District-wise procurement plan for agricultural produce of selected districts of Gujarat

Introduction 1.1 Background

Agriculture remains the backbone of India's rural economy, providing livelihoods to a vast section of the population. Among emerging segments, organic and natural agricultural produce represents a rapidly growing market, driven by increasing awareness of food safety, environmental sustainability, soil health, and farmer livelihoods. Procurement-the process of planning, sourcing, purchasing, and managing goods at the right quality, quantity, time, cost, and location-is central to connecting producers with markets (Mogale et al., 2019) [13] . Natural farming goes beyond organic farming by relying almost entirely on on-farm, naturebased inputs such as bio-inoculants, cow-based formulations, and soil microbial management. According to the Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, under the operational frameworks of the National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF), over 23 lakh farmers have been enrolled and more than 8.80 lakh hectares of land brought under natural farming cultivation clusters across the country. A deliberate social procurement framework within the farm sector effectively bridges the gap between regenerative, environmentally responsible producers and conscious consumers while actively securing fair labour valuation (Access Development Services, 2025) [1] . markets, inadequate storage infrastructure, price volatility, and limited processing facilities (APEDA, 2024) [2] . Gujarat, with over 8.5 lakh farmers across 7 lakh+ acres under natural farming, is the national pioneer in Cow-Based Natural Farming (CBNF). Furthermore, the Dang District in South Gujarat has been officially declared India's first 100 per cent Natural Farming District (Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Co-operation Department [AFWCD], 2017) [3] , and Tribal and rainfed districts such as Dahod, Chhotaudepur, and Tapi show strong potential for natural farming due to traditional practices and lower chemical usage. However, procurement in these districts remains largely unorganised, leading to distress sales and reduced incentives for farmers to continue sustainable practices (APEDA, 2024) [2] . Therefore, the current study was undertaken to assess the socio-economic profile of natural farming farmers; estimate the taluka-wise and crop-wise area under cultivation and agricultural production; determine the procurement timeline based on the sowing and harvesting periods of major crops; and propose suitable locations for establishing procurement centres and storage units in the study area.

Review of Literature

Bassi (2020) [4] analysed major crops grown in Gujarat, detailing their exact sowing schedules, harvesting times, total crop durations, and yields. According to the study, cotton is cultivated over approximately 15.19 lakh hectares with a long crop duration; it is sown during the second fortnight of June to the first fortnight of July with the monsoon onset, and its harvesting occurs progressively across three to four pickings after boll bursting, producing yields of 1,200-1,500 kg/ha and 2,500 kg/ha for non-hybrids and hybrids, respectively. Maize is sown during the second to third week of June or with the monsoon onset, reaching its harvesting time when the cobs turn yellow and grains harden, yielding 3,000-4,000 kg/ha in the Kharif season and 2,500-3,500 kg/ha in the Rabi season. Pigeon pea (red gram) is sown during the Kharif season in June-July, requiring a long crop duration of roughly 160-180 days to reach its harvesting time, with a yield of 1,000-1,200 kg/ha under normal conditions. Finally, bajra (pearl millet) is sown with the onset of the monsoon in June-July, with a crop duration of 75-90 days, delivering a yield of 1,500-2,000 kg/ha. Choudhary (2019) [6] conducted a study entitled "Crop Weather Calendar: A Crop Guideline", in which crop-wise sowing and harvesting periods were systematically documented to aid crop planning and agro-advisory services. The study reported that rice was sown during June-July and harvested during October-November, maize was sown in June-July and harvested in September-October, and cotton was sown during June-July with harvesting extending from November to January. Among rabi crops, wheat was sown in October-November and harvested during March-April, mustard was sown in October-November and harvested in February-March, and gram (chickpea) was sown during October-November with harvesting in February-March.

Methodology

The present study was conducted from 26 th December 2025 to 26 th March 2026 in Chhotaudepur, Tapi, and Dahod districts of Gujarat. Primary data were collected through personal interviews using a structured questionnaire from 300 natural farming farmers in each district (n=900) using the probability sampling method. Secondary data were collected from government reports, APMCs, agricultural records, certification agencies, and published sources. For the socio-economic profile, tabular and percentage analysis were used. Production was estimated as (Gupta et al., 2019) [11] ; Production (MT) = Area (ha) × Average Yield (kg/ha) / 1000 Procurement timelines were derived from crop calendar analysis based on secondary sources. A cluster-based approach with a 10 km service radius was adopted for identifying procurement centre locations, and required storage capacity (RSC) was computed as recommended by FAO & CWC (FAO, 2011; CWC, 2018) [10] ; RSC = Average Production × Procurement Percentage,

