a study of farmers perception on use of pesticides …...dealers are the major player in case of...
TRANSCRIPT
A STUDY OF FARMERS PERCEPTION ON USE OF
PESTICIDES IN MAJOR CEREALS IN RAIPUR DISTRICT OF
CHHATTISGARH
M.B.A (ABM) Project Report
by
Laxmi verma
DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-BUSINESS & RURAL MANAGEMENT
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh)
2016
A STUDY OF FARMERS PERCEPTION ON USE OF
PESTICIDES IN MAJOR CEREALS IN RAIPUR DISTRICT OF
CHHATTISGARH
Project Report
Submitted to the
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur
by
Laxmi verma
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
Master of Business Administration
in
Agri-Business Management
V.V.ID.NO. 20141520409 ID. NO. 120114190
August, 2016
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“Jai Budha Dev, I start in the name of God-who has bestowed upon me all the physical and
mental attributes that I possess and skills to cut through and heal a fellow human. “Education plays of
fundamental role in personal and social development and teacher plays a fundamental role in imparting
education. Teachers have crucial role in preparing young people not only to face the further with
confidence but also to build up it with purpose and responsibility. There is no substitute for teacher
pupil relationship”.
With great reverence I express my warmest feelings with deep sense of gratitude to my
advisor and chairman of my Advisory committee Dr. V.K.Choudhary Professor, Department of
Agriculture Economics, IGKV, Raipur. I have no words to express my heartfelt thanks to him for his
illuminating guidance, unfailing encouragement, scholarly suggestions, unique supervision, construction
criticism, sympathetic attitude and keep interest during the course of my research and preparation of
this manuscript. He is really worthy of reverence for his blessings, stead inspiration, expert guidance.
I have deep regards for members of my advisory committee Dr. A.K.Koshta Professor,
Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture Raipur for his kind supervision,
motivation and support by which I was pushed towards hard working and punctuality. I extend my
heartiest thanks to members of my advisory committee, Dr. Navneet Rana, Professor, Department of
Agricultural Entomology, Dr. M.L. Lakhera Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural
Statistics, Mathematics and Computer Science,
I am expressing my sincere thanks to Dr. K. N. S. Banafar, Professor and Head of
department Agricultural Economics, Dr. S.P. Gupta, principle scientist, Dr. Hulas Pathak, Assistant
Professor,Dr. B.C. Jain, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, IGKV, Raipur for their
unforgettable support and kind help during the course of the study.
I am highly thankful to Dr. S.K. Patil hon’ble Vice-chancellor, IGKV, Shri. K. C. Paikra,
Registrar, IGKV, Dr. J. S. Urkurkar, Director research services, IGKV, Dr. M. P. Thakur director
extension services, IGKV, Dr. S. S. Rao, dean, College of Agriculture, Raipur and Dr. S. S. Shaw,
director of instructions, IGKV, Raipur for providing necessary facilities to conduct this research work.
ii
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Capter Title Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii
ABSTRACT Viii
ABSTRACT (HINDI) xi
I INTRODUCTION 1-4
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Objectives 3
1.3 Limitation of the study 3
1.4 Set up 4
II REVIEW OF LITRATURE 1-18
2.1 Economic of crop production 7
2.2 Consumption pattern of pesticide 12
2.3 Major Constraints in Paddy production 15
III MATERIAL AND METHODS 19-28
3.1 General profile of the study area 19
3.2. Brief profile of the stduy area 19
3.3. Description of Raipur district 21
3.4 Demographic features of raipur district 22
3.5 Distribution of land holding 23
3.6 Land use pattern 24
3.7 Cropping pattern of the study area 25
3.8 Irrigation 27
3.9 Administrative units 27
iv
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 29-55
4.1 Profile Characteristics of the Sample Households 29
4.2 Cropping pattern: 30
4.4 Consumption pattern of Agrochemicals 34
4.4.1 Use of Insecticide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha) 34
4.4.2 Use of Herbicide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha) 34
4.4.3 Use of Fungicide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha) 34
4.5 Economics of kharif paddy 44
4.5.1 Input wise Cost of cultivation of Kharif paddy 44
4.5.2 Operation wise cost of cultivation of Kharif paddy 46
4.5.3 Yield Value of Output and Cost of Production of Kharif
paddy 48
4.5.4 Measures of farm profit of Kharif paddy 50
4.5.5 Cost and Returns on the Basis of Cost Concept of
Kharif paddy 54
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 56-59
5.1 Summary 56
5.2 Conclusions 57
REFERENCES 60-63
APPENDICES 64-74
Appendix- I 64
Appendix- II 73
VITA 75
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
3.2 Demographic features of RaipurDistrict. 22
3.3
Village wise number of respondents and their farm size in selected
villages ofRaipur District. 23
3.4 Land use pattern of Raipur District 24
3.5 Area, production and productivity of different crops in Raipur
District 25
3.6 Irrigation sources of Raipur District 26
4.1 General characteristics of sample household 30
4.2 Cropping pattern of sample household 31
4.3 Herbicide quantity used in different varieties during kharif season
(a.i. per ha) 35
4.4 Fungicide quantity used in different varieties during kharif season
(a.i.per/ha) 36
4.5 Effectiveness of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides in kharif
rice in percentages 38
4.6
Economics of kharif paddy on different size groups of farms
(Variety- Mahamaya) 45
4.7
Economics of kharif paddy on different size groups of farms
(Variety- Swarna) 46
4.8 Cost of cultivation of Kharif Paddy (Variety-Mahamaya) 47
4.9 Cost of cultivation of Kharif Paddy (Variety- Swarna) 48
4.10
Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per quintal
of Kharif paddy (Variety –Mahamaya) 49
4.11 Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per quintal
of Kharif paddy (Variety – Swarna) 50
4.12
Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different
group of farms (Variety- Mahamaya) 51
4.13
Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different group
of farms (Variety- Swarna) 51
4.14
Break-up of total cost, cost concept wise income over different cost in
kharif paddy (Variety-Mahamaya) 54
4.15
Break-up of total cost, cost concept wise income over different cost in
kharif paddy (Variety-Swarna) 55
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
3.1 Map of Chhattisgarh and Study area. 20-21
4.1 Caste wise no. of household 32
4.2 Average of family members 32
4.3 Average size of holding 33
4.4 Literacy per cent of sample household 33
4.5
Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for
different groups of farms (Variety- Mahamaya) 52
4.6
Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for
different groups of farms (Variety- Swarna) 53
vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
qtl. Quintal
qt. Quantity
ha Hectare
% per cent
fig. figure
N Nitrogen
P Phosphorus
K Potash
a.i. active ingradient
ml milli litter
WP Weteble Powder
Kg. Kilo gramm
Fill Field input level
Rill Recommended input level
viii
ix
size was 4.27 and literacy rate in the selected households was 85.83 per cent. The
sample households comprised pre-dominantly of Other backward cast (94.00 per cent)
followed by other General (5.00 per cent) and scheduled caste (1.00) per cent. Paddy
covered highest cropped area 64.77s per cent in kharif season. The use of insecticide
in kharif paddy was higher in case of Imidacloprid 17.8% SL (+40.70 per cent)
followed by Aciphate (+23.22) and lowest in Chloropyariphos50%+ Cypermethrin
(+6.6 per cent). The above insecticide was used for controlling of Stem borer,
Cutworm, Plant hopper and Leaf folder. The use of herbicide in kharif paddy gap was
higher in case of Chlorymuron10%+Metasulfuran (+125 per cent) followed by
Pyrozosulphuran (+77) and lowest in Butachlor (+1.62 per cent). The above herbicide
was used for controlling of Buti, Bhengra, Motha, Jalkumbhi, Narjava, Aaluban,
Sanva, Loung ghass, Chunchuniya, Jalkumbhi, Tinpatiya and Broad leaf weeds.The
use of fungicide in kharif paddy was higher in case of Tricyclazole (+41.67 per cent)
followed by Hexaconazile (+31.67 Tricyclazole) and lowest in Propiconazole 25% EC
(21.90 per cent).The above fungicide was used for controlling of Blast, Sheath blight,
Brown spot and BLB. The average yield of kharif paddy was 54.07 quintals. The per
hectare gross income of kharif paddy was Rs. 95898. The average cost of production
per quintal of kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 931.85.The average yield of kharif
paddy was 52.41 quintals. The per hectare gross income of kharif paddy was
Rs.193551.5. The average cost of production per quintal of kharif paddy was worked
out to Rs. 814.26.On an average the value of net income, family labour income and
farm business income are to Rs. 145405.26, Rs. 51986.96 and Rs. 62380.14 per
hectare from kharif paddy. The input-output ratio of kharif paddy was worked out to
.On an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm business
income are to Rs. 51288.68, Rs. 56999.76 and Rs. 118912.51 per hectare from paddy.
The input-output ratio of paddy was worked out to .The per hectare break-up of cost
of kharif paddy variety (Mahamaya) on an average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2,
Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were worked to Rs. 33517.86, Rs. 33517.86, Rs.
33911.02, Rs. 43911.02, Rs. 39507.26, Rs.49507.26 and 42454.74 per hectare. The
average kharif paddy of income per hectare over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2,
x
Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were calculated to Rs. 62380.14, Rs. 62380.14, Rs.
61986.98, Rs. 51986.98, Rs. 56393.74, Rs. 46393.74 and Rs. 53443.26s. 36%
respondents thought that, there is lack of know- how about the application of
pesticides.78% respondents thought that, there is lack of recommended package of
practices for pesticides application in the region.85% respondents having lack of
resources application.90% respondents thought that they getting labour problem for
pesticide application.95% farmers know the recommended level of pesticide use in
cereal production. Majority of the farmers were participated in extension programme.
Dealers are the major player in case of purchase and use of pesticides in the study
area. Farmers are aware about the harmful effect of insecticides on soil, water and
human health. Farmers are using pesticides in cerals crops to reduce the losses due to
insect- pest. More awareness programme is needed for IPM practices.
xi
xii
x;kA] [kjhQ /kkU; esa dhV uk”kdks esa lokZf/kd] mi;ksx ,ehMkDyksjihM+ 17-8% SL ¼$
40-70 izfr”kr½ dk ik;k x;k] tcfd U;wure mi;ksx DyksjksikbZjhQkl 50% $
lkbZijehfFku ¼$6-6 izfr”kr½ dk ik;k x;kA [kjhc /kkU; esa QQwanuk”kdksa esa lokZf/kd
mi;ksx VªkbZlkbZDyktksbZ- ¼$41-67 izfr”kr½ dk tcfd U;wure esa izksihdksuktksy 25%
EC ¼$ 21-90 izfr”kr½ dk ik;k x;kA [kjhQ /kkU; esa r`.kuk”kdksa esa mi;ksx
Dyksjksik;jhQkl 25% + esVklsY¶;wjksu ¼$ 12-05 izfr”kr½ tcfd U;wure izHkko”khyrk
Js.kh C;wVkDyksj 0&25 izfr”kr ¼$1-62 izfr”kr½ fdlkuksa }kjk /kkU; ds mRiknu es a eq[;
vojks/k Jfedksa dh deh] eagxh Jfed ykxr] eagxs vknku] dhV vkSj jksaxksa dk izdksi
crk;sa x;saA vknku vkSj ewY; lao/kZu ls v/;;u {ks= esa tSfod [ksrh dks c<+kok fn;k
tkuk pkfg;sA
1
CHAPTER – I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
In modern agriculture plant protection plays a vital role. Fertilizers, plant
protection measures, irrigation and improved seeds are the key elements of new
agriculture of technology. The new technology is unfortunately associated with the
high pests and disease incidences. In the absence of adequate plant protection
measures, the positive contribution of improved seeds, fertilizers and irrigation to
output could be completely nullified and farmers may incur heavy losses. An Agro-
chemical includes such chemicals as insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and
fertilizer, which are used on plants, soil and water to control pest and diseases. The
use of pesticides to prevent pre-harvest and post-harvest losses has assumed a great
significance during the last two decades, in an attempt to provide sufficient nutritive
food for the ever growing world population. Unless production inputs are matched
with protection measures, yield increases are not possible. Slightly more than 50 per
cent of all yield increases in agriculturally advanced countries of the world today are
the result of agro-chemicals. India ranks 10th in the world in pesticides consumption
as its total consumption amounts to about 500 million tonnes. India is presently the
largest manufacturer of basic pesticides among the South Asian and African
countries, with an exception of Japan. The Indian pesticides market is the 12th
largest in the world (Anonymous, 2012).
Agriculture is the pillar of the Indian economy and contributes 18 per cent to
the GDP. Ensuring food security for more than 1.27 billion Indian populations with
diminishing cultivable land resource is a herculean task. In the process of achieving
the target pesticides play an important role in Indian agriculture. Pesticides, the
agrochemicals, are one of the invaluable inputs in sustaining the agricultural
production as substantial food production is lost due to insect pests, plant pathogens,
weeds etc. However since the green revolution (1966) has been started in India, the
application of these chemicals increased more than hundred times and causing
14
14
tremendous loss to environment and human health. Indiscriminate and excessive use
of toxic synthetic pesticides damaged not only environment and agriculture but has
also entered into the food chain thereby affecting all living beings. The recent
research findings on the presence of pesticide particles in the packaged water are
classic cases pointing out the nature and magnitude of the problem.(Bhardwaj et al.,)
Pesticides have substantially contributed for controlling of pests and
increasing crop yields.But over the years there is growing concern about
indiscriminate use of pesticides in agriculture. The consumption of chemical
pesticides in agriculture went up from 2,350 metric tones (technical grade) in 1950-
51 to 75,033 metric tones (MT) in 1990-91, and subsequently declined to 39,773.78
metric tones in 2005-06. The recent statistics on consumption of pesticides
(technical In India together they account for around 57% of the total pesticide
consumption. While the wheat and pulses contribute of about 4 %, vegetable 9 %
and the other plantation crops 7 % (Ministry of Agriculture, 2009). State wise
Andhra Pradesh is the highest pesticides consuming state (23%) followed by Punjab
& Maharashtra.grade) for the year 2005-06 shows that Uttar Pradesh is the leading
consumer of pesticides (6672 MT) followed by Punjab (5610 MT), Haryana (4560
MT), West Bengal (4250 MT) and Maharashtra (3198 MT).
The intensive cultivation of high yielding varieties, monoculture of
commercially important crops, overlapping of cropping seasons and excessive
application of agro-chemicals have further aggravated the incidence of pests and
diseases.
A Study on the perceptions of pesticide use, especially pesticide risks to
human health, is very important and necessary because it provides information on
the effects of farmers‘ decisions on the amount and methods of pesticide usage, and
the health problems that farmers might deal with if their pesticide use and crop
protection are inappropriate and irrelevant (Ntow et al., 2006).Beside the limited
information about farmer perceptions and pesticide use practices provided by
previous studies, the aim of this study is to provide more pictures of farmers‘
awareness of beneficial and harmful effects of pesticides, and to analyze the demand
15
15
of pesticides and identify factors affecting pesticide use agein the Mekong Delta,
Vietnam. The study provides policy makers and concerned people more useful
information about farmers‘ attitudes toward pesticide usage and hazards to issue and
implicate appreciate pesticide policies and issues. The paper is structured as follows.
The next section describes the way to collect and analyze the pesticide data. The
following section reports the results and some important discussions about farmers‘
perceptions and demand of pesticide use. The final section presents the conclusions
and proposes some useful recommendations.
