Baseline Assessment of Chickpea for Andhra Pradesh state in India. Suhasini P, Kiresur VR, Rao GDN and Bantilan MCS

Transcription

1 Baseline Assessment of Chickpea for Andhra Pradesh state in India Suhasini P, Kiresur VR, Rao GDN and Bantilan MCS Baseline research report for Tropical Legumes-II DRAFT REPORT 2009 International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru , Andhra Pradesh, India (ICRISAT )

2 Contents:. INTRODUCTION a. Objectives b. Expected benefits c. Hypotheses 2. METHODOLOGY 3. FINDINGS OF BASELINE SURVEY OF TLII PROJECT 4. MAIN FINDINGS OF MARKET SURVEY CHICKPEA ANDHRA PRADESH 2

3 INTRODUCTION Chickpea is emerging as a cash crop in black cotton soils of Andhra Pradesh replacing different crops like cotton, sorghum, bajra, sugarcane, groundnut and tobacco. Having realised that crops like cotton are prone to pests and diseases and prices being subjected to high fluctuations, chickpea a low risk crop, is found to be a suitable alternate to varied dry land agro climatic conditions of the state. Low pest and disease attack compared to other crops, storability and less price fluctuations triggered the adoption of chickpea by farmers. Already certain varieties are adopted by the farmers, but those existing varieties are released long ago and virtually yielding like local varieties now. One of the reasons for the declined performance of those varieties was improper seed replacement. Strategic development of new varieties considering the preferences of the farmers and other players in the market is required to have effective crop improvement programmes. Hence it is justified to have a project targeting grain legumes crop breeding and seed delivery efforts to enhance live hoods. Broad Objectives The following broad objectives are set to be achieved in the three years of implementation which is expected to continue for 0 years. Analyse and provide advice concerning the social and cultural environments that influence the sustainable adoption and spread of promising varieties, technology and innovations of chick pea in Andhra Pradesh 2. Scaling up and scaling out work done amongst the farming communities 3. Support research developments in breeding through a feed back process, policy dialogue and by identify lessons learnt for technology dissemination. Specific objectives of baseline survey:. study the socio economic and environmental factors that influence the adoption of chick pea and existing varieties and find out the production constraints for the adoption of new improved varieties 2. track the preferred traits along the value chain 3. document the in built strategies and evolved strategies by the farming community 4. provide preliminary feed back to the crop improvement 3

4 Expected Output. Baseline survey report and market survey report for chick pea in Andhra Pradesh Expected Outcomes. End of the three years 50 breeders take the account of socio-economic conditions and preferred traits in setting their future priorities 2. Establishment of Benchmarks and reference points for monitoring and the future impact studies 3. Building up data base of the baseline and market survey information t be widely used by the developers 4. Feed back to the breeders on the preferred traits through PVS The baseline survey of chickpea has been taken up in drought prone districts Kurnool and Prakasam of Andhra Pradesh which were the top producers of chick pea occupying an area of.38 lakh hectares and.lakh hectares during in The baseline survey aimed at documenting the status of chickpea in terms of production and productivity, ruling varieties, preferences and constraints encountered by the farmers as well as functionaries along the value chain, economics of chickpea, marketing opportunities, marketable surplus and to track the supply chain. The analysis of baseline information will serve as a feed back about existing status as prima facie of chickpea. This would redirect the research priorities to enhance breeding programme and make possible market interventions to enhance the remuneration to the farmers in order to improve livelihoods. The districts selected for the purpose of survey in the State were most drought prone areas of the state. Kurnool district is representing an important region Rayalseema and Prakasam, the region of Coastal Andhra and have average rain fall of >700mm per anum respectively. Area irrigated under Kurnool is about 23% of the cropped area. Prakasam is about 26% to the cropped area indicating that most of the crops are rainfed. The crop choice for the dry land farmer is limited and subjected to uncertainties of prolonged dry spells and moisture stress during critical stages of crop. Onset of monsoons is another crucial factor influencing selection of crop. When there is a delay in onset of monsoons farmer changes his crop options. This process of crop shifts lead to the selection of chickpea as a rabi crop in the study area. Other crops that were adopted include sunflower, chillies and groundnut. 4

5 METHODOLOGY The study to be carried out in Andhra Pradesh has been designed by harmonising the methodologies. The study aimed at generating data on drought conditions, coping up strategies, production technologies, consumption, marketing and value additions using different techniques. Purposive and proportionate stratified random sampling techniques were adopted for the study. Districts were purposively selected. Three villages were also purposively selected based on treatments of Mother baby trials initiated by ICRISAT, to create awareness to farmers on the performance of new and old varieties by organising demonstrations. Three villages nearer to the treatment mandals that were similar in their cropping pattern, were selected as control mandals. Together six villages were surveyed. Farmers growing chickpea were identified in each village and 30 farmers in each treatment village and 5 in each control village were selected by proportionate stratified random sampling technique to cover marginal, small, medium and large farmers for the purpose of data collection. A semi structured pre-tested questionnaire is designed and is used to elicit relevant information. Interview method is adopted for data collection. Other participatory rural appraisal techniques (PRA) like transect walk, one to one interactions with farmers, group meetings and focussed group meetings were used to collect utmost reliable data and to know detailed information about the crop, general particulars of the village and economics of chickpea growers. Nature and sources of data Primary data required has been collected from farmers and the marketing particulars from various market functionaries like traders, brokers, commission agents, processors, retailers and consumers. Similarly secondary data pertaining to the area production, productivity and other parameters has been collected from State Directorate of Economics and statistics, chief planning officer of the districts. The reference period for baseline data is In Kurnool district Balapanur, Mitnala and Pulimaddi, Munagala, Rasulpet and Brahmanapally were treatment and control villages selected. In Prakasam Cherukurapadu, Chirvanauppalapadu, Kollavaripalem, Paidipadu, Maddiralapadu and Bodavada were treatment and control villages selected. 5

6 FINDINGS OF BASELINE SURVEY OF TL-II PROJECT Socio economic and demographic composition of farmers Sample distribution The over all sample size was 270 pertaining to the treatment and control villages. Distribution of sample farmers in the study were is presented in table. In the adopted villages of Kurnool 40% of the sample farmers were large farmers and 23.33% were marginal farmers. In the control villages of the Kurnool also 33.33% of the sample farmers were large and 3.33% belonged to medium category. The sampling technique is an appropriate fit as it is confirmed by the post classification of data. In the adopted villages of Prakasam 33.3% of farmers were marginal farmers and 24.4% were medium and large farmers. In the control villages of Prakasam 28.9% of the sample farmers were large farmers and 26.7% were medium farmers. There was no difference in the distribution of sample between treatment and control villages of over all sample. Over all data shows 32.2% of the sample farmers from adopted villages and 3.% of the sample farmers from the control villages were large farmers. Gender bias in the land ownership pattern Ownership of land holding by to gender is presented in table 2. Data showed that 93.3% of the sample farmers in the adopted and control villages of Kurnool were male farmers and only 6.67% of the sample farmers were women. Those few women farmers were mostly women headed families. In the adopted and control villages of Prakasam 95.6% of farmers were male and only 4.4% were female. Overall data also followed the similar pattern indicating the ownership of land holdings was not common for women in the study area and men are holding the title deeds. Ownership of land holding across the farm size was presented in Table 3. In the adopted villages of Kurnool 20% of marginal, 7.78% of small, 5.56% of medium and 40% of large farmers were male. Only 3.3% in marginal and medium farmers were women managed ownership of farms. Even control villages exhibited similar pattern 6

7 In the adopted villages of Prakasam during the total respondents 26% of marginal, 6% of small, 22% of medium and 24.44% of large farmers. In the control villages 7.78% of marginal farmers, 22.22% of small farmers, 26.67% of medium farmers and 28.89% of large farmers of total sample were male farmers only. Therefore it can be inferred that ownership of land holding by women was meagre and was confined to marginal and medium farms. Distribution of farmers according to age Average ages of sample farmers in the study area presented in Table 4. The average age of the marginal farmers in the adopted villages of Kurnool is 5.48 years and in control village it is years. The average age of small farmers in the adopted villages is years and in control village it is 45. years. In the adopted villages of Prakasam the average age of the marginal farmers is 53.2 years and 5.4 years for the medium farmers. In the control villages the average age of the small farmers is 50.7 years and 47.4 years for marginal farmers. As such the age of the farmer was not showing any relationship with the category of farmer and majority of farmers were falling into the category of middle age. Educational status Educational status of farmers in terms of the number of years of education was presented in the Table 5. In the adopted villages of Kurnool, large farmers had maximum years of schooling 8.42 years followed by small farmers 7.25 years. In control villages of Kurnool also large farmers found with maximum years of schooling 9.33 years followed by medium farmers 8.42 years. Small, medium and marginal farmers have low educational status comparatively both in adopted and control villages of Kurnool. In Prakasam district also large farmers have maximum years of schooling 9.45 years followed by small farmers 7.8 years in adopted villages. Medium and marginal farmers have low level of education in adopted villages. In control villages also large farmers were better educated 7

8 Overall data shows that in adopted villages large farmers have maximum years of schooling where as in control villages large farmers and medium farmers had maximum education. Participation in the local bodies Participation in the local bodies by farmers in the study area was presented in Table 6. Data showed that in the adopted and control villages of Kurnool 9.% of the sample farmers were not members of nominated/ elected bodies and only 8.89% were members of nominated/elected bodies. It was the same with adopted villages of Prakasam 90% of the sample farmers were not members nominated/elected bodies and only 0% of the sample farmers were participating in elected bodies. In the control villages only 5.6% of the farmers were members nominated/elected bodies. Participation in the local bodies by farmers in the study area across the farm size was presented in Table 7. In the adopted villages of Kurnool 6.7% of the large 2.2% of medium farmers, in Prakasam adopted villages 6.7%of large and 4.4% of medium farmers were members of elected bodies. Control villages in two districts also confirm this, large and medium farmers have access to the political institutions. Overall data shows that in the adopted and control villages majority of the farmers were not participating nominated/elected bodies. Caste composition Caste compositions of farmers in the study area were presented in Table 8. In the adopted villages of Kurnool 50% of the sample farmers belonged to forward caste and 36.67% to backward caste, and in the control village 55.56% of the sample farmers belonged to forward caste and 42.22% to backward caste which was similar to adopted villages. In Prakasam 76.67% were forward caste farmers and.% were backward caste farmers in adopted villages, whereas in control village 84.4% of the farmers belonged to forward caste and.% to backward caste. In Prakasam majority of chickpea growers were forward caste farmers. 8

9 Overall data showed that only 23.89% and 2.78% of the sample farmers belonged to backward caste and scheduled caste and Control village consists of 26.67% of the backward caste and 4.34% of scheduled castes. Caste composition of the farmers in the study area according to farm size was presented in Table 9. Among marginal farmers.% were from backward caste and 8.8% were from scheduled castes. Among the small farmers 8.8% were from backward caste and 4.4% were from scheduled caste in adopted villages of Kurnool. In Kurnool Control villages, only.% and 2.2% of farmers were from backward and scheduled castes among small and medium farmers. Similarly in Prakasam adopted villages 8% marginal farmers belonged to scheduled castes. Backward and scheduled caste farmers owned marginal holdings. The relative access to technology is better to forward caste farmers rather than backward castes. Distribution according to religion. Distribution of sample farmers as per their religion was presented in Table 0. In the adopted villages of Kurnool 87.78% of the sample farmers were hindus and 2.22% were muslims. In the control villages also 97.78% belonged to hindu religion and 2.22% to Islam. In Prakasam 93.33% of the sample farmers in the adopted villages and 90.56% from the control village belonged to hindu religion and remaining farmers belonged to Islam religion. Overall data indicates that majority of the sample farmers were from hindu religion. Distributions of sample farmers in the study according to religion across farm size were presented in Table. In the adopted and control villages of Kurnool among the categories of marginal, small, medium and large, majority of the farmers belonged to hindu religion. In the adopted and control villages of Prakasam among the categories of marginal, small, medium and large, majority of the farmers belonged to hindu religion. Distribution of sample according to occupation. Main occupation In Kurnool 92.% of the sample farmers of the adopted villages and 97.78% of control villages reported agriculture as their main occupation (Table 2). Only 6.67% of the 9

10 farmers of adopted village and 2.22% of farmers of control village have service /employment as main occupation. In Prakasam 98.89% of the sample farmers of the adopted villages and 95.6% of control villages has agriculture as their main occupation. Only.% of the sample farmers of adopted village and 4.44% of farmers of control village taken up service /employment as main occupation. But members of families were engaged in other occupations which yielded some income to the farm household along with the main occupation. Even though income from agriculture is low it is regarded as the main occupation in both districts. Across farm size also agriculture was main occupation as presented in Table 3.In Prakasam among the marginal farmers 32.22% of the sample farmers from adopted village and 20% from control villages have agriculture as their main occupation. Very few farmers have service/employment as main occupation in adopted and control villages of both districts. Secondary occupation. Distribution of sample farmers according to secondary occupation was presented in Table 4. In Kurnool 23.3% of the sample farmers from adopted villages and 28.8% from control villages took service/employment as secondary occupation. In Prakasam 6.6% of the sample farmers from adopted villages and 5.6% from control villages had service/employment as secondary occupation. In Kurnool 20% of the sample farmers from adopted villages and 7.78% from control villages considered agriculture as their secondary occupation. In Prakasam 3.33% farmers and.% from control villages taken up agriculture as their secondary occupation. Distribution of sample farmers according to secondary occupation across farm size presented in Table 5 showed that in the adopted villages of Kurnool among the marginal farmers 0% of the sample farmers have service/employment as secondary occupation and 23.33% found doing agriculture. Among the small farmers 5.56% of farmers from adopted village and 6.67% from the control village have service/employment as their secondary occupation followed by 3.33% and 6.67% of farmers with agriculture. 0

11 Overall data shows that in marginal, small, medium farmer category majority of the farmers has service/employment, business and jobs etc as secondary occupation. In large farmers category majority of the farmers have agriculture as their secondary occupation. There is an observed change during the recent years because of frequent occurrence of drought either farmers or their family members were participating in non farm and business as a coping up strategy. This ensures the farm house hold an assured income. Diversification of activities within agricultural enterprises as well as between primary emerging phenomena. Composition of family size Average family size among sample farmers across farm size was presented in Table 6. Average family size was 5.67 and 5.7 for adopted and control villages of Kurnool in the marginal category were almost same. In Prakasam, average family size of the marginal farmers is 4.2 in both adopted and control villages. Adopted villages of Kurnool showed slightly higher average family size in case of medium farmers of The large farmers category in the Kurnool district family size was very small 3.6 when compared to others. Specifically awareness of family planning is less among small and medium categories of farmers in adopted villages of Kurnool. Land ownership pattern and operational holding pattern Land ownership pattern and operational farm size in the study area was presented in Table 7. In the adopted villages of Kurnool average operational land holding was maximum for large farmers by acres, followed by medium 5.57 acres, and marginal farmers.3 acres. In control villages of Kurnool total operational area is maximum for marginal farmers by 20 acres followed by large farmers 6.88 acres and small farmers 0.25 acres. In the adopted villages of Prakasam maximum operational land.25 acres cultivated by small farmers, 9.75 acres cultivated by medium farmers and 8.98 acres by large farmers. On contrary control villages total operated land is maximum for large farmers by 2.28 acres, followed by medium farmers 7.3 acres and small farmers 5.7 acres. In both districts the leasing in land is a common practice which changed the operational land of farmers. Ownership farm implements and durable assets

12 Farm Implements Among adopted villages of Kurnool 38.% of the farmers owned manual/power sprayers and 23.8% bullock carts. In the control villages 28.57% of the sample farmers had manual/power sprayer and bullock carts.(table 8). In adopted villages of Prakasam 26.67% of farmers have manual/power sprayers. In control villages 44.44% of farmers have manual/power sprayers and 22.22% of the sample farmers have tractors with mountable implements. Overall data shows that 3.27% of the sample farmers have manual/power sprayers and 9.8% of them owned bullock carts in the adopted villages, and 37.5% of farmers had power sprayers with them. Ownership farm implements as per the category of the farm (table9) revealed that in adopted villages of Kurnool, 68.75% of small farmers have manual/power sprayers, 3.25% have bullock carts and 8.75% have electric pump sets. In control villages 33.33% had bullock carts and manual/power sprayers and.% have harvester/thresher/groundnut Sheller. In the adopted villages of Prakasam 37.5% of small farmers had manual/power sprayers and 6.25% members own tractor with implements and bullock carts. Only 9.09% of the sample farmers have manual/power sprayers in control villages. Medium farmers in the adopted villages of Kurnool 52.94% of the sample farmers owned manual/power sprayers, 4.7% and.76% of the sample farmers owned bullock carts and electric pump sets (Table:20). In the adopted villages of Kurnool 7.43% of the sample farmers have manual/power sprayers, 57.4% and 4.29% of the farmers have bullock carts and tractor with implements. In the adopted villages of Prakasam 27.27% of farmers have manual/power sprayers, 22.73% have tractor with implements and 4.54% of the sample farmers have harvesters/threshers/groundnut Shellers, truck, autos/4 wheelers, electric pump sets with them. In the control villages 33.33% of the sample farmers have manual/power sprayers with them and 8.33% of them have electric pump sets, tractor with implements and bullock carts. 2

13 Among large farmers in the adopted villages of Kurnool 72.22% owned manual /power sprayers and 6.% of them had bullock carts. In the control village 60% of the sample farmers have manual/power sprayers and 53.33% of the sample farmers have bullock carts. In the adopted villages of Prakasam 3.63% farmers have trucks/autos/4 wheelers. 9.09% of the sample farmers have electric pump sets and manual power sprayers and 4.54% have tractor with implements and bullock carts. In control villages 30.77% of them owned manual/power sprayers and 5.34% have tractors with implements. Overall data shows that 48.28% of the sample farmers in the adopted villages and 46.43% of the sample farmers in the control villages have manual / power sprayers. Overall average distribution of ownership of farm implements by sample farmers presented in table 22 revealed that in the adopted villages of Kurnool 60% of the sample farmers have manual/power sprayers, 43.33% have bullock carts, 4.44% have tractor with implements. In the control villages 53.33% of the sample farmers have manual/power sprayers, 46.67% of the sample farmers have bullock carts. In the adopted villages of Prakasam 24.44% of the sample farmers have manual/power sprayers, 7.78% of the sample farmers have tractor with implements and 4.44% have harvester/thresher/groundnut shellers. Overall average ownership of farm implements was less than 50% as presented in table 23 indicating that farmers were parting with the habit of owning farm implements and rather they prefer to rent the equipment to meet the requirements to avoid repairs and maintenance cost. If implements can be purchased and maintained by cooperatives groups leased out and to farmers at affordable costs the cost of production be reduced considerably. Durable Assets: Overall average value of farm implements owned per farm is presented in Table 24. In Kurnool trucks/autos/4wheelers have the maximum average value of Rs.63333/- in adopted villages and Rs.8888/- in control village. Tractor with implements has the average value of Rs.2889/- in adopted village and Rs.8889/- in control village. In Prakasam tractor with implements have the maximum average value as Rs.46556/- in adopted village and Rs.66666/- in control village and trucks/autos/4wheelers have the average value of Rs.5755/- in adopted village and Rs.8888/- in control village. 3

14 Overall data shows that the maximum average value in adopted and control village is for tractor with implements followed by trucks/autos/4wheelers. Distribution of marginal farmers according to ownership of household durable assets from Table 25 revealed that 84.2% of farmers have residential house and plots, 94.7% of the sample farmers have TV sets and 00% of sample farmers have fans in adopted villages of Kurnool. In Prakasam also almost 90% of the farmers have residential plots. This shows the attitude of farmers and attachment to land and house ownership. Overall data shows that majority of the farmers in adopted and control villages have residential house and plots, televisions sets and fans. This indicates that use of electronic gadgets has increased which increases the cost of living. Among small farmers only 2.5% farmers owned residential house but 93.75% maintain two wheelers and 9% (Table-26) had fans in their houses. Medium farmers (9%) (Table -27) also had residential houses both in Kurnool and Prakasam. In the adopted villages of Kurnool 47.6% have two wheelers/bicycles and all the sample farmers have air coolers/fans. In the adopted village of Prakasam 55.5% had farm houses and every one maintained a two wheeler to have farm operations done in time Overall data shows that majority of the large farmers had residential house and plots and televisions in the adopted villages and in the control villages majority of the farmers have residential houses and fans. The spending behaviour and ownership of assets reflects changes in the standard of living (Table 28,29). In the adopted villages of Kurnool residential houses accounted for average value of Rs. 2874/- and two wheelers with average value of Rs. 944/-. In the adopted villages of Prakasam residential houses and plots have the maximum average value of Rs.49500/- and followed by farm houses Rs.22800/ -. The average value of two wheelers is reported as Rs.725/-(Table 30). Overall data shows that in the adopted and control villages residential houses and plots have the maximum average value followed by farm house and two wheelers /bicycles. Average value of household durable assets ownership by small farmers in the adopted villages of Kurnool two wheelers/bicycles have the maximum average value of Rs.4756/- and farm house had the average value of Rs.39/-, residential house with value of 4

15 Rs.9375/- (Table 3).In the adopted villages of Prakasam residential houses and plots have the maximum average value of Rs.75000/- and two wheelers/bicycles have value of Rs.33500/- and television sets has the average value of Rs.487/-.Overall data shows that residential house and plots have the maximum average value followed by two wheelers and farm house in adopted and control villages. Overall data shows that in the adopted villages residential houses have the maximum average value of Rs.56538/- and farm house, two wheelers with average value of Rs.3538/- and Rs.448/- (Table32). In the control villages residential houses, two wheelers and farm houses have the average value of Rs.30000/-, Rs. 6807/-, and Rs.525/-. Large farmers in the adopted villages of Kurnool possesses residential houses and plots have the maximum average value of Rs.72305/-, television sets and two wheelers/bicycles have the average value of Rs. 6958/-, Rs.6794/-.In the adopted villages of Prakasam residential houses and plots have the maximum average value of Rs /-, two wheelers/bicycles and farmhouse have the average value of Rs. 288/-, Rs.5545/-. Overall data shows that residential houses and plots have the maximum average value followed by two wheelers/bicycles and farm house (cattle sheds) in adopted and control villages. Overall average value of household durable assets ownership by sample farmers is presented in Table 34. In the adopted villages of Kurnool residential houses and plots have the maximum average value of Rs.32955/-, farmhouse and two wheelers and bicycles have the average value of Rs.023/- and Rs.998/-. In the control villages of Kurnool residential houses and plots have the maximum average value of Rs.222/-, two wheelers/bicycles and farmhouse have the average value of Rs. 0877/- and Rs.9980/-. Overall data (Table 35) shows that residential houses and plots have the maximum average value, followed by two wheelers/bicycles and farm houses in adopted and control villages. Financial assets and liabilities Loans Farmers of Kurnool were obtaining loans from various cooperatives and nationalised banks to the extent of Rs /- and Rs /- per household but higher amounts from private financial institutions (Rs /-).In Prakasam loans were sanctioned by the 5

16 nationalised banks (Rs /-) than cooperatives on an average per house hold. Private sources and money lenders were also providing loans to the farmers on an average by Rs,4,000/- and Rs.2,384/- per household (Table 35). Lending Farmers showed lending habit in Kurnool than Prakasam.Kurnool farmers lend to villagers and friends by extending an amount of Rs /- and Rs. 4686/- on an average. But in Prakasam only some farmers are lending to friends and relatives (in an informal way) by extending about Rs 30000/- per household. Savings Savings in banks, LIC, share market to the extent of Rs 60000/-, 57487/- and 52500/- was done by farmers per house hold in Kurnool, while in Prakasam more amount is invested in share market (Rs /-) followed by Rs /- in LIC/PLI policies on an average. Savings in the banks and chit funds were the next preference. The rate of interest for banks loans remained at % but the loans from the private financiers, money lenders and finance companies were costing at 24% rate of interest. In Prakasam the rates of interest were similar except for finance companies were extending rate of interest as 0%. Major sources of Income Income from crops in Kurnool is Rs.,08,934/- followed by regular jobs, rental incomes from land building and renting tractors/auto etc ie, Rs.87,67/-, 75,000/- and 70000/- (Table 37). In Kurnool there were many diversified activities such as selling handicrafts, interest on saving and lending money and rental income along with activities subsidiary to farm such as selling milk, selling goat and sheep etc. Diversification of livelihood is one striking feature observed here which has emerged as coping up strategy to drought. Farmers reduced the dependence on farm income and shifted to other non farm activities which fetch them assured income. In Prakasam earning of income showed similar pattern except for income from migration received by some. This indicates that out migration in the drought years is very common from Prakasam district where one family member migrates to cities like Mumbai, 6

17 Calcutta and Hyderabad as labour for construction and rickshaw pullers etc. The member will return after the normal season approaches. From the table 37a it is inferred that the share of income from crops decreased to 20.6% of the total income even though agriculture is said to be the main occupation. Income from different sources like taking up regular jobs, rental income from land and income from hiring out tractor and autos fetched to 6%,4% and 3% of total household income. In Prakasam adopted villages 27% of farm household income was from crops, 3% from migration and another 3% from business. It has been found that in Kurnool and Prakasam there was 2-3% of income raised from dairy and -3% from rearing sheep and goat units. Cropping pattern Cropping pattern of sample farmers in Kurnool as presented in Table 38a showed area sown under different varieties of chickpea. Area under Annigeri was acres and JG- was acres with few members growing new varieties such as KAK-2 a Kabuli variety. Age old variety, Annigeri is an old varietygetting replaced with JG- but still occupies about 46% of the area grown by sample farmers revealing that it is still a ruling variety in Kurnool. Groundnut occupied meagre area, while paddy is grown in 8.5 acres and jowar grown in 69 acres by the farmers. All these crops are replaced by chickpea. Gross returns of the referred chickpea varieties are maximum i.e. Rs /- for KAK-2, Rs /- for JG- followed by Annigeri Rs4286/- per acre. Even though gross returns are high for Kabuli (KAK-2) farmers are not growing Kabuli varieties as there is no market demand for it from the commission agents or brokers in Kurnool. The yield difference is between JG- and Annigeri in farmers practice was 58 Kg during The adoption of JG- is market driven and productivity driven. It is interesting to note that Sunflower is still grown in considerable area of 577 acres by the chickpea growers. The gross returns recorded by Sunflower were Rs /- per acre which comparable to chickpea returns. Though Tobacco cropped area was declining it was found that gross returns obtained by farmers remains highest i.e. Rs /- per acre. Therefore Sunflower and Tobacco can be considered as potential competing crops to chickpea. Seed replacement, seed delivery and marketing are to be concentrated to maintain area under chickpea cultivars. Cropping pattern of Prakasam shown in Table 38b was showing only to two crops namely Chickpea and Tobacco except little area reported under Paddy. Other crops are not grown in considerable areas by the chickpea growers selected for the baseline. 7

18 A cursory look into the table 38b shows that area cropped under different varieties of chickpea confirms the area under Annigeri is fading away and was reported in 29 acres. Two varieties of Kabuli KAK-2 and BOLTS are picking up Occupying 32 and 0 acres and JG- was cropped under 424 acres which seem to replace Annigeri successfully. Hence, JG- and KAK-2 are the ruling varieties in Prakasam. Similar to Kurnool in Prakasam district also Tobacco is competing crop to chickpea due to promising high net returns to the farmer. Among the varieties of Chickpea KAK-2 recorded highest average yield of 4207 Kg/ac, followed by JG- yielding about 358 Kg/ac. The gross returns were ranging from Rs83725/- to,3, 564/- for these varieties. This confirms that markets prices are fetching the farmers in Prakasam. A new innovation of leasing in the land for about 20 to 25 acres is practiced in Prakasam by mechanisation of majority of the farm operations, (inter cultivation, plant protection measures done using tractors etc) Consumption pattern Annual consumption pattern in Table 39 a showed the order of consumption in terms of quantities per anum was rice and milk 727 Kg, 273 it and 74 Kg of jowar and 57Kg of pulses. An amount of Rs 8907/- was spent on rice, Rs, 657/- on sorghum and Rs. 4547/- on pulses. Mostly 50 to 75 Kg chickpea is retained for home consumption by the farmers. The results are in conformity with the recent NSS data that the consumption of protein diet is improving but still has to pick up in order to improve the nutritional security of the farm family. A clear shift in expenditure pattern has been observed showing expenditure on items like vegetables and non vegetarian are picking up. Similarly considerable expenditure is incurred on health and education and was Rs. 4558/- and Rs. 864/- on an average per anum indicating the escalation in health and education expenses of rural farm households. In general due to entry of corporate organisations and privatisation of health and education, the expenditure has gone up relatively both in rural and urban areas. As a result gradually there was a diversification in the income generating activities in the rural areas. In Prakasam also the highest consumption was noted for rice 74Kg per anum, 60 Kg of sorghum 08Kg of pulses and 300 lt of milk. The expenditure on fruits and vegetables was Rs. 3500/- (Table -39b). Health and education expenses were high accounting to Rs. 926/-. Medical and education expenses are becoming a burden on the farm families due to high charges imposed by the corporate bodies on these services. 8

19 Reasons for growing chickpea Ranks for reasons for growing chickpea crop were captured and Garrett scores were worked out and presented in Table 40. Chickpea is preferred by Kurnool adopted village farmers because of fodder availability for livestock (76), fetching higher income (54.8), low risk and less labour requirement (52.) for farm operations, but the control villages farmers adopted chickpea due to low risk and less labour intensive nature of the crop (54.38) and higher income (52.7). In Prakasam district farmers of adopted and control villages also indicated that they preferred chickpea as it is a low risk (57.4)and higher income generating crop (55.82). Crop rotation Crop rotation information furnished by the respondents in adopted and control villages of Kurnool and Prakasam district were presented (Table 4). The farmers of Kurnool district in adopted and control villages followed poor crop rotation practices as 98% and 00% of them sow the crop once in every year. But some of them indicated that the land during kharif is kept vacant (fallow).in Prakasam district 9% farmers grow chickpea every year without any crop rotation, but in adopted villages about 4.96% of farmers grow chickpea in every two years. Cropping sequence It is further supported by information furnished in Table 42 where the crops grown before and after the chickpea are presented. Very few farmers in Kurnool ranging from. to 4.44% of the total respondents only grow crops like cotton, jowar and tobacco during kharif and more than 70% of the farmers grow chickpea sole crop or chickpea with jowar etc, similarly in Prakasam district also less than 2% farmers grow other crops like tobacco black gram, chillies and paddy. More than 50% of farmer s want to continue chickpea every rabi. So this indicates the attitude of the farmers that once they are convinced with the performance of a crop they want to continue chickpea to get continued stable higher income. It is evident because of mono cropping pest complex increases in long run affecting the yields. 9

20 Change in area of chickpea in last five years Chickpea area cultivated by the respondents in terms of area expansion and decrease if any are discussed from Table 43. Chickpea is on area expansion trend as indicated by 60% and 46.67% of the farmers in Kurnool adopted and control villages. Among the total respondents, 3.% and 48.89% farmers are constantly maintaining the area under chickpea. But in Prakasam district 34.44% and 35.56% of the farmer s area under chickpea is increasing. About 64.45% and 62.22% of farmers reported that they are maintaining the area under chickpea at constant level. It can be inferred that the scope for area expansion is more in Kurnool than in Prakasam. It seems the area has reached to a peak in Prakasam district. Never the less, the area under similar farming situations may soon be converted into chickpea in the surrounding area of the study area. The crops replaced were tobacco sunflower and groundnut as per 97%, 55% and 27% in Kurnool and 74%, 49% and 34% Prakasam respondents. Cropping system followed by chickpea farmers As presented in Table 45 chickpea total area is reported as a sole/pure crop in both the districts Kurnool and Prakasam unlike pigeon pea which is grown as inter crop with sorghum. Chickpea is grown as rainfed crop and as an irrigated crop in black and red soils. Maximum area under chickpea cultivation Annigeri is a variety which ranged in average area of 3.2 to 7.56 acres in Kurnool, but has less average area from 2.2 to 4.25 acres per household comparatively, in Prakasam. This substantiates the facts shown by area under different varieties showing that Annigeri is not a variety preferred any more, particularly in Prakasam. (KAK-2) Kabuli variety is preferred in Prakasam and suitable to soil and market needs. The other variety JG- is equally preferred in both districts, ranged from 5.7 and 7.5 acres in Kurnool and from 7.2 to 7.54 acres in Prakasam. So the traits of JG - are important to be used in the on going breeding research of chickpea for releasing new varieties (Table 46). Yield of Chickpea in best, good and bad years Average yield in a bad year was 393 Kg/ac in Kurnool and almost double ie, 579 Kg/ac in Prakasam. Similarly in a good year in Kurnool chickpea yielded 759 Kg/ac and in Prakasam about 985 Kg/ac. The best yield recorded in Kurnool was 764Kg/ac and

21 Kg/ac in Prakasam. The yields recorded in Prakasam district are quite higher when compared to Kurnool due to fertile black cotton soils and better management practices adopted by farmers. Chickpea cultivars grown in the last three years The varieties of chickpea grown during the previous three years from JG- was grown in 6.64 during ( ) to 7.5 ( ) acres per household during and Annigeri increased from 6.92 to 7.56 acres during last three years. But Kabuli area declined from 5 to 2.5 acres during the last three years (Table 48). In Prakasam Kabuli (KAK-2) increased from 5.23 to 7.62 acres during last three years and JG- remained almost constant in terms of area expansion. Annigeri variety also remained the same in terms of average area sown per household. Peak year of adoption of chickpea The peak area of adoption was and peak area reached to.52 acres in Kurnool and to 0.94 acres in Prakasam per house hold. The farmers started growing chickpea during in Kurnool and during in Prakasam (Table 49). Steps followed for seed selection by chickpea growers Among the various steps followed for selecting seeds from own crop, separating good seed after harvest is done by 38.8% and only 2.2% properly follow drying but 72% of farmers store the seed in clean bags. Prakasam farmers also exhibited similar pattern and are not following the required steps to select own seed. Farmers can be trained on seed production and seed village programme can be made a part of the seed delivery system. House hold storage of seed Seed is stored in gunny bags (37 respondents), store rooms(8) and in under ground storage structures(5) in Kurnool and gunny bags(45) and store rooms(8 members) are utilised for storing seed in Prakasam (Table 5). Factors considered for purchase of seed The criteria considered by farmers for purchasing seed from external source are explored and many farmers in Kurnool responded that certification and price (96 responses) followed by potential yield (89 responses), price of the seed (73 responses) were important 2

22 for them. Whenever seed is purchased certification and brand name are considered as first priority (74 responses) in Prakasam district. It can be inferred from Table 52 that there is awareness about certification and branding in both districts and farmers felt that quality seed is not available to them. An effective seed distribution net work to produce and supply certified seed to ensure good quality seed through public research institutions and seed corporation is desired to ensure reasonable seed prices. Constraints for seed purchase For ascertaining the constraints faced by farmers Garrett scores are worked to identify the major constraints with respect to the purchase of seed are presented in Table 53. The analysis of data revealed that three major constraints spelt out by Kurnool farmers are, lack of information about good seed (57.56%), need to travel long distance to get good seed (56.62%) and non availability of good quality seed (52.98%).In the district of Prakasam again the major constraints are the same with a slight change in order, long distances (57.98%), lack of information (55.8%) and non availability of quality seed (53.2%). So farmers realise the need for quality seed and they neither have proper information on quality seed nor access to it. So the efforts needed to popularise a suitable variety not only depends on information provided through effective communication but also on making the good quality seed available at a distance accessible to the farmer. Major pests and diseases affecting chickpea Major pests attacked were pod borer (59% and 43%) and spodoptera and disease attacking the crop was root wilt (92% and 45%) in Kurnool and Prakasam districts (Table 54). The JG- is supposed to be wilt resistant variety and still farmers reported incidence of wilt, seed purity may be a problem for this which needs to be explored further. Frequency of occurrence and yield loss by pests and diseases Loss occurred due to helicoverpa ranged from 8.3% to 0.83% in terms of area affected in Kurnool and Prakasam (Table 55).Much yield loss was not found as the plant protection measures are taken up immediately. The frequency of occurrence of pod borer (helicoverpa) was high compared to spodotera in Kurnool and Prakasam districts), even though wilt has been reported by many farmers frequency of occurrence was low but the yield loss was ranging from 4.4% to 6.6%. There is a need to address the problem of wilt to minimise the economic loss. 22

23 Are the pest and disease problems increase over time? In general about the increase in pest and disease problem 6% of the farmers in Kurnool and 74% of the Prakasam said that the magnitude of the problem is increasing every year and rest of the farmers expressed that they could manage the pests and diseases. (Table 56) Causes for increased incidence of pests and diseases The ranks given by the respondents for causes for increased pest incidence were analysed to compute Garrett scores and presented in (Table 57). Majority of farmers were of the opinion that they are not following Integrated pest and disease management (8.25), the second was growing alternate hosts (59), then the weather related reasons (45.83) and growing susceptible varieties (50) which increase pests and diseases in Kurnool. This indicates that farmers in this area already got some exposure to integrated pest management and they are not able to practice this. In Prakasam district the farmers responded similar. Measure for controlling the pests and diseases Measures adopted in controlling the pests as per the Garrett scores indicated in Table 58, show that majority of the farmers rely on chemical control (4.86) and altering the sowing time (38.86) for the control of pests, where as for controlling the diseases, sowing time is altered (53.43) as a strategy and then second option would be chemical control (45) in Kurnool. Prakasam district farmers felt that the Altering the sowing time and integrated pest management (IPM) were options for pest control. IDM and altering the sowing time were options for diseases control. There is clear gap in the scientific control and farmers practice which reemphasise the holistic approach in training the farmers from seed to seed. Sources of information about pests and diseases on control measures Main sources of information for pest and disease control on when to apply, what to apply, quantity of use and method of application along with Garrett scores worked out and presented in Table 59. In Kurnool the information on time of pesticide application was obtained from fellow farmers (60%) and research institute (60%) but information on type of pesticide to be used was mainly obtained from input suppliers (59%) and farmers (59%). In Prakasam Input supplier (64%), Agricultural magazines (57%) and farmers (47%) were main 23

24 sources of information for when to apply and what type of pesticide to be applied. In Kurnool and Prakasam again farmers are the main source of information on how much quantity of pesticide to be used and how to mix the pesticide shown by Garrett scores 59%, 66% 58% and 68% respectively. The research Institutes and others were third and fourth sources of information. The confidence on farmers and input dealers was more than public research institutions, so farmers used farmers as a good source of information. Constraints in the cultivars of chickpea The major constraints in the existing cultivars as expressed by the farmers were as per the Garrett scores shown that low yield (6.5%), small grain size (52.2%), poor taste(50.2%) and high pest incidence (49.6%) were major problems with Annigeri variety in Kurnool, low yield (65.7%), long duration(6.%), small grain size( 58.%) and high pest incidence (45%) were major constraints for Annigeri in Prakasam. JG- variety has constraints like poor taste(57%), low yield(56.2%), poor colour(55.2%) and high pest incidence (53.8%) in Kurnool and Poor colour (69.8%), small grain size(60.7%), poor taste(58%) and low yield (5.8%) in Prakasam. Though Kabuli varieties are grown in negligible area in Kurnool the constraints spelt were low yields (70%), low recovery on shelling (50%) and high disease incidence (50%) and in Prakasam KAK-2 (Kabuli) cultivar has constraints like low yield (68.3%), long duration (55.6%), grain size (55.3%), high pest incidence (47.9%) and high disease incidence (47.6%) (Table 60). Preferred traits for production in cultivars for chickpea Having observed the constraints in all the existing varieties the preferences for in the same cultivars were presented in Table 6. In Kurnool Annigeri variety is preferred with high yield (63.44%), drought resistance ( 48.9%), short duration (45.73%) and pest resistance (4.32%).Prakasam farmers also preferred high yield (68.7%), short duration (58.59%), drought resistance (54.7%) and pest resistance (40.89%) for Annigeri. For JG - variety in Kurnool short duration (70.75%) was the first preferred trait, high yield (6.2%) and drought resistance (5.86%) were the next preferences. In Prakasam district preferred traits for JG- variety were high yield (67.5%), short duration ( 62.8%), drought resistance ( 5.%) and pest resistance(39.2%).similarly Cog -2 variety was preferred with traits such as high yield (66.97%), short duration (59%), drought resistance (49.35%) and pest resistance (43.23%) by the Prakasam district farmers. Kurnool farmers also responded for KAK-2 variety that high yield, (70%) and disease resistance (50%) were first and second preferences. 24