Rice (Oryza sativa.L.) is the most important and extensively grown food crop of India. It is staple food for more than half of the world’s population and of paramount importance to Indian economy. In India, rice is grown in an area of 433.88 lakh ha with a production of 104.4 mt and in Telangana it is grown in an area of 104.6 lakh ha with a production of 304.7 mt tons. To mitigate the needs of growing population, rice production should rise to 320 million tons by 2020. Agricultural mechanization is one of the critical inputs which not only facilitates timely completion of operations but also helps to combat labour scarcity, increases the production, productivity and profitability [1,2].

Mechanization is the process of doing work with machinery. Mechanical aids, machinery, tools and implements are the components of mechanization, a technological improvement in agriculture. These technological improvements in Indian agriculture since mid-sixties have brought about revolutionary increase in agricultural production. In the context of increasing commercialization of agriculture, mechanization also took a lead role in increasing agricultural productivity. The increase in the requirement of human and bullock labour for agricultural activities, rising wage rates and maintenance cost of bullock and shortage of labour in agriculture has increased the demand for mechanization of various agricultural operations. Improved farm implements and machinery are used for different farm operations to increase productivity of land and labour through timeliness of operations and efficient use of inputs. Mechanization is also needed for good quality of work. It also imparts capacity to the farmer to carry out farm operations, with ease, being free from drudgery, making the farming agreeable vocation for educated youth as well [3].

Mechanized farms are those in which operations like land preparation, sowing, transplanting, harvesting, threshing are mechanized. Mechanization as it relates to agriculture requires the study, manufacture, utilization, maintenance and repair of all tools, implements, machines, equipment and structures which will enable the farmer to raise the productivity of human labour economically [4,5].

Mechanization possibility is strongly influenced by the farm size, cost of farm labour, availability of machines and energy. The farming system continues to utilize manual power, animal power and tractor power. In order to bring more land under cultivation and to improve productivity per unit area, it is necessary to use all sources of power like tractors, power tillers, oil engines, electric motors and renewable energy. In fact, the mechanization in India was driven by assured price to farmers for their produce (wheat and rice initially). The intensification of agriculture was assisted by higher inputs of farm power causing greater profitability of farming-generated surpluses that could be spent on capital equipment [6].

Due to rapid industrialization and large scale migration to urban areas labour is becoming increasingly scarce and also proving costly. This labour shortage during harvesting resulted in delayed harvest and consequent field grain losses. Mechanization of harvesting was the alternative solution [7,8].

Khammam district will be purposively selected for the present study as there is large scale adoption of farm mechanization in major agricultural crop like rice. In this total district 120 farmers are selected as sample size. Two mandals, Kalluru mandal and Nelakondapally mandal has been selected in each mandal total 60 farmers are selected. Four villages from each selected mandal, in each village 15 farmers are selected by simple random sampling method. Primary data was collected using specifically designed and pretested questionnaires for farmers.

Cost Concepts

Cost concepts were used to estimate the cost of cultivation. The cost concepts viz., cost A1, cost A2, cost B1, cost B2, cost C1, costC2 and cost C3 which are generally followed in farm management studies were adopted for the present study and explained below.

Figure 1: Chart Showing Samplin

• Cost A1

• Value of hired human labour

• Value of hired bullock labour

• Value of owned bullock labour

• Value of owned machinery labour

• Hired machinery charges

• Value of seed (both farm produced and purchased)

• Value of insecticides and pesticides

• Value of manure/FYM (owned and purchased) 

• Value of fertilizer

• Depreciation on implements and farm buildings

• Irrigation charges

• Land revenue, cesses and other taxes

• Miscellaneous expenses (Artisans etc.)

• Cost A2: Cost A1 + rent paid for leased in land

• Cost B1: Cost A1 + interest on value of owned fixed capital assets

• Cost B2: Cost B1 + rental value of owned land and rent paid for leased in land

• Cost C1: Cost B1 + imputed value of family labour

• Cost C2: Cost B2 + imputed value of family labour

• Cost C3: Cost C2 + value of management input at 10% of total cost

Cost of Cultivation of Rice Under Different Levels of Mechanization (Rs/ha)

The total cost of cultivation per ha of rice is presented in Table 1 The actual cost of cultivation for low, medium and highly mechanized farms was Rs. 61,905.62, Rs. 52,589.87 and Rs. 54,221.66 respectively. The cost of cultivation of pooled farms was Rs. 57,468.55 per ha.

Among total variable costs, human labour cost was high for the low adoption category. It accounts for 38.71 per cent in the total cost of cultivation. This was mainly due to more number of labour required for transplanting, application of fertilizers and plant protection chemicals and harvesting (Figure 2).

Among adoption categories, Machine labour charges was highest in highly mechanized farms i.e. Rs. 17,506.82 (32.28%). FYM and fertilizer charges were high for the highly mechanized farms accounting for 3.59 and 12.17 per cent of the total costs respectively (Table 2).

Plant protection chemicals costs were high in highly mechanized farmers i.e., Rs. 1,516.65 accounting 2.79 per cent of the total cost of cultivation (Table 3).

