Mechanisation in Paddy Farming – Paradigm Shift in the Farmers Perception: an Empirical Analysis

International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT) ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-8 Issue-4, April 2019

Mechanisation in Paddy Farming – Paradigm shift in the Farmers Perception: An Empirical Analysis

A. Naga Bhushan, M. Sivakoti Reddy

 period ended with tractor production, which started under Abstract— Mechanisation practices have been growing in license in 1961, having an annual output of 880 tractors by rapid phase in the Indian paddy farming. The researcher Eicher Tractor Ltd. Five manufacturers were licensed to emphasised over the different paddy farming practices such as, make tractors, while production of power tillers started in primary tillage, secondary tillage, plantation, intercultural 1965. More concentrated support for the field of agricultural operations and harvesting and threshing. The researcher tested the impact of mechanisation in the various paddy farming engineering education was provided with establishment of practices. Researcher deployed the paired t-test and the results are the first college of agricultural engineering, based on the US presented. The study has been carried in Tenali revenue mandal Land Grant pattern, in 1962 at Pantnagar with the help of the located in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh state in India. University of Illinois. This was followed by the establishment of six more colleges and two degree-granting Index Words: Mechanisation, paddy farming, primary tillage, departments at institutes under the Table 6 presents key secondary tillage, plantation, intercultural operations, harvesting mechanization indicators and information from India. Indian and threshing Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR). During this time, I. INTRODUCTION 96% of the tractors were owned by larger farmers with landholdings of more than 10 ha. Another major Mechanization in agriculture has paralleled many other development was the creation of credit facilities to purchase changes in India, which has transformed itself from a farm equipment. In the late 1960s, the Green Revolution machinery importer to the world’s leading tractor began, marking the beginning of the second stage. manufacturer. Most of the earlier innovations in the rice mechanization sector in India were on tractors, drillers, and III. III. RESEARCH PROBLEM mechanical trans planters, different types of irrigation machinery, and mechanical weed control as preharvest There are many studies which reveals about the machines. For postharvest operations, automation is used for mechanization’s role in the paddy farming. Some specific harvesting, proper threshing; post thresh cleaning, rolling, studies focused and revealed the utilization of concerned milling, drying, and safe storage (Manchikanti and Sengupta tools and technology in determining the paddy yielding. But 2011). The adoption of agricultural mechanization in India is there is no a study which describe the role of mechanisation continuously increasing. In 2007, India had 3.2 million in the wholesome practices of paddy farming. Hence, this agricultural tractors and 0.48 million combine harvesters and study focused to assess the impact of mechanization among threshers. The density of tractors per 1,000 ha of cropped the different paddy farming practices in India. area was about 16 compared with the world average of 19, and 27 in the US (Directorate of Economics and Statistics IV. IV. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2013). The present study applied the stratified random sampling technique to collect the required data for this study. The II. II. MECHANIZATION GROWTH IN INDIA researcher collected 160 samples from the different locations The general pattern for the growth of mechanization in in Tenali revenue division of Andhra Pradesh. Researcher India was found to be broadly similar to a more worldwide used a self-administered questionnaire and collected the pattern but with two clear mechanization stages: (a) the first data. After collecting the data, the researcher applied paired stage starting from the 1950s to the 1970s, and (b) the second t-test method and analyzed the data. The specific results are stage from 1970 to the present (Gajendra Singh 2013). The mentioned in the following paragraphs. first stage included education related to agricultural engineering programs, indicating its importance alongside other engineering disciplines; importing of tractors; and farm operations and transport work using draught animals. This

Revised Manuscript Received on April 28, 2019. A. Naga Bhushan, Research Scholar, Asst. Professor, Department of Management Studies, Vignan’s Foundation for Science Technology and Research, Vadlamudi, Guntur, India. Dr.M. Sivakoti Reddy, Asst.professor, Department of Management Studies, Vignan’s Foundation for Science Technology and Research, Vadlamudi, Guntur, India.

Published By: Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering Retrieval Number: D7013048419/19©BEIESP 1892 & Sciences Publication

Mechanisation in Paddy Farming – Paradigm shift in the Farmers Perception: An Empirical Analysis

