FARM MECHANISATION AND IT’S IMPACT:

A CASE STUDY OF A VILLAGE IN THE

BIRBHUM DISTRICT OF WEST BENGAL

PRESENTED BY
RAJKUMAR GARAIN
 The present dissertation has been done through an
empirical study conducted in a village of the Birbhum district of
West Bengal. The study attempts of farm mechanisation and its
impact on the levels of output, income and employment. This study
is organised in the following chapters which appear subsequently;
• A survey of relevant literature
• The statement and the problems and objective of the study
• The nature and data methodology used
• The findings of the study
• Conclusion and implications
 LITERATURE SURVEY
I have studied the following literatures :-
 Labour Use In Dynamic Agriculture: Evidence From Punjab by
AS Oberai and Iftikar Ahmed

 Scope, progress and constraints of farm mechanisation by

Joginder Singh, Professor-cum Head, Department of Economics,
Agricultural University, Ludhiya

Some Economic Aspects of Farm Mechanisation by W.G Joppich

The Green Revolution In Punjab, India: The Economics Of

Technological Change by Deepali Singh Kohli and Nirvikar Singh,
National Council for Applied Economic Research, University of
California, Santa Cruz, New Delhi, India Santa Cruz, USA
Employment Implications Of The Green Revolution And
Mechanisation: A Case Study Of The Punjab by C.H Hanumantha
Ra

Impact Of Farm Mechanisation On Productivity And

Profitability Of Rice Farm In Rajshahi District by MD Selim Reza
and Md Moazzem Khan

Mechanisation of Agriculture: Khaleeq A Naqvi

 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Ever seen the adoption of the HYV technology by different classes of West Bengal
farmers the degree of farm mechanisation also recorded certain progress. The extent of
mechanisation has ever has been at a low rate due to size of holding compared to the states of
Punjab, Haryana, and Western Utter Pradesh. For example the rate of tractorisation has been low,
but there has been large scale adaptation of artificially irrigation based von diesel pumps, shallow
tube wells and submersible pumps in recent years. The use of threshers and sprayers has also
increased remarkable. These developments have born to produce significant impact on income
and employment potential in the farm sector. Particularly the employment aspect of
mechanisation seems to be highly important in a state live West Bengal in view of the following
factor :
• The population density (man-land ratio) is among one of the highest one of the country.
• The agricultural growth dynamic has reached almost point saturation.
• The process of industrial growth has been sluggish and stagnating.
It is in this background seeks to undertake a number of investigation and its impact
on the local village economy. Specifically my dissertation sets the following objectives of study;
• To examine the nature and state of mechanisation as existing in farm operations.
• To study the ownership and used pattern of mechanised input.
• To study the nature of use of machinery by different crops.
• To study the earnings from mechanised inputs.
• To examine the contribution of mechanisation in output and generation of labour days.
 THE STUDY AREA
This study is based entirely on an analysis of primary data collected through the sample
survey method.
The survey area is purposely choosen as the village Monoharpur belonging to Gram
Panchayet Sattore and Police Station- Panrui. This falls which in the Bolpur-Sriniketan district. The
village Monoharpur is inhabited by 192 householders (Families) which a population size of about 900.
The village is predominantly agricultural on nature through thre are occupations relating top non
agriculture laboured activities, trade and business and small and petty services. The principal crops
grown are Amon (Khariff) paddy, Boro (HYV) paddy, mustard and potato. In addition to this til, pulse
and vegetables are also raised in small and intermediate skills.

The basic infrastructure of the village Monoharpur includes Electrification, Post-office,

Angawari Centre, Primary School and Pakka road. The Bus stand connected to the village is located at a
distance of about 4 kilometres. The nearest railway station at a distance of 9.5 kilometres.

The irrigation endowment of the village is highly satisfactory as canal water is available
during the summer season of paddy and there are mechanised instruments of irrigation such as
submersible pumps in sufficient numbers. The extend of mechanisation in the village in terms of other
instruments and machinery is also noticeable. There six tractors under operations in the village at
present.

