cost analysis of boro paddy farming in jessore … · the cultivation area, production and yield of...

International Journal of Transformations in Business Management http://www.ijtbm.com

(IJTBM) 2016, Vol. No. 6, Issue No. III Jul-Sep e-ISSN: 2231-6868, p-ISSN: 2454-468X

45

IRA PUBLICATIONS www.irapub.com

COST ANALYSIS OF BORO PADDY FARMING IN

JESSORE DISTRICT, BANGLADESH: AN EMPIRICAL

STUDY

Shaikh Moksadur Rahmani

Associate Professor, Department of Management Studies, Comilla University, Comilla-3506, Bangladesh.

ABSTRACT

It is well recognized that cultivation cost has been a major constraint in the sustainable farming practices

by all types of farmers in Bangladesh. Since 1990’s, cost of cultivation are beginning to rise and paddy

farmers are facing declining earnings. The paper reports on an empirical study of the boro paddy farmers’

cultivation phenomenon emphasizing on cost based on farm operation. As boro is the most important crop

cultivated by different types of farmers, the cost involved in cultivation is directly related to their

subsistence. The data stem from a survey of 95 farmers in Jessore district, the area bears almost the

common characteristics of Bangladesh comprising different types of farmers producing paddy as main

crops. To investigate the significant difference of the inputs quantity, their prices and amount spent for

necessary cultivation elements, one-way ANOVA method has been adopted. The results indicate that the

nature of inputs and quantity of them are almost same for all types of farmers but the cost of cultivation is

gradually significantly lower for the large category of farmers because farming practices depend on the

socio-economic status and purchasing nature of inputs used for cultivation. Small farmers usually use

either borrowed money for cultivation or credit purchasing inputs which leads to increase the cost and on

the other hand large farmers deploy their own funds and mainly purchase the inputs by cash which lead to

decrease the cost of cultivation. It argues that for reducing the cost of cultivation increased attention by

both government and non-government organization are necessary.

Keywords: Boro Paddy, Farmer, Cost, Cultivation, Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

In Bangladesh, paddy accounts for about three-fourths of total cultivable land. Production rose

more than three-fold from 11 million tons to 35 million tons during fiscal year 1972–2012.

Average annual growth increased from 2.8% during the 1980s to 3.5% since fiscal year 1991,

iDr. Rahman completed his Ph.D. from the Department of Resource Management and Social

Sciences in Saga University, Japan in 2007 having Monbusho Scholarship. Currently, he is

working as an Associate Professor in the Department of Management Studies, Comilla University,

Bangladesh.



46


largely due to adaptation of high-yielding variety paddy production technologies (ADB, 2012).

Supported by steady input supplies and price deregulation, incremental paddy cultivation was

mostly driven by expanding irrigated boro paddy in the dry season and partially displacing

production of low yielding, rain-fed aus paddy. Paddy dominates the cropping pattern in most

parts of the country and is grown in three different seasons ausa, aman

b and boro

c. Table 1 shows

the cultivation area, production and yield of local boro, HYV boro and hybrid boro from 2003 -

04 to 2012-13. The growth rates of HYV boro during the period shown in the Table 2 where the

area, production and yield were 1.01%, 2.61% and 1.58% respectively. The figure 1 shows the

total cost involved in the cultivation of local boro, HYV boro and Hybrid boro, they were Tk.

46972, Tk. 66358 and Tk. 82632, respectively. The cost of cultivation of HYV boro paddy is

rather high because of intensively used costly inputs such as irrigation and fertilizer. The

constituent of cost of HYV boro paddy is shown in figure 2 (BBS, 2010).

The development of agriculture sector is very much urgent for poverty reduction, food security

and sustainable development of our country (Vision 2021 on Agriculture, 2009; BBS, 2009, 2012;

BB, 2012). Despite notable progress, agriculture sector especially in paddy is still characterized by

low yields and low labor productivity due to increasing cost of cultivation which is one of the

most important concerns of the farmers and government as well (BB, 2012; ADB, 2012). After the

green revolution, High Yielding Variety (HYV) boro paddy has gained importance, because of its

higher yields. But the cultivation practice dominated by a single crop (i.e. paddy) is not scientific

from an economic point of view.

