Is the Organic System Economically Viable? The ...

Download PDF
0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
Comment
Jan 25, 2017 - present value (NPV), B/C ratio (BCR), and internal rate of return (IRR) as ..... Note .z Modified internal rate of return. (MIRR) was calculated with.
International Journal of Fruit Science

ISSN: 1553-8362 (Print) 1553-8621 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wsfr20

Is the Organic System Economically Viable? The Case of Pineapple in India’s Northeast Ujjwal Kanti Paul, Gurudas Das, Avishek Ray & Tanuj Mathur To cite this article: Ujjwal Kanti Paul, Gurudas Das, Avishek Ray & Tanuj Mathur (2017) Is the Organic System Economically Viable? The Case of Pineapple in India’s Northeast, International Journal of Fruit Science, 17:3, 269-279, DOI: 10.1080/15538362.2016.1276507 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2016.1276507

Published online: 25 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 27

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wsfr20 Download by: [National Research Centre for Citrus ]

Date: 21 July 2017, At: 23:59

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRUIT SCIENCE 2017, VOL. 17, NO. 3, 269–279 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2016.1276507

Is the Organic System Economically Viable? The Case of Pineapple in India’s Northeast Ujjwal Kanti Paul, Gurudas Das, Avishek Ray, and Tanuj Mathur Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology Silchar, Assam, India

ABSTRACT

This study intends to fill the gaps in the organic agriculture literature emerging from infrequent use of farm budget-related data, overlooking the imputed costs and non-existence of long-run return and profitability estimates. The results suggest that the organic system is economically unviable as the growers fail to recover their total production cost. However, growers’ returns exceed their ‘perceived’ production cost, which excludes their imputed expenses. Temporal, spatial, and size-based analysis also attests to this. On the contrary, cultivation in two sample villages where the household’s size, its head’s age, percentage of land, and yield are significantly higher, remain economically viable.

KEYWORDS

Economic viability; organic system; pineapple; India

Introduction Indian economy is standing at a crossroads: as the overall economy is growing fast, the primary sector, that provides employment to nearly 60% of the population, has shrunk considerably. In this context, Dreze and Sen (2013) have deemed India’s development project—wherein an increase in income is not reflected in the per capita food consumption—as a ‘massive failure’. With 17.3% of the global population and 15.1% of the world’s undernourished people, India ranks 80 out of 104 countries in the Global Hunger Index (WFP, 2016). The produce from the most cultivated land in the country has left nearly 15% of its population underfed (FAO, 2014b). How would India then boost its food production by nearly 30%—333 million tonnes is required to provide for a projected population of 1.7 billion (FICCI, 2015)—by 2050? India’s forests, constituting more than 23% of its total land (FAO, 2014a), still remain under-harnessed. A World Bank report envisages that the rural forest incomes in India can rise ten-fold—from USD 222 million in 2004 to about USD 2 billion—by 2020 (World Bank, 2006). With 17.1 million ha forest area (65% of the total land), the northeastern region (NER) of the country is considered to be one of the most ecologically sensitive hotspots in the world (ICAR, 2007). The humid subtropical climate of the region makes CONTACT Ujjwal Kanti Paul [email protected] Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Institute of Technology, Silchar, Assam 788710, India. © 2017 Taylor & Francis

