Chapter VI
ANALYSIS OF THE COST AND RETURN ON PADDY CULTIVATION
Various operations and practices involved in paddy cultivation
along with the problems faced by the farmers in the process of cultivation
have all been discussed in the previous chapter. It is appropriate to study
the cost of cultivation and the return on paddy so as to know the income
earning capacity of the paddy farmers.
The cost of cultivation varies according to the type of the farmers
and even between the first and second crop. There may be variations in
the cost of cultivation even between two different sample areas. This will
have an impact on returns also. Hence an attempt is made to study the
variation in the cost and to identify the causes for such variation.
Cost of cultivation of any crop covers crop cost, labour cost, land
cost, machinery cost and livestock cost. Crop cost refers to those costs
incurred in the purchase of seeds and plants, manures and fertilizers,
pesticides and insecticides and irrigation charges.
Machinery cost includes the hire charges of machinery, fuel for
machinery, electricity, minor repairs and interest charges on machineries.
170 Labour cost covers the actual wages paid and the imputed value of family
labour.
Land cost includes rent paid to the land lord in the case of lease and
national rent for owned lands. The livestock cost includes the cost of
maintaining the livestock such as feed cost, fodder cost, cost of veterinary
medicine and the interest on the value of livestock and depreciation.
All these cost concepts discussed above cover both fixed as well as
variable costs. Fixed costs are of non-recurring nature, while variable
costs are of recurring types and have to be incurred in every production
period variable costs are also known as operational cost or working cost.
Fixed costs are those costs which are not a function output, hence
they do not vary with the level of production land revenue, interest on
capital for the use of fixed resources, contractual payments, such as rent
and the value of services form fixed resources, contractual payments.
Variable costs constitute the outlay of funds that are a function of
output in a given production period i.e. they vary with level of output.
Fixed costs are those costs which are independent of output, that is
they do not change with changes in output. Fixed costs are also known as
overhead cost and include charges such as contractual rent, insurance,
property tax, interest on capital, etc. Thus fixed costs are those which are
incurred in hiring the fixed factors of production and cannot be altered in
the short run.
171 Variable costs are those costs which are incurred on the
employment of variable factors of production and can be altered in the
short run. Thus the total variable costs change with changes in the output
in the short run i.e. they increase or decrease when the output rises of falls.
Thus, there are two views about the fixed cost.
1. Fixed costs are non-recurring in nature.
2. Fixed costs are those which do not change with the level of output.
In the cultivation of short duration crops all costs are recurring in
nature. Hence the first view is not usable for proper classification of fixed
cost and variable cost. Therefore the second view is taken for classifying
the cost into variable cost and fixed cost.
Cultivation expenses for each activity have been collected from the
farmers and they are classified as variable expenses and fixed expenses
based on their impact on output.
The average cost of cultivation is ascertained by dividing the total
cost by the total area of land for each analysis.
6.1. COST OF CULTIVATION OF PADDY
Cost of cultivation is an important factor and it is the basis on
which marketing decisions are made. A farmer whether big or small,
prefers to sell his product in the market only when the market price covers
the cost of production so as to leave a profit. So, the computation of cost
of cultivation is paramount before analyzing the marketing behaviour of
172 the farmers. Cost of cultivation of paddy in the study is analysed on the
guide lines of Government of India,
Estimation of cost has been done in the following manner
1. Human labour, bullock labour and machine labour (hired) value at the
actual rates paid by the farmer.
2. Family labour-valued at the rate of wages paid for hired labour for
similar work.
3. Bullock labour and machine labour (owned) – valued at rates paid to
hire the same.
4. Seeds (purchased), insecticides and pesticides, manure (purchased),
fertilizers, irrigation charges – valued at rates actually paid by the
farmers.
5. Seeds (farm produced), manure (owned) – valued at the prevailing
market prices.
6. Depreciation on implements – values at 20 per cent and apportioned
in proportion to the value of output of paddy to the total value of
output of all the crops of the year.
7. Land revenue – actually paid by the farmer.
8. Interest on working capital – valued at 12 per cent of half of the crop
growth period.
9. Imputed interest on owned fixed capital – valued at a rate of 10 per
cent of the value of assets (excluding land) and apportioned in
proportion to the value of output of paddy to the total value of out put
of all the crops of the year.
The components of cost given under ‘comprehensive scheme for
studying the cost of cultivation of principal crops’ have been re-arranged
so as to throw light on the variable cost and fixed cost. The classification
173 of cost according to their behaviour into fixed and variable elements is
very essential for profit planning, effective cost control and taking vital
decisions as to the time and rate at which paddy is to be sold.
6.1.1. Storage pattern
Having seen that paddy is stored for better prices now, it is our turn
to see the details regarding storage of paddy in the study area. Type of
store houses, storage cost, etc. deserve attending to learn the economics of
storage.
6.1.2. Storage Facilities
Adequate storage facilities help the farmers spread their sale over a
period of time after harvesting. Farmers may generally store paddy either
in their houses or houses of relatives or godowns run by the primary co-
operative society or rural godowns run by market committees. But a
surprising phenomenon observed is that all farmers stored their paddy
only in their houses. Not a single farmer was found to make use of their
relative’s houses, godowns of co-operative societies and market
committees.
