This internal working paper is prepared for STAFF USE ONLY. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the World Bank. INDIA: ANIMAL POWERED AGRICULTURE AND IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY AGREP Division Working Paper No. 88 ,Prepared by: Karam Singh (Consultant) under the direction of Graham Donovan Economics and Policy Division Agriculture and Rural Development Department October 1981 T"DEX S.No. Contents Page 1. Introd--tion 1 2. Objectives 3. Growth of different types of farm Implements and Machinery 2 4. Equipment Shelf 9 5. Tillage Implements 9 6. Improved Implements for Seeding and Fertilizer Application 10 7. Weeding and Interculture Implements 10 8. Harvesting Implements 19 9. Other Implements 19 10. Multipurpose Implements 21 II Relative Superiority of Different Implements 23 1. Tillage Equipment 23 2. Seeding & Fertilizing Equipments 35 3. Other Equipment 50 III Actual State of Arts with Farmers 53 TV Constraints to adoption of Improved Implements 65 To sum up 72 Some recommendations 74 Animal Power Technology Annex I 77 Animal Power Technology Annex II 79 INDIA Karam Singh October 26, 1981 Animal Powered Agriculture And ImDroved Technology Indian Agriculture is basically (man and) animal powered. There are 70.5 million operational holdings in India of which 23.2 million are below 0.5 hecatres, and 35.7 million are less than one hectare according to 1970-71 Agricultural Census. Only a little more than 0.6 million are above 20 ha. Compared with this as late as 1979 there were only 0.4 million tractors which are essentially confined to intensively cropped, irrigated areas in the North-Western States, and provide about 0.1 HP per ha to the 70.5 million farm holdings spread over a national crop area of 140 million ha. On the other hand, the bullock inventory of 70 million draft animals, providing 0.3 HP per ha, is very widely distributed. Each bullock cultivates on average, 2 ha. Thus for several reasons, including the rising real costs of energy, the inflationary increases in the capital (investment) cost of machine technology, and the typical capital position of small farmers, the draft animal would remain the pivotal element of numerous farming systems in India. Herein lies the importance of studying the technology choices available to different farming systems based on animal power, their needs and possibilities for future improvement, and the constraints and incentives associated with such change. The low efficiency of conversion of feed energy to draft output obtained with farm bullocks in India, assessed at about 4% of feed energy produced as draft output,1/arises in large part because of the under utilization of the total draft capacity of the bullock population, a result of sharp seasonal peaks in the work load; some 60%cf total yearly work demand is required over the two one-month periods of crop planting and threshing 2/. A combination of low crop yields, a small area cultivated by each bullock and sharp peaks in energy demand lead to a situation where the crop residues available are insufficient to sustain the feed energy inputs required for optimal feeding. Increased crop yields, a greater area cultivend per bullock and a spreading of the work load over a longer time period are the keys to increasing the output and efficiency of draft animal use, and all these factors depend upon the availability of suitable bullock drawn implements, efficient harnessing methods, sound animal-husbandry practices and a cropping program which minimizes sharp seasonal peaks in draft animal demand. Objectives: The main obje-tive of the study was to ascertain the true "state of the art" with respect to the equipment complex based on animal draft power. 1/ S. Odendhal, Hum. Ecol. 1.3 (1972) 2i A. Makhijani and A. Pocle, Energy and A-riculture in the Third World (Ballincer, Cambridge, Mass. 1975). -2- The specific aims were to study: - the existing shelf of improved impelents; - the nature and extent of their claimed superiority over traditional forms; - the extent and pattern of adoption of these improved implements; - the constraints to adoption of improved implements; and - possible steps to improve the situation. Growth of different types of farm imDlements^ and machinerv: The livestock census which is conducted every five years also enumerate various types of farm implements and machinery. However, these do not distinguish in detail the improved implements from the traditional forms. Thus ploughs are enumerated as wooden and iron ploughs; the wooden plough used to be called a traditional plough and iron plough an improved one, though as we shall see later, there is a large variety of iron ploughs which could be clubbed into 3-4 general categories for convenience. But one thing is clear, as can be seen from Table 1.1, that over the years, livestock census have started to enumerate and tabulate in more and more details. For instance, Blade Harrow (or Bakhar or Guntaka), Wet Land Puddler and Earth Leveller (or Scrapper) were not enumerated till 1961, were clubbed as one group in 1966 census when these together were 2.72 million; and were given separately since 1972 census. Thus in 1972 there were 11.7 million Blade Harrows, 1.7 million Wet Land Puddlers and 3.7 million Scrappers. The number of Wet Land Puddlers further increased to 2.1 million by 1977 and that of Earth Levellers to 8.8 million. It can also be seen from Table 1.1 that there were 38.4 million wooden ploughs in 1961, 39.9 million in 1966, 39.3 million in 1972 and 40.2 million in 1977. On the other hand, iron ploughs which were 0.93 million only in 1951 increased to 2.23 million in 1961 and further to 5.36 million in 1972 and 6.27 million in 1977. Thus, only about one-sixth of the 34,2 million operational holdings of 1 to 20 hectares could be owning an improved (iron) plough in 1977. -3- Table 1.1: Different Types of animal-driven Farm Implements and Machinery, All India ' thousands Implements 1951 1956 1961 1966 1972 1977 b Ploughs: Wooden 31800 36140 38372 39920 39294 40191 Iron 930 1380 2230 3523 5359 6271 Bullock carts 9860 10970 12070 12697 12960 12724 Persian wheels or rahats - - 600 680 638 621 Cane Crushers: Bullock driven 540 550 590 650 681 670 Power driven 21 23 33 45 87 98 Seed drill - - - 1135P/ 4049 4807 Blade harrow or Bakhar or - - - T 11738 11137 Guntuka . I Wet land puddler - - - 2724 1694 2102 Earth leveller or scrapper - - - 3731 8833 Sprayers and dusters - - - 211 448 604 Diesel Pumpsets 82 122 230 471 1628 2303 Electric Pumpsets 26 47 160 415 1618 2260 Maize Shellers - - - - 175 226 Traqtors 81 21 31 54 148 299 a/ Also includes manually operated implements in some cases. Separate data were not available. Power driven cane crushers and tractors have also been given. b/ 1977 figures were not available for Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Manipur, Punjab, Tripura and West Bengal States. All India figures given here include the data for these States for 1972. c/ Includes only improved seed drills. The word 'improved' was dropped in 1972 and 1977 Census. d/ - indicates data were not collected. Source: Livestock Census, various issues. -4- The statistics regarding some important animal drawn agricultural implements in different states is given in Tablesl.2 and 1.3 for 1972 and 1977 respectively. The growth of all implements put together (excluding wooden ploughs) during the period 1972 to 1977 was found to be of significance in Orissa followed by UP only (out of the states for which 1977 statistics were available).1/ The increase in the number of a all implements in 1977 over 1972 was 131 percent in Orissa 2/and 115 per cent in UP. In.0rissa, the number of iron ploughs increased from 80 thousand in 1972 to 152 thousand in 1977. Likewise, in UP their number increased from 1681 thousand in 1972 to 2188 thousand in 1977. Similarly, whereas during 1972, in Orissa, the blade harrows and seed drills were in limited numbers (below 500), by 1977 these had increased to 16 thousand and 10 thoutsand respective.y. In UP the number of earth levellers increased from 664 thousand in 1972 to 5030 thousand in 1977. The other state where some improvement in respect of some implements was observed was MP where the number of wet land puddlers, earth levellers and seed drills increased from 194 thousand, 355 thousand and 60 thousand in 1972 to 317 thousand, 823 thousand and 309 thousand in 1977 respectively. Iron plough, the most basic animal drawn cultivation implement, was examined a bit more thoroughly in Table 1.4. Punhjab had the largest proportion of holdings having iron ploughs which was 96 per cent during 1972. Other states are far behind, Haryana had 35 per cent holdings having iron plough in 1972. UP came next with 33 per cent in 1972 and 43 percent holdings having an iron plough in 1977. At the fag end were W.B. Assam, A.P. and Orissa with only 1,2,3and 4 per cent holdings having an iron plough in 1972. Interestingly, the coorelation between the yield of foodgrains (average of 1970-71'and 1971-72) and the per cent of holdings having iron ploughs across 17 Indian states included in Tables 1/ The states in respect of which the statistics about implements for 1977 was not available so far are Assam, Bihar, Haryana, Punjab and West Bengal. 2/ Orissa is the only state where World Bank aided Extension and Research Project - Orissa Agricultural Development Project, has explicitly the Farm Implements Component which provides "support for the design, testing, demonstration and distribution of improved animal-drawn farm implements"(see World Bank Staff Appraisal Report of India: Orissa Agricultural Development Project Report no 1301 a-IN, February 8, 1977). -5- Table 1.2 Number of Animal-driven Agricultural Implements, State-wise, India, 1972 (000) Total Ploughs Blade Wet land .Earth Seed working State Wooden Iron Harrows Puddlers Levellers Drills Bovine Andhra Pradesh 3510 85 1670 398 349 827 6792 Assam 1386 18 90 68 399 1 2506 Bihar 4055 264 876 260 887 142 8223 Gujarat 1489 215 1051 145 216 661 3081 Haryana 592 220 34 25 78 58 1002 Himachal Pradesh 463 39 181 16 22 1 909 J&K 572 68 26 5 13 2 731 Karnataka 2039 468 1113 94 293 693 4076 Kerala 394 35 48 97 38 1 617 Madhya Pradesh 4659 90 2376 194 355 60 10765 Maharashtra 1780 527 2487 137 52 974 6429 Orissa 2515 80 - - - - 5368 Punjab 654 755 30 35 98 383 1687 Rajasthan 2499 182 510 24 15 30 4011 Tamil Nadu 3066 611 26 43 65 7 5378 Uttar Pradesh 7990 1618 1184 93 664 207 15176 West Bengal 1318 4 17 33 - - 5135 All India 39294 5359 11738 1694 3731 4049 82618 Source: Indian Livestock Census, 1972, Vol. I, Summary Tables. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GO. -6- Table 1.3: Number of Animal-driven Agricultural Implements State-wise, India, 1977 a/ (000) % c/ Increase Total Ploughs Blade Wet Land Earth Seed over working State Wooden Iron Harrows Puddlers Levellers Drills 1972 Bovine Andhra Pradesh 3427 135 1548 624 551 860 11.7 6639 Assam Bihar 7972 Gujarat 1375 240 994 130 169 619 - 5.5 2887 Haryana 1033 Himachal Pradesh 464 54 203 17 36 1 20.1 830 J&K 594 58 45 43 51 3 75.4 803 Karnataka 2278 582 1413 89 299. 633 14.0 4320 Kerala 317 69 60 103 39 1 24:2 586 Madhya Pradesh 4903 142 2476 317 823 309 32.3 10875' Maharashtra 1872 586 2273 159 46 1280 4.0 6557 Orissa 3141 152 16 6 1 10 131.,2 5494 Punjab Rajasthan 2535 206 518 39 18 48 8.9 4126 Tamil Nadu 3057 583 25 49 98 7 1.3 5361 Uttar Pradesh 7780 2188 464 106 5030 448 115.1 15351 West Bengal All India 40191 6271 11137 2102 8833 4807 82988 a! The statistics for some states has still not been received by the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. These States are shown blank. b/ Includes the 1972 statistics for the states for which data we yet to be received, Also includes the smaller states not included in the above list c/ All implements put together except wooden ploughs. Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI. - 7 - * Table 1.4: Iron ploughs and other statistics, state-wise, India No of No. of % of Av.Yield % area Fertilizer opera- tractors hold- of food- under Use tiona1 ings grains irriga- Kgs/ha State hold- having 1970-72 tion 1971-72 ings iron Kgs/ha 1971-72 between ploughs 1-20 ha a/ c/ 1972 1977 (000) Andhra Pradesh 2874 12588 3 5 781 29.0 22.7 Assam 842 1562 2 973 18.8 2.9 Bihar 2673 12447 10 795 25.9 9.1 Gujarat 1821 15664 12 13 864 16.1 15.8 Haryana 625 b/ 38036 35 1235 47.8 17.3 H.P. 252 790 15 21 1156 17.8 6.3 J&K 265 b/ 1191 26 22 1220 38.0 6.5 Karnataka 2427 11093 19 24 830 12.7 14.8 Kerala 422 b/ 2529 8 16 1426 20.9 19.9 M.P. 3502 14976 3 4 648 8.5 4.0 Maharashtra 3613 12842 15 16 433 8.6 10.3 Orissa 1924 2397 4 8 883 18.2 3.8 Punjab 789 b/ 68762 96 1861 - 76.7 40.3 Rajasthan 2598 21861 7 8 684 16.7 3.8 Tamil Nadu 2175 b/ 14075 28 27 1342 .47.7 37.5 U.P. 5125 9/ 60748 33 43 998 37.1 18.4 West Bengal 1686 2250 1 1224 1 21.7 13.6 All India 34180 298610 16 18 - - a/ As per 1970-71 Agricultural Census. b/ In the States the no. of tractors was enough to cover all the holdings above 20 ha and some holdings even below 20 ha, assuming one tractor per holding. Thus the no. of operational holdings above 10 ha in Punjab, 10 ha in J&K,. 14 ha in West Bengal, 15 ha in Kerala, Haryana and HP and 19 ha in Maharashtra approximately equals the no. of tractors. Consequentl^y, the no. of holdings for these States are all holdings above 1 ha less the no. of tractors; presumably the no. of holdings that are obviously left to be covered by animal draft power. C/ As on March 31, 1977. - 8 - 1.2 and 1.4 was 0.678 3/ which was significant at 99 per cent level of confidence. Again, the distribution of implements is not uniform within the state. For instance, in AP the Rayalaseema region accounted for more than 67 per cent of the iron ploughs of the state 4/. Similarly, in UP State, Lucknow, Varanasi and Gorakhpur subdivisions out of the total of 12 accounted for 45 per cent of the 105190 improved ploughs distributed during 1980-81; and another three subdivisions (Allahabad, Faizabad and Bareilly) accounted for another 30 per cent 5/. In Karnataka-Dharwar, Bangalore, Tumkur and Mysore districts, out of the total of 19 districts had 40% blade harrows, an implement that is relatively more common.than the iron plough in Karnataka, during 1977 6/. 3/ We wanted to run the regression of foodgrains yield on per cent holdings having iron ploughs, per cent irrigated area and the average fertilizer use but the problem of multicollinearity creeped in. See the correlation matrix given below: Variable Y X2 .- Foodgrains yield (Y) 1.000 0.678 0.792 0.651 % holdings having iron 1.000 0.870 0.694 - ploughs (XI) % irrigated area (X2) 1.000 0.765 Fertilizer use 1.000 kg/ha (X3) 4/ Rayalaseema is one of the three regions of AP - It is comprised of 4 districts. Coastal Andhra region has.'8 districts and Telengana region has 9 districts. See, K.S. Suryanarayana, "Economic Aspects of Yield Tncreasing Technology in Producing Foodgrains in Andhra Pradesh", Deptt. of Agr. Econ. APAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. PL-480 Project, 1980. pp. 113. 5/ Arrived at from the data supplied by the State Department of Agriculture. 