Economics of rubber based farming systems in Kanyakumari district

Introduction

Agriculture sector engages nearly 60 per cent of the country's workforce and contributes approximately 17.30 per cent of national income, making it the largest employment generating industry in the nation. Despite this scale, farm income particularly on smallholdings, frequently fail to meet the basic needs of farming families. Irregular rainfall patterns, fragmented landholdings and unpredictable market prices compound the challenge, leaving many households economically insecure. The farming systems prevailing across Tamil Nadu are highly varied, reflecting the state's range of agro-climatic conditions. Paddy-based, millet-based, pulse-based, plantation-based, and dryland farming systems each dominate particular geographic zones. In irrigated belts, the integration of crop production with livestock has been widely adopted to enhance nutrient cycling and strengthen the sustainability of agricultural output over time. Rubber based farming systems combine natural rubber cultivation with supplementary intercrops and allied agricultural enterprises to generate a sustained and diversified income stream throughout the whole year. As a long-duration perennial crop, it required six to seven years to reach its productive maturity. It presents a unique challenge and opportunity during its immature phase. Farmers in Kanyakumari district have historically utilized the inter-row spaces of young rubber plantations to cultivate short-duration crops such as banana, pineapple, tapioca, ginger, turmeric, vegetables, and fodder crops, which effectively generate income during the gestation period. The contribution of Kanyakumari district to the national rubber production is remarkable, which accounts for about approximately 3 to 3.5 per cent of India's total rubber cultivation area and output. It accounts for roughly 98% of the total natural rubber production within the state of Tamil Nadu. Recent district-level data indicates a planted area of around 28,400 hectares, from which approximately 21,600 tonnes of natural rubber are produced annually (Ajju R. Justus and E. Raja Justus, 2023) [1] . The favourable combination of tropical climate, adequate rainfall, and suitable laterite soils make the district inherently well suited to rubber cultivation, and the crop's deep integration into the local agrarian economy underlines the importance of understanding and optimizing the farming systems built around it.

Data source and methodology

The study is based on primary data in Kanyakumari district. Three blocks of Kanyakumari district namely Thiruvattar, Melpuram and Thuckalay were selected purposively as these blocks have larger area under rubber cultivation in Kanyakumari district. Then, nine villages from each block were selected randomly. Total 135 farmers were selected for the present study by survey method. The data pertained to the year 2025-26.

Analysis of data

The standard cost concept was used to achieve the objective. Cost A: It includes expenses incurred on all the purchased inputs, hired labour and imputed value of farm produced inputs. The items considered in Cost A are hired human labour, Manures, fertilizers, plant protection chemicals, growth regulators, depreciation, land revenue and interest on working capital, etc. Cost B: Cost A + interest on fixed capital + rental value of owned land. Cost C: Cost B + imputed value of family labour + supervision charges.

Results and Discussion

The existing farming systems followed by the sample rubber growers in the study area are presented in Table 1. It was observed that seven farming systems were practiced by the sample respondents in the study area. The existing farming systems in the study area are I) Rubber followed by 17.78 per cent, II) Rubber + Banana followed by 19.26 per cent, III) Rubber + Pineapple followed by 16.30 per cent, IV) Rubber + Tapioca followed by 19.26 per cent, V) Rubber + Coconut + Black pepper followed by 16.30 per cent, VI) Rubber + Cocoa followed by 8.15 per cent and VII) Rubber + Arecanut followed by 2.96 per cent. Therefore, farming system VI and VII were considered as minor farming systems, as they were followed by less than 10 per cent of the farmers in study area. Consequently, theses farming systems were deleted from the further analysis and the cost, returns and profitability of major farming systems (FS I to FS V) was worked out and presented in the subsequent section. (Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage to total sample farmers selected for study) The information regarding per farm area under different crops grown in major farming systems followed by the sample farmers is given in the Table 2.

Rubber farming system (FS I)

It was observed from Table 3. that, it is the Rubber farming system in which only the crop (monocropping) was observed to be cultivated by sample respondents. The per farm gross returns and total cost were Rs. 387050 and Rs. 298214, respectively. Resulting in net returns of Rs. 88836 and a benefit cost ratio of 1.30. This demonstrates that rubber cultivation alone is economically viable and provides a reasonable profit to farmers.

Rubber + Pineapple farming system (FS III)

The information regarding the per farm total cost, gross returns and net returns of Rubber + Pineapple farming system is presented in

Rubber + Tapioca farming system (FS IV)

Table 6. , presents the per farm cost, returns and profitability of the Rubber + Tapioca farming system (FS IV). The total cultivation cost of the Rubber + Tapioca farming system was Rs. 470988, with rubber accounting for 56.96 per cent and tapioca 43.04 per cent of the total cost. The system generated a gross return of Rs. 781891, of which tapioca contributed 55.54 per cent, while rubber contributed 44.46 per cent. The net return realized from the farming system was Rs. 310903, with tapioca contributing a major share (74.47%) compared to rubber (25.53%). The overall B:C ratio was 1.66, indicating that the Rubber + Tapioca farming system was economically profitable.

Rubber + Coconut + Black Pepper farming system (FS V)

Comparative economics of major rubber based farming systems in study area

The comparative economics of major rubber based farming systems in study area is given in the Table 8. As indicated in the table 8, it was observed that Rubber + Tapioca (FS IV) was the most income earning farming system, in which the per farm net returns were maximum of Rs. 310901, followed by Rubber + banana (FS II) of Rs. 297561. The net returns in the case of Rubber + Coconut + Black pepper (FS V)

were Rs. 202332 and the net returns in the Rubber (FS I) was Rs. 88836. As far as profitability is concerned, it was found that in study area among the different farming systems, 1) Rubber + tapioca farming system (FS IV) was highest profitable farming system with the B:C ratio of 1.66, followed by 2) Rubber + Banana farming system (FS II) B:C ratio of 1.62. 3) Rubber + Coconut + Black pepper farming system (FS V) B:C ratio 1.36. 4) Rubber + Pineapple farming system (FS III) B:C ratio of 1.33. 5) Rubber farming system (FS I) had the low B:C ratio of 1.30.

Economics of major rubber based farming systems standardization on area basis

The per farm economics of farming systems are depicted in Table 3 to 8. Farmers allocation of that area was considered as a basis. The animal components or any other allied agribusiness component was not found in this study. Therefore, the attempt is made to standardize the farming system on an area basis to assess if any change in the per hectare economics as compared to per farm economics.

Conclusion

The per farm total cost of cultivation of Rubber farming system was Rs. 298214 and the gross returns were Rs. 387050, with the B:C ratio of 1.30. In case of Rubber + Banana farming system, the per farm total cost and gross returns were Rs. 479265 and Rs. 776826, respectively, resulting into net returns of Rs. 297561, with the B:C ratio of 1.62. Regarding the Rubber + Pineapple farming systems, the per farm total cost and gross returns were Rs. 701925 and Rs. 937057, respectively, the total net returns were Rs. 235132, resulting in a B:C ratio of 1.33. In regard to Rubber + Tapioca farming system, the per farm total cost and the gross returns were Rs. 470988 and Rs. 781891, respectively, net returns were Rs. 310903, with a B:C ratio of 1.66. In case of Rubber + Coconut + Black pepper farming systems, the per farm total cost and the gross returns were Rs. 558199 and Rs. 760531, respectively, with a net return of about Rs. 202332, resulting in a B:C ratio of 1.36. Among all the systems, rubber + tapioca (FS IV) was most profitable (B:C ratio 1.66), followed by rubber + banana (FS II, 1.62), while sole rubber cultivation (FS I) was the least profitable (1.30), confirming the economic advantage of intercropping over monoculture. The per hectare economics of rubber based farming systems shows that, Rubber + Banana farming system (FS II) was the most profitable in terms of net returns (Rs. 227146), while Rubber + Tapioca (FS IV) was the most efficient based on the B:C ratio (1.66). Thus, FS II and FS IV showed better economic performance compared to the other farming systems.

References

1. Ajju Justus R, Raja Justus E. Overview of the rubber plantations in Kanyakumari district with special reference to rubberwood industry. Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 2023;61(1):78-90.
2. Lal R, Miller FP. Sustainable farming for tropics. Advances in Soil Sciences. 1990;11:85-105.
3. Behera UK, Mahapatra IC. Income and employment generation of small and marginal farmers through integrated farming systems. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 1999;44(3):431-439.
4. Singh Kalyan, Bohra JS, Singh Y, Singh JP. Development of farming system models for the north-eastern plain zone of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Farming. 2006;56(2):5-11.
5. Harishkumar R. Economic Evaluation of Farming Systems in Semi-Arid Regions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2012;67(4):489-496.
6. Huang IY, James K, Thamthanakoon N, Pinitjitsamut P, Rattanamanee N, Pinitjitsamut M, Yamklin S, LowenbergDeBoer JM. Economic outcomes of rubber based agroforestry systems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Agroforestry systems. 2022;97:335-354.
7. Naik VG, Patil HK, Mulik SM. Economics of farming system in South Konkan coastal region of Maharashtra state. Paper presented in 13th annual convention of Maharashtra Society of Agricultural Economics held at Amaravati. 2002.
8. Prasad R, Singh AK, Singh Lakhan, Singh Atar. Economics of Goat Farming Under Traditional low-input Production System in Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainability Development. 2014;8(1):9-13.
9. Sachin Kumar TN, Basavaraja H, Kunnal LB, Kulkarni GN, Ahajanashetty SB, Hunshal CS, Hosamani SV. Economics of farming systems in northern transitional zone of Karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2012;25(3):350-358.
10. Wadkar SS, Vichare SR, Veerkar PD, Dhekale JS, Malave DB, Bhosale SS. Economics of farming systems in the Konkan region of Maharashtra. Joint Agresco report. 2006-07:1-26.