Economic analysis of sugarcane production in Sitapur district of Uttar Pradesh

Introduction

Sugarcane was a vital cash crop cultivated primarily in tropical and subtropical regions, where warm temperatures, fertile soils, and adequate rainfall facilitated its growth. The cultivation process began with land preparation, involving plowing, harrowing, and levelling to ensure optimal soil conditions. Farmers planted sugarcane using setts, or stem cuttings, which were placed in furrows and covered with soil. The crop required consistent moisture, leading to dependence on both rainfall and irrigation systems, while fertilizers were applied to enhance yield. Weed control was managed through manual weeding, herbicides, or intercropping, and pests such as borers and diseases like red rot were mitigated using chemical and biological methods. Harvesting occurred after 12 to 18 months, depending on the variety and climate, with manual laborers cutting mature cane stalks using machetes or mechanical harvesters in more advanced systems. Post-harvest, the cane was transported to mills for processing, where it was crushed to extract juice for sugar production, while bagasse, molasses, and ethanol were derived as byproducts. Sugarcane farming historically supported rural economies, providing employment and raw materials for industries, though challenges such as fluctuating prices, labor shortages, and environmental concerns influenced its sustainability over time.

Research methodology

The research utilized a purposive-multistage random sampling methodology to select respondents from Sitapur district in order to ensure a representative and diverse sample of sugarcane farmers. To begin with, Sitapur district was purposively chosen as the study area, primarily to minimize logistical challenges and time constraints for the investigator. Within Sitapur district, Mahmudabad block was selected due to its substantial involvement in sugarcane cultivation, which made it a focal point for this research. A comprehensive list of all villages within Mahmudabad was created, from which five percent of the sugarcane cultivating potential villages were randomly selected. Following this, ten percent of the total sugarcane farming population in these selected villages was randomly chosen, leading to a final sample size of 110 farmers. These selected respondents were then classified into five distinct landholding size categories, which included: Marginal (less than 1 hectare), Small (1-2 hectares), Semi-medium (2-4 hectares), Medium (4-10 hectares), and Large (greater than 10 hectares). Primary data for the study was collected through direct personal interviews with the respondents, using a carefully designed and structured schedule. In addition, secondary data was gathered from various official reports, books, journals, and records www.extensionjournal.com maintained by the district and block headquarters. The data collection process took place during the 2024-2025 agricultural year, and the collected data was analysed using appropriate statistical tools to draw meaningful conclusions from the study. • Benefit: Cost ratio = 11). With regard to other income measures, the average farm investment income, farm business income, and family labour income were observed to be ₹159,339.24, ₹164,656.85, and ₹136,293.35, respectively. Farm investment income followed a descending trend from large to marginal farms, while farm business income was highest on large farms, followed by medium, semi-medium, marginal, and small farms. Similarly, family labour income was highest on large farms, decreasing progressively down to small farms. The average yield across all sample farms was estimated at 623.40 quintals per hectare, indicating a reasonably high level of productivity. The benefit-cost ratio (BCR) also demonstrated an increasing trend with farm size, being 1:2.09 for marginal farms, 1:2.14 for small farms, 1:2.19 for semi-medium farms, 1:2.22 for medium farms, and peaking at 1:2.28 for large farms. On average, the BCR across all farms stood at 1:2.18, suggesting a relatively favorable return on investment in agricultural production.

Analytical Tools

Results and Discussion

Conclusion

The findings of the study underscore the economic significance and viability of sugarcane cultivation in Sitapur district of Uttar Pradesh, particularly in the Mahmudabad block. The cost of cultivation showed a decreasing trend with increasing farm size, indicating that marginal and small farmers bear comparatively higher cultivation costs, potentially due to limited access to economies of scale and modern resources. The major cost components included rental value of land, seed, human labour, and fertilizers, which together formed the bulk of total expenditure. Despite the high cost, the average gross income per hectare was ₹2,24,423.28, resulting in a substantial net income of ₹1,21,630.98, with both figures increasing consistently with farm size. Larger farms demonstrated greater profitability, evidenced by higher farm business, investment, and family labour incomes. Yield per hectare was also positively associated with farm size, with an average of 623.40 quintals per hectare. The benefit-cost ratio, a critical measure of farm efficiency, averaged 1:2.18 and improved progressively from 1:2.09 for marginal farms to 1:2.28 for large farms. These results highlight that while sugarcane cultivation remains a profitable venture across all farm categories, larger holdings enjoy superior economic returns, indicating the need for supportive policies that enhance the productivity and profitability of smaller farms.

References

1. Jaiswal M, Kumar S, Singh A. Cost of cultivation and cropping patterns of sugarcane farms in Uttar Pradesh. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;9(7):945-53.
2. Meena S. Cost-benefit analysis of sugarcane farming in Uttar Pradesh. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2021;34(2):125-32.
3. Pandey A. Shifting cropping patterns in sugarcane farming: A new direction. Farmers Rev J. 2022;18(2):78-83.
4. Patel S, Singh V. Price volatility in global sugar markets and its implications for farmers. J Agric Econ. 2020;42:210.
5. Pandey P, Maurya M, Singh RP, Channe CB. Analysis of marketing cost, price spread and marketing efficiency of onion in Nalanda district of Bihar. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2024;7(5):335-8.
6. Pandey P, Maurya M, Singh RP. An economic analysis of onion production in Nalanda district of Bihar, India. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2024;7(5):331-4.
7. Reddy R. Post-harvest constraints in sugarcane cultivation: An empirical study in Uttar Pradesh. J Rural Stud. 2023;34(1):52-9.
8. Singh RP, Maurya M, Pandey P. An economic analysis of carrot production in Bulandshahr district of Uttar www.extensionjournal.com Pradesh, India. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2024;7(5):1336.
9. Singh RP, Maurya M, Pandey P. Analysis of marketing cost, price spread and marketing efficiency of carrot in Bulandshahr district of U.P. Int J Agric Ext Soc Dev. 2024;7(5):129-32.
10. Sharma J, Singh O. Technical constraints in sugarcane farming: The need for modernization. Agric Technol Rev. 2021;12(4):72-8.
11. Sharma M, Kumawat K, Singh D. Impact of government policies on sugarcane farmers in Uttar Pradesh. Indian J Agric Econ. 2020;75(3):411-26.
12. Sharma R, Kumar A. Sugarcane cultivation and its role in rural economic development. Int J Rural Econ. 2021;69:187-9.