impact of diversification in agriculture

Views:
 
Category: Education
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

PowerPoint Presentation:

IMPACT OF DIVERSIFICATION IN AGRICULTURE

CONTENTS::

CONTENTS: INTRODUCTION MEANING NEED OBJECTIVES PRESENT SCENARIO VARIOUS TYPES OF INDICES/METHODS COMPOSITION OF SECTORS FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVERSIFICATION IMPACT CONCLUSION FUTURE THRUST

PowerPoint Presentation:

INTRODUCTION

Diversified Agriculture:

Diversified Agriculture

NEED FOR DIVERSIFICATION:

NEED FOR DIVERSIFICATION Indian agriculture is fraught with risk and uncertainty as more than two-third of cultivable land is dependent on monsoon. The farmers are often not sure about outcome from agriculture due to weather and market induced risk Diversification become necessary for developing countries only growing of basic staples such as cereals cannot alone support economic development not withstanding the need to ensure the food security to the people. Diversification to commercial crop and commodities becomes an essential strategy that can increase income in agriculture, minimize risk due to crop failures and above all earn foreign exchange. Diversification can be designed to help poverty alleviation, employment planning and environmental conservation. The small and marginal farmers cannot adopt capital intensive technology.

OBJECTIVES:

OBJECTIVES The imperative to increase the income on small holdings The need for fuller employment in the farm household Stabilization of farm income over the season Conservation and enhancement of natural resources To combat risk associated with mono-cropping To endanger food and nutritional security via shift of area away from food grains

PowerPoint Presentation:

REQUIRED STEPS FOR DIVERSIFICATION : Delineated area-specific data base, priorities and target the area Choice of alternative crops and technology Priority input/credit supply for alternative crops Share the risk of new system Market support and rural up linking End to End approach

PRESENT SCENARIO:

PRESENT SCENARIO Regional imbalance in production and productivity Soil degradation, salinity and alkalinity Depleted water table in greenbelt Untapped rainwater resources in dry land Rising cost of input hence, cost of production Reduction in factor productivity STRENGTH: Food grain production rose from 50.8 to 212.06MT Close to one fourth GDP contributed by agriculture Largest producer of milk and tea Second largest producer of rice, wheat vegetable, tobacco Open access to international market

MEASURES FOR CROP DIVERSIFICATION LEVEL:

MEASURES FOR CROP DIVERSIFICATION LEVEL Herfindahl Index (H.I.) Ogive Index (O.I.) Entropy Index (E.I.) Modified Entropy Index (M.E.I) Composite entropy Index (C.E.I.)

PowerPoint Presentation:

STUDY OF DIVERSIFICATION INDICES

Table 1: Crop diversification indices for different Agro-climatic sub-zones of Gujarat:

Table 1: Crop diversification indices for different Agro-climatic sub-zones of Gujarat Sub-zone Index 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1995-96 Percent change in96 over60 I H.I. 0.7315 0.7211 0.3136 0.6380 -12.78z O.I. -0.4165 -1.7003 -1.6592 -1.5208 -265.14 E.I. 1.4699 1.4667 1.6097 1.3290 -9.58 M.E.I 0.5302 0.5290 0.5806 0.4793 -9.60 C.E.I. 0.4971 0.4959 0.5443 0.4493 -9.61 II H.I. 0.8178 0.8216 0.8728 0.8582 4.94 O.I. -0.7334 -0.6681 -0.0243 -0.2260 69.18 E.I. 1.9731 1.8618 2.0999 2.0762 5.22 M.E.I 0.7116 0.6715 0.7574 0.7488 5.23 C.E.I. 0.6671 0.6295 0.7101 0.7020 5.23 III H.I. 0.8856 0.9050 0.9071 0.8550 -3.45 O.I. 0.2845 0.0998 0.1373 -0.4088 -243.69 E.I. 2.3077 1.8359 1.8302 1.9852 -13.97 M.E.I 0.8323 0.6622 0.6601 0.7160 -13.97 C.E.I. 0.7803 0.6208 0.6188 0.6713 -13.97 IV H.I. 0.7696 0.9046 0.9003 0.8220 6.81 O.I. -1.6860 -0.3082 -0.3074 -1.1365 32.59 E.I. 1.6390 1.3062 1.4208 1.6848 3.30 M.E.I 0.5882 0.4711 0.5124 0.6077 3.31 C.E.I. 0.5514 0.4417 0.4804 0.5697 3.32

