143

CHAPTER - IV
THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF MANGO
CULTIVATION - AN ANALYSIS

4.1. INTRODUCTION

Mango (Mangifera indica) is the leading fruit crop of India and

considered to be the king of fruits. Besides delicious taste, excellent flavour

and attractive fragrance, it is rich in vitamin A&C. The tree is hardy in nature

and requires comparatively low maintenance costs. Mango occupies 22% of the

total under fruits comprising of 1.2 million hectares, with a total production of

11 million tonnes. Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh are having the largest

area under mango each with around 25% of the total area followed by Bihar,

Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

Mango fruit is utilised at all stages of its development both in its

immature and mature state. Raw fruits are used for making chutney, pickles

and juices. The ripe fruits besides being used for desert are also utilised for

preparing several products like squashes, syrups, nectars, jams and jellies. The

mango kernel also contains 8-10 percent good quality fat which can be used for

soap and also as a substitute for cola in confectionery.

Fresh mangoes and mango pulp are the important items of agri-exports

from India. India's main export destinations for mango are UAE, Kuwait and

other Middle East countries with a limited quantity being shipped to European

market. Although, India is the largest mango producing country, accounting

 144

about 60% of world production, the export of fresh fruit is limited to Alphonso

and Dashehari varieties. India's share in the world mango market is about 15

percent. Mango accounts for 40 percent of the total fruit exports from the

country. There is good scope for increasing the area and productivity of mango

in the country.

Climate

Mango can be grown under both tropical and sub-tropical climate from

sea level to 1400 m altitude, provided there is no high humidity, rain or frost

during the flowering period. Places with good rainfall and dry summer are ideal

for mango cultivation. It is better to avoid areas with winds and cyclones which

may cause flower and fruit shedding and breaking of branches.

Soil

Mango comes up on a wide range of soils from alluvial to laterite

provided they are deep (minimum 6') and well drained. It prefers slightly acidic

soils (pH 5.5 to 7.5)

Varieties

Though there are nearly 1000 varieties of mango in India, only following

varieties are grown in different states: Alphonso, Bangalora, Banganpalli,

Bombai, Bombay Green, Dashehari, Fazli, Fernandin, Himsagar, Kesar, Kishen

Bhog, Langra, Mankhurd, Mulgoa, Neelam, Samarbehist, Chausa, Suvarnarekha,

Vanaraj and Zardalu.

 145

Recently some mango hybrids have been released for cultivation by

different institutes / universities. A brief introduction to such varieties is

presented below:

Mallika: It is a cross between Neelam and Dashehari. Fruits are medium sized

cadmium coloured with good quality, reported to be a regular bearer.

Amrapali: It is a cross between Dashehari and Neelam. It is a dwarf vigorous

type with regular and late bearing variety. It yields on an average 16 t/ha and

about 1600 plants can be accommodated in one hectare.

Mangeera: It is a cross between Rumani and Neelam. It is a semi vigorous

type with a regular bearing habit. Fruits are medium sized with light yellow

coloured skin, firm and fibreless flesh and sweet to taste.

 146

Ratna: It is a cross between Neelam and Alphonso. It is a regular bearer and

free from spongy tissue. Fruits are medium sized with excellent quality. Flesh

is firm and fibreless, deep orange in colour with high TSS (19-21 Brix).

Arka Aruna: It is a hybrid between Banganapalli and Alphonso with regular

bearing habit and dwarf in stature. About 400 plants can be accommodated per

hectare. Fruits are large sized (500-700 gm) with attractive skin colour. Pulp is

fibreless, sweet to taste (20-22 Brix). Pulp percentage is 73 and the fruits are

free from spongy tissue.

 147

Arka Puneet: It is a regular and prolific bearing hybrid of the cross between

Alphonso and the Banganapalli. Fruits are medium sized (220-250 gm) with

attractive skin colour, having red blush. Pulp is free from fibre, pulp percentage

being 70 percent. Fruits are sweet to taste (20-22 Brix) with good keeping

quality and free from spongy tissue. It is a good variety for processing also.

Arka Anmol: It is a semi-vigorous plant type from the cross between Alphonso

and Janardhan Pasand. It is also a regular bearing and free from spongy tissues.

Fruits ripen to uniform yellow colour. Keeping quality of the fruit is very good

and it is suitable for export. It has got excellent sugar and acid blend and fruits

weigh on an average about 300 g Pulp is orange in colour.

 148

Planting: Land should be prepared by deep ploughing followed by harrowing

and levelling with a gentle slope for good drainage. Spacing varies from 10 m x

10 m, in the dry zones where growth is less, to 12 m x 12 m, in heavy rainfall

areas and rich soils where abundant vegetative growth occurs. New dwarf

hybrids like Amrapali can be planted at closer spacing. Pits are filled with

original soil mixed with 20-25 kg well rotten FYM, 2.5 kg single super

phosphate and 1 kg muriate of potash.

One year old healthy, straight growing grafts from reliable sources can

be planted at the centre of pits along with the ball of the earth intact during

rainy season in such a way that the roots are not expanded and the graft union

is above the ground level. Plants should be irrigated immediately after planting.

In the initial one or two years, it is advisable to provide some shade to the

young plants and also stake to make them grow straight.

Training and pruning

About one meter from the base on the main trunk should be kept free

from branching and the main stem can be allowed thereafter spaced at 20-25

cm apart in such a way that they grow in different directions. Branches which

cross over/rub each other may be removed at pencil thickness.

Fertiliser Application

In general, 170 gm urea, 110 gm single super phosphate and 115 gm

muriate of potash per plant per year of the age from first to tenth year and

thereafter 1.7 kg, 1.1 kg, and 1.15 kg respectively of these fertilisers per plant
 149

per year can be applied in two equal split doses (June-July and October). Foliar

spray of 3% urea is recommended before flowering in sandy areas.

Irrigation

Young plants are watered frequently for proper establishment. In case of

grown up trees, irrigation at 10 to 15 days interval from fruit set to maturity is

beneficial for improving yield. However, irrigation is not recommended for 2-3

months prior to flowering as it is likely to promote vegetative growth at the

expense of flowering.

Inter cropping

Inter crops such as vegetables, legumes, short duration and dwarf fruit

crops like papaya, guava, peach, plum, etc. depending on the agro-climatic

factors of the region can be grown. The water and nutrient requirements of the

inter crops must be met separately.

Plant Protection

Mango is prone to damages by a large number of pests, diseases and

disorders. The recommended control measures for most important and common

among them are briefed below:

Mango hopper: Two sprays (at panicles emergency and at pea size of fruits)

of carbaryl (0.15%), monocrotophos (0.04%) or phosphamidan (0.05).

Mealy bug: Ploughing inter spaces in November and dusting 2% methyl parathion

@ 200 g per tree near the trunk and fixing 20 cm wide 400 gauge polythene
 150

strips around the trunk with grease applied on the lower edge in January as

prophylactic measures and two sprays of monocrotophos (0.04%) at 15 days

interval as control are needed.

Powdery mildew: Two to three sprays of wettable sulphur (0.2%) or Kerathane

(0.1%) at 10-15 days interval.

Anthracrose: Two sprays of Baristin (0.1%) at fortnight interval.