6.1.3. Payments in kind and other retentions
The payments in kind and other retentions at the farm level affect
the level of marketable surplus. The payments and retentions are wages in
kind to permanent labourers employed on the farm, kind wages paid to the
casual labourers in harvesting paddy, customary payments to waterman,
craftsman, Economically and socially backward people in the village,
temples, etc. rent paid for leased – in land in which paddy is cultivated,
interest payment for loan, irrigation charges for paddy land which depends
174 on purchased water supply, paddy payments for relatives like old parents
who reside separately, sisters, brothers and other close relatives who have
no land / paddy land, seed for forthcoming sowing, wastages at the time of
storing and transporting and deductions during the time of marketing.
They make payments and retentions by varieties and seasons in each
village. This is necessary to estimate the correct level of marketable
surplus of paddy in different situations. Before presenting the level of
such deductions at farm level, let us look at the nature and dimension of
such payments in the study villages.
6.1.4. Wage for permanent labourers
Generally wage paid to permanent labourers is paddy and
remaining in kind, particularly in paddy. These labourers hail from local
and nearby villages and work from morning to evening in the farm.
Owing to the workload and nature of work, they are paid paddy for
consumption purpose. Usually, some of the marginal and small farmers in
the delta villages have part-time permanent labourers only for irrigation of
the paddy fields. They are doing watching and channelising water from
canals to paddy fields. They are paid by fixed quantity of paddy for this
service per season, generally, 5 bags per year.
These labourers also do (simultaneously) the same work in other
farmer’s field. In this area, a few farmers belonging to medium and large
groups have regular permanent labourers in their farms. In this area
labourers are paid generally in cash. One or two farmers pay the part of
wages in kind, either as coarse cereals or as paddy. Only a small quantity
of paddy, ranging from 3 to 4 bags, is involved in these transactions.
175 6.1.5. Wage for casual labourers
Wages for casual labourers in agriculture are generally paid in the
form of cash for all agricultural activities. Only in the harvesting of paddy
(complete kind) and groundnut (either cash or kind), wages are paid in
kind. In a few areas, wage for harvesting of coarse cereals are paid in
kind. Wage rate for paddy harvesting varies according to farm, season
and village. The wage per person is fixed and it is four marakkals (one
marakkal is equal to 4 kg). So bargaining is made only on the number of
labourers for harvesting one acre or piece of land. Depending upon the
demand for labourers and other factors, the number of labourers may vary
between 30 and 35 persons per acre. Actually, the number of persons
working and the number of persons agreed in the contract may differ. But
wage paid for the number of persons working in the field may exceed or
be lower than in the agreement. For analytical convenience, this type of
wage rate is transformed into wage rate as in the other villages.
The following are the major determinants of wage rate for
harvesting paddy.
i) distance between paddy field and kalam (threshing place).
ii) demand for labourers at the time of harvest.
iii) climatic conditions prevailing at the time of harvest.
iv) expected yield from the piece of paddy land; and
v) the size of landholding of the farmer.
Greater the distance between paddy field and threshing place,
higher is the wage rate, since the work requires more time and labour.
Generally, paddy, sowing and harvesting in many areas take place within
a limited time span. So, the demand for labourers is very high at certain
176 periods and less in some other period, thus contributing to variation in
wage rate. The climatic conditions prevailing at the time of harvest also
influence the wage rate. If there is heavy rain, the farmers are forced to
accept higher wage rate demanded by labourers so as to avoid crop
spoilage. The expected yield of paddy also determines the wage rate. If
the expected productivity is high in a piece of land, labourers accept to
reduce the wage rate expressed as a share of output and vice versa.
Finally, the large farmers have a group of casual labourers. Traditionally,
this group works on such farms. Because of the regularity of
employment, such casual labourers accept a somewhat lower level of
wage rate than the rate prevailing in the area.
6.1.6. Customer payments
Customer payments are made to watchman, crafts man, dhobi,
barber, economically and socially backward people in the village and to
temples etc.,
6.1.7. Loan repayment
Farmers require loan for both agricultural and non-agricultural
purpose. The loans obtained are generally repaid in cash. Sometimes, a
few farmers belonging to marginal and small groups repay their loans in
terms of paddy. There is a growing literature on interlinking in the case of
food crops, because farmers need relatively small amount of loan and it is
available from the business community of the same village who also have
no agricultural land. They need paddy for consumption requirements and
demand paddy as the mode of repayment of loan from the farmers.
177 6.1.8. Interest payment
As in the case of repayment of loan, we also see the payment of
interest in the form of paddy.
6.1.9. Irrigation charges
Irrigation charges for water purchased for paddy cultivation from
other farmers are also paid in the form of paddy. The irrigation charges
very from farm to farm and taluk-to-taluk. It ranges from 5 to 6 bags per
acre per season. But irrigation charges for crops other than paddy are paid
in cash.
6.1.10. Consumption of paddy
Quantity taken for consumption from production is a major
determinant of marketable surplus. Generally, paddy producing farmers
meet their consumption requirements of rice from their own production of
paddy. Some of the marginal and small farmers meet their consumption
need mostly by allotting from production and the remaining by purchasing
from open market and or government fair price shops. This is also
practised among a few medium group farmers of non-delta region. But
for a large proportion of medium farmers in the region, all the medium
farmers in the delta region and all large farmers in the both regions meet
their grain consumption needs entirely from own production. One or two
farmers in the lower groups sold all their inferior variety of paddy and
bought back superior variety of rice or such variety in paddy from other
farmers or traders.
