The present study was undertaken to estimate the costs and returns structure of maize cultivation and identifying the prominent production constraints in West Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya. A sample of 60 farmers was randomly drawn from six villages of Mawthadraishan and Nongstoin block of the selected district. The costs and returns per hectare were calculated on the basis of cost concepts and Garett ranking method was used for employed for determination of constraints in maize production. The overall cost of cultivation was found to be ₹ 37185.22 per ha and the major cost components were manures (48.25%) and human labour (34.73%). The overall net return was evaluated at ₹ 19038.20 with small, medium and large farmers having similar returns with the exception of marginal farmers gaining a net return of only ₹ 13889.83 which was 27.04 per cent lower than the average return among the sample farmers. It may be attributed to their heavy dependence on labour and lack of investment on irrigation, plant protection and better-quality seeds. The realised average yield was found to be 23.65 q/ha which was abysmally low compared to other maize producing states of India. A positive trend between the return over cost ratio and the operational holding was observed with an average of 1.51. The prominent constraints as perceived by the farmers were unfavorable weather conditions, the incidence of pests and diseases and costly fertilizers and manures with the Garrett’s score of 64.70, 62.75 and 54.40 respectively.
HIGHLIGHTS
Cost of cultivation was comparable among all the farm holdings.
Net returns were lower in marginal farmers in comparison to other farm groups.
Return over cost ratio was found to be proportional to operational holding.
Cost and returnsGarrett scoreMaizeMeghalaya
In India, maize is considered to be the third most important crop based on area and production after rice and wheat. India contributes to about 4.6 per cent and 2.4 per cent of global maize acreage and production respectively (IIMR, 2021). During the last decade, consumption of maize in India grew at a CAGR of 5.6 per cent while production grew at just about 2.9 per cent. Increase in production was primarily driven by improved yields, which enhanced from 2.5 MT/ha to 3.1 MT/ha over the period. This growth was principally achieved by use of high yielding variety seeds (FASAR and FICCI, 2021). Maize is a versatile crop contributing immensely to food and nutritional security and also the industrial sector of the country with the bulk of the maize production, approximately 47 per cent, being used as poultry feed; from the remaining, 14 per cent was utilised in starch industry, 13 per cent as livestock feed, 13 per cent for the purpose of food, 7 per cent as processed food and only 6 percent for export and other purposes (FASAR and FICCI, 2021). Rising demands for maize could triple the imports by 2050 (FAO, 2018). With the increase in the demand for maize as feed and its less than required growth in production coupled with the fact that maize is capable of providing the right opportunity for crop diversification and increasing farmer income (specially for small and marginal farmer in rainfed areas), the need to identify the barriers to growth of the maize ecosystem is indispensable.
In the North Eastern Himalayan Region (NEHR) of India, maize ranked 2nd after rice in significance and had been mostly grown under rainfed hilly upland conditions. In this region, production of maize played a significant role in ensuring food security and used both for direct consumption and as well as indirect consumption in the form of feed for piggery and poultry farming. Among the seven North-eastern states, Meghalaya occupied the 5th position in terms of area and production. Maize occupies about 7 percent of the net cropped area in Meghalaya and is the second most important cereal crop in the state. Although the state had registered the second highest yield leaving behind the two leading maize producing states, the average productivity of maize in the state was considerably low compared to the rest of the country (Subhash et al. 2019). Despite being an important crop in the region, there has been no enquiry into its economic aspects. Under this pretext, the present study has been undertaken in West Khasi Hills district in Meghalaya with the following specific objectives:
To estimate the cost and returns structures of maize cultivation and constraints associated with it.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present study was carried out in West Khasi Hills district as it had the highest area under maize in Meghalaya contributing 18.05 per cent to the total area under maize with a production of 9973 MT (GoM, 2020). Multi-stage sampling technique was adopted where in two clusters of three villages each; Mawkynbat, Mawduhand Nonglwai from Nongstoin block and Markasa, Nong shillong and Pariong from Mawthadraishan block were purposively selected based on the highest maize yield and data was collected from 60 randomly selected farmers using Probability Proportional to Size Sampling method. 60 farmers were then grouped into four categories based on farm size: 8 marginal (less than 1 ha), 36 small (1 to 3 ha),13 medium (3 to 5 ha) and 3 large (more than 5 ha).
