)

179.45

196.15 151.07 140.3 151.38

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage to total cropped area.

32

Fig. 4.1: Cast wise no. of household

Fig. 4.2: Average of family members

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

marginal small medium large overall

Caste %

General Other backward class Scheduled caste

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Marginal small medium large overall

Average family member

33

Fig.4.3 : Literacy per cent of sample household

Fig. 4.4: Average size of holding

Marginal

small

medium

large

overall

20% 20%

19%

20%

21%

Literacy(%)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5


34

4.3 Consumption pattern of Agrochemicals

The present section deals with the Consumption pattern of Agrochemicals in kharif

paddy in the study area. Consumption pattern of Agrochemicals covers Insecticide,

Herbicide, Fungicide and Fertilizer quantity used in different varieties during kharif

season.

4.3.1 Use of Insecticide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha)

It is evident from (Table 4.3) that the use of insecticide in kharif paddy was higher in

case of Imidacloprid 17.8% SL (+40.70 per cent) followed by Aciphate (+23.22) and

lowest in Chloropyariphos50%+ Cypermethrin (+6.6 per cent). The above

insecticide was used for controlling of Stem borer, Cutworm, Plant hopper and Leaf

folder.

4.4.2 Use of Herbicide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha)

It is evident from (Table 4.4) that the use of herbicide in kharif paddy gap was

higher in case of Chlorymuron10%+Metasulfuran (+125 per cent) followed by

Pyrozosulphuran (+77) and lowest in Butachlor (+1.62 per cent). The above

herbicide was used for controlling of Buti, Bhengra, Motha, Jalkumbhi, Narjava,

Aaluban, Sanva, Loung ghass, Chunchuniya, Jalkumbhi, Tinpatiya and Broad leaf

weeds.

4.4.3 Use of Fungicide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha)

It is evident from (Table 4.5) that the use of fungicide in kharif paddy was higher in

case of Tricyclazole (+41.67 per cent) followed byHexaconazile (+31.67

Tricyclazole) and lowest in Propiconazole 25% EC (21.90 per cent).The above

fungicide was used for controlling of Blast, Sheath blight, Brown spot and BLB.

35

Insecticide quantity used in different farm size in kharif season (a.i.per/ha)

S.

No.

Name of insecticide Recommended

Dose

Name of insect Insecticide quantity used in different farm size

(per./hac.)


1 acephate 75%SP 337.50gm.

a.i./ha

Cutworm, Stemborer 389.26 410.2 429.09 435.02 415.89

Gap 51.76 72.7 91.59 97.52 78.39

Gap % 15.3363 21.5407 27.1378 28.8948 23.226667

2 Chloropyariphos50%+Cypermethrin 550 ml. a.i./ha Leaf folder 559.5 579 598 610.5 586.75

Gap 9.5 29 48 60 36.75

Gap % 1.73 5.27 8.73 10.91 6.68

3 Chlorpyriphos 20%EC 510gm a.i./ha Stem borror,

Gallmidge

539 579.5 593.46 602.5 578.61

Gap 29 69.5 83.46 92.5 68.61

Gap % 5.69 13.63 16.36 18.14 13.45

4 Deltamethrin1%+Triazoph

os 35% EC

432 ml a.i./ha Plant hopper,

cutworm

453.5 478.26 489 497.46 479.55

Gap 21.5 46.26 57 65.46 47.55

Gap % 4.98 10.71 13.19 15.15 11.01

5 Imidacloprid 17.8% SL 200 ml. a.i./ha Plant hopper 263.61 252.78 288.14 321.08 281.4

Gap 63.61 52.78 88.14 121.08 81.4

Gap % 31.81 26.39 44.07 60.54 40.70

36

Herbicide quantity used in different farm size in kharif season (a.i.per/ha)

S.

N.

Name of herbicide Recommended

Dose

name of weeds Herbicide quantity used in different farm size (per./hac.)


1 Oxadirzil 90 gm. a.i./ha Gengarva, Narjiva 100 119 126 159 126

Gap 10 29 36 69 36

Gap % 11.11 32.22 40.00 76.67 40.00

2 Pendimethylene 1000 gm. a.i./ha Sawa, Choti dudhi, Jangli chaulai 1011.1 1004.2 1127.1 1176.5 1079.72

Gap 11.1 4.2 27.1 76.5 79.72

Gap% 1.11 0.42 2.71 7.65 7.97

3 Pyrozosulphuran

25 gm

a.i./ha

Sanwa, Motha, Chunchuniya,

jalkumbhi, tinpatiya 34 41 48 54 44.25

Gap 9 16 23 29 19.25

Gap % 36.00 64.00 92.00 116.00 77.00

4 Butachlore 1250gm

a.i./ha

Narrow leaf- sanva Wild

Kodo, Motha, Bhengra 1261.1 1269.5 1271.5 1279 1270.27

Gap 11.1 19.5 21.5 29 20.27

Gap % 0.89 1.56 1.72 2.32 1.62

37

5 Ethoxysulfuran 15 gm

a.i./ha

Narjava,Motha,Kaonwakaini

(15 WDG) Chunchuniya 19 23.5 25 29 24.12

Gap 4 8.5 10 14 9.12

Gap % 26.67 56.67 66.67 93.33 60.80

6 Chlorymuron 10%+ 4gm a.i./ha Jalkumbhi, Motha,Narjava,

Metasulfuron Bhengra 6 8 10 12 9

Gap 2 4 6 8 5

Gap % 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 125.00

7 2,4 D 625 gm

a.i./ha

Motha Jalkumbhi,Bhengra 637 641 648 652 644.5

Gap Gokhru 12 16 23 27 19.5

Gap% 1.92 2.56 3.68 4.32 3.12

38

Fungicide quantity used in different farm size kharif season (a.i.per/ha)

S.

No

Name of fungicide Recommended

Dose

Name of diseases Fungicide quantity used in different farm size

(per./hac.)


1 Carbendazim 12% + 562.50ml a.i./ha blast,brownspot,shea

th

625.36 655.86 738.49 824.36 711.04

Mencozeb

63%WP

blight, fals smut 62.86 93.36 175.99 261.86 148.54

Gap 11.18 16.60 26.9716 46.55 26.41

Gap %

2

Hexaconazol 5%EC 75ml a.i./ha Blast and sheath

blight

86 94 103 112 98.75

Gap 11 19 28 37 23.75

Gap% 14.67 25.33 37.33 49.33 31.67

3 Propiconazile

25%

125ml a.i./ha Sheath rot

EC 125 138 159 187.5 152.37

Gap 0 13 34 62.5 27.37

Gap % 0.00 10.40 27.20 50.00 21.90

4 Tricyclazole 15gm.a.i./ha Blast 15 19 23 28 21.25

Gap 0 4 8 13 6.25

Gap % 0.00 26.67 53.33 86.67 41.67

39

4.5 Effectiveness of various pesticides and source of plant protection

information

4.5.1 Effectiveness of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides in kharif rice in

percentages

It is evident from (Table 4.24) the source of plant protection information of

Carbendazim 12%+ Mencozeb 63% Wp, maximum farmers got knowledge through

fellow farmers (46%) followed by pesticide dealers (38%) and experience (14%).

The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (54%) followed by 51-75 (28%).

Hexaconazol 5 % EC maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers

(38%) followed by pesticide dealers (32%) and experience (16%). The effectiveness

(%) in the range of 76-100 (44%) followed by 51-75 (40%) and 26-50 (16%).

Propiconazile25% EC maximum farmers got knowledge through pesticide dealers

(48%) followed by fellow farmers (35%) and experience (14%). The effectiveness

(%) in the range of 76-100 (44%), followed by 51-75 (40%) and 26-50 (16%).

