A Baseline study for the Holistic Rural De-velopment Programme funded by HDFC

Bank in the villages of Roorkee

Ambuja Cement Foundation

HDFC Bank

A Baseline study for the Holistic Rural Development Programme

funded by HDFC Bank in the Villages of Roorkee

Research Team, ACF

Ambuja Cement Foundation

HDFC Bank

August, 2019

1

Acknowledgements

On behalf of the Ambuja Cement Foundation the Research team of the study is grateful to the

location teams for providing the background data and contact details of the trainees which

helped contacting them.

We are thankful to the HDFC Bank for entrusting us and giving us this opportunity to imple-

ment the HRDP project in 20 villages in Roorkee.

We thank the ACF Senior Members and staff involved in the project and in data collection for

providing their inputs for the tool formation and supporting with all the basic information about

the program.

At the community level, the study team contacted the farmers in the villages and collected data.

The farmers participated actively and shared considerable information spending their time. We

thank them all.

At ACF, the research team worked tirelessly in planning for the study, collecting the required

information, compiling them and writing the report. We place on record their sincere and dedi-

cated work.

The Authors Ambuja Cement Foundation Mumbai

2

Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................ 1

Contents ............................................................................................................................................ 2

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Study Team ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................... 5

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 6

Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................. 9

HRDP Programmes and Activities ..................................................................................... 9

Background ............................................................................................................................ 9

Vision and Mission ........................................................................................................................... 9

History/Achievements/Accomplishments .......................................................................................... 9

Programme Evaluation Method ........................................................................................................ 9

Rationale of the HRDP Project ............................................................................................ 10

Brief about ACF Interventions ............................................................................................. 11

Vegetable Cultivation ..................................................................................................................... 11

Mix/Intercropping ........................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 2 ........................................................................................................................... 13

Study Design ..................................................................................................................... 13

Objectives/Research Questions ............................................................................................ 13

Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 13

Study Area and Sampling ................................................................................................................ 13 Study Team and Field work ............................................................................................................ 14

Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3 ........................................................................................................................... 15

Socio-economic Profile of Farmers’ Households ........................................................... 15

Socio-economic characteristics ............................................................................................ 15

Household and Agricultural Assets ...................................................................................... 16

Live-stock holding ............................................................................................................... 18

Average Household Income from different sources ............................................................ 19

Chapter 4 ........................................................................................................................... 21

Landholding and Cultivation ............................................................................................ 21

Landholding ......................................................................................................................... 21

Crop Cultivation ................................................................................................................... 23

Crops Cultivated ............................................................................................................................. 23

Crop Yield ............................................................................................................................ 24

Agricultural Practices ........................................................................................................... 26

Type of Seed .................................................................................................................................... 26

Method of Sowing Seed ................................................................................................................... 27 Weeding and Fertilizer Application ................................................................................................ 27

Food Security ....................................................................................................................... 28

Visit to demo plots ............................................................................................................... 29

3

List of Tables

Table1.1: Activities planned by ACF under the vegetable cultivation program. ............................... 11 Table 1.2: Activities planned by ACF under the Mix/Intercropping program. ................................... 12 Table 2.1: List of villages and Number of Farmers Selected for the Sample Study ......................... 14 Table 3.1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Study Population by Location.............................. 16 Table 3.2: Household Assets possessed by the farmer households by Location ............................ 17 Table 3.3: Agricultural assets possessed by the farmer households of the Study by

Location .................................................................................................................................. 17 Table 3.4: Possession of Adult livestock by the households classified by blocks and

villages .................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3.5: Average household income from different sources classified by blocks and

villages .................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 4.1 : Percentage of Farmers having total and irrigated land distributed by size of

total landholding, mean landholding of total and irrigated land by block and village ............. 21 Table 4.2: Percentage distribution of ownership of land by the households, classified by

block and village ..................................................................................................................... 22 Table 4.3: Percentage distribution of irrigated land by source of water for irrigation,

classified by block and village ................................................................................................ 22 Table 4.4a: Percentage of farmers growing different crops classified by blocks and

villages .................................................................................................................................... 23 Table 4.4b: Percentage of area under different crops, classified by block ....................................... 24 Table 4.5: Value of crop yield per acre, expenditure on crop per acre and percentage

expenditure to crop value, net crop income per acre. ............................................................ 25 Table 4.6: Percentage of expenditure incurred on raising crops classified by different

activities crop-wise.................................................................................................................. 25 Table 4.7a: Type of seed used crop-wise. ........................................................................................ 26 Table 4.7b: Method of Sowing seed classified by crop across locations. ........................................ 27 Table 4.7c: Percentage of different methods of weeding and fertilizer application by crop. ............ 28 Table 4.8: Average crop yield and average quantity of grain kept for household use and

percentage of crop yield used for household consumption by block ...................................... 28 Table 4.9: Percentage of households visited the ACF demo-plot classified by block and

village ...................................................................................................................................... 29

4

Study Team

Principal Investigators

Anagha Mahajani, Shilpi Vineet Gupta

Research Executive

Mr. Suryakant Somwanshi

Field Supervisor

Mr. Dalveer Singh

Field Investigators (Community Volunteers)

Ms. Harshila

Ms. Kajal

Ms. Moni

Ms. Neeru

Ms. Neha

Ms. Shashi

5

Abbreviations

ACF Ambuja Cement Foundation

BMR Budget Monitoring System

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

DAP Di-ammonium Phosphate

HH Household

HRDP Holistic Rural Development Programme

KPI Key Performance Indicators

MIS Monitoring Indicator System

MPR Monthly Progress Report

NGO Non-Government Organization

PU Project Unit

RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete

VC Video Conferencing

6

Executive Summary

Ambuja Cement Foundation (ACF) has been working with communities in the rural and remote

parts of India. Established in 1993, ACF endeavours to build a prosperous and progressive rural

society.

The Foundation was established as the CSR arm of Ambuja Cements Limited – to help neigh-

bouring communities prosper as the business progresses. In the last 25 years, ACF has success-

fully brought in some significant impact on the ground – not only in the villages neighbouring

Ambuja’s plants, but also beyond the core geographies. Today, ACF has its presence in 22 loca-

tions across 11 states of India and has reached out to over 24 lakh people.

While Ambuja Cement – ACF’s parents company, has played a major role in the organization’s

success, ACF has also built a robust set of partnerships which has been extremely crucial in the

growth story of the organization. In fact, more than 60% of the total ACF funds are generated

from various partners, including the government and nodal agencies, development agencies as

well as corporates. The successful models developed by ACF are replicated in the areas other

than ACL’s core geographic locations with the partners to make a larger difference.

Over the years, ACF has built its core strength as an implementing organization. The team’s rap-

port with the local community, effective project execution and strong compliance mechanism is

making ACF one of the most trusted partners. In the coming years, the Foundation wants to

strengthen its network of funding and knowledge partners – thus expanding our work through

new projects and by venturing into new geographies based on common interests.

ACF is doing a project with HDFC in 20 villages of Roorkee. Roorkee is a city in North In-

dia and a Municipal Corporation in the Haridwar district of the state of Uttarakhand, India. It is

spread over a flat terrain under Sivalik Hills of Himalayas. The city is developed on the banks

of Ganges Canal, its dominant feature, which flows from north–south through middle of the

city.

This study involves a review of literature about the HRDP project at Roorkee, background of

villages and the type of interventions by ACF, background characteristics of farmer’s household

with household amenities, landholding and cultivation and the details of crop cultivated (ex-

penditure and produce) in the last one year (2018 Kharif and 2019 Rabi), sale of produce and

crop failure if experienced any. The study has adopted quantitative method by conducting survey

of 110 farmer households who are listed as beneficiary for ACF vegetable cultivation and inter-

cropping programme.

ACF recently conducted a baseline study for two of its agriculture interventions

(Min/Intercropping and Vegetable cultivation) in 20 villages in Roorkee with 110 farmers. The

project is funded by HDFC bank. The study brought out that around 29 percent households had

each 7 or more members, another 48 percent had each 5-6 members and nearly 21 percent had

each 3-4 members.

