an economic analysis of shade net cultivation in ...management college of agriculture faculty of...
TRANSCRIPT
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHADE NET CULTIVATION
IN CHHATTISHGARH PLAIN
M.B.A. (ABM) Project Report
By
SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH
DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-BUSINESS AND RURAL
MANAGEMENT
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
RAIPUR (C. G.)
2017
AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHADE NET CULTIVATION
IN CHHATTISHGARH PLAIN
PROJECT REPORT
Submitted to
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.)
by
SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR
THE DEGREE OF
Master of Business Administration
in
Agri-Business and Rural Management
V.V.ID.NO. 20151622633 ID No. 120115219
2017
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
1
CHAPTER – I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Back ground
Protected cultivation means some level of control over plant
microclimate to alleviate one or more of abiotic stress for optimum plant
growth which can be achieved in poly house/net house. Crop yield can be several
times higher than those under open field conditions , quantity of produce is
superior , higher input use efficiencies are achieved. Net house and poly house
technology has been recommended for the cultivation of different vegetables.
Production of vegetables involves protection of production stage of vegetable
mainly from adverse environment conditions such as temperature, hails, scorching,
sun, heavy rains, snow and frost (Singh et al 1999).
The production of off season vegetables crops under net house conditions
was evaluated for total yield earliness and other character and incidence of insect
pest (Chema et al 2004). The cultivation of vegetables in net house can play a
better role in improving quality, advancing maturity as well as increasing fruiting
span and productivity cultivation of capsicum, brinjal and tomato is recommended
in net house. Protected cultivation technologies are being utilized all over the
world but the level and extent of their use may be different among different
countries. Therefore, it is necessary to know the status of protected structures and
the crop being grown there.
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiyana has developed net house
technology for the vegetables cultivation. It reduce the dependence on environment
and has capacity not only to increase the productivity of vegetables by many folds
but also improve the quality of vegetables by reducing the use of insecticides and
pesticides. The effect of chemical and pesticide use is more harmful in vegetables
as compared to other non-food crops. In recent years increasing attention has been
focused on several environmentally safe methods of pest management. Including
net house cultivation to reduce pesticide use mainly because of growing concern
2
over food safety issues and environment awareness.
Shade net house is a framed structure made of materials such as GI pipes,
angle iron, wood or bamboo. It is covered with plastics net (Nets are made of
100% Polyethylene hread with specialised UV treatment) having different shade
percentages. It provides partially controlled atmosphere and environment by
reducing light intensity and effective heat during day time to crops grown under it.
Hence round the year seasonal and off-season cultivation is possible. (Chakraborty,
H and Sethi, L N 2015)
Agriculture in India has changed significantly in recent years. For instance,
the area under rice in India has declined by 1.09 million ha during 2000-2007
(Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2007), while the area under vegetables
has increased by 1.07 million ha during 2002-2006 (National Horticultural Board,
2006). A similar trend is occurring in several Indian states, including Punjab. The
area under vegetables increased to 152,100 ha in 2005-2006 from 54,612 ha in
1990-91 (National Horticultural Board, 2006; Punjab Government, 2009).
Growing vegetable demand could be achieved through bringing additional area
under cultivation crops, using hybrid crops, and adoption of improved agro-
techniques. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) belongs to solanaceae family
is one of the most popular and nutritious vegetable crops grown all over the in
India. This vegetable extensively grown in Andra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh, Odisha and Gujarat. Presently, tomato grown in area of 879 thousands
hectare with the production of 18226 thousands MT (National Horticultural Board,
2013). Protected cultivation of vegetables could be used to improve yield quantity
and quality (Singh et al., 1999; Ganesan, 2004; Shahak et al.). Tomato can be
grown in both season (winter and summer) at Punjab but, the extreme low and
extreme higher temperature of semi-arid region of Punjab suffer with low fruit set
and inferior fruit quality. Tomato grown under field conditions is exposed to
abiotic and biotic stress which affects productivity and quality. Protected
cultivation has the potential to reduce biotic and abiotic stresses. A shade net house
can modify environmental conditions with reduced labour. In northern India
particularly at semi-arid region the summer season is from April to July and the
rainy season is from July to October (Ramesh and Arumugam, 2010). Winter is
3
from November to February. Protected cultivation could possibly extend the
growing season. Protected cultivation of vegetable crops suitable for domestic and
export purposes could be a more efficient alternative for land use and other
resources (Sanwal et al., 2004)
However, profitability in protected cultivation depends upon the choice of
structure, selection of crop etc. The protected cultivation could solve the problem
of low productivity during extreme weather conditions. Therefore, in the present
scenario of perpetual demand for vegetables and drastically shrinking land
holdings, protected cultivation of tomato vegetable crops suitable for domestic as
well as export purposes is the best alternative for using land and other resources
more efficiently (Sanwal et al., 2004). To date, there is not much work available on
shade net cultivation of tomato vegetables. There is an urgent need to assess the
cultivation and suitability of different vegetables under shade net house to meet the
growing demand of the vegetables. Thus, the investigation was aimed to determine
the efficacy of shade net cultivation compared to open field on growth, yield of
tomato during summer and winter season. Protected agriculture has expanded now
days to help improve agricultural productivity. The shade net houses commonly
used as protected cultivation are designed for temperate or moderately warm
regions. These design need to be upgraded with climate control to overcome
overheating in summer and overcooling in winter when used in warm, arid regions.
The greenhouse climate is dictated by the soil inside the greenhouse, which
constitutes the major thermal mass the „greenhouse‟ effect itself, which can be
controlled mainly by ventilation in most greenhouses; the crop‟s transpiration,
which has a dominant effect on temperature and vapor-pressure deficit. Structures
commonly used in the region are small (low and small volume) and have
inappropriate roof-slopes (reducing light transmission); taller structures with
appropriate roofs would improve light transmission, ventilation, inertia against
external climatic variations, and drainage of condensation. Some studies under
different types of shade net house have been carried out for growing of nursery as
well as for production of some important medicinal plants and cut flower etc. in
hilly regions of India. But scanty information is available on such type of wooden
4
framed structure, which may be utilized for round year cultivation of tomato in
semi-arid region.
1.2 Shade Net House
Shade nets are available in different shade percentages or shade factor i.e.
15%, 35%, 40%, 50% 75% and 90% (for example 35% shade factor means - the
net will cut 35% of light intensity and would allow only 65% of light intensity to
pass through the net).
1.3 How dose Shade Net Work
Each plant has its individual requirements for sunlight and shade under
which it flourishes at its best. To create optimum climatic conditions, selection of
the correct percentage of shade factor plays an important role to enhance plant's
productivity to its optimum.
1.4 Justification of the study
In India, the small size of farms is striking feature of farming. This creates
difficulties in introducing better methods of production and marketing. The
successful major crops under shade net cultivation growing require specific
knowledge, skill, accuracy and thoroughness in production and marketing.
Production of major crops under shade net cultivation plays an important role in
improving the economic conditions of farmers. A study of the major crops under
shade net cultivation marketing is necessary to improve the marketing system to
aid development and provide efficient services in transfer of farm produce and
input from producers to consumers. An efficient marketing system minimizes cost
and benefits in all sections of society. Looking to above facts, a study is essential
to understand through which is detailed insight can be obtained to identify the “an
economic analysis of shade net cultivation of Chhattisgarh Plains” with the
following specific objectives :
1.5 Objectives:
1. To work out the cost and return of major crops grown in shade net
cultivation.
5
2. To examine marketing pattern of major crops grown in Shade net
cultivation.
3. To identified the constraints of Shade net cultivation and suggest measures
for improvement of the same.
1.6 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 records and supply data on the basis of their memory, which may not be very
correct. During the course of investigation several difficulties occurred in the
collection of data from the cultivators of major crops grown in shade net
cultivation, as some of the details of cultivation, production, cost and return of
major crops grown in shade net cultivation, marketing pattern of major crops
grown in shade net cultivation are not properly maintained through records but on
their memory basis, which may not be appropriately or absolutely correct. Low
level of education and knowledge of the respondents also added to the problems.
The business of some of the respondents were also problematic for the study, as
some deliberately told high expenditure and low income and capital, however
cross checking with theirs literate neighbors was done to arrive at the most correct
information.
1.7 Setup of the study:
This thesis has been divided into five chapters including the present chapter
which consists of 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 material and
methods. The results and discussion are presented in Chapter IV and Chapter V
includes summary, conclusion and suggestions for future research work.
6
CHAPTER- II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to review of pertinent literature keeping
in view the problem entitled, “An economic analysis of shade net cultivation in
Chhattisgarh plains”. A brief account of the work reported by the past researchers
has been discussed:
2.1 A brief resume of work done in Chhattisgarh, India and
abroad:-
Singh and Vishist (1999) made an attempt to examine the input output
relationship, relative profitability and the existing marketing system of major
vegetable crops. Two stage random sampling technique was used to select the
sample of vegetable growers. A sample of 60 vegetable growers proportionally
allocated to villages was selected. Cobb Douglas production function was used to
study the input-output relationships. Results revealed that tomato was the most
profitable crop in kharif season and cauliflower in rabi season. It further showed
that producers‟ share in terms of consumers' rupee was very low due to market
intermediaries. It was found that major hurdles in the production of vegetables
were lack of technical know-how and natural calamities.
Singh et al. (2002) Conducted a study on suitable technology for peri-urban
areas of northern India. Protected cultivation of vegetables provides the best way
to increase the productivity and quality of vegetable especially cucurbits. The yield
of some cucurbits like cucumber can be increased manifold compared to open field
cultivation. Normally the economics of protected cultivation directly depends upon
the initial cost of fabrication of the protected structure, its running cost and the
variable market for the high quality produce. Therefore, low cost protected
structure, which can generally be fabricated just like naturally ventilated green
houses, walk in tunnels and plastic low tunnels are very suitable for off- season
cultivation of vegetables and highly economical for peri-urban areas of northern
7
plains of India.
Kumar and Singh(2002) studied the problems of vegetable production in
Bharatpur district of Rajsthan and reported that the vegetable growers faced the
problems such as non- availability of inputs at right time poor and sufficient
quality of inputs, non-availability of desired tomato varieties in the market high
cost of inputs, lack of knowledge about the correct method of their use and non-
availability of subsidy. The further pointed out that these problems discouraged the
vegetable growers to give boost to vegetable farming. They suggested that
extensive demonstration of improved and high yielding varieties of vegetable crops
should be given, definite provisions should be made for timely supply of crucial
inputs at reasonable price and inadequate quality to sustain vegetable production
on profitable basis.
