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

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Open Access
Impact of the coconut rehabilation programme of SADU in Trivandrum district
(Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Horticulture, Vellanikkara, 1984) Lekshmi Narayanan Nair, N; KAU; Radhakrishnan, V
This study was conducted in 1983 to assess the impact of the Coconut Rehabilitation Programme implemented in Trivandrum District as part of the World Bank assisted, Kerala Agricultural Development project. The specific objectives were to examine the extent of utilization of loans, the improvements in cropping pattern and farming practices, changes in yield rates and output and the increase in farm income generated by this programme. The relative efficiency of irrigation and the various intercrops in augmenting the net farm incomes of the participating farmers was compared and the major constraints in improving coconut farming in the district were also identified as a part of this study. Data were collected from a sample of 96 participating farmers selected at random from the 14 Package Units functioning in the district under this project through personal interview using a well structured schedule. The main findings of the study are summarized below. Majority of the holdings (51.03 per cent) were in the category of less than 0.80 hectare but they accounted for only 27.36 per cent of the area covered. Holdings of 0.80 hectare and above predominated (59.26 per cent) in the category of irrigated holdings. About 49 per cent of the households depended on non-agricultural pursuits for their main source of income. Eighty per cent of the families were relatively small in size with a membership of less than 7. The overall average investment estimated, sanctioned and spent per hectare for the 96 holdings under study worked out to Rs. 17923.05, Rs.14393.67 and Rs.14959.57 respectively. Though the overall performance in respect of loan utilization was satisfactory, there was shortfall in utilization of loans under Cocoa (58 per cent), coconut gapfilling (41 per cent), purchase of Cows (23 per cent) and Fodder Development (17 per cent). The percentage of utilization of loans in the case of unirrigated category was low (50.18) compared to the irrigated category (122.43). Among the lending institutions through which the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development funds were channelised, Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank was the most acceptable agency (61 per cent). The cropping intensity of the sample increased from 111.77 per cent to 189.87 per cent consequent on the implementation of the programme. The area under coconut, banana, cocoa and fodder increased while that under tapioca decreased. The density of coconut palms increased from 125 palms per hectare to 176 palms. This is against the project objective of attaining an optimum stand of 175 healthy and high-yielding coconut palms. By and large the target set for intercropping programme as per the individual farm production plans has been achieved. The target was exceeded in respect of banana (119.3 per cent) coconut (103.34 per cent) and cocoa (101.2 per cent). Tapioca continued to be the intercrop widely preferred by the coconut growers (192.75 per cent). Shortfall was mainly in the coverage of area under fodder (18 per cent) and livestock to be purchased (36 per cent). The project has been instrumental in stepping up substantially the level of use of various inputs including irrigation. Fifty four holdings had the benefit of irrigation covering 62 per cent of the net area covered by the sample, while in 13 cases though irrigated development was contemplated, it had not been successful due to operational constraints such as failure to obtain electric connection, failure of wells etc. The average cost of a pumpset with accessories worked out to Rs. 8717.68 while the average amount sanctioned under the lending programme was only Rs.7715 per pumpset. The intensity of senile and uneconomic palms as revealed by the study was only 3.6 palm per hectare against the projection of 20 palms per hectare assumed in the project report. Out of 388 palms identified for cutting and removal only 77 were actually removed. Though the target in respect of gap filling has been exceeded by planting 4790 seedlings against the target of 4762 seedlings, the maintenance of the seedlings was not upto the standard. The increase in use of organic manure for coconut from 17 to 48 kg per palm is commendable. But the use of organic manure for the intercrops is deplorably low especially for banana (6 kg per plant) cocoa (3 kg per plant) fodder (2200 kg per hectare) and tapioca (3698 kg per hectare). Fertilizer application for coconut has increased from 0.22 kg to 1.52 kg per palm. The average fertilizer dose of 0.08 kg per cocoa plant 0.25 kg per banana plant, 33 kg per hectare for fodder and 113 kg per hectare for tapioca as adopted by the participants were also inadequate. Only 6 out of 96 holdings covered under the survey have adopted plant protection measures. The intensity of cultural practices has increased many fold with the biggest increase for coconut (562 per cent). All the crops except tapioca have registered substantial increase in total production. Banana, coconut and milk production registered increases of 677 per cent, 62.45 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. Production of tapioca declined by 25.6 per cent. The increase in productivity of coconut was only 38 per cent over the productivity at the pre-project level. In absolute terms the productivity of coconut has increased from 25 nuts to 30 nuts per palm in the unirrigated holdings while the increase in irrigated holdings was from 30 nuts to 44 nuts per palm. The overall increase was from 29 to 40 nuts for the sample as a whole. The increase in yield was highest in the holdings which have completed 5 years (67 per cent) of development followed by holdings completing 4 years (31 per cent) and 3 years (29 per cent). The post project average yield of intercrops such as cocoa (Rs.59 per hectare) banana (6.95 kg per plant) fodder (4525 kg per hectare) and tapioca (5055 kg per hectare) was considerably low. The average gross income per holding increased from Rs.4478 to Rs.9224. In per hectare terms the increase was from Rs.4613 to Rs.9502 (105 per cent). The average net farm income rose from Rs.2860 to Rs.3821 per hectare (34 per cent). The increase in net farm income was maximum in the case of holdings which had completed 5 years of development (69 per cent) followed by holdings completing 4 years (32 per cent) and 3 years (20 per cent). An increase of 47 per cent in the average yield of coconut, 62 per cent in fodder, 0.47 per cent in banana, 134 per cent in cocoa and 17 per cent in milk was notices under the irrigated holdings over the unirrigated holdings. Comparative analysis of the different intercrops indicated that banana is the most profitable intercrop in coconut gardens in Trivandrum district with a potential net return of Rs.6015 per hectare. Mixed farming with dairying as one of the components, though successful in holdings of more than 0.8 hectare size, ranks only second in order of profitability, with a net income of Rs.2990 per hectare. Tapioca with an average return of Rs.621 per hectare ranks third in the order of profitability. Cocoa, the fourth intercrop compared showed negative returns at the yield and price levels prevailed. Economic uplift of the coconut growers by augmenting farm income through whole farm development approach had been the basic objective of the project. On the whole the project has made a good beginning in this direction in spite of several operational constraints.
Open Access
Production and marketing of groundnut in Palghat District
(Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Horticulture, Vellanikkara, 1984) Ayyasamy, M; KAU; Mukundan, K
A study on economics of production and marketing was taken up in Palghat District with reference to the first season (April – August) of the year 1982-83 to estimate costs and returns, resource use efficiency of groundnut cultivation, marketing cost and price spread in groundnut marketing and to identify the problems of the groundnut cultivators. Eighty cultivators were selected by multistage random sampling method. Data were collected from samples of groundnut cultivators, traders and oil millers by personal interview method. It was found that the average family size was 5.71. Only 76.25 per cent of the respondents were literate. The average size of land holding was 3.40 hectares. The cropping intensity was 178.90. The average capital investment including the value of land was Rs.55740 per holding and Rs. 17160 per hectare. The capital investment excluding land value was Rs.8790 per holding and Rs. 2700 per hectare. Costs of cultivation per hectare of groundnut based on cost A, cost B and cost C were Rs. 2340.93, Rs.3203.13 and Rs.3240 respectively. The average costs of production per quintal of groundnut pods based on cost A, cost B and cost C were Rs. 181.73, Rs.261.05 and Rs.264.40 respectively. The major item of cost was human labour which accounted 31.02 per cent (Rs. 1004.88) of the total cost followed by seeds 22.49 per cent (Rs.728.80),bullock labour and machinery 7.12 per cent (Rs.249.13), fertilizers and manures 7.12 per cent (Rs.230.82) and plant protection chemicals 0.91 per cent (Rs.29.63).The average seed rate was 133.10 kg per hectare. The average amount of fertilizers used per hectare was 6.45 kg of nitrogen, 7.89 kg of phosphorous and 12.35 kg of potash. The average human labour utilized per hectare was 100.49 mandays. The average bullock labour used per hectare was 10.50 bullock pair days. Seed sowing was the most important operation which accounted for 25.65 per cent (Rs.831.83) of the total cost of cultivation followed by harvesting 15.78 per cent (Rs.511.32), manuring 9.87 per cent (Rs.320.51), after cultivation 9.70 per cent (Rs.314.51), preparatory cultivation 7.78 per cent (Rs.229.48) and plant protection 1.10 per cent (Rs.35.73). The average yield per hectare was 1087 kg of groundnut pods. Gross income, farm business income, family income, net income and farm investment income per hectare were Rs.3739.43, Rs.1398.50, Rs.536.30, Rs.499.43 and Rs.1361.63 respectively. The benefit cost ratios based on cost A, cost B and cost C were 1.60, 1.17 and 1.15 respectively. Cobb-Douglas production functions were fitted to test the resource use efficiency. Marginal productivity analysis revealed that land and human labour had positive and significant influence on gross income. Three channels were identified in groundnut marketing and most commonly used channel was producer- village merchant- oil miller. The producer’s share in the miller’s price was 87.83 per cent in Chittur Block and 89.55 per cent in Kollengode Block. The marketing margin for the village merchant was 5.23 per cent in Chittur Block and 3.45 per cent in Kollengode Block. The marketing cost incurred by the village merchant was 6.94 per cent in Chittur Block and 7.10 per cent in Kollengode Block. Four channels were identified in the groundnut oil marketing and most commonly used channel was oil miller – wholesaler – retailer – consumer. The marketing margins were 4.66 per cent to the miller, 1.55 per cent to the wholesaler and 0.85 per cent to the retailer. The marketing costs were 5.58 per cent to the oil miller, 0.45 per cent to the wholesaler and 0.21 per cent to the retailer. Farmers faced many problems such as incidences of pests and diseases, low price, lack of drying facilities and absence of proper marketing system.
Open Access
Cost of cultivation and marketing of pepper in Idukki district
(Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Horticulture, Vellanikkara, 1984) Vinod, G; KAU; Narayanan Nair, E R
This study was done in1983. Data for estimating the cost of cultivation were generated from a multi-stage random sample of 72 farmers stratified on the basis of the size of holding. The cost was analysed operationwise and inputwise. The economics of production was also studied by a capital productivity analysis. Pepper marketing was studied from the level of the producers to the terminal market at Cochin. The price spread was arrived at by the concurrent margin method. The annual cost of cultivation, per hectare, for the first seven years, were Rs.5952.54, Rs.3958.64, Rs.4150.55, Rs.4583.87, Rs.4901.45, Rs.5412.39 and Rs.5506.03 in that order, at the level of the aggregate sample. In general the most conspicuous cost creating operation was the cultural operation, while the corresponding input was human labour. Roughly one-fourth of the total cost was fixed and the rental value of land was predominant in this. The cost of cultivation was found to decrease as the size of holding increased, viewed on a unit area basis. The analysis of capital productivity revealed that, on the whole, investment in pepper cultivation had a pay-back period of 10 years, a benefit-cost ratio of 1.09, a net present worth of Rs.4180.76 and an internal rate of return of 13.48 per cent. The market structure, market practices and marketing costs were explored fairly in detail. The marketing channels identified were channel I: Producer- Village Merchant- Upcountry Wholesaler- (Commission Agent) – Exporter, channel II: Producer- Upcountry Wholesaler- (Commission Agent) - Exporter, channel III: Producer- Village Merchant- Upcountry Wholesaler- (Commission Agent) - Internal Wholesaler and channel IV: Producer- Upcountry Wholesaler- (Commission Agent) - Internal Wholesaler. The price spread in these four channels were found to be 13.94 per cent, 13.38 per cent, 11.20 per cent and 10.63 per cent in that order

Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur

Browse

Thesis Type

Type

Author

Date

Subject

Search Results