International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 21, 2016, pp.-1376-1380. Available online at http://www.bioinfopublication.org/jouarchive.php?opt=&jouid=BPJ0000217

STUDY ON LIVELIHOOD AND SCOPE OF VALUE ADDITION: A CASE OF DISTRICT OF

SAVALIYA DIVYA1, KHUNT K.A.1, CHAUDHARI V.P.1, MAHAMMADHUSEN K.2 AND KAMANI H.V.3 1PGIABM, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh, 362001 2Department of Agricultural Economics, Junagadh Agricultural University (JAU), Junagadh, 362001 3Tata Chemicals Society for Rural Development (TCSRD), Mithapur, 361 345, Okhamandal, Gujarat *Corresponding Author: Email - [email protected]

Received: April 09, 2016; Revised: April 15, 2016; Accepted: April 16, 2016

Abstract- An attempt has been made for studying rural development activities in the Okhamandal area of Gujarat. The Gini coefficient was estimated to 0.043. Among all the ten groups, Madhav group had the highest share (17.38 %) in total income. Regarding the value addition in the Okhaman dal area about 23 per cent farmers did the value addition which was very poor as compare to their future expectations i.e. 82 per cent farmers. The highest scope of value addition was observed in commodities like chillies (27 farmers), tomato (20 farmers) and groundnut (48 farmers). Per acre net income was obtained Rs, 6,03,526. The crops like sapota, coconut, coriander, chillies, brinjal and cotton were the major sources of farm income. In case of animal husbandry, the average gross income received per cluster from animal husbandry was estimated at Rs. 1,19,502 per annum. Labour activities in the form of driving, industrial and agril labour, masonry works etc. were the major alternative sources of income in the study area. Keywords- Gini coefficient, Total income, Net income, Value addition, Cluster

Citation: Savaliya Divya, et al., (2016) Study on Livelihood and Scope of Value Addition: A Case of of Gujarat. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 21, pp.-1376-1380. Copyright: Copyright©2016 Savaliya Divya, et al., This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction The livelihood approach looks to improve the incomes from farm and non-farm Table-1 List of selected clusters of TCSRD activities for landless people by comprises the capabilities, assets and activities Group No. Village Name Group Name Total Farmers required for a means of living. Value addition in agriculture for the development of 1 Ghadechi Shiv Aagna 15 rural livelihood is a major factor for income generation via transforming a product 2 Ghadechi Rutu Dhwaj 15 from its original state to a more valuable state. is estimated to have around 3 Goriyali Aashapura 13 4 Goriyali Vachhraj 11 3.3 million NGOs in year 2009, which is just over one NGO per 400 Indians, and 5 Poshitra Bhumiputra 14 many times the number of primary schools and primary health centers in India [4]. 6 Ladva Dwarkadhish 10 Tata Chemicals Limited (TCL) Established in 1939 had set up a Tata Chemical 7 Dwarka Gomti 11 Society for Rural Development (TCSRD) in 1980 to fulfill its social commitment to 8 Vasai Magic 11 the communities and services were subsequently extended to the different regions 9 Korada Dwarkesh 12 of the state. TCSRD is working for rural poor of the Okhamandal area of Jamnagar 10 Tupani Madhav 11 district. The community development journey began in the 80’s in Mithapur, which is part of Dwarka Taluka in the Jamnagar District. Mithapur is the home to the The income disparity among the cluster groups of TCSRD was measured using Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality for given chemical division of Tata Chemical Ltd. The emphasize was made to assess the impact of the effort made by this organization by studying the income disparity, distribution. It is defined as a ratio with values between 0 and 1. The Gini index is explore the scope for value addition in agriculture in clusters and identification of the Gini coefficient expressed as a percentage and is equal to the Gini coefficient the areas of alternative source livelihood for the clusters. multiplied by 100. The Gini coefficient is often used to measure income inequality. Here, 0 indicates to perfect income equality (i.e. everyone has the same income) Materials and Methods and 1 indicates corresponds to perfect income inequality (i.e. one person has all The present study was carried out in Okhamandal taluka, which is located the income, while everyone else has zero income). The trapezoidal method was Jamnagar district of Gujarat. TCSRD has formed the 20 groups of farmers used to work out Gini coefficient using formula as under [2]:

considering the size of holding, location of farm, resident etc. The minimum size of ∑푛 (푃 − 푃 ) (푄 + 푄 ) each group is ten members and the maximum size is up to sixteen members. Out 퐺 = 1 − 푘=1 푘 푘−1 푘 푘−1 of twenty cluster groups of the TCSRD project area, ten clusters groups were 10000 selected randomly. Finally, from each selected cluster group, 10 farmers from each were selected out of 123 farmers listed in [Table-1]. Thus, the size of the Where, sample was of 100 farmers. The primary data about socioeconomic information, G = The Gini coefficient crop production, off farm activities, income sources, alternative livelihood etc. had P = Cumulative percentage of groups of households been collected with the help of structured questionnaires. Qk = Cumulative proportion of per group average income

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 21, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 1376 Study on Livelihood and Scope of Value Addition: A Case of Jamnagar District of Gujarat

Qk-1 = Preceding proportion of per group average income the extent of 23.26 per cent in total income while the share of other income Similar method was used by [1] and [3] for the income inequality measurement. restricted to 8.72 per cent only. The same trend is also observed across the The relative contribution of each of the sources of overall inequality assessed by groups except the cases of Gomti and Bhumiputra groups. Besides the positive decomposition of the Gini coefficients that measured provides the contributions of impact of works of TCSRD on rural development, it also helps to reduce the different income sources income disparity among the groups of beneficiaries. The detail about the distribution of the groups in different income classes is Results and Discussion described in [Table-3]. It can be observed from the table that the share of 70 per Income disparity: The distribution of income among groups of households is cent groups in total income was nearly 54 percent. The average annual income of presented in [Table-2]. The highest per cent of income was observed in Madhav this groups was nearly Rs. 2,31,671 per group. The Gini coefficient was 0.043 group of households contributing 17.38 per cent (Rs. 5,21,766) to total income of which is nearer to zero. This indicates that every group has more or less same all the ten groups of households, followed by Dwarkesh group (14.72 %), income. This indicates that income was more evenly distributed in all the groups. Bhumiputra group (13.88 %), Ashapura group (11.00 %), Rutudhwaz group (9.26 Thus, could be inferred that the groups might be more or less homogeneous in %), Gomti group (8.74 %), Magic group (7.77 %), Vachhraj group (6.16 %) and earning the income. [Fig-1] shows the magnitude of inequalities for the income of Dwarkadhish group (5.67 %). The lowest contribution to total income of all the clusters. Observed inequality was due to difference in farm holding size, different sample groups was 5.42 per cent i.e. Rs. 1,62,769 by Shivangna group (5.42%). alternative sources of income generation, technological uses in farming and On an average, agriculture seemed to be the major source of total income of all livestock keeping. [5] had also found that the non-farm sources have contributed the clusters contributing 68.02 per cent. The animal husbandry has contributed to more than 90 per cent towards income inequality.

Table-2 Component wise income distribution among groups of TCSRD Cumulative Sr. Name of No. of % of Cumulative % Average % of (Pk - Pk-1) % Pk - Pk-1 Qk + Qk-1 No. Group Households Households of Households Net Income (Rs.) Income (Qk + Qk-1) of Income 1 Shivagna 10 10 10 162769 5.42 5.42 10 5.42 54.22 2 Rutudhwaz 10 10 20 278011 9.26 14.68 10 20.11 201.06 3 Dwarkesh 10 10 30 441751 14.72 29.40 10 44.08 440.84 4 Vachhraj 10 10 40 184975 6.16 35.56 10 64.96 649.63 5 Gomti 10 10 50 262321 8.74 44.30 10 79.86 798.64 6 Madhav 10 10 60 521766 17.38 61.68 10 105.98 1059.85 7 Dwarakadish 10 10 70 170190 5.67 67.35 10 129.04 1290.36 8 Bhumiputra 10 10 80 416555 13.88 81.23 10 148.58 1485.83 9 Magic 10 10 90 233166 7.77 89.00 10 170.23 1702.27 10 Ashapura 10 10 100 330270 11.00 100.00 10 189.00 1889.98 Total 100 100 3001774 100.00 100 957.27 9572.68

