production and marketing of flowers and vegetables

i

PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF FLOWERS AND VEGETABLES

UNDER PROTECTED CULTIVATION KIN HIMACHAL PRADESH

C.S. VAIDYA RANVEER SINGH

AGRO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH CENTRE H.P. UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA-171005

JUNE -2012

ii

Acknowledgements This study has been prepared for Directorate of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh. First and foremost we wish to thank the Directorate of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh for funding the study and giving us an opportunity to undertake this study. Our special thanks are due to Dr. Gurdev Singh, Director Directorate of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh for his initiative, advice and valuable support to the study. We are also grateful to Shri D. S.K. Chaudhary, Senior Marketing Officer for his advice, support and help in coordination of various activities of the study. Very useful advice, constructive comments and suggestions have been received at various stages of the study from Sh. Daulat Ram, Subject Matter Specialist of the Directorate. Our sincere thanks are due to him. Sample polyhouse owners also deserve our thanks for their cooperation in providing required data for this study. Authors gratefully acknowledge the support of staff of Agro Economic Research Centre, H.P. University, Shimla for efficiently conducting the data collection and carrying out the analysis. T Shimla: 16th June 2012. Officer-in-Charge Agro-Economic Research Centre Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla – 171005

iii

Research team

Project leaders Dr Ranveer Singh

Dr CS Vaidya

Project Associates Dr SP Saraswat

Dr ML Sharma

Dr Partap Singh

Mr NK Sharma

Mr KR Sharma

Mr Inder Singh

iv

CONTENTS

# Chapter Page

Executive summary i-v 1 Introduction 1-5

1.1 Preamble 1 1.2 Principles of protective cultivation 2 1.3 Benefits of greenhouse technology 3 1.4 Present scenario 3 1.5 The need 4 1.6 The present study 4 1.7 Objectives 4 1.8 Plan of study 5

2 Methodology 6-8

2.1 Selection of study districts and blocks 6 2.2 Classification of sample 7 2.3 The data 8 2.4 Analytical tools 8 2.5 Limitations of study 8 2.6 Reference period 8

3 Present scenario of polyhouse development in the state 9-10 4 Socioeconomic features of polyhouse owners in the state 11-19

4.1 Family size 11 4.2 Educational status 12 4.3 Occupational pattern 13

4.3.1 Main occupation 13 4.3.2 Subsidiary occupation 14

4.4 Land resources 16 4.5 Income from sources other than crop farming 17 4.6 Summing up 19

5 Motivations/Hindrances and costs involved in polyhouse

construction 20-30

5.1 Sources of information 20 5.2 Motivation factors 22 5.3 Hindrances in adoption 24 5.4 Departmental supervision 26 5.5 Farmers’ suggestions for improvement of polyhouses 26 5.6 Delays in NOC 27 5.7 Action by contractors in case of delay in NOC 28 5.8 Equipments installed in polyhouses 28 5.9 Deviations from recommended design 28

5.10 Cost of polyhouse construction 29 5.11 Summing up 30

6 Costs and returns from protected crops 31-52

6.1 Cost of carnation cultivation 31 6.2 Net returns from carnation cultivation 32 6.3 Net returns per box from carnation cultivation 33 6.4 Cost of capsicum cultivation 35 6.5 Net returns from capsicum cultivation 36 6.6 Net returns per box from capsicum cultivation 37 6.7 Cost of tomato cultivation 39 6.8 Net returns from tomato cultivation 40

v

6.9 Net returns per box from tomato cultivation 41 6.10 Unprotected cultivation 43

6.10.1 Cropping pattern 43 6.10.2 Cost of cultivation of unprotected crops 45 6.10.2.1 Small farmers 45 6.10.2.2 Medium farmers 46 6.10.2.3 Large farmers 46 6.10.2.4 All farmers 47 6.10.3 Productivity of crops 49 6.10.4 Production of crops 50 6.10.5 Value of output 51

6.11 Summing up 51 7 Marketing system of protected crops 53-67

7.1 Production and utilization of protected crops 53 7.2 Marketing pattern of protected crops 54 7.3 Marketing costs and price spread of carnation in Delhi 55 7.4 Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in carnation

marketing 57

7.5 Mode (packing) of carnation retail sale 58 7.6 Marketing costs and price spread of capsicum and tomato

in Delhi 58

7.6.1 Capsicum 58 7.6.2 Tomato 59

7.7 Producers’ share in consumers’ rupee 59 7.8 Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in

capsicum and tomato marketing 61

7.9 Production losses 63 7.9.1 Small farms 64 7.9.2 Medium farms 64 7.9.3 Large farms 65 7.9.4 All farms 65

7.10 Summing up 67 8 Problems in cultivation of protected crops and suggestions 68-72

8.1 Problems faced during the construction of polyhouses 68 8.2 Problems faced in input availability 69 8.3 Problems faced in cropping practices 70 8.4 Problems faced in harvesting 70 8.5 Perception of farmers about protected cultivation 71 8.6 Summing up 72

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The greenhouse technology is still in its preliminary stage in the country and

concerted efforts are required from all concerned agencies to bring it at par with the

global standards. Globalization coupled with economic liberalization will help in

achieving the desired results. Concerted and continuous efforts are required to

develop the required indigenous technology suitable for our country rather than

going in for blind copying of the western technology. Economically viable and

technologically feasible greenhouse technology suitable for the Indian agro climatic

and geographical conditions is needed at the earliest.

Objectives

1. To study the progress in providing assistance for establishing the polyhouse for cultivation of flowers and vegetables under the programmes in Himachal Pradesh.

2. To examine the expenditure incurred in establishment of poly houses for cultivation of Flowers and vegetables under protected conditions in the State.

3. To study the economics of production of Flowers and vegetables under protected conditions in the State.

4. To analyse the marketing systems adopted for marketing of Flowers and vegetables produced under protected conditions in the State.

5. To examine the problems faced by the farmers in production and marketing of Flowers and vegetables under protected conditions in the State.

Methodology

Three districts viz. Chamba, Bilaspur and Shimla have been purposely selected on

the basis of highest number of poly-houses. From the selected districts one

development block each has been selected, again on the basis of highest number of

poly-houses. All the registered poly-houses were listed and a sample of 50 growers

of vegetables and flowers was randomly selected. Thus, the study has been based

on 50 farmers each cultivating in poly-houses in three districts. The sample has

ii

been classified into three size classes on the basis of the size of the polyhouses,

covering an area of about 250 square meters, 500 square meters and 1000 square

meters. These sizes were termed as small, medium and large categories,

respectively. The sample was classified according to these size classes. The study

is based on 150 polyhouse cultivators; 48 belonging to small, 58 medium and rest 44

to large category. The study refers to the agriculture year 2010-11.

Main findings

The average family size among all the sampled polyhouse farmers was 5 persons.

About 86 percent of the people were found to be literate and out of total persons

maximum had educational qualifications of senior secondary level. Agriculture was

the main occupation of the majority of the individuals and this was also the prime

subsidiary occupation. On an average total holding was 1.08 ha at the aggregate

level of which maximum area was cultivated. The proportion of income, from sources

other than agriculture, was the maximum from salary followed by animal husbandry.

Friends and relatives were the most important source of information about the

polyhouses however, for authentic and detailed information; vast majority resorted to

the department. The decision making process of the respondents was influenced by

variety of motivational factors and hindrances they encountered during this stage.

Majority of polyhouse construction was supervised by the authorities and they had

supportive attitude towards the farmers. The farmers were vigilant and came out

with variety of suggestion for improving the present scenario of polyhouse scheme in

the State. Farmers had installed many types of equipment in polyhouses which are

important for ensuring high productivity and quality of products. Sometimes the

farmers deviated from the approved design mainly because of financial stringencies

and such deviations were not significant.

Costs and returns from protected and unprotected cultivation indicates that the cost

of carnation cultivation at overall level was ₹ 126102 per polyhouse and yielded a net

return of ₹ 1749 per box with an input-output ratio of 1:2.01. Similarly, cost of

capsicum cultivation at overall level was ₹ 41477 per polyhouse and yielded a net

return of ₹ 258 per box with an input-output ratio of 1:2.26. The cost of tomato

cultivation at overall level was ₹ 35255 per polyhouse and yielded a net return of ₹

iii

335 per box with an input-output ratio of 1:3.17. In addition to this, the costs of

cultivation of crops like wheat, maize, cauliflower, cabbage, peas and beans were

worked out for comparison with the returns from crops grown under protected

conditions. The cost of cultivation of these crops were ₹ 20070 per ha for wheat, ₹

18091 per ha for maize, ₹ 53511 per ha for cauliflower, ₹ 38342 per ha for cabbage,

₹ 33461 per ha for peas and ₹ 32562 per ha for beans. The productivity of these

crops along with total per farm production and the value of production were also

worked out. The returns from protected cultivation are significantly higher than that

of unprotected crops.

The crops grown under the protected environment are the commercial crops and as

such majority of produce is marketed mainly in Delhi followed by markets of

neighbouring States and local markets. This pattern has emerged due to price

scenarios which are highest in Delhi market for all the three crops. Small fraction of

total vegetables produced is retained for home consumption. As the Delhi market is

most important from price and quantity marketed points of view, marketing costs and

margins etc have been worked out for this market only. It was found that in

carnation the price paid by consumer for 100 spikes was ₹ 909 and net price

received by producers was 37.40 per cent of this. These figures for capsicum were

₹3093 per quintal and 65.79 per cent and for tomato ₹ 2648 per quintal and 59.74

per cent, respectively. Total marketing cost for carnation was ₹ 107 and marketing

margins were ₹ 302 per 100 spikes. The marketing costs for capsicum and tomato

were ₹ 506 and ₹609 respectively and margins were ₹ 512 and ₹ 457, respectively.

The analysis for quantifying the production losses was also carried out for all the size

categories of farmers. The pre harvest losses at overall level were of the tune of

1.54, 1.00 and 0.78 per cent for carnation, capsicum and tomato, respectively.

Although the farmers responded positively to income and employment issues related

with polyhouse farming, the activity is not free from problems. The polyhouse

farmers face many problems in relation to construction of polyhouses, input

availability, cropping practices and harvesting. Most important problems being faced

by almost all the farmers were about packing/processing and marketing of produce.

Suggestions and policy implications

iv

Work should be channelized in finding suitable and locally available construction

material for low and medium cost greenhouses. Efforts should be made to

synthesize energy conservation principle along with environmental safety on a

broader perspective. Adequate technology for environment control needs to be

developed. In this perspective, the utilization of "Renewable Energy Resources" for

meeting the energy requirements of the green house needs special mention.

Utilization of the solar energy stored in the solar photovoltaic cell or else for

greenhouse heating and humidity control needs to be improved. A fair amount of

work on utilization of the solar energy for greenhouse heating has been done at

Division of Agricultural Engineering at I.A.R.I., Pusa, New Delhi. The ministry of

Renewable Energy Resources, Govt. of India is providing necessary assistance and

it is expected that this will continue in future also.

Environmental considerations in future will demand that the greenhouse technology

of the 21st century is of the closed type with complete recycling of everything except

the crop produced. Thus, greater impetus should be provided for the deployment of

gadgets and implements for efficient cropping operation, manure and fertilizer

application and crop protection. Micro-processor controlled computer based

environment control system needs to be developed.

Greater dissemination of information with appropriate Information Education and

Communication (IEC) support about greenhouses among the farming community in

the State coupled with greater infrastructural and marketing support will lead in

achieving high annual growth rates of area under greenhouse cultivation.

The big and progressive farmers or flower grower associations should be

encouraged to undertake construction of high tech polyhouses at par with global

standard for growing high value vegetables for export purposes in order to boost the

income of the f

Government initiatives/efforts in popularizing the greenhouse technology among the

farming community are to be strengthened. There is a need for the Government to

encourage the farmers by providing timely subsidy for taking up this new technology

in a big way.

v

EXECUTIVE TABLE # Particulars Category of farmers

Small (250 M2)

Medium (500 M2)

Large (1000 M2)

Overall

1 No. of sampled polyhouses 48 58 44 150

2 Family size (No.) 5.40 5.35 4.50 5.00 3 Literacy rate (%) 78 89 90 86 4 Land holding (Ha) 0.85 1.22 1.13 1.08

5 Total annual income from other sources (₹/farm)

121090 183461 58928 126973

6 Cost of polyhouses (₹) 126485 373680 682559 385182 7 Amount of subsidy (₹) 82500 162500 325000 184567 8 Returns from protected

cultivation

a Gross returns from carnation (₹) 389610 1256580 2886660 1548855

b Net returns from carnation (₹) 151680 636968 1558240 777732 c Gross returns from capsicum (₹) 71550 142140 303525 144666

d Net returns from capsicum (₹) 43261 77787 170871 80791 e Gross returns from tomato (₹) 104850 225968 453250 224099 f Net returns from tomato (₹) 67110 147390 305360 153361 9 Production of crops under

protected cultivation

a Carnation (Boxes of 900 spikes) 117 358 812 447 b Capsicum (Boxes of 20 Kg.) 159 309 639 313

c Tomato (Boxes of 25 Kg.) 433 464 875 394 10 Costs and prices under

protected cultivation per box Carnation

Capsicum

Tomato

Production cost (₹) 1734 204 155 Marketing cost (₹) 1440 62 90 Producers’ share (%) 37.40 65.79 59.74 11 Losses (%) Pre-harvest 1.54 1.00 0.78

Post-harvest 3.46 2.24 2.12

1

Chapter – 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Preamble

As a result of globalization of trade and liberalization of Indian economy, there is an

immense scope for export of high value flowers and vegetables from India, besides,

meeting the increased demand in domestic market. The need of the hour is to

increase the productivity and quality of produce to meet the demand of quality

conscious consumers. A breakthrough in production technology that integrates

market driven quality parameters with the production system, besides ensuring a

vertical growth in productivity is required. One such technology is “Protected

cultivation”, or generally called greenhouse technology. It is the technique of

providing favourable environmental conditions to the crop. It is rather used to protect

plants from the adverse climatic conditions by providing optimum conditions of light,

temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide, etc. and by adopting modern techniques like

micro irrigation, application of chemical fertilizers etc. for the best growth of the

plants to achieve maximum yield and superior quality. In India protected cultivation

on commercial scale was started during early nineties and Karnataka is one of the

leading States in adopting this technology.