Malformation: One spray of 200 ppm NAA in October followed by deblossoming

at bud burst stage in December - January.

Fruit drop: Regular irrigation during fruit development, timely and effective

control of pests and diseases and spraying 20 ppm NAA at pea size of fruits.

Harvesting and yield

Graft plants start bearing at the age of 3 - 4 years (10-20 fruits) to give

optimum crop from 10-15th year which continues to increase upto the age of 40

years under good management.

Post Harvest Management

Storage

Shelf life of mangoes being short (2 to 3 weeks) they are cooled as soon

as possible to storage temperature of 13 degree Celcius. A few varieties can

withstand storage temperature of 10 degree Celcius. Steps involved in post

harvest handling include preparation, grading, washing, drying, waxing, packing,

pre-cooling, palletisation and transportation.

 151

Packaging

Mangoes are generally packed in corrugated fibre board boxes 40 cm x

30 cm x 20 cm in size. Fruits are packed in single layer 8 to 20 fruits per

carton. The boxes should have sufficient number of air holes (about 8% of the

surface area) to allow good ventillation.

Financial institutions have also formulated mango financing schemes in

potential areas for expansion of area under mango. Individual mango development

schemes with farm infrastructure facilities like well, pumpset, fencing and drip

irrigation system etc. have also been considered.

Farm model for financing one hectare mango orchard is furnished in the

Annexure I.

Unit Cost

The unit cost varies from state to state. The cost presented here is

indicative only. The enterpreneurs and the bankers are requested to consult our

Regional Offices for the latest information in this regard. The unit cost

estimated for this model scheme is Rs.34400/- per ha capitalised upto the fifth

year.

Mango cultivators of India are facing grave challenges including; very

small land holdings, nonavailability of quality seedlings / saplings, huge post-

harvest loss due to dearth of infrastructure, middle men menace, lack of support

by the concerned nodal bodies, lack of cooperative effort, poor profitability of

the cultivation activity, etc., leading to negative growth rate (-0.86%). This has
 152

catalyzed the research work in this area. Major reasons for ill growth of this

sector include: non availability of high yield, high pulp containing varieties of

mangoes that also have high resistance towards pest attack, which are ideal for

processing; lack of necessary infrastructure that is required for harvesting,

transporting, raw material storing, grading, processing, packaging and marketing

of the output; lack of cooperative effort amongst farming community; and lack

of integration of all the activities starting from farm gate till final consumers

because of ill functioning of the government departments/nodal bodies /

institutions with no clear direction and goals. The Indian fruit processing sector

is undoubtedly a potential sector and has a tremendous scope for unparalleled

growth prospectus in the coming days. The Government of India has taken a lot

of initiatives and policy decisions for commercializing agriculture with specific

importance on high tech horticulture and developing the fruit processing,

preservation and packaging sectors to its full capacity. The fruit processing

sector is rapidly being transformed into a high volume profit making industry.

A distinct shift is seen among India is the largest producer of mango in the

world, contributing to nearly 46% of the total world production. India has an

edge over other countries when it comes to mango production in terms of

natural resources required and climatic conditions. Despite all this mango

cultivators of India are facing grave challenges leading to negative growth rate.

Primary research is made using single stage cluster sampling coupled with non-

probabilistic convenience based selection within the cluster, where-in Karnataka

state was chosen as a cluster. Sample size of fifty cultivators was chosen. In
 153

depth interviewing mechanism guided through structured interview schedules

was being used. Various statistical, mathematical and computational tools and

techniques were being used. Major reasons for ill growth of this sector include:

non availability of sapling / seedling of right varieties of mangoes that are ideal

for processing; lack of necessary infrastructure; lack of cooperative effort

amongst farming community; and lack of integration of all the activities

starting from farm gate till final consumers because of ill functioning of the

government departments/nodal bodies/institutions with no clear direction and

goals. A coordinated, integrated and strategic effort of all the stake holders is

must to turnaround this industry. Mango cultivation Industry of India has to

undergo a radical shift to address all the above constraints and reap the

enormous advantages/benefits/ profits which this sector is to offer. Problems /

constraints have to be studied in wholesome, integrated and strategic manner

rather than adopting piecemeal approach. The consumers for processed, prepared

and packed fruit products not only in the so called developed countries but also

in the developing countries like India. This has catalyzed the research work in

this area leading to publishing of numerous research articles and papers. This

calls for a detailed study on ‘challenges facing mango cultivators of India and

the feasible solutions’. The problems / challenges facing mango cultivators

have to be looked in to and to be analyzed holistically than adopting a

piecemeal approach. The feasible solutions to the problems / challenges facing

mango cultivators need to be explored.

 154

In this chapter the researcher has analysed the various aspects involved

in mango cultivation and the labour problem involved in cultivation, water

problem for irrigation, period of interval test, tees planted per acre, mango

cultivated by the selected farmers of Krishnakiri district, problems facing while

get inputs for mango cultivation, harvesting method used for cultivation,

percentage of damaged fruit while harvesting, crop insurance and the like. The

researcher has used five point scale for some questions (A - Agree; SA - Strongly

Disagree; UD - Undecided; DA - Disagree; SDA - Strongly Disagree).

This chapter is also analysed the socio economic variables of the

selected respondents for the study.

 155

GENDER

Gender is the most important socio economic variable for any study. In

mango cultivation also both male and female farmers are involved. The researcher

has included gender question to know any disparity arises because of gender in

mango cultivation during cultivation and marketing time.

Attributes Frequency Percentage

Male 265 69.7
Female 115 30.0
Total 380 100.00

The table depicts that the gender of the respondents. Among the selected

respondents nearly 70 percentage of the respondents are male. The 30 percentage

of the respondents are female. Those female farmers were engaging the

agriculture business with the help of the family support.

 156

AGE

Age is an another important socio economic variable. Based on age of

the respondent, the interest on doing agriculture business may get differ. Nowadays,

the youngster also wants do agriculture business. Based on this concept, the

researcher has included age of the respondent as one of the question. With the age

of the respondents the marketing and cultivation problems may get differ.

Attributes Frequency Percentage

Below 30 118 31.1
30 - 40 117 30.8
40 - 50 89 23.4
Above 50 56 14.7
Total 380 100.0

The table above presented the age of the respondents. Surprisingly

below 30 age group of respondents were involved in the mango cultivation.

The same percentage of the people from the 30-40 group of the respondents

were also involved in mango cultivation. 14.7 percentage of the respondents

belongs to the category of above 50 age group of people.

 157

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION

For any research work, the educational qualification of the respondent

placed as one of the basic question. In this research work, the researcher has

asked the educational qualification of the respondents. Based on that the researcher

has analysed whether there is any different between the socio economic variables

and the problems, practices involved in cultivation and marketing problems.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Illiterate 90 23.7
School level 123 32.4
Degree 89 23.4
Professional 39 10.3
Others 39 10.3
Total 380 100.0

The above table represents the educational qualification of the selected

farmers. 23.7 percentage of the respondents are illiterate. Very few of percentage

(10.3%) of the respondents belong to the others category. The others means

diploma and ITI. 32.4 percentage of the respondents comes under the category

of degree and 23.4 percentage of the respondents have professional degree with them.
 158

ACRES OF LAND HOLDING

The researcher has asked the acres of land holding by the selected

farmers of Krishnakiri district. Based on the acre, the income earned by the

farmers, satisfaction from the mango cultivation, problems faced by the farmers

from the mango cultivation may suffered. For that the researcher has asked question

with three option like below 3 acres, 3-5 acres, 5-10 acres and more than 10 acres.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Below 3 74 19.5
3-5 91 23.9
5-10 130 34.2
Above 10 85 22.4
Total 380 100.0

From the above table it can be concluded that 34.2 percentage of the

respondents belongs to the category of 5-10 acres of land for mango cultivation.

19.5 percentage of the respondents have less than 3 acres of land for cultivation.

22.4 percentage of the respondents have above 10 acres of land.

 159

STATUS OF LAND HOLDING

Some farmers are doing agriculture with owned, some farmers with

leased and some farmers doing agriculture business with both land. The

profitability, problems faced by the farmers with the land are some important

reason affected the level of satisfaction from mango cultivation.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Owned 92 24.2
Leased 173 45.5
Both 115 30.3
Total 380 100.0

The above table represents the status of land holding of the selected

farmers of Krishnakiri district. 24.2 percentage of the respondents are doing

mango cultivation with the help of own land. 45.5 percentage of the respondents

are using lease land and 30.3 percentage of the respondents using both owned

and lease land for mango cultivation.

 160

YEARS OF ENGAGEING WITH MANGO CULTIVATION

For any primary research work, the experience with the particular field

is important question asked by the researcher. An analysis of level of satisfaction,

the problems faced by the farmers are based on the experience.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Below 2 74 19.5
2-5 91 23.9
5-10 130 34.2
Above 10 85 22.4
Total 380 100.0
 161

THE REASON FOR PREFERRING MANGO CULTIVATION

Production of mango is distinguished from other fruit. Therefore, it is

more difficult to determine economics of growing mango as compared to

annual crops. A large variety of forces influences the economics of growing

mango. These include yields, prices and cost of production. These factors are

influenced by other variables like soil, climate, market conditions and the like.

Even though most of the farmers involved in mango cultivation in particular in

Krishnakiri district. Based on the pilot study, the researcher has pointed out

workload, profitability, suitability, family support, easy cultivation, no other

option and traditional. The following results showed the reason for preferring

mango cultivation.

WORKLOAD

Attributes Frequency Percent

A 173 45.5
SA 207 54.5
Total 380 100.0

The above table depicts the opinion of the farmers preferring mango

cultivation. Almost all the respondent agreed work load was the important

factor for preferring mango cultivation. Nearly half of the percentage of the

respondents agree this point and more than half of the percentage of the

respondents agree this point strongly agree this point.

 162

PROFITABILITY

Attributes Frequency Percent

U 28 7.4
A 189 49.7
SA 163 42.9
Total 380 100.0

The profit is one of the important and influencing factor in any business.

In agriculture normally most of the farmers getting average amount because of

before and after harvesting problems. The above table reflects the profitability

in mango cultivation. Most of the respondents have involved in mango cultivation

business because of profit they are getting from the mango cultivation.

SUITABILITY

Attributes Frequency Percent

D 28 7.4
U 53 13.9
A 136 35.8
SA 163 42.9
Total 380 100.0

The suitability is also important factor in agriculture. Most of the

respondents were involved in mango cultivation business because of the suitability.

The district is famous for mango cultivation. The place is suitable for mango

cultivation in all respects. Not surprisingly most of the respondents were also

agree and strongly agree about suitability.

 163

FAMILY SUPPORT

Attributes Frequency Percent

D 45 11.8
A 201 52.9
SA 134 35.3
Total 380 100.0

The above table represents more than half of the percentage of the

respondents agree and strongly agree, family support is the reason for preferring

mango cultivation. Very few respondents were disagree about the family support.

EASY CULTIVATION

Attributes Frequency Percent

D 45 11.8
A 144 37.9
SA 191 50.3
Total 380 100.0

The above table represent about the easy cultivation. Most of the respondents

have engaged mango cultivation because of easy cultivation. They are doing

this cultivation traditionally also. So they felt easy about the mango cultivation.

TRADITIONAL

Attributes Frequency Percent

U 91 23.9
A 139 36.6
SA 150 39.5
Total 380 100.0
 164

The above table reported that most of the respondents have engaged in

the mango cultivation because of their tradition business. And also they pointed

out more than profit, they are satisfied with the mango cultivation because of

traditional.

LAND IS FULLY IRRIGATED OR NOT

Attributes Frequency Percent

Yes 327 86.1
No 53 13.9
Total 380 100.0
The above table represents whether the land is fully irrigated or not.

Most of the respondents (86%) are using their full land for irrigation. Very few

respondents only using their land for some other purposes also.

FACING WATER PROBLEM FOR IRRIGATION

In recent years, water issues have been the focus of increasing international

concern and debate. Despite water shortages, misuse of water is widespread.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Yes 290 76.3
No 90 23.7
Total 380 100.0

Water is the one of the biggest problem facing by the Tamilnadu farmers

for cultivation. Most of the selected farmers facing water problem at the time of

cultivation. Unseasonal rain, over raining also they are facing during irrigation

time.
 165

PERIOD OF INTERVAL TAKING SOIL TEST

In agriculture today, anecdotal evidence suggests the percentage has

improved. To remain profitable in agriculture under present conditions, every

farmer and grower should consider that fertility levels must be measured. These

measurements can then be used to manage soil fertility to more precisely

achieve top production and quality, while still keeping costs at the minimum

necessary to meet the goal. Two types of soil test are recommend to get better

efficiency. a) Soil Test Recommendation b) Soil Fertigation Recommendation.

We are having various labs like soil water plant testing lab, soil and plant tissue

lab, soil nutrients analysis laboratory to get various soil test done. We are

capable of providing our customers agriculture soil testing, soil fertilizer test,

soil and water testing, soil and plant nutrients test. A soil sample must be taken

at the right time and in the right way. The tools used, the area sampled, the depth

and the correct mix of the sample, the information provided, and packaging all

influence quality of the sample.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Once in a year 150 39.5

Once in two year 183 48.2

Once in three year 47 12.4

Total 380 100.0

 166

The testing of soil is crucial part in irrigation for all crops. All the

farmers should take soil test at regular periodic interval. It will be helpful for

them to procure proper input for mango cultivation. It may reduce the risk

involved in mango cultivation. Keeping this point, the researcher has asked the

farmers about the soil testing. Most of the respondents have tested soil at once

in a year and once in two year. Very few respondents only testing soil for three

year once. It shows the healthy trend in soil testing.

NUMBER OF TREES PLANTED PER ACRE

Trees per acre (TPA) is a common measure of the number of standing

trees that are found on an acre of land. It is also relatively easy to understand as

a way to calculate stand density, or how crowded trees are in a stand. Trees per

acre does not take into account the size of trees; instead it is based on the

distance between or the spacing of trees on a site. In a plantation, the number of

 167

trees per acre can be estimated given the spacing within a row of trees and the

distance between the rows. Trees per acre is an appropriate term to describe

stand density in young stands, whether a plantation or naturally regenerated

stand. But as trees grow, this becomes less meaningful, especially when estimating

timber volumes.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Below 30 53 13.9
30 – 40 105 27.6
40 – 50 169 44.5
Above 50 53 13.9
Total 380 100.0

The above table represents the number of trees planted per acre. Most

of the respondents planting 40 to 50 trees per acre. The 13.9 percentage of the

respondents have planted below 30 trees per acre and the same percentage of

the respondents have plant above 50 trees per acre.

