Authors Personal Copy

Authors Personal Copy

Research Paper

Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4(3): 333-336, (2013) ISSN: 0976-1675

DI: 1085-13-0703-2013-85

Socio Economic Profile of Millet Growers in Karnataka S Hemalatha, M Y Kamatar and Rama K Naik Extension Education Unit, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005, Karnataka, India e-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT In order to know the socio-economic status of existing millet growers a study was undertaken in Karnataka. A total of 683 millet growers were interviewed out of which four per cent were female and the rest 96 per cent were male. Sixty one per cent respondent-farmers were small and medium farmers and 39 per cent were large farmers with an average family size of 9 members. Among the facilities available - source of drinking water for majority of the households was tanks. Toilet facilities were not available for 72 per cent of the families. It was found that majority (66%) of the farmers were literates, 30% had primary level education, while 5.8% had education up to the degree level. About 30% farmers had education from secondary school to pre-university course. Majority of the farmers dwelled in stone and mud house (81%) and only 18% owned the houses constructed with cement and bricks. Survey revealed that, on an average, three members per family worked as family labourers on their own farm for which their wages were not paid or recorded. They worked for 243 days in a year as labourers as well as supervisors whenever labourers were engaged. The annual income for the family was mainly from sources other than agricultural operations like masonry, working in industry and petty business. Earnings from jobs in some cases were upto to Rs. 74,479 and from agricultural source were Rs. 44,907. The major expenditure was towards purchase of agriculture inputs followed by food, education, clothing and other essential things. Ninety per cent of the farmers expressed that millets were cultivated to meet feed and fodder requirements for cattle. Other reasons expressed were that they can be organically grown with no pesticides and fertilizers (68%), less tolerant to disease (68%), can be cultivated with less water or under drought conditions (68%), protection of soil fertility (51%), less labour requirement (44%). Most of the respondent millet growers did not follow any value addition (94%) to any of the millets. Key words: Millet growers, Socio economic profile, Post harvest activities, Processing, Karnataka Millets are small-seeded grasses whose grains are used as food or feed by humans and animals. The crops are hardy and grow well in dry zones as rain-fed crops, under marginal conditions of soil fertility and moisture in short growing season. Millets are one of the oldest foods known to humans and possibly the first cereal grain to be used for domestic purposes. Millet cultivation is declining due to several reasons few of which are processing hardships, low economic gains and lack of awareness about the nutritional significance. The area under millets is declining at an alarming rate in spite of the favourable cultivation conditions available. According to a recent research study the millet cultivation area of about 44% is occupied by other crops since 1966 to 2006 (Halakatti et al. 2010). This has adversely affected the nutritional security and agricultural cropping systems. In view of these facts, a study was undertaken to know the situation of millet crops and socioeconomic status of millet growers in the millet growing area. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4(3)

MATERIALS AND METHODS To have representative sample of millet growing area of Karnataka, farmers from eight districts and 14 taluks where millets are extensively grown were selected and interviewed with a structured questionnaire with the help of Department of Agriculture (Table 1). The total number of respondents selected for interview was 683 in ninety three villages among them 656 ((6%) were male and 27 (4%) were female farmers. The farmers were categorized in small 140 (20%), medium 280 (41%) and bid 263 (39%) farmers and the millet growers were 671 (87%) and non millet growers were 83 (13%) in control group. The gathered data were then tabulated analyzed and drawing the logical conclusion.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Socio economic status of the respondents The socio economic status of the respondents revealed that among 683 farmers surveyed, 671 were millet growers 333

https:// www.rjas.info

Socio Economic Profile of Millet Growers in Karnataka Table 1 Details of districts, taluks, village and number of farmers surveyed District Taluk No. of villages No. farmers Hubli 08 70 Dharwad Dharwad 02 23 Kalaghatgi 24 95 Savnur 04 76 Haveri Shigoan 01 13 Gokak 07 49 Belgaum Ramdurg 07 102 Davangere Harapanhalli 02 20 Bellary Kudlagi 02 10 Kustagi 12 79 Koppal Yelburga 02 22 Gadag Gadag 12 91 Hosadurga 01 10 Chitradurga Molakalmur 03 11 08 14 93 683

capita land holding of the farmers was 4.39 acres of which 2.34 acres was dry land and 0.21 acres was irrigated land. Remaining was horticulture and barren land. On an average each respondent possessed 2 oxen, 2 buffaloes, 2 cows, 9 sheep and 13 poultry birds (Table 3, 4). Table 2 General characteristics of the sample farmers Characteristics Frequency % Gender i. Male 25 3.66 ii. Female 658 96.34 Age i. Young age (< 35years ) 149 21.82 ii. Middle age (36-50years ) 278 40.70 iii. Old age (>50years ) 256 37.48 Average age – 47.84 (years) Educational status i. Illiterate (0) 224 32.80 ii. Primary school (1-4) 212 31.04 iii. Middle School (5-7) 91 13.32 iv. Secondary school (8-10) 98 14.35 v. College education (11-12) 18 2.64 vi. Graduate (above 12) 40 5.86 Family size Total no of members in the family 3184 100 a. 18 – 59 yrs (Adult) i. Male 670 21.04 ii. Female 665 20.88 b. < 18 yrs (Children) i. Male 461 14.47 ii. Female 432 13.56 c. > 60 yrs (Old age) i. Male 683 21.45 ii. Female 273 8.57 Type of farmers i. Small 140 20.00 ii. Medium 280 41.00 iii. Large 263 39.00 a. Millet growers 671 87.00 b. Non millet growers 83 13.00 Place of living i. Farm 6 0.88 ii. Village 673 98.54 iii. Main road 4 0.59 Type of houses a. Kaccha 554 81.10 b. Pukka 119 18.90 Drinking water sources a. Bore well 206 30.18 b. Tanks 392 57.80 c. Well 83 12.12 Sanitary facilities (toilets) a. Open 498 72.85 b. Closed 158 23.15

which accounted for 87 per cent. Non millet growers were also interviewed (13%) to have comparison in the sub project. On an average, the respondents had an experience ranging between 5 and 57 years in agriculture and millet growing. Youngsters were guided by their fathers and elderly persons as the agriculture was their main occupation since immemorial times. Average size of the family was 9 members. Nearly 56 per cent of the family members were male and 44 per cent were females. The ratio of male to female among adult and children was 1:1 but varied only in old aged groups. The family comprised of 42 per cent adult members, 30 per cent old aged and 28 per cent children. It was found that majority of the farmers were literates (66%) and only 33 per cent were illiterate. Among literates, 30% had primary level education, while 5.8% had education up to degree level (Deshmukh et al. 2011). About 30% farmers had education from secondary school to pre-university course. This indicated that education level was increasing in the present generation. Among 683 farmers surveyed, 61 per cent are small and medium farmers (5 acres land). Majority of the farmers dwelled in stone and mud houses (81%) and nearly 18% owned the houses constructed with cement and bricks. Flooring of the house was made up of stone slabs in 60 per cent of farmers' houses, where as it was mud flooring in case of remaining 40 per cent houses. Roof used for the house was mainly clay tiles in 45 percent of the houses where as 18 per cent had mud roof and 5 per cent had metal sheets and only 3 per cent had RCC roof (Jadhav et al. 2011). Sanitary condition of millet growers was not comfortable. Majority of the families did not have toilets. No toilet facilities were available for 72 per cent of the families. Similarly 78 per cent of the families disposed waste in open area, only 22 per cent used closed disposal of waste material. The source of drinking water for majority of the households was tanks (57.8%) followed by bore wells (13.9%) and open wells (12.2%). In some villages water from these sources was supplied to the houses through water pipes, and taps were provided in each street. Average per Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4(3)

