marketable surplus and post harvest losses of ragi in ... - Agmarknet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER-IISAMPLING DESIGN AND COVERAGE2.1 SAMPLING DESIGN :The Technical Committee recommended stratified multi-stage random sampling design for this survey.The selection of districts was done on aggregate method of production for all crops of foodgrains.Accordingly, selection of districts was done @ 20% of total number of districts of each state, instead oftaking 20% at the National level and allocating them among the states on the basis of their size andproduction, as followed earlier by the DMI, for ensuring reliable estimates of marketable surplus, bothat the State and National level. The sampling design consisted of:i) In each state, 20% of the total number of districts were selected for the survey.ii) In each selected district, 15 (Fifteen) villages were selected after grouping into threestratums, based on total area cultivated under foodgrains.iii) In each selected village, 10 (Ten) cultivator households were selected afterclassifying them into three categories viz., Small, Medium and Large.Accordingly, the total number of districts selected on all India basis worked out to 100 (One hundred),the total number of villages to be surveyed worked out to 1500 (100 districts X 15 villages) and 15000cultivator households (1500 villages X 10 cultivator households), from whom the data were collected inprescribed schedules on quarterly basis over a period of three years of survey.2.1.1 METHOD OF SAMPLINGSELECTION OF SAMPLE DISTRICTS:As stated earlier, in accordance with the procedure of sampling approved by the Technical Committee,in consultation with the Director, IASRI, New Delhi, Selection of districts was done on the basis ofaggregate method of production for all crops of foodgrains. The selection of districts was done @20% of the total number of districts of each state, instead of taking 20% at the National level andallocating them among the States on the basis of their size of production, as was followed by the D.M.I.earlier. This was done to ensure reliable estimates of marketable surplus etc., both at the State andNational level. All the districts, in each state were classified into three categories, namely ‘High’,‘Medium’ and ‘Low’ production, based on annual production of foodgrain crops for three years (1991-92, 1992-93 & 1993-94). The data on annual production of foodgrains was obtained from the StateDepartments. About 20% of the total districts in each state were selected, after clubbing some Statesand Union Territories, so as to ensure selection of two districts from each category and atleast sixdistricts from each state. Since the number of districts in individual States ranged between 2 in Goa and63 in U.P., it posed a problem in respect of states having less than 30 districts.i) States having 30 or more districts:Bihar (42), Uttar Pradesh (63), Maharashtra (31) and Madhya Pradesh (45).ii) States having more than 6 but less than 30 districts:Andhra Pradesh (23), Arunachal Pradesh (11), Assam (23), Gujarat (14), Haryana (16),Himachal Pradesh (12), J & K (14), Karnataka (20), Kerala (14), Manipur (8), Nagaland (7),Orissa (13), Punjab (12), Rajasthan (27), Tamil Nadu (22) and West Bengal (17).iii) States/Union Territories (U.Ts.) having 6 or less than 6 districts:Goa (2), Meghalaya (5), Mizoram (3), Sikkim (4), Tripura (3), Andaman & Nicobar (2),Pondicherry (4), Daman & Diu (2), Delhi (1), Chandigarh (1), Lakshdweep (1) and DadraNagar Haveli (1).Therefore, clubbing of some states and Union Territories was done to ensure selection of atleast twodistricts from each category. Accordingly, 100 districts were selected for the survey on All Indiabasis.It may further be added here that while selecting the districts, it was ensured that these selecteddistricts contributed to nearly 20% of aggregate production of foodgrains.
2.1.2 SELECTION OF SAMPLE VILLAGES:The Technical Committee in the 1 st meeting had also suggested that while selecting the districts,different regions/agro-climatic zones in the states be taken into consideration to the extentpossible. Incidentally, the list of 100 selected districts covered most of the agro-climatic zonesexcept ‘Western Dry Zone’ and ‘Island zone’.In each selected district, 15 (Fifteen) villages were selected after classifying villages into threestrata, viz., ‘High’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Low’, production. Keeping in view the practical difficultiesin obtaining foodgrain production data from individual villages, the Technical Committeerecommended that “Total area cultivated under foodgrains” may be taken as basis for classifyingthe villages. Accordingly, all the villages in the selected districts were arranged in descendingorder of total gross or net area under foodgrains and then divided into three segments, eachaccounting for one third of the total cultivated area under foodgrains in the district. The villagesin top segment of the list were placed in ‘High’ production stratum, those in the middle segmentin ‘Medium’ production stratum, and the remaining in ‘Low’ production stratum. Five villagesfrom each stratum were selected for survey by simple random sampling.2.1.3 SELECTION OF CULTIVATOR HOUSEHOLDS :2.2 COVERAGE:In each selected village, ten cultivator households were selected. All the cultivator households inthe village were listed from the revenue records of the village. The cultivator households werearranged in descending order of area cultivated under foodgrains and the list was dividedinto three segments, each accounting for one third of the total area cultivated underfoodgrains in the village. The cultivator households in the top segment of the list were placed in‘Large’ category, those in the middle segment ‘Medium’ category, and the remaining in ‘Small’category. Four cultivator households from small category and three cultivator households eachfrom medium and large category were selected for survey by simple random sampling.2.2.1 The survey covered 100 districts selected from 25 states in accordance with the methodologyapproved by the Technical Committee. The distribution of sample villages, state-wise, categorywisereported growing Ragi during the period of survey is presented in the following table:S.No.TALBE NO. 1DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE VILLAGES GROWING RAGI(BASED ON DATA FOR 1993-94 and 1994-95)StateNo. ofsamplevillagesNo. ofvillagesgrowingNo. of cultivator households growing RagiCategoryRagi Small Medium Large Total1 Andhra Pradesh 75 18 21 20 32 732 Arunachal Pradesh 30 0 0 0 0 03 Assam 75 0 0 0 0 04 Bihar 165 55 61 65 109 2355 Goa 15 0 0 0 0 06 Gujarat 60 14 17 17 31 657 Haryana 45 0 0 0 0 08 H.P. 45 16 21 21 28 709 Jammu & Kashmir 45 0 0 0 0 010 Karnataka 60 28 31 31 51 11311 Kerala 45 0 0 0 0 012 Madhya Pradesh 135 32 42 45 61 14813 Maharashtra 90 21 22 26 33 8114 Manipur 15 0 0 0 0 015 Meghalaya 15 0 0 0 0 016 Mizoram 15 0 0 0 0 017 Nagaland 15 0 0 0 0 018 Orissa 90 39 46 46 64 156
Page 1 and 2: MARKETABLE SURPLUS AND POST HARVEST
Page 3 and 4: LIST OF ANNEXURESAnnexure No.IIIIII
Page 5 and 6: XXXXXXXXIXXXXIIXXXXIIIXXXXIVXXXXVXX
Page 7 and 8: LIST OF TABLESTable No.Content1. Di
Page 9 and 10: 32. Contribution to the Marketed Su
Page 11 and 12: SUMMARY1. In view of the persistent
Page 13: CHAPTER - IINTRODUCTION1.1 The Dire
Page 17 and 18: CHAPTER - IIIESTIMATION PROCEDURELe
Page 19 and 20: V hih′ v hi h′Yˆ hi h’′k =
Page 21 and 22: 11 Kerala 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 23 and 24: (26.70) (30.10) (29.40)3. Large 164
Page 25 and 26: 19 Punjab 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Page 27 and 28: Retention of Ragi by Farm Family Fo
Page 29 and 30: 9 Jammu & Kashmir 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.
Page 31 and 32: 5.7.2 The state-wise break-up of to
Page 33 and 34: 5.9 UTILISATION OF RAGI FOR BARTER.
Page 35 and 36: TABLE NO. 24.UTILISATION OF RAGI FO
Page 37 and 38: Total Post Harvest Losses of Ragi(Q
Page 39 and 40: Losses of Ragi During Storage and T
Page 41 and 42: Total Sale of Ragi - Quarterwise(Qa
Page 43 and 44: Sale of Ragi - Agencywise(Qantity i
Page 45 and 46: Sale of Paddy - Within Village and
Page 47 and 48: 13 Maharashtra 158.82 27.12 17.0814
Page 49 and 50: CHAPTER VIIIMARKETABLE SURPLUS8.1 I
Page 51 and 52: Production, Marketable Surplus and
Page 53 and 54: Annexure - I Area under Ragi - Irri
Page 55 and 56: Annexure - IIIS.No. Name of statePr
Page 57 and 58: Annexure - VRetention of Ragi for f
Page 59 and 60: Annexure - VIIRetention of Ragi for
Page 61 and 62: Annexure -IXTotal Retention of Ragi
Page 63 and 64: Annexure - XRetention of Ragi for A
Page 65 and 66:
Annexure - XIIUtilisation of Ragi f
Page 67 and 68:
Annexure - XIVUtilisation of Ragi f
Page 69 and 70:
Annexure -XVIUtilisation of Ragi fo
Page 71 and 72:
Annexure - XVIIIUtilisation of Ragi
Page 73 and 74:
Annexure -X XUtilisation of Ragi fo
Page 75 and 76:
Annexure - XXIIUtilisation of Ragi
Page 77 and 78:
Annexure - XXIVLosses of Ragi durin
Page 79 and 80:
S.No.Name of stateLosses of Ragi du
Page 81 and 82:
Annexure -X XVIIILosses of Ragi in
Page 83 and 84:
Annexure - XXXS.No.Name of stateLos
Page 85 and 86:
Annexure - XXXIILosses of Ragi duri
Page 87 and 88:
Annexure - XXXIVS.No.Name of stateQ
Page 89 and 90:
Annexure - XXXVIS.No.Name of stateT
Page 91 and 92:
Annexure - XXXVIIIS.No.Name of stat
Page 93 and 94:
Annexure - XXXXTotal Sale of Ragi-Q
Page 95 and 96:
Annexure -XXXXIITotal Sale of Ragi-
Page 97 and 98:
Annexure - XXXXIVS.No. Name of stat
Page 99 and 100:
Annexure - XXXXVISale of Ragi - Age
Page 101 and 102:
Annexure - XXXXVIIISale of Ragi - W
Page 103 and 104:
Annexure - LSale of Ragi - Within V
Page 105 and 106:
Annexure - LIISale of Ragi - Outsid
Page 107 and 108:
Annexure - LIVSale of Ragi - Outsid
Page 109 and 110:
--2--S.No.Name of stateType of rete
Page 111 and 112:
S.No.Type of retentionTotal retenti
Page 113 and 114:
S.No.Name of stateType of retention
Page 115 and 116:
S. No. Name of stateType of retenti
Page 117 and 118:
Annexure - LXMarketed Surplus Vis-
Page 119 and 120:
Annexure - LXIIMarketed Surplus Vis
Page 121 and 122:
CREDITSCHIEF PROJECT COORDINATOR1)
show all

marketable surplus and post harvest losses of ragi in ... - Agmarknet

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?