Due to conventional cultivation practices in agriculture and rising the price of agricultural inputs

increases the cost of production on the one hand and lower prices of the output on the other, many

farmers have abandoned paddy cultivation and started cultivating diversified crops (BBS, 2009,

2012; ADB, 2012; Rahman, 2012). During last few years farmers of Bangladesh have been

presuming that cultivation of paddy is a losing concern.

Production of crops, cost of cultivation of crops and market price of crops are directly interrelated.

It is natural phenomenon that if selling price is lower than the cultivation cost, producers get loser

and discouraged to produce more crops and if selling price is higher than the cultivation cost,

producers get substantial return and encouraged. This type of loss and return influences positively

or negatively on the cultivation of next year’s crops. In the case of Bangladesh agriculture,

especially paddy farmers are passing their rainy days due to not recovering their cost of

cultivation. As a result many of the farmers are abandoning paddy cultivation or trending to

cultivate cash crops which may cause a great threat to staple food and food security. It is,

therefore, necessary to recognize the problem facing by the rural farmer especially in terms of cost



47


of cultivation of paddy with a view to ensuring food security, sustainable and balanced

development of the nation.

The ownership of agricultural land remains as one of the most difficult problems in the rural

economy in Bangladesh. In most villages, few families have enough land to live comfortably,

while a large number of families have either no land, or not enough land to support their families

(Rahman and Takeda, 2004; ADB, 2012). It is well recognized that fragmented holdings have

been a major constraint in the implementation of improved farming practices by small-scale

farmers. A small parcel of land not only acts as a constraint to sound cultivation practices, but also

deprives farmers of access to production inputs, formal credit and other institutional services

required for improved agricultural practices. As a result, farmers are often forced to continue

traditional agricultural practices, which lead to lower productivity (Devendra and Thomas, 2002;

Golam and Gopal, 2004; Rahman and Takeda, 2007). In general, pecuniary economies are said to

exist when larger farms pay lower prices for their inputs due to lower transaction costs and/or

stronger bargaining power, thus lowering their average cultivation cost. And for similar reasons,

large farms may receive higher prices for their outputs (Rahman and Takeda, 2006). Large farmers

mainly deploy their own money and have easier access to the credit market for cultivation than

those of small and medium farmers.

Although agricultural mechanization is emerged and government subsidy is increased gradually,

cultivation cost has not been reduced compared to earlier period due to unstable price of inputs

and output. Seeds, fertilizers, irrigation and labor are the four major inputs that are essential in

producing any crop and contribute significantly to the total cost of cultivation. As paddy is the

main crop, the cost incurred in different inputs, the purchasing nature of inputs and sources of

production elements influence the cost of cultivation, which has a direct effect on rural

subsistence. For example, lower cost of cultivation ensures higher returns thus influencing total

income. Devendra and Thomas (2002), Azad and Mustafi (2004), Golam and Gopal (2004) and

Rahman (2007, 2012) report that the rural economy of Bangladesh mostly depends on the farmers’

profitability i.e., costs incurred and return earned from paddy cultivation.

The name HYV has been originated for its high yielding capacity. In the decade of 1960, HYV

was introduced and through the pass of time this HYV has been extended very rapidly to meet the

demand of the cereals in the market (BBS, 2010). It demands adequate irrigation, fertilizer,

insecticides and intercultural practices and farmers have to invest more money for the application

of these inputs. The vast majority of the studies on agriculture especially paddy are associated

with biological aspects rather than socio-economic aspects in Bangladesh. A few number of

researches tried to depict the deplorable marketing scenario of paddy. However, the need to

examine the cost of cultivation within different land operators has been identified (Rahman and



48


Takeda, 2007; Rahman, 2012). Yet, no study has examined the cost of cultivation among different

types of farmers in Jessore district. As an attempt to fill this gap, the present study was conducted

on farmers operating different size of lands to examine the cultivation cost experienced by the

farmers. The specific objectives of this study were:

1. To identify the major inputs used by farmers for the cultivation of HYV boro paddy;

2. To identify the relevant costs incurred for the cultivation of HYV boro paddy;

3. To measure the differences in the costs of cultivation among farmers’ on the basis of the

size of land operation; and

4. The study also aimed at finding out whether cultivation problems faced by small-scale

farmers in the perspective of cost and suggest possible solutions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was based on the interviews of farmers during November to December 2012 for the

cultivation in the year of 2012 of HYV boro paddy cultivation, which started in January/February

2012 and ended in April/May 2012. A total of 95 households shown in Table 3, were selected

randomly from 32729d

farmers from Jhikargacha Upazila under Jessore district. The economy of

Jessore is predominantly agriculture. Most of farmers in the surveyed area were marginal and in

small category, they grew HYV boro paddy as one of the most important crops shown in the

appendix 1. Out of the total 591030 holdings of the district, 63.38% holding are farms that

produce varieties of crops, namely paddy, wheat, jute, spices, pulses, oilseeds, sugarcane, 35 types

of vegetables and other (BBS, 2011).

