Impact of National Horticulture Mission (NHM)

i

Research Study No. 142

Impact of the National Horticulture Mission Scheme

in Rajasthan

Mrutyunjay Swain

Ramesh H Patel

Manish Kant Ojha

Agro Economic Research Centre Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat

September 2011

Impact of National Horticulture Mission

Scheme in Rajasthan

Sardar Patel University

Vallabh Vidyanagar - 388120, Gujarat

Agro-Economic Research Centre

Research Study No. 142

September 2011

Mrutyunjay Swain

Ramesh H. Patel

Manish Kant Ojha

ii

iii

Foreword

National Horticulture Mission (NHM), a centrally sponsored scheme, has been implemented in

2005-06 in India to promote holistic growth of the horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables,

root and tuber crops, mushroom, spices, flowers, medicinal and aromatic plants etc. The main

objective of the Mission is to promote the horticulture sector through area based regionally

differentiated cluster approach for development of horticultural crops having comparative

advantage. The mission envisages an end- to-end approach covering production, post harvest

management (PHM), primary processing and marketing for which, assistance is being provided

to farmers, entrepreneurs, besides organizations in the public and private sector. Since the

programme has entered in the sixth year, it is imperative to analyze the impact of the

programme vis-à-vis objectives of the NHM scheme especially for the major focused crops in

terms of area expansion, increase in production and productivity. As the focus is on cluster

approach for holistic development of potential crops, it was necessary to undertake in-depth

study in respect of selected crops taken up for development. It was, therefore, proposed to carry

out crop based impact evaluation study in different states through the Agro Economic Research

Centres (AERCs) and units. The Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar was

entrusted to conduct the study in Rajasthan state.

Dr Mrutyunjay Swain, Research Officer at our Centre and his research team have done

this excellent piece of research work. The work has been based on both primary and secondary

data collected from four districts of Rajasthan state, namely, Banswara, Jaipur, Chittorgarh and

Alwar covering 200 NHM beneficiary households. On the basis of survey findings, policy

relevant suggestions have been made to bring about improvement in implementation of NHM. I

am highly thankful to Dr M. Swain, Mr. Manish Kant Ojha and the research team for putting in

lot of efforts to complete this excellent piece of work.

We were asked by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India to undertake this

study. We are equally grateful to R. Viswanathan, Economic & Statistical Advisor, Directorate

of Economics and Statistics; Mr. V. P. Ahuja, Additional Economic Advisor, Ministry of

Agriculture; Mr. B. S. Bhandari, Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture; and Mr. B. Naik, Economic

Officer, Ministry of Agriculture for their encouragement and unquantifiable help at every stage

of study. I wish to thank Mr. Sita Ram Jat, Deputy Director (Horticulture), NHM Rajasthan,

Prof. Parmod Kumar, ISEC, Bangalore who acted as a coordinator of the study and other

agencies/ individuals who have provided valuable help / guidance in preparing this report. It is

hoped that this report will be useful for those who are interested in horticultural development in

our country.

Vallabh Vidyanagar Prof. R. H. Patel

Director

September 15, 2011 Agro Economic Research Centre

Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar

Gujarat, India

iv

v

Preface

India grows a wide variety of horticultural crops. Horticultural development in our country was

given major emphasis from mid eighties onwards with a realization that diversification to

horticultural crops is the major option for improving livelihood security of farming community

with improved employment opportunities, better food and nutrition security and higher income

through value addition. Government of India has launched several programmes through which

area expansion, improvement in production and productivity of horticultural crops and increase

in foreign exchange earnings through export have taken place. National Horticulture Mission

(NHM) scheme is one such programme which was implemented in 2005-06 in 18 States and 3

Union Territories of India excluding the states covered under Horticulture Mission for North

East and Himalayan States (HMNEH) to promote holistic growth of the horticulture sector. In

Rajasthan, the NHM scheme is being implemented in 24 districts with cluster approach by the

Rajasthan Horticulture Development Society through District Mission Committees involving

farmers, societies, NGOs, grower associations, SHGs, state institutions etc. The study was

undertaken to evaluate the performance of NHM scheme in the selected districts of Rajasthan

covering the period from 2004-05 to 2008-09.

I am extremely thankful to our Director Dr. R. H. Patel for providing all out

administrative and intellectual support for undertaking this study along with revising the draft

and pointing out the areas of improvement. I am also thankful to our Honorary Advisor Dr. M.

T. Pathak, former Honorary Director Dr. H. P. Trivedi, Deputy Director Dr. R. A. Dutta and

Research Officer Mr. V. D. Shah for their stimulating discussions at different points of time

which helped to enrich the study. I register my sincere thanks to Prof. Parmod Kumar, Institute

for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore who, as a coordinator of the study, provided

necessary intellectual support as and when required. I gratefully acknowledge the excellent

support provided by Mr Sita Ram Jat, Deputy Director (Horticulture), NHM Rajasthan and all

the Horticulture Department officials at different study districts for the smooth conduct of the

study.

I appreciate the research team for their sincere effort and keen interest in undertaking the

study. I thank Mr. Manish Kant Ojha for preparing the preliminary draft of some chapters based

on primary data tables, besides contributing to data collection, data entry and tabulation. I thank

Mr. Shreekant Sharma for preparing valuable notes on field observations during the field

survey. I thank Dr. Shantilal Bhaiya, Field Officer and Ms. Kalpana Kapadia, Research

Associate for their association during the initial stage of the project. I am thankful to Mr. Vinod

Parmer for providing secretarial assistance, all administrative staff and other support staff for

providing excellent support during the study. I am grateful to all the respondents for furnishing

the required information in a spontaneous and friendly manner.

This study is a modest attempt to assess the impact of NHM scheme on expansion of

area, production and productivity of selected horticultural crops and improvement in income

and employment of farmers in Rajasthan which is one of the leading states promoting

horticultural development. This study will be useful to agricultural scientists, economists, non-

governmental organizations, policy makers and planners in understanding the performance of

NHM, associated problems and the prospects for horticultural development in Rajasthan.

Mrutyunjay Swain

Principal Investigator

vi

vii

Research Team

Activities Name Designation

Principal Investigator Dr. Mrutyunjay Swain Research Officer

Co- Principal Investigator Dr. R. H. Patel Director

Drafting Dr. Mrutyunjay Swain Research Officer

Dr. R. H. Patel Director

Mr. Manish Kant Ojha Research Associate

Tabulation Mr. Manish Kant Ojha Research Associate

Data Entry Mr. Manish Kant Ojha Research Associate

Data Collection Mr. Manish Kant Ojha Research Associate

Mr. Shreekant Sharma Research Associate

Mr. Jashwant Singh Computer Operator

viii

ix

Table of Contents

Content Page No.

Foreword iii

Preface v

Research Team vii

Table of Contents ix

List of Tables xii

List of Figures xv

List of Annexure Tables xvi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

1.1 Rationale of the study 1

1.2 Background of horticultural crops in the State 5

1.3 Main objectives of the Study 8

1.4 Data and methodology 8

1.5 An overview 11

1.6 Limitations of the study 12

Chapter 2: Area, Production and Productivity of Horticultural Crops 15

in the State

2.1 Status of horticultural crops in the state 15

2.2 Impact of NHM on growth of horticultural crops in the state 17

2.3 District wise growth of horticultural crops and impact of NHM 22

2.4 Growth of area and production of selected crops under NHM 27

2.5 District wise area and production growth of selected crops under NHM 33

2.6 Summary of the chapter 39

x

Chapter 3: Household characteristics, Cropping Pattern 43

and Production Structure

3.1. Socio-economic characteristics of the selected farmers 43

3.2. Characteristics of operational holdings 45

3.3 Nature of tenancy 46

3.4 Sources of irrigation 47

3.5 Sources and purpose of credit 48

3.6 Holdings of productive farm assets 52

3.7 Cropping pattern of sample farmers 54

3.8 Irrigated cropping pattern 56

3.9 Area under HYV and organic farming 54

3.10 Production, cost and returns by farm size 61


Chapter 4: The Production Structure and Resource Use 66

under Horticultural Crops

4.1 Economics of production, cost and resource use in horticulture 66

4.2 Net returns from horticultural versus non horticultural crops 79

4.3 Use of human labour in horticultural versus non horticultural crops 81

4.4 Marketing channels of horticultural crops 86

4.5 On farm processing activities in horticultural crops 89


Chapter 5: Impact of NHM on the Expansion of Horticultural Crops 93

5.1. Impact of NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops 93

5.2. Rejuvenation/protection, resource procurement through NHM 97

5.3 NHM reaching to the households with resource provision 99

5.4 Subsidy provision under NHM 101

5.5 Capacity building by NHM 106

5.6 Perception of households about NHM 108


xi

Chapter 6: Concluding Remarks and Policy Suggestions 115

6.1 Introduction 115

6.2 Summary of findings 115

6.3 Policy suggestions 125

References 134

Annexure Tables 136

Annexure Plates 153

Appendix I: Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report 158

Appendix II: Action Taken on Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report 159

xii

List of Tables

Table Title Page No.

1.1 Distribution of sample farmers by locations, crops and castes 10

2.1 District wise geographical, cultivable and horticultural crop 16

area in Rajasthan (hectares)

2.2 Area and production of horticulture crops in Rajasthan 18

(TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09)

2.3 Growth rate in area and yield of horticulture crops 19

in Rajasthan (%)

2.4 Area and production of horticultural crops at district level 23

in Rajasthan ( TE 2004-05))


in Rajasthan ( TE 2008-09)2010)

2.6 Average annual growth rate in area and yield of horticulture 25

crops at district level in Rajasthan from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09

2.7 Area and production of selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan 29

2.8 Growth rate in area and yield rate of selected horticulture crops 30

in Rajasthan (%)

2.9 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district 35

Level in Rajasthan (TE 2004-05)

2.10 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at 36

district level in Rajasthan (TE 2008-09)

2.11 Average annual growth rate in area and yield of selected 37

horticulture crops at district level in Rajasthan from

TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 percent per annum

3.1 Demographic profile of the selected farmers (% of households) 44

3.2 Characteristics of operational holdings (acres per household) 46

3.3 Nature of tenancy in leasing-in land in acres 47

xiii

3.4 Source of irrigation of net operated area in acres 47

3.5 Details of source of credit by the selected households 49

3.6 Details of purpose of credit by the selected households 51

(Rs per households)

3.7 Ownership of productive farm assets 53

3.8 Cropping pattern of sample farmers (area in acre per HH) 55

3.9 Cropwise distribution of irrigated area of sample farmers 57

3.10 Area under HYV crops (Area in acre per HH) 59

3.11 Area under organic farming (Area in acre per HH) 61

3.12 A Value of output, cost and net returns per households for 62

the 2008-09 – 58 aggregate of all crops (Rs/HH)

3.12 B Value of output, cost and net returns per acre for 63

the 2008-09 – 58 aggregate of all crops (Rs/HH)

4.1 Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from 69

aonla crop


papaya crop


coriander crop


mango crop

4.5 Net returns (gross value of output - total cost) from horticultural 80

and non-horticultural crops

4.6 Use of human labour in crop production (Man days per acre) 83

4.7 Use of human labour in all horticultural crops by 85

activities (man days per acre)

4.8 Marketing channels through which horticultural products 87

were sold by the selected households during 2008-09 (Qtls/HH)

5.1 Impact of NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops 94

5.2 Area rejuvenated/protected through NHM resource provision 97

(Acre/HH under rejuvenation)

xiv

5.3 Increase in area and productivity due to rejuvenation/protection 98

supported by the NHM

5.4 Sources of NHM resource procurement for all crops 99

during 2004-05 to 2009-10 (Percentage of households)

5.5 Promotional activities of NHM (No of HHs saying 'yes') 100

5.6 Details of Subsidy Provided by NHM 103

5.7 Sources of training/dissemination activity provided to the farmers 107

5.8 Perception of households about the NHM 110

(% of households saying 'yes')

xv

List of Figures

Sr. No. Title Page No.

Figure 1.1 Agro-climate of Rajasthan state 5

Figure 1.2 The study region - four districts of Rajasthan state in India 9

Figure 2.1 Growth of area and production of horticultural crops in Rajasthan 20

Figure 2.2 Composition of horticultural crops in Rajasthan during 20

1980-81 and 2008-09

Figure 3.1 Distribution of borrowings excluding a major outlier 51

Figure 4.1 Output produced per acre of study crops in Rajasthan 78

Figure 4.2 Net returns per acre of study crops in Rajasthan 79

xvi

List of Annexure Tables

Annexure Title Page No.

1.1 Year wise physical and financial progress of NHM in Rajasthan 136

1.2 Component wise details of physical and financial progress 137

under NHM from 2005-06 to 2010-11

1.3 List of villages covered under the survey 138

2.1 Area and production of horticulture crops in Rajasthan 139


in Rajasthan 2002-03

2.3 Area and production of horticultural crops at district 141

level in Rajasthan 2003-04









2.8 Area under selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan 146

2.9 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district 147

level in Rajasthan (2002-03)


district level in Rajasthan (2003-04)

2. 11 Area and production of selected horticultural crops at 149








1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Rationale of the Study

Endowed with diverse soil and climate conditions, India produces a wide variety of fruits,

vegetables, root and tuber crops, flowers, ornamental plants, medicinal and aromatic plants,

spices, condiments, plantation crops and mushrooms. These crops form a significant part of

total agricultural produce in the country. All horticulture crops put together covered nearly

208.76 million hectares area with an annual production of 223.09 million tonnes during 2009-

10 (NHB, 2010). Though these crops occupy about 10.7 per cent of the gross cropped area,

they contribute over 30 per cent to the agricultural GDP and 37 per cent of total export of

agricultural commodities in the country. The area and production of horticultural crops have

increased considerably as compared to the situation a couple of decades ago. The area under

horticulture crops has increased from 12.77 million ha in 1991-92 to 20.88 million ha in

2009-10 with the corresponding increase in production from 96.52 million tonnes to 223.1

million tonnes. Thus there has been an unparalleled increase in area and production during

this period amounting to 63.5 and 131.1 per cent, respectively. So the horticulture sector is

expected to play a major role in the overall development of agriculture in the country in the

coming years. Furthermore, the Indian farmers are eager to find new avenues for diversifying

their crops through interventions in horticulture.

India has made significant strides in area expansion, overall increase in production

and productivity of horticultural crops. The horticultural crops play a unique role in India‟s

economy by improving the income of the rural people. Cultivation of these crops generates

lot of employment opportunities for the rural population. The per capita consumption of fruits

and vegetables has increased over the plan periods. As against the recommended dose of per

capita consumption of 120 gm of fruits and 280 gm of vegetables the present availability of

fruits is 97 gm and 195 gm of vegetables (GoI, 2007). However, due to increasing export of

horticultural crops, the per capita availability of these crops has been further reduced. We are

yet to produce adequate fruit and vegetable to satisfy the per capita supply of fruits and

vegetables for the growing population. Overall there is huge potential for horticulture sector

to grow to meet the rising demands in Indian market.

2

Horticultural crops occupy a significant place in human diet and provide required

vitamins and minerals necessary for human growth. Fruits and vegetables are also rich source

of vitamins, minerals, proteins, carbohydrates etc. Hence, these are considered as protective

foods and assumed great importance as nutritional security of the people. Thus, cultivation of

horticultural crops plays a vital role in the prosperity of a nation and is directly linked with

the health and happiness of the people. Fruits and vegetables are not only used for domestic

consumption and processing into various products such as pickles, preserves sauces, jam,

jelly squash etc. but also substantial quantities are exported in fresh and processed form,

bringing much-needed foreign exchange for the country.

India with more than 71.5 million tonnes of fruits and 133.7 million tonnes of

vegetables is the second largest producer of fruits and vegetables in the world next only to

Brazil (for fruits) and China (for vegetables). India is the largest producer of fruits likes

mango, banana, papaya, sapota, pomegranate and aonla (NHB, 2010). In terms of

productivity of grapes, India ranks first in the world. India also ranks first in production of

peas and okra. India ranks second in cultivation of vegetables like brinjal, cauliflower,

cabbage, potato and onion. India is the largest producer, consumer and exporter of spices and

spice products in the world.

As a result of synergy between focused research, technological and policy initiatives,

horticulture in India has become a sustainable and viable venture for the small and marginal

farmers. Besides, the sector has also started attracting entrepreneurs for taking up horticulture

as a commercial venture. A large number of programmes are in operation for further

development sector in the country. The production, productivity and export of horticultural

output have significantly increased over few decades in the country. The demand of

horticultural produce is also on rise due to increasing population, changing food habits,

realization of high nutritional value of horticultural crops and greater emphasis on value

addition and export. Therefore, there is a great scope for the horticulture industry to grow and

flourish in our country. The prospect of horticulture in our country vis-à-vis the need for

attaining nutritional security and more profitable use of available land has brought about a

significant change in the outlook of the growers. The need for great utilization of available

wastelands against the background of dwindling water and energy resources has focused

attention to dry, arid and semi-arid tracts and to horticultural crops that demand less water

and other inputs besides being more remunerative than field crops. It is estimated that India

has 51.97 million hectares of uncultivated lands and fallow lands which can be brought under

horticultural crops without curtailing the area under food crops. The country has abundant

3

sunshine throughout year, surplus labour and widely varied agro-climatic conditions, which

offer high potential for successful and profitable commercial horticulture. Thus Government

of India has launched National Horticulture Mission (NHM) scheme to facilitate further

development of horticultural crops in India and to ensure forward and backward linkages

with the active participation of all the stakeholders.

National Horticulture Mission (NHM) has been implemented in 2005-06 in 18 States

and 3 Union Territories of India excluding the states covered under Horticulture Mission for

North East and Himalayan States (HMNEH) to promote holistic growth of the horticulture

sector covering fruits, vegetables, root & tuber crops, mushroom, spices, flowers, aromatic

plants, cashew and cocoa. HMNEH is a separate Technology Mission restructured in 2002-03

for integrated development of horticulture in North Eastern States including Sikkim and the

states of Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttaranchal. The major thrust areas under

NHM and HMNEH are setting up and nurturing of nurseries for production of quality

planting materials, area expansion, rejuvenation of old orchards, high density planting,

canopy management, protected cultivation, organic farming, IPM, INM, creation of pack

house / on farm handling, collection and storage unit, pre cooling unit, mobile pre cooling

unit, cold storage units (construction / expansion / modernization), CA/MA storage units,

refer vans, containers, primary / mobile / minimal processing unit, ripening chamber,

evaporative / low energy cool chamber, preservation unit, low cost onion storage, and market

infrastructure development etc.

NHM is a centrally sponsored scheme in which Government of India provided 100

per cent assistance to the State Missions during Tenth Plan. With effect from the XI Plan

(2007-08), the State Government is contributing 15 per cent of total outlay (GoI, 2010). The

Scheme has been approved „in principle‟ for implementation up to the end of XI Five Year

Plan. The main objectives of the Mission are:

To provide holistic growth of the horticulture sector through an area based

regionally differentiated strategies which include research, technology promotion,

extension, post harvest management, processing and marketing, in consonance

with comparative advantage of each State/region and its diverse agro-climatic

feature;

To enhance horticulture production, improve nutritional security and income

support to farm households;

To establish convergence and synergy among multiple on-going and planned

programmes for horticulture development;

4

To promote, develop and disseminate technologies, through a seamless blend of

traditional wisdom and modern scientific knowledge;

To create opportunities for employment generation for skilled and unskilled

persons, especially unemployed youth.

To achieve the above objectives, the mission adopted the following strategies:

Ensure an end-to-end holistic approach covering production, post harvest

management, processing and marketing to assure appropriate returns to

growers/producers;

Promote R&D technologies for production, post-harvest management and

processing;

Enhance acreage, coverage, and productivity through:

(a) Diversification, from traditional crops to plantations, orchards, vineyards,

flower and vegetable gardens;

(b) Extension of appropriate technology to the farmers for high-tech horticulture

cultivation and precision farming.

Assist setting up post harvest facilities such as pack house, ripening chamber, cold

storages, Controlled Atmosphere (CA) storages etc, processing units for value

addition and marketing infrastructure;

Adopt a coordinated approach and promotion of partnership, convergence and

synergy among R&D, processing and marketing agencies in public as well as

private sectors, at the National, Regional, State and sub-State levels;

Where appropriate and feasible, promote National Dairy Development Board

(NDDB) model of cooperatives to ensure support and adequate returns to farmers;

Promote capacity-building and Human Resource Development at all levels.

The main objective of the Mission is to promote the holistic growth of the horticulture

sector through area based regionally differentiated cluster approach for development of

horticultural crops having comparative advantage. The mission envisages an end- to-end

approach covering production, post harvest management (PHM), primary processing and

marketing for which, assistance is being provided to farmers, entrepreneurs, besides

organizations in the public and private sector. Since the programme has entered in the sixth

year, there was a need to access and analyze the impact of the programme vis-à-vis objectives

of the NHM scheme especially for the major focused crops in terms of area expansion,

increase in production and productivity. Since the focus is on cluster approach for holistic

5

development of potential crops, it was necessary to undertake in-depth study in respect of

selected crops taken up for development.

1.2 Background of Horticultural Crops in the State

Rajasthan is the largest state of India constituting 10.4 per cent of total geographical area and

5.5 per cent of total population of India. About two-third population of the state are

dependent on agriculture and allied activities for their livelihood. The three major canal

irrigations, other than the vast area under arid and dry lands offer great production potential

for horticulture. Area specific, economically viable and technically feasible horticulture

development activities undertaken in the state during past few decades have contributed a lot

to overall development of horticulture in the state. The state is divided into 7 divisions, 33

districts, which are further subdivided into 244 Tehsils, 249 Panchayat Samitis and 9,168

Gram Panchayats (GoR, 2009a). Out of these 33 districts, the programmes of National

Horticulture Mission are being implemented in 24 districts of the State. The state has well

identified 10 agro-climatic zones. The state is endowed with diverse soil and weather

conditions comprising of several agro climatic situations, warm humid in south eastern parts

to dry cool in western parts of the state. The diversity in climatic conditions of the state

creates potentiality to develop certain belts of horticultural crops in the State.

As stated in Figure

1.1, the arid zone of

Rajasthan spread in 12

districts of Rajasthan

occupied about 61 per

cent of total area of

Rajasthan. The semi-arid

and humid regions

account for about 16 per

cent and 15 per cent of the

total area of Rajasthan,

while sub-humid region in

Rajasthan constitutes

about 8 per cent of total landmass. Rajasthan has varying topographic features though a major

part of the state is dominated by parched and dry region. The extensive topography includes

rocky terrain, rolling sand dunes, wetlands, barren tracts or land filled with thorny scrubs,

Figure 1.1: Agro-climate of Rajasthan state

6

river-drained plains, plateaus, ravines and wooded regions. Five distinct specifications of

soils viz., Aridiosols, alfisols, entisols, inceptisols and vertisols are found in the state.

The diverse agro-ecological conditions prevailing in the state is amenable for growing

horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers, root and tuber crops, medicinal and

aromatic crops. Out of the net cultivated area of about 165 lakh hectares in Rajasthan,

horticultural crops are grown in an area of about 10 lakh hectares with an annual production

of about 14 lakh tonnes. The area and production of horticultural crops has shown fluctuating

trend over last few years. The growth observed in horticultural production was 5.8 per cent

from 2001-02 to 2003-04 and was 9.8 per cent from 2001-02 to 2003-04, which needs to

increase to 10.87 per cent for doubling production (GoR, 2009b). The state is a leading

producer of spices and has a substantial area under vegetable crops. The area under spices

and vegetables has grown from 4.16 lakh hectares and 1.23 lakh hectares during 2004-05 to

5.37 lakh hectares and 1.26 lakh hectares respectively during 2008-09. The production of

spices and vegetables has grown from 4.24 lakh tonnes and 6.14 lakh tonnes during 2004-05

to 5.36 lakh tonnes and 7.37 lakh tonnes respectively during 2008-09. Vegetables, spices and

fruits constituted about 39.43 per cent, 28.68 per cent and 25.94 per cent of total horticultural

production respectively in the state during 2008-09(Annexure 2.1). The state is one of the

biggest producers of coriander, cumin, isabagol and fenugreek. The state also produces

variety of other horticultural crops like oranges, kinnow, lime, aonla, chillies, garlic, ajowain,

suwa, onion, tomato, pea, cucurbitaceous vegetable and medicinal & aromatic crops like

sonamukhi, ashwangdha etc. providing surplus produce for processing and export (GoI,

2011).

Rajasthan is having prominent position in production of seed spices in the country.

Besides some other crops also have prime positions at production in the country. The state

contributes about of 66.51 per cent of total coriander produced in India. About 33 per cent of

country‟s cumin, 82 per cent of its fenugreek, 14 per cent of its garlic, 7 per cent of its

mandarin, 6 per cent of its fennel, almost all its psyllium husk (isabgol), myrtle (henna) and

ajwain are produced in Rajasthan. The state also produces best export quality kinnow and is

becoming one of the largest producers of aonla. The diversity in climatic conditions in the

state creates scope to develop following belts of horticultural crops in the state (GoI, 2011):

• Mandarin-Warm humid areas of Jhalawar

• Kinnow-Dry and cool climate of Ganganagar

• Pomegranate-arid irrigated parts of State

• Ber-Western parts of the State

7

• Aonla-Central semi arid parts

• Papaya-Central parts of the state

• Mango-Southern humid parts

• Low volume high value spice cumin-Barmer, Jalore, Pali, Jodhpur, Nagaur,

• Coriander-Kota, Baran, Jhalawar, Bundi, Chittorgarh

• Fennel-Sirohi, Tonk

• Garlic-Jodhpur, Chittorgarh, Baran, Jhalawar, Kota

• Isabgol-Barmer, Jalore

• Mehandi-Pali

These crops along with flowers (Dutch rose, desi rose and gerbera) are the focus crops

for the state those are being promoted with cluster approach near the existing infrastructure

for pre and post harvest, market, processing and AEZ's having a minimum area of 50 ha in

each district. The market linkages, returns to farmers, production advantage and export

potential are the basis of selecting these crops as the focus crops for the state.

The SWOT analysis of horticulture in Rajasthan conducted by Robo India (2005)

reveals that the major advantageous factors for Rajasthan are favorable climate for production

of quality seed spices, ber, mandarin, kinnow, pomegranate and aonla and available surplus

in spices, onion and pea. However, some weaknesses for horticultural development in the

state are lesser-availability of quality seeds of vegetable and spices and quality planting

material of fruits, lack of water resources, poor post harvest management and marketing

facilities like cold storage, pre-cooling and waxing centers, and processing units. The

opportunities for the state are larger scope in area expansion of fruits – dry land agriculture,

potential to increase production and export of seed spices, vast potential of medicinal and

aromatic plants. However some major threat for the horticultural crops in Rajasthan are high

cost of production, poor price stability and lack of remunerative prices to farmers and the

problem of chronic diseases and frost.

The National Horticulture Mission is being implemented from 2005-06 for holistic

development of horticulture sector in the state. In Rajasthan, the NHM scheme is being

implemented in 24 districts with cluster approach by the Rajasthan Horticulture Development

Society through District Mission Committees involving farmers, societies, NGOs, grower

associations, SHGs, state institutions etc. The districts of Rajasthan covered under the

program includes Alwar, Ajmer, Banswara,Barmer, Baran, Bhilwara, Bundi, Chittorgarh,

Dungarpur, Jaipur, Jalore, Jaisalmer, Jhalawar, Jhunjhunu, Jodhpur, Karauli, Kota, Nagaur,

Pali, Sawai Madhopur, Sirohi, Sri Ganganagar, Tonk, and Udaipur. The focus crops

8

identified under NHM for Rajasthan state include aonla, mandarin, kinnow, ber, lemon,

guava, bael, pomegranate, papaya, spices, flowers, medicinal and aromatic plants. The major

activities being undertaken through NHM in the state are production and distribution of

planting material, vegetable seed production, area expansion, rejuvenation of old and senile

orchards, creation of community water resources, protected cultivation, IPM/INM, organic

farming, pollination support through bee-keeping, development of post harvest management

and marketing infrastructures and human resource development. The details of the year wise

physical and financial progress of NHM in Rajasthan from 2005-06 to 2010-2011 has been

presented in Annexure 1.1 and the component wise details of physical and financial progress

under National Horticulture Mission (NHM) from 2005-06 to 2010-11 has been presented in

Annexure 1.2.

1.3 Main Objectives of the Study

The study will have the following objectives:

To assess the impact in terms of increase in area, production and productivity of

identified horticultural crops covered under NHM, keeping 2004-05 as the base year

for the state of Rajasthan in general and for the identified crops/districts in particular.

To assess the extent to which the scheme has helped in creating employment

opportunities and enhancement of income of the farmers.

To suggest measures for improving the implementation strategy of NHM in

Rajasthan.

1.4 Data and Methodology

This study covering selected districts of Rajasthan state is a part of a major project that covers

16 states of India to study the impact of NHM scheme on the expansion of area, production

and productivity of identified horticultural crops and to assess the extent to which the scheme

has helped in creating employment opportunities and enhancement of income of the farmers.

For the state of Rajasthan, the study was conducted in four districts, viz., Alwar, Jaipur,

Chittorgarh and Banswara as shown in Figure 1.2. The study covers the implementation of

the NHM programme till 2008-09. Four selected crops considered for the detailed study were

aonla in Jaipur district, coriander in Chittorgarh, mango in Banswara and papaya in Alwar

and Banswara districts.

(i) The assigned study has been based on intensive sample survey by the concerned

officials/members of the study team and other concerned officials/State Government

9

representatives through participatory discussions and structural interviews/questionnaires

by visits and personal interviews.

(ii) Main reliance has been on primary data. The primary data included complete list of

farmers with general background, details like category of farmers, land-holding, number

of horticultural crops covered under NHM clusters, source of planting, area under these

crops, source and type of irrigation system, quantity produced, its suitability for food

processing and preservation etc., relative costs and economics of production of identified

crops.

As per the study design, from each districts, two villages were to be selected, keeping into

account the cropping pattern in each of these districts taking one village near the periphery of

district headquarters or accessible mandi/market and one village from a distant place to

realize the effect of distance factor in the findings. We required to survey 50 NHM

beneficiaries for each crop from two villages in the study districts. So a total of 200 NHM

beneficiaries were to be covered under the Rajasthan study.

Figure 1: The Study Region - Four districts of Rajasthan state in India

Figure1.2: The Study Region - Four districts of Rajasthan state in India

Rajasthan

India

R A J A S T H A N

Chittorgarh Banswara

10

However, preliminary investigation revealed that sufficient number of beneficiaries

were not available in the earlier stipulated two villages of a district in Rajasthan since the

NHM beneficiaries were very thinly distributed over different villages. Thus with the

permission of Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and Coordinating Centre, we had

relaxed the number of villages restriction. So, a total of 200 households were selected from

77 villages of four allotted districts of Rajasthan as stated below in Table 1.1. Annexure 1.3

contains the list of all 77 villages covered under survey. The households were classified into

four categories such as (1) Marginal Farmer (MF) having operational land holding size up to

2.5 acres, (2) Small Farmer (SF) having operational land holding size more than 2.5 acres but

up to 5 acres, (3) Medium Farmer (MDF) having operational land holding size more than 5

acres but up to 10 acres and (4) Large Farmer (LF) having operational land holding size of

more than 10 acres.

Table 1.1: Distribution of sample farmers by locations, crops and castes

Sr. No. District Tehsil/Taluk Study crops No. of

villages

Caste wise distribution of sample farmers

SC ST OBC General Total

1 Jaipur Amer Aonla 4 0 0 4 0 4

2 Jaipur Chomu Aonla 22 1 4 33 8 46

3 Chittorgarh Rawatbahata Coriander 9 1 0 27 0 28

4 Chittorgarh Begu Coriander 2 1 3 12 6 22

5 Banswara Gadhi Mango 10 0 13 2 3 18

6 Banswara Banswara Mango/Papaya 6 0 17 4 9 30

7 Banswara Ghatol Mango/Papaya 7 1 10 12 2 25

8 Alwar Umrain Papaya 5 0 6 0 0 6

9 Alwar Ramgadh Papaya 1 0 0 1 0 1

10 Alwar Mundawar Papaya 4 0 4 3 0 7

11 Alwar Alwar Papaya 1 0 0 3 0 3

12 Alwar Kishangarh Papaya 2 0 0 2 0 2

13 Alwar Kotkashim Papaya 1 0 2 0 0 2

14 Alwar Rajgadh Papaya 1 1 3 0 0 4

15 Alwar Tizara Papaya 1 0 0 1 0 1

16 Alwar Katumar Papaya 1 0 1 0 0 1

Total 77 5 63 104 28 200

(2.5) (31.5) (52.0) (14.0) (100.0)

Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total number of farmers.

Source: Field survey

Members of Growers Associations, Pradhan /Pramukh of village, block, district level

and state level concerned functionaries were also interviewed. While selecting the sample,

care was taken to represent all the section of the society such as small and marginal farmers,

11

SC/ST farmers and women folk, so that outreach of the programme to these sections is also

reflected in the study. It may be noted from Table 1.1 that the majority of our sample

households (52%) belonged to OBC category whereas about 31.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent

households were STs and SCs respectively. Data were analyzed using simple statistical tools

such as averages, percentages and growth rates.

1.5 An Overview

The findings of this study on the impact of NHM in Rajasthan have been presented in six

chapters including Introduction. The introductory chapter discusses the premises, importance,

objectives and methodology of the study.

The 2nd chapter which is based on the secondary data analyses the performance and

functioning of NHM in terms of the growth of area, production and yield of horticultural

crops in the state of Rajasthan. The growth of area and production of different types of

horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal & aromatic plants in

the state from triennium ending (TE) 1980-81 to TE 2008-09 has been analyzed so as to

identify the impact of NHM on the growth of horticulture in the state. The district level

analysis has also been made on expansion of different types of horticultural crops in the state.

The growth rates of area and production of different types of horticultural crops in various

districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 have been worked out so as to

examine the district level impact of NHM on the growth of different types of horticultural

crops. The similar kinds of temporal and spatial analysis have also been made on four

selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in particular.

The third chapter mainly deals with the socio economic characteristics, cropping

pattern and production structure of 200 sample households. The cropping intensity, the nature

of tenancy, sources of irrigation for various farmer categories, per household and per acre

asset holdings of the sample farmers, the sources and purposes of credit for various farmer

categories, the area under various horticultural crops, per household and per acre cost of

cultivation, gross value of output and net returns from all crops by different farmer

categories, the average family income generated by our sample farmers from various farm

and non-farm activities have also been analyzed in this chapter.

The fourth chapter discusses about the production, cost of cultivation and returns

generated from cultivation of various horticultural crops in general and four selected

horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in particular during the

reference year 2008-09. The net returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural

12

crops generated by sample farmers of different categories were also compared and analyzed.

Since the use of human labour was crucial in cultivation of various horticultural crops, this

chapter also discusses the activity wise uses of human labour in cultivation of horticultural

crops. This chapter also analyses about the processing of horticultural products and selling of

output of selected horticultural crops through various marketing channels in the case of our

four selected crops.

The fifth chapter makes an assessment of overall impact of the NHM programme on

the expansion of horticulture area and yield of selected horticultural crops (aonla, papaya,

coriander and mango) during a period from 2004-05 to 2009-10. The attempt has also been

made in this chapter to identify all possible constraints that negatively affected the

effectiveness and outcomes of the programme. This chapter also analyses the expansion of

area under rejuvenation/protection, resources procurement through NHM and the resulted

increase in productivity in the case of selected horticultural crops. The performance of the

Mission with respect to NHM resource procurement for our sample farmers during the

period, the subsidy provisions for various activities under the Mission like provision of

planting material, fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs and drip/sprinkler, establishing vermi

compost units and model nursery etc. and the capacity building and human resources

development through training, frontline demonstration, publicity and training of the trainers

as an integral part of NHM programme have been examined in this chapter. The perceptions

of the beneficiary farmers about their experiences in cultivating various horticultural crops

with the help of NHM assistance, regarding the effects of NHM on the income levels of the

farmers and about the performance of the various activities of the Mission have been assessed

in this chapter. The suggestions of the farmers regarding the changes required so as to make

NHM more effective have also been recorded in this chapter.

The sixth chapter highlights the summary of findings of the study as discussed in the

preceding chapters and contains some policy implications of the study. Some specific policy

recommendations have been suggested for the overall improvement in implementation of

NHM with a special focus on the study crops and districts of Rajasthan.

1.6 Limitations of the Study

Followings are some of the limitations of undertaking the study in Rajasthan.

Firstly, secondary data was not available for some crops for some years of the

reference years that affected the comparative analysis of performance of horticultural crops.

The secondary databases on horticultural crops were inadequate to conduct the longitudinal

13

study on performance of the horticulture sector in Rajasthan. We had to use data from

different sources for different years due to unavailability of time series data at a single source.

Since the data provided by different sources were found to vary a lot, the chance of producing

misleading results from the analysis of these time series data cannot be denied.

Secondly, our primary level data analysis is based on 200 sample households from

four different districts of Rajasthan. The sample size is not enough to generalize the findings

for the whole study districts or the state of Rajasthan.

Thirdly, keeping in mind the time constraint in completing the work, the primary data

collection was undertaken during summer when the people usually feel uneasy to sit for a

long duration to answer to our field investigators. In some of the cases, the respondents were

organized at premises of Gram Panchayat (GP) office, Horticulture Department Nurseries etc.

for furnishing the relevant information. The presence of Horticulture Department officials

during the interviews had also influenced the farmers in furnishing some special information

on implementation and impacts of the Mission. In some cases, the respondents were too old

or too young to express the exact information pertaining to the reference years. In some other

cases, farmers could not devote sufficient time for the survey and some could not recall the

required information pertaining to time series data on cost, production and productivity of

horticultural crops. All these together have influenced the quality of primary data collected.

Fourthly, our primary level data analysis is based on sample households from four

different districts of Rajasthan cultivating four selected horticulture crops viz., aonla, papaya,

coriander and mango. The districts were Jaipur for anola, Alwar and Banswara for papaya,

Chittorgarh for coriander and Banswara for mango. For papaya crop, 27 sample farmers were

surveyed from Alwar district and 23 farmers were surveyed from Banswara district. So two

different kinds of results were emerged from two districts with respect to cost, production and

returns from cultivation of papaya. Aggregating the results for 50 papaya growers sometimes

resulted in illogical output.

Fifthly, two of our study crops, i.e., mango and aonla were long duration crops. Our

study covered the period of four years since implementation of NHM in 2005-06 up to 2008-

09 which was insufficient for these orchards to yield reasonable amount of output. So the

impact of NHM on the productivity and net returns from the cultivation of these crops was

not properly discernible.

Sixthly, as stated earlier, the present study covering selected districts of Rajasthan

state is a part of a major project that covers 16 states of India to study the impact of NHM

scheme. As per the original study design, from each districts, two villages were to be

14

selected, keeping into account the cropping pattern in each of these districts taking one

village near the periphery of district headquarters or accessible mandi/market and one village

from a distant place to realize the effect of distance factor in the findings. However,

preliminary investigation revealed that sufficient number of beneficiaries were not available

in the earlier stipulated two villages of a district in Rajasthan since the NHM beneficiaries

were very thinly distributed over different villages. Thus with the permission of Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India, we had relaxed the number of villages restriction. A total

of 200 households were selected from 77 villages of four allotted districts of Rajasthan. This

may affect the uniformity of the study across 16 states of India.

15

Chapter 2

Area, Production and Productivity of Horticultural Crops

in Rajasthan

2.1 Status of Horticultural Crops in the State

Rajasthan with its huge geographical area of 342.699 lakh hectares has attained the status of

being largest state of India (Table 2.1). The state represents 10.4 per cent of the total land

mass with 5.5 per cent population of the country, but it has hardly 1 per cent of total national

water resources. About 57 per cent of state‟s geographical area consists of desert which

makes 61 per cent of the desert of India. The agriculture in Rajasthan is primarily rainfed.

The rainfall is highly inadequate (average annual rainfall is 575 mm) and variable both in

time (3 out of 5 years are drought year) and quantum (23.55 cm to 99.9 cm). The arid and

semiarid areas constitute about two-third of total geographical area of the state and soils are

sandy having low water holding capacity, high infiltration rate and shallow in depth in some

areas (GoI, 2011). Due to scarcity of rainfall in arid and semi areas, there is limited

availability of ground water. Despite heavy public investment on surface irrigation projects

only 32 per cent of gross cropped area receives irrigation either by cannel or wells and 68 per

cent area is rain fed. About 90 per cent of the rainfall is received during monsoon season. In

addition to spatial variation there is much variation in yearly pattern of rainfall in the state.

As far as the scenario of horticulture in the state is concerned, it is full of potential as

the diverse agro-climatic conditions are very much favoring growing of large number of

horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal & aromatic plants

throughout the year. It is only 1989, when separate Department of Horticulture came into

existence with ultimate objective of harnessing the potential of horticulture in the state in a

systematic and planned manner so as to increase the area, production and productivity of

different horticultural crops and thereby to improve nutritional as well as economic status of

people of state. As a result of concerted efforts of State Horticulture Department, the area

under various horticultural crops has increased to about 9.23 lakh hectares against gross

cropped area of 221 lakhs hectares during 2008-09 which comes to about 4.18 per cent of

gross cropped area. This included 0.31 lakh hectares under fruit crops, 1.26 lakh hectares

16

under vegetable crops, 5.37 lakh hectares under spices crops, 0.033 lakh hectares under

flowers and 2.26 lakh hectares area under medicinal and aromatic crops (Annexure 2.1).

2008-09 2004-05 TE 2008-

09

TE 2004-

05

TE 2008-

09

TE 2004-

05

TE 2008-

09

TE 2004-

05

TE 2008-

09

TE 2004-

05

1 Ajmer 842352 842345 569490 569132 67.61 67.57 13746 11942 2.41 2.10

2 Alwar 783315 782899 550614 551270 70.29 70.41 16468 15035 2.99 2.73

3 Banswara 453612 506279 303609 308963 66.93 61.03 1507 1646 0.50 0.53

4 Baran 699461 699652 382377 382600 54.67 54.68 79654 66181 20.83 17.30

5 Barmer 2817332 2817332 2384275 2383619 84.63 84.61 105186 116943 4.41 4.91

6 Bharatpur 506731 507073 414130 414184 81.73 81.68 6695 6063 1.62 1.46

7 Bhilwara 1050673 1047441 641615 640819 61.07 61.18 8922 9604 1.39 1.50

8 Bikaner 3041189 3038215 2598173 2611658 85.43 85.96 8623 12109 0.33 0.46

9 Bundi 581938 581938 326338 326498 56.08 56.11 10037 11188 3.08 3.43

10 Chittorgarh 750761 1035704 555713 614572 74.02 59.34 38900 33269 7.00 5.41

11 Churu 1385898 1385898 1276034 1277162 92.07 92.15 4209 4864 0.33 0.38

12 Dausa 341406 340467 252469 252383 73.95 74.13 2751 2158 1.09 0.86

13 Dholpur 300913 300905 181066 181252 60.17 60.24 5999 4241 3.31 2.34

14 Dungarpur 385593 385593 194274 193209 50.38 50.11 872 859 0.45 0.44

15 Srigangangar 1093352 1093352 961683 962395 87.96 88.02 7793 5714 0.81 0.59

16 Hanumangarh 970359 970315 891598 891890 91.88 91.92 2321 1469 0.26 0.16

17 Jaipur 1105519 1105519 812528 817159 73.50 73.92 33973 32525 4.18 3.98

18 Jaisalmer 3839154 3839154 3195567 3221934 83.24 83.92 17763 25772 0.56 0.80

19 Jalore 1056602 1056602 863991 864909 81.77 81.86 89120 93299 10.31 10.79

20 Jhalawar 632235 632235 397568 398007 62.88 62.95 102319 77211 25.74 19.40

21 Jhunjhunu 591536 591538 474680 475782 80.25 80.43 8280 6088 1.74 1.28

22 Jodhpur 2256405 2256405 1901907 1902238 84.29 84.30 80568 60375 4.24 3.17

23 Karuali 504301 505217 229335 230514 45.48 45.63 1791 2872 0.78 1.25

24 Kota 521324 521133 314164 318445 60.26 61.11 52633 52484 16.75 16.48

25 Nagaur 1763821 1764380 1528133 1529364 86.64 86.68 64445 53632 4.22 3.51

26 Pali 1233079 1233079 857728 858100 69.56 69.59 55409 51938 6.46 6.05

27 Pratapgarh* 411736 NA 114564 NA 27.82 NA NA NA NA NA

28 Rajsamand 452938 455093 244554 244698 53.99 53.77 2986 1633 1.22 0.67

29 S.modhpur 497947 498075 325967 322857 65.46 64.82 4542 4125 1.39 1.28

30 Sikar 774244 774244 619787 620821 80.05 80.18 17128 19199 2.76 3.09

31 Sirohi 517947 517947 229067 229166 44.23 44.25 12206 7975 5.33 3.48

32 Tonk 717958 717958 572144 572764 79.69 79.78 7423 8917 1.30 1.56

33 Udaipur 1388255 1462105 457566 465393 32.96 31.83 4206 4150 0.92 0.89

State total 34269886 34266092 25584520 25633758 74.66 74.81 871539 805480 3.41 3.14

Notes: 1. *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09.

Sources: (1) Agricultural Statistics of Rajasthan, Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Jaipur , Rajasthan,

various issues; (2) Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Only for horticultural area)

Table 2.1 : District wise geographical, cultivable and horticultural crop area in Rajasthan (hectares)

Sl.

No.

Geographical area Cultivable area % Cultivable area

to geographical

area

Area under

horticultural

crops

% Horticultural

area to cultivable

area

District

2. Figures in etalics are for the study districts.

It may be noted from Table 2.1 that the area under horticultural crops as a proportion

of cultivable area was 3.14 per cent during triennium ending (TE) 2004-05, which has

increased to 3.41 per cent during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan state. On absolute term, it has

increased from 8,05,480 hectares during TE 2004-05 to 8,71,539 hectares during TE 2008-09

in Rajasthan state as whole. On the other hand, the cultivable area has decreased from 256,

17

33,758 hectares during TE 2004-05 to 255, 84,520 hectares during TE 2008-09. The

cultivable area as a proportion of total reported geographical area was 74.81 per cent during

TE 2004-05, which has marginally decreased to 74.66 per cent during triennium ending

2008-09 in Rajasthan. The district-wise analysis of horticultural area in the state revealed that

the horticultural area as a proportion of cultivable area was highest of 25.74 per cent in

Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.26 per cent in Hanumangarh district during TE 2008-09.

Similarly, during TE 2004-05, the horticultural area as a proportion of cultivable area was

also highest in Jhalawar district (19.4 %) and was also lowest in Hanumangarh district

(0.16%). On absolute term, the horticultural area was also highest of 1, 05,186 hectares in

Barmer district (4.41 %) and was also lowest of 872 hectares in Dungarpur district (0.45%)

during TE 2008-09. Similarly, during TE 2004-05, the horticultural area was also highest in

Barmer district (1, 16,943 ha) and was also lowest in Dungarpur district (859 ha).

2.2 Impact of NHM on Growth of Horticultural Crops in the State

Table 2.2 shows the area and production of various types of horticultural crops in Rajasthan

from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-091. Table 2.3 shows the growth rates in area and production of

various types of horticultural crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09. It may be

noted that the total area under all horticultural crops has increased from 3, 23,347 hectares

during TE 1980-81 to 8,71,539 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan state as whole. The

total production from all horticultural crops has increased from 184794 metric tonnes (MT)

during TE 1980-81 to 18, 48,466 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. Though the growth in

area and production of horticultural crops followed similar pattern (Figure 2.1), the same in

both the cases was not found to be steady. There were so many ups and downs in both area

and production of horticultural crops during a period from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09.

The decadal analysis of the physical performance of horticultural crops reveals that

the first two decades, i.e., 1980-81 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 2000-01 have had remarkable

growth in area and production of horticultural crops. The area under all horticultural crops

has increased from 3, 23,347 hectares during TE 1980-81 to 4, 33,486 hectares during TE

1990-91 that has further increased to 6, 59,335 hectares during TE 2000-01 in Rajasthan state

as whole. Similarly, the total production from all horticultural crops has increased from 1,

84,794 MT during TE 1980-81 to 5, 88,930 MT during TE 1990-91 that has further increased

1 Annexure 2.1 may be seen for the actual data on area and production of various types of horticultural crops in

Rajasthan from 1980-81 to 2008-09. The actual data on district-wise area and production of different types of

horticultural crops from 2002-03 to 2008-09 is shown in Annexures 2.2 to 2.7.

18

to 10,60,855 MT during TE 2000-01 and touched 18,48,466 MT during TE 2008-09 in

Rajasthan.

Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod.

1 TE 1980-81 11777 NA 38660 64038 251911 118075 0 0 21000 2681 323347 184794

2 TE 81-82 12011 NA 40441 87782 220038 86122 0 0 19240 2549 291730 176453

3 TE 82-83 12216 NA 39291 110460 229129 73599 0 0 21696 2389 302331 186447

4 TE 83-84 10188 11629 41541 118514 245181 85531 0 0 30799 2398 327709 218073

5 TE 84-85 7764 22176 44078 122812 255507 82071 0 0 43723 2615 351071 229675

6 TE 85-86 5305 32911 47128 132072 252616 88658 0 0 50526 2807 355575 256448

7 TE 86-87 6183 33483 50661 147381 243946 122120 0 0 45806 2813 346595 305797

8 TE 87-88 6986 31406 51022 177552 286731 188622 0 0 41618 2552 386356 400132

9 TE 88-89 7319 27730 52136 209870 321751 236295 0 0 42863 2753 424069 476648

10 TE 89-90 11236 46339 50874 234326 333646 246820 0 0 53443 1896 449199 529381

11 TE 90-91 15713 72729 54091 261599 303857 253470 0 0 59826 1133 433486 588930

12 TE 91-92 20589 121097 58020 288356 281321 234402 0 0 62340 0 422270 643855

13 TE 92-93 21055 128994 60681 306293 320090 261686 331 1844 63642 0 465798 698817

14 TE 93-94 20968 177651 63445 327335 407143 275412 733 2203 68274 0 560563 782601

15 TE 94-95 20528 198758 64842 316330 433956 290995 733 2203 71689 0 591749 808286

16 TE 95-96 20156 239543 70317 334473 423132 284907 1066 1020 77914 17933 592586 877875

17 TE 96-97 20181 245092 75407 346155 403650 300965 1252 1407 98705 46163 599194 939783

18 TE 97-98 20345 267914 80230 359684 453042 356910 1925 2137 118827 74617 674370 1061263

19 TE 98-99 20613 267866 87995 372759 477302 382173 2029 2853 130732 83906 718671 1109557

20 TE 99-00 20421 259087 91919 387832 441526 361972 1814 2573 120648 76579 676329 1088044

21 TE 00-01 20536 239076 94667 401366 417511 342218 1847 2665 124775 75530 659335 1060855

22 TE 01-02 20985 226541 94877 413937 524486 428004 1701 2098 131410 78158 773458 1148739

23 TE 02-03 21647 209339 93733 377524 578956 439468 1829 1961 150807 83531 846972 1111823

24 TE 03-04 22525 203624 100375 422916 628379 537966 1772 1860 157289 92051 910340 1258418

25 TE 04-05 23154 222375 108047 483031 512767 473819 2255 1917 159257 88500 805480 1269642

26 TE 05-06 24191 298796 118037 618579 451476 460077 2756 2340 153633 85672 750093 1465464

27 TE 06-07 25629 359222 122237 714450 382127 360978 3016 2706 171823 77687 704833 1515044

28 TE 07-08 27349 461153 128986 794162 432692 395792 3026 3373 188246 82741 780299 1737222

29 TE 08-09 29069 483200 130539 792788 495405 473541 3142 4241 213385 94697 871539 1848466

Sources: (1) Vital horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (2) Rajasthan Horticulture Statistics 2002-

(3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to 2008-09).

(4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to 1982-83,for fruits), (from

1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)].

Table 2.2 :Area and production of horticulture crops in Rajasthan (TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09)

Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinals Total Horti.

Note: TE 1980-81 denotes the triennium avarage for the period 1978-79 to 1980-81.

(Area in hectares, production in metric tonnes)

Sl.No. Year

As revealed by Table 2.3, the annual growth rate of area and yield of all horticultural

crops was 4.47 per cent and 11.01 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1980-81 - TE

1990-91. While the annual growth rate of area of horticultural crops has further increased to

4.63 per cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of yield

of horticultural crops has sharply declined to 0.74 per cent during the same period. The trend

in growth of area and yield has just reversed during the next period, i.e., TE 2000-01 to TE

2008-09. While the annual growth rate of area of all horticultural crops has sharply decreased

19

to 0.64 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from 4.63 per cent during the

preceding period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of yield of horticultural

crops has sharply increased to 7.47 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09

from 0.74 per cent during the period from TE 1990-91 to TE 2000-01.

Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield

1 1980-81 to 1990-91* 3.78 -6.35 4.00 7.19 3.55 14.93 NA NA 11.67 -8.71 4.47 11.01

(0.75) (-1.84) (6.94) (5.82) (2.66) (6.50) NA NA (4.27) (-2.53) (4.87) (9.46)

2 1990-91 to 2000-01* -0.28 8.09 5.46 -2.33 3.61 0.41 -2.60 3.57 9.51 -1.31 4.63 0.74

(-1.303) (3.16) (9.13) (-2.95) (1.91) (0.31) (-0.39) (0.68) (6.03) (-0.87) (3.20) (0.83)

3 2000-01 to 2008-09* 4.99 8.99 3.48 6.44 -2.14 -2.97 9.07 3.14 5.63 -3.95 0.64 7.47

(16.85) (3.48) (1.98) (5.08) (-0.66) (-0.46) (3.43) (0.81) (3.97) (-2.24) (0.29) (3.46)

4 2000-01 to 2004-05** 2.86 -1.33 6.14 4.29 -1.18 4.59 8.93 -7.83 0.99 -1.81 0.53 4.98

5 2004-05 to 2005-06** 3.26 21.12 -0.81 10.18 -8.83 -8.07 -4.81 -2.38 0.61 -6.34 -4.86 10.28

6 2004-05 to 2006-07** 4.90 10.03 0.01 8.31 -2.89 -2.96 -6.47 13.95 12.36 -10.34 1.62 4.08

7 2004-05 to 2007-08** 4.90 14.70 3.81 4.41 7.77 -2.27 0.23 14.02 7.14 -2.75 6.88 2.99

8 2004-05 to 2008-09** 5.00 7.69 0.43 3.20 5.10 -0.43 0.25 12.22 8.36 -2.41 5.10 1.01

(5) Indian Horticultural Database-2010, National Horticulture Board, Department of Agriculturwe and

Cooperation, Govt. of India

(4) ## The growth rate for medicinals area and yield has been calculated from 1980-81 to 1988-89 and from 1995-96

to 2000-01 due to unavailability of data.

(3) # The growth rate for fruit area and yield has been calculated from 1983-84 to 1990-91 due to unavailability of data.

(5) $ The growth rate for flower area and yield has been calculated from 1995-96 to 2000-01 due to unavailability of

data.

Period

Notes : (1)* The growth rate for the decennial period are based on semi log time trend and the figures in the

parentheses are respective ' t' values.

(2) ** Growth rates are based on annual averages. Annual Average Growth Rate = ((Ln(value year end) - Ln(value

year begin)) / number of years) x 100.

Sources: (1) Vital Horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (2) Rajasthan

Horticulture Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur

(3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to 2008-09)(4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to 1982-

83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)]

Table2.3 : Growth rate in area and yield of horticulture crops in Rajasthan (%)

Fruits# Vegetables Spices Flowers$ Medicinals## Total Horti.Sl.

No.

It may be noted that the annual average growth rate (AAGR) of area of horticultural

crops has decreased to 0.53 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has

further declined to -4.86 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. However,

there has been some revival of growth of area under horticultural crops thereafter. The annual

average growth rate of area of horticultural crops has revived to 1.62 per cent during the

period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and further to 6.88 per cent during the period of TE

2004-05 - TE 2007-08.

20

Figure 2.1. Growth of area and production of horticultural crops in Rajasthan

Figure 2.2. Composition of horticultural crops in Rajasthan during 1980-81 and 208-09

0

500000

1000000

1500000

2000000

2500000

3000000

3500000

Are

a (h

a) a

nd

pro

du

ctio

n (

MT

) o

f

ho

rtic

ult

ura

l cr

op

s

Total Horticultural Production Total Horticultural Area

Fruits4% Vegetables

13%Spices 76%

Flowers0%

Medicinals7%

Area under horticultural crops during 1980-81

Fruits3%

Vegetables14%

Spices 58%

Flowers0%

Medicinals25%

Area under horticultural crops during 2008-09

Fruits26%

Vegetables39%

Spices 29%

Flowers0%

Medicinals6%

Production of horticultural crops during 2008-09

Fruits0%

Vegetables66%

Spices 33%

Flowers0%

Medicinals1%

Production of horticultural crops during 1980-81

21

On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of horticultural crops was

4.98 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has piercingly increased to

10.28 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. It is disheartening to note that

the average yield of all horticultural crops has continuously fallen thereafter to 4.08 per cent

during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and further to 1.01 per cent during the period

of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09.

So far as the composition of horticultural crops is concerned, it may be noted from

Figure 2.2 that the share of area and production of spices has declined from 76 per cent and

33 per cent in 1980-81 to 58 per cent and 29 per cent in 2008-09 respectively. On the other

hand, the share of area and production of medicinal crops has sharply increased from 7 per

cent and 1 per cent in 1980-81 to 25 per cent and 6 per cent in 2008-09 respectively. In the

case of different kinds of horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and

medicinal crops, the instability in growth of yield was much higher than the instability in

growth of area under these crops. The annual growth rate of area under fruits has decreased to

-0.28 per cent during the period from TE 1990-91 to TE 2000-01 from 3.78 per cent during

the period from TE 1980-81 to TE 1990-91. However, the annual growth rate of area of fruit

has sharply increased to 4.99 per cent during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The

annual average growth rate of area under fruits was 2.86 per cent during the period from TE

2000-01 to TE 2004-05 that has successively increased thereafter. It has increased to 4.9 per

cent during the period from TE 2004-05 to TE 2006-07 and further to 5.00 per cent during the

period from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of

yield of fruit crops was -1.33 per cent during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2004-05 that

has penetratingly increased to 21.12 during the period from TE 2004-05 to TE 2005-06 and to

14.7 per cent during the period from TE 2004-05 to TE 2007-08. The growth rate of area and

yield of vegetables was 4.0 per cent and 7.19 per cent respectively during the period from TE

1980-81 to TE 1990-91, which has changed to 3.48 per cent and 6.44 per cent respectively

during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The growth rate of area and yield of

spices was 3.55 and 14.93 respectively during the period from TE 1980-81 to TE 1990-91,

which has sharply declined to -2.14 per cent and -2.97 per cent respectively during the period

from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The growth rate of area under medicinal crops has

continuously declined from 11.67 per cent during the period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990-91to

0.99 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 while the growth rate of yield of

medicinal crops was negative throughout the same period. Though the growth rate of area

22

under flowers has fallen on an average, the growth rate of yield of flowers has satisfactorily

grown during the same period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990-91to TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09.

2.3 District Wise Growth of Horticultural Crops and Impact of NHM

The district-wise analysis of area and production of different types of horticultural crops for

the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 is shown in Table 2.4 and Table 2.5 respectively,

while the annual growth rates of area and yield of different types of horticultural crops in

various districts of Rajasthan from the period TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 is stated in Table

2.6.

It may be noted that the area and production of all horticultural crops was 8,05,480

hectares and 12,69,641 MT respectively during TE 2004-05, which increased to 8,71,539 ha

and 18,48,466 MT respectively during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan state. The annual growth rate

of area and yield of all horticultural crops from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 was 1.97 per cent

and 7.42 per cent respectively in Rajasthan state as whole (Table 2.6). The district-wise

analysis of area and production of horticultural crops revealed that the horticultural area was

highest in Barmer district (1, 16,943 hectares) and was lowest in Dungarpur district (859

hectares) during TE 2004-05(Table 2.4). The trend was similar during TE 2008-09 as such

the total horticultural area was also highest of 1, 05,186 hectares in Barmer district and was

also lowest of 872 hectares in Dungarpur district (Table 2.5). However, the production of

horticultural crops was highest of 141625.8 MT in Jhalawar district, followed by 130499.5

MT in Kota district and 125966.8 MT in Baran district during TE 2004-05. The least amount

of production of horticultural crops (1721.8 MT) was realized in Dungarpur district which

also occupied last position in terms of area coverage under horticultural crops during TE

2004-05. Similarly, during TE 2008-09, the production of horticultural crops was also highest

(283982.9 MT) in Jhalawar district followed by 176428.4 MT in Jodhpur district, 165224.2

MT in Sri Ganganagar district. The least amount of production of horticultural crops (1561.7

quintals) was also realized in Dungarpur district during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth rate

of area and yield of horticultural crops in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that,

between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, Rajsamund, Hanumangarh and Sirohi occupied first

three positions with 15.1 per cent, 11.43 per cent and 10.64 per cent of annual growth in area

under horticultural crops respectively. On the other hand, Sri Ganganagar, Bharatpur and

Hanumangarh occupied first three positions with 43.44 per cent, 23.05 per cent and 16.20 per

23

cent of annual growth in production of horticultural crops respectively between the same

periods (Table 2.6).

Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod

1 Ajmer 469.6 132.6 3923.3 5914.0 6304.7 2742.0 1166.3 729.0 78.3 32.3 11942.3 9549.9

2 Alwar 433.4 3921.5 13287.3 75049.7 1304.0 1403.3 10.7 9.7 0.0 0.0 15035.4 80384.2

3 Banswara 640.5 7730.5 402.0 306.7 595.7 249.0 6.3 2.7 1.3 0.0 1645.9 8288.9

4 Baran 481.3 12275.1 1456.0 2957.3 63118.0 110618.7 14.0 13.3 1112.0 102.3 66181.3 125966.8

5 Barmer 87.9 428.7 472.7 585.0 80572.3 35701.3 0.0 0.0 35810.0 20297.0 116942.9 57012.0

6 Bharatpur 765.1 1245.8 4488.3 14438.7 714.0 2217.7 49.0 128.7 46.7 23.3 6063.1 18054.1

7 Bhilwara 747.0 4661.5 1566.3 3110.7 7050.3 5318.3 3.0 2.3 237.3 76.0 9604.0 13168.8

8 Bikaner 62.3 12.8 501.7 219.3 10146.0 4842.3 0.0 0.0 1399.3 417.3 12109.3 5491.8

9 Bundi 586.6 5287.5 3644.7 6929.0 6932.3 6770.0 16.3 19.0 8.0 12.3 11187.9 19017.9

10 Chittorgarh 1401.0 14623.9 1976.7 4415.0 23964.7 43300.3 26.0 59.7 5900.7 2439.0 33269.0 64837.9

11 Churu 0.0 0.0 213.3 267.7 4506.0 2716.3 0.0 0.0 145.0 84.3 4864.3 3068.3

12 Dausa 744.1 3660.0 1326.0 1649.3 85.0 71.3 2.7 2.7 0.3 0.3 2158.1 5383.6

13 Dholpur 918.8 10867.7 2562.3 12806.0 758.7 933.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4240.8 24608.4

14 Dungarpur 402.4 421.1 239.3 1103.3 216.7 197.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 858.7 1721.8

15 Srigangangar 2900.1 14604.9 2598.3 6496.7 196.3 200.7 12.0 8.2 7.3 2.3 5714.1 21312.7

16 Hanumangarh 357.3 5950.3 975.0 1992.0 131.3 99.7 5.0 3.3 0.7 0.7 1469.3 8045.9

17 Jaipur 876.0 9089.6 23996.3 95050.3 7084.0 5955.0 552.3 602.3 16.3 3.3 32525.0 110700.6

18 Jaisalmer 85.9 102.5 115.5 501.3 14528.0 10947.0 0.0 0.0 11042.7 3445.0 25772.0 14995.8

19 Jalore 127.0 439.7 1717.0 6895.3 48279.3 11694.7 0.3 0.3 43175.7 32466.8 93299.3 51496.8

20 Jhalawar 6212.8 64330.1 1209.7 4228.3 67771.3 72369.7 6.7 11.3 2010.3 686.4 77210.8 141625.8

21 Jhunjhunu 65.7 99.5 1978.3 18583.7 4040.7 4081.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 1.8 6088.1 22766.7

22 Jodhpur 189.8 4475.2 10975.7 89595.0 41268.3 21601.7 86.7 57.7 7854.0 5790.7 60374.5 121520.2

23 Karuali 545.8 13032.8 1557.3 3314.3 768.0 871.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.3 2871.8 17219.8

24 Kota 641.6 17703.1 2194.3 30575.7 47229.0 80407.0 55.3 58.3 2363.3 1755.3 52483.6 130499.5

25 Nagaur 114.0 261.7 9292.0 35045.3 38472.3 15081.7 189.7 173.0 5563.7 3533.3 53631.6 54095.1

26 Pali 317.4 1176.0 1389.0 1373.3 8633.7 3981.3 11.3 6.0 41587.0 16833.3 51938.4 23370.0

27 Pratapgarh NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

28 Rajsamand 630.9 2773.9 304.7 434.3 665.0 311.0 16.7 11.3 15.3 40.3 1632.5 3570.9

29 S.modhpur 555.4 5456.0 1178.0 2830.7 2391.0 5302.7 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 4125.4 13590.0

30 Sikar 120.3 1031.9 6069.0 37200.7 12984.7 16348.0 11.7 0.0 13.3 16.3 19198.9 54596.9

31 Sirohi 318.3 1196.8 1986.0 2630.7 4978.0 2937.0 3.3 4.7 689.0 405.7 7974.6 7174.8

32 Tonk 172.5 409.5 3646.0 14366.3 5095.0 3195.3 0.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 8916.8 17971.2

33 Udaipur 1183.1 14973.4 804.7 2165.7 1982.3 1352.0 9.0 13.3 171.0 30.7 4150.1 18535.1

State total 23153.8 222375.5 108046.8 483031.2 512766.7 473818.7 2255.3 1916.8 159257.3 88499.7 805480.0 1269641.9

Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Table 2.4 : Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan ( TE 2004-05)


Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinal & aromatic All horticultural

Notes: (1) *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09.

(2) Figures in italics are for the study districts.

(3) 'Prod' stands for production.

Sl.

No.

District

In the case of different kinds of horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices,

flowers and medicinal crops, wide variability was observed in growth of production and area

under these crops. In the case of fruit crops, the area coverage was highest of 6212.8 hectares

in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in Churu district during TE 2004-05.

Jhalawar district also occupied first position in terms of area under fruits with 7977.6 hectares

during TE 2008-09. Among 33 districts of Rajasthan, the production of fruit crops in

Jhalawar district was also highest of 64330.1 MT and 194804.7 MT during TE 2004-05 and

24

during TE 2008-09 respectively. As far as the growth in area and yield of fruit crops in

various districts is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area under fruits

was highest of 23.2 per cent in Hanumangarh during the period between TE 2004-05 and TE

2008-09, followed by 21.2 per cent in Nagaur and 12.7 per cent in Sri Ganganagar district.

However, between the same periods, the annual growth rate of yield of fruit crops was

highest of 38.02 per cent in Sri Ganganagar followed by 27.77 per cent in Bikaner and 27.62

per cent in Dausa district (Table 2.6).


1 Ajmer 613.0 79.9 5416.3 9058.3 6041.0 2103.7 1632.0 2407.3 43.3 14.3 13745.7 13663.6

2 Alwar 469.8 5077.9 14920.3 88670.7 1044.3 1545.7 27.3 30.0 6.0 4.0 16467.8 95328.2

3 Banswara 680.7 10080.1 418.3 188.7 390.0 142.3 12.0 4.0 6.0 1.3 1507.1 10416.5

4 Baran 501.1 12769.5 1498.3 5191.0 77231.7 107086.7 35.7 23.3 387.0 649.0 79653.8 125719.5

5 Barmer 143.9 319.0 402.3 460.3 57777.0 11079.7 0.0 0.0 46862.3 10157.0 105185.6 22016.0

6 Bharatpur 965.9 2454.4 5245.1 45913.0 478.3 1743.0 4.7 18.0 1.0 1.0 6695.0 50129.4

7 Bhilwara 1087.6 7933.9 1869.3 3837.3 5859.7 3931.3 8.7 9.7 96.7 23.0 8921.9 15735.3

8 Bikaner 88.0 55.0 331.0 324.0 4028.0 2684.0 0.0 0.0 4175.7 2082.7 8622.7 5145.6

9 Bundi 653.6 9391.0 3295.3 17001.3 6045.0 7324.7 36.3 141.0 6.7 4.3 10036.9 33862.4

10 Chittorgarh 1248.9 34651.0 2172.0 9722.0 30320.3 70384.0 59.0 185.9 5099.7 2652.3 38899.9 117595.1

11 Churu 17.3 0.0 225.7 322.0 3092.7 1749.0 0.0 0.0 873.3 318.3 4209.0 2389.3

12 Dausa 720.0 10687.9 1452.3 1933.3 563.3 244.0 15.7 20.3 0.0 0.0 2751.3 12885.6

13 Dholpur 771.0 9694.0 4768.7 44649.3 456.0 844.0 3.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 5999.0 55189.0

14 Dungarpur 460.3 473.7 200.7 909.0 208.7 178.3 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 871.6 1561.7

15 Srigangangar 5200.1 119814.6 2404.0 45044.0 137.0 361.0 27.7 2.7 24.3 2.0 7793.1 165224.2

16 Hanumangarh 1004.7 6736.7 1159.3 17382.7 142.0 172.7 10.3 4.7 5.0 2.0 2321.3 24298.7

17 Jaipur 928.5 9873.8 27505.0 86533.3 4779.7 4714.3 685.7 643.7 73.7 27.3 33972.5 101792.5

18 Jaisalmer 118.9 138.4 166.2 489.7 7186.7 843.3 0.0 0.0 10291.3 1880.9 17763.0 3352.4

19 Jalore 140.5 496.6 1581.7 4499.3 49107.7 16144.3 4.3 1.3 38285.3 10707.3 89119.5 31848.9

20 Jhalawar 7977.6 194804.7 1942.7 5491.0 90377.3 82084.0 13.7 25.0 2007.7 1578.3 102319.0 283982.9

21 Jhunjhunu 63.5 269.9 3040.0 34898.3 5172.7 6137.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 2.7 8279.9 41307.9

22 Jodhpur 175.0 258.8 15712.4 142525.0 39645.3 23581.0 105.0 119.7 24930.3 9943.9 80568.1 176428.4

23 Karuali 497.6 7753.1 989.3 2739.0 303.0 302.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 1.7 1791.0 10795.8

24 Kota 649.7 8255.8 2418.7 35646.7 45788.3 86535.7 99.7 185.7 3676.3 1978.1 52632.7 132601.9

25 Nagaur 259.0 594.3 13266.6 84662.0 19249.7 11006.3 232.3 303.3 31437.3 19227.3 64444.9 115793.3

26 Pali 324.6 144.6 1780.7 2339.7 10353.0 3761.7 25.7 19.3 42925.0 32545.7 55409.0 38810.9

27 Pratapgarh 596.0 0.0 176.0 501.0 5455.0 4679.0 0.0 0.0 2977.0 808.0 9204.0 5988.0

28 Rajsamand 690.1 7765.5 484.0 1290.3 1577.3 1392.7 15.3 21.3 219.7 157.7 2986.5 10627.5

29 S.modhpur 671.0 5133.3 1249.7 3783.0 2621.0 6722.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4541.7 15638.3

30 Sikar 154.3 452.6 7465.7 75935.0 9448.7 7949.0 6.3 5.3 53.0 77.0 17127.9 84419.0

31 Sirohi 325.2 1502.2 2517.7 3412.0 8526.0 5596.0 47.3 46.0 789.3 250.3 12205.6 10806.5

32 Tonk 160.9 334.8 3773.3 16009.0 3477.0 2312.3 7.3 5.7 4.0 0.7 7422.6 18662.5

33 Udaipur 1107.5 14473.2 807.7 1760.3 2158.0 1326.0 24.0 15.0 108.3 137.0 4205.5 17711.6

State total 29068.8 483200.0 130538.9 792787.7 495404.7 473541.3 3141.7 4240.6 213385.0 94696.4 871539.0 1848466.1


(2) Figures in etalics are for the study districts.

(3) 'Prod' stands for production.


Table 2.5 : Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan ( TE 2008-09)


Sl.

No.

District Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinal & aromatic All horticultural

25

Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield

1 Ajmer 5.3 -19.32 8.06 2.60 -1.07 -5.56 8.40 21.47 -14.80 -5.54 3.52 5.44

2 Alwar 2.2 4.44 2.90 1.27 -5.55 7.97 23.52 4.79 N.A. N.A. 2.28 1.99

3 Banswara 4.3 5.11 1.00 -13.14 -10.59 -3.39 15.98 -5.84 37.60 N.A. -2.20 7.91

4 Baran 2.4 -0.02 0.72 13.35 5.05 -5.86 23.38 -9.39 -26.39 72.57 4.63 -4.68

5 Barmer 11.1 -19.72 -4.03 -1.96 -8.31 -20.94 N.A. N.A. 6.72 -24.03 -2.65 -21.14

6 Bharatpur 5.0 11.13 3.90 25.03 -10.01 3.99 -58.78 9.61 -96.08 17.33 2.48 23.05

7 Bhilwara 8.3 3.90 4.42 0.83 -4.62 -2.93 26.52 9.01 -22.45 -7.38 -1.84 6.29

8 Bikaner 10.0 27.77 -10.40 20.15 -23.10 8.34 N.A. N.A. 27.33 12.86 -8.49 6.86

9 Bundi 1.8 11.65 -2.52 24.96 -3.42 5.39 19.99 30.12 -4.56 -21.59 -2.71 17.14

10 Chittorgarh -0.1 24.44 2.36 17.38 5.88 6.26 20.49 7.92 -3.65 5.74 3.91 10.97

11 Churu N.A. N.A. 1.41 3.22 -9.41 -1.60 N.A. N.A. 44.89 -11.68 -3.62 -2.64

12 Dausa -0.2 27.62 2.28 1.70 47.28 -16.54 44.27 6.52 N.A. N.A. 6.07 15.75

13 Dholpur -4.1 1.53 15.53 15.69 -12.73 10.20 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 8.67 11.52

14 Dungarpur 3.4 -0.42 -4.41 -0.44 -0.94 -1.55 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 0.37 -2.81

15 Srigangangar 12.7 38.02 -1.94 50.35 -9.00 23.68 20.88 -48.86 29.99 -33.84 7.76 43.44

16 Hanumangarh 23.2 -22.74 4.33 49.83 1.95 11.79 18.15 -9.74 50.37 -22.91 11.43 16.20

17 Jaipur 1.7 0.61 3.41 -5.76 -9.84 4.00 5.41 -3.75 37.66 14.94 1.09 -3.19

18 Jaisalmer 9.5 -0.63 9.09 -9.67 -17.60 -46.49 N.A. N.A. -1.76 -13.37 -9.30 -28.15

19 Jalore 2.4 0.51 -2.05 -8.62 0.43 7.64 64.12 -29.47 -3.01 -24.73 -1.15 -10.87

20 Jhalawar 5.4 21.45 11.84 -5.31 7.20 -4.05 17.95 1.83 -0.03 20.85 7.04 10.35

21 Jhunjhunu -2.0 25.79 10.74 5.01 6.17 4.02 N.A. N.A. 2.38 6.98 7.69 7.21

22 Jodhpur -1.3 -69.23 8.97 2.64 -1.00 3.19 4.80 13.46 28.88 -15.36 7.21 2.11

23 Karuali -2.3 -10.67 -11.34 6.58 -23.25 -3.24 N.A. N.A. 0.00 5.58 -11.80 0.13

24 Kota 0.0 -19.38 2.43 1.40 -0.77 2.61 14.71 14.23 11.05 -8.06 0.07 0.33

25 Nagaur 21.1 -0.03 8.90 13.15 -17.31 9.44 5.07 8.97 43.29 -0.94 4.59 14.43

26 Pali -1.9 -52.96 6.21 7.11 4.54 -5.96 20.44 8.82 0.79 15.69 1.62 11.06

27 Pratapgarh* N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

28 Rajsamand 2.3 23.49 11.57 15.65 21.59 15.89 -2.08 17.90 66.55 -32.47 15.10 12.17

29 S.modhpur 4.0 -6.25 1.48 5.77 2.30 3.63 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.40 1.11

30 Sikar 6.5 -26.83 5.18 12.66 -7.95 -10.08 -15.27 N.A. 34.50 4.26 -2.85 13.75

31 Sirohi 1.2 5.14 5.93 0.57 13.45 2.66 66.33 -9.13 3.40 -15.47 10.64 -0.40

32 Tonk -1.1 -3.29 0.86 1.85 -9.55 1.47 59.95 N.A. 10.14 N.A. -4.59 5.53

33 Udaipur -0.9 0.80 0.09 -5.27 2.12 -2.61 24.52 -21.58 -11.41 48.83 0.33 -1.47

State total 5.0 13.71 4.73 7.66 -0.86 0.85 8.29 11.56 7.31 -5.62 1.97 7.42


(2) ** Growth rates are bases on annual averages. Annual Average Growth Rate = ((Ln(value year end) -

Ln(value year begin)) / number of years) x 100.

Source: Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur.

Table 2.6 : Average annual growth rate in area and yield of horticulture crops at district level in Rajasthan from

TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09

Annual growth rates (per cent)**

Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinal &

aromatic

All

horticultural

Sl.

No.

District

In the case of vegetables, the area coverage was highest of 23996.3 hectares in Jaipur

district and was lowest of 115.5 hectares in Jaisalmer district during TE 2004-05. The similar

trend was also observed during TE 2008-09. The area under vegetables was highest of

26

27505.0 hectares in Jaipur district and was lowest of 166.2 hectares in Jaisalmer district

during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth in area and yield of vegetables in various districts is

concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area under vegetables was highest

of 15.5 per cent in Dholpur district during the period between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09,

followed by 11.84 per cent in Jhalawar and 11.57 per cent in Rajsamund district. However,

between the same periods, the annual growth rate of yield of vegetables was highest of 50.4

per cent in Sri Ganganagar followed by 49.83 per cent in Hanumangarh and 24.96 per cent in

Bundi district. The annual growth rate of area and yield of vegetables was lowest of -11.3 per

cent and -13.1 per cent in Karauli and Banswara districts respectively.

As regards the growth of area, production and yield of spices in various districts of

Rajasthan, it may be noted that Barmer district occupied first position in terms of area under

spices with 80572.3 hectares during TE 2004-05, followed by Jhalawar (67771.3 ha) and

Baran (63118.0 ha). However, during TE 2008-09, Jhalawar district occupied first position in

terms of area under spices with 90377.3 hectares while Baran district shifted to second spot

with 77231.7 hectares of spices. Among 33 districts of Rajasthan, the production of spices

was highest of 110618.0 MT in Baran district and was lowest of 71.3 MT in Dausa district

during TE 2004-05. During TE 2008-09, the production of spices was highest of 107086.7

MT in Baran district and was lowest of 137.0 MT in Sri Ganganagar district. As far as the

growth in area and yield of spices in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that the

annual growth rate of area under spices was highest of 47.3 per cent in Dausa district during

the period between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, followed by 21.6 per cent in Rajsamund

and 13.5 per cent in Sirohi district. However, between the same periods, the annual growth

rate of production of spices was highest of 23.7 per cent in Sri Ganganagar followed by 15.9

per cent in Rajsamund and 11.8 per cent in Hanumangarh district. The annual growth rate of

area and yield of spices was lowest of -23.3 per cent and -46.5 per cent in Karauli and

Jaisalmer districts respectively.

In the case of flowers, the area coverage was highest of 1166.3 hectares in Ajmer

district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 8 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. The

similar trend was also observed during TE 2008-09. The area under flowers was highest of

1632.0 hectares in Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 7 districts of Rajasthan

during TE 2008-09. The production of flowers was highest of 729.0 MT in Ajmer district and

was lowest of 0.0 MT in 11 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. During TE 2008-09,

the production of flowers was highest of 2407.3 MT in Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0

27

MT in 8 districts of Rajasthan. As far as the growth in area and yield of flowers in various

districts is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area under vegetables

was highest of 66.3 per cent in Sirohi district during the period between TE 2004-05 and TE

2008-09, followed by 64.1 per cent in Jalore and 59.95 per cent in Tonk district. However,

between the same periods, the annual growth rate of yield of flowers was highest of 30.1 per

cent in Bundi followed by 21.5 per cent in Ajmer and 17.9 per cent in Rajsamund district.

The annual growth rate of area and yield of flowers was lowest of -58.8 per cent and -48.9

per cent in Bharatpur and Sri Ganganagar districts respectively.

As far as the growth of area, production and yield of medicinal and aromatic crops in

various districts of Rajasthan is concerned, it may be noted that Jalore district occupied first

position in terms of area under medicinal and aromatic crops with 43175.7 hectares during

TE 2004-05, followed by 41587.0 hectares in Pali and 35810.0 hectares in Barmer. However,

during TE 2008-09, Balmer district occupied first position in terms of area under medicinal

and aromatic crops with 46862.3 hectares while Pali district maintained the second spot with

42925.0 hectares of medicinal and aromatic crops. Among 33 districts of Rajasthan, the

production of medicinal and aromatic crops was also highest of 32466.8 MT in Jalore district

and was lowest of 0.0 MT in 3 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. During TE 2008-09,

the production of medicinal and aromatic crops was highest of 32545.7 MT in Pali district

and was lowest of 0.0 MT in 4 districts of Rajasthan. The annual growth rate of area under

medicinal and aromatic crops was highest of 66.6 per cent in Rajsamund district during the

period between TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09, followed by 50.8 per cent in Hanumangarh and

37.7 per cent in Jaipur district. However, between the same periods, the annual growth rate of

production of medicinal and aromatic crops was highest of 72.6 per cent in Baran followed

by 48.8 per cent in Udaipur and 20.9 per cent in Jhalawar district. The annual growth rate of

area and yield of medicinal and aromatic crops was lowest of -96.1 per cent and -33.8 per

cent in Bharatpur and Sri Ganganagar districts respectively.

2.4 Growth of Area and Production of Selected Crops under NHM

Table 2.7 shows the area and production of four selected horticultural crops in Rajasthan

from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-092. Table 2.8 shows the growth rates in area and production of

these selected horticultural crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09. The growth

2 Annexure 2.8 may be referred for the actual data on area and production of four selected horticultural crops in

Rajasthan from 1980-81 to 2008-09. The actual data on district-wise area and production of four selected

horticultural crops from 2002-03 to 2008-09 is shown in Annexures 2.9 to 2.14.

28

in both area and production of selected horticultural crops was not found to be steady. There

were so many ups and downs in both area and production of these horticultural crops during a

period from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09. It may be noted that the total area under aonla has

increased from 8 hectares during TE 1985-86 to 1611 hectares during TE 2008-09 in

Rajasthan. The total production of aonla has also increased from 8 MT during TE 1985-86 to

12845 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan (Table 2.7). Similarly, the total area under papaya

has increased from 227 hectares during TE 1985-86 to 435 hectares during TE 2008-09 in

Rajasthan. The total production of papaya has registered a sharp increase from 469 MT

during TE 1985-86 to 10108 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. In the case of coriander,

the total area has increased from 62278 hectares during TE 1980-81 to 196396 hectares

during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The total production of coriander has also remarkably

increased from 35567 MT during TE 1980-81 to 198267 MT during TE 2008-09 in

Rajasthan. As regards the overall growth in area and production of mango in Rajasthan is

concerned, the total area under mango has increased from 442 hectares during TE 1985-86 to

6231 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The total production of mango has registered

a sharp increase from 4026 MT during TE 1985-86 to 107152 MT during TE 2001-02 in

Rajasthan. Thereafter, the total production of mango has decreased to 73995 MT during TE

2004-05 and again registered an increase to 88586 MT during TE 2008-09.

The decadal analysis of the physical performance of these selected horticultural crops

reveals that the area and production of aonla crop was only 30 hectares and 69 MT

respectively during TE 1990-91, that have increased to 168 hectares and 1344 MT

respectively during 2000-01. The area and production of papaya has increased from 265

hectares and 874 MT during TE 1990-91 to 427 hectares and 10548 MT during TE 2000-01

in Rajasthan. Similarly, the area and production of mango has increased from 4662 hectares

and 22729 MT during TE 1990-91 to 6586 hectares and 96069 MT during TE 2000-01 in

Rajasthan. It may be noted that the area and production of coriander has increased from

62278 hectares and 35567 MT during TE 1980-81 to 123629 hectares and 104986 MT during

TE 1990-91 that has further increased to 155855 hectares and 157931 MT during TE 2000-01

in Rajasthan.

The decadal analysis of the annual growth of the selected horticultural crops as stated

in Table 2.8 reveals that the first two decades, i.e., 1980-81 to 1990-91 and 1990-91 to 2000-

01 have had remarkable growth in area and production of coriander crop. The growth in area

under mango was noteworthy during 1980-81 to 1990-91, while the growth in production of

mango was remarkable during 1990-91-2000-01. The growth of area and production of

29

papaya and aonla was much better during last two decades, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01 and

2000-01 to 2008-09. Particularly, the growth of area and production of aonla was outstanding

during the second decade of our study, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01.

Area Prodn. Area Prodn. Area Prodn. Area Prodn.

1 TE 1980-81 NA NA NA NA 62278 35567 NA NA

2 TE 81-82 NA NA NA NA 70802 38700 NA NA

3 TE 82-83 NA NA NA NA 92210 54710 NA NA

4 TE 83-84 15 15 268 609 108393 61372 529 6842

5 TE 84-85 8 8 251 585 106933 52374 413 4489

6 TE 85-86 8 8 227 469 110154 40462 442 4026

7 TE 86-87 6 6 206 416 114964 56260 427 2308

8 TE 87-88 10 9 159 281 157161 51947 444 1971

9 TE 88-89 15 13 123 242 162105 73634 371 1240

10 TE 89-90 23 21 168 289 155850 63751 2355 10986

11 TE 90-91 30 69 265 874 123629 104986 4662 22729

12 TE 91-92 22 67 358 2703 115500 94955 6957 40425

13 TE 92-93 18 99 361 3313 128262 106107 7209 43303

14 TE 93-94 7 47 341 5314 136410 94366 7178 50634

15 TE 94-95 7 42 343 6688 140680 101086 7117 49459

16 TE 95-96 17 139 358 9700 138540 104479 7072 53477

17 TE 96-97 26 236 376 10816 138843 121008 7015 49314

18 TE 97-98 33 293 389 12735 175783 162019 6997 51922

19 TE 98-99 38 516 408 16032 195944 183100 6925 56465

20 TE 99-00 87 876 429 14401 184974 174100 6728 76692

21 TE 00-01 168 1344 427 10548 155855 157931 6586 96069

22 TE 01-02 278 1722 402 4563 158022 176054 6470 107152

23 TE 02-03 374 1878 381 3765 154077 174371 6452 93511

24 TE 03-04 458 2864 380 3549 186129 218931 6442 83529

25 TE 04-05 601 3770 375 4586 167353 197520 6413 73995

26 TE 05-06 802 5528 382 5974 175494 204075 6437 92251

27 TE 06-07 1095 7737 389 6813 138742 155745 6433 90772

28 TE 07-08 1397 10517 419 10358 160284 154532 6379 97747

29 TE 2008-09 1611 12845 435 10108 196396 198267 6231 88586

Table 2.7 : Area and production of selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan

Aonla Papaya Coriander MangoSl. No. Year

(Area in hectare and production in metric tonnes)

Sources: (1) Vital Horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur;

(3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to

2008-09).(4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from

1980-81 to 1982-83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)].

(2) Rajasthan Horticulture Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur.

30

Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield

1 1980-81 to 1990-91* 20.41 12.93 1.05 5.24 5.66 1.62 45.74 -11.94

(2.907) (1.416) (0.108) (0.795) (2.223) (0.218) (2.310) (-2.125)

2 1990-91 to 2000-01* 41.82 23.16 2.06 32.09 2.78 3.39 -1.10 33.62

(3.311) (3.324) (2.859) (7.328) (1.373) (2.162) (-6.254) (3.282)

3 2000-01 to 2008-09* 27.93 5.86 2.15 13.83 3.31 -2.09 -0.69 0.08

(16.327) (1.669) (3.062) (2.884) (0.856) -(1.258) -(2.833) (0.029)

4 2000-01 to 2004-05** 22.56 0.31 -1.68 11.76 0.42 -0.02 -0.28 -9.92

5 2004-05 to 2005-06** 12.71 5.57 5.52 5.65 -4.06 -4.74 0.24 26.95

6 2004-05 to 2006-07** 17.56 9.62 4.07 -7.90 -4.11 1.10 0.26 5.09

7 2004-05 to 2007-08** 18.52 6.21 5.62 18.60 9.04 -9.58 -0.65 7.20

8 2004-05 to 2008-09** 14.53 6.46 4.38 -1.85 10.04 -0.50 -1.33 7.03

Table 2.8 : Growth rate in area and yield rate of selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan (%)

Sources: (1) Vital Horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur.

(3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-

03 to 2008-09).(4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur

[(from 1980-81 to 1982-83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)].

Notes :1. * The growth rate for the decennial period are based on semi log time trend and the fig. in

the parentheses are respective ' t' values.

2.** Growth rates are bases on annual averages. Annual Average Growth Rate = ((Ln(value

year end) - Ln(value year begin)) / number of years) x 100.

3.Begning year is the 1983-84 instead of 1980-81 for Anola, Papaya and Mango crops for period

1980-81 to 1990-91 due to data unavailability.

Sl. No. Period

(2) Rajasthan Horticulture Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur.

Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango

4.Due to data problem for 1984, 1993, 1994 and 2008 annual figure for Anola have been replaced by

the respective TE values as proxies.

2.4.1 The Case of Aonla

As far as the case of aonla is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area

and yield of aonla was 20.41 per cent and 12.93 per cent respectively during the period of TE

1980-81 - TE 1990-91. The annual growth rate of area and yield of aonla has further

increased to 41.82 per cent and 23.16 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1990-91 -

TE 2000-01. The trend in growth of area and yield of aonla has just reversed during the next

period, i.e., TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The annual growth rate of both area and yield of

31

aonla has declined to 27.93 per cent and 5.86 per cent respectively during the period of TE

2000-01 - TE 2008-09.

It may also be noted that the AAGR of area of aonla was 22.93 per cent during the

period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has decreased to 12.71 per cent during the period of

TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. However, there has been revival of growth of area under aonla

thereafter. The AAGR of area of aonla has increased to 17.56 per cent during the period of

TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and further to 18.52 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE

2007-08. Thus there has been a marked improvement of area under aonla during 2006-07 and

2007-08. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of aonla was 0.31 per

cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has sharply increased to 5.57 per cent

during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and has further increased to 9.62 per cent

during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07. It is disheartening to note that the yield of

aonla has fallen thereafter to 6.21 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and

to 6.46 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09.

2.4.2 The Case of Papaya

As stated in Table 2.8, it may be seen that the annual growth rate of area and yield of papaya

was 1.05 per cent and 5.24 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990-

91. While the annual growth rate of yield of papaya has sharply increased to 32.09 per cent

during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of papaya has

marginally increased to 2.06 per cent during the same period. The annual growth rate of yield

of papaya has fallen to 13.83 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 but the

annual growth rate of area of papaya has registered further increase of 2.15 per cent during

the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09. It may also be noted that the annual average growth

rate of area of papaya was -1.68 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that

has increased to 5.52 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and to 5.62 per

cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08. However, the annual average growth rate

of area of papaya has declined to 4.38 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-

09. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of papaya was 11.76 per cent

during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has decreased to 5.65 per cent during the

period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and has further declined to -7.90 per cent during the

period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07. It is notable that the yield of papaya has recovered to

18.60 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and has fallen thereafter to -

1.85 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09.

32

2.4.3 The Case of Coriander

It may be noted that the annual growth rate of area and yield of coriander was 5.66 per cent

and 1.62 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1980-81 - TE 1990-91. While the

annual growth rate of yield of coriander has further increased to 3.39 per cent during the

period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of coriander has declined

to 2.78 per cent during the same period. The trend in growth of area and yield of coriander

has just reversed during the next period, i.e., TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. While the annual

growth rate of yield of coriander has sharply decreased to -2.09 per cent during the period of

TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from 3.39 per cent during the preceding period of TE 1990-91 - TE

2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of coriander has increased to 3.31 per cent during the

period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from 2.78 per cent during the period from TE 1990-91 to

TE 2000-01.

It may also be noted that the annual average growth rate (AAGR) of area of coriander

has decreased to 0.42 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has further

declined to -4.06 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and to -4.11 per

cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07. However, there has been some revival of

growth of area under coriander thereafter. The annual average growth rate of area of

coriander has revived to 9.04 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and

further to 10.04 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09. Thus there has been

a marked improvement of area under coriander after 2007-08 during implementation of

NHM. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of coriander was -0.28 per

cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has decreased to -4.74 per cent

during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. It is noteworthy that the yield of coriander

has slightly recovered to 1.1 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and has

fallen thereafter to -9.58 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and to -0.5

per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09.

2.4.4 The Case of Mango

Considering the case of mango, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area and yield

of mango was 45.74 per cent and -11.94 per cent respectively during the period of TE 1980-

81 - TE 1990-91. While the annual growth rate of yield of mango has increased to 33.62 per

cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of mango

has declined to -1.1 per cent during the same period. The trend in growth of area and yield of

mango has just reversed during the next period, i.e., TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. While the

33

annual growth rate of yield of mango has sharply decreased to 0.08 per cent during the period

of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from 33.62 per cent during the preceding period of TE 1990-91

- TE 2000-01, the annual growth rate of area of mango has slightly improved to -0.69 per

cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09 from -1.1 per cent during the period from

TE 1990-91 to TE 2000-01.

It may also be noted that the annual average growth rate (AAGR) of area of mango

was -0.28 per cent during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has increased to 0.24

per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06 and has further increased to 0.26 per

cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07. However, there has been reversal of

growth of area under mango thereafter. The annual average growth rate of area of mango has

declined to -0.65 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2007-08 and further to -1.33

per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09. Thus there has been a marked

improvement of area under mango during 2005-06 and 2006-07 and deceleration of area

under mango during the next two years of implementation of NHM, i.e., 2007-08 and 2008-

09. On the other hand, the annual average growth rate of yield of mango was -9.92 per cent

during the period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2004-05 that has sharply increased to 26.95 per cent

during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2005-06. It is disheartening to note that the yield of

mango has again fallen to 5.06 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2006-07 and to

7.03 per cent during the period of TE 2004-05 - TE 2008-09.

2.5 District Wise Growth of Area & Production of Selected Crops under NHM

The district-wise analysis of area and production of selected horticultural crops for the

periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 is shown in Table 2.9 and Table 2.10 respectively, while

the annual growth rates of area and yield of four selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla,

papaya, coriander and mango in various districts of Rajasthan from the period TE 2004-05 to

TE 2008-09 is stated in Table 2.11.

2.5.1 The Case of Aonla

It may be noted that the total area and production of aonla in Rajasthan was

601.3 hectares and 3769.9 MT respectively during triennium ending (TE) 2004-05, which

increased to 1610.8 hectares and 12844.7 MT respectively during TE 2008-09. The annual

growth rate of area and yield of aonla from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 was 24.6 per cent and

5.5 per cent respectively in Rajasthan state as whole (Table 2.11). The district-wise analysis

of area and production of aonla revealed that the area under aonla was highest in Ajmer

34

district (133.1 hectares) and was lowest of 0.0 hectare in 4 districts of Rajasthan during TE

2004-05. Similarly, the area under aonla was also highest (252.3 hectares) in Ajmer district

and was lowest of 0.0 hectare in Dungarpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09.

However, the production of aonla was highest of 1444.7 MT in Jaipur district, followed by

595.4 MT in Sikar district during TE 2004-05. The least amount of production of aonla (0.0

MT) was also realized in the 4 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. On the other hand,

during TE 2008-09, the production of aonla was highest of 3201.7 MT in Chittorgarh district,

followed by 2462.7 MT and 1551.1 MT in Jaipur district and Hanumangarh district

respectively. The least amount of production of aonla (0.0 MT) was realized in 2 districts

(Churu and Pratapgarh) during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth rate of area and yield of

aonla in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE 2004-05 and TE

2008-09, Dholpur, Sirohi and Jhunjhunu occupied first three positions with 89.3 per cent,

81.3 per cent and 60.6 per cent of annual growth in area under aonla respectively. On the

other hand, Dholpur, Bikaner and Chittorgarh occupied first three positions with 96.4 per

cent, 67.5 per cent and 53.3 per cent of annual growth in yield of aonla respectively between

the same periods.

2.5.2 The Case of Papaya

Like other selected crops, wide variability was also observed among various districts of

Rajasthan in terms of production and area under papaya during the reference years. In the

case of papaya, the area coverage was highest of 49.5 hectares in Chittorgarh district and was

lowest of 0.0 hectares in 5 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. Chittorgarh district also

occupied first position in terms of area under papaya with 62.2 hectares during TE 2008-09.

Among 33 districts of Rajasthan, the production of papaya in Chittorgarh district was also

highest of 1647.8 MT and 4749.6 MT during TE 2004-05 and during TE 2008-09

respectively. No output of papaya was realized in 5 districts during TE 2004-05 and in 6

districts during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. As far as the growth in area and yield of papaya in

various districts is concerned, it may be noted that the annual growth rate of area under

papaya was highest of 24.1 per cent in Ajmer district during the period between TE 2004-05

and TE 2008-09, followed by 22.4 per cent in Bundi and 21.2 per cent in Sirohi district.

However, between the same periods, the annual growth rate of production of papaya was

highest of 64.6 per cent in Alwar district followed by 50.2 per cent in Udaipur and 47.8per

cent in Jhalawar district.

35

Sl. No. District

Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod Area Prod

1 Ajmer 133.1 25.8 0.8 5.2 73.0 83.3 78.6 27.2

2 Alwar 34.4 235.4 24.0 209.9 122.7 140.0 124.4 1533.6

3 Banswara 6.1 129.2 4.5 95.0 2.0 2.5 524.0 6992.1

4 Baran 12.3 67.1 20.8 302.1 58380.0 80296.0 213.4 9026.4

5 Barmer 0.0 0.0 1.9 33.1 1.5 1.5 2.9 12.7

6 Bharatpur 1.6 1.6 23.2 19.7 0.7 0.7 66.8 130.1

7 Bhilwara 23.5 137.3 24.2 143.0 92.7 106.0 434.5 2775.8

8 Bikaner 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 26.0 29.7 0.0 0.0

9 Bundi 6.2 6.2 11.0 146.1 5167.0 5457.7 163.0 1082.9

10 Chittorgarh 46.1 233.1 49.5 1647.8 1564.3 1068.7 736.8 7438.6

11 Churu 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

12 Dausa 20.4 40.7 26.0 256.8 8.3 9.7 548.0 1996.4

13 Dholpur 0.1 0.4 8.5 39.3 4.7 5.0 451.3 7400.7

14 Dungarpur 0.0 0.0 4.1 23.5 2.5 3.0 343.6 291.6

15 Srigangangar 13.7 16.6 0.0 0.0 8.0 8.3 45.6 1.8

16 Hanumangarh 13.0 90.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

17 Jaipur 97.7 1444.7 24.0 156.1 83.7 89.7 338.5 3311.5

18 Jaisalmer 25.1 15.9 0.0 0.0 266.7 303.0 0.8 4.7

19 Jalore 7.6 11.1 7.4 42.4 4.0 5.0 40.7 146.1

20 Jhalawar 3.3 12.2 22.9 110.6 61063.0 63012.0 326.9 2726.3

21 Jhunjhunu 0.1 0.5 3.8 31.5 2.0 1.5 24.1 8.6

22 Jodhpur 20.3 235.4 2.5 5.6 442.0 347.7 2.7 3.3

23 Karuali 1.4 4.4 35.4 763.5 28.7 31.0 307.9 7523.7

24 Kota 2.0 73.6 3.9 77.3 39410.0 45856.3 219.9 4162.7

25 Nagaur 50.8 105.4 2.0 2.7 139.0 171.0 3.3 0.8

26 Pali 26.8 174.3 3.4 13.7 6.7 8.0 5.1 16.7

27 Pratapgarh* NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

28 Rajsamand 6.0 24.9 10.5 83.2 29.3 18.0 208.6 1649.4

29 S.modhpur 8.6 72.2 11.6 79.7 123.7 144.0 133.1 2068.3

30 Sikar 38.5 595.4 3.1 67.9 122.3 121.7 26.6 145.2

31 Sirohi 0.2 0.2 9.8 33.7 5.7 6.3 140.3 667.3

32 Tonk 0.0 0.0 8.8 12.4 119.3 134.3 68.2 96.6

33 Udaipur 13.6 15.8 27.3 184.9 52.3 57.0 833.9 12753.4

State Total 601.3 3769.9 374.8 4586.5 167353.3 197520.0 6413.3 73994.6

Notes: 1. *Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09.

2. Figures in Italic are for the study districts.


Table 2.9: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (TE

2004-05)


3. 'Prod' implies production of selected horticultural crops.


36

Sl. No. District


1 Ajmer 252.3 30.3 2.0 0.2 64.0 63.3 61.3 8.9

2 Alwar 142.9 1025.3 12.7 1444.8 41.7 40.3 64.1 906.4

3 Banswara 6.2 141.5 4.0 86.0 1.0 1.3 620.4 9380.7

4 Baran 44.6 235.1 22.0 244.6 72150.7 81948.0 193.5 9028.0

5 Barmer 3.7 10.0 1.7 13.1 0.7 0.7 2.9 3.1

6 Bharatpur 12.1 28.8 30.9 73.2 8.3 7.7 63.5 381.0

7 Bhilwara 163.8 621.4 38.7 361.1 12.3 12.0 397.7 3254.6

8 Bikaner 17.5 14.2 0.1 0.0 23.3 25.7 NA 0.0

9 Bundi 22.1 138.6 26.9 439.7 2354.7 2077.3 172.6 991.7

10 Chittorgarh 71.0 3201.7 62.2 4749.6 2537.7 2676.0 632.2 17789.4

11 Churu 1.0 0.0 NA 0.0 4.0 4.0 NA 0.0

12 Dausa 33.3 415.2 23.0 369.1 3.0 2.7 509.0 7345.7

13 Dholpur 2.7 56.8 7.6 37.4 4.3 4.3 425.5 6849.8

14 Dungarpur 0.0 0.0 5.6 24.4 0.7 0.7 384.0 328.0

15 Srigangangar 67.6 542.4 NA 0.0 7.7 7.7 28.9 328.8

16 Hanumangarh 65.7 1551.1 NA 0.0 0.7 0.7 NA 0.0

17 Jaipur 194.8 2462.7 23.9 169.9 51.0 52.7 348.6 3220.3

18 Jaisalmer 42.4 24.5 0.0 0.0 9.3 7.7 0.5 6.0

19 Jalore 21.9 43.8 13.9 60.6 4.7 4.3 38.5 166.3

20 Jhalawar 14.7 358.9 16.2 570.2 81555.0 66313.0 318.0 3928.5

21 Jhunjhunu 1.0 5.8 2.6 33.0 7.3 7.7 22.7 11.2

22 Jodhpur 34.7 28.1 2.7 6.2 238.3 239.7 1.5 0.0

23 Karuali 3.1 13.0 28.0 544.1 12.0 13.7 291.7 2904.5

24 Kota 16.3 478.6 4.5 51.0 37035.3 44487.3 179.1 2886.3

25 Nagaur 151.8 162.8 1.6 1.1 17.0 16.3 3.8 0.6

26 Pali 74.4 39.2 4.0 1.2 10.0 10.7 6.7 4.1

27 Pratapgarh* 0.5 0.0 24.3 0.0 5.0 6.0 445.8 0.0

28 Rajsamand 25.5 144.2 17.4 252.8 65.3 71.7 203.3 3487.3

29 S.modhpur 25.3 194.8 7.6 58.9 60.7 54.3 102.6 1425.7

30 Sikar 68.6 87.3 3.6 29.3 13.7 13.0 38.8 164.3

31 Sirohi 5.2 6.2 23.0 104.7 13.3 15.0 138.5 996.7

32 Tonk 26.8 128.6 4.7 5.7 24.3 23.3 53.7 21.4

33 Udaipur 6.9 26.8 35.7 1738.3 62.7 62.3 779.1 10610.5

State total 1610.8 12844.7 434.7 11469.9 196396.3 198267.0 6230.8 86429.6

Notes: 1.* Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09.


3. **Due to unavailability of district level data on production of aonla, mango and papaya in 2008-09 in

Rajasthan, we have taken two years averages upto 2007-08 instead of TE 2008-09 for these crops.


Table 2.10: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (TE 2008-09)

Aonla** Papaya** Coriander Mango**


37

Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield

1 Ajmer 16.0 -10.7 24.1 -105.5 -3.3 -3.6 -6.2 -22.6

2 Alwar 35.6 3.4 -15.9 64.6 -27.0 -4.1 -16.6 2.0

3 Banswara 0.5 1.7 -2.7 1.2 -17.3 1.6 4.2 0.2

4 Baran 32.1 -7.4 1.4 -7.8 5.3 -4.8 -2.4 2.2

5 Barmer NA NA -2.1 -20.8 -20.3 0.0 0.7 -36.0

6 Bharatpur 50.9 19.7 7.2 31.8 63.1 -2.1 -1.3 26.9

7 Bhilwara 48.5 -8.2 11.7 13.9 -50.4 -4.0 -2.2 5.9

8 Bikaner 44.1 67.5 NA NA -2.7 -0.9 NA NA

9 Bundi 31.9 46.9 22.4 5.2 -19.6 -4.5 1.4 -3.5

10 Chittorgarh 10.8 53.3 5.7 19.6 12.1 10.9 -3.8 22.1

11 Churu NA NA NA NA 0.0 0.0 NA NA

12 Dausa 12.2 45.7 -3.0 11.5 -25.5 -6.7 -1.8 33.6

13 Dholpur 89.3 96.4 -2.9 1.6 -1.9 -1.7 -1.5 -0.5

14 Dungarpur NA NA 7.5 -6.1 -33.0 -4.6 2.8 0.1

15 Srigangangar 40.0 43.5 NA NA -1.1 -1.0 -11.4 137.7

16 Hanumangarh 40.5 32.6 NA NA -10.1 0.0 NA NA

17 Jaipur 17.3 -3.0 -0.1 0.8 -12.4 -0.9 0.7 -2.2

18 Jaisalmer 13.1 -3.4 NA NA -83.8 -8.1 -14.0 19.9

19 Jalore 26.5 7.9 15.7 -4.9 3.9 -7.4 -1.4 4.7

20 Jhalawar 37.7 48.1 -8.6 47.8 7.2 -6.0 -0.7 9.7

21 Jhunjhunu 60.6 -3.9 -9.7 14.5 32.5 8.3 -1.5 8.3

22 Jodhpur 13.3 -64.9 1.6 -2.2 -15.4 6.1 -14.4 NA

23 Karuali 19.8 22.7 -5.9 -2.4 -21.8 1.3 -1.4 -23.4

24 Kota 52.1 5.8 3.9 -14.6 -1.6 0.8 -5.1 -4.6

25 Nagaur 27.4 -17.5 -5.8 -19.8 -52.5 -6.2 4.0 -9.8

26 Pali 25.5 -59.9 3.8 -68.6 10.1 -2.9 7.1 -22.9

27 Pratapgarh NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

28 Rajsamand 36.2 10.6 12.6 14.4 20.0 14.5 -0.6 19.6

29 S.modhpur 26.9 3.5 -10.5 1.5 -17.8 -6.6 -6.5 -2.6

30 Sikar 14.4 -62.7 3.7 -31.7 -54.8 -1.1 9.4 -6.0

31 Sirohi 81.3 16.5 21.2 2.1 21.4 0.2 -0.3 9.6

32 Tonk NA NA -15.9 -3.2 -39.8 -4.0 -6.0 -34.9

33 Udaipur -17.1 29.9 6.8 50.2 4.5 -2.3 -1.7 -3.7

State total 24.6 5.5 3.7 19.6 4.0 -3.9 -0.7 4.1

Table 2.11 : Average annual growth rate in area and yield of selected horticulture crops at

district level in Rajasthan from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09 percent per annum

Annual growth rates (%)


Sl. No District

Notes: 1.*Pratapgarh district was created in 2008-09.



38

2.5.3 The Case of Coriander

As shown in Table 2.9, the total area and production of coriander in Rajasthan was

167353.3 hectares and 197520.0 MT respectively during TE 2004-05, which increased to

196396.3 hectares and 198267.0 MT respectively during TE 2008-09 (Table 2.9 and Table

2.10). The annual growth rate of area and yield of coriander from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-09

was 4.0 per cent and -3.9 per cent respectively in Rajasthan state as whole (Table 2.11). The

district-wise analysis of area and production of coriander revealed that the area under

coriander was highest in Jhalawar district (61063.0 hectares) and was lowest of 0.7 hectares

in Bharatpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05. Similarly, the area under coriander was

also highest (81555.0 hectares) in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.7 hectares each in

Barmer, Dungarpur and Hanumangarh districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. However,

the production of coriander was highest of 80296.0 MT in Baran district, followed by

63012.0 MT in Jhalawar district during TE 2004-05. The least amount of production of

coriander (0.7 MT) was also realized in Bharatpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05.

On the other hand, during TE 2008-09, the production of coriander was highest of 81948.0

MT in Baran district, followed by 66313.0 MT and 44487.3 MT in Jhalawar district and Kota

district respectively. The least amount of production of coriander (0.7 MT) was realized in 2

districts (Barmer and Dungarpur) during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth rate of area and

yield of coriander in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE 2004-05

and TE 2008-09, Bharatpur, Jhunjhunu and Sirohi occupied first three positions with 63.1 per

cent, 32.5 per cent and 21.4 per cent of annual growth in area under coriander respectively.

On the other hand, Rajsamund, Chittorgarh and Jhunjhunu occupied first three positions with

14.5 per cent, 10.9 per cent and 8.3 per cent of annual growth in yield of coriander

respectively between the same periods.

2.5.4 The Case of Mango

Considering the case of mango, it may be noted that the total area and production of mango in

Rajasthan was 6413.3 hectares (ha) and 73994.6 MT respectively during triennium ending

(TE) 2004-05. While the total area under mango decreased to 6230.8 ha during TE 2008-09,

the total production of mango registered an increase to 86429.6 MT during TE 2008-09 in

Rajasthan. The annual growth rate of area and yield of mango from TE 2004-05 to TE 2008-

09 was -0.7 per cent and 4.1 per cent respectively in Rajasthan. The district-wise analysis of

area and production of mango revealed that the area under mango was highest in Ajmer

district (833.9 ha) and was lowest of 0.0 ha in 2 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05.

39

Similarly, the area under mango was also highest (779.1 ha) in Udaipur district and was

lowest of 0.0 ha in 3 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. On the other hand, the

production of mango was highest of 12753.4 MT in Udaipur district, followed by 9026.4 MT

in Baran district and 7438.6 MT in Chittorgarh district during TE 2004-05. The least amount

of production of mango (0.0 MT) was also realized in the 3 districts of Rajasthan during TE

2004-05. During TE 2008-09, the production of mango was highest of 17789.4 MT in

Chittorgarh district, followed by 10610.5 MT and 9380.7 MT in Udaipur district and

Banswara district respectively. The least amount of production of mango (0.0 MT) was

realized in 5 districts during TE 2008-09. As far as the growth rate of area and yield of

mango in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE 2004-05 and TE

2008-09, Sikar, Pali and Nagaur occupied first three positions with 9.4 per cent, 7.1 per cent

and 4.0 per cent of annual growth in area under mango respectively. On the other hand, Sri

Ganganagar, Dausa and Bharatpur occupied first three positions with 137.7 per cent, 33.6 per

cent and 26.9 per cent of annual growth in production of mango respectively between the

same periods. The lowest annual growth in area and production of mango between TE 2004-

05 and TE 2008-09 was -16.6 per cent and -36.0 per cent in Alwar and Barmer respectively.

2.6 Summary of the Chapter

The status of area, production and yield of horticultural crops in the state of Rajasthan has

been analyzed in this chapter. The growth of area and production of different types of

horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal & aromatic plants in

the state from TE 1980-81 to TE 2008-09 has been analyzed so as to identify the impact of

NHM on the growth of horticulture in the state. The district level analysis has also been made

on expansion of different types of horticultural crops in the state. The growth rates of area

and production of different types of horticultural crops in various districts of Rajasthan

during TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 have been worked out so as to examine the district level

impact of NHM on the growth of different types of horticultural crops. The similar kinds of

temporal and spatial analysis have also been made on four selected horticultural crops, viz.,

aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in particular.

As far as the status of area, production and yield of horticultural crops in the state of

Rajasthan is concerned, the area under horticultural crops as a proportion of cultivable area

was found to increase from 3.14 per cent during TE 2004-05 to 3.41 per cent during TE

2008-09. The total area under all horticultural crops has increased from 3, 23,347 hectares

during TE 1980-81 to 8, 71,539 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The total

40

production from all horticultural crops has increased from 1, 84,794 MT during TE 1980-81

to 18, 48,466 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The district-wise analysis of horticultural

area in the state revealed that the horticultural area as a proportion of cultivable area was

highest of 25.74 per cent in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.26 per cent in Hanumangarh

district during TE 2008-09.

As regards the growth of area and production of various types of horticultural crops

like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to

TE 2008-09, it was observed that there were so many ups and downs in growth of both area

and production of various types of horticultural crops during the period from TE 1980-81 to

TE 2008-09. However, the instability in growth of yield was much higher than the instability

in growth of area under these crops over the years. The share of area and production of spices

has declined from 76 per cent and 33 per cent in 1980-81 to 58 per cent and 29 per cent in

2008-09 respectively. On the other hand, the share of area and production of medicinal crops

has sharply increased from 7 per cent and 1 per cent in 1980-81 to 25 per cent and 6 per cent

in 2008-09 respectively. The area under horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices and

medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 1980-81 was 11777 hectares, 38660

hectares, 251911 hectares and 21000 hectares respectively. The production of various types

of horticultural crops, viz., vegetables, spices and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the

period TE 1980-81 was 64088 MT, 118075 MT and 2681 MT respectively. The area under

fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE

2008-09 was 29069 hectares, 130539 hectares, 495405 hectares, 3142 hectares and 213385

hectares respectively. The production of fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal

crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 2008-09 was 483200 MT, 792788 MT, 473541 MT,

4241 MT, 94697 MT and 1848466 MT respectively. The annual growth rate of area and yield

of all horticultural crops was 4.47 per cent and 11.01 per cent respectively between TE 1980-

81 and TE 1990-91. While the annual growth rate of area of horticultural crops has further

increased to 4.63 per cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth

rate of yield of horticultural crops has declined to 0.74 per cent during the same period.

The district-wise analysis of area and production of different types of horticultural

crops for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 reveals that the horticultural area was also

highest of 1, 05,186 hectares in Barmer district and was also lowest of 872 hectares in

Dungarpur district during TE 2008-09. The production of horticultural crops during the same

period was highest (283982.9 MT) in Jhalawar district followed by 176428.4 MT in Jodhpur

district, 165224.2 MT in Sri Ganganagar district. As far as the growth rate of area and yield

41

of horticultural crops in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE

2004-05 and TE 2008-09, Rajsamund, Hanumangarh and Sirohi occupied first three positions

with 15.1 per cent, 11.43 per cent and 10.64 per cent of annual growth in area under

horticultural crops respectively. On the other hand, Sri Ganganagar, Bharatpur and



periods.

The decadal analysis of the annual growth of four selected horticultural crops (aonla,

papaya, coriander and mango) reveals that the first two decades, i.e., 1980-81 to 1990-91 and

1990-91 to 2000-01 have had remarkable growth in area and production of coriander crop.

The growth in area under mango was noteworthy during 1980-81 to 1990-91, while the

growth in production of mango was striking during 1990-91-2000-01. The growth of area and

production of papaya and aonla was much better during last two decades, i.e., 1990-91 to

2000-01 and 2000-01 to 2008-09. Particularly, the growth of area and production of aonla

was outstanding during the second decade of our study, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01.

The area under aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in Rajasthan during the period TE

1985-86 was 8 hectares, 227 hectares, 110154 hectares and 442 hectares respectively. The

production of aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the same period was 8 MT, 469

MT, 40462 MT and 4026 MT respectively. The area under aonla, papaya, coriander and

mango during the period TE 2008-09 was 1611 hectares, 435 hectares, 196396 hectares and

6231 hectares respectively. The production of aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the

same period was 12845 MT, 10108 MT, 198267 MT and 88586 MT respectively.

The annual growth rate of area and yield of aonla was 27.93 per cent and 5.86 per

cent respectively during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The annual growth rate

of area and yield of papaya was 2.15 per cent and 13.83 per cent respectively during the same

period. The annual growth rate of area and yield of coriander was 3.31 per cent and -2.09 per

cent respectively during the same period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09. The annual growth

rate of area and yield of mango was -0.69 per cent and 0.08 per cent respectively during the

same period.

The district-wise analysis of area and production of selected four horticultural crops

for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 reveals that the area under aonla was highest in

Ajmer district (133.1 hectares) and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 4 districts of Rajasthan

during TE 2004-05. Likewise, the area under aonla was also highest (252.3 hectares) in

Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0 ha in Dungarpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2008-

42

09. In the case of papaya, the area coverage was highest of 49.5 hectares in Chittorgarh

district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 5 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05.

Chittorgarh district also occupied first position in terms of area under papaya with 62.2

hectares during TE 2008-09. The production of papaya in Chittorgarh district was also



districts during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. As far as the district-wise analysis of area and

production of coriander is concerned, the area under coriander was also highest (81555.0

hectares) in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.7 hectares each in Barmer, Dungarpur and

Hanumangarh districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. The production of coriander was

highest of 81948.0 MT in Baran district, followed by 66313.0 MT and 44487.3 MT in

Jhalawar district and Kota district respectively. The area under mango was also highest

(779.1 hectares) in Udaipur district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 3 districts of Rajasthan

during TE 2008-09. The production of mango was highest of 17789.4 MT in Chittorgarh

district, followed by 10610.5 MT and 9380.7 MT in Udaipur district and Banswara district

respectively during the same period.

43

Chapter III

Household characteristics, Cropping Pattern and

Production Structure

3.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Selected Farmers

The National Horticulture Mission (NHM) was started in 2006 with a motive to promote

holistic growth of orchards for fruits, vegetables, root and tuber crops, mushrooms, spices,

flowers, aromatic plants, cashew and cocoa. The cultivation of horticultural crops involves

higher cost of cultivation and generates higher returns to farmers compared to cultivation of

cereals and other staple crops. The socio-economic characteristics of the farmers also have an

important bearing on the decision to cultivate these cash crops. For example, the resource

poor farmers normally don‟t prefer to go for horticultural crops because of scarcity of

resources. They prefer to cultivate crops involving lower cost of production. On the other

hand, the large farmers and richer farmers usually prefer to cultivate horticultural crops

provided necessary provisions are available to them. Thus it is imperative to examine the

characteristics of our sample farmers and their level of involvement in cultivation of

horticultural crops. In addition to the socio economic characteristics, this chapter also

discusses about the cropping pattern and production structure of 200 sample farmers covered

under NHM in Rajasthan.

Among the sample farmers, 44 were marginal farmers, 45 were small farmers, 57 were

medium farmers and 54 were large farmers (Table 3.1). The average household (HH) size for

entire sample was 7.47 persons. However, it is highest for large farmer category (8.50) and

lowest for marginal category of farmers (6.11). The average number of earners per sample

household was 2.93. It was highest in the case of marginal farmer category (3.45) and lowest

in the case of large farmer category (2.73). Near about 39.2 per cent members were earning

members in a sample family.

The data given in Table 3.1 reveals that 52.68 per cent family members were male and

47.32 per cent were female. The proportion of female members was lowest (44.4%) in

medium farmer category of households and was highest (50.93%) in marginal farmer

category of households. It was good to find that about 67.47 per cent of all members of

sample households belonged to „16-60 years‟ age group which considered as a productive age

group. Only 7 per cent were aged above 60 years. In the large farmer category, the proportion

44

of members in the productive age group of 16-60 years was highest of 71.46. The proportion

of members in the age group of less than 16 years was highest in marginal farmer category of

households. All respondents of our sample households were heads of their households.

Marginal Small Medium Large Total

44 45 57 54 200

6.11 7.02 7.89 8.50 7.47

3.45 2.87 2.92 2.73 2.93

Male 49.07 54.11 55.56 50.98 52.68

Female 50.93 45.89 44.44 49.02 47.32

<16 37.17 24.05 25.56 19.61 25.50

16-60 59.11 68.99 67.33 71.46 67.47

>60 3.72 6.96 7.11 8.93 7.03

Head 100 100 100 100 100

Others 0 0 0 0 0

Illiterate (> 6 yrs) 28.62 19.30 21.33 21.57 22.29

Up to primary 22.68 20.57 38.89 19.17 26.04

Up to secondary 32.34 36.71 21.56 38.13 31.79

Up to graduate 7.06 15.51 11.11 13.07 11.91

Above graduate 1.49 3.80 2.67 3.49 2.95

SC 2.27 4.44 1.75 1.85 2.50

ST 84.09 31.11 12.28 12.96 32.50

OBC 13.64 42.22 71.93 66.67 51.00

General 0.00 22.22 14.04 18.52 14.00

Male 95.45 88.89 89.47 94.44 92.00

Female 4.55 11.11 10.53 5.56 8.00

Farming 87.18 77.27 74.68 78.57 78.04

Self business 3.85 7.27 16.23 9.52 10.20

Salaried/pensioners 7.69 15.45 7.14 11.90 10.98

Wage earners 1.28 0.00 1.95 0.00 0.78

0.74 0.63 0.44 2.40 1.14

Note: HH stands for Households. Similarly, SC, ST and OBC represent Sehdule Caste, Sehedule

Trribe and Other Backward Class respectively.

Source: Field survey data

Education status of the

members (%)

Caste (% of households)

Decision maker (% of hh)

Involved in migration during year 2009 (% of

members)

Table 3.1: Demographic profile of the selected farmers (% of households)

Main occupation (% of

working memners)

Identity of respondent (%)

Characteristics

No of HH

Household size (numbers)

Average numbers of earners

Gender (% of members)

Age group of the members

(%)

It may be seen that 22.29 percent members of sample households were illiterate and

69.74 per cent of them were literate from primary level to graduate level. About 57.83

percent members were educated from primary level to secondary level. The proportion of

literate people in small farmer category was found to be highest of 80.70 per cent followed by

45

the same in medium farmer category (78.67%). The proportion of literate people in marginal

farmer category was found to be lowest of 71.38 per cent.

The cast composition of selected farmers as shown in Table 3.1 reveals that about 51

per cent sample households (HHs) belonged to OBC category, 32.50 percent HHs belonged

to ST category, 2.50 percent HHs belonged to SC and remaining 14 per cent HHs belonged to

general caste category. The farmer category wise analysis of caste composition reveals that

about 84.09 percent HHs of marginal farmer category belonged to ST caste whereas 71.93

percent medium famer HHs belonged to OBC category. No HHs of marginal farmer category

belonged to general caste.

The data also reveals that the majority of decisions were taken by male farmers in the

case of about 92 per cent of our sample HHs. Only 8 per cent sample HHs had females as

decision makers.

As far as the main occupation of the sample HHs is concerned, Table 3.1 shows that

78.04 per cent working members of sample HHs were engaged in farming, 10.20 per cent

were engaged in self business, 10.98 per cent were salaried or pensioners and only 0.78 per

cent were wage earners. On an Average, 15.45 per cent small farmers are salaried/pensioners

and 16.23 per cent medium farmers were having their self business. The table also reveals

that the migration as a means of occupation was adopted by only 1.14 percent members of

sample HHs during 2008-09.

3.2 Characteristics of Operational Holdings

The net sown area (NSA) and gross cropped area (GCA) of a sample household was found to

be 8.85 acres and 16.76 acres respectively, which implies that the cropping intensity in the

study area was 187 per cent. Thus the agricultural lands have been utilized in an effective

manner by the sample farmers. It can be observed from Table 3.2 that almost entire net

operated area (NOA) has been put under cultivation (i.e., 8.95 acre out of 9.01 acres) which is

also same as the average size of land owned by a sample household. In the case of marginal

farmer category, 1.86 acres out of 1.91 acres of NOA per household (HH) was owned land,

whereas the owned land per HH in the case of small, medium and large farmers was 4.08

acres, 8.18 acres, and 19.69 acres respectively. It may be noted that the proportions of leased

in land was very less in the case of our sample farmers. The proportions of leased out lands,

cultivable waste lands and non-cultivable lands were nil in the case of the sample farmers.

Among various categories of farmers, small farmers were found to cultivate their lands more

46

intensively as their cropping intensity was found to be highest of 227. The cropping intensity

was found to be considerably at higher level (203) for medium farmers in our sample.

Owned

land

Under

cultivation

Cultivable

waste

Non

cultivable

Leased-

in

Leased -

out

NOA NSA GCA Cropping

intensity

(1) (1a) (1b) (1c) (2) (3) (1+2-3)

Marginal 1.86 1.86 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 1.91 1.90 3.71 195

Small 4.08 4.08 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 4.15 4.15 9.40 227

Medium 8.18 8.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.18 8.18 16.64 203

Large 19.69 19.69 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 19.73 19.50 33.65 173

Total 8.95 8.95 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 9.01 8.95 16.76 187

Farm size

Table 3.2: Characteristics of operational holdings (acres per household)

Note: NOA implies Net Operated Aera; NSA implies Net Sown Area; GCA implies Gross Croped

Area; Cropping Intensity= GCA/NSA×100


3.3 Nature of Tenancy

The tenancy contract, particularly share-cropping is the most popular form of tenancy

contract. With this arrangement, a given fraction of output is paid as rent that makes the

tenant, to some extent, to be insulated against output fluctuations, because he can share some

of these fluctuations with his landlord. This is primarily an ex-ante risk management strategy

used widely by the farmers to reduce their risk level in the drought prone areas. However, in

our study area in Rajasthan, we found that the sample farmers preferred fixed rent in cash

form of tenancy contract instead of share cropping.

Table 3.3 shows the nature of tenancy in leased- in land in the study area. It may be

seen that near about 0.06 acres per HH was leased in by the sample farmers and the entire

leased in lands were leased in by the farmers in the form of fixed rent in cash. Small farmers

acquired highest area of 0.07 acres of lease in land, followed by 0.05 acres by the marginal

farmers and 0.03 acres by the large farmers.

47

Farm size

Marginal 0 (0.0) 0.05 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Small 0 (0.0) 0.07 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Medium 0 (0.0) 0.00 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Large 0 (0.0) 0.03 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

All farmers 0 (0.0) 0.06 (100.00) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

Table 3.3: Nature of tenancy in leasing-in land in acres


Notes: Figures in parantheses are the percentages of total leasing in land.

Share cropping Fixed rent in cash Fixed rent in

kind

Both cash and

kind

Against

labour

Others

3.4 Sources of Irrigation

Production of most horticultural crops requires adequate water at critical growth stages. This

makes supplemental irrigation a prerequisite for better profitability. Water quality and

quantity are both important for healthy growth of horticultural crops. As revealed by Table

3.4 that about 8.26 acres out of 9.01 acres of NOA (91.6%) was irrigated through different

sources by a sample farmer on an average. Among different farmer categories, large farmers

were found to irrigate 18.43 acres out of 19.73 acres of NOA per HH (93.7%), followed by

small farmers with 93.0 per cent of NOA as net irrigated area. As far as different sources of

irrigation are concerned, highest of 76.07 per cent of total operated area of sample farmers

was irrigated by tube wells run by electric and diesel out of which 65.91 per cent of NOA

was irrigated by electric tube wells alone. Canal and tank and other source of irrigation are

minor presence in the study area as their joint contribution is about 11.06 per cent in the case

of our sample farmers. The irrigated area by only canals was 2.7 per cent of net operated area

only. The canals as a source of irrigation was found to be used by the sample farmers in

Banswara district only.

Marginal 0.14 (7.14) 0.00 (0.00) 0.67 (35.15) 0.53 (27.84) 0.10 (5.24) 0.47 (24.63) 1.91 (100.0)

Small 0.08 (1.93) 0.00 (0.00) 3.02 (72.86) 0.42 (10.24) 0.33 (7.93) 0.29 (7.05) 4.15 (100.0)

Medium 0.29 (3.60) 0.30 (3.72) 5.74 (70.17) 0.86 (10.46) 0.12 (1.46) 0.87 (10.59) 8.18 (100.0)

Large 0.41 (2.09) 3.49 (17.70) 12.87 (65.25) 1.70 (8.62) 0.00 (0.00) 1.25 (6.34) 19.73 (100.0)

All farmers 0.24 (2.70) 1.03 (11.42) 5.94 (65.91) 0.92 (10.16) 0.13 (1.44) 0.75 (8.36) 9.01 (100.0)

Table 3.4: Source of irrigation of net operated area in acres


Notes: Figures in parantheses are the percentages of total NOA.

Farm size Only canal Canal +

tubewell

Only electric

tubwell

Only diesel

tubwell

Tanks and

others

Rainfed area Net Operated

Area (NOA)

48

The total rainfed area was 8.36 per cent in the case of all sample farmers which

implies that about 91.6 per cent of NOA of sample farmers was irrigated from various

sources. This is particularly because the selected farmers were beneficiaries of NHM and

were having sufficient irrigated area so as to cultivate various cash crops. Though only 8.36

per cent land was rainfed on the whole, the proportion of rainfed area of marginal farmers

was about one fourth of their total NOA. It was the highest of 24.03 per cent for marginal

farmers where as the large farmers were having lowest rainfed area (6.34%).

3.5 Sources and Purpose of Credit

Rural credit market in India is characterized by few distinctive features that the formal credit

is readily available for elite class people such as large farmers who are trusted by the

institutional lenders on the basis of their paying capacity, on the other hand, the access of

poor marginal and small farmers to institutional credit is quite limited (Rao, 1980; Basu,

1983; Swain, 1986; Gupta and Shorf, 1987; Sarap, 1991; Jodhka, 1995). The inability to

provide collateral such as land, jewellery, or house buildings as mortgage is the major

hindrance for the marginal and small farmers in availing institutional credit. In most of the

cases they don‟t possess such assets or lack valid documents to prove their ownership. Tenant

farmers are also deprived of credit facilities from institutional sources, as the tenanted land is

not legally accepted as mortgage by banks or cooperatives. So the poor marginal and small

farmers are automatically screened out as potential beneficiaries of formal credit agencies

(Swain, 2001; Swain and Swain, 2007). They not only suffer due to lack of their economic

power, but also humiliated due to not having political influence. As a result, they fail to avail

the benefits of a large numbers of developmental programmes those are specifically meant

for them. Higher strata of the society are able to siphon off the resources originally meant for

the poorer section. The only alternative left for the landless and marginal farmers is to

repeatedly visit the moneylenders‟ doorstep to get the linked loans at exorbitant interest rates

accepting large-scale exploitation. However, in the case of our sample farmers, the extent of

dependence on informal sources of credit was very less.

As revealed from Table 3.5, the loans availed by our sample farmers from traders/

money lenders/ landlord was only Rs 381.7 per HH, which is very less compared to loans

availed from other sources. The lesser dependence on moneylenders is beneficial for the

farmer community since they usually charge exorbitant rate of interest which varies from 24

per cent to 72 per cent per annum. Government programmes like Kisan Credit Card (KCC)

and other institutional sources were the better and the major source of credit availed by our

49

sample farmers so far as the rate of interest is concerned. KCC scheme is very popular among

the farmers because in this scheme farmers were benefited and utilized the credit for any kind

of farming works with very lesser and fixed interest rate.

The per-household credit from all sources for sample farmers was Rs 143740 out of

which the credit amount from various institutional sources excluding government

programmes was Rs 88034.4 (61.2%). It may also be noted that the major part of the total

credit was borrowed from institutional sources such as banks i.e. commercial bank, co-

operative bank and land development bank etc. The contribution of institutional sources to

total credit for farming by marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large

farmers was 63.1per cent, 35.6 per cent, 32.0 per cent and 72.1 per cent respectively. Large

farmers have availed highest amount of institutional loans (Rs 370777.8 per HH), which is

mainly because of the fact that one farmer of Jaipur district was given a loan of Rs 1.20 crore

for construction of a rural godown. This has resulted in sharp jump in the amount of

institutional loans taken by the sample large farmers.

Farm size Institutional loan

by banks

Commission

agents

Trad/ML/

Landlord

Friends/

relatives

Govt.

programmes

Others All soures

Marginal 9977.3 0.0 1750.0 0.0 4090.9 0.0 15818.2

Small 16844.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 30444.4 0.0 47288.9

Medium 33140.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 70403.3 0.0 103543.9

Large 267289.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 103488.1 0.0 370777.8

All farmers 88034.4 0.0 381.7 0.0 55323.9 0.0 143740.0

Marginal 5248.7 0.0 920.6 0.0 2152.1 0.0 8321.4

Small 4060.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7338.7 0.0 11399.0

Medium 4050.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8604.6 0.0 12654.9

Large 13710.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5308.3 0.0 19018.5

All farmers 9839.2 0.0 42.7 0.0 6183.3 0.0 16065.1

Notes: Trad=Traders, ML= Money lenders, NSA = Net sown area


Table 3.5: Details of source of credit by the selected households

(Rs. per household)

(Rs. per acre of NSA)

So far as the distribution of credit per acre of NSA is concerned, the similar kind of

pattern was also noticed. Marginal farmers availed an amount of Rs 5248.7 per acre from

institutional banks and Rs 2152.1 through various government programmes. Only Rs 920.6

per acre was availed by them from local moneylenders, traders and landlords. All farmers

taken together, the loan amount availed from these informal sources was as less as Rs 43.0

per acre of net sown area.

50

Small and medium farmers availed per acre loan amount of Rs 4060.4 and Rs 3947.4

respectively from various institutional sources. The farmers of these groups were successful

in getting higher amount of loans from various government programmes also. Small and

medium farmers availed per acre loan amount of Rs 7338.7 and Rs 8385.9 respectively from

various government programmes whereas the marginal farmers got only Rs 2152.1 per acre

from the same source. All farmers taken together, per acre loan of Rs 9924.8 was received by

a sample farmer from various institutional sources and per acre loan of Rs 6237.1 was availed

by a sample farmer from various government programmes. Among the institutional sources,

State Bank of India, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Bank of Baroda, Rajasthan Gramin

Bank and Punjab National Bank were major ones. Among the government programmes,

Kisan Credit Card (KCC) issued through National Bank for Agriculture and Rural

Development (NABARD) and other commercial banks was the prominent one that benefitted

the sample farmers most.

Table 3.6 shows the utilization pattern of credit received by the sample farmers

through various sources. All farmers taken together used the credit amount of Rs 137360

(95.6%) per household in various productive activities such as agriculture and allied

activities. So far as the use of credit in various unproductive activities is concerned, a sample

household used credit amount of Rs 2870, Rs 387 and Rs 2999 for daily consumption, social

ceremonies and other unproductive uses respectively. Large farmers have used a big part of

their credit (Rs 361155 per HH) in agricultural activities. The average amount of credit used

in agricultural activities in the case of large farmer is found to be very high because of an

outlier effect. A large farmer in Jaipur availed a loan amount of Rs 1.2 crores for building an

agro-based go down. This substantial high amount pushed up the average spending of farmers

in large farmer category. Once we ignore that major outlier of Rs 1.2 crores, the distribution

of credit of sample farmers shows an increasing trend with the size of land holding (Figure

3.1) and the average amount of credit availed by a large farmer comes down to Rs 148556

from Rs 370778. Out of the total borrowings of Rs 370778 per HH, a household belonging to

large farmers category used as large as Rs 9623 for daily consumption during the reference

year. The selected marginal farmers have used credit amount of Rs 13614 and Rs 568 per

HH in agriculture and animal husbandry respectively and about 89.65 per cent of total credit

received by the marginal farmers was used in productive activities. Only 10.35 per cent of

their credit was used in non-productive works like daily consumption, social ceremonies and

others. Small, medium and large farmers used per HH credit amount of Rs 33956, Rs 102464

and Rs 361155 respectively for agricultural activities but they did not use the borrowed

51

amount for animal husbandry. Medium farmers have used highest amount of per HH credit of

Rs 1053 for social ceremonies.

AgricultureAnimal

husbandry

Daily

consumption

Social

ceremoniesOthers

Marginal 13614 568 1114 409 114 15818

(86.06) (3.59) (7.04) (2.59) (0.72) (100.00)

Small 33956 0 0 0 13333 47289

(71.80) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (28.20) (100.00)

Medium 102464 0 0 1080 0 103544

(98.96) (0.00) (0.00) (1.04) (0.00) (100.00)

Large 361155 0 9623 0 0 370778

(97.40) (0.00) (2.60) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00)

All farmers 137360 124 2870 387 2999 143740

(95.56) (0.09) (2.00) (0.27) (2.09) (100.00)


Note: Figures in parantheses are the percentages of total.

Table 3.6: Details of purpose of credit by the selected households(Rs per household)

Farm size

Productive uses Non-productive uses

Total

Figure 3.1. Distribution of borrowings (Rs per household) excluding a major outlier

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Lo

an a

mo

un

t in

Ru

pee

s

Land holding size in acre

52

3.6 Holding of Productive Farm Assets

Healthy level of holding of farm assets by the farmers helps them in proper technology

adoption in agriculture and improvement in their production strategy which, in turn, helps to

sustain the economic viability of agricultural and horticultural operations. Table 3.7 shows

the ownership of productive farm assets by the sample HHs. The analysis has been carried

out in two ways: (a) per household asset holdings and (b) asset holdings per acre of NSA.

3.6.1 Asset Holdings per Household

It may be noted that the value of farm assets held by the marginal farmers was Rs 73470 per

HH while that of small, medium and large farmers were Rs 213124, Rs 457572 and Rs

645250 respectively. The livestock was found to be a major component of total asset holdings

for all categories of farmers. The value of total livestock contributed to the extent of 26 per

cent to 48 per cent to the total asset value of different farmer categories. The value of total

livestock for marginal farmers was 47.9 per cent of total asset value while for small, medium

and large farmer categories, it was 36.2 per cent, 32.7 per cent and 27.0 per cent respectively.

Thus the marginal farmers had proportionately more livestock in their total farm asset

holdings. So livestock rearing was a major occupational source for marginal farmers and they

were following the traditional method of cultivation with the help of these livestock while the

medium and large farmers were depending more on agricultural tools and implements for

their agricultural operations. Among these agricultural tools and implements, major ones

were tractors, diesel and electric pump sets, trolley and harrows. It may be noted that, the

second important asset holding by all farmers was tractor the value of which constituted

about 34.8 per cent of the total value of productive assets. Marginal farmers were holding

tractor of Rs 15909 (21.7%) per HH while that of small farmers, medium farmers and large

farmers was of Rs 67778 (31.80 %), Rs 144825 (31.65 %) and Rs 253241 (39.25 %) per HH

respectively.

Electric pump set was also important asset for all size of farmers as it constituted

about 8.1 per cent to 16.5 per cent of total productive assets for various farmer categories.

The per HH value of electric pump set held by marginal farmers was Rs12091 whereas the

same by small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers was Rs 23400, Rs 34456 and Rs

52407 respectively. The other assets like trolley, harrow, tiller, plank, threshing machine,

diesel pump set, bullock cart, fodder chaffer, spray pump, storage bin, poultry sheds, dairy

sheds and other assets constituted around 25.4 per cent for all farmers category. None of the

farmers were having combine harvester machine and reaper in their asset holdings.

53

Marginal Small Medium Large Total Marginal Small Medium Large Total

15909 67778 144825 253241 128400 8369 16338 17700 12990 14351

2727 10222 25579 43352 21895 1435 2464 3126 2224 2447

455 2522 4965 10213 4840 239 608 607 524 541

0 3478 6544 12389 5993 0 838 800 635 670

0 2544 5246 4185 3198 0 613 641 215 357

0 5556 17193 33611 15225 0 1339 2101 1724 1702

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2250 4756 4772 4444 4125 1184 1146 583 228 461

12091 23400 34456 52407 31895 6361 5641 4211 2688 3565

2477 4222 4228 3519 3650 1303 1018 517 180 408

Fodder chaffer:

341 878 1868 1343 1168 179 212 228 69 130

0 1178 1518 3185 1558 0 284 185 163 174

530 1418 3674 4074 2583 279 342 449 209 289

625 1502 2653 3880 2279 329 362 324 199 255

0 0 5263 2981 2305 0 0 643 153 258

886 6444 23965 19593 13765 466 1553 2929 1005 1538

Animals:(i) Cows 5943 15382 40281 52259 30359 3126 3708 4923 2681 3393

(ii) Buffaloes 15318 49111 90702 104815 68570 8058 11838 11085 5376 7664

(iii) Calves 4675 5689 13719 13593 9889 2459 1371 1677 697 1105

(iv) Goat 1811 1200 53 648 859 953 289 6 33 96

(v) Bullock 7432 5844 5018 2741 5120 3910 1409 613 141 572

35180 77227 149772 174056 114796 18507 18616 18305 8928 12830

0 0 21053 18778 11070 0 0 2573 963 1237

73470 213124 457572 645250 368742 38650 51374 55923 33097 41213

Any other

Total

Notes: Any other includes grading machines, matadoor, jeep etc.; NSA stands for net sown area


(vi)Total livestock

Spray pump

Storage bin

Poultry sheds

Dairy sheds

(i)Manual

(ii) Power driven

Combine harvester

Other reaper (specify)

Pumpset diesel

Pumpset Electrictc

Bullock cart

Trolley

Harrow

Tiller

Plank

Threshing machine

Table 3.7: Ownership of productive farm assets

Farm assets

Rupees per household Rs per acre of NSA

Tractor

3.6.2 Asset Holdings per Acre of NSA

Table 3.7 exhibits a clear picture about ownership of farm assets per acre of NSA of sample

farmers of different farmer categories. Large farmers were found to have lowest value of

farm assets of Rs 33097 per acre while marginal farmers, small farmers and medium farmers

had a total asset value of Rs 38650, Rs 51374 and Rs 55923 per acre respectively. All farmers

taken together, a household had farm assets of Rs 41213 per acre of NSA. Small farmers had

highest value of total livestock of Rs 18616 per acre while marginal, medium, and large

farmers had lower values of livestock of Rs 18507, Rs 18305 and Rs 8928 per acre

respectively. So the small farmers earned more income from livestock per acre of net sown

area compared to other categories of farmers. In terms of value of assets per acre, medium

farmers had highest amount of asset values on tractor, trolley, plank, threshing machine,

manual fodder chaffer, spray pump, poultry and dairy sheds, cows and calves compared to

54

other categories of farmers. Medium farmers had highest amount of asset values on other

assets including grading machines, matador, jeep etc. All these helped the medium farmers to

hold total farm assets of Rs 55923 per acre of NSA which was highest among various farmer

categories.

3.7 Cropping Pattern of Sample Farmers

Since our main objective is to analyze the effect of NHM in increasing area and productivity

of horticultural crops, creating employment opportunities and enhancement of income of the

farmers, it is pertinent to examine cropping pattern adopted by the sample households and

particularly proportion of area devoted to different type of agricultural and horticultural

crops. It is also worthwhile to examine and identify disparities in the cropping pattern among

Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops. The cropping pattern of the sample

household is presented in Table 3.8 that exhibits the area under different crops in acre and

their percentage share to gross cropped area (GCA) per HH. The total GCA was 16.76 acre

per HH for all farmers taken together whereas the large farmers had highest GCA of 33.65

acre per HH and marginal farmers had minimum GCA of 3.71 acres per HH. Medium and

small farmer had 16.64 acres and 9.40 acres of GCA per HH respectively.

Overall, the per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops

cultivated by the sample farmers was 7.62 acres, 5.48 acres, and 3.67 acres respectively. In

the case of marginal farmer category, the per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and

horticultural crops was 1.61 acres, 1.24 acres and 0.86 acres respectively. The total GCA of a

HH under small farmer category was 9.40, out of which, the area under Kharif crops, Rabi

crops and horticultural crops was 3.83 acres, 3.02 acres, and 2.55 acres respectively. In the

case of medium farmer category, the per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and

horticultural crops was 7.40 acres, 5.29 acres and 3.95 acres respectively. So far as the large

farmer category is concerned, the per HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and

horticultural crops was 15.89 acres, 11.17 acres and 6.60 acres respectively.

Among various Kharif crops, maize was found to be an important crop cultivated by

farmers of all categories and the share of maize in total GCA varied from 12 per cent to 27

per cent. The second important crop was bajra cultivated by farmers of all categories and the

share of Bajra in total GCA varied from 7 per cent to 12 per cent. In the case of marginal

farmer category, the total area under Kharif crops and Rabi crops was 76.94 per cent and the

share of food grains, pulses and oilseeds was 66.83 per cent, 3.43 per cent and 3.19 per cent

respectively.

55

Bajra 0.28 (7.67) 1.06 (11.27) 1.95 (11.71) 3.28 (9.75) 1.74 (10.39)

Groundnut 0.03 (0.77) 0.30 (3.18) 1.33 (7.97) 2.93 (8.70) 1.24 (7.41)

Guar 0.04 (1.15) 0.45 (4.84) 0.71 (4.26) 1.24 (3.68) 0.65 (3.87)

Maize 1.00 (27.10) 1.62 (17.24) 2.09 (12.54) 4.38 (13.02) 2.36 (14.11)

Soyabean 0.05 (1.47) 0.08 (0.81) 0.84 (5.06) 2.85 (8.47) 1.04 (6.20)

Tur 0.02 (0.61) 0.02 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.09 (0.28) 0.03 (0.20)

Rice 0.06 (1.64) 0.12 (1.27) 0.16 (0.97) 0.26 (0.77) 0.16 (0.93)

Urad 0.03 (0.74) 0.09 (0.99) 0.11 (0.68) 0.18 (0.53) 0.11 (0.64)

Cotton 0.09 (2.33) 0.02 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.22) 0.04 (0.26)

Jowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.47) 0.08 (0.46) 0.17 (0.52) 0.08 (0.47)

Sesamum 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (0.30) 0.13 (0.80) 0.24 (0.72) 0.11 (0.66)

Sugarcane 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (0.55) 0.05 (0.30)

Total Kharif 1.61 (43.48) 3.83 (40.76) 7.40 (44.46) 15.89 (47.21) 7.62 (45.44)

Wheat 1.05 (28.21) 2.20 (23.39) 3.41 (20.47) 6.43 (19.10) 3.43 (20.48)

Gram 0.08 (2.08) 0.23 (2.42) 0.58 (3.47) 1.43 (4.25) 0.62 (3.69)

Mustard 0.04 (0.96) 0.36 (3.87) 0.86 (5.18) 2.15 (6.40) 0.92 (5.47)

Maize 0.08 (2.21) 0.04 (0.38) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.11) 0.04 (0.21)

Barley 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (2.07) 0.45 (2.69) 1.12 (3.34) 0.47 (2.83)

Total Rabi 1.24 (33.46) 3.02 (32.13) 5.29 (31.80) 11.17 (33.19) 5.48 (32.68)

Aonla 0.11 (2.84) 0.90 (9.57) 1.03 (6.17) 1.13 (3.36) 0.82 (4.91)

Brinjal 0.00 (0.12) 0.04 (0.39) 0.04 (0.22) 0.03 (0.10) 0.03 (0.17)

Chilli 0.04 (1.10) 0.07 (0.70) 0.10 (0.58) 0.11 (0.32) 0.08 (0.48)

Mango 0.36 (9.60) 0.46 (4.94) 0.58 (3.47) 0.89 (2.66) 0.59 (3.51)

Onion 0.03 (0.78) 0.04 (0.44) 0.10 (0.57) 0.10 (0.30) 0.07 (0.42)

Papaya 0.31 (8.38) 0.29 (3.05) 0.22 (1.32) 0.38 (1.13) 0.30 (1.78)

Tomato 0.02 (0.47) 0.08 (0.89) 0.13 (0.79) 0.10 (0.31) 0.09 (0.53)

Ber 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.07) 0.01 (0.06)

Bael 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (0.59) 0.03 (0.17) 0.12 (0.34) 0.05 (0.31)

Coriander 0.00 (0.00) 0.43 (4.58) 1.11 (6.65) 2.62 (7.77) 1.12 (6.68)

Garlic 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.44) 0.15 (0.92) 0.17 (0.52) 0.10 (0.60)

Guava 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.15 (0.92) 0.05 (0.14) 0.06 (0.35)

Gunda/ Lisoda 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.02)

Isabgoal 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (0.67) 0.09 (0.53) 0.21 (0.62) 0.10 (0.57)

Mosambi 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.41) 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (0.09) 0.02 (0.10)

Anar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.11 (0.63) 0.32 (0.94) 0.12 (0.69)

Cucumber 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.07) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.02)

Fenugreek 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.33) 0.05 (0.14) 0.03 (0.17)

Lemon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.40) 0.05 (0.14) 0.03 (0.19)

Cauliflowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.14) 0.01 (0.07)

Kinnow 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.12 (0.35) 0.03 (0.19)

Lady finger 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.02)

Water melon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.14) 0.01 (0.07)

Total

horticultural

0.86 (23.30) 2.55 (27.11) 3.95 (23.74) 6.60 (19.60) 3.67 (21.89)

Gross cropped

area

3.71 (100.0) 9.40 (100.0) 16.64 (100.0) 33.65 (100.0) 16.76 (100.0)

Rabi crops during 2008

Horticultural crops during 2008-09

Source: Field survey data.

Note: Figures in parantheses are percentages of GCA of respective farmer category.

Table 3.8: Cropping pattern of sample farmers (area in acre per HH)


Kharif crops during 2008

56

The farmers of small farmer category cultivated Kharif crops and Rabi crops in 72.69

per cent of GCA and the share of food grains, pulses and oilseed was 56.10 per cent, 3.61 per

cent and 8.15 percent respectively. In the case of medium farmer category, the total area

under Kharif crops and Rabi crops was 76.26 per cent and the share of food grains, pulses

and oilseeds was 48.85 per cent, 19.01 per cent and 4.15 per cent respectively. So far as large

farmer category is concerned, the total area under Kharif crops and Rabi crops was 80.40 per

cent and the share of food grains, pulses and oilseed was 46.61 per cent, 24.29 per cent and

5.05 per cent respectively. It may be noted that the medium and large category farmers have

cultivated more area under commercial crops like oilseed and pulses compared to marginal

and small farmers.

The area under horticulture crop for all selected farmer categories ranged between 19

per cent and 27 per cent of GCA. The marginal farmers devoted more area under Mango and

Papaya crops consisting about 9.60 per cent and 8.38 per cent of total horticulture area

respectively. The small and medium category of farmers devoted more area under Aonla,

Mango and Coriander crops while large farmers grew Coriander crop to the maximum extent

because this crop had a very good marketing channel in the region and was fetching good

profit for the farmers.

The total area under horticultural crop in all categories was 3.67 acre per HH (21.89

per cent of GCA). Our four study crops aonla, papaya, mango and coriander were cultivated

by the sample farmers in 0.82 acres, 0.30 acres, 0.59 acres and 1.12 acres per HH

respectively. These data also reveals that medium farmers and large farmers were keenly

interested in growing short duration crops like coriander, isabgol and garlic.

3.8 Irrigated Cropping Pattern

As shown in Table 3.9, out of 16.76 acres of GCA per HH, 16.20 acres constituting about

96.6 per cent was irrigated in the case of sample farmers. Similarly, out of 8.95 acres of NSA

per HH, about 8.26 acres constituting about 92.3 per cent was irrigated in the case of our

sample farmers. It may be seen that about 7.11 acres (93.4%) of total Kharif area and 5.42

acres (98.9%) of total Rabi area were irrigated whereas about 3.67 acres (100.0%) of total

horticultural area was irrigated during the reference year 2008-09. Thus the irrigation

coverage in the case of our sample farmers was quite good. Since these sample farmers had

taken up horticultural crops under NHM for which irrigation facility was essential, their

overall irrigation coverage per HH was much more than that of average farmers of Rajasthan

state in general.

57

Crops

Bajra 0.28 (100.00) 1.06 (100.00) 1.95 (100.00) 3.13 (95.41) 1.70 (97.67)

Groundnut 0.03 (100.00) 0.30 (100.00) 1.29 (97.52) 2.69 (91.70) 1.17 (93.96)

Guar 0.04 (100.00) 0.45 (100.00) 0.63 (88.54) 1.24 (100.00) 0.62 (96.43)

Maize 0.82 (81.45) 1.42 (87.82) 1.84 (88.23) 3.75 (85.48) 2.04 (86.16)

Soyabean 0.05 (100.00) 0.06 (81.76) 0.80 (95.00) 2.85 (100.00) 1.02 (98.54)

Tur 0.00 (20.00) 0.02 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.09 (100.00) 0.03 (88.24)

Rice 0.06 (100.00) 0.12 (100.00) 0.16 (100.00) 0.26 (100.00) 0.16 (100.00)

Urad 0.03 (100.00) 0.09 (100.00) 0.07 (62.79) 0.18 (100.00) 0.10 (88.82)

Cotton 0.08 (94.74) 0.02 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (100.00) 0.04 (97.67)

Jowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.08 (100.00) 0.17 (100.00) 0.08 (100.00)

Sesamum 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (100.00) 0.12 (91.80) 0.24 (100.00) 0.11 (97.16)

Sugarcane 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00)

Total Kharif 1.40 (87.03) 3.62 (94.48) 6.94 (93.85) 14.86 (93.52) 7.11 (93.42)

Wheat 0.97 (93.04) 2.10 (95.32) 3.41 (100.00) 6.43 (100.00) 3.39 (98.86)

Gram 0.08 (100.00) 0.23 (100.00) 0.58 (100.00) 1.43 (100.00) 0.62 (100.00)

Mustard 0.04 (100.16) 0.31 (84.71) 0.83 (96.18) 2.15 (100.00) 0.89 (97.61)

Maize 0.08 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00)

Barley 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (100.00) 0.45 (100.00) 1.12 (100.00) 0.47 (100.00)

Total Rabi 1.17 (94.14) 2.86 (94.75) 5.26 (99.38) 11.17 (100.00) 5.42 (98.89)

Aonla 0.11 (100.00) 0.90 (100.00) 1.03 (100.00) 1.13 (100.00) 0.82 (100.00)

Brinjal 0.00 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00)

Chilli 0.04 (100.00) 0.07 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) 0.11 (100.00) 0.08 (100.00)

Mango 0.36 (100.00) 0.46 (100.00) 0.58 (100.00) 0.89 (100.00) 0.59 (100.00)

Onion 0.03 (100.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) 0.07 (100.00)

Papaya 0.31 (100.00) 0.29 (100.00) 0.22 (100.00) 0.38 (100.00) 0.30 (100.00)

Tomato 0.02 (100.00) 0.08 (100.00) 0.13 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00) 0.09 (100.00)

Ber 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (100.00) 0.01 (100.00)

Bael 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00) 0.12 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00)

Coriander 0.00 (0.00) 0.43 (100.00) 1.11 (100.00) 2.62 (100.00) 1.12 (100.00)

Garlic 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.15 (100.00) 0.17 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00)

Guava 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.15 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.06 (100.00)

Gunda/ Lisoda 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.003 (100.00)

Isabgoal 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (100.00) 0.09 (100.00) 0.21 (100.00) 0.10 (100.00)

Mosambi 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (100.00) 0.02 (100.00)

Anar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.11 (100.00) 0.32 (100.00) 0.12 (100.00)

Cucumber 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (100.00)

Fenugreek 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00)

Lemon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (100.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00)

Cauliflowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.01 (100.00)

Kinnow 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.12 (100.00) 0.03 (100.00)

Lady finger 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (100.00) 0.00 (100.00)

Water melon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (100.00) 0.01 (100.00)

Total

Horticultural

0.86 (100.00) 2.55 (100.00) 3.95 (100.00) 6.60 (100.00) 3.67 (100.00)

GIA* 3.42 (92.4) 9.03 (96.1) 16.16 (97.1) 32.62 (96.9) 16.20 (96.6)

NIA** 1.44 (75.7) 3.86 (93.0) 7.32 (89.4) 18.48 (94.8) 8.26 (92.3)




Notes: (1)Figures in parantheses are percentage of irrigated area to sown area under respective crop.


(2) *GIA stands for gross irrigated area. Figures in parantheses are percentage of irrigated area to GCA.

(3) **NIA stands for net irrigated area. Figures in parantheses are percentage of irrigated area to NSA.

Table 3.9 : Cropwise distribution of irrigated area (acre per HH) of sample farmers


58

In the case of marginal farmer category, the per-HH irrigated area under Kharif crops,

Rabi crops and horticultural crops was 1.40 acres (87.0%), 1.17 acres (94.1%) and 0.86 acres

(100.0 %) respectively. The gross irrigated area (GIA) and net irrigated area (NIA) of a HH

under small farmer category was 9.03 acres and 3.86 acres respectively. For this category, out

of 9.03 acres of GIA, the irrigated area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops

was 3.62 acres, 2.86 acres, and 2.55 acres respectively. In the case of medium farmer

category, the per-HH irrigated area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops

was 6.94 acres, 5.26 acres and 3.95 acres respectively. So far as the large farmer category is

concerned, the per HH irrigated area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops

was 14.86 acres, 11.17 acres and 6.60 acres respectively.

Among various Kharif crops, the share of irrigated maize (2.04 acres) and bajra (1.70

acres) in total GIA was found to be more than that of other crops. Among Rabi crops, the

irrigated area under wheat was 3.39 acres out of 5.42 acres. The irrigated area under all

horticultural crops was 3.67 acre per HH which implies that entire area under horticultural

crops was irrigated from different sources. So also our four study crops aonla, papaya, mango

and coriander were fully irrigated.

3.9 Area under HYV and Organic Farming

Table 3.10 shows that the area under high yielding variety (HYV) crops in acre per HH of our

sample farmers. The table reveals that the total area under HYV crops was 15.50 acres per

HH for all farmers taken together. The total area under HYV crops was about 92.47 per cent

of GCA of a sample farmer.

In the case of marginal farmer category, the total area under HYV crops during Kharif

season was 1.24 acres out of 1.61 acres which implies that 77.01 per cent of total Kharif area

of marginal farmers was cultivated with HYV crops. During Rabi season, marginal farmers

cultivated 1.11 acres of area under HYV out of 1.24 acres. So far as cultivation of

horticulture crop is concerned, marginal farmers cultivated the same in 0.84 acres out of 0.85

acres.

Small farmers have cultivated HYV crops in 3.17 acres out of 3.83 acres during

Kharif season and in 2.86 acres out of 3.02 acres during Rabi season. They have cultivated

the total area of 2.42 acres of horticultural crops under HYV. The total area under HYV crops

in the case of small farmers was 89.9 percent of their GCA of 9.4 acres per HH.

59

Bajra 0.28 (7.67) 1.06 (11.27) 1.95 (11.73) 3.12 (9.26) 1.70 (10.14)

Groundnut 0.03 (0.77) 0.28 (3.03) 1.32 (7.91) 2.93 (8.70) 1.24 (7.37)

Guar 0.04 (1.15) 0.23 (2.44) 0.42 (2.52) 0.87 (2.58) 0.41 (2.47)

Maize 0.72 (19.38) 1.37 (14.55) 2.04 (12.25) 4.31 (12.80) 2.21 (13.19)

Soyabean 0.03 (0.74) 0.08 (0.81) 0.80 (4.81) 2.85 (8.47) 1.02 (6.09)

Tur 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.09 (0.28) 0.03 (0.15)

Rice 0.05 (1.40) 0.09 (0.99) 0.14 (0.85) 0.26 (0.77) 0.14 (0.85)

Urad 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.43) 0.00 (0.00) 0.18 (0.53) 0.06 (0.34)

Cotton 0.09 (2.33) 0.02 (0.19) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.22) 0.04 (0.26)

Jowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (0.10) 0.01 (0.06)

Sesamum 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.10 (0.59) 0.09 (0.28) 0.05 (0.32)

Sugarcane 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (0.55) 0.05 (0.30)

Total Kharif 1.24 (33.42) 3.17 (33.70) 6.76 (40.64) 14.99 (44.55) 6.96 (41.53)

Wheat 1.00 (27.10) 2.11 (22.44) 3.40 (20.41) 6.29 (18.69) 3.36 (20.06)

Gram 0.00 (0.12) 0.16 (1.67) 0.29 (1.76) 0.93 (2.77) 0.37 (2.22)

Mustard 0.04 (0.96) 0.36 (3.87) 0.86 (5.18) 2.01 (5.98) 0.88 (5.24)

Maize 0.06 (1.72) 0.04 (0.38) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.11) 0.03 (0.19)

Barley 0.00 (0.00) 0.19 (2.07) 0.43 (2.60) 1.01 (2.99) 0.44 (2.62)

Total Rabi 1.11 (29.90) 2.86 (30.42) 4.98 (29.94) 10.28 (30.55) 5.08 (30.33)

Aonla 0.11 (2.84) 0.90 (9.57) 1.03 (6.17) 1.13 (3.36) 0.82 (4.91)

Brinjal 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.09) 0.04 (0.22) 0.03 (0.10) 0.02 (0.13)

Chilli 0.03 (0.86) 0.07 (0.70) 0.10 (0.58) 0.11 (0.32) 0.08 (0.47)

Mango 0.36 (9.60) 0.46 (4.94) 0.58 (3.47) 0.89 (2.66) 0.59 (3.51)

Onion 0.01 (0.40) 0.04 (0.44) 0.06 (0.38) 0.10 (0.30) 0.06 (0.34)

Papaya 0.31 (8.38) 0.29 (3.04) 0.22 (1.32) 0.38 (1.13) 0.30 (1.78)

Tomato 0.02 (0.47) 0.08 (0.89) 0.13 (0.79) 0.10 (0.31) 0.09 (0.53)

Ber 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.07) 0.01 (0.06)

Bael 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (0.59) 0.03 (0.17) 0.12 (0.34) 0.05 (0.31)

Coriander 0.00 (0.00) 0.43 (4.58) 1.11 (6.65) 2.62 (7.77) 1.12 (6.68)

Garlic 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.07) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.02)

Guava 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.15) 0.15 (0.92) 0.05 (0.14) 0.06 (0.35)

Gunda/ Lisoda 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

Isabgoal 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.22) 0.00 (0.00) 0.02 (0.07) 0.01 (0.07)

Mosambi 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.41) 0.00 (0.00) 0.03 (0.09) 0.02 (0.10)

Anar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.11 (0.63) 0.32 (0.94) 0.12 (0.69)

Cucumber 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

Fenugreek 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.26) 0.03 (0.10) 0.02 (0.13)

Lemon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.40) 0.05 (0.14) 0.03 (0.19)

Cauliflowar 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.14) 0.01 (0.07)

Kinnow 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.12 (0.35) 0.03 (0.19)

Lady finger 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.03) 0.00 (0.02)

Water melon 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.05 (0.14) 0.01 (0.07)

Total

horticultural

crops

0.84 (22.55) 2.42 (25.78) 3.67 (22.02) 6.23 (18.50) 3.45 (20.61)

Gross cropped

area (all HYV

crops)

3.18 (85.87) 8.45 (89.90) 15.41 (92.61) 31.50 (93.59) 15.50 (92.47)

Gross cropped

area (all crops)

3.71 (100.0) 9.40 (100.0) 16.64 (100.0) 33.65 (100.0) 16.76 (100.0)




Table 3.10: Area under HYV crops (Area in acre per HH)

Note: Figures in parantheses are percentages of GCA of respective farmer category.



60

Medium farmers have cultivated HYV crops in 6.76 acres out of 7.4 acres during

Kharif season and in 4.98 acres out of 5.29 acres during Rabi season. They have cultivated

the total area of 3.67 acres of horticultural crops under HYV out of 3.95 acres of total

horticultural area of a medium farmer. The total area under HYV crops in the case of medium

farmers was 92.61 percent of their GCA.

In the case of large farmers, the area cultivated under HYV crops was 14.99 acres out

of 15.89 acres during Kharif season and was 10.28 acres out of 11.17 acres during Rabi

season. They have cultivated the total area of 6.23 acres of horticultural crops under HYV

while the total area under horticultural crops under both HYV and local varieties was 6.6

acres per HH. The per HH area under HYV crops in the case of large farmers was 31.5 acres

(93.6%) out of 33.65 acres of GCA.

It may also be noted that the HYV varieties of gram and urad crops were cultivated in

0.37 acres and 0.06 acres respectively, while the total area under these two crops was 0.62

acres and 0.11 acres respectively. Among horticultural crops, coriander and aonla were

cultivated in 1.12 acres and 0.82 acres respectively which were 100 per cent of their

respective total area. All farmers used different types of HYV seeds with a purpose of getting

higher yield and higher returns.

Table 3.11 shows the area under organic farming for different farmer categories. The

table shows that only one farmer of large farmer category in Banswara district has cultivated

Mango with organic fertilizer while rest of 199 farmers used chemical fertilizer in cultivating

different crops. Thus, the area under organic farming was nil for all categories of farmers

except large farmers. The total area under organic farming was only 5.6 acres which was

cultivated by only one farmer. Thus the average area under organic farming per HH was only

0.10 acres in the case of large farmer category and 0.03 acres in the case of all farmers taken

together. In other words, only 0.31 per cent of total GCA of large farmers and 0.17 per cent

of GCA of all farmers were under organic farming.

61

Total Kharif 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total Rabi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mango* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 (0.31) 0.03 (0.17)

Total

horticultural

crops

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 (0.31) 0.03 (0.17)

Gross cropped

area

3.71 9.40 16.64 33.65 (100.0) 16.76 (100.0)

Table 3.11: Area under organic farming (Area in acre per HH)


Source:Field survey data.




Notes: Figures in parantheses are percentage of GCA of respective farmer category.

* Only one farmer cultivated mango of 5.64 acres under organic farming.

3.10 Production, Costs and Returns by Farm Size

Horticultural crops normally generate higher returns compared to other agricultural crops like

paddy, wheat etc. These crops are of high value and cultivation of these crops results in

greater potential for per-acre returns and production costs than traditional agricultural crops.

Because of their perishable nature, most horticultural crops need special post-harvest

handling. Their limited storage life requires products to become extensively involved in the

marketing process. Since the cultivation of these horticultural crops requires more care and

attention, the cost of cultivation of these crops is also higher compared to cultivation of other

agricultural crops. Table 3.12A and Table 3.12B show the production structure, value of

output, cost and net returns from aggregate of all crops including the horticultural crops

during the reference year 2008-09. The analysis has been carried out in two ways: (a) per-

household production, cost and returns and (b) per-acre production, cost and returns. The per-

acre analysis of production, costs and returns has been further analyzed in terms of per-acre

of NSA and per-acre of GCA.

3.10.1 Per-Household Production, Costs and Returns

The gross value of annual output across all size groups of farmers was Rs 347821 per

household (HH), while the total cost of cultivation of all crops including material cost and

labour cost was Rs 184988 per HH. Thus the net return from cultivation of all types of crops

was Rs 162833 per HH. The maximum annual net return from cultivation of agricultural

crops was earned by large farmers which was Rs 323789 per HH whereas the marginal, small

62

and medium farmers generated farm business income of Rs 26769, Rs.72835 and Rs. 187406

per HH respectively.

Value of output

(main + byproduct)

Marginal 68939 24085 18084 42169 26769 17915 44684

Small 174281 65843 35604 101447 72835 103491 176326

Medium 364894 115316 62170 177486 187406 132193 319599

Large 701654 242422 135441 377863 323789 164185 487974

Total 347821 118642 66347 184988 162833 109232 272065

Table 3.12A: Value of output, cost and net returns per household for the 2008-09 – aggregate of all crops (Rs/HH)

Farmer

category

Material

Cost

Labour

Cost

Total cost of

production

Net returns

(Farm

business

Non- farm

income

Total income

Note: Labour cost includes the imputed value of family labour


The total cost consisted of material cost and labour cost. Table 3.12A also shows that

the material cost was more than the labour cost for all size groups of farmers. The per-HH

material cost and labour cost ratio was in the ratio of 64.1: 35.9 in the case of all farmers

taken together. Non-farm income generated by all farmer categories taken together ranged

between Rs 17915 and Rs 164185 per HH. Small farmers have gained maximum non-farm

income in percentage term (56.61 per cent) while the income generated from non-farm

activities by medium farmers, marginal farmers and large farmers was 42.06 per cent, 36.64

per cent and 32.44 per cent of total household income respectively. The average family

income generated by our sample farmers from various farm and non-farm activities was Rs

272065 per HH. Large farmers earned highest total household income of Rs 487974 per HH

followed by medium farmers (Rs 319599), small farmers (Rs 176326) and marginal farmers

(Rs 44684).

3.10.2 Per-Acre Production, Costs and Returns

When we analyze the per-acre value of crop output, cost of production and net return instead

of per-HH values, we get entirely different kind of scenario. The net return from all crops was

highest for medium farmers (Rs 11261 per acre of GCA and Rs 22904 per acre of NSA). The

large farmers, small farmers and marginal farmers had earned Rs 9621, Rs 7750 and Rs 7223

of net farm income per acre of their gross cropped area respectively. Similarly, the large

farmers, small farmers and marginal farmers had earned Rs 16608, Rs 17557 and Rs 14082

of net farm income per acre of their NSA respectively (Table 3.12B).

The medium farmers have obtained highest total value of output of Rs 44596 per acre

of NSA whereas the large farmers, marginal farmers and small farmers have obtained crop

output of Rs 35990, Rs 36266 and Rs 42011 per acre of NSA respectively. Small farmers

63

have spent highest amount of material cost of Rs 15871 per acre of NSA whereas the large

farmers have spent minimum amount of material cost of Rs 12435 for all crops cultivated.

The average labour cost incurred by all farmers was Rs 7415 per acre of NSA. However, it

was the marginal farmers who spent maximum amount of Rs 9514 per acre of NSA towards

the labour cost. In the case of large farmers, the amount of labour cost was lowest of Rs 6947

per acre of NSA. However, it is noteworthy that the major part of labour cost in the case of

marginal farmers and small farmers was on account of their family members who were

engaged in the agricultural activities on their own lands.

Marginal 36266 18601 12670 6499 9514 4880 22184 11378 14082 7223

Small 42011 18544 15871 7006 8582 3788 24454 10794 17557 7750

Medium 44596 21925 14094 6929 7598 3736 21692 10664 22904 11261

Large 35990 20849 12435 7203 6947 4024 19382 11228 16608 9621

Total 38874 20753 13260 7079 7415 3959 20675 11038 18199 9716

Per acre

of NSA

Per acre

of GCA

Per acre

of NSA

Per acre

of GCA

Per acre

of NSA

Per acre of

GCA

Notes: Labour cost includes the imputed value of family labour; NSA stands for net sown area and GCA

stands for gross cropped area.


Table 3.12B: Value of output, cost and net returns per acre for the 2008-09 – aggregate of all crops (Rs/Acre)

Farmer

category

Value of output Material Cost Labour Cost Total cost of

production

Net returns (Farm

business income)(main + byproduct)

Per acre

of NSA

Per acre

of GCA

Per acre

of NSA

Per acre

of GCA

The total cost of production in case of all farmers category was Rs 20675 per acre of

NSA and Rs 11038 per acre of GCA. The small farmers spent highest amount of total cost of

Rs 24454 per acre of NSA whereas the large farmers spent lowest amount of total cost of Rs

19382 per acre. The net returns from crop production in the case of all farmers category was

Rs 18199 per acre of NSA and Rs 9716 per acre of GCA. The medium farmers could

generate highest amount of net returns of Rs 22904 per acre of NSA followed by small

farmers (Rs 17557), large farmers (Rs 16608) and marginal farmers (Rs 14082).


This chapter is mainly deals with the socio economic characteristics, cropping pattern and

production structure of 200 sample households. The cropping intensity, the nature of tenancy,

sources of irrigation for various farmer categories, per household and per acre asset holdings

of the sample farmers, the sources and purposes of credit for various farmer categories, the

area under various horticultural crops, per household and per acre cost of cultivation, gross

value of output and net returns from all crops by different farmer categories, the average

64

family income generated by our sample farmers from various farm and non-farm activities

have been analyzed in this chapter.

Among the sample farmers, 44 were marginal farmers, 45 were small farmers, 57

were medium farmers and 54 were large farmers. The average household (HH) size for entire

sample was 7.47 persons. The average number of earners in a sample household was 2.93. It

was good to find that about 67.5 per cent of all members of sample households belonged to

16-60 years age group which considered as a productive age group. Only 7.0 per cent were

aged above 60 years. All respondents of our sample households were heads of their

households. About 22.3 percent members of sample households were illiterate and 69.7 per

cent of them were literate from primary level to graduate level.

As far as the cast composition of selected farmers is concerned, about 51 per cent sample

households (HHs) belonged to OBC category, 32.5 percent HHs belonged to ST category, 2.5

percent HHs belonged to SC and remaining 14 per cent HHs belonged to general caste

category. The majority of decisions were taken by male members in the case of about 92 per

cent of our sample HHs. As far as the main occupation of the sample HHs is concerned,

about 78.8 per cent of working members of sample HHs were engaged in farming, 10.2 per

cent were engaged in self business, 10.98 per cent were salaried or pensioners and only 0.78

per cent were wage earners.

The net sown area (NSA), net operated area (NOA) and gross cropped area (GCA) of

sample households was found to be 8.95 acres, 9.01 acres and 16.76 acres per HH

respectively and the cropping intensity in the study area was 187 per cent. As regards the

nature of tenancy in leased- in land in the study area, near about 0.06 acres per HH was found

to be leased in by the sample farmers and the entire leased in lands were leased in by the

farmers in the form of fixed rent in cash. The total rainfed area was 8.36 per cent in the case

of all sample farmers which implies that about 91.6 per cent of NOA of sample farmers was

irrigated from various sources, mainly through tube wells run by electric and diesel. This is

particularly because the selected farmers were beneficiaries of NHM and were having

sufficient irrigated area so as to cultivate various cash crops. The per-household credit from

all sources for sample farmers was Rs 143740 out of which the credit amount from various

institutional sources excluding government programmes was Rs 88034.4 (61.2%). The

contribution of institutional sources to total credit for farming by marginal farmers, small

farmers, medium farmers and large farmers was 63.1per cent, 35.6 per cent, 32.0 per cent and

72.1 per cent respectively. All farmers taken together, per acre loan of Rs 9924.8 was

received by a sample farmer from various institutional sources and per acre loan of Rs 6237.1

65

was availed by a sample farmer from various government programmes. All farmers taken

together used the credit amount of Rs 137360 (95.6%) per household in various productive

activities such as agriculture and allied activities.

The value of farm asset holdings of marginal farmers was Rs 73470 per HH while that

of small, medium and large farmers were Rs 213124, Rs 457572 and Rs 645250 respectively.

All farmers taken together, a household had farm assets of Rs 41213 per acre of NSA. The

livestock was found to be a major component of total asset holdings for all categories of

farmers.

The per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops cultivated by

the sample farmers was 7.62 acres, 5.48 acres, and 3.67 acres respectively. The total area

under HYV was 15.50 acre per HH and its share in GCA was 92.47 per cent for all farmers

category. Among various Kharif crops, maize was found to be an important crop cultivated

by farmers of all categories and the share of maize in total GCA varied from 12.5 per cent to

27.1 per cent. The total area under horticulture crop in all categories was 3.67 acres per HH

(21.89 per cent of GCA). The area under horticulture crop for all selected farmer categories

ranged between 19.6 per cent and 27.1 per cent of GCA. Our four study crops aonla, papaya,

mango and coriander were cultivated by the sample farmers in 0.82 acres, 0.30 acres, 0.59

acres and 1.12 acres per HH respectively. Out of 16.76 acres of GCA per HH, 16.20 acres

constituting about 96.6 per cent was irrigated in the case of sample farmers. Similarly, out of

8.95 acres of NSA per HH, about 8.26 acres constituting about 92.3 per cent was irrigated in

the case of our sample farmers. About 7.11 acres (93.4%) of total Kharif area and 5.42 acres

(98.9%) of total Rabi area were irrigated whereas about 3.67 acres (96.6%) of total

horticultural area was irrigated during the reference year 2008-09. The area under organic

farming was nil for all categories of farmers except large farmers. The total area under

organic farming was only 5.6 acres which was cultivated by only one farmer. Thus the

average area under organic farming per HH was only 0.10 acres in the case of large farmer

category and 0.03 acres in the case of all farmers taken together.

The gross value of output across all size groups of farmers was Rs 347821 per



was Rs 162833 per HH. The material cost was more than the labour cost for all size groups of

farmers. The per-HH material cost and labour cost ratio was in the ratio of 64.1: 35.9 in the

case of all farmers taken together. The average family income generated by our sample

farmers from various farm and non-farm activities was Rs 272065 per HH.

66

Chapter 4

The Production Structure and Resource Use under

Horticulture Crops

4.1 Economics of Production, Cost and Resource Use in Horticulture

The horticulture sector encompasses a wide range of crops namely fruit crops, vegetables

crops, potato and tuber crops, ornamental crops, medicinal and aromatic crops, spices and

plantation crops. New introductions like mushroom, bamboo and bee keeping further

expanded the scope of horticulture. The increase in horticultural production requires

availability of adequate resource base, quality planting materials and necessary infrastructure.

Inadequate availability of plant material and other resources is one of the major impediments

for healthy growth in area, production and productivity of horticultural crops. Massive area

expansion under improved varieties, replanting, planting in marginal and arid areas, etc.

require a huge demand for quality planting material and a sound supporting infrastructure. In

this chapter, an analysis has been made on availability of different planting materials, cost

incurred by different categories of sample farmers on different types of inputs and the

production and revenue generated by them from the cultivation of selected horticultural crops

for which they had received the assistance from NHM.

Economics of production, cost and resources use in cultivation of horticultural crops

has been presented in Table 4.1 to Table 4.4 for four selected crops, viz., aonla, papaya,

coriander and mango. As already indicated in the methodology section, the data on

economics of cultivation of these four crops were collected from different districts of

Rajasthan, i.e., Jaipur for aonla, Alwar and Banswara for papaya, Chittorgarh for coriander

and Banswara for mango for the reference year 2008-09. For all these study crops, the

variable costs and fixed costs have been computed separately. The fixed cost including

preparatory tillage, planting material, supporting material etc. is amortized into the life span

of the study crops. The following annual amortization method is used for calculating annual

value of fixed cost (Subrahmanyam and Mohandoss, 1982; Gondalia and Patel, 2007):

i

A = P ---------------------

1 - (1 + i) - n

67

Where,

A = Annual sum (in Rs)

P = Present sum (in Rs)

i = the interest rate or discount rate (10%)

n = Economic life period of study plants (no. of years)

The annual amortization of cost was computed from the investment made on long and

medium duration study crops (aonla, mango and papaya) from plantation year up to the

reference year 2008-09, assuming that the rate of interest to be 10 per cent. It was also

assumed that the expected economic life of aonla, mango and papaya was 35 years, 40 years

and 3 years respectively. Thus, annual amortization cost was worked out using the

compounding cost formula and by adding it to the variable cost for estimating the annual total

cost of cultivation of these study crops of respective farm groups. The annual net return was

calculated by deducting the total cost from total revenue generated per annum. The crop wise

analysis of economics of cultivation of the selected horticultural crops has been made in the

following sections.

4.1.1 The Case of Aonla Crop

Table 4.1 presents the cost of cultivation, production and net returns from cultivation of aonla

crop for different categories of sample farmers. Among the sample farmers cultivating aonla

crop, 4 were marginal farmers, 13 were small farmers, 18 were medium farmers and 15 were

large farmers. It may be seen that the average area covered under aonla crop was 3.3 acres

per household. Among different categories of farmers, large farmers cultivated aonla in

highest area of 4.08 acres per household (HH), followed by medium farmers (3.25 acres) and

small farmers (3.11 acres). Marginal farmers cultivated aonla in 1.16 acres of land per

household.

As discussed earlier, total cost of cultivation has been divided into two parts: fixed

cost and variable cost. Further the variable cost has been divided into two parts: (1) material

cost and (2) labour cost. The labour cost component of both variable cost and fixed cost

included the imputed value of family labour which was valued at the prevailing wage rate for

unskilled labour. The total cost of cultivating aonla crop in the case of all farmers category

was Rs 20899 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18584 per acre (88.9%)

and total fixed cost was Rs 2316 per acre. Out of this total fixed cost, Rs 2093 (10.0%) was

spent towards the material component and only Rs 223 (1.1%) was spent towards the labour

component. The total annual per-acre cost of cultivation of aonla was found to be highest of

68

Rs 22694 for marginal farmers and lowest of Rs 19697 for large farmers. The per-acre cost of

cultivation of aonla was comparatively less for large farmers because of use of better

agricultural tools and implements. Since the marginal farmers resorted to more labour works,

the average variable cost was more for them. The per-acre variable cost of cultivation of

aonla for marginal farmers was Rs 21812 (96.1%). It may be noted that the variable labour

cost alone was Rs 5917 (26.1%) per acre in the case of marginal farmers. The marginal

farmers spent Rs 1070 per acre towards preparatory tillage whereas the large farmers spent

only Rs 899 (4.6%) per acre for the same.

Besides the variable labour cost, the shares of manure and fertilizer, irrigation and

plant protection in the total variable cost were prominent ones. These three components

accounted for about 45.1 per cent to 48.8 per cent of total variable cost for different farmer

categories. Marginal farmers spent Rs 6692 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 1438 for irrigation

and Rs 2539 for plant protection. So a total of Rs 10669 (48.91%) was spent by marginal

farmers per acre towards the above-said three cost components. On the other hand, only Rs

8146 was spent by large farmers on the same front that accounted for about 47.1 per cent of

total variable cost and 32.04 percent of total cost of cultivation of aonla. Repair, maintenance

and depreciation cost was found to be another important component of variable cost in

cultivation of aonla crop. Medium farmers spent highest amount of Rs 2749 (12.7%) towards

repair, maintenance and depreciation cost whereas the marginal farmers, small farmers and

large farmers spent Rs 1982, Rs 2268 and Rs 1917 towards repair and maintenance cost. On

an average, Rs 2200 (10.5%) was spent per acre by all categories of farmers towards the

repair and maintenance cost of cultivating aonla.

Harvesting and collection cost was nil in the case of marginal, small and medium

farmers. Very little amount (Rs 12) was spent by the large farmers for collecting aonla crop

from the fields. This was mainly because of the fact that the majority of farmers did not get

enough output to collect during the reference year. Aonla being a long duration crop needed

more time for output to come. Topping/pruning activity cost was also nil in case of all

categories of farmers.

69

Marginal Small Medium Large All farmers

1.16 3.11 3.25 4.08 3.30

1070 895 1146 899 982

(4.72) (4.20) (5.28) (4.56) (4.70)

6692 4300 6106 5324 5331

(29.49) (20.19) (28.12) (27.03) (25.51)

80 216 225 212 213

(0.35) (1.01) (1.04) (1.08) (1.02)

1438 1265 1316 937 1165

(6.34) (5.94) (6.06) (4.76) (5.58)

778 721 339 383 477

(3.43) (3.38) (1.56) (1.95) (2.28)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

2539 2660 2279 1886 2248

(11.19) (12.49) (10.49) (9.57) (10.76)

1982 2268 2749 1917 2200

(8.74) (10.65) (12.66) (9.73) (10.53)

0 0 0 12 4

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.06) (0.02)

735 378 548 473 479

(3.24) (1.78) (2.52) (2.40) (2.29)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

580 356 429 841 698

(2.56) (1.67) (1.98) (4.27) (3.34)

5917 5190 4746 4415 4786

(26.07) (24.37) (21.85) (22.41) (22.90)

21812 18248 19884 17298 18584

(96.11) (85.67) (91.57) (87.82) (88.92)

799 2784 1651 2155 2093

(3.52) (13.07) (7.60) (10.94) (10.01)

83 268 180 244 223

(0.37) (1.26) (0.83) (1.24) (1.06)

22694 21300 21715 19697 20899

(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

15027 14983 18428 13770 15622

-7667 -6317 -3287 -5927 -5277

-6785 -3265 -1457 -3528 -2961

11.70 10.36 12.57 10.88 11.34


Notes: All variable cost items consist of two components:

(i) Bearing period cost - that is already during the reference period (i.e., 2008-09)

(ii) Cost during the plantation year/gestation period - that has been brought into the 2008-09 prices from the year of

plantation/gestation.

@ Repair, maintenance and depreciation is 10% discounted value of agricultural assets holdings including tractor &

implements and tubewell motor etc. that is divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year.

# Interest on working capital is interest paid on the loans/borrowing divided in proportionate to each crop sown during

the year.

Total cost

Total revenue

Total revenue - total cost

Total revenue - total variable cost

Output produced per acre (quintals)

Miscellaneous

Interest on working capital#

Variable labour cost

Total variable cost

Fixed cost including planting

material, field preparation cost,

supporting material and irrigation

setup ##

Material cost

Labour cost

Plant protection, pesticides etc.

Repair, maintenance and depreciation@

Harvesting and collection

Grading, storage, transport, packing

Market/mandi fee etc.

## Fixed cost has been amortised with 10 per cent discount rate.

Table 4.1: Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from aonla crop

(Rs per acre)

Farm size

Average area planted (acres)

Preparatory tillage

Manure & fertilizer

Transplanting & gap filling

Irrigation, canal, electricity and diesel

Weeding and Inter cultural operations

Topping / pruning

70

Fixed cost including planting material, field preparation cost, supporting material and

irrigation setup was divided into two components out of which, one was material cost and

another was labour cost. All farmers category spent on an average Rs 2093 (10.9%) and Rs

223 (1.1%) towards the material cost component and labour cost component of total fixed

cost involved in cultivating aonla crop respectively. Small farmers spent highest amount of

Rs 2784 (13.1%) towards the material cost whereas the marginal farmers spent only Rs 799

(3.5%) towards the same. Marginal farmers spent very less amount towards the fixed cost

because they planted aonla crop mostly in unirrigated or semi irrigated condition.

On an average, about 11.34 quintals of output of aonla was realized from an acre of

land by sample farmers. As far as the gross and net revenues generated from the cultivation

of aonla crop is concerned, it may be noted that the per-acre total revenue generated was

highest (Rs18428) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs13770) in the case of

large farmers. Since the total revenue was less than the total cost in case of all categories of

farmers, the per-acre net return was found to be negative in all cases. On an average, about Rs

5277 was the net loss (total cost less total revenue) per acre of aonla during the reference year

2008-09. The main reason of getting negative returns was that the aonla crop was a long

duration crop and the majority of our sample farmers had planted aonla for last three to four

years. During the early stages, the annual investment was high but the output was nil or very

low and the revenue generated was very less. Therefore, net annual returns were very low.

However, majority expressed that the net return would be positive in near future because

yield rate was remarkable in case of all categories of farmers. Some aonla growers were

worried about low production due to frost and low temperature during winter season that

resulted in late bearing of fruits and small sized fruits.

4.1.2 The Case of Papaya Crop

Table 4.2 presents the cost of cultivation, production and net returns from cultivation of

papaya crop for different categories of sample farmers. Among the sample farmers

cultivating papaya crop, 21 were marginal farmers, 13 were small farmers, 8 were medium

farmers and 8 were large farmers. It may be seen that the average area covered under papaya

crop was 1.19 acres per household (HH). Among different categories of farmers, large

farmers cultivated papaya in highest area of 2.57 acres per HH, followed by medium farmers

(1.56 acres) and small farmers (0.99 acres). Marginal farmers cultivated papaya in 0.65 acres

of land per household.

71

The total cost of cultivating papaya crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs

28560 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18786 per acre (65.8%) and total

fixed cost was Rs 7400 per acre (25.9%). The total per-acre cost of cultivation was found to

be highest of Rs 34999 for medium farmers and lowest (Rs 19425) for marginal farmers. The

per-acre variable cost of cultivation of papaya for medium and large farmers was Rs 21914

(62.6%) and Rs 20703 (59.8%) respectively. It may be noted that the variable labour cost

alone was Rs 4382 (17.48%) per acre in the case of marginal farmers.

As stated earlier, total variable cost of cultivating papaya crop was Rs 18786 (65.8%)

per acre. Among different kinds of variable cost, manure and fertilizers, irrigation, plant

protection, and repair and maintenance cost were four important cost components that were

spent by sample farmers on cultivation of papaya. These four components accounted for

about 56.5 per cent to 65.1 per cent of total variable cost for different farmer categories.

Large farmers spent highest amount of Rs 13479.9 (65.1% of total variable cost) per acre on

these four important cost components. Marginal farmers spent lowest amount of Rs 8757.6

(56.52% of total variable cost) on these four important cost components. Marginal farmers

spent Rs 3366 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 2070 for irrigation, Rs 1339 for plant protection

and Rs 1982 on repair and maintenance per acre of cultivating papaya. On the other hand,

large farmers spent Rs 7117 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 2472 for irrigation, Rs 1974 for

plant protection and Rs 1917 on repair and maintenance. Medium farmers spent Rs 3852 for

manure and fertilizer, Rs 4317 for irrigation, Rs 1716 for plant protection and Rs 2749 on

repair and maintenance per acre of cultivating papaya. On an average, Rs 11214.9 (59.7% of

total variable cost) was spent per acre of cultivating papaya by all farmers category towards

these four important cost components.

The production of papaya was 72.3 quintals per acre on an average for the sample

farmers. The production of papaya varied from as lowest as 46.1 quintals per acre in the case

of marginal farmers to the highest of 103.8 quintals per acre in the case of small farmers. It is

noteworthy that all categories of farmers have gained positive returns from cultivation of

papaya. The per-acre total revenue generated was highest (Rs 60321) in the case of medium

farmers and was the lowest (Rs 33514) in the case of marginal farmers. Since the total

revenue was more than the total cost in case of all categories of farmers, the net return was

found to be positive in all cases.

72


0.65 0.99 1.56 2.57 1.19

713 819 1128 1007 919

(3.67) (3.70) (3.22) (2.91) (3.22)

3366 3039 3852 7117 4636

(17.33) (13.72) (11.01) (20.55) (16.23)

571 536 584 635 587

(2.94) (2.42) (1.67) (1.83) (2.06)

2070 2637 4317 2472 2790

(10.66) (11.91) (12.33) (7.14) (9.77)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

1339 1173 1716 1974 1589

(6.89) (5.30) (4.90) (5.70) (5.56)

1982 2268 2749 1917 2200

(10.21) (10.24) (7.86) (5.53) (7.70)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

490 1150 1206 1009 957

(2.52) (5.19) (3.45) (2.91) (3.35)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

580 356 429 841 698

(2.99) (1.61) (1.23) (2.43) (2.45)

4382 4056 5933 3731 4410

(22.56) (18.31) (16.95) (10.77) (15.44)

15494 16033 21914 20703 18786

(79.76) (72.40) (62.61) (59.76) (65.78)

1537 4066 10715 11370 7400

(7.91) (18.36) (30.61) (32.82) (25.91)

2394 2045 2370 2568 2374

(12.33) (9.23) (6.77) (7.41) (8.31)

19425 22144 34999 34640 28560

(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

33514 44637 60321 49486 46791

14088 22492 25322 14846 18232

18020 28604 38407 28783 28005

46.08 103.78 76.96 66.74 72.30






plantation/gestation.

@ Repair, maintenance and depreciation is 10% discounted value of agricultural assets holdings including tractor & implements

and tubewell motor etc. that is divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year.

# Interest on working capital is interest paid on the loans/borrowing divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year.

Total cost

Total revenue




Miscellaneous



Total variable cost

Fixed cost including planting material,

field preparation cost, supporting

material and irrigation setup

(Amortized over the life time)##

Material cost

Labour cost






Manure and fertilizer

Transplanting and gap filling



Topping / pruning

Table 4.2: Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from papaya crop

(Rs per acre)

Farm size


Preparatory tillage

73

The per-acre net annual revenue generated was also highest (Rs 25322) in the case of

medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs 14088) in the case of marginal farmers. The per-acre

net revenue generated was Rs 18232 for all farmers category. The main reason of getting

positive net returns from cultivation of papaya was that the life span of papaya crop was near

about three years and the maximum production was realized by the sample farmers by the

reference year 2008-09 which was not possible in the case of long-duration crops like aonla

and mango.

4.1.3 The Case of Coriander Crop

Coriander is a short duration crop that takes about three to four months to get maturity. The

analysis on the cost of cultivation, output and returns from cultivation of coriander has been

based on the reference year 2008-09 data. The selected farmers of coriander crop belonged to

small, medium and large farmers. Not a single farmer was from marginal farmer category for

study. Among the sample farmers cultivating coriander crop, 7 were small farmers, 19 were

medium farmers and 24 were large farmers. It may be seen from Table 4.3 that the average

area covered under coriander crop was 4.48 acres per household. Among different categories

of farmers, large farmers cultivated coriander in highest area of 5.89 acres per household

(HH), followed by medium farmers (3.32 acres) and small farmers (2.77 acres).

The total variable cost of coriander ranged from 74.35 per cent to 78.02 per cent of

total cost for different farmer categories except marginal farmers those in our sample did not

cultivate coriander. The average total variable cost was Rs 8902 per acre whereas the medium

farmers spent highest amount of Rs 9095 (78.02%) towards the variable cost and the small

farmers spent lowest variable cost of Rs 8508 (77.59 %) per acre. Among different kinds of

variable cost, variable labour cost, manure and fertilizers and repair and maintenance cost

were three major cost components that were spent by the sample farmers on cultivation of

coriander.

These three components accounted for about 69.0 per cent to 72.4 per cent of total

variable cost and for about 51.3 per cent to 56.4 per cent of total cost incurred by different

farmer categories. Medium farmers spent highest amount of Rs 6577 (72.3% of total variable

cost) per acre on these three major cost components. Small farmers spent lowest amount of

Rs 6162 (72.4% of total variable cost) on these three major cost components. Small farmers

spent Rs 1863 towards manure and fertilizer, Rs 2268 on repair and maintenance and Rs 2031

on variable labour cost per acre of cultivation of coriander.

74


0 2.77 3.32 5.89 4.48

0 524 564 536 543

(0.00) (4.78) (4.84) (4.52) (4.61)

0 1863 1811 2271 2106

(0.00) (16.99) (15.54) (19.15) (17.91)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

0 625 603 573 586

(0.00) (5.70) (5.17) (4.83) (4.98)

0 10 32 29 28

(0.00) (0.09) (0.27) (0.24) (0.24)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

0 428 467 433 442

(0.00) (3.91) (4.01) (3.65) (3.76)

0 2268 2749 1917 2200

(0.00) (20.68) (23.58) (16.17) (18.71)

0 0 3 1 2

(0.00) (0.00) (0.03) (0.01) (0.02)

0 403 420 320 355

(0.00) (3.67) (3.60) (2.70) (3.02)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

0 356 429 841 698

(0.00) (3.25) (3.68) (7.09) (5.94)

0 2031 2016 1897 1942

(0.00) (18.52) (17.29) (16.00) (16.52)

0 8508 9095 8817 8902

(0.00) (77.59) (78.02) (74.35) (75.71)

0 1636 2109 2561 2353

(0.00) (14.92) (18.09) (21.59) (20.01)

0 821 454 481 503

(0.00) (7.48) (3.89) (4.06) (4.28)

0 10964 11658 11860 11759

(0.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

0 17280 19021 16365 17193

0 6316 7363 4505 5434

0 8772 9926 7547 8291

0.00 5.63 6.13 5.68 5.80


Table 4.3: Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from coriander crop

(Rs per acre)

Farm size


Preparatory tillage

Manure and fertilizer

Transplanting and gap filling



Topping / pruning






Miscellaneous



Total variable cost

Fixed cost including planting

material, field preparation cost,

supporting material and irrigation

setup ##

Material cost

Labour cost

Total cost

Total revenue


plantation/gestation.@ Repair, maintenance and depreciation is 10% discounted value of agricultural assets holdings including tractor &

implements and tubewell motor etc. that is divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year.

# Interest on working capital is interest paid on the loans/borrowing divided in proportionate to each crop sown during







75

On the other hand, large farmers spent Rs 2271 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 1917 on

repair and maintenance and Rs 1897 on variable labour cost per acre of cultivation of

coriander. Medium farmers spent Rs 1811 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 2749 on repair and

maintenance and Rs 2016 on variable labour cost. On an average, all farmers category spent

Rs 2106 towards manure and fertilizer, Rs 2200 on repair and maintenance and Rs 1942 on

variable labour cost per acre of cultivation of coriander. For all farmers category, a total of Rs

6248 (70.2% of total variable cost) was spent per acre of cultivating coriander towards these

three major cost components.

Total variable cost of cultivating coriander was Rs 8902 (75.7% of total cost) per acre

for all farmers category. So the total fixed cost (Rs 2856) accounted for about 24.3 per cent of

total cost of cultivating coriander in an acre of land. The total fixed cost per acre was highest

(Rs 3042) in the case of large farmers and lowest (Rs 2457) in the case of small farmers. The

total cost of cultivating coriander crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs 11759 per

acre. The total per-acre cost of cultivation was found highest (Rs 11860) for large farmers

and lowest (Rs 10964) for small farmers.

The net output produced by all farmers was 5.80 quintals per acre on an average

during the reference year 2008-09. The production of coriander varied from as lowest as 5.63

quintals per acre in the case of small farmers to the highest of 6.13 quintals per acre in the

case of medium farmers. Similar to the case of papaya, all categories of farmers have gained

positive returns from cultivation of coriander. The per-acre total revenue generated was

highest (Rs 19021) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs 16365) in the case

of large farmers. Since the total revenue was more than the total cost in case of all categories

of farmers, the net return was found to be positive in all cases. The per-acre net revenue

generated was also highest (Rs 7363) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs

4505) in the case of large farmers. The per-acre net revenue generated from coriander was, on

an average, Rs 5434 in the case of all farmers.

4.1.4 The Case of Mango Crop

Table 4.4 presents the cost of cultivation, production and net returns from cultivation of

mango crop for different categories of sample farmers who belonged to Banswara district of

Rajasthan. Among the sample farmers cultivating aonla crop, 19 were marginal farmers, 12

were small farmers, 12 were medium farmers and 7 were large farmers. It may be seen that

the average area covered under mango crop was 2.36 acres per household. Among different

categories of farmers, large farmers cultivated mango in highest area of 6.90 acres per

76

household (HH), followed by medium farmers (2.74 acres) and small farmers (1.74 acres).

Marginal farmers cultivated mango in 0.82 acres of land per household.

The total cost of cultivating mango crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs


fixed cost was Rs 2395 per acre. Out of this total fixed cost, Rs 2127 (13.6%) was spent

towards the material component and Rs 268 (1.7%) was spent towards the labour component.

The total per-acre cost of cultivation of mango was found to be highest (Rs 19895) for large

farmers and was lowest (Rs 9233) for marginal farmers. The per-acre variable cost of

cultivation of mango was also highest (Rs 16694) in the case of large farmers category and

was lowest (Rs 8820) for marginal farmers category. It may be noted that the variable labour

cost alone was Rs 2077 (22.5%) per acre in the case of marginal farmers and was Rs 3401

(17.1%) per acre in the case of large farmers. The marginal farmers spent only Rs109 per acre

towards preparatory tillage whereas the large farmers spent Rs 654 per acre towards

preparatory tillage.

Besides the variable labour cost, the shares of manure and fertilizer, irrigation, plant

protection and maintenance expenses in the total variable cost were major ones. These four

components accounted for about 56.95 per cent to 67.77 per cent of total variable cost for

different farmer categories cultivating mango. Among different farmer categories, large

farmers spent highest amount of Rs 9507 on these four components whereas the marginal

farmers spent minimum of Rs 5659 on these four components. Large farmers spent Rs 3379

for manure and fertilizer, Rs 1917 towards repair, maintenance and depreciation expenses, Rs

2058 for irrigation and Rs 2153 for plant protection. On the other hand, marginal farmers

spent Rs 1696 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 1982 towards repair, maintenance and

depreciation expenses, Rs 1006 for irrigation and Rs 974 for plant protection.

On the whole, a sample farmer spent Rs 2884 for manure and fertilizer, Rs 2200

towards the repair, maintenance and depreciation expenses, Rs 1515 for irrigation and Rs

1503 for plant protection. Harvesting and collection cost was nil in case of all categories of

farmers. This was mainly because of the fact that the majority of farmers did not get enough

output to collect during the reference year. Mango being a long duration crop needed more

time for output to come. Topping/pruning activity cost was also nil in case of all categories of

farmers.

77


0.82 1.74 2.74 6.90 2.36

109 622 305 654 478

(1.18) (5.03) (2.16) (3.29) (3.06)

1696 2505 2964 3379 2884

(18.37) (20.27) (20.93) (16.98) (18.48)

291 116 120 274 205

(3.15) (0.94) (0.85) (1.38) (1.31)

1006 1238 1136 2058 1515

(10.90) (10.02) (8.02) (10.34) (9.70)

0 809 635 1899 1100

(0.00) (6.55) (4.48) (9.54) (7.04)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

974 1825 597 2153 1503

(10.55) (14.76) (4.22) (10.82) (9.63)

1982 2268 2749 1917 2200

(21.47) (18.35) (19.41) (9.64) (14.09)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

105 160 444 118 215

(1.14) (1.29) (3.14) (0.59) (1.38)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

580 356 429 841 698

(6.28) (2.88) (3.03) (4.23) (4.47)

2077 1664 1618 3401 2418

(22.49) (13.46) (11.42) (17.09) (15.49)

8820 11563 10999 16694 13218

(95.53) (93.56) (77.64) (83.91) (84.66)

151 545 2946 2893 2127

(1.64) (4.41) (20.80) (14.54) (13.62)

262 252 221 308 268

(2.83) (2.04) (1.56) (1.55) (1.71)

9233 12359 14166 19895 15612

(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

0 0 40219 9296 15056

-9233 -12359 26053 -10599 -556

-8820 -11563 29220 -7398 1838

0.00 0.00 15.94 1.51 4.78


Table 4.4: Cost of cultivation, production and net returns per acre from mango crop

Farm size

(Rs per acre)



Total variable cost

Fixed cost including planting material,

field preparation cost, supporting

material and irrigation setup ##

Material

cost

Labour

cost

Total cost

Total revenue




Miscellaneous




Preparatory tillage

Manure & fertilizer

Transplanting & gap filling



(ii) Cost during the plantation year/gestation period - that has been brought into the 2008-09 prices from the year

of plantation/gestation.

@ Repair, maintenance and depreciation is 10% discounted value of agricultural assets holdings including tractor

& implements and tubewell motor etc. that is divided in proportionate to each crop sown during the year.

# Interest on working capital is interest paid on the loans/borrowing divided in proportionate to each crop sown

during the year.



Topping / pruning





78

Total fixed cost including planting material, field preparation cost, supporting

material and irrigation setup was divided into two components out of which, one was material

cost and another was labour cost. On an average, all farmers category spent Rs 6326 towards

fixed cost out of which, Rs 2127 (13.6%) and Rs 268 (1.7%) were spent as part of the

material cost and labour cost respectively. Medium farmers spent highest amount of Rs 2946

(20.8%) towards the material cost whereas the marginal farmers spent only Rs 151 (1.6%)

towards the same.

As far as the gross and net revenues generated from the cultivation of mango crop is

concerned, it may be noted that the per-acre total revenue generated was highest (Rs 40219)

in the case of medium farmers and was nil in the case of marginal and small farmers. Since

the total revenue was less than the total cost in case of all categories of farmers except

medium farmers, the per-acre net return was found to be negative in all cases except the

medium farmer category. The per acre annual net return generated by the medium farmers

was Rs 26053 per acre per HH because few medium farmers cultivated mango since last

fifteen years and few of their mango orchards were rejuvenated in 2008-09. The main reason

of getting negative returns by other farmer categories was that mango crop was a long

duration crop. However, the majority of our sample farmers had planted mango for last four

to five years. Therefore, yield, revenue and the net returns were very low. However, majority

expressed that the net return would be positive by next six to seven years.

Figure 4.1. Output produced per acre of study crops in Rajasthan

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0


Outp

ut

(quin

tals

/acr

e

Farm size

Aonla mango papaya coriander

79

Figure 4.2. Net returns per acre of study crops in Rajasthan

Only because, the long duration crops like mango and aonla did not reach fruit

bearing stage, the output and net returns were negligible (see Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2). On

the other hand the shorter duration crops like coriander and papaya yielded very good results

in terms of output and net returns. Thus, the cultivation of horticultural crops has a promising

future in Rajasthan.

4.2 Net Returns from Horticultural Versus Non-Horticultural Crops

Table 4.5 presents net returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural crops

generated by sample farmers of different categories during 2008-09. As mentioned earlier,

our sample consists of 44 marginal farmers, 45 small farmers, 57 medium farmers and 54

large farmers. It may be noted that the net returns of kharif crops for all farmers category was

Rs 9661 per acre. Among different farmer categories, medium farmers accrued highest net

return of Rs 10337 from kharif crops and marginal farmers accumulated lowest net return of

Rs 8042 per acre. The net return from rabi crops was Rs 11860 per acre and the medium

farmers, large farmers, small farmers and marginal farmers generated Rs 12672, Rs12027,

Rs10564 and Rs 8752 per acre respectively from rabi crops. The net return from rabi crops

was higher than kharif crops because kharif crops mainly depended upon monsoon while rabi

crops were provided irrigation facility.

-15000.0

-10000.0

-5000.0

0.0

5000.0

10000.0

15000.0

20000.0

25000.0

30000.0


Net

ret

urn

s (R

s/ac

re)

Farm size

Aonla mango papaya coriander

80


Bajra 13332 10943 10810 9430 10217

Groundnut 7200 12757 11917 11133 11440

Guar 12793 14228 11931 11555 12112

Maize 2837 5365 11206 8392 8114

Soyabean 10625 12137 4513 7908 7225

Tur 6750 8750 0 24000 19669

Rice 10634 13340 7653 13936 11698

Urad 7167 10036 13837 13818 12712

Cotton 46263 1250 0 10000 25209

Jowar 0 9000 6971 6933 7206

Sesamum 0 4000 4656 5029 4841

Sugarcane 0 0 0 19500 19500

Total Kharif 8042 9063 10337 9583 9661

Wheat 9137 11127 13860 13802 13120

Gram 5118 3771 12154 8710 9117

Mustard 13205 10349 9396 9021 9276

Maize 5333 8375 0 17500 9389

Barley 0 12949 10609 11673 11504

Total Rabi 8752 10564 12672 12027 11860

Aonla -7667 -6322 -3280 -5939 -5273

Brinjal 6750 2064 12099 4053 6459

Chilli 28800 24888 30528 32998 30181

Mango -9233 -12359 26053 -10599 -556

Onion 45535 33378 50246 56884 50098

Papaya 14088 22492 25320 14840 18229

Tomato 8066 26992 14200 17826 17812

Ber 0 30240 0 66180 54200

Bael 0 -6840 -9262 -5166 -6211

Coriander 0 6316 7363 4505 5434

Garlic 0 49667 55115 54457 54296

Guava 0 9200 3126 -6180 1486

Gunda/ Lisoda 0 51120 0 0 51120

Isabgoal 0 6737 7040 10432 8997

Mosambi 0 -6029 0 13375 3239

Anar 0 0 -7152 12740 7562

Cucumber 0 0 -3840 0 -3840

Fenugreek 0 0 7051 15098 10628

Lemon 0 0 -7099 44048 13360

Cauliflowar 0 0 0 42054 42054

Kinnow 0 0 0 8688 8688

Lady finger 0 0 0 11920 11920

Water melon 0 0 0 48152 48152

Total horticultural

crops 3460 2441 11099 5638 6627

Average net returns

per acre of GCA7223 7750 11261 9621 9716

Average net returns

per acre of NSA14082 17557 22904 16608 18199




Table 4.5: Net returns (gross value of output - total cost) from horticultural and non

horticultural crops (All HHs)


(Rs per acre)

Note: NSA stands for net sown area and GCA stands for gross cropped area.

81

The average net returns from foodgrains (bajra, maize, rice, jowar, wheat, and barley),

pulses (tur, urad and gram) and oilseeds (groundnut, soyabean, sesamum and mustard) were

Rs 10178, Rs 13833 and Rs 8195 per acre respectively. Large farmers generated highest per-

acre net returns of Rs 11666, Rs 15509 and Rs 27176 from cereals, pulses and total

foodgrains respectively. Small farmers got highest net returns of Rs 9810 from oilseeds.

The average net return from horticulture crops was Rs 6627 per acre. The small

farmers accrued lowest net returns (Rs 244) while marginal farmers got little higher amount

of net return of only Rs 3460 per acre from cultivation of various horticultural crops. The

medium farmers generated highest per-acre net return of Rs 11099 from various horticultural

crops. The average net return from horticultural crops was lower than that from non-

horticultural crops due to low production and early stages of long duration crops. However,

the farmers expected that they would get good output by next few years. Among horticultural

crops, short duration crops like chilly, onion, garlic, tomato and vegetables fetched good

returns and many farmers were very much interested in growing these crops. However, the

long duration crops like aonla and mango generated negative net returns or net loss of Rs

5273 and Rs 556 respectively. It may be seen that the other selected horticultural crops like

papaya and coriander fetched positive net returns of Rs 18229 and Rs 5434 respectively. It

was encouraging to note that, after implementation of National Horticulture Mission scheme

in Rajasthan, many farmers showed keen interest in cultivation of horticultural crops with the

expectation of generating good returns.

The aggregate net returns from all crops (kharif, rabi and horticultural) was Rs 18199

per acre of NSA and Rs 9716 per acre of GCA. The marginal farmers, small farmers, medium

farmers and large farmers generated net return of Rs 14082, Rs 17557, Rs 22904 and Rs

16608 per acre of NSA respectively. It may also be noted that the net return per acre

generated by marginal and small farmers was much lower that of medium and large farmers.

The average net return for different farmer categories would further increase once the long

duration crops cultivated under NHM scheme like aonla, mango, anar, bael and citrus etc.

start giving output by the next few years.

4.3 Use of Human Labour in Horticultural Versus Non-Horticultural Crops

As discussed earlier, the variable labour cost was a major component of total cost involved in

cultivation of various horticultural crops. Table 4.6 and 4.7 present the extent of use of

human labour in cultivation of various horticultural and non-horticultural crops. Table 4.6

shows the crop wise use of human labour and Table 4.7 shows the activity wise use of human

82

labour for various farmer categories in our sample. In both the cases, man days are calculated

by total labour cost is divided by the wage rate prevailing in the village.

4.3.1 Crop Wise Use of Human Labour

It may be noted that about 30.5 human-days was required for an acre of kharif crops on an

average. Among different farmer categories, marginal farmers used highest man-days of 33.5

per acre whereas the small farmers required lowest of 26.2 man-days per acre of kharif crops

(Table 4.6). In case of rabi crops, on an average, 34.1 man-days were required for an acre of

land. The large farmers needed highest of 35.5 man-days and small farmers used minimum of

30.5 man-days per acre of various rabi crops.

It is also revealed that about 33.1 man-days were used for an acre of various types of

cereals, 41.0 man-days were used for an acre of various types of pulses and 23.6 man-days

were used for an acre of various types of oilseeds. The large farmers used highest number of

35.3 man-days and 24.8 man-days for an acre of foodgrains and oilseeds respectively. The

small farmers used highest of 51.2 man-days for an acre of different types of pulses. The

marginal farmers used lowest of 23.8, 15.2, 39.0 and 19.4 number of man-days for an acre of

cereals, pulses, oilseeds and total foodgrains respectively.

As far as the use of human labour in various horticultural crops is concerned, an

average of 39.8 man-days was required per acre of horticultural crops. The marginal farmers

used highest of 72.2 man-days while the medium farmers used lowest of 36.3 man-days per

acre of various horticultural crops. The horticultural crops were more labour intensive

compared to non-horticultural crops for which the average man-days required for an acre of

horticultural crops was higher than that of non-horticultural crops.

Considering the cases of our study crops, it was found that, an average of 54.6 man-

days was required for an acre of aonla. The small farmers used highest of 63.4 man-days

whereas the medium farmers required a lowest of 49.7 man-days per acre of aonla. In the

case of mango, about 42.0 man-days were used per acre on an average. The large farmers

utilized a highest of 53.5 man-days while the medium farmers used a minimum of 31.5 man-

days for an acre of mango during the reference year. In the case of papaya, about 93.2 man-

days were used per acre on an average which was the highest among all crops cultivated by

the sample farmers. Marginal farmers used highest of 119.4 man-days for papaya while a

lowest of 76.2 man days was required by small farmers for the same.

83

Farm size -> Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Bajra 37.0 35.2 33.7 30.7 32.5

Groundnut 33.3 30.1 34.0 33.0 33.2

Guar 22.6 23.6 21.5 21.2 21.7

Maize 30.7 19.0 31.1 37.3 32.3

Soyabean 23.4 23.7 13.6 25.4 22.6

Tur 11.7 93.8 0.0 66.7 61.8

Rice 28.0 27.1 35.7 45.8 38.1

Urad 24.3 38.7 15.5 35.5 29.5

Cotton 79.2 10.4 0.0 20.8 45.6

Jowar 0.0 29.2 18.1 16.0 18.3

Sesamum 0.0 20.0 16.4 20.3 18.9

Sugarcane 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 75.0

Total kharif 33.5 26.2 28.8 31.9 30.5

Wheat 35.1 33.7 36.5 41.6 38.6

Gram 9.6 21.0 37.7 31.8 31.8

Mustard 20.8 17.7 18.6 20.4 19.7

Maize 35.9 44.3 0.0 41.7 39.4

Barley 0.0 27.7 30.5 33.9 32.4

Total rabi 33.2 30.5 33.2 35.5 34.1

Aonla 55.9 63.4 49.7 53.3 54.6

Brinjal 16.7 29.0 52.1 35.1 38.8

Chilli 51.6 42.6 45.7 44.3 45.3

Mango 38.6 34.4 31.5 53.5 42.0

Onion 55.7 20.3 40.8 36.7 37.8

Papaya 119.4 76.2 97.0 84.1 93.2

Tomato 65.2 50.3 47.2 46.4 48.4

Ber 0.0 18.7 0.0 45.0 36.2

Bael 0.0 11.8 20.9 12.5 13.7

Coriander 0.0 23.8 20.6 19.8 20.4

Garlic 0.0 24.2 30.9 35.3 32.3

Guava 0.0 36.7 10.7 13.7 12.7

Gunda/ Lisoda 0.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 46.0

Isabgoal 0.0 14.1 20.4 23.0 21.0

Mosambi 0.0 17.9 0.0 49.0 32.7

Anar 0.0 0.0 19.6 22.4 21.7

Cucumber 0.0 0.0 51.3 0.0 51.3

Fenugreek 0.0 0.0 28.3 30.3 29.1

Lemon 0.0 0.0 14.1 22.0 17.3

Cauliflowar 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.3 57.3

Kinnow 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.0 37.0

Lady finger 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.3 37.3

Water melon 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.2 34.2

Total horticultural

crops 72.2 46.5 36.3 36.5 39.8

Average (all crops) 42.3 33.1 32.0 34.0 33.7

Table 4.6: Use of human labour in crop production (man days per acre)





84

Similarly, for the coriander crop, an average of 20.4 man-days was spent per acre. The

small farmers used highest of 23.8 man-days whereas the large farmers used a minimum of

19.8 man-days per acre of cultivation of coriander. It was also observed that the long duration

crops required more labour days per annum compared to the short duration crops. However,

the annual requirement of human labour declined after few years in case of these long

duration crops.

4.3.2 Activity Wise Uses of Human Labour

Table 4.7 presents activity wise uses of human labour in horticultural crops. The man days

are calculated by dividing the total labour cost by the prevailing wage rate during the year

during which the cost was incurred. It may be seen that, an average of 39.8 man days per acre

was used per acre of horticultural crops. The marginal farmers used highest human labour of

72.2 man-days per acre whereas the medium farmers used a minimum of 36.3 man-days per

acre of various horticultural crops.

As far as the use of human labour in various recurring activities is concerned, it was

found that about 27.3 man-days were used, on an average, for various recurring activities

undertaken per acre of horticultural crops. The marginal farmers used highest of 36.1 man

days while large farmers used a minimum of 26.3 man days for recurring activities. Among

various recurring activities, as high as 9.5 man-days were used per acre in weeding and inter-

cultural operations by the sample farmers. About 9.8 man days were used by large farmers

while as low as 8.9 man-days were used by marginal farmers for recurring activities. The

number of human-days required for topping and pruning activity was only 0.4 man-days per

acre, which implies that the majority of horticultural crops in the selected districts did not

require topping and pruning. Thus the use of human labour was very less for these activities.

Among other recurring activities, plant protection and pesticides, harvesting of output and

manure and fertilization application were major ones that required more human labour. The

plant protection through fencing, harvesting of output and manure and fertilization

application needed 4.3 man-days, 4.0 man-days and 3.4 man-days respectively for cultivation

of horticultural crops in an acre of land.

85

Farm Size -> Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Preparatory tillage 3.7 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.8

Manure & fertilizer 6.4 4.2 3.3 2.9 3.4

Transplanting & gap filling 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.2 1.2

Irrigation, electricity and diesel 4.0 2.3 1.6 1.4 1.7

Weeding and inter cultural operations 8.9 9.9 9.0 9.8 9.5

Topping / pruning 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4

Plant protection, pesticides etc. 4.0 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.3

Harvesting and collection 3.1 3.1 4.6 4.1 4.0

Grading, storage, transport, packing 4.4 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.8

Miscellaneous -1. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sub total of recurring activities 36.1 28.7 26.7 26.3 27.3

(a) Planting material like seedling, nursery etc 2.8 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4

(b) Field preparation - digging, pit making, fencing etc 33.2 16.4 8.3 8.9 11.1

(c) Supporting material - bamboo, iron angles, etc 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(d) Laying down of permanent irrigation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

(e) Any other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sub total of fixed activities 36.0 17.9 9.7 10.2 12.5

Gross total 72.2 46.5 36.3 36.5 39.8


Table 4.7: Use of human labour in all horticultural crops by activities (man days per acre)

Notes: # Mandays are calculated by dividing the labour cost by the prevailing wage rate during the

year in which cost was incurred. For example, for the bearing period, wage rate is for 2008-09 but for

gestation period wage rate is during the gestation year.

## Mandays are calculated, dividing labour cost by the prevailing wage rate during the year of

plantation.

(A) Recurring activities undertaken every year#

(B) Fixed activities undertaken during the plantation year ##

Regarding use of human labour in fixed activities for horticultural crops, it may be

seen that, among various fixed activities, the field preparation like digging, pit making and

fencing etc. consumed highest of 11.1man-days per acre by an average sample farmer. The

marginal farmers used highest of 33.2 man-days while the medium farmers used minimum of

8.3 man days field preparation activities. On the other hand, only about 1.4 man-days were

used for planting material like seedling, nursery etc. The marginal farmers used highest of 2.8

man-days whereas the medium and large farmers used minimum of 1.3 man days each for

planting seedling, nursery etc. On the whole, it was found that about 12.5 man-days were

used, on an average, for various fixed activities undertaken per acre of horticultural crops.

The marginal farmers used highest of 36.0 man days while medium farmers used a minimum

of 9.7 man days for various fixed activities.

86

4.4 Marketing Channels of Horticultural Crops

In horticultural farming, where prices are rarely regulated, financial viability depends as

much upon business and marketing skills as on the farmer's technical expertise. It is high-

value crops which are often a crucial component of viable small farms. If farmers are to

increase production, more attention needs to be paid to the fact that their output must be

marketed at a rewarding price. Proper marketing facilities wound not only provide good

amount of cash income to farmers but also encourage further developments in both

production and processing of the horticultural crops. Table 4.8 shows the selling of output of

selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla, papaya, coriander and mango through various

marketing channels.


The analysis of marketing of aonla through different channels revealed that about 36.06

quintals of aonla per household(HH) was sold through various marketing channels out of

which, 54.52 per cent was sold in wholesale market, 38.27 per cent was sold by pre arranged

contract and 7.21 percent was sold through intermediaries. Among various farmer categories,

the large farmers sold highest amount of output of 40.67 quintals per HH, out of which 59.02

per cent was sold in wholesale market and 40.98 per cent was sold through pre arranged

contract. The small farmers sold 36.15 quintals of mango per HH, out of which 57.45 per cent

was sold in wholesale market and 42.55 per cent was sold through pre arranged contract. The

medium farmers sold 35.44 quintals of mango per HH, out of which 42.01 per cent was sold

in wholesale market, 37.62 per cent was sold through pre arranged contract and 20.38 per

cent was sold through intermediaries.


The total papaya production of 73.14 quintals/HH was marketed through various channels out

of which as high as 62.65% was sold in the wholesale market. However, about 21.06 per cent

of total papaya output was sold on pre-arranged contract and 13.40 per cent of total papaya

output was sold through intermediaries at farm gate. Only 2.90 per cent of total papaya output

was sold in the nearby local market.

87

Marginal 21.25 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 21.25 (100.00)

Small 20.77 (57.45) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 15.38 (42.55) 0.00 (0.00) 36.15 (100.00)

Medium 14.89 (42.01) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 7.22 (20.38) 13.33 (37.62) 0.00 (0.00) 35.44 (100.00)

Large 24.00 (59.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 16.67 (40.98) 0.00 (0.00) 40.67 (100.00)

Total 19.66 (54.52) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 2.60 (7.21) 13.80 (38.27) 0.00 (0.00) 36.06 (100.00)

Marginal 28.14 (90.92) 2.81 (9.08) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 30.95 (100.00)

Small 49.62 (61.31) 3.62 (4.47) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 27.69 (34.22) 0.00 (0.00) 80.92 (100.00)

Medium 46.88 (42.86) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 31.25 (28.57) 31.25 (28.57) 0.00 (0.00) 109.38 (100.00)

Large 85.00 (62.96) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 30.00 (22.22) 20.00 (14.81) 0.00 (0.00) 135.00 (100.00)

Total 45.82 (62.65) 2.12 (2.90) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 9.80 (13.40) 15.40 (21.06) 0.00 (0.00) 73.14 (100.00)

Marginal NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Small 15.57 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 15.57 (100.00)

Medium 19.58 (96.12) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.79 (3.88) 0.00 (0.00) 20.37 (100.00)

Large 33.21 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 33.21 (100.00)

Total 25.56 (98.84) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.30 (1.16) 0.00 (0.00) 25.86 (100.00)

Marginal 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

Small 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)

Medium 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 14.83 (82.60) 3.13 (17.40) 0.00 (0.00) 17.96 (100.00)

Large 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 100.00 (100.00) 0.00 (0.00) 100.00 (100.00)

Total 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 3.56 (19.44) 14.75 (80.56) 0.00 (0.00) 18.31 (100.00)

Table 4.8: Marketing channels through which horticultural products were sold by the selected households during 2008-09 (Qtls/HH)

Wholesale market Local market Village directly Coop-erative Govt agencies Intermediaries at

farm gate

Merchant or

pre arranged

Contract

Others Aggregate


Aonla

Papaya

Coriander

Mango

Note: Figures in parantheses are the percentage of total output of respective crops sold.

88

Among various farmer categories, the large farmers sold highest amount of output of

135.00 quintals per HH, out of which 62.96 per cent was sold in wholesale market, 14.81 per

cent was sold through pre-arranged contract and 22.22 per cent was sold through

intermediaries. The medium farmers sold 109.38 quintals of papaya per HH, out of which

42.86 per cent was sold in wholesale market and 28.57 per cent each was sold through pre

arranged contract and intermediaries. The small farmers sold 80.92 quintals of papaya per

HH, out of which 61.31 per cent was sold in the wholesale market, 34.22 per cent was sold

through pre arranged contract and 4.47 per cent was sold at local markets. A major part of

marginal farmers was also sold in wholesale markets.


The total coriander production of 25.86 quintals/HH was marketed through various channels

out of which as high as 98.84 per cent was sold in the wholesale market. Remaining 1.16 per

cent of total coriander output was sold on pre-arranged contract. Among various farmer

categories, the large farmers sold highest amount of output of 33.21 quintals per HH and this

entire amount of output was sold in the wholesale market. The medium farmers sold 20.37

quintals of coriander per HH, out of which 96.12 per cent was sold in the wholesale market

and remaining 3.88 per cent was sold through pre arranged contract. The small farmers sold

15.57 quintals of coriander per HH and this entire amount of output was sold in the wholesale

market. The marginal farmers did not cultivate coriander at all.


Mango being a long-duration crop did not provide much yield to the farmers those who

planted mango through NHM during last 4 to 5 years. On an average, about 18.31 quintals of

mango per HH was marketed through various channels out of which 80.56 per cent was sold

on pre-arranged contract and 19.44 per cent was sold through intermediaries at farm gate.

Among various farmer categories, the large farmers sold highest amount of output of 100

quintals per HH and this entire amount of output was sold on pre-arranged contract. Medium

farmers sold 17.96 quintals per HH out of which 17.4 per cent was sold on pre-arranged

contract and 82.6 per cent was sold through intermediaries at farm gate. Marginal and small

farmers did not sale any quantity because they did not get any production by the reference

year 2008-09.

89

4.5 On Farm Processing Activities on Horticultural Crops

Employment generation, reduction of postharvest losses and enhancing of household food

security are some of the reasons why small holder farmers process their horticultural crops.

The horticultural production provides extra income to rural poor, when the produce is

marketed locally or processed and transported to urban areas located at distance places and

international markets. There are so many methods of processing followed by the farmers. The

most widely practised method of fruit and vegetables processing is the direct sun drying or

boiling followed by sun drying. Fruits and vegetables are also processed into high value

products like juice, wine, puree, jam and jelly. The processing of horticultural crops not only

increases the income and employment of the farmers, but also reduces the post harvest losses.

The magnitude of postharvest losses of fresh fruits and vegetables is calculated to be 5 to 25

per cent in developing countries (Madakadje et al., 2004).

As per the NHM Operational Guidelines (GoI, 2010), the processing of horticultural

produce and value addition is an important activity. While primary / minimal processing units

will be promoted under NHM, large scale processing units will be promoted by Ministry of

Food Processing Industries (MFPI), out of their ongoing Schemes. However, it was

unfortunate to find that none of the sample households in our study areas cultivating allotted

four selected horticultural crops were involved in processing activity supported by NHM.

However, some sample farmers were involved in processing of other crops.


This chapter discussed about the production, cost of cultivation and returns generated from

cultivation of various horticultural crops in general and four selected horticultural crops, viz.,

aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in particular during the reference year 2008-09. The net

returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural crops generated by the sample

farmers of different categories were also compared and analyzed. Since the use of human

labour was crucial in cultivation of various horticultural crops, this chapter also discussed the

activity wise uses of human labour in cultivation of horticultural crops. This chapter also

analyzed about the processing of horticultural products and selling of output of selected

horticultural crops through various marketing channels in the case of our four selected crops.

As far as the economics of production of selected horticultural crops is concerned, it

was found that only the cultivation coriander and papaya could generate reasonable amount

of annual net returns for the sample farmers. The long duration crops like aonla and mango

did not reach to fruit bearing stage in the case of majority of NHM beneficiary farmers. Thus

90

the net average returns were not very impressive in the case of these two long duration

sample crops. In the case of aonla, the average total cost of cultivation for all farmers

category was Rs 20899 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18584 per acre

(88.9%) and total fixed cost was Rs 2316 per acre. Out of this total fixed cost, Rs 2093

(10.0%) was spent towards the material component and only Rs 223 (1.1%) was spent

towards the labour component. On an average, about 11.34 quintals of output of aonla was

realized from an acre of land by sample farmers. The per-acre total revenue generated was

highest (Rs18428) in the case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs13770) in the case of

large farmers. Since the total revenue was less than the total cost in case of all categories of

farmers, the per-acre net return was found to be negative in all cases. On an average, about Rs

5277 was the net loss from an acre of aonla during the reference year 2008-09. Some aonla

growers were also worried about the low production due to frost and low temperature during

winter season that resulted in late bearing of fruits and small sized fruits. The analysis on

economics of cultivation of mango crops also resulted in similar kind of results with a net

loss of Rs 556 per acre. Only medium category of farmers could generate a net positive return

of Rs 26053 from an acre of mango by the reference year 2008-09 since some of them had

availed NHM assistance for renovating their existing mango orchards. The main reason of

getting negative returns from long duration crops like aonla and mango was that the majority

of our sample farmers had planted these two crops for last three to four years. During the

early stages, the annual investment was high but the output was nil or very low and the

revenue generated was very less. Therefore, net annual returns were very low. However,

majority expressed that the net return would be positive in near future.

So far as the economics of cultivation of shorter duration crops like coriander and

papaya is concerned, the sample farmers had generated the net positive returns from both the

crops. The total cost of cultivating papaya crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs


fixed cost was Rs 7400 per acre (25.9%). The production of papaya was 72.3 quintals per

acre on an average for the sample farmers. The production of papaya varied from as lowest as

46.1 quintals per acre in the case of marginal farmers to the highest of 103.8 quintals per acre

in the case of small farmers. The per-acre net revenue generated was Rs 18232 for all farmers

category. The main reason of getting positive net returns from cultivation of papaya was that

the life span of papaya crop was near about three years and the maximum production was

realized by the sample farmers by the reference year 2008-09. Similarly, the per-acre net

revenue generated from an acre of coriander was, on an average, Rs 5434 in the case of all

91

farmers. The net output produced by all farmers was 5.80 quintals per acre of coriander. The


acre.

The analysis on the net returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural crops

generated by sample farmers of different categories during 2008-09 reveals that the net

returns of kharif crops for all farmers category was Rs 9661 per acre. The net return from

rabi crops was Rs 11860 per acre which was higher than that from kharif crops because

kharif crops mainly depended upon monsoon while rabi crops were provided irrigation

facility. However, the average net return from horticulture crops was Rs 6627 per acre which

was lower than the both kharif and rabi averages. The aggregate net returns from all crops

(kharif, rabi and horticultural) was Rs 18199 per acre of NSA and Rs 9716 per acre of GCA.

The marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers generated net return

of Rs 14082, Rs 17557, Rs 22904 and Rs 16608 per acre of NSA respectively. It is expected

that the average net return from horticultural crops would further increase once the long



So far as the use of human labour is concerned, it may be noted that about 30.5

human-days was required for an acre of kharif crops on an average, while various

horticultural crops required an average of 39.8 man-days per acre. The horticultural crops

were more labour intensive compared to non-horticultural crops for which the average man-

days required for an acre of horticultural crops was higher than that of non-horticultural

crops. Considering the cases of our study crops, it was found that, an average of 54.6 man-

days was required for an acre of aonla. In the case of mango, papaya and coriander, about

42.0 man-days, 93.2 man-days and 20.4 man-days were used per acre respectively. As

regards the activity wise uses of human labour in horticultural crops, out of an average of

39.8 man days per acre per acre of horticultural crops, only about 27.3 man-days were used

for various recurring activities and about 12.5 man-days were used for various fixed activities

undertaken per acre of horticultural crops.

The analysis on the selling of output of selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla,

papaya, coriander and mango through various marketing channels reveals that, wholesale

market and pre-arranged selling were the major marketing channels for the sample farmers.

In the case of papaya, out of total selling of 73.14 quintals/HH through various channels, as

high as 62.65 per cent was sold in the wholesale market. In the case of coriander and aonla,

respectively 98.84 per cent and 54.52 per cent were sold in the wholesale market. However,

92

the case of mango was an exception. On an average, about 18.31 quintals of mango per HH

was marketed through various channels out of which 80.56 per cent was sold on pre-arranged

contract and 19.44 per cent was sold through intermediaries at farm gate. As regards the on-

farm processing activities using the selected horticultural crops, it was unfortunate to find that

none of the sample households in our study areas cultivating allotted four selected

horticultural crops were involved in processing activity supported by NHM. However, some

sample farmers were involved in processing of other crops.

93

Chapter 5

Impact of NHM on the Expansion of Horticultural Crops

5.1 Impact of NHM on Area and Yield of Selected Horticultural Crops

National Horticulture Mission (NHM) was implemented during 2004-05 in all the states and

union territories of India except the north eastern states to promote holistic growth of

horticulture covering fruits, vegetables, root and fiber crops, mushroom, spices, flowers,

aromatic plants, cashew and cocoa. As mentioned earlier, our study covers four sample crops

namely aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in four districts of Rajasthan. Since NHM

scheme is being implemented in various states including Rajasthan, it is imperative to look in

depth at the effectiveness and relevance with respect to various components of the scheme

and to make qualitative and quantitative assessment of the various agro-economic impacts

using farm level data collected from sample households for the reference year 2008-09. There

are several components of NHM programme. The major components are area expansion

under horticultural crops through establishment of new gardens and rejuvenation of old and

senile orchards, plantation infrastructure and development-nurseries, tissue culture labs,

integrated pest management/integrated nutrient management, protected cultivation, organic

farming, pollination support through bee keeping, creation of water sources, mechanization,

capacity building and human resources development, post harvest management, marketing,

and primary processing of horticultural crops. This chapter particularly assesses the overall

impact of the NHM programme on the expansion of horticulture area and yield and attempts

to identify all possible constraints that negatively affected the effectiveness and outcomes of

the programme. Table 5.1 shows the impact of NHM on area and yield of selected

horticultural crops during a period from 2004-05 to 2009-10.


It may be seen from the table that, the overall area under aonla has increased from nil during

2004-05 to 3.3 acres per household (HH) in 2008-09 and thereafter has reduced to 2.75 acres

in 2009-10. On the other hand, the yield of aonla has consistently increased from nil in 2004-

05 to 25.2 quintals per acre in 2009-10 in the case of selected 50 farmers. On an average, 0.16

acres was cultivated with aonla crop by the sample farmers during 2005-06 whereas the small

and large farmers cultivated aonla in 0.35 acres and 0.23 acres of land respectively during the

same year. During the next year, i.e., 2006-07, an average of 1.11 acres of land was cultivated

94

with aonla. The medium farmers cultivated highest of 1.36 acres of aonla whereas the

marginal farmers cultivated a lowest of 0.63 acres of aonla. During 2007-08, an average of

2.13 acres of aonla was cultivated with the average yield of 1.17 quintal per acre. Only the

small farmers gained yield of 3.66 quintal per acre. In the year 2008-09, an average of 3.30

acres of aonla was cultivated with the average yield of 10.70 quintals per acre in the case of

all farmers category. Surprisingly, the marginal farmers were the main gainers during the

year with the highest yield of 18.36 quintals per acre whereas the large farmers got a lowest

yield of 9.98 quintals per acre. All farmers of different categories were benefited to some

extent with some output of aonla during 2008-09.

Year Marginal Small Medium Large Total Marginal Small Medium Large Total

2004-05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005-06 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.23 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006-07 0.63 1.19 1.36 0.88 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2007-08 0.91 2.63 1.89 2.31 2.13 0.00 3.66 0.00 0.00 1.17

2008-09 1.16 3.11 3.25 4.08 3.30 18.36 11.61 10.22 9.98 10.70

2009-10 1.16 2.96 2.42 3.41 2.75 20.52 20.42 32.64 22.88 25.20

2004-05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005-06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2006-07 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2007-08 0.14 0.38 1.12 0.70 0.45 0.00 0.00 11.19 0.00 4.43

2008-09 0.65 0.99 1.56 2.57 1.19 47.55 81.68 70.07 52.49 61.35

2009-10 0.79 1.00 1.24 2.37 1.17 53.20 165.70 154.47 101.98 111.21

2004-05 0.00 0.58 0.69 1.67 1.14 0.00 3.94 5.68 5.13 5.17

2005-06 0.00 0.76 0.69 1.64 1.16 0.00 4.89 6.21 5.03 5.28

2006-07 0.00 0.63 2.25 3.35 2.55 0.00 5.37 6.11 4.76 5.24

2007-08 0.00 1.16 2.25 3.44 2.67 0.00 5.54 6.14 5.44 5.67

2008-09 0.00 2.77 3.32 5.89 4.48 0.00 5.63 6.13 5.68 5.80

2009-10 0.00 1.70 1.78 5.21 3.41 0.00 5.73 6.46 5.57 5.76

2004-05 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 64.00 0.00 64.00

2005-06 0.00 0.00 0.21 1.29 0.23 0.00 0.00 72.00 0.00 15.65

2006-07 0.00 0.00 0.21 2.37 0.38 0.00 0.00 68.00 0.00 8.90

2007-08 0.00 1.13 0.48 2.94 0.80 0.00 0.00 35.09 0.00 5.03

2008-09 0.82 1.74 2.74 6.90 2.36 0.00 0.00 15.94 1.51 4.78

2009-10 0.85 1.74 2.74 6.90 2.36 0.00 0.00 9.11 2.64 3.62

Mango


Table 5.1: Impact of NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops (all households)

Area cultivated in acres per household Yield rate obtained quintals per acre

Anola

Papaya

Coriander

Except marginal farmers category, all other categories experienced the fall in area

under aonla from 208-09 to 2009-10. In the case of large farmers, the area under aonla has

decreased from 4.08 acres per HH in 2008-09 to 3.41 acres per HH in 2009-10. In the case of

95

all farmers category, the total area under aonla has decreased from 3.3 acres per HH during

2008-9 to 2.75 acres per HH during 2009-10. This was particularly due to the fact that the

extent of availability of marketing facilities for selling aonla was not satisfactory in the study

district Jaipur. On the other hand, though an international mandi for aonla was built by the

Marketing Board Jaipur (Govt. of Rajasthan) sponsored by Agricultural and Processed Food

Products Exports Development Authority (APEDA) since last three to four years, it was not

made operational. Because of absence of adequate marketing arrangements, aonla growers

were helpless and were forced to sell their output at very low price. Cold and frost was also a

major problem in the district that caused poor growth of plants. During the reference year

2008-09, the frost level was at peak which led to poor growth of aonla plants in the region.

As the prices fetched for aonla was also below the reasonable level for past few years, the

farmers hacked the trees from their field out of their frustration.


Relative to aonla and mango, papaya crop is a shorter duration crop that lasts mostly for 3

years. During 2004-05 and 2005-06, there was not a single sample farmer cultivating papaya

crop. Considering the case of all farmers, the area under papaya has increased from 0.03 acres

per HH in 2006-07 to 1.19 acres per HH in 2008-09 and has then decreased to 1.17 acres per

HH in 2009-10. On the other hand, the yield of papaya has successively increased from 4.43

quintals per acre in 2006-07 to 111.21 quintals per acre in 2009-10. During 2006-07, among

different farmer categories, only medium farmers cultivated papaya in 0.16 acres per HH and

got nil output. During 2007-08, about 0.45 acres per HH was cultivated under papaya by the

sample farmers and about 4.43 quintals per acre of output was produced by all farmers. The

highest area and yield was found in the case of medium farmers, which was 1.12 acres per

HH and 11.19 quintals per acre respectively. During the next year, i.e., 2008-09, the area

under papaya was expanded with increased yield of 61.35 quintals per acre in the case of all

farmers. The area under papaya was highest for large farmers (2.57 acres/HH) whereas the

output was highest for small farmers (81.68 quintals/acre) during 2008-09. Similarly, the area

under papaya was also highest for large farmers (2.37 acres/HH) during 2009-10 whereas the

output was highest for small farmers (165.7 quintals/acre) during the same year.


The average area cultivated under coriander crop during a period of six years, i.e., 2004-05 to

2009-10 was 2.57 acres per HH and the average yield during the same period was 5.49

96

quintals per acre. Among various farmer categories, medium farmers cultivated coriander in

highest average annual area of 3.53 acre per HH followed by the large farmers (2.57

acres/HH) during the same period of six years. However, the highest average annual yield

during the period was 6.12 quintals per acre, which was accrued by the medium farmers. On

the other hand, the small farmers cultivated coriander in lowest area of 1.26 acres per HH and

also got lowest yield of 5.18 quintals per acre during the period from 2004-05 to 2009-10.

Among the sample coriander cultivators, no one belonged to marginal farmers category.

Considering the case of all farmers, it may be noted that the area under coriander has

successively increased from 1.14 acres per HH in 2004-05 to 4.48 acres per HH in 2008-09.

It has declined thereafter to 3.41 acres per HH in 2009-10. Some farmers expressed that

government supplied CS-6 variety of coriander which was not a good variety as compared to

local traditional varieties. The traditional variety of coriander yielded more output and good

quality of produce as compared to the varieties provided by the Horticulture Department and

other governmental sources. Another reason of reduced area under coriander crop was the

lack of interest of the farmers in the study district Chittorgarh. The farmers in the districts

were more interested to cultivate isabgul and garlic since these crops generated good returns

since years.


The average area under mango was only 0.05 acres per HH during 2004-05 which has

increased successively to 2.36 acres per HH during 2009-10. On the other hand, the average

yield has successively declined from 64 quintals per acre in 2004-05 to 4.78 quintals per acre

in 2008-09 and further to 3.62 quintals per acre in 2009-10. During 2005-06 and 2006-07, the

medium and large farmers cultivated mango but only medium farmers got some output of 70

quintals per acre. During 2008-09 and 2009-10, the area cultivated under mango crop was

2.36 acres per HH and the highest area under mango of 6.90 acres/HH was cultivated by the

large farmers whereas the lowest area of 0.835 acres/HH was cultivated by the marginal

farmers. It may be noted that marginal and small farmers did not get any output since they

have started mango plantation only from 2008-09. In the case of medium farmers, though the

area under mango did not increase from 2008-09 to 2009-10, the yield declined significantly

from 15.94 quintals/acre in 2008-09 to 9.11 quintals/acre in 2009-10. However, in the case of

large farmers, though the area under mango (6.9 acres/HH) did not increase in 2009-10 from

2008-09, the yield has sharply increased from 1.51 quintals/acre in 2008-09 to 2.64

quintals/acre in 2009-10.

97

5.2 Rejuvenation/Protection, Resource Procurement through NHM

Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 show the area under rejuvenation/protection, resources procurement

through NHM and the resulted increase in productivity due to rejuvenation/protection. No

cases of rejuvenation are found in the case of aonla, papaya and coriander. Four farmers were

found in the case of mango who were involved in rejuvenation/protection through NHM. The

average area under rejuvenation of mango was 0.20 acres per HH. Among various farmer

categories, only medium and large farmers rejuvenated 0.42 acres and 0.71 acres per HH

respectively (Table 5.2). The rejuvenation activities under NHM in the study districts were

not performed well for the selected crops. The sample farmers expressed that they were not

aware about the rules and mandatory conditions for rejuvenation of horticultural crops. The

horticulture supervisors were also not well trained in convincing the farmers to use these

provisions of NHM for their benefits.

Marginal Small Medium Large Total Margina

l

Small Medium Large Total

2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2006-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2006-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2006-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2006-07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008-09 0 0 0.42 0.71 0.20 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Papaya

Coriander

Mango

Source: Field Survey data

Table 5.2: Area rejuvenated/protected through NHM resource provision (Acre/HH under rejuvenation)

Year Area for which certified inputs procured Area for which non-certified inputs procured

Anola

98

Table 5.3 shows the extent of increase in area and productivity of selected

horticultural crops due to rejuvenation/protection supported by the NHM. It may be seen that

about 8 per cent farmers cultivating mango were supported for rejuvenation/protection. All

these farmers belonged to medium farmer and large farmer categories. The area

rejuvenated/protected under NHM by medium and large farmers was 0.42 acres/HH and 0.71

acres/HH respectively. Medium and large farmers rejuvenated/protected 48 trees and 56 trees

per acre respectively. On an average, about 52 trees per acre were rejuvenated or protected in

the case of all sample mango growing farmers. As a result of rejuvenation, the productivity

has increased by 20 quintals per acre and 25 quintal per acre in the case of medium and large

farmers respectively. The average increase in productivity as a result of rejuvenation was

22.50 quintals per acre.

Sl. No. Details of the items and crops Marginal Small Medium Large Total

1 Mango 0 0 4.00 4.00 8.00

2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0

3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0

4 Corriander 0 0 0 0 0

1 Mango 0 0 0 0 0

2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0

3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0


1 Mango 0 0 0.42 0.71 0.20

2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0

3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0


1 Mango 0 0 48.00 56.00 52.00

2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0

3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0


1 Mango 0 0 20.00 25.00 22.50

2 Anola 0 0 0 0 0

3 Papaya 0 0 0 0 0



Productivity enhancement as a result of rejuvenation (quintals per acre)

Table 5.3: Increase in area and productivity due to rejuvenation/protection supported by the NHM

Name of the crops for which rejuvenation or protection support was provided under NHM (% of households)

Area expansion by rejuvenation/ protection (acres per household per crop)

Existing area rejuvenated /protected under the Mission (acres per household per crop)

Number of trees per acre rejuvenated /protected

99

5.3 NHM Reaching to the Households with Resource Provision

The Mission envisages coverage of large areas under improved varieties of horticultural

crops. As per the NHM guidelines (GoI, 2010), the assistance for cultivation will be for a

maximum area of 4 ha per beneficiary, spread over a period of three years in ratio of 60:20:20

in first, second and third year depending upon type of crop and survival of plants. Assistance

for second year will be subject to 75% survival of the new gardens and for the third year

assistance will be subject to 90% survival of plants. Cost of raising new plantations will vary

from crop to crop depending on nature of crops (perennial/non-perennial) and number of

plants per hectare. As per the guidelines, the assistance amount will be provided on the

account of the expenditure on planting material and cost of inputs including that for

INM/IPM etc. Accordingly, the assistance was provided to our sample farmers cultivating

aonla, mango, papaya and coriander.

Table 5.4 shows the sources of NMH resource procurement for our sample farmers

during the period from 2004-05 to 2009-10. It may be noted that about 75 per cent of total

NHM resource procurement by our sample farmers was through Department of Horticulture.

The private nursery provided 15 per cent whereas the private shops provided 10 per cent of

total NHM resource procurement by the beneficiary farmers. Among different farmer

categories, the small farmers received highest of 80 per cent of total NHM resource

procurement through the Department of Horticulture, followed by the medium farmers

(77.19%) and the large farmers (74.07%). In the case of marginal farmers, about 68.18 per

cent of total NHM resource procurement was from the Department of Horticulture while the

private nursery and private shops were the sources of 15.91 per cent of total NHM resource

procurement each.

Department of

horticulture

Private

nursery

Fellow

farmers

Through contract

farming

Others

(private

shops)

Marginal 68.18 15.91 0.00 0.00 15.91

Small 80.00 11.11 0.00 0.00 8.89

Medium 77.19 17.54 0.00 0.00 5.26

Large 74.07 14.81 0.00 0.00 11.11

Landless 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 75.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 10.00

Table 5.4: Sources of NHM resource procurement for all crops during 2004-05 to 2009-10

(Percentage of households)


100

Table 5.5: Promotional activities of NHM (No of HHs saying 'Yes')

Description Farmer categories


Making available good quality planting

material like nursery 42 44 56 54 196

(95.45) (97.78) (98.25) (100.00) (98.00)

Rejuvenation with improved cultivars 0 0 2 2 4

(0.00) (0.00) (3.51) (3.70) (2.00)

Upgrading the existing tissue culture unit 0

(0.00)

0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Mother stock block maintenance under poly

cover to protect from adverse weather

conditions

0 0 0 1 1

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.85) (0.50)

Raising root stock seedlings under net house

conditions 0 0 0 1 1

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.85) (0.50)

Polyhouse with ventilation, insect proof

netting, fogging and sprinkler irrigation 1 16 40 44 101

(2.27) (35.56) (70.18) (81.48) (50.50)

Pump house to provide sufficient irrigation

with/without storage tank, community tank 0 0 1 0 1

(0.00) (0.00) (1.75) (0.00) (0.50)

Soil sterilization-steam sterilization system

with boilers 0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Establishment of new garden or seed

production 15 20 26 20 81

(34.09) (44.44) (45.61) (37.04) (40.50)

Protected cultivation like green house, shade

net, plastic tunnel etc 0 0 0 1 1

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (1.85) (0.50)

Precision farming implements, e.g.,

computer, GPS, GIS, sensors and application

control

0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Promotion of integrated nutrient management

or integrated pest management 35 38 56 53 182

(79.55) (84.44) (98.25) (98.15) (91.00)

Help provided for organic farming (vermi

compost unit, certification etc.) 0 0 3 3 6

(0.00) (0.00) (5.26) (5.56) (3.00)

Post harvest management like pack house,

storage unit, mobile processing unit etc 0 0 0 0 0

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Training and capacity building 37 36 44 44 161

(84.09) (80.00) (77.19) (81.48) (80.50)

Total 44 45 57 54 200

(100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of HHs saying ' Yes'.


Farmers were also benefitted though various promotional activities undertaken

through NHM. Table 5.5 shows the proportion of sample farmers benefitted through these

promotional activities. The majority of sample farmers were benefitted by few of these

activities. About 98 percent farmers said that they made use of available good quality

101

planting material like nursery through NHM. About 50.5 per cent farmers were found to use

polyhouse with ventilation, insect proof netting, fogging and sprinkler irrigation. Only 2.27

per cent of marginal framers and 35.56 per cent of small farmers were associated with these

activities.As high as 91 per cent farmers said that they used and promoted integrated nutrient

management (INM) or integrated pest management (IPM). Also 40.5 per cent farmers said

that they established new garden or seed production unit with the use of NHM assistance. On

an average, about 80.5 per cent farmers said that they actively participated in the training and

capacity building programmes facilitated through NHM.

However, there were so many other activities and provisions under NHM that could

not benefit the sample farmers. None of the farmers were associated with upgrading the

existing tissue culture unit, soil sterilization and steam sterilization system with boilers,

precision farming implements, e.g., computer, GIP, GIS, sensors and application control. Not

a single farmer was found to use the modernized post harvest management system like pack

house, storage unit, mobile processing unit etc. It may be noted that only one farmer said that

he adopted the protected cultivation like green house, shade net, plastic tunnel etc. Only one

medium farmer was found to use the pump house to provide sufficient irrigation with/without

storage tank, community tank. Only 3 percent farmers said that they started the vermi

compost unit and only one farmer was found to adopt organic farming. Only 2 per cent

farmers have rejuvenated orchard with improved cultivars. Only 4 farmers cultivating mango

were found to rejuvenate their mango orchards. Only one farmer said that he did mother stock

block maintenance under poly cover to protect from adverse weather. Only one farmer said

he raised root stock seedlings under net house condition. Thus there is huge scope for

expanding these activities among farmers. However, it was true that some farmers did not

fulfill eligibility criteria to avail some of the facilities provided under NHM.

5.4 Subsidy Provision under NHM

Table 5.6 shows the details of subsidy provided under NHM. This table has five parts. They

are (a) crops/ items for which subsidy provided (% of households), (b) details of activities for

which subsidy was provided (% of households), (c) amount of aggregate investment (Rs per

household), (d) amount of subsidy provided by NHM (Rs per HH) and (e) subsidy as a

percentage of investment (%).

102

5.4.1 Crop-wise Distribution of Farmers Availing Subsidy

Among 200 sample farmers who received subsidy under NHM, 50 farmers each cultivated

aonla, papaya, coriander and mango. In the case of farmers availing subsidy for aonla, 4 were

marginal farmers (8%), 13 were small farmers (26%), 18 were medium farmers (36%) and 15

were large farmers (30%). Among farmers availing subsidy for papaya, 21 were marginal

farmers (42%), 13 were small farmers (26%), 8 were medium farmers (16%) and 8 were

large farmers (16%). Among farmers availing subsidy for coriander, 7 were small farmers

(14%), 19 were medium farmers (38%) and 24 were large farmers (48%). Among farmers

availing subsidy for mango, 19 were marginal farmers (38%), 12 were small farmers (24%),

7 were medium farmers (14%) and 7 were large farmers (14%).

5.4.2 Details of Activities and Items for which Subsidy was provided

It may be seen from Table 5.6 that planting material, fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs and

drip/sprinkler were the major items for which subsidy was provided to the beneficiary

farmers. Few farmers have also received subsidy for the activities like establishing vermi

compost units and model nursery. All farmers cultivating each of selected crops received

subsidy for planting material, fertilizer pesticides and other inputs. Among the sample

farmers, about 68 per cent aonla growers, 22 per cent of papaya growers, 34 per cent of

mango growers and 64 per cent of coriander growers were subsidized for drip/sprinkler. Only

one farmer cultivating papaya crop got subsidy for establishing vermi compost unit while 3

other farmers cultivating coriander and 2 farmers cultivating mango crop also got subsidy for

establishing vermi compost unit. Only one model nursery was established by a large farmer

for papaya crop with subsidy from NHM. As farmers revealed that there was lack of

awareness among farmers regarding different provision under NHM. Had they known all

these provision, they would have applied for availing the subsidies on these activities.

5.4.3 Amount of Aggregate Investment

The total aggregate investment for planting material was highest of Rs 10239 per HH in the

case of aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 3401 per HH in the case of papaya crop. The

aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs was highest of Rs 23891 per HH

in the case of aonla crop. The aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs in

the case of papaya, coriander and mango was Rs 7935, Rs 19298 and Rs 18399 per HH

respectively. Large farmers in the case of all crops invested highest amount on fertilizer,

pesticide and other inputs.

103

Sl. No.

1 Anola 4 (8.0) 13 (26.0) 18 (36.0) 15 (30.0) 50 (100.0)

2 Papaya 21 (42.0) 13 (26.0) 8 (16.0) 8 (16.0) 50 (100.0)

3 Corriander 0 (0.0) 7 (14.0) 19 (38.0) 24 (48.0) 50 (100.0)

4 Mango 19 (38.0) 12 (24.0) 12 (24.0) 7 (14.0) 50 (100.0)

1 Anola Planting Mat. 4 (8.0) 13 (26.0) 18 (36.0) 15 (30.0) 50 (100.0)

2 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs 4 (8.0) 13 (26.0) 18 (36.0) 15 (30.0) 50 (100.0)

3 Drip/Spriklar 1 (2.0) 8 (16.0) 14 (28.0) 11 (22.0) 34 (68.0)

4 Varmi Compost 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

5 Model Nursury 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

6 Papaya Planting Mat. 21 (42.0) 13 (26.0) 8 (16.0) 8 (16.0) 50 (100.0)


8 Drip/Spriklar 0 (0.0) 2 (4.0) 5 (10.0) 4 (8.0) 11 (22.0)

9 Varmi Compost 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 1 (2.0)

10 Model Nursury 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 1 (2.0)

11 Corriander Planting Mat. 0 (0.0) 7 (14.0) 19 (38.0) 24 (48.0) 50 (100.0)


13 Drip/Spriklar 0 (0.0) 2 (4.0) 13 (26.0) 17 (34.0) 32 (64.0)

14 Varmi Compost 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.0) 1 (2.0) 3 (6.0)

15 Model Nursury 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

16 Mango Planting Mat. 19 (38.0) 12 (24.0) 12 (24.0) 7 (14.0) 50 (100.0)


18 Drip/Spriklar 0 (0.0) 3 (6.0) 7 (14.0) 7 (14.0) 17 (34.0)

19 Varmi Compost 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 1 (2.0) 2 (4.0)

20 Model Nursury 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

1 Anola Planting Mat.

2 Fert.Pesticidses and other inputs

3 Drip/Spriklar

4 Varmi Compost

5 Model Nursury

6 Papaya Planting Mat.


8 Drip/Spriklar

9 Varmi Compost

10 Model Nursury

11 Corriander Planting Mat.


13 Drip/Spriklar

14 Varmi Compost

15 Model Nursury

16 Mango Planting Mat.


18 Drip/Spriklar

19 Varmi Compost

20 Model Nursury 0 0 0 0 0

0 7250 59750 124857 33560

0 0 5000 8571 1200

2907 6345 10135 20181 7885

6784 14805 23648 47090 18399

0 0 6316 2500 3600

0 0 0 0 0

0 8472 12897 27523 19298

0 21429 45526 99688 68150

0 0 0 75000 12000

0 3631 5527 11796 8271

0 4423 27375 33375 10870

0 0 0 7500 1200

1821 3423 5419 5494 3401

4249 7988 12644 12819 7935

Table 5.6: Details of Subsidy Provided by NHM

Details of the items Marginal Small Medium Large Total

9713 26142 20300 30030 23891

(A) Crop-wise distribution of farmers availing subsidy

(B) Details of activities for which subsidy was provided (No. of households)

(C) Amount of aggregate investment (Rs per household)

4163 11204 8700 12870 10239

4800 58846 30056 55091 38624

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

104

(D) Amount of subsidy provided by NHM (Rs per household)



3 Drip/Spriklar

4 Varmi Compost

5 Model Nursury



8 Drip/Spriklar

9 Varmi Compost

10 Model Nursury



13 Drip/Spriklar

14 Varmi Compost

15 Model Nursury



18 Drip/Spriklar

19 Varmi Compost

20 Model Nursury



3 Drip/Spriklar

4 Varmi Compost

5 Model Nursury



8 Drip/Spriklar

9 Varmi Compost

10 Model Nursury



13 Drip/Spriklar

14 Varmi Compost

15 Model Nursury



18 Drip/Spriklar

19 Varmi Compost

20 Model Nursury

Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages of total.


0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

50.0 73.1 83.6 74.9 73.8

50.0 73.1 77.1 74.9 71.7

0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0


0.0 71.8 70.0 70.0 70.1

0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 50.0

50.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 47.4 53.1 47.5 48.9

0.0 73.3 70.5 70.3 70.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0

0.0 47.4 53.1 47.5 48.9

0.0 70.0 72.6 69.8 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0

66.8 70.0 72.8 71.9 70.5

66.8 70.0 72.8 71.9 70.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

69.1 67.9 75.0 70.9 71.2

70.0 70.0 70.0 5.1 50.2

(E) Subsidy as a percentage of investment (%)

69.1 67.9 75.0 70.9 71.2

0 0 2500 4286 1200

0 0 0 0 0

3391 10824 18228 35280 13200

0 5208 41825 87400 23524

0 0 0 0 0

1453 4639 8474 15120 5816

0 15714 32113 70052 48028

0 0 3158 1250 1800

0 1720 2935 5603 4046

0 4013 6848 13074 9440

0 0 0 3750 600

0 0 0 37500 6000

2840 5593 9204 9220 5595

0 3096 19875 23288 7711

0 0 0 0 0

1217 2397 3945 3952 2398

3360 41192 21039 2827 19401

0 0 0 0 0

2875 7612 6524 9124 7295

6708 17760 15223 21290 17022

Table 5.6 Continued.

Coriander crop farmers invested highest aggregate amount of Rs 68150 on

drip/sprinkler while papaya growers invested lowest amount of Rs 10870 per HH. Coriander

crop growers invested highest aggregate amount of Rs 3600 per HH on vermi compost unit

105

whereas the mango and papaya growers spent lowest aggregate amount of Rs 1200 per HH

each on the same. Papaya growers have invested Rs 12000 per HH on model nursery also.

Thus the volume of investments on so many provisions of NHM was grossly inadequate for a

holistic growth of horticulture sector. There is need of more awareness generation and better

monitoring of the programme so as to encourage the farmers to invest more on many other

provisions of NHM.

5.4.4 Amount of Subsidy provided by NHM

The amount of subsidy provided by NHM for planting material was highest of Rs 7295 per

HH for aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 2398 for papaya crop. The amount of subsidy

provided through NHM for fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs was maximum of Rs 17022

per HH for aonla crop whereas the papaya farmers received minimum amount of Rs 5595 per

HH for the same. Coriander growers received highest subsidy amount of Rs 48028 and Rs

1800 per HH for drip/sprinkler and vermi compost unit respectively. On the other hand,

papaya growers received minimum subsidy of Rs 7711 and Rs 600 per HH respectively. The

papaya growers also received subsidy of Rs 6000 per HH for establishing the model nursery.

5.4.5 Subsidy as a Percentage of Investment

The farmers cultivating aonla received subsidy amount of 71.2 percent of investment for each

of the planting material and fertilizer pesticides and other inputs. Medium farmers got highest

of 75 percent subsidy for each of these activities whereas the small farmers received

minimum of 67.9 percent subsidy for each of these activities. On an average, the farmers

cultivating aonla received 50.2 percent subsidy for drip/sprinkler. The farmers cultivating

papaya received 70.5 per cent subsidy for each of the planting material and fertilizer

pesticides and other inputs. All papaya growers received the subsidy of 70.9 per cent for

drip/sprinkler. Large farmers cultivating papaya received the subsidy of 50 per cent for each

of vermi compost unit and model nursery.

The farmers cultivating coriander received the subsidy of 48.9 per cent for each of the

planting material and fertilizer pesticides and other inputs, which was the lowest than that for

the farmers cultivating other study crops. On an average, a coriander grower received 70.5

percent subsidy for drip/sprinkler. On an average, medium and large farmers cultivating

coriander received the subsidy of 50 per cent each for establishing vermi compost unit. The

farmers cultivating mango received the subsidy of 73.8 per cent for planting material and

71.7 percent for fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs. Mango growers also received 50

106

percent subsidy for establishing vermi compost unit and 70.1 per cent subsidy for

drip/sprinkler.

5.5 Capacity Building by NHM

Capacity building and human resources development through training, frontline

demonstration, publicity and training of the trainers is an integral part of NHM programme.

Under this component, the beneficiary farmers and extension personnel were imparted

training at different places at regular interval. Our sample farmers also availed this facility

under NHM programme to learn about the adoption of modern techniques in horticulture.

Table 5.7 shows the different aspects of training and dissemination facility provided to the

sample farmers. It may be noted that the training was provided to the sample farmers through

various sources on an average of 1.62 times per HH per year. The medium farmers

participated in training and dissemination activities for the highest of 1.86 times per HH per

year while the marginal farmers participated in training and dissemination activities for the

lowest of 1.34 times per HH per year. State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan

Kendra (KVK) were found to arrange more number of trainings of 0.65 and 0.61 times per

HH per year respectively whereas the Cooperatives/ Local Bodies and Non Government

Organizations (NGOs) arranged less number of the training and dissemination activities of

0.01 times per HH per year each.

As far as the number of days of training per HH per year is concerned, the same table

also shows that, on an average, the training sessions arranged for about 2.82 days per HH per

year through different agencies. The large farmers have attended maximum of 3.89 days of

training per HH per year whereas small farmers attended minimum of 1.73 days of training

per HH per year through different agencies. State horticulture department and Krishi Vigyan

Kendra (KVK) imparted training sessions of 1.06 days per HH per year and 0.97 days per HH

per year respectively. On the other hand, as low as 0.04 days of training per HH per year and

0.01 days of training per HH per year training were imparted through cooperatives/ local

bodies and non government organizations (NGOs) respectively.

It may also be noted that about 26 per cent training sessions were organized within

village or nearby village through different agencies out of which the State Horticulture

Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) organized 14.50 per cent and 9.50 per cent

training sessions respectively. Among the farmer categories, medium farmers participated in

about 29.82 per cent training sessions whereas only 17.78 per cent training sessions were

attended by small farmers in their villages or their nearby villages.

107

Table 5.7: Sources of training/dissemination activity provided to the farmers

Details of training Farmer categories


(A) Frequency of the training provided during the year (No. per household per year)

State Horticulture Department 0.52 0.78 0.65 0.65 0.65

State Agricultural University / Colleges 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.04 0.03

Krishi Vigyan Kendras 0.77 0.62 0.54 0.52 0.61

Kisan Call Centre 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.04

Cooperatives / Local Bodies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01

Input Dealers / Private Company

Representatives 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Special Research Stations set up by the

Government 0.00 0.16 0.21 0.24 0.16

Non Government Organisations (NGOs) 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01

Any other 0.05 0.02 0.32 0.07 0.13

All sources 1.34 1.64 1.86 1.56 1.62

(B) Average number of days per household during the year









Government 0.00 0.47 0.44 0.67 0.41


Any other 0.07 0.16 0.28 0.43 0.25

All sources 2.50 1.73 2.89 3.89 2.82

(C) Training sessions organized within village or nearby village (% of households)









Government 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Any other 2.27 0.00 3.51 0.00 1.50

All sources 27.27 17.78 29.82 27.78 26.00

108


(D) Training sessions organized within town/district or state capital (% of households)






Input Dealers / Private Company Representatives 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Government 0.00 15.56 15.79 20.37 13.50


Any other 0.00 2.22 5.26 7.41 4.00

All sources 65.91 46.67 80.70 85.19 71.00


Majority of farmers did not prefer to attend the training sessions within their village or

nearby village because attending training sessions at their district headquarters or state capital

was more remunerative for them. Thus, it may be noted that about 71 percent training

sessions were organized at town/district headquarters or state capital. About 85.19 per cent of

such training sessions were attended by the large farmers while only 46.67 per cent of such

training sessions were attended by the small farmers. State Horticulture Department and

Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) organized as high as 21.50 per cent and 26.50 per cent training

sessions within town/districts or state capital respectively. Special Research Stations also

organized training sessions within town/districts or state capital. About 15.56 per cent, 15.79

per cent, and 20.37 per cent training sessions were attended by the small farmers, medium

farmers and large farmers respectively. Kisan Call Centre and cooperatives/ local bodies have

also organized 2.00 per cent and 0.50 per cent training sessions respectively within

town/districts or state capital.

5.6 Perceptions of Households about NHM

The perceptions of the beneficiary farmers about their experiences in cultivating various

horticultural crops with the help of NHM assistance are very helpful in reviewing the

performance of the Mission. Table 5.8 shows various perceptions of households about the

performance of NHM in the study districts of Rajasthan. About 96 per cent of all sample

farmers said that NHM helped them by providing seedling/nursery for increasing the area

under horticultural crops. While on an average 93.5 per cent of all farmers expressed that

NHM helped them by providing material inputs for increasing the area under horticultural

crops, only 39 percent of marginal farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing

109

material inputs for increasing the area under horticultural crops. So far as capacity building

provisions of NHM is concerned, on an average 74 per cent of all farmers expressed that

NHM helped them by providing training to the farmers. On the other hand only 33 per cent of

marginal farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing training to the farmers.

About 92.5 per cent of all farmers were of opinion that financial assistance through

NHM was a good point. About 63 per cent of all farmers also opined that building

infrastructure and capacity building measures such as awareness camps, training etc. were

beneficial provisions of NHM. On an average, about 63.5 per cent of all farmers said that the

subsidy provision of NHM programme was a very good point. As high as 94.0 per cent of all

farmers expressed that NHM helped in increasing the employment opportunities for the

farmers through expansion of area under horticultural crops. About 53.5 per cent of all

farmers expressed that NHM increased employment opportunities for the farmers and

agricultural labourers by providing subsidy to those who diversified their crops from field

crops to horticultural crops. Only 1.5 per cent of all farmers opined that NHM did not

increase employment in any way.

Regarding the effects of NHM on the income levels of the farmers, about 34.5 per

cent of all farmers revealed that their income has increased up to 20 per cent after adopting

horticultural crops. About 11.5 per cent of all farmers said that their income has increased by

20 to 40 per cent after adopting horticultural crops while only 7.14 per cent of marginal

farmers said that their income has increased by 20 to 40 per cent after adopting horticultural

crops. As less as 2 per cent of all sample farmers experienced increase in income of 40-60 per

cent after adopting horticultural crops. It was unfortunate that about 51.5 per cent of all

farmers revealed that their income has not increased yet though they have adopted

horticultural crops through NHM.

On an average, about 98 per cent of all farmers expressed that the farmers in their

villages were aware about the NHM since they were benefited through the subsidies provided

through NHM. Nearly about 71 per cent farmers expressed that the farmers in their villages

were aware about the NHM since they actively participated in the training programmes

provided through the Mission. On an average, 51 per cent farmers expressed that the farmers

in their villages were aware about the NHM since they have were benefitted through

infrastructural building up by NHM. About 48 per cent of all sample farmers revealed that the

farmers in their villages were aware about the NHM since they have been able to raise their

area under horticultural crops with the help of NHM.

110

Table 5.8: Perception of households about the NHM (% of households saying yes)

Details of training Farmer category


(A) How NHM has helped you to increase your area under horticultural crops?

By providing seedling/nursery 86.36 97.78 98.25 100.00 96.00

By providing material inputs 39.00 88.89 96.49 98.15 93.50

By capacity building (providing training) 33.00 62.22 71.93 85.19 74.00

By providing processing facilities 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

By providing market for our end product 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

By providing procurement facility 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(B) What are the good points in the policy towards NHM?

Financial assistance 72.73 95.56 98.25 100.00 92.50

Building infrastructure 40.91 68.89 64.91 74.07 63.00

Capacity Building (awareness camps /

training etc) 56.82 55.56 59.65 77.78 63.00

Subsidy provision 81.82 55.56 54.39 64.81 63.50

Any other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

(C) Do you think NHM has increased employment opportunities for the farmers and

agricultural labourers? How?

By increasing area under horticultural crops

that are manually operated 97.73 93.33 89.47 96.30 94.00

By establishing horticultural processing units

in the local areas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

By providing subsidy to those who have

diversified their crops from field to

horticultural crops

36.36 46.67 63.16 62.96 53.50

No NHM has not increased employment in

any way 4.55 0.00 1.75 0.00 1.50

(D) Do you think your income has grown up after adopting horticultural crops with the help

of NHM? If yes, how much?

less than 20 % 21.43 31.11 44.07 37.04 34.50

20 to 40 % 7.14 8.89 6.78 22.22 11.50

40 to 60 % 2.38 2.22 1.69 1.85 2.00

60 to 100 % 0.00 0.00 1.69 0.00 0.50

No increase at all 69.05 57.78 45.76 38.89 51.50

(E) Are farmers in your village aware about the National Horticulture Mission? How?

They have actively benefited from the

subsidies provided by the NHM 93.18 100.00 98.25 100.00 98.00

They actively participate in the training

programmes provided by the NHM 54.55 57.78 77.19 88.89 71.00

They have benefited from the infrastructural

building up being done by the NHM 27.27 57.78 52.63 62.96 51.00

They have been able to raise their area under

horticultural crops with the help of NHM 31.82 40.00 52.63 62.96 48.00

No they stand aloof and completely unaware

about the activities of NHM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

111


Details of training Farmer category


(F) What changes do you suggest to make NHM more effective? Mention.

Subsidy provision for fencing 47.73 26.67 29.82 31.48 33.50

More subsidy amount 34.09 44.44 43.86 46.30 42.50

Provision for planting material 15.91 15.56 15.79 27.78 19.00

Processing facilities 45.45 55.56 50.88 46.30 49.50

Cold wind and frost resistant variety

availability 18.18 13.33 14.04 14.81 15.00

Increase powar supply 40.91 42.22 38.60 37.04 39.50

Assured marketing 45.45 48.89 52.63 59.26 52.00

Good market condition for Anola 0.00 4.44 10.53 9.26 6.50

Rivision of cost estimate required 22.73 33.33 29.82 29.63 29.00

Single phase connection for NHM 72.73 77.78 78.95 77.78 77.00


Regarding the changes required so as to make NHM more effective, about 33.5 per

cent farmers suggested that subsidy provision for fencing should be incorporated in NHM

programme. About 42.5 per cent of all farmers suggested that more subsidy amount should be

given to the beneficiary farmers through the Mission keeping in view the inflationary price

rise. Only 19 per cent farmers suggested that planting material should be available in time.

On an average, 49.5 per cent farmers suggested that processing facilities should be provided

and necessary infrastructures should be developed in their villages or nearby villages.

Nearly 15 per cent farmers suggested that cold wind and frost resistant varieties of

seedlings should be made available through the Mission, especially in the case of fruits and

spices. About 39.5 per cent of all farmers suggested that increasing the power supply by the

electricity board was necessary for promoting horticultural crops in their region. About 52 per

cent of farmers suggested that assured marketing for horticultural crop was very essential

generating reasonable returns from the sale of output of horticultural crops. About 29 percent

farmers suggested that NHM should revise the cost estimate of horticultural crop for deciding

about subsidy provisions for different activities under the Mission. As high as 77 per cent of

all farmers suggested that single phase electricity connection for farmers would reduce their

electricity bills.

5. 7 Summary of the Chapter

This chapter deals with the assessment of overall impact of the NHM programme on the

expansion of horticulture area and yield and to identify all possible constraints that negatively

affected the effectiveness and outcomes of the programme. While analyzing the impact of

112

NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops (aonla, papaya, coriander and mango)

during a period from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it was found that the extent of expansion of area

under these crops was impressive but the overall increase in yield was not satisfactory in case

of crops like coriander and mango. In the case of mango crop, the yield rate actually declined

from 64 quintals per acre in 2004-05 to 3.62 quintals per acre in 2009-10. In the case of

coriander, the average yield stagnated around 5.49 quintals per acre during a period of six

years, i.e., 2004-05 to 2009-10. Though the variability of coriander yield was lowest among

the study crops, the growth rate of coriander yield was also lowest. The growth rate of yield

in the case of aonla and papaya was phenomenal compared to that of mango and coriander. It

was noticed that the area under the selected horticultural crops grew tremendously from

2004-05 to 2008-09 but started falling during 2009-10 because of lack of expansion of

marketing facilities, pests and weather related risks.

As far as the area under rejuvenation/protection, resources procurement through NHM

and the resulted increase in productivity is concerned, no cases of rejuvenation are found in

the case of aonla, papaya and coriander. Four farmers were found in the case of mango who

were involved in rejuvenation activities through NHM. The average area under rejuvenation

of mango was 0.20 acres per HH. Only about 8 per cent sample farmers cultivating mango

were supported for rejuvenation/protection. The average increase in productivity as a result of

rejuvenation was 22.50 quintals per acre of mango. The rejuvenation activities under NHM in

the study districts were not performed well for the selected crops.

As regards the sources of NMH resource procurement for our sample farmers during

the period from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it was found that about 75 per cent of total NHM

resource procurement by our sample farmers was through Department of Horticulture. The

private nursery provided 15 per cent whereas the private shops provided 10 per cent of total

NHM resource procurement by the beneficiary farmers. The majority of sample farmers were

benefitted though various promotional activities undertaken through NHM. About 98 percent

farmers said that they made use of available good quality planting material like nursery

through NHM. About 50.5 per cent farmers were found to use poly-house with ventilation,

insect proof netting, fogging and sprinkler irrigation. As high as 91 per cent farmers said that

they used and promoted integrated nutrient management (INM) or integrated pest

management (IPM). Also 40.5 per cent farmers said that they established new garden or seed

production unit with the use of NHM assistance. However, there were so many other

activities and provisions under NHM that could not benefit the sample farmers. None of the

farmers were associated with upgrading the existing tissue culture unit, soil sterilization and

113

steam sterilization system with boilers, precision farming implements, e.g., computer, GIP,

GIS, sensors and application control. Not a single farmer was found to use the modernized

post harvest management system like pack house, storage unit, mobile processing unit etc.

Thus there is huge scope for expanding these activities among farmers. However, it was true

that some farmers did not fulfill eligibility criteria to avail some of the facilities provided

under NHM.

The planting material, fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs and drip/sprinkler were

the major items for which subsidy was provided to the beneficiary farmers. Few farmers have

also received subsidy for the activities like establishing vermi compost units and model

nursery. The amount of subsidy provided by NHM for planting material was highest of Rs

7295 per HH for aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 2398 for papaya crop. The amount of

subsidy provided through NHM for fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs was maximum of Rs

17022 per HH for aonla crop whereas the papaya farmers received minimum amount of

subsidy of Rs 5595 per HH for the same. The total aggregate investment for planting material

was highest of Rs 10239 per HH in the case of aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 3401 per HH

in the case of papaya crop. The aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs

was highest of Rs 23891 per HH in the case of aonla crop. The aggregate investment on

fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs in the case of papaya, coriander and mango was Rs 7935,

Rs 19298 and Rs 18399 per HH respectively. However, the volume of investments on so

many provisions of NHM was grossly inadequate for a holistic growth of horticulture sector.


of the planting material and fertilizer pesticides and other inputs. On an average, the farmers

cultivating aonla received 50.2 percent subsidy for drip/sprinkler. There is need of more

awareness generation and better monitoring of the programme so as to encourage the farmers

to invest more on many other provisions of NHM.


demonstration, publicity and training of the trainers is an integral part of NHM programme. It

was found that the training was provided to the sample farmers through various sources on an

average of 1.62 times per HH per year. On an average, the training sessions arranged for

about 2.82 days per HH per year through different agencies. State Horticulture Department

and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) were found to arrange more number of trainings of 0.65

and 0.61 times per HH per year respectively whereas the Cooperatives/ Local Bodies and

Non Government Organizations (NGOs) arranged less number of the training and

dissemination activities of 0.01 times per HH per year each. It was noticed that about 26 per

114

cent training sessions were organized within village or nearby village through different

agencies out of which the State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK)

organized 14.5 per cent and 9.5 per cent training sessions respectively.

The perceptions of the beneficiary farmers about their experiences in cultivating

various horticultural crops with the help of NHM assistance are very helpful in reviewing the

performance of the Mission. About 96 per cent of all sample farmers said that NHM helped

them by providing seedling/nursery for increasing the area under horticultural crops. On an

average, 93.5 per cent of all farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing material

inputs for increasing the area under horticultural crops. About 92.5 per cent of all farmers

were of opinion that financial assistance through NHM was a good point. About 63 per cent

of all farmers also opined that building infrastructure and capacity building measures such as

awareness camps, training etc. were beneficial provisions of NHM.



horticultural crops. It was unfortunate that about 51.5 per cent of all farmers revealed that

their income has not increased yet though they have adopted horticultural crops through

NHM. On an average, about 98 per cent of all farmers expressed that the farmers in their


through NHM. Regarding the changes required so as to make NHM more effective, about

33.5 per cent farmers suggested that subsidy provision for fencing should be incorporated in

NHM programme. About 42.5 per cent of all farmers suggested that more subsidy amount

should be given to the beneficiary farmers through the Mission keeping in view the

inflationary price rise. Also about 49.5 per cent farmers suggested that processing facilities

should be provided and necessary infrastructures should be developed in their villages or

nearby villages. As high as 77 per cent of all farmers suggested that single phase electricity

connection for farmers would reduce their electricity bills.

