Thumbnail Image

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa

In the imperial Gazetteer of India 1878, Pusa was recorded as a government estate of about 1350 acres in Darbhanba. It was acquired by East India Company for running a stud farm to supply better breed of horses mainly for the army. Frequent incidence of glanders disease (swelling of glands), mostly affecting the valuable imported bloodstock made the civil veterinary department to shift the entire stock out of Pusa. A British tobacco concern Beg Sutherland & co. got the estate on lease but it also left in 1897 abandoning the government estate of Pusa. Lord Mayo, The Viceroy and Governor General, had been repeatedly trying to get through his proposal for setting up a directorate general of Agriculture that would take care of the soil and its productivity, formulate newer techniques of cultivation, improve the quality of seeds and livestock and also arrange for imparting agricultural education. The government of India had invited a British expert. Dr. J. A. Voelcker who had submitted as report on the development of Indian agriculture. As a follow-up action, three experts in different fields were appointed for the first time during 1885 to 1895 namely, agricultural chemist (Dr. J. W. Leafer), cryptogamic botanist (Dr. R. A. Butler) and entomologist (Dr. H. Maxwell Lefroy) with headquarters at Dehradun (U.P.) in the forest Research Institute complex. Surprisingly, until now Pusa, which was destined to become the centre of agricultural revolution in the country, was lying as before an abandoned government estate. In 1898. Lord Curzon took over as the viceroy. A widely traveled person and an administrator, he salvaged out the earlier proposal and got London’s approval for the appointment of the inspector General of Agriculture to which the first incumbent Mr. J. Mollison (Dy. Director of Agriculture, Bombay) joined in 1901 with headquarters at Nagpur The then government of Bengal had mooted in 1902 a proposal to the centre for setting up a model cattle farm for improving the dilapidated condition of the livestock at Pusa estate where plenty of land, water and feed would be available, and with Mr. Mollison’s support this was accepted in principle. Around Pusa, there were many British planters and also an indigo research centre Dalsing Sarai (near Pusa). Mr. Mollison’s visits to this mini British kingdom and his strong recommendations. In favour of Pusa as the most ideal place for the Bengal government project obviously caught the attention for the viceroy.

Browse

20221
Reset filters
Subject: Agricultural Economics × Author: DAS, SOUMYADEEP × End date: 2022 × Type: Thesis ×
Reset filters

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    IMPACT OF FARMER PRODUCER COMPANIES (FPCs) ON FARMERS’ INCOME IN ALIPURDUAR DISTRICT OF WEST BENGAL
    (DRPCAU, PUSA, 2022) DAS, SOUMYADEEP; SINGH, RITAMBHARA
    The Central Sector Scheme of "Formation and Promotion of 10,000 Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs)" was authorised and started by the Government of India (GoI) in the Union Budget of 2019–20 for bringing a greater percentage of small and marginal farmers under the umbrella of FPCs and reviving their collectivisation process. With the overarching push given by the GoI towards the formation of FPCs, there was a serious need to identify the anomalies in the performance of the FPCs after their three years handholding period was over. The present study was conducted with the objectives of assessing the status of the FPCs through critical evaluation of their performance, the effect of FPCs on the farm income of the member farmers and society and analysing different issues faced by them in Alipurduar district of West Bengal. The primary data was obtained from 100 FPC member farmers, selected randomly from 5 FPCs and, one Board of Director (BoD) member from each FPC and 50 non-member farmers from the operational areas of each FPC using snowball sampling. Under a descriptive study design, different statistical tools like descriptive statistics, t-test, Garrett’s ranking technique, tabular analysis and financial ratio analyses were used to analyse the data. Out of the five FPCs, only one FPC had increased its authorised capital. Only two FPCs have increased their paid-up capital. Overall performance of the FPCs in terms of Current ratio, Quick ratio, Working Capital Turnover Ratio and Capital Turnover Ratio was found to be under yellow zone (average). Overall performance of the FPCs in terms of Proprietary ratio, Net Profit Ratio and Return on Investment was found to be under green zone (good). From the analysis of the audit reports of the FPCs, the two major setbacks observed were non-utilisation of current assets and higher investment of the companies on accounts receivables to support sales. The FPCs need to manage their fund more wisely for their long-term sustenance. FPCs have a significant effect on crop yield and income of the member farmers. The farmers’ income after joining FPCs was found higher by 30.49%, in terms of real prices. All members expressed that they have an access to the improved inputs such as seeds, farm chemicals, farm machines, weather advisory through FPCs. A significant percentage of members had an access to trainings, credit, storage, transportation and better marketing through FPC. The members were found to market 100% of their produced food-grains like Paddy, Wheat, etc., and other crops like Jute through FPC at MSP. The top five benefits of joining FPCs were found as “Assurance of crop selling”, “Increased awareness level” (right and timely information about improved inputs and practices), “Access to good quality seeds”, “Access to new tech./machines” and “Better price”. Some common issues faced by the FPCs were: less and untimely MSP procurement camps; absence of retail fertiliser license due to complex registration process; need of more self-owned storage, warehouse, especially cold storage; control of middlemen; lack of more development of road and transport inside the villages and no distribution of dividends yet among members. A major issue was appointment of internal CEO. Though handholding period of all the FPCs is over, all of them were found to get help from POPI for preparing their business plans. It was suggested that as impact on the household economy of farmers is good, hence ‘collaborative economy’ should be promoted. At the same time, the FPCs those are formed should be monitored regularly. The clause of monitoring after the end of hand holding period, for the time FPCs become sustainable, should be inserted in the act. A sudden withdrawal of handholding experience is fatal on the performances. FPCs are new age organisations or entrepreneurs which can bring in entrepreneurial abilities among farmers. However, to be a successful entrepreneur or to establish successful enterprises, farmers must be trained on financial management, marketing management and importance and understanding of “Business Plan”. The concerns related to non-utilisation of current assets revealed that financial management is a necessary exercise for FPCs and so regular training programs and capacity building exercises to manage FPCs at all level must be conducted for members as well.