Nearly 89 percent of the households live in RCC/pucca houses. RCC houses are found more in

Roorkee at 30.5 percent than in Haridwar at 17.6 percent. 93.6 percent of the households in the

study population had their own flush toilet. The source of water for household use was largely

own hand-pump with 61 percent households in Roorkee and largely household tap with 72.5

7

percent households in Haridwar. Stand post/Community tap was another major source of water

in both the locations with nearly 16 percent of the households using it.

LPG/Natural gas is used by 87.3 percent of the households overall and it is as high as 90 percent

in Haridwar. Television was possessed by nearly 90 percent of the households and cable/DTH

connection was possessed by 82.7 percent of the households. Possession of mobile phone was

reported by 100 percent of the households in Haridwar and nearly 80 percent of the households

in Roorkee. Two wheeler was possessed by 80 percent of the households and Refrigerator was

possessed by nearly 62 percent households. Possession of Mixer grinder, Washing machine and

Air cooler was reported by 40-50 percent of the households and Computer/laptop and Family

vehicle/car was possessed by 16-17 percent of the households. Possession of water purifier and

water heater was less than 4 percent of the households.

Nearly half of the households in Roorkee and little more than one fifth of the households in

Haridwar possess a tractor/trolley. Harrow was another agriculture related tool which was pos-

sessed by one fourth of the households overall and 37 percent households in Roorkee. Thresher

was an asset which was hold by little more than 5 percent of the households. All other agricul-

ture related assets like Bullock cart, spray thank, power-weeder, rotameter were possessed by 3-4

percent of the households and drip set, electric pump/motor, diesel pump and seed drill were

possessed by only 1-2 percent of the households.

Overall annual income from agriculture ranged between 10000-50000 Rs. for about 44 percent

of the households and it was less than 10,000 Rs. for 13 percent of the households. Nearly 7 per-

cent of the households in Haridwar did not show any income from agriculture as they keep the

produce for household consumption and do not sell it. 10 percent of the households reported to

have income ranging from 200001-500000 Rs. which is higher at nearly 17 percent in Roorkee.

The mean income from agriculture in Roorkee worked out to 198963 Rs. and only Rs. 43872 in

Haridwar. In Haridwar 43.1 percent households also reported to have some income from salary

in comparison to 35.6 percent households in Roorkee.

In the study households 46.6 percent of the households had agricultural land more than 5 acres

and it was as high as 61 percent in Roorkee and 29 percent in Haridwar. The average landholding

was 7.8 acres and it ranged from 4.6 acres in Haridwar to 10.6 acres in Roorkee. With respect to

irrigated landholding, most of the landholding is irrigated holding only except a few households

(2.8 percent) not having irrigated landholding. Bore/ tube well was the source of irrigation for

100 percent lands at Roorkee and it was the main source of irrigation (52.6 percent) in Haridwar.

Canal-flow was used as a source of water for irrigation for 35.1 percent and open/dug well was

the source of water for 5.3 percent of the lands at Haridwar.

Overall 92.3 percent of the farmers have taken wheat as a crop and it is similar in both the

blocks whereas paddy was grown by 81.4 percent farmers in Roorkee and only 44.4 percent of

the farmers in Haridwar. Sugarcane was the another major crop grown with 50 percent of the

farmers growing it overall and it was again high at 71.2 percent in Roorkee and only 22.2 percent

at Haridwar. Fodder crops were grown by 43.3 percent of the households mainly to feed their

own cattle and some farmer also grow fodder crop to sell in the local area. Where mangoes were

not grown in Haridwar at all, in Roorkee, they were grown by 23.7 percent of the households.

Cucumber, Jowar, and black gram were the other major crops grown by nearly 10 percent of the

farmers overall. Vegetables and other crops were grown by very few (less than 5 percent) farm-

ers.

8

Overall, the major crops cultivated irrespective of season and year (in terms of percentage of

cropped area) were sugarcane (27.2 percent), wheat (23.9 percent) and paddy (14.8 percent). The

other significant crops grown were mangoes and fodder crops (Mostly Bajra and Jowar which

they harvest before the seed preparation and use as fodder for the cattle). Cucumber was also

grown in 3 percent of the area. Other crops grown were mainly vegetables and fruits grown in 3

percent or lesser area overall.

The per acre crop yield (combined for kharif 2018 and rabi 2019) worked out to sugarcane 11752

kgs, wheat 1027 kgs, paddy 749 kgs and for fodder crops 8340 kgs. The net income per acre for

the major crops worked out to 16817 Rs. for sugarcane, Rs. 6652 for wheat, and Rs. 4041 for

paddy. In many of the cases the produce of mango was not reported and so the crop yield per

acre and the value of produce could not be worked out for mango, hence mango is removed

from the crop list in table 4.5.

One fourth of the expenditure was made on paid labor overall which was more than 30 percent

in case of wheat. Equipment hiring cost was 16.6 percent, Seed/sapling cost was 18.7 percent

and water/electricity cost was 14.4 percent overall. 10 percent of the expenditure was made on

pesticides. For most of the crops mainly readily available treated seed was used. Seed used with-

out treatment was only in a few crops like Jowar where the crop was used as a fodder and the

grains were not obtained. Other crops were mainly grown with treated seeds.

In most of the crops (Overall in nearly 61 percent cases), farmers are using line sowing but it has

been done manually. Seed drill was used only in 1.9 percent cases which is being promoted by

ACF now with the help of the government. Manual broadcasting was done in another one-

fourth of the cases and transplantation was done mainly in paddy (60 percent). Nearly in 65 per-

cent in sugarcane cases, 56 percent in paddy cases and 45 percent in wheat cases, the farmers did

soil testing before growing the crops.

Overall in 85 percent of the cases, weeding was done manually and in another 12.4 percent cases,

weeding wasn’t done. Weeding done using weedicide was found only in 3 percent of the cases

which was little higher at 6.3 percent in wheat cases. In more than 72 percent of the cases inor-

ganic fertilizers were applied by using broadcasting as a method followed by organic fertilizers by

broadcasting method used by farmers in 13 percent of the cases. Inorganic and Organic fertilizer

application by root zone application method was found only in 5-5 percent of the cases.

In most of the cases the by-products were kept for cattle feed. In very few cases (nearly 5 per-

cent), the by-product was sold for money and in 3 percent cases, it was burnt in the field. The

wheat cultivating households used nearly 1375 kgs of wheat, paddy cultivating households have

used 1159 kgs of paddy and black gram cultivating households have used 60 kgs of black gram

for household consumption irrespective of the quantity of crop yield they harvested.

Overall 71 percent of the households reported of visiting ACFs demo plot. The percentage of

household members visiting demo plot was as high as 93 percent in Roorkee and only 45 percent

in Haridwar.

9

The vision of Ambuja Cement Foundation is to create a sustainable, prosperous society, built on long-term partnerships and the mission is to ener-gize involve and enable communities to realize their potential.

Chapter 1

HRDP Programmes and Activities

Background

Ambuja Cement Limited (ACF’s parent company) considers its neighboring community as its

biggest stakeholder, a philosophy that has evolved from its Founders’ belief that people around

us should prosper at the same stride as the business does. To achieve this, the Company estab-

lished its CSR Foundation in 1993. The Foundation is also registered as a not-for-profit organi-

zation registered under section 8 of the Company Act 2013. The Foundation hired a profession-

ally qualified team of dedicated development professionals to implement programs with an at-

tempt to balance community needs and business needs by engaging in a variety of people-centric,

integrated rural development projects.

Vision and Mission

Ambuja Cement Foundation under-takes projects and schemes to pro-mote the social and economic devel-opment of communities in our pro-gram villages. These development initiatives address the needs of the people by working with the benefi-ciaries, NGOs and the government.