For considering the samples, the BBS standard of farmers’ classification was followed where

seven categories of farmers having minimum 0.02 hectare of land and maximum 3.00 or above

hectare of land. Farmers having cultivated area up to 0.016 hectare were considered non-farm

holdings. According to BBS, farmers having 0.02 – 1.00, 1.00 – 3.00 and ≥3.00 hectare of land are

in the category of small, medium and large farmers, respectively. Data collection was taken place

at the homestead of the household. Usually the respondents were the head of household. Microsoft

Office Excel 2003 and SPSS 16.0 version were used for processing the collected data.

The calculation of the cost of cultivation, i.e., the cost of seeds, fertilizer, pesticide, labor,

irrigation, interest on borrowed money and land rental, were calculated using the measurement

provided by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2010). Although depreciation on the fixed assets

and maintenance costs are essential for the calculation of the cost of production, they were not

mentioned in the BBS calculation. However, in the present study, depreciation and maintenance

expenses were considered as per the practical situation in the surveyed area. The price of family

supplied seeds, organic fertilizer, labor, land irrigated by own device and own land used for

cultivation have been evaluated as per the local rate and considered in the calculation of the cost of



49


cultivation included with other expenses. To investigate the significant difference of the inputs

quantity, their prices and necessary amount spent for cultivation practices by different size of land

cultivators, one-way ANOVAii method was adopted.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Inputs Use Pattern in Boro Cultivation: The quantities of inputs per hectare by farm size of boro

paddy are presented in Table 4. The lowest mean seeds requirement for per hectare plantation for

0.40 – 0.60 hectare of farm size was found to be 39.59 Kilogram (Kg) and the highest mean seeds

requirement for per hectare for 2.00 – 3.00 hectare of farm size was found to be 45.02 Kg. There

are significant differences in using the seeds among the different farm size groups. In the case of

chemical fertilizer, significant differences are found in using the TSP and DAP. The Table 4

shows no significant differences in the using of Urea, MoP, Zinc, Gypsum, organic fertilizer,

pesticide, labor and irrigation.

Cost of Boro Cultivation and their Differences: Table 5 shows the differences of cost of inputs

by farm size. No significant differences are found in case of gypsum, organic fertilizer and

pesticide but there are significant differences in the costs of seeds, urea, TSP, MoP, Zinc, DAP,

labour and irrigation. Here in most cases, cost gradually decreased for the larger farmers i.e. farm

size and costs of input have negative correlation. The costs of inputs for small farmers are higher

than those of large farmers. Obviously purchasing nature of the inputs influences the cost of each

element. Most of the small farmers used credit purchasing inputs rather than cash purchasing

inputs which directly increase their unit prices. In the surveyed area inputs are being sold either by

cash or credit or both. Credit purchasing price is higher than cash price because sellers argue that

there are risks associated with this type of selling. But the farmers who have substantial portion of

lands have easier access to credit market and these types of farmers invest their own money for

purchasing the inputs which reduces the cost of each input. Another feature of the reduced costs of

inputs for the large farmers is, they mainly purchase the inputs at a large quantity at a time gaining

wholesaling rate. It is common phenomenon that wholesaling price is lower than retailing price.

The Table 4 shows subtle significant differences in some cases in the use of inputs but Table 5

shows in most cases, costs of these inputs are significantly differed.

In the surveyed area, contractual power tiller and tractor are mainly used for land preparation.

Conventional plough and oxen are also used for cultivation but it is more costly than power

tiller/tractor. In Table 6, miscellaneous cost includes the cost for cleaning of paddy after thrashing

iiANOVA involving only one grouping variable is often referred to as one-way ANOVA because only one

independent variable is involved. When the means of more than two groups or populations are to be compared, one-

way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the appropriate statistical tools (Zikmund et al, 2010, Kothari, 2011).



