1.

Title:
Socio Economic Impact of Farm Mechanization on Agricultural Labour in Cauvery Delta of
Tamil Nadu and U.T. of Puducherry.

2. Introduction and / or Statement of the Problem

Indian agriculture is required to achieve food production of 293.60 million tonnes by
2020 with the available land mass remaining at about 142 million hectares; it has to come
through essentially a vertical expansion, gains through productivity in commodities. There is
going to be demand for farm machineries that are ergonomically sound, economically
affordable, economy in input use and quantum jumps in productivity. Unlike industry, where
men, machines and materials are brought under one roof, agriculture requires these three
being moved and various operations performed timely that gives the desired productivity. In
this context, availability of appropriate farm power sources are imperative. However for the
current level of intensity of farming and the required level of productivity, electro mechanical
sources of farm power have to replace the human and animate sources of power.
Mechanization of farm is expected to generate enormous development opportunities
for the agricultural sector. It will increase the marginal productivity of labour substantially
and have a higher return per unit of land and labour. But the farm mechanization requires
more initial capital, improved technical know-hows and quality support services. Lack of
access to those services may constrain farmers to involve in farm mechanization. This study
based on the primary field survey data tries to analyze the efficiency of mechanized farms
with reference to the productivity of rice crop.
The productivity of farms depends greatly on the availability and use of farm power
by the farmers. Agricultural machines increase productivity of land and labour by meeting
timeliness of farm operations and increase work output per unit time. Mechanization also
enables efficient utilization of inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and irrigation water.
During the last 50 years, the average farm power availability in India has increased
from about 0.31 KW/ha in 1961 to about 1.35 KW per hectare in 2011. While in 1961 about
94.90 per cent farm power was coming from animate sources, the contribution of animate
sources of power reduced to about 10.40 per cent in 2011 and that of mechanical and
electrical sources of power increased from 5.10 per cent to 89.30 per cent during the same
period.
The contribution of different power sources to the total power changed with time. The
share of agricultural workers continuously declined since 1981 and to be only 5.09 per cent
by 2011- 2012 and that of draught animal power from 27.23 per cent to 6.37 per cent in the
same period. But the farm power from mechanical sources has increased from 7.5 per cent in
1971 to 51.08 per cent in 2011-12.
3. Aims and/or Objectives of the Study
i. To study the economics of mechanization in rice farms.
ii. To analyze the adoption of farm mechanization in agricultural farms.
iii. To study the impact of mechanization on employment of agricultural Labour and farm
operations.
iv. To identify the constraints of mechanizations and to suggest policy options.
4. Conceptual Framework
Farm mechanization is an important element of modernization of agriculture. Farm
Productivity is positively correlated with the availability of farm power coupled with efficient
farm implements and their judicious utilization. Agricultural mechanization not only enables
efficient utilization of various inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, plant protection chemicals and
water for irrigation but also it helps in poverty alleviation by making farming an attractive
enterprise.
The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation is implementing a scheme for
Promoting Agricultural Mechanization through “Outsourcing of training and demonstrations
of newly developed equipments”. The objective of the scheme is to create awareness about
agricultural equipment and machinery among the end users and other stakeholders. In the
year 2012-13, an outlay of Rs. 12.08 Crores has been made. Out of total outlay, Rs. 4.00
crores is earmarked for North Eastern States.
Post Harvest Management being one of the thrust areas for the Department of
Agriculture and Cooperation a scheme on “Post Harvest Technology and Management” is
being implemented, with an outlay of Rs. 40.0 crore during XI Plan period. Under the scheme
the technologies developed by ICAR, CSIR and those identified from within the country and
