Agriculture Update | February & May 2010 | Vol.

5 | Issue 1 & 2| 228-236 | A CASE STUDY

Constraints in the production and marketing of maize in Punjab
S.S.CHAHAL AND POONAM KATARIA

ABSTRACT
See end of the article for
The present study was undertaken to examine constraints in the production and marketing of maize in
authors’ affiliations
Punjab. A representative sample of 300 maize growers was drawn from the three districts of Punjab by
using multi-stage random sampling technique on the basis of concentration of area under maize. The
Correspondence to : findings of the study reveled that the selected maize growers faced constraints as the maize crop specific
S.S. CHAHAL technology adoption was concerned. The institutional, marketing and socio-economic constraints were
Department of of found to be impediments in the production of maize. More specifically the sample farmers suffered on
Economics and account of non-availability of credit, poor marketing facilities, lack of storage facilities, non-availability of
Socioloty, Punjab seed suitable to the local needs, late sowing of crop etc. The detailed analysis of the constraints impediment
Agricultural University, to production and marketing of maize reflect the urgent need for overhauling of the entire marketing
LUDHIANA system. This in turn helps in the allocation of resources to maize crop in the state like Punjab where
(PUNJAB) INDIA groundwater is depleting very fast, needs to be diversified in favour of less water requiring crops like
maize.

INTRODUCTION developing countries will overtake the demand

In India, maize has traditionally been for wheat and rice by 2020 A.D. Asian maize
grown as a staple food primarily for home demand will rise from 138 million tonnes in 1993
consumption. However, in recent years, as a to 243 million tonnes, accounting for 60 per
result of the increasing commercial orientation cent of the global increase in maize
of the agricultural economy and rising demand consumption by 2020 A.D. (Kumar and Singh,
for maize on account of diversification in its 2003). Under the circumstances, there are two
end uses, maize production scenario has feasible options to increase agricultural
undergone myriad changes. The demand for production. One is to raise production per unit
maize, as a feed resource, has been of area on cultivated normal soil through optimal
increasingly realized because of the structural allocation of available resources by utilizing the
changes in consumption pattern, as a full potential of existing technology. The other
consequence of rising per capita income, which possibility is through external land augmentation
has boosted up the demand for livestock and without shrinking the area and productivity of
poultry products. In India, at present, about 35 any other activity (Datta and Joshi, 1992). In
per cent of the maize produced in the country order to meet the challenges of increased
is used for human consumption, 25 per cent demand of maize in the future, efforts have
each in poultry feed and cattle feed and 15 per been made to evolve the technology that could
Key words :
cent in food processing (corn flakes, popcorns bring break through in production front. As a
Credit, Marketing,
etc.) and other industries (mainly starch, result of these efforts, the yield of maize has
Constraints,
dextrose, corn syrup, corn oil, etc.). With increased from 547 kg/ha in 1950-51 to 1723
Adoption,
agriculture getting more and more kg/ha by the year 2002-03
Institutional,
commercialized, there have been drastic shifts (www.agricoop.nic.in) in India.
Socio-economic
in cropping pattern of the country. The crops Looking at the commendable overall
status
like pulses, oilseeds, maize, etc. have per force performance of the Indian agriculture in general
taken the back seat in the agricultural and Punjab agriculture in particular, the
production scenario of the country. Even the challenge of meeting the increased demand for
crop like maize, which used to be the important maize successfully, should not look like a distant
cereal crop of the country, has lost its ground dream. But the lopsided growth of agriculture,
and more so, the growth rate of production has in the sense that there has been substantial
not been uniform in different states. It has been inter crop and inter regional inequality, seems
Accepted : to be a major hurdle in the way of realization
January, 2010 estimated that the demand for maize in the

HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE

 S.S.CHAHAL AND POONAM KATARIA 229

of the goal of increasing maize production in consonance done in the sample villages in order to draw a
with increasing demand. Under the current situation, the representative sample. A total of 300 maize growers, with
issue is whether pinning the hopes on Punjab will solve 50 maize growers from each block were selected. The
the dual purpose of meeting the increased demand at the selected maize growers were then categorized into three
same time realizing the much sought after goal of categories based on the size of their operational holdings.
diversification from wheat- paddy, envisaged for Punjab. The small farmers (with operational holdings of less than
Punjab, contributed 0.67 per cent to the country’s 2 hectares), medium (having operational holding between
maize acreage and 1.85 per cent to production of the 2 to 4 hectares), and large farmers (with operational
country in 2001-02(www.agricoop.nic.in). A number of holdings of more than 4 hectares) were 118, 92 and 90,
efforts were made to bring about technological respectively. The primary data from the selected maize
breakthrough in this crop, in spite of this the area under growers were collected on the interview schedule
maize showed a continuous decline during the post-green especially designed for the purpose. Technological, infra
revolution period. The area under maize during the TE structural, marketing, socio-economic informations etc.
1952-53 was 2544 thousand hectares, which increased to were also collected. In order to ascertain the extent of
399.7 thousand hectares during the TE 1966-67 and technology adoption, the technology adoption index
thereafter declined to as low as 164 thousand hectares in (Anonymous, 2003) was computed by using the following
TE 2001-02. The decline in maize acreage was mainly formula:
caused by the advent of HYVs of its competing crop, 1  AH i NA i PA i KA i IA i 
rice, in spite of the fact that yield of maize has increased TAI i         100
5  CA i NR I PR i KR i IR i 
substantially during the last 20 years. The current scenario
of paddy replacing maize gives a clear evidence of the where,
fact that maize growers in the state are facing certain i = 1, 2… n (farmers)
constraints that proved detrimental to the growth of maize TAIi =Technology adoption index of ith farmer
crop in Punjab. It is against this backdrop, that the present AHi =Area under modern maize varieties (ha)
study was initiated to measure the extent of adoption of NAi = Quantity of nitrogen applied for maize (kg/
new maize technology over different farm size groups ha)
and impact on the crop yield. An attempt has also been NRi = Recommended dose of nitrogen of maize crop
made to identify the constraints viz., technological, (kg/ha)
institution and marketing which hinder the growth of maize PAi = Quantity of phosphorus applied for maize (kg/
crop in the state. ha)
PRi= Recommended dose of phosphorus of maize
METHODOLOGY crop (kg/ha)
KAi= Quantity of potash applied for maize (kg/ha)
The formulations of the study are based on the
KRi= Recommended dose of potash of maize crop
primary data collected from a cross section of 300 maize
(kg/ha)
growers in Punjab. A multistage random sampling
IAi= Actual number of irrigation applied
technique was employed to draw a representative sample.
IRi= Recommended number of irrigations
At first stage, three districts were chosen representing
high, medium and low concentration of maize. The districts
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
so selected were Jalandhar, Hoshiarpur and Patiala. At
the next stage, two blocks each were selected randomly The findings of the present study as well as relevant
from the sample districts, the detail of which is given discussion have been summarized under following heads:
below:
General farming profile:
District Block The information pertaining to the farm size with
Jalandhar Adampur and Bhogpur respect to different farm size categories and the irrigation
Hoshiarpur Hoshiarpur I and Hoshiarpur II status thereof have been presented in Table 1.The average
Patiala Dera Bassi and Rajpura size of the holding in case of small, medium and large
farm size category happened to be 1.21, 2.71, and 9.69
At the next stage, a cluster of 2 to 3 villages was hectares per farm, respectively.
selected in order to obtain ultimate sampling units (maize The results of Table 1 clearly show that as much as
growers). A complete enumeration of maize growers was 98.97 per cent of the cropped area was irrigated. It was
Agric. Update | Feb. & May 2010 | Vol. 5 | Issue 1 & 2 | HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
230 CONSTRAINTS IN THE PRODUCTION & MARKETING OF MAIZE