History/Achievements/Accomplishments

For over 26 years, Ambuja Cement Foundation (ACF) has been working to build prosperous

communities by co-creating sustainable solutions for rural India. Ambuja Cement has worked

with an advanced consciousness that its operations occur in virgin and remote geographies

where the locals face various challenges. ACF is currently present in 32 districts spread across 11

states having reached 2.5 million people from 2073 villages.

For more than two decades, ACF has been closely working with rural communities, making

them self-reliant by building their confidence to utilize available resources and find solutions. We

continue to create a long-term and viable future for our communities.

Programme Evaluation Method

ACF’s output-based monitoring and evaluation framework is custom-made. Instead of a dedicat-

ed team collecting data from the field and evaluation it, the entire field team at locations actually

collect the data themselves are actively involved in MIS. This helps quick and effective review of

the projects.

Following is the methodology adopted for evaluation program progress.

Monthly Progress Report (MPR):- The MPR is input-based monitoring system that

captures target versus achievement progress from each location on monthly basis.

10

Budget Monitoring Report (BMR):- BMR helps to monitor program’s progress

against set budget for various activities. This is also tracked on monthly basis.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):- These are the output based indicators that cap-

ture the program-wise quantitative data at each location. KPIs are the output based indi-

cators that help to measure progress against set annual targets.

Monitoring Indicator System (MIS):- This is another output based monitoring system

that captures qualitative and quantitative data to assess programs’ impact by capturing

feedback across all our stakeholders. The MIS data is captured on quarterly basis.

Rationale of the HRDP Project

Livelihood enhancement is one of the basic need of the community members and ACF

found that vegetable cultivation and allied activities have the potential to increase the

earnings in short period, in sustainable way, provided there are no drastic changes in the

market and weather. Improvement in cultivation practices and market linkage are the

basic gaps which we have identified and wish to make an effort to improve it in the given

year.

Low literacy rate among females due to which there is lack of awareness and no option

for them to support their family in monetary gains. Bankers and monetary institutions are

not supporting for the microenterprises development.

Farmer’s technical knowhow is very poor, hand holding and skill enhancement required

for latest agro techniques.

Prevalence of non-communicable diseases (diabetes, high blood pressure) due to Tobac-

co, unhealthy/imbalanced diet, physical inactivity and consumption of alcohol.

Quality health facilities are not available in the villages, people are dependent upon

Haridwar and Roorkee city.

Most of the villages do not have any waste disposal system due to which waste water and

solid waste disposal is a major concern. This has affected the environment and health of

the community.

Due to lack of awareness, no resource and lack of collective action, wastewater is flowing

in streets which create very poor environment.

Water pollution and safe drinking water facility is a major concern in the villages due to

industrialization & poor drainage system at Roorkee and SIDCUL Haridwar.

Due to the absence of proper septic system, water of hand pumps is also getting contam-

inated which causes many water-borne contagions like diarrhoea, and also serves as a car-

rier for vectors such as mosquitoes spreading epidemics. People are not aware that their

drinking water is contaminated because water looks clean.

Low enrolment and attendance in government primary and upper primary schools. This

is due to poor school infrastructure and learning quality

11

Brief about ACF Interventions

This section provides a brief about the activities under the two interventions chosen for the

baseline study. Table 1.1 and Table 1.2 provide the current practices by the farmers, the interven-

tions by ACF and the impact under both the interventions.

Vegetable Cultivation

Table1.1: Activities planned by ACF under the vegetable cultivation program.

Sl. Current Practices Interventions Expected Outcome

1. New variety of seeds was

not used by Farmers

We have promoted improved

variety of seeds in program

villages due to which produc-

tion will increase

Saira seed for cucumber was pro-

moted in the program villages and

now Navya Hybrid seed has been

provided for Okra. Quality of

these variety is good and demand

of this variety is more in the mar-

ket.

2. Fertigation was done

through broad casting

Fertigation is done near to

plants.

50% reduction in fertilization thru

spray method.

3. Huge quantity of Chemi-

cal pesticides were used in

vegetables

Now home-made bio pesti-

cides are being used in the

fields.

Diseases is controlled and soil

health is also improved.

4. Seed Treatment was not

being done

Seed treatment is done for

vegetable crop and trichoder-

ma is being used.

Fungus control in the crop.

5. Straw & organic matter

was destroyed by the

farmers

All organic matter is decom-

posed in the field itself

Organic carbon in the soil is im-

proving.

6. Decomposer was not be-

ing used

Maximum farmers are using

decomposer

Decomposing of Crop residue

which helps in improving organic

carbon.

7. Intercropping was not

being adopted

Vegetables will be promoted

with sugar cane

Soil nutrient is improved and

helps in increasing farmer’s in-

come. Sugarcane payments are

delayed by mills and farmers can

earn income from vegetables to

meet his day to day expenses.

8. Turmeric farming was not

done in Haridwar belt

Turmeric farming will be initi-

ated with farmers in the pro-

gram villages

Wild animals attack issue will be

resolved to some extent. Okra

vegetable is also not attacked by

Monkeys.

9. Replication of new variety

with other farmers

Adoption of new variety will be done with other farmers in the area

thru exposures and training to the farmers.

12

Mix/Intercropping

Table 1.2: Activities planned by ACF under the Mix/Intercropping program.

Sl. Current Practices Interventions Expected Outcome

1. Farmers are not sowing

with Seed Drill

Farm Machinery has been Provided

to farmers club and seed drill has

been used in sowing the wheat

crop

Earlier 15 KG seed was re-

quired per bigha but with the

use of seed drill it has reduced

to 6-7 KG per bigha

2. New variety of seeds was

not used by Farmers

We have promoted improved varie-

ty of seeds in program villages due

to which production will increase

PBW 154 PBW 226, HD 2285

RR 21 were used and now

farmers were provided SW 23

& BHU 31 & ZN 02.

3. Power weeder was not

used for weeding

Farm Machinery has been Provided

to farmers club and Power weeder

will reduce the drugery of farm la-

bour

Labor cost reduction by 50%

4. Fertilization was done

thru broad casting

Fertilization is done through spray

method.

30 KG urea was used in 1

bigha but with spray method

only 10 KG urea is required.

50 KG DAP was used in

broad cast and now 35 KG

DAP is required in spay meth-

od. Potash was not used earlier

but potash will be used.

5. Soil Testing was not

done earlier

Now soil testing is done and Micro

nutrients are applied as per re-

quirement

Improved Soil Health.

6. Seed Treatment was not

being done

Seed treatment done for wheat

crop and trichoderma is being used.

Fungus control in the crop.

7. Straw & organic matter

was destroyed by the

farmers

All organic matter is decomposed

in the field itself

Improved Organic carbon in

the soil.

8. Decomposer was not

being used

Maximum farmers are using de-

composer

Decomposing of Crop residue

which helps in improving or-

ganic carbon.

9. Intercropping was not

being adopted

Mustard, Flax seeds, Methi has

been introduced in wheat crops.

Improvement in Soil nutrient

which will help in increasing

farmer’s income.

10. Storage & Replication of

new variety with other

farmers

Adoption of new variety will be done with other farmers in the area.

13

The main objective of the study was to create a base-

line for the vegetable cultivation programme and

Promotion of Mixed/Inter cropping in the villages of

Roorkee and Haridwar clusters.

To fulfill the objectives, a sample survey of 110 farm-

ers was conducted.

Chapter 2

Study Design

In this chapter, we present the research questions (objectives of the study), research method,

sampling, field operations, and an account of the study location and the study subjects (inter-

viewed respondents).

Objectives/Research Questions

The objectives or research questions for the study are

1. To create a baseline for the vegetable cultivation and intercropping programme in the HRDP villages at Roorkee. This will help measuring the impact at the end of the project.