6/ Livestock census, Karnataka State, 1977. , ,- 9 - -9- Equipment Shelf: A large variety of improved implements has been developed in India during the last 3 decades, although only a few of these are being manufactured on a large scale. There is little linkage in India between research and industry in so far as improved agricultural implements are concerned. ,Most of the implements are produced by small scale manufacturers and more frequently by the village artisans, and they have no information regarding the availability of the design of the new implements. This is considered to be one of the important constraints in popularizing the improved agricultural implements and will be considered in detail in a later section. available In this section the information about the animal-driven improved implements has been summarized, classified as: i) Tillage Implements ii) Seeding and Fertilizer application implements iii) Weeding and interculture implements iv) Harvesting implements v) Other implements. vi) Multipurpose implements. Tillage Implements: A large variety of ploughs, harrows and cultivators are available suited to different types of soils, for different purposes, for different crops, for different regions. The ploughs range from a simple soil stirring plough, an improved one of the Punjab type, which is in fact a multipurpose type (for primary and secondary tillage, seeding, weeding or interculture operations under some specific situations) to the soil turning type (usually called mould board). Then too, there is a large variety of mould board ploughs, light to heavy depending upon the soil-type or draft power capacity (quality) owned by the farmer. These are known by different names in different States. * Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal has collected information which shows that about 390 improved im'plements (all types, manual, animal or power driven) have been developed in the last three decades, but out of these only 40 implements are being manufactured. (The manuscript is under print) - 10 - Then there are disc harrows with 4 or 6 discs, blade harrows and spike harrows, etc. There are simple cultivators upto 3 tines, which could be fixed or adjustible for interrow spacing, and sweep cultivators with or without certain attachments for seeding or ridging, etc. The adjustments and/or attachments tried on different implements depend.upon the regPinal (soil, climate) and crop requirements as well as to make them multipurpose o:,es, evidently to economise on investments from the farmer's angle for his traditional implements are essentially multipurpose type. There are also some crop specific tillage implements which have been added to the shelf of improved ones; paddy puddler is the example. The improved animal drawn tillage and interculture implements identified by various State Departments of Agriculture for their respective States are given in Annex I. A brief description of the important improved animal drawn tillage equipments is given in Table 1.5. Improved Implements for Seeding and Fertilizer Anplication Sowing of most of the crops in many parts of the country is still being done by broadcasting (most traditional) or by manually dropping seeds in furrows behind the plough. In some areas the traditional seed drill consists of a cup and pipe attachment to the plough whereby the ploughman himself drops the seed; in soie cases two pipes are attached, about a metre apart at the top and converged at the bottom close to each other one behind and/or a bit beside, whereby two additional persons, one for dropping seed and the other for dropping fertilizers are involved. This is economical and better than the traditional method but one step behind the improved drills. A variety of improved seed drills, seed-cum-fertilizer drills, planters, applicators have been designed in various parts of the country. The more common ones (animal driven) are given in Table 1.6. The seed and fertilizer drills and fertilizer applicators are relatively precision mechines and demand precise manufacturing and testing. The various parts of these implements require graded materials particularly the seed and fertilizer metering mechanisms, furrow openers and the power transmission system. Their cost naturally is high and not all farmers may afford to purchase these' implements. Weeding and Interculture Imnlements Among the.bullock drawn weeding implements the widely used ones are blade harrows, different types of hoes and cultivators. The cultivators usually have shovels and sweeps as soil engaging parts which are fitted to tines mounted to a frame or tool bar. Rod weeders are not popular in India. A brief information on weeding implements is given in Table 1.7 . Some of these implements are also used as secondary tillage implements but their use as intercultural or weeding tools specifically requires sowing of crops in lines. This aspect is usually overlooked while considering the relative economics of such operations. Table 1.5: Improved Animal Drawn Tillage Implements, India Approximate Developed/ Implement price (Ra) Use Brief Description Manufactured by 1. Mould Board Plough 150 For deep ploughing, Width of cut is 22 ems. short Local artisans (Ileavy duty) turning soil, stubbles, beam and depth wheel. Also and manufacturers trash weeds and green called victory or vijay plough, manure. Suitable for Kirloskar reversible plough,etc. use in U.P, Haryana, Maharashtra and M.P. 2. Mould Board Plough 120 Ordinary soil turning Width of cut is 12-15 cms. Also (light) with benefits other called Wah-wah plough, Red Soil -do- than deep ploughing. plough, Bihar plough, Care plough, Suitable practically etc. for all States. 3. Chisel Plough 240 Breaks hard pan formed Blade suitable for penetrating Tamil Nadu Agriculture in out soil to deepen to 26 cms. depth. Coimbatore University Research root zone to increase Research Centre type preferably Centre, Coimbatore. water infiltration. with one handle. Suitable for all States dry farming except Rajasthan sandy area. 4. Soil-Stirring Plough 75 Opens soi-. Suitable Punjab Design . Department of 'fr Punjab, Haryana, Agriculture, U.P., Rajasthan. Government of Punjab. 5. .,Disc Harrow. 350 to 540 Chops weeds and green 4 to 6 discs of high carbon Agriculture Deptt., manure, suitable for steel of 12 to 16" die with Government of Punjab; dry land discing and central shovel for helping Machinery Division wetland puddling discing penetration in hard soil and of HOA before ploughing. Redu- transportation wheels. ces draft of plough and' prepares finer (clod free) seed bed. Suitable for all States except sandy area in Rajasthan. Contd .... Approximate Developed/ Implement price (Ra) Use Brief Description Manufactured by 6. Spike Harrow 120 Rakes out trash stubbles & 12 to 18 spikes on rectangle iron Agriculture Deptt., weeds to avoid choking of bar or a triangular frame. Punjab Government of Punjab; furrow openers of seed drill type. Also called Peg Tooth Harrow Machinery Division and for breaking crust formed of MOA. due to rain after sowing. Suitable for all States. 7. Blade Harrow 150-300 There is a wide variety of Blade size according to type. Village artisans blade harrows for breaking Also called Patela harrow (light and local the surface soil crust, one). The heavy blade harrow is manufacturers. secondary tillage operations, known as Bakhar. covering seed after sowing, controlling weeds and for soil mulching. 8. Puddler 300-500 For puddling paddy fields. There is a variety of puddlers, APAU, Rajendranagar, Achieves better puddling by like Voltas, Swastik, APAU, etc. Hyderabad. shaking soil more vigorously. The puddling blades vary in Suitable for paddy growing number, row and size. areas. 9. Sweep cultivator 180 Prepare shallow seedbed 3-tines adjustable for IARI, Agro Industry with ridging and without exposing soil, interline distance, sweep with Corpn. U.P. and seeding attachment retains moisture is 15 to 20 cums and made of high Haryana. boil due to soil mulch, .carbon steel. also useful for interculture. Suitable for M.P. and Maharashtra. 10. Buck Scrapper 180 Shifts soil and levels the Cutting width 125 cms. IARI. field in one operation. Suitable for all States. 11. Clod Crusher 160- Breaks clods and conserve Round drum type roller. Local manufacturers. moisture. All States. Contd.... Approximate Developed! Implemp,nt price (Rs) Use Brief Description Manufactured by 12. Leveller 120 Shifts the soil from high Width of cutting blade is one Local manufacturers. to lowest part. metre. Also wooden floate or beams or levelling boards are used to level and --over seeds after sowing. 13. Bund Former 120 Makes medium and light bunds Gathering width is about one Local manufacturers. (and Ridgers) for making compartments for metre. irrigation before and after sowing respectively. All States. Source: Compiled from (a) N.S.L. Srivastava and A.C. Pandya, "Improved Agricultural Implements and Machinery for Different Agro-Ecological Regions of India". Central Institute of Agr. Engg., Bhopal (ICAR) December 1980. (b) Ministry of Agriculture, GOI, Office of Joint Commissioner (Implements and Machinery) F.No. 1-22/76-MY(Imp.). Table 1.6: Improved Animal Driven Implements for Seeding and Fertilizer Application Approximate Developed/ Implement price (Rs) Use Brief Description Suitability Manufactured by 1. Chemical Applicator 125 Subsurface application All States Indian Institute of liquid and solid of Sugarcane chemicals Research, Lucknow (U.P) 2. Seed-cum-fertilizer Drill small medium and 3 to 2 rows Haryana, U.P. Punjab Agril. drill Punjab - I & II 900 big grains. with metering Rajasthan, Deptt. M/0 type(& modified devices of fluted J & K. Agriculture. versions). metallic and rubber rolls. 3. Ganga Seed-cum- 315 For barley, wheat, peas, There is calibration All States IARI, fertilizer drill. mustard and sorghum. for metering different New Delhi. seeds and fertilizer rates. 4. APAU Seed-cum- 1000 to -do- Calibration is not required. A.P and APAU, fertilizer drill 1500 It is modified TARI seed There are different discs similar Hyderabad. (3-row and 5-row) drill. for different crops. The areas. furrow openers with one tine for both seed and fertilizer are adopted . which saves power require- ment. 5. Jyoti planter 840 Suitable for drilling 3-row disc type metering M.P., A.P, Research Centre seed drill(Pune) jowar, maize, cotton, device for seed and Gujarat Agri. University, groundnut, and wheat. agitating arrangement for Pune. fertilizer. 6. Single row 125 Cotton, maize, pulses. It also has fertilizer Punjab, Agr.Deptt.,Punjab drill attachment with hand Haryana Chandigarh metering. Contd..... 4- Approximate Developed/ Implement price (Ra) Use Brief Description Suitability Manufactured by 7. Sugarcane 700 For planting sugarcane. All States Indian Inst. of Planter Sugarcane Research. Lucknow (U.P) and U.P. Agro-Indus- tries Corporation. 8. M.P. seed drill 240 Drills small & medium grains 2-row seed drill with M.P. Agril. Engineer and can be provided with a* rubber agitating device Govt. of M.P. fertilizer metering device. for metering device especially for heavy soil. 9. Swastik seed 1440 3-row fluted roll for A patented machine of Rajasthan, Gujarat, - drills metering devices notched Swastik Engineering A.P, U.P. Haryana disc for fertilizer. Company. 10. Ridger seeder 240 Suitable for sowing bajra 2-row manually dropping Haryana, H.A.U. (Hissar) (Hissar type) and jowar on side or top by seed and fertilizer Rajasthan Haryana. of ridger and places metering by 2 cups. fertilizer at bottom of furrow. 11. Ridger seeder 1200 Sown*bajara and Jowar 2-row seeder with adjustable H.P. ICAR, Dryfarming (Varanasi Type) (Rabi crops including wheat) row spacing, fluted roll for Haryana Research Centre. at.the bottom of furrow and metering seed, with finger on the Aide and top of the agitator for metering ridge in kharif crops. fertilizer. 12. Cupfeed type 2000 Suitable for sowing ground- 5 row seed only out feed Tamil Nadu Coimbatore seed drill nut, cotton, maize, jowar and mechanism for feeding Res. Centre. benel gram. seed, furrow closer and packing wheel. Ln Approxinate Developed/ Implement price (Ra) Use Brief Description Suitability Manufactured by 13. Fertilizer 1500 For paddy It has wooden fluted rollers All States Central Rice Applicator in for metering and a wooden plank Research Puddled Soils leveller for covering the Institute, furrow after fertilizer dropping. Cuttack, Orissa. 14. "Shivaji" 1500 Works as a sweep Basic frame to carrying 3 tines Maharashtra, ICAR Dryland Multipurpose cultivator tills deep for sweeps and seed furrows opners Gujarat, M.P. farming Res. tool bar. with chisel blade & is two seed boxes with fluted rolls (heavy soil Centre, Sholapur. a fertilizer seed'drill for small and big grains one box areas). with extra box sowing for fertilizer (the weeding rods mixed crops & small are not recommended at present). seeds. 15. ICRISAT 2400 Suitable for seed- Main-frame carries 3 to 5 tines, A.P. Design of Multipurpose bed preparation, ridgers, seeding box. Tamil Nadu. ICRISAT tool bar riging, drilling seed Hyderabad. and interculture. 16. "Ranchi" 1200 Suitable for seed bed 2 to 3 rows Bihar ICAR Ranchi Multipurpose preparation and drilling Dryfarming tool bar with seeds and fertilizer for Centres, Ranchi seeding semi-humid red soils. (Bihar). attachment Source: Compiled from (a) D.S. Rajput, D.T. Anderson and G.C. Yadava, "Improved Dry Farming Implements and Machinery" Paper presented at Inauguration and Annual Day Celebration of A.P. Chapter of ISAE and Seminar on "Lab to Land adoption of Agricultural Implements, conservation Practices, etc." on 24.2.1980 at Rajendranagar. (b) Ministry of Agriculture, GOI, Office of Jt. Commisnione(Implements and Machinery), F.No. 1-22/76-MY (Imp.) 0 I Table 1.7: Bullock Drawn Interculture and Weeding Implements in India Approximate Approximate field Manufactured/Developed Implement Price_(RB) capacity(haper hour) Remarks by 1. Blade Hoe 100. 0.05 to 0.10 It is similar to blade harrow Village artisans but has smaller blade. May have one or two blades and accordingly does weeding in one or two rows at a time. 2. Three tired hoe 250 0.075 to 0.1 Also suitable for secondary Small Scale manufacturers tillage .3. -Single bullock hoe 300 0.05 to 0.10 Suitable for operations in i) M/S Krishi Sadhan Kendra narrow spaces of row crops in Bilimora, Gujarat light soils. It also has 3 1i) M/S Agrl. Tools lines with hoe type soil engaging Research Centre, Bardoli, parts, shovels and sweeps can be Gujarat fitted for weeding operations. 4. Blade Harrow 150 0.05 to 0.10 There is a wide variety of bla'de Village artisans and (local blade) harrows in use for breaking the small scale manufacturers. 300 surface soil crust, secondary (steel blade) tillage operations, controlling - weeds and for soil mulching. 5. Disc Harrow 500 0.125 Used for secondary tillage Commercial manufacturers operations, soil mulching and weed control. 6. Three tined 225 0.125 It can be used for weeding in cultivator row-crops when the crop height is small. 7. Expanding Cultivator 350 0.1 to 0.2 It can also be used for secondary tillage. Contd.... Approximate Approximate field Manufacturedf Implemett Price (Rs) capacity(haper hour) Remarks Developed by 8. Dryland Sweep 250 0.09 to 0.12 It is suitable for secondary tillage, Developed at IARI, weed control and soil mulchIng. New Delhi. 9. Three tined 300 0.10 Sweeps out the weeds at the root zone A wide variety of Sweep Cultivator with less disturbance to the surface sweeps .were developed soil and help in conserving the soil at lARI, New Delhi. moisture. 10. Sweep Cultivator 360 0.12 Suitable for secondary tillage Developed and (Coimbatore) operations, soil mulching and weeding manufactured by TNAU, in light soils. It has 2 depth control Coimbatore. wheels and 4 to 6 tines adjustable for lateral spacing. 11. Duck-Foot Useful for shallow tillage and weeding Developed by MP State Sweep in black soils. The duck-foot sweeps Deptt. of Agriculture, can be replaced by shovels for Putlighar, Bhopal. interculture or sowing operations. 