AAEERRCC RREEPPOORRTT 115522

AAsssseessssmmeenntt ooff PPrree aanndd PPoosstt HHaarrvveesstt

LLoosssseess iinn SSooyybbeeaann CCrroopp iinn RRaajjaasstthhaann

Rajeshree A. Dutta

Manish Makwana

Himanshu Parmar

Agro-Economic Research Centre For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan

(Sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)

Sardar Patel University,

Vallabh Vidyanagar, Dist. Anand, Gujarat

May 2013

AAEERRCC RREEPPOORRTT 115522

Assessment of Pre and Post Harvest

Losses in Soybean Crop in Rajasthan

Rajeshree A. Dutta

Manish Makwana

Himanshu Parmar

Report submitted to the

Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India,

New Delhi

Agro-Economic Research Centre For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan

(Sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)

Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Dist. Anand, Gujarat

May 2013

ii

AERC Report No. 152

© Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120, Dist. Anand, Gujarat,

India.

Prepared by

Dr. Rajeshree A. Dutta, Deputy Director

Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate

Shri Himanshu Parmar, Research Fellow

Research Team

Dr. Rajeshree A. Dutta, Deputy Director

Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate Shri Himanshu Parmar, Research Fellow

Shri J. N. Singh, Computer (CCS)

Published by

The Director

Agro-Economic Research Centre

For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan

(Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)

H.M. Patel Institute of Rural Development, Opp. Nanadalaya Temple,

Post Box No. 24, Sardar Patel University,

Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120, Dist. Anand, Gujarat.

Ph. No. +91-2692-230106, 230799;

Mobile- 09822437451; 7383554616

Fax- +91-2692-233106

Email: director.aerc@gmail.com; directoraercgujarat@gmail.com

Website: www.aercspu.ac.in

Draft Submitted in May 2013

Final Report in July 2013

iii

Forward

India is one of the largest producers as well the consumer of oilseeds and edible oils in the

world and this sector occupies an important position in the agricultural economy. It

contributes about 7 per cent of the global vegetable oils production with 14 per cent share

in the area. Though it has the largest cultivated area under oilseeds in the world, crop

yields tantamount to only 50-60 percent of the world’s average. Also the growth in the

domestic production of oilseeds has not been able to keep pace with the growth in the

demand in the country. Low and unstable yields of most oilseed crops, and uncertainty in

returns to investment, which result from the continuing cultivation of oilseeds in rainfed,

high risk production environments, are the factors leading to this situation of wide

demand-supply gap. Therefore, India being deficient in oils has to import about 40 percent

of its consumption requirements.

India is fortunate to have a wide range of oilseeds crops grown in its different agro-

climatic zones. Soybeans, groundnut, mustard/rapeseed, sesame, safflower, linseed,

nigerseed/castor, and cottonseeds are the major traditionally cultivated oilseeds. Soybean

and rapeseed mustard acquires the lion’s share of the overall oilseeds production in India.

In fact soybean alone constitutes more than 40 percent of total oilseeds produced by India

in 2012. Soybean is classed as an oilseed rather than a pulse and recognized as the 'golden

bean’ or the 'miracle bean’ all over the world. India ranks fifth in production of soybean in

the world. The progress of soybean cultivation in India represents a case of success in

diversification. In 1970, when new varieties were introduced for commercial purposes, the

future of soybean was seen in its use as pulse (dhal) to meet growing demand and

deficiency of proteins. Other uses of soybean were thought to be soya milk, nuggets etc. In

fact, as it turned out, soybean production in India has been primarily pushed by its demand

as edible oil in the domestic market and as oilcake in overseas markets. Due to its unique

characteristic, like adaptability to varied agro-climatic condition, high nutritional value,

significant role in preventing and treating chronic disease, used as a source of animal feed

and scope for various processed food products, soybean is gaining popularity among

farmers. But this crop is vulnerable to infestation by insects, mites and fungi and is highly

susceptible to mechanical injury and damage occurring during post-harvest handling. In

view of importance of soybean crop in Indian economy and in order to have reliable

estimates of losses at pre and post harvest stages, the Directorate of Economics and

Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India has asked our centre to undertake

a study on “Assessment of Pre and Post Harvest Losses in Soybean Crop in Rajasthan”.

The Agriculture Development and Rural Transformation Centre (ADRTC), Institute for

Social and Economic change (ISEC), Bangalore acted as Coordinator of this study.

The study is based on both primary as well as secondary level data. The primary data were

collected for agriculture year 2011-12 (July to June) from 120 sample households of

selected districts (Chittorgarh and Jhalawar) of the state of Rajasthan. The field data was

collected during the period from August- September 2012.

iv

The few important findings emerged from the study are as under.

1) The most important constraint faced by the selected farmers in soybean cultivation

was pests and diseases attack followed by availability of poor seed quality and low

output. Major insect pests affecting soybean crop were pod borer, girdle beetle/

stem borer and tobacco caterpillar. Production loss was estimated to higher due to

pests attack than loss due to diseases (like soybean mosaic virus, bacterial blight

and dry root rot) and weeds.

2) The magnitude of crop loss in soybean due to pests, disease and weed infestation

was estimated to be 2.38 and 2.27 quintals per acre for local and high yielding

varieties of soybean respectively (which worked to be 23.66 per cent loss for local

and 20.74 per cent loss for HYV varieties to normal production). Average yield

rate was estimated to be higher in HYV seed. In order to reduce these losses, good

crop husbandry is important. There is also a wide range of post-harvest

technologies that can be adopted to improve losses throughout the process of pre-

harvest, harvest, temporary storage, transport, handling and market distribution.

3) On an average, total post-harvest losses in soybean were estimated to be 3.41 kg

per quintal. The losses were recorded more in case of group of small farmer gr

(4.38 kg) than large farmer (2.70 kg). Out of total loss, maximum loss was reported

in harvesting (1.45 kg) followed by threshing (0.85 kg), storage (0.65 kg),

transportation (0.21 kg) and winnowing (0.11 kg). There is need to provide

scientific storage facility and proper training of use of thresher in order to reduce

the losses.

4) It is encouraging to note that most of the selected soybean farmers reported that the

advice given by government extension agents was helpful and they rely on same.

I am thankful to Dr. (Mrs.) Rajeshree Dutta and her research team for putting in a lot of

efforts to complete this excellent piece of work. I am also thankful to the Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India for the unstinted cooperation and support. I hope this

report will be useful for those who are interested in understanding the pre and post harvest

losses in soybean crop production in Rajasthan.

Agro-Economic Research Centre

For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan (Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)

Sardar Patel University,

Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120,

Dist. Anand, Gujarat, India

S. S. Kalamkar

Director

v

Acknowledgements

The study on “Assessment of Pre and Post Harvest Losses in Soybean Crop in Rajasthan”

has been carried out by the Agro-Economic Research Centre, S.P University, Vallabh

Vidyanagar, as suggested and sponsored by Directorate of Economics and Statistics

(DES), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.

I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to Prof. Parmod Kumar, Head, ADRTC,

Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, who act as a coordinator of the

study and provided intellectual support as and when required. I express my sincere

gratitude to Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government

of India, New Delhi for their encouragement and support at every stage of the study.

I am thankful to Dr. S. S. Kalamkar, Director of our centre for providing valuable

guidance and infrastructural support as and when needed. I am grateful to Shri V. D. Shah

(Research Officer) for providing useful suggestions and help.

I express my sincere thanks to the Commissionerate of Agriculture, Government of

Rajasthan, Jaipur and Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government of Rajasthan,

Jaipur and Deputy Director (Agriculture), Assistant Director (Agriculture) of selected

districts, Agriculture Supervisor of selected villages for providing necessary data, help and

support at all stages of the study.

My special thanks to Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate, Shri Himanshu Parmar,

Research Fellow, entire project team and staff of AERC, Vallabh Vidyanagar for their

valuable support and contribution in making this study enrich.

I am thankful to sample farmers of selected villages and all others who directly or

indirectly extended cooperation and support for the study.

Agro-Economic Research Centre For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan

(Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)

Sardar Patel University,

Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120,

Dist. Anand, Gujarat, India

Dr. Rajeshree A Dutta

Project Leader

vi

Contents

Foreword iii

Acknowledgements v

List of Tables vii

List of Abbreviations

ix

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Chapter 2 Area, Production and Productivity of Soybean Crop

in Rajasthan

20

Chapter 3 Household Characteristics, Cropping Pattern and

Production Structure

33

Chapter 4 Assessment of Pre Harvest Losses in Soybean Crop 45

Chapter 5 Assessment of Post Harvest Losses in Soybean Crop 58

Chapter 6 Concluding Remarks and Policy Suggestions 72

References 78

Annexures

80

vii

List of Tables

Table

No.

Title Page

1.1 Area under major crops: Rajasthan state 4

1.2 Production under major crops: Rajasthan state 5

1.3 Yield under major crops in Rajasthan state 6

1.4 Cropping pattern of Rajasthan state 7

1.5 Major soybean crop producing states in India 8

1.6 Major soybean growing districts in Rajasthan: Area 9

1.7 Major soybean growing districts in Rajasthan: Production 10

1.8 District-wise area under soybean crop in Rajasthan state 16

1.9 List of selected districts, blocks, villages and category-wise sample

households in Rajasthan state

17

2.1 Area, production and productivity of soybean crop in Rajasthan state 21

2.2 Cost of cultivation of soybean crop (based on CACP data) Rajasthan state 22

2.3 Trends in total cost C2 (operational + fixed) of soybean cultivation (based

on CACP data) Rajasthan state

23

2.4 A Trends in per cent share in operational cost of soybean cultivation (based

on CACP) Rajasthan state

25

2.4 B Trends in per cent share in fixed cost of soybean cultivation (based on

CACP) Rajasthan state

25

2.5 Profitability indicators of soybean crop (based on CACP data) Rajasthan

state

26

3.1 Demographic profile of the selected farmers 34

3.2 Characteristics of operational holdings 35

3.3 Nature of tenancy in lease-in/ lease-out land 36

viii

3.4 Source of irrigation of net irrigated area 37

3.5 Cropping pattern of farmers 38

3.6 Percentage of area under HYV seeds 39

3.7 Average yield of major crops grown by the selected households 40

3.8 Percentage of output marketed by the selected households 41

3.9 Value of output and marketed surplus 42

4.1 Constraints faced in cultivation of soybean crop 45

4.2 Identification of pests and disease attack 47

4.3 Incidence of major pest and disease 48

4.4 The magnitude of crop loss due to pests, disease and weed infestation 51

4.5 Cost of chemical methods adopted for pests and disease control 52

4.6 Details of biological methods adopted for pests and disease control 52

4.7 Extension services on pests and disease control management 53

4.8 Households suggestions on how to minimize losses 55

5.1 Quantity lost at different stages of harvest 59

5.2 Quantity lost during threshing and winnowing 60

5.3 Quantity lost during threshing and winnowing 61

5.4 Quantity lost during transportation and handling 62

5.5 Quantity lost during storage 64

5.6 Capacity utilization of storage by the households 65

5.7 Total post harvest losses per quintal by farm size 65

5.8 Some quantitative aspects of storage 67

5.9 Households suggestions on how to minimize losses 69

ix

List of Abbreviations

APMC - Agricultural Produce Market Committee

CACP - Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices

FYM - Farm Yard Manure

GCA - Gross Cropped Area

GoG - Government of Gujarat

GoI - Government of India

ha. - Hectare

HH - Household

HYV - High Yielding Varieties

IFPRI - International Food Policy Research Institute

Kg - Kilogram

Kms - Kilometers

KVK - Krishi Vigyan Kendra

MoA - Ministry of Agriculture

MT - Metric Tonnes

NOA - Net Operated Area

Qtl. - Quintal

SMV - Sterility Mosaic Virus

TE - Triennium Ending

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Agriculture is the largest sector of economic activity in India. Agriculture which is

considered as the backbone of India, not only provides food and raw materials but also

employment to a very large proportion of population. Though its contribution to the overall

GDP has declined from about 50 per cent in 1950-51 to lower at 15 per cent in 2010-11, the

growth of agriculture and allied activities continue to be a critical factor in overall

performance of Indian economy (MoA, 2012). Since agriculture forms the resource base for

a number of agro-based industries and agro-services; it would be more meaningful to view

agriculture not as farming alone but as a holistic value chain, which includes farming whole

selling, warehousing, processing and retailing.

Indian agriculture has undergone considerable transformations overtime. The

transformations are seen in the form of changes in agrarian structure, technology

interventions, cropping pattern, enterprise mix and marketing system. More emphasis has

been placed on increasing agricultural production through adoption of high yielding

varieties along with use of chemicals, fertilizer and pesticides. Since land availability is

limited, more emphasis have been put on in increasing productivity of crops. All these

developments have entailed increased building up of pests and disease which have great

negative effect on productivity and hence on production. In order to control pests and

disease higher amount of pesticides is used which resulted in developing insects and disease

resistance and it further led to reduction in crop yield.

At present scenario, there has been considerable increase in attention to the role of

agriculture must play in order to meet the food security needs of the country. Increase in

productivity is an essential component of vibrant agriculture sector. Loss in yield of any

crops is due to variety of reasons. Improved pre and post harvest technologies are

imperative to avoid yield losses in crops which account for a major share of harvested

produce. It is also essential to ensure high income to farmers.

1.1 The Status of Agricultural Economy in Rajasthan

Rajasthan, with a geographical area of 3.42 lakh sq. km. is the largest state of the

country, covering 10.41 per cent geographical area of the country and 5.67 per cent of the

2

national population (Census, 2011). Physiographically, the state can be divided into four

major regions, namely the western deserts: with barren hills, rocky plains and sandy plains,

the Aravalli hills: running south-west to north-east starting from Gujarat and ending in

Delhi, the eastern plans: with rich alluvial soils and south-eastern. The state has varied

climatic conditions ranging from semi-arid to arid. The region to the west and north-west of

the hills comprising of 12 districts and spread in 61.11 per cent of the total area of state is

either desert or semi desert. The state is administratively divided in 7 divisions and 33

districts.

Agro-climatic zones

Rajasthan is spread over four of the agro-climatic zones delineated by the Planning

Commission, GoI.

(1) Upper Gangtic plans: Shri Ganganagar and Hanumangarh districts.

(2) Central plateau and Hill region: Ajmer, Alwar, Banswara, Baran, Bharatpur,

Bhilwara, Bundi, Chittorgarh, Dholpur, Dungarpur, Dausa, Jaipur, Kota, Pali,

Rajsamand, Sawai Madhopur, Karauli, Tonk, Sirohi, Pratapgarh and Udaipur.

(3) Western Plateau and Hill region: Jhalawar.

(4) Western Dry Region: Barmer, Bikaner, Churu, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jhunjhunu,

Jodhpur, Nagaur, and Sikar.

Agro-economic zones of Rajasthan

The Planning Commission has divided the country into four agro-economic zones

on the basis of certain agro-economic characteristics like level of land productivity,

incidence of rural poverty etc., these are as below.

Zone I: Area with relatively high level of productivity with either high level of irrigations

or high assured rainfall and low incidence of poverty – no district of Rajasthan falls under

this zone.

Zone II: Area with relatively low productivity, high rainfall, low level of irrigation and

high incidence of poverty – Chittorgarh, Pratapgarh and Jhalawar.

Zone III: Area with low productivity, low rainfall and high incidence of poverty – Ajmer,

Alwar, Banswara, Baran, Bharatpur, Bhilwara, Bundi, Dausa, Dholpur, Dungarpur, Sri

Ganganagar, Hanumangadh, Jaipur, Karauli, Kota, Pali, Rajsamand, Sawai Madhopur,

Sirohi, Tonk and Udaipur.

3

Zone IV: Ecological fragile areas of the north Himalayan belt, north-eastern region and

desert area of Rajasthan and Gujarat. This zone has lot of intra-zonal variation in the levels

of productivity, poverty and irrigation etc. The desert districts of Rajasthan, i.e., Barmer,

Bikaner, Churu, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jhunjhunu, Jodhpur, Nagaur, and Sikar are covered in

this zone.

Land utilization

In 1985-86, 45.46 per cent of the state reporting area was utilized for crop

production. This increased to 49.53 per cent in 2009-10. The gross cropped area had shown

an increase of 10 per cent, from 52.98 to 63.45 per cent during this period which was

mainly due to increase in irrigated area. Cultivable waste land has decreased considerable

during these periods, from 17.49 per cent in 1985-86 to 13.06 per cent in 2009-10. While

land used for non-agriculture purpose increased from 4.44 per cent to 5.76 per cent during

the same period. Other categories of land use did not report much noticeable change during

last two and half decades except some exceptional years. Area under forest and barren and

uncultivable land each has remained between 6 to 8 per cent.

Land holding

In term of average size of land holding, the state ranks third after Punjab and

Arunachal Pradesh in the country. The average size of land holding in the state reduced

from 4.65 hectares in 1976-77 to 3.65 hectares in 2000-01.

Agriculture

Rajasthan is an agrarian state, where a large segment of the population reside in rural

areas and is dependent on agriculture as the source of their livelihood. As per 2001 census,

agriculture employed 71 per cent of the total workforce. Even though, the share of

agriculture sector in the state income has been declining, it continues to be a large

contributor to the state’s economy. The share of agriculture was 62 per cent in the state

domestic product in 1970-71, which reduced to around 23 per cent in 2009-10. Thus, over

the years, the structure of the economy has shown definite indications for a change by a

gradual shift from primary to other sectors.

Agriculture in the state is essentially rainfed which is susceptible and vulnerable of

the vagaries of the monsoon. The state domestic product is also largely dependent on

agricultural production, which is subject to wide fluctuations depending on the monsoon

conditions. The salient features with regards to agriculture in the state are:

4

Agriculture in the state is primarily rainfed. The period of monsoon is short, around

three months.

Cultivation under kharif season is about 61 per cent of the total cultivation which to

a large extent is dependent on rains that mostly remain scanty low and irregular.

Irrigated area under wells and tube wells is nearly about 70 per cent of the total

irrigated area. The ground water table in the state is rapidly going down.

Nearly 30 per cent of agriculture area is under irrigation.

State as a whole is deficient in water resources and do not have perennial river

originating from the state. The groundwater resources are inadequate and fast depleting. The

agriculture prospects in the state largely depend upon timely arrival of monsoon, quantum

and distribution of rainfall. The rainfall is usually erratic, scanty, low and irregular.

Area, production and yield of major crops

Even though rich in natural resources, state continues to be backward essentially

because of very low rainfall and vast arid and semi-arid areas. Recurring draught and

uneven rainfall have become regular features in the state. More than 57 per cent of the

state’s area is under desert cloy type. In the state, out of the total net area sown and gross

cropped area, only 35.48 per cent and 34.63 per cent area were under irrigation during

2008-09 respectively.

Table 1.1: Area under major crops: Rajasthan state (Area in '00 ha.)

Crops TE 1977-80 TE 1987-90 TE 1997-00 TE 2007-10

Jowar 12.47 9547.22 5502.04 6403.59

Bajra 52.89 47266.24 42096.17 51794.35

Maize 17.30 8793.18 9493.02 10698.77

Wheat 34.00 17009.89 26644.20 24269.65

Total cereals 149.78 86494.23 87843.19 97240.37

Moong 2058.10 2503.44 5266.48 9564.45

Urad 1142.28 1348.46 1665.07 1328.04

Moth 12917.20 9883.33 9209.15 12573.64

Gram 24.31 11023.50 19730.35 11251.30

Total pulses 18100.45 40996.97 55669.26 36478.85

Total foodgrains 18250.22 127491.20 143512.45 133719.23

Sesamum (Til) 4.98 3249.83 2382.21 4781.34

Ground Nut 11.95 2591.74 3076.60 3132.70

Soybean 0.00 1198.20 5569.96 8018.32

Rape & Mustered 11.19 13379.26 25051.04 24695.17

Total oil seeds 72.14 22912.45 40752.91 42784.11

Guar 18.37 16816.07 20798.44 29382.78

GCA 19908.66 175385.88 226882.55 216475.58 Source: GoR (Various years).

5

Tables 1.1 to 1.3 present growth in area, production and yield of major crops in

Rajasthan. It can be seen from these tables that area and production of food grains increased

up to late 90’s then in next decade area of foodgrains decreased but production increased.

The increased productivity resulted increase in production of foodgrains in the state. Yield

of bajra, maize and wheat increased significantly. Rajasthan is main pulses producing state

in the country but last decade noticed disappointing performance of pulses in terms of area,

production and yield.

Table 1.2: Production under major crops (Production in '00 tonnes)

Crops TE 1977-80 TE 1987-90 TE 1997-00 TE 2007-10

Jowar 2.82 3611.74 1978.47 2774.04

Bajra 7.80 16807.05 17763.15 35296.60

Maize 6.33 9464.05 10692.93 16470.78

Wheat 26.80 35184.39 63998.18 73043.03

Total cereals 51.40 70399.56 100918.30 136857.26

Moong 356.67 703.21 878.95 2780.44

Urad 361.49 451.98 618.15 492.78

Moth 1866.10 2042.57 1433.72 2527.65

Gram 12.81 7850.65 15171.26 6967.32

Total pulses 2951.50 15354.86 23384.17 13602.98

Total foodgrains 3002.90 85754.42 124302.47 150460.24

Sesamum (Til) 0.55 656.47 276.00 1253.20

Ground Nut 1.64 2190.81 3261.12 4643.60

Soybean 0.00 1066.20 7087.36 9303.43

Rape & mustered 1.76 12132.04 22101.29 29100.70

Total oil seeds 14.85 17140.50 34653.24 46220.30

Guar 5.31 3667.97 4263.72 9025.12

GCA 3965.54 123173.62 191535.99 226747.86 Source: GoR (Various years).

Despite the natural constraints, the foodgrains production of the state could witness

increase in production from 3 lakh tonnes in TE 1977-80 to 124 lakh tonnes in TE 1997-

2000 and again increased to 150 lakh tonne in TE 2007-10. However, year to year wide

fluctuations were reported in the production of foodgrains. Rajasthan state has achieved

remarkable success in boosting agricultural sector mainly in terms of crop production and

productivity of food crops and commercial crops.

Even with low level of agricultural infrastructures, Rajasthan was able to respond to

the national priorities and its oilseed production grow from 0.01 lakh tonnes in TE 1977-80

to 34.65 lakh tonnes in TE 1997-2000 and 46.22 lakh tonnes in TE 2007-10.

6

Table 1.3: Yield under major crops: Rajasthan state.

(Kg./ ha.) Crops TE 1977-80 TE 1987-90 TE 1997-00 TE 2007-10

Jowar 226 378 360 433

Bajra 147 356 422 681

Maize 366 1076 1126 1540

Wheat 788 2068 2402 3010

Total cereals 343 814 1149 1407

Moong 173 281 167 291

Urad 316 335 371 371

Moth 144 207 156 201

Gram 527 712 769 619

Total pulses 163 375 420 373

Total foodgrains 165 673 866 1125

Sesamum (Til) 111 202 116 262

Ground Nut 137 845 1060 1482

Soybean 0 890 1272 1160

Rape & mustered 157 907 882 1178

Total oil seeds 206 748 850 1080

Guar 289 218 205 307

GCA 199 702 844 1047 Source: GoR (Various years).

Cropping Pattern

Details on cropping pattern are given in Table 1.4. Bajra is the single largest crop

in terms of area in the state. Except some exceptional years, more than 20 per cent of GCA

of the state is cultivated under this crop. Wheat is the most important rabi crop grown in the

state. The GCA under wheat was around 0.17 Per cent during TE 1977-80, and it increased

to 11.21 per cent in TE 2007-10. Gram is another important rabi crop, area under this crops

has increased upto TE 1997-2000, then declined in TE 2007-10. The contribution of the

total foodgrains crops in GCA has continuously declined over the period from 91.67 per

cent of GCA in TE 1977-80 to 61.77 per cent in TE 2007-10.

Among the oilseeds, rapeseed and mustard is the most important crop in Rajasthan,

recording a phenomenal rise in acreage. It covered 11.41 per cent of GCA during TE 2007-

10 which was only 0.06 per cent during TE 1977-80. Soybean was not grown in Rajasthan

upto 1980. It occupied only 0.68 per cent of GCA during TE 1987-90. Afterwards soybean

gained popularity and it was grown on 3.70 per cent area of GCA during TE 2007-10.

The cropping pattern has changed over the years in Rajasthan as a result of

development of irrigation, potential production technology, market price, etc. Still

agriculture depends largely on monsoon as wide fluctuations are reflected in area,

7

production and yield over the years. The change in cropping pattern indicates that rainfall

continues to play a major role in determining the pattern of land allocation.

Table 1.4: Cropping pattern of Rajasthan state. (% of GCA)

Crops TE 1977-80 TE 1987-90 TE 1997-00 TE 2007-10

Jowar 0.06 5.44 2.42 2.96

Bajra 0.27 26.95 18.55 23.93

Maize 0.09 5.01 4.18 4.94

Total Kharif Cereal 0.50 38.27 26.00 32.54

Wheat 0.17 9.70 11.74 11.21

Barley 0.08 1.35 0.97 1.17

Total Rabi Cereal 0.25 11.05 12.71 12.38

Total Cereals 0.75 49.32 38.71 44.92

Moong 10.34 1.43 2.32 4.42

Urad 5.74 0.77 0.73 0.61

Moth 64.88 5.64 4.06 5.81

Total Kharif Pulses 81.10 16.36 14.85 11.50

Gram 0.12 6.29 8.69 5.20

Musur 0.85 0.06 0.18 0.10

Total Rabi Pulses 9.81 7.01 9.68 5.35

Total Pulses 90.92 23.38 24.53 16.85

Total Foodgrains 91.67 72.69 63.23 61.77

Sesamum (Til) 0.03 1.85 1.05 2.21

Ground Nut 0.06 1.48 1.36 1.45

Soybean 0.00 0.68 2.45 3.70

Total Kharif Oilseeds 0.29 4.07 5.12 7.98

Rape & Mustered 0.06 7.63 11.04 11.41

Taramira 0.00 1.06 1.78 0.36

Linseed 0.02 0.27 0.05 0.01

Sunflower 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00

Total Rabi Oilseeds 0.07 9.00 12.87 11.78

Total Oil seeds 0.36 13.06 17.96 19.76

Cotton 0.07 2.05 2.75 1.55

Guar 0.09 9.59 9.16 13.57

Chillies 2.12 0.20 0.16 0.08

Sugarcane 2.21 0.11 0.09 0.04

Coriander 3.11 0.89 0.81 1.06

Ajwain 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.08

Garlic 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.13

Total Other crops 7.97 14.24 18.78 18.47

GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: GoR (Various years).

1.2 Importance of Soybean Crop in Rajasthan

Soybean originated in China and was introduced to India centuries ago through the

Himalayan routes. As a result, soybean has been traditionally grown on a small scale in

8

Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh (Uttaranchal), Eastern Bengal, the Khasi hills, Manipur,

the Naga hills and parts of central India covering Madhya Pradesh.

Through the well coordinated and collective efforts of number of national,

international and private sector organizations over the years, soybean has become an

important crop in India. From about 11000 hectares in 1961, soybean occupies over 6

million hectares in 2003 and 9.33 million hectares in 2011-12 in the country. This has made

India as 5th

largest producer of soybean in the world today.

Table 1.5: Major soybean crop producing states in India

States/UTs

Area ( '000 ha.) Production ( '000 Tonnes) Yield (Kg. / ha.) TE

1987-

90

TE

1997-

2000

TE

2007-

10

TE

1987-

90

TE

1997-

2000

TE

2007-

10

TE

1987-

90

TE

1997-

2000

TE 2007-

10

Andhra

Pradesh

0 16 129 0 15 165 0 954 1285

(0.00) (0.25) (1.37) (0.00) (0.22) (1.61)

Gujarat 17 6 79 12 5 51 696 813 647

(0.90) (0.10) (0.85) (0.81) (0.07) (0.50)

Karnataka 12 66 144 7 60 90 589 902 626

(0.64) (1.06) (1.53) (0.49) (0.86) (0.88)

Madhya

Pradesh

1561 4499 5166 1192 4742 5912 764 1054 1144

(84.69) (72.16) (55.10) (84.14) (68.77) (57.52)

Maharashtra 97 1025 2915 60 1312 2977 623 1281 1021

(5.26) (16.44) (31.09) (4.26) (19.03) (28.96)

Nagaland 2 11 26 1 12 31 677 1045 1223

(0.12) (0.18) (0.27) (0.10) (0.17) (0.31)

Rajasthan 120 557 802 107 709 931 890 1272 1160

(6.50) (8.93) (8.55) (7.52) (10.28) (9.05)

Uttar

Pradesh

18 42 8 22 30 7 1212 718 886

(1.00) (0.67) (0.08) (1.58) (0.44) (0.07)

Others 17 13 108 16 11 115 934 834 1071

(0.90) (0.21) (1.15) (1.09) (0.16) (1.12)

All India 1843 6235 9376 1417 6896 10279 769 1106 1096

(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Note: Figures in parenthesis indicates percentage share in all india.

Source: GoI ( various years)

In India, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra are top two soybean producing states

accounting for 86 per cent of both the total area and production of the country. Rajasthan

stands third in its importance in soybean production in the country. Even though, Madhya

Pradesh is the largest soybean producer, its share in the total area and production in the

country has significantly declined over the years. Madhya Pradesh accounted for 84.69 per

cent of the total area under soybean in the country during TE 1987-90 and subsequently it

reduced to 55.10 per cent in TE 2007-10. Maharashtra witnessed increase in the share from

5.26 to 31.09 per cent for the same.

9

Rajasthan accounted for 6.50 per cent of the total area cultivated for soybean in the

country in TE 1987-90 and it remained between 8 to 9 per cent during late 90’s and early

2000’s. Among these three states, Rajasthan is characterized by the highest per hectare yield

(1160 kg.) followed by Madhya Pradesh (1144 kg.) and Maharashtra (1021 kg.). After

rapeseed and mustard, soybean is next important oilseed crop in the state. Table 1.5 present

the details on it. Table 1.6 and Table 1.7 indicate distribution and overall share of soybean

in the total area and production of the total oilseeds in the state and among districts.

Table 1.6: Major soybean growing districts in Rajasthan: Area Name of

Districts

Area in

hectare

% of total area

under soybean

(State)

% of total area

under kharif oilseed

of respective

districts

% of total

oilseeds area

of respective

district

% to GCA of

respective

district

TE 1987-90

Kota 75085 62.66 78.26 40.16 10.45

Baran 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bundi 12725 10.62 52.71 23.36 4.03

Jhalawar 19379 16.17 51.01 37.92 4.68

Banswara 504 0.42 29.84 20.77 0.14

Chittorgarh 11982 10.00 15.29 10.01 2.43

Pratapgarh - - - - -

Rajasthan 119820 100.00 16.80 5.23 0.68

TE 1997-2000

Kota 110807 19.89 98.85 54.59 26.69

Baran 114213 20.51 97.50 49.22 25.17

Bundi 37593 6.75 92.66 31.66 8.70

Jhalawar 172901 31.04 97.38 82.83 32.54

Banswara 8966 1.61 96.22 93.82 2.04

Chittorgarh 106603 19.14 70.23 51.68 16.39

Pratapgarh - - - - -

Rajasthan 556996 100.00 47.95 13.52 2.36

TE 2007-10

Kota 126287 15.75 88.30 55.61 29.39

Baran 201097 25.08 96.08 64.48 37.17

Bundi 69332 8.65 81.91 44.02 17.65

Jhalawar 235048 29.31 98.41 85.59 43.09

Banswara 21774 2.72 96.82 96.23 6.56

Chittorgarh 74310 9.27 72.41 43.43 14.38

Pratapgarh 65905 8.22 65.57 61.18 24.46

Rajasthan 801832 100.00 46.02 18.67 3.63

Source: GoR (Various years).

Soybean is grown in kharif season. Its share in the area of total kharif oilseeds in the

state was 16.80 per cent during TE 1987-90 which increased to 47.95 per cent in TE 1997-

2000 then it reduced slightly to 46.02 per cent in TE 2007-10. Similarly, its contribution in

the total area under oilseeds was 5.23 per cent and 13.52 per cent during TE 1987-90 and

10

TE 1997-2000 respectively. Further, it increased to 18.67 per cent in TE 2007-10. Soybean

was not grown in Rajasthan upto early 80’s. Area under soybean cultivation was only 0.68

per cent of GCA in TE 1987-90 and it was 2.36 and 3.63 per cent in TE 1997-00 and TE

2007-10 respectively. In absolute term this crop was grown only on 119 thousand hectares

in TE 1987-90 and it rose to 802 thousand hectares in TE 2007-10, i.e. about 600 per cent.

Table 1.7: Major soybean growing districts in Rajasthan: Production

Name of

Districts

Soybean % of total

soybean

% of total

kharif oilseeds

production of

respective

district

% of total

oilseeds

production of

respective

district

Total

production of

all crops (%)

TE 1987-90

Kota 73838 69.25 82.92 46.60 9.40

Baran 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bundi 6993 6.56 73.01 20.02 1.09

Jhalawar 13261 12.44 49.59 41.60 4.10

Banswara 422 0.40 44.75 30.94 0.10

Chittorgarh 11991 11.25 16.70 11.04 1.84

Pratapgarh - - - - -

Rajasthan 106620 100.00 26.64 6.22 0.86

TE 1997-2000

Kota 153327 21.63 99.31 60.02 22.74

Baran 139758 19.72 98.48 57.03 24.57

Bundi 35812 5.05 94.62 32.13 3.61

Jhalawar 210823 29.75 97.74 86.99 34.51

Banswara 12363 1.74 98.90 97.88 2.24

Chittorgarh 149100 21.04 74.71 63.46 15.29

Pratapgarh - - - - -

Rajasthan 708736 100.00 63.47 20.21 3.43

TE 2007-10

Kota 151326 16.27 94.31 51.15 18.08

Baran 227692 24.47 97.53 58.46 24.12

Bundi 71754 7.71 93.06 47.34 8.56

Jhalawar 277917 29.87 99.05 84.66 32.88

Banswara 19064 2.05 97.54 96.96 4.11

Chittorgarh 83410 8.97 75.04 43.34 7.89

Pratapgarh 91524 9.84 66.59 62.61 20.08

Rajasthan 930343 100.00 54.76 20.04 3.97 Source: GoR (Various years).

On the production side, the share for soybean production in the total kharif oilseeds

production increased from 26.64 per cent in TE 1987-90 to 63.47 per cent in TE 1997-2000

and then it reduced to 54.76 per cent in TE 2007-10. Soybean contributed 6.22 per cent in

the total oilseeds production in TE 1987-90 and it remained around 20 per cent in next two

decades. In absolute term production of soybean increased from 1.06 lakh tonnes in TE

11

1987-90 to 9.30 lakh tonnes in TE 2007-10. However, both area and production of soybean

increased between TE 1997-2000 and TE 2007-10, increase in area was more than increase

in production and yield of soybean decreased during this period. Hence, increase in

production was due to rise in area under soybean cultivation.

Soybean cultivation has spread into more districts of Rajasthan in last two decades.

The soybean growing areas were mainly Kota, Bundi, Jhalawar and Chittorgarh districts in

TE 1987-90. Subsequently farmers of Baran, Banswara also started growing soybean. Area

under Soybean reported phenomenon increase over the period. Soybean was cultivated in

10.45%, 4.03%, 4.68% and 2.43 per cent of GCA in Kota, Bundi, Jhalawar and Chittorgarh

districts respectively in TE 1987-90. The same was 29.39 per cent for Kota, 17.65 per cent

for Bundi, 43.09 per cent for Jhalawar and 14.38 per cent for Chittorgarh in TE 2007-10.

Pratapgarh was carved out from Chittorgarh district during this period; hence soybean share

in GCA of Chittorgarh was less. If both districts are included then it comes to around 39 per

cent of their GCA. Thus soybean crop occupies an important place in agriculture economy

of few districts in Rajasthan.

1.3 Background of Pre and Post Harvest Losses

At present, increased productivity is an essential component of a vibrant agricultural

sector and improved pre and post harvest technology is essential to ensure high yield,

quantity and quality of products. Large quantity of crops is being lost at pre and post harvest

stages. Assessment of pre-post harvest losses at the various stages of production would help

to increase yield and would help in identifying factors responsible for such loss and the

extent of lost.

Pre-harvest losses

Pre-harvest lost is mainly due to pests and disease. The estimation of crop loss due

to pests and disease is a complex subject. It is difficult to assess the loss caused by the

individual pest as a particular crop may be infested by the pest complex in the farmers’ field

condition. Further, extent of crop loss either physical or financial depends on the type of

variety, stage of crop growth, pest population and weather conditions.

Generally, ‘Pests’ is an organism that causes damage resulting economic loss to

plant or animal. The expression of pest is used broadly to insects, other invertebrates like

rats, birds, etc., that cause damage to crops, stored products or animal. Disease producing

pathogens of plants and weeds are also referred as crop pest.

12

India with diversified agro-ecosystems responded spontaneously to the technologies

of green revolution with introduction of several components in crop production like

developing and adopting HYV, usage of high dose of chemical fertilizer, adoption of

intensive crop cultivation techniques etc. These had led to development of variety types

pests, resistance toward these chemicals use. The ability of some of pests to develop

resistance curbs the effectiveness of many commercial chemicals. There were frequent set

back to crop production, experienced in the shape of abiotic and biotic stresses during the

last two decades in several food crops where intensive farm practices were adopted. In

country like India, insects are dominating over other pests by acquiring character like

resistance to toxic, chemicals and resurgence particularly in intense crop management of

practices adopted by the farmers. In the past one and half decades, the periodical unabated

explosions of aphids, whiteflies, bollworms, pod borers, defoliators, coccids, cut worms,

plant happens etc., are direct damagers to crops and diseases transmitters in different

regions of the country have made agriculture less remunerative and highly risk prone. It was

reported that more than 500 insect and mite species are immune to one or more insecticides

at present. Similarity about 150 plant pathogens such as fungus and bacteria are now

shielded against fungicides. Some of the weedicides also found effective earlier failed to

control weeds now-a-days.

Hence, there is need to reduce if not eliminate these losses by protecting the crops

from different pests through appropriate techniques. At present day the role of crop

protection in agriculture is of great important and a challenging process than before, as the

so called resistance spices should be brought under control, if it is not done, yield of crops

may reduced drastically.

Post harvest losses

India faces large scale losses in crop production especially food crops. The losses

are not merely at the farm level for a variety of reasons including non standard quality of

inputs, pests and disease attacks, and lack of scientific pre harvest practices. Importantly,

there is lack of awareness about post harvest technologies. After the crop is harvested, it

undergoes several operations that if improperly done, may result in serious losses. Damage

to grain may happen due to improper application of post harvest practices such as threshing,

drying or transportation, lack of adequate storage facilities, absence of primary grading and

sorting, render food unusable or cause food to rot. At the processing level, use of primitive

technology, lack of modernization and inefficiency in energy use result in a huge losses.

13

Thus there is a sizable quantitative and qualitative loss of crops during different post harvest

operations like threshing, winnowing, transportation, processing, storage and marketing.

Among post harvest operations, storage is responsible for the maximum losses. In

the field and during storage; the products are threatened by insects, rodents, birds and other

pests. Moreover, the products may be spoiled by infection from fungi, yeasts or bacteria.

Foodgrains stocks suffer quantitative and qualitative losses while in storage. The

quantitative losses are generally caused by factors, such as incidence of insect infestation,

rodents, birds and also due to physical changes in temperature, moisture content etc. The

qualitative loss is caused by reduction in nutritive value due to the factors, such as attack of

insects, pests, physical changes in the grain and chemical changes in the fats, carbohydrates,

protein and also by contamination of myco toxins, besides residue etc. The storage loss/

gain is a very sensitive issue at it depends upon agro-climatic conditions. Besides post

harvest technology are commodity and location specific.

Farmers store grain in bulk using different type of storage structure made from

locally available materials. The major construction material for storage structures in rural

area at the farmer level are mud, bamboo, stone and plant materials. Generally, they are

neither rodent proof nor secure from fungal and insect attack. On an average, out of the total

six per cent loss of foodgrains is in such storage structures; about half is due to rodent and

rest half is due to insects and fungi. The storage at farm level includes: coal tar dram bin,

domestic hapur bin, chittor store bin, double walled polyethylene lined bamboo bin, pusa

bin, and so on. The bulk storage of foodgrains is done mainly by traders, cooperatives and

government agencies and grain marketing cooperatives.

Thus infusion of new technologies, better practices, coordination and investment in

infrastructure from food production to consumption are critical for reducing food losses and

waste at post harvest stages.

1.4 Need for the Study

As per the available data, the crop losses caused by pests and diseases are huge. But,

the knowledge on the crop loss at the farm level is very much limited. In addition to losses

that occur during the growth period of the crop, there is a huge quantity of grains lost during

the different process of harvesting, threshing, transportation and storage. Therefore, the

present study makes a comprehensive attempt to estimate the dimension of losses occurring

during the pre and post harvest stages of selected soybean crop in Rajasthan. For the pre

14

harvest losses, generally animal pests (insects, mites, rodents, snails and birds), plant

pathogens (bacteria, fungi, virus and nematodes) and weeds which are collectively called as

pests and diseases is followed in the present study. For estimating post harvest losses, there

is a need to establish the extent of losses during storage under different agro climatic

conditions of states. Causes of storage losses include sprouting, transpiration, respiration,

rot due to mould and bacteria and attack by insects. Sprouting, transpiration and respiration

are physiological activities that depend on the storage environment (mainly temperature and

relative humidity). These physiological changes affect the internal composition of the grains

and result in destruction of edible material and changes in nutritional quality. But it would

be difficult to measure the loss due to physiological changes at the farm level. Nevertheless,

an attempt would be made to estimate such losses based on the visual observations and

according to farmers’ estimates.

With this in view, the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of

Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India entrusted

Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat state to undertake this study

for Rajasthan state with the objectives shown below.

1.5 Objectives of the Study

The following are the specific objectives of the study:

1. To estimate the physical and financial losses caused by pests and diseases in

soybean at farm level.

2. To examine the measures of pests and disease management to reduce the crop loss

due to pests and diseases at farm level.

3. To arrive at post harvest losses in soybean under different agro climatic conditions.

4. To identify factors responsible for such losses and suggest ways and means to

reduce the extent of losses in different operations in order to increase national

productivity.

Framework of the study

This study makes an attempt to assess the pre and post harvest losses of soybean

crop in the Rajasthan state. This common study was conducted for selected crops in 10

states and it is to be co-ordinate by Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation

Centre (ADRTC), Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore. The survey

15

proposal, instruments, guidelines, tabulation and chapter scheme, technical inputs and

guidance for the study were provided by ADRTC, Institute for Social and Economic

Change (ISEC), Bangalore.

1.6 Data Base and Methodology

The sampling design used in the study for selection of study districts, blocks,

villages and sample farmers along with methodology used for collection and analysis of

data is as given below.

Sampling design

The study is based on the both primary as well as secondary data. The primary data

were collected for agriculture year 2011-12 (July to June). The selection of sample districts,

sample blocks, sample villages, sample farmers were made in the following manner:

i) Selection of sample districts: As per sampling design provided by the coordinating

centre, it was decided to select two districts from Rajasthan state for soybean crop. The

selected districts must be the major producing districts of the study crops and should

represent the different agro-climatic regions of the state.

On the basis of the area under selected crops and keeping in mind with considering

different agro climatic zones, two districts namely 1) Jhalawar and 2) Chittorgarh for

studying Soybean in Rajasthan state. District-wise data on area under soybean is given in

Table 1.8. The data shows state that first two districts having highest area under soybean

were Chittorgarh and Jhalawar districts in Rajasthan.

ii) Selection of sample blocks: From each selected districts, one major soybean producing

block was selected purposively. As per available data of area under soybean crop,

Nimbahera and Jhalarapatan blocks were selected for Chittorgarh and Jhalawar districts

respectively.

iii) Selection of villages: From each selected block, two sample villages using distance

criteria from market /mandi were selected purposively. From each selected block, two

villages one nearby the market/mandi centre and one far off from the market centre were

selected for canvassing the questionnaire. On the basis of discussion with Deputy Director

(Agriculture)/ Assistant Director (Agriculture) and Extension Officials of agriculture of

selected blocks, two sample villages were selected from each selected block. The list of

selected villages from each districts/blocks and category-wise number of sample farmers

selected for study is given in Table 1.9.

