Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 28(3): (369-372) 2015
Economics of resource use efficiency in paddy cultivation K. V. S. BHAKTHAVATSALAM AND S. M. MUNDINAMANI Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Dharwad University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005, Karnataka, India E-mail:
[email protected] (Received: August, 2014
;
Accepted: August, 2015)
Abstract: A study was carried out to determine the economics of paddy production under Jala Samvardhane Yojana (JSYS) tanks in Dharwad district of North Karnataka using the primary data. A sample size of 60 demonstrated and 60 traditional farmers was selected using random sampling method and required information’s was elicited for the agriculture year 2010-11 through survey method. The Cobb-Douglas production was used to analyze the resource use efficiency while the output decomposition model was used to analyze the structural break in technology. The per hectare cost of cultivation in case of demonstrated farmers was ` 30065 which was lower than traditional ` 32445. The gross returns per hectare by demonstrated farmers were ` 55018 as against traditional farmers being ` 43639. The value of co-efficient of determination (R 2) was found to be 0.89 and 0.83 in the case of demonstrated and traditional farmers respectively. The technological component of the demonstrations conducted, contributed about 26 per cent higher yield in On-Farm Demonstration (OFD) farmers when compared to the traditional farmers. Keywords: Bio-fertilizers, On-Farm Demonstrations, Paddy, Traditional
Introduction The foodgrains scenario in India has undergone a dramatic change in the last two decades. The demand for foodgrains particularly for rice among cereals is increasing at a faster rate. Since the dawn of civilization, rice has served humans as a lifegiving cereal. Rice is a staple food for about three billion people, nearly half of the world’s population. Both in urban and rural areas, rice is consumed and its consumption is growing due to high-income elasticity of demand. A rapid increase in paddy production is needed to meet the growing demand. But, there is little scope to increase the area; hence increase in production and productivity with an improvement in efficiency of production act as a technological breakthrough to meet the growing demand. Field demonstrations, aptly named On-Farm Demonstrations (OFD) are new or innovative practices carried out on actual farmers’ fields under local conditions. These OFD gained the confidence of farmers and has led to successful growth and development of agriculture. These demonstrations are being used extensively in many countries as a means of showing and proving farmers exactly what a new or innovative practice is and showing how it would fit under local conditions. Material and methods The study was conducted in the Dharwad and Kalghatagi taluks of Dharwad district. Dharwad and Narendra villages of Dharwad taluk and from Tumarikoppa and Tavarageri villages of Kalghatagi taluks were selected. A sample of 120 farmers comprising of 60 demonstrated farmers and 60 traditional farmers were selected randomly from each taluk. To study the resource productivity in demonstrated and traditional farmers, a modified Cobb-Douglas type of production function was fitted. Functions of the following form were fitted for demonstrated and traditional farmers separately. (Saikumar, 2005) Y = a x1b1 .x2b2 .x3b3……………….xnbn
On linearization, it becomes logY = loga + b1logx1 + b2logx2 + b3logx3 + …………….+bnlogxn+ei Production function employed for demonstrated and traditional farmers as a whole is as given below. Log (Y) = log (a) + b1log (x1) + b2log (x2) + b3log (x3) + b4log (x4) + b5log (x5) + b6log (x6) + b7log (x7) + ei Where, Y = Gross return in rupees/ha A = Intercept x1 = Seed cost/ha x2 = Farm Yard Manure cost/ha x3 = Human labour cost/ha x4 = Bullock labour cost/ha x5 = Machine labour cost/ha x6 = Chemical Fertilizers cost/ha x7 = Plant Protection Chemicals cost/ha ei = Error term b i = Elasticities coefficient of respective inputs and summation of these gives returns to scale For any production function, the total change in output/ income is affected by the change in the factors of production and in the parameters that define the function. This total change in per acre output/income is decomposed to reflect on adoption of OFD farming and the change in input levels. (Sivanagaraju, 2006) The output decomposition equation used in this study can be written as ln Y OF – ln Y IOF = [intercept OF – intercept IOF] + [(b-1’- -– b1) x ln X1- IOF + ……………. + (b7’– b7) x ln X7 IOF] + [{(b1’ (lnX1 OF – ln X1- IOF +…. + (b7’ (ln X7 OF – ln X7 IOF)}]. .(4) 369