V. V. DATA ANALYSIS The above table - 1 depicted that the mean score of the primary tillage before Mechanisation in paddy farming is Testing the impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming found to be 4.2895 and the same mechanisation is found to over the Primary Tillage be 3.5877. The standard deviation values are 0.68241 and Assessing the impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming 1.07722 before and after respectively. The standard error over Primary tillage: mean values are found to be 0.05535 and 0.08737 The impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming over the respectively. primary tillage in the paddy farming is tested with the paired t-test. The mean scores before the mechanisation and after Table - 2: Paired Sample Correlation of Primary tillage the mean scores are paired to test the results. The results are Paired Samples Correlations presented the following tables. Corre N Sig. lation Table - 1 Paired Sample Statistics of the Primary tillage Primary tillage Before Paired Samples Statistics Mechanisation in paddy Std. Std. farming & Primary tillage 160 0.571 0.000 Mean N Deviati Error After Mechanisation in on Mean paddy farming Primary tillage Before The above table - 2 revealed about the paired sample Mechanisation 4.2895 160 0.68241 0.05535 correlation between the before and after the mechanisation in in paddy paddy farming over the primary tillage practices in the paddy farming farming. The results disclosed that the correlation value is Primary 0.571 which is indicates that there is a moderate correlation tillage After and the p-value is found to be 0.000. Mechanisation 3.5877 160 1.07722 0.08737 in paddy farming Table - 3: Paired Sample Test results of Primary tillage Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval Sig. Std. Error t Mean Std. Deviation of the Difference (2-tailed) Mean Lower Upper BPT - APT 0.70175 0.88663 0.0719 0.5596 0.8438 9.758 0.000

The results of paired sample test of primary tillage are presented the following tables. presented in table – 3 revealed that the mean of the sample is found to be 0.70175. the standard deviation is found to be Table - 4 Paired Sample Statistics of the Secondary 0.88663, standard mean is 0.0719. The bootstrapping results tillage of the test yielded the lower control limit as 0.5596 and the Paired Samples Statistics upper control limit as 0.8438. The concerned confidence Std. Std. Mea intervals did not observe zero between them which we can N Deviatio Error n interpret that the sample results are significant. The t-value is n Mean found to be 9.758 and the p-value is found to be 0.000. Secondary tillage VI. CONCLUSION: Before The test results showed a significant increase in primary Mechanisa 3.3771 160 0.85558 0.08556 tion in tillage after Mechanisation in paddy farming. P- value is less paddy than 0.05 and the mean difference is equal to 0.702. The farming results therefore corroborates that fact the Primary tillage Secondary initiatives incorporated in Mechanisation are engendering tillage effective results. Hence, we conclude that the proposed null After hypothesis (H10) is disproved and alternative hypothesis Mechanisa 3.9600 160 0.59893 0.05989 (H1) is accepted. tion in Assessing the impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming paddy over Secondary tillage: farming

The impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming over the secondary tillage in the paddy farming is tested with the paired t-test. The mean scores before the mechanisation and after the mean scores is paired to test the results. The results

Published By: Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering Retrieval Number: D7013048419/19©BEIESP 1893 & Sciences Publication

Mechanisation in Paddy Farming – Paradigm shift in the Farmers Perception: An Empirical Analysis

The above table – 4 depicted that the mean score of the The above table - 5 revealed about the paired sample secondary tillage before Mechanisation in paddy farming is correlation between the before and after the Mechanisation found to be 3.3771 and the same mechanisation is found to in paddy farming over the Secondary tillage practices in the be 3.9600. The standard deviation values are 0.85558 and paddy farming. The results disclosed that the correlation 0.59893 before and after respectively. The standard error value is 0.344 which is indicates that there is a low mean values are found to be 0.08556 and 0.05989 correlation and the p-value is found to be 0.000. respectively. The results of paired sample test of secondary tillage revealed that the mean of the sample is found to be 0.58286. Table - 5: Paired Sample Correlation of Secondary The standard deviation is found to be 0.85947, standard tillage mean is 0.08595. The bootstrapping results of the test Paired Samples Correlations yielded the lower control limit as -0.75339 and the upper Corre control limit as -0.41232. The concerned confidence N Sig. lation intervals did not observe zero between them which we can Secondary tillage Before interpret that the sample results are significant. The t-value is Mechanisation in paddy found to be -6.782 and the p-value is found to be 0.000. farming & Secondary 160 0.344 0.000 tillage After Mechanisation in paddy farming

Table - 6: Paired Sample Test results of Secondary tillage Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval Sig. Std. Error t Mean Std. Deviation of the Difference (2-tailed) Mean Lower Upper BST - AST 0.58286 0.85947 0.8595 -0.75339 -0.41232 -6.782 0.000