Naik (2005) reported that among three growing conditions namely medium
cost polyhouse, low cost polyhouse and net house, the medium cost polyhouse
recorded higher yield. The favourable environmental conditions prevailing in
medium cost polyhouse might have helped in better growth of roots and shoots,
which directly helped in better vegetative growth and finally improving the yield
attributing parameters viz., number of fruits per plant (10.29), fruit weight per
plant (1.02), pericarp thickness at blossom end (1.23 cm), fruit length (8.49cm) and
fruit breadth (7.24) and these finally led to highest total yield of 37.77 MT per ha.
Singh and Arsey(2005) Studied the performance of tomato and sweet
pepper under unheated green house. The production of tomato and sweet pepper
under medium cost green house was found top the tune of 93.2 and 76.4 t/ hac.
respectively. It was excellent quality as compared to outside where the crop could
not survive due to prevailing low temperature. Among the three cultivars of
tomato. Naveen (93.2 t/ ha.) out yielding the other cultivars, Avinash-II (71.2 t/
hac.) and Akash (73.7 t/ hac.). Thus, the studied have indicated that cultivation of
tomato and sweet pepper under green house would not help only help in getting
higher productivity but also fetch better returns (Rs.7-8 per m2
per season).
Anonymous (2006 b) reported that net house is necessary to produce good
quality vegetables and obtained higher yields. The budget the vegetable cultivation
in the net house show that a small farmer (with capital subsidy assistance including
8
some risk coverage) starting from 0.5 acre can earn more than Rs. 1 lac per year
Punjab Agricultural University recommends the net house cultivation of Brinjal
hybrid, Capsicum- Bharat and Tomato- Naveen tomato crop yielded 75 Q/ acre.
Normal compared with total yield of 130 Q/ acre from Naveen and 245 Q/ acre
from TH-1 varieties in the open field.
Barreto and Jagtap (2006) Pot culture experiments were conducted in a
simple polyhouse with a wooden framework and shade net without fan and pad
cooling systems to assess different substrates for gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii)
production. The different substrates assessed were coco peat, peat, soilrite, perlite,
vermicompost and compost in various combinations. The economics of the
substrate per plant per pot was calculated as per the prevailing retail market rates
of the substrates and the flower yield returns were calculated as per the rates in the
wholesale market. The flower returns depended on both flower quality and
quantity.
Kang and Sidhu (2006) in this study chilli nursery growing during winter
under polyhouse (size 24' x 13' x 6') made of UV-stabilized low density polythene
film of 200 microns (800 gauge) thickness was compared with the other two
methods, namely, poly cover and nocover. Under each of the three methods,
sowing was done on 25 October, 15 November, 30 November and 1 February
during 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 seasons. The results revealed that nursery
grown under polyhouse reached transplantable stage in significantly less number of
days compared with the other two methods. Polyhouse technique also recorded
more number of transplants per unit area and the crop growth from it gave higher
early and total fruit yields. A similar trend was observed for all the dates of
sowing.
Kumar and Kumar (2006) in this study the successful implementation of
greenhouse helps to counter the adverse effect of outside environment as it varies
from season to season over the year. Development of protected cultivation
technology using greenhouse is an example of mankind‟s efforts to survive under
natural adversities.
Dixit (2007) Studied the performance of leafy vegetables under protected
environment and open field condition. Green house crops yield several times more
9
than the yields obtained from outdoor cultivation depending upon the cropping
system and the degree of environmental control. Because of environmental control,
any crop can be grown at any time of the year and even one type of the crops can
be raised round the year if needed. An experiment was conducted on leafy
vegetates (Spinach, amaranthus, fenugreek and coriander) at horticultural research
farm, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur (C. G.) to see the performance
of leafy vegetables under protected environment and in open field condition. The
germination percentage was found10-20% more in green house as compared to
open field. The yield was found to be more as compare to open field condition.
The study believed that the green house cultivation showed superior yield and
yield attributing characters as compared to open field condition.
Singh and Sirohi(2008) Examined that protected cultivation vegetables
offers distinct advantages of quality, productivity and favorable market price to the
growers. Vegetable growers can substantially increase their income by protected
cultivation of vegetables in off-season as the vegetables produced during their
normal season generally do not get good returns due to large availability of these
vegetables in the markets. Off-season cultivation of cucurbits under low plastic
tunnels is one of the most profitable technologies under northern plains of India.
Walk-in tunnels are also suitable and effective to raise off-season nursery and off-
season vegetables cultivation due to their low initial cost. Insect proof net house
can be used for virus free cultivation of tomato, chilli, sweet pepper and other
vegetables mainly during the rainy season. These low cost structures are also
suitable for growing pesticide green vegetables. Low cost green houses can be
used for high quality vegetable for long duration (6-10 months) mainly in peri-
urban areas of the country to fetch commensurate prices of produces. polytrenches
have proved extremely useful for growing vegetables under cold desert condition
in upper reaches Himalayas in the country.
Medany et al (2009) studied that black net greenhouse gave significantly
the highest early yield, while white net greenhouse gave significantly the highest
plant height, number of leaves per plant, leaf area index and total yield compared
to the other greenhouses. In the winter season, the highest yield was obtained in the
plastic house. The depreciated annual cost of covering nets was estimated to be
10
half the cost of plastic covering. Ilic et al (2011) evaluate the influence of different
colored shade nets (photoselective) on the plant development, yield and quality of
bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Pepper was grown under four different
coloured shade-nets (pearl, red, blue and black) with different relative shading
(40% and 50%). Exposure to full sunlight was used as a control. Used colour-
shade nets improved productivity by moderating climatic extremes. Depending on
the year, the total fruit yields (t/ha) under the coloured shade nets were higher by
113 to 131%, relative to the open field.
Goren et al.(2012) Colored shade nets (photo-selective nets –
ChromatiNets™), which have been developed during the last decade to filter
selected spectral regions of sunlight, concomitantly with inducing light scattering,
are designed to specifically modify plant attributes such as more fruits on the
plants and higher yield. In studies conducted during the last two years on two
cultivars of red sweet bell pepper (Capsicum annuum); 'Romans' and 'Vergasa', we
have found that peppers grown in semi-arid region under the Pearl and Yellow
shade nets, significantly maintained better fruit quality after 15 day storage at 7°C
plus 3 day shelf life simulation, compared to the traditional black shade net, or the
Red shade net of equivalent shading capacity (35%). Most prominently, the Pearl
and Yellow nets significantly reduced decay incidence in both cultivars during the
two years, compared to the Black and Red shade nets. Red shade net significantly
reduced fruit weight loss, compared to the other shade nets, but other quality
parameters such as firmness, elasticity and sugar level have not been affected by
the colored shade nets.
Rajasekar et al.(2013) India to screen ten vegetables for cultivation under
shadenet house (33% shade) and open field for year round production of
vegetables. Tomato, eggplant, chilli, cucumber, cluster bean, radish, amaranthus,
coriander, bhendi and capsicum were grown in the summer and winter. The
influence of environmental variables temperature, relative humidity and light
intensity were studied. Tomato, eggplant, chilli, cucumber, radish, amaranthus and
coriander registered better performance for growth and yield during both seasons.
Cluster bean performed well in the open field during both seasons. Relative
humidity was always higher under shadenet house than in open field during both
11
seasons. Light intensity in the shadenet house was lower than in the open field.
Mean weekly temperature during summer and winter were higher under open field
conditions than in the shadenet house. Lower temperature caused plant height,
number of branches, internodal length, average fruit weight and yield per plant to
be higher in the shadenet house than in the open field.
Negi et al.(2013) Protected farming is an alternative new technique for
seasonal and off-seasonal vegetable cultivation, particularly in high-altitude region,
and can be successfully employed for niche areas of agriculture. Experimentation
on vegetable crops under protected conditions was carried out to see the feasibility
of their farming at different altitudes in the central Himalayan region. For
evaluating the suitable conditions required for the cultivation of vegetables, three
treatments, viz., polyhouse, shade net, and plastic-mulch, were selected in
comparison to open condition at both the altitudes. Capacity building through
organizing training program was adopted for demonstration and dissemination of
this technology to rural farmers of the region. The yield of selected vegetables was
found to be significantly (P < 0.05) high under protected cultivation, and the
productivity of vegetables has been observed to increase from 15.85% as compared
to that in open field condition at both the altitudes. As a result of capacity building,
a number of households (78) at high and low altitudes (41) adopted seasonal and
off-seasonal vegetable cultivation through protected cultivation technology at
various levels.
Hwang and Koreakim (2014) In the result of effect on freezing damage
reduction by the shade net colors and the shade rate to tea trees during wintering
period, the high shade ratio decreased tea trees growth and increased freezing
damage and 55% of shade ratio based on non treatment developed new leafs and
green leaf productivity. By the shade net colors, colorless shade net (55% of shade
type) treatment and green shade net treatment increased green leaf productivity and
decreased damaged area compare to non treatment shade net and black shade net
treatment. Colorless net shade treatment reduced over 50% of freezing damage and
increased (10a) 68 kg for green leaf productivity compare to non treatment shade
net.
12
Patil and Bhagat (2014) To study the yield response of cucumber (cv.
Gypsy) grown under shade net house to 35, 50, 75 per cent shading and in open
field condition. Biometric characteristics viz., days to 50 per cent flowering,
average diameter of fruit, average length of fruit, average weight of fruit, length of
vine at last harvest, number of fruits per vine and yield of fruit were observed
throughout the growth period. The results were compared with the performance of
the crop grown in open field (control) condition and also statistically analysed.
Irrespective of nutrient sources applied, the performance of crop grown inside the
shade net was comparatively better than grown in open field conditions.
Ilić et al.(2015) The concept of photo selective netting using commercial
cultivation practices was studied in a tomato (Solanum lycopersicum „Vedetta‟)
summer cultivation in south Serbia (under high solar radiation 910 W m⁻², with a
photosynthetic photon flux density of 1661 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹), under four different
coloured shade‐nets (pearl, red, blue and black) with 40% relative shading. The
aim of the study was to determine how different environmental control
technologies (coloured shade‐nets as screen house or plastic‐house integrated with
coloured shade‐nets) could influence plant parameters, production and quality
traits in tomato fruits cultivated in south Serbia (Balkan region). The highest
concentration of lycopene was detected in tomatoes grown in plastic houses
integrated with red colour nets (64.9 µg g⁻¹ fresh weight). The plastic house and
open field (control) tomato production had a taste index mean value of 1.09–1.10.
This is significantly higher than the values determined for the treatments with
different coloured shade‐nets.
Nangare et al.(2015) To determine the effect of three green shade nets
(35,50 and 75%) along with three height (2, 2.5 and 3.5 metre) bamboo framed
structures on yield and quality of tomato. There was no significant difference
found in average monthly temperature and humidity inside shade net house and
open field (control). Significant difference was recorded in yield. Highest average
plant yield of (3.49 kg/plant) was found in 35 % shading net followed by open
field (2.27). Lowest yield observed (1.07 kg / plant) in 75 % shading net. The
tomatoes grown under shade net structures were glossy in appearance with good
13
colour development as compared to open field (control). Further tomatoes
produced in open field were attacked by the pest (Helicoverpa armigera) attack.
14
CHAPTER-III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This chapter deals with the materials and research methodology adopted for
the present study with respect to the selection of study area, selection of
respondents, collection of data and analytical techniques. The details of the method
and technique adopted for the present study is described as below:
3.1 Sampling design:
The selection of district, block, Villages, and Shade net cultivation growers
is presented under the following sub sections:
METHODOLOGY:
3.1.1 Selection of study area:-
There are 27 districts in Chhattisgarh state. Out of 27 districts Korba
district was selected purposively for the study.
3.1.2 Selection of Block:-
There are 5 block in Korba districts in Chhattisgarh state. Out of 5 block
Korba District having 5 Blocks i.e. Korba Kartala Katghora , Pali, and Poundi
Uproda. were selected purposively for the study.
3.1.3 Selection of respondents (shade net cultivators)::-
Suitable as Shade net / Net house cultivators cultivating different
vegetables were selected based on availability.
3.2 Method of enquiry and data collection:-
The study required primary as well as secondary data; primary data from
the farmers were collected through personal interview method with the help of well
prepared pre-tested schedule and questionnaire for the year 2015-16. Secondary
15
data were collected from different sources such as Directorate of Horticulture,
Raipur and Sub Directorate of Horticulture office Korba , KVK‟s and National
Horticulture Mission office Raipur and Korba.
3.3 Tools of Analysis:-
The collected data is analyzed using different statistical techniques. Apart
from averages and percentages appropriate statistical techniques are used wherever
necessary.
3.3.1 Cost Concepts
“To work out the cost of cultivation standard method of has been
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 & 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)
16
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*+ value of management input at 10% of cost C2.
Estimate of cost and income parameters
1. Family Human Labour
The value of family human labour used on the farm was imputed at the
hiring wage rates prevailing in the area.
2. Manual and bullock operated farm
Farms using both manual and bullock power for different operations in
agriculture.
3. Machine operated farm
The farms using machine power for different operations in agriculture.
4. Seed
The cost of home grown seeds was calculated at the market rates prevailing
in the area at the time of sowing.
5. Manures
Farm yard manures produced on the farm are valued at the prevailing rates
in the locality (i.e. per cart load basis). Purchased manures are charged at the actual
prices paid plus transportation cost. The residual effect of the farm manures has
been ignored.
6. Fertilizers
Fertilizer, such as DAP (Dia-Amonium phosphate, Urea, Murate of potash
are charged at the actual price paid plus transportation cost.
7. Plant Protection Charges
17
This includes the actual cost of insecticides, pesticides, fungicides used
plus the hiring charges of appliances.
8. Irrigation Charges
The cost under this head is exclusively related to irrigated crops. The actual
source of irrigation is tube wall, canal and well. The days of human labour put in
for irrigation are taken into account as irrigation charges.
Interest on working capital:
It was calculated @ 4% per annum for half of the crop period.
Interest on fixed capital:
It was calculated @ 8% per annum for the crop period.
Rental value of owned land:
Evaluated on the basis of prevailing rates in the village for identical type of
land or on the basis of responses obtained from the village farmers.
Land Revenue and other cases
The land revenue and other cases were apportioned among the crops
followed on the basis of the proportionate area under crops and their duration.
Depreciation:
It represents the value by which a farm resource decreased in value as result
of cause other than a change in general price of the item. Straight line method was
used for calculating the depreciation
Purchase value of the asset - Junk value
Depreciation =
No. of useful years of life (expected life)
3.3.2 Disposal pattern
To examine the marketing pattern of groundnut at different categories of
farms, simple analysis was done. To estimate the marketable surplus of produce,
total quantity used for different purposes is deducted from total production of crop.
18
3.3.3 Marketable surplus
Marketable surplus = Total production – Total consumption
MS = P – (C +S)
Where,
MS – Marketable Surplus
P - Total Production
C - Family Consumption
S - Quantity kept for seed
3.4 General profile of the study area:-
Knowledge of the region in which the investigation is to be carried out
understanding of the general characteristics of the study area is essential for carried
out the study. This study was confined to the Korba district of Chhattisgarh. The
selected villages represent fairly well the agro-climatic, Socio-economic situation
of the Chhattisgarh State to understand the general characteristics of the study area,
this chapter divided in to 13 sections, namely general profile of the area, soil and
topography, rivers, climate and rainfall, population, land use pattern, water
resources, area, production and yield of different crops, basic infrastructure
facilities, transport and communication, weekly market, banks in the district.
3.4.1: Situation of the study area:
Korba district covers an area of 7145 sq. km and lies between North
latitudes 22°12‟ and 21°59‟ and East longitudes 82°08‟ to 83°07‟28”, with
population of 1011823 as per 2001 census. Rural population of the district is
644860 which are 63.73 per cent of total population. The density of population is
153 per sq.km. The district is bounded on the north by Koriya and Sarguja
districts, on the south by Janjagir Champa district. Bilaspur bordered it on the
western side, the Maikal range of hills from north-east to south-west. The most
part of district about 66 per cent of the total geographic area is covered by forest.
The river hasdeo- a tributary of Mahanadienters and flow though the district.
Another tributary of Mahanadi, the Mand, drains along the eastern boundary
19
bordering Korba district. The river Lilager rises from Korba hills and passes
though the district before joining seonath. (Map 3.1)
3.4.2: Rainfall distribution
The distribution of rainfall over the year 2011-12 in Korba district is presented in
Table 3.2. The district has tropical climate condition and experience very hot and
dry from April to mid June. Rainy season due to the south-west monsoon is from
mid June to till the end of September. The average rainfall in the district is 1506.7
mm.and normal rainfall is 1287.6 mm. The soil and climate condition of the
district is suitable for the production of fruit crops like mango, guava, lemon,
sitaphal, ber,
Table 3.1: Rainfall distribution in korba district (2011-12)
S.N Block Name 2011-12
1 Korba 1297.4
2 Kartala 1265.5
3 Katghora 1452.0
4 Pondiuproda 1151.4
5 Pali 1152.4
Source: District Statistical Book Korba (CG) 2011-12
3.4.3: Population distribution:-
According to the 2012 census Korba district has a population of 1011823.
Rural population of the district is 644860 which are 63.73 per cent of total
population. The density of population is 153 per sq.km. Its population growth rate
over the decade 1991-2001 was 22.51 per cent. Korba has a sex ratio 964 and a
literacy rate of 61.7 per cent. As of 2001 India census, the density of population
in urban areas is very higher as compared to rural area in the district. Literacy
percent is not very good in korba district. The District comes under Bilaspur
division and is inhabited mainly by tribal. The entire district is covered under the
tribal sub plan. Around 41.49 per cent of the population is of scheduled tribes.
SCs are around 10 per cent and all the five blocks of the korba are declared as
tribe‟s zone. (Table 3.3 and 3.4)
20
Map 3.1 : Map of Chhattisgarh state
21
Map 3.2: Map of Chhattisgarh state study district
22
3.3: Map of korba district bloks Studied Area
Korba
Katghora
Kartala
Pali
Poudi Uproda
23
3.4.4: Land utilization pattern:
The land utilization pattern of district is presented in Table 3.5. It is clear
from the table that the geographical area of Korba District is 714544 hectare
respectively. The forest area is 188451 ha this is 26.37 per cent of the total
geographical area. The area under uncultivable land and cultivable waste land is
59333 ha and 36137 ha in the district respectively. The net area sown area and
double cropped area of crops the district is 132000 ha and 10767 ha in the district.
Cropping intensity of Korba district is 127 per cent.
3.4.5: Source of irrigation:
The irrigated area from different sources of irrigation in the district is
giving in the Table 3.5. Table shows that the out of the total irrigated area 4710 ha
(54.53 per cent) is irrigated by canal followed by other sources 2238 ha. In the
district ponds is highest in number 1948 which is 60.97 percent of the total sources
of irrigation followed by wells 1158 ha 36.24 percent in the district.
24
Table 3.2: Source: Census 2001, District Statistical Office, Korba (C.G.), 2011-12
Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to the total population.
S.N
Census-2001
Block Name
Total
population
10th
year
population
growth rate
(1991-2001)
Ratio
of male
and
female
Schedule
caste
population
Percentage
of schedule
caste out of
total
population
Schedule
tribe
population
Percentage
of schedule
tribe out of
total
population
Total
literacy
Literacy
percent
1 Korba 302765 (100.00) 23.85 947 36423 12.03 92264 30.47 173441 68.2
2 Kartala 121251 (100.00) 11.27 1006 12723 10.49 60767 50.11 55219 55.4
3 Katghora 428809 (100.00) 26.08 953 39254 9.15 181158 42.24 216731 60.9
4 Pali 158998 (100.00) 20.14 996 12560 7.89 85700 53.9 72981 56.0
Source: Census 2001, District Statistical Office, Korba (C.G.), 2011-12
Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to the total population
25
Table 3.3: Agricultural and Non-agricultural population
S.N Block
Name
Agricultural
population
Family
labour
Family
business
Other
workers
Non-
agriculture
population
Total
workers
Percentage of total
workers out of total
population
Marginal
workers
1 Korba 21561
(7.12)
11352
(3.74)
2511
(0.83)
53640
(17.72)
26373
(8.71)
187328
(61.87)
302765
(100.00)
38.13
2 Kartala 25099
(20.70)
8673
(7.15)
1467
(1.21)
5900
(4.86)
23214
(19.14)
56898
(46.92)
121251
(100.00)
53.07
3 Katghora 45461
(10.60)
19483
(4.54)
2362
(0.55)
54227
(12.64)
50757
(11.84)
256519
(59.82)
428809
(100.00)
40.18
4 Pali 23795
(14.96)
16684
(10.49)
1413
(0.89)
8620
(5.42)
28410
(17.87)
80076
(50.36)
158998
(100.00)
49.64
Source: Census 2001, District Statistical Office, Korba (C.G.), 2011-12
Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to the total population
26
Table 3.4: Land utilization pattern in Korba District of Chhattisgarh:-
(In hac.)
S.N Particulars Korba district
1. Geographical area 714544
(100.00)
2. Net sown area 132000
(18.47)
3. Forest land 188451
(26.37)
4. Cropping intensity 127 per cent
5. Net Irrigated area 18766
(2.63)
6. Area under rabi crops 20150
(2.82)
7. Irrigated area (rabi) 9611
(1.34)
8. Uncultivable land 59333
(8.30)
9. Cultivable waste land 36137
(5.06)
10. Double cropped area 10767
(1.51)
11. Total cropped area of vegetables 20390
(2.85)
12. Total cropped area of fruits 10864
(1.52)
13. Net horticulture crop area 31928
(4.47)
Source: Assistant Director of Horticulture, district- Korba (C.G.)
Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to the total population.
27
Table 3.5: Sources of irrigation and irrigated area:
S.N Sources of irrigation Number Area (ha.)
1 Canals 35 4710
(1.09) (54.53)
2 Tube-well 54 305
(1.69) (3.53)
3 Wells 1158 827
(36.24) (9.57)
4 Ponds 1948 558
(60.97) (6.46)
5 Other sources - 2238
(25.91)
6 Total 3195 8638
(100.00) (100.00)
Source: District Statistical Book Korba (CG) 2011-12 Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to total population.
28
CHAPTER –IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter includes the cost of production of off season vegetables crops
under net house in Korba district, disposable pattern of major vegetables and
constraints in production and marketing of crops in the study area. The outcomes
of this study yielded many useful findings regarding production and marketing
performance and constraints in net house crops of sample households of the study
area. For the sake of convenience, the present chapter has been broadly discussed
under the following sub heads:
1. Demographic features of the major crop growers under shade net house
2. The cost of cultivation of major crops in shade net house
3. Disposable pattern of major crops grown in shade net house
4. Constraints faced by farmers.
4.1 Demographic features of sampled farmers:
Table 4.1 represents the demographic features of farm families, families size and
level of education at the sampled farms in the study area. The table reveals that the
average number of family size of vegetables crops growers under net house is
observed as 4.8. This size is estimated family member 5, 5, 5, 2, 7, farms
respectively. The overall male-female ratio is 50:50 per cent in the total
population. The level of education in the sampled household in terms of percentage
is found to be 87.5 per cent on an average. It is observed that 4.16 per cent of the
total sampled populations have primary level of education while these figures are
12.5 per cent for middle level, 4.16 per cent high school, 8.33 per cent higher
secondary school, 33.33 Per cent, graduate, and 25 per cent, post graduation level
of education. Among various size groups of farms, The table also reveals the caste
and occupation pattern at the sampled farms. It is also observed that on an average
40 per cent of the sampled families belong to other backward class, 60 per cent
belong to scheduled tribe, 0 per cent belong to scheduled caste, and 0 per cent
belong to general category. The occupation of farmers is also presented in the
29
Table 4.1: Demographic feature of the sampled farms in the study area
S. N. Particular Aggregate
1. No. of sample 5(100.00)
2. No. of family member
Male 12 (50)
Female 12 (50)
Total 24
(100.00)
3. Average family size 4.8
4. Age
<20 6(25)
20-60 14(58.33)
>60 4(16.66)
5. Education level
Illiterate 3(12.5)
Primary 1(4.16)
Middle 3(12.5)
High School. 1 (4.16)
H.S.S 2 (8.33)
Graduate 8(33.33)
Post Graduation 6(25)
Total literate 21(87.5)
6. Social groups
OBC 2(40)*
ST 3(60)*
SC 0(0)*
General 0(0)*
Note 1: figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage to the total number of family
members.
Note 2:*figures in the parenthesis represent percentage to the total number of
samples.
30
Fig: 4.1 Education level at sampled farms
Fig:4.2 Caste wise distributions at sampled farmers
Illiterate13%
Primary4%
Middle13%
High School.4%
H.S.S8%
Graduate33%
Post Graduation25%
Education level at samples farms
40%
60%
0% 0%
Caste wise distributions at sampled farmers
OBC ST SC General
31
4.1.1 Different block of korba deistic farmers according to the operational
holdings shade net.
In the given table 4.2 the farmers are distributing in standard classification
followed by Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Statistical Abstracts. As vegetable cultivation is
labour intensive enterprise, it is hypothesized that marginal and small farmers will
actually participate in the adoption of this technology. It was observed from the
table 4.2 that higher adoption level of net house technology is in case of medium
farmers In net house cultivation of vegetables farmers had operational area
Table 4.2 Distribution of net-house vegetable growers according total area m2
installation
Table 4.3 Distribution of net-house vegetable growers according to period of
installation
Year of installing net house No. %age
2013 – 14 1 4.54
2014 – 15 13 59.09
2015 -16 8 36.36
Total 22 100
This table 4.3 indicates the distribution of net house growers according to years in
which the net house was installed. According to the figures 59 percent of the net
were installed in the time period from 2014 to 2015, 36 percent of the net were
Name of block Total number of farmer Total area m2
Korba 5 20000
Khatghora 2 6000
Pali 5 20000
Kartala 10 36000
Total 22 82000
32
installed from 2015 to 2016, and according to the data 4.54 percent of the net were
installed from 2013 to 2014 These facts highlight the importance of protected
technology, as the increase trend was observed for the adoption of this technology.
4.1.2 Land use pattern:
Table 4.4: Size of holding and irrigation at sampled farms in the study area.
(Hectare/farm)
Note: Figures on average the cultivated area was 6.75 ha. perform
4.1.3 Irrigation:
Category-wise area under various sources of irrigation is presented in Table
4.5. Table shows that tube well are main sources of irrigation as about 80 per cent
area is irrigated by these sources. Well is another source of irrigation which
contributes about 20 per cent to the total irrigation at these farms.
Table 4.5: Source wise irrigated area at sampled farms in the study area.
(Hectare/farm)
S.
N.
Source of irrigation
Tube well Well Total irrigated area
1. 5.4
(80.00)
1.35
(20.00)
6.75
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses indicate the percentages to the total irrigated area.
S.N. Particular Aggregate
1. Total owned land 7
(100.00)
2. Total cultivated area 6.75
(96.42)
3. Irrigated area 5.50.
(78.57)
4. Un –irrigated area 1.25
(21.43)
33
Fig: 4.3 Irrigation at sampled farms in the study area
Fig: 4.4 Source of irrigation at sampled farms
79%
21%
Irrigation at sampled farms in the study area
Irrigated area Un –irrigated area
80%
20%
Source of irrigation at sampled farms
Tube well
Well
34
4.1.4 Cropping pattern:
The cropping pattern at sampled farms is presented in Table 4.6. The gross
cropped area is observed Average as 6.06 hectare, The gross cropped area 11.12
hectare is allocated during kharif season while remaining 5.06 hectare (45.50) per
cent) is allocated during rabi season on an overall. The area under kharif season in
different crops is observed The overall cropping intensity is estimated as 183.49
per cent in this study area.
Table 4.6: Cropping pattern and cropping intensity of sample households
(Hectare/farm)
S.
No.
Particular Overall
A. Kharif Rabi
1. Tamato 1 Paddy 2
2. Chilli 0.76 Coriander 0.2
3. Cabbage 0.6 Cabbage 0.17
4. Cucumber 0.2 Tomato 0.52
5. Coriander 0.1 Chilli 0.31
6. Cowpea 0.2 Brinjal 0.26
7. Bitter gourd 0.2 Cauliflower 0.2
8. Okra 0.4 Wheat 1.2
9. Paddy 1.8 Other 0.2
10. Other 0.8
Sub total
6.06
(54.50)
5.06
(45.50)
Gross cropped area
(A+B)
11.12
(100.00)
Net cropped area 6.06
Cropping intensit(%) 183.49
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to Gross Cropped area.
35
Fig 4.5: Cropping pattern of sample households (kharif season)
Fig 4.6: Cropping pattern of sample households (rabi season)
16%
13%
10%
3%2%
3%3%7%
30%
13%
Cropping pattern Kharif
Tamato
Chilli
Cabbage
Cucumber
Coriander
Cowpea
Bitter gourd
Okra
Paddy
Other
36
4.2. Economics of major shade net production
4.2.1. Economics of tomato crop
The economics of tomato crop is presented in table 4.7. It clearly shows
that the cost of cultivation per hectare tomato was higher on Shead net . Over all,
on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of tomato was found to be Rs
115495 per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net cultivation.
Among different input operation on an overall, the per hectare cost was
observed highest for total human labour Rs. 44666.7 followed by manures and
fertilizer Rs. 11750, seed Rs. 2666.67, plant protection Rs12600, irrigation Rs
4500, Machine power Rs. 12166.7, Depreciation Rs. 1850, , and land revenue
Rs.10.
Table 4.7: Costs of tomato on different farm size (Rs./ha)
Particular F1 F2 F3 Average Percentage
A. Material cost
Seed 3000 2500 2500 2666.67 2.31
Manures and fertilizer 14500 10500 10250 11750 10.17
Plant protection 14800 14000 9000 12600 10.91
Irrigation charges 4500 4500 4500 4500 3.89
Total material cost 36800 31500 26250 31516.7 27.28
B. Human labour cost
Family labour 15300 13500 17100 15300 13.24
Hired labour 27000 27400 33700 29366.7 25.42
Total human labour
cost
42300 40900 50800 44666.7 38.66
C. Power use cost
Bullock labour
Machine power 12500 12000 12000 12166.7 10.53
Total power use cost 12500 12000 12000 12166.7 10.53
Interest on working
capital @4%
3664 3376 3562 3534 3.06
(I). Total variable cost 95264 87776 92612 91884 79.53
D. Fixed cost
Depreciation 2250 1650 1650 1850 1.60
Land revenue 10 10 10 10 0.04
Rental value of land 22500 17500 20000 20000 17.31
37
Interest fixed working
capital @8%
1984 1536 1732.8 1750.93 1.52
(II).Total fixed Cost 26744 20696 23392.8 23610.9 20.47
Total cost(A+B+C+D) 122008 108472 116005 115495 100.00
Note: - Interest on working capital is computed at 8 % interest rate of saving in
year 2015-16
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of the total cost
Yield and cost of production per quintal:
The yield, value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of
tomato on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.8
An overall yield per hectare of tomato came to 231.6667 quintals on the
Average of sample farms per hectare. The per quintal cost of production, on an
overall, is worked out as Rs. 502.1633. The per quintal cost of production of
tomato is average farms
It decreased with the increased in the size of farms due to higher yield in
return to the cost of cultivation on the large farms. The overall value of output per
hectare come to Rs. 76500 the value of output per hectare come to Rs. 115494.9, farms
respectively.
Table 4.8: Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per
quintal of tomato
Particular
R1 R2 R3
Average
Yield (qtl/ha) 210 235 250 231.6667
Price (Rs./qtl) 400 300 300 333.3333
Gross returns 84000 70500 75000 76500
Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) 122008 108472 116004.8 115494.9
Net returns (Rs./ha) -38008 -37972 -41004.8 -38994.9
Cost of production
(Rs./qtl.) 580.99 461.5 464 502.1633
Input output ratio 1:0.6 1: 0.6 01:00.6 1:0.6
Measures of farm profit
The overall gross return is observed as Rs. 76500 per hectare in the study
area. The gross return depends upon variety, productivity and price received by the
farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. -38994.9 per hectare. farms
respectively. The overall input-output ratio is observed as 1:0.6,
38
Cost and returns on the basis of different cost concept:
The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of
Tomato have been presented in the table 4.9.