The pattern and frequency of insecticide use by farmers could play a role in
the development of resistance in insect pest and also affect the health of humans and
the environment. Pesticides contamination has been detected in water, sediment,
crops and human fluids in areas of highly intensive crop production . Due to the
critical role of insecticides in crop production, there is the need to promote
appropriate insecticides use, storage and disposal practices by first understanding
current practices of farmers. This study assesses farmers‘ perception and practices of
pests management and insecticide usage pattern, storage and disposal methods.
1.2 Objective :
1. To work out the cost and return of major cereals in the study area.
2. To examine the consumption pattern of pesticide in major cereals.
3. To analyze the farmer perception on effectiveness of various pesticides used in
major cereals.
4. To find out the constraints in use of pesticide in major cereals and suggest
suitable measures to overcome them.
1.3 Limitations of the study
During the course of investigation several difficulties were faced in the
collection of data from cultivators. The cultivators generally did not maintain any
farm record and supply data on the basis of their memory, which may not be very
16
16
correct. The illiteracy of the farmers also added in this problem. Some of the farmers
did not co-operate in giving data because of some misunderstanding regarding
agricultural taxes, ceiling etc. they were biased in giving data giving towards higher
side of the investment and lower side towards productivity. However, sufficient care
was taken to collect the data by cross checking with the educated neighboring
farmers and other village leaders, Gram Panchayat Sarpanch etc.
1.4 Set-up
This thesis is divided into five chapters including the present chapter which
consists the introduction and objectives of the study. A review of literature of work
done in the past is given in chapter-II, chapter-III deals with materials and methods.
The result and discussion are presented in chapter-IV while the chapter-V includes
summary, conclusion and suggestion for future research work.
1
CHAPTER- II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Brief review of research work is presented in this chapter. The chapter is
divided into the chapters, first section covers consumption pattern of Pesticides,
second section deals with Compound Growth Rate and third section deals with
economics of crop production and fourth section deals with major constrain in
cereals production and consumption pattern of Agrochemical. The review provides
the basic background for formulation of the objectives and selection of appropriate
analytical tools for achievement of the same.
Yang et al (2005), reported that, farmers in Northern China were
interviewed during the 2002 season concerning their knowledge, perceptions and
practices on Btcotton. Farmers have some awareness of insect pests in Bt cotton,
especially on the resurgence of sucking pests such as red spider mites and aphids,
but 60% of farmers overestimated damage by Helicoverpa armigera, the cotton
bollworm in Bt cotton. Farmers‘ knowledge was very poor on the identification of
diseases and natural enemies of pests in cotton. Farmers‘ knowledge and perceptions
of Bt cotton were not significantly associated with their gender or formal education.
The results indicate that farmers were still over-utilizing pesticides in the control of
pests in Bt cotton. Farmers in small producer cotton systems need further training in
the identification of pests, natural enemies, basic ecology and integrated pest
management strategies to ensure sustainable production of Bt cotton.
Mahantesh and Singh (2009), reported that, this paper attempts to
understand the farmers‘ knowledge and perceptions of pests and pesticide use in
vegetable cultivation and analyzes the pesticide use practices and the intensity of
pesticide use in vegetable cultivation. The result shows that on an average 41 per
cent of the farmers were aware about pesticide hazards in vegetable cultivation.
Most of the farmers (88 per cent) perceived that frequency of insects and disease
infestation has increased over the past 10 years. It was also observed that farmers
have not followed adequate safety measures regarding pesticide application. The
high pesticide use cost was observed in vegetables especially in tomato and brinjal
18
18
and most of the pesticides belonged to high and moderate risk chemicals. Increasing
farmers‘ awareness of pesticide hazards to the environment and promotion of
alternative pest management strategies such as use of bio-pesticides and IPM is
essential for reducing adverse effect on environment.
Mojo et al (2010), reported that, perceptions of actors on changes in crop
productivity, quantity and quality of water, and determinants of their perception are
analyzed using descriptive statistics and ordered logit model. Data collected from
297 Ethiopian farmers and 103 agricultural professionals from December 2009 to
January 2010 are employed. Results show that the majority of the farmers and
professionals recognized decline in water resources, reasoning climate changes and
soil erosion as some of the causes. However, there is a variation in views on changes
in productivity. The household asset, education level, age and geographical positions
are found to affect farmers‘ perception on changes in crop productivity. more focus
shall be given on providing them different coping mechanisms and alternative
resource conserving technologies than educating about the problems.
Kazmi (2012), reported that, the project ―consumer perception and buying
behavior (the pasta study‖) is basically measures the development of perception
through different variables and identify those factors which stimulate buying
decision of consumer. Among various variables which effect consumer buying
pattern I choose AWARENESS and AVAILABILITY of the product as two main
variables which have strong effect on popularity and sale of pasta product. As my
research is totally based on qualitative method that‘s why I choose quota sampling
technique and collect data by interviewing house wives resides in different areas of
Karachi.The topic of my research project is ―consumer perception and buying
decisions -The Pasta study‖ without any promotional strategy any product cannot
run profitably in a market .Product awareness is the factor which impact the
popularity and usage rate of any product specially the food item.
Kabir and Rainis (2012), reported that nowadays, beside burgeoning
industrialization, modern agriculture is also polluting environment through using
assorted agro-chemicals especially pesticides. the present study is conducted to
19
19
determine the level of farmers‘ perception about harmful effects of pesticides on
environment. Attempt has also taken to analyze some socio-economic characteristics
that influence farmers‘ perception. Results showed that an overwhelming majority
(86.1 %) of the farmers had low to medium level of perception; while only 13.9%
farmers had high perception regarding adverse effects of pesticides on environment.
It is concluded that if policy makers and extension organizations concentrate on
these factors, then farmers‘ will be more aware about the adverse effects of
pesticides which is affirmative for sustainable environment as well as sustainable
agricultural production.
Khai (2014), reported that, rice farmers‘ perceptions and demand for
pesticide use were analyzed using survey data in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. The
study showed although the majority of farmers could recognize the harmful effects
of pesticides, they did not wear protective clothing suggested by WHO for pesticide
safety use because they did not feel comfortable to use under local climatic
conditions. Most of farmers declared that they asked for information or instructions
related to pesticide use and pest prevention from retailers (72.5 percent) and over
half of them (52.5 percent) sold their pesticide empty packages. The study also
investigated that an increase in output price or farmers who thought an increasing
tendency of insects and diseases had positive impacts on pesticides, while farmers
who had knowledge on natural enemies or took part in short trainings or workshops
applied less pesticides than others.
2.1 Economic of crop Production
Reddy (2002) analysed the trends in farm costs, income, factor shares, and
price-cost relationship in rice cultivation by size and zone in Andhra Pradesh, India,
during the period 1981-82 to 1991-92. The analysis has revealed that the relatively
lower prices of modern inputs (viz., fertilizers, mechanical inputs (tractors) in
relation to those of traditional inputs (namely manures and bullock labour) which is
partly due to subsidies given to modern inputs against traditional inputs, and thereby
to obtain higher yields at lower costs. The decline in per hectare labour input,
bullock labour and manure has pushed down the per hectare cost at the state as well
20
20
as in south coastal Andhra where rice is predominant crop. Net income of rice
cultivation at constant prices revealed an increasing trend at the state and zonal
level. The factor share analysis indicated a declining trend with respect to labour,
capital and current inputs. HYV technologies as well as the Minimum Support
Prices have played an important role in bringing parity between cost and support
prices and thereby ensuring reasonable returns to the farmers. It is also seen that the
spread of technology across regions and all classes of farmers brings convergence
with respect to costs, returns and profit.
Hussain et. al. (2008) studied the comparative cost benefit analysis of per
acre rice production of different rice varieties at district Swat during 2007. Primary
data was collected through structured questionnaire. Five villages from three tehsils
namely Kabal, Barikot and Matta were randomly selected. A sample size of 100
farmers was used and the respondents were randomly selected. For comparison,
Cost-Benefit Analysis approach was used. The total per acre rice production of these
varieties was amounted to Rs. 40000, 52500, 33600, 34000, 30400, 30400 and
68750 respectively. The same average cost amounted to Rs. 13565 was observed for
all the varieties. The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of variety JP-5, Basmati-385, Sara
Saila, Dil Rosh-97, Swat-1 and Swat-2 and Fakhr-e- Malakand was 2.24, 3.20, 1.80,
1.80, 1.46, 1.54 and 4.36. The highest BCR value is observed for variety Fakhr-e-
Malakand indicted the most profitable variety in terms of net production. Awareness
about the cultivation of Fakhre- Malakand variety should be given as against the
growing traditional varieties in district Swat.
Tarar (2008) have studied the cost and returns, level of technology adoption,
yield gaps and constraints faced by the farmers in Kharif and summer paddy
production. Overall on an average yield of kharif paddy was 54.53 quintals and
summer paddy was 57.47 quintals, per hectare gross income of kharif paddy was Rs.
34381.04 and summer paddy was Rs.37169.24 and average cost of production per
quintal of kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 300.10 and summer paddy was
Rs.243.14. It indicates that the farmers could increase their paddy crop productivity
by balance use of inputs particularly seed and fertilizers. Pesticide consumption was
increased over the years in paddy crop due to the triple alliance of pests, pathogens
21
21
and weeds which cause substantial crop losses every year particularly in kharif
season. There is an urgent need for incorporating the use of chemical pesticides in
an Integrated Pest Management System. The development, introduction and
diffusion of environmentally safe and effective pesticide will be given priority.
Suitable quality control, safety evaluation and other regulatory systems would be
strengthened.
Nirmala and Muthuraman (2009) have investigated the major constraints
in rice cultivation in Kaithal district of Haryana during 2007-08. The study covered
four villages of two blocks and data on constraints and cost-return aspects of rice
cultivation were collected from 80 farmers. Total costs in rice production amounted
to be Rs. 33778.68/ha. Average yield was 4.99 t/ha. Benefit-cost ratio worked out to
be 1.27. Pests and disease incidence, lack of remunerative price and labour shortage
were the major constraints in rice production.
Yadav (2010) has worked in the Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh. Sixty
farmers were selected randomly from four villages namely Balood, Kuper, Ghotpal
and Hiranar. The major findings of this study revealed that the average size of
holding of the sample households was 1.78 hectare. Overall on an average the cost
of cultivation of upland rice was calculated as Rs.6963.44. Per hectare overall gross
income of Rs.15479.00. The overall on an average the value of net income, family
labour income, farm business income and input-output ratio was found to be
Rs.8515.00, Rs.10204.22, Rs.12049.56 and 1:2.22, respectively. The per hectare
breack-up cost of cultivation of upland rice in cost A, cost A1, cost B and cost C are
Rs.5274.78, Rs.5274.78, Rs.6774.76 and Rs.8463.00. Cost of production per quintal
of upland rice shows decreasing trend with increases in farm size where, as cost of
cultivation increases with the increases in the farm size. The major constraints
pertaining to cultivation of upland rice were lack of irrigation, grazing problem, lack
of awareness regarding production technology, low productivity, labour shortage,
low input use, and low price of produce were the major constraints to prevent for
obtaining potential farm yield of upland rice. Study suggested that the irrigation
facilities are to be developed in proper way in the study area so that farmers can
adopt HYVs Technology with assured irrigation facilities. Consumption of fertilizer
22
22
is far below (2-4 kg/ha.) to recommend dose, if it could be increased will be helpful
in enhancement of productivity of upland rice.
Alarima et. al. (2011) identified the constraints to adoption of sawah system
of rice production in Nigeria. Data were collected from 124 randomly selected
sawah-rice farmers. Data were analysed using correlation and regression analyses to
determine the relationships between the study variables. The results showed that
respondents were predominantly male (98.80%), married (98.80%) and had Quranic
education (62.70%). Farm size ranged from 0.03 to 10 hectares (0.5ha), mean
yieldwas 4.65 tonnes/ha, and mean income was $1,041.38. Production and on-farm
constraints affecting sawah development were water management and flood.
Sori (2011) has estimated the economics of production, marketing and
processing of paddy in Mahasamund district of Chhattisgarh state. Cost of
cultivation of paddy per hectare were calculated Rs. 31191.62, Rs.32696.80, Rs.
35286.05, Rs. 36214.35 and 33847.21 for marginal farms, small farms, medium
farms, large farms and overall respectively, exhibiting increasing trend with
increasing size of farms, witnessing a positive correlation with the size of farms.
Overall net income, Family labour income, Farm business income, Farm investment
income, were calculated Rs. 18452.79, Rs. 28035.6, Rs.41324.63 and Rs. 34818.84
respectively. Net return on per rupee investment was worked out. It was 1:1.55 for
all farm size. Study suggested that for improving the productivity of paddy, there is
a need to encourage the farmers to use of appropriate amount of inputs viz.,
fertilizers, improved, seed, pesticide and irrigation water. From the findings of
research work, in all categories of farm, the major chunk of expenditure was spent
on labour, the second priority goes to plant protection chemical and it can be
reduced only by the mechanization of agriculture and use of disease- pest resistant
variety.
Suneetha and Kumar (2013) studied the cost and return in the production
of paddy in the study area. The findings are the highest profit income is found the
small farmers in paddy production as a whole in the study area and hypothesis test
proves that there is a significant difference in the return of paddy and among the
23
23
groups of farmers in the study area. The nature of data used for study is both primary
and secondary data. Physiographically, the state of Andhra Pradesh is broadly
divided into three regions viz. Coastal Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana. The
Rayalaseema region consists of the districts of Anantapur, Chittoor, Kadapa and
Kurnool,which occupies about 67.41 lakh sq. km of the total area of the state. A
multi stage random sampling method was adoptedfor the selection of sample farmers
in the study area. For the present study, two mandals from each district and one
village from each mandal has been selected. A Sample of 100 farmers is selected
from each district. Eight villages were selected randomly, out of which 400 sample
famers were selected for the study. The present study is based on an exclusive
interview method. The schedules has been prepared and canvassed for the collection
of data. The collected data were analyzed with appropriate statistical tools. Rice is
cultivated in all the districts of the Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh. The
highest profit income is found the small farmers in paddy production as a whole in
the study area. Hypothesis test proves that there is a significant difference in the
return of paddy and among the groups offarmers in the study area. It shows
efficiency gain in production in terms of labour under new production technology.
The total income generated in the paddy production and employment generation id
considerablysatisfaction in Rayalaseema region of Andhra Pradesh.
Raufu (2014) examine the economic analysis of rice production under sawah
progamme in kwara state.out of 80 sawah rice farmers interviewed with the aid of a
well-structured interview schedule,the descriptive statistics revealed that majority of
the respondent are male with a year experience of the technology and are of
secondary level of education .Rice production under sawah system is profitable
going by the cots and return analysis.The expence structure is 0.924,while the gross
ratio is 0.149 indicating that for every N0.149 expended there is areturn of
N1.00.From the regression analysis,farming experience,fixed costs,farm size,cost of
labour and fertilizer were all significantly related to rice output under sawah
production at 1% significant level while the age of respondent is significant to the
output at 5% level.
24
24
2.2 Consumption Pattern of pesticides
Yogeshwari (2002) studied economics and environmental implications of
pesticide use in paddy in Shimoga district. The study revealed that the average
frequency of pesticide applications made by the sample farmers was 18 sprays with
range of 12 to 28 sprays during the paddy crop for period of 140 to 145 days as
against the 11sprays recommended. It was found that expenditure on pesticide (Rs.
