CHAPTER-IV Production Co^t - Analysis and Problems i In the cultivation of arecanutj South Canara district in Karnataka state enjoys a dominant position. The quality of arecanut grown in five taluks is “Chali type” which is considered to be the best and commands an ample activity in the market. Since arecanut is a perennial crop with about 40 y ears of economic life period which involves huge investment both in terms of es ablishment and maintenance expenditure. The development programme for arecanu includes better seedings, manuring, fertilismg and irrigating the gardens, plant protection and suitable mariceting of the produce. Therefore, it is quite significant to have knowledge of the varied cost incurred to bring an area of arecanut under cultivation over th(! bearing maturity stage and its relation to the production. Such a study of the various components of cost of cultivation of this crop is more significant in planning its function at development also. In view of all these considen.tions and inconsistence with the objectives of the study, three taluks of South Canara were selected for the field survey. The survey on the cost of cultlivation of arecanut is generally made and based on the sampling design plan. It describe the schedules, method of analysis and discussion. The sampling design of a study is a niulti-stage stratified purposive. Sampling with taluks is the first stage of sampling imit. Tlie village as a second stage unit and the farmers as the third and ultimate samplmg unit of all the major growing district of arecanut. South Canara district stands first accounting for about 28% of the total area in the state. There are 5 taluks, which comes under the South Canara district. Abundant vegetation, extensive forests, coconut palms in thie coastal line and rice field in every valley provides a refi-eshing greenness to the prospect. Among the 5 taluks of the district, the total area under cultivation of arecanut in three taluks, Puttur, Sullia and Bantwal comes to about 70%. The survey was conducted in ihese three taluks of South Canara district. In each taluk, based on the area under arecanut six villages were selected at random and a total of 18 villages were considered for thq study. The lists of villages of the taluks are as follows.
120 S.No Taluks Name of the yillages selected for the study purpose 1 Puttur Arayapu, Pan^je, Padnoor, Kavu, Savanoor, Alankar. 2 Bantwal Karopady, Puiiacha, Manchi, Mudipu, Peme, Idkidu. 3 Sullia Bellare, Kalmmadkka, Chokkadi, Guthigaru, Sampaje, Aletty. From the selected villages, list of all the farmers was prepared (villagewise). the purpose of farming the size group of fanners, the farmers from each of the selected villages (taluks) were arranged in the ascending order on the basis of the size of their holdings. The size of the operational holding is important factor influencing the farmer’s behaviour towards the agricultural practices. Further, in order to imbibe crystal clean information, the technique of stratification is employed by making three categories among the farmers and arranged in three layers. Size of class Having an area under arecanut 1) Small scale farmers 0.8 hactares 2) Middle scale farmers 0.8 to 1.6 hactares 3) Large scale farmers 1.6 and above hactares A stratified random sample of farmers were identified and investigated over the three taluks. Two hundred and twenty five farmers were properly selected for the enquiry from each of three types of three taluks. Among the 225 of 5 each in small, middle and large farmers. The fieldwork and primary daia covers two completed years of agriculture during 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Since, the cultivation of arecanut is long-term process. The study of two years undertaken deliberately to identify the varied cost on crop, performance in output and the results obtained during the first year could be verified with the second year. A care was taken to ensure that the sample selected adequately represents each
i size group of farm holding in the village. The primary datas were gathered from the growers by survey method. For this purpose, a schedule was structured, questionnaires were prepared and ultimately pre-tested before starting the field work. The household schedule was constructed on the basis of informal discussions with the progressive
121 growers and priori expectations of the behaviour. To do the analysis more effective, the schedule was divided into the following sections. 1) Identification of recognised of the sample growers - It includes family background and their socio-economic status. 2) The structure of the farms - Ijt includes the fragment wise of the farm holdings. 3) Cropping pattern - This section emphasis the nature of the difficulty faced by the growers in adoption of each group with reference to - a) Extent and level of inputs, b) Cultivating operations, c) Crop expenditure and output, d) Marketing cost and price. During the survey in the selected villages, on the basis of spot observations, supplemented by enquiring to the possible extent, mformation regarding the qualities of labour and materials used in the varidus operations in various gardens imder survey were recorded. The remaining information blating to the wages of hired labour, material were estimated, the production forecasting, prevailing prices and other money equivalents were also computed. Since arecanut is grown along with other crops like coconut, Jack fruit, banana, betel leaves, pepper etc. The enquiry was made not only pre-dominantly growing arecanut farms but also other farmipg areas. In the selected gardens, the number of stabilized bearing arecanut palms is significantly higher than that of the non-bearing and initial bearing palms. There are three phases of arecanut cuhivation noticed namely- Planting areca seeding and their prospective period up to 4 years is called non bearing stage. Plants start bearing fruits up to 7 year is considered as - initial bearing stage. Growth of seeds to maturity from 7 to 18 years is called the bearing stage. However, since the objective of the study is to perform the economic analysis of the farming sector, the expenditure on both bearing and non-bearing arecanut pahns was considered. A detailed survey of cultivating practices of arecanut over a period of ten years were only estimated and recorded through experience and views of the growers various levels.
122 Detailed household wise of land holding records being non-existent, the whole data from the case study is not accui^ate. The purpose of case study method is mainly to analyse the financial structure and the working of the diaries in more details of the arecanut growers. Infact the data froib the case study as well as from the sample survey were hand tabulated. The work regarding the case studies, however, occupied a good deal of over time because the account bo(^ks kept were not systematic, and were often in the form of personal diaries. The infprmation from these diaries were taken down, reclassified and then tabulated. For example, the data on feed required and its cost had to be taken down from the cash memos themselves. Cost Concepts; Arecanut is a crop of perennial and cost oriented farming, the growers are forced to invest varied expenses on the sector. To estimate the cost of production of arecanut m the study are, the annual cost of cultivation over a period of 10 years has been worked out according to cultivating nature, life period and other cost concepts prescribed in the different aspects. The cost concepts were followed according to the norms suggested by Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) under cost of cultivation of Principal Crops in India. ‘ The items pf cost of cultivation cover both the paid out costs (out of packet expenses and the imputed costs. These cost concepts included under each concept are: ! A. Establishment Cost;
i This refers to the pre-bearmg cost incurred for the establishment of garden up to
i optimum bearing stage. The investment made in the first seven years that is till the crop comes for economic bearing was considered as establishment cost. This includes rental value of land, imputed value of family labour incurred in establishment of cost such as cost of digging pits, line-marking, cost of planting material, planting, fertilizers, manure, plant protection, chemicals, cost of irrigation, cowshed, fodder, labour service and land revenue.
123 B. Maintenance Cost; I The costs incurred from 8th year to 10th years were considered as operating or maintenance cost. This includes cok on labour service, manure, fertilizer, spraying, harvesting irrigation, plant protection land revenue, rental value of land etc. For estimating the detailed cdst structure and items included under each of the concepts were as follows - Cost A lt It includes the items such as value of human labour, manuring, fertilizer, soiling, trenching, spraying, harvesting, De-husking, Hay (fodder), depreciation of implements, farm house, land revenue, miscellaneous and interest on variable capital at 10% / annum. Cost A2;- I It includes Cost A1 plus rent paid for leased land. Since in growing arecanut there is no practice of leasing of land. The Cost A1 itself is treated as Cost A2. Cost B l^ It includes preparation of sdil, fencing, plant instruments, pitting, seedings, irrigation, cowshed and interest on fiked capital at 5% / armum. It consist of two items namely Cost BIA : Cost A1 + Interest of fixed capital. Cost B 1 ; Cost B 1A + fixed capital. Cost B2; i It includes Cost B1 + rental value of land and rent paid by leased land. Cost C l; Cost B1 + imputed value of family labour. Cost C2; Cost B2 + imputed value of family labour. This is also considered as gross cost. Rental Value; The rental value of land is estimated on the basis of required natural and man- made facilities at the farming levels. However, the same was assumed as constant for estimations on per hectare basis.
124 Value of family labour; The involvement of the farmel’ himself and his family members who are engaged in farming activities were identified and their money value has been worked out on the basis the prevalent wage as paid to the hired labour. Land Revenue; I The land revenue for irrigated and rainfed areas of all taluks were collected from the Panchayat Office and the same w ^ considered for the computation of costs. Income Concepts; In the case of arecanut, total qijiantity produced each year as well as their price was worked out to arrive at total income. The returns were also recorded by considering the quantity produces of common intercrcips. Gross Income; The value of main product anq intercrop were estimated at the prices at which they were sold. Net Cost; This was defined as the differences between gross income and gross cost (Cost C2) incurred by the farmers. Nature of different Sample Farmerk; The general background about the sample farmers was collected during the survey period to understand the overall scei^ario of arecanut-oriented sector and the marketing aspects. In this regard, questioneire was framed in such a way to imbibe lucid information. Around 225 fanners of three taluks - Puttur, Sullia, Bantwal with different age groups were considered for sample survey. According to the size of the holding, the technique of stratification is employed by making three categories among the farmers and arranged in three layers namely Small farmers (SFs), Medium farmers (MFs) and Large farmers (LFs). A. Educational Background; Education is a significant socio-economic attribute, which is responsible for awareness and adoption of modem technologies. The taluk-wise educational status of the
125 sample fanners is furnished in Tablb no. 4.1. It was evident that the majority of the respondents in all taluks have undergone either primary or secondary section or able to read. The average SSLC education w^as found to be highest in Puttur taluk and lower in Bantwal taluk. Higher educations like degree, post graduation were seen highest in Puttur and lowest in Bantwal. The average figures indicates that 5% of the respondents were illiterate while 53% of the respondents were able to read or have undergone education up to primary or secondary level. B. Source of family income for Sample Farmers; This source is an important economic factor, which influences the degree of dependency of a family in farming. It ^as been evident and observed from the above table no. 4.2 that primary source of inqome for majority of sample farmers was from agriculture-allied activities. In Sullia taluk 11% of the sample farmers had major source of family income from both agricultiire and non-agricultural activities. The taluk wise average for the source of family income indicated that 63% of the sample fanners had primary source of income from agriculture, where as remaining 12% from both the agriculture as well as non-agriculture. C. Family Structure; The nature of family system s^ch as nuclear or joint, wiiich determines size of land holding as well as number of persons available for farm management. It could be inferred from the Table no. 4.3 that when compared to the other taluks, in Sullia, 26% of the total sample have adopted joint family system. Further it has been found that as we i move from Sullia to Bantwal of thq district, the adoption of joint family system is decreasing. D. Size of farm families; Total number of people in the family shown different figures in different taluks. Detailed analysis is presented under Table no. 4.4. The major proportion of sample farmers family size ranged between four to eight in all the three taluks of the district. The average figures of the district indicated that 58% of the total sample, the size of the farm family ranged between four to eight.
126 Table 4.1 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND SI No Education Puttur Sullia Bantwal Average 1 m 04 04 06 05 2 To read 14 24 18 19 3 Primary 15 15 27 19 4 Secondary 12 16 16 15 5 SSLC 11 07 05 07 6 PUC 09 03 01 04 7 Graduate 08 03 02 04 8 Professional 01 01 “ 01 9 Post Graduate 01 01 — 01 10 Total 75 75 75 75 Table 4.2 SOURCE OF FAMILY INCOME FOR SAMPLE FARMERS SI No Particulars Puttur Sullia Bantwal Average 1 i^ c u ltu re 58 64 66 63 2 Agriculture + Non Agriculti 17 11 9 12 3 Total 75 75 75 75 Table 4.3 TYPE OF FAMILY SYSTEM SI No Particulars Puttur Sullia Bantwal Average 1 Nuclear 57 49 51 52 2 Joint 18 26 24 23 3 Total 75 75 75 75 Table 4.4 SIZE OF FARMER FAMILIES SI No Number Puttur Sullia Bantwal Averf^e 1 2 3 4 6 4 2 3 5 7 8 6 3 4 18 12 15 15 4 5 22 18 20 20 5 6 -8 21 25 23 23 6 9-10 3 6 2 4 7 11-15 2 3 1 2 8 16-20 1 —— 1 9 Total 75 75 75 75 Table 4.6 TYPE OF ARECANUT CROP BY SAMPLE FARMERS SI No Particulars Puttur Sullia Bantwal Average 1 South Canara 51 56 48 52 2 Mangala 17 11 15 14 3 MohithNagar 7 8 12 9 4 Total 75 75 75 75 Source : Survey Datas
127 Table 4.5 PATTERN OF SUB CROPS, OTHER SUB CROPS GROWN ALONG WITH ARECA (IN PERCENTAGE)
ooto
SourceSample Data H —> Indicates Highest percentage of farmers growing L —> Indicates Lowest percentage of fanners growing E. Pattern of Inter-crop; The practices of growing crop along with arecanut pahns is called mixed or inter cropping production which are grown simultaneously. There are at least 11 types of inter crops grown along with the areca. Ak found during the survey period, major inter crops grown in the study area comprises of Banana, Pepper, Cocoa, Coconut, Cardamom, Cloves, Coffee, Pineapple, Betelwine, Elephant foot yam. Tapioca (Table 4.5). It has been evident that quilje a considerable number of farmers were foimd growing Banana, Pepper, and Coconut as major inter-crops and percentage of production disclose the figure 91.00%, 47.3%, 4^.0% respectively. Very few growers of region were concentrated on Cocoa and Cardamom. Clove and Coffee were also popular intercrops in some of the regions. The remaining crops were grown as sub crop but they were not potentially tapped. F. Type of Arecanut crop; The yield potential of arecanut palm is influenced by type of arecanut crop, whether it is a traditional (South Canalra) or high yielding variety of seeds (modem). It could be noticed from the Table no. 4.6 that 52% of the average farmers were growing South Canara type of arecattut crop. Sullia taluk is reported to be highest with 56%. On an average, the percentage of Mangala and Mohitnagar were grown 14% and 9% respectively. Further, it indicates that grower is content with South Canara type of arecanut crop. By and large, maj^imum farmers were solely depending upon the traditional type South Canara arecanut crop.