Table 1 : Farm size of the selected maize growers (ha/farm) by rice (15.43 per cent). The preference for maize over
Farm size category rice, as indicated by the area apportioned to these two
Particulars Small Medium Large Overall crops, can be due to deliberate selection of the maize
(118) (92) (90)
growers as respondents of the study. It needs a special
Irrigated 1.21 2.70 9.55 4.17 mention here that in the cropping pattern of the state at
area (100.0) (99.6) (98.5) (98.97) large, paddy has more area apportioned to it as compared
Un-irrigated 0 0.01 0.14 0.04 to maize. The percentage of area allocated to Rabi and
(0.4) (1.5) (1.03) Kharif oilseeds turned out to 0.18 and 0.03, respectively.
Total 1.21 2.71 9.69 4.21 The per cent of gross cropped area allocated to wheat
(100) (100.00) (100) (100.00) turned out to be 36.61, 37.89 and 32.46 per cent in three
Figures in the parentheses are percentage to the total farm categories arranged in ascending order of magnitude
of their farm size, respectively. Given the trade off between
noticed that in the case of small farm category, entire maize and paddy, the small farmers, supposedly the
land holding was irrigated. A look at these results clearly resource poor farmers gave preference to maize because
indicates that the present land holdings are too small to of comparatively lower input requirements in the case of
sustain the peasantry. It lands them to the state of under maize crop. The large farmers had gone in for rice
employment and hence, lower income leading to poor cultivation at 17 per cent of their cropped area as
standard of living, causing frustration among them. The compared to only 7 per cent in the case of small farmers.
major source of irrigation with the sample farmers was The perusal of farm category wise cropping pattern
tube well. In the case of small and medium farmers, tube revealed that the proportion of GCA put to maize cultivation
well was the only source of irrigation, whereas in the case was the highest in the case of small farmers (27.35 % of
of large farmers, tube well catered to the irrigation needs GCA), followed by medium (19.64 % of GCA) and large
of 98.6 per cent of the cropped areas. Canal and well farmers (13.45 % of GCA).
were other, though insignificant, sources of irrigation.
The cropping pattern in the farms of the selected Maize cultivation details:
maize growers has been presented in Table 2. The information pertaining specifically to maize crop
The results presented in Table 2 clearly show that has been presented in this section. The perusal of Table 3
the sample farmers allocated the highest area to wheat revealed that the area under maize was 0.66, 1.07 and
(34 per cent). The next favorite crop among the sample 2.61 hectares in the case of small, medium and large farm
farmers was maize (16.23 per cent), which was followed category, respectively. Out of 300 maize growers selected
for the study, three quarters (i.e. 225 farmers) had gone
in for hybrid varieties of maize cultivars. Rest of the
Table 2 : Cropping pattern followed by the selected maize respondents had gone in for either traditional (17.30 per
growers in Punjab (Per cent) cent) or composite varieties (7.70 per cent). Out of the
Farm size category total area allocated to maize by the small farm holders,
Crop Small Medium Large Overall
(118) (92) (90) hybrid maize varieties accounted for 73.30 per cent of
Maize 27.35 19.64 13.45 16.23
the maize area. The corresponding figures for medium
and large categories were found to be 82.60 and 94.40
Rice 7.12 15.18 16.86 15.43
per cent, respectively. The area allocated to the traditional
Sorghum 0.0 0.0 0.07 0.05
varieties was 17.1, 10.6 and 3.4 per cent in the case of
Kharif pulses 0.14 0.0 0.12 0.10
small, medium and large farm size category, respectively.
Kharif oilseeds 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.03 The results further reveal that small, medium and large
Other Kharif crops 12.46 11.01 10.01 10.48 farmers allocated 9.6, 6.8 and 2.2 per cent of maize area
Wheat 36.61 37.89 32.46 34.0 to the improved maize varieties, respectively. Considering,
Rabi pulses 0.0 0.04 0.12 0.09 the maize growing farms in totality, as high as 88 per cent
Pearl millets 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.02 of the maize area was sown with hybrid seed varieties.
Rabi oilseed 0.28 0.0 0.21 0.18 Traditional and composite maize varieties accounted
Other Rabi crops 10.61 8.22 7.54 8.02 for 7.6 and 4.8 per cent of the maize acreage, respectively.
Sugarcane 5.42 7.94 19.10 15.36 These results clearly show that the sample farmers were
Total 100 100 100 100 having preference for hybrid maize varieties. It could be
GCA (ha) (2.41) (5.43) (19.40) (8.43) due to their higher yielding potentials and resistance to
Agric. Update | Feb. & May 2010 | Vol. 5 | Issue 1 & 2 | HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
 S.S.CHAHAL AND POONAM KATARIA 231