8389) formed the major portion (31%) of total cost of cultivation of paddy crop. The
total cost of cultivation of paddy was Rs. 27,258 per ha. Majority of the farmers
used pesticides in the form of organophosphorus and organochlorine and 23 per cent
farmers used organophosphorus chemical (monocrtophos) under the brand name
Novocron. It was observed that 12 per cent of farmers used weedicides, 9 per cent
farmers used weedicides in the form of 2- 4-D sodium salt followed by machete
(10%), 30 per cent of the farmers used fungicides. Most of them used fungicides in
the form of bavistin under the brand name Carbendizim (27%) followed by
mancozeb (7%) and copper oxychoride (6%).
Demircan and Ylmaz (2005) analysed the pesticide use in apple production
in Isparta, Turkey. The study was conducted in the main apple production villages of
Egirdir, Gelendost and Senirkent districts during the 2002-03 production season.
The data used in the study were obtained by questionnaires applied to 109 apple
producers. The average usage of pesticide was 2226 g active ingredient per decare.
The percentage of pesticides use was 74.32 per cent, 23.43 per cent and 2.25 per
cent for fungicide, insecticide and acaricides, respectively. It was reported that
pesticides, fungicides, insecticides and acaricides used were more than the
recommended dosages. It was reported that 48.37 per cent of average pesticide cost
per decare was due to the overuse of pesticides in apple production. The proportion
of plant protection cost in total production cost and variable costs was 21.64 percent
and 29.83 per cent respectively.
Engindeniz and Engindeniz (2006) analysed the cost and returns of
pesticide use on greenhouse cucumber growing in Menderes, Turkey during 2002.
Data were collected from 28 growers using the random sampling method. The
25
25
pesticide treatment index of growers varied between 0.2 and 2.5 and the number of
growers who used overdose of pesticides was 17 (61%). Average of quantity of
insecticides, fungicides, acaricides, and nematicides used in cucumber production
was 29.34 g, 256.62 g, 3.34 g and 1528.14 g, active ingredient per 100 m2
respectively. The average pesticide and pesticide application costs were found to be
$ 150/1000 meter square. The average pesticide and pesticide application costs
accounted for 11.72 percent of the variable costs and 9.53 per cent of the total costs,
respectively. The breakeven yield was worked out to be 1875 kg/1000 m2.
Abhilash and Singh (2009) have conducted a study on the Pesticide use and
application in Indian scenario and found that in the process of development of
agriculture, pesticides have become an important tool as a plant protection agent for
boosting food production. Further, pesticides play a significant role by keeping
many dreadful diseases. However, exposure to pesticides both occupationally and
environmentally causes a range of human health problems. It has been observed that
the pesticides exposures are increasingly linked to immune suppression, hormone
disruption, diminished intelligence, reproductive abnormalities and cancer. Pesticide
safety, regulation of pesticide use, proper application technologies, and integrated
pest management are some of the key strategies for minimizing human exposure to
pesticides.
Chalermphol and Shivakoti (2009) have worked on pesticide use and
prevention practices of tangerine growers in Fang district, Chiang Mai province in
Northern Thailand. Only 36% of the participants pursued the recommended
prevention practices every time they used pesticides. A Methomyl chemical was
used by 87.8% participants. Cultivating experience and pesticides use experience
contributed significantly to the use and prevention practices of growers, while the
attendance in the training program did not contribute in the same way. The farmers
rather believed in their experiences and those of their neighbours. Education,
training and research into harmful effects and the health and environmental costs of
pesticide use are needed. The extension workers can go directly to weak points and
narrow their intervention plan to alter the pesticide policy instead of providing basic
knowledge on pesticides again and again.
26
26
Uday (2009) reported that the total cost of cultivation of paddy was found to
be Rs 65591.53/ha of which the cost of pesticide accounted for 5.50 per cent. On an
average the expenditure on pesticides in paddy cultivation was Rs. 3607.57/ha. The
yield obtained by the sample farmers was 66.90 quintals. The farmers realized net
returns of Rs. 17145.14/ha of paddy cultivation. The elasticity coefficient of labour
and manures and fertilizers were negative and significant indicating that increase in
the use of labour, fertilizers and manures would lead to decrease in gross income.
The resources such as seeds and pesticides have contributed positively to the gross
income thus, indicated that there is scope for re-organization of the inputs for profit
maximization. About 50% of the farmers applied pesticides five times for paddy
during its production cycle. The number of pesticide application went up to even
seven times. The optimum quantity of pesticide was estimated to be 0.97 l/ha, where
as the farmers were found to be use (1.95 liter/ha) almost double the optimum
quantity. Number of pesticide applications and area under paddy were contributing
positively and significantly to the expenditure on plant protection chemicals. The
farmers should be educated to identify the threshold level of pest infestation and take
measures only after that instead of blindly following the neighboring farmers while
applying plant protection chemicals.
Singh and Varshney (2010) concluded that the yield level of rice which is
comparatively low at present need to be increased substantially. Higher rice
production can be achieved by adoption of all the recommended technologies by
large number of farmers. Adoption of rice production technology was studied during
2006-07 at Jabalpur district of Madhya Pradesh. Majority of the respondents (44%)
studied were found to be medium level adopters. Adoption of correct dosage of
fertilizers and manures as also the recommended variety was the highest (75 and
65% resp.) followed by seed treatment with fungicides (61%), plant protection
(53%) and weedicide application (52%). The least adoption was for recommended
nursery practices and plant population (8%, and 4% resp.).
27
27
2.3 Major Constraints in Paddy production
Gauraha and Jain(1982) conducted a study in Raipur district of Madhya
Pradesh during 1977-78 Kharif season, which the objectives to identify the
constraints responsible for yield difference of paddy between the farmers adopted
for the national demonstration scheme and non-demonstration farmers.
Study revealed a wide gap between the average yields obtained on the
demonstration and non-demonstration farms. An analysis of the average yields for
five consecutive years (1970-71 to 1975-76) indicated that the average per hectare
yields of demonstration farmers was nearly 6.4 times the districts average yield. The
lower yield on the nondemonstration farmers‘ plots were due to poor management
practices like low use of HYV, imbalanced and inadequate doses of fertilizers, fewer
irrigations, inadequate plant protection, lower plant population and lack of pre-
sowing treatment of seed. Non-demonstration farmers had less access to capital and
credit, which forced for limited use of modern inputs and machinery.
Sawant (1997) identified constraints experienced by farmer in adoption of
improved rice cultivation practices in Konkan region of Maharashtra State. The
study revealed that the constraints in cultivation work as disincentive for the farmers
and ultimately reduce the rate of adoption. The infrastructural network dealing with
supply services of credit and inputs need to be strengthened. By establishing a close
linkage between the researches, extension system and farming community, these
constraints could be overcome. Hence, all these efforts will go a long way in
reducing the gaps in cultivation of rice.
Thanhl and Singh (2006) find out the constraints faced by farmers to
propose Government's policies regulating to overcome the constraints of rice
production promotion and export in India and Vietnam. A study had surveyed on
100 farmers in Punjab and West Bengal states of India and An Giang and Vinh Long
provinces of Vietnam. It found that the agro-ecological constraints faced by farmers,
ranked from more to less serious were related to dependence on monsoon; land/soil
problems; environmental pollution; lack of water and small land holdings. Under
technical constraints, it was found those diseases (sheath blight, blast, and stem rot);
28
28
pests; lack of proper varieties; post-harvest technology constraint; storage problems
were the most serious constraints perceived by large percentage of respondents.
Fertilizer problems; plant protection constraints; weed problems; lack of labours and
poor processing were found to be other constraints as perceived by farmers. In case
of socio-economic constraints, the study found that poor infrastructures; high cost of
inputs; credit problems; low rice price; inadequate inputs and lack of trainings were
the most important constraints as perceived by large percentage of farmers. Other
constraints as perceived by lower percentages of farmers were poor extension
EServices; lack of information and lack of helpfulness from local
authorities/governments.
Naing et. al (2008) identified yield constraints, input intensities and the
general practices of rice cultivation in Myanmar, a survey was conducted during the
wet seasons of 2001 and 2002. Although modern high yielding varieties were
introduced into Myanmar in the early 1980s, the national average of rice grain yield
has stagnated at 3.2-3.4 t ha-1. A total of 98 farmers from five townships in Upper
Myanmar and 16 in Lower Myanmar representing the most important areas of rice
production were questioned on their management practices, yields, and perceived
yield constraints over the previous four years. There was a recent decrease in the
overall average rate of fertilizer application, an increase in the prevalence of
ricelegume cropping systems, and only localized insect pest or disease problems.
Additionally, rice yields were found to be higher in Upper Myanmar, likely the
results of more suitable weather conditions, better irrigation, and ready market
access. Furthermore, a number of critical factors affecting production are identified
and possible solutions discussed.
Shivamurthy et. al. (2008) studied the Constraints in rainfed rice
production in the Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka, India, were studied during 2005.
Of the 24 taluks from 3 districts, 6 taluks (Kanakapura, Channapatna, Tumkur,
Gubbi, Kolar and Bangarpet) were selected based on the size of area under rice
cultivation. Onehundred rice farmers from 25 villages who cultivated rice during the
kharif of 2003-04 were interviewed. Of the farmers interviewed, 98
and89%expressed problems associated with high cost of inputs and cost of
29
29
cultivation, respectively. The other constraints in rice cultivation consisted of the
non-availability of loans (84%), high interest rate on loans (64%), inadequate
insurance coverage (48%), susceptibility of the area to droughtM (90%), pest and
disease epidemics (40%), lack of market facilities (71%), lack of transport facilities
(52%), lack of profitable marketing channels (79%), shortage in labour resources
(61.0%), high wages (51.0%) and shortage of skilled labourers (41.0%). Suggestions
to overcome constraints in rice production included the need for greater extension
efforts to increase adoption (85.0%); information campaigns to promote good
practices in pesticide usage; provision of marketing facilities to avoid exploitation
by middlemen (71.0%); continuous supply of inputs such as certified seeds, seed
varieties and fertilizers; provision of subsidies to reduce the costs of inputs (61.0%);
timely introduction of the minimum support price for rainfed rice and prompt
payment (57.0%); availability of drought-resistant cultivars during sowing to ensure
effective distribution (52.0%); and dissemination of information on the technical
aspects of rice cultivation (48.0%).
Nirmala and Muthuraman (2009) have investigated the major constraints
in rice cultivation in Kaithal district of Haryana during 2007-08. The study covered
four villages of two blocks and data on constraints and cost-return aspects of rice
cultivation were collected from 80 farmers. Total costs in rice production amounted
to be Rs. 33778.68/ha. Average yield was 4.99 t/ha. Benefit-cost ratio worked out to
be 1.27. Pests and disease incidence, lack of remunerative price and labour shortage
were the major constraints in rice production.
Singh and Varshney (2010) concluded that the majority of the farmers
showed medium level of overall adoption of recommended technology. Weedicide
application, pest and disease management in nursery maintaining plant population in
main field were not adopted by the majority of the farmers. ‗Non availability of high
yielding varieties‘, High cost of labour‘ ‗Lack of conviction in the new technology‘
and ‗Weak extension activities at the village level were the major constraints faced
by the farmers.
30
30
Yadav (2010) examined the constraints pertaining to cultivation of upland
rice were lack of irrigation, grazing problem, lack of awareness regarding production
technology, low productivity, labour shortage, low input use, and low price of
produce were the major constraints to prevent for obtaining potential farm yield of
upland rice. Study suggested that the irrigation facilities are to be developed in
proper way in the study area so that farmers can adopt HYVs Technology with
assured irrigation facilities. Consumption of fertilizer is far below (2-4 kg/ha.) to
recommend dose, if it could be increased will be helpful in enhancement of
productivity of upland rice.
Alarima et.al. (2011) examined the economic constraints faced by sawah
farmers were lack of viable financial agencies to support production, poor capital
base and non-availability of loan. This study concluded that problems faced by
farmers were interwoven in which existence of one relates with the other.
Addressing these problems will lead to increase in the rate of adoptiosn of sawah
rice productiontechnology and ultimately rice productivity in Nigeria.
1
CHAPTER – III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This chapter deal with the research methodology adopted for the present study
with respect to the selection of area, selection of respondents, collection of data and
analytical techniques. This chapter presents the statistics different aspects in order to
have
the knowledge of the study area. The present chapter consist the geographical
location,
land used pattern, source of irrigation, size and number of land holding and different
socio-Economic indicator of the study area. The details of the method and technique
adopted for the present study are described as below.
3.1 Selection of Study area
Chhattisgarh state consist 27 districts, out of which Raipur district is selected
purposely for the present study. There are four blocks namely Abhanpur, Arang,
Dharsiwa and Tilda. Out of these, Arang and Tilda block will be selected rendamly
as
they have larger area under Paddy crop.
3.2 Selection of Villages
The Arang and Tilda block has 165 and 131 number of villages. Out of these, two
villages are considered from each of the selected blocks. Nagpura and Badganv
villages from
Arang, Math and Kharora from Tilda block were selected randomly. In all, four
villages
in both block is selected for the study purpose.
3.3 Selection of respondents
Since there are large number of paddy producer farmers, 25 farmers from each of
the selected village were considered to collect the required information on cost of
cultivation.
32
32
These farmers are classified in to four different categories based on their land
holding
i.e. marginal (up to 1.00 ha.), small (up to 1.01 to 2 ha.), medium (2.01 to 4 ha.) and
large (above 4 ha.).
3.4 Method of enquiry and data collection
3.4.1 Primary data
Primary data from the farmers was collected through well prepared schedule and
questionnaire (Appendix-A.) It includes cost of different items of variable as well as
fixed cost. The primary data include information regarding demographic features of
sampled farms, land utilization pattern, cost of cultivation and source of irrigation
and
constraint in custom hiring of agricultural machinery and inventory. All the primary
data
belong to kharif 2014-15.
3.4.2 Secondary data
The secondary data related to Chhattisgarh state is collected from the Directorate
of Agriculture; Annual Agriculture Statistics, Raipur; Department of Agriculture,
Raipur
and District Planning and statistics Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3.5 Household Information
1. Total land holding.
2. Details about family members.
3. Crop Production.
4. Family labours.
5. Hired labours.
6. Cost and return of paddy crops.
3.6 Analytical Framework
The collected data were compiled and tabular analysis is made to work out the
different parameters, such as, utilization pattern of custom hiring of Agricultural
33
33
Machinery, cost concept, cost of production of paddy, comparative economics of
custom
hiring and traditional methods in different operation, per hectare gross return, net
return
and B:C ratio.
Analytical tools:
Cost of cultivation:
―To work out the cost of cultivation standard method of will be adopted. Which
includes cost A cost B and cost C.‖
Cost A1: Consist of following 16 items of costs:-
1. Value of hired human labour (permanent & casual)
2. Value of owned bullock labour
3. Value of hired bullock labour
4. Value of owned machinery
5. Hired machinery charged
6. Value of fertilizers
7. Value of manure (produced on farm and purchased)
8. Value of seed (both farm-produced and purchased)
9. Value of insecticides and fungicides.
10. Irrigation charges (both of the owned and hired tube wells, pumping sets etc.
11. Canal-water charges
12. Land revenue, cesses and other taxes
13. Depreciation on farm implements (both bullock drawn & worked with human
labour)
14. Depreciation on farm building, farm machinery.
15. Interest on the working capital.
16. Miscellaneous expenses (wages of artisans, and repairs to small farm
implements)
Cost A2 = Cost A1+Rent paid for Leased in Land.