Results and Discussion

Objective 1: Socio-Economic Profile of Natural Farming Farmers

Age of Farmers

The majority of farmers engaged in natural farming belong to the older age group (51 years and above), accounting for 57 per cent in Chhotaudepur, 54 per cent in Tapi, and 59 per cent in Dahod. Middle-aged farmers (36-50 years) form the second largest category, contributing 34 per cent, 37 per cent, and 33 per cent respectively, while young farmers (up to 35 years) represent only 9 per cent, 9 per cent, and 8 per cent across the three districts. This dominance of older farmers can be attributed to the fact that procurement surveys are typically conducted in the name of the original landowner, who is usually the senior family member. Similar findings were reported by Kumari and Rana (2025) [12] , who observed a majority of middle-aged to older farmers in natural farming studies from Himachal Pradesh.

Gender Distribution

Table 3 revealed that male farmers constitute the dominant majority in all three districts, with 9 per cent in Chhotaudepur, 66 per cent in Tapi, and 93 per cent in Dahod. Female participation, though limited overall (6%, 34%, and 7% respectively), is comparatively higher in Tapi district, suggesting greater women's involvement in agricultural activities there. This reflects the broader pattern of male dominance in farm decision-making and procurement activities observed.

Land Holding Size

The land holding analysis (Table 4) showed that the majority of farmers belong to small and semi-medium categories. In Chhotaudepur, small farmers dominate (45%), while in Tapi, semi-medium farmers form the largest group (35%). Dahod shows a concentration of marginal (34%) and small farmers (31%). This confirms that natural farming in the study area is predominantly practised by resource-poor farmers with limited landholdings.

Natural Farming Experience and Training

In terms of natural farming experience, Chhotaudepur shows the most mature adoption, with 81 per cent of farmers having 2-3 years of experience. Tapi reflects recent adoption, as 67 per cent of farmers have only 0-1 year of experience. Dahod shows moderate progress, with 59 per cent having 1-2 years of experience. Regarding training exposure, Chhotaudepur demonstrates better capacity building, with 55 per cent of farmers receiving 4 or more days of training, whereas in Tapi and Dahod, 85 percent and 89 percent of farmers, respectively, received only 2-day training programs. A small proportion of farmers across all districts reported no training. These variations in experience and training are consistent with patterns reported by Kumari and Rana (2025) [12] , who found that training and extension contact significantly influence natural farming adoption.

Animal Husbandry

Animal husbandry is widely practised by farmers across all three districts: 98 per cent in Chhotaudepur, 83 per cent in Dahod, and 68 per cent in Tapi. Cow ownership is highest in Chhotaudepur (98%), followed by Dahod (59%) and Tapi (42%), while buffalo ownership is significant across all districts. This integration of livestock with farming is critical in natural farming systems, as cow dung and cow urine form the basis of bio-inputs such as Jeevamrut and Beejamrut (National Mission on Natural Farming [NMNF], 2025) [14] . Farmers without livestock face higher dependency on external inputs, which may increase cultivation costs and reduce self-reliance.

Crop Production

As shown in Table 5, cereal crops dominate natural farming production across all three districts. In Chhotaudepur, maize is the leading crop with 39.80 ha under cultivation and a production of 65.16 MT, followed by tur (23.38 MT) and paddy (11.03 MT). In Tapi, paddy dominates with 63.42 ha and production of 182.97 MT, reflecting the district's agroclimatic suitability for rice cultivation. Dahod shows the highest overall production, with maize leading at 187.40 MT across 107.47 ha, followed by wheat (160.26 MT) and paddy (38.92 MT). The required storage capacity was calculated at 50 per cent of total production, following FAO & CWC recommended methodology, as farmers typically retain a portion of their harvest for household consumption and seed purposes (FAO, 2011; CWC, 2018) [10] . This ensures realistic infrastructure planning without overestimating available procurement volume.

Conclusion

The study concludes that the agricultural and procurement scenario in Chhotaudepur, Tapi, and Dahod districts is dominated by small and marginal farmers, with moderate crop diversity and a gradual shift toward natural farming practices. The socio-economic profile indicates that most farmers belong to older age groups, with limited youth participation, and farming is largely male-dominated, though female participation is relatively higher in Tapi. Families are medium to large, relying on family labour, while educational levels remain low to moderate, creating challenges in understanding formal procurement systems. Land ownership is entirely farmer-based, with small and semi-medium holdings reflecting subsistence-oriented agriculture. Natural farming adoption and training exposure vary, with Chhotaudepur performing better than Tapi and Dahod. Livestock integration is common, supporting sustainable agriculture through organic inputs. Crop production is dominated by cereals like maize, paddy, and wheat, with regional variation across districts. Based on production concentration and accessibility, key procurement centres identified include Sodhliya, Tejgadh, and Kherka in Chhotaudepur; Vedchhi, Babarghat, and Nizar in Tapi; and Dhanpur, Limdi, and Fatepura in Dahod. The crop calendar shows Kharif harvests from September to January and Rabi from February to April, aiding efficient procurement planning. Road connectivity is generally good, especially in Tapi and Dahod, though some parts of Chhotaudepur which helps with transportation.