 168

VARIETY OF MANGO CULTIVATED BY THE RESPONDENTS

The national fruit of India and of the state of Tamil Nadu is mango. The

major crop of Krishnagiri district with 300.17 km² area of cultivation is mango.

The district produces 300,000 tones annually and in Tamil Nadu Krishnagiri

District is the First Place in The Production of Mango. Almost 20% of the

mango varieties like ‘Thothapuri’ and ‘Alphonso’ that are produced in this

district, are processed into pulp. In addition to mango pulp processing, tonnes

of mangoes are processed into juice every year in this district. A large-scale

mango export zone has been approved for the Krishnagiri district.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Thothapuri 58 15.3

Malgoa 116 30.5

Alphonso 85 22.4

Banglora 90 23.7

Others 31 8.2

Total 380 100.0

The above table represents the variety of mango cultivated by the

respondents. The 30 percentage of the respondents cultivated Malgoa, 22.4

percentage of the respondents cultivated Banglora, 23.7 percentage of the

respondents cultivated Banglora and very few percentage of the respondents

cultivating other types of mango varieties.

 169

SOURCES OF MANGO GRAFTS

The farmers are normally getting grafts by own effort, some from private

nursery and some from the horticulture department. The following represents

the how the farmers are getting grafts by the selected respondents.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Own 145 38.2
Private nursery 181 47.6
Horticulture department 54 14.2
Total 380 100.0

The table above depicts that sources of mango grafts. Most of the

respondents are getting grafts from private nursery after own source (38.2%).

Very few respondents are getting grafts from horticulture department.

 170

PROBLEMS FACING WHILE GET INPUTS FOR CULTIVATION

Attributes Frequency Percent

Cost of equipments 106 27.9

Lack of equipments 118 31.1

Unavailability of equipments 89 23.4

Unavailability of new equipments 67 17.6

Total 380 100.0

The above table depicts which problem is mostly faced by the farmer

while irrigation. It can be concluded that from the study, 31.1 percentage of the

respondents suffered because of lack of equipments, 27.9 percentage of the

respondents suffered because of cost of equipment followed by the unavailability

of equipments (23.4%). Very few respondents suffered because of unavailability

of new equipments. There is no much difference between the categories.

 171

HARVESTING METHOD USED FOR CULTIVATION

Attributes Frequency Percent

By own 64 16.8
By mango pickers 167 43.9
By net 89 23.4
All the above 60 15.8
Total 380 100.0

In mango cultivation, harvesting method is very important. Most of the

respondents they are harvesting their mangoes by mango pickers. Very few

respondents they are harvesting mango by own and net. Some percentage of the

respondents (15.8%) harvesting mangoes by all the above method.

 172

PERCENTAGE OF DAMAGED FRUITS WHILE IRRIGATION

Attributes Frequency Percent

Less than 5% 89 23.4
5-10% 145 38.2
10-15% 69 18.2
More than 15% 77 20.3
Total 380 100.0

During the harvesting, 38.2 percentage of the respondents getting 5-10

percentage of damaged mango during the time of cultivation for various

reasons. Less than 5 percentage of damaged fruit getting by the 23.4

percentage of the respondents. 20.3 percentage of the respondents getting more

than 15% percentage of the damaged fruit during the time of cultivation.
 173

PROBLEMS FACED BY THE FARMERS AT THE TIME OF MANGO

CULTIVATION

The following table will describe the problem faced by the farmers at

the time of mango cultivation.

Problems Always Often Never Sometimes Rarely

High Primary and Cost of
- - - 68.2 31.1
Investment
Longest immature period of plant - - 11.8 63.9 11.8
Lack of High Quality Fruit Plants - - - 19.7 20.3
Inadequacy of labour - 6.3 11.8 50.0 31.8
High cost of labour - 6.3 - 61.8 31.8
Irrigation - 23.4 7.6 60.5 8.4
Pilferage - 19.7 27.1 38.4 14.7
Insufficient Finance - 19.7 11.8 14.7 -
Long growth Period - - 46.3 45.3 8.4
Technical issues 8.2 23.4 33.4 26.6 8.4
Lack of Machinery - - 39.7 52.6 7.6
Perishable fruit 15.0 27.1 26.1 23.7 7.6

The above table explained the frequency of the problems faced by the

respondents at the time of mango cultivation. Among the selected respondents

68.2 percentage of the respondents sometimes only they are facing high

primary and cost of investment, 63.9 percentage of the respondents suffering

longest immature period of plant, 79.7 percentage of the respondents facing

lack of high quality fruit plants, 50 percentage of the respondents facing

inadequacy of labour, 60.5 percentage of the respondents facing irrigation

problem, 38.4 percentage of the respondents facing pilferage problem, 15

percentage of the respondents facing problem with perishable nature of fruit.

 174

PROBLEM FACED AT THE TIMEOF BLOSSOM STAGE

Attributes Frequency Percent

Infection 140 36.8
Monsoon problem 196 51.6
Both 44 11.6
Total 380 100.0

The blossom stage is very caring and crucial part in cultivation process.

In mango cultivation, most of the respondents are facing monsoon problem

during the time of mango cultivation. 36.8 percentage of the respondents facing

infection problem and very few respondents are facing both the problems.

DISEASE ATTACKED DURING THE PERIOD OF CULTIVATION

Mango suffers from several diseases at all stages of its life. All the parts

of the plant, namely, trunk, branch, twig, leaf, petiole, flower and fruit are attacked

by a number of pathogens including fungi, bacteria and algae. They cause

 175

several kinds of rot, die back, anthracnose, scab, necrosis, blotch, spots, mildew,

etc. Some of these diseases like powdery mildew are of great economic

importance as they cause heavy losses in mango production.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Blight 106 27.9

Powdery Mildew 97 25.5
Red rust 101 26.6
Others 76 20.0
Total 380 100.0

The above table represents the what are the disease attacked during the

period of cultivation. Mostly nearly 20 and more than 20 percentage of the

respondents having blight, powdery mildew, red rust and other problems.
 176

CROP INSURANCE

Crop insurance is purchased by agricultural producers, including farmers,

ranchers, and others to protect themselves against either the loss of their crops

due to natural disasters, such as hail, drought, and floods, or the loss of revenue

due to declines in the prices of agricultural commodities. The two general

categories of crop insurance are called crop-yield insurance and crop-revenue

insurance.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Yes 319 83.9
No 61 16.1
Total 380 100.0

The above table represents about whether the selected farmers take crop

insurance or not. Almost all the respondents have taken crop insurance for

mango cultivation.

HYBRID VARIETY

There are various hybrid varieties of Mango prepared by different institutes

and universities after doing their research. Mallika, Amrapali, Mangeera, Ratna

are some of the variety of hybrid mangoes.