Cost B1 = Cost A1+Interest on value of Owned Capital
assets (excluding land)
Cost B2 = Cost B1+rental value of owned land (Net of land revenue)
and rent paid for leased-in land.
Cost C1 = Cost B1+ Imputed value of Family Labour.
Cost C2 = Cost B2+Imputed value of Family labour.
Cost C3 = Cost C2 +10% of C2 as managerial cost.
Brief profile of the study area
34
34
A brief description of various geographical and agriculture features of the study
area, i.e. Raipur district in Chhattisgarh state is being given in this section.
3.7.1 Description of Raipur district
Raipur District is situated in the fertile plains of Chhattisgarh Region. The District is
surrounded by Bilaspur in North, Bastar and part of Orissa state in South, Raigarh
and part of Orissa state in East and Durg in West. The district occupies the south
eastern part of the upper Mahanadi valley and the bordering hills in the south and the
east. Thus, the district is divided into two major physical divisions, Viz., the
Chhattisgarh plain and the Hilly Areas. This District is situated between 220 33'
North to 210 14' North Latitude and 82o 6' to 81o 38' East Longitude. Mahanadi is
the principal river of this district.
Chhattisgarh is rich in forest resources about 44 percent of the total area of the state
is under forest cover. Detailed information about the geographical area of Raipur is
given in (Table 3.9). Chhattisgarh is famous in the entire country for its Sal forest. In
addition teak, bamboo, saja, sarai, haldi etc are also found in large number tendu leaf
which is used in beedi making, is the principal forest of the state. Chhattisgarh
produce a large number of minor forest product as well. The climate of Chhattisgarh
is mainly of minor tropical, humid and sub- humid. The climate is hot because of its
positioning on the tropic of cancer. May is the hottest month and the December –
January is the coldest month. The state is completely dependent on monsoon for
rains. The average annual rainfall of Raipur district ism1370 mm. Raipur district has
4 blocks. The study was confined to the Arang and Tilda block of Raipur district of
Chhattisgarh (Map-II).
Demographic features of Raipur District
The total population of district is 2160876 (2011 census). The density of population
is 698 per Sq. Km. out of which 59.09 percent is urban and 40.91 percent is rural.
The population of schedule caste and schedule tribes constitutes 16.59 percent and
4.30 percent and 50.95 percent is male population and 49.05 percent is the female
35
35
population, respectively of the total population. The literacy rate in the district was
80.52 percent.
Table 3.2: Demographic features of Raipur District, Arang and Tilda block (2011)
S.
No.
Particulars Number
District Arang Tilda
1 Total population (census
2011)
2160876 314489 238157
a. Male 1100861 158515 119467
b. Female 1060015 155974 118690
c. Total population (census
2011)
2160876 314489 238157
d. Rural 884224 282591 198342
e. Urban 1276652 31898 43747
2 Percentage of rural
population to
total population (%)
40.00 89.85 81.92
3 No. of female per ‗000
males
963 984 993
4 Population density per Sq.
Km.
698 339 309
5 Decennial growth rate
percent
(2001-11)
6 Literacy rate (%) 80.52 73.98 74.61
7 Scheduled caste population
as
percentage to total
population (%)
16.59 26.60 19.41
8 Scheduled caste population 4.30 3.40 4.40
36
36
as
percentage to total
population (%)
Source: - Chhattisgarh Government Censes 2011.
3.7.3 Distribution of land holding
The distribution of land holding according to size and the total cultivated area in
each category are in the given Table 3.5. The largest number of land holding falls
under marginal category. It is clear from this table that concentration of marginal
farmers was more as compare to small, medium and large group, implying that the
majority of land owner were in marginal categories in the study area. The largest
number of land holding falls under marginal farm size category. However, farmers
in the category owned only a small proportion of the cultivated land.
Table 3.3: Distribution of land holding of Raipur district.
S. No. Size of holding Number of
holding
Area (ha.)
1. Marginal (up to 1.00 ha.) 106361
(71.01)
46640.69
(28.57)
2. Small (up to 1.01 to 2.00 ha.) 32748
(21.86)
45281.94
(27.47)
3. Medium (up to 2.01 to 4 ha.) 4972
(3.31)
30480.41
(18.49)
4. Large (Above 4.00 ha.) 5692
(3.82)
42405.48
(25.75)
Total 149773
(100)
164808.52
(100)
37
37
Note: Figure in parentheses indicates percentage to the total land holdings.
Source: Department of Agriculture Raipur, 2013-14.
Table 3.4: Distribution of land holding of Arang and Tilda block.
S.
No.
Size of holding Number of holding Area (ha.)
Arang Tilda Arang Tilda
1. Marginal (up to 1.00 ha.) 36013
(65.44)
27092
(64.28)
15946.25
(26.56)
11922.53
(24.19)
2. Small (up to 1.01 to 2.00
ha.)
11565
(21.01)
8926
(21.18)
15659.02
(26.08)
12400.15
(25.16)
3. Medium (up to 2.01 to 4
ha.)
5384
(9.78)
4194
(9.95)
14607.63
(24.33)
11393.41
(23.12)
4. Large (Above 4.00 ha.) 2095
(3.80)
1430
(3.39)
13818.51
(23.01)
13551.11
(27.50)
Total 55057
(100)
42142
(100)
60031.40
(100)
49267.20
(100)
Note: Figure in parentheses indicates percentage to the total land holdings.
Source: Department of Agriculture Raipur, 2013-14.
3.7.4 Land use pattern
Raipur district has total geographical area of 289198 hectare. The forest area is 1551
hectare, which is 5.50 percent of the total geographical area. About 12.56 percent
area was covered by pasture land. While 7.11 under barren land and 74.73 percent
land is total cropped area and net cropped area 57.53 percent of the geographical
area. The cropping intensity is 129.89 percent. Arang and Tilda block has total
geographical area of 90039 hectare and 735300 hectare respectively.
38
38
Table 3.5: Land Utilization pattern at Raipur district (in hectare).
S.No. Particular Raipur district
Abhanpur Arang Dharsiwa Tilda Total
1 Geographical
area(ha)
60398 90039 65231 73530 289198
2 Area under
forest (ha)
271
(0.44)
448
(0.49)
0 832
(1.13)
1551
(0.53)
3 Net cropped
area
(ha)
38048
(62.99)
58593
(65.07)
25606
(39.25)
44150
(60.04)
166397
(57.53)
4 Double cropped
area (ha)
14310
(23.69)
24202
(26.87)
6257
(9.59)
11271
(15.32)
55860
(19.31)
5 Area under
kharif (ha)
37010
(61.27)
58480
(64.94)
25512
(39.11)
44000
(59.83)
165002
(57.05)
6 Area under rabi
(ha)
13886
(22.99)
23306
(25.88)
6147
(9.47)
9750
(13.25)
53089
(18.35)
7 Net irrigation
area (ha)
32585
(53.95)
37975
(42.17)
15521
(23.79)
18058
(24.55)
23075
(7.97)
8 Total cropped
area (ha)
52358
(86.39)
82795
(91.95)
31863
(48.84)
55421
(75.37)
21643
(74.73)
9 Cropping
intensity (%)
137.13 141.3 124.43 125.52 129.89
10 Pasture land
(ha)
9909
(16.40)
11021
(12.24)
7333
(11.24)
8071
(16.40)
3633
(12.56)
11 Barren land (ha) 2980
(4.93)
4773
(6.91)
7747
(11.87)
2980
(4.93)
20587
(7.11)
Note: Figure in parentheses indicates percentage to the total land holdings
39
39
3.8 Cropping pattern of the study area
Being a mono cropped region, paddy is the main cereal crop in the kharif season in
the study area. Though most of the area was covered by this crop, several others
crops are now being grown in kharif as well as rabi season in this region. The
existing crop area distribution in the district is shown in the Table.
Table 3.6: Area under different crops in Raipur District
S.No. Particular Area in Hectare
A Cereals Raipur Arang Tilda
1 Paddy 160283 57298 41740
2 Wheat 2946 581 1514
3 Maize 103 22 18
4 Kodo- Kutki 1 0 1
5 Other 23450 11341 3589
Total Cereals 186783 67972 45157
B Pulses
1 Gram 5259 1213 2538
2 Pigeon pea 706 141 369
3 Urd 254 93 94
4 Lathyrus 18102 10429 3199
5 Other 669 54 285
Total Pulses 24990 11930 6485
C Oil seed
1 Soya bean 230 6 199
2 Til 501 59 170
3 Groundnut 11 0 4
4 Rai/Sarso 830 155 434
Total oil seed 1689 230 862
40
40
D Fruits & Vegetable 4564 1233 1138
E Spices 440 160 74
Total 218466 82795 55421
Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percent to the total area production.
Source: Department of Agriculture Raipur, 2013-14.
3. 9: Irrigation
The different sources of irrigation in the Raipur district are shown in Table 3.7. The
Table clearly point out that the maximum area was irrigated by canals (1127740 ha.)
which is 79.34 percent of the total irrigation in the Raipur district followed by tube-
well (23842 ha.) which was 14.80 percent to the total irrigation in the district.
Nallah, stop dam, wells and other sources of irrigation were also prevailing in the
Raipur district. The number of Ponds was 2708 which is 2.71 percent to the total
irrigation in the district. The number of wells was 3933 which is 0.44 percent to the
total sources irrigation in the district.
Table 3.7: Source wise irrigation area of Raipur district
S.No. Source of irrigation Irrigated area (ha) Percent
1 Canals 127740 79.34
2 Ponds 4369 2.71
3 Tube-wells 23842 14.80
4 Wells 673 0.44
5 Irrigated area from other
source
4369 2.71
Total 160993 100
Source: - District statistical booklet (2013), District Planning and statistics
Department,
Raipur (C.G.)
3. 11 Administrative units
41
41
Administratively, Chhattisgarh state is administrative divided into 27 districts and
360 blocks. Out of these 85 blocks are tribal block. The state consist 20,308 villages.
Raipur district is administrative divided into 4 tehsil, 4 block i.e Abhanpur, Arang,
Dharsiwa and Tilda. Raipur district have 490 villages, in which 390 villages is gram
panchayat and 4 villages is janpad panchayat. The administrative units of Arang and
Tilda block in Raipur district is shown in (Table 3.9)
Table 3.9: Administrative units of the Raipur district
S.No. Particular Raipur district
Abhanpur Arang Dharsiwa Tilda Total
1 Geographical area
(Sq.km.)
603.98 900.39 652.31 735.3 2891.98
2 Total villages 105 165 89 131 490
3 Gram panchayat 90 125 84 91 390
4 Janpad panchayat 1 1 1 1 4
5 Nagar nigam 0 0 1 0 1
6 Nagar palika 1 0 1 1 3
7 Nagar panchyat 1 1 2 1 5
8 Revenue inspection
circle
2 2 4 2 10
9 Police station 3 2 24 2 31
10 Transport police
center
0 0 1 0 1
11 Electricity village 105 165 89 131 490
12 Drinking water
vacillated village
105 165 89 131 490
Source: - District statistical booklet (2013), District Planning and statistics
Department,
Raipur (C.G.)
29
CHAPTER – IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the results obtained for various economic parameters related to
their magnitude and relationship on the objectives of study. It also involves the
discussion and interpretation of results on the following heads.
4.1 Profile characteristics of the sample households
4.2 Cropping pattern
4.3 Consumption pattern of Pesticides
4.4 Economic of crop production
4.5 Constraints
4.1 Profile Characteristics of the Sample Households
The general characteristics of the sample households are presented in (Table 4.1 and
Fig no. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4). It can be seen from the table that the total no. of sample
households was 100. The Average family member was 5.21. Average family
member in large farm households was considerably large (6.5) as compared to
marginal farm households (4.18). The literacy rate in the selected households was
55.82 per cent. Average size of holding was 2.31.
The sample households comprised predominantly of scheduled tribe (81.00 per
cent) followed by other backward caste (10.00 per cent), scheduled caste (9.00 per
cent).The average occupation working members was considerably agriculture (96.26
per cent) as compared to business (1.44) per cent and Service (2.30).
30
Table 4.1: General characteristics of sample household
S.N. Particulars marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1. Total no. of house hold 22 34 23 21 100
2. Cast wise no. of house hold
a. General 1 4 05
b. other backward cast 22 32 23 17 94
c. schedule cast 1 01
3. Total family member 104
(100)
165
(100)
89
(100)
128
(100)
486
(100)
Average of family member
4. Age group
a. below 18 year
Male 17 23 20 17 77
Female 18 20 13 17 68
b. 18-60 year
Male 26 37 20 49 132
Female 33 51 25 34 143
c. above 60 year
Male 7 9 4 6 26
Female 10 15 7 9 41
Note: Figure in the parenthesis indicate the percentages to total number of family
members.
4.2 Cropping pattern:
Table 4.2 shows that the area under crops and cropping intensity. It can be seen from
table that Paddy covered highest cropped area 64.77 per cent in kharif season. On an
average the total operated area was 66.05 compare to total cropped area (5.45) and
average the cropping intensity was found 151.38s per cent. It was also observed that
as the farm increase the cropping intensity was also increased.
31
Table 4.2: Cropping pattern of sample household
S.NO. Particulars Farm size ( in ha)
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
A. Kharif session
a. Paddy
Mahamaya 0.4
(30.76)
1.08
(30.25)
1.72
(34.81)
5.33
(37.99)
1.97
(36.14)
Swarna 0.24
(18.32)
0.58
(16.24)
1.35
(27.32)
4.76
(33.92)
1.56
(28.62)
Total 0.64
(48.85)
1.66
(46.49)
3.07
(62.14)
10.09
(71.91)
3.53
(64.77)
b. Arhar 0.05
(3.81)
0.06
(1.68)
0.09
(1.82)
0.1
(0.71)
0.032
(0.58)
c. Urd 0.003
(.022)
0.01
(0.28)
0.03
(0.60)
0.05
(0.35)
0.025
(0.45)
d. Sesmum 0.04
(3.05)
0.09
(2.52)
0.08
(1.61)
0.09
(0.64)
0.0134
(0.23)
Total kharif 0.73
(55.72)
1.82
(50.98)
3.27
(66.19)
10.33
(73.62)
3.6
(66.05)
B. Rabi session
a. Wheat 0.39
(29.77)
1.48
(41.45)
1.33
(26.92)
3.06
(21.81)
1.66
(30.45)
b. Mustard 0.02
(1.52)
0.09
(2.52)
0.07
(1.41)
0.09
(0.64)
0.020
(0.36)
c. Gram 0.079
(6.03)
0.9
(25.21)
0.11
(2.22)
0.35
(2.49)
0.150
(2.75)
d. Lethayrus 0.074
(5.64)
0.08
(2.24)
0.09
(1.82)
0.10
(0.71)
0.02
(0.36)
e. Lentil 0.035
(2.67)
0.05
(1.40)
0.07
(1.41)
0.09
(0.64)
0.016
(0.29)
f. Pea 0.002
(0.15)
0.004
(0.11)
0.007
(0.14)
0.009
(0.064)
0.001
(0.018)
Total rabi 0.58
(44.27)
1.75
(49.01)
1.677
(33.94)
3.699
(26.36)
1.85
(33.94)
Total operated area 0.73
(55.72)
1.82
(50.98)
3.27
(66.19)
10.33
73.62
3.6
(66.05)
Total cropped area
(A+B+C)
1.31
(100)
3.57
(100)
4.94
(100)
14.03
(100)
5.45
(100)
Cropping intensity
(%)
179.45
196.15 151.07 140.3 151.38
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage to total cropped area.