The social composition of the village is mainly dominated by Schedule Caste

(SC)households. The percentage of General Caste and Other Backward Classes (OBC) of families
which around 40% with almost a total absent of Schedule Tribe (ST) families.
 THE SAMPLE DESIGN
In this study we have taken the farming families (households)
as units of study. The sampling use is random sample method particularly
the sample technique without replacement is followed.
First, out of total of 192 households a list of total
households was prepared to complete inexertion these amount to 192
families out of these about 35% families have been random sample
applying the lottery sampling method. Thus our sample size consists of
50 families.
For collecting data on the extent of mechanisation, output ,
income, employment and other relevant variables structured question
have been prepared. This content different information blocks. the
interview method in addition to the households survey schedule data are
collected through a village information schedule.
 FINDINGS
Some Demographic Characteristics by Operational Size Groups

TABLE-1
VARIBLE SIZE GROUPS VALUES

<0<=2.5 4.18

Mean Family Size

<2.5<=5 4.25

<5<=10 5.9

<10 9

Overall 4.74

<0<=2.5 55.43

Percentage of Male <2.5<=5 50

<5<=10 54.24

<10 55.56

Overall 53.59
VARIBLE SIZE GROUPS VALUES

<0<=2.5 44.57

<2.5<=5 50

<5<=10 43.76
Percentage of Female

<10 44.44

Overall 46.41

<0<=2.5 3.5

<2.5<=5 3.63

Mean Size of Labour Force <5<=10 4.8

<10 6.5

Overall 3.92

<0<=2.5 83.7

<2.5<=5 85.29

Percentage of Labour <5<=10 81.36

<10 72.22

Overall 82.7
VARIBLE SIZE GROUPS VALUES

<0<=2.5 1.77

<2.5<=5 1.81

Mean No Of Workers
<5<=10 2.3

<10 3

Overall 1.94

<0<=2.5 42.39

<2.5<=5 42.65

Percentage of Workers <5<=10 38.98

<10 66.67

Overall 40.93

<0<=2.5 68.83

<2.5<=5 67.24

Dependency Ratio <5<=10 75

<10 92.31

Overall 71.43
 TABLE-2
Hours of Use, Values and Employment days Of Different machinery

FOR MOONSON PADDY

VARIBLE SIZE GROUPS VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND

<0<=2.5 0.78

<2.5<=5 0.91

<5<=10 0.65 0.7 0.12 13.8

Tractor Hour

<10 0.75

Overall 0.68

<0<=2.5 703.56

<2.5<=5 816.2

<5<=10 582.63
Tractor Value 695.39 116.32 16.8
<10 679.17

Overall 552.28

<0<=2.5 0.22

<2.5<=5 0.25

<5<=10 0.16
Tractor 0.2 0.04 18.8
Employment <10 0.19

Overall 0.2
VARIBLE SIZE GROUP VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND
<0<=2.5 17.6

<2.5<=5 15.61

<5<=10 17.05
Submersible 16.13 0.86 5.13
Hours
<10 17.17

Overall 16.28

<0<=2.5 1000
<2.5<=5 1000 1000 0 0
Submersible <5<=10 1000
values
<10 1000
Overall 1000
<0<=2.5 0.22
<2.5<=5 0.25
Submersible <5<=10 0.16 4.3 0.08 1.9
Employment
days <10 0.19
Overall 0.17
<0<=2.5 1.64
<2.5<=5 1.26
Sprayer Hour <5<=10 1.07 1.1 0.43 37.4

<10 0.61
Overall 0.92
VARIBLE SIZE GROUP VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND

<0<=2.5 42.66

<2.5<=5 28.7

<5<=10 19.22
Sprayer Value 26.23 12.3 47.1

<10 14.58

Overall 16.39

<0<=2.5 0.41
<2.5<=5 0.32
<5<=10 0.27
Sprayer 0.2 0.11 37.7
Employment <10 0.15
Days
Overall 0.29
<0<=2.5 4.97
<2.5<=5 4.87
Threshing <5<=10 4.32 4.2 1.04 24.7
Machine Hour
<10 2.71
Overall 3.92
<0<=2.5 140.59
<2.5<=5 138.35
<5<=10 123.68 120.01 29.3 24.4
Threshing
Machine Value <10 77.42
Overall 98.31
VARIBLE0.44 SIZE GROUP VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND
<0<=2.5 4.35