Empirical strategyCost concepts
For computation of costs and returns, cost concepts used in farm management studies such as cost A1, A2, B1, B2, C1 and C2have been followed in the analysis.
Cost A1: All paid out costs
Cost A2: Cost A1 + rent paid for leased in land (if any)
Cost B1: Cost A1 + interest value on fixed capital asset
Cost B2: Cost B1+ rent paid on leased in land + rental value of owned land
Cost C1: Cost B1 + imputed value of family labour
Cost C2: Cost B2 + imputed value of family labour
Cost A1 was considered as cost A since all sample farmers were owner cultivator.
Interest on working capital was charged at the rate of 7 per cent per annum, according to the prevailing rate for acquiring crop loan from the financial institution.
For return analysis the following measures were employed
Gross return (GR): Value of main crop and by product
Net return (NR): Gross return – Cost C2
Return over cost ratio: Gross Return/Total cost
Garrett’s ranking technique
This technique had been used to determine the main constraints perceived by farmers in maize cultivation. In this method, respondents were asked to rank the specific problems faced by them according to their own perception which was subsequently transferred into Garett scores. Thus, mean score for each constraint had been ranked by arranging them in descending order.
The percentage position was determined by the given formula, Percentage position = 100 × (Rij – 0.5)/Nj
Where, Rij = Rank given for the ith item by jth individual
Nj = Number of items ranked by the jth individual
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSocio-economic characteristics of the sample
The socio-economic parameters are important determinants of knowledge and skill of farmers (Singh et al. 2016). The important characteristics have been evaluated and presented in Table 1.
Summary statistics of socio-economic characteristics of sample respondents
The average age of the respondents was 46.22 years. The overall family size was found to be 6.8 with 2.12 earners per family. The average land holding was worked out at 2.33 ha. The overall literacy rate of the sampled respondents was 66.67 per cent.
Economics of maize production
It has been demonstrated in Table 2 that the sample farmers had made an expenditure of ₹ 37185.22 /ha towards the payment for various inputs, although no definite trend was observed across the farm size groups. Expenditure on manures and fertilizers appeared to be the most dominant cost component constituting 39.34 per cent of the total cost followed by hired human labour claiming 28.32 per cent. Family labour and rental value of owned land were the imputed cost and did not involve the actual outlay of cash. Payment for interest on working capital and spending on machinery came next at tandem by contributing 5.58 and 5.54 per cent, respectively. Expenditure on seed, irrigation charges, plant protection chemicals and miscellaneous charges came next and were arranged in descending order in their respective contribution. The highest per ha cost was ₹ 38014.07, incurred by small farmers and lowest was noted in case of large farmers. Lower cost in large farmers may be associated with lack of investment in irrigation and minimal dependence on family labour. The remaining three farm size groups show an almost equal expenditure on all cost items at ₹ 36731.94, ₹ 36415.87, ₹ 35570.64 per ha for marginal, medium and large farmers respectively. Similar results were obtained pertaining to the cost items with variations in land holding in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra (Navadkar et al. 2012).
Economics of Maize cultivation under different size farm groups
The overall cost of cultivation A1, B1, B2, C1 and C2 was calculated to be ₹ 30320.59, ₹ 32801.6, ₹ 34704.21 and ₹ 37185.22. Cost A1 and cost B1 were considered equal as the farmers only possessed land as their fixed capital. No definite relationship between farm size and cost was observed and the variations among the farm size classes were minimal. The overall gross return and net return was calculated to be ₹ 56223.42 and ₹19038.2, respectively with the small farmers earning a higher return compared to the other groups. The net return was found to be lowest in the marginal farmer group at ₹ 13889.83. This may be due to their adherence to old traditional systems of farming and lack of good quality planting material which is common among resource poor farmers (Ansari et al. 2015).
The return over cost ratio reflects the criteria for economic viability of the crop based on return per rupee invested. The data furnished in the Table 3 showed that the overall return over cost ratio was 1.51. A rising trend was observed in the return over cost ratio with the increase in operational holding except in the case of the small farmers which showed the highest return over cost ratio which was also true in case of maize farmers in Karnataka (Srikanth et al. 2017). This may be attributed to better cultivation practices adopted by these farmers, due to the awareness created by the demonstrations conducted in their farms by the agricultural department and access to good quality planting material.
The realised average yield accounting 23.65 q/ ha was found to be abysmally low compared to other maize producing states of India. The cost of production showed a decreasing trend with increase in farm size i.e., ₹ 2299.90, ₹ 2156.53, ₹ 2058.54, ₹ 2050.16 from marginal, small, medium, large farmers respectively and an overall of ₹ 2179.65 which can be due to variation in seed quality and investment in plant protection among the small, medium and large farmers.
Constraining factors associated with cultivation of maize
The prominent constraints as perceived by the sample farmers (Table 5) were adverse weather conditions with score 64.70, the incidence of pests and diseases and costly fertilizers and manures comes next with the Garret’s score 62.75 and 54.40 respectively. The unavailability and negative outlook of plant protection chemicals could be a major reason for the loss crop to pest and diseases (Ansari et al. 2015). The farmers also opined on problems of high labour wages, untimely rainfall, lack of improved varieties, lack of credit facilities, lack of technical knowledge, insufficient irrigation and poor quality of land with Garrett’s score 52.47, 51.70, 44.75, 44.00, 38.90 and 32.70, respectively.
Details of group wise cost pattern, return structure (₹/ha)
Economics of yield/ha and cost of production in different farm groups
Prioritization of constraints pertaining to cultivation of maize
CONCLUSION
The cost and returns of maize cultivation were higher in case of small farmers who had received good quality planting material from the agricultural department and were exposed to improved technologies. Human labour and manures comprised a major part of the cost of cultivation in all farm holdings. Expenditure on irrigation and plant protection was negligible even as the farmers prioritized unfavorable weather conditions and pest and diseases as the major constraints faced. The maize yield was found to be far below the national average, hence timely intervention from government agencies is of utmost importance. Awareness to proper management practices will go a long way in the securing maximum profits and thereby improve the production as well as the income of the farmers.
Ansari, M.A., Prakash, N., Kumar, A., Jat, S.L., Baishya, L. K., Sharma, S.K., Ch. Bungbungcha, S. Kh. and Singh, S.S.2015. Maize production technology highlighted in North East India.Training Manual RCM (TM) –05. ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Manipur Centre, Lamphelpat, Imphal-795004.Chahal, S.S., Kataria, P.2010. Constraints in the production and marketing of maize in Punjab. Agri. Update,5(1,2): 228-236.Food and Agribusiness Strategic Advisory & Research Team (FASAR) and FICCI. 2021. Boosting Growth of India’s Maize Ecosystem - Key Imperatives, YES BANK Limited and FICCI.FAO. 2016. Save and grow in practice: Maize, Rice, Wheat: A guide to sustainable cereal production. Food and Agriculture Organisation.Government of Meghalaya. 2020. Agricultural Statistics 201718. Directorate of Agriculture, Meghalaya, Shillong.Indian Institute of Maize Research. 2021. India Maize Satistics. ICAR-Indian Institute of Maize Research, PAU Campus, Ludhiana, Punjab, IndiaNavadkar, D.S, Amale, A.J., Gulave, C.M., Nannaware, V.M.2012. Economics of production and marketing of kharif maize in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra State. Agril. Sit. India, 69(6):309-316.Srikanth, B., Kausadikar, H.H., Jondhale, R.N., Gandhi, N.2017. Economic Analysis of Maize Production and Marketing in Khammam District, Telangana. Asian J. Agril. Ext. Econ. Soc., 20(4):1-13.Subhash, B., Mohapatra, K.P., Jayanta, L., FirakeD.M., Kumar, A., Behere, G.T., Kumar, B., Prakash, N.2019. Maize Production Technology in Meghalaya.Technical bulletin RC-Umiam/IIMR-Maize Project/1. ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Umiam – 793 103, Meghalaya, India.Singh, K.J., Feroze, S.M., Singh, R. and Das, A.2016. How profitable is rice cultivation in hills of North Eastern region of India? A case study of Manipur.Econ Affair,61(2):327-334