TRADITIONAL AND MODERN TURMERIC CULTIVATION IN BELGAUM DISTRICT OF KARNATAKA – A COMPARATIVE

MANAGEMENT APPRAISAL

Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

IN

AGRIBUSINESS

By

SARFARAZ K. SHAIKH

DEPARTMENT OF AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD - 580 005

JUNE, 2013

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD (Dr. C. MURTHY)

JUNE, 2013 MAJOR ADVISOR

Approved by :

Chairman : ____________________________ (Dr. C. MURTHY)

Members : 1. __________________________ (Dr. G. M. PATIL)

2. __________________________ (Dr. C. K. VENUGOPAL)

3. __________________________ (Dr. M. T. DODAMANI)

CONTENTS

Sl. No. Chapter Particulars

CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF PLATES

1. INTRODUCTION

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Management practices in cultivation

2.2 Cost and returns in cultivation

2.3 Post harvest management practices

2.4 Efficiencies in cultivation

2.5 Value addition

2.6 Constraints in cultivation, marketing and value addition

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of the study area

3.2 Sampling procedure

3.3 Nature and sources of data

3.4 Analytical techniques

3.5 Concepts used in the study

4. RESULTS

4.1 Socio economic characteristics of sample farmers

4.2 Management practices in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern methods

4.3Cost and returns in cultivation of traditional and modern management of turmeric production.

4.4 Post harvest management practices in traditional and modern methods.

4.5 Efficiencies in cultivation under traditional and modern methods of turmeric Production.

4.6 Value addition in turmeric under traditional and modern methods.

4.7 Constraints in cultivation, marketing and value addition under traditional and modern methods.

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Socio economic characteristics of sample farmers

5.2 Management practices in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern Methods

5.3 Cost and returns in cultivation of traditional and modern management of turmeric production.

5.4 Post harvest management practices in traditional and modern methods.

5.5 Efficiencies in cultivation under traditional and modern methods of turmeric Production.

5.6 Value addition in turmeric under traditional and modern methods.

5.7 Constraints in cultivation, marketing and value addition under traditional and modern methods.

6. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

REFERENCES

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Title

3.1 Sampling procedure

4.1 General information about sample farmers.

4.2 Average size of land holding of sample famers.

4.3 Average existing cropping pattern.

4.4 Labour management practice in cultivation of turmeric.

4.5 Input management and output obtained in turmeric cultivation.

4.6 Cost of cultivation in turmeric.

4.7 Marketing cost in turmeric.

4.8 Cost and returns of turmeric cultivation in conventional and modern.

4.9 Post harvest management practice in turmeric cultivation.

4.10 Efficiency in turmeric cultivation.

4.11 Value addition in turmeric.

4.12 Production problems faced by turmeric farmers.

4.13 Marketing problems faced by turmeric farmers.

4.14 Problems faced by value addition units.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Title

1 Map showing the study area in Belgaum district

LIST OF PLATES

Plate No.

Title

1 Turmeric cultivation

2 Interaction with turmeric growers

3 Traditional turmeric harvesting

4 Modern turmeric harvester

5 Harvested turmeric rhizomes

6 Cleaned turmeric rhizomes

7 Traditional boiling pit

8 Traditional boiling

9 Modern turmeric boiling

10 Modern turmeric boiling

11 Modern turmeric boiler

12 Traditional turmeric polishing

13 Modern turmeric polishing

14 Drying of turmeric rhizomes

15 Storage of turmeric rhizomes

INTRODUCTION

Turmeric, with its brilliant yellow colour, has been used as a dye, medicine and flavoring since 600 BC. In 1280, Marco Polo described Turmeric as "a vegetable with the properties of saffron, yet it is not really saffron." Indonesians used Turmeric to dye their bodies as part of their wedding ritual. Turmeric has been used medicinally throughout Asia to treat stomach and liver ailments. It also was used externally, to heal sores, and as a cosmetic.

According to the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), 63 spices were grown· in India. The spices were grown throughout the country from tropical to temperate climate. India has the highest number of spice varieties in the world. As per the definition of International spice group “spices are any of the flavored or aromatic substances of vegetable origin obtained from the tropical or other plants, commonly used as condiments or employed for the other purposes on account of their fragrance preservation or medicinal qualities”.

Turmeric strictly speaking is a condiment crop which has been used for colouring, flavoring and medicinal purposes. Turmeric occupies prominent position among the spices produced in India. It ranks fourth in area and second in production. In the area of export, turmeric occupies second position in terms of quantity and fourth position in the export earnings among the spices.

Turmeric the golden spice is widely cultivated in different countries such as India, China, Myanmar, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Burma, Indonesia etc. Among these countries India occupies 1

st position in area, with 195.10 thousand hectares and also in production,

with 992.90 thousand tonnes during 2010-2011. In India, turmeric grown in 18 states and Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and West Bengal are the major turmeric producing states.

The spice turmeric or haldi constitutes boiled, dried, cleaned and polished rhizomes (the underground swollen stem of plant) of Curcuma longa .The plant, is a herbaceous perennial, 60-90 cm tall with a short stem and tufted leaves, is a native of India or possibly China and is now a commercial crop of tropics. It is cultivated, extensively in India, Sri Lanka, parts of China, Indo-China and Pakistan. India is by far the largest producer and exporter of turmeric in the world. Turmeric occupies about 6 per cent of the total area under spices and condiments in India. The main turmeric-growing states are Andhra Pradesh, Maharastra, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala.

Economic use of turmeric

Turmeric is one of the multi-use products which have many valuable properties and uses. It is extensively used in food, textile, medicine and cosmetic industries. The curry powder which is one of the indispensable ingredients in the Indian foods, the curry powder contains minimum five per cent to maximum thirty percent of the turmeric powder in its total content. Turmeric has colouring property because of the curcumin content, and hence it is used as natural colouring agent for food stuffs, jellies and fruit drinks. The dye made out of turmeric is used in the textile', paint and varnish industries. Turmeric is used in the cosmetic industries for its unique properties such as skin clearing property. It checks growth of hair and adds beauty to the face. Turmeric plays prominent role in the medicinal industries, serving as an ingredient for the preparation of valuable drugs for many of the disorders in human beings.

Global production scenario

Turmeric can be cultivated in the tropical and subtropical countries. It is grown throughout the world particularly in the tropical countries. Though it is grown in many countries, yet it is not commercially exploited in most of the countries. Among these countries India occupies first position in area (1,24,600 ha) and also in total production tonnes). In the case of yield per hectare, Pakistan occupies the first position (8152 kg/ha) followed by India (3912 kg/ha) at present in the year 2010-2011.

India is the largest producer, consumer and exporter of turmeric. Other producers in Asia include Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, China, Burma, and Indonesia. The use of the spice spread widely in Oceania, but it is not used as a condiment in Melanesia and Polynesia. Major importers are the Middle East and North African countries, Iran, Japan and Sri Lanka. These importing countries represent 75% of the turmeric world trade, and are mostly supplied by the Asian producing countries. Europe and North America represent the remaining 15%, and are supplied by India and Central and Latin American countries.

Taiwan exports mostly to Japan. The United Statea imports of turmeric come from India at 97%, and the rest is supplied by the island of the Pacific, and Thailand. The total yearly consumption of Turmeric all around the globe is approximately 38 to 40 Lakh bags depending on the rates in the year 2010-2011.

Indian scenario

India has 185.32 lakh hectares under turmeric cultivation with a total production of 701.66 lakh tonnes. Andhra Pradesh topped both in area and production with 73.93 lakh hectares and 375.77 lakh tonnes respectively. Tamil Nadu follows with 33 lakh hectares with 158.64 lakh tonnes (2010-2011). productivity was highest in Tamil Nadu 6118 Kg/ha. Turmeric is a seasonal product which is available in the market mainly in two seasons, commencing in mid February to May and second season is mid August to October. . The important varieties used in India are : ‘Alleppey Finger’ (Kerala) Erode and Salem turmeric’ (Tamil Nadu), ‘Rajapore’ and ‘Sangli turmeric’ (Maharashtra) and Nizamabad Bulb’ (Andhra Pradesh) in Tamilnadu, the important varieties in cultivation are Erode local, BSR-1, PTS-10, Roma, Suguna, Sudarsana and Salem local. Among these varieties, 70-75 per cent is occupied by the local varieties. Some of the important turmeric varieties exported from India is Allepey Finger Turmeric, Rajapuri, Madras and Erode variety. The processed forms of turmeric exported are dry turmeric, fresh turmeric, turmeric powder and oleoresin.

Karnataka Scenario

Karnataka thrid largest producer of turmeric in India after Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu with an area of 24,912 (ha) and with production of 2,50,829 tonnes in 2010-2011 with a share of 8.5 per cent to the India's total production. In Karnataka the area and production of turmeric is grown at the rate of 5 and 6 per cent per annum. The major districts which are producing turmeric in the states are Charmarajnagar, Mysore, Bagalkot, Belgaum and Bidar. Belgaum district with an area of about 1695 (ha) and a production of 10352 tonnes. The Belgaum district together contribution 89 per cent of area and 88 per cent of total production.

Domestic production and consumption scenario of turmeric

India is the largest producer and consumer of turmeric in the world. The total area under turmeric was 1,55,800 ha and the total production is 5,98,400 tonnes at present. Turmeric had been grown throughout the country in 18 states. The important states which produce turmeric are Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Karnataka. Among the state?' producing turmeric Andhra Pradesh has the highest area under turmeric (59500 ha) followed by Orissa (26800 ha) and Tamil Nadu (21700 halo Andhra Pradesh occupies first position in production also which contributes 51.14 per cent of the total output of the country followed by Tamil Nadu (21.16%), Orissa (10.75%) and Karnataka occupies fourth position which contributes 3.94 per cent of the total turmeric production in India. In the case of yield, Gujarat occupies first position (18,500 kg/ha) followed by Mizoram (9000 kg/ha) and Tamil Nadu occupies third position (5834 kg/ha).

Importance of the study

The present study covers the cultivation of turmeric and management pratices of turmeric and identifies the problems faced by the turmeric cultivators. Its envisages suggesting possible corrective measure to be out the desired improvement in turmeric cultivation in traditional and modern farmers. Hence, the present study was under taken in Belgaum district with the following specific objectives.

Objectives

1. To analyse the management practices in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern method.

2. To evaluate the post harvest management practices in traditional and modern methods.

3. To analyse the cost and returns structure in traditional and modern management of turmeric production.

4. To analyse the efficiencies in cultivation under traditional and modern methods of turmeric production.

5. To analyse the value addition in turmeric under traditional and modern methods.

6. To identify constraints in cultivation and value addition under traditional and modern methods.

Limitations of the study

The present study mainly reviled on the data collected through interview using pretested schedule. Therefore, some amount of recall bias is bound to be associated with the collecting since the farmers did not have any records about the cultivation expenses, application of inputs and returns. However, efforts were made to minimize them through cross checks at the time of data collected.

Presentation of the study

The study has been presented in seven chapters as indicated below. Chapter-I deals with the nature, importance and specific objectives of the study; Chapter-II describes comprehensive review of the relevant research work done in the past related to the present study; Chapter-III outlines the features of the study area, sampling design, collection of relevant data and analytical tools used in the study; Chapter-IV is devoted to present the main findings of the study through tables; Chapter-V discusses the results of the study; Chapter-VI provides summary of the whole study and also suggests the policy implication based on the finding of the study and chapter- VII important references have been listed relating to the present study.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of past studies helps us in framing objectives, developing research design,

interpreting the results and in drawing meaningful conclusions. In accordance with the objectives of the study, a brief review of literature is presented under the following headings.

2.1 To analyse the management practices in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and morden method.

2.2 To analyse the cost and returns in cultivation of traditional and modern management of turmeric production.

2.3 To evaluate the post harvest management practices in traditional and modern methods.

2.4 To analyse the efficiencies in cultivation under traditional and modern methods of turmeric production.

2.5 To analyse the value addition in turmeric under traditional and modern methods.

2.6 To identify constraints in cultivation and value addition under traditional and modern methods.

2.1 Management practices in cultivation

Mohandas and Thomas (1997) studied the economics of rice production in Kachinada area of Kerala. They reported that cost of cultivation of paddy for state was Rs. 13,108.05 for marginal farms (class I), Rs. 13,309.72 for small farmers (class II) and Rs. 13,858.13 for large farmers (class III).Rental value of own land recorded the highest expenditure in class I and II which accounted for 24.19 per cent (Rs.3171.30) and 22.38 per cent (Rs.3112) respectively. However, the highest item of expenditure was fertilizer in class III which came to 22.39 per cent (Rs. 3100.75) of the total cost. Gross returns was highest in marginal farmer (Rs. 15,857.45) followed by small farmers (Rs. 15,560) and (Rs. 15,387.50) large farmers. The net returns and input output ratio was also found to be highest in marginal farmers (Rs. 2748.25 and Rs. 1.21) followed by small farmers (Rs. 2250.28 and 1.17) and large farmers (Rs.1529.37 and 1.11).

White (2001) reported that harvested acreage was down slightly from intentions, 74.1 million acres for soybeans and 69.2 million acres for corn, the trend remains in place for soybeans to emerge as the most important of the field crops. This analysis illustrated how soybean planting intentions changed from last year as a result of changes this year in price-related factors, including benefits from marketing loans, prices of competing crops, and higher fertilizer and fuel costs in corn production.

Lin (2002) estimated the trend in yields along with planting intentions and observed a larger corn crop as against slightly smaller soybean crop than last year’s. Even with slightly lower expected wheat acreage, production prospects point to a larger crop than last year due to lower projected abandonment (unharvested acres). A smaller cotton crop is anticipated as cotton acreage is being bid away to more profitable competing crops.

Peder (2003) indicated that biofuel crops would take up between 4 % and 13 % of the total agricultural area in EU-25 (depending on the choice of crops and technological development) if the 5.75 per cent target of the biofuels directive is to be fully met and all crops were home grown. Taking into account the need to increase the production of other energy crops in order to meet the renewable targets referred to above, the total area needed for energy crops was estimated to be of the order of 11–28 % of current total agricultural area in EU-25.

International Energy Agency (2004) estimated that at present we estimate the amount of land and water resources devoted to biofuel crop production to be 11–12 million ha, around one per cent of the total area under crops. In Brazil, the biggest bioethanol producer, 2.5 million ha (5% of the cropped land) was used for biofuel production, with a production rate of ethanol of 6,200 liters per hectare, mostly from sugarcane. The USA, the second biggest ethanol producer, allots nearly 4 million ha to biofuel crops (4% of the total cropped area), with yields of roughly 3,300 liters per ha, mostly from maize. The author estimated that the global average ethanol production from one ha of land was around 3,500 liters. In Europe, where biodiesel was the main product made from rapeseed, one million ha was used, yielding on average 1,700 1itres of biodiesel per hectare.

Mkoka and Shahanan (2005) reported that India, the world’s second largest sugar producer, was now also actively promoting biodiesel from Jatropha, a tropical tree-based oil crop. Jatropha can produce up to 1500 liters of biodiesel per hectare in the most favorable soil and water circumstances, though usually it produces much less. Because the trees can grow on marginal land with limited water and its seeds were non-edible, it does not compete directly with food (in terms of land and water resources). Together with sugarcane, Jatropha and other crops for biofuel production occupy only 0.3 per cent of India’s total cultivated area.

Behl (2006) reported that India has large tracts of waste lands and a tropical climate suitable for cultivating a variety of plants that yield non-edible oil. Cultivation of such plants for oil in degraded, waste, abandoned, and abused lands.

Meena et al. (2006) examined the economic viability of different sizes of chilli processing units in Rajasthan. The results showed that the cost of processing per quintal of chilli was Rs.180.06, Rs.167.30, and Rs.234.42 for small, medium and large processing units, respectively. Margin of processors increased with an increase in the size of processing unit. However, the difference in the size of processing units had no influence on the recovery of chilli powder. Value addition for investment of a rupee as processing cost and returns per rupee of investment also increased with an increase in size of processing unit. All the processing units were operating above the break-even quantity, but failed to utilize their installed capacity.

Prasad (2007) reported that Jatropha curcus and Pongamia pinnata were non edible oil seed plants and were most suitable for cultivation in large parts of the wastelands in India. They have wider acceptability in dry and arid land and also possess multiple medicinal properties. They can be good substitutes for diesel.

Biradar (2007) in their study of economics of redgram based cropping systems in Bidar district medium farmers incurred highest total cost in cropping system (Redgram + black gram, redgram + Soyabean, redgram + green gram) and large farmer in cropping system (Redgram + Jowar, redgram sole). Net return obtained by small farmers were highest in cropping system (Redgram + Jowar, redgram sole) highest net return obtained by large farmers in cropping system (Redgram + black gram, Redgram + Soyabean, Redgram + green gram).

Welch et al. (2008) observed that increasing returns from competing crops had greater impact on net returns from cotton production. While current U.S. farm policy moderates the effects of rising prices for cotton lint, returns from the seed portion of cotton production increased significantly. These findings highlight the contribution that cottonseed makes to the overall profitability of U.S. cotton production.

Sita Devi and Ponnarasi (2009) studied on modern rice technologies and its adoption behaviour in Tamil Nadu. The study revealed that the per hectare cost of cultivation was about 10 per cent lower in SRI than the traditional method. Partial budgeting technique was used to work out the cost and returns incurred in the paddy farms. The increment in the profit realised in paddy cultivated through SRI method was Rs.16968 /ha. It was concluded from the partial budgeting analysis that the adoption of SRI technique would provide an additional profit to the farmer.