References

1. Access Development Services. Social procurement initiatives in the farm sector: Aligning ethical corporate sourcing with regenerative production. New Delhi: Access Development Services; 2025 Nov. (SAP Institutional Report). Available from: https://accessdev.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/SAPReport-print-version-final.pdf
2. Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA). Study of Indian organic market and export promotion strategy. New Delhi: APEDA; 2024. Available from: https://apeda.gov.in/sites/default/files/study_reports/Re port_Indian_Organic_Market_and_Export_Promotion_ Strategy.pdf
3. Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Co-operation Department. Notification No. GHKH/137/2017/PRC/12/2017/1037/K.5. Gandhinagar: Government of Gujarat; 2017 Aug 31. Available from: https://agri.gujarat.gov.in/ViewFile?fileName=BPU15y CCFnFG3aU8EVKGJ7lSZqskxqNBMkB02hkwK3z85 gRuPHASH_HASH8pdPRo1LleOfEiKWmTcrPCgwE 2o5r0HASH__HASHBPxSwISIQqzHASH_HASHgPY XljSidxtgxkXzb92H2ZUoQXfq73AvEPzE1Z2bvYlFW ROOZDt4flBEA==
4. Bassi A. A study on package of practices of major crops grown in Gujarat [master's project report]. Jaipur: CCS National Institute of Agricultural Marketing (NIAM); 2020. https://www.scribd.com/document/530284985/AStudy-on-PoP-of-Major-Crops-of-Gujarat
5. Central Warehousing Corporation. Warehousing facilities and storage capacity in India. New Delhi: Government of India; 2023. Available from: https://cewacor.nic.in
6. Choudhary D. Crop weather calendar: A crop guideline. Rashtriya Krishi. 2019;14(1):89-90. Available from: https://www.researchjournal.co.in
7. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. National Mission on Natural Farming (NMNF) Dashboard Scoping Parameters. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2026. Available from: https://naturalfarming.dac.gov.in/
8. Department of Commerce. National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP): Organic production and export statistics 2023-24. New Delhi: APEDA, Government of India; 2024. https://apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/organic/NPOP.html
9. Willer H, Schlatter B, editors. The World of Organic Agriculture 2024. Frick and Bonn: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL and IFOAM -Organics International; 2024. Available from: https://www.fibl.org/en/shop-en/1747-organic-world2024
10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Guide to grain storage. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2011. (FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin; No. 174). https://www.fao.org/3/i2433e/i2433e.pdf
11. Gupta AK, Patra C, Kumar RR, Mamata. Growth and instability analysis of area, production, and yield of major cereals in Chhattisgarh plains zone of Chhattisgarh. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(12):128133.
12. Kumari D, Rana P. Socio-economic analysis of SPNF farmers in Solan district of Himachal Pradesh, India. Archives of Current Research International. 2025;25(10):330-338.
13. Mogale DG, Ghadge A, Kumar SK, Tiwari MK. Modelling supply chain network for procurement of food grains in India. International Journal of Production Research. 2019;57(22):6935-6956.
14. National Mission on Natural Farming. Study material on natural farming for master trainers. Rev. ed. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2025. Prepared by MANAGE. Available from: https://naturalfarming.dac.gov.in/Schemes/studymateria l 15. Research and Markets. Organic food global market report 2025. Dublin: Research and Markets; 2025. https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/organicfood-global-market-report-2025
15. Sambath SR, Cruzumuthu CF, Chandrasekaran K, Thamaraiselvi SP, Srinivasan M. Exploring the relationship between farmer profiles and the socioeconomic impact of natural farming practices. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2024;30(12):95104.
16. Sharma R. Studies on crop weather calendar of major crops of North Eastern Plain Zone of Uttar Pradesh [master's thesis]. Ayodhya: Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture & Technology; 2021. Available from: https://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/server/api/core/bitstrea ms/dc5eb244-a93b-42df-9899-d4bea28d612f/content
17. Singh P, Kumar M. Organic farming for sustainable agriculture: Future outlook and options. Saudi Journal of Economics and Finance. 2024;8(9):298-304.