It is envisaged that Cost A1, as designated the variable cost, depreciation
and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs 78444.07 per hectare an average
basis, which was added of rent paid for lease in land and dignified with Cost A2,
found to be Rs. 78444.07 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital
imputed with cost B1 Rs. 80195 rental value of own land Rs. 20000 per hectare
prevailed in the study. Normally, farmers are cultivating the crop in their own land
but it has imputed value of land of Rs. 20000 notified Cost B2 was Rs. 100195 per
hectare. The Cost C1, found to be Rs. 95495 per hectare, includes the value of cost
B1 and imputed value of family labour was found to be Rs. 15300 per hectare, The
cost C2, found to be Rs. 115495 per hectare , includes the value of Cost B2 and
Table.4.9: Break-up of total cost, and income obtained over different cost of
tomato cultivation
(Rs/ha)
Particular Average
Break-up of costs
Cost A1 78444.07
Cost A2 78444.07
Cost B1 80195
Cost B2 100195
Cost C1 95495
Cost C2 115495
Cost C3 127044.5
Return obtained over different costs
Return over cost A1 -1944.07
Return over cost A2 -1944.07
Return over cost B1 -3695
Return over cost B2 -23695
Return over cost C1 -18995
Return over cost C2 -38995
Return over cost C3 -50544.5
39
imputed value of family labour and The Cost C3,found to be Rs. 127044.5 per
hectare imputed value of managerial allowances at 10 per cent of cost C2 return
over the Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2, and Cost C3 was
obtained to be Rs. -1944.07 Rs. -1944.07, Rs. -3695, Rs. -23695, Rs. -18995, Rs. -
38995 and Rs -50544.5 per hectare, respectively
4.2.2. Economics of Chilli crop
The economics of Chilli crop is presented in table 4.10 It clearly shows
that the cost of cultivation per hectare Chilli was higher on Shead net . Over all, on
an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of Chilli was found to be Rs 122834
per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net cultivation.
Table 4.10: Costs of Chilli on different farm size (Rs./ha)
Particular F1 F2 Average Percentage
A. Material cost
Seed 2500 2500 2500 2.04
Manures and fertilizer 14500 15100 14800 16.05
Plant protection 14800 11625 13213 14.33
Irrigation charges 4500 4000 4250 4.61
Total material cost 36300 33225 34763 37.71
B. Human labour cost 0 0 0
Family labour 15300 16200 15750 0.98
Hired labour 25200 27000 26100 12.41
Total human labour cost 40500 43200 41850 13.38
C. Power use cost 0 0 0
Bullock labour 0 0 0 0.00
Machine power 12500 14500 13500 14.64
Total power use cost 12500 14500 13500 14.64
Interest on working capital
@4% 3572 3637 3604.5 2.63
(I). Total variable cost 92872 94562 93717 68.37
D. Fixed cost 0 0 0
Depreciation 2250 1650 1950 2.12
Land revenue 10 10 10 0.05
Rental value of land 22500 27500 25000 27.12
Interest fixed working
capital @8% 1981 2332.8 2156.8 2.34
(II).Total fixed Cost 26741 31493 29117 31.63
Total cost(A+B+C+D) 119612.8 126055 122834 100.00
40
Note: - Interest on working capital is computed at 8 % interest rate of saving in
year 2015-16
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of the total cost
Yield and cost of production per quintal:
The yield, value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of
chilli on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.11.
An overall yield per hectare of chilli came to 242.5 quintals on the Average
of sample farms per hectare. The per quintal cost of production, on an overall, is
worked out as Rs. 507.425. The per quintal cost of production of chhili is average
farms.
It decreased with the increased in the size of farms due to higher yield in
return to the cost of cultivation on the large farms. The overall value of output per
hectare come to Rs 278500 the value of output per hectare come to Rs. 122834,
farms respectively.
Table 4.11: Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per
quintal of Chilli
Particular
F1
F2
Average
Yield (qtl/ha) 250 235 242.5
Price (Rs./qtl) 1100 1200 1150
Gross returns 275000 282000 278500
Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) 119613 126055 122834
Net returns (Rs./ha) 155387 155945 155666
Cost of production (Rs./qtl.) 478.45 536.4 507.425
Input output ratio 1:2.2 1:2.2 1:2.2
The overall value of output per hectare Rs 278500 the value of output per hectare
come to Rs. 122834, farms respectively.
Measures of farm profit
The overall gross return is observed as Rs. 278500 per hectare in
the study area. The gross return depends upon variety, productivity and price
received by the farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. 155666 per
hectare. farms respectively. The overall input-output ratio was observed as 1:22,
41
Cost and returns on the basis of different cost concept:
The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of Chilli
have been presented in the table 4.12.
It is envisaged that Cost A1, as designated the variable cost, depreciation
and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs. 79927.2 per hectare an average
basis, which was added of rent paid for lease in land and dignified with Cost A2,
found to be Rs. 79927.2 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital imputed
with cost B1 Rs 82084 rental value of own land Rs. 25000 per hectare prevailed in
the study. Normally, farmers are cultivating the crop in their own land but it has
imputed value of land of Rs. 25000 notified Cost B2 was Rs. 107084 per hectare.
The Cost C1, found to be Rs. 97834 per hectare, includes the value of cost B1 and
imputed value of family labour was found to be Rs. 15750 per hectare, The cost
C2, found to be Rs. 122834 per hectare , includes the value of Cost B2 and
Table.4.12: Break-up of total cost, and income obtained over different cost of
Chilli cultivation
(Rs/ha)
Particular Average
Break-up of costs
Cost A1 94656.60
Cost A2 94656.60
Cost B1 96604.76
Cost B2 119104.76
Cost C1 102654.76
Cost C2 125154.76
Cost C3 137670.24
Return obtained over different costs
Return over cost A1 607843.40
Return over cost A2 607843.40
Return over cost B1 605895.24
Return over cost B2 583395.24
Return over cost C1 599845.24
Return over cost C2 577345.24
Return over cost C3 564829.76
42
imputed value of family labour and The Cost C3,found to be Rs. 135117.4 per
hectare imputed value of managerial allowances at 10 per cent of cost C2 return
over the Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2, and Cost C3 was
obtained to be Rs. 198572.8, Rs. 198572.8, Rs. 196416, Rs. 171416, Rs. 180666,
Rs. 155666 and Rs 143382.6 per hectare, respectively.
4.2.3. Economics of Cowpea crop
The economics of cowpea crop is presented in table 4.13 It clearly shows
that the cost of cultivation per hectare cowpea was higher on Shead net . Over all,
on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of cowpea was found to be Rs
149787 per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net cultivation.
Table 4.13: Costs of Cowpea on different farm size (Rs./ha)
Particular Average Percentage
A. Material cost
Seed 2500 1.67
Manures and fertilizer 7500 5.01
Plant protection 13750 9.18
Irrigation charges 4500 3.00
Total material cost 28250 18.85
B. Human labour cost 0
Family labour 18000 12.01
Hired labour 33025 22.04
Total human labour cost 51025 34.06
C. Power use cost 0
Bullock labour 0 0.00
Machine power 11000 7.34
Total power use cost 11000 7.34
Interest on working capital @4% 3611 2.41
(I). Total variable cost 93886 62.66
D. Fixed cost
Depreciation 1750 1.17
Land revenue 10 0.03
Rental value of land 50000 33.37
Interest fixed working capital @8% 4140.8 2.77
(II).Total fixed Cost 55901 37.34
Total cost(A+B+C+D) 149787 100.00
Note: - Interest on working capital is computed at 8 % interest rate of saving in
year 2015-16
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of the total cost
43
Among different input operation on an overall, the per hectare cost was
observed highest for total human labour Rs. 51025 followed by manures and
fertilizer Rs. 7500 seed Rs. 2500, plant protection Rs 13750, irrigation Rs 4500,
Machine power Rs. 11000, Depreciation Rs. 1750, , and land revenue Rs.10.
Yield and cost of production per quintal:
The yield, value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of
cowpea on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.14.
An overall yield per hectare of cowpea came to 300 quintals on the
Average of sample farms per hectare. The per quintal cost of production, on an
overall, is worked out as Rs. 149787. The per quintal cost of production of cowpea
is average farms
It decreased with the increased in the size of farms due to higher yield in
return to the cost of cultivation on the large farms. The overall value of output per
hectare come to Rs. 270000 the value of output per hectare come to Rs. 149787, farms
respectively.
Table 4.14:Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per
quintal of Cow pea
Particular Average
yield (qtl/ha) 300
price (Rs./qtl) 900
Gross returns 270000
Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) 149787
Net returns (Rs./ha) 120213
Cost of production (Rs./qtl.) 499.29
Input output ratio 1:18
The overall value of output per hectare Rs 270000 the value of output per hectare
come to Rs. 149787, farms respectively.
Measures of farm profit
The overall gross return is observed as Rs. 270000 per hectare in the study
area. The gross return depends upon variety, productivity and price received by the
44
farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. 120213 per hectare. farms
respectively. The overall input-output ratio was observed as 1:1.8,
Table.4.15: Break-up of total cost, and income obtained over different cost of
Cowpea cultivation
Cost and returns on the basis of different cost concept:
The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of
Cowpea have been presented in the table 4.15.
It is envisaged that Cost A1, as designated the variable cost, depreciation
and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs. 77647 per hectare an average
basis, which was added of rent paid for lease in land and dignified with Cost A2,
found to be Rs. 77647 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital imputed
with cost B1 Rs. 81788.8 rental value of own land Rs. 50000 per hectare prevailed
in the study. Normally, farmers are cultivating the crop in their own land but it has
imputed value of land of Rs. 50000 notified Cost B2 was Rs. 131788.8 per hectare.
(Rs/ha)
Particular Average
Break-up of costs
Cost A1 77647
Cost A2 77647
Cost B1 81788.8
Cost B2 131788.8
Cost C1 95538.8
Cost C2 145538.8
Cost C3 160092.7
Return obtained over different costs
Return over cost A1 192353
Return over cost A2 192353
Return over cost B1 188211.2
Return over cost B2 138211.2
Return over cost C1 174461.2
Return over cost C2 124461.2
Return over cost C3 109907.3
45
The Cost C1, found to be Rs 95538.8 per hectare, includes the value of cost B1 and
imputed value of family labour was found to be Rs. 18000 per hectare, The cost
C2, found to be Rs. 145538.8 per hectare , includes the value of Cost B2 and
imputed value of family labour and The Cost C3,found to be Rs. 160092.7 per
hectare imputed value of managerial allowances at 10 per cent of cost C2 return
over the Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2, and Cost C3 was
obtained to be Rs. 192353, Rs. 192353, Rs. 188211.2, Rs. 138211.2, Rs. 174461.2,
Rs. 124461.2 and Rs 109907.3 per hectare, respectively.