Continue…:

Continue… Sub-zone Index 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1995-96 Percent change in96 over60 V H.I. 0.7366 0.9510 0.9381 0.8483 15.16z O.I. -1.1607 0.4782 0.0434 0.1625 114.00 E.I. 1.6089 1.2651 1.3905 1.6393 1.89 M.E.I 0.5803 0.4563 0.5015 0.5913 1.89 C.E.I. 0.5440 0.4278 0.4702 0.5543 1.89 VI H.I. 0.8130 0.9024 0.8518 0.7928 -2.48 O.I. -0.6183 0.0496 -0.4066 -1.2952 -109.48 E.I. 1.7899 1.3691 1.4588 1.4313 -20.03 M.E.I 0.6456 0.4938 0.5262 0.5162 -20.04 C.E.I. 0.6052 0.4629 0.4933 0.4839 -20.04 VII H.I. 0.7876 0.8165 0.7668 0.7343 -6.77 O.I. -0.7612 -0.6537 -1.1798 -1.9927 -161.78 E.I. 1.7180 1.4002 1.3302 1.4121 -17.80 M.E.I 0.6196 0.5050 0.4798 0.5093 -17.80 C.E.I. 0.5809 0.4734 0.4498 0.4775 -17.80 Junagadh Shiyani and Pandya, (1998)

Table 2 :District wise crop diversification index in Haryana (1981-97):

Table 2 :District wise crop diversification index in Haryana (1981-97) Sr. no. district Year 1980-81 1985-86 1990-91 1996-97 1 Ambala 0.7486 0.7302 0.6811 0.7536 2 Yamuna nagar - - 0.7302 0.7283 3 Kurukshetra 0.5849 0.5887 0.6008 0.6091 4 Kaithal - - 0.5848 0.5604 5 Karnal 0.6138 0.5801 0.5650 0.5562 6 Panipat - - 0.5838 0.5672 7 Sonepat 0.6263 0.5975 0.6458 0.6848 8 Rohtak 0.6030 0.6396 0.6402 0.6406 9 Faridabad 0.5988 0.5993 0.5968 0.6067 10 Gurgaon 0.5258 0.5462 0.6380 0.6476 11 Rewari - - 0.5287 0.4332 12 Mohindergarh 0.3842 0.3889 0.3620 0.4133 13 Bhiwani 0.3227 0.4233 0.5122 0.5608 14 Jind 0.7022 0.7001 0.7018 0.6774 15 Hissar 0.7114 0.6988 0.6793 0.6806 16 Sirsa 0.6519 0.6464 0.6095 0.6044 Hissar Malik and Singh,(2002)

Table3: District-wise Entropy index in Haryana: 1981-97:

Table3: District-wise Entropy index in Haryana: 1981-97 Sr. no. district Year 1980-81 1985-86 1990-91 1996-97 1 Ambala 0.7055 0.6749 0.6121 0.6882 2 Yamuna nagar - - 0.6367 0.6393 3 Kurukshetra 0.4841 0.4716 0.4832 0.4963 4 Kaithal - - 0.4792 0.4350 5 Karnal 0.5155 0.4731 0.4321 0.4218 6 Panipat - - 0.4822 0.4455 7 Sonepat 0.5627 0.5601 0.6079 0.6706 8 Rohtak 0.4888 0.5473 0.5629 0.5659 9 Faridabad 0.4934 0.5418 0.5234 0.5084 10 Gurgaon 0.3693 0.4273 0.4967 0.5118 11 Rewari - - 0.3741 0.3187 12\ Mohindergarh 0.2618 0.2672 0.2567 0.2954 13 Bhiwani 0.2904 0.3645 0.4304 0.4490 14 Jind 0.6410 0.6381 0.6395 0.6041 15 Hissar 0.5989 0.5977 0.5792 0.5697 16 Sirsa 0.5655 0.5430 0.4837 0.4749 Hissar Malik and Singh, (2002)