270

U. K. PAUL ET AL.

it an ideal habitat for rare and rich flora and fauna, and also suitable for producing a wide range of fruits, vegetables, flowers, herbs, and aromatic plants, etc. Pineapple is the second largest commercially-grown horticultural crop in the region. The region produces nearly half of the country’s total, though without using any chemical inputs (SFAC, 2012). The economic viability of the organic system in the developed, as well as favorable, areas of developing countries is rarely contested. However, there exists a debate on whether a premium price is a prerequisite for making the organic system viable [Brumfield et al. (2000), IFAD (2005), McBride and Greene (2008), Singh and Grover (2011) among others believe in the pivotal role of premium price, while others like Diebel et al. (1995), Delate et al. (2002), Eyhorn et al. (2005), Pimentel et al. (2005), Eyhorn et al. (2007), and Panneerselvam et al. (2011) do not consider it to be a prerequisite]. Notwithstanding the debate, very few studies focus on the organic system, let alone use farm-budget-related data. Moreover, long-term studies are almost non-existent. Another major shortcoming in the present organic farming literature is the elision of non-cash expenditures (Nemes, 2009). Unlike in the developed countries, these expenditures comprising wages to family labor, rent from one’s own land, interest on one’s own capital, etc., which accounts for a significant portion of the total cost, are not factored in while assessing the production cost (Mendoza, 2002). The present study intends to address these gaps, while producing accurate estimates of production costs, assessing returns and profitability scenarios, and in so doing, evaluate the economic viability of pineapple cultivation under the organic system in India’s northeast. This will be helpful not only for the growers, but also for the managers, outreach agents and policy analysts to optimize farm operations. In particular, the article aims to make two major contributions to the organic farming literature. First, it assesses the cost of production based on farm-budget-related data inclusive of the imputed costs. Second, it estimates the long-run return and profitability scenarios of the organic system. The following section describes the sampling plan and data. The third section discusses the methodology and the fourth section presents and analyzes the results. The final section summarizes the findings and briefs policy issues. Sampling plan and data A multistage sampling plan has been adopted. The primary data for the study comes from the survey of 270 randomly selected organic pineapple-growing households in six major producing villages, three each from the two largest producing states of the region, Assam and Tripura. At first, the list of pineapple growing households in each of the villages has been obtained from the respective village heads. This data is then categorized into three categories based on orchard size (small: ˂1 ha, medium: 1–2 ha, and large: >2 ha) and five groups based on

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRUIT SCIENCE

271

orchard age (phase I: 0–1.5, phase II: 1.5–5, phase III: 6–12, phase IV: 13–20, and phase V: 21–25 years) in such a way that each size category contains five age groups and each age group includes three size categories. Finally, a sample of three households has been randomly selected from each age group (15 from each size category) making the total sample size 45 for every village. The data has been collected using a structured questionnaire during March–August 2015.

Methodology The absence of a proper farm accounting system keeps us from deploying techniques like production function, cost function, and linear programming for evaluating the economic viability of the perennial crops. Furthermore, a longer life span and the gestation period between initial investment and its recovery, varying phases of growth and bearing, and different magnitude of cost-and-return across the life cycle of the perennial crops also complicate the economic analysis. Following Varghese (2007), we have used the life cycle approach wherein the sample households in each village are arranged in the form of a life cycle. Various components of the total cost incurred during different phases of cultivation are then categorized as in cost A, B, C and D. Cost A, which is the out-of-pocket cost of the cultivators includes value of hired labor (HL), value of planting material (PM), land revenue (LR), miscellaneous expenses (ME), and interest on working capital (IWK). Cost B comprises all the elements of cost A in addition to depreciation of fixed capital excluding land (Dep) and interest on fixed capital (IFK). Similarly, Cost C includes all the elements of Cost B in addition to the imputed value of family labor (IVFL). The total cost, i.e., cost D, is obtained by adding rental value of own land (RVOL) to cost C. Based on Paul et al. (2016), the following procedures were used for imputation of costs. First, family labor cost has been imputed at par with the prevailing market wage rate. For this purpose, the labor unit equivalents are considered to be 0 for child (0–9) and aged (above 70), 0.5 for youth (10–14), 0.8 for adult female (15–70), and 1 for adult male (15–70). Second, interest on owned fixed capital has been charged at the rate of 10% per annum on the present value of the fixed assets. Third, interest on working capital for borrowed sum has been calculated based on actual rate. Owned working capital has been charged at the rate of 12.5% per annum for half the duration of the crop. Fourth, since growers do not cultivate pineapple in rented land; the rental value of owned land has been calculated using contingent valuation method for each household. Fifth, depreciation on fixed capital is worked out by dividing the original cost by the life of the asset. In case of unavailability of the original cost, it is estimated based on the present value and remaining life of the asset.

