ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PADDY PRODUCTION AND HOUSEHOLDS LIVELIHOOD IN HILLY AREA OF ALMORA DISTRICT: POLICY FOR ENHANCING AND STABILIZING INCOME OF HOUSEHOLDS IN UTTARAKHAND, INDIA

S.V. SINGH¹*, N. BARKER², H.N. SINGH³, DIWAKER⁴, R.V. YADAV⁵, A. NOEL^6
1
2Department of Agricultural Economics, S. H. University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj, 211007, Uttar Pradesh, India
³Department of Agricultural Economics, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand, India
⁴Department of Agricultural Economics, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand, India
⁵Department of Agricultural Economics, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, 263145, Uttarakhand, India
⁶Department of Agricultural Economics, S. H. University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj, 211007, Uttar Pradesh, India
* Corresponding Author : shaktivardhan007@gmail.com

Received : 01-08-2020     Accepted : 22-08-2020     Published : 30-08-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 8       Pages : 755 - 761
Genetics 12.8 (2020):755-761

Keywords : Population, Literacy, Terrace, Valleys, Livestock, Farm assets, Income
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Agricultural Economics, S.H. University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj, 211007, Uttar Pradesh, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Analysis revealed the characteristics of paddy producing households in randomly selected two villages: Adhuria and Balai from Almora district. Primary data of 60 randomly selected households were collected for detailed analysis. Descriptive statistics were applied and tabular analysis was use to ascertain the results in precise manner. The majority of farmers belong to marginal category that was 93 and 97% to total farmers in terrace and valleys environments, respectively. On the other hand, a meager share of farmers falls in small category, 7 and 3 % in the respective environments. Paddy was the major cereal crop in the surveyed area during kharif season and it accounts 48 and 58% area to total cropped area in terraces and valleys, respectively. Livestock considered as backbone of hill economy and formed a sustainable source of income for households Use of machinery like tractor, harvester, threshers etc. was not common due to bio-physical condition of the cultivated land available on sample farms. Traditional implements/equipments were used in farming business to till now. The average annual income of households in valleys was Rs.116547/- which was 69% higher as compared to terraces Rs.68934/-. Analysis also revealed that the paddy production scenarios in valleys are more attractive due to prevailing assured production environment which is served as profitable business for the farmers. However, farmers of terrace growing paddy in kharif season due to employment of available resources with them-land and family members. As the opportunity cost of family member employment in the hills during kharif season is zero. Regression analysis indicates the independent variables: age of household head, farming experiences, size of land holding, share of irrigated area and yield advantage of MV were found positive and significant effect on area planted under modern paddy varieties. Increase in productivity of paddy is a big challenge for the farmers in hills. Adoption of modern paddy varieties can improve the productivity to desirable level, if suitable variety made available to the farmers.

1. Singh S.V., Barker N., Singh J.K. and Singh J. (2020) International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 12 (13), 10019-10023.
2. Tiwari S.K. (2015) MSc. (Agril. Eco.) Thesis, Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221005, Enrol., 313896.
3. Afolami C. A., Obayelu A. E., Agbonlahor M. U. and Lawal-Adebowale O. A. (2012) J. Agril. Sci., 4(4), 233-244.
4. Chatterjjee P.K. and Banerjee S. (1976) Indian Journal for Agricultural Economics, XXXI (3), 248-249.
5. Krishna V.V. (2001) M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560065.
6. Lal S. (1987a) Increasing Rice Production under Rain fed Low-land situation, New Delhi, 12.
7. Mohanadasan T.C. (1979) MSc (Agri) thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641003, 87-89.
8. Nagarajan S.S. (1998) Kisan world, 25(12).
9. Neha Lakra, Gauraha A.K. and Banafar K.N.S. (2017) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 108-115.
10. Richard P.V. and Radha D.S. (2017) International Journal of Current Advanced Research, 6(8), 5246-5249.
11. Saha A. (2004) Determinants of adoption HYV rice in West Bengal. K.P. Bagchi and Company, 170-200.
12. Saravanakumar V. and Kiruthika N. (2015) Res. J. Agric. Eco. & Stat., 6 (2), 249-255.
13. Singh H.N., Bisht M.S., Singh J. and Singh S.P. (2012) Agricultural Situation in India, 69(6), 317-325.
14. Singh H.N., Pandey S. and Lapitan A. (2006) In: Proceedings of the 2nd IRC 2006, held in New Delhi India during October 9-13, 2006 pp. 135.
15. Singh H.N., Singh S., Singh U.S., Singh J., Zaidi N.W. and Mohanty S. (2013) Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 12 (3), 472-477.
16. Subramanian S.R., Ramamoorthy K. and Varadarajan S. (1973) Madras Agricultural Journal, 60(3),192-195.