An Analysis the Socioeconomic Profile of Sugarcane Farmers
Vasant Nanappagol1*, Dr.
Surender Kumar Shilla2
1 Research Scholar, Sunrise University, Alwar, Rajasthan, India
vasantnana1982@gmail.com
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce,
Sunrise University, Alwar, Rajasthan, India
Abstract : An
important agricultural sector in India, the sugar industry may produce about 25
million tonnes of sugar every year. With a 15% share of the world's sugar
production, it is the second-largest producer globally, behind Brazil. This
sector is highly promising as a renewable energy source and is critically
important to India's rural economy. It promotes a wide range of ancillary
businesses and helps sustain the livelihoods of almost 60 million farmers and
their families. The entire socio-economic prosperity of the farming community
in India can be attributed to sugarcane, a significant cash crop. The sugarcane
juice is transformed into several byproducts, such as molasses, sugar,
khandsari, etc. The states of Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu,
& Karnataka are the primary locations for crop production. In India, many
people make their living via the cultivation and processing of sugarcane. About
3,300 man-hours are needed to complete the various processes involved in
sugarcane production. There is a severe scarcity of workers in the sugarcane
growing regions of India. Cane harvesting is a time when the scarcity of
workers is most noticeable. Men and women work side by side in sugarcane
fields, albeit their skill levels may vary in different tasks. Men alone are
responsible for ploughing, spraying, cleaning irrigation channels, earthing up,
applying plant protection chemicals, and off barring, among other sugarcane
agricultural chores. Because of how physically demanding and time-consuming
these tasks are, men are performing them. By doing this study, we can better
understand the challenges faced by sugarcane workers and their socioeconomic
status, which is crucial for providing them with a stable income.
Keywords: sugarcane
farmers, socioeconomic profile, rural economy, agricultural livelihoods, income
patterns, landholding size, education level, farming practices, crop
productivite.
INTRODUCTION
An important agricultural
sector in India, the sugar industry may produce about 25 million tonnes of
sugar every year. With a 15% share of the world's sugar production, it is the
second-largest producer globally, behind Brazil. This sector is highly
promising as a renewable energy source & critically important to
India's rural economy. It promotes a wide range of ancillary businesses and
helps sustain the livelihoods of almost 60 million farmers and their families.
In 2011–2012, the sector made 800 billion rupees, with farmers receiving 550 billion
rupees. More than 500 sugar mills operate within the industry, with varying
levels of management and ownership (Singh, 2016). Thirunavukarasu (2015)
provides an alternative estimate, stating that over 50 million farmers and
their families rely on sugarcane as a means of subsistence. Approximately 12%
of the rural population in these nine states is directly or indirectly employed
by the sugar business. Each farmer practically helps produce 2.9 million metric
tonnes of sugar annually.
The whole economic and social
advancement of India's farming population may be attributed to sugarcane, the
country's most important cash crop. The sugarcane juice is transformed into
several byproducts, such as molasses, sugar, khandsari, etc. The states of
Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, & Karnataka are the
primary locations for crop production. Based on their production capability,
the states that produce sugarcane are categorised into three groups. Uttar Pradesh
and Maharashtra are the two states that produce the most sugarcane. Following
that, the states of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Haryana
are significant producers. The states of Bihar & Assam also have relatively
poor sugarcane production.
Karnataka state grows
sugarcane, which is a major cash crop. The districts of Belgaum, Bijapur,
Mandya, Shimoga, Mysore, Belagavi, Chitradurga, and Gulbarga make up the
majority of Karnataka's 2.82 lakh hectares, which places it third in area, and
23.37 million tonnes in production, putting it fourth overall. With an area of
around 1,05,237 hectares & production of about 48,98,782 tonnes in
2003–04, the Belgaum district was the largest in the state. Meanwhile, the
Mandya district had the highest sugarcane yield."
Processing
There have traditionally been
two steps in the processing of sugarcane. Mills that process sugarcane are
found in areas where sugarcane is grown. From the sugarcane that has been
gathered, two products are made: raw sugar, which is then refined, and
"mill white" sugar, which is consumed locally. White refined sugar,
which is more than 99 percent sucrose, is made when sugar refineries, which are
often located in sugar-consuming nations like Japan, Europe, & North
America, clean and purify raw sugar. There is a gradual fuzziness between these
two phases. The sugar-producing tropics are seeing a shift towards combined
milling and refining as a result of rising demand for refined sugar products
driven by rising incomes in those regions.