272

U. K. PAUL ET AL.

Long run return and profitability scenarios have been assessed using net present value (NPV), B/C ratio (BCR), and internal rate of return (IRR) as shown below. (i) Net Present Value (NPV): NPV ¼

n X t¼1

n X Bt Ct  t t: ð1 þ θÞ t¼1 ð1 þ θÞ

(ii) Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR): BCR ¼

n X t¼1

n X Bt Ct = : t ð1 þ θÞ t¼1 ð1 þ θÞt

(iii) Internal Rate of Return (IRR): IRR ¼

n X Bt  Ct t ¼ 0: t¼1 ð1 þ θÞ

Here, Bt is the benefit obtained in the year ‘t’; Ct is the cost incurred during the year ‘t’; θ is the rate of discount; and t is the age of the crop. Results and discussion The average investment required for setting up a pineapple orchard in the study area is found to be Rs 145,325 (Table 1), of which 68% is out-of-pocket cost (cost-head A). The physically demanding nature of the preliminary set-up prohibits young adults and female members from participating. This is why contribution from family labor accounts for only 21.22% of the total cost. Except for households with larger orchards and/or smaller families, others, starting Table 1. Age wise break up of cost of cultivation. Cost components HL PM LR ME IWK Cost A DEP IFK Cost B IVFL Cost C RVOL Cost D Revenue/ha Price/kg

≤1.5 1.5–5 6–12 13–20 21–25 Overall 63,757 32,683 (1.24) 40,292 (1.31) 33,801 (1.17) 33,532 (1.25) 35,186 (1.25) 33,360 1,168 (0.04) 1,603 (0.05) 2,164 (0.08) 2,747 (0.10) 1,929 (0.07) 90 93 (0.00) 93 (0.00) 95 (0.00) 95 (0.00) 94 (0.00) 0 3,366 (0.13) 3,316 (0.11) 3,656 (0.13) 3,122 (0.12) 3,358 (0.12) 2,336 3,517 (0.13) 3,695 (0.12) 3,606 (0.13) 3,678 (0.14) 3,627 (0.13) 99,544 40,828 (1.55) 48,999 (1.59) 43,322 (1.50) 43,173 (1.60) 44,193 (1.56) 4,272 14,653 (0.56) 26,749 (0.87) 41,776 (1.45) 56,910 (2.11) 35,256 (1.25) 4,722 6,394 (0.24) 4,896 (0.16) 2,360 (0.08) 1,898 (0.07) 3,876 (0.14) 108,538 61,875 (2.35) 80,644 (2.62) 87,458 (3.04) 101,981 (3.79) 83,325 (2.95) 30,844 38,428 (1.46) 39,363 (1.28) 40,075 (1.39) 40,275 (1.50) 39,545 (1.40) 139,382 100,303 (3.82) 120,007 (3.89) 127,533 (4.43) 142,256 (5.29) 122,870 (4.35) 5,943 6,006 (0.23) 5,999 (0.19) 5,982 (0.21) 6,011 (0.22) 6,000 (0.21) 145,325 106,309 (4.04) 126,005 (4.09) 133,514 (4.64) 148,267 (5.51) 128,870 (4.56) — 113,419 137,430 114,736 100,029 116,607 — 26,284 30,817 28,797 26,908 28,240 — 4.32 4.46 3.98 3.72 4.13

Note. The figures in parentheses represent cost per kilogram of pineapple.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRUIT SCIENCE