Figure 2: Comparison of Variable, Fixed, and Total Costs Across Low, Medium, High, and Pooled Categories

Table 1: Cost of Cultivation of Rice Under Different Levels of Mechanization (Rs/ha)

Figures in parenthesis indicate the percentage to total

Table 2: Cost of Cultivation According to Cost Concepts Under Different Levels of Mechanization (Rs/ha)

Figure 3: Cost A1 and A2 for pooled farmers

Figure 4: Cost B1 and B2 for pooled farms

Among fixed costs, rental value of own land was the highest cost of Rs. 9,925.90 per ha for medium mechanized farms accounting for nearly 18.87 per cent of the total cost. Depreciation on farm machinery is more for highly mechanized farms (4.14%) when compared to the low and medium mechanized farms (Figure 3).

Cost A 1

It can be observed that on an average value of cost A1 was highest in highly mechanized farms Rs.41086.16 per ha than the low and medium mechanized farms were Rs.40632.42 and Rs.35105.24 respectively. CostA1 for pooled farms was Rs.38803.01 per ha. This is due to input material cost was high in highly mechanized farmers than in other mechanized farmers.

Cost A 2

In case of low mechanized farms, the cost A1 is equal to cost A2 because there was no rent paid value for leased land. The average value of cost A2 were highest in highly mechanized farms Rs.47405.52 per ha than the low and medium mechanized farms were Rs.40632.42 and Rs.43789.59per ha respectively. This is due to high rent paid in leased in land in case of highly mechanized farms. Cost A2 for pooled farmers was Rs. 4777.3.83 per ha.

Cost B 1

Average value of cost B1 was highest in highly mechanized farms Rs.41326.19 per ha than the low and medium mechanized farms were Rs. 40728.57 and Rs.35225.50 respectively. This is due to high interest on value of owned capital assets in case of highly mechanized farms. Cost B1 for pooled farms was Rs.38955.97per ha.

Table 3: Returns According to Different Levels of Mechanization

Figure 5: Cost C1, C2 and C3 for pooled farms

Figure 6: The yield difference for the low and highly mechanized farmers

Cost B 2

Average value of cost B2 was highest in highly mechanized farms Rs.51196.21per ha than the low and medium mechanized farms were Rs.50556.57 and Rs.45151.40 respectively. This is due to high rental value of owned land in case of highly mechanized farms. Cost B2 for pooled farms was Rs.50117.15per ha (Figure 4).

Cost C 1

Average value of cost C1 was highest in low mechanized farms Rs.52077.62 per ha than the medium and highly mechanized farms were Rs.45351.68 and Rs.41664.05 respectively. This is due to high imputed value of family labour in case of low mechanized farms. Cost C1 for pooled farms was Rs.46307.44per ha (Figure 5).

Cost C 2

Cost C2 was calculated by adding Cost B2 to imputed value of family labour. It can be observed that cost C2 was highest in low mechanized farms Rs. 61,905.62 per ha than the medium and highly mechanized farms i.e., Rs. 54,221.69 and Rs.52,589.95 respectively. This is due to high imputed value of family labour in case of low mechanized farms. Cost C2 for pooled farms was Rs. 57,468.61 per ha.

Cost C 3

Cost C3 was calculated by adding cost C2 to value of management input at 10 % of total cost. It can be found that on an average value of cost C3 was highest in low mechanized farms (Rs. 68,096.19 per ha) than the medium (Rs. 57,848.85 per ha) and highly mechanized farms (Rs. 59,643.86per ha). Cost C3 for pooled farms was Rs. 63,215.47 per ha.

The returns were high for the highly mechanized farmers i.e., Rs.45538.34 per ha. The yield difference for the low and highly mechanized farmers was just 4 quintals (Figure 6).

Developing suitable short duration rice varieties may help in reducing cost of cultivation. Efforts need to be taken to encourage farmers to carry out cultivation collectively so as to make paddy cultivation economically more remunerative. Farmers need to be educated regarding optimal resource use. The proposed increase in MSP can improve viability of paddy cultivation, provided it is fixed based on regional cost of cultivation/cost of production as it is evident from the present study.

1. Anazodo, U.G.N. "A study of traditional and mechanized systems for maize production in Nigeria." AMA, vol. 15, no. 3, 1985, pp. 51-55.

2. Aragón-Ramírez, A. et al. "Mechanization index and machinery energy ratio assessment by means of an artificial neural network: A Mexican case study." Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR EJournal, manuscript PM 07 002, vol. 9, 2007, p. 21.

3. Archana Karuni, Y. Value Chain Analysis of Paddy in Nalgonda District of Andhra Pradesh. MSc Thesis, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, 2013.

4. Bina, M. Mechanization in Indian Agriculture: An Analytical Study based on the Punjab. Delhi School of Economics, 1983.

5. Jeena, T. and J.T. Srinivasan. "An economic analysis of paddy cultivation in the kole land of Kerala." Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, vol. 67, 2012, pp. 213-224.

6. Olaoye, J.O. "An evaluation of farm power and equipment ownership and management in Niger state, Nigeria." Nigerian Journal of Technological Development, vol. 5, no. 1-2, 2007, pp. 94-102.

7. Ortiz-Canavate, J. and I. Salvador. "Effects of different mechanization levels in Spanish dryland farms." Journal of Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, vol. 3, no. 5, 1980, pp. 31-36.

8. Pravallika, K.V.S.D. et al. "Economics of paddy cultivation in east godavari district of Andhra Pradesh." Journal of Rice Research, vol. 10, no. 2, 2017.