2.2 Cost and returns in cultivation

Veena and Tajinder (2000) studied the performance analysis of Bhagpur and Jargaon sugar mills of Ludhiana district in Punjab. They found that production cost of sugar in Bhagpur sugar mill was Rs. 12.37 per kg and Rs 9.89 per kg in Jargon sugar mill. An expense on raw material was the major item 77.2 per cent and 82.86 per cent of other expenses including manufacturing expenses and maintenance were 22.78 and 17.12 per cent, respectively.

Gross profit was Rs 2.67 per kg at Jargaon mill and Rs 0.58 per kg at Bhagpur mill. Lower per unit cost coupled with relatively higher sales increased the profitability of the Jargaon sugar mill tremendously; it was Rs. 2.69 per kg compared to only 58 paise per kg for the Bhagpur mill.

Savitha (2000) conducted a study on management appraisal of spinning mills in Gadag district (Karnataka) found that the total cost incurred per quintal of cotton processed in the cooperative sector unit was more (Rs. 1531.22). Further, she found that co- operative sector unit incurred a loss of Rs. 225.08 on every quintal of cotton processed, while the private sector unit earned a profit of Rs. 29.59 on every quintal of cotton processed.

Dandin (2003) studied an empirical analysis of cost of cocoon production. The economics was worked out for a farm size of one acre mulberry garden with V1 mulberry variety under irrigated condition was Rs. 27681.00. The cost and returns structure for silk worm rearing was Rs. 73516.80 and total revenue was Rs. 113400. The cost benefit ratio worked out was 1.54.

Hymajyothi et al. (2003) undertaken an investigation in small (1-2 she buffaloes), medium (3-4 she buffaloes) and large herd size (5 and above she buffaloes) milk producers in west Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh, to examine economics of buffalo milk production. Expenditure on fodder and concentrates formed the major share in the total cost of milk production in all the categories of milk producers.

The average cost of buffalo milk production was Rs. 7.95 per litre for small herd size milk producers, where as it was Rs. 7.92 per litre for medium herd size milk producers and Rs. 7.86 for large herd size milk producer. However, net returns per litre of buffalo milk were found to be highest in small herd size milk producers followed by medium and large herd size milk producers.

Wadear (2003) conducted a study in three dry zones of northern Karnataka with an overall objective of identifying and analysing the optimality of different animal based farming systems. The results showed that sugarcane during kharif and bengalgram during rabi were found to be most profitable crops in Zone-I, while in Zone-II, chilli (kharif) and bengalgram (rabi) were most remunerative. Similarly, onion (kharif) and maize (rabi) turned out to be most profitable crops in Zone-III. Across the selected zones, milk production increased with the farm size and ranged from 4.5-5.0 litre/day/animal.

Manjunatha (2004) studied the performance evaluation of fruits and vegetable processing units in Bangalore district which revealed that the total cost of processing amount to Rs 31147.38 and Rs 33890.37 per tonne processed products in private and public sector units respectively.

Siddram (2004) studied the management of Dairy processing units: he observed that an average total cost of processing amounted to Rs. 6,098.25 and Rs. 5,687.88 per ton of milk processed in co-operative and private sector units respectively and an average capacity utilization 58.25 per cent of the installed capacity was utilized by co-operative sector units when compared to 46.62 per cent with respect to the private sector unit. The average gross realization per ton processed products was Rs. 17,048.93 and Rs. 16,855.39 in co-operative and private sector units respectively.

Chowda Reddy (2004) included that cost and returns structure, where the total variable cost was shown more than the total fixed cost in the cultivation of beans. The expenditure on variable inputs in the cultivation of beans formed nearly 90 per cent and remaining 10 per cent was constituted by fixed cost.

This is due to high cost incurred on inputs such as human labour, FYM, seeds and chemical fertilizers. Among the fixed cost, the magnitude of cost incurred on rental value of land (9.63%) was the highest because the rental value of the land was high (Rs. 8000 per cent per year) in the Belgaum District.

Rajeshwari (2004) made an attempt to study the cost and returns of coconut based farming systems in Tumkur district of Karnataka. The farmers following Farming System comprising coconut, arecanut, ragi and dairy were getting the highest net farm income of Rs. 85,600 per farm and the cost of cultivation was Rs. 1,59,645. The major components of cost of production were amortized establishment cost, operational cost, rental value of land and material cost.

Saikumar (2005) studied the cost and returns structure of major farming systems in tank commands of north eastern Karnataka. The study revealed that, of the three major farming systems identified in the study area, dairy enterprise was found to be most common as a complimentary enterprise. The highest net returns realized was Rs. 53,404.59 per hectare and per hectare cost of cultivation was Rs. 84414.21 in Farming System comprising redgram + kharif jowar + groundnut + followed by bengalgram + rabi jowar + dairy. Rajkumar and Burark (2005) they study the Sample survey on economic of Oyster mushroom (Pleurotus spp.) cultivation on small, medium and large mushroom farmers in Rajasthan. They examined that total cost of cultivation was higher in small farmers (Rs. 14727.19 per tonne of wheat straw) than the large farmers (Rs. 8276.76 per tonne of wheat straw) and also found that Rs. 10683.86 was the overall cost of cultivation which includes Rs. 1234.10 of labour cost, Rs. 3671.65 material cost, Rs. 5078.15 of inputted cost and Rs. 699.95 of miscellaneous cost.

Deorukhakar et al. (2007) studied in Sindhudurg district of Maharashtra, India, worked out costs and returns structure and employment potential in kokum (Garcinia indica) processing units. The study revealed that processing of kokum into kokum syrup was more profitable than kokum agal and kokum rIndian The processing of kokum into kokum syrup resulted in gross returns of Rs 3780 per quintal at a cost of Rs 2440/-, thereby yielding net returns of Rs 1339.63 per quintal. On the other hand, kokum rind and kokum agal yielded net returns of Rs 604.91 and Rs 476.33 per quintal.

Sharma and Pandey (2008) studied the costs and net profits from Guava processing in Uttar Pradesh. The cost of processing guava into jam and jellies was estimated at Rs 3,96,482 per year, the gross returns obtained from selling it was worked out to Rs. 5,28,750 per year and the net returns obtained were Rs 1,32,268 per annum. It was observed that the processing of guava was more profitable than selling it raw.

Ankit Jaiswal (2009) indicated that net returns in soybean over jowar (868.72%) and maize (121.67%) were significantly higher. Similarly, benefit cost ratio over Cost C was higher in case of soybean (1.29) than that of maize (1.16) and jowar (1.05) which clearly indicated that soybean cultivation was more profitable than any of competing crops. For every rupee investment in soymilk and tofu processing, Rs. 1.42 was obtained as returns, indicating its profitability. Benefit cost ratio was more than unity (1.18) showing profitability of converting soybean into soyflour. In this regard, there is need to understand the profitability of soybean as whole pulse as well as processed soy products.

2.3 Post harvest management practices

Shellikeri and Mundinamani (1999) studied the post-harvest losses and price spread in marketing of perishables in Bijapur district of Karnataka. The main findings of the study revealed that the grape growers lost 362.80 kg of grape out of 32,347.20 kg produced per ha, the monetary worth of which was Rs. 5,548.83. The post-harvest dropping of berries, shot berries and mummification were the main factors causing the loss on farm. The extent of loss estimated at pre-harvest contractor level was 1,264.20 kg valued at Rs. 14,778.50, whereas the loss at commission agent-cum-wholesaler level was 3,762.60 kg valued at Rs. 62,534.40. The retailers lost 131.40 kg of grape (worth of Rs. 1,307.84) due to weight loss, loose berries and spoilage of berries in the process of handling.

Anilkumar and Arora (1999) in their study on post-harvest management of vegetables in Uttar Pradesh hills found that non-availability of cold storages, highly perishable nature of the vegetables, low market demand for the produce at the time of storage are the major problems as perceived by farmers in vegetable storage.

Vishwanathan et al. (1999) estimated the Post –harvest losses in improved varieties and hybrids of tomato in Tamil Nadu. They have reported an average post-harvest loss of 7 to 8 percent in improved varieties and 6 to 7 percent in hybrids at local shandies. The main reason attributed by the authors for the losses were poor handling, packing and transportation. The losses for the improved varieties and hybrids varied from 6 to 9 percent and 4 to 6 percent respectively. The retailer suffered 6 to 9 percent and 4 to 7 per cent damages in improved varieties and hybrids respectively. The retailer or vendors suffered these losses due to poor handling of the tomato by the consumer during selection. On an average, at every stage of handling, improved varieties suffered a loss of 7 to 8 percent and hybrids 5 to 6 percent. The study has suggested to minimize the number of handlings in the market to reduce the losses.

Anon. (2001) suggested that there was a need to further strengthen the post-harvest infrastructure (PHI) facilities in Punjab both through increasing their number and by increasing the capacity of the existing ones. To utilize the PHI facility to full capacity, soft loan incentives need to be worked out for extending the facilities to all categories of farmers. Regulation of markets and development of efficient market information system would further help in boosting the development of horticultural crops in the state.

Pandey (2001) suggested strategy for increasing onion productivity and minimizing post-harvest losses in onion in Andhra Pradesh. He recommended that seed producing agencies and state department of Horticulture should make sure that sufficient quantity of quality seed of improved varieties were produced every year and made available to farmers at an economic price to enable them to use the same for increasing productivity. State Department of Horticulture and other related agencies should educate farmers on various improved pre and post-harvest technologies. Development of disease and pest resistant as well as moisture stress/heat resistant/tolerant varieties should be developed.

Gajanan (2002) studied the marketing practices and post-harvest loss assessment in Poovan variety of Banana in Tamil Nadu. Trichy district was selected based on its maximum contribution to the area under banana. The producers of banana were found to use two main channels for marketing their produce namely, selling in the local market either through pre-harvest contractor or commission agents (Channel-I) and selling to the agents of the wholesaler in the distant markets like Bangalore, Mumbai and Chennai (Channel-II). The post-harvest losses in Channel-I was found to be slightly less at around 19 per cent compared to 21 per cent in Channel-II. The main reason for the higher loss in Channel-II was transit loss due to long distance of transportation. Further, in order to make the best use of the utilizable waste Banana fruits, it was suggested to establish processing units of banana in the production area as it was found feasible.

Sreenivasa Murthy et al. (2002) conducted post-harvest loss estimation in Banganapalli variety of mango at different stages of marketing. Krishna district in Andhra Pradesh was selected as it ranked first in terms of area and production in the state. The post-harvest losses in mango at different stages of marketing were estimated under two heads viz., physical post-harvest loss (PHL) and economic PHL. The average physical PHL at the farm level in Banganapalli variety was 15.6 per cent. This was due to the harvest of immature and small fruits, which accounted for about 66 per cent of the total loss at farm level.

It was observed that physical PHL at market level was virtually zero. On an average about 128 fruits out of 1440 fruits were found to be damaged which worked out to 8.8 per cent loss at ripening and storage. The physical PHL at the retail marketing was found to be 5.25 per cent. The economic loss at the farm level was estimated at 11.7 per cent, compared to 15.6 per cent in physical terms. The economic loss at the large, medium and small sized fruits worked out to 5.3 per cent, 5.9 per cent and 4.2 per cent, respectively indicating that economic loss varied with the size of fruits unlike in physical loss where the loss is almost the same in all categories. The economic loss at retail level was worked out to be 4.5 per cent only. Thus, the total economic loss at different stages from the production point to consumption point works out to be 21.7 per cent against the total physical loss of 29.7 per cent.

Chawla (2002) suggested that for establishing cold storage and cold chain infrastructure to prevent large post-harvest losses. Multi-chamber, multi-product cold stores were essential to store fruits and vegetables because fruits and vegetables need to be stored at specified temperatures and specified humidity level if their shelf-life and freshness are to be maintained. He suggested that cold storages should operate as value addition centres and undertake activities like collection, transportation, storage, value addition, marketing and distribution.

Sharma and Sharma (2003) studied the production and export performance of tea and reported that 'the growth rates were positive for area, production and productivity of tea. The share of Indian tea export in the total export was as high as 72.17 per cent in 1950, which had steadily declined to 23.79 per cent in 1999. They employed liner trend function to work out the comparatives of growth rates.

Basavaraja et al. (2006) analysed the post harvest losses in food grains in Karnataka. The opst harvest losses in rice and wheat at the field level were estimated to be 3.82 kg/q and 3.28 kg/q respectively. The post harvest losses at farm level were caused by the activities like harvesting, threshing, cleaning, drying, faulty storage, transportation and improper packaging of the produce. The food grain losses at wholesaler, processor and retailer levels have been treated as post harvest losses at market level. The total post harvest losses at wholesaler level were 0.29 kg/q in rice and 0.20 kg/q in wheat. The post harvest losses occurring at field and market added up to 5.19 kg/q in rice and 4.32 kg/q in wheat.

Yadav and Yadav (2007) studied the prevailing practices of post harvest handling and management (focusing on processing, pre-cooling, grading, packaging, transport, storage and marketing) of horticultural produce (including fruits and vegetables) in the northeastern region of India: Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura. Postharvest handling, processing and marketing constraints were enumerated. Some thrust areas, identified in post harvest technology for value addition and employment generation, were given.

Dilip Reddy (2008) analysed the growth rates of area, production and productivity of soybean in India. He concluded that there was a positive trend in positive trend in area, production and productivity of soybean. The growth rates of area, production and productivity of soybean were 17, 18.29 and 1.48 per cent, respectively.

Ashok and Maheswari (2008) analysed the post harvest losses in banana in Tamil Nadu. The total post harvest loss from harvesting to consumer was 4.62 kg per bunch which accounted for 30.8 per cent of the total weight of the bunch. Post harvest loss at farmers’ level was 1.41 kg per bunch which accounted for about 9.4 per cent of the total weight.

2.4 Efficiencies in cultivation

Patel et al (1986) employed a Cobb-Douglas production function to determine the efficiency of various inputs used in the production of summer groundnut. The study indicated that, the ratio of MVP to factor costs for area and human labour were positive and more than unity, which revealed that more area and human labour may be employed for the production of groundnut in order to reap profits. The ratio of other input variables like bullock labour, seed, manures and fertilisers could explain the excessive use of these inputs and any further addition of these independent variables may result in negative return.

Muralidharan (1987) studied the resource use efficiency in paddy production in Kerala, by employing the Cobb-Douglas production function. The adjusted R² was 0.84 indicating that 84 per cent of the variation in yield of paddy was explained by the estimated production function. The coefficient of land and human labour were positive and significant at one per cent probability level.

Chandrashekar (1993) studied the resource use efficiency of groundnut production under rainfed conditions in Chitradurga district of Karnataka state. The MVP to MFC ratio for seed and labour were found more than unity for both small and big farmers indicating the use of those inputs needs to be increased to realise higher returns and profits. The MVP per rupee of input for human labour and bullock labour on small and big farmers were less than unity, which revealed that excessive use of these factors and any further addition of these variables may result in negative returns.

Jagannathan (1995) found that the major source of farm energy was bullock power. The average use of bullock labour declined with increased farm size. It was noticed that, the small farmers used the bullock labour intensively on their farms as compared to that of medium and large farmers. Comparing the operation-wise employment of owned and hired human labour, it was inferred that the employment of human labour declined with the increase in the farm size, which implied that small farms were more labour intensive than medium and large farms. Among the operations, more than 50 per cent of owned labourers were employed in harvesting for all farms whereas more than 50 per cent of hired labour, were employed in different cultivation operations. It was found that the percentage of owned labour in the average employed labour force declined and the percentage of hired labour increased with the increased farm size. It revealed that small farmers used more of owned labourers while medium and large farmer used more of hired labourers.

Verma (2002) employed Cobb-Douglas production function for evaluating resource use efficiency in onion. The marginal value product of seed, manures and fertilizers, human labour and machine power were (Rs.0.15, Rs.1.51, Rs.0.69 and Rs.0.28) found to be positive on small farms while it had negative value on bullock labour, plant protection and irrigation (Rs.–0.13, Rs.–0.49 and Rs.–0.47), respectively. This implies that in case of the small farms seed, manures and fertilizers, human labour and machine power were underutilized and bullock labour, plant protection and irrigation were used excessively on the farms.

In case of large farms, marginal value product of seed, manures and fertilizers, human labour, bullock labour and plant protection were (Rs.0.80, Rs.0.34, Rs.0.18, Rs.0.01 and Rs.0.15) positive, while it was negative for machine power and irrigation respectively (Rs.–0.16 and Rs-0.01) implying that on the large farms seed, manures and fertilizers, human labour, bullock labour and plant protection chemicals were underutilized, while machine power and irrigation were excessively used, indicating scope for increased use up to the optimum level where the efficiency of the machine power and irrigation use was maximum.

Rajeshwari (2004) analysed resource use efficiency for coconut based farming systems in Tumkur district of Karnataka, using Cobb-Douglas production function. She observed that the capital and feed in Farming System-I (coconut + greengram followed by ragi + dairy), number of cows in Farming System-II (coconut + greengram + groundnut followed by ragi + dairy), labour in Farming System-III (coconut + paddy + greengram followed by ragi + dairy), land, labour, feed and number of sheep in Farming System-IV (coconut + greengram followed by ragi + dairy + sheep) and land and number of cows in Farming System-V (coconut + arecanut + ragi + dairy) had positive and significant influence on gross returns.

Saikumar (2005) studied the resource use efficiency in different farming systems of three districts of north eastern Karnataka employing the Cobb-Douglas production function. The adjusted R

2

was 0.76, 0.58 and 0.54 for Bidar, Bellary and Raichur districts, respectively, indicating that 76, 58 and 54 per cent of variation in yield was explained by the estimated production functions. The coefficient of cost of seeds and feeds + concentrates in Bidar, fertilizer + FYM cost in Bellary and fertilizer + FYM cost and labour cost in Raichur district were positive and significant at 5 per cent probability level.

Suresh and Keshava Reddy (2006) studied resource-use efficiency of paddy cultivation in Peechi Command Area of Thrissur district of Kerala and examine the resource productivity and allocative and technical efficiency of paddy production. The cost of cultivation of paddy in the command area has been found as Rs. 21603/ha, resulting in a BC ratio of 1.34. The elasticity coefficients for chemical fertilizers, FYM and human labour have been observed significant and positive.

The allocative efficiency could reveal that marginal return per one rupee increase under these heads would be Rs. 2.83, Rs. 1.57 and Rs. 1.17, respectively. The average technical efficiency of the paddy farmers in the command area was found as 66.8 per cent. Education of the farmer and supplementary irrigations provided during the water-stress days could enhance the technical efficiency.

Kavitha (2007) observed that the technical efficiency of IPM farms of cotton cultivation was 94.55 percent while it is only 73.26 percent for non-IPM farms proving that the IPM farmers are technically more efficient than non-IPM farmer.

Tarunvir Singh and Jyoti Kachroo (2009) studied the resource use efficiency of dry land maize in Jammu District of Jammu and Kashmir State. The study could examine using Cobb-Douglas production function and the values of regression coefficient of maize for area farmyard manure + fertilizer were 0.971, 0.211 and -0.386, respectively. The value of area and farmyard manure + fertilizer with positive sign indicated that one per cent increase in the use of these inputs could increase the returns by 0.971 per cent and 0.211 per cent, respectively.

The negative sign of the regression coefficient of human labour showed that one per cent additional expenditure on the use of human labour would reduce the return from maize crop by 0.386 per cent. The benefit-cost ratio worked to be 2.17, 2.31, 2.11, 1.49, 0.87 and 0.66 for A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2 costs, respectively. The coefficient of variation cropped area, yield and net returns were 57.34 per cent, 60.20 per cent and 64.82 per cent respectively.

Nethrayini (2010) in her study on an economic analysis of contract farming of Gherkin under Agri-Export zone in Karnataka examined that the Marginal Value Product (MVP) to Marginal Factor Cost (MFC) ratio was greater than unity for human labour(1.79), plant protection chemicals(3.18) and staking materials(2.66) indicating the greater scope for using additional units of these resources to increase gross income from gherkin cultivation. The MVP to MFC ratio was positive but less than unity for bullock and tractor labour and was negative for seeds and FYM and fertilizers indicating that these inputs were overused.

2.5 Value addition

Geeta et al. (1998) studied value addition to cotton yarns. The study revealed that the production of agricultural products and cost involved for that products of agricultural products and cost involved for that products and profit earned from the products. The agricultural products and their cost was Hide Hagga (Rs. 29), Mugadan (Rs. 10), Kari hangada (Rs. 12), Kalli (Rs. 16), Barkol (Rs. 29), Gonde (Rs. 11), Hane Gejje (Rs. 30), Jatagi (Rs. 17) and Neluva (Rs. 28). In these products, the maximum profit for gonde (36%) followed by Kari hangada (25%), Kalli (25%) and Neluvu (25%) and minimum was for Barkol (14%).

Raman Dev (1998) studied on management appraisal of cashew in Uttar Kannada district of Karnataka found that average per quintal processing costs was Rs. 327.49 and of their labour 60.4 per cent was contributed by utilities like power, fuel and oil. Further, he revealed that per quintal processing cost for small (Rs. 326.56), medium (Rs. 322.37) and large (Rs. 333.58). Further, he revealed that the average net return for overall was Rs. 94.02 per quintal of cashew nut processed and it was more in large units (Rs. 195.25) than medium (45.56) and small (Rs. 32.16).

Chidri (1999) studied on management of agro-processing industries in Karnataka. A case study of tur dal industry found that the average per quintal cost of processing worked out to be Rs. 49.47. Among the items, cost utilities accounted for higher proportion of Rs. 24.17 (52.57%). Again, among the utilities expenditure on oil and fuel accounted for major proportion of Rs. 12.36 and Rs. 11.76, respectively. Further, he revealed that the net returns at overall average level was Rs. 53.66.

Kerutagi (1999) studied the economics of silk reeling units in Karnataka. He indicated that the average price received per kg of the charka silk (Rs. 1009.68) was less compared to the average cottage basin units (Rs. 1333) and the multi-end basin units (Rs. 1430). Net returns per kg of silk processed were high in the multi-end basin units (Rs. 195.8) followed by one cottage (Rs. 146.18) and the charka units (Rs. 47.21). Further, he reported that the value addition (72.18%) in cottage basin reeling over charakas was mainly due to technique of reelings (56.56%) and the remaining attributed for use of inputs (14.62%).

Mahesh and Nagaraja (2002) studied the value addition of cashew (Anacardium occidentale) kernel baby bits (CKBB) was attempted by coating with cane sugar, honey and salt. Optimum coating occurs at 100 degrees C for 5 min at 70 per cent concentration for cane sugar and honey and 5 per cent for salt. Sweetened 70 per cent and vanillin 0.1 per cent flavored CKBB are the most preferred. Defatting of CKBB enhances the per cent coating. Coating of cashew kernels of different grades with cane sugar at 70 per cent is dependent on the surface area. Cashew apple juice could be coated on the CKBB. Acceptability of cashew apple juice coated baby bits (BB) improves with the addition of cane sugar at 70 per cent concentration. Permitted colours and cane sugar compete with each other during coating.

Chinnappa (2002) revealed that the economics of grading which had ultimate bearing on profitability of the arecanut crop. It uses data obtained from 80 arecanut growers of 4 taluks of Karnataka, India. Results show that there were 3 major grades in arecanut such as Hasa, Bette and Gorbulu. It was suggested that grading at the farm level could result in value addition and improve the overall net returns to growers.

Lokesh and Chandrakanth (2003) described the turmeric industry in Karnataka, India, focusing on the production, marketing and processing issues of the sector. Field data obtained from a survey of 90 farmers in 3 taluks of Chamarajanagar district were used. Marketing information of turmeric was collected from 4 traders, 3 polishers, 2 processors and 4 Agriculture Produce Marketing Committees in the study area. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis was employed to analyse the feasibility of value addition to turmeric. Policy implications for the turmeric industry are also outlined.

Madhuri and Kamini (2003) found that in watermelon, the rind constituted 33 per cent of the whole fruit weight. Value added preserved products like pickles, tutti fruity, vadiyams and cheese were prepared using the white portion of watermelon rIndian The quality of products in terms of physical parameters was evaluated. All products were subjected to sensory evaluation test using a panel of 20 judges. Results showed that mean sensory scores for product attributes were high. There was no change in mean scores after one month storage.

Subasinghe (2003) studied the different innovations used by food processors to add value to aquaculture products such as shrimps, in order to survive in a highly competitive market environment. Some of these innovations were focused on the packaging and presentation of the shrimps, whereas others focused on preprocessing/ processing, such as peeling, preparation of breaded products, application of batters and production of other shrimp-based products.

Arora et al. (2004) found that vegetable washing was an important primary process unit operation for value addition of the produce at farm level. Washing was used not only to remove field soil, dust, pesticides, but also the surface microbial load. Carrots, potatoes and spinach were washed mechanically in a rotary vegetable washing machine at varying speed and time and then evaluated for their quality. The microbiological washing efficiency, which was calculated by observing the total viable count of the surface of the vegetables before and after washing ranged between 96.5- 99.8 per cent as compared to recommended 80 per cent indicating the adequacy of the vegetable washing machine.

Ramakrishnaiah et al. (2004) attempted to study the technology package developed to retrieve the cotyledon material from the dhal mill by-products containing about 50 per cent cotyledon material amounting to one million tones and also refining the same to an acceptable/desired level.

The technology consists of destoning, size separation and air classification followed by refining and thermal stabilization of edible material. About 30-35 per cent of the cotyledon material was recovered from the by-products from the commercial dhal mills and used in the preparation of traditional pulse based products. It could be substituted in pulse-based products such as vada, rasam/sambar and papads upto about 50 per cent. Adoption of this technology by dhal millers in the country would result in the recovery of about 5 lakh tonnes of cotyledon material valued at Rs. 500, which could contribute to the economic upliftment of the industry.

Marsh and Bugusu (2007) this paper describes the role of food packaging in the food supply chain, the types of materials used in food packaging and the impact of food packaging on the environment. In addition, this document provides an overview of the US Environmental Protection Agency's solid waste management guidelines and other waste management options. Finally, it addresses disposal methods and legislation on packaging disposal.

Arun Kumar et al. (2010) processing of arecanut in sub Himalayan Terai region of West Bengal- A case study. A study was conducted in Jalpaiguri district about the different way of processing of arecanut in this district. Total ten units were selected. The study reveals that the processing of arecanut depends on the availability of arecanut of different stage in all the locations. The economics was calculated on the basis of the discussion made with the processors. The demand of tipni and chikni tipni in Delhi market was more. So the processors produced more of this type of supari (about 80 per cent of total nuts). The percentage of net profit of this type of processed nut was about 83.83 per cent from tipni and it was about 69.4 per cent and 62.5 per cent for chikni tipni and rutha, respectively. Only 23.16 per cent profit was obtain from cahlli making. Moja supari helps to get a profit of 82.93 per cent. However, only 15 per cent of the total quantity of nuts available in this region was processed in this method as the demand of this type of processed nuts was this much only. If the demand was increased then, the processor can use more nuts for moja supari and they can earn more money.

Anand (2011) reported that the co-operative unit as a whole experienced significant growth rate in procurement of quantity (56.06%), value (61.08) and sales of quantity (51.93%) and value of sales (50.26%) for rashi type of arecanut in finished produce for the period the annual growth rate of 2001-02 to 2009-10. Whereas, for the same period, the annual growth rate in private units procurement of quantity, value and sales of quantity and value of sales were 53.04, 61.39, 53.30 and 59.50 per cent, respectively in rashi type of arecanut.

2.6 Constraints in cultivation, marketing and value addition

Brahmprakash and Dineshkumar (1997) studied the infrastructural requirements for the development of agro-processing industry in rural India and concluded that lack of market information, rapid and refrigerated transport system, storage facility, banking institutions, packing and post-harvest technology were the major constraints responsible for the slow growth of agro-processing industry.

Roy (1997) concluded that the low level of processing in India was mainly due to inadequate post-harvest technology, lack of transport and marketing infrastructure, absence of linkages between processing industry and the growers and lack of domestic demand for processed products. Majority of the processing units were in cottage and tiny sector, where research and development efforts were also most non-existent and new products were rare. Lack of sophisticated packing technology further added to these problems. Poor infrastructure was the single biggest problem that affected the Indian agricultural processing sector.

Raman Dev (1998) studied on business performance analysis and appraisal of the cashew nut processing units in Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka identified high taxation, short supply of raw materials, non-availability of skilled labour, unfavourable government policies and marketing systems as the major problems as conceived by the industry.

Chidri (1999) reported that management of agro processing industry in Karnataka pointed that, the major constraints in tur processing units were high taxes, high procurement cost, irregular power supply, inadequate power supply, inadequate finance, irregular lobour supply, inadequate marketing facilities and repairs and maintenance.

Ashraf Ali (2000) studied on business performance of co-operative oil mills noticed that non-availability of raw materials in sufficient quantity and in desired quality was the most important problem faced by the large and medium scale units followed by lack of infrastructural facilities as the second in order.

Manjunatha (2000) studied on Management of food processing units – A case study of Roller flour mills in Bijapur District (Karnataka), he concluded that most important problems in roller flour mills were problems of marketing, problems regarding processing, problems regarding government policies and procurement problems.

Kavitha (2000) reported that documentation of agro-processing units/industries in different of Uttar Kannada district. Here, she stated about the number of agro-processing units/industries indifferent talukhs of Uttar Kannada district with their investment has been documentated.

Saravanan et al. (2002) reported that the constraints of cashewnut processing units in Tamil Nadu. Constraints reported by the processors, are high wage rate, exporters by most of the processors (86.67%) in Kanyakumari district more than 80 per cent of processors felt that the declining trend in imports and inadequacy in supply of raw materials from domestic market were major constitute for them. High purchase tax for raw nut at 8 per cent purchased in domestic market and increasing competition from other countries in processing were the constraints faced by more than 60 per cent of the respondents, other problems are were frequent power cuts during the processing period and wide fluctuation in the prices of cashew kernel.

Varghese and Indus Singh (2006) evaluated the prospects and problem of Agroprocessing industries in Biknner district of Rajasthan. He identified the technological factor, Resourse based factor and policy based factors are the major constraints faced by agroprocessors in the study area.

Kohler et al. (2007) examined the project which was launched in mid-2006, looking into value-addition to various camel products, especially camel milk. Ice cream made from camel milk, which was launched during an inception workshop, had generated significant interest among local hoteliers. Furthermore, it was suggested to analyze the hurdles that need to be overcome before value added products can truly contribute to improve local incomes and livelihoods.

Rangasamy and Dhaka (2007) found that the economic efficiency of dairy plants was severely influenced by a variety of constraints at 3 important value addition stages of milk procurement, processing and manufacturing and distribution of dairy products. This study was conducted to compare the constraints faced by cooperative and private dairy plants at these vital value addition stages. Some of the members of the cooperative society selling the milk to private milk vendors and some of the collection centres taking the inadequate quantity of milk were the very serious problems faced by cooperative and private dairy plants, respectively. Underutilization of transport vehicles at milk transport, underutilization of chilling centres and underutilization of plant at milk processing and manufacturing levels were the most serious constraints faced by both the cooperative and private dairy plants. Encouraging value addition, effective sales promotion and advertisement strategy and also focusing on consumer-oriented market research and development were some of the suggested strategies.

Verma and Jain (2007) examined value addition of nutri-cereals (nutritious cereals) coarse cereals and millets. The important coarse cereals generally referred were sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), barley, pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) and maize. Finger (Eleusine coracana), kodo (Paspalum scrobiculatum), foxtail (Setaria italica), proso (Panicum miliaceum), barnyard (Echinochloa frumentacea) and little millets (Panicum sumatrense) are a few other common types of millets. Their production, agro-economic constraints, uses, nutritional quality, traditional processing techniques, and storage were described in the study area.

Yadav and Yadav (2007) studied the prevailing practices of post harvest handling and management (focusing on processing, pre-cooling, grading, packaging, transport, storage and marketing) of horticultural produce (including fruits and vegetables) in the northeastern region of India: Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura. Postharvest handling, processing and marketing constraints were enumerated. Some thrust areas, identified in post harvest technology for value addition and employment generation, were given.

Singh (2008) found that the major problems faced by processing sector were, low productivity of raw materials leading to high unit price of final products, lack of storage infrastructure leading to wastage and increasing unit price of finally available quantity, lack of trained human resource, inadequate knowledge of material and lack of market intelligence and inadequate cold storage and refrigerated transport facility of the fresh as well as processed commodities which needs to be solved immediately for the growth of processing sector.

METHODOLOGYThis chapter deals with the methodology followed in the present study, which includes

description and the selection of the processing units, source of data and analytical techniquesadopted. The details are presented under the following headings.

3.1 Description of the study area

3.2 Sampling procedure

3.3 Nature and source of data

3.4 Analytical techniques

3.5 Definition of term and concepts used in the study

3.1 Description of the study areaKarnataka state is situated in the west central part of peninsular India. It consists of a narrow

elongated belt along with the Arabian Sea and Western Ghats and enhancing coastline of about 400kilometers. The state has an area of 1,19,257 sq. km and is situated between 115 degree and 19degree north latitude and 74 degree and 78 degree longitudes. The state is bounded by Maharashtraon the north Goa and Arabian Sea on the west, Andra Pradesh on the east and with Tamil Nadu andKerala on the south. The Karnataka state has population of 5.27 crores with decade growth rateduring 2010-2011 (17.25%). Among 30 districts Bangalore urban has the largest population (65.23lakhs) followed by Belgaum district (42.07 lakhs).

3.1.1 Belgaum district

3.1.1.1 Location and area

The average annual normal rainfall is the state is 1139 mm. The state receives rainfall bothfrom southwest and northeast monsoons. The mean temperature ranges from 21.5oC. The climaticendowments are favorable for the adoption of cross bred cattle and for the production of cropsthroughout the year.

Belgaum city is a municipal corporation in Belgaum district in the state of Karnataka, India. Itis the fourth largest city in the state of Karnataka, after Bangalore, Mysore and Hubli-Dharwd. Thedistrict of Belgaum is located east of the Western Ghats and is situated in the northwestern part ofKarnataka state. It is bordered by the state of Goa on its southwest and Maharashtra state towards itswest and north. The district of Bijapur and Bagalkot of Karnataka statelie towards its northeast andeast respectively whereas; the district of Dharwad and Uttar Kannada lie towards its south andsouthwest, respectively. The district lies between 1500’ and 1700’ north latitude and between 7400and 7530’ east longitudes. It covers an area of 13,444 Sq. Km. It is situated nearly 2,500 ft (762 m)above sea-level and the headquarters of Belgaum district, which borders the states of Maharashtraand Goa.