Table 4: All-India crop diversification indices (CDI=1-Herfindahl Index):

Table 4: All-India crop diversification indices (CDI=1-Herfindahl Index ) Years CDI-1 CDI-2 CDI-3 1970-71 0.8840 0.8344 0.8029 1980-81 0.8794 0.8242 0.8197 1990-91 0.8807 0.8139 0.8358 1994-95 0.8797 0.8060 0.8435 Pantnagar (U.P) Pandey and Sharma, (1996) CDI_1: for rice, wheat, jowar, bajra, maize, other cereals, gram, tur, other pulses, groundnut, rapeseed, mustard, soyabeanother oilseeds, cotton, jute, mesta, sugarcane, potato, onion, tobacco. CDI_2: for disaggregated nine food grain crops and crop group as in CDI and above. CDI_3: for disaggregated ten non-foodgrain crops and crop groups as in CDI1 and above.

Table 5:Occupational diversification across farm group:

Table 5:Occupational diversification across farm group Farm size (acres) Share in active member (per cent) Share in total man days (per cent) Share in total income(per cent) Farming Livestock Wage labour Nonfarm sector Farming Livestock Wage labour Non Farm sector Farming Livestock Wage labour Non sector 0 0.00 15.46 47.24 37.30 0.00 10.09 54.41 35.50 0.00 8.65 45.34 46.01 0-1 31.10 10.92 23.53 34.45 3.48 12.46 48.92 35.14 33.28 4.90 26.45 35.37 1-2 37.18 8.97 30.13 23.72 7.32 11.92 40.52 40.24 37.97 12.08 23.47 26.48 2-4 56.85 9.14 15.23 18.78 10.72 17.73 33.87 37.68 56.71 10.13 10.61 22.55 4-6 45.92 12.24 15.31 26.53 11.70 25.74 15.02 47.54 55.00 11.60 5.33 28.07 6-10 50.51 20.49 6.43 22.57 23.16 25.51 9.45 41.88 60.22 17.66 1.90 20.22 >10 51.58 20.00 2.10 26.32 26.09 28.51 0.00 45.40 57.89 15.21 0.00 26.90 Total 40.24 13.27 20.30 26.16 9.36 16.72 34.91 39.01 45.33 12.24 14.21 28.22 Tamilnadu Saleth, (1997)

PowerPoint Presentation:

Change in Growth rates

Table 6: ALL- INDIA COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION AND YIELD OF PRINCIPLE CROPS (per cent per annum):

Table 6 : ALL- INDIA COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION AND YIELD OF PRINCIPLE CROPS (per cent per annum) Commodity/crop 1967-68 to1980-81 1980-81 to 1994-95 Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Rice 0.77 2.22 1.45 0.49 3.48 2.98 Wheat 2.94 5.65 2.62 0.68 3.70 3.1 Coarse cereals -1.03 0.67 1.64 -1.90 0.54 2.31 Total cereals 0.37 2.61 1.70 -0.34 3.06 2.90 Gram -0.55 -1.02 -0.48 -0.88 0.52 1.41 Tur 0.38 0.56 0.19 1.56 0.77 -0.78 Total pulses 0.44 -0.40 -0.67 -0.31 1.67 1.85 Total food grains 0.38 2.15 1.33 -0.34 2.89 2.77 Sugarcane 1.78 2.60 0.80 1.87 3.86 1.36 Total oilseeds 0.26 0.98 0.68 2.37 5.89 2.52 Cotton 0.07 2.61 2.54 -0.22 3.88 4.10 Total fiber 0.19 2.53 2.31 -0.48 3.47 3.94 Potato 4.29 7.78 3.35 3.00 4.64 1.59 Tobacco -0.08 2.22 2.30 -1.09 1.23 2.35 Total non-food grains 0.94 2.26 1.19 1.88 4.31 2.27 Government of India,(1996)