2. To look at the current practices and the difference made by the programme.

3. To see if the HRDP programme has helped farmer increasing their income and productivity.

Methodology

The study involved the following two main components

1. A review of the overall HRDP programme activities (already presented in Chapter 1)

2. A household survey (interviews with ACF beneficiary farmers under the vegetable culti-

vation and intercropping programme) to ascertain the benefits and impact of the pro-

grammes at the end.

Study Area and Sampling

At the outset it must be mentioned that for the implementation of programmes, ACF is working

in 20 villages under the HRDP project in Haridwar and Roorkee since October 2017 and in agri-

culture mainly building capacity of farmers in order to enhance the crop productivity and in-

crease farmer’s income. Most of the other interventions have completed one or two years and

ACF has planned to add Vegetable cultivation and inter/mix cropping as intervention this year.

The purpose of this study was to

conduct a baseline for the inter-

ventions to be initiated in the

near future. Accordingly a list of

villages was provided by the field

teams where ACF has initiated

these two interventions. For the

Research purpose 4 villages for

each of the programme (2 from

each cluster) and 15 farmers

from each of the village were selected for the study. In total a sample of 120 farmers was drawn

for the study (60 per intervention) and survey of 110 farmer households was completed.

14

Table 2.1: List of villages and Number of Farmers Selected for the Sample Study

District Location Type of intervention Village name

No. of bene-ficiaries in the village

No. of bene-ficiaries sampled

No. of benefi-ciaries covered

in the study

Haridwar Roorkee Vegetable Cultivation M. Panda 19 19 19

Haridwar Roorkee Vegetable Cultivation Dhanori 21 15 15

Haridwar Roorkee Mix/Inter cropping Gummawala 15 15 10

Haridwar Roorkee Mix/Inter cropping Rangharwala 25 15 15

Haridwar Haridwar Vegetable Cultivation Missapur 25 15 14

Haridwar Haridwar Vegetable Cultivation Shyampur 11 11 10

Haridwar Haridwar Mix/Inter cropping Katarpur 16 15 15

Haridwar Haridwar Mix/Inter cropping Sajanpur 19 15 12

Total 151 120 110

A sample of 15 farmers per village was considered looking at the number of farmers in the vil-

lages. The vegetable cultivation intervention is happening in 5 villages in Roorkee and 6 villages

in Haridwar and Mix/Inter cropping is happening in 9-9 villages in both the clusters. It was de-

cided to select 2 villages per cluster per intervention. So accordingly total 8 villages were selected

with a sample of 15 farmers from each of these village. Because one of the village had only 11

farmers as beneficiary, we selected 19 farmers from the next village to maintain the sample size.

Probability proportionate to size sampling method was adopted for the selection of villages and

systematic sampling method was adopted for the selection of farmer households. The list pro-

vided by the field teams served as the sampling frame for the selection of farmers’ households.

With systematic random sampling method, farmers were selected from the list and the house-

holds represented by the selected farmers were the households selected for the study.

Study Team and Field work

The study team consisted of core research team at ACF Mumbai Office, PU coordinator from

Bathinda as supervisor and the Program Manager as overall coordinator, and 4 community vol-

unteers (One village each) as field investigators for the study. It is to be noted that to maintain

objectivity, the field investigators were deployed from different villages and they were used pri-

marily for administering the household questionnaire.

The planning process for the study started in mid-March 2019, the training for field staff was

held through VC on 13th June for one days and the survey was completed by June end 2019.

Limitations of the Study

Crop related information such as crop yield and expenditure are based on the farmers’ recall re-

sponses. Usually farmers understate the yield and overstate the expenditure. If so, the estimates

of yield per acre would be lesser and expenditure per acre would be higher. However, if there

were any underestimation or overestimation, the level of estimates may not be real.

15

Nearly 89 percent of the households live in

RCC/pucca houses with 100 percent electrifica-

tion. As many as 93.6 percent of the households

in the study population had their own flush toilet

and nearly 2 percent were using communi-

ty/common toilets. The source of water for

household use was largely own hand-pump with

61 percent households in Roorkee and largely

household tap with 72.5 percent households in

Haridwar.

Chapter 3

Socio-economic Profile of Farmers’

Households

This chapter provides an account of the socio-economic profile of households and population of

the study area based on the household survey. The socioeconomic profile of the households was

captured through the household questionnaire.

Socio-economic characteristics

Table 3.1 presents socioeconomic aspects of the households as per the survey such as family

size, type of house, electrification of house, sources of water and fuel for household use and type

of toilet facility for the household.

It is seen from the table that overall around 29 percent households had each 7 or more members,

another 48 percent had each 5-6 members and nearly 21 percent had each 3-4 members. On the

other hand nearly 2 percent of the households had only 1-2 members in their families.

With respect to type of house, nearly 89 percent of the households live in RCC/pucca houses.

RCC houses are found more in Roorkee at 30.5 percent than in Haridwar at 17.6 percent. Over-

all 10 percent of the houses are found Semi-pucca and not even 1 percent houses are found

Kuchcha. With respect to electrification of house, it was observed that all of the households in

the study were electrified.

It is seen from the same table that as many as 93.6 percent of the households in the study popu-

lation had their own flush toilet and nearly 2 percent were using community/common toilets.

Only 4.5 percent of the overall houses did not have a toilet facility and they reported to go for

open defecation. Availability of toilet facility is better in Haridwar with 96 percent households

having their own flush toilets and another 2-2 percent using community toilet and defecating in

open whereas 6.8 percent households in Roorkee did not have a toilet facility and their members

defecate in open areas.

The source of water for household

use was largely own hand-pump with

61 percent households in Roorkee and

largely household tap with 72.5 per-

cent households in Haridwar. Stand

post/Community tap was another

major source of water in both the lo-

cations with nearly 16 percent of the

households using it. Other reported

water sources are Neighbor’s hand

pump and community hand pump at

8.2 and 6.4 percent respectively.

16

With respect to type of fuel used for cooking, LPG/Natural gas is used by 87.3 percent of the

households overall and it is as high as 90 percent in Haridwar. Grass/crop residue/wood is re-

ported as another major source of fuel used by 82.7 percent of the households followed by cow-

dung at which is reported as source of fuel for nearly three fourth of the households. The usage

of fuels which are used for Chulha (grass/crop residue/wood/cow-dung) is found much higher

in Roorkee whereas in Haridwar the usage of LPG and electricity is more.

Table 3.1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Study Population by Location

Socio-economic Factors Roorkee Haridwar Total (N) Total (%)

Members in the family

1-2 members 0.0 3.9 2 1.8

3-4 members 22.0 19.6 23 20.9

5-6 members 44.1 52.9 53 48.2

7+ members 33.9 23.5 32 29.1

Type of House RCC 30.5 17.6 27 24.5

Pucca 57.6 72.5 71 64.5

Semi-Pucca 11.9 7.8 11 10.0

Hut/Tent 0.0 2.0 1 0.9

Toilet Facility Flush Toilet (Own) 91.5 96.1 103 93.6

Community/Common 1.7 2.0 2 1.8

None/Open Defecation 6.8 2.0 5 4.5

Water Source for Households*

Household Tap 0.0 72.5 37 33.6

Neighbour's Tap 3.4 0.0 2 1.8

Stand-post/ Community Tap

15.3 17.6 18 16.4

Own Hand-pump 61.0 19.6 46 41.8

Neighbour’s Hand-pump 11.9 3.9 9 8.2

Community Hand-pump 8.5 3.9 7 6.4

Type of Fuel used*

Grass/Crop Residue/Wood 94.9 68.6 91 82.7

Cow-dung 89.8 56.9 82 74.5

Biogas 6.8 2.0 5 4.5

Solar Energy 1.7 0.0 1 0.9

LPG/Natural Gas 84.7 90.2 96 87.3

Electricity 0.0 5.9 3 2.7

Total 59 51 110 100.0

* Multiple responses applicable.

Household and Agricultural Assets

In this section we are talking about possession of modern articles and possession of agricultural

equipment in the households.