Propiconazile25% EC maximum farmers got knowledge through pesticide dealers

(48%) followed by fellow farmers (26%) and experience (22%). The effectiveness

(%) in the range of 76-100 (48%), followed by 51-75 (31%) and 26-50 (14%).

It is evident from (Table 4.24) the source of plant protection information of

Acephate 75 % SP, maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers (48%)

followed by pesticide dealers (32%) and experience (15%). The effectiveness (%) in

the range of 76-100 (57%) followed by 51-75 (31%). Chloropyriphos 50%+

Cypermethrin maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers (51%)

followed by pesticide dealers (44%) and experience (5%). The effectiveness (%) in

the range of 76-100 (48%) followed by 51-75 (36%) and 26-50 (16%).

Chloropyriphos 20% maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers

(42%) followed by pesticide dealers (38%) and experience (15%). The

effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (56%), followed by 51-75 (33%) and 26-50

(9%). Deltamethrin1%+ Triazophos 35%EC maximum farmers got knowledge

through pesticide dealers (48%) followed by fellow farmers (35%) and experience

40

(12%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (61%), followed by pesticide

dealers 51-75 (27%) and 26-50 (12%). Imidacloprid 17.8 % SL maximum farmers

got knowledge through fellow farmers (46%) followed by (44%) and experience

(8%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (59%), followed by 51-75 (26%)

and 26-50 (15%).

It is evident from (Table 4.24) the source of plant protection information of Oxidirzil

, maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers (52%) followed by

pesticide dealers (22%) and experience (18%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of

76-100 (56%) followed by 51-75 (40%). Pendimethylene maximum farmers got

knowledge through fellow farmers (66%) followed by pesticide dealers (26%) and

experience (7%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (68%) followed by

51-75 (22%) and 26-50 (10%). Pyrozosulphuran maximum farmers got knowledge

through fellow farmers (48%) followed by pesticide dealers (38%) and experience

(9%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (55%), followed by 51-75 (27%)

and 26-50 (18%). Butachlore maximum farmers got knowledge through pesticide

dealers (44%) followed by fellow farmers (36%) and experience (16%). The

effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (68%), followed by pesticide dealers 51-75

(18%) and 26-50 (12%). Ethoxysulfuran (15WDG) maximum farmers got

knowledge through pesticide dealers fellow farmers (58%) followed by fellow

farmers (28%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (46%), followed by 51-

75 (44%) and 26-50 (14%). 2-4D maximum farmers got knowledge through

pesticide dealers (42%) followed by fellow farmers (40%). The effectiveness (%)

in the range of 76-100 (62%), followed by 51-75 (28%) and 26-50 (10%).

Chlorymuron + Metasufuron maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow

farmers (54%) followed by pesticide dealers (38%). The effectiveness (%) in the

range of 76-100 (54%), followed by 51-75 (44%) and 26-50 (2%).

41

S.

No.

Fungicides Soruce of plant protection

information

Effectiveness (%)

Pesticide

dealer

Fellow Agril.

ext.

officer

Media Experience Government 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

farmer

1 Carbendazim

12%+ Mencozeb

63% Wp

38 46 0 2 14 0 0 18 28 54

2 Hexaconazol 5 %

EC

32 38 10 4 16 0 0 16 40 44

3 Propiconazile25%

EC

48 35 0 2 14 1 2 15 28 55

4 Tricyciazole 26 48 0 2 22 2 6 14 32 48

42

S.

No.

Insecticides Soruce of plant protection

information

Effectiveness (%)

Pesticide

dealer

Fellow Agril.

ext.

officer


farmer

1 Acephate 75 %

SP

32 48 2 0 15 3 0 12 31 57

2 Chloropyriphos

50%+

Cypermethrin

44 51 0 0 5 0 0 16 36 48

3 Chloropyriphos

20%

42 38 0 2 15 3 3 9 33 56

4 Deltamethrin1%+

Triazophos

35%EC

48 35 3 2 12 0 0 12 27 61

5 Imidacloprid

17.8 % SL

44 46 2 1 8 0 0 15 26 59

43

S.

No.

Herbicides Soruce of plant protection

information

Effectiveness (%)

Pesticide

dealer

Fellow Agril. ext.

officer


farmer

1 Oxidirzil 22 52 6 2 18 0 0 4 40 56

2 Pendimethylene 26 66 1 0 7 0 0 10 22 68

3 Pyrozosulphuran 38 48 0 4 9 1 0 18 27 55

4 Butachlore 44 36 0 2 16 2 2 12 18 68

5 Ethoxysulfuran

(15WDG)

28 58 2 8 4 0 0 14 40 46

6 2-4D 42 40 0 0 18 0 0 10 28 62

7 Chlorymuron +

Metasufuron

38 54 2 2 14 0 0 2 44 54

44

4.5 Economics of kharif paddy

The present section deals with the economics of production of kharif paddy

grown in the study area. Cost of cultivation is a pre-requisite to estimate the unit cost

of production and to judge whether the price of crops are remunerative or not.

Economics of production of crops covers break-up of input cost item wise, break-up

of input cost on the basis of cost concept wise and income obtained from the crops

on the sampled farmers.

4.5.1 Input wise Cost of cultivation of Kharif paddy

(i.) Variety – MAHAMAYA

The break-up of cost of input factors involved in kharif paddy variety

(MAHAMAYA) on the sample farmers is given in (Table 4.6). It reveals that per

hectare average cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was Rs.39101.44. The human

labour share on total cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was 29.65 per cent and

machine power of kharif paddy was 21.74 per cent. The cost of cultivation was

increased with the size of farm increased in kharif paddy.

(ii.) Variety – SWARNA

The break-up cost of input factor involved in kharif paddy variety (SWARNA) on

the sample farmers is given in (Table 4.7). It reveals that the per hectare average cost

of cultivation of kharif paddy was Rs.31456.43. The human labour share on total

cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was 40.76 per cent and machine power share on

kharif paddy was 25.85s per cent. The cost of cultivation was increased with the size

of farm increased in kharif paddy.

45

Table 4.6: Economics of kharif paddy on different size groups of farms

(Variety- Mahamaya) (Rs/ha)

S.

No. Particulars

Kharif Season


1.

Family human labour

7657.77

(21.52)

8884.38

(23.99)

2959.88

(6.99)

1000.33

(2.34)

5596.24

(14.31)

2.

Hired human labour

2552.59

(7.17)

2961.46

(7.99)

8879.65

(20.99)

11373

(26.65)

5999.11

(15.34)

Total human labour

10210.36

(28.69)

11845.84

(31.99)

11839.55

(27.99)

12373.33

(28.99)

11595.36

(29.65)

3.

Machine power

8196.36

(23.03)

6060.12

(16.37)

11070.48

(26.17)

9964.28

(23.34)

8502.34

(21.74)

4s.

Seed cost

180

(0.50)

190

(0.51)

200

(0.47)

210

(0.49)

194.3

(0.49)

5.

Manure & Fertilizer

13399.49

(37.66)

15276.01

(41.26)

15336.3

(36.26)

16241.15

(38.05)

15079.70

(13.75)

6.

Plant protection

2222

(6.24)

2222.9

(6.00)

2217.3

(5.24)

2244.4

(5.25)

2225.92

(5.69)

7.

Interest on working capital

@4%

1368.32

(3.84)

1423.79

(3.84)

1656.54

(3.91)

1641.32

(3.84)

1503.90

(3.84)

Total Input cost

35576.53

(100)

37018.66

(100)

42290.17

(100)

42674.48

(100)

39101.44

(100)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total input cost.

46

Table 4.7: Economics of kharif paddy on different size groups of farms (Variety-

Swarna)

(Rs./ha)

S. No. Operation Kharif Season


1. Family human labour 7718.97

(27.29)

8650.17

(32.81)

2856.96

(9.37)

1975.3

(4.47)

5711.14

(18.15)

2.

Hired human labour

2572.99

(9.09)

2883.39

(10.93)

8570.88

(28.13)

13877.18

(31.45)

6431.92

(20.44)

Total human labour

10291.96

(36.39)

11533.57

(43.75)

11427.85

(47.35)

15852.5

(35.92)

12833.07

(40.76)

3.

Machine power

8968.24

(31.71)

4737.76

(17.97)

10810.56

(35.48)

9822.5

(22.26)

8133.00

(25.85)

4.

Seed cost

180

(0.63)

190

(0.72)

200

(0.65)

210

(0.47)

194.3

(0.61)

5.

Manure & Fertilizers

13250.54

(46.85)

15312.5

(58.09)

15487.98

(50.83)

16270.1

(36.87)

13260.32

(42.15)

6.

Plant protection

2221.8

(7.85)

2222

(8.42)

2226.6

(7.30)

2244.4

(5.08)

2227.79

(7.08)

7.

Interest on working capital @4%

1087.74

(3.84)

1013.82

(3.84)

1171.84

(3.84)

1696.96

(3.84)

1209.89

(3.84)

Total Input Cost

28281.31

(100)

26359.47

(100)

30467.86

(100)

44121.14

(100)

31456.43

(100)


4.5.2 Operation wise Cost of cultivation of Kharif paddy

(i.) Variety – (MAHAMAYA)

The break-up of operation wise cost of cultivation involved in kharif paddy variety

(MAHAMAYA) on the sample farmers is given in (Table 4.8). It reveals that the

operation wise per hectare average cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was

Rs.39101.44. The manure and fertilizer share on total cost of cultivation of kharif

paddy was 39.65 per cent and sowing/transplanting of kharif paddy was 10.17 per

cent and plant protection of kharif paddy was 9.16 percent. The operation wise cost

of cultivation was increased with the size of farm increased in kharif paddy.

47


The break-up of operation wise cost of cultivation involved in kharif paddy variety

(SWARNA) on the sample farmers is given in (Table 4.9). It reveals that the

operation wise per hectare average cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was

Rs.31456.43. The sowing and transplanting share on total cost of cultivation of

kharif paddy was 51.43 per cent and plant protection of kharif paddy was 11.42 per

cent .The harvesting of kharif paddy was 17.58 per cent. The operation wise cost of

cultivation was increased with the size of farm increased in kharif paddy.

Table 4.8: Cost of cultivation of Kharif Paddy (Variety-Mahamaya)

(Rs./ha)

S.

No. Operation

Kharif Season


1.

Field preparation

2454.45

(6.89)

2148.64

(5.80)

2153.66

(5.09)

4328.12

(10.14)

2674.76

(6.84)

2.


14308.58

(40.21)

14523.81

(39.23)

16406.3

(38.79)

17366.15

(40.69)

15506.19

(39.65)

3.

Sowing/Seed

1061.24

(2.98)

1089.32

(2.94)

1137.12

(2.68)

1100.62

(2.57)

1095.48

(2.80)

4.

Weeding/Interculture

1886.36

(5.30)

1395.27

(3.76)

1295.45

(3.06)

1312.5

(3.07)

1462.96

(3.74)

5.

Plant protection

3227.68

(9.07)

3730.1

(10.07)

3616.28

(8.55)

3681.9

(8.62)

3583.26

(9.16)

6.

Transplanting

3985.79

(11.20)

4014.86

(10.84)

3963.38

(9.37)

3937.5

(9.22)

3980.34

(10.17)

7.

Harvesting

4741.47

(13.32)

5217.56

(14.09)

5202.02

(12.3)

4187.5

(9.81)

3296.36

(8.43)

8.

Threshing/winnowing

2088.06

(5.86)

2451.35

(6.62)

4583.96

(10.83)

2805.8

(6.57)

2936.36

(7.50)

9.

Transportation

1977.27

(5.55)

2269.54

(6.13)

2150.25

(5.08)

2314.73

(5.42)

2187.29

(5.59)

10.


@4%

1368.32

(3.84)

1423.79

(3.84)

1626.54

(3.84)

1641.32

(3.84)

1503.90

(3.84)

Total input cost

35576.53

(100)

37018.66

(100)

42290.17

(100)

42674.48

(100)

39101.44

(100)


48

Table 4.9: Cost of cultivation of Kharif Paddy (Variety-Swarna)

(Rs./ha)

S.

No. Operation

Kharif Season


1.

Field preparation

2388.62

(8.44)

2146.34

(8.14)

2124.44

(6.97)

4329.5

(9.80)

2653.06

(8.43)

2.


14102.39

(49.86)

16523.47

(62.68)

16551.26

(54.32)

17395.1

(39.42)

16180.26

(51.43)

3.

Sowing/Seed

1102.22

(3.89)

1093.65

(4.14)

1101.75

(3.61)

1136

(2.57)

1106.29

(3.51)

4.

Weeding/Intercultural

1681.85

(5.94)

1281.7

(4.86)

1278.84

(4.19)

1350

(3.05)

1383.41

(4.39)

5.

Plant protection

3166.22

(11.19)

3743.75

(14.20)

3694.54

(12.12)

3694.4

(8.37)

3595.01

(11.42)

6.

Transplanting

4000

(14.14)

4052.43

(15.33)

3958.33

(12.99)

3937.5

(8..92)

3995.11

(12.70)

7.

Harvesting

5361.11

(18.95)

6087.8

(9.69)

6184.29

(20.29)

4100

(9.29)

5532.68

(17.58)

8.

Threshing/winnowing

1782.4

(6.30)

2556.09

(9.69)

2822.11

(9.26)

2985

(6.76)

2369.13

(7.53)

9.

Transportation

2027.77

(7.17)

2275.82

(8.63)

2125

(6.97)

1618

(3.66)

2048.75

(6.51)

10.


@4%

1087.74

(3.84)

1013.82

(3.84)

1171.84

(4.44)

1696.96

(3.84)

1209.89

(3.84)

Total input cost

28281.31

(100)

26359.47

(100)

30467.86

(100)

44121.14

(100)

31456.43

(100)


4.5.3: Yield Value of Output and Cost of Production of Kharif paddy


The yield value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of kharif

paddy on the sample farmers have been worked out in (Table 4.10). It indicates that

the average yield of kharif paddy was 54.07 quintals. The per hectare gross income

of kharif paddy was Rs. 95898. The average cost of production per quintal of kharif

paddy was worked out to Rs. 931.85.

49

Table 4.10: Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per quintal of

Kharif paddy (Variety – Mahamaya)

(Rs./ha)

S.

No. Particulars

Kharif Season


1. Input Cost (Rs.) 35576.53 37018.66 42290.17 42674.48 39101.44

2. Fixed Cost (Rs.)

Land Revenue 15 15 15 15 15

Depreciation on

implements 819.63 606.01 1107.04 996.42 850.23

Rental value of own

land/leased land(Rs) 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Interest on Fixed Capital 340 380 410 440 390.7

Total fixed Cost (Rs.) 11174.63 11001.01 11532.04 11451.42 11255.93

Total Cost (Rs.) 46751.16 48019.67 53822.21 54125.9 50357.37

3. Production (Qtl)

a. Main Product 51.02 52 56.88 57.58 54.07

b. By-Product 44.31 50.81 50.98 53.57 49.99

4. Price of production

(Rs./qtl)

a. Main Product 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450

b. By-Product 350 350 350 350 350

5. Value of production

(Rs./qtl)

a. Main Product 73979 75400 81200 82650 78401.5

b. By-Product 15508.5 17083.5 17843 18749.5 17496.5

Gross Income (Rs.) 89487.5 92483.5 99043 101399.5 95898

6. Cost of production

(Rs./qtl)

a. Main Product 916.33 923.45 946.24 940.01 931.85

b. By-Product 3.01 2.81 3.01 2.88 2.87


The yield value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of kharif

paddy on the sample farmers have been worked out in (Table 4.11). It indicates that

the average yield of kharif paddy was 52.41 quintals. The per hectare gross income

of kharif paddy was Rs.193551.5 . The average cost of production per quintal of

kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 814.26.

50

Table 4.11: Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per quintal of

Kharif paddy (Variety – Swarna)

(Rs./ha)

S.

No. Particulars

Kharif Season


1. Input Cost (Rs.) 28281.31 26359.47 30497.86 44121.14 31456.43

2. Fixed Cost

Land Revenue 15 15 15 15 15

Depreciation on

implements 896.82 473.77 1081.05 982.25 813.30

Rental value of own land/

leased land(Rs) 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

Interest on Fixed Capital 340 380 410 440 390.7

Total fixed Cost (Rs.) 11251.82 10868.77 11506.05 11437.25 11219

Total Cost (Rs.) 39532.13 37228.24 42003.91 55558.39 42675.43

3. Production (qtl)

a. Main Product 50.92 52 53.01 54 52.41

b. By-Product 41.66 49.5 51.28 53.5 49.02

4. Price of

production(Rs./qtl)

a. Main Product 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450

b. By-Product 350 350 350 350 350

5. Value of

production(Rs./qtl)

a. Main Product 73834 75400 76864.5 78300 75994.5

b. By-Product 14581 13995 17948 18655 17157

Gross Income (Rs.) 88415 89395 94812.5 96955 193151.5

6. Cost of production

(Rs./qtl)

a. Main Product 776.35 715.92 792.37 1028.25 814.26

b. By-Product 2.71 2.66 2.34 2.97 2.48

4.5.4: Measures of farm profit of kharif paddy


The value of net income, family labour income and farm business income per

hectare on the sample farmers have been worked out in (Table 4.12). Clearly

indicates that on an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm

business income are to Rs. 145405.26, Rs. 51986.96 and Rs. 62380.14 per hectare

from kharif paddy. The input-output ratio of kharif paddy was worked out to 1:1.93.

51

Table 4.12: Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different group

of farms (Variety- MAHAMAYA)

(Rs./ha)

S.

No. Particulars

Kharif Season


1. Total Cost 45931.53 47413.66 52715.17 53129.48 49507.26

2. Gross Income 89487.5 92483.5 99043 101399.5 95898

3. Net Income 135419.03 139897.16 151758.17 154528.98 145405.26

4. Faimily laboure

income 51213.74 131012.78 49287.71 48270.02 51986.98

5. Farm Business

Income 61564.74 64334.22 59697.71 59710.35 62380.14

6. Input-Output Ratio 1:1.94 1:1.83 1:1.87 1:1.90 1:1.93


The value of net income, family labour income and farm business income per

hectare on the sample farmers have been worked out in (Table 4.13). Clearly

indicates that on an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm

business income are to Rs. 51288.68, Rs. 56999.76 and Rs. 118912.51 per hectare

from paddy. The input-output ratio of paddy was worked out to 1:2.25.

Table 4.13: Cost and return of paddy on the sample farms for different group of

farms (SWARNA) (Rs./ha)

S. No. Particulars Kharif Season


1 Total Cost 38636.31 36754.47 40892.86 54576.14 41862.82

2 Gross Income 88415 75799.5 94812.5 96955 93151.5

3 Net Income 49778.69 39045.03 53919.64 42378.86 51288.68

4 Faimily laboure

income 57497.66 47695.2 37763.6 44354.16 56999.79

5 Farm Business

Income 108992.34 93523.8 122438.4 139115.84 118912.51

6 Input-Output Ratio 1:2.28 1:2.06 1:2.31 1:1.77 1:2.25

52

Fig.4.5 : Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different group of farms (Variety- Mahamaya)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

1 2 3 4 5 6

Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

Overall

Cost and return of kharif paddy (Variety-mahamaya)

Total cost Gross income Family labour income Farm bussiness income Input-output ratio

53

Fig.4.6 : Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different group of farms (Variety- Swarna)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

1 2 3 4 5 6

Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

Overall

Cost and return of kharif paddy (Variety-Swarna)

29

4.5.5 Cost and Returns on the Basis of Cost Concept of paddy


The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of rice have been

presented in (Table 4.14) portrays that paddy on an average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost

B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were worked to Rs. 33517.86, Rs.

33517.86, Rs. 33911.02, Rs. 43911.02, Rs. 39507.26, Rs.49507.26 and 42454.74 per

hectare. The average kharif paddy of income per hectare over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost

B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were calculated to Rs. 62380.14, Rs.

62380.14, Rs. 61986.98, Rs. 51986.98, Rs. 56393.74, Rs. 46393.74 and Rs.

53443.26s.


The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of rice have been

presented in (Table 4.15) portrays that paddy on an average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost

B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were worked to Rs. 25761.01, Rs.

25761.01, Rs. 26151.71, Rs. 36151.71, Rs. 34062.85, 41862.84 and 46049.13 per

hectare. The average kharif paddy of income per hectare over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost

B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were calculated to Rs. 67390.49, Rs.

67390.49, Rs. 66999.79, Rs. 56999.79, Rs. 59088.65, Rs. 49088.65 and Rs.

47102.37.

Table 4.14: Break-up of total cost, cost concept wise income over different cost in

kharif paddy (Variety-MAHAMAYA)

S.

No. Particulars

Kharif season (Rs./ha)

Marginal Small Medium Large Overall A. Break-up of cost

Cost A1 27922.76 28149.28 39345.29 41689.15 33517.86

Cost A2 27922.76 28149.28 39345.29 41689.15 33517.86

Cost B1 28273.76 28529.28 39755.29 42129.15 33911.02

Cost B2 38273.76 38529.28 49755.29 52129.15 43911.02

Cost C1 35931.53 37413.66 42715.17 43129.48 39507.26

Cost C2 45931.53 47413.66 52715.17 53129.48 49507.26

55

Cost C3 +10% 50524.68 52155.02 57986.68 58442.42 42454.74

B. Income over different cost

Cost A1 61564.74 62334.22 59697.71 59710.35 62380.14

Cost A2 61564.74 62334.22 59697.71 59710.35 62380.14

Cost B1 61213.47 63954.22 59287.71 59270.35 61986.98

Cost B2 51213.47 53954.22 49287.71 49270.35 51986.98

Cost C1 53555.97 55069.84 56327.83 58270.02 56393.74

Cost C2 43555.97 45069.84 46327.83 48270.02 46393.74

Cost C3 +10% 38962.82 40328.48 41056.32 42957.08 53443.26

Table 4.15: Break-up of total cost, cost conceptwise income over different cost in

kharif paddy (Variety-SWARNA)

S.