<2.5<=5 4.26

<5<=10 3.78
Trashing 3.6 0.91 24.7
Machine
Employment <10 2.37
Days
Overall 3.01

<0<=2.5 0.44 0.4 0.02 4.4

<2.5<=5 0.42
Combined <5<=10 0.46
Harvester Hour
<10 0.42
Overall 0.44
<0<=2.5 1050
<2.5<=5 933.33
Combined <5<=10 1105.26 10 72.3 7.06
Harvester Value
<10 1009.52
Overall 1005.32
<0<=2.5 0.51
<2.5<=5 0.83
Combined <5<=10 0.92 0.7 0.18 23.3
Harvester
Employment <10 0.84
Overall 0.75
 TABLE-3
FOR SUMMER PADDY

VARIBLE SIZE GROUPS VALUES Mean S.D C.V

PER UNIT
OF LAND

<0<=2.5 0.85

<2.5<=5 0.92

<5<=10 0.57 0.76 0.16 20.58

Tractor Hour

<10 0.7

Overall 0.78

<0<=2.5 729.1
<2.5<=5 831.11
<5<=10 513.51 691.24 162.15 23.46
Tractor Value
<10 628.84
Overall 598.31
<0<=2.5 0.21
<2.5<=5 0.23
<5<=10 0.14 0.1875 0.04 21.5
Tractor
Employment <10 0.17
Overall 0.18
 SIZE GROUP VALUES PER Mean S.D C.V
UNIT OF
LAND
<0<=2.5 59.15

<2.5<=5 53.17

<5<=10 59.37 57.23 3.52 6.15

Submersible Hours

<10 53.08

Overall 54.39

<0<=2.5 1500
<2.5<=5 1500
Submersible values <5<=10 1500 1500 0 0

<10 1500
Overall 1500
<0<=2.5 14.78
<2.5<=5 13.29
Submersible <5<=10 14.84 14.05 0.88 6.29
Employment days
<10 13.27
Overall 13.74
<0<=2.5
1.8617
<2.5<=5
1.44526
Sprayer Hour
<5<=10 1.36 0.38 28.32
1.125
<10
1
Overall 4.08211
VARIBLE SIZE GROUP VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND
<0<=2.5
44.6809
<2.5<=5
32.8467
<5<=10 32.51 8.69 26.72
Sprayer Value 26.5625
<10
25.9615
Overall 31.89

<0<=2.5 0.47
<2.5<=5 0.361315
<5<=10
0.34 0.1 20.66
0.28125
Sprayer
Employment <10
0.25
Days
Overall 1.02
<0<=2.5 5.75439
<2.5<=5 4.35556
5.12 0.71 13.84
Threshing <5<=10
Machine Hour
<10 5.25
Overall 5.145455
<0<=2.5 200
<2.5<=5 112
154 44.14 28.66
<5<=10
Threshing
Machine Value <10 150
Overall 154.286
VARIBLE0.44 SIZE GROUP VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND
<0<=2.5
5.04
<2.5<=5
3.81
<5<=10
Trashing 3.36 2.3 45.61
0
Machine
Employment <10
Days 4.59
Overall

