AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THRESHING OF MAIZE CROP IN KARNATAKA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MECHANICAL V/S

TRADITIONAL THRESHING METHODS

Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

In partial fulf i l lment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

In

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

By

B.T. VISHWANATHA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES DHARWAD – 580 005

NOVEMBER, 2005

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD NOVEMBER, 2006 (S.M. MUNDINAMANI) MAJOR ADVISOR Approved by: Chairman: ___________________ (S.M. MUNDINAMANI) Members: 1.___________________ (L.B. KUNNAL) 2. __________________ (S.B. MAHAJANA SHETTI) 3. __________________ (D.M. CHANDARGI)

CONTENTS

Chapter No.

Title

I. INTRODUCTION

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

III. METHODOLOGY

IV. RESULTS

V. DISCUSSION

VI. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

VII. REFERENCES

APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Title

3.1. Profile of the Study Area

3.2. Cropping Pattern of the Study Area

3.3. District-wise Area, Production and Productivity of Maize in Karnataka (Triennium ending 2002-03)

3.4. Taluk-wise Area and Production of Maize in Davanagere District (Triennium ending 2003-04)

3.5. Taluk-wise Area and Production of Maize in Haveri District (Triennium ending 2002-03)

4.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Sample Respondents

4.2. Farm Inventory (buildings) Position of the Sample Respondents in the Study Area

4.3. Farm Machinery and Equipments of the Sample Respondents in the Study Area

4.4. Livestock Inventory of the Sample Respondents in the Study Area

4.5. Cropping Pattern of the Sample Respondents in the Study Area

4.6. Major Maize Threshing Methods Identified in the Study Area

4.7. Cost of Threshing of Maize under Bare Hand Separation Method in the Study Area per Hectare

4.8. Cost of Threshing of Maize under Hand Beating Method in the Study Area per Hectare

4.9. Cost of Threshing of Maize using Maize Thresher (Engine Model) in the Study Area per Hectare

4.10. Cost of Threshing of Maize using Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model) in the Study Area per Hectare

4.11. Cost of Threshing of Maize under Manual and Mechanical Threshing Methods in the Study Area per Hectare

4.12. Costs and Returns for Maize Threshers in Threshing of Maize in the Study Area

4.13. Financial Feasibility of Investment on Maize Thresher (Engine Model) in the Study Area

4.14. Financial Feasibility of Investment on Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model) in the Study Area

4.15. Post-Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level in Bare Hand Separation Method of Threshing in the Study Area

4.16. Post-Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level during Hand Beating Method of Threshing in the Study Area

4.17. Post-Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level under Mechanical Method of Threshing (Maize Thresher) in the Study Area

4.18. Post-Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level under Mechanical Method of Threshing (Sheath Removal Maize Thresher) in the Study Area

4.19. Post-Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level under Manual and Mechanical Methods of Threshing in the Study Area

4.20. Constraints in Traditional/Manual Threshing Methods of Maize in the Study Area

4.21. Constraints in Mechanical Threshing Methods of Maize in the Study Area

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Title

1. Map of Study Districts of Karnataka

2. Map of Study Taluks in Davanagere and Haveri Districts

3. Flow chart showing sampling procedure

4. Cost of Threshing of Maize in Traditional/Manual Methods

5. Cost of Threshing of Maize in Mechanical Methods using Maize Threshers.

6. Break-Even Level for Maize Thresher (Engine model)

7. Break-Even Level for Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine model)

8. Post-Harvest Losses under Traditional/Manual Methods of Maize Threshing

9. Post-Harvest Losses under Mechanical Methods of Maize Threshing using Maize Threshers

LIST OF PLATES

Plate No.

Title

1. Traditional/Manual Threshing Methods of Maize

2. Mechanical Threshing Methods of Maize by Using Maize Threshers

3. Post-harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix No.

Title

I Area, Production and Productivity of Maize in Major Countries of the World (Triennium ending 2003-2004)

II Area, Production and Productivity of Maize in India (Triennium ending 2003-2004)

III Area, Production and Productivity of Maize in Karnataka from 1975-76 to 2002-03

I. INTRODUCTION

Indian agriculture witnessed technological break-through in the mid sixties. The release of high yielding varieties (HYV’s), new package of practices for realising their potential, mechanisation of agriculture by introduction of machinery for irrigation, tillage, harvesting, threshing etc. are regarded as technological innovations in agriculture. The divisible nature of seed fertilizer technology allows the benefits of technological progress to spread amongst the small peasant holdings, which constitutes the core of agriculture sector in the developing countries.

The introduction of high yielding varieties (HYV’s) in cereals under high yielding varieties programme launched during mid sixties in the country ushered new hopes and dimensions in the agriculture. Under this programme, the fertilizer-responsive, photoperiod intensive and short duration high yielding varieties (HYV’s) of rice, wheat, sorghum, maize and pearl millet were released.

Food grains include rice, wheat, maize (corn), coarse grains (sorghum and millet) and pulses. Four times increase in food grain production from 50 million tonnes in 1950-51 to 204.61 million tonnes during 2004-05 has been witnessed.

1.1 IMPORTANCE OF MAIZE IN WORLD ECONOMY

Maize, commonly referred to as corn in the United States. Today, in India, it is one of the important coarse cereal crop grown in different agro-climatic conditions of the country. Maize occupied third position in respect of area only next to wheat and rice in the world while its productivity surpasses all other cereal crops. Maize is grown in more than 70 countries of the world. Some of the important maize growing countries are USA, China, Brazil, Mexico, France, Argentina, Romania, India, Italy, Indonesia, South Africa etc.

In some parts of the world, maize is used as food grain for human consumption. It is being used by manufacturing industries and corn refineries for producing products such as corn oil, gluten for animal feed, corn starch, syrup, dextrose (used mainly by the pharmaceutical industry as a starting material for manufacturing Vitamin C and penicillin), alcohol for beverages, ethanol (which accounts for 12 per cent of all automobile fuels sold in United States), fructose corn syrup used mainly by the soft drink industry which helped to surpass the use of sucrose in USA, biodegradable chemicals and plastics, rubber, paper, textiles, ready-to-eat snack foods and breakfast cereals, cornmeal, flour and additives in paint and explosives. In addition, it is also used as an important feed and fodder for animals. It is estimated that maize yields 4000 industrial products and there are more than 1000 items in USA supermarkets that contain maize. However, in India only 3 per cent of the total maize produced is utilized by industries. The maize is a rich source of starch (60-68 %), protein (8-12 %), fat (3-5 %) and minerals (1-2 %).

The world average production of maize was around 671.37 million tonnes covering an average area of 143.74 million hectares with an average yield of 4,670 kilogram per hectare. The USA occupied the first position with an area of 29.29 million hectares (20.38 % of share) and production of 278.41 million tonnes (41.47 % of share) followed by China with an area of 24.49 million hectares (17.04 % of share) and production of 122.30 million tonnes (18.22 % of share) in total world maize production (Appendix I).

India ranks fifth and sixth in respect to area and production of maize having 7.25 million hectares and 14.45 million tonnes, respectively. The share of India in total world’s maize area and production was 5.04 per cent and 2.15 per cent respectively. But the yield levels were low at 1,995 kg per hectare as compared to the other maize producing countries viz., USA (9,495 kg/ha), Italy (8,620 kg/ha) and France (8,065 kg/ha) (Appendix I).

In India, Rajasthan occupied first position with an average area of 10.37 lakh hectares followed by Uttar Pradesh with 8.80 lakh hectares in total maize area. Andhra

Pradesh took first position with an average production of 18.07 lakh tonnes followed by Madhya Pradesh with 16.78 lakh tonnes in total maize production. In respect to productivity, Andhra Pradesh occupied first position with an average productivity of 3,221 kg per hectare followed by Punjab with 2,580 kg per hectare (Appendix II).

Although India has made significant strides in agricultural production, yet the progress has not been uniform and stable across the country leading to instability in agricultural production.

India’s traditional framing has undergone fundamental changes during the last five decades. Great technological improvements have taken place in the sphere of production of agricultural commodities.

Since independence, the government of India has made efforts to enhance agricultural production to attain self-sufficiency in food grain production. In this regard, a large number of hybrid and high yielding variety seeds with improved technology along with agricultural equipments and machineries have been introduced in the field of agriculture to enhance the production. It is trying to completely mechanise agriculture with modern techniques of production.

Introduction of high yielding varieties (HIV’s) enhanced agricultural production and yield levels of maize resulted in increased marketable surplus. Hence, post-harvest operations are assuming greater importance in the recent years. Threshing assumes considerable importance among post-harvest operations because, the crop has to be threshed as early as possible to make way for sowing of another crop in the field. Sometimes, threshing time may also coincide with heavy rainfall or severe cyclone and floods. In view of these situations, suitable technology is necessary for reducing the threshing time and safe storage of grains at farm level.

In our country, most of the farmers thresh cereal crops by traditional methods which having drawbacks of lower threshing efficiency, higher cost of threshing and threshing losses, more labour intensive and time consuming. The use of mechanical threshers is very limited and found especially where the crop is produced not for self-consumption but for commercial purposes.

1.2 MAIZE THRESHING AND SHELLING

Threshing or shelling consists of separating the grains, or the kernals in case of maize from the portion of cob that holds them.

Threshing constitutes a major operation among agricultural activities. Considered for a long time as the last step in production, it must rather be approached as the first one in the post-production system after harvest because of its influence on subsequent processing and preservation of the products.

The difficulty of kernals separation either done by hand or machine depends on maize varieties grown, moisture content and the degree of maturity of kernals and quantity of maize produce.

In mechanical threshing, two main alternatives exists i.e., separate threshing or combined harvesting and threshing.

In developing countries the first alternative is generally the most widely applied. Although harvesting and threshing are still frequently done by hands, their mechanisation has begun to develop during recent years especially where the crop is produced for commercial purposes. Nevertheless, such mechanisation has not yet developed everywhere to the same extent.

In industrialized countries, attempts have been made since the beginning of 20

th

century to devise machines, which would both harvest and thresh the grains, to reduce the labour requirements involved. Combine harvesters ('combines') which can cut, convey, separate and thresh the grain were the product of this developmental work. They are in widespread use and have been used already on large-scale grain production schemes in a number of developed countries.

1.3 MAIZE THRESHING METHODS

The threshing operations may be carried out in the field or farm by hand or with the help of machines. Mainly two methods are followed in shelling/threshing of most of the maize produce. They are manual shelling/threshing by hand with simple tools or machines operated manually and mechanical shelling/threshing with motorized equipment.

1.3.1 Manual Shelling/Threshing

Traditionally, maize shelling is carried out as a manual operation where maize kernals are separated from the cob by pressing on the grains with the thumbs. According to the operator's ability about 10 kilogram of maize grains are separated per hour. Another simple and common shelling method is rubbing two ears of maize against each other. Threshing of maize with hand-held tools (wooden or slotted metal cylinders), outputs up to 20 kilogram per hour can be achieved. The small disk shellers like hand-driven or powered machines, which commonly require two operators to obtain 150 to 300 kilogram per hour. Another threshing method followed in tropical countries involves putting cobs in bags and beating them with sticks, outputs achieved prove attractive but bags deteriorate rapidly.

1.3.2 Mechanical Shelling/Threshing with Motorized Equipment

Now-a-days many small maize shellers equipped with a rotating cylinder of the peg or bar type are available in the market. Their output ranges from 500 to 2000 kilogram per hour. They may be driven from a tractor power take off or may have their own engine. Power requirements vary between 5 to 15 horsepower according to the equipment involved. For instance, the French Bourgoin "Bamba" model thresher seems well suited to rural areas in developing countries because of its simple design, easy handling and versatility (maize, millet, sorghum etc.).

The method of threshing followed by farmers depends on many factors as indicated earlier. Normally small and marginal farmers with little quantity of produce to be threshed follow traditional methods, which are high expensive and more time-consuming results in loss of grains. While, farmers with larger quantity of produce to be threshed normally follow mechanical methods in recent years which are less time consuming, quality of grains better and less expensive besides reduces the loss of grains in the threshing operation.

1.4 POST-HARVEST LOSSES IN MAIZE

The post-harvest system encompasses a sequence of activities and operations that can be divided into two groups:

Technical activities include harvesting, field drying, threshing, cleaning, additional drying, storage and processing. Economic activities include transporting, marketing, quality control, nutrition, extension, information and communication, administration and management. The extent of losses of grains varies with the efficiency of carrying out of these activities.

1.4.1 Losses during Field Drying and Harvesting

In maize, the magnitude of losses at this segment is influenced by the time of harvesting, weather conditions, harvesting practices (especially referred to by hand and machine) and field exposure which affects subsequent storage quality of the grain.

The magnitude of losses in traditional methods of field drying and harvesting varies

greatly from country to country. It could be as less as 5 per cent for relatively drier areas to 50 per cent or more in places of heavily affected by birds, baboons, monkies or wild pigs. An average loss in field drying and harvesting is from 7 to 12 per cent.

1.4.2 Transport Losses

Losses due to transport of the crop within and off-farm depends on type of transport facility used, efficiency of transport facility, quantity of crop transported, ground conditions and surface of the terrain, etc. Transporting losses are generally small and ranging from 1 to 2 per cent.

1.4.3 On-Farm Drying Losses

On-farm drying losses depends on how much the maize has been dried in the field, drying methods followed and climatic conditions during drying. In traditional drying methods, the crop is exposed to proliferation of fungi, moulds and bacteria. Also, exposure to attacks of domestic animals and birds cause qualitative and quantitative losses. Some time farmers do not consider crop eaten by livestock as loss.

The losses in traditional drying and storage for 4 to 5 months has been between 7 to 14 per cent. Improved drying techniques can reduce losses mainly due to fungi and insects by approximately 2 per cent. The average on-farm drying losses range between 3 to 6 per cent.

1.4.4 Threshing/Shelling and Cleaning Losses

The losses in these operations are proportional to the moisture content of the grain and depend on the type of threshing method used.

Traditional shelling of maize done by hands causes minimum losses. Use of flails to beat the grain off of the cobs can damage the kernal and the unseparated grain of the cob can be lost with the chaff. Modern equipments, not properly used can also cause damage to kernals. In case of hand shelling in maize, an average loss of grains is one per cent as compared to machine shelling losses from 2 to 5 per cent by considering broken kernals and grain lost with chaff into the soil.

1.4.5 Storage Losses

Storage losses depends upon the physical factors like damage during harvesting, transportating and shelling. This makes maize susceptible to attack by insect pests, mites and moulds. The losses could be minimum in cool dry areas, marked in hot dry areas, high in cool damp conditions and very high in hot damp climates. The "weighted storage losses" may be in the order of 3 to 8 per cent (average 5-6 %) over a storage season.

The overall verified losses in Brazil for maize was 17.7 per cent comprising 4.4 per cent for harvesting, 7.8 per cent for storage i.e., 12.2 per cent (a little over two-third) for these two operations and remaining post-harvest operations accounts for 5.5 per cent. The post-harvest losses in maize crop affect the farmers by reducing their share in production and price for their produce in the market.

In Karnataka, five times increase in area and production of maize from 1.27 lakh hectares and 3.78 lakh tonnes in 1975-76 to 6.69 lakh hectares and 21.36 lakh tonnes, respectively during 2000-01 (Appendix III). Now, maize having an average area of 6.22 lakh hectares is the third largest cereal crop next to paddy (11.54 lakh hectares) and sorghum (17.86 lakh hectares) in Karnataka. Similarly, in respect to production, maize ranks third among the cereals with an average annual production of 15.99 lakh tonnes. An average annual productivity of maize is 2,651 kg per hectare (Table 3.3).

Keeping in view the importance of the maize crop in the agricultural crops of the

state, the present study has been under taken on this maize crop.

So far the studies conducted on threshing of maize has been very few, particularly in relation with economic evaluation. Earlier studies mainly concentrated on performance evaluation of threshing method or thresher over other thresher relating to their engineering aspects for other crops. The studies on comparative economics on different threshing methods of maize are hardly available.

An attempt was made in the present study for economics of threshing of maize crop - A comparative study of traditional v/s mechanical methods of threshing in the study area has been initiated with the following specific objectives.

1.5 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

1. To identify different methods of threshing of maize crop and to estimate cost of threshing in the study area.

2. To analyse the financial feasibility of investment and break-even point for different mechanical methods of maize threshing.

3. To estimate the post-harvest losses under different methods of maize threshing, and

4. To identify the constraints in different threshing methods and suggest appropriate policy measures.

1.6 HYPOTHESES

1. Farmers follow different methods of maize threshing in the study area and cost of threshing varies with method of threshing.

2. Investment on mechanical method of threshing is financially feasible.

3. The post-harvest losses are more in traditional methods of maize threshing.

1.7 PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY

The entire study is presented in six chapters. The chapter I gives an introductory note highlighting the rationale of the study, specific objectives and its hypothesis, while chapter II represents the reviews of the studies made in the past that are relevant to the objectives of the present investigation. Chapter III explains the methodology adopted in the study, including delineation and description of the study area and crop, sampling frame, nature and sources of data, analytical tools and techniques used. The results of the study are presented in chapter IV and are discussed in chapter V. The summary and policy implications are presented in chapter VI.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In this chapter, a review of past research in the field has been compiled to enable better understanding of the research work carried out in various regions, method of analysis on the research subject. So far the studies conducted on threshing of maize has been very few and hardly available, particularly in relation with comparative economic evaluation on different threshing methods of maize. Keeping in view the objectives of the study the literature reviewed presented under the following headings.

Keeping in view the objectives of the study the literature reviewed presented under the following headings.

2.1 Different methods and cost of threshing

2.2 Financial feasibility and break-even analysis for mechanical methods of threshing.

2.3 Post-harvest losses in different methods of threshing.

2.4 Constraints in different methods of threshing.

2.1 DIFFERENT METHODS AND COST OF THRESHING

Ozcan and Zeren (1987) studied the conventional and mechanised harvesting and threshing methods in terms of field efficiency, energy consumption and costs. Conventional harvesting and threshing methods were found to have low field efficiency and high cost. Although the combine harvester had the highest field efficiency and lowest costs of all the tested methods, it would only be applicable for large areas.

Sharma et al. (1987) reported that the axial flow paddy thresher could thresh 10 to 23 cwt per hour of clean paddy grain depending upon straw length and moisture content for a normal loading of a 35 horsepower tractor. The grain losses are less than 2.5 per cent. The machine can save 60 per cent of the labour involved in threshing operations and cost of machine operation was Rs. 300 to 325 per ha as compared to Rs. 373 to 400 per ha with manual method.

Singh et al. (1987) developed an animal-power complex to operate various rotary powered systems like loop type paddy thresher, chaff cutter, oil expeller, flour mill, feed grinder, etc. driven by a pair of animals. The cost of threshing and cleaning was Rs. 6.37 per quintal of grain in a loop type paddy thresher as compared to Rs. 4.62 per quintal for manual threshing.

Das and Dash (1989) developed a mechanically power-operated paddy thresher with a view to increase the threshing efficiency and to reduce the cost of threshing as compared to conventional paddy thresher. It was observed that the threshing efficiency was 98.5 per cent and the net unit threshing cost per quintal of paddy was Rs. 2.11 when threshed by this thresher as compared to Rs. 3.96 per quintal when threshed by a pedal thresher.

Vanangamudi (1989) reported that threshing the heads of bajra hybrid KM2 at 10, 15, 20 or 25 per cent seed moisture levels in a mechanical thresher resulted in significant differences in the extent of mechanical damage to the seeds. Seeds extracted at 15 or 20 per cent moisture recorded the least damage than those extracted at 10 or 25 per cent. A comparison of 5 threshing methods (hand threshing, beating with a pliable stick, bullock treading, machine threshing and tractor treading) revealed that hand threshing inflicted no damage on the seed, beating with a pliable stick recorded the minimum and bullock treading recorded the maximum damage. Germination and seedling vigour were highest and lowest in seeds obtained by hand threshing and bullock treading, respectively.

Behera et al. (1990) designed, developed and tested a power-operated wheat thresher with a view to increasing the threshing efficiency and reducing the cost of threshing in comparison with traditional methods. It was observed that the maximum threshing efficiency of 95.3 per cent can be achieved by threshing the wheat crop at 9.25 per cent moisture content. Also, reported that net unit threshing cost per quintal of wheat was Rs. 13.63 when threshed by this thresher as compared to Rs. 14.94 for traditional methods.

Jadhav and Deshpande (1990) developed a sunflower thresher called Phule sunflower thresher and evaluated for its performance and economics. It was observed that the threshing efficiency and cleaning efficiency were 100 and 96 to 98 per cent. The output capacity of the machine was about 40 kg seed per hour and threshing cost was Rs. 13 per quintal as compared to Rs. 30 to 35 per quintal for local methods.

Singh and Thakur (1990) developed an animal power system to operate various rotary powered machines such as a loop type paddy thresher, a groundnut decorticator, a maize sheller and other similar machines. The animal power driven groundnut decorticator tested by this unit gave an output of 100 kg per hour as compared to manual decortication of 0.73 kg per hour and hand beating of 8.33 kg per hour. The broken shells with hand beating were 55 per cent against 14 per cent with animal driven groundnut decortication. The animal power driven maize sheller unit gave an output of 175 kg per hour as compared to 35 kg per hour for hand beating. The cost of threshing with this unit was Rs. 5.69 per hour as compared to Rs. 7.65 per hour for hand beating.

Singh and Thakur (1991) developed an animal power complex to operate various rotary powered machines such as a loop type paddy thresher, groundnut decorticator, maize sheller and chaff cutter. The thresher output was found to be 2.38 quintal per hour (7 times greater than manual threshing). The animal powered maize sheller gave an output of 1.75 quintal per hour as compared to 0.35 quintal per hour for manual threshing. The cost with this unit was Rs. 7.15 per quintal as compared to Rs. 8.39 per quintal for manual beating. The output of a chaff cutter driven by this unit was found to be 8.6 quintal per hour as compared to manual chaff cutting of 3.8 quintal per hour.

Gowda et al. (1994) reported four most common methods of pigeon peas threshing in India namely, beating the crop manually with a long stick (club method), hitting small bundles of the crop manually against a hard surface, using a tractor to run over the spread crop and using a stone roller pulled by a pair of bullocks on the uniformly spread crop. They evaluated the cost of threshing of pigeon peas using different local practices and compared with mechanical threshing methods such as Japanese treadle threshers and power driven wheat threshers. The results showed that the cost of threshing per unit weight was highest by using the club method and lowest by using the stone roller and bullocks.

Miah et al. (1994) evaluated the performance of four rice threshing methods (pedal thresher, bullock trampling, drum beating and human trampling) in terms of threshing output, grain damage and unthreshed grain. The pedal thresher gave the highest threshing output (103.4 kg/h) while human trampling produced least grain damage, although the damage percentage with the pedal thresher was not significantly higher.

Azhar Saeed et al. (1995) evaluated the field performance and economics of hold-on paddy thresher in Pakistan. It was reported that paddy threshing was done by beating paddy bundles against clay moulds or logs and by treading under animal feet or tractor tyres. It was observed that the hold-on paddy thresher gave the highest output of 537 kg per hour with threshing efficiency of 99 per cent and the machine loss and grain damage were 2.64 and 0.4 per cent, respectively. The operation cost of the thresher was Rs.196 per ton as compared to Rs. 350 per ton for manual threshing.

Eswarappa et al. (1995) conducted a study on three groundnut threshers used to thresh groundnuts (Variety J.L 24). The threshers compared were power operated nail thresher, power operated loop thresher and the UAS loop thresher. Their capacities and threshing costs were evaluated and compared to the traditional hand stripping method. The respective capacities of the threshers were 65.2 kg per hour, 46.8 kg per hour and 49.5 kg

per hour, which is far superior to the hand threshing capacity of 5 kg per hour. The respective threshing costs were 0.19, 0.27 and 0.31 rupee per kg for nail, loop and UAS loop thresher, whereas hand-threshing cost was Rs. 0.65 per kg. The power operated nail thresher was recommended for groundnut producers.

Behera et al. (1996) assessed the performance of different rice threshing methods in experiments on farms in Nakhur village, Dhauli, Orissa. Threshing capacity, threshing efficiency and breakage percentage increased with decrease in grain moisture content for all threshing methods tested. Traditional methods were either costly or slow. The optimum grain moisture value for power operated and pedal operated threshers was 15.37 per cent, threshing outputs were 186.44 and 75.05 kg grain per hour and operating costs were Rs. 6.96 and Rs. 10.25 per quintal, respectively.

Swain et al. (1996) reported that the CAET power operated paddy thresher had the highest (137 kg grain per hour) threshing capacity and the lowest threshing cost and the RRL pedal operated thresher had lowest capacity (37.93 kg per hour) and highest threshing cost out of four threshers tested.

Anantachar et al. (1997) developed a pedal operated groundnut decorticator at the College of Agricultural Engineering, Raichur and compared its performance with a hand-operated decorticator. The study revealed that the pedal operated decorticator gave an output of 58 kg per hour, which was more (44.39-89.45 %) than the hand operated decorticator per hour shelling. The unit cost of operation of pedal operated decorticator was appreciably less than the unit cost of operation of hand-operated decorticator.

Bhutta et al. (1997) evaluated the performance of two different sunflower threshing techniques by using combine harvester and stationary thresher and compared with the manual threshing method. Threshing costs of Rs. 0.364 per kg and Rs. 0.260 per kg were observed for combine harvester and thresher, respectively. The cost of sunflower threshing by stick beating (manual method) was Rs. 0.620 per kg. The cleaning efficiency of combine and thresher were 96.7 and 89.36 per cent, respectively.

Paramasivam (1997) developed and evaluated an axial flow groundnut thresher. The weight of samples of whole pods, damaged pods, unthreshed pods and blown off pods from the main pod outlet were collected from each test run. The samples were analysed and performance indices were determined. The mean values of threshing efficiency, unthreshed pods and breakage of pods were 99.27 to 99.80 per cent, 0.2 to 0.23 per cent and 0.10 to 0.15 per cent, respectively. Cleaning efficiency and output were 99.59 to 99.65 per cent and 34.35 to 38.89 kg per hour, respectively. Machine threshing cost was Rs. 37.14 per quintal as compared with Rs. 50.00 for manual pod plucking. Labour requirements for machine threshing were 80 mandays per hectare as compared to 150 mandays per hectare for manual threshing. Thus, by mechanising groundnut threshing, savings of 26 per cent in unit costs and 46 per cent in labour could be achieved.

