INTRA-MURAL RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT
ON
ECONOMICS OF RICE CULTIVATION AND ESTIMATION OF
PRODUCER SURPLUS OF RICE IN RI-BHOI DISTRICT OF MEGHALAYA
Prepared by
Dr. Ram Singh, Dr. S. M. Feroze and Dr. Rajkumar Josmee Singh
Submitted to
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH,
CENTRAL AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, IROISEMBA, IMPHAL (MANIPUR)
13
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I express my sincere thanks to the Hon’ble Director of Research, Directorate of Research, Central
Agricultural University, Imphal, Manipur for providing financial support for this study under Intra-mural Research
Project Scheme. This document is the outcome of farmers, Directorate of Research, CAU, Implal and School of Social
Sciences, College of Post Graduate Studies (CPGS), Central Agricultural University (CAU), Barapani. I extend my
sincere thanks to Dr. K.Momocha Singh, in-charge Dean,, in-charge of School of Social Sciences, CPGS for providing all
the necessary facilities for the project and for their continuous support. I express my sincere gratitude to all the
respondent farmers of Ri-Bhoi district Meghalaya, India for their positive attitude and response during household
survey, without that our whole efforts would have gone in vain. I extend my thanks to both of Co-Principal Investigator
Dr. S.M. Feroze, Asstt. Professor (Economics) and Dr. Rajkumar Josmee Singh, Asstt. Professor (Sociology), School of
Social Sciences, CPGS, for giving their technical inputs in preparing this draft report of project. I very much thankful to
Dr. Lala I.P. Ray, Assistant Professor, School of Natural Resource Management, CPGS for rendering his services in
many ways.
I sincerely thank to Mr Blessiful umlong (Project fellow, IRP), Mr. Damewan Muliar (Project fellow, Cost of
cultivation project) and Mr. Koijam Johny Singh (Research Associate, Cost of cultivation project) for their untiring
service towards the research work.
At last but not the least my sincere thanks to all the sections of the college particularly the account section for
their nice cooperation in regard to financial matter in the project.
(Ram Singh)
Associate Professor & P.I. (IRP)
14
Chapters
Sl No.
Title
Page No.
1
About the research team and objectives of the study
1
2
Introduction
2-4
3
Materials and methods
5-11
4
Results and discussion
12-59
5
Summary of the research
60-64
6
Conclusions and policy options
7
References and financial statement
65
66
List of Table
Sl No.
1
Title
Block wise number of villages selected from Ri-Bhoi district
Page No.
6
2
Village wise selection of Respondents in Umsning block
7
3
Village wise selection of rice growers in Umling block
7
4
Village wise selection of rice growers in Jirang block
8
5
Category wise number of rice grower
8
6
Education status of the selected household
12
7
Family size of the household
13
8
The distribution of earning and non-earning members of selected rice grower
14
9
Annual family income of the rice grower
15
10
Occupation of the sample rice grower
16
11
Cropping pattern in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya during 2014-15
12
Operational land holding in Ri-bhoi district of Meghalaya during 2014-15
19
13
Area under different methods of rice cultivation
20
14
Rice cultivars used by rice growers of Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya
20-21
15
Area under different rice Cultivar in the Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya
23-24
16
Yield of rice of local cultivar
25
17
Yield of rice fodder of local cultivar of rice
26
18
Input cost of cultivation of transplanted rice in Ri- bhoi district of Meghalaya
28
19
Input Cost of Cultivation in Direct Seeded Rice (DSR)
29
20
Input Cost of Cultivation in Jhum Rice
30
15
17-18
21
Energy use in Transplanting method of rice on small farm
22
Energy use in Transplanting method of rice on medium farm
32
23
Energy use in Transplanting method of rice on large farm
33
24
Overall cost of energy use in transplanting method of rice cultivation
25
Energy use in DSR method of rice cultivation on small farm
26
Energy use in DSR method of rice production on medium farm
27
Energy use in DSR method of rice production on large farm
28
Overall energy use in DSR method of rice production
29
Energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation on small farm
38
30
Energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation on medium farm
38
31
Energy use in Jhum method of rice Cultivation on large farm
39
32
Overall energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation
39
33
Cost of cultivation of rice under transplanted methods
40-41
34
Cost of Cultivation of transplanted rice using cost concepts
41-42
35
Returns from rice cultivation under transplanted rice
43
36
Cost of cultivation of rice under DSR Methods
44
37
Cost of Cultivation under DSR using Cost concepts
38
Returns from Direct Seeded Rice (DSR)
39
Cost of cultivation of rice under Jhum methods
40
Cost of cultivation of Jhum method using cost concepts
49
41
Returns from rice cultivation under Jhum
50
42
Marketable and marketed surplus of rice
53
43
Marketable and marketed surplus of paddy fodder
55
44
Disposal pattern of Paddy in Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya during 2014-15
57
45
Cost and Margin in Marketing of Rice in Ri-bhoi district of Meghalaya
Sl No.
31-32
33-34
35
35-36
36
36-37
45-46
47
List of Figures
47-48
58-59
Page No.
1
Occupation of the sample rice grower
16
2
Cropping pattern in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya during 2014-15
18
3
Percentage of rice cultivars used by rice growers
22
4
Share of rice for different purpose retained in household
53
5
Marketable and marketed surplus of rice
54
16
6
Share of rice fodder for different purpose retained in household.
7
Share of marketable and marketed surplus of paddy fodder
Sl No.
List of Annexure
55
56
Page No.
1
Energy use in transplanting method of rice production on small farm
67
2
Energy use in transplanting method of rice production on medium farm
3
Energy use in transplanting method of rice production on large farm
68
4
Overall energy use in transplanting method of rice production
69
5
Energy use in DSR methods of rice production on small farm
69-70
6
Energy use in DSR method of rice production on medium farm
7
Energy use in DRS method of rice production on large farm
8
Overall energy use in DSR method of rice production
71
9
Energy use in Jhum method of rice production on small farm
72
10
Energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation on medium farm
72
11
Energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation on large farm
73
12
Overall energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation
73
13
Household Schedule
67-68
70
70-71
74-80
17
Annexure III
Final Report on research project under Intramural Research Programme
Central Agricultural University, Imphal (Manipur)
1. Name of the Project Investigator
2. Name
of
the
:
Co-Project :
Dr. Ram Singh
i) Dr. S.M. Feroze, Asstt. Professor (Economics)
Investigator(s)
:
3. Name of the School and College :
ii) Dr. Rajkumar Josmee Singh, Asstt. Professor (Sociology)
School of Social Sciences, CPGS, Barapani-793 103
with address
4. Location of the experimental site
5. Season
and
Year
:
of :
Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya
August, 2014
experimentation
6. Sanction/approval order No. and :
No. CAU-DR/3-7(PG)/2010/Vol.II, Dated: 26.06.2014
date
7. Title of the research project
:
Economics of Rice Cultivation and Estimation of
Producer
Surplus of Rice in Ri-Bhoi District of
Meghalaya
8. Objective of the Research Project
:
i: To work out the cost and returns from rice cultivation.
ii: To estimate the producers’ surplus of rice.
1
9. Research/Technical achievements (as per objective)
9.1 Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa) is one of the important crops of the country which has its mention in
Vedic literatures and is evident from archaeological excavation. Rice is the main source of food
for more than half of the world’s population and its cultivation secures a livelihood for more than
two billion people. It covers 160.88 million ha with average productivity of 4.42 ton per ha
producing around 477.08 million ton of rice during 2013-14 (USDA, 2015) in the world. Among
the rice growing countries in the world, India has the largest area under rice crop and ranks
second in production next to China during the year 2011-12. India contributes around 22 per cent
of share to world’s production of paddy; with an area of 43.94 million ha, productivity of 2.3 ton
per ha and production of around 106.54 million ton of rice in 2013-14 (GoI, 2014)
Rice is also the most important cereal crop for the people of North Eastern Hill (NEH)
region of India. The region consists of seven states; namely, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Sikkim. The region has been striving hard to attain
food self-sufficiency and food security. Rice is the most important cereal crop and is a way of
life for the people of NEH region. The total geographical area of this region during 2012-13 was
18,375 thousand ha, which accounted to be of 5.50 per cent of total geographical area of India.
Agricultural performance in the region remains sluggish on account of a number of factors. The
region covered 823 thousand ha area in which 5259 thousand ton of rice produced with an
average yield of 2.20 ton per ha during the period of 2013-14 (GoI, 2014).
Meghalaya, one of the seven states in the NEH region is pre dominantly an agrarian state.
In Meghalaya, rice is grown in both the hills and plain areas. Rice based agriculture and allied
activities are the largest source of livelihood of the majority of rural masses and the mainstay of
the state’s economy. Agriculture sector contributes a major share to the total state domestic
product and provides employment to a lion’s share of the total workers in Meghalaya. The state
has 298.24 thousand MT productions with 2703 Kg yield in 110.32 thousand ha area under rice
during 2014-15 (GoM, 2015). Among the districts, Ri-Bhoi district is ranked first in terms of
productivity (3.33 t/ha).
2
As per details from Census 2011, Meghalaya has population of 29.67 Lakhs, an increase
from figure of 23.19 Lakh in 2001 census. To feed the rapidly growing population, it is essential
to increase the production of rice which is the only staple diet of the people of the state.
Although state has achieved a lot as far as rice concerned. The growth in area under rice
increased by 2 per cent which increased the production of 46 per cent with the increment of 42
per cent of rice productivity from 2009-10 to 2014-15 (GoM, 2015). The adoption of modern
agricultural techniques could improve the yield in hill districts and reduce the rural poverty and
un-employment to a large extent in the hill districts of the state. The improved technology and
High Yielding Varieties (HYV) programme launched by the government has played a vital role
towards self sufficiency in food grain production in the state owing to the higher yield of
HYVs/Improved varieties (IVs) compared to that of traditional/local varieties. HYVs of rice
generate additional employment being labour intensive in comparison to local varieties and also
helps socio-economic transformation of farmers. However the rice farmers are unaware about
cost and returns which measure the profitability of rice.
The marketing of rice in the state is still untouched aspect. The state has Agricultural
Marketing Board since, 1983. There are two regulated APMC in the state and rice is not notified
in any of regulated market. The reason behind might be less productivity and less production of
rice in lesser area cultivated under rice during the inception of state agricultural produce
marketing act, 1980, under which state constituted state agricultural marketing board in 1983.
The generation of marketed surplus and its transfer from agricultural sector to non agricultural
sector is crucial to achieve the self sustaining economic growth. Every year before sowing the
crop, the Government of India declares Minimum Support Price (MSP) on the basis of
recommendations of Commission on Cost and Price (CACP) for respective crops of the country.
At present CACP declaring the MSP for 28 crops (GoI, 2012). The implementation of MSP in
the state is the subject matter of state agricultural marketing board. Hence, rice being a major
crop of the state could not get recognition for marketing in the APMC. But still the work needs
to be done at root level (farmers’ field) to know the actual causes. The arrangement for
marketing and the expension of markets have to be made only for the surplus quantity available
with the farmers, and not for the total production. The rate at which agricultural production
expands determines the pace of agricultural development, while the growth in the marketable
surplus for the economic development of the country. Though marketing system is more
3
concerned with the surplus which enters or is likely to enter the market, the quantum of total
production is essential for this surplus. The larger the production of a commodity, the greater the
surplus of the commodity and vice-versa (Acharya and Agarwal, 2014). The knowledge of
marketed and marketable surplus helps the policy makers as well as the trader in framing sound
price policy, developing proper procurement, developing transport and storage systems and
developing the market and market yards. Hence, in background of above facts the present study
planned to investigate the following specific objectives:
i)
To work out the cost and returns from rice cultivation.
ii)
To estimate the producers’ surplus of rice.
4
9.2 Materials and methods
Locale of the study
The study was conducted in Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya. Ri -Bhoi district is one of the
youngest district of Meghalaya which came into existence and assumed the hierarchical status
of the District on the 4th June 1992 by upgrading the former Civil Sub-Division. The District
was carved out from the erstwhile East Khasi Hills District and lies between North Latitudes 25
15˚ and 26 15˚ and between East Longitudes 91 45˚ and 92 15˚. Geographically comprises parts
of the Khasi kingdoms viz parts of Mylliem Syiemship, Khyrim Syiemship, Nongspung
Syiemship, Nongkhlaw Syiemship, whole of Nongpoh Sirdarship (erstwhile Nongpoh
Syiemship), Myrdon Sirdarship and the erstwhile Nongwah Syiemship. Presently, Nongwah
Syiemship is one of the missing Khasi state that calls for restoration both administratively and
territorially. Presently, the district is bounded on the North by the Kamrup, Morigoan and
Nagoan districts of Assam, on the East by the Karbi Anglong district of Assam, on the South by
East Khasi Hills and West Khasi Hills districts and on the West by the West Khasi district.
Nongpoh is the district headquarter and as well as that of Nongpoh Sirdarship. The Bhois of Ri
Bhoi district is the Sub - group of the main Khasi tribe. The majority of the Bhois speak the
Bhoi dialect, although they use the Khasi dialect as a major subject in their schools. In Ri-Bhoi
district, there are other groups of tribes viz, Garos, who speak the Tibeto - Burman groups of
language, whereas the Karbis, Marngars, Mikirs, Bodos and Lalungs use Assamese as their
Lingua Franca. Some speak and write Khasi too. The Bhois follow the matrilenial system.
Children bear the title of the mother and she is the safe keeper of all properties owned by her
parents. The district has three blocks namely, Umsning, Umling and Zirang. The study was
conducted in all three block and by drawing the using probability proportionate to population
size.
Umsning Block
Umsning Block is having a total geographical area of 1,105 Sq. Km2. with 266 numbers
of villages with 1,03,161 of population. The population density of the block is 93 sq. km. The
block was come into existence on 2nd October, 1952. The average rainfall and temperature of the
block is 1,242.8 mm and 22 oC, respectively. Agriculture is the main occupation of the people
(http://www.ribhoi.gov.in).
5
Umling Block
The total geographical area of Umling block is 85,184 hectare with a total number of 211
villages. Umling block was first established on 2nd October, 1980. The total number of
population is 66,089 and 10,085 total number of household. The average rainfall 185 mm is and
26 oC is the maximum and 17 oC is the minimum temperature of the block. Agriculture is the
main occupation of the people. (http://www.ribhoi.gov.in).
Jirang Block
Jirang block came into existence on 24th March, 2001. The block comprises of 5887 total
number of household with a total geographical area of 48,570 hectare and 105 total number of
villages. The total number of population in the block is 22,855. Agriculture is the main
occupation of the people (http://www.ribhoi.gov.in).
Sampling Plan
Selection of Cluster Village
The study was conducted in Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya. The district comprises of
three blocks namely; Umsning, Umling and Jirang and all three blocks were taken under present
study. Out of 677 numbers of villages 15 numbers of villages were selected as a sample from RiBhoi district taking 5 numbers of villages from each block, viz, Umsning, Umling and Jirang of
the district (Table 1).
Table 1: Block wise number of villages selected from Ri-Bhoi district
Name of Block
Total Village (No.)
Villages Selected (No.)
Umsning
323
05
Umling
247
05
Jirang
107
05
Total
677
15
Selection of Respondent
One cluster (comprising of 5 number of villages) from each selected block was selected.
A list of all the households in each selected village was prepared. Out of 147 numbers of
6
households of five numbers of selected villages of Umsning block, a sample of 47 numbers of
respondents were selected (Table 2) randomly proportionate to size of population. Out of 99
numbers of household of five selected villages of Umling block a sample of 32 numbers of rice
growers was selected (Table 3) randomly proportionate to size of population. A sample of 41
numbers of rice growers were selected as a sample from five numbers of selected villages of
Jirang block out of 130 numbers of enlisted households (Table 4). A list of households along
with size of land holding of 15 numbers of villages (5 villages from each block) was prepared
and categorized it into three categories, viz, small (up to 1.50 ha), medium (1.51 to 2.30 ha) and
large (2.31 ha and above). Hence, 66, 37 and 17 numbers of rice growers were selected randomly
proportionate to size of the population from small, medium and large categories of farm,
respectively (Table 5).
Table 2: Village wise selection of Respondents in Umsning block
Name of Block
Total Household (No.)
Respondents Selected (No.)
Umtham
30
10
Rynthiang
49
16
Mawlyngkhung
23
7
Kyrdem kulai
21
6
Sohpdok
24
8
Total
147
47
Table 3: Village wise selection of rice growers in Umling block
Name of Block
Total Household (No.)
Respondents Selected (No.)
Mawtnum
35
11
IewMawlong
18
6
Umjersi
21
7
Phamlapong
10
3
Jyntro
15
5
Total
99
32
7
Table 4: Village wise selection of rice growers in Jirang block
Name of Block
Total Household (No.)
Respondents Selected (No.)