Survey revealed that, on average, three members per family worked as family labourers on their own field for which wages was not paid or recorded. They worked for 243 334


Hemalatha et al. days in a year as labourers as well as supervisors whenever labourers were engaged. Average annual income from agricultural source was Rs. 44, 907. Around Rs. 74,479 was the income from sources other than agricultural operations. This was mainly from mason, labour in industry and petty business and salary from jobs in some cases. Annual expenditure on agriculture was around Rs. 24,000 and for food was Rs. 8,400 in addition to use of home grown farm produce. Amount of Rs. 6,200 was spent on education and Rs. 6,240 was on clothing and Rs. 7,400 was spent on other essential things (Table 5).

for value addition were foxtail millet (4.80%), pearl millet (0.58%) and others (1.02%). Dehusking and cleaning were the processes followed. Little amounts were milled to flour. Eighty one percent of millet growers did not store grains before marketing and 68 percent felt that there was no requirement for common storage facility. Table 6 Details of marketing of millets Particulars Frequency % Whether millet is sold i. Yes 354 51.80 ii. No 329 48.20 Place of selling i. Village vendor 95 13.90 ii. Village market 117 17.10 iii. Co-op society 2 0.30 iv. APMC 140 20.50 Whether millet is sold imediately i. Yes 155 22.10 ii. No 528 77.30 Reasons for immediate selling i. Money requirement 120 77.42 ii. Lack of storage 13 8.39 iii. Creditors pressure 11 7.10 iv. Others 11 7.10 Place of selling of straw i. Village market 69 10.10 ii. Other places 162 23.70 iii. Not sell 452 66.20 Value added to millets before selling i. Yes 29 4.20 ii. No 398 58.32

Table 3 Details of land holding of sample farmers Particulars Area (Acres) Dry land 2.34 Irrigated land 0.21 Horticulture land 0.32 Leased in land 0.72 Leased out land 0.40 Barren land 0.40 Table 4 Possession of animals Particulars Ox Buffalo Cow Sheep Poultry

Per capita 02 02 02 09 13

Table 5 Sources of family income - expenditure details Particulars Average (Rs.) Annual income a. Agriculture 44,907.81 b. Non- agriculture 74,479.0 Credit a. Agriculture 83,778.0 b. Others 1,98,756.0 Expenditure Agriculture 24,000.0 Food 8,400.0 Education 6,200.0 Cloth 6,240.0 Other 7,400.0

Table 7 Reasons for cultivating minor millets Reason Frequency Serves as fodder for cattle 614 Can be grown organically 467 Can be cultivated in conditions of drought 464 Tolerant to diseases 462 Important as a traditional crop 457 Requires less amount of investment 409 As food it is better than rice/wheat 405 Protects soil fertility 349 Requires less labour 301 Others 136

Post harvest activities of millet crops Marketing Fifty two percent of the millet growers sold millet in specified market place. Few sold the millets at APMC yard (20.5%), village market (17%), to village vendor (14%) and very little at coop society (0.3%). Majority (77.3%) did not sell the millet immediately and very little were sold immediately. The respondents need for cash (77.42%) was major reason for immediate selling of produce followed by lack of storage (8.39%), creditor’s pressure (7.10%) and other reasons (7.10%). Most of the millet growers did not follow any value addition (94%) to any of the millets. The little value addition done was to the whole quantity of the millet grown and by family members (90%). Millets used Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4(3)

% 89.80 68.40 67.90 67.60 66.90 59.90 59.30 51.00 44.10 19.90

Constraints for marketing and value addition to millets Constraints faced by the farmers in marketing and value addition of millets, as revealed by majority of the farmers, were found to be lack of training (64%) followed by lack of technical information (57%). The other reasons like lack of demand by consumers (34%), lack of capital (34%), marketing skills (48%), lack of machinery (47%) and non co-operation (30%) were some of the other constraints. These results are in line with the results of (Balakrishnappa and Rajan 2010). Reasons for cultivating and not cultivating of minor millets 335


Socio Economic Profile of Millet Growers in Karnataka Farmers felt that millets served as a good fodder for their cattle (89.80%), organically grown (68.40%), cultivated in drought (67.9%), tolerant to diseases (67.6%) and as an important traditional crop were major reasons for cultivation of millets and remaining were low costs of cultivation, better food than rice or wheat ,require less labour and others (Table 7).