Table 7 : Sub-zone wise compound growth rates of area under different crops in Gujarat,1960-61 to 1995-96 (per cent):

Table 7 : Sub-zone wise compound growth rates of area under different crops in Gujarat,1960-61 to 1995-96 (per cent) Sr. no. crops sub-zone I Sub zone II Sub zone III Sub zone IV Sub zone V Sub zone VI Sub zone VII overall 1 Paddy 2.86 -0.58 0.24 0.57 - -8.94 -11.55 0.20 2 Jowar -4.21 -1.72 -2.94 -2.96 -5.94 -5.23 -5.80 -3.51 3 Bajra - -1.89 -1.42 -2.30 -4.56 -4.00 -4.60 -1.21 4 Maize 1.35 5.74 1.27 1.21 1.25 5.01 2.09 1.35 5 Wheat -1.20 -1.27 1.50 0.31 1.56 0.21 1.68 0.71 6 Tur 2.32 7.64 5.32 4.16 - - - 5.71 7 Gram 1.77 1.53 -0.38 2.46 -0.86 5.30 3.24 1.40 8 Total pulses -0.31 3.58 2.78 2.09 -1.03 4.25 3.03 2.17 9 G,nut 0.60 -2.52 -3.76 -5.41 2.48 0.28 0.42 -0.25 10 Castor - -1.06 6.84 6.18 7.69 8.26 2.71 5.97 11 Rapeseed & Mustard - 2.04 16.12 8.41 18.40 18.06 8.26 8.76 12 Oilseeds -4.81 -2.25 -1.96 2.42 3.30 0.48 0.50 7.93 13 Cotton -17.10 -5.69 -2.56 -2.20 -1.69 0.86 -2.98 -1.57 14 Tobacco - -2.99 0.75 0.45 - - - 0.78 15 S’cane 10.25 11.09 5.26 -2.75 - -1.62 2.63 5.40 16 Chillies -.71 -2.76 -2.65 0.83 - -1.96 -4.56 -1.19 Junagadh Shiyani & Pandya, (1998)

Table 8: Food grain production: Targets and achievement (Million Tonnes):

Table 8: Food grain production: Targets and achievement (Million Tonnes ) Item 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 Target Achievement % of achievement Target Achievement % of achievement Target Achievement % of achievement Target Achievement % of achievement Target Achievement % of achievement Rice 86 86 100 86 90 104.6 90 85 94.4 92 92 100 93 76 81.7 Wheat 74 71 95.9 74 76 102.7 74 69 93.2 78 71 91 78 69 88.5 Coarse cereal 34.4 31 90.1 34.5 30 87 33 32 97 33 35 106 33 26 78.8 Pulses 15.5 15 96.8 15.5 13 83.9 15 12 80 15 14 93.3 16 11 68.8 Total Food grains 210 204 - 210 210 - 212 198 - 218 211 - 220 183 - Pooled - 97.1 100 92.5 96.8 83.2 Source: Tenth plan data and ministry of agriculture

PowerPoint Presentation:

Composition of Different Sector

Table 9 : Share of different sub sectors in total income in Agriculture (per cent):

Table 9 : Share of different sub sectors in total income in Agriculture (per cent) sectors 1950-51 1970-71 1990-91 Crop sector 79.50 79.64 73.90 Livestock 8.36 9.71 19.00 Forestry and Logging 10.91 8.91 4.73 Fishing 1.23 1.74 2.37 Total 100 100 100 Index of diversification 0.35 0.35 0.42 Composition of value of output from livestock Item 1950-51 1970-71 1990-91 Milk group 58.30 60.17 68.16 Meat 18.97 17.11 15.55 Eggs 1.59 2.58 4.16 Other 21.14 20.14 12.13 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Index of diversification 0.58 0.57 0.50 NABARD, Mumbai Satyasai and Vishwanathan,(1996)

