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
Author: HOSAMANI, SINDHU VIRESH × End date: 2022 × Start date: 2022 × Type: Thesis ×
Reset filters

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    Doubling Farmers Income (DFI) Strategies and Farm Income: A study of Dharwad district in Karnataka
    (DRPCAU, PUSA, 2022) HOSAMANI, SINDHU VIRESH; SINGH, RITAMBHARA
    Although Indian agriculture has experienced the green, yellow, and white revolutions, it is still characterized by lower productivity and low marketed surplus. In 2015-16, the average annual farm household income was merely Rs.96,703, This was nothing to fulfill the basis needs of a farm household, leave aside the savings and investments of any kind in farming and allied activities. The low investment, low savings led to a vicious cycle of poverty among the farm families, migration from rural to urban areas for work, farm suicides, farmers leaving farming and several other issues. Rising to the call of immediate attention in the farming sector, in 2016, the Government of India constituted a committee under the able leadership of Dr. Ashok Dalwai, then Additional Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. The major goal of this committee was to suggest reforms that would enable farmers' incomes to double by 2022. In September 2018, the committee submitted its report in 14 volumes to the Government of India suggesting some 500 plus recommendations across the pre-production, production, and post-production sub-systems of the Indian agricultural sector. The states were asked to formulate their specific strategies on the basis of these recommendations and march forward to double farm incomes and address the farm maladies in the best possible way. The state of Karnataka devised strategies and set a goal to emerge as the first state to achieve the goal of doubling farmers’ income by 2023-24. The state was therefore, purposely selected for the study along with the Dharwad district which is one of the most prominent agriculturally rich regions in the state. The study is first of its kind in India and was thought out very carefully and time appropriate manner to understand if the strategies are working at the ground level and if there are issues, shall be conveyed and addressed accordingly and timely. With this background, the study entitled “Doubling Farmers Income (DFI) Strategies and Farm Income: A study of Dharwad district in Karnataka” was conducted with the specific objectives viz. (i) To validate the parameters identified by the DFI committee to achieve the desired goal (ii) To study the effect of strategies on identified parameters and (iii) To identify constraints/challenges faced in the implementation of DFI strategies. The study covered 150 farm respondents from ten randomly selected villages of five randomly selected talukas of Dharwad district. Additionally, 20 government officials or those who are directly related to the task of implementation of strategies at the taluka and district level were also selected for the study. Primary data was collected through personal interview method on pre-tested structures schedule. Secondary data was collected from Government offices in the district. The data was collected for two time periods 2015-16 (as it is the base year set by the DFI committee) and 2020-21. The expert opinion method and Focussed Group Discussions were held to in order to know the parameters identified by DFI Committee and to further identify the parameters in the study area, to reach out the first objective of this study. The Chairman, Empowered Body, Doubling Farmers’ Income, Dr. Ashok Dalwai, was also consulted for the identification of parameters. To achieve the second and third objectives of the study, the collected data was tabulated, verified, and analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square, and paired t-tests. Herfindahl index and Garett’s ranking techniques were also used. The parameters identified through expert opinion method and Focused Group Discussion method were, realisation in productivity gains, and bridging yield gaps for higher production volumes, promote sustainable production strategies, i.e., farmers training, demonstration, farmers melas, adoption of comprehensive post-harvest management practices for appropriate monetisation of Agri-produce, Adoption of new market infrastructure and promotion of online trade, Increase in farmers access to institutional credit, Achievement of higher production volumes across various sub-sectors of agriculture by adopting different approaches, Make farm inputs available at lesser costs, Water management through increase area under micro irrigation and others. However due to poor recall ability some parameters could not be studied, the study ensured that at least one parameter under each strategy has been covered to fulfil the need of the second objective. In the year 2020-21 farmers were found acquiring high-quality inputs from RSK, FPOs, and other cooperative societies rather from local markets or utilising their own inputs, as they were doing in 2015-16. Since farmers now have access to soil health cards, there has been a positive percentage change in the pre-production and production management methods they use, such as soil testing, applying the prescribed dose of nutrients to soils and fertilisers, etc. All farmer categories have seen an increase in the area under irrigation; The availability of inputs, management and production practices, area under irrigation, yield of the crops improved significantly in 2020-21 over 2015-16. The farmers having livestock inventory, organisational participation, number of farmers having extension contact improved significantly in the year 2020-21 over the year 2015-16. A greater number of farmers felt that there was improvement in the availability of farm inputs i.e., they were getting inputs at less rates compared to the base year which has helped them in reducing their cost of production, farmers have good access to resources such as high yielding verities, micro irrigation structures in the last five years, a greater number of farmers were getting benefits from different central/state government schemes. The Herfindahl Index showed that, the extent of crop diversification was more in 2020-21 compared to 2015-16. Over the last five years’ period a greater number of farmers diversified from food crops to vegetable and flower crops. The cropping intensity has increased among the farmers of all the farm groups. The Herfindahl Index showed that, the extent of occupational diversification was more in 2020-21 compared to 2015-16. The percentage change in real income received from crops was highest in large farmers 115.40% followed by medium farmers 102.45% and small farmers 91.02% and, and the variation was not too big among each of them. Hence the DFI strategies have worked on farm and it is concluded that as in Dharwad if implemented well, all over the farmers’ income can be doubled across all farm categories. However, the implementation machinery, in absence of any such assessment so far felt that five-year time period is less and thus is a constraint. The machinery also felt that lack of local post-harvest infrastructure, farmers resistance in adoption of new technology and behavioural and change management issues also act as a constraint in implementation of strategies. It was suggested that even though there is desired and significant improvement in income, it has to be sustained in the long run. Hence the strategies must evolve in the directions suggested. Non-availability of farm records was a great limitation in assessing farm incomes and other related information of year 2015-16. It is suggested that farm record keeping must be encouraged, and appropriate training should be conducted. A wide strategy like DFI also needs micro-planning. Customized planning shall be continuous and looking into the changing scenarios. That we have doubled the income in one district, cannot be generalised for the entire country. However, this shall be looked upon as a positive outcome of the much diligently plan policy ever for the farming community. Everyone felt that five years is a small time to double farm income when two abnormal covid years affected food systems. Hence the time period for implementation should be extended by at least two more years in a national level. Local post-harvest infrastructure is important to improve farm incomes. The private sector must come forward in investing in the same. Last but not the least, the behavioural issues in adoption of new technologies can only be addressed with appropriate exercises. More extension outreach is required, some nudges may also help. Altogether, it is felt that more such studies shall be undertaken.