Lee Sun Ho et al. (1998) developed a sesame thresher for threshing and cleaning. This prototype consists of 3 major parts for conveying, threshing and cleaning. Sesame bundles are fed into the machine by a conveying chain with guide, threshed by a vibrating crank arm and cleaned by using an oscillating cam and screen. The prototype finished one hectare of sesame threshing in 12 hour reducing labor requirement by 90 per cent and cost by 77 per cent as compared to conventional techniques.

Chandrakanthappa Kammar and Batagurki (2001) conducted an experiment at the threshing yard of the University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore, Karnataka, India, on four methods of threshing viz., manual beating with a stick, passing a bullock drawn stone roller, passing a tractor drawn stone roller and using a rasp bar type mechanical thresher for two ragi varieties (MR-1 and HR-911). Output, threshing efficiency, mechanical damage and cost of operations for different threshing methods were evaluated and compared. It was found that the rasp bar type mechanical thresher was the best among the four methods. It had an output of 138.46 kg per hour, threshing efficiency of 79.61 per cent, mechanical damage of 2.95 per cent and low operation cost of Rs.18.43 per quintal.

2.2 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY AND BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS FOR MECHANICAL METHODS OF THRESHING

Jadhav and Deshpande (1990) reported that the thresher with gasoline engine has a break-even point at 30 tonnes (58 ha) and 55 tonnes (106 ha) per year as compared to bullock and tractor treading in Pakistan. The thresher powered from tractor has a break-even point of 65 tonnes (126 ha) per year as compared to bullock threshing, where as, the tractor treading followed by winnowing operation is economical up to 80 tonnes (155 ha) per year as compared to thresher powered from the tractor.

Kailappan et al. (1993) reported that the manual thresher mounted on a wooden trunk separates 7 per cent more grain from the sheaves than by conventional threshing over hard surface. This gadget costs only US $ 15 and fetches an additional income of US $ 17 to US $ 20 per hectare and economically feasible as compared to the conventional threshing methods.

Hossain et al. (1996) in their study on performance of pedal thresher over traditional methods of threshing, it was observed that the pedal thresher of Camilla Co-operative Karkhan (CCK) showed the highest threshing capacity as well as threshing efficiency as compared to those BARI pedal thresher, hand beating and animal treading. The threshing capacity of BARI pedal thresher, CCK pedal thresher, hand beating and animal treading were 58, 62.5, 45 and 48 kg per man-hours, respectively. The CCK and BARI pedal threshers saved 24.16 and 18.23 per cent cost over hand beating and 65.79 and 63.09 per cent cost over animal treading, respectively. Wheat thresher (pedal) was found neither technically nor economically feasible over traditional methods.

Kalsirsilp and Gajendra singh (1999) reported the cost of manual harvesting was Bht 3,200 per hectare in Thailand during 1993 and the break-even point was 89 hectares. Due to significant increase in price of mission, the break-even point in 1998 increased to 130 hectares and cost of manual harvesting was Bht 3,860 per hectare.

Sehgal et al. (2002) designed, developed and field evaluated a honey cum wax separator to extract honey from the uncapping waste at different locations on melliferous honey. The machine can extract 35.4 per cent honey per batch from uncapping waste. The capacity of the machine was evaluated as 100 kg per hour of uncapping waste (30 kg/h of honey) with a working volume of 0.03 cubic meter (5 kg of uncapped wax/batch). The initial investment on this separator was Rs. 15,000 and pay back period was 2.2 years.

2.3 POST-HARVEST LOSSES IN DIFFERENT METHODS OF THRESHING

Georgiev et al. (1977) estimated the loss of maize grains, when the maize cobs with 16 to 24 per cent moisture content and threshed in a combine harvester at different feed rates, drum speeds, concave settings, fan speeds, screen speeds and inclinations. The kernal losses reported varied from 1.87 per cent to 20.15 per cent and mechanical damage from 1.32 per cent to 4.86 per cent.

Singh and Khosla (1977) discussed the magnitude of food grain losses at various post-harvest stages. The transit and storage losses in food grains were estimated at between 1.03 per cent and 1.09 per cent of the value of sales during 1969-73. The total post-harvest loss at different post-harvest stages was ranged between 10 to 37 per cent.

Boxall et al. (1981) conducted a survey on quantitative and qualitative rice losses during harvesting, milling and storage. The total losses recorded 18.1 per cent due to inefficient harvesting and threshing practices. Significant breakage of grains occurred when rice dried too quickly by mechanical driers or sundried rice was milled. Spillage and handling losses amounted to 0.35 per cent during warehouse storage.

Castaneda Silva and Zapata (1982) reported post-harvest losses of rice at field level ranged from 2.5 to 8.2 per cent, processing losses (mainly broken kernals) from 7 to 34 per cent, marketing losses at wholesale level from 0.11 to 0.28 per cent and at retail level, it was ranged from 0.3 to 0.7 per cent.

Anonymous (1983) tested a KEM groundnut thresher imported from USA at the National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC), Islamabad. The tests concerned with the semi spreading variety "Banki", were conducted at a drum speed of 395 revolutions per minute and a blower speed of 650 revolutions per minute. An output of 63.3 kg per hour of cleaned pods was recorded with less than 24 per cent of cleaning efficiency, unthreshed loss of 5.13 per cent and pod breakage of 6.12 per cent.

Ganno et al. (1983) compared the performance of three combine harvesters (GS76, GS78 and HD1300) in sorghum grain harvesting. Transporting unit losses averaged 5.6, 1.4 and 3.6 per cent in GS76, GS78 and HD1300, respectively. Corresponding threshing losses were 2.7, 2.9 and 3.7 per cent. Total losses were 8.4, 4.3 and 7.3 per cent in GS76, GS78 and HD1300, respectively. Losses were greatest at slow operating speeds.

Rohani and Samsudin (1984) conducted a survey on harvesting of rice manually during 1981. Several factors such as lack of labour, delay in harvesting and threshing, improper threshing and handling and the cultivar planted were important in contributing to both harvesting and threshing losses. Losses during milling were mainly related to grain breakage. During hulling process, only 0.7 per cent of the grains were lost. Storage losses were significantly higher in large mills (22.8 %) and in small mills, it was 2 to 5 per cent. These differences were due to the amount, storage time and storage methods employed by the millers.

Yon and Ahmad (1984) estimated post-harvest losses in paddy farm during harvesting and threshing and rice at the mill in the Tanjong Karang area of Malaysia during 1981. Threshing and harvesting losses ranged from 3.48 to 7.42 per cent and from 0.12 to 1.54 per cent, respectively, and were due to several factors including lack of labour, delay in harvesting or threshing, improper handling and rice milling losses were mainly due to grain breakage. Storage losses were 22.8 per cent in large mills and 2 to 5 per cent in small mills.

Majumdar (1985) designed a CIAE multicrop thresher by incorporating an axial flow arrangement on a traditional spike tooth thresher for threshing major crops. The machine was operated by a 5 horsepower electric motor and the output capacities were 348, 276, 200, 540, 1,635 and 392 kg per hour for gram, wheat, soyabean, sorghum, maize and paddy, respectively. The threshing efficiency was approximately 99 per cent in most cases and cleaning efficiency was 99, 97 and 99 per cent for wheat, sorghum and maize and slightly lower for other crops. Total grain losses were 2 per cent for wheat, gram, sorghum and paddy, 2.2, and 4 per cent for maize and soyabean, respectively.

Rohani et al. (1985) reported post-harvest losses in rice under Malaysian conditions. Threshing losses (13.7 %) were markedly higher than cutting losses (5.1 %) of grains. Losses during threshing was a result of grains being thrown away with the straw whereas, losses during cutting was a result of grain scattering during cutting and bundling operations. Losses at mill level were attributed to grain breakage with 6.7 and 3.1 per cent reduction in head rice yield in small and large mills, respectively. Grain breakage depended on mill type, handling and milling operations and improper adjustments of the machinery. Moulds, insects and rodents accounted for storage losses of about 1.1 per cent.

Singh and Aromolaran (1985) reported the extent of post-harvest losses of yam and maize at the farmer and trader levels in Nigeria. The total post-harvest loss at farm level was about 9 per cent for yams and 12 per cent for maize. The total loss at the trader level was about 17 per cent for yams and 10 per cent for maize.

Pinar (1987) compared six harvesting and threshing systems, including three threshers and three combine harvesters in Turkey. Two threshers were hand fed and powered by the strap hoop of the tractor and the third was powered by a 5-6 horsepower

engine or an electric motor. Grain losses varied from 6.6 to 9.1 per cent. Losses were attributed primarily to grain moisture content, forward speed, threshing drum speed, plant properties and the machinery used was not designed specifically for rice.

Khan (1990) modified a wheat thresher with beater threshing drums and built in screen air cleaners to serve as a whole crop thresher, which could be quickly converted from beater to axial flow mode. In field tests, threshing outputs of 390 kg per hour in wheat and 634 kg per hour in paddy were achieved with maximum grain losses of 1.5 and 1.2 per cent in wheat and rice, respectively. Cleaning efficiency ranged from 97.6 to 99.9 per cent.

Anonymous (1991) reported chickpea harvesting machine had an average crop intake capacity of 1,500 kg per hour and cleaning efficiency of 94 per cent. Grain damage was 8.5 per cent and grain loss was 3 per cent. The thresher was also evaluated for other crops like soyabean, sunflower and safflower. The average grain damages were 1.5, 1.1 and 0.5 per cent, respectively in these crops. The chickpea thresher performance was compared in terms of grain losses and labour requirements with conventional threshing practice using bullocks or tractors followed by manual winnowing. The labour required to thresh one ton of grains using the thresher was 89 and 76 per cent less than that required for bullock and tractor treading, respectively followed by manual winnowing. Total grain losses in bullock and tractor threshing methods were 11.9 and 12 per cent, respectively.

Anwar (1991) reported field performance of a chickpea thresher in comparison with conventional practices by using bullock and tractor treading followed by manual winnowing. Thresher intake crop capacity was 1000 to 1500 kg per hour with a cleaning efficiency of 94 per cent, 2 per cent grain breakage and 3 per cent grain losses. The total grain losses for bullock and tractor treading methods ranged from 10 to 12 per cent.

Anwarul et al. (1991) observed the rice post-harvest practices and estimated the post-harvest losses of rice occur during different post-harvest practices from threshing to sun drying in Bangladesh. Most important post-harvest practices followed in rice were threshing by hand beating, ox-treading, use of pedal threshers and cleaning of threshed paddy using a winnowing basket called 'Kula' and sun drying of non parboiled paddy on packed ground, bamboo mats in the courtyard and on the roadside. The total loss estimated from threshing to sun drying was 3.5 per cent (average of three seasons) which was equivalent to 0.7 million tonnes of paddy. Losses in threshing and winnowing operations not exceed 1.0 per cent except 1.6 per cent loss in hand beating. A similar loss was recorded for threshing by hand beating followed by ox-treading and pedal threshing. Drying loss was estimated at 2.2 per cent.

Kausal et al. (1991) reported that threshing soyabean varieties like MACS 13, MACS 58, PK 472 and Moneta by stick beating, tractor treading and using a thresher at 820, 600 and 400 revolutions per minute gave 2.4, 2.7, 8.2, 5.4 and 2.4 per cent mechanical damage and 85.8, 84.7, 71.6, 77.4 and 88.6 per cent of germination, respectively.

Kausal et al. (1992) reported soyabean varities like MACS 13, JS 8021 and Moneta grown at Akola, Maharashtra, were sun dried after harvest to a moisture content of 11 per cent and then threshed by treading with a bullock or tractor and using a multicrop thresher. Mechanical damage to seeds ranged from 7.5 per cent with bullock treading to 12.9 per cent with multicrop thresher.

Singh and Bachchan Singh (1992) evaluated a peg type double cylinder threshing mechanism for pigeon peas and evaluation was done using unthreshed grain and seed damage as indices. The amount of unthreshed grain was 1.35 to 2.95 per cent and seed damage was 5 per cent or less. The germination rate ranged between 87 to 89 per cent. The performance of the double cylinder threshing mechanism was better than that of a single cylinder threshing mechanism.

Jha et al. (1996) reported significant difference in mechanical damages caused to soyabean grains under different threshing methods. The soyabean threshing with stick

beating, tractor treading and machine threshing respectively caused 6.77, 9.38 and 14.32 per cent of mechanical damage.

Khan et al. (1997) reported based on experiments conducted at Bhuvaneswar, Orissa, that the yield loss of rice during harvesting, bundling, transporting and threshing were 0.68, 1.21, 1.06 and 3.79 per cent, respectively in CR-1009 variety and 0.97, 1.52, 1.56 and 4.06 per cent, respectively in Lalat variety.

Khan et al. (1997) evaluated the effect of different threshing methods on the quality of paddy in Gazipur, Bangladesh during 1994. The threshing output of different methods differed significantly among the treatments. The threshing capacity of the pedal thresher (96 kg/h) was higher than other methods. Significant unthreshed grains left out in bullock treading (9.97 %), manual treading (5.73 %) and drum beating (1.44 %) and the best results was observed in pedal threshing where in only 0.46 per cent of unthreshed grains were found.

A study was undertaken by Dauda and Aviara (2001) to investigate the effect of five maize threshing methods namely, bare hand threshing, hand-held manually operated tool sheller, stick beating, pounding in mortar and tractor operated machine threshing on the threshing output and grain damage in maize grain. Tests were carried out with these methods using three maize varieties viz., Hybrid 8341-6, TZESR-Y and TZESR-W. The results of the study showed that the machine threshing gave significantly higher output 626.67 kg per hour for all the varieties tested as compared to other methods. Among five threshing methods, the grain damage was found to be lowest in bare hand threshing (0.5 % on hybrid 8341-6, 0.3 % on TZESR-Y and 0.2 % on TZESR-W) while, the stick beating method showed the highest damage of grains percentage (4.0 % on Hybrid 8341-6, 2.0 % on TZESR-Y and 1.0 % on TZESR-W).

2.4 CONSTRAINTS IN DIFFERENT METHODS OF THRESHING

Kahlon and Singh (1978) examined the use of tractors for different crop operations on the farm (also their non-farm use) based on a study of 136 tractor holdings in the Punjab. The study indicated that tractor use was concentrated on preparatory tillage and transportation of all crops, sowing, threshing and shelling. Tractors were often hired out and were used as a means of transport. Tractors were under-utilized due to lack of tractor accessories, lack of precision in repairs, presence of bullocks on tractor farms, slow adoption of some mechanised operations, non-remunerative social use, etc.

Raha and Akbar (1993) analysed the distribution system of minor irrigation equipment (MIE) in Jamalpur and Mymensingh districts of Bangladesh. Results indicated few attempts to develop a market for MIE and no control of the quality of MIE available in the market. Current market conditions could not promote standardization of MIE. Although the accessibility of farmers to MIE has improved and the availability of servicing facilities and supply of spare parts has increased over the years, scope still exists for further improvement in the service centre sector.

Hensel and Esper (1994) developed an optimized photovoltaic driven grain mill for small-scale use in developing countries at Hohenheim University, Germany. A single standard 50-W photovoltaic module led to a milling rate for wheat, millet and maize of 15, 12 and 9.5 kg per day, respectively. Initial costs for the photovoltaic system are lower than for the installation of a small combustion engine and no fuel or spare parts are required.

Ahmed and Mazed (1996) reported that with the adoption of modern and high yielding varieties (HYV’s), the manual threshing and harvesting methods faced shortage of labour as compared to mechanical threshing methods during harvesting and threshing season. This problem is due to the large amount of crop handling with in a limited time.

Makanga and Singh (1997) reported constraints for low level of mechanisation in Kenya, particularly in small-scale farming where the use of hand tools are most common.

Major factors responsible for low level adoption of agricultural mechanisation technologies include small size of holding, inadequate capital, technological adaptability, product pricing structure and marketing, extension and adult education, problems related to transition to animal power, soil and water erosion, machinery operation and maintenance and lack of required infrastructure.

Lozovskii and Prokopenko (1999) reported that Machinery Technology Stations (MTS) are being developed in Russia to provide 'nuclei' of efficient mechanisation during the current crisis in agriculture (shortage of tractors and other machinery, obsolescence, lack of spare parts, etc.). It was observed that the main priorities of the MTS are to maintain farm machinery markets, ancillary services at the village level, save fuel consumption, timely and proper servicing of machinery and equipment and to improve skills and training.

Orsik (2000) made a survey on the engineering services in the Russian agricultural sector during the economic crisis period of the 1990s and the major problems are identified and discussed. These cover the fall in agricultural production, reduction in the number of tractors and machines being produced, obsolescence and breakdowns, financing difficulties, collapse of the repair and spare-parts services, etc. The main sectors of tractors, tillage, sowing, chemicals, harvesting, post-harvest treatment of produce, livestock husbandry, etc. and the energy policy were discussed. Reform, restructuring, government support, improved administration and a better legislative framework were required to remedy the current situation.

Singh and Verma (2001) reported that the farm mechanisation in the state of Himachal Pradesh (India) is very poor in terms of mechanical power, efficient implements, land reclamation, water management, renewable energy and post-harvest activities. The mechanisation is badly hampered by small and irregular fields, undulating topography, lack of adequate agricultural engineers and skilled man power, poor facilities of repair, maintenance and manufacture of implements and high cost of agricultural machines and implements.

III. METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the description of the study area, sampling procedure adopted, method of survey, nature and sources of data, analytical techniques employed and concepts used in the study under the following headings.

3.1 Delineation of the study area

3.2 Sampling procedure

3.3 Nature and sources of data

3.4 Analytical techniques employed

3.5 Concepts used

3.1 DELINEATION OF THE STUDY AREA

Karnataka is the eighth largest state in India with an area of 1,91,791 sq. kms. It is situated between 11.5° and 19.0° North latitude and between 74° and 78° East longitude in the southern plateau. According to 2001 census, Karnataka had a total population of 52.85 million comprising 26.89 million male and 25.95 million female, with an overall literacy rate of 67.04 per cent. Rural population is about 34.88 million and urban population accounted for 17.96 million. The population density of the state is 275 per square kilometer. The average annual rainfall of the state is about 1,189 millimeters from both South-West and North-East monsoons. The mean temperature ranges from 21.5°C to 31.7°C in the state.

Major crops grown in the state are jowar, paddy, ragi, maize, bajra and wheat among cereals; green gram, tur and bengal gram among pulses; groundnut, sunflower, safflower and sesamum among oilseed crops; chilli, sugarcane, cotton and tobacco among commercial crops; onion, brinjal, potato and tomato among vegetable crops; mango, sapota, grape, guava pomegranate and banana among fruit crops and coconut and arecanut among plantation crops. The study has been conducted in maize production areas of Karnataka comprising mainly Davanagere and Haveri districts. The study area is depicted in Fig. 1.

3.1.1 Salient Features of the Study District

3.1.1.1 Davanagere District

Davanagere district falls under the Northern and Central Dry Zone of Karnataka state. The district is situated between 13°38′ and 14°42′ North latitude and 75°38′ and 76°25′ East longitude. The district has a total geographical area of 5,924 sq. kms. According to 2001 census, Davanagere district had a total population of 1.79 million comprising 0.92 million male and 0.87 million female with an overall literacy rate of 67.67 per cent. Rural population is about 1.24 million and urban population accounted for 0.54 million. The population density of the district is 302 per square kilometer.

The district has a total geographical area of 597.60 thousand hectares of which 348.43 thousand hectares is under cultivation, accounting for about 58.30 per cent of the total geographical area of the district. The operation holding per farmer is 1.7 hectare. Among the total farmers in agricultural land holdings, the small and marginal farmers together accounted 73.87 per cent of total farmers in land holdings. The profile of the study district is presented in Table 3.1.

The average annual rainfall is 657 millimeters and the mean temperature varies from 15°C to 43°C in the district.

The major crops grown in the district are paddy, maize, jowar, ragi, bengal gram, red gram, groundnut, cotton, sunflower, sugarcane and some vegetables crops. The details of cropping pattern are depicted in Table 3.2.

3.1.1.2 Haveri District

Haveri district falls under the Northern Transitional Zone of Karnataka state. Geographically, the district lies within the interior of deccan peninsula between 14°28′ and 14°59′ North latitude and 75°05 and 75°38 East longitude. The district has a total geographical area of 4,823 sq. kms. According to 2001 census, Haveri district had a total population of 1.43 million comprising 0.74 million male and 0.69 million female with an overall literacy rate of 68.09 per cent. Rural population is about 1.14 million and urban population accounted for 0.29 million. The population density of the district is 298 per square kilometer.

The total geographical area of the district is 485.16 thousand hectares of which 349.25 thousand hectares is under cultivation, accounting for about 71.40 per cent of the total geographical area. The size of operational holding per farmer is 2.0 hectare. Among the total farmers in agricultural land holdings, the small and marginal farmers together accounted 66.67 per cent of total farmers in land holdings. The profile of the study district is presented in Table 3.1.

The average annual rainfall is 753 millimeters and the mean temperature varies from 16°C to 42°C in the district.

The major crops grown in the district are paddy, jowar, wheat, maize, ragi, bengal gram, red gram, groundnut, cotton, sunflower, sugarcane and some vegetables crops. The details of cropping pattern are depicted in Table 3.2.

3.2 SAMPLING PROCEDURE

A multistage sampling technique was adopted for the selection of study area and sample respondents for collection of information required for the study.

In the first stage, two districts namely, Davanagere and Haveri of the state were selected based on highest production of maize in the recent three years (Triennium ending 2002-03) in the state, where Davanagere district topped list with highest average production of 288.96 (18.07 %) thousand tonnes followed by Haveri district with 218.23 (13.65 %) thousand tonnes per year in the state (Table 3.3).

At the second stage, based on highest average area under maize crop in the recent three years (Triennium ending 2003-04) in the district, one taluk was selected from each of the selected districts, where Davanagere taluk was selected from Davanagere district having highest average area of 26.84 (22.92 %) thousand hectares (Table 3.4) and Hirekerur taluk was selected from Haveri district having highest average area of 29.34 (32.58 %) thousand hectares (Table 3.5).

At the third stage, based on presence of traditional and mechanical threshing methods of maize (Table 4.1) followed by farmers in the taluk, six villages were selected from each of the selected taluks, where Atthigere, Basapura, Kodanuru, Magadi, Maykonda and Shankarnahalli from Davanagere taluk and Chennahalli, Gangapura, Hallur, Hullathi, Kyathinkere and Somanhalli from Hirekerur taluk were the twelve villages selected from two selected taluks.

At the fourth stage, ten sample respondents were selected randomly from each of the selected villages, of which five sample respondents each for manual and mechanical threshing methods. In all, sixty sample respondents were selected from each taluk, thus, 120 sample respondents were selected from twelve selected villages from the two selected taluks.

Table 3.1: Profile of the Study Area

Sl.No Particulars Unit DavanagereD

ist. Haveri Dist.

Karnataka State

I Total geographical area

Sq.Kms. 5924 4823 191791

II Total population Million 1.79 1.43 52.85

1. Urban population Million 0.54 0.30 17.96

2. Rural population Million 1.24 1.14 34.88

3. Growth rate Percentage 15 13 17

III Density Per Sq.Km. 302 298 275

IV Literacy rate Percentage 67.67 68.09 67.04

V Normal rainfall mm. 657 753 1189

VI Land utilisation

1. Forest 1000 ha. 89.92 47.45 3070.94

2. Land not available for cultivation

1000 ha. 59.50 37.37 2123.65

3. Other uncultivated land

1000 ha. 33.82 17.30 1667.59

4. Fallow land 1000 ha. 65.93 33.78 2341.05

5. Area sown 1000 ha. 348.43 349.25 9846.61

Total area 1000 ha. 597.60 485.16 19049.84

VII Agricultural land holdings

1. Marginal (<1 ha) Thousand 106.86 57.98 3251.93

2. Small (1-2 ha) Thousand 73.21 71.43 1909.20

3. Semi-medium (2-4 ha) Thousand 44.35 46.26 1259.46

4. Medium (4-10 ha) Thousand 17.27 16.49 569.33

5. Large ( >10 ha) Thousand 2.05 1.91 89.47

Total Thousand 243.75 194.08 7079.39

VIII Irrigation

1. Canals 1000 ha. 68.54 2.14 743.38

2. Tanks 1000 ha. 0.92 10.58 147.07

3. Wells 1000 ha. 2.10 0.21 391.33

4. Bore wells 1000 ha. 44.80 24.00 774.12

5. Lift irrigation 1000 ha. 7.67 11.95 116.66

6. Other sources 1000 ha. 0.64 2.14 211.48

Total 1000 ha. 124.67 51.00 2384.04

Source: Karnataka at a Glance, 2005-06.

Table 3.2: Cropping Pattern of the Study Area

Davanagere Dist. Haveri Dist. Karnataka State

Sl.No. Crop

Area (ha.) % of gross

cropped area

Area (ha.) % of gross

cropped area

Area (ha.) % of gross

cropped area

I Cereals & minor millets

1. Paddy 58724 14.88 37108 8.39 1073899 9.38 2. Ragi 45218 11.46 2382 0.54 998266 8.72 3. Jowar 46780 11.86 111813 25.28 1698177 14.83 4. Bajra 905 0.23 43 0.01 318745 2.78 5. Maize 110911 28.11 110081 24.89 618173 5.40 6. Wheat 786 0.20 1833 0.41 231994 2.03 7. Minor millets 929 0.24 11795 2.67 68145 0.60

Sub Total 264253 66.97 275055 62.20 5007399 43.73

II Pulses

1. Gram 1828 0.46 1983 0.45 509534 4.45 2. Redgram 5384 1.36 2946 0.67 532251 4.65 3. Other pulses 4059 1.03 2563 0.58 76563 0.67

Sub Total 23971 6.08 35176 7.95 1874328 16.37

III Other important crops

1. Groundnut 19185 4.86 23931 5.41 817243 7.14 2. Sugarcane 8150 2.07 2246 0.51 243341 2.13 3. Cotton 3590 0.91 47319 10.70 316674 2.77

Sub Total 30925 7.84 73496 16.62 1377258 12.03

IV Net cultivated area 348434 88.31 349250 78.97 9846606 85.99 V Gross cropped area 394559 100.00 442237 100.00 11450313 100.00 VI Cropping intensity 113.24 - 126.62 - 116.29 -

Source: Karnataka at a Glance, 2005-06.

