Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Ppt baban 18-04
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Ppt baban 18-04

126
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
126
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Department of Humanities and Social sciences Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati-39 Baban Bayan Roll No. 10224108 Under the Supervision of Dr. Mrinal K Dutta
  • 2.  Introduction  Objectives  Data sources and Methodology  Findings  Conclusions & Policy Suggestions  Bibliography
  • 3.  Cold storage (CS) is the most important infrastructure in the post harvest management of agricultural output.  Post harvest losses due to inefficient handling and poor storage structure account for an estimated 10% of food grains and production and 25% of fruits and vegetables (Reshma, 2010).  CS facility coupled with adequate market linkage helps in even distribution of marketable surplus, an win-win outcome.
  • 4.  Growing urbanization and rising incomes are responsible for transforming agriculture (Rao et al. 2007).  Aswani (2005) observes that horticulture has emerged in the last decade as the focal commercial sector among all agricultural activities in the country, while we have been successful in producing, we have not done so well in protecting what is grown.  Access to CS facility increases production of both food crops and non-food crops.
  • 5.  Gill and Gill (1982) and Fugli (1999) remarks that it is advisable for the farmers to avail themselves of CS facilities and earn more profits. There may be considerable scope for improving the seasonal supply and price stability in many developing countries  In Assam, vegetable crops are grown by almost all the farm households in their kitchen garden.  TMIDH was implemented in the state since 2001-02.
  • 6.  As the horticulture sector has gained momentum during 2001-02 to 2010-11 and massive CS capacity has also been created during the same period, research priority has been accorded to study linkage between the compositional change in Assam’s agriculture and availability of CS facility.
  • 7. The specific objectives of the study are as follows  To assess the growth of CS capacity in Assam  To analyze the comparative changes of area, production and productivity of major horticultural crops and food crops in the state during the last decade.  To examine the changes in the production portfolio and volume of agricultural production commensurate with increase in CS capacity in Assam  To provide suggestions for development of agriculture sector in the state.
  • 8.  Study makes use of both primary and secondary data: a) Source of secondary data and b) Source of primary data.  Primary data collected with the help of questionnaire method for a sample Size of 60 farmer households.  Multistage sampling technique has been followed in selecting the sample farmer households  For analyzing the data tabular analysis has been followed using percentages and mean-variance analysis wherever necessary
  • 9.  Importance of CS: Temperature is the single most factor in maintaining quality after harvest.  Cold Storage Scenario in India: Total no. of CS is 5381 with a total capacity of 24.45 million MT (as on 31.12.2009). UP and West Bengal account for more than 60% of the CS capacity. Over 90% of the CS capacity are in the private sector. Sl. No. Commodity Capacity (MT) % of Total No. of CS 1 Potatoes 184,26,316 75.36 2862 2 Multi-Purpose 56,44,659 23.09 1584 3 Fruits and Vegetables 96,427 0.39 160 4 Meat and Fish 1,88,496 0.77 497 5 Milk and Milk Products 68,230 0.28 191 6 Other 26,524 0.11 87 Total 24450652 100 5381
  • 10.  CS scenario in Assam: till 2010-11, the total no. of CS is 26 with total capacity of 1,09,540.9 MT. Districts that own CS are Cachar, Kamrup, Sonitpur, Tinsukia, Karimgan j, Hailakandi, Golaghat, Jorhat, Nagaon, Goalp ara, Barpeta, Chirang and Kokrajhar.  Only 4.11% of the total capacity are created under govt. sector.
  • 11. Year wise growth of CS capacity in Assam 17000 26400 0 5100 10000 16191.9 11237 3312 20300 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
  • 12.  Growth in area under total vegetables is 22.68% (CAGR=2.30%) against the growth in area under food grain crops 1.21% (CAGR=0.13%).  The CAGR in production of total food grain crop is 2.82% during 2001-02 to 2010-11 while during the same period CAGR in production of all Kharif and Rabi vegetables is 6.96% and 4.41% respectively.
