chapter – iii cost and income analysis of the tomato ...€¦ · similarly apportioned on the...

81

CHAPTER – III

COST AND INCOME ANALYSIS OF THE TOMATO PRODUCTION

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Tomato is cultivated mainly as a cash crop. It is a short duration crop. So the profit can be earned immediately and cultivation of tomato is possible within a period of 3 to 6 months. The tomato cultivation being commercial activity undertaken by farmers, they scrupulously follow the use of different inputs. Analysis of data and interpretation of results are presented in accordance with the objectives formulated in Chapter-I. The different cost concepts which are used in this study are cost-A, cost-B and cost-C. The cost-A concept consists variable costs, it includes seeds, farmyard manure, chemical fertilizers, insecticide and fungicide, human labour, bullock labour, irrigation, staking sticks, gunny twine, repairs and maintenance and interest on variable cost. The Cost-B concept consists fixed cost, that is depreciation, rental value of land, land revenue and interest on fixed cost. The Cost-C concept consists total cost of cultivation. The Cost-A, B and C concepts reveal as follows.

3.2 COST OF PRODUCTION OF VARIOUS INPUTS

A. Variable Cost

Costs of production of inputs of tomato production are explained below:

1. Seeds and Small Plants: Tomato producer farmers buy the HYVs from the market and prepare plants at their own and cultivate them. The whole process includes the cost of seeds, land charges, fertilizers, insecticide, water charges and labour charges. Some farmers prefer to buy readymade plants from market in the neighboring city, such expenses are also included.

2. Farmyard Manure: Farmyard manures boost the fertility of land and hence farmers consider the fertilizers from own animals and those brought from the local area. The cost of farmyard manures are valued at the price prevailing in the local area.

82

3. Fertilizers: Under this head, the value of chemical fertilizers, organic, inorganic and biological fertilizers are to be considered.

4. Cost of Insecticide and Fungicide: Tomato crop is attacked by a number of diseases. Most of the diseases can be controlled by chemical sprays and dusting. For this purpose various fungicides and insecticides are used. For example Bilitox, Blue Copper Fytolon, Sulphex, Sulfet, Setsulf, Captan are the fungicides frequently used. Carbary, Endosulphan, Malathin, Rogar, Quinalphos, Phosphamidon are insecticides used for controlling various diseases. In the present study actual expenses incurred on fungicide and insecticide are taken into account. The prevailing rate schedule of various fungicides and insecticides are used for costing of these inputs.

5. Human Labour Expenses: Human Labour in this case is classified into family labour and hired labour. The farm operation of preparation of land, nursery work, planting, applying fertilizer, spraying, watering, thinning, harvesting, picking of tomato fruit etc. require considerable amount of labour. The labour charges include man hours contributed by both hired labours and members of family. The hired cost includes the actual wages paid in cash and the cost of members of family is evaluated on the market rate prevailing at the time of employing them.

6. Bullock Labour: It has been computed on the basis of working cost per bullock pair per day. In such cases, the hire charges of bullock or tractor should be taken into account and some of the tomato cultivators use the dry and green fodder and it is also considered.

7. Irrigation: Majority of the sample tomato growers rely on wells, bore-wells, private and co-operative water supply societies. They are the real source of water-facilities. Irrigation charges include cost of labour charges required for irrigation, electricity charges and maintenance of electric motor. The gravity technique of watering is in fashion, but for more economic use of

83

water, the technique of drip irrigation is also adopted by some growers.

8. Staking Sticks / Stumps: One small bamboo staking stick is installed near for one tomato plant. This cost is considered under production cost.

9. Steel Wires: Steel wires are used to see that the plants grow straight and as supportive to the plants.

10. Gunny twine / rope: Gunny twine or ropes are utilized in combination with steel wire, this cost is considered too.

11. Repairs and Maintenance: This head includes equipments like tractor, electric pump, chemicals spray machine / pump and other tools. Their repairs and maintenance cost is taken into account here.

12. Miscellaneous Cost: This item comprises some items of costs not taken under any of the above mentioned items e.g. traveling, telephone bill, labours mid-time tea etc.

13. Interest on variable cost: In this present study, interest has been charged at the rate of 12%@ on owned capital and borrowed capital for the life period of the tomato crop.

B. Fixed Costs

Fixed costs include the depreciation rental value of land, land revenue and interest on fixed cost. Fixed costs are time costs. During the agreed period fixed cost remains constant, even though volumes are to change. Fixed cost decreases per unit with increased level of output and increases per unit with decreased level of output.

1. Depreciation: The depreciation of each form asset is estimated by using ‘Straight Line’ method. The life of the asset, its junk value at the end of its stipulated life is fixed on the basis of the information gathered from the respondents and rate of depreciation is calculated. This annual cost of apportioned on the basis of total area under tomato crops during that year.

2. Rental Value of Land: The rental value of owned land is similarly apportioned on the leased principle while the

84

quantum of rent paid is allocated on the basis of area under the crop.

Lease charges of owned land (farm) are calculated according to the model example of a leased farm in the village and that value is comprised in the production cost.

3. Land revenue: This cost item forms a very small portion of the aggregate cost. It includes land revenue, educational tax and tax of employment guarantee scheme. Actual paid-out amount is included in this cost item.

4. Interest of Fixed Costs: In the present study interest has been charged on all different farms of agricultural assets, like machinery implemented and building etc. (excluding land) at the rate of 12 % @.

C. Total Cost of Cultivation

It is calculated by taking into account per acre cost of cultivation which includes Cost – A and Cost-B.

Table 3.1 Cost of Cultivation and Returns Structure of Tomato Sample Growers 2006-07 (Rs. Per Acre).

Sr. No. Particulars Gadhinglaj Hatkanan-

gale Karveer Shirol Total Average

A) Variable Cost 1250 1250 1000 1250 4750 1187.5 1

Seeds & Small Plants

2.11% 1.94% 1.74% 1.87% 1.92% 1.92% 4500 5000 4000 5000 18500 4625 2

Farmyard Manure

7.58% 7.78% 6.98% 7.48% 7.46% 7.46% 8500 9000 8000 10000 35500 8875 3

Fertilizers

14.32% 14.00% 13.95% 14.95% 14.32% 14.32% 4000 4500 4200 5000 17700 4425 4

Cost of Insecticide & Fungicide 6.74% 7.00% 7.32% 7.48% 7.14% 7.14%

13000 14000 13000 14000 54000 13500 5

Human Labour Expenses 21.91% 21.78% 22.67% 20.93% 21.79% 21.79%

1100 1200 1200 1200 4700 1175 6

Bullock Labour 1.85% 1.87% 2.09% 1.79% 1.90% 1.90%

3000 3000 3000 3000 12000 3000 7

Irrigation 5.06% 4.67% 5.23% 4.49% 4.84% 4.84%

4800 5400 4500 6000 20700 5175 8

Staking Sticks/ Stumps 8.09% 8.40% 7.85% 8.97% 8.35% 8.35%

5100 5400 4480 5600 20580 5145 9

Steel Wires 8.59% 8.40% 7.81% 8.37% 8.30% 8.30%

1000 1100 1000 1250 4350 1087.5 10

Gunny Twine/Rope 1.69% 1.71% 1.74% 1.87% 1.76% 1.76%

85

200 200 200 200 800 200 11

Repairs & Maintenance

0.34% 0.31% 0.35% 0.30% 0.32% 0.32% 200 250 200 250 900 225 12

Miscellaneous Cost

0.34% 0.39% 0.35% 0.37% 0.36% 0.36% 2799 3018 2686.8 3165 11668.8 2917.2 13

Interest on Variable Cost(12%) (for six months) 4.72% 4.70% 4.69% 4.73% 4.71% 4.71%

49449 53318 47466.8 55915 206149 51537.2 Sub Total 83.33% 82.96% 82.77% 83.61% 83.18% 83.18% B) Fixed Cost

280 280 270 290 1120 280 1

Depreciation 0.47% 0.44% 0.47% 0.43% 0.45% 0.45%

9000 10000 9000 10000 38000 9500 2

Rental Value of Land 15.17% 15.56% 15.69% 14.95% 15.33% 15.33%

50 50 50 50 200 50 3

Land Revenue 0.08% 0.08% 0.09% 0.07% 0.08% 0.08% 559.8 619.8 559.2 620.4 2359.2 589.8 4

Interest on Fixed Cost(12%) (for six months) 0.94% 0.96% 0.98% 0.93% 0.95% 0.95%

9889.8 10949.8 9879.2 10960.4 41679.2 10419.8 Sub Total 16.67% 17.04% 17.23% 16.39% 16.82% 16.82%

C) Total Cost (Rs.) 59338.8 64267.8 57346 66875.4 247828 61957 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

D) Returns Yield in Quintal 190 200 185 210 785 196.25 Rate Rs./Quintal 1000 1000 1000 1000 4000 1000 Gross Returns (Rs.) 190000 200000 185000 210000 3140000 196250 Net Returns (Rs.) 130661.2 135732.2 127654 143124.6 2892172 134293

Source: Field survey Average yield per acre : 196.25 quintal Average cost of production Rs. 3.15 per kg. Figures in percentages indicate percentage to total cost of cultivation.

Table No. 3.1 shows the overall total cost of cultivation of tomato product of sample tomato producers per acre during the year, 2006-2007. The overall average total cost of tomato cultivation amounted to Rs. 61957.00 per acre of which Rs. 51537.2 (83.18%) on incurred on variable cost. Out of the total cost of cultivation, the expenditure on human labour (21.79) formed the major component followed by cost on chemical fertilizers (14.32%). The expenditure incurred on staking sticks were (8.35%), farmyard manure (7.46%), insecticides and fungicides (7.14%), irrigation (4.84%), interest on variable cost (4.71%), seeds and small plants (1.92%), bullock labour (1.90%), gunny twins/rope (1.76%), miscellaneous cost (0.36%) and repairs and maintenance (0.32%).

In fixed cost of tomato cultivation overall average was Rs. 10419.80 (16.82%) of total cost. The rental value of land

86

(15.33%), formed major cost of cultivation among fixed cost. After that followed interest on fixed cost (0.95%), depreciation (0.45%), land revenue (0.08%).It is worth noting that the similar pattern of cost structure was observed in all the sample selected talukas. However, the total cost of cultivation in Shirol (Rs.66875.40) per acre, found to be marginally higher than that of Hatkanangale (Rs. 64267.80/acre), Gadhinglaj (Rs. 59338.80/acre), Karveer (Rs.57346.00/acre). Finally, the cost production of tomato was found that of Rs. 3.15 per kg.

In case of yield, farmers of Shirol (210 Q/acre) obtained highest yield followed by Hatkanangale (200 Q/acre), Gadhinglaj (190 Q /acre) and Karveer (185 Q /acre) realized lower yield. On an average, tomato farmers in the study area yield was about 196.25 quintals per acre. Further, farmers of Shirol (Rs. 143124.60/acre) taluka obtained relatively higher net returns as compared to farmers of Hatkanangale (Rs. 135732.20/acre), Gadhinglaj (Rs.130661.20/acre) and Karveer (Rs.127654.00/acre) talukas, mainly because of their higher gross returns due to yield differences.

3.3 AREA-WISE COST OF CULTIVATION AND YIELD

Taking into consideration the maximum and minimum area under tomato cultivation area, (i.e. from 0.5 to 2.0 acre) we classified, tomato growers from sample talukas are area-wise as i) upto 0.5 acre ii) 05 to 1.00 acre iii) 1 to 1.5 acres and iv) 1.5 to 2 acre. Accordingly the area-wise cost of tomato cultivation is calculated in the following table No.3.2

87

Table No. 3.2 Classification of Area-wise cost of cultivation and yield of Sample Talukas (2006-2007) (Rs. per acre)

Sr. No.

Particulars Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale

A - Variable Cost Upto 0.5 acre

0.5 to 1 acre

1 acre to 1.5 acre

1.5 acre to 2acre

Total Average Upto 0.5 acre

0.5 to 1 acre

1acre to 1.5acre

1.5 acre to 2acre

Total Average

1. 650 1275 1900 2600 6425 1606.25 650 1275 1900 2600 6425 1606.25


2.34 % 2.17 % 2.07 % 2.19 % 2.10 % 2.10 % 1.85 % 2.10 % 2.01 % 2.10 % 2.06 % 2.06 %

2. 2000 4500 7000 10000 23500 5875 2000 4500 7500 9500 23500 5875

Farmyard Manure

7.21 % 7.65 % 7.64 % 8.43 % 7.68 % 7.68 % 5.71 % 7.41 % 7.95 % 7.69 % 7.53 % 7.53 %

3. 4500 9000 15000 19000 47500 11875 4500 9000 15500 19500 48500 12125

Fertilizers

16.23 % 15.30 % 16.37 % 16.02 % 15.53 % 15.53 % 12.85 % 14.83 % 16.44 % 15.78 % 15.55 % 15.55 %

4. 2000 4000 6500 7000 19500 4875 2600 4300 7000 9000 22900 5725

Cost of Insecticide & Fungicide 7.21 % 6.80 % 7.09 % 5.90 % 6.37 % 6.37 % 7.42 % 7.08 % 7.42 % 7.28 % 7.34 % 7.34 %

5. 5000 12500 18000 25000 60500 15125 5500 12500 18500 26000 62500 15625

Human Labour Expenses 18.03 % 21.24 % 19.65 % 21.08 % 19.78 % 19.78 % 15.70 % 20.60 % 19.62 % 21.03 % 20.04 % 20.04 %

6. 500 1000 1500 2200 5200 1300 5000 1100 1600 2300 5500 1375

Bullock Labour

1.80 % 1.70 % 1.64 % 1.86 % 1.70 % 1.70 % 1.42 % 1.81 % 1.70 % 1.86 % 1.76 % 1.76 %

7. 1500 3000 4500 6000 15000 3750 1500 3000 4500 6000 15000 3750

Irrigation

5.41 % 5.09 % 4.91 % 5.06 % 4.90 % 4.90 % 4.28 % 4.94 % 4.77 % 4.85 % 4.81 % 4.81 %

8. 2200 4500 7000 8500 22200 5550 4300 4600 7200 8500 24600 6150

Staking Sticks/ Stumps

7.94 % 7.64 % 7.64 % 7.17 % 7.26 % 7.26 % 12.28 % 7.58 % 7.64 % 6.88 % 7.89 % 7.89 %

9. 2500 5000 7400 10000 24900 6225 2500 5100 7500 10500 25600 6400

Steel Wires

9.01 % 8.50 % 8.07 % 8.43 % 8.14 % 8.14 % 7.14 % 8.41 % 7.95 % 8.50 % 8.21 % 8.21 %

10. 450 1000 1500 21000 5050 1262.50 4100 1100 1550 2200 8950 2237.50

Gunny Twine / Rope

1.62 % 1.70 % 1.64 % 1.77 % 1.65 % 1.65 % 11.71 % 1.81 % 1.64 % 1.78 % 2.87 % 2.87 %

11. 100 200 300 400 10000 250 125 200 300 400 1025 256.25


0.36 % 0.33 % 0.32 % 0.33 % 3.27 % 0.32 % 0.35 % 0.33 % 0.31 % 0.32 % 0.33 % 0.33 %

12. 100 200 300 400 1000 250 100 225 350 400 1075 268.75

Miscellaneous Cost

0.36 % 0.34 % 0.32 % 0.33 % 0.32 % 0.32 % 0.28 % 0.37 % 0.37 % 0.32 % 0.34 % 0.34 %

13. 1290 2770.50 4254 5592 13906.5 3476.62 1702.50 2814 4404 5814 13032 3258

Interes on variable cost (12%) for 6 months 4.65 % 4.71 % 4.64 % 4.72 % 4.54 % 4.54 % 4.86 % 4.64 % 4.67 % 4.70 % 4.18 % 4.18 %

Sub total 22790 48945.50 75154 98792 254681.5 63670.37 30077.5 49714 77804 102714 258607 64651.75

82.20 % 83.19 % 82.03 % 83.32 % 83.30 % 83.30 % 85.90 % 81.94 % 82.52 % 83.10 % 82.92 % 82.92 %

88

B-Fixed Cost (Rs.)

1. Depreciation 130 280 450 550 1410 352.5 130 290 475 600 1495 373.75

047 047 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.37 0.47 0.5 0.49 0.48 0.48

2. Rental Value of Land 4500 9000 15000 18000 46500 11625 4500 10000 15000 19000 48500 12125 16.23 15.30 16.37 15.18 15.20 15.20 12.85 16.48 15.91 15.37 15.55 15.55

3. Land Revenue 25 150 75 100 250 62.50 25 50 75 100 250 62.50

0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08

4. 279.30 559.80 931.50 1119 2889.60 122.40 279.30 620.40 933 1182 3014.70 753.67

Interest on Fixed Cost (12%) for 6 months 1.00 0.95 1.01 0.4 0.94 0.94 0.79 1.02 0.99 0.96 0.97 0.97

Sub Total 4934.30 9889.80 16456.5 19769 51049.60 12762.40 4934.30 10960.40 16483 20882 53259.70 13314.92

17.80 16.81 17.96 16.67 16.69 16.69 14.09 18.06 17.48 16.9 17.07 17.07

C - Total Cost 27724.30 58835.30 91610.5 118561 305731.1 76432.77 35011.8 60674.4 94287 123596 311866.7 77966.67

100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

D-Returns

Yield in Quintal 90 190 285 390 955 238.75 95 200 300 400 995 248.75

Rate Rs. / Quintals 1000 1000 1000 1000 4000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 4000 1000

Gross Returns (Rs. in round Figure)

90000 190000 285000 390000 955000 238750 95000 200000 300000 400000 995000 248750

Net Returns (Rs.) 62276 131164.70 212443.50 271439 649268.9 162317.23 59988.20 139325.60 205713 276404 683133.30 170783.22

89

Sr. No.