178 6.1.11. Paddy for relatives
Traditionally, farmers give rice with a certain amount of money to
aged parents as Jeevanasam (like pension). A number of farmers give
considerable quantity of paddy / rice to their close relatives like married
sisters, brothers, etc. who have no paddy land / agricultural land and are
engaged in non-agricultural occupations in near by places.
6.1.12. Wastage and deductions
Wastage and weight loss of paddy occur at the time of storage.
Wastages happen by rats, pests, etc. The weightage loss occurs by the
loss of moisture content of paddy while storing it. Apart from this,
wastage occurs during the time of the transport of paddy from one place to
another place. The weightage loss and other wastages are directly
associated with quantum and period of storage. Another component
determining the level of marketable surplus is deduction made by
marketing authorities by means of taking samples (higher than the
required quantity) and reduction for moisture content. This is illegal,
because already the marketing authority offers a price for paddy according
to moisture content in it. However, according to some of the farmers, if
they protest, the weighman will over-report the moisture content and
farmers will receive an even lower price.
6.1.13. Receipts of paddy
Like the payments and retentions, farmers receive paddy from
different sources. The sources are wages received, land, collection of
loan, collection of interest, irrigation charges, relatives and other sources.
179 6.1.14. Wages
A few family members of marginal and small groups may be
working as agricultural labourers, either permanent or casual. They may
receive paddy as wage. In this village, agricultural labourers belonging to
marginal and small farm households earn paddy in this way.
6.1.15. Loan and interest collection
No one receives paddy as collection of loan or interest in both the
seasons. This is because the farmers generally do not get loan for
agricultural operations from private sources in cash. They are borrowing
mostly from the co-operative society or commercial banks or acquire
agricultural inputs on credits.
6.1.16. Irrigation charges
Farmers receive paddy as irrigation charges by selling water to near
by field, which has no own well or canal water facilities.
6.1.17. Marketable surplus of paddy
The marketable surplus of paddy is defined as the surplus quantity
available for sale from production after deducting all payments and
retentions such as consumption, wage for permanent labourers, wage for
harvesting, customary payments, rent for leased – in land, load repayment,
interest payment, irrigation charges, paddy given to relatives, seed
deductions and wastage.
The primary data collected were analysed through well known
statistical tools. The tools were selected for analysis on the basis of merit
and weightage of each and every individual problem of the study
180 concerned. The various tools which were used to analyse the data were,
mean, medium, standard, deviation, Anova table, Duncan table and
regression. The analysis of each table is given in terms of percentage.
The descriptive findings and reasons are the same.
6.1.18. Variety of paddy
Varieties have been classified under two categories called common
and fine. In Kuruvai and Thaladi season only these varieties are
cultivated. Common varieties are IR-20, ADT-36, TKM-9, CO-43, CR-
1009 and fine varieties are white Ponni and Katta Ponni.
181
TABLE 6.1 Variety of paddy cultivators – farm size
Farm size
ADT-36 IT-20
TKM-9
CO-43
CR-1003
White & Katta Ponni
Maginal 27 67 --- --- --- ---
Small 35 48 --- --- --- ---
Medium 24 29 --- --- --- 06
Large 20 13 07 07 14 03
Total 20 (35.3)
13 (52.3)
07 (2.3)
07 (2.3)
14 (4.7)
09 (3.0)
Source: Primary data. Note: Figures in parentheses refer to percentage.
From the above table we can understand the majority of the farmers
in the study area. Cultivators of IR-20 numbered 157 out of the 300
farmers followed by 106 farmers cultivating ADT-36. The lowest
cultivating crop variety is TKM-9 and CO-43. This clearly slows that the
IR-20 will give more profit than the other varieties, so the farmers give
more importance to cultivating IR-20 and ADT-36 than other varieties.
182 TABLE 6.2 Variety of paddy cultivation in the study area
(no. of farmers)
Study area ADT-36 IT-20TKM-
9 CO-43
CR-1003
White and Katta Ponni
Kumbakonam 33 66 --- --- --- 01
Orathanadu 46 52 --- --- --- 02
Papanasam 27 39 07 07 14 06
Total 106 (35.3)
157 (52.3)
7 (2.3)
7 (2.3)
14 (4.7)
09 (3.0)
Source: Primary data. Note: Figures in parentheses refer to percentage.
From the above table, one may find that Kumbakonam taluk,
stands first having 66 farmers cultivating to IR-20 followed by 52 and 36
farmers producing IR-20 variety. Further even in the ADT variety of
paddy Orathanadu stands first having 46 farmers producing ADT-36
followed by Kumbakonam and Orathanadu taluks with 33 and 27 farmers
respectively.
183 TABLE 6.3 Kuruvai production per acre – area wise
(no. of farmers)
Per acre Production Kumbakonam Orathanadu Papanasam Total
20.00 --- --- 6 (100.00 ) 6
(100.00 )
21.00 6 (100.00 ) --- --- 6
(100.00 )
22.00 --- --- 6 (100.00 ) 6
(100.00 )
23.00 --- --- 7 (100.00 ) 7
(100.00 )
24.00 18 (34.6 ) 27
(51.9 ) 7
(13.5 ) 52
(100.00 )
25.00 38 (36.5 ) 34
(32.7 ) 32
(30.8 ) 104
(100.00 )
26.00 32 (37.2 ) 26
(30.2 ) 28
(32.6 ) 86
(100.00 )
27.00 6 (18.2 ) 13
(39.4 ) 14
(42.4 ) 33
(100.00 )
Total 100 (33.33) 100
(33.33) 100
(33.33) 300
(100.00) Source: Primary data. Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage. It is perceived from the presented data that the highest is
production at 59.7 per cent in Papanasam taluk with 32 bags of paddy and
the lowest in Orathanadu at 18.9 per cent. This may be due to the high
yielding cultivated land in Papanasam followed by Kumbakonam, further
46.2 per cent and 53.8 per cent having the highest production of 37 bags
per acre while Papanasam accounted for 100 per cent having production
of 38 bags per acre and no other area exceeded production in Papanasam.
184 TABLE 6.4 Thaladi production per acre – area wise
(no. of farmers)
Per acre Production Kumbakonam Orathanadu Papanasam Total
32.00 18 (23.4) 13
(16.9) 46
(59.7) 77
(100.00)
33.00 7 (100.00) --- --- 7
(100.00)
34.00 19 (50.00) 19
(50.00) --- 38
(100.00)
35.00 31 (36.50) 27
(31.80) 27
(31.80) 85
(100.00)
36.00 19 (26.00) 34
(46.60) 29
(24.40) 73
(100.00)
37.00 6 (46.20) 7
(53.8) --- 13
(100.00)
38.00 --- --- 7 (100.00) 7
(100.00)
Total 100 (33.33) 100
(33.33) 100
(33.33) 300
(100.00) Source: Primary data. Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage.
185
The Thaladi production shows the high production level found in
almost all production areas from 20 bags to 27 bags in Papanasam and
low productivity level in Kumbakonam taluk. Orathanadue stands second
next to Papanasam in terms of productivity with 26 and 27 bags category,
both Papanasam and Kumbakonam stand equal.
Both the Kuruvai and Thaladi production were compared in the
study areas. Kuruvai production is much higher than the Thaladi
production. This is an example of marginal diminishing utility. When
land is being used repeatedly, the production capacity of the land goes on
decreasing.
186 TABLE 6.5 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan Tables for average land
holdings in the study area
One ANOVA test is prepared to test whether the average land
holding differs significantly among the three areas of study mainly
Kumbakonam, Orathanadu and Papanasam taluks.
Descriptive table 6.5(a)
Study area N Mean Standard deviation Standard
error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Kumbakonam 100 5.0300 2.9023 0.2902 4.4541 5.6059
Orathanadu 100 6.6150 5.1394 0.5739 5.5952 7.6348
Papanasam 100 5.0550 2.9905 0.2991 4.4616 5.6484
Total 300 5.5667 3.379 0.2290 5.1259 6.0074
Source: Calculated on the basis of the data collected during the field work.
The above table gives the mean, standard deviation; standard error
and 95 per cent confidence interval for mean are given for the three areas.
187
ANOVA table 6.5(b)
Land Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Significant
Between groups 184.662 2 62.441 5.649 0.004
Within groups 4334.265 297 14.594
Total 4499.167 299
In the above ANOVA table as the significance value is 0.004
which is less than 0.05, the average land holding differs significantly in
the three sampled areas.
Duncan table 6.5(c)
Study area N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1 2
Kumbakonam 100 5.0300
Orathanadu 100 6.6150
Papansam 100 5.0550
Sig. .963 1.000
From the Duncan table, we learn that Kumbakonam and
Papanasam respondents on the average have 5 acres of land which
indicates wet land and garden land while the Orathanadu respondents have
188 on an average 6.6 acres which is significantly higher than the other two
areas.
TABLE 6.6 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan Tables for the average cost
of Kuruvai season – area wise
Descriptive table 6.6(a)
Study area N Mean Standard deviation Standard
error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Kumbakonam 100 4075.2954 1955.6289 195.5629 3687.2561 4463.334
Orathanadu 100 3298.6286 380.0055 38.0005 3223.2273 33.74030
Papanasam 100 3704.6020 1129.8976 112.9896 3480.4058 3928.798
Total 300 3692.8420 1355.6416 78.2680 3538.8961 3846.867
Source: Calculated on the basis of the data collected during the field work.
ANOVA table 6.6(b)
Land Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Significant
Between groups 3.0E + 07 2 1.5E+07 6.631 .000
Within groups 5.2E + 08 297 1748519
Total 5.6E + 08 299
189
Duncan table 6.6(c)
Study area N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1 2 3
Kumbakonam 100 3296.6288
Orathanadu 100 3704.6020
Papansam 100 4075.2954
Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000
From the above table, we find that the average Kuruvai cost per
acre in the study area in Papanasam taluk shows that the major mean cost
is Rs.4075.29. This analysis has revealed the lower quality of land and
the higher cost of manure. Kumbakonam taluk is the lowest among three
study area with high quality of land and higher utilization of new
technologies and manure. The cost wise analysis of Kuruvai is satisfactory
in Kumbakonam when compared to the other two areas.
190 TABLE 6.7 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan Tables for the average cost
of Thaladi season – area wise
Descriptive table 6.7(a)
Study area N Mean Standard deviation Standard
error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Kumbakonam 100 4279.0601 2053.4109 205.3410 3871.6190 4686.501
Orathanadu 100 3463.5801 0399.0057 039.9006 3384.3987 3542.731
Papanasam 100 4193.0931 1280.9053 128.0905 3938.9337 4447.252
Total 300 3978.5711 1458.2029 084.1894 3812.8923 4144.248
Source: Calculated on the basis of the data collected during the field work.
ANOVA table 6.7(b)
Land Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Significant
Between groups 4.0E + 07 2 2.02 + 07 10.11 .000
Within groups 6.0E + 08 297 2005473
Total 6.4E + 08 299
191
Duncan table 6.7(c)
Study area N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1 2
Kumbakonam 100 3463.5601
Orathanadu 100 4190.0931
Papansam 100 4279.0601
Sig. 1.000 0.668
From the above table, it can be noted that the expenses per acre
show the differences in expenses incurred in different areas. The
difference between the average expense in Papanasam and Orathanadu is
almost equal but in Kumbakonam the cost per acre is the lowest.
From the above analysis it is noteworthy to note that Thaladi leads
with the lowest in terms of expenditure in cost per acre in Kuruvai
compared to other areas.
192 TABLE 6.8 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan tables for the average
Kuruvai cost – farm wise
Descriptive table 6.8(a)
Farm size N Mean
Standard deviation
Standard error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Marginal farmers 103 2939.7403 263.6452 25.9777 2888.2136 2991.2670
Small farmers 94 3573.7066 516.1078 53.2325 3467.9975 3679.4145
Medium farmers 66 4026.0168 605.4701 74.5282 3877.1736 4174.8599
Large farmers 37 5497.6710 2916.4213 479.4667 4625.2878 6470.0543
Total 300 3692.8420 1355.6416 78.2680 3538.8161 3846.867
Source: Calculated on the basis of the data collected during the field work.
ANOVA table 6.8(b)
Land Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Significant
Between groups 1.9E + 08 3 6.3E + 07 51.149 .000
Within groups 3.6E + 08 296 1222598
Total 5.5E + 08 299
193
Duncan table 6.8(c)
Farm size N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1 2 3 4
Marginal farmers 108 2989.7406
Small farmers 94 8573.7086
Medium farmers 66 4026.0168
Large farmers 37 5497.6710
Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
The above table shows that most of the farmers in the study area
are marginal farmers and their average expenditure is Rs.2989.74 per acre.
And out of 300 farmers, in the study group, only 37 large farmers have got
the mean of Rs.5498.67 per acre.
194 TABLE 6.9 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan tables for average Thaladi
cost – farm wise
Descriptive table 6.9(a)
Farm size N Mean
Standard deviation
Standard error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Marginal farmers 103 3381.1555 884.9532 87.1970 3208.2006 3554.1104
Small farmers 94 3752.3919 541.9132 55.8941 3641.3973 3863.3864
Medium farmers 66 4227.3178 889.7436 78.2546 4071.0323 4383.6029
Large farmers 37 5772.5546 3062.2424 503.4295 4751.5521 6793.5570
Total 300 3978.5711 1458.2029 84.1894 3812.8923 4144.2499
Source: Calculated on the basis of the data collected during the field work.
ANOVA table 6.9(b)
Land Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Significant
Between groups 1.6E + 08 3 5.5E + 07 34.506 .000
Within groups 4.7E + 08 296 1591374
Total 6.4E + 08 299
195
Duncan table 6.9(c)
Farm size N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1 2 3
Marginal farmers 103 3381.1555
Small farmers 94 3752.3919
Medium farmers 66 4227.3176
Large farmers 37 5772.5546
Sig. 0.096 1.000 1.000
From the above table, it has been observed that out of 300 farmers
in the study area, 103 farmers form part of the marginal group having the
average cost per acre with Rs.3381.15 and 37 large farmers have
Rs.5572.55 as the average cost per acre.
From the combined analysis of both the Kuruvai and Thaladi it can
be understood that cost per acre for Thaladi is higher than Kuruvai cost
due to increase in the variable cost per acre.
196 TABLE 6.10 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan tables for Kuruvai cost per
bag – farm wise
Descriptive table 6.10(a)
Study area N Mean Standard deviation Standard
error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Kumbakonam 100 118.6359 56.2865 5.6266 107.4714 129.800
Orathanadu 100 123.0692 60.8859 6.0886 110.9889 135.159
Papanasam 100 109.3651 33.9912 3.3991 102.6205 116.109
Total 300 117.0234 51.8746 2.9950 111.1295 122.917
Source: Calculated on the basis of the data collected during the field work.
ANOVA table 6.10(b)
Land Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Significant
Between groups 9780.120 2 4390.080 1.827 0.163
Within groups 794812.2 297 2876.135
Total 804592.3 299
197
Duncan table 6.10(c)
Farm size N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1 2 3 4
Marginal farmers 103 83.5565
Small farmers 94 104.9818
Medium farmers 66 121.3870
Large farmers 37 232.9971
Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
From the analysis of cost per bag of paddy production, it can be
inferred that Papanasam stands the lowest among the other taluks with an
average cost Rs.109 per bag followed by Kumbakonam with Rs.118 per
bag, the highest being Orathanadu where the cost per bag comes to
Rs.123/=. Further while analyzing the cost factor Papanasam is placed
better than the other two study areas in terms of cost. The reason is due to
qualitative cultivable land available in Papanasam compared to
Orathanadu where only meagre area of quality land is available.
