Economic impact of IPM technology on gram production in Amravati district of Maharashtra

Introduction

Agriculture continues to play a central role in India's food security, employment and rural development. Pulses are especially important because they provide dietary protein and contribute to soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation. Among pulse crops, gram (Cicer arietinum L.), commonly known as chickpea or Bengal gram, occupies an important position in India and Maharashtra and is widely cultivated during the Rabi season under rainfed as well as irrigated conditions. Gram production is constrained by several biotic and abiotic factors. Among biotic stresses, pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) is a major pest and can cause substantial yield losses when not adequately managed. Farmers commonly depend on chemical pesticides because of their quick action; however, repeated and indiscriminate use may increase production costs and create risks related to pest resistance, residues and environmental health. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) provides a more sustainable approach by integrating cultural, mechanical, biological and need-based chemical measures. IPM adoption among the selected gram growers varied considerably. The overall IPM adoption index was 0.4708, while the index was 0.340 for low adopters, 0.472 for medium adopters and 0.602 for high adopters. Seed rate, proper spacing, summer ploughing and seed treatment were relatively well adopted, whereas hand collection of larvae, destruction of infested plant parts, botanicals and HaNPV were poorly adopted. These adoption patterns provide the context for examining whether the change towards IPM generates an economically meaningful benefit and what prevents farmers from adopting more of its components. Partial budgeting is particularly useful for assessing the economic effect of a partial change in the farm plan because it organizes the additional costs, reduced returns, reduced costs and added returns associated with the change. Earlier studies have applied partial budgeting to evaluate improved agricultural technologies, including IPM and other crop-management interventions (Durgad et al., 2018; Shende et al., 2022; Sowjanya and Kumari, 2017) [1,2] . Studies on pulse crops have also documented knowledge, input and labour-related constraints that restrict adoption of improved technologies (Tiwari et al., 2020; Sinha et al., 2019) [3] .

Hence, an assessment combining economic impact with constraint ranking is relevant for designing practical extension interventions in gram.

Objectives

1. To assess the impact of IPM technology in gram production.

2.

To analyze the constraints during adoption of IPM technology.

Materials and Methods

Study area and data collection

The study was conducted in Amravati district of Maharashtra during the agricultural year 2025-26. The district was selected purposively for studying IPM technology in gram production. Three tehsils, namely Teosa, Bhatkuli and Morshi, were selected. Three villages from each tehsil were covered, a total of nine villages. From the selected villages, 120 gram-growing farmers who adopted IPM technology were selected for collection of primary information. Data were collected through using a structured personal interview method.

The selected farmers comprised 45 small farmers (37.50 per cent), 52 medium farmers (43.33 per cent) and 23 large farmers (19.17 per cent). For the impact assessment, the analysis was made at the overall level using the partial budget information reported in the thesis.

Estimation of economic impact using partial budgeting

The partial budget technique was used to estimate the change in profit associated with the adoption of improved IPM practices. Four components were considered: (i) additional cost due to IPM, (ii) reduced returns due to IPM, (iii) reduced cost or savings due to IPM, and (iv) added returns due to IPM. The debit side was obtained as additional cost-plus reduced returns, while the credit side was obtained as reduced cost-plus added returns. The net gain was calculated as:

Net gain = Total credit side -Total debit side

The direct additional IPM-related expenditures reported were seed treatment, labour, pheromone traps, HaNPV, NSKE, destruction of larvae, need-based chemical application and destruction of infested plant parts. Opportunity cost of capital at 6 per cent per annum, management cost at 5 per cent and risk premium at 2.5 per cent were also included in the total additional cost.

Analysis of constraints

Constraints in adoption of IPM technology were analysed using Garrett's ranking technique. The rank assigned by each respondent was converted into a per cent position using the standard Garrett transformation. The corresponding Garrett score was obtained from the Garrett table. Mean scores were calculated for each constraint and arranged in descending order. The constraint with the highest mean score was assigned Rank I, followed successively by lower mean scores.

Percent position= ×100

Where, R ij = rank given to the j th constraint by the j th respondent N j = number of constraints ranked by the j th respondent.

Results and Discussion

Economic impact of IPM technology

The partial budget results demonstrate a positive economic effect of adopting IPM practices in gram production. The direct additional expenditure on IPM practices amounted to Rs. [1,2] .

Constraints in adoption of IPM technology

Although the partial budget indicates a strong economic advantage, the adoption of several IPM components remained low. Garrett's ranking was therefore used to identify the constraints that should receive priority in extension and policy interventions.

Conclusion

The study assessed the economic impact of IPM technology in gram production and the constraints faced by farmers in adopting it in selected villages of Amravati district during 2025-26. The partial budget analysis showed a total additional cost of Rs.4,848.75 per hectare, while the total credit side was Rs.28,256.64 per hectare. The resulting net gain of Rs.23,407.89 per hectare demonstrates a substantial positive economic impact of IPM technology. The gain arose from both cost savings of Rs.3,640.19 per hectare and added returns of Rs.24,616.45 per hectare associated with a yield increase of 4.66 quintals per hectare.

Despite the favourable economics, lack of awareness was the leading constraint, followed by lack of skilled labour, difficulty in identifying natural enemies and pests, non-availability of bioagents, and comparatively higher price. Therefore, wider adoption of IPM in gram should focus not only on demonstrating its profitability but also on improving farmers' practical knowledge and access to the inputs and skills required for implementation. Regular village-level demonstrations, farmer training on pest and natural-enemy identification, skill development for IPM operations, and timely availability of HaNPV and Trichogramma can help address the major constraints identified in the study.

References

1. Durgad AG, Guledaguddda SS, Kiresur VR, Kariyanna B. Analysis of the profitability of IPM and non-IPM practices in pigeonpea. Int.J. of Curr.Mibo. & Appl. Sci. 2018;7:4159-4165.
2. Sowjanya S, Kumari RV. Partial budgeting of ICM, IPM, and Non-IPM chilli farms in Telangana region. International Journal of Current Science. 2017;5(5):617-620.
3. Tiwari AK, Singh KK, Dwivedi AP, Singh RP. Adoption level and constraints of IPM technology in chickpea growers of Raebareli district of Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2020;8(5):750-755.
4. Sharma SR, Singh VK, Singh DP. Comparative adoption studies of different IPM components against pigeon pea pests. Plant Archives. 2017;17(2):1037-1040.