Thumbnail Image

Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur

The history of agricultural education in Kerala can be traced back to the year 1896 when a scheme was evolved in the erstwhile Travancore State to train a few young men in scientific agriculture at the Demonstration Farm, Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram, presently, the Cropping Systems Research Centre under Kerala Agricultural University. Agriculture was introduced as an optional subject in the middle school classes in the State in 1922 when an Agricultural Middle School was started at Aluva, Ernakulam District. The popularity and usefulness of this school led to the starting of similar institutions at Kottarakkara and Konni in 1928 and 1931 respectively. Agriculture was later introduced as an optional subject for Intermediate Course in 1953. In 1955, the erstwhile Government of Travancore-Cochin started the Agricultural College and Research Institute at Vellayani, Thiruvananthapuram and the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences at Mannuthy, Thrissur for imparting higher education in agricultural and veterinary sciences, respectively. These institutions were brought under the direct administrative control of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Animal Husbandry, respectively. With the formation of Kerala State in 1956, these two colleges were affiliated to the University of Kerala. The post-graduate programmes leading to M.Sc. (Ag), M.V.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees were started in 1961, 1962 and 1965 respectively. On the recommendation of the Second National Education Commission (1964-66) headed by Dr. D.S. Kothari, the then Chairman of the University Grants Commission, one Agricultural University in each State was established. The State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) were established in India as an integral part of the National Agricultural Research System to give the much needed impetus to Agriculture Education and Research in the Country. As a result the Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) was established on 24th February 1971 by virtue of the Act 33 of 1971 and started functioning on 1st February 1972. The Kerala Agricultural University is the 15th in the series of the SAUs. In accordance with the provisions of KAU Act of 1971, the Agricultural College and Research Institute at Vellayani, and the College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy, were brought under the Kerala Agricultural University. In addition, twenty one agricultural and animal husbandry research stations were also transferred to the KAU for taking up research and extension programmes on various crops, animals, birds, etc. During 2011, Kerala Agricultural University was trifurcated into Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (KVASU), Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS) and Kerala Agricultural University (KAU). Now the University has seven colleges (four Agriculture, one Agricultural Engineering, one Forestry, one Co-operation Banking & Management), six RARSs, seven KVKs, 15 Research Stations and 16 Research and Extension Units under the faculties of Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Forestry. In addition, one Academy on Climate Change Adaptation and one Institute of Agricultural Technology offering M.Sc. (Integrated) Climate Change Adaptation and Diploma in Agricultural Sciences respectively are also functioning in Kerala Agricultural University.

Browse

2014 - 20192
Reset filters
Subject: Agricultural Economics × Author: KAU × Author: Radhika, A M × End date: 2019 × Start date: 2010 ×
Reset filters

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    Implications of geographical indications for rice in Kerala
    (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Horticulture, Vellanikkara, 2019) Radhika, A M; KAU; Jesy Thomas, S
    The present study entitled “Implications of Geographical Indications for rice in Kerala” was conducted with the objectives of assessing the impact of GI rice on income and welfare of the producer households, identifying the major supply chains, evaluating the institutional innovations in the supply chains, proposing viable supply chain options and examining the export prospects and market access of the registered GI rice. The rice GIs of Kerala viz., Navara, Pokkali, Jeerakasala, Gandhakasala, Palakkadan Matta and Kaipad were selected for the study. From each of the six categories, fifty farmers each were randomly selected making a total sample of 300 farmers. Data was also collected from market intermediaries and producer societies in each GI tract. Cost-return structure was worked out for the selected GI rice using percentage analysis and cost concepts. The highest cost of cultivation (Cost C2) was found in the case of Jeerakasala (`.131082/ha) followed by Gandhakasala (`.127308/ha). The highest average yield was realised for Palakkadan Matta (4498 kg/ha) and lowest yield was realised for Pokkali (1835 kg/ha). Accordingly, the cost of production was highest for Pokkali and lowest for Palakkadan Matta. The highest average gross income of `.155568/ha was obtained for Navara while it was lowest for Pokkali (`.75036/ha). The net income and BC ratio indicated that farming was a loss making business for farmers growing Pokkali, Jeerakasala and Gandhakasala, especially when the value of the family labour, land value and managerial cost were imputed and accounted in the cost. The BC ratio worked out to be more than one in the case of Navara (1.31), Palakkadan Matta (1.05) and Kaipad (1.02). The producer’s performance was assessed using one output and four inputs using DEA model. All the GIs showed low technical efficiency (<40 per cent). The estimated mean technical efficiency for producers of Gandhakasala was highest (90.5 per cent) and the least efficient producers were seen in Pokkali. The scale efficiency results showed that all the GIs were scale inefficient which could be attributed to low operational scale of units. The impact of GI on income and welfare of producer households was measured using the method of treatment effect analysis. The average treatment effects were worked out for the outcome variables; yield per hectare, net income, marketed surplus, and value of marketed surplus. Even though the yield of Navara was comparatively lower than that of Palakkadan Matta, Jeerakasala and Gandhakasala, the net income, marketed surplus and value of marketed surplus were higher for Navara. The yield per hectare was higher for Jeerakasala when compared to Gandhakasala while the net income, marketed surplus and value of marketed surplus were higher for Gandhakasala. Palakkadan Matta recorded the highest yield among these categories, but net income, marketed surplus and value of marketed surplus were comparatively low. The marketed surplus of Pokkali was comparatively higher than Kaipad even though yield, net income and value of marketed surplus were comparatively very less. Three marketing systems were prevalent in the study area. Some farmers market paddy through market intermediaries, some resource rich farmers cultivate and process their produce to meet the requirements of high end consumers and other resource poor farmers sell off their produce to local consumers after processing in nearby mills. The Palakkadan Matta farmers were marketing their produce through Supplyco at the rate of `.22.50/kg. Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD) was used to explore the performance of GIs. Efforts were made for studying the institutional innovations strategies for enhancing profitability and effectiveness of the GI mechanism, to propose viable supply chain options and to examine the export prospects and market access of the registered GI rice. Producer societies play a lead role in the registration process of a GI. The other actors include GI registry, IPR cell, KAU and Producers of the respective GIs. The average prices of all these speciality rice have increased after GI registration. Group-farming can be adopted as an option to bring more area under production. Despite having ample scope for enhancing the income of farmers through diversification, lack of facilities for value addition is a major hurdle. Processing units and storage facilities should be established near major producing areas to overcome this problem. Taking advantage of the GI status, efforts are to be made for marketing GI products as a premium priced branded organic produce. An effective institutional arrangement should be constituted to ensure quality production and efficient marketing of GI rice.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ThesisItemOpen Access
    Economic analysis of production and marketing of kaipad paddy in kannur district
    (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Horticulture, Vellanikkara, 2014) Radhika, A M; KAU; Anil, Kuruvila
    The present study entitled “Economic analysis of production and marketing of Kaipad paddy in Kannur district” was conducted with the objectives of working out the costs and returns of Kaipad paddy cultivation, estimating the magnitude and the factors contributing to the yield gap, identifying the marketing channels and the price spread in different channels, finding out the constraints in production and marketing of Kaipad paddy and documenting the cultural practices of Kaipad paddy cultivation. The study was based on both primary and secondary data. The study was conducted in Kaipad tracts of Kannur district and primary data were collected by means of formal interviews from farmers, traders and market-intermediaries. The farmers in the study area were categorised into five groups on the basis of farming practices followed as farmers growing traditional variety, farmers growing traditional Kaipad and shrimp in sequence, farmers growing HYV (Ezhome-l/Ezhome-2), farmers growing HYV (Ezhome-1 / Ezhome-2) and shrimp in sequence and paddy farmers from non-saline areas adjacent to Kaipad. From each of the five categories, l5 farmers were selected from each of the Panchayat. A sample of 30 farmers was randomly selected from each group, thus making a total sample size of 150 farmers. Cost-return structure was worked out both for Kaipad and conventional paddy production using percentage analysis and cost concepts. The cost of cultivation (Cost C2- Rs.67128) was highest in the case of farmers growing HYV without shrimp in sequence. The cost of production of HYV was higher than the costs incurred for growing traditional varieties and the average income from the HYV was more than the income from traditional varieties. The highest average gross income of Rs.61741/ha was obtained by farmers growing HYV and shrimp in sequence while it was lowest for the farmer respondents growing traditional variety without shrimp in sequence. Family labour income was estimated to be negative in the category of farmers growing traditional variety. The net income and Benefit Cost Ratio indicated that the farming is a loss making business in Kaipad region, especially when the value of the family labour, the land value and the managerial cost were accounted in the cost. Yield gap was estimated and factors contributing to the yield gap were analysed using regression analysis. Among the farmers growing Ezhome-1without shrimp in sequence, the total yield gap was 747 Kg, which was 21 per cent of the potential yield whereas for farmers growing Ezhome-2 without shrimp in sequence, the total yield gap added to 847 Kg and it accounted for about 26 per cent of the potential yield. When Ezhome-1 and Ezhome-2 were grown with shrimp in sequence, the total yield gap was 601 and 497 respectively. The share of yield gap II in the total yield gap was found to be 38 per cent and 43 per cent respectively for Ezhome-1 and Ezhome-2 with shrimp in sequence, while it was 78 and 91 per cent for Ezhome 1 and Ezhome 2 without shrimp in sequence. In farms growing traditional varieties age was influencing yield gap positively while labour use in man days was found to be negatively influencing the yield gap. In the case of farms growing HYV, seed rate and education were significantly reducing yield gap. For the fitted log-linear yield function for all farms, age was found to be positively influencing yield gap while the seed rate and education were negatively influencing yield gap. The four marketing channels identified were, (i) farmer – rice miller – retailers -consumer (ii) farmer - local agent - rice miller- retailer - consumer (iii) farmer - local agent - Padasekhara-samithis - consumer (iv) farmer - consumer. The price spread was estimated as Rs.16.3 in channel I, Rs.17.51 in channel II, Rs.2.97 in channel III and Rs.3.85 in channel IV respectively. The marketing efficiency was found to be highest in channel III. Various constraints in production and marketing of paddy were identified and ranked using Garret’s ranking technique. Among the various constraints faced by farmers, high wage cost and scarcity of hired labour were the major ones. Low price realized for the produce was the foremost constraint faced in marketing of paddy. Since labour cost accounted for the major share in cost of cultivation and labour scarcity was the major constraint, efforts have to be made for mechanisation in Kaipad cultivation. The production must be increased by bridging the yield gap and thereby increasing the marketable surplus. Taking advantage of the GI status of Kaipad paddy, efforts are to be made for marketing it as a premium priced branded organic produce.