Table 3: Distribution of farmers according to maize cultivars sown

Farm holding category Overall (300)
Particulars Small (118) Medium (92) Large (90)
% of farmers % of area % of farmers % of area % of farmers % of area % of farmers % of area
Traditional 22.0 17.1 17.4 10.6 11.1 3.4 17.3 7.6
Composite 11.9 9.6 6.5 6.8 3.3 2.2 7.7 4.8
Hybrid 66.1 73.3 76.1 82.6 85.6 94.4 75.0 87.6
(0.66) (1.07) (2.61) (1.37)
Figures in parentheses are maize acreage (ha/farm)

insect-pest and disease attack. The easy access to hybrid proportion of maize area to net sown area was the highest
seeds could be another reason. in case of small farmers and this proportion varied
The acreage and productivity details of various maize inversely with the farm size (Table 4). Coming to the
cultivars i.e. traditional, composite and hybrid for different productivity potential, hybrid varieties, needless to
land holding categories have been presented in Table 4.As emphasize, have the highest yield. The in depth analysis
regards traditional maize varieties, 52 respondents had revealed that the yield potential over different land holding
gone in for it. categories didn’t vary in case of both traditional and hybrid
Maize area per farm has been recorded at 0.51, 0.65 varieties. However, in case of composite maize varieties,
and 0.79 ha for small, medium and large farm holding large farmers reaped significantly higher (P < 0.05) yield
category. The application of ANOVA technique to test levels as compared to small and medium landholders.
the significance of difference between the maize areas In order to ascertain the level of adoption of technical
for three farm holding categories revealed non-significant know-how in the cultivation of maize, and in order to bring
difference (P< 0.05). It can be clearly seen from the Table it to a common denomination for the purpose of
4 that in the case of small farms, maize accounted for as meaningful comparison, Technology Adoption Index (TAI)
high as 58 per cent of the net sown area, which was has been worked out for each selected maize grower
significantly higher than medium and large farm size (Table 5). The Technology Adoption Index is a catchall
categories, revealing the compulsion on the part of small measure of technology adoption practices of the farmers.
holders on account of poor resource base and subsistence The technology adoption practices include area under
nature of their farming practices. In case of both hybrid varieties, appropriateness of irrigation level and
composite and hybrid varieties, maize acreage in large dosages of fertilizers.
category was found to be significantly (P<0.05) higher Considering the sample farmers on the whole, there
than the small and medium farm size category, but the were 7.7 per cent of the farmers (securing the index value

Table 4 : Acreage and productivity details of different maize cultivars

Farm holding category
Particulars Unit
Small (118) Medium (92) Large (90) Overall (300)
Traditional
No. of growers No 26 16 10 52
Maize area per farm Ha 0.51a 0.65a 0.79a 0.60
Maize area as % of NSA % 44.3a 23.9b 15.6b 32.5
Yield kg/ha 1947.5a 1952.8a 2050.1a 1968.9
Composite
No. of growers No 14 6 3 23
Maize area per farm Ha 0.53c 1.11b 1.75a 0.85
Maize area as % of NSA % 51.12a 45.8a 23.3a 46.1
Yield kg/ha 3122.1b 3314.7b 3746.2a 3254.0
Hybrid
No. of growers No 78 70 77 225
Maize area per farm Ha 0.73c 1.16b 2.88a 1.60
Maize area as % of NSA % 58.0a 44.3b 31.5c 44.7
Yield kg/ha 3621.0a 3663.0a 3601.3a 3626.0
a, b, c
Figures with different superscripts in a row differ significantly (P  0.05)

Agric. Update | Feb. & May 2010 | Vol. 5 | Issue 1 & 2 | HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
232 CONSTRAINTS IN THE PRODUCTION & MARKETING OF MAIZE