Old Tasku
36
11
Nongladew
46
15
New Tasku
13
4
Jali Lum
10
3
Jali Them
25
8
Total
130
41
Table 5: Category wise number of rice grower
Name of Block
Size of land holding (ha)
Respondents Selected (No.)
Small
Up to 1.50
66
Medium
1.51 to 2.30
37
2.31 and above
17
Large
Total
120
Source and Collection of Data
The study pertains both primary and secondary data. The secondary data on area,
production and productivity of rice and other relevant socio-economic information of the RiBhoi district, blocks and villages have been collected from the office of District Statistical
Office, Ri-Bhoi. The primary data collected on well structured pre-tested schedule through
personal interview of the rice grower. The schedule pertains the data on general information of
the rice grower including the family size, member engaged in various activities and occupation
of the head of the household, land inventory includes the type of land, operational size of land
holding and tenancy (rented-in or rented-out), information on various capital assets including
machinery, tools and livestock assets available on the farm of rice grower, information on
cropping pattern, utilization of crops and data on crop record (inputs and outputs) considering the
different methods practiced by rice grower to grow the rice, energy use in rice production,
prevailing price of various input and output of the rice crop, disposal pattern of the crop’s main
product and by-product, marketing cost incurred during the marketing of the produce etc were
collected from the rice grower for the crop year of 2014-15.
8
Analytical Techniques
Cost and Returns
To work out the cost and returns, cost concepts were applied suggested by Special Expert
Committee on 1979, 30th January. These concepts are given below in detail.
Cost A1: It consists of value of hired human labour + attached labour, value of owned and hired
bullock labour + charges on owned and hired machinery + value of seed (both farm produced
and purchased) + value of owned and purchased manures + value of fertilizers + value of plant
protection chemicals used + depreciation + repairs and maintenance of farm machinery and farm
implements and farm buildings + land revenue, cesses + interest on working capital.
Cost A2 : It consists of cost A1 + rent paid for leased in land.
Cost B1 : It consists of cost A2 + Interest on value of owned fixed capital assets (excluding land)
Cost B2 : It consists of cost B1 + Rental value of owned land (net of land revenue) and rent for
leased-in paid
Cost C1 : It consists of cost B1+ imputed value of family labour
Cost C2 : It consists of cost B2 +imputed value of family labour.
Farm Business Measures: The farm business measures are gross income, net income, farm
business income, family labour income and farm investment income. These measures have been
used to work out returns of the rice grower. Following are the economic efficiency measures
used in the study:
Gross income = Value of total output (Main + by-product)
Net income = Gross income – Cost C2
Farm business income = Gross income – Cost A1 or Cost A2
Family labour income = Gross income – Cost B2
Farm investment income = Farm business income – imputed value of family labour
Benefit cost ratio= Gross returns ÷Total cost
Producers’ surplus
9
The producer surplus is the quantity of produce which is, or can be, made available by the
farmer to the non-farm population. It is two types, viz, marketable surplus and marketed surplus.
Marketable surplus
The marketable surplus is the residual left with the producer-farmer after meeting his/her
requirement for family consumption, farm needs for seeds and feed for cattle/livestock, payment
to labor in kind, payment to artisan, blacksmith, potter and mechanic payment to landlord as rent,
social and religious payments in kind. This may be expressed in equation (1)
Ms = TP - (Ch + Ck) ----------(1)
Where,
Ms = Marketable surplus
TP = Total production (It is worked out after deducting the decayed, spoiled
or diseased produce),
Ch = Home consumption,
Ck = Gifts and kind payments.
Marketed surplus
Quantity of produce which producer-farmer actually sells in the market, irrespective of
his requirement for family consumption, farm needs and other payments. The marketed surplus
may be more, less or equal to the marketable surplus. It can be worked out in equation (2)
Mt = Ms – (Lm - Lt) ----------(2)
Where,
Mt = Marketed surplus,
Ms = Marketable surplus,
Lm = Losses during transportation and marketing,
Lt = Arbitrary deduction or under weighing by traders at market.
Utility of measurement of marketed and marketable surplus
The marketed surplus may be more, less or equal to the marketable surplus, depending
upon the condition of the farmer and of the crop. The relationship between the two terms is given
in equation (3)
10
>
Marketed surplus =
<
Marketable surplus ---------(3)
It is used to investigate the retention power of the rice growers which has following
implications:
a)
The marketed surplus more than marketable surplus on small and marginal Farm
b)
Marketed surplus less than marketable surplus on large farm due to better retention power
c)
Option of substitute crop for livestock feed etc.
d)
It is equal for perishable commodity; neither retains more nor less than his requirement
11
9.3 Results and discussion
This section deals with the findings of the study. This section is divided into
following headings and sub-headings:
a)
Socio-economic status of rice grower
b)
Method of rice cultivation
c)
Use of rice cultivars
d)
Economics of production of Paddy
i)
Input cost
ii)
Labor cost
iii)
Cost of cultivation
9.3.a. Socio-economic status of rice grower
Education
The educational status of the rice grower is presented in Table 6. Category wise
education analysis of respondent shows that mostly rice grower across all the categories of
farmers are illiterate and followed by primary level of education. A few respondents in small
category found as higher secondary level and graduate, while in medium and large category no
one found above high school education. The level of high school education was found almost
same in all categories, i.e,. small, medium and large. The less graduate level of education may be
due to non-availability of higher educational institutes and non affordability of cost of the higher
education by the rice grower.
Table 6: Education status of the selected household
Categories of rice farm
Level of Education
Small
Medium
Illiterate
37
17
(56.06)
(45.95)
Primary
22
17
(33.33)
(45.95)
High School
5
3
(7.58)
(8.11)
Higher and Graduate
2
(3.03)
Total
66
37
(100)
(100)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are percentage to the total
12
Large
9
(52.94)
6
(35.29)
2
(11.76)
17
(100)
Family structure
The family size of sample rice growers is presented in Table 7. The size of family found to be
more or less same for small and medium category except large category, where the size of family
was large (more than 8 persons). Among the members on small and medium categories the
children (male and female) constitute more than 55 per cent of their respective total number of
members and remaining constituted by adults (male and female). Contrary to this, on large
category scenario was vice-versa, in which the major share of family members was constituted
by adults and followed by children. It shows that there is no family plan and households believe
in large family size.
Table 7 Family size of the household
(Number)
Categories of rice farm
Particulars
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Male Adult
1.33
1.41
2.29
1.49
(22.06)
(22.38)
(28.45)
(23.29)
1.61
1.73
1.47
1.63
(26.70)
(27.46)
(18.26)
(25.42)
1.23
1.32
2.00
01.37
(20.40)
(20.95)
(24.84)
(21.36)
1.86
1.84
2.29
1.91
(30.85)
(29.21)
(28.45)
(29.92)
6.03
6.30
8.06
6.41
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Male Children
Adult Female
Female Children
Total
Note: Figures in the parentheses are percentage to the total
Adult: >18 years of age, Children: <18 years of age
Occupation of Family members
The earning members and non earning members of selected rice growers are presented in
Table 8. Table depicts that only adults (male and female) were found to be engaged into
agricultural activities in all category of rice growers. The male numbers were more (19.71%)
engaged in agricultural activities then female on large category of rice growers, whereas, in small
and medium category both male and female more or less found to be engaged equally. Overall,
in agriculture male and female contributed almost equally (more than 11%). The other major
13
occupation was reported as farm labour in which male of small and medium category of rice
growers participated more than female, whereas on large category of rice growers it was viceversa. The overall, more numbers of male found to be engaged in farm labour. The service sector
as an occupation was found to be negligible in which 0.50 per cent and 0.25 per cent of male and
female members of small category of rice grower were found to be engaged, respectively. In the
family of medium category of rice grower only male (0.85%) member were found to be engaged
in service sector. None of the family member was found to be engaged in service as an
occupation on large category of rice. The engagement of family members of rice growers in non
earning activities also presented in Table 8. The majority of male and female members of rice
growers across the category were found to be engaged in obtaining education which was
accounted as 25.49 per cent and 30.43 per cent, respectively. Very interestingly, the percent
share of female was found to be more than male in getting education and household activities of
their respective categories.
Table 8 The distribution of earning and non-earning members of selected rice grower
(Percent)
Categories of rice farm
Occupation
Particulars
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Earning members
Agriculture
Service
Farm labour
Male
10.55
9.40
19.71
11.83
Female
10.30
11.97
12.41
11.18
Male
0.50
0.85
0.00
0.13
Female
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.13
Male
10.80
11.97
7.30
10.53
Female
8.29
7.26
8.76
8.06
Non earning members
Education
Household
Male
26.63
27.35
18.98
25.49
Female
31.16
29.49
29.93
30.43
Male
0.26
0.43
0.73
0.39
Female
1.08
1.28
2.19
1.43
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Total
14
Family income of rice grower
The average annual family income of rice grower is elicited in Table 9. The male
members of the rice grower were found to be contributing more share of annual income across
the category than female members and it is true as number of more male members of rice
growers were engaged in various livelihood activities than the female members (Table 9). The
overall family income was contributed as 75.34 per cent and 24.66 per cent by male and female,
respectively across the category of rice grower. Hence, male members found to be dominating in
respect to income of family in the study area.
Table 9 Annual family income of the rice grower
( /annum)
Particulars
Male
Female
Total
Small
6204.55
(75.55)
2007.58
(24.45)
8212.12
(100.00)
Categories of rice farm
Medium
5662.16
(72.12)
2189.19
(27.88)
7851.35
(100.00)
Large
8882.35
(79.68)
2264.71
(20.32)
11147.06
(100.00)
Overall
6416.67
(75.34)
2100.00
(24.66)
8516.67
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Occupation of Rice grower
The category wise occupation of the sample rice grower is presented in Table 10 and
Figure 1. The Table depicts that among the various occupations, farming (39.74%) was reported
as major or primary occupation of the rice grower of all categories i.e. small, medium and large
category. The secondary occupation was reported as farm labour (29.14%) for all categories of
rice grower and same trend found at state level (GoM, 2014) in which diversified cropping
pattern was found and people engaged themselves into different farm labour activities for their
livelihood. The tertiary occupation was observed and reported by sample rice grower was poultry
(14.24%) and piggery (13.91%) which is also a pivot component of animal husbandry in the
state.
15
Table 10 Occupation of the sample rice grower
(Number)
Categories of rice farm
Particulars
Farming
Dairy farming
Piggery
Poultry
Farm labour
Service
Shop
Total
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
66
37
17
120.00
(34.38)
(46.84)
(54.84)
(39.74)
3
1
-
4.00
(1.56)
(1.27)
(0.00)
(1.32)
42
-
-
42
(21.88)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(13.91)
31
8
4
43
(16.15)
(10.13)
(12.90)
(14.24)
46
33
9
88.00
(23.96)
(41.77)
(29.03)
(29.14)
1
-
-
1.00
(0.52)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.33)
3
-
1
4
(1.56)
(0.00)
(3.23)
(1.32)
192
79
31
302
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
60
50
Farming
40
Dairy farming
Piggery
30
Poultry
20
Farm labour
Service
10
Shop
0
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Fig:1 Occupation of the sample rice grower
16
9.3.b. Cropping Pattern of rice grower
The cropping pattern of farmers of Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya during 2014-15 is
presented in Table 11 and Figure 2. Table revealed that rice is the single crop as a cereal crop
grown by the rice growers area under rice found as increased with the increase in the size of the
category of rice grower. Overall, 11.41 per cent of total area reported under rice and rest of area
covered by spice, vegetable, orchard crops and broom grass. The ginger is the only crop under
the group of spice in the area which has covered around 10.49 per cent of total cultivated area.
Among the vegetables, chilli (11.74%) is the major crop followed by tomato (7.37%), brinjal
(5.67%), capsicum (5.28%), french bean (4.12%) potato (3.36%) and cauliflower (1.01%) were
the other crops grown by the farmers of the Ri-bhoi district. Mustard is only the oilseed crop
being taken by the rice grower and meager area (0.19%) was reported under this crop. Among
the orchard crops major crop was reported as pineapple (14.67%) and followed by banana
(7.16%) and orange (3.13%). The arecanut (2.61%) and broom grass (11.83%) were the other
two crops being grown by the rice grower in their field.
Table 11 : Cropping pattern in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya during 2014-15
(In ha)
Crops
Cereal crop
Rice
Spice crop
Ginger
Vegetable
Tomato
Capsicum
Chilli
Brinjal
French bean
Potato
Small
Categories of rice farm
Medium
Large
Overall
0.42
(11.16)
0.42
(10.18)
0.96
(13.38)
0.50
(11.41)
0.49
(13.02)
0.46
(11.17)
0.32
(4.44)
0.46
(10.49)
0.33
(8.77)
0.19
(4.93)
0.40
(10.43)
0.38
(10.11)
0.21
(5.45)
0.20
(5.28)
0.36
(8.74)
0.36
(8.74)
0.78
(18.93)
0.12
(2.91)
0.16
(3.88)
0.12
(2.91)
0.20
(2.78)
0.12
(1.67)
0.39
(5.41)
(0.00)
0.12
(1.67)
(0.00)
0.32
(7.37)
0.23
(5.28)
0.51
(11.74)
0.25
(5.67)
0.18
(4.12)
0.15
(3.36)
17
Cauliflower
Oil Seed Crop
Mustard
Orchard
Pineapple
Banana
Orange
Dry fruit
Arecanut
Minor Forest product
Broom grass
Total
0.08
(2.11)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0.04
(1.01)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0.06
(0.83)
0.01
(0.19)
0.78
(20.58)
0.19
(4.89)
0.04
(1.06)
0.32
(7.77)
0.51
(12.36)
0.28
(6.80)
0.80
(11.11)
0.38
(5.28)
0.20
(2.78)
0.64
(14.67)
0.31
(7.16)
0.14
(3.13)
0.08
(2.11)
0.23
(5.50)
(0.00)
0.11
(2.61)
(0.00)
3.79
(100.00)
(0.00)
4.12
(100.00)
3.65
(50.69)
7.20
(100.00)
0.52
(11.83)
4.37
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fig: 2 Cropping pattern in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya during 2014-15
18
Operational size of land holding
The operational land holding of rice grower in Ri-Bhoi district is presented in Table 12.
The average size of operational land holding was found to be 0.68 ha, 1.03 ha and 2.38 ha for
small, medium and large category of rice farm, respectively. Out of operational land holding
share of un-irrigated land found to be more than irrigated land holding of rice grower. Around 60
per cent of operational land holding reported as un-irrigated.
Table 12: Operational land holding in Ri-bhoi district of Meghalaya during 2014-15
Categories of rice farm
Particulars
Unit
Small
Medium
Large
Owned land
ha
0.58
0.98
2.08
rent-in land
ha
0.13
0.07
0.29
land rent-out land
ha
0.03
0.01
-
Size of operational land holding
ha
0.68
1.03
2.38
Irrigated land
ha
0.28
0.40
0.93
Un-irrigated land
ha
0.40
0.63
1.45
Irrigated land
%
41.44
38.46
38.96
Un-irrigated land
%
58.92
61.45
60.91
Value of Irrigated land
13070.86
13070.86
13070.86
Value of un-irrigated land
12325.00
-
-
Area under different method of rice cultivation
The rice is grown through transplantation, Direct Seeded rice (DSR) and jhuming
methods in the study area. The most popular method is transplantation of rice and practiced in
68.49 per cent, 85.98 per cent and 79.23 per cent of area under rice cultivation for small, medium
and large category of rice farm, respectively. The overall, transplanting being practiced by rice
growers in 76.97 per cent of area under rice across the category. The analysis revealed that rice
growers are being attracted by refined method of rice cultivation namely DSR which is being
practiced in 31.12 per cent, 12.70 per cent and 17.11 per cent of total area under rice of small,
medium and large category of rice grower. The area under jhum is negliciable (Table 13). Hence
analysis shows that area under jhum has reduce and rice grower are coming forward for DSR and
19
transplanting method of rice. Therefore, research and development should be encouraged for
some new method of rice cultivation.
Table 13 : Area under different methods of rice cultivation
(ha)
Categories of rice farm
Particulars
Transplanted
DSR
Jhum
Total
Small
0.20
(68.49)
0.10
(31.12)
0.01
(0.39)
0.31
Medium
0.35
(85.98)
0.05
(12.70)
0.01
(1.32)
0.41
Large
0.76
(79.23)
0.16
(17.11)
0.04
(3.67)
0.96
Overall
0.33
(76.97)
0.09
(21.34)
0.01
(1.69)
0.43
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
9.3.c. Use of local rice cultivars
The analysis of use of local rice cultivar is presented in Table 14 and Figure 3. Analysis
revealed that Lahi was most popular local cultivar of the rice which is being used by 24.24 per
cent, 16.22 per cent and 23.53 per cent of small, medium and large rice growers, respectively.