plantation before Mechanisation in paddy farming is found Conclusion: to be 3.4401and the same mechanisation is found to be The test results showed a significant increase in secondary 3.9380. The standard deviation values are 0.69705 and tillage after Mechanisation in paddy farming. P- Value is less 0.27996 before and after respectively. The standard error than 0.05 and the mean difference is equal to 0.085. The mean values are found to be 0.07431 and 0.02984 results therefore corroborates that fact the Secondary tillage respectively. initiatives incorporated in Mechanisation are engendering effective results. Hence, we conclude that the proposed null Table - 8: Paired Sample Correlation of Plantation hypothesis (H20) is disproved and alternative hypothesis Paired Samples Correlations (H2) is accepted. Correl N Sig. Assessing the impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming ation over Plantation: Plantation Before Mechanisation in paddy The impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming over the farming & Plantation 160 0.528 0.000 plantation in the paddy farming is tested with the paired After Mechanisation in t-test. The mean scores before the mechanisation and after paddy farming the mean scores is paired to test the results. The results are presented the following tables. The above table – 8 revealed about the paired sample correlation between the before and after the Mechanisation Table - 7 Paired Sample Statistics of the Plantation in paddy farming over the Plantation practices in the paddy Paired Samples Statistics farming. The results disclosed that the correlation value is Std. Std. Mea 0.528 which is indicates that there is a moderate correlation N Deviati Error n and the p-value is found to be 0.000. The results of paired on Mean sample test of plantation revealed that the mean of the Plantation sample is found to be -0.49793. The standard deviation is Before 3.44 0.6970 0.0743 found to be 0.59851, standard mean is 0.06380. The Mechanisation 160 01 5 1 bootstrapping results of the test yielded the lower control in paddy limit as -0.62475 and the upper control limit as -0.37112. farming The concerned confidence intervals did not observe zero Plantation After Mechanisation 3.93 0.2799 0.0298 between them which we can interpret that the sample results 160 in paddy 80 6 4 are significant. farming

The above table – 7 depicted that the mean score of the

Mechanisation in Paddy Farming – Paradigm shift in the Farmers Perception: An Empirical Analysis

The t-value is found to be -7.804 and the p-value is found to be 0.000. Table - 9: Paired Sample Test results of Plantation: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval Sig. Std. Std. Error t Mean of the Difference (2-tailed) Deviation Mean Lower Upper BPLNT – APLNT -0.49793 0.59851 0.06380 -0.62475 -0.37112 -7.804 0.000

After Mechanisation in VII. CONCLUSION: paddy farming The test results showed a significant increase in plantation after Mechanisation in paddy farming. P- Value is less than 0.05 and the mean difference is equal to 0.063. The results therefore corroborates that fact the Plantation initiatives The above table – 11 revealed about the paired sample incorporated in Mechanisation are engendering effective correlation between the before and after the Mechanisation results. Hence, we conclude that the proposed null in paddy farming over the Intercultural Operations practices hypothesis (H30) is disproved and alternative hypothesis in the paddy farming. The results disclosed that the (H3) is accepted. correlation value is 0.752 which is indicates that there is a high correlation and the p-value is found to be 0.000. Assessing the impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming over Intercultural Operations: Table - 12: Paired Sample Test results of Intercultural The impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming over the Operations: Intercultural Operations in the paddy farming is tested with Paired Samples Correlations the paired t-test. The mean scores before the mechanisation Correl N Sig. and after the mean scores is paired to test the results. The ation results are presented the following tables. Intercultural Operations Before Table - 10 Paired Sample Statistics of the Intercultural Mechanisation in Pair paddy farming & 0.00 Operations: 160 0.752 Paired Samples Statistics 1 Intercultural 0 Std. Std. Operations After Mea N Devia Error Mechanisation in n tion Mean paddy farming Intercultural Operations Before 3.16 16 1.101 0.1101 The results of paired sample test of Intercultural Mechanisation in 89 0 92 9 Operations revealed that the mean of the sample is found to paddy farming be -0.80000. The standard deviation is found to be 0.76785, Intercultural standard mean is 0.07679. The bootstrapping results of the Operations After 3.96 16 0.580 0.0580 test yielded the lower control limit as -0.95236 and the upper Mechanisation in 89 0 28 3 control limit as -0.64764. The concerned confidence paddy farming intervals did not observe zero between them which we can interpret that the sample results are significant. The t-value is The above table – 10 depicted that the mean score of the found to be -10.419 and the p-value is found to be 0.000. Intercultural Operations before Mechanisation in paddy Conclusion: farming is found to be 3.1689 and the same mechanisation is found to be 3.9689. The standard deviation values are The test results showed a significant increase in 1.10192 and 0.58028 before and after respectively. The Intercultural Operations after Mechanisation in paddy standard error mean values are found to be 0.11019 and farming. P- Value is less than 0.05 and the mean difference is 0.05803 respectively. equal to 0.076. The results therefore corroborates that fact the Intercultural Operations initiatives incorporated in Table - 11: Paired Sample Correlation of Intercultural Mechanisation are engendering effective results. Hence, we Operations conclude that the proposed null hypothesis (H40) is Paired Samples Correlations disproved and alternative hypothesis (H4) is accepted. Correl Si N Assessing the impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming ation g. over Harvesting and Threshing: Intercultural Operations 0. Pair Before Mechanisation 16 0.752 00 1 in paddy farming & 0 0 Intercultural Operations