Particulars Karveer Shriol

A - Variable Cost Upto 0.5 acre

0.5 to 1 acre

1acre to 1.5 acre

1.5acre to 2acre

Total Average Upto 0.5 acre

0.5 to 1 acre

1 acre to 1.5 acre

1.5acre to 2acre

Total Average

1. 650 1200 1800 2500 6150 1537.50 650 1275 2000 2700 6625 1656.25


2.52 2.40 2.17 2.18 2.22 2.21 2.02 2.20 1.99 1.97 2.02 2.02

2. 1800 4000 7000 9000 21800 5450 2500 5000 8000 11000 26500 6625

Farmyard Manure

6.99 7.39 8044 7.84 7.85 7.85 7.80 8.61 7.96 8.03 8.09 8.09

3. 4000 8500 14000 19000 45500 11375 5000 1050 16000 21000 43050 10762.50

Fertilizers

15.33 15.70 16.89 16.55 16.39 16.39 15.60 1.81 15.92 15.35 13.14 13.14

4. 2000 3900 6000 7000 18900 4725 3000 5500 9000 11500 29000 7250

Cost of Insecticide & Fungicide 7.76 7.20 7.24 6.09 6.81 6.81 9.36 9.47 8.95 8.40 8.86 8.86

5. 4500 9000 14000 22000 49500 12375 6000 14500 19000 27000 66500 16625

Human Labour Expenses 17.47 16.62 16.88 19.16 17.83 10.83 18.72 24.97 18.90 19.73 20.31 20.31

6. 450 950 1450 2000 4850 1212.50 500 1000 1500 2400 5400 1350

Bullock Labour

1.75 1.75 1.75 1.74 1.75 1.75 1.56 1.72 1.49 1.75 1.65 1.65

7. 1500 3000 4500 6000 15000 3750 1500 3000 4500 6000 15000 3750

Irrigation

5.82 5.54 5.43 5.22 5.40 5.40 4.68 5.17 4.48 4.38 4.58 4.58

8. 2000 4500 6000 10000 22500 5625 3000 6000 9000 12500 30500 7625

Staking Sticks/ Stumps

7.76 8.31 7.24 8.71 8.11 8.11 9.36 10.33 8.95 9.13 9.31 9.31

9. 2200 4900 7000 9500 23600 5900 2700 5500 8000 11000 27200 6800

Steel Wires

8.54 9.04 8.44 8.28 8.50 8.50 8.42 9.47 7.96 8.03 8.31 8.31

10. 350 900 1400 2000 4650 1162.50 500 1100 1600 2300 5500 1375

Gunny Twine / Rope

1.36 1.66 1.69 1.74 1.67 16.67 1.56 1.89 1.59 1.68 1.68 1.68

11. 100 200 250 300 850 212.50 125 250 300 500 1175 293.75


0.39 0.37 0.30 0.26 0.31 0.31 0.39 0.43 0.30 0.37 0.36 0.36

12. 100 200 300 400 1000 250 100 250 350 500 1200 300

Miscellaneous Cost

0.39 0.37 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.43 0.35 0.37 0.37 0.37

13. 1179 2475 3822 5382 12858 3214.50 1534.50 2665.50 4755 6504 15459 3864.75

Interes on variable cost (12%) for 6 months 4.58 4.57 4.61 4.69 4.63 4.63 4.79 4.59 4.73 4.75 4.72 4.72

Sub total 20829 43725 67522 95082 227158 56789.50 27109.50 47090.50 84005 114904 273109 68277.25

80.85 80.76 81.46 82.83 81.83 81.83 84.60 81.10 83.57 83.97 83.40 83.40

90

B - Fixed Cost (Rs.)

1. Depreciation 130 280 425 500 1335 333.75 130 300 500 600 1530 382.50

0.50 0.52 0.51 0.44 0.48 0.48 0.41 0.52 0.50 0.44 0.47 0.47

2. Rental Value of Land 4500 9500 14000 18000 46000 11500 4500 10000 15000 20000 49500 12375

17.47 17.55 16.89 15.68 16.57 16.57 14.04 17.22 14.92 14.61 15.12 15.12

3. Land Revenue 25 50 75 100 250 62.50 25 50 75 100 250 62.50

0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.0.07 0.07 0.07

4. 279.30 589.80 870 1116 2855.10 713.77 279.30 621 934.50 1242 3076.80 769.20

Interest on Fixed Cost (12 %) for 6 months 1.08 1.08 1.08 0.97 1.02 1.02 0.87 1.06 0.93 0.91 0.94 0.94

Sub Total 4934.30 10419.80 15370 19716 50440.10 12610.02 4934.30 10971 16509.50 21942 54356.80 13589.20

19.15 19.24 18.54 17.17 18.17 18.17 15.40 18.90 16.42 16.03 16.60 16.60

C - Total Cost 25763.30 54144.80 82892 114798 277598.10 6399.52 32043.80 58061.50 100514.50 136846 327465.80 81866.45

100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

D-Returns

Yield in Quintal 90 185 270 380 925 231.25 100 210 315 435 1060 265

Rate Rs. / Quintals 1000 1000 1000 1000 4000 1000 1000 1100 1300 1300 4700 1175

Gross Returns (Rs. in round Figure)

90000 185000 270000 380000 925000 231250 100000 231000 409500 565500 1306000 326500

Net Returns (Rs.) 64236.70 130855.20 187108 265202 647401.90 161850.48 67956.20 172938.50 308985.50 428654 978534.20 244633.55 Source : Field Survey Figures in percentage indicate percentage of total cost of cultivation. 1 acre = 40 Guntha / AAR

91

The Table No. 3.2 presents calculation of area-wise cost of cultivation. Total cultivation cost of tomato growers confined to 0.5 acre in Gadhinglaj taluka is Rs. 27724.30. Out of it variable cost is 82.20 % and fixed cost is Rs. 17.80%. In case of area in between 0.5 to 1.00 acre total production cost is Rs. 58835.35 of which the variable cost is Rs. 83.19 % and fixed cost is 16.81 %. Total cost applicable to area between 1 to 1.5 acres is Rs. 91610.50 of which the variable cost is 82.43 % and fixed cost 17.46 %. The area between 1.5 to 2.00 acres shows total cultivation cost of Rs. 305731.10. Out of which the variable cost is 83.30 % and fixed cost is 16.67. Area-wise total production is 90 quin. 190 quin., 285 quin. and 390 quintals respectively.

The total production cost in case of tomato growers from Hatkanangale upto 0.5 acre is Rs. 35011.80. Out of in the variable cost is 85.90 % and the fixed cost is 14.09 %. Between area of 0.15 to 1.00 acre the required total cost is Rs. 60674.50 of which the variable cost is 81.94 % and the fixed cost is 18.06 %. In case of area of 1.00 to 1.5 acres the total production cost is Rs. 94287. Out of it the variable cost is 82.52 % and the fixed cost is 17.48 %. From 1.5 to 2.00 acres area, the total cost goes upto Rs. 123596 and variable cost upto 83.10 % and the fixed cost is 16.90 %. The area-wise production is 95 quin, 200 quin, 300 quin. and 400 quintals respectively.

The total cultivation cost of 0.5 acre related to the sample tomato producers from Karveer taluka is Rs. 25763.30. Out of it the variable cost is 80.85 % and the fixed cost is 19.15 %. The total production cost in case of area in between 0.5 to 1.00 acre is Rs. 55144.80. Out of it the variable cost is 80.76 % and the fixed cost is 19.24 %. Total production cost of area between 1.00 to 1.5 acres is Rs. 82892, of which the variable cost is 81.46 % and fixed cost is 18.54 %. The total cultivation cost in case of area between 1.5 to 2.00 acres is Rs. 114798. Out of it the variable cost is 82.83 % and fixed cost is 17.17 %. Total area wise production is respectively 90 quin. 185 quin., 270 quin. and 380 quintals. Compared to other sample tahasils Karveer has got the minimum possible total production cost.

Total production cost for sample tomato growers upto 0.5 acre area from Shirol taluka is Rs. 32043 of which the

92

variable cost is 84.60 % and fixed cost is 15.40 %. Land area between 0.5 to 1 acre shows total cost of Rs. 58061.50, out of it the variable cost is 81.10 % and fixed cost is 18.90%. In case of land area from 1.00 to 1.5 acre the total production cost is Rs. 100514.50 of which the variable cost is 83.57 % and fixed cost is 16.42 %. Between 1.5 to 2.00 acre area the total cost is Rs. 136846. Out of it the variable cost is 83.97 % and fixed cost is 16.03 %. The area-wise production is 100 quin. 210 quin., 315 quin. and 435 quintals. Compared to other sample talukas Shirol taluka shows more production cost. However the area wise total production is also more.

Due to favourable climate in Shirol taluka and satisfactory rainfall the cultivability is high. From commercial point of view farmers from Shirol taluka have adopted recent technology for tomato cultivation. As a result of that the area-wise tomato production and productivity have considerably increased. Moreover private and co-operative vegetable sale-purchase sanghs are available in Shirol taluka and this fact facilitates the transportation of tomato upto the up-country market for sale. Reasonably good rates are offered in these markets encourage the tomato growers to go for this particular crop, because it is profitable for them.

3.4 PER GUNTHA COST OF CULTIVATION

Cost of cultivation is an important element in the income. Hence, cost of production is the important force governing the supply of a product. Cost of production is the aggregate of the price paid for the inputs. The table NO. 3.3 given below represents area-wise per guntha cost of tomato cultivation.

93

Table No. 3.3. Classification of Per Guntha Cost of Cultivation (Rs.)

Sr. No.

Name of Taluka

upto 0.5 acre (C1)

From 0.5 to 1.00 acre (C2)

From 1.00 to 1.5

acres (C3)

From 1.5 to 2.00

acres (C4)

1. Gadhinglaj 1386.21 1470.88 1526.83 1482.01

2. Hatkangale 1750.59 1516.86 1571.45 1544.95

3. Karveer 1288.16 1353.62 1381.53 1435.97

4. Shirol 1602.19 1551.53 1675.24 1710.57

Total 6027.15 5792.89 6155.05 6172.50

Average 1506.78 1448.22 1538.76 1543.15

Source : Field Survey 1 acre = 40 Guntha / AAR C = Cost is calculated per Guntha Computed from table No. 3.2

The area-wise cost of cultivation is calculated in the above given table No. 3.3. The area brought under tomato cultivation is categorized in four groups i) ii) 0.5 to 1.5 acres iii) 1.00 to 1.5 acres and iv) 1. upto 0.5 acre 5 to 2.00 acres.

Guntha-wise cost of tomato cultivation from the four groups in Gadhinglaj taluka was Rs. 1386.21, Rs. 1470.88, Rs. 1526.83 and Rs. 1482.01 respectively. The minimum possible per guntha cost of cultivation (Rs. 1386.21) belonged in 0.5 acre area. Whereas the maximum possible per guntha cost of cultivation (Rs. 1526.83) was found in 1.5 acres area.

Group-wise per guntha cost of cultivation in Hatkanangale taluka was Rs. 1750.59, Rs. 1516.86, Rs. 1571.45 and 1544.95 respectively. Minimum per guntha cost of cultivation (Rs. 1516.86) belonged to the one acre area and the maximum cost of cultivation was found in 0.5 acre (Rs. 1750.59).

Per guntha cost of tomato cultivation in Karveer taluka was Rs. 1288.16, Rs. 1353.62, Rs. 1381.53 and 1434.97 respectively. Of it the minimum cost (Rs. 1288.16) was related to 0.5 acre area and the maximum cost (Rs. 1434.97) to 2.00 acre area.

94

Group-wise and area-wise per guntha cost of tomato cultivation in Shirol taluka was Rs. 1602.19, Rs. 1451.53, Rs. 1675.24 and 1710.57 respectively. Out of it, the minimum cost (Rs. 1451.53) belonged to the large area of 1.00 acre and maximum cost (Rs. 1710.57) was from 2.00 acres area.

The average cost of tomato cultivation per guntha for sample tahasils - Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale, Karveer and Shirol was Rs. 1506.78, Rs. 1448.22, Rs. 1538.76 and Rs. 1543.15 respectively. The average per guntha cost of cultivation of minimum level (Rs. 1448.22) belonged to 1.00 acre area and maximum cost (Rs. 1543.15) belonged to 2.00 acre area.

3.5 PER GUNTHA GROSS INCOME

Per guntha gross income according to the area group in the sample talukas is shown in table 3.4

Table No. 3.4. Classification of Per Guntha Gross Income (Rs.)

Sr. No.

Name of Taluka

upto 0.5 acre (Y1)

From 0.5 to 1.00 acre (Y2)

From 1.00 to 1.5

acres (Y3)

From 1.5 to 2.00 acres

(Y4)

1. Gadhinglaj 4500 4750 4750 4875

2. Hatkangale 4750 5000 5000 5000

3. Karveer 4500 4625 4500 4750

4. Shirol 5000 5775 6825 7068.75

Total 18750 20150 21075 21693.75

Average 4687.50 5037.50 5269.00 5423.43

Source : Field Survey 1 acre = 40 Guntha / AAR Y = Yield per Guntha Computed from table No. 3.2

The area under tomato cultivation from the sample tahasils is grouped in four as i) upto 0.5 acre ii) 0.5 to 1.00 acre iii) 1.00 to 1.5 acres and iv) 1.5 to 2.00 acres. Per guntha gross income from these four groups is calculated in the table No. 3.4.

95

Per guntha gross income from Gadhinglaj taluka was Rs. 4500, Rs. 4750, Rs. 4750 and Rs. 4875 respectively. The lowest per guntha gross income (Rs. 4500) came from 0.5 acre area whereas the maximum (Rs. 4875) came from 2.00 acres area.

Group-wise per guntha gross income in Hatkanangale taluka was Rs. 4750, Rs. 5000, Rs. 5000 and Rs. 5000 respectively. The minimum gross income (Rs. 4750) came from upto 0.5 acre area and the gross income (Rs. 5000) was found at equal amount belonging to areas of 1.00 acre, 1 to 1.5 acres and 1.5 to 2.00 acres.

Group-wise per guntha gross income in Karveer taluka was Rs. 4500, Rs. 4625, Rs. 4500 and Rs. 4750 respectively. The maximum per guntha gross income (Rs. 4750) belonged to 2.00 acre area. Incase of 0.5 and 1.5 acres it was different (Rs. 4500)

Group-wise per guntha gross income of tomato in Shirol taluka was Rs. 5000, Rs. 5775, Rs. 6825 and Rs. 7068.75 respectively. Minimum per guntha gross income (Rs. 5000) was found in 0.5 acre area. Maximum per guntha gross income (Rs. 7068.75) came from 2 acres area. Comparatively in Shirol taluka per guntha gross income with reference to area-wise group was found higher.

Gadhinglaj, Htkanangale, Karveer and Shirol sample tahasils from the study area show area-wise average per guntha gross income as Rs. 4687.50, Rs. 5037.50, Rs. 5269.20 and Rs. 5423.43 respectively. Out of it the minimum average gross income belonged to 0.5 acre area and maximum average gross income (Rs. 5423.43) to 2.00 acres area.

3.6 PER GUNTHA INCOME / COST RATIO

The following table No. 3.5 shows per guntha income / cost ratio used to calculate the break-even size of land area brought under tomato cultivation.

96

Table No. 3.5 Classification of Per Guntha Income/Cost Ratios (Rs.)

Sr. No.

Name of Taluka upto 0.5 acre (R1)

From 0.5 to 1.00 acre (R2)

From 1.00 to 1.5 acres (R3)

From 1.5 to 2.00 acres (R4)

1. Gadhinglaj 3.25 3.23 3.11 3.29

2. Hatkangale 2.71 3.30 3.18 3.24

3. Karveer 3.49 3.42 3.26 3.31

4. Shirol 3.12 3.98 4.07 4.13

Total 12.57 13.93 13.62 13.97

Average 3.14 3.48 3.40 3.49

Source : Field Survey 1 acre = 40 Guntha / AAR R = Ratio of per guntha income / cost Computed from table No. 3.2

The above table No. 3.5 shows break-even size of land area brought under tomato cultivation in sample thasils. They are grouped as i) upto 0.5 acre ii) 0.5 to 1.00 acre iii) 1.00 to 1.5 acres and iv) 1.5 to 2.00 acres. These four groups are named as R1, R2, R3 and R4.

The per guntha income / cost ratio of area under tomato cultivation in Gadhinglaj taluka was 3.25, 3.23, 3.11 and 3.29. R4 (2 acre area) has maximum of per guntha income / cost ratio i.e. 3.29, and minimum is shown by 1.5 acre area. Therefore 2.00 acres area is break-even size in Gadhinglaj taluka.

Group-wise per guntha income / cost ratio in Hatkanangale taluka was 2.71, 3.30, 3.18 and 3.24 respectively. The highest ratio (3.30) belonged to 1 acre area group. The lowest ratio (2.71) belonged to 0.5 acre area. Finally, Hatkanangale taluka has break-even size of 1.00 acre.