3.1.2 Population and literacy

Belgaum district is located in Karnataka. Population of Belgaum district is 4778439. Belgaumis second most populous district out of total 30 districts in Karnataka and it is 25th most populousdistrict in India. The population density of Belgaum is 356.20 Persons per square Km. It is 8th mostdensely populated out of 30 districts in Karnataka and it is 338th most densely populated district out oftotal 640 districts in India.

Total Literacy rate of Belgaum is 73.94 per cent. This means 73.94 out of 100 persons of agemore than 6 years are literate. It is ranked 16 in terms of literacy rate out of total 30 districts ofKarnataka and 25 out of total 640 districts of India. Male Literacy of Belgaum is 82.90 per cent whilefemale literacy stands at 64.74 per cent.

3.1.3 Topography, rainfall and climate

The climate of the district as a whole can be termed as semi-arid. The variation in themaximum temperature during the year ranges from 27oC to 35.70oC and minimum from 13.90oC to20.60oC. The district experiences pleasant winters and hot dry summers. The hot season extendsfrom March to May, during which the daily maximum temperature often shoots up to 35.7 0C.

Agro-climatologically the district can be divided into three zones i.e. high rainfall “Hilly zone”,“Northern transitional zone” and “Northern dry zone” from southwest to northeast respectively. The

normal rainfall in the district decreases from more than 1859 mm in Khanapur taluk in the southwest,to less than 491mm in Raybag taluk towards northeasterly direction. Those areas, that receive lessthan 750 mm annual rainfall are classified as semi-arid and thus drought prone. Hence, the entiredistrict except, the southwestern part is categorized as semi-arid and drought prone. Total normal

rainy days vary from 90 in Khanapur to 37 in Athani. Eastern and northeastern parts of the district areprone to drought of mild nature.

3.1.4 Soil type

The soils of Belgaum district can broadly be classified into red soils and Black soils. Thesesoils vary in depth and texture, depending on the parent rock type, physiographic settings and climaticconditions. The, black soils predominates the Deccan Trap terrain and the red soils are found in thesouthwestern and southeastern part of the district in gneissic terrain. These soils in turn can begrouped into seven categories as given below, out of which the first five cover large tracks of landwhile the last two are local in nature.

Shallow black soils

These soils occur in the Deccan trap region and to some extent are also developed in schist,shale and limestone terrains. They are grayish to dark grayish-brown in colour, with clayey texture.These soils have poor to moderate infiltration characteristics.

Medium black soils

These soils are predominantly derived from Deccan traps and occupy large parts of thedistrict. They are dark grayish-brown to very dark grayish-brown with clayey texture. These arederived from the weathered products of basalts and limestone and are darker in valleys than in highlands. Their texture varies from loam to clay, with low to moderate infiltration characteristics.

Deep to Very deep black soils

These soils occupy large tracts in Deccan trap terrain along the Krishna River and also in thegneissic terrain. These soils are dark greyish-brown to very dark grayish-brown in colour and haveclayey texture. These soils occur on plains or lands having gentle slopes. These soils exhibit widecracks in summers. These are derived from a wide variety of parent rock types, like traps, schists,gneisses and sedimentary rocks. They are generally transported and therefore occur in valleys anddepressions. Accumulation of lime, gypsum and soluble salts at varying depths in the soil profile oftenpose problems. They have poor infiltration characteristics.

Mixed red and black soils

These soils occur in the northern parts of the district. They are dark reddish-brown to darkgrayish-brown in colour with silty-clay to clayey-loam textures. These soils are derived from gneisses,schist sand sedimentary rocks. Red soils having high infiltration characteristics are confined touplands, whereas, black soils of poor to medium infiltration characteristics occur in valleys and lowlands.

Red loamy soils

These soils occur as small strips in the valleys adjacent to the Western Ghats. They aregenerally transported and are loamy to silty-loam in texture. They have moderate to good infiltrationcharacteristics.

Lateritic soils

Lateritic soils are red in colour and occur as pockets. They occur at high-levels as insitu inDeccan Trap terrain and at low-levels as transported in Malnad region. They are derived from Deccantraps as well as sedimentary rocks, Dharwarian Schists and peninsular gneisses. These soils havewell to moderate infiltration characteristics.

Alluvial soils

These soils are developed over the alluvium deposited by the Krishna River and itstributaries. They are very limited in extent and thickness and are local in nature. These soils havegood infiltration characteristics and are composed of coarse sand, sandy-loam and loams.

3.1.5 General information of Athani taluk

Athani is a place located in the Belgaum district and latitude of 16.614 and the longitude of75.104. The given latitude and longitude location of Athani are decimal based coordinates. AthaniTaluk has a total Geographical area of 1995.7 Square kilometres. This includes 89 inhabited villagesand rural population of total 525722 as per 20011 census.

The taluk is bounded by Sangli district of Maharashtra. 74 per cent of the total geographicalarea is used for cultivation. Geologically the area is covered by Deccan Trap formation. The averageAnnual rainfall is 582 mm. The two rivers that flow here are, Krishna and Agrani.

The gram devata of Athani is the Siddeswara. The Siddheshwara Temple is very famous andis folked by the locals on Mondays. Sri Shivyogi Murughendra Swamiji's birth place, Nadi Ingalgavfalls in the Athani taluk. Kokatnoor Yallama, Katageri Lakkavva, Avarkhod Hanumappa are other holyplaces.

The five large towns of Athani Taluk (sorted in order of decreasing population)are Athani, Ugar, Ainapur, Kagwad and Shedbal. The major crops grown cereals- jowar, maize andwheat, pulses- tur, horse gram black gram and Bengal gram, oil seeds- groundnut and sunflower,commercial crops- sugarcane, vegetables- tomato, brinjal, onion and chillies. And fruits-banna,mango, lemon, guava and sapota.

3.1.6 General information of Raibag taluk

Town Raibag is situated at 16.4616 Latitude and 74.8033 Longitude. Constituted in1973.Raibag is taluka place and away 100 Km from district place Belgaum. Town has a population of405481 in the year 2011. Town had15 wards and equal number of councilors and three nominatedmembers. Town has stretches to an area 958 Sq.Kms.

Town had many historical temples. The jain statues found are shows its historical shine. Townhad many educational institutes which are bulid this town as educational town. Sugar factory called asRaibag S. S. Ltd, Raibag. Town had railway station which is helpfull to peoples.

Near By Villages of this Village with distance are Raybag (3.2 k.m.), Bhirdi (6.3 k.m.),Hubbarwadi (6.3 k.m.), Nasalapur(6.4 k.m.), and Bekkeri(6.7 k.m.). Nearest Towns are Raybag (3.2k.m.), Chikodi (20.2 k.m.), Hukeri (34.1 k.m.), Gokak (37.2 k.m.), Alaknoor, Bekkeri, Bhirdi, Chinchali,Diggewadi, Hidkal are the villages along with this village in the same Raybag Taluk Vadiye Raibag isa Village in Kadegaon Taluk, Sangli District, Maharashtra State. The major growing crops in the areaare cereals- jowar, maize and wheat, pulses- tur, black gram and Bengal gram, oil seeds- groundnutand safflower, commercial crops- sugarcane, vegetables- tomato, brinjal, onion and chillies. Andfruits-banna, mango, lemon, guava and sapota.

3.2 Sampling procedure

The present study were conducted in Traditional and modern turmeric cultivation in BelgaumDistrict of northern Karnataka – A comparative management appraisal, because these district havinghighest traditional and modern cultivation of turmeric.

In this district two talukas were randomly selected namely Athani and Raibag comprisingmaximum farmers were adopting traditional and modern cultivation of turmeric. From each talukas 30farmers were selected 15 traditional farmers and 15 modern farmers were randomly selected. Twotraditional processing units, two modern processing units were selected. Thus total size of samples is64.

3.3 Nature and sources of data

The data required for accomplishing the objectives of the study were collected from primarysources in the year 2012-13

The primary and secondary data were used to analyse the objectives of the study. Primarydata are collected through personal interview from the farmer with the help of well structured and pre-tested scheduled on turmeric samples from the farmers on convectional and modern methods, valueaddition and marketing efficiency management of turmeric from the sample farmers. The primary datapertaining to 2012-13 was collected for the selected farmers and secondary data are collected frommodern turmeric processing unit in the year 2012-13.

3.4 Analytical techniques

In order to analyze the objectives of the study, the data collected subjected to analysisthrough appropriate techniques as follows:

1. Tabular analysis.

2. Budgeting techniques

3. Cobb-Douglas production function.

4. Garratt Ranking.

3.4.1 Tabular Analysis

The data were presented in tabular form to facilitate easy comparisons. The investmentpattern cost of cultivation, input costs, value addition, costs and returns in turmeric production andproblems faced by the processors were studied using tabular analysis. The data were summarizedwith the help of statistical tools like averages and percentages to obtain meaningful inferences.

3.4.2 Cobb-Douglas production function

The prime objective of any farm / firm is to co-ordinate the farm resource and its utilization inthe production process so as to obtain a maximum profit out of it. In order to study the productivity ofvarious resources employed in irrigated agriculture of Belgaum district, Athani and Raibag taluka forturmeric production.

Regression analysis is a useful tool in analyzing the resource productivity in any productionactivity including farming. The Cob-Douglas type of production function has been the most popular ofdifferent algebraic forms of production function available, as it provides a compromise among (i)adequate fit to the data, (ii) computational simplicity and (iii) sufficient unused degrees of freedom forstatistical testing. One of its serious limitations is that it accommodates constant/ increasing/decreasing marginal productivity and does not allow an input-output curve embracing all the threerelationship. Despite of this limitation, it has the greatest use in diagnostic analysis as the regressionparameters represent the elasticities and reflect the marginal productivity at the geometric mean levelof the input and the output. Because of such over advantages over the other forms, Cob-Douglas typeof production function was employed for the current study.

The form of Cobb-Douglas production function used in the present study is as follows.

Y = aX1b1X2

b2X3b3 X4

b4 X5b5X6

b6 X7b7 eu _____________ (1)

Where,

Y = Gross output in rupees

a = Intercept (efficiency) term

X1 = Expenditure on Rhizome material (Rs/ha).

X2 = Expenditure on FYM (Rs/ha).

X3 = Human labour expenditure (Rs/ha).

X4 = Bullock labour expenditure (Rs/ha).

X5 = Machine labour expenditure (Rs/ha).

X6 = Expenditure on Fertilizer (Rs/ha).

X7 = Expenditure on PPC (Rs/ha).

eu = Random error term

bi’s = Output elasticities of respective factor inputs, i = 1, 2….7 and

The Cobb-Douglas production function was converted into log linear form and parameters(coefficients) were estimated by employing Ordinary Least Square Technique (OLS) as given below.

log Y = log a + b1 log X1 + b2 log X2 + b3 log X3 + b4 log X4 + b5 log X5 + b6 log X6 + b7 log X7 +u log e _____________ (2)

The regression coefficients (bi’s) were tested using ‘t’ test at chosen level significance.

Table 3.1: Sampling procedure

Number of samplesDistrict Taluks

Traditional(Farmers)

Modern (Farmers)

Athani 15 15

Raibhag 15 15

Total 30 30

Processing units 2 2

Belgaum

Total 64

3.4.3 Garratt Ranking technique

In order to analyze the consumer perceptions of turmeric production, different attributes wereranked by the consumers. These ranks were analyzed through Garrett’s ranking technique.

Garrett’s ranking technique gives the change of order of constraints into numerical scores.The major advantage of this technique as compared to simple frequency distribution is that hereconstraints are arranged based on their importance from the point of view of respondents. Hence thesame number of respondents with two or more constraints is given different rank, kumar et al (1999)

100 (Rij -0.50)Percent position =

Nj

Where Rij = Rank given for ith item by jth individual

Nj = Number of items ranked by jth individual

The percent position of each rank was converted to scores by referring to tables given byGarret and Woodworth (1969). Then for each factor, the scores of individual respondents weresummed up and divided by the total number of respondents for whom scores were gathered. Themean scores for all the factors were ranked, following the decision criterion that lower the value themore important is the constraint to farmers.

3.5 Definition of terms and concepts used in the study

Human labour

Human labour was estimated in terms of eight hours of work per day. The women labour dayswere converted into man days on the criteria that one woman day is equal to 0.80 man days on thebasis of wage rate equivalent.

Bullock labour

It was measured in pair days. Hence one pair day means eight hours of work by a pair ofbullock and a man required to operate this bullock pair valued at the rate of Rs. 500 per day.

Machine labour

The cost of machine labour both hours and days was calculated for differential rates fordeferent type of operation prevailed in study area.

Rhizome cost

The cost of seed was calculated at local market price for the turmeric Rhizome seeds and theactual expenditure incurred in the case of purchased seeds was considered.

Farm yard manure (FYM)

The quantity of FYM used in the cultivation of turmeric was measured in terms of tonnes andthe cost was imputed at the market price prevailing in the village.

Fertilizers

Cost of fertilizer was computed considering the actual price paid by the farmers including thetransportation cost and other identical charges if any were considered.

Plant protection chemicals

The cost of different insecticides, weedicides and fungicides used in controlling turmericpests and diseases were calculated based on the actual price paid by the farmers towards thesechemicals.

Variable costs

The variable costs include cost of seed, organic manure, fertilizers, wages of human andbullock labour, plant protection chemicals and interest on operational capital at the rate of 8 per centper annum.

Interest on working capital

This was calculated on the entire working cost of the enterprise at the prevailing bank rateinterest of 8 per cent per annum.

Fixed costs

These include depreciation on farm implements and machinery, interest on fixed capital andland revenue. The measurement and definitions of fixed cost components are as follows.

Depreciation charges

Depreciation on each capital equipment and machinery owned by the farmers and used forcultivation of land was calculated for individual farmer based on the purchase value using the straightline method.

Interest on fixed capital

Interest on fixed capital was calculated at 11 per cent per annum, which is the prevailing rateof investment credit. The items considered under fixed capital are implements and machinery.

Land revenue

Actual land revenue paid by the farmers was considered.

Land rent

The prevailing land rent for agricultural enterprises were imputed for the sample farmers,since all land holdings were observed to be owner operated.

Cost of cultivation

It is the sum of variable costs and fixed costs expressed on per hectare basis.

Gross returns

Gross returns were obtained by multiplying the total product with its unit value.

Net returns

Net returns were obtained by deducting the total costs incurred from the gross returnsobtained.

Benefit cost ratio

Benefit cost ratio was obtained by dividing the gross returns by total cost of cultivation.

Purchase value – Junk value

Annual depreciation = – – – – – – – –

Economic life of the asset

RESULTSThe results obtained from the analysis of the data are presented in this chapter under the

following heading.

4.1 Socio economic characteristics of sample farmers

4.2 Management practices in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern methods

4.3 Cost and returns in cultivation of traditional and modern management of turmericproduction.

4.4 Post harvest management practices in traditional and modern methods.

4.5 Efficiencies in cultivation under traditional and modern methods of turmericproduction.

4.6 Value addition in turmeric under traditional and modern methods.

4.7 Constraints in cultivation, marketing and value addition under traditional and modernmethods.

4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmersAn understanding of general characters of the sample farmers is expected to provide a bird’s

eye view of the general features prevailing in the study area. Therefore, an attempt has been made inthe study to analyze some of the important characters of the sample farmers. The general charactersof the respondents are presented in Table 4.1

4.1.1 Age of Respondents

In case of turmeric sample farmers, the average age of the traditional turmeric farmers was40.8 years where as in modern turmeric farmers were 44.7 years. Most of the farmers were seenyoung; in case of traditional 43.33 per cent of the farmers were comes under young age group i.e.less than 35 years, where as 53.33 per cent in case of modern farmers. In the age group of 36-45,36.67 per cent from traditional and 33.33 per cent in modern farmers. Only one farmers from modernturmeric growers having age of more than 56 years, whereas only two farmers in traditional.

4.1.2 Educational status

With regard to educational status of the farmer results presented in Table-4.1 revealed thatmajority of the sample farmers both traditional (93.33 per cent) and modern farmers (96.67 per cent)were literate having their education ranging from primary to college level and remaining 6.67 per centand 3.33 per cent of as illiterates for traditional and modern turmeric growers. Thus it is apparent thatthe education level of the turmeric farmers was high.

Among the literates 10 per cent of modern farmers were graduates, where as 3.33 per cent inthe case of traditional farmers. Most of the literate farmers possessed primary education i.e., 50 percent of traditional farmers and 33.33 percent of modern farmers. The percentage of farmers whocompleted pre university course was 16.67 per cent and 26.67 per cent for traditional and modernturmeric farmers, respectively.

4.1.3 Family Composition

The study on family composition revealed that average male population was fairly high in bothcategory of farmers. In traditional 2.76 and modern farmers 2.28 compared to female population in thefamily. Whereas the average children population was 1.14 and 1.86 in traditional and modern farmersrespectively.