Table 3.3: District-wise Area, Production and Productivity of Maize in Karnataka (Triennium ending 2002-03)

Area Production Productivity Districts

(’000 ha) Percent (’000 t) Percent kg/ha

Bagalkote 27.87 4.48 119.63 7.48 3,158

Banagalore-urban 1.01 0.16 3.01 0.19 3,052

Banagalore-rural 6.18 0.99 24.77 1.55 4,066

Belgaum 95.09 15.28 217.50 13.60 2,347

Bellary 53.06 8.53 158.38 9.90 3,120

Bidar 0.39 0.06 0.68 0.04 1,861

Bijapur 11.96 1.92 30.76 1.92 2,587

Chamarajanagar 19.06 3.06 42.10 2.63 2,331

Chikmangalur 0.50 0.08 1.13 0.07 2,168

Chitradurga 39.99 6.42 101.19 6.33 2,446

Dakshina Kannada 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Davanagere 121.31 19.49 288.96 18.07 2,427

Dharwad 14.01 2.25 34.30 2.15 2,110

Gadag 15.08 2.42 40.67 2.54 2,529

Gulbarga 2.35 0.38 5.68 0.36 2,515

Hassan 17.26 2.77 51.53 3.22 3,315

Haveri 91.94 14.77 218.23 13.65 2,621

Kodagu 2.13 0.34 8.72 0.55 4,147

Kolar 19.69 3.16 40.92 2.56 2,147

Koppala 12.68 2.04 39.55 2.47 3,319

Mandya 1.27 0.20 2.90 0.18 1,899

Mysore 17.78 2.86 58.33 3.65 3,433

Raichur 0.27 0.04 0.82 0.05 3,124

Shimoga 28.38 4.56 85.21 5.33 3,135

Tumkur 11.27 1.81 23.62 1.48 2,243

Udupi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uttar Kannada 0.31 0.05 0.56 0.03 2,190

Karnataka 622.35 100.00 1599.04 100.00 2,651

Source: Karnataka at a Glance, 2005-06.

Fig 1. Map of study districts of Karnataka

Table 3.4: Taluk-wise Area and Production of Maize in Davanagere District (Triennium ending 2003-04)

Area Production Sl.No. Taluk

(’000 ha) Per cent (’000 tonnes) Per cent

1. Channagiri 20.46 17.48 49.72 17.89

2. Davanagere 26.84 22.92 63.73 22.93

3. Harapanahalli 21.76 18.59 51.71 18.61

4. Harihara 6.74 5.75 16.33 5.88

5. Honnali 22.91 19.56 52.70 18.96

6. Jagalur 18.38 15.70 43.71 15.73

District Total 117.08 100.00 277.91 100.00

Note: Percentages of the taluks indicates their share to the district total. Source: District Statistical Office (DSO), Davanagere, (2001-2004).

Table 3.5: Taluk-wise Area and Production of Maize in Haveri District (Triennium ending 2002-03)

Area Production Sl.No. Taluk

(’000 ha) Per cent (’000 tonnes) Per cent

1. Byadgi 15.00 16.65 36.10 16.55

2. Hangal 6.93 7.69 16.30 7.47

3. Haveri 16.30 18.09 37.69 17.28

4. Hirekerur 29.34 32.58 71.79 32.90

5. Ranebennur 16.34 18.14 41.34 18.95

6. Savanur 3.44 3.82 8.13 3.73

7. Shigoan 2.72 3.02 6.82 3.13

District Total 90.07 100.00 218.18 100.00

Note: Percentages of the taluks indicates their share to the district total. Source: District Statistical Office (DSO), Haveri, (2000-2003).

Fig 2. Map of study taluks in Davangere and Haveri Districts

Fig 3. Flow Chart Showing Sampling Procedure

At the final stage, five sample mechanical maize thresher owners were selected from each taluk for computing financial feasibility analysis for mechanical maize threshers. Totally, ten thresher owners having mechanical maize threshers were selected from two selected taluks. Thus, in all, 120 maize growers and 10 thresher owners were selected from study area.

3.3 NATURE AND SOURCES OF DATA

Keeping in view the objectives of the study both, primary and secondary data was obtained. For selection of study area and crop, the secondary data pertaining to area, production and productivity of maize, cropping pattern, demographic features, etc. were collected from the District Statistical Offices (DSO), Assistant Director of Agriculture, publications and from dealers for agricultural machines of Davanagere and Haveri districts.

Primary data was obtained from the sample maize growers and maize thresher owners through personnel interview method using pre-tested and well-structured schedules designed for the purpose. The information so collected for the study pertained to the agricultural year 2004-05.

3.4 ANALYTICAL TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

Keeping in view the objectives of the study, the data collected was subjected to various statistical analysis. The following analytical techniques were employed in the analysis of the data collected.

3.4.1 Tabular analysis

3.4.2 Financial feasibility analysis

(a) Discounting methods: BCR, NPV and IRR

(b) Non-discounting methods: PBP and Break-even analysis.

3.4.1 Tabular analysis

Tabular analysis was made by computation of means, percentages, etc. to present the data regarding the demographic features, socio-economic profile, cropping pattern, costs of threshing, post-harvest losses and constraints encountered by the farmers in different methods of threshing.

The data were compared and contrasted with the aid of averages and percentages in manual and mechanical threshing methods of maize to give meaningful presentation of the results.

3.4.2 Financial feasibility analysis

Financial feasibility analysis was carried out to evaluate the feasibility of investment on maize threshers. The discounted and non-discounted cash flow techniques were employed as useful tools in evaluating the long-term financial feasibility analysis. Hence, for evaluating the investment and to find out the financial and economic viability of the investment on maize threshers, a few measures of feasibility evaluation techniques were employed.

The following financial feasibility techniques were used in the study to evaluate the feasibility of investment on maize threshers.

1. Net Present Value (NPV)

2. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)

3. Internal Rate of Returns (IRR)

4. Pay Back Period (PBP)

5. Break-Even Point (BEP)

3.4.2.1 Net Present Value (NPV)

The net present value represents the discounted value of net cash flow for the project or it is simply the present worth of net benefit of a project discounted at the opportunity cost of the capital. This criterion ranks the investments for selecting the best alternatives.

Generally, higher the net present value better would be the preference. In calculating net present value, the present value of benefits was considered at a discount rate of 10 per cent. This rate is being advocated by the World Bank for agricultural machineries in developing countries.

The general verbal and mathematical form of net present worth criterion is presented below.

Where,

Yn = Net cash inflows in the nth year

r = Discount rate (10 %)

Io = Investment on maize thresher (Rs.)

n = Number of years (10 years)

In order to consider the investment worthy on maize thresher, the net present value should be positive before the magnitudes of alternative opportunities are considered.

3.4.2.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)

It refers to the ratio of discounted cash flows to investments. The minimum ratio required is 1:1. This indicates the coverage of costs without any surplus benefits. But usually the ratio should be more than unity in order to provide some additional returns over the cost for clear decision. The benefit-cost ratio can be stated verbally and mathematically as follows,

Where,

Yn = Net cash inflows in the n th year

r = Discount rate (10 %)

Io = Investment on maize thresher

i=1

Present worth of benefits B-C ratio = ----------------------------------- Present worth of cost

n B-C ratio = Σ Yn (1+r)

-n ÷ Io

i=1

n NPV = Σ Yn (1+r)

-n - Io

i=1

n = Number of years (10 years)

The ratio must be more than a unity for a maize thresher to be considered worthwhile for investment.

3.4.2.3 Internal Rate of Returns (IRR)

It is the rate of return, which equates the present worth of benefits to the present worth of costs, which means the net present worth is zero, or it is the rate of return, which makes the net present value of a project is zero. This represents the average earning power of an investment made on maize thresher. Mathematically, it is represented as:

Where,

Bn = Benefits in each year

Cn = Costs in each year

n = Number of years (10 years)

d = Discount rate (10 %)

The internal rate of return is arrived at through interpolation technique by using different discount rates, so as to see the net present worth is equated to zero. By trail and error method, the net present values close to zero, one positive and one negative were determined.

Therefore, project costs and benefits are discounted at certain rate to find out the worth of the project, so that it is positive. Again, by selecting a higher discount rate the cost and benefits are discounted throughout the project period to get a negative net present worth that is essential for interpolation. The interpolation formula employed in this study is as follows:

If the project being analysed for a maize thresher has internal rate of return that is more than the ruling rate of interest, then the investment made on maize thresher could be feasible.

3.4.2.4 Pay Back Period (PBP)

It indicates the time required to recover the initial investment or the length of time required to repay the original investment made in a project. In the present study, pay back period is calculated by successively deducting the initial investment from the net return until the initial investment is fully recovered. Shorter the pay back period, better it will be the investment on a maize thresher and could be feasible.

The pay back period formula used in the study is as follows,

n ( Bn - Cn ) IRR = Σ ---------------------- = 0 i=1 (1+ d )

n

Present worth of cash flow Lower Difference at lower discount rate IRR = discount + between the ----------------------------------------- rate two discount Absolute difference between the rates present worth of cash flow at two discount rates

Initial investment Pay Back Period = ------------------------------------- Average annual net benefit

When ranking investments for maize threshers, the thresher having the shortest pay back period is the most desirable.

3.4.2.5 The Break-Even Point (BEP)

The break-even point is the annual use level at which the machine must be operated to make investment profitable. The break-even point formula used in the study is as follows,

Where,

x = Break-even point (in tonnes per year)

B = Benefits (or the custom fee)

Using the break-even point measure for investment appraisal, the investment made on maize thresher can only be profitable, if the annual use level of thresher is at or above the break-even point.

3.5 CONCEPTS USED

3.5.1 Variable Cost Concepts in Maize Threshing

The total variable or operational cost of threshing were divided into two broad classes,

A. Labour charges

B. Machine hire charges

The method adopted for computing the different cost items are described below:

A. Labour Charges

This was the cost incurred by the farmers towards engaging labour for taking up various operations such as separation of sheath, shelling, cleaning, winnowing, bagging and storage, etc. as estimated in terms of rupee. Farmers engaged both hired and family labours for threshing of maize in the study area.

Hired labour was accounted at the actual wages paid by the farmer. Female labour was converted into male equivalents by multiplying female labour units by 0.70 (conversion factor based on wages paid). Family labour was imputed at the prevailing wage rates as those paid to the hired labour.

B. Machine Hire Charges

This was the cost incurred by the farmers towards threshing of maize cobs as machine charges. The machine charges per bag of threshing with maize thresher (engine model) ranged between Rs. 10 to 12 and with sheath removal maize thresher (engine model) ranged between Rs. 17 to 20 in study area.

C. Miscellaneous Costs

This was the cost incurred by sample farmers on packing materials, gunny bags, tarpels, equipments, minor repair charges, etc. and estimated in terms of rupee.

B (x) = Fixed cost + Variable cost

3.5.2 Feasibility Analysis of a Maize Thresher

For analysing the feasibility of investment on maize threshing machines, the cost incurred was divided under three groups.

A. Initial investment

B. Annual fixed cost

C. Annual variable cost

D. Returns

The method adopted for computing above cost items are described below:

A. Initial Investment

This is the cost initially incurred for the purchase of maize thresher and oil engine by the entrepreneur. This cost also includes sales tax, accessory charges, transportation and forwarding charges, etc.

B. Annual Fixed Cost comprised of the following three components.

a. Fixed Costs

This is the cost incurred by the machine owner towards annual maintenance and housing charges for a maize thresher.

b. Depreciation Charges

The depreciation rates, life span and junk value for maize threshers were decided in consultation with the farmers, who are also the owners of the threshers. Consequently, the thresher depreciation was calculated using the straight-line method as shown below:

c. Interest on Annual Fixed Capital

This was calculated at the rate of 8 per cent on the book value of the asset/livestock, as the case may be for the study year.

C. Annual Variable Cost comprised of the following two components.

a. Variable Costs

This is the cost incurred by the thresher owner towards operator wages, fuel charges, lubricating charges, repair and replacement of parts, maintenance and transportation charges for a maize thresher.

b. Miscellaneous Costs

This is the cost incurred by the machine owner towards minor repairs, transportation and other charges on maize threshing machines.

Purchase value – Junk value Depreciation = -------------------------------------- Life span of maize thresher

D. Returns from Mechanical Threshing

The gross returns were calculated by multiplying the actual quantity of maize grain threshed (in qtls.) and machine charges per quintal of maize grain threshing (in Rs.). Net returns were calculated by deducting the total cost of threshing from gross returns.

4.5.3 Post-Harvest Losses

It denotes that a measurable decrease in the quantity of maize grains which may be quantitative or economic loss during post–harvest activities. Post-harvest losses were divided into three broad classes.

A. Operation Losses

The operation losses were estimated in terms of kilogram per quintal and kilogram per hectare of maize grain threshed during post-harvest operations like sheath separation, manual shelling, cleaning, winnowing, bagging, storage and during transportation.

B. Machine Losses

The machine losses were estimated in terms of kilograms per quintal and kilogram per hectare of maize grain threshed accruing in the form of broken, scattered and unthreshed grain losses during machine shelling operation.

C. Other Losses

The other losses were estimated in terms of kilograms per quintal and kilogram per hectare that includes grains eaten by the birds, animals, monkies, rats and environmental losses from rainfall, excess moisture content, etc.

3.5.4 Threshing Methods of Maize

Threshing methods followed by the sample farmers in the study area were categorised under following two groups.

A. Traditional/Manual Methods of Threshing

In this study, the manual threshing methods in maize were referred to the bare hand separation and hand beating methods, which are commonly followed by the farmers. The following of these methods in the study area mainly depends on quantity of grains to be threshed, size of the farm and availability of labour and time for threshing. The other manual threshing methods followed by the farmers in the study area are rubbing cobs with each other and separation of grains with pointed material. These manual methods are labour intensive and more time-consuming methods.

B. Mechanical Methods of Threshing

In this study, the mechanical threshing methods were referred to the maize thresher (engine model) and sheath removing maize thresher (engine model), which are commonly followed by the farmers in the study area. The following of these methods mainly depends on quantity of grains to be threshed, size of the farm and availability of labour and time for threshing. The other mechanical threshing methods followed by the farmers in the study area are maize thresher (tractor model), sheath removal maize thresher (tractor model), multicrop thresher (engine model) and multicrop thresher (tractor model).

IV. RESULTS

The results that emerged from the analysis of data collected for achieving the set objectives of the study are presented in this chapter under the following headings.

4.1 General Information of Sample Respondents in the Study Area

4.1.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Farmers

4.1.2 Farm Assets of Sample Respondents

4.1.3 Farm Machinery and Equipments of Sample Respondents

4.1.4 Livestock and Animal Husbandry of Sample Respondents

4.1.5 Cropping Pattern of Sample Respondents

4.2 Identification of Maize Threshing Methods Followed in the Study Area

4.2.1 Manual Methods of Threshing

4.2.2 Mechanical Methods of Threshing

4.3 Cost of Threshing of Maize under Methods

4.4 Financial Feasibility of Investment on Maize Threshers

4.5 Post-Harvest Losses under Different Methods of Threshing of Maize

4.6 Constraints Associated with Different Threshing Methods of Maize.

4.1 GENERAL INFORMATION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS IN THE STUDY AREA

4.1.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Respondents

The information on socio-economic characteristics of the sample respondents is presented in Table 4.1. The average age of sample respondents was 43.37 years and 43.15 years in traditional and mechanical method of threshing, respectively. The family composition of sample farmers in the study area revealed that the proportion of children per family was more compared to adult male and female in both traditional and mechanical threshing farmer families constituting 37.80 per cent and 37.43 per cent, respectively. The proportion of adult male accounted for 32.28 per cent in traditional and 32.89 per cent in mechanical threshing. The proportion of adult female accounted for 29.92 per cent in traditional and 29.68 per cent in mechanical threshing. With regard to literacy rate, the proportion of illiterates was found to be highest 20 per cent in traditional threshing as compared to mechanical threshing 15 per cent. Literate sample respondents possessing education level ranging from primary to college level. In traditional threshing 15 per cent had primary school education, 26.67 per cent had secondary school education, 23.33 per cent had high school education and 15 per cent of them attained college education. Whereas in mechanical threshing, 11.67 per cent of the sample farmers had primary school education, 13.33 per cent studied up to secondary school, 31.67 per cent farmers had high school education and 28.23 per cent of farmers had college level education. The occupational pattern of the sample respondents revealed that, proportion of sample respondents who were involved mainly on agriculture and allied activities was found to be 78.33 per cent in traditional and 88.33 per cent in mechanical threshing. As far as pattern of land holding is concerned, the average size of land holding of traditional sample respondent was 1.16 ha and mechanical sample respondent was 2.88 ha. About 88.54 per

Table 4.1: Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Sample Respondents

Threshing Methods Units

Traditional Mechanical Sl. No.

Particulars

n 60 60

1. Average age Year 43.37 43.15

Family size i. Adult male ii. Adult female iii. Children

Nos. 2.05

(32.28) 1.90

(29.92) 2.40

(37.80)

2.05

(32.89) 1.85

(29.68) 2.33

(37.43)

2.

Average size of the family 6.35

(100.00) 6.23

(100.00)

Education level a. Illiterate b. Primary c. Secondary d. High school e. College

Nos. 12

(20.00) 9

(15.00) 16

(26.67) 14

(23.33) 9

(15.00)

9

(15.00) 7

(11.67) 8

(13.33) 19

(31.67) 17

(28.23)

3.

Sub-Total 60

(100.00) 60

(100.00)

Occupational pattern a. Agriculture & allied

activities b. Agriculture & allied

activities + Business

Nos. 47

(78.33) 13

(21.67)

53

(88.33) 7

(11.67)

4.

Sub-Total 60

(100.00) 60

(100.00)

Land holding i. Rainfed ii. Irrigated

ha. 1.03

(88.54) 0.13

(11.46)

2.60

(90.29) 0.28

(9.71)

5.

Average size of land holding 1.16

(100.00) 2.88

(100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to respective total. n = Number of sample respondents.

cent and 90.29 per cent of cultivable land was under rainfed condition in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively and corresponding proportion of irrigated land was 11.46 per cent and 9.71 per cent in the study area.

4.1.2 Farm Inventory Position of Sample Respondents

The farm inventory (buildings) position of the sample respondents is presented in Table 4.2 revealed that the major farm inventories owned by sample respondents are dwelling and farm houses, cattle and poultry sheds, pump house, storage house and others (shops, sheds, etc.).

The total value of farm buildings was worked out to be Rs. 1,50,633.45 in traditional and Rs. 1,69,987.88 in mechanical threshing. Among different farm buildings possessed by the farmers, dwelling house alone constituted major share with 58.81 per cent and 60.15 per cent of the total value of farm buildings followed by farm house with 10.84 per cent and 9.27 per cent in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively.

The cattle shed and pump shed constituted the next major farm buildings which accounted 8 to 10 per cent of the total value of farm assets in both traditional and mechanical methods of threshing followed by storage house (8-9 %). It is clear from the table that, on an average each respondent own a dwelling house, which alone can formed 58 to 60 per cent of total value of farm assets in both traditional and mechanical threshing farmers in the study area.

4.1.3 Farm Machinery and Equipments of Sample Respondents

The results presented in Table 4.3 revealed that the major farm machinery and equipments possessed by the sample respondents are tractor, bullock cart, pump set, plough, cultivator, seed drill, intercultural implement, thresher, sprayer/duster, harrow, leveler and others (sickle, spade, crowbar, etc.).

The total value of farm machinery and equipments was recorded Rs. 22,015.93 in traditional and Rs. 2,09,029.01 in mechanical threshing. Among various farm machinery and equipments owned by the sample farmers practicing traditional methods of threshing, the value of pump set (52.23 %) and bullock cart (38.89 %) together constituted more than 90 per cent of total value of farm machinery and equipments. Whereas, value of tractor (73.09 %) and thresher (13.55 %) together accounted more than 85 per cent in case of farmers practicing mechanical method of threshing. The other farm machinery and equipments such as plough, cultivator, seed drill, intercultural implement, sprayer/duster, harrow, leveler, sickle, spade, crowbar, etc. although important for farm operations but together accounted less than 10 to 15 per cent of total value of farm machinery and equipments in both methods of threshing in the study area.

4.1.4 Live Stock Inventory of Sample Respondents

The live stock inventory such as dairy cows, buffaloes, bullock pairs, calves, poultry and sheep/goat possessed by the sample farmers in the study area are presented in Table 4.4.

The average number of live stock like dairy cows, buffaloes, bullock pairs, calves, poultry and sheep/goat owned by the sample respondents in the study area were 0.35, 1.80, 0.45, 0.80, 1.65 and 1.07 respectively in traditional threshing and 0.52, 3.02, 0.70, 1.07, 0.40 and 0.47 in that order in mechanical threshing.

The total value of livestock owned by the sample farmers were worth of Rs. 29,171.38 in traditional and Rs. 28,648.55 in mechanical threshing. In the total value of live stock maintained by the sample farmers, bullock pairs had major share of about 35 per cent followed by buffaloes (25 %) and dairy cows (22 %) both in the category of farmers with traditional and mechanical threshing. Live stock like claves and sheep/goat were constituted

Table 4.2: Farm Inventory (buildings) Position of the Sample Respondents in the Study Area

Traditional (n=60)

Mechanical (n=60) Sl.

No. Inventories

Total (Nos.)

Average (Nos.)

Value (Rs.)

% share of value

Total (Nos.)

Average (Nos.)

Value (Rs.)

% share of value

1. Dwelling house 60 1.00 88583.33 58.81 60 1.00 102250.00 60.15

2. Farm house 3 0.05 16333.33 10.84 8 0.13 15750.00 9.27

3. Cattle shed 42 0.70 14380.95 9.55 50 0.83 13730.00 8.08

4. Poultry shed 6 0.10 2666.67 1.77 4 0.07 1675.00 0.99

5. Pump house 8 0.13 13562.50 9.00 13 0.22 14576.92 8.58

6. Storage house 3 0.05 12666.67 8.41 7 0.12 12714.29 7.48

7. Others 5 0.08 2440.00 1.62 12 0.20 9291.67 5.47

Total - - 150633.45 100.00 - - 169987.88 100.00

Note: n = Number of sample respondents.

Table 4.3: Farm Machinery and Equipments of the Sample Respondents in the Study Area

Note: n = Number of sample respondents.

Traditional

(n=60)

Mechanical

(n=60) Sl.

No.

Machinery/

Equipments Total

(Nos.)

Average

(Nos.)

Value

(Rs.)

% share of value

Total

(Nos.)

Average

(Nos.)

Value

(Rs.)

% share of value

1. Tractor 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 0.15 152777.78 73.09

2. Bullock cart 8 0.13 8562.50 38.89 15 0.25 6366.67 3.05

3. Pump set 8 0.13 11500.00 52.23 12 0.20 10041.67 4.80

4. Ploughs 41 0.68 167.07 0.76 53 0.88 183.96 0.09

5. Cultivator 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 0.15 9444.44 4.52

6. Seed drill 22 0.37 175.00 0.79 41 0.68 169.51 0.08

7. Intercultural implements 29 0.48 208.62 0.95 43 0.72 193.02 0.09

8. Thresher 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 15 0.25 28333.33 13.55

9. Sprayer/duster 15 0.25 956.67 4.35 23 0.38 1065.22 0.51

10. Harrow 19 0.32 234.21 1.06 28 0.47 244.64 0.12

11. Leveler 16 0.27 196.88 0.89 23 0.38 195.65 0.09

12. Others 348 5.80 14.99 0.07 502 8.37 13.11 0.01

Total - - 22015.93 100.00 - - 209029.0 100.00

10.39 per cent and 7.93 per cent of the total value of live stock/animal husbandry, respectively in traditional and 9.30 per cent and 9.41 per cent in that order in mechanical threshing in the study area.

4.1.5 Cropping Pattern of Sample Respondents in the Study Area

The cropping pattern of the sample farmers is presented in Table 4.5 that, major crops grown by the sample respondents in the study area are maize, jowar and wheat among cereals; ragi, bajra and navane among minor millets; red gram, chickpea, green gram, cowpea, horse gram and avare among pulses; groundnut, sunflower and castor among oilseed crops; chilli, onion, tomato, brinjal, bendi, cluster bean and beans among vegetable crops; cotton among commercial and coconut among plantation crop in both traditional and mechanical threshing.

The net cultivated area of the farmers following traditional method of threshing was 69.80 ha whereas, it was 173 ha in case of farmers with mechanical threshing. The gross cropped area and cropping intensity accounted 87.60 ha and 125.50 in traditional and 205.70 ha and 118.90 in mechanical threshing, respectively.

Cereals had a major share in the gross cropped area with 59.02 per cent and 74.67 per cent in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively followed by minor millets (11.87 %) in traditional and pulses (6.17 %) in mechanical threshing. In traditional threshing, pulses occupied next major share with 8.68 per cent of the gross cropped area followed by oilseeds (7.19 %), vegetables (5.02 %) and commercial crops (4.57 %). In case of mechanical threshing, the area under oil seeds was 6.13 per cent of the gross cropped area followed by vegetables (5.06 %), commercial crops (2.82 %) and plantation crops (2.72 %). However, minimum share of the gross cropped area was accounted by plantation crops (3.65 %) in traditional and minor millets (2.43 %) in mechanical threshing.

Among cereal crops, maize had lion’s share with 46 per cent and 65.73 per cent of the gross cropped area in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively followed by jowar (10.50 % & 6.22 %) and wheat (2.51 % & 2.72 %) in that order. In minor millets, ragi accounted 8.68 per cent and 1.56 per cent of the gross cropped area in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively. Red gram recorded major share among pulses with 2.74 per cent and 1.75 per cent of the gross cropped area, respectively in traditional and mechanical threshing.

In oilseeds, groundnut accounted 4.79 per cent and 3.11 per cent of the gross cropped area in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively followed by sunflower (1.83 % & 1.94 %) and castor (0.57 % & 1.07 %) in that order. Among vegetables in traditional threshing, major share was contributed by tomato with 1.48 per cent of the gross cropped area followed by chilli (1.37 %), whereas in mechanical threshing, chilli accounted major share with 1.26 per cent of the gross cropped area followed by tomato (0.97 %) and beans (0.73 %).

Cotton is the major commercial crop in the study area, which contributed 4.57 per cent and 2.82 per cent of the gross cropped area in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively. Plantation crop like coconut accounted 3.65 per cent and 2.72 per cent of the gross cropped area, respectively in traditional and mechanical threshing.

Maize, one of the major cereal crop grown in the study area covering 46 per cent and 65.73 per cent of the gross cropped area in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively.

4.2 IDENTIFICATION OF MAIZE THRESHING METHODS FOLLOWED IN THE STUDY AREA

Table 4.4: Livestock Inventory of the Sample Respondents in the Study Area

Traditional (n=60)

Mechanical (n=60) Sl.

No Livestock

Total (Nos.)

Average (Nos.)

Value (Rs.)

% share of value

Total (Nos.)

Average (Nos.)

Value (Rs.)