Milling
The first step in processing
sugarcane is transporting it to a mill, which is often situated near the field
of cultivation. The cane is often transported to the mill by small rail
networks. A sugar mill uses rotating blades to wash, cut, & shred
sugarcane. The process involves crushing the shredded cane between rollers and
constantly mixing it with water. The resulting juices, known as garappa in
Brazil, contain 10-15% sucrose. The fibrous solids, known as bagasse, are then
burned to provide fuel. A sugar mill can become more than just energy
independent using bagasse; the surplus can be turned into animal feed, used to
make paper, or even used to power the local grid through combustion.
Add lime to the cane juice to
bring its pH up to 7. The mixture prevents sucrose from decomposing into glucose
& fructose and also helps to remove certain contaminants by precipitation.
After the lime and other suspended solids have settled to the bottom of the
container, the mixture is let to sit for a while. The clarified juice is then
concentrated into a syrup that contains around 60% sucrose by weight. After
being supersaturated, the syrup is seeded with crystalline sugar &
subjected to further vacuum-assisted concentration in a multiple-effect
evaporator. The syrup's sugar crystallises as it cools. To isolate the sugar,
the leftover liquid, or mollases, are spun out using a centrifuge. Blackstrap
refers to the molasses that remains after several crystallisations have been
exhausted in an economically viable manner in an effort to extract more sugar
from the original batch.
The hue of raw sugar can range
from yellow to brown. Sulphur dioxide, a chemical that turns many impurities
that cause colour into colourless ones, can be bubbled through cane juice
before evaporation if a white result is needed. Sugar that undergoes this
sulfidation process to become white is known by several names, including
"mill white," "plantation white," and "crystal
sugar." In countries that produce sugarcane, this is the most popular type
of sugar.
Economic importance of
sugarcane ratoons
The vegetative approach
involves planting sugarcane seeds using stalks that have been chopped. The
chopped pieces germinate & produce tillers in tropical and subtropical
climes. When conditions are right, the tillers grow into the cane crop. Once the
mature cane crop is harvested, the buds on the leftover subterranean stubbles
begin to germinate once more, producing a new crop. The name of this type of
crop is "ratoon crop." (Young, 1986)
Ratooning is a crucial step in
sugarcane harvesting all around the globe. In addition to lowering cultivation
costs, this method eliminates the need for seed material and some cultural
activities, such as predatory irrigations or ground preparation. Among the
benefits of ratoon cropping that Puckett et al. (1970) highlighted were:
i) The presence of a
pre-formed root system reduces production costs by eliminating the need to
prepare the land and care for the plant during its early growth, whether it's a
clone or seedling.
ii) The growing season is
more efficiently used, particularly in the beginning; and iii) The ratoon crop
has a shorter crop cycle.
iii) It can produce more crop
in the same amount of time per unit area;
iv) It can be utilised in
breeding programmes to keep clones' plans consistent throughout seasons; and
v) It can save water during
the post-monsoon irrigation season in India because to its shorter growing
period.
It is common practice to
harvest two or more ratoon crops in nations that produce a lot of cane. Four or
six ratoons are typical in Cuba, the Philippines, Mauritius, and Hawaii.
Ratoons are used in sugarcane production in different quantities all around the
globe. Despite experimental evidence showing that cultivating ratoons with
proper care can be highly profitable, only one or two ratoons, with low yields,
are harvested in India. The ratoon is an important component of India's
sugarcane crop. Ratoon typically occupies more than 55% of the total cane
acreage in several of the important cane-growing states, including Uttar
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, & Haryana. But in some regions, like Assam,
ratoons make up over 80% of the cane-growing land.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Dr.