198 TABLE 6.11 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan tables for Thaladi cost per
bag – area wise
Descriptive table 6.11(a)
Study area N Mean Standard deviationStandard
error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Kumbakonam 100 172.2550 87.0685 8.7068 154.9787 189.532
Orathanadu 100 177.9221 87.1093 8.7109 160.6372 196.206
Papanasam 100 171.5709 60.0993 6.0099 159.8459 183.496
Total 300 173.9160 78.9085 4.5558 164.9505 182.883
Source: Calculated on the basis of the data collected during the field work.
ANOVA table 6.11(b)
Land Sum of squares df Mean square F Significant
Between groups 2430.755 2 1215.378 .194 .824
Within groups 1859307 297 6260.291
Total 1881737 299
199
Duncan table 6.11(c)
Study area N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1
Kumbakonam 100 171.5709
Orathanadu 100 172.2550
Papansam 100 177.9221
Sig. .597
The descriptive table shows that the Thaladi cost per bag is the lowest in
Kumbakonam followed by Orathanadu and Papanasam and the cost being
Rs.171, Rs.172 and Rs.177/= respectively in the three study areas.
Further the comparative study of the cost analysis reveals that out of both
Kuruvai and Thaladi seasons, the cost of cultivation is much lower for Kuruvai
when compared to Thaladi crop cultivation. This is again due to diminishing
marginal utility, where the repeated use of land increases the variable cost by
putting more manures etc. However the fixed cost will remain the same.
200 TABLE 6.12 Multiple linear regression for marginal farmers in Kuruvai
season production per acre
Taking Kuruvai profit per acre as the dependent variable and
cultivation as variable cost, cultivation fixed cost, total no. of members in
the family and Kuruvai production per acre as independent variables a
multiple linear regression analysis is carried out. The results are given
below
Model summary table 6.12(a)
Model R R square Adjusted R
square Standard error of the
estimate
1 .9958 .990 .990 54.8173
From the table R square equation is 0.990 which means that 99 per
cent of the variability is explained in the dependent variable by the above
said independent variable.
Co-efficient table 6.12(b)
Model
Unstandardized co-efficients Standardized
co-efficients beta t Sig.
Std. error
Constant 14466.783 111.615 102.932 .000
CUL-VCOS -4.78E-02 .22 -0.23 -2.172 .032
CUL-FCOS .143 .049 .033 2.949 .004
TNF -7.292 4.558 -0.019 -1.600 .133
KUGR-PRO .436 .005 1.792 90.840 .000
201 From the co-efficient table all the variables except TNF (Total
number of family members) are having significant effect on the
regression. Thus, the regression equation is obtained as
Y = 11466.783 – 478E.02x1 + 0.143x2 + 0.436x3
where, x1 is variable cost, x2 is cultivation fixed cost, and x3 Kuruvai
cropped production.
CUL-VCOS - Kuruvai cultivation variable cost.
CUL-FCOS - Kuruvai cultivation fixed cost.
KUGR-PRO - Kuruvai crop production per acre.
TNF - Total number of members in the family.
202 TABLE 6.13 Multiple linear regression for small farmers in Kuruvai
production per acre
Model summary table 6.13(a)
Model R R square Adjusted R
square Standard error of the
estimate
1 .9958 .993 .992 62.7092
The table indicates R square is 0.992 which means that 99 per cent
of the variability is explained in the dependent variable by the above said
independent variable.
Co-efficient table 6.13(b)
Model
Unstandardized co-efficients Standardized co-efficients
beta t Sig.
Std. error
Constant 11027.860 176.984 62.682 .000
CUL-VCOS -4.14E-02 .57 -0.012 -0.732 .486
CUL-FCOS 2.603E-02 .012 .035 2.213 .029
TNF 4.375 7.363 .006 0.594 0.554
KUGR-PRO 0.214 0.002 2.863 88.549 0.000
In the co-efficient table, it can be noted that all the variables except
TNF (Total number of members in the family) have significant effect on
regression. Thus the regression equation is obtained as
Y = 11027.860 – 4.14E-02x1 + 2.603E-02x2 + 0.214x3
where, x1 is variable cost of cultivation, x2 is fixed cost of cultivation and
x3 is production of an acre of Kuruvai crop.
203 TABLE 6.14 Multiple linear regression for medium farmers in Kuruvai
season production per acre
Model summary table 6.14(a)
Model R R square Adjusted R
square Standard error of the
estimate
1 .9958 .991 .990 61.0557
From the table it can be observed that R square equation is 0.990
which means that 99 per cent of the variability is explained in the
dependent variable by the above said independent variable.
Co-efficient table 6.14(b)
Model
Unstandardized co-efficients Standardized co-efficients
beta t Sig.
Std. error
Constant 9077.875 425.744 21.322 .000
CUL-VCOS .440 .142 .046 3.092 .003
CUL-FCOS -5.43E-02 .012 .069 -4.631 .000
TNF -10.109 10.813 -0.013 0.935 0.054
KUGR-PRO 0.149 0.008 3.108 49.457 0.000 It is perceived from the co-efficient table that all the variables
except TNF (Total number of members in the family) are having
significant effect on the regression.
Thus the regression equation is obtained as
Y = 9077.875 + 0.440x1 – 5.43E.02x2 + 0.149x3
where x1 shares the variable cost of cultivation,
x2 shares the fixed cost of cultivation.
x3 shares the Kuruvai crop production per acre.
204 TABLE 6.15 Multiple linear regression for large farmers in Kuruvai
season production per acre
Model summary table 6.15(a)
Model R R square Adjusted R
square Standard error of the
estimate
1 .992R .984 .992 42.7490
It can be seen from the above table that R square equation is 0.992
which means that 99 per cent of the variability is explained in the
dependent variable by the above said independent variable.
Co-efficient table 6.15(b)
Model
Unstandardized co-efficients Standardized co-efficients
beta t Sig.
Std. error
Constant -10348.1 1513.870 -6.836 .000
CUL-VCOS 8.272 .536 1.881 15.432 .000
CUL-FCOS 1.793 .095 1.400 18.933 .000
TNF -981.748 39.265 -2.904 -25.003 .000
KUGR-PRO -6.69E-02 .003 -3.136 -19.412 .000
205 TABLE 6.16 Multiple linear regression for marginal farmers in Thaladi
season production per acre
Model summary table 6.16(a)
Model R R square Adjusted R
square Standard error of the
estimate
1 .6958 .483 .456 325.1857
Co-efficient table 6.16(b)
Model
Unstandardized co-efficients Standardized co-efficients
beta t Sig.
Std. error
Constant 8592.361 630.603 13.626 .000
TNF 112.932 26.206 .385 4.691 .000
KUGR-PRO -4.25E-02 .019 -0.213 -2.251 .027
THA-VCOS .199 .120 .123 1.553 .124
THA-FCOS -2.488 .292 -0.706 -8.532 .000
It can be seen from the table presented that R square equation is
0.456 which means that 99 per cent of the variability is explained in the
dependent variable by the model summary of the independent variables.
And co-efficient table of all the variables except TNF (Total number of
members in the family) are having significant effect on the regression.
Thus, the regression equation is obtained as
Y = 8592.361 + 0.199x1 – 2.488x2 – 4.25E.02x3
where x1 is cultivation variable cost, x2 cultivation fixed cost and x3
Thaladi crop production per acre.
206 TABLE 6.17 Multiple linear regression for small farmers in Thaladi
season production per acre
Model summary table 6.17(a)
Model R R square Adjusted R
square Standard error of the
estimate
1 .5238 .273 .232 267.8606
Co-efficient table 6.17(b)
Model
Unstandardized co-efficients Standardized co-efficients
beta t Sig.
Std. error
Constant 5910.034 751.496 7.731 .000
TNF -66.361 31.499 -0.200 -2.110 .038
KUGR-PRO 1.223E-03 .10 .038 .119 .906
THA-VCOS .666 .230 .476 2.894 .005
THA-FCOS -0.219 .050 -0.698 -4.364 .000
From the table, it is important to note that R square equation is
0.232 which means that 99 per cent of the variability is explained in the
dependent variable by the above said independent variable. And from co-
efficient table we note all the variables except TNF (Total number of
members in the family) are having significant effect on regression which
is obtained as
Y = 5910.034 + 0.666x1 – 0.219x2 + 1.223E-03x3
207 TABLE 6.18 Multiple linear regression for medium farmers in Thaladi
season production per acre
Model summary table 6.18(a)
Model R R square Adjusted R
square Standard error of the
estimate
1 .9188 .643 .830 235.9172
Co-efficient table 6.18(b)
Model
Unstandardized co-efficients Standardized co-efficients
beta t Sig.
Std. error
Constant 23489.937 1645.062 14.279 .000
TNF -95.066 41.780 -0.131 -2.275 .026
KUGR-PRO .152 .012 3.407 13.026 .000
THA-VCOS -4.837 .524 -0.545 -8.858 .000
THA-FCOS .163 .045 .223 3.589 .001
From the above table, it may be observed that R square equation is
0.830 which means that 99 per cent of the variability is explained. And
from the co-efficient table, it can be noted that all the variables except
TNF (Total number of members in the family) are having significant
effect on equation which is obtained as
Y = 23489.937 - 4.837x1 + 0.163x2 + 0.152x3
208 TABLE 6.19 Multiple linear regression for large farmers in Thaladi
season production per acre
Model summary table 6.19(a)
Model R R square Adjusted R
square Standard error of the
estimate
1 .9748 .948 .942 115.5334
Co-efficient table 6.19(b)
Model
Unstandardized co-efficients Standardized co-efficients
beta t Sig.
Std. error
Constant -63421.5 3458.384 -18.349 .000
TNF -1147.498 73.323 -2.272 -15.650 .000
THA-VCOS 22.867 1.141 3.622 19.870 .000
THA-FCOS 3.297 .201 1.723 16.363 .000
It can be deducted from the table presented that R square equation
is 0.942 which means that 99 per cent of the variability is explained. And
from the co-efficient table, if any may be noted that are the variables
except TNF are having significant effect on equation which obtained as
Y = 63421.5 = 22.867x1 + 3.297x2 + 110.583x3
209 TABLE 6.20 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan Tables for marketable
surplus in Kuruvai season – area wise
Descriptive table 6.20(a)
Study area N Mean Standard deviationStandard
error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Kumbakonam 100 29.0572 6.2590 .6258 27.8154 30.293
Orathanadu 100 29.0703 7.9448 .7945 27.4939 30.649
Papanasam 100 28.7816 5.2759 .5276 27.7347 29.829
Total 300 -
28.9697 5.6652 .9790 28.2236 29.771
Source: Calculated on the basis of the data collected during the field work.
ANOVA table 6.20(b)
Land Sum of squares df Mean square F Significant
Between groups 5.317 2 2.858 .061 .941
Within groups 12882.078 297 43.374
Total 12887.394 299
Source: Computed from primary data
210
Duncan table 6.20(c)
Study area N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1
Kumbakonam 100 28.7816
Orathanadu 100 29.0572
Papansam 100 29.0703
Sig. .773
Source: Computed from primary data.
It can be seen from the table that the marketable surplus can be
defined as the excess of the samples over total retention. The descriptive
analysis of the table shows that all the three study areas show almost equal
amount of samples with little difference between Kumbakonam and other
study area. An average of 29 bags per acre is marketable surplus in all the
three areas.
211 TABLE 6.21 Descriptive, Anova tables for Thaladi season profit per
acre– farm wise
Descriptive table 6.21(a)
Farm size N Mean
Standard deviation
Standard error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Marginal
farmers 103 7225.1845 440.9600 43.4491 7139.0034 7311.3655
Small
farmers 94 7206.2128 305.6528 31.5257 7143.6090 7266.6155
Medium
farmers 66 6609.0909 571.5922 70.3581 8468.5760 8749.8058
Large
farmers 37 6858.1351 479.3889 78.8110 6698.2989 7-17.9713
Total 300 7038.4800 509.5706 29.4201 6980.5384 7096.3266
Source: Calculated from primary data.
ANOVA table 6.21(b)
Land Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Significant
Between groups 2.0E + 07 3 6535734 33.337 .000
Within groups 5.6E + 07 296 196053.4
Total 7.8E + 07 299
212
Duncan table 6.21(c)
Farm size N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1 2 3
Marginal farmers 66 6609.0909
Small farmers 37 6858.1351
Medium farmers 94 7206.2128
Large farmers 103 7225.1845
Sig. 1.000 1.000 .809
Source: Computed from primary data.
From the table on profitability it may be observed that out of the
300 farmers in the study area, the average profit of marginal farmer is
only Rs.7225.18 per acre and whose number is 103 compared to the
average profit of Rs.7038.48 per acre for the 300 farmers. However from
the combined analysis of 60th Kuruvai and Thaladi one may find that the
average profit is much higher in Kuruvai cultivation than in Thaladi. This
is due to the low yielding quality of the land. Further the marginal
farmers are earning less amount of profit both in Kuruvai and Thaladi
cultivation.
213 TABLE 6.22 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan tables for average net profit
per acre – farm wise (per year)
Descriptive table 6.22(a)
Farm size N Mean
Standard deviation
Standard error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Marginal farmers 103 18515.83 788.9378 77.7364 18361.65 18670.02
Small farmers 94 18361.30 726.2723 74.9093 18212.54 18510.05
Medium farmers 66 17350.84 1012.8582 124.8740 17101.85 17509.63
Large farmers 37 18241.92 522.2607 85.8591 18067.79 18416.05
Total 300 18177.29 918.0916 52.7174 18079.54 1828.08
Source: Calculated from primary data.
ANOVA table 6.22(b)
Land Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Significant
Between groups 6.0E + 07 3 2.0E + 07 31.413 .000
Within groups 1.9E + 08 296 638659.6
Total 2.5E + 08 299
214
Duncan table 6.22(c)
Farm size N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1 2
Marginal farmers 66 17350.64
Small farmers 94 16241.92
Medium farmers 94 18361.30
Large farmers 103 18515.83
Sig. 1.000 .066
Source: Calculated from primary data.
The table indicates that the combined analysis of net profit per year
both in Kuruvai and Thaladi is about Rs.18,177/= per acre among 300
farmers in the sample study area, the highest being Rs.18,515/= and the
lowest being of Rs.17,350/= per acre for the medium level farmers. The
higher profit for marginal farmers is due to lesser amount of the labour
cost.
215 TABLE 6.23 Descriptive, Anova and Duncan tables for average net profit
per acre – area wise (per year)
Descriptive table 6.23(a)
Area code N Mean Standard deviation Standard
error
95% confidence interval for mean
Lower bound
Upper bound
Kumbakonam 100 18243.36 969.0725 98.9072 18051.09 18435.87
Orathanadu 100 18327.09 579.7715 51.9772 1822.96 18430.22
Papanasam 100 17961.39 1111.1372 111.1137 17740.92 18181.86
Total 300 18177.29 918.0916 52.7174 18073.54 18281.03
Source: Calculated from primary data.
ANOVA table 6.23(b)
Land Sum of
squares df
Mean
square F Significant
Between groups 7342074 2 3871037 4.506 .012
Within groups 2.4E + 08 297 614629.9
Total 2.5E + 08 299
Source: Calculated from primary data.
216
Duncan table 6.23(c)
Farm size N Subset for alpha = 0.5
1 2
Kumbakonam 100 17961.39
Orathanadu 100 19240.38
Papanasam 100 18327.09
Sig. 1.000 .512
Source: Calculated from primary data.
From analysis of net profit per acre, table it can be understood that
Kumbakonam stands the lowest among the other taluks with net profit
Rs.17,961/= per year followed by Orathanadu Rs.19,240/= the highest
being Papanasam where the net profit comes to Rs.18,327/=. Further
while analyzing the net profit Papanasam is placed better than the other
two study area.
Recommended