Per guntha income /cost ratio of land area under tomato production in Karveer taluka was 3.49, 3.42, 3.26 and 3.31. Out of it the highest is seen in R1 (upto 0.5 acre) which is 3.49. The lowest ratio belonged to R3 (1 to 1.5

97

acres area) i.e. 3.26. Thus the break-even size of land area under tomato cultivation in Karveer taluka is upto 0.5 acre.

Group-wise per guntha income / cost ratio from Shirol taluka was 3.12, 3.98, 4.07 and 4.13 respectively. According to the increasing land area brought under tomato cultivation, per guntha income / cost ratio is also increasing. The highest of this ratio comes from R4 (2.00 acres area) which is 4.13. It is the highest ratio as per area-wise grouping from all sample tahasils. Thus the break-even size of land area under tomato cultivation in Shirol taluka is 2.00 acres of area. The lowest of per guntha income / cost ratio belonged to R1 (0.5 acre area) group.

According to area-wise groups in all four sample tahasils from study area the total per guntha income / cost ratio was 12.57, 13.93, 13.62 and 13.97 respectively. The minimum of total per guntha income / cost ratio was 12.57 which found in R1 (0.5 acre area) group. And the maximum ratio of 13.97 was from R4 (2 acres area) group.

The average per guntha income / cost ratio was 3.14, 3.48, 3.40 and 3.49 respectively. As per the area groups the minimum ratio was from R1 (0.5 acre area) and the maximum of income / cost ratio belonged to R4 (2 acres area) which was 3.49. It is followed by R2 (1 acre area) having the ratio of 3.48. Considering the total and average per guntha income / cost ratio, the land area upto 1 and 2 acres under tomato cultivation has got break-even size.

The economic area under tomato production from the sample tahasils in study area differs from each other. However, the minimum and maximum area is one and two acres for tomato crop.

3.7 AREA-WISE CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS

Area-wise classification of tomato grower respondents from sample talukas of study area is presented in the following table No. 3.6.

98

Table No. 3.6

Area-wise Classification of Respondents in Sample Taluka (2006-2007)

Area in Acre

Sr. No.

Name of Taluka

Upto 0.5 acre

0.5 to 1 acre

1 acre to 1.5 acres

1.5 acre to 2 acres

Total

1. Gadhinglaj 22 5 2 1 30

11.00% 2.50% 1.00% 0.50% 15.00%

2. Hatkanangale 38 7 3 2 50

19.00% 3.50% 1.50% 1.00% 25%

3. Karveer 17 1 1 1 20

8.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 10.00%

4. Shirol 28 31 22 19 100

14.00% 15.50% 11.00% 9.50% 50.00%

Total 105 44 28 23 200

Average 52.50% 22.00% 14.00% 11.50% 100%

Source - Field Survey.

It is observed from table No. 3.6, 105 tomato growing respondents (52.50 %) out of 200 total respondents grow tomato crop in 0.5 acre area. 44 respondents (22 %) tomato growing respondents take tomato crop in 0.5 to 1.00 acre area. 28 (14 %) respondents go for 1.0 to 1.5 acres area. And 23 (11.50 ) respondents prefer the area of 1.5 to 2.0 acres.

The maximum number of tomato growers taking tomato crop in 2 acres is found in Shirol taluka. Generally the number of respondents covering land area of 0.5 to 1.00 acre and their percentage is comparatively more having the percentage of 52.50 % and 22.00 % respectively.

99

3.8 TALUKA-WISE AREA UNDER CULTIVATION AND TOTAL PRODUCTION OF TOMATO (2002-2003)

Table No. 3.7.Taluka-wise land area from the study zone and production, yield are shown in the following table.

Table No. 3.7 Taluka-wise Area Production and Yield of Tomato (2002-03)

Sr. No.

Name of Taluka Total area under

tomato cultivation

(in acre)

Total Production

(in tons)

Yield per acre

(in Quintal)

20.00 380.00 190 1 Gadhinglaj

12.32% 11.79% 24.20%

31.00 620.00 200 2 Hatkanangale

19.10% 19.24% 25.47%

8.05 148.35 185 3 Karveer

4.96% 4.60% 23.56%

103.20 2074.32 210 4 Shirol

63.61% 64.38% 26.75

162.25 3222.67 785 Total

100% 100% 100%

Source : Field Survey

Table No. 3.7 gives details of total land area, production and yield per acre in case of taluka sample tomato growers. Overall land area used for tomato crop in the year 2002-03 was 162.25 acres out of that 12.32% was from Gadhinglaj taluka, 19.10% from Hatkanangale, 4.96% from Karveer and 63.61% from Shirol taluka. The highest land area was used in Shirol followed by Hatkanangale and Gadhinglaj talukas.

Total tomato production of all the taluka in the year 2002-03 was 3222.67 metric tons. It includes 64.38% production in Shirol, 19.24% in Hatkanangale, 11.79in Gadhinglaj and 4.60% in Karveer taluka. The biggest contribution is made by Shirol taluka. Total land area and total production yield from Shirol was the highest.

100


Taluka-wise total land, total production per acre yield in the year 2003-04 are presented in Table No.3.8


Sr. No. Name of Taluka

Total area under tomato

cultivation (in acre)

Total Production (in tons)

Yield per acre (in quintal)

21.10 400.90 190 1 Gadhinglaj

12.60% 12.05% 24.20%

34.05 681.00 200 2 Hatkanangale

20.33% 20.49% 25.47%

9.10 168.35 185 3 Karveer

5.43% 5.06% 23.56%

103.23 2074.92 210 4 Shirol

61.64% 62.42% 26.75

167.48 3324.36 785 Total

100% 100% 100% Source : Field survey

From Table No. 3.8, it becomes clear that in the year 2003-04 total land area brought under tomato crop by all 200 respondents from all sample talukas was 167.48 acres. Its taluka-wise bifurcation is thus, Shirol 61.64%, Hatkanangale 20.33%, Gadhinglaj 12.60% and Karveer 5.43% Shirol had maximum of per acre yield i.e. 210 metric tons, whereas Karveer had the minimum of 185 metric tons.

Overall total production in the year 2003-04 was 3324.36 metric tons. And its taluka-wise bifurcation is as Shirol 62.42%, Hatkanangale 20.49%, Gadhinglaj 12.05% and Karveer 5.06%.

101


Taluka-wise land area, production and yield are shown in Table No. 3.9






Yield per acre (in Quintals)

21.30 404.70 190 1 Gadhinglaj

12.66% 12.11% 24.20%

34.35 687.00 200 2 Hatkanangale

20.42% 20.56% 25.47%

8.20 151.70 185 3 Karveer

4.88% 4.54% 23.56%

104.35 2097.43 210 4 Shirol

62.03% 62.78% 26.75

168.20 3340.83 785 Total


Table No. 3.9 shows that in the year 2004-05, 200 sample tomato growers brought 168.20 acres of land under tomato crop. Out of that area 62.03% comes from Shirol, 20.42% from Hatkanangale, 12.66% from Gadhinglaj and 4.88% from Karveer taluka. All tahasils have invariable share in tomato production. This year, the percentage of Karveer seems to have decreased and also this taluka came out with lowest yield per acre. The highest yield in this year comes from Shirol taluka.

In all tomato production in the year 2004-05 was 3340.83 metric tons. Its percentage is as follows - Shirol 78%, Hatkanangale 20.56%, Gadhinglaj 12.11% and Karveer 4.54%. Karveer taluka stands lowest even in overall production.

102

3.11 TALUKA-WISE AREA PRODUCTION AND YIELD OF TOMATO (2005-06)

Sample Taluka-wise land area, production and yield are shown in Table No. 3.10







21.20 402.80 190 1 Gadhinglaj

11.41% 10.61% 24.20%

35.05 701.00 200 2 Hatkanangale

18.87% 18.45% 25.48%

10.20 188.70 185 3 Karveer

5.49% 4.97% 23.57%

119.30 2505.30 210 4 Shirol

64.22% 65.97% 26.75%

185.75 3797.80 785 Total


It becomes from Table No. 3.10 that in the year 2005-06 the total land area brought under tomato crop by all 200 respondents from all sample taluka was 185.75 acres, Hatkanangale 18.87%, Gadhinglaj 11.41% and Karveer 5.49%. Compared with the previous year the share of Shirol and Karveer has increased.

In the same year total tomato production was 3797.80 tons. Taluka-wise share in it was, Shirol 65.97%, Hatkanangale 18.45%, Gadhinglaj 10.61% and Karveer 4.97% whereas the share of Shirol and Karveer increased that of Hatkanangale and Gadhinglaj has decreased.

103


Table No. 3.11 shows area, production and yield for tomato in sample talukas during 2006-07







21 399 190 1 Gadhinglaj

11.50% 10.70% 24.20%

34.25 685 200 2 Hatkanangale

18.76% 18.36% 25.48%

11.2 207.2 185 3 Karveer

6.13% 5.55% 23.57%

116.15 2439.15 210 4 Shirol

63.61% 65.39% 26.75%

182.6 3730.35 785 Total

100.00% 100.00% 100.00% Source : Field survey

The data presented in Table No. 3.11 shows that in the year 2006-07 sample tomato growers brought total and area of 182.60 acres under tomato crop. Taluka-wise share was Shirol 63.61%, Hatkanangale 18.76%, Gadhinglaj 11.50% and Karveer had 6.13%. Shirol has maintained its growing contribution but the share of Gadhinglaj and Hatkanangale has come down. Karveer has shown positive attitude.

Total production was 3730.5 metric tons. In it Taluka-wise contribution was Shirol 65.39%, Hatkanangale 18.36%, Gadhinglaj 10.70% and Karveer 5.55%.

The data presented in earlier tables shows that Shirol taluka is at the top in terms of area, production and yield of tomato in sample taluka. The concentration of tomato growing in Shirol taluka is very significant.

104

3.13 TALUKA-WISE AREA PRODUCTION AND YIELD FOR TOMATO (2002-2003 TO 2006-2007) Table No3.12shows the total and average area,

production and per acre productivity of tomato from the period 02-03 to 06-07 of the respondents in sample talukas. Table No. 3.12 Consolidated Taluka-wise Area under cultivation of

Tomato Production from (2002-03 to 06-07) Sr. No.

Particulars Total area under tomato cultivation

Total Production in tons)

Yield

Gadhinglaj 1 2002-03 20.00 380.00 190.00 2 2003-04 21.10 400.00 190.00 3 2004-05 21.30 404.70 190.00 4 2005-06 21.20 402.80 190.00 5 2006-07 21.00 399.00 190.00 Total 104.60 1986.50 950.00 Average 20.92 397.30 190.00 Hatkanangale 1 2002-03 31.00 620.00 200.00 2 2003-04 34.05 681.00 200.00 3 2004-05 34.35 687.00 200.00 4 2005-06 35.05 701.00 200.00 5 2006-07 34.25 685.00 200.00 Total 168.70 3374.00 1000.00 Average 33.74 674.80 200.00 Karveer 1 2002-03 8.05 148.35 185.00 2 2003-04 9.10 168.35 185.00 3 2004-05 8.20 151.70 185.00 4 2005-06 10.20 188.70 185.00 5 2006-07 11.20 207.20 185.00 Total 46.75 864.30 925.00 Average 9.35 172.86 185.00 Shirol 1 2002-03 103.2 2074.32 210.00 2 2003-04 103.23 2074.92 210.00 3 2004-05 104.35 2097.43 210.00 4 2005-06 119.30 2505.30 210.00 5 2006-07 116.15 2439.15 210.00 Total 546.23 11191.12 1050.00 Average 109.24 2238.22 210.00

Source : Field survey

105

The above table shows the total and average area, production and per acre productivity of sample talukas viz, Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale, Karveer and Shirol in the respective period. The total area of the respondents in Gadhinglaj taluka was 104.60 acres (20.92 average acres), total production was 1986.50 tons (377.30 average tons) and per acre productivity was 190 quintals in respective study period.

During the same period it was 168.70 acres (33.74 average acres), total production 3371.00 tons (674.80 average tons) and per acre productivity was 200 quintals in Hatkanangale taluka. In Karveer taluka during the same period, it was 46.75 acres (9.35 average acres), total production was 864.30 tons (172.86 average tons) and per acre productivity was 185 quintals. In Shirol taluka, it was 546.23 acres (109.12 tons (2238.22 average tons) and per acre productivity was 210 quintals. Shirol taluka is leading in the production of tomato in respect of the total area, production and per acre productivity.

3.14 TALUKA-WISE TOTAL PRODUCTION OF TOMATO AND AREA UNDER CULTIVATION (2002-03 TO 06-07)

Table No. 3.13 shows total area under tomato crop and production in sample talukas

Table No. 3.13 Taluka-wise total acre and production for tomato crop (2002-03 to 06-07)

Sr. No. Particulars Total area

under tomato cultivation

Total Production in 000 mt.)

104.60 1986.50 1 Gadhinglaj 12.07% 11.41% 168.70 3374.00

2 Hatkanangale 19.47% 19.37% 46.75 864.30

3 Karveer 5.40% 4.96% 546.23 11191.12 4 Shirol 63.05% 64.26% 866.28 17415.92

Total 100.00% 100.00%


106

Table No.3.13 reveals the respondent's total area under cultivation and production of the tomato crop in sample taluka. Overall tomato cultivation area was 866.28 acres in respective study period of the respondents in sample taluka. Out of total area, Gadhinglaj 104.60 acres (12.07%), Hatkanangale 168.70 acres (19.47%), Karveer 46.75 acres (5.40%), Shirol 546.23 acres (63.05%).

Total tomato production in all the sample taluka respondents was 17415.92 tons. Out of total production Gadhinglaj 1986.50 tons (11.41%), Hatkanangale 3374.00 tons (19.37%), Karveer 864.30 tons (4.96%), Shirol 11191.12 tons (64.26%) The highest cultivation area and production of tomato was in Shirol followed by Hatkanangale and Gadhinglaj taluka.

3.15 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Soil climate and rainfall from Kolhapur district are favourable to tomato production. Local market also is easily available. Surplus production could be sent to up-country market for sale through private and co-operative sanghs. Naturally, farmers from this district are concentrated more on tomato production.

This chapter deals with the study regarding production and marketing of tomato. A relevant study of various aspects of tomato production is done. The researcher has probed into essential facts regarding the respondents such as age group, marital status, type of family, education, land holding, income classification, type of soil, cropping pattern, experience in tomato cultivation etc.

The process of production and marketing of tomato have been examined in detail during the study of various aspects such as varieties of tomato grown, use of fertilizers, fungicides, insecticides, marketing practices, intermediaries involved, channels of distribution, the seasonal fluctuations in tomato production and price etc.

107

3.15.1 Age group wise classification of respondents

The study of age compositions was helpful in determining the proportion of labour force in the population. All respondents were classified on the basis of their age group.

Table No 3.14 Age wise Classification of Respondents

Sr. No.

Particulars Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

3 17 5 20 45 1 20-30

1.50% 8.50% 2.50% 10.00% 22.50%

9 14 1 36 60 2 31-40

% 7.00% 0.50% 18.00% 30.00%

11 11 8 30 60 3 41-50

5.50% 5.50% 4.00% 15.00% 30.00%

2 7 5 8 22 4 51-60

1.00% 3.50% 2.50% 4.00% 11.00%

5 1 1 6 13 5 60 Onwards

2.50% 0.50% 0.50% 3.00% 6.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00% Source : Field survey

Table No. 3.14 shows the respondents according to their age. 200 respondents were selected and they were analysed according to their classification. For the analysis five groups were undertaken. The first age group was in the range of 20-30 years. 45 respondents were in this group which accounted to 22.50% of total respondents. In the second age group the classification adhered (stick to) to 31to40 years. There were 60 respondents accounted to 30.00% of total respondents. The third range of age group was arranged between 41-50 age in which 60 respondents were included in the ratio of 30.00%.

The fourth category belongs to the age group between 51 to60 years. 22 respondents were in this age group which accounted to 11.00% of total respondents. The last age group was 60 years and above. Only 13 respondents represented this group of which accounted to 6.50% of total

108

respondents. These respondents were old and weak to cultivate efficiently and effectively. Out of total respondents 93.50% belonged to matured and efficiency group for farm cultivation. It is found that, child labour was involved in the cultivation. It shows the sound development of rural area.

3.15.2 Marital Status

Marital status influences the tomato production of the area. Family members can be involved at various stages of work in the production. Marital status of the respondents from study area is shown in Table No. 3.15.

Table No. 3.15 Marital Status of the Respondents.

Sr. No. Particulars Married Un-married Total


14.50% 0.50% 15.00%

40 10 50 2 Hatkanangale

20.00% 5.00% 25.00%

20 20 3 Karveer

10.00% 0% 10.00%

92 8 100 4 Shirol

46.00% 4.00% 50.00%

181 19 200 Total


Table No. 3.15 shows marital status of the respondents. Out of 200 sample respondents 181 (90.50%) respondents are married, 19 respondents are unmarried. It means that only 9.50% respondents of the total respondents are unmarried. Majority of the farmers are employing the labours from their own families, because married families are getting more supply of labour to undertake various activities in the process of tomato production.

109

3.15.3 Nature of Family System

Type of family determines the viability of agriculture. Rural agricultural family prefers joint family system. Because experience of old member, children contribute to agricultural production directly or indirectly.

Table No. 3.16 Nature of Family System of the Respondents

Sr. No. Particulars Joint Family

Single Family Total


13.00% 2.00% 15.00%


16.00% 9.00% 25.00%

16 4 20 3 Karveer

8.00% 2.00% 10.00%

82 18 100 4 Shirol

41.00% 9.00% 50.00%

156 44 200 Total


Table No. 3.16 shows types of family which influence the cultivation of tomato production. Out of 200 families, 156 (78%) were from joint family system. The large number of joint family members contributed to production, 44 (22%) tomato grower farmers belong to the nuclear family system. The survey also convinces that savings are made in daily family expenditure. It avoids partition of farm and its fragmentation. Therefore the rural area still goes with the joint family system.

3.15.4 Population by Gender

Total 200 respondents population of 1790 were classified accordingly to gender wise. They are male, female and Children.

110

Table No. 3.17 Classification of Respondents Population by

Gender

Sr. No. Particulars Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total 73 178 66 259 576

1 Male 4.08% 9.94% 3.69% 14.47% 32.18%

69 150 52 271 542 2 Female

3.85% 8.38% 2.91% 15.14% 30.28% 94 202 71 305 672

3 Children 5.25% 11.28% 3.97% 17.04% 37.54% 236 530 189 835 1790

Total 13.18% 29.61% 10.56% 46.65% 100.00%


Table No. 3.17 shows proportion of respondents population by gender. Out of 1790 population of respondents, 576 (32.18%) and 542 farming (30.28%) were female. 672 (37.54%) population inherited children of small size group. The 200 sample respondents came from total 1790 population from the study area. The area consists of Gadhinglaj 236 (23.18%), Hatkanangale 530 (29.60%), Karveer 189(10.50%) and Shirol 835 (46.65%). The percentage of women as compared to men from the population is less. Children have the highest percentage.

3.15.5 Religion wise Classification

The religion status of the respondents in the sample selected talukas is studied and analyzed. All 200 respondent were classified on the basis of their religion.

Table No 3.18 Religion wise Classification of the Respondents Sr. No. Particulars Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

22 25 8 30 85 1 Hindu

11.00% 12.50% 4.00% 15.00% 42.50% 5 20 12 64 101

2 Jain 2.50% 10.00% 6.00% 32.00% 50.50%

1 2 0 2 5 3 Muslim

0.50% 1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.50% 2 3 0 4 9

4 Buddha 1.00% 1.50% 0.00% 2.00% 4.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


111

Table No. 3.18 shows the proportion of respondents who belong to different religion. Among all 200 respondents, 85 (42.50%) respondents belong to Hindu family (42.50%). 101 respondents were of Jain religion forming 50.50%. The Muslim religion was 5 forming 2.5% and 9 (4.50%) respondents belong to Buddha. Most of the tomato growing farmers were from Jain religion. Then follow the Hindus, Buddha and Muslim religion farmers.

3.15.6 Income-wise Classification of Tomato Growers

The living standard and economic status of the producers depend on income received from tomato production. The following Table No. 3.19 presents the economic status of farmers.

Table No. 3.19 Income-wise classification of Tomato Growers

Talukas Sr. No.

Income Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

12 25 1 26 64 1 Less than 50000

6.00% 12.50% 0.50% 13.00% 32.00% 12 22 11 61 106

2 50000-150000 6.00% 11.00% 5.50% 30.50% 53.00%

4 2 7 9 22 3 150000-250000

2.00% 1.00% 3.50% 4.50% 11.00% 2 1 1 3 7

4 250000-350000 1.00% 0.50% 0.50% 1.50% 3.50%

0 0 0 1 1 5 Above 350000

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


112

Above Table No.3.19 shows an account of size of the

income of the respondents. The samples consist of 200 respondents. For the clear analysis, 5 income groups were formed. The respondents having less than Rs. 50,000/- income are 64 and are included in the first group. It carried 32% ratio. In this group there are 12 farmers from Gadhinglaj, 25 from Hatkanangale, one from Karveer tahasil and 26 from Shirol. In the second group with income from Rs.50,000 to 1,50000 there are 106 respondents. Its percentage to the total stands 53%. The highest percentage of respondents belongs to this group. This group consists of 12 tomato growers from Gadhinglaj, 22 from Hatkanangale, 11 from Karveer and 61 from Shirol tahasil. The third group includes tomato growers having income from Rs.1,50,000 to 2,50,000. There are in all 22 respondents. Its percentage to the total is 11%. The fourth group ranges from 2,50,000 to 3,50,000 having 7 (3.50%) respondents. The top fifth class includes tomato growers having income range of more than Rs.3,50,000. A keen observation shows that maximum of respondents belong to the income group of Rs.50,000 to 1,50,000. It is followed by the group having less than Rs.50,000 income.

3.15.7 Educational background of respondents

Literacy is the index of socio-economic progress. The educational background of the respondents was classified as illiterate, primary, secondary, graduate, post-graduate and other diploma.

6

12.5

0.5

13

6 11

5.5

30.5

2 1 3.5 4.5

1 0.50.51.5 0 0 0 0.50 5

101520253035

Less than 50000

50000- 150000

150000- 250000

250000- 350000

Above 350000

Graph No. 3.1 Income-wise classification of Tomato Growers

Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol

113

Table No 3.20 Educational Background of Respondents

Sr. No.

Level of Education

Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

0 0 1 0 1 1 Illiterate

0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 6 12 5 20 43

2 Primary 3.00% 6.00% 2.50% 10.00% 21.50%

15 22 8 37 82 3 Secondary

7.50% 11.00% 4.00% 18.50% 41.00% 7 12 4 29 52

4 HSC 3.50% 6.00% 2.00% 14.50% 26.00%

2 3 1 10 16 5 Graduate

1.00% 1.50% 0.50% 5.00% 8.00% 0 1 1 2 4

6 Post Graduate 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 1.00% 2.00%

0 0 0 2 2 7 Other Diploma

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 1.00% 30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Graph No. 2 Educational Background of Respondents

0 615

7 2 0 0012

2212

3 1 01 5 8 4 1 1 00

2037

29

102 21

43

82

52

164 2

020406080

100

Illete

rate

Primar

y

Second

ary

HSC

Gradu

ate

Post G

radua

te

Other

Diplom

a


Table No. 3.20 shows the educational classification of respondents. Out of 200 respondents only one is illiterate (0.50%). There are 43 respondents at primary level. The 82 (41%) respondents have completed secondary education. 52 (26%) respondents have passed H.S.C., 16 respondents have completed their graduation forming 8%. Only 4 respondents have completed their post graduation. The total literate respondents constituted at 99.50% of the total

114

respondents. The majority of the respondents are educated at primary to H.S.C. level.

3.15.8 Nature of Ownership of Land Holding

Ownership of land is an important consideration in agriculture as the payments for the use of agricultural land are directly involved in it. Broadly speaking, there are two types of land holding systems namely owned and leased land. In case of owned land the rate of the land tax (land revenue) is comparatively very low but the payment for the leased land is many times greater than land revenue for the same type of land. Thus, the income of the farm as the payments for the use of land are generally made out of the farm returns. Classification of ownership of land holding are represented in following Table No. 3.21.

Table No. 3.21 Classification of Respondents According to the Ownership of Land in Study Area (2006-2007)

Sr. No. Particulars No Yes Total


0.00% 15.00% 15.00%


0.00% 25.00% 25.00%

2 18 20 3 Karveer

1.00% 9.00% 10.00%

7 93 100 4 Shirol

3.50% 46.50% 50.00%

9 191 200 Total

4.50% 95.50% 100.00%


Table No.3.21 shows that respondents were owners of their lands. It shows that only 9 (4.50%) out of total 200 respondents do not have land of their own. It is found that 191 out of total respondents in sample grower farmers possess land. Their ratio to the total stands 95.50%.

115

3.15.9 Information about leasehold land

The farmers who do not own land but aspire to the farming occupation tend to accept on leasehold basis. They cultivate such land for the period of one year or one crop basis. Information about leasehold land is presented in Table No. 3.22.

Table No. 3.22 Information about Leasehold Land by Respondents

Sr. No. Particulars Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

20 36 14 68 138 1 No

10.00% 18.00% 7.00% 34.00% 69.00% 10 14 6 32 62

2 Yes 5.00% 7.00% 3.00% 16.00% 31.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


From Table No. 3.22, 138 (69%) respondents out of 200 do not take land on leasehold basis. These sample tomato growers possess enough land. Hence they do not take leasehold land. Only 62 respondents go for leasehold land with their percentage of 31% to the total. A survey manifests that only those farmers paid for leasehold land who do not own any. Moreover some of the respondents have marginal land of their own but it is not sufficient for the cultivation and to meet the needs of the family. Such farmers also tend to take leasehold land on period-base or crop-base on paying it to the owner farmer.

3.15.10 Type of Soil

The land in selected talukas from study area is red, black, black-red and murmad type. Table No. 3.23 shows type of soil of the respondents' farms.

116

Table No. 3.23 Type of soil of the respondent farms in study

area (2006-2007) Sr. No.

Type of Soil Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

18 34 11 51 114 1 Black

9.00% 17.00% 5.50% 25.50% 57.00% 0 0 1 1 2

2 Kshar 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 1.00%

0 1 5 1 7 3 Red

0.00% 0.50% 2.50% 0.50% 3.50% 0 1 0 8 9 4 Murmad

0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 4.00% 4.50% 0 0 0 5 5

5 Black Kshar 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 2.50%

9 11 3 15 38 6 Black Red 4.50% 5.50% 1.50% 7.50% 19.00%

1 2 0 7 10 7 Black & Murmad 0.50% 1.00% 0.00% 3.50% 5.00%

0 1 0 4 5 8 Red & Murmad 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 2.00% 2.50%

2 0 0 3 5 9 Black, Red & Murmad 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 2.50%

0 0 0 1 1 10 Black, Daldal & Murmad 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50%

0 0 0 4 4 11 Black, Kshar, Red, Murmad

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


The Table No. 3.23 shows the types of soil in sample tomato growers. 114 respondents out of total 200 have black colour land. It may be noted here that 57% of the respondents obtain black soil land. From Shirol taluka there are the maximum number of farmers (25.50%), having black soil land. Only 2 (1%) respondents have salty (Kshar) type of land. 7 (3.50%) respondents obtain red soil land Five of the sample tomato growers have black-kshar type of land. There are maximum number of farmers who own black red soil land (19%) with 5% ratio to the total. In all 10 respondents do have black and murmad type of land. The land type wise percentage in detail is this red and murmad

117

(2.50%), black and murmad 2.50%, black marshy (daldal) and murmad 1%, black, salty(kshar), red murmad 2%. Majority of the respondents own black, black-red or red murmad soil land.

3.15.11 Size of land Holding

The pattern of selected operational holding constituting a factor of fixed farm resources refers to size and distribution according to different size groups. The distribution of cultivated area among the operational holdings has a great importance in farm management studies as the efficient performance of a farm is closely linked with the cultivated area of the operating farm. The taluka-wise size of land holding of the respondents is shown in the Table No.3.24.

Table No 3.24 Classification Size of Holdings of the Respondents

Sr. No.

Land

(in acres) Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

9 17 4 16 46 1

0 to 2.5

Marginal 4.50% 8.50% 2.00% 8.00% 23.00%

10 24 13 38 85 2

2.50 to 5.00

Small 5.00% 12.00% 6.50% 19.00% 42.50%

8 7 2 39 56 3

5.00 to 10.00

Medium 4.00% 3.50% 1.00% 19.50% 28.00%

3 2 1 7 13 4

More than 10

Large 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 3.50% 6.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00%


118

The above Table No. 3.24 shows the size of the land holding of the 200 respondent sample farmers in study area.

There are four groups of farmers. They are marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers. In the first group those farmers having the land area below 2.5 acres is grouped and 46 (23%) out of 200 respondents belong to this group. Farmers falling in the second group i.e. 42.50% possess land area from 2.50 to 5.00 acres. Majority of the total respondents belong to this particular group. The medium farmer group consists of those farmers whose land area is from 5 to 10 acres. There are 56 respondent farmers having percentage of the total as much as 28.00. Farmers holding land above 10 acres are grouped under large farmer group (6.50%). Few land holders have more than 10 acre of land. On the contrary, a large number of respondents have 2.50 to 5.00 acres land.

3.15.12 Irrigated Land

Table No. 3.25 shows how much size of land for cultivation and plantation is brought under irrigation in the study area.

9 108

3

17

24

7

2 4

13

2 1

16

38 39

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Graph No. 3.3 Classification Size of Holdings of the Respondents

0 to 2.5 2.50 to 5.00 5.00 to 10.00 More than 10

119

Table No. 3.25 Irrigated Sector of Actually Cultivated Land by Respondents

Sr. No.


8 34 14 40 96 1 1 to 3 acres

4.00% 17.00% 7.00% 20.00% 48.00%

16 12 4 28 60 2 2 to 6 acres

% 6.00% 2.00% 14.00% 30.00%

2 4 2 10 18 3 7 to 9 acres

1.00% 2.00% 1.00% 5.00% 9.00%

3 0 0 8 11 4

10 to 12 acres 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 5.50%

1 0 0 14 15 5

12 to 15 acres 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 7.00% 7.50%

30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


96 (48%) farmers have the land between 1 to 3 acres under direct cultivation, followed by 60 farmers (30%) between 2 to 6 acres. Again 18 (9%) farmers 7 to 9 acres, followed by 15 respondents (7.50%) 12 to 15 acres.

The 96 respondents have their land under direct irrigated sector.

3.15.13 Cropping Pattern

Land is the major source of farmers. The cropping pattern in the study area has developed according to soil classification, irrigation facilities and rainfall received in sample tahasils of the Kolhapur district. Table No. 3.26 shows land used for cropping pattern of sample tomato growers.

120

Table No. 3.26 Cropping Pattern of Irrigated Land of The Sample Farmers in Study Area

Sr. No.


0 2 1 11 14 1 Vegetables

0.00% 1.00% 0.50% 5.50% 7.00%

0 0 0 3 3 2

Sugarcane & Orchard 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 1.50%

28 44 18 63 153 3

Sugarcane & Vegetables 14.00% 22.00% 9.00% 31.50% 76.50%

0 0 0 1 1 4

Orchard & Vegetables 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50%

0 1 0 9 10 5

Sugarcane, Turmeric & Vegetables 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 4.50% 5.00%

2 2 1 11 16 6

Sugarcane, Orchard & Vegetables 1.00% 1.00% 0.50% 5.50% 8.00%

0 1 0 2 3 7

Sugarcane, Turmeric, Orchard & Vegetables 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 1.00% 1.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100%


The Table No. 3.26 depicts the change in the land use cropping pattern under various cash crops. 14 respondents (7.00%) grow vegetables, 3 farmers (1.50%) take sugarcane and orchard production.

There is a large group of respondents 153 (76.50%) from the study area which grows both sugarcane and vegetable crops.

An observation shows one farmer (0.50%) takes orchard and vegetable crops, 10 farmers (5.00%) grow sugarcane and turmeric and vegitables, 16 farmers(8%) prefer sugarcane, orchard and vegetables and only three farmers (1.50%) go for sugarcane, orchard and vegetables.

121

There is a large group of farmers from the study area who grows sugarcane / vegetables and sugarcane/orchard / vegetable crops.

A network of river is available in the study area and so water availability is plentiful. Moreover there are a number of sugar factories. Naturally, the farmers tend to grow sugarcane crop. Perennial availability of water, favourable climate, local markets, up-country markets, these facilities encourage them to grow vegetables. In the second place orchard is also preferred to a great extent.

3.15.14 Land Reserved for Vegetable Cultivation

Table no, 3.27 provides the details regarding number of respondent reserving their land for vegetables only.

Table No. 3.27 Classification of Land Reserved for Vegetables Cultivation by Respondents


1 15 5 13 34 1 1 Acre

0.50% 7.50% 2.50% 6.50% 17.00% 12 25 12 43 92

2 2 Acres 6.00% 12.50% 6.00% 21.50% 46.00%

17 8 3 35 63 3 3 Acres

8.50% 4.00% 1.50% 17.50% 31.50% 0 1 0 5 6

4 4 Acres 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 2.50% 3.00%

0 0 0 1 1 5 5 Acres

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 0 1 0 2 3

6 6 Acres 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 1.00% 1.50%

0 0 0 1 1 7 7 Acres

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


The Table No. 3.27 indicates the land reserved for vegetables by respondents. It has been observed that out of 200, 34 respondents (17%) keep 1 acre of land reserved for vegetable cultivation. Most of the farmers in this group belong to Hatkanangale and Shirol i.e. 15 and 13 respectively.

122

92 farmers of the total respondents (46%) reserve two acres of land for vegetables cultivation . This group includes 43 farmers from Shirol, 25 from Hatkanangale, 12 from Gadhinglaj and 12 from Karveer tahasil.

63 farmers (31.50%) reserve three acres of their land for vegetable cultivation. In this group 35 farmers come from Shirol, 17 from Gadhinglaj, 8 from Hatkanangale and 3 from Karveer taluka.

There are more number of farmers who reserve their land upto 1, 2 and 3 acres only for vegetable cultivation.

3.15.15 Types of Vegetables

Table No. 3.28 shows information regarding the number of respondents from the total that prefer a particular vegetable crop.

Table No. 3.28 Types of Vegetables Cultivated by Respondent

Sr. No.