It can be seen from table 3.2 that among the many modern household items listed, electric fan

was possessed by all of the households, television was possessed by nearly 90 percent of the

households and cable/DTH connection was possessed by 82.7 percent of the households. Pos-

session of mobile phone was reported by 100 percent of the households in Haridwar and nearly

80 percent of the households in Roorkee. Two wheeler was possessed by 80 percent of the

17

households overall which was higher at 88 percent in Haridwar in comparison to 78 percent in

Roorkee and Refrigerator was possessed by nearly 62 percent households. Possession of Mixer

grinder, Washing machine and Air cooler was reported by 40-50 percent of the households and

Computer/laptop and Family vehicle/car was possessed by 16-17 percent of the households.

Possession of water purifier and water heater was less than 4 percent of the households. It can

be seen from the data the possession of modern assets by the households is comparatively better

in Haridwar than Roorkee.

Table 3.2: Household Assets possessed by the farmer households by Location

Household Assets Roorkee Haridwar Total (N) Total (%)

Electric Fan 100.0 100.0 110 100.0

Television Set 91.5 88.2 99 90.0

Landline/Mobile Phone 79.7 100.0 98 89.1

Cable/DTH Connection 78.0 88.2 91 82.7

Scooter/Bike/Moped 78.0 82.4 88 80.0

Refrigerator 57.6 66.7 68 61.8

Air Cooler 39.0 56.9 52 47.3

Washing Machine 42.4 51.0 51 46.4

Mixer Grinder 44.1 39.2 46 41.8

Computer/Laptop 20.3 13.7 19 17.3

Car/Family Vehicle 11.9 21.6 18 16.4

Water Heater 3.4 3.9 4 3.6

Water Purifier 0.0 2.0 1 0.9

Total (N) 59 51 110 100.0

A question was asked to the respondents about possession of agriculture related equipment as

the study is centered towards farmer households only and the data is presented in table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Agricultural assets possessed by the farmer households of the Study by Location

Agriculture Equipment Roorkee Haridwar Total (N) Total (%)

Tractor/Trolley 49.2 21.6 40 36.4

Harrow 37.3 11.8 28 25.5

Thresher 6.8 3.9 6 5.5

Bullock Cart 1.7 5.9 4 3.6

Spray Tank 3.4 3.9 4 3.6

Power Weeder 1.7 5.9 4 3.6

Rotameter 5.1 0.0 3 2.7

Drip Set 1.7 2.0 2 1.8

Electric Pump/Motor 1.7 2.0 2 1.8

Diesel Pump 0.0 2.0 1 0.9

Seed Drill 0.0 2.0 1 0.9

Total (N) 59 51 110 100.0

It can be seen from table 3.3 that nearly half of the households in Roorkee and little more than

one fifth of the households in Haridwar possess a tractor/trolley. Harrow was another agricul-

ture related tool which was possessed by one fourth of the households overall and 37 percent

18

households in Roorkee. Thresher was an asset which was hold by little more than 5 percent of

the households. All other agriculture related assets like Bullock cart, spray thank, power-weeder,

rotameter were possessed by 3-4 percent of the households and drip set, electric pump/motor,

diesel pump and seed drill were possessed by only 1-2 percent of the households. Unlike modern

household assets, agriculture related assets were found more in Roorkee in comparison to

Haridwar.

Live-stock holding

Agriculture and livestock rearing are complementing to each other. Animals are not only used

for ploughing and draught, but their dung goes back to fields as manure or is used for cooking.

Similarly, agricultural waste is the biggest food source for animals. It has been acknowledged that

livestock sector makes important contribution to food security and poverty reduction.

Hence for the study on agriculture we found it important to capture data on livestock holding by

the households. The question was asked about number (adult and small) of each type of live-

stock possessed by the households. As small livestock are treated as un-productive, for the analy-

sis we have taken only the adult livestock. Table 3.4 presents the mean block and village wise

data of livestock holding by the households.

It can be seen from the data that overall livestock holding is more in Roorkee in comparison to

Haridwar. Overall 10 percent of the studied households possess an average of 1.09 He buffalos,

38 percent of them have 1.16 (mean) she buffalos, 49 percent have 1.12 (mean) desi cows, 25.5

percent have 1.28 (mean) jersey cows, 6.4 percent have 1.14 (mean) bullocks and only 1.8 per-

cent households possessed 1.5 (mean) sheep/goat. The block and village wise data is presented

for further understanding.

Table 3.4: Possession of Adult livestock by the households classified by blocks and villages

Block/ Village

He Buffalo She Buffalo Desi Cow Jersy Cow Bullock Sheep/Goat Total HHs %

HHs Mean

% HHs

Mean %

HHs Mean

% HHs

Mean %

HHs Mean

% HHs

Mean

Total 10.0 1.09 38.2 1.16 49.1 1.12 25.5 1.28 6.4 1.14 1.8 1.50 110

Roorkee 13.6 1.13 47.5 1.20 50.8 1.20 39.0 1.34 6.8 1.20 1.7 1.00 59

Haridwar 5.9 1.00 27.5 1.00 47.1 1.00 9.8 1.00 5.9 1.00 2.0 2.00 51

Village wise

M.Panda 31.6 1.00 63.2 1.14 68.4 1.46 26.3 1.40 5.3 1.00 5.3 0.00 19

Dhanori 6.7 2.00 40.0 1.14 53.3 1.00 33.3 1.60 13.3 1.50 0.0 1.00 15

Missapur 0.0 0.00 28.6 1.00 35.7 1.00 35.7 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 14

Shyampur 0.0 0.00 30.0 1.00 70.0 1.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 10

Gummawala 10.0 1.00 20.0 1.33 20.0 1.00 90.0 1.33 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 10

Rangharwala 0.0 0.00 53.3 1.27 46.7 1.00 26.7 1.00 6.7 1.00 0.0 0.00 15

Kartarpur 13.3 1.00 26.7 1.20 33.3 1.00 0.0 0.00 20.0 1.00 6.7 2.00 15

Sajanpur 8.3 1.00 25.0 1.00 58.3 1.14 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 12

19

Average Household Income from different sources

To understand what proportion of family income is contributed by agriculture in the study

households and other income sources, a question was asked about average annual income of

households (all family members) from agriculture, salary, labor and other income sources. Table

3.5 presents the data on household income. It can be seen from the data that overall annual in-

come from agriculture ranged between 10000-50000 Rs. for about 44 percent of the households

and it was less than 10,000 Rs. for 13 percent of the households. Nearly 7 percent of the house-

holds in Haridwar did not show any income from agriculture as they keep the produce for

household consumption and do not sell it. 10 percent of the households reported to have in-

come ranging from 200001-500000 Rs. which is higher at nearly 17 percent in Roorkee. It is visi-

ble that the household income from Agriculture is higher in Roorkee in comparison to Haridwar.

The mean income from agriculture in Roorkee worked out to 198963 Rs. and only Rs. 43872 in

Haridwar.

