Presented at the Pulses for Sustainable Agriculture and Human Health” on 31 May-1 June 2016 at NASC, New Delhi, India. The conference was jointly organised by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), TCi of Cornell University (TCi-CU) and Agriculture Today.

1. Mechanization in Legume Production and
Prospectus of Rural Transformation in India:
Mechanical Harvesting of Chickpea
Presented at conference on Pulses for Sustainable Agriculture and Human
Health, New Delhi 31 May, 2016
** IFPRI, New Delhi Office.
$ Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharwad, Karnataka -580005
Acknowledgements: This research was funded from ICRISAT, Hyderabad;
when the first n author was for village level studies

2. Background
Combine H in use in USA in 1902, pulled by
34 horses

3. Custom Hiring of Agricultural Machineries
3

4. I. To assess extent of uses and constraints on using combined
harvesters on chickpea in targeted sites of Madhya
Pradesh and Maharashtra.
II. To compare cost and benefits of manual vs. mechanical
harvesting (and threshing) of chickpea.
III. To analyze farmers’ and the harvester service providers’
constraints and opportunities.
Objectives of the Study

5. Chickpea in MP and MH in 2013/14
Variables Area in
M ha
1. Chickpea area in India 9.93
2. Pigeon pea area in India 3.9
3. Chickpea area in Madhya Pradesh 3.16
4. Chickpea area in Maharashtra 1.19

6. Methodology
• Comparative analysis (partial budget analysis) of manual
harvesting and machine harvesting of chick peas.
• Estimation on labor uses for harvesting by each operation,
and detailed costs of farm operation.
• Integration of secondary survey with primary survey data
(interview) from farmers and service providers (harvester
and thresher owners), and other stakeholders.
• The primary survey was done in selected chickpeas
growing areas in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra in 2014

7. Methodology
II. Besides, 30 machine owners were surveyed with
checklist, 15 from each states.
7
Study area
Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh
Rahuri
Taluka
Sangamner
Taluk
Basoda
Taluka
Sironj
Taluka
V1
(5)
V1
(5)
V1
(5)
V2
(5)
V2
(5)
V3
(5)
V1
(5)
V2
(5)
V3
(5)
V3
(5)
V3
(5)
V2
(5)
District- Ahmednagar District - Vidisa
7

8. IV. RESULTS

9. Manual and mechanical harvesting of chickpea
Sl.N
o
Harvesting Method
Overall
n=60
Number
1
Harvested by human
labour and threshed
using machine
38
(63)
2
Harvesting and
threshing by
machine
22
(37)
Total 60

10. Per ha cost and benefits of machine vs. the manual harvesting
Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh
S.N. Particulars Manual Combined H* Manual Combined H*
1 Harvesting/cutting
No of labour days 18 1 20 1
Male 8 1 5 1
Female 10 0 15 0
Labour cost (Rs.) 3,550 214 4,192 190
2 Stacking, bunding and Threshing
No of labour days 10 0 8 0
Male 4 0 4 0
Female 6 0 4 0
Labour cost 1,330 0 1,148 0
Rental charges of
thresher/ harvester 590 2,020 680 228

11. Per ha basis cost and benefits of machine vs. the manual harvesting …II
Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh
S.N. Particulars Manual Combined H* Manual Combined H*
3 Cleaning, winnowing and bagging
No. of labour days 3 3 4 4
Male 2 2 3 2
Female 1 1 1 2
Labour cost 398 643 574 756
4 Transportation from farm yard to home
No of labour days 2 3 3 4
Male 2 3 3 4
Female 0 0 0 0
labour cost 265 643 430 756
Rental charges of
tractor 480 480 520 520

12. Per ha cost and benefits of machine vs. manual harvesting..III
Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh
Particulars Manual CH* Manual CH*
Unit = Rs./ha
Sub total
Total labor
days 33 7 30 9
Total labor cost 5,542 1,500 6,344 1,700
Machinery
charges 1,071 2,500 1,200 2,800
Total cost 6,613 4,000 7,544 4,500
Difference in
cost /ha
2,613 3,044
Saving on labor
days/ha
26 21

13. Marketing channel of custom hiring of combine harvester
FARMER
Commission
agent
(village)
Commission
agent (Taluka
level)
Machine
Owner

14. Combine Harvester Owners
1. Avg. cost of one combine harvester = ~ Rs.
18,00,000
2. Avg. crop acreage harvested by one harvester
(surveyed) = 370 ha per year
3. The investment cost is usually recovered within 4-5
years of purchase of harvester.
4. All of the 25 sampled harvesters owners
(entrepreneurs) were from Punjab and Haryana

15. Who owns Combine Harvester..
5. They have purchased the harvesters without any
govt. subsidy, but taken bank loan (50% of them ) at
the rate of 15-18 % per annum.
6. One harvester usually works for about six months in a
year, moving around 2-3 states, owners are from
Punjab and Haryana.
7. In one village in Haryana (Samghad, there are over 300
numbers of combined harvesters. These harvesters go
all over India (chhatisgardh, AP, etc.).

16. Farmers’ reported constraints in mechanical harvesting of chickpea
S. N. Major constraints Garrett Ranking
Score (n=60)
Score Rank
1 Only spreading type of crop variety is available 64.62 1st
2 Non availability of suitable machines 59.44 2nd
3 Non availability of threshers machine on time 58.01 3rd
4
Frequent stoppage of machine on the field due to
improper handling (un-skill driver) 52.21 4th
5
Higher % on splitting/damage of grains during
harvesting by the machine
50.23 5th
6
Difficulty in transportation of machine from one
village to another , and from one field to another 48.15 6th
7 Non-availability of fuel for machine in nearby village 39.63 7th
8
Non availability of skilled workers to operate
machines locally 38.55 8th

17. Machine owners’ faced constraints in mechanical harvesting of chickpea
Sl. No Constraints
Garrett Ranking
Score (n=60)
Score Rank
1 High cost of machines (CH) 74.93 1st
2
Non-availability of trained machine operators
in other states
59.23 2nd
3
High cost of operating and maintenance of
machines and high wage of machine workers
57.47 3rd
4
Non-availability of financial support from
government
51.47 4th
5
Need to cover long distances in different
states/districts, which adds up fuel cost
50.27 5th
6 High fluctuations in area under the crop and
quantity of output across the places
45.43 6th
7 No standard price for unit harvested/ threshed 33.83 7th
8
Narrow roads/transportation problem in rural
areas
23.90 8th

18. V. CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS

19. Conclusions and Implications
1. The mechanical harvesting of chickpea can
save about 27 labor days/ha & Rs.2,800/ha
compared to manual harvesting .
2. Chickpea is on ~10 million ha in India, saving
on cost of production ( 27 labor days/ha)
means, saving of 135 million man days in a
month window, even if machine harvested is
done on 50% of crop acreage nationally. .
3. Through Custom Hiring Services, even
smallholding farmers are using the harvesters.
4. The reduced harvesting time saves matured
crops from weather vagaries (un-seasonal
rain) & splitting of grain on the field), and
increasing farmers’ profitability.

20. Conclusions and Implications
5. The harvesters are originally prepared for wheat and rice,
and other cereals; not exclusively for pulses like chickpeas.
6. Unavailability of smaller- size harvesters in India. More
targeted public sector R&D is needed to ad
In Vietnam
In Bangladesh
India
Thank you very much for your
attention
Chinese
Harvester