Particulars Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale

Karveer

Shirol Total

4 9 3 21 37 1 Tomato 2.00% 4.50% 1.50% 10.50% 18.50%

0 0 0 1 1 2 Cauliflower 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50%

6 3 3 9 21 3 Tomato & Bringal 3.00% 1.50% 1.50% 4.50% 10.50%

0 0 3 6 9 4 Tomato & Cabbage 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 3.00% 4.50%

0 11 0 15 26 5 Tomato & Cauliflower 0.00% 5.50% 0.00% 7.50% 13.00%

3 1 1 4 9 6 Tomato & Chilli 1.50% 0.50% 0.50% 2.00% 4.50%

0 0 2 4 5 7 Tomato & Other 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00%

2 4 0 6 12 9 Tomato, Bringal & Cabbage 1.00% 2.00% 0.00% 3.00% 6.00%

5 5 0 4 14 10 Tomato, Bringal & Cauliflower 2.50% 2.50% 0.00% 2.00% 7.00%

1 5 2 1 9 11 Tomato, Bringal & Chilli 0.50% 2.50% 1.00% 0.50% 4.50%

0 1 1 0 2 12 Tomato, Bringal & Other 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 0.00% 1.00%

Table 3.28 Contd…

123

Sr. No.

Particulars Gadhinglaj

Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

2 2 1 5 10 13 Tomato, Cabbage & Cauliflower 1.00% 1.00% 0.50% 2.50% 5.00%

2 0 0 1 3 14 Tomato, Cabbage & Chilli 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 1.50%

0 1 1 9 11 15 Tomato, Cauliflower & Chilli 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 4.50% 5.50%

0 0 0 1 1 16 Tomato, Cauliflower & Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50%

0 1 0 2 3 17 Tomato, Chilli & Other 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 1.00% 1.50%

0 0 0 1 1 18

Tomato, Bringal, Cabbage & Cauliflower 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50%

0 0 2 0 2 19 Tomato, Bringal, Cabbage & Chilli 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1.00%

2 2 0 2 6 20 Tomato, Bringal, Cauliflower & Chilli 1.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 3.00%

0 1 0 3 4 21 Tomato, Bringal, Cauliflower & Other 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 1.50% 2.00%

0 3 0 0 3 22 Tomato, Bringal, Chilli & Other 0.00% 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50%

1 0 1 1 3 23 Tomato, Cabbage, Cauliflower & Chilli 0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50% 1.50%

2 0 0 3 5 24

Tomato, Bringal, Cabbage, Cauliflower, Chilli & Other 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 2.50%

0 1 0 0 1 25

Tomato, Bringal, Cabbage, Chilli & Other 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50%

0 0 0 1 1 26

Tomato, Cabbage, Cauliflower, Chilli & Other 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00

% 100.00% Source : Field survey

Table No. 3.28 reveals the number of respondents growing various types of vegetable.

11 farmers (5.50%) cultivated tomato, cauliflower and chilly crop. 10 farmers (5%) prefer to have tomato, cabbage and cauliflower crops.

124

It is difficult to draw a certain percentage due to the fact that a single farmer takes more than one vegetable crop continuously.

37 (18.50%) out of the total respondents take tomato crop. Out of these 37 farmers, 21 come from Shirol (10.50%), 26 farmers prefer to take tomato and cauliflower crop with their percentage of 13%.

21 farmers grows tomato and Bringal (10.50%), 11 farmers (5.50%) take tomato, cauliflower and chilly crop. 10 farmers (5%) prefer to have tomato, cabbage and cauliflower crops. It is observed that there is a high percentage of farmers who grow crops in combination such as tomato, bringal, cauliflower, cabbage and chilli.

3.15.16 Influencing Factors For Tomato Production

Almost all the sample tomato producers prefer tomato crop to other types of crop.

Table No 3.29 Influencing Factors for Tomato Production by the Respondents

Sr. No.


10 20 10 55 95

1

Fevarouble land and weather, Economically affordable than other crops 5.00% 10.00% 5.00% 27.50% 47.50%

2 5 0 16 23 2

Low production cost, Favourable land and weather 1.00% 2.50% 0.00% 8.00% 11.50%

1 4 0 10 15 3

Economically affordable than other crops 0.50% 2.00% 0.00% 5.00% 7.50%

1 10 6 10 27 4

Needs less water, availability of local market 0.50% 5.00% 3.00% 5.00% 13.50%

15 9 4 5 33 5

Availability of local market, low productivity 7.50% 4.50% 2.00% 2.50% 16.50%

1 2 0 4 7 6 Other

0.50% 1.00% 0.00% 2.00% 3.50% 30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


125

Graph No. 4 Influencing Factors for Tomato Production by the Respondents

10

20

10

55

25

0

16

14

0

10

1

106

1015

94 5

1 2 04

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Gadhin

glaj

Hatkan

anga

le

Karve

er

Shirol

Favourable land andweather, Economicallyaffordable than othercropsLow production cost,Favourable land andweather

Economically affordablethan other rops

Needs less water,availability of local market

Availability of localmarket, low productivity

Other

Analysis given in Table No. 3.29 confirms that sample tomato growers give high priority to tomato crops. 95 (47.560%) of total 200 sample growers gave their first preference to tomato because this crop is far more economically affordable due to favourable land and conducive weather. There are as many as 55 (27.50%) tomato grower farmers in Shirol taluka only. Hence this taluka stands at the top.

The favourable fact, such as availability of local market, low production cost force the farmers to grow tomato crop. As a result 33 (16.50%) farmers prefer to get tomato, 15 farmers from Gadhinglaj, 9 from Hatkanangale, 5 from Shirol and 4 from Karveer taluka.

Since this crop requires less water supply and availability of local market is easy, 27 farmers (13.50%) farmers tend to grow tomato crop.

Due to low production cost, favourable land and weather, 23 farmers give priority to tomato, because of the fact that tomato crop is economically affordable as compared to other crops, 7 farmers (3.50%) believe that it is profitable to have tomato crop due to some other reasons also. In short, favourable land, weather, economically affordable, low production cost, availability of local market

126

which encourage the farmers to prefer tomato crop to other types of crops.

3.15.17 Experience in Tomato Cultivation

Tomato cultivation experience helps in improving efficiency and productivity as well as accuracy and getting better results. The experience of respondents is studied in Table No. 3.30.

Table No. 3.30 Experience in Tomato Cultivation of the Respondents


0 0 0 3 3 1 1 year

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 1.50% 0 0 1 0 1

2 2 years 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.50%

1 1 1 2 5 3 3 years

0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 1.00% 2.60% 0 3 1 8 12

4 4 years 0.00% 1.50% 0.50% 4.10% 6.00%

2 4 0 5 11 5 5 years

1.00% 2.00% 0.00% 2.60% 5.50% 0 8 8 34 50

6 6 years 0.00% 4.10% 4.10% 17.30% 25.00%

6 3 4 10 23 7 7 years

3.10% 1.50% 2.00% 5.10% 11.50% 3 7 4 11 25

8 8 years 1.50% 3.60% 2.00% 5.60% 12.50%

1 0 0 5 6 9 9 years

0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 2.60% 3.00% 17 24 1 22 64

10 10 years 8.70% 12.20% 0.50% 22.00% 32.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Experience makes man perfect. Same is applicable in tomato cultivation also. Experiences of the tomato producers are registered in Table No. 3.30. They help to draw the following conclusions.

There are only 1.50% of the total 200 respondents growing tomato crop for last one year, 0.50% from two years, 2.60% from three years, 6.00% from four years,

127

5.50% from five years and total 50 farmers are growing tomato for the last six years. Their percentage to the total is 25%. There are 11.50% farmers involved in tomato cultivation, from the last seven years, 12.50% from the last eight years, and only 3.00% from the last nine years. There are in all 64 farmers (32.00%) taking this crop since last ten years. Normally more experience of respondents, leads to more tomato production.

3.15.18 Varieties of Tomato Seeds used

There are two types of tomato seeds and plants and they are shown in Table No. 3.31.

Good quality seeds are essential to have increased production of good quality of tomato. There are two types of tomato seeds and plants and they are shown in Table No. 3.31.

Table No 3.31 Variety of Tomato Seeds used Sr. No.


30 50 20 100 200 1 Hybrid Seeds

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00% 0 0 0 0 0

2 Homemade (Deshi)seeds 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.31 makes it clear that there are two types of tomato seeds and plants i.e. Homemade(Deshi) and Hybrid.

If Homegrown (Deshi) seeds and plants are used for plantation. It yields less amount of crop and takes longer time to offer production. They are subjected to various crop diseases. As a result the farmer do not incline to use them.

After the first green revolution, research has been done on cereal crop, pulses crop, oil-seeds, fruits and vegetables. High yielding varieties of seeds were extensively used. Accordingly, nowadays farmers utilize hybrid seeds and plants widely for tomato crop. 200 of the total sample tomato growers adopt hybrid seeds and plants. Their percentage to the total is as high as 100.

128

Due to high yielding capacity per acre, less time duration required, maximum number of durable tomato fruit and such other benefits, all respondents prefer hybrid seeds and plants.

3.15.19 Names of Hybrid Variety Seeds Used.

Hybrid seeds from F1 generation are advantageous for sowing as they give early and high yield, uniform fruit, resistant to adverse environmental conditions. Table No. 3.32 shows information about hybrid variety seeds.

Table No 3.32 Variety of Tomato Seeds used by the Respondents in Study Area

Sr. No. Particulars Gadhinglaj

Hatkanan- gale

Karveer Shirol Total

5 20 10 40 75 1

Vaishali, Shaktiman, Ustav 2.50% 10.00% 5.00% 20.00% 37.50%

3 10 10 20 43 2

Vaishali, Samrat, Indo-American, Vaishali 1.50% 5.00% 5.00% 10.00% 21.50%

20 5 0 15 40 3

Swarna, Vaishali, Avinash-2 10.00% 2.50% 0.00% 7.50% 20.00%

0 5 0 10 15 4

Pusa Hybrid, Ustav 0.00% 2.50% 0.00% 5.00% 7.50%

2 3 0 4 9 5

Century- 12, Vaishali 1.00% 1.50% 0.00% 2.00% 4.50%

0 2 0 6 8 6

Rasika, Seminis0369, Alankar 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 3.00% 4.00%

0 5 0 5 10 7

Vaibhav, N,S,816, Century-12 0.00% 2.50% 0.00% 2.50% 5.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.32 shows which type of hybrid variety seeds, the sample tomato growers use. It indicates which variety of hybrid seed, the 200 respondent utilize.

We find that 75 (37.50%) sample tomato growers utilize Vaishali, Shaktiman, Utsav hybrid seeds.

129

43 of the total respondents (21.50%) use Vaishali, Samrat, Indo-American types of hybrid variety seeds. 40 respondents (20.00%) prefer Swarna, Vaishali, Avinash-2 hybrid seeds. 10 respondents (5.00%) go for Vaishali, Century-12 hybrid seeds. 9 respondents (4.50%) utilize century-12 and Vaishali types of hybrid seeds. 8 respondents (4.00%) use Sarika, Seminis 0369 and Alankar type of hybrid seeds.

In short most of the respondents prefer hybrid variety seeds to earn maximum production in minimum period of time. However, while selecting these seeds, self experience, good quality, company, co-farmer’s experience, guidance of agricultural officer play a crucial role. It is found that majority of the respondents give top priority to Vaishali, Shaktiman, Utsav, Samrat and Indo-American varieties of hybrid seeds.

3.15.20 Reasons for Preference Behind Using the Hybrid Seeds

Sample tomato growers prominently use high yielding verities of hybrid seeds. Its analysis is given in Table No.3.33.

Table No. 3.33 depicts information regarding knowledge about preference behind using high yielding variety hybrid seeds. 122 (61%) of the total 200 sample tomato growers explained that if high yielding variety of hybrid seeds is used the production requires less time and the productivity per acre also increases, hence they choose such seeds.

130

Table No 3.33 Reasons for Preference behind using high yielding variety hybrid seeds by the Respondents in Study

Area (2006-07). Sr. No.


20 32 10 60 122 1

Production requires less time, per acre productivity is more 10.00% 16.00% 5.00% 30.00% 61.00%

4 11 0 20 35 2

Per acre productivity is more 2.00% 5.50% 0.00% 10.00% 17.50%

2 2 5 10 19

3

Full grown product lasts for a long period, per acre productivity is more 1.00% 1.00% 2.50% 5.00% 9.50%

3 3 4 5 15 4 High market demand

1.50% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 7.50% 1 2 1 5 9

5 Other reasons. 0.50% 1.00% 0.50% 2.50% 4.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


35 respondents (17.50%) use high yielding varieties of hybrid seeds, because it yields comparatively more productivity.

Fully grown product lasts for a long period and per acre productivity is more so 19 respondents (9.50%) gave –preference to high yielding variety seeds. Hybrid tomato product has high market demand so 15 respondents (7.50%) prefer using hybrid seeds. For other reasons 9 respondents (4.50%) give preference to hybrid seeds.

Production requires less time and per acre productivity is more so maximum respondents preferred high yielding variety hybrid seeds.

3.15.21 Duration Required for Tomato Production

Tomato is the production-dominant crop among all other fruit-class vegetables. It is a short-term crop and requires a duration of three to three and half months. The farmers consider tomato crop as short term cash crop. Hence, they tend to grow this particular crop. Table No. 3.34 indicates the duration of tomato crop.

131

Table No. 3.34 Duration Required for Tomato Production in Study Area


11 31 13 37 92 1 3 Months

5.50% 15.50% 6.50% 18.50% 46.00% 19 18 7 50 94 2 4 Months

9.50% 9.00% 3.50% 25.00% 47.00% 0 1 0 13 14

3 4.5 Months 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 6.50% 7.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.34 provides information regarding duration required for tomato crop obtained from interviewed sample tomato growing respondents. According to 92 (46%) of the total respondents tomato crop requires a period of three months. In the opinion of 94 respondents time period required for tomato crop is 4 months. 14 respondents (7.00%) claim that tomato crop needs 4.5 months of period. Majority of the respondents, claim that tomato crop requires a period of 3 to 4 months.

1119

0

31

18

1

137

0

37

50

13

0

10

20

30

40

50


Graph No. 3.5 Duration Required for Tomato Production

3 Months 4 Months 4.5 Months

132

3.15.22 Purchase of Seeds and Plants

Tiny plants are obtained from tomato seeds. These plants are planted for tomato crop. The following Table No. 3.35 provides information regarding classification and location of these seeds and plants.

Table No. 3.35 Classification of Location of The Seeds and Plants Purchased


30 32 7 83 152 1 Self Made 15.00% 16.00% 3.50% 41.50% 76.00%

0 2 11 2 15 2 Local Market 0.00% 1.00% 5.50% 1.00% 7.50%

0 3 0 7 10 3 Neighbouring City 0.00% 1.50% 0.00% 3.50% 5.00%

0 13 1 4 18 4 Self Made & Local Marker 0.00% 6.50% 0.50% 2.00% 9.00%

0 0 1 4 5 5 Self Mode & Neighbouring City 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 2.00% 2.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


The Table No. 3.35 shows the classification of location of the seeds and plants purchased by the respondents in the study area. It can be observed from the Table No. 3.30 that 152 of the total 200 respondents themselves purchase the seeds and grow plants out of it. Their percentage is 76.00%. This category includes farmers from Gadhinglaj 83, from Shirol, 32 from Hatkanangale and 7 from Karveer taluka.

9.00% of the respondents use self-made and local market plants. 7.50% depend on local market, 5.00% buying plants from neighbouring city, 2.5% use self made and neighbouring city.

In short, most of the respondents depend on hybrid seeds and produce plants out of them and then go for tomato production.

133

3.15.23 Periodical Classification of Tomato Cultivation

A classification based on frequency of tomato crop grown by the respondent farmers in one year is presented in the Table No. 3.36.

Table No. 3.36 Periodical Classification of Tomato Cultivation in Study Area


24 30 14 89 157 1

Once in year 12.00% 15.00% 7.00% 44.50% 78.50%

6 17 5 11 39 2

Twice in year 3.00% 8.50% 2.50% 5.50% 19.50%

0 0 1 0 1 3 Thrice in year 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.50%

0 3 0 0 3 4

Once & Twice in year 0.00% 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00% Source : Field survey The Table No. 3.36 shows the periodical classification

of tomato cultivation. Out of 200, 157 (78.50%) respondents grow tomato crop only once in a year. They consist of 89 farmers from Shirol, 30 from Hatkanangale, 24 from Gadhinglaj and 14 from Karveer taluka.

24

6 0 0

30

17

0 3 14

5 1 0

89

11 0 0

0

20

40

60

80

100


Graph No. 3.6 Periodical Classification of Tomato Cultivation

Once Twice Thrice Once & Twice

134

39 respondents take tomato crop twice in year. Its percentage is 19.50%.In this group there are 17 farmers from Hatkanangale, 11 from Shirol, 6 from Gadhinglaj and 5 from Karveer taluka. Only one respondent takes tomato crop thrice in one year, with percentage of 0.50%, 3 respondents for once and twice in one year with percentage of 1.50%. It can be inferred that majority of the farmers take tomato crop only once in a year and there are some respondents who take it twice in a year.

3.15.24 Testing of Soil

In order to increase cultivability and yielding capacity of land, the use of manure, chemical fertilizers, organic fertilizers is essential. However soil examination is necessary to know which type of fertilizer to be used for what type of land and its quantity. The following Table No. 3.37 provides information on how many respondents from study area do soil examination.


