Status and economic analysis of custom hiring centres serving small and marginal farmers in selected districts of Chhattisgarh

Introduction

Agricultural mechanization plays an important role in improving the timeliness, efficiency and productivity of agricultural operations. It involves the application of mechanical power, improved agricultural machinery and engineering technologies throughout crop production and post-harvest operations. Mechanization improves farm power availability, field capacity, field efficiency, machinery utilization and labour productivity (Singh, 2006) [1] . However, ownership of agricultural machinery is often difficult for small and marginal farmers because of fragmented landholdings and limited investment capacity (Birthal et al., 2015). Custom Hiring Centres (CHCs) provide an alternative mechanism through which farmers can access tractors, implements and specialized machinery on a rental basis. The establishment of CHCs under government mechanization programmes has been intended to improve access to farm machinery, particularly for farmers who cannot afford individual ownership. Government-supported mechanization programmes such as the Sub-Mission on Agricultural Mechanization have promoted machinery hiring services and Farm Machinery Banks to strengthen access to agricultural machinery (Government of India, 2018). The effectiveness of CHCs depends on machinery availability, infrastructure, machinery utilization, hiring demand, management practices and operating costs. Earlier studies have reported that custom hiring services can improve access to machinery and support timely agricultural operations among farmers (Kamboj et al., 2012; Nagaraj et al., 2020) [2,3] . Economic performance is closely associated with machinery utilization, operational costs and the demand for hiring services (Hiregoudar et al., 2017) [4] . Chhattisgarh has a large proportion of small and marginal farmers and a predominantly rice-based agricultural system. Differences in terrain, cropping pattern, farm size, mechanization level and machinery ownership create variations in demand for custom hiring services among districts. Previous studies have high lighted the importance of CHCs in improving access to farm machinery in Chhattisgarh (Sahu, 2019; Tayade et al., 2022) [5,6] . However, comprehensive district-level information combining infrastructure status, machinery inventory, utilization and economic performance of CHCs remains limited for selected regions of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the operational and economic performance of selected CHCs and identify major constraints affecting their functioning.

Materials and methods

Study area

The investigation was conducted in four selected districts of Chhattisgarh, namely Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (GPM), Raipur, Rajnandgaon and Kondagaon. The districts were selected to represent differences in agro-climatic conditions, cropping systems, mechanization levels and demand for agricultural machinery. The study was conducted during 2025-26. Five operational CHCs were selected from each district, resulting in a total sample of 20 CHCs. The selected centres primarily provided agricultural machinery services to farmers on a custom hiring basis. The thesis confirms the four-district study design and five-CHC sample from each district.

Sampling and data collection

A multistage sampling approach involving purposive and simple random sampling was adopted. The selected districts represented different agricultural and mechanization conditions. From each district, five operational CHCs were selected through simple random sampling. Primary information was collected from CHC operators/owners through personal interviews, field observations and physical verifica-tion. Information relating to machinery inventory, infrastructure, annual operating hours, hiring charges, capital investment, income, expenditure and operational constraints was collected. Beneficiary farmers associated with the selected CHCs were also considered for information concerning machinery services and operational constraints.

Assessment of operational status

The operational status of CHCs was assessed using:

International Journal of Research in Agronomy

Infrastructure facilities considered included office, machinery shed, workshop, skilled operator, fuel storage, electricity, parking and boundary wall. Infrastructure facilities considered included office, machinery shed, workshop, skilled operator, fuel storage, electricity, parking and boundary wall.

Economic analysis

The economic performance of CHCs was evaluated using ownership cost, operating cost, total annual cost, annual gross income, annual net income, Benefit-Cost ratio and break-even utilization. The annual net income was calculated as:

ANI = AGI -TAC

Where, ANI = Annual net income (₹ year -1 ) AGI = Annual gross income (₹ year -1 ) TAC = Total annual cost (₹ year -1 ) The Benefit-Cost ratio was calculated as:

B:C = AGI/TAC

where: AGI = Annual gross income (₹ year -1 ) TAC = Total annual cost (₹ year -1 ) Cost estimation followed the standard farm machinery costing procedure cited in the thesis as IS 9164:1979

Constraint analysis

Constraints faced by CHC operators were collected through the structured survey schedule. The responses were classified into financial, operational, technical and managerial constraints. Frequency and percentage analysis was used to identify the major constraints.

