Chitra ParayilDhruthiraj, B SKAU2021-01-112021-01-112016173816https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/handle/1/5810159772MScThe present study entitled “Impact of prominent KAU rice varieties on the economic status of farmers in Kerala and Karnataka” was conducted with the objectives of working out the costs and returns of prominent rice varieties, Jyothi and Uma, released from KAU, to find out the relationship between varietal adoption and net farm income, to identify specific reasons for adoption of KAU varieties and to analyze profitability of the KAU varieties in the states of Kerala and Karnataka by comparing with with local non-KAU varieties cultivated by farmers. The survey was conducted by collecting both primary data and secondary data. The area of study were major rice growing districts of Kerala (Palakkad and Alappuzha) and Karnataka (Mysore and Mandya). These districts were selected on the basis of prominence in adoption of rice varieties released from KAU. The primary data were collected by means of pre-tested interview schedule. The farmers in the study area were categorized into two groups on the basis of variety grown as: KAU variety adopting farmers and local popular non KAU variety adopting farmers. Forty farmers each cultivating at least one acre and adopting KAU variety and 40 farmers cultivating a local popular non-KAU variety were randomly selected and surveyed in each state making a total sample size of 160. The cost-return structure was worked out both for KAU and non KAU variety production using cost concepts. The average cost of cultivation (Cost C2) of KAU varieties was found to be lesser in Palakkad (Rs.73,213 per hectare) compared to Karnataka (Rs.75,731 per hectare ) and Alappuzha (Rs. 81,915 per hectare) and in case of local non KAU varieties, the average cost of cultivation was Rs.83,981 per hectare, Rs.83,634 per hectare and Rs.94,526 per hectare in Karnataka, Palakkad and Alappuzha respectively. The net income obtained by cultivating KAU varieties was found to be higher in Palakkad (Rs.48, 143 per hectare), followed by Alappuzha (26,356 per hectare) and Karnataka (Rs.11, 746 per hectare. The benefit – cost ratio (BCR) at the C2 and explicit cost level was found to be positive for KAU varieties in both the states. This implies that cultivation of KAU varieties was profitable for farmers in both the states. Garrett ranking technique was used to determine the reasons for adoption of KAU varieties. The possible reasons for adoption of KAU varieties in Karnataka were identified as high market price, high yield potential, high tillering capacity and resistance to pests and diseases while in Kerala, Farmers highlighted high yield potential, high market price, high tillering capacity, suitability, to the location, consumption purpose, resistance to pests and diseases and short duration of the variety as major reasons for adoption. Probit model was used to find out the factors affecting adoption of KAU rice varieties. In Kerala, Organizational membership and gross income of the farmers while in Karnataka, education, organizational membership, area and gross income of the farmers were identified as the major factors affecting the adoption of KAU varieties. The average cost of cultivation (cost C2) for seed production of KAU varieties was found to be higher in Karnataka (Rs. 88,176 per hectare), compared to Kerala (Rs.86, 355 per hectare). The average gross income was found to be higher in Kerala (Rs.1, 56,223 per hectare) compared to Karnataka (Rs.1, 17,513 per hectare). The net income at cost C2 was found to be positive for both the states whereas the amount was found to be higher in Kerala was compared to Karnataka. The marketing channels identified Kerala were Channel 1: Farmer- Supplyco - Rice millers - Public distribution system (PDS) – Consumers, Channel 2: Farmer - Rice millers – Retailers- Consumers and Channel 3: Farmer- Middlemen- Rice milers - Retailers - Consumers. The marketing channels identified in Karnataka were Channel 1: Farmer – Rice milers- Kerala marketing channels identified in Karnataka were Channel 1: Farmer - Rice millers- Kerala rice market - Wholesaler/Local trader - Retailer -Consumer, Channel 2: Farmer - Local trader – Kerala rice market- Rice millers -Retailer - Consumer, Channel 3: Farmer - Kerala rice market - Wholesaler/Rice millers/Local agents – Retailers - Consumers, Channel 4: Farmer - APMC -middlemen -Kerala rice market - Wholesaler/Rice millers/Local agents - Retailers - Consumer. For both KAU and non KAU rice varieties, labour cost accounted for highest share in the cost A1 components in both the states; therefore, efforts have to be made for mechanizing paddy cultivation. Also initiatives have to be taken to attract the younger generation towards agriculture and more importantly paddy cultivation.EnglishThesis