273

from phase II (1.5–5 years), tend to substitute HL with family labor. As a result, the share of out-of-pocket cost in the total (cost-head D) decreases sharply. On the other hand, yield and revenue when plotted against the age of the orchard gives us, in both of the cases, bell-shaped curves with the peaks touching the 6–12 years mark. Avoiding organic or synthetic fertilizers that lead to decrease in plant productivity and fruit size over time explains the contour of the curve. Moreover, aging orchards also suffer due to rapid formation of weeds, which adversely affect the productivity and fruit size. Except for 1.5–5 and 6–12 years age groups, the revenue earned by the growers remains less than their total cost, thus casting doubt over the sustainability of the organic system. Cost per kilogram of pineapple under the organic system ranges between Rs 4.04 and Rs 5.51, the average being Rs 4.56 (Table 1). The share of the out-ofpocket cost is the highest in the 1.5–5 years age group and the lowest in the 21–25 years age group. The total labor expenditure (HL and IVFL) and orchard age are inversely related. This could be due to the falling yield that demands lesser manpower during the harvesting operation. The share of out-of-pocket cost in the total is found to be maximum for the 6–12 years age group and minimum in the 21–25 years age group. Although the price realized by the growers belonging to both 1.5–5 years and 6–12 years age groups exceeds their cost-head D, others were even unable to recover cost-head C. Among the three size categories, smallholders incur the lowest cost followed by the large and the medium holders (Table 2). As expected, while the imputed expenditure towards family labor is the most important component of the total cost for the small holders, out-of-pocket expenditure on hired labor turns out to be the same for the large holders. More than 86% of the total cost incurred by the small holders is of imputed nature and as such remains unaccounted when determining the farm gate price. The same for medium and large holders are Table 2. Orchard size wise break up of per-unit cost of cultivation of pineapple. Cost components HL PM LR ME IWK Cost A DEP IFK Cost B IVFL Cost C RVOL Cost D Revenue/ha Yield/ha Price/kilogram

Small 6,875 (0.25) 2,325 (0.08) 94 (0.00) 4,612 (0.17) 3,175 (0.12) 17,080 (0.62) 37,401 (1.36) 3,875 (0.14) 58,356 (2.12) 59,183 (2.16) 117,540 (4.28) 5,958 (0.22) 123,498 (4.50) 107,942 27,463 3.93

Medium 26,346 (0.95) 1,952 (0.07) 95 (0.00) 3,450 (0.12) 3,508 (0.13) 35,351 (1.27) 39,294 (1.41) 3,422 (0.12) 78,066 (2.81) 46,515 (1.67) 124,581 (4.49) 5,979 (0.22) 130,561 (4.70) 114,782 27,771 4.13

Large 47,086 (1.64) 1,817 (0.06) 93 (0.00) 2,990 (0.10) 3,806 (0.13) 55,791 (1.94) 32,558 (1.13) 4,118 (0.14) 92,467 (3.22) 30,842 (1.08) 123,309 (4.30) 6,021 (0.21) 129,331 (4.51) 119,780 28,688 4.18

Note. The figures in parentheses represent cost per kilogram of pineapple.

Overall 35,186 (1.25) 1,929 (0.07) 94 (0.00) 3,358 (0.12) 3,627 (0.13) 44,193 (1.56) 35,256 (1.25) 3,876 (0.14) 83,325 (2.95) 39,545 (1.40) 122,870 (4.35) 6,000 (0.21) 128,870 (4.56) 116,607 28,240 4.13

274

U. K. PAUL ET AL.

Table 3. Return and profitability of pineapple cultivation per hectare. @ 8% Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

head A B C D

NPV 789,463 418,716 –111,926 –180,793

B/C 9.88 5.25 0.21 –0.23

@ 10% IRR 84 16z 4z 1z

NPV 663,402 356,674 –102,306 –161,920

B/C 8.46 4.62 0.27 –0.10

@ 12% IRR 84 17z 6z 3z

NPV 564,182 305,820 –97,355 –149,775

B/C 7.35 4.11 0.31 –0.02

IRR 84 19z 8z 5z

Note. zModified internal rate of return (MIRR) was calculated with 12% financing rate. Source: Authors’ estimation from field survey data.

