International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION ON AGRICULTURE (A CASE STUDY OF DISTRICT OF )

Sudhir Maddela Associate Professor, Nirmala College of Pharmacy Atmakur, Mandal, , A.P. e-mail: [email protected]

Pradeep, M. Research Scholar, VTJM & IVTR Degree College, Mangalagiri e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

The introduction of machinery to substitute for labourer (“labour saving”) is a common phenomenon associated with the release of labourers for employment in other sectors of the economy or to facilitate cultivation of a larger area with the same labour force. The other principal purpose is increase in land productivity enabling production of more output from the existing land. Machinery is a complementary input, required to achieve higher land productivity, for example, through the introduction of pump sets, or faster turn-around-times to achieve higher cropping intensity. However, in labour surplus economies, net labour displacement or replacement should be avoided. The third purpose is decreasing the cost of production. Introduction of a machine may lower production costs or offset increased costs of draft animals or labour. Generally, improved farm implements and machinery are used for different farm operations to increase productivity of land and labour through timeliness of operations, efficient use of inputs, improvement in duality of produce, safety and comfort of farmers and reduction in loss of produce and drudgery of farmers. As a result, mechanization fostering intensive cultivations on farms gives more food to the excluded group (i.e. landless farmers and agricultural labourers with reduced drudgery).

Keywords: Mechanization; Agricultural Inputs, Labour Saving, Productivity.

Volume VIII, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:1511 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Introduction Agricultural mechanization embraces the use of tools, implements and machines for agricultural land development, crop production, harvesting, preparation for storage, and on-farm processing. Others defined mechanization as application of suitable machines, recognition of technologies and applying suitable methods for production, processing of agricultural products, continuous increase of productivity as the result of the reducing the cost of production, reduction of the losses and increase of efficiency and increase of income.1 Generally both refer to better farm power input to agriculture. In many developing countries, agricultural production and food security are adversely affected because of insufficient use of farm power, low labour productivity and/or labourer scarcity.2 The need to improve agricultural labour productivity is increasingly recognized.

The term mechanization is unfortunately often very narrowly perceived while its real purpose, namely, enhancing productivity of land and labour is often not well understood. In fact an agricultural mechanization strategy ought to be part of an agricultural technology or development strategy. In this context, three principal purposes of mechanization may be summarized. The first is increase in labour productivity. The introduction of machinery to substitute for labourer (“labour saving”) is a common phenomenon associated with the release of labourers for employment in other sectors of the economy or to facilitate cultivation of a larger area with the same labour force. The other principal purpose is increase in land productivity enabling production of more output from the existing land. Machinery is a complementary input, required to achieve higher land productivity, for example, through the introduction of pump sets, or faster turn-around-times to achieve higher cropping intensity. However, in labour surplus economies, net labour displacement or replacement should be avoided. The third purpose is decreasing the cost of production. Introduction of a machine may lower production costs or offset increased costs of draft animals or labour. Thus, farm mechanization is a boon for the farmers and agricultural labours.3

The present study intends to examine the evidence concerning the impact of mechanization on agriculture and the direct and derived impact of such mechanization on both farmers and labourers. It is also given that improving the efficiency of

Volume VIII, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:1512 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

agricultural production is a key to pro-poor economic growth; improvements in agricultural mechanization are the principal means of doing this. Agricultural technology can affect smallholder income, labour opportunities for the poor, food prices, environmental sustainability, and linkages with the rest of the rural economy. Agriculture growth is important to support the higher growth path aspired by any agriculturally dominant country like . But questions remain about farm mechanization’s role in agricultural development, and debate continues in a number of areas, specifically:

 What factors induce farmers to go for mechanization of their agriculture?  Will farm mechanization improve the farmers’ position in terms of productivity, and efficient utilization of resources?

Review of Literature Nazaire Houssou and Anthony Chapoto (2015)4 have analyzed that the impacts of tractor ploughing on crop land expansion and input use among farming households in Northern Ghana where farm mechanization is expected to produce the highest impact on agricultural production and intensification. Farm mechanization seems to have positively impacted on cropland expansion during the survey period. Mechanization has contributed to increased agricultural production in Northern Ghana. Ploughing with a tractor was essential for expanding croplands.

Ramaswami, C. (2004)5 explained that mechanization complements modern varieties to realize the production potential, the spread of modern varieties induced labour saving technologies such as use of tractors, threshers and farm equipments and their easy availability due to the custom of hiring, facilitated even small farmers to adopt these technologies. The proposition that the labour saving technologies like tractors had expanded rapidly and they were substituted for human and bullock labour is partially supported by statistical evidences. The share of human labour cost in paddy production remained almost constant but decreasing in recent years over the three decades ending 2001. Radha Krishna Rao (2003)6 has observed that the impact of mechanization is more evident on large and medium irrigated farms as compared to small and marginal farms.

Volume VIII, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:1513 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Vijay Paul Sharma and Raj veer Singh (1995)7 have studied the impact of technological change on asset structure, cropping pattern and productivity of crops and identified the socio-economic factors associated with new technology. It is observed that area under high yielding verities has resulted in higher productivity. Investment in capital assets for productive purposes increased the farm size. Cropping intensity in technology adopted farms is higher than that of non-technology adopted farms and productivity is found to be high.

F.C. Das and Kishan Singh (1988)8 have suggested mechanization measures for increasing production of sugar which include tillage, planting, inter culture, plant protection, harvesting and cleaning.

Singh and Ramanna (1974)9 observed that the adoption of improved technology coupled with adequate credit facility dynamises the income potential and offers the single best measure to solve the chronic problem of under employment of family labour on small farms and for labour in agricultural sector in general. Parnape (1970)10 indicated that mechanization will increase the production and ultimately raise the standard of living and increase economic welfare. He was of the opinion that mechanization would increase the real purchasing power of the people and thus have a leverage effect in demand for other products. In order to fill the said gaps, the present study is initiated with the following objectives and hypotheses followed by the relevant methodology.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 1. To explain the socio-economic profile of both sample farmers and labourers. 2. To estimate the effects of farm mechanization on agriculture in the study area. 3. To analyze the determinants of farm mechanization in the study area.

METHODOLOGY

For the purpose of the study, 150 farmers of different sizes from Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh by adhering to the principles of stratified random sampling. The criteria of stratification are size of the farmers. The sample farmers are selected from , Chebrolu, Dachepalli, Ipur, and Nadendla mandals of Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. Guntur district is famous for growing crops like chillies, cotton and paddy.

Volume VIII, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:1514 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

SOURCES OF DATA The study made use of primary data. The required primary data were directly collected from the respondents by administering a pre designed questionnaire/ schedule among them. Table 1 Place of the sample farmers

Place Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Bapatla 35 23.33 23.33 Chebrolu 21 14.00 37.33 Dachepalli 37 24.67 62.00 Ipur 28 18.67 80.67 Nadendla 29 19.33 100.00 Total 150 100.0 Source: Primary data Table 1 refers to the distribution of the sample farmer respondents by their place. It is observed that 23.33 per cent of the sample farmer respondents are selected from and Gudipudi villages of , 14 per cent are selected from Godavarru and Suddapalle villages of , 24.67 per cent are selected from Bhetrupalem and Mutyalampadu villages of Dachepalli mandal, 18.67 per cent are selected from Angalur and Gundepalle villages of Ipur mandal and 19.33 per cent are selected from Chirumamilla and Irlapadu villages of Nadendla mandal of Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. Table 2 Social category Social category Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent OC 99 66.0 66.0 BC 39 26.0 92.0 SC 9 6.0 98.0 ST 3 2.0 100.0 Total 150 100.0 Source: Primary data

Table 2 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their social category. It is observed that 66 per cent of the sample farmer respondents are from socially advanced castes, 26 per cent are from socially backward castes, 6 per cent are from scheduled castes and 2 per cent are from scheduled tribes.

Volume VIII, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:1515 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Table 3 Category of the farmer Category Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Marginal 9 6.0 6.0 Small 10 6.7 12.7 Medium 59 39.3 52.0 Big 72 48.0 100.0 Total 150 100.0 Source: Primary data

Table 3 refers to the distribution of the sample farmers by their farm category. It is observed that 6 per cent of the sample farmer respondents are marginal farmers, 6.7 per cent are small farmers, 39.3 per cent are medium farmers and 48 per cent are big farmers. It is concluded that majority of the sample respondent farmers owned tractors; they are relatively young, from socially advanced castes, from nuclear families, big from farmer category, equipped with low level education. The sample farmer respondents are with moderate level of management orientation and risk taking behaviour and with high technology inducement behaviour. Table 4 Effects of farm mechanization-Increase in gross output

Response Frequency Percent Cumulative Per cent Moderately agree 12 8.0 8.0 Agree 99 66.0 74.0 Strongly agree 39 26.0 100.0 Total 150 100.0 Source: Primary data

Table 4 refers to the distribution of the sample farmer respondents by their response about the effects of farm mechanization on agriculture with a focus on increase in gross output. It is observed that farm mechanization has resulted in increase in gross output which is strongly agreed by 26 per cent of the sample farmer respondents and the same is agreed by 66 per cent of the respondents and moderately agreed by 8 per cent of the sample farmer respondents.