4.2.4. Economics of Cabbage crop
The economics of cowpea crop is presented in table 4.16. It clearly shows
that the cost of cultivation per hectare cabbage was higher on Shead net . Over all,
on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of cabbage was found to be Rs
145903 per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net cultivation.
Table 4.16: Costs of Cabbage on different farm size (Rs./ha)
Particular Average Percentage
A. Material cost
Seed 2000 1.37
Manures and fertilizer 9000 6.17
Plant protection 13750 9.42
Irrigation charges 4500 3.08
Total material cost 29250 20.04
B. Human labour cost 0
Family labour 18900 12.95
Hired labour 34400 23.57
Total human labour cost 53300 36.51
C. Power use cost
Bullock labour
Machine power 11000 7.54
Total power use cost 11000 7.54
Interest on working capital @4% 3742 2.56
(I). Total variable cost 97292 66.65
D. Fixed cost
Depreciation 5000 3.43
Land revenue 10 0.05
Rental value of land 40000 27.40
46
Interest fixed working capital @8% 3601 2.47
(II).Total fixed Cost 48611 33.35
Total cost(A+B+C+D) 145903 100.00
Note: - Interest on working capital is computed at 8 % interest rate of saving in
year 2015-16
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of the total cost
Among different input operation on an overall, the per hectare cost was
observed highest for total human labour Rs. 53300 followed by manures and
fertilizer Rs. 9000 seed Rs. 2500, plant protection Rs 13750, irrigation Rs 4500,
Machine power Rs. 11000, Depreciation Rs 5000 , and land revenue Rs.10.
Yield and cost of production per quintal:
The yield, value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of
cabbage on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.17.
An overall yield per hectare of cabbage came to 400 quintals on the
Average of sample farms per hectare. The per quintal cost of production, on an
overall, is worked out as Rs. 145903. The per quintal cost of production of cabbage
is average farms
It decreased with the increased in the size of farms due to higher yield in
return to the cost of cultivation on the farms. The overall value of output per
hectare come to Rs. 200000 the value of output per hectare come to Rs. 145903, farms
respectively.
Table 4.17:Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per
quintal of Cabbage
Particular Average
yield (qtl/ha) 400
price (Rs./qtl) 500
Gross returns 200000
Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) 145903
Net returns (Rs./ha) 54097
Cost of production (Rs./qtl.) 364.75
47
Input output ratio 1:1.37
The overall value of output per hectare Rs 200000 the value of output per hectare
come to Rs. 154903, farms respectively.
Measures of farm profit
The overall gross return is observed as Rs. 200000 per hectare in the study
area. The gross return depends upon variety, productivity and price received by the
farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. 54097 per hectare. farms
respectively. The overall input-output ratio was observed as 1:1.37.
Table.4.18: Break-up of total cost, and income obtained over different cost of
Cabbage cultivation (Rs/ha)
Particular Average
Break-up of costs
Cost A1 88553
Cost A2 88553
Cost B1 92153
Cost B2 128553
Cost C1 105903
Cost C2 142303
Cost C3 156533.3
Return obtained over different costs
Return over cost A1 111447
Return over cost A2 111447
Return over cost B1 107847
Return over cost B2 71447
Return over cost C1 94097
Return over cost C2 57697
Return over cost C3 43466.7
Cost and returns on the basis of different cost concept:
The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of
Cabbage have been presented in the table 4.18.
It is envisaged that Cost A1, as designated the variable cost, depreciation
and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs. 88553 per hectare an average
basis, which was added of rent paid for lease in land and dignified with Cost A2,
found to be Rs. 88553 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital imputed
with cost B1 Rs. 92153 rental value of own land Rs. 40000 per hectare prevailed in
48
the study. Normally, farmers are cultivating the crop in their own land but it has
imputed value of land of Rs. 40000 notified Cost B2 was Rs.128553 per hectare.
The Cost C1, found to be Rs. 105903 per hectare, includes the value of cost B1 and
imputed value of family labour was found to be Rs. 18900 per hectare, The cost
C2, found to be Rs. 142303 per hectare , includes the value of Cost B2 and
imputed value of family labour and The Cost C3,found to be Rs. 156533.3 per
hectare imputed value of managerial allowances at 10 per cent of cost C2 return
over the Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2, and Cost C3 was
obtained to be Rs. 111447, Rs. 111447, Rs. 107847, Rs. 71447, Rs. 94097 ,
Rs.57697 and Rs 43466.7 per hectare, respectively
4.2.5. Economics of bitter gourd crop
The economics of bitter gourd crop is presented in table 4.19. It clearly
shows that the cost of cultivation per hectare bitter gourd was higher on Shead net .
Over all, on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of bitter gourd was found
to be Rs 132165 per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net
cultivation.
Table 4.19: Costs of bitter gourd on different farm size (Rs./ha)
Particular Average Percent
A. Material cost
Seed
Manures and fertilizer 15100 11.27
Plant protection 5500 4.10
Irrigation charges 4000 2.98
Total material cost 28100 20.97
B. Human labour cost
Family labour 16200 12.09
Hired labour 38000 28.35
Total human labour cost 54200 40.44
C. Power use cost
Bullock labour
Machine power 14500 10.82
Total power use cost 14500 10.82
Interest on working capital @4% 3872 2.89
(I). Total variable cost 100672 75.12
D. Fixed cost
Depreciation 1650 1.23
49
Land revenue 10 0.04
Rental value of land 27500 20.52
Interest fixed working capital @8% 2332.8 3.09
(II).Total fixed Cost 31493 24.88
Total cost(A+B+C+D) 132165 100.00
Note: - Interest on working capital is computed at 8 % interest rate of saving in
year 2015-16
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of the total cost
Among different input operation on an overall, the per hectare cost was
observed highest for total human labour Rs 54200 followed by manures and
fertilizer Rs. 15100 seed Rs. 3500, plant protection Rs 5500, irrigation Rs 4000,
Machine power Rs. 14500, Depreciation Rs 1650 , and land revenue Rs.10.
Yield and cost of production per quintal:
The yield, value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of
cabbage on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.20
An overall yield per hectare of bitter gourd came to 200 quintals on the
Average of sample farms per hectare. The per quintal cost of production, on an
overall, is worked out as Rs. 132165. The per quintal cost of production of bitter
gourd is average farms
It decreased with the increased in the size of farms due to higher yield in return to
the cost of cultivation on the farms. The overall value of output per hectare come
to The overall value of output per hectare Rs 280000 the value of output per
hectare come to Rs. 132165, farms respectively.
Table 4.20:Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per
quintal of bitter gourd
Particular Average
Yield (qtl/ha) 200
Price (Rs./qtl) 1400
Gross returns 280000
Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) 132165
Net returns (Rs./ha) 147835
Cost of production (Rs./qtl.) 660.8
50
Input output ratio 1:2.11
Measures of farm profit
The overall gross return is observed as Rs. 280000 per hectare in
the study area. The gross return depends upon variety, productivity and price
received by the farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. 132165 per
hectare. farms respectively. The overall input-output ratio is observed as 1:2.11.
Table.4.21: Break-up of total cost, and income obtained over different cost of
Bittergourd cultivation (Rs/ha)
Particular Average
Break-up of costs
Cost A1 86132.2
Cost A2 86132.2
Cost B1 88465
Cost B2 115965
Cost C1 104665
Cost C2 132165
Cost C3 145381.5
Return obtained over different costs
Return over cost A1 193867.8
Return over cost A2 193867.8
Return over cost B1 191535
Return over cost B2 164035
Return over cost C1 175335
Return over cost C2 147835
Return over cost C3 134618.5
Cost and returns on the basis of different cost concept:
The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of bitter
gourd have been presented in the table 4.21.
It is envisaged that Cost A1, as designated the variable cost, depreciation
and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs. 86132.2 per hectare an average
basis, which was added of rent paid for lease in land and dignified with Cost A2,
found to be Rs. 86132.2 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital imputed
with cost B1 Rs. 88465 rental value of own land Rs. 27500 per hectare prevailed in
the study. Normally, farmers are cultivating the crop in their own land but it has
imputed value of land of Rs. 27500 notified Cost B2 was Rs. 115965 per hectare.
51
The Cost C1, found to be Rs. 104665 per hectare, includes the value of cost B1 and
imputed value of family labour was found to be Rs. 16200 per hectare, The cost
C2, found to be Rs. 132165 per hectare , includes the value of Cost B2 and
imputed value of family labour and The Cost C3,found to be Rs. 145381.5 per
hectare imputed value of managerial allowances at 10 per cent of cost C2 return
over the Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2, and Cost C3 was
obtained to be Rs. 193867.8, Rs. 193867.8, Rs. 191535, Rs.164035, Rs. 175335,
Rs. 147835 and Rs134618.5 per hectare, respectively.
4.2.6. Economics of Cucumber crop
The economics of cucumber crop is presented in table 4.22. It clearly
shows that the cost of cultivation per hectare cucumber was higher on Shead net.
Over all, on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of cucumber was found
to be Rs 123341 per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net
cultivation.
Table 4.22: Costs of Cucumber on different farm size (Rs./ha)
Particular Average Percentage
A. Material cost
Seed 1500 1.21
Manures and fertilizer 9000 7.24
Plant protection 14800 11.90
Irrigation charges 4500 3.62
Total material cost 29800 22.71
B. Human labour cost 0
Family labour 20700 16.64
Hired labour 36200 29.10
Total human labour cost 56900 45.75
C. Power use cost 0
Bullock labour 0 0.00
Machine power 12000 9.65
Total power use cost 12000 9.65
Interest on working capital @4% 3948 3.12
(I). Total variable cost 101036 81.23
D. Fixed cost 0
Depreciation 1650 1.33
Land revenue 10 0.04
52
Rental value of land 17500 14.07
Interest fixed working capital @8% 1532.8 3.33
(II).Total fixed Cost 20693 18.77
Total cost(A+B+C+D) 123341 100.00
Note: - Interest on working capital is computed at 8 % interest rate of saving in
year 2015-16
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of the total cost
Among different input operation on an overall, the per hectare cost was
observed highest for total human labour Rs 56900 followed by manures and
fertilizer Rs. 9000 seed Rs. 1500, plant protection Rs 14800, irrigation Rs 4500,
Machine power Rs. 12000, Depreciation Rs 1650 , and land revenue Rs.10.
Yield and cost of production per quintal:
The yield, value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of
cabbage on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.23.
An overall yield per hectare of cucumber came to 250 quintals on the
Average of sample farms per hectare. The per quintal cost of production, on an
overall, is worked out as Rs. 123341. The per quintal cost of production of
cucumber is average farms
It decreased with the increased in the size of farms due to higher yield in
return to the cost of cultivation on the farms. The overall value of output per
hectare come to The overall value of output per hectare Rs 200000 the value of
output per hectare come to Rs. 123341, farms respectively.