No. Particulars

Kharif season (Rs./ha)


A. Break-up of cost

Cost A1 20577.34 17724.3 27625.9 42160.84 25761.01

Cost A2 20577.34 17724.3 27625.9 42160.84 25761.01

Cost B1 20917.34 18104.3 28035.9 42600.84 26151.71

Cost B2 30917.34 28104.3 38035.9 52600.84 36151.71

Cost C1 38636.31 26754.47 30892.86 44576.14 34062.85

Cost C2 48636.31 36754.47 40892.86 54576.14 44062.85

Cost C3

+10% 42499.94 40429.91 44982.14 60033.75 46049.13

B. Income over different cost

Cost A1 67837.66 58075.2 67186.6 54794.16 67390.49

Cost A2 67837.66 58075.2 67186.6 54794.16 67390.49

Cost B1 67497.66 57695.2 66776.6 54354.16 66999.79

Cost B2 57497.66 47695.2 56776.6 44354.16 56999.76

Cost C1 49778.69 49045.03 63919.64 52378.86 59088.65

Cost C2 39778.69 39045.03 53919.64 42378.86 49088.65

Cost C3

+10% 45915.06 35369.59 49830.36 36921.25 47102.37

29

4.6 Constraints:

It could be seen that from (Table 4.16 and 4.17 ) 40% respondents thought

that, there is lack of know-how about the application of pesticides. 72%

respondents thought that , there is lack of recommended package of practices

for pesticides application in the region. 95% respondents having lack of

resources application. 85% respondents thought that they getting labour

problem for pesticide application. 78% farmer know the recommended level

of pesticide use in paddy production.

Majority of the farmer were participated extension programme.

Dealers are the major player in case of purchase and use of pesticides in the

study area. Farmers are aware about the harmful effect of insecticides on

soil, water and human health.-pest More awareness programme is needed for

IPM practices.

Tables 4.16 Constraints faced by the farmers in cereals application of pesticides

S.N QUESTION (%)

1 Lack of technical know-how about the application of pesticides Y/N

a. Yes 40

if no, why ?

a. Government non approach 55

b. Farmer distrust 5

c. Any other specify 0

2 Lack of latest recommended and effective pesticides Y/N

a. NO 25

If yes, then

a. Non availability if pesticides 22

b. Poor knowledge of technology 45

c. Old farmers practices 8

d. Any other specify 0

57

3 Lack of recommended package of practices for pesticide application in

the region Y/N

a. NO 28

if yes , why?

a. No such type of recommendation 24

b. No frequent visit of extension worker 38

c. Not proper interest of farmers 10

4 Lack of resources i.e. Money, equipment etc. Y/N

A. If yes then how are you managing money?

a. From bank loan 0

b. From relatives 38

c. From traders 57

B. No 5

5 Do you face any problem in getting labour for pesticide application Y/N

a. Yes 85

b. No 15

6 Do you know the recommended level of pesticide use in cereals production

Y/N

a. Yes 78

b. No 22

7 What is the dose you are using ?

a. RD (Recommended Dose) 40

b. >RD 45

c. <RD 5

8 Are you aware about the importance of toxicity, expiry dates, colour

symbols that are present on the label? Y/N

a. Yes 62

b. No 38

9 Do you get pesticides on time Y/N

a. Yes 72

b. No 28

10 Do you feel pesticides causes adverse effect on land or crop or environment? Y/N

a. Yes 67

b. No 33

58

Table 4.17 Opinion of the respondent about pesticides

S. NO QUESTION (%)

1 Did you participate in any kind of extension programme ?

a. Krishi Mela 40

b. Demonstration programme 23

c. Exhibition 18

d. Field trip 19

2 Awareness about the use of pesticides

a. Relatives/friends 34

b. Progressive farmers 27

c. Dealerss 28

d. Agri. Ext. officer 4

e. Department of agriculture 3

f. Media (TV/Radio) 4

h. Others 0

3 Agency of purchase

a. Dealers 60

b. Agro-agency 23

c. Co-operative society 14

d. Department of agriculture 3

e. Others 0

4 Do you follow the recommended method of pesticides application Y/N

a. Yes 80

b. No 20

5 Do you get adequate labour facilities for pesticides application Y/N

a. Yes 65

b. No 35

59

6 Do you feel chemical pesticide application causes degradation to soil Y/N

a. Yes 68

b. No 32

7 Do you feel organic pesticides are better than chemical pesticides Y/N

a. Yes 58

b. No 42

8 Do you think that the quantity of pesticide used is adequate? Y/N

If yes substantiate?

a. This much of pesticides are able to control pests. 12

b. I will be getting higher returns for this quantity 82

c. Any other

b. No 6

9

Do you think the application of pesticide is effective for cereals

production? Y/N

If yes, reason

a. Quick effect 15

b. Easy to use 10

c. Easily available 17

d. Cost effective 58

e. Others

10 Do you purchase the pesticide from a known company? Y/N

a. Yes 5

b. No 95

11 Do you bring packed pesticides or loose pesticide? Packed/Loose

A. Packed 91

B. Loose 8

12 Information source of farmers regarding pesticide application

A. Pesticide dealer 40

60

b. Agriculture extension 12

c. Fellow farmers 31

d. Media 4

e. Government 3

g. Experience 10

13 Are you aware about the bad effect of pesticide application Y/N

a. Yes 63

b. No 37

29

CHAPTER-V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Summary

Pesticides together with fertilizers and high yielding varieties have helped

Indian farmers to achieve significant increase in crop productivity. For example, the

yield of two most pesticides using crops, cotton and rice increased by a factor of 1.9

times and 1.8 times respectively. During the initial years of Green Revolution, the

effectiveness of pesticides was so unambiguous that soon it over showed the

traditional methods of pest control. According to one estimate, every rupee spent in

chemical pest control helps saving crop output worth Rs. 3. The average per hectare

consumption of pesticides in India had increased from 3.2 gm in 1954-55 to 570 gm

in 1996 (Bami, 1996). The present use of pesticides in India was 580 gm per hectare

which is very low as compared to Taiwan (17 kg/ha) followed by Japan (16.5 kg/ha)

and in the US it is 4.5 kg/ha (Kumarswamy, 2008).

Since last more than three decades, adoption of high yielding varieties, use of

fertilizers, irrigation and agro-resources and management practices are given major

emphasis. The fertilizer is a major input for rice production. Fertilizer consumption

in India during 2000-01 was 167.02 lakh tonnes which increased to 277.40 lakh

tones during 2011-12. Fertilizer consumption in Chhattisgarh during 2012 was

595.57, thousand tonnes. The pesticide use in India was 50.58 thousand tonnes.

(Anonymous 2012).

The specific objectives of the present study are:

1. To work out the cost and return of major cereals in the study area.

2. To examine the consumption pattern of pesticide in major cereals.

3. To analyze the farmer perception on effectiveness of various pesticides

used in major cereals.

62

4. To find out the constraints in use of pesticide in major cereals and suggest

suitable measures to overcome them.

The objectives were achieved based on cross-sectional data. For this purpose

a survey was conducted in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh. For the present study

kharif paddy crop were selected for detailed study. Out of four blocks in Raipur

district, Arang and Tilda block has been selected purposively. The data was

collected from 100 farmers, from five villages (namely Nagpuraand badganv from

Arang block and Kharora and Math from Tilda block) for the present study. The

primary data from the farmers are collected through personal interview with the help

of well prepared questionnaire and schedule. All the information collected from the

farmers relate to the production year 2015-16(kharif season). The collected data

were compiled and tabular analysis was made to work out the different parameters,

such as compound growth rate of paddy and consumption of N, P, and K, cost

concepts, business analysis, cost of production of paddy crop. The per hectare gross

returns and net returns of paddy crop were also worked out. The levels of utilization

of different inputs per hectare in paddy production were also worked out.

5.2 Conclusions

• General characteristics of sampled households:

• The average size of holding was 2.45 hectares. On an average the cropping

intensity was found 151.38 per cent. The major source of irrigation was canal.

• The average family size was 4.27 and literacy rate in the selected households

was 85.83 per cent.

• The sample households comprised pre-dominantly of Other backward cast

(94.00 per cent) followed by other General (5.00 per cent) and scheduled caste

(1.00) per cent.

• Paddy covered highest cropped area 64.77s per cent in kharif season

The consumption pattern of Agrochemicals, in kharif paddy

63

The use of insecticide in kharif paddy was higher in case of Imidacloprid 17.8%

SL (+40.70 per cent) followed by Aciphate (+23.22) and lowest in

Chloropyariphos50%+ Cypermethrin (+6.6 per cent). The above insecticide was

used for controlling of Stem borer, Cutworm, Plant hopper and Leaf folder.

The use of herbicide in kharif paddy gap was higher in case of

Chlorymuron10%+Metasulfuran (+125 per cent) followed by Pyrozosulphuran

(+77) and lowest in Butachlor (+1.62 per cent). The above herbicide was used

for controlling of Buti, Bhengra, Motha, Jalkumbhi, Narjava, Aaluban, Sanva,

Loung ghass, Chunchuniya, Jalkumbhi, Tinpatiya and Broad leaf weeds.

The use of fungicide in kharif paddy was higher in case of Tricyclazole (+41.67

per cent) followed byHexaconazile (+31.67 Tricyclazole) and lowest in

Propiconazole 25% EC (21.90 per cent).The above fungicide was used for

controlling of Blast, Sheath blight, Brown spot and BLB.

• Economics of crop production

The average yield of kharif paddy was 54.07 quintals. The per hectare gross

income of kharif paddy was Rs. 95898. The average cost of production per

quintal of kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 931.85.

The average yield of kharif paddy was 52.41 quintals. The per hectare gross

income of kharif paddy was Rs.193551.5 . The average cost of production per

quintal of kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 814.26.

On an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm business

income are to Rs. 145405.26, Rs. 51986.96 and Rs. 62380.14 per hectare from

kharif paddy. The input-output ratio of kharif paddy was worked out to 1:1.93 .

On an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm business

income are to Rs. 51288.68, Rs. 56999.76 and Rs. 118912.51 per hectare from

paddy. The input-output ratio of paddy was worked out to 1:2.25 .

The per hectare break-up of cost of kharif paddy variety (Mahamaya) on an

average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were

worked to Rs. 33517.86, Rs. 33517.86, Rs. 33911.02, Rs. 43911.02, Rs.

39507.26, Rs.49507.26 and 42454.74 per hectare. The average kharif paddy of

income per hectare over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and

64

Cost C3 were calculated to Rs. 62380.14, Rs. 62380.14, Rs. 61986.98, Rs.

51986.98, Rs. 56393.74, Rs. 46393.74 and Rs. 53443.26s.

The per hectare break-up of cost of kharif paddy variety (MTU-1010) on an

average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were

worked to Rs. 25761.01, Rs. 25761.01, Rs. 26151.71, Rs. 36151.71, Rs. 34062.85,

41862.84 and 46049.13 per hectare. The average kharif paddy of income per hectare

over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were

calculated to Rs. 67390.49, Rs. 67390.49, Rs. 66999.79, Rs. 56999.79, Rs.

59088.65, Rs. 49088.65 and Rs. 47102.37.

Constraints :

45% respondents thought that, there is lack of know- how about the

application of pesticides.

85% respondents thought that, there is lack of recommended package of

practices for pesticides application in the region.

95% respondents having lack of resources application.

80% respondents thought that they getting labour problem for pesticide

application.

85% farmers know the recommended level of pesticide use in vegetable

production.

Majority of the farmers were participated in extension programme. Dealers

are the major player in case of purchase and use of pesticides in the study

area. Farmers are aware about the harmful effect of insecticides on soil,

water and human health. Farmers are using pesticides in vegetables crops to

reduce the losses due to insect- pest. More awareness programme is needed

for IPM practices.

29

REFERENCES

Abhilash, P.C. and Nandita Singh. 2009. Pesticide Use and Application: An Indian

Scenario, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 165(1-3): 1-12.

Alarima C.I., Adamu C.O., MasunagaT. and Wakatsuki T., 2011. Constraints to

Sawah Rice Production System in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 36

(2):121 -130.

Anonymous 2012. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Directorate of Economics and

Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. Pp. 65-66.

Anonymous, 2006, Annual Review of Fertilizer Production - 2005-06. Indian

Journal of Fertilizer, 2(6): 74-114.

Anonymous, 2008, Agriculture output, Economic intelligence service, CMIEA

publications, Mumbai.6 (2): 54-61.

Anonymous, 2012. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Department of Agriculture

and Cooperation. Pp. 277.

Anonymous, 2012. Statistical Outline of Chhattisgarh. Department of Economics

and Statistics, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur

Anonymous, 2013-14. Area, Production, and Productivity of Paddy in Raipur

District in Plans of Chhattisgarh,. Commission Land Record, Raipur. Pp. 7-

31.

Bami, H. L., 1996, Pesticide Use in India Ten Questions. Pest. Information, 21(4):

19- 26.

Bhardwaj., Tulsi. And J.P. Sharma, Impact of Pesticides Application in Agricultural

Industry : An Indian Scenario, Division of Agricultural Extension, IARI,

Pusa, New Delhi.

66

Demircan, V., Ylmaz, H., 2005. The Analysis of Pesticide Use in Apple Production

in Isparta, Turkey. Ekoloji. 15(57): 38-48.

Engindeniz, S. and Engindeniz, D. Y., 2006, Economic Analysis of Pesticide Use on

Greenhouse Cucumber Growing: a Case Study for Turkey. Journal of Plant

Diseases Protect, 113(5): 193-198.

Gauraha, R.S. and Jain J.K., 1982. An Analysis of Factor Responsible for Yield

Gaps in Paddy on Demonstrating and Non-demonstrating Fields.

Maharashtra journal of Extension Education, 1(1): 14-19.

Hashemi, Seyyed Mahmoud and Damalas, Christos A.(2011) 'Farmers' Perceptions

of Pesticide Efficacy:Reflections on the Importance of Pest Management

Practices Adoption', Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35: 1, 69 — 85

Hosamani U.K., 2009, Economic Consequence of Pesticides Use in Paddy Koppal

District, Karnataka. M.Sc. (Ag.) thesis submitted to the University of

Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

Husan et.al. 2014. Growth and Trend in Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops

of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Asian Journal. of Agriculture and Rural

Development, 4(2): 149-155.

Hussain A., Khattak N.R. and Khan A.Q. 2008. Cost Benefit Analysis of Different

Rice Varieties in District Swat, Sarhad Journal of Agriulture. 24 (4): 745-

748.

Kazmi S.Q. (2012), Consumer Perception and Buying Decisions(The Pasta Study)

International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology,(2012)

1:6

Khai,H.V., (2014), Farmer Perceptions and Demand for Pesticide Use: A Case

Study of Rice Production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Journal of

Economics and Behavioral Studies . 6(11):868-873

Mojo, D., Y.Todo and P.Matous, Perception of Farmers and Agricultural

Professionals on Changes in Productivity and Water Resources in Ethiopia,

67

International Journal of Biological, Biomolecular, Agricultural, Food and

Biotechnological Engineering 4:6

N, Mahantesh,and Singh Alka (2009), A Study on Farmers‘ Knowledge, Perception

and Intensity of Pesticide Use in Vegetable Cultivation in Western Uttar

Pradesh, Division of Agricultural Economics, Indian Agricultural Research

Institute, New Delhi Pusa Agri Science 32:63-69

Naing T. A. A., Kingsbury A. Journal., Buerkert A. and. Finckh M. R.,2008. A

Survey of Myanmar Rice Production and Constraints Journal of Agriculture

and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 109 (2): 151–168.

