A study on technology needs, input needs and policy needs of sugarcane farmers of north coastal zone of AP.

Introduction

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) is a tall perennial grass belonging to the Poaceae family, recognized globally as one of the most significant crops due to its role in sugar production, bioenergy, and other by-products. Sugarcane is one of the world's oldest commercial and viable crops in the tropics and subtropics. Sugarcane is becoming an important cash crop for farmers because the domestic market has great potential for sugar production and sugarcane products. In India, area and production of sugarcane has been fluctuating from year to year depending upon pricing policy and climate conditions. It occupies about 5.06 million hectares. The total production of cane is 341.20 million tonnes (Directorate of Economic & Statistics, DAC&FW). As part of the study the basic data of North coastal zone with regard to sugarcane area, Production and productivity deviations over fast 10 years i.e. from 2011-12 to 2021-22. The data interprets that, the sugarcane area decreased from 37,189 to 19,590ha i.e 47.32% decline in area in Anakapalli district, The sugarcane area reduced from 16,000ha to 6,023ha i.e there is 62.35% decline in area in case of Vizianagaram district and the sugarcane area reduced from 5,712ha to 3,586ha i.e., there is 37.21% decline in area with regard to the area in Srikakulam district.

As part of the study the basic data of North coastal zone with regard to sugarcane area, after bi furcation of districts the sugarcane area fluctuations in 2 years i.e., from 2022-23 to 2023-24 reveals that the sugarcane area decreased from 16,000ha to 9,000ha i.e.,43.75% decline in area in Anakapalli district, The sugarcane area reduced from 4,000ha to 3,000ha i.e., there is 25% decline in area in case of Vizianagaram district and The sugarcane area is maintained at 1,000ha in Srikakulam district. The outcome of the study the reveals that the sugarcane production decreased from 21,14,604tons to 11,75,557 tons i.e., 44.04% decrease in production in Anakapalli district, The sugarcane production decreased from 10,45,000 tons to 4,00,029 tons i.e. there is 61.71% decrease in production in case of Vizianagaram district and the sugarcane production decreased from 4,00,126 tons to 2,06,261 tons i.e. there is 48.45% decrease in production in case of Srikakulam district.

As per the basic data of the district, the sugarcane production decreased from 9,36,000 tons to 5,47,000 tons i.e., 41.55% decrease in production in Anakapalli district, The sugarcane production decreased from 2,80,000 tons to 2,20,000 tons i.e. there is 21.42% decrease in production in case of Vizianagaram district and the sugarcane production decreased from 85,000 tons to 52,000 tons i.e. there is 38.82% decrease in production in case of Srikakulam district. The basic data reveals that the sugarcane productivity/ yield increased from 56.86 t/ha to 60.00 t/ha i.e., 5.52% in Anakapalli district, The sugarcane yield increased from 65.31t/ha to 66.42 t/ha i.e., 1.11% increase in case of Vizianagaram district and the sugarcane productivity increased from 70.05 t/ha to 72.57 t/ha i.e., there is 3.59% increase in Srikakulam district. The basic data reveals that the sugarcane productivity/ yield increased from 58.82 t/ha to 64.70 t/ha i.e., 9.99% in Anakapalli district, The sugarcane yield increased from 62.22t/ha to 67.20 t/ha i.e., 8.00% increase in case of Vizianagaram district and the sugarcane productivity increased from 72.22 t/ha to 75.96 t/ha i.e., there is 5.17% increase in Srikakulam district. From table 2, the study reveals the input needs of the sugarcane growers identified in the order of priority are need for use of weed management chemicals to avoid manual weeding by around 86% of the farmers, followed by need for new varieties to avoid diseases like redrot, YLD and mosaic required by around 75% of the farmers and 68% of the farmers require machinery for sugarcane harvesting through custom hiring centers. From table 3, the study implies that, policy decisions to be taken by central and state governments identified in the order of priority are 72.58% of the farmers needs to facilitation in production of diversified products at sugar factories ranked I st in the order of priority followed by 69.35% of sugarcane growers required policy decisions regarding renovation of supply chain management of sugar factories and involve super markets, beverage industries, EPDCL and other stake holders ranked 2 nd followed by Link up NREGS program with sugarcane cultivation practices to save labor cost and make labor available to sugarcane cultivation is a policy decision required by around 67% of the farmers.

Conclusion

The outcome of the study concludes that, the technology needs technology on weed management ranked I st followed by technology on pest management ranked II nd and technology on ratoon management ranked 3 rd . As per the study regarding input needs, inputs required for weed management ranked I st , followed by varieties resistant to Red rot, Mosaic and YLD are very much required ranked II nd and Introduction of whole cane harvesters through CHC ranked 3 rd . The outcome of the study regarding policy needs reviews that, policy decision by state govt to develop diversified products at factory level ranked I st followed by renovation of factory supply chain to involve new role players like supermarkets, distillery units, beverage corporations and EPDCL in sugar factory supply chain ranked 2 nd and the study reveals that, attaching NREGS program with sugarcane cultivation especially planting and harvesting activities ranked 3 rd . The study findings may be taken as needs of the sugarcane farmers and policy decisions may be taken by the state government and stake holders to address the problems of sugarcane growers and improve conditions of the sugarcane growers to make sugarcane cultivation more profitable and economical.

References

1. Agarwal D, Chahal PK, Ghanghas BS, Mishra I, Mohit, Joshi A. Assessing farmers' knowledge of sugarcane production technology in Haryana, India. J Sci Res Rep. 2024;30(11):132-8.
2. Parbhani: Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2015.
3. Gujja B, Natarajan US. Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative - Improving yields and reducing the ecological footprint. LEISA India. 2013;3:23-4.
4. Kamatar D, Bose DK, Tamagond P. Adoption of progressive and non-progressive sugarcane growers association with profile characteristics and their constraints. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(4S):522-4.
5. Rathod GV, Salame SP, Deokate N. Knowledge and adoption of improved cultivation practices by sugarcane growers. Int J Chem Stud. 2018;6(6):653-4.
6. Srilatha V, Srilatha P. A study on reasons for crop shift in case of sugarcane crop in Visakhapatnam district of Andhra Pradesh. Res J Agric Sci. 2020;12:130-2.
7. Verma AK, Sachan BS, Kumar B, Yadav B, Choudri HP. Socio-economic profile of sugarcane growers in district Lakhimpur Kheri, India. Asian J Agric Ext Econ Sociol. 2022;40(9):411-5.