International Journal of Commerce and Business Management. Volume 8 Issue 2 October, RESEARCH PAPER

Transcription

1 IJCBM e ISSN International Journal of Commerce and Business Management Volume 8 Issue 2 October, DOI: /HAS/IJCBM/8.2/ Visit us : RESEARCH PAPER Economics of maize production in Haveri district SHILPA P. CHOWTI AND H. BASAVARAJA ABSTRACT The present study was conducted in Haveri district of Karnataka state. The required primary data was collected from sample farmers through personal interview method with the help of pre-tested and well structured schedule. The study attempted to examine the cost and returns structure in major maize hybrids. A sample of 120 farmers from Haveri district was selected through multistage stage random sampling technique. Per hectare cost of cultivation was slightly more in NK-6240 (Rs. 37,494) compared to CP-818 (Rs. 34,369) and Sunny (Rs. 36,120) with a respective benefit cost ratio of 1.88, 1.79 and In the study area cultivation of CP-818 was found to be profitable than other two hybrids. In Kharif season, per hectare cost of maize (Rs. 35,716) was high (Rs. 35,716) compared to Rabi (Rs. 30,157) but the benefit cost ratio was more in Rabi (2.28) than in Kharif (1.80). KEY WORDS : Maize hybrids, Cost of cultivation, Season wise Received : ; Revised : ; Accepted : How to cite this paper : Chowti, Shilpa P. and Basavaraja, H. (2015). Economics of maize production in Haveri district. Internat. J. Com. & Bus. Manage, 8(2) : Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important cereal crops of the world and provides more human food than any other cereal. It assumes an important role next to rice and wheat in the farming sector and macro-economy of the agrarian countries. It ranks third next to wheat and rice in the world with respect to area, while its productivity surpasses all other cereal crops. Maize is a rich source of starch (60-80%), proteins (8-12%), fat (3-5%) and minerals (1-2%) (Badal and Singh, 2000). It is grown in more than 70 countries of the world. The major maize growing countries are MEMBERS OF THE RESEARCH FORUM Correspondence to: SHILPA P. CHOWTI, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, DHARWAD (KARNATAKA) INDIA agrichoutishilpa@gmail.com Authors affiliations: H. BASAVARAJA, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, DHARWAD (KARNATAKA) INDIA USA, China, Brazil, Mexico, France, India, Argentina and Indonesia. During ; maize was cultivated in 168 million hectares leading to a production of million tones globally which is 21 per cent and 43 per cent higher in area and production compared to Modern agriculture technology has helped tremendously in increasing food production in India and other parts of the world. The spread of modern high yielding varieties was most important part of this technology. This high pay off input model introduced in Indian agriculture sector in late 1960s was a success story in their effects on the production of superior cereals like rice and wheat. Green revolution is one of the mile stone in Indian Agriculture. The introduction of highyielding varieties of seeds and the increased use of chemical fertilizers and irrigation are collectively known as the green revolution, which provided the increase in production needed to make India self-sufficient in food

2 SHILPA P. CHOWTI AND H. BASAVARAJA grains. The methods adopted include the use of high yielding varieties (HYV) of seeds. The crop breeders evolved cultivars of maize, wheat and rice that are generally referred to as high-yielding varieties (HYVs). HYVs significantly outperformed traditional varieties in the presence of adequate irrigation, pesticides and fertilizers. Currently in India, maize is grown on an area of 8.17 million hectares with production and productivity being million tonnes and 2.4 tonnes per hectare, respectively. India ranks sixth in global maize production, contributing to 2.4 per cent of world production with almost 5 per cent share in world harvested area. Karnataka produced 4.4 million tonnes of maize from 1.3 million hectares. Haveri district contributes per cent of total maize area in Karnataka. Maize is utilized domestically for poultry and cattle feed, food, manufacturing of starch and other industrial purposes (Kalankar, 2004). In the last few years, good quantity of maize is also being exported to different countries. In recent years, maize is gaining popularity among the farmers (Damte et al., 2003) in Haveri district, because of choice of high yielding varieties and cultivability throughout the year. Farmers and agricultural policy makers have an interest in varietal/hybrid diversity because no single hybrid can completely resist or tolerate all potential stresses. Yield reduction from a particular stress may be low when there are more sources of stress tolerance. Varietal diversity may also reduce yield variability when pest infestations strike or bad weather occurs. Keeping all this in view, the study has been designed to analyze diversity in cultivation of maize hybrids in the Haveri district with following objectives : To estimate the cost and returns of major maize hybrids. To examine the cost and returns in the production of maize in different seasons. METHODOLOGY Haveri has been selected for the study as it is a major maize growing district (10.44% of total maize area) in Karnataka. In Karnataka, the area under maize cultivation during was 13,31,000 hectares and in Haveri district the area was 1,38,978 hectares. A multistage sampling procedure was adopted for selection of talukas, villages and sample farmers. Three talukas of Haveri district namely Hirekerur, Haveri and Ranebbenur were selected based on highest area under the crop and from each taluk, two villages based on highest area under maize were selected. From each village twenty farmers growing maize were selected randomly and thus, the total sample size was 120. For evaluating the objectives of the study, required primary data were collected from sample of 120 randomly selected farmers through personal interview method with the help of pre-tested and well structured schedule. The data collected pertained to the agricultural year The data collected was on general characteristics of farmers, land holding, assets, costs, returns, yields and maize hybrids. Analytical tools applied : For the purpose of achieving the objectives of the study, the data collected were subjected to the statistical analysis. Based on the nature and extent of availability of data, the following analytical tools and techniques have been adopted Tabular analysis : The technique of tabular presentation was used to assess the cost, returns and profits of maize crop in the study area. The percentage and averages were computed and compared to draw meaningful inferences. Budgeting technique : This technique was used to estimate the costs and returns in major maize hybrids and in different seasons. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION The results obtained from the present investigation as well as relevant discussion have been summarized under the following heads : Socio-economic characteristics of sample farmers: An understanding of general characteristics of sample respondents is expected to provide a bird eye view of the general features prevailing in the study area. Therefore, an attempt was made in the study to tabulate some of the important characteristics of the sample farmers. The general characteristics of maize growers are presented in Table 1. The average age of maize growers was 51 years and average family size was This might be due to the fact that, the youngsters were not involved in the agricultural professions as they were 219

3 ECONOMICS OF MAIZE PRODUCTION looking for jobs in more lucrative service sector. With regards to educational status, relatively higher proportion of growers had primary education (44.17%) and remaining per cent and per cent of respondents had secondary and above secondary education, respectively. The practice of subsidiary occupation was less among the growers, as only per cent of the farmers had subsidiary occupation like business. The average land holding was 4.42 hectares, of which, the rainfed and irrigated area was 3.08 hectares and 1.34 hectares, respectively. The average area under maize cultivation in study area was found to be 2.45 hectares (Table 1). Cropping pattern of sample respondents : Cropping pattern of sample farmers is given in Table 2. It was observed that, out of total gross cropped area, about per cent and per cent of area was used in Kharif and Rabi season, respectively for growing different crops. The study district falls in transitional zone Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of sample farmers (n=120) Sr. No. Particulars Unit Average Percentage 1. Age of the farmers Years Size of the family Number Education Illiteracy Number Primary Number Secondary Number Above secondary Number Main occupation Agriculture Number Subsidiary Number Land holding Hectares 4.42 Rainfed Hectares Irrigated Hectares Average area under maize Hectares Table 2: Cropping pattern of sample respondents (n=120) Season Crops Area (ha) Percentage Kharif Rabi Maize Cotton Paddy Sugar cane Jowar Tur Sub-total Maize Jowar Tomato Chilli Gram Seed production Sub-total Plantation crop Gross cropped area 9.04 Net cropped area 4.42 Cropping intensity

4 SHILPA P. CHOWTI AND H. BASAVARAJA and receives good manner of rainfall which permits the farmers to grow two crops in a year. Farmers have grown variety of crops in both seasons. However, it is to be noted that growing of variety of crops is an indication of protection against risk and uncertainty. It was observed that in both seasons the major crop grown by the sample farmers was maize. The crops like maize (16.81%), cotton (10.84%), sugar cane (5.09%), paddy (5.64%), jowar (4.87%) and tur (3.54 %) were grown in Kharif season. In Rabi season, the crops like maize (10.29%), jowar (5.09%), tomato (2.76%), chilli (2.99%) and gram (2.32%) were grown (Table 2). About 2.10 per cent of area was under the plantation crops. Gross cropped area and net cropped area was 9.04 ha and 4.42 ha, respectively. The cropping intensity was found to be high (204.52%) in the study area because the crops like sugarcane and plantations occupied land in all the three seasons and cotton occupied both Kharif and Rabi season. Hybrid wise costs and returns structure in maize cultivation : The profitability aspects of maize cultivation have been analyzed by computing per hectare costs and returns. The analysis was carried out hybrid wise by selecting three major hybrids based on number of farmers cultivating these hybrids and results are presented in Table 3. Of the 120 sample farmers as many as 54 (45%) farmers grew CP-818 and 26 (21.67%) have cultivated NK-6240 hybrid. Less than five per cent of the farmers Table 3 : Hybrid wise costs and returns structure in maize cultivation (Rs./ha) Sr. No. CP-818 (n=54) NK-6240 (n=26) Sunny (n=5) Particulars Cost Per cent Cost Per cent Cost Per cent 1. Variable cost Material cost Seed FYM Fertilizer Plant protection chemicals Labour cost Human labour Bullock pair Machine labour Interest on working capital Total variable cost Fixed cost Land revenue Depreciation Rental value on land Interest on fixed capital Total fixed cost Total cost of cultivation Returns Main product (q) By product (t) Value of main product (Rs.) Value of by product (Rs.) Gross returns (Rs.) Net returns (Rs.) B:C ratio

5 ECONOMICS OF MAIZE PRODUCTION cultivated Sunny hybrid. These three hybrids were considered for cost and returns analysis. The per hectare cost of cultivation was slightly more in NK-6240 compared to CP-818 and Sunny. This was due to the fact that, the farmers growing NK-6240 have used more quantity of inputs like fertilizers, seeds, labour and plant protection chemicals (Benecka and Chula, 1986). In CP- 818, the total cost of cultivation was Rs. 34,369 out of which the share of variable cost was highest (Rs. 27,245) accounting for per cent of the total cost of cultivation (Vinayakumar et al., 2008). Per hectare cost of cultivation of NK-6240 was Rs. 37,494 out of which the share of variable cost (Rs. 30,369) and fixed cost (Rs. 7125) was 81 per cent and 19 per cent, respectively. Similarly, the total cost of cultivation of Sunny was Rs. 36,120 per hectare of which per cent (Rs. 28,995) was variable cost and remaining per cent (Rs. 7125) was fixed cost (Sridar, 2008). Among the operational cost, expenditure on human labour shared the highest per cent cost in all the three hybrids (Monlruzzaman et al., 2009). The gross return from CP-818 was Rs. 61,531 which was less than the gross return from NK-6240 (Rs. 70,512) and Sunny (Rs. 66,254). Benefit cost ratio was 1.79 in CP-818, 1.88 in NK-6240 and 1.83 in Sunny indicated that all three hybrids were financially feasible but NK has brought more returns compared to CP-818 and Sunny. Similar results were observed in the study conducted by Nagaraj (2002) who reported that, the benefit cost ratio in maize cultivation was 1.84 which indicated profitability of growing maize. Costs and returns structure in Kharif and Rabi maize production : The season-wise cost and return structure in maize cultivation in study area is given in Table 4. Results Table 4 : Costs and returns structure in Kharif and Rabi maize production (Rs./ha) Sr. No. Particulars Kharif (n=120) Rabi (n=82) Cost Per cent Cost Per cent 1. Variable cost Material cost Seed FYM Fertilizers Plant protection chemicals Labour cost Human labour Bullock pair Machine labour Irrigation charges Interest on working capital Total variable cost Fixed cost Land revenue Depreciation Rental value on land Interest on fixed capital Total fixed cost Total cost of cultivation Returns Main product (q) By product (t) Value of main product (Rs.) Value of by product (Rs.) Gross returns (Rs.) Net returns (Rs.) B:C ratio

6 SHILPA P. CHOWTI AND H. BASAVARAJA showed that, per hectare cost for maize in Kharif season was high compared to Rabi. This was mainly due to use of more quantity of both material and labour resources in Kharif season. The money spent on land preparation, manures, fertilizers and plant protection chemicals were more in Kharif than in Rabi because the land preparation involved more bullock labour and machine labour and further, the attack of pest and diseases were slightly more. Hence farmers tend to spend more on these resources during Kharif season than in Rabi season in maize cultivation. The total cost of cultivation for Kharif maize was Rs. 35,716 per hectare of which per cent was variable cost and remaining per cent was fixed cost. The total cost of cultivation of Rabi maize was Rs. 30,157 per hectare of which per cent was variable cost and per cent was fixed cost. The per hectare maize output obtained in Kharif and Rabi maize was found to be quintals and quintals, respectively. The net return was Rs. 28,496 for Kharif maize and Rs. 38,642 for Rabi maize. The benefit per rupee spent in maize cultivation was Rs.1.80 and Rs. 2.28, respectively for Kharif and Rabi maize (Jaiswal and Hugar, 2011). It may be noted that maize output obtained during Rabi season was higher than those obtained during Rabi season. This was mainly due to less incidence of pest and diseases, timely irrigation and weed infestation was less. This has resulted in better net returns to farmers during Rabi season. The major constraint in Rabi maize cultivation was irrigation facility thus, out of 120 farmers only 82 respondents having irrigation facility have cultivated maize in Rabi season. Conclusion : Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important cereal crops of the world and provides more human food than any other cereal. It assumes an important role next to rice and wheat in the farming sector and macroeconomy of the agrarian countries. The present study has concluded that, the cost and returns varies across different maize hybrids. The per hectare cost of cultivation for CP-818 was Rs. 34,369 against Rs. 36,120 in Sunny and Rs. 37,494 in NK This was due to the fact that, the farmers growing NK-6240 have used more quantity of inputs like fertilizers, seeds, labour and plant protection chemicals. The cost of cultivation for one hectare of maize was more in Kharif season (Rs. 35,716) than in Rabi season (Rs. 30,157), this is because of use of more quantity of both material and labour resources in Kharif season. REFERENCES 8t h Year of Excellence Anonymous (2002). Comparison of cost and reterns per hectare of moong, gram, maize, wheat, mustard and cotton. Agric, Situ-India, 24 (2) : Badal, P.S. and Singh, R.P. (2000). Resource productivity and allocative efficiency in maize production in Bihar. Agric. Situ. India,40 : Benecka, G. and Chula, M. (1986). Economic analysis of grain maize production. World Agric. Econ. Rural Sociological Abs., 29(3): 188. Chahal, P. and Kataria, S.S. (2005), Technology adoption and cost return aspects of maize cultivation in Punjab. Indian J. Agri. Econ.,62(4): Damte, S., Singh, B. and Singh, J. (2003). Changes in costs and returns of major crops in Punjab. Agric. Situ. India., 60 (6): Hasan, F.M. (2008). Economic efficiency and constraints of maize production in the Northern region of Bangladesh. J. Innov. Dev. Strategy.,2(1): Jaiswal, Akit and Hugar, L.B. (2011), An economic analysis of soybean cultivation vis-à-vis its competing crops in Madhya Pradesh. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 24(4): Kalankar (2004). An economic analysis of maize production in Maharastra. Agric. Situ. India., 40(7): Monlruzzaman, Rahman, M.S., Karim, M.K. and Alam, Q.M. (2009). An economic analysis of maize production in Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agril. Res., 34(1): Nagaraj, K. (2002). Production and price behaviour of maize in Karnataka-An economic analysis. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, KARNATAKA (INDIA). Sridar, S. (2008). Contract farming in maize an economic analysis. M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, KARNATAKA (INDIA). Vinayakumar, B.K., Karnool, N.N., Kunnal, L.B., Basavaraj, H. and Kulkarni, V. (2008). Cost of production of rice and maize in world trade organization era of Karnataka. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 21(2):