Above given Table No. 3.37 reveals as how many respondents had done soil examination.

Unfortunately 96 (48%) of the total 200 respondents tomato growing farmers do not care for soil examination. It is found that 104 (52%) out of total 200 respondents farmers do get the soil examined. Even today nearly half of the total respondents do not know that tomato production requires soil examination for better productivity.

3.15.25 Manures and Fertilizers

There was an increasing trend in using manures and fertilizers. It helped to improve fertility of the soil. Tomato

Table No. 3.37 Information About Soil Examination by Sample Tomato Growers in Study Area


8 35 12 41 96 1 No

4.00% 17.50% 6.00% 20.50% 48.00% 22 15 8 59 104

2 Yes 11.00% 7.50% 4.00% 29.50% 52.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%

135

growers used various types of manures and fertilizers, phosphate fertilizer including inorganic manures. The nitrogen in adequate quantity increases fruit quality, fruit size color and taste. Adequate amount of potassium is also required for growth, yield and quality. Table No. 3.38 represents the details of manures and fertilizers used by sample tomato growers.

Table No. 3.38 Classification of Respondents as per the Application of Manures and Fertilizers.

Sr. No.

Manures & Fertilizers Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

15 12 7 18 52 1 Dung and Compost 7.50% 6.00% 3.50% 9.00% 26.00%

0 0 0 1 1 2 Bio-fertilizers 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50%

0 0 5 1 6 3 Chemical fertilizers 0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 0.50% 3.00%

0 3 0 0 3 4 Dung and compost & Bio-Fertilizers 0.00% 1.50% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50%

13 33 7 51 104 5 Dung and Compost & Chemical Fertilizers 6.50% 16.50% 3.50% 25.50% 52.00%

1 0 0 12 13 6 Dung and Compost & Earthworm Fertilizers 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 6.00% 6.50%

0 1 0 1 2 7 Bio-Fertilizers & Chemical Fertilizers 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00%

0 0 1 3 4 8

Dung and Compost, Bio-Fertilizers & Chemical Fertilizers 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 1.50% 2.00%

1 1 0 4 6 9 Dung and Compost, Chemical Fertilizers 0.50% 0.50% 0.00% 2.00% 3.00%

0 0 0 9 9 10

Dung and Compost, Bio, Fertilizer, Chemical & Earthworm 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.50% 4.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


136

Graph No. 7 Classification of Respondents as per the Application of Manures and Fertilizers by the Respondents

1512

7

18

0 0 0 10 05

103

0 0

13

33

7

51

1 0 0

12

0 1 0 10 0 1 31 1 04

0 0 0

9

010

2030

4050

60

Gadhin

glaj

Hatka

nang

ale

Karve

er

Shirol

Dung and Compost

Bio-fertilizers

Chemical fertilizers

Dung and compost & Bio-Fertilizers

Dung and Compost &Chemical fertilizers

Dung and Compost &Earthworm fertilizers

Bio-fertilizers & Chemicalfertilizers

Dung and Compost, Bio-fertilizers & ChemicalfertilizersDung and Compost,Chemical fertilizers

Dung and Compost, Bio,fertilizer, Chemical &Earthworm

Table No. 3.38 indicated the application of manures and fertilizers by the respondents for the tomato cultivation.

Out of total respondents, 104 respondents i.e. 52.00% were regular in using dung and compost and chemical fertilizers.

52 respondents (26%) applied Dung and Compost manures. 13 respondents, (6.50%) used Dung and Compost and Earthworm fertilizers. It requires to supply appropriate quantity of nutrients to increase the fertility of the soil.

9 respondents (4.50%) only used chemical fertilizers which included urea, potash and DAP.

3 respondents, (1.50%) used Dung and Compost and Bio-fertilizers. Only single respondent (0.50%) used Bio-fertilizers.

Generally, Dung and Compost manures, chemical fertilizers and earthworm were used by the sample tomato growers.

137

3.15.26 Insecticides and Fungicide

Growing healthy tomato crop must be the aim of farmers, as poor and diseased crop affects the earning. The tomato crop is victim of several diseases and insects influenced by climatic conditions mainly temperature. Tomato products are subject to a large number of pests from the time to planting to harvest.

Table No.3.39 Insecticides and Fungicide Used by the Respondents in Study Area

Sr. No.


20 30 10 60 120 1

Rogar, Vrtimake, Bavistin 10.00% 15.00% 5.00% 30.00% 60.00%

0 5 2 10 17 2 Lanet, Spark

0.00% 2.50% 1.00% 5.00% 8.50% 5 10 5 8 28

3 Rogar, Bavistin, Vertimake 2.50% 5.00% 2.50% 4.00% 14.00%

0 0 0 4 4 4 Lanet, Nuvan

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 3 5 3 10 21

5 Indosulphan, Zineb 1.50% 2.50% 1.50% 5.00% 10.50%

0 0 0 3 3 6

Sanvacsm Rogar 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 1.50%

2 0 0 5 7 7

Vertimake, Bavistin, Nuvan 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 3.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.39 exemplifies the use of insecticide and fungicides adopted by the respondents to control various tomato diseases.

In order to control rottenness and fungus and other diseases 120, (60%) sample tomato growers use Rogar, Vertimake and other insecticides and fungicides. The second preference is given to Rogar, Bavistin, Vertimake by 28 respondents with percentage of 14%. 21 of respondents utilize Indosulphan, Nim pesticide, their percentage stands 10.50%. 17 respondents (8.50%) use Lanet, Spark pesticides whereas 7 sample tomato growers (3.50%) use

138

Vcertimake; Bavistin, Nuvan pesticides. Only 3 respondents (1.50%) use Sancacsm, Rogar pesticides.

Generally used pesticides are Rogar, Vertimake, Bavistin, Indo-sulphan, Nuvan etc.

3.15.27 Classification of Farm Labourer

Farm labourer is the main factor in tomato cultivation. Table No.3.40 shows the classification of farm labourer.

Table 3.40 Classification of Domestic and Hired Farm Labourers in Tomato Production


2 11 4 14 31 1 Domestic

1.00% 5.50% 2.00% 7.00% 15.50% 22 26 7 56 111

2 Outsiders 11.00% 13.00% 3.50% 28.00% 55.50%

6 13 9 30 58 3 Both

3.00% 6.50% 4.50% 15.00% 29.00% 30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.40 shows an account of labourers used for tomato cultivation by the respondents. Out of 200 respondents, 31 respondent (15.50%) tomato growers do land tilling by domestic labourer. The 55.50% respondents

2

22

611

26

134 7 9

14

56

30

0102030405060


Graph No. 3.8 Classification of Domestic and Hired Farm Labourer in Tomato Production

Domestic Outsiders Both

139

do tomato land cultivation by the outsider (Hired) labourer. 29.00% respondents used both labourer for tilling.

It is concluded that, the maximum respondents used outsider (Hired) labourers for land cultivation.

3.15.28 Methods of Production Used

Labour intensive technique, capital intensive technique of production policy or both are used for tomato production. Labour centered policy consists of manual work, Bulls, bullock cart, irrigating, etc. In capital technique policy automobiles such as tractor, oil engine, electric pump set, and vehicles for transportation are utilized. On regular basis both labour intensive and capital intensive strategies are adopted jointly.

Table No. 3.41 Method of Production Resources used for the Tomato Cultivation Land by Respondents

Sr. No.


1 0 0 5 6 1

Labour intensive 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50% 3.00%

1 4 6 34 45 2

Capital intensive 0.50% 2.00% 3.00% 17.00% 22.50%

28 46 14 61 149 3 Both

14.00% 23.00% 7.00% 30.50% 74.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


140

Table No. 3.41 shows that all the sample tomato growers use the resources utilized for the cultivation of tomato crops. Out of 200, 6 (3.00%) respondents have used labour technique like human power, bullock power, bullock cart etc.

The 45 (22.50%) respondents have used capital intensive technique.

The 149 (74.50%) respondents have used both labour intensive technique and capital intensive technique. It’s clear that most of the respondents applied both resources for the cultivation of tomato land.

3.15.29 Availability of Resources

For the cultivation of tomato, the farmers require the following equipments-plough, bullock-carts, tractor, spray pumps etc. How the farmers make them available for the cultivation of tomato crop is shown in Table No. 3.42 below.

1 1

28

0 4

46

0 514

5

34

61

0

20

40

60

80


Graph No. 3.9 Method of Production Resources used for the Tomato Cultivation Lands by Respondents

Labour Intensive Capital Intensive Both

141

Table No 3.42 Availability of Farm Resources

Sr. No.


11 13 4 13 41 1 Self Possessed

5.50% 6.50% 2.00% 6.50% 20.50% 12 32 14 68 126

2 On Leasehold 6.00% 16.00% 7.00% 34.00% 63.00%

1 1 1 1 4 3 Of relatives

0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 2.00% 0 0 0 1 1

4 Other friends 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50%

6 2 1 15 24 5 Self & on leasehold

3.00% 1.00% 0.50% 7.50% 12.00% 0 2 0 2 4

6 Self, Friend, Others 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


The Table No. 3.42 reveals the holding equipments used for tilling of land for the tomato cultivation by the respondents. Out of 200 respondents, 41 respondents (20.50%) possess their own equipments. 126 respondents (63.00%) have equipments on leasehold for the cultivation of tomato crop. 2.00% respondents make them available from their relatives. Only one respondent makes them available from his friends. 12.00% respondents have on their own level and on leasehold. 2% respondents make them available on their own, from their friends and others. Hence, it is clear that maximum number of respondents make the equipments available for the cultivation of tomato crop on their own and on leasehold basis.

3.15.30 Sources of Water.

Irrigation plays an important role in enhancing tomato production. Tomato crops require the supply of frequent water. Tomato cultivators supplied water to the tomato crop twice in week excluding rainy season. Taluka-wise source of water in the study area is shown in Table No. 3.43.

142

Table 3.43 Sources of Water for Tomato Production

Sr. No.


4 20 12 31 67 1 Well

2.00% 10.00% 6.00% 15.50% 33.50% 0 1 0 1 2

2 Canal 0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 0.50% 1.00%

0 1 0 7 8 3 Borwell

0.00% 0.50% 0.00% 3.50% 4.00% 1 1 4 12 18

4 Irrigation 0.50% 0.50% 2.00% 6.00% 9.00%

14 16 3 9 42 5 Well & Canal

7.00% 8.00% 1.50% 4.50% 21.00% 4 5 0 15 24

6 Well & Borwell 2.00% 2.50% 0.00% 7.50% 12.00%

0 0 1 7 8 7 Well & Other

0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 3.50% 4.00% 3 3 0 14 20

8 Well & Irrigation 1.50% 1.50% 0.00% 7.00% 10.00%

4 3 0 4 11 9

Borwell & Irrigation 2.00% 1.50% 0.00% 2.00% 5.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.43 indicated the main source of water in the study area. We have taken 200 sample tomato growers. It is observed that some respondents have only one source of water available with them. Some others have more than one source.

Out of 200, 67 respondents, (33.50%) have used well water for irrigation. Wells are the prominent source of water in Shirol and Hatkanangale tahasils.

The second source of water is well, canal and borwell. There are 18 (9.00%) respondents who facilitate lift irrigation scheme from river to provide water to tomato crops. They solely depend on this lift irrigation only. There are 12 such respondents in Shirol, 4 in Karveer and one each in Gadhinglaj and Hatkanangale. In all 11 (5.50%) respondents utilize borwell and river lift-irrigation scheme for water supply. There are 4.00% respondents who use borwell, well and other sources of water supply respectively.

143

2 (1.00%) respondents, have canal source of irrigation to be used for tomato land. There is a single respondent each in Hatkanangale and Shirol that avail this type of water supply. Maximum percentage of respondents have used the source of the water through well, canal, irrigation scheme and borwell.

3.15.31 Own Irrigation System

The following Table No. 3.44 provides information regarding irrigation system with sample tomato growers.

Table 3.44 Percentage of Own Irrigation System of the Sample Tomato Growers

Sr. No.


30 48 16 76 170 1 Yes

15.00% 24.00% 8.00% 38.00% 85.00% 0 2 4 24 30

2 No 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 12.00% 15.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


The above given Table No. 3.44 explains that 170 (85%) respondents out of the total 200 possess irrigation system of their own. 30 (15%) sample tomato growers do not have irrigation of their own. Since tomato crop is considered as a cash crop, timely water supply is quite necessary. Most of the sample tomato growers have attempted to have their own irrigation system.

3.15.32 System of Water Lifting

With the help of oil engine, electric pump set and canal, water is supplied to the tomato crop. The details regarding types of water lifting are given in Table No. 3.45.

144

Table 3.45 Classification of Water Lifting Systems in

Study Area


0 0 0 1 1 1 Oil Engine 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.50%

30 47 20 94 191 2

Electric Pump set 15.00% 23.50% 10.00% 47.00% 95.50%

0 3 0 5 8 4

Oil Engine & Electric Pump set 0.00% 1.50% 0.00% 2.50% 4.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.45 indicates the types of water lifting. Out of 200 total respondents, only one respondent applied oil engine for lifting water. Whereas 189 respondents (95.50%) applied electric pump set for lifting water to tomato crops and 8 respondents (4.00%) used oil engine and electric pump set for lifting water.

Generally, most of the sample tomato growers from study area use electric pump set for irrigating tomato crop.

3.15.33 System of Water Irrigation

Surface irrigation,drip irrigation methods and sprinkler method were exercised to supply of water to tomato crops.

0

30

0 0

47

0 0

20

0 1

92

2 0

20

40

60

80

100


Graph No. 3.10 Classification of Water Lifting Systems in Study Area

Oil Engine Electric Pump set Other

145

Surface irrigation / canal was applied where much water was available. In the absence of adequacy of water availabilities, a drip irrigation and a sprinkler irrigation system was successful. Some sample tomato growers used surface as well as drip irrigation and a sprinkler to the tomato crops. Application of irrigation method to tomato crop is given in Table No. 3.46.

Table 3.46 Systems of Water Irrigation for Tomato Crop

Sr. No.


3 34 16 74 127 1 Surface Canal

1.50% 17.00% 8.00% 37.00% 63.50% 3 2 1 18 24

2 Drip System 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 9.00% 12.00%

24 14 3 5 46 3 Canal & Drip System

12.00% 7.00% 1.50% 2.50% 23.00% 0 0 0 3 3

4 Drip System & Sprinkler 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 1.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No.3.46 showed the classification of respondents according to the method of irrigation applied to tomato cultivation. Out of the 200 total respondents, 127

3 3

24

0

34

214

0

16

1 3 0

74

18

5 30

1020304050607080


Graph No. 3.11 System of Water Irrigation for Tomato Crop

Channel Drip System Channel & Drip System Drip System & Sprinkler

146

respondents (63.65%) supplied surface irrigation to tomato crop,

46 respondents (23%) used canal and drip irrigation system. 24 respondents (12%) used only drip irrigation system. Only 3 respondents, 1.50% have applied drip and sprinkler irrigation system to supply water for tomato crops. Maximum sample tomato growers supply water by using surface canal irrigation and drip irrigation system, so as to maintain proper humidity.

3.15.34 Sources of Finance

Finance is the prime concern of respondents, it is the life-blood of tomato cultivation. Sample tomato growers from the study area try to make finance available through various ways.

Table No. 3.47 Sources of Finance to Tomato Producer

Sr. No.


5 24 13 22 64 1 Own Capital

2.50% 12.00% 6.50% 11.00% 32.00%

0 0 1 3 4 2 Borrowings

0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 1.50% 2.00%

2 2 4 55 63 3 Loans

1.00% 1.00% 2.00% 27.50% 31.50%

1 2 0 1 4 4

Own Capital & Borrowings 0.50% 1.00% 0.00% 0.50% 2.00%

22 22 2 19 65 5

Own Capital & Loans 11.00% 11.00% 1.00% 9.50% 32.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


The Table No. 3.47 revealed the source of the finance of the respondent in the study area. It is realized that 64 out of total 200 respondents have their own capital (32%). 63 (31.50%) of the total sample tomato growers depend only on loan facility for required finance.

65, (32.50%) of the total respondents make finance available from their own capital and loan facility, 4 respondents (2.00%) borrowed from other persons, relatives, friends etc. 4 respondents, (2.00%) depend on their own

147

funds and borrowings as their source. It is clear that the maximum number of respondents depend on their own funds and loans.

3.15.35 Availability of Loan Facility

As finance/loan is badly required for tomato production, an analysis of loans offered in the study area is given in Table No. 3.48 below.

Table No. 3.48 Availability Loan Amount Per Acre Sanctioned by Bank in Study Area


1 No 0.00% 10.00% 5.00% 15.00% 30.00%

30 30 10 70 140 2 Yes

15.00% 15.00% 5.00% 35.00% 70.00% 30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


The Table No. 3.48 presents the position of the loan of the respondents in study area.

A fact has urged that 60 of the total 200 respondents do not get loan for tomato production. These respondents consist of 30 from Shirol, 20 from Hatkanangale, 10 from Karveer tahasils.

According to a survey 140 (70%) respondents do get loan for tomato production. In this group 70 respondents belong to Shirol, 30 each from Gadhinglaj and Hatkanangale and 20 from Karveer tahasil.