Whereas, overall 21.67 per cent of rice growers have been accounted to use of Lahi cultivar
across the category. Pasyrbhuh local rice cultivar was found to be second major local rice
cultivar which was used by 10.61 per cent, 29.73 per cent and 23.53 per cent of small, medium
and large category of rice growers, respectively. Overall, it is being used by 18.33 per cent of
rice growers in the Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya. Next to this, the Ranjit and Hybrid were the
rice cultivars used by 11.67 per cent of the rice grower which was followed by Assam rice
cultivar and it is grown by 9.17 per cent of rice growers in the study area. A very few numbers of
rice growers were using the other local cultivars such as Lynter, Lyngkhot, Manipur, lakang,
Manri, Local, Hajong, Darlong, Tlang etc.
Table 14: Rice cultivars used by rice growers of Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya
(Number)
Categories of rice farm
Cultivar of rice
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Lahi
16
(24.24)
6
(16.22)
4
(23.53)
26
(21.67)
20
Assam
Lynter
Ranjit
Lyngkhot
Manipur
Lakang
Hybrid
Manri
Pasyrbhuh
Local
Hajong
Darlong
Tlang
Manipur+Assam
Manri+Lakang
Assam + Manri
Lahi + Manri
Lahi +Assam
Pnah+hybrid+lynter
Total
9
(13.64)
3
(4.55)
5
(7.58)
3
(4.55)
1
(1.52)
4
(6.06)
6
(9.09)
4
(6.06)
7
(10.61)
1
(1.52)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
1
(1.52)
1
(1.52)
3
(4.55)
2
(3.03)
(0.00)
(0.00)
66
2
(5.41)
(0.00)
8
(21.62)
1
(2.70)
(0.00)
(0.00)
8
(21.62)
(0.00)
11
(29.73)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
1
(2.70)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
37
(0.00)
(0.00)
1
(5.88)
1
(5.88)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4
(23.53)
(0.00)
1
(5.88)
1
(5.88)
1
(5.88)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
2
(11.76)
1
(5.88)
1
(5.88)
17
11
(9.17)
3
(2.50)
14
(11.67)
5
(4.17)
1
(0.83)
4
(3.33)
14
(11.67)
4
(3.33)
22
(18.33)
1
(0.83)
1
(0.83)
1
(0.83)
1
(0.83)
2
(1.67)
1
(0.83)
3
(2.50)
4
(3.33)
1
(0.83)
1
(0.83)
120
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
21
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fig: 3 Percentage of rice cultivars used by rice growers
Area under various rice cultivars
The analysis of area under different rice cultivars in Ri-Bhoi district is presented in Table
15. The Table reveals that according to the area the Lahi local cultivar found to be major which
covered more than 25 per cent of area on small category of rice grower which was followed by
Assam (14.66%), Hybrid (8.29%) and Pasyrbhuh (7.26). Whereas, other remaining cultivars
covered less than 7 per cent of area on small category of rice growers. The medium category of
rice growers preferred Pasyrbhuh which covered almost 25 per cent of area and followed by
Hybrid (23.36%) Lahi (20.25%) and Ranjit (19.73%). According to area coverage under cultivar
of rice, the large category preferred the combination of Lahi+Manri which contributed more than
30 per cent of area and followed by Lahi (20.85%), Pasyrbhuh (17.37%) and others. The overall
analysis revealed that Lahi cultivar covered the largest area (22.33%) which was followed by
Pasyrbhuh (15.75%), Lahi+Manri (12.24%), Hybrid (9.76%) Ranjit (8.12%) and Assam. Rest of
each cultivar contributed more than 3 per cent of area. Hence, it was observed that small
category of rice farmers were found using around 15 numbers of local cultivar of rice as a single
or by taking in combination of two or more than two cultivars. The large category of rice
growers found to adopt around 10 numbers of local cultivar. Whereas, medium category of rice
22
growers adopted around 7 numbers of local cultivar of rice. The variation in adoption of local
cultivars among the categories of rice grower may be attributed due to their taste and different
purpose of cultivation (viz.,food, feed, fodder etc).
Table 15: Area under different rice Cultivar in the Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya
Categories of rice farm
Cultivar of rice
Small
Medium
Large
Lahi
5.12
3.12
3.84
(25.27)
(20.25)
(20.85)
Assam
2.97
1.00
(14.66)
(6.49)
(0.00)
Linter
0.63
(3.11)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Ranjit
0.95
3.04
0.40
(4.69)
(19.73)
(2.17)
Lyngkot
0.99
0.20
0.80
(4.89)
(1.30)
(4.34)
Manipur
0.60
(2.96)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Lakang
1.24
(6.12)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Hybrid
1.68
3.60
(8.29)
(23.36)
(0.00)
Manri
1.32
(6.52)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Pasyrbhuh
1.47
3.85
3.20
(7.26)
(24.98)
(17.37)
Local
0.28
(1.38)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Hajong
1.00
(0.00)
(0.00)
(5.43)
Darlong
1.00
(0.00)
(0.00)
(5.43)
Tlang
0.60
(0.00)
(0.00)
(3.26)
Manipur+Assam
0.20
0.60
(0.99)
(3.89)
(0.00)
Manri+Lakang
0.40
(1.97)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Assam+Manri
1.41
(6.96)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Lahi+Manri
1.00
5.62
23
(ha)
Overall
12.08
(22.33)
3.97
(7.34)
0.63
(1.16)
4.39
(8.12)
1.99
(3.68)
0.60
(1.11)
1.24
(2.29)
5.28
(9.76)
1.32
(2.44)
8.52
(15.75)
0.28
(0.52)
1.00
(1.85)
1.00
(1.85)
0.60
(1.11)
0.80
(1.48)
0.40
(0.74)
1.41
(2.61)
6.62
Lahi+Assam
Pnah+hybrid+linter
Total
(4.94)
(0.00)
(0.00)
20.26
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
15.41
(100.00)
(30.51)
1.00
(5.43)
0.96
(5.21)
18.42
(100.00)
(12.24)
1.00
(1.85)
0.96
(1.77)
54.09
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Yield of different type of rice cultivar (Main product)
The yield of rice local cultivar is presented in Table 11. Table revealed that the
combination of Lahi+Manri yielded highest (1800 kg per ha) followed by Manipur (1500 kg per
ha), combination of Assam+Manri (1366.67 kg per ha) cultivar, combination of Manri+Lakang
(1300 kg per ha) cultivar and Lyngkot (1233.33 kg per ha) on small category of rice farm, while,
Lahi cultivar found to be high yielding (1966.67 kg per ha) cultivar on medium size of farm of
rice and followed by Hybrid (1560 kg per ha), combination of Manipur+Assam (1500 kg per
ha), Pasyrbhuh (1490.91 kg per ha), Ranjit (1385 kg per ha) and Assam (1310 kg per ha). The
Lyngkot (600 kg per ha) was the single cultivar yielded lesser. On large category of rice farm the
combination of Lahi+Manri yielded highest (3800 kg per ha), followed by the combination of
Pnah+hybrid+linter and Hajong of each (3700 kg per ha), Darlong (3600 kg per ha), Lahi (3480
kg per ha), Pasyrbhuh (3525 kg per ha) and Lyngkot (2800 kg per ha). The Ranjit rice cultivar
yielded lesser (1000 kg per ha) yield on large farm. Hence, yield analysis of local rice cultivar
revealed that there were around 14 local rice cultivars which were mostly used by the rice grower
in the district and out of those around 8 number of local cultivar of rice were found performing
comparatively better on large farm of rice. It may be due to better management practices of the
large rice growers. Further, it can be recommended that rice grower of Ri-Bhoi district must
adopt the combination of Lahi+Manri to increase their yield and production and at the same
time, some more research work and development should be initiated on these cultivars.
24
Table 16: Yield of rice of local cultivar
(kg/ha)
Rice Cultivar
Categories of Rice farm
Small
Medium
Large
Lahi
1121.88
1966.67
3480.00
Assam
1033.33
1310.00
-
Linter
666.67
-
-
Ranjit
980.00
1385.00
1000
Lyngkot
1233.33
600.00
2800.00
Manipur
1500.00
-
-
Lakang
970.00
-
-
Hybrid
808.33
1560.00
-
Manri
1150.00
-
-
Pasyrbhuh
985.71
1490.91
3325.00
Local
900.00
-
-
Hajong
-
-
3700.00
Darlong
-
-
3600.00
Tlang
-
-
1500.00
Manipur+Assam
1000.00
1500.00
-
Manri+Lakang
1300.00
-
-
Assam+Manri
1366.67
-
-
Lahi+Manri
1800.00
-
3800.00
-
-
3700.00
Pnah+hybrid+linter
Yield of by-product of different type of rice cultivar
After main product of rice the study of fodder of rice is also very important this is very
helpful for livestock husbandry on farmer’s field. The yield of fodder of local cultivars of rice is
presented in Table 17. The yield of rice fodder varied in between 691 to 1700 kg per ha on small
size of rice farm. The combination of Lahi+Manri found to be highest fodder yielding whereas,
Hybrid of local cultivar yielded lesser (less than 700 kg per ha) amount of fodder. On medium
category of rice farm yield of fodder of various local cultivars ranged in between 400 to 1683.33
kg per ha. The lower yield was reported in case Lyngkot of local cultivar, whereas, highest was
reported for Lahi (1683.33 kg per ha) on medium size of rice farm. Similarly, the yield of fodder
25
on large farm ranged in between 1000 to 4000 kg per ha. The combination of Lahi+Manri
cultivar found to be higher yielding combination of cultivars for fodder, whereas, the Ranjit,
local cultivar yielded very less (1000 kg per ha). Hence, analysis of fodder yield of different
cultivars revealed that Lahi+Manri is only the better combination for high yield of fodder as well
as main product of rice. Therefore, this combination must be popularised among the farming
community.
Table 17: Yield of rice fodder of local cultivar of rice
(Kg/ha)
Rice Cultivar
Category of rice farm
Small
Medium
Large
Lahi
1021.88
1683.33
2800.00
Assam
1011.11
1200.00
-
Linter
900.00
-
-
Ranjit
820.00
1187.50
1000.00
Lyngkot
833.33
400.00
2200.00
Manipur
1400.00
-
-
Lakang
887.50
-
-
Hybrid
691.67
1337.50
-
Manri
900.00
-
-
Pasyrbhuh
842.86
1436.36
3400.00
Local
1400.00
-
-
Hajong
-
-
3800.00
Darlong
-
-
3500.00
Tlang
-
-
1200.00
Manipur+Assam
1000.00
1600.00
-
Manri+Lakang
1000.00
-
-
Assam+Manri
1500.00
-
-
Lahi+Manri
1700.00
-
4000.00
-
-
3700.00
Pnah+hybrid+linter
26
9.3.d. Economics of production of Paddy
The rice is produced by rice grower by using three different methods viz, transplanting,
direct seeded rice and jhum in the Ri-bhoi district of Meghalaya. The detail discussion about
operational cost incurred in paddy production is given as under.
Operational Cost in Rice Production
The operational cost consist of two types costs viz, input cost and labour (energy) cost
involved in production of rice
Input cost in transplanted rice
The operational cost of cultivation of transplanted rice is presented in Table 18. The total
operational cost on small category of rice farm was estimated to be 8,772.02 per ha in which
major share of farm yard manure (FYM) (43.68%) followed by irrigation (33.11%), DAP
fertilizer (15.88%) and seed (6.42%). Similarly, the total operational cost on medium size of rice
farm worked out to be
15,419.40 per ha which constituted by FYM (54.38%), irrigation
(22.92%), DAP (13.62%), seed (5.54%), urea (2.92%) and rest is plant protection. The total
operational cost on large rice farm accounted to be 20,940.02 per ha which is contributed by
FYM (41.71%), irrigation (33.78%), DAP (12.09%), seed (8.80%), urea (3.18%) and rest is plant
protection. Similarly, the overall, total operational cost was worked out to be 12,545.43 across
the category which was largely contributed by cost of FYM and followed by cost of irrigation,
DAP, seed and urea. Hence, study interestingly found that the rice grower in the study area
started the use of chemical fertilizer and plant protection to increase the both productivity and
production of rice. The large category of rice grower incurred more share of total cost on seed
compared to small and medium category. It shows that on large category of rice farm has
replaced seed. The use of plant protection observed more on small category of rice farm than
medium and large in which share of total cost found to be more (0.91). It shows that small and
medium category of rice grower were more concerned on crop protection, since rice is the only
food crop and they are taking all measures to protect it to avoid the probable loss through
diseases. The total operational cost observed as increased with the increase in the size of rice
farm.
27
Table 18: Input cost of cultivation of transplanted rice in Ri- bhoi district of Meghalaya
( /ha)
Particulars
Categories of rice farm
Overall
Small
Medium
Large
Seed
563.26
855.00
1841.57
834.31
(6.42)
(5.54)
(8.80)
(6.65)
F.Y.M
3831.25
8384.62
8730.77
5929.30
(43.68)
(54.38)
(41.71)
(47.27)
Urea
450.00
666.67
233.19
(0.00)
(2.92)
(3.18)
(1.86)
DAP
1392.86
2100.00
2531.25
1772.17
(15.88)
(13.62)
(12.09)
(14.13)
Irrigation
2904.65
3534.78
7071.43
3689.24
(33.11)
(22.92)
(33.78)
(29.41)
Plant protection
80.00
95.00
98.33
87.22
(0.91)
(0.62)
(0.47)
(0.70)
Total
8772.02
15419.40
20940.02
12545.43
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Input Cost in Direct Seeded Rice (DSR)
Another method of rice cultivation is Directed Seeded Rice (DSR) also prevailed in the
study area. The input cost of cultivation per ha of DSR is presented in Table 19. The Table
reveals that total input cost incurred was 9,854.84, 14,462.50 17,068.33, by small, medium
and large category of rice grower. The overall, it was estimated as 12,297.45 per ha. The cost of
FYM components among the various inputs found to be higher on small, medium and large
category it was accounted to be of 58.35 per cent, 55.32 per cent and 50.78 per cent of total input
cost of respective category of rice farm. The next followed by irrigation and it was accounted to
be of 18.13 per cent, 19.36 per cent and 21.87 per cent and followed by DAP, which was
accounted to be 14.84 per cent, 15.90 per cent and 17.58 per cent on small, medium and large
farm of rice grower, respectively. Further, Table revealed that the cost of DAP, irrigation and
seed found to be increased with the increase in size of rice farm. Whereas, the cost of urea, FYM,
plant protection have shown vice-versa trend in which cost increased with the decrease in size of
farm. The overall, cost of FYM was observed to be a major cost and it was accounted as 55.76
per cent followed by irrigation (19.31%), DAP (15.76%), seed (7.30%), urea (1.42%) and plant
protection (0.44%). Hence, in DSR small category of rice grower incurred more expenditure on
28
FYM, urea and plant protection comparative to medium and large where they incurred less share
of their total input cost. The small rice farmer incurred less share of total input cost on seed, DAP
and irrigation than the medium and large category of rice grower. Obviously, it is not affordable
to replace the seed as well as establishment of the irrigation system on the small rice farm.
Therefore rice grower should be encourage to replace the seed every year and same time plant
protection measures used be used by farmer to protect the rice crop during pest and diseases
infestation. Rice need more water for more yield, hence research and development should be
done in respect to water harvesting and irrigation system.
Table 19: Input Cost of Cultivation in Direct Seeded Rice (DSR)
( /ha)
Particulars
Seed
F.Y.M.
Urea
DAP
Irrigation
Categories of rice farm
Small
Medium
Large
655.50
1100.00
1400.00
898.03
(6.65)
(7.61)
(8.20)
(7.30)
5750.00
8000.00
8666.67
6856.94
(58.35)
(55.32)
(50.78)
(55.76)
150.00
205.00
208.33
175.22
(1.52)
(1.42)
(1.22)
(1.42)
1462.50
2300.00
3000.00
1938.54
(14.84)
(15.90)
(17.58)
(15.76)
1786.84
2800.00
3733.33
2374.99
(18.13)
(19.36)
(21.87)
(19.31)
50.00
60.00
100.00
60.17
(0.51)
(0.40)
(0.35)
(0.44)
9854.84
14462.50
17068.33
12297.45
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Plant protection
Total
Overall
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Input Cost in jhum Rice
The third method i.e., jhum rice cultivation prevailing in the study area. Table 20
presents the input cost incurred by different category of rice grower in cultivation of rice through
jhum method. As this method is very traditional among tribal community, therefore, the farmer
incurred only the cost of seed and it was reported as 449, 640, 990 per ha on small, medium
29
and large category of rice farm, respectively. The overall cost of seed was accounted to be
584.53 per ha. Hence, farmer should introduce some other factors of production such as FYM,
plant protection which will fetch more yield of jhum rice
Table 20: Input Cost of Cultivation in Jhum Rice
Particulars
Seed
F.Y.M
Urea
DAP
Irrigation
Plant protection
Total
( /ha)
Overall
Small
449.00
(100)
-
Categories of rice farm
Medium
640.00
(100)
-
Large
990.00
(100)
-
584.53
(100)
-
449.00
(100.00)
640.00
(100.00)
990.00
(100.00)
584.53
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Cost of Energy use in Rice Production
After the analyzing the input cost incurred in rice production the energy use in form of
human labour (Mandays) and machinery use (hours) has been calculated and converted into
monetary term on the basis of prevailed price of human labour as well as based on custom hiring
of machinery for the respective activities in rice cultivation in the respective village. The use of
energy varies with the method of rice cultivation. The category wise and method wise energy use
analysis and its discussion have been furnished as under.