16

Table 1.8: District-wise area under soybean crop in Rajasthan state (Area in '00 ha.)

Name of Districts TE 1987-90 TE 1997-2000 TE 2007-10

Ajmer 0.01 0.64 0.24

Jaipur 0.01 0.01 0.00

Dausa 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sikar 0.01 0.01 0.00

Jhunjhunu 0.00 0.00 0.00

Alwar 0.00 0.12 0.01

Bharatpur 0.00 0.08 0.00

Dholpur 0.01 0.12 0.00

S. Madhopur 0.24 27.35 11.96

Karauli - 0.00 0.06

Bikaner 0.00 0.00 0.00

Churu 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sri Ganganagar 0.01 0.40 0.00

Hanumangarh - 0.07 0.04

Jodhpur 0.00 0.00 0.00

Jaisalmer 0.00 0.00 0.00

Jhalore 0.00 0.00 0.00

Barmer 0.00 0.00 0.00

Nagaur 0.00 0.01 0.01

Pali 0.00 0.03 0.01

Sirohi 0.00 0.03 0.00

Kota 750.85 1108.07 1262.87

Baran 0.00 1142.13 2010.97

Bundi 127.25 375.93 693.32

Jhalawar 193.79 1729.01 2350.48

Tonk 0.03 2.28 1.09

Banswara 5.04 89.66 217.74

Dungarpur 0.00 0.39 6.00

Udaipur 1.01 10.22 27.02

Bhilwara 0.12 17.21 34.25

Chittorgarh* 119.82 1066.03 743.10

Rajsamand 0.00 0.20 0.10

Pratapgarh* - - 659.05

Rajasthan 1198.20 5569.96 8018.32 Notes: *Pratapgarh was covered from Chittorgarh recently. For selection purpose data of both are considered as one

district (i.e. Chittorgarh).

Source: GoR (Various years).

iv) Selection of farmers: From each selected village, total 30 sample farmers growing

soybean crop were selected at random. The selected farmers were of different farm size

categories i.e. marginal (< 2.50 acres), small (2.51 to 5.00 acres.), medium (5.01 to 10.00

acres) and large (>10.01 acres) and representing different social strata such as SCs, STs,

OBCs and General castes. Thus, from each selected district, total 60 sample farmers were

selected at random for study. Altogether, 120 sample households were selected for primary

survey of the study. The village-wise and farm size-wise distribution of sample farmers is

presented in Table 1.9.

17

Table 1.9: List of selected districts, blocks, villages and category-wise sample households in

Rajasthan state

State Districts Blocks Villages MF SF MDF LF Total

Rajasthan

state

Chittorgarh Nimbahera 1. Ranikheda 6 8 9 7 30

2. Binota 8 8 8 6 30

Jhalawar Jhalara-

Patan

3. Piplod 7 6 10 7 30

4. Dungargaon 7 8 10 5 30

Grand Total 28 30 37 25 120 Note: MF=Marginal Farmers (< 2.50 acres), SF= Small Farmers (2.51 to 5.00 acres), MDF=Medium Farmers (5.01 to

10.00 acres) and LF=Large Farmers (>10.01 acres)

Methods of primary data collection:

The primary survey instrument was prepared and finalized by Agricultural

Development and Rural Transformation Centre (ADRTC), Institute for Social and

Economic Change (ISEC), Bangalore after consultation with associated AERCs. The season

wise primary data were collected by recall method from the selected sample households by

interviewing the decision makers or head of the households. Quantitative/ qualitative

information was collected in the schedule on various related aspects such as demographic

profile, landholding, season wise cropping pattern, pre and post harvest losses and pest,

diseases problems of soybean crop and different chemical and biological methods adapted

to control pests and diseases. The quantified data on pre and post harvest losses during the

crop, process of harvesting, collection, threshing, transportation and storage were collected

from the sample farmers. Opinions of farmers were collected on various aspects such as

details of biological methods adopted and nature and physical structure, cost, storage pest

controls measures, maintenance of storage structure. Suggestions with respect to minimize

pre and post harvest losses of soybean crop were also obtained. In addition to household

schedule, a pests and diseases of local and hybrid variety was also administered to capture

the data to know and to study the crop losses of both variety.

In addition to field survey, other related important information and data were also

collected through personal discussion with District Agriculture Officials, Deputy director

(Agriculture) and Officials of State Agriculture and State’s different agencies like KVK,

Agriculture Universities and research centre of selected crop. In addition to the primary data

collected from the farmers, discussed and compiled the crop loss estimates (if any) for pre

and post harvest losses with concerned district offices of the Department of Agriculture of

state government. The reference year for primary survey was agricultural year 2011-12

(July to June).

18

Secondary data collection

The secondary data required for the study were collected from the various

government departments such as Commissionerate of Agriculture, Rajasthan government,

Directorate of Economics and Statistics of Rajasthan states and Central/ States government

publications and websites. District-wise data on area under soybean crop were collected

from above mentioned sources. Block-wise data on area under soybean crop was collected

from district level officials like District Agriculture Officials, District Statistical Officials

etc.

Analytical framework

The main objective of the study is to examine the physical and financial losses

caused during pre and post harvest of soybean crop. To study the measures of pests and

disease management, the crop loss due to pests and diseases at farm level were collected

and analyzed. The data on post harvest losses of soybean crop was also analyzed. To

identify factors responsible for such losses and suggest ways and means to reduce the extent

of losses in different operations in order to increase national productivity were analyzed.

The crop production constraints particularly infestation by pests and diseases, and

losses caused by them was worked out based on the estimates provided by the farmers. As

not only pests and diseases cause crop damage, there are also other bio-economic factors

like soil fertility, water scarcity, poor seed quality, high input costs and low output prices

result in consider financial loss to farmers. Thus, data on these bio-economic variables were

also collected from the farmers. The post harvest losses during the process of harvesting,

collection and threshing, transportation and storage be quantified based on the estimates

provided by the farmers. Storage material used by the farmers is generally mud, bamboo,

stone, plant materials etc. It is essential to identify the structure of storage at the farmers’

level and enumerate the losses occurring in the process of storage at the farmer level.

Qualitative questions were put to farmers on various aspects such as constraints

faced in the cultivation of soybean crop, details of biological and other measures to control

pests and diseases, advice for pest and diseases management, nature of storage structure,

physical condition of storage structure, cost and maintenance of storage structure and

storage pest and control measures were also analyzed.

Suggestions with respect to problems faced by farmers and how to minimize pre and

post harvest losses with regard to soybean crop production were also obtained from the

respondents. In addition to field survey, information on current major problems of soybean

19

crop, production losses at various stages and the possible solutions to eliminate it were also

collected through personal discussion with District Agriculture Officials, Deputy Director

(Agriculture) and Officials of State Agriculture Universities, Research centre and State

Agriculture Department.

1.7 Organization of Report

The present study report is divided into six chapters including this introductory

chapter. The trend and growth of area, production and productivity of selected crop using

secondary data for study has been presented in chapter two. Chapter three presents socio

economic characteristics of sample households, status of production of selected crop,

irrigation, cropping pattern and crop productivity, marketed surplus and value of output by

farmers. The chapter four presents pre harvest losses of reference crop due to different pest

and diseases, different methods of pests and diseases control adopted by sample farmers and

household suggestions to minimize the losses. Chapter five provides post harvest losses of

reference crop and qualitative and quantitative aspects of storage and their pests control

measures adopted by the sample households. Chapter six highlights conclusion and policy

recommendations.

20

Chapter 2

Area, Production and Productivity of Soybean

Crop in Rajasthan

This chapter broadly deals with the trends in area, production and productivity of

soybean in Rajasthan and the changing cost structure of this crop on basis of CACP reports.

Also review is carried out on estimates losses caused by pests and disease of soybean crop.

2.1 Trend and Growth in Area, Production and Yield of Soybean crop in Rajasthan

District wise area, production and yield of soybean crop are given in Table 2.1. In

the recent past, soybean cultivation has increased many folds as compared to any other

oilseed crops in the country and stands next to groundnut. Though commercial production

of soybean began in 1971-72, soybean has gained popularity on account of its unique

characteristics such as adaptability of varied agro-climate conditions, composition of 40 per

cent protein and 20 per cent oil, exceptionally nutritive processed food products and used as

source of animal feed.

Area under soybean crop increased significantly in Rajasthan state and in few

districts of the state during the last two decades. Area under soybean was only 1.20 lakh

hectare in TE 1987-90 which increased significantly to 5.57 lakh hectares in TE 1997-2000

and again rose to 8.02 lakh hectares in TE 2007-10. Similarly, production increased from

1.07 lakh tonnes in TE 1997-2000 to 7.09 lakh tonnes in TE 1997-2000 and 9.30 lakh

tonnes in TE 2007-10. Yield of soybean increased from 890 kg./ ha. in TE 1987/90 to 1272

kg./ha. in TE 1997-2000 and then it declined to 1160 kg./ ha. in TE 2007-10.

Thus state has achieved an impressive growth in soybean production during this

period and it could be attributed primarily to high growth in area accompanied by moderate

growth in yield. The rate of increase in area and production of soybean was quite higher

between TE 1987-90 and TE 1997-2000 in the state as well as among soybean producing

districts. The rate of increase in production was observed to be lower during next decade, as

area of soybean increased but increment was lower than earlier decade and yield registered

negative growth during this period.

21

Table 2.1: Area, Production and Productivity of Soybean crop in Rajasthan State

Name of

Districts

Area in Hectare Production in Tonnes Productivity in Kg./ha.

TE

1987-

90

TE

1997-

2000

TE -

2007-

10

TE

1987-

90

TE

1997-

2000

TE -

2007-

10

TE

1987-

90

TE

1997-

2000

TE -

2007-

10

Ajmer 1 64 24 0 82 28 500 1288 1153

Jaipur 1 1 0 1 1 0 750 1333 0

Dausa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sikar 1 1 0 1 1 0 1500 1500 1000

Jhunjhunu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alwar 0 12 1 0 15 1 0 1286 1000

Bharatpur 0 8 0 0 10 0 0 1304 1000

Dholpur 1 12 0 1 15 0 750 1286 0

S. Madhopur 24 2735 1196 22 3505 1479 917 1282 1237

Karauli - 0 6 - 0 9 - 0 1368

Bikaner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Churu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sri Ganganagar 1 40 0 0 49 0 333 1235 0

Hanumangarh - 7 4 - 8 4 - 1250 1182

Jodhpur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jaisalmer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Jalore 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1000

Barmer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nagaur 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1500 1000

Pali 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 1250 1333

Sirohi 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 1375 0

Kota 75085 110807 126287 73838 153327 151326 983 1384 1198

Baran 0 114213 201097 0 139758 227692 0 1224 1132

Bundi 12725 37593 69332 6993 35812 71754 550 953 1035

Jhalawar 19379 172901 235048 13261 210823 277917 684 1219 1182

Tonk 3 228 109 2 295 122 750 1297 1126

Banswara 504 8966 21774 422 12363 19064 837 1379 876

Dungarpur 0 39 600 0 50 676 0 1271 1126

Udaipur 101 1022 2702 76 1291 2020 756 1264 748

Bhilwara 12 1721 3425 10 2196 3300 886 1276 964

Chittorgarh 11982 106603 74310 11991 149100 83410 1001 1399 1122

Rajsamand 0 20 10 0 25 14 0 1254 1323

Pratapgarh - - 65905 - - 91524 - - 1389

Rajasthan 119820 556996 801832 106620 708736 930343 890 1272 1160

Source: GoR (Various years).

The main soybean producing districts are Kota, Baran, Bundi, Jhalawar and

Chittorgarh and new formed district Pratapgarh. The trend in area, production and yield of

soybean crop among these districts was found more or less similar to the pattern of state.

The general profile of selected districts, Chittorgarh and Jhalawar is given

Appendixes 2.1 and 2.2.

22

2.2 Changes in Costs and Profitability of Soybean Crop (Based on CACP reports)

Computation of cost of cultivation possess the distinctive features of paid out costs and

imputed costs, with the break up to facilitate computation of various classified costs such as cost A1,

A2, B1, B2 and C1.

The cost of cultivation of soybean crop worked out by CACP for the period 1996-97

to 2009-10 is given in Table 2.2. The C2 cost for soybean was Rs. 7855/ ha which increased

to Rs. 13076/ ha after one decade i.e. in 2006-07 and it reached to Rs. 17172/ha in 2009-10.

Thus, overall C2 cost of cultivation increased by 118.61 per cent in last fourteen years.

During the same period cost A1, A2, B1, B2 and C1 registered increase of 155.77, 133.84,

174.95, 147.11 and 131.39 per cent respectively.

The per cent share of cost A2 in cost C2 was found to be 59.17 per cent in 1996-97;

the same declined to 55.81 per cent in 2006-07 and rose to 63.29 per cent in 2009-10. These

variations in the share of cost A2, which is the expenditure incurred on raising the crop in

cash and kind and also include the rent paid for leased in land can be attributed to

fluctuations in operational cost of soybean cultivation like increase/ decrease in use of

human labour , machinery use, pesticides, etc.

Table 2.2: Cost of cultivation of Soybean crop in Rajasthan State (based on CACP data) (Rs. / ha.)

Particulars Cost of cultivation

Costs A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

1996-97 4317 4648 4550 6236 6168 7855

1997-98 4390 4808 4601 7129 6343 8871

1998-99 3887 4151 4169 6245 6155 8231

1999-2000 3365 3365 3821 5392 5899 7470

2000-01 3912 4296 4327 5937 5565 7174

2001-02 4652 5204 4989 6791 6554 8356

2002-03 5314 5384 6458 7822 8428 9793

2003-04 5330 5417 5937 8445 7990 10498

2004-05 5381 5748 5938 8583 7623 10268

2005-06 6001 6413 6694 9149 8646 11102

2006-07 6257 7300 6952 10897 9138 13078

2007-08 7374 7636 8020 11524 10593 14097

2008-09 8871 8871 9645 12762 12083 15200

2009-10 10869 10869 12510 15410 14272 17172

Note: (1) Cost A2: Cost A1+ rent paid for leased in land

(2) Cost B1: Cost A1 + interest on value of owned land (net of land revenue)

(3) Cost B2: Cost B1 + rental value of owned land (net of land revenue) and rent paid for leased-in land

(4) Cost C1: Cost B1 + imputed value of family labour

(5) Cost C2: Cost B2 + imputed value of family labour

Source: GoI (various years)

23

With a view to know overall trend of operational and fixed cost in cultivation of

soybean crop and also changes in component of these costs in total cost C2 is presented in

Table 2.3. The total cultivation cost incurred per hectare in soybean crop increased by more

than doubled (118%) over the period 1996-97 to 2009-10. The operational cost moved up

from Rs. 5823 in 1996-97 to Rs. 12428 in 2009-10, showing net increase by 113 per cent

and fixed cost increased by 133 per cent, from Rs. 2031 to Rs. 4744 during this period,

indicating that in total cost C2, over the years share of fixed cost has increased. This is also

reflected in percentage break up of these costs into total cost as operational cost declined

from 74.14 per cent in 1996-97 to 72.37 per cent in 2009-10 in the total C2 cost. However,

no trend was reported in both costs, the share of operational cost varied between 62.03 per

cent (2006-07) to 74.14 per cent (1996-97).

Table 2.3: Trends in total cost C2 (operational + fixed) of soybean cultivation (based on CACP

data) Rajasthan state

Year

Operational

cost

Fixed

costs

Total

cost

Operational

cost Fixed costs

Total

cost

Rs. / hectare Per cent share to total cost

1996-97 5823 2031 7855 74.14 25.86 100.00

1997-98 6031 2841 8871 67.98 32.02 100.00

1998-99 5755 2475 8231 69.92 30.08 100.00

1999-2000 5178 2292 7470 69.32 30.68 100.00

2000-01 4993 2181 7174 69.60 30.40 100.00

2001-02 6091 2265 8356 72.90 27.10 100.00

2002-03 7120 2672 9793 72.71 27.29 100.00

2003-04 7197 3301 10498 68.56 31.44 100.00

2004-05 6898 3370 10268 67.18 32.82 100.00

2005-06 7690 3412 11102 69.26 30.74 100.00

2006-07 8113 4965 13078 62.03 37.97 100.00

2007-08 9610 4487 14097 68.17 31.83 100.00

2008-09 11044 4156 15200 72.66 27.34 100.00

2009-10 12428 4744 17172 72.37 27.63 100.00 Source: GoI (various years)

To know the proportionate share of each cost item in the total operational and fixed

costs, data on percentage share of each cost item has been depicted in Tables 2.4A and

2.4B. The data reveals that human labour, seed and machine labour are the major cost items

of operational cost, comprising 85.51 per cent of the total operational cost. Negligible share

of fertilizer and manure and low irrigation charges indicated that practice of not using

24

fertilizer and manure in soybean cultivation and it is grown in rainfed condition. The per

cent share of animal labour in the total operational cost declined significantly from 11.21

per cent in 1996-97 to 1.63 per cent in 2009-10 and simultaneously contribution of machine

labour increased from 13.53 per cent to 18.73 per cent during the same period. This

indicated that majority operations of soybean cultivation are performed by machine.

There were year to year variations reported in the use and share of cost items in the

operational cost of soybean cultivation. The distribution of the total operational cost among

different components of operational cost revealed that expenses on human labour was the

highest followed by expenditure on seeds and machine labour. The share of expense on

human labour in the total operational varied between 39 to 49 per cent during 1996-97 to

2009-10. Same was 17 to 28 per cent for seeds and 13 to 27 per cent for machine labour.

Thus there was a wide year to year fluctuation in the distribution of expenses on different

cost items of operational cost in cultivation of soybean crop. Since soybean is kharif rainfed

crop, the variations in cost is affected by climatic conditions on that particular year.

The fixed cost accounted for 25 to 38 per cent of the total cultivation cost of soybean

crop during 1996-97 to 2009-10. Rental value of owned land and interest on fixed capital

are the main cost components of fixed cost of soybean crop. They together accounted for

95.70 per cent in 2009-10 suggesting negligible share of other items in the total fixed cost.

However, significant variations were reported in distribution of cost items in the total fixed

cost across the years. The share of rental value of owned land varied in the range of 55.19

per cent in 2001-02 to 74.89 per cent in the total fixed cost of soybean in 2008-09. Similar

fluctuations were observed in case of interest on fixed capital where it varied between 7.42

per cent in 1997-98 to 42.78 per cent in 2002-03. Rent paid for leased in land also varied

year to year. It accounted for 24.30 per cent of the total fixed cost in 2001-02 and was nil in

2008-09 and 2009-10.

The cost of cultivation and yield are two major factors which affecting the

profitability of any crop. To compute the profitability in cultivation of soybean crop, the

related data has been given in table 2.5. The net return per hectare has been worked out by

considering variable cost as well as total C2 cost. Value of main product and by-product are

obtained by multiplying yield with farm harvest price. During 1996-2010, substantial

variations noticed in the yield. Yield of soybean reached at peak level in at 14.64 qtl./ha. in

2006-07 and after that it declined continuously and touched to 7.79 qtl./ha in 2009-10.

25

Table 2.4A: Trends in per cent share in Operational cost of Soybean cultivation (based on CACP data) Rajasthan State

Year Operational

cost

Human

labour

Animal

labour

Machine

labour

Seed Fertilizer &

manure

Insecticides Irrigation

charges

Miscellaneous Interest on

working capital

1996-97 100 38.68 11.21 13.53 28.31 5.93 0 0.14 0 2.19

1997-98 100 44.63 8.59 15.67 23.5 5.36 0.1 0 0 2.15

1998-99 100 46.92 9.84 15.85 18.35 6.44 0 0.62 0 1.98

1999-2000 100 43.77 12.88 13.46 20.38 7.02 0 0.67 0 1.81

2000-01 100 40.12 13.09 19.78 20.73 3.36 0.24 0.41 0 2.28

2001-02 100 39.72 17.72 16.82 17.95 3.19 0.47 1.88 0 2.25

2002-03 100 40.25 8.52 13.23 23.55 1.81 0.71 9.75 0 2.19

2003-04 100 42.49 10.75 16.69 22.19 5.07 0.63 0 0 2.17

2004-05 100 42.71 6.2 19.36 25.32 2.52 0 1.6 0 2.29

2005-06 100 44.97 3.79 23.01 20.71 1.8 2.15 1.31 0 2.26

2006-07 100 39.1 6.96 27.19 17.71 3.1 3.11 0.6 0 2.22

2007-08 100 40.85 6.52 23.14 19.52 4.11 3.17 0.46 0 2.22

2008-09 100 48.7 2.13 20.5 23.04 1 2.24 0.03 0 2.36

2009-10 100 40.86 1.63 18.73 25.92 0.25 7.91 2.09 0 2.6

Source: GoI (various years)

Table 2.4B: Trends in per cent share in fixed cost of soybean cultivation (based on CACP data) Rajasthan State

Year Fixed costs Rental value of owned land Rent paid for leased-in

land

Land revenue,

taxes, cesses

Depreciation on implements &

farm building

Interest on fixed

capital

1996-97 100 66.72 16.31 0.4 5.12 11.45

1997-98 100 74.26 14.73 0.34 3.24 7.42

1998-99 100 73.22 10.64 0.35 4.41 11.37

1999-2000 100 68.52 0 0.32 11.23 19.93

2000-01 100 56.18 17.62 0.37 6.76 19.07

2001-02 100 55.19 24.38 0.31 5.2 14.91

2002-03 100 48.44 2.6 0.39 5.79 42.78

2003-04 100 73.36 2.64 0.38 5.24 18.39

2004-05 100 67.61 10.87 0.3 4.68 16.53

2005-06 100 59.88 12.08 0.3 7.43 20.31

2006-07 100 58.33 21.02 0.18 6.37 14.11

2007-08 100 72.26 5.84 0.22 7.29 14.4

2008-09 100 74.99 0 0.14 6.24 18.62

2009-10 100 61.12 0 0.24 4.05 34.58

Source: GoI (various years)

26

The high fluctuation in yield caused high fluctuation in net returns over variable cost

and C2. Further, variation in farm harvest price is influencing the gross value of production.