32
Fig. 4.1: Cast wise no. of household
Fig. 4.2: Average of family members
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
marginal small medium large overall
Caste %
General Other backward class Scheduled caste
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Marginal small medium large overall
Average family member
33
Fig.4.3 : Literacy per cent of sample household
Fig. 4.4: Average size of holding
Marginal
small
medium
large
overall
20% 20%
19%
20%
21%
Literacy(%)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
34
4.3 Consumption pattern of Agrochemicals
The present section deals with the Consumption pattern of Agrochemicals in kharif
paddy in the study area. Consumption pattern of Agrochemicals covers Insecticide,
Herbicide, Fungicide and Fertilizer quantity used in different varieties during kharif
season.
4.3.1 Use of Insecticide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha)
It is evident from (Table 4.3) that the use of insecticide in kharif paddy was higher in
case of Imidacloprid 17.8% SL (+40.70 per cent) followed by Aciphate (+23.22) and
lowest in Chloropyariphos50%+ Cypermethrin (+6.6 per cent). The above
insecticide was used for controlling of Stem borer, Cutworm, Plant hopper and Leaf
folder.
4.4.2 Use of Herbicide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha)
It is evident from (Table 4.4) that the use of herbicide in kharif paddy gap was
higher in case of Chlorymuron10%+Metasulfuran (+125 per cent) followed by
Pyrozosulphuran (+77) and lowest in Butachlor (+1.62 per cent). The above
herbicide was used for controlling of Buti, Bhengra, Motha, Jalkumbhi, Narjava,
Aaluban, Sanva, Loung ghass, Chunchuniya, Jalkumbhi, Tinpatiya and Broad leaf
weeds.
4.4.3 Use of Fungicide in kharif paddy (a.i.per/ha)
It is evident from (Table 4.5) that the use of fungicide in kharif paddy was higher in
case of Tricyclazole (+41.67 per cent) followed byHexaconazile (+31.67
Tricyclazole) and lowest in Propiconazole 25% EC (21.90 per cent).The above
fungicide was used for controlling of Blast, Sheath blight, Brown spot and BLB.
35
Insecticide quantity used in different farm size in kharif season (a.i.per/ha)
S.
No.
Name of insecticide Recommended
Dose
Name of insect Insecticide quantity used in different farm size
(per./hac.)
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1 acephate 75%SP 337.50gm.
a.i./ha
Cutworm, Stemborer 389.26 410.2 429.09 435.02 415.89
Gap 51.76 72.7 91.59 97.52 78.39
Gap % 15.3363 21.5407 27.1378 28.8948 23.226667
2 Chloropyariphos50%+Cypermethrin 550 ml. a.i./ha Leaf folder 559.5 579 598 610.5 586.75
Gap 9.5 29 48 60 36.75
Gap % 1.73 5.27 8.73 10.91 6.68
3 Chlorpyriphos 20%EC 510gm a.i./ha Stem borror,
Gallmidge
539 579.5 593.46 602.5 578.61
Gap 29 69.5 83.46 92.5 68.61
Gap % 5.69 13.63 16.36 18.14 13.45
4 Deltamethrin1%+Triazoph
os 35% EC
432 ml a.i./ha Plant hopper,
cutworm
453.5 478.26 489 497.46 479.55
Gap 21.5 46.26 57 65.46 47.55
Gap % 4.98 10.71 13.19 15.15 11.01
5 Imidacloprid 17.8% SL 200 ml. a.i./ha Plant hopper 263.61 252.78 288.14 321.08 281.4
Gap 63.61 52.78 88.14 121.08 81.4
Gap % 31.81 26.39 44.07 60.54 40.70
36
Herbicide quantity used in different farm size in kharif season (a.i.per/ha)
S.
N.
Name of herbicide Recommended
Dose
name of weeds Herbicide quantity used in different farm size (per./hac.)
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1 Oxadirzil 90 gm. a.i./ha Gengarva, Narjiva 100 119 126 159 126
Gap 10 29 36 69 36
Gap % 11.11 32.22 40.00 76.67 40.00
2 Pendimethylene 1000 gm. a.i./ha Sawa, Choti dudhi, Jangli chaulai 1011.1 1004.2 1127.1 1176.5 1079.72
Gap 11.1 4.2 27.1 76.5 79.72
Gap% 1.11 0.42 2.71 7.65 7.97
3 Pyrozosulphuran
25 gm
a.i./ha
Sanwa, Motha, Chunchuniya,
jalkumbhi, tinpatiya 34 41 48 54 44.25
Gap 9 16 23 29 19.25
Gap % 36.00 64.00 92.00 116.00 77.00
4 Butachlore 1250gm
a.i./ha
Narrow leaf- sanva Wild
Kodo, Motha, Bhengra 1261.1 1269.5 1271.5 1279 1270.27
Gap 11.1 19.5 21.5 29 20.27
Gap % 0.89 1.56 1.72 2.32 1.62
37
5 Ethoxysulfuran 15 gm
a.i./ha
Narjava,Motha,Kaonwakaini
(15 WDG) Chunchuniya 19 23.5 25 29 24.12
Gap 4 8.5 10 14 9.12
Gap % 26.67 56.67 66.67 93.33 60.80
6 Chlorymuron 10%+ 4gm a.i./ha Jalkumbhi, Motha,Narjava,
Metasulfuron Bhengra 6 8 10 12 9
Gap 2 4 6 8 5
Gap % 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 125.00
7 2,4 D 625 gm
a.i./ha
Motha Jalkumbhi,Bhengra 637 641 648 652 644.5
Gap Gokhru 12 16 23 27 19.5
Gap% 1.92 2.56 3.68 4.32 3.12
38
Fungicide quantity used in different farm size kharif season (a.i.per/ha)
S.
No
Name of fungicide Recommended
Dose
Name of diseases Fungicide quantity used in different farm size
(per./hac.)
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1 Carbendazim 12% + 562.50ml a.i./ha blast,brownspot,shea
th
625.36 655.86 738.49 824.36 711.04
Mencozeb
63%WP
blight, fals smut 62.86 93.36 175.99 261.86 148.54
Gap 11.18 16.60 26.9716 46.55 26.41
Gap %
2
Hexaconazol 5%EC 75ml a.i./ha Blast and sheath
blight
86 94 103 112 98.75
Gap 11 19 28 37 23.75
Gap% 14.67 25.33 37.33 49.33 31.67
3 Propiconazile
25%
125ml a.i./ha Sheath rot
EC 125 138 159 187.5 152.37
Gap 0 13 34 62.5 27.37
Gap % 0.00 10.40 27.20 50.00 21.90
4 Tricyclazole 15gm.a.i./ha Blast 15 19 23 28 21.25
Gap 0 4 8 13 6.25
Gap % 0.00 26.67 53.33 86.67 41.67
39
4.5 Effectiveness of various pesticides and source of plant protection
information
4.5.1 Effectiveness of fungicides, insecticides and herbicides in kharif rice in
percentages
It is evident from (Table 4.24) the source of plant protection information of
Carbendazim 12%+ Mencozeb 63% Wp, maximum farmers got knowledge through
fellow farmers (46%) followed by pesticide dealers (38%) and experience (14%).
The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (54%) followed by 51-75 (28%).
Hexaconazol 5 % EC maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers
(38%) followed by pesticide dealers (32%) and experience (16%). The effectiveness
(%) in the range of 76-100 (44%) followed by 51-75 (40%) and 26-50 (16%).
Propiconazile25% EC maximum farmers got knowledge through pesticide dealers
(48%) followed by fellow farmers (35%) and experience (14%). The effectiveness
(%) in the range of 76-100 (44%), followed by 51-75 (40%) and 26-50 (16%).
Propiconazile25% EC maximum farmers got knowledge through pesticide dealers
(48%) followed by fellow farmers (26%) and experience (22%). The effectiveness
(%) in the range of 76-100 (48%), followed by 51-75 (31%) and 26-50 (14%).
It is evident from (Table 4.24) the source of plant protection information of
Acephate 75 % SP, maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers (48%)
followed by pesticide dealers (32%) and experience (15%). The effectiveness (%) in
the range of 76-100 (57%) followed by 51-75 (31%). Chloropyriphos 50%+
Cypermethrin maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers (51%)
followed by pesticide dealers (44%) and experience (5%). The effectiveness (%) in
the range of 76-100 (48%) followed by 51-75 (36%) and 26-50 (16%).
Chloropyriphos 20% maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers
(42%) followed by pesticide dealers (38%) and experience (15%). The
effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (56%), followed by 51-75 (33%) and 26-50
(9%). Deltamethrin1%+ Triazophos 35%EC maximum farmers got knowledge
through pesticide dealers (48%) followed by fellow farmers (35%) and experience
40
(12%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (61%), followed by pesticide
dealers 51-75 (27%) and 26-50 (12%). Imidacloprid 17.8 % SL maximum farmers
got knowledge through fellow farmers (46%) followed by (44%) and experience
(8%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (59%), followed by 51-75 (26%)
and 26-50 (15%).
It is evident from (Table 4.24) the source of plant protection information of Oxidirzil
, maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow farmers (52%) followed by
pesticide dealers (22%) and experience (18%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of
76-100 (56%) followed by 51-75 (40%). Pendimethylene maximum farmers got
knowledge through fellow farmers (66%) followed by pesticide dealers (26%) and
experience (7%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (68%) followed by
51-75 (22%) and 26-50 (10%). Pyrozosulphuran maximum farmers got knowledge
through fellow farmers (48%) followed by pesticide dealers (38%) and experience
(9%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (55%), followed by 51-75 (27%)
and 26-50 (18%). Butachlore maximum farmers got knowledge through pesticide
dealers (44%) followed by fellow farmers (36%) and experience (16%). The
effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (68%), followed by pesticide dealers 51-75
(18%) and 26-50 (12%). Ethoxysulfuran (15WDG) maximum farmers got
knowledge through pesticide dealers fellow farmers (58%) followed by fellow
farmers (28%). The effectiveness (%) in the range of 76-100 (46%), followed by 51-
75 (44%) and 26-50 (14%). 2-4D maximum farmers got knowledge through
pesticide dealers (42%) followed by fellow farmers (40%). The effectiveness (%)
in the range of 76-100 (62%), followed by 51-75 (28%) and 26-50 (10%).
Chlorymuron + Metasufuron maximum farmers got knowledge through fellow
farmers (54%) followed by pesticide dealers (38%). The effectiveness (%) in the
range of 76-100 (54%), followed by 51-75 (44%) and 26-50 (2%).
41
S.
No.
Fungicides Soruce of plant protection
information
Effectiveness (%)
Pesticide
dealer
Fellow Agril.
ext.
officer
Media Experience Government 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100
farmer
1 Carbendazim
12%+ Mencozeb
63% Wp
38 46 0 2 14 0 0 18 28 54
2 Hexaconazol 5 %
EC
32 38 10 4 16 0 0 16 40 44
3 Propiconazile25%
EC
48 35 0 2 14 1 2 15 28 55
4 Tricyciazole 26 48 0 2 22 2 6 14 32 48
42
S.
No.
Insecticides Soruce of plant protection
information
Effectiveness (%)
Pesticide
dealer
Fellow Agril.
ext.
officer
Media Experience Government 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100
farmer
1 Acephate 75 %
SP
32 48 2 0 15 3 0 12 31 57
2 Chloropyriphos
50%+
Cypermethrin
44 51 0 0 5 0 0 16 36 48
3 Chloropyriphos
20%
42 38 0 2 15 3 3 9 33 56
4 Deltamethrin1%+
Triazophos
35%EC
48 35 3 2 12 0 0 12 27 61
5 Imidacloprid
17.8 % SL
44 46 2 1 8 0 0 15 26 59
43
S.
No.
Herbicides Soruce of plant protection
information
Effectiveness (%)
Pesticide
dealer
Fellow Agril. ext.
officer
Media Experience Government 0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100
farmer
1 Oxidirzil 22 52 6 2 18 0 0 4 40 56
2 Pendimethylene 26 66 1 0 7 0 0 10 22 68
3 Pyrozosulphuran 38 48 0 4 9 1 0 18 27 55
4 Butachlore 44 36 0 2 16 2 2 12 18 68
5 Ethoxysulfuran
(15WDG)
28 58 2 8 4 0 0 14 40 46
6 2-4D 42 40 0 0 18 0 0 10 28 62
7 Chlorymuron +
Metasufuron
38 54 2 2 14 0 0 2 44 54
44
4.5 Economics of kharif paddy
The present section deals with the economics of production of kharif paddy
grown in the study area. Cost of cultivation is a pre-requisite to estimate the unit cost
of production and to judge whether the price of crops are remunerative or not.
Economics of production of crops covers break-up of input cost item wise, break-up
of input cost on the basis of cost concept wise and income obtained from the crops
on the sampled farmers.
4.5.1 Input wise Cost of cultivation of Kharif paddy
(i.) Variety – MAHAMAYA
The break-up of cost of input factors involved in kharif paddy variety
(MAHAMAYA) on the sample farmers is given in (Table 4.6). It reveals that per
hectare average cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was Rs.39101.44. The human
labour share on total cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was 29.65 per cent and
machine power of kharif paddy was 21.74 per cent. The cost of cultivation was
increased with the size of farm increased in kharif paddy.
(ii.) Variety – SWARNA
The break-up cost of input factor involved in kharif paddy variety (SWARNA) on
the sample farmers is given in (Table 4.7). It reveals that the per hectare average cost
of cultivation of kharif paddy was Rs.31456.43. The human labour share on total
cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was 40.76 per cent and machine power share on
kharif paddy was 25.85s per cent. The cost of cultivation was increased with the size
of farm increased in kharif paddy.
45
Table 4.6: Economics of kharif paddy on different size groups of farms
(Variety- Mahamaya) (Rs/ha)
S.
No. Particulars
Kharif Season
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1.
Family human labour
7657.77
(21.52)
8884.38
(23.99)
2959.88
(6.99)
1000.33
(2.34)
5596.24
(14.31)
2.
Hired human labour
2552.59
(7.17)
2961.46
(7.99)
8879.65
(20.99)
11373
(26.65)
5999.11
(15.34)
Total human labour
10210.36
(28.69)
11845.84
(31.99)
11839.55
(27.99)
12373.33
(28.99)
11595.36
(29.65)
3.
Machine power
8196.36
(23.03)
6060.12
(16.37)
11070.48
(26.17)
9964.28
(23.34)
8502.34
(21.74)
4s.
Seed cost
180
(0.50)
190
(0.51)
200
(0.47)
210
(0.49)
194.3
(0.49)
5.
Manure & Fertilizer
13399.49
(37.66)
15276.01
(41.26)
15336.3
(36.26)
16241.15
(38.05)
15079.70
(13.75)
6.
