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

20201
Reset filters
Subject: Agricultural Economics × End date: 2020 × Start date: 2011 × Rating Count: 5 ×
Reset filters

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    An economic analysis of cotton production in Bhadradri Kothagudem district of Telangana
    (DRPCAU, Pusa, 2020) Priyadarshini, Barre Jyothsna; Sinha, D. K.
    To face the related climate change, challenges and obtaining food security, farming should undergo a significant transformation in developing countries. Food consumption and population growth reports suggested that agricultural production will rise by 70 percent in order to meet demand by 2050. The majority of forecasts suggest that a decline in agricultural productivity in some areas that already have high food insecurity is more likely due to climate change, development stability, and incomes. Therefore, climate-smart agriculture is important to achieve global food security and climate change objectives. Cotton has become one of the India's leading fibre and cash crops and a significant contributor to India's agricultural and industrial economy. This provides the cotton textile industry the raw material (cotton fibre). About 40-50 million people are employed in cotton manufacturing and trading. In India, Cotton is the largest commercial crop. This affects the economy of the country, as it generates most people with earnings and employment. India accounts for the largest share of cultivated land globally (8 million hectares (36%). The Indian production of cotton was approximately 6.21 million tons. The world's leading country for the domestication and manufacture of cotton textiles. Cotton is sometimes identified as 'The White Gold' or 'The King of Fibres.' It is a widely grown commercially crop globally, but much more significant in India. In the textile industry, it is the primary raw Name of the Student : Barre Jyothsna Priyadarshini Registration Number : M/AE/319/2018-19 Major Advisor : Dr. D. K. Sinha Degree to be awarded : Master of Science in Agriculture Department : Agricultural Economics Major Subject : Agricultural Economics Minor Subject : Agricultural Statistics Year of submission : 2020 Total Pages in Thesis : 66 + i-vi (Bibliography) + a-m (Appendices) Title of the thesis : “An Economic Analysis of Cotton Production in Bhadradri Kothagudem District of Telangana” material. There is a major global demand for cotton, cotton fibre, cotton textiles, and clothes. Cotton contains about 44% of the global fibre and 10% of the world's edible oils. India is the 2nd biggest cotton producer and exporter next to China. India's yield, however, are much lower than in other cotton-producing countries. The USA and Africa are the top seed cotton exporters. In 2015-2016, cotton crop production was 37,33 lakh bales (lint), compared with 35,83 lakh bales in 2014-2015, which showed a 4.19% rise. The increase in production in the area in 2015-16 is due to an increase. Cotton crop yield in 2015-16 was 358 kg/ha compared with 360 kg/ha in 2014-15, a slight decrease of 0.56% compared to the last year. From 2001-02 to 2015-16, area, productivity, and production crops (Anonymous, 2016). The research identified the socioeconomic characteristics of the cotton growers. Having analysed the findings based on the information collected, It is important, to sum up the most growers of cotton (38.33 percent) Was in the middle age (36 to 58), the Increased percentage of these (43.33 percent) have been trained up to middle-level. The increased percentage (62.40 percent) had a small landholding size (1 to 2 hectares). The higher percentage of cotton growers (43.33%) possessed high knowledge of cotton production practices and had a medium level of farming experience (69.16%). The largest number of respondents belongs to joint families (50 percent), while 33.33 percent of growers fall just under the level of low annual earnings (50,001 to 1,00,000/-). It may be concluded that only 37.50 percent of cotton growers were solely engaged in agriculture as their primary occupation. The very high use of plant protection measures under selected area and maximum use of chemical fertilizers than organic manures were observed. The overall production cost of cotton was very high. It concerned Rs. 94159.47/- per hectare. The overall net return per hectare was estimated to about Rs. 30454.03/- per hectare. Total gross revenues of Rs. 124613.50/- per hectare was found for the cotton cultivation. Among the various factors, seed, fertilizer dose, pesticides, manures and labour were the key factors which could result in reducing the yield gap by increasing their respective quantities at the recommended stage. It was also concluded that the producer received a larger amount through fair market dealing. The very first channel where producers earned a net benefit of Rs 4875 per quintal was found to be more remunerative. It has been noticed that the very first channel has the largest net remunerative price of all channels 97.5 percent, and the third channel gave a net price, i.e., 89.7 percent. The major socio-economic constraints felt by the most of the respondents include, the prices received for the produce, high input cost, shortage of labour during peak period were ranked I, II and III, respectively and infrastructural constraints of sample farmers in cotton cultivation of the study area were lack of irrigation facilities ranked-I in case of almost all farm size groups under study area. Poor storage facilities and lack of proper transportation facilities were ranked II and III, respectively, in nearly all farmers. Although marketing constraints revealed that the lack of regulated markets was the primary constraint on rank-I farmers, followed by broad price spread (rank-II) and high commission fee (rank-III). A similar pattern was observed in the case of marginal and small farmers. High commission fees besides large farmers were ranked II, followed by a large price spread (rank-III).