Results and Discussion

General characteristics of selected CHCs

The selected CHCs were established between 2021 and 2025. The average capital investment was ₹15.40 lakh, ranging from ₹10.00 to ₹39.00 lakh. The average government subsidy was ₹5.78 lakh, while the average institutional loan was ₹5.30 lakh. Each CHC served an average of 5.2 villages and 57 farmers. The average machinery density was approximately 6.55 machines per CHC. These findings indicate that the selected centres provided machinery services across multiple villages and agricultural operations. Among the selected CHCs, 18 (90%) were owned by individual entrepreneurs and 2 (10%) were managed by Self-Help Groups. The financing structure consisted of government subsidy, bank loan and owner contribution. Government subsidy accounted for 37.50% of the total investment, followed by bank loan (34.42%) and own contribution (28.08%).by bank loan (34.42%) and own contribution (28.08%).

Infrastructure status of CHCs

Infrastructure availability varied among the selected centres.

Electricity was available in all 20 CHCs, while 19 CHCs had skilled operators. Machinery sheds and fuel-storage facilities were available in 60% of the centres. Workshop facilities were available in only 25% of CHCs. Office facilities were available in 15%, parking facilities in 35% and boundary walls in 50% of the centres. The results show that basic operating facilities such as electricity and skilled operators were widely available, whereas dedicated workshops, offices and parking facilities were comparatively limited. The infrastructure pattern suggests scope for strengthening maintenance and facilities at several CHCs.

Machinery availability and inventory

A total of 131 agricultural machines were available across the 20 selected CHCs. Tractors constituted the largest share of the inventory with 22 units (16.79%), followed by seed drills with 20 units (15.27%), cultivators with 19 units (14.50%), reapers and threshers with 18 units each, and sprayers with 17 units. Only two combine harvesters and two MB ploughs were available. The inventory indicates that the selected CHCs were mainly equipped with machinery required for land preparation, sowing, harvesting, threshing and plant protection. The limited number of combine harvesters and MB ploughs indicates relatively specialized or seasonal demand for these machines.

Machinery utilization

The total annual machinery utilization recorded across the 20 CHCs was 10,365 h. Tractors accounted for the largest share of utilization at 35.89%, followed by cultivators at 31.55% and threshers at 16.16%. Together, these three machine categories contributed 83.60% of total annual utilization. Rotavators contributed 8.59%, reapers 5.55%, seed drills 1.21%, combine harvesters 1.06% and MB ploughs 0.34%. Sprayers and pump sets recorded no utilization during the survey period. The high utilization of tractors and cultivators reflects their broad applicability across field operations. Threshers also recorded substantial utilization because of their importance during post-harvest operations.

In contrast, specialized machinery such as combine harvesters and seed drills showed lower utilization because of seasonal and crop-specific demand.

District-wise machinery utilization

District-wise annual machinery utilization was highest in GPM at The district-wise variation indicates that utilization of CHC machinery was influenced by local agricultural conditions, demand for mechanized operations, existing private machinery ownership and availability of alternative hiring services.

Economic performance of selected CHCs

The economic performance of the selected CHCs varied considerably. The district-wise analysis demonstrates that higher capital investment did not necessarily correspond to higher economic returns. The Raipur CHCs had the highest average capital investment but also had higher average annual costs relative to gross income. In contrast, lower average investment combined with comparatively favourable machinery utilization and cost control was associated with higher B:C ratios in GPM.

Annual cost structure of CHCs

The average annual operating cost of the selected CHCs was ₹519,728.43. Variable costs accounted for 69.57%, while fixed costs accounted for 30.43%. Fuel constituted the largest component of annual cost, accounting for 45.94%, followed by depreciation (14.82%), repair and maintenance (11.85%) and interest on investment (9.69%). Lubrication, labour, insurance and housing accounted for smaller shares. The dominance of variable expenditure, particularly fuel, indicates that operating-cost management is an important component of CHC economic performance. Preventive maintenance, appropriate machinery scheduling and efficient fuel management may help control recurring expenditure.

Constraints faced by CHC operators

The major constraints were identified from responses of the 20 selected CHC operators. High fuel cost and delay in payment by farmers were reported by all 20 CHCs (100%). Low demand for some machinery was reported by CHCs (90%). Loan repayment and lack of training facilities were each reported by 15 CHCs (75%). Poor road connectivity was reported by 60% and repair delay by 55% of the CHCs.

Other constraints included high repair and maintenance cost (30%), machinery breakdown during peak season (25%), shortage of skilled operators (15%) and seasonal demand variation (15%). The findings indicate that financial and operational constraints were more frequently reported than technical constraints. High fuel expenditure directly increases operating costs, while delayed payments may affect the working capital available to CHC operators. Low demand for specialized machinery can reduce annual utilization and make recovery of ownership costs more difficult.

Conclusion

Suggested measures

Fuel management: Promote fuel-efficient machinery, optimize field operations and encourage preventive maintenance.

Timely payment: Promote digital payment systems and strengthen institutional credit support for farmers.

Demand generation: Conduct field demonstrations and awareness programmes for specialized machinery such as seed drills and other equipment with low utilization.

Training: Conduct periodic operator and farmer training through the Department of Agriculture, KVKs and agricultural universities.

Small-farm mechanization: Promote compact and small-scale machinery suitable for fragmented holdings.

Machinery scheduling: Facilitate inter-village and inter-district movement of machinery to improve utilization of specialized equipment.

Maintenance facilities: Establish district-level service facilities and improve the availability of spare parts.

Diversification: Expand CHC services to post-harvest, horticultural and allied agricultural machinery.

References

1. Singh J. Scope, progress and constraints of farm mechanization in India. In Status of farm mechanization in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 2006:48-56.
2. Kamboj P, Khurana R, Dixit A. Farm machinery services provided by selected cooperative societies. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. 2012;14(4):123-133.
3. Nagaraj B, Srilatha C, Vikram S, Venkatesh M, Prameela C. Establishing a model custom hiring center: A feasibility study at Kandi Mandal. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(5):1299-1307.
4. Hiregoudar S, Patil S. Techno-economic evaluation of custom hiring centres of farm machinery. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal. 2017;19(2):45-52.
5. Birthal PS, Negi DS, Jha AK, Singh D. Income sources of farm households in India: Determinants, distributional consequences and policy implications. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2014;27(1):37-48.
6. Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India. State of Indian agriculture 2016-17. Directorate of Economics and Statistics; 2017.
7. Kisku U, Singh AK. A review on custom hiring services under Indian conditions: Farmer's perception, associated factors, constraints, and suggestions. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology. 2022;40(11):8-27.
8. Singh. Farmers' perception and operational constraints associated with Custom Hiring Centres in India. 2022.
9. Kothari CR. Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New Age International Publishers; 2004.
10. Rawal S, Dhillon A, Bishnoi DK, Kumar R, Panday RR, Kumar M. Economic effect of Custom Hiring Centres on paddy (Oryza sativa) cultivation in Haryana, India. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2024;46(6):583-588.
11. Srivastava AK, Goering CE, Rohrbach RP, Buckmaster DR. Engineering principles of agricultural machines (2nd ed.). American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers; 2006. How to cite this article: Jogdand S, Rathour P, Sinha P, Humane S, Sahu B, Dewangan YK. Status and economic analysis of cushiring centres serving small and marginal farmers in selected districts of Chhattisgarh. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2026;SP-9(10):216-222. doi: https://www.doi.org/10. 33545/2618060X.2026.v9.i10Sc.6834 International Journal of Research in Agronomy https://www.agronomyjournals.com 26180618, 2026, 9(10), Downloaded from https://www.doi.org/10.33545/2618060X.2026.v9.i10Sc.6834 by International Journal of Research in Agronomy on [10/10/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://www.agronomyjournals.com) for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License