abroad for primary processing, value addition, low cost scientific storage and transport of
agricultural produce are promoted to minimize wastage during post harvesting processes.
Beside above interventions, the Department is promoting Farm Mechanization by
making agricultural equipment available among farmers at cheaper rates. A level of 25-50per
cent subsidy on procurement cost is made available under revised “Macro Management of
Agriculture (MMA)” scheme for different categories of equipment.
The study will be used to have an appropriate model for mechanization of rice farms
in the Cauvery delta zone of the state thereby to increase the production and productivity of
the crop. The results of the study would be useful to the farmers in making rational
investment on machineries. The study would throw light on the constraints being faced by the
farmers of the Cauvery delta zone to achieve the full scale mechanization of rice farming.
5. Research Question or Hypotheses
i. There exists no variation in the extent of mechanization among the different size of
holdings.
ii. There is no difference in cost of cultivation and yield of rice between the different
levels of mechanization.
iii. There exists technical inefficiency at different levels of mechanization.
iv. Energy use pattern and efficiency do not vary among the farmers towards rice
production.
6. Review of Literature
Mahrouf and Rafeek (2002) studied the mechanization of paddy harvesting in
Srilanka and concluded that the use of combine harvesters reduce the harvesting cost by
Rs.3800 per hectare, increases the net returns by Rs.7850 per ha and that the cost of
production of paddy was reduced by 10-15 per cent. The study revealed that 45-55 per cent of
the total cost of production of paddy could be reduced by the use of combine harvesters
which will also provide solutions for scarcity of labour during peak harvesting season.
Alabi and Aruna (2005) analyzed technical efficiency of family poultry production
using Cobb-Douglas production function. The technical efficiency estimate shows that the
technical efficiency of family poultry ranges between 0.09 and 0.63, with a mean of 0.22.
This indicates that on the average, the respondents are 22 per cent efficient in the use of a
combination of their inputs.
Sudha (2005) employed Garrett’s ranking technique to find the constraints involved in
adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Technology. She found that wage of labour
as the major problem with the score of 75.65 followed by non-availability of labour, time,
lack of IPM inputs, lack of extension follow up practices, lack of proper training facilities,
lack of confidence, complex practice, fragmented land holdings and lack of assured
irrigation.
Verma (2008) concluded that farm mechanization enhances the production and
productivity of different crops due to timeliness of operations, better quality of operations and
precision in the application of inputs.
Ingle et al., (2009) studied the resource use efficiency using Cobb – Douglas
production function in the cultivation of rose. The study revealed that the regression co-
efficient of nitrogen (0.018), manure (0.103) and pesticide (0.028) were highly significant at
one per cent level, while the regression co-efficients of phosphorus (0.025), potash (0.008)
and irrigation (0.108) were positive and significant at five per cent level.
Rao (2011) had assessed the economics and sustainability of SRI (system of rice
intensification) and traditional methods of paddy cultivation in North Coastal Zone of Andhra
Pradesh for the period 2008-09 and shown that BCR was higher for SRI (1.76) than
traditional (1.25) methods. Further, there was a 31 per cent yield gap between SRI and
traditional methods, in which cultural practices (20.15 per cent) had shown a stronger effect
than input use (10.85 per cent).
Tewari et al.(2012) conducted a study on farm mechanization status of West Bengal
in India. They identified farm machines have not only increased the mechanical advantage,
but also helped to reduce the drudgery while performing the different agricultural operations.
The contributions of agricultural mechanization at various stages of crop production could be
viewed as saving in seeds (15-20 per cent), saving in fertilizers (15-20 per cent), saving in
time (20-30 per cent), reduction in labour (20-30 per cent), increase in cropping intensity (5-
20 per cent) and higher productivity (10-15 per cent).
Vanetha and Senthil (2013) conducted a study on profile of farmers in utilization of
farm equipments in Tamil Nadu. The study brought out that as far as farm power possession