Energy Use in Transplanting Rice Production
The cost incurred on energy in transplanting method of rice cultivation varies with the
size. The cost incurred in use of human labour categorized into family and hired labour which
has been divided into male and female labour considering the opportunity cost. The cost incurred
on use of tractor/power tiller categorized into owned and hired in transplanted rice to perform the
various activities. The family male labour use was observed for land preparation, threshing,
irrigation and transportation higher than the other activities and female family labour was highly
used in transplantation and intercultural activities on respective categories of rice farm. Similar,
30
trend was observed for hired labour of male and female (Table 21 to 23). The service of tractor
use only for land preparation on custom hiring basis and farmers’ owned tractor (Annexure 1 to 3
for physical mandays).
The overall,
11,481.35 and
14,251.01 accounted as cost of family male and female
labour, respectively. Hence, engagement of male labour and female labour observed to be more
or less same in rice cultivation. Other hand the cost of hired male labour and hired female labour
accounted to be 12,749.79 and 15,627.34, respectively. The cost of hired female was found to
be more than the hired male and it may be due to more deployment of female labour because of
expertise of female labour to perform the various activities in rice cultivation such as,
transplanting and intercultural operation etc., (Annexure-4). The cost incurred for owned tractor
use in rice cultivation ( 5,847.73 per ha) more than the hired one ( 5,829.28 per ha) and it was
used only for land preparation in rice cultivation (Table 24). Hence, Table 24 reveals that
although the maximum activities of rice production under transplanted rice is performed
manually, but activities like land preparation, which is the base requirement of rice cultivation
mostly performed by tractor, it shows the adoption of mechanization rice cultivation in the study
area.
Table 21: Energy use in Transplanting method of rice on small farm
Particulars
Family
( /ha)
Tractor/Power tiller
Hired
Male
Female
Male
Female
Owned
Hired
Land
2546.31
-
3665.28
-
5625.00
5910.35
Preparation
(19.85)
(00.00)
(29.46)
(00.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Raising
1404.19
1119.53
1569.48
1562.50
-
-
Seedling
(10.95)
(7.47)
(12.62)
(9.60)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Transplantation
(00.00)
1027.58
(8.01)
2309.03
(18.00)
1769.81
(13.80)
(00.00)
-
3404.52
(22.72)
114.58
(0.76)
1197.92
(7.99)
(00.00)
4748.66
(31.69)
4401.25
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
1785.71
(14.36)
(00.00)
-
4820.30
(29.62)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
5384.68
(33.09)
4505.98
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
-
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
-
Fertilizer
FYM
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
31
Threshing
Transportation
Total
(00.00)
3771.28
(29.40)
(00.00)
12828.19
(29.37)
(00.00)
(00.00)
14986.46
(00.00)
3862.17
(31.05)
1556.98
(12.52)
12439.62
(27.69)
(00.00)
(00.00)
16273.46
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
5625.00
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
5910.35
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Table 22: Energy use in Transplanting method of rice on medium farm
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Raising
Seedling
Transplantation
Fertilizer
FYM
Irrigation
Inter culture
Family
Male
Female
Male
Female
Owned
Hired
2743.00
(23.04)
(00.00)
(00.00)
1229.17
(10.32)
1544.63
(12.97)
2444.93
(20.53)
(00.00)
3945.00
(33.13)
(00.00)
11906.73
(00.00)
(00.00)
3952.37
(28.61)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
4662.50
(33.75)
4575.08
(33.12)
625.00
(4.52)
(00.00)
13814.95
3914.48
(27.52)
1562.50
(10.98)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
2031.25
(14.28)
(00.00)
(00.00)
5117.50
(35.97)
1600.81
(11.25)
14226.54
(00.00)
1406.25
(9.63)
4250.77
(29.11)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
3142.50
(21.52)
5805.15
(39.75)
(00.00)
(00.00)
14604.67
6041.67
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
6041.67
5410.35
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
5410.35
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Hired
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
32
Table 23: Energy use in Transplanting method of rice on large farm
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Raising
Seedling
Transplantation
Fertilizer
FYM
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
1238.99
(10.28)
(00.00)
1268.84
1030.00
(10.53)
(7.28)
4695.00
(00.00)
(33.18)
1137.00
(9.44)
(00.00)
675.13
(5.60)
(00.00)
1797.50
(14.92)
(00.00)
3875.00
(00.00)
(27.39)
4550.00
(00.00)
(32.16)
4307.50
(35.76)
(00.00)
1622.08
(13.46)
(00.00)
12047.03
14150.00
(100)
(100)
Hired
Male
Female
1416.14
(13.19)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
5660.42
(00.00)
(36.89)
(00.00)
(00.00)
1562.50
(14.55)
(00.00)
2178.78
(20.29)
(00.00)
4322.50
(00.00)
(28.17)
4146.46
(00.00)
(27.02)
5582.50
1215.28
(51.98)
(7.92)
(00.00)
(00.00)
10739.92
15344.65
(100)
(100)
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Owned
Hired
6290.37
6426.33
(100.00)
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
6290.37
6426.33
(100)
(100)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Table 24: Overall cost of energy use in transplanting method of rice cultivation
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Raising
Seedling
Transplantation
Fertilizer
FYM
Irrigation
Family
Male
Female
2421.75
(21.09)
(00.00)
761.66
(00.00)
(5.34)
3756.26
(00.00)
(26.36)
1105.24
(9.63)
(00.00)
1841.87
658.85
(16.04)
(4.62)
1981.89
-
Hired
Male
3423.49
(26.85)
1344.98
(10.55)
(00.00)
(00.00)
221.35
(1.74)
1917.11
33
Female
(00.00)
1292.97
(8.27)
4763.71
(30.48)
(00.00)
(00.00)
-
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Owned
Hired
5847.73
5829.28
(100.00)
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
-
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
(17.26)
(00.00)
(00.00)
3900.81
(33.98)
229.79
(2.00)
11481.35
(100.00)
(00.00)
4598.32
(32.41)
4475.92
(00.00)
(00.00)
14251.01
(100.00)
(15.04)
(00.00)
(00.00)
4492.94
(35.24)
1349.92
(10.59)
12749.79
(100.00)
(00.00)
4542.87
(31.07)
4855.62
172.16
(1.10)
(00.00)
15627.34
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
5847.73
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
5829.28
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Energy Use in DSR Method of Rice Production
Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) is a traditional method of rice cultivation in the state which is
mostly done under uplands condition. Contrary to transplanted rice it required lesser field
activities e.g., seed bed, transplanting, application of FYM, spraying etc., are not required, hence,
the cost of human labour (family and hired) and cost of service of tractor incurred very less than
the transplanting rice (Annexure 5 to 8). The cost of energy use in DSR is presented in Table 25
to 28. The small rice grower incurring 8,660.64, 7,943.70, 10,562.00 and 9,836.28 per ha
of rice cultivation for family labour of male, female, hired labour male and female, respectively.
The cost for tractor use paid by small rice grower was accounted to be 6,612.35 per ha which
was paid out on custom hiring basis.
The medium rice grower incurred 11,883.43, 9,750.15, 8,820.76 and 8,898.03 per
ha of rice cultivation on family labour of male and female, hired labour as male and female,
respectively. The cost for tractor use paid by medium rice grower was accounted to be 5,500
per ha which was paid out as custom hiring basis. Similarly, the large rice grower incurred
23,289.31, 13,200.18, 21,366.49 and 13,177.64 per ha of rice cultivation for family labour
of male, female, hired labour of male and female, respectively. The cost for tractor use paid by
large rice grower was accounted to be
16,370.11 and
18,375 per ha for owned machinery
hours and hired machinery hours paid on custom hiring basis, respectively.
The overall, cost on energy use in DSR was incurred 9,624.98, 8,516.44, 10,243.96
and 9,696.61 per ha of rice cultivation form of family male and female, hired male and female,
34
respectively. The cost of machinery hours (tractor) was paid by rice grower in an amount of
882.27 and 6,662.58 for owned and hired tractor, respectively.
Table 25: Energy use in DSR method of rice cultivation on small farm
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Sowing
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
1509.54
(17.43)
(0.00)
1527.70
1025.64
(17.64)
(12.91)
925.68
(10.69)
(0.00)
1299.89
(15.01)
(0.00)
2677.95
(0.00)
(33.71)
3778.59
(0.00)
(47.57)
3397.82
461.52
(39.23)
(5.81)
(0.00)
(0.00)
8660.64
7943.70
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
1641.87
(15.55)
1788.81
(16.94)
1054.69
(9.99)
1458.33
(13.81)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3702.57
(35.06)
915.74
(8.67)
10562.00
(100.00)
Female
(0.00)
1302.08
(13.24)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3030.75
(30.81)
4243.03
(43.14)
1260.42
(12.81)
(0.00)
9836.28
(100.00)
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Owned
Hired
6612.35
(0.00)
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
6612.35
(0.00)
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Table 26: Energy use in DSR method of rice production on medium farm
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Sowing
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Family
Male
Female
1434.29
(13.92)
(0.00)
1578.53
1111.11
(15.31)
(12.39)
976.56
(9.47)
(0.00)
1436.97
(13.94)
(0.00)
3565.71
(0.00)
(39.75)
3819.44
(0.00)
(42.57)
3919.60
474.98
Hired
Male
1821.58
(17.63)
1794.87
(17.37)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
1562.50
(15.13)
4223.42
35
Female
(0.00)
1354.17
(13.80)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3906.25
(39.80)
4553.95
(46.40)
-
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Owned
Hired
7286.32
(0.00)
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
-
Transportation
Total
(38.03)
961.54
(9.33)
10307.49
(100.00)
(5.29)
(0.00)
8971.24
(100.00)
(40.88)
928.15
(8.98)
10330.53
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
9814.37
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
7286.32
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Table 27: Energy use in DSR method of rice production on large farm
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Sowing
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
1562.50
(13.15)
(0.00)
3317.95
416.67
(27.92)
(4.27)
1002.74
625.00
(8.44)
(6.41)
1597.72
(13.44)
(0.00)
3645.83
(0.00)
(37.39)
4507.71
(0.00)
(46.23)
4402.52
554.94
(37.05)
(5.69)
(0.00)
(0.00)
11883.43
9750.15
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
1281.69
(14.53)
1875.00
(21.26)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4687.50
(53.14)
976.56
(11.07)
8820.76
(100.00)
Female
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4210.53
(47.32)
4687.50
(52.14)
(0.00)
(0.00)
8898.03
(100.00)
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Owned
Hired
6227.76
5500.00
(100.00)
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
6227.76
5500.00
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Table 28: Overall energy use in DSR method of rice production
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Sowing
Fertilizer
Family
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Hired
Male
Female
Male
Female
Owned
Hired
1493.84
(15.52)
1796.99
(18.67)
952.29
(9.89)
(0.00)
965.72
(11.34)
88.54
(1.04)
1646.25
(16.07)
1802.89
(17.60)
580.08
(5.66)
(0.00)
1133.68
(11.69)
(0.00)
882.27
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
6662.58
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
36
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
1384.35
(14.38)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3701.04
(38.45)
296.47
(3.08)
9624.98
(0.00)
3088.79
(36.27)
3894.48
(45.73)
478.90
(5.62)
(0.00)
8516.44
802.08
(7.83)
(0.00)
481.77
(4.70)
4002.70
(39.07)
928.18
(9.06)
10243.96
(0.00)
3467.83
(35.76)
4401.86
(45.40)
693.23
(7.15)
(0.00)
9696.61
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
882.27
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
6662.58
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Energy Use in Jhum Method of Rice Production
Similar to Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) the jhum method of rice production is also
traditional practice of tribal farmers. This method is not only for rice but also for some other
crops the tribal farmer practicing in the study area. The rice being a major crop, farmers grow by
different method. Similar to DSR it requires lesser field activities, e.g., seed bed, transplanting,
application of FYM, spraying etc., are not required, hence, the cost of human labour (family and
hired) and without any mechanization (tractor) it is being practiced (Annexure 9 to 12) in the
study area. The cost of energy use in jhum is presented in Table 29 to 32. The small rice grower
incurred 8,593.75, 9,375.00, 10,593.75 and 11,805.56 per ha of rice cultivation for family
male and female, hired male and female, respectively.
Whereas, the medium rice grower incurred
13,281.25, 10,937.50, 10,546.88 and
10,156.25 per ha of rice cultivation for family labour as male and female, hired labour as male
and female, respectively. Similarly, the large rice grower incurred
10546.88 and
13281.25,
10937.50,
10156.25 per ha of rice cultivation for family labour as male, female, hired
labour as male and female, respectively. The overall, labour cost incurred
10,703.13,
10,078.13, 10,572.66 and 11,063.37 per ha of rice cultivation on family labour as male and
female, hired labour as male and female, respectively.
37
Table 29: Energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation on small farm
Particulars
Clearing
Forrest
Sowing
Inter-culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
3125.00
(36.36)
(0.00)
1562.50
2083.33
(18.18)
(22.22)
4166.67
(0.00)
(44.44)
3125.00
(0.00)
(33.33)
3906.25
(45.45)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
8593.75
9375.00
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
Female
4687.50
(44.25)
(0.00)
2083.33
(0.00)
(17.65)
5555.56
(0.00)
(47.06)
4166.67
(0.00)
(35.29)
3906.25
(36.87)
(0.00)
2000.00
(18.88)
(0.00)
10593.75
11805.56
(100.00)
(100.00)
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Owned
Hired
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Table 30: Energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation on medium farm
Particulars
Clearing
Forrest
Sowing
Inter-culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
3906.25
(29.41)
(0.00)
3125.00
2343.75
(25.53)
(21.43)
4687.50
(0.00)
(42.86)
3906.25
(0.00)
(35.71)
4296.88
(32.35)
(0.00)
1953.13
(14.71)
(0.00)
13281.25
10937.50
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
Female
5468.75
(51.85)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
5729.17
(0.00)
(56.41)
4427.08
(0.00)
(43.59)
5078.13
(48.15)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
10546.88
10156.25
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
38
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Owned
Hired
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Table 31: Energy use in Jhum method of rice Cultivation on large farm
Particulars
Clearing
Forrest
Sowing
Inter-culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
3906.25
(29.41)
(0.00)
3125.00
2343.75
(23.53)
(21.43)
4687.50
(0.00)
(42.86)
3906.25
(0.00)
(42.86)
4296.88
(32.35)
(0.00)
1953.13
(14.71)
(0.00)
13281.25
10937.50
Male
5468.75
(51.85)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
5078.13
(48.15)
(0.00)
10546.88
Female
(0.00)
(0.00)
5729.17
(56.41)
4427.08
(56.41)
(0.00)
(0.00)
10156.25
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Owned
Hired
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Table 32: Overall energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation
Particulars
Clearing
Forrest
Sowing
Inter-culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
3476.56
(32.48)
(0.00)
2265.63
2200.52
(21.17)
(21.83)
4401.04
(0.00)
(43.67)
3476.56
(0.00)
(34.50)
4082.03
(38.14)
(0.00)
878.91
(8.21)
(0.00)
10703.13
10078.13
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
5039.06
(47.66)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4433.59
(41.93)
1100.00
(10.40)
10572.66
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
39
Female
(0.00)
1145.83
(10.36)
5633.68
(50.92)
4283.85
(38.72)
(0.00)
(0.00)
11063.37
(100.00)
( /ha)
Tractor/ Power tiller
Owned
Hired
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Cost of Cultivation Using Cost Concept
Transplanted Rice
The cost of cultivation of transplanted rice is presented in Table 33. In the total cost of
cultivation variable cost, contributed more than 81.99 per cent across the all categories and rest
of contributed by fixed cost. The variable cost in real term increased with the increasing of size
of rice farm. It varied 80.99 per cent to 82.49. The overall, it was calculated as 81.99 per cent of
total cost and rest (18.01%) was shared by fixed cost.
