- Information
- AI Chat
70477 267466 1 PB - Lecture notes 12,15
Environmental Physiology
University of Nottingham
Students also viewed
Preview text
Journal of Agricultural Science; Vol. 10, No. 1; 2018 ISSN 1916-9752 E-ISSN 1916- Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn.) Production System:
Status, Potential, Constraints and Implications for Improving Small
Farmer’s Welfare
S. Sakamma 1 , K. B. Umesh 1 , M. R. Girish 2 , S. C. Ravi 1 , M. Satishkumar 1 & Veerabhadrappa Bellundagi 1 1 Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore, Karnataka,
India 2 Department of Agricultural Marketing, Co-operation and Business Management, University of Agricultural
Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
Correspondence: S. Sakamma, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Gandhi Krishi Vignan Kendra, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. E-mail: saksri09@gmail
Received: September 9, 2017 Accepted: November 17, 2017 Online Published: December 15, 2017
doi:10.5539/jas URL: doi/10.5539/jas.v10n1p
The research is financed by Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.
Abstract
This article aims to investigate the growth in area, production and productivity, mapping of cultivation technologies, economics, potentials and constraints for area and production expansion of finger millet. The exponential growth rates, indicated that though there was deceleration both in area and production there was significant growth in productivity due to introduction of high yielding varieties. The respondents under different production system (rainfed and irrigated situation) were homogeneous with respect to the age and family size except land holding and education level. Finger millet possesses tremendous potential for product diversification and export. Mapping of cultivation technologies indicated that, farmers applied more fertilizers than recommended. Hence, there is a need to strengthen extension/outreach programmes to create awareness among farmers to use the optimum level of nutrients, which helps in reducing the cost incurred by farmers as well as subsidy burden on government. The existing procurement price for finger millet was Rs. 2100/q which failed to cover the cost of production under rainfed situation. In the total land holding, the area under finger millet accounted for major (64%) share in rainfed situation and thus the procurement price must be fixed looking into the cost of production of rainfed (Rs. 2624/q) finger millet, which helps in improving the welfare of finger millet growing small farmers.
Keywords: finger millet, small farmers, production system, cost and returns
- Introduction
1 Introduction to the Problem
Millets are one of the oldest foods known to humans but they were discarded in approbation of wheat and rice with urbanization and industrialization (millets.res). Millets are the imperative food and fodder crops in semi-arid regions that are predominantly gaining more relevance in the world (millets.res). They are mostly grown in marginal areas or under agricultural conditions where major cereals would fail to give sustainable yields (Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilized Species, 2014). The millets production in the World accounts for 30 million tonnes, out of which 11 million tonnes is produced in India accounting for 37% of total World production (fao). Millets produce multiple securities (food, fodder, health, nutrition and ecological) making them the crops of agricultural security (Millet Network of India-Deccan Development Society-FIAN, 2009). Minor millets (finger millet, foxtail, kodo millet, proso millet, little millet and barnyard millet) have received far less research and development recognition than other crops with regard to crop improvement, cultivation practices and utilization (Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilized Species, 2014).
India is the largest producer of various kinds of millets. Out of the total minor millets produced, finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn.) (ragi) accounts for about 85% of production in India (Divya, 2011). Finger millet
jas.ccsenet Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 10, No. 1; 2018
is grown in India, Srilanka, Nepal, parts of Africa, Madgaskar, Malaysia, Uganda and Japan (agritech.tnau.ac). In India, finger millet is cultivated over an area of 1 million hectares with a production of 1 million tonne giving an average productivity of 1661 kg per ha. Karnataka accounts for 56 1 and 59% of area and production of finger millet followed by Tamil Nadu (9% and 18%), Uttarakhand (9% and 7%) and Maharashtra (10% and 7%), respectively (indiastat).
In Karnataka, finger millet is principally grown in Tumakuru, Hassan, Ramanagara, Kolar, Chikkaballapura, Mandya, Chitradurga, Bengaluru Rural, Chikkamagaluru, Mysuru, Bengaluru Urban, Chamarajnagar and Davanagere districts. Tumakuru district accounts for 22 and 18% of of area and production of finger millet followed by Hassan (11% and 10%), Ramanagara (10% and 14%) and Kolar (8% and 9%), respectively (des.kar.nic). Bengaluru Urban district is having the highest productivity of 3306 kg per hectare followed by Bengaluru Rural (2,702 kg/ha).
Finger millet is the prime staple food consumed by majority of population in South Karnataka. Finger millet has manifold nutritional benefits, it has thirty times more calcium than rice (Millet Network of India-Deccan Development Society-FIAN, 2009). Finger millet straw is an extensive feed in the livestock sector. Finger millet is not a season bound crop and hence if moisture is available, can be cultivated throughout the year (agritech.tnau.ac). Millets are low water consuming crops. “The rainfall requirement for sorghum, pearl millet and finger millet is less than 25% of sugarcane and banana and 30% that of rice” (Millet Network of India-Deccan Development Society-FIAN, 2009). Finger millet grains have long storability even under normal conditions and have made them “famine reserves”. This aspect is at most important as Indian agriculture suffers from vagaries of monsoon (Michaelraj & Shanmugam, 2013). Millets are the promising ones for fighting hunger, malnutrition and for ensuring food and nutritional security for masses (Gupta, 2006). In spite of these admirable qualities and its importance in food and nutrition security at regional level the crop is neglected in our policies and programmes both at national and regional levels. With this backdrop, the present study is focused on investigating the growth in area, production and productivity of finger millet, costs and returns, profitability as well as the potentials and constraints for area and production expansion of finger millet. This helps in exploring the possibilities to augment the production of finger millet in areas where there is vast potential for finger millet cultivation aiming at improving the welfare of small farmers.
- Methodology
The study uses both secondary (time series) as well as primary (filed level) data to address the issues outlined above. To analyze the economics of finger millet and to identify the constraints and potentials for development, the required primary data were collected from the randomly selected farmers (comprising largely small holders) using pre-tested and well-structured schedule through personal interview method for the year 2014-15. Tumakuru, Hassan, Ramanagara and Bengaluru rural districts of Karnataka (India) were selected for the survey as they are the major finger millet growing districts of Karnataka. From each district sixty sample farmers were selected randomly. Sixty sample farmers comprised of 30 rainfed and 30 irrigated finger millet growing farmers. Totally data was collected from 240 finger millet growing farmers. General information regarding socio-economic status, cropping pattern, cultivation technologies, cost and returns, potentials and constraints for area and production expansions was collected from the sample farmers. The data collection was exclusively based on the memory of the respondents. To assess growth in area, production and productivity of finger millet, the data for 30 years from 1984-85 to 2013-14 for all India and Karnataka State were collected from India Stat.
2 Analytical Tools
2.1 Exponential Growth Model
The exponential growth model was employed to find out the growth in area, production and productivity of finger millet. The Growth rates for area, production and productivity were computed for a period of 30 years from 1984-85 to 2013-14. The study period was divided into different periods considering the important developments that have taken place in agriculture namely, economic liberalization-1991, targeted public distribution system-1997 and national food security mission-2007. Exponential growth model was selected for the analysis as most of the time series data follow exponential trend. Similar approach was used by Kumar and Ranjan (1998), Kumawat and Meena (2005), Sakamma and Ananth (2011), Bairwa et al. (2012) and Vinayaka et al. (2014).
2.1 Costs and Returns
The costs were classified into variable and fixed costs. Variable cost/working capital includes cost of inputs (seed, farm yard manure (FYM), fertilizer), labour cost and interest on working capital. Fixed cost includes
jas.
Source: htt
Source: htt
There was major fing under fing
The declin et al. (20 1 minor mill there was a
3.1 Grow
The expon were -1 7 was mainly it was not
3.1 Grow
The growt (1%) i in both are period due MR-1 in 1 neutralized reported th to 1980-8 1
org
tp:india
Figure 2 tp:india
s no significan ger millet grow ger millet. The ne in area of fin 1 2), in their st lets was negat a significant d wth in Product nential growth 7 4% per annum y due to decre significant. wth in Product th in productiv indicated a po ea as well as p e to the introdu 990, GPU- d by the signi hat there was a 1.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1987-881988 89
Procurement (million tonnes)
Figure 1. Min astat
. Procurement astat
nt decrease in wing and cons reduction in ar nger millet is a tudy observed tive, while gro decrease in area ion of Finger M rates for prod m (Table 1). T ease in area. Th
ivity of Finger vity of finger m ositive and sign production. Th uction of drou in 1998 and M ificant increase a consistent gro
1988
- 89 1989-901990-911991-921992-931993-
Journal of A
nimum suppor
t of rice and wh
area during I suming region rea was signifi also attributed that, the grow owth in area u a under finger Millet duction of fing The decrease in hough there w
r Millet millet during o nificant growth here was a sig ught, finger an ML-365 in 20 0 e in productiv owth in yield o
1994-951995-961996-971997-981998-
Agricultural Sci
rt price of padd
heat under pub
and II period n traditionally, ficant only duri to increased c wth in area un under maize an millet which m
ger millet in In n production o was negative tre
overall period h, though the gnificant grow nd neck blast r 0 8). In Karnata vity there by m of finger mille
1999-002000-012001-022002-032003-04 2004
- 05
ience
dy and wheat i
blic distributio
d in Karnataka , it has taken ing III (-3. cost of cultivati nder crops lik nd rice was po might be due to
ndia for the ov of finger millet end in producti
d for both Karn overall period wth in producti resistant and h aka, the decrea maintaining th et in Karnataka
2004 052005-062006-072007-082008-092009-
in India
on system in In
a. However, K some time for %) and IV (- ion and reduce ke jowar, bajra ositive. They o low output p
verall period 1 t in India durin ion of finger m
nataka (1% d witnessed a s ivity in Karnat high yielding v ase in area to a he production. a during the pe
2010-112011-122012-132013-142014-152015 16
Rice
Vol. 10, No. 1;
ndia
Karnataka bein r reduction in .268%) period ed returns. Ach a, finger millet also observed price in the ma
984-85 to 20 1 ng the study p millet in Karna
%) as well as significant dec taka during ov varieties (relea a certain extent Rajpurohit ( 1 eriod from 19 7
2015
- 16
Wheat
2018
g the area d. harya t and that, rket.
1 3-
eriod ataka,
India rease verall ase of t was 1 983) 7 6-
jas.ccsenet Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 10, No. 1; 2018
Similarly, Kannan (2011) while analyzing the compound annual growth rates of area, production and productivity for major crops by States, found that finger millet registered negative growth rate in area and production except productivity across the States and at all India level. This implies that crop diversification is increasingly inclined towards commercial crops in the States resulting in shrinkage of area under coarse cereals and small millets.
After analyzing the trend in area, production and productivity of finger millet, the study focused on the status of finger millet crop in Karnataka along with the status of finger millet farmers.
3 Production System and Status
3.2 Cropping Pattern in Karnataka
The cropping pattern followed in rainfed and irrigated situations in the study area were distinct. Finger millet was an important crop in rainfed situation in kharif whereas, red gram was the major crop in irrigated situation. Finger millet was also grown as irrigated crop in Rabi season in the study area.
Table 2. Cropping pattern in the study area (ha)
Crops Rainfed situation Irrigated situation Kharif Finger millet 87(53) 11(04) Red gram 08(05) 22(08) Maize 16(10) 12(04) Groundnut 06(03) 05(02) Paddy - 21(08) Beans - 05(02) Horse gram 01(00) - Davana - 01(00) Rabi Finger millet - 44(16) Potato - 02(00) Maize 14(08) - Red gram 12(07) - Horse gram 04(02) 01(00) Vegetables - 10(03) Flowers - 01(00) Fodder maize - 05(02) Perennial Grapes - 22(08) Mango 11(07) 28(10) Eucalyptus - 6(02) Arecanut - 17(06) Coconut - 17(06) Banana - 06(02) Mulberry - 16(06) Fodder grass - 04(01) Gross cropped area 162(100) 268(100) Net cropped area 136 177. Cropping intensity (%) 118 151.
Note. Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to gross cropped area.
The cropping intensity (Table 2) was high in case of irrigated situation (151%) compared to that of rainfed situation (118%). The finger millet occupied highest share in gross cropped area among all the crops in rainfed situation (53%) as it can withstand drought conditions, followed by maize (18%), red gram (13%) and mango (7%).
In irrigated situation, the gross cropped area was high because of the availability of irrigation facility. Finger millet (21%), red gram (8%), paddy (8%), mango (10%), grapes (8%), arecanut (6%), coconut (6%), and mulberry (6%) were some of the important crops. Under irrigated situation, fodder maize and
jas.
3.2 Aver
The detail In rainfed 46% was f agricultura cereals (2 1
F
F
The finger which 61% agricultura finger mill
Thus, live total incom
org
rage Annual In of annual inco situation, fing from agricultur al income, fin 1 %) and pulses
Figure 3. Avera
Figure 4. Avera
r millet growin % was from a al income (Rs. let (10%). stock is becom me in both th
ncome of Finge ome of farm h ger millet gro re, 32% was fr nger millet acc s (9%).
age annual inco
age annual inco
ng farm house agriculture, 3 3 . 2,81,753), pe
ming the major he situations. T
Journal of A
er Millet Grow ouseholds in r wing farm ho from livestock, counted for a
ome of finger
ome of finger m
eholds of irrig 3 % was from erennials contr
r source of inc The findings o
Agricultural Sci
wing Farm Hou rainfed and irri ouseholds reali , 15% was from major share o
millet growing
millet growing
gated situation livestock, 4% ributed as high
come next to a of the study i
ience
useholds in Rai igated situation ized an annua m non-farm an of 33%, follow
g farm househ
g farm househo
realized an an % was from no h as 65%, follo
agriculture, ac s in accordan
infed and Irrig n is furnished al income of R nd 7% from off wed by peren
olds – Rainfed
olds – Irrigated
nnual income on-farm secto owed by other
ccounting for n nce with the st
Vol. 10, No. 1;
gated Situation in Figures 3 a Rs. 1,92,670 w ff-farm. Out of nnials (31%),
d situation
d situation
of Rs. 4,60,1 2 or. Out of the r cereals (11%
nearly 30% of tudy conducte
2018
ns nd 4. which ftotal other
2 7 of total ) and
their ed by
jas.
Governme production
3 Mappi
Finger mil finger mill knowing t variables i
Some of t (seed rate, weeding, i harvesting harvest tre
(1) Varieti
Both in ra respectivel 9%) and
The Univ agro-clima varieties v GPU-66, H choice of even under
(2) Field P
a) Tillage:
b) Applica
i) Farm ya situation th applying lo
ii) Fertiliz situation (F N: 50, P: fertilizers used Urea to strength nutrients, w
org
ent of Karnata n and about 33 ing of Finger M llet is one of th let cultivation the lacunas in in comparison the cultivation seed treatmen inter tillage, re g (method and eatment and cro es of Finger M ainfed and irri ly (Figure 5) d local (9% an versity of Ag atic zones of S viz. Indaf -8, M HR-911; shor varieties are a r drought cond
Figure 5. Ru
Preparation Primary and s ation of manure ard manure: In hey applied 3. ower than reco zers: Both in r Figure 6), app 45, K: 40 kg/h leads to highe and Di-ammo hen extension/ which helps in
aka (2007), w % from livesto Millet Cultivati he staple food technologies the technolog with recomme n practices ide nt, preparation emoval of folia d type), post op rotation. Millet Grown igated situatio followed by I nd 8%). gricultural Sc South Karnatak MR-1, MR- t duration var available to fa ditions and also
uling varieties
secondary tilla es n rainfed situa 50 tonne per h ommended. rainfed (N: 1 0 plication of nitr ha; irrigated = er yield. Where onium phospha /outreach prog n reducing the
Journal of A
where it was ock, fisheries a ion Technolog crops in South helps to know gies followed b ended practice entified were v of nursery, me age in case of harvest practi
on, GPU-28 w Indaf-5 (11%
ciences, Beng ka considering and L-5; med rieties viz. GP armers, majorit o it is resistant
of finger mille
age is being fol
ation, the farm ha. In both rain
0 5, P: 65,
rogen and pho = N: 100, P: 5 eas application ate fertilizers w grammes to cr cost incurred b
Agricultural Sci
reported that and forestry. gies in Rainfed h India and ha w the cultivatio by farmers and s. varieties used, ethod of sowin lush green gro ices (threshing
was the major % and 30%), I
galuru has re g soil type, dist dium duration PU-48, GPU- 4 ty of farmers t to finger and
et in rainfed an
llowed both in
mers applied 3. nfed (7 t/ha)
K: 1 kg/ha) osphorous was 0, K: 50 kg/ha n of potash wa which do not h eate awarenes by farmers as w
ience
about 67% o
and Irrigated s been cultivat on practices ad d identify the
, field prepara ng/planting), in owth), irrigatio g, drying and
variety grown Indaf-9 (4%
ecommended tribution of ra varieties viz. 4 5, GPU-26, cultivated GP neck blast dis
nd irrigated sit
n rainfed as we
25 tonne of F ) and irrigated
and irrigated s higher than th a). As farmers as found in tra have potassium ss among farm well as subsidy
of farm incom
Situations in K ted for several dopted by farm gaps in some
ation (tillage, m nter cultural op on, pest and dis heaping and
n accounting f and 10%),
varieties suit ainfall, etc., suc GPU-28, KM Indaf-9, KMR U-28 as it bes ease.
tuations in Kar
ell as in irrigate
YM per ha w (10 t/ha) situa
(N: 142, P: 5
he recommend s perceived hig aces because m m content. Hen mers to use the y burden on go
Vol. 10, No. 1;
me was from
Karnataka l years. Mappin mers. This hel of the quantif
manuring), so perations (thin sease managem winnowing),
for 70 and 4 1 Indaf-7 (5%
able for diff ch as long dur MR-301, KMR R-204. All tho stowed better
rnataka
ed situation.
whereas, in irrig ations farmers
5 4, K: 1 k ded dose (rainf gher applicatio most of the far nce, there is a e optimum lev overnment.
2018
crop
ng of ps in fiable
wing ning, ment, post
1 .7%,
% and
ferent ration - 204, ough, yield
gated were
g/ha) fed = on of rmers need vel of
jas.
(3) Sowing
a) Seed ra which was using seed there is un indicated t
b) Seed re saved seed
c) Seed tr distributed
org
F
g ate: Is the quan s two times hi ds (20 kg/ha neven germina that intercultiv
eplacement: Is ds. Both under reatment: Farm d seeds were tr
Figure 7. Appl
ntity of seeds u igher than the a) four times h ation, then the vation will be d
Figure 8
s a measure of rainfed and ir mers were no reated.
Journal of A
ication of man
used per hecta e recommende higher than th e seedlings w done, which tak
- Seed rate in
f total finger m rrigated situatio t practicing a
Agricultural Sci
nure in rainfed
are. In rainfed d (12 kg/ha) e recommende will be uproote kes care of thi
rainfed and irr
millet area sow ons seed replac any seed treatm
ience
and irrigated c
situation 27 k ). Whereas in ed (5 kg/ha) (F ed and transpl inning or requi
rigated conditi
wn with certif cement rate wa ment. Wherea
condition
kg of seeds wer irrigated situa Figure 8). Farm lanted in the g ired plant popu
ion
fied seeds in c as 30-35%. as, all Raitha
Vol. 10, No. 1;
re used per he ation farmers mers opined th gaps. Farmers ulation.
comparison to
Samparka Ke
2018
ectare were hat if also
farm
endra
jas.
d) Nursery respectivel
e) Age of in both rai
f) Method transplanti fertilizer d
In rainfed manually (14%) an
(4) Intercu
Thinning a situation i application
(5) Irrigati
(6) Pest an practice w
(7) Harves
a) Method farmers.
b) Type of cutting ea followed b cutting ear earhead al
org
y preparation: ly. However, r seedlings for t nfed as well as d of sowing/ ing seedlings drill (7%), lin situation, bro (24%), trans nd line sowing
ultural operatio and weeding: it was perform n of Butachlor ion: Under irri nd disease ma was followed in sting d of harvesting
f harvesting: T arhead along w by harvesting rhead along w one, the thresh
A seed bed o recommended transplanting: s irrigated situ /planting adop from nursery ne sowing usin oadcasting (3 4 splanting seed g using seed dr
Figur
ons In rainfed situ med three tim r weedicide to gated situation anagement: Bl n both the situa
g: Irrespective
here are two m with straw. In earhead alon with straw and hing was done
Journal of A
of 0 and seed bed size w Transplanting uation and the r pted by farm (66%), follo ng seed drill ( 4 .2%) was the dlings from nu rill (13%).
e 9. Method of
uation, inter cu mes. Package o control weeds n on an averag last and Stem ations as the pe
of rainfed and
methods of harv n rainfed situa ne (23%). Lik d 43% of farm by using mach
Agricultural Sci
d 0 ha w was 0 ha g of seedlings w recommended mers: In irriga owed by broad .8%) and line most commo ursery (14%
f sowing adopt
ultivation was of practice rec . e the crop was borer was pre est and disease
d irrigated situ
vesting follow ation, 77% of ewise, under mers harvested hine.
ience
was prepared in a. was done after days of transp ated situation dcasting (17% sowing manua on method pra %), line sowing
ted by farmers
performed fiv commends tw
s irrigated eigh evalent in the e was not much
uation, manua
wed in the study farmers harve irrigated situa earhead alone
n rainfed and
r 25 days after planting is 18 t n majority of %), line sowin ally (2%) (Fi acticed, follow g using seed
s
ve times where wo to three int
ht times. study area an h severe.
al harvesting w
y area. Cutting ested earhead ation, 57% of e (Figure 10).
Vol. 10, No. 1;
irrigated situa
r sowing in nu to 25 days. f farmers ado ng using seed igure 9). wed by line so cum fertilizer
eas, under irrig ter cultivation
nd no manage
was followed b
g earhead alone along with s f farmers prac When farmer
2018
ation,
ursery
opted cum
wing drill
gated n and
ment
by all
e and straw, cticed rs cut
jas.ccsenet Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 10, No. 1; 2018
Table 4. Cost of cultivation of rainfed finger millet in Karnataka (hectare)
Sl. No. Particulars Quantity Unit cost (Rs) Cost (Rs) % I Variable cost/working capital Human labour (Mandays) 66 200 13235 27. Bullock labour (BP days) 5 800 4416 9. Machine labour (hours) 11 745 8379 17. Seed (kgs) 23 16 371 0. FYM (tonne) 9 637 6024 12. Fertilizer cost 4837 9. Interest on working capital at 3% 1304 2. Total variable cost/working capital 38566 79. II Fixed cost Depreciation 797 1. Land revenue 15 0. Rental value of land 4000 8. Managerial cost @10% of working capital 3726 7. Risk premium (2% of 80% working capital) 617 1. Total fixed cost 9155 18. III Cost of cultivation (I + II) 47721 98. Marketing cost a. Packing and loading b. Transportation c. Weighing and unloading d. Miscellaneous Total cost of marketing
410 239 102 102 854
- Total cost of cultivation 48575 100.
Table 5. Returns from rainfed finger millet in Karnataka (hectare)
Quantity Price/Unit (Rs.) Total (Rs.) I Returns Main product (q) 18. 1602 29653 By product (tonne) 4 2287 10512 Gross returns (Rs.) 40165 Net returns (Rs.) - Cost of production (Rs./q) 2624 II Returns per rupee of expenditure 0.
In rainfed finger millet cultivation, the major cost item in working cost was the cost on human labour (27%) followed by cost on machine labour (17%), FYM (12%), fertilizer (9%), bullock labour (9%) and interest on working capital (2%).
In irrigated finger millet cultivation, expenditure on human labour (29%), followed by cost on machine labour (14%), FYM (10%), fertilizer cost (8%), bullock labour (7%), irrigation (4%) and interest on working capital (2%), were found to be the major costs.
Out of the total variable cost both in rainfed and irrigated situations, around 36% was incurred only on the labour indicating that cultivation of finger millet is labour intensive. These findings are in line with the results of Lal and Sharma (2006), Pant and Srivastava (2014), and Jimjel et al. (2015). This clearly indicated that human labour was the most important input in finger millet cultivation, which is mainly required for activities such as sowing/transplanting, weeding, harvesting and post-harvest operations (threshing, cleaning and bagging).
Fixed costs accounted for 19% of the total cost of cultivation in rainfed and irrigated finger millet cultivation. Among fixed costs, rental value of land was major chunk in both rainfed (8%) and irrigated (7%) finger
jas.ccsenet Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 10, No. 1; 2018
millet cultivation. The average fixed cost was Rs. 9,155 per ha and Rs. 11,979 per ha in rainfed and irrigated finger millet cultivation, respectively.
The average cost of cultivation of rainfed finger millet and irrigated finger millet was Rs. 48,575 and Rs. 64, per hectare, respectively. Cost of cultivation was high in irrigated situation compared to rainfed situation, because of more labour, FYM, fertilizer use besides irrigation cost and nursery.
3.4 Returns from Finger Millet Cultivation
The gross returns comprised returns from main product (grain) as well as by-product (straw/fodder). The average grain yield obtained per hectare under rainfed and irrigated situation was 18 quintals and 31 quintals (Tables 5 and 7), respectively. Per hectare gross returns were Rs. 40,165 and Rs. 67,007 in rainfed and irrigated finger millet cultivation, respectively.
The results indicated that, yield was high in irrigated situation compared to rainfed situation which was mainly because of the management practices like timely irrigation, optimum plant spacing, use of fertilizer and FYM. Irrigated finger millet also fetched higher price compared to rainfed finger millet because of off season production (produce would be ready for sale during the months of February to March during which market arrivals are less, resulting in high price for the produce).
The analysis of net return from finger millet cultivation revealed that the net return per hectare was negative i. Rs. 8,410 under rainfed situation (Table 5), whereas, the net return was Rs. 2,638 under irrigated situation (Table 7). Rainfed farmers realized negative net returns because of low yield and also high cost of cultivation. In spite of loss, farmers continue to grow finger millet mainly for the purpose of consumption and for the quantity and quality of the fodder that it provides. The cost of production was high in rainfed finger millet cultivation (Rs. 2,624 per quintal) compared to that of irrigated (Rs. 2,040 per quintal) finger millet cultivation due to low yield in rainfed situation. But the existing procurement price for finger millet was Rs. 2100 (Government of Karnataka) and Rs. 1650 per quintal (Minimum Support Price of Government of India) fails to cover the cost of production of finger millet under rainfed situation. In the total land holding, the area under finger millet accounted for major (65%) share in rainfed situation, indicating finger millet is mainly cultivated as rainfed crop and thus the procurement price must be fixed looking into the cost of production of rainfed finger millet. The rate of return per rupee of expenditure incurred in rainfed and irrigated finger millet cultivation was found higher in case of irrigated (1) condition than in rainfed situation (0).
These results are in accordance with the study of Pant and Srivastava (2014), that the net returns from finger millet cultivation over all variable costs excluding family labour cost and including land revenue, depreciation and interest on working capital and imputed value of family labour) were negative indicating that the crop was cultivated only for subsistence and not for commercial purpose. Narayanamoorthy (2013) indicated that cultivation of finger millet under rainfed condition was not profitable.
jas.
low which reasons fo consumpti Karnataka
3.5 Oppo
There is a There is v have alrea export of f benefits; re
3.5 Thre
Because o value crop increased etc.) nature
- Conclus
The analys in Karnata in product millet in p higher sco technologi production
The select family size of irrigate situation w gross crop rainfed con
org
h leads to shift or farmers re ion of finger m a and hence its ortunities a high demand vast scope for ady been devel finger millet in esearch can co eats f reduced retu ps. Finger mill cost of cultiva e of finger mil
Figu
sion and Polic sis indicated th aka and India. tivity during o public distribut ope to bring m ical breakthrou n. ted farmer-resp e except land h ed situation co was distinct. F pped area, as it ndition. Where
t in crop. Low ducing area u millet is less pr distribution is
d for finger mi product divers loped by the U n the form of g ontribute furthe
rn from finger let cultivation ation. Change llet, there is sh
ure 11. Potenti
cy Recommen hat there was s Though there overall period tion system the more area unde ugh in terms o
pondents in rai holding and ed ompared to ra Finger millet w t can withstan eas, in irrigated
Journal of A
yield combine under finger referred by mo s limited to spe
illet malt due t sification with University of A grain, flour an er to enhance t
r millet, farmer is labour inte in lifestyle lea hift from finger
ials and constr
ndation significant dec was decelerat due to introdu ere is increase er finger mille of release of d
infed and irrig ducation level. ainfed situatio was an importa d drought con d situation fing
Agricultural Sci
ed with low pr millet. Due t ost of the peop ecific region.
to its high nut h almost 40 ty Agricultural Sc nd value added these nutrition
rs are shifting nsive and high ading to chang r millet to othe
raints for area a
crease in both a tion both in are uction of high d demand for et cultivation i drought resista
ated situation The possessio on. The cropp ant crop in rai nditions. This i ger millet occu
ience
rice leads to re to black /brow ple. Finger mi
tritional value ypes of value a ciences, Benga d products. Fin al benefits.
from low valu h labour requi ge in food habi er food.
and production
area as well as ea and product h yielding vari finger millet i in Karnataka. ant and high y
were homogen on of farm asse ing pattern fo infed situation indicates the im upied 21%
educed returns wn colour of illet is the stap
with appealin added finger m aluru. There is nger millet has
ue crops like fi irement is one it with unappe
n expansions
s production o tion there was ieties. Due to in Karnataka. A Hence, there yielding variet
neous with res ets and livestoc ollowed in rai n which occupi mportance of of gross cropp
Vol. 10, No. 1;
s is one of the f finger mille ple diet in sou
ng flavor and t millet products s high potentia s several nutrit
finger millet to e of the reason ealing (colour,
f finger millet s significant gr inclusion of f As a result, the is a need for ties to enhanc
spect to the age ck was high in infed and irrig ied around 5 4 finger millet u ped area.
2018
main t the thern
taste. s that al for ional
high ns for taste
both rowth finger ere is more e the
e and n case gated % of under
jas.ccsenet Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 10, No. 1; 2018
Cultivation practices adopted by farmers were mapped to know the lacunas in the technologies followed by farmers and identify the gaps in some of the quantifiable variables in comparison with the recommended practices. Results indicated that, both in rainfed (N: 105, P: 65, K: 1 kg/ha) and irrigated (N: 142, P: 54, K: 1 kg/ha) situation, application of nitrogen and phosphorous was higher than the recommended dose (rainfed = N: 50, P: 45, K: 40 kg/ha; irrigated = N: 100, P: 50, K: 50 kg/ha) as farmers perceived higher application of fertilizers leads to higher yield. Although farmers applied more fertilizers the yield under rainfed and irrigated situation (18 and 31 q/ha, respectively) was less than the recommended (22 and 32 q/ha, respectively) and it is a point of double loss to farmers in terms of both, excess cost incurred due to higher usage of fertilizer as well as reduced returns due to lower yield compared to recommended. Hence, there is a need to strengthen extension/outreach programmes to create awareness among farmers to use the optimum level of nutrients, which helps in reducing the cost incurred by farmers as well as subsidy burden on government In rainfed situation, 27 kg of seeds were used per hectare which was two times higher than the recommended (12 kg/ha). Whereas, in irrigated situation farmers were using seeds (20 kg/ha) four times higher than the recommended (5 kg/ha).
Per hectare cost of cultivation of finger millet was Rs. 48,575 and Rs. 64,369 in rainfed and irrigated situation, respectively. Variable costs accounted for about 80% in finger millet cultivation indicating that finger millet is not a capital intensive crop. Analysis of cost structure revealed that Rs. 17,651 (36%) and Rs. 23,641 (36%) of total cost of cultivation was incurred on labour in rainfed and irrigated situation, respectively indicating that finger millet though not capital intensive is a labour intensive crop. To reduce the problems faced by small farmers regarding labour availability, efforts should be made by the scientists to develop and promote suitable farm mechanization technologies.
The cost of production was Rs. 2624/q under rainfed situation and Rs. 2040/q under irrigated situation. But the existing procurement price for finger millet was Rs. 2100 per quintal (Government of Karnataka) and Rs. 1650 per quintal (Minimum Support Price of Government of India) fails to cover the cost of production of finger millet under rainfed situation. In the total land holding, the area under finger millet accounted for major (64%) share in rainfed situation, indicating finger millet is mainly cultivated as rainfed crop and thus the procurement price must be fixed looking into the cost of production of rainfed finger millet. Further, lack of remunerative price which fails to cover the cost of cultivation and provide reasonable profit margin to small farmers acts as disincentive to grow finger millet. Low yield combined with low price leads to reduced returns is one of the main reasons for farmers reducing area under finger millet. Hence, Government should increase the procurement price at least to cover its cost of production in order to help the small famers to continue to grow finger millet. Further, lack of remunerative price which fails to cover the cost of cultivation and provide reasonable profit margin to small farmers acts as disincentive to grow finger millet yield combined with low price leads to reduced returns is one of the main reasons for farmers reducing area under finger millet. Hence, Government should increase the procurement price at least to cover its cost of production in order to help the small famers to continue to grow finger millet.
There is a high demand for finger millet malt due to its high nutritional value with appealing flavor and taste. Finger millet possesses tremendous potential for product diversification. The potential for export of finger millet in the form of grain, flour and value added products needs to be explored. Thus, there is a need to discover the markets for augmenting the exports through organizing trade fairs, exhibitions to create awareness and also gain knowledge about the quality preference and thereby plan measures to promote finger millet exports.
Acknowledgements
The Authors wish to thank, farmers for sparing their valuable time in providing precious information and Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India (Grant No. BT/IC-2/ISCB/Phase-IV/03/RAGI/2014 dated: 23-01-2015) for the financial support for the duration of three years (2015-16 to 2017-18) under Indo-Swiss collaboration in Biotechnology.
References
Acharya, S. P., Basavaraja, H., Kunnal, L. B., Mahajanashetti, S. B., & Bhat, A. R. S. (2012). Growth in area, production and productivity of major crops in Karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 25(4), 431-436.
Bairwa, K. C., Sharma, R., & Kumar, T. (2012). Economics of growth and instability: Fruit crops of India. Rajasthan Journal of Extension Education, 20, 128-132.
Divya, G. M. (2011). Growth and instability analysis of finger millet crop in Karnataka (Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, India).
70477 267466 1 PB - Lecture notes 12,15
Module: Environmental Physiology
University: University of Nottingham
This is a preview
Access to all documents
Get Unlimited Downloads
Improve your grades
