Assessing the effects of mechanical paddy transplanter on agricultural workers in selected villages of Eastern Uttar Pradesh

Joyce S. Luis, Thelma R. Paris and Abha Singh

SSD Division Seminar Series 28 February 2014 SSD conference Room, Drilon Building

Mechanization in the field of agriculture

Mechanization has been realized from cultivation to harvest Only pesticide-spraying needs manual operation (China) The amount of work in the rice field is reduced to 1/3 compared to traditional methods Development of agricultural equipment by manufacturing industry Information technology provided hardware support (e.g. digitized combine in Thailand)

Machine replaces manual labor

Rise of labor cost/ higher wage rate Difficulty in hiring workers Transform from laborintensive to capitalintensive enterprise

 Agricultural machine manufacturers Information technologists provide hardware support Private manufacturers Government subsidy program Service provider Farmers with large farm size Farmers with medium, small and marginal farm sizes Hired workers for nursery raising Operators of MPT Hired workers for gap filling

Objectives of the study

1. To find out likely consequences of MPT on mens and womens labor; and 2. To draw implications from this research

Methodology
Farm household survey August 2013 CSISA villages
Pokharbhinda in Maharajganj District Uska, Naunapar and Jigna in Deoria District

Key informant interview

Stratified random selection of users and non-users of MPT Target number of respondents is 120, 60 users and 60 non-users

Service provider/ Owners of large farm size

Comparison of manual and mechanical transplanting

Manual transplanting
Number of transplanters from the household/family labor a. Male adults b. Female adults Transplanting cost (Rs/acre) Area (acre)transplanted within a day Number of laborers during the transplanting period (F,Ex,H) Amount of seeds used in the seedbed preparation (kg/ha) Mechanical paddy transplanter

1 to 4 1 to 4 1,200 to 1,800 0.25 to 1.00

5 to 16 8 to 17

1 to 3 1,145 to 1,900 2.00 to 3.50

3 to 6 6 to 15

Laborers in the MPT

1. Operator 2. A person to place the seedling mat in place in the machine 3. A person to haul the seedling mat

Adoption and disadoption of MPT

Year first and last used Year first used 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Year last used 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total

Maharajganj No %
3 9 18 30 2 4 11 13 30 10 30 60 100 7 13 37 43 100

Deoria No %

All
No 3 9 18 30 60 2 4 11 43 60 % 5 15 30 50 100 3 7 18 72 100

30 30

100 100

30 30

100 100

Current and past users

1. 2. 3. Advantages Saves time Saves labor cost (Rs789/ha MPT vs Rs1,625/ha TRP) Less amount of seed required Saves money More tillers of rice plant Higher yield Disadvantages
1. Creates large gaps between rows 2. Increase in weed population 3. Requires proper land preparation 4. More time in nursery preparation (queue) 5. Machine not available /accessible during transplanting season 6. No training in the use of the machine/nursery preparation

4. 5.
6.

Perceptions on the use of MPT

Demand for MTP for large and medium but not all for the small holder farmers Service providers are not interested to invest due to :
the cost of the machine and the machine is under used (2 to 3 weeks during Kharif), and difficulty in preparing the seedbed

Government will not push the use of the machine through subsidy program or pay the private manufacturers

Constraints vs assurance to adoption

Constraints to adoption 1. Laborious nursery management 2. High wages of nursery laborers 3. No training on nursery preparation 4. Unavailable service provider 5. Not suitable to small plots Condition which will ensure adoption 1. Unavailability of labor for transplanting 2. Availability of the service providers and reasonable fee 3. Available seedlings 4. Leveled field and good drainage

Training needs
1. Preparation of a mat type nursery 2. Machine operation

Who will initiate or handle the training? Who will be trained?

Under the CSISA project training were given to men and women

Strategies to motivate farmers to adopt/invest on machine

Government subsidy Demonstration field Awareness program Training program Availability of machine

Classifications of the households

Current adoptor (n=43) No % Caste Upper caste Backward Other Type of household Absolute nuclear Joint/extended family Farm category Marginal (<1.0 ha.) Small (1.0 to 2.0 has.) Medium (2.0 to 3.0 has.) Large (>3.0 has.) 32 9 2 27 16 21 12 6 4 74 21 5 63 37 49 28 14 9 Non-user (n=60) No % 15 30 15 47 13 51 4 5 25 50 25 78 22 85 7 8

Average farm size (has.)

1.36

0.63

Who are members of the households

Child (<15 yrs old)
Son Daughter Grandson Grand daughter

Adults (25 to 65 yrs old)

Husband Wife Son Daughter Other male Other female

Young adult (15-24 yrs old)

Wife Son Daughter Other male Other female

Elderly (>65 yrs old)

Husband Wife Father/Brother Mother/Sister

Age and years in school

Age Years in school Current adoptor Non-user (n=43) (n=60) DiffeDiffeMale Female Male Female rence rence

Child
Young adult Adults Elderly

5-10
19-20 39-43 71-75

3.28
12.41 12.30 9.57

5.05
11.81 7.84 2.14

-1.77
0.60 4.46 7.43

3.04
11.65 10.33 7.29

3.15
8.93 4.54 1.22

-0.11
2.72 5.79 6.07

Are the farming households aging? Has the educational attainment of the younger generations improved?

This has implication on the adoption of technology

Health status
Current adoptor Male Female Child Healthy Young adult Healthy Adults Healthy Occasionally ill Disabled Elderly Healthy Occasionally ill Frequently ill 100 100 100 100 Non-user Male Female 100 100 100 100

96 4

99 1

100

96 3 1
56 44

36 36 29

43 43 14

57 43

Are they able to perform the tedious and strenuous farming activities?

Years in farming
Current adoptor (n=43) Male Female 0.12 3.90 11.43 Non-user (n=60) Male 0.42 18.58 33.21 Female 0.14 7.93 7.78

All members of the household Young adult Adults Elderly Members who are doing farming activity Young adult Adults Elderly Difference Young adult Adults Elderly

0.41 17.70 37.57

2.60 21.13 40.46 2.19 3.43 2.89

3.00 16.81 40.00 2.88 12.91 28.57

2.00 23.30 42.27 1.58 4.72 9.06

2.00 16.77 35.00 1.86 8.84 27.22

Do they have enough farming experience to compare manual and mechanical transplanting?

Income sources
Source of income Current adoptor (n=43) Share of Percent of Mean income HHLDS* value (%) 95 93 26 9 7 16 71,023 50,543 17,884 22,140 4,837 18,153 23 17 6 7 2 6 15 13 8,217 11,000 7 9 Non-user (n=60) Percent of HHLDS* 78 78 17 Mean value 23,959 21,012 2,337 Share of income (%) 20 17 2

Rice Wheat Maize Rent from machine Remittances Salary/pension

Business
Service MNREGA Total Monthly income

26
49 5

18,279
102,279 594 305,732 25,478

6
33 0 100

22
45 23

14,367
39,167 2,465 122,523 10,210

12
32 2 100

The current user have more diverse sources of income

Output/Input information
Current user (n=34) Yield Area Labor days Seeds 5.61 0.61 54.13 2,299.12 Non-user (n=51) 5.14 0.38 87.64 1,635.74 t-test 1.85 * 2.10 ** -4.87 *** 2.66 **

Fertilizer
Pesticide

5,511.49
1,709.08

6,006.76
1,488.21

-1.02
2.98 **

Machine

2,948.29

2,911.69

0.16

Family labor participation

14.00 12.00 Labor used (persondays/ha.) 10.00 8.00 6.00

Non-user

Current adoptor

4.00
2.00

0.00

Pulling of Trans- Replanting Handseedlings planting weeding

Pulling of Transseedlings planting

Replanting

Handweeding

Male Hired labor participation

14.00
Labor used (persondays/ha.)

Female
Non-user Current adoptor

12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00

Pulling of seedlings

Transplanting

Replanting

Handweeding

Pulling of seedlings

Trans- Replanting Handplanting weeding

Male

Female

Farm wages on specific activity

Farm activity Fixing bunds Seedbed prep. Plowing 1 Rotavator Pulling of seedlings Hauling/carrying of seedlings Transplanting Broadcasting/ Direct seeding Replanting/ Thinning Hand weeding Fertilizer appln Organic fertilizer appln Insecticide ap. Herbicide ap. Fungicide appln Molluscicide appln Harvesting zinc application Threshing Drying Average of wage 139.39 125.00 127.78 135.71 166.08 114.14 154.11 130.29 134.78 100.87 147.94 150.00 136.32 140.65 150.00 130.77 70.25 150.00 100.00 121.43 Min of wage 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 100.00 100.00 80.00 80.00 150.00 100.00 100.00 150.00 100.00 1.00 150.00 100.00 100.00 Max of wage 200.00 150.00 150.00 150.00 1,200.00 150.00 1,200.00 150.00 150.00 1,300.00 650.00 150.00 200.00 200.00 150.00 150.00 100.00 150.00 100.00 150.00

 Women who work as unpaid workers are relieved of the drudgery in transplanting as they have to work under the sun, or rains on the muddy fields. Women from small and marginal farm holdings who work as hired laborers in transplanting lost income and source of food.

 Technologies have different effects on men and women based on gender division of labor in specific rice communities. Technologies have different effects on different social categories of women (faming and landless households). Most women from poor and low caste household are dependent on agricultural labor (food security). Important for social scientist to anticipate the likely implications of the unintended negative consequences labor displacing technologies. Need to information on alternative income sources specially for the poor, e.g. PD, MNREGA, food and kerosene ration For research institution provide women access to agricultural training and information, agri-base enterprise, business ventures.

Suggestion for further research

Conduct the widespread adoption of MPT, drum seeded (introduced by CSISA) in other countries Java, Indonesia, Central Thailand, and other parts of India, (Kerala, Tamil Nadu). Implications on intra-household dynamics , changes in gender role, changes to access to resources. To determine the impact of the adoption of agricultural machinery on livelihood, productivity and welfare of men and women. To determine whether women SHG can venture as service provider of MPT.

Have a nice day!!!!