Table 33: Cost of cultivation of rice under transplanted methods
( /ha)
Variable cost
Particular
Owned Machine
Hired Machine
Hired Labour
Family labour
Seed
F.Y.M
Urea
DAP
Irrigation
Plant protection
Interest on working capital
Total Variable cost
Rental Value of Land
Categories of rice farm
Small
Medium
Large
5625.00
(5.80)
5910.35
(6.10)
28713.08
(29.63)
27814.65
(28.70)
563.26
(0.58)
3831.25
(3.95)
(0.00)
1392.86
(1.44)
2904.65
(3.00)
80.00
(0.08)
3073.40
(3.17)
79908.50
(82.45)
12760.14
(13.17)
40
6041.67
(5.78)
5410.35
(5.17)
28831.21
(27.57)
25721.68
(24.60)
855.00
(0.82)
8384.62
(8.02)
450.00
(0.43)
2100.00
(2.01)
3534.78
(3.38)
95.00
(0.09)
3256.97
(3.12)
84681.28
(80.99)
13070.86
(12.50)
6290.37
(5.81)
6426.33
(5.93)
26084.57
(24.08)
26197.03
(24.18)
1841.57
(1.70)
8730.77
(8.06)
666.67
(0.62)
2531.25
(2.34)
7071.43
(6.53)
98.33
(0.09)
3437.53
(3.17)
89375.85
(82.49)
11023.50
(10.17)
Overall
5847.73
(5.80)
5829.28
(5.78)
28377.13
(28.13)
26940.15
(26.70)
834.31
(0.83)
5929.30
(5.88)
233.19
(0.23)
1772.17
(1.76)
3689.23
(3.66)
87.22
(0.09)
3181.59
(3.15)
82721.31
(81.99)
12609.92
(12.50)
Depreciation
Interest on Fixed capital
Total Fixed Cost
Total cost including family labour
(TVC+TFC)
Total cost excluding family labour
(TVC+TFC-family labour)
2879.21
(2.97)
1368.44
(1.41)
17007.79
(17.55)
96916.29
(100.00)
69101.65
(71.30)
5205.03
(4.98)
1599.14
(1.53)
19875.03
(19.01)
104556.31
(100.00)
78834.63
(75.40)
6416.46
(5.92)
1526.00
(1.41)
18965.96
(17.51)
108341.81
(100.00)
82144.78
(75.82)
4097.45
(4.06)
1461.89
(1.45)
18169.26
(18.01)
100890.58
(100.00)
73950.43
(73.30)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total cost including the family labour
The cost of cultivation by using cost concept is presented in Table 34. It is evident from
the Table that the share of cost A1 which is considered as variable cost into the cost C2
(comprehensive cost) was worked out to be increased with the increase in the size of rice farm. It
has been worked out as 55.40 per cent, 59.34 per cent and 61.99 per cent of the cost C2 for
small, medium and large category of rice grower, respectively. The overall, it was shared as
57.63 per cent of the cost C2 in the study area. Study found that small, medium and large
category shared 29.58 per cent, 25.89 per cent and 25.70 per cent of the total cost as imputed
family labor. The overall it was worked out to be 27.83 per cent of the total cost. It shows that
around 70 per cent of total cost incurred on hired labor only and it is true also that the
transplantation of rice is done by only the expert labor (female).
Table 34 : Cost of Cultivation of transplanted rice using cost concepts
Categories of rice farm
Particular
Owned Machine
Hired Machine
Hired Labour
Seed
FYM
Urea
Small
5625.00
(5.98)
5910.35
(6.29)
28713.08
(30.53)
563.26
(0.60)
3831.25
(4.07)
0.00
41
Medium
6041.67
(6.08)
5410.35
(5.45)
28831.21
(29.02)
855.00
(0.86)
8384.62
(8.44)
450.00
(0.45)
Large
6290.37
(6.17)
6426.33
(6.30)
26084.57
(25.59)
1841.57
(1.81)
8730.77
(8.57)
666.67
(0.65)
Overall
5847.73
(6.04)
5829.28
(6.02)
28377.13
(29.32)
834.31
(0.86)
5929.30
(6.13)
233.19
(0.24)
DAP
Irrigation
Plant protection
Interest on working capital
Cost A1
Rental Paid for lease in land
CostA2
Interest on fixed capital
Cost B1
Rental value of land less land revenue + rent
paid for leased in
Cost B2
Imputed value of family labour
Cost C1
Cost C2
1392.86
(1.48)
2904.65
(3.09)
80.00
(0.09)
3073.40
(3.27)
52093.86
(55.40)
12760.14
(13.57)
64854.00
(68.97)
1368.44
(1.46)
53462.30
(56.85)
12760.14
(13.57)
66222.44
(70.42)
27814.65
(29.58)
81276.94
(86.43)
94037.08
(100.00)
2100.00
(2.11)
3534.78
(3.56)
95.00
(0.10)
3256.97
(3.28)
58959.60
(59.34)
13070.86
(13.16)
72030.46
(72.50)
1599.14
(1.61)
60558.74
(60.95)
13070.86
(13.16)
73629.60
(74.11)
25721.68
(25.89)
86280.42
(86.84)
99351.28
(100.00)
2531.25
(2.48)
7071.43
(6.94)
98.33
(0.10)
3437.53
(3.37)
63178.83
(61.99)
11023.50
(10.82)
74202.33
(72.80)
1526.00
(1.50)
64704.82
(63.48)
11023.50
(10.82)
75728.32
(74.30)
26197.03
(25.70)
90901.85
(89.18)
101925.35
(100.00)
1772.17
(1.83)
3689.23
(3.81)
87.22
(0.09)
3181.59
(3.29)
55781.16
(57.63)
12609.92
(13.03)
68391.09
(70.66)
1461.89
(1.51)
57243.06
(59.14)
12609.92
(13.03)
69852.98
(72.17)
26940.15
(27.83)
84183.21
(86.97)
96793.13
(100.00)
Note: figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the Cost C2
The returns per ha from rice cultivation under transplanted rice is presented in Table 35.
The average highest yield under transplanted rice was estimated on large category of rice farm
(3,208.39 kg/ha) which is followed by medium (3,165.71 kg/ha) and small (2,977.98 kg/ha) of
rice farm. The more yield on large category of rice farm may be due to better management and
judicious use of available resources on large rice farm. The overall average rice yield in the study
area was estimated to be 3068.50 kg per ha and same yield of Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya
(3,326 kg/ha) among the districts of the state (GoM, 2015). The net returns excluding family
labor found to be of 35,127.62, 31,965.16 and 30,148.86 per ha on small, medium and large
category of rice farm, respectively. Whereas, the net returns including family labor worked out to
be of 7,312.98, 6,243.48 and 3,951.83 per ha on small, medium and large category of rice
42
farm, respectively. Hence, in both case net returns found to be increased with the increase in size
of rice farm. It shows that most of the activities in rice cultivation were performed by family
labor. Further, it is evident from the Table 34 that family labor income contributed a lion share in
farmers’ income and it ranges from
38,091.31 to
39,375.28 per ha. The overall it was
estimated of 37,544.65 per ha. The benefit cost ratio over total cost and over the paid out cost
both were found to be increased with increase in size of rice farm. The overall benefit cost ratio
over total cost and over paid out cost was worked out to be 1.88 and 2, respectively. It shows the
rice cultivation economically beneficial crop for the farmers of Ri-Bhoi district and its benefits
can be increased further by introducing the small machinery to replace the human labor which
has opportunity cost and it can be deployed elsewhere for its alternate use.
Table 35: Returns from rice cultivation under transplanted rice
( /ha)
Particulars
Production (kg/ha)
Gross income
Net return including family labor
Net return excluding family labor
Farm business income
Family labor income
Net farm income
Farm investment income
Benefit Cost ratio (BCR)
i) Total cost (GFI/Cost C2)
ii) Paid out cost (GFI/Cost A1)
Categories of rice farm
Small
Medium
Large
2977.98
3165.71
3208.39
104229.27
110799.79
112293.64
7312.98
6243.48
3951.83
35127.62
31965.16
30148.86
39375.28
38769.33
38091.31
38006.83
37170.19
36565.32
10192.19
11448.51
10368.29
11560.63
13047.65
11894.29
1.11
2.00
1.12
1.88
1.10
1.78
Overall
3068.50
107397.63
6507.05
33447.20
39006.55
37544.65
10604.50
12066.40
1.11
1.93
Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) Using Cost Concept
The cost of cultivation of rice under DSR method of rice cultivation is presented in Table
36. In the total cost of cultivation like method of transplanted rice, variable cost contributed more
than 70 per cent across the category and rest of contribution by fixed cost. The variable cost
increased with the increasing of size of rice farm. It varied between 75.74 to 78.52 per cent.
Overall, it was calculated as 76.63 per cent of total cost and rest (18.41) was shared by fixed
cost.
43
Table 36 : Cost of cultivation of rice under DSR Methods
( /ha)
Particular
Owned Machined
Hired Machined
Hired Labour
Family labour
Seed
F.Y.M
Urea
DAP
Irrigation
Plant protection
Interest on working capital
Total Variable cost
Rental Value of Land
Depreciation
Interest on Fixed capital
TFC
Total cost including
(TVC+TFC)
Total
cost
excluding
(TVC+TFC-family labour)
family
labour
family
labour
Categories of rice farm
Small
Medium
Large
6227.76
(0.00)
(0.00)
(7.05)
6612.35
7286.32
5500.00
(9.36)
(8.89)
(6.23)
20398.29
20144.90
17718.79
(28.87)
(24.59)
(20.06)
16604.34
19278.73
21633.58
(23.50)
(23.53)
(24.50)
655.50
1100.00
1400.00
(0.93)
(1.34)
(1.59)
5750.00
8000.00
8666.67
(8.14)
(9.77)
(9.81)
150.00
205.00
208.33
(0.21)
(0.25)
(0.24)
1462.50
2300.00
3000.00
(2.07)
(2.81)
(3.40)
1786.84
2800.00
3733.33
(2.53)
(3.43)
(4.23)
50.00
60.00
100.00
(0.07)
(0.07)
(0.11)
658.69
870.05
1153.44
(0.93)
(1.06)
(1.31)
54128.51
62045.01
69341.90
(76.60)
(75.74)
(78.52)
12325.00
13070.86
11023.50
(17.44)
(15.96)
(12.48)
2879.21
5205.03
6416.46
(4.07)
(6.35)
(7.27)
1330.37
1599.14
1526.00
(1.88)
(1.95)
(1.73)
16534.58
19875.03
18965.96
(23.40)
(24.26)
(21.48)
70663.09
81920.04
88307.86
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
54058.74
62641.31
66674.28
(76.50)
(76.47)
(75.50)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total including the family labour
44
Overall
882.27
(1.15)
6662.58
(8.69)
19940.56
(26.02)
18141.42
(23.67)
898.03
(1.17)
6856.94
(8.95)
175.22
(0.23)
1938.54
(2.53)
2374.98
(3.10)
60.17
(0.08)
793.95
(1.04)
58724.66
(76.63)
12370.59
(16.14)
4097.45
(5.35)
1440.95
(1.88)
17909.00
(23.37)
76633.66
(100.00)
58492.24
(76.33)
The cost of cultivation by using cost concept in DSR is presented in Table 37. It is
evident from the Table that the share of cost A1 which is considered as variable cost into the cost
C2 (comprehensive cost) was worked out to be increased with the increase in size of rice farm in
real term as well as share in total cost. It worked out to be of 55.34 per cent, 55.75 per cent and
58.26 per cent of the cost C2 for small, medium and large category of rice grower, respectively.
The overall it was shared as 55.98 per cent of the cost C2 in study area. Further, study found,
unlike to transplanted method that small, medium and large category shared more than 22 per
cent of the total cost as imputed family labor. The overall it was worked out to be of 23.03 per
cent of the total cost. It shows that, around 25.93 per cent of cost incurred for hired labor.
Table 37 : Cost of Cultivation under DSR using Cost concepts
( /ha)
Categories of rice farm
Particular
Owned Machine
Hired Machine
Hired Labour
Seed
F.Y.M
Urea
DAP
Irrigation
Plant protection
Interest on working capital
Cost A1
Rental Paid for lease in land
CostA2
Small
(0.00)
6612.35
(8.79)
20398.29
(27.13)
655.50
(0.87)
5750.00
(7.65)
150.00
(0.20)
1462.50
(1.95)
1786.84
(2.38)
50.00
(0.07)
658.69
(0.88)
41603.82
(55.34)
12325.00
(16.39)
53928.82
(71.73)
45
Medium
(0.00)
7286.32
(9.50)
20144.90
(26.26)
1100.00
(1.43)
8000.00
(10.43)
205.00
(0.27)
2300.00
(3.00)
2800.00
(3.65)
60.00
(0.08)
870.05
(1.13)
42766.28
(55.75)
13070.86
(17.04)
55837.14
(72.79)
Large
6227.76
(7.60)
5500.00
(6.72)
17718.79
(21.64)
1400.00
(1.71)
8666.67
(10.58)
208.33
(0.25)
3000.00
(3.66)
3733.33
(4.56)
100.00
(0.12)
1153.44
(1.41)
47708.32
(58.26)
11023.50
(13.46)
58731.82
(71.72)
Overall
882.27
(1.67)
6662.58
(12.58)
13729.22
(25.93)
558.86
(1.06)
4390.28
(8.29)
112.01
(0.21)
1229.38
(2.32)
1511.65
(2.85)
41.67
(0.08)
525.68
(0.99)
29640.78
(55.98)
8340.41
(15.75)
37981.19
(71.73)
Interest on fixed capital
Cost B1
Rental value of land less land revenue +
rent paid for leased in
Cost B2
Imputed value of family labour
Cost C1
Cost C2
1330.37
(1.77)
42934.19
(57.11)
12325.00
(16.39)
55259.19
(73.50)
16604.34
(22.08)
62859.41
(83.61)
75184.41
(100)
1599.14
(2.08)
44365.42
(57.83)
13070.86
(17.04)
57436.28
(74.87)
19278.73
(25.13)
63644.15
(82.96)
76715.01
(100)
1526.00
(1.86)
49234.32
(60.12)
11023.50
(13.46)
60257.82
(73.58)
21633.58
(26.42)
70867.90
(86.54)
81891.40
(100)
947.89
(1.79)
30588.67
(57.77)
8340.41
(15.75)
38929.08
(73.52)
12197.15
(23.03)
44612.29
(84.25)
52952.70
(100)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to Cost C2
The returns per ha from rice cultivation under DSR method is presented in Table 38. The
average highest in this method was estimated on large category of rice farm (29,52.38 kg/ha)
which is followed by medium (2,754.27 kg/ha) and small (2,704.52 kg/ha) category of rice farm.
The more yield on large category of rice farm may be due to better management and judicious
use of available resources. The overall average rice yield in the study area was estimated of
2,754.98 kg per ha which was lesser than the yield estimated in transplanted method of rice
cultivation. The net returns excluding family labor found to be of 40,599.59, 33,758.27 and
36,659.06 per ha on small, medium and large category of rice farm, respectively. Whereas, the
net returns including family labor worked out to be 23,995.24, 14,479.53 and 15,025.47 per
ha on small, medium and large category of rice farm, respectively. Hence, in both case net
returns found to be increased with the increase in size of rice farm. It shows that DSR method of
rice cultivation is performed by family labor. Further, it is evident from the Table that family
labor income contributed a lion share in farmers’ income and it ranges from
38,963.30 to
43,075.52 per ha. The overall it was estimated of 39,785.58 per ha. The benefit cost ratio over
total cost and over the paid out cost both were found to be increased with increase in size of rice
farm. The overall benefit cost ratio over total cost and over paid out cost worked out to be of
1.28 and 2.32, respectively. It shows that the DSR cultivation method like transplanted method
of rice cultivation is economically beneficial for the farmers of Ri-Bhoi district and its benefits
can be increased further by introducing the small machinery to replace the human labor which
carries more cost.
46
Table 38 : Returns from Direct Seeded Rice (DSR)
( /ha)
Categories of rice farm
Particulars
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Production (kg/ha)
2704.52
2754.27
2952.38
2754.98
Gross income
94658.33
96399.57
103333.3
96424.17
Net return including family labour
23995.24
14479.53
15025.47
19790.52
Net return excluding family labour
40599.59
33758.27
36659.06
37931.94
Farm business income
40729.51
40562.44
44601.51
41226.53
Family labour income
39399.14
38963.3
43075.52
39785.58
Net farm income
19473.93
19684.56
21441.93
19817.67
Farm investment income
24125.16
21283.70
22967.93
23085.11
Benefit Cost ratio (BCR)
i)
Total cost (GFI/Cost C2)
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.28
ii)
Paid out cost (GFI/Cost A1)
2.27
2.25
2.17
2.32
Jhum Rice Using Cost Concept
The cost of cultivation of rice under jhuming is presented in Table 39. In the total cost of
cultivation like in method of transplanted rice and DSR, variable cost contributed more than 70
per cent across the category and rest of contribution by fixed cost. The variable cost was worked
out more or less same which contributed 72.83 per cent, 71.12 per cent and 72.76 per cent for
small, medium and large farm, respectively. The overall, it was calculated as 72.26 per cent of
total cost and rest (27.74) was shared by fixed cost. Interestingly, there was no use of fertilizer,
manures and plant protection measures, hence, rice produced under jhum was organic by default.