Ghadge Shrikant Tukaram (2019) More than one million hectares of land in India
are devoted to growing sugarcane, a crucial cash crop. In addition to being the
world's largest consumer of sugar, India is second in sugarcane production,
accounting for 27 percent of global output. For rural India, the sugarcane
sector is the lifeblood of the economy & biggest agro-based
enterprise. An integral part of the Pune district's economy is the sugarcane
crop. About 12.54 percent of the state's crushed cane in 2016 and 2017 came
from this district. The district's ideal climate & soil conditions, with
the exception of rainfall, make it ideal for sugarcane cultivation. The
majority of the sugarcane land in the Pune district is located in the tahsils
of Daund, Indapur, Baramati, & Shirur. In most cases, analysing the
cultivation activities of various crop production requires first studying
socio-economic factors. The Baramati tahsil in the Pune district of the Indian
state of Maharashtra was the site of the research. Data for the study came from
a variety of sources, some of which were primary while others were secondary.
Education, family size, occupations, caste, social participation, income,
dwelling style, vehicle use, etc. are some of the characteristics taken into
account for this inquiry. Sugarcane growers in Baramati tahsil have a positive
socioeconomic profile, according to research on their socioeconomic characteristics.
The empirical results indicate that the tahsil has a lot of room to grow
economically and socially if its residents improve their educational &
social participation levels.
Saroj
Shinde (2019) Seasonal migrants from drought-prone areas travel to the sugar
belt of Maharashtra to work as sugarcane cutters. Those who engage in this
profession and, by extension, the seasonal movement tend to be members of lower
socioeconomic classes, lower castes, and those with limited or no formal
education. A 2019 sugarcane harvest season observational study, in-depth
interviews with 20 female cutters, and casual conversations with the wives of
team leaders (Mukadum) make up the methods used in this exploratory study. The
current push-pull factors hypothesis of migration states that, for sugar cane
cutters, the push factors are drought and its effects on their home places,
& pull component is the availability of jobs in the sugar belt. These
employees are victims of exploitation in numerous forms, despite the fact that
they are physically unable to do the job and endure terrible living conditions.
Their ability to utilise state resources & services is hindered by their
migration status, which puts their citizenship status in jeopardy. The fact
that these employees have no ties to the sugar mills makes them easy prey for
middlemen like Mukadum and contractors. In sum, middlemen such as Mukadum,
Contractor, vehicle owners, and sugar manufacturers often take advantage of
sugarcane cutters. Taking into account the socio-ecological conditions in which
these workers earn a living helps to shed light on the obvious hardships they
face in three areas: health, education, & livelihoods. As a result,
coordinated efforts at the policy level are required to resolve the sugarcane
cutters' labour problems.
OBJECTIVES
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The current investigation was carried out in the
Athani taluk of the Belagavi District, which is the location with the highest
concentration of sugarcane agriculture. From the Athani Taluk, three villages
were chosen based on the criteria of having the greatest amount of land under
sugarcane cultivation. With the assistance of Agricultural Assistants, a list
of sugarcane producers was compiled from each village. Then, using a simple
random selection method, fifty respondents were chosen from each village. This
brings the total number of samples to 150. For the purpose of data collection,
a structured pre-tested interview schedule was used, and the personal interview
approach was utilised.
RESULTS
Table 1: Personality
traits of sugarcane farmers (N =150)
|
SI. No |
Independent
variables |
Category |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
1 |
Land
holding |
Up to 2.5
marginal farmers |
40 |
26.67 |
|
Small
farmers (2.51–5.00) |
40 |
26.67 |
||
|
Semi-medium
farmers (5.01-10.00) |
45 |
30.00 |
||
|
Medium
farmers (10.01–25.00) |
25 |
16.67 |
||
|
Big
farmers (more than 25) |
0 |
0.00 |
||
|
Mean =
6.47, SE = 0.40 |
||||
Table 1 shows that most of the people who answered
(60%) were in the middle age category, which is those between the ages of 31
and 50. Next were 23.33% of people who were 51 years old or older and 16.67% of
those who were 18 to 30 years old. The explanation for this might be that
middle-aged farmers are frequently more active, have more agricultural
experience, and are better at their jobs than younger or older farmers.
Additionally, farmers in their middle years possess better physical vigor and a
higher volume of familial responsibilities compared to their younger
counterparts. Sunil Kumar (2004) and Vandana (2016) both found results that
were similar to each other's.