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 28(3): 2015 The decomposition equation (4) is approximately a measure of percentage change in output/income with the adoption of OFD farming in the production process. The first bracketed Table 1. Input utilization pattern of OFD and Traditional method of paddy cultivation (per hectare) Inputs Units Paddy OFD Traditional Farmers Farmers Qty Qty I Seeds Kg 84.12 88.29 II Labour utilization 1 Owned Human Labour Mandays 33.56 30.26 Men Mandays 14.03 12.48 Women Women days 19.53 17.78 2 Hired Human Labour Mandays 61.29 57.22 Men Mandays 22.57 22.84 Women Women days 38.72 34.28 3 Bullock labour Pairdays 4.08 5.52 4 Machine labour Machine hours 5.75 5.08 III Organic manures and Chemical fertilizers a FYM Tonnes 6.29 3.72 b Seed Treatment 1.Azospirillum g 123.5 2.Trichoderma g 296.4 c Chemical fertilizers 1.Nitrogenous kg 39.30 60.25 2.Phosphatic kg 46.78 72.54 3.Potassic kg 21.12 30.11 4.ZnSo4 kg 17.53 Total 124.73 162.9 d Plant protection chemicals lit 1.45 3.20
expression of the right hand side is the measure of percentage change in output/income due to shift in scale parameter (A) of the production function. The second bracketed expression is the difference between output elasticities each weighted by natural logarithms of the volume of that input used under non adopter category, a measure of change in output/income due to shift in slope parameters (output elasticities) of the production function. The third bracketed expression is the sum of the natural logarithms of the ratio of each input of adopters (OF) to non-adopters, each weighted by the output elasticity of that input. This is a measure of change in output due to change in the per hectare quantities of seeds, organic manures, human labour, bullock labour, machine labour, chemical fertilizers and plant protection chemicals. Results and discussion The Table 1 revealed the pattern of inputs utilized and yield realized in paddy cultivation by the OFD farmers and traditional farmers in the study area. The quantity of seed utilized by the traditional farmers was higher (88.29 kg) as compared to OFD farmers (84.12 kg). The OFD and traditional farmers have used improved variety and local variety respectively. The traditional farmers had maintained higher plant population per hectare which was greatly infected by the outbreak of blast disease in fields which was due to the use of untreated paddy seeds. The yield realized in paddy cultivation revealed that, the OFD farmers harvested (45.89 q/ha) which was higher as compared to their traditional counterparts (37.66 q/ha). OFD farmers obtained 5.34 tonnes per hectare of paddy straw yield where as traditional farmers realized 4.23 tonnes per hectare. As a result, the gross
Table 2. Cost and returns in paddy cultivation by OFD and Traditional farmers (` /ha) Particulars OFD Traditional I Variable Cost (VC) Value Percentage Value Percentage 1 Seeds 1446.90 4.71 1759.30 5.42 2 Seed Treatment Chemicals 148.20 0.49 3 FYM 1887.50 6.27 1217.37 3.77 4 Fertilizers 2475.85 8.23 4802.35 14.80 5 Human Labour 11928.80 39.52 10109.36 31.15 6 Bullock labour 1320.83 4.34 1458.33 4.49 7 Machine labour 3587.50 11.60 3087.40 9.53 8 Plant protection chemicals 2161.33 7.18 4720.72 14.55 9 Interest on working capital @ 7% per annum 1746.98 5.87 1900.83 5.85 Total Variable Cost ( TVC) 26703.89 88.21 29055.66 89.56 II Fixed Cost (FC) 1 Land revenue 50 0.17 50 0.16 2 Depreciation charges 150.58 0.50 176.29 0.54 3 Rental value of land 2800 9.21 2800 8.62 4 Interest on fixed assets @12% per annum 360.06 1.91 363.15 1.12 Total Fixed Cost (TFC) 3330.64 11.79 3389.44 10.44 Total cost of cultivation (I+II) 30064.53 100.00 32445.10 100.00 III Returns 1 Main product 50479 91.74 39543 90.62 2 Byproduct 4539 8.26 4095.5 9.38 3 Gross Returns 55018 100.00 43638.50 100.00 4 Net Returns 24953.47 11193.40 5 Returns per rupee of expenditure 1.82 1.34 6 Increase in cost in OFD over traditional paddy farmers -2380.57 7 Increase in returns over traditional paddy farms 11379.50 8 Net additional returns 13760.07 370