  • 13. -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 2001-02 to 2002-03 2002-03 to 2003-04 2003-04 to 2004-05 2004-05 to 2005-06 2005-06 to 2006-07 2006-07 to 2007-08 2007-08 to 2008-09 2008-09 to 2009-10 2009-10 to 2010-11 CAGR Total Foodgrains Total Vegetables Fig: Compound Annual Growth Rate of Area under total Food Grain and Total Vegetables during 2001-02 to 2010-11
  • 14. Name of Districts Name of Villages Average family size % of Male Populatn Literacy of HH head Educ. Year/HH head Work force (%) Kamrup Singimari 5.2 61.5 80 7.8 44.2 Roumari 5.3 65.4 90 10.7 32.76 Dadara 5.8 50 100 10.7 32.76 Dolibari 4.9 55.1 60 6.4 38.78 Kamrup Total 5.4 56.5 82.5 8.05 38.89 Barpeta Zamadarbori 7.2 62.5 40 2.2 45.83 Sengelia 6.1 49.2 60 3.3 24.19 Barpeta Total 6.7 56.4 50 2.75 36.09
  • 15. Village Agricultural Activities Govt. Services Private Services Business Non-farm Total Prim Secy. Prim. Secy. Prim. Secy Prim Secy Prim. Secy Singimari 60.9 13 8.7 0 4.3 0 21.7 4.3 34.8 13 Roumari 54.5 13.6 13.6 0 9.0 0 9 4.5 31.8 4.5 Dadara 45 30 30 0 5 0 20 0 55 0 Dolibari 44.4 27.8 22.2 0 5.6 0 33.3 5.6 61.1 5.6 Kamrup Total 51 20.5 18 2.4 6 0 20.5 3.6 44.6 6.1 Zamadarbo ri 78.8 0 0 0 27.3 0 0 0 27.3 0 Sengelia 86.7 13.3 0 0 20 0 0 6.7 20 6.7 Barpeta Total 81 4.2 0 0 25 0 0 2.1 25 2.1
  • 16. Size class Singima ri Roumari Dolibari Dadara Kamrup total Zamadar bori Sengalia Barpeta total Marginal (below 1.0) 3 (12.6) 2 (9.9) 2 (6.2) 7 (50.7) 14 (16.1) 2 (6.6) 4 (20.5) 6 (12.0) Small (1.0- 2.0) 5 (45.9) 6 (57.4) 6 (43.8) 2 (22.4) 19 (44.3) 4 (30.1) 5 (49.1) 9 (37.5) Semi medium (2.0-4.0) 1 (14.4) 2 (32.7) 1 (19.2) 1 (26.9) 5 (22.5) 4 (63.2) 1 (30.4) 5 (50.6) Medium (4.0-10.0) 1 (27.0) 0 (0) 1 (30.8)) 0 (0) 2 (17.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Large (10.0 & above) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Total 10 (100) 10 (100) 10 (100) 10 (100) 40 (100) 10 (100) 10 (100) 20 (100) Table: Village wise Distribution of Sample Households by Different Size of Operational Holdings. *Figures in brackets indicate percentages of holdings concentrated to various size classes
  • 17.  Cropping pattern at sample farms has been studied in two ways, by examining the frequency distribution of farms growing various crops and by examining percent area allocated to paddy and other important horticultural crops.  Availability of CS facility (or absence of it) does not seem to have any impact on the cropping pattern of the sample farmers.  Main determinant in inter-village differences in crop composition is micro variation in soil type and largely location factor.