found to be 73% and 57%, respectively. Both yield and revenue per hectare are found to be the highest among the large holders and the lowest among the small holders, who can only afford to weed less frequently. The mean income of growers across the three size categories is less than their respective total cost (cost-head D). As a result of the small holder’s reliance on family labor, his share of non-out-ofpocket cost is nearly 68% more than that of the large holder. However, during the fixation of the farm gate prices, this is hardly ever factored in. This is why the accounting techniques concerning the imputed costs have to be re-examined. The long-term return and profitability analysis show, with reference to the cost-heads C and D (in Table 3), that the status of pineapple cultivation in the study area is extremely uneconomical. However, up till cost-head B, cultivation is profitable given the present value of projected earnings (NPV) is positive, the profitability index (BCR) exceeds 1, and the internal rate of return (IRR) exceeds the cost of capital. Analysis of return and profitability based on orchard size also yields similar results, although for small holders, at least up till cost-head B, the NPV, the BCR, and the IRR are higher (Table 4). The village level analysis of the return and profitability reveals that cultivation of pineapple is a profitable venture across all of the sampled villages at the level of cost-head A, i.e., the out-of-pocket cost (Table 5). At the level of cost-head B, for the villages in Tripura, the NPV is negative, the BCR is less than 1, and the cost of capital exceeds the IRR. This deems the cultivation unviable. At the level of cost-head C, Labongkhal (Assam) faces a similar fate. Finally, at the level of cost-head D, all but two villages in Assam face economic unviability. This prompts us to ask: how does the cultivation only in these two villages among the six suffice to be sustainable? Table 4. Size wise distribution of return and profitability situations. Small Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost

head A B C D

NPV 1,016,786 630,570 –64,927 –134,027

B/C 16.78 9.39 0.55 0.12

Medium IRR 119 18z 8z 6z

NPV 835,304 466,803 –93,189 –161,433

B/C 9.99 5.56 0.35 –0.08

Large IRR 112 16z 7z 5z

NPV 663,236 316,920 –60,858 –130,639

Note. zModified internal rate of return (MIRR) was calculated with 12% financing rate. Source: Authors’ estimation based on field survey data.

B/C 7.07 3.70 0.55 0.07

IRR 61 14z 8z 6z

1,346,499 14.81 92 884,105 9.27 71 266,480 2.86 13z 180,014 2.19 12z

989,205 11.92 123

263,428 2.88 13z

194,255 2.33 12z

Digor Fulertol-III

1,350,091 17.58 185

Dakhin Fulertol

881,164 9.97 85 199,238 2.40 12z 128,285 1.86 11z

–37,907 0.74 8z –95,551 0.36 7z

1,279,484 15.41 124

Assam

693,721 8.15 17z

1,099,466 13.58 105

Labongkhal

Note. zModified internal rate of return (MIRR) was calculated with 12% financing rate. Source: Authors’ estimation based on field survey data.

Cost A NPV B/C IRR Cost B NPV B/C IRR Cost C NPV B/C IRR Cost D NPV B/C IRR

Table 5. Economic appraisal of pineapple cultivation in each sample village.

–504,867 –2.31 –6.37z

–394,246 –1.99 –2.96z

–336,602 –1.65 –1.29z

29,582 1.33 9.79z

–23,795 0.78 8.91z –433,619 –1.96 –3.47z

319,560 4.83 55.68

Kathalchera

348,647 4.78 15.22z

Kanchanchera

–562,709 –2.71 –7.15z

–491,873 –2.37 –4.72z

–136,615 –0.38 4.99z

222,060 3.43 32.53

Nalkata

–491,367 –2.38 –13.89z

–424,769 –2.04 –8.12z

–47,391 0.52 7.97z

293,906 4.30 47.79

Tripura

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRUIT SCIENCE 275

276

U. K. PAUL ET AL.

Table 6. Comparison of viable and unviable villages based on socio-economic characteristics. Variables Age Contract Direct participation Distance Education Extension contact Family size Credit status Orchard’s age Off-farm income Percentage of land Access to price information Access to transport facility Yield

Viable villages (Dakhin Fulertol and Digor Fulertol-III) 52.95 0.23 0.16 3.94 7.43 0.23 5.02 0.20 13.09 0.12 77.94 0.34 0.20 37,338

Unviable villages (Labongkhal, Kanchanchhara, Kathalchhara, and Nalkata) 49.07 0.38 0.20 5.31 6.78 0.20 4.63 0.20 12.83 0.18 53.12 0.14 0.26 23,016

P value 0.005*** 0.005*** 0.456 0.000*** 0.122 0.648 0.002*** 0.906 0.811 0.223 0.000*** 0.002*** 0.361 0.000***

Note. ***Significant at 1% level.