4.1.4 Occupational pattern

The occupational pattern of sample farmers is presented in Table 4.1 which reveals thatagriculture and agriculture wages as the only occupation was noticed amongst 26 and 29 numbers offarmers for traditional and modern farmers respectively, it was 86.67 and 96.67 per cent of the totalsample farmers, respectively.

Whereas subsidiary enterprise along with agriculture was observed in 4 and 1 for traditionaland modern turmeric farmers respectively.

Table 4.1 General information about sample farmers in the study area

(Number)Sl.No. Particulars Traditional

(n=30) Percentage Modern(n=30) Percentage

Age 40.8 44.7a) Less than 35 13 43.33 16 53.33b) 36-45 11 36.67 10 33.33c) 46-55 4 13.33 3 10.00

I.

d) More than56 2 6.67 1 3.33

Education

a) Illiterate 2 6.67 1 3.33b)Primary 15 50.00 10 33.33c) Secondary 7 23.33 8 26.67d) PUC 5 16.67 8 26.67

II

e) Degree andabove 1 3.33 3 10.00

Family size

a) Male 2.76 45.77 2.18 34.49b) Female 2.13 35.32 2.28 36.08

III

c) Children 1.14 18.90 1.86 29.43

Occupationa) Agriculture+agriculturewagers

26 86.67 29 96.67

IV

b) Agriculture+allied activities 4 13.33 1 3.33

Table 4.2. Average size of land holding of sample farmers in the study area

(Area in Acre)Traditional Modern

Sl.No. Types of land

Area Percentage Area Percentage

1 Dry 11.90 56.75 16.03 61.77

2 Irrigated 9.07 43.25 9.92 38.23

3 Total 20.97 100 25.95 100

4 Area underturmeric 5.40 25.75 7.85 30.25

Plate 1: Turmeric cultivation

Plate 2: Interaction with turmeric growers

Plate 3: Traditional turmeric harvesting

4.1.5 Average size of land holdings

From the table 4.2, it could be seen that, among the respondent farmers, in case of traditional andmodern farmers. Dry land area constitutes more than irrigated land. The area under irrigation was43.25 per cent and 38.23 per cent for traditional and modern farmers. Followed by irrigated 56.75 and61.77 respectively. The total land holding in case traditional farmers were 20.97 acres. Whereas25.95 acres in modern farmers. Compared to modern category of farmers, were having more turmericland area of 7.85 acres (30.25%) where traditional farmers were having 5.40 acres of land underturmeric which accounts 25.75 per cent share of the total land holding.

4.1.6 Cropping pattern

As could be seen from Table 4.3. all the three categories of farmers are growing a number ofcrops.

The major crops grown during kharif by sample farmers were turmeric, chilli, ground nut,tomato, potato, onion, soybean and maize. Among these crops the area under turmeric was found tobe the highest. On average area occupied by the turmeric was 5.40 acres in traditional farmers whereas in modern farmers area under turmeric was 7.85 acres.

Maize occupied 1.05 acres and 1.45 acre on traditional and modern farmers, respectively.The average area under chilli area was 3.75 acres and 2.90 acres for traditional and modern turmericfarmers, respectively.

Farmer grows ground nut crop on 1.23 acres and 1.13 acre, in the case of traditional andmodern farmers, respectively. The average area under Soybean crop was 0.38 acres, and 0.88 acreson traditional and modern farmers, respectively.

During rabi season sorghum, chick pea and wheat were the major crops grown. The averagetotal area under traditional farmers of these crops was 1.53, 1.25 and 1.28 acre respectively. Amongthe Rabi crops sorghum is the leading crop.

In modern farmers the average area under sorghum 1.03 acres, where as leading crop inrabi was Chick pea which having a 1.38 acres of area. Area occupied by Wheat crop area was 1.23acres.

4.2 Management practices in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern methods

Before actually going to analyse costs and returns in turmeric production, it is better tounderstand physical input management and output relation and labour management and post harvestmanagement, the details are presented.

4.2.1. Labour management in turmeric cultivation

The operation-wise labour utilization pattern in traditional method of turmeric cultivation underdifferent farmers is presented in Table 4.4. It is evident from the table that the per acre total humanlabour were used 78.64 man days, bullock labour was 6.59 pair days and machine labour was 2.33hours.

Among different operations, harvesting consumed the highest of 23.87 man days of labourfollowed by planting (18.54 man days) weeding (17.00 man days), seed bed preparation (3.74 mandays), spreading of FYM (3.18 man days), irrigation (8.02 man days), and spraying (1.30 man days).

In traditional turmeric cultivation, bullock labour was most commonly used than machinelabour in the study area. Farm operations such as ploughing consumed 1.53 bullock pair days,harrowing 0.72 bullock pair days, harvesting 2.42 bullock pair days and transportation of FYM 1.92bullock pair days in cultivation of per acre of turmeric in the study area. Apart from bullock pair days,the operation like ploughing and transportation of FYM consumed 0.63 and 1.18 tractor hoursrespectively.

In modern turmeric cultivation farmers the per acre human labour were used 67.90 man days,bullock labour 1.96 pair days and machine labour 5.72 hours. Among different operations, harvestingconsumed in highest of 19.98 man days of labour followed by planting (16.86 man days) weeding(10.06 man days), seed bed preparation (3.24 man days), spreading of FYM (4.49 man days),irrigation (9.43 man days), and spraying (2.59 man days).

Table 4.3. Average existing cropping pattern of the sample farmers

(Area in acre)Sl. No. Crops Traditional Modern

Kharif

1 Maize 1.05 1.45

2 Tomato 1.05 1.98

3 Ground nut 1.23 1.13

4 Soybean 0.38 0.88

5 Chilli 3.75 2.90

6 Onion 2.85 2.43

7 Turmeric 5.40 7.85

Sub total 15.71 18.62

Rabi/summer

1 Sorghum 1.53 1.03

2 Chickpea 1.25 1.38

3 Wheat 1.28 1.23

Sub total 4.06 3.64

Annual crop

1 Sugarcane 5.28 7.35

2 Gross cropped area 25.05 29.61

3 Land holding 20.97 25.97

Plate 4: Modern turmeric harvester

Plate 5: Harvested turmeric rhizomes

Plate 6: Cleaned turmeric rhizomes

In modern turmeric cultivation, machine labour was most commonly used than bullock labourin the study area. Farm operations such as ploughing consumed 1.58 hours, harrowing 0.96 hours,harvesting 1.44 hours and transportation of FYM 1.74 hours in cultivation of per acre of turmeric in thestudy area. Apart from machine labour, the operation like ploughing and transportation of FYMconsumed 0.51 and 0.86 bullock labour, respectively.

4.2.2. Input management and output obtained in turmeric cultivation

Inputs used per acre of turmeric cultivation in the study area are presented in Table 4.5.

It can be observed from the table that, the average per acre utilization of rhizomes was 9.25quintals. Among the different category of farmers it was the highest in the case of traditional farmers(9.86 qtls) followed by modern farmers (8.64 qtls). The average per acre utilization of human labourwas 73.27 man days, and the highest labour requirement was seen on traditional category farmers(78.64 man days) followed by modern farmers (67.20 man days).

With respect to bullock labour the highest consumption was seen on traditional farmers (6.59pair days) followed by modern farmers plots (1.96 pair days) and it was 4.28 pair days for the overallcategory farmers. The highest machine labour was utilized by modern farmers (5.72 hours) followedby traditional farmers (2.33 hours) and on overall category farmers it was 4.03 hours.

The average quantity of farmyard manure (FYM) applied per acre in the study area was 3.23tonnes and among different category of farmers the highest FYM application was observed in thecase of modern farmers (3.74 tonnes) followed by traditional category farmers (2.72 tonnes).

The quantity of fertilizers applied per acre in the study area was 211.33 Kgs and it was thehighest on traditional farmers fields (226.14 Kgs) followed by modern category farmers (196.52 Kgs).The expenditure pattern on PPC application revealed that it was the highest in the case of modernfarmers (Rs. 3671.48) followed by traditional category farmers (Rs. 3459.53).

The average quantity of output obtained per acre on the overall category farmers in the studyarea was 25.41 quintals. The highest yield was obtained by modern farmers (27.68 Qtls) followed bytraditional farmers (23.14 Qtls).

The average quantity of mother rhizome having important use as a rhizome per acre in thestudy area was the highest in the case of traditional farmers (6.23 Qtls) followed by modern farmers(6.09 Qtls) and overall category farmers (6.16 Qtls).

4.3 Cost involved in the cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern farmers

4.3.1 Cost of cultivation of turmeric

Per acre cost of cultivation of turmeric crop on traditional and modern farmers is presented inthe Table 4.6. In this table indicated that the total cost of turmeric cultivation on modern farmers wasless than that of traditional farmers. The average cost of cultivation per acre of turmeric on modernfarmer was Rs. 67634.27 as against Rs. 74898.74 on traditional farmers. The cost of human labour,rhizomes, chemical fertilizers and cost of plant protection chemicals on turmeric cultivation were themajor factors in the cost. In the total cost, variable costs accounted for a major share. The proportionof variable cost was Rs. 65719.25 and Rs. 58507.52 on traditional and modern farmers respectively.

In case of traditional farmers, the variable costs mainly comprised of cost of human labour,cost of rhizome and cost of fertilizers which was Rs. 13111.65, Rs. 35614.32 and Rs. 4319.27accounting for 17.51 per cent, 47.55 per cent and 5.77 per cent of the total cost of cultivationrespectively. The other variable cost items such as cost of FYM, cost of bullock labour and interest onthe working capital accounted for 1.25 per cent (Rs. 938.40), 3.31 per cent (Rs. 2475.53) and 6.50 percent (Rs. 4868.09) of the total cost of cultivation of turmeric on traditional farmers respectively.

In the cost of cultivation of turmeric on modern farmers, the variable cost mainly comprised ofcost of human labour, cost of rhizomes, cost of machine labour, cost of chemical fertilizers and cost ofplant protection chemicals which were Rs. 11232.70, Rs. 31207.68, Rs. 2288.92, Rs. 3753.53 andRs. 3671.48 accounting for 16.61 per cent, 46.14 per cent, 3.38 per cent, 5.55 per cent and 5.43 percent of the total cost of cultivation respectively.

Table 4.4. Labour management practice in cultivation of turmeric

(Per acre)Traditional Modern

Sl. No ParticularsMen Women

Totalhumanlabour(mandays)

Bulk pair(pairdays)

Machinelabour(hours)

Men Women

Totalhumanlabour(mandays)

Bulkpair(pairdays)

Machinelabour(hours)

1 Ploughing - - - 1.53 0.63 - - - 0.51 1.582 Harrowing - - - 0.72 0.31 - - - 0.27 0.963 Transportation of FYM - - - 1.92 1.18 - - - 0.86 1.744 Spreading of FYM 1.14 2.04 3.18 - - 1.33 3.16 4.49 - -5 Seed bed preparation 2.21 1.53 3.74 - - 1.52 1.72 3.24 - -6 Spraying of

weedicides 1.06 0.24 1.30 - - 2.43 0.16 2.59 - -

7 Planting 7.12 11.42 18.54 - - 6.43 10.43 16.86 - -8 Mulching 0.52 0.42 0.94 - - 0.21 0.14 0.35 - -9 Intercultivation 0.43 1.62 2.05 - - 0.36 0.54 0.90 - -

10 Weeding 3.55 13.45 17.00 - - 3.34 6.72 10.06 - -11 Irrigation 6.31 1.71 8.02 - - 8.14 1.29 9.43 - -12 Harvesting 8.14 15.73 23.87 2.42 0.21 7.32 12.66 19.98 0.32 1.44

Total 30.48 48.16 78.64 6.59 2.33 33.11 39.82 67.90 1.96 5.72

Table 4.5 Input management and output obtained in turmeric cultivation

(per acre)

Sl. No. Particulars Units Traditional Modern Over all

1 Rhizomes Qtls 9.86 8.64 9.25

2 Human labour Man days 78.64 67.20 73.27

3 Bullock labour Pair days 6.59 1.96 4.28

4 Machine labour Hours 2.33 5.72 4.03

5 Farm yard manure Tonnes 2.72 3.74 3.23

6 Fertilizers Kgs 226.14 196.52 211.33

7 PPC Rs. 3459.53 3671.48 3565.50

i. Main Product Qtls. 23.14 27.68 25.41

ii. Mother rhizome Qtls. 6.23 6.09 6.16

Table 4.6. Cost of cultivation in turmeric

(Rs. Per acre)

Sl. No. Particulars Traditional Per cent Modern Per cent Over all Per cent

I. Variable cost1 Human labour 13111.65 17.51 11232.70 16.61 12172.17 17.082 Bullock labour 2475.53 3.31 736.51 1.09 1606.02 2.25

3 Machine labour 932.46 1.24 2288.92 3.38 1610.69 2.264 Rhizome material 35614.32 47.55 31207.68 46.14 33411.00 46.885 Farm yard manure 938.40 1.25 1282.82 1.90 1110.61 1.566 Fertilizers 4319.27 5.77 3753.53 5.55 4036.40 5.667 PPC 3459.53 4.62 3671.48 5.43 3565.51 5.00

8 Interest on working capital @ 8% 4868.09 6.50 4333.89 6.41 4600.99 6.46

Subtotal (I) 65719.25 - 58507.52 - 62113.39 -

II. Fixed cost1 Rental value of land 7250.00 9.68 7250.00 10.72 7250.00 10.172 Land revenue 25.00 0.03 25.00 0.04 25.00 0.04

Depreciation 994.81 1.33 947.30 1.40 971.06 1.364 Interest on fixed capital @11% 909.68 1.21 904.45 1.34 907.07 1.27

Subtotal (II) 9179.49 - 9126.75 - 9153.13 -

Total cost of cultivation (I + II) 74898.74 100.00 67634.27 100.00 71266.52 100.00

The expenditure on machine labour found to be an important item in the total cost ofcultivation on modern farmers. The other variable cost items such as cost of FYM, cost of bullocklabour and interest on working capital accounted for 1.90 per cent (Rs. 1282.82), 1.09 per cent (Rs.736.51) and 6.41 per cent (Rs. 4333.89) of the total cost of cultivation of turmeric.

The share of fixed cost in total cost of cultivation of turmeric on traditional farmers andmodern farmers were Rs. 9179.49 and Rs. 9126.75 respectively. Among the items of fixed cost, therental value of the land had a maximum share in the total cost of cultivation on both traditional andmodern farmers respectively.

4.3.2 Marketing cost in turmeric

The marketing cost per quintal of turmeric was explained in table 4.7. The cost incurred bytraditional farmers was seen high i.e. Rs. 207.97 where as in modern farmers it is Rs. 158.24. Themajor difference in traditional and modern farmers was observed in storage losses and rent on shopand godown. The storage losses were seen higher which has 47.31 per cent and 29.78 per cent fortraditional and modern farmers. Rent on shop and godown was the next highest having, 11.44 percent and 16.58 percent for traditional and modern farmers respectively. Grading of the turmericincurred highest share in modern farmers (Rs. 22.63) compared to traditional farmers it isRs. 19.47. The transportation cost share was seen almost same, having around eight per cent each.

4.3.3 Cost and returns of turmeric cultivation in traditional and modern turmeric cultivation

Marketing cost and net returns are presented in the Table 4.8. The per acre average yield ofturmeric on traditional farmer (23.14 quintals) was comparatively lower than that of modern farmer(27.68 quintals). The average per quintal selling price of traditional farmers turmeric was (Rs. 5500)was found to be lower than that of modern farmers (Rs. 5800). The average processing cost oftraditional turmeric farmers was Rs. 9076.80 as against Rs. 6724.20 per quintal of modern farmers.The marketing cost paid during marketing of produce was Rs. 4812.43 per quintal, as against Rs.4073.09 per quintal for modern farm produced turmeric.

The return structure in turmeric clearly revealed that the gross returns per acre was higher(Rs. 200129) on modern farmers compared to that of traditional farmers (Rs. 167765) with a positivenet return on both the categories of the farmers. The net return on traditional farmer was Rs.78977.03 and was Rs. 121697.43 on modern farmers. The B:C ratio was also higher on modernfarmers (2.55) compared to traditional farmers (1.89).

4.4 Post harvest management in turmeric cultivation.

In post harvest management of turmeric cultivation in convention and modern is shown intable 4.9. The major activities in post harvest management of turmeric are processing, packaging andstorage. The major activities are cleaning and washing, boiling, drying, polishing and preservation ofrhizomes. High men labours are used during drying activity i.e. 9.38 and 7.17 man days in traditionaland modern farmers respectively. In convention second highest human labour used was seen inpolishing of turmeric but it was seen low in case of modern farmers i.e. 1.85 man days. The cost ofpolishing per quintal of turmeric was also seen high in traditional (Rs. 135.03), where in modern it wasonly Rs. 24.47. In boiling process also cost incurred by traditional farmers was seen high i.e. Rs.95.72 but in modern it costs only Rs. 39.46.

In case packaging, cost incurred by packaging was Rs. 17.61/ qtl, where as modern farmersincurred high cost for packaging i.e. Rs. 52.16 / qtl. The traditional farmers were doing whole turmericpackaging which required 2.47 human labour. In case of modern farmers they have also used manpower very less in turmeric. The cost of turmeric post harvest management was Rs. 392.26 and Rs.295.35 for traditional and modern turmeric growers respectively. Finally in storage activity costincurred by traditional farmers was Rs. 19.97 and in modern farmers it was less i.e. Rs. 10.67.

