Economics of Production of Sugarcane in Orissa

Regression co-efficient associated with bullock labour, fertilizers and irrigation on

marginal, small and medium farms and human labour, fertilizer on large farms were

positive and significant indicating thereby that these resources contributed significantly

to the returns of this crop. However seeds did not enter as one of the significant

variable in any of the farm size groups and regions. The negative and significant co-

efficient of human labour on marginal and small farms indicated that these farms

are using this input in excess quantity. When the data for all farm size groups were

pooled together, human labour, fertilizers and irrigation were found to have positive

and significant relationship with returns from sugarcane.

The value of R ₂ (Co-efficient of Multiple determination) was found to be 0.83,

0.87, 0.81, 0.83 and 8.33 in region-I for marginal, small, medium, large farms

respectively as compared to 0.78, 0.76, 0.79 and 0.74 for the respective farmers in

region-II. It indicates that 83, 87, 81 and 83 percent of variation in gross return could

be explained by all the explanatory variables included in the equation in region-I as

compared to 78, 76, 79 and 74 percent in region-II.

The sum of elasticities were 1.645, 1.894, 1.673 and 1.792 for marginal, small,

medium and large farms in region-I respectively indicating increasing return to scale.

Increasing return to scale is also observed in region-II with magnitude 1.708, 1.737,

1.836 and 1.899 for the respective farm sizes.A comparison revealed that in region-

I has advantage over region-II with higher magnitude of returns to scale.

Conclusion

The above analysis revealed that economic of sugarcane production in Dhenkanal

district of Orissa has been fluctuating though it has potential as per the perception of

sampled farmers. It emerged from the study that the net farm income earned by the

marginal and small farms per hectare was higher than that realized by their

counterparts in medium and large farms. This might be due to large area under

irrigation and higher use of fertilizer by the farmer groups than the later. The marginal

and small farms managed to earn more net return that other two categories of

sample farms in both the regions. The other measures of farm incomes, like family

labour income farm business income farm investment income etc. exhibited inverse

relationship with farm size in both the regions excepting few cases.

References

Bajpai, P.K. and Lal, Jagadish (1985). Trends and variability in Area, Production, Productivity

and prices of Sugarcane, its competing crops and gur in India. Annual Report– 1985.

Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research Lucknow, p. 98.

79