We invoke the socio-economic characteristics—though not exhaustively —as an explanatory tool. Table 6 shows that the mean values of age, preharvest contract, distance from secondary market, family size, the percentage of land, access to price information and yield significantly vary between viable and unviable villages. Since pineapples in our study area are cultivated using the traditional method, experienced growers understandably have better knowledge to optimize the available resources. In the case of larger families, farmers depend less on hired labor, which is considered less efficient than family labor (Masterson, 2007). Besides, large families empower growers to market their produce directly, bypassing the middlemen, and eventually fetch higher prices. Pre-harvest contract with the wholesalers—who enjoy a stronger bargaining power—might harm the interest of the growers by putting price and quantity restrictions. Nearness to a secondary market allows the growers in viable villages to sell their produce directly to end customers bypassing exploitative middlemen and thereby earn higher revenues. By allocating a higher percentage of land to pineapple, growers not only undertake a higher risk that compels them to be more careful towards their cultivation decisions but also takes the advantage of economies of scale in production and marketing activities. Perhaps yield is the most significant factor that works in favor of the growers in viable villages. Conclusion and policy issues The present study has examined the economic viability of pineapple cultivation in India’s NER under the organic system. While doing so, it has attempted to address some of the commonly found lacunas in the existing

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRUIT SCIENCE

277

organic farming literature—rare usage of farm budget related data, absence of long run profitability and return estimates, and overlooking of non-cash expenditure—particularly in the context of the developing countries. The results indicate that the production of pineapple under the organic system is mostly unviable due to lower returns compared to higher costs. Temporal analysis of cost-heads reveals that households owning orchards up to 12 years old are able to generate more revenue than the production cost. However, for older orchards, the cost becomes higher than the revenue. Size-based analysis of cost shows that the average grower in none of the size groups is able to recover his cost of production. On the other hand, spatial analysis of return and profitability reveals that except for two sample villages—Dakhin Fulertol and Digor Fulertol-III—the cultivation is unviable where NPV, BCR, and IRR are unfavorable. Surprisingly, the growers still continue to cultivate perhaps because they (mis-)perceive their returns to be higher than the cost of production, i.e., cost-head A (out of pocket cost). This is detrimental to the sustainability of the system, and therefore, to the overall economic well-being of the growers. Minimizing the cost and/or maximizing the returns are prerequisites for making the organic system economically viable. Notionally speaking, cost reduction is achievable by optimizing resource utilization and/or increasing the scale of production and/or introducing breakthrough technologies. However, the scope for implementing the latter two options is limited in the hilly dryland areas. Therefore, the growers have to optimize the available resources, whatever little they have. For this, policy intervention along the lines of the commonly cited determinants of efficiency—education, extension contact, access to credit, marketing arrangement, price information, etc. (Bogale and Bogale, 2005; Bravo-Ureta and Pinheiro, 1997; Dhungana et al., 2004; Goyal et al., 2006; Haji, 2006)—is required. On the other hand, the return from pineapple cultivation can be increased by revamping the marketing strategies: maximize the growers’ share in consumers’ price, linking them directly with the secondary markets, minimize the traders’ margin, reduce marketing cost, lower wastages, integrate the local market with the national and global value chain, and above all, cater to the customer’s need. This research is likely to foster future researches on the level of efficiency of the organic growers, and determinants thereof, in India and beyond. In addition, the performance of the local markets accessed by the organic growers also needs to be studied in detail. Funding This research work forms a part of the doctoral thesis of Mr. Ujjwal Kanti Paul for which he is receiving financial support from the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR).

