IFPRI- Mechanization in Legume Production and Prospectus of Rural Transformation in India-...

20
Mechanization in Legume Production and Prospectus of Rural Transformation in India: Mechanical Harvesting of Chickpea Presented at conference on Pulses for Sustainable Agriculture and Human Health, New Delhi 31 May, 2016 ** IFPRI, New Delhi Office. $ Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka -580005 Acknowledgements: This research was funded from ICRISAT, Hyderabad; when the first n author was for village level studies

Transcript of IFPRI- Mechanization in Legume Production and Prospectus of Rural Transformation in India-...

Mechanization in Legume Production and Prospectus of Rural Transformation in India:

Mechanical Harvesting of Chickpea

Presented at conference on Pulses for Sustainable Agriculture and Human Health, New Delhi 31 May, 2016

** IFPRI, New Delhi Office. $ Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka -580005

Acknowledgements: This research was funded from ICRISAT, Hyderabad;

when the first n author was for village level studies

Background

Combine H in use in USA in 1902, pulled by 34 horses

Custom Hiring of Agricultural Machineries

3

I. To assess extent of uses and constraints on using combined

harvesters on chickpea in targeted sites of Madhya

Pradesh and Maharashtra.

II. To compare cost and benefits of manual vs. mechanical

harvesting (and threshing) of chickpea.

III. To analyze farmers’ and the harvester service providers’

constraints and opportunities.

Objectives of the Study

Chickpea in MP and MH in 2013/14

Variables Area in M ha

1. Chickpea area in India 9.93

2. Pigeon pea area in India 3.9

3. Chickpea area in Madhya Pradesh 3.16

4. Chickpea area in Maharashtra 1.19

Methodology

• Comparative analysis (partial budget analysis) of manual

harvesting and machine harvesting of chick peas.

• Estimation on labor uses for harvesting by each operation,

and detailed costs of farm operation.

• Integration of secondary survey with primary survey data

(interview) from farmers and service providers (harvester

and thresher owners), and other stakeholders.

• The primary survey was done in selected chickpeas

growing areas in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra in 2014

Methodology

II. Besides, 30 machine owners were surveyed with

checklist, 15 from each states.

7

Study area

Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh

Rahuri

Taluka Sangamner

Taluk

Basoda

Taluka Sironj

Taluka

V1 (5)

V1 (5)

V1 (5)

V2 (5)

V2 (5)

V3 (5)

V1 (5)

V2 (5)

V3 (5)

V3 (5)

V3 (5)

V2 (5)

District- Ahmednagar District - Vidisa

7

IV. RESULTS

Manual and mechanical harvesting of chickpea

Sl.N

o Harvesting Method

Overall

n=60

Number

1

Harvested by human

labour and threshed

using machine

38

(63)

2

Harvesting and

threshing by

machine

22

(37)

Total 60

Per ha cost and benefits of machine vs. the manual harvesting

Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh

S.N. Particulars Manual Combined H* Manual Combined H*

1 Harvesting/cutting

No of labour days 18 1 20 1

Male 8 1 5 1

Female 10 0 15 0

Labour cost (Rs.) 3,550 214 4,192 190

2 Stacking, bunding and Threshing

No of labour days 10 0 8 0

Male 4 0 4 0

Female 6 0 4 0

Labour cost 1,330 0 1,148 0

Rental charges of

thresher/ harvester 590 2,020 680 228

Per ha basis cost and benefits of machine vs. the manual harvesting …II

Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh

S.N. Particulars Manual Combined H* Manual Combined H*

3 Cleaning, winnowing and bagging

No. of labour days 3 3 4 4

Male 2 2 3 2

Female 1 1 1 2

Labour cost 398 643 574 756

4 Transportation from farm yard to home

No of labour days 2 3 3 4

Male 2 3 3 4

Female 0 0 0 0

labour cost 265 643 430 756

Rental charges of

tractor 480 480 520 520

Per ha cost and benefits of machine vs. manual harvesting..III

Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh

Particulars Manual CH* Manual CH*

Unit = Rs./ha

Sub total Total labor

days 33 7 30 9

Total labor cost 5,542 1,500 6,344 1,700

Machinery

charges 1,071 2,500 1,200 2,800

Total cost 6,613 4,000 7,544 4,500

Difference in

cost /ha 2,613 3,044

Saving on labor

days/ha 26 21

Marketing channel of custom hiring of combine harvester

FARMER Commission

agent (village)

Commission agent (Taluka

level)

Machine Owner

Combine Harvester Owners

1. Avg. cost of one combine harvester = ~ Rs. 18,00,000

2. Avg. crop acreage harvested by one harvester (surveyed) = 370 ha per year

3. The investment cost is usually recovered within 4-5 years of purchase of harvester.

4. All of the 25 sampled harvesters owners (entrepreneurs) were from Punjab and Haryana

Who owns Combine Harvester..

5. They have purchased the harvesters without any govt. subsidy, but taken bank loan (50% of them ) at the rate of 15-18 % per annum.

6. One harvester usually works for about six months in a year, moving around 2-3 states, owners are from Punjab and Haryana.

7. In one village in Haryana (Samghad, there are over 300 numbers of combined harvesters. These harvesters go all over India (chhatisgardh, AP, etc.).

Farmers’ reported constraints in mechanical harvesting of chickpea

S. N. Major constraints Garrett Ranking

Score (n=60)

Score Rank

1 Only spreading type of crop variety is available 64.62 1st

2 Non availability of suitable machines 59.44 2nd

3 Non availability of threshers machine on time 58.01 3rd

4 Frequent stoppage of machine on the field due to

improper handling (un-skill driver) 52.21 4th

5 Higher % on splitting/damage of grains during

harvesting by the machine 50.23 5th

6 Difficulty in transportation of machine from one

village to another , and from one field to another 48.15 6th

7 Non-availability of fuel for machine in nearby village 39.63 7th

8 Non availability of skilled workers to operate

machines locally 38.55 8th

Machine owners’ faced constraints in mechanical harvesting of chickpea

Sl. No Constraints

Garrett Ranking

Score (n=60)

Score Rank

1 High cost of machines (CH) 74.93 1st

2 Non-availability of trained machine operators

in other states 59.23 2nd

3 High cost of operating and maintenance of

machines and high wage of machine workers 57.47 3rd

4 Non-availability of financial support from

government 51.47 4th

5 Need to cover long distances in different

states/districts, which adds up fuel cost 50.27 5th

6 High fluctuations in area under the crop and

quantity of output across the places 45.43 6th

7 No standard price for unit harvested/ threshed 33.83 7th

8 Narrow roads/transportation problem in rural

areas 23.90 8th

V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusions and Implications 1. The mechanical harvesting of chickpea can

save about 27 labor days/ha & Rs.2,800/ha compared to manual harvesting .

2. Chickpea is on ~10 million ha in India, saving on cost of production ( 27 labor days/ha) means, saving of 135 million man days in a month window, even if machine harvested is done on 50% of crop acreage nationally. .

3. Through Custom Hiring Services, even smallholding farmers are using the harvesters.

4. The reduced harvesting time saves matured crops from weather vagaries (un-seasonal rain) & splitting of grain on the field), and increasing farmers’ profitability.

Conclusions and Implications 5. The harvesters are originally prepared for wheat and rice, and other cereals; not exclusively for pulses like chickpeas.

6. Unavailability of smaller- size harvesters in India. More targeted public sector R&D is needed to ad

In Vietnam

In Bangladesh

India

Thank you very much for your attention

Chinese Harvester