129 Cost of Cultivation & Productivity of Areca gardens in Sullia Taluk The details of the expenditure for cultivation of arecanut over ten years under farmer’s field condition in three taluk^ are summarised. To facilitate the comparison, the costs incurred in the cultivation of arecanut per hectare in Sullia taluk groups are sliown in the table 4.7. The overall observations of different cost reveals that each type (|)f cost incurred by different size groups of farmers were different. It was evident that the costs on hay and rental value of land for arecanut were slightly identical in each size grolups of farmers. It could be observed from tlje table 4.7 that in the case of small farms, the expenditure towards total establishment items of during the first year of areca garden per hectare found to be Rs. 14,282.26. Of the cost Rs. 46,610.17 was from cost Ai, &
Rs. 44,234.29 was from cost Bj (Fixejl Cost). The remaining expenses are borne on rental value of land & imputed value of family labour. In cost A,, major expenditure Was on human labour (Rs. 17,132.5) followed by the cost of fodder and manures (Rs. 12,707.36 & Rs. 5,049.0). In cost Bj major cost incurred towards irrigation item at Rs. 14,452.6. The other fixed items were, land preparation, fencing, plant instruments, pitting & seedings, cow- shed & rate of interest charges together is around Rs. 29,781.69. j i The total cost ( ) of establislmient per hectare from second year onwards till the bearing stage (7* year) of areca gardens amounts to Rs. 6,55,146.57 Of the cost C2, Rs.
318001.56 & Rs. 2,638.46 from cost Aj and cost Bj respectively. It indicates in cost A, from second year onwards the e?^penditure on manuring and fertilizer increases considerably.
The total operations on maintenance cost (Cj) from 8 to 10 years amountes to Rs.
3,80,170.3 of the C^, Rs. 2,11,597.89 and 6,319.2 is from cost A, or A^ and cost B,. As a whole, the total establishment and maintenance cost (C^) amounted to Rs. 11,78,139.4 of
130 Table: 4.7 - COST OF CULTIVATION FOR SMALL FARMS IN SULLIA TALUK (Per Hectare) SI No Particulars I Year HYear in Year IV Year VYear Variable Cost A1 Value (Rs) Value (Rs) _OfiL Value (Rs) Value (Rs) Value (Rs) Value hired labour" 311.5 17132.5 268 14740 254 13970 289 15895 310 17050 Manuring ( Tonnes )~ 25.5 5049 7.9 1564.2 14.72 2914.56 24.35 4821.3 42 8316 Feitilizer ( (Quintal) 4.5 3375 4.9 3675 5.2 3900 5.0 3750 5.5 4125 Soiling 9072.21 Trencning 726 1298 Harvesting 850 T De-hn«lfing 750 HayCFodder) 12707.36 12707.36 12707.36 12707.36 12707.36 10 Dejireciation. Farm buildings 842 842 885 885 885 11 Land revenue 75 75 75 75 75 12 Miscellaneous 3172.03 3181.93 3186 4 118 .g 3686 TI Interest on working capital@10% per annuam 4237.28 3680.55 3263.79 4225.25 5954.05 TotalAl 46610.17 40486.04 41401.71 46477.75 65494.62 CostA2 Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in l a ^ 46610.17 40486.04 41401.71 46477.75 65494.62 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost 14 Land on & Fencing 10440 UJ 15 Plant lents 1893.05 1 6 Pitting & Seedlings 5634.13 17 Irrigation 14452.53 18 Cow Shed 9708.29 19 Interest on fixed capital @ 5% per anmiiim 2106.41 2106.41 2106.41 2106.41 2106.41 CostBlA: CostAl + Interest on fixed capital 48716.58 42592.5 43508.12 48584.16 67601.02 Totals 1 :CostBl A + Fixed cap i^ 90844.6 44698.9 45614.5 50690.6 69707.4 CostBi 20 Rental value of Land 37500 37500 37500 37500 37500 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + rent 82198.9 83114.5 88190.6 107207.4 paid by leased land 128344.6 Cost Cl ITImputed value o i fiunily labour 14478 14478 14478 14478 14478 TotalCl: (DostBl + Inputed value of fianily labour 105322.6 59176.9 60092.5 65168.6 84185.4 ______C 5itC 2______Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of fiunily labour 142822.6 96676.9 97592.5 102668.5 121685.4 0.76 4560.0 7.84 47040.0 Retnm (Inter crop 24632.6 24438.2 2316 1.8 22098.1 (jTOss Income 24632.6 24438.2 27721.8 6 9138.1 - Gross Income) 142822.6 — 72044.3 — 73154.3 74946.8 52547.3 Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 To be Contd. Table continued Particalars VI Year 1 v n Y i ^ 11 VniYear KYear Ii XYear Total 1 Variable Cost A1 1 Value of hired labour 323 17765 341 18755 357 19635 366 2330 380 20900 3199.5 175972.5 2 Manuring ( Tonnes ) 53.25 10543.5 56.68 11222.64 59.85 11850.3 63 12474 6 7 1 13285.8 474 82041.3 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 5.9 38 17 6.0 4500 6.0 4500 6.0 4500 6.0 4500 55 40642.0 4 Soiling —— ——— 9074.21 — ——— 18144.42 5 Trenching — 726 1 726 — 726 — 726 726 — 4356.0
6 Spraying — 1398 — 1498 — 1498 — 1498 — 1498 1 8688.0 7 Harvesting — 10 10 — 10 10 — 10 10 — 10 10 — 10 10 5900 8 De-husking — 1300 — 2250 — 2250 — 2250 — 2250 — 11050.00 9 Hay(Fodder) — 12707.36 — 12707.36 — 12707.36 — 12707.36 — 12707.36 — 127073.60 10 Depreciation, Farm buildings — 885 — 885 — 885 — 885 — 885 — 8804.0 11 Land revenue — 75 — 75 — 75 — 75 — 75 — 750.0 12 \fiscellaneous — 4561 — 4439 — 4679 — 4682 — 4698 — 40403.8 13 Interest on working capital@10% per annuam — 5478 78 — 5806.8 — 6888.98 — 6093.7 — 6253.52 — 54159.2 TotalAl — 60266.64 — 63874.8 — 75778.85 — 67030.36 — 68788.68 — 5 9 5751.12 CostA2 Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land — 60266.64 — 63874.8 — 75778.85 — 67030.36 — 68788.68 — 5 9 5751.12 Cost B1 - Fixed Co^ - — ------14 Land preparation & Fencing — — —— ————— — — 10440.0 15 Plant Instruments ——————————— K) 1893.05 16 Pittiog & Seedlings ———————— —— — 5634.13 17 Irrigation ——————————— 14452.53 18 Cow Shed ——————————— 9708.29 19 Interest on fixed capital @ 5% per annuam 2106.41 — 2106.41 — 2106.41 — 2106.41 — 2106.41 — 21064.1 CostBlA; CostA.1 + Interest on fixed capital — 62373.05 — 65981,21 — 77885.26 — 69136.77 — 70895.0 — 596683.67 TotalBl:CostBlA + Fixed capital — 64479.5 — 68087.6 — 79991.7 — 71243.2 — 73001.4 — 658359.4 CostBl 20 Rental value of Land — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 375000 Total Cost B2 ; CostBl + rental value of land + — — 101979.5 105587.6 117 4 9 1.7 108743.2 110 5 0 1.4 rent paid by leased land 1033359.4 Cost Cl
— 21 Imputed value of fiunily labour — 14478 — 14478 i 14478 — 14478 — 14478 144780 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputed value of family — 78957.5 — 82565.6 94469.7 — 85721.2 — 87479.4 — labour 803139.4 CostC2 Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of iamily — — labour — 116 4 5 7 5 120065.6 — 131969.7 123221.2 — 124979.4 — 117 8 139 .4 13.59 81540.0 15.05 90300.0 16.94 101640.0 18.3 109500.0 21.4 128220.0 93.8 562800.0 Return ( Inter crop ) — 19132.4 — 21299.89 — 23168 .1 — 24110.9 — 26 139 .10 — 186082.99 Gross Income — 100672.4 — 11159 9.88 — 124808.1 — 133610.9 — 154359.0 — 770980.98
Net Cost ( Gross costrC2] - Gross Income ) — 15785.1 — 8465 72 — 716 1.6 — 10389.7 — 29379.6 — — Note; Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 Source ; Survey data the cost Cj, Rs.5,95,751.12 from cost A, or and remaining cost B,, 63 and C,, worked out to be around Rs. 58,238.3. To analyse the comparison, ‘the cost incurred in the arecanut cultivation per hectare in Sullia taluk medium farmers were worked out and results are shown in table
4.8. The total cost of establishment (C2) per hectare from 1®* year to 7* year of areca garden amounted to Rs. 8,03,650.56 of the cost Cj, Rs. 4,04,532.22 and Rs. 87,996.44 from cost Ajand cost B, respectively. The total cost of maintenance (Cj) or bearing stage from 8* year to 10* year of areca garden is Rs. 3,61,029, of cost Rs. 2,17,914.5 and
Rs. 9,777.39 from cost Aj and cost B, respectively.
As a whole, the total cost of cultivation including establishment and bearing stage, cost over a period of 10 years under arecanut found to be Rs. 11,64,680.3. In cost Aj, a major expense about Rs. 2,34,809.64 was spent on human labour. The expenditure on manure, fertilizer, soiling, fodder, depreciation and other accounted for Rs. 3,87,638.22. In the case of cost B, the share of irrigation was highest at Rs. 39,527.64 followed by cow-shed, seeding instruments, and others with Rs. 58,245.86. Among other factors Rs. 37,500 is spent on rental value of lar^d considerably greater and the cost on family labour accounted to Rs. 69,460.00 In the cultivation of arecanut, the cost incurred per hectare for large groups of sullia taluk were worked out and results were shown in table 4.9. It is observed that fixed/variable costs have direct relationship with farm size. The overall establishment cost (C2) cost of arecanut from 1®* year to 7“' year of areca garden accounted to Rs.
8,63,188.7. In this cost C^, Rs. 3,59,637.37 and 95,428.46 from cost A,and Bj respectively. Higher levels of involvement on every item of arecanut gardens were noticed. The total cost of (C^) maintenance or bearing stage from 8“' year to 10* year of areca gardens amounted to Rs. 4,02,291.Of the cost C^, Rs.2, 26,574.61 and R s.l6 , 704.9 from cost A^ and cost B, respectively.
133 Both establishing and bearing stage cost of cuhivation under arecanut over a period of 10 years amounted to Le Rs. 12,65,479.7. Labour is one of the major constituents of total cost incurred in farm business. In the case of A,, major expenses incurred about Rs.2,51,746 on value of human labour. The cost of manuring, fertilizer, soiling, fodder, depreciation and otheirs found to be Rs.95,22,826.1. In cost B, the share of irrigation was greater at Rs.34,259.2. This expense has been comparatively lower than medium group farmers. Other itemd like cow-shed, seeding instruments, interest and other miscellaneous with Rs.8 1,299.41. In cost Bj, the cost on rental value of land was
Rs. 37,500 and in the case of C^, Rs. 99,356.1 was amounted towards the value of family labour. It was found that there were greater variations in the cost of cultivation under arecanut within the taluk of Sullia. Among the different factors contributing to the variations in the components of total cost of cultivation per hectare under study, it can be seen that the total value of own land is accounted for Rs.3,75,000. The same was 31.82%, 32.19% and 29.63% with the small medium and large farmers of their gross cost (C^) respectively. One of the significant components of the cost structure is hired labour. There is a direct relationship between size of their farm & total labour cost. The total cost of hired labour has been accounted for 14.94 %, 20.16 % and 19.89% from small, medium & large farmers respectively. Cow-dung mixed with leaves & other farm wastes is the main source of organic manure for arecanut garden. In addition to this, fresh green leaves were also applied in about 9 - 10 Kg per palm per year. In most of the sample farms, the remaining waste were burnt & converted as ash, which was Ipeing, applied at about 2.5 Kg per arecanut palm. In certain farms steramil, a commercial organic manure was used around 3-5 Kg per palm. The chemical fertilizers used by sampje farmers in various categories were mixed form of i straight fertilizers containing Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Suphala, etc are applied I at about 2-4 Kg per palm of arecanut and coconut. The share of manures and fertilizers in
134 Table: 4.8 - COST OF CULTIVATION FOR MEDIUM FARMS IN SULLIA TALUK H>er Hecatre)
SI No Particulars 1 I Year II Year in Year IV Year 1 V Year Variable Cost A1 Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 417.25 22948.75 378 20790.89 399 21945 407 22385 418 22990 2 Manuring ( Tonnes) 16.2 3207.6 13.1 2593.8 15.9 3148.2 23.8 4712.4 27.6 5464.8 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 5.2 3900 5.8 4350 6.2 4650 6.2 4650 6.3 4725 4 Soiling — - ——————— 6857.24 5 Trenching ————————— 793.31 6 Spraying ————————— 1574.0 7 Harvesting ——————— 684.56 8 De-husking —————— 865.00 9 Hay(Fodder) — 1085000 — 10850 00 — 10850 00 — 10850.00 — 10850.00 10 Dep^iation, Farm buildings — 974.00 — 974.00 — 974.00 — 974.00 — 974.00 11 L a ^ revenue — 75.00 — 75.00 — 75.00 — 75.00 — 75.00 12 Miscellaneous — 6031.74 — 6031.74 — 6031.74 — 6031.74 — 6031.74 13 Interest on wotldng capital@10% per anmwm — 4798.71 — 4566.55 — 4767.32 — 4967.78 — 6188.47 TotalAl — 52785.8 — 50231.98 — 52440.52 — 54645.52 — 68073.12 CostAl Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land — 52785.8 — 502Tr98 —" 52440.52 - — 54645:52 ^8073.12 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost 14 Land preparation & Fencing — 5057.68 —— —————— U) Ui 15 Plant Instruments — 1041.33 ———————— 16 Pitting & Seedlings — 5754.97 ———————— 17 Irrigation — 39527.64 ——————— 18 Cow Shed — 13800.91 ————— 19 Interest on fixed capital 5% per annuam — 3259.13 — 3259 13 — 325913 - 3259 13 — 3259.13 CostBlA: CostAl + Interest on fixed capital — 56844.93 — 53491.11 — 55699.65 ... 57904.65 — 71332.25 TotalBl:CostBlA + Fixed capital — 121227.46 — 53 4 9 1.11 — 55699.65 — 57904.65 — 71332.25 CostBZ 20 Rental value of Land — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + rent paid — 150727.46 — 90991.11 — 93199.65 — 95404.65 — by leased land 108832.25 Cost Cl 21 Imputed value of fiunily labour — 6946.00 — 6946.00 — 6946.00 — 6946.00 — 6946.00 TotalCl; CostBl + Inputed value of fiunily labour — 128173.46 — 60437.11 — 62645.65 — 64850.65 — 78278.25 CostC2 Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of fionily labour — 165673.46 — 97937.11 — 100145.65 — 102350.65 — 115778.25 ————— 0.75 4500 7.64 45840 Return ( Inter crop ) — — — 29897.6 — 28464.1 — 27816.7 — 25918.5 Gross Income 29897.6 — 28464.1 32316.7 — 71758.5 -165673 46 -68039.51 — -71681.55 -70033.95 — -44019.75 Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 To be Contd. Table continued Particnlan V IY ear V n Year VraVear KYear I1 XYear 1otal Variable Cost A1 Qtf Qty Valnc (Rs) Qty Qtf Qty Valne (Rs) Qtjr Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 432 23760 443 24365 451 24805 456 25080 468 25740 4269.25 234809.64 2 Manuring ( Tonnes) 24.3 4811.4 31.6 6256.8 42.5 8415 49.3 9761.4 54.7 10830.6 299 59202 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 6.5 4875 6.7 5025 6.8 5100 6.9 5175 71 5325 63.7 4775 4 Soiling ————— 6857.24 ————— 13714.48 5 Trencning — 793.31 — 793.31 — 793.31 — 793.31 — 793.31 — 4759.86 6 Spraying — 1674.0 — 1774.0 — 1774.0 — 1774.0 — 1774.0 — 10344.0 7 Harvesting — 753.56 — 953.56 — 953.56 — 1058.56 — 1058.56 — 5462.36 8 De-huddng — 1204.00 — 1968.00 — 2150.00 — 2150.00 — 2150.00 — 10487.00 9 Hay(FoddCT) — 10850.00 — 10850.00 — 10850.00 — 10850.00 — 10850.00 — 108500.00 10 Depreciation, Farm buildings — 974.00 — 974.00 — 974.00 — 974.00 — 974.00 — 9740.00 11 Land revenue — 75.00 — 75.00 — 75.00 — 75.00 — 75.00 — 750.00 12 Miscellaneous — 6031.74 — 6031.74 — 6031.74 — 6031.74 — 6031.74 — 60317.4 13 Interest on woridng capital@10% per annuam — 5580.21 — 5906.65 — 6877.89 — 6372.31 — 6560.23 — 56586.12 TotalAl — 61382.22 — ^ 64973.06 — 75656.74 — 70095.32 — 72162.44 — 62244.72 CostA2 Cost A2; Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land — 61382.22 — 64973.06 — 75656.74 — 70095.32 — 72162.44 — 72162.44 Cost B l* Fixed Cost ——————— 14 Land preparation & Fencing ————————— 5057.68 UJ ————————— Ov 15 Plant Instruments 1041.33 16 Pitting & Seedlings ————————— 5754.64 17 Irrigation ———————— 39527.64 18 Cow Shed ——————— 13800.91 19 Interest on fixed capital ^ 5% per annuam — 3259.13 — 3259.13 — 3259 13 — 3259.13 — 3259 13 — 32591.3 CostBlA: CostAl + Interest on fixed capital — 64641.25 — 68232.19 — 78915.87 — 73354.45 — 75421.57 — 654857.92 TotalBl:CostBlA + Fixed capital — 64641.25 — 68232.19 — 78915.87 — 73354.45 — 75421.57 — 720220.45 C ostB l 20 Rental value of Land — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 375000 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + — — — — — 102141.25 105732.19 116415.87 110854.45 112921.57 1095220,4 rent paid by leased land Cost Cl 21 Imputed value of fiunily labour — 6946.00 — 6946.00 — 6946.00 — 6946.00 — 6946.00 — 69460.00 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputed value of family — 71587.25 75178.19 — 85861.87 — 80300.45 82367.57 789680,45 labour C ostC l Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of fimiily 109087.25 112678.19 123361.87 117800.45 119867.57 1164680.3 labour Income ( Arecanut) 14 9 89220 16.3 97500 18 4 110220,0 20 1 120540 23 137940 100 96 605760.0 Return ( Inter crop) — 24686.3 — 26319.4 — 28416.2 — 30418.3 — 29168.9 — 251106 Gross Income — 113906.3 — 123819.4 — 138636.2 150958.3 — 167108.9 — 856866 Net Cost ( Gross cost[C2] - Gross Income) — 4819.05 1141.21 — 15274.33 33157.85 — 47241.33 —— Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 Source ; Sxirvey data the total cost of cultivation is 10.41%, 9.18% and 10.7% from small, medium and large I farmers respectively. The foremost factor that has ^o be considered in establishing a garden is to see whether the site selected has adequat^ irrigation facilities, the soil should be deep & well drained, without high water table. Un^er the field study the palms were to be irrigated on 3 to 5 days depending upon the soil type. In each palm, the consumption of water per _ I week is around 225 to 275 liters. The irrigation facilities were initiated in all the regions, I except small scale growers, the medium & large farmers cultivating the crop by installing I the sprinkler & drip irrigation instruments with the help of wells & tanks and bore wells. Majority of the different groups of growers were seeding the Traditional or South i Canara type under the garden pits of 90 c. m cube dug 2.7 meters depth both ways are ! used for planting the seeds. The seedi are planted in the centre of the pit, covered with soil to the collar level and pressed aroijind. Usually, planting is done in the month of May - June, in well - drained soil. Due td water - logging the planting can be postponed to August or September to secure bettej- establishment. It is evident that expenditure on irrigation and seedings charges is accoijmted for 1.69%, 3.88% and 3.13% of total cost per hectare from small, middle & large fa|mers. Expenditure towards spraying & harvesting is found to be increasing with the increase in farm size. The same is accounted for 1.23%, 1.34% & 1.67% of the total cost on sn^all, medium & large farmers respectively. It has also been observed that farmers in the villages incurring expenses on cow shed & fodder to develop the arecanut sector systematically. The share of the same in the total cost of cultivation is 11.61%, 10.49%, 8.47% on small, medium & large farmers respectively. Thus it could be understobd that cost of such items decreases with the size of land holdings. The participation and involveijient of family members in the cultivation of arecanut has an economic significance. The expenditure towards the value of family labour worked out as 12.28%, 5.96% & 7.85% in small, medium and large farmers respectively. This trend could be attril^uted largely to the fact that in small farms, the family labour participation might be more. It could be inferred from the table that the
137 TABLE: 4.9 - COST OF CULTIVATION FOR LARGE SCALE FARMERS IN SULLIA TALUK (Fer H ectare) SI No Particulars 1 I Year n V ear i n Year rV Y ear W e a r Variable Cost A1 Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 454.2 24981 403 22165 412 22660 423 23265 444 24420 2 Manuring ( Tonnes ) 17.3 3425.4 21.4 4237.2 26.3 5207.4 32.4 6415.2 34.1 6751.8 3 Fotilizer ( Quintal) 6.3 4725 6.6 4950 6.8 5100 7.3 5475 7.4 5550 4 Soiling —---- — —- — 6109.8 5 ————— ———— 645.8 6 Spraying —————- —— - 1631.71 7 Harvestrng —-- — -- - 905.5 8 De-husidng ---- — — — 859.09 9 Hay(Fodder) - 10616 3 — 10616.3 - 10616.3 - 10616 3 - 10616.3 10 D ep^iation, Farm buildings - 738.7 — 842.3 — 854.1 — 859.3 — 859.3 11 Land revenue - 75 - 75 — 75 — 75 - 75 12 Miscellaneous - 2772.66 — 2772.66 — 2772.66 — 2772.66 — 2772.66 13 Interest on working capital@10% per anmiam - 4733.4 - 4565.84 — 4728.54 — 4947.84 - 61196.96 TotalAl — 52067.46 - 50224.30 - 52013.94 - 54426.30 - 67316.65 CostAl Cost A2: Cost A ir rent paid tior leased in land — 52067.46 — 50224.30 — 52013.94 — 54426.30 - 67316.65 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost 14 Land preparation & Fencing — 3576.46 ——————-— oo 15 Plant Instruments - 852.75 ------16 Pitting* Seedlings — 5415.25 ———-——-— 17 Irrigation — 34259.2 ———————— 18 Cow Shed - 12346.7 ----—--- 19 Interest on fixed capital @ 5% per anmiam — 5568.3 — 5568.3 — 5568.3 — 5568.3 — 5568.3 CostBlA: CostAl + Interest on fixed capital - 57635.8 — 55792.6 — 57582.2 — 59994.6 — 72884.9 TotalBl:CostBlA + Fixed capital — 113319.2 — 61360.9 — 63150.5 — 65562.9 — 78453.2 CostBl 20 Rental value of Land — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 - 37500 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + rent 150819.2 988609 100650.5 103062.9 115953.2 paid by leased land Cost C l 21 Imputed value of fiunily labour — 9935.61 - 9935.61 - 9935.61 - 9935.61 - 9935.61 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputed value of &mily labour — 123254.8 — 71296.5 — 73086.1 — 75498.5 88388.8 CostC2 Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of family labour - 160754.8 - 108796.5 - 110586.1 - 112998.5 125888.8 Income ( Arecanut) — -- 0.82 4920 8.37 50220 Return ( Inter crop ) —— 27316.1 - 26418.6 - 25161.3 — 24396.1 Gross Income — 27316.1 — 26418.6 — 29081.3 — 74616.1 Net Cost ( Gross costrC2] - Gross Income) 160754.8 — 81480.4 84167.5 — 83907.2 - 51272.7 Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 To be Contd. Table coDtinaed Particnlan v i y S? 1 V nV ear 1 V m Y ear IX Year 1 XYear 1rotal Variable Cost A1 Qty Value (Ri) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rj) Qiy Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 467 25685 479 26345 488 26840 499 27445 508 27940 4577.2 251746 2 41,9 8296,2 47,8 9464.4 52.4 10375.2 59.5 11781 66.3 13127.4 399.4 79081.2 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 7.8 5850 7,9 5925 8.1 6075 8.4 6300 8.7 6525 75.3 564750.0 4 Soiling —-—- 6109.8 ——— 12219.6 5 — 645 8 — 645,8 - 645.8 — 645.8 — 645 8 — 6458.0 6 Staying — 1786.4 - 1964,1 - 2198.3 — 2198.3 — 2198.3 — 11977.1 7 Harvesting - 1236.6 - 1508.3 - 1801.4 — 1896.1 - 1910.1 — 9258 8 De-huddng — 1194.5 — 1408.1 — 1904.3 — 2010.1 — 2178.1 - 9554.19 9 Hay(Fodder) — 10616.3 - 10616.3 - 10616.3 - 10616.3 - 10616.3 — 106163.00 10 Depreciation, Farm tniildings — 859.3 - 861.1 — 861.1 — 870.3 — 870.9 — 8476.4 11 Land revenue — 75 — 75 — 75 — 75 — 75 — 750.0 12 \fiscellaneou8 - 2772.66 - 2772.66 - 2772.66 - 2772.66 - 2772.66 — 27726,6 13 Interest on woridng capital@10% per anniimn - 5894.97 — 6158.55 - 7027.48 - 6691.05 - 6879.15 — 57746,51 TotalAl — 64844.36 - 67744.16 - 77302.3 - 73601.61 - 75670.71 — 635211,78 C ostA l 1 Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land - 64844.36 - 67744.16 - 77302.3 - 73601.61 - 75670.71 — 586211.99 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost 14 Land prepatation & Fencing ■-- - -— —■ ^ — — — — — 357646 U) 15 -— —— — — — — —— - VO Plant Instruments 852.75 ——————————— 5415,25 17 Irrigation --—--— _ — 3425,25 18 Cow Shed — -- — -- 12346,7 19 Interest on fixed capital ^ 5% per annuam - 5568 3 - 5568.3 - 5568 3 - 5568 3 - 5568 3 55683 CostBlA: CostAl + Interest on fixed capittd - 70412.6 — 67744.4 — 82870.6 — 79169.9 — 81239 685326,6 TotalBlrCostBlA + Fixed capital - 75980.9 - 73312.4 - 88438.9 - 84738.2 - 86807.3 — 791124,4 CostBl 20 Rental value of Land - 37500 — 37500 - 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 375000 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + - — — — — — 113480,9 110812.4 125938.9 122238 124307.3 1061764,2 rent paid by leased land Cost Cl 21 Imputed value of &mily labour - 9935,61 — 9935.61 - 9935.61 — 9935.61 — 9935.61 — 99356,1 TotalCl: CostBl + Inpirted value of &mily 85916.5 - 83248.3 - 98374.5 94673.8 96742.9 - 890480.7 labour CostCl Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of family 123416.5 120748.01 - 135874.5 132173.6 134242.9 - 1265479.7 labour Income ( Arecanut) 16 43 98580 18 66 111960 20.9 125100 23 137700.0 27.39 164340 115.47 692820.0 Return ( Inter crop ) — 23434.7 - 22618.3 - 26539.1 - 28364.1 - 28130.1 — 232378.4 Gross Income - 122014.7 - 134578.3 - 151639.1 - 166064.1 — 192470.1 — 925198.4 Net Cost ( Gross cost[C2] - Gross Income ) 1401.8 - 13830.29 - 15764.6 33890.5 - 58227.2 - 925198.4 Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 Source : Survey data total share of interest on variable cost A, & fixed cost was 4.76%, 7.96% & 8.96% in small, medium & large farmers resp<;ctively. Hence, there is an inverse relation between cost & interest on farm size. It is implied that assets formation is more in medium & large farms. Under the sample of holdings, the production of arecanut in each holding is being estimated. Experiments were also conducted for estimating the ratio of dehusked nuts to cur dry nuts. Data pertaining to productivity of arecanut for small farmers in Sullia taluks is shown in table. 4.7. Since arecanut is a perennial crop, the bearing of arecanut fruit starts from 4'*' year. During the fourth year of arecanut cultivation, the yield per hectare is negligible & ! maintained at 0.76 quintal. The sanje is increased to 7.84, 13.59 & 15.05 quintals per hectare from S* 6* 7* year respectively. A greater performance of yield per hectare is witnessed by the garden of small group with the completion of 7 years of cultivation. The productivity of arecanut during the year is 16.94 quintals. This has been increased to the yield of 18.25 & 21.37 quintals during the 9* & 10*** year of cultivation. This is attributed to fact that greater share of{ fertilizer & manures applied by the growers. In the case of medium farmers of SuUia taluk, the productivity of arecanut during the fourth year per hectare is 0.75 quintal. This kind of performance is lower when compared to the small farmers. Later , the yield under arecanut registered an upward trend of 7.64, 14.87 and 16.25 quintals during the 5* 6“' and 7*** year of cultivation. An improvement is in the yield is found after the application of manure and fertilizer. In the
8* year of cultivation, yield per hectare is around 18.37 qunitals. The same is increased to 20.09 quintal and 22.99 quintal from the 9* and 10* year of cultivation respectively. The performance of arecanut of large farmers in sullia taluk is quite noteworthy.
i The yield of arecanut per hectare (^uring the 5* year is 0.82 quintals. The same was moved to a rapid level of 18.66 quintals in 6“' year of operation. After the completion of
7* year it is observed that large size farmers of the garden witnessed higher growth rate yields when compared to small and ijiiddle farmers. During the 8“' year the productivity is nearly 20.85 quintal per hectare. This has been moved to the level of 27.39 quintal in the
10* year of cultivation
140 Cost of Cultivation & Pr6ductivitv of Areca gardens in Puttur I Taluk I The costs incurred in the cultivation of arecanut per hectare for small size farmers I of puttur taluk were worked out and results are shown in table 4.10.
The expenditure towards total establishment items of C2 during the first year of areca garden per hectare is found to l)e Rs. 1,97,426.64. Of the cost C^, Rs.60,456.17 and I Rs.84,992.47 from cost Aj and cost fij. The remaining expenses are borne on rental value ! of land and imputed value of family li^bour from cost Bjand C, respectively. I In cost Aj, major expenditure <})n human labour ( Rs. 18,617.5) is followed by the I cost of miscellaneous, fodder and fertilizer ( Rs. 17,749.2, 13,707.36 and 3,075). In cost ! B,, a major expense incurred towards irrigation items is Rs. 50,532.66. The other fixed * I items are land preparation, fencing, plant instruments, pitting, seedings, cow-shed and rate of interest charges together is around Rs.34,459.81. I The total cost C, of establishment per hectare from 2®* year onwards till the ! bearing stage (up to 7“* year) of areca garden is amounted to Rs. 5,38,660.18. Of the cost I Cj, Rs.3,08,318.62 and Rs.24,283.56 is from cost A, and cost B, respectively. It also I shows cost A, from 2year onwards; |he expense on manuring and fertilizer has been I increased notably.
The total operational or maintenance cost (C^) from 8 “* year to 10 year is amounted to Rs. 3,57,359.54. Of the C^, Rs. 1,8^,283.76 and Rs. 12,141.78 is from cost A,and B, I (interest) respectively. As a vviiole the Establishment and maintenance cost (C^) amounted I to Rs. 11,99,256.2. O f the cost C^, Rs.5,58,058.55 is from cost A, and A^ and remaining ( cost Bj, Bj and C, is worked out to be aj[ound Rs. 6,41,197.81
To analyse the comparison, the [costs incurred in the cultivation of arecanut per hectare in the group of medium farmers in Puttur taluk were worked out and results are shown in table 4.11
141 TABLE: 4.10 - COST OF CULTIVATION FOR SMALL FARMS IN PUTTUR TALUK (Per Hectare) SI No Particulars I Year nVear in Year IV Year V Y ear y«riable Cost A1 Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 338.5 18617.5 272.0 14960 269.2 14806 302 16610 319 17545 2 Manuring ( Tonnes) 27.6 811.8 8.2 1623.6 13.6 2692.8 26.9 5326.2 48.1 9523.8 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 4.1 3075 4.6 3450 5.05 3787.50 4.9 3675 5.2 3900 4 Soiling -—-———-- — 6467.33 5 Trenching ——————-—- 667.6 6 Spraying ———————-- 1078.2 7 Harvesting -———-- — 679.3 8 De-husking —-— — — — 880 9 Hay(Fodder) — 1370 736 - 13707 6 — 13707.6 - 13707.6 — 13707.6 10 Depivciation, Farm buildings — 924.3 — 946.0 — 946.0 - 946.0 - 946.0 11 Land revenue — 75 — 75 — 75 — 75 - 75 12 Miscellaneous — 17749.2 - 17749.2 — 17749.2 - 17749.2 — 17749.2 13 Interest on woridng capital(^10% per annuam — 5496.01 3755.11 — 3895.78 — 4147,87 — 5567.37 TotalAl — 60456.17 — 41306.27 — 42853.64 — 45626.63 - 61241.16 cmAi Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid ^or leased in land — 60456.17 — 41306.27 — 42853.64 — 45626^3 - — 61241.16 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost HI Landinepaiafion & Fencing — 8037.34 ———————— 15 Plant Instouments - 1949.46 - -—-—-- - 16 Pitting & Seedlings — 6048.02 ————-—-- 17 Irrigation — 50532.66 —----- 18 Cow Shed — 14377.73 --—-— 19 Interest on fixed capital @ 5% per annuam — 4047.26 - 4047 26 - 4047 26 - 4047.26 - 4047.26 CostBlA: CostAl + Interest on fixed capital - 64503.43 - 45353.53 — 46900.9 - 49673.89 - 65288.42 TotalBl:CosffilA + Fixed capital — 14401.38 — 45353.53 — 46900.9 — 49673.89 — 65288.42 CostB2 20 Rental value of Land - 37500 - 37500 - 37500 — 37500 - 37500 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + rent 182948.64 82853.53 84400.9 87173.89 102788.42 paid by leased land Cost Cl 21 Imputed value of family labour — 14478 — 14478 - 14478 — 14478 - 14478 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputcd value of fiunily labour — 155879.38 - 59831.53 - 61378.9 - 64151.89 — 79766.42 CostC2 Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of &mily labour — 197426.64 — 97331.53 — 98878.9 — 101651.89 117266.42 Income ( Arecanut) —— —— 0.82 4920 8 .11 48660 Return ( Inter crop) ——— 26518.2 — 25619 6 — 24813.2 — 24362.9 Gross Income -—— 26518.2 - 25619.6 - 29733.2 70022.9 Net Cost ( Gross costfC2] • Gross Income ) - 1 -197426.64 -70813.33 - -73259.3 - -71918.69 -47243.52 Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 To be Contd. Table continued Particulars VIYea» 1 V nV ear V n iY ear rX Year |1 X Y e a r...... Total 1 Variable Cost A1 1 Value of hired labour 355 19525 343 18865 358 19690 373 20487 5 394.0 2 16 7 0 0 3323.2 177276 2 Manuring ( Tonnes) 59.1 11701.8 58.7 11622.6 59.5 11781 61.3 13721.4 64.3 13721.40 427.3 82526.4 3 6.1 4575 5.6 4200 5.4 4050 5.7 4275 5.6 4200 52.25 39187.5 4 Soiling ----- 6467.33 - — — 12934.66 5 Trmdiing - 667.6 - 667.6 - 667.6 - 667 6 — 667 6 — 4005.6 6 Spraying — 1198.6 — 1312.8 — 1312.8 — 1312.8 — 1312.8 — 7528.0 7 Harvesting - 779.3 - 882.4 - 882.4 - 882.4 - 882.4 — 4988.2 8 De-husking — 1453 — 2612.3 — 2612 — 2612 — 2612 — 12782.2 9 Hay^Fodder) — 13707.36 - 13707.36 - 13707.36 - 13707.36 - 13707.36 — 137073.6 10 Depreciation, Farm buildings — 946 - 946 — 946 — 946 - 946 — 9438.3 11 L a^revm ue — 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 — 750 12 Miscellaneous — 17749.2 - 17749.2 — 17749.2 — 17749.2 - 17749.2 — 177492.0 13 Interest on woridng capital@10% per anniiam — 5285.28 — 5377.52 — 6025.00 — 5594.87 - 5587.37 — 50732.18 TotalAl - 58138.14 - 59152.78 - 66275.0 - 61547.63 - 61461.13 — 558058.55 Cost A2 Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land — 58138.14 - 59152.78 — 66275.0 — 61547.63 - 61461.13 — 558058.55 ------Cost B1 - Fixed Coat -4 — _ _ 14 Land preparation & Fencing ——————————— 8037.34 15 Plant Instruments ---—-—---—— 1949.46 16 Pitting & Seedlings ---————--- — 6048.02 17 Irrigation —-——— — ——— 50532.66 18 Cow Shed ----—--— 14377.73 19 Interest on fixed capital @ S% per annuam - 4047.26 - 4047 26 - 4047.26 - 4047 26 - 4047 26 — 40472.6 CostBlA; CostAl + Interest on fixed capital — 62185.4 - 63200.04 - 70322.26 - 65594.89 - 65508.39 — 598531.15 TotalBlrCostBlA + Fixed capital - 62185.4 - 63200.04 - 70322.26 - 65594.89 - 65508.39 — 675429.1 C ostB l 20 Rental value of Land - 37500 - 37500 - 37500 — 37500 - 37500 — 375000 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + — 99685.4 100700.04 107822.26 103094.89 103008.39 1054476.3 rent paid by leased land Cost C l 21 Imputed value of fiunily labour - 14478 - 14478 - 14478 - 14478 - 14478 — 144780 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputed value of fiunily 76663.4 77678,04 84800.24 80072.89 - 79986.39 - 824256,34 labour CostC2 Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of family 117486.39 labour 114 16 3.4 11517 8 .0 4 122300.26 117572.89 - 1199256.2 14 6 87300 15,38 92280 17,1 102840 19 9 119220 22 88 137280 98.75 592500.0 — 20169.1 — 22461.2 — 25324.8 — 26941.8 — 29130.9 — 222341.7 Gross Income - 107469.1 - 114 7 4 1.2 128164.8 146 161.8 - 166410 — 818440.8 Net Cost ( Gross costrC21 - Gross Income ) — -93994.3 -436.84 5864.54 28588.91 48923.61 Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 Source : Survey data The total cost of (Cj) establishment per hectare from 1®* year to 7“* year of areca garden is amounted to Rs.8,99,664.oi. Of the C^, Rs. 4,27,160.62 and Rs. 10,66,507.41 is from cost A, and cost Bj respectively! The total cost of maintenance (Cj) on bearing stage from the 8* year to 10* year of areca gardener is found at Rs. 3,88,880.02. Of the cost C^,
Rs. 2,28,723.39 and Rs. 11,850.63 is ^om cost A, and cost B, respectively.
As a whole, the total cost of cultivation including establishment and bearing stage, cost over a period of 10 years under p e an u t is found to be Rs. 11,65,031.9 In the case of cost A,, the value of human labour is the costliest item which comes to arround Rs.
2,47,568.75. The expenditure on manuring, fertilizer, fodder, depreciation and others accounted to Rs.3,54,355.2. In the ckse of cost Bj, the expenditure towards irrigation is highest at Rs.48,092.0 followed by cow-shed, seedings, instruments and others with Rs.70,416.04. Among other factors, the cost on small value of land is Rs. 3,75,000 and expenditure on labour found is to be Rs. 14,478.0 per hectare. In the cultivation of arecanut, the expense incurred per hectare for large groups of Puttur taluk were worked out and results were shown in table 4^12. I The total establishment cost of arecanut garden from 1®* year to 7“' year is amounted to Rs. 8,45,737.1. In this icost Cj, Rs. 3,95,697.15 and Rs. 96,183.17 is from cost A, and B, respectively. The Expenditure towards every items of this size were greater. The total cost (Cj) of maintenance or bearing stage from 8“' year 10*** year of areca garden is accounted to Rs. 3,80,489.16. Of the cost C^, Rs. 2,19,316.76 and
Rs. 16,973.4 is from cost A^ and cost B,.
The total cost of cultivation including establishment and bearing stage under arecanut over a period of 10 years is amounted to Rs. 12,26,531.0. In the case of A,, major expenses incurred about Rs. 2j59,558.75 on the value of human labour. The cost of manuring, fertilizer, soiling, fodder, depreciation and others found at Rs. 3,95,732.42. In cost Bj, the share of irrigation is greater about at Rs.32,790.5. These expenses have been considerably lower when compared to the medium group farmers. The items like
144 TABLE; 4.11 - COST OF CULTIVATION FOR MEDIUM FARMS IN PUTTUR TALUK (Per Hectare) SI No Particulars I Year II Year m Year IV Year V Y ear Variable Cost A1 Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 449.25 24708.75 405 22275 413 22715 425 23388 441 24255 2 Manuring ( Tonnes) 18.1 3583.8 14.9 2950.2 17.3 3425.4 26.9 5326.2 29.1 5761.8 3Fotilizer ( Quintal) 5.6 4400 5.9 4425 6.2 4650 6.6 4950 6.9 5175 4 Soiling —-—--— —— 7358.62 5 Trencnuig - - — ————— 684.73 6 Spraying —-- — —- — -- 1622.47 7 Harvesting —- - ———— 796.82 8 De-husking —— — ———— 837.54 9 Hay(Fodder) — 10630 — 10630 — 10630 — 10630 - 10630 10 Depreciation, Fann buildings - 768.42 — 868.42 - 868.42 — 868.42 - 868.42 11 Land revenue — 75 — 75 — 75 - 75 — 75 — 7197.86 — 7197.86 — 7197.86 — 719786 — 7197.86 13 Interest on working capital(^10% per annuam — 5136.39 - 4842.15 - 4956.17 - 5243.55 - 6526.33 TotalAl — 56500.22 — 53263.63 — 54517.85 — 57679.03 — 71789.59
Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land — 56500.22 — 53263.63 — 54517.85 — 57679.03 — 71789.59 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost 14 Land preparation & Fencing — 6493.82 ------15 Plant Instruments - 1189.06 ——--—- - — 16 Pitting* Seedlings — 6529.33 —————— — — 17 Irrigation - 48092.0 -—----— 18 Cow Shed — 16701.73 ---—--- 19 Interest on fixed capital ^ S% per annuam - 3950.21 - 3950.21 - 3950 21 - 3950.21 - 3950.21 CostBlA: CostAl + Interest on fixed capital — 60450.43 — 57213.84 — 58468.06 - 61629.24 — 75739.8 TotalBl:CostBlA + Fixed capital — 139456.37 - 57213.84 - 58468.06 — 61629.24 - 75739.8 CostB2 20 Rental value of Land — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + 176956.37 94713.84 95968.06 99129.24 115239.8 rent paid by leased land Cost Cl 21 Imputed value of fiunily labour — 14478 — 14478 - 14478 - 14478 - 14478 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputed value of fionily labour 153934.37 — 71691.84 — 72946.06 - 76107.24 — 90217.8 Cost C2 1 Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imptited value of fiunily labour — 191434.37 - 109191.84 - 110446.06 - 113607.24 - 129717.8 ————- 0.82 4920 8.11 48660 Return ( Inter crop) —— 31232 1 — 30316.2 — 29126.7 — 28318.8 Gross Income — - 31232.1 — 30316.2 34046.7 — 76918.8 Net Cost ( Gross cost[C2] - Gross Income) 191434 37 - 77959.74 - 80129.86 79560.54 552799 Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 To be Contd. Table continued Partiealars VI Year 1 V nV ear W[II Year 1 IX Year A1KYear 1 otal Variable Cost A1 Qty Value (Rj) Qtjr Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 458 25190 466 25630 475 26125 479 26348 490 26950 4501.25 247568.75 2 27.1 5365.8 34.2 6771.6 44.1 8731.8 52.3 10355.4 59.4 11761.2 323.4 64033.2 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 7.0 5250 7.3 5475 7.4 5550 77 5775 8.1 6075 68.7 51525.0 4 Soiling —--- 7358.62 --— — \4in.2A 5 Trencmng - 684 73 - 684.73 - 684.73 - 684 73 - 684.73 — 6847.3 6 Siwayin^ — 1622.47 - 1795.47 - 2063.47 - 2063.47 - 2063.47 — 11229.41 7 Harvesting — 912.82 — 1287.82 — 1743.82 — 1743.82 - 1743.82 — 8228.92 8 De-husldng - 1316.54 - 1752.54 - 2084.57 - 2084.57 - 2084.57 — 10161.33 9 ESItoider) — 10630 - 10630 - 10630 - 10630 - 10630 — 106300 10 eciation. Farm buildings - 868.42 - 868.42 - 868.42 - 868.42 - 868.42 — 8584.2 11 Land revenue — 75 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 — 750 12 Miscellaneous — 719786 7197.86 - 7197.86 - 7197.86 - 7197.86 — 71978.6 13 Interest on woridng capital@10% per annuam - 5911.37 - 6216.85 - 7311.33 - 6782.63 - 3506.66 — TotalAl - 65025.01 — 68385.29 — 80424.62 — 74608.9 — 73639.87 — 1655834.0 Cost A2 1 Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land — 65025.01 — 68385.29 — 80424.62 — 74608.9 — 73639.87 — 655834.0 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost 1+ Land t>repiUiklion & Fencing - — — —- — — — - — — —— — — ^ 6493.82 15 — - ---—-—-— — o^ Plant lostruments 1189.06 16 Pitting & Seedlings ------— 6529.33 17 Irrigation - —— - — - — — 48092.0 18 Cow Shed ------— 16701.73 19 Laterest on fixed capital @ 5% per annuam — 3950 21 — 3950 21 — 3950.21 — 3950.21 — 3950 21 — 39502.1 CostBlA; CostAl + Interest on fixed capital — 68975.22 - 72335.5 - 84374.83 - 78559.11 — 77590.08 — 695336.11 TotalBl:CostBlA + Fixed capital - 6^91522 - 72335.5 - 84374.83 - 78559.11 - 77590.08 — 695336.11 CostBZ 20 Rental value of Land — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 - 37500 — 37500 — 375000 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + — 106475.22 109835.5 121874.83 116059.11 115090.08 1151342 rent paid by leased land Cost Cl 21 Imputed value o i fiunily labour - 14478 - 14478 - 14478 - 14478 - 14478 — 144780 TotalCl; CostBl + Inputed value of family - 83453.22 124313.5 98852.83 - 93037.11 92068.08 - 956622.05 labour CostC2 Cost C2; Cost B2+ Imputed value of family 120953.22 124313.5 12187483 - 13053711 129568.08 - 1165031,9 labour Income ( Arecanut) 14.55 87300 16 98 101880 18 1 108840 21.9 131340 24 9 149280 105.37 63222.0 Return ( Inter crop) - 25131.6 - 27816.3 - 29618.2 - 31232.6 - 3336.2 — 266154.7 Gross Income - 112431.6 - 129696.3 - 138458.2 - 162572.6 - 182642.2 — 898314.7 Net Cost ( Gross costrC2] - Gross Income) 8521.62 - 5382.8 16583.37 - 32035.49 - 53074.12 - - Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 Source : Survey data cow-shed, seedings, instruments, interest and miscellaneous with Rs. 80,366.37. In cost
B2, the cost on rental value of land is Rs. 37,500. In the case of C^, Rs. 82,444.0 is accounted towards the value of family labour. The total itemwise cost of cultivation in different size of arecanut garden in Puttur taluk has shown a greater variation ^n the farming system. Among the different factors contributing to the variations in the bomponents of total cost of cultivation per hectare under study, it is noticed that the tot^l value of own land is accounted to Rs. 3,75,000. This comes to 31.26%, 32.18% and 30.57% with the small, medium and larger farmers of their gross cost ( Cj) respectively.
The other costiiest item of thb cost structure is the value of human labour & I family labour. The expenditure towards hired labour per hectare is amounted to 14.78, 21.24, 21.16% of the total cost in smkll, medium, large farmers respectively. Thus, there is a direct relationship between humw labour and farm size in small & medium farms. The total cost of family labour resulted to an 12.07, 12.42 & 6.72% from small, medium& large farmers respectively. It indicates that higher level of involvement of family labour in large farmers is less v\iien compared to medium & small farms. It is also evident that expenditiire on irrigation & seeding charges is accounted to 4.71%, 4.68% & 3.10% of total cost per hectare of small, medium & large farmers. In the above stage, a increase in the farm sizle, cost, has been decline considerably. Expenditure towards spraying & harvesting is foujid to be increasing with the increase in farm size. The same is amounted to 1.04%, 1.67% & 1.74% of the total cost in small, medium & large farmers respectively. The other significant components of the cost structure of arecanut are cow-shed and fodder. The share of the same in the total cost of cultivation is 12.61%, 10.55% & 9.79% in small, medium & large farms respectively. Thus, it could be understood that cost of each item decreases with the greater size of land holdings. The growers extensively apply the variable cost like manures & fertilizers. The share of such items in
147 TABLE: 4.12 - COST OF CULTIVATION FOR LARGE SCALE FARMERS IN PUTTUR TALUK fPer Hectare) SI No Particulars Year II Year ra Year IV Year W e a r Variable Cost A1 Qty Value (8s) Qty Value (Rs) Qfy Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 483.2 26578.7 421 23155 427 23485 435 23925 455 25025 2 Manuring ( Tonnes) 19.1 3781.18 19.8 3920.41 23 4554 26.1 5167.8 31.2 6177.6 3 Fotilizer ( Quintal) 6.1 4575 6.6 1306.8 6.8 1346.4 7.1 1405 7.4 1465.2 4 Soiling ————————— 6676.9 5 Trending ————————— 579.1 6 Spraying ————————— 1709.4 7 Harvesting — -- ————— 905.5 8 De-husking — — ——— — 912.4 9 Hay(Fo I B l Variable Cost A1 Valae(Ks) 1 Value of hired labour 470 25850 484 26620 504 27744 515 28325 525 28875 4719.25 259558.75 2 Manuring ( Tonnes) 38.7 7662.2 43.1 8533.8 52.8 10454.4 59.9 11860.2 64.5 12771.0 378.2 74883.6 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 7.9 1562.4 8.1 1603.8 8.3 1643.4 8.3 1643.4 8.3 1643.4 74.9 56175 4 Soiling ---- 6676.9 -—--— 13353.8 5 Trenching - 579.1 - 579.1 - 579.1 - 579.1 - 579.1 — 5791.0 6 Spraying - 1868.1 - 2018.1 — 2209.1 - 2209.1 — 2209.1 — 12222.90 7 Harvesting - 1113.4 — 1453.4 - 1712.9 - 2018.1 - 2021.9 — 9225.2 8 De-huaking - 1464.3 - 1784.6 - 2016.3 — 2016.3 — 2016.3 — 10210.2 9 Hay(Fodder) — 10686.1 - 10686.1 — 10686.1 — 10686.1 — 10686.1 — 106861 10 Depreciation, Farm buildings — 918.9 — 925.3 — 942.9 — 954.3 — 965.9 — 9050.6 11 Land revenue - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 — 750 12 Miscellaneous - 4139.4 - 4143.8 - 4139.9 - 4144.8 - 4144.8 — 41298.5 13 Interest on working capital@10% per annuam - 5591.89 — 5842.3 - 6888.0 - 6451.4 - 6598.76 — 55910.62 TotalAl - 61510.79 - 64265.3 - 75768.00 — 70962.4 — 72586.36 — 615013.9 CostA2 1 Cost A2: Cost a 1+ rent paid ^or leased in land — 61510.79 — 64265.3 — 75768 — 70962.4 — 72586.36 — 615013.91 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost 14 Landjpreparatim&F'endng _ — - - —- - - — — — ------— — — — 4215.22 15 Plant Instruments -—---— —— -—— 952.8 16 Pitting & Seedlings ——— ————— —— — 5345.85 17 Irrigation -----—--— 32790.5 18 Cow sited -——---— — 13274.2 19 Interest on fixed capital ^ 5% per annuam. — 5657,8 — 5657.8 — 5657 8 — 5657.8 — 5657 8 — 56578 CostBlA; CostAl + Interest on fixed capital - 67168.6 — 69923.1 - 81422.8 - 76620.2 — 78244.16 — 671589.12 TotalBl:CostBlA + Fixed capital - 72826.6 - 75580.9 - 87080.8 - 82278 - 83901.96 — 779086.96 CostBl 20 Rental value of Land - 37500 — 37500 — 37500 - 37500 — 37500 — 375000 Total Cost B2; CostBl + rental value of land + - 110326.4 - 113080.9 - 124580.8 - 119778 121401.96 - 1154086.9 rent paid by leased land Cost Cl 21 Imputed value of ^unily labour - 8244.4 — 8244.4 - 8244.4 - 8244.4 — 8244.4 — 82444 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputed value of family - 81070.8 83825.3 - 95325.2 - 90522.4 92146.36 - 861527.06 labour Cost C2 Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of &mily - 118570 121325.3 132825.2 128022 129646.96 - 1226531 labour Income ( Arecanut) 17.9 107220 19 79 118740 22.5 134880 23 6 141000 27 161880 121.04 726240.0 - 19393.4 — 21434.6 — 24496.3 — 26635.9 — 27464.5 — 213106.3 Gross Income - 126613.4 140174.6 - 159376.3 167635.9 — 192344.5 — 942706.3 Net Cost ( Gross costrC2] - Gross Income) — 8042.6 18849.1 26551.1 39613.9 62697.5 —— Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 Source : Survey data the total cost of cultivation is accounted for 10.15%, 9.91% & 10.3% in small, medium & large farmers respectively. Among all farms, the expenditure on interest A, & B, when put together comes to I 7.6%, 8.23% & 9.16% of total cost in small, medium & large farms respectively. Hence, there is an inverse relationship between cost & interest in farm sizes. Data pertaining to productivity of arecanut of small farms in Puttur taluk is shown in table 4.10. During the fourth year pf arecanut cultivation, the yeild per hectare is 0.82 quintal. The same is increased to 8.11, 14.44 & 15.38 quintals per hectare from 5* 6**' & 7*h year respectively. An upward trend in the productivity of arecanut has shown by the i garden from the 7* year of cultivatioi}. During the 8* year, the productivity of arecanut is 17.44 quintals. This has been increased to the yeild of 19.87 & 22.88 quintal during the 9“*, & 10“* year of cultivation. The higher performance in productivity is exhibited by small scale gardens due to fact that h i^ e r share of expense on irrigation and fertilizers. In the case of medium farmers of Puttur taluk, shown in the table no. 4.11, the yeild of arecanut is 0.82, 8.11, 14.55 quintal in 4* 5* & 6 * year of cultivation. It is interesting to note that the performance of arecanut interms of yeild in the above years is similar to that of small farmers. During the 7* year of cultivation the yeild is 16.98 quintal. The same amount of yeild in positive level of 18.14, 21.89 & 24.88 quintal in the 8th 9 * ^ 10* year of cultivation respectively. I A considerable productivity of arecanut is maintained by large farmers are in Puttur taluk, which is shown in table 4.12. During the forth and fifth year of cultivation, yield per hectare is 0.89 and 9.44 quintal respectively. The same has been moved to an upward trend of 17.87, 19.79 & 22.48 quintals in the 6 '*', 7* and 8“* year of cultivation. It has been found that large size farmere of the garden secured a greater performance of yield when compared to small and medium farmers within the taluk. During the 9* and 10**" year of cultivation, the productivity per hectare is 23.59 and 26.59 quintal. 150 Cost of Cultivation & Productivity of Areca gardens in Bantwal Taluk In the cultivation of arecanut, pie cost incurred per hectare of small size farmers of Bantwal taluk was worked out and results are shown in table 4.13. The expenditure towards total establishment item of C2 during the first year of areca garden per hectare is found to be Rs. 1,69,342.41. Of the cost C2 , Rs. 54,863.47 and Rs. 97,532.15 from cost Aj and cost Bj. The remaining expenses were borne on rental value of land and imputed v^alue of family labour from cost B2 and cost C2 respectively. In cost A,, greater share of expenses incurred on human labour (Rs. 17847.5) is followed by the cost of miscellaneous, fodder and manuring (Rs.12,341.7, Rs.l 1,278.8 and Rs. 4,573.88). In cost B,, major expenditure incurred towards irrigation items is Rs. 32,380.0. The other fixed items are land preparation, fencing, plant instruments, pitting, seeding, cow-shed and rate of interest charges together comes to Rs. 29,152.15. The total cost (Cj) of establishment per hectare from 2"^ year onwards till the bearing stage (up to 7* year) of areca garden is amounted to Rs. 6,95,129.64. Of the cost Cj, Rs.3,54,866 and Rs. 17,580.6 is ib-om cost A,and cost B, respectively. It also shows the cost on manuring and fertilizer has increased considerably. The total maintenance cost (Cj) from 8“* year to lO*** year is amounted to Rs. 3,93,776.55. Of the cost Rs. 2,26,126.18 and Rs 87,903.0 is from cost Aj and cost Bj (interest) respectively. As a whole, the total establishment and maintenance cost (Cj), of Rs. 6,35,855.65 is from cost A, or A^ and the remaining cost Bj, B^ and C, worked out to be around 6,17,369.95. To analyse the comparison, the costs incurred in the cultivation of arecanut per hectare in Bantwal taluk medium farmers were worked out and results are shown in table 4.14. 151 TABLE: 4.13 - COST OF CULTIVATION FOR SMALL FARMS IN BANTWAL TALUK (Per Hectare) SI No Particulars I Year nV ear m V ear IV Year VYear Variable Cost A1 Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 324.5 17847.5 279 15345 266 14630 293 16115 307 16885 2 Manming ( Tonnes) 23.1 4573.88 11.1 2197.88 13.2 2613.6 22.9 4534.2 38 7524 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 3.9 2925.00 4.3 3225.00 5.3 3975.0 4.7 3525 4.9 3675 4 Soiling — ———— -——- 5669.95 5 Trencning — — — ——— —-- 565.34 6 Spraying ------— — - 777.42 7 Harvesting ———— — ---- 670.02 8 De-husking - - - -- —- 974.02 9 Hay(Fodder) — 11278,8 - 11278.8 - 11278 8 — 11278.8 — 11278.8 10 Depreciation, Farm buildings — 834.6 - 892.8 — 892.8 — 892.8 - 892.8 11 L a ^ revenue - 75 — 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 12 Miscellaneous — 123417 — 12341.7 — 12341.7 - 12341.7 - 12341.7 13 Interest on woridng capital^lO% per anniiam — 4987.588 — 4535.6 — 4574.51 — 4876.25 — 6132.91 TotalAl" ...... — 54863.47 — 49891.78 — 50319.61 — 53638.75 — 67461.97 CostA2 A4 y0 So 0? 1 i J 7 O 8 (\lAO / HOI fA .V 0 7/ 14 Land preparation & Fencing — 4006.56 ———————— 15 Plant Instruments — 2134.53 —————--- 16 Pitting & Seedlings — 5565.5 ———————— 17 Irrigation - 32380.0 ——----- 18 Cow Shed - 14515.46 ------19 Interest on fixed capital @ 5% per annuam — 2930.10 - 2930.10 - 2930.10 - 2930 10 - 2930,10 CostBlA; CostAl + Interest on fixed capital — 57793.57 — 52821.9 — 53249.7 — 56568.85 — 70392.01 TotalBl:CostBlA + Fixed capital — 116395.72 - 52821.9 - 53249.71 - 56568.85 - 70392.07 Cost B2 20 Rental value of Land - 37500 - 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + rent - 153895.72 - 95321.9 - 9074971 - 94068.85 - 107892.07 paid by leased land Cost Cl 21 Imputed value of family labour - 15446.69 - 15446.69 - 15446.69 - 15446.69 - 15446.69 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputed value of &mily labour - 131842.41 — 68268.59 — 68696.4 - 72015.54 - 85838.76 Cost C2 Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of fiunily labour - ljJ9342.41 - 110768.59 - 106196.4 109515.5 123338.76 Income ( Arecanut) — / - ! / - - 0 71 4260 6 96 41760 Return ( Inter crop ) — - — 27391.03 - 26124 3 - 24908.2 - 22497.6 Gross Income — - — 27391.03 - 26124.3 — 24908.2 - 22497.6 Net Cost ( Gross costfC2] - Gross Income ) — 169342.41 — 8337756 — 80072.1 - 80347.3 59081.16 TV-:------r ______AA Table continued SI No Particulars VI Year V QYear VIIIY ear IX Year XYear Total Variable Cost A1 Qtr Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Is) 1 Value of hired labour 325 17875 338 18645 345 18986 368 20240 382 21010 3227.5 177512.5 2 Manuring ( Tonnes ) 48.1 9523.8 52.3 10355.4 57.8 11464.2 60.3 11939.4 65.1 12889.8 391.9 77616.16 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 5.8 4350 5.3 3975 5.0 3250.0 5.1 3825.00 4.9 3675 49.2 36400 4 Soiling — — —— — 5669.95 — — —— - 11339.9 5 Trenching — 565.34 — 565.34 — 565.34 — 565J4 — 565.34 - 3392.04 6 Spraying — 887.42 — 979.64 — 979.64 — 979.64 — 979.64 - 5573.40 7 Harvesting — 734.9 — 1132.9 — 1962.3 — 1962.3 — 1962.3 — 842472 8 De-husking — 1281.6 — 1364.7 — 2781.3 — 2781J — 2781.3 - 11964.2 9 Hay(Fodder) — 11278.8 — 11278.8 — 11278.8 — 11278.8 — 11278.8 — 112788 10 Depreciatioa, Fann buildings — 892.8 — 892.8 — 892.8 - 892.8 - 892.8 — 8869.8 11 Land revenue — 75 — 75 — 75 — 75 - 75 — 750 12 Miscellaneous — 12341.7 — 12341.7 — 12341.7 — 12341.7 — 12341.7 - 123417 13 Interest on woddng capital@10% per anmnnn — 5980.63 — 6160.628 — 7024.69 — 6687.56 — 6844.66 — 57805.01 TotalAl — 65786.99 — 67766.90 — 77271.62 — 73563.28 - 75291.28 — 635855.65 CostA2 Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land — 65786.99 — 67766.90 — 77271.62 — 73563.28 — 75291.28 — 635855.65 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost 14 Land prepmtian & Fencing ——— — — ———-— — 4006.56 i v i ——— — — — — OJ 15 Plant Instmmciits — —— — 2134.53 16 Pitting & Seedlii^ — —— — —————— — 5565.5 17 Irrigation — —— — — ———— — — 32380.0 18 Cow Shed — — —— — ————— — 14515.46 19 Interest on fixed capital @ 5% per unmmin — 2930.1 — 2930.1 — 2930.1 — 2930.1 — 2930.1 - 29301 CostBl A; CostAl + Interest on fixed capital — 68720.09 — 70697.0 — 80221.72 — 7649338 — 78221.38 — 665179.67 TotalBl:CostBlA + Fixed capital — 68720.09 — 70697.0 — 80221.72 — 7649338 — 78221.38 — 723781.82 Cost B2 20 Rental value of Land — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 375000 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + — 106220.09 — 108197 — 117721.72 — 11399338 — 115721 38 - 1103711 8 rent paid by leased land Cost Cl 21 Imputed value o f fiunily labour - 15446.69 — 15446.69 — 15446.69 — 15446.69 15446.69 — 154466.9 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputed value of iamily — 84166.78 — 86143.69 — 95668.41 — 91940.07 — 93668.07 - 878248.72 labour CostC2 Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of fiunily - 121666.7 — 123643.69 — 133168.41 - 129440.07 - 131168.07 - 1255548.5 labour Income ( Arecannt) 12.48 74880 14.27 85620 15.9 95100 17.93 107SM 20.7 124560.0 88.96 5 3 3 7 « 0 Return ( Inter mip ) - 18483.9 — 16984.3 — 19986.5 — 2 14 7 4 J - 24918.2 — 20276U 3 Gross Income — 93363.9 — 102604.3 — 115086.5 — 12 9 0 5 4 J 149478.2 — 71040453 Net Cost ( Gross cost[C2] - Gross Income ) — 28302.8 — 21039.39 — 18081.91 — 385JJI — 18310.13 - 545M4 Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 Source : Survey dKa The total cost of (C^) establishment per hectare from 1®* year to 7*** year of areca garden is amounted to Rs. 6,47,715.61 Of the cost C^, Rs. 4,14,329.91, Rs. 78,908.45 is I from cost A^ and cost B, respectively. The total cost of maintenance (C2) on bearing, stage from 8*** year to 10* year of areica garden is about Rs.3,70,213.26. Of the cost Cj, Rs. 2,26,497.48 and Rs. 8,767.54 is from cost Aj and cost Bj respectively. i As a whole, the total cost of cultivation including establishment and bearing stage cost over a period of 10 years under E^ecanut is found to be Rs. 10,17,928.8. In the case of cost Aj the value of human labour is the expensive item formed to Rs.2,40,569.76. The expenditure on manuring, fertilizer, fddder, depreciation, spraying, interest and others is accounted for Rs. 46,078.05. Under the stream of cost B,, the expenditure towards irrigation items were greater at Rs. 32,431.00 followed by cow-shed, seeding and others with Rs 28,941.47. Among the other factors, the cost on rental value of land is Rs. 3,75,000 and expenditure on labour is found to be Rs.74,829.3 per hectare. In the cultivation of arecanut, tije expenses incurred per hectare for large groups of Bantwal taluk were worked out and results are shown in table 4.15 The total establishment cost (C^) of arecanut garden from 1®* year to 7* year accounted to Rs.8,11,680.9. In this cost Cj, Rs. 4,11,868.06 and Rs.77,422.56 is from cost A, and cost B, respectively. The expenditure towards every item of this size or group were higher. The total cost (Cj) of maintenance or bearing stage from 8“' year to ) 10* year of areca garden is about to RS.3,69,153.7. Of the cost C^, Rs.2,24,326.34 and Rs.8602.5 from cost A, and cost B, respectively. The total cost of cultivation including establishment and bearing stage of arecanut over a period of 10 years is amounted to Rs. 11,80,834.6. In the case of A,, major expenses incurred about Rs. 2,41,867.5. The cost on manuring, fertilizer, soiling, fodder depreciation and others found at Rs. 3,52,618.24. Under the stream of cost B, more expenditure of 32,380.0 is incurred on irrigation. This much of expenses have been found lower as compared to the medium group of farmers in Bantwal taluk. The items like cow- 154 TABLE: 4.14 - COST OF CULTIVATION FOR MEDIUM FARMS IN BANTWAL TALUK (Per Hectare) SI No Particulars I Year nVear in Year IV Year VYear Variable Cost A1 Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 428.25 23553.75 389 21395.36 398 21890 411 22605 422 23430 2 Manuring ( Tonnes) 16.2 3207.6 13.1 2593.8 15.9 3148.2 23.8 4712.4 27.6 5464.8 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 5.2 3900 5.8 4350 6.2 4650 6.2 4650 6.3 4725 4 SoiliM ———-———-— 7693.25 5 Trenching —-- — —---- 894.63 6 Spraying ——— — —---— 1389.5 7 Harvestmg ——————— 752.48 8 De-husldng -———- 873.6 9 Hay(Fodder) - 10850 - 10850 — 10850 — 10850 - 10850 10 Depreciation, Farm buildings — 784.33 — 884.33 — 884.33 — 884.33 — 884.33 11 Land revenue - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 - 75 12 Miscellaneous — 6761.98 — 6761.98 — 6761.98 - 6761.98 — 6761.98 13 Inteiert In the total gross cost, the items like the value of family labour and human labour consumes greater expenses. The expenditure towards hired labour per hectare is accounted to 14.14%, 23.63% and 20.^1% of total cost in small, medium and large farms. I In the case of family labour, it results to an amount of 1.23%, 7.35% and 7.51% from small, medium and large farms. It revelals that the involvement of family labour in small I farms is found to be negligible when compared with medium and large farms. Among the fixed costs, the expenditure on irrigation, seeding and cow-shed put I together comes up to 4.18%, 4.92%, 3.78% in small, medium and large farms I respectively. It shows that large farms in Bantwal taluk has registered sharp declining I trend towards the varied items. Expenditure towards spraying, harvesting and fodder was foimd to be greater with the expansion pf the farm size. The above three items when put I together comes up to 10.09%, 12.39%, 110.66% of total cost in small, medium and large I farms respectively. The other vital component of cost structure of arecanut is manures and fertilizers. I The share of such items formed to be 8;83%, 10.51% and 8.38% in small, medium and I large farms respectively. It reveals that tte above items were found to be increasing up to I the medium farmers. Where as, the larg^I farmers maintain a lower cost. The expenditure on interest A, and interest B,, put together comes to 6.93%, 8.59%, and 7.32% of total cost in small, medium and large farms respectively. Hence, an increasing trend of cost is 157 TABLE: 4.15 - COST OF CULTIVATION FOR LARGE SCALE FARMERS IN BANTWAL TALUK TPer Hectare ^ SI No Particulars Year nVear m Year IVYear V Y ear Variable Cost A1 Qty Value (Bs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) Qty Value (Rs) 1 Value of hired labour 442.5 24337.5 401 22055 410 22550 417 22935 436 23980 2 Manuting ( Tonnes ) 18.3 3623.4 22.4 4435.2 27.4 5425.2 33.5 6633 34.9 6910.2 3 Fertilizer ( Quintal) 6.6 4950 6.9 5175 71 5325,0 7.4 5550 77 5775 4 Soiling ——--—---- 6008.9 5 Trenching —-—-—-— —— 746.9 6 Spraying — ——-—-—-- 1831.71 7 Harvesting --—-- ——— 806.1 8 De-husking —---—-- 831.9 9 Hay(Fodder) — 10538,1 — 10538 1 — 10538.1 - 10538.1 - 10538.1 10 Dep^iation, Farm buildings — 616.9 — 741.3 — 746.8 — 752.3 — 759.1 11 L a ^ revenue — 75 — 75 — 75 — 75 - 75 12 Miscellaneous — 3314.1 — 3314.1 — 3314.1 — 3314.1 — 3314.1 13 Interest on working capital@10% per annuam — 4745.5 — 4633.37 — 4797.42 — 4979.75 — 6157.70 TotalAl — 52200.0 — 50967.07 — 52771.62 — 54777.25 — 67734.71 Cost A2 Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land — 52200.0 — 50967.07 — 52771.62 — 54777.25 — 67734.71 Cost B1 - Fixed Cost ■ 14 Land preparation & Fencing — 64877 —— ——— — —— L/\ 15 Plant Instruments — 987.36 ———————— 00 16 Pitting & Seedlings - 6104.8 — -—-- --— 17 Irrigation — 32380.0 —-—————— 18 Cow Shed — 11390.2 —————--— 19 Interest on fixed capital 5% per annuam — 2867.5 - 2867.5 — 2867.5 - 2867.5 - 2867.5 CostBlA: CostAl + Interest on fixed capital — 55068.94 - 53834.5 - 55639.12 - 57644.75 - 70602.2 TotalBliCostBlA + Fixed capital — 112419.9 — 53834.5 — 55639.12 — 57644.75 — 70602.2 CostBZ 20 Rental value of Land — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 — 37500 Total Cost B2: CostBl + rental value of land + — 147761.9 - 91334.5 - 93139.12 - 95144.75 - 108102.2 rent paid by leased land Cost C l 21 Imputed value of family labour - 8863.81 — 8863.81 — 8863.81 - 8863.81 - 8863.81 TotalCl: CostBl + Inputed value of family labour — 121282.8 - 62698.3 - 64502.9 - 66508.6 - 79466.0 C ostC l Cost C2: Cost B2+ Imputed value of femily labour — 156625.7 — 100198.3 - 102002.9 — 104008.6 - 116966.0 Income ( Arecanut) — —--- — 0.85 5100 8.98 53880 Return ( Inter crop ) — -— 26816.1 — 24318.9 - 26916.8 - 27186.1 Gross Income - - - 26816.1 - 24318.9 - 26916.8 — 27186.1 Net Cost ( Gross cost[C2] - Gross Income ) 156625.7 — 73382.2 — 77684 — 71991.8 — 35979.9 Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 To be Contd. Table continued Variable Cost A1 1 Value of hired labour 451 24805 467 26685 479 26345 487 26785 498 27390 4488.5 246867 5 2 Manuring ( Tonnes) 42.9 8494.2 49.1 9721,8 53.8 10652.4 59.6 11800.8 671 11899.8 409 40900 3 1 CijTl Til ril 1) 7.9 5925 8.1 6075 8.2 6150 8.6 6450 8.9 6675 77.4 58050 4 Soiling — -— — 6008.9 —-— 120178 5 Trencmng — 746 9 - 746.9 - 746.9 — 746 9 — 746 9 — 7469 6 Spraying - 1986.4 — 2064.9 — 2296.4 — 2296.4 - 2296.4 — 12772.21 7 Harvesting - 1124.9 - 1401.5 - 1701.9 - 1708.3 — 1816.5 — 8559.2 8 De-husking - 916.8 - 1206.1 - 1692.1 - 1708.3 — 1901.9 - 8257.1 9 Hay(Fo Note: Price of Arecanut at Rs. 60.00 Source : Survey data found among the small and the medium growers. Where as lower cost on such items witnessed only by the large growers. Data pertaining to productivity! of arecanut per hectare of small gardens in Bantwal taluks is shown in table 4.13. During the Fourth year of arecanut cultivation, the productivity per hectare is 0.71 quii|tal. The same is moved to 6.96, 12.48 and 14.27 quintals per hectare from 5* 6* and j7“' year respectively. The garden starts to getting an upward trend of yield per hectare froip the 7* year of cultivation. The yield of arecanut is 15.85 quintal in 8* year of cultivation. This has been moved to the yield of 17.93 and 20.76 quintal during the 9* and 10* year of cultivation. The performance of arecanut in terms of yield by small scale farmers are not impressive due to the fact that poor shares of expenditure on fertilizers and irrigation. The productivity of arecanut fLr medium farmers of Bantwal taluk is furnished in table 4.14. The per hectare yield of Arecanut is found to be 0.86 and 8.13 quintals in 4* and 5“' year of cultivation. The samb has been expanded to the level of 14.51, 17.31 qumtals in 6* and 7* year of cultivation. During the 8*^ year the yield is about 18.75 quintal. This has been increased to the level of 20.88 and 23.49 quintals in 9* and lO**" year of cultivation respectively. It revpals that increase in the size of farms, contributes to a positive performance in yield per hectare. The performance of arecanut in terms of yield of large group of farmers in Bantwal taluk has been quite noteworthy, which is presented in table 4.15. During the 4* I and 5“* year of cultivation, the yield per hectare is 0.85 and 8.98 quintals. The same has been expanded to the positive level of 17.66 and 19.78 quintals in 6“* and 7* year of cultivation. During the 8“* year, the j^ield is 21.36 quintals. This has been moved to the level of 22.84 and 25.47 quintals iri 9“* and lO*** year of cultivation respectively. It is found that yield performance is greater over the years due to the adoption of better and intensive input utilization. 160 Average Cost & Returns of Arecanut Gardens in Sullia Taluk The Chali type of arecanut is produced by the growers of South Canara district. The production of Chali type of arecanut involves higher establishment and operating cost. The total establishment cost per hectare small, medium & large farms is Rs. 7,97,969.1, 8,03,650.56 & 8,63,189.21 and the total operating cost is Rs. 3,80,170.3, 3,61,029.89 & 4,02,291.0 respectively. Table 4.16 furnishes the details of per hectare average cost / returns of areca gardehs in Sullia taluk over a period of 10 year. The I average cost per hectare of small, medium & large farms is Rs. 1,17,813.94, Rs. 1,16,468.03 & Rs. 1,26,547.97 respectively. It is also noticed from the table the productivity is the highest in large farms with an average yield of 16.49 quintal per Wctare & decreas with the decrease in farm size, where as in medium and small famis, the yield is 14.42 & 13.4 quintal / hectare respectively. As arecanut cultivation is a long gestation period, the return from the arecanut I cultivation is also a long drawn process. In this regard, the analysis of estimating the returns of arecanut and inter-crop are taken into consideration. The long pre-bearing period, fluctuation in yield, unexpected bsses are some of the challenges involved in the cultivation of arecanut. For this purpose, the growers in South Canara district prefers to cultivate inter or mixed crops along w|th arecanut in a garden. However, it has been found that as the age of garden advances, only few crops were grown to generate returns as inter crops like Banana, Cocoa, Pepper, & Coffee. The average returns of arecanut of. small, medium & large farms is Rs. 80,400, Rs. 86,537.14 & Rs. 98,974, and from intercrop Rs. 20,675.89, Rs. 27,900.66 i& Rs. 25,818.82 respectively. As a wiiole, the highest average returns of Rs. 1,24,794.1 is obtained by large farms followed by medium with Rs. 1,14,437.8 & small farms wifh Rs. 1,01,075.88. Thus average cost, yield (arecanut) only & returns of Sullia taluks is found to be Rs. 1,20,276.64, 14.77 quintal & Rs. 1,13,435.92 respectively. To find out the cost condition of varied farm sizes, the 161 Average Cost, Yield and Return o f Atecanut garden in Suilia Taluk ( Per hectare) Particulers Cost (Rs.) Yield (Quintal) Return (Arecanut+ Intercrop) in Rs. 1. Small 1,17,813.94 13.401 80,400.00 + 20,675.89 = 1,01,075.89 1 1 2. Middle 1,16,468.03 14.4^ 86,537.14 + 27,900.66 = 1,14,437.80 1 1 3. Large 1,26,547.97 16.49 98,974.00 + 25,819.00 = 1,24,794.10 1 Table No.4.17 I Average Cost, Yield and Return o f Ar^canut garden in Puttur Taluk ( Per hectare) Particulers Cost (Rs.) Yield (Quiijital) Retum (Arecanut+ Intercrop) in Rs. ! 1. Small 1,19,916.97 14.1() 84,600.00 + 24,704.63 = 1,09,304.63 1 2. Middle 1,16,503.19 15.05 90,300.00 + 29,572.74 = 1,19,872.74 1 1 3. Large 1,22,663.10 17.29'1 1,03,748.00 + 23,678.47 = 1,27,427.04 Table No.4.18 Average Cost, Yield and Return of Are^anut garden in Bantwal Taluk (Per hectare) Particulers Cost (Rs.) Yield (Quintal) Retum (Arecanut+ Intercrop) in Rs. 1 1. Small 1,25,554.85 12.70^ 76,251.420 + 22,529.87 = 98,781.29 1 2. Middle 1,01,792.88 14.889 89,331.428 + 27,900.66 =1,17,232.09 1 Large 1,18,083.46 16.705' 1,00,277.14 + 26,267.67 = 1,26,544.81 3. 1 Sources; Survey data. 162 average returns secured in the garden per hectare is worked out. The average net costs are estimated by deducting the average returns realised by the farmers. I It is to be noted that the cost Incurred in all three-size groups of areca gardens in I Sullia taluks is found to be non-remurierative. The net average cost incurred per hectare is marginally higher by Rs. 16,738.06 in small farms, Rs. 2,030.23 in medium farms and I Rs. 1,753.87 with large farms. This is due to the fact that small & medium farmers have I failed to make the utilization of intensive and farm oriented programmes. But the large I farmers have diversified their activities to rubber due to frequent occurrence of disease as a result of poor yield. I Average cost & Returns of Arecanut gardens in Puttur Taluk I The details on the per hectares total establishment cost in Puttur taluk of small, medium & large farms is estimated to 8,41,896.84, 7,83,051.97 & Rs. 8,36,037.5 and the total operating cost is Rs. 3,5^,359.54, Rs. 3,81,980.02 & Rs. 3,90,494.16 I respectively. The average cost and returns of areca gardens in Puttur taluk is presented in I table 4.17 over a period of 10 years of cultivation. Under the study, the average cost per hectare of small, mediimi and large f ^ s is Rs. 1,19,916.97, Rs. 1,16,503.19 & Rs. 1,22,663.1 respectively. It is also obserVed fi'om the table, the productivity is highest in large farms with an average yield of 17.!29 quintal per hectare & declines with decline in the size of the farm. In medium & sjnall farms, the yield is 15.05 &14.10 quintal respectively. The returns generated from inter pr mixed crops and arecanut over the years in the garden is recorded in monetary terms. The average returns of arecanut of small, medium I & large farms is Rs. 84,600.00, Rs. 90,300.00 & Rs. 1,03,748.57 respectively and from I intercrop it is Rs. 24,704.63, Rs. 29,572.74 & Rs. 23,678.47. In a arecanut garden, as a I whole, the highest average returns of Rs. 1,27,427.04 is obtained by large farms followed I by medium with Rs. 1,14,747.02 & small farms with Rs. 1,01,075.88. Thus average cost, yield (arecanut), and returns (arecanut + intercrop) of Puttur taluks is found to be Rs. 1,19,694.42, 15.48 quintal & Rs. 1,18,868'13 respectively. 163 The average net cost per hectare is estimated by deducting the average returns secured in the garden by the farmers. It is very clear from the table that the cost incurred in the medium and large size groups of areca gardens in Puttur taluks is found to be remunerative. The average net costs incurred per hectare are marginally higher by Rs. 10,612.34 in small farms. The medium and large farms have obtained average net returns of Rs. 3,369.55 & Rs. 4,763.94 the garden per hectare. It is due to greater use of manures, fertilizers, irrigated plots and better yield. Where as, the small farm groups are forced to be uncomfortable due to poor cultivation programmes, unsystematic irrigation tools, and I failure of plant protective activities, which affects the expected yield of arecanut. Average cost & Returns of Arecanut gardens in Bantwal Taluk The details of per hectare, total establishment cost in Bantwal taluk of small, medium & large farms is Rs. 8,61,771.19, Rs. 64,77,715.63 & Rs. 8,11,680.9 and the total operating cost is Rs. 3,93,776.55, Rs.3,70,213.26, Rs. 3,69,153.7 respectively. The average cost and returns of areca gardens in Bantwal taluk is presented in table no. 4.18. Over a period of 10 years of cultivation under the study, the average cost per hectare of small, medium & large farms is Rs. 12,554.85, Rs. 1,01,792.88 & Rs. 1,18,083.46. The average productivity of arecanut is also shown in the same table. The productivity is highest in large farms with an average yield of 16.71 per quintal per hectare and declines with the decline in the size of the farm. In medium & small farms, yield is 14.89 & 12.71 quintal respectively. The mixed or intercrops cuhivated along with arecanut wiiich results to an additional income to the growers. The average returns generated through inter or mixed crop of small, medium and large farms found to be Rs. 22,529.87, Rs. 27,900.66 & Rs. 26,267.67 and returns from arecanut is Rs. 76,251.42, Rs. 89,331.43 & Rs. 1,00,277.14 respectively. In a arecanut garden, as a whole, the highest average returns of Rs. 1,26,544.81 is secured by large farms, followed by medium with Rs. 1,17,232.09 and small farms with Rs. 98,781.29. Thus average cost, yield (arecanut) only and return 164 (arecanut + intercrop) of Bantwal tal^iks is accounted to Rs. 1,15,143.7, 14.77 quintal & Rs. 1,14,186.06 respectively. The returns generated in the aireca gardens of these groups of Bantwal taluk are properly estimated inorder to find out significance of cost or investment over the periods. Data presented in the table no. 4.18 tllat the average net cost incurred to the medium and large farmers found to be remunerative. The average net cost incurred to the garden per hectare is higher by Rs. 26,773.56 in small farms. This clearly indicates that the investment made on arecanut garden by the small farmers are not able to generate an I additional income instead it only creates a marginal cost. This is due to the fact that imsystematic farming cultivation, poor irrigation facilities, frequent disease, lower yield etc. The medium and large farmers obtains average net returns of Rs. 15,439.21 & Rs. 8,461.35. This is attributed to the intensive care & proper agro-economic practices adopted by the medium farmers. In the pase of large group, the average net return is not found impressive due to considerable ^ ou nt of expenses incurred on varied items of cultivation. Average cost yield & Returrts of Arecanut garden in study area Table no. 4.19 furnishes the detail^ of the average cost per hectare, yield & returns of arecanut garden in three taluks of study area in South Canara. It could be observed fi-om the table that over the period of 10 years of cuhivation under study, average cost is worked out to be Rs. 1,21,095.25, Rs. 1,11,588.03 & Rs. 1,22,431.51 in small, medium & large farmers. It indicates that the expenses incurred by the large farmers on the cultivation of arecanut found be greater. Aj increase in the cost of cultivation of large size I of arecanut garden per hectare, results in gp-ater productivity & returns. This is very clear I from the table that the average productivity is highest in large farms with a yield of 16.83 quintal. In medium and small farms, the yield is 14.79 & 13.42 quintal respectively. The highest yield oh the large farms would be due to the adoption of better and intensive input utilization. The lowest yield in small farms s due to inadequate & untunely supply of the required inputs. 165 Table no. 4.19 Average Cost, Yield and Return of Arecanut garden in Three Taluks ( Study area) (Per hectare) Particulars Cost (Rs.) Yield (Quintal) Return (Arecanut+Intercrop) in Rs. Small 1,21,095.25 13.402 1,03,053.93 2. Medium 1,11,588.03 14.79 1,17,180.87 T Large 1,22,431.51 16.828 1,26,255.31 Source : Survey Data It is also evident from the table that the large farms have obtained the highest net returns per hectare with Rs. 1,26,255.31 followed by medium & small farms with Rs. 1,17,180.37 & Rs. 1,03,053.93 respectively indicating the direct relationship between cost, plus return & farm size. The average net cost is marginally higher at Rs. 18,041.32 in small farms. In the case of medium & large farms, the average net return is accounted to Rs. 5,592.84 & Rs. 3,823.8 respectively. From the above study, it is clear that small scale farmers in three taluks do not have cost advantage when compared to the medium & large farms. This is attributed to the fact that unsystematic cultivation programmes, failure to make use of intercrops, poor irrigation facilities, loss of seeds and yield loss of total areca garden is particularly high in Sullia taluk when compared to the remaining taluks. As a whole, the average cost, yield & returns of arecanut garden in the study area (taluks) are also woiked out. The average cost of areca garden is amounted to Rs. 1,15,496.7. The average yield obtained by the farms is around to be 15.01 quintal and the average returns generated from intercrop & arecanut of the varied sizes is Rs. 1,18,371.59. It indicates that there are wide variations between the costs & returns realised under farming simations. Hence, the cuhivation of arecanut crop by the different group of farmers may not be so much economically impressive due to various difficulties met by the farmers during the pre-harvesting period. 166 Problems in the Production Sector The farmers in the three taluks of South Canara have been growing Chali variety of arecanut since long time. The practice of cultivating arecanut crop involves varied items in the different stages. This section analyses the findings of the sample survey of growers and problems associated with the production aspect or pre-harvesting period of arecanut sector. 1. Varied Cost Structure : - Arecanut is a perennial crop. To develop this, one should have high tolerance, dedication, greater faith in hard labour and sound capital. This is due to the fact that the economic life period of the areca gardens is assumed to be 40 years. Preparation of land for planting, fencing, seeding, digging and opening of drains, digging of pits for areca planting, manures, fertilizers, irrigation charges, cow-shed, fodder, management of harvest, crop maintenance, weeding, plant protection measures, clearing of drains. Management of intercrop, application of fresh irrigational instruments. Management of intercrops are the major components of cost involved in the cost of cultivation. 2. Seeding Activities ; - Since, the majority of tiie growers are small land holders, for ensuring a high level of productivity and sustained life for the palm is a uphill task. In almost all gardens except large farms, the seeds are sown on raised beds made in the alleys of arecanut or along the boundaries of the arecanut gardens. With regards to the selection of mother palm or seed material, no farming strategies were followed. Any selection of material is restricted to only fiilly riped and big-size nuts found in the bulk-harvest. The qualitative seed nuts were not collected from trees which are aged about 20-25 years. Further they were not taken from the middle bunches of the tree. Raising of nursery stock by the growers of arecanut garden or along boimdaries of such gardens has disadvantage that the beds often suffer from too much shade, which causes the seeds to grow lean and lankey. Small farmers were found to maintain closer spacing. When compared to medium and large farmers. Hence number of seeds per unit area is more (1532 in Sullia taluk, 1361 in Puttur taluk and 1237 in Bantwal taluk). 167 3. Poor Irrigation facilities : - Geographically, South Canara is a place of fluminous. The degree of farm intensification in arecanut garden is directly related to the existing irrigation facilities. The palms are to be irrigated once in 3 to 5 days depending upon the type of soil. The major source of irrigation is wells, ponds, rivers, perennial and semi-perennial, streams, solo surface, underground streams and rivulets. From the field survey, it was discovered that in most of the arecanut gardens, adequate irrigation facilities were not available during the summer season due to lack of canalised water supply system and erratic rain effect. In the case of small farms the irrigational instruments like pumpsets, sprinkler, drip irrigation, PVC pipes were not found, where as in medium and large farms they were common. Moreover, reduced level of ground water has added fuel to the burning problems. Though, there are many ponds, wells in the high land area, now which are laying waste with fall of mud, due to negative attitude shown by the authorities concerned or organised body of farmers or individual growers, to clean and dredge the ponds for utilising its water. This was identified as a major constraint in small farms. Hence, irrigational arrangements in the arecanut garden have not only become costlier but also scanty input in the study area. 4. Problem of labour The farmers in the study area face increase in labour cost, irrespective of their size of holdings. This could be analysed in a region with higher rate of literacy, the share of family labour operations is low. Since the people of this region including those in rural areas prefer mostly non-farm employment and when the demand for hired labour often results in increase in labour cost. Areca farming system right from the establishment to the processing would require varied type of labourers in different stages. Since height of the palm is greater, it needs professional, skilled laborers for climbing areca tree at the time of harvesting, spraying the medicine and at the stage of processing for dehusking of nuts. From the field survey, it evident that the cost of these skilled labourers is more than 300% higher than that of normal cost of hired labour. Non-availability of hired and 168 skilled labourers especially during their peak demand period has been identified as major constraint. 5. DiflRcultv in growing. Replanting and Inter-crops The average land holding size of arecanut garden is less than one hectare. Betelnut being a perennial crop, requires constant removal and replacement when the older plants become economically non- remunerative. The research institute suggests that those gardens that are in existence for more than 40 years must follow replanting method of replacement. In this method, new arecanut plants should replace the older and economically non-viable arecanut plants. However, from the field survey it was noticed that the arecanut farmers were retaining their older arecanut plants upto 45 years and they are not adopting the method of replanting. Instead they are following the system of under planting m which new arecanut plants are planed in the inter spaces of existing arecanut plants of 30 years, there by reducing the possibility of taking up of inter-crops in a systamatic way. The practices of growing intercrops along with arecanut palms are mixed or inter cropping systems. Over the period of decades, South Canara district has maintained its conventional status in producing intercrops like cocoa. Banana, Pepper and Coconut. From the field survey, it was evident that, the growers, particularly small and medium who have been imder the impression that the cultivation of inter-mixed crop in arecanut garden affects the yield potentiality of arecanut. In the study area, other than this, the significance of inter-cropping to suppliment the income during the initial investment period is not recognised. As a whole, over the last fifteen years it has become difficult to grow these inter crops due to various diseases, erratic climate, disturbance posed by animals and birds etc. Hence, the practice of intercrop has not received the desired attention. In general, tiie crops were not undertaken in a systematic manner with accurate plant population and management practices. The poor publicity and frequent failure of inter-crop has accelerated the problems of areca gardens, having affects on their yield on the one hand and economic life on the other. 169 6. Inadequate Inputs Unlike other agricultural crops arecanut is to be protected at all stages to enjoy the cream of the fanning. It could be possible through the application of suitable inputs or components on the farming. The major items are organic manures, fertiliser and chemicals. Cow-dung mixed with leaves, fresh green leaves and dairy enterprises are the sources of organic manures for arecanut garden. It is noticed from the field survey that such items were not fully undertaken by the farmers. Some of the medium and large farmers were collecting cow-dung from neighboring villages at a higher price. Further, practice of dairy enterprises found to be scarce due to the fact that expenses on fodder were greater and reward from milking operation has become lower. Majority of the farmers have not been able to meet a considerable share of the requirement of organic manures for their farm. To overcome this obstacle, the chemicals and fertilizers were preferred. The application of such items not made if considerable and conveniently. The reason for this is due to non-availability of chemicals and fertilizers in time and for reasonable rate in the rural areas cheilnicals and fertilizer were not available adequately and timely at reasonable prices in the rural areas. This created much inconvience to the farmers. As a result, expenses towards such items have increased and expected production and yield of arecanut has been severely affected. This kind of tendency had curbing the spirit and involvement of the growers in the farming sector. 7. Mystery Diseases Arecanut cultivation is subjected to the damage by several dreadful diseases during different stages of its growth ^ d development. Around twenty five categories of diseases causing a heavy toll of areca palms have been identified and discovered in India. In the study area, the incidence of disease in arecanut garden is identified as the important constraint forced by most of the farmers. They are - Yellow Leaf Disease (YLD), Mahali (Koleroga), Fruit-rot (Anabe-roga), Sunscirch or stem breaking, Inflorescence dieback and Button-shedding, Bud-rot, Nut-spiltting , Fungal infection etc. The YLD was first appeared in 1914 in Kerala and made its impact and witnessed after 1950’s onwards mainly in some parts of South Canara, Chickmagalore, and 170 Shimoga districts of Karnataka. According to Arecanut Research and Development Forum (ARDF) estimates, in 1999, the YLD has affected nearly 10,000 acres of areca plantation in Karnataka. The disease is said to be caused by “Mycoplasma” which results in the leaves turning yellowish in colour of and shedding of both mature and immature nuts. Mahali or Koleroga is the oldest threat eating into the potentialities of areca cultivation farming system. The pathogen is a fungus. In the advanced stages of disease, the entire crown turns yellow irrespective of the age of the leaf, wiiere leaves are progressively reduced in size and are stiff and bunched fall off uhimately, leaving a bare, pointed trunk. In the study area, small and medium farmers of Sullia and Bantwal taluks have witnessed considerable loss in the yeild. Spraying the bunches with 1% Bordeaux mixture before monsoon followed by another spray after 35 days were still not effective in curbing this disease. Around 42% of the losses in total productivity experienced by the farmers. The disease was more pronounced especially during the monsoon season which causes the growers towards the darker side 8. Pest Problems Since, soil of arecanut is poor with nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium and environmental factors which favour the onset of the disease in epidemic forms. The most harmful pests such as root grub- Leucopholis burmeisteri feeding on roots of the palm, spindle bug ( carvelhoea arecae ) feeding on tender unfurled spindle mites, damaging leaf and dropping of tender nut every year. Among the category of farms in the study region, pest problem is found to more in small farms of Sullia and medium farmers of Bantwal taluk. It indicates the affected plants without fruits or inferior small sized fmits. Hence, disturbance in the productivity of arecanut has been the regular feature. This was due to the additional fact that lack of drainage or water logging, lime induced or nutritional activities in arecanut garden through conservative protection programme which failed to make any improvement. 171 9. Poor Planting Materials It is well known that a good planting material influences the longevity of the arecanut garden. The farming practice in the study area is found to be poor in number of ways. Selection of parent seed material, standardization of nursery practices, shade requirement of the crop, method of sowing was not given significance among the gardens of small & medium farmers. Every year in the arecanut growing gardens, trees were cut off & removed or uprooted not only because of the old age or disease but also regular seed losses. Majority of the farmers feel that they are not fully aware of high-yielding variety of seeds released by the C.P.C.R.I. at Vittal in Bantwal. In general, the strategy for removal of seeding losses, demonstration for the application of new seeds at the farming sector was not undertaken. Thus it created the growers into panic. 10. Difficulties in Processing In the arecanut farming sector, problems relating to the processing aspect begins before the harvest and ends before marketing. In the study area, arecanut palms were harvested about 3 to 5 times in a year and the greatest percentage of palms under study were harvested twice. Bunches are plucjked when the colour of the husk become pinkish red and only riped nuts are harvested. It is only ripe - nuts are harvested. When matured nuts are plucked, it could be employed in the preparation of white variety ( Chali). The harvesting season extends from the end of October to February. From the field survey, it is observed that fallen arecanut from the pahn in the garden were collected twice in a week rather than regularly in ahnost all large size farmers of taluks. It always results in inferior quality of nuts. Till today, areca cultivation has maintained its unique nature of labour intensive system. In the garden, climbing up on areca pahn & plucking bunches is considered to be a creative art. He has to climb up the swinging, delicate pahn. He climbs up to a sufficient height & from there he serves the bimch of arecanuts with the help of a bamboo fitted at one end with a sharp small scythe or knife. The length of long bamboo hook is normally 14 to 17 feet. Generally, the climber does not climb each & every tree. By climbing one tree, he bends the other tree widi the help of bamboo hook. All bunches of 172 arecanut on a tree are not ready for harvesting simultaneously. Some of them riped earlier but the bunch has to be harvested only when it is full ripe, the yield otherwise is relatively reduced & the quality of arecanut is not satisfactory. One climber can deal with around 500 to 600 areca trees in a day. Only experienced & skilled labourers can perform this task. When the nuts are collected from the garden, the next process is spreading of nuts on the open ground over 55 to 60 days under the sun for drying. Frequently, these dried nuts are undergoes to dehusking activities. Dehusking process by manual efforts is more time consuming and tedious job; Which they do it with the help of ironed sharp and one labour can get about 4000 nuts dehusked per day. From the study area, it is noted that medium and large farmers would seek the assistance of trained labourers for de-husking activities more and more. Whereas, small farmers has been dealing the dehusking operations for themselves regularly through the co-operation of family members. Since labour saving machines was not introduced, the growers have to face the problem of getting skilled labourers to get this work done in right time, 11. Lack of Credit Facilities The investment required for arecanut garden during establishment and maintenance period is absolutely greater. The farmers do not adequately meet the i expenses incurred on various items over a long period. Eventhough number of nationalized banks and co-operative banks initiated by South Canara district, still loan facilities for meeting the cost of production have not liberalized in terms of interest. This trend will have impinging impact on the prospective cultivation of arecanut growers. 12. Improper guidance from the departments Over the period of decades, the production and crop management of arecanut garden under taken by the farmer has witnessed variety of difficulties. There is no full- fledged authority or department to motivate and guide the farmers frequently. In the field survey, farmers feel that the services of agricultural & horticultural departments in the form of guidance and information were unsatisfactory. Research in arecanut received a real boost only at research station not in farmers field. In the study area, CPCRI at Vittal 173 carries out standardizing agro-techniques, new seeds and protection programmes. But some how areca growers have failed to utilize these services. This is due to fact that plant management programmes were not demonstrated in farmers field. In this regard, there is no proper relationship between Research Station and the farmers. Very few progressive growers found to have taken guidance & implemented from the concerned departments. As a whole, lack of integrity, co-operation &co-ordination has appeared. Moreover, negative attitude, improper guidance of departments has worsened the problem of cultivation. 13. Other Handicaps One of the effective methods of increasing the yield of arecanut is through irrigating facilities. Where electricity is a problem, proper hrigation is not possible and the resuh is lower yield. During the survey it is inferred that irregular supply of power during the summer season minimised the scope for the growth of cultivation. Further, there has been a proposal before the Karnataka government to State Power Corporation to identify arecanut is a commercial crop. If it is implemented, then it is considered to be a serious problem for the arecanut-farming sector. 174 REFERENCES 1. Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1991), “Cost of cultivation of Principal Crops in India”, New Delhi, PP-186-188. 2. Acharya S.S. and K.A.Verghese (1991), “Structure of Cost and Cost Functions in crop farming”, Final Report of ICAR Scheme, Rajasthan Agricultural University Udaipur. 3. Bastine C.L and Abdul Razark M.P. (1991), “Costs and Returns in different sizes of Coconut holdings in Northern Kerala”, Journal of plantation crops, 18 (sup), PP- 364-368. 4. CPCRI (1985), “Cost of production and Cost-Benefit Analysis of small holder Plantation Crops”, Technical Bulletin No 12, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kasaragod, Kerala, Page-13. 5. Directorate of economics and statistics (1991), “Cost of cultivation of principal crops in India”, New Delhi, PP-186-188. 6. Government of India (1991), “Cost of cultivation of principal crops in India”, Directurate economics and statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. 7. Hays, W.N. (1906), “The cost of production of farm products”, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Statistics Bulletin, 48, P-91. 8. Lakshmanachar M.S. (1964), “The pilet scheme for the study of cost of cultivation of arecanut in Mysore state during 1959-60 and 1960-61”, Arecanut Journal, 15: 79-84. 9. Lang M., R. Cantrell and J. Sanders (1984), “Identifying Farm level constraints and Evaluating New Technology in the purdue farming Systems project in upper Volta”, In: Animals in the Farming System, C.B. Flora (ed.), Kansas State University, Manhatattan, Kansas, PP-65-75. 10. Maitra T. and Roy B. (1964), “Regional Variations in yield per acre of Major Crops”, 1950-51 to 1959-60, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol-XIX, No 1, PP-168-176. 175 11. Malya M. Meenakshi and Raja Gopalan R. (1964), “Nature of Risk associated with Rainfall and its effect on farming”, A case study of Kumool district, Andhra Pradesh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol-XIX, No 1, PP-76-81. 12. Neale, W.C., (1959), “Economic Accounting and Family Farming in India”, Economic Development and cultural change Vol-Vn, PP-286-301. 13. Tiwari. S.C. and Others (1986), “Ginger cultivation in Himachal Pradesh”, An economic analysis - University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan. 14. Venkatanarayana S. (1990), “Economics of Chilli Cultivation Kharimam District of Andhra Pradesh”, unpublished M.Sc (Agr) Thesis, A.P. Agricultural University, Hyderabad, Page-40-60. 15. Vigneshwara V. (1987), “Pepper and its Problems”, Facts for you, 9(3). 176