Table 5 : Technology Adoption Index for the selected maize medium and large categories were found to be 6.07 and
growers 2.90 per cent, respectively.
Farm holding category Overall The results further revealed that 7.53, 6.64 and 3.31
Adoption index Small Medium Large (300) per cent of the produce was used as a feed by the above
(118) (92) (90) said categories of maize growers, respectively. The small
Up to 33% 13 6 2 21 farmers paid 5.25 per cent of the produce for wages in
(11.0) (6.5) (2.2) (7.7) kind, whereas the figures for medium and large categories
33-66% 22 2 15 39 were 5.02 and 3.24 per cent, respectively. The transit
(18.6) (2.2) (16.7) (13.0) losses accounted for 0.1 per cent of the produce.
66% and above 83 84 73 240 The perusal of Table 7 shows that the highest share
(70.3) (91.3) (81.1) (80.0) (40.8 per cent) of marketable surplus was sold in the
Figures in parentheses indicate percentages regulated markets. It was found that more than 38.4 per
cent of the produce was sold to the village traders.
less than 33) who can be deemed as low adopters of Similarly 3.6 per cent of the marketable surplus was sold
technology. Thirteen per cent farmers can be put into to the feed manufacturers directly. The results further
the category of moderate adopters. The results indicated reveal that 0.2 per cent of the marketable surplus was
that as high as, 80 per cent of the sample farmers were sold to seed companies. It can be seen from Table 7 that
making utmost use of technology adoption in the field of the small, medium and large maize growers sold 9.1, 15.5
agriculture. No discerning pattern could be observed and 19.7 per cent of the produce to neighbours and other
between the farm size and technology adoption (Table farmers at the farm gate itself. The figures for village
5). traders turned out to be 29.5, 48.2 and 37 per cent for the
above said categories of the maize growers, respectively.
Maize utilization and disposal pattern: It was startling to note that none of the selected
The results pertaining to utilization of maize produce farmers sold his produce to the government agencies in
presented in Table 6 indicate that as much as 86 per cent the regulated markets. This happened due to the reason
of the produce at the overall level has been offered for that food procurement agencies are not buying maize in
sale after meeting the personal consumption needs of the the regulated markets and this, in turn resulted into lower
sample farmers. The results at the overall level indicate prices for maize in the regulated market as compared to
that 4.67, 4.86, 4.02 and 0.10 per cent of the produce the MSP for maize.
was used as food, feed, wages in kind and loss,
respectively. It was found that the small category maize Constraints in the production and marketing of maize:
growers consumed the highest proportion (8.53 per cent) In this section, an attempt has been made to study
of their maize production as a food. The figures for the the constraints hampering the production and affecting

Table 6 : Maize utilization of the selected maize growers in

Punjab (q / farm) Table 7: Disposal pattern of maize in Punjab (q / farm)
Farm holding category Farm holding category
Overall Particulars
Particulars Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Overall
(300)
(118) (92) (90) Other farmers 1.57* 4.72 16.65 7.06
Production 21.92 37.08 93.32 47.99 (9.1) (15.5) (19.7) (17.0)
(100) (100) (100) (100) Village 5.08 14.68 31.34 15.91
Food 1.87 2.25 2.71 2.24 traders (29.5) (48.2) (37.0) (38.4)
(8.53) (6.07) (2.90) (4.67)
Feed 0.32 0.34 4.24 1.50
Feed 1.65 2.46 3.09 2.33
manufacturers (1.9) (1.1) (5.0) (3.6)
(7.53) (6.64) (3.31) (4.86)
Seed company - - 0.26 0.08
Wages in 1.15 1.86 3.02 1.93
(0.3) (0.2)
kind (5.25) (5.02) (3.24) (4.02)
Loss 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.05 Regulated 10.24 10.74 32.11 16.95
(0.13) (0.08) (0.13) (0.10) markets (59.5) (35.2) (38.0) (40.8)
Sale 17.22 30.47 84.38 41.43 Total 17.21 30.48 84.38 41.43
(78.56) (82.19) (90.42) (86.35) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)
Figures in parentheses are the percentages to the total production Figures in the parentheses are percentages to the total
Agric. Update | Feb. & May 2010 | Vol. 5 | Issue 1 & 2 | HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
 S.S.CHAHAL AND POONAM KATARIA 233