Plant protection
2222
(6.24)
2222.9
(6.00)
2217.3
(5.24)
2244.4
(5.25)
2225.92
(5.69)
7.
Interest on working capital
@4%
1368.32
(3.84)
1423.79
(3.84)
1656.54
(3.91)
1641.32
(3.84)
1503.90
(3.84)
Total Input cost
35576.53
(100)
37018.66
(100)
42290.17
(100)
42674.48
(100)
39101.44
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total input cost.
46
Table 4.7: Economics of kharif paddy on different size groups of farms (Variety-
Swarna)
(Rs./ha)
S. No. Operation Kharif Season
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1. Family human labour 7718.97
(27.29)
8650.17
(32.81)
2856.96
(9.37)
1975.3
(4.47)
5711.14
(18.15)
2.
Hired human labour
2572.99
(9.09)
2883.39
(10.93)
8570.88
(28.13)
13877.18
(31.45)
6431.92
(20.44)
Total human labour
10291.96
(36.39)
11533.57
(43.75)
11427.85
(47.35)
15852.5
(35.92)
12833.07
(40.76)
3.
Machine power
8968.24
(31.71)
4737.76
(17.97)
10810.56
(35.48)
9822.5
(22.26)
8133.00
(25.85)
4.
Seed cost
180
(0.63)
190
(0.72)
200
(0.65)
210
(0.47)
194.3
(0.61)
5.
Manure & Fertilizers
13250.54
(46.85)
15312.5
(58.09)
15487.98
(50.83)
16270.1
(36.87)
13260.32
(42.15)
6.
Plant protection
2221.8
(7.85)
2222
(8.42)
2226.6
(7.30)
2244.4
(5.08)
2227.79
(7.08)
7.
Interest on working capital @4%
1087.74
(3.84)
1013.82
(3.84)
1171.84
(3.84)
1696.96
(3.84)
1209.89
(3.84)
Total Input Cost
28281.31
(100)
26359.47
(100)
30467.86
(100)
44121.14
(100)
31456.43
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total input cost.
4.5.2 Operation wise Cost of cultivation of Kharif paddy
(i.) Variety – (MAHAMAYA)
The break-up of operation wise cost of cultivation involved in kharif paddy variety
(MAHAMAYA) on the sample farmers is given in (Table 4.8). It reveals that the
operation wise per hectare average cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was
Rs.39101.44. The manure and fertilizer share on total cost of cultivation of kharif
paddy was 39.65 per cent and sowing/transplanting of kharif paddy was 10.17 per
cent and plant protection of kharif paddy was 9.16 percent. The operation wise cost
of cultivation was increased with the size of farm increased in kharif paddy.
47
(ii.) Variety – SWARNA
The break-up of operation wise cost of cultivation involved in kharif paddy variety
(SWARNA) on the sample farmers is given in (Table 4.9). It reveals that the
operation wise per hectare average cost of cultivation of kharif paddy was
Rs.31456.43. The sowing and transplanting share on total cost of cultivation of
kharif paddy was 51.43 per cent and plant protection of kharif paddy was 11.42 per
cent .The harvesting of kharif paddy was 17.58 per cent. The operation wise cost of
cultivation was increased with the size of farm increased in kharif paddy.
Table 4.8: Cost of cultivation of Kharif Paddy (Variety-Mahamaya)
(Rs./ha)
S.
No. Operation
Kharif Season
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1.
Field preparation
2454.45
(6.89)
2148.64
(5.80)
2153.66
(5.09)
4328.12
(10.14)
2674.76
(6.84)
2.
Manure & Fertilizers
14308.58
(40.21)
14523.81
(39.23)
16406.3
(38.79)
17366.15
(40.69)
15506.19
(39.65)
3.
Sowing/Seed
1061.24
(2.98)
1089.32
(2.94)
1137.12
(2.68)
1100.62
(2.57)
1095.48
(2.80)
4.
Weeding/Interculture
1886.36
(5.30)
1395.27
(3.76)
1295.45
(3.06)
1312.5
(3.07)
1462.96
(3.74)
5.
Plant protection
3227.68
(9.07)
3730.1
(10.07)
3616.28
(8.55)
3681.9
(8.62)
3583.26
(9.16)
6.
Transplanting
3985.79
(11.20)
4014.86
(10.84)
3963.38
(9.37)
3937.5
(9.22)
3980.34
(10.17)
7.
Harvesting
4741.47
(13.32)
5217.56
(14.09)
5202.02
(12.3)
4187.5
(9.81)
3296.36
(8.43)
8.
Threshing/winnowing
2088.06
(5.86)
2451.35
(6.62)
4583.96
(10.83)
2805.8
(6.57)
2936.36
(7.50)
9.
Transportation
1977.27
(5.55)
2269.54
(6.13)
2150.25
(5.08)
2314.73
(5.42)
2187.29
(5.59)
10.
Interest on working capital
@4%
1368.32
(3.84)
1423.79
(3.84)
1626.54
(3.84)
1641.32
(3.84)
1503.90
(3.84)
Total input cost
35576.53
(100)
37018.66
(100)
42290.17
(100)
42674.48
(100)
39101.44
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total input cost.
48
Table 4.9: Cost of cultivation of Kharif Paddy (Variety-Swarna)
(Rs./ha)
S.
No. Operation
Kharif Season
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1.
Field preparation
2388.62
(8.44)
2146.34
(8.14)
2124.44
(6.97)
4329.5
(9.80)
2653.06
(8.43)
2.
Manure & Fertilizers
14102.39
(49.86)
16523.47
(62.68)
16551.26
(54.32)
17395.1
(39.42)
16180.26
(51.43)
3.
Sowing/Seed
1102.22
(3.89)
1093.65
(4.14)
1101.75
(3.61)
1136
(2.57)
1106.29
(3.51)
4.
Weeding/Intercultural
1681.85
(5.94)
1281.7
(4.86)
1278.84
(4.19)
1350
(3.05)
1383.41
(4.39)
5.
Plant protection
3166.22
(11.19)
3743.75
(14.20)
3694.54
(12.12)
3694.4
(8.37)
3595.01
(11.42)
6.
Transplanting
4000
(14.14)
4052.43
(15.33)
3958.33
(12.99)
3937.5
(8..92)
3995.11
(12.70)
7.
Harvesting
5361.11
(18.95)
6087.8
(9.69)
6184.29
(20.29)
4100
(9.29)
5532.68
(17.58)
8.
Threshing/winnowing
1782.4
(6.30)
2556.09
(9.69)
2822.11
(9.26)
2985
(6.76)
2369.13
(7.53)
9.
Transportation
2027.77
(7.17)
2275.82
(8.63)
2125
(6.97)
1618
(3.66)
2048.75
(6.51)
10.
Interest on working capital
@4%
1087.74
(3.84)
1013.82
(3.84)
1171.84
(4.44)
1696.96
(3.84)
1209.89
(3.84)
Total input cost
28281.31
(100)
26359.47
(100)
30467.86
(100)
44121.14
(100)
31456.43
(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total input cost.
4.5.3: Yield Value of Output and Cost of Production of Kharif paddy
(i.) Variety – MAHAMAYA
The yield value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of kharif
paddy on the sample farmers have been worked out in (Table 4.10). It indicates that
the average yield of kharif paddy was 54.07 quintals. The per hectare gross income
of kharif paddy was Rs. 95898. The average cost of production per quintal of kharif
paddy was worked out to Rs. 931.85.
49
Table 4.10: Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per quintal of
Kharif paddy (Variety – Mahamaya)
(Rs./ha)
S.
No. Particulars
Kharif Season
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1. Input Cost (Rs.) 35576.53 37018.66 42290.17 42674.48 39101.44
2. Fixed Cost (Rs.)
Land Revenue 15 15 15 15 15
Depreciation on
implements 819.63 606.01 1107.04 996.42 850.23
Rental value of own
land/leased land(Rs) 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000
Interest on Fixed Capital 340 380 410 440 390.7
Total fixed Cost (Rs.) 11174.63 11001.01 11532.04 11451.42 11255.93
Total Cost (Rs.) 46751.16 48019.67 53822.21 54125.9 50357.37
3. Production (Qtl)
a. Main Product 51.02 52 56.88 57.58 54.07
b. By-Product 44.31 50.81 50.98 53.57 49.99
4. Price of production
(Rs./qtl)
a. Main Product 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450
b. By-Product 350 350 350 350 350
5. Value of production
(Rs./qtl)
a. Main Product 73979 75400 81200 82650 78401.5
b. By-Product 15508.5 17083.5 17843 18749.5 17496.5
Gross Income (Rs.) 89487.5 92483.5 99043 101399.5 95898
6. Cost of production
(Rs./qtl)
a. Main Product 916.33 923.45 946.24 940.01 931.85
b. By-Product 3.01 2.81 3.01 2.88 2.87
(ii.) Variety – SWARNA
The yield value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of kharif
paddy on the sample farmers have been worked out in (Table 4.11). It indicates that
the average yield of kharif paddy was 52.41 quintals. The per hectare gross income
of kharif paddy was Rs.193551.5 . The average cost of production per quintal of
kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 814.26.
50
Table 4.11: Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per quintal of
Kharif paddy (Variety – Swarna)
(Rs./ha)
S.
No. Particulars
Kharif Season
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1. Input Cost (Rs.) 28281.31 26359.47 30497.86 44121.14 31456.43
2. Fixed Cost
Land Revenue 15 15 15 15 15
Depreciation on
implements 896.82 473.77 1081.05 982.25 813.30
Rental value of own land/
leased land(Rs) 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000
Interest on Fixed Capital 340 380 410 440 390.7
Total fixed Cost (Rs.) 11251.82 10868.77 11506.05 11437.25 11219
Total Cost (Rs.) 39532.13 37228.24 42003.91 55558.39 42675.43
3. Production (qtl)
a. Main Product 50.92 52 53.01 54 52.41
b. By-Product 41.66 49.5 51.28 53.5 49.02
4. Price of
production(Rs./qtl)
a. Main Product 1450 1450 1450 1450 1450
b. By-Product 350 350 350 350 350
5. Value of
production(Rs./qtl)
a. Main Product 73834 75400 76864.5 78300 75994.5
b. By-Product 14581 13995 17948 18655 17157
Gross Income (Rs.) 88415 89395 94812.5 96955 193151.5
6. Cost of production
(Rs./qtl)
a. Main Product 776.35 715.92 792.37 1028.25 814.26
b. By-Product 2.71 2.66 2.34 2.97 2.48
4.5.4: Measures of farm profit of kharif paddy
(i.) Variety – MAHAMAYA
The value of net income, family labour income and farm business income per
hectare on the sample farmers have been worked out in (Table 4.12). Clearly
indicates that on an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm
business income are to Rs. 145405.26, Rs. 51986.96 and Rs. 62380.14 per hectare
from kharif paddy. The input-output ratio of kharif paddy was worked out to 1:1.93.
51
Table 4.12: Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different group
of farms (Variety- MAHAMAYA)
(Rs./ha)
S.
No. Particulars
Kharif Season
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1. Total Cost 45931.53 47413.66 52715.17 53129.48 49507.26
2. Gross Income 89487.5 92483.5 99043 101399.5 95898
3. Net Income 135419.03 139897.16 151758.17 154528.98 145405.26
4. Faimily laboure
income 51213.74 131012.78 49287.71 48270.02 51986.98
5. Farm Business
Income 61564.74 64334.22 59697.71 59710.35 62380.14
6. Input-Output Ratio 1:1.94 1:1.83 1:1.87 1:1.90 1:1.93
(ii.) Variety – SWARNA
The value of net income, family labour income and farm business income per
hectare on the sample farmers have been worked out in (Table 4.13). Clearly
indicates that on an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm
business income are to Rs. 51288.68, Rs. 56999.76 and Rs. 118912.51 per hectare
from paddy. The input-output ratio of paddy was worked out to 1:2.25.
Table 4.13: Cost and return of paddy on the sample farms for different group of
farms (SWARNA) (Rs./ha)
S. No. Particulars Kharif Season
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
1 Total Cost 38636.31 36754.47 40892.86 54576.14 41862.82
2 Gross Income 88415 75799.5 94812.5 96955 93151.5
3 Net Income 49778.69 39045.03 53919.64 42378.86 51288.68
4 Faimily laboure
income 57497.66 47695.2 37763.6 44354.16 56999.79
5 Farm Business
Income 108992.34 93523.8 122438.4 139115.84 118912.51
6 Input-Output Ratio 1:2.28 1:2.06 1:2.31 1:1.77 1:2.25
52
Fig.4.5 : Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different group of farms (Variety- Mahamaya)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
1 2 3 4 5 6
Marginal
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Cost and return of kharif paddy (Variety-mahamaya)
Total cost Gross income Family labour income Farm bussiness income Input-output ratio
53
Fig.4.6 : Cost and return of kharif paddy on the sample farms for different group of farms (Variety- Swarna)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
1 2 3 4 5 6
Marginal
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Cost and return of kharif paddy (Variety-Swarna)
29
4.5.5 Cost and Returns on the Basis of Cost Concept of paddy
(i.) Variety – MAHAMAYA
The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of rice have been
presented in (Table 4.14) portrays that paddy on an average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost
B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were worked to Rs. 33517.86, Rs.
33517.86, Rs. 33911.02, Rs. 43911.02, Rs. 39507.26, Rs.49507.26 and 42454.74 per
hectare. The average kharif paddy of income per hectare over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost
B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were calculated to Rs. 62380.14, Rs.
62380.14, Rs. 61986.98, Rs. 51986.98, Rs. 56393.74, Rs. 46393.74 and Rs.
53443.26s.
(ii.) Variety – SWARNA
The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of rice have been
presented in (Table 4.15) portrays that paddy on an average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost
B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were worked to Rs. 25761.01, Rs.
25761.01, Rs. 26151.71, Rs. 36151.71, Rs. 34062.85, 41862.84 and 46049.13 per
hectare. The average kharif paddy of income per hectare over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost
B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were calculated to Rs. 67390.49, Rs.
67390.49, Rs. 66999.79, Rs. 56999.79, Rs. 59088.65, Rs. 49088.65 and Rs.
47102.37.
Table 4.14: Break-up of total cost, cost concept wise income over different cost in
kharif paddy (Variety-MAHAMAYA)
S.
No. Particulars
Kharif season (Rs./ha)
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall A. Break-up of cost
Cost A1 27922.76 28149.28 39345.29 41689.15 33517.86
Cost A2 27922.76 28149.28 39345.29 41689.15 33517.86
Cost B1 28273.76 28529.28 39755.29 42129.15 33911.02
Cost B2 38273.76 38529.28 49755.29 52129.15 43911.02
Cost C1 35931.53 37413.66 42715.17 43129.48 39507.26
Cost C2 45931.53 47413.66 52715.17 53129.48 49507.26
55
Cost C3 +10% 50524.68 52155.02 57986.68 58442.42 42454.74
B. Income over different cost
Cost A1 61564.74 62334.22 59697.71 59710.35 62380.14
Cost A2 61564.74 62334.22 59697.71 59710.35 62380.14
Cost B1 61213.47 63954.22 59287.71 59270.35 61986.98
Cost B2 51213.47 53954.22 49287.71 49270.35 51986.98
Cost C1 53555.97 55069.84 56327.83 58270.02 56393.74
Cost C2 43555.97 45069.84 46327.83 48270.02 46393.74
Cost C3 +10% 38962.82 40328.48 41056.32 42957.08 53443.26
Table 4.15: Break-up of total cost, cost conceptwise income over different cost in
kharif paddy (Variety-SWARNA)
S.