4.5 Resource use efficiency in turmeric cultivation

The Cobb- Douglass production function was estimated to analyse relationship betweenresource and productivity of turmeric cultivation using the data from sample farmers. The grossincome in rupees realized from turmeric output was taken as dependent variable while expendituremade on rhizome material (Rs.), fertilizers and FYM (Rs.), human labours (Rs.) bullock laboures (Rs.)and PPC (Rs.) were taken as independent variables. The estimates of the production functions arepresented in Table-4.10.

Table 4.7 Marketing cost in turmeric

(per quintal)

Sl. No. Particulars Traditional Modern

1 Transportation charges16.65

(8.01)

12.86

(8.13)

2 Rent on shop & godown23.79

(11.44)

26.24

(16.58)

3 Electricity charges4.76

(2.29)

8.56

(5.41)

4 Value of storage losses98.39

(47.31)

47.12

(29.78)

5 Packing charges37.42

(17.99)

31.09

(19.65)

6 Grading charge19.47

(9.36)

22.63

(14.30)

7 Loading & unloading charges7.49

(3.60)

9.74

(6.16)

Total207.97

(100)

158.24

(100)

Table 4.8. Cost and returns of turmeric cultivation in traditional and modern

(per acre)

Sl.No Particulars Traditional Modern Over all

1 Total Cost of cultivation 74898.74 67634.27 71266.52

2 Total cost of Processing 9076.80 6724.20 7900.50

3 Total cost Marketing 4812.43 4073.10 4442.76

4 Total A+B+C 88787.97 78431.57 83609.77

5 Gross returns including by-products (Rs./ha) 167765.00 200129.00 183606.50

6 Net return 78977.03 121697.43 99996.73

7 Cost of production (Rs./qtl) 3836.99 2833.51 3290.43

8 Selling price (Rs./ qtl)

I Dry turmeric 5500 5800 5650

Ii Mother Rhizome 6500 6500 6500

9 Profit (Rs./qtl) 3413.01 4396.58 3935.33

10 Yield (qtl/ac)

i. Main Product 23.14 27.68 25.41

ii. Mother rhizome 6.23 6.09 6.16

11 B:C ratio 1.89 2.55 2.20

Table 4.9. Post harvest management Practice in turmeric cultivation

(per acre)Traditional Modern

Sl.No Particulars

Men womenTotal human

labour(mandays)

Machinelabour(hours)

CostRs./qtl Men Women

Totalhumanlabour

(mandays)

Machinelabour(hours)

CostRs./qtl

A ProcessingI Cleaning and

washing 0.16 3.64 3.8 - 27.10 1.14 5.48 6.62 - 39.46

Ii Boiling 3.23 0.63 3.86 2.63 95.72 1.06 0.27 1.33 1.38 37.84

Iii Drying 2.43 6.95 9.38 - 66.88 2.93 4.24 7.17 - 42.74

Iv Polishing 6.14 1.27 7.41 3.17 135.03 1.13 0.72 1.85 0.62 24.47

Vi Preservation ofrhizome 1.74 2.46 4.2 - 29.95 2.01 3.96 5.97 - 35.59

B Packaging 1.34 1.13 2.47 - 17.61 1.04 1.31 2.35 1.76 52.16

C Storage 2.37 0.43 2.8 - 19.97 1.47 0.32 1.79 - 10.67

Total 17.41 16.51 33.92 5.8 392.26 11.73 16.95 28.68 3.76 295.35

Plate 7: Traditional boiling pit

Plate 8: Traditional boiling

Plate 9: Modern turmeric boiling

Table 4.10. Resource use efficiency in turmeric cultivation

Sl.no Explanatory Variables Parameter Traditional Modern

1 No. of observations N 30 30

2 Intercept a2.8884

(1.9376)3.3492

(1.0264)

3 Planting Material X10.3483**(0.1001)

0.0182*(0.036)

4 FYM X20.0304

(0.0190)-00036

(0.0030)

5 Human labour X30.5330*(0.0276)

0.0668(0.0827)

6 Bullock labour X40.0355

(0.0162)0.4112**

(0.078)

7 Machine labour X5-0.0692

(0.0649)0.5079**(0.0782)

8 Chemical fertilizers X60.0703*

(0.0578)0.0282

(0.0251)

9 Plant protection Chemicals X70.0312

(0.0301)0.0026

(0.0028)

10 Coefficient of multipledetermination R2 0.90 0.94

Returns to scale 1.03 0.92

Note: Figures in the parentheses indicate their respective standard errors ** - Significant at one per cent probability level

* - Significant at five per cent probability level

The inputs included in model explained 90 per cent (traditional farmers) and 94 per cent(modern farmers) variation in turmeric output as revealed by the coefficient of multiple determination(R2). The summation of regression coefficients indicated decreasing returns to scale i.e. for eachincremental use of all inputs simultanciusly farmers would get less than one unit of output fortraditional farmers (0.92). Where as increasing returns to scale were observed for modern farmers(1.03).

The coefficient of multiple determination (R2) for turmeric production was 0.90 for traditionalfarmers. This indicates that the variables included in the function explained 90 per cent of the variationin the production of turmeric for the over study area.

The estimated parameters of rhizome (0.35) was significant at one per cent, while humanlabour (0.53) and chemical fertilizers (0.07) co-efficient were significant at five per cent. While bullocklabour (0.035) and FYM (0.03) were positive and non significant for traditional farmers. In modernfarmer’s machine labours (0.51) and bullock labour (0.0.41) was significant at one per cent. HoweverFYM (-0.003) has negative co-efficient. The output elasticities of fertilizer (0.028) and PPC (0.0026)were positive, but found to be non-significant.

The sum of elasticities ( bi) was 0.92, which indicated decreasing returns to scale less thanunity. A one per cent increase in all the inputs used in the production simultaneously would increaseoutput by 0.92 per cent.

4.6 Value addition in turmeric

The value addition in turmeric is presented in table 4.11. revealed that, total variable cost forper quintal of turmeric value addition was high in traditional farmers (Rs. 8877.50) where as modernfarmers (Rs. 8382.5) incurred lesser than them. The labour cost in the total variable cost is the majordiffering cost, as cost incurred by traditional (Rs.2350) was higher compared modern farmers (Rs.1600). Raw material cost was Rs. 5500 and Rs. 5800 for traditional and modern farmers respectively.

Fixed cost per quintal of value addition was seen high in case of modern farmers (Rs.2425.05) followed by traditional farmers (Rs. 1579.52). Equipment cost is high in modern farmers (Rs.1175.57) where as Rs. 394.73 in traditional farmers.

Rent and building cost was Rs. 611.11 and Rs. 328.95 for traditional and modern farmersrespectively. Depreciation cost in traditional and modern farmers was Rs. 23.68 and Rs. 70.53,respectively.

Marketing cost incurred by traditional and modern farmers was Rs. 570 andRs. 627. Modern farmers incurred advertisement cost as Rs. 15 /Qtl. Transportation cost was seenhigh in traditional farmers (Rs. 145) as compared to modern farmers (Rs. 130). Inspection cost intraditional farmers was Rs. 150 and from modern farmers was Rs. 200. Modern farmers incurred Rs.225 for packaging it was seen less in traditional farmers i.e. Rs. 150.

Total cost in quintal of turmeric value addition was Rs. 11027.02 andRs. 11434.55 for traditional and modern farmers respectively. Selling price was seen high in modernfarmers Rs. 15650 /qtl where as in traditional it is only Rs. 13800/ qtl. Net returns realized were Rs.2772.98 and Rs. 4215.45 for traditional and modern farmers. Marketing efficiency in modern farmerswas 1.37 where as in traditional it is 1.25.

4.7 Problems in Production and Marketing of turmeric

Opinion survey was conducted to know the constraints in production and marketing ofturmeric crop and analysed using Garrett’s ranking techniques. The factors considered in the analysiswere seven factors for production problems faced by the respondents were high incidence of pest anddisease, high price of plant protection chemical, high price of rhizome planting material , non-availability of labour, high wage rate, non-availability of pesticides and insecticides and non-availabilityof rhizome material.

Totally ten factors were considered in marketing problems faced by the farmers namely, noregulation of marketing in turmeric, no fixed rate, no incentives from government, lack of standardgrades, lack of storage facilities, no premium price, lack of market information, low demand in localmarket and high commission charges.

Table 4.11. Value Addition in Turmeric

(Rs. Per Quintal)Sl.no Particulars Traditional Modern

A Variable cost

i Raw materials 5500 5800

ii Labour 2350 1600

iii Miscellaneous 1027.5 982.5

I Total variable cost 8877.5 8382.5

Fixed cost

i Rent/Building 611.11 328.95

ii Equipment cost 394.73 1175.57

iii Depreciation 23.68 70.53

iv Miscellaneous 550 850

II Total fixed cost 1579.52 2425.05

Total cost (I+II) 10457.02 10807.55

B Marketing cost

i Transportation (loading/unloading) 145 130

ii Storage 95 35

iii Commission charges 15 22

iv Advertisement 0 15

v Inspection & grading 150 200

vi Packing 150 225

Total cost B 570 627

C Total cost (A+B) 11027.02 11434.55

D Selling price of turmeric powder 13800 15650

E Net returns (D-C) 2772.98 4215.45

F Marketing efficiency 1.25 1.37

Plate 10: Modern turmeric boiling

Plate 11: Modern turmeric boiler

Plate 12: Traditional turmeric polishing

Plate 13: Modern turmeric polishing

Plate 14: Drying of turmeric rhizomes

Plate 15: Storage of turmeric rhizomes

The value addition of turmeric seven factors unawareness of namely storage facilities, nopremium prices, wastages, non-availability of labour, lack of infrastructure, less demand and noproper grading methods were considered in evaluating the marketing problems faced by the valueaddition units.

4.7.1. Problems in turmeric Production

Table 4.12, depicts the results of Garrett ranking analysis of problems associated withproduction of turmeric. Among seven factors the incidence of pest and disease was the major problemexpressed by most of the farmers so this problem got assigned (I rank), followed by high price of plantprotection chemicals (II rank), high price of rhizome planting material (III rank), non-availability oflabour (IV rank), high wage rate (V rank), non availability of rhizome material (VI rank), non-availabilityof pesticides and insecticides (VII rank).

4.7.2. Marketing Problem Faced by Farmers

Table 4.13, depicts the marketing problem faced by the turmeric farmers. The problem of lackof storage facility was the major problem expressed by the farmer respondents relating to marketingof turmeric. According to Garrett’s ranking this problem has got (I rank) followed by few buyers forturmeric (II rank), price fluctuation (III rank), malpractice in weighment (IV rank), no premium price (Vrank), low demand in local market (VI rank), transportation problem (VII rank), lack of grading andstandardization (VIII rank), lack of infrastructure facility (IX rank) and high commission charges (Xrank).

4.7.3. Problems Faced by the Value addition units

Table 4.14, indicates the problems faced by the Value addition units. The Garrett’s rankinganalysis revealed that among the seven factors considered for the evaluation, unawareness ofprocessing for value addition was the most prominent problem as indicated by the I rank in thescoring. The other problems in the order of their prominence as revealed by the Garrett’s scoring werelack of grading (II rank), lack of infrastructure facility (III rank), lack of storage (IV rank), no premiumprice (V rank), less demand (VI rank) and non-availability of labour (VII rank).

Table 4.12. Production problems faced by turmeric farmers

(Garrett’s score)Sl. No Particulars Mean Ranks

1. High incidence of pest and disease 76.83 I2. High price of Plant protection chemicals 68.17 II3. High price of rhizome planting material 65.50 III4. Non-availability of labour during peak

season60.12 IV

5. High wage rate 55.21 V6. Non-availability of quality rhizome material 52.13 VI7. Lack of availability of pesticides and

insecticides48.17 VIII

Table 4.13 Marketing Problems Faced by the Turmeric Farmers

(Garrett’s score)Sl. No Particulars Mean Ranks

1. Lack of storage facilities 79.73 I

2. Few buyers for turmeric 78.84 II

3. Price fluctuation 77.62 III

4. Malpractices in weighment 74.22 IV

5. No premium price 75.00 V

6. Low demand in local market 71.66 VI

7. Lack of transportation problems 68.88 VII

8. Lack of grading and standardization 60.43 VIII

9. Lack of infrastructure facility 51.00 IX

10. High commission charges 48.72 X

Table 4.14 Problems Faced by the Value addition units

(Garrett’s score)Sl. No Particulars Mean Ranks

1. Unawareness of process for value additionin turmeric

79.73 I

2. Lack of grading 78.84 II3. Lack of infrastructure facilities 76.83 III

4. Lack of storage 68.17 IV5. No premium price 60.12 V6. Less demand 55.21 VI7. Non-availability of labour 52.13 VII

DISCUSSION

This study deals with the convention and modern turmeric cultivation in Belgaum district of Northern Karnataka – A comparative management appraisal. The results presented in the previous chapter are discussed in this. The discussion throw light on the possible causes for the results obtained and are presented under the following heading.

5.1 Socio economic characteristics of turmeric growers

5.2 Management practices in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern method

5.2.1 Cost and returns in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern methods.

5.4 Post harvest management practices in traditional and modern methods.

5.5 Efficiencies in cultivation under traditional and modern methods of turmeric production.

5.6 Value addition in turmeric under traditional and modern methods.

5.7 Constraints in production, marketing and value addition under traditional and modern methods.

5.1 Socio economic characteristics of the sample farmers

5.1.1 Age of the respondents

An understanding of general characters of the sample farmers is expected to provide a bird’s eye view of the general features prevailing in the study area. Therefore, an attempt has been made in the study to analyze some of the important characters of the sample farmers. The general characters of the respondents are presented in Table 4.1. Most of the farmers were seen young; in case of traditional 43.33 per cent of the farmers were comes under young age group i.e. less than 35 years, where as 53.33 per cent in case of modern growers. In the age group of 36-45 years, 36.67 per cent from traditional and 33.33 per cent in modern farmers. Only one farmers from modern turmeric growers having age group of more than 55 years, whereas only two farmers in traditional. The age group of less than 35 years of responded farmers gets more technological development for cultivation of turmeric.

5.1.2 Educational status

With respect to the literacy rate, it was noticed that majority of farmers were educated in the study area. Literacy level of sample respondents ranged from primary to degree.

In case of apparent from the results presented in table that the education levels of the modern farmers were high as compared to that of traditional farmers because of their better financial position. With regard to educational status of the farmer results presented in Table-4.1 revealed that majority of the sample farmers both traditional (93.33 %) and modern farmers (96.67 %) were literate having their education ranging from primary to college level. Thus it is apparent that the education level of the turmeric farmers was high. Among the literates 10 per cent of modern farmers were graduates, where as 3.33 per cent in the case of traditional farmers. The percentage of farmers who completed pre university course was 16.67 per cent and 26.67 per cent for traditional and modern turmeric farmers respectively. It is noted that higher the education level more will be the knowledge and better will be the understanding capacity of new technologies.

5.1.3 Family composition

The study on family composition revealed that average male population was fairly high in both categories of farmers. In traditional 2.76 and modern farmers 2.28 compared to female population in the family. Whereas the average children population was 1.14 and 1.86 in traditional and modern farmers respectively.

5.1.4 Occupational pattern

All the respondents were involved in agriculture. In addition to agriculture 86.67 and 96.67 per cent of traditional and modern farmers were working as agricultural laborers, because of seasonality of agriculture. Remaining farmers were involved in other jobs and works outside field because of their small land holding. Whereas subsidiary enterprise along with agriculture was observed in 4 and 1 for traditional and modern turmeric farmers respectively.

5.1.5 Land holding

The average size of the land holding, in case of traditional farmers was 20.97 acres and 25.95 acres in modern farmers were cultivated in the study area. Turmeric was the most popular commercial crop in the study area the average area of modern farmers were allocated having more turmeric land area of 7.85 acres (30.25%) but in case of traditional farmers having 5.40 acres of land under turmeric cultivated which accounts 25.75 per cent share of the total land holding.

5.1.6 Cropping pattern

Most of the all types of crop group like cereals, pulses, oil seeds and commercial crops were grown in study area (Table 4.3). Thus, as measure to face various types’ risks and uncertainties farmers cropping pattern were diversified.

5.2 Management practices in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern methods

5.2.1 Labour management in turmeric cultivation

The results presented in Table 4.4 the average human labour utilization in turmeric cultivation, revealed that among the various operations, harvesting consumed higher proportion of human. The entire crop cannot be harvested at one stretch and the picking and cleaning at field level has to be carried out at suitable intervals. Weeding was the next major operation, which consumed substantial amount of human labour. This was mainly because weeding was carried out two-three times as there was greater weed incidence during the cropping season and also continuous rains added to the more labour consumption. Planting is another major labour using activity as the rhizomes are costly and bulky the proper placement of rhizomes is necessary in turmeric cultivation.

5.2.2 Input management and output obtained in turmeric cultivation

It revealed from the table 4.5 that, the overall average per acre utilization of rhizomes was 9.25 qtls. Among the different category of farmers it was the highest in the case of traditional farmers (9.86 qtls) followed by modern farmers (8.64 qtls). The overall average per acre utilization of human labour was 73.27 man days, and the highest labour requirement was seen on traditional category farmers (78.64 man days) followed by modern farmers (67.20 man days) because most of the operations such as harvesting or picking, weeding were human labour intensively more. The most of the traditional farmers used bullock labour as highest against use of tractor labour because bullock labour worked out to be cheaper than tractor labour, but modern farmers used tractor for ploughing, harrowing, inter-cultivation and transportation. This may be attributable to accomplishment of quick work and time constraint to cover larger area. The highest tractor labour were utilized by modern farmers (5.72 hours) followed by traditional farmers (2.72 hours) and on overall category farmers it was 4.03 hours.