  • 18. Village Padd y Mustar d Brinj al Potat o Tomat o Cabbag e Pumpk in Radis h Chill y Coria nder Garli c Caulifl ower Cuku mber Singimari 50 80 100 90 30 10 80 60 20 60 30 0 20 Roumari 90 70 80 90 20 0 60 50 20 30 10 0 20 Dadara 90 100 50 100 30 10 70 0 10 20 50 0 0 Dolibari 80 90 80 100 0 10 70 0 70 0 10 0 0 Zamadar bori 100 50 90 0 100 80 20 10 50 0 10 10 10 Sengelia 80 0 50 0 50 80 0 0 10 0 0 60 0 Table: Frequency Distribution of Crop Pattern at Sample HHs. (In percentage)
  • 19. Table: Distribution of Net Sown Area under Different Crops at Sample HHs. (In hectare) Village Padd y Mustar d Brinja l Potato Tomat o Cabbage Pumpki n Radish Chill y Coria nder Garli c Caulifl ower Cukumb er Singimari 2.95 (25.3) 2.09 (17.2) 2.36 (16.8) 0.99 (8.5) 0.29 (2.5) 0.07 (0.6) 1.67 (14.4) 0.68 (5.9) 0.13 (1.25) 2.34 (20.1) 0.15 (1.3) 0 (0) 0.27 (2.3) Roumari 3.88 (29.6) 2.61 (19.9) 2.88 (21.9) 1.18 (8.9) 0.40 (3.1) 0 (0) 2.48 (18.9) 0.71 (5.4) 0.13 (1.0) 0.94 (7.1) 0.03 (0.2) 0 (0) 0.27 (2.0) Dadara 10.11 (58.1) 3.95 (22.7) 0.40 (2.3) 1.66 (9.5) 0.08 (0.5) 0.03 (0.2) 0.88 (5.1) 0 (0) 0.03 (0.1) 0.27 (1.5) 0.37 (2.2) 0 (0) 0 (0) Dolibari 5.22 (58.2) 1.51 (16.9) 1.31 (14.6) 0.95 (10.6) 0 (0) 0.03 (0.3) 1.02 (11.3) 0 (0) 1.30 (14.5) 0 (0) 0.13 (1.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) Zamadarb ori 10.04 (55.6) 2.54 (14.1) 1.20 (6.7) 0 (0) 1.81 (10) 1.34 (7.4) 0.27 (1.5) 0.07 (0.4) 0.47 (2.6) 0 (0) 0.03 (0.1) 0.13 (0.7) 0.20 (1.1) Sengelia 4.95 (47.7) 0 (0) 0.94 (9.0) 0 (0) 1 (9.7) 1.41 (13.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.09 (0.9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.74 (7.1) 0 (0) Figures in Brackets indicate percentage of net cropped area allocated to the respective crops.
  • 20. Crop Total Production (in quintal) Retained for Consumption (in quintal) Marketed Output (in quintal) Consumption (%) Paddy 1118.4 772.8 345.6 69.1% Brinjal 3042.5 34.4 3008.1 1.31% Potato 372.9 99 273.9 26.55% Mustard 126.95 69.05 57.9 54.39% Pumpkin 1366 33.6 1332.4 2.46% Tomato 256.6 3.9 252.7 1.52% Radish 423 3.2 419.8 0.76% Garlic 13.7 2.4 11.3 17.52% Paddy 580.1 443.9 136.2 76.52% Brinjal 1005 0 1005 0 Tomato 2130 2.9 2127.1 0.14% Cabbage 1952 1 1951 0.05% Cauliflower 304 0.5 303.5 0.16% Jute 24.2 0 24.2 0 Mustard 21.6 1.2 20.4 5.56% Table. 4.7. Marketable Surplus of Some of the Important Crops and percentage of Consumption in the Sample Households (In Quintal) In Barpeta In Kamrup
  • 21. Kamrup Crop Singimari Roumari Dadara Dolibari Kamrup Total Paddy 750 750 766.67 750 754.55 Mustard 2425 2485.71 2916.67 2500 2623.53 Brinjal 950 1100 1100 1362.5 1119.35 Potato 712.5 800 790 800 778.38 Pumpkin 675 740 614.28 614.29 655.56 Barpeta Crop Zamadarbori Sengelia Barpeta Total Paddy 815 750 796.43 Brinjal 488 460 478.57 Cabbage 250 218.75 234.38 Tomato 320 280 306.67 Cauliflower 300 408 392 Market Price (Rs per quintal)
  • 22. Kamrup Name of Crop Average Market price during harvesting season Average Market Price during Slack Season Gap in % Paddy 696.43 1008.93 30.97 Mustard 2118.52 2974.07 28.77 Potato 681.58 1303.95 47.73 Tomato 662.5 2500 73.5 Brinjal 690.32 1677.42 58.87 Pumpkin 448.21 1066.07 57.96 Barpeta Paddy 694.44 947.22 26.69 Brinjal 307.14 1771.43 82.66 Tomato 103.33 1893.33 94.54 Cabbage 111.76 1788.24 93.75 Cauliflower 250 1800 86.11 Jute 1316 1833.33 28.18 Table 4.10 Seasonal Average Price variation of some of the Important Marketed Crops in Sample Farmer Households (Rs. per Quintal)
  • 23. Higher transportation costs for farmers in Barpeta makes farmers incur losses and also leads to wastages of vegetables. Village Push Cart (Hired) Push Cart (Own) Bicycle Hanging Baskets Auto Van/Truck Singimari 0 40 50 10 0 Roumari 0 40 40 10 10 Dadara 0 30 30 40 0 Dolibari 0 50 20 10 20 Zamadarbori 100 0 0 0 0 Sengelia 100 0 0 0 0
  • 24.  No visible impact of the CS on farming practices of the sample HHs in Kamrup  No access of CS resulted in leasing out of the same to private party
  • 25. Reasons for not accessing the Cold Store:  Too limited marketable surplus to access a chamber of the CS  Immediate need of revenue after harvest and problem of ‘distress sale’  Lack of information about probable gain after using the CS  Easy marketing even though price is less  Lack of unity among farmers to jointly access the CS
  • 26.  The hypothesis that “access to CS facility leads to changes in composition of agricultural production by shifting to high value horticulture crops and increases volume of production has been rejected.  Transportation and market access is more crucial factor than the accessibility of cold storage facility in a state like Assam
  • 27.  Formation of grower’s cooperative society.  Exploring more vegetable growing zone in Assam and induce farmers to cultivate providing necessary assistance.  Improvement of road communication and transport system.  The selection of location to establish CS has to be based on market linkage scenario and extent of marketable surplus.  Emphasis should be more on ‘cold chain’ concept in the context of Assam instead of CS.
  • 28. Aswani, p. (2005), Commodity Portfolio Management of Cold Storage units in Hyderabad (AP). An unpublished Ph. D thesis submitted to University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad Borah, R. and R. Savapandit (2008), ‘Economics of Vegetable Crops Cultivation in Assam: A Study in Nagaon and Jorhat Districts’ in Deshpande R. S. et al. (eds.), Glimpses of Indian Agriculture: Macro and Micro Aspects (Vol.2), Academic Foundation, New Delhi Chand, R. (1999), Agricultural Diversification in India, Mittal Publication, New Delhi De, U. K. (2003), Economics of Crop Diversification, Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi
  • 29. Dorjee, K. S. Broca and Prabhu Pimgali (2007), ‘Diversification in South Asian Agriculture: Trends and Constraints’ in Joshi P. K. et al. (eds.), Agricultural Diversification and Smallholders in South Asia, Academic Foundation, New Delhi Gill, D. S. and Gill, G. S. (1982), ‘An Economic Analysis of Potato Marketing in Punjab.’ Agricultural Marketing 24 (2); pp. 25-28 Government of Assam (2010-11), Economic Survey, Directorate of Economics and Statistics Government of Assam (2010), Statistical Handbook, 2010, Directorate of Economics and Statistics
  • 30. Government of India (2010), Status of Cold Storage in India, accessed from www.indg.in/agriculture/crop.../status_of_cold_storages_i n_india.pdf on 06.03.2012 Jairath, M. S. (2010), Agricultural Marketing Infrastructural Facilities in India. pp. 5, accessed from www.cosamb.org/downloads/MISINDIA-Cosamb(F).doc on 06.03.2012 Fugli, K. O. (1999), ‘Economics of Potato Storage: Case Studies’, paper presented at the Symposium on Potato Storage, Processing and Marketing’, Global Conference on Potato, New Delhi, India, December 7-9 Rao, V. M. and K. C. Hiremath (2010), ‘Agricultural Policy Reviews: A Synthesis’ in Asian Development Bank (ADB), Agriculture, Food Security and Rural Development, Oxford University Press, New Delhi pp.8-9
  • 31. Ray, D. (1998), Development Economics, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, Fifth Impression Reshma, A. (2010), ‘Agriculture Marketing- From Livelihoods to Enterprise’, State of India’s Livelihood Report 2010, Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Sengupta, K. (2010), Determinants of Marketed Surplus in a Backward Economy, Concept Publishing Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Joshi, P. K. (2010), ‘Crop Diversification in India: Nature, Pattern and Drivers’ in Asian Development Bank (ADB), Agriculture, Food Security and Rural Development, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. pp.211
  • 32. Piture: Questionnaire Survey in Village Dolibari (Left) and in Dadara (Right) in Sample location at Kamrup.