Table10: Composition of area and value of output from crop sector (per cent):

Table10: Composition of area and value of output from crop sector (per cent) Crop/crop group Triennium ending 1952-53 1972-73 1992-93 Area Value Area value Area Value Food grains 73.58 46.91 74.26 48.66 67.63 46.08 Cereals 65.25 34.68 60.96 40.02 55.04 40.88 Rice 22.49 18.34 22.72 20.53 23.06 21.04 Wheat 7.21 4.74 11.53 9.88 13.06 12.73 Coarse Cereals 35.55 11.60 26.71 9.61 18.92 7.11 Pulses 14.33 12.23 13.30 8.64 12.62 5.20 Non food grains 26.42 53.09 25.74 51.34 32.378 53.92 Oilseeds 8.81 11.21 10.74 10.98 14.50 14.88 Traditional oilseeds 8.81 11.21 10.64 10.98 11.72 13.10 Non traditional oilseeds - - 0.10 - 2.78 1.78 Sugarcane 1.33 8.27 1.51 8.89 2.01 9.49 Fibre 5.24 4.53 5.41 4.74 4.70 4.97 Narcotics 0.55 2.39 0.68 2.30 0.72 2.23 Spices and Condiments 0.52 2.32 0.80 2.21 0.99 2.48 Fruits and vegetable 0.58 8.50 1.62 10.63 2.29 10.76 Others 9.34 15.87 4.84 11.59 6.94 9.11 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Index of diversification 0.75 0.86 0.78 0.84 0.79 0.82 NABARD, Mumbai Satyasai and Viswanathan, (1996)

PowerPoint Presentation:

FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVERSIFICATION

Table 11: Diversification due to water constraints by changing cropping pattern:

Table 11: Diversification due to water constraints by changing cropping pattern Cropping system Total water used (cm) Water saving (%) Mean yield in rice equivalent (Kg ha -1) Net returns (Rs.ha -1 ) Profit/ unit of water used (Rs.m -3) Benefit cost ratio C1 rice- rice -black gram 242 - 11262 14079 0.580 1.6 C2 groundnut-rice – black gram 189 22 11693 17414 0.92 2.3 C3 sorghum- rice- black gram 186 23 9004 14085 0.76 1.7 Periyar, (TN) Ganesaraja and Jayapaul (1994)

Table no 12: Performance of castor intercrops on farmers field by controlling soil erosion:

Table no 12: Performance of castor intercrops on farmers field by controlling soil erosion Sr no Cropping systems Fertilizers N-P-K (kg/ha) Yield(kg/ha)* Net returns (Rs/ha) Castor tobacco Intercrop (green pod/grain) Castor equivalent I II 1 Castor pure 49-29-0 701 - 701 4816 4663 2 Castor + cowpea (1:2) 58-35-0 822 783 1399 11292 10939 3 Castor + clusterbean (1:3) 45-42-0 618 276 807 7210 6839 4 Castor + sesamum (1:3) 97-50-0 1058 121 1346 11191 10659 5 Tobacco Improved 174-0-0 2058 - - - 10268 Traditional 139-0-0 1682 - - - 7572 Vasad, Gujarat Singh et al . ,(1996) *average of three year I -60%P benefit credited to first crop and 40% to next crop II-100%P benefit to first crop

Table no 13: Changes in cropping pattern towards more profitable crops (acres/ household):

Table no 13: Changes in cropping pattern towards more profitable crops (acres/ household) Area under crops Marginal farms Growth rate (%) Small farms Growth rate (%) 1984-85 1993-94 1984-85 1993-94 Paddy 0.19 0.14 -3.01 0.49 0.28 -5.54 Cotton 0.90 0.32 -9.82 1.30 0.57 -7.91 Chilly 0.20 0.09 -7.67 0.41 0.36 -1.29 G’nut 0.27 0.06 -13.96 0.58 0.45 -2.51 Sunflower 0.07 0.15 7.92 0.24 0.49 7.40 Mosambi 0.04 0.03 -2.84 0.29 0.32 0.99 Mulberry 0.43 0.89 8.42 0.05 0.91 33.66 * The growth rate of mulberry has worked only for nine years, i. e. from 1985-86 to1993-94 Bangalore Gopalappa,(1996)

Table no 14: Impact of labour availability and infrastructure on diversification (per cent):

Table no 14: Impact of labour availability and infrastructure on diversification (per cent) Panchayat Farmer category Irrigated area Share of vegetable crop Share of vegetable crop in cropped area Irrigated Unirrigated Dharot (8, 34, -4) Marginal 38.19 98.40 49.09 67.92 Small 57.33 84.71 35.19 63.58 Other 53.75 92.73 21.33 59.71 Deothi (13, 34,-2) Marginal 63.53 73.42 6.04 48.85 Small 55.68 71.46 5.51 42.23 Other 48.00 59.90 0.77 29.15 Bhojnagar (26, 35, -2) Marginal 0.71 - 12.09 12.01 Small 4.04 77.78 4.91 7.86 Other 21.41 14.24 3.62 5.89 Kotho (5, 32, -4) Marginal 4.64 23.81 37.67 37.03 Small 6.42 69.05 28.66 31.26 Other 11.59 100 39.67 46.67 Fig in the parentheses denotes distance from dist headquarters, max and min temp resp. HP Chand, (1996)

PowerPoint Presentation:

Impact of Diversification

Table 15: Percentage increase in employment and net return due to one percent shift in area in favour of vegetable crops:

Table 15: Percentage increase in employment and net return due to one percent shift in area in favour of vegetable crops Type of area Employment Income Solan block Solan district Solan block Solan district Irrigated 1.20 1.60 4.06 6.12 Unirrigated 1.60 2.85 3.42 4.25 HP Chand, (1996)

Table 16: HOUSEHOLD INCOME PER YEAR-VALUE AT 1984-85 PRICES IN Rs:

Table 16: HOUSEHOLD INCOME PER YEAR-VALUE AT 1984-85 PRICES IN Rs Particulars Marginal farms Growth rate (per cent) Small farm Growth rate (per cent) 1984-85 1993-94 1984-85 1993-94 Agriculture 876.00 195.00 -13.95 1,691.00 1,079.00 -4.39 Sericulture 0.00 2,207.00 - 152.00 2,201.00 30.64 Dairying 126.00 1,916.00 31.28 141.00 1,825.00 29.18 Livestock/ Poultry 114.00 0.00 -100.00 128.00 62.00 -6.99 Hiring out drought animal 23.00 0.00 -100.00 48.00 0.00 -100.00 Agricultural labour 1,368.00 619.00 -7.62 968.00 553.00 -5.44 Trade 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 72.00 - Total 2,507.00 4,937.00 7.01 3,128.00 5,792.00 6.35 Bangalore Gopalappa, (1996)

Table no 17: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE AT 84-85 PRICES (RS):

Table no 17: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE AT 84-85 PRICES (RS) Particulars Marginal farmer Growth rates (per cent) Small farms Growth rates (per cent) 1984-85 1993-94 1984-85 1993-94 Cereals 968.00 951.00 -0.18 992.00 959.00 -0.34 Pulses 144.00 178.00 2.14 156.00 190.00 1.99 Vegetables 336.00 356.00 0.58 348.00 392.00 1.20 Fish/meat 84.00 189.00 8.45 110.00 203.00 6.32 Edible oil 54.00 125.00 8.76 68.00 136.00 7.18 Sugar 36.00 54.00 4.14 43.00 58.00 3.04 Transport 175.00 184.00 0.50 195.00 201.00 0.30 Medicine 144.00 196.00 3.13 158.00 230.00 3.83 Entertainment 181.00 268.00 4.00 196.00 307.00 4.59 Pan/Tobacco 272.00 339.00 2.23 295.00 359.00 1.98 Clothes 1,150.00 1,337.00 1.52 1,215.00 1,460.00 1.85 Other 125.00 146.00 1.57 145.00 161.00 1.05 Total 3.669.00 4,323.00 1.65 3,921.00 4,656.00 1.73 Bangalore Gopalappa,(1996)