4.50
<0<=2.5 0.32
<2.5<=5 1
0.55 0.31 56.09
Combined <5<=10 0.44
Harvester Hour
<10 0.42
Overall 0.49
<0<=2.5 285.88
<2.5<=5 900
492.57 276.28 50480.2
Combined <5<=10 399.84
Harvester Value
<10 384.54
Overall 441.86
<0<=2.5 0.08
<2.5<=5 0.25
0.14 0.08 56.1
Combined <5<=10 0.11
Harvester
Employment <10 0.12
Overall 0.12
 MUSTARD
TABLE-4
VARIBLE SIZE GROUPS VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND
<0<=2.5
1.49
<2.5<=5
1.04
<5<=10 1.07909 0.28717 26.6124
Tractor Hour 0.92
<10
0.86
Overall
1.08
<0<=2.5
1344.74
<2.5<=5
938.82
Tractor Value
<5<=10
830
971.247 258.472 26.6124
<10
771.43
Overall
975
<0<=2.5
0.37355
<2.5<=5
0.26059
Tractor 0.27 0.07 26.61
Employment <5<=10
0.23067
<10
0.21429
Overall
0.25
VARIBLE SIZE GROUP VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND
<0<=2.5
2.68966
<2.5<=5
5.04348
<5<=10
Submersible 4 3.4 1.4 41.09
Hours
<10
1.88235
Overall
3.4382
<0<=2.5 268.97
<2.5<=5 382.7
287.47 81.17 28.24
Submersible <5<=10 310
values
<10 188.24
Overall 292.16
<0<=2.5 1.25
<2.5<=5 1.33
Submersible <5<=10 0.47
Employment
<10 0.76 0.64 83.87
days 0
Overall 0.94
<0<=2.5 5
<2.5<=5 5.33333
3.05 2.56 83.87
Sprayer Hour <5<=10 1.88235
<10 0
Overall 3.76963
VARIBLE SIZE GROUP VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER
BIGHA

Diesel pump <0<=2.5

Hours
12.86 8.43 6.26 74.31
<2.5<=5

<5<=10
4
<10

Overall
8.28
Diesel pump <0<=2.5
1285.71
Values
<2.5<=5

<5<=10 842.86 626.3 74.31

400
<10

Overall
827.586
Diesel pump <0<=2.5
3.21
Employment
Days <2.5<=5
0
<5<=10 1.05 1.52 143.86
1
<10
0
Overall
2.07
 POTATO
VARIBLE SIZE GROUPS VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND
<0<=2.5
0.74545
<2.5<=5
1
<5<=10
Tractor Hour 1.875
<10
0.66667
Overall
1.13191 1.07178 0.55405 51.6945
<0<=2.5
136.364
<2.5<=5
0
Tractor Value <5<=10
1687.5
<10
600
Overall
797.872 605.966 765.392 126.309
<0<=2.5
0.18636
<2.5<=5
0.25
Tractor <5<=10
Employment
0.46875
<10
0.16667
Overall
0.28298 0.26795 0.13851 51.6945
VARIBLE SIZE GROUP VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER UNIT
OF LAND
<0<=2.5
4.28571 72.6786 114.615 157.702
<2.5<=5
205
<5<=10
Submersible
8.75
Hours
<10

Overall
99.3023
<0<=2.5 428.571 601.19 239.8 39.8876
<2.5<=5 500
Submersible <5<=10 875
values
<10
Overall 627.907
<0<=2.5 1.07143
<2.5<=5 51.25
Submersible <5<=10 2.1875
Employment
days <10 0
Overall 24.83 15.8669 25.0977 158.177
<0<=2.5 20 10.6875 8.47883 0.79334
<2.5<=5 14
Sprayer Hour <5<=10 8.75
<10 0
Overall 13.3333
VARIBLE SIZE GROUP VALUES Mean S.D C.V
PER
BIGHA
Diesel pump <0<=2.5
Hours 21.6667 14.8333 9.66379 65.1492
<2.5<=5

<5<=10
8
<10

Overall
15.4545
Diesel <0<=2.5 5.41667 1.85417 2.55529 137.813
employment
<2.5<=5 0
days
<5<=10 2
<10 0
Overall 3.86364
Diesel pump <0<=2.5 666.667 385.389 250.231 64.9294
values
<2.5<=5 302
<5<=10 187.5
<10
Overall 334.222
Machinery Size group Percentage mean s.d c.v
value
Tractor <0<=2.5 20.62 25.07 10.32 41.19

<2.5<=5 36.73

<5<=10 29.77

<10 13.15

Overall 27.28

submarsible <0<=2.5
20.1107
<2.5<=5
31.5498
<5<=10
35.0554
<10
13.2841
Overall 29.21 25 10.0859 40.3437
sprayer <0<=2.5
29.0076 25 11.6834 46.7335
<2.5<=5
32.8244
<5<=10
30.5344
<10
7.63359
Overall 22.28