The nationalized banks and private commercial banks do not provide loan facility for tomato crop. Loan facility was not available because of non-ranking of the tomato production and uncertainty. As a way-out loans are availed under recognized crops but actually used for tomato crop. Shirol tahasil leads in tomato production and it is known as cash crop. Hence, various banks from this taluka provide loan to the tomato growers on individual credit.

148

3.15.36 Sources of The Repayment of Loan

The availed loan is refunded out of the earnings from production of tomato as well as income from other crops.

Table No. 3.49 Sources of the Repayment of Loan of Sample Tomato Grower


1 Income from tomato production 6.00% 10.50% 2.00% 15.50% 34.00%

1 4 8 12 25 2 Income from other source 0.50% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 12.50%

17 25 8 57 107

3

Income from other crops and from Tomato Production 8.50% 12.50% 4.00% 28.50% 53.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Sources of repayment of the loans by tomato growers are given in Table No.3.49.

68 (34%) of the total 200 respondents, repay the loan through income from tomato production. If there is any decline in tomato production in a particular year or if reasonable prices are not given, the concerned tomato growers become unable to repay their loan. In such circumstances income from other source of earlier loan is the only source left to the farmer. It also shows that (12.50%) of the total respondents are able to repay their

121

17 214

25

4 8 8

31

12

57

0

20

40

60


Graph No. 3.12 Sources of the Repayment of Loan of Sample Tomato Grower

Income from tomato production Income from other source Income from other crops and from Tomato Production

149

loan from income of other source (milk, poultry, service etc.) in the same year. Out of 200 respondents, 107 respondents (53.50%) use the source of income from tomato production, loans and from income through other crops. Most of the respondents repay the loan through income from tomato production and income from other crops.

3.15.37 Subsidy for Tomato Crop

In order to enhance the production in the study area the government provides subsidy. Table No. 3.50 indicates subsidies made available for tomato crop.

Table No. 3.50 Subsidy Available from Government for Tomato Crop


30 50 20 100 200 1 No

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%

0 0 0 0 0 2 Yes

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.50 gives information regarding subsidy provision for tomato crop.

It is noticed that no tahasil selected as sample from the study area is provided with any subsidy for tomato crop. It is made clear by all the 200 respondents.

3.15.38 Reasons of Non-Availability of Subsidy

No concession in the form of any subsidy is given for tomato crop in all the sample talukas in the study area. Table No. 3.51 further classifies the reasons as why any subsidy is not offered for tomato crop.

150

Table No. 3.51 Reasons for Non-Availability of Subsidy for Tomato Crop

Sr. No.


7 27 10 41 85 1

No Ranking for Tomato Crop 3.50% 13.50% 5.00% 20.50% 42.50%

6 6 2 21 35 2

Uncertainty in Production 3.00% 3.00% 1.00% 10.50% 17.50%

17 17 8 38 80 3

Illiteracy of Farmers and Other 8.50% 8.50% 4.00% 19.00% 40.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.51 reveals reasons for not giving subsidy for tomato production.

85 respondents (42.50%) made it clear that there is no ranking facility for tomato crop and therefore no subsidy is provided. Simultaneously uncertainty is also found in the production.

According to 35 respondents (17.50%), uncertainty in tomato production is the reason behind non-availability of the subsidy.

In the opinion of 80 respondents (40%), illiteracy of farmers is responsible for having no subsidy. It means that the tomato growers are ignorant about the facts as what exactly subsidy means, to which crops it is offered etc. This lack of knowledge deprives them of subsidy for tomato crop.

3.15.39 Non-Availability of Insurance for Tomato Crop

Famine, over rain, diseases cause loss to the tomato crop and so to the concerned farmers. In order to compensate the losses the government implements insurance policy scheme. The following Table No. 3.52 gives details regarding availability of crop insurance policy.

151

Table No. 3.52 Insurance Availability for Tomato Crop Sr. No. Particulars Gadhinglaj Hatkanangale Karveer Shirol Total

30 50 20 100 200 1 No

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00% 0 0 0 0 0 2 Yes

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


From the Table No. 3.52, it becomes clear that the government has not implemented any insurance policy for tomato crop. Respondents from the study area have explained in their interview that insurance policy is made available for crops like sugarcane, oil seeds, rice and wheat. There is no such insurance policy for tomato crop so as to compensate the loss.

3.15.40 Reasons for Non-Availability of Crop Insurance

Table No. 3.53 indicated that the insurance policy is not made available by the government for tomato crops.

Table No. 3.53 Reasons for Non-Availability of Crop Insurance Sr. No.


10 32 8 42 92 1 Tomato is not a recognized crop 5.00% 16.00% 4.00% 21.00% 46.00%

3 3 7 12 25 2 More uncertainty in production 1.50% 1.50% 3.50% 6.00% 12.50%

17 15 5 46 83

3

Tomato is not recognized crop, more uncertainty in production 8.50% 7.50% 2.50% 23.00% 41.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.53, analyses the fact that the government has not implemented crop insurance scheme for tomato.

Out of 200 respondents, 92 growers (46%) explained that tomato crop is not a recognized crop and hence crop insurance policy cover is not provided to it. Whereas 25 respondents (12.50%) explained that the tomato crop suffered from more uncertainty of production. Further 83 respondents (41.50%), explained that tomato crop is not a

152

recognized crop and moreover it is more uncertain about its production. Perhaps due to these reasons, the government has not implemented insurance policy to this particular crop.

3.15.41 Tomato Processing Industry

Processing of agricultural production is important to get reasonable price. Table No. 3.54 provides information regarding tomato processing industry.

Table 3.54 Tomato Processing Industry Sr. No.


30 50 20 100 200 1 No

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00% 0 0 0 0 0

2 Yes 0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30 50 20 101 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.50% 100.00%


The Table No. 3.54 above gives information of industry processing tomato production.

From the personal interviews of 200 respondents, it has become clear that there is not processing industry available in the sample tahasils in the study area.

3.15.42 Need for Tomato Processing Industry

Below given Table No. 3.55 indicates the opinion of the respondents on the necessity of tomato processing.

Table 3.55 Opinion of the Respondents Regarding Need for Tomato Processing Industry

Sr. No.


0 7 2 5 14 1 No

0.00% 3.50% 1.00% 2.50% 7.00% 30 43 18 95 186

2 Yes 15.00% 21.50% 9.00% 47.50% 93.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.55 given above provides opinion of the tomato growers on the need of tomato processing industry.

153

14 of the 200 respondents felt that there was no need of tomato processing industry. Whereas 186 of the 200 respondents opined that tomato processing industry is essential.. Their bifurcation is thus - Shirol 93, Hatkanangale 43, Gadhinglaj 30 and Karveer 18.In general, it is perceived that there is a bad need of tomato processing industry. Moreover such an industry can benefit various other productions such as soup, chatni and juice. It can in turn profits the farmers. 3.15.43 Tomato Producers' Opinions About Processing

Industry It is observed that tomato processing industry is found

in public sector, private sector and co-operative sector. Opinions of producers about the location of processing industry are registered in the following Table No.3.56.

Table No. 3.56 Tomato Producers' Opinions about Processing Industry Sectors in Study Area

Sr. No.


0 3 3 19 25 1 Public

0.00% 1.50% 1.50% 9.50% 12.50% 7 6 1 18 32

2 Private 3.50% 3.00% 0.50% 9.00% 16.00%

23 41 16 63 143 3 Co-operative 11.50% 20.50% 8.00% 31.50% 71.50%

30 50 20 101 200 Total


0 7 23

3 6 41

3 1

16

19 18 63

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Gadhinglaj

Hatkanangale

Karveer

Shirol

Graph No. 3.13 Tomato Producers' Opinions about Processing Industry Sectors

Public Private Co-operative

154

25 (12.50%) of the total 200 respondents expressed that tomato processing industry should be located in the public sector. 16% of the respondents are of the opinion that the processing industry should come under private sector. 71.50% i.e. most of the respondents feel that the processing industry should be reckoned under co-operative sector. In brief, maximum respondents feel that like agro-processing industry, tomato processing industry also should be considered under co-operative sector.

3.15.44 Tomato Producers' Opinion About Processing Facilities

Tomato processing facility is a must in the study area. In this connection the opinions of the respondents are registered in Table No. 3.57.

Table No. 3.57 Tomato Producers' Opinion about Processing Facilities in Industry in Study Area

Sr. No.


20 25 7 45 97 1

Market will be available on local level 10.00% 12.50% 3.50% 22.50% 48.50%

3 9 2 27 41 2

Pricing will be satisfactory 1.50% 4.50% 1.00% 13.50% 20.50%

2 7 2 7 18 3

Possibility of producing by products 1.00% 3.50% 1.00% 3.50% 9.00%

5 9 9 21 44

4

Market will be available on local level & possibility of producing by products 21.50% 4.50% 4.50% 10.50% 22.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


48.50% of the total 200 tomato growers made it clear that tomato processing industry can facilitate the required market at local level.

In the opinion of the 20.50% respondents, tomato processing industry can fetch satisfactory pricing to tomato crop.

155

According to 9% of the respondents (sample growers), the possibility of producing by-products of tomato can be increased considerably.

22% sample growers support the availability of market at local level and possibility of producing the tomato by-products. By and large, due to tomato processing industry, local level market will be made available and pricing will be satisfactory enough.

3.15.45 Sources of Information About Market Rate

The farmers need to know about market price of agricultural products and their current condition. Table No. 3.58 given below shows sources of information regarding tomato production and their market prices.

Table No 3.58 Sources of Information About Market Rate to the Tomato Producer

Sr. No.


30 50 20 19 119 1 Personal Level

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 9.50% 59.50% 0 0 00 10 10

2 Co-operative Vegetable Sangh 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 05.00%

0 0 0 71 71 3

Private Vegetable Sangh 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 35.50% 35.50%

30 50 30 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.58 given above provides sources of information about market rate of tomato.

119 (59.50%) of the total respondents obtain necessary information regarding tomato production, its present condition and market rates at their own. There are no private and co-operative vegetable unions in Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale and Karveer tahasils. As a result, the farmers have to collect information personally.

5.00% sample tomato growers from the study area acquire information on condition and market rates of tomato through co-operative vegetable sanghs.

156

71 (35.50%) total respondents collect the necessary information regarding tomato production, condition and rates through private vegetable sanghs.

It could be concluded that tomato growers from Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale and Karveer have to depend on themselves for production conditions and market rates. On the contrary, tomato growers from Shirol can elicit the necessary information on personal level, through private and co-operative vegetable sanghs.

3.15.46 Media of Information Used by Respondents

Tomato producers need to know about production conditions and market rates of tomato. They are required to be alert about these facts just as they are seriously devoted to the farm work. The sources of the information about market rate used by respondents are shown in the Table No. 3.59.

Table No 3.59 Media of Information Used by Respondents Sr. No.


14 20 8 43 85 1 Daily News Papers

7.00% 10.00% 4.00% 21.50% 42.50% 2 6 2 22 32

2 Agrowan, Journal, Weekly 1.00% 3.00% 1.00% 11.00% 16.00%

2 7 3 10 22 3 Radio

1.00% 3.50% 1.50% 5.00% 11.00% 2 7 3 10 22

4 T.V. 1.00% 3.50% 1.50% 5.00% 11.00%

1 2 0 3 6 5 Mobile

0.50% 1.00% 0.00% 1.50% 3.00% 1 2 0 4 7

6 Internet 0.50% 1.00% 0.00% 2.00% 3.50%

8 4 3 5 20 7 Orally

4.00% 2.00% 1.50% 2.50% 10.00% 0 2 1 3 6

8 Agro Exhibition 0.00% 1.00% 0.50% 1.50% 3.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


157

The Table No. 3.59 shows the classification of sources of the information media about production and market rate in the study area.

About 85 respondents (42.50%) have got information through the daily news papers. Whereas, 32 respondents (16.00%) have got information through the Agrowan, journal and weekly and about 11.00% respondents have got information through the Radio and T.V., 11.00%, of the farmers get necessary information through Mobile, 3.00% from Internet and 3% from the Agro Exhibitions.

It has been observed by the researcher that 10% of the respondents know about market rates through oral publicity. Whenever the tomato producers meet each other they discuss the issues, and thereby market rates are orally publicized.

By and large, the tomato growers know about production condition and market rates of tomato through a number of sources. Even then the daily news papers play a crucial role. They help the producers to design positive planning of tomato production.

3.15.47 Taluka-wise Classification of Marketing Channels

The following table shows the marketing channels in selected talukas. There are four categories. They are important intermediaries

14

2 2 2 1 1 8

0

20

6 7 7 2 2 4 2

8 2 33 00 3 1

43

22

10 10 3 4 5 3

0 10 20 30 40 50


Graph No. 3.14 Media of Information Used by Respondents

Daily News Papers Agrowan, Journal, Weekly RadioT.V. Mobile InternetOrally Agro Exhibition

158

Table No 3.60 Taluka-wise Classification of Tomato

Marketing Channels (2006-2007) Sr. No.


10 17 4 5 36 1 Owned

5.00% 8.50% 2.00% 2.50% 18.00% 20 33 16 10 79

2 By commission agent in nearest city 10.00% 16.50% 8.00% 5.00% 39.50%

0 0 0 10 10 3

Through co-operative vegetable sangh and up-country markets 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 5.00%

0 0 0 75 75 4

Through private vegetable sangh and up-country market 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 37.50% 37.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


With the help of Table No. 3.60 marketing channels of tomato sale could be analysed.

36 (18%) of the total 200 tomato growers sell their production personally and directly in weekly bazaars and in neighbouring cities. It includes most farmers from Gadhinglaj and Hatkanangale. It means the marginal, semi marginal and small producers use this channel in particular.

These figures clearly indicate that second channel by commission agents in neighbouring cities was the major marketing channel through which about 39.50% of tomato

10 20

0 0 17

33

0 0 4 16

0 0 5 10 10

75

0

20

40

60

80


Graph No. 3.15 Talukawise Classification of Marketing Channel

Owned By commission agent in nearest cityThrough co-operative vegetable sangh and up-country market Through private vegetable sangh and up-country market

159

growers have sold their produce. In Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale and Karveer tahasils most of the production is sold through commission agents. Since Shirol taluka has co-operative vegetable sangh, 5% of the respondents sell their products through the co-operative trade channel.

A large number of respondents, about 37.50% have disposed of their surplus products through private trade channels in Shirol taluka.

Sample tomato growers from Shirol taluka sell most of their tomato production via private and co-operative trade channels, whereas respondents from Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale and Karveer taluka sell their production either personally or through commission agents.

3.15.48 Reasons for Tomato Sale Through Co-operative Sangh

There is only one co-operative sangh in Shirol taluka. The co-operative sangh has been playing an important role in the marketing of tomato particularly. It helps farmers in marketing of their produce. It is co-operative sangh that is acting as commission agent for the sale of their member’s and non-member’s produce and thus indirectly taking part in the marketing of tomato. Table No.3.61 shows the reasons for tomato sale through co-operative sangh.

Table No 3.61 Reasons for Tomato Sale Through Co-operative Sangh

Sr. No.


0 0 0 1 1 1 No discrimination

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 0 0 0 1 1

2 Payment received in time 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16.67% 16.67%

0 0 0 2 2 3 Reasonable rate,

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 0 0 0 2 2

4 Member of sangh 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33%

0 0 0 6 6 Total


160

Table No. 3.61 explains as why sample tomato producers sell their product through co-operative sangh.

According to 16.67% of the respondents, there is less or no possibility of discrimination in co-operative sangh, and 16.67% respondents revealed that payment is received in time.

In the opinion of 33.33% respondents, they get reasonable rates if they sell their product through sangh. These respondents are the registered members of the sangh. Therefore it is comfortable for them to sell the product through the sangh.

To conclude, the survey implies that marketing plays an important role in sale of tomato in Shirol taluka.

3.15.49 Information About Private Vegetable Producing- Purchase-Sale Sangh

Table No. 3.62 presents details regarding private vegetable producing purchase-sale sangh from sample talukas in the study area.

Table No 3.62 Availability of Private Vegetable Producing- Purchase-Sale Sangh in Study Area


30 50 20 10 110 1 No

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 5.00% 55.00%

0 0 0 90 90 2 Yes

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 45.00% 45.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.62 illustrates information concerning private sangh.

110 (55%) of the total 200 respondents do not know anything about the private sangh. All respondents from Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale and Karveer are ignorant about such private sanghs. Only 10 respondents from Shirol taluka know about these private sanghs.

161

90 respondents (45%) do know about the private sangh. There are 90 respondents in Shirol taluka who are acquainted with the private sangh.

3.15.50 Information about Bill

Sample tomato growers sell their production through private sanghs. Information regarding payment of the sold production is presented in Table No. 3.63 given below.

Table No 3.63 Information About Bill Through Private Sangh Getting in Time


0 0 0 20 20 1 No

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 20.00% 20.00%

0 0 0 80 80 2 Yes

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 80.00% 80.00%

0 0 0 100 100 Total

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.63 indicates the condition and status of payment of sold production.

According to 20% of respondents they do not receive timely payment of their sold production when sold through private sanghs. Whereas, 80% of the respondents state that they get timely payment of the sold production through private sanghs.

3.15.51 Constraints in Tomato Cultivation

The sample tomato growers have to face a number of difficulties and problems in cultivation and marketing.

162

Table No 3.64 Constraints Faced in Tomato Cultivation

and Marketing by Respondent Sr. No.