Table:4.23 Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per
quintal of Cucumber
Particular Average
Yield (qtl/ha) 250
Price (Rs./qtl) 800
Gross returns 200000
Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) 123341
Net returns (Rs./ha) 76659
Cost of production (Rs./qtl.) 493.36
53
Input output ratio 1:1.62
Measures of farm profit
The overall gross return is observed as Rs. 200000 per hectare in
the study area. The gross return depends upon variety, productivity and price
received by the farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. 123341 per
hectare farms respectively. The overall input-output ratio was observed as 1:1.
Table.4.24: Break-up of total cost, and income obtained over different cost of
Cucumber cultivation
Particular Average
Break-up of costs
Cost A1 83608.2
Cost A2 83608.2
Cost B1 85141
Cost B2 102641
Cost C1 105841
Cost C2 123341
Cost C3 135675.1
Return obtained over different costs
Return over cost A1 116391.8
Return over cost A2 116391.8
Return over cost B1 114859
Return over cost B2 97359
Return over cost C1 94159
Return over cost C2 76659
Return over cost C3 64324.9
Cost and returns on the basis of different cost concept:
The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of
Cucumber have been presented in the table 4.24.
It is envisaged that Cost A1, as designated the variable cost, depreciation
and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs. 83608.2 per hectare an average
basis, which was added of rent paid for lease in land and dignified with Cost A2,
found to be Rs. 83608.2 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital imputed
with cost B1 Rs. 85141 rental value of own land Rs. 17500 per hectare prevailed in
the study. Normally, farmers are cultivating the crop in their own land but it has
54
imputed value of land of Rs. 17500 notified Cost B2 was Rs. 102641 per hectare.
The Cost C1, found to be Rs. 105841 per hectare, includes the value of cost B1 and
imputed value of family labour was found to be Rs. 20700 per hectare, The cost
C2, found to be Rs. 123341 per hectare , includes the value of Cost B2 and
imputed value of family labour and The Cost C3,found to be Rs. 135675.1 per
hectare imputed value of managerial allowances at 10 per cent of cost C2 return
over the Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2, and Cost C3 was
obtained to be Rs. 116391.8, Rs. 116391.8, Rs. 114859, Rs. 97359,
Rs. 94159, Rs.76659 and Rs 64324.9 per hectare, respectively.
4.3 Disposable pattern of spices
A study of the vegetable marketing system is necessary to understand the
complexities involved and to identify bottleneck with a view of providing efficient
services in the transfer of farm producer and input from producer to consumer. An
efficient marketing system minimizes costs and benefits to all section of society.
Thus marketing of any product is the ultimate stage of any production system. A
marketing system should be such that the produce should reach to consumer in
good state without damage with least cost and within a shortest time after harvest.
The main objectives of an efficient marketing system are: (a) to enable the primary
producers to reap the best possible benefits; (b) to make available all products of
farm origin to consumers at reasonable price without impairing the quality of the
produce; (c) to provide facilities for lifting all produce, the farmers are willing to
sell at an incentive price; (d) to reduce the price spread between the primary
produce and ultimate consumer.
4.3.1 Marketing channel:
The marketing channel means the passage or channel through which a
commodity travels from the producer to the final consumer.
Keeping in view the importance of different marketing channels in the
disposal of produce, the following three widely used marketing channels were
selected for the study.
Channel – I: Producer → Consumer.
55
This is the most commonly used method of sale among the marginal spice
growers for selling of chilli and coriander.
Channel – II: Producer → Itinerant Trader → Consumer.
This channel is more popular with the marginal, small and medium
farmers. Due to poor holding capacity and inadequate facilities the farmers do not
generally hold the produce for a very long period. Secondly, the quantity of
produce also happens to be meager.
Channel – III: Producer → Commission agent/Retailer → Consumer.
All categories of farmers are selling to their produce through Channel- III. The
quantity sold by the large farmers is found to be highest followed by marginal farmers
medium farmers and small farmers through this channel.
4.3.2 Marketable surplus:
Table 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 2.28, 2.29,2.30 clearly reveals that the estimated
marketable surplus. Tomato, chilli cowpea cabbage bittergourd and cucumber is
highly perishable commodity. Being highly perishable in nature they cannot be
stored at household level for a longer period without losses. Lack of infrastructural
facility is another reason that forces farmers to sell their produce in the market
immediately after their harvest.
Table 4.25: Marketable surplus of Tomato of sampled households (Quintal per
farm)
S.N. Particulars Average
1. Total quantity produced (qty) 231.66
(100)
2. Quantity paid for wages 0.83
(0.07)
3. Quantity used for home 1.33
(0.12)
4. Quantity used for seed 00
(00)
5. Total quantity utilized 2.17
(.19)
6. Marketable surplus 1156.17
(99.81)
56
Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percentage to total quantity produced
Table 4.26: Marketable surplus of chilli of sampled households. (Quintal per
farm)
S.N. Particulars Average
1. Total quantity produced (qty) 242.5
(100)
2. Quantity paid for wages 0.75
(0.06)
3. Quantity used for home 0.75
(0.06)
4. Quantity used for seed 00
(00)
5. Total quantity utilized 1.50
(0.12)
6. Marketable surplus 1211.00
(99.88)
(Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percentage to total quantity produced)
Table 4.27: Marketable surplus of cowpea of sampled households. (Quintal per
farm)
S.N. Particulars Average
1. Total quantity produced (qty) 300
(100)
2. Quantity paid for wages 1.50
(0.10)
3. Quantity used for home 1.00
(0.07)
4. Quantity used for seed 00
(00)
5. Total quantity utilized 2.50
(0.17)
6. Marketable surplus 1497.50
(99.83)
Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percentage to total quantity produced
57
Table 4.28: Marketable surplus of cabbage of sampled households.
(Quintal per farm)
S.N. Particulars Average
1. Total quantity produced (qty) 400
(100)
2. Quantity paid for wages 2.50
(0.13)
3. Quantity used for home 1.50
(0.08)
4. Quantity used for seed 00
(00)
5. Total quantity utilized 4.00
(0.20)
6. Marketable surplus 1996.00
(99.80)
Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percentage to total quantity produced
Table 4.29: Marketable surplus of bitter gourd of sampled households.
(Quintal per farm)
S.N. Particulars Average
1. Total quantity produced (qty) 200
(100)
2. Quantity paid for wages 2.50
(0.25)
3. Quantity used for home 1.50
(0.15)
4. Quantity used for seed 00
(00)
5. Total quantity utilized 4.00
0.40)
6. Marketable surplus 996.00
(99.60)
Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percentage to total quantity produced
Table 4.30: Marketable surplus of cucumber of sampled households.
(Quintal per farm)
S.N. Particulars Average
1. Total quantity produced (qty) 250
(100)
2. Quantity paid for wages 2.50
(0.20)
3. Quantity used for home 1.50
(0.12)
58
4. Quantity used for seed 00
(00)
5. Total quantity utilized 4.00
0.32)
6. Marketable surplus 1246.00
(99.68)
Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percentage to total quantity produced
4.4 Constraints in production and marketing:
48 percent of the farmers say that space available to them in the market is
partially adequate, 38 percent of the farmers says they are fully satisfied with the
space available to them in the market and 14 percent says that they are not satisfied
with the space available to them in the market for their disposal of produce. 76
percent of the farmers buy the seed from the cooperative society and 58 percent of
the farmers buy seed from commission agents or cooperative society. 42 percent of
the farmers say that the source (cooperative society or commission agent) is near to
the village. The study shows that 46 percent of the farmers are satisfied by the
work done by the labour at the field level, and 54 percent of the farmers are not
satisfied by the work of the labour. It shows that mostly packing done by the
farmers (62%) is not adequate either they use old bags for packing or use low
quality of bags for packing. Only 38 percent of the farmers use good quality or
new bags for packing. It shows that there are three patterns of selling the vegetable
that is daily, weekly and monthly. In the daily pattern nearly 58 percent of the
farmers use labour for selling their produce. In the weekly pattern 16 percent of the
farmers sell their produce by themselves and in the monthly pattern 68 percent of
the farmers are dependent upon labour for selling their produce. It shows that 66
percent of the farmers are unsatisfied by the price that they get for their produce in
market or at the farm level and 34 percent of the farmers are satisfied by the price
they get from the buyers. The major constraints are as follows
More labour required
Temperature is high
Humidity is high
Rains destroyed the crop of those area where accumulated and
water fall down.
59
Lack of knowledge appropriate technology
Training is needed
Quality of net is not appropriate
High vulnerability of fog system
Wind storm, cattle, fire, are damaged the net
Due to humidity and high temperature efficiency of labour is very
poor
60
CHAPTER-V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH WORK
5.1 Summary and conclusions:
Chhattisgarh is an agricultural chief land and due to large production of
rice, Chhattisgarh is known as the rice bowl. Apart from paddy, vegetables are also
grown. The immense diversity in agro-climatic condition in Chhattisgarh enables
to produce large varieties of vegetable. Vegetables are grown in an area about
351549.52 hectares with productivity 13.04 ton/ha in Chhattisgarh. Korba District
covers 5.80 per cent share in total vegetable area in Chhattisgarh. High risk
involves in the production of vegetables growing to its perishable nature. Keeping
in view the economic important of crops in the study area under Shade net house,
the present enquiry related to its production and marketing was undertaken in
Korba district of Chhattisgarh with following objectives
Objectives:
1. To work out the cost and return of major crops grown in shade net
cultivation.
2. To examine marketing pattern of major crops grown in Shade net
cultivation.
3. To identify the constraints of Shade net cultivation and suggest
measures for improvement of the same.
The present study was conducted in Korba district of Chhattisgarh. Five
farmers were selected randomly from5 Blocks i.e. namely, Korba, Kartala,
Katghora , Pali, Poundi Uproda.
Primary data from the farmers will be collected through personal interview
method with the help of well prepared pre-tested schedule and questionnaire for
the year 2015-16. Secondary data will be collected from different sources such as
61
Directorate of Horticulture, Raipur and Sub Directorate of Horticulture office
korba , KVK‟s and National Horticulture Mission office Raipur and korba.
5.2 The study yielded following major findings
The finding of the study reveal that the average size of holding of the
selected house holds was 7 hectares.
On an Average family size was 4.8.
The literacy percent of the selected house holds were 87.5 percent.
Majority of the selected house hold belongs to schedule tribes.
On an average the total cultivated area was 6.75 hectare perfarm.
Tube well was the major source of irrigation.
Paddy, tomato and chilli were the major crops in the kharif season.
Paddy and vegetables were the major crops in the rabi season.
On an average cropping intensity was 183.49 present.
The cost of cultivation of tomato was found to be Rs. 115495 per hectare .
the input – output ratio was 1:0.6. Tomato crop was is not profitable in the
selected shade net cultivation due to lower price and yield.