No. Particulars
Kharif season (Rs./ha)
Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
A. Break-up of cost
Cost A1 20577.34 17724.3 27625.9 42160.84 25761.01
Cost A2 20577.34 17724.3 27625.9 42160.84 25761.01
Cost B1 20917.34 18104.3 28035.9 42600.84 26151.71
Cost B2 30917.34 28104.3 38035.9 52600.84 36151.71
Cost C1 38636.31 26754.47 30892.86 44576.14 34062.85
Cost C2 48636.31 36754.47 40892.86 54576.14 44062.85
Cost C3
+10% 42499.94 40429.91 44982.14 60033.75 46049.13
B. Income over different cost
Cost A1 67837.66 58075.2 67186.6 54794.16 67390.49
Cost A2 67837.66 58075.2 67186.6 54794.16 67390.49
Cost B1 67497.66 57695.2 66776.6 54354.16 66999.79
Cost B2 57497.66 47695.2 56776.6 44354.16 56999.76
Cost C1 49778.69 49045.03 63919.64 52378.86 59088.65
Cost C2 39778.69 39045.03 53919.64 42378.86 49088.65
Cost C3
+10% 45915.06 35369.59 49830.36 36921.25 47102.37
29
4.6 Constraints:
It could be seen that from (Table 4.16 and 4.17 ) 40% respondents thought
that, there is lack of know-how about the application of pesticides. 72%
respondents thought that , there is lack of recommended package of practices
for pesticides application in the region. 95% respondents having lack of
resources application. 85% respondents thought that they getting labour
problem for pesticide application. 78% farmer know the recommended level
of pesticide use in paddy production.
Majority of the farmer were participated extension programme.
Dealers are the major player in case of purchase and use of pesticides in the
study area. Farmers are aware about the harmful effect of insecticides on
soil, water and human health.-pest More awareness programme is needed for
IPM practices.
Tables 4.16 Constraints faced by the farmers in cereals application of pesticides
S.N QUESTION (%)
1 Lack of technical know-how about the application of pesticides Y/N
a. Yes 40
if no, why ?
a. Government non approach 55
b. Farmer distrust 5
c. Any other specify 0
2 Lack of latest recommended and effective pesticides Y/N
a. NO 25
If yes, then
a. Non availability if pesticides 22
b. Poor knowledge of technology 45
c. Old farmers practices 8
d. Any other specify 0
57
3 Lack of recommended package of practices for pesticide application in
the region Y/N
a. NO 28
if yes , why?
a. No such type of recommendation 24
b. No frequent visit of extension worker 38
c. Not proper interest of farmers 10
4 Lack of resources i.e. Money, equipment etc. Y/N
A. If yes then how are you managing money?
a. From bank loan 0
b. From relatives 38
c. From traders 57
B. No 5
5 Do you face any problem in getting labour for pesticide application Y/N
a. Yes 85
b. No 15
6 Do you know the recommended level of pesticide use in cereals production
Y/N
a. Yes 78
b. No 22
7 What is the dose you are using ?
a. RD (Recommended Dose) 40
b. >RD 45
c. <RD 5
8 Are you aware about the importance of toxicity, expiry dates, colour
symbols that are present on the label? Y/N
a. Yes 62
b. No 38
9 Do you get pesticides on time Y/N
a. Yes 72
b. No 28
10 Do you feel pesticides causes adverse effect on land or crop or environment? Y/N
a. Yes 67
b. No 33
58
Table 4.17 Opinion of the respondent about pesticides
S. NO QUESTION (%)
1 Did you participate in any kind of extension programme ?
a. Krishi Mela 40
b. Demonstration programme 23
c. Exhibition 18
d. Field trip 19
2 Awareness about the use of pesticides
a. Relatives/friends 34
b. Progressive farmers 27
c. Dealerss 28
d. Agri. Ext. officer 4
e. Department of agriculture 3
f. Media (TV/Radio) 4
h. Others 0
3 Agency of purchase
a. Dealers 60
b. Agro-agency 23
c. Co-operative society 14
d. Department of agriculture 3
e. Others 0
4 Do you follow the recommended method of pesticides application Y/N
a. Yes 80
b. No 20
5 Do you get adequate labour facilities for pesticides application Y/N
a. Yes 65
b. No 35
59
6 Do you feel chemical pesticide application causes degradation to soil Y/N
a. Yes 68
b. No 32
7 Do you feel organic pesticides are better than chemical pesticides Y/N
a. Yes 58
b. No 42
8 Do you think that the quantity of pesticide used is adequate? Y/N
If yes substantiate?
a. This much of pesticides are able to control pests. 12
b. I will be getting higher returns for this quantity 82
c. Any other
b. No 6
9
Do you think the application of pesticide is effective for cereals
production? Y/N
If yes, reason
a. Quick effect 15
b. Easy to use 10
c. Easily available 17
d. Cost effective 58
e. Others
10 Do you purchase the pesticide from a known company? Y/N
a. Yes 5
b. No 95
11 Do you bring packed pesticides or loose pesticide? Packed/Loose
A. Packed 91
B. Loose 8
12 Information source of farmers regarding pesticide application
A. Pesticide dealer 40
60
b. Agriculture extension 12
c. Fellow farmers 31
d. Media 4
e. Government 3
g. Experience 10
13 Are you aware about the bad effect of pesticide application Y/N
a. Yes 63
b. No 37
29
CHAPTER-V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Summary
Pesticides together with fertilizers and high yielding varieties have helped
Indian farmers to achieve significant increase in crop productivity. For example, the
yield of two most pesticides using crops, cotton and rice increased by a factor of 1.9
times and 1.8 times respectively. During the initial years of Green Revolution, the
effectiveness of pesticides was so unambiguous that soon it over showed the
traditional methods of pest control. According to one estimate, every rupee spent in
chemical pest control helps saving crop output worth Rs. 3. The average per hectare
consumption of pesticides in India had increased from 3.2 gm in 1954-55 to 570 gm
in 1996 (Bami, 1996). The present use of pesticides in India was 580 gm per hectare
which is very low as compared to Taiwan (17 kg/ha) followed by Japan (16.5 kg/ha)
and in the US it is 4.5 kg/ha (Kumarswamy, 2008).
Since last more than three decades, adoption of high yielding varieties, use of
fertilizers, irrigation and agro-resources and management practices are given major
emphasis. The fertilizer is a major input for rice production. Fertilizer consumption
in India during 2000-01 was 167.02 lakh tonnes which increased to 277.40 lakh
tones during 2011-12. Fertilizer consumption in Chhattisgarh during 2012 was
595.57, thousand tonnes. The pesticide use in India was 50.58 thousand tonnes.
(Anonymous 2012).
The specific objectives of the present study are:
1. To work out the cost and return of major cereals in the study area.
2. To examine the consumption pattern of pesticide in major cereals.
3. To analyze the farmer perception on effectiveness of various pesticides
used in major cereals.
62
4. To find out the constraints in use of pesticide in major cereals and suggest
suitable measures to overcome them.
The objectives were achieved based on cross-sectional data. For this purpose
a survey was conducted in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh. For the present study
kharif paddy crop were selected for detailed study. Out of four blocks in Raipur
district, Arang and Tilda block has been selected purposively. The data was
collected from 100 farmers, from five villages (namely Nagpuraand badganv from
Arang block and Kharora and Math from Tilda block) for the present study. The
primary data from the farmers are collected through personal interview with the help
of well prepared questionnaire and schedule. All the information collected from the
farmers relate to the production year 2015-16(kharif season). The collected data
were compiled and tabular analysis was made to work out the different parameters,
such as compound growth rate of paddy and consumption of N, P, and K, cost
concepts, business analysis, cost of production of paddy crop. The per hectare gross
returns and net returns of paddy crop were also worked out. The levels of utilization
of different inputs per hectare in paddy production were also worked out.
5.2 Conclusions
• General characteristics of sampled households:
• The average size of holding was 2.45 hectares. On an average the cropping
intensity was found 151.38 per cent. The major source of irrigation was canal.
• The average family size was 4.27 and literacy rate in the selected households
was 85.83 per cent.
• The sample households comprised pre-dominantly of Other backward cast
(94.00 per cent) followed by other General (5.00 per cent) and scheduled caste
(1.00) per cent.
• Paddy covered highest cropped area 64.77s per cent in kharif season
The consumption pattern of Agrochemicals, in kharif paddy
63
The use of insecticide in kharif paddy was higher in case of Imidacloprid 17.8%
SL (+40.70 per cent) followed by Aciphate (+23.22) and lowest in
Chloropyariphos50%+ Cypermethrin (+6.6 per cent). The above insecticide was
used for controlling of Stem borer, Cutworm, Plant hopper and Leaf folder.
The use of herbicide in kharif paddy gap was higher in case of
Chlorymuron10%+Metasulfuran (+125 per cent) followed by Pyrozosulphuran
(+77) and lowest in Butachlor (+1.62 per cent). The above herbicide was used
for controlling of Buti, Bhengra, Motha, Jalkumbhi, Narjava, Aaluban, Sanva,
Loung ghass, Chunchuniya, Jalkumbhi, Tinpatiya and Broad leaf weeds.
The use of fungicide in kharif paddy was higher in case of Tricyclazole (+41.67
per cent) followed byHexaconazile (+31.67 Tricyclazole) and lowest in
Propiconazole 25% EC (21.90 per cent).The above fungicide was used for
controlling of Blast, Sheath blight, Brown spot and BLB.
• Economics of crop production
The average yield of kharif paddy was 54.07 quintals. The per hectare gross
income of kharif paddy was Rs. 95898. The average cost of production per
quintal of kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 931.85.
The average yield of kharif paddy was 52.41 quintals. The per hectare gross
income of kharif paddy was Rs.193551.5 . The average cost of production per
quintal of kharif paddy was worked out to Rs. 814.26.
On an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm business
income are to Rs. 145405.26, Rs. 51986.96 and Rs. 62380.14 per hectare from
kharif paddy. The input-output ratio of kharif paddy was worked out to 1:1.93 .
On an average the value of net income, family labour income and farm business
income are to Rs. 51288.68, Rs. 56999.76 and Rs. 118912.51 per hectare from
paddy. The input-output ratio of paddy was worked out to 1:2.25 .
The per hectare break-up of cost of kharif paddy variety (Mahamaya) on an
average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were
worked to Rs. 33517.86, Rs. 33517.86, Rs. 33911.02, Rs. 43911.02, Rs.
39507.26, Rs.49507.26 and 42454.74 per hectare. The average kharif paddy of
income per hectare over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and
64
Cost C3 were calculated to Rs. 62380.14, Rs. 62380.14, Rs. 61986.98, Rs.
51986.98, Rs. 56393.74, Rs. 46393.74 and Rs. 53443.26s.
The per hectare break-up of cost of kharif paddy variety (MTU-1010) on an
average Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were
worked to Rs. 25761.01, Rs. 25761.01, Rs. 26151.71, Rs. 36151.71, Rs. 34062.85,
41862.84 and 46049.13 per hectare. The average kharif paddy of income per hectare
over Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2 and Cost C3 were
calculated to Rs. 67390.49, Rs. 67390.49, Rs. 66999.79, Rs. 56999.79, Rs.
59088.65, Rs. 49088.65 and Rs. 47102.37.
Constraints :
45% respondents thought that, there is lack of know- how about the
application of pesticides.
85% respondents thought that, there is lack of recommended package of
practices for pesticides application in the region.
95% respondents having lack of resources application.
80% respondents thought that they getting labour problem for pesticide
application.
85% farmers know the recommended level of pesticide use in vegetable
production.
Majority of the farmers were participated in extension programme. Dealers
are the major player in case of purchase and use of pesticides in the study
area. Farmers are aware about the harmful effect of insecticides on soil,
water and human health. Farmers are using pesticides in vegetables crops to
reduce the losses due to insect- pest. More awareness programme is needed
for IPM practices.
29
REFERENCES
Abhilash, P.C. and Nandita Singh. 2009. Pesticide Use and Application: An Indian
Scenario, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 165(1-3): 1-12.
Alarima C.I., Adamu C.O., MasunagaT. and Wakatsuki T., 2011. Constraints to
Sawah Rice Production System in Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology, 36
(2):121 -130.
Anonymous 2012. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation. Pp. 65-66.
Anonymous, 2006, Annual Review of Fertilizer Production - 2005-06. Indian
Journal of Fertilizer, 2(6): 74-114.
Anonymous, 2008, Agriculture output, Economic intelligence service, CMIEA
publications, Mumbai.6 (2): 54-61.
Anonymous, 2012. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. Department of Agriculture
and Cooperation. Pp. 277.
Anonymous, 2012. Statistical Outline of Chhattisgarh. Department of Economics
and Statistics, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur
Anonymous, 2013-14. Area, Production, and Productivity of Paddy in Raipur
District in Plans of Chhattisgarh,. Commission Land Record, Raipur. Pp. 7-
31.
Bami, H. L., 1996, Pesticide Use in India Ten Questions. Pest. Information, 21(4):
19- 26.
Bhardwaj., Tulsi. And J.P. Sharma, Impact of Pesticides Application in Agricultural
Industry : An Indian Scenario, Division of Agricultural Extension, IARI,
Pusa, New Delhi.
66
Demircan, V., Ylmaz, H., 2005. The Analysis of Pesticide Use in Apple Production
in Isparta, Turkey. Ekoloji. 15(57): 38-48.
Engindeniz, S. and Engindeniz, D. Y., 2006, Economic Analysis of Pesticide Use on
Greenhouse Cucumber Growing: a Case Study for Turkey. Journal of Plant
Diseases Protect, 113(5): 193-198.
Gauraha, R.S. and Jain J.K., 1982. An Analysis of Factor Responsible for Yield
Gaps in Paddy on Demonstrating and Non-demonstrating Fields.
Maharashtra journal of Extension Education, 1(1): 14-19.
Hashemi, Seyyed Mahmoud and Damalas, Christos A.(2011) 'Farmers' Perceptions
of Pesticide Efficacy:Reflections on the Importance of Pest Management
Practices Adoption', Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35: 1, 69 — 85
Hosamani U.K., 2009, Economic Consequence of Pesticides Use in Paddy Koppal
District, Karnataka. M.Sc. (Ag.) thesis submitted to the University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
Husan et.al. 2014. Growth and Trend in Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops
of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Asian Journal. of Agriculture and Rural
Development, 4(2): 149-155.
Hussain A., Khattak N.R. and Khan A.Q. 2008. Cost Benefit Analysis of Different
Rice Varieties in District Swat, Sarhad Journal of Agriulture. 24 (4): 745-
748.