Protected cultivation practices can be defined as a cropping technique wherein the

micro climate surrounding the plant body is controlled partially/ fully as per the

requirement of the plant species. With the advancement in agriculture various types

of protected cultivation practices suitable for a specific type of agro-climatic zone

have emerged. Among these protective cultivation practices, green house/poly

house cum rain shelter is useful for the hill region. This is not new technology and is

more than 200 years old. The Europeans were considered the pioneers in this field.

This technology provides the benefits that it makes possible to grow plants anywhere

in the world at any time of the year i.e. crops could be grown under the inclement

climatic conditions when it would not be otherwise possible to grow crops under the

open field conditions. Simultaneously, the crop yields are at the maximum level per

unit area, per unit volume and per unit input basis. It makes possible the production

of higher quality products which are free from insect attack, pathogens and chemical

residue which are fit for export markets. This means that income from the small and

2

the marginal land holdings maintained can be increased by producing crops meant

for the export markets. It can be used as an effective strategy to generate self

employment for the educated rural youth in the farm sector.

1.2 Principles of protective cultivation:

The green house is generally covered by transparent or translucent material such as

glass or plastic. The green house covered with simple plastic sheet is termed as

poly house. The green house generally reflects back 43% of the net solar radiation

incident upon it allowing the transmittance of the "photosynthetically active solar

radiation" in the range of 400-700 Nm wave length.

The sunlight admitted to the green house is absorbed by the crops, floor and other

objects. These objects in turn emit long wave thermal radiation in the infra red

region for which the glazing material has lower transparency. As a result the solar

energy remains trapped in the green house, thus raising its temperature. This

phenomenon is called the "Green house Effect". This condition of natural rise in

green house air temperature is utilized in the cold regions to grow crops

successfully. However in the summer season due to the above Stated

phenomenon ventilation and cooling is required to maintain the temperature inside

the structure well below 350C. The ventilation system can be natural or a forced

one. In the forced system fans are used which draw out 7-9m 3 of air / sec / unit of

power consumed and are able to provide 2 air changes / minute. The various types

of cooling systems employed are as follows:

A. Roof Shading

B. Water film covering

C. Evaporative cooling which includes the following:

i) Fan and pad cooling

ii) High pressure mist system

iii) Low pressure mist system

However in the cold regions like many areas of Himachal Pradesh, natural

ventilation is sufficient to maintain the desired temperature in the poly house. This

can be achieved using the agro-shade net or by providing doors (on opposite sides)

in order to facilitate cross ventilation.

3

1.3 Benefits of green house technology

The benefits which can be derived from the green house cultivation are as follows:

� Environment control allows raising plants anywhere in the world at any time

of the year i.e. crops could be grown under the inclement climatic conditions

when it would not be otherwise possible to grow crops under the open field

conditions.

� The crop yields are at the maximum level per unit area, per unit volume and

per unit input basis.

� The control of the microcosm allows the production of higher quality products

which are free from insect attack, pathogens and chemical residue.

� High value and high quality crops could be grown for export markets.

� Income from the small and the marginal land holdings maintained by the

farmer can be increased by producing crops meant for the export markets.

� It can be used to generate self employment for the educated rural youth in

the farm sector.

1.4 Present scenario

Farmers are also utilizing low and medium cost greenhouses for raising potted plants

and seedlings in the nursery. In the Northern Gangetic plains especially in Punjab,

Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, the farmers are using this technology to raise healthy

seedlings of high yielding crop varieties so that they can be transplanted early in the

fields during the onset of the spring season so as to capture the early markets and

thus reap higher returns. In the North Eastern States, especially in Assam, efforts

are on to raise vegetable crops in the greenhouse-cum-Rain Shelter Structures

during the long south west monsoon periods. In these regions stress is being given

for the development of low cost greenhouses using bamboo frame structures as

these construction materials are readily available in these regions. The results

obtained in this regard from the concerned agricultural universities are encouraging.

1.5 The need

The greenhouse technology is still in its preliminary stage in the country and

concerted efforts are required from all concerned agencies to bring it at par with the

global standards. Globalization coupled with economic liberalization will help in

achieving the desired results. Concerted and continuous efforts are required to

4

develop the required indigenous technology suitable for our country rather than

going in for blatant aping of the western technology. Economically viable and

technologically feasible greenhouse technology suitable for the Indian agro-climatic

and geographical conditions is needed at the earliest.

1.6 The present study

Now-a-days the much needed vegetables are being grown throughout the year in all

climates. Production of brinjal, capsicum, tomato and other cucurbits is taken in the

summer months on a large scale, whereas the green leafy vegetables are being

grown in the long frozen winter months. The quality of flowers produced in open

fields is not of international standards. So, protected cultivation needs to be

standardized. Low cost technologies, required on small holdings, should be

developed. There is a strong need for developing the required minimum

infrastructure in major production zones to be used by growers on

community/cooperative basis. The small growers are thus unable to invest in

expensive systems of this nature.

With this background the present study has been planned with the following specific

objectives:

1.7 Objectives

6. To study the progress in providing assistance for establishing the polyhouse

for cultivation of flowers and vegetables under the programmes in Himachal

Pradesh.

7. To examine the expenditure incurred in establishment of poly houses for

cultivation of Flowers and vegetables under protected conditions in the State.

8. To study the economics of production of Flowers and vegetables under

protected conditions in the State.

9. To analyse the marketing systems adopted for marketing of Flowers and

vegetables produced under protected conditions in the State.

10. To examine the problems faced by the farmers in production and marketing of

Flowers and vegetables under protected conditions in the State.

5

1.8 Plan of study

The present study has been divided into nine chapters. The subject matter of the

first chapter is introducing the problems and presents the objectives of the study.

The second chapter highlights the methodology adopted for the study and

classification of the sample etc. In the third chapter present scenario of polyhouse

cultivation in the State has been presented taking into consideration various

schemes etc available to farmers for adoption of this technology. The

socioeconomic features of the sampled polyhouse farmers have been presented in

fourth chapter. Fifth chapter concentrates on motivational factors and hindrances

encountered by the farmers during the whole adoption and construction process and

the costs involved in its construction. Costs and returns from crops grown in the

protected environment forms the sixth chapter of the study. In the seventh chapter

the marketing system of the protected crops has been presented. Eighth chapter

highlights various problems encountered by farmers in various operations and

stages of cultivation. Conclusions and policy implication of the study have been

presented in the ninth chapter of the study.

6

Chapter – 2

METHODOLOGY

The present chapter deals with the selection procedure adopted for finalizing the

sample for detailed study. During this exercise, care has been taken to make the

sample as representative of the population as possible so that the findings based on

sample could be applied for the population as a whole without significant error. The

following presents the details of the sampling technique adopted.

Pic.-1: A distant view of polyhouse in remote village of district Chamba.

2.1 Selection of Study District and Blocks

Three districts viz. Chamba, Bilaspur and Shimla have been purposely selected on

the basis of highest number of poly-houses. From the selected districts one

development block each has been selected, again on the basis of highest number of

poly-houses. The details have been presented in Table-2.1. All the registered poly-

houses were listed and a sample of 50 growers of vegetables and flowers was

randomly selected. Thus, the study has been based on 50 farmers each cultivating

in poly-houses in three districts.

7

Table-2.1: Selection area of the sample

District Blocks Villages

Bilaspur Bilaspur Sadar I. Jukhala

II. Panjgain

III. Kandror

IV. Beri

V. Kothipura

Chamba Tissa I. Dikravind

II. Kadvas

III. Modah

IV. Gauri

V. Pujthla

VI. Gadiarar

VII. Satloga

VIII. Iluwal

Shimla Theog I. Sainj

II. Fagu

III. Bhekhalti

IV. Theog

2.2 Classification of sample The sample has been classified into three size classes on the basis of the size of the

polyhouses. It was observed during the survey that predominantly there are three

sizes of polyhouses in the State. These are polyhouses covering an area of about

250 square meters, 500 square meters and 1000 square meters. These sizes were

termed as small, medium and large categories, respectively. The sample was

classified according to these size classes and the detailed distribution has been

presented in Table 2.2. The study is thus, based on 150 polyhouse cultivators; 48 of

which belonged to small, 58 to medium and rest 44 to large category. The sample

distribution in percentage form has been presented in Table 2.3.

Table-2.2: Classification of sample ployhouse owners. (No.)

District Size class Total Small Medium Large

Bilaspur 0 16 34 50 Chamba 35 12 3 50

Shimla 13 30 7 50 Total 48 58 44 150

8

Table-2.3: Classification of sample ployhouse owners.

(%) District Size class Total

Small Medium Large

Bilaspur 0.00 32.00 68.00 100.00

Chamba 70.00 24.00 6.00 100.00 Shimla 26.00 60.00 14.00 100.00 Total 32.00 38.67 29.33 100.00 2.3 The Data

Both secondary as well as primary data has been used in this study. The secondary

information was collected from the various levels of administrative machinery of the

State. It includes the records maintained at block, district and State levels.

2.4 Analytical Tools

In general, to make the analysis simple and more understandable, tabular analysis

has been used.

2.5 Limitations of the Study

This study suffers from some limitations, but it is hoped that quality of this report is

not affected on this account. Some of the limitations are listed below:

� The farmers were not aware of the exact costs involved in polyhouse

construction;

� It was difficult for the farmers to segregate the costs farm inputs incurred on

various operations in the protected and open cultivation.

2.6 Reference Period

The study refers to the agriculture year 2010-11.

9

Chapter – 3

PRESENT SCENARIO OF POLYHOUSE DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE

The area under polyhouses has been increasing continuously in the State. As per

latest figures there was 98.22 hectares area under green/polyhouses with a total

financial outlay of ₹ 2863.948 lakhs. Additional 7.91 hectares area was brought

under low poly tunnels and an expenditure of ₹ 3.952 lakhs was made on this

account. Polyhouse was also an important component of Macro Management

Scheme and an area of 6.71 hectares was brought under polyhouses under this

scheme. As such the total area of polyhouses in the State stands at 112.84

hectares.

The protected cultivation in the State is regulated by the provisions of Operational

Guidelines of year 2010, issued by Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture.

These operational guidelines are applicable for all the North East and Himalayan

States. Activities like construction of shade net house, green houses, mulching, and

plastic tunnels, anti bird/hail nets would be promoted under the Mission, and

assistance for different components/sub components have been presented in Table

3.1. Provision has been made for selecting a variety of construction material for

green houses and shade net houses. Separate provision has been made for meeting

the cost of cultivation under green house and shade nets, which includes cost of

planting material and inputs. Preference has been given to the use of locally

available material, to minimize the cost of construction of such structures.

10

Table-3.1: Cost norms and pattern of assistance for polyhouses in Himachal Pradesh

Particulars Maximum permissible cost

Pattern of assistance

Green House Structure

Fan and pad system

₹1465/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 4000 Sq. m per beneficiary.

Naturally ventilated system

Tubular Structure ₹935/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 4000 Sq. m per beneficiary.

Wooden Structure ₹515/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 4000 Sq. m per beneficiary.

Bamboo Structure ₹375/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 4000Sq.m per beneficiary.

Plastic Mulching ₹ 20,000/ha 50% of the cost limited to 2 ha per beneficiary

Shade Net House

Tubular Structure ₹600/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 4000 Sq. M. per beneficiary.

Wooden Structure ₹410/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 4000 Sq. m per beneficiary.

Bamboo Structure ₹300/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 4000 Sq. m per beneficiary.

Plastic Tunnels ₹ 30/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 5000 Sq. m per beneficiary

Anti Bird/Anti Hail Nets ₹ 20/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 5000 Sq. m per beneficiary

Cost of planting material of high value vegetables grown in poly house

₹ 105/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 4000 Sq. m per beneficiary

Cost of planting material of high value flowers for poly house

₹ 500/Sq. m 50% of the cost limited to 4000 Sq. m per beneficiary

Precision Farming development and extension through Precision Farming Development Centres(PFDCs)

Project based

100% of the cost to PFDCs

SOCIOECONOMIC FEATURES OF POLYHOUSE OWNERS

In this chapter, socio-economic characteristics of the sampled

Bilaspur, Chamba and

conditions provide the basis for understanding the background of the sampled

polyhouse farmers. Such conditions influence the process

production and marketing of produce to a great extent.

demographic structure i.e. size of family, sex ratio, education and economic factors

like land utilization pattern, area under different fruits and number of plants in

orchard etc have been discussed.

4.1 Family size

The population distribution of sampled households is given in Table

may be seen that the average family size at aggregate level was five members per

family. This figure was almost same for small and medium farmers

large farmers.

Small

Fig

11

Chapter – 4

SOCIOECONOMIC FEATURES OF POLYHOUSE OWNERS IN THE STATE

economic characteristics of the sampled polyhouse farmers of

and Shimla districts have been discussed. Socio


. Such conditions influence the processes

marketing of produce to a great extent. It is in this context that the



orchard etc have been discussed.

population distribution of sampled households is given in Table

the average family size at aggregate level was five members per

family. This figure was almost same for small and medium farmers

Small Medium Large Total

5.4 5.354.5

5

Fig-4.1:Average family size of sample farmers

(No. of persons)

SOCIOECONOMIC FEATURES OF POLYHOUSE OWNERS

polyhouse farmers of

districts have been discussed. Socio-economic


es followed in the

It is in this context that the



population distribution of sampled households is given in Table 4.1 wherein it

the average family size at aggregate level was five members per

family. This figure was almost same for small and medium farmers but lower for

Table- 4.1: Average Family Size of sample Households

Family Size Small

No. of persons

4.2 Educational Status

The proportion of literates in the given population is an indicator of the quality of

manpower. The educational level of members of the sampled families has been

presented in Table 4.2

Among small category the percentage of illiterates was very high, 21.88 per cent but

was about 11 and 10 per cent in case of medium and large farmers.

prevalent standard of education was observed to be

31 per cent of the persons having attained this qualification

education. There were about eight per cent graduates and about 10 per cent

persons having qualification above graduation. Further category wise details can

also be referred to from this

Small

78.12

Fig-4.2: Literacy among sample households (%)

12

: Average Family Size of sample Households

(No.)Category

Small Medium Large

5.40 5.35 4.50

Educational Status



which reveals that about 14 per cent population was

small category the percentage of illiterates was very high, 21.88 per cent but

was about 11 and 10 per cent in case of medium and large farmers.

prevalent standard of education was observed to be senior secondary level, about

ersons having attained this qualification followed by primary

There were about eight per cent graduates and about 10 per cent


also be referred to from this table.