% share of value

1. Dairy cows 21 0.35 6619.05 22.69 31 0.52 6352.84 22.18

2. Buffaloes 108 1.80 7133.33 24.45 181 3.02 7074.59 24.69

3. Bullock pairs 27 0.45 10000.00 34.28 42 0.70 9785.71 34.16

4. Calves 48 0.80 3031.25 10.39 64 1.07 2664.06 9.30

5. Poultry 99 1.65 75.25 0.26 24 0.40 72.92 0.25

6. Sheep and goat 64 1.07 2312.00 7.93 28 0.47 2696.43 9.41

Total - - 29171.38 100.00 - - 28648.55 100.00

Note: n = Number of sample respondents.

Based on the type of threshing activities followed by the sample respondents in the study area, the major maize threshing methods of both traditional and mechanical were identified and presented in Table 4.6.

The sample farmers in the study area followed both traditional and mechanical methods of maize threshing. Four traditional threshing methods of maize were identified in the study area. They are i) bare hand separation, ii) hand beating, iii) rubbing cobs each other and iv) separation of maize grain with pointed material.

Similarly, in mechanical threshing, six methods were found to be in practice by the farmers in the study area. They are i) maize thresher (engine model), ii) sheath removal maize thresher (engine model), iii) maize thresher (tractor model), iv) sheath removal maize thresher (tractor model), v) multicrop thresher (engine model) and vi) multicrop thresher (tractor model).

The details of adoption of traditional and mechanical methods of maize threshing by the sample respondents in the study area are presented in Table 4.6.

Among the traditional methods of threshing, bare hand separation method was adopted by more than 62.50 per cent of the sample farmers followed by hand beating (26.67 %), rubbing cobs each other (7.50 %) and separation of maize grains with pointed material (3.33 %).

In case of mechanical threshing methods, threshing of maize by using mechanical maize thresher of engine model was found to be most popular which was adopted by 34.17 per cent of farmers followed by sheath removal maize thresher of engine model adopted by 27.50 per cent, followed by maize thresher of tractor model (15.83 %), sheath removal maize thresher of tractor model (11.67 %), multicrop thresher of engine model (8.33 %) and multicrop thresher of tractor model (2.50 %) by the sample respondents.

Based on the popularity of threshing methods among sample farmers in terms of number of farmers adopted and volume of threshing, two top methods from each category of threshing i.e, traditional and mechanical methods was selected for detailed study.

4.3 COST OF THRESHING OF MAIZE UNDER DIFFERENT METHODS OF MAIZE THRESHING

4.3.1 Cost of Threshing of Maize under Traditional Methods

In the study area, the sample maize growers followed mainly four methods by engaging labour for separation of maize grains from the cobs. Among the traditional methods identified, two methods viz., separation of grains by bare hand and hand beating methods were followed by more than 89 per cent of the farmers (Table. 4.6). Therefore, these two methods were selected for detailed study. The labour required and cost incurred for threshing of maize cobs obtained from one hectare of maize cultivation are presented here under.

4.3.1.1 Cost of Threshing in Bare Hand Separation Method

The threshing of maize by bare hand separation method was followed by about two-third of the sample farmers. The cost of threshing and the share of different operations to the total cost of threshing in bare hand separation method are presented in Table 4.7.

The average total cost incurred for threshing of maize cobs of one hectare area was worked out to be Rs. 3155.95 in the entire study with a marginal difference in the selected taluks of Haveri and Davanagere districts. The average total cost of threshing of maize in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district was relatively less (Rs. 3115.31) as compared to Davanagere taluk of same district (Rs. 3193.77).

Table 4.5: Cropping Pattern of the Sample Respondents in the Study Area

Traditional Mechanical

(n=60) (n=60) Sl. No.

Crop

Area (ha.) % of gross

cropped area Area (ha.)

% of gross cropped

area

I Cereals

Maize 40.30 46.00 135.20 65.73

Jowar 9.20 10.50 12.80 6.22

Wheat 2.20 2.51 5.60 2.72

Sub Total 51.70 59.02 153.60 74.67

II Minor millets

Ragi 7.60 8.68 3.20 1.56

Bajra 2.00 2.28 1.20 0.58

Navane 0.80 0.91 0.60 0.29

Sub Total 10.40 11.87 5.00 2.43

III Pulses

Redgram 2.40 2.74 3.60 1.75

Chickpea 1.60 1.83 3.50 1.70

Greengram 0.40 0.46 1.60 0.78

Cowpea 0.80 0.91 1.40 0.68

Horsegram 0.80 0.91 1.80 0.88

Avare 1.60 1.83 0.80 0.39

Sub Total 7.60 8.68 12.70 6.17

IV Oilseeds

Groundnut 4.20 4.79 6.40 3.11

Sunflower 1.60 1.83 4.00 1.94

Castor 0.50 0.57 2.20 1.07

Sub Total 6.30 7.19 12.60 6.13

V Vegetables

Chilli 1.20 1.37 2.60 1.26

Onion 0.40 0.46 1.10 0.53

Tomato 1.30 1.48 2.00 0.97

Brinjal 0.70 0.79 1.00 0.49

Bendi 0.80 0.91 1.20 0.58

Cluster bean - - 1.00 0.49

Beans - - 1.50 0.73

Sub Total 4.40 5.02 10.40 5.06

VI Commercial crop

Cotton 4.00 4.57 5.80 2.82

VII Plantation crop

Coconut 3.20 3.65 5.60 2.72

VIII Net cultivated area 69.80 - 173.00 -

IX Gross cropped area 87.60 100.00 205.70 100.00

X Cropping intensity 125.50 - 118.90 -

Note: n = Number of sample respondents.

Table 4.6: Major Maize Threshing Methods Identified in the Study Area

Sl. No. Threshing methods Number of

farmers Percentage

I Traditional/manual methods

1. Bare hand separation 75 62.50

2. Hand beating 34 26.67

3. Rubbing cobs each other 9 7.50

4. Separation with pointed material 4 3.33

Total 120 100

II Mechanical methods

1. Maize thresher (engine model) 41 34.17

2. Maize thresher with sheath removal (engine model)

33 27.50

3. Maize thresher (tractor model) 19 15.83

4. Maize thresher with sheath removal (tractor model)

14 11.67

5. Multicrop thresher (tractor model) 10 8.33

6. Multicrop thresher (engine model) 3 2.50

Total 120 100

Plate 1. Traditional/Manual Threshing Methods of Maize

Plate 2. Mechanical Threshing Methods of Maize by Maize Threshers

Table 4.7: Cost of Threshing of Maize under Bare Hand Separation Method in the Study Area per Hectare

Haveri district Davanagere district Pooled

(n=15) (n=15) (n=30) Sl. No

Cost of operation Unit Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

1. Threshing

a) Labour for sheath separation MD 20.43 694.68 (22.30)

18.22 619.31 (19.39)

19.28 655.64 (20.77)

Qtl. 53.83 985.53 (31.64)

55.05 1099.21 (34.42)

54.46 1044.41 (33.09)

b) Labour for grain separation

MD 7.45 263.83 (8.47)

7.33 259.41 (8.12)

7.38 261.54 (8.29)

Sub Total Rs. - 1944.04 (62.40)

- 1977.93 (61.93)

- 1961.59 (62.16)

2. Labour for cleaning/winnowing MD 8.94 319.15 (10.24)

9.21 337.62 (10.57)

9.08 328.72 (10.42)

3. Labour for drying MD 8.40 309.57 (9.94)

8.42 304.95 (9.55)

8.41 307.18 (9.73)

4. Labour for bagging and storage MD 7.66 292.55 (9.39)

7.62 296.04 (9.27)

7.64 294.36 (9.33)

5. Miscellaneous charges Rs. - 250.00 (8.02)

- 277.23 (8.68)

- 264.10 (8.37)

Total cost (TC) Rs. - 3115.31 (100.00)

- 3193.77 (100.00)

- 3155.95 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to respective total, n = Number of sample respondents.

In this method of threshing, separations of sheath and grains from the cobs were the major operations. These two operations put together consumed 26.66 mandays of labour. The average cost of these operations worked out to be Rs. 1961.59, which was accounted 62.16 per cent of the total cost of threshing of cobs obtained from one hectare of maize cultivation. The other important operations taken up by farmers in bare hand separation method are cleaning/winnowing, drying, bagging and storage. The labour engaged for these operations was about 25.13 mandays and cost of which was worked out to be Rs. 930.26 (30 %) of the total cost of threshing. The miscellaneous charges accounted 8.37 per cent of the total cost of threshing by bare hand separation method. More or less similar pattern of labour utilization and cost incurred was observed in the study area of both districts.

4.3.1.2 Cost of Threshing by Hand Beating Method

The threshing of maize by hand beating method is another important traditional method by employing labour. This method was followed by 26.67 per cent of the sample farmers in the study area. The cost of threshing and the share of different operations to the total cost of threshing in hand beating method are presented in Table 4.8.

The average total cost incurred for threshing of maize cobs of one hectare area was worked out to be Rs. 3159.48 in the entire study with a marginal difference in the selected taluks of Haveri and Davanagere districts. The average total cost of threshing of maize in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district was relatively less (Rs. 3133.14) as compared to Davanagere taluk of same district (Rs. 3182.97).

Similarly, in this method of threshing, the separations of sheath and grains from the cobs were the major operations. These two operations put together consumed 25.90 mandays of labour. The average cost of these operations worked out to be Rs. 1945.67, which was accounted 61.58 per cent of the total cost of threshing of cobs obtained from one hectare of maize cultivation. The other important operations taken up by farmers in hand beating methods are cleaning/winnowing, drying, bagging and storage. The labour engaged for these operations was about 24.57 mandays and cost of which was worked out to be Rs. 944.77 (30 %) of the total cost of threshing. The miscellaneous charges accounted 8.52 per cent of the total cost of threshing by hand beating method. Also in this method, more or less similar pattern of labour utilization and cost incurred was observed in the study area of both districts.

4.3.2 Cost of Threshing of Maize under Mechanical Methods

In the study area, the sample maize growers followed mainly six methods by engaging threshing machines for separation of maize grains from the cobs. Among the mechanical methods identified, two methods viz., separation of grains by maize thresher of engine model and sheath removal maize thresher of engine model were followed by more than 61 per cent of the farmers (Table. 4.6). Therefore, these two methods were selected for detailed study. The labour required and machine cost incurred for threshing of maize cobs obtained from one hectare of maize cultivation are presented here under.

4.3.3 Cost of Mechanical Method of Threshing Using Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The cost incurred by the sample farmers for threshing of maize cobs obtained from one hectare of maize cultivation using mechanical maize thresher of engine model is presented in Table 4.9.

On an average, the total cost of threshing was worked out to be Rs. 2325.46. The total cost of threshing was Rs. 2270.98 in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Rs. 2384.88 in Davanagere taluk of same district.

The operational analysis under this mechanical method of threshing revealed that, the cost incurred for grain separation was Rs. 800.45 followed by sheath separation (Rs.

Table 4.8: Cost of Threshing of Maize under Hand Beating Method in the Study Area per Hectare

Haveri district Davanagere district Pooled

(n=15) (n=15) (n=30) Sl. No

Cost of operation Unit Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

1. Threshing

a) Labour for sheath separation MD 19.29 656.57 (20.96)

16.85 575.68 (18.09)

18.00 613.81 (19.43)

Qtl. 53.23 1040.71 (33.22)

53.96 1063.60 (33.42)

53.62 1052.81 (33.32)

b) Labour for grain separation

MD 8.18 287.88 (9.19)

7.66 271.17 (8.52)

7.90 279.05 (8.83)

Sub Total Rs. - 1985.16 (63.36)

- 1910.45 (60.02)

- 1945.67 (61.58)

2. Labour for cleaning/winnowing MD 7.88 289.90 (9.25)

8.11 307.66 (9.67)

8.00 299.29 (9.47)

3. Labour for drying MD 8.38 313.13 (9.99)

9.37 363.06 (11.41)

8.90 339.52 (10.75)

4. Labour for bagging and storage MD 7.17 282.32 (9.01)

8.11 327.03 (10.27)

7.67 305.95 (9.68)

5. Miscellaneous charges Rs. - 262.63 (8.38)

- 274.77 (8.63)

- 269.05 (8.52)

Total cost (TC) Rs. - 3133.14 (100.00)

- 3182.97 (100.00)

- 3159.48 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to respective total, n = Number of sample respondents.

Fig 4. Cost of Threshing of Maize in Traditional/Manual Methods (in Rs.)

580.36) which put together consumed nearly 60 per cent of the total cost of threshing of cobs obtained from one hectare of maize cultivation. The cost incurred for other operations such as drying was Rs. 296.43 followed by bagging and storage (Rs. 256.37) and cleaning/winnowing (Rs. 165.92) which together accounted 30 to 31 per cent of the total cost of threshing. The share of miscellaneous charges such as minor repairs and bagging material charges was observed to be 9 to 10 per cent of the total cost of threshing. Here also more or less similar pattern of labour utilization and cost incurred was observed in the study area of both districts.

Table 4.9: Cost of Threshing of Maize using Maize Thresher (Engine Model) in the Study Area per Hectare

Haveri district Davanagere district Pooled

(n=15) (n=15) (n=30) Sl. No

Cost of operation Unit Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

1. Threshing

a) Labour for sheath separation MD 17.38 579.02 (25.50)

17.69 581.82 (24.40)

17.53 580.36 (24.96)

Qtl. 51.93 543.60 (23.94)

51.69 559.22 (23.45)

51.82 551.07 (23.70) b) Machine and labour charges for

grain separation MD 7.32

255.95 (11.27)

6.98 242.21 (10.16)

7.16 249.38 (10.72)

Sub Total Rs. - 1378.57 (60.70)

- 1383.25 (58.00)

- 1380.81 (59.38)

2. Labour for cleaning/winnowing MD 4.35 156.99 (6.91)

4.74 175.65 (7.37)

4.53 165.92 (7.13)

3. Labour for drying MD 7.53 285.42 (12.57)

7.82 308.44 (12.93)

7.67 296.43 (12.75)

4. Labour for bagging and storage MD 6.10 222.32 (9.79)

7.89 293.51 (12.31)

6.96 256.37 (11.02)

5. Miscellaneous charges Rs. - 227.68 (10.03)

- 224.03 (9.39)

- 225.93 (9.72)

Total cost (TC) Rs. - 2270.98 (100.00)

- 2384.88 (100.00)

- 2325.46 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to respective total, n = Number of sample respondents.

Table 4.10: Cost of Threshing of Maize using Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model) in the Study Area per Hectare

Haveri district Davanagere district Pooled

(n=15) (n=15) (n=30) Sl. No

Cost of operation Unit Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

1. Threshing

a) Labour for sheath separation MD - - - - - -

Qtl. 51.97 891.70 (42.19)

52.94 942.01 (43.09)

52.44 915.94 (42.63) b) Machine and labour charges for

grain separation MD 7.57

267.84 (12.67)

8.02 284.01 (12.99)

7.79 275.63 (12.83)

Sub Total Rs. - 1159.54 (54.86)

- 1226.02 (56.09)

- 1191.57 (55.46)

2. Labour for cleaning/winnowing MD 5.35 205.14 (9.71)

5.32 209.01 (9.56)

5.34 207.00 (9.63)

3. Labour for drying MD 6.57 257.03 (12.16)

6.66 259.30 (11.86)

6.61 258.12 (12.01)

4. Labour for bagging and storage MD 7.59 281.08 (13.30)

7.44 270.64 (12.38)

7.52 276.05 (12.85)

5. Miscellaneous charges Rs. - 210.81 (9.97)

- 220.93 (10.11)

- 215.69 (10.04)

Total cost (TC) Rs. - 2113.60 (100.00)

- 2185.90 (100.00)

- 2148.43 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to respective total, n = Number of sample respondents.

Fig 5. Cost of Threshing of Maize in Mechanical Methods using Maize Threshers (in Rs.)

4.3.4 Cost of Mechanical Method of Threshing Using Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The cost incurred by the sample farmers for threshing of maize cobs obtained from one hectare of maize cultivation using sheath removal mechanical maize thresher of engine model is presented in Table 4.10.

On an average, the total cost of threshing was worked out to be Rs. 2148.43. The total cost of threshing was Rs. 2113.60 in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Rs. 2185.90 in Davanagere taluk of same district.

Under this mechanical method of threshing, the operational analysis revealed that the cost incurred for grain separation was Rs. 1191.57 which alone consumed 55.46 per cent of

Table 4.11: Cost of Threshing of Maize under Manual and Mechanical Threshing Methods in the Study Area per Hectare

Traditional Threshing Mechanical Threshing

Bare Hand Separation (n=30)

Hand Beating (n=30)

Maize thresher (EM) (n=30)

Maize thresher (sheath removal, EM)

(n=30) Sl. No

Cost of operation Unit

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

Physical quantity

Cost (Rs.)

1. Threshing

a) Labour for sheath separation

MD 19.28 655.64 (20.77)

18.00 613.81 (19.43)

17.53 580.36 (24.96)

- -

Qtl. 54.46 1044.41 (33.09)

53.62 1052.81 (33.32)

- - - - b) labour charges for grain separation

MD 7.38 261.54 (8.29)

7.90 279.05 (8.83)

- - - -

Qtl. - - - - 51.82 551.07 (23.70)

52.44 915.94 (42.63) c) Machine and labour charges

for grain separation MD - - - - 7.16

249.38 (10.72)

7.79 275.63 (12.83)

Sub Total Rs. - 1961.59 (62.16)

- 1945.67 (61.58)

- 1380.81 (59.38)

- 1191.57 (55.46)

2. Labour for cleaning/ winnowing MD 9.08 328.72 (10.42)

8.00 299.29 (9.47)

4.53 165.92 (7.13)

5.34 207.00 (9.63)

3. Labour for drying MD 8.41 307.18 (9.73)

8.90 339.52 (10.75)

7.67 296.43 (12.75)

6.61 258.12 (12.01)

4. Labour for bagging and storage

MD 7.64 294.36 (9.33)

7.67 305.95 (9.68)

6.96 256.37 (11.02)

7.52 276.05 (12.85)

5. Miscellaneous charges Rs. - 264.10 (8.37)

- 269.05 (8.52)

- 225.93 (9.72)

- 215.69 (10.04)

Total cost (TC) Rs. - 3155.95 (100.00)

- 3159.48 (100.00)

- 2325.46 (100.00)

- 2148.43 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to respective total, n = Number of sample respondents.

the total cost of threshing followed by bagging and storage (Rs. 276.05), drying (Rs. 258.12) and cleaning/winnowing (Rs. 207.00) which together accounted 34 to 35 per cent of the total cost of threshing. The share of miscellaneous charges such as minor repair and bagging material charges was observed to be 10 per cent of total cost of threshing. Here also more or less similar pattern of labour utilization and cost incurred was observed in the study area of both districts.

4.3.5 Comparison of Cost of Threshing in Different Methods of Maize

The cost of threshing and per cent share of various operations in the total threshing cost of traditional and mechanical threshing methods are computed and presented in Table 4.11.

Among the selected traditional and mechanical threshing methods, the threshing cost was observed to be the least in using sheath removal maize thresher with Rs. 2148.43 followed by using maize thresher (Rs. 2325.46). The highest threshing cost was observed in hand beating method of Rs. 3159.48 followed by bare hand separation method (Rs. 3155.95). However, in bare hand separation and hand beating methods, the threshing cost was observed to be almost equal with a marginal difference of Rs. 3.53.

With respect to the share of different threshing operations in the total cost of threshing in selected threshing methods, grain separation had major share among all operations accounted maximum Rs. 1331.86 in hand beating method followed by bare hand separation (Rs. 1305.95) and sheath removal maize thresher (Rs. 1191.57). The least cost for grain separation was observed Rs. 800.45 by using maize thresher. The next major share was accounted by sheath separation which amounted maximum Rs. 655.64 in bare hand separation followed by hand beating (Rs. 613.81) and using maize thresher (Rs. 580.36). The above two operations put together accounted 55 to 63 per cent of the total cost of threshing in both traditional and mechanical threshing methods.

The other important post-threshing operations taken up by farmers are cleaning/winnowing, drying, bagging and storage. The labour engaged for these operations was around 25 mandays in traditional and mechanical maize thresher whereas, only 8 mandays in case of sheath removal maize thresher, which accounted 30 to 35 per cent of the total cost of threshing. The miscellaneous charges accounted 8 to 10 per cent of the total cost of threshing in both traditional and mechanical methods in the study area.

4.4 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INVESTMENT ON MAIZE THRESHERS

While understanding any business enterprises, the entrepreneur always think whether the investment made will be recovered. In recent years, a substantial increase in area under maize in the state in general and Northern Karnataka in particular resulted in a shortage of labour for threshing of maize by traditional methods. To over come this problem some farmers mainly, large farmers who grow maize in a large area as well as some enterprising youths in rural area are in search of information regarding feasibility of investment on maize thresher. Keeping needs of farmers as well as enterprising youths to generate additional employment opportunities in rural areas, an attempt was made in the present study to analyse the financial feasibility of investment in most popular mechanical methods of maize threshers in the study area. The results of financial feasibility and costs and returns analysis in two types of maize threshers are presented here under.

4.4.1 Investment on Maize Threshers

The investment on maize threshers/shellers was the money that was spent while purchasing of a maize thresher. The results of the initial investment, annual costs and returns of maize threshers are presented in Table 4.12.

The initial investment on maize threshers included expenditure incurred on thresher, oil engine, accessories, etc. and other costs such as sale tax, transportation and forwarding charges. It can be observed from Table 4.12 that, the total investment made on maize thresher was Rs. 53,586 whereas, Rs. 74,380 in case of sheath removal maize thresher.

4.4.2 Annual Operation Cost of Maize Threshers

The results on costs and returns of maize threshers are presented in Table 4.12 revealed that, the total annual cost of operation amounted Rs. 37,629.36 in maize thresher and Rs. 49,593.60 in case of sheath removal maize thresher. The total cost comprised of annual fixed and variable cost of threshers.

In the total annual cost of operation of threshers, the fixed cost was worked out to be Rs. 10,326.96 and Rs. 13,586.40 in maize thresher and sheath removal maize thresher, respectively and variable cost was Rs. 27,302.40 and Rs. 36,007.20 in that order. The fixed cost was accounted 27 per cent and variable cost was 73 per cent of the total annual cost of operation in both mechanical maize threshers.

Among various components of fixed costs, the depreciation charges was Rs. 4,662 in maize thresher and Rs. 6,480 in sheath removal maize thresher which accounted 12 to 13 per cent of the total annual cost of operation followed by maintenance/repair charges (Rs. 2,600 & Rs. 3,600) in that order with 6 to 7 per cent. The thresher housing charges worked out to be Rs. 2,300 in maize thresher and Rs. 2,500 in sheath removal maize thresher, which accounted 5 to 6 per cent of the total annual cost of operation.

The major components of variable cost are fuel charges and operator wages. The fuel charges was Rs. 12,300 and Rs. 17,800 in maize thresher and sheath removal maize thresher, respectively which accounted 32 to 36 per cent of the total annual cost of operation followed by operator wages Rs. 10,400 and Rs. 12,000 in that order with 24 to 28 per cent of the total annual cost of operation. The cost of minor repairs and miscellaneous charges together accounted 6 to 8 per cent of the total annual cost of operation.

4.4.3 Benefits from Maize Thresher in Threshing of Maize Crop

The results of costs and returns of maize threshers presented in Table 4.12 showed that the gross returns realised annually was Rs. 57,780 in maize thresher and Rs. 81,666 in sheath removal maize thresher. The net benefit realised per annum by using maize thresher was Rs. 20,150.64 whereas in case of sheath removal maize thresher, it was Rs. 32,072.40.

4.4.4 Financial Feasibility of Investment in Maize Threshers

To evaluate the feasibility of investment made on maize threshers, the financial feasibilities tests namely, Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Pay Back Period (PBP) and Break-Even Point (BEP) were computed by assuming (i) Increasing annual cost of thresher operation as increase in fuel, labour and repair charges and operator wages year after year for 10 years and (ii) Increasing annual gross returns as increase in machine charges per quintal of grain threshing year after year for 10 years. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 4.13 for maize thresher (engine model) and in Table 4.14 for sheath removal maize thresher (engine model).

4.4.4.1 Net Present Value (NPV)

The annual net cash inflows were discounted at a discount rate of 10 per cent to obtain the present value of net benefits from maize thresher. The initial investment made on maize thresher was then deducted from the present value of their net benefits. It can be seen from Tables 4.14 and 4.15 that, the net present value of the investment was Rs. 77,615.53 for maize thresher and Rs. 1,23,209.84 for sheath removal maize thresher. The positive net present value indicates that the investment on maize threshers for threshing were financially feasible.

Table 4.12: Costs and Returns for Maize Threshers in Threshing of Maize in the Study Area

Sl. No.

Particulars

Maize thresher (engine model)

Sheath removal maize thresher (engine model)

Cost of threshing (Rs.) Per cent (Rs.) Per cent

I Initial investment 53586.00 - 74380.00 -

II Annual fixed costs

1. Depreciation charges 4662.00 12.39 6480.00 13.07 2. Maintenance and repair charges 2600.00 6.91 3600.00 7.26 3. Housing charges 2300.00 6.11 2500.00 5.04 4. Interest on fixed capital 764.96 2.03 1006.40 2.03

Total annual fixed cost 10326.96 27.44 13586.40 27.40

III Annual variable cost

1. Operator wages 10400.00 27.64 12000.00 24.20 2. Fuel charges 12300.00 32.69 17800.00 35.89 3. Minor repair charges 1080.00 2.87 1540.00 3.11 4. Miscellaneous charges 1500.00 3.99 2000.00 4.03 5. Interest on working capital 2022.40 5.37 2667.20 5.38

Total annual variable cost 27302.40 72.56 36007.20 72.60

IV Annual cost of operation (II+III) 37629.36 100.00 49593.60 100.00

V Quantity of threshed annually (in qtls) 4815 - 4412 -

VI Threshing charges (Rs/qtl) 12 - 18.51 -

VII Annual gross returns (Rs.) 57780.00 - 81666.00 -

VIII Annual net returns (VII-IV) 20150.64 - 32072.40 -

Note: Respective percentages indicate their share in total annual cost of operation.

Table 4.13: Financial Feasibility of Investment on Maize Thresher (Engine Model) in the Study Area

Year Total cost (Rs.)

Gross returns

(Rs.)

Net returns

(Rs.)

Discount factor (10 %)

Discounted cost (Rs.)

Discounted gross returns

(Rs.)

Discounted net returns

(Rs.)