Volume VIII, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:1516 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Table 5 Category of the farmer and higher yields

Category of Higher yields Total the farmer Moderately Agree Strongly agree agree Marginal 1 3 5 9 11.1% 33.3% 55.6% 100.0% 8.3% 6.7% 5.4% 6.0% Small 1 3 6 10 10.0% 30.0% 60.0% 100.0% 8.3% 6.7% 6.5% 6.7% Medium 4 21 34 59 6.8% 35.6% 57.6% 100.0% 33.3% 46.7% 36.6% 39.3% Big 6 18 48 72 8.3% 25.0% 66.7% 100.0% 50.0% 40.0% 51.6% 48.0% Total 12 45 93 150 8.0% 30.0% 62.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square=2.029, df=6, ρ=0.917, r=0.080 Source: Primary data

Table 5 refers to the distribution of the sample farmer respondents by their category and by their response about the effects of farm mechanization on agriculture with a focus on higher yields. The correlation between the category of the farmers and their response about the effects of farm mechanization on agriculture with a focus on higher yields is found to be positive (r=0.080). The null hypothesis is tested by using Chi-square statistic with LOS=0.01 and DF=6 and found that null hypothesis is accepted. Thus, it is understood that the relationship between the category of the farmers and their response about the effects of farm mechanization on agriculture with a focus on higher yields is found to be statistically independent. Table 6 To overcome the problem of labour shortage

Response Frequency Per cent Cumulative per cent Yes 118 78.7 78.7 No 32 21.3 100.0 Total 150 100.0 Source: Primary data

Volume VIII, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:1517 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Table 6 deals with the distribution of the sample farmer respondents by their response about the determinants of farm mechanization with a focus on to overcome the problem of labour shortage. It is revealed that 78.7 per cent of the sample farmer respondents have stated that they have gone for farm mechanization to overcome the problem of labour shortage and 21.3 per cent of the respondents did not subscribe to this view. Table 7 For more agricultural turnover Response Frequency Per cent Cumulative Per cent Yes 120 80.0 80.0 No 30 20.0 100.0 Total 150 100.0 Source: Primary data. Table 7 deals with the distribution of the sample farmer respondents by their response about the determinants of farm mechanization with a focus on for more agriculture turnover. It is revealed that 80 per cent of the sample farmer respondents have stated that they have gone for farm mechanization for more agriculture turnover and 20 per cent of the respondents did not subscribe to this view.

Conclusion Improving the efficiency of agricultural production is a key to pro-poor economic growth; improvements in agricultural mechanization are the principal means of doing this. Agricultural technology can affect smallholder income, labour opportunities for the poor, food prices, environmental sustainability, and linkages with the rest of the rural economy. Agricultural mechanization has been a primary factor contributing to increases in farm productivity in developing countries over the past half-century. Although there is still widespread food insecurity, the situation without current technology development would have been unimaginable. New technology can provide additional rural employment, but there are always countervailing pressures to reduce labour input and lower its costs. Agriculture growth is important to support the higher growth path aspired by any agriculturally dominant country like India. An examination in to the evidences concerning the impact of mechanization on agriculture and the direct and derived impact of such mechanization on both farmers and labourers assumes considerable amount of significance and relevance.

Volume VIII, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:1518 International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

SUGGESTIONS On the basis of the major findings of the study, the following suggestions are made to strengthen agricultural productivity along with ensuring inclusive growth of labor in agriculture which include 1. The disadvantaged sections of the society must be provided land by the state and also to provide the benefits of farm mechanization to them to ensure inclusive growth of agriculture. 2. Liberal credit facilities with affordable rate of interest and flexible EMIs will definitely promote farm mechanization.

REFERENCES

1. Bagheri, N. and Moazzen, S. A. (2009). Optimum strategy for agricultural mechanization development in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Technology, 5(2): pp.235-237.

2. Rijk, A. G. (1989). Agricultural Mechanization Policy and Strategy. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo.

3. Ganesh Sah. Role of Farm Mechanization in Poverty Alleviation. Agricultural Implement Research Center. Ranighat, Birgunj, Parsa, India.

4. Nazaire Houssou and Anthony Chapoto, “Adoption of farm mechanization, cropland, and intensification in Ghana”, International Conference of Agricultural Economists (IQAE), August 2015.

5. Ramaswami, C. (2004), “Constraints to Growth in Indian Agriculture”, Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics, Mumbai, Jan-March, pp. 67-67.

6. Radha Krishna Rao, “Farm Mechanization in India Issues and prospects”, Kurukshetra, May 2003, pp.41-43.

7. Vijay Paul Sharma and Raj Veer Singh, “Impact of Technological Change on Investment pattern and Resource structure in Himachal Pradesh”, March-1995, pp 887-889.

8. Das, F.C. and Kishan Singh, “Need of mechanization for increasing production and productivity of sugar cane in India”, Agricultural Situation in India, December-1988, pp 757- 760.

9. Shiv Karan Singh and R. Ramanna (1974). “The Role of Credit and technology in increasing income and employment on small and large farming in Western Region Hyderabad District, A.P. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 34(3), pp.41-51.

10. Parnape, R. (1970). “Experiment in the use of Large scale machinery”, Journal of Farm Economics 14(2), pp.336-340..

*****

Volume VIII, Issue VI, JUNE/2019 Page No:1519