Table 39 : Cost of cultivation of rice under Jhum methods
Particular
Categories of rice farm
Small
Medium
Large
Hired Labour
22150.31
20603.13
20993.13
(36.40)
(29.94)
(30.15)
Family labour
17968.75
24218.75
24218.75
(29.53)
(35.19)
(34.78)
Seed
449.00
640.00
990.00
(0.74)
(0.93)
(1.42)
F.Y.M
47
Overall
21509.33
(33.32)
20781.25
(32.19)
458.53
(0.91)
-
Urea
DAP
Irrigation
Plant protection
Interest on working capital
Total Variable cost (TVC)
Rental Value of Land
Depreciation
Interest on Fixed capital
Total Fixed Cost (TFC)
Total cost including family
(TVC+TFC)
Total cost excluding family
(TVC+TFC-family labour)
labour
labour
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3756.11
(6.17)
44324.16
(72.83)
12325.00
(20.25)
2879.21
(4.73)
1330.37
(2.19)
16534.58
(27.17)
60858.74
(100.00)
42889.99
(70.47)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3492.43
(5.07)
48954.31
(71.12)
13070.86
(18.99)
5205.03
(7.56)
1599.14
(2.32)
19875.03
(28.88)
68829.34
(100.00)
44610.59
(64.81)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4465.09
(6.41)
50666.96
(72.76)
11023.50
(15.83)
6416.46
(9.21)
1526.00
(2.19)
18965.96
(27.24)
69632.92
(100.00)
45414.17
(65.22)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3775.25
(5.85)
46650.35
(72.26)
12370.59
(19.16)
4097.45
(6.35)
1440.95
(2.23)
17909.00
(27.74)
64559.35
(100.00)
43778.10
(67.81)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the Total cost excluding family labour
The cost of cultivation of jhum rice by using cost concept is presented in Table 40. It is
evident from the Table that the share of cost A1 was worked out to be increased with the increase
in size of rice farm. It has been worked out to be 45.46 per cent, 38,88 per cent and 41.84 per
cent of the cost C2 for small, medium and large category of rice grower, respectively. The overall
it was shared as 42.79 per cent of the cost C2 in study area.
Further, similar to DSR method the small, medium and large category shared more than
30 per cent of the total cost as imputed family labor. The overall, it was worked out to be 34.37
per cent of the total cost. More than 35 per cent of cost shared by hired labor, hence, in jhum rice
more use of hired labour was estimated.
48
Table 40 : Cost of cultivation of Jhum method using cost concepts
( /ha)
Particular
Hired Labour
Seed
F.Y.M
Urea
DAP
Irrigation
Plant protection
Interest on working capital
Cost A1
Rental Paid for lease in land
CostA2
Interest on fixed capital
Cost B1
Rental value of land less land revenue +
rent paid for leased in
Cost B2
Imputed value of family labour
Cost C1
Cost C2
Categories of rice farm
Small
Medium
22150.31 (38.20)
20603.13
(32.38)
449.00
640.00
(0.95)
(1.01)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3756.11
3492.43
(6.48)
(5.49)
26355.41
24735.56
(45.46)
(38.88)
12325.00
13070.86
(21.26)
(20.54)
38680.41
37806.42
(66.71)
(59.42)
1330.37
1599.14
(2.29)
(2.51)
27685.78
26334.70
(47.75)
(41.39)
12325.00
13070.86
(21.26)
(20.54)
40010.78
39405.56
(69.01)
(61.93)
17968.75
24218.75
(30.99)
(38.07)
45654.53
50553.45
(78.74)
(79.46)
57979.53
63624.31
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the Cost C2
49
Large
20993.13
(33.21)
990.00
(1.57)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
4465.09
(7.06)
26448.21
(41.84)
11023.50
(17.44)
37471.71
(59.28)
1526.00
(2.41)
27974.21
(44.25)
11023.50
(17.44)
38997.71
(61.69)
24218.75
(38.31)
52192.96
(82.56)
63216.46
(100.00)
Overall
21509.33
(35.58)
584.53
(0.97)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3775.25
(6.24)
25869.10
(42.79)
12370.59
(20.46)
38239.70
(63.25)
1440.95
(2.38)
27310.06
(45.17)
12370.59
(20.46)
39680.65
(65.63)
20781.25
(34.37)
48091.31
(79.54)
60461.90
(100.00)
The returns per ha from rice cultivation in jhum is presented in Table 41. The average
highest yield was estimated on large category of rice farm (3,000 kg/ha) which is followed by
medium (2,812.50 kg/ha) and small (2,700 kg/ha) of rice farm. The more yield on large category
of rice farm may be due to better management and judicious use of available resources on large
rice farm. The overall average rice yield in the study area was estimated as 2,777.19 kg per ha
which was slightly more than the yield estimated in DSR method of rice cultivation. The net
returns excluding family labor found to be of 51,610.01, 55,547.51 and 62,110.01 per ha on
small, medium and large category of rice farm, respectively. Whereas, the net returns including
family labor worked out to be of
33,641.26,
37,578.76 and
44,141.26 per ha on small,
medium and large category of rice farm, respectively. Hence, in both case net returns found to be
increased with the increase in size of rice farm. Further, it was observed that jhum rice
cultivation is more labor consuming. Further, it is evident from the Table that family labor
income contributed a lion share in farmers’ income and it ranges from 54,489.22 to 64,989.22
per ha. The overall it was estimated of 57,190.78 per ha. The benefit cost ratio over total cost
and over the paid out cost both were found to be increased with increase in size of rice farm. The
overall, benefit cost ratio over total cost and over paid out cost worked out to be of 1.68 and
3.69, respectively. It shows the jhum rice cultivation like other two methods of rice cultivation is
an economically beneficial venture for the farmers of Ri-Bhoi district and it can be made more
beneficial further by introducing the small machinery and applying manures and fertilizer at
recommended level.
Table 41: Returns from rice cultivation under Jhum
Particulars
Categories of rice Farm
Small
Medium
Large
Production (kg/ha)
2700.00
2812.50
3000.00
Gross income ( /ha)
94500.00
98437.50
105000.00
Net return including family labour ( /ha)
33641.26
37578.76
44141.26
Net return excluding family labour ( /ha)
51610.01
55547.51
62110.01
Farm business income ( /ha)
55819.6
59757.1
66319.6
Family labour income ( /ha)
54489.22
58426.72
64989.22
Net farm income ( /ha)
36520.47
40457.97
47020.47
Farm investment income ( /ha)
37850.84
41788.34
48350.84
Benefit Cost ratio (BCR)
i) Total cost (GFI/Cost C2)
1.63
1.70
1.81
ii) Paid out cost (GFI/Cost A1)
3.59
50
3.74
3.98
Overall
2777.19
97201.56
36342.82
54311.57
58521.15
57190.78
39222.03
40552.40
1.68
3.69
Estimation of Producer’s Surplus of Paddy Crop
Producer’s Surplus of rice
The category wise producers’ surplus of rice is presented in Table 42. The Table depicts
that quantity of rice produced by small, medium and large rice grower was estimated as 1,067.88
kg., 1,526.49 kg and 3,811.76 kg, respectively. In overall, its production was estimated as 1,598
kg across the category. The production of rice was found to be highest on large rice farm and
obviously its depend on size of land holding and the production will increase with the increase in
size of land holding of the rice grower.
The quantity retained for various purpose by small, medium and large category of rice
grower was estimated of 994.61 kg, 1,372.49 kg and 3,217.65 kg, respectively. Whereas, overall
it was accounted to be 1,426.91 kg. The quantity retained for various purposes at household was
found to be increased with the increase of size of farm more quantity is required to fulfill the
requirement of seed for next crop, cattle feed, pig feed, poultry feed, wage and quantity required
for social obligations etc, (Fig.4).
On small category of rice grower the quantity retained for various purposes has been
estimated as 93.14 per cent of total production of rice out of which the quantity for home
consumption (62.72%) was found to be highest and followed by pig feed (17.10%), social
obligation (7.91%), seed (2.61%), poultry feed (1.23%) and cattle feed (0.86%). Similarly, on
medium category of rice grower kept 89.91 per cent of quantity of rice at their home for various
obligations, out of that the highest share of quantity retained in household was accounted for
domestic consumption (58.36%) followed by pig feed (17.78%), wage (8.23%), social
obligations (2.35%), seed (2.23%) etc. On large category of rice growers kept lesser (84.41%)
share of the total produce of rice compare to other two categories viz, small and medium. It is
true also always large farmer has more retention power as marketable surplus comparative to
medium and small farmers. The main purpose of keeping the rice at household by large rice
grower was home consumption (45.11%), followed by pig feed (18.13%), wage (11.57%),
poultry feed (3.50%), social obligations (3.43%) and seed for future crop (2.67%). The share of
home consumption was higher on small and medium rice farm, it may be due to food habit and
taste. It was observed as less quantity of rice for food at large category of farmer may be same
after food items used by large household as consumption.
51
The overall, quantity of main produce being kept by the rice grower in the study area has
been estimated as 89.29 per cent of total produce for the various purposes. Out of that the highest
share was accounted to be for home consumption (55.48%) followed by pig feed (17.70%), wage
(6.60%), given to relative and social obligation (4.75%), seed (2.53%), poultry feed (1.71%),
cattle feed (0.53%). Here interestingly that main produce was grown only for household
requirement not for commercial purpose. Further, after the food requirement rice is kept for pigs’
feed which is main domain of livelihood income in the state.
After deducting the quantity made at household level for different purposes meager
amount of marketable and marketed surpluses was observed for all category of rice grower (Fig
5). The amount of both marketable and marketed surplus found to be increased with the increase
of size of rice farm. On small category of rice grower the marketable (6.86%) and marketed
surplus (6.82%) accounted to be more or less equal. Whereas, the marketable surplus was
accounted higher than the marketed surplus on medium category of rice grower and it was
accounted to be 10.09 per cent and 9.95 per cent, respectively. Similarly, marketable surplus was
higher than the marketed surplus on large category of rice grower and it was estimated as 15.59
per cent and 14.81 per cent, respectively. The overall, both marketable and marketed surplus was
accounted more or less equal and it was accounted to be 10.71 per cent and 10.29 per cent,
respectively.
Hence, from the analysis the marketable surplus was found to be more than marketed
surplus which shows the good retention power of medium and large category of rice farmer than
the large category of rice grower. Hence, study found that, there was no distress sale of the
produce and rice is being produced mainly for the household requirement. Hence, commercial
rice farming should be encouraged through awareness in the study area to increase the
marketable surplus which will help to open the marketing avenues in the state as well as in the
study area.
52
Table 42: Marketable and marketed surplus of rice
Particulars
(In Kg)
Categories of rice farm
Rice Production
Rice Retained for:
a) Home consumption
b) Seed
c) Cattle feed
d) Pig feed
e) Poultry feed
f) Wages in kind
g) Relative
Total (a to g)
Marketable surplus
Marketed surplus
Producer's surplus
Small
1067.88
(100)
Medium
1526.49
(100)
Large
3811.76
(100)
Overall
1598
(100)
669.77
(62.72)
27.85
(2.61)
9.23
(0.86)
182.62
(17.1)
13.11
(1.23)
7.58
(0.71)
84.46
(7.91)
994.61
(93.14)
73.27
(6.86)
72.8
(6.82)
146.07
(13.68)
890.81
(58.36)
34.11
(2.23)
10.81
(0.71)
271.35
(17.78)
3.78
(0.25)
125.68
(8.23)
35.95
(2.35)
1372.49
(89.91)
154
(10.09)
143.78
(9.42)
297.78
(19.51)
1719.41
(45.11)
101.76
(2.67)
0.00
(0.00)
691.18
(18.13)
133.53
(3.5)
441.18
(11.57)
130.59
(3.43)
3217.65
(84.41)
594.12
(15.59)
564.71
(14.81)
1158.83
(30.4)
886.63
(55.48)
40.35
(2.53)
8.4
(0.53)
282.86
(17.70)
27.29
(1.71)
105.42
(6.60)
75.97
(4.75)
1426.91
(89.29)
171.09
(10.71)
164.38
(10.29)
335.47
(21.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total production
70
Home consumption
60
Seed
50
Cattle feed
40
Pig feed
30
Poultry feed
20
Wages in kind
10
Relative
0
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Fig: 4 Share of rice for different purpose retained in household.
53
Marketable surplus
Marketed surplus
16.39
14.61
12.39
10.71
9.95
6.86
10.29
6.82
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Fig: 5 Marketable and marketed surplus of rice.
Producer’s Surplus of paddy straw
Share of rice fodder for different purpose retained in household is sown in figure 6. The
information on quantity fodder of paddy (paddy straw) was collected during the survey and its
marketable and marketed surplus is presented in Table 43. The Table reveals that small category
of rice grower produced more than 906 kg of paddy fodder out of which more than 13 per cent of
fodder retained in the household andr fodder for livestock (8.35%), thatched house (4.01%)
payment for wage in kind (0.84%). Similarly, the medium category of rice grower has produced
more than 1,364 kg of fodder out of which 7.52 per cent retained for household out of that
livestock fodder (5.94%) and to make thatched house (1.58%). The large category of rice grower
produced 3,000 kg of fodder and out of that retained in household (9.22%), for livestock rearing
(6.67%) and for thatched house making (2.55%). The overall, more than 1,344 kg paddy fodder
produced by the rice grower of which 10.10 per cent of fodder retained in household for
livestock (7.00%), thatched house (2.79%) and payment of wage (0.31%). It is observed that
small category of rice grower keeping more share of quantity of paddy fodder in household for
various obligations. Obviously, small rice growers need to retain more fodder at household to
feed livestock and to make their houses.
The share of marketable and marketed surplus of fodder is sown in figure 7. The
marketable and marketed surplus was more or less same estimated on medium and large category
of rice grower. Obviously, the fodder is perishable in nature and it needs big storage to store it
54
for long time, hence the marketable and marketed surplus is always equal for perishable
commodities. Whereas, the marketable surplus was less than the marketed surplus on small
category of rice farm and it may be due to somehow distress sale because of non-availability of
proper storage facilities at small farmer’s farm.
Therefore, from the analysis the establishment of proper storage at subsidized rate should
be established to increase the marketable surplus which will encourage enhancing the livestock
husbandry at farmer’s farm and will help to stop distress selling.
Table 43: Marketable and marketed surplus of paddy fodder
(In kg)
Particular
Small
906.82
(100)
Total by-product
Retained for:
a)
Fodder for livestock
b)
Thatched House
c)
Wages in kind
Categories of rice farm
Medium
Large
1364.86
3000.00
(100)
(100)
75.76
(8.35)
36.36
(4.01)
7.58
(0.84)
119.70
(13.20)
787.12
(86.80)
838.64
(92.48)
Total (a to c)
Marketable surplus
Marketed surplus
81.08
(5.94)
21.62
(1.58)
(0.00)
102.70
(7.52)
1262.16
(92.48)
1262.16
(92.48)
200.00
(6.67)
76.47
(2.55)
(0.00)
276.47
(9.22)
2723.53
(90.78)
2705.88
(90.20)
Overall
1344.58
(100)
94.12
(7.00)
37.50
(2.79)
4.17
(0.31)
135.78
(10.10)
1208.80
(89.10.08)
1233.75
(91.76)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
10.00
8.00
6.00
Fodder for livestock
4.00
Thatched House
2.00
Wages in kind
0.00
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Fig: 6 Share of rice fodder for different purpose retained in household.
55
Marketable surplus
92.48
92.48
Marketed surplus
92.48
90.78
91.76
90.20
89.90
86.80
Small
Medium
Large
Overall
Fig: 7 Share of marketable and marketed surplus of paddy fodder.
Disposal Pattern of Paddy
Although, the rice production in the area is at subsistence level, even after rice grower’s
selling their produce to fulfill their requirement. Total four channels, viz., Channel-I: Producer
Village Merchant Retailer Consumer (24.92%); Channel-II: Producer Processor
Consumer (31.38%); Channel-III: Producer Retailer Consumer (27.88%) and ChannelIV: Producer Consumer (15.82%) were identified. On small category of rice farm the highest
quantity was disposed through channel-II and channel-IV and it was accounted as 35.17 per cent
and 35.38 per cent of the marketed produce, respectively. On medium category of rice grower
the channel-II through which more than 71 per cent of the quantity of rice was disposed. The
large rice grower used channel-III as major channel to dispose the quantity for sale through that
more than 46 per cent of quantity of rice was disposed and followed by channel-I through which
more than 36 per cent of was disposed.
The overall, the channel-II (31.38%) found to be more popular to sale rice and followed
by Channel-III (27.88%), Channel-I (24.92%) and Channel-IV (15.82%). Hence, channel wise
analysis concludes that the Channel –II (Producer Processor Consumer) was the major
channel in respect to dispose-off quantity of rice (Table 44). Hence, channel-II must be
popularized among the rice growers of the state and same time it should be strengthened through
establishing modern techniques of processing.
56
Table 44: Disposal pattern of Paddy in Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya during 2014-15
Particular
Categories of Rice Farm
Small
Medium
Large
Channel-I
21.44
205.88
(29.45)
(0.00)
(36.46)
Channel-II
25.61
102.70
41.18
(35.17)
(71.43)
(7.29)
Channel-III
27.03
264.71
(0.00)
(18.80)
(46.87)
Channel-IV
25.76
14.05
52.94
(35.38)
(9.77)
(9.37)
Total
72.80
143.78
564.71
(100)
(100)
(100)
Overall
40.96
(24.92)
51.58
(31.38)
45.83
(27.88)
26.00
(15.82)
164.38
(100)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total and
Channel-I:
Channel-II:
Channel-III:
Channel-IV:
ProducerVillage MerchantRetailerConsumer (24.92%)
ProducerProcessorConsumer (31.38%)
ProducerRetailerConsumer (27.88%)
ProducerConsumer (15.82%)
It was observed that there is no specific market for rice. But the farmers sell their
produce to local short term (weekly) market. During this marketing process some costs are
involved on various activities performed by rice growers. The share of net price in consumer’s
price received by rice grower was estimated to be of 89.47 per cent, 84.21 per cent, 94.74 per
cent and 90.54 per cent in the paddy marketing channel-I, II, III and IV. The farmer incurred
marketing cost only in channel-IV, but in other channels the purchasing agencies are
approaching to the farmers’ field. Study shows that 9 to 11 per cent of market margins earned by
different intermediaries involved into marketing process of rice. Since, the cultivation of rice in
the study area at subsistence level and it needs to make it commercial for benefit of rice grower.
The marketing is being performed in unorganized market and farmers are unaware about its price
and margins which they can earn through organized market. Therefore, study recommends to
establish the market and sub-yards for marketing of rice in the study area to make the marketing
aspect as an organized which would help to the rice grower to get their remunerative prices as
well as for the market middlemen to earn their livelihood and income. Same time it will
encourage the farmer of the state to raise the production and yield of the rice.
57
Table 45: Cost and Margin in Marketing of Rice in Ri-bhoi district of Meghalaya
Marketing Cost
Net price receive by the Producer
Channel-I
3400.00
(89.47)
3500.00
i)
Transportation
ii)
Loading and Unloading
iii)
Cleaning
iv)
Gunny Bag @ 60 per bag
v)
Stitching
vi)
Marketing fee
Total (i to vi)
Village Merchants price
Cost incurred by the Village Merchants
i)
Transportation
70.00 (1.84)
ii)
Loading and Unloading
50.00 (1.32)
iii)
Cleaning
111.00 (2.92)
iv)
Gunny Bag @ 60 per bag
85.71 (2.26)
v)
Stitching
14.29 (0.38)
Total (i to v)
331.00 (8.71)
Village merchants’ margin
213.34 (1.82)
Processor price
69.00
Cost incurred by the Processor
i)
Transportation
ii)
Loading and Unloading
-
iii)
Cleaning
-
iv)
gunny Bag @ 60 per bag
-
v)
Stitching
-
vi)
Loss during Marketing
-
Total (i to vi)
-
Processor margin
Retailer price
Cost incurred by the Retailer
i)
Transportation
ii)
Loading and Unloading
58
( /qtl)
Marketing Channel of rice
Channel-II Channel-III
Channel-IV
3200.00
3600.00
3440.43 (90.54)
(84.21)
(94.74)
70.00 (1.84)
50.00 (1.32)
111.00 (2.92)
85.71 (2.26)
14.29 (0.38)
28.57 (0.75)
359.57 (9.46)
-
-
-
70.00
(1.84)
50.00
(1.32)
40.00
(1.05)
85.71
(2.26)
14.29
(0.38)
30.00
(0.79)
290.10
(7.63)
310.00
(8.16)
3200.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
70.00 (1.84)
50.00 (1.32)
-
3200.00
iii)
Loss during Marketing
Total Cost (i to iii)
Retailer’s Margin
Consumer's Price
3800.00
(100.00)
3800.00
(100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the consumer's price
59
40.00 (1.05)
160.00 (4.21)
40.00 (1.05)
3800.00
(100.00)
3800.00
(100.00)
10. Summary of the research
Rice is the most important cereal crop for the people of North Eastern Hill (NEH) region
of India. Meghalaya, one of the seven states in the NEH region is pre dominantly an agrarian
state. In Meghalaya, rice is grown in both the hills and plain areas. Rice based farming and
allied activities are the largest source of livelihood of the majority of rural masses and the
mainstay of the state’s economy. The improved technology and HYV programme launched by
the state government has played a vital role towards self sufficiency in food grain production in
the state owing to the higher yield of HYVs/Improved varieties (IVs) compared to that of
traditional/local varieties. HYVs of rice generate additional employment being labour intensive
in comparison to local varieties and also helps socio-economic transformation of farmers. Even
after the rice farmers are unaware about cost and returns which measure the profitability of rice.
The cost and returns analysis will help to realize its benefits to the farmer of the state. A large
emphasis has been given to increase the production of rice but the marketing part of the crop is
still untouched. The state has state agricultural marketing board with two regulated market but
the rice crop is not recognized as a commodity for sale and purchase in both the regulated
market. Hence, study of producer surplus of rice crop would help to open the market avenues.
Therefore, the present proposed study on “Economics of Rice Cultivation and Estimation of
Producer Surplus of Rice in Ri-Bhoi District
of Meghalaya” has been conducted with
specific objectives, viz., i) To work out the cost and returns from rice cultivation and ii) To
estimate the producers’ surplus of rice.
The study was conducted in Ri-Bhoi district of Meghalaya. The district has three blocks
namely, Umsning, Umling and Zirang. All the three blocks have been selected for the study.
Out of 677 numbers of villages in all three blocks 15 numbers of villages were selected from RiBhoi district taking 5 numbers of villages from each block, viz., Umsning, Umling and Jirang of
the district. One cluster (comprising of 5 number of villages) from each selected block was
selected. A list of all the households in each selected village was prepared. Out of 147 numbers
of household of five numbers of selected village of Umsning block, a sample of 47 numbers of
respondent were selected randomly proportionate to size of population. Out of 99 numbers of
household of five selected villages of Umling block, a sample of 32 numbers of rice growers
was selected randomly proportionate to size of population. A sample of 41 numbers of rice
grower were selected as a sample from five numbers of selected village of Jirang block out of
60
130 numbers of enlisted household. A list of households along with size of land holding of 15
numbers of villages (5 villages from each block) was prepared and categorized into three
categories viz, small (up to 1.50 ha), medium (1.51 to 2.30 ha) and large (2.31 ha and above).
Hence, a sample of 66, 37 and 17 numbers of rice growers was selected randomly proportionate
to size of the population from small, medium and large categories of farm, respectively. The
study pertains both primary and secondary data. The secondary data have been collected from
the office of District Statistical Office, Ri-Bhoi. The primary data collected on well structured
pre-tested schedule through personal interview of the rice grower for the crop year of 2014-15.
Cost concepts suggested by Special Expert Committee on 1979, 30th January viz., cost
A1, cost A2, cost B1, cost B2, cost C1 and cost C2 have been used to work out the cost. The farm
business measures like gross income, net income, farm business income, family labour income
and farm investment income have been used to work out returns of the rice grower. The
marketable surplus and marketed surplus estimated by using the standard techniques.
The educational status analysis revealed that higher education was less and it may be due
to non-availability of higher education institute and non affordability of cost of the higher
education by the rice grower. The size of family found to be more or less same for small and
medium category except large category. Overall the size of family found to be more than 6
numbers of members in the study area. It shows that family of rice farm in the study area has not
any family plan and people believe in big family. The share of female were found to be more
than male in getting education and household activities of their respective categories. In
household income male member found to be dominating in the study area. The occupational
analysis revealed that among the various occupations farming (39.74%) was reported as major or
primary occupation of the rice grower of all categories, i.e,. small, medium and large category.
The secondary occupation was reported as farm labour (29.14%) for all categories of rice grower
and it is obviously because state has diversified cropping pattern and they engage themselves
into different farm labour activities for their livelihood. The pineapple, chilli, rice, ginger and
broom grass were found to be the major crops in the cropping pattern of the rice grower. The
average size of operational land holding was reported as 0.68 ha, 1.03 ha and 2.38 ha of land on
small, medium and large category of rice farm, respectively. Out of operational land holding
share of un-irrigated land found to be more than irrigated land holding of rice grower.
61
The rice is grown through transplantation, Directed Seeded (DSR) and jhuming methods
in the study area. The most popular method is transplantation of rice being practiced by rice
grower. Apart from that, rice growers are being attracted by refined method of rice cultivation
namely DSR which is being practiced in 21 per cent of total area under rice. Hence, both the
methods helped to reduce the area under jhum.
It was observed that small category of rice farmers were found using around 14 numbers
of local cultivar of rice as a single or by taking in combination of two or more than two cultivars.
The large category of rice growers found to adopt around 10 numbers of local cultivars.
Whereas, medium category of rice growers adopted around 7 numbers of local cultivar of rice.
The variation in adoption of local cultivars among the categories of rice grower may be their
taste and purpose of cultivation (food, feed, fodder etc). Further, analysis of use of rice cultivar
revealed that Lahi was most popular local cultivar of the rice among the farmers. According to
area as well as yield point of view the combination of Lahi+Manri was found most popular.
The overall total operational cost was worked out to be 12,545.43 across the category
which was largely contributed by cost of FYM and followed by cost of irrigation, DAP, seed
and urea. Study found that the rice grower in the study area started the use of chemical fertilizer
and plant protection to increase the both productivity and production of rice in the state.
Under the DSR method of rice cultivation the cost of DAP, irrigation and seed found to
be increased with the increase in size of rice farm. Whereas, the cost of urea, FYM, plant
protection have shown vice-versa trend in which cost increased with the decrease in size of farm.
The overall, cost of FYM was observed to be a major cost under DSR like transplanted rice. As
the jhum method is very traditional among tribal community, therefore, the farmer incurred only
the cost of seed in cultivation of rice under jhum. Apart from the input cost, the cost incurred on
energy/labour in transplanting, DSR and jhum method of rice cultivation varied with the size of
farm of rice. The cost incurred in the use of human labour categorized into family and hired
labour which has been categorized into male and female labour considering the opportunity cost.
The cost incurred on use of tractor categorized into owned and hired in transplanted rice to
perform the various activities. The cost of hired female was found to be more than the hired male
and it may be due to more deployment of female labour because of its expertise of female labour
to perform the various activities in rice cultivation such as transplanting and intercultural etc.
62
Other than these activities the use of male labour was observed as more than the female labour
across the categories. In DSR method of rice cultivation, contrary to transplanting rice it requires
lesser field activities. The cost of human labour (family and hired) and cost of service of tractor
incurred very less than the transplanting rice. Similar to Direct Seeded Rice (DSR) the jhum
method of rice production is also traditional in nature and mostly being practiced by the tribal
farmer. The use of family male and female were found more or less same level of hired male and
female labour in jhum method of rice cultivation.
The variable cost contributed 81.99 per cent across the category and rest of contributed
by fixed cost in transplanting method of rice. The variable cost in real term increased with the
increasing of size of rice farm in transplanting rice. By using the cost concepts it was found that,
the share in total cost incurred on hired labor as female estimated in transplantation of rice which
needs only the expert labor (female). The benefit cost ratio over total cost and over the paid out
cost both were found to be increased with increase in size of rice farm of transplanted rice.
Similar to the transplanting method of rice cultivation under DSR the variable cost contributed
more than 76 per cent across the category and rest of contribution by fixed cost. The variable
cost increased with the increasing of size of rice farm. Further, study found that small, medium
and large category shared more than 22 per cent of the total cost as imputed family labor. The
overall it was worked out to be of 23.03 per cent of the total cost. On hired labour overall it was
25.93 per cent of the total cost. It shows that in DSR mostly work depends on hired labor. The
analysis of benefit cost ratio over total cost and over paid out cost shows that the DSR cultivation
method like transplanted method of rice cultivation is economically beneficial for the farmers of
Ri-Bhoi district and its benefits can be increased further by introducing the small machinery to
replace the human labor which carries more cost.
In Jhum similar to DSR the small, medium and large category shared more than 30 per
cent of the total cost as imputed family labor. The overall it was worked out to be 34.37 per cent
of the total cost. In overall cost shared by hired labor worked out to be more than 35 per cent.
Similar to DSR and transplanting method, most of the work depends on hired labour compared to
family labour. The jhum rice cultivation like other two methods of rice cultivation found an
economically beneficial for the farmers of Ri-Bhoi district and it can be made more beneficial
further by introducing the small machinery and manures and fertilizer application at
recommended level.
63
Through the analysis of producer surplus found that the marketable surplus was more
than marketed surplus which shows the good retention power of rice farmer categories. Hence,
study found that there was no distress sale of the produce and rice is being produced mainly for
the household requirement, hence, commercial rice farming should be encouraged through
awareness in the study area to increase the marketable surplus which will help to open the
marketing avenues in the state as well as in the study area. The marketable and marketed surplus
fodder of rice was more or less same estimated on medium and large category of rice grower.
Obviously, the fodder is perishable in nature and it needs big storage facility to store it for long
time, hence the marketable and marketed surplus is always equal for perishable commodities.
Whereas, the marketable surplus was less than the marketed surplus on small category of rice
farm and it may be due to somehow distress sale because of non-availability of proper storage
facilities at small farmer’s farm. Therefore, from the analysis the establishment of proper storage
at subsidized rate should be established to increase the marketable surplus which will encourage
enhancing the livestock husbandry at farmer’s farm and will help to stop distress selling.
For disposal of rice the channel–II (Producer Processor Consumer) was the major
channel in the study area. Hence, channel-II must be popularized among the rice growers of the
state and same time it should be strengthened through establishing modern techniques of
processing. Study found that 9 to 11 per cent of market margins earned by different
intermediaries involved into marketing process of rice. Since, the cultivation of rice in the study
area at subsistence level and it needs to make it commercial for benefit of rice grower. The
marketing of rice is being performed in unorganized market and farmers are unaware about its
price and margins which they can earn through organized market. Therefore, study recommends
establishing the market and sub-yards for marketing of rice in the study area to make the
marketing aspect as an organized which would help to the rice grower to get their remunerative
prices as well as for the market middlemen to earn their livelihood and income.
64
Conclusions and policy options
Although this study has been carried out only in one district of the state and it cannot be
generalized in state as a whole. Even after study, can be generalized to the area where rice grown
as a major crop. As mostly rice growers are using local rice cultivars which are having ample
potential of yield and it can be increased through proper calibration with new technology as well
as with slight refinement through research and development. The rice crop cultivation by using
any of three methods found economically feasible in the area. The mostly work performed by
manually and because of that the crop is capital intensive. Hence, the introduction of small
machinery in rice cultivation is need of hours which will help to increase the labor use efficiency
in the crop. Although the rice crop cultivation in the study area is at subsistence level and it
needs to make commercial through scientific intervention in form of site-specific high yielding
varieties along with method of sowing and irrigation. Rice production at subsistence level is one
of the reasons of more retention of marketable surplus and non availability of organized market
is another reason. Therefore, establishing a regulated market at block level in the study area is
the need of hours. The disposal of rice through processor to consumer is the dominant channel in
the area and it must be strengthened with new technology of processing. The strengthening of
processing in the area will encourage the farmers to produce more rice and further it help in
development of organized market. Further similar type of study covering the Meghalaya state as
well as region as a whole should be conducted to draw a complete picture in respect to rice
cultivation and its marketing in the North-Eastern Hill Region of India.
65
References
Acharya, S. S. and Agarwal, N.L. (2014). Agricultural Marketing in India. Fifth edition, Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Pp 51-67.
GOI. (2014). directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
GOM. (2015). Government of Meghalaya. Directorate of Agriculture. Report of area, production and yield
of agricultural crops for 2014-15, provisional estimates.
GoI (2012). Comprehensive Scheme for studying the cost of cultivation of principal crops in India:
A compendium of workshops in 2011-12, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture
and Cooperation, Directorate Economics and Statistics, New Delhi
Sileshi, D., Bant, S., and Jasdev, S. (2003). Changes in costs and returns of major crops in Punjab.
Agriculture Situattion in India, 28(12):629-827.
USDA. (2015). World agricultural production. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign
Agricultural Services, Circular Series WAP 2-15, February, 2015.
http://www.ribhoi.gov.in. Accessed on 15september 2015
11. Financial statement
Head wise
A Manpower
B Consumable
C Contingency
D Misc.
TOTAL
Sanctioned amount
*Re-appropriate fund
Expenditure
Balance
64260 + 67140* = 131400
15000
146400
98300
5000
103300
33100
10000
43100
* The re-appropriation in manpower Rs. 67140/Contingency and Rs. 5,000/- from Misc. Head)
66
from (Rs. 50,000/- Consumable, Rs. 5,000/-
Annexure
Annexure 1: Energy use in transplanting method of rice production on small farm
(Mandays/ha)
Particulars
Family
Hired
Tractor
Male
Female
Male
Female
Owned
Hired
Land
10.19
14.66
22.50
23.64
Preparation
(19.85)
(00.00)
(29.46)
(00.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Raising
5.62
4.48
6.28
6.25
Seedling
(10.95)
(7.47)
(12.62)
(9.60)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Transplantation
13.62
19.28
(00.00)
(22.72)
(00.00)
(29.62)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Fertilizer
4.11
0.46
(8.01)
(0.76)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
FYM
9.24
4.79
(18.00)
(7.99)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Irrigation
7.08
7.14
(13.80)
(00.00)
(14.35)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Inter culture
18.99
21.54
(00.00)
(31.68)
(00.00)
(33.09)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Harvesting
17.60
18.02
(00.00)
(29.37)
(00.00)
(27.69)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Threshing
15.09
15.45
(29.40)
(00.00)
(31.05)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Transportation
6.23
(00.00)
(00.00)
(12.52)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Total
51.31
59.95
49.76
65.09
22.50
23.64
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Annexure 2: Energy use in transplanting method of rice production on medium farm
(Mandays/ha)
Particulars
Family
Hired
Tractor
Male
Female
Male
Female
Owned
Hired
Land
10.97
15.66
24.17
21.64
Preparation
(23.04)
(00.00)
(27.51)
(00.00)
(100.00)
(100.00)
Raising
6.25
5.63
Seedling
(00.00)
(00.00)
(10.98)
(9.63)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Transplantation
15.81
17.00
(00.00)
(28.61)
(00.00)
(29.10)
(00.00)
(00.00)
Fertilizer
4.92
(10.32)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
FYM
6.18
67
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
(12.97)
9.78
(20.53)
(00.00)
(00.00)
15.78
(33.13)
(00.00)
47.63
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
18.65
(33.75)
18.30
(33.12)
2.50
(4.52)
(00.00)
55.26
(100.00)
(00.00)
8.13
(14.28)
(00.00)
(00.00)
20.47
(35.97)
6.40
(11.25)
56.91
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
12.57
(21.52)
23.22
(39.75)
(00.00)
(00.00)
58.42
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
24.17
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
21.64
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Annexure 3: Energy use in transplanting method of rice production on large farm
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Raising
Seedling
Transplantation
Fertilizer
FYM
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
4.96
(10.28)
(00.00)
5.08
4.12
(10.53)
(7.28)
18.78
(00.00)
(33.18)
4.55
(9.44)
(00.00)
2.70
(5.60)
(00.00)
7.19
(14.92)
(00.00)
15.50
(00.00)
(27.39)
18.20
(00.00)
(32.16)
17.23
(35.75)
(00.00)
6.49
(13.46)
(00.00)
48.19
56.60
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
5.66
(13.19)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
6.25
(14.55)
8.72
(20.29)
(00.00)
(00.00)
22.33
(51.98)
(00.00)
42.96
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
68
Female
(00.00)
(00.00)
22.64
(36.89)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
17.29
(28.17)
16.59
(27.02)
4.86
(7.92)
(00.00)
61.38
(100.00)
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor
Owned
Hired
25.16
25.71
(100.00)
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
25.16
25.71
(100.00)
(100.00)
Annexure 4: Overall energy use in transplanting method of rice production
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Raising
Seedling
Transplantation
Fertilizer
FYM
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
9.69
(19.48)
(00.00)
3.81
3.05
(7.66)
(5.25)
15.03
(00.00)
(25.89)
Male
13.69
(26.85)
5.38
(10.55)
(00.00)
Female
(00.00)
5.17
(8.27)
19.05
(30.48)
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor
Owned
Hired
23.39
23.32
(100.00)
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
4.42
(8.89)
7.37
(14.81)
7.93
(15.94)
(00.00)
(00.00)
15.60
(31.38)
0.92
(1.85)
49.73
(100.00)
(00.00)
0.89
(1.74)
7.67
(15.04)
(00.00)
(00.00)
17.97
(35.24)
5.40
(10.59)
51.00
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
18.17
(29.07)
19.42
(31.07)
0.69
(1.10)
(00.00)
62.51
(100.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
23.39
(100.00)
0.2
(0.43)
2.64
(4.54)
(00.00)
18.39
(31.70)
17.90
(30.85)
0.77
(1.33)
(00.00)
58.03
(100.00)
Hired
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
(00.00)
23.32
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Annexure 5:Energy use in DSR methods of rice production on small farm
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Sowing
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Inter culture
Family (Mandays/ha)
Male
Female
6.04
(17.43)
(0.00)
6.11
4.10
(17.64)
(12.91)
3.70
(10.69)
(0.00)
5.20
(15.01)
(0.00)
10.71
(0.00)
(33.72)
Hired (Mandays/ha)
Male
Female
6.57
(15.54)
(0.00)
7.16
5.21
(15.94)
(13.24)
4.22
(9.99)
(0.00)
5.83
(13.81)
(0.00)
12.12
(0.00)
(30.81)
69
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor (hrs/ha)
Owned
Hired
26.45
(0.00)
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
(0.00)
13.59
(39.24)
(0.00)
34.64
(100.00)
15.11
(47.57)
1.85
(5.81)
(0.00)
31.77
(100.00)
(0.00)
14.81
(35.05)
3.66
(8.67)
42.25
(100.00)
16.97
(43.13)
5.04
(12.81)
(0.00)
39.35
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
26.45
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Annexure 6:Energy use in DSR method of rice production on medium farm
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Sowing
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
5.74
(13.92)
(0.00)
6.31
4.44
(15.31)
(12.39)
3.91
(9.47)
(0.00)
5.75
(13.94)
(0.00)
14.26
(0.00)
(39.75)
15.28
(0.00)
(42.58)
15.68
1.90
(38.03)
(5.30)
3.85
(9.33)
(0.00)
41.23
35.88
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
7.29
(17.63)
7.18
(17.38)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
6.25
(15.13)
16.89
(40.89)
3.71
(8.99)
41.32
(100.00)
Female
(0.00)
5.42
(13.80)
(0.00)
(0.00)
15.63
(39.80)
18.22
(46.40)
(0.00)
(0.00)
39.26
(100.00)
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor
Owned
Hired
29.15
(0.00)
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
26.45
(0.00)
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Annexure 7: Energy use in DRS method of rice production on large farm
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Sowing
Family
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor
Hired
Male
Female
Male
Female
Owned
Hired
6.25
(13.15)
13.27
(0.00)
1.67
5.13
(14.53)
7.50
(0.00)
-
24.91
(100.00)
-
22.00
(100.00)
-
70
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
(27.92)
4.01
(8.44)
6.39
(13.45)
(0.00)
(0.00)
17.61
(37.05)
(0.00)
47.53
(100.00)
(4.27)
2.50
(6.41)
(0.00)
14.58
(37.39)
18.03
(46.23)
2.22
(5.69)
(0.00)
39.00
(100.00)
(21.26)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
18.75
(53.15)
3.91
(11.07)
35.28
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
16.84
(47.32)
18.75
(52.68)
(0.00)
(0.00)
35.59
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
24.91
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
22.00
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Annexure 8: Overall energy use in DSR method of rice production
Particulars
Land
Preparation
Sowing
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Inter culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
5.98
(15.52)
(0.00)
7.19
3.86
(18.67)
(11.34)
3.81
0.35
(9.89)
(1.04)
5.54
(14.38)
(0.00)
12.36
(0.00)
(36.26)
15.58
(0.00)
(45.72)
14.80
1.92
(38.45)
(5.62)
1.19
(3.08)
(0.00)
38.50
34.07
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
6.59
(16.07)
7.21
(17.60)
2.32
(5.66)
3.21
(7.83)
(0.00)
1.93
(4.70)
16.01
(39.07)
3.71
(9.06)
40.98
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
71
Female
(0.00)
4.53
(11.69)
0.00
(0.00)
13.87
(35.76)
17.61
(45.39)
2.77
(7.15)
(0.00)
38.79
(100.00)
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor
Owned
Hired
3.53
26.65
(100.00)
(100.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
3.53
26.65
(100.00)
(100.00)
Annexure 9: Energy use in Jhum method of rice production on small farm
Particulars
Clearing
Forrest
Sowing
Inter-culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
12.50
(36.36)
(0.00)
6.25
8.33
(18.18)
(22.22)
16.67
(0.00)
(44.44)
12.50
(0.00)
(33.33)
15.63
(45.45)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
34.38
37.50
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
18.75
(44.24)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
15.63
(36.87))
8.00
(18.88)
42.38
(100.00)
Female
(0.00)
8.33
(17.65)
22.22
(47.06)
16.67
(35.30)
(0.00)
(0.00)
47.22
(100.00)
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor
Owned
Hired
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Annexure 10: Energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation on medium farm
Particulars
Clearing
Forrest
Sowing
Inter-culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
15.63
(29.41)
(0.00)
12.50
9.38
(23.53)
(21.43)
18.75
(0.00)
(42.86)
15.63
(0.00)
(35.71)
17.19
(32.35)
(0.00)
7.81
(14.70)
(0.00)
53.13
43.75
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
21.88
(51.85)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
20.31
(48.15)
(0.00)
42.19
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
72
Female
(0.00)
(0.00)
22.92
(56.440)
17.71
(43.58)
(0.00)
(0.00)
40.63
(100.00)
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor
Owned
Hired
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Annexure 11: Energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation on large farm
Particulars
Clearing
Forrest
Sowing
Inter-culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
20.83
(39.37)
(0.00)
5.00
12.50
(9.45)
(24.32)
20.83
(0.00)
(40.54)
18.06
(0.00)
(35.13)
18.75
(35.43)
(0.00)
8.33
(15.75)
(0.00)
52.92
51.39
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
20.83
(50.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
20.83
(50.00)
(0.00)
41.67
(100.00)
Female
(0.00)
4.44
(8.72)
24.31
(47.69)
22.22
(43.60)
(0.00)
(0.00)
50.97
(100.00)
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor
Owned
Hired
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
Annexure 12: Overall energy use in Jhum method of rice cultivation
Particulars
Clearing
Forrest
Sowing
Inter-culture
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Total
Family
Male
Female
14.64
(34.23)
(0.00)
8.00
9.24
(18.70)
(22.34)
17.90
(0.00)
(43.25)
14.25
(0.00)
(34.43)
16.55
(38.69)
(0.00)
3.59
(8.39)
(0.00)
42.78
41.39
(100.00)
(100.00)
Hired
Male
20.01
(47.39)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
17.81
(42.18)
4.40
(10.42)
42.22
(100.00)
Note Figures in the parentheses are the percentage to the total
73
Female
(0.00)
5.21
(11.40)
22.73
(49.72)
17.77
(38.88)
(0.00)
(0.00)
45.72
(100.00)
(Mandays/ha)
Tractor
Owned
Hired
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
Annexure-13
Schedule No:
Mobile No. of Respondents:
School of Social Sciences
College of Post Graduate Studies
Central Agricultural University
Barapani-793 103
CAU-IRP PROJECT
Economics of Rice Cultivation and Estimation of Producer Surplus of Rice in Ri-Bhoi District of Meghalaya
1.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Name of head of Family:___________________________________D/O or S/O SMT./Sh.__________________________
Caste:_____________________________________SC/ST/OBC/Other (Specify)
Education of the Head: Illiterate/Literate_________________________________________(Mention Standard)
Family Size_________________________
Sex
Adults
Children
Average
Income
Earning Members
Agriculture
Service
Farm Labour
Monthly
Rural Artisan
Male
Female
Occupation: Main____________________Subsidiary_________________Operational landholding________________(ha)
[Note: Occupation:Crop farming (1), Dairy Framing (2), Piggery (3), Poultry (4), Farm Labour (5), Service (6), Rural Artisan (7)
and Other (8) please specify]
2.
LAND INVENTORY
Particulars
Area (ha)
Irrigated
Total
area
(ha)
Unirrigated
Terms
Lease/ha
Cash
Land Owned
Rented-in
Rented-out
Operational
holding
74
of
Use of Land for
(Area in ha)
Kind
Crop
Orchard
Jhum
Forestry
Grazing
(i)
3.
Irrigated
__________
Value of land per ha ( )
INVESTMENT IN CROP FARMING
Particulars
No.
Year of Original/
purchase purchase
value ( )
A)
Irrigation structures:
Tubewell/well
D. Engine/Elec. Motor
Pump set
Irrigation channel
Any other (specify)
B)
Tractor/power drawn:
Tractor
Trolley
Power tiller
Tiller
Other (specify)
C)
Bullock Drawn Equipment
Plough
Cultivator
Other (Specify)
D)
Other equipment
Manual Sprayer
Manual duster
Any other (Specify)
E)
Hand Tools
Spade
Sickels
Dao
75
Unirrigated
____________
Present
Value
( )
Expected
remaining
life (yrs)
Annual
Repair
( )
4. CROPPING PATTERN, PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION OF FARM PRODUCE
Season/crop
Variety
Area
Production (qtl)
Qty. Sold (qtl)
Sale Price
MP
MP
MP
Main Product Retained in household used for
(ha)
(Qty in Kg.)
BP
BP
BP
Home
Seed
consumption
Cattle
Pig
Poultry
Wages
Feed
Feed
Feed
in kind
Other
Fodder
Fuel
Thatched
Packagi
material
ng
Kharif
Rabi
Summer
Note: Kharif season from July, Rabi from November and summer from April.
76
MP=Main Product
BP=By-product
Wages
5. RECORD OF CROP PRODUCTION
Rice grown under various method
Particulars
Transplanted
DSR
SRI
Season
Area (ha)
Irr./Unirri
Sowing
Seed
Qty (Kg.)
Rate ( /Kg.)
Treatment
F.Y.M.
Qty (Kg.)
Rate ( /Kg.)
Fertilizer
Urea
Qty (Kg.)
Rate ( /Kg.)
DAP
Qty (Kg.)
Rate ( /Kg.)
Potassic
Qty (Kg.)
Rate ( /Kg.)
Other (Specify)
Qty (Kg.)
Rate ( /Kg.)
Irrigation
Number
Value ( )
Plant protection
Name
Measures
Qty. (Kg or Ltr.)
Rate ( /Kg.)
Electricity ( )
Diesel ( )
Harvesting date
Other (Specify)
Main Product (qtl)
Price of main product ( /qtl)
By-Product (qtl)
Price of By-product ( /qtl)
Note: DSR=Direct Seeded Rice, SRI=System of Rice Intensification
77
Jhum
Other
6. ENERGY USE IN RICE PRODUCTION
(In hrs.)
Transplanting Rice
Direct Seeded Rice
Human Labour
Family
M
F
Tractor
Hired
C
M
F
O
C
Human Labour
H
Family
M
F
Hired
C
M
SRI
Tractor
F
O
C
Jhum
Human Labour
H
Family
M
F
Tractor
Hired
C
M F
O
C
Cleaning of forest
Preparation of land
Application
FYM
of
Fertilizer
Sowing
Raising seedling
Transplanting
Irrigation
Interculture
Spraying
Harvesting
Threshing
Transportation
Other
Note: M=Male, F=Female, C=Child (<18 yrs), O-Owned, and H=Hired
78
H
Human Labour
Family
M F
Tractor
Hired
C
M F
O
C
H
7. HIRING CHARGES OF HUMAN LABOUR AND MACHINERY
Items
Human
Labour
Permanent
Casual
Contract
Jobs
Machinery Power tiller
Thresher
Tube well
Canal Irrigation
Unit/Pr
ice
Annual
Day
Rice production method
Transplanting
DSR
SRI
Jhum
Hour
Hrs/qtl
Hour
Hour
8. DISPOSAL PATTERN OF PRODUCT AND BY-PRODUCT OF RICE
Intermediaries
Main Product
Qty.
Price
( /qtl)
By-Product
Qty.
Price
( /qtl)
Village merchant
Wholesaler/trader
Retailer
Processor/miller
Factory for cattle/poultry feed
Consumer
Other (Specify)
9. MARKETING COST INCURRED BY VARIOUS INTERMEDIARIES
Cost items
1
Producer
INTERMEDIARIES IN RICE MARKETING
2
3
4
5
6
VM
WT
R
P
F
Transportation ( /qtl)
Loading & unloading ( /qtl)
Cleaning
Weighing
Gunny bags/pack
Stitching
Loss during marketing
Price
Note: VM=Village merchant, WT= Wholesaler/trader, R=Retailer, P=Processor, F= Factory for cattle/poultry feed, C=Consumer
79
7
C
10. ANY ITK USED BY FARMERS IN STORAGE OF RICE
Detail of ITK
Cost involved in ITK system
Remarks
Earthen made structure
Bamboo made structure
11. ANNUAL INCOME ( ) OF THE FARMER
Source
Crop
Livestock
Piggery
Poultry
Service
Labour
Business
Other
( )
12. ANNUAL EXPENDITURE ( ) OF THE FARMER
Source
Food
Feed
Health
Education
Transport
Telephone
Social
Other
obligation
( )
13. SUGGESTIONS BY FARMERS TO IMPROVE YIELD AND MARKETING OF
RICE
Production
Marketing
80