0 53586.00 0.00 -53586.00 0.909091 48714.55 0.00 -48714.55 1 37629.36 57780.00 20150.64 0.826446 31098.63 47752.05 16653.42 2 37929.36 58983.75 21054.39 0.751315 28496.90 44315.38 15818.48 3 38329.36 60187.50 21858.14 0.683013 26179.45 41108.84 14929.39 4 38829.36 61391.25 22561.89 0.620921 24109.97 38119.12 14009.15 5 39429.36 62595.00 23165.64 0.564474 22256.85 35333.25 13076.40 6 40129.36 63798.75 23669.39 0.513158 20592.70 32738.84 12146.14 7 40929.36 65002.50 24073.14 0.466507 19093.83 30324.12 11230.29 8 41829.36 66206.25 24376.89 0.424098 17739.75 28077.94 10338.19 9 42829.36 67410.00 24580.64 0.385543 16512.56 25989.45 9476.89 10 43929.36 68613.75 24684.39 0.350494 15396.98 24048.71 8651.73

Total (0 to10)

455379.60 631968.75 176589.15 6.495060 270192.17 347807.70 77615.53

Total (1 to10)

401793.60 631968.75 230175.15 - - - -

1. NPV Rs. 77,615.53 2. BCR 1.29 3. IRR 26 % 4. PBP 2.33 years 5. BEP 1,632 quintals

4.4.4.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)

The benefit-cost ratio indicates the returns per rupee invested on maize thresher. The magnitude of the ratio also indicates the priority to be assigned for each of the alternative investment opportunities. It can be seen from Tables 4.13 and 4.14 that, the discounted benefit-cost ratio for investment on maize thresher was 1.29 in maize thresher and 1.35 in case of sheath removal maize thresher. It can be concluded that, the investment on both maize threshers for threshing is economically feasible, since both threshers have a benefit-cost ratio of more than one.

4.4.4.3 Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

The internal rate of return measures the rate of return that can be earned by investing on maize threshers for threshing. It also consider the re-investment opportunities which are absent in the other techniques. It can be seen from Tables 4.13 and 4.14 that, the internal rate of return was 26 per cent for maize thresher and 31 per cent for sheath removal maize thresher. The investment on both maize threshers was found to be feasible since, the internal rate of return was higher than the opportunity cost of capital, which was 10 per cent as considered in the evaluation.

4.4.4.4 Pay Back Period (PBP)

The time required to recover the initial investment made on maize threshers is indicated by the pay back period. It can be seen from Tables 4.13 and 4.14 that, the pay back period was found to be 2.33 years for maize thresher and 2.16 years for sheath removal maize thresher. Hence, the investments made could be recovered in a relatively short span of time by the owners in both mechanical maize threshers.

4.4.4.5 Break-Even Point (BEP)

The break-even point is the annual use level at which the machine must be operated to make the investment profitable. It can be seen from Tables 4.13 and 4.14 that, the break-even quantity of maize grain threshed was worked out to be 1,632 quintals for maize thresher and 1,313 quintals for sheath removal maize thresher. Hence, the investments made could be recovered in a relatively short span of time by the owners in both mechanical maize threshers.

The break-even point measure of investment appraisal revealed that, the investment made on maize threshers would be profitable only when the machines could thresh at least above level of quantity of maize grain annually. By looking to the growing area under maize crop and number of threshing machines, it is worth investing on maize threshers.

4.5 POST-HARVEST LOSSES IN DIFFERENT THRESHING METHODS OF MAIZE

4.5.1 Post-Harvest Losses in Bare Hand Separation Method of Threshing

The per hectare and per quintal losses of maize (in kilograms) and respective per cent share of operations to the total post-harvest losses in bare hand separation method are calculated and presented in Table 4.15.

The total post-harvest losses in bare hand method of threshing was found to be 117.05 kg per ha (2.13 kg/qtl) in the study area. The estimated total post-harvest losses in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district was 116.73 kg per ha (2.14 kg/qtl) and in Davanagere taluk of same district, it was 117.36 kg per ha (2.12 kg/qtl).

The post-harvest losses vary from one operation to another operation in threshing of maize. Among total post-harvest losses, the losses during harvesting was found to be highest

Table 4.14: Financial Feasibility of Investment on Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model) in the Study Area

Year Total cost (Rs.)

Gross returns

(Rs.)

Net returns (Rs.)

Discount factor (10 %)

Discounted cost (Rs.)

Discounted gross returns

(Rs.)

Discounted net returns

(Rs.)

0 74380.00 0.00 -74380.00 0.909091 67618.19 0.00 -67618.19 1 49593.60 81666.00 32072.40 0.826446 40986.43 67492.54 26506.11 2 49893.60 82769.00 32875.40 0.751315 37485.81 62185.59 24699.78 3 50293.60 83872.00 33578.40 0.683013 34351.18 57285.67 22934.48 4 50793.60 84975.00 34181.40 0.620921 31538.81 52762.76 21223.95 5 51393.60 86078.00 34684.40 0.564474 29010.35 48588.79 19578.44 6 52093.60 87181.00 35087.40 0.513158 26732.25 44737.63 18005.38 7 52893.60 88284.00 35390.40 0.466507 24675.23 41185.10 16509.87 8 53793.60 89387.00 35593.40 0.424098 22813.76 37908.85 15095.09 9 54793.60 90490.00 35696.40 0.385543 21125.29 34887.79 13762.50 10 55893.60 91593.00 35699.40 0.350494 19590.37 32102.80 12512.43

Total (0 to10)

595816.00 866295.00 270479.00 6.50 355927.68 479137.51 123209.84

Total (1 to10)

521436.00 866295.00 344859.00 - - - -

1. NPV Rs. 1,23,209.84 2. BCR 1.35 3. IRR 31 % 4. PBP 2.16 years 5. BEP 1,313 quintals

Table 4.15: Post Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level in Bare Hand Separation Method of Threshing in the Study Area

Haveri district Davanagere district Overall Sl. No

Post-Harvest Operation Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

1. Harvesting 21.500 (18.42)

0.394 (18.46)

20.333 (17.33)

0.367 (17.26)

20.917 (17.87)

0.380 (17.87)

2. Threshing

(a) Sheath separation 6.333 (5.43)

0.116 (5.42)

6.917 (5.89)

0.126 (5.93)

6.625 (5.66)

0.121 (5.68)

(b) Shelling

i. Unthreshed loss 11.500 (9.85)

0.211 (9.86)

12.583 (10.72)

0.228 (10.73)

12.042 (10.29)

0.219 (10.30)

ii. Scattered loss - - - - - -

iii. Broken loss - - - - - -

3. Cleaning/winnowing 10.542 (9.03)

0.193 (9.05)

9.917 (8.45)

0.179 (8.45)

10.229 (8.74)

0.186 (8.75)

4. Drying 7.325 (6.28)

0.134 (6.28)

7.942 (6.77)

0.145 (6.81)

7.633 (6.52)

0.139 (6.55)

5. Bagging 1.450 (1.24)

0.026 (1.23)

1.658 (1.41)

0.030 (1.42)

1.554 (1.33)

0.028 (1.33)

6. Storage 19.083 (16.35)

0.350 (16.40)

19.750 (16.83)

0.356 (16.78)

19.417 (16.59)

0.353 (16.59)

7. Transportation 13.500 (11.56)

0.244 (11.42)

14.675 (12.50)

0.267 (12.55)

14.088 (12.04)

0.255 (11.99)

8. Other loss 25.500 (21.84)

0.467 (21.85)

23.583 (20.10)

0.426 (20.06)

24.542 (20.97)

0.446 (20.97)

Total loss of grains 116.733 (100.00)

2.136 (100.00)

117.358 (100.00)

2.123 (100.00)

117.046 (100.00)

2.129 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to their respective total.

20.92 kg per ha (0.38 kg/qtl) which worked out to be 17.87 per cent of the total losses followed by storage losses (19.42 kg/ha) which accounted 16.59 per cent. The share of transportation (14.09 kg/ha) and unthreshed losses (12.04 kg/ha) were 12.04 per cent and 10.29 per cent of the total losses, respectively. The losses in above operations put together accounted more than 55 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

The share of losses during other threshing operations such as cleaning/winnowing, drying and sheath separation was estimated to be 8.75 per cent, 6.55 per cent and 5.68 per cent, respectively. The other losses (0.45 kg/qtl) accounted 20.97 per cent of the total losses. The least losses were observed during bagging operation, which accounted only 1.33 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

4.5.2 Post-Harvest Losses during Hand Beating Method of Threshing

Hand beating is another important manual method of maize threshing in the study area. The quantity of maize grain lost per hectare and per quintal (in kilograms) and respective per cent share of operations to the total post-harvest losses are calculated and presented in Table 4.16.

The total post-harvest losses during threshing of maize by hand beating method in the study area as a whole was 125.98 kg per ha or 2.34 kg per quintal of grain. The estimated total post-harvest losses in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district was 126.53 kg per ha (2.37 kg/qtl) and in Davanagere taluk of same district, it was 125.43 kg per ha (2.32 kg/qtl).

The total post-harvest losses estimated during different operations at farm level revealed that, losses during harvesting was found to be highest (20.46 kg/ha) which accounted 16.24 per cent of the total losses followed by storage losses 18.46 kg per ha, transportation losses 14.46 kg per ha and unthreshed losses 13.04 kg per ha. The losses in above operations put together accounted more than 50 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

The post-harvest losses during cleaning/winnowing, drying and sheath separation were found to be 10.20 kg per ha or 0.19 kg per quintal; 8.29 kg per ha or 0.15 kg per quintal and 7.38 kg per ha or 0.14 kg per quintal, respectively. The share of losses of maize grains during these operations was estimated to be 8.11 per cent, 6.59 per cent and 5.85 per cent in that order. The other losses accounted 21.55 per cent of the total losses. The least losses was observed during bagging followed by broken losses in shelling operation which put together accounted 5.17 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

4.5.3 Post-Harvest Losses in Mechanical Method of Threshing

In recent two decades in the view of a substantial increase in area under maize crop in Karnataka, the manual threshing methods resulted in various problems. Most of the farmers who grow maize in large area thought of introducing threshing machines in major maize growing areas of the state. This enterprising activity not only helped the farmers in threshing maize crops timely, but also generated additional employment opportunities in the rural areas. An attempt was made in this section to estimate the post-harvest losses in different methods of mechanical threshing.

4.5.3.1 Post-Harvest Losses in Mechanical Method Using Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The post-harvest losses of maize was estimated per hectare as well as per quintal of grains threshed using mechanical maize thresher of engine model and results are presented in Table 4.17.

The total post-harvest losses during mechanical threshing using maize thresher at field level was worked out to be 230.51 kg per ha or 4.42 kg per quintal. The study area wise analysis of losses revealed that in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district, the estimated losses were

Table 4.16: Post Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level during Hand Beating Method of Threshing in the Study Area

Haveri district Davanagere district Overall Sl. No

Post-Harvest Operation Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

1. Harvesting 21.083 (16.66)

0.393 (16.60)

19.833 (15.81)

0.366 (15.75)

20.458 (16.24)

0.379 (16.18)

2. Threshing

(a) Sheath separation 7.583 (5.99)

0.141 (5.97)

7.175 (5.72)

0.133 (5.72)

7.379 (5.86)

0.137 (5.85)

(b) Shelling

i. Unthreshed loss 13.250 (10.47)

0.249 (10.53)

12.833 (10.23)

0.238 (10.25)

13.042 (10.35)

0.244 (10.40)

ii. Scattered loss - - - - - -

iii. Broken loss 4.875 (3.85)

0.090 (3.82)

5.417 (4.32)

0.100 (4.33)

5.146 (4.08)

0.095 (4.07)

3. Cleaning/winnowing 10.317 (8.15)

0.193 (8.16)

10.075 (8.03)

0.187 (8.05)

10.196 (8.09)

0.190 (8.11)

4. Drying 8.500 (6.72)

0.160 (6.74)

8.083 (6.44)

0.149 (6.43)

8.292 (6.58)

0.154 (6.59)

5. Bagging 1.342 (1.06)

0.025 (1.06)

1.433 (1.14)

0.026 (1014)

1.388 (1.10)

0.026 (1.10)

6. Storage 18.917 (14.95)

0.356 (15.02)

18.000 (14.35)

0.332 (14.32)

18.458 (14.65)

0.334 (14.68)

7. Transportation 14.000 (11.06)

0.264 (11.13)

14.917 (11.89)

0.275 (11.86)

14.458 (11.48)

0.269 (11.49)

8. Other loss 26.667 (21.07)

0.496 (20.95)

27.667 (22.06)

0.514 (22.16)

27.167 (21.56)

0.505 (21.55)

Total loss of grains 126.533 (100.00)

2.368 (100.00)

125.433 (100.00)

2.321 (100.00)

125.983 (100.00)

2.344 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to their respective total.

Fig 8. Post Harvest Losses under Traditional/ Manual Methods of Maize Threshing (kg/qtl.)

Table 4.17: Post Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level under Mechanical Method of Threshing (Maize Thresher) in the Study Area

Haveri district Davanagere district Overall Sl. No

Post-Harvest Operation Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

1. Harvesting 23.917 (10.15)

0.455 (10.11)

22.417 (9.94)

0.429 (9.92)

23.167 (10.05)

0.442 (10.02)

2. Threshing

(a) Sheath separation 7.633 (3.24)

0.146 (3.25)

7.208 (3.20)

0.138 (3.19)

7.421 (3.22)

0.142 (3.22)

(b) Shelling

i. Unthreshed loss 54.167 (23.00)

1.034 (22.97)

49.833 (22.10)

0.959 (22.15)

52.000 (22.56)

0.997 (22.57)

ii. Scattered loss 8.667 (3.68)

0.164 (3.64)

9.292 (4.12)

0.177 (4.10)

8.979 (3.90)

0.171 (3.86)

iii. Broken loss 60.083 (25.51)

1.152 (25.60)

57.750 (25.62)

1.105 (25.54)

58.917 (25.56)

1.129 (25.57)

3. Cleaning/winnowing 3.958 (1.68)

0.076 (1.68)

3.667 (1.63)

0.071 (1.63)

3.813 (1.65)

0.073 (1.66)

4. Drying 10.167 (4.32)

0.194 (4.31)

9.625 (4.27)

0.185 (4.27)

9.896 (4.29)

0.190 (4.29)

5. Bagging 1.750 (0.74)

0.033 (0.74)

1.370 (0.61)

0.026 (0.61)

1.560 (0.68)

0.030 (0.68)

6. Storage 19.500 (8.28)

0.372 (8.27)

21.667 (9.61)

0.418 (9.65)

20.583 (8.93)

0.395 (8.95)

7. Transportation 15.300 (6.50)

0.291 (6.46)

16.458 (7.30)

0.316 (7.30)

15.879 (6.89)

0.303 (6.87)

8. Other loss 30.417 (12.91)

0.585 (12.98)

26.167 (11.61)

0.504 (11.64)

28.292 (12.27)

0.544 (12.32)

Total loss of grains 235.558 (100.00)

4.504 (100.00)

225.453 (100.00)

4.327 (100.00)

230.506 (100.00)

4.416 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to their respective total.

found to be higher (235.56 kg/ha or 4.50 kg/qtl) as compared to losses in Davanagere taluk of same district (225.45 kg/ha and 4.33 kg/qtl).

The analysis of losses during different operations revealed that the grain losses in the form of broken grain was found to be highest (58.92 kg/ha or 1.13 kg/qtl) followed by unthreshed losses (52 kg/ha or 0.99 kg/qtl) and losses in harvesting (23.17 kg/ha or 0.44 kg/qtl). The shares of broken and unthreshed losses were 25.56 per cent and 22.56 per cent, respectively. Thus, these two losses together accounted nearly 50 per cent of the total losses during threshing of maize cobs. The post-harvest losses particularly during post-threshing operations such as drying, storage and transportation together accounted around 20 per cent of the total post-harvest losses. It is clear from above results that in case of mechanical method of threshing using maize thresher of engine model, the major proportion of losses were observed during threshing in the form of broken and unthreshed grains followed by harvesting losses. The other losses accounted 12.32 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

4.5.3.2 Post-Harvest Losses in Mechanical Method Using Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The post-harvest losses of maize was estimated per hectare as well as per quintal of grains threshed using sheath removal mechanical maize thresher of engine model and results are presented in Table 4.18.

The total post-harvest losses during mechanical threshing using sheath removal maize thresher at field level was worked out to be 248.54 kg per ha or 4.81 kg per quintal. The study area wise analysis of losses revealed that in Davanagere taluk of same district the estimated losses were found to be higher (255.79 kg/ha or 4.85 kg/qtl) as compared to losses in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district (241.28 kg/ha or 4.77 kg/qtl).

The analysis of losses during different operations revealed that the grain losses in the form of broken grain was found to be highest (70.75 kg/ha or 1.37 kg/qtl) followed by unthreshed losses (61.17 kg/ha or 1.18 kg/qtl) and losses in harvesting (24.63 kg/ha or 0.48 kg/qtl). The shares of broken and unthreshed losses were 28.47 per cent and 24.61 per cent, respectively. Thus, these two losses together accounted more than 50 per cent of the total losses during threshing of maize cobs. The post-harvest losses particularly during post-threshing operations such as drying, storage and transportation together accounted nearly 20 per cent of the total post-harvest losses. It is clear from above results that in case of mechanical method of threshing using sheath removal maize thresher of engine model, the major proportion of losses were observed during threshing in the form of broken and unthreshed grains followed by harvesting losses. The other losses accounted 10.72 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

4.5.5 Comparison of Post-Harvest Losses in Different Methods of Maize Threshing

The post-harvest losses of maize was estimated per hectare as well as per quintal of grains threshed for both traditional and mechanical threshing methods and results are presented in Table 4.19.

The analysis of losses in different threshing methods revealed that the total post-harvest losses was found to be highest (248.54 kg/ha or 4.81 kg/qtl) using sheath removal maize thresher followed by maize thresher (230.51 kg/ha or 4.42 kg/qtl). Whereas, minimum losses was recorded in bare hand separation method (117.05 kg/ha or 2.13 kg/qtl) followed by hand beating (125.98 kg/ha or 2.34 kg/qtl) of traditional methods of maize threshing in the study area.

In the total post-harvest losses, the losses during harvesting time was found to be major share in traditional methods with 20.92 kg per ha in bare hand separation and 20.46 kg per ha in hand beating methods which accounted 16 to 18 per cent of the total losses

Table 4.18: Post Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level under Mechanical Method of Threshing (Sheath Removal Maize Thresher) in the Study Area

Haveri district Davanagere district Overall Sl. No

Post-Harvest Operation Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

Per hectare (kg.)

Per quintal (kg.)

1. Harvesting 23.833 (9.88)

0.469 (9.84)

25.417 (9.94)

0.480 (9.90)

24.625 (9.91)

0.475 (9.87)

2. Threshing

(a) Sheath separation - - - - - -

(b) Shelling

i. Unthreshed loss 58.667 (24.31)

1.157 (24.27)

63.667 (24.89)

1.210 (24.95)

61.167 (24.61)

1.184 (24.61)

ii. Scattered loss 12.125 (5.03)

0.240 (5.03)

11.083 (4.33)

0.208 (4.30)

11.604 (4.67)

0.224 (4.66)

iii. Broken loss 67.833 (28.11)

1.340 (28.10)

73.667 (28.60)

1.393 (28.73)

70.750 (28.47)

1.367 (28.42)

3. Cleaning/winnowing 5.167 (2.14)

0.102 (2.14)

4.750 (1.86)

0.090 (1.87)

4.958 (2.00)

0.096 (2.00)

4. Drying 10.875 (4.51)

0.216 (4.53)

10.333 (4.04)

0.195 (4.01)

10.604 (4.27)

0.205 (4.27)

5. Bagging 1.867 (0.77)

0.037 (0.77)

1.625 (0.64)

0.031 (0.63)

1.746 (0.70)

0.034 (0.70)

6. Storage 21.083 (8.74)

0.416 (8.73)

20.333 (7.95)

0.389 (8.03)

20.708 (8.33)

0.403 (8.37)

7. Transportation 15.167 (6.29)

0.298 (6.25)

15.583 (6.48)

0.315 (6.49)

15.875 (6.39)

0.306 (6.37)

8. Other loss 24.667 (10.22)

0.494 (10.35)

28.333 (11.08)

4.849 (11.08)

26.500 (10.66)

0.515 (10.72)

Total loss of grains 241.283 (100.00)

4.768 (100.00)

255.792 (100.00)

4.849 (100.00)

248.538 (100.00)

4.809 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to their respective total.

Fig 9. Post-Harvest Losses under Mechanical Methods of Maize Threshing using Maize

Threshers

followed by storage losses (19.42 kg/ha & 18.46 kg/ha) in that order accounting 14 to 17 per cent of total post-harvest losses.

In mechanical threshing methods, major share of losses was accounted in the form of broken losses in shelling operation with 58.92 kg per ha and 70.75 kg per ha using maize thresher and sheath removal maize thresher, respectively followed by unthreshed losses (52 kg/ha & 61.17 kg/ha) and harvesting losses (23.17 kg/ha & 24.62 kg/ha) in that order. The losses in above three operations together accounted around 60 per cent of the total post-harvest losses in mechanical threshing.

The cleaning/winnowing losses was observed to be around 10 kg per ha in traditional threshing methods which accounted 8 to 9 per cent of the total post-harvest losses. Whereas in mechanical threshing, it was ranged from 3 to 5 kg per ha which accounted 1 to 2 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

a. Grain and Cob lossess during harvesting

b. Grain Lossess under Sheath Seperation

c. Unthreshed Grain Losses during Machine shelling

Plate 3. Post Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level

Table 4.19: Post Harvest Losses of Maize at Farm Level under Manual and Mechanical Methods of Threshing in the Study Area

Traditional Threshing Mechanical Threshing

Bare hand Separation Hand Beating Maize thresher (EM) Maize thresher

(sheath removal, EM) Sl. No

Post-Harvest Operation

per ha. (kg.)

per qtl. (kg.)

per ha. (kg.)

per qtl. (kg.)

per ha. (kg.)

per qtl. (kg.)

per ha. (kg.)

per qtl. (kg.)

1. Harvesting 20.917 (17.87)

0.380 (17.87)

20.458 (16.24)

0.379 (16.18)

23.167 (10.05)

0.442 (10.02)

24.625 (9.91)

0.475 (9.87)

2. Threshing

(a)

Sheath separation 6.625 (5.66)

0.121 (5.68)

7.379 (5.86)

0.137 (5.85)

7.421 (3.22)

0.142 (3.22)

- -

(b) Shelling

i.

Unthreshed loss 12.042 (10.29)

0.219 (10.30)

13.042 (10.35)

0.244 (10.40)

52.000 (22.56)

0.997 (22.57)

61.167 (24.61)

1.184 (24.61)

ii.

Scattered loss - - - - 8.979 (3.90)

0.171 (3.86)

11.604 (4.67)

0.224 (4.66)

iii.

Broken loss - - 5.146 (4.08)

0.095 (4.07)

58.917 (25.56)

1.129 (25.57)

70.750 (28.47)

1.367 (28.42)

3. Cleaning/winnowing 10.229 (8.74)

0.186 (8.75)

10.196 (8.09)

0.190 (8.11)

3.813 (1.65)

0.073 (1.66)

4.958 (2.00)

0.096 (2.00)

4. Drying 7.633 (6.52)

0.139 (6.55)

8.292 (6.58)

0.154 (6.59)

9.896 (4.29)

0.190 (4.29)

10.604 (4.27)

0.205 (4.27)

5. Bagging 1.554 (1.33)

0.028 (1.33)

1.388 (1.10)

0.026 (1.10)

1.560 (0.68)

0.030 (0.68)

1.746 (0.70)

0.034 (0.70)

6. Storage 19.417 (16.59)

0.353 (16.59)

18.458 (14.65)

0.334 (14.68)

20.583 (8.93)

0.395 (8.95)

20.708 (8.33)

0.403 (8.37)

7. Transportation 14.088 (12.04)

0.255 (11.99)

14.458 (11.48)

0.269 (11.49)

15.879 (6.89)

0.303 (6.87)

15.875 (6.39)

0.306 (6.37)

8. Other loss 24.542 (20.97)

0.446 (20.97)

27.167 (21.56)

0.505 (21.55)

28.292 (12.27)

0.544 (12.32)

26.500 (10.66)

0.515 (10.72)

Total loss of grains 117.046 (100.00)

2.129 (100.00)

125.983 (100.00)

2.344 (100.00)

230.506 (100.00)

4.416 (100.00)

248.538 (100.00)

4.809 (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to their respective total.

d. Broken and Scattered Grain Losses during Machine Shelling

e. Grain Losses under Cleaning/Winnowing

f. Grain Losses during Drying

Plate 3. Contd..

g. Grain Losses in Bagging

h. Grain Lossess during Storage

i. Grain Losses during Transportation

Plate 3. contd…..

The post-harvest losses during post-threshing operations such as drying, storage and transportation were found to be 7 to 11 kg per ha, 18 to 21 kg per ha and 14 to 16 kg per ha, respectively in both traditional and mechanical threshing methods. The share of losses of maize grains during these operations were estimated to be 6 to 7 per cent, 14 to 17 per cent and 11 to 12 per cent in that order in traditional threshing and corresponding losses were 4 to 5 per cent, 8 to 9 per cent and 6 to 7 per cent in mechanical threshing methods. The other losses accounted 20 to 22 per cent of the total post-harvest losses in traditional threshing and 10 to 12 per cent in mechanical threshing methods.

Where as, the minimum losses were observed during bagging operation which accounted 0.5 to 1.5 per cent of the total post-harvest losses followed by losses in sheath separation (3 to 6 %) in both traditional and mechanical threshing methods.

4.6 CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT THRESHING METHODS OF MAIZE

The constraints associated with selected manual and mechanical threshing methods in the study area are grouped under three heads namely; technical constraints, financial constraints and operational constraints and results are presented in Table 4.20 for traditional threshing and Table 4.21 for mechanical threshing.

4.6.1 Technical Constraints

A major technical constraint like lack of information on availability of different types of threshers was reported by 70 per cent and 66.67 per cent of sample respondents in traditional and mechanical methods of threshing, respectively. About 50 per cent of sample respondents expressed non-availability of timely technical assistance in mechanical threshing. The problem of non-availability of skilled personnel for attending threshing operation was expressed by 46.67 per cent of sample respondents in mechanical threshing. About 58.33 per cent of sample respondents in mechanical threshing felt that frequent repair of threshers due to improper handling.