Even, for the same quantity, due to variation in farm harvest price will cause difference in

gross values of production, which impacting on profitability.

The net return over cost C2 declined significantly and found negative for the year

2002-03. It was only Rs. 247/ha. for 2001-02 and Rs. 842/ha. for 2009-10 (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5: Profitability indicators of soybean crop (based on CACP data): Rajasthan

Year Yield

(Qtl./ha.)

Main

product

(Rs./ha.)

By

product

(Rs./ha.)

Gross

values

(Rs./ha.)

Variable

cost

(Rs./ha.)

Total

cost

(Rs./ha.)

Returns

over

variable

cost

(ROVC)

Return

over

C2

cost

1996-97 8.16 10791 576 11367 5823 7855 5544 3512

1997-98 13.79 13019 1218 14237 6031 8871 8206 5365

1998-99 11.71 10574 1051 11625 5755 8231 5870 3394

1999-2000 9.84 7948 1471 9419 5178 7470 4241 1950

2000-01 6.78 7266 909 8176 4993 7174 3182 1001

2001-02 8.11 7712 891 8603 6091 8356 2512 247

2002-03 5.65 6941 964 7905 7120 9793 785 -1887

2003-04 10.74 14042 833 14875 7197 10498 7678 4377

2004-05 13.24 12953 1449 14402 6898 10268 7504 4134

2005-06 11.37 12585 1046 13631 7690 11102 5941 2529

2006-07 14.64 17673 1788 19460 8113 13078 11348 6382

2007-08 12.92 19225 930 20154 9610 14097 10544 6057

2008-09 8.85 17503 1191 18695 11044 15200 7650 3495

2009-10 7.79 16129 1885 18014 12428 17172 5587 842

Source: GoI (various years)

2.3 Secondary Estimates of Losses Caused by Pests and Diseases of Soybean Crop:

A Review

Pre and post harvest technologies are imperative to avoid yield losses in crops which

account for a major share of harvested produce. The loss in yield of crops is due to variety

of reasons.

The worldwide yield loss due to various types of pest was estimated at as: 37.4 per

cent in rice, 28.2 per cent in wheat, 31.2 per cent in maize and 26.3 per cent in soybean

(Oerke, 2007). Crop loss was estimated (Dhaliwal, 2010) at 25 per cent in rice and maize, 5

per cent in wheat, 15 per cent in pulses and 50 per cent in cotton due to insects, pests. The

27

severity of pest problems has reportedly been changing with the development in agriculture

technology and modifications of agricultural practices.

Agriculture commodities produced has to undergo a series of operations such as

harvesting, threshing, winnowing, begging, transportation, storage, processing and

exchange before they reach the market and as evident from several studies across the

country, there are considerable losses in crop output at all these stages. A recent estimate by

Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, GoI puts the total preventable post harvest losses of

foodgrains at 10 per cent of the total production or 20 million mt. which is equivalent to the

total foodgrain produced in Australia. According to World Bank study (1999) post harvest

losses of foodgrain in India are 7-10 per cent of the total production from farm to market

level and 4-5 per cent at market and distribution level. For the system as a whole, such

losses had been worked out to be 11-15 million tonnes of foodgrain annually.

About 65-75 per cent (Planning Commission 2011) of the total foodgrain produced

in the country are stored at farm level. There are estimates that substantial quantities of

foodgrains (about 6-10 %) are damaged due to moisture, insects, rodent and fungi.

Oilseeds and Soybean:

In India, most of the oilseed crops are grown as mono cropping in traditional areas

without crop rotation which result in perpetuation and development of inoculums of pests

and disease. Yield losses due to pests and diseases account for 40 per cent for oilseed crops.

The attack of insect pest mainly is aphid which is the main causes of low yield of oilseed

crops, particularly rapeseed and mustard. The losses in oilseeds production during post

green revolution era (Dhaliwal, 2007) have shown an increasing trend than the pre-green

revolution era. Overall the losses in oilseeds other than groundnut increased from 5 per cent

in early 60s to 25 per cent in early 2000s. However, during beginning of this century, due to

implementation of integrated post management programmes losses in oilseeds declined to

15 per cent of the production.

Soybean

In soybean production, weeds are the predominant pest group. Because of more

space between the rows, slow growth at early stage and warmer season, weeds grow

profusely competing with the crop for water, light and nutrients. This adversely affects the

total yield. Inadequate weeding may reduce the yield by 50-60 per cent. Current global

losses in soybean crop due to various categories of pests, weeds, pathogens and virus were

28

8.8, 7.5, 8.9 and 1.2 per cent respectively (Oerke 2006). So overall global loss in soybean

production is around 26 per cent.

In India, soybean is affected by fungi and bacteria, resulting heavy loss in yield.

These are common in the early growth stage and at maturity stage. Important diseases are

bacterial pustules, leaf spot, pod blight, dry root rot and late blight. The crop is attacked by a

number of pests during the life cycle; they are gram pod borer, blue beetle, stem fly, thrips,

white fly, tobacco caterpillar and jassids.

The harvesting losses in soybean depend on the time of harvest and variety grown.

In some varieties, the shattering is more. Losses in the field also occur due to untimely

harvest, poor agricultural operations, careless handling, natural calamities like heavy

rainfall, hailstorm, birds, rodents etc. These losses of soybean in the field are estimated to be

1 to 2 per cent in normal cases.

Post harvest losses occur at different stages, viz. harvesting, threshing, winnowing,

storage, and packaging, transportation, processing and marketing of soybean. During

storage at farmer’s level, spoilage and losses may occur due to mishandling, use of very old

and damaged gunny bags and rodents. The losses during storage at farm level have been

estimated to be about 0.5 per cent. The losses during transport of soybean occur due to

pilferage, leakage of gunny bags and rough handling. These losses are around to be not

more than 0.2 to 0.5 per cent. The pest damage to the soybean at storage level is less due to

its hard testa. Some losses occur due to rodents. The losses at the processing units on these

counts have been estimated to be about 1.0 per cent only (GoI 2005).

2.4 Summary

Area under soybean crop increased significantly in Rajasthan and in few districts of

the state during the last two decades. Area under soybean was only 1.20 lakh hectares in TE

1987-90 which increased to 8.02 lakh hectares in TE 2007-10. Similarly production

increased from 1.07 lakh tonnes to 9.30 lakh tonnes and yield rose from 890 kg./hectare to

1160 kg./hectare during the same period. The state has achieved an impressive growth in

soybean production and it could be attributed primarily to high growth in area

accompanying by moderate growth in yield. The main soybean producing districts are Kota,

Bundi, Jhalawar and Chittorgarh.

Overall cost C2 in soybean cultivation increased by 118 per cent between 1996-97

and 2009-10 while fixed crop increased by 133 per cent and operational cost by 113 per

29

cent during this period. The operational cost accounted for 68 to 74 per cent in the total cost

during 1996-97 to 2009-10. Expenses on machine labour and human labour increased but

use of animal labour in cultivation reduced drastically. Rental value of owned land and

interest on fixed capital are the main components of fixed cost of soybean crop. Since

soybean is kharif rainfed crop, year to year fluctuations were reported in the use and share

of cost items of operational cost as this cost is affected by climatic conditions.

In soybean production, weeds are the predominant pest group. Because of more

space between the rows, slow growth at early stage and warmer season, weeds grow

profusely competing with the crop for water, light and nutrients. Soybean is also affected by

fungi and bacteria resulting heavy loss in yield. Important diseases affecting soybean crop

are bacterial pustules, leaf spot, pod blight, dry root rot and late blight. The crop is attacked

by a number of pests during the life cycle; they are blue beetle, stem fly, thrips, white fly

and jassids. Overall global loss in soybean production is estimated around 26 per cent.

30

Appendix 2.1: Vital Statistics of Selected Districts and Rajasthan State 2010-11

Particulars Unit Chittorgarh

(2008)

Jhalawar

(2008) Rajasthan state

Location

i)N. Latitudes 23032' to 25

013' 23

045' to 24

052' 23

030' to 30

012'

ii)E. Longitudes 74012' to 75

049' 75

027' to 76

056' 69

030' to 78

017'

Area covered Sq.

kms. 10856 (3.17) 632 (0.18) 342239

Temperature(2008-10)

i)Minimum C0 0.5 6.6 -1.8

ii)Maximum C0 45.5 45.8 48.0

Rainfall

i)Normal mm. 842 355 575

ii) Actual (Average 2009-

11) mm. 772 548 613

Land use pattern(2008-09)

i)Total Reporting Area Ha. 750761 632235 34269886

(100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

ii)Forest Area Ha. 120136 125166 2727944

(16.00) (19.80) (7.96)

iii)Net Sown Area Ha. 306481 322859 17551414

(40.82) (51.07) (51.22)

iv)Gross Cropped Area Ha. 492304 520443 22771259

(65.57) (82.32) (66.45)

Cropping Intensity % 160.63 161.20 129.74

Population (Census 2011)

Total Population Nos. 1544392

(2.25)

1411327

(2.06) 68621012

Male Population Nos. 784054

(51.42)

725667

(51.42)

35620086

(51.91)

Female Population Nos. 760338

(48.58)

685660

(48.58) 33000926 (48.09)

Urban Population Nos. 285302

(18.47)

1181889

(83.74) 17080776 (24.89)

Rural Population Nos. 1259090

(81.53)

229438

(16.26) 51540236 (75.11)

Total Literacy % 62.51 62.13 67.06

Male Literacy % 77.74 76.47 80.51

Female Literacy % 46.98 47.06 52.66

Contd….

31

Appendix 2.1 Continues…..

Particulars Unit Chittorgarh

(2008)

Jhalawar

(2008) Rajasthan state

Important crops

i)Cereals Maize, Wheat Bajara, Wheat

Bajara, Wheat,

Maize

ii)Pulses Gram

Gram, Moth

bean, Moong

Gram, Moth bean,

Moong

iii)Oilseeds

Rapeseed &

Mustard,

Groundnut,

Soybean

Rapeseed &

mustard

Rapeseed &

Mustard,

Groundnut,

Soybean

iv)Others - Gaur seed,

Gaur seed, Onion,

Cotton

Irrigation (2008-09)

i)Net Irrigated Area (NIA) Ha. 190697 227282 6245048

ii)Gross Irrigated Area

(GIA) Ha. 200385 230760 7909927

iii)Irrigation Intensity % 105.08 101.53 126.66

iv)%of NIA to NSA % 62.22 70.40 35.58

v)%of GIA to GCA % 40.70 44.34 34.74

Source-wise Irrigation as % to GIA (2010-11)

i)Canal % 0.40 0.00 31.11

ii)Well/tube wells % 97.91 0.00 67.49

iii)Others % 1.69 0.00 1.40 Note: Figures in parenthesis denote to percentage

Source: GoI (various years)

32

Appendix 2.2: Season wise area under different crops in Jhalawar and Chittorgarh district. (Area in ha.)

Crops Jhalawar Chittorgarh

TE 1987-90 TE 1997-00 TE 2007-10 TE 1977-80 TE 1987-90 TE 1997-00 TE 2007-10

Jowar 94270 (22.76) 15951 (3.01) 5215 (0.96) 43 (0.10) 42994 (8.71) 14732 (2.27) 8186 (1.58)

Maize 67617 (16.32) 45934 (8.67) 38022 (6.97) 108 (0.26) 127472 (25.83) 143912 (22.21) 176448 (34.14)

Total Kharif Cereal 164483 (39.71) 62249 (11.74) 44993 (8.25) 156 (0.38) 172053 (34.86) 159809 (24.66) 185319 (35.86)

Wheat 38392 (9.27) 61695 (11.64) 61367 (11.25) 88 (0.21) 69516 (14.09) 94372 (14.56) 90493 (17.51)

Barley 531 (0.13) 347 (0.07) 322 (0.06) 8 (0.02) 3964 (0.80) 3655 (0.56) 5302 (1.03)

Total Rabi Cereal 38923 (9.40) 62042 (11.70) 61689 (11.31) 96 (0.23) 73479 (14.89) 98027 (15.13) 95795 (18.54)

Total Cereals 203406 (49.10) 124291 (23.45) 106681 (19.56) 252 (0.61) 245533 (49.75) 257836 (39.79) 281114 (54.40)

Moong 2067 (0.50) 423 (0.08) 221 (0.04) 398 (0.97) 1887 (0.38) 532 (0.08) 390 (0.08)

Urad 26451 (6.39) 17250 (3.25) 9795 (1.80) 34377 (83.42) 36099 (7.31) 25505 (3.94) 5370 (1.04)

Total Kharif Pulses 61106 (14.75) 36590 (6.90) 10584 (1.94) 34819 (84.49) 77095 (15.62) 52712 (8.14) 6040 (1.17)

Gram 38850 (9.38) 51243 (9.67) 32787 (6.01) 52 (0.13) 36412 (7.38) 61026 (9.42) 12976 (2.51)

Total Rabi Pulses 44175 (10.66) 65043 (12.27) 36388 (6.67) 922 (2.24) 37814 (7.66) 67386 (10.40) 14696 (2.84)

Total Pulses 105281 (25.42) 101633 (19.17) 46971 (8.61) 35741 (86.73) 114909 (23.28) 120098 (18.53) 20736 (4.01)

Total Food grains 308687 (74.52) 225924 (42.62) 153653 (28.17) 35993 (87.34) 360442 (73.03) 377933 (58.33) 301850 (58.41)

Sesamum (Til) 3572 (0.86) 446 (0.08) 2413 (0.44) 6 (0.01) 12222 (2.48) 3729 (0.58) 6325 (1.22)

Ground Nut 15040 (3.63) 4191 (0.79) 1392 (0.26) 33 (0.08) 54179 (10.98) 41452 (6.40) 21988 (4.25)

Soybean 19379 (4.68) 172901 (32.62) 235048 (43.09) 0 (0.00) 11982 (2.43) 106603 (16.45) 74297 (14.38)

Total Kharif Oilseeds 37991 (9.17) 177545 (33.49) 238853 (43.79) 41 (0.10) 78384 (15.88) 151792 (23.43) 102621 (19.86)

Rape & Mustered 501 (0.12) 29045 (5.48) 35062 (6.43) 1 (0.00) 30176 (6.11) 46342 (7.15) 67456 (13.05)

Total Rabi Oilseeds 13120 (3.17) 31203 (5.89) 35773 (6.56) 9 (0.02) 41361 (8.38) 54501 (8.41) 68484 (13.25)

Total Oil seeds 51111 (12.34) 208748 (39.38) 274626 (50.35) 50 (0.12) 119746 (24.26) 206293 (31.84) 171105 (33.11)

Coriander 46529 (11.23) 76750 (14.48) 93547 (17.15) 1735 (4.21) 2395 (0.49) 2833 (0.44) 2609 (0.50)

Ajwain 0 (0.00) 1381 (0.26) 10 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 12780 (1.97) 7900 (1.53)

Garlic 0 (0.00) 1153 (0.22) 4369 (0.80) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 6660 (1.03) 6690 (1.29)

Total Other crops 54450 (13.14) 95395 (18.00) 117174 (21.48) 5166 (12.54) 13356 (2.71) 63732 (9.84) 43822 (8.48)

GCA 414248 (100.00) 530067 (100.00) 545452 (100.00) 41209 (100.00) 493543 (100.00) 647958 (100.00) 516776 (100.00)

Source: GoI (various years)

33

Chapter 3

Household Characteristics, Cropping Pattern

and Production Structure

The results based on analysis of primary data have been carried out here and in next

two chapters. Though the major focus of the results of primary data is to assess pre and post

harvest losses of soybean, information with regards to households characteristic, cropping

pattern and production structure has been provided in this chapter. This includes socio-

economic characteristics of the sample farmers across the land holding size categories, their

operational holdings, structure of tenancy, sources of irrigation, cropping pattern, area under

HYV, yield, marketed surplus and value of output. The chapter systematically proceeds by

providing an insight into all these aspects explaining general characteristics of the sample

farmers.

3.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Selected Farmers

In this section at attempt is made to highlight the existing general situation of the

selected households with regards to distribution of number of farmers according to farm

size, their household size and number of earners, distribution of family members in male/

female, age, education, caste, and distance from market and income of family.

The socio-economic characteristic of the selected farmers is given in Table 3.1. The

selected households had 28 marginal, 30 small, 37 medium and 25 large farmers, making a

total sample of 120 farmers growing soybean crop, the household size was 8 persons per

family with the highest 11 members on large and the lowest 7 member on marginal farm

category. The average member of earners in the family was 3 in all farm size categories

except large farmers where there were 5 earning members. Mostly the respondents were

head of the households, as around 82 per cent of the interviewed were head of the family.

The analysis on education status of family members brought out that in 36 per cent

of the households, the highest education level of family member was upto secondary. It

varied between 40 per cent on small and 28 per cent on large farm categories. The family

member having highest education of higher secondary was 28 per cent of the total

households with variations of 25 to 30 per cent among different categories of farmers. The

34

highest education of graduate and above of family member was reported by 16 per cent of

the households with highest 24 per cent and lowest 13.33 per cent households of large and

small farm size respectively. About 3 per cent of households had family member having

technical as highest education. The highest level of education of any family member upto

only primary level was 7 per cent household. The illiterate households were 13 per cent of

the total households. This illiterate households were highest (17%) on small and lowest

(10%) on medium size categories of farm. The distribution of households among different

categories of caste indicated that overall 64.17 per cent of the households were OBCs and

26.67 per cent fall under general group. The households belong to ST were 8.33 per cent

and to SC 0.83 per cent of the total households. The distance of the main market from the

sample farm in the farm size categories varied from 10.40 kilometers (marginal) to 14.00

kilometers (large). Overall, the distance of main market from the sample farms was on an

average 11.70 kilometers.

Table-3.1: Demographic profile of the selected farmers (% of HHs.)

Characteristics Marginal Small Medium Large Total

No. of HH 28 30 37 25 120

Household size (numbers) 6.71 7.10 7.54 11.44 8.05

Average numbers of earners 3.04 3.33 3.16 4.68 3.49

Proportion of

Male/ Female/

Children (%)

Male > 15 37.23 37.56 38.35 39.51 38.30

Female > 15 33.51 37.09 33.69 32.52 34.06

Children < 15 29.26 25.35 27.96 27.97 27.64

Identity of

respondent (%) Head 85.71 83.33 83.78 72.00 81.67

Others 14.29 16.67 16.22 28.00 18.33

Average age of the

respondent (%

households)

Less than 25 7.14 6.67 5.41 0.00 5.00

Between 25 to 40 42.86 43.33 43.24 32.00 40.83

Above 40 50.00 50.00 51.35 68.00 54.17

Highest Education

status of a family

member (%

household)

Illiterate 14.29 16.67 10.81 12.00 13.33

Up to primary 7.14 3.33 8.11 0.00 5.00

Up to secondary 35.71 40.00 37.84 28.00 35.83

Higher secondary 25.00 26.67 29.73 28.00 27.50

Graduate and above 14.29 13.33 13.51 24.00 15.83

Technical 3.57 0.00 0.00 8.00 2.50

Caste

(%household) SC 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.00 0.83

ST 14.29 10.00 5.41 4.00 8.33

OBC 60.71 66.67 62.16 68.00 64.17

General 25.00 23.33 29.73 28.00 26.67

Distance from the main market (km.) 10.36 10.40 12.22 14.00 11.70

Annual Family income (Rs.) 142857 227833 286081 538200 290625 Source: Field survey

35

Overall on an average annual family income of the selected farmers worked out to

be Rs. 2.91 lakh. It was the highest Rs. 5.38 lakh of large farmers, followed by Rs. 2.86 lakh

of medium farmers, Rs. 2.28 lakh of small farmers and the least Rs. 1.43 lakh of marginal

farmers.

3.2 Characteristics of Operational Holding

The characteristics of operational land holding are shown in Table 3.2. After taking

into account uncultivable land (0.32 acre), leased in (1.04 acre) and leased out land (0.03

acre), net operated area of the selected farmers growing soybean was on an average 7.99

acres. Net operated area on an average of marginal farmers was 1.85 acres, 3.88 acres for

small 7.35 acres for medium and 20.30 acres for large farmers. Leased out and uncultivable

lands were very less.

Table-3.2: Characteristics of operational holdings (Acres per HH)

Farm

size

Own

land

Un

cultivable

land

Lease-

in

Lease-

out

NOA Irrigated

area

GCA Cropping

intensity

Marginal 1.78 0.04 0.11 0.00 1.85 1.81 3.66 1.98

Small 3.58 0.13 0.43 0.00 3.88 3.42 7.44 1.92

Medium 6.17 0.31 1.49 0.00 7.35 6.94 14.00 1.91

Large 19.64 0.89 2.15 0.16 20.73 18.97 36.28 1.75

Total 7.30 0.32 1.04 0.03 7.99 7.37 14.59 1.83 Source: Field survey

It seems that selected households had good irrigation facilities as 92 to 97 per cent of

the net operated area of all the categories of households was irrigated except small farmers

(88%). Overall cropping intensity of the selected farmers was 183, it varied between 175 for

large and 198 for marginal farmers.

3.3 Structure of Tenancy

The nature of tenancy in leased in and leased out has been given in Table 3.3.

Overall leased in land was 13.02 per cent of the net operated area of the selected

farmers. Medium size farmers had highest leased in land in their NOA, as it accounted for

20.27 per cent in NOA followed by 11.08 per cent by small farmers. The share of leased in

land in NOA was least 5.95 per cent in case of marginal farmers and it was 10.37 per cent

for large farmers.

36

Table-3.3: Nature of tenancy in lease-in/ lease-out land (% of HHs) Farm size Crop

sharing

Crop and

cost

sharing

Fixed

rent in

cash

Others Total % share

of

tenancy

in NOA

Rent

amount

Rs. Per

acre

Lease-in

Marginal 0.00 66.67 33.33 0.00 100.00 5.95 45000

Small 14.29 57.14 28.57 0.00 100.00 11.08 31309

Medium 26.67 73.33 0.00 0.00 100.00 20.27 --

Large 11.11 44.44 44.44 0.00 100.00 10.37 47130

Total 17.65 61.76 20.59 0.00 100.00 13.02 45616

Lease-out

Marginal -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Small -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Medium -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Large 100.00 -- -- -- 100.00 0.77 --

Total 100.00 -- -- -- 100.00 0.38 -- Source: Field survey

The farmers preferred to leased in land mostly on crop and cost sharing basis

followed by leased in land on fixed rent in cash and crop sharing. Overall, 61.76 per cent of

the total farmers who had leased in land reported to have leased in land on crop and cost

sharing, 20.59 per cent of farmers had leased in land on fixed rent in cash and 17.65 per cent

on crop sharing. There was no trend reported in nature of tenancy in leased in land among

different categories of farmers. Farmers who had leased in land crop and cost sharing were

highest 73.33 per cent on medium farms and least 44.44 per cent on large farm. On the other

hand, maximum 44.44 per cent of large farms who had leased in land reported to have

leased land on fixed rent in cash and no household in medium size farm category had leased

in land on this basis. The rental value of leased in land was Rs. 31309 for small, Rs. 45000

for marginal and Rs. 47130 for large farmers. Only large farmers leased out land and that to

on crop sharing basis only.

3.4 Sources of Irrigation

The various sources of irrigation of sample farmers is given in Table 3.4, it is

indicated that major source of irrigation for the sample farmers were open well and electric

tubewell. Irrigation through open wells was 36.13 per cent and through electric tube wells

was 35.63 per cent of the net irrigated area. Other sources of irrigation were diesel tube well

(11.05%), others (11.63%) canal and tubewell together (3.30%) canal water (1.76%) and

tanks (0.51%).

37

Table-3.4: Source of irrigation of net irrigated area (Percentage)

Farm size Only

canal

Canal +

tube well

Only

electric

tube-well

Only

diesel

tube-well

Tanks Open

well

Others

Marginal 0.00 6.13 45.05 9.88 0.00 30.24 8.70

Small 0.00 3.12 35.26 14.45 4.29 35.45 7.42

Medium 0.00 4.52 41.52 17.87 0.00 27.06 9.03

Large 3.29 2.37 31.52 6.75 0.00 41.82 14.25

Total 1.76 3.30 35.63 11.05 0.50 36.13 11.63

Source: Field survey

On marginal and medium farmers, similar pattern was observed in using different

sources of irrigation. Marginal farmers irrigated 45.05 per cent of their net irrigated area by

electric tube wells and the same was 41.52 per cent for medium farmers. Net irrigated area

being irrigated by open wells was 30.24 and 27.06 per cent for marginal and medium

farmers respectively. Other important source of irrigation for these categories of farmers

was diesel tube wells. Tanks and canal water were not used for irrigation by them.

In case of small farmers, the contribution of electric tube well and open well was

almost equal as share of each in net irrigated was around 35 per cent. About 14 per cent of

net irrigated area was irrigated by diesel tubewells. Only small farmers were using tanks as

source of irrigation.

On large farmers, water from open well was the main source of irrigation as 41.82

per cent of net irrigated area was irrigated by it. This was followed by electric tube wells

with 31.52 per cent of net irrigated area and 14.25 per cent by other sources. Canal water for

irrigation was used only by large farmers.

3.5 Cropping Pattern

The cropping pattern of selected farmers is given in Table 3.5. The cropping pattern

of the selected farmers revealed that major crops grown by them were soybean, maize,

wheat, coriander and garlic. Overall 38.25 per cent of GCA was under soybean cultivation,

with the highest 42.69 per cent of GCA of marginal farmers and the lowest 37.22 per cent

GCA of medium farmers. Maize was grown on 7 to 10 per cent GCA of all categories of

farmers. Wheat was the most important rabi crop. Wheat comprised 26.77, 20.32, 17.41 and

15.76 per cent of GCA of marginal, small, medium and large farmers respectively with

overall 17.47 per cent of GCA under this crop. As far as garlic is concerned, it was grown

on 6 to 8 per cent GCA of the different land holding size groups. Similarly 8 to 11 per cent

38

of GCA was under cultivation of coriander among various categories of farmers. Other

crops grown by the selected farmers on 1 to 4 per cent of GCA were green gram, barley,

methi, groundnut, rapeseed and mustard, gram, black cumin, orange and fodder. There were

some crops which were occupying very negligible areas of GCA are given in Table 3.5.

Table-3.5: Cropping pattern of farmers (% of GCA)

Name of crop Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Kharif crops

Soybean 42.69 37.81 37.22 38.44 38.25

Maize 6.81 10.00 9.91 9.47 9.51

Jowar 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.05

Green Gram 0.00 0.00 0.18 2.66 1.43

Urad 0.08 0.00 0.74 0.39 0.42

Groundnut 0.20 2.33 1.64 2.22 1.95

Vegetable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01

Fodder 1.00 1.43 0.82 0.30 0.64

Rabi crops

Wheat 26.77 20.32 17.41 15.76 17.47

Barley 0.00 0.06 1.08 0.58 0.63

Gram 0.59 0.33 0.77 1.50 1.08

Methi 2.22 3.21 4.35 2.32 3.03

Coriander 7.51 9.41 10.57 8.75 9.30

Rapeseeds & Mustard 5.07 3.01 5.37 3.58 4.12

Black Cumin 0.00 1.43 1.24 1.17 1.16

Garlic 5.90 7.98 5.95 6.33 6.40

Onion 0.00 0.09 0.69 0.22 0.33

Chilli 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01

Isubgul 0.00 0.81 1.19 0.04 0.48

Opium 0.00 0.35 0.12 0.00 0.08

Fodder 0.39 0.18 0.19 0.55 0.39

Summer crops

Vegetable 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05

Fodder 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.07

Perennial crops

Orange 0.00 0.81 0.31 5.69 3.14

Gross cropped area 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Note: Vegetable includes Potato and Sweet Potato; Fodder includes Sorghum-Jowar Fodder and Lucerne.

Source: Field survey.

39

3.6 Percentage of Area under HYV

The information regarding percentage of area under high yielding variety of seeds

presented in Table 3.6, it is indicated that 91.86 per cent of area of soybean crop was grown

using HYV seeds. The analysis on different size groups of farmers reveals that marginal

farmers had entire area of soybean crop under HYV seeds while this percentage was 96.29,

94.71 and 88.18 per cent for small, medium and large farmers respectively. Thus with

increasing in size of farm, the proportionate area under HYV seeds of soybean crop has

decreased. About 93 per cent of area was under HYV seeds for wheat crop. Maize had

86.19 per cent of its area under HYV seeds. Only 18 and 29 per cent of cultivated area of

coriander and garlic were used HYV seeds for cultivation respectively. Overall, area under

HYV seeds was 69.67 per cent of the total cropped area of the selected farmers. Maximum

area under HYV seeds was of marginal farmers with 75.05 per cent and least was 68.43 per

cent of medium farmers.

Table-3.6: Percentage of area under HYV seeds

Name of crop Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Kharif crops

Soybean 100.00 96.29 94.71 88.18 91.86

Maize 70.92 88.09 84.22 88.12 86.19

Jowar 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Green Gram 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Urad 0.00 0.00 79.11 74.50 76.08

Groundnut 0.00 84.23 62.44 71.24 70.61

Vegetable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fodder 100.00 75.00 85.11 100.00 87.16

Rabi crops

Wheat 79.42 94.71 85.59 98.88 92.60

Barley 0.00 0.00 71.17 0.00 36.36

Gram 0.00 17.81 0.00 29.41 21.82

Methi 0.00 26.96 25.14 0.00 14.32

Coriander 0.00 0.00 5.84 33.75 18.42

Rape Seeds & Mustard 57.69 94.06 43.85 47.00 50.94

Black Cumin 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.42 4.93

Garlic 19.83 19.09 22.04 37.09 29.17

Onion 0.00 100.00 55.56 0.00 37.93

Chilli 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Isubgul 0.00 44.44 39.64 0.00 38.78

Opium 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Fodder 100.00 0.00 80.00 100.00 91.16

Summer crops

Vegetable 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Fodder 0.00 0.00 66.67 0.00 66.67

Perennial crops

Orange 0.00 55.56 100.00 10.85 14.91

Total 75.05 74.04 68.43 68.70 69.67 Note: Vegetable includes Potato and Sweet Potato; Fodder includes Sorghum-Jowar Fodder and Lucerne.

Source: Field survey.

40

3.7 Crop Productivity, Marketed Surplus and Value of Output by Farm Size

3.7.1 Crop Productivity

The productivity of various crops grown by the selected farmers is given in Table 3.7.

Overall yield as reported by the selected farmers was 8.59 quintals per acre for soybean.

It was maximum 8.77 quintals and minimum 7.70 quintals per acre for large and marginal

farmers respectively. Average yield of maize varied from 8.05 (medium farmers) to 8.67

quintals per acre (marginal farmers) and 8.39 quintals per acre in an overall situation. In

case of wheat, the yield reported by medium farmers was 12.94 quintals per acre while by

marginal farmers yield obtained was 12.33 quintals per acre. Productivity of rapeseed and

mustard varied between 7.37 quintals and 8.31 quintals per acre. Other important crops

grown by these farmers were coriander and garlic and their productivity varied from 6.56 to

7.26 quintals and 32.56 to 38.56 quintals per acre among different categories of farmers

respectively.

Table-3.7: Average yield of major crops grown by the selected households (Qtl./ acre)

Name of crop Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Kharif crops

Soybean 7.70 8.22 8.61 8.77 8.59

Maize 8.67 8.63 8.05 8.50 8.39

Jowar 0.00 4.75 0.00 0.00 4.75

Green Gram 0.00 0.00 2.13 2.28 2.28

Urad 6.25 0.00 2.82 2.78 2.84

Groundnut 4.50 4.56 4.75 4.55 4.60

Vegetable 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 4.00

Fodder 77.67 77.50 72.10 76.49 75.22

Rabi crops

Wheat 12.33 12.90 12.94 12.36 12.61

Barley 0.00 13.85 14.68 15.57 15.10

Gram 4.83 4.52 4.69 4.74 4.73

Methi 5.26 6.18 7.68 6.44 6.88

Coriander 7.17 7.26 6.74 6.56 6.74

Rape Seeds & Mustard 8.21 7.37 8.31 7.98 8.07

Black Cumin 0.00 4.22 5.58 5.01 5.07

Garlic 32.56 33.58 37.78 38.56 37.23

Onion 0.00 47.50 81.94 94.00 84.91

Chilli 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00

Isubgul 0.00 6.11 5.58 6.50 5.74

Opium 0.00 1.03 0.21 0.00 0.66

Fodder 90.00 95.00 100.00 93.19 94.11

Summer crops

Vegetable 56.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 56.25

Fodder 0.00 0.00 37.50 0.00 37.50

Perennial crops

Orange 0.00 27.78 25.00 21.71 22.00 Note: Vegetable includes Potato and Sweet Potato; Fodder includes Sorghum-Jowar Fodder and Lucerne.

Source: Field survey.

41

3.7.2 Output marketed

The percentage of output marketed by the selected households is given in Table 3.8.

The output of soybean marketed by the households was 95.36 per cent of soybean produced.

The output marketed varied between 94.02 per cent on small and 96.47 per cent on marginal

farm size category. The percentage of output marketed in maize crop was 75.42 per cent

with minimum (48.78%) on marginal and maximum (85.81) on large farmers. In case of

wheat crop, 67.03 per cent of the output was marketed by sample farmers with minimum

44.61 per cent by marginal and 77.30 per cent by marginal by large farmers.

Table-3.8: Percentage of output marketed by the selected households

Name of crop Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Kharif crops

Soybean 96.47 94.02 95.01 95.73 95.36

Maize 48.76 62.53 66.97 85.81 75.42

Jowar 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Green Gram 0.00 0.00 100.00 96.36 96.49

Urad 50.00 0.00 81.48 30.61 57.11

Groundnut 100.00 91.56 76.79 84.73 83.80

Vegetable 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Rabi crops

Wheat 44.61 59.32 61.86 77.30 67.03

Barley 0.00 0.00 71.52 39.14 54.80

Gram 0.00 60.61 58.67 95.35 83.29

Methi 66.67 45.76 81.28 97.79 82.64

Coriander 79.17 95.21 61.79 81.86 76.83

Rape Seeds & Muster 99.53 88.31 86.15 87.07 87.73

Black Cumin 0.00 48.15 57.64 100.00 78.33

Garlic 79.70 81.35 82.04 83.70 82.71

Onion 0.00 94.74 84.75 42.55 68.83

Chilli 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Isubgul 0.00 100.00 70.72 100.00 79.00

Opium 0.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 100.00

Summer crops

Vegetable 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00

Perennial crops

Orange 0.00 100.00 62.50 100.00 98.76

Total 66.46 70.63 73.22 82.03 77.09

Note: Vegetable includes Potato and Sweet Potato; Fodder includes Sorghum-Jowar Fodder and Lucerne.

Source: Field survey.

Overall 76.83 and 82.71 per cent of coriander and garlic produced were marketed by

the selected farmers respectively. The some was 87.73 per cent in case of production of

rapeseed and mustard. If output of all crops grown by the selected farmers is taken into

account then overall 77.09 per cent of the output of all crops together were marketed with

42

the highest 82.03 output marketed by large and lowest 66.46 per cent output marketed by

marginal farmer. Thus with increasing in the size of farm, the proportion of output marketed

had also increased.

3.7.3 Value of output and marketed surplus

Overall 77.19 per cent of the output in value term was marketed by the selected

households with 82.29 per cent being the highest on large farms and 67.93 per cent the least

on marginal farmers. There was not much variation (except small farm) in value of per acre

output among different size of land holdings but value of marketed surplus per acre increase

with increase in size. The value of marketed surplus per households was highest for large

farmers due to per acre high value of marketed surplus and high percentage of output was

marketed by them vis-à-vis is true for marginal farmers. The value of output and marketed

surplus of sample farmers in presented in Table 3.9.

Table-3.9: Value of output and marketed surplus

(Aggregate of all crops) Farm size Value of output

(main + byproduct)

Value of marketed surplus % of output

marketed

Rs. Per household Rs. Per acre Rs. Per

household

Rs. Per

acre

Marginal 76595 41499 52034 28192 67.93

Small 148861 38343 111583 28741 74.96

Medium 301898 41102 211712 28823 70.13

Large 852489 41116 701480 33833 82.29

Total 325774 40796 251457 31489 77.19

Source: Field survey

3.8 Summary

There were 28 marginal, 30 small, 37 medium and 25 large farmers making a total

sample of 120 farmers. The result based on analysis of primary data on socio-economic

characteristics of the selected farmers showed that the household size varied from 7 to 11

member and average member of earners were there in all farm size categories except large

farm size group where earners were five in the family.

The education status of the family members revealed that in 36 per cent of the

households, the highest education level of family member was upto secondary. The family

member having highest education of higher secondary was around 28 per cent, graduate and

43

above 16 per cent and technical 3 per cent of the total households. The illiterate households

were 13 per cent of the total households. The distribution of households among different

categories of caste indicated that overall 64.17 per cent of the households were OBC, 26.67

per cent were in general category. The SC and ST households were 8.33 and 0.83 per cent

of the total households respectively. The distance of main market from sample farms was on

an average 11.70 kilometers. The overall average annual family income of farmers was Rs.

2.91 lakh. It was the highest Rs. 5.38 lakh of large farmers followed by Rs. 2.86 lakh of

medium, Rs. 2.28 lakh of small and Rs. 1.43 lakh of marginal farmers.

After taking into account uncultivable land, leased in and leased out land, average

net operated area and gross cropped area of the selected farmers were 7.99 and 14.59 acres

per household respectively and cropping intensity was 183.

The selected soybean growers preferred to leased in land on crop and cost sharing

basis followed by fixed rent in cash and crop sharing. Overall 61.76 per cent farmers leased

in land on crop and cost sharing, 20.59 per cent on fixed rent in cash and 17.65 per cent on

crop sharing.

Major sources of irrigation were open well and electric tube well for the selected

farmers. Overall area irrigated by each open wells and electric tube wells was 36 per cent.

Area irrigated by only diesel tube wells and by other sources was 11.05 and 11.63 per cent

of NIA respectively. The area irrigated by only electric tube wells varied between 41.51 per

cent by medium to 31.52 per cent of NIA by large farmers among different categories of

farmers. The area irrigated through open wells was highest of 41.82 per cent of NIA for

large farmers and lowest of 27.06 per cent for medium farmers.

The cropping pattern of the selected farmers revealed that soybean, maize, wheat,

garlic and coriander were the main crops grown by them. Overall 38.15 per cent of GCA

was under soybean cultivation, with the highest 42.69 per cent GCA of marginal farmers

and the lowest 37.22 per cent GCA of medium farmers. Wheat was grown on 17.47 per cent

of GCA of the selected farmers, same was 9.51 per cent for maize. Coriander and garlic

covered 9.30 and 6.30 per cent cultivated area of the farmers respectively. Other crops

grown on 1 to 4 per cent of GCA were green gram groundnut, rapeseed and mustard, gram,

black cumin, orange and fodder.

Overall, 91.86 per cent of the area of soybean cultivation was under HYV seeds. It

varied between cents per cent under HYV seed for marginal farmers to 88.18 per cent for

large farmers. Around 86 and 93 per cent area of maize and wheat was under HYV seeds

44

respectively. Area under HYV seeds was less 18.42 per cent for coriander and 29.17 per

cent for garlic crop.

Overall, average yield of soybean was 8.59 quintals per acre with highest of 8.77

quintals per acre for large farmers and lowest 7.70 quintals per acre for marginal farmers.

Average yield of soybean has increased with increase in farm size. Average yield of maize

and wheat was 8.39 and 12.61 quintals per acre respectively.

The output marketed was 95.36 per cent of the total output of soybean produced by

the selected farmers, with highest 96.47 per cent by marginal and least 94.02 per cent by

small farmers. There was not much variation (except small farm) in value of per acre output

among different size of land holdings but value of marketed surplus per acre increase with

increase in size.

45

Chapter 4

Assessment of Pre Harvest Losses in

Soybean Crop

All other management practice of crop husbandry will be futile if the crop is not

protected against the attacks of pests and disease. In the absence of crop protection, the

yield may be drastically declined and entire efforts of growing crop will be defected

resulting in financial loss to the growers.

This chapter deals with various constraints faced in the cultivation of soybean crop,

assessment of incidence of pests and disease attack and crop losses, methods adopted and

sources of information for pests and disease control by the selected households and

households suggestions to minimize pre harvest losses.

4.1 Constraints Faced in Cultivation of Soybean Crop

The constraints faced in cultivation of soybean crop are presented in Table 4.1

indicating the severity of various constraints faced by the selected households in cultivation

of soybean crop.

Table-4.1: Constraints faced in cultivation of soybean crop (% of HHs)

Constraints faced (Multiple answers) Most

important

Important Least

important

Poor seed quality 26.67 18.33 24.17

Water deficiency 19.17 28.33 29.17

Pest and disease problem 69.17 17.50 11.67

High cost of inputs 26.67 55.00 10.83

Low output price 23.33 41.67 15.83

Others like, problem of wild animals and

not suitable environment 0.83 21.67 7.50

Source: Field survey

Pests and disease problem was reported as most important constraint in cultivation

of soybean by 69.17 per cent of the households. Around 27 per cent of the households

reported each poor seed quality and high cost of inputs as major constraints while 23.33 and

19.17 per cent households informed low output price and water deficiency as most

important constraints in cultivation of soybean crop respectively. On the other hand, 55 per

46

cent households reported high cost of inputs as important constraint followed by 41.67 per

cent informing important constraints were low output price and 28.33 per cent water

deficiency respectively. Around 18 per cent households revealed each poor seed quality and

pest and disease problems as important constraints.

On the other side, around 29 and 24 per cent households reported water deficiency

and poor seed quality as least important constraints in cultivation of soybean crop

respectively. Between 11 to 16 per cent households informed each pest and disease

problems, high cost of inputs and low output price as least important constraints for this

crop.

Thus most important constraint in soybean cultivation as reported by the sample

households was pests and disease problem which was followed by poor seed quality and

high cost of inputs. High cost of inputs, low output price and water deficiency were

important constraints faced by farmers in cultivation of soybean. The major problems of

these constraints as reported by farmers were as below.

1. Pests and disease problem

- Pests and diseases not easily controllable,

- Pesticides and fungicides sometimes fail to control pests and disease,

- High price of pesticides and other medicines.

2. Poor seed quality

- Duplicate seeds or high price of seeds,

- Low quality or low pest resistance power of seeds.

3. High cost of inputs

- High price of pesticides, fungicides, fertilizer and high wage rate,

- Shortage of farm inputs

- Labours not available due to MGNREGA.

4. Low price of output

- Price too low than expected price or previous year price,

- High fluctuations of crop price,

- Government should interfere in price decision.

5. Water deficiency

- Low rainfall or lack of irrigation facility,

- Electricity shortage,

- Water logging problem.

47

6. Others

- Climate some time not suitable,

- Blue bulls and dry cows destroy the crop output,

- Lack of knowledge on cultivation practices.

4.2 Assessment of Incidence of Pests and Disease Attack and Crop Losses

The identification of pests and disease attack by the households is given in Table

4.2. The selected households able to distinguish between pests and disease attack were

99.17 per cent. It was not possible to assess the severity of the attack through quantitative

assessment by any of the selected households. About 51 per cent of the households used

qualitative assessment to assess the severity of the attack. The households used both

methods to assess the severity of the attack were 48.33 per cent.

Table 4.2: Identification of pests and disease attack (% of HHs)

Description Percentage

HH able to distinguish pests and disease attack 99.17

Assessment about the severity of the attack Quantitative assessment 0.00

Qualitative assessment 50.83

Both 48.33 Source: Field survey

4.2.1 The Incidence of Major Pests and Disease

Crop losses due to weeds, pests and pathogen continue to reduce available

production of food and cash crops. The overall loss potential is especially high in crops

susceptible to pests and diseases like oilseeds. Pre harvest losses occur before the process of

harvest begins and it may be due to insects, birds, rodents or presence of weeds and

diseased plants in the field. The incidence of major pests and disease in local and HYV of is

shown in Table 4.3.

Major pests

Mostly farmers were growing HYV of soybean. The number of households reported

about incidence of major pests and disease in local variety of soybean were very less. Major

pests affecting the HYV variety of soybean crop were gram pod borer, girdle beetle/ stem

borer and tobacco caterpillar. The rank of severity of gram pod borer was reported by 73.33

per cent households as very important. The frequency of attack of gram pod borer was

reported in every season by 53.33 per cent while production loss was quite high due to

attack of it, as 23.33, 20.83 and 21.67 per cent of the households revealed production loss

by less than five per cent, 5 to 10 per cent and 10 to 25 per cent respectively.

48

Table 4.3: Incidence of major pests and disease – Soybean (% of HHs)

Name of pest/ disease/

weed

Rank of severity* Frequency of

attack** Production loss***

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5

Major Pests - Local variety

1. Hairy caterpillar 1.67 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

2. Tobacco caterpillar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. Thrips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Gram pod borer 3.33 0.83 0.00 3.33 0.83 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.83

5. Girdle beetle/ stem borer 3.33 0.83 0.00 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 1.67 0.00

6. Others 0.00 2.50 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.67 0.00 0.00

Major Pests - HYV variety

1. Hairy caterpillar 18.33 20.00 6.67 21.67 18.33 5.00 33.33 1.67 8.33 1.67 0.00

2. Tobacco caterpillar 32.50 22.50 0.83 33.33 15.83 6.67 24.17 5.00 14.17 10.83 1.67

3. Thrips 14.17 1.67 0.00 8.33 5.83 1.67 0.83 1.67 5.00 7.50 0.83

4. Gram pod borer 73.33 4.17 0.83 53.33 12.50 12.50 23.33 20.83 21.67 8.33 4.17

5. Girdle beetle/ stem borer 64.17 5.83 0.83 44.17 16.67 10.00 16.67 7.50 19.17 23.33 4.17

6. Others 14.17 4.17 0.00 15.83 0.00 2.50 4.17 1.67 5.00 5.83 1.67

Major disease - Local variety

1. Leaf spot 2.50 0.83 0.00 3.33 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 1.67 0.00 0.00

2. Pod blight 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. Bacterial blight 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Aerial blight/ web blight 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5. Charcoal rot/ stem

blight/ dry root rot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6. Soybean mosaic virus 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00

7. Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Major disease - HYV variety

1. Leaf spot 45.83 27.50 9.17 9.17 3.33 1.67 34.17 15.83 20.00 9.17 3.33

2. Pod blight 9.17 3.33 1.67 12.50 1.67 0.00 4.17 4.17 3.33 0.83 1.67

3. Bacterial blight 10.83 0.83 0.00 9.17 2.50 0.00 0.00 3.33 5.83 2.50 0.00

4. Aerial blight/ web blight 0.83 0.00 0.83 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00

5. Charcoal rot/ stem

blight/ dry root rot 10.00 0.83 0.83 6.67 3.33 1.67 0.83 6.67 3.33 0.83 0.00

6. Soybean mosaic virus 12.50 5.00 0.83 9.17 5.83 3.33 2.50 1.67 4.17 9.17 0.83

7. Others 8.33 1.67 0.00 9.17 0.83 0.00 2.50 4.17 2.50 0.00 0.83

Major weed - Local variety

1.Barnyard Grass (Samo) 0.83 0.83 2.50 4.17 0.00 0.00 0.83 1.67 1.67 0.00 0.00

2. Commelina (Bokhano) 0.00 1.67 1.67 2.50 0.83 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

3. Diwaliyo 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Motagiyo 0.00 0.83 0.83 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00

5. Kharijado 0.00 0.83 2.50 3.33 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00

6. Boganiya 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.00

7. Carrot Grass (Gajar

Grass) 0.83 0.00 0.83 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.00

8. Milk weed (Dudhi) 0.83 0.83 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.00 0.00

9. Others Weeds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Major weed - HYV variety

1.Barnyard Grass (Samo) 48.33 15.00 5.00 55.83 10.00 2.50 34.17 25.00 5.83 3.33 0.00

2. Commelina (Bokhano) 30.00 10.00 3.33 34.17 5.00 4.17 15.83 19.17 5.00 1.67 1.67

3. Diwaliyo 11.67 10.00 0.83 16.67 3.33 2.50 15.83 5.83 0.00 0.83 0.00

4. Motagiyo 32.50 6.67 0.83 25.00 13.33 1.67 23.33 14.17 2.50 0.00 0.00

5. Kharijado 36.67 10.83 3.33 39.17 8.33 3.33 25.83 19.17 4.17 0.00 0.00

6. Boganiya 15.83 6.67 2.50 20.00 4.17 0.83 14.17 6.67 3.33 0.83 0.00

7. Carrot Grass (Gajar

Grass) 13.33 0.83 0.00 11.67 1.67 0.83 6.67 5.00 1.67 0.00 0.83

8. Milk weed (Dudhi) 9.17 1.67 0.00 8.33 2.50 0.00 1.67 5.83 1.67 0.00 1.67

9. Others Weeds 18.33 5.83 2.50 20.00 5.83 0.83 12.50 11.67 2.50 0.00 0.00

Note: * very important=1; important=2; not important=3;

** Every season=1; once in two season=2; once in three season=3;

*** < 5 % =1; 5-10 % =2; 10-25 % =3; 25-50 %=4; >50 % =5

Source: Field survey

49

The severity of girdle beetle/ stem borer attack on soybean crop was revealed by

64.17 per cent households as very important with 44.17 per cent households reported

frequency of attack in every season. The production loss due to attack of this pest was as

high as 25 to 50 per cent for 23.33 per cent of the households, 10-25 per cent production

loss was indicated by 19.17 per cent households and less than 5 per cent loss was reported

by 16.67 per cent households.

The rank of severity of tobacco caterpillar on soybean crop was reported very

important by 32.50 per cent households while 22.50 per cent informed its attack as

important. The frequency of tobacco caterpillar attack was in every season as informed by

33.33 per cent households. The loss of production was less than five per cent for 24.17 per

cent of households and 15 and 11 per cent of households indicated that it was 25-50 per cent

and 10-25 per cent respectively. Thus gram pod borer, girdle beetle/ stem borer and tobacco

caterpillar were the main pests causes significant loss in production of soybean of the

selected farmers. Production loss due to these pests varied between less than 5 to 50 per cent

of the total production. Pests which attack soybean crop but not very important were hairy

caterpillar, thrips and others.

Major diseases

In case of local variety of soybean, only leaf spot disease was reported by 2.50 per

cent households as very important with frequency in every season and loss of production by

less than five per cent to ten per cent. Major diseases affecting HYV of soybean crop were

mainly leaf spot, followed by soybean mosaic virus, bacterial blight and charcoal rot/ stem

blight/ dry root rot.

The severity of leaf spot was reported as very important by 45.83 per cent of

households but only 9.17 revealed its occurrence in every season and 3.33 per cent once in

two seasons. However, the production loss due to attack of leaf sport was reported less than

5 per cent by 34.17 per cent households, 5 to 10 per cent loss by 15.87 per cent households,

and 10 to 25 per cent loss by 20 per cent of the households. Around 10 to 12 per cent of

households revealed severity of other each major disease like soybean mosaic virus,

bacterial blight, charcoal rot and pod blight as very important with frequency of attack in

every season. Only 3 to 5 per cent households reported loss of production due to these

diseases between less than 5 per cent and 25 per cent. Thus loss of production due to these

diseases was generally between less than 5 to 10 per cent, with exception where production

loss was 10 to 25 per cent.

50

Weeds

Problem of weeds is a very severe in soybean crop. Because of more space between

rows, slow growth at early stage and warmer season, weeds grow profusely, competing with

the crop for water, light and nutrients. This adversely affects the total yield. During rainy

season, the infestation of weeds is high. Since English names of some of these weeds were

not available, local names of weeds are used for analysis. Again very few households in

local variety of soybean crop reported severity of weeds as very important or important.

The severity of barnyard grass (samo) weeds was reported as very important by

48.33 per cent respondents and 15 per cent indicated, it as important with occurrence in

every season informed by 55.83 per cent households. While 34.17 per cent households

informed that the production loss due to barnyard grass (samo) weed was less than five per

cent. Around 25 per cent revealed loss of production between 5 to 10 per cent. There were

many other weeds affecting the soybean crop but the severity of attack of each commelina

(bokhano), motagiyo and kharijado was reported as very important by 30 to 37 per cent

households. With majority of them were reporting frequencies of attack in every season and

loss of production up to 10 per cent.

4.2.2 Magnitude of Crop Loss

Table 4.4 below shows the magnitude of crop loss due to pests, disease and weeds

infestation in soybean crop. The actual production with pests, disease and weeds infestation

was 7.68 quintals per acre for local variety and 8.67 quintals per acre for HYV of soybean.

Production with attack fluctuated between 2.88 to 8.01 quintals per acre and 7.70 to 8.88

quintals per acre for local and HYV among different size of farms respectively. Normal

production of soybean without attack was 10.07 and 10.93 quintals per acre for local and

HYV respectively. The minimum normal production without attack was 3.80 and maximum

10.55 quintals per acre for local variety and it was least 9.76 and highest 11.13 quintals per

acre for HYV among different categories of farmers. This shows that variation in per acre

production of HYV soybean among different size groups of farmers was quite less and there

was a huge variation in per hectare production of local variety of soybean.

51

Table 4.4: The magnitude of crop loss due to pests, disease and weeds infestation

Description Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Local HYV Local HYV Local HYV Local HYV Local HYV

Actual production

with attack

(quintal/ acre)

0.00 7.70 2.88 8.43 7.84 8.65 8.01 8.88 7.68 8.67

Normal production

without attack

(quintal/ acre)

0.00 9.76 3.80 10.87 10.04 10.91 10.55 11.13 10.07 10.93

Loss of output

(quintal/ acre) 0.00 2.06 0.92 2.44 2.20 2.26 2.54 2.26 2.38 2.27

Percentage loss over

actual production 0.00 26.70 31.94 28.92 28.00 26.14 31.70 25.42 31.00 26.16

Percentage loss over

normal production 0.00 21.07 24.21 22.43 21.88 20.72 24.07 20.27 23.66 20.74

Source: Field survey

The overall loss of output of soybean due to pests, disease and weeds infestation

worked out to be 2.38 quintals per acre for local variety of soybean crop which was 31 per

cent over actual and 23.66 per cent over normal production. In case of HYV of soybean,

overall loss of output was 2.27 quintals per acre which was estimated 26.16 per cent loss

over actual and 20.74 per cent over normal production.

Thus overall loss of production due to pests, disease and weed infestation was

significant high for both varieties of soybean crop but it was comparatively high for local

variety over HYV variety of crop. Average productivity was higher in HYV soybean than

local variety and also loss of output per acre was marginally low in HYV soybean.

4.3 Methods of Pests and Disease Control Adopted by the Selected Sample Households

There are chemical and bio-logical methods adopted by the farmers to control pests

and disease in field crops. The cost of chemical methods used by farmers to control pests

and disease for soybean is given in Table 4.5.

Around 90 per cent of the selected households applied chemical methods to control

pests, disease and weeds in soybean crop. Farmers in all categories of farm size applied

around one spray with an average cost including labour charges of Rs. 1703 per acre for

weedicides. The total cost varied between Rs. 1358 to Rs. 1799 per acre being lowest on

marginal and highest on medium size farm. Around two sprays of insecticides were applied

by all the categories of farmers to control various pests with overall total cost of Rs. 1760

per acre with the highest total cost of Rs. 1855 per acre being occurred to large farmers and

lowest Rs. 1519 per acre to small farmers.

52

Table 4.5: Cost of chemical methods adopted for pests and disease control (Rs. / acre)

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Total

% HH adopted control

measures 89.29 86.67 86.49 100.00 90.00

Weedicides

No. of sprays/ acre 1.15 1.06 1.21 1.23 1.21

Cost of chemicals 1077 1134 1470 1413 1387

Labour charges 281 282 329 319 316

Total cost 1358 1416 1799 1732 1703

Insecticide

No. of sprays/ acre 2.15 1.79 2.09 2.41 2.22

Cost of chemicals 1376 1174 1323 1444 1369

Labour charges 368 345 381 411 391

Total cost 1743 1519 1704 1855 1760

Fungicide

No. of sprays/ acre 1.67 2.00 1.16 1.61 1.49

Cost of chemicals 1722 1951 1313 1720 1597

Labour charges 356 401 290 366 342

Total cost 2078 2352 1602 2086 1939 Source: Field survey

To control various disease one to two sprays of fungicides were applied by farmers.

The total cost of fungicides spray varied between Rs. 1602 to Rs. 2352 per acre being

lowest on medium and highest on small farm category. While in an overall situation, the

total cost worked out to be Rs. 1939 per acre.

Details of biological methods adopted by the selected households for pests and

disease control are given in Table 4.6. Biological method was used by 15 per cent of total

selected households in only one selected village (Dungargaon) of Jhalawar district. They

used organic items like neem leaf, tulsi leaf, garlic, onion, dhatura ankh and cow urine etc.

for 3-4 times to maintain fertility of land. About 32 per cent of the households used other

control methods like proper preparation of land, use of FYM and growing maize as

intercrop.

Table 4.6: Details of biological methods adopted for pests and disease control

Item Percentage of HH

adopted this method

Details about the method

Biological methods 15.00 Use organic items

Other control

measures

Yes 31.67 a) Proper preparation of land;

b) Use of FYM and biological method and

c) Growing maize as intercrop.

No 68.33 ----

Source: Field survey

53

4.4 Sources of Information for Pests and Disease Control by the Selected Households

The sources of information to control pests and disease as revealed by the selected

farmers in Table 4.7 indicated that all the sample households took advice from specific

source to control pests and disease in soybean crop.

Extension services provided by the government extension agents to the selected

households growing soybean crop was very important as almost all the households

(99.17%) opted for their advice and 75 per cent of them ranked it as most important source

of advice, 16.67 as important and only 7.5 per cent of households ranked it as least

important. An advices taken from government extension agents were about providing

details on inputs and right methods of farming with pests and disease control management.

Table 4.7: Extension services on pests and disease control management (% of HHs)

Percentage of HH

seeking advice 100.00

Sources of Advice Rank of sources Details of advice

Most

Important Important

Least

Important

Government

extension agent 75.00 16.67 7.50

Provide details about all inputs and

right method of farming with pest and

disease management.

Private input dealer 15.83 41.67 29.17 About new inputs

Fellow farmers 36.67 37.50 20.00 Share their experience

TV/ Radio service/

Newspaper 15.83 46.67 28.33

Market prices of new inputs and

output and provide details about

various government progamme.

Agricultural

University/ KVK 21.67 28.33 22.50 Provide details about new method of

agriculture and new seeds.

Any other 0.00 1.67 0.00 Arrange tour Source: Field survey

Another source of advice for farmers was private inputs dealers and 86.67 per cent

of the total households took their advice. Among them, 15.83 per cent ranked it as most

important source of advice for controlling pests and disease while 41.67 per cent reported it

as important source and 29.17 per cent of households revealed it as least important source of

advice. Their advice was mainly on information about new inputs. About 94 per cent of

farmers took advice from fellow farmers, of which 37 per cent households informed each

advice from fellow farmers as most important and important source and it was least

important for 20 per cent of the households. They usually shared their experiences of

farming.

54

The media like TV/ radio / newspapers were also source of advice for 90 per cent of

the total households. It was ranked as important source of advice by 46.67 per cent of

households, 28.33 reported it as least important and 15.83 as most important source of

advice to control pests and disease. The information about market price of new inputs and

output, various government programmes etc. were collected by farmers through these

sources.

Agriculture University/ KVK were also the source of advice to 72.5 per cent of the

total farmers, providing details about new methods of agriculture and seeds. It ranked as

most important and important source of advice for 21.67 and 28.33 per cent of the

households respectively and was least important for 22.50 per cent of farmers.

4.5 Households Suggestions on How to Minimize Pre Harvest Loses

Household gave suggestions on how to minimize pre harvest losses and it is given in

Table 4.8. Timely carrying out farm activities like sowing, weeding, ploughing and

irrigation was the most important to minimize pre harvest losses of soybean crop as 64.17

per cent of the selected households gave this suggestion to minimize pre harvest losses.

Mix-cropping/ inter-cropping was the advice of 53.33 per cent households to reduce pre

harvest losses. Around 39 to 41 per cent recommended each timely and required use of

pesticides, weedicides and insecticides, use of improved, certified seeds and proper

preparation of land to minimize pre harvest losses. Timely harvesting at required moisture

of crop was the suggestion of 27.50 per cent of the households to minimize pre harvest

losses of soybean crop, while none of the households suggested removing of infected plants

from farm, use of recommended quantity of fertilizer, use of drip irrigation to minimize the

pre harvest losses. Other measures like control of pest and disease at initial stage, crop

rotation, drying crop before harvesting and use of biological methods to reduce pre harvest

losses were suggested by few farmers.

55

Table 4.8: Households suggestions on how to minimize losses

No. Description % of HHs

Pre-harvest

1 Timely use of pesticides, weedicides and insecticides in required proportion 40.83

2 Timely doing all farm activity like, timely sowing, weeding, inter ploughing and

irrigation 64.17

3 Remove infected plants from Farm 0.00

4 Use improved, pest and disease resistant and certified seeds 40.00

5 Mix cropping/ Inter cropping 53.33

6 Use for fertilizer in recommended proportion 0.00

7 Control of pest and disease at initial stage; 1.67

8 Crop rotation 5.83

9 Use of drip system in low rain fall period; 0.00

10 Keep it dry before harvesting 5.00

11 Proper selection and preparation of land to make it pests and disease free land. 39.17

12 Timely harvesting at required moisture 27.50

13 Use of FYM and biological method 5.83 Source: Field survey

4.6 Summary

On constraints faced in cultivation of soybean, the most important constraint as

reported by 69 per cent of the households was pests and disease problem, followed by each

poor seed quality and high cost of inputs as reported by 27 per cent households. The

important constraints in soybean crop were high cost of inputs and low output price for 55

and 42 per cent of households respectively. Thus pests and disease problem, poor seed

quality, high cost of inputs and low output price were the most important or important

constraints as revealed by the selected farmers in cultivation of soybean.

About 99 per cent of the selected households were able to distinguish between pests

and disease attack. It was not possible to assess the severity of the attack through

quantitative assessment by any of these households. Around 51 per cent households used

only qualitative and 48 per cent households used both quantitative and qualitative

assessment to assess the severity of attack of pests and disease.

Mostly selected farmers were using HYV seeds of soybean. Major pests affecting

this variety were gram pod borer, girdle beetle/ stem borer and tobacco caterpillar. The rank

of severity of gram pod borer was reported as very important by 73.33 per cent households

with 53 per cent households reporting frequency of its attack in every season. Loss of

production due to pod borer varied between less than five per cent and 25 per cent. About

64 per cent households revealed rank of severity of attack of girdle beetle/ stem borer as

very important and 44 per cent reported attack in every season. Around 23 per cent

56

households reported loss of production due to this pest as high as 25 to 50 of the total

production. About 33 per cent households reported the rank of severity to tobacco

caterpillar very important and it attack in every season and loss of production was less than

five per cent for 24 per cent of the households. The loss between 10 to 50 per cent of the

total production due to this pest was reported by 25 per cent of the selected farmers.

Major disease affecting HYV of soybean were loaf spot followed by soybean mosaic

virus, bacterial blight and charcoal rot/ stem blight/ dry root rot. The severity of leaf spot

was reported as very important by 45.83 per cent of households, while only around 12 per

cent mentioned its occurance in every season or once in two seasons. Majority of them

reported production loss less than 5 per cent to 10 per cent of production. Around 10 to 12

per cent of households revealed severity of each other diseases like soybean mosaic virus,

bacterial blight, charcoal rot and pod blight as very important with frequency of attack every

season. The production loss of less than five to 25 per cent was reported by 3 to 5 per cent

households.

Problem of weeds is a very severe in soybean crop. Because of more space between

rows, slow growth at early stage and warmer season, weeds grow profusely, competing with

the crop for water, light and nutrients. During rainy season, the infestation of weeds is high.

Due to non-availability of english names of some weeds, local names are used for them. The

severity of barnyard grass (samo) weeds was indicated very important/ important by around

60 per cent of the households. The production loss as reported by households varied

between less than 5 to 10 per cent. There were many other weeds affecting the soybean

crop, of which commelina (bokhano), motangiyo and kharinjado were important and loss of

production was upto 10 per cent.

Overall, the magnitude of crop loss due to pests, disease and weed infestation was

2.38 and 2.27 quintals per acre for local and high yielding varieties of soybean respectively.

The per cent loss over actual production was 31 per cent for local and 26.16 for HYV

soybean and over normal production it was 23.66 per cent for local and 20.74 per cent loss

of production in HYV of soybean. Actual and normal production per acre was higher for

HYV than local variety of soybean and also loss of output per quintal is slightly lower in

case of HYV than local variety. So even though, the magnitude of crop loss is high in both

varieties loss is comparative low for HYV of soybean.

Around 90 per cent of the selected households applied chemical method to control

weeds in soybean crop. To control weeds in soybean crop all categories of farmers applied

57

one spray, for insecticides two sprays and for fungicides one to two sprays. Overall per acre

cost of weedicides was Rs. 1703, for insecticides Rs. 1760 and for fungicides Rs. 1939.

There was no trend reported in the cost among different categories of farm size.

Only in one selected village, farmers used biological methods like use of neem leaf,

tulsi leaf, garlic, onion, cow urine etc. to maintain fertility of land. Around 32 per cent of

the households used methods like preparation land, growing maize as inter crop etc. About

60 per cent did not use any other measures to control pests and disease in soybean crop.

Households took advice on pests and disease control management from government

extension agents, private input traders, fellow farmers, TV/ radio/ news paper and

Agriculture University/ KVK. Between 90 to 92 per cent households took advice from each

of these sources except Agriculture University/ KVK, where 72 per cent of households took

advice from them. Advice of government extension agents was the most important for 75

per cent of the households. Advice taken from private input dealers was important for 41.67

per cent and advice through TV/ radio/ news paper was important for 46.67 per cent of the

households. Advice from fellow farmers and Agricultural University/ KVK was most

important/ important for 73 and 50 per cent of households respectively.

Major suggestions to reduce pre harvest loses of soybean crop were timely carrying

out farm activities, mix cropping/ inter cropping and timely and required use of pesticides,

weedicides and insecticides and use of improved variety of seeds. Timely harvesting at

required moisture of crop was also suggested by farmers to reduce losses. Other measure

like control of pests and disease at initial stage, crop rotation, drying crop before harvesting

and use of biological methods to reduce pre harvest losses were suggested by very few

farmers.