the marketing of maize in Punjab. The information treatment. Forty per cent were not aware of the treatment
pertaining to technological constraints has been presented and 23 per cent had refrained form seed treatment due to
in Table 8. Here the aim has been to ascertain the reasons the cost involved therein. Late sowing was reported by
that lead to non-application of seed treatment, late sowing nearly one fifth of the respondents. Major reason put forth
and non-application of recommended dosage of fertilizer. by 44 per cent of those who had sown late, was that land
The perusal of Table 8 revealed that nearly 12 per was not free in time. This constraint was found to be
cent of the maize growers had not applied the seed more common in case of large farmers. Here the
treatment. Therefore, this might not be considered as a disadvantage of late sowing might be assumed to be
major constraint in the way of attaining optimal level of outweighed by the advantage of higher cropping intensity.
productivity out of those who had not applied the seed Insufficient moisture and dearth of assured irrigation

Table 8: Technological constraints in cultivation of maize in Punjab

Farm holding category
Particulars Small Medium Large Overall
(118) (92) (90)
Non application of seed treatment before sowing 11 14 10 35
(9.3) (15.2) (11.1) (11.7)
Reasons for not applying the seed treatment
i. Lack of knowledge 4 6 4 14
(36.4) (42.8) (40.0) (40.0)
ii. Non-availability of material - - 2 2
(20.0) (5.70
iii. Ignorance 5 4 2 11
(45.4) (28.6) (20.0) (31.4)
iv. High cost 2 4 2 8
(18.2) (28.6) (20.0) (22.9)
Sowing after the recommended time 21 10 26 57
(17.8) (10.9) (28.3) (19.0)
Reasons for late sowing
i. Land not free 7 3 15 25
(33.3) (30.0) (57.7) (43.8)
ii. Insufficient moisture 5 3 8 16
(23.8) (30.0) (30.8) (28.1)
iii. Assured irrigation lacking 9 40 3 16
(42.9) (40.0) (11.5) (28.1)
Use of less than recommended dosage of fertilizers 81 76 73 230
(68.6) (82.6) (81.1) (76.6)
Reasons for using less than recommended dosage of fertilizers
i. Not aware of recommendations 38 32 33 103
(46.9) (42.1) (45.2) (44.8)
ii. Unsatisfactory recommendations 23 26 23 72
(28.4) (34.2) (31.5) (31.3)
iii. Non-availability of fertilizers 21 19 16 59
(25.9) (25.0) (26.0) (25.6)
Use of over dosage of fertilizers 32 12 17 61
(27.1) (13.0) (18.9) (20.3)
Reasons for using more than recommended dosage of fertilizers
i. Not aware of recommendations 12 6 4 22
(37.5) (50.0) (23.5) (36.1)
ii. Unsatisfactory recommendations 11 2 7 20
(34.4) (16.7) (41.2) (32.8)
Figures in the parentheses are percentages to the total. * Multiple responses
Agric. Update | Feb. & May 2010 | Vol. 5 | Issue 1 & 2 | HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
234 CONSTRAINTS IN THE PRODUCTION & MARKETING OF MAIZE