Based on the educational attainment of the
respondents, Table 1 indicates that almost one-third had finished high school
and nearly one-third had finished middle school. Conversely, 18.00 percent of
respondents had finished primary school, and 6.00 percent had finished higher
secondary school. Only two percent of the people who answered had graduated
high school, and only ten point six percent were illiterate. The results may be
due to the fact that there are a lot of good schools and free basic education available.
Not many of them want to go back to school, which shows that they don't have
enough money and don't want to study more. It is possible that the parents
could not send their kids to college since the hamlet was too far away from the
colleges. Karpagam (2000) and Vandana (2016) both found outcomes that were similar
to each other.
Table 1 indicated that a lesser fraction of the people
who answered (46.66%) had a medium level of agricultural experience, which was
defined as having between 17 and 20 years of experience. 26.67 percent of the
replies, on the other hand, comprised both a low level of agricultural
experience (less than 17 years) and a high level of farming experience (more
than 20 years).
Table 2: Economic
characteristics of sugarcane cultivators (N = 150)
|
SI. No |
Self-governing
variables |
Category |
Respondent
|
Percent |
|
1 |
Taking
part in the extension |
Low
(<3.31) |
30 |
20.00 |
|
Medium
(3.31to 4.96) |
90 |
60.00 |
||
|
High
(>4.96) |
30 |
20.00 |
||
|
Mean
=4.13, SD = 1.93, SE = 0.15 |
||||
|
2 |
Contact
for extension |
Low (<
4.17) |
55 |
36.67 |
|
Medium
(4.17 to 6.03) |
70 |
46.67 |
||
|
High (>6.03) |
25 |
16.67 |
||
|
Mean =
5.10, SD = 2.19, SE = 0.17 |
||||
|
3 |
Exposure
to the media |
Low
(<5.68) |
50 |
33.33 |
|
Medium
(5.68 to 7.19) |
60 |
40.00 |
||
|
High
(>7.19) |
40 |
26.67 |
||
|
Mean =
6.43, SD = 1.77, SE = 0.14 |
||||
|
4 |
Being
cosmopolitan |
Low
(<20.30) |
51 |
34.00 |
|
Medium
(20.30 to 22.57) |
63 |
42.00 |
||
|
High
(>22.57) |
36 |
24.00 |
||
|
Mean =
21.43, SD = 2.68, SE = 0.21 |
||||
It shows that over one-third of the respondents were
semi-medium farmers with land-living assets between 5.1 and 10 acres. Also,
26.67% of the people who answered were small and marginal farmers who owned
between 2.51 and 5 acres of land and up to 2.5 acres of land. However, none of
the people who answered possessed more than 25 acres of property, and only
16.67% of them were classified middle farmers with land holdings of 10 to 25
acres. This might be because the people who answered the question got their
property from their ancestors, and that property may have been passed down from
generation to generation. Respondents owned an average of 6.47 acres of land.
The outcomes delineated herein are, to varying degrees, analogous to those
reported by Ninga Reddy (2005) and Mohanakumar (2018).
Table 3: Communication
traits of sugarcane cultivators (N = 150)
|
SI. No |
Self-governing
variables |
Category |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
1 |
Age |
Beginning
(18 to30) |
25 |
16.67 |
|
Mid (31
to 50) |
90 |
60.00 |
||
|
Old (51
and above) |
35 |
23.33 |
||
|
Mean =
43.46, SE = 0.72 |
||||
|
2 |
Education |
Uneducated
(Cannot read and write) |
16 |
10.67 |
|
Primary schooling
(1 to 4) |
27 |
18.00 |
||
|
Middle schooling
(5 to 7) |
45 |
30.00 |
||
|
High schooling
(8 to 10) |
50 |
33.33 |
||
|
secondary
(11 to 12) |
9 |
6.00 |
||
|
Graduation
(Above 13) |
3 |
2.00 |
||
|
Mean =
2.12, SE = 0.09 |
||||
|
3 |
Farming
experience (years) |
Low-slung
(<17.05) |
40 |
26.67 |
|
Average
(17.05 to 20.08) |
70 |
46.67 |
||
|
High
(>20.08) |
40 |
26.67 |
||
|
Mean =
18.57, SD = 3.57, SE = 0.29 |
||||
The results in Table 3 indicated that sixty percent of
the survey participants exhibited a moderate degree of prolonged involvement.