Medium Large All

Category

78.12

89.1789.91

86.01

4.2: Literacy among sample households (%)

(No.)

Total

5.00



per cent population was illiterate.

small category the percentage of illiterates was very high, 21.88 per cent but

was about 11 and 10 per cent in case of medium and large farmers. The most

senior secondary level, about

followed by primary level

There were about eight per cent graduates and about 10 per cent


Table- 4. 2: Educational Level of Family Members of Sampled households.

Particulars

Illiterate

Primary

Middle

Secondary

Graduates

Above graduation

Total

4.3 Occupational pattern The workers in rural areas usually have more than one occupations, the main

occupation and the subsidiary which is practised during the lean season of

agricultural operations. Taking this fact into consideration the analysis has been

divided into two parts; main and subsidiary occupations.

4.3.1 Main occupation

analyzed and the results have been presented in absolute numbers

in percentages (Table 4.4). It was found that m

Ag. Labour8%

Retired2%

DependentsNeg%

Household workers

5%

Fig

13

: Educational Level of Family Members of Sampled households.

Category

Small Medium Large

21.88 10.83 10.09

23.21 23.83 20.18

13.39 16.97 11.84

30.80 36.82 24.56

6.25 6.86 11.84

4.46 4.69 21.49

100.00 100.00 100.00

pattern

The workers in rural areas usually have more than one occupations, the main



two parts; main and subsidiary occupations.

4.3.1 Main occupation: Main occupation of the sampled polyhouse

analyzed and the results have been presented in absolute numbers

percentages (Table 4.4). It was found that majority (54.59

Farming54%

Non-farming1%

Service5%

Retired2%

DependentsNeg%

Household workers

5%

Students25%

Fig-4.3: Main occupation of workers (% of total)

: Educational Level of Family Members of Sampled households.

(%)

Large All

10.09 13.99

20.18 22.50

11.84 14.27

24.56 31.14

11.84 8.23

21.49 9.88

100.00 100.00

The workers in rural areas usually have more than one occupations, the main



polyhouse farmers was

analyzed and the results have been presented in absolute numbers (Table 4.3) and

54.59%) of the farmers

Farming54%

Others0%

14

reported agriculture as their main occupation, followed by agricultural labour (7.86%)

and service (5.53%). About 25 per cent of the total population was comprised by

students and about 5 per cent reported household work to be their main occupation.

Dependents and retired persons were also included in the analysis.

4.3.2 Subsidiary occupation: The number and proportion of workers undertaking

any subsidiary occupation have been presented in Tables 4.5 and 4.6, respectively.

Household work is the most common subsidiary occupation (12.52%), followed by

agriculture (5.39%), and agriculture labour which was subsidiary occupation of 1.31

per cent persons. Further details can be referred to from the table.

Table-4. 3: Occupational Pattern of Sampled Households (Main occupation).

(No.)

Occupation Category


Farming 121 127 127 375

Service 14 21 3 38

Ag. Labour 1 45 8 54

Non-ag.

Labour 0 0 0 0

Retired 6 5 0 11

Dependents 1 0 0 1

Household

workers 6 12 16 34

Students 69 60 42 171

Others 0 1 2 3

Total

population 218 271 198 687

15

Table- 4.4: Occupational Pattern of Sampled Households (Main occupation).

(%) Table- 4.5: Occupational Pattern of Sampled Households (Subsidiary occupation).

(No.)

Occupation Category


Farming 55.51 46.87 64.14 54.59

Service 6.42 7.75 1.52 5.53

Ag. Labour 0.46 16.61 4.04 7.86

Non-ag.

Labour 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Retired 2.75 1.85 0.00 1.60

Dependents 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.15

Household

workers 2.75 4.43 8.08 4.95

Students 31.65 22.14 21.21 24.89

Others 0.00 0.37 1.01 0.44

Total

population 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Occupation Category


Farming 11 14 12 37

Service 0 0 0 0

Ag. Labour 0 8 1 9

Non-ag.

Labour 0 0 0 0

Retired 0 0 1 1

Dependents 0 0 0 0

Household

workers 44 31 11 86

Students 1 1 0 2

Others 0 0 0 0

Total

population 218 271 198 687

16

Table-4. 6: Occupational Pattern of Sampled Households (Subsidiary occupation).

(%) 4.4 Land resources

Land being the primary factor of production, the economic activity of a region or a

country, industrial or agricultural, mainly depends on the quantum of land resources

available and the manner in which these are used. The land resources of the

sampled farmers have been presented in Table 4.7 in absolute terms and in table

4.8 in percentage terms and indicate the extent of land use for cultivation and land

under grasses etc. The perusal of the Table 4.7 reveals that the total land owned by

average sampled farmer was 1.08 hectares which was 0.85 for small, 1.22 for

medium and 1.13 hectares for large farmers. Out of this about 46 per cent was

cultivated land (Table-4.8) and these figures were 24 for small, 56 for medium and

51 per cent for large farmers, respectively. The proportion of irrigated land was

slightly higher at overall level but was lower than unirrigated land in case of small

and large farmers. Grass land was about 54 per cent at over all level which was as

high as 76 per cent in case of small farmers.

Occupation Category


Farming 5.05 5.17 6.06 5.39

Service 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Ag. Labour 0.00 2.95 0.51 1.31

Non-Ag.

Labour 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Retired 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.15

Dependents 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Household

workers 20.18 11.44 5.56 12.52

Students 0.46 0.37 0.00 0.29

Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total

population 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table- 4.7: Land Resources of Selected protected Cultivators. Particulars

Small

Total Land Cultivated land

Irrigated Un-Irrigated Grass land Table-4.8: Land Resources of Selected protected Cultivators. Particulars

Small

Total Land Cultivated land

Irrigated Un-Irrigated Grass land

4.5 Income from sources In addition to income from farming, the farming households derive income from

various other sources like animal husbandry, salary, business

agricultural labour etc. The results of analysis in this respect have been presented in

Small

17

: Land Resources of Selected protected Cultivators.

(Ha/Farm) Category

Small Medium Large

0.85 1.22 1.13

0.20 0.68 0.58 0.09 0.37 0.28 0.11 0.31 0.30 0.65 0.54 0.55


Category

Small Medium Large

100.00 100.00 100.00 23.53 55.74 51.33 10.59 30.33 24.78 12.94 25.41 26.55 76.47 44.26 48.67

4.5 Income from sources other than crop farming

addition to income from farming, the farming households derive income from

various other sources like animal husbandry, salary, business, agricultural and non


Small Medium Large All

0.85

1.221.13 1.08

Fig-4.4: Average holding size of sample farms (ha/farm)


Overall

1.08

0.50 0.25 0.25 0.58


(%) Overall

100.00 46.03 23.52 22.51 53.97

addition to income from farming, the farming households derive income from

agricultural and non-


4.4: Average holding size of sample

18

Table 4.9, in absolute terms and in Table 4.10 in percentage terms. It can be seen

from Table 4.10 that out of total income of all sampled polyhouse farmers, the

proportion of income from salaries was maximum (56.86%) followed by animal

husbandry (27.08%). The income from business accounted for only (4.20%) and

from wage labour it was only 4.66 per cent. The analysis has also been carried out

for individual size classes the results of which have also been presented in these

tables.

Table-4.9: Per Farm Annual Income from Other Sources

(Rs/farm/year) Sources of income Category Overall

Marginal Small Large

Animal husbandry 26371 39825 35951 34383

Income from salary 70000 112241 21818 72200 Business 9375 6034 0 5333 Income from wages 344 14154 1159 5922 Pension 15000 11207 0 9133

Total income 121090 183461 58928 126973 Table-4.10: Per Farm Annual Income from Other Sources

(%) Sources of income Category Overall


Animal husbandry 21.78 21.71 61.01 27.08 Income from salary 57.81 61.18 37.02 56.86

Business 7.74 3.29 0.00 4.20

Income from wages 0.28 7.71 1.97 4.66 Pension 12.39 6.11 0.00 7.19 Total income 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

4.6 Summing up From the above analysis it can be concluded that average family size among all the

sampled polyhouse farmers was

found to be literate and out of total persons maximum (

qualifications of senior secondary level

majority (53.86%) of the

occupation. The analysis of l

1.08 ha at the aggregate

proportion of income, from sources other than agriculture,

from salary followed by animal husbandry (27.08%)

Income

from salary

57%

Income

from

wages

5%

Pension

7%Fig

19

From the above analysis it can be concluded that average family size among all the

farmers was 5 persons. About 86 percent of the people were

found to be literate and out of total persons maximum (31.14%)

f senior secondary level. Agriculture was the main occupation of the

%) of the individuals and this was also the prime subsidiary

The analysis of land resources indicates that of the total holding of

1.08 ha at the aggregate level, maximum (46.03%) area was cultivated land

, from sources other than agriculture, was maximum (

salary followed by animal husbandry (27.08%).

Animal

husbandry

27%

Income

from salary

Business

4%

Fig-4.5 Annual income of sample farms

from other sources (%)

From the above analysis it can be concluded that average family size among all the

percent of the people were

%) had educational

. Agriculture was the main occupation of the

individuals and this was also the prime subsidiary

of the total holding of

%) area was cultivated land. The

was maximum (56.86%)

husbandry

MOTIVATION

Polyhouse is comparatively a new concept and technology for the farmers of the

State. The starting point for the adoption of the technology is the information about it.

After the farmers get the information about

analyse the pros and cons of it and then decide about its adoption. For adoption

also, there are various motivations which help in making up the minds of farmers for

its adoption. But simultaneously, there are vario

as deterrent and may act as hindrances in adoption process slowing it down. In the

worst cases, the farmers may get so dishearten that he may decide to abandon the

adoption of the technology or the concept. It is with

chapter has been designed to cater all these factors.

5.1 Sources of information

There are various sources from which the farmers could have gathered the

information about the possible benefits of polyhouses including the formalities for

getting loans and other operational details. In majority of cases the respondents

received information from more than one source and hence the analysis in this

69.71

Fig.-5.1 Sources of information about polyhouses (%)

20

Chapter – 5

MOTIVATIONS/HINDRANCES AND COSTS INVOLVED IN POLYHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

olyhouse is comparatively a new concept and technology for the farmers of the

. The starting point for the adoption of the technology is the information about it.

After the farmers get the information about various aspects of the technology they



its adoption. But simultaneously, there are various factors and situations w


the farmers may get so dishearten that he may decide to abandon the

adoption of the technology or the concept. It is with this background that the present

chapter has been designed to cater all these factors.

5.1 Sources of information




tion from more than one source and hence the analysis in this

70.54

31.08 34.42

73.95

5.1 Sources of information about polyhouses (%)

INVOLVED IN

olyhouse is comparatively a new concept and technology for the farmers of the

. The starting point for the adoption of the technology is the information about it.

various aspects of the technology they



us factors and situations which act


the farmers may get so dishearten that he may decide to abandon the

this background that the present




tion from more than one source and hence the analysis in this

5.1 Sources of information about polyhouses (%)

21

respect is based on multiple responses. The results of analysis in this respect

indicates that mass media was the main source of information, about 74 per cent of

the respondents, at overall level, getting information from this source (Table-5.1).

This was followed by friends/relatives (70.54%) and horticulture department

(69.71%). However, detailed and authentic information was provided by the

department only. The large farmers mainly depended upon department of

horticulture for information in this regard. The class wise information is also provided

in this table.

Table- 5.1: Sources of Information about Polyhouse

(%, multiple responses)

Sources Category Overall Small Medium Large

Horticulture Department 62.50 53.45 93.18 69.71 Friends/relatives 43.75 72.41 95.45 70.54 Seen in other villages 41.67 37.93 13.64 31.08 Awareness camps 56.25 37.93 9.09 34.42 Mass media 56.25 72.41 93.18 73.95

22

5.2 Motivation Factors Motivational factors are the situations or reasons which induce the respondents to

adopt the activity. A list of such possible motivational factors was drawn and

responses on such factors recorded. It was obvious to use the multiple response

analysis as there was every chance of more than one factor being instrumental in

inducing the respondent to adopt the activity. The results of the analysis have been

presented in Table 5.2.

It was found that the possibility of high income from polyhouses was the largest

factor motivating about 65 per cent of the respondents. About 60 per cent of the

respondents were motivated by the fact that others were also installing the

polyhouses and hence it is a preposition worth adoption. Hence, the demonstration

effect played its role. Same percentage of the respondents adopted this activity due

the fact that they had very low availability of water for irrigation and thought that low

requirement of irrigation water in polyhouse makes it suitable for their operating

circumstances.

In addition to these important motivational factors, there were other equally

compelling reasons like long crop during which motivated about 57 per cent of the

23

respondents. About 52 per cent respondents were motivated by the fact that easy

loan was available along with generous subsidy. The reason quoted by about half of

the respondents was that they had very low amount of land and by adoption of this

technology they will be able to have more comprehensive use of scarce land.

Various other motivational factors along with the percentage of respondents

reporting these factors and category wise details can be referred to from this table.

Table-5.2: Motivation Factors for Adoption of Polyhouse

(%, multiple responses) Sources Category Overall

Small Medium Large

Low amount of land 27.08 51.72 70.45 49.75

Suitable land is available 47.92 32.76 13.64 31.44 Availability of manpower 37.50 20.69 6.82 21.67 Possibility of high income 41.67 68.97 84.09 64.91 Availability of subsidy 37.50 44.83 65.91 49.41 Availability of easy loan 22.92 50.00 84.09 52.34 Long crop duration 39.58 56.90 75.00 57.16 Easy control of insects/pests 35.42 43.10 72.73 50.42

Ready market for products 41.67 24.14 13.64 26.48 New crops can be grown 31.25 53.45 72.73 52.48 Enough financial resources 35.42 29.31 11.36 25.36 Availability of technology 27.08 15.52 4.55 15.72 Demonstration effect 39.58 53.45 88.64 60.56 Low availability of water for irrigation 27.08 72.41 81.82 60.44

5.3 Hindrances in adoption

Despite the fact that the farmers are motivated for adoption of polyhouses, there are

various hindrances and bottlenecks which the farmers encounter during the adoption

process. The analysis of such factors is important from the point of view of

streamlining and refining the programme for higher adoption rates and hence this

could be instrumental in programme success.

such possible hindrances was drawn and multiple responses on such factors

recorded. The results of

.