50


and any other related cost not included in planting, weeding, harvesting thrashing etc. and interest

on working capital. Table 6 shows no significant differences among the different landholders in

case of transportation cost but there are significant differences in case of land preparation, land

rental and miscellaneous cost. The table shows that in most cases large farm holders paid less

money compared to small land holders. This scenario is must be stated as a reason of higher

bargaining capacity and deploying own money by the large farmers compared to the small

farmers.

Total cost of cultivation comprises the cost of seeds, Urea, TSP, MoP, Zinc, DAP, Gypsum,

Organic fertilizer, pesticide, labor, irrigation, land preparation, land rental, transportation and

miscellaneous. Figure 3 shows the cost of cultivation of HYV boro paddy is gradually lower from

small land operations to large operations (0.02 – 0.20, X = 107580; 0.20 – 0.40, X = 111363; 0.40

– 0.60, X = 110767; 0.60 – 1.00, X = 106349; 1.00 – 2.00, X = 101943; 2.00 – 3.00, X = 100233;

≥3.00, X = 97582). The significant differences of the cost of cultivation among the land cultivators

are due to purchasing nature of inputs and deploying the nature of fund. The minimum, maximum

and standard deviation of costs are shown in Appendix 2.

CONCLUSION

In Bangladesh paddy production in 1972 was only 11 million tons and it has increased more than

threefold to about 35 million tons in 2012. But the alarming situation is existed in production

especially higher cost incurred which seriously affects marginal and small farmers. The study

found that the quantities and nature of inputs used in cultivation by the different types of farmers

were not varied widely but their costs varied significantly. The purchasing nature of inputs

whether cash or credit influenced the cost of cultivation. The marginal and small farmers have no

or little cash money for cultivation; they either used borrowed money or credit purchasing inputs

which increase cost of production. Quantity of inputs purchased by the farmers were also

influencing factor for increasing cost, due to purchasing small amount of inputs in a given time by

marginal and small farmers, their rate was higher than large farmers. These types of farmers either

have no assets to mortgage or have very little and therefore, banks are generally unwilling to

provide them agricultural credit. Conversely, large farmers have easy access to credit market for

obtaining agricultural inputs at any time. Moreover, they can borrow money without interest from

their relatives and friends, which contribute to lowering their cultivation cost. These farmers

purchase large quantity of inputs at a time, so the rate is cheaper than for small and medium

farmers. The study revealed that the lower land operation led higher cost of cultivation and higher

land operation led lower cost of cultivation. As most of the farmers in the areas are marginal and

small category, their existence in the economy is one of the most burning questions. The following

measures might be taken for the farmers which can ultimately affect food security and sustainable

development.



51


Although Government of Bangladesh is extending the subsidy programs for the betterment of the

marginal and poor farmers by agricultural inputs, monitoring activities should be emphasized

whether the real needy farmers is getting the subsidy. Cooperative society plays a vital role for the

development of agriculture in respect of bargaining power, purchasing power and knowledge

sharing as well, in this perspective cooperative society might be formed by the initiative of GO

and NGO where farmers’ leadership should be ensured. GO and NGO might take initiative for the

marginal and small farmers to access the institutional agricultural credit market with easier terms

and conditions. Agricultural extension activities should be enhanced where farmers would be

introduced with the new technology and proper use of inputs.

REFERENCES

Asian Development Bank (ADB), (2012). Bangladesh Quarterly Economic Update, September –

December, 2012, Bangladesh Resident Mission, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka. Publication Stock

No. 010401, pp. 3 – 24.

Azad, M. A. S. and Mustafi, B. A. A. (2004). Economics of modern rice cultivation in different

rice growing environments in Bangladesh. The Agri., 2: 126-132.

Bangladesh Bank (BB, 2012). Annual Report July 2010 – June 2011(The Real Economy), pp. 1-

7, Website: http://www.bangladesh-bank.org/openpdf.php, visited: 24th February, 2013.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS, 2009). Preliminary Report on Agriculture Census 2008,

Planning Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, pp.