Table 8 Reasons for not cultivating minor millets Reason Frequency Percentage Less demand by consumers 460 67.3 Low yield 458 67.1 Relatively low income 417 61.1 Low consumption 360 52.7 Less investment 226 33.1 Higher labour Requirement 140 20.5 Crop period is longer 119 17.4 Others 48 7



Reasons for reduction in millet growing area  Non-availability of millet processing unit either in the village or nearby places to carry out primary processing like dehusking, destoning and cleaning of grains for marketability. Absence of millet processing unit was the primary lacuna either for reduction in millet cultivation or complete stoppage of cultivation by control group of farmers who have abandoned growing of millets in their farms. All the respondent as well as control group of farmers opined that they shall reinitiate, continue and increase the cultivation of millets in larger area if millet processing units were established in their villages or in the close vicinity.  Lack of high yielding varieties grain as available in other cereals like sorghum and pearl millet. If high yielding verities are made available to the millet growers, millets are best suited for their marginal land, harsh environmental conditions as compared to other cereal crops. Hence, there is a need for making available the



seeds of high yielding varieties of foxtail millet and little millet in the project area. Demand for millets by the consumers is low which deprives farmers to grow millets. 67% of the respondent farmers expressed this opinion for reduction of millet growing area in the project region. Market price and total profit from millet cultivation are far low compared to other cereals grown in the project area. Nearly 76 per cent of respondent farmers expressed that low market price and low profits discouraged them from cultivation of millets. Local consumption in the millet growing areas itself was very low as these were not available in a condition fit for consumption. Millet grains available for consumption were not free from stones, dirt, husk and are mixture of dehusked grains. More grains still remained with husk coating even after processing by hand pounding. The available grains are difficult to clean. Hence 80 percent of the respondents expressed that consumption of millets reduced in the rural area due to non availability of processed and quality millet grains. Lack of availability of improved crop production of technologies.

Needs of millet growers In order to understand and facilitate cultivation and usage of millets, the needs of the millet growers were analyzed. About 90 percent of the farmers wanted improved cultivation practices. Sixty four per cent growers expected marketing facilities. Seed storage contacts (50%), training on value addition (54%), credit contacts (54%),processing mill information (34%), storage facilities before marketing (32%) were required by the growers. Millet were grown basically for cattle feed and fodder and very little was consumed. Lack of processing facilities and remunerative price were the major reasons for reduction in cultivation. Millets are nutritionally rich and farmers should be encouraged to grow millets by providing.

LITERATURE CITED Balakrishnappa Y K and Rajan R K. 2010. Study on socio-economic factors of different categories of sericulturists on bivoltine sericulture technologies in Karnataka Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1(4): 380-384. Deshmukh R C, Ashok Surwenshi, Biradar Gayatri and Jadhav B. 2012. Socio demographic and economic profile of NAIP beneficiaries. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3(1): 117-119. Halakatti S V, Kamraddi V and Natikar K V. 2010. Economic impact of improved production technology of small millets in Haveri district of Karnataka. Agriculture Update 5(3/4): 453-455. Halakatti S V, Kamraddi V and Natikar K V. 2010. Utilization Pattern of Small Millets in Haveri District of Karnataka. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 1(3): 212-214. Jadhav B, Manjunath L and Patil B L. 2011. Study on the profile of mango growers in Dharwad district of Karnataka. Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2(2): 388-392.

Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4(3)

336