Table 3.5: Average household income from different sources classified by blocks and villages

Income Source Amount Roorkee Haridwar Total (N) Total (%)

Agriculture

Nil 0.0 7.8 4 3.6

Up to 10000 Rs. 10.2 15.7 14 12.7

10001-20000 Rs. 8.5 33.3 22 20.0

20001-50000 Rs. 16.9 31.4 26 23.6

50001-100000 Rs. 37.3 3.9 21 19.1

100001-200000 Rs. 10.2 3.9 8 7.3

200001-500000 Rs. 16.9 3.9 11 10.0

Mean income from Agriculture (Rs.) 198963 43872

106 80102

Total (%) 100.0 92.2

96.4

Salaried

Up to 50000 Rs. 0.0 7.8 4 3.6

50001-100000 Rs. 20.3 13.7 19 17.3

100001-200000 Rs. 6.8 13.7 11 10.0

200001-500000 Rs. 3.4 7.8 6 5.5

500001+ Rs. 5.1 0.0 3 2.7

Mean income from Salary (Rs.) 179238 114300 43 146014

Total (%) 35.6 43.1 39.1

Labour

Upto 20000 Rs. 0.0 3.9 2 1.8

20001-50000 Rs. 0.0 3.9 2 1.8

50001-100000 Rs. 0.0 7.8 4 3.6

100001+ Rs. 0.0 5.9 3 2.7

Mean income from Labour (Rs.) 0.0 68000 11 68000

Total (%) 0.0 21.6 10.0

Other Sources

Upto 50000 Rs. 0.0 11.8 6 5.5

100000-200000 Rs. 0.0 3.9 2 1.8

Mean income from other sources (Rs.) 0.0

67050

8 67050

Total (%) 0.0 15.7 7.3

Total (N) 59 51 110 NA

20

In Haridwar 43.1 percent households also reported to have some income from salary in compar-

ison to 35.6 percent households in Roorkee. Though lesser number of households have income

from salary in Roorkee, the mean annual income from salary was higher at Rs. 179238 in com-

parison to Rs. 114300 in Haridwar. Where none of the household show any income from labour

in Roorkee, nearly 22 percent of the households have an average income of Rs. 68000 in Harid-

war. Income from other sources was also reported by 16 percent of the households in Haridwar

at an average of Rs. 67050 where no household reported to have income from other sources in

Roorkee.

21

The proportion of farmers possessing more than 5 acres of

land was 46.6 percent overall, which was as high as 61 per-

cent in Roorkee and only 29 percent in Haridwar.

27.3 percent of the farmers in the study were marginal

farmers with less than 2.5 acres of land. Landholding is

higher in Roorkee in comparison to Haridwar

Chapter 4

Landholding and Cultivation

In this chapter we present landholding of farmers, crop cultivation and crop yield, expenditure

on crop raising and farmer’s income etc. as per the survey. The overall objective of the program

is to increase the production and income of farmers.

Landholding

The study interventions are centered on farmers so the study captured the overall landholding

pattern of study households, irrigated landholding and sources of irrigation for the farmers in

both the locations. The landholding data was collected in Bigha and it is converted in Acres for

analysis purposes as acres is the term which is used universally. In Uttarakhand, 2.5 Bighas are

equal to 1 acre. Table 4.1

shows that in the study

households 46.6 percent of

the households had agricul-

tural land more than 5 acres

and it was as high as 61

percent in Roorkee and 29

percent in Haridwar. The

average landholding was 7.8 acres and it ranged from 4.6 acres in Haridwar to 10.6 acres in

Roorkee.

Table 4.1 : Percentage of Farmers having total and irrigated land distributed by size of total landholding, mean landholding of total and irrigated land by block and village

Block/Village Total land (Acres) Irrigated land (Acres)

N ≤ 2.5 2.6-5.0 5.1+ Mean N ≤ 2.5 2.6-5.0 5.1+ Mean

Total 110 27.3 26.4 46.6 7.8 107 28 26.2 45.8 7.1

Roorkee 59 15.3 23.7 61 10.6 58 15.5 24.1 60.3 9.2

Haridwar 51 41.2 29.4 29.4 4.6 49 42.9 28.6 28.6 4.6

Village-wise

M.Panda 19 5.6 22.2 72.2 10.5 18 5.3 26.3 63.2 8.4

Dhanori 15 26.7 26.7 46.7 5.0 15 26.7 33.3 40 4.9

Missapur 14 21.4 28.6 50 6.2 14 28.6 21.4 50 6.0

Shyampur 10 50 40 10 3.0 10 50 40 10 3.0

Gummawala 10 20 20 60 10.5 10 10 20 70 10.4

Rangharwala 15 13.3 20 66.7 16.5 15 13.3 20 66.7 13.9

Kartarpur 15 26.7 40 33.3 6.0 13 20 40 26.7 6.3

Sajanpur 12 75 8.3 16.7 2.3 12 75 8.3 16.7 2.3

With respect to irrigated landholding, most of the landholding is irrigated holding only except a

few households (2.8 percent) not having irrigated landholding. The proportion of landholding

households having irrigated land was substantially higher in Roorkee. The mean irrigated land-

holding is 7.1 acres which is as high as 9.2 acres in Roorkee and 4.6 acres in Haridwar. The aver-

22

age landholding was very high at 16.5 acres in Rangharwala village and 10.5 acres in M. Panda

and Gummawala village.

Table 4.2: Percentage distribution of ownership of land by the households, classi-fied by block and village

Block/ Village

Total (%) Owned/

entitled or accessed

Owned/ entitled but leased out

Leased in/ contractual

Processed by way of long

use

Total 100.0 73.2 5.7 20.3 0.8

Roorkee 100.0 89.4 0.0 10.6 0.0

Haridwar 100.0 54.9 11.8 31.6 1.8

Village-wise

M.Panda 100.0 86.4 0.0 13.6 0.0

Dhanori 100.0 88.2 0.0 11.8 0.0

Missapur 100.0 64.7 29.4 0.0 5.9

Shyampur 100.0 36.4 18.2 45.5 0.0

Gummawala 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rangharwala 100.0 88.2 0.0 11.8 0.0

Kartarpur 100.0 46.7 0.0 53.3 0.0

Sajanpur 100.0 64.3 0.0 35.7 0.0

About the ownership of land, table 4.2 indicates that in 73.2 percent of the cases, the land pos-

sessed by the households was their own or inherited and accessed, in another 5.7 percent cases

the land was owned but leased out and in nearly 20 percent cases the land was leased in for agri-

culture. The self- ownership of land was higher at about 90 percent in comparison to 55 percent

in Haridwar. The land was leased out in 11.8 percent cases and leased-in in as high as 31.6 per-

cent cases in Haridwar. It is clear that agricultural land transfer was minimal in Roorkee. The vil-

lage-wise ownership is also presented in the same table.

Table 4.3: Percentage distribution of irrigated land by source of water for irrigation, classified by block and village

Block/ Village Total (N) Open Well/

Dug-Well Bore/

Tube Well Canal-Flow Water

Treatment Plant

Total 123 2.4 78.0 16.3 3.3

Roorkee 66 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Haridwar 57 5.3 52.6 35.1 7.0

Village-wise

M.Panda 22 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Dhanori 17 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Missapur 17 0.0 17.6 58.8 23.5

Shyampur 11 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Gummawala 10 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Rangharwala 17 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

Kartarpur 15 0.0 33.3 66.7 0.0

Sajanpur 14 21.4 78.6 0.0 0.0

Table 4.3 shows that Bore/ tube well was the source of irrigation for 100 percent lands at Roor-

kee and it was the main source of irrigation (52.6 percent) in Haridwar. Canal-flow was used as a

source of water for irrigation for 35.1 percent and open/dug well was the source of water for 5.3

percent of the lands at Haridwar. Village wise source of water for irrigation is also presented in

the same table for deeper understanding.

23

Crop Cultivation

In this survey, information on crop cultivation in kharif in 2018 and rabi in 2019 was obtained. It

is to be noted that the survey was conducted during late June 2019 and for each plot and crop,

information on cropped area, intercrop and percentage area it occupied if any, type of seed used,

expenditure on cultivation (equipment, seed, fertilizer, pesticide, water, labour, other) and crop

yield and its value were obtained.

Crops Cultivated

Table 4.4a gives the percentage of farmers growing different crops (in 2018 Kharif and 2019 Ra-

bi) without considering the area under the crop. It can be seen from the table that overall 92.3

percent of the farmers have taken wheat as a crop and it is similar in both the blocks whereas

paddy was grown by 81.4 percent farmers in Roorkee and only 44.4 percent of the farmers in

Haridwar. Sugarcane was the another major crop grown with 50 percent of the farmers growing

it overall and it was again high at 71.2 percent in Roorkee and only 22.2 percent at Haridwar.