Conversely, twenty percent of each responder exhibited both a low and a high
level of extended involvement. For taking part in the extension, the average
score was 4.13. When someone takes part in extension activities, they may
better understand, talk about, and discuss their problems with other farmers
and experts from different fields and organizations. This participation not
only gives you firsthand experience, but it also helps. If someone goes to
group presentations, displays, seminars, field excursions, and demonstrations,
they are more likely to accept what they see and utilize the technology on
their farm or field. Priyanka (2016) says that the results are in line with
what was found.
Based on the information in Table 3, 46.67% of the
people who answered had a medium level of extension contact, and 36.67% had a
low level of extension contact. Only 16.67 percent of the people who took the
poll had a lot of involvement with extension. There might be several reasons
for this, such as not having enough time to get in touch with extension
workers, especially during the growing season, extension workers not being easy
to reach, or farmers not being interested in learning about new things. The outcomes
of this study align with the results identified by Mohanakumar (2018).
According to Table 3, forty percent of the people who
answered had a medium level of exposure to mass media, while thirty-three point
three percent and twenty-six point six percent had a low degree of exposure to
mass media. There might be several reasons for this, such as not having enough
time or interest, not being able to use the information in real life, having to
learn the same things over and over again, and the fact that they could always
borrow it from other farmers who subscribe to the program. There are a lot of
parallels between the results of this study and the results of Vinayak Narayan
Nayak's study from 2014. Thirty-four percent of respondents said they were not
very cosmopolitan, while twenty-four percent said they were very cosmopolitan.
Table 3 showed that less than half of the people who answered (42.00%) had a
medium degree of cosmopolitanism. The average score for cosmopolitanness was
21.43. In farming, cosmopolitanism means how much a farmer looks for
information from people outside of their society. One reason they would go to
nearby towns and cities to sell the merchandise on a frequent basis is because
the town is close by. Consequently, the level of cosmopolitanism was deemed
moderate, aligning with the results of the studies conducted by Priyanka (2016)
and Sowjanya (2017).
Table 4:
Psychological characteristics of sugarcane growers (N =150)
|
S. No. |
Variable |
Category
(Score Range) |
Frequency
(f) |
Percentage
(%) |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
|
1 |
Innovative
proneness |
Low
(<14.46) |
54 |
36.00 |
14.94 |
1.13 |
0.09 |
|
Medium
(14.46 – 15.42) |
43 |
28.67 |
|||||
|
High
(>15.42) |
53 |
35.33 |
|||||
|
2 |
Achievement
motivation |
Low
(<26.52) |
49 |
32.67 |
27.51 |
2.33 |
0.19 |
|
Medium
(26.52 – 28.51) |
46 |
30.67 |
|||||
|
High
(>28.51) |
55 |
36.67 |
|||||
|
3 |
Economic
motivation |
Low
(<24.94) |
75 |
50.00 |
25.67 |
1.71 |
0.13 |
|
Medium
(24.94 – 26.39) |
20 |
13.33 |
|||||
|
High
(>26.39) |
55 |
36.67 |
|||||
|
4 |
Risk
orientation |
Low (<23.59) |
45 |
30.00 |
24.50 |
2.15 |
0.17 |
|
Medium
(23.59 – 25.41) |
55 |
36.67 |
|||||
|
High
(>25.41) |
50 |
33.33 |
|||||
|
5 |
Management
orientation |
Low
(<56.98) |
55 |
36.67 |
58.53 |
3.66 |
0.29 |
|
Medium
(56.98 – 60.09) |
30 |
20.00 |
|||||
|
High
(>60.09) |
65 |
43.33 |
|||||
|
6 |
Scientific
orientation |
Low
(<15.63) |
40 |
26.67 |
16.03 |
0.95 |
0.07 |
|
Medium
(15.63 – 16.44) |
60 |
40.00 |
|||||
|
High
(>16.44) |
50 |
33.33 |
Based on the data in Table 4, it was found that more
than one-third of the people who answered (36.00%) had a low degree of
innovative proneness. 35.33% and 28.67% of the people who answered the
question, on the other hand, showed a high and medium degree of inventive
proneness, respectively. Fifty percent of the survey respondents had a level of
innovative proneness classified as medium to high. This shows that more than
half of the people who answered were open to new ideas. It's feasible that
these people may become users of SRI paddy farming in the near future. It is
also possible that this is because they are relatively well-educated. These results
are supported by the information that Vandana (2016) gathered.
Table 4 shows that 36.67% of the people who answered the question had a high
level of accomplishment motivation, whereas 32.67% and 30.00% had low and
medium levels, respectively. This might be because sugarcane growers are trying
to get more from their crops, which is what this is about. During this process,
he recognizes the need of possessing up-to-date technological knowledge, which
facilitates the adoption of new technologies. Consequently, one might infer
that sugarcane farmers with elevated levels of achievement motivation are more
inclined to assimilate new concepts or skills compared to their counterparts.
CONCLUSION
Most of the sugarcane growers were middle-aged and had
finished high school. Most of them own a medium amount of land and are in the
middle range for extension participation, extension contact, mass media
exposure, risk orientation, scientific orientation, and cosmopolitanism. The
research showed that sugarcane farmers were weak when it came to their
willingness to try new things and their economic reasons for doing so. So,
there has to be a campaign to raise awareness in order to teach the people who
grow sugarcane. This is why the government, agricultural institutions, and
other extension organizations need to work to spread the word about improved
ways to grow sugarcane. This will help sugarcane farmers modify their way of
life and improve their social and economic status. about how to grow paddy
References
1.
Kendre, B. (2011).
Socio-economic background and seasonal migration of sugarcane harvesting
workers. International Journal of Humanity and Social Sciences, 1(2),
15.
2.
KUMAR, R., Hasan, S. S.,
Bajpai, P. K., & Singh, S. N. (2010). Economic analysis of sugarcane cultivation
in different states of India. The Association of Sugarcane Technologists
of India, 25(1&2), 97-101.
3.
Machado, P. G., Picoli, M. C.
A., Torres, L. J., Oliveira, J. G., & Walter, A. (2015). The use of
socioeconomic indicators to assess the impacts of sugarcane production in
Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 52, 1519-1526.
4.
Martínez, S. H., van Eijck,
J., da Cunha, M. P., Guilhoto, J. J., Walter, A., & Faaij, A. (2013).
Analysis of socio-economic impacts of sustainable sugarcane–ethanol production
by means of inter-regional Input–Output analysis: Demonstrated for Northeast
Brazil. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 28, 290-316.
5.
Mohanraj, p., & Gunasekaran,
k. a bird view on socio economic conditions of sugarcane cultivators by using
drip irrigation. ntercontinental journal of human resource management
issn:2350-0859 -online issn:2350-0840 -print volume 1, ISSUE 3, OCTOBER 2014
6.
Moraes, M. A. F. D., Oliveira,
F. C. R., & Diaz-Chavez, R. A. (2015). Socio-economic impacts of Brazilian
sugarcane industry. Environmental Development, 16, 31-43.
7.
Rocha, F. L. R., Marziale, M.
H. P., & Hong, O. S. (2010). Work and health conditions of sugar cane
workers in Brazil. Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP, 44,
978-983.
8.
Sawaengsak, W., &
Gheewala, S. H. (2017). Analysis of social and socio-economic impacts of
sugarcane production: A case study in Nakhon Ratchasima province of
Thailand. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1169-1175.
9.
Shinde, S. (2019). The crucial
highlights on sugarcane cutters in Maharashtra: Unorganized seasonal migrant
laborers. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
Research, 6(1), 71-74.
10.
Somasundaram, K. V., &
Bangal, V. B. (2012). Living and health conditions of migratory sugarcane
harvest workers of ahemdngar district in Maharashtra. International
Journal of Biomedical and Advance Research, 3(2), 70-76.
11.
Tukaram, G. S. (2019). socio-economic
profile of sugarcane producing farmers in baramati tahsil of pune district. Advance
and Innovative Research, 16, 19.