Attributes Frequency Percent

Yes 333 87.6
No 47 12.4
Total 380 100.0
 177

Nowadays, using hybrid variety for cultivation for any crops become

necessary. In mango cultivation also, most of the percentage of the respondents

using hybrid variety for mango cultivation.

FACING LABOUR PROBLEMS AT THE TIME OF CULTIVATION

Problems Always Often Never Sometimes Rarely

Land utilization 20 49.7 30.3 - -

Ploughing 19.5 23.9 34.2 22.4 -

Planting - - - 45.5 54.5

Using Fertilizers - - 7.4 49.7 42.9

Weeding - 7.4 13.9 35.8 42.9

Plucking the mango - 11.8 - 52.9 35.3

Cleaning and Grading the
- 11.8 - 37.9 50.3
mango

Counting - 11.8 19.7 52.4 16.1

Store Keeping - - 23.9 36.6 39.5

GROSS INCOME FROM CULTIVATION

Attributes Frequency Percent

Below 2 Lakh 327 86.1
2-4 Lakh 53 13.9
Total 380 100.0

The income is one of the most factor for doing any business. In agriculture

without income, no one can do cultivation. Among the selected respondents,

Most of the respondents have below 2 lakh income and very few respondents

have 2-4 lakh from the mango cultivation.

 178

ANOVA RESULTS

The researcher has used ANOVA test for the study to test the following

hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1

Ho1: There is no significant difference between the level of success and socio

economic variables.

Ha1: There is a significant difference between the level of success and socio

economic variables.

For the testing of above hypothesis, the researcher has framed the

following secondary hypotheses

Secondary Hypotheses

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in pricing

and socio economic variables.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in storage

facility and socio economic variables.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in

payment methods and socio economic variables.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in support

from the government and socio economic variables.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in availability

of market information and socio economic variables.

 179

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in transport

facility and socio economic variables.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in financial

support and socio economic variables.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in

intermediaries support and socio economic variables.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in

transportation and socio economic variables.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in loading

and unloading expenses and socio economic variables.

Secondary hypothesis

HHo: There is no significant difference between the level of success in pricing

and socio economic variables.

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 22.202 1 22.202 144.704 .000
Gender Within Groups 57.996 378 .153
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 25.153 1 25.153 24.523 .000
Age Within Groups 387.718 378 1.026
Total 412.871 379
Between Groups 1.478 1 1.478 .954 .329
Edu
Within Groups 585.479 378 1.549
qualification
Total 586.958 379
 180

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 4.004 1 4.004 3.732 .051
Land
Within Groups 405.585 378 1.073
Holding
Total 409.589 379
Between Groups 1.582 1 1.582 2.932 .088
Land status Within Groups 204.025 378 .540
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups .447 1 .447 3.744 .051
Gross income Within Groups 45.161 378 .119
Total 45.608 379

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, age, land holding, gross income

has their p value lesser than 5% significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is

rejected for these factors and there is a significant difference between the level

of success in pricing and the age, land holding, gross income of respondents.

The other factors namely educational qualification and status of land holding

has their p values greater than 5% significant level and hence the null

hypothesis accepted, where there is no significant difference between the level

of success in pricing and the status of land holding, educational qualification.

Secondary hypothesis 2

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in storage

facility and socio economic variables.

 181

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 22.894 2 11.447 75.310 .000
Gender Within Groups 57.303 377 .152
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 7.788 2 3.894 3.624 .028
Age Within Groups 405.084 377 1.074
Total 412.871 379
Between Groups 84.522 2 42.261 31.710 .000
Edu
Within Groups 502.436 377 1.333
qualification
Total 586.958 379
Between Groups 30.923 2 15.461 15.393 .000
Land
Within Groups 378.666 377 1.004
Holding
Total 409.589 379
Between Groups 32.290 2 16.145 35.119 .000
Land status Within Groups 173.317 377 .460
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups 2.349 2 1.175 10.238 .000
Gross
Within Groups 43.258 377 .115
Income
Total 45.608 379

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, age, Educational qualification,

land holding, gross income, status of land holding has their p value lesser than

5% significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected for these factors and

there is a significant difference between the level of success in storage facility

and all the selected variables.

 182

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in payment

methods and socio economic variables.

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 13.114 1 13.114 73.895 .000
Gender Within Groups 67.083 378 .177
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 10.591 1 10.591 9.952 .002
Age Within Groups 402.280 378 1.064
Total 412.871 379
Between Groups 29.362 1 29.362 19.905 .000
Edu
Within Groups 557.596 378 1.475
qualification
Total 586.958 379
Between Groups .312 1 .312 .288 .592
Land
Within Groups 409.278 378 1.083
Holding
Total 409.589 379
Between Groups 1.144 1 1.144 2.114 .147
Land status Within Groups 204.464 378 .541
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups 2.067 1 2.067 17.943 .000
Gross
Within Groups 43.541 378 .115
Income
Total 45.608 379

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, age, educational qualification,

gross income has their p value lesser than 5% significant level. Hence, the null

hypothesis is rejected for these factors and there is a significant difference

between the level of success in payment methods and the age, land holding,

gross income of respondents except land holding and land status.

 183

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in support

from the government and socio economic variables.

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 21.530 3 7.177 45.995 .000
Gender Within Groups 58.668 376 .156
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 29.296 3 9.765 9.572 .000
Age Within Groups 383.576 376 1.020
Total 412.871 379
Between Groups 68.992 3 22.997 16.694 .000
Edu
Within Groups 517.966 376 1.378
qualification
Total 586.958 379
Between Groups 83.119 3 27.706 31.910 .000
Land
Within Groups 326.471 376 .868
Holding
Total 409.589 379
Between Groups 1.958 3 .653 1.205 .308
Land status Within Groups 203.650 376 .542
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups 4.779 3 1.593 14.669 .000
Gross
Within Groups 40.829 376 .109
Income
Total 45.608 379

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, age, educational qualification,

land holding, gross income has their p value lesser than 5% significant level.

Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected for these factors and there is a significant

difference between the level of success in getting support from the government
 184

and the age, gender, land holding, educational qualification, gross income of

respondents. The other factor namely status of land holding has their p values

greater than 5% significant level and hence the null hypothesis accepted, where

there is no significant difference between the level of success in getting

government support and the status of land holding.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in availability

of market information and socio economic variables.

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 31.133 3 10.378 79.530 .000
Gender Within Groups 49.064 376 .130
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 25.160 3 8.387 8.133 .000
Age Within Groups 387.711 376 1.031
Total 412.871 379
Between Groups 76.902 3 25.634 18.897 .000
Edu
Within Groups 510.056 376 1.357
qualification
Total 586.958 379
Between Groups 7.628 3 2.543 2.378 .069
Land Holding Within Groups 401.962 376 1.069
Total 409.589 379
Between Groups 47.248 3 15.749 37.394 .000
Land status Within Groups 158.360 376 .421
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups 1.461 3 .487 4.147 .007
Gross Income Within Groups 44.147 376 .117
Total 45.608 379
 185

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, age, educational qualification,

land status, gross income has their p value lesser than 5% significant level.

Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected for these factors and there is a significant

difference between the level of success in avail market information and the age,

gender, land status, educational qualification, gross income of respondents. The

other factor namely status of land holding has their p values greater than 5%

significant level and hence the null hypothesis accepted, where there is no

significant difference between the level of success in avail market information

and the status of land holding.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in

transport facility and socio economic variables.

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 7.046 3 2.349 12.072 .000
Gender Within Groups 73.152 376 .195
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 24.726 3 8.242 7.984 .000
Age Within Groups 388.145 376 1.032
Total 412.871 379
Between Groups 16.285 3 5.428 3.576 .014
Edu
Within Groups 570.673 376 1.518
qualification
Total 586.958 379
Between Groups 83.055 3 27.685 31.879 .000
Land
Within Groups 326.535 376 .868
Holding
Total 409.589 379
 186

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 27.900 3 9.300 19.677 .000
Land status Within Groups 177.708 376 .473
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups 3.477 3 1.159 10.342 .000
Gross
Within Groups 42.131 376 .112
Income
Total 45.608 379

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, age, educational qualification,

land holding, land status, gross income has their p value lesser than 5%

significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected for these factors and

there is a significant difference between the level of success avail transport

facility and the age, gender, land status, land holding, educational qualification,

gross income of respondents.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in financial

support and socio economic variables.

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 10.407 3 3.469 18.689 .000
Gender Within Groups 69.791 376 .186
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 19.206 3 6.402 6.115 .000
Age Within Groups 393.665 376 1.047
Total 412.871 379
 187

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 8.712 3 2.904 1.888 .131
Edu
Within Groups 578.246 376 1.538
qualification
Total 586.958 379
Between Groups 147.472 3 49.157 70.515 .000
Land Holding Within Groups 262.118 376 .697
Total 409.589 379
Between Groups 21.472 3 7.157 14.615 .000
Land status Within Groups 184.136 376 .490
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups 1.484 3 .495 4.215 .006
Gross Income Within Groups 44.124 376 .117
Total 45.608 379

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, age, land holding, land status,

gross income has their p value lesser than 5% significant level except with

educational qualification. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected for these factors

and there is a significant difference between the level of success in getting

financial support and the age, gender, land status, land holding, gross income of

respondents.
 188

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in

intermediaries support and socio economic variables.

ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 14.465 3 4.822 27.582 .000
Gender Within Groups 65.732 376 .175
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 8.524 3 2.841 2.642 .049
Age Within Groups 404.347 376 1.075
Total 412.871 379
Between Groups 17.663 3 5.888 3.889 .009
Edu
Within Groups 569.295 376 1.514
qualification
Total 586.958 379
Between Groups 106.141 3 35.380 43.839 .000
Land
Within Groups 303.449 376 .807
Holding
Total 409.589 379
Between Groups 27.527 3 9.176 19.373 .000
Land status Within Groups 178.081 376 .474
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups 2.787 3 .929 8.157 .000
Gross
Within Groups 42.821 376 .114
Income
Total 45.608 379

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, educational qualification, land

holding, land status, gross income has their p value lesser than 5% significant

level except with age of the respondents. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected

for these factors and there is a significant difference between the level of

success in getting intermediaries support and the gender, educational qualification,

land status, land holding, gross income of respondents.

 189

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in

transportation and socio economic variables.

ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 7.538 2 3.769 19.555 .000
Gender Within Groups 72.660 377 .193
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 2.796 2 1.398 1.285 .278
Age Within Groups 410.075 377 1.088
Total 412.871 379
Between Groups 32.646 2 16.323 11.102 .000
Edu
Within Groups 554.312 377 1.470
qualification
Total 586.958 379
Between Groups 58.861 2 29.430 31.635 .000
Land
Within Groups 350.729 377 .930
Holding
Total 409.589 379
Between Groups 7.885 2 3.943 7.518 .001
Land status Within Groups 197.722 377 .524
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups .766 2 .383 3.220 .041
Gross
Within Groups 44.842 377 .119
Income
Total 45.608 379

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, educational qualification, land

holding, land status, gross income has their p value lesser than 5% significant

level except with age of the respondents. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected

for these factors and there is a significant difference between the level of

success in getting transport facility and the gender, educational qualification,

land status, land holding, gross income of respondents.

 190

Ho: There is no significant difference between the level of success in loading

and unloading expenses and socio economic variables.

ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 5.230 4 1.308 6.541 .000
Gender Within Groups 74.967 375 .200
Total 80.197 379
Between Groups 45.575 4 11.394 11.633 .000
Age Within Groups 367.296 375 .979
Total 412.871 379
Between Groups 47.251 4 11.813 8.208 .000
Edu
Within Groups 539.707 375 1.439
qualification
Total 586.958 379
Between Groups 53.271 4 13.318 14.016 .000
Land
Within Groups 356.319 375 .950
Holding
Total 409.589 379
Between Groups 32.750 4 8.188 17.762 .000
Land status Within Groups 172.858 375 .461
Total 205.608 379
Between Groups 2.473 4 .618 5.374 .000
Gross
Within Groups 43.135 375 .115
Income
Total 45.608 379

The above table represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the factors gender, educational qualification, land

holding, land status, gross income has their p value lesser than 5% significant

level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected for these factors and there is a

significant difference between the level of success in loading and unloading

expenses and the age, gender, educational qualification, land status, land holding,

gross income of respondents.

 191

CULTIVATION PROCESS - Chi square Test

In this section, the researcher has analysed the why the selected farmers

are preferring mango cultivation as their business with socio economic variables

of the respondents. The researcher has selected age and gender as socio economic

variable and work load, Profitability, Suitability, Family support, Easy cultivation

and Traditional are the reasons.

Cultivation Practices
Hypothesis framed

H02: There is no significant difference between the cultivation practices

followed by the respondents and the socio economic variables.

Ha2: There is no significant difference between the cultivation practices

followed by the respondents and the socio economic variables.

Gender and Workload

Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .352a 1 .553
Linear-by-Linear Association .351 1 .554
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 52.36.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

The table above indicates the chi-square analysis and it is inferred from the

table that the Pearson Chi-Square value .352 has the p value 0.553 greater than 5 per

cent significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted and there is no

significant difference between the gender and the opinion on workload in mango

cultivation.
 192

Gender and Profitability

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 23.997a 2 .000
Likelihood Ratio 24.429 2 .000
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 8.47.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

above table. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected since

the Pearson Ch-Square value 23.997 has the p value .000 is lesser than 5%

significance level. Hence, there is a significant difference between the gender and

opinion on mango cultivation.

Gender and Suitability

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 29.930a 3 .000
Likelihood Ratio 29.991 3 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 13.582 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 8.47.

The above table intimates the Chi-Square calculations. The table shows

the result of having the Pearson Chi-Square Value 29.930 with its p value .000

lower than 5% significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected, and

there is significant difference between the gender and opinion on the suitability.
 193

Gender and Family Support

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.252a 2 .016
Likelihood Ratio 8.447 2 .015
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.628 1 .202
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 13.62.

The table 3.14 indicates the chi-square analysis and it is inferred from the

table that the Pearson Chi-Square value 8.252 has the p value .016 lesser than 5

per cent significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is

significant difference between the gender and opinion of getting family support in

mango cultivation.

Gender and Easy cultivation

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 11.610a 2 .003
Likelihood Ratio 11.515 2 .003
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.168 1 .141
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 13.62.

The table above represents the Chi-Square cross tabulation analysis. The

results shows that the Pearson Chi-Square Statistics value 11.610 has its p

value .003 lower than 5% significance level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected

and there is significant difference between the gender and feel of easy cultivation.
 194

Gender and Traditional

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 28.530a 2 .000
Likelihood Ratio 27.587 2 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 26.206 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 27.54.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

table above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is accepted

since the Pearson Ch-Square value 28.530 has the p value .000 is greater than 5%

significance level. Hence, there is no significant difference between the gender and

the opinion of traditional.

Age and Workload

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 117.933a 3 .000
Likelihood Ratio 152.779 3 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 25.124 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 25.49.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

table above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected since

the Pearson Ch-Square value 117.933 has the p value .000 is less than the 5%

significance level. Hence, there is a significant between the age and opinion of

workload in mango cultivation.

 195

Age and Profitability

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 173.743a 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 224.705 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 31.909 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 1 cells (8.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 4.13.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

table above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected since

the Pearson Ch-Square value 173.743 has the p value .000 is greater than 5%

significance level. Hence, there is a significant difference between the age and

profitability.

Age and Suitability

Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 182.559a 9 .000
Likelihood Ratio 233.573 9 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 17.081 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 1 cells (6.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 4.13.

The table above indicates the chi-square analysis and it is inferred from the

table that the Pearson Chi-Square value 182.559a has the p value 0.000 is less than

the 5 per cent significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
 196

Age and Family support

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 120.586a 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 138.748 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .220 1 .639
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 6.63.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the table

above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected since the

Pearson Ch-Square value 120.586 has the p value .000 is lesser than 5% significance

level. Hence, there is significant difference between the age and family support.

Age and Easy cultivation

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 196.332a 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 251.206 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.284 1 .257
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 6.63.

The table above represents the Chi-Square cross tabulation analysis. The

results shows that the Pearson Chi-Square Statistics value 196.332 has its p value

.000 lower than 5% significance level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and

there is significant difference between the age and easy cultivation.

 197

Age and Traditional

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 104.348a 6 .000
Likelihood Ratio 115.609 6 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 55.237 1 .000
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 13.41.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

table above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected

since the Pearson Ch-Square value 104.348a has the p value .000 is lesser than

5% significance level. Hence, there is significant difference between the age

and traditional.

Educational qualification and Workload

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 42.947a 4 .000
Likelihood Ratio 45.795 4 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.684 1 .194
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 17.76.

The table above represents the Chi-Square cross tabulation analysis. The

results shows that the Pearson Chi-Square Statistics value 42.947 has its p value

.000 lower than 5% significance level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and

there is significant difference between the educational qualification and workload.

 198

Educational qualification and Profitability

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 145.855a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 161.594 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.316 1 .038
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 2 cells (13.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 2.87.

The table above intimates the Chi-Square calculations. The table shows

the result of having the Pearson Chi-Square Value 145.855a with its p value .000

lower than 5% significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected, and there is

significant difference between the educational qualification and profitability.

Educational qualification and Suitability

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 190.666a 12 .000
Likelihood Ratio 215.020 12 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .270 1 .603
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 2 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 2.87.

The table above indicates the chi-square analysis and it is inferred from the

table that the Pearson Chi-Square value 190.666 has the p value .000 lesser than 5

per cent significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and there is a

significant difference between the educational qualification and suitability.

 199

Educational qualification and Family support

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 98.386a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 123.103 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.104 1 .078
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 2 cells (13.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 4.62.

The table above represents the Chi-Square cross tabulation analysis. The

results shows that the Pearson Chi-Square Statistics value 98.386 has its p value

.000 lower than 5% significance level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and there

is significant difference between the educational qualification and family support.

Educational qualification and Easy cultivation

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 95.897a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 107.706 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 7.790 1 .005
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 2 cells (13.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 4.62.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

table above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected since

the Pearson Chi-Square value 95.897a has the p value .000 is less than the 5%

significance level. Hence, there is a significant difference between the educational

qualification and easy cultivation.

 200

Educational qualification and Traditional

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 116.696a 8 .000
Likelihood Ratio 158.671 8 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.865 1 .172
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 9.34.

The table above indicates the chi-square analysis and it is inferred from

the table that the Pearson Chi-Square value 116.696 has the p value .000 lesser

than 5 per cent significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected and

there is a significant difference between the educational qualification and

opinion of respondents towards the cultivation of mangoes.

Gross income and Workload

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .001a 1 .969
Continuity Correctionb .000 1 1.000
Likelihood Ratio .001 1 .969
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 24.13.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table.

The table above represents the Chi-Square cross tabulation analysis. The

results shows that the Pearson Chi-Square Statistics value .001 has its p value

.969 is more than the 5% significance level. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted.
 201

Gross Income and Profitability

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 6.791a 2 .034
Likelihood Ratio 10.535 2 .005
Linear-by-Linear Association 6.010 1 .014
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 1 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.91.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

table above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected since

the Pearson Ch-Square value 6.791 has the p value .034 is less than the 5%

significance level.

Gross Income and Suitability

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 71.949a 3 .000
Likelihood Ratio 81.406 3 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .166 1 .683
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 1 cells (12.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 3.91.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

table above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected since

the Pearson Ch-Square value 71.949 has the p value .000 is greater than 5%

significance level.
 202

Gross Income and Family support

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 27.008a 2 .000
Likelihood Ratio 27.649 2 .000
Linear-by-Linear Association .265 1 .607
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 6.28.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

table above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected since

the Pearson Ch-Square value 27.008a has the p value .000 is less than 5%

significance level..

Gross Income and Easy cultivation

Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 13.388a 2 .001
Likelihood Ratio 12.538 2 .002
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.968 1 .085
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 6.28.

The Pearson Chi-Square analysis for the study has been depicted in the

table above. It is inferred from the results that the null hypothesis is rejected since

the Pearson Ch-Square value 13.388 has the p value .001 is less than the 5%

significance level.
 203

Gross Income and Traditional

Chi-Square Tests

Asymp. Sig.
Value df
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 5.763a 2 .051
Likelihood Ratio 6.085 2 .048
Linear-by-Linear Association 4.519 1 .034
N of Valid Cases 380
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 12.69.

The table above intimates the Chi-Square calculations. The table shows

the result of having the Pearson Chi-Square Value 5.763 with its p value .056

lower than 5% significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.

CULTIVATION PRACTICES

In this part, the researcher has analysed the cultivation practices adopted

by the selected farmers of Krishnakiri district. The researcher has applied Chi

square to analyse the following hypothesis. The soil test, sources of mango

graft, cultivation method, plant tree per acre, variety of mango cultivated as

cultivation practices and experience with the mango cultivation as socio economic

variable.

H0: There is no significant difference between the socio economic variables

and cultivation practices adopted by the farmers.

H0: There is a significant difference between the socio economic variables

and cultivation practices adopted by the farmers.