12. Weeder Mulcher 150 0.25 Suitable for removing weeds from Developed at IISR, inter-row spaces of sugarcane in light Lucknow soils. It has 4 blades in the form of cage but only one works at a time. 13. Rod Weeder 1000 0.25 It can be used to eradicate shallow Developed at APAU, rooted weeds and for breaking the Hyderabad. surface soil crust. Source: Compiled from: H.S. Biswas, "Weeding Tools and Implements of India" Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, Technical Bulletin No. CIAE/78/3, 1980 pp. 45-71. OD -19- Harvesting Implements: There have been very few bullock drawn harvesting implements designed and tested under Indian situation, hesitantly recommended and rarely some odd exceptional farmers might have actually purchased these (Table 1.8). Two factors explain the situation. One, labour abundant economy as India is, the labour saving harvesting implements will not be economically profitable to individual farmers and acceptable to the society at large. Two, the harvesting implements generally have high draft power beyond the capacity of even the above average quality bullocks and thus are difficult to operate thereby constraining their adoption even in areas where labour shortage is felt during the harvesting peaks. Other Imolements: There are some other animal-driven implements, some improvements on which have been attempted over the years. These are: - Olpad thresher, mainly for wheat threshing - Sugarcane crushers, of various sizes - Chaff cutter - Animal driven devices for lift irrigation - Transportation carts, of various sizes and types - Animal-driven-engine-operated-cultivator. The animal driven olpad thresher was designed, tested and recommended but in view of the mechanical threshers becoming more popular, has not been (nor is likely to be) adopted on any scale. The animal driven sugarcane crushers of various size capacities are available and are popular in sugarcane cultivated areas. The animal driven chaff cutter is also available and is in use by farmers who maintain large number of animals. However, these are also being replaced by mechanical driven ones. Based on the same principle, various types of animal driven designs are available for lift irrigation purposes. Again animal driven transportation carts with the locally available materials either with wooden wheels or with the pneumatic tyres, of various sizes, and designs are in use in the country. And lastly, animal-driven-engine- operated-cultivator has been designed,and tested at JNKVV, Jabalpur (M.P.) and is also being tested at other centres or agricultural universities. Table 1.8: Bullock Driven Harvesting Implements in India Approximate Manufactured/ Implement Price Output Remarks Developed by Rs. 1. Reaper for 1200 0.2 to 0.3 ha/hr It requires 2 pairs of bullocks and 6 PAU Ludhiana wheat (in 1967) to 8 persons. Labour requirement per ha works out to 50 man hours. The average losses are 5% approximately. 2. Potato digger 0.75 to 1 ha/day It exposes about 90% of tubers, with PAU Ludhiana (single row) remaining 10% remaining covered in loose soil. The cut or bruised tubers are 0.5%. The labour required for picking is about 160 man hours per ha. 3. Groundnut digger 300 0.55 ha/day The groundnut remaining in the soil is College of Agr. (Pune) 4.43%. The cost of operation was MPKV, Pune reported at Rs.43 per ha (no details available) in 1975/76. 4. Groundnut digger 0.6-ha/day Mechanical Electrical (Ludhiana) Research & Development Organization (MERADO) Ludhiana 5. Groundnut harvester 0.6 to 0.8 ha/day It has performance efficiency of APAU, Rejendranagar, picker 85% and is under field testing Hyderabad 6. Groundnut-cum- 750 G.Nut 0.75 ha/ For groundnut digging, there is a College of Agr.Engg. Potato digger day blade which can be removed and a TNAU, Coimbatore Potato 0.88 " ridger bottom having bar pointshare and slotted wings fitted to harvest potatoes. The labour requirements are 2 men and 4 to 6 women. The cost of operation for potato crop is Rs.100/ha and for groundnut crop is Rs.75/ha. C) Source: Compiled from R.S. Devnani, "Harvesting Equipment Developed in India". Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabi Bagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal. -21- Multipurpose Implements The farmer's traditional plough is a multipurpose tool used for cultivation, seed bed preparation, sowing and for interculture. It has the advantage of cheapness, portability !and versatility but it suffers from low productivity (about 0.1 ha doverage/day), lack of precision in row cultivatioa and basic unsuitability for seed and fertilizer sowing. There have been efforts to develop multipurpose tools in order to reduce the cost of the implement package. A most significant recent development in land cultivation with draft animals lies in evolution of the wheeled tool bar ctrrier at ICRISAT. This implement enables all basic tillage, seeding, fertilizing and cultiva- tion operations to be carried out with greater precision and productivity, and it can also be used as a ca-t for transportation purposes. It consists of a steel frame mounted on two wheels .(usually with pneumatic tyres) with a beam or draw-pole to which a bullock yoke is fastened. The basic frame has a tool bar onto which a variety of implements can be attached with simple clamps. The working depth can be adjusted to meet operational requirements. A mechanical lifting mechanism is provided to raise the implements into a transport position and lower them into the working position. A locking device holds the implements firmly in either position. The implements that can be used with this tool carrier are: (a) Tillage Primary tillage can be carried out with either a reversible or non-eeversible disc or mouldboard plough, or with chisel ploughs. Ridge and furrow formation in beds of varying width upto 150 cm is readily attainable. (b) Sowing, planting and fertilizing Detachable seeds and fertilizer drills allow for precision placement of seed and fertil;izer at a controlled depth to ensure optimal crop establishment. Row spacing and mixed crop sowing is readily achievable. (c) Interrow cultivation A steerable toolbar fitted with duckfoot or blade hoes enables accurate weeding of planted crops. (For the main monsoon cropq of India three weedings at about 10, 25 and 45 days after sowing are usually necessary to ensure reason- able weed control; the hand labour cost of each weeding is usually about 20 man days per ha). -22 (d) Harvesting Lifting devices for groundnuts and potatoes are available; and cutter blades and binders for forage and grain crops could be readily developed. (e) Transportation The tool bar carrier can be quickly modified for use as either a two wheel 3r four wheel cart. The major obstacle to acceptance and use of this greatly improved and versatile implement is its present cost of about Rs 2,000 for the toolbar and a further Rs 6,000 or so for the normal range of attacheYents. The tool -carrier unit is capable of handling about 15 ha/year using typical village bullocks as the draft source, and rental rates of Rs 30-35/day (Rs 50 with bullocks and driver) are required with 180 days utilization per year to cover the capital cost. This rate is about three times greater than for traditional implement hire, but the area covered and yield increase in many soil types makes such a rental profitable. Total cultivation costs with this implement amount to about Rs 350/ha 1/. Many groups in India are working to simplify and cheapen the wheeled toolbar carrier. Eliminating the wheels simplifies the design but prevents depth control and hence precision seed and fertilizer place- ment, and does not have a major impact on total cost. With a greater volume of production present manufacturers see scope for halving present manufacturing costs. Encouraged by the usefulness of the multipurpose tool bar carrier of ICRISAT, researchers at many institutions are working on various possibilities suited to local conditions. Thus at Dry Land Centre, Akola (Maharashtra), engineers are working on various attachments with the objective of retaining the blade harrow; at Dry Land Centre, Hissar (Haryana), more attachements are being designed on the implement known as Versa (short of versatile) Tool Bar; at Dry Land Centre, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh), the multipurpose tool bar, named At Agricart is * being designed using the local material (lowest cost being the prime objective - only the frame has been designed so far), etc. APAU, 'Hyderabad, had also designed a 3-in-one implement as far back as 1964 in which a plough (small, mould board type), a ridger and an inter- culture tool could be attached as per requirement. Lately, they have been working on 5-in-one implement, adding two more tools, viz. seed- drill-cum-ridger (it functioned well) and seed drill-cum-bund former (it did not function properly in first trials - efforts are underway to modify it). However, apart from the complexity of such implements, their high cost would remain a stumbling block in their adoption. 1/ J.G. Ryan and R. Sarin, Economics of Technology Options for Vertisols, in "Improving the Management of India's Deep Black Soils" Proceedings of a Seminar, New Delhi, ICRISAT, 1981. -23- II RELATIVE SUPERIORITY OF DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTS The relative superiority of different improvement implements has generally been left to the designers alone who have tried to evaluate these under both*laboratory and field conditions using different criteria depending upon the particular objectives the designer had in mind before hand. For instance, for certain operations where time is an overriding constraint, the new implements (or a package of these) have been evaluated in terms of savings in time. Quite often, such an analysis has been extended to estimate the total cost per unit of the operation or task performed, considering the market rates of all the resources involved. This has led to a serious bias in favour of the more costly improved implements (or their combination) on two accounts, (a) the implicit assumption of the capacity use of the improved equipment whereas the volume of business available on many farms may be far too short, and (b) the opportunity cost of such resources as pair of bullocks and human labour is very low, if not zero, making it imaterial to save their time in-contrast to using the market rates where any reduction in their use would result in considerable savings in cost. Similarly there are implements, which when evaluated alone pay off, but their use is dependent upon certain pre-conditions, which when also incorporated in the cost kit weeds out their relative net benefits. For instance, many improved implements have higher draft power requirements and are out of the reach of average size of bullocks; the use of the intercultural equipment is dependent upon line sowing (and what if line sowing costs more without a matching increase in yield); the use of seed drill (or seed-cum-fertilizer drill) requires finer land preparation (the risk that it may get choked leaving some area or lines totally unseeded excused at the moment) which may cost more than the yield advantage of the seed drill (consider the alternative timely sowing with roughly prepared seed bed versus finely prepared seed bed at a higher cost and less timely though not late-sowing with seed drill). The examples can be multiplied, the point here is that the relative superiority of different improved implements which is being discussed in this section in detail, based on the experimental data, should ultimately be seen in terms of the specific package and the actual farm environment in which these are to be recommended. Some of these points do explain the low adoption rates of many improved implements. (i) Tillage Equipment The tillage equipment has generally been evaluated in terms of savings in time. The coefficients used are the ones based on general experience, in some cases experimental data in this respect are also available. Reddy 1/ carried out the experiment to evaluate the comparative efficiency of tillage implements on Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) Farm, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh and also on a private farm in Kanoria Krishi Kendra in Palmakole Block, Hyderabad. He fouhd that on ARI farm with Voltas puddler, an area of 2.20 acres could be covered in a day and the cost of puddling once was Rs. 4.56 per acre 1/ T. Govardhan Reddy, "Farm Work Studies and Problems of Labour Management on Institutional and Non-institutional Farms." M.Sc. Th'esis, Deptt. of Agr. Econ. and Stat., College of Agr., Andhra Pradesh Agr. University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Jan. 1970 (unpublished). - 24 - as compared to Rs 16.97 per acre with desi plough which could cover little less than half an acre in a day (Table 2.1). Similarly on the farmer's field, Blade puddler needing an investment of Rs 150 (1970)*, an acre could be covered in 3.3 hrs. with the cost estimate of Ra 4.40 per puddling per acre as compared to 17.42 hrs. and Rs 17.72 respectively with desi plough with an investment of Rs 20 only. In case of dry lands, there were only small differences between Mould Board plough and desi plough when measured for one ploughing but since, necessary tilth of seed bed could be achieved with fewer puddlings/ploughings with Mould Board ploughs than with desi plough, the former resulted into savings in time and cost (Table 2.2). These estimates included the cost of the human labour and bullocks at the prevalent market rates. Under the intensive cropping on irrigated farm situations, such as that of Punjab, the time available for sowing rabi crops as wheat, after the harvest of kharif crops like paddy, maize, cotton, etc. is very short and time saving becomes an important factor. In such situations a (soil stirring) plough and plank combination with an initial investment of Rs 150-250 only takes 2.5 to 5 days to prepare seed bed on an acre with the resultant cost of Rs 82 to Rs 156 as compared to disc harrow and plank combination which takes only 1.1 to 1.7 days for an acre at a cost of Rs 28 to 56 only but with a heavy initial investment of Rs. 850-900 (Tables 2.3 and 2.4). The timely operation, drudgery removal, precision working and energy saving are the four important variables for evaluating a particular equipment. A desi plough normally requires an energy of 0.7 h.p.** whereas a pair of bullocks provides from 0.8 to 1.4 h.p. On the other hand, a mould board plough requires approximately 0.9 h.p., thereby utilizing the available power in a better way. It requires less number of ploughings with mould board plough than with desi plough thereby saving time and reducing drudgery. Also, technically, mould board plough inverts the soil and is more useful in weed infested soils whereas a desi plough only opens the soil (better quality for precision working). A simple comparison of traditional and improved tillage equipment for achieving the necessary tilth is budgeted as follows:. Traditional Improved Hrs. Wooden plough: M.B. Plough x 1 (cost R&.65) a. (cost Rs. 250) 16 Ist ploughing 16 (to open soil) Disc. harrow x 2 2nd ploughing 16 (to cross un- (cost Rs 1000) 8 covered soil) 3rd ploughing 16 (to break clods) Land smoothening 2 4th ploughing 16 -do- Seed-cum-..fertilizer Land Smoothening 2 drill(cost Rs.1000 to 5th ploughing 4 Rs.1500) 4 (seeding) - Total time to cover Total time to 70 one acre 30 cover one acre * Different studies refer to different years. The year in the parenthesis after the cost of the implement has been therefore given for reference. * Calculated as follows:- Desi Plough Mould Board Plough Item (a) Depth of furrow (inches) 4 4 (b) Cut (width) of furrow (inches) 6 9 (c) Soil resistance (lbs/sq.in.) 8 8 (Hyderabad soils) (Hyderabad soils) (d) Speed (miles per hr.) 1.2 1.0 (e) Constant 330 330 Power Requirement = axbxcxd 0.7 0.9 - 25 - Table 2.1 Comparative Efficiency of Tillage Implements, Hyderabad, 1970 (Single ploughing/ puddling) Implement Area Hrs. Draft of the Cost*' per covered per implements puddling/ in 8 hrs. acre ploughing (acres) (lbs.) (Rs. per acre) A. Wet lands: (i) ARI Farm Voltas puddler 2.20 3.36 260 4.56 Konkan plough (35) 0.54 14.48 182 15.42 Desi plough (20) 0.48 16.42 158 16. 97 (ii) Farmer's Field Blade puddler (150) 2.42 3.30 239 4.40 Desi plough 0.46 17.42 - 17.72 B. Dry lands: (i) ARI Farm M. B. plough (wah wah)(75) 0.68 11.76 - 260 12.33 Care plough (60) 0.65 12.30 250 . 13.90 Desi plough 0.60 13. 33 188 12.31 (ii) Farmer's Field M. B. plough (wah wah) 0.75 10.67 ' 286 11.28 Desi plough 0. 51 15.69 152 15.81 (a) Source,- T. Govardhan Reddy, "Farm Work Studies and Problems of Labour Management,on Institutional and Non-institutional Farms." M.Sc. Thesis, Deptt. of Agr. Econ. and Stat., College of A gr., Andhra Pradesh A gr. University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Jan. 1970 (unpublished), (b) Figures in brackets alongside the implement are the approximate cost (1970). (c)* The costs include wages of labour, hiring ccs t of pair of cattle and maintenance cost of implements. The wage rates considered were the same for both the farms and were: - Bullock pair per working day of 8 hrs. = Rs. 5. 00 - Man labour for 8 hrs. = Rs. 3.00 - Woman labour for 8 hrs. = Rs. 2. 50 - 26 - Table 2.2 Efficiency of combination of tillage implements to achieve necessary tilth, ARI Farm, Hyderabad, 1970 Combination Depth of Hrs. required Total cost penetration to prepare Rs./acre in inches seed bed one man, one pair of bullocks, one acre A. Wet lands: (i) Desi plough x 5 + Jamboo(levelling) x 2 7.20 96 96. 00 (ii) Konkan plough x 3 + Jamboo x 1 7.00 60 62.88 (iii) M. B. Plough x 2 (wah wah) 7.30 37 40.25 + Puddler (Voltas) x 2 B. Dry lands: (i) Desi plough x 6 + bakhar x 1 (levelling) 6.2 84 84.00 (ii) M. B. Plegh x 4 +Pata x 1 (levelling) 6.6 44 45.98 (iii) M.B. Plough x 2 +Disc.harrow x 2 6.2 33 36.25 (a) Source:- T. Govardhan Reddy, "Farm Work Studies and Problems of Labour Management on Institutional and Non-institutional Farms." M.Sc. Thesis, Deptt. of Agr. Econ., and Stat., College of A gr., Andhra Pradesh A gi-. University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Jan. 1970 (unpublished). (b) The wage rates considered were:- - Bullock pair per working day of 8 hrs. Rs. 5.00 -Man labour for 8 hrs. = Rs. 3.00 -Woman labour for 8 hrs. = Rs. 2. 50 - 27 - Table 2.3 Combination o Bullock-drawn tillage equipment, Punjab, 1979 Combination Invest- Suitability Time re-quired Cost of seed- ment to prepare seed- bed prepara- (Rs.) bed on one acre tion (Rs./acre) (days) Plough & plank 150-250 Light,medium 2.5 to 5.0 82-156 and heavy soils Cultivator & plank 300-400 Light soils 1.5 50 Disc harrow & plark 850-9CO Light & medium 1.1-1.7 28-56 soils M. B. plough, cultiva- tor & plank 400-500 Light,zmedium 1.5-3.5 50-118 and heavy soils Plough, disc. harrow & plank 900-1000 -do- 1.1-2.8 28-92 Source:- B.S. Panesar and C.P. Singh, "Save-Time and Money in Seed- bed Preparation" Progressive Fatnning, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, November 1979, pp. 23-26. - 28 - Table 2.4 The relative economic performance of different combinations of bullock driven implements for seed bed preparation/puddling, Punjab, 1978. Type of soil Combination Time Cost Hr./ha. Rs./ha. I. Light soil: Seed bed 1. Disc. harrow x 2 preparation Plank x 1 19.2 96.6 2. Soil stirring plough x 1 Cultivator x 2 Plank x 1 40.6 195. 8 II. Medium to Heavy soil: (a) Seed bed 1. M. B. plough x 1 preparation Disc. harrow x 3 Plank x 2 52.5 261.2 (b) Puddling 1. Plough x 1 Paddy puddler x 3 Plank x 2 105.7 508.7 Source:- C. P. Singh and B.S. Panesar, "Improved Equipment for Seedbed Preparation." Progressive Farmin-, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, March 1978, pp. 9-11. Notes:- 1. Details of cost not available. 2. The authors interest,seemed to evaluate bullock vs tractor combinations (latter omitted here) with more emphasis on the latter. -29- Although with improved combination of tillage (and seeding) equipment, double the area can be covered in the same time, the cost comparison is drastic, i.e. Rs 65 or so versus Rs 2500 (even with seed drill as an option, the investment is more than Rs 1250). Assuming 30 days or 240 hrs. as the time available to do the operation, a wooden plough would do the job for 5 acres, i.e. 2 ha. But on a 10 to 12 acre farm where the alternative to do the job in the same time could be 2 wooden ploughs with 2 pairs of bullocks or wooden plough plus a mould board plough'plus a disc harrow with one pair of bullocks, and the latter in all probability could be more economical. An essential limitation or the most important consideration in the improved combination is that mould board plough and disc harrow must go together (in most situations if not all), for with mould board plough alone, the farmer would be buying (additional) problems instead of solving the existing ones. This has been often overlooked in whatever little extension effort is there in respect of improved agricultural implements. Similarly, in Orissa, the experiments showed that the use of the improved steel plough for land preparation leads to lower cost per hectare and improved timeliness of operation. Time for land preparation under dry land conditions is reduced by 50%, one ploughing with the steel plough and two disc harrowings (or use of the wooden plough) replacing 4 to 5 operations with the wooden plough. Similarly, under wet land conditions one pass with the steel plough, followed by two passes with a comb harrow, will replace five passes with the wooden plough. As -a result, time is reduced from 16 to 8 days per hectare, cost is reduced by about 40% and sowing or transplanting date can be advanced as much as 20 to 25 days with consequent important improvements in yield (Table.2.5). There have been efforts to develop multipurpose tools in order to reduce the cost of the implement package. The multipurpose tool bar of ICRISAT. has been a stimulating example for many researchers across the country. Joint research of the Farming Systems and Economics Programs of ICRISAT from 1976 to 1981 has shown that an improved watershed-based technology based on maize intercropped with pigeonpea can increase profits by about 600% compared with a traditional system based on rainy-season fallow followed by post rainy-season sorghum and chickpea. This improved system utilizing graded broadbeds and furrows has g&nerated profits averaging Rs 3650/ha/year over 5 years. This compares with a figure of only Rs 500/ha/year from the traditional system(Table.5). These profits represent a return to land, capital, and management, as the costs of all human and animal labor, fertilizers, seeds, and implements have been deducted. For an extra annual cost of about Rs 1200/ha farmer changing from the traditional system could earn additional profit of about Rs - 30 - Table: 2.5 Comparative Power requirements and cost per*hectare of alternative tillage equipment, Orissa Power requirement per Cost per hectare hectare a/ Operation Man hours Bullock hours Ru Dry land Plowing with wooden country 157 314 240 plough, four times Plowing with 6 inch steel 65 130 103 plough once and use of five tined cultivator twice after ploughing. Wet land Country plough (duck-footed narrow 132 264 192 bottom (5 passes) Plowing by steel plough followed 70 140 115 by two puddling operations a/ Man and bullock hours at Rs 0.50 + annual cost of improved plough @ Rs 7 per ha. There can however some limitations to the use of the mould- board ploughs. In heavy soils it can be used only during a short period of optimal moisture conditions. In sandy soil, wear is rapid. Source: CRRI - Cuttack - 31 - Table 2.6 Economics of improved technology on deep Vertisols at ICRISAT Centre: annual averages 1976-81. Gross b Gross Crops Soil and crop management returns Costs Profits Rs/ha 1. Maize/pigeonpea Broadbeds and furrows, HYVsa 5380 1730 3650 intercrop chemical fertilizers, wheeled (975)c tool carrier, plant protec- tion 2. " Flat cultivation, HYVs a, 4607 1771 2836 chemical fertilizers, (606) wheeled tool carrier, plant protection 3. Maize-chickpea Broadbeds and furrows, aYVs, 5304 2241 3063 sequence chemical fertilizers, wheeled (1527) tool carrier, plant protection . 4. " Flat cultivation, HYVsa, 4811 2254 '2557 chemical fertilizers, wheeled (1469) tobl carrier, plant protec- tion 5. Rainy-season Flat cultivation, local 1083 589 494 fallow, post- varieties, farmyard manure, . (270) rainy-season local implements sorghum and chickpea a A variety of cultivars have been used: maize - Deccan Hybrid 101, SB23, 51-54, Vitthal; pigeonpea - Sharada, ICP-1; chickpea - local. b Costs include all materials, human and animal labor, and annual costs of implements. c Figures in parentheses are the standard deviations of gross profits. They are based on 15 observations for the improved broadbed technologies, and 7 for all others. Source: James G. Ryan and R. Sarin, 1981, op.cit. -32- 3100/ha. This represents a rate of return on the increased working expenditure of-about 250% - a most attractive figure 1/. The capital cost of a wheeled tool carrier with a full set of attachments is Rs 8000 - 10000 2/. This implement permits the formation of the graded broadbeds and furrows and greatly facilitates the improved placement and distribution of seeds and fertilizers. It is estimated that one unit could effectively serve 12-15 ha. Based on these figures the extra profits from the new system could pay for the wheeled tool carrier in 1 year provided it was utilized along with the improved technology on at least 4 hectares. 1/ James G. Ryan and R. Sarin, "Economics of Technology Options for Deep Vertisols in the Relatively Assured Rainfall Regions of the Indian Semi-Arid Tropics". Paper presented at the Seminar on Management of Deep Black Soils, sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, ICAR and ICRISAT, held in New Delhi, May 21, 1981. 2/ The break up is as follows: Wheel tool carrier Rs 2000 Attachments: - i) Single mould board plough used for primary tillage Rs 200 ii) Left and right mould board ploughs used for rebuilding beds @ Rs 250/- each Rs 500 iii) Bed shaper Rs 50 iv) Disc harrows (4 to 6 discs @ Rs 200 each) Rs 1200 v) Ridgers (3 rows @ Rs 200 ,each) Rs 600 vi) Spring tine cultivator used for secondary tillage 6 tines Q Rs 75/- each Rs 450 vii) Fertilizer drill Rs 2500 viii) 2 wheel cart Rs 2000 Total cost Rs 8,000 to Rs 10,000 -33- APAU, Hyderabad, had designed a 3-in-one implement as far back as 1964 in which a plough (small, mould board type), a ridger and an inter- culture tool could be attached as per requirement. Lately, they have been working on 5-in-one implement, adding two more tools, viz. seed-drill- cum-ridger (it functioned well) and seed drill-cum-bund former (it did not function properly in first trials - efforts are underway to modify it). The economics of 3-in-one implement is given in Table 2.7. the capacity per day for ploughing, ridging and-interculture is 0.7 acres, 2.0 acres and 2.0 acres per day, and it costs about Rs 60, 15 and 15 to do these operations on one acre, respectively. -here are very few studies available that have gone to evaluate the tillage equipment upto the yield level. Sinha (1964) 1/ conducted an experiment using desi plough, Melur plough, rotary type rectangular bladed puddler of M/s 1/ M.P. Sinha, 1964. A Study of the Measurement of Puddling, and Comparative Performance of Different Implnments for Puddling in Rice Cultivation. The Agricultural Engineer. (9) pp. 41-43. -34- Table 2.70perational Cost of Ploughing, Ridging and Inter- culture with 3-in-one Implement of APAU, Hyderabad, 1980 Item Ploughing Ridging Inter- culture 1. Cost of the 3-in-one implement (Rs.)* 300 300 300 2. Service life (years) 3 3 3 3. Annual use (Hrs.) 100 100 100 4. Cost on repairs and replacement per year (Rs.) 40 30 30 5. Scrap value (Rs.) 50 50 50 6. Depreciation cost per hr. of operation(Rs.) 1.00 1.00 1.00 7. Cost on repairs etc. per hr. (Rs.) 0.40 0.3Q 0.30 8. Hire charges of two animals and one man per hr. (Rs.) 2.25 2.25 2.25 9. Interest on capital@ 12% (Rs. per hr.) 0.18 0.18 0.18 10. Total cost per hour (6+7+8+9) (Rs.) 3.83 3.63 3.63 11. Time required to cover one acre (hrs.) 16 4 4 12. Cost per acre of operation (Rs.) 61.28 14.52 14.52 -The tota1 cost of the 3-in-one implement is Ra. 450 to Rs.500, of which Rs. 150 to Rs. 175 is of the tool bar and Rs. 125 to Rs. 150 of each of the three attachments, viz., plougi, ridger, and 3-tine intercultivator. Source: Updated from, G. Ramana Reddy, "Selected Farm Equipment," A. P. Agricultural University, Rejendranagar, Hyderabad, 1971. - 35 - Cossul & Co., the modified puddler which is an improved model over the Cossul & Co. implement and the Voltas puddler. He found no significant difference in grain yield of paddy between any of these implements. Ramana Reddy and Narayana Rao (1971) 1/ -reported that the APAU 750 m puddler was superior to Voltas and Swastik puddlers in reducing the time and cost of puddling and increasing the grain yield. Narayana Rao and Sirohi'(1975) 2/ conducted experiments during Kharif 1971, Rabi 1971-72 and Kharif 1972 to evaluate comparative performance of country plough, APAU 750 mm puddler, ADS (Agricultural Development Society, Allahabad) disc harrow and Krishi power tiller for puddling. In the first season, 8 treatments were replicated thrice, of which, based on its results, 4 were selected and replicated 4 times during the following-two seasons. The average coefficients fcir the 4 treatments (including-one with tractor) over the 3 seasons are given in Table 2.8. The APAU 750 mm puddler took 25 per cent less time and cost 13 per cent less to achieve necessary puddling and increased the paddy yield by 6 per cent. This implement is now being manufactured in two sizes 750 mm and 1000 mm to match the draft capacity (quality of animals). In rainfed farming areas with red soils deep tillage has been found to give higher yields in Ranchi, Bangalore and Anantpur. The tools for deep tillage invariably are mould board ploughs, the size of the mould board depends on the size (quality) of the bullocks, soil type and field conditions. The trial results with different tillage tools (individually) from Bangalore, Dry Land Centre on maize for Kharif 1977 are given in Table 2.9. Various combinations of different tillage tools were tried at Samba Dry Land Centre during Kharif 1976 and 1977 on maize. The results are given in Table 2.10. It shows that mould board plough with disc harrow yielded the maximum at 27.3 qtls. per ha. as against 22.6 qtls. per ha. when mould board plough was used in combination with soil stirring plough or 19.1 qtls. per ha. with soil stirring plough alone. (ii) Seeding and Fertilizing Equipments: Uniform placement of seed at proper depth in spil resulting into better germination percentage, better tillering and more uniform growth, all leading to better yield is the piimary objective of seed drill, of course, not side trekking the timely sowing (also leads to better yield) through time savings and cost reduction issues. The fertilizer attachments (drills) alone or in combination with seed drill aiming at proper placement of fertilizers results into its better'utilization, increasing yield and/or reducing cost (in case a lower quantity is applied/recommended if proper fertilizer placement equipment is to be used). 1/ G. Ramana Reddy and P.V. Narayana Rao, "A New Time Saving and Efficient Rice Puddler." Paper presented to All India Symposium on Improved Agricultural Implements and Farm Machinery held at the Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Kanpur, from Oct. 20-30, 1971. 2/ ?.V. Narayana Rao and B.S. Sirohi, "Comparative Study of Improved Puddlers." J. Agril. Engg. XI (3 & 4), 1975 pp. 1-3. - 36 - Table 2. 8 Relative performance of puddling with different implements, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad (1971-72). Treatment Time to Cost of Average Average Deep per- Grain puddle puddling draft depth of colation yield hrs/ha Rs/ha. kg puddling loss of kg/ha cm water, cm 1. Puddling thrice with country plough 89.9 104.40 53 16.0 25.5 6648 2. Puddling once with country 67.5 90.45 45 17.0 19.8 7039 plough and then twice with APAU 750 mm puddler 3. Puddling thrice with ADS disc harrow 60.5 125.04 64 15.5 17.7 6539 4. Puddling twice with power tiller(tractor) 25. 5 124.46 - 14.0 14.4 6915 Source: P. V. Narayana Rao and B.S. Sirohi, "Comparative Study of Improved Puddlers." J..A gril. Engg. XII (3 & 4), 1975 pp. 1-3. - 37 - Table 2.9 Tillage Tools Effect, Bangalore, Kharif 1977 Implement Depth of tillage Maize Yield (cms) qtl/ ha Wooden plough 10 24.3 Iron plough * 15 46.0 Disc harrow 20 55.8 Mould board plough 30 48.6 Chiselling (heavy wooden plough) 30 47.8 C. D. 5% 8.04 Source: G.C. Yadaya, D.T. Anderson and D.S. Rajput, "Farm Implements and Practices for Small Farmers of Drylands," Paper presented at the XVII Annual Convention of Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers, held at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, Feb. 6 to 8, 1980. - 38 - Table 2.10 Performance of Tillage Tools, Samba, Kharif 1976-77 Implements Maize yield (qtls/ha) Mould board plough+ disc harrow 27.3 Mould board plough + soil stirrer 22.6 Mould board plough+ Trifali 19.8 Soil stirrer plough (twice) 19. 1 Soil stirrer plough + disc harrow 19. 4 Soil stirrer plough + Trifali 14.6 Disc harrow (twice) 13.9 Source: G. C. Yadaya, D. T. Anderson and D.S. Rajput, "Farm Implements and Practices for Small Farmers of Drylands, " Paper presented at the XVII Annual Convention of Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers, held at Indian A gricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, Feb 6 to 8, 1980. - 39 - Introduction of a simple seed tube and funnel attached to the wooden plough provides a means for line sowing, enabling easier weed control and achieving considerable saving in seed of 20% to 30%. Apart from the agronomic advantages of line sowing, there is also a considerable saving in time 1/. In situations where fertilizer is also used alongside, by mixing seed and fertilizers together, and all put down the same spout, the attachement of a second bowl and double spout to a traditional seeder so as to allow low placement, below the seed, of fertilizer materials, is an improvement that caught the immediat4 attention of many farmers, was quickly adopted and was readily made in the villages 2J A drill (seed or see4cum-fertilizer) results in considerable time savings (not necessarily an advantage if timeliness is not the constraint), as mush as 3 to 4 times. Thus in experiments on Agricultural Rdsearch Institute (ARI) Farm and on a farmer's farm in Hyderabad (A.P.), the traditional method of behind the plough sowing needed 1/ Indo-UK Project, Indore, Report, 1980, pp. 221. 2/ CRRI, Cuttack. 400 - 40 - more than a day (of 8 hrs.) to cover one acre with the cost at Rs. 11.27 per acre. In contrast, with even the local (desi) seed drill called 'gorrul, more than 2 acres could be covered in a day with the cost at Ra. 3.80 per acre on ARI farm (Table 2.11). Ranchi Dryland Farming Centre in Bihar developed a*bullock drawn two row seed-cum-fertilizer drill which requires low draft suitable for Ranchi area bullock pairs. In trials carried out to compare its seed emergence ability with other machines under dry seedbed conditions of upland soil, during rabi 1977, it gave 35 paddy plants per sq. metre as compared to 32, 26 and 18 given by swastic seed drill, noble seed drill and indigenous plough respectively. 1/ Thus it is important to note that although drills do better than the traditional practice, different modifications are required to suit the local conditions. At Solapur Dryland Farming Centre, "Shivaji Multipurpose Farming Machine' which accomodates a variety of attachments for various land operation and intercultural operations, was developed. It also has three row seed-cum-fertilizer attachment with row to row and depth control adjustments for seeding and covering. The salient feature of the machine is two seed boxes allowing precision metering of fine and bold seeds and is suitable for seeding inter-crops (different crop mixtures, each crop in a separate line). The cost of seeding operation compares well with other machines of the region-(Table 2.12). The machine has ease of operation, and sustained accuracy of metering even under sub-normal field conditions when the use of Maharashtra Tokan Yantra is not reliable and patches of unseeded field are common. There are many studies that have gone upto the stage of recording differences in yields resulting from the use of different seed or seed-cum- fertilizer drills. In as early as 1964-65, large scale trials at farmer field under the Intensi7,e Agricultural District Programme (IADP) in the districts of Ludhiana (Punjab), Aligarh (U.P.), Raipur (M.P.) and Shahabad (Bihar) showed an increase of 10 to 32 per cent in the yield of wheat by using the seed-cum- fertilizer drill. 2/ The Malviya seeder developed at Varanasi Dryland Farming Centre, which has hoe type furrow openers to suit rough seedbed conditions yielded 26.96 qtls per ha of wheat and 30.23 qtls. per ha of barley during rabi 1977 as compared to 24.35 qtls. per ha. of wheat and 27.60 qtls. per ha. of barley when indigenous plough was used, 3/ that means an increase of about 10-per cent in each case. Similarly, the use of Royala gorru at Anantapur during 1979 increased the yield of bajra and groundnut to 7.0 qtls. per ha. and 15.2 qtls. per ha. as compared to 5.5 qtls and 13.4 qtls. when indigenous country seeder was used, it meaus an 1/ 0.C. Yadava, D.T. Anderson and D.S. Rajput, "Farm Implements and Practices for Small Farmers of Drylands." Paper presented at the XVII Annual Convention of Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers, held at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, Feb. 6-8, 1980. 2/ P.N. Pangotra, "Implements for Fertilizer Placement," Paper presented at the India/FAO/Norway Seminar on Maximising Fertilizer Use Efficiency, held at New Delhi, India, September 15 to 19, 1980. , 3/ G.C. Yadava, D.T. Anderson and D.S. Rajput, 1980, op. cit. -41- Table 2.11 Comparative Time and Cost Efficiency of Sowing Implements, Hyderabad, 1970 Implement Area Time to Draft Cost per covered cover one (1bs) acre in 8 hrs. acre (Rs) (acres) hrs. -min. (i) ARI Farm: Wah wah seed drill 2.93 2-44 250 5.73 Gorru Cdesi seed drill) 2.16 3-42 155 3.80 Behind the plough sowing 0.93 8-36 145 11.27 (traditional) (ii) Farmer's Field: Gorru 1.88 4-16 194 4.33 (a) Source: T. Govardhan Reddy, "Farm Work Studies and Problems of Labour Management on Institutional and Non-institutional Farms." M.Sc. Thesis, Deptt. of A gr. Econ. and Stat., College of Agr., Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Jan. 1970 (unpublished).- (b) The costs include wages of labour, hiring cost of pair of cattle and maintenance cost of implements. The 'Wage rates considered were the same for both the farms and were: - Bullock pair per working day of 8 hrs. = Rs. 5.00 - Man labour for 8 hrs. = Rs. 3.00 - Woman labour for 8 hrs. = Rs. 2.50 -42- Table 2.12 Cost of seeding by different drills. Solapur, Rabi 1977 Seeding machine Cost of seeding (Rs/ha) Bajra Sunflower Maharashtra Tokan Yantra 16. 91 16.91 Shivaji Multi Purpose Farming Machine 24. 46 16. 91 Research Engineer ferti seed drill 48.66 38.76 Local seed drill 49.15 44.61 *Bullock pair hire and labourer charges @ Rs. 20/- and Rs. 5/- per day respectively. Source: G. C. Yadaya, D. T. Anderson and D.S. Rajput, "Farm Imple- ments and Practices for Small Farmers of Drylands, " Paper presented at the XVII Annual Convention of Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers, held at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, Feb. 6 to 8, 1980. - 43 - improvement in yield by about 27 and 13 per cent, respectively. 1/ It has already been indicated that the same drill may not suit all the agro-climatic regions and farming systems, thereby warranting modifications to suit the local conditions. This becomes more apparent from the data given in Table 2.13. It shows that in case of bajra at Anantapur, the country seed drill (gorru) did good job during 1974-75 whereas during 1975-76, Swastik Ferti-cum-seed drill gave about 69 per cent more yield than gorru. Similarly, whereas Maharashtra Tokan Yantra (seed-cum-fertilizer drill) gave poor performance in case of bajra whereas the same equipment outyielded almost double in case of sunflower. The Noble Seed-cum-Fertilizer Drill wherein the Dehra Dun Dryland Farming Centre incorporated the useful features of a Canadian ferti-seed drill to seed in semi deep furrows was found to give the highest yield of 44.4 qtls. per ha. of paddy as compared to 40.7 qtls. per ha. obtained by using the country plough (relative advantage: 9 per cent) at Dehra Dun during Kharif 1976 (Table 2.14). The same drill also yielded highest in case of red graw at Anantapur during Kharif 1975-76 (Table 2.15). The placement of N fertilizers in puddled paddy soils about 6 to 10 cm deep have been found to result in increased paddy yield. 2/ Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack (Orissa) developed an animal-drawn machine for placing basal dose of fertilizer in puddled soils. Its performance was evaluated for three seasons at Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rajendranagar Centre, Hyderabad during Kharif 1973, Kharif 1974 and Rabi 1974-75 (Table 2.16).3/ It was found that the number of tillers at advanced stage was generally less than the initial tillers produced in each case but the per cent reduction was lower when fertilizer was placed with the drill indicating that more number of tillers developed into effective ones due to use of fertilizer drill. The data on grain yield indicated that there was always higher grain yield in case fertilizer placement was with the drill by about 2 to 4 qtls. per hectare. Later on, APAU also developed a fertilizer drill (manually driven) for top dressing urea to paddy crop and its performance along with the fertilizer placement drill for basal dose in puddled paddy soils was evaluated in experiments conducted for three seasons during 1978 and 1979. The results are summarized in Table 2.17. It takes about 110 to 150 man hours.per ha. costing Ra. 70 to Rs. 95 per ha for the operation of the implement for the two top dressings. 1/ G.C. Yadava, D.T. Anderson, and D.S. Rajput, 1980, op. cit. 2/ Annual Report of IRRI, 1965. Also see K. Matsuvra, T. Iwata and Hasa Cawat, "Studies on the Effect of Deep Layer Application of Fertilizers in Rice Plant," Proceedings Crop Science Society, Japan 38 (2), 1969, pp. 215-21. E.V. Ranga Reddy, "Studies on the Performance of Paddy under Different Fertility Levels and Methods of Nitrogen Application." M.Sc. Thesis, APAU, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, 1974 (unpublished). 3/ P.V. Narayana Rao, "Evaluation of Fertilizer Drill for Placing Fertilizer in Puddled Soils." J. Agril. Engg. XIII (2), 1976 pp. 80-82. Table2.13 Relative performance of different Seed-cum-Fertilizer Drills, A nantapur (Andhra Pradesh) q/ha Treatment Sunflower HB-3 Bajra EC 68414 1974-75 1975-76 1974-75 1. Sowing with country seed drill (gorlrul and broadcasting the fertilizer 3.5 5.5 1.3 2. Sowing with seed-cum-fertilizer drill developed at Indo-French Project, Anantapur with a blade for covering 2.7 7.0 1.6 3. Sowing with Swastik Ferti-cum- seed drill (45 cm rows) with Packer wheels 2.9 9.3 1.3 4. Sowing with Maharashtra Token Yantra (seed-cum-fertilizer drill) 3.1 3.2 2.6 Source: All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture - Agricultural Research Station (Dryland Farming), A nantapur, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Hyderabad, Annual Report, 1975-76. Table 2.14 Effect of Improved Seeding Machire s, Dehra Dun, Kharif 1976 Seeding devices Rice Yield (q/ ha) International seed cum fertilizer drill 42.0 International seed cum fertilizer drill with press wheel 40.8 Noble seed cum fertilizer drill 44. 4 Swastic seed cum fertilizer drill 43.5 Country plough 40.7 Transplanting 36.7 C. D. 5% 4.0 Source: G. C. Yadaya, D. T. Anderson and D. S. Rajput, "Farm Implements and Practices for Small Farmers of Drylands," Paper presented at the XVII A nnuaf Convention of Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers, held at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, Feb. 6 to 8, 1980. Table 2.15 Studies on Method of Sowing and Fertilizing Redgram (P. D. PL-1), Anantapur, Kharif 1975-76 Implement Yield (Qtls/ha) 1. Noble seed-cum-fertilizer drill 3.2 2. Indo-French seed-cum-fertilizer drill 2.4 3. 510-International harvester seed-cum- fertilizer drill 1.3 4. Planter 0. 9 Source: G. C. Yadaya, D. T. A nder son and D. S. Rajput, "Farm Implements and Practices for Small Farmers of Drylands," Paper presented at the XVII A nnual Convention of Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers, held at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, Feb._ 6 to 8, 1980. Table 2.16 Comparative Efficiency of Fertilizer Drill for Placing Fertilizer in Puddled Paddy Soils (T ) over Broadcasting -Fertilizers (T ), Hyderabad, 1973-70 Details of items Treat- Kharif Kharif Rabi ment 1973 1974 1974-75 Plant height, cm * 1. 45-50 days after transplanting T1 63.20 68.40 25.05 T2 57.00 66.95 23.00 2. 95-100 days after T1 79.90 92.10 78.00 transplanting T2 76.90 90.45 75.40 Tillers per hill: 1. 45-50 days after T1 16.3 12.0 14.95 transplanting T2 12.7 12.0 14.25 2. 95-100 days after T1 15.0 10.8 - 13.15 transplanting T2. 14.7 10.9 11.70 Grain yield, Kg/ha 1. Placement with the drill Tj 5247 6429 7030 2. Broadcasting T2 4987 6257 6587 Source: P. V. Narayana Rao, "Evaluation of Fertilizer Drill for Placing Fertilizer in Puddled soils." J. A gric. Engg., XIII (2), 1976, pp. 80-82. Table 2.17 Comparative Efficiency of Fertilizer Drill for Top Dressing Urea to Paddy Crop, Hyderabad 1978-79 Item of Observation Treatment Kharif Rabi Kharif Basal dose Top dressing 1978 1978-79 1979 Plant height T1 Drill Broadcast80.9 73.9 80.5 (cms) T2 Drill Drill 84.4 72.8 81.9 T3 Broadcast Broadcast 78.8 72.7 79.8 Number of tillers T1 326 521 529 (per m2) T2 327 536 551 T3 292 502 474 Grain yield T1 5772 6057 5107 (kgs per ha) T2 5876 6585 5477 T3 5269 4987 3714 Source: APAU, "Consolidated Research Report from 1973 to 1979 of Coordinated Scheme for Research and Development of Farm Implements and Machinery and Production of Prototypes and their Evaluation under Different Agro-Climatic Conditions." Rajendra'nagar Centre, APAU, Hyderabad, co. 23-26. Placing of the basal dose alone by the drill gave about 10 to 35 per cent higher grain yield compared to broadcasting the fertilizer. Placing of the basal dose as well as the top dressing dose by the respective drills further increased the yield by 2 to 9 per cent, i.e., 12 to 45 per cent more than the broadcasting method. (iii) Other Ecuipment: The bullock drawn interculture equipment generally has the only advantage of rapidity of operation. These have rarely.been evaluated beyond this stage though time is not an important constraint at this stage. Little wonder, the cost with such an equipment is lower than if the operation were done totally by manual labour, evaluated at market wage rates than at the opportunity cost (Table 2.18). However, in areas where the farmers are hiring the human labour for intercultural operations and the bullock labour is not fully utilized, there is a-possibility of substituting the owned bullock labour for the hired human labour if the crops are strictly sown in lines 11 and the proper intercultural implements are available (or designed), Similarly, the harvesting equipment has generally been evaluated in terms of its capacity o'r output per day. There are only few bullock drawn harvesting machines which also are not very popular. The few available coefficients on the labour saved (indirectly seen from their capacity or output per day) and the cost of the operation that were available have already been discussed in the earlier section. The animal driven transportation equipment are the carts, the traditional ones have the wooden wheels, are low speeded and require the heavy draft; the better ones have thd rubber-tyre wheels which the animals pull faster and also have low draft requirement (Table 2.19). However, the farmer's daily chores have low transportation requirements of 1-2 qtls. (of fodders to the farm stead or seeds, fertilizers etc. to the farm). Although, the local artisans have made many modifications over time on such tools, the researchers minds have remained alluded from this area (Farmers jokingly tell farm engineers that their animal driven cart still has no brakes!). There are animal driven chaff cutters which are being replaced by mechanical means. Little data are available on their pbrformance. Similarly, there are animal driven lift irrigation devices in use in various parts of the country but the relative performance of whatever little improvements have been designed over time has not been available. 1/ A.S. Kahlon and Karam Singh, "Economics of Farm Management in India- Theory and Practice", Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1980, pp. 144. -50- Table 2.18: Area covered per day and cost of interculture operation per acre by different implements, Agricultural Research Institute Farm, Hyderabad, 1970. Implement Area covered Cost per in 8 hrs. acre (acres) (Rs) 1. Cultivator + 6 women 2.20 20.92 2. Blade harrow (Danthi) + 8 women 1.00 28.20 3. Hand weeding by 16 women 0.95 42.23 4. Running push cultivator (push weeder+ 8 women) 0.32 31.12 Source: T. Govardhan Reddy, "Farm Work Studies and Problems of Labour Management on Institutional and Non- institutional Farms." M.Sc. Thesis, Deptt. of Agr. Econ. and Stat., College of Agr., Andhra Pradesh Agr. University, Rajendra- nagar, Hyderabad, Jan. 1970 (unpublished). Table2.19 Comparative Study of Effectiveness of Different Modes of Transportation, Agricultural Research Institute -Farm, Hyderabad, 1970. (Time and cost to transport one ton of paddy to a distance of 0.8 km.) Mode of transportation Time Cost Draft (lbs.) Speed(miles/hr.) Hrs. Mts. (Rs) Empty_ Loaded Empty Loaded 1. Desicart 2-00 2.00 352 668 2.10 1.30 (load 500 kgs) 2. Rubber tyred cart 0-40 0.67 221 386 3.10 2.10 (load 1000 kgs) 3. Wheel barrow 12-50 4.50 4. Manual (on back) 25-00 9.38 Source: T. Govardhan Reddy, "Farm Work Studies and Problems of Labour Management on Institutional and Non-institutional Farms." M.Sp. Thesis, Deptt. of Agr. Econ. and Stat., College of A gr., Andhra Pradesh A gr. University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Jan. 1970 (unpublished). III ACTUAL STATE OF ARTS WITH FARMERS The investment in bullock driven implements is very .shy even in an agriculturally advanced State like Punjab. The data for 154 bullock operated holdings out of the total sample of 200 farmers (the other 46 were tractor operated holdings) collected through cost accounting method under the 'Comprehensive Cost of Cultivation Scheme, 1/ showed that in Punjab, on 10% of the bullock operated holdings, the investment in bullock driven implements was just in an (improved) plough and some other odd implement like planker, and was below Rs 100 per holding (1976-77). Another 12 per cent of the holdings had investment between Rs 101 to Rs 300. Fifty per cent holdings had an investment of more than Rs 1000 in bullock drawn implements (Table 3.1).. In terms of depreciation on farm implements, 2/ it was Rs 8 to Rs 76 per hectare for different crops but accounting for no more than 2% of the total cost of cultivation (Table 3.2). Seed,or seed-cum-fertilizer drill (for wheat) is the most important implement for sowing (and fertilizing). Seed drill was found to be in 40 per cent of the (selected) villages (total 20) on 10 to 90 per cent of the (selected) bullock operated holdings (10 holdings selected per village). In all, there were 35 seed drills which amounted to 23% of bullock operated holdings (BC0) having seed drills. But in terms of area under wheat, the BOH with seed drill accounted for 46% of the total area under wheat on all the bullock operated holdings. (Table 3.3). The average yield of wheat on BOH with seed drill was 25.92 Q/ha compared to 25.52 Q/ha on BOH without seed drill, giving a yield advantage of hardly 2%. The maximum yield advantage on village basis was also little above 4% (27.68 qtls per ha versus 26.60 qtls per ha.). However, sowing with seed drill takes much less time than otherwise and thus would give a relative cost advantage but it also requires finer land preparation. Little wonder in typical paddy-wheat zone with relatively hard'soils where seed bed preparation for effective seed drilling operation would require too many ploughings, making the relative cost advantage to disappear, none of the selected BOH had the seed drill. The correlations of the investment In animal driven implements with gross farm income along with the operational farm size and value of draft animals for the three general agro-climatic regions of Punjab 3/ are given in Table 3.4. There were better avenues of investment in animal driven implements in maize-wheat and cotton-wheat zones in iteis like seed drills, disc harrows, etc., which for reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraph were being hesitantly purchased by farmers in paddy-wheat zone (animal driven paddy puddler is still not common in Punjab). Thus, the investment in animal driven 1/ The project is financed by GOI for all States and in general is being carried out by the Department of Economics of the respective State Agricultural Universities. 2/ This analysis pertained to all the 200 holdings, including the 46 tractor operated ones. 3/ These zones can be broadly called as paddy-wheat, maize-wheat and cotton-wheat. -53- Table 3.1 Farm Size and Investment in Farm Implements, Punjab, 1976-77 Investment No. of Holdings of Operational Farm Size (Ha) % of Rs. Upto 2 2.01-4 4.01-6 6.01-8 8.01-10 10 Total Holdings Upto 100 4 8 2 1 1 16 10 101 - 300 1 10 4 3 18 12 301 - 600 1 8 4 3 2 18 12 601 -1000 2 4 7 5 3 3 24 16 1001 -1500 2 13 5 9 1 1 31 20 1501 -2000 7 9 2 2 4 24 15 Above -2000 1 4 7 6 3. 2 23 15 Total 11 54 38 29 10 12 154. 100 x 2 39.961 (not significant) Table 3.2 Depreciation on farm implements and its share in the total cost of cultivation,, important crops, Punjab, 1976-77 Crop Rs/ha % of total cost of cultivation Paddy: HYV 33.58 - 0.80 Basmati 7.86 0.27 Maize: Local 32.62 1.81 Wheat 28.09 0.97 Cotton Am. 52.31 1.73 Cotton Local 38.41 1.86 Groundnut 22.92 1.11 Sugarcane Ratoon 28,52 0,75 Sugarcane Planted 75.88 1.00 Note: 1. The interest on the capital investment on farm implements was not separately available. 2. The data relates to all the holdings (including tractor operated). Table 3.3 DISTRIBUTION OF SEED DRILLS AMONG VILLAGES No. of seed drills No. of randomly selected on bullock operated No. of bullock powered holdings holdings villages out of 10 selected eer village Nil 12 90 1 1 8 2 2 12 3 1 8 4 or more 4 36 Total 20 154 a) Total No. of seed drills 35 b) 0 holding having seed drills - 23% c) Total area under wheat - 593.25 ha d) Area under wheat on holdings owning seed drill - 271.24 ha e) 4 as % 3 M 46% f) Yield Advantage of farmers owning seed drills: i) Absolute (25.92 - 25.52) = 0.40 Qtls/ha ii) Relative - average = 2% - maximum = 4% -56- Table3.4: Correlations of gross farm income with farm size, value of draft animals and investment in animal-driven implements, Punjab, 1975-76. Variables Paddy-whEat Maize-wheat Cotton-what Overall X1 2 zone zone zone Gross Farm 1. Farm size 0.9294 0.9411 0.9494 0.9311 income 2. Value of draft animals 0. 6420 0. 6708 0. 6098 0. 5855 3. Investment in animal driven implements 0.1740 0.4978 0.4821 0.3599 Farm size 1. Value of draft animals 0.6967 0.6406 0.6733 0.5678 2. Investment in animal driven implements 0.1231 0.5232 0.4741 0.3751 Value of draft 1. Investment in animals animal driven implements 0.0851 0.5717 0.2876 0.2644 Mean values of different variables: 1. Gross farm income (Rs.)23406.31 26241.49 34122.82 26129.43 2. Farm size (ha) 4.32 5.31 7.12 5.14 3. Value of draft animals 2552.50 3065.69 2361.76 2786.92 (Rs.) 4. Investment in animal driven implements(Rs.) 867.18 1334.22 1374.82 1137.59 Note: The data pertained to bullock operated holdings which were totally irrigated. implements had higher correlation with gross farm income in maize-wheat and cotton-wheat zones, which was 0.50 and 0.48 respectively. With the data available in respect of only few variables, we ran the multiple regressions of gross farm income on farm size, value of draft animals and the investment in animal driven implements (Table 3.5). There is not much to explain here except that the farm size completely overshadowed the independent effects of the other two variables which would have been even otherwise appeared very meak in such an exercise. The limited information for only a sub-sample that could be collected from the similarly executed 'Cost of Cultivation Scheme' in Andhra Pradesh, enabled the classification of farmers according to investment in different types of animal driven implements during 1979-80, as su-arized in Table 3.6. About 40 per cent farmers had the investment in one or two ploughs (all may be the traditional ones) valued at ranging from Ra. 15 to Rs. 80 with an average investment per farm at Rs. 35 and average per plough at Ra. 17 only. Puddler, gorru (local seed drill) and guntaka (blade harrow) were the other implements. Only 4 per cent farmers had invested in all the four implements with an average investment at Ra. 203 per farm. The average value of plough, puddler, gorru and guntaka during -1979-80, with these farmers was estimated at Rs..85, Ra. 53, Rs. 40 and Rs. 25 respectively. And 16 per cent farmers had invested in plough, gorru and guntaka with an average value during 1979-80 at Rs. 24, Rs. 35 and Rs. 21 respectively. Finally, as many as 28 per cent farmers had no bullocks and no bullock-driven implements, the practice of custom hiring bullocks along with the ploughmen and the implement is very common in Andhra Pradesh as compared to Punjab where this part is played by tractors. The yields of important crops on different farm situations classified according to investment in different types of animal-driven implements are given in Table 3.7. A word of caution is necessary before.we interpret any differences in yields on different farm situations with different implements. The yield figures are confounded effects of rather too many variables and hence the differences do not represent pure implement effects. Further, the number of observations in many cells is as low as one only. Table 3.7 shows that Kharif paddy was the most important crop. The farmers with no bullocks, no implements obtained an average yield of 23.75 quintals per hectare. The farmers who had invested in the plough only obtained an average yield of 26.22 quintals per hectare and th6 farmer with plough as well as puddler obtained 27.13 quintals per hectare. Owning a pair of bullocks and the plough could help in achieving better timeliness as compared to having.to depend upon the custom hiring services from fellow farmers. The additional advantage here is about 2.50 quintals per hectare. A puddler is a paddy-specific equipment that yields an additional advantage of about one quintal per hectare. 1/ 1/ Compare it with the experimental results with the APAU puddler (see earlier section Table 6) where it showed an advantage of about 4 quintals per hectare. t Table 3.5: Coefficients of linear production function, Punjab, 1975-76. (Dependant variable: Gross farm income in Rs.) Region N Constant Coefficient of R Farm size Value of Investment draft in animal animals driven (ha) - implements Paddy-wheat 52 -3573.32 6078.86 -0.08 1.07 0.8674 (12.63) (-0.14) (1.14) Maize-wheat 51 -112.37 4516.13 1.08 -0.68 0.8942 (13.74) (1.95) (0.58) Cotton-whEa t 17 2208.08 4582.00 -0.90 1.04 0.9041 (7.63) (0.44) (0.40) Overall 120 -163.06 4678.01 0.75 0.15 0.8717 (20.92) (2.06) (0.21) Note:- Figures in parentheses are the respective t-values. .Table 3.6:Investment in A nimal-Driven Implements, Andhra Pradesh, 1979-80 Implements Farms Investment (Rs.) No. % Average Range Average per implement per over Plough Puddler Gorru Guntaka farm farms 1. No bullocks, 14 28 - - - - - - no implement 2. Plough only 20 40 35 15-80 17 - - - 3. Plough + puddler 1 2 100 - 30 70 - - 4. Plough+ Gorru 1 2 180 - 50 - 40 - 5. Plough+ Guntaka 4 8 80 48-103 27 - - 8 6. Plough+ Gorru+ Guntaka 8 16 148 95-191 24 - 35 21 7. Plough+ Puddler+ Gorru +Guntaka 2 4 203 200-205 85 53 40 25 Source: Compiled from the data for 5 villages (sub-sample of 50 farmers, 10 per village, out of the total sample of 48 villages or 480 farmers) collected in the Cost of &Iltivation Scheme (GOI financed). Courtesy: Department of Agricultural Economics, A PAU, Raj6ndranagar, Hyderabad. Notes: (a) Animal driven carts have been excluded from here for obvious reasons. There were 24 farmers (48%) owning a cart with an investment ranging from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1500. (b) There were more than one of the same implement on many farms. The distinction between different types of ploughs was not known. Local seed drill in A ndhra Pradesh is known as Gorru and Guntaka is a black harrow type implement. Table3.7:Yield of important crops on different farm situations classified according to investment in different animal driven implements. Andhra Pradesh, 1979-80. Qtls. per ha. Farm situation No.of Average Kharif Rabi Jowar Sugar- Ground Black Green Maize farms farm size Paddy Paddy cane nut gram gram (ha) 1. No bullocks, 14 2.03 23.75 35.53 - 464 2.82 - - - no implement (7)/ (14)b/ (7) (2) (2) (15. 95)-c/(7.75) (2.9) (0.78) 2. Plough only 20 3.46 26.22 - - 734 4.32 4.68 3.74 - (14) (17) (4) (3) (10) (9) (56.21) (3.87) (2.13) (20.29) (12.71) 3. Plough + puddler 1 1.29 27.13 - - - - - - - (0) (1) (1.29) 4. Plough+ gorru 1 1.12 10.71 - - - - - 1.39 10.71 (41) (1) (1) (1) (0.28) (0.18) (0.28) O 5. Plough+ Guntaka 4 4.09 24.75 38.89 - 786 7.37 ' - - - (20) (3) (1) (4) (4) (2.95) (0.36) (5.42) (5.21) 6. Plough+Gorrut 8 .3.34 15.76 - 4.91 - 5.74 - 1.52 10.55 Guntaka (53) (8) (7) (3) (5) (5) (10.09) (8.05) (2.70) (6.60) (5.31) 7. Plough+ Puddler 2 4.18 22.30 33.06 - - - 2.72 - - +Gorru+Guntaka (0) (2) (1) (1 (4.26) (1.21) (0.92) Source: See Table 3.6. Notes: a/ Percent unirrigated a 6:1a. o/ No. of farmers growing the crop. c/ Total area under the cropL) Similar trend was observed in case of some other implements and other crops../ For instance, in case of sugarcane, its average yield on farms with no bullocks-no implements, with plough only and with plough as well as guntaka (blade harrow) was 464, 734 and 786 quintals per hectare respectively. Likewise, on these very farms, the yield of groundnut, too, was 2.82, 4.32 and 7.37 quintals respectively. The low investment in animal driven cultivation implements was also evident in Haryana from a subsample of 65 farmers. About one-third farmers had invested in plough only (Table 3.8). The diversity of crops grown in this small sample of farms does not allow'any clear association between implement inventory and crop yield to be detected; except for holdings with seed drill (along with other improved implements) had some edge over other holdings but the number of observations in this group is too small to make any conclusion (Table 3.9). 1/ Gorru (local seed drill) which could be used for sowing jowar or maize could not be compared for want of comparable situations in Table 3.7. Table 3.8 Investment in Animal Drawn Important Cultivation Implements, Haryana, 1979-80 N Average Farm Size (ha) Value Plough Harrow Roller Cultivator Seed Drill of No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value No. Value Ira. Unirg. Total Draft _Rs. Rs. *Rs. Rs. Rs. mals (Rs.) Plough only 22 5.49 0.13 5.62 2636 1.45 115 - - - - - - - - Plough + Harrow 21 5.50 0.75 6.25 2608 1.95 137 1.05 192 - - - - - - Plough + Roller 13 7.34 0.19 7.53 2943 2.31 132 - - 1.00 160 - - - - - Plough + Cultivator/+ Harrow or Roller or both 7 9.28 2.80 12.08 3120 3.00 185 0.86 103 0.43 59 1.57 121 - - With Seed Drill 2 10.10 - 10.10 *2290 1.50 96 1.00 280 1.00 135 - - 1.00 240 Source: Compiled from the data for 65 bullock operated holdings (sub-sample out of the total of 200 holdings) collected in the Cost of Cultivation Scheme (COI financed). 