9 20 8 30 67 1

Seeds, Fertilizers, Insecticide and their uncertainties 4.50% 10.00% 4.00% 15.00% 33.50%

4 7 3 10 24 2

Increasing price of labour and resources 2.00% 3.50% 1.50% 5.00% 12.00%

6 6 2 20 34 3 Problems of transportation 3.00% 3.00% 1.00% 10.00% 17.00%

4 5 2 21 32 4 Problem of capital 2.00% 2.50% 1.00% 10.50% 16.00%

4 7 3 16 30 5 Fraud by the agents 2.00% 3.50% 1.50% 8.00% 15.00%

3 5 2 3 13

6

Other problems like no guarantee of sale & natural calamity 1.50% 2.50% 1.00% 1.50% 6.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


The Table No. 3.64 reveals that tomato cultivators faced a number of constraints. Out of the total respondents, 33.50% faced the problem of seeds, fertilizers, insecticide, their uncertainty, whereas 17% sample farmers reported that they faced transportation problem in terms of high charges.

16% respondents faced problems of capital. According to 15%of respondents, there is high possibility of deception or fraud by commission agents / dalals and mediators.

Cattle/Bullock wages and other resources are the threatening problems, 12% sample growers thought accordingly.

Finally, 6.50% respondents analyse other problems like no guarantee of sale and natural calamity.

3.15.52 Expectation from Co-operative and Private Sanghs

Private and co-operative vegetable purchase-sale sanghs are functioning in the study area. The sample tomato growers have certain expectations relating to

163

cultivation and marketing. Those expectations are shown in Table No. 3.65.

Table No 3.65 Expectation from Co-operative and Private Sanghs by Tomato Growers

Sr. No.


10 13 2 20 45 1

Making loans available fpr cultivation of land 5.00% 6.50% 1.00% 10.00% 22.50%

6 16 8 25 55

2

To supply seeds, fertilizers and insecticide on credit 3.00% 8.00% 4.00% 12.50% 27.50%

4 6 2 15 27 3

Timely sale of production 2.00% 3.00% 1.00% 7.50% 13.50%

5 6 3 25 39 4

Reasonable and just rate 2.50% 3.00% 1.50% 12.50% 19.50%

5 9 5 15 34 5

In-time payment in cash 2.50% 4.50% 2.50% 7.50% 17.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.65 reveals expectation of respondents from co-operative and private sanghs. The table given above shows that 22.50% of the total respondents expect that both the sanghs should make loans available for cultivation of land. 27.50% respondents expect that the sanghs should issue seeds, fertilizers and insecticides on credit.

13.50% tomato growers expected for timely sale of the production. 19.50% respondents desired to have reasonable and just rates to the production. 17% respondents feel that they should receive timely and cash payment of the sold production.

164

3.15.53 Expectation From Government

Tomato growers from the study area expect certain things from the government, crop insurance policy, guaranteed price etc.

Table No 3.66 Respondents Expectation from Government Regarding Tomato Marketing

Sr. No.


11 22 8 35 76 1

Purchase-Sale should be done by the regulated market 5.50% 11.00% 4.00% 17.50% 38.00%

7 12 5 20 44 2 Fixing basic price 3.50% 6.00% 2.50% 10.00% 22.00%

4 7 3 20 34 3 To compensate during slack season 2.00% 3.50% 1.50% 10.00% 17.00%

4 6 2 15 27 4 To aid during natural disaster 2.00% 3.00% 1.00% 7.50% 13.50%

4 3 2 10 19 5

Other like crop insurance policy & guaranted price etc 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 5.00% 9.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


It was observed from Table No. 3.66 there are various expectations from government of tomato growers.

38% of the total 200 respondents expect that the government should assure tomato sale through regulated market.

22% respondents think that the government must fix the basic prices for tomato production. 17% respondents feel that the government should compensate during the slack season. 13.50% respondents are of the opinion that the government should aid them during the period of natural calamity or disaster. Other 9.50% respondents expect that the government should initiate crop insurance policy and also start guaranted price scheme. Tomato growers expect certain remedial steps to be taken by the government to avoid loss of tomato production due to various reasons.

165

3.15.54 Mode of Convenient Payment

Sample tomato growers sell their production in various ways i.e. individual, commission agents or through private and co-operative sanghs.

Table 3.67 Mode of Payment Preferred by Tomato Producers

Sr. No.


30 50 20 52 152 1 Cash

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 26.00% 76.00% 0 0 0 45 45

2 Cheque 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22.50% 22.50%

0 0 0 3 3 3 D.D.

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 1.50% 30 50 20 100 200

Total 15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.67 shows the mode of payment preferred by respondents. Out of 200 respondents, 76% respondents preferred mode of payment in cash.

Sample tomato growers prefer to have cash payment from Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale and Karveer talukas, because that mode of payment is much convenient to them.

22.50 respondents would like to get payment by cheque because they prefer documental transaction. Only 1.50% respondents accept payment in the form of demand

Cash

Cheq

ue

D.D

.

Gadhinglaj

Karveer

5245

3

20

0 0

50

0 0

30

0 001020

30

40

50

60

Graph No. 16 Mode of Payment Preferred by Tomato Producers

Gadhinglaj

Hatkanangale

Karveer

Shirol

166

draft(DD). In brief, most of the respondents prefer to receive payment either in cash or through cheque. These modes of payment are safer for them.

3.15.55 Problems of Marketing

Tomato is a perishable crop, hence it needs to be sold in market at earlier. The producers sell their product in vegetable market through agents. Its analysis is shown in Table No. 3.68

Table 3.68 Reasons for Sale of Tomato Through Agents by Respondents

Sr. No.


1 7 17 32 57 1

Lack of manpower 0.50% 3.50% 8.50% 16.00% 28.50%

0 7 1 28 36 2 Shortage of time

0.00% 3.50% 0.50% 14.00% 18.00% 0 0 0 2 2

3 No other alternative 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.00% 1.00%

2 26 2 21 51 4

Lack of manpower & shortage of time 1.00% 13.00% 1.00% 10.50% 25.50%

27 10 0 17 54 5

Lack of manpower & no other alternative 13.50% 5.00% 0.00% 8.50% 27.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.68 given above shows details regarding sale of tomato by farmers through agents. Separate family system is prevailing largely in rural area. It creates the lack of manpower, leaving the only choice to sell tomato crop through agents only. This reaction was given by 28.50% respondents. 16.00% of the respondents explained that they sell out tomato through agents due to shortage of time. According to 1.00% respondents there is no other alternative. And 25.50% respondents told that both lack of manpower and shortage of time force them to rush to the agents. Whereas, 27% respondents emphasized the problem of lack of manpower and so substitute choice.

167

In short, lack of manpower, shortage of time and having no other alternative are the leading reasons for why they have to sell the tomato production through agents.

3.15.56 Controlling of Marketing

Tomato is a perishable crop. It has to be taken to the market and sold immediately after post harvesting. If there is strain of supply compared to the demand then the opportunistic agents, mediators jointly conspire and cause decline in prices. As a result the producer is deprived of reasonable rates, and has to face loss. Hence, it is expected that the government should monitor vegetable marketing.

Table 3.69 Availability of Controlling for Tomato Marketing

Sr. No.


30 46 18 100 194 1 No

15.00% 23.00% 9.00% 50.00% 97.00%

0 4 2 0 6 2 Yes

0.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 3.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


The Table No.3.69 shows the position of controlling of marketing in tomato production. Out of 200 respondents', 194 (97 %) respondents report to study controlling tomato marketing and of the opinion that there is no any authentic authority over tomato marketing. Only (3.00%) respondents believe in having control over tomato marketing.

Reports of maximum respondents confirm that tomato marketing is not monitored or controlled.

168

3.15.57 Satisfaction about Present Market Control

The sample tomato growers from study area are not satisfied by the lack of control over tomato marketing.

Table No 3.70 Reasons for Not-satisfaction of Respondents about Present Market Control

Sr. No. Particulars Gadhinglaj

Hat

kanangale Karveer Shirol Total

16 24 9 52 101 1

Rates are determined by agents and traders 8.00% 12.00% 4.50% 26.00% 50.50%

9 18 6 30 63 2

Price received is not in accordance with production cost 4.50% 9.00% 3.00% 15.00% 31.50%

3 5 3 12 23 3

We suffer loss in slack period 1.50% 2.50% 1.50% 6.00% 11.50%

2 3 2 6 13 4

Returns are not paid in time 1.00% 1.50% 1.00% 3.00% 6.50%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


In Table No. 3.70 the reasons are revealed of dissatisfaction of respondents about present market controlling. It is observed that the highest percentage i.e. 50.50% of the respondents are not satisfied about present market controlling. Because rates are determined by agents and traders. Price received is not in accordance with production cost, so 31.50% respondents are not satisfied about present market control

11.50% respondents reported that producers suffer from loss in slack season, returns are not paid in time and so 6.50% respondents are un-satisfied about present market controlling. Most respondents suffer from rates determined by agents. Nowadays price received is not in accordance with production cost.

169

3.15.58 Suggestions of Tomato Growers For Marketing

Tomato crop is considered as one of the important fruit vegetables. Tomato growers play a crucial role in vegetable market as shown in Table No. 3.71 below.

Table No 3.71 Suggestions of Tomato Growers for Marketing

Sr. No.


16 24 8 53 101 1

High class tomato production should be taken 8.00% 12.00% 4.00% 26.50% 50.50%

4 8 3 20 35 2

Packing should be done according to gradation 2.00% 4.00% 1.50% 10.00% 17.50%

7 10 6 17 40 3

Attempts be made to eliminate agents 3.50% 5.00% 3.00% 8.50% 20.00%

3 8 3 10 24 4

Latest technology should be adopted in purchase-sale system 1.50% 4.00% 1.50% 5.00% 12.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


Table No. 3.71 given above validates the role of tomato producer and it provides the following inferences. 101 (50.50%) of the total 200 sample respondents accord that high class tomato production should be taken. 17.50% sample growers stressed the need of proper packing as per gradation. 20% respondents insist on that attempts should be made to eliminate agents, and 12% of them asked for adoption of advanced technology in purchase-sale system. Most of the tomato growers think that tomato production of high quality should be taken, it must be packed according to gradation, agents should be eliminated from the purchase-sale system and advanced technology needs to be adopted.

170

3.15.59 Opinion Regarding Rate and Quality

Table No. 3.72 gives opinions of respondents from the viewpoint of consumer concerning tomato crop.

Table No 3.72 Opinion of Respondents as a Consumer Regarding Rate and Quality of Tomato

Sr. No.


15 27 9 45 96

1

In season period good quality production is available at reasonable rate

7.50% 13.50% 4.50% 22.50% 48.00%

5 6 6 15 32

2

In off season period rates are excess but quality is unsatisfactory

2.50% 3.00% 3.00% 7.50% 16.00%

6 8 3 27 44 3

Agents should be eliminated 3.00% 4.00% 1.50% 13.50% 22.00%

4 9 2 13 28 4

Fresh, product goods should be available 2.00% 4.50% 1.00% 6.50% 14.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total

15.00% 25.00% 10.00% 50.00% 100.00%


From Table No. 3.72, it becomes clear that 48% of total 200 respondents expressed their views on tomato rate and quality. They told that good quality production is available during the season period at reasonable rates. 32 (16 %) respondents said that in the off-season time, the rates are in excess but quality is unsatisfactory. According to 22% respondents, agent interference should be removed. In the opinion of 28 (14%) respondents, fresh product should be made available. Generally it is expected that tomato growers should get reasonable rates. Agents and mediators must be eliminated and fresh product should be made available at all times. They also expressed themselves on quality along with rates.

171

3.15.60 Places of Purchasing of Packaging Material

After plucking them, the tomato crop has to be taken to the market instantly for sale. Therefore, packaging plays significant role in marketing process. Bamboo boxes are used to carry tomato to the local market or neighbouring city. However wooden boxes are a must to send tomato to up-country market at distance, simultaneously fiber carrets are also utilized. The Table No. 3.73 given below shows as from where the respondents purchase the packing material.

Table No 3.73 Places of the Purchasing of Packaging material by Tomato Producer

Sr. No.


28 35 20 80 163 1 Local market

14.00% 17.50% 10.00% 40.00% 81.50% 0 2 0 13 15

2 From nearest city 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 6.50% 7.50%

2 13 0 7 22 3

Local market and from nearest city 1.00% 6.50% 0.00% 3.50% 11.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.73 shows places of the purchasing of packing material by respondents. A large number of respondents (81.50%) from sample tomato growers were purchasing packing material from local market. Out of total respondents, 7.50% purchased from neighboring city. 11%

28 35

20

80

0 2 0

13 2

13

0 7

010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Local Market From nearest city Local market andfrom nearest city

Graph No.3.17 Places of the Purchasing of Packaging material by Tomato Producer


172

respondents purchased from local market and from neighboring city. An observation shows that most of the respondents purchase packaging material from local market.

3.15.61 Tomato Transportation Cost

Transportation plays an important role in the marketing of tomato. Transportation is a post harvest activity which is performed by all tomato growers. Respondents reported that the quick movement of produce from producing area to marketing area is necessary, so that tomato production reaches consumers without much damage. Table No. 3.74 shows transportation cost from farm to market.

Table No 3.74 Tomato Transportation Cost from Farm to Market

Sr. No.

Particulars (in Rs.)


2 6 11 23 42 1 0-20

1.00% 3.00% 5.50% 11.50% 21.00% 3 1 0 36 40

2 21-40 1.50% 0.50% 0.00% 18.00% 20.00%

25 40 9 41 115 3 41-80

12.50% 20.00% 4.50% 20.50% 57.50% 0 0 0 3 3

4 81-100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 1.50%

30 47 20 103 200 Total


Table No. 3.74 gives details regarding transportation cost of tomato from farm to market. According to 42 (21.00%) of total respondents, the transportation cost goes up to Rs.20.00. This cost pertains to those tomato growers who carry the product in bamboo boxes up to local market or weekly bazaars. For 40 (20%) tomato growers, the transportation cost is between Rs. 21.00 to 40.00. This relates to those producers who send their product to nearby large city.

According to 115 (57.50%) of total producers, the transportation cost reaches between 40 to 80. This cost

173

pertains to product sent in wooden boxes to up-country markets like Pune, Mumbai, Nagpur, Ahmadbad and Delhi.

3 respondents (1.50%) feel that the transportation cost per box is Rs.81.00 to Rs.100.00.

In general, transportation cost of per box (wooden or bamboo) is Rs.41.00 to 80.00. It is explained by most of the respondents.

3.15.62 Method of Subtraction at the Bill

Tomato growers sell their product through local commission agents or up-country market commission agents. Both legal and illegal commission amounts of the agent is deducted before final payment.

Table No 3.75 Methods of Subtraction at the Time of Payment in Tomato Bill

Sr. No.


30 47 19 90 186 1 Legal

15.00% 23.50% 9.50% 45.00% 93.00% 0 3 1 10 14

2 Illegal 0.00% 1.50% 0.50% 5.00% 7.00%

30 50 20 100 200 Total


Table No. 3.75 shows the method of subtraction of the bill. 186 (93.00%) of the total respondents reported that

30

0

47

3

19

1

90

10

0

20

40

60

80

100


Graph No. 3.18 Methods of Subtraction at the Time of Payment in Tomato Bill

Legal Illegal

174

subtraction of legal commission is done at the time of bill from the total payment. The legal subtraction includes transportation cost, unloading charges, commission charges and weighing charges etc.

According to 14 (7.00%) respondents, illegal subtractions are made from bill. This subtraction includes depreciation loss, weight of carret, charitable fund etc.

Though a few respondents blame of illegal subtraction, these subtractions exploit the tomato growers financially.

Conclusion

Of the four sample tahasils respondents from Gadhinglaj, Hatkanangale, Karveer and Shirol were personally interviewed. With the help of information collected through interviews production cost, average production, average productivity of tomato crop, percentage etc. were attempted. Besides these aspects taluka-wise tomato crop area, production and yield were studied.

In the study of socio-economic characteristics details such as age group, marital status, type of family and educational standard of respondents were considered. In order to study the income level of the respondents, the information was classified income-wise, ownership of land, holding of irrigated land, cropping pattern, type of vegetables etc.

Tomato producers, endeavor to obtain possible production by adopting hybrid seeds. Generally to support this purpose, they use dung, compost and chemical fertilizers. They are quite alert and vigilant towards the protection of tomato crop. Therefore, they utilize insecticides and fungicides rather carefully and proportionately. Most of the respondents are seen depending on outside labourers in the task of tomato production.

Both labour and capital intensive are practiced in tomato production. For irrigating the tomato crop, resources like well, bore-well are preferably and widely exploited. They are the leading source of water. In order to lift the water electric pumpset motors are used.

Required capital for tomato production is raised mainly from own funds and loan facility. In the study area

175

provisions for subsidy, insurance are not available. The sources of information of market rates, market conditions etc. are obtained from the daily newspapers, Agrowan, journals, weekly, radio and T.V. and the farmers avail the necessary information.

The tomato growers face many constraints / difficulties and problems during the period of growing tomato crop and marketing it. In order to overcome all these difficulties and problems, the farmers expect varied assistance from the Government, private and co-operative sanghs. However, regretfully these expectations are rarely or never fulfilled.

chapter – iii cost and income analysis of the tomato ...€¦ · similarly apportioned on the...

Documents