Nirmala B. and Muthuraman P. 2009. Economic and Constraint Analysis of Rice

Cultivation in Kaithal District of Haryana, Indian Research Journal of

Extension Education, 9 (1): 47-49.

Reddy Y.S. and G.P., 2005. Production and Marketing of Sunflower Cultivation in

Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural marketing, 19(3) 23-24.

Sarswat S.P. and Singh Pratap, 2003. Strategy For Fertilizer Consumption In

Himachal Pradesh, The Bihar Journals of Agriculture Marketing, 11 (1&2):

42-50.

Sakeena Rather. 2014. Production and Productivity Trends of Paddy Cultivation in

Jammu & Kashmir. Indian Journal. of research 3(6).

Saraswati Poudel Acharya et.al. 2012. Growth in area, production and productivity

of major crops in Karnataka. Karnataka Journal. Of Agricultural Science, 25

(4): 431- 436.

Sawant S.D., 1997. Food grain Output Growth: Emerging Constraints

and Perspectives for Technology Development Policies. In Bhupat Desai

(ed.). Agricultural paradigm for the ninth plan under new economic

environment, Oxford and IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.

68

Shivamurthy, M.L.R. Rao,Shailaja Hittalamani, and M.T. Lakshminarayan, 2008.

Constraints of Farmers Cultivating Rainfed Paddy in Eastern Dry Zone of

Karnataka. Mysore-Journal-Of-Agriculture-Sciences, 42 (1): 163-165.

Singh P.K. and Varshney J.G., 2010. Adoption Level and Constraints in Rice

Production Technology, Indian Research Journal of Exension. Education,

10(1): 91-94.

Sori S.K.2011. An Economic Analysis of Production, Marketing, and Processing of

Paddy in Mahasamund District of Chhattishgarh. Ph.D. (Ag.) Thesis

submitted to Department of Agricultural Economics, Indira Gandhi Krishi

Vishwavidyalya, Raipur (C.G.).

Tarar N.K. 2008. Comparative Economics of Kharif and Summer Paddy Production

in Durg District of Chhattisgarh M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis submitted to Department

of Agricultural Economics, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalya, Raipur

(C.G.)

Thanh N. C. and Singh B. 2006, Constraints Faced By the Farmers In Rice

Production And Export. Omonrice 14, 97-110.

Yadav S.R. 2010. A Socio-Economic Characterization of Upland Rice Production

System in Dantewada District of Chhattisgarh. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis submitted

to Department of Agricultural Economics, Indira Gandhi Krishi

Vishwavidyalya, Raipur (C.G.).

Yogeshwari, 2002 Economics and environmental implication of pesticide use in

paddy Shimoga district. M. Sc. (Ag.) Thesis submitted to Department of

Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

29

APPENDIX-I

Question schedule

DEPARTMENT OF AGRIBUSINESS & RURAL MANAGEMENT,

INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA,

RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

“A STUDY ON FARMERS PERCEPTION ON USE OF PESTICIDE IN

MAJOR VEGETABLES IN RAIPUR DISTRICT OF CHHATTISGARH.”

LAXMI VERMA

House Hold Schedule

A. General information

1. Name of farmer ------------------------------------------- 2. Age -------------------

3. Education ------------------------------- 4. Caste (Gen./SC/ST/OBC) -------------

5. Village -------------------------------- 6. Post -----------------------------------------

7. Tehsil ---------------------------------- 8. District -------------------------------------

9. State -------------------------------- 10. Distance from market (km) ---------------

11. Distance from pacca road (km) ------------------------------------------------------

12. Date of interview ----------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Details of the family

S.

N.

Name of

Family

member

Relation to

Head

Age Sex

M/F

Literacy

Level

Occupation Remarks

Total

* 1= Illiterate, 2 = Primary, 3 = Middle School, 4 = High School, 5= College, 6

= University

70

C. Details of land holding

LAND USE

Particular Area

(ha)

Agriculture Source of

Irrigation

Soil

type

Land

Quality # Irrigation Unirrig.

Owned land

i. Cultivated

ii. Homestead

Leased in

Leased out

Total land

1= Poor, 2= Average , 3= Good, 4= Very good

D. SOURCE OF IRRIGATION

S.No Particular Area (ha) Irrigation charges (Rs.)

Tank

Canal

Tube well

Well

Bore well

Stop dam

Other

Total

71

E. Cropping pattern

Season Crops Variety Area (ha) Production

(quintal)

Value

Rs. Irrigated Unirrigated

Kharif

Rabi

Summer

or Zaid

F. FARM STRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT

S.N Items No. Year of

Construction

Present

value

(Rs.)

Expenditure

on Annual

Repair (Rs.) 1 Farm building

a. Pacca

b. Semi Pacca

c. Kutcha

2 Irrigation structure

and equipment

3 Implements and

machinery

4 Plant protection

Equipment

5 Dairy equipment &

tools

6 Transport

equipment

Total

Cost of cultivation (kharif/Rabi)

Crop - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variety - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Area - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ( Irrigated / Unirrigated )

A) Labour cost

72

S.

N.

Operation Family

human

labour

(days)

Hired

human

labour

(days)

Bullock

Power

Machine

power

Total

expenditure

on

particular

M F R M F R M F R M F R

1 Field preparation

2 Nursery Preparation

3. Application of

manure & fertilizer

4 Sowing/transplanting

5 Intercultural activity

6 Irrigation

7 Plant protection

8 Harvesting

9 Grading

10 Transportation

11 Others

Total

M = Male, F= Female, T = Total, O= Family labour, H= Hired labour, R= Rate per unit (Rs.)

B) Input cost

S.N. Input Quantity Rate(Rs) / unit Total value (Rs.)

1 Seed

a.

b.

2 Seed Treatment

chemical

a.

b.

c.

3 FYM

4

Fertilizer

a.

b.

c.

d.

5 Micronutrient

a.

b.

c.

C. Consumption patterns of Pesticides:-

73

S.N. Crop Stage

(days After

transplan

ting)

Name

of

pesticide

use

No. of

applic

ation

Quantity/

each time

(per

acre)

Type of

applicator

use

Total

Quantity

Rate Total

value

(Rs.)

Name of insect-pest

1

2

3

4

5

Name Of Diseases

1

2

3

4

5

Name of weeds

1

2

3

4

5

D. Effectiveness of various pesticides

Name of

Pest

Name of

pesticide use

Source of

plant

protection

information

Effectiveness

0-25% 26-50% 51-

75%

76-

100%

Name of insect-pest

1.

2.

3.

4.

Name Of Diseases

1.

2.

3.

4.

Name of weeds

1.

2.

3.

E. Irrigation charges --------------------------------

74

F. Interest on working capital ---------------------------------

G. Fixed cost

a) Rental value of land / leased in land (Rs.) : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

b) Land revenue (Rs.) : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----

H. Production

Particular Quantity

Produced

(Q)

Consumption Sold Rate (Rs.)

/Qt.

Value

(Rs.)

Main

product

crop

a.

b.

By product

a.

b.