Economics of resource use ............................... returns obtained by OFD farmers were higher than those of traditional farmers. The details of cost incurred, gross realized in paddy cultivation by demonstrated and traditional farmers are shown in Table 2. In OFD farmers, total cost incurred per hectare ` 30065, among which the variable cost accounted for more than three-fourth (88.21%). Among various components of variable cost, the expenditure incurred on human labour accounted (39.52%). This was followed by machine labour (11.60%) which is mainly due to the involvement of more labour at various stages of paddy cultivation. In traditional farmers, total cost incurred per hectare ` 32445 among this the variable cost accounted for more than threefourth (89.56%). Among various components of variable cost, the expenditure incurred on human labour was high accounted for (31%) which may be due to, more labour involvement in plant protection chemical (PPC) application and expenditure on PPC was very low among OFD farmers (` 2161) compared to traditional farmers (` 4721). This reflected that OFD farmers had good knowledge about the consequences of pesticides. The results of the economics of paddy production are in line with the findings of Saikumar et al. 2010. It has been observed that among OFD farmers, various cultural practices have wide spread adoption as against low adoption of biological practices. In cultural practices all the OFD farmers (100%) have practiced summer ploughing operation. This has clearly indicated that, the summer ploughing helped in exposing pupae to sunlight and this operation resulted in the better performance of paddy crop by minimizing insect pests. These results are in conformity with Venkatesh Gandi et al. 2007. The production function estimates for OFD and traditional farmers in paddy production are presented in Table 3. It revealed that the value of co-efficient of determination (R2) was found to be 0.89 and 0.83 in case of OFD and traditional farmers, respectively. This revealed that the independent variables included in the model have explained 89 and 83 per cent of variation in the dependent variable of demonstrated and traditional farmers, respectively. However, there was considerable difference in the extent of influence of different factors on paddy yield. The elasticities of organic manure, human labour and demonstrated components were positive and significant among OFD farmers whereas in case of traditional farmers, the variables such as bullock labour and chemical fertilizers were found to be significant. The estimated R2 values are in congruence with Sivanagaraju, 2006. To identify the structural break in production with the introduction of demonstrated technology in paddy production, the Cobb-Douglas type of production function was used. Production function with technology dummy variable was fitted for identifying structural break in production relations between the OFD and traditional farmers. Production function with one for OFD farmers and zero for traditional farmers was estimated. The regression co-efficient for dummy variable was significant which implied that the parameter governing the input-
Table 3. Production function estimates in paddy production on OFD and traditional farms Particulars Parameter OFD Traditional Pooled No. of observations n 60 60 120 Intercept a 14.970 10.074 6.542 (1.519) (1.022) (2.30) Seed (`) X1 0.390** 0.014 0.069 (0.225) (0.014) (0.299) FYM (`) X2 0.194** 0.029 -0.107* (0.051) (0.011) (0.029) Fertilizer (`) X3 0.207** 0.189** 0.383* (0.029) (0.027) (0.281) PPC (`) X4 0.0017* 0.154** 0.060 (0.046) (0.072) (0.071) Human labour (`) X5 0.217** 0.042* 0.167* (0.097) (0.021) (0.117) Bullock labour (`) X6 0.092 0.157** -0.008 (0.036) (0.062) (0.016) Machine labour (`) X7 0.326** -0.081 0.031 (0.1269) (0.313) (0.013) Intercept dummy X8 16.289* (3.993) Slope Dummy Seed (`) X9 1.363** (0.374) FYM (`) X 10 0.026* (0.032) Fertilizer (`) X 11 0.439** (0.284) PPC (`) X 12 0.115* (0.078) Human labour (`) X 13 0.087** (0.120) Bullock labour (`) X 14 0.017 (0.018) Machine labour (`) X 15 0.006** (0.014) Coefficient of multiple R2 0.91 0.85 0.986 determination Adjusted R2 Value R2 0.89 0.83 0.984 F Value F 148.82 137.38 516.997 Note: ** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 5% level Figures in parentheses indicate standard errors of coefficient