Table 18: INCOME, HUMAN LABOUR UTILIZATIONAND PRODUCTIVITY FOR EXISTING AND OPTIMUM FARM PLANS:

Table 18 : INCOME, HUMAN LABOUR UTILIZATIONAND PRODUCTIVITY FOR EXISTING AND OPTIMUM FARM PLANS Particulars Zone I (2.53ha) Zone II(2.47ha) Zone III(3ha) p o p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p o p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 p o p 1 p 2 p 3 p 4 1. Returns in rupees 10,445 10,889 13,629 17,437 22,550 10,446 12,578 14,114 20,987 26,740 11,967 12,978 20,006 23,348 30,379 (a) Change over existing plan(Rs) - 454 (4.35) 3,184 (30.48) 6,992 (66.94) 12,105 (115.89) - 2,112 (20.18) 3,648 (34.86) 10,521 (100.53) 16,277 (155.49) - 1,011 (8.45) 8,039 (67.18) 11,381 (95.10) 18,412 (153.86) (b)Change over previous plan(Rs) - 454 (4.35) 2,740 (25.16) 3,808 (27.97) 5,113 (29.32) - 2,112 (20.18) 1,536 (12.21) 6,873 (48.70) 5,753 (27.42) - 1,011 (8.45) 7,028 (54.15) 3,342 (16.70) 7,031 (30.11) 2. Human labour (man hour) 5,937 3,827 7,312 5,413 10,180 5,970 3,994 8,097 6,687 12,354 8,432 4,089 8,355 7,214 11,400 (a) Change over existing plan - -2,110 (-35.54) 1,375 (23.16) -524 (-8.83) 4,243 (71.047) - 3,994(1.976) 2,127(35.63) 717 (12.01) 6.384 (106.93) - -4,343 (-51.51) -77 (-0.91) -1.218 (-14.44) 2,968 (35.20) (b) Change over previous plan - -2,110 (-35.54) 3.485 (91.06) -1.899 (-25.97) 4.767 (88.07) - -1,976 (-33.10) 4,103 (102.73) -1.410 (-17.41) 5,667 (84.75) - -4,343 (-51.51) 4,266 (104.33) -1,141 (-13.66) 4,186 (58.03) Patiala,(punjab) Saini and Singh, (1984)

Table 19: Impact of dairy enterprises on cost and return per farm:

Table 19: Impact of dairy enterprises on cost and return per farm Sr no particulars small medium large overall WOMC WMC WOMC WMC WOMC WMC WOMC WMC 1 Land size (ha) 1.60 1.78 4.87 4.4 8.5 10.22 3.02 3.23 2 Cost A Crop 2040 2477 6319 6681 13075 14852 4098 4669.5 Dairy - 1925 - 2659 - 7119 - 2645 total 2040 4402 6319 9340 13075 21971 4098 7314 Cost C Crop 3522 4277 9695.5 11953 22197 24974 6798 8069.5 Dairy - 2577 - 3102 - 7566 - 3.234 total 3522 6855 9695.5 15056 22197 32540 6798 11.303 3 Gross returns Crop 5221 7496 15951 21474 30026 42905 10063 14148 Dairy - 4982 - 6705 - 16645 - 6613 total 5221 12478 15951 28179 30026 59550 10063 20761 4 Net returns at Cost A 3780 8076 9631 18839 16951 37559 5965 13447 Cost C 2298 5623 6255.5 13123 7829 26978 3265.5 9458 5 Returns per hundred Rs at Cost A 256 284 252 302 229 272 246 248 Cost C 165 182 164 187 135 182 148 184 WOMC= without milch cattle WMC= with milch cattle Akola, (MH) Thorve and Gadgilkar, (1984)

