Open Access
Subscription Access
Can farm mechanization enhance small farmers’ income? Lessons from Lower Shivalik Hills of the Indian Himalayan Region
Indian agriculture being fraught with fragmented land holdings, the economic viability of farm mechanization has forever remained a debatable issue. Here we determine the socio-agro-economic impact of seed-cum-fertilizer drill and zero tillage through different methods with ex-ante and ex-post approaches. Results depict that labour costs had reduced by almost 80% and seed usage by 20%. The seed-cum-fertilizer drill and zero tillage adopter saved Rs 3764.10 and 4047.54 respectively, from 1 ha. The machinery also increased the yield of HD 2967 wheat variety by 13.39 and 6.0 q/ha, and decreased seed rate by 27.71 and 24.20 kg/ha respectively, as evident from the results of the SUR model. The growth of the farm machinery sector is hindered by machine cost, resource-poor farmers and inaccessibility of agricultural technology. A few suggestions on the critical aspects are made here based on the application of technology in different states of India to implement suitable policies for the economic benefit of farmers
Keywords
Efficacy measure, farm mechanization, labour cost, socio-agro-economic impact, synchronous bootstrap-ping.
User
Font Size
Information
- Bhattacharyya, S., Venkatesh, P., Aditya, K. S. and Burman, R. R., The macro and micro point of view of farmer suicides in India. Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett., 2020, 6(164), 489–495; https://doi.org/10.1007/ s40009-020-00920-4
- Prasad, Y. G. et al., Smart practices and technologies for climate re-silient agriculture. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agricul-ture, Hyderabad, 2014.
- Mittal, S., Cost–benefit analysis of agriculture interventions in An-dhra Pradesh. Working draft on Andhra Pradesh Priorities, An Indian Consensus Prioritization Project, Copenhagen Consensus Center, Creative Commons Attribution CC BY. 4.0, 2018.
- Feder, G., Richard, J. and David, S., Adoption of Agricultural Innova-tions in Developing Countries: A Survey, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA, 1985, vol. 2, pp. 255–295; https://www. journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/451461
- Beyene, A. D. and Menale, K., Speed of adoption of improved maize varieties in Tanzania: an application of duration analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 2015, 96, 298–307; https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.techfore.2015.04.007.
- Verma, P. D. and Tamrakar, S. K., A comparison of zero-tillage technology and traditional techniques for sowing of wheat: evidence from farmers field by front line demonstration. Int. J. Agric. Innov. Res., 2017, 180(4), 1–13.
- Loon, J. V., Lennart, W., Timothy, J., Krupnik, F., Maria, B. and Bram, G., Scaling agricultural mechanization services in smallholder farming systems: case studies from sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Agric. Syst., 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.agsy.2020.102792.
- Arun, G. C., Jun-Ho, Y. and Kiran, G., Determinants of farm mecha-nization in Nepal. Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol., 2019, 7, 87; https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v7i1.87-91.2131.
Abstract Views: 190
PDF Views: 128