were other reasons put forth by 28 per cent of the Table 9 : Institutional constraints in cultivation of maize in
Punjab
respondents.None of the large category selected farmers Farm holding category
used recommended dosages of fertilizer. Particulars Small Medium Large Overall
The results reveal that 4.2 and 4.3 per cent of the (118) (92) (90)
small and medium farmers used recommended dosage of Poor connectivity - - - -
fertilizer. The results further revealed that nearly 76.6 of village to market
per cent of the sample farmers used less than Electricity problem
recommended dose of fertilizer. The percentage was the Insufficient 66 61 54 181
highest in the case of medium farmers (82.6 per cent), (55.9) (66.3) (60.0) (60.3)
followed by large farmers (81.1 per cent) and small Untimely 74 67 59 200
farmers (68.6 per cent). The reasons for using less than (62.7) (72.8) (58.9) (66.7)
the recommended dosage of fertilizer are unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory 59 62 53 174
recommendations, not aware of the recommendations and irrigation facilities (50.0) (67.4) (58.9) (58.0)
non-availability of fertilizers. Similar reasons were reported Availability of credit
for the over use of the fertilizers. The results revealed Inadequacy 13 11 6 30
that 44.8 per cent of the selected maize growers were (11.0) (11.9) (6.7) (10.0)
not aware of the recommended dosage. Nearly 26 per Untimely 11 9 10 30
cent of the farmers reported that they did not use (9.3) (9.8) (11.1) (10.0)
recommended dose of fertilizer due to non-availability. No knowledge of 48 26 19 93
None of the large category selected farmers used Kisan credit card (40.7) (28.3) (21.1) (31.0)
recommended dosage of fertiliser. The results further
revealed that 20.3 per cent of the selected farmers have
been using more than recommended dosages of fertilizer were not aware of it. Similarly some small farmers (20
in the maize crop. It was found that 37.5, 50 and 23.5 per per cent) reported that the formal agencies are not
cent of the selected small, medium and large category approachable due to lack of resources. The ignorance on
farmers were not aware of the recommended dose of the part of the maize farmers on this ground was more
fertilizers. The overall figure turned out to 36.1 per cent. pronounced in the case of small farmers. The results
Similarly 32.8 per cent of the selected maize growers further revealed that 60 per cent of the respondents were
opined that the recommendations were not satisfactory not having the Kisan credit card.
(Table 8). The lack of knowledge on the technological It is well testified that the marketing facilities could
aspects of crop production can well be deemed as major not keep pace with the modern day requirement of
hindrance in the way of realizing optimum yield levels. marketing of farm produce and the maize is not an
In Table 9, some of the infrastructural and institutional exception. The information pertaining to the marketing
constraints faced by the framers have been brought constraints has been presented in Table 10.
forward. Since, Punjab has fully developed and vast It is evident from Table 10 that more than 66 per
network of roads, the connectivity of villages to the nearby cent of the selected maize growers reported that they
markets is no longer a constraint. As far as electricity is faced marketing constraint due to poor marketing facilities.
concerned, its insufficiency has been reported as a This problem was more acute with small farmers as
problem for 60.3 per cent of the respondents. A total of compared to medium and large farmers. It was interesting
67 per cent of the respondents reported non-availability to note that none of the selected maize growers graded
of timely supply of electricity as a major hurdle in carrying produce before marketing. The main reason for not
out agricultural operations. grading the produce was a little difference in prices of
The results further show that there was problem of graded and non-graded and lack of grading facilities. The
inadequate credit facility. However, this problem was not per cent of the selected maize growers who faced
of serious as only 10 per cent of the farmers reported to constraints on account of the price difference in small,
have faced this constraint. Similarly credit was not medium and large farmers was 36.4, 40.2 and 40,
available on time. This was reported by 9.3, 9.8 and 11.1 respectively. The corresponding figures for the lack of
per cent of small, medium and large category farmers, grading facilities were 25.4, 28.3 and 28.9 per cent,
respectively. In the modern times the use of credit respectively. All the selected farmers reported that there
especially the Kisan Cards has increased tremendously. was no proper facility for the storage of produce (Table
In spite of this, 31 per cent of the selected maize growers 10). This calls for revamping of the entire marketing
Agric. Update | Feb. & May 2010 | Vol. 5 | Issue 1 & 2 | HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
 S.S.CHAHAL AND POONAM KATARIA 235