Total

Constraints faced by the farmers in vegetables application of pesticides

1. Lack of technical know-how about the application of pesticides Y/N

If No, why ?

a. Government non approach

b. Farmer distrust

c. Any other specify

2. Lack of latest recommended and effective pesticides Y/N

If yes, then

a. Non availability if pesticides

b. Poor knowledge of technology

c. Old farmers practices

d. Any other specify

3. Lack of recommended package of practices for pesticide application in the

region Y/N

If yes, why

a. No such type of recommendation

b. No frequent visit of extension worker

c. Not proper interest of farmers

4. Lack of resources i.e. Money, equipment etc. Y/N

If yes then how are you managing money?

a. From bank loan

75

b. From relatives

c. From traders

5. Do you face any problem, while getting money from banks ? Y/N

If yes, then

a. Not easily available

b. Difficulty in loan getting procedure

c. Disinterest of bank employees

d. Unable to available land for mortgage

e. High interest rate

6. Do you face any problem in getting labour for pesticide application Y/N

7. Do you know the recommended level of pesticide use in vegetable production

Y/N

8. What is the dose you are using ?

a. RD (Recommended Dose)

b. >RD

c. <RD

9. If using >RD, reason

a. Anticipate higher incident of pest

b. Anticipate higher returns

c. Pesticides are not effective

d. Other farmers apply pesticides, it is necessary for me to use pesticides,

so that pest would not develop

10. If using < RD, reason

a. Due to lack of funds

b. Lack of technical know how

c. Unaware about effectiveness of pesticides

d. Aware about effectiveness of pesticides

e. Aware about the bad effect of pesticide

f. Less pest attack

g. Any other

11. Are you aware about the importance of toxicity, expiry dates, colour symbols

that are present on the label? Y/N

12. Do you get pesticides on time Y/N

13. Do you feel pesticides causes adverse effect on land or crop or environment?

Y/N

76

Opinion of the respondent about pesticides

1. Did you participate in any kind of extension programme ?

a. Krishi Mela Y/N

b. Demonstration programme Y/N

c. Exhibition Y/N

d. Field trip Y/N

2. Awareness about the use of pesticides

a. Relatives/friends

b. Progressive farmers

c. Dealerss

d. Co-operatives

e. Department of agriculture

f. Media (TV/Radio)

g. Magazine

h. Others

3. Agency of purchase

a. Dealers

b. Agro-agency

c. Co-operative society

d. Department of agriculture

e. Others

4. Do you follow the recommended method of pesticides application Y/N

5. Do you get adequate labour facilities for pesticides application Y/N

6. Do you feel chemical pesticide application causes degradation to soil Y/N

7. Do you feel organic pesticides are better than chemical pesticides Y/N

8. Do you think that the quantity of pesticide used is adequate? Y/N

If yes substantiate?

a. This much of pesticides are able to control pests.

b. I will be getting higher returns for this quantity

c. Any other

9. Do you think the application of pesticide is effective for vegetable production?

Y/N

If yes, reason

a. Quick effect

b. Easy to use

c. Easily available

d. Cost effective

e. Others

10. Do you purchase the pesticide from a known company? Y/N

11. Do you bring packed pesticides or loose pesticide? Packed/Loose

12. Information source of farmers regarding pesticide application

77

a. Other farmers

b. Agriculture extension

c. Television

d. Radio

e. News paper

f. Input seller

g. Experience

h. Others

13. Are you aware about the bad effect of pesticide application Y/N

Measures to overcome constraints as per farmer

1. Knowledge about the suitable pesticide applied for a specific pest on

vegetables.

2. Adequate government support.

3. Proper training in use of pesticide.

4. Knowledge about recommended doses of pesticide.

5. Information regarding application time of recommended pesticide.

6. Bringing trust of farmer towards usefulness of pesticide.

7. Seasonal availability of pesticide in the market.

8. More subsidies on pesticides.

9. Application of pesticide hygienically using mask and gloves.

10. Awareness regarding toxicity of pesticide and its safety storage.

29

APPENDIX-II

DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-BUSINESS & RURAL MANAGEMENT

INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

RAIPUR (C.G.)

“A STUDY OF FARMERS PERCEPTION ON USE OF PESTICIDES IN

MAJOR CEREALS IN RAIPUR DISTRICT OF CHHATTISGARH”

NAME OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS

Advisor: Dr. V.K.Choudhary Investigator: Laxmi verma

(Professor)

S. No. MARGINAL S. No. SMALL

1. RAJU VERMA 1. GITA VERMA

2. VIJAY YADAV 2. PUNIT VERMA

3. SAVITA YADAV 3. SURENDRA VERMA

4. BHAGWATI PRASHAD 4. MAHENDRA VERMA

5. TIKA RAM VERMA 5. SANAT NAYAK

6. GENDRAM VERMA 6. SONCHANDRABHARDWAJ

7. HEMLAL VERMA 7. KEJURAM VERMA

8. RAMADHIN SAHU 8. VED PRAKASH VERMA

9. BISHAT SAHU 9. RAMKUMAR VERMA

10. SAHDEV VERMA 10. CHANDRIKA PRASHAD

11. LITAK VERMA 11. NAROTTAM YADAV

12. SHANKAR VERMA 12. NARAYAN VERMA

13. PRAHLAD VERMA 13. BALKRISHNA SAHU

14. SHRIRAM VERMA 14. RUPCHAND VERMA

15. RAMDAYAL SAHU 15. KULESHWAR SHARMA

16. KHEDURAM VERMA 16. SHAMBHU VERMA

17. PURSHOTTAM VERMA 17. MANTRAM VERMA

18. SHANTOSH VERMA 18. BHIKHAM VERMA

19. FALGORAM RAM VERMA 19. SHIVPRASAD SAHU

20. SHANTOSH SAHU 20. SUKALU YADAV

21. GOVERDHAN VERMA 21. SHANKAR LAL VERMA

22. NEELKANTH VERMA 22. PAWAN SAHU

79

23. YOGRAM VERMA

24. PARMESHWAR YADAV

25. DHELURAM VERMA

S. NO MEDIUM 26. JAGDISH VERMA

27. THAKUR RAM VERMA

1. BISHAMBHAR VERMA 28. MAHAVEER VERMA

2. SURENDRA VERMA 29. PARSHU VERMA

3 DHANIRAM VERMA 30. CHINTA RAM VERMA

4 PAREMULAL PAL 31. RAJJU YADAV

5 PADM PAL 32. KANTI VERMA

6 MAHESH VERMA 33. VIJAY KUMAR

7 VIJAY NASHINE S. No. LARGE

8 GHANA NASHINE 1. KUBER NAYAK

9. CHABI VERMA 2. BALRAM NASHIE

10 GOVARDHAN VERMA 3. GIRISH DEWANGAN

11 RADHE YADAV 4. ARVIND DEWANGAN

12 KAMAL VERMA 5. NAVRANG AGRAWAL

13 LAXMINARAYAN VERMA 6. VINOD AGRAWAL

14 PAYARELAL VERMA 7. NARENDRA AGRAWAL

15 SONU YADAV 8. JITENDRA VERMA

16 CHINTAMANI VERMA 9. SURAJ KUMAR VERMA

17 KELASH VERMA 10. VINOD VERMA

18 PRAHLAD VERMA 11. BALDEV VERMA

19 VANKUMAR SAHU 12. JETHU VERMA

20 JOHAN VERMA 13. DERHA RAM

21 SALIKRAM VERMA 14. TUKESHWAR PRASHAD

22 FATLE LAL VERMA 15. KULDEPAK

23 GAJENDRA SAHU 16. JAYPRAKASH

24 SHANKAR PRASHAD 17. KUNJBIHARI

25 KARAN VERMA 18. LALSINGH

19. KEKTI YADAW

20. JIVAN KUMAR

21. DILESHWAR PRASHAD

a study of farmers perception on use of pesticides …...dealers are the major player in case of...

Documents