Table 20: Comparative statement showing average cost of cultivation per acre sole crop and crop mixture:

Table 20: Comparative statement showing average cost of cultivation per acre sole crop and crop mixture Sr.No. Item Avg. for all sole crops Avg. for all crop mixtures Benefits over sole cropping 1 Cost A 184.27 290.53 - 2 Cost B 319.51 540.84 - 3 Cost C 352.72 585.67 - 4 Value of main produce 278.44 671.43 - 5 Value of by produce 64.28 137.74 - 6 Value of total produce 342.72 809.17 - 7 Profit or loss at cost C -100.00 +223.50 - 8 Monetary returns (Rs/acre) 342.72 809.17 +466.45 9 Employment generation (person days/acre) 20.32 29.26 +8.94 Anantpur, (AP) Nagaraja , (1989)

Table 21: Net returns, percentage increase in net returns and per capita income from various plans under different farming systems:

Table 21: Net returns, percentage increase in net returns and per capita income from various plans under different farming systems Farming system /plan Bullock operated small farms(2.20) Tractor operated small farm(3.00) Net return Percent increase in net returns Net return Percent increase in net returns total Per ha plan Plan c total Per ha plan Plan c 1. Existing plan 4,211 1,914 - - 6,564 2,188 - - 2.plan CRK 6,642 3,019 57.73 42.41 10,249 3,416 56.14 23.84 3. CDRK 7,960 3,618 89.03 70.67 13,132 4,377 100.07 58.68 4. CPRK 8,312 3,778 97.39 78.22 13,805 4,602 110.32 66.81 5. CDPRK 8,966 4,075 112.90 92.24 15,428 5,143 135.04 86.42 CDPK and R stands for crop, dairy, poultry, capital barrowed and recommended technology, respectively. Karnal (Haryana) Deoghare et al , 1991

Table 22: Human labour, employment , percentage increase in labour employment and employment intensity for various plans under different farming system:

Table 22: Human labour, employment , percentage increase in labour employment and employment intensity for various plans under different farming system Farming systems/ plan Bullock operated Small farms Tractor operated small farms Human labour employment Total per ha Percentage increase in labour employment Employment intensity Human labour employment Total per ha Percentage increase in labour employment Employment intensity 1. Existing plan 263 85 - 40.12 310 68 - 43.89 2plan CRK 479 132 82.13 73.15 434 82 40 61.45 3. CDRK 520 125 97.72 79.38 589 129 90 83.41 4. CPRK 485 134 84.41 74.11 543 110 75.16 76.95 5. CDPRK 630 181 139.54 96.27 653 128 110.65 92.42 CDPK and R stands for crop, dairy, poultry, capital barrowed and recommended technology, respectively. Karnal (Haryana) Deoghare et al , (1991)

CONCLUSION:

CONCLUSION Diversification of agriculture is considered as an essential to take the advantage of complementary and supplementary relationships so as to reap the maximum returns. In addition it is also required to maximize resource use efficiency through multidimensional use of land, timely use of output of one enterprise as an input for others and intensive use of family labour. The results have shown that diversification of the crop measured by Herfindahl index and entropy indices was higher in more diversified farm. The economic factors (like farm-size, tractor and bullock density, extent of tenancy, farm income and non-farm income) and social factor such as family size, age and education of the head of the family, distance from tarred road are significant determinant of crop diversification suggesting that proper mix of both economic and non economic factors are essential for promoting agriculture production.

FUTURE THRUST:

FUTURE THRUST - Subsidies should be provided to the farmer so that farmer can afford growing high value crops. - Post- harvest handling methods should be improved. - Marketing infrastructure facilities should be improved. - Input and credit delivery systems should be improved as they are important factors in determining cropping decision of the agricultural producers. - There is need for involvement of private sectors in different types of activities like marketing ,processing , research, development, extension, etc. - There is also a need on emphasizing varietal improvements in the crops to adjust with agronomic and climatic condition.

PowerPoint Presentation:

Thank You

authorStream Live Help