Fodder crops were grown by 43.3 percent of the households mainly to feed their own cattle and

some farmer also grow fodder crop to sell in the local area. Where mangoes were not grown in

Haridwar at all, in Roorkee, they were grown by 23.7 percent of the households. Cucumber,

Jowar, and black gram were the other major crops grown by nearly 10 percent of the farmers

overall. Vegetables and other crops were grown by very few (less than 5 percent) farmers. The

village-wise data of the crops grown also can be seen in the same table.

Table 4.4a: Percentage of farmers growing different crops classified by blocks and villages

Crop Block Villages

Total Roor-

kee Hari-dwar

M Panda

Dha-nori

Miss-apur

Shya-mpur

Gumm-awala

Rangh-arwala

Kart-arpur

Saja-npur

Wheat 92.3 93.2 93.3 100.0 100.0 70.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 86.7 100.0

Paddy 65.4 81.4 44.4 94.7 73.3 60.0 62.5 70.0 80.0 20.0 50.0

Sugarcane 50.0 71.2 22.2 84.2 60.0 30.0 0.0 70.0 66.7 46.7 0.0

Fodder Crop 43.3 64.4 15.5 89.5 26.7 50.0 0.0 90.0 53.3 13.3 0.0

Mangoes 13.5 23.7 0.0 26.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 30.0 33.3 0.0 0.0

Cucumber 10.6 13.6 6.7 5.3 13.3 0.0 12.5 10.0 26.7 13.3 0.0

Jowar 9.6 3.4 17.8 5.3 0.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 40.0 0.0

Black gram 9.6 5.1 15.6 10.5 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 41.7

Bajra 5.8 6.8 4.4 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 16.7

Mustard 3.8 6.8 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other fruit 2.9 1.7 4.4 5.3 0.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other vegetable 2.9 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0

Pea 1.9 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0

Maize 1.9 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0

Rap-seed 1.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ladyfinger 1.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Green gram 1.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3

Tomato 1.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Chillies 1.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Turmeric 1.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total Farmers 104 59 45 19 15 10 8 10 15 15 12

24

The major crops cultivated (in terms of number of farmers growing it) were wheat (87.3 percent), paddy (61.8 percent) and sugarcane (47.3 percent). The other significant crops grown were Mangoes and Cucumber grown by 10 percent or more farmers.

The major crops cultivated irrespective of season and year (in terms of percentage of cropped area) were sugarcane (27.2 percent), wheat (23.9 percent) and paddy (14.8 percent).

The per acre crop yield (combined for kharif 2018 and rabi 2019) worked out to sugarcane 11752 kgs, wheat 1027 kgs, paddy 749 kgs and for fodder crops 8340 kgs.

The net income per acre for the major crops worked out to 16817 Rs. for sugarcane, Rs. 6652 for wheat, and Rs. 4041 for paddy.

Table 4.4b give the percentage of cropped area under different crops (in 2018 Kharif and 2019

Rabi) by the study blocks. Overall, the major crops cultivated irrespective of season and year (in

terms of percentage of

cropped area) were sugar-

cane (27.2 percent), wheat

(23.9 percent) and paddy

(14.8 percent). The other

significant crops grown

were mangoes and fodder

crops (Mostly Bajra and

Jowar which they harvest

before the seed preparation and use as fodder for the cattle). Cucumber was also grown in 3 per-

cent of the area. Other crops grown were mainly vegetables and fruits grown in 3 percent or

lesser area overall.

It is well known that sugarcane is the major crop in the area and it goes throughout the year fol-

lowed by wheat which is a Rabi crop, paddy is grown in Kharif in North India and mangoes are

plantation crop which comes in a specific season, a seasonal analysis of crop cultivation is not

done for the analysis. Vegetables are cultivated throughout the year.

Table 4.4b: Percentage of area under different crops, classified by block

Crops grown Total Roorkee Haridwar

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sugarcane 27.2 28.3 18.1

Wheat 23.9 25.0 33.4

Paddy 14.8 11.6 22.1

Mangoes 11.2 13.4 0.0

Fodder Crop 12.4 13.4 8.0

Cucumber 3.2 3.6 1.2

Other fruit 2.3 2.1 2.4

Other Vegetables (Maize, Turmeric, Tomato, chillies, Rapseed, Ladyfinger) 1.4 0.1 5.1

Other Crops (Black Gram, Jowar, Bajra, Pea, Mustard, Green Gram) 3.6 2.5 9.7

Crop Yield

In this section per acre of crop yield, crop value, expenditure on raising crops and net income

(crop value minus expenditure) of

major crops are analyzed. Table 4.5

gives average crop yield (in kgs) per

acre , the value of crop yield per

acre, expenditure on raising crop

per acre and percentage expenditure

to crop value, net crop income per

acre and difference in these figures.

25

At the outset, it is to be noted that crop yield, crop value, expenditure on raising crops and net

income are taken for all the crops grown in Kharif 2018 and Rabi 2019 as the survey was con-

ducted in May 2019 and the data for last one year was obtained. Further, for calculating per acre

values, we have considered only the crops for which at least some yield was reported. That is,

crops that reported no yield or the value were not given were excluded from the calculation.

For example in most of the cases, the yield of mangoes were not given and so mangoes are ex-

cluded from the analysis.

The per acre crop yield (combined for kharif 2018 and rabi 2019) worked out to sugarcane 11752

kgs, wheat 1027 kgs, paddy 749 kgs and for fodder crops 8340 kgs.

While asking about the details of the crop grown, a section was kept on the expenditures in-

curred on different crops, item –wise as one of the main aim of ACFs interventions is to mini-

mize the expenditure on raising crops. Generally the expenditure was higher for raising paddy

and sugarcane than for many other crops. The reported expenditure on raising crop as against

the crop value was 38 percent for sugarcane, 48 percent for wheat and as high as 73 percent for

paddy. The fodder crops were mainly used for their own cattle feed and the value was approxi-

mately quoted. Usually there is a tendency that farmers over report the expenditure and under

report the value of produce and yield and the analysis is worked out on the basis of data.

Table 4.5: Value of crop yield per acre, expenditure on crop per acre and percentage expendi-ture to crop value, net crop income per acre.

Major crops Crop Yield

Per Acre (Kgs)

Value of yield per acre (Rs)

Expenditure per acre (Rs)

% expendi-ture/ crop

value

Net income per acre

Sugarcane 11752 27248 10431 38.3 16817

Wheat 1027 12733 6081 47.8 6652

Paddy 749 14936 10895 72.9 4041

Fodder Crops 8340 18254 2668 14.6 15587

The net income per acre for the major crops worked out to 16817 Rs. for sugarcane, Rs. 6652

for wheat, and Rs. 4041 for paddy. In many of the cases the produce of mango was not reported

and so the crop yield per acre and the value of produce could not be worked out for mango,

hence mango is removed from the crop list in table 4.5.

Table 4.6: Percentage of expenditure incurred on raising crops classified by different activities crop-wise.

Crop Name Equipment

Hiring Seed/

Sapling Manure Pesti-

cide Water/

Electricity Weed-

ing Paid la-

bour Other Total

(%)

Sugarcane 14.1 22.0 14.4 11.1 10.9 4.1 23.5 0.0 100.0

Wheat 18.0 9.7 15.2 5.3 20.4 0.6 30.6 0.2 100.0

Paddy 13.8 29.2 10.7 6.8 11.4 2.4 25.3 0.3 100.0

Mangoes 31.9 0.0 16.0 25.6 18.7 1.2 6.6 0.0 100.0

Fodder Crop 24.0 19.2 18.6 1.1 25.5 0.0 11.6 0.0 100.0

Cucumber 12.8 15.3 16.9 18.3 12.6 0.3 23.8 0.0 100.0

Total (%) 16.6 18.7 14.4 9.5 14.4 2.4 23.8 0.2 100.0

Total (N) 1520255 1706535 1319782 867060 1312256 218450 2178200 15600 -

26

It was important to capture item wise expenditure on crops to understand the major contributor

to the expenditure on raising crops. Table 4.6 provides details for the major crops. It can be seen

from the table that nearly one fourth of the expenditure was made on paid labor overall which

was more than 30 percent in case of wheat. Equipment hiring cost was 16.6 percent,

Seed/sapling cost was 18.7 percent and water/electricity cost was 14.4 percent overall. 10 per-

cent of the expenditure was made on pesticides.

Agricultural Practices

Type of Seed

The type of seed is an important factor in the cultivation of crops for increasing crop yield, be-

cause other things being equal, the better the quality of seed, the higher the yield. It was asked to

the farmers if they did seed treatment before sowing them. Table 4.7a gives the percentage of

different types of seeds (in terms of seed treatment) used for different crops. It can be seen from

the table that for most of the crops mainly readily available treated seed was used. Seed used

without treatment was only in a few crops like Jowar where the crop was used as a fodder and

the grains were not obtained. Other crops were mainly grown with treated seeds. The details for

each crop can be seen from the table.

Table 4.7a: Type of seed used crop-wise.

Crops

Readily available

treated seed used

Yes, treated

with bio agents

Yes, treat-ed with

chemical agents

Used seed without

treatment Other Total (N) Total %

Wheat 82.1 5.3 4.2 7.4 1.1 95 100.0

Paddy 92.6 0.0 4.4 1.5 1.5 68 100.0

Sugarcane 82.4 2.0 5.9 9.8 0.0 51 100.0

Fodder crops 91.1 0.0 4.4 4.4 0.0 45 100.0

Mangoes 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 100.0

Cucumber 81.8 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 100.0

Black gram 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 100.0

Jowar 40.0 10.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 10 100.0

Bajra 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 100.0

Mustard 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 100.0

Other Vegetable 33.3 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 100.0

Other fruit 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 2 100.0

Pea 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 100.0

Maize 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 100.0

Green Gram 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0

Turmeric 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0

Tomato 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0

Chillies 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0

Rapseed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 1 100.0

Ladyfinger 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 100.0

27

Method of Sowing Seed

Since ACF team is working in promoting line sowing and the use of seed drill, it was important

to know about the current practices of farmers when it comes to the method of sowing seeds. If

the seed is sown using proper spacing and methods, the amount spent on seed can be reduced

and the productivity can be increased. It is seen from the table, in most of the crops (Overall in

nearly 61 percent cases), farmers are using line sowing but it has been done manually. Seed drill

was used only in 1.9 percent cases which is being promoted by ACF now with the help of the

government. Manual broadcasting was done in another one-fourth of the cases and transplanta-

tion was done mainly in paddy (60 percent). The details are presented in the table 4.7b crop-wise

for major crops.

Table 4.7b: Method of Sowing seed classified by crop across locations.

Crop Name Manual line sowing

Manual broadcasting

By seed drill

Trans-plantation

Other method

Total (%)

Total (N)

Wheat 62.1 29.5 3.2 5.3 0.0 100.0 95

Paddy 29.4 8.8 1.5 60.3 0.0 100.0 68

Sugarcane 98.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 100.0 52

Fodder crops 77.3 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 44

Mangoes 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 14

Cucumber 90.9 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 100.0 11

Black gram 40.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 10

Jowar 20.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 10

Total 60.9 25.1 1.9 10.5 1.7 100.0 330

A question was asked for each crop grown about soil testing. The farmers were asked if they

conducted soil testing before growing the crop. As we have seen that Paddy, wheat and sugar-

cane are the major crops in the area and other crops are very few and grown in very limited area

the data about other crops for soil testing is not presented in the report. The data shows that

nearly in 65 percent of sugarcane cases, 56 percent of paddy cases and 45 percent of wheat cases,

the farmers did soil testing before growing the crops (Table not presented)

Weeding and Fertilizer Application

The method of weeding and Fertilizer application for the major crops in the area are presented

in table 3.11c. It can be seen from the table that overall in 85 percent of the cases, weeding was

done manually and in another 12.4 percent cases, weeding wasn’t done. Weeding done using

weedicide was found only in 3 percent of the cases which was little higher at 6.3 percent in wheat

cases. Crop-wise methods of weeding is presented in the table for detailed understanding.

Another question was asked to the farmer about the type of fertilizer and the method of applica-

tion per crop. It can be seen from table 4.7c that in more than 72 percent of the cases inorganic

fertilizers were applied by using broadcasting as a method followed by organic fertilizers by

broadcasting method used by farmers in 13 percent of the cases. Inorganic and Organic fertilizer

application by root zone application method was found only in 5-5 percent of the cases which is

an area of improvement.

28

Table 4.7c: Percentage of different methods of weeding and fertilizer application by crop.

Crop Name

Weeding Fertilizer Application

Total (N)

Manu-ally

Using weedi-

cide

No weed-ing/ Oth-

er

Organic with root

zone applied

Organic with

broad-casting

Inorganic with root zone ap-plication

Inorganic with

broad-casting Other

Wheat 68.4 6.3 25.3 3.2 18.9 3.2 69.5 5.3 95

Paddy 95.6 2.9 1.5 1.5 10.3 4.4 80.9 2.9 68

Sugarcane 100.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 11.5 9.6 69.2 1.9 52

Fodder crops 86.7 2.2 11.1 6.7 0.0 2.2 91.1 0.0

45

Mangoes 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 78.6 0.0 14

Cucumber 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.3 27.3 45.5 0.0 11

Black gram 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 80.0 10.0 10

Jowar 33.3 11.1 55.6 60.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 0.0 10

Total (%) 84.5 3.0 12.4 5.5 13.1 5.8 72.3 3.3 100.0 Total N 279 10 41 18 43 19 243 11 330

Farmers were also asked how they destroyed the by-product for the major crops and it is found

from the data that in most of the cases the by-products were kept for cattle feed. In very few

cases (nearly 5 percent), the by-product was sold for money and in 3 percent cases, it was burnt

in the field (Table not presented).

Food Security

Under food security aspects, we have considered the extent of crop yield (food grains) kept/used

for household consumption.

It was also ascertained in the questionnaire as to how much of the crop yield (grains/pulses) was

set apart for household use (Table 4.8). It is seen from the table that wheat cultivating house-

holds have used nearly 1375 kgs of wheat, paddy cultivating households have used 1159 kgs of

paddy and black gram cultivating households have used 60 kgs of black gram for household con-

sumption irrespective of the quantity of crop yield they harvested.

Table 4.8: Average crop yield and average quantity of grain kept for household use and per-centage of crop yield used for household consumption by block

Crop

Total Roorkee Haridwar Mean

quantity of yield

Mean quan-tity for HH

use

% quanti-ty for HH

use

Mean quantity of yield

Mean quan-tity for HH

use

% quanti-ty for HH

use

Mean quantity of yield

Mean quan-tity for HH

use

% quanti-ty for HH

use

Wheat 3632 1375 37.9 3556 1973 55.5 1684 856 50.8

Paddy 1904 1159 60.9 1661 1376 82.8 2395 1540 64.3

Black Gram 95 60 63.2 0 0 0.0 892 722 80.9

29

Visit to demo plots

ACF creates some demo plots to show and demonstrate the interventions to the farmers and the

potential benefits of growing the crops in a different way. The farmer households were asked a

question if any of their household member has visited any demonstration plot in the previous

one year. Overall 71 percent of the households reported that they visited ACFs demo plot. The

percentage of household members visiting demo plot was as high as 93 percent in Roorkee and

only 45 percent in Haridwar. The data is presented in table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Percentage of households visited the ACF demo-plot classified by block and village

Block/ Village No. of HHs % HHs Total

Roorkee 55 93.2 59

Haridwar 23 45.1 51

Village-wise

M Panda 19 100.0 19

Dhanori 12 80.0 15

Missapur 8 57.1 14

Shyampur 4 40.0 10

Gummawala 10 100.0 10

Rangharwala 14 93.3 15

Kartarpur 11 73.3 15

Sajanpur 0 0.0 12

Total 78 70.9 110