You are on page 1of 3

Journal of Food Legumes 30(1): 54-56, 2017

Economics of rajmash cultivation in Eastern Jammu region


SANJEEV KUMAR, SP SINGH, ANIL BHAT and MANISH KUMAR SHARMA
Division of Agricultural Economics and ABM, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology,
Jammu, Main Campus, Chatha-180009, India; E-mail: ssalgotra@gmail.com
(Received: December 12, 2016; Accepted: March 29, 2017)

ABSTRACT tonnes (Anonymous 2015). It is grown mainly in the states


of Maharashtra, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh,
An economic analysis of rajmash was carried out in
Bhaderwah and Bhalla blocks of Doda district of Jammu &
Tamil Nadu (Nilgiri Hills, Palani Hills), Uttar Pradesh, Kerala
Kashmir state during 2015-16. From each selected block, (Parts of Western Ghats), Karnataka (Chickmangalur Hills)
five villages were selected randomly and from each selected and West Bengal (Darjeeling Hills). North-Western Indian
village, 10 farmers were selected randomly without Himalayan state of Jammu and Kashmir exhibits a great
replacement so as to constitute a total sample size of 100 variation in the agro-climates at macro and micro level,
farmers. The sample comprised of 78 marginal farmers, 14 involving cold arid, temperate, intermediate and sub-tropical
small farmers and 8 medium farmers. Primary data were zones within a small geographical area of 22.2 million
used to analyze the results. Which revealed that per hectare hectares. It indicates the inherent agriculture potential of
cost of cultivation of rajmash was ` 33176 on marginal farms, the state (Sultan 2014). Some of the best rajmash are said to
` 36301 on small farms and ` 37931 on medium farms, be grown in Himachal Pradesh and Jammu region of J & K.
respectively with an overall average of ` 35354. On overall
In J & K, rajmash is grown in Doda, Poonch, Rajouri,
cost A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 and C3 were worked out to be `
15043, ` 15816, ` 15885, ` 28489, ` 22749, ` 35354 and `
Udhampur, Ramban, Kathua and Reasi districts Marwah,
38889, respectively. On an average, the returns per rupee of Dachhan, Mandi and Bani dry temperate areas of Kishtwar
investment over cost A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 and C3 were ` 4.72, district. Going further, the rajmash of Chinta Valley in Doda
` 4.49, ` 4.47, ` 2.49, ` 3.12, ` 2.01 and ` 1.83, respectively.. district, a short distance from Bhaderwah town of Jammu
Net income of rajmash cultivation varied from ` 37761 on province is amongst the finest ever. The J&K government
marginal farms to ` 32533 on medium farms with an overall has launched a rajmash project under the Rashtriya Krishi
average of ` 35634. The cost benefit ratio was calculated as Vikas Yojana (RKVY) in the year 2011-12 for a period of five
2.12, 1.94 and 1.86 on marginal, small and medium farms, years to boost the production, quality and marketing
respectively. On overall, the cost benefit ratio was worked prospects of rajmash of J & K (Anonymous 2015). The
out to be 2.01.
crop covering area around 6000 ha under Doda district of
J&K state. It is mainly grown in Bhaderwah, Bhalla, Marmat,
Key words: Cost Benefit ratio, Net Income, Rajmash
Ghat Doda, Bhalessa, Bhagwah, Thathri, Gundana and
Assar blocks of Doda district. It is the niche and valuable
Rajmash (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is the most
cash crop and popular not only in the state, but also at
important legume grown worldwide for direct human
national level for taste, texture, aroma and palate
consumption. The crop is consumed principally for its dry
(Anonymous 2014). Therefore, an attempt is made to study
and mature beans, shell beans (seeds at physiological
the cost structure and profitability of rajmash in this study
maturity) and green pods. Rajmash contains high levels of
area.
chemically diverse components (phenols, resistance starch,
vitamins, Fructo-oligosaccharides) that have shown to MATERIALS AND METHODS
protect against oxidative stress, metabolic syndrome and
many types of cancer (Camara et al. 2013). It provides The present study was purposively conducted in
21.25% crude protein, 1.7% fat and 70% carbohydrates and Doda district of J & K state during 2015-16. The Doda district
represents 50 per cent of the grain legume consumed was selected purposively on the basis of crop (second
worldwide (Mc Connell 2010). Besides, it contains 0.16 mg highest area covering around 6000 ha under rajmash) in
iron, 1.76 mg calcium and 3.43 mg zinc per 100 g of edible Jammu region and its grown for taste, texture, aroma and
part. Rajmash is the staple food in Latin America, Africa defebility. Five villages from each block were selected
and India. Globally, rajmash is cultivated over an area of randomly. Further, from each village, 10 farmers were
29.92 million hectares with an annual production of 23.23 selected randomly without replacement so as to constitute
million tonnes. Currently, Brazil is the largest producer of a total sample size of 100 farmers. The sample farmers were
rajmash followed by India, Myanmar and China further categorized into marginal (up to 1 ha), small (1.01-2
(Anonymous 2013). ha) and medium farmers (2.01-4 ha) based on their land
holding. Thus, the total sample of 100 farmers comprised of
In India, rajmash is grown in an area of about 10.80
78 marginal farmers, 14 small farmers and 8 medium farmers.
million hectares with an annual production of 4.87 million
The primary data on cost and returns were collected by
Kumar et al. : Economics of rajmash cultivation in Eastern Jammu region 55

survey by interviewing the rajmash growers directly operational cost on marginal farms ( ` 20093/ha), small farms
through a pre-tested schedule. For estimating the cost of ( ` 20636/ha) and medium farms ( ` 21160/ha) showed a
cultivation of rajmash, various cost concepts framed by direct relationship with the farm size which constituted 59.59,
CACP (cost A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 and C3) were used and to 56.85 and 55.78 percent of the total cost on marginal, small
find out the returns, various income measures (gross and medium farms, respectively. On all farms, operational
income, farm business income, family labour income, net cost ( ` 20482/ha) was 57.93 percent of that of total cost.
income and returns per rupee) were estimated. Among the operational cost, expenditure on total human
labour was the main component followed by expenditure
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION on seed, machine labour and bullock labour. In case of
The cost of cultivation and the returns to different fixed cost, the per hectare expenditure on rental value of
factors of production helps in decision making about the owned land was major cost component which was worked
selection of an enterprise and hence, these measures were out to be ` 11913 on marginal farms, ` 11766 on small farms
worked out and presented in Table 1, 2 and 3. and ` 11744 on medium farms. Overall, rental value of
owned land was worked out to be ` 11831/ha.
Cost structure in production: The cost structure in
production of rajmash included the cost on production Concept-wise cost of cultivation: The cost of cultivation
inputs like, casual labour, family labour, machine labour, per hectare on the basis of different cost concepts were
bullock labour, seed, manure & fertilizers, plant protection estimated (Table 2). It indicated that all the costs increased
chemicals, while fixed costs were comprising of rental value with increase in the size of holding as there was a direct
of land, interest on fixed capital and depreciation on farm Table 2. Concept-wise cost of cultivation of rajmash
building and implements. The cost on various inputs used Categories Marginal Small Medium All
for cultivation of rajmash per hectare on the sample Particulars farms
holdings have been worked out (Table 1). Cost-A1
Casual labour 484 2218 3708 1681
It is evident that the total cost of cultivation of Machine labour 2682 2763 2864 2746
rajmash was higher on medium farms ( ` 37931/ha) as Animal labour 1403 1190 937 1239
compared to small farms ( ` 36301/ha) and marginal farms Seed 4830 4906 4906 4867
( ` 33716/ha) with an averge cost a ` 35354/ha. The Manure and fertilizers 898 1211 1395 1094
Plant protection chemicals 239 455 713 405
Irrigation charges 0 0 0 0
Table 1. Structure-wise cost of cultivation in rajmash
Miscellaneous expenditure 481 498 510 492
S. Particulars Marginal Small Medium All Interest on working capital 1057 1100 1144 1089
No. farms Depreciation charges 639 1439 1850 1125
A. Operational Cost Land revenue 300 300 300 300
i Casual labour 484 2218 3708 1681 Total cost- A1 13017 16085 18331 15042
ii Family labour 8014 6290 4979 6864 Cost-A2
iii Total human labour 8498 8508 8687 8546 Cost-A1 13017 16085 18331 15042
iv Machine labour 2682 2763 2864 2746 Rent paid for leased in land 0 1272 1927 773
v Bullock labour 1403 1190 937 1239 Total Cost-A2 13017 17357 20258 15816
vi Seed 4830 4906 4906 4867 Cost-B1
vii Manure and fertilizers 898 1211 1395 1094 Cost-A1 13017 16085 18331 15042
viii Plant protection 239 455 713 405 Interest on fixed capital 771 886 949 841
chemicals (excluding land)
ix Irrigation charges 0 0 0 0 Total Cost- B1 13788 16972 19280 15884
x Miscellaneous charges 481 498 510 492 Cost-B2
xi Interest on working 1057 1100 1144 1089 Cost-B1 13788 16972 19280 15884
capital Rental value of owned land 11912 11766 11743 11831
Sub-Total (A) 20092 20636 21160 20481 Rent paid for leased in land 0 1272 1927 773
(from i to xi) (59) (56) (55) (57) Total Cost-B2 25701 30010 32951 28489
B. Fixed cost Cost-C1
xii Rental value of owned 11912 11766 11743 11831 Cost-B1 13788 16972 19280 15884
land Family Labour 8014 6290 4979 6864
xiii Rent paid for leased-in 0 1272 1927 773 Total Cost-C1 21803 23262 24259 22749
land
Cost-C2
xiv Sub-Total (xii + xiii) 11912 13038 13671 12604
Cost-B2 25701 30010 32951 28489
xv Depreciation 639 1439 1850 1125
Family labour 8014 6290 4979 6864
xvi Land Revenue 300 300 300 300
Total Cost-C2 33716 36300 37930 35354
xvii Interest on fixed capital 771 886 949 841
Cost- C3
Sub-Total (B) 13623 15664 16770 14872
Cost-C2 33716 36300 37930 35354
(from xiv to xvii) (40) (43) (44) (42)
Cost of management (10% of 3371 3630 3793 3535
Total cost (A+B) 33716 36300 37930 35354
Cost-C2)
Note: Figures in parentheses represents percentage of total cost Total Cost-C3 37087 39930 41724 38889
56 Journal of Food Legumes 30(1), 2017

relationship between costs and farm size. On overall cost- Table 4. Production and return from cultivation of rajmash
A1, cost-A2, cost-B1, cost-B2, cost-C1, cost-C2 and cost-C3on Particulars Marginal Small Medium All farms
all farms were worked out to be ` 15043, ` 15816, ` 15885, Main product (q/ha) 5 5 5 5
` 28489, ` 22749, ` 35354 and ` 38889, respectively. The By- product (q/ha) 4 4 4 4
Value of main product (Rs./ha) 71240 70368 70236 70755
total cost-C2 i.e. the total cost of cultivation of rajmash was
Value of by product (Rs./ha) 236 227 227 232
lower on marginal farms among different categories of farms Gross income (Rs./ha) 71477 70597 70463 70987
mainly due to very low expenditure on casual labour and Farm business income (Rs./ha) 58459 53240 50205 55171
zero amount of rent in case of leased in land as compared to Family labour income (Rs./ha) 45775 40587 37512 42498
small and medium farmers. Cost-C3 was worked out to be Net income (Rs./ha) 37760 34297 32532 35633
` 38889 on overall. Cost Benefit Ratio 1:2 1:1 1:1 1:2

Concepts-wise economics: Concepts-wise economics of


rajmash was worked out (Table 4), which depicted that farms ( ` 70598/ha) and medium farms ( ` 70464/ha). This
overall net returns on all farms over cost-A1, cost-A2, cost- might be due to the reason that with increase in the farm
B1, cost-B2, cost-C1, cost-C2 and cost-C3were ` 55945, size farmers could not manage their farm properly and not
` 55172, ` 55103, ` 42499, ` 48239, ` 35634 and ` 32099 utilizing their resources efficiently. On all farms, gross
per hectare of rajmash cultivation, respectively. On different income was ` 70988 per hectare with benefit cost ratio of
categories of farms, net returns varied from ` 58459/ha to 2.01. Although the benefit cost ratio was higher on marginal
` 28740/ha. The returns per rupee of investment on all farms (2.12) as compared to small (1.94) and medium farms
farms over cost-A1, cost-A2, cost-B1, cost-B2, cost-C1, cost- (1.86) but was for all categories of farms suggesting >1.0
C2 and cost-C3 were ` 4.72, ` 4.49, ` 4.47, ` 2.49, ` 3.12, was the fact that rajmash cultivation was economically very
` 2.01 and ` 1.83, respectively. On different categories of much profitable in the study area and each rupee spent in
farms, returns per rupee varied from ` 5.49 to ` 1.69. rajmash cultivation would yield return of ` 2.12 in case of
marginal farms, ` 1.94 in case of small farms and ` 1.86 in
Thus, returns per rupee over cost-C2 were highest case of medium farms, respectively. On overall, net income
for marginal farms ( ` 2.12) followed by small farms ( ` 1.94) in rajmash cultivation (profit at Cost C) was ` 35634 per
and medium farms ( ` 1.86). It revealed that the net returns hectare.
and returns per rupee decreased from cost-A1 to cost-C3
on different categories of farms as well as on all farms. REFERENCES
Productivity and income: The productivity and income Anonymous 2013. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
from cultivation of rajmash was estimated (Table 3) which Nations. FAOSTAT database.Website: http://www.fao.org.
indicated that the productivity of marginal farms (5.24 q/ Anonymous 2014. Agriculture Department, Jammu. District Doda
ha) was higher as compared to small farms (5.09 q/ha) and at a Glance. Web portal of Doda District, J&K, India. Website:
medium farms (5.08 q/ha). However, on all farms, http://doda.gov.in.
productivity was 5.17 q/ha. It was found that per hectare Anonymous 2015. Agricultural Statistics at a glance. Directorate of
farm business income (profit at Cost A) and family labour Economics and Statistics.Department of Agriculture and
income (profit at Cost B) decreased with increase in size of Cooperation.Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
farm. The results also revealed that the gross income was Anonymous 2015. Website: http://groundreport.com/jk; Accessed
highest on marginal farms ( ` 71477/ha) followed by small on 16 th March, 2015. Website: http://agricoop.nic.in/eands;
Accessed on 23 rd March, 2015.

Table 3. Concept wise economics of rajmash Bhat A, Kachroo J and Kachroo D. 2011. Economic Appraisal of
Kinnow Production and its Marketing under North-Western
Particulars Marginal Small Medium All farms Himalayan Region of Jammu Agriculture Economics Research
Net returns over different cost (`/ha) Review 24(2): 283-290.
Cost A1 58459 54512 52132 55945
Camara CRS, Urrea CA and Schlegel V. 2013. Pinto Beans (Phaseolus
Cost A2 58459 53240 50205 55171
vulgaris L.) as a Functional Food: Implications on Human Health
Cost B1 57688 53625 51183 55103 Agriculture 3: 90-111.
Cost B2 45775 40587 37512 42498
Cost C1 49673 47335 46203 48238 Mc Connell M, Mamidi S, Lee R, Chikara S, Rossi M, Papa R and M
Cost C2 37760 34297 32532 35633 Clean P. 2010. Syntenic relationships among legumes revealed
using a gene-based genetic linkage map of common bean.
Cost C3 34389 30667 28739 32098
Theoretical and Applied Genetics 40: 110-124.
Returns per rupee over different cost
Cost A1 5.49 4.39 3.84 4.72 Sharma H, Singh IP and Burark SS. 2012. Production and Resource
Cost A2 5.49 4.07 3.48 4.49 Use Efficiency in Cotton in Hanumangarh District of Rajasthan.
Cost B1 5.18 4.16 3.65 4.47 Journal of Agricultural Development and Policy 22(2): 63-70.
Cost B2 2.78 2.35 2.14 2.49 Sultan SM, Dar SA, and Sivaraj N. 2014. Diversity of Common
Cost C1 3.27 3.03 2.90 3.12 Bean in Jammu and Kashmir, India: a DIVA-geographic
Cost C2 2.12 1.94 1.86 2.01 information system & cluster analysis. Journal of Applied and
Cost C3 1.93 1.77 1.69 1.83 Natural Sciences 6(1): 226-233.