The results of the study indicate that the main obstacle in the whole process was the

high construction cost of polyhouse (74% respondents) which discouraged them to

augment the existing level of activity. T

reported by about 72 per cent of the respondents. About 57 per cent respondents

felt that the construction material is not locally available

made the polyhouse at their own level without

from the department. The respondents also had complaints about clearance

procedure of department which in their opinion was very long (42%) and

cumbersome (36%). Various other hindrances encountered were delays in

Suitable land is available

Availability of manpower

Possibility of high income

Availability of easy loan

Easy control of insects/pests

Ready market for products

New crops can be grown

Enough financial resources

Availability of technology

Low availability of water for irrigation

Fig.-5.2: Motivations for adoption of polyhouse

24

in adoption




ing and refining the programme for higher adoption rates and hence this

could be instrumental in programme success. To carry out this analysis, a list of


recorded. The results of the analysis have been presented in Table 5.3



augment the existing level of activity. This was followed by marketing problems as


felt that the construction material is not locally available otherwise they could have

made the polyhouse at their own level without waiting for clearance and subsidy etc




Low amount of land

Suitable land is available

Availability of manpower

Possibility of high income

Availability of subsidy

Availability of easy loan

Long crop duration

Easy control of insects/pests

Ready market for products

New crops can be grown

Enough financial resources

Availability of technology

Demonstration effect

Low availability of water for irrigation

49.75

31.44

21.67

49.41

50.42

26.48

25.36

15.72

5.2: Motivations for adoption of polyhouse




ing and refining the programme for higher adoption rates and hence this

To carry out this analysis, a list of


the analysis have been presented in Table 5.3



his was followed by marketing problems as


otherwise they could have

waiting for clearance and subsidy etc




49.75

64.91

49.41

52.34

57.16

50.42

52.48

60.56

60.44

5.2: Motivations for adoption of polyhouse

technology transfer, delays on the part of contractor and unavailability of skilled

labour etc.

Table- 5.3: Hindrances E

Hindrances

Cumbersome clearance from department Delays in technology transfer Long wait for loan clearance/subsidy Construction materials not locally available Contractor delayed the execution

High construction costUnavailability of skilled labour Unsuitable farm locationMarketing problems of crops Took time to adjust new crops growing technology

Cumbersome clearance from department

Delays in technology transfer

Long wait for loan clearance/subsidy

Construction materials not locally

Contractor delayed the execution

Unavailability of skilled labour

Marketing problems of crops

Took time to adjust new crops growing

Fig.5.3: Hinderances in adoption o f polyhouses (%)

25

chnology transfer, delays on the part of contractor and unavailability of skilled

: Hindrances Encountered for Adoption of Polyhouse

(%, multiple

Category Small Medium Large

Cumbersome clearance 45.83 43.10 18.18

Delays in technology 37.50 20.69 6.82

50.00 55.17 20.45Construction materials not

33.33 48.28 88.64Contractor delayed the

41.67 29.31 13.64

High construction cost 60.42 65.52 95.45Unavailability of skilled

27.08 48.28 15.91Unsuitable farm location 56.25 27.59 20.45Marketing problems of

39.58 77.59 97.73adjust new

crops growing technology 22.92 25.86 6.82

Cumbersome clearance from department

Delays in technology transfer

Long wait for loan clearance/subsidy

Construction materials not locally …

Contractor delayed the execution

High construction cost

Unavailability of skilled labour

Unsuitable farm location

Marketing problems of crops

Took time to adjust new crops growing …

35.71

21.67

41.88

28.2

30.42

34.76

18.53


chnology transfer, delays on the part of contractor and unavailability of skilled

house

multiple responses)

Overall

18.18 35.71

6.82 21.67

20.45 41.88

88.64 56.75

13.64 28.20

95.45 73.80

15.91 30.42 20.45 34.76

97.73 71.63

6.82 18.53

56.75

73.8

71.63


26

5.4 Departmental supervision The department supervise the construction of polyhouses to ensure the adherence

to approved design and quality control in the construction. The results indicate that

at overall level 66 per cent of the polyhouses were supervised by the officials (table-

5.4). It is encouraging to note that the attitude of officials during the supervision, in

addition to ensure the quality and design aspects, was supportive to farmers. About

69 per cent respondents revealed that the attitude of officials was very supportive

and praiseworthy. All the large farmers supported this view. Only about 31 per cent

respondents felt the attitude to be neutral. The noteworthy outcome of the analysis

is that none of the respondents found the attitude to be discouraging. This fact can

go a long way in making not only this scheme a success but the future endeavours

of the department as well.

Table-5.4: Departmental supervision of polyhouse construction and official

(% of farmers) Particulars Categories Overall

Small Medium Large

Cases supervised 72.92 46.55 84.09 66.00 Attitude of officials

- Supportive 27.08 79.31 100.00 68.69 -Neutral 72.92 20.69 0.00 31.37 -Discouraging 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.5 Farmers’ suggestions for improvement of polyhouses There were many farmers who had some suggestion for improving the sustainability

and viability of present system. Such farmers came out with a few suggestions

(Table-5.5). At overall level about 71 per cent of the respondents had some

suggestions to make for improvement. This percentage was the highest among the

large farmers. Majority of farmers (66%) felt that the design of the polyhouses

should not be very rigid and the adaptation of design to local conditions should be

incorporated in the system. About 63 per cent felt that some assistance in marketing

should be provided, or it should be integrated with the scheme for making it more

viable. About little more than 40 per cent respondents felt that the things will

improve if some cost saving techniques is applied or made available, information on

27

cropping practices under protected conditions is provided, organic farming is

introduced in polyhouses and farmers are trained on product processing and

packaging.

Table-5.5: Suggestions for improvement of polyhouses


Small Medium Large

Farmers with suggestions 75.80 56.30 86.09 71.28

Suggestions

Adaptation of design to local conditions

73 47 84 66

Cost saving measures 15 35 84 43

Crops to be grown 0 31 84 37 Cropping practices 15 33 84 42 Sources of inputs 0 31 84 37 Organic farming 15 33 84 42 Product processing and packing

15 35 84 43

Storage techniques 15 35 84 43 Marketing assistance 47 63 81 63

5.6 Delays in No Objection Certificates Many respondents felt that there are delays in granting of No Objection Certificate

(NOC) from the department (Table 5.6) which could have been due to long

departmental procedures or other priority assignments with the concerned officials.

At overall level 67 per cent respondents revealed that they had to face some delay in

granting NOC from the department due to which they had to face the financial

hardships.

Table-5.6: Delays in No Objection Certificates (NOC)


Small Medium Large

Farmers reporting delay

72.92 46.55 84.09 67.00

No delay reported

27.08 51.75 15.91 33.00

28

5.7 Action by contractor in case of delayed NOC

Only two per cent respondents at overall level reported some action by the

contractor in case of delayed NOC (Table 5.7). All these respondents belonged to

large category.

Table-5.7: Action by contractor in case of delay in NOC


Small Medium Large

Action reported 0.00 0.00 6.82 2.00 No action 100.00 100.00 93.18 98.00 5.8: Equipments installed in polyhouses There are various types of equipments installed in the polyhouses, especially in the

polyhouses of high tech design. The results of analysis in this respect have been

presented in Table-5.8. It was found that 68 per cent of polyhouses had humidifiers,

sun shades, drip irrigation, fogger, water tank and Vermicompost pit

installed/constructed along with the main structure. In addition to this, about 23 per

cent reported installation of heaters and 35 per cent also the coolers.

Table-5.8: Equipments installed in polyhouses

(% of farmers) Equipments installed Categories Overall

Small Medium Large

Heater 0.00 41.38 22.73 22.67

Cooler 27.08 51.72 22.73 35.33 Humidifier 27.08 77.59 100.00 68.00 Sun shade 27.08 77.59 100.00 68.00 Drip irrigation 27.08 77.59 100.00 68.00 Fogger 27.08 79.31 100.00 68.67 Water tank 25.00 77.59 100.00 68.00

Vermicompost pit 25.00 77.59 100.00 66.00

29

5.9 Deviation from recommended design Some minor deviations from the recommended designs were reported by the

polyhouse owners which were due mainly to three reasons (Table 5.9). The

deviation in about 33 per cent polyhouses was due to financial constraints. About 16

per cent respondents did it on the recommendation of contractors which mainly was

to accommodate the polyhouse on some sort of unsuitable shape of land parcel on

which the polyhouse was to be erected. The reason among about13 per cent

polyhouses was quoted to be that they just followed others.

Table-5.9: Reasons for deviation from recommended design of polyhouse

(%, multiple responses) Equipments installed Categories Overall

Small Medium Large

Financial constraints 72.92 20.69 6.82 33.34 Contractors’ recommendations

24.52 18.59 2.50 15.77

Followed others 12.22 18.97 6.82 13.25

5.10 Cost of polyhouse construction The average cost of polyhouse construction was found to be ₹385182 of which ₹

208894 was the net cost paid by the farmers and the rest ₹ 184567 was subsidy

amount (Table 5.10). The net cost paid by small farmers was ₹ 69855, ₹ 211180 in

case of medium farmers and ₹ 357559 in case of large farmers.

30

Table-5.10: Cost of polyhouse construction

(₹) Equipments installed Categories Overall

Small Medium Large

Total cost 126485 373680 682559 385182 Amount of subsidy 82500 162500 325000 184567 Net cost paid by farmers 69855 211180 357559 208894

5.11 Summing up

The analysis indicates that friends and relatives are the most important source of

information about the polyhouses however, for authentic and detailed information

vast majority resorts to department. The decision making process of the

respondents was influenced by variety of motivational factors and hindrances they

encountered during this stage. Majority of polyhouse construction was supervised

by the authorities and they had supportive attitude towards the farmers. The farmers

were vigilant and came out with variety of suggestion for improving the present

scenario of polyhouse scheme in the State. Farmers had installed many types of

equipment in polyhouses which are important for ensuring high productivity and

quality of products. Sometimes the farmers deviated from the approved design

mainly because of financial stringencies and such deviations were not significant.

31

Chapter – 6

COSTS AND RETURNS FROM PROTECTED CROPS

In this chapter an attempt has been made to calculate the various costs incurred on

cultivation of crops under protected and unprotected conditions by different

categories of sampled polyhouse farmers in Himachal Pradesh. It was found that

the farmers were growing large variety of crops under protected and unprotected

conditions. It was felt that it will not be possible to cover all such crops and also the

area and efforts devoted to such crops made them quite unimportant. Hence, the

present analysis has been carried out only for selected important crops. These

crops included carnation, capsicum and tomato under protected conditions and

wheat, maize, beans, cabbage, tomato etc under unprotected conditions. The unit for

cost of cultivation for selected crops, under protected conditions, has been taken to

be the average size of polyhouse. These sizes are 250 Sq. Meters for small, 500

Sq. Meters for medium and 1000 Sq. Meter for large category of farmers.

Cost of cultivation includes various operations and inputs. The labour used for

different operation has been evaluated at current market wage rate prevailing in

different villages. The home labour has also been evaluated at the same rate. The

input costs have been taken to be actual cost of inputs and the costs of

transportation, carriage, handling etc, if any, have been added to purchase price of

inputs to work out the actual cost of inputs applied. Many of the inputs are home

produced or some portion of these are home produced. Under such circumstances

the home produced inputs have been evaluated at the current market price for

working out the cost of cultivation of selected crops. The following text presents the

details.

6.1 Cost of cultivation of carnation

The cost of cultivation, at overall level was found to be ₹ 126102 per polyhouse and

this cost was ₹ 62079 for small, ₹ 104092 for medium and ₹ 202988 for large

32

polyhouse farmers (Table 6.1). It was found that value of sapling was the largest

cost component accounting for 26 per cent of the total cost of cultivation. This is the

average value for 5 years of life of plant. This was followed by application of FYM

(15 %) and Vermicompost and fertilizer (11 % each), making the manures and

fertilizers, considered together, the largest cost component. Insecticides/pesticides

application was 5 per cent of total cost. The cost of harvesting of these flowers was

9 per cent of total cost. Other details of different categories can be seen from this

table.

Table-6.1: Cost of cultivation of carnation under protected condition

(₹ /polyhouse)

Cost items

Category

Small Medium Large Over all

₹ %

Formation of beds 1129 2596 4948 2979 2

Value of sapling 18667 25300 52666 32888 26

Sowing/ Transplanting 521 1130 2030 1262 1

Manuring/FYM 7909 16570 31480 19190 15

Vermicompost 6927 11940 20750 13520 11

Fertilizer 5065 9533 24939 13585 11

Insecticides/pesticides 3493 5511 9274 6223 5

Interculture 3305 7319 14394 8591 7

Irrigation 1646 2888 4406 3047 2

Spraying 3038 4018 7800 5048 4

Stalking etc. 3532 5050 6639 5151 4

Harvesting/ picking 5045 9025 17550 10815 9

Soil sterilization 1802 3212 6112 3804 3

Total production cost 62079 104092 202988 126102 100

6.2 Net returns from carnation cultivation The net returns have been calculated by adding the marketing cost to the cost of

production and then subtracting it from value of output. It was found that average

net return from cultivation of carnation was ₹ 777732 per polyhouse at overall level,

(Table 6.2). However, the net returns were

medium and ₹ 1558240

Table-6.2: Net returns from cultivation of carnation under protected condition

Cost items

Production cost

Marketing cost

Total cost

Value of output

Net returns

6.3 Net returns per box Net returns per box of carnation have been presented in Table 6.3 and it may be

seen from the table that on an average total production was 445 boxes.

average production based on five years of productive life of carnation plant.

production of spikes from each plant goes on increasing from 5

during first year to 40-

1734 and its value in market was

aggregate level. The net returns per box were

and ₹ 3555 for large polyhouse f

an output-input ratio of 1:2.01 at overall level and 1:1.64

and 1:2.17 for large polyhouse f

Small

1.52 lakh

Figcultivation of carnation (

33

6.2). However, the net returns were Rs, 151680 for small,

1558240 for large polyhouse farmers.

: Net returns from cultivation of carnation under protected condition

(₹ /polyhouse)Category

Small Medium Large

62079 104092 202988

175851 515520 1125432

237930 619612 1328420

389610 1256580 2886660

151680 636968 1558240

Net returns per box from carnation cultivation

Net returns per box of carnation have been presented in Table 6.3 and it may be

seen from the table that on an average total production was 445 boxes.

average production based on five years of productive life of carnation plant.

production of spikes from each plant goes on increasing from 5-

-50 spikes per plant during 5th year. The cost per box was

1734 and its value in market was ₹ 3484 resulting in net return of

The net returns per box were ₹ 1296 for small,

for large polyhouse farmers. This scenario of costs and returns yielded

input ratio of 1:2.01 at overall level and 1:1.64 for small,

for large polyhouse farmers.

Small Medium Large Overall

1.52 lakh6.37 lakh

15.58 lakh

7.78 lakh

Fig-6.1: Average annual net returns from cultivation of carnation (`̀̀̀ per polyhouse)

for small, ₹ 636968 for

: Net returns from cultivation of carnation under protected condition

/polyhouse)

Over all

202988 126102

1125432 645021

1328420 771123

2886660 1548855

1558240 777732

Net returns per box of carnation have been presented in Table 6.3 and it may be

seen from the table that on an average total production was 445 boxes. This is

average production based on five years of productive life of carnation plant. The

-8 spikes per plant

The cost per box was ₹

3484 resulting in net return of ₹ 1749 per box at

for small, ₹ 1779 for medium

. This scenario of costs and returns yielded

for small, 1:2.03 for medium

Table-6.3: Net returns per box and inputcarnation under protected condition

Cost items

Total production (boxes)

Cost per box

Value per box

Returns per box

Output-input ratio

Small Medium Large

117

358

Fig-6.2.1: Average annual production of carnation on sample polyhouse (boxes)

34

: Net returns per box and input-output ratio from cultivation of carnation under protected condition

(₹ /box of 900 Category

Small Medium Large

117 358 812

2034 1731 1636

3330 3510 3555

1296 1779 1919

1:1.64 1:2.03 1:2.17

Large Over all

812

445

6.2.1: Average annual production of carnation on sample polyhouse (boxes)

20341731

Fig-6.2.2. : Per box average cost of production of carnation (

output ratio from cultivation of

box of 900 spikes)

Over all

812 445

1636 1734

3555 3484

1919 1749

1:2.17 1:2.01

1636 1734

6.2.2. : Per box average cost of production of carnation (₹)

6.4 Cost of cultivation

The cost of capsicum cultivation has been presented in Table 6.1.

cultivation, at overall level was found to be

₹ 16364 for small, ₹ 42105

The analysis revealed

component accounting for

followed by application of FYM (

application was 5 per cent of total cost.

cent of the total cost. The cost of bed formation and transplanting the sapling was

higher than this and stood at 6 per cent each.

was 10 per cent of total cost. Other details o

this table.

Small

1296

Fig-6.2.3. : Per box average net returns in carnation (

35

cultivation of capsicum

The cost of capsicum cultivation has been presented in Table 6.1.

cultivation, at overall level was found to be ₹ 41477 per polyhouse and this cost was

42105 for medium and ₹ 88563 for large polyhouse f

The analysis revealed that stalking of individual plants was the largest cost

component accounting for 24 per cent of the total cost of cultivation. This was

followed by application of FYM (18 %) and fertilizer (6 %). Insecticides/pesticides

application was 5 per cent of total cost. Seeds/seedlings accounted for only 3 per


higher than this and stood at 6 per cent each. The cost of harvesting

per cent of total cost. Other details of different categories can be seen from


1296

17791919

1749

6.2.3. : Per box average net returns in carnation (₹

The cost of capsicum cultivation has been presented in Table 6.1. The cost of

per polyhouse and this cost was


was the largest cost

per cent of the total cost of cultivation. This was

Insecticides/pesticides

Seeds/seedlings accounted for only 3 per


The cost of harvesting the capsicum

f different categories can be seen from

6.2.3. : Per box average net returns in carnation (₹)

36

Table-6.4: Cost of cultivation of capsicum under protected condition

(₹ /polyhouse)

Cost items Category

Small Medium Large Over all ₹ %


Seed/ seedlings 700 1200 2500 1238 3

Transplanting 1072 2360 5651 2449 6

Manuring/FYM 3480 8700 10487 7618 18

Vermicompost 0 0 0 0 0

Fertilizer 952 2671 4122 2423 6

Insecticides/pesticides 400 1945 5015 1943 5

Inter culture 864 2160 6237 2346 6

Irrigation 1161 3240 3456 2747 7

Spraying 216 540 1400 567 1

Stalking etc. 3428 9676 24656 9987 24

Harvesting/ picking 1296 3559 13635 4253 10

Soil sterilization 1715 3320 5950 3248 8

Total 16364 42105 88563 41477 100

6.5 Net returns from capsicum cultivation The net returns from capsicum cultivation have been presented in Table 6.5 and

have been calculated by adding the marketing cost to the cost of production and

then subtracting it from value of output. It was found that average net return from

cultivation of capsicum

net returns were ₹ 43261

polyhouse farmers.

Table-6.5: Net returns from cultivation of capsicum under protected condition

Cost items

Production cost

Marketing cost

Total cost

Value of output

Net returns

6.6 Net returns per box Net returns per box of

from the table that on an average total production was

was ₹ 204 and its value in market was

Small

43261

Figcultivation of capsicum (

37

capsicum was ₹ 80791 per polyhouse at overall level. However, t

43261 for small, ₹ 77787 for medium and ₹

: Net returns from cultivation of capsicum under protected condition

(₹ /polyhouseCategory

Small Medium Large

16364 42105 88563

11925 22248 44091

28289 64353 132654

71550 142140 303525

43261 77787 170871

Net returns per box from capsicum cultivation

Net returns per box of capsicum have been presented in Table 6.

from the table that on an average total production was 313 boxes. The cost per box

and its value in market was ₹ 463 resulting in net return of


43261

77787

170871

80791

Fig-6.3: Average annual net returns from cultivation of capsicum (₹ per polyhouse)

80791 per polyhouse at overall level. However, the

₹ 170871 for large

: Net returns from cultivation of capsicum under protected condition

polyhouse)

Over all

88563 41477

44091 22398

132654 63875

303525 144666

170871 80791

have been presented in Table 6.6 and it is found

boxes. The cost per box

resulting in net return of ₹ 258 per box

6.3: Average annual net returns from

at aggregate level. The net returns per box were


output-input ratio of 1:2.26 at overall level and 1:2.53


Table-6.6: Net returns per box and input capsicum under protected condition

Cost items


Cost per box

Value per box

Returns per box

Output-input ratio

Small Medium Large

159

309

Fig-6.4.1: Average annual production of capsicum on sample

polyhouses (boxes)

38


for large polyhouse farmers. This scenario of costs and returns yielded an



: Net returns per box and input-output ratio from cultivation of capsicum under protected condition

(₹ /box of 20 KgsCategory

Small Medium Large

159 309 639

178 208 208

450 460 475

272 252 267

1:2.53 1:2.21 1:2.29

Large Over all

639

313

6.4.1: Average annual production of capsicum on sample

polyhouses (boxes)

Small Medium

178

208

Fig-6.4.2: Per box average cost of production of capsicum (


. This scenario of costs and returns yielded an


output ratio from cultivation of

box of 20 Kgs)

Over all

639 313

208 204

475 463

267 258

1:2.29 1:2.26

Large Over all

208204

6.4.2: Per box average cost of production of capsicum (₹)

6.7 Cost of cultivation

The cost of cultivation for tomato

seen that the cost of cultivation, at overall level was found to be

polyhouse and this cost was

large polyhouse farmers.

largest cost component accounting for

This was followed by stalking of individual plants

(12 %). Manure/FYM

observed to be using vermicompost in this crop.

4 per cent of the total cost. The cost of bed formation

cent and transplanting the sapling was higher than this and stood at

cost of harvesting the

incurred on soil sterilization

at 4 per cent each. Other details of different categories can be seen from this table.

Small

272

Fig

39

cultivation of tomato

cultivation for tomato has been presented in Table 6.7

he cost of cultivation, at overall level was found to be

polyhouse and this cost was ₹ 19100 for small, ₹ 42386 for medium and

rmers. The analysis reveals that fertilizer application

largest cost component accounting for 20 per cent of the total cost of cultivation.

stalking of individual plants (17 %) and Insecticides/pesti

Manure/FYM application was 10 per cent of total cost.

observed to be using vermicompost in this crop. Seeds/seedlings accounted for only

per cent of the total cost. The cost of bed formation accounted fo

and transplanting the sapling was higher than this and stood at

cost of harvesting the tomato was 8 per cent of total cost and similar cost was

incurred on soil sterilization. The costs incurred on interculture and ir

Other details of different categories can be seen from this table.


272

252

267

258

Fig-6.4.3 : Per box average net returns in capsicum (₹)

7 wherein it may be

he cost of cultivation, at overall level was found to be ₹ 35255 per

for medium and ₹ 82265 for

application was the

per cent of the total cost of cultivation.

Insecticides/pesticides

per cent of total cost. No farmer was

Seeds/seedlings accounted for only

accounted for another 4 per

and transplanting the sapling was higher than this and stood at 9 per cent. The

and similar cost was

nterculture and irrigation stood

Other details of different categories can be seen from this table.

40

Table-6.7: Cost of cultivation of tomato under protected condition

(₹ /polyhouse)

Cost items

Small Medium Large Over all ₹ %


Seed/ seedlings 780 1474 2650 1261 4 Sowing/ Transplanting 1542 3663 8240 3081 9

Manuring/FYM 1896 4410 6660 3493 10 Vermicompost 0 0 0 0 0 Fertilizer 4488 7580 17160 6939 20

Insecticides/pesticides 2383 5238 8000 4212 12 Inter culture 810 1620 3320 1394 4 Irrigation 810 1710 3210 1431 4 Spraying 70 540 1620 416 1

Stalking etc. 2845 7255 15375 5945 17 Harvesting/ picking 911 3645 6480 2676 8 Soil sterilization 1755 3380 6040 2874 8

Total production cost 19100 42386 82265 35255 100

6.8 Net returns from tomato cultivation The net returns from tomato cultivation for different size categories have been

presented in table 6.8. The analysis reveals that total cost of tomato cultivation was

₹ 70738 per polyhouse at overall level which were ₹ 37740 for small, ₹ 78578 for

medium and ₹ 147890 for large polyhouse farmers. It was found that average net

return from cultivation of tomato was ₹ 153361 per polyhouse at overall level.

However, the net returns were ₹ 67110 for small, ₹ 147390 for medium and ₹

305360 for large polyhouse farmers.

Table-6.8: Net returns from cultivation of tomato under protected condition

Cost items

Production cost

Marketing cost

Total cost

Value of output

Net returns

6.9 Net returns per box Net returns per box of

the table that on an average total production was

₹ 155 and its value in market was

aggregate level. The net returns per box were


output-input ratio of 1:


Small

67110

Fig

cultivation of tomato (

41

: Net returns from cultivation of tomato under protected condition

(₹ /polyhouse)Category

Small Medium Large

19100 42386 82265

18640 36192 65625

37740 78578 147890

104850 225968 453250

67110 147390 305360

Net returns per box from tomato cultivation

Net returns per box of tomato have been presented in Table 6.9 and it

the table that on an average total production was 458 boxes. The cost per box was

and its value in market was ₹ 490 resulting in net return of


for large polyhouse farmers. This scenario of costs and returns yielded an




67110

147390

305360

153361

Fig-6.5: Average annual net returns from

cultivation of tomato (₹ per polyhouse)

: Net returns from cultivation of tomato under protected condition

/polyhouse)

Over all

82265 35255

65625 35483

147890 70738

453250 224099

305360 153361

and it is found from

boxes. The cost per box was

resulting in net return of ₹ 335 per box at


. This scenario of costs and returns yielded an


6.5: Average annual net returns from

Table-6.9: Net returns per box and input under protected condition

Cost items


Cost per box

Value per box

Returns per box

Output-input ratio

Small Medium Large

233

464

Fig-6.6.1: Average annual production of tomato on sample polyhouses

(boxes/polyhouse)

Small

Fig

42

: Net returns per box and input-output ratio from cultivation of tomato under protected condition

(₹ /box of 25 KgsCategory

Small Medium Large

233 464 875

162 169 169

450 487 518

288 318 349

1:2.78 1:2.88 1:3.06

Large Over all

875

458

6.6.1: Average annual production of tomato on sample polyhouses

(boxes/polyhouse)

Small Medium

162

169

Fig-6.6.2: Per box average cost of production of tomato

(₹


288318 349 335

Fig-6. 6.3: Per box average net returns in tomato (₹)

output ratio from cultivation of tomato

box of 25 Kgs)

Over all

875 458

169 155

518 490

349 335

3.06 1:3.17

Large Over all

169

155

6.6.2: Per box average cost of production of tomato

(₹)

43

6.10 Unprotected cultivation Though this study concentrates mainly on the economics of protected cultivation, the

main activities of farmers still revolve around the normal farming under unprotected

conditions. It becomes, therefore, necessary to study the cropping pattern,

production pattern and economics of crops grown in open farms. It is with this view

the present analysis has been carried out.

6.10.1 Cropping pattern

The cropping pattern of the sampled farmers has been presented in Table 6.10

covering different categories of farmers and important crops grown by them. The

table indicates that major crops grown in Kharif season are maize, beans, cabbage,

tomato and capsicum whereas in rabi season these are wheat, peas, cabbage and

cauliflower. In Kharif season maize was the most important crop covering an area

of 0.27 ha at overall level and in rabi season it was wheat having same amount of

area under this crop. Capsicum and cauliflower were the next important crops in

respective seasons. The analysis indicates a gross cropped area was one ha at

overall level whereas this was 0.40 ha for small, 1.38 ha for medium and 1.16 ha for

large category of farmers.

Table- 6.10: Cropping pattern on sampled farms

Crops

Maize Beans Cabbage Tomato Capsicum

Wheat Peas Cabbage Cauliflower GCA

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Marginal

Are

a(h

ecta

res

)

Fig- 6.7: Cropping pattern on sample farms (ha/farm)

44

: Cropping pattern on sampled farms

(Area in Ha/farm) Category

Marginal Small Large Kharif crops

0.10 0.36 0.320.02 0.06 0.060.02 0.04 0.040.04 0.10 0.080.02 0.12 0.08

Rabi crops

0.11 0.36 0.340.06 0.14 0.100.01 0.06 0.040.02 0.12 0.100.40 1.38 1.16

Marginal Small Large Overall

6.7: Cropping pattern on sample farms (ha/farm)

(Area in Ha/farm) Overall

0.32 0.27 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08

0.34 0.27 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.08 1.16 1.00

6.7: Cropping pattern on sample farms (ha/farm)

Maize

Beans

Cabbage

Tomato

Capsicum

Wheat

Peas

Cauliflower

45

6.10.2 Cost of cultivation of unprotected crops The cost of cultivation of important crops grown under unprotected condition has

been presented separately for each size category separately in the following text.

6.10.2.1 Small farmers: The cost of cultivation of important crops grown by small

farmers has been presented in Table 6.11 wherein it may be seen that the cost of

cultivation for traditional crops viz wheat and maize is significantly lower than the

vegetable crops. The cost of cultivation of wheat and maize were ₹ 20145 and

₹18027/ha, respectively. On the other hand, cost of cultivation of cauliflower,

cabbage, peas and beans were ₹ 62619, ₹ 46351, ₹ 40683 and ₹ 29624 per

hectare, respectively. The table depicts that there has been no expenditure on

irrigation and hired machinery in any of the crops. The general trend is that the

highest cost component in all the crops is manure followed by human labour. Hired

animal labour is used in all crops except for maize and beans.

46

Table- 6.11: Cost of cultivation of unprotected crops grown on small farms (₹ /Ha.)

Cost items

Crops

Wheat Maize Cauliflower Cabbage Peas Beans

Seed 1991 1385 7448 5769 4219 3333 Manure 9119 6609 20651 16875 20313 13542 Fertilizer 1377 1258 6667 5673 1250 833 I&P 0 0 7292 5673 3789 1250

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hired machinery 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hired animal labour 232 0 313 481 313 0 Human labour 7425 8775 20250 11880 10800 10665 Total cost 20145 18027 62619 46351 40683 29624

6.10.2.2 Medium farmers: The cost of cultivation in case of medium farmers has

been presented in Table 6.12 and it may be seen that the cost of cultivation for

traditional crops viz wheat and maize were ₹ 20186 and ₹17455 respectively. On

the other hand, cost of cultivation of cauliflower, cabbage, peas and beans were ₹

48586, ₹ 35745, ₹ 30599 and ₹ 34541 per hectare, respectively. There is no cost

involved on irrigation in any of the crops and negligible amount is spent on hired

machinery in case of wheat and maize. Hired animal labour is used only for wheat,

cauliflower and cabbage.

6.10.2.3 Large farmers: The cost of cultivation in case of large farmers presented in

Table 6.13 reveals that the cost of cultivation for traditional crops viz wheat and

maize were ₹ 19835 and ₹19000 per hectare, respectively. On the other hand, cost

of cultivation of cauliflower, cabbage, peas and beans were ₹ 50066, ₹ 33029, ₹

29355 and ₹ 33160 per hectare, respectively. The large farmers also did not spend

any amount on irrigation for any of the crops. Hired machinery was used only for

wheat and maize and hired animal labour was used only for wheat and cauliflower.

The general trend of highest cost component being manure followed by human

labour was also observed in this case also and for all the crops.

47

Table- 6.12: Cost of cultivation of Unprotected Crops Grown on medium farms

(₹ /Ha.)

Cost items

Crops


Seed 2116 1933 6557 6875 4417 5909

Manure 8975 5672 12620 7975 11870 7380

Fertilizer 1463 1525 4836 5000 1688 5852

I&P 0 0 6107 5455 2875 5000

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hired machinery 5 6 0 0 0 0

Hired animal labour 217 0 266 170 0 0

Human labour 7410 8320 18200 10270 9750 10400

Total 20186 17455 48586 35745 30599 34541 6.10.2.4 All farmers: The cost of cultivation in case of all farmers considered

together has been presented in Table 6.14 and it may be seen that the cost of

cultivation for traditional crops viz wheat and maize were ₹ 20070 and ₹ 18091,

respectively. On the other hand, cost of cultivation of cauliflower, cabbage, peas and

beans was ₹ 53511, ₹ 38342, ₹ 33461 and ₹ 32562 per hectare, respectively.

Table- 6.13: Cost of cultivation

Cost items Wheat

Seed 2173Manure 9080Fertilizer 1649I&P 0

Irrigation 0Hired machinery 8

Hired animal labour 35Human labour 6890Total 19835

20070

Fig-6. : Cost of cultivation of unprotected crops

48

cultivation of Unprotected Crops Grown on large farms

Crops

Maize Cauliflower Cabbage Peas

2173 3215 7232 7083 5500

9080 5978 11970 8150 9380

1649 1998 5179 5104 1875

0 0 5179 2292 3500

0 0 0 0

8 9 0 0

35 0 357 0

6890 7800 20150 10400 9100

19835 19000 50066 33029 29355

18091

53511

3834233461 32562

6. : Cost of cultivation of unprotected crops on sample farms (₹/ha)

of Unprotected Crops Grown on large farms

(₹ /Ha.)

Peas Beans

5500 5625

9380 7550

1875 5625

3500 5000

0 0

0 0

0 0

9100 9360

29355 33160

32562

6. : Cost of cultivation of unprotected crops

49

Table-6.14: Cost of cultivation of Unprotected Crops Grown on All farms

(₹ /Ha.)

Cost items

Crops


Seed 2093 2134 7040 6582 4671 5001 Manure 9052 6062 14999 10874 13841 9402 Fertilizer 1490 1578 5522 5246 1603 4179 I&P 0 0 6214 4597 3351 3800

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hired machinery 4 5 0 0 0 0 Hired animal labour 168 0 308 220 100 0 Human labour 7262 8313 19428 10823 9895 10180

Total 20070 18091 53511 38342 33461 32562 6.10.3 Productivity of crops The productivity of crops grown under unprotected conditions has been presented in

Table 6.15. There is mixed trend in productivity of crops across the farm categories.

At overall level the level of crop productivity in case of Kharif crops was 22 Qtls/ha in

case of maize, 84 Qtls/ha in case of beans, 149 Qtls/ha in case of cabbage, 231

Qtls/ha in case of tomato and 89 Qtls/ha in case of capsicum. In case of rabi crops

the level of productivity was 20 Qtls/ha in case of wheat, 44 Qtls/ha in case of peas,

165 Qtls/ha in case of cabbage and 166 Qtls/ha in case of cauliflower.

50

Table- 6.15: Productivity of crops on sampled farms

(Quintals/Ha.)

Crops Category Overall

Small Medium Large Kharif crops

Maize 23 21 22 22 Beans 86 87 78 84 Cabbage 175 145 128 149 Tomato 225 222 247 231 Capsicum 94 78 95 89

Rabi crops

Wheat 20 18 22 20 Peas 46 39 48 44 Cabbage 194 162 140 165 Cauliflower 191 194 114 166

6.10.4 Production of crops The aggregate production of crops per farm grown under unprotected conditions has

been presented in Table 6.16. Among the Kharif crops highest production per farm

was that of tomato yielding a production of 16.19 qtls per farm at aggregate level.

This was followed by capsicum and cabbage. The production of maize was about 6

qtls per farm. In case of rabi crops the level of production was 5.40 qtls/farm in case

of wheat, 4.43 qtls/farm in case of peas, 6.61 qtls/farm in case of cabbage and 13.31

qtls/farm in case of cauliflower.

Table-6.16: Production of crops on sampled farms

(Quintals/farm)


Small Medium Large Kharif crops

Maize 2.30 7.56 7.04 5.94 Beans 1.72 5.22 4.68 4.18 Cabbage 3.50 5.80 5.12 5.97

Tomato 9.00 22.20 19.76 16.19 Capsicum 1.88 9.36 7.60 7.12

Rabi crops

Wheat 2.20 6.48 7.48 5.40 Peas 2.76 5.46 4.80 4.43 Cabbage 1.94 9.72 5.60 6.61

Cauliflower 3.82 23.28 11.40 13.31

51

6.10.5 Value of output The value of crops grown under unprotected conditions has been presented in Table

6.17. Among the Kharif crops highest value per farm was that of tomato amounting

to ₹ 24290 per farm at overall level. This was followed by capsicum and beans. The

value of maize was ₹ 6831 per farm. In case of rabi crops the value of cauliflower

was ₹ 21291 per farm followed by peas ₹ 7980, wheat ₹ 7560 and cabbage ₹ 5952

per farm.

Table- 6.17: Value of output from crops on sampled farms

(Value in ₹/farm)


Marginal Small Large Kharif crops

Maize 2645 8694 8096 6831

Beans 4300 13050 11700 10458 Cabbage 3850 6380 5632 6571 Tomato 13500 33300 29640 24290 Capsicum 2820 14040 11400 10680

Rabi crops

Wheat 3080 9072 10472 7560

Peas 4968 9828 8640 7980 Cabbage 1746 8748 5040 5952 Cauliflower 6112 37248 18240 21291

6.11 Summing up

The study of costs and returns from protected and unprotected cultivation indicates

that the cost of carnation cultivation at overall level was ₹ 126102 per polyhouse and

yielded a net return of ₹ 1749 per box with an input-output ratio of 1:2.01. Similarly,

cost of capsicum cultivation at overall level was ₹ 41477 per polyhouse and yielded a

net return of ₹ 258 per box with an input-output ratio of 1:2.26. The cost of tomato

cultivation at overall level was ₹ 35255 per polyhouse and yielded a net return of ₹

335 per box with an input-output ratio of 1:3.17. In addition to this the costs of

cultivation of crops like wheat, maize, cauliflower, cabbage, peas and beans were

worked out for comparison with the returns from crops grown under protected

52

conditions. The cost of cultivation of these crops were ₹ 20070 per ha for wheat, ₹

18091 per ha for maize, ₹ 53511 per ha for cauliflower, ₹ 38342 per ha for cabbage,

₹ 33461 per ha for peas and ₹ 32562 per ha for beans. The productivity of these

crops along with total per farm production and the value of production were also

worked out. The returns from protected cultivation are significantly higher than that

of unprotected crops.

53

Chapter – 7

MARKETING SYSTEM OF PROTECTED CROPS

The study of utilization pattern of protected crops is important aspect of planning for

marketing. This aspect has been dealt in present chapter which also concentrates

on marketing pattern, marketing costs and price spread etc.

7.1 Production and utilization of protected crops

The production and utilization pattern of carnation, capsicum and tomato in sampled

area has been presented in Table 7.1. The analysis reveals that out of the total

production of 447 boxes of carnation at overall level only 8 boxes were the losses at

different stages. There was no family consumption and negligible amount was used

as gifts or given as wages. In case of capsicum only 9 boxes out of total produce of

313 boxes were written off as losses, 0.08 boxes were consumed by the family and

0.13 boxes given as gifts to relatives etc, whereas negligible amount was given as

wages. However, in tomato, the total production per farm was 394 boxes of which

10 boxes were reported to be as looses. Only 0.23 boxes were consumed by the

farming family and 0.16 boxes given as gifts and negligible amount was given as

wages.

54

Table-7.1: Production and utilization of protected crops on sampled farms

(Boxes per year) Category Production Retained (% of total production)

Losses

Family Gifts Wages

Carnation (Box of 900 spikes)

Small 117 8 0 Neg. Neg.

Medium 358 6 0 Neg. Neg.

Large 812 9 0 Neg. Neg.

Overall 447 8 0 Neg. Neg.

Capsicum (Box of 20 Kgs.)

Small 159 7 0.12 0.21 Neg.

Medium 309 9 0.07 0.11 Neg.

Large 639 10 0.03 0.07 Neg.

Overall 313 9 0.08 0.13 Neg.

Tomato (Box of 25 Kgs.)

Small 233 9 0.26 0.20 Neg.

Medium 464 11 0.21 0.13 Neg.

Large 875 12 0.15 0.08 Neg.

Overall 394 10 0.23 0.16 Neg.

7.2: Marketing pattern of protected crops The flowers and vegetables produced under protected conditions are marketed at

three places. The main destination for the produce is Delhi market, followed by

markets of neighbouring States and lastly the local markets, Table 7.2 presents the

details. The analysis reveals that at overall level out of the total marketed surplus of

445 boxes of carnation, 435 boxes were marketed in Delhi market. The quantity sold

55

in markets of neighbouring States and local markets was six and three boxes,

respectively. In case of capsicum, 290 boxes out of total marketed produce of 313

boxes were marketed in Delhi market, 16 boxes were marketed in neighbouring

States and only seven in local markets. However, in tomato, the total marketed

quantity per farm was 473 boxes of which 365 boxes were marketed in Delhi market,

21 boxes were marketed in neighbouring States and only nine in local markets.

The scenario of prices received in different markets has also been presented in this

table. There was clear cut trend of prices being highest in Delhi market followed by

markets of neighbouring States and lastly the local markets with lowest prices. But

the marketing in local markets had an advantage of lower marketing cost,

compensating the lower prices. The details can be seen from the table.

Table- 7.2: Marketing pattern of protected crops on sampled farms

(Qty. in boxes, rate in ₹)

Category

Sold at Delhi market Neighbouring

States Local markets Total

Qty Rate/box Qty Rate/box Qty Rate/box Qty Rate/box Carnation

Small 107 3337 8 3315 2 2980 117 3330

Medium 340 3540 10 3310 8 2800 358 3510

Large 812 3555 0 0 0 0 812 3555

Overall 435 2584 6 2153 3 1874 445 3472

Capsicum

Small 145 460 10 355 4 310 159 450

Medium 286 469 15 360 8 310 309 460

Large 596 484 33 365 10 332 639 475

Overall 290 469 16 359 7 313 313 459 Tomato

Small 202 470 20 340 11 295 233 450

Medium 442 492 16 395 6 320 464 487 Large 805 522 61 444 14 398 875 518 Overall 365 485 21 375 9 315 394 473

56

7.3: Marketing costs and price spread of carnation in Delhi market

The marketing costs incurred by producer and intermediaries for marketing carnation

in Delhi, have been presented in Table 7.3. On an average, marketing cost per 100

spikes, incurred by producers was ₹ 160 which was 17.60 per cent of the

consumers’ price of ₹ 909 per 100 spikes. The breakup of marketing costs incurred

by the carnation producer reveals that commission of commission agent and

transportation (including carriage up to road head/ISBT and then to market)

constituted major share in total cost of producers. Commission for forwarding agent

was ₹75 per 100 spikes. Wholesale price of 100 spikes of carnation was ₹ 500 in

Delhi. Market fee was charged @ 1%. Adding to this the other costs of spoilage,

telephone charges etc and margin of commission agent the mashakhore’s purchase

price was found to be ₹ 590 per 100 spikes which was about 65 per cent of

consumers’ price. The expenses paid by mashakhore were ₹ 12 and his margin of

profit was found to be ₹ 89, about 10 % of consumers’ price. This way the retailers’

purchase price was calculated to be ₹ 691 per 100 spikes. Total expenses paid by

retailer were ₹ 80 and his margin was ₹ 138 per 100 spikes.

Table- 7.3: Marketing costs and price spread of 100 spikes of carnation in Delhi market (₹/100 spikes)

Particulars Cost Per cent

Net price received by grower 340 37.40 Growers expenses on

(a). Assembling charges up to store 0.50 0.05

(b). Grading& Packing 1.20 0.13

(c). Packing material 10 1.0

(d.)Transportation (i.) up to road head/I.S.B.T. 61 6.71

(ii).I.S.B.T .to market 10 1.10

(iii). Misc. charges 20 0.22

(e). Commission of C.A.@15% 75 8.25

Total expenses paid by the grower 160 17.00

Wholesale/ Gross price at market 500 55.00

(a).Market fee @ 1% 5 0.55

(b).Other cost (spoilage, telephone charges etc.)@ 2% 10 1.10

(c).Margin/Commission of C.A.@15% 75 8.25

Mashakhors’ purchase price 590 64.91

Expenses borne by Mashakhor @ 2% 12 1.32 Margin of Mashakhor@15% 89 9.79

Retailers’ purchased. price 691 76.00 Expenses borne by the retailer

(a). Carriage up to retail shop 10 1.10

(b). Losses @10% 70 7.70

Total expenses paid by retailer 80 8.80 Retailers’ Margin @20% 138 15.18

Consumer price 909 100.00

7.4 Marketing costs and margins The analysis of marketing costs and margins by various intermediaries in marketing

of carnation indicates that the gross price

100 spikes which was about 55 per cent of the price paid by consumers. The costs

paid by farmers, wholesalers, mashakhores and retailers were 17.60, 1.65, 1.32 and

8.80 per cent, respectively. This way total marketing cost of intermediaries was

found to be ₹ 107, 11.74 per cent of the consumer price. The total marketing margin

was ₹ 302 which was about 33 per cent of the consumer price.

Table-7.4: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in carnation marketing.

Particulars

Gross price received by growers

Cost of farmersCost of wholesalersCost of MashakhorCost of retailersTotal marketing cost of intermediaries margin of wholesalersmargin of Mashakhor

margin of retailersTotal marketing marginConsumer Paid price

500

160

Fig-7.1: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in carnation

57

Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in carnation

The analysis of marketing costs and margins by various intermediaries in marketing

of carnation indicates that the gross price received by the growers was


farmers, wholesalers, mashakhores and retailers were 17.60, 1.65, 1.32 and


107, 11.74 per cent of the consumer price. The total marketing margin

h was about 33 per cent of the consumer price.

: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in carnation .

(₹ per 100 Particulars Costs Percentage

Gross price received

500

Cost of farmers 160 Cost of wholesalers 15 Cost of Mashakhor 12 Cost of retailers 80 Total marketing cost of intermediaries

107

margin of wholesalers 75 margin of Mashakhor 89

margin of retailers 138 Total marketing margin 302 Consumer Paid price 909

16015 12 80 107 75 89 138

7.1: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in carnation

marketing (₹/100spikes)

of intermediaries in carnation marketing

The analysis of marketing costs and margins by various intermediaries in marketing

received by the growers was ₹ 500 per


farmers, wholesalers, mashakhores and retailers were 17.60, 1.65, 1.32 and


107, 11.74 per cent of the consumer price. The total marketing margin

: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in carnation

100 spikes) Percentage

55.00

17.60 1.65 1.32 8.80

11.77

8.25 9.80

15.18 33.22

100.00

302

909

7.1: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in carnation

58

7.5 Mode (packing) of carnation retail sale There are different packing in which the flowers are sold in the retail market in Delhi

(Table 7.5). The most common mode is sale of spikes in loose form and on an

average retailer sells about 3000 spikes per day with average purchase price of ₹

7.54 per spike and sale price of ₹ 9.9 per spike. Individuals are the consumers of

this form of sale. Retailers also sell 30 bunches of 10 flowers each to individuals at

the rate of ₹ 139 per bunch and on an average 12 bouquet at the rate of ₹ 300 per

bouquet. Other forms of sale are car decorations for marriage etc and decorations of

marriage homes; table provides details of material and labour costs involved.

Table-7.5: Average quantity of carnation sold in different packing Flowers/ mode of packing

Av. Qty. /day

Av. Purchase Price

Av. Sale price

Material cost

Labour cost

Net profit

Major buyers

Spikes (per day) 3000 7.54 9.90 - - 2.36 Individuals

Bunch of 10 spikes (per day)

30 75.40 139.00 10 30 63.60 Individuals

Buckeye of 10 spikes (per day)

12 75.40 300 30 50 144.60 Hoteliers

Car decorations (per year)

25 754 1100 10 100 236 Individuals

Decoration of marriage homes (per year)

25 2262 5500 50 200 2988 Individuals

7.6: Marketing costs and price spread of capsicum and tomato in Delhi

The marketing costs incurred by producer and intermediaries for marketing capsicum

and tomato in Delhi, have been presented in Table 7.6 and the percentages of these

costs etc have been presented in Table 7.7, the following text presents details.

7.6.1 Capsicum

On an average, marketing cost per quintal, incurred by producers was ₹ 310 which

was about 10 per cent of the consumers’ price of ₹ 3093 per quintal. The breakup of

marketing costs incurred by the capsicum producer reveals that commission of

commission agent and transportation constituted major share in total cost of

producers. Commission for commission agent was ₹ 92 per quintal. Wholesale price

per quintal of capsicum

spoilage, telephone charge

purchase price was found to be

consumers’ price. The expenses paid by mash

profit was found to be ₹

be ₹ 2653 per quintal. Total expenses paid by retailer were

was ₹ 270 per quintal.

7.6.2 Tomato

On an average, marketing cost per

was 13.52 per cent of the consumers’ price of

commission agent was

quintal in Delhi. The mash

quintal which was about

mashakhore were ₹ 20

retailers’ purchase price was

were ₹ 181 and his margin was

7.7 Producers’ share in consumer price

The net price received by producer in marketing of carnation was

spikes which is about 23 per cent of consumer price in Delhi market. In case of

capsicum, net price received by

share in consumer price was about 66 per cent. The net price received by tomato

producers was ₹ 1582 per quintal which is about 60 per cent of consumer price in

Delhi market.

Fig-marketing of protected crops on sample farms

59

capsicum was ₹ 2345 in Delhi. Adding to this the other costs of

spoilage, telephone charges etc and margin of commission agent the mash

purchase price was found to be ₹ 2604 per quintal which was about

consumers’ price. The expenses paid by mashakhore were ₹ 21

₹ 28. This way the retailers’ purchase price was calculated to

. Total expenses paid by retailer were ₹ 170

On an average, marketing cost per quintal, incurred by producers was

13.52 per cent of the consumers’ price of ₹ 3093 per quintal

was ₹ 97 per quintal. Wholesale price of tomato was

quintal in Delhi. The mashakhore’s purchase price was found to be

which was about 82 per cent of consumers’ price. The expenses paid by

20 and his margin of profit was found to be ₹

retailers’ purchase price was ₹ 2219 per quintal. Total expenses paid by retailer

argin was ₹ 248 per quintal.

7.7 Producers’ share in consumer price

The net price received by producer in marketing of carnation was


received by producer was ₹ 2036 per quintal. The producers’


1582 per quintal which is about 60 per cent of consumer price in

Carnetion Capsicum Tomato

22.93%65.79% 59.74%

-7.2: Producser's share in consumer's rupee in marketing of protected crops on sample farms

(% of consumers' price)

in Delhi. Adding to this the other costs of

s etc and margin of commission agent the mashakhore’s

which was about 84 per cent of

21 and his margin of

. This way the retailers’ purchase price was calculated to

170 and his margin

incurred by producers was ₹ 358 which

3093 per quintal. Commission for

97 per quintal. Wholesale price of tomato was ₹ 1940 per

khore’s purchase price was found to be ₹ 2174 per

per cent of consumers’ price. The expenses paid by

₹ 25. This way the

per quintal. Total expenses paid by retailer

The net price received by producer in marketing of carnation was ₹ 227 per 100


2036 per quintal. The producers’


1582 per quintal which is about 60 per cent of consumer price in

7.2: Producser's share in consumer's rupee in

60

Table-7.6: Marketing costs and price spread of capsicum & tomato in Delhi (₹/Quintal)

Particulars Cost Capsicum Tomato

Net price received by grower 2035 1582

Growers’ expenses on Picking, packing, grading and assembling 52 75 Packing material 6 5 Transportation (i.) Carriage up to road head 6 18 (ii).Freight up to market 143 144

(iii). Loading/unloading charges 7 10 Commission of C.A. and market fee 92 97 Other charges 4 9 Total expenses paid by the grower 310 358 Wholesale/ Gross price at market 2345 1940 Expenses of wholesaler/CA Handling charges 45 50

Margin/Commission 214 184

Sub-total 259 234 Mashakhors’ purchase price 2604 2174 Expenses borne by Mashakhor 21 20 Margin of Mashakhor 28 25 Retailers’ purchased. price 2653 2219

Expenses born by retailer Carriage up to retail shop 20 21 Losses 150 160 Total expenses paid by retailer 170 181 Retailers’ Margin 270 248 Consumer price 3093 2648

61

Table- 7.7: Marketing costs and price spread of Capsicum & tomato in Delhi (%)

Particulars Capsicum Tomato

Net price received by grower 65.79 59.74 Growers expenses on

Picking, packing, grading and assembling 1.68 2.83 Packing material 0.19 0.19 Transportation (i.) Carriage up to road head 0.19 0.68 (ii).Freight up to market 4.62 5.44

(iii). Loading/unloading charges 0.23 0.38

Commission of C.A. and market fee 2.97 3.66 Other charges 0.13 0.34 Total expenses paid by the grower 10.02 13.52 Wholesale/ Gross price at market 75.82 73.26 Expenses of wholesaler/CA Handling charges 1.45 1.89 Margin/Commission 6.92 6.95

Sub-total 8.37 8.84 Mashakhors’ purchase price 84.19 82.10 Expenses borne by Mashakhor 0.68 0.76 Margin of Mashakhor 0.91 0.94 Retailers’ purchased. price 85.77 83.80 Expenses borne by the retailer

Carriage up to retail shop 0.65 0.79 Losses 4.85 6.04 Total expenses paid by retailer 5.50 6.84 Retailers’ Margin 8.73 9.37 Consumer price 100.00 100.00

7.8 Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in capsicum and tomato marketing The analysis of marketing costs and margins by various intermediaries in marketing

of capsicum and tomato have been presented in Table 7.8 and respective

percentages have been presented in Table 7.9. The results indicate that the gross

price received by the growers was ₹ 2345 and ₹ 1940 per quintal of capsicum and

tomato, respectively. These were about 76 and 73 per cent respectively of the

prices paid by consumers. The costs paid by farmers, wholesalers, mashakhores

and retailers were 10.02, 1.45, 0.68 and 5.50 per cent, respectively in case of

capsicum. In case of tomato the respective costs were 13.52, 1.89, 0.76 and 6.84

per cent. This way total marketing cost of intermediaries was found t

about 18 per cent of the consumer price

marketing cost of intermediaries was

in case of tomato. The total marketing margin was

457 in case of tomato and these were 16.55 and 17.26

price for capsicum and tomato respectively.

Table- 7.8: Marketing costs and margin of intermediaries in capsicum and tomato at Delhi

Particulars

Gross price received by growers Cost of farmersCost of wholesalers

Cost of MashakhorCost of retailers

Total marketing cost of intermediaries margin of wholesalersmargin of Mashakhormargin of retailers

Total marketing marginConsumer Paid price

2345

310

Fig- 7.3: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in

62

This way total marketing cost of intermediaries was found t

per cent of the consumer price in case of capsicum whereas total

marketing cost of intermediaries was ₹ 609 about 23 per cent of the consumer price

. The total marketing margin was ₹ 512 in case of capsicum and

n case of tomato and these were 16.55 and 17.26 per cent of the consumer

for capsicum and tomato respectively..

: Marketing costs and margin of intermediaries in capsicum and tomato at Delhi

Capsicum Tomato

Gross price received 2345

Cost of farmers 310 Cost of wholesalers 45

Cost of Mashakhor 21 Cost of retailers 170

Total marketing cost of intermediaries 546 margin of wholesalers 214

Mashakhor 28 margin of retailers 270

Total marketing margin 512 Consumer Paid price 3093

31045 21 170

546214 28

270

7.3: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in capsicum marketing (₹/quintal)

This way total marketing cost of intermediaries was found to be ₹ 546

in case of capsicum whereas total

609 about 23 per cent of the consumer price

512 in case of capsicum and ₹

per cent of the consumer

: Marketing costs and margin of intermediaries in capsicum and

(₹/Quintal)

1940 358

50

20 181

609 184

25 248

457 2648

512

3093

7.3: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in

Table- 7.9: Marketing costs and margin of intermediaries in capsicum and tomato at Delhi

Particulars

Gross price received by growers Cost of farmersCost of wholesalersCost of MashakhorCost of retailers

Total marketing cost of intermediaries margin of wholesalersmargin of Mashakhormargin of retailers

Total marketing marginConsumer Paid price

7.9 Production losses

The production losses have been divided into two parts; pre harvest losses and post

harvest losses. Detailed

segregated into losses at picking, assembling, grading & packing and transportation

1940

Fig-7.4: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in

63

: Marketing costs and margin of intermediaries in capsicum and tomato at Delhi

Capsicum Tomato

Gross price received 75.82

Cost of farmers 10.02 Cost of wholesalers 1.45 Cost of Mashakhor 0.68 Cost of retailers 5.50

Total marketing cost of intermediaries 17.65 margin of wholesalers 6.92 margin of Mashakhor 0.91 margin of retailers 8.73

Total marketing margin 16.55 Consumer Paid price 100.00

Production losses


harvest losses. Detailed breakup of losses at post harvest stage has


35850 20 181

609184 25

248

7.4: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in tomato marketing (₹/quintal)

: Marketing costs and margin of intermediaries in capsicum and

(%)

73.26 13.52 1.89 0.76 6.84

23.00 6.95 0.94 9.37

17.26 100.00


breakup of losses at post harvest stage has been further


457

2648

7.4: Marketing costs and margins of intermediaries in

64

stages. These losses have been presented separately for different categories of

farmers and for aggregate sample as well.

7.9.1 Small farms

On small farms the pre harvest losses were of the tune of 0.56, 0.69 and 0.92 per

cent for carnation, capsicum and tomato, respectively (Table 7.10). The highest

losses in post harvest stage were during transportation followed by grading and

packing.

Table-7.10: Production losses at various stages on sample small farms

Crops Pre harvest

losses% Post harvest losses %

Picking Assembling Grading & Packing

Transportation

Carnation 0.56 0.02 0.02 0.08 1.27

Capsicum 0.69 0.38 0.38 0.46 0.38

Tomato 0.92 0.77 0.85 0.85 0.85

7.9.2 Medium farms

On medium farms the pre harvest losses were of the tune of 2.20, 1.13 and 0.73 per

cent for carnation, capsicum and tomato, respectively. These losses were

significantly higher than small farms in respect of carnation and capsicum. Generally,

the losses were higher for medium farmers as compared with small category. In this

category also, the highest losses in post harvest stage were during transportation

followed by grading and packing. Further details have been presented in Table 7.11.

65

Table-7.11: Production losses at various stages on sample medium farms

Crops Pre harvest losses%

Post harvest losses % Picking Assembling Grading

& Packing

Transportation

Carnation 2.20 0.40 0.34 0.62 2.33

Capsicum 1.13 0.57 0.47 0.53 1.07

Tomato 0.73 0.37 0.37 0.47 0.70

7.9.3 Large farms

On large farms, the pre harvest losses were 1.73, 1.00 and 0.71 per cent for

carnation, capsicum and tomato, respectively. These losses were significantly higher

for transportation in respect of carnation, 4.82 per cent. Further details have been

presented in Table 7.12.

Table- 7.12: Production losses at various stages on sample large farms

Crops Pre harvest

losses% Post harvest losses %

Picking Assembling Grading & Packing

Transportation

Carnation 1.73 0.16 0.16 0.25 4.82

Capsicum 1.00 0.43 0.29 0.43 0.57

Tomato 0.71 0.29 0.14 0.14 0.29

7.9.4 All farms

The details of production losses for overall sample have been presented in Table

7.13. The pre harvest losses were of the tune of 1.54, 1.00 and 0.78 per cent for

carnation, capsicum and tomato, respectively. These losses were significantly higher

during transportation stage followed by grading & packing. The transportation losses

were estimated to be 2.72, 0.82 and 0.68 per cent for carnation, capsicum and

tomato, respectively.

Table-7.13: Production

Crops Pre harvest losses%

Carnation

Capsicum

Tomato

Transportati

on, 2.72

Fig-7.5: Production Losses at Various Stages in

Grading and

packing, 0.5

Transportation,

0.82


66

Production losses at various stages on all farms

Pre harvest losses%

Post harvest losses %Picking Assembling Grading

& Packing

1.54 0.21 0.19 0.34

1.00 0.50 0.42 0.50

0.78 0.46 0.46 0.52

Preharvest,

1.54

Picking,

0.21

Assembling

0.19Grading &

packing,

0.34

Transportati

7.5: Production Losses at Various Stages in carnation on sample farms (%)

Preharvest, 1

Picking, 0.5Assembling,

0.42

Grading and

Transportation,

7.6: Production Losses at Various Stages in capsicum on sample farms (%)

Post harvest losses %

Transportation

2.72

0.82

0.68

Picking,

0.21

7.5: Production Losses at Various Stages in

Preharvest, 1

Picking, 0.5


7.10 Summing up The crops viz carnation, capsicum and tomato grown under the protected

environment are the commercial crops and as such majority of produce is marketed

mainly in Delhi followed by

pattern has emerged due to price scenarios which are highest in Delhi market for all

the three crops. Small fraction of total vegetables produced is retained for home

consumption. As the Delhi marke

marketed points of view, marketing costs and margins etc have been worked out for

this market only. It was found that in carnation the price paid by consumer for 100

spikes was ₹ 909 and net price received by pr

These figures for capsicum were

tomato ₹ 2648 per quintal and 59.74 per cent

carnation was ₹ 107

marketing costs for capsicum and tomato were

margins were ₹ 512 and

production losses was also carried out for all the size categories of farmers.

harvest losses at overall

carnation, capsicum and tomato

Grading and

packing, 0.52

Transportation,

0.68


67

The crops viz carnation, capsicum and tomato grown under the protected


mainly in Delhi followed by markets of neighbouring States and local markets.



consumption. As the Delhi market is most important from price and quantity



and net price received by producers was 37.40

These figures for capsicum were ₹ 3093 per quintal and 65.79 per cent and for

2648 per quintal and 59.74 per cent, respectively. Total marketing cost for

and marketing margins were ₹ 302 per 100 spikes. The

capsicum and tomato were ₹ 506 and ₹ 609

512 and ₹ 457, respectively. The analysis for quantifying the

production losses was also carried out for all the size categories of farmers.

harvest losses at overall level were of the tune of 1.54, 1.00 and 0.78 per cent for

carnation, capsicum and tomato, respectively.

Preharvest,

0.78

Picking, 0.46

Assembling,

0.46

Grading and

packing, 0.52

Transportation,

0.68

7.7: Production Losses at Various Stages in tomato on sample farms (%)

The crops viz carnation, capsicum and tomato grown under the protected


and local markets. This



t is most important from price and quantity



37.40 per cent of this.

3093 per quintal and 65.79 per cent and for

respectively. Total marketing cost for

r 100 spikes. The

609, respectively and

respectively. The analysis for quantifying the

production losses was also carried out for all the size categories of farmers. The pre

were of the tune of 1.54, 1.00 and 0.78 per cent for


68

Chapter – 8

PROBLEMS IN CULTIVATION OF PROTECTED CROPS

The activity of polyhouses has been increasing over the time in the State. But the

farmers are facing many problems with regard to construction, inputs, cropping

practices and harvesting of protected crops. Keeping all these factors in view, major

problems of polyhouse farmers of Himachal Pradesh are discussed in the present

chapter. Majority of farmers faced more than one problem in all the aspects and

hence, analysis of multiple responses has been used for the purpose.

8.1 Problems faced during construction of polyhouses

The problems in this aspect related to information, design, loans etc, Table 8.1

provides the details. The analysis indicated that loan and problems during

construction like delays or use of inferior materials were most important problems

being faced by 78 per cent of the respondents. This was followed by problems in

obtaining information about the time and cost schedules etc of polyhouse

construction, about 57 per cent farmers confirmed to the problem at overall level.

About similar percentage of farmers reveal that somehow they were not very happy

with the design of polyhouse, though they had almost no idea about the technical

specifications. About 33 per cent farmers revealed that they faced some problems in

obtaining the subsidy.

Table- 8.1: Responses regarding problems faced during construction of polyhouses

(%, multiple responses)

Type of problem

Category Overall Marginal Small Large

Information 56.25 72.41 38.64 57.33 Design 52.08 70.69 43.18 56.67 Loan 75.00 87.93 68.18 78.00 Subsidy 27.08 51.72 15.91 33.33 Construction 68.75 89.66 72.73 78.00

8.2 Problems faced in input availability The analysis indicates

higher prices and low quality of specific inputs required for crop production in

polyhouses. The percentage of farmers confirming to these problems were 87.33,

98.67 and 89.33, respectively at ove

Table- 8.2: Responses regarding problems faced

Type of problem

Unavailability Higher prices Low quality

20

40

60

80

%

Fig. 8.1: Problems faced during construction

80

85

90

95

100

Fig.

69

in input availability

The analysis indicates that majority of farmers faced problems of unavailability,



respectively at overall level (Table 8.2).

: Responses regarding problems faced in inputs availability

(%, multiple responseType of problem Category


77.08 96.55 86.36 100.00 100.00 95.45

85.42 93.10 88.64

0

20

40

60

80

Fig. 8.1: Problems faced during construction

phase

80

85

90

95

100

Unavailability Higher prices Low quality

Fig.-8.2: Problems faced in input availability

that majority of farmers faced problems of unavailability,



in inputs availability

(%, multiple responses) Overall

87.33 98.67 89.33

8.2: Problems faced in input availability

8.3 Problems faced in The cropping practices of crop production are significantly different than followed

under unprotected conditions.

time and intensity etc, especially during the initial period. The main problem was the

cultural practices; about 83 per cent had little information about these (Table 8.3).

Sowing time was another major problem and about 77 per cent farmers reveal

they had little idea so as to what is the most appropriate sowing time. Sowing

intensity was another area of concern.

Table- 8.3: Responses regarding problems faced in

Type of problem

Sowing time Sowing Intensity

Cultural practices

Time and intensity of irrigation

8.4 Problems faced in In the harvesting of crops grown in polyhouses the major areas of concerns were

time and method of harvesting along with storage and marketing etc, table 8.4

presents details. It was found that almost all the respondents faced problems in

packing and storage

0

20

40

60

80

100

%

Fig. 8.3: Problems faced in cropping practices

70

in cropping practices

The cropping practices of crop production are significantly different than followed

under unprotected conditions. Majority of farmers had little knowledge about



Sowing time was another major problem and about 77 per cent farmers reveal


intensity was another area of concern.

: Responses regarding problems faced in cropping practices



83.33 91.38 50.00 Sowing Intensity 25.00 51.72 15.91

Cultural practices 72.92 87.93 88.64

Time and intensity 27.08 51.72 15.91

roblems faced in harvesting

the harvesting of crops grown in polyhouses the major areas of concerns were


It was found that almost all the respondents faced problems in

of polyhouse produce which was followed by marketing

0

20

40

60

80

100

Sowing time Sowing

Intensity

Cultural

practices

Time and

intensity of

irrigation


The cropping practices of crop production are significantly different than followed

Majority of farmers had little knowledge about sowing



Sowing time was another major problem and about 77 per cent farmers revealed that


cropping practices


76.67 32.67

83.33

33.33

the harvesting of crops grown in polyhouses the major areas of concerns were


It was found that almost all the respondents faced problems in

of polyhouse produce which was followed by marketing


problems, being faced by about 97 per cent farmers. About one third of respondents

each faced problems in deciding about the time and method of harvesting and

storage of the produce.

Table- 8.4: Respo

Type of problem

Time

Method Storage Packing/ProcessingMarketing

8.5 Perception of farmers on protected cultivation The present section of the study pertains to perceptions of polyhouse farmers

regarding the benefits of protected cultivation, the results of analysis have been

presented in Table 8.5. The analysis indicates that about 88 per cent of

were of the view that protected cultivation has helped to increase the production of

flowers and vegetables. This was particularly true for farms located in cold regions.

The percentage of farmers responding positively to this was almost equal in all the

size categories. About 76 per cent farmers felt that polyhouse have been able to

increase the employment opportunities in the village and hence should be further

encouraged. At overall level about 81 per cent farmers felt that this has been

instrumental in increasing the incomes of farmer families. The responses in this

100

%

Fig. 8.4: Problems faced in harvesting

71



storage of the produce.

: Responses regarding problems faced in harvesting



27.08 50.00 15.91

27.08 51.72 15.91 25.00 51.72 15.91

Packing/Processing 100.00 100.00 97.73 93.75 98.28 100.00

8.5 Perception of farmers on protected cultivation

The present section of the study pertains to perceptions of polyhouse farmers


presented in Table 8.5. The analysis indicates that about 88 per cent of

he view that protected cultivation has helped to increase the production of



egories. About 76 per cent farmers felt that polyhouse have been able to



asing the incomes of farmer families. The responses in this

020406080

100

Fig. 8.4: Problems faced in harvesting



harvesting


32.67

33.33 32.67 99.33 97.33

The present section of the study pertains to perceptions of polyhouse farmers


presented in Table 8.5. The analysis indicates that about 88 per cent of respondents

he view that protected cultivation has helped to increase the production of



egories. About 76 per cent farmers felt that polyhouse have been able to



asing the incomes of farmer families. The responses in this

72

regard were directly correlated with the size of polyhouses. About 45 per cent

farmers also felt that protected cultivation has been able to facilitate the adoption of

organic farming in the area.

Table- 8.5: Perception of farmers on protected cultivation

Particulars Category Overall Marginal Small Large

Protected cultivation has helped to increase production 89.58 87.93 86.36 88.00

Protected cultivation has increased employment opportunities 72.92 79.31 75.00 76.00 Income has grown up after protected cultivation of crops 68.75 86.21 88.64 81.33 Protected cultivation facilitated adoption of organic farming 41.67 44.83 47.73 44.67

8.6 Summing up

Although the farmers responded positively to income and employment issues related

with polyhouse farming, the activity is not free from problems. The polyhouse

farmers face many problems in relation to construction of polyhouses, input

availability, cropping practices and harvesting. Most important problems being faced

by almost all the farmers were about packing/processing and marketing of produce.

Date post:	04-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

production and marketing of flowers and vegetables

Documents