International Research Journal of Agricultural Economics and Statistics

V. S. Maske ¹, R. V. Chavan ², G. A. Bhalerao ³

Affiliations
1 Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, PARBHANI (M.S.), IN
2 Department of Agricultural Economics, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, PARBHANI (M.S.), IN
3 Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, PARBHANI (M.S.), IN

Abstract

Parbhani and Beed districts were purposely selected because of these districts were taking contract farming in cotton crop. Selu Tehsil was selected from Parbhani district and Georai from Beed district on the basis of highest area under cotton. Ten farmers were selected randomly from each village for contract farming and same procedure was adopted for non-contract farming in case of cotton crop. Thus, a sample of 100 for contract farmers and 100 for non-contract farmers was selected. The total effective sample size of respondents was 200. Data pertained to the year 2007-08. Majority of cotton growers under contract and non-contract farming belonged to young age group. It implied that in contract farming. It means in both situation main occupation was agriculture and after that allied services farmers was giving more importance to education as compared to non-contract farming. In an average capital investment was more in contract farming compared to non-contract farming. The result of analysis revealed that significant differences in these factor except land holding.

Keywords

Socio-Economic Characteristics, Contract Farmer, Non-Contract Farmer.

Full Text

     

V. S. Maske ¹, R. V. Chavan ²

Affiliations
1 Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, PARBHANI (M.S.), IN
2 Department of Agricultural Economics, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, PARBHANI (M.S.), IN

Abstract

Parbhani and Beed districts were purposely selected because the districts were taking contract farming in cotton crop, from two districts two tehsil were selected. Each tehsil ten villages were selected on the basis of highest area under contract. Ten farmers were selected randomly from each village for contract farming and same procedure was adopted for non-contact farming in case of cotton crop. The total effective sample size of respondents were 200. In case of contract farming, use of hired human labour was 130.04 man day, family labour 23.59 man day, bullock labour 22.27 pair day, machine labour 5.75 hours, seed 1.79 kg, nitrogen 140.07 kg, phosphorus 60.30 kg, potassium 89.74 kg, micronutrient 53.86 kg in that magnesium sulphate, borax and zinc sulphate was used, manure 42.23 quintal, plant protection 2.14 lit. Main produce was 17.44 quintal while by produce was 35.04 quintal. In case of non-contract farming use of hired human labour was 131.16 man day, female labour 29.14 kg, bullock labour 26.2 pair day, machine labour 4.09 hours, seed 1.31 kg, nitrogen 124.51 kg, phosphorus 63.62 kg, potassium 83.44 kg, micronutrient 11.25 kg in that use only magnesium sulphate, manure 28.47 quintal and plant protection 2.01 lit. Then main produce and by produce was 13.22 quintal and 21.04 quintal. It was observed that, in cotton production under contract farming rental value of land (22.05 %), hired human labour (16.85 %), fertilizers (9.90 %) bullock labour (8.92 %), seed (7.92 %) under non-contract farming major item was hired human labour (20.47 %), rental value of land (17.49 %), bullock labour (11.74 %), fertilizers (10.65 %), seed (6.53 %) were major items of expenditure. Gross return was Rs. 49718.56 and Rs. 35312.4 under contract and non-contract farming. In which contract farming main produce was Rs. 47616 and by produce was Rs. 2102.56, in case of non-contract farming main produce was Rs. 34050 and by produce was Rs. 1262.4 per hectare. In cost of cultivation total cost was Rs. 37440.99 and Rs. 33470.52 in contract and non-contract farming. The net profit was Rs. 12277.57 and Rs. 1841.88 regarding contract and non-contract farming. Then the benefit: cost ratio over total cost was 1.33 and 1.05 in case of contract and non-contract farming.

Keywords

Cost, Returns, Contract, Non-Contract Farming.

Full Text

     

R. A. Kolambkar ¹, B. R. Pawar ², R. V. Chavan ²

Affiliations
1 Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani(M. S.), IN
2 Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Vasnatrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Parbhani(M. S.), IN

Abstract

Investigation was carried out during the year 2013-14. In all 48 orchard farms were randomly selected from sixteen villages of two tehsils in South-Goa district of Goa state. Data were related to cropping pattern and livestock pattern as well as socio-economic determinants. The results revealed that land holding showed highly significant on orchard farm with regression coefficient of 20182.43. It means that addition of one hectare could cause to increase gross income of Rs. 20182.43. Regression co-efficient of livestock was 5841.99. It means that addition of one livestock could cause to increase gross income of Rs. 5841.99. On the contrary, family size showed regression coefficient of -1170.62 which was negatively significant. If addition of one member in family, there could be reduction of gross income by Rs. 1170.62. In next order, distance of farm from village showed negative regression co-efficient of -2519.15, it could adversely affect gross income of Rs. 2519.15. Thus, the farmers have to give more importance to land holding, livestock, family size and distance of farm from village in order to increase gross income on orchard farm.

Keywords

Orchard Farm, Regression Co-Efficient, Gross Income, Linear Function.

Full Text