4.6.2 Financial Constraints

The mechanical method of threshing is a capital-intensive activity, which requires heavy initial investment was a major constraint reported by 75 per cent of sample respondents in mechanical methods of threshing. Non-availability of adequate owned fund was other major constraint expressed by 78.33 per cent of sample respondents in mechanical threshing for purchase of threshers and 85 per cent of sample respondents in traditional threshing for threshing operation. About 48.33 per cent and 56.67 per cent of sample respondents indicated non-availability of adequate and timely institutional credit facilities in traditional and mechanical methods of threshing, respectively for purchase of threshers. The problem of supply of threshers under subsidy schemes was another constraint reported by 38.33 per cent of sample respondents in mechanical threshing in the study area.

4.6.3 Operational Constraints

Non-availability of mechanical threshers in time for threshing was major constraint reported by 68.33 per cent and 73.33 per cent of sample respondents in traditional and mechanical methods of threshing, respectively. Non-availability of labour is also one of the constraint reported by 31.67 per cent of sample respondents in traditional and about non-availability of skilled labour was expressed by 36.67 per cent of sample respondents in mechanical methods of threshing in the study area. About 65 per cent of sample respondents articulated towards non-availability of fuel near by village in mechanical threshing. A problem of shifting threshers from one place to other was felt by 51.67 per cent of sample respondents in mechanical threshing methods in the study area.

Among the constraints, non-availability of owned fund was major constraint recorded 85 per cent and 78.33 per cent of sample respondents in traditional and mechanical threshing methods, respectively followed by lack of information on availability of different threshers (70 %) in traditional and higher initial investment on threshers (75 %) in mechanical methods of threshing. Whereas, non-availability of labour was minor constraint, reported by 31.67 per cent and 36.67 per cent of sample respondents in traditional and mechanical threshing methods, respectively in the study area.

In traditional threshing methods, non-availability of adequate owned fund was major constraint faced by 85 per cent of sample respondents followed by lack of information on availability of different threshers (70 %), non-availability of mechanical threshers in time for threshing (68.33 %), non-availability of adequate and timely institutional credit facilities (48.33 %) and non–availability of labour for threshing of maize (31.67 %) in the study area.

Similarly, in mechanical threshing methods about 78.33 per cent of sample respondents faced a major constraint like non-availability of adequate owned fund for purchase of threshers followed by higher initial investment on mechanical threshers (75 %) and non-availability of mechanical threshers in time for threshing (73.33 %). However, non-availability of skilled labour (36.67 %) and delay in supply of threshers under subsidy schemes (38.33 %) were minor constraints faced by samples respondents.

The others problems in mechanical threshing faced by the sample respondents were lack of information on different threshers (66.67 %) followed by non–availability of fuel nearby village (65 %), frequent repair of threshers due to improper handling (58.33 %), non-availability of adequate and timely institutional credit facilities (56.67 %), problems of shifting threshers from one place to other (51.67 %), non-availability of timely technical assistance (50 %) and non-availability of skilled personnel (46.67 %) in the study area.

V. DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the results of the investigation presented in the previous chapter. Keeping the objectives of the study in view, the results are discussed under the following heads.

4.1 General Information of Sample Respondents in the Study Area

4.1.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Farmers

4.1.2 Farm Assests of Sample Respondents

4.1.3 Farm Machinery and Equipments of Sample Respondents

4.1.4 Livestock and Animal Husbandry of Sample Respondents

4.1.5 Cropping Pattern of Sample Respondents

4.2 Identification of both Manual and Mechanical Methods of Maize Threshing in the Study Area

4.3 Cost of Threshing in Different Threshing Methods of Maize

4.4 Financial Feasibility of Investment on Maize Threshers

4.5 Post-Harvest Losses of Maize under Different Threshing Methods

4.6 Constraints Associated with Different Threshing Methods of Maize

5.1 GENERAL INFORMATION OF SAMPLE RESPONDENTS IN THE STUDY AREA

5.1.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Respondents

Age, education level, family size, occupational pattern and size of land holding were the variables considered to assess the socio-economic status of sample respondents (Table 4.1) in the study area.

With respect to the age of the sample farmers, it was observed that most of the sample farmers are of middle age group. This had influenced the farmers to take innovative and timely decisions to adopt new technology regarding farm mechanisation to enhance their income.

The family composition of sample farmers in the study area revealed that, the proportion of children per family was found to be maximum constituting about 37 to 38 per cent in traditional and mechanical threshing indicating dominance of nuclear family with two or more children. The average size of male was observed to be almost equal in the family composition of sample respondents and accounting for 32 to 33 per cent in traditional and mechanical threshing. The proportion of female was observed to be around 30 per cent in the family composition of traditional and mechanical threshing.

With regard to the education, it was noticed that majority of the sample farmers who are following traditional and mechanical threshing were literates. Literacy level of sample respondents ranged from primary to college level. The proportion of literates was found to be higher among mechanical respondents, who studied up to high school and college level as compared to traditional respondents, those studied up to primary and secondary school level. This indicated that literacy level of sample respondents in the study area was higher than the

state level literacy. Therefore, there may not be any problem for the extension workers to educate the farmers regarding recent developments in agriculture and other enterprises on mechanization to increase their level of income and productivity in the farm. Further, the farmers’ receptive capacity may ease the process and adoption of technology for mechanisation. The occupational pattern of the sample respondents revealed that, the proportion of sample respondents who were involved in agriculture and allied activities was found to be 88.33 per cent in mechanical and 78.33 per cent in traditional threshing in the study area. This showed that the majority of farm families depended on agriculture and allied activities for their livelihood and employment. The average size of land holding among sample respondents revealed that, the traditional respondents are small farmers having an average of 1.16 hectares as compared to mechanical respondents, who comes under the category of medium and large farmers with an average holding of 2.88 hectares. It also revealed that, rainfed area was 88.54 and 90.29 per cent in traditional and mechanical threshing, accordingly and proportion of irrigated land was 11.46 per cent and 9.71 per cent in that order. This implied that the study area is in a typical dry agro-climatic zone. Due to less potentiality of irrigation facilities, still major portion of the cultivable area is depending on rainfall in the study area.

5.1.2 Farm Inventory Position of Sample Respondents

The major farm buildings like dwelling and farm houses, cattle and poultry sheds, pump house, storage house and others (shop, sheds, etc.) were considered to assess the average holding and value of farm buildings and depicted in Table 4.2

On an average, all sample respondents own a dwelling house in both methods of threshing. Similarly, an average holding of all other farm buildings was found higher in mechanical respondents as compared to traditional respondents. This indicated that traditional respondents are having less number of major farm buildings as compared to mechanical respondents, because traditional respondents are small farmers belonging to lower income groups whereas, mechanical respondents are from higher income groups in the study area.

With respect to value of farm buildings, the total value was recorded maximum Rs. 1,69,987.88 in mechanical threshing as compared to Rs. 1,50,633.45 in traditional threshing because of big size and high valued farm buildings of good quality are owned by mechanical respondents. Among different farm buildings possessed by the farmers, dwelling house alone constituted 58 to 60 per cent of the total value of farm buildings. The farm buildings like pump house, storage house, cattle shed, poultry shed and others (small shops, sheds, etc.) constitute remaining 40 per cent of the total value of farm buildings in both traditional and mechanical threshing because of their small size and lower value as compared to dwelling house that are owned by sample respondents in the study area.

5.1.3 Farm Machinery and Equipments of Sample Respondents

The farm machinery and equipments like tractor, bullock cart, pump set, plough, cultivator, seed drill, intercultural implement, thresher, sprayer/duster, harrow, leveler and others (sickle, spade, crowbar, etc.) were considered to assess the average holding and value of farm machinery and equipments and depicted in Table 4.3

The average holding of farm machinery and equipments were found higher among mechanical respondents as compared to traditional respondents except tractor, cultivator and thresher were observed only with mechanical respondents. This indicated that traditional respondents are having less number of farm machinery and equipments as compared to mechanical respondents because, traditional respondents are marginal and small farmers belonging to lower income groups as compared to mechanical respondents in the study area. Traditional respondents have inadequate owned fund for purchase of machineries like tractor, cultivator and threshers.

The value of farm machinery and equipments was recorded lower Rs. 22,015.93 in traditional threshing as compared to Rs. 2,09,029.01 in mechanical threshing because the value of tractor, cultivator and threshers were included in the total value of farm machinery and equipments owned by mechanical respondents.

Among various farm machinery and equipments owned by the sample farmers practicing traditional methods of threshing, the value of pump set and bullock cart together constituted more than 90 per cent of total value of farm machinery and equipments because of their higher value among farm machinery and equipments owned by traditional respondents. Whereas, higher value of tractor and thresher together accounted more than 85 per cent in case of farmers practicing mechanical methods of threshing. The others farm machinery and equipments although important for farm operations but accounted less than 10 to 15 per cent of total value of farm machinery and equipments in both methods of threshing.

5.1.4 Live Stock Inventory of Sample Respondents

The live stock/animal husbandry like dairy cows, buffaloes, bullock pairs, calves, poultry and sheep/goat were considered to assess the average holding and value of live stock/animal husbandry and depicted in Table 4.4

The average holding of live stock/animal husbandry like dairy cows, buffaloes, bullock pairs and calves were found higher among mechanical respondents as compared to traditional respondents indicated that, traditional respondents are holding less number of livestocks than the mechanical respondents in the study area. This is because, traditional respondents are small and marginal farmers belonging to lower income groups and lack of owned fund for purchase of dairy animals.

Among the live stock maintained by the sample respondents, the value of bullock pair accounted 34 to 35 per cent of the total value of live stock followed by buffaloes (24-25 %) and dairy cows (22-23 %) both in the category of farmers with traditional and mechanical threshing due to their higher value as compared to value of other live stock/animals in the study area.

5.1.5 Cropping Pattern of Sample Respondents in the Study Area

The major crops like cereals, minor millets, pulses, oil seeds, vegetables, commercial crop like cotton and plantation crop like coconut in both traditional and mechanical threshing were considered to assess the gross cropped area and percentage share of different crops and have been depicted in Table 4.5

It is clear from the table that the net cultivated area was recorded maximum 173 ha in mechanical threshing as compared to 69.80 ha in traditional threshing indicating that, the mechanical respondents belongs to category of medium and large farmers having an average area of 2.88 ha whereas, traditional respondents are marginal and small farmers with an average area of 1.66 ha in the study area. In both threshing methods, the gross cropped area accounted very low with 87.60 ha in traditional and 205.70 ha in mechanical threshing as compared to net cultivable area and having cropping intensity of 125.50 and 118.90 in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively. This is mainly due to major portion of cultivable area comes under rainfed condition and less potentiality of irrigation facilities in the study area, makes most of the farmers to take-up a single crop per annum during kharif season.

Cereals like maize, jowar and wheat are the main crops of the sample respondents covering major portion of the gross cropped area and accounted 59.02 per cent in traditional and 74.67 per cent in mechanical threshing. Minor millets are major food grains of traditional respondents accounted next place with 11.87 per cent of the gross cropped area in traditional threshing, whereas in case of mechanical threshing, pulses accounted next major share with 6.17 per cent of the gross cropped area. This indicates that traditional respondents are

marginal and small farmers and growing minor millets for their daily food consumption purposes.

In traditional threshing, pulses, oil seeds, vegetables and commercial crops together accounted around 25 to 26 per cent of the gross cropped area. Whereas in case of mechanical threshing, oil seeds, vegetables, commercial and plantation crops together accounted 16 to 17 per cent of the gross cropped area. However, minimum share of the gross cropped area was covered by plantation crops with 3.65 per cent in traditional threshing mainly due to requirement of huge initial investment and lack of irrigation facilities for cultivation of plantation crops, which makes traditional respondents unable to take-up plantation crops in their farms. The minor millets have minimum share with 2.43 per cent of the gross cropped area in mechanical threshing due to less importance given by the mechanical respondents for cultivation of minor millets.

Maize, one of the major cereal crop of the sample respondents accounted 46 per cent and 65.73 per cent of the gross cropped area in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively followed by other crops like jowar, ragi, red gram, groundnut and cotton in both threshing methods in the study area.

5.2 IDENTIFICATION OF MAIZE THRESHING METHODS FOLLOWED IN THE STUDY AREA

The type of threshing methods followed by farmers influenced by the availability of labourers, threshing machines, quantity of maize grain to be threshed, technical know how and time required for threshing. The area selected for the study also exhibited the similar phenomena and the details are as follows.

It was observed that, most of farmers in the study area have followed different traditional as well as mechanical methods of maize threshing. The existing threshing methods of maize were identified in both traditional and mechanical methods and have been depicted in Table 4.6.

The major traditional threshing methods in practice were bare hand separation, hand beating, rubbing cobs each other and separation with pointed material. Among these threshing methods, bare hand separation and hand beating were most common among marginal and small farmers. Rubbing cobs each other and separation of grains with pointed material were followed by few farmers in the study area.

Similarly, the most commonly followed mechanical methods of maize threshing were using maize thresher (engine model), sheath removal maize thresher (engine model), maize thresher (tractor model), sheath removal maize thresher (tractor model), multicrop thresher (engine model) and multicrop thresher (tractor model) in the study area. Majority of the sample farmers threshed maize by using maize thresher (engine model) followed by sheath removal maize thresher (engine model) by small, medium and large farmers in study area. Use of other threshers was found to be minimum as compared to these two threshers in the study area. Miah et al, (1994) identified manual treading, bullock treading, drum beating, beating by flail, pedal thresher and power thresher as most common methods of paddy threshing in Bangladesh.

It is clear from the results presented in Table 4.6 that, the adoption of bare hand separation method of threshing was found to be maximum 62.50 per cent of the farmers followed by hand beating method (26.67 %) because in these methods of threshing, usually women labour were engaged and found to be easy for them to separate kernels from the cob pith by pressing on the grains with thumb and beating the cobs with other cob or hard material as compared to other traditional threshing methods. The other two methods of manual threshing namely, rubbing cobs each other (7.50 %) and separation of grains with pointed material (3.33 %) were in practice by few farmers in the study area.

Among mechanical methods of maize threshing, adoption of threshing using maize thresher (engine model) was found to be highest (34.17 %) followed by sheath removal maize thresher of engine model (27.50 %). This is because, these two threshers are oil engine models run by using diesel, easy for operation and transporting as compared to tractor model threshers, which needs a tractor for threshing operation. In case of multicrop threshers, farmers faced difficulty in operation, changing of sieves, frequent repairs and transportation problems as compared to these two maize threshers. The maize thresher of tractor model was found to be popular among 15.83 per cent of farmers followed by sheath removal maize thresher of tractor model (11.67 %), multicrop thresher of tractor model (8.33 %) and multicrop thresher of engine model (2.50 %) by the farmers in the study area.

5.3 COST OF THRESHING OF MAIZE UNDER DIFFERENT METHODS

The threshing cost of maize under different methods of threshing was influenced by both endogenous and exogenous factors. The threshing cost of different threshing methods play an important role in determining feasibility and profitability of threshing enterprise. The threshing costs of different traditional and mechanical threshing methods are discussed here under.

5.3.1 Threshing Cost of Maize in Bare Hand Separation Method

The threshing cost of maize in bare hand separation method and the share of different operations to the total cost of threshing in the study area was worked out and depicted in Table 4.7.

The total cost incurred to thresh the maize cobs obtained from one hectare area was Rs. 3155.95. The total cost of threshing in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district were Rs. 3115.31 and Rs. 3193.77 respectively.

Among various threshing operations in bare hand separation method, the estimated costs involved in different operations varied largely within, high cost was incurred in grain separation, which worked out to be 41.38 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (20.77%). The higher cost of above operations was mainly due to consumption of more number of labour and time for grain and sheath separation and higher charges per quintal of grain separation. The estimated cost of post-threshing operations such as cleaning/winnowing, drying, bagging and storage was relatively low that accounted only 30 per cent of the total cost of threshing mainly due to less labour intensive and consumption of less time by these post-threshing operations.

5.3.2 Threshing Cost of Maize by Hand Beating Method

The cost of threshing and respective percentage share of different operations to the total threshing cost in hand beating method was worked out and depicted in Table 4.8.

The total cost of threshing for maize cobs obtained from one hectare area was found to be Rs. 3159.48. The total threshing costs were Rs. 3133.14 and Rs. 3182.97 in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district, respectively.

The total cost incurred in threshing of maize by hand beating method comprised of various operations during threshing and post-threshing operations. Among various threshing operations, the cost incurred for grain separation was accounted 42.15 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (19.43 %). The higher cost of above operations was mainly due to consumption of more number of labour and time for grain and sheath separation and higher charges per quintal of grain separation. The post-threshing operations such as cleaning/winnowing (9.47 %), bagging and storage (9.68 %) and drying (10.75 %) were put together accounted only 30 per cent of the total cost of threshing. This was mainly due to consumption of less number of labour and time by these post-threshing operations.

5.3.3 Cost of Mechanical Method of Maize Threshing Using Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The costs incurred in threshing of maize and the share of various operations to the total threshing cost by using mechanical maize thresher (engine model) was worked out and depicted in Table 4.9.

The total cost incurred to thresh the maize cobs obtained from one hectare area was Rs. 2325.46. The total cost of threshing in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district were Rs. 2270.98 and Rs. 2384.88 respectively.

Among various threshing operations in using mechanical maize thresher, the estimated costs involved in different operations varied largely within, high cost was incurred in grain separation, which worked out to be 34.42 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (24.96 %). The higher cost of above operations was mainly due to higher machine/custom charges per quintal of grain separation and consumption of more number of labour for sheath and grain separation. The estimated cost of post-threshing operations such as cleaning/winnowing, drying, bagging and storage was relatively low, which accounted for 30 to 31 per cent of the total cost of threshing mainly due to less labour intensive and consumption of less time by these post-threshing operations.

5.3.4 Costs of Mechanical Method of Maize Threshing Using Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The costs incurred in threshing of maize and the share of various operations to the total threshing cost by using sheath removal mechanical maize thresher (engine model) was worked out and depicted in Table 4.10.

The total cost of threshing of maize cobs obtained from one hectare area was found to be Rs. 2148.43. The total threshing costs were Rs. 2113.60 and Rs. 2185.90 in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district, respectively.

The total cost incurred in threshing of maize cobs by using sheath removal mechanical maize thresher comprised of various operations during threshing and post-threshing operations. Among various threshing operations, the cost incurred for grain separation was amounted Rs. 1191.57 which alone accounted more than 55 per cent of the total cost of threshing. This was mainly due to higher machine/custom charges per quintal of grain separation and consumption of more number of labour during shelling operation. The post-threshing operations such as cleaning/winnowing (9.63 %), bagging and storage (12.85 %) and drying (12.01 %) operations were put together accounted one-third of the total cost of threshing. This was mainly due to consumption of less number of labour and time by these post-threshing operations.

5.3.5 Comparison of Cost of Threshing in Different Methods of Maize

The threshing cost of maize with traditional and mechanical threshing methods and per cent share of various operations to the total threshing cost in the study area was worked out and depicted in Table 4.11.

Among the selected traditional and mechanical threshing methods, the threshing cost was observed to be the least in using sheath removal mechanical maize thresher that accounted Rs. 2148.43. The attributed reason was absence of major labour intensive operation like sheath separation in this method which plays, as a major operation in other threshing methods. The next least threshing cost was observed Rs. 2325.46 in using mechanical maize thresher was mainly due to lower machine/custom charges per quintal of grain separation that ranged from Rs. 10 to Rs. 12 as compared to higher machine/custom charges paid in other threshing methods for grain separation. Saeed et al, (1995) observed the operational cost of hold-on paddy thresher was Rs. 196 per ton as compared to Rs. 350 per ton in manual threshing.

The threshing cost was observed highest in hand beating method (Rs. 3159.48) followed by bare hand separation method (Rs. 3155.95). However, in bare hand separation and hand beating methods, the threshing cost was observed to be almost equal with a marginal difference of Rs. 3.53. The high threshing cost of these traditional methods was mainly due to presence of more labour intensive operations like grain and sheath separation and higher charges per quintal of grain separation that ranged from Rs. 18 to Rs. 25 as compared to the machine/custom charges of mechanical maize threshers. The cost of above two operations alone accounted more than 60 per cent of the total threshing cost. Behera et

al, (1990) reported the net unit threshing cost of wheat was Rs. 14.94 per quintal in traditional methods as compared to Rs. 13.63 per quintal when threshed by mechanical power-operated wheat thresher. Similarly, Jadhav and Deshpande (1990) reported cost of threshing by using pedal-operated ‘phule sunflower thresher’ was Rs. 13 per quintal as compared to Rs. 30 to 35 per quintal by local methods because of higher operational cost.

Among various threshing operations in traditional threshing methods, estimated costs involved in different operations varied largely within, high cost was incurred in grain separation, which worked out to be 41 to 43 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (19-21 %). The high cost of above operations was mainly due to higher charges per quintal of grain separation and consumption of more number of labour and time during grain and sheath separation.

The total cost incurred in threshing of maize using mechanical maize threshers comprised of various operations during threshing and post-threshing operations. Among various threshing operations, the cost incurred for grain separation was accounted 34.42 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (24.96 %) by using maize thresher. Where as in case of sheath removal maize thresher, grain separation was alone accounted more than 55 per cent of the total cost of threshing. This was mainly due to consumption of more number of labour and higher machine charges per quintal of grain separation in threshing of maize by using these mechanical methods.

The estimated cost of post-threshing operations such as cleaning / winnowing (7-10 %), bagging and storage (9-13 %), drying (10-13 %) operations was relatively low, and put together accounted for nearly one-third of the total cost of threshing in both traditional and mechanical threshing methods. This was mainly due to low labour intensive and less time consumption during these operations as compared to grain and sheath separation operations in both traditional and mechanical threshing methods in the study area.

5.4 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INVESTMENT ON MAIZE THRESHERS

5.4.1 Investment on Maize Threshers

During first year, huge capital was required to purchase the maize threshers. Though the major investment was in the first year, the owners have to incur the expenditure on maintenance, repair, housing and operational costs form next year onwards. The life period of the threshing machines was 10 years. The details of the threshers are depicted in Table 4.12. The initial investment on maize threshers included the expenditure incurred on thresher, oil engine, accessories, etc. and other costs such as sale tax, transportation and forwarding charges. The data in the table revealed that, the initial investment made on sheath removal maize thresher amounted highest Rs. 74,380 as compared to initial investment on maize thresher was Rs. 53,586 in the study area. This is mainly due to higher price of sheath removal maize thresher and oil engine in the market.

5.4.2 Annual Operation Cost of Maize Threshers

It was revealed from Table 4.12 that, the total annual cost of operation amounted Rs. 49,593.60 using sheath removal maize thresher and Rs. 37629.36 by using maize thresher. The annual cost of operation included both annual fixed and variable costs. The fixed cost includes various components like depreciation charges, maintenance and repair charges,

housing charges and interest on annual fixed cost. The components of variable cost are fuel charges, operator wages and miscellaneous charges.

In the total annual cost of operation, fixed cost accounted higher Rs. 13,586.40 in sheath removal maize thresher as compared to Rs. 10,326.96 in maize thresher due to higher depreciation, maintenance/ repair and housing charges of sheath removal maize thresher. Similarly, variable cost was amounted higher Rs. 36,007.20 in sheath removal maize thresher as compared to Rs. 27,302.40 in maize thresher was mainly due to consumption of high fuel per unit of operation by sheath removal maize thresher as compared to low fuel consumption by maize thresher. The fixed cost and variable cost accounted 27 per cent and 73 per cent of the total annual cost of operation, respectively in both maize threshers.

In annual fixed costs, depreciation charges had a major share accounted 12 to 13 per cent of the total annual cost of operation in both threshers because of higher initial investment made on maize threshers. The maintenance/repair and housing charges together accounted 12 to 13 per cent of the total annual cost of operation in both threshers mainly due to high cost incurred on maintenance/repair and housing charges. Whereas in annual variable cost, fuel charges had a major share amounted highest Rs. 17,800 in sheath removal maize thresher as compared to Rs. 12,300 in case of maize thresher due to consumption of low fuel per unit of operation by maize thresher as compared to high fuel consumption by sheath removal maize thresher. Fuel charges and operator wages accounted 32 to 36 per cent and 24 to 28 per cent, respectively in the total annual cost of operation for both threshers. Minor repair and miscellaneous charges together accounted 6 to 8 per cent of the total annual cost of operation in both maize threshers.

5.4.3 Benefits from Maize Thresher in Threshing of Maize Crop

The result of the analysis of costs and returns for maize threshers has been depicted in Table 4.12. It may be seen from the table that, the annual gross returns recorded less Rs. 57,780 by using maize thresher as compared to Rs. 81,666 in using sheath removal maize thresher. This was mainly due to lower machine/custom charges per quintal of grain separation in maize thresher which ranged from Rs. 10 to Rs. 12 as compared to higher machine/custom charges (Rs. 17-20) in case of sheath removal maize thresher in the study area. The net benefit obtained by using maize thresher was Rs. 20,150.64 per annum whereas in case of sheath removal maize thresher, it was Rs. 32,072.40 per annum. The net additional benefit obtained from sheath removal maize thresher over maize thresher was amounted Rs. 11,921.76 per annum in maize threshing.

5.4.4 Evaluation of Investment on Maize Threshers

To study the feasibility of investment on maize threshers for maize threshing, the criteria of Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Pay Back Period (PBP) and Break-Even analysis were used and computed by assuming (i) Increasing annual cost of thresher operation as increase in fuel, labour and repair charges and operator wages year after year for 10 years and (ii) Increasing annual gross returns as increase in machine charges per quintal of grain threshing year after year for 10 years. The results of the analysis have been depicted in Table 4.13 and Table 4.14.

5.4.4.1 Net Present Value (NPV)

The results revealed that the net present value over the economic life period was Rs. 1,23,209.84 in sheath removal maize thresher and Rs. 77,615.53 in case of maize thresher. The net present value was directly proportional to the returns obtained from the system.

5.4.4.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)

The discounted benefit-cost ratio indicates the net returns realised per rupee of investment during economic life period of the thresher. The benefit-cost ratios worked out

were 1.29 in maize thresher and 1.35 in case of sheath removal maize thresher. This criterion also placed sheath removal maize thresher at the top as compared to maize thresher. However, benefit-cost ratio is greater than unity for both threshers and hence, the investment on these threshers is economically feasible and viable.

5.4.4.3 Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

The internal rate of return for threshers was worked out to be 26 per cent for maize thresher and 31 per cent for sheath removal maize thresher. The internal rate of return was higher than the discount rate (10 %) considered in the evaluation. This criterion ranked the sheath removal maize thresher at the top with respect to profitability. However, internal rate of return was higher than the discount rate (10 %) for both threshers and hence, the investment in these threshers is economically feasible and viable.

Thus, all the three criteria of financial evaluation viz., net present value, benefit-cost ratio and internal rate of return indicated that, investment on both mechanical maize threshers was economically feasible and financially sound.

5.4.4.4 Pay Back Period (PBP)

The pay back period refers to the time to repay the initial investment. The pay back period was 2.33 years for maize thresher and 2.16 years for sheath removal maize thresher. This indicated that maize thresher and sheath removal maize thresher would cover the costs from the returns with in a short period. It also indicated that, there was not much difference in the time needed to recover the initial investment in both threshers. The little higher time was taken by using maize thresher was due to lower returns as compared to higher returns in sheath removal maize thresher. Bora and Salokhe (2000) developed a pineapple plant-dressing machine (for ratooning) and reported the break-even point for this machine as 126 ha per year with a pay back period of 3 years.

5.4.4.5 Breakeven Point (BEP)

The break-even point is the annual use level at which the machine must be operated to make investment profitable. The break-even point was higher 1,632 quintals per year for maize thresher as compared to 1,313 quintals per year for sheath removal maize thresher. This is mainly due to higher net returns obtained by using sheath removal maize thresher as compared to lower net returns in case of maize thresher. However, the investments made could be recoverable within a short period for both maize threshers by the owners in the study area.

5.5 POST-HARVEST LOSSES IN DIFFERENT THRESHING METHODS OF MAIZE

5.5.1 Post-Harvest Losses in Bare Hand Method of Threshing

The per hectare and per quintal losses of maize (in kilograms) and respective per cent share of operations to the total post-harvest losses in bare hand separation method are calculated and depicted in Table 4.15.

The total post-harvest losses during bare hand method of threshing was found to be 117.05 kg per ha (2.13 kg/qtl) in the study area. The estimated total post-harvest losses in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district was 116.73 kg per ha (2.14 kg/qtl) and in Davanagere taluk of same district, it was 117.36 kg per ha (2.12 kg/qtl).

The post-harvest losses vary from one operation to another operation in threshing of maize. Among total post-harvest losses, the losses during harvesting was found to be highest 20.92 kg per ha (0.38 kg/qtl) which worked out to be 17.87 per cent of the total losses was mainly due to more number of fallen plants and cobs in the field and cobs left in the plant during harvesting time followed by storage losses (16.59 %) due to attack of rats, moulds,

insects, pests, etc. during storage period. The share of transportation losses was 12 per cent caused due to loss of grains during loading and unloading, transporting from field to threshing yard and threshing yard to market. The unthreshed losses accounted 10.30 per cent of the total losses that occurs mainly due to more number of grains were left in the cob during manually shelling by the labour. The other losses (0.45 kg/qtl) accounted 20.97 per cent of the total losses caused by birds, animals, monkies, rainfall, moisture content, etc.

5.5.2 Post-Harvest Losses during Hand Beating Method of Threshing

Hand beating is another important manual method of maize threshing in the study area. The per hectare and per quintal losses of maize (in kilograms) and respective per cent share of operations to the total post-harvest losses are calculated and depicted in Table 4.16.

The total post-harvest losses during threshing of maize by hand beating method in the study area as a whole was 125.98 kg per ha (2.34 kg/qtl). The total post-harvest losses were recorded 126.53 kg per ha (2.37 kg/qtl) in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and 125.43 kg per ha (2.32 kg/qtl) in Davanagere taluk of same district.

The total post-harvest losses estimated during different operations at farm level revealed that, the losses during harvesting was found to be highest 20.46 kg per ha (0.38 kg/qtl) which accounted 16.24 per cent of the total losses followed by storage losses (14.65 %), transportation losses (11.48 %) and unthreshed losses (10.35 %) as compared to low grain losses in other post-threshing operations. The higher grain losses in above operations was mainly due to more grain losses in the form of fallen plants and cobs in the field and cobs left in the plant during harvesting time, losses caused by attack of rats, moulds, insects, pests, etc. during storage period, grain losses during loading and unloading, transporting from field to threshing yard and threshing yard to market and more number of grains were left in the cob during manual shelling by the labour. The other losses accounted 21 to 22 per cent of the total losses caused by birds, animals, monkies, rainfall, moisture content, etc.

5.5.3 Post-Harvest Losses in Mechanical Method by Using Maize Thresher (Engine Model))

The post-harvest losses of maize are estimated per hectare as well as per quintal of grains (in kilograms) using mechanical maize thresher of engine model and depicted in Table 4.17.

The total post-harvest losses during mechanical threshing using maize thresher at field level was worked out to be 230.51 kg per ha (4.42 kg/qtl). The total post-harvest losses were recorded 235.56 kg per ha (4.50 kg/qtl) in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and 225.45 kg per ha (4.33 kg/qtl) in Davanagere taluk of same district.

The analysis of losses during different operations revealed that, the grain losses in the form of broken grain was found to be highest (58.92 kg/ha) followed by unthreshed loss (52 kg/ha). The above two losses together accounted nearly 50 per cent of the total post-harvest losses as compared to low grain losses in other post-threshing operations such as storage, transportation, drying, cleaning/winnowing and bagging which put together accounted 22 to 23 per cent of the total post-harvest losses. The higher broken and unthreshed grain losses were mainly due to more damage and splitting of grains by the high-speed rotating cylinder in drum during mechanical shelling in the threshing machines and more number of grains were left in the cob during machine shelling, which usually found on upper part of cobs. The losses in harvesting operation was found to be 10 per cent of the total post-harvest losses due to fallen plants and cobs in the field and cobs left in the plant during harvesting time. The other losses accounted 12.32 per cent of the total post-harvest losses caused by birds, animals, monkies, rainfall, moisture content, etc.

5.5.4 Post-Harvest Losses in Mechanical Threshing by Using Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The post-harvest losses of maize are estimated per hectare as well as per quintal of grains (in kilograms) using sheath removal mechanical maize thresher of engine model and depicted in Table 4.18.

The total post-harvest losses during mechanical threshing using sheath removal maize thresher of engine model at field level was worked out to be 248.54 kg per ha (4.81 kg/qtl). The estimated total post-harvest losses in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district was 241.28 kg per ha (4.77 kg/qtl) and in Davanagere taluk of same district, it was 255.79 kg per ha (4.85 kg/qtl).

The post-harvest losses during different operations revealed that, the grain losses in the form of broken grain was found to be highest (70.75 kg/ha) followed by unthreshed loss (61.17 kg/ha) and losses in harvesting (24.63 kg/ha). The above two losses put together accounted more than 60 per cent of the total post-harvest losses. The higher broken and unthreshed grain losses were mainly due to more damage and splitting of grains by the high-speed rotating cylinder in drum during mechanical shelling in the threshing machines and more number of grains were left in the cob during machine shelling, which usually found on upper part of cobs. The harvesting losses were caused due to fallen plants and cobs in the field and cobs left in the plant during harvesting time. The losses in post-threshing operations such as storage, transportation, drying, cleaning/winnowing and bagging, which put together accounted 21 to 22 per cent of the total post-harvest losses. The other losses accounted 10.72 per cent of the total post-harvest losses caused by birds, animals, monkies, rainfall, moisture content, etc.

5.5.5 Comparison of Post-Harvest Losses in Different Threshing Methods of Maize Threshing

The per hectare and per quintal losses of maize (in kilograms) and respective per cent share of operations to the total post-harvest losses are calculated for both traditional and mechanical threshing methods and depicted in Table 4.19.

The total post-harvest losses in different threshing methods revealed that, the losses were found to be highest (248.54 kg/ha or 4.81 kg/qtl) in using sheath removal maize thresher followed by maize thresher (230.51 kg/ha or 4.42 kg/qtl) of mechanical threshing methods. Whereas, minimum losses were recorded in bare hand separation (117.05 kg/ha or 2.13 kg/qtl) and hand beating (125.98 kg/ha or 2.34 kg/qtl) of traditional methods in the study area. The difference in post-harvest losses in above threshing methods was mainly due to higher amount of broken and unthreshed grain losses during mechanical shelling in maize threshers as compared to low grain losses during manual shelling in traditional threshing methods by human labour in the study area. Anonymous, (2002) in IDRC study survey, reported rice threshing losses by manual methods was 0.80 per cent as compared to 1.52 per cent by using pedal thresher and 3.47 per cent using motor thresher in China. In PPA project in the Gambia notes, he also reported losses are higher in mechanical threshing (19.35 %) than manual threshing methods (6.3 %) in millets and the overall verified losses in Brazil was 17.7 per cent for maize. Anonymous, (1994) in the post-harvest news of BPRE, reported the total post-harvest losses in maize range from 3.7 to 25 per cent in Philippines. Danilo Mejía reported hand shelling losses was an average of one per cent and machine shelling losses by considering broken kernels and grain lost with chaff accounted 2 to 5 per cent in maize.

The post-harvest losses during different operations at farm level revealed that, the losses during harvesting was found to be low around 20 to 21 kg per ha in traditional methods as compared to 23 to 25 kg per ha in mechanical threshing methods. The difference in harvesting losses among threshing methods was depends on size of maize cropped area. The higher amount of grain losses was observed in large sized maize farms of mechanical respondents, who do not collect all the fallen and left cobs from their harvested fields, whereas traditional respondents collect the fallen and left cobs from their small sized

harvested fields in the study area. Anwarul et al, (1989) reported harvesting losses in rice was 0.9 per cent for small sized farms and 1.2 per cent for large sized farms. Anonymous, (1994) in the post-harvest news of BPRE, reported harvesting losses in maize ranges 0.2 to 2.7 per cent in Philippines. Anonymous, (2002) reported harvesting losses of maize in Brazil was 4.4 per cent in FAO document.

The sheath separation losses depends on dryness of maize cobs, was observed 6 to 8 kg per ha in both traditional and mechanical threshing methods accounted 3 to 6 per cent of the total post-harvest losses. This sheath separation loss was more in dried cobs, where grains easily separate from the cob pith during sheath separation as compared to less grain loss in partially dried cobs. Anonymous, (1994) in the post-harvest news of BPRE, reported the losses in maize ranges from trace to 2.5 per cent in sheath separating operation in Philippines.

The unthreased grain losses was observed maximum (52-62 kg/ha) in mechanical threshing methods as compared to traditional threshing methods (12-13 kg/ha). The difference in above losses among threshing methods was mainly due to more number of unthreshed grains were found left in the upper part of cob pith during mechanical shelling in maize threshers whereas, less number of grains (0-2 grains) was observed during manual shelling of traditional threshing methods. Anonymous, (1994) in the post-harvest news of BPRE, reported the shelling and cleaning losses in maize ranges from 0.7 to 6.7 per cent in Philippines.

The scattered grain loss (8-12 kg/ha) was observed only in mechanical shelling of maize threshers accounted 3 to 5 per cent of the total post-harvest losses. The scattered loss depends on number of grains thrown-out and blown-away by high speed rotating cylinder and winnowing fan of threshing machines during mechanical shelling process. Higher rotating speed of cylinder and winnowing fan causes more grain loss and vice versa.

The broken losses were observed maximum (58-71 kg/ha) in mechanical threshing methods accounted 25 to 29 per cent of the total post-harvest losses as compared to traditional hand beating method of threshing (3.90 %). This was mainly due to more number of damage and splitting of grains were found during mechanical shelling which caused by high speed rotating cylinder of threshing machines as compared to low broken grain losses in manual shelling by beating the cobs with other cob/wooden material in hand beating method. The broken grain losses were observed more in the absence of proper adjustment in the rotating cylinder of threshing machines.

The post-harvest losses during different post-threshing operations revealed that, the losses during storage period was found to be maximum 18 to 20 kg per ha in both traditional and mechanical threshing methods which accounted 8 to 16 per cent of the total post-harvest losses followed by transportation losses (6-12 %), drying losses (4-7 %) and bagging losses for about one per cent of the total post-harvest losses. The storage losses in maize caused by attack of rats, moulds, insects, pests, diseases, etc. during storage period and transportation losses caused due to grain losses during loading and unloading operations, transporting from field to threshing yard and threshing yard to market. Anwarul et al, (1997) reported storage losses in rice caused by insects were 0.61 per cent. Anonymous, (1994) in the post-harvest news of BPRE, reported storage losses of maize ranged 2.8 to 3.3 per cent in Philippines. Anonymous, (2002) reported storage losses of maize in Brazil was 7.8 per cent in FAO document.

The drying losses depend on number of days the grains dried and area of threshing yard. It was observed that as increase in number of drying days and area of threshing yard, grain losses also increases and vice versa. The maize grain losses were observed low in using tarpels and plastic sheets for drying and more on bared earth surface and roadsides in the study area. Anwarul et al, (1989) reported field staking, bundling and drying losses in rice was 0.7 per cent for small sized farms and 0.8 per cent for large sized farms and during 1997, also reported drying losses in rice as 2.24 per cent. Anonymous, (1994) in the post-harvest news of BPRE, reported drying losses in maize ranges trace to 9.8 per cent in Philippines.

Cleaning/winnowing losses were observed around 10 kg per ha in traditional threshing methods accounted 8 to 9 per cent of the total post-harvest losses as compared to less grain losses in mechanical threshing methods (3-5 kg/ha, 1-2 %). This was due to cleaning/ winnowing operation carried out by human labour in traditional methods causes more grain losses in the chaffy materials by air blown and some grains buried under soil surface as compared to less grain losses in mechanical methods, where cleaning/winnowing of maize grains was made by the machine during shelling operation.

The other losses caused by birds, animals, monkies, insects, pests, rainfall, moisture content, etc. was observed 24 to 29 kg per ha in both traditional and mechanical threshing methods in the study area.

5.6 CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT THRESHING METHODS OF MAIZE

The constraints associated with selected manual and mechanical threshing methods in the study area are grouped under three heads namely, technical constraints, financial constraints and operational constraints and depicted in Table 4.20 for traditional threshing and Table 4.21 for mechanical threshing.

5.6.1 Technical Constraints

Lack of information on availability of different types of threshers was encountered as one of major problem among traditional and mechanical sample respondents, which resulted in low farm mechanisation of post-harvest operations in the study area. Most of the mechanical respondents opined non-availability of skilled personnel for operating maize threshers. Non-availability of timely technical assistance was another constraint observed to be crucial in the study area among mechanical respondents. Nearly, half of the mechanical respondents encountered the problem like frequent repairs of threshers due to improper handling, which affects the threshing operation of maize.

5.6.2 Financial Constraints

Non-availability of adequate owned funds, the reason was that majority of sample farmers depend on agriculture for their livelihood and due to low-income generation from agriculture, created scarcity of owned fund in both traditional and mechanical sample respondents. High initial investment on maize threshers was another problem observed in mechanical respondents indicating that higher price of maize threshers, oil motors and spare-parts in the market and cost of inputs like diesel and oil for running of maize threshers. Non-availability of adequate and timely institutional credit was also uttered by majority of both traditional and mechanical respondents for purchase of maize threshers. Delay in supply of thresher under subsidy schemes was minor problem faced by the few sample respondents of mechanical threshing in the study area.

5.6.3 Operational Constraints

Due to shortage of maize threshers, non-availability of mechanical threshers in time for threshing of maize was put forth by majority of both traditional and mechanical respondents. Mechanisation needs skilled personnel and labourers, where both mechanical and traditional respondents are facing the problem of non-availability of skilled personnel and shortage of labour for threshing operations in the study area. However, problem of non-availability of fuel near by village was observed to be meager in the study area by mechanical respondents. The mechanical respondents are facing problem like shifting of threshers from one place to other due to bigger size of threshing machines, kaccha roads and higher transportation cost in the study area.

Educating farmers on farm mechanisaton for different post-harvest operations is essential and suitable to increase their income level and to reduce post-harvest losses in maize in the study area.

VI. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Maize, a major cereal crop grown throughout the world for both human and livestock consumption. The total area under this crop has been increasing considerably in recent decades. Mechanisation of post-harvest operations in maize has been gaining the momentum in recent years. The scientists and agricultural engineers are developing tools and techniques to design and develop more suitable threshing machines to take up operations easily and timely on the farm to reduce the cost incurred and losses occurred and to improve the economic conditions of farming community. In the present study, an attempt was made to identify the different threshing methods, estimating cost of threshing, post-harvest losses and constraints in different traditional and mechanical threshing methods of maize and evaluate the financial feasibility of machinical threshers for threshing maize in Davanagere and Haveri districts of Karnataka.

6.1 OBJECTIVES The present study was undertaken in Davanagere and Haveri districts of Karnataka

with the following specific objectives

1. To identify different methods of threshing of maize crop and to estimate cost of threshing in the study area.

2. To analyse the financial feasibility of investment and break-even point for different mechanical methods of maize threshing.

3. To estimate the post-harvest losses under different methods of maize threshing, and

4. To identify the constraints in different threshing methods and suggest appropriate policy measures.

6.2 METHODOLOGY

The study used both primary and secondary data. Keeping in view the objectives of the study, the data collected was subjected to statistical analysis like tabular analysis for computing average, percentage and frequencies and financial feasibility analysis for mechanical methods of threshing.

Multistage sampling technique was adopted for the selection of study area and sample respondents for collection of information required for the study. In the first stage, two districts namely, Davanagere and Haveri were selected from Karnataka state based on highest maize production in recent years in the state. In the second stage, one taluk was selected from each of the selected districts. Accordingly, Davanagere taluk in Davanagere district and Hirekerur taluk in Haveri district were selected based on maximum area under maize crop in recent years. In third stage, six villages from each of the selected taluk were selected based on maximum area under maize crop and threshing methods of maize followed by farmers in the taluk. Totally, twelve villages were selected from two selected taluks. In the fourth stage, ten sample respondents were selected randomly from each selected village. In all, 120 sample respondents were selected from twelve selected villages. In the fifth stage for computing feasibility analysis, five sample thresher owners having maize threshers were selected from each selected taluk. Totally, ten thresher owners were selected from two selected taluks.

6.3 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

6.3.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Farmers

The average age of the sample respondents were 43.37 years and 43.15 years in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively emphasizing the dominance of middle age group farmers in decision making process. The literacy rate was highest in mechanical respondents. The occupational pattern of sample respondents revealed that, the majority of sample farmers were found to be following agriculture and allied activities. The pattern of land holding revealed that, an average size of land holding was 1.16 hectares for traditional and

2.88 hectares for mechanical respondents and about 88.54 per cent and 90.29 per cent of land holding of traditional and mechanical respondents, respectively comes under rainfed condition in the study area.

6.3.2 Farm Inventory Position of Sample Respondents

On an average, each sample farmer owns a dwelling house. The average holding of cattle shed was found more 0.83 in mechanical respondents as compared to 0.70 in traditional respondents. Similarly, average holding of other farm buildings except poultry shed was found higher in mechanical respondents. The total value of the farm buildings was recorded maximum Rs. 1,69,987.88 in mechanical as compared to Rs. 1,50,633.45 in traditional threshing. Dwelling house alone constituted 58 to 60 per cent of the total value of farm buildings followed by farm house (9-11 %) in traditional and mechanical threshing respondents. The cattle shed, pump house, storage house and poultry shed constituted remaining 25 to 30 per cent of the total value of farm buildings in traditional and mechanical threshing respondents in the study area.

6.3.3 Farm Machinery and Equipments of Sample Respondents

The average holding of bullock cart and pump set were 0.25 and 0.20 in mechanical respondents, respectively whereas, it was found equal with 0.13 by the sample respondents in traditional threshing. However, holding of tractor, cultivator and thresher by the sample respondents were observed only in case of mechanical threshing. The average holding of other farm machinery and equipments like plough, seed drill, intercultural implement, etc. were found higher in mechanical threshing respondents. The total value of farm machinery and equipments was recorded lower Rs. 22,015.93 in traditional as compared to Rs. 2,09,029.01 in mechanical threshing. The value of pump set and bullock cart put together constituted more than 90 per cent of total value of farm machinery and equipments in traditional, where as value of tractor and thresher, together accounted more than 85 per cent in case of mechanical threshing. The other farm machinery and equipments such as ploughs, cultivators, seed drills, etc. accounted less than 10 to 15 per cent of total value of farm machinery and equipments in both methods of threshing.

6.3.4 Live Stock Inventory of Sample Respondents

The average holding of livestock like dairy cows, buffaloes, bullock pairs and calves were found higher in mechanical respondents as compared to traditional threshing respondents except for livestock like sheep/goat and poultry. The total value of livestock was recorded Rs. 29,171.38 in traditional and Rs. 28,648.55 in case of mechanical threshing. Bullock pair alone accounted 34 to 35 per cent of the total value of livestock followed by buffaloes and dairy cows. The above livestocks together accounted more than 80 per cent of total value of livestock both in the category of farmers with traditional and mechanical threshing. The other livestock such as claves, sheep/goat and poultry accounted around 20 per cent of the total value of livestock in both threshing methods in the study area.

6.3.5 Cropping Pattern of Sample Respondents in the Study Area

In the study area, major portion of the cultivable land was found to be under rainfed condition. The net cultivated area (173 ha) and gross cropped area (205.70 ha) was found to be higher in case of farmers following mechanical method of threshing as compared to farmers threshing maize with traditional methods. Cropping intensity was 125.50 in traditional and 118.90 in mechanical threshing categories of farmers. Cereals, covering major portion of the gross cropped area accounted 59.02 per cent in traditional and 74.67 per cent in mechanical threshing followed by minor millets (11.87 %) in traditional and pulses (6.17 %) in mechanical threshing. However, minimum share of the gross cropped area was covered by plantation crop coconut with 3.65 per cent in traditional and minor millets 2.43 per cent in mechanical threshing. Maize, one of the major cereal crop grown by the sample respondents accounted 46 per cent and 65.73 per cent of the gross cropped area in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively in the study area.

6.4 MAIZE THRESHING METHODS FOLLOWED IN THE STUDY AREA

It was observed in the study area that the sample farmers followed both manual and mechanical methods for threshing of maize. The major manual/traditional threshing methods were bare hand separation, hand beating, rubbing cobs each other and separation of grains with pointed material and mechanical threshing were by using maize thresher (engine model), sheath removal maize thresher (engine model), maize thresher (tractor model), sheath removal maize thresher (tractor model), multicrop thresher (engine model) and multicrop thresher (tractor model). Among traditional methods of maize threshing, the bare hand separation method was followed by 62.50 per cent of the maize growers followed by hand beating method (26.67 %). Among mechanical methods of threshing, the maize thresher (engine model) and sheath removal maize thresher (engine model) were found to be followed by 34.17 per cent and 27.50 per cent of the maize growers, respectively in the study area.

6.5 COST OF MAIZE THRESHING UNDER DIFFERENT METHODS

6.5.1 Cost of Threshing in Bare Hand Separation Method

The total cost incurred in threshing of maize cobs harvested from one hectare area was worked out to be Rs. 3155.95. It was Rs. 3115.31 and Rs. 3193.77 in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district, respectively. Among various operations in maize threshing, the cost incurred for grain separation accounted 41.38 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (20.77 %). The cost incurred on post-harvest operations such as cleaning/winnowing, drying and bagging and storage was found to be relatively low (30 %).

6.5.2 Cost of Threshing by Hand Beating Method

The total cost incurred in threshing of maize cobs harvested from one hectare area was worked out to be Rs. 3159.48. It was Rs. 3133.14 and Rs. 3182.97 in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district, respectively. Among various operations in maize threshing, the cost incurred for grain separation accounted 42.15 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (19.43 %). The cost incurred on post-harvest operations such as cleaning/ winnowing, drying and bagging and storage was found to be 30 per cent of the total cost of threshing.

6.5.3 Cost of Mechanical Method of Threshing Using Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The total cost incurred in threshing of maize cobs harvested from one hectare area was worked out to be Rs. 2325.46. It was Rs. 2270.98 and Rs. 2384.88 in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district, respectively. Among various operations in maize threshing, the cost incurred for grain separation accounted 34.42 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (24.96 %) which put together accounted for nearly 60 per cent of the total cost of threshing. The cost incurred on post-harvest operations such as cleaning/winnowing, drying and bagging and storage was found to be relatively low (30-31 %).

6.5.4 Cost of Mechanical Method of Threshing Using Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The total cost incurred in threshing of maize cobs harvested from one hectare area was worked out to be Rs. 2148.43. It was Rs. 2113.60 and Rs. 2185.90 in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district, respectively. Among various operations in maize threshing, the cost incurred for grain separation alone accounted more than 55 per

cent of the total cost of threshing. The cost incurred on post-harvest operations such as cleaning/winnowing, drying and bagging and storage was found to be 34 to 35 per cent of the total cost of threshing.

6.5.5 Cost of Threshing in Different Threshing Methods of Maize

Among the selected traditional and mechanical threshing methods, the threshing cost was observed to be the least in using sheath removal maize thresher with Rs. 2148.43 followed by using maize thresher (Rs. 2325.46). The highest threshing cost was observed in hand beating method (Rs. 3159.48) followed by bare hand separation method (Rs. 3155.95). Among various operations in maize threshing, the cost incurred for grain separation accounted 41 to 43 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (19-21 %) in traditional threshing methods. In case of mechanical threshing, the cost incurred for grain separation accounted 34 to 35 per cent of the total cost of threshing followed by sheath separation (25 %) by using maize thresher, whereas in case of sheath removal maize thresher, grain separation alone accounted more than 55 per cent of the total cost of threshing. The cost incurred on post-threshing operations such as cleaning/winnowing, drying and bagging and storage was found to be relatively low from 30 to 35 per cent of the total cost of threshing in both traditional and mechanical methods of threshing.

6.6 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF INVESTMENT ON MAIZE THRESHERS

6.6.1 Investment on Maize Threshers

The initial investment on sheath removal maize thresher was found to be highest of Rs. 74,380 as compared to Rs. 53,586 in case of maize thresher.

6.6.2 Annual Operation Cost of Maize Threshers

The total annual cost of operation of sheath removal maize thresher was amounted Rs. 49,593.60 which was higher than the annual operation cost of maize thresher (Rs. 37,629.36). Similarly, in the total annual cost of operation, fixed and variable costs, respectively accounted Rs. 13,586.40 and Rs. 36,007.20 in sheath removal maize thresher, whereas in case of maize thresher, these costs were Rs. 10,326.96 and Rs. 27,302.40 respectively.

Among various components of fixed costs, the depreciation charges accounted 12 to 13 per cent of the total annual cost of operation followed by maintenance/repair charges (6-7 %) and housing charges (5-6 %) in both maize threshers. In variable cost, the fuel charges for operation of threshers accounted 32 to 36 per cent of the total annual cost of operation followed by operator wages (24-28 %) in both maize threshers.

6.6.3 Returns from Threshing of Maize with Mechanical Threshers

The annual gross returns were recorded lower Rs. 57,780 in maize thresher as compared to Rs. 81,666 in sheath removal maize thresher. The net returns obtained by using maize thresher was amounted Rs. 20,150.64 per annum, whereas in case of sheath removal maize thresher, it was Rs. 32,072.40 per annum.

