Resource use efficiency in organic and inorganic cashew production

Transcription

1 Internationl Research Journal of Agricultural Economics and Statistics Volume 3 Issue 2 September, Research Paper Resource use efficiency in organic and inorganic cashew production A.S. SHETYE, J.M. TALATHI, V.G. NAIK, S.R. TORANE AND S.A.WAGALE See end of the paper for authors affiliations Correspondence to : J.M. TALATHI Department of Agricultural Economics, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, RATNAGIRI (M.S.) INDIA talathijeevan@ gmail.com Paper History : Received : ; Revised : ; Accepted: ABSTRACT : From the production function analysis it was revealed that, in case of inorganic cashew the elasticity coefficient for area(x 1 ) was positive and found statistically significant at 1 per cent level of probability. Whereas, the elasticity coefficients for K(X 7 ) and N(X 5 ) were positive and found statistically significant at 5 per cent and 10 per cent level of probability, respectively The value of coefficient of multiple determination (R 2 ) was indicating that per cent variation in cashew production was explained by variables included in the function. The return to scale was found constant (Σbi=1.003). In case of organic cashew, the elasticity coefficient for area(x 1 ) was positive and found statistically significant at 1 per cent level of probability. The value of coefficient of multiple determination (R 2 ) was indicating that per cent variation in cashew production was explained by variables included in the function. The applied t test indicated that the value of Σbi (1.306) was significant at 5 per cent level. It showed that increasing returns to scale have prevailed in organic cashew. Allocative resource use efficiency across inorganic and organic cashew s of cashew revealed that cashew growers have to be given adequate technical knowledge for resource management and proper use of resources mainly critical inputs. KEY WORDS : Cashew production, Physical input use, Resource use efficiency, Allocative efficiency HOW TO CITE THIS PAPER : Shetye, A.S., Talathi, J.M., Naik, V.G., Torane, S.R. and Wagale, S.A. (2012). Resource use efficiency in organic and inorganic cashew production, Internat. Res. J. agric. Eco. & Stat., 3 (2) : INTRODUCTION There are two aspects of cashew nut cultivation viz., organic and inorganic. Now a days, to promote export of cashew kernels and to protect the environment, soil fertility and soil health organic cashew nut cultivation practices are gaining more importance than inorganic cashew nut cultivation practices. Mostly cashew nut is grown under organic farming system with partial utilization of naturally decomposed material. Organic farming describes three major aspects : Substitution of chemical fertilizers by organic manures and organic materials. Use of biological pest control instead of chemical pesticides. Comprehensive management approach to improve soil fertility and sustain productivity. Eventhogh, the spread of cashewnut cultivation has been quite impressive in the state and concerted efforts are being made to increase the productivity through research. No efforts have been made to study the economic aspects of inorganic and organic cashew production.the present investigation was undertaken with specific objective to estimate the physical the importance, productivity and resource use efficiency and constraints in cashewnut production. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sindhudurg district was selected purposively for this study, wherein 200 cashew growers were found to be registered as organic cashew growers from Sawantwadi and Dodamarg Tahsils. From each Tahsil, 25 registered organic cashew were selected randomly. The equivalent number of inorganic cashew growers (using plant protection chemicals, chemical fertilizers, etc.) were selected randomly from the adjoining areas of each Tahsil. Hence, a total sample consisted of 100 cashew growers. The cashew growers were classified into two categories, on

2 A.S. SHETYE, J.M. TALATHI, V.G. NAIK, S.R. TORANE AND S.A.WAGALE the basis of type of viz., inorganic cashew and organic cashew. The data related to the agricultural year were collected by personal interviews with the cashew growers. Production function analysis: The CobbDouglas production function was employed to estimate the resource use efficiency in cashew nut production. The following CobbDouglas type function was used in the present study : Y = A. bi. e where, Y = Yield = Explanatory variables bi = Regression coefficient of respective variables. e = Error term. =1. Area in hectare 2. Age of (years) 3. Labour (man days) 4. Manures (quintal) 5. Nitrogen (kg) 6. Phosphorus (kg) 7. Potassium (kg) 8. Plant protection (Rs.) Marginal productivity: The following formulae were used for calculation of marginal physical product and marginal value product. Marginal physical product (M.P.P.): M.P.P. Xi = bi Y/Xi where, bi = Production elasticities of i th input Y = Geometric mean of output = Geometric mean of i th input. Marginal value product (M.V.P.): MVP Xi = MPP Xi price per unit of output. Marginal factor cost (M.F.C.): MFC = price per unit of the input. Allocative resource use efficiency: After estimating the MVP, the resource use efficiency of different resources were judged with the help of MVP to factor cost ratio as, MVP/MFC = 1 Optimum use of resource. MVP/MFC < 1 Excess utilization of resources. MVP/MFC > 1 Under utilization of resources. RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS The results obtained from the analysis of data are discussed in different subheads as under: Details of cashew : From Table 1 it is observed that, the average size of inorganic cashew was 3.47 ha while it was 3.03 ha in organic cashew. The average age of trees was higher in organic cashew. The per hectare number of trees were 231 and 224 in inorganic cashew and organic cashew, respectively. Table 1 : Details of cashew Particulars Inorganic cashew (N=50) Organic cashew (N=50) 1. Per farm area (ha.) Number of trees per farm Average age of trees (years) Number of trees per hectare Physical inputs utilization: Per hectare inputs utilized for inorganic and organic cashew are given in the Table 2. The type of manures used by the cashew growers included FYM, sheep manure, cow dung, etc. whereas, type of chemical fertilizers used include urea, single super phosphate and murate of potash, samrat, etc. Table 2 : Per hectare physical input utilization for cashew Inorganic cashew Organic cashew Inputs 1. Hired labour (days) Male Female Total 2. Family labour (days) Male Female Total 3. Total labour (days) (Hired + Family) Manures (q) Fertilizers (kg.) N P K Plant protection (lit) Weedicides (lit) 0.20 It is seen from Table 2 that, the per hectare inputs utilized for inorganic cashew were human days, q manures, kg N, kg P, kg K, 1.14 lit of plant 267 Internat. Res. J. agric. Eco.& Stat. 3(2) Sept., 2012:

3 RESOURCE USE EFFICIENCY IN ORGANIC & INORGANIC CASHEW PRODUCTION protection chemicals and 0.20 lit of weedicides. In case of organic cashew, per hectare inputs utilized were human days and q manures. The quantity of human labour was decreased in organic cashew as compared to inorganic cashew. It explained that, the per hectare quantities of physical inputs utilized in inorganic cashew were more than organic cashew. Functional analysis: The production function expressing per farm yield in kilogram as a function of different input (factors) used in the cashew nut production was estimated to know the resource use efficiency in cashew nut production. A CobbDouglas type production function was employed for inorganic and organic cashew, separately. The results of functional analysis are given in Table 3. Table 3 : Elasticity coefficients for selected variables Groups Variables Inorganic cashew Organic cashew 1. Intercept (1.015) (1.350) 2. X 1 Area (ha.) 0.846* (0.112) 1.026* (0.058) 3. X 2Age (years) (0.128) (0.133) 4. X 3 Labour (man days) (0.216) (0.259) 5. X 4 Manures (quintal) (0.009) (0.024) 6. X 5 N(kg.) 0.080*** (0.047) 7. X 6 P (kg.) (0.048) 8. X 7 K (kg.) 0.052** (0.023) 9. X 8 Plant protection (l) (0.088) 10. R square F value * * 12. Returns to scale (Σbi) ** Elasticity coefficients for selected variables: Inorganic cashew : The CobbDouglas type production function was found to be best fit to the present data as the value of coefficient of multiple determination (R 2 ) was and significant F value (183.15). The coefficient of multiple determination (R 2 ) indicated that per cent variation in cashew production which was explained by variables included in the function. The sum of production elasticity was indicating constant returns to scale however, it was statistically nonsignificant. It is also revealed from Table 3 that the elasticity coefficient for area (X 1 ) was positive and found statistically significant at 1 per cent level of probability. Whereas, the elasticity coefficients for K (X 7 ) and N (X 5 ) were positive and found statistically significant at 5 per cent and 10 per cent level of probability, respectively. The elasticity coefficients for labour (X 3 ), manures (X 4 ) and P (X 6 ) though positive but were found statistically nonsignificant indicating no significant effect of these variables on yield of cashew. Organic cashew : In case of organic cashew, the CobbDouglas type production function was also found to be best fit to the present data as the value of coefficient of multiple determination (R 2 ) was and statistically significant F value (160.87). The coefficient of multiple determination (R 2 ) indicated that per cent variation in cashew production was explained by variables included in the function. The sum of production elasticity was which was statistically significant at 5 per cent level. It showed that increasing returns to scale have prevailed in organic cashew. It is also revealed from Table 3 that, the elasticity coefficient for area (X 1 ) was positive and found statistically significant at 1 per cent level of probability. Whereas the elasticity coefficients for labour (X 3 ) and manures (X 4 ) though positive but were found statistically non significant indicating no significant effect of these variable on yield of cashew. Allocative efficiency: One of the objectives of the present study was to find out input productivity and efficiency of their use. For this purpose, geometric means of the input resources and estimates of total returns (g) at geometric mean levels of inputs ( ) were found out with the help of estimated production functions. Marginal value products of the selected variables were computed by multiplying the marginal physical product at geometric mean level with the per kilogram price of cashew nuts. Geometric mean levels of input resources are given in Table 4. The per unit cost of the factors was calculated and the ratio of marginal value product and marginal factor cost was worked out. Marginal value product and marginal factor cost for selected variables with respect to CobbDouglas production function for inorganic and organic cashew group are given in Table 4. Inorganic cashew : From Table 4, it is seen that, the marginal value product of variables like area, labour, manures, N, P and K were positive. The ratio of MVP/MFC (>1) in case of area, manures, N, P and K indicated that these resources were under utilized which underline the scope of expanding the use of these inputs. The expenditure on other variables like labour (man days) and plant protection need to be curtailed considering their excess utilization. The MVP/MFC ratio for noncash input variable like age of was not worked out. Organic cashew : From Table 4, it is seen that, the marginal value product of Internat. Res. J. agric. Eco. & Stat. 3(2) Sept., 2012:

4 A.S. SHETYE, J.M. TALATHI, V.G. NAIK, S.R. TORANE AND S.A.WAGALE Table 4 : Marginal value product and factor price in cashew Variables MPP MVP MVP/MFC Remarks Inorganic cashew 1. Area (ha.) Under utilization 2. Labour (man days) Excess utilization 3. Manures (quintal) Under utilization 4. N (kg.) Under utilization 5. P (kg.) Under utilization 6. K (kg.) Under utilization 7. Plant protection (l) Excess utilization Organic cashew 1. Area (ha.) Under utilization 2. Labour (man days) Under utilization 3. Manures (q) Excess utilization variables like area, labour and manures were positive. The ratio of MVP/MFC (>1) in case of area and labour indicated that, these resources were under utilized which underline the scope of expanding the use of these inputs. The expenditure on other variable like manure need to be curtailed considering their excess utilization. The MVP/MFC ratio for noncash input variable like age of was not worked out. This allocative resource use efficiency across inorganic and organic cashew s of cashew revealed that, cashew growers have to be given adequate technical knowledge for resource management and proper use of resources mainly critical inputs. The cashew growers can increase their profitability in cashew production by proper reallocation of resources. Constraints faced by the cashew growers: It is seen from Table 5 that important constraints as reported by inorganic cashew growers were inadequate availability of labour during production season (90.00%), nonavailability of labour in time (84.00%), no knowledge about recommended schedule of plant protection measures (64.00%), no knowledge about recommended doses of fertilizers (64.00%), no knowledge about different government schemes (56.00%), nonavailability of manures in time (52.00%), price received was not remunerative (42.00%) and problem regarding theft of nuts (38.00%). It is also seen from Table 5 that important constraints as reported by organic cashew growers were non availability of labour in time (86.00%), inadequate availability of labour during production season (82.00%), nonavailability of manures in Table 5 Constraints faced the by inorganic cashew growers Constraints 269 Inorganic cashew Internat. Res. J. agric. Eco.& Stat. 3(2) Sept., 2012: Frequency Severe Moderate Low 1. Inadequate availability of labour during production season (90.00) 2. Non availability of labour in time (84.00) 3. No knowledge about recommended schedule of plant protection measures (64.00) 4. No knowledge about recommended doses of fertilizers (64.00) 5. No knowledge about different government schemes (56.00) 6. Non availability of manures in time (52.00) 7. Price received was not remunerative (42.00) 8. Problem regarding theft of nuts (38.00) Organic cashew 9. Non availability of labour in time (86.00) 10. Inadequate availability of labour during production season (82.00) 11. Non availability of manures in time (74.00) 12. Price received was not remunerative (58.00) 13. No knowledge about different government schemes (46.00) 14. Problem regarding theft of nuts (34.00) Overall

5 RESOURCE USE EFFICIENCY IN ORGANIC & INORGANIC CASHEW PRODUCTION time (74.00%), price received was not remunerative (58.00%), no knowledge about different government schemes (46.00%) and problem regarding theft of nuts (34.00%) However, in both the groups, the common problem faced by more than 80 per cent cashew growers were inadequate availability of labour during production season and nonavailability of labour in time. Yadukumar et al. (2003) made some information on the protection on economics of cashew plantations. Hugar et al. (2008) worked on the productivity difference between Bt and nonbt cotton farms in Karnataka state which on the pattern of the present investigation. Authors affiliations: A.S. SHETYE, V.G. NAIK, S.R. TORANIE AND S.A. WAGALE, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, RATANAGIRI (M.S.) INDIA LITERATURE CITED Hiremath, G. Ms., Sastry, K.N.R., Hiremath, Nalawadi, V. G., and Sundarswamy, B. (1994). Resource use efficiency in lime s. Agril Banker, 18 (2):1416. Hugar, L.B., Amrutha, C.P. and Patil, B.V. (2008). Productivity difference between Bt and non Bt cotton farms in Karnataka state, India. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22 (2): Mandape, R. R. (2009). Resource use efficiency in mango production in Ratnagiri district (Maharashtra state). M. Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, Ratnagiri, M.S. (INDIA). Yadukumar, N., Swamy, K. R. M. and Late Bhaskara, Rao, E. V. V. (2003). Projection on economics of cashew plantations. Cashew, 17 (3):616. * * * * * * * * Internat. Res. J. agric. Eco. & Stat. 3(2) Sept., 2012: