Existiong Vegetable PRDCTN System ND Utilization System in Pabna Distrct

*r=-^97-
EXISTING H OM ESTEAD VEG ETA BLES PRODUCTION AND

UTILIZATION SYSTEM IN SO M E SELECTED
AREAS OF PA BN A DISTRICT
V
A THESIS
BY
Ml). A K IIT AR IIOSSAIN
MAS PER OF SCIENCE

IN
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
Bniigabniulhii Sheikh M u jilm r Rahman A»rieiil(ural University

Salna, C a / i p n r - l 703
Summer, 2000 Term

EXISTING HOM ESTEAD VEG ETABLES PRODUCTION AND
UTILIZATION SYSTEM IN SOM E SELECTED
AREAS OF PABNA DISTRICT
MD. AKHTAR HOSSAIN

Reg. No. 96-08-478
A THESIS
Submitted
to
Bangabandlm Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Agricultural Economics
Summer, 2000 Term

EXISTING H OM ESTEAD VEG ETA BLES PRODUCTION AND
UTILIZATION SYSTEM IN SO M E SELECTED
MD. AKHTAR IIOSSAIN

Reg. No. 96-08-478
Certificate of Approval:
Dr. S. M. Fakhrul Islam Dr. Mil. Re/.aul Karim

Major Professor Research Supervisor
Advisory Committee Advisors’ Committee
Dr. B.A.A. Mustafi Dr. M. Mofazzal 11ossa in

Member Member
Advisors’ Committee Advisory Committee
DEDICATED TO
mV
BELOVED PARENTS
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Md. Akhtar Hossain son of Md. Abdul Ali and Mrs. Achcea Ali were born on
4th September 1970 in the district of Munshigonj. He passed the Secondary School
Certificate (S.S.C.) examination from Gorai High School, Tangail, under the Board
of Dhaka in 1986 and Higher Secondary Certificate (H.S.C) examination from
Notre Dame College. Dhaka from the same Board in 1988. He received his B.Sc.
Ag. Econ. (Hons) degree from Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh in
1993 (held in June 1996). He admitted into Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman
Agricultural University in autumn 1996 term as an M.S student in the department
of Agricultural Economics. After completion of all required courses for obtaining
M.S degree joined as Scientific Officer (Agricultural Economics) at the Bangladesh
Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur. Gazipur in 1997 and the position he still
retains.
He is a member of Bangladesh Agricultural Economists' Association and a
member of Krishibid Institution Bangladesh.
i
THESIS ABSTRACT
EXISTING HOM ESTEAD VEG ETABLES PRO DUCTIO N AND

UTILIZATION SYSTEM IN SOM E SELECTED
BY
Md. Akhtar Hossain
The present study was undertaken to examine the socio economic
characteristics and to examine the existing vegetables production and utilization
system. The study was based on primary data collected from 90 sample farmers
from three selected villages of Pabna sadar Thana under Pabna district by stratified
random sampling method during the year 1999. Tabular and multiple regression
analysis were used to achieve the main objectives of the study.
It was found that 69.2 percent farmers grew cucurbits and leguminous
vegetables. The farmers in the study area did not fence their vegetables because of
scattered cultivation of homestead vegetables. Considering all farm categories,
farmers consumed, sold and distributed about 75.6, 15.3 and 9.1 percent vegetables
of their total production respectively.
It was estimated that considering all the farm categories, the total cost of
production of radish was Tk. 15993 per hectare per farm while gross and net return
were Tk 85021 and Tk 69028 respectively. Average per farm per hectare total cost
of brinjal was Tk 15994 while gross and net returns per hectare were Tk 77463 and
Tk 61469 respectively. For tomato cultivation, per farm per hectare total cost was
ii
Tk 23314. Gross and net returns for producing tomato were Tk. 139077 and
Tk. 115763 per hectare, respectively. Average per hectare total cost of production
of bottle gourd was Tk 15181 while gross and net returns were Tk 87082 and Tk.
71901, respectively. In the case of country bean, average per hectare total cost of
production was Tk 8487 while gross and net returns per hectare were Tk 41470 and
Tk 32983 respectively. So tomato was found more profitable among the homestead
vegetables. It was also found that small farmers received the highest net return for
all the vegetables among the farm category .
Regression analysis shows that age, education, family size, irrigation and
extension services of homestead vegetables growers were positive and significant.
It indicates that gross return of vegetables growers will be increased by increasing
those variables.
The study revealed that lack of extension service, technical knowledge,
improved seeds or seedlings, attacks of pest or insect, insufficient water supply in
dry season, proper utilization of land, storage facilities, damage by poultry or
livestock were the major problem laced by the farmers. I he present study
recommend that every available space around the homestead should be utilized
intensively for growing more vegetables to augment the income of the farmers.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
At the inception the author wishes to acknowledge the immeasurable grace
and profound kindness of almighty Allah for best owing mercy upon him during
the whole process of the study and successfully completion of research work.
The author humbly desires to express his deepest and most sincere gratitude
and immense in deblness to his major professor and committee member Dr. S. M.
Fakhrul Islam, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University. Gazipur, for his
scholastic guidance, creative suggestion, kind cooperation and continuous
inspiration in the successful completion of this thesis work.
The author extends his profound respect and heartfelt gratitude to his
research supervisor. Dr. Md. Rezaul Karim, Senior Scientific Officer, Agricultural
Economics Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur,
Gazipur. Without his adept guidance, wholehearted assistance, continuous
supervision and helpful advice, the author could not conclude this thesis.
The author expresses his deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Joynal Abedin,
Associate Professor and Head, Department of Agricultural Economics,
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur for his
Scholastic guidance and valuable suggestion in preparing the thesis.
IV
The author expresses his heartfelt gratitude to his committee members Dr.
B.A.A Mustafi, Chief Scientific Officer and Head, Agricultural Economics
Division. Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Joydebpur, Ga/.ipur and Dr. M.
Mofazzal llossain Associate Professor and Head, Department of Horticulture,
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Salna, Gazipur for
their valuable suggestion and advice regarding thesis work.
The author also sincerely expresses his grateful thanks and gratitude to
Director General, BARI. Joydebpur, Gazipur, for granting him a study leave to
submit the thesis.
The author is thankful to Dr. Fazlul Haque. Chief Scientific Officer and
Head, On-Farm Research Division, BARI. Joydebpur. Gazipur, I’erdouse Islam
Ivy, Senior Scientific Officer (In charge), OFRD, Agricultural Research station,
Pabna and all other colleagues for their kind keen interest and encouragement for
the completion of this thesis.
The author acknowledged his debt to all respondents of the study area for
their cooperation to provide information.
The author feels proud to express his sincere appreciation and indebtedness
to his father Md. Abdul AI i, Mother Mrs. Acheca Ali, elder brother Md. Abbas Ali.
younger sister Hasina Mustofa, Shahina Akter, younger brother Md. Yeakub Ali
who inspired him with best of their prayers and sacrificed a lot in the long process
of building his academic career.
V
Last but not least the author is immensely indebted to Mr. Golam Hafeez
I
Kennedy, Mrs. Kennedy, Mr. Shahadat llossuin, Mr. Mazharul Anwar, lanvir
I
Mahmud Bin Ilossain. Md. Jahanuir Alain and Md. Manik Miah lor their kind
inspiration and valuable advice with the research work.
Summer, 2000 Term The Author
VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES x
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Homestead Agriculture 5

1.2 Physical Characteristics of Homestead in Bangladesh 6
1.3 Importance and Utilization of I Iomestead 6
1.4 Contribution of Women in Homestead Agriculture 7
1.5 Justification of the Study 8
1.6 Objectives of the Study 9
1.7 Limitation of the study 9
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
III METHODOLOGY 20
3.1 Selection of the Study Area 21

3.2 Selection of the Sample Farmers 21
3.3 Preparation of the Survey Schedule 22
3.4 Methods of Data Collection 22
3.5 Period of Data Collection 23
3.6 Processing and Analysis 23
vn
^ Chapter Page
3.6.1 Profitability Analysis 24

3.6.2 Net Return Analysis 25
3.6.3 Regression Analysis 26
IV. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

V. SAMPLE FARMERS 27
4.1 Average family Size of the Sample Farmers 27

4.2 Age Group of the Sample Farmers 28
4.3 Educational Status of Sample Farm Families 29
4.4 Occupation of the Sample Farmers 31
4.5 Land Holdings of the Sample Farmers 32
4.6 Distribution of Homestead Area 33
V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35
5.1 Management Practices of Homestead 35

5.2 Kind of Vegetables Grown in Homestead 37
5.3 Land Utilization Pattern of Existing Homestead 39
5.4 Labour Use Pattern of Homestead Vegetables
Production Activities 41
5.5 Economics of Homestead Vegetables Production 43
5.5.1 Input Use Pattern and Estimation of Cost Items 43
5.5.2 Cost and Return Of Radish, Brinjal, Tomato,
Bottle gourd and Country bean 48
5.5.3 Total Cost of Production 53
Chapter Page
5.5.4 Gross Return 53

5.5.5 Net Return 54
5.5.6 Benefit Cost Ratio 55
5.6 Factors Associated with I lomestead Vegetables Production 57
5.7 Decision Making and Work Responsibility 60
5.8 Disposal Pattern of Vegetables grown in I lomestead Area 61
5.9 Sources of Vegetables Seeds 62
5.10 Seed Preservation Technique 63
5.1 1 Problems Related to Homestead Vegetables Production 65
5.11.1 Lack of Extension Services 65
5.11.2 Lack of Technical Knowledge 65
5.11.3 Lack of Improved Seeds or Seedlings 66
5.1 1.4 Attack of Insects or Pests 66
5.11.5 Insufficient Water Supply in Dry Season 67
5.11.6 Lack of Proper Utilization of Land 67
5.11.7 Lack of Storage Facilities 67
5.11.8 Lack of Capital 68
5.1 1.9 Vegetables Damaged by Poultry or Livestock 68
VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATION 70
6.1 Summary 70
6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations 77
REFERENCES 80
APPENDICES 85
i\
LIST OK TABLES
Tabic Title Page

No.
1.0 Per capita daily average production of vegetables and cereals 3
2.0 Per capita daily average production of vegetables in a few

countries of the world 4
4.1 Average family size of the sample house holds according to

farm size. 28
4.2 Distribution of sample farmers according to age group 29
4.3 Distribution of sample farmers according to the level of

education 30
4.4 Occupation of the sample farmers according to farm size 31
4.5 Average size of land holding according to farm size 33
4.6 Distribution of average homestead area (ha)by the sample 34

farms
5.1 Management practices of homestead vegetables by different
farms categories 36
5.2 Vegetables grown in homestead area by different farm

categories 38
5.3 Land Utilization pattern of existing homestead by the sample

farmers. 40
5.4 Labour utilization pattern of the family members for growing

homestead vegetables 42
5.5.1 Average farm per hectare input use of different vegetables of

sample farm categories
x
Table Title Page
r ^o.
5.5.2 Per hectare cost of production of different vegetables by farm

category 52
5.5.3 Per hectare cost and return of different vegetables by farm

category 56
5.6 Estimated values of co-efficients and related statistics of multiple

regression of factors associated with gross return from homestead
vegetables production 58
5.7 Decision making and work responsibility pattern of homestead

activities by all farm category 61
5.8 Disposal pattern of vegetables grown in homestead by farm

category 62
5.9 Sources of vegetables seed used by the sample farmers 63
5.10 Vegetables seed preservation technique by the sample farms. 64
5.11 Problems faced by the farmers for producing vegetables in 69

homestead.
XI
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated country in the world. Most
of her population lives in villages and they are dependent on agriculture. In spite
of population control measures, the population growth rate of the country is still
very high at 1.70 percent per annum (B.B.S 1998). Although food production has
gone up with the introduction of modern crop and production technology, the
growth rate of food production has yet to cope with the population growth rate.
Most of the people are extremely poor, undernourished and hence their
contribution to agricultural productivity is lower. These problems of ill health, mal
and undernutrition result from inadequate intake of protein, calories, vitamins and
certain minerals. If we want to have a healthy and productive nation, not only we
have to consider increasing the food production but also to assure a balanced diet
to the people. In order to achieve this the production of vegetable is one of such
options. Most of the vegetables, if properly grown, can give return five times
higher than that of any cereal crops. All vegetables arc rich in vitamins and
minerals. Regular intake of vegetables can effectively protect people of all ages
against mal and undernutrition, an inability to see normally in dim light (night
blindness), which is caused by vitamin A deficiency in the body (Sabur, 1990).

Rice or Cereal food constitutes the major portion in Bangladesh diet. The
quantity of vegetables is very negligible here. Against the per capita daily
consumption of cereals of 528 gm. the consumption of vegetables including roots
in only 104 gm which is only 14 per cent of total plant food of 762 gm. If we
deduct potato and sweet potato (tuberous food) from the vegetable item, then per
capita daily intake of vegetables will decline to only 30 gm although the
requirement is 200 gm (I'AO, 1982).
In comparison to other countries per capita daily average production of
vegetables (including roots) is the lowest in Bangladesh (104 gm). Whereas
Philippines produce 174 gm, Thailand 199 gm, Malaysia 210 gm, UK 402 gm,
USA 456 gm and Japan 550 gm (Table 1)
The proportion of cereals and vegetables consumption intake by the people
of Bangladesh is 5:1 whereas this proportion is 2:1 in case of other developing
countries of Asia and 1:2 for the developed countries.

a Tabic 1. Per capita daily average production of vegetables and cereals (gm)
Country Cereals Vegetables
Japan .180 550
USA 200 456
UK 177 402
Mishorc 551 330
Malaysia 392 210
Thailand 412 199
Philippines 342 174
Bangladesh 528 104
Source: Gardeners Book of Production and Nutrition, Ahmed, 1982.
fable 2 shows the present status of per capita daily average production o
vegetables and fruits in a few countries of the work! vis-a-vis that in Bangladesh
This provides us an idea of the incredibly poor picture of producing nutrition
providing items like vegetables. Vegetable production in Bangladesh is less than
1/7 of the average production of the world. The position ol Bangladesh in
producing vegetables is the lowest in Asia.

Table 2. Per capita daily average production of vegetables in a few countries
of the world
Countries/Region Vegetables (gm)

World 231
Some Continent :
Europe 388
South America 128
Africa 134
Asia 222
Some Developed Countries :
USA 314
CO
OC
Japan
Some Asian Countries :
South Korea 549
Thailand 39
Philippines 277
China 168
India 151
Srilanka 79
Malaysia 72
Indonesia 53
Nepal 43
Bangladesh 31
Source: Ahmed, 1982.
4
Homestead Vegetables Production and Utilization System in
the Economy of Bangladesh
1.1 Homestead Agriculture
From the ancient time when human being started cultivating land,
homestead agriculture has been playing a pioneering role. In the prehistoric
agriculture, it was evident that farmers used to maintain vegetable garden on the
homestead land. Most horticulturists believe that ancient housewives had started
cultivating the homestead land in a systematic way in order to collect seeds and to
meet up their financial needs.
Homestead land has been defined in different ways. According to most
researchers homestead land is defined as the land owned by the dwelling units of
the households surrounding the dwelling units including kitchen, cowshed, court
yard, ponds, roads, space around homesteads, space used for cultivation of trees
and vegetables, and space used for scavenging birds. I lomcstcad agricultural
production includes food, fuel, fodder, crops, livestock, poultry and fish in village
homestead land.
Out of total 9.25 million hectares of cultivable land, only 3,99,589 hectares
are homestead land i.e., approximately 4.33 per cent. Homestead area is 0.02
hectare per non-farm households and 0.032 hectare per farm households. Small,
medium farm households and large farm households have on an average 0.02
hectare; 0.04 hectare and 0.07 hectare of homestead land per farm, respectively.
Seventeen per cent ol' rural households have no homestead lands at all (B.B.S,
1991).
1.2 Physical Characteristics of' the Homestead in Bangladesh
Thc physical features of the homesteads vary a lot from region to region. In
r
the Hal highlands, crop fields are almost at the same level and contiguous with the
homesteads. There is no difference between the homestead land and the crop
fields. In the areas that are subject to annual flooding, houses are built on raised
lands. Consequently, homesteads are small but well defined. Homesteads of the
hilly areas are characterized by sloping land, often very steep. Before the advent of
the tube wells 4-5 decades ago, ponds were the main source of water. Many
homesteads of Bangladesh have individual and collective ponds.
1.3 Importance and Utilization of the Homesteads
With the continuous increase in population, new houses are being built on
the homesteads thereby reducing the land area available for agricultural activities.
New homesteads arc also being built converting crops lands. Most homesteads in
Bangladesh may be termed as mixed agricultural enterprises where farmers raise
fruits, vegetables, spices, palms, timber and fuel trees, bamboo, cattle, poultry and
fish if there are ponds.
The land area available for crop production is decreasing rapidly due to
construction of roads, buildings and industries, but at the same time the demand
6
for all agril-products are increasing. Thus it is needed to open new avenues for
increasing production. Though the homesteads o f Bangladesh are already in use,
renewed interest in their intensive utilization systems from their potentials in
employment and income generation, poverty alleviation, and improvement of
nutrition and food security, empowerment of women and other benefits.
Government and non-govt, organizations have built up comprehensive programs
for homesteadbased economic activities by organizing small landless farmers and
groups of women. More rational and profitable uses of the homesteads are being
sought through these activities.
1.4 Contribution of Women in Homestead Agriculture
The number of landless people in Bangladesh is increasing with the rapid
growth rate of population. Intensive vegetable production on the homestead is a
widely accepted concept for the development of landless people. While usually the
male members of the landless families work on the lands of the other people to
maintain the family, the homestead agriculture can be a means of partial
employment of the other family members especially the women. Above all history
reminds us that women are the first initiators of agriculture. Therefore, it can not
ignore the active participation of women in effectively cultivating homestead
vegetable in our country.
In a patriarchal society the female depends on males for food, clothing,
shelter and protection. Women in Bangladesh perform various economic activities
7
as a member of llie farming household. I he.se aelivities are mostl) limited to post
harvest grain processing and storage activities. Women also grow fruits and
vegetables mostly for family consumption, they take care of poultry and livestock:
and contribution to family nutrition and incomes through growing vegetables in
kitchen garden and working in cottage industry.
1.5 Justification for the Study

The government of Bangladesh has placed great emphasis on vegetables,
especially, homestead vegetable production round the year to meet the nutritional
and caloric need of the growing population and for increasing employment
opportunities and income of the farmers. Not enough systematic investigation on
existing homestead vegetable production and utilization have been undertaken in
the past either by private or government organizations to lull ill the needs ol
extension workers, policy makers, researchers and the larmers. In view ol this
situation, the present study was an attempt to analyze and lind out the costs and
returns of selected vegetable production and examine the labour utilization pattern
especially the use of female labour in respect of homestead vegetable production.
This sludv will be useful to the individual farmers. It will also provide valuable
insights into the problems and prospects of vegetable cultivation and thus the
policy makers will be benefited from the study. It will also provide valuable
information to the researchers as well as extension workers.
8
1.6 Objectives of the Study
The specific objectives of the study arc as follows:
(i) To study the socio-economic characteristics of the farmers cultivating
homestead vegetables ;
ii) To assess the existing homestead production practices in the study
area ;
iii) To examine the labour utilization patterns (especially the use of
female labour) in respect of production of homestead vegetables ;
(iv) To ascertain the costs and returns of selected homestead vegetable
production ;
(v) To identify problems related to production of vegetables and to
suggest possible ways to make the vegetable growing more
profitable to the farmers.
1.7 Limitations of the Study
It should be noted that the findings of the study might not be taken as a
generalization on the subject or as conclusive but a broad indicative guideline
considering the following limitations.
i) It is very difficult to obtain actual information as the farmers did not
keep any written record of their cost and return. Information was
collected depending upon the memory of the farmer;
9
ii) All data and other information were collected within the short
possible of time ;
iii) The findings of the study area based on the data from a specific area
of Pabna district. These findings should therefore, be interpreted
cautiously :
iv) Quantification of family labour was very difficult, because it was not
so easy to separate to productive use of labour from non-productive
use.
In
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter is to review the previous studies, which have
relevance to the present investigation. To accomplish this objective, works clone
by different researchers in the field have been reviewed
/A lisan ( 1905) In his study on gender dimension in agricultural extension
programme, observed that gender affects involvement in different type of works
by men and women in farming depending on social system, local customs and
religious influence. Women played important role in farming and agricultural
practices, which was unfortunately not recognized until recently. I he homestead
based agricultural system was basically the domain of female members of the
households. The important components of the homestead agricultural system
included backyard gardening for cultivation of vegetables and fruits, homestead
forestry, livestock farming, poultry raising and fish culture in the ponds.
Airccn (1992) conducted a study on women's work in homestead farming in
some selected areas of Gazipur district. The study revealed that, women generally
carried out homestead farming. On an average, women spent 30 percent of
daytime in household activities and another 30 percent on homestead agricultural
operations such as land preparation, planting, seedling, and weeding, irrigation and
post harvest activities.

^ Begum, Mossain, Saha, Hamid (1989) studies on two models of
vegetables production for homestead under different levels of fertility. Two
models (monocrop and intercrop) of vegetables production were tested under three
fertility (cowdung, fertilizer and cowdung + fertilizer) levels. The results revealed
that the yield of all vegetables was maximum when grown by applying both
cowdung and fertilizer compared to cowdung and fertilizer alone. Intercropping
was better than monocrop in terms of yield, nutrient availability and income. A
family could get 18.57 gm. protein, 18-96 mg iron, 552-17 mg calcium 22453.9
microgram vitamin A and 438-63 mg calcium, 27172-80 microgram vitamin A
and 285.15 mg vitamin ( ’ per day from monocrop under higher fertility level.
Blitiiyan and Amin (1988) studied about interlinkag.es among homestead,
farm size, and family size and livestock ownership in an area of Chittagong district
of Bangladesh. The findings suggested that homestead area is more closely
interlinked with size of farm than with size of family. Significant interdependence
and association of winter vegetable area of homestead was observed with the
ownership of livestock.
Cliakiahorly ct. til. (1991) a research was conducted on women's role in
vegetable cultivation in homestead gardens in coastal West Bengal. It was found
that vegetable production was occupied a major place in the agricultural
production system. The study demonstrated that integration ol women into ISR
(farming System Research) can be achieved by addressing their traditional roles
and needs.
Fokhrul, et. al. (1994) studied about gender issues in homestead farming. It
was studied that Bangladeshi rural women play a significant role in homestead
farming particularly at the production phase and in decision making. Their specific
roles vary widely depending upon the ecological, soeio- economic and religious
factors. Women who possess different physiques and energy capabilities in
comparison to men have also wider range of daily activities than men do in
homestead agricultural production systems. Women are more involved in poultry
raising and pre and post harvest activities of homestead vegetables production. On
the other hand men play essential roles in goat raising and tree growing activities.
Participation of women in different homestead activities varied with subsystems
requiring different amount of energy and depending on farm category.
(•crslion (1985) wrote that gardening in rural areas of less Developed
Countries is characteristically women's activity. The men generally work in the
Held and women do the gardening. Me suggested if better gardening technologies
can be introduced among the functionally landless in Bangladesh it could go a
long way towards not only feeding families belter, but it could also contribute
towards getting women into the economic activities in their society.
Halim et al. (1995) an investigation was made with 60 households at
kazirshimala harming Systems Research and Development Programme (I SRDP)
site. Bangladesh to find out the gender differences in contribution of agricultural,
domestic and non-farm activities in the homesteads. It was found that the
households covered large, medium and small farm categories with homestead si/es
of 0.41, 0.12 and 0.06 ha respectively. Nine different agricultural and six
different domestic and non-farm activities were recorded in the homestead. The
average total contribution in all homestead activities was more than three-fold with
women (592 labour days/year) than men (183 labour days/year). Separately,
women contributed nearly equal labour days/year (122) with men (127 labour
days/year) in agriculture while much more in domestic (360 labour days/year) and
non-farm ( I 10 labour days/year) activities over men ( 17 and 38 labour days/vear.
respectively for domestic and non-farm activities). Among the farm categories,
women were the dominant contributors in all activities in small farms while in
large and medium farms; they contributed more in domestic and non-farm
activities. In respect of total labour charge per year, women contributed Ik.
19,23 1.00 compared to men. who contributed Ik. 6.392.00 irrespective of the farm
size.)
Hussain cl. nl. (1989) studied on utilization of homestead for production <4
seasonal vegetables in Bangladesh showed that with the increase in land holding
size, proportion of homestead decreases. In the area under study, three types ol
vegetables such as leafy, fruit and root vegetables were grown in the homesteads.
In case of production of leafy vegetables 36.61, 19.69, 38-75. and 2.28 percent
positive answers were obtained in favour of Puishak (Indian spinach). I.alshak
(Amarantluis), Datashak (Amaranths), Kalmi (Kangkong), and others respectively.
Regardin'! fruit vegetables 16.05. 7.38, 1.02.6.49, 17,03, 7,72, 5.77. 14.52, 10.29.
9.89. 2.98 and 0.85 percent positive answers were obtained in favour ol production
14
of bean, brinjal, eaulillower, tomato, gourd, lady's linger, bitter gourd, snake
gourd, bath sponge, sweet gourd, green banana and others respectively. In case of
root vegetables, 13.03, 5.67, 29.75, 43.34, and 8.21 percent positive answers were
obtained in favour of production of potato, carrot, radish, arum and others
respectively.
Islam M.K. ct. ill. (1994) conducted a survey on gender issues in homestead
larming. It was observed that Bangladesh rural women played a significant role in
homestead farming particularly at the production phase and in decision making.
Their specific roles varied widely depending upon the ecological, socio-economic
and religious factors. Women who possessed different physiques and energy
capabilities in comparison to men have also wider range of daily activities than
men do in homestead agricultural production systems. Women were more
involved in poultry raising, and pre-ami post-harvest activities of homestead
vegetable production. On the other hand, men play essential roles in goat raising
and tree growing activities. Participation of women in different homestead
activities varied with sub-systems requiring different amount of energy and
depending on farm category.
Islam ct. ill. (1989) conducted a survey with a sample of 100 cooperator
and 100 non-cooperator farms were surveyed during December 1986 to May
1987. In their study, productivity and income per unit area from homestead
production were found higher for the small farm group. Cooperator farmers earned
higher returns than non-cooperators, indicating the technological gap between the
two groups. Homesteads were in general under-utilized and there was scope for
■
both qualitative and quantitative improvements.
■
Khan, IVloula, Ahcdin (1988) studied about creeper host association in
homestead vegetable production. It was found that the vegetables grown in the
homestead area are mostly creeper or climbing types. They climbed upon bamboo
I
made platform, roof of the house, perennial plant species, detached branch of the
tree and fencing of the homestead etc. The perennial plant species classified based
on growing i.e. spontaneous and purposefully grown. The spontaneous grown
species are mostly lire wood giving, the creeper i.e. cucurbitcs, beans and
dioscoria, arc climbed upon those species of plant.
Karim, et. al. (1994) studied about homestead vegetable garden. Results
indicated that total edible production, nutrient yield, nutritional contribution to
RDA (Recommended dietary Allowance), distribution, gross and net returns from
vegetable gardens were higher in the small group of farmers compared to their
larger counterparts. The highest total edible production was found in the landless
group (148.92 kg), small (128.39 kg), landless (Tk. 314.58), medium (Tk. 288.15)
and larger (Tk. 238.96) group. The health and life style of the landless, marginal
and small group of farmers has improved, f emale participation in the same groups
was more than large and medium group of farmers. It provides nutrition, extra
income as well as employment opportunity.
Kirsten (1983) in his study focused on the effect of pauperization on
woman with special emphasis on female work patterns both within and outside the
16
| family household. The study reveals that in landed families the females are
I engaged in income generating activities within the family farm, both in post-
I ""harvest operations and in the production of vegetables and maintenance of
animals; the women from landless households are forced to abandon the traditional
I
purdah norms and seek employment outside the household for economic pressure.
It points out that men arc the sole household decision-makers but due to increasing
number of male out migration women are also participating in decision making. It
further points out that co-operative movement provides women with credit
facilities and more income generation activities.
Manjita (1995) conducted a study to assess the agricultural and household
activities performed by women. The findings showed that women in different farm
size groups took part in various field of agricultural and homestead production
activities. On an average woman in 62 percent farms participate in field
agricultural activities and women in 68 percent farms participate in homestead
production activities. Wage payment of male was significantly higherthan the
female by Tk. 3.85. Work intensity of male was significantly higherthan the
female by 0.0034 ha/day. For I percent increase in work intensity of male laborers,
wage difference increase by 1.86 percent. Women in 35 percent farms always
participate in making decisions whereas; men in 54 percent farms were found in
decision making process.
!Y1iirshiduI, Sadcquc, Amin (1994) studied about the implementation of
homestead vegetable production through farming system perspective at the grass
17
root levels, Extension agents at the village level play an important role for the
development and implementation of homestead vegetable production (HVP). The
nutritional status for Bangladesh people is a matter of great concern I his 11VI’ is a
vital sector that would satisfy our nutritional requirement.
Kcbcka (1994) studied about economic aspects of homestead enterprises in
some selected areas of.Icssorc district. I he study estimated total cost of production
of vegetables produced in homestead area was I k. 1226.44 while gross and net
return per household were Tk. 1753.83 and 526.39 respective!}. Per household
total cost of production of fruits and other perennials was Tk. 947.32 while gross
and net return per household were Tk. 10555.65 and 9608.33 respectively. Per
household total cost of livestock and poultry enterprise was Ik. 10860.13 while
gross and net return per household were Tk. 15012.42 and 415.24 respectively.
Maximum net return was earned from fruits and other perennial production.
Sutler (1975) studied on the homestead survey of a village in Bangladesh
attempts to find out detail information about the village women's life styles and
their socio-economic background. The paper systematically described in details
women's daily and seasonal chores from morning to evening.
Nhewli (1992) conducted a study to find economic potentiality ol
homestead gardening specially three vegetables while gourd, snake gourd and
Indian spinach. It was estimated that per hectare total cost ol production ol white
gourd was Tk 67603 while gross and net return per hectare were Tk 178429
and Tk 1 10466 respectively. Per hectare total cost ol production ol snake gourd
IS
was Tk 61152 while gross and net return per hectare were Tk 114075 and Tk
529321 respectively. Per hectare total cost of production of Indian spinach was Tk
38615 while gross and net return per hectare were Tk 127124 and Tk 88509
respectively. So white gourd is more profitable than other two. It was also found
that landless farmer received the highest net return comparatively other farmers.
The above review indicates that few studies have been conducted about the
production of existing homestead vegetables. Some studies dealt with analysis of
homestead agricultural production. Others studied the income earning potentials
and resource use efficiency of homestead agroforestry. Some others dealt with
analysis of the role of women in homestead farming. The present study aims to
examine the existing situation of homestead farming including cost and return,
their utilization and contribution to farm incomes. Thus, the results of the study arc
expected to provide useful information, which will help farmers, planners and
extension workers.
19
3.1 Selection of the Study Area
Selection of the study area is an important step for any study. Such a study
usually requires selection of an area for collection of data in accordance with the
objectives set for the study. For the present study, three villages as Goyeshpur,
Shalaipur and Hamidpur of Pabna sadar thana under the district of Pabna were
purposively selected. Because, farmers of those area grew more vegetables in their
homestead.
3.2 Selection of the Sample Farmer
A sample of relevant population s
data collected from them can fulfill the objectives of the study. Larger the sample
size, greater is likely to be the extend of accuracy and usefulness of the result.
However, in reality inclusion of all the farmers was not possible due to time and
resource constraints.
A sample representative farms, therefore, was selected which could
represent a reasonable true picture of the entire region, because, it has some basic
advantages over complete enumeration in the form of cost, time and labour. In this
study, stratified random sampling technique was adopted.
A list of farmers producing homestead vegetables was prepared to select the
required number of sample. The selected farmers were categorized in marginal,
small and medium farm groups. The farmers who owing land from 0.21 to 0.50
hectare was considered as marginal farmers. Those who own land from 0.51 ha to
| I ha and 1.01 ha to 2 ha were considered as small and medium farmers
[ respectively. A total of 90 farmers were selected for the present study, taking 30
farmers randomly from each farm category.
3.3 Preparation of the Survey Schedule
In conformity with the objectives of the study, a preliminary survey
schedule was designed for collecting necessary information supposed to be
obtained from the farmers. The interview schedule was pretested. The draft
" schedule was rearranged and modified in the light of the practical experience
gathered during the period of pretesting. Then the final schedule was developed in
logical sequence so that the respondents could answer systematically. To get
accurate information the schedule was also prepared in simple manner.
3.4 Methods of Data Collection
To collect relevant information the farmers were interviewed directly by the
researcher himself. The success of the study depends on the reliability of data. It
has to be done properly since the data are the key to the survey. In the context of
our subsistence and mixed farming system, farmers do not keep records on annual
or daily transaction. Hence, it is very difficult to collect actual data and the
researcher is bound to rely on the memory of the farmers. To overcome this
problem, all possible efforts were made by the researcher to ensure the collection
of reasonable accurate data from the field on recall basis. Direct interviewing the
22
selected farmers collected primary data and secondary data were collected from
various sources as books, journals, reports, official records and statistical books of
Bangladesh. Both the farmers and their wives were interviewed during leisure to
collect necessary information. While starting interview with the respondents, the
researcher took all possible cares to establish rapport with them so that they do not
led hesitant or hostile. Before conducting interview, an introduction about the
nature and the purpose of the study was made the farmers.
3.5 Period of Data Collection
'flic time period for this study covered one complete crop year. The formal
data collection was started from August 1999 and continued uplo November 1999.
Several visits were paid during the period to collect the necessary data.
3.6 Processing and Analysis
The survey schedule was designed to collect information in local units.
Then those local units were converted later on into standard units. The collected
data were carefully edited in order to remove ambiguities and internal
inconsistencies. Then data were transferred to master sheet from the interview
schedules. The collected data were tabulated and analyzed to satisfy the objectives
of the study. Tabular method of analysis was intensively used due to arrive at
meaningful conclusion. Tabular technique was simple in calculations and easy to
understand, frequency, arithmetic mean, percentage and ratio were the major
23
statistical attributes employed to show the results in a comprehensive manner.
Interpretation and discussion o f the findings were presented in a simple term.
3.6.1 Profitability Analysis
Enterprise costing technique was followed in calculating cost and return.
Relative profitability of radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country bean was
examined based on net return analysis.
3.6.2 Net Return Analysis
Gross margin is not proilt. Profit is actually gross margin minus fixed cost.
There lore, the technique of enterprise costing was applied. For this purpose the
activity budget as suggested by Dill and Harddaker (1980) was employed for
deriving the profit equation. The profit equation of the following form was used.
*i = Pyi. Yi £"=« (Pxjj. Xjj) - TFC
Where,
Tij = Profit per hectare from ith output
Py; = Per unit price of jth output,
Yj - Total quantity per hectare of jth output
Px„ = Per unit price of jth input used for producing jth output,
Xjj = Total quantity per hectare of jth input used for producing of
jth output,
TFC = Total lixed costs involved in producing per hectare jth output
24
i = The number of individual crop produced by the farmers,
j = The number of relevant individual inputs used for producing of
the relevant product and
n = 1, 2, 3 , .............................. ,n.
3.6.3 Regression Analysis
A quantitative analysis was done to measure the socio-economic
demographic factors associated with the gross return from vegetables production
in homestead of the sample farmers. A multiple linear regression model was fitted
considering gross return as dependent variable and age. level of education, family
size, farm size, irrigation and extension service as explanatory variables. The
multiple linear regression model was specified as
Y = b0 + b|X, + b2 X2 + bj X3 + b4 X4 + b5 D5 + b() D6 + llj
Where,
Y = Gross return from vegetables production (Tk/ha),
X t = Age of the vegetables growers (year),
X2 = Level of education of the vegetables growers (School year),
X3 = Family size (No/farm),
X4 = Farm size (ha),
D5 = 1, if applied irrigation,
= 0, other wise.
25
^ D6 = 1, if receive extension service,
0, other wise,
b() = Intercept or constant,
b|, b2, b?................... b,, = Co-efficient of above explanatory variable and
IJj — Error term.
26
CHAPTER IV
SOCIO ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE FARMERS
The socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers were discussed in
this chapter. The characteristics affect their production, consumption, employment,
decision-making pattern and different activities of homestead. In this study, the
socio economic characteristics were considered as age, average family size,
educational status, occupation etc.
4.1 Average Family Size of the Sample Farmers
A family has been considered as one of, which has a group of persons,
living together and taking their meals jointly from the same kitchen under the
administration of the head of the family. The permanent hired labour was not
included as a member of the family in this study.
Table 4.1 shows that the average family size was 5.96 out of which 3.23 (54
percent) were male and 2.73 (46 percent) were female. It was found that the
average family size of the study area was 5 per cent higher than that of national
average (5.44) of Bangladesh (BBS 1991). In case of marginal farm category
average family size was 5 out of which 52 percent were male and 48 percent were
female, for small farmers 3.6 (60 percent) were male and 2.4(40 percent) were
female out of 6. For medium farms, out of 6.9, 3.5 (51 percent) were male and 3.4
(49 percent) were female. The family size increased with the increase in farm size.
Table 4.1: Average family size of the sample households according to farm
size
f arm category Family size

Male Female Both sex
Marginal 2.6 2.4 5
(52) (48) GOO)
Small 3.6 2.4 6

(60) (40) (100)
Medium 3.5 3.4 6.9

(51) (49) (100)
All 3.23 (54) 2.73 (46) 5.9 (100)

Source: Field survey
Figures in the parentheses indicate the percentage
4.2 Age Group of the Sample Farmers
Age itself is an influencing factor for the acceptance of improved
technology and in bearing risk. The young farmers are more amenable for
accepting new technologies and ideas. On the other hand the aged farmers are
more stereotyped and risk averse. Distribution of sample farmers according to age
groups is presented in Table 4.2
fable 4.2 shows that the highest percentage (37) sample farmers of all farm
categories belonged to the age group 51 to 60 years. The lowest percentage (3)
farmers of all farm categories belonged to the age group 21 to 30 years.
In case of marginal farms 37 percent farmers were 51-60 age group and 7
percent farmers were in 21 to 30 age group. For the small Iarm categories 33
percent farmers were in 31 to 50 age group. 43 percent sample farmers belonged to
I
51 to 60 age groups in medium farms categories. None of the farmers had the age
group 21-30 in the medium farm categories.
I ablc 4.2 Distribution of sample farmers according to age group.
I
Age group Farm category
(year) All farms
Marginal Small Medium
21 -30 2(7) 1 (3) - 3(3)
31 -40 7(23) 10(33) 11(37) 28 (31)
41 -50 10 (33) 10(33) 6(20) 26 (29)
51 -60 I I (37) 9(31) 13(43) 33 (37)
All groups 30(100) 30(100) 30(100) 90(100)
Source : Field survey
4.3 Education Status of the Sample Farm Families
Literacy has its own merits and contribution towards the process of progress
or modernization. "Although education is not is itself a sufficient condition for
development of agriculture, it is certainly a necessary condition" (Mellor 1974). In
this study, the educational status of the members of sample farm families has been
categorized as i) Illiterate ii) Class V to X iii) S.S.C pass and (iv) I I.S.C pass.
It can be seen from table 4.3 that 21 percent of sample farmers of all farm
categories were illiterate. Around 66 percent farmers were belonged to the
29
educational level o f class V-X. Only 2 percent farmers were in the Il.S.C level of
education.
for small farms, 70 percent farmers belonged to the educational level of
class V-X and 7 percent were in S.S.C level. In ease of small farms the highest
percentage (60) of the farmers belonged to the educational level of class V-X and
lowest were 4 percent in H.S.C level. For medium farm, the highest percentage of
V-X educational level of farmers were 64 and lowest were 3 percent in the H.S.C
level of education.
Table 4.3 Distribution of sample farmers according to the level of education.
educational Farm category All farms

level
Illiterate 7(23) 7 (23) 5(17) 19(21)
V-X 21(70) 18 (60) 20 (67) 59(66)
S.S.C 2(7) 4(13) 4(13) 10(11)
H.S.C - 1 (4) 1 (3) 2(2)
Total 30(100) 30(100) 30(100) 90 (100)
30
4.4 Occupation of the Sample Farmers
Agriculture was the main occupation of the sample farmers in the study
area. Resides agriculture, farmer, were engaged in others occupation as business
and service. The table 4.4 appears that the highest percentage (82%) of the sample
farmers was engaged with agriculture and lowest percent (1) with service. The
agricultural occupation decreased with the increase of farm size. On the other hand
business or service increased with the increase of farm size. It was found that 90,
83 and 73 percent sample farmers of marginal, small and medium farm
respectively were engaged in agriculture. Whereas 10. 17 and 23 percent farmers
of marginal, small and medium farms respectively were engaged in business
sector. None of the farmers of medium farms were engaged with service but 4
percent farmers of medium farmers were engaged with services.
fable 4.4 Occupation of the sample farmers according to farm size
Occupation Farm category All farms

Agriculture 27 (90) 25 (83) 22(73) 74(82)
Business 3(10) 5 (17) 7(23) 15(17)
Service - - 1 (4) 1 (1)
1otal 30 (100) 30(100) 30(100) 90 (100)
Source: f ield survey

4.5 Distribution of Land Holdings
In fact, different types of farm size and tenurial arrangements were found at
the study area, farm size and tenurial arrangements may influence the optimum
resource use and productivity.
According to Yang (1965) the entire land area operated by the operator
measures farm size. It is computed by adding the area of land owned and the area
rented in from other and subtracting the area rented and mortgaged out to others. It
includes both the homestead area and the area used for wood, pasture and crops.
For this study farm size was measured, in terms of total cultivated area of the
farmers viz., owned plus rented in and mortgaged in minus rented out and
mortgaged out land.
Table 4.5 shows that according to farm size category, the average size of
cultivated land were 0.28 ha for marginal, 0.50 ha for small, 0.99 ha for medium
and 0.59 ha for all farms. The average size of homestead was 0.14 ha for all farms.
The average size of own cultivated area was 0.16 ha for marginal, 0.53 ha for
small, 0.84 ha for medium and 0.51 ha for all farms. The marginal and small
farmers supplemented their cultivated land by renting in and mortgaging in from
others with a view to increasing their farm income while the medium farmers were
found to have rented out and mortgaged out more land.
32
Table 4.5 Average size of land holding (ha) according to farm size
Type of land Farm category All farms

Homestead 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.14
Own cultivated land 0.16 0.53 0.84 0.51
Rented in 0.08 0.07 0.13 0.09
Rented out - 0.05 0.14 0.06
Mortgaged in 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.10
Mortgaged out - 0.09 0.07 0.05
Total cultivated land 0.28 0.50 0.99 0.59
Total land 0.39 0.62 1.16 0.73
4.6 Distribution of Homestead Area
In the study area the average size of the homestead of all farm categories
was 0.13 ha of which 39 percent for vegetables production, 46 percent area
occupied by houses ponds, roads or trees and unused area was 15 percent. (Table
4.6)
Marginal farm families used the highest (36) percent area of the total
homestead for growing vegetables due to their intensive cultivation and 36 percent
area were occupied by houses, trees, ponds or roads. About 9 percent area of total
homestead kept fallow by the marginal farmer.
33
In case of small farmers out of 0.12 ha homestead area, vegetables growing
area was 33 percent, unutilized area was 25 percent and 42 percent area occupied
by houses, roads, ponds and trees.
On the other hand medium farm families had 0.17 ha homestead area of
which 29 percent for growing vegetables, 59 percent area occupied by houses,
ponds, roads or trees and 12 percent area kept fallow. Table 4.6 also showed that
vegetables growing area decreased with the increased of farm size. It was also
found that area occupied by houses, roads, ponds or trees and unused area also
increased with the increased of farm size.
Table 4.6 Distribution of average homestead area (ha) by the sample farm
Farm Average Vegetables Area occupied by Unutilized

category homestead growing area houses, ponds, area
area trees or roads
Marginal 0.11 (100) 0.06(55 ) 0.04 (36) 0.01 (9)
Small 0.12 (100) 0.04 (33) 0.05 (42) 0.03 (25)
Medium 0.17(100) 0.05 (29) 0.10(59) 0.02(12)
All 0.13 (100) 0.05 (39) 0.06 (46) 0.02(15)

Figures in parentheses indicate percentage.
34
CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1 Vegetables Grown in Homestead
In the study area the farmers cultivated different kinds of vegetables. In the
present study, thirteen vegetables were found most common to grow in the
homestead of all farm categories. The vegetables were categorized into three
groups as (i) Open field vegetables, (ii) Cucurbits and leguminous vegetables and
(iii) Under storied vegetables. The open field vegetables were grown in the open
sunny field of the homestead as like radish, cabbage, indian spinach, lady's finger,
brinjal, tomato and stem amaranth while cucurbits and leguminous vegetables
were bitter gourd, bottle gourd, sweet gourd and country bean which grown in
trailies and fence. Elephant foot yam and leafy aroid were under storied vegetables
which grown in the shady places of the homestead.
The farmers of the study area cultivate various types of vegetables during
the year among them 53.4, 69.2 and 31.5 percent farmers of all farm categories
were found to grown open field vegetable, cucurbits and leguminous vegetables
and under storied vegetables, respectively (Table 5.1).

Tabic 5.1 Vegetables grown in homestead area by different farm category
Percent of respondents
Vegetables Marginal Small Medium All
A. Open Field Vegetable : 58.7 54.8 46.7 53.4
Radish 60 50 40 50
Cabbage 47 40 27 38
Indian spinach 27 30 23 27
Lady's finger 37 37 33 36
Brinjal 73 70 60 68
Tomato 77 67 67 70
Stem amaranth 90 90 77 86
B. Cucurbits and leguminous
Vegetables : 74.3 71.5 61.7 69.2
Bitter gourd 60 53 50 54
Bottle gourd 87 80 67 78
Sweet gourd 67 60 53 60
Country bean 83 93 77 84
C. Under storied vegetables: 40 28 26.5 31.5
Idepluml fool yam 37 30 23 30
1.eafy amid 43 27 30 33
36
For marginal farms, 58.7 percent farmer grew open Held vegetables of
which the highest 90 percent, farmers grew stem amaranth followed by 77 percent
tomato, 75 percent brinjal and 60 percent radish. A few percent farmers cultivated
lady's linger, cabbage and indian spinach. It was observed that 74.3 and 40 percent
farmers grew cucurbits and leguminous and under storied vegetables, respectively.
For small farm, 54.8, 71.5 and 28 percent farmers grew open Held vegetables,
cucurbits and leguminous and under storied vegetables, respectively. Most of them
(71.5 percent) grew cucurbits and leguminous vegetables.
For medium farms, 46.7, 61.7 and 26.5 percent farmers grew open Held,
cucurbits and leguminous and under storied vegetables, respectively. The highest
77 percent farmer grew slemamaranth under open Held vegetables. 67 percent
bottle gourd under cucurbits and leguminous vegetables and 50 percent leal aroid
in under storied vegetables in their homestead area.
5.2 Management Practices of Homestead
The farmers of the study area did not lake proper management to their
homestead vegetables production even they did not fence their vegetables because
many of them grow vegetables in scattered plants around way the homestead
instead of in a single, compact plot. Most ol the farmers irrigated their vegetables
in the morning time as and when necessary. I he larmers in the study area applied
manure than fertilizer. Many of them were not interested to apply fertilizer to the
37
vegetables due to small number of crops. Most of the farmers used ash as a
measure of pest control instead of pesticides.
fable 5.2 Management practices of homestead vegetables by different farm

categories
Management practice (%)

farm category Manure Fertilizer Irrigation Pest
control
Marginal 20 - 67 -
Small 23 7 50 -
Medium 28 20 57 10
All 24 9 58 3J j
Source: f ield survey
Table 5.2 presents 58 percent farmers of all farm categories applied water to
their homestead vegetables regularly. While 24 percent farmers used manure and 9
percent used chemical fertilizer in their homestead vegetables. Only 3 percent
farmers applied pesticides during the infestation of disease or insects. Marginal
farmers did not use chemical fertilizers but 20 percent marginal farmers used
manure instead of chemical fertilizer. The small category ol farmers used both
manure (23 percent) and chemical fertilizer (7 percent). It was found that 50
percent of small farmers watered their vegetables. They did not use pesticides
when vegetables were infested. About 10 percent medium farmers applied
pesticides in their vegetables and 57, 28 and 20 percent farmers used water for
irrigation, manure and chemical fertilizer respectively in their homestead. It is
reflected from the result that the highest percentage of medium farmers used
fertilizer and manure lor homestead vegetable production as compared to the
marginal and small farms. It may be noted that the level of education was higher
for the medium farmers than that of marginal and small category
5.3 l and Utilization Pattern of Kxisting Homestead
1he homestead of rural Bangladesh is generally under utilized. On the basis
often important places, where vegetables can be grown in homestead area, farmers
were asked whether they used or not. The farmers opined that on an average 33.2.
25.6 and 21.0 percent of marginal, small and medium farmers respectively used
eight places for growing vegetables in their homestead S3 percent h_\ marginal. 77
percent small and 63 percent medium farmers (Table 5.3) used house roof.
It was found that SO. 70 and 67 percent of marginal, small and medium
category of farmers grew vegetables in open sunny place in their homestead. Open
sunn) place is the second highest using places for growing vegetables by the
farmers in the stud\ area. Many of them used Irailies. Wood tree could be the
means of support for the cucurbits and leguminous vegetables as bitter gourd. But
onl\ 3 per cent of marginal and small farmers used wood tree as a support lor
growing vegetables. None of the medium farmers had used tree support.
Homestead boundary and back yard could be used growing vegetables as papaya
or plantain. In the study area none of the farmers had used those places. Pond side
V)
is an important resource lor growing various vegetables. Only 10 percent farmers
of marginal farms and only 3 percent farmers of small farms used pond for
growing vegetables in the study area. So there was a big scope for increasing
vegetables production by utilizing the unused places of homestead properly.
Table 5.3: Land utilization pattern of existing homestead by the sample farmers
Land utilization Percent of respondent

criteria
Open sunny place 80 70 67
Roof 83 77 63
Trailies 67 53 50
free support 3 5 -
Partial shady area 43 27 27
Marshy land 33 16 3
Pence 13 7 -
1lomcstcad boundary - - -
Back yard - - -
Pond bank 10 -
Average 33.2 25.6 21.0
Source: field survey
40
5.4 Labour use Pattern of Homestead Vegetables Production Activities
Labour use pattern of women in homestead vegetables production activities
was the highest followed by husband and others (children, parents and father or
mother in law) 'fable 5.4. For marginal farmers, husband, wife, husband and wife
both and children or father and mother in law provided 26, 35, 28 and 11 percent
labour for vegetables production activities respectively. For small farmers the said
persons were provided 31, 35, 22 and 12 percent labour respectively. On the
other hand husband, wife, both and children or parents provided 29, 37. 19 and 15
percent labour for medium farm categories respectively.
The involvement of women labour was the highest in harvesting activities
for marginal, small and medium farm were 51, 54 and 60 percent respectively and
second highest were 53, 45.5 and 52 percent for processing or storage activities.
Husband provided 58, 55 and 50 percent labour of marginal, small and medium
farm respectively for fencing and 47, 52 and 49 percent of marginal, small and
medium farms respectively for weeding in the homestead vegetable production
activities. I lusband and wife both supplied labour for applying manure or fertilizer
and processing or storage.
41
T a b le 5.4 L a b o u r u tiliz a tio n p a tte rn o f th e fam ilv m e m b e rs o f g ro w in g h o m e ste a d v e g e ta b le s
Percent o f activities
Activities Marginal Small Medium
Husband Wife Both Others* Husband Wife Both Others* Husband Wife Both Others*
23 20 28 29 18 oo 25 25 11 28 15 46
I and preparation
Making
hedge/trai lies 58 8.5 30 3.5 55 15 27 3 50 20 25 5
Collecting seed/
seedling 20 46 32 25 50 21 4 29.5 40 26 4.5
->
Planting 21 43 J J J 35 47 13.5 4.5 41 38 9 12
Fertilizer, manure 25.5 35 37.5 28 36 JJ Ji 26 42 30 2
Irrigation 8.5 37.5 16 38 20 34 11.5 42.5 21 30.5 7 41
Weeding 47 17 *>'■)
14 52 15.5 23 9.5 44 21 13 17
Harvesting 17 51 28 4 27 54 16 4 IS 60 20 2
Pri >cessing/Storage 14 53 2S 5 O ')

45.5 30 2.5 17.5 s~> 26 4
J *)
All 26 35 28 11 35 12 29 37 19 15
t 31
* Children, parents, father and mother in law
5.5 Economics of Homestead Vegetables Production
This section includes input use patterns and estimation of cost items, cost
and return, total cost of production, gross return, net return and benefit cost ratio of
radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country bean cultivation.
5.5.1 Input Use Pattern and Estimation of Cost Items
The cost of inputs calculated on the basis of prices prevailing in the market
while the value of outputs of the vegetables was determined by using prices, the
farmers actually received during the survey period. The cost items for the
production of radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and county bean arc considered
under the following heads:
(i) I Inman labour
(ii) Seed/Scedlings
(iii) Manure
(iv) Fertilizer
(v) Support materials
(vi) Weeding and
(vii) Irrigation
43
5.5.1.1 Human Labour
Human labour was the most important input for producing vegetables. Both
male and female labour was used lor producing vegetables. The major portion of
human labour for vegetables cultivation came from family source. Family labour
includes labour of the operator and other members of his family e.g. his parents
brother, children etc. The number of mandays was estimated from part-time
workers assumed based on their actual participation in vegetable production. All
human labour was standardized by converting women and child labour into man-
equivalent hours by representing the ratio ratio of 2 children hours = 1.5 women
hours = 1 man equivalent hour (Miah, 1987) the man equivalent day was taken to
mean 8 hours of work rendered by an adult in a day. The respondent did not use
any hired labour for homestead activities in the study area. Cost of family labour
was determined by applying opportunity cost principle. In the study area, wage
rate was found to prevail as Tk. 40.00 per man - day.
For radish cultivation average per farm human labour was 152, 169 and 158
mandays per hectare for marginal, small and medium farm, respectively. In case of
brinjal, the utilization of family supplied human labour was 107, 129 and 118
mandays per hectare for marginal, small and medium farm respectively. For
tomato cultivation, it was observed that highest 157 mandays per hectare was
utilized by the small farm followed by marginal farmers. About 92, 81 and 84
mandays per hectare human labour was required for marginal, small and medium
farm for bottle gourd production respectively. In ease of country bean cultivation it
44
was found that the marginal farmers utilized 57, small 55 and medium farmers 60
mandays per hectare. It can be noted that average per hectare human labour
utilization was the highest for radish, brinjal and tomato cultivation, of the small
farmers compared to marginal and medium farms. Whereas the labour utilization
was the lowest for the inadium farm than use of marginal and small in case of
bottle gourd and country bean production ( fable 5.5.1).
5.5.1.2 Seeds and Seedling
Seeds are the essential input for producing vegetables, farmers used seeds
for radish, bottle gourd and country bean and on the other hand seedlings were
used for brinjal and tomato.
for radish cultivation, per hectare seed rate was 5 kg, 4.5 and 4.5 kg for
marginal, small and medium farm respectively. Marginal, small and medium
farmer used 5, 4.5 and 4.5 kg per hectare seed respectively for producing bottle
gourd. In case of tomato production marginal, small and medium farmers used
8832, 8888 and 10782 seedlings per hectare, for brinjal production, number of
seedlings used per hectare by the marginal, small and medium farms were 5360,
8070 and 8542 respectively. In case of country bean, 15, 12, 12.5 kg per hectare
seeds were used by the marginal, small and medium farms, respectively.
45
5.5.1.3 Manure
Farmers used mainly home supplied manure. They used mainly cowdung as
manure bill some of them also used composts and oilcake with cowdung. There
was no fixed rate lor buying cowdung in the study area and the average price ol
cowdung was Tk 0.50 per kg only. The average use of manure per hectare were
8712 for radish, 5719 for brinjal, 9501 for tomato, 5653 for bottle gourd and 3407
kg for country bean production.
5.5.1.4 Fertilizer
Most of the farmers used chemical fertilizers, namely Urea, TSP (Triple
Super Phosphate) and MP(Muriate of Potash). The marginal farmers did not use
chemical fertilizer for growing vegetable in their homestead. Medium farm applied
at an average quantities of Urea 72, 60, 68 and 34 kg per hectare for radish, brinjal,
tomato and bottle gourd respectively. The average rate of TSP for radish, brinjal,
tomato and bottle gourd was 17, 48. 56 and 26 kg per hectare respectively. The
study reveals that the average dose of Urea was higher for radish (72 kg/ha)
compared to other vegetables but incase of brijnal the application of MP was
higher (52 kg/ha) than that of other vegetables (Table 5.5.1).
46
Table 5.5.1 Average input use per hectare of different vegetables according to
farm category.
Input use pattern / farm/hn

Vegetables 1Inman Seed/seed lings Manure W rlili/e r (kg)
and farm labour (kg)
(kg/No)
category (mandays)
Urea ISP Ml*
Radish
Marginal 152 5 5528 - - -
Small 169 4.5 10174 - - -
Medium 158 4.5 10434 72 17 42

Average 160 4.6 8712 24 6 14
Brinjal
Marginal 107 5360 5106 - - -
Small 129 8170 5254 - - -
Medium 118 8542 6796 60 48 52

Average 118 7357 5719 20 16 17
Tomato
Marginal 146 17290 8832 - - -
Small 157 16055 8888 - - -
Medium 130 13585 10782 68 56 46

Average 144 15643 9501 23 19 15
Bottle gourd
Marginal 92 5 4230 - - -
Small 81 4.5 5980 54 32 40
Medium 84 4.5 6750 34 40 38
Average 86 4.6 565.3 29 24 26
Country bean
Marginal 57 15 2710 - - -
Small 55 12 2608 - - -
Medium 66 12.5 4904 - - -
Average 59 13 3407 - - -
47
5.5.2 Cost and Return of Radish, Brinjal, Tomato , Bottle gourd and
Country bean
This section attempts to determine and compare the cost and return per
hectare of radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country bean cultivation.
5.5.2.1 Cost of Human Labour
Tabic 5.5.2 shows that among all cost, human labour cost was higher. It was
observed that the average cost of human labour utilization for all farm category'
were Tk 6387, Tk 4720, Tk 5773, Tk 3427 and 2373 per hectare respectively for
radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country bean production. For marginal
farm category, per hectare cost of human labour was Tk 6080 for radish, Tk 4280
for brinjal, Tk 5840 for tomato, Tk 6380 for bottle gourd and Tk 2280 for country
bean production . For small farm per hectare cost of radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle
gourd and country bean were Tk 6760, Tk 5160, Tk 6280, Tk 3240 and Tk 2200
respectively. In case of medium farm it was Tk 6320. Tk 4720, Tk 5200, Tk 3360
and Tk 2640 for the above said vegetables respectively..
5.5.2.2 Cost of Seed/Seedlings
In this study, farmers used both home supplied and purchased
secds/seedlings. Most of the farmers used seeds and some of them used seedling
for producing brinjal and tomato. Most of the farmers used family supplied
secds/seedlings and a few of them purchased it. Although own seed / seedling
48
were used by the sample farmers but in this study this input was considered as
purchased input to carryout the cost and return analysis. Seeds of radish, bottle
gourd and country bean were priced at the rate of'I k 200, Tk 150 and Tk 100 per
kg respectively. The price of brinjal and tomato seedlings were Tk 50 and Tk 20
per hundred seedlings.
Under consideration of all farm categories average per hectare seed cost of
radish, bottle gourd and country bean were Tk 967, Tk 702 and Tk 1317 Tk
respectively and average per hectare seedlings cost for brinjal and tomato were Tk
3679 and Tk 3129 . For marginal farms per hectare seed or seedling's cost were Tk
1000, Tk 2680, Tk 3458, Tk 750 and Tk 1500 for radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle
gourd and country bean respectively. For small farm cost per hectare were Tk 950,
for radish. Tk 4085 for brinjal, Tk 321 I for tomato, Tk 675 for bottle gourd and
Tk 1200 country bean. The average cost of seed or seedlings per hectare was the
highest for brinjal (Tk. 3679) and the lowest for bottle gourd (Tk. 702).
5.5.2.3 Cost of Manure
In the present study, there were a large number of farmers who used home
supplied manure and a small number of farmers used purchased manure. Table
5.5.2 indicated that per hectare the cost of manure was the highest (Tk 4416) for
tomato and the lowest (Tk 1355) for country bean among the vegetables grown by
the marginal farmers. For small farm the highest cost of manure was Tk 5087 for
radish and lowest Tk 1304 for country bean production . In case of medium farm
49
the highest per hectare cost of manure was Tk 5391 for tomato and the lowest Tk
2452 for country bean. For all farm categories per hectare average manure cost of
radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country bean were Tk 4366. Tk 2859, Tk
4750, Tk 2827 and Tk 1704 respectively. Among all vegetables it was found that
per hectare manure cost was the highest for tomato cultivation.
5.5.2.4 Cost of Fertilizer
In the vegetables production, farmers used a small quantity of fertilizers. As
stated earlier in Table 5.5.1 that fertilizer doses were different among the
vegetables. Fertilizer cost was charged at actual prices paid by the farmers. The
average prices of Urea, TSP and MP were Tk 5.5, Tk 10.00 and Tk 8.50 per
kilogram respectively (Table 5.5.2). The per hectare cost of fertilizer for radish
was Tk 923 followed by Tk 1252, Tk 1285 and Tk 770 for brinjal, tomato and
bottle gourd respectively. It was also found that only medium farmers used
fertilizer for growing radish brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country bean
whereas small farmers used fertilizer only for growing bottle gourd.
5.5.2.5 Cost of Support Material
Costs of support material includes bamboo, rope, ware and jute stick cost.
From table 5.5.2, it was observed that bottle gourd and country bean were grown
in trailies and brinjal and tomato grown by fencing. In case of tomato the medium
farmer spent highest money (Tk. 6913) for support material. On the other hand,
50
the lowest (Tk 2094) money was spent for country bean per hectare. For all farm ^
categories per hectare, support material cost of brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and
country bean were Tk 1975, Tk 5468, Tk 6559 and Tk 2262 respectively .
5.5.2.(» Cost of Weeding
Weeding cost of radish for medium farm was Tk 2478 per hectare, which
was the highest, and the lowest amount was Tk I 155 per hectare in case of brinjal.
For all farm categories weeding cost of radish, brinjal and tomato were Tk
1525,Tk 917 and Tk 986 per hectare, respectively (Table 5.5.2).
5.5.2.7 C ost o f Irrigation
The sample farmers applied irrigation water for producing radish, brinjal,
tomato, bottle gourd and country bean. Table 5.5.2 reveals that per hectare
irrigation cost of radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country bean were Tk
1941, Tk 989, Tk 2113, Tk 799 and Tk 349 respectively for marginal farm. For
small farm per hectare irrigation cost were Tk. 2466, Tk 1489, Tk 2703, Tk 848
and Tk 390 per hectare for radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country bean
respectively. In case of medium farm per hectare irrigation cost were Tk. 2913, Tk
1804, Tk 3521,Tk 1625 and Tk 1754 for radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and
country bean respectively. For all farms, categories per hectare irrigation cost of
radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country bean were Tk 2440, Tk 1427, Tk
2779. Tk 1091 and Tk 831 respectively.
51
Table 5.5.2 Per hectare cost of production of different vegetables by farm category
(Tk/ha)
V e g e ta b le s Human Seed/Seed- Manure Fertilizer Support Weeding Irrigation Total
a n d fa rm labour ling Material
c a te g o ry
Urea TSP M.P
R a d ish
M a rg in a l 6080 1000 2764 - - - - - 1941 11990
S m a ll 6760 950 5087 - - - - 2097 2466 17360
M e d iu m 6320 950 5200 396 170 357 - 2478 2913 18801
A v e ra g e 6387 967 4366 132 57 119 - 1525 2440 15993
B r in ja l
M a rg in a l 4280 2680 2553 - - - - 1595 989 12097
S m a ll 5160 4085 2627 - - - 2489 - 1489 15850
M e d iu m 4720 4271 3398 330 480 442 3436 1155 1804 20036
A v e ra g e 4720 3679 2859 110 160 147 1975 917 1427 15994
T o m ato
M a rg in a l 5840 3458 4416 - - - 4195 1356 2113 21377
S m a ll 6280 3211 4444 - - - 5296 1603 2703 23537
M e d iu m 5200 2717 5391 374 560 351 6913 - 3521 25027
A v e ra g e 5773 3129 4750 125 187 117 5468 986 2779 23314
B o ttle g o u rd
M a rg in a l 3680 756 2115 - - - 6730 - 799 14080
S m a ll 3240 675 2990 297 320 340 6448 - 848 15158
M e d iu m 3360 675 3360 187 260 323 6500 - 1625 16305
A v e ra g e 3427 702 2827 161 193 221 6559 - 1091 15181
C ou n try b e a n
M a rg in a l 2280 1500 1355 - - - 2542 - 349 8026
S m a ll 2200 1200 2304 - - - 2151 - 390 7246
M e d iu m 2640 1250 2452 - - - 2094 - 1754 10190
A verage 2373 1317 1704 - - -
2262 -
831 8487
5.5.3 Total Cost of Production
Total cost included the cost of human labour, seed/seedlings, manure,
fertilizer, support material, weeding and irrigation. For marginal farm per hectare
average cost of production of radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country
bean were Tk 1 1785, Tk 12097, Tk 21377, Tk 14080 and Tk 8026 respectively.
For small farm, per hectare cost of production of radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle
gourd and country bean were Tk 17360, Tk 15850, I k 23537, I k 15158 and Tk
7246 respectively. In case of medium farm per hectare cost of production of the
said vegetables were Tk 18801, Tk 20036, Tk 25027, Tk 16305 and Tk 10190
respectively. It was found that total cost of tomato was the highest (Tk. 23314)
compared to others.
5.5.4 Gross Return
Gross return was obtained by multiplying yield of vegetables and respective
prices. Average price of all the vegetables was Tk 5 per kg. In case of marginal
farm per hectare gross return of radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and country
bean was Tk 78057, Tk 74468, Tk 141955, Tk 86538 and Tk 42372 respectively.
It was found that highest return (141955 Tk/ha) was obtained from tomato
cultivation. For small farm, the per hectare gross return of those vegetables were
Tk 88050, Tk 85106, Tk 148148, Tk 93457 and Tk 44303 respectively. In case of
medium farm per hectare gross return for radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and
country bean were Tk. 86956, Tk 72815, Tk 127129, Tk 81250 and Tk. 37735
53
r e s p e c t i v e l y o f w h i c h , t o m a t o g a v e t h e h i g h e s t r e t u r n ( T a b l e 5 . 5 . 3 ) . It m a y h e
n o t e d t h a t t o m a t o g a v e t h e h i g h e s t r e t u r n a m o n g t h e v e g e t a b l e s f o r a ll t h e f a r m
category.
5.5.5 Net return
Per hectare net return was calculated by subtracting total cost of vegetables
from gross return. In case of radish cultivation, per hectare net return for marginal,
small and medium farm were Tk. 66272, Tk 7296 and Tk. 68155 respectively. In
brinjal cultivation, per hectare net return was estimated at Tk 62371 form
marginal, Tk. 69256 for small and Tk. 52779 for medium farms, for tomato
cultivation, per hectare net return wcrcTk. 120578, Tk 12461 1 and Tk. 102102 for
marginal, small and medium farms respectively. Per hectare net return, in case of
bottle gourd, were Tk. 72458, 78294 and Tk. 64945 for marginal, small and
medium farms, respectively. For country bean production, per hectare net return
was estimated at Tk. 34346 for marginal Tk. 37057 for small and Tk. 27545 for
medium farms. For all the farm categories net return of radish, brinjal, tomato,
bottle gourd and country bean were Tk. 69028, Tk 61469, Tk I 15763, Tk 71901
and Tk. 32983 per hectare, respectively.
54
5.5.6 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
Benefit cost ratio is one of the important efficiency measures. It refers to
the ratio of gross return to the total cost. For radish cultivation, benefit cost ratio
was 6.62, 5.18, 4.62 for marginal, small and medium farms, respectively. In case
of brinjal, benefit cost ratio was estimated at 6.15, 5.36 and 3.36 for marginal,
small and medium farms respectively. For tomato production, benefit cost ratio
was 6.64, 6.29 and 5.08 for marginal, small and medium farms, respectively. In
case of bottle, benefit cost ratio was 6.14, 6.16 and 4.97 for marginal, small and
medium farms, respectively. For country bean cultivation, benefit cost ratio was
found at 5.28 for marginal farm, 6.1 1 for small farm and 4.89 for medium farm.
The benefit cost ratio of tomato for marginal farm was the highest (6.64) indicating
high profitability in tomato cultivation.
55
T a b le 5 .5 .3 P e r h e c ta r e c o s t a n d re tu rn o f d ilT c rcn l v e g e ta b le s by farm c a te g o ry
(Tk/ha)
Items farm category
A ll
R a d ish
Total Cost (Tk/ha) 11785 17360 18801 15993
Cross return (Tk/ha) 78057 90050 86956 85021
Net return (Tk/ha) 66272 72690 68155 69028
BCR 6.62 5.18 4.62 5.32
B r in ja l
Total Cost (Tk/ha) 12097 15850 20036 15994
Gross return (Tk/ha) 74468 85106 72815 77463
Net return (Tk/ha) 62371 69256 52779 61469
BCR 6.15 5.36 3.36 4.83
T om ato
Total Cost (Tk/ha) 21377 23537 25027 23314
Net return (Tk/ha) 120570 124611 102102 115763
BCR 6.64 6.29 5.08 5.97
B o ttle g o u r d
Total Cost (Tk/ha) 14080 15158 16305 15181
Net return (Tk/ha) 72458 78299 64945 71901
BCR 6.14 6.16 4.77 5.76
C ou n try bean
Total Cost (Tk/ha) 8026 7251 10190 8487
Net return (Tk/ha) 34346 37057 27545 32983
BCR 5.32 6.11 3.70 4.89
56
5.6 Factors Associated with Homestead Vegetables Production
This section attempts to quantity the factors affecting homestead vegetable
production. The results of multiple regression model of gross return from
vegetables production as the dependent variable and age, level of education, family
si/.e. farm size, irrigation and extension service as explanatory variables are
presented below.
The fitted model was found to be adequate as indicated by the high value of
R2 ( 72.36). It means that the included explanatory variables accounted for 72
percent of the variation in the factors influencing or affecting gross return of
homestead vegetables.
The F value was significant at I percent level of confidence, which implies
that the model is valid and all included variables are important for explaining the
variations for growing vegetables in the homestead area. In the fable 5.6 there are
six variables among which three shows significant at 1 percent level and 1 shows
significant at 10 percent probability level.
57
Table 5.6 Estimated values of co-efficient and related statistics of multiple
regression of factors associated with gross return from homestead
vegetables production.
E x p la n a to ry V a ria b le s C o -e ffic ie n t S ta n d a rd e rro r l-V a lu e
In te rc e p t 4 0 .3 4
Age of the vegetable grower (X|) 24.34* 10.91 2 .2 2
Education o f the vegetable grower (X?) 12.15* 4.08 2.98
Family size (Xj) 8.48** 4.49 1.89
Farm size (X 4 ) -8.43 5.31 -1.58
Application of irrigation (D|) 18.74 16.05 1.16
Extension service (D 2) 7.28* 3.19 2.28
R2 72.36
V 33.299*
* - Significant at 1% level
** = Significant at 10% level
5.6.1 Age of the Vegetable Growers (Xt)
Age of the vegetable growers shows positive influence on homestead
vegetables production. The co-efficient is significant at 1 percent level. This
indicates that for 1 year increase of age of the growers, keeping other factor
constant, will result in increase of gross return from homestead vegetables
production by 24 unit. The findings suggest that when the age of the growers arc
increased, then they are very much interest to produce vegetables in their
homestead area.
58
5.6.2 Level of Education of the Vegetable Growers (X2)
The co-efficient of grower's education was positive and highly significant.
An increase of one school year education of the growers, remaining other factors
constant, would result in an increase of gross return hv 12.15 unit. This indicates
that educational qualification plays a significant role for homestead vegetables
production.
5.6.3 Family Size (Xj)
Family size is positively significant at 10 percent level. The co-efficient was
8.48, which indicated that other things remaining the same, an increase in family
size by one number will raise the gross return of homestead vegetables by 8 unit.
5.6.4 Farm Size (X4)
It was observed from the multiple regression production function that co
efficient of farm size was negative and non significant. It reveals that for per unit
of increase of farm land area of the vegetable growers, keeping other factor
constant,, would result in a decrease of gross return by 8 unit. It reflects the fact
that the growers cultivate vegetables mainly for their home consumption.
Therefore, vegetables production may not increase with the increase of their land
area.
59
5.6.5 Application of Irrigation Water (l)|)
The co-efficient of the variable for irrigation water is positive but not
significant. It indicates when supply of irrigation water is increased then vegetable
production would also increase but it has no significant impact on gross return
may be due to measurement problem of this variable.
5.6.6 Extension Service (D2)
The co-efficient of extension service is positive and significant at 1 percent
level. The result indicates that for 1 percent increase in extension service will
result in 7 percent increase the gross return of homestead vegetables growers.
5.7 Decision Making and Work Responsibility
In the subsistence agricultural economy in Bangladesh farm families are
closely boned and interrelated. As such, participation of women in decision
making process of homestead activities can not be looked at in isolation. Rather
the participation of women, men and children in a family was so interdependent
that they support each other in everyday life and homestead activities. For better
completion of work in household activities decision is an important factor. In the
survey area, the male plays the major role for decision making of the homestead
activities. For all farms, male provided 53 percent and female 47 percent decision
in homestead activities (Table 5.7). But the female was responsible for execution
60
of the decision of homestead activities. For all farms 55 percent female farmers
executed the decision for working activities followed by the male farmers.
Table 5.7 Decision making and work responsibility pattern of homestead

activities by all farm category.
Farm category Decision making (%) Work rcsponsibility(%)

Male Female Male Female
Marginal 55 45 41 59
Small 51 49 47 53
Medium 54 46 48 52
All 53 47 45 55
5.8 Disposal Pattern of Vegetables Grown in Homestead
In the study area farmers produced mainly radish, brinjal, tomato, bottle
gourd, country bean, cabbage, stemamaranth, lady's linger, bitter gourd, sweet
gourd, elephant foot yam and leafy aroid in their homestead area. Homestead
vegetables were normally grown for family consumption and surplus to sell.
Table 5.8 shows that marginal, small and medium farmers consumed 67.6, 80 and
79 percent vegetables respectively. About 27.4, 11 and 7.6 percent vegetables
were sold by marginal, small and medium farmers respectively. On the other hand
marginal, small and medium farmers distributed average 5, 9 and 4 percent
vegetables of their total produces respectively.
61
T ab le 5 .8 D i s p o s a l p a t t e r n o f v e g e t a b l e s g r o w n in h o m e s t e a d b y f a r m c a t e g o r y
Farm Average percentage of total production Total

category
Consumed Sold Distributed
Marginal 67.6 27.4 5 100
Small 80 11 9 100
Medium 79 7.6 13.4 100
All 75.6 15.3 9.1 100
5.9 Sources of Vegetables Seeds
Seed is an important input for growing crops or vegetables and good quality
of seed can ensure good production. It is thought per acreage production of
vegetables is low in Bangladesh due to low quality of vegetables seeds. The
farmers in the study area used seed for vegetables production from their pre
preserved seeds Table 5.9 shows that for all farms, the farmers used about 89.3
percent seeds from their own source and the rest 2.6, 1.3, 4.7 and 2 .1 percent seeds
were collected from neighbor, relatives, markets and NGO offices respectively. On
the basis of own sources of seeds 91 percent seeds were used by the marginal
farms small and medium farms used 90 and 87 percent seeds respectively. None of
seed had collected from NGO’S by the medium farms.
62
T ab le 5 .9 S o u r c e s o f v e g e ta b le s e e d u s e d b y th e s a m p le fa rm e rs
Farm Sources of vegetables seed (%)

category
Own Neighbor Relatives Market NGO'S
Marginal 91 3 I 2 3
Small 90 2.8 1 3.2
Medium 87 0 9 9 -
All 89.3 2.6 1.3 4.7 2.1
5.10 Seed Preservation Technique
When the farmers were asked how they extracted seeds from vegetables and
what was the preservation technique. It was reported that tomato and brinjal, seeds
were extracted after fermentation. Sweet gourd were directly separated from the
fruits while for bottle gourd, fresh cowdung was inserted for rapid fermentation of
pulp which subsequently helped early extraction of seeds. After five to eight
sundryings, vegetables seeds were stored in glass bottle, tine or cans and some
times in polythen bag and the crop seeds were stored in earthen pot, gunny bags,
metal pot and Dool (made by bamboo). Table 5.10 presents that for all farms 60
percent farms preserved vegetables seed in bottle, 31 percent in tin or cans and 9
percent in polybag. About 77 percent marginal farmers preserved seed in bottle
and 10 percent in tin or cans. For small farm, the highest 67 percent farmers
preserved seeds in bottle and lowest 3 percent preserved in poly bag. In case of
63
medium farms, the highest 53 percent farmers were stored vegetables seed in tin or
cans while lowest 10 percent were stored in poly bag.
Table 5.10 Vegetable seed preservation technique by the sample farm
Seed preserved in
Farm category
Tin/cans Bottle Polvbag
Marginal 3(10) 23(77) 4(13)
Small 9(30) 20(67) 1(3)
Medium 16(53) 11(37) 3(10)
All 28(31) 54(60) 8(9)

Figures in parentheses indicate percentage.
64
5.11 Problems Related to Homestead Vegetables Production
This section attempts to identify the problems of homestead vegetables
producers and their responses were presented. 1lie major problems identified by
them were discussed below.
When farmers were asked to identify the problems pertaining to production
of homestead vegetables it was reported that lack of improved seeds or seedlings,
technical knowledge, vegetables damaged by the poultry or livestock, attack of in
seed and pest, lack of extension service, storage faulty, capital and in sufficient
water supply during dry season were some of major problems.
5.11.1 Lack of Extension Services
During the investigation, most of the farmers reported that they did not get
much extension services from the extension workers, fable 5.9 reveals 90 and 86
percent farmers reported that they were not getting adequate extension services.
On the basis of the rank of problem it was the major problem.
5.11.2 Lack of Technical Knowledge
Lack of technical knowledge was reported to be one of the major problems
constraining better vegetable production. About 90, 86 and 83 percent of marginal
small and medium farmers respectively reported that lack of technical knowledge
about vegetables production was a main problem. They also reported about fewer
\isits given by the extension workers in the study area. According to the
respondents it was the second most acute problem.
5.11 .3 Lack of Improved Seeds or Seedlings
Availability of short duration improved vegetables seeds were limiting
factor for producing vegetables, farmers continued to cultivate local \arietics of
different vegetables which had already lost their high yielding potentiality and
resistance to common disease and insects due to degeneration over time we can
observed that 83 percent marginal and small farmers and 67 percent medium
farmers reported this problems. Some lime inferior quality of vegetable seeds was
sold in the market. On the basis of rank of the problem it was the third most acute
problem according to the rank of problems.
5.11.4 Attack of Insects and Pests
flic production of vegetables was hampered by infestation of insects and
pest that could not identify the farmers. I he nature and extent of damage in
different vegetables varied with the kind of insect and pest. About 80 percent
marginal and small farmers and 73 percent medium farmers reported that insects
and pest was the fourth most acute problem.

5.11.5 Insufficient Water Supply in Dry Season
Water was required for producing good vegetables. In the dry season, water
goes below its minimum level. In the study area dry season creates serious
problem by which vegetables damaged with insufficient supply of water in the
vegetables field. About 80, 70, 66 and 72 percent farmers of marginal, small,
medium and all farms faced this kind of problems.
5.11.6 Lack of Proper Utilization of Land
Farmers in the study area did not properly use their homestead land for
growing vegetables. Every available space around the homestead houses could be
utilized to grow different kind of vegetables. About 47, 53, 67 and 56 percent
farmers of marginal, small, medium and all farm categories reported that they did
not use all possible places of the homestead area for growing vegetables.
5.11.7 Lack of Storage Facilities
Lack of storage facility was the another important problem to homestead
vegetable growers. They applied traditional method of preservation for storage
vegetable seeds, which could not maintain quality of seeds. About 53, 60, 43 and
52 percent of marginal, small, medium and all farmers reported the storage
problem.
67
5. 11.8 „;ick of Capital
C apital is essential for p u rchasing vegetab le seeds, m anure, fertilizer, insecticides.
preparation ol trailics (mucha) etc. About 57, 47, 40 and 45 percent farmers ol
marginal, small, medium and all farms reported that they did not have adequate
amount of operating capital. Lack of capital was the seventh most acute problem
according to the rank of problem.
5.1 l.() Vegetables Damaged by Poultry or livestock
Most of the farmers did not fence their vegetables in homestead. They
pointed out that vegetables were grown scattered around the homestead and
poultry or livestock often damaged the vegetables. About 10 percent marginal and
small farmers and 13 percent medium farmers reported that crops damaged by
livestock and poultry or children was the another constraint for producing
vegetables in homestead. According to the ranking of the problems, lack ol
extension service, technical knowledge and lack of improved seeds or seedlings
were the first, second and third most acute problem in the study area.
Table 5.1I Problem faced by the farmers for producing vegetables in
homestead.
Percent ()f respondent

Nature of Problems Marginal Small Medium All Rank of
Problem
Lack of extension 27(90) 27 (90) 26 (87) 80 (89) 1

service.
Lack of technical 2
27(90) 26 (87) 23(77) 76(84)
Knowledge
Lack of improved
25 (83) 25 (83) 20(67) 70 (78) 3
seeds/seedling
Attack of inseet/pest 24 (80) 24(80) 22(73) 70 (78) 3
Supply of water in
24 (80) 21(70) 20 (67) 65 (72) 4
dry season
Lack of proper 14(47) 16(53) 20 (67) 50(56) 5

utilization of land
Lack of storage
16(53) 18 (60) 13(43) 47(52) 6
Facility
Lack of capital 17(57) 14(47) 12 (40) 43(48) 7
Damage by poultry 3(10) 3(10) 4(13) 10(11) 8

/livestock
Figure in parentheses indicate percentage
69
C H A P T E R VI
SU MMARY , CON CLUSIONS \NI) RE COM M EN DATION S
6.1 S u m m ary
The small-scale holders who have very little land devoted to vegetable
production to solve problems of malnutrition is to grow vegetables intensively in
the homestead. This can also generate income and employment for family
members. Traditionally farmers have been growing vegetables in their homesteads.
These vegetables are grown with minimum care.
Homestead agriculture has many advantages. It provides opportunity to
employ idle labour of household women and children leading to production of
nutritious food for the family and generate income by way of selling the surplus of
the homestead production.
Homestead Vegetable production is very essential and it must be given top
priority in the national development program in order to help members of the
marginal families service with hopes and aspiration of quality life. A home garden
program can provide opportunity for supplying required quantity of nutritious
vegetables m their daily diets and thus meet the daily requirement of minerals and
vitamins. vvn* ) . i e a t t.rq|i

I lie specific objectives o f the study w ere to study the socio-econom ic
ch aracteristics o f the farm ers cu ltivating hom estead vegetables; assess the existing
h o m estead production practices in the study area; exam ine the labour utilization
pattern (especially the use o f fem ale labour) in respect o f p roduction o f hom estead
v eg etables; ascertain the costs and returns o f selected hom estead vegetable
pro d u ction, identify problem s related to production o f vegetables and suggest
possible w ays to m ake the vegetable g ro w in g m ore profitable to the farm ers.
I'hree villages w ere purposively selected from sad ar I liana o f Pabna district
for the present study. A total 90 farm er w as selected as sam ple farm ers. O ut o f 90
farm ers, 30 farm ers w ere under m arginal, 30 farm ers w ere in small and 30 farm ers
w ere in m edium group. T hree types o f vegetables w ere selected for the study as
open field vegetables, cucurbits and legum inous and under storied vegetables. The
open field v egetables w ere radish, cabbage, indian spinach, lady's linger, brinjal,
tom ato and stem am aranth. T he cucurbits and legum inous vegetables w ere bitter
go u rd , sw eet gourd bottle gourd and country bean. T he under storied vegetables
w ere elep h an t foot yam and leaf am id. T hese vegetables w ere found most com m on
to g ro w in the hom estead o f the study area.
Data were collected during August to November 1999 b\ the researcher
himself using a survey schedule. Data were analyzed through tabular method and
multiple regression analysis.
71
In this study, an attempt has been made to identify the socio economic
characteristics of the vegetables growers. The variables were considered as age,
family si/.e, educational level occupation and land holdings. The sample farmers
were categorized into three groups as marginal, small and medium. The average
farm size was 5.96 out of which 54 percent were male and 46 percent were female.
It was observed that the family size increased with the increase of farm size. About
37 percent farmers were in 51 - 60 age group, 31 percent were in 31 - 40 age
group, 29 percent were 41 - 50 age group and 3 percent were in 21 - 30 age group.
Considering all farms, 66 percent farmers belonged to class V - X educational
level, about 21 percent farmers were illiterate and 2 percent farmers belonged
II.S.C. educational level. About 80 percent farmer's occupation were agriculture,
17 and I percent farmers were engaged in business and service respectively.
The total cultivated land was 0.28 ha 0.50 ha, 0.99 ha and 0.59 ha. for
marginal, small, medium and all farms, respectively. Average size of homestead
area were 0.1 1 ha for marginal, 0.12 ha for small 0.17 ha for medium and 0.14 ha
for all farms. The average size of own cultivated land were 0.16 ha, 0.53 ha,
0.84ha and 0.51 has for marginal, small, medium and all farms,rcspcctively. The
marginal and small farmers supplemented their cultivated land by rented in and
mortgaged in from others while the medium farmers were found to have rented
and mortgaged out more land.
72
About SI percent farmers of all farm categories applied water to these
homestead vegetables, 24 percent farmers used manure and 9 percent used
chemical fertilizer in their homestead vegetables. Only 3 percent farmers applied
pesticides during the infestation oi diseases or insects.
for all farm categories, 53.4, 69.2 and 31.5 percent farmers were grown
open Held vegetable, cucurbits and leguminous vegetables and under storied
vegetables respectively, f or marginal farms, 58.7 percent farmers grew open field.
74.3 and 40 percent farmers grew cucurbits and leguminous vegetables and under
storied vegetables respectively, for medium farmers, 46.7. 61.7 and 26.5 percent
farmers grew open field vegetable, cucurbits and leguminous vegetables and under
storied vegetables respectively.
While 33.2, 25.6 and 21.7 percent of marginal, small and medium farmers
respectively used eight places for growing vegetables in their homestead. House
roof was used 83 percent by marginal, 77 percent by small and 63 percent by
medium farmers, only 3 percent of marginal and small farmers used wood tree as a
support for growing vegetables. None of the medium farmers had used tree
support.
1 abour use pattern of women in homestead vegetables production activities
was the highest followed by husband and others (children, parents and father or
mother in law). For marginal farmers, husband, wife, husband and wife both and
children or father and mother in law provided 26, 35, 28 and I I percent labour for
vegetables production activities respectively, for small farmers, husband, wife
73
both and others were 31, 35, 22 and 12 percent respectively. On the other hand
husband, wife, both and children or parents provided 29, 37, 19 and 15 percent
labour respectively lor medium farm categories.
The involvement of women labour was the highest in harvesting activities
for marginal, small and medium farm were 51, 54 and 60 percent respectively and
second highest were in processing or storage activities. Husband provided 58. 55
and 50 percent labour of marginal, small and medium farm respectively for
fencing and 47, 52 and 49 percent of marginal, small and medium farms
respectively for weeding in the homestead vegetables production activities.
Husband and wife both supplied labour for applying manure or fertilizer and
processing or storage.
For cost and return analysis, this input was considered as purchased input
and its cost was included of radish, bottle gourd and country bean were priced at
the rate ofTk 200., Tk 150. and Tk 100. per kg respectively. Most of the farmers
used seeds and some of them used seedling for producing brinjal and tomato. Most
of the farmers used family supplied seeds/secdlings, a few of them purchased it
.The purchasing rate of seedling of brin jal, and tomato was Tk 50.00 and Tk 20.00
per hundred seedlings respectively.
For radish cultivation, per hectare seed rate was 5 kg, 4.5 kg and 4.5 kg for
marginal, small and medium farms respectively. Marginal, small and medium
farmers used 5 kg, 4.5 kg and 4.5 kg per hectare seed for producing bottle gourd.
74
resp e c tiv e ly . In c a s e o f t o m a t o p r o d u c t i o n m a r g i n a l , s m a l l a n d m e d i u m farm ers
u s e d 8 8 3 2 , 8 8 8 8 a n d 1 0 7 8 2 s e e d lin g s p e r h e c ta re , re sp e c tiv e ly .
Average cost per hectare per farm of radish was I k 15903. Share of human
labour, seed/secdlings, manure fertilizer, weeding and irrigation cost to the per
hectare cost of radish were Tk 6387, Tk 967. Tk 4366. Tk 308. Tk I 525 and Tk
2440 of the total cost respectively. In case of brinjal, tomato, bottle gourd and
country bean cultivation, average per hectare cost of production were Tk 15994,
fk 23314, Tk 15158 and Tk 8487 respectively, of which tomato required highest
cost.
Average yield per farm per hectare of radish was 17004 kg. Gross return
was Tk 85021 per hectare in radish production. The net return was 69028 Tk/ha.
Average yield per farm per hectare of brinjal was 15493 kg. Gross and net return
from producing brinjal were Tk 77463 and Tk 61469 per hectare respectively. In
case of the case of tomato production, average per farm per hectare yield was
27815 kg, gross and net return per farm per hectare were Tk 139077 and Tk
115763 respectively. Average per farm per hectare yield of bottle gourd was
17416 kg. Gross and net return of bottle gourd were Tk 87082 and Tk 71901
respectively, f or country bean production, average per farm per hectare yield was
8294 kg per farm per hectare gross return and net return were Tk 41470 and Tk
32983 respectively. Considering all farm categories, benefit cost ratio of radish,
brinjal. tomato, bottle gourd and country bean were 5.32, 4.83, 5.97, 5.76 and 4.89
respectively. Average per farm per hectare net return (Tk I 15763) and benefit cost
75
r a t i o ( 5 . 9 7 ) o f t o m a t o w e r e h i g h e r a m o n g t h e l i v e v e g e t a b l e s . It i n d i c a t e d t h a t
to m a to w a s m o re p ro fita b le v e g e ta b le s.
A multiple regression model was fitted to observe the relationship between
dependent and explanatory variables. In this model gross, return was considered as
dependent variable and age, education, family size, farm size, irrigation and
extension service were considered as explanatory variable. The model shows that
age, education family and extension service of the homestead vegetables growers
were positive and significant. It indicates that gross return will he increased by
increasing those explanatory variables, keeping other things remaining constant.
Farm size was negative and non-significant. It reflects the facts that the growers
cultivate vegetables mainly for their home consumption. Therefore, vegetables
production may not increase with the increase of their land area.
Male farmers play the main role for decision making of the homestead
activities. For all farms, male provided 53 percent and female 47 percent decision
in homestead activities. Female was responsible for execution of the decision of
homestead activities. For all farms, 55 percent female exacted the decision by
working activities followed by the male. Homestead vegetables were grown
normally for family consumption and surplus to sell. The marginal, small and
medium farmers consumed about 67.6, 80 and 79 percent vegetables respectively.
About 27.4, 1 1 and 7.3 percent vegetables were sold by the marginal, small and
medium farms respectively.
76
I'or all farms, Ihe farmers used about 89.3 percent seeds from their own
source and the rest 2.6, 1.3, 4.7 and 2.1 percent seeds were collected from
neighbor, relatives, markets and NGO offices respectively. Based on own sources
of seeds 91 percent the marginal farms. About 90 and 87 percent, used seeds were
small and medium farms respectively. None of seed had collected from NGO’S by
the medium farms.
Tomato and brinjal, seeds were extracted after fermentation. Seeds of sweet
gourd were directly separated from the fruits while for bottle gourd; fresh cow
dung was inserted for rapid fermentation of pulp, which subsequently helped early
extraction of seeds. After live to eight sundryings, vegetable seeds were stored in
bottle, tine or cans.
In the study area, the sample farmers identified various types of problems
associated with homestead vegetable production. The farmers ranked the major
problems which were as lack of extension services, technical knowledge,
improved seed or seedlings attack of insects or pests, insufficient water supply in
dry season, proper utilization of land, storage facilities, capital and vegetables
damaged by poultry or livestock.
6.2 Conclusions and Recommendations
I lomestead was found to be the source of vegetables and income generation
of all categories of farm families. It may be the means of livelihood particularly of
marginal farmers who have a little resource. The introduction of improved
77
production technology of homestead agriculture will not be the same for all farm
categories but labour intensive and high cash value system with adequate market
value may be the possible option for marginal and small farmer so that homestead
can produce nutritious food for the family employ family labour, generate cash
specially during the period of risk.
Existing homestead vegetables production and utilization system was found
mostly on indigenous technologies. Women need skill improvement in the
activities related to homestead.
In the study area, it was found that the quality of planting materials use for
raising vegetables was not satisfactory. The vegetables seeds used by the farmers
were of poor standard both in physical and genetic attributes. Seedlings planted by
the farmers were often over aged; weak diseased and damaged, resulted low yield
of production.
Unbalanced and under use of fertilizer was the major reason of low
vegetables yield. Farmers reported that they did not efficient in and serious about
the use of fertilizer in a balanced way. Under doses and over doses of fertilizer was
very common picture in the study area.
Farmers did not fence their vegetables and they grew vegetables scatteredly
in the homestead. The vegetables did not get sufficient water in dry season. Many
of them did not utilize unused land of their homestead intensively resultant
reduced yield and quality.
78
U n d e r th e c irc u m s ta n c e s m e n tio n e d a b o v e th e fo llo w in g re c o m m e n d a tio n s
w e r e m a d e w ith a v ie w to i m p r o v i n g th e e x is t in g h o m e s t e a d v e g e ta b le s p r o d u c tio n
and utilization system.
i) Every available spaces of homestead should be utilized intensively to
grow different vegetables with enrich vitamin and minerals;
ii) Training programe on improving technical knowledge for producing
homestead vegetables should be arranged for the farmers of both
male and female;
iii) Communication among researcher, extension worker, NGO workers
and farmers should be increased and strengthen;
iv) Vegetable seeds of high yielding variety and short duration should be
ensured to the farmers with low cost of price;
v) Sufficient water supply facilities in homestead vegetables should be
ensured in dry season.
79
REFERENCES
Ahmed, K. U. (1982) Gardeners Book of Production and Nutritions. Vol. 1.Begum

Mamtaz Kamal, Farmgate, Dhaka.
,/A hsan, S. (1995) Gender Dimension in Agricultural Extension Programme in

Bangladesh, Proceedings of a National Workshop on Gender Issue in
Agriculture, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC) Farmgate,
Dhaka.
/Aireen, Q. S. (1992) An Economic Analysis of Women's Work in Homestead

Farming in a Selected Area of Bangladesh. M. Sc. Thesis Submitted to the
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural
University, Mymensingh.
B.B.S. (1991) Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Bureau of

Statistics, Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning. Government of
Bangladesh, Dhaka.
B.B.S. (1998) Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Bureau of

Statistics, Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning. Government of
Bangladesh, Dhaka.
v Begum, R. A. Hossain. S. M. Saha, M. C. and Hamid, M. (1989) Studies on Two

Models of Vegetable Production for Homestead Under Different Levels of
Fertility. A Paper Presented in the 14th Annual Bangladesh Science
Conference, BAAS, Dhaka.
80
Bhuian, M. S. R. and Amin. M. A. (1988) Interlinkage Among Homestead, Farm
* Size, Family Size and Livestock Ownership in an Area of Cittagong
District. A Paper Presented in the 13th Annual Bangladesh Science
Conference, BAAS, Dhaka.
^Chakraborty, S. Gleason, J.E. Mandal, B. Das, C.S. (1991) Integrating Women

into Farming System Research : A Homestead Vegetables Production
Project in Coastal West Bengal, Journal for Farming Systems Research
Extension, Vol. II, No. 2
Dillion, J. L. and J. B. Hardaker (1980) Farm Management Research for Small

Farmer Development, Agricultural Services, Buletin 41, FAO, Rome.
Efferson, J. N. (1963) Principle of Farm Management. Me Graw Hill Book

Company, New York..
Fokhrul, I. and Fazlul, H. M. (1994) Gender Issues in Homestead Farming. A

Paper Presented at the Third Asian Farming System Symposium. Manila,
Philippine.
Gershon, J. (1995). Gardens for Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agricultural Research

Council (BARC) Winrock International Institute for Agricultural
Development.
Halim, A. Nahar, B. S. Alam, A. B. M. M. (1995) Gender Differences in

Participation of Family Members in Different Homestead Activities in
Bangladesh, Proceedings of a National Workshop on Gender Issue in
Agriculture, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC), Farmgate,
Dhaka..
81
Hoque, M. M. Sadeque, M. A. Anis, M.R. (1994) Implementation of Homestead
Vegetables Production Concept of Farming System Research (FSR) - A
Nutritional Boon for the Farmers. Abstract of Papers Presented at the Third
Asian Farming System Symposium, Department of Agriculture, Diliman,
Quezon City, Philippines.
Hossain, M. A. Rubbi, S. F. Ibrahim, M. (1989) Studies on Utilization of

Homestead for Production of Seasonal Vegetables in Bangladesh,
Bangladesh Journal of Nutrition, Vol 2(1).
Islam, M. F,. Huq, M. F. (1994). Gender Issues in Homestead Farming

Philippines, Abstract of Papers Presented at the Third Asian Farming
System Symposium, Department of agriculture, Diliman, Quezon City,
Philippines.
Karim, M. A. M. Basak, N. C. (1994) Homestead Vegetables Garden A

Technology for Alleviating Poverty and Malnutrition for Resource Poor
Farmers, Philippines. Abstract of papers presented at the third Asian
Farming System Symposium, Department of Agriculture, Diliman, Quezon.
City, Philippines.
Khan, M. R., Moula, M. G. and Abedin, M.Z. (1988) Creeperhost Association in

Homestead Vegetables Production. Regional Agricultural Research Station,
Jamalpur, Bangladesh.
Manjita, R. B. (1995) An Economic Study of Female Labour in Agriculture in a

Selected Area of Tangail District in Bangladesh. M.S. Thesis Submitted to
the Department of Agricultural Economics, BAU, Mymensingh.
82
Miah M. T. H. (1987) Appraisal of Deep and Shallow Tubewell Irrigation Projects
in the Tangail District in Bangladesh, M. Sc. Thesis. University of New
England, Armishre.
Murshidul, M. H., Sadeque, M. A. and Amin, M.R. (1994) Implementation of

Homestead Vegetable Production Component of FSR, A Nutritritional
Boon for the Farmers. A Paper Presented in the Third Asian Farming
System Symposium. Manila. Philippine.
Rebeka, S. K. (1994) An Analysis of Pattern of Resource Utilization and Income

Generation in the Homestead Income Generation in the Homestead
Components of Farm Households in a Selected Area of Bangladesh. Thesis
Submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh
Agricultural University.
Sabur, S. A. (1990) Production and Price Behaviour of Vegetables in Bangladesh.

The Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. VIII. No. 1 & 2.
Salter, E. (1975) Village Women's Work, Women for Women, University Press
Limited, Dhaka.
Yang, N. Y. (1965) Methods of Farm Management Investigation of Improving

Farm Productivity. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome.
APPENDICES
Questionnaire lor the Study on Existing Homestead Vegetables Production

and Utilization System in Some Selected Areas of Palma District
Sample No.................... Farm group : ................
I. Farmer's Name : ..................................
Vill : ........................ Thana...........................District : ......................
Age : ...................... Yrs. Education : .........................
Occupation (m ain): ................... Subsidiary : ............................
2. Family Size :
Less than 15 Yrs. 16-59 Yrs. 60 Yr. and above Total

Male
Female
3. Farm size : (Decimal)
Own Rented in Rented out Mortgaged Mortgaged Total

cultivated in out cultivated
land land
4. Homestead area : (decimal)
Total homestead Area for growing Unused area Occupied by

area vcuetables house/pond/Trees
84
5. Kinds of vegetables grown in homestead (V)
Vegetables Grown in homestead

A. Open field vegetables :
Radish
Cabbage
Indian Spinach
Lady's finger
Brinjal
Tomato
Stem amaranth
B. Cucurbits and Leguminous Vegetables :
Bitter gourd
Bottle gourd
Sweet gourd
Country bean
C. Under Storied vegetables
Elephant foot yam
Leafy aroid
85
6. Land utilization of existing homestead
Land criteria Used by farmers (%)
O p en land
Roof
1rallies
Tree support
Partial sh ad y area
Marshy land
Fence
Homestead boundary
Back yard
Pond bank
86
7. M anagem ent Practices and Profitability o f homestead vegetables
Name o f the \egetahles

■
Items Rad >h Cabbage Spinach Lad> s Brinjal Tomato Amaranth Bottle Bitter sweet bean E.F. L.aroid
finger gourd gourd gourd Yam
Plot area
(decimal)
Seedlings
Seed rate (gm)
Fertilizer (kg):
Cow dung
Ash
Urea
TSP
MP
Others
Fencing cost
W eeding cost
Irrigation
Insecticides
Yield
Total cost
Total Return
87
S. Disposal patient of vegetables
Vegetables Total Consumption Sale Distribution

production
Radish
Cabbage
Indian Spinach
Lady's finger
Brinjal
Tomato
Steam amaranth
Bitter gourd
Bottle gourd
Sweet gourd
J
Country bean
1 lephant loot yam
Leafy amid
SS
9. Activities done by the family members
Activities -------------------------------------'
Percentage
1lu.sbund Wife Both * Others
Land preparation
Making hedge/mucha
Collection of seeds
Planting
Ferlilizer/manure
Irrigation
Weeding
1larvcsting
Processing/storing
* Children, parents
10. Gender issue:
Criteria Male (%) Female (%)

1Decision making
Work responsibility
11. Seed preservation technique by the farmers
Seed Preserved in
Tin Bottle Polybag Gunny bag Dool Metal pot
Vegetables
Crop
89
12. What are (lie sources of vegetable seeds for growing vegetables?
i) Own. ii) Neighbor, iii) Relatives, iv) Markets, v) NOO's.
13. Problem faced by (lie farmers producing vegetables
i‘)
l> )
c)
Thank you Signature and date of the interviewer

Existiong Vegetable PRDCTN System ND Utilization System in Pabna Distrct

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Existiong Vegetable PRDCTN System ND Utilization System in Pabna Distrct

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

*r=-^97-

EXISTING H OM ESTEAD VEG ETA BLES PRODUCTION AND

MAS PER OF SCIENCE

Bniigabniulhii Sheikh M u jilm r Rahman A»rieiil(ural University

Summer, 2000 Term

MD. AKHTAR HOSSAIN

Bangabandlm Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University

Department of Agricultural Economics

Summer, 2000 Term

MD. AKHTAR IIOSSAIN

Dr. S. M. Fakhrul Islam Dr. Mil. Re/.aul Karim

Dr. B.A.A. Mustafi Dr. M. Mofazzal 11ossa in

of Dhaka in 1986 and Higher Secondary Certificate (H.S.C) examination from

Ag. Econ. (Hons) degree from Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh in

Agricultural University in autumn 1996 term as an M.S student in the department

of Agricultural Economics. After completion of all required courses for obtaining

M.S degree joined as Scientific Officer (Agricultural Economics) at the Bangladesh

He is a member of Bangladesh Agricultural Economists' Association and a

member of Krishibid Institution Bangladesh.

EXISTING HOM ESTEAD VEG ETABLES PRO DUCTIO N AND

Md. Akhtar Hossain

The present study was undertaken to examine the socio economic

characteristics and to examine the existing vegetables production and utilization

analysis were used to achieve the main objectives of the study.

scattered cultivation of homestead vegetables. Considering all farm categories,

of their total production respectively.

all the vegetables among the farm category .

extension services of homestead vegetables growers were positive and significant.

It indicates that gross return of vegetables growers will be increased by increasing

The study revealed that lack of extension service, technical knowledge,

improved seeds or seedlings, attacks of pest or insect, insufficient water supply in

dry season, proper utilization of land, storage facilities, damage by poultry or

At the inception the author wishes to acknowledge the immeasurable grace

Fakhrul Islam, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics,

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University. Gazipur, for his

scholastic guidance, creative suggestion, kind cooperation and continuous

inspiration in the successful completion of this thesis work.

Economics Division, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur,

Gazipur. Without his adept guidance, wholehearted assistance, continuous

Associate Professor and Head, Department of Agricultural Economics,

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur for his

Scholastic guidance and valuable suggestion in preparing the thesis.

B.A.A Mustafi, Chief Scientific Officer and Head, Agricultural Economics

Division. Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Joydebpur, Ga/.ipur and Dr. M.

Mofazzal llossain Associate Professor and Head, Department of Horticulture,

Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Salna, Gazipur for

their valuable suggestion and advice regarding thesis work.

submit the thesis.

Head, On-Farm Research Division, BARI. Joydebpur. Gazipur, I’erdouse Islam

the completion of this thesis.

their cooperation to provide information.

of building his academic career.

inspiration and valuable advice with the research work.

Summer, 2000 Term The Author

1.1 Homestead Agriculture 5

3.1 Selection of the Study Area 21

3.6.1 Profitability Analysis 24

IV. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

4.1 Average family Size of the Sample Farmers 27

V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35

5.1 Management Practices of Homestead 35

5.5.4 Gross Return 53

VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATION 70