 204

CHI SQUARE

Hyp.
Chi square P
Variable Accepted/
value value
Rejected
Years of Engagee with mango cultivation
98.964a .000 Rej.
and conduct soil test
Years of Engagee with mango cultivation
274.653a .000 Rej.
and number of trees plant per acre
Years of Engagee with mango cultivation
181.563a .000 Rej.
and Variety mango cultivated
Years of Engagee with mango cultivation
52.511a .000 Rej.
and source getting mango graft
Years of Engagee with mango cultivation
212.733a .000 Rej.
and Harvesting method

The table above represents the Chi-Square analysis. The results shows that

for all the variables Pearson Chi-Square Statistics lower than 5% significance level.

Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected in all the cases.

CULTIVATION PROBLEMS

The researcher has applied Anova test to know the significant relationship

between the cultivation problems faced by the farmers and with land holding,

number of years of experience and gross income of the respondents. The land

utilization, ploughing, planting, using fertilizers, weeding, plucking the mango,

cleaning and grading the mango, counting and store keeping. The hypothesis framed.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the problems faced by the

farmers and the socio economic variables.

Ha: There is a significant difference between the problems faced by the

farmers and the socio economic variables.

 205

1. Land Utilization

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square

Between Groups .600 1 .600 .555 .457

Land
Within Groups 408.989 378 1.082
Holding
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups .600 1 .600 .555 .457

Engage with
mango Within Groups 408.989 378 1.082
cultivation
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 3.453 1 3.453 30.967 .000

Gross
Within Groups 42.154 378 .112
Income
Total 45.608 379

The table above represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the land holding and number of years of engage with

mango cultivation has their p value more than 5% significant level except in gross

income. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted for these factors except with gross

income.
 206

2. Ploughing

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square

Between Groups 65.062 2 32.531 35.597 .000

Land
Within Groups 344.527 377 .914
Holding
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 65.062 2 32.531 35.597 .000

Engagee
with mango Within Groups 344.527 377 .914
cultivation
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 2.948 2 1.474 13.025 .000

Gross
Within Groups 42.660 377 .113
Income
Total 45.608 379

The table above represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the land holding, number of years of engage with

mango cultivation and gross income of the farmers has their p value less than 5%

significant level except in gross income. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Hence there is a significant difference between ploughing and gross income,

number of years engage with mango cultivation and land holding.

 207

3. Planting

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square

Between Groups .441 1 .441 .408 .524

Land Holding Within Groups 409.148 378 1.082

Total 409.589 379

Between Groups .441 1 .441 .408 .524

Engagee with
mango Within Groups 409.148 378 1.082
cultivation
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 1.879 1 1.879 16.238 .000

Gross Income Within Groups 43.729 378 .116

Total 45.608 379

The table above represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the land holding and number of years of engage with

mango cultivation has their p value more than 5% significant level except in gross

income. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted for these factors except with gross

income.
 208

4. Using fertilizers

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square

Between Groups 73.245 3 24.415 27.294 .000

Land
Within Groups 336.344 376 .895
Holding
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 73.245 3 24.415 27.294 .000

Engagee with
mango Within Groups 336.344 376 .895
cultivation
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 4.785 3 1.595 14.689 .000

Gross
Within Groups 40.823 376 .109
Income
Total 45.608 379

The table above represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the land holding, number of years of engage with

mango cultivation and gross income of the farmers has their p value less than 5%

significant level except in gross income. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.

Hence there is a significant difference between using fertilizers and gross income,

number of years engage with mango cultivation and land holding.

 209

5. Weeding

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square

Between Groups 4.882 2 2.441 2.274 .104

Land Holding Within Groups 404.707 377 1.073

Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 4.882 2 2.441 2.274 .104

Engagee with
mango Within Groups 404.707 377 1.073
cultivation
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 4.561 2 2.281 20.946 .000

Gross Income Within Groups 41.047 377 .109

Total 45.608 379

The table above represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that gross income with facing weeding problem has their p

value more than 5% significant level except engaging with mango cultivation and

weeding. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted for these factors except with gross

income.
 210

6. Plucking the mango

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square

Between Groups 1.140 3 .380 .350 .789

Land
Within Groups 408.449 376 1.086
Holding
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 1.140 3 .380 .350 .789

Engagee with
mango Within Groups 408.449 376 1.086
cultivation
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 4.821 3 1.607 14.814 .000

Gross
Within Groups 40.787 376 .108
Income
Total 45.608 379

The table above represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the land holding and number of years of engage with

the problem with plucking mango has their p value more than 5% significant level

except in gross income. Hence, the null hypothesis is accepted for these factors

except with gross income.

 211

7. Cleaning and grading the mango

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square

Between Groups 43.967 3 14.656 15.072 .000

Land Holding Within Groups 365.622 376 .972

Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 43.967 3 14.656 15.072 .000

Engagee with
mango Within Groups 365.622 376 .972
cultivation
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 5.208 3 1.736 16.155 .000

Gross Income Within Groups 40.400 376 .107

Total 45.608 379

The table above represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the land holding, number of years of engage with

mango cultivation and gross income of the farmers has their p value less than 5%

significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected with cleaning and grading

mangoes.
 212

8. Counting

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square

Between Groups 20.135 3 6.712 6.480 .000

Land Holding Within Groups 389.454 376 1.036

Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 20.135 3 6.712 6.480 .000

Engagee with
mango Within Groups 389.454 376 1.036
cultivation
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 6.378 3 2.126 20.375 .000

Gross Income Within Groups 39.230 376 .104

Total 45.608 379

The table above represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the land holding, number of years of engage with

mango cultivation and gross income of the farmers has their p value less than 5%

significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected with counting problem of

mango cultivation.
 213

9. Store keeping

ANOVA

Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 19.443 2 9.722 9.394 .000
Land
Within Groups 390.146 377 1.035
Holding
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 19.443 2 9.722 9.394 .000

Engagee
with mango Within Groups 390.146 377 1.035
cultivation
Total 409.589 379

Between Groups 2.870 2 1.435 12.661 .000

Gross
Within Groups 42.737 377 .113
Income
Total 45.608 379

The table above represents the ANOVA calculation and its results. It is

inferred from the table that the land holding, number of years of engage with

mango cultivation and gross income of the farmers has their p value less than 5%

significant level. Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected with store keeping problem.

Conclusion

From the chapter the researcher has analysed the various aspects

involved in mango cultivation and the labour problem involved in cultivation,

water problem for irrigation, period of interval test, tees planted per acre,

mango cultivated by the selected farmers of Krishnakiri district, problems

facing while get inputs for mango cultivation, harvesting method used for
 214

cultivation, percentage of damaged fruit while harvesting, crop insurance and

the like. Among the selected respondents nearly 70 percentage of the respondents

are male. The 30 percentage of the respondents are female. Those female

farmers were Engageing the agriculture business with the help of the family

support. Surprisingly below 30 age group of respondents were involved in the

mango cultivation. Very few of percentage (10.3%) of the respondents belong

to the others category. The others means diploma and ITI. 32.4 percentage of

the respondents comes under the category of degree and 23.4 percentage of the

respondents have professional degree with them. The mango cultivation practices

should be improved with modern technological processes and also the government

may provide proper training and awareness program to the farmers regarding

modern cultivation processes.