6.6.4 Financial Feasibility of Investment in Maize Threshers

The net present value (NPV), benefit-cost ratio (BCR), internal rate of return (IRR), pay back period (PBP) and break-even analysis were computed by assuming (i) Increasing annual cost of thresher operation as increase in fuel, labour and repair charges and operator wages year after year for 10 years and (ii) Increasing annual gross returns as increase in machine charges per quintal of grain threshing year after year for 10 years.

6.6.4.1 Net Present Value (NPV)

The net present value of sheath removal maize thresher over its economic life was Rs. 1,23,209.84 whereas in case of maize thresher, it was Rs. 77,615.53. Hence, the investment on these two maize threshers was found to be economically feasible and viable.

6.6.4.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)

The discounted benefit-cost ratios were 1.29 in maize thresher and 1.35 in case of sheath removal maize thresher. However, benefit-cost ratios are greater than unity for both threshers indicated that, the investment on these two maize threshers was found to be profitable. For each rupee of investment on maize threshers yields a net profit of Rs. 0.29 and Rs. 0.35 in maize thresher and sheath removal maize thresher, respectively.

6.6.4.3 Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

The internal rate of return was observed to be 26 per cent for maize thresher and 31 per cent for sheath removal maize thresher. The internal rate of return was found to be much higher than the discount rate (10 %) considered for evaluation. Therefore, the investment in these two maize threshers has proved to be economically feasible and viable.

6.6.4.4 Pay Back Period (PBP)

The results of pay back period analysis showed that investment made on threshers could be recovered within a short period of two to two and a half years. The pay back period for investment on sheath removal maize thresher was 2.16 years and in case of maize thresher, it was 2.33 years.

6.6.4.5 Break-Even Point (BEP)

The break-even point was observed 1,632 quintals per year for maize thresher and 1,313 quintals per year for sheath removal maize thresher. Hence, the investment made could be recovered in a relatively short span of time by the owners of maize threshers in the study area.

The results of net present value, benefit-cost ratio, internal rate of return, pay back period and break-even point analysis revealed that, the investment on maize threshers was found to be economically viable and financially feasible.

6.7 POST-HARVEST LOSSES IN DIFFERENT THRESHING METHODS OF MAIZE

6.7.1 Post-Harvest Losses in Bare Hand Method of Threshing

The total post-harvest losses during bare hand separation method of threshing was found to be 117.05 kg per ha (2.13 kg/qtl). In Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district, it was 116.73 kg per ha and 117.36 kg per ha respectively. Losses during harvesting was found to be highest 20.92 kg per ha which worked out to be 17.87 per cent of the total losses followed by storage losses (16.59 %) and transportation losses (12.04 %). The losses during other threshing operations such as unthreshed, cleaning/winnowing and drying losses put together accounted 31 to 32 per cent of the total losses. The other losses found to be 20.97 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

6.7.2 Post-Harvest Losses during Hand Beating Method of Threshing

The total post-harvest losses under hand beating method was 125.98 kg per ha. The losses were 126.53 kg per ha in Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and 125.43 kg per ha in Davanagere taluk of same district. Losses during harvesting was found to be highest (20.46

kg per ha) which accounted 16.24 per cent of the total losses followed by storage losses (14.65 %) and transportation losses (11.48 %). The post-harvest losses as unthreshed loss and losses during cleaning/winnowing, drying and sheath separation were found to be 10.40 per cent, 8.11 per cent, 6.59 per cent and 5.85 per cent, respectively. The other losses accounted 21.55 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

6.7.3 Post-Harvest Losses in Mechanical Method Using Maize Thresher (Engine Model))

The total post-harvest losses during mechanical threshing using maize thresher was found to be 230.51 kg per ha (4.42 kg/qtl). In Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district and Davanagere taluk of same district, it was 4.50 kg per quintal and 4.33 kg per quintal, respectively. The grain losses in the form of broken grain was found to be highest (1.13 kg/qtl) followed by unthreshed losses (0.99 kg/qtl) and losses in harvesting (0.44 kg/qtl). The share of losses during above operations put together accounted more than 58 per cent of the total losses. The post-harvest losses during operations such as drying, storage and transportation together accounted 20 per cent of the total losses. The other losses accounted 12.32 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

6.7.4 Post-Harvest Losses in Mechanical Method Using Sheath Removal Maize Thresher (Engine Model)

The total post-harvest losses during mechanical threshing using sheath removal maize thresher of engine model found to be 248.54 kg per ha (4.81 kg/qtl). In Davanagere taluk of same district and Hirekerur taluk of Haveri district, it was 255.79 kg per ha and 241.28 kg per ha respectively. The grain losses in the form of broken grain was found to be highest (1.37 kg/qtl) followed by unthreshed losses (1.18 kg/qtl) and losses in harvesting (0.47 kg/qtl). Thus, the share of losses in above operations put together accounted more than 62 per cent of the total losses. The post-harvest losses particularly during post-threshing operations such as drying, storage and transportation together accounted nearly 20 per cent of the total losses. The other losses accounted 10.72 per cent of the total post-harvest losses.

6.7.5 Comparison of Post-Harvest Losses in Different Methods of Maize Threshing

The losses in different threshing methods revealed that, the total post-harvest losses was found to be highest (248.54 kg/ha or 4.81 kg/qtl) using sheath removal maize thresher followed by maize thresher (230.51 kg/ha or 4.42 kg/qtl). Whereas, minimum losses was recorded in bare hand separation (117.05 kg/ha or 2.13 kg/qtl) followed by hand beating (125.98 kg per ha or 2.34 kg/qtl) of traditional methods.

The harvesting loss was found to be major share in traditional methods accounted 16 to 18 per cent of the total post-harvest losses followed by storage losses (14-17 %). Whereas, in case of mechanical threshing methods, major share was accounted by broken losses (25-29 %) followed by unthreshed losses (22-25 %) in shelling operation. The broken and unthreshed grain losses together accounted 48 to 52 per cent of the total post-harvest losses in mechanical threshing methods.

Out of the total post-harvest losses, the losses during harvesting were found to be 16 to 18 per cent in traditional and 9 to 10 per cent in mechanical threshing. In shelling operation, the unthreased losses accounted 22 to 25 per cent in mechanical threshing whereas, 10 to 11 per cent in case of traditional threshing. The broken losses were found to be 25 to 29 per cent in mechanical threshing. The cleaning/winnowing losses were accounted 8 to 9 per cent and 1 to 2 per cent in traditional and mechanical threshing, respectively. The post-harvest losses particularly during post-threshing operations such as drying, storage, transportation and bagging was put together accounted 30 to 35 per cent of the total post-harvest losses in traditional and around 25 per cent in case of mechanical threshing. The other losses accounted 24 to 29 kg per ha in both traditional and mechanical threshing methods.

6.8 CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT THRESHING METHODS OF MAIZE

A major technical constraint faced by the sample respondents was lack of information on availability of different types of threshers in both traditional and mechanical threshing. Most of the sample respondents encountered the problems like non-availability of timely technical assistance and skilled personnel for attending threshing operations in mechanical threshing. A frequent repair of threshers was another problem faced by mechanical sample respondents. In financial constraints, both traditional and mechanical sample respondents expressed the major problems like non-availability of adequate owned fund and non-availability of adequate and timely institutional credit facilities. High initial investment was another major constraint for the purchase of threshers reported by three fourth of sample respondents in mechanical threshing. Sample respondents in mechanical threshing reported the problem like delay in supply of threshers under subsidy schemes. In operational constraints, non-availability of mechanical threshers in time for threshing was put forth by majority of sample respondents in both threshing methods.

Non-availability of fuel near by village and problem in shifting of threshers from one place to other were other major problems faced by the sample respondents in mechanical threshing. The sample respondents in both mechanical and traditional threshing methods in the study area faced minor problem like non-availability of skilled personnel and labourers for threshing operations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Based on the findings of the investigation, the following policies are suggested to reduce threshing costs and post-harvest losses in maize in order to enhance the income of the maize growers and involve them in mechanical threshing in the study area.

1. Threshing of maize using sheath removal maize thresher was found to be economical as compared to other methods of maize threshing in the study area. Efforts should be made by the manufacturing companies and department of agriculture to popularize this thresher among maize growers to reduce threshing costs and post-harvest losses of maize and to over come the problem of labour shortage in threshing and to enhance profitability of maize cultivation.

2. Substantial losses during threshing as well as post-harvest operations have been observed. To reduce losses, a demonstration should be conducted to educate farmers regarding the appropriate post-harvest technologies (cleaning, drying, storage, transportation, etc.) and threshing and handling of maize using mechanical threshers. The operators of maize threshers should under go proper training in order to gain the required skills, techniques and knowledge for the proper operation of threshing machines during maize threshing to minimize broken, unthreshed and scattered grain losses in threshing machines.

3. The analysis of constraints encountered by the sample farmers under different methods of threshing in the study area revealed that non-availability of adequate owned funds among financial constraints, non–availability of mechanical threshers in time for threshing among operational constraints and lack of information on different types of threshers among technical constraints. To safeguard the interest of the farmers and to enhance mechanical threshing, necessary arrangements need to be made to facilitate timely and adequate credits, subsidies and market information on mechanical threshing.

4. It is evident from the results of financial feasibility analysis of investment on maize threshers that, the sheath removal maize thresher showed higher Net Present Value (NPV), Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR), Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and lower Pay Back Period (PBP) and Break-Even Point (BEP). Hence, this thresher should be popularized in maize growing areas by the line departments and manufacturing companies. The

agricultural engineering department should fabricate different models of manually operated maize shellers suitable for the farmers having small size of land holdings. Hence, there is a need to develop a simple, portable and small sized thresher, which is more useful particularly, for small farmers in maize threshing.

5. The cost of maize threshing was lowest in case of sheath removal maize thresher than the other threshing methods followed by maize thresher has a next better result than the traditional threshing methods. Hence, there is need to provide loans and subsidies with nominal interest rate by the financial institutions from the government to the interested farmers for purchase of these mechanical maize threshers.

VII. REFERENCES

AKHTER AHMED AND MAZED, M.D., 1996, Improving rice post-harvest technology in Bangladesh. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 27(3) : 37-43.

ANANTACHAR, M., MAURYA, N.L. AND NARAVANI, N.B., 1997, Development and performance evaluation of pedal operated decorticator. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 10(4) : 1078-1081.

ANONYMOUS, 1983, K.E.M. Groundnut Thresher. RNAM Newsletter, 16 : 9.

ANONYMOUS, 1991, Chickpea Thresher. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 22(3) : 73-78.

ANONYMOUS, 1994, Post-harvest Losses in Rice and Corn. Post-harvest News, Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Post-harvest Research and Extension (BPRE), Philippines.

ANONYMOUS, 2002, Survey and Analysis of Post-harvest Losses. FAO document, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Chapter 3.

ANWAR, M.T., 1991, Development and field performance of a chickpea thresher. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 21(3) : 23-27.

ANWARUL HAQUE, A.K.M., CHOUDHURY, N.H., QUASEM, M.A. AND JOSE, R.A., 1989, Rice Post-harvest Practices and Loss Estimates in Bangladesh. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 20(4) : 59-63.

ANWARUL HAQUE, A.K.M., CHOUDHURY, N.H., QUASEM, M.A. AND ARBOLEDA, J.R., 1991, Rice Post-harvest Practices and Loss Estimates in Bangladesh : Threshing through sun drying. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 22(1) : 53-58.

ANWARUL HAQUE, A.K.M., CHOUDHURY, N.H., QUASEM, M.A. AND JOSE, R.A., 1997, Rice Post-harvest Practices and Loss Estimates in Bangladesh, chapter-III : Parboiling to Milling. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 28(3) : 51-55.

AZHAR SAYEED, M., KHAN, A.S., HASAN, A.R. AND TANVEER, T., 1995, Testing and Evaluation of Hold-on Paddy Thresher. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 26(2) : 47-51.

BEHERA, B.K., DASH, S.K. AND DAS, D.K., 1990, Development and testing of a power-operated wheat thresher. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 21(4) : 15-19.

BEHERA, B.K., DASH, R.C., DAS, D.K., DAS, B.C. AND MAHAPATRA, M., 1996, Evaluation of different threshing methods for paddy crop on farmers’ field. Current Agricultural Research, 9(1/2) : 17-19.

BHUTTA, M.S., JAVAID, Z. AND SABIR, M.S., 1997, Comparative performance of different methods of sunflower threshing. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 28(3) : 65-67.

BORA, G.C. AND SALOKHE, V.M., 2000, Development of a tractor front mounted pineapple plant dressing machine. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 31(2) : 29-32.

BOXALL, R.A., GRA, J.L.A., MARTINEZ, E. AND MARTINEZ, J., 1981, Post-harvest losses of rice in the Dominican Republic. Tropical Stored Products Information, 42 : 5-10.

*CASTANEDA SILVA, M. AND ZAPATA, L.E.M., 1982, Post-harvest rice losses in Colombia. Revista del Instituto de Investigaciones Technologicas, 23(139/140) : 9-44.

CHANDRAKANTHAPPA, K. AND BATAGURKI, S.B., 2001, Evaluation of different threshing methods for primary processing of finger millet. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 35(2) : 128-132.

DANILO MEJIA, 2000, Maize Post-harvest Operations, Chapter XXIII. Emanuela Parrucci (HTML transfer), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.

DASH, S.K. AND DAS, D.K., 1989, Development of a power operated paddy thresher. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 20(3) : 37-40.

DAUDA, A. AND AVIARA, A.N., 2001, Effect of threshing methods on maize grain damage and viability. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 32(4) : 43-46.

ESWARAPPA, H., GOWDA, M.C. AND RAGHAVAN, G.V.S., 1995, Comparative performance of different methods of groundnut threshing. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 29(4) : 332-336.

GANNO, K., IRIE, M. AND GOTO, Y., 1983, Studies on combine harvesting and drying methods of grain sorghum. Bulletin of the Chugoku National Agricultural Experiment Station, 31 : 1-22.

GOWDA, M.C., RAMAIAH, R. AND BANAKAR, A.S., 1994, Economics of threshing pigeon pea. Current Research, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, 23(1/2) : 15-16.

*GEORGIEV, I.N., MITKOV, A.L., MINKOV, D.P. AND VITKOV, V.M., 1977, Study on the separating mechanism in threshing. Mekhanizatsiya i Elektrifikatsiya Sotsialisticheskogo Sel'skogo Khozyaistva, 9 : 55-57.

HENSEL, O. AND ESPER, A., 1994, Development of a photovoltaic driven grain mill for small-scale use in developing countries. International conference on agricultural engineering (Landtechnik, 1994), Proceedings of a conference held in Stuttgart.

HOSSAIN, M.D., 1996, Farm machinery and post-harvest losses. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 31(4) : 79-91.

JADHAV, R.V. AND DESHPANDE, J.S., 1990, Development and performance evaluation of pedal-operated sunflower thresher. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 21(3) : 29-32.

JHA, R.K., SAINI, S.L. AND RAM, C., 1996, Effect of threshing methods on yield and mechanical damage in soybean. Crop Research, Hisar, 11(2) : 248-250.

KALSIRSILP, R. AND GAJENDRA SINGH, 1999, Performance evaluation of Thai-made rice combine harvester. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 30(4) : 63-66.

KAHLON, A.S. AND SINGH, R., 1978, Tractor use by the Punjab farmers. Agricultural Situation in India, 33(5) : 283-287.

KAILAPPAN, R., 1993, A practical device in manual paddy threshing. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 24(2) : 24-26.

KAUSAL, R.T., ZADE, V.R., CHAUKE, R.P. AND DIGHE, R.S., 1991, Influence of threshing methods on seed quality of soybean. Annals of Plant Physiology, 5(2) : 242-246.

KAUSAL, R.T., CHANGADE, S.P. AND PATIL, V.N., 1992, Evaluation of threshing methods for assessing seed quality in soybean. Seed Research, 20(1) : 44-46.

KHAN, A.U., 1990, A dual mode all crop thresher. RNAM Newsletter, 38 : 10-11.

KHAN, M.K., RAYAGURU, K., PANDA, M.K. AND BAKHARA, C.K., 1997, Assessment of harvest and post-harvest losses of paddy. Environment and Ecology, 15(2) : 341-342.

KHAN, M.K., RAYAGURU, K., PANDA, M.K. AND BAKHARA, C.K., 1997, Effects of four stacking periods and threshing methods on paddy quality. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 30(3) : 45-50.

LEE SUN HO, CHO, N., HONG, J., LEE, W., CHOI, H.E. AND KANG, C., 1998, Development of sesame thresher. RDA Journal of Farm Management and Agricultural Engineering, 40(1) : 44-48.

*LOZOVSKII, V.G. AND PROKOPENKO, V.A., 1999, The technical and economic basis for creating machinery technology stations in the Samara region. Mekhanizatsiya I Elektrifikatsiya Sel' skogo Khozyaistva, 10 : 2-5.

MAJUMDAR, K.L., 1985, Design, development and evaluation of CIAE multicrop thresher. Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers Proceedings of the Silver Jubilee Convention held in Bhopal, India. Farm machinery and power, pp.103-108.

MAKANGA, J.T. AND SINGH, G., 1997, Status and constraints of agricultural mechanization in Kenya. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 28(3) : 9-14.

MIAH, M.A.K., ROY, B.C., HAFIZ, M.A., MAHMUDA, H. AND SIDDIQUE, S.B., 1994, A comparative study on the effect of rice threshing methods on grain quality. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 25(3) : 63-66.

*ORSIK, L.S., 2000, Problems of the engineering service of agro-industrial sector in Russia. Mekhanizatsiya I Elektrifikatsiya Sel' skogo Khozyaistva, 4 : 6-9.

OZCAN, M.T. AND ZEREN, Y., 1987, The mechanization of lentil harvesting and field experiments in semi arid areas of Turkey. Proceedings of a Conference, Aleppo, Syria, pp. 182-190.

PARAMASIVAM, P., 1997, Effect of cylinder speed and feed rate on the performance of axial flow thresher. Current Research, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, 26(10) : 177-179.

PINAR, Y., 1987, Grain losses at harvesting and threshing of paddy in Turkey. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 18(4) : 61-64.

RAHA, S.K. AND AKBAR, M.A., 1993, Marketing of minor irrigation equipment in some selected areas of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, 16(1) : 89-99.

ROHANI, M.Y. AND SAMSUDIN, A., 1984, Paddy post-harvest losses in Tanjon Karang, Selangor. MARDI Research Bulletin, 12(2) : 216-223.

ROHANI, M.Y., SHARIFFAH NORIN, S.A. AND SAMSUDIN, A., 1985, Post-harvest losses of paddy in the Krian Sungei Manik areas. MARDI Research Bulletin, 13(2) : 148-154.

SAEED, M.A., KHAN, A.S., RIZVI, H.A. AND TANVEER, T., 1995, Testing and evaluation of hold-on paddy thresher. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 26(2) : 47-51.

SEHGAL, V.K., ALAM, M.S. AND SHARMA, D.K., 2002, Design, development and evaluation of honey cum wax separator. Journal of Research, Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), 39(4) : 575-582.

SHARMA, V.K., GARG, I.K., IRVINDER, S., GUPTA, P.K. AND SURENDRA, S., 1987, Design, development and evaluation of a high capacity paddy thresher, The role of agricultural engineering in dryland agriculture. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Convention of the Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers, Jabalpur, India, pp. 46-54.

SINGH, D. AND KHOSLA, R.K., 1977, Post-harvest food grain losses in India : A review. Agricultural Situation in India, 33(8) : 499-500.

SINGH, B. AND AROMOLARAN, A.B., 1985, Post-harvest marketing losses of yam and maize in North Local Government Area of Oyo State of Nigeria. Economic Affairs, 30(3) : 168-176

SINGH, M.P., THAKUR, T.C. AND BACHCHAN, S., 1987, Utilisation and economics of draught animal power for operating a paddy thresher. Proceedings of the National Seminar on the Status of Animal Energy Utilisation, Bhopal, India, pp.234-243.

SINGH, M.P. AND THAKUR, T.C., 1990, Investigations on utilization of animal power for operating various rotary powered machines. Proceedings of the International Agricultural Engineering Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand, pp.107-115.

SINGH, M.P. AND THAKUR, T.C., 1991, Draught animal power used for operating rotary powered machines. Proceedings of a International Agricultural Mechanization Conference, Beijing, China, pp.288.

SINGH, M.P. AND BACHCHAN, S., 1992, Performance evaluation of a pigeon pea thresher. Proceedings of a International Agricultural Engineering Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, pp.403-409.

SINGH, S.P. AND VERMA, H.N., 2001, Scope of farm mechanization in Shivalik hills of India. AMA, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 32(1) : 59-64.

SWAIN, S.K., GOEL, A.K. AND SWAIN, S., 1996, Comparative performance of different methods of paddy threshing in Orissa. Current Agricultural Research, 9(1/2) : 67-70.

VANANGAMUDI, K., 1989, Studies on certain aspects of seed processing of KM-2 bajra. Seeds and Farms, 15(6) : 12-14.

YON, R.M. AND AHMAD, S., 1984, Paddy post-harvest losses in Tanjong Karang, Selangor. MARDI Research Bulletin, 12(2) : 216-223.

* Originals not seen

Appendix I: Area, Production and Productivity of Maize in Major Countries of the World (Triennium ending 2003-2004)

Area Production Productivity Country

M. ha. Per cent M. tonnes Per cent kg/ha

USA 29.29 20.38 278.41 41.47 9,495

China 24.49 17.04 122.30 18.22 4,985

Brazil 12.67 8.82 44.81 6.67 3,535

Mexico 7.73 5.38 20.66 3.08 2,675

India 7.25 5.04 14.45 2.15 1,995

Indonesia 3.36 2.33 11.07 1.65 3,295

South Africa 3.28 2.28 9.84 1.47 3,005

Romania 3.11 2.16 12.06 1.80 3,880

Argentina 2.33 1.62 15.02 2.24 6,455

Ukraine 2.13 1.48 7.88 1.17 3,695

France 1.74 1.21 14.14 2.11 8,065

Italy 1.18 0.82 10.17 1.52 8,620

Others 45.17 31.43 110.55 16.47 4,370

World 143.74 100.00 671.37 100.00 4,670

Source: FAO Production Year Book, 2004

Appendix II: Area, Production and Productivity of Maize in India (Triennium ending 2003-2004)

Area Production Productivity State

lakh ha. Per cent lakh tonnes Per cent kg/ha

Rajasthan 10.37 15.14 14.73 11.26 1,420

Uttar Pradesh 8.80 12.85 12.25 9.36 1,392

Madhya Pradesh 8.68 12.68 16.78 12.83 1,933

Bihar 6.03 8.80 14.51 11.10 2,409

Karnataka 6.16 8.99 13.46 10.29 2,195

Andhra Pradesh 5.59 8.15 18.07 13.82 3,221

Gujarat 4.64 6.78 8.36 6.39 1,802

Jammu & Kashmir 3.26 4.76 5.27 4.03 1,617

Himachal Pradesh 3.00 4.38 6.60 5.05 2,202

Maharashtra 3.60 5.26 6.96 5.32 1,933

Punjab 1.57 2.29 4.06 3.10 2,580

Others 6.80 9.93 9.74 7.45 1,432

All India 68.50 100.00 130.81 100.00 1,905

Source: Agriculture, Centre for Monitoring of Indian Economy, March 2006.

Appendix III: Area, Production and Productivity of Maize in Karnataka from 1975-76 to 2002-03

Year Area

(lakh ha) Production

(lakh tonnes) Productivity

(kg/ha)

1975-76 1.27 3.78 3141

1976-77 1.26 3.36 2813

1977-78 1.39 4.13 3128

1978-79 1.51 4.29 2964

1979-80 1.45 3.70 2696

1980-81 1.57 3.81 2556

1981-82 1.58 4.19 2792

1982-83 1.56 3.57 2411

1983-84 1.66 4.66 2960

1984-85 1.88 4.77 2670

1985-86 1.67 3.98 2508

1986-87 2.27 5.76 2677

1987-88 2.05 5.10 2618

1988-89 2.55 6.77 2794

1989-90 2.53 7.09 2953

1990-91 2.50 6.30 2659

1991-92 2.83 8.55 3178

1992-93 3.15 9.77 3263

1993-94 3.18 9.47 3141

1994-95 3.43 9.88 3020

1995-96 3.65 11.42 3294

1996-97 4.45 13.85 3272

1997-98 5.61 15.11 2833

1998-99 5.12 16.72 3434

1999-00 6.06 16.03 2783

2000-01 6.69 21.36 3361

2001-02 5.80 15.13 2747

2002-03 6.50 13.84 2244

Source: Karnataka at a Glance, 2005-06.

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THRESHING OF MAIZE CROP IN KARNATAKA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF

MECHANICAL V/S TRADITIONAL THRESHING METHODS

B. T. VISHWANATHA 2007 Dr. S. M. MUNDINAMANI Major Advisor

ABSTRACT

The present study was attempted to identify maize threshing methods, estimate cost of threshing, post-harvest losses and analyse financial feasibility of investment on maize threshers in Haveri and Davanagere districts of Karnataka. Multistage sampling procedure was adopted for the selection of sample respondents. The data collected was subjected to tabular and financial feasibility analysis. The data pertained to the year 2005-06.

The results of the study revealed that among traditional methods of threshing, bare hand separation and hand beating were adopted by 62.50 and 26.67 per cent of farmers, respectively. Whereas, in case of mechanical threshing methods, maize thresher and sheath removal maize thresher were found to be adopted by 34.17 and 27.50 per cent of farmers, respectively.

The threshing cost was found to be lowest in sheath removal maize thresher (Rs. 2148.43) and highest in hand beating method (Rs. 3159.48). The cost incurred for grain and sheath separation alone accounted for nearly 60 per cent of the total cost of threshing. Financial feasibility analysis revealed that the investment on sheath removal maize thresher was found to be more economical as compared to maize thresher.

Among different methods of threshing, the post-harvest losses was found to be highest (248.54 kg/ha) in sheath removal maize thresher as compared to bare hand separation (117.05 kg/ha) and hand beating (125.98 kg/ha) methods. Lack of information on different threshers, inadequate owned fund and non-availability of threshers in time for threshing were the major constraints faced by the maize growers.

The following polices are drawn based on the results of the investigation. There is need to popularize maize threshers and post-harvest technologies through demonstrations and trainings programmes. To popularize threshers and to reduce cost of threshing and post-harvest losses, the adequate credit facilities should be provided with nominal interest rate by financial institutions.