278

U. K. PAUL ET AL.

Literature cited Bogale, T., and A. Bogale. 2005. Technical efficiency of resource use in the production of irrigated potato: A study of farmers using modern and traditional irrigation schemes in Awi Zone, Ethiopia. J. Agr. Rural Dev. Trop. 106(1):59–70. Bravo-Ureta, B., and A. Pinheiro. 1997. Technical, economic and allocative efficiency in peasant farming: Evidence from the Dominican Republic. Dev. Econ. 35:48–67. Brumfield, R.G., A. Rimal, and S. Reiners. 2000. Comparative cost analyses of conventional, integrated crop management, and organic methods. HortTechnology 10:661–840. Delate, K., M. Duffy, C. Chase, A. Holste, H. Friedrich, and N. Wantate. 2002. Long-term agroecological research (LTAR) in Iowa: An economic comparison of organic and conventional grain crops. Amer. J. Altern. Agr. 18(2):59–69. Dhungana, R.B., P.L. Nuthall, and G.V. Nartea. 2004. Measuring the economic inefficiency of Nepalese rice farms using data envelopment analysis. Aust. J. Agr. Resources Ec. 48 (2):347–369. Diebel, P.L., J.R. Williams, and R.V. Llewelyn. 1995. An economic comparison of conventional and alternative cropping systems for a representative northeast Kansas farm. Rev. Agr. Econ. 17(3):120–127. Dreze, J., and A. Sen. 2013. An uncertain glory: India and its contradictions. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Eyhorn, F., P. Mader, and M. Ramakrishnan. 2005. The impact of organic cotton farming on the livelihoods of smallholders. FIBL Research Report, October 2005. 16 September 2016. http://goo.gl/VTyWEA. Eyhorn, F., M. Ramakrishnan, and P. Mäder. 2007. The viability of cotton-based organic farming systems in India. Int. J. Agr. Sustainability 5:25–38. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014a. FAO statistical yearbook 2014: Asia and the Pacific food and agriculture. 10 May 2016. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3590e.pdf. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2014b. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. 12 May 2016. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf. Goyal, S.K., K.S. Suhag, and U.K. Pandey. 2006. An estimation of technical efficiency of paddy farmers in Haryana state of India. Indian J. Agr. Econ. 61(1):108–122. Haji, J. 2006. Production efficiency of small holder’s vegetable dominated mixed farming system in Eastern Ethiopia: A non-parametric approach. J. Afr. Econ. 16:1–27. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). 2007. Vision 2025. 14 May 2016. http://goo. gl/XXoJMF. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2005. Organic agriculture and poverty reduction in Asia: China and India focus. Report No. 1664. 12 March 2016. https://goo.gl/E2anS9. Masterson, T. 2007. Productivity, technical efficiency and farm size in Parapuayan agriculture. 14 December 2015. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_490.pdf. McBride, W.D., and C. Greene. 2008. The profitability of organic soybean production. Am. Agr. Econ. Assoc. Ann. Mtg., Orlando, FL, July 27–29 July. Mendoza, T.C. 2002. Comparative productivity, profitability and energy use: Intensity and efficiency of organic, LEISA and conventional rice production in the Philippines. 18 May 2016. http://goo.gl/0gp6s8. Nemes, N. 2009. Comparative analysis of organic and non-organic farming systems: A critical assessment of farm profitability. 10 January 2016. http://www.fao.org/3/a-ak355e.pdf. Panneerselvam, P., J.E. Hermansen, and N. Halberg. 2011. Food security of small farmers: Comparing organic and conventional systems in India. J. Sustain. Agr. 35:48–68. DOI: 10.1080/10440046.2011.530506.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRUIT SCIENCE

279

Paul, U.K., G. Das, A. Ray, and T. Mathur. 2016. Economic efficiency and its effect on cost: A case study of organic pineapple in India’s northeast. Org. Agr. DOI: 10.1007/s13165-0160156-4. Pimentel, D., P. Hepperly, J. Hanson, and D. Douds. 2005. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. Bioscience 55 (7):573–582. Singh, I.P., and D.K. Grover. 2011. Economic viability of organic farming: An empirical evidence of wheat cultivation in Punjab. Agr. Econ. Res. Rev. 24:275–281. Small Farmers’ Agri-business Consortium (SFAC). 2012. Value chain analysis of select crops in North Eastern States. 17 October 2015. http://goo.gl/E5unIf. The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI). 2015. Transforming agriculture through mechanisation. 10 May 2016. http://goo.gl/rb5cW8. Varghese, P.K. 2007. Economics of cardamom cultivation in Kerala. Indian J. Agr. Econ. 62 (1):99–112. World Bank. 2006. The need for forest reform in India. 11 July 2016. goo.gl/i1Z0DN. World Food Programme (WFP). 2016. India country brief. 12 May 2016. http://goo.gl/ LxDeVb.