3 – 27.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS, 2010). Report on the Cost of Production of Boro Paddy

2008-09, Updating and Extension of Agriculture Cluster Plots and Survey of Cost of Production

Project (UCPSCP), Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s

Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 13 – 76.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS, 2011). Census of Agriculture 2008, Zila Series Jessore

(Jessore district series), Planning Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s

Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 1 – 50.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS, 2011). Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics of Bangladesh

(23rd

Edition), Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 47

– 71.

http://www.bangladesh-bank.org/openpdf.php



52


Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS, 2012). Population and Housing Census 2011, Socio-

Economic and Demographic Report, National Series, Ministry of Planning, Government of the

People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Volume – 4, pp. 1 – 363.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS, 2013). Estimates of Boro Rice, 2011-2012, Ministry of

Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 1 – 10. Website

www.bbs.gov.bd, Visited: 24th

October, 2015.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS, 2014). Estimates of Boro Rice, 2012-2013, Ministry of

Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 1 – 10. Website

www.bbs.gov.bd, Visited: 25th

October, 2015.

Devendra, C. and Thomas, D. (2002). Smallholder farming systems in Asia. Agri. Syst., 71: 17-

25.

Golam, R. and Gopal, B. T. (2004). Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural

systems in Bangladesh: As assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives.

Agri. Syst., 79: 327-351.

Kothari, C. R. (2011). Research Methodology, Methods & Techniques. New Age International (P)

Limited, Publishers, New Delhi, India. pp. 256 – 257.

Rahman, S. M. and Takeda, J. (2004). Measuring the cost of production of rice in Bangladesh with

special reference to irrigation water. Bull. Fac. Of Agri, Saga Univ., Japan, 89: 55-70.

Rahman, S. M. and Takeda, J. (2006). Measuring the cost of production: A study on rice farmers in

Jessore district. Bulletin of the faculty of Agriculture, Saga University, Japan, 91: 73-84.

Rahman, S. M. and Takeda, J. (2007). Measuring the Costs of Production Based on Sizes of Farm

Operation: A Study on Rice Farmers in Jessore District of Bangladesh. American Journal of

Applied Sciences, 4 (5): 274-283.

Rahman, S. M. (2012). The evaluation of different types of marketing channels used by the rice

farmers in Jessore district of Bangladesh. Journal of Socioeconomic Research and Development,

9(5):1347-1359.

http://www.bbs.gov.bd/

http://www.bbs.gov.bd/



53


Figure 2. Proportion of cost of cultivation of HYV boro paddy

Source: BBS, 2010.

Leasing, 3639,

14%

Land

preparation,

1902, 7%

Seed/seedling,

414, 2%

Fertilizer, 3300,

12%

Pesticide, 591,

2%labor: seed bed

preparation,

551, 2%

Labor: Plucking

in seedling,

589, 2%

Labor:

Sow ing/plantin

g, 1687, 6%

Labor:

Weeding, 1719,

6%

Labor:

Harvesting,

2234, 8%

Labor:

Thrashing, 828,

3%

Labor:

Miscelloneous,

705, 3%

Irrigation, 8694,

33%

Figure 1. Per Hectare Cultivation Cost of Boro Paddy

Source: BBS, 2010.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Barisal Chittagong Dhaka Khulna Rajshahi Sylhet Bangladesh

Tk.

Local boro

HYV boro

Hybrid boro

Figure 3. Differences of Total Cost of Cultivation for One Hectare of Land Based on Fram Size

107580

111363 110767

106349

101943100233

97582

90000

95000

100000

105000

110000

115000

0.02 – 0.20 0.20 – 0.40 0.40 – 0.60 0.60 – 1.00 1.00 – 2.00 2.00 – 3.00 ≥ 3.00

Farm Size (Hectare)

Cost (T

k.)

Vision 2021 on Agriculture (2009), Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, pp. 1 –

22. Website: http://www.moa.gov.bd/Flood_Damage/Detail_Report.pdf, visited: 18th

March,

2013.

Zikmud, W. G, Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C. and Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Methods,

Eighth Edition, Represented in Canada by Nelson Education Ltd. p. 541.