58

Chapter 5

Assessment of Post Harvest Losses in

Soybean Crop

A large amount of time and efforts is required to produce a crop until it is harvested.

The importance of post-production operations such as harvesting, threshing, transportation

and storage are as important as pre-production operations. Generally post harvest loses

occur between harvest and the moment of human consumption. They include on farm losses

such as when grains is harvested threshed, winnowed and dried, as well as losses along the

chain during transportation and storage etc. This chapter deals with assessment of

production losses of soybean crop during various stages of post harvest.

5.1 Production Loss during Harvest

The harvesting losses depend on the time of harvest and the variety grown. Best time

to harvest soybean is when most of the pods are brown and the leaves turn yellow and drop.

Harvesting is usually done by hand, breaking the stalks on the ground level or with sickle.

In some varieties, the shattering is more. Losses in the field also occur due to untimely

harvest, poor agricultural operations, careless handling and natural calamities like heavy

rainfall, birds, rodents etc.

The production losses during different stages of harvesting of soybean crop are

given below in Table 5.1. The analyses focus on HYV of soybean crop as majority of area

harvested (89%) was under this variety. Soybean was harvested during mid and late stage of

harvesting. The area harvested in mid harvesting stage was 3.79 acre and 2.38 acre per

household in late harvesting stage. This worked out to be 54.38 per cent area harvested in

mid stage and 34.15 per cent in late stage of harvesting. Almost entire area was harvested

manually by the selected households. Quantity lost during mid stage of harvesting of

soybean was 11.53 kg. and during late harvesting 9.45 kg. per acre of harvested crop. The

loss amount of harvest was 1.58 per cent in mid harvesting and 1.32 per cent in late

harvesting. The ranking of this loss during different stages of crop harvest was reported as

low by 56.02 per cent and as medium by 39.02 per cent of the total households growing

59

HYV soybean during mid stage, while around 39 per cent households indicated loss as each

medium and low during late harvesting.

Table 5.1: Quantity lost at different stages of harvest

Stages of harvest and variety Early Mid Late

Local HYV Local HYV Local HYV

Area harvested per HH (acres) --- --- 0.17 3.79 0.63 2.38

Percentage area harvested

(early, mid and late) --- --- 2.44 54.38 9.04 34.15

Area manually harvested (percentage) --- --- 2.47 52.54 9.07 33.11

Area mechanically harvested (percentage) --- --- 0.00 1.80 0.00 1.01

Rank of loss

(percentage

of

households)

High --- --- 0.00 3.31 0.00 5.79

(0.00) (4.88) (0.00) (21.21)

Medium --- --- 0.83 26.45 0.83 10.74

(33.33) (39.02) (33.33) (39.39)

Low --- --- 1.65 38.02 1.65 10.74

(66.67) (56.10) (66.67) (39.39)

Quantity lost

during

harvest

Kg. per acre of harvest --- --- 2.90 11.53 3.29 9.45

Kg. per quintal of harvest --- --- 0.27 1.58 1.06 1.32

Loss % of harvest amount --- --- 0.27 1.58 1.06 1.32 Note: Figures in parenthesis indicates the percentage of households for rank of loss for each variety of seeds.

Source: Field survey

Thus produce lost during harvest also depends on time and variety of crop. Like

here, percentage of harvested amount loss was more for HYV soybean in mid stage

harvesting (1.58%) than late harvesting (1.32%). While for local variety, it was other way

around, that is loss was more in the late harvest (1.06%) than in crop harvest in

mid time (0.27%).

5.2 Production Lost during Threshing and Winnowing

Soybeans are easy to thresh, separate and clean. When plants are completely dry,

threshing can be done either with the mechanical soybean thresher or some conventional

methods used in other legumes. Threshing should be done carefully and any kind of severe

beating or trampling may damage the seed coat and thus would result into breaking and

spoilage of grains. Small errors in the adjustment of thresher can result in disastrous losses

during the threshing crop.

The quantity lost due to threshing, manually and mechanical in soybean crop is

given in Tables 5.2 and 5.3. As reported by 8.33 per cent of the selected households,

threshing was done manually for HYV soybean crop with average loss was 8.24 kg. per acre

which came out to be only 0.95 per cent loss due to threshing and 3.33 per cent of

60

households ranked this loss as medium and 4.17 per cent ranked as low. Manually

threshing and winnowing was done by very less households (0.83%) in case of local variety,

no winnowing was done in HYV variety.

About 88 per cent of the selected households were doing threshing mechanically in

case of HYV and only 3 per cent households in local variety. Average quantity loss in

mechanically threshing in HYV was 6.43 per acre which worked out to be 0.84 per cent of

the quantity threshed and 45.00 per cent of households ranked this loss as medium and

41.67 per cent as low. Only 3.33 per cent of households in HYV variety had done

winnowing manually. Otherwise no winnowing was done.

Table 5.2: Quantity lost during threshing and winnowing

Stages of harvest and variety Local HYV

Area/ quantity manually threshed (percentage of HH) 0.83 8.33

Rank of loss

(percentage of

Households)

High 0.00 0.83

(0.00) (10.00)

Medium 0.83 3.33

(100.00) (40.00)

Low 0.00 4.17

(0.00) (50.00)

Quantity lost during

threshing

Average loss (Kg. per acre) 3.85 8.24

Average loss (Kg. per qtl.) 0.67 0.95

loss % of threshed amount 0.67 0.95

Area/ quantity manually winnowed (percentage of HH) 0.83 ---

Rank of loss

(percentage of

Households)

High 0.00

--- (0.00)

Medium 0.00

--- (0.00)

Low 0.83

--- (100.00)

Quantity lost during

winnowing

Average loss (Kg. per acre) 0.77 ---

Average loss (Kg. per qtl.) 0.13 ---

loss % of threshed amount 0.13 ---

Area/ quantity mechanical winnowed (percentage of HH) --- ---

Rank of loss

(percentage of

Households)

High --- ---

Medium --- ---

Low --- ---

Quantity lost during

winnowing

Average loss (Kg. per acre) --- ---

Average loss (Kg. per qtl.) --- ---

loss % of threshed amount --- --- Note: Figures in parenthesis indicates the percentage of households for rank of loss for each variety of seeds.

Source: Field survey

61

Quantity loss in threshing and winnowing of local variety soybean was rank low for

all the households. However this loss in HYV variety was mostly divided between low and

medium rank by the households.

Table 5.3: Quantity lost during threshing and winnowing

Stages of harvest and variety Local HYV

Area/ quantity mechanically threshed (percentage of HH) 3.33 88.33

Rank of loss

(percentage of

Households)

High 0.00 1.67

(0.00) (1.89)

Medium 0.83 45.00

(25.00) (50.94)

Low 2.50 41.67

(75.00) (47.17)

Quantity lost during

threshing

Average loss (Kg. per acre) 3.33 6.43

Average loss (Kg. per qtl.) 0.75 0.84

loss % of threshed amount 0.75 0.84

Area/ quantity mechanically winnowed (percentage of HH) --- ---

Rank of loss

(percentage of

Households)

High --- ---

Medium --- ---

Low --- ---

Quantity lost during

winnowing

Average loss (Kg. per acre) --- ---

Average loss (Kg. per qtl.) --- ---

loss % of threshed amount --- ---

Area/ quantity manually winnowed (percentage of HH) --- 3.33

Rank of loss

(percentage of

Households)

High --- 0.83

(25.00)

Medium --- 0.83

(25.00)

Low --- 1.67

(50.00)

Quantity lost during

winnowing

Average loss (Kg. per acre) --- 0.19

Average loss (Kg. per qtl.) --- 0.11

loss % of threshed amount --- 0.11

Note: Figures in parenthesis indicates the percentage of households for rank of loss for each variety of seeds.

Source: Field survey

62

5.3 Production Loss during Transportation and Handling

There are various mode of transportation used by the selected farmers to transport

produce to market. Table 5.4 shows the quantity of soybean lost during transportation and

handling.

Table 5.4: Quantity lost during transportation and handling

Mode of transportation Head

load

Bullock

cart Trolley Tempo Trunk Others Total

Average quantity transported

(Qtls. per HH) 0.05 6.69 56.80 1.83 1.67 0.01 67.05

Average distance covered (kms.) 0.33 4.18 13.94 4.00 10.00 1.00 13.63

Transportation cost

(Rs. Per quintal) 0.00 30.01 25.06 45.45 14.00 0.00 25.81

Rank of

loss

(percentage

of HH)

High 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50

(0.00) (0.00) (2.88) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (2.07)

Medium 0.00 3.33 20.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 25.00

(0.00) (13.33) (23.08) (50.00) (0.00) (0.00) (20.69)

Low 2.50 21.67 64.17 1.67 1.67 1.67 93.33

(100.00) (86.67) (74.04) (50.00) (100.00) (100.00) (77.24)

Quantity

lost during

transport

Average loss

(Kg. per qtl. of

amount transported)

0.58 1.18 0.22 0.11 0.11 1.67 0.21

% of amount

transported 0.58 1.18 0.22 0.11 0.11 1.67 0.21

Quantity

lost during

handling

Average loss

(Kg. per qtl. of

amount transported)

0.00 0.73 0.15 0.06 0.11 0.83 0.14

% of amount handled 0.00 0.73 0.15 0.03 0.11 0.83 0.14

Note: Figures in parenthesis indicates the percentage of households for rank of loss for each mode of transport.

Source: Field survey

The main mode of transportation was trolley as major quantity of soybean produce

was transported by trolley to market by the sample households. The quantity transported by

the trolley was 85 per cent of the total quantity transported by the farmers. Transportation

by tractor trolley is convenient as it carry large quantity of produce than bullock cart in less

duration of time. While bullock cart is good for small quantity of produce and short

distance. Grains losses during transportation happen when it is exposed to insect and pest

and during loading and unloading. The average quantity transported by trolley was 56.80

quintals per household. While the average distance covered was 13.94 kms. with

transportation cost of Rs. 25.06 per quintal. Average loss occurred during transportation was

0.22 kg. per quintal of amount transported and 0.15 kg. per quintal of amount handled. This

63

loss was ranked low by 74.04 per cent and medium by 23.08 per cent of the total households

who transported soybean by trolley.

Overall, average quantity of soybean transported was 67.05 quintals per household.

The distance covered in transportation of goods was 13.63 kms. with cost of Rs. 25.81 per

quintal. Quantity lost during transportation and handling was 0.21 and 0.14 kg. per quintal

of amount transported respectively. Most of the household (77.24%) rank this loss as low.

5.4 Production Loss during Storage

Most of the farmers store soybean in their own house. They usually store in gunny

bags. The filled bags are stacked above wooden planks. The big farmers normally have

pucca floored houses where soybean is stored. Generally soybean is not stored in loose

form. The pests, rodents and fungus are the main factors which causes loss in agriculture

produce during storage.

The Table 5.5 shows the quantity of soybean produce lost during storage. The place

of storage for soybean crop was mainly pucca house and mode of storage was either gunny/

plastic bags or kept open in pucca house. It was reported by the selected farmers that in

pucca house 46.05 per cent of amount was stored in gunny/ plastic bags and 30.80 per cent

was kept open in it. Remaining amount was stored in kutcha house. The amount stored in

pucca house was 20.80 quintals per household and it was 6.24 quintals per household in

kutcha house. The percentage of households who dried produce before storing were 28.33

and 19.17 per cent of the households who stored quantity in pucca and kutcha houses

respectively. On an average produce was stored for 63 days for household in pucca house

and for 38 days in kutcha house. It was informed by the farmers during field visit that due to

non-availability of good storage facility, they are not keeping produce for long.

Majority of households rank storage loss as low in both pucca and kutcha house. The

quantity lost of produce stored in pucca house was 0.30 kg. per quintal due to weight loss,

0.36 kg. per quintal due to rodents and 0.07 kg. per quintal due to fungus. The quantity lost

in kutcha house during storage was less than this. The storage cost worked out to be Rs.

6.70 per quintal for pucca house and Rs. 6.37 per quintal for kutcha house.

64

Table 5.5: Quantity lost during storage

Place of storage* 1 2 3 4

Mode of storage

(percentage of amount

stored)**

Open 4.76 30.80

-- -- (20.63) (40.04)

Gunny/ plastic bag 17.40 46.05

-- -- (75.36) (59.88)

Kothi/ bin kuchha, Pucca 0.92 0.00

-- -- (4.00) (0.00)

Steel drums 0.00 0.00

-- -- (0.00) (0.00)

Others 0.00 0.06

-- -- (0.00) (0.08)

Amount stored (Qtls per HHs) 6.24 20.80 -- --

Percentage of HHs who dried before storing 19.17 28.33 -- --

Average number of days stored (per HHs) 38.10 62.64 -- --

Rank of loss in storage

(percentage of HHs)*** High 0.00 0.00

-- -- (0.00) (0.00)

Medium 4.17 12.50

-- -- (14.29) (30.00)

Low 25.00 29.17

-- -- (85.71) (70.00)

Quantity lost during

storage (Kgs. Per quintal

of storage)

Due to weight loss 0.16 0.30 -- --

Due to rodents 0.23 0.36 -- --

due to fungus 0.05 0.07 -- --

Storage cost

(Rs. Per quintal)

6.37 6.70 -- --

Notes: * Kutcha house =1; Pucca house =2; Scientific godown/ warehouse =3; Others =4

**Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage of amount stored in that particular mode of storage.

***Figure in parenthesis indicates per cent of households for rank of loss for each mode of storage.

Source: Field survey

5.5 Capacity Utilization of Storage by the Selected Households

The capacity utilization of storage by the selected farmers growing soybean is given

in Table 5.6. As mentioned earlier, the mode of storage of soybean crop was gunny/ plastic

bags or in open space and produce was stored either in pucca or kutcha house. Total storage

capacity of gunny/ plastic bags was 7610 quintals of which actual quantity stored was

2059.20 quintals, means there was only 27.06 per cent capacity utilization. Quantity of crop

stored in open space was 1154.10 quintal which was 56.16 per cent of capacity utilization of

the total capacity of 2055 quintals.

65

Table 5.6: Capacity utilization of storage by the households

Mode of storage

Soybean

Capacity

(Qtls.)

Actual storage

(Qtls.)

Capacity

utilization

(%)

Open 2055.00 1154.10 56.16

Gunny plastic bag 7610.00 2059.20 27.06

Kothi/ bukhari/ bin kutcha 50.00 30.00 0.00

Kothi/ bukhari/ bin made of cement 0.00 0.00 0.00

Steel drums 0.00 0.00 0.00

Others 25.00 2.00 8.00

Source: Field survey

5.5.1 Magnitude of crop loss

The total post harvest losses per quintal by farm size are given in Table 5.7. It is

observed from this table that quantity of soybean lost in harvesting stage was highest

followed by produce lost in threshing and storage among all stages of post harvest.

The quantity lost during harvesting of the crop was minimum of 1.29 kg. per quintal

on large farms and it was maximum of 2.24 kg. per quintal on small farms among all

categories of farm size. Quantity lost in threshing varied between 0.86 and 1.33 kg. per

quintal with lowest on medium and highest on marginal farms. Quantity lost in winnowing,

transportation and handling of soybean crop was meager for all farm size groups of farmers.

The maximum quantity lost in storage was 0.93 kg. per quintal by medium farmers and the

least was 0.53 kg. per quintal by large farmers.

Table 5.7: Total post harvest losses per quintal by farm size

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Quantity lost in harvesting (Kg. per qtl.) 1.91 2.24 1.32 1.29 1.45

Quantity lost in threshing (Kg. per qtl.) 1.33 1.15 0.86 0.72 0.85

Quantity lost in winnowing (Kg. per qtl.) 0.42 0.03 0.10 0.00 0.11

Quantity lost in transport (Kg. per qtl.) 0.29 0.24 0.27 0.16 0.21

Quantity lost in handling (Kg. per qtl.) 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.11 0.14

Quantity lost in storage (Kg. per qtl.) 0.55 0.65 0.93 0.53 0.65

Total post harvest lost (Kg. per qtl.) 4.73 4.50 3.64 2.81 3.41

Total post harvest lost (Kg. per acre)* 31.80 34.32 21.45 18.29 21.67 Note: Post harvest loss per acre is calculated by multiplying losses in kg. per quintal by the productivity per acre.

Source: Field survey

66

The total post harvest losses in soybean crop was minimum of 2.81 kg. per quintal

for large farmers and maximum of 4.73 kg. per quintal for small farmers. Overall post

harvest lost worked out to be 3.41 kg. per quintal for the selected farmers, of which quantity

lost in harvesting was 1.45 kg. per quintal, in threshing 0.85 kg., in winnowing 0.11 kg., in

transportation 0.21 kg.handling 0.14 kg.and in storage 0.65 kg. per quintal in soybean crop.

5.6 Quantitative Aspect of Storage and Their Pests Control Measures Adopted by the

Selected Households

The quantitative aspects of storage and their pest control measures adopted by the

selected farmers are given in Table 5.8. The study brought out that soybean was mainly

storage in pucca house, either in gunny/ plastic bags or was kept open in it. The roof of

storage structure was mainly of metal/ cemented as revealed by 59.17 per cent households.

Also 17.50 per cent households informed that roof of storage was grass thatched and 10 per

cent used asbestos sheet for roof. Around 72 per cent of households reported that walls of

storage structure was made of burnt bricks/ cemented and 21.67 per cent used mud for

making of walls. Floor of storage place was mostly made of concrete as told by 66.67 per

cent of households and earth was used for floor by 22.50 per cent households.

Generally, the households were not using platform to keep gunny/ plastic bags as

only 4.17 per cent households revealed to have platform of above 12 inches. Overall

physical condition of the storage structure was good as 70.83 per cent and 62.50 per cent of

the selected households informed to have good roof and good condition walls respectively.

Floor of this structure was cemented and in good condition as it was told by 78.33 per cent

of the household. Rat guards were not installed to protect the crop by two third of the

selected households. About 22 per cent households complained regarding broken floor and

mud coming out from storage structure.

The cost of storage was Rs. 179.17 per household with the average age of the

storage structure of 25.33 years. The cost of permanent storage i.e., steel drums etc. worked

out to be Rs. 749 and kutcha or cemented house cost was Rs. 152400 per household.

Maintenance status of the storage structure revealed that 55 per cent of the

households mentioned that no maintenance required for roof while 28.33 per cent of

household maintained roof within 2-5 years. Similarly walls maintenance was not required

67

for 59.17 per cent households and 26.67 per cent maintained it within 2-5 years. Rat guards

maintenance was found not necessary for 70.80 per cent of the households.

Table 5.8: Some quantitative aspects of storage (% of HHs)

Description Soybean

1. Nature of storage structure

Roof made of

Grass thatched 17.50

Crop byproduct 8.33

Plastic cover 2.50

Metal/ cemented 59.17

Asbestos sheet 10.00

Others 2.50

Walls made of

Burnt bricks/ cemented 71.67

Woven basket 2.50

Mud 21.67

Crib 1.67

Open wall 1.67

Others 0.83

Floor made of

Concrete 66.67

Earth 22.50

Woven basket 5.83

Wooden 5.00

Others 0.00

Percentage of households having platform 4.17

Height of the platform

less than 6 inches 0.00

6-12 inches 0.00

above 12 inches 4.17

Others 0.00

2. Physical condition of storage

Roof Leaking root 29.17

Good roof 70.83

Walls Damaged wall 37.50

Good condition wall 62.50

Guards Rat guard installed 25.00

No rat guards 75.00

Floor Cemented good condition floor 78.33

Broken floor, mud coming out 21.67

3. Cost of storage (including handling, chemical used etc.) 179.17

The average age of the storage structure (years per households) 25.33

Cost of permanent storage, e.g., steel drums etc. (Rs. Per household) 749

Cost of kutcha or cemented house for storage (Rs. Per household) 152400

Contd…

68

Table 5.8: Contd…

Description Soybean

4. Maintenance status - Frequency of repair of grain storage

Roof

Every year 8.33

Every two years 8.33

2-5 years 28.33

No maintenance required 55.00

Walls

Every year 2.50

Every two years 11.67

2-5 years 26.67

No maintenance required 59.17

Rat guards

Every year 5.83

Every two years 4.17

2-5 years 19.17

No maintenance required 70.83

5. Storage pests control measures

Sun drying

Monthly 18.33

Quarterly 10.00

By-annual 4.17

Annual 25.00

Never 42.50

Removal of infected grain from storage

and destroying it

Monthly 8.33

Quarterly 16.67

By-annual 2.50

Annual 14.17

Never 58.33

Admixing with ash and other plant

materials

Monthly 0.83

Quarterly 5.83

By-annual 2.50

Annual 8.33

Never 82.50

Smoking

Monthly 2.50

Quarterly 3.33

By-annual 1.67

Annual 0.00

Never 92.50

Others

Monthly 0.00

Quarterly 0.00

By-annual 0.83

Annual 0.00

Never 99.17

Source: Field survey

The storage pests control measures were not practiced by large numbers of selected

farmers. Storage pest control measures like sun drying, removal of infected grain from

storage and destroying it, admixing with ash and other plant material and smoking were

69

never carried out by 42.50, 58.33, 82.50 and 92.50 per cent of the households respectively.

Only 25 per cent households used sun drying measures and 14.17 per cent household used

removals of infected grains from storage and destroying it for storage pest control annually.

5.7 Households Suggestions How to Minimize Post Harvest Losses

Households suggestions on how to minimize losses in soybean crop is given below

Table no 5.9. During the field survey, it was reported by the farmers that not setting of

threshing machine properly, causes lots of loss to crop in the field. This is also reflected in

the suggestions of 34.17 per cent household who had suggested to developed efficient

threshing technology and proper setting of thresher to minimize the loss. Development of

scientific storage facility was the next important suggestion by 26.67 per cent of household

followed by the suggestions of 25 and 21.67 per cent of the households to have proper

dryness of crop before storage and have clean and dry area of storage with air tight facility

and humidity free storage place respectively.

Table 5.9: Households suggestions on how to minimize losses

Sr.

No.

Description % of

HHs

Post-harvest 0.00

1 Properly dry before storage 25.00

2 Develop efficient threshing technology and proper setting of thresher 34.17

3 Develop proper and scientific storage facility available at village level and at

market level by government 26.67

4 Develop proper hook system for loading and unloading process at market. 1.67

5 Select clean and dry area of storage with air tight and humidity free 21.67

6 Select efficient transportation mode 0.83

7 Installed rat cage 6.67

8 Proper care should be taken while harvesting, threshing, winnowing and storage 0.00

9 Grading of the crop 0.00

10 Develop market system; 18.33

Source: Field survey

5.8 Summary

Soybean of both varieties were harvested during mid and late stage of harvesting.

Since local variety was not grown by many farmers, analysis is mainly carried out for HYV

70

of soybean. The production loss of crop during different stages of post harvest revealed that

54.38 per cent area of HYV soybean was harvested in mid stage and 34.15 per cent in late

stage of harvesting. Quantity lost during late stage of harvesting was 9.45 kg. per acre

which was 1.32 per cent of the quantity harvested. While 11.53 kg. per acre quantity was

lost in mid stage of harvesting which worked out to be 1.58 per cent of harvested amount.

Only 8.33 per cent of the selected households did threshing manually of HYV crop.

Mechanically threshing was done by 88.33 per cent households and quantity loss was 6.43

kg. per acre which worked out to be 0.84 per cent of the quantity threshed and majority

farmers ranked this loss as medium or low. Winnowing was done by very few households in

both manually and mechanical threshing.

The main mode of transportation was trolley as major quantity of soybean produce

was transported by it to market by the sample households. The average quantity transported

was 56.80 quintals per household with Rs. 25.06 per quintal transportation cost. Average

loss occurred during transportation was 0.22 per cent of amount transported and 0.15 per

cent of amount handled.

Overall average quantity transported was 67.05 quintals of soybean per household

and quantity loss in transportation was 0.21 per cent of amount transported and 0.14 per

cent of amount handled. This loss was ranked low by 93.33 per cent of the households.

The pests, rodents and fungus are the main factors which cause loss in produce

during storage. The place of storage for soybean crop was mainly pucca house and mode of

storage was either gunny/ plastic bags or kept open in pucca house. It was reported that in

pucca house, 46.05 per cent of amount was stored in gunny/ plastic bags and 30.80 per cent

amount was kept open in it. Quantity stored in pucca house was more than kutcha house and

it was stored for more days (63 days) in pucca house as compared to stored in kutcha house

(38 days).

The quantity loss of produce stored in pucca house per quintal was 0.30 kg. due to

weight loss, 0.36 kg. due to rodents and 0.07 kg. due to fungus. The quantity loss in kutcha

house was lower than this because produce was stored for less number of days. Quantity

lost was ranked as low or medium by the farmers. Overall 51.16 per cent storage capacity

was utilized of open storage and capacity utilization was only 27.06 per cent of the total

storage capacity of gunny/ plastic bags.

71

Overall quantity lost in harvesting was 1.45 kg. per quintal with highest 2.24 kg. for

small farmers and lowest 1.29 kg. for large farmers. Overall quantity loss was 0.85 kg. per

quintal during threshing, it was minimum 0.72 kg. for large and maximum 1.33 kg. for

marginal farmers. Quantity lost in winnowing, transportation and handling of soybean crop

was meager in all size groups of farmers. Average quantity lost in storage was 0.65 kg. per

quintal with high on 0.93 kg. on medium and low 0.53 kg. on large farms. The total post

harvest losses varied between 2.81 kg. per quintal for large farmers and 4.73 kg. per quintal

for small farmers. Overall post harvest lost worked out to be 3.41 kg. per quintal for the

selected farmers, with highest quantity lost per quintal was 1.45 kg. in harvesting followed

by 0.85 kg. in threshing and 0.65 kg. in storage. Production loss was 0.21, 0.14 and 0.11 kg.

in transportation, handling and in winnowing respectively.

Overall physical condition of the storage structure was good as 70.83 per cent and

62.50 per cent of the selected households informed to have good roof and good conditional

walls respectively. Floor was cemented and in good condition was revealed by 78.33 per

cent households. Rat guards were not installed to protect crop by two third of the selected

households. The storage pests control measures were not practiced by large number of

selected farmers. Storage pest control measure like sun drying, removal of infected grain

from storage and destroying it, admixing with ash and smoking were never carried out by

42.50, 58.33, 82.50 and 92.50 per cent of the households respectively.

72

Chapter 6

Concluding Remarks and Policy Suggestions

At present scenario, there has been considerable increase in attention to the role of

agriculture must play in order to meet the food security needs of the country. Soybean

posses a very high nutritional value and is the richest source of protein. It can supply the

much needed protein to human diets as it contains about 40 per cent protein of superior

quality and all the essential amino acids particularly glycine, tryptophan and lysine similar

to cow milk. Though soybean is a legume crop, yet it is widely used as oilseed. The soybean

is gaining popularity due to its unique characteristic like adaptability to varied agro-climate

conditions, high nutritional value, significant role in preventing and treating chronic disease,

scope for manufacturing numerous processed food products and used as a source of animal

feed.

The soybean, which is rich in protein as well as fat, vulnerable to infestation by

insects, mites and contains more moisture makes it prone to the infection by fungi. The crop

is attacked by a number of insects, pests during the life cycle. The green soft succulent and

nutritive foliage provides a source of food, nutrition, space and shelter to the insect pests.

However, generally soybean is mainly attacked by number of diseases and pests, in India

soybean is affected by many fungi, bacteria also resulting in heavy loss in yield. Modern

high yielding varieties are also reported to show low tolerance to the competition from pests

and to respond with high field loss. Soybean is highly susceptible to mechanical injury and

damage occurring during post harvest handling. Thus soybean seeds quantity and quality is

affected during pre and post harvest periods.

Looking into these aspects, the study was undertaken with the main objectives to

estimate pre and post harvest losses in soybean crop in Rajasthan, to identify factors

responsible for it and suggest ways to reduce these losses. Keeping these objectives into

account, the various main conclusions from the study can be drawn are as under.

1. On account of this unique characteristic of soybean, its cultivation has increased many

folds in the country and stands next to groundnut. Rajasthan has achieved an impressive

growth in soybean production. The share of Rajasthan in the total area and production of

soybean in the country was 8.55 and 9.05 during TE 2007-10 respectively.

73

2. The state has achieved an impressive growth in soybean production as it has increased

from 1.07 lakh tonnes in TE 1987-90 to 9.30 lakh tonnes in TE 2007-10 mainly due to

high growth in area and moderate growth in yield of soybean. Area under soybean was

only 1.20 lakh hectares in TE 1987-90 which increased to 8.02 lakh hectares in TE

2007-10 while yield rose from 890 kg./ ha. to 1160 kg./ ha. during the same period.

3. As per CACP reports, overall cost C2 in soybean cultivation increased by 118 per cent

between 1996-97 and 2009-10, while fixed cost increased by 133 per cent and

operational cost by 113 per cent during this period. The operational cost accounted for

72.37 per cent and fixed cost 27.63 per cent of the total cost in 2009-10. Expense on

machine labour and human labour increased over the time. There was no trend reported

in the profitability of soybean crop over the period. Return fluctuates significantly from

year to year due to change in yield and farm harvest price.

4. Total 120 farmers selected for field survey were comprising of 28 marginal, 30 small,

37 medium and 25 large farmers. Majority of respondents were head of household.

Average household size varied from 7 to11 members. The illiterate households were 13

per cent of the total households.

5. After taking into account uncultivable land, leased in and leased out land, average net

operational area and gross cropped area of the selected farmers were 7.99 and 14.59

acres per household respectively and cropping intensity was 183. The selected soybean

growers preferred to leased in land on crop and cost sharing. Major sources of irrigation

for these farmers were open well and electric tube well.

6. The cropping pattern of these farmers revealed that soybean, maize, wheat, garlic and

coriander were the main crops grown by them. Overall 38.15 per cent of GCA was

under soybean cultivation, with the highest 42.69 per cent GCA of marginal and lowest

37.22 per cent of medium farmers. Around 92 per cent of soybean cultivation was under

HYV seeds and average yield of soybean was 8.59 quintals per acre with highest of 8.77

quintals per acre for large farmers and lowest of 7.70 quintals per acre for marginal

farmers.

7. Overall, 95.36 per cent of the total output of soybean produced by the farmers was

marketed, with highest 96.47 per cent by marginal and least 94.02 per cent by small

farmers.

74

8. There was not much variation in valuation in value of per acre output among different

size of land holdings but value of marketed surplus per acre increase with increase in

size.

9. Pests and disease were the major constraints in soybean cultivation as reported by 69 per

cent of selected farmers and also 18 per cent households reported it as important

constraint. Around 82 per cent households reported high cost of inputs as most

important or important constraint in the cultivation of soybean. Poor seed quality and

low output price were also most important/ important constraints as indicated by 45 and

65 per cent of households. Water deficiency was also constraint in soybean cultivation.

10. Mostly selected farmers were using HYV seeds of soybean for cultivation. The major

pests affecting this variety were gram pod borer, girdle beetle/ stem borer and tobacco

caterpillar. About 73 per cent farmers reported severity of gram pod borer attack very

important and 53 per cent households indicating frequency of attack in every season

with production losses varying between less than 5 to 25 per cent. The production loss

due to attacks of girdle beetle/ stem borer and tobacco caterpillar vary significantly from

less than 5 to 50 per cent.

11. Major disease affecting HYV of soybean were leaf spot followed by soybean mosaic

virus, bacterial blight and charcoal rot/ stem blight/ dry root rot. Production loss due to

disease was mostly less than 5 to 10 per cent of production. Very few households

reported loss of production upto 25 per cent.

12. Problem of weeds is very severe in soybean crop. The production loss due to weeds as

reported by the households varied between 5 to 10 per cent.

13. Overall magnitude of pre harvest loss due to pests, disease and weeds infestation was

2.38 and 2.27 quintals per acre for local and high yielding varieties of soybean

respectively. However, percentage loss over normal production was 23.66 per cent for

local and 20.74 per cent for HYV varieties. Normal production without attack was 10.93

and 10.07 quintal per acre for HYV and local varieties respectively. Thus even though,

the magnitude of crop loss is high in both varieties, loss is comparative low for HY

variety due to high productivity of HYV and loss of output per quintal is slightly lower

in case of HYV than local variety.

14. Households took advice on pests and disease control management from government

agents, private input traders, fellow farmers, TV/ radio/ news papers and Agriculture

University/ KVK. Between 90 to 92 per cent households took advice from each of these

75

sources except Agriculture University/ KVK. Advice taken from government agents was

most important for farmers followed by Agriculture University/ KVK, media and

private traders.

15. Major suggestions to reduce pre harvest losses of soybean crop were timely carrying out

farm activities, mix cropping/ inter cropping and timely and required use of pesticides,

weedicides and insecticides, and use of improved variety of seeds. Timely harvesting at

required moisture of crop was also suggested by farmers to reduce losses. Other

measure like control of pests and disease at initial stage, crop rotation, drying crop

before harvesting and use of biological methods to reduce post harvest losses were

suggested by very few farmers.

16. Soybean of both varieties was harvested during mid and late stage of harvesting. Area

harvested of HYV during mid stage was 54.38 per cent and 34.15 per cent during late

stage of the total harvesting area. Quantity lost in the mid stage of harvesting was 1.58

per cent of the quantity harvested and 1.32 per cent in late harvesting. This loss was

reported as low or medium.

17. Threshing was mostly done mechanically. About 88 per cent of the selected households

were doing threshing mechanically of HYV soybean crop and quantity loss 0.84 per

cent of the quantity threshed which majority farmers ranked this loss as medium or low.

18. The main mode of transportation was trolley as major quantity of soybean produce was

transported by it to market. Overall average quantity transported was 67.05 quintals of

soybean per household of which 56.80 quintals per household was transported by

trolley. Average loss occurred during transportation by trolley was 0.22 per cent of

amount transported and 0.15 per cent of amount handled while overall loss of 0.21 per

cent and 0.14 per cent of amount transported and handled respectively.

19. The place of storage for soybean crop was mainly pucca house and mode of storage was

either gunny/ plastic bags or kept open in pucca house. The quantity lost of produce

stored in pucca house per quintal was 0.30 kg. due to weight loss, 0.36 kg. due to

rodents and 0.07 kg. due to fungus. The quantity lost in kutcha house was lower than

this because produce was storage for less number of days. Quantity lost was ranked as

low or medium by the farmers.

20. Overall the total post harvest loss was 3.41 kg. per quintal and it varied between 2.70

kg. per quintals for large farmers and 4.38 kg. per quintals for small farmers. The

quantity lost per quintal in various stages worked out to be 1.45 kg. in harvesting, 0.85

76

kg. in threshing, 0.11 kg. in winnowing, in transportation, 0.14 kg. in handling and in

storage 0.65 kg.

21. Overall physical condition of the storage structure was good as 70.83 per cent and 62.50

per cent of the selected households informed to have good roof and good conditional

walls respectively. Floor was cemented and in good condition was revealed by 78.33 per

cent households. Rat guards were not installed to protect crop by two third of the

selected households. The storage pests control measures were not practiced by large

number of selected farmers.

22. During the field survey, it was reported by the farmers that not setting of threshing

machine properly, causes lots of loss to crop in the field. This is also reflected in the

suggestions of 34.17 per cent household who had suggested to developed efficient

threshing technology and proper setting of thresher to minimize the loss. Development

of scientific storage facility was the next important suggestion by 26.67 per cent of

household followed by the suggestions of 25 and 21.67 per cent of the households to

have proper dryness of crop before storage and have clean and dry area of storage with

air tight facility and humidity free storage place respectively.

Policy Suggestion:

Keeping in view above cited conclusions, the following policy issues can be drawn.

1. Pests are the major problem in cultivation of soybean. Timely pesticides, insecticides

and weedicides should be available to farmers at reasonable price.

2. There is need to improved crop protection, which could be biological, mechanical or

chemical methods. Farmers should be trained for this and proper advice should be given

to them.

3. Ever increasing prices of farm inputs is another constraint faced by the farmers. It

should be kept in control by checking the prices charged by private traders.

4. Trustworthy improved and certified seeds should be available to farmers as when

required.

5. Prices of soybean are not consistent. It varies from year to year which discourage

farmers to cultivate soybean. Government should take necessary steps for pricing of

soybean.

6. Due to short growing season, soybean fits well in a cropping system. Soybean crop is

well suited for inter cropping with a number of crops. Inter-cropping soybean results in

77

better land equivalent ratio. In this study it was reported that mix cropping of soybean

with maize is feasible and more remunerative.

7. Farmers should educate and trained for proper use of thresher.

8. Farmers are getting low price of their soybean produce. Government should procure the

crop and should have proper marketing channel, so that farmers get satisfactory price.

9. Director marketing without agents/ middlemen will helps in better marketing of soybean

and increase profit of the producer and also encourages the farmers for retail sale of

their produce.

10. There is lack of adequate scientific storage facilities in the villagers. Storage is the other

problem faced by the farmers. Two principal factors involved in safe storage of soybean

are moisture content and temperature. The amount of moisture determines whether or

not mold damage will occur or not. Proper infrastructure should be made available to

farmers to store their produce by government. Farmers are forced to sell their produce

due to non availability of proper storage facilities. Construction of storage facilities for

soybean should be made available that exist for other crop like wheat.

11. It is very heartening to note that advice given by government extension agents on pest

control management was most reliable and important for the selected farmers. Hence

government should strengthen their efforts to trained, convinced and encourage farmers

for soybean cultivation and most important aspect is that then farmers do not have to

depend on any one for advice.

78

References

Ali, Nawab (2003), Post Harvest Technology for Employment Generation in Rural Sector

Of India, Central Institute of Agriculture Engineering, Bhopal

(http://unapcaem.org/activities%20files/a20/5%20india.pdf).

Birewar, B. B. (1984), Post Harvest Technology of Pulses, Pulse Production, Constraints

and Opportunities, Oxford and IBH Publication co. New Delhi.

Cramer, H. H. (1967), Plant Protection and World Crop Production, Bayer &

Flanzenschutz, Nachrichten, Vol.20, pp.1-24.

Deshpande, R. S., Muruthi I. and Khlail Shah (2007), “Estimation of Seed, Feed and

Wastage Ratios for Major Food grains in India”, ADRT Centre, Institute for Social

and Economic Change, Bangalore.

Dhaliwal, G. S., Vikas Jindal and A.K. Dhawan (2010), “Insect Pest Problems and Crop

Losses, Changing Trends”, Indian Journal of Ecology, Vol. 37(1), pp. 1-7.

Dhaliwal, G.S., Dhawan, A.K. and Singh, R. (2007), Biodiversity and Ecological

Agriculture: Issues and Perspectives, Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics, Vol.

34 (2), pp. 100-109.

Dutta, Rajeshree A and Kalpana Kapadia (2011), Possibilities and Constraints in Increasing

Pulses Production in Rajasthan and the impact of National Food Security Mission on

Pulses, Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat.

Gaikwad, V. R., Shreekant Sambrani, V. P. Rakash, S.D. Kulkarni and P. Murari (2004),

Post Harvest Management, State of Indian Farmers, A Millennium Study, Vol. 16,

Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI, New Delhi.

GoI (2001), Agricultural Marketing Statistical Abstract, National Institute of Agricultural

Marketing, Jaipur.

GoI (2005), Post-Harvest Profile of Soybean, Directorate of Marketing and Inspection,

Department of Agriculture & Co-operation, Government of India, Faridabad.

GoI (2006), Rajasthan Development Report, Planning Commission, Government of India,

New Delhi.

GoI (2011), Report of Working Group on Warehousing Development and Regulations for

the Twelfth Plan Period (2012-17), Planning Commission, Govt. of India, New

Delhi.

GoI (2012), Agricultural Statistics at a Glance-2011-12, Department of Agriculture and

Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI, New Delhi.

GoI (2012), State of Indian Agriculture-2011-12, Department of Agriculture and

Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, New Delhi.

Kumar, B. L. (2001), Oilseed and Pulses in Indian Agriculture: A Review of Development

Policy and Production Performance, Gujarat Institute of Development Research,

Gota, Ahmedabad.

79

Oerke, E. C. and H. W. Dehne (2004), “Safeguarding Production Losses In Major Crops

and the Role of Crop Protection, Crop Protection, Vol.23 (4), pp. 275–285.

Oerke, E. C., H.W. Dekne, F. Schonbeck And A. Weber (1994), Crop Production and

Crop Protection- Estimated Losses in Major Food and Cash Crops, Amssterdam:

Elsevier science.

Oerke, E.C. (2006), “Crop Losses to Pests”, Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge

University Press.

Sallam, Mohamud N., “Insect Damage: Damage on post harvest”, International Centre of

Insect Physiology and Ecology (http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload

/inpho/docs/Post_Harvest_Compendium_-_Pests-Insects.pdf).

Selvi, R. V. and R. Kalpana and P. Rajendran (2002), “Pre and Post harvest Technologies to

Reduce Yield Losses in Rice- A Review”, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,

Department of Agronomy, Coimbatore, Vol. 23 (4), pp.252-261.

Shanover, T. G., J. Romeis and E. M. Minja (1999), “Insect Pests of Pigeon pea and their

Management- Abstract”, Annual Review of Entomology, Vol. 44, Pp. 77-96).

Shelar, V. R. (2008), Role of Mechanical Damage in Deterioration of Soybean Seed quality

during Storage”, Agricultural Reviews, 29(3), Pp.177-184.

80

Annexure I

Comments received from Dr. Parmod Kumar, Professor & Head, ADRT (Coordinator

of the Project), Institute for Social and Economic Change, Dr. V K R V Rao Road,

Nagarabhavi PO: Bangalore-560 072, on the draft report “Assessment of Pre and Post

Harvest Losses in Soybean Crop in Rajasthan”.

Assessment of Pre and Post Harvest Losses in Soybean Crop in Rajasthan

(AERC Report 152)

1. Title of the draft reports examined:

Assessment of Pre and Post Harvest Losses in Soybean Crop in Rajasthan

2. Date of receipt of the Draft report: 5 June 2013

3. Date of dispatch of the comments: 3 July 2013

4. Comments on the Objectives of the study:

5. All the objectives of the study have been addressed

6. Comments on the methodology

7. Common methodology proposed for the collection of field data and tabulation of results

has been followed. However, estimates in some tables need to be changed for uniformity

and comparison of results across the states.

8. Comments on analysis, organization, presentation etc.

(i) Cropping pattern, in terms of % of GCA, of the sample farmers is given in Chapter

3, Table 3.5. It would be useful if name of major crops falling within vegetable and

fodder groups are provided in a note below the table. In Tables 3.6 to 3.8, authors

may provide information for individual crops only rather than crop groups as

aggregation of data, for instance yield, does not provide much insights into their

performance.

(ii) Please cross check the number of insecticide sprays and its associated chemical

cost given in Table 4.5, page 52 as it seems to be relatively high for a crop like red

gram.

(iii) In Chapter 5, in all the tables please calculate the percentage of households for rank

of loss vertically (high, medium and low) for each period/variety/other types. That

81

is, work out percentage out of those households who performed that particular

activity. The sum should come to 100 vertically by adding high, medium and high

rank of loss. Additionally, in Table 5.5, workout the percentages by column, i.e.

place of storage like kutcha house, pucca house, godown and others. The purpose

is to understand how the sample farmers stored grains (in open or gunny bags etc.)

in different places of storage.

(iv) Please mention the table numbers when the data are referred or cited in the text.

Avoid referring them as “this table” or “above table”. It is suggested to copy edit

the reports before it is finalized.

9. Overall view on acceptability of report

Overall, both the reports have been prepared well. Authors are requested to incorporate

all the comments and submit the final reports for consolidation.

82

Annexure II

Action taken by the Authors

All the comments given by the Coordinator on the draft report have been

incorporated at the appropriate places in the final report.

Agro-Economic Research Centre For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan

(Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India) H.M. Patel Institute of Rural Development, Opp. Nanadalaya Temple, Post Box No. 24,

Sardar Patel University,

Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120, Dist. Anand, Gujarat.

Ph. No. +91-2692-230106, 230799; Fax- +91-2692-233106 Email: director.aerc@gmail.com; directoraercgujarat@gmail.com

Website: www.aercspu.ac.in