01% Table 3.9 Yields of Important Crops on Different Farm Situations Classified According to Investment in Important Animal Drawn Cultivation Implements, Haryana, 1979-80 Qtl/ha N Wheat Rice Maize Cotton Sugarcane Bajra Plough only 22 22.40 26.46 7.11 7.26 - 4.44 (50)a/ (33) (8) (4) - (5) (22)b/ (17) (12) (7) (6) Plough & Harrow 21 21.46 30.05 7.71 7.35 356.81 6.09 (48) (29) (5) (7) (3) (8) (21) (13) (10) (17) -(11) (8) Plough + Roller 13 21.72 38.11 12.04 8.89 164.24 4.05 (48) (29) (1) (6) (5) (11) (13) (7) (2) (5) (8) Plough + Cultivator/ 7 17.16 - - 6.24 - 5.87 + Harrow or Roller (37) (38) (25) or both (7) (7) (6) With Seed Drill 2 35.04 44.21 10.87 6.41 479.63 . - (42) (16) (10) (6) (27) (2) (1) (1) (2) (1) - a/ Per cent area under the crop b/ No. of holdings growing the crop Source: Same as Table 3.8 CONSTRAINTS TO ADOPTION OF IMPROVED IMPLEMENTS There could be a variety of reasons or constraints explaining for the low adoption of improved implements. The National Commission on Agriculture recommended that a detailed survey should be undertaken to ascertain the reasons for the slow acceptance of improved implements and machinery and the continued preference of farmers for the wooden plough.1/ But no detailed survey so far has been taken up in this aspect. This section is therefore primarily based on the views of the Engineer Researchers, Farm Economists, Farmers and few small sample studies conducted by individual researchers. In a sociological survey of Indo-German-Project in the Mandi District in Himachal Pradesh, 2/ it was found that among the agricultural practices having a low degree of adoption, the lowest was the use of improved implements. It was reported that the (improved)plough was heavier (21 kg) than the traditional wooden plough with a steel stylus (8-12 kg). Its initial cost was also higher. The local blacksmith could not easily repair it unless he got training. Local bullocks were too weak to drag the plough. Bullocks, strong enough to drag these ploughs were costly and were not easily available either. Small slopey fields also made turning around of large bullocks difficult. The improved plough had to be handled with both hands, thereby leaving no hand free to drive the bullocks. In some places the top soil covering is too thin to be pliabie. Some respondents could not afford to keep an independent pair of bullocks and a plough. They had to borrow a baJia's plough, and had no choice but to accept whatever the latter gives. Some land-owners had given land on share cropping and had no desire to invest in instruments, the tenants on their part were not willing to do it either. The new plough also induced more soil erosion, necessitating soil-conservation measures. The improved hand tools had long bamboo handles and had to be used'in a standing posture but the local people -are accustomed to work in the sitting posture. The new tools caused quicker fatigue, by straining unaccustomed muscles. Another prerequisite to their use was line-sowing which was not popular either. Another important factor was the jaimani system. In each village artisan castes like carpenter and black-smith are customarily attached to 1/ Govt. of India, "Report of the National Commission on Agriculture',' Ministry of Agriculture & Irrigation, New Delhi, 1976. Part X Inputs. Ch. 51: Implements and Machinery, pp. 394. 2/ C. Rajagopalan and Jaspal Singh, "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations (A Sociological Study of Indo-German Project, Mandi)" National Publishing House, Delhi, 1971. e certain cultivating households for whom they perform services like manu- facturing and repair of agricultural implements in return for annual payments in the form of foodgrains. To buy improved implements from other services would destroy the age-old Jaimani relations and deprive certain castes of their customary means of livelihood who, therefore, are bound to resent improved implements and exert pressure to perpetuate the traditional arrangements. 3/ Patra and Gite-tonducted a study on "Farm Implements and Agricultural Practices in the Tribal Areas of Bastar District" of Madhya Pradesh. They selected 93 farmers from 24 villages in the three Development Blocks of the district and reported that in spite of several attempts to introduce improvedagricultural implements in the area, very little success had been achieved. The following constraints were identified: (i) no proper agency for introducing suitable implements and equipment to the area; (ii) lack of proper selection of implements; (iii) no facility for rectifying any defect of an implement which is new to the farmers; (iv) scarcity of good quality steel materials; (v) lack of co-ordination in different developmental activities in the area; and (vi) difficulty in obtaining and repaying the credit from financial institutions. National Commission on Agriculture concluded that one of the main reasons why improved ploughs have not become popular appears to be that their relative advantages have not been convincingly demonstrated to farmers in various regions.4/ Similar conclusion is reached from the experience in the Indo-UK Project at Indore (MP). "It appears to be very important that demonstrations of equipment in farmers fields should be convincing and realistic with their benefits clearly i'dentified. It was plain that most of the traditional equipment was still considered adequate for farm operations by the farmerd'5/. From demonstrations under the project it was found that "The lightweight 'Jalo' cultivator was favoured for interrow weeding but as they were loaned free of charge to farmers, it is not known whether, had they been av'ailable for purchase at true market price, farmers would have bought them and used them in preference to the traditional 'dora' for weeding. Similarly, the Kenmore bullock-drawn tool frame plus Sisis seeder was liked by farmers - but they did not have to pay for its use, and it is extremely doubtful whether they would have 3/ S.K. Patra and I.P. Gite, "Farm Implements and Agricultural Practices in the Tribal Area of Bastar District" Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (ICAR), Bhopal, Nov. 1980. 4/ Report of the National Commission on Agriculture, op. cit. pp. 397. 5/ Indo-UK Project, Indore, Report 1980 pp. 221. -66- bought any - even.if they had been available - until its benefits had been perceived by farmers to outweigh its costs. This has not yet been demonstrated".6/ Thus it is important that while demonstrating agricultural implements - or for that matter any improved technology component - the farmers are properly educated and convinced of the benefits, otherwise there is every likelihood that the farmers would revert back to their traditional practice. During field visits to the Barabanki District-in UP, in many villages majority of the farmers reported to be sowing wheat by broadcasting. Few farmers who had seen the demonstration of seed-cum-fertilizer drill, reported many drawbacks; they had to , due to typical soil, conditions, go in for sowing under more than optimum soil moisture conditions where the drills get clogged more quite often, and so on. Interestingly, one of the farmers on whose fields seed-cum-fertilizer drill was demonstrated, and the seed rate was reduced from 40 kg to 30 kg per acre, soon after the demonstration personnel left the village, the farmer broadcasted the remaining 10 kg of seed in that field. This, however, does not mean that the farmers do not respond to the improvements. One small improvement to a traditional seeder did catch much of the farmerb attention in Indore (M?). The attachment of a second bowl and double spout to a traditional seeder so as to allow low place- ment, below the seed, of fertilizer materials. In early years, seed and fertilizer were mixed together and all put down the same spout. The seperation of seed from fertilizer assures better use of fertilizer because of less damage to seed. This innovation was quickly adopted and was readily made in the villages.7/ In contrast to the farmer's traditional, multipurpose tool, some of the improved implements go in a package thereby escalating the initial investment requirements and hence making it difficult for many farmers to respond, who even otherwise place a very low priority for making investments in agricultural implements. 'In fact it is often contended that agricultural implements are not on any list of the.inputs which the farmer plans and thinks to have invested in. The example of mould board plough along with the disc harrow as a package has already been cited some- where earlier. -Similarly, the use of intercultural equ*ipment is conditioned by the line sowing of the crop and it is quite possible that the package of line sowing plus intercultural equipment may not sound well in the farmer's economics. Again in case of seed or seed-cum-fertilizer drill, 6/ Ibid pp. 218 7/ Indo-UK Project, Indore Report, 1980 pp 221. which has been experimented and is recommended more forcefully than many other implements, its low rate of adoption could be explained by many factors such as, (i) it requires finer seed bed preparation which with the existing ploughs with the farmer requires too many ploughings thus bringing in the time constraint or requires investment in other improved ploughs thereby further adding to the cost component. (ii) the farmer then essentially compares the alternatives of traditional ploughs, rough seed bed, timely sowing without seed drill versus traditional ploughs, fine seed bed, not-so-timely sowing with seed drill versus improved ploughs, fine seed bed, timely sowing with seed drill. The third alternative may be the best (in terms of net returns) but farmer may not be willing and able to afford so much investment whereas second alternative may be just on the borderline where risk factor might overrule it in favour of the first alternative. (iii) It is certianly more sophisticated implement and requires farmers understanding of the phenomenon which is not easy to acquire. (iv) There is a risk that the drill may get choked leaving some area or lines totily unseeded. The lack of proper standar& iation and quality control of such agricultural implements adds to such problems. An Animal-Drawn Wheeled Tool Carrier of ICRISAT used along with the improved watershed-based technology was shown to pay off from its use over 4 hectares in 1 year 8/. But,apart from its high capital cost of Rs 8000 to Rs 10000, see that Gonditioning phrase - along with the improved watershed based technology, which requires radical changes in the cultivation system to bed and furrow, as opposed to traditional flat planting and alignment relative to the contour rather than to the field edge (or by implication, moving field boundaries on the contour alignments)9/. The total yield potential of this equipment package is so large considering that its adequate use could enable some 6 to 7 million hectares of otherwise monsoon fallow land on deep black soils to be cultivated yielding some 20 to 30 million tons of foodgrains 10/ over and above the increase in yields on a very large area of existing crop land, that a major effort 8/ James G. Ryan and R. Sarin,"Economics of Technology Options for Deep Vertisols in the Relatively Assured Rainfall Regions of the Indian Semi-Arid Tropics." Paper presented at the Seminar on Management of Deep Black Soils, sponsored by Mihistry of Agriculture, ICAR and ICRISAT, held in New Delhi, 21 May, 1981. 9/ In demonstrations, under Indo-UK Project at Indore, the farmers showed no interest in its use. See, Project Report, 1980 pp.221. 10/ J.S. Kanwar,"Problems and Potentials of the Black Soils of India" in "Improving the Management of India's Deep Black Soils". Proceedings of a Seminar, New Delhi, ICRISAT, 1981. would be required to propagate its use. The comparable examples cited are those of pumpsets, threshers and tractors in Northern India. But whereas the demand for the thresher and the tractor technology was generated with a lag through the adoption of one set of technology (HYVs and fertilizers alongwith irrigation or pumpsets) in its earlier phases, in case of Tool Bar Carrier, the entire technology package has almost to go together. This makes the task much more complicated, gigantic and rather doubtful. Again, besides the technical considerations such as complicated design and more frequent break-down, or high draft requirement beyond even the above average quality bullocks, the implements such as for harvesting different crops, which save time (or labor) only without its alternative uses, may yield little relative economic incentive to induce farmers to respond. Also, such implements may not be acceptable to the society at large in view of the abundant labor available at relatively economic wage rates. Some other improved bullock drawn implements are not being adopted, because relatively easier and economical mechanical alternatives are available. The olpad thresher is an appropriate example here. The farmers go in for mechanical threshers in areas where diesel engines/electric motors are in use (for other purposes, mainly irrigation). Under the social system where the same piece of implement is used by many (kith and kin, the neighbours and the fellow farmers), the farmer who would own will alone have to bear the cost (investment, depreciation) and it might not pay off to him. This gives a plea that in the extension message about most of the agricultural implements, instead of individual ownership and use, the custom hiring (or group owning) should be emphasized. Alternatively, a model should be worked out specifying the different agricultural implements which each of the farmers from amongst a group of farms (neighbours, if possible), who are'having the similar farming system should own (necessarily these are the implements which are more frequently used and also have low investment costs); and, the impfements which only a few farmers should own and others should use on custom hiring (this is an easier and more practicable alternative to collective ownership). In Punjab, in a sample of 154 bullock operated holdings, there was not even a single farmer who had not threshed his wheat crop with a michanical thresher, whereas no more than one-half of them had owned it (many of them had jointly owned with some other farmers), while others got it done on custom hiring basis. Apart from the inadequate farmer's knowledge and training about the improved implements, inadequate availability and after-sales-service of the improved -implements are important constraints hindering their adoption. The extension agent which could be expected as a link between the farmers and the manufacturers often gets bogged down at these conjectures. In fact, greater the gap between thechmonstration to convince the farmer about an implement and its easy availability to enable him to buy, less the chances of its being actually adopted. More time gap may even change the farmer's mind. Secondly, inadequate after-sales- service frustrates the efforts of the innovating farmers and often discourage the others to follow. Also the liaison between the manufacturers and the researchers is too inadequate. In fact most of the research designs after the experimental stage are not picked up for large scale manufacture,-because, first, the sale and marketing of improved agricultural implements is a difficult task; second, the margin of profit in agricultural implements is very low; third, the availability of raw matetials which even other- wise in general, are in scarcity all round the country, does not get any government support or priority; and lastly, the cost of the implement at the manufacture stage is generally higher than what the engineers anticipated thereby thinning out the already little relative advantage that the equipment was supposed to get to the farmers and thus further weakening its marketing prospects. The quality control of agricultural implements is far from satisfactory. Some manufacturers suggested that all improved agricultural implements should be produced under ISI marks but others said it could be of little use unless more frequently followed up. However, quality control is important and some mechanism should be devised to ensure it. Most of the private manufacturers did not favour subsidy on implements and said that it (subsidy) affected their market adversely. Some of the private manufacturers told that they could sell implements in larger numbers before there was any subsidy and afterwards farmers, even after they were convinced, would be looking for the subsidy, many in the process did not get subsidy and also did not buy of their own (or did they get reunconvinced about the use of the implement). Some other manufacturers felt it difficult to organise the private sales so long as there would be subsidy. In fact all of them'suggested that the subsidy money should instead be used for demonstrating the implements more intensively. The credit facilities for the purchase of small implements have to be much more easier and organized. Commercial banks could be alright for purchase of an engine or a tractor but no farmer would like to fill in a form, go to the bank and ask for a loan of Rs 50 to Rs 250 if he were to buy an improved plough or some other small implement. The tacavi (Government) loans where they exist may be used for this purpose or the - 7D - village cooperative societies (if not defunct or defaulter) may be provided more cash funds to enable them to finance these petty, but important, investments. The adequacy of these argumants must, however, be questioned given the rapid increase in the number of those implements that farmers perceive as really useful, e.g., pumpsets, threshers, and seed drills in some areas, and it seems probable that themajor'factor limiting the use of new implements is simply their inadeuqAte cost effectiveness. Where they are cost effective, adoption of the improved technology is rapid and widespread and the constraints so widely quoted prove remarkably ephemeral. * * 71 - To SUM'up The constraints to adoption of improved implements are varied and diverse. These can be briefly listed as follows: a) Inadequate farmer's knowledge about the improved implements. The improved implements are not in the list of improvements that the farmer plans to effect on his farm; b) Inadeuqate demonstrations regarding the improved implements. Extension effort is wanting in this respect; c) Longer time gap between demonstration of the implements and the realized results make it difficult to convince the farmers about the advantages of the improved implements; d) Inadequate availability of the improved implements increases the time gap further and the farmer might change his mind in due course; e) Relative economics of many improved implements at farmer's fields proves to be less favourable than, at the experimental farms; f) The farmer's traditional implement is multi-purpose and the improved ones are generlly single purpose, and thus making it even more difficult to convince the farmer to buy many improved implements at the same time for a package switch over; g) Some of the implements go in a package or have certain pre- conditions for their proper and efficient use which when incorporated into the economic analysis turn it the other way round; h) The improved implements are more costly, in some cases the alternative capital investment comparison is rather drastic. This factor coupled with the inadequate credit facilities and risk factors constrain the adoption of many packages of improved implements; i) The social structure of the Indian village system where the farmer owning the implement alone has to bear the cost whereas many of his fellow farmers (neighbours, relatives, etc.) also use it but free in areas where custom hiring system is still to develop also constrain the adoption of some improved implements in such areas; j) There is a large shelf of improved implements that has been designed and tested by researchers in various parts of the country but only few of these are being manufactured on a large scale. The reasons are: 7;L -- (i) Lack of manufacturers; (ii) Inadeuqate, rather nil, research-manufacturer linkage; (iii) Difficulty in marketing of agricultural implements; (iv) Low margin of profit; (v) Little institutional support or priori±y in allocation of inadequate raw materials. k) Inadquate after-sales-service to repair the minor frequent defects and service the improved implements also constrains their use thus frustrating the efforts of the innovating farmers and often discouraging the others to follow. 1) The quality control of agricultural implements is not satis- factory. m) Subsidy on implements in many cases discourages the farmers who could not avail of it. n) The credit facilities for the purchase of petty agricultural implements costing Rs 50 to Rs 250 are not satisfactory. Some of the relevant recommendations of the National Commission on Agriculture are given in Annex I -7,3 - SOME RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Research-Manufacturer linkage is woefully inadequate and needs to be developed rather strongly. For this a separate Division or a Cell in some important Institutes of Agricultural Engineering Research should be created to begin with and later on to be extended to all such Institutions. This should also have its main Coordinating and Supporting Cell in the Ministry of Agriculture. Its specific tasks would be: a) To locate manufactuers, give them training and pass on the new research designs along with other relevant information sought by the manufacturers such as potential demand, sources of finance, marketing outlets and arrangements, etc. It shouldmaintain close link with these manufacturers and provide continuous guidance to incorporate the new improvements tested and found suitable on various implements and their design. b) To study the problems of the manufacturers and provide guidance (or consultancy) to make the sick units viable and others to enhance their business; c) To organize regional workshops, fairs, etc. to train and guide the local manufacturers; d) To train the village artisans in the proper.repair and servicing of improved implements; e) To assess the potential demand of the improved implements in cooperation with the Research and Zctension staff demon- strating the use of agricultural implements; f) To assess the export prospects of the impro'ed agricultural implements; g) To act as co-ordinating cell between manufacturers, researchers, extension workers and other agencies. 2. (i) To attract large-scale manufacturers for manufacturing standardized quality agricultural implements, the following considerations maybe examined: a) To give some priority in allocating the scarce raw materials vis-a-vis at some controlled prices; b) A pilot marketing assurance scheme in respect of proven improved agricultural implements should be devised whereby some minimum number of the implements could be assured of its sale by the State Department of Agriculture (SDA) failing which the SDA could buy in lumpsum and sell itself-by subsidizing it. . -S7 (ii) The manufacturers (public as well as private) and the extension workers strongly feel that the Research Engineers cost estimates are on the low side. Thus when they design and manufacture 2, 3 or 4 pieces only, they mostly use (and can use) waste material left while manufacturing other implements or from old worn out implements. But on a large scale this cheaper*(otherwise waste) material is not available. Thus, it is suggested that the research engineers should manufacture at least 50 to 100 pieces in order to come out with a more realistic estimate of cost of the implement. For this a prototyne manufacturing facility would have to be created with the Research Institutes. It would serve the double purpose; in addition to enable them to arrive at more reasonable cost estimate, they would be able to supply to other Research Institutes for testing under more varied and field conditions. 3. (i) A pilot scheme to intensively introduce the improved agricultural implements in some selected areas (villages, blocks or districts) in different regions of the country should be formulated. In this case, after an intensive survey of different farming families in the selected areas as regards the use of different implements, the following details should be worked out: (a) Specify the implements which alL the farming families should acquire; (b) The implements which only the larger holdings (af above some specified area) should own. The number of these implements required to do the job of other holdings should be worked out. The arrangements for making available this number could be devised as follows: (i) Cooperative (joint) ownership by neighbouring farmers; (ii) Individual ownership but of different implements to enable.sharing amongstthe neighbouring farmers; (iii) To be purchased by the village society and hired out at custom rates to individuals. (ii) Demonstrations : Proper demonstrations of improved agricultural implements is the key to the success of the program. It is a difficult area 1/. Apart from difficulties in carrying the implements to the fields where demonstration is to be carried out and bring them back to one's headquarters or to other fields and so on, the extension workEr should 1/ In orissa, Agricultural Engineering Graduates interviewed for jobs in the Government had three options viz., Soil Conservation, Water Management (CAD) and Agricultural Implements; none was willing to opt for agricultural implements. have to learn thoroughly to run the implement himself, fewer than the expected number of farmers assemble at the demonstration site (in fact in general not more than 5 to 10), the impact in many cases is difficult to understand and is not significant to recall later on, etc. There are many a bits needed here. One, the extension workers snould be given more than one set or some key implement so that he is not to carry these too trequently from one village to another. Secondly, and more important, there should be efforts to sell while demonstrating because that would be better proof of having convinced the farmers about the usefulness of the implements 2/. It would be worthwhile to try the following sequence: Demonstrate the use on the farmers field and let the implement remain with him (if it cannot be sold out)- Monitor in the following season whether the farmer uses the implement of his own - if not, study why? - If he uses it, it is sure that he is convinced, the implement can be taken back from him, and he would very likely buy it (make sure that he can buy on credit, if he lacks funds). Above all, mobile demonstration units are very important so far as agricultural implements are concerned. Again, these units should carry along with them the saleable stocks of agricultural implements. 4. A more thorough study should be conducted.to investigate the response of different types and size groups of farmers in different agro-economic regions or different farming systems. The constraints to adoption of improved implements should be specifically investigated. This should form a feedback to the pilot scheme envisaged in item 3 above. 2/ Many officials reported that the field extension staff records demonstrations of agricultural implements conducted by him more spuriously than any.other input. Thus when he comes to know of a farmer having bought an implement, he records that he demonstrated, farmer was convinced and so the farmer purchased it. - 76 - Annex I Page 1 of 2 Animal Power Technology Improved Animal Drawn Implements for Tillage and Interculture Identified by Various State Departments of Agriculture for respective States 1. Andhra Pradesh V. Himachal Pradesh 1. Victory plough 1. Disc harrow 2. U.P. Jr. M.B. Plough 2. Peg tooth harrow 3. Single action disc harrow 3. M.B. Plough with tool bar 4. Spike tooth harrow 4. S.S. Plough tool-bar type 5. Bund former 5. S.S. Plough with hanle and beam 6. Cultivator-cum-ridger 6. 3 tyne cultivator 7. Bullock dozor (swastick) 7. 5 tyne cultivator 8. Ridge ploughs 8. Ridger 9. Push cultivator 9. Crust Breaker-cum-light soil pulveriser 10. Land leveller II. Assam VI. Jammu & Kashmir 1. M.B. Plough 2. .Bullock drawn disc harrow 1. Tawi plough (1.B Type) 3. Reversible M.B Plough (Japanese 2. Soil stirring plough design) 3. Disc harrow (5 disc) 4. Dry land weeder. 4. Triphali (Adjustable three tine plough) III. Bihar VII. Karnataka 1. Plough (Wah-Wah & Shabash) 1. K.M. Plough 2. Cultivator (3 tyne) 2. K.M. Cultivator 3. Disc harrow 3. M.N. Plough . 4. Spike harrow 4. Bund former 5. Puddler 5. Wetland puddler 6. V-blade hoe 6. Leveller 7. Gujar Plough IV. Gujarat VIII. Kerala 1. Iron plough 1. M.B. Plough Kara-III - A. 2. M.B. plough 2. M.B. Plough Kara-III - B. 3. Blade harrow (Bakhar) 3. Paddy weeder-Kara-I - A. 4. Disc harrow 4. Paddy weeder-Kara-I - B. 5. Cultivator . 6. Wet land puddler I Madhra Pradesh 7. Leveller (American) or Patari 1. Shabash M.B. Plough 8. Anand Karabadi 2. Wah-Wah Junior cultivator 9. Baroda hoe 3. Paddy weeder 10. Iron Karobs 11. Multipurpose santi ) -Annex I Page 2 of 2 X. Maharashtra XVI. Rajasthan 1. Chisel type wooden plough(Indigenous) 1. Disc harrow 2. Reversible M.B. Plough 2. Disc plough 3. Blade harrow (Bakhar) 3. Leveller 4. Interculturing hoe (indigenous) 4. Tillers 5. Sugarcane earthing up equipment 6. Iron Keni (Kand leveller) XVII. Tamil Nadu 7. Ridger 1. Chisel plough 8. Akola hoe 2. Sweep 9. Karjat hand hoe 3. Cage wheel. 10. Japanese hoe XI. Manipur XVIII. Uttar Pradesh 1. M.B. Plough 1. Care plough 2. Disc harrow 2. Sabhash plough 3. Reversible M.B. Plough (Japanese design) 3. Dhangu plough 4. Dry land weeder 4. Disc harrow 5. Paddy weeder 5. Singh Patela 6. Puddler XII. Meghalaya 7. Scraper 1. M.B. Plough 8. Levelling Karaba 2. Bullock drawn disc harrow 9. 2 tine cultivator 3. Reversible M.B. Plough (Japanese design) 10. Iron Dangla 4. Dry land weeder 11. Bund former 5. Paddy weeder. XIII. Nagaland XIX. Tripura 1. Assam type M.B. Plough 1. Iron plough (M.B) 4" 2. Paddy weeder 2. Paddy weeder XIV. Orissa UNION TERRITORIES 1. M.B. Plough (Steel plough) I. Andaman'& Nicobar 2. Disc harrow 1. M.B. Plough (Medium) 3. 3 tyne cultivator with & without 2. Cultivator seeding attachment II. Arunachal Pradesh 4. Puddlers (wooden & steel) 1. Burmare plough 5. Wheel hoe XV . Punjab III. Delhi 1. Wooden plough 1. M.B. Plough-shear size 2. Iron plough 2. Soil stirring plough 3. Disc*harrow 3. Punjab Single actiondise harrow 4. Cultivator 4. Punjab offset disc harrow 5. Triphali & cultivator IV. Pondicherry 6. 3 tine cultivator 1. Iron plough 7. Blade scraper or bakhar 2. Disc harrow 8. Bar harrow 3. Cultivator 9. Paddy puddler 10. Bund former -79 - ANNEX II ANIMAL POWER TECENOLOGY Some Recommendations of the National Commission on Agriculture 1. An exhaustive survey should be made to find out the causes for low acceptance of improved types of implements and machinery and the continued preference to wooden plough. 2. Improvement of the wooden plough or its replacement with a more acceptable form of the iron plough and the development of suitable types for different regions should receive due attention in research work. There should be a publicity drive to popularise the improved types. 3. Causes as to why a useful implement like blade harrow is not finding favour in northern alluvial tracts are to be assessed and attempts should be made to introduce it in the existing or modified form. 4. The use of levellers should be popularised both in rainfed as well as irrigated areas to make water management more efficient. 5. More attention is required to be paid to research on the entire system of land preparation in different regions of the country. 6. Extension work to promote improved land preparation implements and their right use is needed. Sale and service network to make these implements more easily available and a system of custom hire service at the village level are also required. 7. Appropriate types of seed drills should be introduced and local artisans trained to manufacture them and farmers to use them. Agricultural universities should intensify research in improving the irills. Suggestions from local artisans and farmers may be invited in this regard and some incentive rewards offered. 8. The new paddy transplanter developed in Orissa should be tried and improved further for adoption in all paddy growing areas. 9. The use of implements for inter-cultivation should be popularised along with drill sowing or dibbling. The indigenous hoes require improvement. The use of weedicides could also be encouraged to do away with the drudgery of hand operations. 10. Improved tools of standardised shapes should be made available locally at low price. Steel of desired quality should be made available to production centres at f*ir price through special steel banks.