The cost of cultivation of chilli, cow pea, cabbage, bitter gourd, and
cucumber were found to be Rs.128834, Rs.149787, Rs.145903, Rs.132165
and Rs.123341 per hectare respectively.
The input-output ratio of chilli, cow pea, cabbage , bitter gourd, and
cucumber were found to be. 1:2.2, 1:1.8, 1:1.37, 1:2.11, 1:1.62
respectively.
Marketable surplus was more than 99% in all the selected crops.
Study suggested that the extensive demonstration of improved and high
yielding varieties of vegetable crops should be given, definite provisions
should be made for timely supply of crucial inputs at reasonable price and
inadequate quality to sustain vegetable production on profitable basis.
62
5.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH WORK
They suggested that extensive demonstration of improved and high
yielding varieties of vegetable crops should be given, definite provisions
should be made for timely supply of crucial inputs at reasonable price and
inadequate quality to sustain vegetable production on profitable basis.
Shade net cultivation are associated with very high initial cost. Although, it
is linked with several Government Schemes in India and have 50-90% of
subsidies depending on intervention, status socio-economic condition and
policy of State and Central Government. But, still such efforts are not
appreciated by small and marginal farmers and they are still deprived of
their benefits at large. Intensive efforts is to be needed to develop location
specific - cost effective strategies for Protected Cultivation which is
suitable for small and marginal farmers. Such efforts have been successful
in raising the income and livelihood of resource poor farmers at different
locations of the state.
simple and low cost shade net may be suitable for Chhattisgarh farmers
The tomato is planted under shade net, will establish good stands and able to
produce higher and off- season tomato which fetched premium prices in the
market.
63
REFERENCES
Anonymous (2006 b) Agricultural and Rural Development of Punjab. The Punjab
State Farmers Commission, Govt. of Punjab: 43-44.
Barreto, M. S.and Jagtap, K. B.(2006). Assessment of substrates for economical
production of gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii Bolus ex Hooker F.) flowers
under protected cultivation. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture Vol.9
(2) pp.136-138.
Cheema D S, Kaur P and Kaur S (2004) vii International Symposium on Protected
Cultivation in Mild winter climates: Production, Pest Management and
Global Competition. ISHS Acta Horticulture. 659.
Chakraborty, H and Sethi, L N (2015) Prospects of Protected Cultivation of
Vegetable Crops in North Eastern Hilly Region. International
Journal of Basic and Applied Biology ISSN: 2394-5820
Dixit A (2007) Performance of leafy vegetables under protected environment and
open field condition The Asian Journal of Horticulture 2 (1) : 197 – 200.
Goren, A. Alakali-Tuvia, S. Perzelan, Y. Aharon, Z. Fallik, E. Shahak,
Y.(2012).Effect of colored shade nets on sweet bell pepper quality
after prolonged storage and shelf life. Acta horticulturae ISSN : 0567-7572.
Hwang, J.G. and KoreaKim, Y.D.(2014). Effect of Shade Net on Reduction of
Freezing Damage at a Tea Garden. ISSN : 1229-5671.
Ilić, Zoran SMilenković, LidijaŠunić, LjubomirFallik, and Elazar(2015). Effect of
coloured shade‐nets on plant leaf parameters and tomato fruit quality.
Journal of the Science of food and Agriculture ISSN: 0022-5142.
Kang, B. S. and Sidhu, B. S. 2006. Studies on growing off-season chilli nursery
under polyhouse. Annals of Biology, 22(1): 39-41.
Kumar. N. and kumar M. 2006. Prospects and management of protected cultivation
in hill, sustainable production from agricultural watershed in NWH, 488-
503.
Kumar R and Singh H (2002) Problems in vegetable production in Bharatpur
district of Rajasthan. Rural India 65: 48-50.
64
Medany M A, Hassanein M K and Farag A A (2009) Effect of black and white
nets as alternative covers to sweet pepper production under greenhouses in
Egypt. Acta Hort 807:121-26.
Naik R K (2005) Influence of N-substitution levels through organic and inorganic
sources on growth, yield and post-harvest quality of capsicum under
protected condition. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ Agric Sci, Dharwad, Karnataka,
India.
Nangare, D.D. Jitendra Singh, Meena, V.S. Bharat Bhushan, and Bhatnagar,
P.R.(2015). Effect of green shade nets on yield and quality of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) in semi-arid region of Punjab. Asian
Journal of Advances in Basic and Applied Science. Vol-1 (1): 1- 8.
Negi, Vikram S. Maikhuri, R. K. Rawat, L. S. and Parshwan, D.(2013). Protected
cultivation as an option of livelihood in mountain region of central
Himalaya, India. International journal of sustainable development and
world ecology ISSN : 1745-2627.
Patil,M.A. and Bhagat, A.D.(2014). Yield response of cucumber (Cucumis sativus
L.) to shading percentage of shade net. International Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Volume 7(1): 243–248.
Rajasekar, M. Arumugam, T. and Ramesh Kumar, S.(2013). Influence of weather
and growing environment on vegetable growth and yield. Journal of
Horticulture and Forestry Vol. 5(10): 160-167.
Singh B and Sirohi N P S (2008) protected cultivation of vegetables in India:
problems and future prospects. Acta Hort.710
Singh R and Asrey R (2005) Performance of tomato and sweet pepper under
unheated green house. Haryana J Hort Sci. 34 (1-2) 175-175.
Singh K and Vashist G D (1999) An analysis of production and marketing system
of vegetable in Lambagaon block of District Kangra (H.P.). The Bihar In
Agril Mktg 7:376-89.
65
APPENDIX-I
DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-BUSINESS AND RURAL MANAGEMENT
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA, RAIPUR (C.G.)
“AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHADE NET
CULTIVATION IN
CHHATTISGARH PLANE”
House Hold Schedule
A. General Information:
Name of farmer ……………..…………………………2.
Age……………………………… Education …………………………Categories
[Gen. / OBC/ ST/ SC] …………………….. Village
…………………………………… Block ……………………………………...
District ……………………….. State
………………………………………………………. Name of market
………………………..Distance from market ………………………….. Distance
from pacca road (km)………………………………………………………...................
Date of
interview…………………………………………………………………………………
B. Details of the family :
S.
No.
Name
of
family
member
Relation
to head
Sex
M/F
Age Edu-
Cation
Employment Income
Farm Off
farm
Non
farm
Farm Off
farm
Non
farm
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Total
66
C. Cropping Pattern :
S.
NO
.
Season Crops Variety
Area (ha) Production
Val
ue
Rs.
(quintal)
(1) Kharif
1.
2.
3.
Particulars Shade net house
[A]Cost Structure
Seed
Fertilizer & FYM
Family labour
Hired labour
Plant protection
Irrigation
Machinery
Variable cost
Marketing cost
Total working cost
[B]Return structure
Production (in Q.)
Sale price
Gross return
Net return
67
(2) Rabi
1.
2.
3.
(3) Summer or
Zaid
1.
2.
3.
Total cropped area
D. Cost of Structure
Size of shade net house
Price of shade net structure per
m2
Subsidy percent (%)
Total cost (Rs.)
Irrigation system
Criteria
E. Cost of caltivation
Crop:- ………………………………….
Variety:- …………………………………
Area :- ………………………………….
(A) Labour Cost
68
Operational cost of vegetable / fruit production under shade net house :
S.
N
.
Operation No.
of
opera
-tion
Family
human
labour
(days)
Hired
human
labour
(days)
Bullock
power
Machine
power
Total
expenditur
e on
particular
operation M F T M F T O H R O H R 1 Field
preparation
2 Sowing 3 Application
of manure
4 Application
of fertilizer
5 Interculture 6 Irrigation 7 Plant
protection
8 Harvesting 9 Threshing &
winnowing
1
0 Trans-
portation
1
1 Miscellaneou
s
Total
(B) Input cost
S.N. Input Owned
quantity
Purchased
quantity
Sold
quantity
Rate(Rs) /
unit
Total
value
(Rs.)
1 Seed
a.
b.
2 FYM
3 Fertilizer
a.
b.
c.
4 Plant
protection
chemicals
a.
b.
69
c.
Total
(C). Irrigation charges -------------
(D). Interest on working capital ---------------------------------
(E). Fixed cost
a) Rental value of land / leased in land (Rs.) : .....................................................
b) Land revenue (Rs.) : .........................................................................................
c) Interest on fixed capital: ...................................................................................
d) Depreciation: ....................................................................................................
F. Marketing cost
S.No. Particulars Sold to*
1 2 3
1. Name of vegetables
2. Quantity of each month sold
3. To whom sold
4. Selling place
5. Price (Rs./qts)
6. Distance from marketing place
7.
Means of transportation
a. Tractor
b. Truck
c. Bullock cart
d. Other (specify)
8. Transportation cost (Rs./Qts.)
9. Octroi charges (Rs.)
10. Mandi fees (Rs.)
11. Loading/unloading charges (Rs./Qts.)
12. Commission charges (Rs.)
13. Cleaning charges (Rs./Qts.)
14. Other expenses Rs.
Total
1. Sale price of producer (Rs./Qts.) --------------------------------------
2. Actual getting of price of producer (Rs./Qts.) --------------------------------------
3. Total marketing charges (Rs./Qts.) -------------------------------------
70
Curriculum vitae
Personal Details
Full Name - Shivendra Pratap Singh
Address - M/698, Adarsh Nagar, Kushmunda, Dist.-
Korba(CG)
PIN- 495454
Mobile - 09827199921
Email ID - [email protected]
Date of Birth - 10/07/1990
Sex - Male
Nationality - Indian
Religion - Hindu
Category - OBC
Marital status - Single
Qualification and Education
S.
N.
Class/
Exam
School/College Board/Universi
ty
Year Percent
age
1. High
School
Govt.H.S.School
Bhilai Bazar, Korba
CGBSE, Raipur 2006 55.66%
2. Higher
Secondary
Govt.H.S.School,
Bhaisma, Korba
CGBSE, Raipur 2008 60.4%
3. B.Sc.(AG) C.A.C. Bhilai IGKV, Raipur 2014 6.33/10
OGPA
4. DCA AISECT, Bilaspur Dr.C.V.R.U.,
Bilaspur
2011 63.83%
5. Tally KCC institute,
Korba
Dr.C.V.R.U.,
Bilaspur
2007 90.0%
71
Research interest
Farming of horticultural Crops.
Dairy technology
Skills
MS Office
Can speak and write (Hindi, English, Chhattisgarhi)
Hobbies & Interest
Playing Badminton
Professional work experience
Two year experience in Marketing and field work with Kestone
Integrated service Pvt. Ltd. As Sales Promoter in NOKIA India
2012
Declaration
I hereby declare that all the above information made
by me is true and complete to best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has
concealed or suppressed.
Date: 21 /07/2017 (signature)
Place: Korba. SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH