AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHADE NET CULTIVATION IN ...MANAGEMENT COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE FACULTY OF...

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHADE NET CULTIVATION

IN CHHATTISHGARH PLAIN

M.B.A. (ABM) Project Report

By

SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-BUSINESS AND RURAL

MANAGEMENT

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE

INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

RAIPUR (C. G.)

2017

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHADE NET CULTIVATION

IN CHHATTISHGARH PLAIN

PROJECT REPORT

Submitted to

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.)

by

SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR

THE DEGREE OF

Master of Business Administration

in

Agri-Business and Rural Management

V.V.ID.NO. 20151622633 ID No. 120115219

2017

Scanned by CamScanner

1

CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Back ground

Protected cultivation means some level of control over plant

microclimate to alleviate one or more of abiotic stress for optimum plant

growth which can be achieved in poly house/net house. Crop yield can be several

times higher than those under open field conditions , quantity of produce is

superior , higher input use efficiencies are achieved. Net house and poly house

technology has been recommended for the cultivation of different vegetables.

Production of vegetables involves protection of production stage of vegetable

mainly from adverse environment conditions such as temperature, hails, scorching,

sun, heavy rains, snow and frost (Singh et al 1999).

The production of off season vegetables crops under net house conditions

was evaluated for total yield earliness and other character and incidence of insect

pest (Chema et al 2004). The cultivation of vegetables in net house can play a

better role in improving quality, advancing maturity as well as increasing fruiting

span and productivity cultivation of capsicum, brinjal and tomato is recommended

in net house. Protected cultivation technologies are being utilized all over the

world but the level and extent of their use may be different among different

countries. Therefore, it is necessary to know the status of protected structures and

the crop being grown there.

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiyana has developed net house

technology for the vegetables cultivation. It reduce the dependence on environment

and has capacity not only to increase the productivity of vegetables by many folds

but also improve the quality of vegetables by reducing the use of insecticides and

pesticides. The effect of chemical and pesticide use is more harmful in vegetables

as compared to other non-food crops. In recent years increasing attention has been

focused on several environmentally safe methods of pest management. Including

net house cultivation to reduce pesticide use mainly because of growing concern

2

over food safety issues and environment awareness.

Shade net house is a framed structure made of materials such as GI pipes,

angle iron, wood or bamboo. It is covered with plastics net (Nets are made of

100% Polyethylene hread with specialised UV treatment) having different shade

percentages. It provides partially controlled atmosphere and environment by

reducing light intensity and effective heat during day time to crops grown under it.

Hence round the year seasonal and off-season cultivation is possible. (Chakraborty,

H and Sethi, L N 2015)

Agriculture in India has changed significantly in recent years. For instance,

the area under rice in India has declined by 1.09 million ha during 2000-2007

(Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2007), while the area under vegetables

has increased by 1.07 million ha during 2002-2006 (National Horticultural Board,

2006). A similar trend is occurring in several Indian states, including Punjab. The

area under vegetables increased to 152,100 ha in 2005-2006 from 54,612 ha in

1990-91 (National Horticultural Board, 2006; Punjab Government, 2009).

Growing vegetable demand could be achieved through bringing additional area

under cultivation crops, using hybrid crops, and adoption of improved agro-

techniques. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) belongs to solanaceae family

is one of the most popular and nutritious vegetable crops grown all over the in

India. This vegetable extensively grown in Andra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya

Pradesh, Odisha and Gujarat. Presently, tomato grown in area of 879 thousands

hectare with the production of 18226 thousands MT (National Horticultural Board,

2013). Protected cultivation of vegetables could be used to improve yield quantity

and quality (Singh et al., 1999; Ganesan, 2004; Shahak et al.). Tomato can be

grown in both season (winter and summer) at Punjab but, the extreme low and

extreme higher temperature of semi-arid region of Punjab suffer with low fruit set

and inferior fruit quality. Tomato grown under field conditions is exposed to

abiotic and biotic stress which affects productivity and quality. Protected

cultivation has the potential to reduce biotic and abiotic stresses. A shade net house

can modify environmental conditions with reduced labour. In northern India

particularly at semi-arid region the summer season is from April to July and the

rainy season is from July to October (Ramesh and Arumugam, 2010). Winter is

3

from November to February. Protected cultivation could possibly extend the

growing season. Protected cultivation of vegetable crops suitable for domestic and

export purposes could be a more efficient alternative for land use and other

resources (Sanwal et al., 2004)

However, profitability in protected cultivation depends upon the choice of

structure, selection of crop etc. The protected cultivation could solve the problem

of low productivity during extreme weather conditions. Therefore, in the present

scenario of perpetual demand for vegetables and drastically shrinking land

holdings, protected cultivation of tomato vegetable crops suitable for domestic as

well as export purposes is the best alternative for using land and other resources

more efficiently (Sanwal et al., 2004). To date, there is not much work available on

shade net cultivation of tomato vegetables. There is an urgent need to assess the

cultivation and suitability of different vegetables under shade net house to meet the

growing demand of the vegetables. Thus, the investigation was aimed to determine

the efficacy of shade net cultivation compared to open field on growth, yield of

tomato during summer and winter season. Protected agriculture has expanded now

days to help improve agricultural productivity. The shade net houses commonly

used as protected cultivation are designed for temperate or moderately warm

regions. These design need to be upgraded with climate control to overcome

overheating in summer and overcooling in winter when used in warm, arid regions.

The greenhouse climate is dictated by the soil inside the greenhouse, which

constitutes the major thermal mass the „greenhouse‟ effect itself, which can be

controlled mainly by ventilation in most greenhouses; the crop‟s transpiration,

which has a dominant effect on temperature and vapor-pressure deficit. Structures

commonly used in the region are small (low and small volume) and have

inappropriate roof-slopes (reducing light transmission); taller structures with

appropriate roofs would improve light transmission, ventilation, inertia against

external climatic variations, and drainage of condensation. Some studies under

different types of shade net house have been carried out for growing of nursery as

well as for production of some important medicinal plants and cut flower etc. in

hilly regions of India. But scanty information is available on such type of wooden

4

framed structure, which may be utilized for round year cultivation of tomato in

semi-arid region.

1.2 Shade Net House

Shade nets are available in different shade percentages or shade factor i.e.

15%, 35%, 40%, 50% 75% and 90% (for example 35% shade factor means - the

net will cut 35% of light intensity and would allow only 65% of light intensity to

pass through the net).

1.3 How dose Shade Net Work

Each plant has its individual requirements for sunlight and shade under

which it flourishes at its best. To create optimum climatic conditions, selection of

the correct percentage of shade factor plays an important role to enhance plant's

productivity to its optimum.

1.4 Justification of the study

In India, the small size of farms is striking feature of farming. This creates

difficulties in introducing better methods of production and marketing. The

successful major crops under shade net cultivation growing require specific

knowledge, skill, accuracy and thoroughness in production and marketing.

Production of major crops under shade net cultivation plays an important role in

improving the economic conditions of farmers. A study of the major crops under

shade net cultivation marketing is necessary to improve the marketing system to

aid development and provide efficient services in transfer of farm produce and

input from producers to consumers. An efficient marketing system minimizes cost

and benefits in all sections of society. Looking to above facts, a study is essential

to understand through which is detailed insight can be obtained to identify the “an

economic analysis of shade net cultivation of Chhattisgarh Plains” with the

following specific objectives :

1.5 Objectives:

1. To work out the cost and return of major crops grown in shade net

cultivation.

5

2. To examine marketing pattern of major crops grown in Shade net

cultivation.

3. To identified the constraints of Shade net cultivation and suggest measures

for improvement of the same.

1.6 Limitations of the study:

During the course of investigation several difficulties were faced in the

collection of data from cultivators. The cultivators generally did not maintain any

farm records and supply data on the basis of their memory, which may not be very

correct. During the course of investigation several difficulties occurred in the

collection of data from the cultivators of major crops grown in shade net

cultivation, as some of the details of cultivation, production, cost and return of

major crops grown in shade net cultivation, marketing pattern of major crops

grown in shade net cultivation are not properly maintained through records but on

their memory basis, which may not be appropriately or absolutely correct. Low

level of education and knowledge of the respondents also added to the problems.

The business of some of the respondents were also problematic for the study, as

some deliberately told high expenditure and low income and capital, however

cross checking with theirs literate neighbors was done to arrive at the most correct

information.

1.7 Setup of the study:

This thesis has been divided into five chapters including the present chapter

which consists of introduction and objectives of the study. A review of literature of

work done in the past is given in Chapter II, Chapter-III deals with material and

methods. The results and discussion are presented in Chapter IV and Chapter V

includes summary, conclusion and suggestions for future research work.

6

CHAPTER- II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this chapter, an attempt has been made to review of pertinent literature keeping

in view the problem entitled, “An economic analysis of shade net cultivation in

Chhattisgarh plains”. A brief account of the work reported by the past researchers

has been discussed:

2.1 A brief resume of work done in Chhattisgarh, India and

abroad:-

Singh and Vishist (1999) made an attempt to examine the input output

relationship, relative profitability and the existing marketing system of major

vegetable crops. Two stage random sampling technique was used to select the

sample of vegetable growers. A sample of 60 vegetable growers proportionally

allocated to villages was selected. Cobb Douglas production function was used to

study the input-output relationships. Results revealed that tomato was the most

profitable crop in kharif season and cauliflower in rabi season. It further showed

that producers‟ share in terms of consumers' rupee was very low due to market

intermediaries. It was found that major hurdles in the production of vegetables

were lack of technical know-how and natural calamities.

Singh et al. (2002) Conducted a study on suitable technology for peri-urban

areas of northern India. Protected cultivation of vegetables provides the best way

to increase the productivity and quality of vegetable especially cucurbits. The yield

of some cucurbits like cucumber can be increased manifold compared to open field

cultivation. Normally the economics of protected cultivation directly depends upon

the initial cost of fabrication of the protected structure, its running cost and the

variable market for the high quality produce. Therefore, low cost protected

structure, which can generally be fabricated just like naturally ventilated green

houses, walk in tunnels and plastic low tunnels are very suitable for off- season

cultivation of vegetables and highly economical for peri-urban areas of northern

7

plains of India.

Kumar and Singh(2002) studied the problems of vegetable production in

Bharatpur district of Rajsthan and reported that the vegetable growers faced the

problems such as non- availability of inputs at right time poor and sufficient

quality of inputs, non-availability of desired tomato varieties in the market high

cost of inputs, lack of knowledge about the correct method of their use and non-

availability of subsidy. The further pointed out that these problems discouraged the

vegetable growers to give boost to vegetable farming. They suggested that

extensive demonstration of improved and high yielding varieties of vegetable crops

should be given, definite provisions should be made for timely supply of crucial

inputs at reasonable price and inadequate quality to sustain vegetable production

on profitable basis.

Naik (2005) reported that among three growing conditions namely medium

cost polyhouse, low cost polyhouse and net house, the medium cost polyhouse

recorded higher yield. The favourable environmental conditions prevailing in

medium cost polyhouse might have helped in better growth of roots and shoots,

which directly helped in better vegetative growth and finally improving the yield

attributing parameters viz., number of fruits per plant (10.29), fruit weight per

plant (1.02), pericarp thickness at blossom end (1.23 cm), fruit length (8.49cm) and

fruit breadth (7.24) and these finally led to highest total yield of 37.77 MT per ha.

Singh and Arsey(2005) Studied the performance of tomato and sweet

pepper under unheated green house. The production of tomato and sweet pepper

under medium cost green house was found top the tune of 93.2 and 76.4 t/ hac.

respectively. It was excellent quality as compared to outside where the crop could

not survive due to prevailing low temperature. Among the three cultivars of

tomato. Naveen (93.2 t/ ha.) out yielding the other cultivars, Avinash-II (71.2 t/

hac.) and Akash (73.7 t/ hac.). Thus, the studied have indicated that cultivation of

tomato and sweet pepper under green house would not help only help in getting

higher productivity but also fetch better returns (Rs.7-8 per m2

per season).

Anonymous (2006 b) reported that net house is necessary to produce good

quality vegetables and obtained higher yields. The budget the vegetable cultivation

in the net house show that a small farmer (with capital subsidy assistance including

8

some risk coverage) starting from 0.5 acre can earn more than Rs. 1 lac per year

Punjab Agricultural University recommends the net house cultivation of Brinjal

hybrid, Capsicum- Bharat and Tomato- Naveen tomato crop yielded 75 Q/ acre.

Normal compared with total yield of 130 Q/ acre from Naveen and 245 Q/ acre

from TH-1 varieties in the open field.

Barreto and Jagtap (2006) Pot culture experiments were conducted in a

simple polyhouse with a wooden framework and shade net without fan and pad

cooling systems to assess different substrates for gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii)

production. The different substrates assessed were coco peat, peat, soilrite, perlite,

vermicompost and compost in various combinations. The economics of the

substrate per plant per pot was calculated as per the prevailing retail market rates

of the substrates and the flower yield returns were calculated as per the rates in the

wholesale market. The flower returns depended on both flower quality and

quantity.

Kang and Sidhu (2006) in this study chilli nursery growing during winter

under polyhouse (size 24' x 13' x 6') made of UV-stabilized low density polythene

film of 200 microns (800 gauge) thickness was compared with the other two

methods, namely, poly cover and nocover. Under each of the three methods,

sowing was done on 25 October, 15 November, 30 November and 1 February

during 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 seasons. The results revealed that nursery

grown under polyhouse reached transplantable stage in significantly less number of

days compared with the other two methods. Polyhouse technique also recorded

more number of transplants per unit area and the crop growth from it gave higher

early and total fruit yields. A similar trend was observed for all the dates of

sowing.

Kumar and Kumar (2006) in this study the successful implementation of

greenhouse helps to counter the adverse effect of outside environment as it varies

from season to season over the year. Development of protected cultivation

technology using greenhouse is an example of mankind‟s efforts to survive under

natural adversities.

Dixit (2007) Studied the performance of leafy vegetables under protected

environment and open field condition. Green house crops yield several times more

9

than the yields obtained from outdoor cultivation depending upon the cropping

system and the degree of environmental control. Because of environmental control,

any crop can be grown at any time of the year and even one type of the crops can

be raised round the year if needed. An experiment was conducted on leafy

vegetates (Spinach, amaranthus, fenugreek and coriander) at horticultural research

farm, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur (C. G.) to see the performance

of leafy vegetables under protected environment and in open field condition. The

germination percentage was found10-20% more in green house as compared to

open field. The yield was found to be more as compare to open field condition.

The study believed that the green house cultivation showed superior yield and

yield attributing characters as compared to open field condition.

Singh and Sirohi(2008) Examined that protected cultivation vegetables

offers distinct advantages of quality, productivity and favorable market price to the

growers. Vegetable growers can substantially increase their income by protected

cultivation of vegetables in off-season as the vegetables produced during their

normal season generally do not get good returns due to large availability of these

vegetables in the markets. Off-season cultivation of cucurbits under low plastic

tunnels is one of the most profitable technologies under northern plains of India.

Walk-in tunnels are also suitable and effective to raise off-season nursery and off-

season vegetables cultivation due to their low initial cost. Insect proof net house

can be used for virus free cultivation of tomato, chilli, sweet pepper and other

vegetables mainly during the rainy season. These low cost structures are also

suitable for growing pesticide green vegetables. Low cost green houses can be

used for high quality vegetable for long duration (6-10 months) mainly in peri-

urban areas of the country to fetch commensurate prices of produces. polytrenches

have proved extremely useful for growing vegetables under cold desert condition

in upper reaches Himalayas in the country.

Medany et al (2009) studied that black net greenhouse gave significantly

the highest early yield, while white net greenhouse gave significantly the highest

plant height, number of leaves per plant, leaf area index and total yield compared

to the other greenhouses. In the winter season, the highest yield was obtained in the

plastic house. The depreciated annual cost of covering nets was estimated to be

10

half the cost of plastic covering. Ilic et al (2011) evaluate the influence of different

colored shade nets (photoselective) on the plant development, yield and quality of

bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Pepper was grown under four different

coloured shade-nets (pearl, red, blue and black) with different relative shading

(40% and 50%). Exposure to full sunlight was used as a control. Used colour-

shade nets improved productivity by moderating climatic extremes. Depending on

the year, the total fruit yields (t/ha) under the coloured shade nets were higher by

113 to 131%, relative to the open field.

Goren et al.(2012) Colored shade nets (photo-selective nets –

ChromatiNets™), which have been developed during the last decade to filter

selected spectral regions of sunlight, concomitantly with inducing light scattering,

are designed to specifically modify plant attributes such as more fruits on the

plants and higher yield. In studies conducted during the last two years on two

cultivars of red sweet bell pepper (Capsicum annuum); 'Romans' and 'Vergasa', we

have found that peppers grown in semi-arid region under the Pearl and Yellow

shade nets, significantly maintained better fruit quality after 15 day storage at 7°C

plus 3 day shelf life simulation, compared to the traditional black shade net, or the

Red shade net of equivalent shading capacity (35%). Most prominently, the Pearl

and Yellow nets significantly reduced decay incidence in both cultivars during the

two years, compared to the Black and Red shade nets. Red shade net significantly

reduced fruit weight loss, compared to the other shade nets, but other quality

parameters such as firmness, elasticity and sugar level have not been affected by

the colored shade nets.

Rajasekar et al.(2013) India to screen ten vegetables for cultivation under

shadenet house (33% shade) and open field for year round production of

vegetables. Tomato, eggplant, chilli, cucumber, cluster bean, radish, amaranthus,

coriander, bhendi and capsicum were grown in the summer and winter. The

influence of environmental variables temperature, relative humidity and light

intensity were studied. Tomato, eggplant, chilli, cucumber, radish, amaranthus and

coriander registered better performance for growth and yield during both seasons.

Cluster bean performed well in the open field during both seasons. Relative

humidity was always higher under shadenet house than in open field during both

11

seasons. Light intensity in the shadenet house was lower than in the open field.

Mean weekly temperature during summer and winter were higher under open field

conditions than in the shadenet house. Lower temperature caused plant height,

number of branches, internodal length, average fruit weight and yield per plant to

be higher in the shadenet house than in the open field.

Negi et al.(2013) Protected farming is an alternative new technique for

seasonal and off-seasonal vegetable cultivation, particularly in high-altitude region,

and can be successfully employed for niche areas of agriculture. Experimentation

on vegetable crops under protected conditions was carried out to see the feasibility

of their farming at different altitudes in the central Himalayan region. For

evaluating the suitable conditions required for the cultivation of vegetables, three

treatments, viz., polyhouse, shade net, and plastic-mulch, were selected in

comparison to open condition at both the altitudes. Capacity building through

organizing training program was adopted for demonstration and dissemination of

this technology to rural farmers of the region. The yield of selected vegetables was

found to be significantly (P < 0.05) high under protected cultivation, and the

productivity of vegetables has been observed to increase from 15.85% as compared

to that in open field condition at both the altitudes. As a result of capacity building,

a number of households (78) at high and low altitudes (41) adopted seasonal and

off-seasonal vegetable cultivation through protected cultivation technology at

various levels.

Hwang and Koreakim (2014) In the result of effect on freezing damage

reduction by the shade net colors and the shade rate to tea trees during wintering

period, the high shade ratio decreased tea trees growth and increased freezing

damage and 55% of shade ratio based on non treatment developed new leafs and

green leaf productivity. By the shade net colors, colorless shade net (55% of shade

type) treatment and green shade net treatment increased green leaf productivity and

decreased damaged area compare to non treatment shade net and black shade net

treatment. Colorless net shade treatment reduced over 50% of freezing damage and

increased (10a) 68 kg for green leaf productivity compare to non treatment shade

net.

12

Patil and Bhagat (2014) To study the yield response of cucumber (cv.

Gypsy) grown under shade net house to 35, 50, 75 per cent shading and in open

field condition. Biometric characteristics viz., days to 50 per cent flowering,

average diameter of fruit, average length of fruit, average weight of fruit, length of

vine at last harvest, number of fruits per vine and yield of fruit were observed

throughout the growth period. The results were compared with the performance of

the crop grown in open field (control) condition and also statistically analysed.

Irrespective of nutrient sources applied, the performance of crop grown inside the

shade net was comparatively better than grown in open field conditions.

Ilić et al.(2015) The concept of photo selective netting using commercial

cultivation practices was studied in a tomato (Solanum lycopersicum „Vedetta‟)

summer cultivation in south Serbia (under high solar radiation 910 W m⁻², with a

photosynthetic photon flux density of 1661 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹), under four different

coloured shade‐nets (pearl, red, blue and black) with 40% relative shading. The

aim of the study was to determine how different environmental control

technologies (coloured shade‐nets as screen house or plastic‐house integrated with

coloured shade‐nets) could influence plant parameters, production and quality

traits in tomato fruits cultivated in south Serbia (Balkan region). The highest

concentration of lycopene was detected in tomatoes grown in plastic houses

integrated with red colour nets (64.9 µg g⁻¹ fresh weight). The plastic house and

open field (control) tomato production had a taste index mean value of 1.09–1.10.

This is significantly higher than the values determined for the treatments with

different coloured shade‐nets.

Nangare et al.(2015) To determine the effect of three green shade nets

(35,50 and 75%) along with three height (2, 2.5 and 3.5 metre) bamboo framed

structures on yield and quality of tomato. There was no significant difference

found in average monthly temperature and humidity inside shade net house and

open field (control). Significant difference was recorded in yield. Highest average

plant yield of (3.49 kg/plant) was found in 35 % shading net followed by open

field (2.27). Lowest yield observed (1.07 kg / plant) in 75 % shading net. The

tomatoes grown under shade net structures were glossy in appearance with good

13

colour development as compared to open field (control). Further tomatoes

produced in open field were attacked by the pest (Helicoverpa armigera) attack.

14

CHAPTER-III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This chapter deals with the materials and research methodology adopted for

the present study with respect to the selection of study area, selection of

respondents, collection of data and analytical techniques. The details of the method

and technique adopted for the present study is described as below:

3.1 Sampling design:

The selection of district, block, Villages, and Shade net cultivation growers

is presented under the following sub sections:

METHODOLOGY:

3.1.1 Selection of study area:-

There are 27 districts in Chhattisgarh state. Out of 27 districts Korba

district was selected purposively for the study.

3.1.2 Selection of Block:-

There are 5 block in Korba districts in Chhattisgarh state. Out of 5 block

Korba District having 5 Blocks i.e. Korba Kartala Katghora , Pali, and Poundi

Uproda. were selected purposively for the study.

3.1.3 Selection of respondents (shade net cultivators)::-

Suitable as Shade net / Net house cultivators cultivating different

vegetables were selected based on availability.

3.2 Method of enquiry and data collection:-

The study required primary as well as secondary data; primary data from

the farmers were collected through personal interview method with the help of well

prepared pre-tested schedule and questionnaire for the year 2015-16. Secondary

https://villageinfo.in/chhattisgarh/korba/kartala.html

https://villageinfo.in/chhattisgarh/korba/katghora.html

https://villageinfo.in/chhattisgarh/korba/pali.html

https://villageinfo.in/chhattisgarh/korba/poundi-uproda.html



15

data were collected from different sources such as Directorate of Horticulture,

Raipur and Sub Directorate of Horticulture office Korba , KVK‟s and National

Horticulture Mission office Raipur and Korba.

3.3 Tools of Analysis:-

The collected data is analyzed using different statistical techniques. Apart

from averages and percentages appropriate statistical techniques are used wherever

necessary.

3.3.1 Cost Concepts

“To work out the cost of cultivation standard method of has been

adopted. Which includes cost A cost B and cost C.”

Cost A1: Consist of following 16 items of costs:-

1. Value of hired human labour (permanent & casual).

2. Value of owned bullock labour

3. Value of hired bullock labour

4. Value of owned machinery

5. Hired machinery charged

6. Value of fertilizers

7. Value of manure (produced on farm and purchased)

8. Value of seed (both farm-produced and purchased)

9. Value of insecticides and fungicides.

10. Irrigation charges (both of the owned & owned and hired tube wells,

pumping sets etc).

11. canal-water charges

12. Land revenue, cesses and other taxes

13. Depreciation on farm implements (both bullock drawn & worked with

human labour)

14. Depreciation on farm building, farm machinery.

15. Interest on the working capital.

16. Miscellaneous expenses (wages of artisans, and repairs to small farm

implements)

16

Cost A2= Cost A1+Rent paid for Leased in Land.

Cost B1 = Cost A1+Interest on value of Owned Capital assets (excluding

land)

Cost B2 = Cost B1+rental value of owned land (Net of land revenue) and

rent paid

for leased-in land.

Cost C1= Cost B1+ Imputed value of Family Labour.

Cost C2 = Cost B2+Imputed value of Family labour.

Cost C3 = Cost C2*+ value of management input at 10% of cost C2.

Estimate of cost and income parameters

1. Family Human Labour

The value of family human labour used on the farm was imputed at the

hiring wage rates prevailing in the area.

2. Manual and bullock operated farm

Farms using both manual and bullock power for different operations in

agriculture.

3. Machine operated farm

The farms using machine power for different operations in agriculture.

4. Seed

The cost of home grown seeds was calculated at the market rates prevailing

in the area at the time of sowing.

5. Manures

Farm yard manures produced on the farm are valued at the prevailing rates

in the locality (i.e. per cart load basis). Purchased manures are charged at the actual

prices paid plus transportation cost. The residual effect of the farm manures has

been ignored.

6. Fertilizers

Fertilizer, such as DAP (Dia-Amonium phosphate, Urea, Murate of potash

are charged at the actual price paid plus transportation cost.

7. Plant Protection Charges

17

This includes the actual cost of insecticides, pesticides, fungicides used

plus the hiring charges of appliances.

8. Irrigation Charges

The cost under this head is exclusively related to irrigated crops. The actual

source of irrigation is tube wall, canal and well. The days of human labour put in

for irrigation are taken into account as irrigation charges.

Interest on working capital:

It was calculated @ 4% per annum for half of the crop period.

Interest on fixed capital:

It was calculated @ 8% per annum for the crop period.

Rental value of owned land:

Evaluated on the basis of prevailing rates in the village for identical type of

land or on the basis of responses obtained from the village farmers.

Land Revenue and other cases

The land revenue and other cases were apportioned among the crops

followed on the basis of the proportionate area under crops and their duration.

Depreciation:

It represents the value by which a farm resource decreased in value as result

of cause other than a change in general price of the item. Straight line method was

used for calculating the depreciation

Purchase value of the asset - Junk value

Depreciation =

No. of useful years of life (expected life)

3.3.2 Disposal pattern

To examine the marketing pattern of groundnut at different categories of

farms, simple analysis was done. To estimate the marketable surplus of produce,

total quantity used for different purposes is deducted from total production of crop.

18

3.3.3 Marketable surplus

Marketable surplus = Total production – Total consumption

MS = P – (C +S)

Where,

MS – Marketable Surplus

P - Total Production

C - Family Consumption

S - Quantity kept for seed

3.4 General profile of the study area:-

Knowledge of the region in which the investigation is to be carried out

understanding of the general characteristics of the study area is essential for carried

out the study. This study was confined to the Korba district of Chhattisgarh. The

selected villages represent fairly well the agro-climatic, Socio-economic situation

of the Chhattisgarh State to understand the general characteristics of the study area,

this chapter divided in to 13 sections, namely general profile of the area, soil and

topography, rivers, climate and rainfall, population, land use pattern, water

resources, area, production and yield of different crops, basic infrastructure

facilities, transport and communication, weekly market, banks in the district.

3.4.1: Situation of the study area:

Korba district covers an area of 7145 sq. km and lies between North

latitudes 22°12‟ and 21°59‟ and East longitudes 82°08‟ to 83°07‟28”, with

population of 1011823 as per 2001 census. Rural population of the district is

644860 which are 63.73 per cent of total population. The density of population is

153 per sq.km. The district is bounded on the north by Koriya and Sarguja

districts, on the south by Janjagir Champa district. Bilaspur bordered it on the

western side, the Maikal range of hills from north-east to south-west. The most

part of district about 66 per cent of the total geographic area is covered by forest.

The river hasdeo- a tributary of Mahanadienters and flow though the district.

Another tributary of Mahanadi, the Mand, drains along the eastern boundary

19

bordering Korba district. The river Lilager rises from Korba hills and passes

though the district before joining seonath. (Map 3.1)

3.4.2: Rainfall distribution

The distribution of rainfall over the year 2011-12 in Korba district is presented in

Table 3.2. The district has tropical climate condition and experience very hot and

dry from April to mid June. Rainy season due to the south-west monsoon is from

mid June to till the end of September. The average rainfall in the district is 1506.7

mm.and normal rainfall is 1287.6 mm. The soil and climate condition of the

district is suitable for the production of fruit crops like mango, guava, lemon,

sitaphal, ber,

Table 3.1: Rainfall distribution in korba district (2011-12)

S.N Block Name 2011-12

1 Korba 1297.4

2 Kartala 1265.5

3 Katghora 1452.0

4 Pondiuproda 1151.4

5 Pali 1152.4

Source: District Statistical Book Korba (CG) 2011-12

3.4.3: Population distribution:-

According to the 2012 census Korba district has a population of 1011823.

Rural population of the district is 644860 which are 63.73 per cent of total

population. The density of population is 153 per sq.km. Its population growth rate

over the decade 1991-2001 was 22.51 per cent. Korba has a sex ratio 964 and a

literacy rate of 61.7 per cent. As of 2001 India census, the density of population

in urban areas is very higher as compared to rural area in the district. Literacy

percent is not very good in korba district. The District comes under Bilaspur

division and is inhabited mainly by tribal. The entire district is covered under the

tribal sub plan. Around 41.49 per cent of the population is of scheduled tribes.

SCs are around 10 per cent and all the five blocks of the korba are declared as

tribe‟s zone. (Table 3.3 and 3.4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_census_of_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_planning_in_India



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census

20

Map 3.1 : Map of Chhattisgarh state

21

Map 3.2: Map of Chhattisgarh state study district

22

3.3: Map of korba district bloks Studied Area

Korba

Katghora

Kartala

Pali

Poudi Uproda

23

3.4.4: Land utilization pattern:

The land utilization pattern of district is presented in Table 3.5. It is clear

from the table that the geographical area of Korba District is 714544 hectare

respectively. The forest area is 188451 ha this is 26.37 per cent of the total

geographical area. The area under uncultivable land and cultivable waste land is

59333 ha and 36137 ha in the district respectively. The net area sown area and

double cropped area of crops the district is 132000 ha and 10767 ha in the district.

Cropping intensity of Korba district is 127 per cent.

3.4.5: Source of irrigation:

The irrigated area from different sources of irrigation in the district is

giving in the Table 3.5. Table shows that the out of the total irrigated area 4710 ha

(54.53 per cent) is irrigated by canal followed by other sources 2238 ha. In the

district ponds is highest in number 1948 which is 60.97 percent of the total sources

of irrigation followed by wells 1158 ha 36.24 percent in the district.

24

Table 3.2: Source: Census 2001, District Statistical Office, Korba (C.G.), 2011-12

Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to the total population.

S.N

Census-2001

Block Name

Total

population

10th

year

population

growth rate

(1991-2001)

Ratio

of male

and

female

Schedule

caste

population

Percentage

of schedule

caste out of

total

population

Schedule

tribe

population

Percentage

of schedule

tribe out of

total

population

Total

literacy

Literacy

percent

1 Korba 302765 (100.00) 23.85 947 36423 12.03 92264 30.47 173441 68.2

2 Kartala 121251 (100.00) 11.27 1006 12723 10.49 60767 50.11 55219 55.4

3 Katghora 428809 (100.00) 26.08 953 39254 9.15 181158 42.24 216731 60.9

4 Pali 158998 (100.00) 20.14 996 12560 7.89 85700 53.9 72981 56.0

Source: Census 2001, District Statistical Office, Korba (C.G.), 2011-12

Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to the total population

25

Table 3.3: Agricultural and Non-agricultural population

S.N Block

Name

Agricultural

population

Family

labour

Family

business

Other

workers

Non-

agriculture

population

Total

workers

Percentage of total

workers out of total

population

Marginal

workers

1 Korba 21561

(7.12)

11352

(3.74)

2511

(0.83)

53640

(17.72)

26373

(8.71)

187328

(61.87)

302765

(100.00)

38.13

2 Kartala 25099

(20.70)

8673

(7.15)

1467

(1.21)

5900

(4.86)

23214

(19.14)

56898

(46.92)

121251

(100.00)

53.07

3 Katghora 45461

(10.60)

19483

(4.54)

2362

(0.55)

54227

(12.64)

50757

(11.84)

256519

(59.82)

428809

(100.00)

40.18

4 Pali 23795

(14.96)

16684

(10.49)

1413

(0.89)

8620

(5.42)

28410

(17.87)

80076

(50.36)

158998

(100.00)

49.64

Source: Census 2001, District Statistical Office, Korba (C.G.), 2011-12

Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to the total population

26

Table 3.4: Land utilization pattern in Korba District of Chhattisgarh:-

(In hac.)

S.N Particulars Korba district

1. Geographical area 714544

(100.00)

2. Net sown area 132000

(18.47)

3. Forest land 188451

(26.37)

4. Cropping intensity 127 per cent

5. Net Irrigated area 18766

(2.63)

6. Area under rabi crops 20150

(2.82)

7. Irrigated area (rabi) 9611

(1.34)

8. Uncultivable land 59333

(8.30)

9. Cultivable waste land 36137

(5.06)

10. Double cropped area 10767

(1.51)

11. Total cropped area of vegetables 20390

(2.85)

12. Total cropped area of fruits 10864

(1.52)

13. Net horticulture crop area 31928

(4.47)

Source: Assistant Director of Horticulture, district- Korba (C.G.)

Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to the total population.

27

Table 3.5: Sources of irrigation and irrigated area:

S.N Sources of irrigation Number Area (ha.)

1 Canals 35 4710

(1.09) (54.53)

2 Tube-well 54 305

(1.69) (3.53)

3 Wells 1158 827

(36.24) (9.57)

4 Ponds 1948 558

(60.97) (6.46)

5 Other sources - 2238

(25.91)

6 Total 3195 8638

(100.00) (100.00)

Source: District Statistical Book Korba (CG) 2011-12 Note: Figure in parenthesis indicated percentages to total population.

28

CHAPTER –IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter includes the cost of production of off season vegetables crops

under net house in Korba district, disposable pattern of major vegetables and

constraints in production and marketing of crops in the study area. The outcomes

of this study yielded many useful findings regarding production and marketing

performance and constraints in net house crops of sample households of the study

area. For the sake of convenience, the present chapter has been broadly discussed

under the following sub heads:

1. Demographic features of the major crop growers under shade net house

2. The cost of cultivation of major crops in shade net house

3. Disposable pattern of major crops grown in shade net house

4. Constraints faced by farmers.

4.1 Demographic features of sampled farmers:

Table 4.1 represents the demographic features of farm families, families size and

level of education at the sampled farms in the study area. The table reveals that the

average number of family size of vegetables crops growers under net house is

observed as 4.8. This size is estimated family member 5, 5, 5, 2, 7, farms

respectively. The overall male-female ratio is 50:50 per cent in the total

population. The level of education in the sampled household in terms of percentage

is found to be 87.5 per cent on an average. It is observed that 4.16 per cent of the

total sampled populations have primary level of education while these figures are

12.5 per cent for middle level, 4.16 per cent high school, 8.33 per cent higher

secondary school, 33.33 Per cent, graduate, and 25 per cent, post graduation level

of education. Among various size groups of farms, The table also reveals the caste

and occupation pattern at the sampled farms. It is also observed that on an average

40 per cent of the sampled families belong to other backward class, 60 per cent

belong to scheduled tribe, 0 per cent belong to scheduled caste, and 0 per cent

belong to general category. The occupation of farmers is also presented in the

29

Table 4.1: Demographic feature of the sampled farms in the study area

S. N. Particular Aggregate

1. No. of sample 5(100.00)

2. No. of family member

Male 12 (50)

Female 12 (50)

Total 24

(100.00)

3. Average family size 4.8

4. Age

<20 6(25)

20-60 14(58.33)

>60 4(16.66)

5. Education level

Illiterate 3(12.5)

Primary 1(4.16)

Middle 3(12.5)

High School. 1 (4.16)

H.S.S 2 (8.33)

Graduate 8(33.33)

Post Graduation 6(25)

Total literate 21(87.5)

6. Social groups

OBC 2(40)*

ST 3(60)*

SC 0(0)*

General 0(0)*

Note 1: figures in the parenthesis indicate percentage to the total number of family

members.

Note 2:*figures in the parenthesis represent percentage to the total number of

samples.

30

Fig: 4.1 Education level at sampled farms

Fig:4.2 Caste wise distributions at sampled farmers

Illiterate13%

Primary4%

Middle13%

High School.4%

H.S.S8%

Graduate33%

Post Graduation25%

Education level at samples farms

40%

60%

0% 0%

Caste wise distributions at sampled farmers

OBC ST SC General

31

4.1.1 Different block of korba deistic farmers according to the operational

holdings shade net.

In the given table 4.2 the farmers are distributing in standard classification

followed by Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Statistical Abstracts. As vegetable cultivation is

labour intensive enterprise, it is hypothesized that marginal and small farmers will

actually participate in the adoption of this technology. It was observed from the

table 4.2 that higher adoption level of net house technology is in case of medium

farmers In net house cultivation of vegetables farmers had operational area

Table 4.2 Distribution of net-house vegetable growers according total area m2

installation

Table 4.3 Distribution of net-house vegetable growers according to period of

installation

Year of installing net house No. %age

2013 – 14 1 4.54

2014 – 15 13 59.09

2015 -16 8 36.36

Total 22 100

This table 4.3 indicates the distribution of net house growers according to years in

which the net house was installed. According to the figures 59 percent of the net

were installed in the time period from 2014 to 2015, 36 percent of the net were

Name of block Total number of farmer Total area m2

Korba 5 20000

Khatghora 2 6000

Pali 5 20000

Kartala 10 36000

Total 22 82000

32

installed from 2015 to 2016, and according to the data 4.54 percent of the net were

installed from 2013 to 2014 These facts highlight the importance of protected

technology, as the increase trend was observed for the adoption of this technology.

4.1.2 Land use pattern:

Table 4.4: Size of holding and irrigation at sampled farms in the study area.

(Hectare/farm)

Note: Figures on average the cultivated area was 6.75 ha. perform

4.1.3 Irrigation:

Category-wise area under various sources of irrigation is presented in Table

4.5. Table shows that tube well are main sources of irrigation as about 80 per cent

area is irrigated by these sources. Well is another source of irrigation which

contributes about 20 per cent to the total irrigation at these farms.

Table 4.5: Source wise irrigated area at sampled farms in the study area.

(Hectare/farm)

S.

N.

Source of irrigation

Tube well Well Total irrigated area

1. 5.4

(80.00)

1.35

(20.00)

6.75

(100.00)

Note: Figures in the parentheses indicate the percentages to the total irrigated area.

S.N. Particular Aggregate

1. Total owned land 7

(100.00)

2. Total cultivated area 6.75

(96.42)

3. Irrigated area 5.50.

(78.57)

4. Un –irrigated area 1.25

(21.43)

33

Fig: 4.3 Irrigation at sampled farms in the study area

Fig: 4.4 Source of irrigation at sampled farms

79%

21%

Irrigation at sampled farms in the study area

Irrigated area Un –irrigated area

80%

20%

Source of irrigation at sampled farms

Tube well

Well

34

4.1.4 Cropping pattern:

The cropping pattern at sampled farms is presented in Table 4.6. The gross

cropped area is observed Average as 6.06 hectare, The gross cropped area 11.12

hectare is allocated during kharif season while remaining 5.06 hectare (45.50) per

cent) is allocated during rabi season on an overall. The area under kharif season in

different crops is observed The overall cropping intensity is estimated as 183.49

per cent in this study area.

Table 4.6: Cropping pattern and cropping intensity of sample households

(Hectare/farm)

S.

No.

Particular Overall

A. Kharif Rabi

1. Tamato 1 Paddy 2

2. Chilli 0.76 Coriander 0.2

3. Cabbage 0.6 Cabbage 0.17

4. Cucumber 0.2 Tomato 0.52

5. Coriander 0.1 Chilli 0.31

6. Cowpea 0.2 Brinjal 0.26

7. Bitter gourd 0.2 Cauliflower 0.2

8. Okra 0.4 Wheat 1.2

9. Paddy 1.8 Other 0.2

10. Other 0.8

Sub total

6.06

(54.50)

5.06

(45.50)

Gross cropped area

(A+B)

11.12

(100.00)

Net cropped area 6.06

Cropping intensit(%) 183.49

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to Gross Cropped area.

35

Fig 4.5: Cropping pattern of sample households (kharif season)

Fig 4.6: Cropping pattern of sample households (rabi season)

16%

13%

10%

3%2%

3%3%7%

30%

13%

Cropping pattern Kharif

Tamato

Chilli

Cabbage

Cucumber

Coriander

Cowpea

Bitter gourd

Okra

Paddy

Other

36

4.2. Economics of major shade net production

4.2.1. Economics of tomato crop

The economics of tomato crop is presented in table 4.7. It clearly shows

that the cost of cultivation per hectare tomato was higher on Shead net . Over all,

on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of tomato was found to be Rs

115495 per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net cultivation.

Among different input operation on an overall, the per hectare cost was

observed highest for total human labour Rs. 44666.7 followed by manures and

fertilizer Rs. 11750, seed Rs. 2666.67, plant protection Rs12600, irrigation Rs

4500, Machine power Rs. 12166.7, Depreciation Rs. 1850, , and land revenue

Rs.10.

Table 4.7: Costs of tomato on different farm size (Rs./ha)

Particular F1 F2 F3 Average Percentage

A. Material cost

Seed 3000 2500 2500 2666.67 2.31

Manures and fertilizer 14500 10500 10250 11750 10.17

Plant protection 14800 14000 9000 12600 10.91

Irrigation charges 4500 4500 4500 4500 3.89

Total material cost 36800 31500 26250 31516.7 27.28

B. Human labour cost

Family labour 15300 13500 17100 15300 13.24

Hired labour 27000 27400 33700 29366.7 25.42

Total human labour

cost

42300 40900 50800 44666.7 38.66

C. Power use cost

Bullock labour

Machine power 12500 12000 12000 12166.7 10.53

Total power use cost 12500 12000 12000 12166.7 10.53

Interest on working

capital @4%

3664 3376 3562 3534 3.06

(I). Total variable cost 95264 87776 92612 91884 79.53

D. Fixed cost

Depreciation 2250 1650 1650 1850 1.60

Land revenue 10 10 10 10 0.04

Rental value of land 22500 17500 20000 20000 17.31

37

Interest fixed working

capital @8%

1984 1536 1732.8 1750.93 1.52

(II).Total fixed Cost 26744 20696 23392.8 23610.9 20.47

Total cost(A+B+C+D) 122008 108472 116005 115495 100.00

Note: - Interest on working capital is computed at 8 % interest rate of saving in

year 2015-16

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of the total cost

Yield and cost of production per quintal:

The yield, value of output per hectare and cost of production per quintal of

tomato on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.8

An overall yield per hectare of tomato came to 231.6667 quintals on the

Average of sample farms per hectare. The per quintal cost of production, on an

overall, is worked out as Rs. 502.1633. The per quintal cost of production of

tomato is average farms

It decreased with the increased in the size of farms due to higher yield in

return to the cost of cultivation on the large farms. The overall value of output per

hectare come to Rs. 76500 the value of output per hectare come to Rs. 115494.9, farms

respectively.

Table 4.8: Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per

quintal of tomato

Particular

R1 R2 R3

Average

Yield (qtl/ha) 210 235 250 231.6667

Price (Rs./qtl) 400 300 300 333.3333

Gross returns 84000 70500 75000 76500

Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) 122008 108472 116004.8 115494.9

Net returns (Rs./ha) -38008 -37972 -41004.8 -38994.9

Cost of production

(Rs./qtl.) 580.99 461.5 464 502.1633

Input output ratio 1:0.6 1: 0.6 01:00.6 1:0.6

Measures of farm profit

The overall gross return is observed as Rs. 76500 per hectare in the study

area. The gross return depends upon variety, productivity and price received by the

farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. -38994.9 per hectare. farms

respectively. The overall input-output ratio is observed as 1:0.6,

38

Cost and returns on the basis of different cost concept:

The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of

Tomato have been presented in the table 4.9.

It is envisaged that Cost A1, as designated the variable cost, depreciation

and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs 78444.07 per hectare an average

basis, which was added of rent paid for lease in land and dignified with Cost A2,

found to be Rs. 78444.07 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital

imputed with cost B1 Rs. 80195 rental value of own land Rs. 20000 per hectare

prevailed in the study. Normally, farmers are cultivating the crop in their own land

but it has imputed value of land of Rs. 20000 notified Cost B2 was Rs. 100195 per

hectare. The Cost C1, found to be Rs. 95495 per hectare, includes the value of cost

B1 and imputed value of family labour was found to be Rs. 15300 per hectare, The

cost C2, found to be Rs. 115495 per hectare , includes the value of Cost B2 and

Table.4.9: Break-up of total cost, and income obtained over different cost of

tomato cultivation

(Rs/ha)

Particular Average

Break-up of costs

Cost A1 78444.07

Cost A2 78444.07

Cost B1 80195

Cost B2 100195

Cost C1 95495

Cost C2 115495

Cost C3 127044.5

Return obtained over different costs

Return over cost A1 -1944.07

Return over cost A2 -1944.07

Return over cost B1 -3695

Return over cost B2 -23695

Return over cost C1 -18995

Return over cost C2 -38995

Return over cost C3 -50544.5

39

imputed value of family labour and The Cost C3,found to be Rs. 127044.5 per

hectare imputed value of managerial allowances at 10 per cent of cost C2 return

over the Cost A1, Cost A2, Cost B1, Cost B2, Cost C1, Cost C2, and Cost C3 was

obtained to be Rs. -1944.07 Rs. -1944.07, Rs. -3695, Rs. -23695, Rs. -18995, Rs. -

38995 and Rs -50544.5 per hectare, respectively

4.2.2. Economics of Chilli crop

The economics of Chilli crop is presented in table 4.10 It clearly shows

that the cost of cultivation per hectare Chilli was higher on Shead net . Over all, on

an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of Chilli was found to be Rs 122834

per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net cultivation.

Table 4.10: Costs of Chilli on different farm size (Rs./ha)

Particular F1 F2 Average Percentage

A. Material cost

Seed 2500 2500 2500 2.04

Manures and fertilizer 14500 15100 14800 16.05

Plant protection 14800 11625 13213 14.33

Irrigation charges 4500 4000 4250 4.61

Total material cost 36300 33225 34763 37.71

B. Human labour cost 0 0 0

Family labour 15300 16200 15750 0.98

Hired labour 25200 27000 26100 12.41

Total human labour cost 40500 43200 41850 13.38

C. Power use cost 0 0 0

Bullock labour 0 0 0 0.00

Machine power 12500 14500 13500 14.64

Total power use cost 12500 14500 13500 14.64

Interest on working capital

@4% 3572 3637 3604.5 2.63

(I). Total variable cost 92872 94562 93717 68.37

D. Fixed cost 0 0 0

Depreciation 2250 1650 1950 2.12

Land revenue 10 10 10 0.05

Rental value of land 22500 27500 25000 27.12

Interest fixed working

capital @8% 1981 2332.8 2156.8 2.34

(II).Total fixed Cost 26741 31493 29117 31.63

Total cost(A+B+C+D) 119612.8 126055 122834 100.00

40


year 2015-16




chilli on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.11.

An overall yield per hectare of chilli came to 242.5 quintals on the Average

of sample farms per hectare. The per quintal cost of production, on an overall, is

worked out as Rs. 507.425. The per quintal cost of production of chhili is average

farms.



hectare come to Rs 278500 the value of output per hectare come to Rs. 122834,

farms respectively.

Table 4.11: Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per

quintal of Chilli

Particular

F1

F2

Average

Yield (qtl/ha) 250 235 242.5

Price (Rs./qtl) 1100 1200 1150

Gross returns 275000 282000 278500

Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) 119613 126055 122834

Net returns (Rs./ha) 155387 155945 155666

Cost of production (Rs./qtl.) 478.45 536.4 507.425

Input output ratio 1:2.2 1:2.2 1:2.2

The overall value of output per hectare Rs 278500 the value of output per hectare

come to Rs. 122834, farms respectively.


The overall gross return is observed as Rs. 278500 per hectare in

the study area. The gross return depends upon variety, productivity and price

received by the farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. 155666 per

hectare. farms respectively. The overall input-output ratio was observed as 1:22,

41


The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of Chilli

have been presented in the table 4.12.


and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs. 79927.2 per hectare an average


found to be Rs. 79927.2 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital imputed

with cost B1 Rs 82084 rental value of own land Rs. 25000 per hectare prevailed in

the study. Normally, farmers are cultivating the crop in their own land but it has

imputed value of land of Rs. 25000 notified Cost B2 was Rs. 107084 per hectare.

The Cost C1, found to be Rs. 97834 per hectare, includes the value of cost B1 and

imputed value of family labour was found to be Rs. 15750 per hectare, The cost

C2, found to be Rs. 122834 per hectare , includes the value of Cost B2 and


Chilli cultivation

(Rs/ha)

Particular Average

Break-up of costs

Cost A1 94656.60

Cost A2 94656.60

Cost B1 96604.76

Cost B2 119104.76

Cost C1 102654.76

Cost C2 125154.76

Cost C3 137670.24


Return over cost A1 607843.40


Return over cost B1 605895.24


Return over cost C1 599845.24



42




obtained to be Rs. 198572.8, Rs. 198572.8, Rs. 196416, Rs. 171416, Rs. 180666,

Rs. 155666 and Rs 143382.6 per hectare, respectively.

4.2.3. Economics of Cowpea crop

The economics of cowpea crop is presented in table 4.13 It clearly shows

that the cost of cultivation per hectare cowpea was higher on Shead net . Over all,

on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of cowpea was found to be Rs


Table 4.13: Costs of Cowpea on different farm size (Rs./ha)

Particular Average Percentage

A. Material cost

Seed 2500 1.67

Manures and fertilizer 7500 5.01

Plant protection 13750 9.18

Irrigation charges 4500 3.00

Total material cost 28250 18.85

B. Human labour cost 0

Family labour 18000 12.01

Hired labour 33025 22.04

Total human labour cost 51025 34.06

C. Power use cost 0

Bullock labour 0 0.00

Machine power 11000 7.34

Total power use cost 11000 7.34

Interest on working capital @4% 3611 2.41

(I). Total variable cost 93886 62.66

D. Fixed cost

Depreciation 1750 1.17

Land revenue 10 0.03

Rental value of land 50000 33.37

Interest fixed working capital @8% 4140.8 2.77

(II).Total fixed Cost 55901 37.34

Total cost(A+B+C+D) 149787 100.00


year 2015-16


43


observed highest for total human labour Rs. 51025 followed by manures and

fertilizer Rs. 7500 seed Rs. 2500, plant protection Rs 13750, irrigation Rs 4500,

Machine power Rs. 11000, Depreciation Rs. 1750, , and land revenue Rs.10.



cowpea on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.14.

An overall yield per hectare of cowpea came to 300 quintals on the


overall, is worked out as Rs. 149787. The per quintal cost of production of cowpea

is average farms



hectare come to Rs. 270000 the value of output per hectare come to Rs. 149787, farms

respectively.

Table 4.14:Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per

quintal of Cow pea

Particular Average

yield (qtl/ha) 300

price (Rs./qtl) 900

Gross returns 270000

Cost of cultivation(Rs./ha) 149787

Net returns (Rs./ha) 120213

Cost of production (Rs./qtl.) 499.29

Input output ratio 1:18






44

farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. 120213 per hectare. farms

respectively. The overall input-output ratio was observed as 1:1.8,


Cowpea cultivation



Cowpea have been presented in the table 4.15.


and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs. 77647 per hectare an average


found to be Rs. 77647 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital imputed

with cost B1 Rs. 81788.8 rental value of own land Rs. 50000 per hectare prevailed

in the study. Normally, farmers are cultivating the crop in their own land but it has

imputed value of land of Rs. 50000 notified Cost B2 was Rs. 131788.8 per hectare.

(Rs/ha)

Particular Average

Break-up of costs

Cost A1 77647

Cost A2 77647

Cost B1 81788.8

Cost B2 131788.8

Cost C1 95538.8

Cost C2 145538.8

Cost C3 160092.7


Return over cost A1 192353







45

The Cost C1, found to be Rs 95538.8 per hectare, includes the value of cost B1 and


C2, found to be Rs. 145538.8 per hectare , includes the value of Cost B2 and




obtained to be Rs. 192353, Rs. 192353, Rs. 188211.2, Rs. 138211.2, Rs. 174461.2,

Rs. 124461.2 and Rs 109907.3 per hectare, respectively.

4.2.4. Economics of Cabbage crop

The economics of cowpea crop is presented in table 4.16. It clearly shows

that the cost of cultivation per hectare cabbage was higher on Shead net . Over all,

on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of cabbage was found to be Rs


Table 4.16: Costs of Cabbage on different farm size (Rs./ha)


A. Material cost

Seed 2000 1.37









C. Power use cost

Bullock labour





D. Fixed cost




46

Interest fixed working capital @8% 3601 2.47


Total cost(A+B+C+D) 145903 100.00


year 2015-16



observed highest for total human labour Rs. 53300 followed by manures and


Machine power Rs. 11000, Depreciation Rs 5000 , and land revenue Rs.10.



cabbage on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.17.

An overall yield per hectare of cabbage came to 400 quintals on the


overall, is worked out as Rs. 145903. The per quintal cost of production of cabbage

is average farms


return to the cost of cultivation on the farms. The overall value of output per

hectare come to Rs. 200000 the value of output per hectare come to Rs. 145903, farms

respectively.


quintal of Cabbage

Particular Average

yield (qtl/ha) 400

price (Rs./qtl) 500





47

Input output ratio 1:1.37






farmers. The overall net return is observed as Rs. 54097 per hectare. farms

respectively. The overall input-output ratio was observed as 1:1.37.


Cabbage cultivation (Rs/ha)

Particular Average

Break-up of costs

Cost A1 88553

Cost A2 88553

Cost B1 92153

Cost B2 128553

Cost C1 105903

Cost C2 142303

Cost C3 156533.3




Return over cost B1 107847


Return over cost C1 94097





Cabbage have been presented in the table 4.18.


and land revenue of own land was found to be Rs. 88553 per hectare an average


found to be Rs. 88553 per hectare, indicates the interest on fixed capital imputed

with cost B1 Rs. 92153 rental value of own land Rs. 40000 per hectare prevailed in

48


imputed value of land of Rs. 40000 notified Cost B2 was Rs.128553 per hectare.







obtained to be Rs. 111447, Rs. 111447, Rs. 107847, Rs. 71447, Rs. 94097 ,

Rs.57697 and Rs 43466.7 per hectare, respectively

4.2.5. Economics of bitter gourd crop

The economics of bitter gourd crop is presented in table 4.19. It clearly

shows that the cost of cultivation per hectare bitter gourd was higher on Shead net .

Over all, on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of bitter gourd was found

to be Rs 132165 per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net

cultivation.

Table 4.19: Costs of bitter gourd on different farm size (Rs./ha)

Particular Average Percent

A. Material cost

Seed





B. Human labour cost




C. Power use cost

Bullock labour





D. Fixed cost


49





Total cost(A+B+C+D) 132165 100.00


year 2015-16



observed highest for total human labour Rs 54200 followed by manures and





cabbage on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.20

An overall yield per hectare of bitter gourd came to 200 quintals on the


overall, is worked out as Rs. 132165. The per quintal cost of production of bitter

gourd is average farms

It decreased with the increased in the size of farms due to higher yield in return to

the cost of cultivation on the farms. The overall value of output per hectare come

to The overall value of output per hectare Rs 280000 the value of output per

hectare come to Rs. 132165, farms respectively.


quintal of bitter gourd

Particular Average

Yield (qtl/ha) 200

Price (Rs./qtl) 1400





50






hectare. farms respectively. The overall input-output ratio is observed as 1:2.11.


Bittergourd cultivation (Rs/ha)

Particular Average

Break-up of costs

Cost A1 86132.2

Cost A2 86132.2

Cost B1 88465

Cost B2 115965

Cost C1 104665

Cost C2 132165

Cost C3 145381.5










The cost and returns on the basis of cost concept in the production of bitter

gourd have been presented in the table 4.21.








51







obtained to be Rs. 193867.8, Rs. 193867.8, Rs. 191535, Rs.164035, Rs. 175335,

Rs. 147835 and Rs134618.5 per hectare, respectively.

4.2.6. Economics of Cucumber crop

The economics of cucumber crop is presented in table 4.22. It clearly

shows that the cost of cultivation per hectare cucumber was higher on Shead net.

Over all, on an average the cost of cultivation per hectare of cucumber was found

to be Rs 123341 per hectare. The cost of cultivation is a average of shead net

cultivation.

Table 4.22: Costs of Cucumber on different farm size (Rs./ha)


A. Material cost

Seed 1500 1.21









C. Power use cost 0

Bullock labour 0 0.00





D. Fixed cost 0



52




Total cost(A+B+C+D) 123341 100.00


year 2015-16



observed highest for total human labour Rs 56900 followed by manures and





cabbage on the sample farms have been worked out in table 4.23.

An overall yield per hectare of cucumber came to 250 quintals on the


overall, is worked out as Rs. 123341. The per quintal cost of production of

cucumber is average farms


return to the cost of cultivation on the farms. The overall value of output per

hectare come to The overall value of output per hectare Rs 200000 the value of

output per hectare come to Rs. 123341, farms respectively.

Table:4.23 Per hectare yield, value of output and cost of production per

quintal of Cucumber

Particular Average

Yield (qtl/ha) 250

Price (Rs./qtl) 800





53






hectare farms respectively. The overall input-output ratio was observed as 1:1.


Cucumber cultivation

Particular Average

Break-up of costs

Cost A1 83608.2

Cost A2 83608.2

Cost B1 85141

Cost B2 102641

Cost C1 105841

Cost C2 123341

Cost C3 135675.1











Cucumber have been presented in the table 4.24.







54








obtained to be Rs. 116391.8, Rs. 116391.8, Rs. 114859, Rs. 97359,

Rs. 94159, Rs.76659 and Rs 64324.9 per hectare, respectively.

4.3 Disposable pattern of spices

A study of the vegetable marketing system is necessary to understand the

complexities involved and to identify bottleneck with a view of providing efficient

services in the transfer of farm producer and input from producer to consumer. An

efficient marketing system minimizes costs and benefits to all section of society.

Thus marketing of any product is the ultimate stage of any production system. A

marketing system should be such that the produce should reach to consumer in

good state without damage with least cost and within a shortest time after harvest.

The main objectives of an efficient marketing system are: (a) to enable the primary

producers to reap the best possible benefits; (b) to make available all products of

farm origin to consumers at reasonable price without impairing the quality of the

produce; (c) to provide facilities for lifting all produce, the farmers are willing to

sell at an incentive price; (d) to reduce the price spread between the primary

produce and ultimate consumer.

4.3.1 Marketing channel:

The marketing channel means the passage or channel through which a

commodity travels from the producer to the final consumer.

Keeping in view the importance of different marketing channels in the

disposal of produce, the following three widely used marketing channels were

selected for the study.

Channel – I: Producer → Consumer.

55

This is the most commonly used method of sale among the marginal spice

growers for selling of chilli and coriander.

Channel – II: Producer → Itinerant Trader → Consumer.

This channel is more popular with the marginal, small and medium

farmers. Due to poor holding capacity and inadequate facilities the farmers do not

generally hold the produce for a very long period. Secondly, the quantity of

produce also happens to be meager.

Channel – III: Producer → Commission agent/Retailer → Consumer.

All categories of farmers are selling to their produce through Channel- III. The

quantity sold by the large farmers is found to be highest followed by marginal farmers

medium farmers and small farmers through this channel.

4.3.2 Marketable surplus:

Table 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 2.28, 2.29,2.30 clearly reveals that the estimated

marketable surplus. Tomato, chilli cowpea cabbage bittergourd and cucumber is

highly perishable commodity. Being highly perishable in nature they cannot be

stored at household level for a longer period without losses. Lack of infrastructural

facility is another reason that forces farmers to sell their produce in the market

immediately after their harvest.

Table 4.25: Marketable surplus of Tomato of sampled households (Quintal per

farm)

S.N. Particulars Average

1. Total quantity produced (qty) 231.66

(100)

2. Quantity paid for wages 0.83

(0.07)

3. Quantity used for home 1.33

(0.12)

4. Quantity used for seed 00

(00)

5. Total quantity utilized 2.17

(.19)

6. Marketable surplus 1156.17

(99.81)

56

Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percentage to total quantity produced

Table 4.26: Marketable surplus of chilli of sampled households. (Quintal per

farm)


1. Total quantity produced (qty) 242.5

(100)


(0.06)


(0.06)


(00)


(0.12)


(99.88)

(Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percentage to total quantity produced)

Table 4.27: Marketable surplus of cowpea of sampled households. (Quintal per

farm)


1. Total quantity produced (qty) 300

(100)


(0.10)


(0.07)


(00)


(0.17)


(99.83)


57

Table 4.28: Marketable surplus of cabbage of sampled households.

(Quintal per farm)



(100)


(0.13)


(0.08)


(00)


(0.20)


(99.80)


Table 4.29: Marketable surplus of bitter gourd of sampled households.

(Quintal per farm)



(100)


(0.25)


(0.15)


(00)


0.40)


(99.60)


Table 4.30: Marketable surplus of cucumber of sampled households.

(Quintal per farm)



(100)


(0.20)


(0.12)

58


(00)


0.32)


(99.68)


4.4 Constraints in production and marketing:

48 percent of the farmers say that space available to them in the market is

partially adequate, 38 percent of the farmers says they are fully satisfied with the

space available to them in the market and 14 percent says that they are not satisfied

with the space available to them in the market for their disposal of produce. 76

percent of the farmers buy the seed from the cooperative society and 58 percent of

the farmers buy seed from commission agents or cooperative society. 42 percent of

the farmers say that the source (cooperative society or commission agent) is near to

the village. The study shows that 46 percent of the farmers are satisfied by the

work done by the labour at the field level, and 54 percent of the farmers are not

satisfied by the work of the labour. It shows that mostly packing done by the

farmers (62%) is not adequate either they use old bags for packing or use low

quality of bags for packing. Only 38 percent of the farmers use good quality or

new bags for packing. It shows that there are three patterns of selling the vegetable

that is daily, weekly and monthly. In the daily pattern nearly 58 percent of the

farmers use labour for selling their produce. In the weekly pattern 16 percent of the

farmers sell their produce by themselves and in the monthly pattern 68 percent of

the farmers are dependent upon labour for selling their produce. It shows that 66

percent of the farmers are unsatisfied by the price that they get for their produce in

market or at the farm level and 34 percent of the farmers are satisfied by the price

they get from the buyers. The major constraints are as follows

More labour required

Temperature is high

Humidity is high

Rains destroyed the crop of those area where accumulated and

water fall down.

59

Lack of knowledge appropriate technology

Training is needed

Quality of net is not appropriate

High vulnerability of fog system

Wind storm, cattle, fire, are damaged the net

Due to humidity and high temperature efficiency of labour is very

poor

60

CHAPTER-V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR

FUTURE RESEARCH WORK

5.1 Summary and conclusions:

Chhattisgarh is an agricultural chief land and due to large production of

rice, Chhattisgarh is known as the rice bowl. Apart from paddy, vegetables are also

grown. The immense diversity in agro-climatic condition in Chhattisgarh enables

to produce large varieties of vegetable. Vegetables are grown in an area about

351549.52 hectares with productivity 13.04 ton/ha in Chhattisgarh. Korba District

covers 5.80 per cent share in total vegetable area in Chhattisgarh. High risk

involves in the production of vegetables growing to its perishable nature. Keeping

in view the economic important of crops in the study area under Shade net house,

the present enquiry related to its production and marketing was undertaken in

Korba district of Chhattisgarh with following objectives

Objectives:

1. To work out the cost and return of major crops grown in shade net

cultivation.

2. To examine marketing pattern of major crops grown in Shade net

cultivation.

3. To identify the constraints of Shade net cultivation and suggest

measures for improvement of the same.

The present study was conducted in Korba district of Chhattisgarh. Five

farmers were selected randomly from5 Blocks i.e. namely, Korba, Kartala,

Katghora , Pali, Poundi Uproda.

Primary data from the farmers will be collected through personal interview

method with the help of well prepared pre-tested schedule and questionnaire for

the year 2015-16. Secondary data will be collected from different sources such as

https://villageinfo.in/chhattisgarh/korba/katghora.html

61

Directorate of Horticulture, Raipur and Sub Directorate of Horticulture office

korba , KVK‟s and National Horticulture Mission office Raipur and korba.

5.2 The study yielded following major findings

The finding of the study reveal that the average size of holding of the

selected house holds was 7 hectares.

On an Average family size was 4.8.

The literacy percent of the selected house holds were 87.5 percent.

Majority of the selected house hold belongs to schedule tribes.

On an average the total cultivated area was 6.75 hectare perfarm.

Tube well was the major source of irrigation.

Paddy, tomato and chilli were the major crops in the kharif season.

Paddy and vegetables were the major crops in the rabi season.

On an average cropping intensity was 183.49 present.

The cost of cultivation of tomato was found to be Rs. 115495 per hectare .

the input – output ratio was 1:0.6. Tomato crop was is not profitable in the

selected shade net cultivation due to lower price and yield.

The cost of cultivation of chilli, cow pea, cabbage, bitter gourd, and

cucumber were found to be Rs.128834, Rs.149787, Rs.145903, Rs.132165

and Rs.123341 per hectare respectively.

The input-output ratio of chilli, cow pea, cabbage , bitter gourd, and

cucumber were found to be. 1:2.2, 1:1.8, 1:1.37, 1:2.11, 1:1.62

respectively.

Marketable surplus was more than 99% in all the selected crops.

Study suggested that the extensive demonstration of improved and high

yielding varieties of vegetable crops should be given, definite provisions

should be made for timely supply of crucial inputs at reasonable price and

inadequate quality to sustain vegetable production on profitable basis.

62

5.3 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH WORK

They suggested that extensive demonstration of improved and high

yielding varieties of vegetable crops should be given, definite provisions

should be made for timely supply of crucial inputs at reasonable price and

inadequate quality to sustain vegetable production on profitable basis.

Shade net cultivation are associated with very high initial cost. Although, it

is linked with several Government Schemes in India and have 50-90% of

subsidies depending on intervention, status socio-economic condition and

policy of State and Central Government. But, still such efforts are not

appreciated by small and marginal farmers and they are still deprived of

their benefits at large. Intensive efforts is to be needed to develop location

specific - cost effective strategies for Protected Cultivation which is

suitable for small and marginal farmers. Such efforts have been successful

in raising the income and livelihood of resource poor farmers at different

locations of the state.

simple and low cost shade net may be suitable for Chhattisgarh farmers

The tomato is planted under shade net, will establish good stands and able to

produce higher and off- season tomato which fetched premium prices in the

market.

63

REFERENCES

Anonymous (2006 b) Agricultural and Rural Development of Punjab. The Punjab

State Farmers Commission, Govt. of Punjab: 43-44.

Barreto, M. S.and Jagtap, K. B.(2006). Assessment of substrates for economical

production of gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii Bolus ex Hooker F.) flowers

under protected cultivation. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture Vol.9

(2) pp.136-138.

Cheema D S, Kaur P and Kaur S (2004) vii International Symposium on Protected

Cultivation in Mild winter climates: Production, Pest Management and

Global Competition. ISHS Acta Horticulture. 659.

Chakraborty, H and Sethi, L N (2015) Prospects of Protected Cultivation of

Vegetable Crops in North Eastern Hilly Region. International

Journal of Basic and Applied Biology ISSN: 2394-5820

Dixit A (2007) Performance of leafy vegetables under protected environment and

open field condition The Asian Journal of Horticulture 2 (1) : 197 – 200.

Goren, A. Alakali-Tuvia, S. Perzelan, Y. Aharon, Z. Fallik, E. Shahak,

Y.(2012).Effect of colored shade nets on sweet bell pepper quality

after prolonged storage and shelf life. Acta horticulturae ISSN : 0567-7572.

Hwang, J.G. and KoreaKim, Y.D.(2014). Effect of Shade Net on Reduction of

Freezing Damage at a Tea Garden. ISSN : 1229-5671.

Ilić, Zoran SMilenković, LidijaŠunić, LjubomirFallik, and Elazar(2015). Effect of

coloured shade‐nets on plant leaf parameters and tomato fruit quality.

Journal of the Science of food and Agriculture ISSN: 0022-5142.

Kang, B. S. and Sidhu, B. S. 2006. Studies on growing off-season chilli nursery

under polyhouse. Annals of Biology, 22(1): 39-41.

Kumar. N. and kumar M. 2006. Prospects and management of protected cultivation

in hill, sustainable production from agricultural watershed in NWH, 488-

503.

Kumar R and Singh H (2002) Problems in vegetable production in Bharatpur

district of Rajasthan. Rural India 65: 48-50.

https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/search/?q=au%3a%22Barreto%2c+M.+S.%22

https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/search/?q=au%3a%22Jagtap%2c+K.+B.%22

https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/search/?q=do%3a%22Journal+of+Ornamental+Horticulture+%22

64

Medany M A, Hassanein M K and Farag A A (2009) Effect of black and white

nets as alternative covers to sweet pepper production under greenhouses in

Egypt. Acta Hort 807:121-26.

Naik R K (2005) Influence of N-substitution levels through organic and inorganic

sources on growth, yield and post-harvest quality of capsicum under

protected condition. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ Agric Sci, Dharwad, Karnataka,

India.

Nangare, D.D. Jitendra Singh, Meena, V.S. Bharat Bhushan, and Bhatnagar,

P.R.(2015). Effect of green shade nets on yield and quality of tomato

(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) in semi-arid region of Punjab. Asian

Journal of Advances in Basic and Applied Science. Vol-1 (1): 1- 8.

Negi, Vikram S. Maikhuri, R. K. Rawat, L. S. and Parshwan, D.(2013). Protected

cultivation as an option of livelihood in mountain region of central

Himalaya, India. International journal of sustainable development and

world ecology ISSN : 1745-2627.

Patil,M.A. and Bhagat, A.D.(2014). Yield response of cucumber (Cucumis sativus

L.) to shading percentage of shade net. International Journal of

Agricultural Engineering Volume 7(1): 243–248.

Rajasekar, M. Arumugam, T. and Ramesh Kumar, S.(2013). Influence of weather

and growing environment on vegetable growth and yield. Journal of

Horticulture and Forestry Vol. 5(10): 160-167.

Singh B and Sirohi N P S (2008) protected cultivation of vegetables in India:

problems and future prospects. Acta Hort.710

Singh R and Asrey R (2005) Performance of tomato and sweet pepper under

unheated green house. Haryana J Hort Sci. 34 (1-2) 175-175.

Singh K and Vashist G D (1999) An analysis of production and marketing system

of vegetable in Lambagaon block of District Kangra (H.P.). The Bihar In

Agril Mktg 7:376-89.

65

APPENDIX-I

DEPARTMENT OF AGRI-BUSINESS AND RURAL MANAGEMENT

INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA, RAIPUR (C.G.)

“AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHADE NET

CULTIVATION IN

CHHATTISGARH PLANE”

House Hold Schedule

A. General Information:

Name of farmer ……………..…………………………2.

Age……………………………… Education …………………………Categories

[Gen. / OBC/ ST/ SC] …………………….. Village

…………………………………… Block ……………………………………...

District ……………………….. State

………………………………………………………. Name of market

………………………..Distance from market ………………………….. Distance

from pacca road (km)………………………………………………………...................

Date of

interview…………………………………………………………………………………

B. Details of the family :

S.

No.

Name

of

family

member

Relation

to head

Sex

M/F

Age Edu-

Cation

Employment Income

Farm Off

farm

Non

farm

Farm Off

farm

Non

farm

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Total

66

C. Cropping Pattern :

S.

NO

.

Season Crops Variety

Area (ha) Production

Val

ue

Rs.

(quintal)

(1) Kharif

1.

2.

3.

Particulars Shade net house

[A]Cost Structure

Seed

Fertilizer & FYM

Family labour

Hired labour

Plant protection

Irrigation

Machinery

Variable cost

Marketing cost

Total working cost

[B]Return structure

Production (in Q.)

Sale price

Gross return

Net return

67

(2) Rabi

1.

2.

3.

(3) Summer or

Zaid

1.

2.

3.

Total cropped area

D. Cost of Structure

Size of shade net house

Price of shade net structure per

m2

Subsidy percent (%)

Total cost (Rs.)

Irrigation system

Criteria

E. Cost of caltivation

Crop:- ………………………………….

Variety:- …………………………………

Area :- ………………………………….

(A) Labour Cost

68

Operational cost of vegetable / fruit production under shade net house :

S.

N

.

Operation No.

of

opera

-tion

Family

human

labour

(days)

Hired

human

labour

(days)

Bullock

power

Machine

power

Total

expenditur

e on

particular

operation M F T M F T O H R O H R 1 Field

preparation

2 Sowing 3 Application

of manure

4 Application

of fertilizer

5 Interculture 6 Irrigation 7 Plant

protection

8 Harvesting 9 Threshing &

winnowing

1

0 Trans-

portation

1

1 Miscellaneou

s

Total

(B) Input cost

S.N. Input Owned

quantity

Purchased

quantity

Sold

quantity

Rate(Rs) /

unit

Total

value

(Rs.)

1 Seed

a.

b.

2 FYM

3 Fertilizer

a.

b.

c.

4 Plant

protection

chemicals

a.

b.

69

c.

Total

(C). Irrigation charges -------------

(D). Interest on working capital ---------------------------------

(E). Fixed cost

a) Rental value of land / leased in land (Rs.) : .....................................................

b) Land revenue (Rs.) : .........................................................................................

c) Interest on fixed capital: ...................................................................................

d) Depreciation: ....................................................................................................

F. Marketing cost

S.No. Particulars Sold to*

1 2 3

1. Name of vegetables

2. Quantity of each month sold

3. To whom sold

4. Selling place

5. Price (Rs./qts)

6. Distance from marketing place

7.

Means of transportation

a. Tractor

b. Truck

c. Bullock cart

d. Other (specify)

8. Transportation cost (Rs./Qts.)

9. Octroi charges (Rs.)

10. Mandi fees (Rs.)

11. Loading/unloading charges (Rs./Qts.)

12. Commission charges (Rs.)

13. Cleaning charges (Rs./Qts.)

14. Other expenses Rs.

Total

1. Sale price of producer (Rs./Qts.) --------------------------------------

2. Actual getting of price of producer (Rs./Qts.) --------------------------------------

3. Total marketing charges (Rs./Qts.) -------------------------------------

70

Curriculum vitae

Personal Details

Full Name - Shivendra Pratap Singh

Address - M/698, Adarsh Nagar, Kushmunda, Dist.-

Korba(CG)

PIN- 495454

Mobile - 09827199921

Email ID - [email protected]

Date of Birth - 10/07/1990

Sex - Male

Nationality - Indian

Religion - Hindu

Category - OBC

Marital status - Single

Qualification and Education

S.

N.

Class/

Exam

School/College Board/Universi

ty

Year Percent

age

1. High

School

Govt.H.S.School

Bhilai Bazar, Korba

CGBSE, Raipur 2006 55.66%

2. Higher

Secondary

Govt.H.S.School,

Bhaisma, Korba

CGBSE, Raipur 2008 60.4%

3. B.Sc.(AG) C.A.C. Bhilai IGKV, Raipur 2014 6.33/10

OGPA

4. DCA AISECT, Bilaspur Dr.C.V.R.U.,

Bilaspur

2011 63.83%

5. Tally KCC institute,

Korba

Dr.C.V.R.U.,

Bilaspur

2007 90.0%

mailto:[email protected]

71

Research interest

Farming of horticultural Crops.

Dairy technology

Skills

MS Office

Can speak and write (Hindi, English, Chhattisgarhi)

Hobbies & Interest

Playing Badminton

Professional work experience

Two year experience in Marketing and field work with Kestone

Integrated service Pvt. Ltd. As Sales Promoter in NOKIA India

2012

Declaration

I hereby declare that all the above information made

by me is true and complete to best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has

concealed or suppressed.

Date: 21 /07/2017 (signature)

Place: Korba. SHIVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHADE NET CULTIVATION IN ...MANAGEMENT COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE FACULTY OF...

Documents

Transcript of AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SHADE NET CULTIVATION IN ...MANAGEMENT COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE FACULTY OF...