http://www.moa.gov.bd/Flood_Damage/Detail_Report.pdf



54


Table 1. Area and Production of Boro Paddy from 2003-04 to 2012-13

Year Area (Hectare) Production (Metric Tons) Yield (Metric Tons)/Hectare

Local HYV Hybrid Total Local HYV Hybrid Total Loca

l

HY

V

Hybrid Total

2003-

04

1,65,00

3

36,90,765 7,95,678 46,51,446 2,77,20

5

1,21,75,77

5

35,56,68

1

1,60,09,66

1

1.68 3.30 4.47 3.44

2004-

05

1,55,06

7

39,07,658 7,37,643 48,00,368 2,63,61

4

1,38,72,18

5

32,45,62

9

1,73,81,42

8

1.70 3.55 4.4 3.62

2005-

06

1,45,81

2

37,12,553 8,52,960 47,11,325 2,50,79

7

1,32,53,81

4

38,04,20

2

1,73,08,81

3

1.72 3.57 4.46 3.67

2006-

07

1,43,91

4

41,14,038 – 42,57,953 2,56,28

6

1,47,08,76

9

– 1,49,65,05

5

1.78 3.58 – 3.51

2007-

08

1,26,04

9

36,90,296 7,91,371 46,07,716 2,25,53

7

1,39,84,49

2

35,51,75

2

1,77,61,78

1

1.80 3.79 4.49 3.85

2008-

09

1,22,17

1

37,80,394 8,13,770 47,16,335 2,17,54

4

1,38,66,30

2

37,25,20

5

1,78,09,05

1

1.78 3.67 4.58 3.78

2009-

10

1,07,33

1

39,13,823 6,85,809 47,06,963 2,14,55

0

1,46,22,48

5

32,21,92

7

1,80,58,96

2

2.00 3.74 4.70 3.84

2010-

11

79,035 40,33,854 6,57,536 47,70,425 1,61,90

3

1,53,29,34

3

31,25,83

4

1,86,16,78

0

2.05 3.80 4.75 3.90

2011-

12

72,444 40,92,932 6,44,739 48,10,115 1,39,84

7

1,55,97,50

3

30,21,86

2

1,87,59,21

2

1.93 3.81 4.69 3.90

2012-

13

65,946 40,80,003 6,14,195 47,60,144 1,36,83

6

1,57,51,82

8

28,89,49

2

1,87,78,15

4

2.07 3.86 4.70 3.94



55


Source: BBS, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014.

Table 2. Growth Rate of Area and Production on the basis of Table 1

Boro Paddy Area Production Yield

Local -8.76% -6.82% 2.11%

HYV 1.01% 2.61% 1.58%

Hybrid -2.56% -2.06% 0.50%

Total Boro 0.23% 1.61% 1.37%

Calculation: Compound Annual Growth Rate Method.

Table 3. Numbers and Percentages of Usable

Respondents

Farm Size

(Hectare)

Number Percentage

0.02 – 0.20 7 7.37

0.20 – 0.40 12 12.63

0.40 – 0.60 21 22.11

0.60 – 1.00 24 25.26

1.00 – 2.00 17 17.89

2.00 – 3.00 9 9.47

≥ 3.00 5 5.26

Source: Field survey, September – October’ 2012.



56


Table 4. Differences of Inputs (Quantity) Used for One Hectare of Land Based on Farm Size (One-way ANOVA)

Inputs Farm Size (Hectare) P

0.02 – 0.20

n = 7

0.20 – 0.40

n = 12

0.40 – 0.60

n = 21

0.60 – 1.00

n = 24

1.00 – 2.00

n = 17

2.00 – 3.00

n = 9

≥ 3.00

n = 5

Seeds (kg) 40.60 42.63 39.59 43.86 40.55 45.02 43.49 0.002a

Chemical Fertilizer (kg):

Urea 211.79 211.08 217.92 207.27 204.95 214.44 208.06 0.117

TSP 78.73 69.81 83.20 72.48 78.06 85.40 84.02 0.001a

MoP 68.13 73.71 72.48 71.76 72.38 71.66 76.11 0.196

Zinc 10.23 9.69 9.59 9.00 9.29 10.43 9.88 0.774

DAP 165.91 171.94 155.33 173.17 177.62 164.47 153.70 0.001a

Gypsum 82.26 82.78 75.42 83.40 87.80 90.05 85.00 0.151

Organic Fertilizer (kg)

1405.41 (4) 1451.87 (8)

1406.33

(16)

1523.85

(12) 1359.25(13) 1413.99 1483.77

0.728

Pesticide (kg) 9.711 10.21 10.38 10.08 10.33 9.88 9.64 0.971

Labor (Man day) 179.32 183.67 189.09 182.34 179.50 179.00 175.94 0.114

Irrigation (Hour) 325.46 315.87 327.49 313.03 311.95 324.28 329.14 0.488

Source: Field survey, September – October’ 2012. a Denotes mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

In case of organic fertilizer, the figures inside the bracket indicate the number of farmers used that fertilizer to their cultivated land. All the

farmers having land 2.00 – 3.00 hectares (n = 9) and ≥3.00 hectares (n = 5) used organic fertilizer. In the first part of the crop season

weather remains dry and at the growing stage of the plants seldom rain fall occurs. So, surface or under ground water is applied to the

paddy plants by mechanical system which are run by electricity or diesel.



57


Table 5. Differences of Cost of Inputs (Tk) for One Hectare of Land Based on Farm Size (One-way ANOVA)

Inputs Farm Size (Hectare) P

0.02 – 0.20

n = 7

0.20 – 0.40

n = 12

0.40 – 0.60

n = 21

0.60 – 1.00

n = 24

1.00 – 2.00

n = 17

2.00 – 3.00

n = 9

≥ 3.00

n = 5

Seeds 1825.76 1913.02 1764.35 1951.44 1759.69 1809.92 1732.21 0.002 a

Chemical Fertilizer:

Urea 4673.56 4551.04 4690.28 4479.18 4348.19 4166.86 4000.86 0.000 a

TSP 1959.89 1704.61 2033.33 1777.01 1808.10 1777.78 1732.23 0.012 a

MoP 1039.60 1098.80 1132.01 1137.20 1058.08 969.77 981.50 0.002 a

Zinc 1409.91 1201.16 1378.13 1281.54 1065.05 892.90 805.07 0.001 a

DAP 5019.55 5293.24 4760.71 5281.21 5223.61 4487.85 4198.94 0.000 a

Gypsum 634.34 557.45 553.64 564.12 515.02 472.79 429.47 0.124

Organic Fertilizer 4570.29(4) 4320.76(8) 4692.61(16) 5312.79(12) 4663.90(13) 4684.20 5123.56 0.322

Pesticide 1501.34 1557.18 1350.95 1438.70 1417.08 1373.63 1269.13 0.411

Labor 27942.68 29539.3 30445.26 29146.94 29398.99 28932.65 27844.43 0.055 a

Irrigation 29482.74 29967.56 29114.20 26205.60 23123.31 22704.78 21608.45 0.000 a

Source: Field survey, September – October’ 2012. a Denotes mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

In case of organic fertilizer, the figures inside the bracket indicate the number of farmers used that fertilizer to their cultivated land. All the

farmers having land 2.00 – 3.00 hectares (n = 9) and ≥3.00 hectares (n = 5) used organic fertilizer.



58


Table 6. Differences of Cost (Tk.) of Land Preparation, Land Rental, Transportation and Miscellaneous for One Hectare of

Land Based on Farm Size (One-way ANOVA)

Items Farm Size (Hectare) P

0.02 – 0.20

n = 7

0.20 – 0.40

n = 12

0.40 – 0.60

n = 21

0.60 – 1.00

n = 24

1.00 – 2.00

n = 17

2.00 – 3.00

n = 9

≥ 3.00

n = 5

Land preparation 5496.45 5323.61 5260.41 5441.64 5333.55 5242.85 5189.40 0.004 a

Land rental 21357.16 23207.62 22069.69 22023.43 20901.82 20125.28 19852.58 0.000 a

Transportation 839.10 775.715 951.96 867.66 729.83 802.82 722.04 0.123

Miscellaneous 1787.64 1796.47 1689.96 2100.31 1695.86 1793.45 2093.98 0.032 a

Source: Field survey, September – October’ 2012. a

Denotes mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Contractual Power tiller and tractor are mainly used for land preparation.

Conventional plough and oxen are also used for cultivation but it is more costly than power tiller/tractor. Here miscellaneous cost

includes the cost for cleaning of paddy after thrashing and any other related cost not included in planting, weeding, harvesting thrashing

etc. and interest on working capital.



59


iii

Total operated area equals area owned plus area taken from others minus owned area given to others. Operated area

also includes uncultivated land including homestead. iv Owned land means the land owned by holder including members of his/her family having a little to the land with

right to determine nature and extent of its use and to transfer the same. v This is land area actually cropped during the census year regardless of number of crops grown plus current fallow. It

includes area under temporary and permanent crops and also current fallow.