Table 10 : Marketing constraints in cultivation of maize in faced by the selected maize growers was that of labour
Punjab availability. However, this problem did not seem to be of
Farm holding category serious nature as small proportion of the selected maize
Particulars Small Medium Large Overall
(118) (92) (90)
growers reported this problem. A vast majority of the
Supply of farm inputs
sample farmers reported the absence of any government
i. Not timely - - - -
agency to buy their produce in the local regulated markets.
ii. Inadequate - - - - The intensity of problem was more acute with the large
Poor marketing 76 61 61 198 and medium farmers compared to the small farmers. This
facilities (64.4) (66.3) (66.3) (66.01) could be attributed to higher marketable surplus in the
Non availability of 118 92 90 300 case of medium and large farmers. This resulted into lower
storage facility (100) (100) (100) (100) prices for the produce and hence lower returns to their
Problem of grains 118 92 90 300 investment (Table 11).
grading (100) (100) (100) (100) Faced with quite many constraints in marketing of
Reasons for not grading the maize produce, the maize growers have their own
i. Not much price 43 37 36 116 perceptions, based on their experience, regarding
difference (36.4) (40.2) (40.0) (38.7) enhancement of the profitability of maize crop. These
ii. Lack of grading 30 26 26 82 perceptions are recorded in the Table 12. The results
facilities (25.4) (28.3) (28.9) (27.3) showed that as high as 86 per cent of the maize growers
iii. Non-availability 2 - - 2 opined that selling during the lean period can let them
of labour (1.7) (0.7) attain the profit maximization. But this has more of
iv. Not aware of 43 29 28 100 theoretical underpinning than practical applicability. Some
grading standards (36.4) (31.5) (31.1) (33.3) of the farmers (7.3 per cent) suggested that higher prices
Figures in the parentheses are percentages to the total could be realized if the produce is sold in the distant
consuming markets or directly to the processors (7 per
system for orderly marketing of the produce in the cent).
regulated markets
Table 12 : Perceptions of the respondents regarding the
The socio-economic constraints faced by the maize profitability of maize crop
growers has been presented in Table 11. Farm holding category
The results revealed that 84.3 per cent of the selected Particulars Small Medium Large Overall
maize growers were of the opinion that the price (MSP) (118) (92) (90)
was not remunerative one. The figures for the small, Higher price can be realised by:
medium and large farm size category were 83.9, 90.2 i. Selling in 11 7 4 22
and 78.9 per cent, respectively. More than 83 per cent of distant market (9.3) (7.6) (4.4) (7.3)
the selected maize growers reported that cultivation of ii. Selling during 101 78 78 257
maize was not providing enough profit margins after lean season (85.6) (84.8) (86.7) (85.7)
meeting the cost of production. Another problem being iii. Selling directly 6 7 8 21
to the (5.1) (7.6) (8.9) (7.0)
processors
Table 11 : Socio-economic constraints in cultivation of maize
in Punjab Conclusion:
Farm holding category Overall
The upshot of the study is that the selected
Particulars Small Medium Large
(118) (92) (90) respondents face quite well as far as the maize crop
Price of maize not 83.9 90.2 78.9 84.3 specific technology adoption is concerned. The detailed
remunerative analysis of the constraints in the way production and
Profit margin not 80.5 86.9 83.3 83.3 marketing of maize reflects the urgent need for
enough overhauling of the entire maize marketing system in the
Labour not available 15.2 19.6 21.1 18.3 state. This in turn would help in the allocation of more
when required resources to maize crop. This will go a long way to squeeze
Govt. Agency not 96.3 100.0 100.0 98.7 out some areas from rice that would provide impetus to
available to procure at much publicized diversification programme of government
MSP and also attain the increase in maize production.
Agric. Update | Feb. & May 2010 | Vol. 5 | Issue 1 & 2 | HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
236 CONSTRAINTS IN THE PRODUCTION & MARKETING OF MAIZE

Datta, K.K. and Joshi, P.K. (1992) Economic efficiencies and

Authors’ affiliations
land augmentation to increase agricultural production: a
POONAM KATARIA, Department of of Economics comparative analysis for investment priorities, Indian J. agric.
and Socilogy, Punjab Agricultural University, LUDHIANA Econ., 47 (3): 459-467.
(PUNJAB) INDIA
Kumar, R. and Singh, N.P. (2003). Maize production in India:
golden grain in transition, Research Bulletin, Division of
REFERENCES Agricultural Economics, IARI, New Delhi. pp. 1-162.
Anonymous (2003) Technological change and production
performance in irrigated maize-based agro-ecosystem; the
interplay of economic, technological and institutional factors.
Research Report 2004-01, Division of Agricultural Economics,
IARI, New Delhi: 10 *********
******

Agric. Update | Feb. & May 2010 | Vol. 5 | Issue 1 & 2 | HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE