IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
Impact of Agricultural Mechanization on Production, Productivity, Cropping Intensity Income Generation and Employment of Labour
S.R. Verma Professor (Agril. Engg.) and Ex-Dean, College of Agril. Engg., Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana ABSTRACT Agricultural mechanization implies the use of various power sources and improved farm tools and equipment, with a view to reduce the drudgery of the human beings and draught animals, enhance the cropping intensity, precision and timelines of efficiency of utilisation of various crop inputs and reduce the losses at different stages of crop production. The end objective of farm mechanization is to enhance the overall productivity and production with the lowest cost of production. The contribution of agricultural mechanization has been well recognized in enhancing the production together with irrigation, biological and chemical inputs of high yielding seed varieties, fertilizers, pesticides and mechanical energy. Indian Green Revolution is regarded as one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. It has been adopted in India on a large scale benefiting both small, medium and large size farms. Some of its aspects such as its impact on human labour employment in a labour abundant economy have always evoked sharp responses from the policy makers. Several studies have been conducted on the impact of agricultural mechanization on production, productivity, cropping intensity, human labour employment as well as income generation. Different researchers have concluded that farm mechanization enhances the production and productivity of different crops due to timeliness of operations, better quality of operations and precision in the application of the inputs. According to NCAER (1980) survey covering 815 farming households in 85 villages, the increase was 72 per cent in the case of sorghum, and 7 per cent in the case of cotton as compared to traditional bullock farms. ITES, Madras (1975) found that the productivity increase on tractor owning and hiring farms ranged between 4.1 and 54.8 per cent. The per cent increase was comparatively low on custom hiring farms as compared to tractor-owning farms due to higher level of inputs and better control on timeliness of operations. These productivity increases, thus, were attributed to higher doses of fertilizer, irrigation and mechanization. Several studies have indicated that there was significant increase in cropping intensity due to the use of tractors and irrigation as a consequence of mechanization. The increase in cropping intensity has been reported to be 165, 156 and 149 per cent respectively for tractor-owning, tractor using and bullock operated farms respectively, according to a NCAER (1980) survey. Similar results have been reported in other studies which have concluded that as a consequence of mechanization, the cropping intensity increased significantly. Furthermore, the percent gross cropped area irrigated was positively related to cropping intensity. The facilities of tubewell irrigation and mechanical power helped the farmers in raising the cropping intensity of their farms (Patil & Sirohi, 1987). Singh (2001) concluded that cropping intensity was mainly dependent on annual water availability and the farm power available. He reported that the States like Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh which had higher percent irrigated area, higher doses of fertilizer and higher power availability per hectare also had higher grain yield per hectare.
x 133 x
STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
The studies regarding effect of agricultural mechanization on human labour employment have shown that agricultural mechanization helped in overall increase in the employment of human labour. The reduction in aggregate labour used on tractor operated farms was quite nominal (1.3 to 12%) as compared to bullock operated farms. The increase in employment of casual male labour was reported to be upto 38.55%. There was slight decline in the employment of casual labour. According to NCAER (1973) survey, the mechanized small farms used 5.7% more labour. IIM, Ahmedabad (1975) reported that mechanization did not lead to decrease in human labour employment. Sidhu & Grewal (1991) reported that there was no significant difference in human labour use on tractor and bullock operated farms. The studies indicated that with mechanization, the demand for hired labour increased while participation of family labour in crop production declined. Different studies also indicated that net human labour displacement in agricultural operations was non-significant and it was more than compensated by increased demand for human labour due to multiple cropping, greater intensity of cultivation and higher yields. Furthermore the demand for non-farm labour for manufacture, servicing, distribution, repair and maintenance as well as other complementary jobs substantially increased due to mechanization. The different studies have also brought out that farm mechanization greatly helped the farming community in the overall economic upliftment. NCAER (1980) survey revealed that tractor owners and users derived higher per hectare gross income compared to traditional bullock farms. The gross income per hectare was reported to be about 63% higher on tractor owning farms as compared to the bullock farms. The average net return from a tractor owning farm on per hectare basis was reported to be 152% that of a bullock owning farm. To sum up, agricultural mechanization studies had shown that farm mechanization led to increase in inputs due to higher average cropping intensity, larger area and increased the productivity of farm labour. Furthermore, farm mechanization increased agricultural productivity and profitability on account of timeliness of operations, better quality of work and more efficient utilization of crop inputs. Undoubtedly, farm mechanization displaced animal power from 60 to 100% but resulted in less time for farm work. Also mechanization led to increase in the human labour employment for the on-farm and off-farm activities as a result of manufacture, repair, servicing and sales of tractors and improved farm equipment. 1. INTRODUCTION Indian agriculture is characterised by overwhelmingly small holdings due to higher population density and nearly two-third of its population residing in the rural areas coupled with unabated land fragmentation due to the inheritance laws of the country. Nearly 62 per cent of the estimated 142 m ha area is rainfed. Major sources of farm power include both animate (humans and draught animals) as well as inanimate sources such as diesel engines, tractors and electric motors. India’s well-orchestrated Green Revolution began in the mid 60’s. It was ushered in through the adoption of higher and balanced doses of the biological, chemical and mechanical inputs together with the timely intervention of the Government. The later ensured the availability of the required inputs of high yielding seed varieties, fertilizers, pesticides water and improved power sources and equipment. The Government provided the minimum support price, easy access to procurement markets, rural roads and other infrastructures which helped to trigger the green revolution in selected areas of the country. Resultantly gross food production increased from 50.8 M tons in 1950-51 to 199.3 M tons in 1996-97 and land productivity rose from 0.58 tons/ha/year to more than 2.14 tons/ha/year. Whereas the quantum jump in production and productivity was brought about by a combination of factors, farm mechanization was often at the centre of controversy due to its impact on employment of human labour in a labour abundant economy. This paper reviews the findings of various researchers on the impact of farm mechanization on agricultural production and productivity, cropping
x 134 x
IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND PRODUCTIVITY Farm mechanization is regarded as sine-qua-non to reduce the human drudgery and enhance the agricultural productivity.4 13.1 10. 13.0 Tractor hired farms 12.8 per cent with an average value of 15. Singh and Singh (1972) concluded that tractor farms gave higher yields of wheat. (1978) conducted survey on five different categories of farms in Ludhiana District of Punjab to assess the effect of power sources on production and productivity.0 29.4 4.1 to 28. Depending upon the use of other inputs such as irrigation. tractor-thresher farms. high yielding seed varieties.0 6.
Paddy Sugarcane Groundnut Paddy Sugarcane Groundnut Paddy Sugarcane Groundnut Paddy Sugarcane Groundnut Paddy Sugarcane Groundnut Paddy Sugarcane Groundnut Paddy Sugarcane Groundnut
4076 104839 1114 4121 108665 1337 3166 95161 1464 4144 108696 1959 2844 4590 108050 1567 3664 109420 1457
3815 99000 956 3893 105299 1100 3058 79067 1300 4065 104696 1798 2831 4363 106210 1578 3619 90116 1160
Source :ITES (1977).6 7. The yield of paddy. Pathak et al. different States in India have attained different levels of mechanization.1 34.3 26. much of the difference was accounted for by difference in other factors such as level of irrigation. tractor and tubewell farms had significantly higher yields than bullock farms in case of wheat.
2.6 54.2 29. The use of tubewell was found to be associated with significantly higher yields compared to the persian wheel irrigation. Studies have been conducted by various organisations & individuals which have highlighted the impact of agricultural mechanization on farm production and productivity.0 15. paddy and sugarcane and produced a higher overall gross output per hectare than non-tractor farms. sugarcane and groundnut respectively (Table 1). 13.
6. Districts Crops Tractor owned farms Average Productivity kg/ha Tractor hired farms Traditional plough using farms 3403 86480 795 3746 94224 1060 2467 74011 946 3451 80986 1784 2733 4047 95510 1218 3191 86420 1112 Percent increase over traditional practices Tractor owned farms 19. ITES.8 24.8 to 54.8 4. Report of Institute for Techno-Economic Studies. Madras.
x 135 x
.0 per cent and 16. The output per hectare was found to increase as the level of mechanization increased from irrigated non . Mechanization in Agriculture and Labour Substitution in Tamil Nadu.3 4. 23. 2.7 14.owned farms obtained increased productivity of paddy.8 per cent.
3.8 3.1 to 34. human labour employment on the farm. the impact of farm mechanization on agricultural production and productivity has been well recognised in India. Likewise.3 per cent.mechanized farms to tubewell. NCAER (1973) compared the values
of annual farm output per hectare of net sown area under different levels of mechanization.1 28.8 11.8 per cent respectively. sugarcane and groundnut by 4.2 40. During the post-green revolution period.
7. Consequently the agricultural production & productivity has witnessed three to four fold increase.
5.1 28. No.8 3.1 13.3 3.6 31.0 percent for paddy.9 11.8 26. subsidiary and non-farm employment as well as gross farm income and net return. chemical fertilizers.2 per cent and 31.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
intensity.6 13.4 17. Madras (1975) found that tractor .2 9.8 21.3 28. maize and wheat was
Table 1.5 20.8 per cent.8 20. herbicides and pesticides.8 37. Singh and Chancellor (1974) found that though.0 0.2 per cent and 9. the average increase of productivity on farms hiring tractors was reported to be 11. Impact of Mechanization on Productivity on Three Categories of Farms in Selected Districts of Tamil Nadu
6 35.6 8.7 12.1 20.S.1
175.3 32. which varied from crop to crop and ranged from 72 per cent in the case of sorghum to 7 per cent in the case of cotton.7 154.0 63.8 5.0 168.0 9. NCAER (1980) conducted a survey of farms owning tractors.3 56.5 182. Source :Pathak. TF = Tractor Farms.2 148.5 34. The study revealed that the use of tractors instead of bullocks for ploughing
x 136 x
.0 8.2 173.4 4.9 7.5 171.7 5.5 18.
4.3 9.7 14.6 35. Aggarwal (1983) analysed data of a sample of 240 farms situated in the principal wheat growing areas of Punjab for the crop year 1971-72.5 151.
10.3 0.6 7.5 30.5 140.
7.0 54.9 64.8 14.5 64.5 176.6 57. Tractor users also obtained higher yields compared to bullock farms.8 68.9 23. et al.
8.4 9.1 15.3 186.9 57.7 15.2 23.9 35.9 19.2 33.9 7.7 151.0 12.8 17.2 30.6 31. It was reported that an average tractor-owning farm obtained higher yields than a bullock farm.9 11.
6.6 29.0 13.5 147.9 34.5 29.1 16.2 153.2 42.1 59.5 149.4 2. TFOB = Tractor Farms Owing Bullocks.8 8. Index Cropping Intensity with Fodder a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average Cropping Intensity without Fodder a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average Per cent Area Under Paddy a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average Per cent Area Under Maize a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average Per cent Area Under Groundnut a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average Per cent Area Under Wheat After Paddy a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average Crop Yield (Qt/ha) of Paddy a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average Crop Yield (Qt/ha) of Maize a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average Crop Yield (Qt/ha) of Wheat after Paddy a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average Crop Yield (Qt/ha) of Wheat after Maize a) Paddy region b) Non-paddy region c) Average BF BFHT TFOB TFHB TF
186.1 158.0 182.8 29.8 28.8 33.6 32.1 67.1 13.3 9.3 27.7 13.1
176.2 1.1 21.7 40.8 14.7 57.6 31.1 11. B. Cropping intensity.8 31.2 165.7 28.
9.2 15.8 33.4 35.0 61.1 31.8 28.8 165.8
182.5 32.3 18.6
2.9 0.0 13.2 28.7 153.8 31.6 15.2 59.8 13. cropping pattern and yield of different crops at bullock farms and bullock farms hiring tractor
Sr.7 16. The yield of wheat after paddy or maize was significantly higher on tractor farms than bullock farms.6 31.3 5.8 157. No.0 41.8 14. (1978)
reported to be higher on tractor farms than on bullock farms (Table 2). using tractors on custom-hire and owning bullocks in seven States belonging to three major agro-
climatic zones.6 145.4 40.2 29.3 7.3 34.2 0.9 4. 1.STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
Table 2.7 182. timeliness of operations and precision in distribution and placement of seed and fertilizer owing to the use of the seed-cum-fertilizer drills.4 26.6 28.7 162.0 31.2 4.1 13.8 16.8 31.2 14.0 21.4 151.7 27.5 31.5 153.0 30.2 14.6 32.5 25.2 20.
:BF = Bullock Farms.3 65. BFHT = Bullock Farms Hiring Tractors.
3.6 34.9 22.5 11.5 31.9 13. A sample of 815 farming households was selected randomly from 85 villages.8 14. TFHB = Tractor Farms Hiring Bullocks.4 24. The use of tractors enhanced agricultural productivity due to better seed-bed preparation.
5 (83. 54 farms were selected from each of the three zones making a total sample of 162 farming households.0 (109.93) 3053. so these increases could not be entirely.5 (17.0 (273.28) 9248.0 (13. i.0 (18.86) (5.91) (5.0 1625. However.81) 30344. 1978.0 308.0 15.41) (7. Finally. The impact of mechanization on crop yield was studied on three different categories of farms.
x 137 x
. Where wheat yields increased significantly.56) 232672.34) All 135749.0 3611.0 730. In most of the studies.0 (85. Unlike the neutral effect of the tractor use on wheat yield.41) (7.33) (17.39) 242840. The study revealed that tractor-owing farms invariably used higher level of agricultural inputs and had better control on timeliness of operations.9%).0 2641. the effect did not apply to all farms. In the NCAER study (1980).5 (13.23) (5.7 23742. The yield was reported to be higher by about 10 to 27 percent in mechanised farms and by about 2 to 26 per cent in partially mechanised farms in comparison with non-
mechanised farms for all the major crops grown on the sample farms. Singh and Chancellor’s (1974) regression analysis on 26 maize farms in Meerut District showed no significant effect of tractorization on productivity.0 2310.5 17262.7%). Farm Mechanization: Problems & Prospects.19) 17924.0 3051.42) (6.6 2253.66) 21721.85) 53942.89) 35989.22) 10-20 11098.98) (10.81) (4. when the crop preceding to wheat could be harvested and threshed sufficiently in advance and the land could be released for timely wheat ploughing and sowing even on bullock farms.95) (206.81) 14191.0 (15. In Uttar Pradesh.6 (15.97)
Potato Before 130.0 (14. Balishter.6 711270.0 3250.2 30294.18) 122426. large yield increases were reported for summer paddy in Bihar (28.95) 0-10
After Before 499.86) (5. Nandal and Rai (1986) conducted a study by dividing Haryana in three homogenous zones on the basis of intensity of mechanization. Symp.10) (4.0 (17. tractors gave a yield advantage of 17.0 (13.10) (345. Differences were significant for maize in one area and cotton in another.23) (5.5 29926.0 4727.02) After 185. No significant differences for high yielding rice varieties were found.0 11471.98) (6. 36. and (iii) mechanised farms having both tubewell and tractor.81) (195. (i) non-mechanised farms having neither tubewell nor tractor (ii) partially mechanised farms having only tubewell.43) (5.7%).0 (16. but sample sizes were small.48) 55248.5 1733.81) (195.62) 379527.26) 265450. for desi paddy in kharif and high yielding paddy in Andhra Pradesh. the use of tubewells in comparison to canals was found to have a significant positive effect on the productivity.74) (13.0 (71.0 (46.R.0 (270.33) – – (234. ISAE North Chapter & ISAE.0 9.0 21476.0 (71. Coimbatore. and sugarcane (29.15)
Wheat Before 294.40) 16622.18) (6. Ludhiana.43)
After Before After Before After 6263.65) 206641.0 2843.6 (11.05) (15. An exception was the study conducted in Punjab by Kahlon (1976) which found no statistically significant yield effects.0 (19.66) 50044.e.0 (10.0 (14.84) (5.0 (10.93) 4758.93) 72225.0 (234.84) (5.72) (6. wheat (15. the yield was comparatively low.0 (62.0 (68.0 1805. Agril.0 (15.8%. According to Motilal (1971) in Delhi Territory.0 (22.0 (84.5 (95.1 (19.3%. However.0 (274.28) 7121.0 151294. T.49)
Before 130.46) (4.86) 585522.29) 49557.97) (4. tractor farms used 35% more fertilizer.34) 1269964. Output and yield per acre crop wise by Farm size before and after purchase of Tractors (All States)
Paddy After 276. In other areas.63) (5.5 1384.6% in sugarcane and 41% in wheat. fertilizer applications were also higher (Bihar.22) (14.0 269. yields increased significantly for paddy (13.65) 97645.32) (5.40) (225.29) (6. fertilizer use increased in one area.73) (5.22) 20-30 21572. Gupta and Singh (1991) conducted a study in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of three levels of mechanization.0) (3.9%). 31.hire basis.6%).0 (10.15)
Note :Figures in parentheses are yield per acre (in quintals) Source :Rao.2 1008. 28. In the two other areas.02) 23295.31) (206. pp 45-56. but without statistical testing.0 (22. It was apparent from the study that the tractoroperated farms had higher yield of wheat and paddy.90) 46094.6 (19.06) 40-50 17991.5 66131.0 (275.95) 2794.7%).0 (94. It appeared that the advantage of timeliness of operation of a tractor was nominal.51) 141321. yield increases with tractors accompanied increased fertilizer use.0 – – (381.3 (10.3) (5.08) 9020.67) 3540.5 134005.0 above (14.
Table 3.67) (5.84) (5.25) (85.38) 50 & 59402.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
and sowing did not add to the yield of high yielding varieties of wheat.0 (52. Proc.5 (10.09) 179789.6 classes (14.50) (74.0 (100.0 (74. attributed to tractors. higher yields on tractorized farms were associated with higher levels of fertilizer and irrigation use. but significance tests and fertilizer inputs were not reported (Singh & Singh.58) (216.61) (6.29) 30-40 25556. In case of farms using tractors on custom .40) 42339.1 276045. Mechanization in Retrospect and Prospect.0 (22.5 (13.0 906.0 79944. Andhra Pradesh.10) 108079. 1972).34) 7815.89) (3.0 (270.0 (9. PAU.48) (223.0 39956.95) (5.5 17373.20) 7264. and for groundnuts in Coimbatore (23.54) 37692. In all.
Rao (1978) conducted a study to investigate the effect of the use of tractors on yield. irrigation.98) was reported to be the maximum and significant at 1 percent level.32 e0. Best mathematical relationship between yield and unit power could be represented by quadratic function and was given as. exhibited that fertilizer (0.0262 Xi .4+13. late rice and maize showed massive yield increases. y = state average food grain yield.5 per cent as compared to 131.96 at 1 per cent level by:
y =1160.52) played the most vital role followed by fertilizer (0. The results pertaining to the yield differences for six important crops are presented in Table 3.24 kW/ha. Chopra (1974) carried out a study on a sample of Punjab farms. Early rice yields were slightly higher with tractorization.99) was statistically significant at 1 per cent level.9Xp – 297. only 6 out of 118 instances reported. of all the crops raised on different sizes of farms. NCAER (1974) conducted a study of tractorised and non-tractorised farms in nine States of India. and wheat yields decreased slightly.42) was the most important input followed by irrigation (0. 0. kg/ha and Xf = state average fertilizer consumption. Relative efficiency of farm power was higher followed by fertilizer and irrigation. and therefore either of the regression equation could be used for planning input requirements for higher yield.8 per cent in the case of those without a tractor. (1981) reported 6% grain loss in harvesting and threshing with traditional methods. The effect of farm power. Laxaminarayan et al. and 2-4% with combines. credit. kW/ha.e. employment of labour and cropping pattern.99) Where. As evident. The coefficient of determination (R 2 = 0. The value of coefficient of determination (R2 =0.35 and farm power 0.41 + 1924. The elasticity of productivity for fertilizer.38) and power (0. (R2 = 0. IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION ON CROPPING INTENSITY Agricultural mechanization has made significant contribution in enhancing cropping intensity. (R2 = 0. As many as 4000 tractor-owning farmers were contacted through a mailed questionnaire but only 1500 responded. He found that the impact of farm power upto 1kW/ha was not significant.53 Xp2 . A multiple regression analysis indicated that greater fertilizer use mainly explained combine users’ higher yields.98) Where Xi = average food grain area under irrigation. and a residual interactive effect. showed decreasing effect beyond 3. No adequate explanation of these results was provided by the authors by studying the input data. irrigation and farm power was reported to be significant in the production function. (R2 = 0. it was reasonable to suppose that the increase in production value was attributable to a tractorbased cropping pattern or to factors such as irrigation. showed large yield differences without large increase in fertilizer input. Binswanger (1978) adopted value of crop production per ha per year as a proxy to determine any cropping effects attributable to tractorization. The growth in irrigated areas and tractor density has had direct bearing on the cropping intensity. Findings of the studies conducted in the past are briefly presented to highlight the contribution of mechanization in enhancing the cropping intensity. data obtained before and after tractor acquisition.45. He made a comparison of tractor-owning farms in terms of the situation before and after the introduction of tractors. The best fit mathematical relationship for growth of food grain yield and use of fertilizer could be expressed. yields. The cropping intensity was reported to be higher after the introduction of tractors. cropping patterns. Singh and Chandra (1999) used the linear regression function to examine the effect of important inputs on crop productivity for the State of Punjab. tractor owning farms obtained higher yields per acre and the increase was more for the larger sizes of tractor owning farms. Singh (2000) suggested an analytical approach to study the growth dynamics of agricultural inputs and their effect on productivity in Madhya Pradesh. and/ or managerial capacity. Cropping
x 138 x
. Singh and Goswami (1978) noted complex yield effects in Bihar.972Xf .38) and power (0.96) Where. Standardized regression coefficients were calculated for relative efficiency of different inputs.23.18) but from the spatial data for the year 1996-1997 it emerged that irrigation (0.STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
According to Binswanger (1978). Production value was considered as a function of cropping intensity. however.%. with statistically significant value of R2 = 0. kg/ha The best fit mathematical relationship between yield and per cent area irrigated was reported to be as follows: y = 278. y = 534. Input-grain yield relationship computed on the basis of equations of time series and spatial data also revealed identical trends.05) in increasing the crop productivity. Since tractorization had increased the first two only slightly. Xp = state average availability of power. Standardized regression coefficients estimated values based on time series data. 3. The methodology employed was on recall basis i. The study revealed that tractor-owning farms had a higher cropping intensity of 137. The coefficient for relative efficiency and standardized regression coefficient for fertilizer was reported to be 0.
3.6 percent on bullock farms (Table 4).0 14. New Delhi
Table 6.1 59.9 14. 7.4 All tractor farms 175.1 20. The higher intensity was attributed to the availability of more mobile power on tractor farms than on bullock farms. on a sample of 115 farms in Ludhiana district. National Council of Applied Ecomomic Research. No.7 All tractor farms 180.2 and 2. Bullock farm – 100 Source :NCAER (1980). Cropping Intensity in Different Categories of Farming Households (Percent) during 1977-78
State Punjab Haryana Uttar Pradesh Tamil Nadu Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra All States Tractor-owner 193(105) 165(101) 193(105) 157(117) 134(110) 119(114) 175(122) 165(111) Tractor-user 193(105) 164(100) 189(103) 135(101) 126(102) 111(107) 167(117) 156(105) Bullock-farm 184(100) 164(100) 184(100) 134(100) 122(100) 104(100) 143(100) 149(100)
Note :Figures in brackets are indices. 4.0 153. On medium size farms of 6 to 12 hectares. A sample
of 815 farming households from 85 villages of 7 States belonging to three major agro-climatic zones was selected.7 18.0 21. 5.0 31.1 28. B. An average tractor owner had a cropping intensity of 12 per cent higher than that of the bullock
Table 5.4 35. the tractor farms were in a better position since the cropping intensity with and without fodder on these farms was 3. National Council of Applied Ecomomic Research. The differences were lower and statistically not significant.7 7. In a study by Pathak et al. To study the impact of tractor use on cropping intensity.6 29. Among the States surveyed.4 23.9 18. Tamil Nadu and the lowest in Rajasthan and Maharashtra.S.5 per cent for the bullock farms. The cropping intensity with fodder was higher on bullock farms than on tractor farms whereas the cropping intensity without fodder was lower. the land use of tractorised farms was compared with that of the bullock farms. The group of the bullock farms feared that if tractors were not made available to them.5 149.2 153.9 27.0 153. cropping pattern and yield of important crops on all tractor and bullock farms
Sr.5 6.5 34.5 26. Productivity and Income. But it was observed that bullocks became the major constraint and thus the bullock farms began to depend on the use of tractors through custom-hiring. The cropping intensity of tractor-owning and tractor-using households in all the States was higher than that of bullock farms (Table 5). the cropping intensity with fodder crop on tractor farms was 180 per cent as compared to 174.9 25.6 60.1 13.7 18.. et al.2 15. Cropping intensity with fodder Cropping intensity without fodder Per cent area under Paddy Per cent area under maize Per cent area under groundnut Per cent area under wheat after paddy Yield (Qt/ha) of Paddy Yield (Qt/ha) of maize Yield (Qt/ha) of wheat after paddy Yield (Qt/ha) of wheat after maize Source: Pathak. Cropping intensity. However the cropping intensity without fodder crop was comparatively higher for tractor farms.0 28. 10.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
Table 4. the average cropping intensity with fodder crop was reported to be higher on bullock farms than on tractor farms. 6. followed by Uttar Pradesh.8 60. 2.9 percent as compared to 149. 1978 180. 8. Index Mean for all size on All bullock farms 1.5 Mean for medium size on All bullock farms 174.6 20.0 9.8 11. NCAER (1980) conducted a comprehensive study to ascertain the factors motivating a farmer to own or use/ hire a tractor and also the impact of tractorization on rural income and agricultural employment.8% higher (Table 4) respectively than on bullock farms.2 27. the output and cropping intensity would decline. 9.0 62. (1978). But when comparing the cropping intensities in the two categories having medium size of holdings (6 to 12 hectares). Productivity and Income. Cropping Intensity of seven selected states by Farm Size (Percent)
Farm size (ha) Below 2 2-4 4-10 Above 10 All Farms Tractor-owner 180 176 163 168 165 Tractor-user 172 170 154 140 156 Bullock-farm 161 151 148 148 149
Source :NCAER (1980). Implications of Tractorisation for Farm Employment.7 30.8 18. The cropping intensity without fodder crop on tractor farms was 153. cropping intensity of tractorised farms was the highest in the Punjab.0 17.1
intensity was found to be generally higher on small farms. New Delhi
x 139 x
. Implications of Tractorization for Farm Employment.
62 4.68 12. concluded that the average
Table 7.44 92.97 9. But the differences in cropping intensity on medium and largesized farms were not significant among different categories of farms.27 11.59 10.08 7. respectively. Average Farm size and Intensity of Cropping on Different Categories on Farms
Farm Category Net cultivated area per farm (ha) I Small Farms BOF BOF+THF TOF TOF + BOF Medium Farms BOF BOF+THF TOF TOF + BOF Large Farms BOF BOF+THF TOF TOF + BOF Overall BOF BOF+THF TOF TOF + BOF Note Cropped area per farm (ha) II I Cropping intensity (%) II Irrigated Area (%)
4.44 151.11 162. it was essentially those owning tractors which accounted for higher average cropping intensity.24 11.07 115. when the cropping intensity pattern (I) was considered.95 14.59 8. cropping intensity (I) and cropping intensity (II) was calculated considering sugarcane as a single crop and as equivalent to two crops.69
7.16 16.89 11. However.40 88.40 11.87 131.97 9..52 8.30 13. However.49 7. Nandal and Rai (1986) conducted a study in Haryana State on a sample of 54 farmers from each of the three zones making a total sample of 162 farming households.27 87.35 81. In Maharashtra.35 127. in comparison with the use of bullocks and canals had a significant bearing on the cropping intensity.12 14.03 150. Thus. the cropping intensity declined.74 190. Within the given size groups.74 10.53 82.44 9.16 13.79 11.13
129.25 165.48 16.56 150.57 5. the duration of sugarcane crop varied from one to one and half years depending on the planting season. Cropping intensity of small farms was found to be uniformly higher than that of larger farms and those with the facility of a tractor had raised their cropping intensities further (Table 6). TOF: Tractor Operated Farm I Cropping intensity calculated assuming sugarcane as one crop II Cropping intensity calculated assuming sugarcane as two crops Source :Patil et al. 1987
x 140 x
. the cropping intensity of tractor using households exceeded that of bullock farms by 8 per cent.55
153. This was attributed to allocation of higher proportion of area for cultivation of longer duration sugarcane crop on tractor-owning farms.09 6. Among the tractor-using farms.17 88. The percent gross cropped area irrigated was positively related to the cropping intensity.40 148. The cropping intensity on small sized TOF and TOF + BOF was significantly higher in comparison with the small sizes BOF and BOF+THF.65 13.83 92.STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
farms.38 90.21 141.99 10. the advantage of tubewells over canals was found much greater than that of tractors over bullocks.08 20.42 90.04 160.97 150.09 131. (1991) based on their study in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh.67 121.05 5.41 14.12 141.24 8. Balishter et al.55 148.29 10.93 92.91
6.89 8. THF: Tractor Hired Farm. Patil and Sirohi (1987) conducted a study to measure the impact of tractorization on the irrigated farms of Ahmednagar District of Maharashtra State.45 15.04
:BOF: Bullock Operated Farm.90 89. The study analysed the differences in cropping intensities of different farm size groups of four categories as given in Table 7.82 89.89 119.14 9.11
92.07 150.63 128.20 150.98 92.66 17.71 162.50 10.00 5. tractor-owning farms had higher cropping intensity as compared to tractor-using
or animal operated farms.15 125. The study concluded that the cropping intensity showed consistently positive relationship with tractorization.90 8.48 13.53 124.99 7.90 129.11 125.04 189.19 89. Similarly.86 95.94 7. Aggarwal (1983) reported that the use of tractors and tubewells.54 121.51 7.44 127.77 16.45 20.25 16. those depending solely on hired tractors were not found to differ much from the bullock farms in regard to cropping intensity. As the farm size increased. The cropping intensity on all size groups of farms of TOF and TOF+BOF was also significantly higher in comparison with the BOF and BOF+THF when the cropping pattern (II) was considered.46 128.
there was no significant displacement of human labour after tractorization.3 Power (kW/ha) 0.96 1.1 37.24 1. the yields obtained in many countries for a single crop were as high as 7 t/ ha for rice in Korea. Kahlon (1969-70).4 40. reported that reduction in aggregate labour use on tractor-operated farms owning tubewells was only 1.1 28.1 93.42 1.68 1.96
Jammu & Kashmir Himachal Pradesh Punjab Uttar Pradesh Haryana Rajasthan Assam Bihar West Bengal Madhya Pradesh Gujarat Orissa Maharashtra Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Tamil Nadu Kerala Total
Source: Singh. Thus.0 13.7 78.65 1.02 Fertilizer (kg/ha) 69. On the other hand. Punjab had already achieved an annual yield of 5.8%). Poona (1967) concluded that tractorization generated greater demand for labour by facilitating more intensive cultivation. The available evidences suggest that mechanization had helped in overall increase in employment of human labour.53 0. 2001.5 39.7 76.5 150.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
Table 8. If the whole of India could achieve this level of annual yield. Relationship between mechanization and agricultural productivity in various parts of India. IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION ON EMPLOYMENT OF HUMAN LABOUR The impact of farm mechanization on labour employment.3 t/ha for maize in Italy.7 billion could be achieved.5 97.9 90. Due to assured water supply throughout the year.2 93.6 158.6%) and non-mechanised farms (143. the farmers in Punjab could use high yielding varieties and high doses of fertilizer.36 ton/ha. even Punjab had a potential for further enhancement of the crop productivity. Thus.83 1. 7.21 1.11 1.48 1.63 0.61 2.71 1. 4.71 0. Assisted by high amounts of available power they were able to get high yields of the order 5. The average annual yield of rice in India was about 2 t/ha.21 1. has been a matter of concern and debate.2 135. Rainfall distribution in a year as well as the percent area irrigated in different seasons reflected the water availability.80 2.80.9 299.93 1.81 1.1 times that of the national average.42. cropping intensity was mainly dependent on annual water availability.4%) followed by partially mechanised farms having only tubewell (176. facilities of assured tubewell irrigation and mechanical power helped the farmers in raising the cropping intensity on their farms significantly.38 1.K.9 44.80 1. enough to feed a population of 1. of over
500 million tons. UPAU (1969) reported that mechanization accompanied by use of new seed technology and adoption of modern cultivation methods had a beneficial effect on employment. However.08 1.6 29.15 1.56 0.90%) had low cropping intensity of 1. GIPE. Singh (2001) summarized the availability of major inputs of crop production viz.2 persons per farm and the labour force at their disposal was neither surplus nor inadequate.82 1.3 24.48 2.8 50.32 Grain equivalent yield (ton/ha) 2.48 0.7 64.00 0.5 158.3 38.40 5.38 1.01 2.13 1.6 Cropping intensity 1.91 3.2 18.49 1. farm power.61 1. 1995-1996
State Annual Rainfall (mm) 617 494 555 837 494 421 1449 1024 1355 1021 609 1123 920 594 802 950 1927 880 % Irrigated area 40.28 1.6 13.58 3.4 90.86 1.71 0.23 1.20 1.58 2.24 1. However.78 1. which were 2.26 3.6 t/ha for wheat in France and U. AMA 32 (2): 68-76
cropping intensity was the highest in mechanised farms having tubewell and tractor (206. fertilizer and cropping intensity and grain equivalent yield for different States of India (Table 8) Singh argued that.9 42.63 27.33 0. Major Inputs and Annual Grain Equivalent Yield.45 1.18 0.8 24. Assam with very high annual rainfall (1449 mm) but with limited area under irrigation (27.2 31. A study by Rao and Singh (1964) on “Tractorization in Kanjhawala Block in Delhi Territory” had showed that both tractor as well as non-tractor farms had on an average 8.38 1. Thus. particularly in a labour surplus country like India.3 t/ha.21 0.90 0. and September) but with 94 per cent area irrigated had a cropping intensity of 1.7 25.6 19. a grain production.36 1.2 81. and 9.3% as compared to bullock
x 141 x
. Gajendra. The State of Punjab had low annual rainfall of 555 mm concentrated mainly during three months (July.6 202.9 53. August. percent irrigation.
displaced bullock labour and not human labour.P.7 per cent more labour. USAID. The aggregate impact of adopting the improved technologies in Punjab resulted in reduction of human labour employment to the tune of 11. Indian Society of Agricultural Economics. In Maharashtra. the increase was even higher at 80%. Babu (1971) conducted a study in West Godavari district of Andhra Pradesh and reported that tractor use induced changes in cropping pattern which promoted the demand for human labour. Grewal (1972) reported
that the employment of bullock labour on mechanized farms was 85 per cent less than those. The average output per man-days on tractor-operated farms was about 42 per cent higher than on bullock operated farms. Labour displacement was observed on medium size farms during initial stages of mechanization. Feb. The average reduction in labour input on mechanized farms was 11. displaced only one pair of bullocks. III. The mechanized small farms used 5. the increase was much larger over non-mechanized farms. Utilization of Human Labour per Hectare in Western UP
Size-group (hectares) Mechanized Permanent Family I. Below 6 6-10 10-15 15-20 Above 20 Average 65 63 53 46 34 45 Hired 20 27 28 37 36 33 53 78 108 91 91 91 138 168 189 174 161 169 Casual Total Non-mechanized Permanent Family 86 78 67 60 63 68 Hired 35 30 24 51 56 43 69 69 85 71 62 69 190 177 176 182 181 180 Casual Total
Source: Singh.STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
Table 9. there was a
x 142 x
operated farms.9 per cent in comparison to non-mechanized farms. It was concluded that the large scale adoption of high yielding varieties accompanied by higher use of chemical fertilisers and enhanced cropping intensity led to higher demand for farm labour.5%. Delhi (1970-71) conducted a study on a sample of 96 farms in Haryana. IV.B.2%. In respect of labour employment. Singh. Roshan and B. It was concluded that displacement of human labour was significant only on mechanized farms in the size group of 15-20 ha and above (Table 9). there was additional labour input per hectare for crop cultivation in both small and medium sized farms as compared to tractor plus tubewell farms. in most cases. V. The overall human labour input for crop production per cultivated hectare was practically the same for both types of farms. It was concluded that the labour input per hectare increased as one switched over from non-mechanized farms to farms using tubewells in both small and medium size groups. Bhagwati Committee on Unemployment (1970) concluded that mechanization of agricultural operations.2% compared to the conventional level. which was only 6. weed control. Singh and Singh (1972) conducted a study in Muzaffarnagar district of Western U. According to Harrington (1972) restraint on the rate of agricultural mechanization was necessary to solve the problem of under-employment in India. water management. New Delhi (1970-71) conducted a study to assess the impact of tractorization. As the level of mechanization increased. In his opinion. In another study.5% compared to conventional level. Permanent labour on tractor holdings showed a decline to the tune of 2. Seminar Series – IX.1 per cent less. Billing and Singh (1970) studied the changes in the demand for labour. (Page 147). NCAER (1973) studied the impact of mechanization on employment in Muzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh (Table 10). insect and disease control. failed to estimate the possible increase in human labour employment arising out of the increase in cropping intensity followed by mechanized cultivation. and observed that mechanization did not displace labour significantly. When a thresher in addition to a tractor and tubewell was acquired. (1972) “Farm Mechanization in Western UP – Problems of Farm Mechanization”. harvesting and threshing when higher yields were obtained by adopting HYV technology. The study. however. which used only bullock labour for farm operations. A tractor on an average displaced four bullocks. AERC. The average human labour employment per hectare on mechanized farms was 169 man-days as compared to 180 man-days on non-mechanized farms. In small tubewell farms. Johl (1970) reported that increased use of tractors was associated with marked rise in employment due to their effect on cropping intensity. The employment of casual male labour showed an increase of 38. the reduction was negligible at 0. more labour would be employed for land preparation. It was concluded that the use of tractors had. by and large. II.
118. IEG. It revealed that the displacement of human labour in terms of value of all the inputs was 11.7 178. Rao (1975) considered the effect of tractor use on employment by comparing farms.4 44.7 95.6 – – – – – – 113. It was not possible to assess the labour input for several non-farm activities directly related to the use of tractors and farm equipment.” New Delhi. ***Displacement in T level over NM level. IIM. Madras (1975-76) reported that the human labour input accounted for 32 per cent for bullock farms while it accounted for 22 to 23 per cent for the tractorowing and tractor hiring farms. A tractor replaced the bovine stock to the extent of 50 per cent.2 165. Delhi (1975) analysed the economics of technological changes such as the use of high yielding varieties of seeds.1 33.9 6. economics of tractorization.9 46.1 58. TTT = Tubewell + Tractor + Thresher. Based on a study conducted in Tiruchirapalli district of Tamil Nadu.7 – – 363. which more or less compensated for displacement of labour in farming operations.8 – – 132. only bullock power was displaced. Viswa Bharati (1973-74) conducted a study on a sample of 60 farms in Shahabad District of Bihar. The study covered the country as a whole with main focus on Punjab and deltaic Andhra Pradesh. The study revealed that tractor farms utilized less human labour as compared to custom farms and bullock farms. In the case of paddy. Madras (1975) studied the displacement of labour due to mechanization of agriculture on a total
x 143 x
.0 19.7 – 167. the use of human labour on the tractorized farms was lower by less than 7 per cent in the case of paddy HYV and less than 8 per cent in the case of wheat HYV compared to the use of human labour on non-tractorised farms growing these crops.0 165.9 181.5 259.5 161. “Impact of Mechanization in Agriculture on Employment. P. AERC.2 283. AERC.1 202. it helped in relaxing the constraints of the operational area which increased employment on farms significantly.3 3.4 363.9 173. tractor farms employed more casual and permanent labour. 1973. Ahmedabad (1975) concluded that tractorization did not lead to decrease in human labour employment.7 47. He concluded that the tractors had neutral effect on farm employment. However.1% in case of farms using tractors.8 269.1 43. Labour Input per Cultivated Hectare by Farm Size and Level of Mechanization
Activity Small Farms Medium Farms Large Farms
TTT Crop culture Sundry farm activities ALL FARM ACTIVITIES NON-FARM ACTIVITIES DISPLACED MALE FAMILY LABOUR* TOTAL TT Crop culture Sundry farm activities ALL FARM ACTIVITIES NON-FARM ACTIVITIES DISPLACED MALE FAMILY LABOUR** TOTAL T Crop culture Sundry farm activities ALL FARM ACTIVITIES NON-FARM ACTIVITIES DISPLACED MALE FAMILY LABOUR*** TOTAL NM Crop culture Sundry farm activities ALL FARM ACTIVITIES
significant gain in labour employment. **Displacement in TT level over T level.2 303.6% in case of farms owning tractors and 5. According to this study.8 – – –
Note : *Displacement in TTT level over TT level.1 – – 204.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
Table 10. T = Tubewell.0 – 289. NCAER (1974) conducted a survey of tractorised and non-tractorised farms in 9 States to study the impact of tractorization on employment. If this was also taken into account. Animal power was completely replaced by tractor power by the farms in the first category. ITES. 54.6 108. Beyond this stage.4 250.5 80. Source: NCAER.6 193.9 5.1 2. horsepower preferences and subsidiary uses of tractors.3 94.9 47. National Council of Applied Economic Research.0 204.9 25.1 128. upto a certain intermediate level of tractor use.2 166. As the level of mechanization increased. tractor using farms showed a 3 percent higher use of human labour compared to farms using animal labour. a marginal reduction in manual labour was also observed. while the farms in the second category continued to make partial use of animal power
combining it with tractor-hire services. which owned tractors with those that did not. In fact.5 69. use of bullocks steadily decreased. The study reported that the technological displacement of labour associated with tractor use was compensated by the employment of labour owing to increased yield as a result of tractor use among farms characterized by partial tractorization. NM = Non-Mechanised. tractorization etc. On the contrary. The net employment effect of tractor use turned out to be positive when its complementarity with other techniques was taken into account. the labour input for each level of mechanization might go up further correspondingly.9 1. TT = Tubewell + Tractor. Another study by IIM (1975) covered a sample of 161 farms drawn from three major crop zones of Gujarat State. The maintenance of tractors by the first category of farms led to additional employment of labour.8 132. in Indian agriculture.
2 31.67 219.1 100. Allahabad. tractorized farms produced more output on a hectare of land by following
Source: Singh.2 48. & H.22 to 559.28 7. one hour use of tractor replaced 5. The study covered the principal crops of the State and revealed that the displacement of labour due to mechanization was more than offset by the employment created through increased production. Likewise. Goswami.4 0.4 37.1 3.65 10.1 9.23 Irrigation Harvesting & threshing 1064.14 226.4 0.22 577.60 Permanent labour 179. In a comparative study of tractorised and bullock operated farms in Purnea district of Bihar.G. (1977) “A Comparative Study of Tractorised and Bullock Farms in Purnea District (including Katihar). (1977) “A Comparative Study of Tractorised and Bullock Farm in Purnea District (including Katihar).3 35. Certain amount of human labour displacement was inevitable in the operations where a tractor was employed.5 46.4 75.7 1.5 100. The percentage share of labour requirement for interculture. Goswami.29 labour days respectively.8 1.49 Interculture 1049.8 13. NCAER (1980) studied the implications of tractorization on employment adopting a cross-section comparison of tractorised households with bullockoperated farms.6 man-days on bullock operated farms which were reduced to 3.76 50.7 1.0
Source :Singh.6 man-days with 113.10 251.0 20. Singh and Singh (1975) in their study on “Impact of Farm Mechanization on Human and Bullock Labour use” in two regions of U.61 and 1.0 19. This was obvious because the negative relation between cropping intensity and farm size was steeper for bullock farms than for tractor farms. the magnitude of decrease in labour employment due to an additional one hour use of tractor in land preparation decreased with an increase in farm size in Meerut District.42 Sowing and Transplanting 554.7 29.18 341.2 100.48 182.0 9.4 0.4 26.4 25.0 893.4 10. RP.Operated Unit Per farm Per acre %age to total Per farm Per acre %age to total Per farm Per acre %age to total Causal labour 2568.4 20. medium and large farms respectively. Human Labour Employment Days for Different Operations on an Average Farm per Cropped Acre for Different Types of Farms
Type of Farm Unit Preparatory Tillage 90. the rate of labour displacement
through tractorisation was higher on relatively small farms of Jaunpur District than large farms of Meerut District of U.6 13.4 10.13 human and bullock labour days on small.9 15.04.3 0.72 277.88 953.5 12. the bullocks provided the motive power and implements were guided by human labour.97 19.51 14. 0.Hiring
Bullock. An additional area of about 425 ha was brought under cultivation in 170 farms selected for the study with an average value of 2.36 263.79 Total 2826.76 and 0. university of Allahabad.G.75 376.Hiring Bullock. Allahabad.2 37.14 Total
Custom.1 2.STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
sample of 510 farmers under three levels of mechanization in seven districts of Tamil Nadu.00 893.57 man-days per farm.10 per cent on tractorised farms (Tables 11 & 12).3 0.4 9.9 man-days on custom-hiring farms and 120. However. Additional human labour employment varied from 96. Bihar”. University of Allahabad. reported that for seed bed preparation.8 0.2 2. & H. Bihar”.8 12.9 21.64
Table 12.90 181.4 13.08 Manuring 7.12 labourdays whereas the corresponding figures for medium and large farms were 1.2 1. RP. Singh and Goswami (1977) reported that the human labour days employed on an average cropped hectare on tractorised farm worked out to 87.01 96.52 man-days giving an average value of 330. Extent of Human Labour Days Classified by Category of Labour and the Farm
Type of Farm Tractorized Custom. irrigation. additional area brought under cultivation and higher intensity of cropping.3 100.7 6.00 1267. Agro-Economic Research Centre.73 271.Operated
Per farm Per acre %age to total Per farm Per acre %age to total Per farm Per acre %age to total
59.9 7.61 Family labour 78. An additional hour of tractor would replace 1. In conventional practice.5 ha per farm. harvesting and threshing operation was higher in case of tractorised farms as compared to bullock operated farms.P.
x 144 x
.5 100.00 1267.8 20. Thus.6 1.0 64.8 100.7 0.8 4.1 19.3 20.8 24. Agro-Economic Research Centre.
Source :NCAER (1980). Source :Balishter. but more in other operations.5 56.1 52.66 201.44 111. New Delhi. Gupta and Singh (1991) reported human labour utilisation based on their study conducted in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh for the crop year 198485. The study showed that tractorisation did not replace human labour. On an average. and of tractor-owning farms in particular disproved the general opinion held regarding displacement of human labour by mechanized farming. Patil and Sirohi (1987) studied the employment per hectare of cropped area. Aggarwal (1983) concluded that the tractors replaced mainly family labour time on small farms and permanent labour time on large ones.57 (+5. significantly reduced the use of human labour on the farms.22 89. Balishter. Tractorised farms also raised commercial crops on a relatively larger area.9 54.3 173. This helped in increasing the aggregate employment. Such changes in the cropping pattern had a favourable impact on the total employment. Category of Farms Man-days per cultivated hectare Family labour Non-mechanized having neither tubewell nor tractor Partially mechanised having only tubewell Mechanised having both tubewell and tractor 132.5) 102. Use of threshers displaced mainly family and casual labour time on small farms and family and permanent labour time on large ones. Thus.6 110.7 85. The total labour employment was the highest on small farms and decreased as the farm size increased in respect of all categories of farms.3 55. however. and Singh. 32(3). there was no decrease in human labour employment due to mechanization. Gupta.9) 110.4 per cent higher than that provided by bullock farms.6 206.9) Hired labour 64. Human Labour Utilization per hectare at Different Level of Mechanisaton
S. With the addition of power threshers.04 (+7.1 195. An average tractor owner employed 110. Productivity and Income-Summary and Highlights.04 (+58. Almost all the studies which reported reduction in human labour employment resulting from mechanization attributed it largely to loss of human
Table 14. (1991) Impact of Mechanization on Employment and Farm productivity.5) 212.8 131. Human Labour Input per Hectare in Different States (Unit in man-days)
State Punjab Haryana Uttar Pradesh Tamil Nadu Andhra Pradesh Gujarat Maharashtra All States Tractor-owner 75. No. in general.8)
:Figures in parentheses indicate percentage increase (+) or decrease (-) over non-mechanised farms. The overall human labour employment was the highest for tractor operated farms followed by tractor plus bullock operated farms.0 82.5 man-days per cropped hectare as compared to 104. Table 13 provides the details on per hectare employment of human labour on tractorized and non-tractorized farms based on the NCAER study.5 449. the per hectare employment of hired labour and total labour was higher
by 39 per cent and 24 per cent on tractor operated farms and by 43 per cent and 22 per cent on tractor plus bullock operated farms respectively than that of bullock operated farms.4 96. R. these effects were lessened. It was reported that in absolute terms.8 184.
more scientific agronomic practices and applying optimal doses of material inputs and thereby provided employment to more labour. the aggregate employment of tractor owners was 5. 484-489.K. The introduction of harvester combines.6 104.6 61.8 per cent additional man-days on a cropped hectare as compared to bullock farms.
x 145 x
. The ratio of family labour to total labour employed per hectare decreased with an increase in farm size. There was no significant difference in human labour use on tractor operated farms and bullock operated farms.6 177.97 (-10. Tractor-using farms as a group employed 0. The higher percentage of hired labour employment with the increase in farm size. The combined effect of family labour time was increased in the use of permanent and casual labour time on farms of most size groups. Sidhu and Grewal (1991) analysed human labour employment in Punjab based on the data collected for the agricultural year 1981-82 under tractor operated farms and tractor operated plus combine harvester using farms. the demand for hired labour increased while participation of family labour in crop production declined.8 68. It was also reported that with mechanization.00 (-16. V. Implications of Tractorisation for Farm Employment. there was an increase which could be attributed to increase in the cropping intensity and shift in cropping pattern from less labour intensive to more labourintensive crops. The survey revealed that tractorized farms employed less number of persons in operations where a tractor was used.9) Total
1 2 3
196. mechanization reduced the use of family labour while it increased the use of hired labour.3 105.6 134. Thus.3 66.60 (+39.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
Table 13. Productivity.5 Tractor-user 78. Table 14 presents human labour utilization per hectare at different levels of mechanization. In fact.6 Bullock-farm 89.8 man-days by bullock farms.
256. = Family Labour.13 104. in the presence of mixed effects of farm size and
all other variables on employment.72 357.09 -39.67 122.97 150.64
379. Desai and Gopinath (1975) in their study on “Impact of Farm Tractorization on Productivity and Employment (Gujarat State)” reported that the effect of tractor use was positive on employment.34 C.98 124.78 122.93 587.36 181.78 144.30 469. it was difficult to lean heavily on the findings of these studies.38 121.68 -2.76 75.36 532. F.30 472. S.33 139.13 44.03 120.56 161.35 46.56 205.66 466. the labour use on tractor farms was higher than that of bullock farms in case of groundnut.25 69.45 92.92 -
II III Overall 1973-74 1972-73
496.33 42.92 104.26 117.06 451.09 126.03 99.96 7.60 93. the
Table 16.90 T.31 68.07 402. Source :Kahlon.L.L.82
134.97 3.12 26.74 P. Pure Tractor Farms P.25 181.S. **Significant at 1% level. 132. Comparative Position of Labour Use (Man-days) Matching Size Bullock and Tractor Farms
Crop Regions Size Group Compared (Range in Acres) 20-30 25-35 50-60 10-20 20-30 Labour Use Bullock Operated Labour Percent over Use Reduction Tractor Bullock Operated Operated Farm 39.24 82.04
Tractor with bullock Farms Zone Strata F.L.
Large Tractor Farms P.09 172.42 303.L.56
465. = Permanent Labour.21 142.71 108. T.39 3.59 49.81 32. On the other hand. C.
Difference 1973-74 1973-74 1973-74 1973-74 1972-73 1972-73 1972-73 1972-73 * ** * ** ** ** *NS NS NS NS *NS *NS *NS NS ** NS NS NS NS -
II III Overall 1973-74 1972-73 Note
1 2 3 4 5
188. F.52 37. cotton and potato regions.35 209.98 160.00 119. Thus.54 203. But the more important reason seemed to be wrong inferences drawn from unadjusted farm size.47 456.60 269.38 per cent in labour use in general crop farming area.L. and Kahlon.07 -8. Employment of Human Labour Hours per cropped Hectare.25 T.84 29. F.02 231.02 C. C.
labour associated with maintenance of bullock labour hours. with an increase of every hectare in area.10 330.84 176.33 343.L.32 C.86 T.86 447. 94.66 525.52 167.18 252.29 470. Agricultural Situation.57 250.20 44.64 112. 408. 130.L. 69.L.64 147.08 474. = Total Labour. which got reduced as a result of mechanization. C.54 180.01 124.08 210.L.70 87.L.19 397. 111.59 45.12 45. 528.38 P.17 491.40 116.95 87.04 188. There was no decline in labour use in these situations because cropping intensity and crop yields that were low on large sized bullock operated farms recorded an increase with the introduction of tractors which resulted in increased labour use.71 241.02 132.L. A.46 125. P.71 149. (1972) “Farm Mechanization and Labour Employment”. with farm size undergoing no change. T. 1973-74
Pure Bullock Farms Zone I Strata 1 2 3 4 5 F. Grewal and Kahlon (1972) attempted to control such variables as irrigation and farm size at the sampling stage.08 124.80 650.95 519. and a comparison of labour use made on all sizes of bullock operated farms with that of large tractor operated farms.03 33.L.54
199. According to this study.41
:The analysis for 1972-73 was based on two categories of bullock and tractor operated farms.39 416. there was no reduction in human labour employment.74 115. there was a decline of 3.03 70. *Significant at 5% level. = Casual Labour.80 483.48 456.98
Potato Sugarcane Overall average Average Excluding Potato Regions
41. Their study showed that in the situation of matching size farms. August.65 94. P.L.47 422.77 35.L.01 251.L.50 220.58 117.L.45 479. T.20 136.69 31.27 204.67 157. 271.L.L.L.L. In making this comparison. 347.25 18.L.S.23
Source :Grewal.L.96 136.23
124.90 87.15 73.28 137. 1978
x 146 x
142.01 Bullock with Custom Farms F. 139. Table 15 supported this contention.72 231.24 219.45 158.15 446. it was hypothesized that when bullock operated farms falling in the upper size brackets switched over to the use of tractors.55 68.22 102.56 471.83 347.L.72 54.61 35.21 -10.32 535.STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
Table 15.19 272.
15 -63.97 man hours on pure bullock farms.94 -17.L.43 and 38.L.19 +50. No doubt.10 +10.47
+9.27 -75.18 -59. in comparison with 504. Assuming simultaneous nature of relations in the employment of family labour.26 -1.78 -19.12 man hours per hectare.L. the total labour input increased very slightly on pure tractor farms.74 23. the positive impact of rapid growth in output on employment could offset the effect of displacement of human labour by tractor power.34 From pure bullock to tractor with bullock P.92 -0.78 +72.03 -14.51 -11.41 -14.69 +72.52 -6. Rao (1972) argued that ‘tractors would not lead to unemployment in regions of expanding agricultural output because they were in response to genuine shortage and high cost of draft power.89 -75.74 -26.L. labour displacement could be very large.39 -33.54 -7.08 -31. These results rejected the findings of Binswanger (1978) who observed that tractor farms had much less labour input per unit of output and measured in this way.20 +26. C.19 +76. P. which means the rapid growth in output would bring about not only increase in productivity but also increase in employment.72
-9.70 -32.5 +12.L. thereby showing a close relationship between output and employment.99 -14.99 +49.46 -0.53 From pure bullock to pure tractor P.94 -9.12 +4.21 -33. In so far as tractors saved the resources allocated for maintaining draft animals and enabled an increase in output by raising cropping intensity and yield per hectare.82 +27. +27.L.39 -21.52 C.94 +62. The study showed that for every hundred rupees increase in output.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
Table 17.82 -14.91 +57.46
From bullock with custom service to pure tractor Zone Strata F.03 +4. +36. Percentage Change in Employment of Human Labour per cropped Hectare due to Tractorization
From pure bullock to bullock with custom service Zone I Strata 1 2 3 4 5 F.L.64 -
II III Overall 1973-74 1972-73
+16.77 +26.58 +32.60
+42.88 +34.98 +104.L.46 -37.L.77 -2.L. +94.97 -36.19 -0.56 -45.49 -57.47
-17.32 +4.73 -5.
From pure tractor to tractor with bullock 197374 197273 197374 197273 197374 197273 +1.87 C.35 +21.47 -7. Thus.72 -46.64 -10.99 +13.01 -16.32 -48.76 -21.83 -7. employment increased by 3 days on tractor and 2 days on custom and bullock farms.58 +5.L. 512.53 +8. but the expansion in production would be more than enough to offset this reduction.74 +1. as had happened in the Punjab situation. -45. +91. C.96 +80.15 -23. The pattern of employment of human labour per holding showed that family labour was employed more on the pure bullock farms.80 +2.64 per cent (Tables 16 & 17).45 -37.64 +3.73 -23.20 -10.53 -15.03 +29. P.69 +71.76 +52.75
Source: Kahlon.L.22 +118.77 +216.22 -5.L. -22. with very little change in the composition on the labour force.L.L. -21.13
-30. The study showed that as for the geometric means for other factors affecting labour demand. -60.78 -2.95 +12.31 +4.61
II III Overall 1973-74
1 2 3 4 5
From bullock with custom service to tractor with bullock F.64 -0.L.72 +17. T.46 -60.88 -39.17 -5.59 +24.51 -75.59 -22.86 -0. Kahlon’s study showed that total labour employment per cropped hectare did not fall by any significant
x 147 x
.49 +7.59 +24.51 +5. using two stage least squares technique.14 +132.75 +2.66 +11.54 +45.50 +8.24 +37. T. Kahlon (1978) studied the “Impact of Mechanization on Punjab Agriculture with special reference to Tractorization” under a Bank study. -11.15 -11.L.12 -17.63 -3.66 +7.08 F.74 -7.45 -25.85 C.26 -45. causal labour was hired more on the pure tractor farms and permanent labour was employed more on the tractor with bullock farms. a technical change could reduce demand for factors including labour per unit of output.1 +1.63 -6. 1978
employment went up by 29.65 T. hired labour and permanent labour. It was found that family labour increased by 17.65 per cent with shift from pure bullock to tractor plus bullock technology and total labour employment per cropped hectare declined by just 5.60 +9.L. T.59 -1.74 man-days on tractor and custom hiring farms. +24.23 -4.L. F.96 T.19 +40.02 -5.20 -10.74 P. their use proved socially beneficial in the
context of the shortage and high prices of agricultural commodities.58 -12. the demand function was fitted for various categories of labour.74 -0.06 +36.99 -38.83 197374 197273 +13.
00) 470 (153.50 11. Delhi (1971-72)
(Man-Hours) Category Size of Holding (Acres) Optimal Plans Without Multiple cropping Unrestricted Capital and Existing Fertilizers Total 3501 5479 1712 7164 Per Acre 539 (124. Again Sharma (1976) observed that if resources were optimally used and multiple cropping (three crops a year) was adopted and working capital was liberally available.48) 213 (100.00) 478 (156. Binswanger interprets this to say ‘that in all cases where
Table 18. However. Studies made by Kahlon.00)
Restricted Capital and Existing Fertilizers Total Non-Mechanised Farms Partly Mechanised Farms Custom Hiring Farms Mechanized farms 6. when mechanised. Brij Mohan.64)* 458 (118. The study indicated that although farm mechanization decreased labour employment per hectare.70) 631 (101. were able to obtain a cropping intensity and employment that matched well with small and medium bullock operated farms and this gain from the introduction of the tractors could not be minimized.R. Human Labour Employment of Different Levels for Mechanization in Alipur Soil Zone. Fertilizer.62) 307 (100.0 3501 5035 2067 6368 Per Acre 539 (139.00 9. Thesis.12)
Note :*Figures in parentheses give the percentage to the mechanised farms.I.08) 608 (198. Grewal.STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
amount on tractorised farms except on very large tractor farms of an average size of 23.00) 478 (120.00 16.55)* 525 (246.A. (1975) Farm Labour Employment and Income Implications of Multiple Cropping.34) 434 (100.00) With Multiple Cropping Restricted Capital and Unrestricted Capital Existing Fertilizers and Existing Fertilizers Total 4206 5627 7187 1912 Per Acre 701 (229.75) 470 (131.D.D. Unpublished Ph.A Normative Analysis for farms in Alipur block (Delhi).35) 669 (168. p 99.00) With Multiple Cropping Restricted Capital and Unrestricted Capital Existing Fertilizers and Existing Fertilizers Total 3837 5300 1883 8036 Per Acre 590 (121.75) 437 (100.69) 306 (100.97) 627 (128.28 hectares which had further declined in number owing to laws of inheritance and ceilings on holdings. Mechanization created unemployment if capital was not freely available on mechanized farms.00)
Note :*Figures in parentheses give the percentage to the mechanised farms. higher cropping intensity increased the requirement of labour more than the labour displaced due to mechanization.19) 576 (114. Unpublished Ph. the increase in the requirement of labour due to increased cropping intensity was not enough to compensate for the decrease in the
requirement of labour due to mechanization. I.00 3729 4854 5015 1877 Per Acre 621 (291. Verma (1972) reported that on small and medium size farms.34) 668 (99. There was enough evidence to show that the large bullock operated farms.25 23. Credit Use and Farm Mechanization. Verma and Sharma supported these results. Delhi (1971-72)
(Man-Hours) Category Size of Holding (Acres) Optimal Plans Without Multiple cropping Unrestricted Capital and Existing Fertilizers Total 3589 5325 7208 1881 Per Acre 598 (194.50 4.
Table 19. I.50) 386 (100. Brij Mohan. the use of multiple cropping and credit on these farms could offset this effect (Tables 18 and 19). farm mechanization did not create unemployment.10)
Restricted Capital and Existing Fertilizers Total Non-Mechanised Farms Partly Mechanised Farms Mechanized farms Custom Hiring Farms 6.
x 148 x
.R.64) 670 (100.A Normative Analysis for farms in Alipur block (Delhi).00 3. Credit Use and Farm Mechanization. on large farms.A.I. Thesis. p 99. Fertilizer. Source :Sharma.79) 576 (187.65) 689 (178. (1975) Farm Labour Employment and Income Implications of Multiple Cropping.15) 482 (98. Human Labour Employment of Different Levels of Mechanization in Gheora Soil Zone.21) Total 4066 6188 9353 1912 Per Acre 678 (170.00) Total 3979 7351 2044 11056 Per Acre 612 (91. Source :Sharma.00) 469 (220.09) 398 (100.
services. generated employment of 22. which showed that the differences in timeliness of operations and productivity per hectare did not come out to be statistically significant on tractor farms as compared with bullock farms.6 29. it was associated with shifts in cropping pattern or irrigation which were an outgrowth of the better overall capital availability rather than that of the tractors per hectare’.
Source :NCAER (1980). poultry-keeping etc. Madras. The survey conducted by NCAER (1980) provided details of employment created through such activities and taken up by different households as shown in Table 21. The opposition to this technology and particularly to the introduction of tractors was based on the findings of some of these studies.2 man-days per tractor per year. distribution. Subsidiary Employment per Hectare (Man-days)
Tractor-owner Family labour Hired labour Total labour 17. Mechanization in agriculture provided indirect employment to skilled and unskilled persons engaged in operation. As evident from Table 18. While quoting such findings. demand for hired labour in case of tractorised farms had increased both in case of crop production and subsidiary activities. why separate out these effects through mechanistic statistical tests.
households undertook subsidiary farm activities including dairying. of Persons employed 403 473 439 467 695 528 646 3651
Source :ITES (1977). No.2 Tractor-user 33. ITES.6 11. they employed more hired labour. repair and servicing of tractors based on sample survey of private repair workshops and manufacturer’s authorised service establishments. repair and maintenance as well as other complementary functions increased substantially and helped in relieving rural unemployment to some extent. repair and maintenance of prime movers and farm equipment. Implications of Tractorization for Farm Employment. Report of Institute for Technoeconomic Studies. NCAER (1980) assessed the employment in the manufacture. during 60’s and 70’s. According to Baig (1978). One wonders if all this development would come about in the absence of mechanization. Table 20 gives the extent of indirect employment generated in the government and private organizations at the district level including private workshops. mechanization in agriculture in seven selected districts had provided employment to 3651 persons per year. It was concluded that a private repair shop. distribution.0 55. It would not be out of place to mention that most of the mechanization studies were conducted during the early years of the introduction of the tractors i. the total subsidiary employment of tractor owners and users was less than that of bullock farms. fuel and lubricants and repair and maintenance of tractors. On the other hand. distribution of the spare parts. greater intensity of cultivation and higher yields. Madras (1977) quantified the number of persons employed in maintaining the tractors and operating them in the field. The non-farm employment generated by mechanization provided employment through manufacture of farm machinery.
Table 21.6 7. Summary and Highlights. Productivity and Income. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 District Chingelpet South Arcot North Arcot Tiruchirapalli Thanjavur Coimbatore Madurai Total No. Thus. the marginal loss in direct farm employment resulting from farm mechanization was more than offset by non-farm employment in agro-industrial activities and secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy. were conveniently forgotten. the demand for non-farm labour for manufacture. Agricultural
Table 20.8 Bullock-farm 48.e. Thus. in general.1 43. which largely contributed to these results. If not. there was labour displacement in the area of ploughing and transport
x 149 x
. and other machines. Against this background. Mechanization in Agriculture and Labour Substitution in Tamil Nadu. engines.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
there was substantial increase in labour use by tractor farms. Indirect Employment generated by Farm Mechanization in Selected Districts
Sr. IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION ON SUBSIDIARY AND NON-FARM EMPLOYMENT Different studies conducted on farm mechanization indicated that net human labour displacement in agricultural operations was not significant and it was more than compensated by increased demand for human labour due to multiple cropping. it would be wrong to conclude that tractorization did not improve the timeliness and output of farm operations or increased secondary and tertiary employment only marginally. the limitations of inadequate infrastructure for machinery maintenance and repair and the time it took to master the mechanical skills.7 10. 5.
60.tractorised farms as a result of better utilization of resources. IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION ON GROSS FARM INCOME AND NET RETURN Farm mechanization has greatly helped the farming community in the overall economic upliftment.50..534 which exceeded that of a bullock farm and tractor-user household by 285% and 132%.4 crores @ 200 p.70 crores of which 40% labour –28 crores support workers @ 200 p.000 workers. 1980).00. These studies revealed that the gross income was higher on mechanized farms than non-mechanized farms.per worker (c) Sales of diesel & lubricants (10% of total of POL outlets) Total
to bullock farms. inspite of spending more on cultivation expenses. 60.3144 for tractor operated farms as compared to value Rs. fertilizing. more than compensated by higher employment in other agricultural operations notably.. pest control. service etc. The net return per hectare of gross cropped area or net cultivated area was higher for tractorised farms than the non.500 p. 1. AERC (1970 & 1971) conducted a series of studies related to economics of mechanization. A tractor-owning farm spent 57% more than bullock on material inputs and 62% more on human labour.p.000 (b) Sales. 7.000
97. However. on the other hand many subsidiary activities like dairying and poultry keeping got generated.5 crores of which 40% labour –35.00 new tractors 36 crores of which 40% labour-14. repair and servicing etc. harvesting. IMPACT OF MECHANIZATION ON NONFARM INCOME Mechanization has generated many non-farming and subsidiary activities among the farming households. A tractor using farm also derived a net additional income of 84% over a bullock farm. The gross income per hectare of tractor-using households as a group exceeded that of the bullock farms by 31%. maintenance. Another study by NCAER (1980) revealed that the tractor owners and users derived higher per hectare gross income compared to bullock farms.m. The gross income per hectare of an average tractor-owned house hold was 63% higher than that of a household using only bullock labour. An average tractor owner and user.000 tractors @ 2.28 ha. 47. however. The studies conducted on impact of mechanization on farm income clearly support this view –point. In the study in an irrigated area of Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra. threshing etc. NCAER (1980) showed that tractorised farms reduced their draught animal stock and increased their milch stock.50. interculture. irrigation. on an average. A tractor owner was able to increase his household income by undertaking supplementary activities such as dairying and provisions of custom-hiring. respectively as compared
x 150 x
.a. Trailers and accessories: (i) 20% value of 40. Balishter and others (1991) reported that net return
12. service & repairs (i) 1.–87.000 old tractors @ 2000/. The estimated employment pattern is summarized as below: Indirect Employment due to use of Tractors I. fertilizer and irrigation also contributed to it. A tractorowner with a land holdings of 6.m.a.17. derived higher net income on a cropped hectare compared to bullock farm. The gross crop output per cultivated hectare was reported to be Rs.000 (ii) Purchase by 3. respectively (NCAER. Tractors also generated indirect employment in providing skilled and semi-skilled work in distribution.000 II. weeding. distribution of the equipment and spare parts.2677 for bullock operated farms NCAER (1974) reported that the tractor farms secured 21% more income per hectare of gross cultivated area compared to bullock farms.STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
which was. The average net return from a tractor-owning farm on a cropped hectare exceeded that of a bullock farm by 152%. this should not be attributed entirely to tractor usage as other factors such as hybrid seeds.200 authorised dealer points (ii) Repairs of 3.5 crores support @ 200/.000 Total 60.000 3.000
14. On one hand additional employment was created in the manufacture of farm machinery. Patil and Sirohi (1987) reported that. Tractor-owners and tractor-users had 82% and 25% more milch cattles. Employment in rural based small industries (a) Manufactures of Implements. the gross return were higher by about 33 to 34% on tractor-owning farms than those on bullock operated farm. 45.000 (b) Employment in the autoancillary industries 28% of their total employment of 1. had an average gross income of Rs. fuel and lubricants. Employment in the organised sector (a) Employment in 12 operating tractor plants 15.000
Impact of Farm Tractorization on Productivity and Employment (Gujarat State) Centre for Management in Agriculture. Almost all such studies led to the following broad conclusions. American Embassy. Farrington. Department of Agricultural Economics. Asian Productivity Organization 1983. A. Haryana. North Chapter and ISAE. New Delhi. Karnataka state M. 1970. 8.S. Economics of Tractor Cultivation-A Study in The District of Shahabad. (ii) That farm mechanization increased agricultural production and profitability on account of timeliness of operation. C.1975.P. but its impact on man-power was much less. K. 1990. The Effect of Tractor Use in the Transition and Dry Tracts of Dharwar District. on Small Farm Equipment for Developing Countries-Past Experiences and Future Priorities IRRI Manila. Sept 2-6: pp 85-124. eradication of wild-shrubs & perennial weeds like kans.A and Agarwal. Aggarwal. Bhatia.Problems and Prospects ISAE. R.1972. 1967 Study on Tractor Cultivation in Shahd Taluka. better quality of work done and more efficient utilization of inputs. 1985 Mechanization Policy and the Impact of Tractors in South Asia A Review. Gopinath. Mechanization of Indian Farming . Summer Anonymous 1998. maintenance and repair of the machines on the other.Sc. S.A significant instrument for future development. Bombay Popular Prakashan. University of Agricultural Sciences. AERC 1973. Productivity. 1978.farm labour such as industrial production of tractors and ancillaries was much more. Bhim Sen. New York and ICRISAT. which constituted 40% of the area under cultivation. Bihar. mechanical and electric power work complemented each other. New Delhi.. (iii) That farm mechanization increases on.6 Delhi School of Economics. & Polit Weekly Dec. M. thesis. Vol. 1974. New Delhi. Labour Use in Developing Agriculture under New Technology. 1991. Chopra K. Daya Publishing House. Billing. Employment and Unemployment Problems of the Near East and South Asia. Agricultural Mechanization Policy Draft Report. India. Monograph in Economics No. Dharwar. PAU. Indeed. H. and near total mechanization in operational holdings greater than 20 ha. servicing. Report by Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics. Desai. R. D. Economics of Tractor Cultivation-A Case Study in Karnal District. Gupta. Agro . Agricultural Development Council. and Singh. Delhi. APO. The Economics of Tractors in South Asia. Baig. AMA. Viswa Bharati. Econ. A 111-118.H. V. Bergmann.C. whereas the increase in off. Impact of Mechanization on Employment and Farm Productivity. terracing. GOI. Tractorization and Its Impact on the Agrarian Economy of Punjab. IIM. Mechanization in Indian Agriculture. Proc. Studies were also conducted by several other organisations & individuals on the impact of farm mechanization on agricultural inputs & outputs. The Tractor in India . M.K. C.K & Gopinath.A.. CONCLUSIONS A common finding that emerged from various studies was that tractorisation displaced mainly bullock labour up to about 60% in some situations. An Analytical Study based on Punjab. Various studies concluded that owing to this relatively low displacement of man power that was unavoidable. 1975. Hyderabad. as well as for non repetitive works such as land reclamation. Binswanger. Impact of Farm Tractorization on
x 151 x
. NCA advocated tractorization for time bound operations like sowing. Farm Mechanization in Asia. A Report submitted to USAID. as well as for command area development works. 57-66. of the Symposium on Farm Mechanization . Vikas Publications. NCA supported the view that animal. which accounted for 13% of the cultivated area. GIPE. Chandramouli. mechanization should not be viewed in isolation.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
per hectare from mechanized farms having tubewells and tractors and partially mechanized farms having only tubewell were 49% and 29% higher respectively than that from non-mechanized farms. (i) That farm mechanization led to increase in inputs on account of higher average cropping intensity and larger area and increased productivity of farm labour. 32 (3): 484-489.Obstacles and Prospects. Long Term Perspective. levelling.2. J. 1974 Tractorization & Changes in Factor Inputs: A Case Study of Punjab. mechanization opened up new avenues for human employment such as managerial and supervisory jobs on the one hand and driving. Report by Agro Economic Research Centre.
AERC 1970. Dhulia District. Balishter. Ludhiana pp. 1978. 1978. (Saccharum spontaneum). Ali. (iv) That farm mechanization displaced animal power to the extent of 50 to 100% but resulted in lesser time for farm work. Therefore. Philippines. Tokyo. Ahmedabad. 1978. The Effect of Technology on Farm Employment in India. Poona.farm human labour marginally. Bombay. Proceedings of International Conf. Bina 1983. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. K. Adoption of Farm Mechanization in a Developing Economy. planting especially in rainfed areas where the operations were required to be completed in a short span of time while the rain occurred and for harvesting and threshing. the displacement being less than 15%. recommended selective mechanization in an increasing manner for farms between 5-20 ha groups. Chopra.Economic Research Centre. and Singh. Maharashtra.
ed. Report by National Council of Applied Economics Research. Ludhiana. 27 (4): 214-219. 1978 Agricultural Mechanization in Retrospect & Prospect. Harrington. Effect of Power Sources on Production and Productivity in Ludhiana District-A Survey Report. E. Delhi. Rao.P.K. Ludhiana. 1975. Mechanization. 1975.D.1977. Los Banos. Pp 34-44. Asia Productivity Council. Ilorin. Demand for Tractors. Johl. C. The Controversy of Combine Harvester. NCAER. 1980. IIM. Agro-Economic Research Centre. A. J. Thesis.S.O. 1974. Report Prepared by Institute for Techno-Economic Studies. Seminar Series IX. Mechanization of Rice Production in Developing Asian Countries: Perspective. New Delhi. P. C. 15 (1-6) 1991 & 16 (1-6) 1992 pp 1-23. Hanumantha1975.. Impact of mechanization on Punjab Agricultural with special reference to tractorization. Rao. Proceedings of Symposium on Farm Mechanization Problems and Prospects. Weekly 10 (39): A65-A75. pp 161-172 Nandal. 1988. N. Ludhiana.H. Econ. M.S. A. S. of India.N. Problems of Farm Mechanization. Report National Council of Applied Economic Research. and Kahlon. R. Parihar. NCAER. Impact of Harvest Combines on Labour Use. Impact of Farm Mechanization on Productivity and Employment (Gujarat State). Econ. Occasional Paper No. R.23. A. Unpublished Ph. & Abraham V. 1988. Hanumantha1972. 31: 3. NCAER.N. 1976. Mandal. Pol. Rangaswamy P.H. A. Farm Mechanization-Problems & Prospects. H.K. 1985 Establishment of the Tractor Industry in India. Tokyo pp 287-328.P. Impact of Farm Mechanization on Farm Productivity and Income in Haryana. S.R. & Sirohi. 1975 Impact of Tractorization on Agriculture. Krishna. 1974. ISAE.N. 1987. Indian Journal of Agric Economics.C. Employment in Developing Nations. 1976. K. Columbia University Press.STATUS OF FARM MECHANIZATION IN INDIA
Agricultural Productivity in Gujarat State Proc. PAU. 1980 Impact of Mechanization on Labour Employment. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics.S.S. Some Aspects of the Economics of Harvester Combines in the
Punjab. Mechanization in Agriculture and Labour Substitution in Tamil Nadu. 1970. B. Econ. Philippines. & Pol. N. Farm Mechanization in a labourAbundant Economy. Edwards.P. Income and Employment Generation AET.S. Working Paper No.S. and K. S. IEG. Bihar. 1978. ISAE North Chapter & ISAE. Proceeding of Symposium on Farm Mechanization Problems & Prospects. Laxminarayan. ITES. 1978. of the Symposium on Farm Mechanization-Problems and Prospects. P. New Delhi. ICSSR 4 (1+2): 6086. Sept 5-10. Impact of Mechanization on Farm Employment in Punjab. Low-Cost Farm Mechanization. 1972: 393400. Use of Tractors & Agricultural Employment. 1973. Evidence and Issues. 1981.. Economics of Tractor Cultivation-A study of the district of Shahabad. Gupta D.. Institute of Economic Growth.S. and Rai.R. Singh. Mohan. Impact of Mechanization in Agriculture on Employment. Ludhiana pp 18-33. Patel. 1983 Country Report on the status of Farm Mechanization for India. ISAE North
x 152 x
. Pathak. Delhi. Tirupati. D. Proceeding of Symposium on Farm Mechanization Problems and Prospects. Productivity and Income. 1978. Impact of Agricultural Mechanization on Production. B S.L. New Delhi. Mishra S. The International Rice Research Institute. R. USA. Mittal. North Chapter of Indian Society of Agricultural Engineers.S.1981. Punjab Agricultural University. PAU. Kahlon. B. June 3. 1978. Report of Bhagwati Committee on Unemployment.W. Productivity. Crop Pattern and Productivity. AMA 18 (3): 36-40. The Institute of Economic Growth. 31 (4): 54-70. Laguna.S. ISAE North Chapter & ISAE. 31 (3): 232.. Jodha. Labour Use and Productivity in Indian Agriculture. Los Banos. Ohio State University. Department of Economics and Rural Sociology.S.S. Weekly Feb. Small Farm Equipment for Developing Countries. J. A Case of the Process of Tractorization. Technological Change and Distribution of Gains in Indian Agriculture. Shanti Niketan.15.P. Proceeding Symposium.& Verma. 1976. & Patel M. Pol. 1975. Ludhiana. G. Madras. and Mallik. 1976 Impact of Tractorization: A Study of Tehsil of Madhya Pradesh. Impact of mechanization on Punjab agriculture with special reference to tractorisation.S. Govt.Its Role in Green Revolution in India. Narayana. C. C. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Economics of Tractor Cultivation. 1970. 1987. Implications of Tractorization on Employment. ISAE. Ministry of Labour. A.L. Ludhiana pp 64-66. Agric. Kahlon. S. Prasad. D. Econ. A. Ahmedabad.. Indian Institute of Management. Farm Mechanization in Asia. Grewal. Mishra. 1972.Soundaran. International Rice Research Institute. March. Laguna. R. R. PAU. Pangotra. Indian Society of Agricultural Economics. Measurement of the Direct and Indirect Employment Effects of Agricultural Growth in Technical Change. Technological Changes and Distribution of Gains in Indian Agriculture.S. PAU. 1978. Kahlon. G. & Bhatia. Visva Bharati. Bombay. V.T. Chittor District. N. 1975. 1993. Impact of Farm Energy on Cropping Intensity.L. Narayana. 1977. Sri Venkateswara University Tirupati. Patil. Weekly 9: 92. Panesar.S. India.1972. Agricole. The MacMillan Company of India Limited. Herdit..S. Proceedings CIGR Inter-Section Symposium on Rural Technology. T. Parthasarathy. Level of Use of Inputs and the profitability of Farming in the Anand Taluq of Gujarat Ind. and Prasad R.. Rao. Productivity and Income in an Irrigated Area of Ahmednagar District.S. ISAE North Chapter and ISAT PAU. 1975. Dattanaik P. & Srivastava.E. Economics and Sociology. National Council of Applied Economic Research. Implication of Tractorisation for Farm Employment. ISAE North Chapter & IS AE. New Delhi.
x 153 x
. 1978. Ludhiana. 17 (5): 808-813.S. 1969. Farm Labour Employment and Income. Bihar. 1986. fertilizer.C. J. Report of Agro-Economic Research Centre. Credit & Farm Mechanization-a Normative Analysis for Farm in Alipur Block (Delhi). S. & Chandra. Economics. Singh. Brij Mohan 1975. Proceedings of Special International Conference.Implications of Multiple Cropping.IMPACT OF AGRICULTURAL MECHANIZATION
Chapter & ISAE. 1974. 1976.R. & Tech. A. Pant Univ. and Goswami. Stud. Impact of Farm Mechanization on Human & Bullock Labour Use in Two Regions of U. Analytical Approach to Growth Dynamics of Agricultural Inputs & their Effect in Increasing Productivity in Madhya Pradesh. Roy. 32(2): 68-76 Singh. pp 45-56. 22 (3): 67-72.S.1991. & Chandra. Thesis. Sharma. G. Gajendra. AMA. Trans ASAE. Dev.G. L. 1978. Feb.D.P. G. R. Relation between Farm Mechanization and Crop Yield for a Farming District in India. Singh. New Delhi. Farm Mechanization in Western Uttar Pradesh . H. Bhopal Singh. Dept Of Agri. 2000. University of Illinois. R. Report by G. Agricultural Technology for Increased Food Production in Developing Nations: Problem & Opportunities.B.B. Mechanization of Punjab Agriculture.Problems of Farm Mechanization Seminar Series-IX. of Agril. Delhi. & Singh. G. A Comparative Study of Tractorized & Bullock Operated Farms in Purnea District (Including Katihar). Urbana-Champaign. Indian Society of Agricultural Economics. PAU Ludhiana. March. CIAE. 1978. Farm Mechanization visa-vis Human Labour Employment in Punjab Agriculture. Irrigation and Farm Power in Increasing Food Grains Productivity in Punjab. M.1972. S. May 23-28. & Chancellor.P. pp 723-731 Singh. H. University of Allahabad. Progressive Farming. Eurasia Publishing House. Roshan & Singh. Farm Tractorization. 1975. Agricultural Situation in India. Productivity and Labour Employment: A Case Study of the Indian Punjab. Bombay. Sen. & Technology UPAU. Ph. of Agril. Nainital. 14 (2): 193-209. R.1977. B. PAU. J. 2001 Relation Between Mechanization and Agricultural Productivity in Various Parts of India. Singh. Pant Univ. Sindhu. S. & Grewal.V. & Blase.. H.R. Macro Analysis of Fertilizer. Economics of Combine Harvesters.
Singh. Impact of Farm Mechanization on Labour Use of Developing Agriculture under New Technology in Rudrapur District. W. IARI. Pantnagar. AMA. G. Singh. N. Post Graduate School. August 1986 Issue.B. Sharma.