was concerned medium level (46.67 per cent) was found, Information processing behavior
was high (46.67 per cent) among sugarcane farmers. As regard with scientific orientation
cotton farmers had medium level of (53.34 per cent) of scientific orientation, whereas
medium level social participation (63.33 per cent) was found among cotton farmers. The
efficacy of agricultural inputs and natural resources seed, fertilizers, land, water has been
increased through adoption of appropriate agricultural equipment.
7. Scope and Methodology
Sampling Technique: Multi Stage Random Sampling.
Sample size: 120 Samples
Study area: Cauvery Delta Zone – Tamilnadu and U.T. of Puducherry
Tamilnadu – Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam.
U.T. of Puducherry – Karaikal.
Crop: Rice.
The universe of the study is the Cauvery Delta Zone (CDZ) of Tamil Nadu state.
This zone is the major rice production environment which produces more than 40 per cent of
the state rice production. In CDZ, Rice is being cultivated in 6.5 lakh ha. constituting more
than 60 per cent of the gross cropped area and producing about 25 lakh tones.
i)Cost of cultivation – CACP Approach
Generally, four cost concepts viz., cost A1, cost A2, cost B and cost C have been used
in the earlier farm management studies in India. These concepts are applied in this study too,
to estimate the cost of cultivation and income measures.
Cost A1
Value of the hired labour + attached labour + value of owned and hired bullock labour
+ charges on owned and hired machinery + value of seed material + value of manures + value
of fertilisers + value of plant protection chemicals + irrigation charges + depreciation, repairs
and maintenance of farm machinery, farm implements and farm buildings + land revenue &
cess + interest on working capital.
Cost A2
Cost A1 + rent paid on leased in land.
Cost B
Cost A1 or Cost A2 + imputed rental value on owned land + imputed interest paid on
owned fixed capital assets excluding land.
Cost C
Cost B + imputed value of family labour. This gives the commercial cost of
production. For all the practical purposes cost ‘C’ is the relevant cost and the prices received
should cover the cost of production based on cost ‘C’.
Measures of farm returns
In this study four types of measures of farm returns have been used viz., net income,
family labour income, farm business income and farm investment income.
Gross income
It means the total returns from the sale of the main product and by-product of the crop
and the net hired out returns if any. Output price was taken as the actual price received by the
farmer.
Net income
Gross Income – Total cost of cultivation (Cost C3)
Family labour income
Gross Income – Cost B
Farm business income
Gross Income – Cost A1 (or cost A2 in the case of leased in land)
Farm investment income
Farm business Income- Imputed value of family labour.
ii)Logit Model
Logistic model, which is based on cumulative logistic probability functions, was
developed to analyze the adoption characteristics of farmers of farm mechanization. Adeogun
et al (2008), the behavioral model employed to examine factors influencing mechanization
adoption is given by:
L = ln Pi/(1-pi) + bo +Σ bj Xji + Ui
Where,
L is a logit model,
Pi is used to the respondents whose response is ordinance is not useful.
(1-pi) used to the respondents whose response is ordinance is useful.
The dependent variable is the farmers adoption decision. We have selected some
socio-economic and institutional factors to predict the probability of adoption of
mechanization.
The general model of adoption is
Pi = f(B0 + B1X1+B2X2+B3X3+B4X4+B5X5+B6X6+B7X7+Ui)
The variables definition and measurement is shown below.
Dependent variable
Yi = Farmers adoption decision: 1 if adopted and 0 otherwise Independent variables
X1 = Age of the farmer (year)
X2 = Farmer’s education level (years)
X3 = Farm size (ha)
X4 = Farming experience (year)
X5 = Access to extension visits (1=yes, 0=otherwise)
X6 = Access to formal credit (1=yes, 0 = otherwise)
X7 = Access to machines (1=yes, 0= otherwise)
Ui= Error term
iii)Multiple Linear Regression
In multivariate regression analysis, an attempt is made to account for the account for
the variation of the independent variables in the dependent variable synchronically
(Tabachnik et. al, 1996). In the present study Multiple Linear Regression was selected to
determine the impact of farm mechanization on labour use. The following multiple regression
model was used to identify the factors affecting the labour requirement for rice cultivation
(Rahman et. al, 2011).

The linear regression model is as follows.

Y = a + b1 X1 + b2 X2 + b3 X3 +......+bn Xn
Where,
Y = Labour used time (hrs/ha)
X1 = Tractor used time (hrs/ha)
X2 = Output (Gross returns in Rs/ha)
X3 = Input (Cost of cultivation in Rs/ha)
X4 = Animal used time (hrs/ha)
X5 = Dummy (1 for mechanized, 0 for others)
X1, X2, X3, X4 and X5 are all parameters affecting the level of Y.
b1, b2, b3, b4 and b5 are regression co-efficients or elasticities of employment and
‘a’ denotes intercept.
iv)Constraints Analysis
For analyzing the problems faced by the farmers practicing mechanization in Crop
cultivation operations were asked to assign the rank for each of the constraint/problem.
Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) test was used to determine the agreement among
the farmers in ranking the constraints faced by them. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance
(W) provides a measure for the level of agreement between rankers on their rankings. The
total rank score for each factor is computed and the factor with the least score is said to be the
most important factor (Dogbe et al ., 2013).
12Σ (Ri - R)2
W = ---------------------
K2 (N3-N)
 2 (chi square) value is to be calculated to find the significance of the test.
2 = K (N-1) W at (N-1) d.f.
Where,
K = number of respondents.
N = number of constraints.
W = Kendall’s coefficient of concordance.
8. Relevance, Anticipated Outcomes and Proposed Outputs from the Research
i. The study will highlight the effect farm mechanization.
ii. The study will analysis why farmers use labours even though better machineries
available.
iii. The constraints in the adoption of farm mechanization will be identified.
iv. The important factors responsible for adoption of farm mechanization will be
identified.
v. The adoption behaviour of farmers for farm mechanization will be identified.

9. Tentative Chapterizations
1. Introduction
2. Review of Literature
3. Design of the Study
4. Description of the study area
5. Results and Discussion
6. Summary and Conclusions
7. Bibliography

10. Time Frame:

Duration of the Project – Two years

S.No. Period Work Plan and Deliveries

Collection of secondary data and selection of

1 T1 – First Three months
villages and farmers

Preparation, pre testing of questionnaire and its

2 T2 – Second three months
finalising, Model and methodology finalization

Collection of primary data, Tabulation and

3 T3 – Third three months
Analysis of primary data

4 T4 – Fourth three months Report writing and submission

11. Estimated Budget

S.No Broad Expenditure Heads Value in ₹

1. Research Staff : -

2. Fieldwork: Travel/Logistics/Boarding, etc. 2,50,000

Equipment: computer, printer etc. Books/Journals/ Source

3. 1,00,000
Material/Software and Data Sets, etc.

4. Contingency 25,000

5. Publication of Report 25,000

Total 4,00,000

6. Institutional Overheads (over and above the total cost of the

20,000
project to be paid to public funded institutes only)

7 Grand Total 4,20,000

12. Bibliography:

Alabi, R.A and M.B Aruna ), “Technical Efficiency of Family Poultry Production in Niger –
Delta, Nigeria” Journal of Central European Agriculture, 6(4) (2005):531-538.

Ingle. S.G., B.R. Pawar, J.B. Tawale and S.A. Jagde, “Resource Productivity, Resource Use
Efficiency and Optimum Resource Use in Rose Flower Production”, International
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 5(2) (2009):450-452.
Mahrouf, A.R.M and M.I.M.Rafeek, “Mechanization of Paddy Harvesting: The Economic
Perspective: Abstract Report of the Socio-economic and Planning Centre, Peradeniya,
Srilanka” (2002).

Rama Rao, I.V.Y, “Estimation of Efficiency, Sustainability and Constraints in SRI (System
of Rice Intensification) vis-a-vis Traditional Methods of Paddy Cultivation in North
Coastal Zone of Andhra Pradesh” Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24(4)
(2011):325-331.

Sudha R , “Study of Economic and Environmental impact of Plant Production Methods in

Paddy and Cotton Production in Western Zone of Tamil Nadu”, (Unpublished M.Sc.
(Ag) Thesis), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, (2005).

Tewari, V.K., Kumar, A.A., Kumar, S.P and Nare, B., Farm Mechanization Status of West
Bengal in India. Journal of Agriculture Science and Review. 2315- 6880 1(6) (2012):
139-146.

Vanetha, K.P., Senthil, A., A study on profile of farmers in utilization of farm equipments in
Tamil Nadu. International Journal of Advanced Research. 1(5) (2013): 284-288.

Verma S.R, “Impact of Agricultural Mechanization on Production, Productivity, Cropping

Intensity and Income Generation and Employment of Labour: Status of Farm
Mechanization in India”, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludiana, 18(2) (2008):133-
153.