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

20141
Reset filters
Subject: Agricultural Economics × Author: Mehrotra, Sneha × End date: 2015 × Start date: 2013 × Type: Thesis × Thesis Type: M.Sc ×
Reset filters

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    Production and Marketing of Honey in Samastipur District of Bihar- An Economic Analysis
    (Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur), 2014) Mehrotra, Sneha; Mishra, R. R.
    The present study aims at analysing economic aspects related to production and marketing of honey in Samastipur district of Bihar. The study is based on primary data collected from 60 beekeepers spread over four randomly selected villages of two randomly selected blocks of Samastipur district of Bihar by interviewing individual respondents who were classified into small, medium, and large beekeepers on the basis of number of bee colonies. The average age of beekeepers was observed to be around 36 years. More than three-fourths (76.67 per cent) of the sample beekeepers belonged to medium families having 5 to 7 members. Larger proportion of beekeepers were educated upto secondary level. Majority (66.67 per cent) of the respondents were from backward caste. On an average sample beekeepers owned 2.15 acres of land. As many as 37 out of 60 beekeepers practiced stationary beekeeping all of whom were small beekeepers while 23 of them practiced migratory beekeeping most of whom were either medium or large beekeepers. An average beekeeper household raised 1.4 cattle and 0.7 buffalo. Majority (65.00 per cent) of the beekeepers were engaged in farming and livestock rearing apart from beekeeping and 28.33 per cent of the beekeepers earned their livelihood from crop production and beekeeping. It was observed that total cost, gross income, net income and honey production per bee colony increased with increasing size of apiary. However, cost of production per kg of honey was found to be 34.88, 26.19, 31.92 and 38.54 in case of stationary beekeepers (small apiary), migratory beekeepers (small apiary), medium beekeepers and large beekeepers categories, respectively. Total cost, gross income, net income and honey production per bee colony were found to be higher in case of migratory beekeeping i.e. 905.71, 5850.88, 4945.17 and 34.71 kg, respectively. On the contrary, cost of production was higher ( 34.88/kg) in stationary beekeeping. The analysis indicated that migratory beekeeping was more efficient than stationary beekeeping. B:C ratio was higher for larger size apiary and migratory mode of beekeeping i.e. 5.50 and 6.46, respectively. The share of producer in consumers’ rupee was observed to be lower in channel I (33.05 per cent) than that in channel II (49.21 per cent). It was further observed that total marketing cost was higher in channel I ( 65.22) as compared to that in Channel II ( 62.97). Marketing efficiency for channel I was estimated as 0.49 which was less than that for channel II i.e. 0.97. Hence, channel II was found to be more efficient in comparison with channel I. Lack of knowledge with respect to management of apiary, shortage of beehives and forage, diseases of honey bees, financial problem, lack of proper adoption of technological know-how and lack of skilled man power, lack of beekeeping equipment and materials and death of colony were major constraints in production of honey. Major marketing problems faced by beekeepers in the study area were lower price of honey, problem in management during extreme conditions, transportation problem and lack of proper storage facilities. Measures suggested for improvement by the beekeepers were the need for provision of better marketing facilities and spray of ash dust around beehive stand for some pests.