Kazmi S.Q. (2012), Consumer Perception and Buying Decisions(The Pasta Study)
International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology,(2012)
1:6
Khai,H.V., (2014), Farmer Perceptions and Demand for Pesticide Use: A Case
Study of Rice Production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Journal of
Economics and Behavioral Studies . 6(11):868-873
Mojo, D., Y.Todo and P.Matous, Perception of Farmers and Agricultural
Professionals on Changes in Productivity and Water Resources in Ethiopia,
67
International Journal of Biological, Biomolecular, Agricultural, Food and
Biotechnological Engineering 4:6
N, Mahantesh,and Singh Alka (2009), A Study on Farmers‘ Knowledge, Perception
and Intensity of Pesticide Use in Vegetable Cultivation in Western Uttar
Pradesh, Division of Agricultural Economics, Indian Agricultural Research
Institute, New Delhi Pusa Agri Science 32:63-69
Naing T. A. A., Kingsbury A. Journal., Buerkert A. and. Finckh M. R.,2008. A
Survey of Myanmar Rice Production and Constraints Journal of Agriculture
and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 109 (2): 151–168.
Nirmala B. and Muthuraman P. 2009. Economic and Constraint Analysis of Rice
Cultivation in Kaithal District of Haryana, Indian Research Journal of
Extension Education, 9 (1): 47-49.
Reddy Y.S. and G.P., 2005. Production and Marketing of Sunflower Cultivation in
Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural marketing, 19(3) 23-24.
Sarswat S.P. and Singh Pratap, 2003. Strategy For Fertilizer Consumption In
Himachal Pradesh, The Bihar Journals of Agriculture Marketing, 11 (1&2):
42-50.
Sakeena Rather. 2014. Production and Productivity Trends of Paddy Cultivation in
Jammu & Kashmir. Indian Journal. of research 3(6).
Saraswati Poudel Acharya et.al. 2012. Growth in area, production and productivity
of major crops in Karnataka. Karnataka Journal. Of Agricultural Science, 25
(4): 431- 436.
Sawant S.D., 1997. Food grain Output Growth: Emerging Constraints
and Perspectives for Technology Development Policies. In Bhupat Desai
(ed.). Agricultural paradigm for the ninth plan under new economic
environment, Oxford and IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
68
Shivamurthy, M.L.R. Rao,Shailaja Hittalamani, and M.T. Lakshminarayan, 2008.
Constraints of Farmers Cultivating Rainfed Paddy in Eastern Dry Zone of
Karnataka. Mysore-Journal-Of-Agriculture-Sciences, 42 (1): 163-165.
Singh P.K. and Varshney J.G., 2010. Adoption Level and Constraints in Rice
Production Technology, Indian Research Journal of Exension. Education,
10(1): 91-94.
Sori S.K.2011. An Economic Analysis of Production, Marketing, and Processing of
Paddy in Mahasamund District of Chhattishgarh. Ph.D. (Ag.) Thesis
submitted to Department of Agricultural Economics, Indira Gandhi Krishi
Vishwavidyalya, Raipur (C.G.).
Tarar N.K. 2008. Comparative Economics of Kharif and Summer Paddy Production
in Durg District of Chhattisgarh M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis submitted to Department
of Agricultural Economics, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalya, Raipur
(C.G.)
Thanh N. C. and Singh B. 2006, Constraints Faced By the Farmers In Rice
Production And Export. Omonrice 14, 97-110.
Yadav S.R. 2010. A Socio-Economic Characterization of Upland Rice Production
System in Dantewada District of Chhattisgarh. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis submitted
to Department of Agricultural Economics, Indira Gandhi Krishi
Vishwavidyalya, Raipur (C.G.).
Yogeshwari, 2002 Economics and environmental implication of pesticide use in
paddy Shimoga district. M. Sc. (Ag.) Thesis submitted to Department of
Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
29
APPENDIX-I
Question schedule
DEPARTMENT OF AGRIBUSINESS & RURAL MANAGEMENT,
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA,
RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
“A STUDY ON FARMERS PERCEPTION ON USE OF PESTICIDE IN
MAJOR VEGETABLES IN RAIPUR DISTRICT OF CHHATTISGARH.”
LAXMI VERMA
House Hold Schedule
A. General information
1. Name of farmer ------------------------------------------- 2. Age -------------------
3. Education ------------------------------- 4. Caste (Gen./SC/ST/OBC) -------------
5. Village -------------------------------- 6. Post -----------------------------------------
7. Tehsil ---------------------------------- 8. District -------------------------------------
9. State -------------------------------- 10. Distance from market (km) ---------------
11. Distance from pacca road (km) ------------------------------------------------------
12. Date of interview ----------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Details of the family
S.
N.
Name of
Family
member
Relation to
Head
Age Sex
M/F
Literacy
Level
Occupation Remarks
Total
* 1= Illiterate, 2 = Primary, 3 = Middle School, 4 = High School, 5= College, 6
= University
70
C. Details of land holding
LAND USE
Particular Area
(ha)
Agriculture Source of
Irrigation
Soil
type
Land
Quality # Irrigation Unirrig.
Owned land
i. Cultivated
ii. Homestead
Leased in
Leased out
Total land
1= Poor, 2= Average , 3= Good, 4= Very good
D. SOURCE OF IRRIGATION
S.No Particular Area (ha) Irrigation charges (Rs.)
Tank
Canal
Tube well
Well
Bore well
Stop dam
Other
Total
71
E. Cropping pattern
Season Crops Variety Area (ha) Production
(quintal)
Value
Rs. Irrigated Unirrigated
Kharif
Rabi
Summer
or Zaid
F. FARM STRUCTURE AND EQUIPMENT
S.N Items No. Year of
Construction
Present
value
(Rs.)
Expenditure
on Annual
Repair (Rs.) 1 Farm building
a. Pacca
b. Semi Pacca
c. Kutcha
2 Irrigation structure
and equipment
3 Implements and
machinery
4 Plant protection
Equipment
5 Dairy equipment &
tools
6 Transport
equipment
Total
Cost of cultivation (kharif/Rabi)
Crop - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Variety - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Area - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ( Irrigated / Unirrigated )
A) Labour cost
72
S.
N.
Operation Family
human
labour
(days)
Hired
human
labour
(days)
Bullock
Power
Machine
power
Total
expenditure
on
particular
M F R M F R M F R M F R
1 Field preparation
2 Nursery Preparation
3. Application of
manure & fertilizer
4 Sowing/transplanting
5 Intercultural activity
6 Irrigation
7 Plant protection
8 Harvesting
9 Grading
10 Transportation
11 Others
Total
M = Male, F= Female, T = Total, O= Family labour, H= Hired labour, R= Rate per unit (Rs.)
B) Input cost
S.N. Input Quantity Rate(Rs) / unit Total value (Rs.)
1 Seed
a.
b.
2 Seed Treatment
chemical
a.
b.
c.
3 FYM
4
Fertilizer
a.
b.
c.
d.
5 Micronutrient
a.
b.
c.
C. Consumption patterns of Pesticides:-
73
S.N. Crop Stage
(days After
transplan
ting)
Name
of
pesticide
use
No. of
applic
ation
Quantity/
each time
(per
acre)
Type of
applicator
use
Total
Quantity
Rate Total
value
(Rs.)
Name of insect-pest
1
2
3
4
5
Name Of Diseases
1
2
3
4
5
Name of weeds
1
2
3
4
5
D. Effectiveness of various pesticides
Name of
Pest
Name of
pesticide use
Source of
plant
protection
information
Effectiveness
0-25% 26-50% 51-
75%
76-
100%
Name of insect-pest
1.
2.
3.
4.
Name Of Diseases
1.
2.
3.
4.
Name of weeds
1.
2.
3.
E. Irrigation charges --------------------------------
74
F. Interest on working capital ---------------------------------
G. Fixed cost
a) Rental value of land / leased in land (Rs.) : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
b) Land revenue (Rs.) : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----
H. Production
Particular Quantity
Produced
(Q)
Consumption Sold Rate (Rs.)
/Qt.
Value
(Rs.)
Main
product
crop
a.
b.
By product
a.
b.
Total
Constraints faced by the farmers in vegetables application of pesticides
1. Lack of technical know-how about the application of pesticides Y/N
If No, why ?
a. Government non approach
b. Farmer distrust
c. Any other specify
2. Lack of latest recommended and effective pesticides Y/N
If yes, then
a. Non availability if pesticides
b. Poor knowledge of technology
c. Old farmers practices
d. Any other specify
3. Lack of recommended package of practices for pesticide application in the
region Y/N
If yes, why
a. No such type of recommendation
b. No frequent visit of extension worker
c. Not proper interest of farmers
4. Lack of resources i.e. Money, equipment etc. Y/N
If yes then how are you managing money?
a. From bank loan
75
b. From relatives
c. From traders
5. Do you face any problem, while getting money from banks ? Y/N
If yes, then
a. Not easily available
b. Difficulty in loan getting procedure
c. Disinterest of bank employees
d. Unable to available land for mortgage
e. High interest rate
6. Do you face any problem in getting labour for pesticide application Y/N
7. Do you know the recommended level of pesticide use in vegetable production
Y/N
8. What is the dose you are using ?
a. RD (Recommended Dose)
b. >RD
c. <RD
9. If using >RD, reason
a. Anticipate higher incident of pest
b. Anticipate higher returns
c. Pesticides are not effective
d. Other farmers apply pesticides, it is necessary for me to use pesticides,
so that pest would not develop
10. If using < RD, reason
a. Due to lack of funds
b. Lack of technical know how
c. Unaware about effectiveness of pesticides
d. Aware about effectiveness of pesticides
e. Aware about the bad effect of pesticide
f. Less pest attack
g. Any other
11. Are you aware about the importance of toxicity, expiry dates, colour symbols
that are present on the label? Y/N
12. Do you get pesticides on time Y/N
13. Do you feel pesticides causes adverse effect on land or crop or environment?
Y/N
76
Opinion of the respondent about pesticides
1. Did you participate in any kind of extension programme ?
a. Krishi Mela Y/N
b. Demonstration programme Y/N
c. Exhibition Y/N
d. Field trip Y/N
2. Awareness about the use of pesticides
a. Relatives/friends
b. Progressive farmers
c. Dealerss
d. Co-operatives
e. Department of agriculture
f. Media (TV/Radio)
g. Magazine
h. Others
3. Agency of purchase
a. Dealers
b. Agro-agency
c. Co-operative society
d. Department of agriculture
e. Others
4. Do you follow the recommended method of pesticides application Y/N
5. Do you get adequate labour facilities for pesticides application Y/N
6. Do you feel chemical pesticide application causes degradation to soil Y/N
7. Do you feel organic pesticides are better than chemical pesticides Y/N
8. Do you think that the quantity of pesticide used is adequate? Y/N
If yes substantiate?
a. This much of pesticides are able to control pests.
b. I will be getting higher returns for this quantity
c. Any other
9. Do you think the application of pesticide is effective for vegetable production?
Y/N
If yes, reason
a. Quick effect
b. Easy to use
c. Easily available
d. Cost effective
e. Others
10. Do you purchase the pesticide from a known company? Y/N
11. Do you bring packed pesticides or loose pesticide? Packed/Loose
12. Information source of farmers regarding pesticide application
77
a. Other farmers
b. Agriculture extension
c. Television
d. Radio
e. News paper
f. Input seller
g. Experience
h. Others
13. Are you aware about the bad effect of pesticide application Y/N
Measures to overcome constraints as per farmer
1. Knowledge about the suitable pesticide applied for a specific pest on
vegetables.
2. Adequate government support.
3. Proper training in use of pesticide.
4. Knowledge about recommended doses of pesticide.
5. Information regarding application time of recommended pesticide.
6. Bringing trust of farmer towards usefulness of pesticide.
7. Seasonal availability of pesticide in the market.
8. More subsidies on pesticides.
9. Application of pesticide hygienically using mask and gloves.
10. Awareness regarding toxicity of pesticide and its safety storage.
29
APPENDIX-II
DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-BUSINESS & RURAL MANAGEMENT
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
RAIPUR (C.G.)
“A STUDY OF FARMERS PERCEPTION ON USE OF PESTICIDES IN
MAJOR CEREALS IN RAIPUR DISTRICT OF CHHATTISGARH”
NAME OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS
Advisor: Dr. V.K.Choudhary Investigator: Laxmi verma
(Professor)
S. No. MARGINAL S. No. SMALL
1. RAJU VERMA 1. GITA VERMA
2. VIJAY YADAV 2. PUNIT VERMA
3. SAVITA YADAV 3. SURENDRA VERMA
4. BHAGWATI PRASHAD 4. MAHENDRA VERMA
5. TIKA RAM VERMA 5. SANAT NAYAK
6. GENDRAM VERMA 6. SONCHANDRABHARDWAJ
7. HEMLAL VERMA 7. KEJURAM VERMA
8. RAMADHIN SAHU 8. VED PRAKASH VERMA
9. BISHAT SAHU 9. RAMKUMAR VERMA
10. SAHDEV VERMA 10. CHANDRIKA PRASHAD
11. LITAK VERMA 11. NAROTTAM YADAV
12. SHANKAR VERMA 12. NARAYAN VERMA
13. PRAHLAD VERMA 13. BALKRISHNA SAHU
14. SHRIRAM VERMA 14. RUPCHAND VERMA
15. RAMDAYAL SAHU 15. KULESHWAR SHARMA
16. KHEDURAM VERMA 16. SHAMBHU VERMA
17. PURSHOTTAM VERMA 17. MANTRAM VERMA
18. SHANTOSH VERMA 18. BHIKHAM VERMA
19. FALGORAM RAM VERMA 19. SHIVPRASAD SAHU
20. SHANTOSH SAHU 20. SUKALU YADAV
21. GOVERDHAN VERMA 21. SHANKAR LAL VERMA
22. NEELKANTH VERMA 22. PAWAN SAHU
79
23. YOGRAM VERMA
24. PARMESHWAR YADAV
25. DHELURAM VERMA
S. NO MEDIUM 26. JAGDISH VERMA
27. THAKUR RAM VERMA
1. BISHAMBHAR VERMA 28. MAHAVEER VERMA
2. SURENDRA VERMA 29. PARSHU VERMA
3 DHANIRAM VERMA 30. CHINTA RAM VERMA
4 PAREMULAL PAL 31. RAJJU YADAV
5 PADM PAL 32. KANTI VERMA
6 MAHESH VERMA 33. VIJAY KUMAR
7 VIJAY NASHINE S. No. LARGE
8 GHANA NASHINE 1. KUBER NAYAK
9. CHABI VERMA 2. BALRAM NASHIE
10 GOVARDHAN VERMA 3. GIRISH DEWANGAN
11 RADHE YADAV 4. ARVIND DEWANGAN
12 KAMAL VERMA 5. NAVRANG AGRAWAL
13 LAXMINARAYAN VERMA 6. VINOD AGRAWAL
14 PAYARELAL VERMA 7. NARENDRA AGRAWAL
15 SONU YADAV 8. JITENDRA VERMA
16 CHINTAMANI VERMA 9. SURAJ KUMAR VERMA
17 KELASH VERMA 10. VINOD VERMA
18 PRAHLAD VERMA 11. BALDEV VERMA
19 VANKUMAR SAHU 12. JETHU VERMA
20 JOHAN VERMA 13. DERHA RAM
21 SALIKRAM VERMA 14. TUKESHWAR PRASHAD
22 FATLE LAL VERMA 15. KULDEPAK
23 GAJENDRA SAHU 16. JAYPRAKASH
24 SHANKAR PRASHAD 17. KUNJBIHARI
25 KARAN VERMA 18. LALSINGH
19. KEKTI YADAW
20. JIVAN KUMAR
21. DILESHWAR PRASHAD
80