Gini coefficient = 0.043

Table-3 Distribution of income among groups of households Sr. No. Range of Income (Rs.) No. Of Group % of Group Income (Rs.) % of Income 1 1 - 70000 0 0 0 0 2 70001 to 140000 0 0 0 0 3 140001 to 210000 3 30 517934 17.25 4 210001 to 280000 3 30 773498 25.77 5 280001 to 350000 1 10 330270 11.00 6 350001 to 420000 1 10 416555 13.88 7 420001 to 490000 1 10 441751 14.72 8 490001 to 560000 1 10 521766 17.38 Total 10 100 3001774 100

products. Agricultural products like chillies, tomato, groundnut, pulses, cumin, sesamum, wheat, maize, bajra and milk found to have future scope for value addition was noticed in clusters group of TCSRD. The highest scope for value addition was observed in commodities like chillies (27 farmers), Tomato (20 farmers), groundnut (48 farmers), cumin (9 farmers) and wheat (9 farmers). Very little scope for value addition was noticed in case of sesamum, pulse, bajra and maize. The agricultural value addition found in the individual group of TCSRD is expressed in [Table-5]. It evident that 60 percent member of Bhumiputra group used to do value addition which stood on the top in value addition while in Fig-1 Concentration curve for income disparity among the clusters of Dwarkadhish and Magic groups found to have zero value addition. Future TCRSD planning for value addition observed very high in Bhumiputra, Dwarkesh, Rutudhwaz, Vachhraj groups. The entire farmers (100 %) have future planning or Value addition in agriculture: The present status and scope of value addition in expected to do value addition in their products. About 40 per cent farmers of different agricultural commodities is mentioned in [Table-4]. About 23 per cent Dwarkadish group want value addition in future which is the lowest per cent for the farmers of clusters groups of TCSRD did the value addition in agricultural value addition. This needs to study the reasons behind the aversion towards value commodities like chillies, groundnut and milk. The value added products were dry addition. On the whole it can be concluded that there is bright scope for value chillies and powder (8 farmers), Ghee and butter (14 farmers) and graded addition in commodities like chilies, tomato, groundnut, and milk. Cluster like groundnut (6 farmers). Future demand for the value addition is very high. From the Dwarkadhish group need to be critically analyzed for its aversion towards value total selected farmers about 82 per cent farmer want to do value addition in their addition.

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 21, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 1377 Savaliya Divya, Khunt K. A., Chaudhari V.P., Mahammadhusen K. and Kamani H.V.

Table-4 Present status and scope for value addition in agriculture in farmers' clusters of TCSRD. (Overall) Present Status Future demands for value addition Value No. of Member (%) Commodities added No. of Farmers Member (%) Commodities Farmers products Chillies Powder 8 Chillies 27 Dry 8 Tomato 20 Chillies Milk Ghee 14 Groundnut 48 Butter Pulses 4

23% Groundnut Grading 6 82% Cumin 9 Sesamum 4

Wheat 9

maize 1

Bajra 1

Milk 15

Table-5 Present status and scope for value addition in agriculture across farmers' clusters of TCSRD Present Future Group No Value added No. of Name Member (%) Commodities No. of Farmers Member (%) Commodities products Farmers Chillies Powder 2 Chillies 2 Dry Chillies Tomato 7

Groundnut 2

1 Shivagna 20% 90% Pulses 2

Sesamum 1

Wheat 2

Milk 1

Chillies Powder 3 Chillies 5 Dry chillies Tomato 3

Milk Ghee 1 Groundnut 7 2 Rutudhwaz 40% 100% Wheat 1

Milk 1

Maize 1

G' nut Grading 3 Groundnut 10 Milk Ghee 2 Cumin 3 3 Dwarkesh 20% 100% Sesamum 3

Milk 4

Bajra 1

Groundnut Grading 1 Chillies 5 Milk Ghee 1 Tomato 5 4 Vachhraj 10% 100% Groundnut 8 Wheat 3 Milk 3 20% Milk Ghee 2 80% Groundnut 8 5 Gomti Milk 2 Cumin 1 30% Groundnut Grading 2 70% Groundnut 3 6 Madhav Milk Butter 2 Cumin 2 Ghee Milk 4 0% 40% Chillies 2 7 Dwarkadhish Milk 2 Chillies Powder 3 Chillies 10 Dry chillies Tomato 3 Milk Ghee 4 Groundnut 4 8 Bhumiputra 60% 100% Pulses 2 Cumin 1 Wheat 3 Milk 2 0% ---- Chillies 5 9 Magic ---- 70% Tomato 1 ---- Milk 1 10% Milk Ghee 1 Tomato 1 10 Ashapura 70% Groundnut 6 Milk 1

Sources of livelihoods were found profitable. Per acre net income from different crops varied from Rs. 2,460 in Income sources: Crops bajra crop to Rs. 84,285 in sapota. The crops like sapota (13.97%), coconut (13.14%), The Okhamandal area is recognised as draught prone areas with acute problems of coriander (13.88%), chillies (7.71%), brinjal (6.30%), chick pea (5.01%) and cotton salinity in groundwater as well as soil. With the experience, farmers generally follow (4.07%) were the major sources of farm income of the Okhamandal area. On an diversified cropping system to cope up with risk and uncertainty in agriculture. Hence average, per farm gross income, total cost and net income was Rs. 8,45,608, Rs. about 23 crops are grown by the farmers of this tract. The detail about the profitability of 2,42,082 and Rs. 6,03,526, respectively. Thus, the income sources of agriculture assure different crops is given in [Table-6]. It can be noticed from the results that all the crops the better livelihood of farmer of this tract.

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 21, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 1378 Study on Livelihood and Scope of Value Addition: A Case of Jamnagar District of Gujarat

Table-6 Farm income from different crops grown by farmers' clusters of TCSRD (Rs. /Acre) % to Net No. Crop Gross Income Total Cost Net Income Income 1 Bajra 6430.65 3790.32 2640.32 0.44 2 Jowar 15398.65 3648.65 11750.00 1.95 3 Maize 23950.00 5300.00 18650.00 3.09 4 Castor 5588.24 220.59 5367.65 0.89 5 Cotton 33627.35 9087.14 24540.21 4.07 6 Sesamum 14261.51 2664.47 11597.04 1.92 7 Groundnut 5793.27 1177.88 4615.38 0.76 8 Green gram 20411.52 3518.52 16893.00 2.80 9 Cluster bean 22872.59 9907.25 12965.33 2.15 10 Wheat 11581.87 2701.75 8880.12 1.47 11 Chickpea 46875.00 16666.67 30208.33 5.01 12 Cumin 38077.96 16733.87 21344.09 3.54 13 Coriander 105000.00 21250.00 83750.00 13.88 14 Brinjal 51228.81 13220.34 38008.47 6.30 15 Chillies 59515.72 12969.41 46546.30 7.71 16 Tomato 35132.16 11145.37 23986.78 3.97 17 Cluster bean 28571.43 6071.43 22500.00 3.73 18 Okra 28571.43 6071.43 22500.00 3.73 19 Water melon 34563.25 26513.55 8049.70 1.33 20 Carrot 20000.00 11250.00 8750.00 1.45 21 Fodder 23870.97 7459.68 16411.29 2.72 22 Coconut 107142.86 27857.14 79285.71 13.14 23 Sapota 107142.86 22857.14 84285.71 13.97 24 Total 845608.10 242082.60 603525.43 100.00

Income sources: Animal husbandry Dwarkadhish cluster in which cow milk seemed to be the major income source. Agriculture and animal husbandry enterprises are just complement each other by The total cost per annum of milk production varied between Rs. 21,900 to Rs. providing fodder to animals and FYM to agriculture. The sources of income from 90,009 depending upon the numbers and types of animals they kept. The highest animal husbandry and economic aspects are addressed cluster wise in [Table-6]. net income from animal husbandry was received by Ashapura cluster (Rs. It was revealed from the results that on an average gross income received per 1,23,051) followed by Dwarkesh cluster (Rs. 93,726), Magic (Rs. 85,116), Madhav cluster from animal husbandry was estimated to Rs. 1,19,502 per annum. The (Rs. 76,941) and Rutudhwaz (Rs. 72,811). In rest of the clusters, the income from major contributors of gross income were buffalo milk (75.01%), cow milk (17.94%) animal husbandry need to increase either by giving incentives or by motivating and FYM (7.05%). This trend was also observed across the clusters except the them through organising training programmes.

Table-7 Average annual animal husbandry income of different clusters (Rs. /annum) Milk Income FYM Income Cost Net Income No. Group (Rs./yr) Cow Milk Buffalo Milk (Rs./yr). (Rs./yr) (Rs./yr) (Rs./yr) 1 Shivagna 22140 61920 7200 91260 37230 54030 2 Rutudhwaz 14580 102960 8160 125700 52889 72811 3 Dwarkesh 4320 152640 8160 165120 71394 93726 4 Vachhraj 18360 60480 6000 84840 35040 49800 5 Gomti 30240 44640 5520 80400 32631 47769 6 Madhav 5400 110880 13440 129720 52779 76941 7 Dwarakadish 34560 17280 5520 57360 21900 35460 8 Bhumiputra 21600 72000 8400 102000 41610 60390 9 Magic 35640 100800 9120 145560 60444 85116 10 Ashapura 27540 172800 12720 213060 90009 123051 11 Per Cluster 21438 89640 8424 119502 49593 69909 % Share in 17.94 75.01 7.05 100.00 41.50 58.50 12 Net Income

Areas of alternate livelihood: The detail about sources of livelihood other than Conclusions agriculture in different clusters is given in [Table-8]. It can be inferred from the As compared to existing status of value addition in agricultural products, there is a results that masonry works, labour in agriculture and industries, and driving bright scope in future for value addition in commodities like groundnut, chillies activities were the major alternative sources of income across the farmers’ clusters tomato and milk. The contribution of different clusters in total farm income of all of TCSRD. The income generated through driving activities varied from Rs. clusters varied from 5.42 to 17.38 per cent. However the lower value of Gini 1,44,000 in Gomti group to Rs. 2,80,000 in Magic group. Use of tractor generated coefficient indicated the income equality among the clusters. On-farm activities like around Rs. 1,00,000 in Dwarkesh group. In form labour work in industries varied crop cultivation and animal husbandry were found profitable and rank as major from Rs. 1,44,000 to 1,92,000 where as from agricultural labour and masonry sources of livelihoods. It has been recommended that processing and value works, the income generated was around Rs. 70,000 and Rs. 50,000, addition activities should be promoted in the region, strengthen the extension respectively. The other sources of income were the teaching activity, shop functionaries, and adopt the animal husbandry along with crops which aid to keeping, cable operating etc. Thus, major or common alternative sources of farmers for generating the additional income income in the study area were labour activities in form of driving, industrial and agril labour, masonry works etc. Result was pertaining to the findings of [6].

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 21, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 1379 Savaliya Divya, Khunt K. A., Chaudhari V.P., Mahammadhusen K. and Kamani H.V.

Table-8 Alternative sources of income and net income of farmers Working Time No. of People Net Income Group Particular (Month) Engaged (Rs./year) Mason 6 1 48000 Shivagna Industrial Labour 12 3 144000 Rutudhwaz Driver 12 3 144000 Tractor 15 2 100000 Dwarkesh Agril. Labour 6 1 70000 Labour 6 3 101000 Vachhraj Thresher 2 2 40000 Driver 12 3 144000 Gomti Shop Keeper 12 1 240000 Agril. Labour 8 2 111000 Madhav Nil 0 0 0 Labour 6 3 150000 Dwarkadhish Mason 6 1 50000 Teacher 12 1 250000 Cable Operator 12 1 130000 Mason 4 1 50000 Bhumiputra Industrial Labour 12 2 92000 Labour 6 1 60000 Driver 12 1 72000 Shop Keeper 12 1 110000 Magic Driver 12 3 280000 Agril. Labour 12 1 70000 Ashapura Tractor + Rickshaw 12 1 60000

Conflict of Interest: None declared

References [1] Bosch A., Rossouw J., Claassens T., Plessis B. (2010) A Second Look at Measuring Inequality in South Africa: A Modified Gini Coefficient. (58):1-14. [2] Catalano M.T., Leise T.L., Pfaff T.J. (2009) Numeracy, 2(2). [3] Ogunniyi L.T., Adepoju A.A., Olapade-Ogunwole F. (2011) Global Journal of Human Social Science, 11(5), 1-8. [4] Ramakrishnan H. (2013) International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary Research, 2(4), 44-11. [5] Samal P., Barah B.C., Pandey S. (2006) Agricultural Economics Research Review, (19), 281-292. [6] Singh H.L. and Karla K.K. (2004) Indian Journal of Dairy Science, 57(1), 35-42.

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 8, Issue 21, 2016 || Bioinfo Publications || 1380