115

Chapter 6

Concluding Remarks and Policy Suggestions

6.1 Introduction

This chapter consists of two sections. The first section highlights the summary of findings of

the study as discussed in the preceding chapters and the second section contains some policy

implications of the study. In this section, specific policy recommendations are suggested for

the overall improvement in implementation of NHM with a special focus on the study crops

and districts of Rajasthan.

6.2 Summary of Findings

6.2.1 Objectives, Data and Methodology

This study was conducted to assess the impact in terms of increase in area, production and

productivity of identified horticultural crops covered under NHM, keeping 2004-05 as the

base year for the state of Rajasthan in general and for the identified crops/districts in

particular; to assess the extent to which the scheme has helped in creating employment

opportunities and enhancement of income of the farmers and to suggest measures for

improving the implementation strategy of NHM in Rajasthan.

The present study covering selected districts of Rajasthan state is a part of a major

project that covers 16 states of India to study the impact of NHM scheme. For the state of

Rajasthan, the study was conducted in four districts, viz., Alwar, Jaipur, Chittorgarh and

Banswara. The study covers the implementation of the NHM programme from 2005-06 to

2008-09. A total of 200 households were selected from 77 villages of four allotted districts of

Rajasthan. Members of Growers Associations, Pradhan /Pramukh of village, block, district

level and state level concerned functionaries were also interviewed. While selecting the

sample, care was taken to represent all the section of the society such as small and marginal

farmers, SC/ST farmers and women folk, so that outreach of the programme to these sections

is also reflected in the study. Data were analyzed using simple statistical tools such as

averages, percentages and growth rates.

6.2.2 Area, Production and Productivity of Horticultural Crops in the State

As far as the status of area, production and yield of horticultural crops in the state of

Rajasthan is concerned, the area under horticultural crops as a proportion of cultivable area

116

was found to increase from 3.14 per cent during triennium ending (TE) 2004-05 to 3.41 per

cent during TE 2008-09. The total area under all horticultural crops has increased from 3,

23,347 hectares during TE 1980-81 to 8, 71,539 hectares during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan.

The total production from all horticultural crops has increased from 1, 84,794 MT during TE

1980-81 to 18, 48,466 MT during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. The district-wise analysis of

horticultural area in the state revealed that the horticultural area as a proportion of cultivable

area was highest of 25.74 per cent in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.26 per cent in

Hanumangarh district during TE 2008-09.

As regards the growth of area and production of various types of horticultural crops

like fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan from TE 1980-81 to

TE 2008-09, it was observed that there were so many ups and downs in growth of both area

and production of various types of horticultural crops during the period from TE 1980-81 to

TE 2008-09. However, the instability in growth of yield was much higher than the instability

in growth of area under these crops over the years. The share of area and production of spices

has declined from 76 per cent and 33 per cent in 1980-81 to 58 per cent and 29 per cent in

2008-09 respectively. On the other hand, the share of area and production of medicinal crops

has sharply increased from 7 per cent and 1 per cent in 1980-81 to 25 per cent and 6 per cent

in 2008-09 respectively. The area under horticultural crops like fruits, vegetables, spices and

medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 1980-81 was 11777 hectares, 38660

hectares, 251911 hectares and 21000 hectares respectively. The production of various types

of horticultural crops, viz., vegetables, spices and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the

period TE 1980-81 was 64088 MT, 118075 MT and 2681 MT respectively. The area under

fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal crops in Rajasthan during the period TE

2008-09 was 29069 hectares, 130539 hectares, 495405 hectares, 3142 hectares and 213385

hectares respectively. The production of fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers and medicinal

crops in Rajasthan during the period TE 2008-09 was 483200 MT, 792788 MT, 473541 MT,

4241 MT, 94697 MT and 1848466 MT respectively. The annual growth rate of area and yield

of all horticultural crops was 4.47 per cent and 11.01 per cent respectively between TE 1980-

81 and TE 1990-91. While the annual growth rate of area of horticultural crops has further

increased to 4.63 per cent during the period of TE 1990-91 - TE 2000-01, the annual growth

rate of yield of horticultural crops has declined to 0.74 per cent during the same period.

The district-wise analysis of area and production of different types of horticultural

crops for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 reveals that the horticultural area was also

highest of 1, 05,186 hectares in Barmer district and was also lowest of 872 hectares in

117

Dungarpur district during TE 2008-09. The production of horticultural crops during the same

period was highest (283982.9 MT) in Jhalawar district followed by 176428.4 MT in Jodhpur

district, 165224.2 MT in Sri Ganganagar district. As far as the growth rate of area and yield

of horticultural crops in various districts is concerned, it may be noted that, between TE

2004-05 and TE 2008-09, Rajsamund, Hanumangarh and Sirohi occupied first three positions

with 15.1 per cent, 11.43 per cent and 10.64 per cent of annual growth in area under

horticultural crops respectively. On the other hand, Sri Ganganagar, Bharatpur and



periods.

The decadal analysis of the annual growth of four selected horticultural crops (aonla,

papaya, coriander and mango) reveals that the first two decades, i.e., 1980-81 to 1990-91 and

1990-91 to 2000-01 have had remarkable growth in area and production of coriander crop.

The growth in area under mango was noteworthy during 1980-81 to 1990-91, while the

growth in production of mango was striking during 1990-91-2000-01. The growth of area and

production of papaya and aonla was much better during last two decades, i.e., 1990-91 to

2000-01 and 2000-01 to 2008-09. Particularly, the growth of area and production of aonla

was outstanding during the second decade of our study, i.e., 1990-91 to 2000-01.

The area under aonla, papaya, coriander and mango in Rajasthan during the period TE

1985-86 was 8 hectares, 227 hectares, 110154 hectares and 442 hectares respectively. The

production of aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the same period was 8 MT, 469

MT, 40462 MT and 4026 MT respectively. The area under aonla, papaya, coriander and

mango during the period TE 2008-09 was 1611 hectares, 435 hectares, 196396 hectares and

6231 hectares respectively. The production of aonla, papaya, coriander and mango during the

same period was 12845 MT, 10108 MT, 198267 MT and 88586 MT respectively.

The annual growth rate of area and yield of aonla was 27.93 per cent and 5.86 per

cent respectively during the period from TE 2000-01 to TE 2008-09. The annual growth rate

of area and yield of papaya was 2.15 per cent and 13.83 per cent respectively during the same

period. The annual growth rate of area and yield of coriander was 3.31 per cent and -2.09 per

cent respectively during the same period of TE 2000-01 - TE 2008-09. The annual growth

rate of area and yield of mango was -0.69 per cent and 0.08 per cent respectively during the

same period.

The district-wise analysis of area and production of selected four horticultural crops

for the periods TE 2004-05 and TE 2008-09 reveals that the area under aonla was highest in

118

Ajmer district (133.1 hectares) and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 4 districts of Rajasthan

during TE 2004-05. Likewise, the area under aonla was also highest (252.3 hectares) in

Ajmer district and was lowest of 0.0 ha in Dungarpur district of Rajasthan during TE 2008-

09. In the case of papaya, the area coverage was highest of 49.5 hectares in Chittorgarh

district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 5 districts of Rajasthan during TE 2004-05.

Chittorgarh district also occupied first position in terms of area under papaya with 62.2

hectares during TE 2008-09. The production of papaya in Chittorgarh district was also



districts during TE 2008-09 in Rajasthan. As far as the district-wise analysis of area and

production of coriander is concerned, the area under coriander was also highest (81555.0

hectares) in Jhalawar district and was lowest of 0.7 hectares each in Barmer, Dungarpur and

Hanumangarh districts of Rajasthan during TE 2008-09. The production of coriander was

highest of 81948.0 MT in Baran district, followed by 66313.0 MT and 44487.3 MT in

Jhalawar district and Kota district respectively. The area under mango was also highest

(779.1 hectares) in Udaipur district and was lowest of 0.0 hectares in 3 districts of Rajasthan

during TE 2008-09. The production of mango was highest of 17789.4 MT in Chittorgarh

district, followed by 10610.5 MT and 9380.7 MT in Udaipur district and Banswara district

respectively during the same period.

6.2.3 Household characteristics, Cropping Pattern and Production Structure

Among the sample farmers, 44 were marginal farmers, 45 were small farmers, 57 were

medium farmers and 54 were large farmers. The average household (HH) size for entire

sample was 7.47 persons. The average number of earners in a sample household was 2.93. It

was good to find that about 67.5 per cent of all members of sample households belonged to

16-60 years age group which considered as a productive age group. Only 7.0 per cent were

aged above 60 years. All respondents of our sample households were heads of their

households. About 22.3 percent members of sample households were illiterate and 69.7 per

cent of them were literate from primary level to graduate level.

As far as the cast composition of selected farmers is concerned, about 51 per cent sample

households (HHs) belonged to OBC category, 32.5 percent HHs belonged to ST category, 2.5

percent HHs belonged to SC and remaining 14 per cent HHs belonged to general caste

category. The majority of decisions were taken by male members in the case of about 92 per

cent of our sample HHs. As far as the main occupation of the sample HHs is concerned,

119

about 78.8 per cent of working members of sample HHs were engaged in farming, 10.2 per

cent were engaged in self business, 10.98 per cent were salaried or pensioners and only 0.78

per cent were wage earners.

The net sown area (NSA), net operated area (NOA) and gross cropped area (GCA) of

sample households was found to be 8.95 acres, 9.01 acres and 16.76 acres per HH

respectively and the cropping intensity in the study area was 187 per cent. As regards the

nature of tenancy in leased- in land in the study area, near about 0.06 acres per HH was found

to be leased in by the sample farmers and the entire leased in lands were leased in by the

farmers in the form of fixed rent in cash. The total rainfed area was 8.36 per cent in the case

of all sample farmers which implies that about 91.6 per cent of NOA of sample farmers was

irrigated from various sources, mainly through tube wells run by electric and diesel. This is

particularly because the selected farmers were beneficiaries of NHM and were having

sufficient irrigated area so as to cultivate various cash crops. The per-household credit from

all sources for sample farmers was Rs 143740 out of which the credit amount from various

institutional sources excluding government programmes was Rs 88034.4 (61.2%). The

contribution of institutional sources to total credit for farming by marginal farmers, small

farmers, medium farmers and large farmers was 63.1per cent, 35.6 per cent, 32.0 per cent and

72.1 per cent respectively. All farmers taken together, per acre loan of Rs 9924.8 was

received by a sample farmer from various institutional sources and per acre loan of Rs 6237.1

was availed by a sample farmer from various government programmes. All farmers taken

together used the credit amount of Rs 137360 (95.6%) per household in various productive

activities such as agriculture and allied activities.

The value of farm asset holdings of marginal farmers was Rs 73470 per HH while that

of small, medium and large farmers were Rs 213124, Rs 457572 and Rs 645250 respectively.

All farmers taken together, a household had farm assets of Rs 41213 per acre of NSA. The

livestock was found to be a major component of total asset holdings for all categories of

farmers.

The per-HH area under Kharif crops, Rabi crops and horticultural crops cultivated by

the sample farmers was 7.62 acres, 5.48 acres, and 3.67 acres respectively. The total area

under HYV was 15.50 acre per HH and its share in GCA was 92.47 per cent for all farmers

category. Among various Kharif crops, maize was found to be an important crop cultivated

by farmers of all categories and the share of maize in total GCA varied from 12.5 per cent to

27.1 per cent. The total area under horticulture crop in all categories was 3.67 acres per HH

(21.89 per cent of GCA). The area under horticulture crop for all selected farmer categories

120

ranged between 19.6 per cent and 27.1 per cent of GCA. Our four study crops aonla, papaya,

mango and coriander were cultivated by the sample farmers in 0.82 acres, 0.30 acres, 0.59

acres and 1.12 acres per HH respectively. Out of 16.76 acres of GCA per HH, 16.20 acres

constituting about 96.6 per cent was irrigated in the case of sample farmers. Similarly, out of

8.95 acres of NSA per HH, about 8.26 acres constituting about 92.3 per cent was irrigated in

the case of our sample farmers. About 7.11 acres (93.4%) of total Kharif area and 5.42 acres

(98.9%) of total Rabi area were irrigated whereas about 3.67 acres (96.6%) of total

horticultural area was irrigated during the reference year 2008-09. The area under organic

farming was nil for all categories of farmers except large farmers. The total area under

organic farming was only 5.6 acres which was cultivated by only one farmer. Thus the

average area under organic farming per HH was only 0.10 acres in the case of large farmer

category and 0.03 acres in the case of all farmers taken together.

The gross value of output across all size groups of farmers was Rs 347821 per



was Rs 162833 per HH. The material cost was more than the labour cost for all size groups of

farmers. The per-HH material cost and labour cost ratio was in the ratio of 64.1: 35.9 in the

case of all farmers taken together. The average family income generated by our sample

farmers from various farm and non-farm activities was Rs 272065 per HH.

6.2.4 The Production Structure and Resource Use under Horticulture Crops

As far as the economics of production of selected horticultural crops is concerned, it was

found that only the cultivation coriander and papaya could generate reasonable amount of

annual net returns for the sample farmers. The long duration crops like aonla and mango did

not reach to fruit bearing stage in the case of majority of NHM beneficiary farmers. Thus the

net average returns were not very impressive in the case of these two long duration sample

crops. In the case of aonla, the average total cost of cultivation for all farmers category was

Rs 20899 per acre, out of which, the total variable cost was Rs 18584 per acre (88.9%) and

total fixed cost was Rs 2316 per acre. Out of this total fixed cost, Rs 2093 (10.0%) was spent

towards the material component and only Rs 223 (1.1%) was spent towards the labour

component. On an average, about 11.34 quintals of output of aonla was realized from an acre

of land by sample farmers. The per-acre total revenue generated was highest (Rs18428) in the

case of medium farmers and was the lowest (Rs13770) in the case of large farmers. Since the

total revenue was less than the total cost in case of all categories of farmers, the per-acre net

121

return was found to be negative in all cases. On an average, about Rs 5277 was the net loss

from an acre of aonla during the reference year 2008-09. Some aonla growers were also

worried about the low production due to frost and low temperature during winter season that

resulted in late bearing of fruits and small sized fruits. The analysis on economics of

cultivation of mango crops also resulted in similar kind of results with a net loss of Rs 556

per acre. Only medium category of farmers could generate a net positive return of Rs 26053

from an acre of mango by the reference year 2008-09 since some of them had availed NHM

assistance for renovating their existing mango orchards. The main reason of getting negative

returns from long duration crops like aonla and mango was that the majority of our sample

farmers had planted these two crops for last three to four years. During the early stages, the

annual investment was high but the output was nil or very low and the revenue generated was

very less. Therefore, net annual returns were very low. However, majority expressed that the

net return would be positive in near future.

So far as the economics of cultivation of shorter duration crops like coriander and

papaya is concerned, the sample farmers had generated the net positive returns from both the

crops. The total cost of cultivating papaya crop in the case of all farmers category was Rs


fixed cost was Rs 7400 per acre (25.9%). The production of papaya was 72.3 quintals per

acre on an average for the sample farmers. The production of papaya varied from as lowest as

46.1 quintals per acre in the case of marginal farmers to the highest of 103.8 quintals per acre

in the case of small farmers. The per-acre net revenue generated was Rs 18232 for all farmers

category. The main reason of getting positive net returns from cultivation of papaya was that

the life span of papaya crop was near about three years and the maximum production was

realized by the sample farmers by the reference year 2008-09. Similarly, the per-acre net

revenue generated from an acre of coriander was, on an average, Rs 5434 in the case of all

farmers. The net output produced by all farmers was 5.80 quintals per acre of coriander. The


acre.

The analysis on the net returns from various horticultural and non-horticultural crops

generated by sample farmers of different categories during 2008-09 reveals that the net

returns of kharif crops for all farmers category was Rs 9661 per acre. The net return from

rabi crops was Rs 11860 per acre which was higher than that from kharif crops because

kharif crops mainly depended upon monsoon while rabi crops were provided irrigation

facility. However, the average net return from horticulture crops was Rs 6627 per acre which

122

was lower than the both kharif and rabi averages. The aggregate net returns from all crops

(kharif, rabi and horticultural) was Rs 18199 per acre of NSA and Rs 9716 per acre of GCA.

The marginal farmers, small farmers, medium farmers and large farmers generated net return

of Rs 14082, Rs 17557, Rs 22904 and Rs 16608 per acre of NSA respectively. It is expected

that the average net return from horticultural crops would further increase once the long



So far as the use of human labour is concerned, it may be noted that about 30.5

human-days was required for an acre of kharif crops on an average, while various

horticultural crops required an average of 39.8 man-days per acre. The horticultural crops

were more labour intensive compared to non-horticultural crops for which the average man-

days required for an acre of horticultural crops was higher than that of non-horticultural

crops. Considering the cases of our study crops, it was found that, an average of 54.6 man-

days was required for an acre of aonla. In the case of mango, papaya and coriander, about

42.0 man-days, 93.2 man-days and 20.4 man-days were used per acre respectively. As

regards the activity wise uses of human labour in horticultural crops, out of an average of

39.8 man days per acre per acre of horticultural crops, only about 27.3 man-days were used

for various recurring activities and about 12.5 man-days were used for various fixed activities

undertaken per acre of horticultural crops.

The analysis on the selling of output of selected horticultural crops, viz., aonla,

papaya, coriander and mango through various marketing channels reveals that, wholesale

market and pre-arranged selling were the major marketing channels for the sample farmers.

In the case of papaya, out of total selling of 73.14 quintals/HH through various channels, as

high as 62.65 per cent was sold in the wholesale market. In the case of coriander and aonla,

respectively 98.84 per cent and 54.52 per cent were sold in the wholesale market. However,

the case of mango was an exception. On an average, about 18.31 quintals of mango per HH

was marketed through various channels out of which 80.56 per cent was sold on pre-arranged

contract and 19.44 per cent was sold through intermediaries at farm gate. As regards the on-

farm processing activities using the selected horticultural crops, it was unfortunate to find that

none of the sample households in our study areas cultivating allotted four selected

horticultural crops were involved in processing activity supported by NHM. However, some

sample farmers were involved in processing of other crops.

123

6.2.5 Impact of NHM on the Expansion of Horticultural Crops

While analyzing the impact of NHM on area and yield of selected horticultural crops (aonla,

papaya, coriander and mango) during a period from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it was found that the

extent of expansion of area under these crops was impressive but the overall increase in yield

was not satisfactory in case of crops like coriander and mango. In the case of mango crop, the

yield rate actually declined from 64 quintals per acre in 2004-05 to 3.62 quintals per acre in

2009-10. In the case of coriander, the average yield stagnated around 5.49 quintals per acre

during a period of six years, i.e., 2004-05 to 2009-10. Though the variability of coriander

yield was lowest among the study crops, the growth rate of coriander yield was also lowest.

The growth rate of yield in the case of aonla and papaya was phenomenal compared to that of

mango and coriander. It was noticed that the area under the selected horticultural crops grew

tremendously from 2004-05 to 2008-09 but started falling during 2009-10 because of lack of

expansion of marketing facilities, pests and weather related risks.

As far as the area under rejuvenation/protection, resources procurement through NHM

and the resulted increase in productivity is concerned, no cases of rejuvenation are found in

the case of aonla, papaya and coriander. Four farmers were found in the case of mango who

were involved in rejuvenation activities through NHM. The average area under rejuvenation

of mango was 0.20 acres per HH. Only about 8 per cent sample farmers cultivating mango

were supported for rejuvenation/protection. The average increase in productivity as a result of

rejuvenation was 22.50 quintals per acre of mango. The rejuvenation activities under NHM in

the study districts were not performed well for the selected crops.

As regards the sources of NMH resource procurement for our sample farmers during

the period from 2004-05 to 2009-10, it was found that about 75 per cent of total NHM

resource procurement by our sample farmers was through Department of Horticulture. The

private nursery provided 15 per cent whereas the private shops provided 10 per cent of total

NHM resource procurement by the beneficiary farmers. The majority of sample farmers were

benefitted though various promotional activities undertaken through NHM. About 98 percent

farmers said that they made use of available good quality planting material like nursery

through NHM. About 50.5 per cent farmers were found to use poly-house with ventilation,

insect proof netting, fogging and sprinkler irrigation. As high as 91 per cent farmers said that

they used and promoted integrated nutrient management (INM) or integrated pest

management (IPM). Also 40.5 per cent farmers said that they established new garden or seed

production unit with the use of NHM assistance. However, there were so many other

activities and provisions under NHM that could not benefit the sample farmers. None of the

124

farmers were associated with upgrading the existing tissue culture unit, soil sterilization and

steam sterilization system with boilers, precision farming implements, e.g., computer, GIP,

GIS, sensors and application control. Not a single farmer was found to use the modernized

post harvest management system like pack house, storage unit, mobile processing unit etc.

Thus there is huge scope for expanding these activities among farmers. However, it was true

that some farmers did not fulfill eligibility criteria to avail some of the facilities provided

under NHM.

The planting material, fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs and drip/sprinkler were

the major items for which subsidy was provided to the beneficiary farmers. Few farmers have

also received subsidy for the activities like establishing vermi compost units and model

nursery. The amount of subsidy provided by NHM for planting material was highest of Rs

7295 per HH for aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 2398 for papaya crop. The amount of

subsidy provided through NHM for fertilizer, pesticides and other inputs was maximum of Rs

17022 per HH for aonla crop whereas the papaya farmers received minimum amount of

subsidy of Rs 5595 per HH for the same. The total aggregate investment for planting material

was highest of Rs 10239 per HH in the case of aonla crop and was lowest of Rs 3401 per HH

in the case of papaya crop. The aggregate investment on fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs

was highest of Rs 23891 per HH in the case of aonla crop. The aggregate investment on

fertilizer, pesticide and other inputs in the case of papaya, coriander and mango was Rs 7935,

Rs 19298 and Rs 18399 per HH respectively. However, the volume of investments on so

many provisions of NHM was grossly inadequate for a holistic growth of horticulture sector.


of the planting material and fertilizer pesticides and other inputs. On an average, the farmers

cultivating aonla received 50.2 percent subsidy for drip/sprinkler. There is need of more

awareness generation and better monitoring of the programme so as to encourage the farmers

to invest more on many other provisions of NHM.


demonstration, publicity and training of the trainers is an integral part of NHM programme. It

was found that the training was provided to the sample farmers through various sources on an

average of 1.62 times per HH per year. On an average, the training sessions arranged for

about 2.82 days per HH per year through different agencies. State Horticulture Department

and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) were found to arrange more number of trainings of 0.65

and 0.61 times per HH per year respectively whereas the Cooperatives/ Local Bodies and

Non Government Organizations (NGOs) arranged less number of the training and

125

dissemination activities of 0.01 times per HH per year each. It was noticed that about 26 per

cent training sessions were organized within village or nearby village through different

agencies out of which the State Horticulture Department and Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK)

organized 14.5 per cent and 9.5 per cent training sessions respectively.

The perceptions of the beneficiary farmers about their experiences in cultivating

various horticultural crops with the help of NHM assistance are very helpful in reviewing the

performance of the Mission. About 96 per cent of all sample farmers said that NHM helped

them by providing seedling/nursery for increasing the area under horticultural crops. On an

average, 93.5 per cent of all farmers expressed that NHM helped them by providing material

inputs for increasing the area under horticultural crops. About 92.5 per cent of all farmers

were of opinion that financial assistance through NHM was a good point. About 63 per cent

of all farmers also opined that building infrastructure and capacity building measures such as

awareness camps, training etc. were beneficial provisions of NHM.



horticultural crops. It was unfortunate that about 51.5 per cent of all farmers revealed that

their income has not increased yet though they have adopted horticultural crops through

NHM. On an average, about 98 per cent of all farmers expressed that the farmers in their


through NHM. Regarding the changes required so as to make NHM more effective, about

33.5 per cent farmers suggested that subsidy provision for fencing should be incorporated in

NHM programme. About 42.5 per cent of all farmers suggested that more subsidy amount

should be given to the beneficiary farmers through the Mission keeping in view the

inflationary price rise. Also about 49.5 per cent farmers suggested that processing facilities

should be provided and necessary infrastructures should be developed in their villages or

nearby villages. As high as 77 per cent of all farmers suggested that single phase electricity

connection for farmers would reduce their electricity bills.

6.3 Policy Suggestions

Rajasthan offers excellent horticulture development potential in spite of several biophysical

as well as development constraints. The endeavors over the past decade made for planned and

systematic development of horticultural in the state have started producing inspiring results.

However, there are several challenges that have to be addressed properly so as to strengthen

the horticulture sector in study districts of Rajasthan in particular and in India in general. In

126

order to meet the challenges ahead, major emphasis should be on ensuring availability of

quality planting material in required quantity and in required time, priority to meet the future

needs, protected cultivation to improve the productivity levels, organic farming for

capitalizing the niche markets, mechanization to bring efficiency and competence, post

harvest infrastructure to match the mammoth expansion, value addition to venture new

products, transfer of technology to make the extension systems more accountable, radical

reforms in database management, venturing in to new opportunities like genetic modified

organisms (GMOs), branding of Indian horticultural crops etc.

As far as the four specific study crops in four study districts are concerned, followings

are the major suggestions for strengthening the implementation of NHM in Rajasthan.

1. The large degree of spatial and temporal variations was observed in the area and

yield of different horticultural crops during the reference periods in Rajasthan. The

productivity and area coverage under the selected crops also fluctuated to a large

extent over the years and across the districts of Rajasthan mainly due to water

shortage and periodic occurrence of drought. For instance, the cases of high mortality

of plantation crops were found in Ganau block of Banswara district due to

insufficient irrigation during summer as the farmers were small with less resources

and their lands were largely under rainfed conditions. Thus the area under assured

irrigation in Rajasthan needs a special attention in various parts of Rajasthan

including the study districts. Micro irrigation systems like drip irrigation with plastic

mulching should be promoted so as to increase the water use efficiency. It was

noticed that the filtration units for sprinkler and drip irrigation systems were not

working properly at some places. The filtration units should be checked and

realigned regularly.

2. For expansion of area under irrigation, provisions under Mahatma Gandhi National

Rural Guarantee Act (NREGA) could also be utilized under convergence

programme. The measures should be taken for convergence of different programmes

like: Watershed Programmes, National Agriculture Development Programme

(Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana), National Horticulture Mission, Scheme of Artificial

Recharge of Ground Water through Dug well, BRGF, with NREGA for developing

irrigation infrastructures in rural areas of Rajasthan.

As far as convergence of NHM scheme with NREGA is concerned, Krishi

Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) in the pilot districts of Rajasthan have provided plans for

technical training on vermin compost, production of planting material of vegetables

127

and fruits, bee-keeping and seed production. The State Government has undertaken

sub schemes, Harit Rajasthan for convergence of NREGA with other Departments.

However, there is a need to accelerate this convergence programme in various

districts with effective planning and implementation.

3. Cold and frost was found to be a major problem in the case of aonla and papaya

cultivation in the study districts of Rajasthan which caused high mortality of plants.

So it is suggested that frost and cold resistant varieties may be supplied to the

farmers in Rajasthan. The sample farmers expressed that they did not get access to

resource persons those could have helped them in sorting out their immediate

problems such as pest attack, mortality of plants, application of required amount/type

of pesticides and plant protection chemicals etc. and various other problems relating

to cultivation of horticultural crops. Thus it is suggested that the team constituted by

the Horticulture Department should visit the orchards periodically and suggest

preventive/protection measures so that the confidence level of farmers could be

raised.

4. The loss of horticultural crops has occurred at many cases due to unavoidable natural

calamities along with pest attack. However, there is no provision for crop insurance

for horticultural crops unlike agricultural crops. So there is a need of introducing

crop insurance for horticultural crops that will improve the confidence level of

farmers cultivating horticultural crops.

5. However, the horticultural supervisors those were assigned the duties of helping the

farmers at their field were of the opinion that they were putting their best possible

efforts in meeting their targets and in helping out the horticulture growers in their

jurisdiction. However, as there are around 5 supervisors covering each of the study

districts, each has territory extending up to 200 km and the TA and DA that they get

for their field visits were grossly insufficient, even that amount was found pending

with the department since years in the case of some supervisors, it is unlikely that

they discharge their duties in effective manner. So necessary steps should be taken

up to sort out the problems relating to the field supervisors. The staffing should also

be increased to share the work load so that the farmers don‟t suffer.

6. Sufficient staff needs to be outsourced at both district and block level for effective

implementation of NHM programme in the state. Additional workforce need to be

appointed on the full time basis exclusively for the work relating to implementation

of NHM programme. They should be paid good amount as salary keeping in view

128

the volume of the work. Good amount of salary and TA/DA allowance would make

them not to leave the job so quickly which would be beneficial for the field work

relating to the Scheme.

It was also noticed that, though staff strength for Agriculture Department is

more than sufficient, the same for Horticulture Department is highly inadequate at

various study districts. If transfer of some staff could be made from Agriculture

Department to Horticulture Department, it would increase the performance of the

Programme. Particularly the work undertaken under Horticulture Department has

increased manifold due to increased importance of horticultural crops, but the staff

strength has not increased to that extent. Even one supervisor is in charge of

two/three blocks which is not possible. Furthermore, the allowance given towards

TA and other field expenses are grossly inadequate for which the staff members are

forced to spend a part of their salary for office work. Thus, it is suggested to make

necessary arrangements to maintain proper coordination between Agriculture

Department and Horticulture Department and to transfer some staff from Agriculture

Department to Horticulture Department so as to facilitate smooth implementation of

the Scheme.

7. The problem of marketing of the horticultural crops was one of the major issues for

the sample farmers. The sample farmers did not get reasonable price for their

products due to unavailability of markets in their nearby areas. Sometimes political

factors created hindrances for the farmers. For example, an aonla mandi in Chomu

district was ready for operation and but its inauguration was not yet materialized,

since the political people wanted to wait for the right time to take political mileage

(Annexure Plate 10). Such kind of lingering should not be allowed keeping in view

the existing serious marketing problems related to the produce. More number of

marketing infrastructures and arrangements need to be established so that farmers get

reasonable price of their products.

8. One of the reasons for less demand for aonla in the region is the lack of processing

facilities. There are very few processing units available for aonla in Jaipur. Since

aonla is mainly used only after the processing, the presence of insufficient number of

processing units forced the farmers to sell their products at very low price. On the

other hand, there is huge potential to establish more aonla processing units in the

study district of Rajasthan. Thus it is suggested to expand processing activities and

129

units in Jaipur district and other areas which will act as incentives for the aonla

growers.

9. The cost of cultivation is taken as the basis for granting subsidies for the horticultural

crops. The cost of cultivation calculated by the government is far less than the actual

cost incurred by the farmers. So what the government proclaims about 75 per cent

subsidy is actually 40-50 per cent. So it is recommended that government should

revise the norms on cost of cultivation for the horticultural crops. In case of

rejuvenation of mango, the rate of subsidy should also be increased by 50 -75 per

cent.

10. As per the norms laid down under NHM, the market linkages, returns to farmers,

production advantage and export potential are the basis of selecting some crops as

the focus crops for the Rajasthan state under NHM. These crops include fruits

(mandarin, kinnow, pomegranate, mango, papaya, bael, ber, aonla, guava, lime,

sweet orange), spices (coriander, cumin, fenugreek, fennel, mehandi) and flowers

(Dutch rose, desi rose and gerbera). The subsidies under NHM are being provided

for growing these focus crops in Rajasthan. However, it was observed that some of

the sample farmers were not very serious in taking care of these focus crops. In fact,

their focus remained on some other kinds of inter crops. The farmers were found to

adopt intercropping practices in fruits orchards and promoting vegetable cultivation

as intercrop which is appreciable. It was expressed by the some sample farmers that

it was the inter crop rather than the main crop for which they survived. Since the

subsidy was available for these focus crops only, they cultivated these crops to get

subsidy. However, they promoted other kinds of inter crops which were truly

profitable for them. For example, a farmer got subsidy for cultivating mango, but

cultivated chili as the inter crop which was actually his main crop. In Kakrali Jat

village of Alwar district, a farmer said that he wanted to plant papaya on bunds but

due to rigid NHM norms he planted them in field and none of them survived because

of water logging. Thus it is suggested that NHM norms should be flexible ones

keeping in view the requirements of the farmers.

11. It was observed that the subsidy amount was sometimes given in cash and in some

other cases as Cheque. The payment of subsidy in some cases was delayed. As the

farmer invests a big amount to start up and if his subsidy gets delayed he has to face

agony from the suppliers from whom he has taken the inputs on credit. So it is

suggested that the subsidy amount should be paid to the farmers in time. Some

130

deadline should be fixed for the payment of subsidy amount and it should be adhered

to.

12. Freedom should be given to the farmers for choosing the crop they want to take up.

Presently as subsidy are given for few selected crops, even though the farmer is not

convinced about the suitability of these crops. He takes it up eyeing at the subsidy

amount. Moreover targets on area expansion under a crop are given to supervisors so

they just consider the financial condition and interest of the farmer keeping aside the

suitability criteria. Ultimately the farmers makes a huge crop loss just to gain a small

amount in the form of subsidy and the supervisor meets his area targets but looses on

the production front. The solution of this would be to give subsidy on crops which a

farmer aspires to grow and targets should be, along with survival of plants, on

production in the form of marketable surplus or arrival at Mandi, particularly in the

case of short-duration crops.

13. As far as the supply of planting material and seedling is concerned, the nature of

requirement of the farmers and the time limits should be strictly followed. Most of

the farmers arranged the planting material for area expansion activity through their

own sources without having any quality check since the planting materials were not

supplied in time by the Horticultural Department and other approved sources. In

some cases it was seen that there was high mortality of plants because of late arrival

of the required planting materials. In case of mango growers, our sample farmers

preferred more inarching plants than the grafted ones. Many farmers complained

about the shortage of quality saplings. Since the Horticultural Department could not

provide the required variety of saplings in desired quantity, they had to purchase

them from the private nurseries with higher survival risks. It was also noticed that the

proper coordination among various stake holders like Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK)

and Horticulture Department was lacking. While the farmers were complaining about

unavailability of papaya plants at Horticulture Department nurseries, the Horticulture

Department could have advised the farmers through the supervisors to collect the

same from KVK where a large number of good quality saplings were dying because

of lack of access to farmers. Thus it is suggested to develop a good rapport among all

the government and non-government organizations in a district so as to help the

farmers in the best possible way.

It is also suggested to develop more number of government nurseries that can

provide the required number of plants and quality planting material at reasonable

131

price. There should be proper guidelines for the sale of plants through nurseries

established under NHM and some targets must be given to each owner to raise plants

for the sale under subsidy scheme. These nurseries must have sufficient number of

mother plants for propagation.

14. Fencing was found to be a costly affair for the sample farmers. However it was a

necessity for growing high value horticultural crops since wild animals (e.g., groups

of blue bulls/Nilgai) were found very active in some regions. Once they attack the

field and destroy the plants, farmers face a loss of 2-3 years of efforts and money.

Since these are high value crops, they have to be protected from human beings also.

Presently those who are not able to afford fencing rely on natural fencing (thorny

species of plants) which occupies much of their cultivable land. The community

guards are also being appointed but they also fail in defending from wild animals. It

was demanded by almost all the sample farmers that fencing activity should also be

included in subsidy norms for horticultural crops. It was suggested by the farmers

that about 80 per cent subsidy should be provided on fencing.

15. Under the present scheme subsidy are given only when area is more than 0.4 hectares

in case of general caste and OBC categories and 0.2 hectares in the case of SC/ST

farmers. There should not be upper and lower limits if area expansion is the target.

Moreover if such limits have to be put, it should be on the basis of land holding size

and not the caste category of the households. If the subsidy can be provided

irrespective of land holding size, a large number of poor marginal and small farmers

could be benefitted through NHM and the pace of area expansion would be

exemplary. Furthermore, it was noticed that the land fragmentation and small

landholding size were the major causes for non-expansion of horticultural area since

the main focus of farmers was to grow cereals for their survival. Only if some area

was left out, they diverted that for horticulture or cash crops. Thus the emphasis

should be on covering these large numbers of marginal and small farmers for further

expansion of area under horticulture crops in the state for which relaxing the ceiling

on land holding size as the eligibility criteria for getting NHM subsidy assumes

utmost importance.

16. Farmers were getting compulsorily 3 phase electricity connection for irrigation

which was costly particularly for the small and marginal farmers. They were charged

fixed rental for electricity which very often came for just 3 hours a day. They were

bound to pay rental even though they didn‟t use it to that extent. The sample farmers

132

suggested that they should be given single phase connection and bill should be issued

on the meter basis.

17. The sample farmers were found to attend a number of training and awareness camps.

However, it was noted that the farmers need more training on organic farming

practices and awareness about timely pruning, use and maintenance of drip/sprinkler

irrigation systems and plant protection measures. Imparting training for pest

management to the farmers is also necessary. The awareness camps regarding

various components of NHM and procedures and norms for the farmers to avail the

subsidies for different activities under NHM need to be arranged more frequently and

at more number places so that majority of farming community would be benefitted.

Extensive publicity of the NHM programme is needed at the block level and GP

level. Permanent display boards with NHM logo needs to be displayed wherever

NHM assistance has been provided which can also raise the publicity of the Scheme.

There is also a need to intensify the publicizing of the NHM programmes through

print and electronic media.

18. The major activities undertaken under NHM were production and distribution of

planting material, vegetable seed production, area expansion, rejuvenation of old and

senile orchards, creation of community water resources, protected cultivation,

IPM/INM, organic farming, pollination support through bee-keeping, development

of post harvest management and marketing infrastructures and human resource

development. Except few activities like area expansion, distribution of planting

material and human resource development, the performance of NHM in our study

areas was not satisfactory. The poor performance in the case of our sample farmers

was observed in terms of promotion of processing activities, rejuvenation,

development of post harvest management and marketing infrastructures, protected

cultivation and organic farming. It is suggested to step up these neglected activities

under NHM so as to facilitate a healthy and balanced growth of horticulture sector in

Rajasthan.

19. Farm mechanization is very essential for promotion of horticultural crops. However,

there is no specific provision under NHM to subsidize the farm mechanization of

farmers. It is therefore suggested to provide subsidies to purchase some essential

agricultural tools for cultivating horticultural crops. Small size tractors should be

given to farmers on subsidized rate so as to enable them to cultivate and weeding in

space between the standing crops. The use of recently launched small size tractors

133

would reduce the planting gaps, particularly in the case of fruit crops that, in turn,

would increase the number of plants and thus production and productivity. Some

farmers opined that the grading machines should also be made available on subsidy

by the Government. So that they can fetch better prices in the market.

20. Though huge amount of money is being spent on different activities under NHM, we

observed that the existing database on these horticultural crops is poor for conducting

secondary research. It is noteworthy that we had to use data from different sources

for different years due to unavailability of time series data at a single source. Since

the data provided by different sources were found to vary a lot for a specific year, the

chance of producing misleading results from the analysis of these time series data

cannot be denied. It is worth-mentioning that horticulture is an important segment of

agriculture sector, which, in turn, is one of the major components of national

economy along with manufacturing, and services sectors. Therefore, the quality of

relevant data inputs is extremely important in the context of realistic and effective

policy planning process. Thus it is extremely important to seriously consider various

issues and problems confronting horticulture data sector through appropriate policy

intervention so as to build up-to-date and reliable database on various horticultural

crops which would help in research & development of these crops.

134

References

Basu, Kaushik (1983), The Emergence of Isolation and Interlinkage in Rural Markets, Oxford

Economic Papers, Vol. 35, Pp-262-80.

Gondalia, V. K. and G. N. Patel (2007), An Economic Evaluation of Investment on Aonla

(Emblica officinalis G.) in Gujarat, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol 20,

July-December, pp-385-394.

Government of India (2007), Report of Working Group on Horticulture, Plantation Crops,

and Organic Farming for the XI Five Year Plan (2007-12), Planning Commission,

Government of India, New Delhi.

Government of India (2010), NHM Operational Guidelines 2010, Ministry of Agriculture,

Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi,

www.nhm.nic.in.

Government of India (2011), Report of Joint Inspection Team in its Visit to Rajasthan during

05-09 January, 2011, National Horticulture Mission, Ministry of Agriculture

Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.

Government of Rajasthan (2009a), Economic Review 2009-10, Directorate of Economics and

Statistics, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Government of Rajasthan (2009b), NHM Annual Action Plan 2009-10, Rajasthan

Horticulture Development Society, Directorate of Horticulture, Pant Krishi Bhawan,

Jaipur.

Gupta, A.K. and Manu Shorf (1987), „Rural Credit: How Does the Poor See It?‟, Vikalpa,

Vol.12, No.4

Jodhka, S.S. (1995), Debt, Dependence and Agrarian Change, Rawat, Jaipur

National Horticulture Board (2010), „Indian Horticulture Database 2010‟, NHB, Department

of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India, New Delhi.

R. Madakadze, M. Masarirambi and E. Nyakudya (2004), Processing of Horticultural Crops

in the Tropics, in Ramdane Dris and S. Mohan Jain (Eds) Production Practices and

Quality Assessment of Food Crops, pp-371-399.

Rao, J.M. (1980), Interest Rates in Backward Agriculture, Cambridge Journal of Economics,

Vol.4.

Robo India (2005), NHM Revised Action Plan for Rajasthan for Ministry of Agriculture,

Government of India, http://nhm.nic.in/ActionPlan/ActionPlan_Rajasthan.pdf.

Sarap, Kailash (1991), Interlinked Agrarian Markets in Rural India, Sage, New Delhi,

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=R.+Madakadze

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=M.+Masarirambi

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=E.+Nyakudya

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Editor=Ramdane+Dris

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Editor=S.+Mohan+Jain

http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-1-4020-1700-1/



135

Singh, Gorakh (2010), Horticulture: Keeping Health and Happiness, Agriculture Year Book

2010, Agriculture Toady, New Delhi, pp-32-36.

Subrahmanyam, K.V. and V. Mohandoss, (1982), “Economic Evaluation of Coorg Mandarin

(Orange) in Karnataka”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 37(1), Jan-

March.

Swain, M (1986), Usurious Interest Rates in Backward Agriculture: Interlinkage,

Competition and Monopoly, M.Phil Dissertation, Delhi School of Economics,

University of Delhi.

Swain, M (2001), Rural Indebtedness and Usurious Interest Rates in Eastern India: Some

Micro Evidence, Journal of Social and Economic Development, Vol.3, No.1, pp-122-

43.

Swain, M. and M. Swain (2007), Rural Credit Market Imperfections in Drought Prone

Bolangir District of Orissa: Some Critical Issues and Policy Options‟, Artha Vijnana,

Vol. 49, No. 3 & 4, Sept.- Dec., 2007, pp.223-254.

136

Annexure Tables

Annexure 1.1: Year wise physical and financial progress of NHM in Rajasthan

(Rupees in Lakh)

Year Outlay Funds released Expenditure Unspent balance as

on 1st

April

2005-06 4102.00 2259.57 1421.310 838.260

2006-07 7626.67 3837.93 3306.96 1369.23

2007-08 7575.49 5673.19 4602.29 2440.13

2008-09 12435.63 4097.71 4726.00 1811.84

2009-10 5978.80 2500.00 3466.19 845.65

2010-11 5950.00 4000.00 4863.19 -17.54

Source: Government of India (2011)

137

Annexure 1.2: Component wise details of physical and financial progress under National

Horticulture Mission (NHM) from 2005-06 to 2010-11

Sl. No. component Physical

Achievement

(No or Ha)

Financial

Achievement

Percentage

Expenditure to

Total

Expenditure

1 Nursery 127 740.99 3.00

2 Area Coverage 93175 6437.01 26.05

3 Rejuvenation 2393.7 292.27 1.18

4 Development of

Water

Resources

1462 10667.33 43.17

5 Protected Cultivations 51.78 837.93 3.39

6 Organic Farming 6250 191.55 0.78

7 Vermi Compost Units 2041 484.5 1.96

8 Integrated Pest

Management (IPM)

43671 279.64 1.13

9 IPM Infrastructure 37 449.76 1.82

10 HRD 28645 907.95 3.67

11 Post Harvest

Management

60 596.61 2.41

12 Rural

Markets/Infrastructure

18 59.97 0.24

13 Mission

Management/Other

Innovative

- 2766.9 11.20

14 Total Expenditure - 24712.41 100.00

Source: Government of India (2011)

138

1 Amer Amer Jaipur 4

2 Chomu Chomu Jaipur 4

3 Govindgarh Chomu Jaipur 18

4 Umrain Umrain Alwar 5

5 Jalpur Ramgadh Alwar 1

6 Mundawar Mundawar Alwar 4

7 Ramgarh Alwar Alwar 1

8 Kishangarh Kishangarh Alwar 2

9 Kotkashim Kotkashim Alwar 1

10 Rehani Rajgadh Alwar 1

11 Tizara Tizara Alwar 1

12 Katumar Katumar Alwar 1

13 Rawatbhata Rawatbahata Chittorgarh 2

14 Beshroadgarh Rawatbahata Chittorgarh 6

15 Raita Begu Chittorgarh 1

16 Begu Begu Chittorgarh 1

17 Gopalpura Rawatbahata Chittorgarh 1

18 Dudka Ghatol Banswara 3

19 Gadhi Gadhi Banswara 5

20 Kanji Ka Gada Ghatol Banswara 1

21 Masodia Banswara Banswara 1

22 Gnau Banswara Banswara 1

23 Talwara Banswara Banswara 1

24 Kheda Gadhi Banswara 2

25 Ladhuku Gadhi Banswara 1

26 Methwala Gadhi Banswara 1

27 Kardaburda Banswara Banswara 1

28 Sakariya Gadhi Banswara 1

29 Senawasa Ghatol Banswara 2

30 Tamatia Hada Banswara Banswara 1

31 Japkura Ghatol Banswara 1

32 Sunderpur Banswara Banswara 1

77

Source: Field survey

Jindoli, Raipur, Tatarpura, Ullahedi

Sr.No. C.D. Block Tehsil/Taluk District No. of

Villages

Name of Villages

AkedaChord,Dabri, Dabri Rampura,Pokharsa Ka Bas

Amarpura, Chomu, Nada, Thekria

Dolla ka bas,Govindgarh,Gudliya,

Hathnoda,Itavaboji,Jetpura,Kaladera,Khejroli,M

orija, Nangal koju, Narshingpura,Niwana,

Shamod, Shingodkala, Udaipuria, Bai ka Bas,

Akbarpura, Baladehra,Malakhera,Punkhar,

ShapurJalpur

Dudka, Bhandaria, Kundli

Kakarlijat

Khanpura, Koha Ka Bas

Ladpur

Machadi

Mirchooni

Samochi

Bardoli, Rawatbhata

Beshroadgarh, Bhalpura, Borav, DhangadKala,

Jharjini, Nayagaon Sukhpura

Raiti

Shadi

Ganeshpura

Dindoria

Saklifarm

Total Farmers

Annexure 1.3: List of villages covered under the survey

Ladhuku

Methwala

Nadiade

Sakariya

Senawasa, Jetore

Tamatia Heda

Bai ka Gadha,Bajwana, Bhantali, Gadhi, Suraj

Ka Gada Harow

Hingoligada

Kachlikhora

Kevadia

Kheda, Mala kheda

139

Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod. Area Prod.

1980-81 11214 0 37979 105205 227551 52236 0 0 19934 2525 296678 159966

1981-82 12543 0 40694 114802 203824 71607 0 0 18062 2422 275123 188831

1982-83 12891 0 39200 111372 256011 96953 0 0 27091 2219 335193 210544

1983-84 5130 34888 44728 129368 275708 88033 0 0 47245 2554 372811 254843

1984-85 5270 31641 48305 127697 234801 61226 0 0 56833 3073 345209 223637

1985-86 5516 32204 48350 139150 247338 116714 0 0 47501 2795 348705 290863

1986-87 7763 36604 55327 175297 249698 188419 0 0 33084 2570 345872 402890

1987-88 7678 25410 49389 218210 363156 260733 0 0 44269 2291 464492 506644

1988-89 6516 21177 51691 236102 352399 259732 0 0 51236 3398 461842 520409

1989-90 19513 92429 51542 248667 285383 219995 0 0 64825 0 421263 561091

1990-91 21109 104581 59039 300028 273789 280682 0 0 63416 0 417353 685291

1991-92 21145 166281 63478 316373 284792 202529 0 0 58778 0 428193 685183

1992-93 20910 116121 59525 302478 401688 301846 993 5533 68733 0 551849 725978

1993-94 20849 250550 67332 363154 534949 321862 1207 1077 77311 0 701648 936643

1994-95 19825 229603 67670 283357 365232 249277 0 0 69023 0 521750 762237

1995-96 19795 238475 75948 356908 369216 283581 1992 1984 87408 53798 554359 934746

1996-97 20922 267199 82602 398200 476501 370036 1763 2238 139684 84692 721472 1122365

1997-98 20318 298069 82141 323945 513409 417114 2021 2189 129390 85360 747279 1126677

1998-99 20599 238329 99242 396132 441997 359370 2302 4133 123121 81666 687261 1079630

1999-00 20347 240864 94374 443420 369173 309432 1120 1397 109434 62712 594448 1057825

2000-01 20661 238035 90385 364546 441362 357853 2119 2464 141769 82211 696296 1045109

2001-02 21948 200724 99871 433846 762923 616727 1863 2434 143026 89552 1029631 1343283

2002-03 22332 189258 90943 334180 532584 343823 1505 986 167625 78830 814989 947077

2003-04 23295 220891 110312 500722 589629 653347 1949 2161 161215 107772 886400 1484893

2004-05 23835 256977 122886 614192 416087 424286 3312 2604 148932 78897 715052 1376957

2005-06 25442 418520 120913 740823 348712 302598 3008 2255 150752 70347 648827 1534543

2006-07 27610 402170 122912 788333 381583 356051 2728 3259 215786 83818 750619 1633631

2007-08 28995 562770 143132 853329 567782 528728 3343 4606 198200 94059 941452 2043492

2008-09 30601 484660 125573 736701 536849 535845 3354 4857 226169 106213 922546 1868276

Annexure 2.1 : Area and production of horticulture crops in Rajasthan(Area in hectares, production in Metric

Tonnes)

Year

Sourcers: (1) Vital horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (2) Rajasthan Horticulture

Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur

(3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to 2008-09)

(4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to 1982-83,for fruits),

(from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)]

Fruits Vegetables Spices Flowers Medicinals Total Horti.

140


Ajmer 445 230 2627 1836 4327 728 759 104 7 3 8165 2901

Alwar 490 3780 10665 36882 1068 452 0 0 0 0 12223 41114

Banswara 524 2251 399 396 732 230 1 1 0 0 1656 2878

Baran 503 13197 1191 2694 51249 75186 0 0 1265 59 54208 91136

Barmer 81 450 334 311 99808 29568 0 0 36723 23789 136946 54118

Bharatpur 763 1262 3493 5269 510 547 82 252 134 69 4982 7399

Bhilwara 747 1951 1103 1784 5809 3661 1 1 285 162 7945 7559

Bikaner 52 2 460 206 13899 4152 0 0 115 57 14526 4417

Bundi 563 5290 3326 3094 7875 7049 0 0 0 0 11764 15433

Chittorgarh 1316 10739 1832 3509 17953 27091 0 0 4811 2438 25912 43777

Churu 0 0 289 318 5947 3538 0 0 43 50 6279 3906

Dausa 699 3920 1110 1268 86 49 0 0 1 1 1896 5238

Dholpur 1031 11392 2764 2852 534 853 0 0 2 2 4331 15099

Dungarpur 382 408 268 1220 135 69 0 0 1 1 786 1698

Srigangangar 2637 0 3075 12539 323 416 0 0 8 0 6043 12955

Hanumangarh 287 5065 1194 2671 197 106 0 0 2 2 1680 7844

Jaipur 801 9104 20136 91191 7397 5303 320 250 6 1 28660 105849

Jaisalmer 74 29 16 11 21382 4645 0 0 16649 2227 38121 6911

Jalore 135 221 1590 4620 73829 16328 0 0 56181 41129 131735 62298

Jhalawar 5939 53645 1293 2795 33356 32514 0 0 2321 366 42909 89320

Jhunjhunu 67 77 1621 23591 4476 4348 0 0 0 0 6164 28016

Jodhpur 209 5547 9281 60923 46274 18519 77 107 5248 1759 61089 86855

Karuali 550 8706 1685 2556 625 32 0 0 0 0 2860 11294

Kota 681 21643 1978 16023 39907 66341 38 35 2846 1289 45450 105331

Nagaur 126 182 6195 16171 55988 9279 193 211 5648 4160 68150 30003

Pali 312 339 1333 1132 10241 2649 11 4 34306 802 46203 4926

Pratapgarh N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A N.A

Rajsamand 590 3080 277 494 579 143 23 21 16 17 1485 3755

S.modhpur 521 7264 1019 2084 1072 1426 0 0 0 0 2612 10774

Sikar 101 406 4356 22273 13233 23360 0 0 20 32 17710 46071

Sirohi 320 1266 1918 2007 6107 1897 0 0 780 377 9125 5547

Tonk 172 389 3431 9489 5539 1971 0 0 0 0 9142 11849

Udaipur 1214 17425 684 1971 2127 1373 0 0 207 38 4232 20807

State total 22332 189258 90943 334180 532584 343823 1505 986 167625 78830 814989 947076

Annexure 2.2: Area and production of horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan 2002-03



(3) 'Prod' stands for production


(Area in hectares, production in Metric Tonnes)

District Fruits Vegitables Spices Flowers Medicinal &

aromatic

Total horticultural

141


Ajmer 488 87 4169 8325 7390 3692 954 945 109 74 13110 13123

Alwar 403 3804 13942 95324 1597 2171 32 29 0 0 15974 101328

Banswara 684 10425 391 365 615 364 6 7 0 0 1696 11161

Baran 478 11751 1390 3216 89999 189021 4 2 1272 174 93143 204164

Barmer 90 454 652 774 81340 47380 0 0 36094 22152 118176 70760

Bharatpur 739 2100 5370 20586 688 1694 58 119 1 1 6856 24500

Bhilwara 770 4992 1522 2790 7710 5871 6 6 282 37 10290 13696

Bikaner 62 3 315 166 9612 6286 0 0 1245 513 11234 6968

Bundi 628 5535 3578 5074 10723 10966 15 15 1 1 14945 21591

Chittorgarh 1477 15459 1736 3585 25965 45009 23 25 7821 2067 37022 66145

Churu 0 0 157 198 4478 2510 0 0 145 88 4780 2796

Dausa 778 3580 1483 2069 119 122 5 4 0 0 2385 5775

Dholpur 894 11008 2784 4012 730 536 0 0 1 1 4409 15557

Dungarpur 409 418 231 1200 281 329 0 0 0 0 921 1947

Srigangangar 2875 12003 2560 5298 155 132 23 23 6 4 5619 17460

Hanumangarh 338 7921 893 2100 119 107 5 10 0 0 1355 10138

Jaipur 805 9489 24288 82030 7201 5974 441 568 7 6 32742 98067

Jaisalmer 58 139 160 484 13040 25052 0 0 8801 4892 22059 30567

Jalore 121 519 1930 7644 42923 8347 1 1 45033 38811 90008 55322

Jhalawar 6275 49360 1098 4814 95343 105821 8 5 2417 1189 105141 161189

Jhunjhunu 62 120 2010 28278 4145 4296 0 0 1 1 6218 32695

Jodhpur 175 5798 10893 90804 42349 23590 48 66 9049 8312 62514 128570

Karuali 545 21660 1387 4382 748 2250 0 0 0 0 2680 28292

Kota 619 19050 2431 38753 65353 99723 54 54 2617 2451 71074 160031

Nagaur 97 256 8843 24503 36176 23629 202 204 4898 2707 50216 51299

Pali 348 2990 1619 2008 10140 6660 14 11 40200 23575 52321 35244


Rajsamand 670 2857 380 470 690 530 13 13 1 1 1754 3871

S.modhpur 610 4880 1352 3598 3630 7538 0 0 2 2 5594 16018

Sikar 116 1194 6036 36533 14062 14217 0 0 10 8 20224 51952

Sirohi 309 1188 2240 3229 4785 3716 10 14 897 654 8241 8801

Tonk 170 528 3595 15568 5836 4154 0 0 5 0 9606 20250

Udaipur 1202 11322 877 2542 1687 1660 27 40 300 51 4093 15615

State total 23295 220891 110312 500722 589629 653347 1949 2161 161215 107772 886400 1484893




District Fruits Vegitables Spices Flowers Medicinal &

aromatic

Total horticultural




142


Ajmer 476 81 4974 7581 7197 3806 1786 1138 119 20 14552 12626

Alwar 407 4181 15255 92943 1247 1587 0 0 0 0 16909 98711

Banswara 714 10516 416 159 440 153 12 0 4 0 1586 10828

Baran 463 11878 1787 2962 48106 67649 38 38 799 74 51193 82601

Barmer 93 382 432 670 60569 30156 0 0 34613 14950 95707 46158

Bharatpur 793 376 4602 17461 944 4412 7 15 5 0 6351 22264

Bhilwara 724 7041 2074 4758 7632 6423 2 0 145 29 10577 18251

Bikaner 73 33 730 286 6927 4089 0 0 2838 682 10568 5090

Bundi 569 5038 4030 12619 2199 2295 34 42 23 36 6855 20030

Chittorgarh 1410 17674 2362 6151 27976 57801 55 154 5070 2812 36873 84592

Churu 0 0 194 287 3093 2101 0 0 247 115 3534 2503

Dausa 755 3480 1385 1611 50 43 3 4 0 0 2193 5138

Dholpur 831 10203 2139 31554 1012 1412 0 0 0 0 3982 43169

Dungarpur 416 438 219 890 234 193 0 0 0 0 869 1521

Srigangangar 3188 31812 2160 1653 111 54 13 2 8 3 5480 33524

Hanumangarh 447 4864 838 1205 78 86 10 0 0 0 1373 6155

Jaipur 1022 8676 27565 111930 6654 6588 896 989 36 3 36173 128186

Jaisalmer 126 139 171 1009 9162 3144 0 0 7678 3216 17136 7509

Jalore 125 579 1631 8422 28086 10409 0 0 28313 17460 58155 36870

Jhalawar 6424 89985 1238 5076 74615 78774 12 29 1293 504 83582 174368

Jhunjhunu 68 102 2304 3882 3501 3601 0 0 9 5 5882 7590

Jodhpur 186 2081 12753 117058 35182 22696 135 0 9265 7301 57521 149136

Karuali 542 8732 1600 3005 931 332 0 0 2 4 3075 12073

Kota 625 12417 2174 36951 36427 75157 74 86 1627 1526 40927 126137

Nagaur 119 348 12838 64462 23253 12337 174 104 6145 3733 42529 80984

Pali 292 199 1215 980 5520 2635 9 3 50255 26123 57291 29940


Rajsamand 633 2385 257 339 726 260 14 0 29 103 1659 3087

S.modhpur 535 4224 1163 2810 2471 6944 1 0 0 0 4170 13978

Sikar 144 1496 7815 52796 11659 11467 35 0 10 9 19663 65768

Sirohi 326 1137 1800 2656 4042 3198 0 0 390 186 6558 7177

Tonk 175 312 3912 18042 3910 3461 2 0 3 0 8002 21815

Udaipur 1133 16173 853 1984 2133 1023 0 0 6 3 4125 19183

State total 23835 256977 122886 614192 416087 424286 3312 2604 148932 78897 715051 1376956





District



Fruits Vegitables Spices Flowers Medicinal &

aromatic

Total horticultural

143


Ajmer 564 79 5568 7783 6919 1841 1443 1641 62 23 14556 11367

Alwar 480 3940 14576 85037 879 1722 37 41 18 12 15990 90752

Banswara 771 7683 423 147 374 60 21 5 2 1 1591 7896

Baran 523 11919 1588 6390 45795 66458 33 26 505 31 48444 84824

Barmer 133 367 332 399 46650 7344 0 0 47078 12430 94193 20540

Bharatpur 910 4307 3938 35661 409 1386 3 3 3 3 5263 41360

Bhilwara 971 7248 2049 3976 6419 3264 5 3 74 30 9518 14521

Bikaner 86 10 425 425 3399 1575 0 0 3472 1973 7382 3983

Bundi 619 9746 3348 18840 2897 4054 37 181 4 3 6905 32824

Chittorgarh 1417 35303 2520 10001 29422 63583 59 175 6270 2942 39688 112004

Churu 3 0 161 134 2154 1485 0 0 713 192 3031 1811

Dausa 747 9160 1239 1293 410 377 0 0 0 0 2396 10830

Dholpur 777 9893 3303 35190 488 801 6 4 0 0 4574 45888

Dungarpur 466 466 223 918 216 135 0 0 0 0 905 1519

Srigangangar 4747 133780 2639 47216 104 313 30 3 41 5 7561 181317

Hanumangarh 809 7916 1331 21022 124 187 9 8 12 0 2285 29133

Jaipur 875 9812 24093 86724 5169 4268 366 365 28 19 30531 101188

Jaisalmer 126 125 137 765 7441 238 0 0 9708 1094 17413 2222

Jalore 135 522 1462 4379 38092 10290 4 2 45861 11321 85554 26514

Jhalawar 7371 104672 1363 5547 69978 82764 16 38 1463 638 80191 193659

Jhunjhunu 66 218 2557 30275 2918 3127 0 0 3 4 5544 33624

Jodhpur 178 188 15351 166338 33563 14220 93 0 18702 3906 67887 184652

Karuali 472 7917 1064 2617 319 144 0 0 1 0 1856 10678

Kota 641 8512 2443 38594 27619 54914 101 292 2337 62 33141 102374

Nagaur 267 510 13322 87694 18642 6795 308 344 31871 12372 64410 107715

Pali 282 24 2110 2928 8117 3302 38 13 45367 35501 55914 41768


Rajsamand 680 8330 466 1370 1398 1055 26 52 655 470 3225 11277

S.modhpur 698 5186 1081 3207 1973 5290 0 0 0 0 3752 13683

Sikar 160 300 7210 62653 7830 7398 3 3 32 40 15235 70394

Sirohi 341 1014 2266 2993 6432 4378 49 49 1409 386 10497 8820

Tonk 157 209 3376 15415 3145 2002 3 0 10 2 6691 17628

Udaipur 1137 12814 947 2403 2288 1281 38 11 85 358 4495 16867

State total 27610 402170 122912 788333 381583 356051 2728 3259 215786 83818 750619 1633631





District




aromatic

Total horticultural

144


Ajmer 599 81 6260 10851 7340 2748 1706 2722 33 12 15938 16414

Alwar 465 6215 15658 76416 1183 1481 2 12 0 0 17308 84124

Banswara 748 12478 447 239 400 234 11 3 11 2 1617 12956

Baran 538 13620 1505 5188 89381 118384 63 44 493 1527 91980 138763

Barmer 141 270 371 434 68277 17569 0 0 44186 9642 112975 27915

Bharatpur 960 602 6737 57739 638 1886 0 0 0 0 8335 60227

Bhilwara 1111 8620 1919 4209 7414 5377 12 20 104 12 10560 18238

Bikaner 100 100 270 249 3431 1934 0 0 3844 1481 7645 3764

Bundi 640 9036 3281 19705 4711 6119 72 242 5 3 8709 35105

Chittorgarh 1376 33999 2616 13635 36376 93032 63 250 5040 2827 45471 143742

Churu 25 0 322 460 3178 1457 0 0 770 277 4295 2194

Dausa 729 12216 1755 2432 844 219 27 36 0 0 3355 14903

Dholpur 782 9495 6205 55348 643 1271 4 1 0 0 7634 66115

Dungarpur 457 482 258 1236 198 229 3 2 0 0 916 1949

Srigangangar 4902 105849 2475 45769 165 615 31 5 20 1 7593 152239

Hanumangarh 999 5557 1282 16474 145 143 22 6 3 6 2451 22186

Jaipur 1004 9936 30562 103565 5069 5078 793 641 126 27 37554 119247

Jaisalmer 124 152 156 121 6519 1096 0 0 9669 1826 16468 3195

Jalore 144 471 1888 5384 62841 25083 4 2 36731 12659 101608 43599

Jhalawar 8074 284938 2311 5734 95435 59913 14 37 2576 2186 108410 352808

Jhunjhunu 56 322 3542 43282 6579 5697 0 0 1 2 10178 49303

Jodhpur 182 330 15641 151340 44796 29301 101 0 24854 8948 85574 189918

Karuali 525 7589 1030 2868 355 120 0 0 0 0 1910 10577

Kota 641 8000 2590 34914 49198 102139 92 220 3532 2780 56053 148053

Nagaur 263 679 14133 96452 21975 14264 223 267 23159 14268 59753 125930

Pali 307 265 1778 2124 15878 5248 16 16 42220 35263 60199 42916


Rajsamand 702 7201 587 1436 1767 1196 8 1 4 3 3068 9837

S.modhpur 606 5081 1270 4120 3617 9033 0 0 0 0 5493 18234

Sikar 152 605 7945 69631 10730 6027 9 9 62 43 18898 76315

Sirohi 328 1990 3261 3216 11543 7354 20 19 672 242 15824 12821

Tonk 173 461 4225 17537 4912 2997 17 17 0 0 9327 21012

Udaipur 1143 16132 852 1221 2244 1484 30 34 85 22 4354 18893

State total 28995 562770 143132 853329 567782 528728 3343 4606 198200 94059 941452 2043492





District




aromatic

Total horticultural

145


Ajmer 676 0 4421 8541 3864 1722 1747 2859 35 8 10743 13130

Alwar 464 100 14527 104559 1071 1434 43 37 0 0 16105 106130

Banswara 523 0 385 180 396 133 4 4 5 1 1313 318

Baran 442 700 1402 3995 96519 136418 11 0 163 389 98537 141502

Barmer 158 0 504 548 58404 8326 0 0 49323 8399 108389 17273

Bharatpur 1028 1280 5060 44339 388 1957 11 51 0 0 6487 47627

Bhilwara 1182 0 1640 3327 3746 3153 9 6 112 27 6689 6513

Bikaner 78 0 298 298 5254 4543 0 0 5211 2794 10841 7635

Bundi 701 0 3257 12459 10527 11801 0 0 11 7 14496 24267

Chittorgarh 955 0 1380 5530 25163 54537 55 133 3989 2188 31542 62388

Churu 24 0 194 372 3946 2305 0 0 1137 486 5301 3163

Dausa 684 3 1363 2075 436 136 20 25 0 0 2503 2239

Dholpur 753 100 4798 43410 237 460 0 0 0 0 5788 43970

Dungarpur 458 0 121 573 212 171 3 0 0 0 794 744

Srigangangar 5952 0 2098 42147 142 155 22 0 12 0 8226 42302

Hanumangarh 1206 0 865 14652 157 188 0 0 0 0 2228 14840

Jaipur 907 0 27860 69311 4101 4797 898 925 67 36 33833 75069

Jaisalmer 106 0 205 584 7600 1196 0 0 11497 2722 19408 4502

Jalore 142 0 1395 3735 46390 13060 5 0 32264 8142 80196 24937

Jhalawar 8488 350 2154 5192 105719 103575 11 0 1984 1911 118356 111028

Jhunjhunu 69 0 3021 31138 6021 9587 0 0 7 2 9118 40727

Jodhpur 165 0 16145 109897 40577 27222 121 359 31235 16978 88243 154456

Karuali 496 170 874 2732 235 642 1 0 1 5 1607 3549

Kota 667 0 2223 33432 60548 102554 106 45 5160 3092 68704 139123

Nagaur 247 0 12345 69840 17132 11960 166 299 39282 31042 69172 113141

Pali 385 0 1454 1967 7064 2735 23 29 41188 26873 50114 31604

Pratapgarh 596 0 176 501 5455 4679 0 0 2977 808 9204 5988

Rajsamand 688 0 399 1065 1567 1927 12 11 0 0 2666 3003

S.modhpur 709 640 1398 4022 2273 5843 0 0 0 0 4380 10505

Sikar 151 0 7242 95521 9786 10422 7 4 65 148 17251 106095

Sirohi 307 0 2026 4027 7603 5056 73 70 287 123 10296 9276

Tonk 153 0 3719 15075 2374 1938 2 0 2 0 6250 17013

Udaipur 1043 0 624 1657 1942 1213 4 0 155 31 3768 2901

State total 30601 3343 125573 736701 536849 535845 3354 4857 226169 106213 922546 1386958





District




aromatic

Total horticultural

146



1978-79 N.A N.A N.A N.A 80604 47226 N.A N.A

1979-80 N.A N.A N.A N.A 44635 24455 N.A N.A

1980-81 N.A N.A N.A N.A 61594 35020 N.A N.A

1981-82 N.A N.A N.A N.A 106176 56625 N.A N.A

1982-83 N.A N.A N.A N.A 108860 72484 N.A N.A

1983-84 15 15 268 609 110142 55008 529 6842

1984-85 0 0 233 561 101796 29629 297 2136

1985-86 9 9 181 238 118524 36750 499 3099

1986-87 9 9 203 450 124572 102401 486 1690

1987-88 11 9 92 154 228388 16690 348 1125

1988-89 24 21 74 121 133354 101810 278 906

1989-90 35 32 339 592 105809 72754 6438 30927

1990-91 31 155 382 1910 131723 140393 7271 36355

1991-92 1 15 354 5608 108967 71719 7162 53994

1992-93 21 126 346 2422 144097 106208 7193 39561

1993-94 0 0 324 7912 156167 105170 7180 58347

1994-95 0 0 359 9729 121777 91881 6977 50470

1995-96 50 417 390 11460 137675 116387 7058 51615

1996-97 27 292 380 11258 157078 154755 7010 45856

1997-98 22 170 396 15488 232596 214916 6924 58296

1998-99 66 1087 449 21349 198157 179629 6840 65244

1999-00 172 1372 442 6365 124168 127755 6419 106537

2000-01 267 1573 391 3930 145239 166410 6498 116427

2001-02 396 2219 374 3394 204660 233997 6493 98493

2002-03 460 1842 379 3970 112333 122705 6365 65614

2003-04 519 4531 386 3284 241393 300090 6468 86481

2004-05 825 4937 360 6505 148334 169765 6407 69889

2005-06 1064 7115 401 8134 136755 142369 6437 120384

2006-07 1397 11160 406 5799 131137 155101 6456 82044

2007-08 1730 13275 450 17140 212961 166127 6243 90815

2008-09 1705 14099 447.58 7385 245091 273573 5993 92899Sourcers: (1) Vital horticulture Statistics,1998-99, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (2) Rajasthan

Horticulture Statistics 2002-03,Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur

(3) Unpublished data CD, Directorate of Horticulture, Rajasthan,Jaipur (for data from 2002-03 to 2008-09)

(4) 50 Years of Agricultural Development in Rajasthan, Directorate of Agriculture, Jaipur [(from 1980-81 to

1982-83,for fruits), (from 1980-81 to 1994-95, for medicinals)]

Annexure 2.8: Area under selected horticulture crops in Rajasthan

Years Aonla Papaya Coriander Mango

147


1 Ajmer 123.0 49.4 1.0 14.2 31.0 25.0 64.0 44.0

2 Alwar 30.0 86.9 35.0 348.5 59.0 41.0 134.0 1375.6

3 Banswara 6.0 105.0 4.0 72.7 NA NA 463.0 1465.2

4 Baran NA 14.6 22.0 327.2 45544.0 51684.0 236.0 9972.7

5 Barmer NA 0.0 2.0 33.3 2.0 2.0 3.0 12.7

6 Bharatpur 2.0 3.1 31.0 31.9 1.0 1.0 57.0 173.1

7 Bhilwara NA 0.0 25.0 99.3 7.0 4.0 460.0 786.5

8 Bikaner 7.0 0.3 0.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0.0

9 Bundi 1.0 0.2 11.0 114.7 5182.0 4630.0 155.0 1047.1

10 Chittorgarh 37.0 77.4 38.0 436.8 919.0 1020.0 719.0 5998.8

11 Churu NA 0.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

12 Dausa 8.0 26.2 25.0 283.6 6.0 6.0 527.0 2151.2

13 Dholpur 0.0 0.0 9.0 40.5 5.0 5.0 469.0 7758.0

14 Dungarpur NA 0.0 4.0 21.7 NA NA 326.0 281.6

15 Srigangangar 3.0 0.0 NA 0.0 7.0 4.0 36.0 0.0

16 Hanumangarh 7.0 50.1 NA 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0

17 Jaipur 68.0 833.7 18.0 115.4 55.0 34.0 349.0 3414.1

18 Jaisalmer 16.0 1.6 0.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 0.2

19 Jalore 4.0 0.0 9.0 27.2 0.0 0.0 41.0 41.1

20 Jhalawar 1.0 4.2 22.0 88.7 28477.0 28231.0 327.0 3792.7

21 Jhunjhunu NA 0.4 4.0 15.9 2.0 1.0 25.0 0.0

22 Jodhpur 19.0 206.3 6.0 7.5 920.0 552.0 3.0 1.8

23 Karuali 2.0 10.6 34.0 1352.0 19.0 10.0 310.0 2433.1

24 Kota 1.0 45.7 3.0 109.0 30819.0 36340.0 275.0 4352.2

25 Nagaur 56.0 55.0 2.0 2.8 12.0 11.0 4.0 0.4

26 Pali 15.0 28.0 2.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 5.0 8.0

27 Pratapgarh N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

28 Rajsamand 4.0 2.4 13.0 95.6 43.0 1.0 212.0 1991.5

29 S.modhpur 8.0 106.4 8.0 111.5 32.0 16.0 104.0 2500.0

30 Sikar 15.0 118.0 4.0 16.0 111.0 55.0 21.0 81.0

31 Sirohi NA 0.1 9.0 31.9 3.0 2.0 140.0 673.8

32 Tonk NA 0.0 9.0 7.8 41.0 16.0 69.0 101.9

33 Udaipur 27.0 16.3 29.0 156.4 18.0 7.0 830.0 15155.4

State total 460.0 1842.0 379.0 3970.1 112333.0 122705.0 6365.0 65613.6





Annexure 2.9: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (2002-03)

Area in Hectares and Production in Metric Tonnes


Sl. No. District

148


1 Ajmer 106 13.64 1 1.4 99 123 88 18.866

2 Alwar 31 195.085 15 146.28 261 324 146 1645.916

3 Banswara 6 141.3 5 127 3 4 454 9689.4

4 Baran 1 92.275 21 356.26 84147 131438 211 8406.55

5 Barmer 0 0 2 33.3 1 1 3 12.7

6 Bharatpur 2 1.3 21 23.882 0 0 74 113.135

7 Bhilwara 21 157.295 25 150.492 43 53 433 3024.749

8 Bikaner 1 0.05 0 33 41 0 0

9 Bundi 10.3 12 242.864 9154 10335 168 1161.749

10 Chittorgarh 57 1.8 55 442.3 2223 987 753 13112.2

11 Churu 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0

12 Dausa 24 29.305 26 253.26 17 21 577 1927.657

13 Dholpur 0 0.6 8 40.5 6 7 451 7524

14 Dungarpur 0 0 4 24.196 3 4 351 290.17

15 Srigangangar 7 49.9 0 0 11 14 58 5.5

16 Hanumangarh 14 177 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Jaipur 89 1669.725 27 183.2 102 127 320 3365.28

18 Jaisalmer 16 23 NA 0 9 11 1 7

19 Jalore 3 0.9 7 52.5 11 14 41 196.8

20 Jhalawar 4 12.32 26 117.307 88563 95648 328 1441.454

21 Jhunjhunu NA 0.3 4 52.5 NA NA 22 12.9

22 Jodhpur 12 332.5 1 7.5 263 327 2 3.8

23 Karuali 2 2.02 37 494.405 61 76 308 15956.5

24 Kota 1 103.5 4 77.1 55193 59056 193 4327.8

25 Nagaur 45 113.5 2 2.84 395 491 2 0.8

26 Pali 27 470 5 30 16 20 5 30

27 Pratapgarh NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

28 Rajsamand 7 2.335 9 96.4 11 14 208 1916.416

29 S.modhpur 9 55.6 19 72.875 281 349 191 2095.273

30 Sikar 27 869.3 2 16.3 174 216 32 178

31 Sirohi NA 0.048 12 38.462 12 15 133 675.809

32 Tonk 0 0 9 20.24 248 308 68 113.593

33 Udaipur 7 6.228 27 180.805 47 59 847 9227.083

State Total 519 4531.126 386 3284.168 241393 300090 6468 86481.1






Sl. No. District Area in Hectares and Production in Metric Tonnes


149


1 Ajmer 170.19 14.34 0.29 0 89 102 83.76 18.866

2 Alwar 42.26 424.06 21.85 134.86 48 55 93.23 1579.348

3 Banswara 6.19 141.3 4.38 85.32 1 1 654.85 9821.8

4 Baran 23.65 94.5 19.49 222.7 45449 57766 193.28 8699.95

5 Barmer 0 0 1.68 32.7 N.A. N.A. 2.6 12.8

6 Bharatpur 0.75 0.3 17.5 3.226 1 1 69.35 104.135

7 Bhilwara 26.06 254.633 22.69 179.28 228 261 410.43 4516.178

8 Bikaner 1 0 0 0 39 45 0 0

9 Bundi 11.31 8.236 9.96 80.75 1165 1408 165.92 1039.787

10 Chittorgarh 44.27 619.96 55.53 4064.26 1551 1199 738.48 3204.7

11 Churu 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0

12 Dausa 29.25 66.6 26.92 233.66 2 2 540.06 1910.2

13 Dholpur 0.23 0.6 8.53 37 3 3 433.75 6920

14 Dungarpur 0 0 4.36 24.67 2 2 353.69 302.93

15 Srigangangar 30.97 0 0 0 6 7 42.87 0

16 Hanumangarh 18 44.8 0 0 1 1 0 0

17 Jaipur 136.13 1830.555 26.98 169.63 94 108 346.6 3155.28

18 Jaisalmer 43.43 23 0 0 783 897 0.47 7

19 Jalore 15.8 32.5 6.33 47.5 1 1 40.07 200.4

20 Jhalawar 4.78 20.22 20.64 125.715 66149 65157 325.72 2944.853

21 Jhunjhunu 0.09 0.65 3.49 25.97 2 2 25.17 12.77

22 Jodhpur 30 167.4 0.5 1.8 143 164 3 4.2

23 Karuali 0.2 0.52 35.3 444.075 6 7 305.81 4181.6

24 Kota 4.07 71.5 4.57 45.8 32218 42173 191.57 3808.2

25 Nagaur 51.49 147.68 2.04 2.31 10 11 3.77 1.166

26 Pali 38.4 25 3.3 3 3 3 5.18 12


28 Rajsamand 6.95 69.775 9.45 57.535 34 39 205.94 1040.187

29 S.modhpur 8.88 54.6 7.65 54.686 58 67 104.15 1609.731

30 Sikar 73.4 798.8 3.21 171.3 82 94 26.89 176.6

31 Sirohi 0.2 0.358 8.54 30.698 2 2 148.02 652.308

32 Tonk 0 0 8.53 9.192 69 79 67.67 74.323

33 Udaipur 6.91 24.725 25.79 217.617 92 105 824.64 13877.67

State Total 824.86 4936.612 359.5 6505.254 148334 169765 6406.94 69888.98





Annexure 2. 11: Area and production of selected horticultural crops at district level in Rajasthan (2004-05)



150


1 Ajmer 243 30.3 1 0.2 46 54 69 8.9

2 Alwar 113.94 952.838 14.1 65.27 37 44 80.34 1033.992

3 Banswara 6.19 141.56 3.84 84.124 3 4 713.19 7003.2

4 Baran 56.17 239.2 23.56 251.809 42961 54045 192.53 8764.7

5 Barmer 1 10 1.66 13.1 0 0 2.94 3.1

6 Bharatpur 13.17 53.85 25.5 124.7 0 0 67.36 718.535

7 Bhilwara 88.73 542.87 28.95 373.602 3 4 430.36 2577.13

8 Bikaner 24.37 2.475 0 0.006 36 43 0 0

9 Bundi 19.77 138.15 26.82 221.212 1390 1549 174.64 990.653

10 Chittorgarh 95.94 5357.6 60.23 2602.93 1959 2606 735.67 16367.2

11 Churu 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0

12 Dausa 31.74 191.184 25.1 309.8 2 2 529.73 6767.7

13 Dholpur 0.23 0.6 7.58 37 5 6 427.43 6875

14 Dungarpur 0 0 5.32 25.744 1 1 390.8 322.869

15 Srigangangar 70 295.3 0 0 4 5 32 405.8

16 Hanumangarh 59 280 0 0 0 0 0 0

17 Jaipur 116.6 1914.885 29.13 212.7 54 64 355.08 3300.24

18 Jaisalmer 44.43 24.5 0 0 2 2 0.47 6

19 Jalore 18.26 42 9.84 39.4 7 8 37.54 184

20 Jhalawar 7.21 41 14.07 187.195 61963 68159 330.61 3301.699

21 Jhunjhunu 2.65 3.85 3.49 23.615 7 8 22.64 11.16

22 Jodhpur 29 17.7 1 6 182 216 2 0

23 Karuali 1.68 9.62 26.9 512.785 5 6 304.5 3236.44

24 Kota 9.11 268.2 4.84 42.9 22314 28093 190.54 3536.5

25 Nagaur 163.33 140.5 2.26 1.4 7 8 3.46 0.565

26 Pali 63.2 4.3 5 0.3 1 1 4.14 0.1


28 Rajsamand 21.88 144.178 17.21 279.906 59 70 193.59 3563.841

29 S.modhpur 15.31 127.947 8.47 55.665 24 28 102.86 1479.988

30 Sikar 70.57 76.674 5.04 32.4 13 15 39.86 31.2

31 Sirohi 1.65 5.418 28.16 17.178 7 8 142.24 686.703

32 Tonk 73.96 4.26 9.82 8 9 63.67 24.793

33 Udaipur 6.97 29.565 22.9 268.483 35 41 816.97 10841.82

State Total 1397.1 11160.22 406.23 5799.244 131137 155101 6456.16 82043.82








151


1 Ajmer 236 30.3 3 0.2 81 63 58 8.9

2 Alwar 147.51 1097.8 10.78 2824.3 61 47 55.22 778.9

3 Banswara 6.2 141.5 3.87 87.96 0 0 681.64 11758.22

4 Baran 59.69 231.005 22.6 237.403 82808 81152 198.7 9291.3

5 Barmer 5.21 10.05 1.78 13.1 1 1 2.95 3.1

6 Bharatpur 13.29 3.8 22.79 21.715 13 10 65.8 43.535

7 Bhilwara 207.07 699.855 41.22 348.642 16 12 372.87 3932.077

8 Bikaner 24.75 26 0.06 0 11 8 0 0

9 Bundi 22.04 138.976 26.8 658.182 1407 1147 168.39 992.657

10 Chittorgarh 54.52 1045.735 70.04 6896.191 2451 2238 721.17 19211.62

11 Churu 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0

12 Dausa 35.22 639.3 22.05 428.3 5 4 520.38 7923.6

13 Dholpur 0.23 113 7.58 37.7 4 3 425.01 6824.5

14 Dungarpur 0 0 5.56 23.001 1 1 380.4 333.216

15 Srigangangar 86.02 789.5 0 7 5 34.3 251.7

16 Hanumangarh 62 2822.2 0 0 0 0 0

17 Jaipur 258.41 3010.455 21.38 127.17 51 40 363.15 3140.28

18 Jaisalmer 44.43 24.5 0 25 20 0.47 6

19 Jalore 25.26 45.5 16.03 81.8 7 5 39.08 148.5

20 Jhalawar 20.72 676.7 20.76 953.2 85762 38593 309.14 4555.4

21 Jhunjhunu 0.05 7.7 1.01 42.4 6 5 22.47 11.2

22 Jodhpur 36 38.5 5 6.3 274 214 0

23 Karuali 1.68 16.414 28.71 575.324 1 1 302.21 2572.548

24 Kota 11.78 688.9 4.29 59 39657 42314 176.3 2236

25 Nagaur 152.76 185 1.26 0.7 24 19 4 0.654

26 Pali 69 74 4 2 6 5 2 8


28 Rajsamand 23.54 144.178 18.65 225.756 24 19 209 3410.741

29 S.modhpur 25.07 261.558 7.58 62.09 121 94 101.07 1371.435

30 Sikar 68.06 97.9 4.38 26.12 24 19 36.61 297.3

31 Sirohi 6.65 7.077 28.17 192.195 1 1 142.98 1306.742

32 Tonk 19.84 183.3 4.9 1.512 34 26 58.82 18.103

33 Udaipur 7.07 24.1 45.89 3208.208 73 57 790.68 10379.14

State Total 1730.07 13274.8 450.14 17140.47 212961 166127 6242.81 90815.37








152


1 Ajmer 278 N.A 2 N.A 65 73 57 N.A

2 Alwar 167.15 N.A 13.17 N.A 27 30 56.72 N.A

3 Banswara 6.2 N.A 4.28 N.A 0 0 466.26 N.A

4 Baran 17.92 N.A 19.81 N.A 90683 110647 189.35 N.A

5 Barmer 4.96 N.A 1.78 N.A 1 1 2.95 N.A

6 Bharatpur 9.86 N.A 44.32 N.A 12 13 57.39 N.A

7 Bhilwara 195.68 N.A 45.87 N.A 18 20 389.84 N.A

8 Bikaner 3.45 N.A N.A 23 26 N.A

9 Bundi 24.46 N.A 27.17 N.A 4267 3536 174.84 N.A

10 Chittorgarh 62.39 N.A 56.29 N.A 3203 3184 439.77 N.A

11 Churu 0 N.A N.A N.A 5 6 N.A

12 Dausa 33 N.A 21.83 N.A 2 2 476.94 N.A

13 Dholpur 7.74 N.A 7.58 N.A 4 4 424.09 N.A

14 Dungarpur 0 N.A 5.82 N.A 0 0 380.79 N.A

15 Srigangangar 46.87 N.A N.A N.A 12 13 20.48 N.A

16 Hanumangarh 76 N.A N.A N.A 2 2 0 N.A

17 Jaipur 209.48 N.A 21.04 N.A 48 54 327.66 N.A

18 Jaisalmer 38.43 N.A 0 N.A 1 1 0.47 N.A

19 Jalore 22.26 N.A 15.91 N.A 0 0 38.83 N.A

20 Jhalawar 16.18 N.A 13.87 N.A 96940 92187 314.31 N.A

21 Jhunjhunu 0.35 N.A 3.31 N.A 9 10 22.87 N.A

22 Jodhpur 39 N.A 2 N.A 259 289 1 N.A

23 Karuali 5.91 N.A 28.4 N.A 30 34 268.29 N.A

24 Kota 27.89 N.A 4.41 N.A 49135 63055 170.46 N.A

25 Nagaur 139.33 N.A 1.26 N.A 20 22 4 N.A

26 Pali 91 N.A 3 N.A 23 26 14 N.A

27 Pratapgarh 0.5 N.A 24.3 N.A 5 6 445.82 N.A

28 Rajsamand 31.01 N.A 16.24 N.A 113 126 207.39 N.A

29 S.modhpur 35.57 N.A 6.76 N.A 37 41 103.74 N.A

30 Sikar 67.03 N.A 1.28 N.A 4 5 39.98 N.A

31 Sirohi 7.21 N.A 12.61 N.A 32 36 130.24 N.A

32 Tonk 33.85 N.A 4.9 N.A 31 35 38.46 N.A

33 Udaipur 6.57 N.A 38.37 N.A 80 89 729.53 N.A

State total 1705.25 14099 447.58 7385 245091 273573 5993.47 92899








153

Annexure Plates

Photographs on Implementation of NHM in Rajasthan

Plate 1: Papaya cultivation with mulching by a NHM beneficiary in Alwar district

Plate 2: Vermi compost unit at Alwar

154

Plate 3: Papaya cultivation by NHM beneficiary in Banswara district

Plate 4: Shed Net Model Nursery in Banswara Horticulture Department under NHM

155

Plate 5: Chili cultivation as an inter crop with Mango plantation as the main crop under NHM in

Banswara district

Plate 6: Aonla cultivation under NHM in Chomu village of Jaipur district

156

Plate 7: Rural Godown constructed in Jaipur district with the help of Agriculture Ministry

Plate 8: Rejuvenation of Mango orchard in Banswara district

157

Plate 9: Mango tree with barahmasi Mango in Methwala village in Banswara

Plate 10: Aonla Pack house Mandi in Chomu, Jaipur funded by APEDA, Government of India

158

Appendix I: Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report

1. The Vallabh Vidyanagar Centre was selected for four districts and four crops, viz.,

Jaipur and Alwar for Papaya and Anola; and Banswara and Chittorgarh for Garlic and

Ginger. However, in the final selection, the Centre has selected coriander and mango

in the districts of Banswara and Chittorgarh. It is essential to provide the reasoning

why the replacement of garlic and ginger has been done for the above said crops. It is

also essential that this change should have been brought to the notice of the

coordinator centre.

2. Table 3.5: Calculate credit per acre by net sown area instead of gross cropped area.

Similarly, Table 3.7, ownership of productive assets should also be Rs. per net sown

area as per gross cropped area does not make much sense. Table 3.9, last two rows

present gross cropped area with two different numbers, clear the confusion. Also

present one Table giving details of percentage of area irrigated to the sown area crop

wise. Table 3.11, Value of output, cost and net returns all are calculated with respect

to gross cropped that is meaningless. Calculate all value with respect to Net Sown

Area (which is by definition the value of productivity per annum). Change the whole

discussion also pertaining to this table.

3. The profitability of anola and mango crops is negative not only with respect to total

cost but also with respect to variable cost. Kindly check the cost calculations and also

the revenue side at the farm level. If there are some extreme values either ignore them

or make correction. Make sure that common cost items like repair and maintenance,

interest on working capital etc., that are not particular cost items not linked with a

specific crop are appropriately apportioned to different crops given their ratio in the

gross cropped area. Also make sure that the fixed cost including preparatory tillage,

planting material, supporting material etc. is amortized into the life span of the crop in

question. The formula for amortization is given below:

The following annual amortization method is used for calculating annual value of

fixed cost:-

i

P = B ---------------------

1 - (1 + i) - n

Where P = is the amount of annual payment

B = is the initial amount

n = is number of years (life period of plantation)

i = is the interest or discount rate (10% in the present case)

In the chapter also discuss and present the life time of the plantation (years) used for

amortization of the fixed cost.

4. Chapter 5: Table 5.7 present the frequency of the training provided during the year by

percentage of households instead number per household.

159

Appendix II: Action Taken on Coordinator’s Comments

on the Draft Report

1. The change in the crop matrix was done in the consultation with P.C. Bodh of

Ministry of Agriculture and Dr. Parmod Kumar, the Coordinator of the study. The

concerned emails dated 15th

and 16th

July 2010 may be referred. The change was

necessary since the number of beneficiaries cultivating previously allotted crops was

insufficient in the study districts.

2. Since our focus was „crop productivity‟ instead of „land productivity‟, we had

calculated the input use, yield, costs and net returns per acre of gross cropped area. As

suggested by the Coordinating Centre, we have reported these parameters per acre of

NSA also. Accordingly, Table 3.5, Table 3.7 and Table 3.11 have been modified. The

typographical error in Table 3.9 has been corrected. As suggested, an additional table

on irrigation area as a percentage of sown area crop-wise has been added and the

discussions have been made accordingly.

3. It has already been mentioned in the report that mango and aonla were long duration

crops. Our study covered the period of four years since implementation of NHM in

2005-06 up to 2008-09 which was insufficient for these orchards to yield reasonable

amount of output. So the impact of NHM on the productivity and net returns from the

cultivation of these crops was not properly discernible. Thus the profitability of aonla

and mango crops was negative. As suggested, we have rechecked the calculation of

costs and returns. Fixed cost has been amortized. The life time of the plantation

(years) used for amortization of the fixed cost has been discussed.

4. Chapter 5: Table 5.7, section (A) already presents the frequency of the training

provided during the year in terms of the number per household, not as percentage of

households.

Date post:	14-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungnga
View:	243 times
Download:	9 times

Impact of National Horticulture Mission (NHM)

Documents