output relations in case of OFD farmers was different from those of traditional farmers. Thus, the results provided the necessary proof for decomposing the total change per hectare output with the adoption of demonstrated technology. The Table 4 depicts the decomposition of the technological component from the demonstrations. The adopters of demonstrated technology produced 25.68 per cent higher paddy output than the traditional farmers. The increase in the output was further decomposed into different sources of change such as adoption of demonstrated technology and all other inputs. The demonstrated technology alone contributed 17.35 per cent increase in output, while the contribution of all other inputs was found to be positive (8.33%). Amongst the various inputs, plant protection chemicals (-1.89%), chemical fertilizer (-8.09%), and seed (-2.68%) had negative contribution. Thus, by marginally reducing the use of chemical fertilizer and
371
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 28(3): 2015 Table 4. Decomposition of productivity difference between the demonstrated paddy yield and the traditional paddy yield Particulars In per cent I Total estimated difference in the gross income 25.68 II Sources of income growth 1 Technology component 17.35 a Neutral component 678.18 b Non-neutral component -660.83 2 Input use difference 8.33 a Seeds (` per acre) -2.68 b FYM (` per acre) 4.37 c Organic manure/Fertilizers (` per acre) -8.09 d Biopesticides/PPC (` per acre) -1.89 e Human labour (` per acre) 3.22 f Bullock labour (` per acre) 2.16 g Machine labour (` per acre) 11.24
substantially reducing the use of plant protection chemicals, demonstrated farmers can realize higher returns in paddy production. These results are in conformity with Basavaraja et al. 2008. The effectiveness of the demonstrated technology in timely control of insect pests which led to the increase in the paddy
output is thus clearly indicated. The results also suggested that for achieving better adoption level of demonstrated practices the neighbourhood farmers play an important role in decision making process. The non availability of quality demonstrated inputs in the paddy producing lands was a major setback. Hence, in order to create better awareness to change the mindset of the neighbourhood farmers about demonstrated practices, the demonstrations conducted in farmer’s fields on large scale would improve the adoption level of demonstrated practices by the traditional farmers. The results are comparable to the findings of Priyanka et al. 2015. The adoption of demonstrated technology concluded that majority of the demonstrated practicing farmers were relatively lesser in adoption of bio agents and botanicals was found to be low and which had a positive impact on yield and ecosystem. Hence, an extensive training on demonstrated technology needs to be arranged and these inputs should be supplied at subsidized prices in the local market so that the farmers can afford them. This implied that the adoption of demonstrated technology has to be encouraged by extension activities to harvest its full benefits. Hence, the results highlight the judicious utilization and timely use of resources to increase the paddy production.
References Basavaraja, H., Mahajanashetti, S. B. and Sivanagaraju, P., 2008, Technological Change in Paddy Production: A Comparative Analysis of Traditional and SRI Methods of Cultivation. Ind. J. Agri. Econ., 63(4).
Saikumar, B. C., 2010, Sustainable Approach of On-Farm Demonstrations (OFD) and its Socio-Economic Impact on Farmers in the Tank Commands of North Eastern Karnataka, International Conference on Applied Economics, pp. 91-99.
Barret, C. B., Moser, C. M., McHugh, O. and Bavison, J., 2004, Better Technology, Better Plots or Better Farmers and Quest: Identifying Changes in Productivity and Risk among Malagasy Rice Farmers. American J. Agric. Econ., 86(4): 869-888.
Sivanagaraju, P., 2006, Traditional and SRI Methods of Paddy Cultivation - A Comparative Economic Analysis, M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka.
Priyanka, K., Joycy Dasari, R., Mamatha, C., and Laxmi, N. T., 2015, Economics of Transplanted, Dibbled and Line Sown Methods of Red gram Cultivation in Bidar District of Karnataka. Res. J. Agri. Sci., 6 (1): 166-169.
Venkatesh Gandi, R., Hanchinal, S. N., Shivamurthy, M. and Shailaja Hittalamani, 2007, Adoption of Integrated Pest Management Practices among Tomato Growers. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 21(1): 17-19.
Saikumar, B. C., 2005, Farming System in the Tank Commands in North Eastern Karnataka – An Economic Analysis of Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha Manages Tanks, M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka.
372