Farmers in the study area used less quantity of farmyard manures, among the various categories. The quantity of farmyard manure (FYM) applied per acre was the highest in the case of modern farmers (3.74 tonnes) followed by traditional category farmers (2.72 tonnes).PPC chemicals used were high on traditional farmers compared to modern farmers. The expenditure pattern on PPC application revealed that it was the highest in the case of modern farmers (Rs. 3671.48) followed by traditional category farmers (Rs. 3459.53). It revealed that there was high amount of application of chemical fertilizers in anticipation of good yield. Pesticides and other PPC chemicals were used to minimize or control the pests.The study conducted by Puran et.al. (2010) indicated that the Bt. Cotton farmers used less of PPC by nearly 26 per cent when compared to non-Bt. Cotton farmers. Hence, results of the present study are in conformity with the above mentioned study.

The highest yield was obtained by modern farmers (27.68 qtls) followed by traditional farmers (23.14 qtls). The average quantity of mother rhizome having important use as a rhizome per acre in the study area was the highest in the case of traditional farmers (6.23 qtls) followed by modern farmers (6.09 qtls) and overall category farmers (6.16 qtls).

5.3 Cost involved in the cultivation of turmeric in traditional and modern farmers

5.3.1 Cost of cultivation of turmeric

The results from Table 4.6. Revealed that among the two categories of farmers the total cost incurred by the traditional farmers were high (Rs. 74898.74 per acre) as compared to modern farmer (Rs.67634.27 per acre). This may be attributable to the fact that traditional farmers used highest rhizome material and applied more fertilizers than their conter parts.

The cost of human labour, fertilizer, rhizomes and bullock labour were the items of cost with major share in the variable costs, because most of the operations like harvesting, Planting, seed bed preparation and weeding are human labour intensive operations. The other operations like harrowing and inter-cultivation were bullock labour intensive were used maximum. The distribution of pattern of operational cost under various inputs revealed that cost of human labour was highest in the traditional case of farmers of Rs.13111.65 per acre and in case of modern farmers of Rs.11232.70 per acre. Whereas average bullock labour cost was the highest in case of traditional farmers (Rs.2475.53 per acre) followed by modern (Rs.736.51 per acre). Machine labour cost was highest in modern farmers (Rs. 2288.92 per acre) for ploughing and transportation and was seen lowest in the case of traditional farmers (Rs. 932.46 per acre). The rhizomes cost were lowest in modern farmers (Rs. 31207.68 per acre) and the highest in traditional farmers (Rs. 35614.32 per acre). The non-availability of FYM is the main problem in the study area. As turmeric will respond well with chemical fertilizer so the cost of FYM used was ranged from Rs.938.40 (traditional farmers) and Rs. 1282.82 (modern farmers). Whereas the expenditure on fertilizers was the highest (Rs. 4319.27 per acre) for traditional farmers as compared to modern farmers (Rs. 3753.53 per acre). It was also noticed that the highest expenditure on pesticide was seen on modern farmers (Rs.3671.48/ac) as compared to traditional farmers.

For the overall category of respondents, the per acre cost of cultivation of Rs.62113.39 of variable cost and remaining was accounted for by the fixed cost items. Irrespective of items of costs, human labour and rental value of the land were the major items of costs. Similar findings are observed from the studies conducted by Sita Devi and Ponnarasi (2009) studied on modern rice technologies and its adoption behavior in Tamil Nadu. The study revealed that per hectare cost of cultivation is about 10 per cent lower in SRI than the traditional method. The similar results were reported by Anil (2007), whose study reported the cost of cultivation of ginger was Rs.84, 849.06 per hectare in Nainital area of Uttarakhand.

5.2.2 Marketing cost in turmeric

The marketing cost per quintal of turmeric was explained in table 4.7. Marketing cost is the major cost component. The per quintal cost incurred by traditional farmers were seen highest of Rs. 207.97 per quintal in case modern farmers of Rs. 158.24/qtl. The major difference in traditional and modern farmers was observed in storage losses and rent on shop and godown. Because of lack of storage facilities the storage losses was seen highest 47.31 per cent and 29.78 per cent for traditional and modern farmers. Rent on shop and godown was the next highest having 11.44 per cent and 16.58 per cent for traditional and modern farmers respectively. The cost of grading and standerdisation of turmeric incurred highest share in modern farmers (Rs. 22.63/qtl) compared to traditional farmers of Rs. 19.47/qtl. The transportation cost share was seen almost same, having around eight per cent each. Similar results were observed by Ashok and Maheswari (2008) where storage losses were seen high in marketing cost.

5.3.3 Cost and returns of turmeric cultivation in traditional and modern farmers

The cost and returns of turmeric cultivation which includes average yields, selling price, marketing cost and net returns. From table 4.8 revealed that the per acre average yield of turmeric on traditional farmers (23.14 quintals) was comparatively lower than the modern farmers (27.68 quintals) because of improved harvesting methods. Modern farmers get highest price for their produce because they used good post harvesting management which increased quality of the turmeric. Because of reduced human labour and quick machine labour the average processing cost of traditional turmeric farmers was Rs. 9076.80/ac as against Rs. 6724.20/ac of modern farmers. The total marketing cost paid during the period of traditional was Rs. 4812.43 per quintal, and modern farmers of Rs. 4073.09 per quintal.

The return structure in turmeric clearly revealed that the gross returns per acre was higher (Rs. 200129) on modern farmers compared to that of traditional farmers (Rs. 167765) with a positive net return on both the categories of the farmers. The net return on traditional farmers of Rs. 78977.03 and modern farmers of Rs. 121697.43 per acre. The B:C ratio was also higher on modern farmers (2.55) compared to traditional farmers (1.89).

5.4 Post harvest management in turmeric cultivation

The table 4.9 revealed that the major activities in post harvest management of turmeric are processing, packaging and storage. The major activities are cleaning, washing, boiling, drying, polishing and preservation of rhizomes.

High men labours are used during drying activity i. e. 9.38 and 7.17 man days in traditional and modern farmers respectively. In case of traditional farmers second highest human labour used for dry turmeric polishing but it was seen low in case of modern farmers i.e. 1.84 man days. The total cost of polishing per quintal of turmeric was seen higher in traditional (Rs. 135.03), where in modern farmers of Rs. 24.47. In boiling cost incurred by traditional farmers was seen high i.e. 95.72 but in modern it costs only Rs. 39.46.

In case packaging, the traditional farmers were doing packaging with local material and gunny bags. The cost incurred in packaging was Rs. 17.61/ qtl, where as modern farmers incurred high cost for packaging of Rs. 52.16 per qtl. Which required 2.47 human labour? In case of modern farmers they have also used man power very less in turmeric. The cost of turmeric post harvest management was Rs. 392.26 / qtl and Rs. 295.35 /qtl for traditional and modern turmeric growers respectively. Finally in storage activity cost incurred by traditional farmers was Rs. 19.97 /qtl and in modern farmers it was less of Rs. 10.67 / qtl.

5.5 Resource use efficiency in turmeric cultivation

The Cobb- Douglass production function was estimated to analyse relationship between resource and productivity of turmeric cultivation using the data from sample farmers. The gross income in rupees realized from turmeric output was taken as dependent variable while expenditure made on rhizome material (Rs.), fertilizers and FYM (Rs.), human labours (Rs.) bullock laboures (Rs) and PPC (Rs.) were taken as independent variables. The estimates of the production functions are presented in Table-4.10.

The inputs included in model explained 90 per cent (traditional farmers) and 94 per cent (modern farmers) variation in turmeric output as revealed by the coefficient of multiple determination (R

2). The summation of regression coefficients indicated decreasing returns to scale i.e. for each

incremental use of all inputs simultaneously farmers would get less than one unit of output for traditional farmers (0.92) and increasing returns to scale were observed form modern farmers (1.03).

The coefficient of multiple determination (R2) for turmeric production was 0.90 for traditional

farmers. This indicates that the variables included in the function explained 90 per cent of the variation in the production of turmeric for the over study area. The estimated parameters of rhizome (0.35) was significant at one per cent level, while human labour (0.53) and chemical fertilizers (0.07) co-efficient significant at five per cent level. While bullock labour (0.035) and FYM (0.03) were positive and non significant for traditional farmers. In case of modern farmer’s machine labours (0.51) and bullock labour (0.0.41) was significant at one per cent level. The output elasticities of fertilizer (0.028) and PPC (0.0026) were positive, but found to be non-significant.

The output elasticity of human labour and bullock labour were positive and significant, which implies the increased usage of these inputs adds to the gross income. Since the turmeric crop were labour intensive and the operations such as ploughing, inter cultivation, manures application, hand weeding, spraying of PPC chemicals, which significantly contributes towards increased yield and income. The other inputs such as rhizome and fertilizer co-efficients were also significant and had positive impact on gross income. Fertilizer utilization was seen relatively higher in the case of traditional farmers because of easy access to funds and in the anxiety to get better yield appeared to spend slightly more on fertilizers.

The sum of elasticities (Σbi) was 0.92, which indicated decreasing returns to scale less than unity. One per cent increase in all the inputs used in the production simultaneously increase output by 0.92 per cent. The study carried out by anonymous (2010) in the Yield gap analysis in cotton of Akola district revealed similar results with respect to resource use efficiency. Where seeds, human labour were significant at 5 percent in large farmers and seed is significant at 5 percent under all farm sizes.

5.6 Value addition in turmeric cultivation

The value addition in turmeric is presented in table- 4.11. Revealed that, total variable cost for per quintal of turmeric value addition was higher in traditional farmers (Rs. 8877.50) and in modern farmers (Rs. 8382.5). The labour cost in the total variable cost is the major differing cost, as cost incurred by traditional (Rs.2350) was higher compared to modern farmers (Rs. 1600) because modern farmers used more of machine labour which decreased labour cost. Raw material cost of Rs. 5500 and Rs. 5800 for traditional and modern farmers respectively because modern farmers used good quality produce and get good returns.

Because of machine labour use in modern farmers, the fixed cost per quintal of value addition was seen high in case of modern farmers (Rs. 2425.05) followed by traditional farmers (Rs. 1579.52). Equipment cost is high in modern farmers (Rs. 1175.57) where as Rs. 394.73 in traditional farmers. Marketing cost incurred by traditional and modern farmers was Rs. 570 and Rs. 627. Traditional

farmers are involved in local market only as modern farmers incurred advertisement cost as Rs. 15 /Qtl to get good price in the over region market. Transportion cost was seen high in modern farmers (Rs. 130) as compared to traditional farmers (Rs. 145). Inspection cost in traditional farmers was Rs. 150 and from modern farmers was Rs. 200 as modern farmers used graded quality turmeric which reduced grading cost. Modern farmers inurred Rs. 225 for packaging it was seen less in traditional farmers i.e. Rs. 150.

Total cost in quintal of turmeric value addition was Rs. 11027.02 and Rs. 11434.55 for traditional and modern farmers respectively. Selling price of turmeric powder was highest in modern farmers Rs. 15650 /Qtl because they used good quality input and attractive packaging materials and in traditional farmers it is only Rs. 13800/ qtl. The net returns from turmeric powder of Rs. 2772.98 and Rs. 4215.45 for traditional and modern farmers respectively. Marketing efficiency in modern farmers was 1.37 and in traditional farmers it is 1.25. Similar results were observed by Sharma and Pandey (2008) were value addition in guava has given highest net returns.

5.7 Problems in Production and Marketing of turmeric

5.7.1 Problems in turmeric Production

The sample farmer revealed that as such there were problems in production of turmeric. The opinion survey was conducted regarding the problems faced by sample farmers in production of turmeric and were subjected to Garrett’s ranking technique. The results of the opinion survey presented in Table 4.13 are discussed here. Among the seven factors considered, high incidence of pest and disease was the major problem expressed by most of the respondents. Turmeric is the rhizome crop which grows beneath the soil. Hence, more susceptible to diseases. Heavy rainfall during monsoon season would aggravate disease menace. Hence, more care has to be given to protect the crop. Proper training on disease management at regular intervals would help the farmers to come out of such problems. The extension agencies need to gear up their activities in these lines. High price of rhizome material was another serious problem as experienced by many respondents. The rhizomes of high yielding varieties are usually priced high. Farmers comparing the prices of the local own rhizome material with these high yielding variety planting material and opining that the planting material rate is high is quite obvious. It is not a serious problem perceived by the farmers as high rhizome cost is much more compensated by higher yields and thus improved returns.

In recent years many labour migrate from one place to another in search of alternative occupations. Hence, non-availability of labour has become a universal problem in farming activities. This would lead to higher wage rates. The operations, if not completely, to the extent possible. Other problems like non-availability of pesticides, insecticides and rhizome materials are not so serious which can be rectified locally by collective action.

5.7.2 Problems in Marketing of Turmeric crop

The sample farmers revealed that with the marketing of turmeric they have lot of problems. Among top ten problems were considered for analysis. The opinion survey was conducted among the sample farmers who sold their produce to the village merchants, wholesaler cum commission agent or retailers to know the problems in marketing of Turmeric crop. The results of the opinion survey presented in the Table 4.13 are discussed here.

Garrett’s ranking technique revealed that with respect to marketing problems lack of storage facility was the most important. Simple process of storage would have reduced losses and higher prices to the farmers. But majority of the farmers are unaware of storage activities. Few buyers for turmeric in turmeric crop is another important problem as perceived by majority of the farmers. Efforts towards bringing the marketing of commodity under preview of market regulations would pay the way for better marketing of the commodity and would improve market efficiency. Such efforts would also take care the problem of price fluctuation for the commodity, lack of standard grading and standardization, low demand in local market and high commission charges. However, certain infrastructure could be created from the government side like creation of storage facilities and providing incentive prices for the growers. There is necessity for strengthening market information and intelligence system with respect to turmeric crop to aid the marketing process in the turmeric growing area.

5.7.3 Problems faced by value addition units

The problems faced by the value addition units were more or less similar to the problems faced by the farmers. Here also Garrett’s ranking technique was employed to rank the problems based on the gravity of the problem. However, unawareness of process for value addition in turmeric, lack of grading standards, no premium price can be thought off at state or national level to transfer the commodities to stock areas from surplus areas to ease out the situation

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Turmeric, with its brilliant yellow color, has been used as a dye, medicine, and flavoring since

600 BC. In 1280, Marco Polo described Turmeric as "a vegetable with the properties of saffron, yet it is not really saffron." Indonesians used Turmeric to dye their bodies as part of their wedding ritual. Turmeric has been used medicinally throughout Asia to treat stomach and liver ailments. It also was used externally, to heal sores, and as a cosmetic.

Turmeric the golden spice is widely cultivated in different countries such as India, China, Myanmar, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri lanka, Taiwan, Burma, Indonesia etc. Among these countries India occupies 1

st position in area, with 195.10 thousand hacters and also in production, with

992.90 thousand tonnes during 2010-2011. In India, turmeric grown in 18 states and Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and West Bengal are the major turmeric producing states.

India is the largest producer and consumer of turmeric in the world. The total area under turmeric was 1, 55,800 ha and the total production is 5, 98,400 tonnes at present. Turmeric had been grown throughout the country in 18 states. The important states which produce turmeric are Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Orissa and Karnataka. Among the state?' producing turmeric Andhra Pradesh has the highest area under turmeric (59500 ha) followed by Orissa (26800 ha) and Tamil Nadu (21700 halo Andhra Pradesh occupies first position in production also which contributes 51.14 per cent of the total output of the country followed by Tamil Nadu (21.16%), Orissa (10.75%) and Karnataka occupies fourth position which contributes 3.94 per cent of the total turmeric production in India. In the case of yield, Gujarat occupies first position (18,500 kg/ha) followed by Mizoram (9000 kg/ha) and Tamil Nadu occupies third position (5834 kg/ha).

Turmeric is widely grown and consumed spice that has got good international market and large group of market participants are engaged in different activity in the entire value addition of turmeric right from production to its consumption. Price shows considerably volatility that could pose profit a risk to different stake holders. Due to the high marketing cost, it reinforces the need of risk management tools

Objectives

1. To analyse the management practices in cultivation of turmeric in traditional and morden method.

2. To analyse the cost and returns in cultivation of turmeric under traditional and modern method.

3. To evaluate the post harvest management practices in traditional and modern methods.

4. To analyse the efficiencies in cultivation under traditional and modern methods of turmeric production.

5. To analyse the value addition in turmeric under traditional and modern methods.

6. To identify constraints in cultivation and value addition under traditional and modern methods.

6.1 Methodology

The present study will be conducted in Traditional and modern turmeric cultivation in Belgaum District of northern Karnataka – A comparative management appraisal, because these district having highest traditional and modern cultivation of turmeric. In this district two talukas were randomly selected namely Athani and Raibag comprising maximum farmers were adopting traditional and modern cultivation of turmeric. From each talukas 30 farmers were selected 15 traditional farmers and 15 modern farmers were randomly selected. two traditional processing units, two modern processing units were selected. Thus total size of samples is 64.

To achive the objectives of the study, the technique of tabular analysis and budgeting technique was employed for estimating the cost, returns and problems faced by the turmeric growers. Means and percentages were used for meaningful comparison and interpretation. The Cobb-Douglas production function was fitted to estimate the production elasticities of the resources used in turmeric production.

6.2 Major findings

1. Majority of the respondent’s families were having equal number of male and female members. The highest literacy per centage was seen in modern farmers (96.67) compared to traditional (93.33).

2. Turmeric was the most popular commercial crop in the study area, the average size of the total land holding in traditional farmers were 20.97 acres and 25.95 acres in modern farmers.

3. The overall average per acre utilization of rhizome was 9.25 qtls, among the different category of farmers it was the highest in traditional farmers (9.86 qtls) followed by modern farmers (8.64 qtls).

4. The highest human labour were seen on traditional category farmers (78.64 man days) followed by modern farmers (67.20 man days). The highest tractor labour were utilized by modern farmers (5.72 hours) followed by traditional farmers (2.33 hours).

5. Among the two categories of farmers the total cost incurred by the traditional farmers were high (Rs. 74898.74 /ac) as compared to modern farmer (Rs.67634.27 /ac). This may be attributable to the fact that traditional farmers used highest rhizome material and applied more fertilizers than their conterparts.

6. The return structure in turmeric clearly revealed that the gross returns per acre were higher (Rs. 200129) on modern farmers compared to that of traditional farmers p(Rs. 167765).

7. Major activities in post harvest management of turmeric are processing, packaging, storage, cleaning, washing, boiling, drying, polishing and preservation of rhizomes.

8. Total variable cost for per quintal of turmeric value addition was highest in traditional farmers (Rs. 8877.50) where as modern farmers (Rs. 8382.5) and marketing efficiency in modern farmers was 1.37 in case of traditional farmers 1.25.

9. Among the seven factors considered, high incidence of pest and disease was the major production problem expressed by most of the respondents. Turmeric rhizome crop which grows beneath the soil. Hence, more susceptible to diseases. High incidence of pest and diseases. Followed by high price of plant protection chemicals (II), high price of rhizome material (III), non-availability of labour during peak season (IV), high wage rate (V), non-availability of quality rhizome material (VI), non-availability of pesticides and insecticides (VII).

10. Garrett’s ranking technique revealed that with respect to marketing problems. Lack of storage facility followed by few buyers for turmeric (II rank), price fluctuation (III rank), malpractice in weighment (IV rank), no premium price (V rank), low demand in local market (VI rank), lack of transportation problem (VII rank), lack of grading and standardization (VIII rank), lack of infrastructure facility (IX) and high commission charges (X).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Despite the remunerative returns and tremendous importance of turmeric, it is rather unfortunate that the sector has not achieved the required level of development because of the problems in the post-harvest and value addition activities. In this regard, based on available information of field survey, this study tries to highlight some of these problems and bring out the measures for its future development.

• Farmers need to educate to cultivation pest and diseases resistant varieties of turmeric further scientific methods of harvesting needs to be adopted in conventional farmers and get high returns.

• Labour availability particularly at the time of harvest and cost of labour in general were the serious problems in turmeric grower. Conventional farmers of many farm operations including planting rhizome materials and harvesting would save labour substantially in mechanisations.

• The cost of turmeric rhizomes is high. Turmeric rhizome of high quality should be made available to the farmers at affordable rates to increase the use by farmers and to increase their profitability. Which should be also resistant to pest and diseases since this causing considerable damage?

• Turmeric farmers are more educated and education level of the farmers played a crucial role in adopting the turmeric cultivation and increasing the returns from value addition and increases their profit. The role of public extension system need to be stressed upon for capacity building of farmers for optimum harnessing of the benefits of new generation technologies like mechanised value addition.

REFERENCES

Anand, S. K., 2011, Supply chain management in arecanut – A comparative study of co-operative and private processing units in Uttara Kannada district. MBA Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Anil Kumar and Arora, V. P. S., 1999, Post-harvest management of vegetables in Uttar Pradesh hills. Indian J. Agril. Mktg., 13(2): 6-14.

Ankit Jaiswal, 2009, Economics of production and value addition to soybean in Madhya Pradesh. MBA Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Anonymous, 2001, Evaluation of soft loans schemes for the development of post-harvest infrastructure for horticultural crops in Punjab. Agril. Situat. India, October 2001, VIII (7): 345.

Arora, M., Sehgal, V. K., Puneet Singh and Sandhu, A. P. S., 2004, Microbial load reduction by washing vegetables in a rotary washer, J. Res., Punjab Agri. Univ., 41 (1): 102-109.

Arun Kumar Sit, Gobinda ch. Acharya, Saran Kumar Rizal and Avrajyoti Ghosh, 2010, Processing of arecanut in Sub Himalayan Terai region of West Bengal- A case study. Indian J. Arecanut, Sp. Med. Plants, 12(1) : 7-10.

Asharaf, A. F., 2000, Business performance of co-operative oil mills - A management appraisal. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Ashok K. R. and Maheswari R., 2008, Post-harvest losses in Banana in Tamil-Nadu. Indian J. Agril. Mktg., 22 (3) : 38-46.

Basavaraja H., S.B. Mahajana Shetty and N. C. Udagatti., 2006, Post-harvest losses in food grains in Karnataka: An economic analysis. Indian J. Agril. Mktg., 20 (2) : 34-47.

Behl, H.M., 2006, Biodiesel from Jatropha. Akshaya Urja, 2(2):12-18.

Biradar, B. and Rajkumar, 2007, Economics of redgram based cropping in Bidar district M.Sc (Agri) Thesis (Unpublished), submitted to University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

Brahmaprakash and Dinesh, K., 1997, Infrastructural requirements for the development of agro- processing industries in rural India. Agricultural Economic Research Review, 10 : 325-329.

Chandrashekar, 1993, Production and marketing of rainfed groundnut in Chitradurga district, Karnataka. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore.

Chawla, S., 2002, Reducing post-harvest losses. Agriculture Today, March 2002, p. 14.

Chidri, M. V., 1999, A study on management of agro-processing industries in Karnataka-a case study of tur dal industry. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.

Chinnappa, B., 2002, Economics of farm level processing of arecanut. Agric. Mktg., 43(3) :17-19.

Chowda Reddy, 2004, Feasibility of establishment of deep freezing and export unit for vegetables in Belgaum – A techno-economics analysis. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Dandin, S. B., and Jayant Jayaswal, 2003, Issues in Silkworm Seed Production and distribution in India, Indian Silk, Vol. No 43, pp5-10.

Deorukhakar, A. C., Nikam, M. B. and Gawas, M. M., 2007, Economic analysis of kokum fruit products in Sindhudurg, India. Intl. J. Agric. Sci., 3(2): 120-123.

Dilip Reddy, 2008, Futures trade, export and direction of trade in soya: An Econometric Analysis. MBA (Agribusiness) Thesis Univ. of Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Gajanana, T. M., 2002, Marketing practices and post-harvest loss assessment of Poovan var. of banana in Tamil Nadu. Agril. Econ. Res. Rev., 15(1) : 56-65.

Geeta, M., Sunanda, R. K. and Bhavani, K., 1998, Value addition –Cotton yarns. The Textile Indust. Trade J., Annual No. pp. 75-79.

Hymajyothi, S., Umamaheshwara Reddy, S. and Raju, V. T., 2003, Economics of buffalo milk production in west Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh-A case study. The Andhra Agric. J., 50 (1&2) : 141-143.

International Energy Agency, 2004, Analysis of the Impact of High Oil Prices on the Global Economy.

Jaganathan, B. B., 1995, Farm size, productivity and technologies relationship –A case study. Agric. Situ. Indian 49(9): 649-656.

Kavitha, K., 2000, Evaluation of Ayurvedic medicine processing units in Uttara Kannada District (Karnataka). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Kerutagi, M. G., 1999, An economic analysis of silk reeling units in Karnataka. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Kohler, R. I., Hanwant, S. and Benard, C., 2007, Halting the decline of Rajasthan's camel population through community-based approaches and marketing support. Proceedings of the International Camel Conference "Recent Trends in Camelids Research and Future Strategies for Saving Camels". Rajasthan, India, 16-17-February-2007, 108-114.

Lin, W., 2002, Soybean & cotton plantings to decline in favor of corn in 2002. Agricultural Outlook, 291.

Lokesh, G. B. and Chandrakanth, M. G., 2003, Economics of production, marketing and processing of turmeric in Karnataka. Indian J. Arecanut, Spices and Medicinal Plants, 5(2) : 55-60.

Madhuri, P. and Kamini Devi., 2003, Value addition to watermelon fruit waste. J. Food Sci. Tech., Mysore, 40 (2) : 222-224.

Mahesh, M. S. and Nagaraja, K.V., 2002, Coating of cashew kernel baby bits for value addition. J. Food Sci. Technol., Mysore, 39(2) : 124-128.

Manjunath, P. V., 2004, Performance of evaluation fruit and vegetable processing units of Bangalore district – A sectoral analysis. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Manjunatha, M. B., 2000, Management of food processing units – A case study of Roller flour mills in Bijapur District (Karnataka), MBA (agribusiness) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Marsh, K. and Bugusu, B., 2007, Food packaging - roles, materials, and environmental issues. J. Food Sci., 72(3) : 39-55.

Meena, G. L., Pant, D. C. and Satvesh kumar 2006, Economics of chilli processing in Rajasthan. Agril. Sci., Digest, 26(2): 83-86.

Mohandas, K. and Thomas, E. K., 1997, Economic analysis of rice production in Kuttanad areas of Kerala. Agric. Situ. Indian, 54(9): 555-560.

Mkoka, C. and shahanan, M., 2005, The bumpy road to clean, green fuel. SciDev.Net 4 November.

Muralidharan, P. K., 1987, Resource use efficiency in kole lands in Trichur District, Kerala. Indian J. Agric. Econ., 42(4): 578-586.

Nethrayini, K. R., 2010, Contract farming of gherkin under Agri-Export zone in Karnataka – An economic analysis. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.

Patel, G.N., Patel, R.H. and Desai, M.M., 1986, Benefit cist appraisal and marginal analysis of summer groundnut in Gujarat. Agric. Situ. Indian 41(8): 635-639.

Pandey, U. B. 2001, Strategy for increasing onion productivity and minimizing post-harvest losses in onion in Andhra Pradesh. NHRDF News Letter, XX : 1-5.

Peder Jensen, 2003, Scenario Analysis of Consequence of Renewable Energy Policies for Land Area Requirements for Biomass production - study for DG JRC/ IPTS, European briefing.

Prasad, K, 2007, Jatropha as Alternative Fuel- Its Economic Viability and Real Factors, 4th

International Conference on Biofuels, February 1-2, 2007, pp.276-280.

Rajeshwari, Y. G., 2004, An economic analysis of coconut based farming system in Tumkur district of Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Ramakrishnaiah, N., Pratape, V. M., Sashikala, V. B. and Narasimha, H. V., 2004, “Value addition to by-products from dhal milling industry in India”. J. Food Sci. Tech., 41(5): 492-496.

Raman Dev, J. P., 1998, Management appraisal of cashew processing industry in Uttar Kannada (Karnataka). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Rangasamy, N. and Dhaka, J. P., 2007, Constraints faced by Co-operative and Private dairy plants in Tamil Nadu - a comparative analysis. Indian J. Dairy Sci., 60(4): 300-306.

Roy, B. C., 1997 Growth and prospects of fruits and vegetables processing industry in India. The Bihar J. Agric. Mktg., 5(4) : 356-365.

Saikumar, B. C., 2005, Farming Systems in the tank commands in northeastern Karnataka. An Economic Analysis of Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha managed tanks. M. Sc (Agri, ) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Saravanan, M. P., Pannarasi, T. and Chandrakumar, M., 2002, Study on the efficiency of cashewnut processing units in Tamil Nadu. The Cashew, 16(4) : 19-24.

Savita, M. C., 2000, Management appraisal of spinning mills in Gadag District (Karnataka) MBA (agribusiness) thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Sharma, B. B. and Pandey, H. K., 2008, Economics of guava production and marketing: A case study. Indian Hortic., 52 (3): 12-16.

Sharma, H. R. and Sharma, R. K., 2003, Production and export performance of Indian tea – A temporal and cross sectional analysis. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 16(2) : 152-170.

Shellikeri, S. G. and Mundinamani, S. M., 1999, Post-harvest losses and price spread in marketing of perishables – A case study of Bijapur district of Karnataka state. Indian J. Agril. Mktg., 13(2) : 41.

Siddram H. Houde, 2004, Management of Dairy processing units; A comparative analysis of Co-operative and Private milk processing units. MBA (agribusiness) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Singh, D., 2008, Role of processing units in income and employment generation. J. Agric. Engg., 52(3): 57-63.

Sita Devi, K. and Ponnarasi, T., 2009, An economic analysis of modern rice production technology and its adoption behaviour in Tamil Nadu. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 22: 340-347.

Sreenivasa Murthy, D., Gajanana, T. M., Sudha, M. and Subramanyam, K. V., 2002, Post-harvest loss estimation in mango at different stages of marketing- A methodological perspective. Agril. Econ. Res. Rev., 15 (2): 188-200.

Subasinghe, S., 2003, Shrimp - an ideal candidate for value-addition. INFOFISH International, 5 : 45-46, 48-50.

Suresh. A., and T. R. Keshava Reddy., 2006, Recource use efficiency of paddy cultivation in Peechi command area of Thrissur district of Kerla: An economic analysis, Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 19(1-6): 159-171.

Tarunvir Singh and Jyoti Kachroo., 2009, Resource use efficiency of dry land maize in Jammu District of J & K state. Agric. Situ. Indian 66(7): 425-430.

Varghese, K. A. and Indus Singh., 2006, Prospects and problem of Agro-processing industries in Biknner district of Rajasthan. Indian J. Mktg., 20(1) : 124-130.

Veena, G. and Tajinder, K., 2000, Performance analysis of Bhagpur and Jargaon Sugar mills in Punjab. Indian J. Agric. Mktg., 14 (12) : 73-76.

Venkatasheshaiah, K., 1992, Evaluation of groundnut processing units and marketing of their products in Cuddapah district, Andhra Pradesh. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).

Verma, A. R., 2002, Economics of production, resource use efficiency and constraints: A case study of onion in Shajapur district of Madhya Pradesh. The Bihar J. Agric. Mktg, 10(4): 429-439.

Verma, R. C. and Jain, S. K., 2007, Nutri-cereals: value-addition of coarse cereals and millets. Post-Harvest Management and Value Addition, pp. 272-291.

Viswanthan, R., Thangavel, K., John Kennedy, Z. and Kalappan, R., 1999, Post harvest loss of tomato in Tamil Nadu. Kisan world, 26(1):19.

Wadear, P. R., 2003, Animal Based Farming Systems for Long Term Sustainability in Northern Karnataka. – A Socio-Economic Assessment. Ph. D Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Welch, M., Pan, S., Mohanty, S. and Fadiga, M., 2008, Ethanol’s effect on the U.S. cotton industry. J. Cotton Sci., 41(12): 99-108.

White, B., 2001, How did soybean plantings catch up with corn. Seed World, (9): 139.

Yadav, D. S. and Yadav, R. K., 2007, Post harvest handling and management of horticultural crops in north-eastern region. Post-Harvest Management and Value Addition, pp. 292-305.

Traditional and Modern Turmeric Cultivation in Belgaum District of Karnataka – A Comparative Management

Appraisal

SARFARAZ K. SHAIKH 2013 Dr. C. MURTHY (Major advisor)

ABSTRACT

Turmeric strictly speaking is a condiment crop which has been used for colouring, flavoring and medicinal purposes. It ranks fourth in area 3043583 (hacters) and second in production 5933126 (tonn) in India, in Karnataka area 18035 (hacters) and production 90448 (tonn) and Belgaum area 1148 (hacters) and production 8336 (ton) in year 2001-2012. The present study were conducted in Traditional and Modern Turmeric Cultivation in Belgaum District of Karnataka – A Comparative Management Appraisal, because this district having highest traditional and modern of turmeric cultivation. In this district two talukas were randomly selected namely Athani and Raibag farmers for turmeric cultivation. The study conducted in the year 2012-13 revealed that highest labour requirement was seen on traditional category farmers (78.64 man days) followed by modern farmers (67.20 man days) because most of the operations such as planting, harvesting, picking, weeding were human labour intensively more. The highest yield was obtained by modern farmers (27.68 qtls) followed by traditional farmers (23.14 qtls). Among the two categories of farmers the total cost incurred by the traditional farmers were high (Rs. 74898.74 per acre) as compared to modern farmer (Rs.67634.27 per acre). The average processing cost of traditional turmeric farmers was Rs. 9076.80 per acre as against Rs. 6724.20 per acre of modern farmers. The summation of regression co-efficients indicated for traditional farmers (0.92) and increasing returns to scale were observed form modern farmers (1.03). Total cost in quintal of turmeric value addition was Rs. 11027.02 and Rs. 11434.55 for traditional and modern farmers respectively. Marketing efficiency in modern farmers was 1.37 and in traditional farmers it is 1.25. The total net income from traditional farmers of Rs. 78977.03 per acre and modern farmers of Rs.121697.43. Turmeric rhizome of high quality should be made available to the farmers at affordable rates to increase the use by farmers and to increase their profitability.