Mechanisation in Paddy Farming – Paradigm shift in the Farmers Perception: An Empirical Analysis

The impact of Mechanisation in paddy farming over the 1.09756 and 0.66809 before and after respectively. The harvesting and threshing in the paddy farming is tested with standard error mean values are found to be 0.11202 and the paired t-test. The mean scores before the mechanisation 0.06819 respectively. and after the mean scores is paired to test the results. The Table - 14: Paired Sample Correlation of Harvesting and results are presented the following tables. Threshing Table - 13 Paired Sample Statistics of the Harvesting and Paired Samples Correlations Threshing Correl N Sig. Paired Samples Statistics ation Std. Std. Harvesting and Mean N Devi Error ation Mean threshing Before Harvesting and Mechanisation in threshing Before 3.409 16 1.097 Pair paddy farming & 16 0.0 Mechanisation 0.11202 0.399 7 0 56 1 Harvesting and 0 00 in paddy Pair farming threshing After 1 Harvesting and Mechanisation in threshing After 4.270 16 0.668 paddy farming Mechanisation 0.06819 8 0 09 in paddy farming The above table – 14 revealed about the paired sample correlation between the before and after the Mechanisation The above table - 13 depicted that the mean score of the in paddy farming over the Harvesting and threshing practices harvesting and threshing before Mechanisation in paddy in the paddy farming. The results disclosed that the farming is found to be 3.4097 and the same mechanisation is correlation value is 0.399 which is indicates that there is a found to be 4.2708. The standard deviation values are low correlation and the p-value is found to be 0.000. Table - 15: Paired Sample Test results of Harvesting and Threshing: Paired Samples Test Paired Differences 95% Confidence Interval of Sig. Std. Std. Error t Mean the Difference (2-tailed) Deviation Mean Lower Upper Harvesting and -0.86111 1.03242 0.10537 -1.07030 -0.65192 -8.172 0.000 threshing 3. Davis, G.W., Bailey, D.V., and K.M. Chudobac. 2010. Defining The results of paired sample test of harvesting and and Meeting the Demand for Agricultural Machinery in China: threshing revealed that the mean of the sample is found to be A Case Study of John Deere. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review Volume 13, Issue 3. Pp. -0.86111. The standard deviation is found to be 1.03242, 97–120. standard mean is 0.10537. The bootstrapping results of the 4. Hongwen, L. 2012. Agricultural Mechanization Status and test yielded the lower control limit as -1.07030 and the upper Context in China. Roundtable on Developing Environmentally control limit as -0.65192. The concerned confidence Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization Strategies (SAMS) for intervals did not observe zero between them which we can Countries in the Asia-Pacific Region, 8– 9 December 2011. Bangkok, Thailand, Pp. 44–45. interpret that the sample results are significant. The t-value is 5. Houmy, K. 2008. Guide de formulation d’une stratégie de found to be -8.172 and the p-value is found to be 0.000. mécanisation : étude de cas : stratégie nationale de la mécanisation agricole au Mali. Document de travail sur le génie VIII. CONCLUSION: rural et alimentaire, Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization. P. 50. The test results showed a significant increase in harvesting 6. Mani, I., Panwar, J.S., and S.K. Adlakha. 2008. Custom-hiring of and threshing after Mechanisation in paddy farming. P- Agricultural Machine – A major drift. In: Proceedings of the Value is less than 0.05 and the mean difference is equal to 42nd ISAE Convention held at CIAE, Bhopal, 1-3 February 0.105. The results therefore corroborates that fact the 2008. 7. Park, W., and Kim, S. 2005. Mechanizing paddy rice cultivation Harvesting and threshing initiatives incorporated in in Korea. Rice is life: scientific perspectives for the 21st century, Mechanisation are engendering effective results. Hence, we Proceedings of the World Rice Research Conference held in conclude that the proposed null hypothesis (H50) is Tokyo and Tsukuba, Japan, 4–7 November: 226. disproved and alternative hypothesis (H5) is accepted.

REFERENCES 1. Azogu, I.I. 2009. Promoting Appropriate Mechanization Technologies for Improved Agricultural Productivity in Nigeria: The Role of the National Centre for Agricultural Mechanization. Journal of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Vol. 17(2), pp. 5–10. 2. Clarke, L.J. 2000. Strategies for Agricultural Mechanization Development: the Roles of the Private Sector and the Government. Agricultural Support Systems Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.