Appindix 1: Basic Information of Jessore

district

Area in Hectares

Particulars Total Rural Urban

Number of holdings:

Total 591030 551280 39750

Non-farm 216407 179156 37251

Farm 376423 372124 2499

Percent of holdings (%):

Total farm holdings 63.38 67.50 6.29

Small farm 85.79 85.75 92.32

Medium farm 13.29 13.33 6.68

Large farm 0.92 0.92 1.00

Holding owning no land 9.56 7.35 40.19

Tenancy (All holdings):

Owner holding: Number 375892 352567 23325

Owner holding: Percentage of all holdings 63.60 63.95 58.68

Owner-cum-tenant holding: Number 158654 158206 448

Owner-cum-tenant holding: Percentage of all

holdings

26.84 28.70 1.13

Tenant holding: Number 56484 40507 15977

Tenant holding: Percentage of all holdings 9.56 7.35 40.19

Operated areaiii

:

Operated area of all holdings 211284.40 209391.60 1892.72

Average operated area per holding 0.36 0.38 0.05

Operated area of all farm holdings 204580.30 203522.10 1058.25

Average operated area per farm holding 0.55 0.55 0.42

Owned areaiv

:

Owned area of all holdings 201224.70 197111.90 4112.42

Average owned area per holding 0.34 0.36 0.11

Average owned area per non-farm household 0.06 0.06 0.07

Average owned area per farm holding 0.50 0.50 0.57

Net cultivated areav:

Net cropped area of farm holdings 174366.90 173566.4 800.87



60


Average cropped area per farm holding 0.47 0.47 0.32

Temporary crops net area of farm holdings 149815.80 149287.30 528.52

Temporary crops net area per farm holding 0.40 0.40 0.21

Boro Culitvation:

Local 11928.11 11864.98 63.13

HYV 66234.09 66088 146.50

Hybrid 30585.74 30498.73 86.20

Source: Jessore Zila Census of Agriculture – 2008 (2011).



61


Appendix 2. Minimum, Maximum and Standard Deviation (Tk.) of Total Cost of Cultivation for One Hectare of Land

Based on Farm Size

Item Farm Size (Hectare)

0.02 – 0.20

n = 7

0.20 – 0.40

n = 12

0.40 – 0.60

n = 21

0.60 – 1.00

n = 24

1.00 – 2.00

n = 17

2.00 – 3.00

n = 9

≥ 3.00

n = 5

Total Cost of Cultivation:

Minimum 101886.50 106280.00 99427.79 95239.36 90932.31 94999.66 94475.80

Maximum 112991.40 115704.60 115544.00 115949.30 112724.50 107819.50 99410.49

Standard deviation 3977.60 3375.51 4403.07 5093.28 6070.16 4075.58 2291.63



62


Notes:

a Premonsoon direct-seeded and transplanted rice crop generally planted in March-April and harvested in July-August.

In many places, aus is cultivated before aman and is thus an alternative to aman in deep flood areas. b Generally planted before or during the monsoon season and is either broadcast or transplanted. Broadcast aman is

direct-seeded, normally in March and transplanted aman is generally planted in June-August and harvested in

November-January. c The paddy which is planted in mid November to February and reaped in the month of April to June is called Boro.

There are three types of Boro namely-Local Boro, High Yielding Variety (HYV) Boro and Hybred Boro.

Local Boro : From time immemorial this type of paddy has been cultivating in our country and is said to be local

variety Boro. Planting time of this variety is mid November to December and harvesting time is April to May. It gives

relatively lower yield rate.

HYV Boro: The name HYV has been originated for its high yielding capacity. In the decade of 1960, HYV was

introduced and through the pass of time this HYV has been extended very rapidly to meet the demand of the cereals in

the market. Time of transplantation of HYV is January to February and reaping time is April to May. It demands

adequate irrigation, fertilizer, insecticides and intercultural practices and farmers have to invest more money for the

application of these inputs.

Hybred Boro: This variety has brought revolutionary change in respect of yield rate. The sowing and harvesting time

of Hybred Boro is the same as that of HYV. The seeds are very much environment sensitive and farmers cannot

preserve the seeds domestically. These are preserved in seeds producing institutions. And farmers have to procure

seeds from these institutions. dAccording to Agricultural Census 2008 (2011) in Jessore district conducted by BBS, the total number of holdings in

Jhikargacha upazila was 48752 in which farm households were 32729. The number of small, medium and large farm

households were 25625, 6270 and 834, respectively.

cost analysis of boro paddy farming in jessore … · the cultivation area, production and yield of...

Documents