• strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /var/www/html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 906.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /var/www/html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /var/www/html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 607.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_rotator_style_plugin::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /var/www/html/sites/all/modules/views_rotator/views_rotator_style_plugin.inc on line 56.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /var/www/html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit(&$form, &$form_state) in /var/www/html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 134.

Gajanana, T .M.

Gajanana, T .M.
Designation: 
Principal Scientist
Division/Section: 
Division of Social Sciences and Training
Specialisation: 
Horticultural Economics, Marketing, Export
Qualification: 
PhD
Experience (No. of Years): 
23
Research Accomplishments: 

Economics of production and marketing of horticultural crops • Cultivation of Arakta variety of pomegranate was more profitable (net returns of Rs.249996/ha) than Ganesh (Rs.81050). Benefit cost ratio (BCR) (1.98 and 1.43) and IRR (98 and 67 per cent) were also higher for Arakta. • Production of sapota was profitable with net returns ranging from Rs.29408/ha when sold in wholesale market to Rs.38053.05/ha when marketed through Cooperatives. Cooperative marketing was efficient in terms of cost and price realization. • Net returns from guava were Rs.86621/ha with an NPV of Rs.719566/ha, IRR of 97 per cent, BCR of 1.81 and a pay back period (PBP) of 3 years. Sale in the wholesale market was the most prominent channel of marketing followed by field sale. Price realized varied from Rs.4.73/kg (Field sale) to Rs.6.04/kg (Wholesale market) • In carnation, use of stone/casurina poles instead of iron pillars brought down the polyhouse erection cost by 50 per cent in Bangalore and the overall cost of establishment was 27 per cent lower at Rs.308155 as against Rs.422585/500 m2 in Pune. The cost of maintenance was higher in Bangalore at Rs.65534 as against Rs.34995 in Pune. The productivity was higher in Bangalore (14 flowers/plant/annum) compared to 10 in Pune. The growers realized a gross return of Rs.488669 and Rs.349766 with a BCR of 2.69 and 2.24 respectively in Bangalore and Pune. The investment feasibility analysis indicated an NPV of Rs.356302 and Rs.121839 with IRR of 58% and 25% in Bangalore and Pune respectively. • Cost of production of lemongrass oil worked out to Rs.271.54/kg. With an average price of Rs.439/kg the net returns would be Rs.167.46/kg. The average net returns were Rs.14812/ha and varied between Rs.13798 and Rs.15962 depending upon the agency to whom sold viz., private/cooperative. Productivity of lemongrass is low. Market intelligence for export promotion and import restriction • A three dimensional analysis of growth, import share and instability was used for identifying the potential importers of important commodities from India. Mango experienced significant growth in export (Q – 8.57%, V- 8.84%) with stability. Bangladesh, UAE, and UK were the potential importers. Share of Bangladesh has increased from 7.32% to 35.24% in quantity and from 2.61% to 16.49% in value. Fresh onions registered moderate growth (Q-7.34 and V-11.09%) with stability (20-26%). The major importers of onion are: Malaysia - High growth (6-11%), increasing share and stable (24-29%); Sri Lanka – High growth (8-9%), increasing share and stable (26-30%); While Malaysia and Sri Lanka increased their share that of UAE and Singapore has come down. Grapes registered significant growth (Q - 0.58%, V- 9.52%) with stability (instability index < 25 %). UK and UAE were the potential importers. A Shift from UAE to UK and Netherlands is noticed. Sri Lanka is an emerging market. Pomegranate registered significant growth (Q- 5.83%, V- 13.13%) with stability (Instability index - 13-17%). UAE, UK and Sri Lanka were potential importers of pomegranate. Economics of post harvest loss and marketing in fruits and vegetables o The efforts of research under the ICAR network project and the Institute project resulted in a modified formula of Marketing Efficiency for incorporating PHL as an item of cost which was successfully validated in grapes and later in banana, sapota and papaya. Beside the assessment of PHL, critical evaluation of distant market sale vs. local market sale (Pomegranate, grapes, banana var. poovan, tomato, onion and papaya); self marketing vs. sale through cooperatives (Banana var. ney poovan, sapota) was the highlight of the study. • Assessment of PHL in Rose onion grown in Karnataka and sold in Chennai indicated the total field level loss (due to sorting) of 16.53% consisting of very small (3.65%), doubles/splits and rotten bulbs (9.49%) and physiological loss in weight during storage (3.39%). At the exporter’s level, onion brought from the farmers’ field is sorted based on size into less than 27 mm and more than 27 mm onions. Loss at exporters’ level is mainly due to sorting which worked out to 7.13%. In less than 27 mm onions loss was 3.36% consisting of the soiled bulbs and very small damaged bulbs. In 27 mm onions, sorting loss accounted for 3.77% consisting of doubles and skin out bulbs. • Mango Harvester developed at IIHR was found superior in terms of (i) ease of harvest due to blade action and reduced drudgery because of less energy being used. The loss due to harvesting of fruit with the help of other harvesters worked out to 9.81% due to falling of fruits while pulling and damage due to pressing of fruits in the basket. However, PHL by using IIHR Mango Harvester was only 3.25%. The reduction in loss was due to the blade action and the basket to hold the fruits. However, (i) extension of the blade action up to the ring, (ii) increasing the size of the handle and (iii) removing the handle in the basket were suggested for better performance. Economic impact of selected vegetable technologies (IPM, hybrids) • In tomato insecticide and fungicide use was significantly lower on IPM farms compared to non-IPM farms. The total cost of cultivation was 21 per cent less on IPM farms due to reduction in cost of plant protection. Net returns were 119 per cent higher (Rs.230734 as against Rs.105258) on IPM farms. In the subsequent survey in 2005-06, the component wise adoption was 70% on IPM farms and 45% on non-IPM farms. The adoption of IPM components by the earlier non-IPM farmers and continuation of IPM by the previous IPM farmers indicate sustainability of IPM. • In cabbage, yield has been enhanced by about 15% from 61.43 to 70.91 t/ha. The cost of cultivation has been reduced from Rs.26891 to Rs.25148/ha. Cost of production decreased from Rs.0.44 to Rs.0.35/kg. Net returns on IPM farms increased by 36% from Rs.28886 to Rs.39237/ha. The BCR was higher at 2.56 on IPM farms as against 2.07 on non-IPM farms. Both number and quantity of chemical sprays have been reduced by 50% besides reduction in cost of plant protection by Rs.500/ha. • In chilli, the number of chemical sprays on IPM farms in AP was 5 as compared to 9 on non-IPM farms. The cost of plant protection on IPM farms was less at Rs.5630/ha as and Rs.10625/ha on non-IPM farms. The IPM farmers could realize additional net returns of Rs.15,238/ha with a BCR of 2.48 as compared to 2.21 on non-IPM farms • The Namadhari hybrid NS 295 is the ruling hybrid of watermelon in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The hybrid, NS 295 was superior over variety (Arka Manik) in terms of higher price realization. Net returns obtained by the growers of hybrids were higher at Rs.24,721.23/ha as against Rs.9,490.07/ha by the growers of Arka Manik. The BCR worked out to 1.97 and 1.29 respectively for hybrid and variety. Estimation of market potential for floricultural and medicinal crops in the Nilgiris • Cultivation of cut flowers was found profitable as the net returns ranged from Rs.205468 (carnation) to Rs. 5154 (rose) from 500 m2 area. The BCR was the highest for carnation (2.09) and lowest for rose (1.05). Value addition in the form of bouquet and arrangement is more remunerative with margins of 60-100% compared to 28-40% in case of sale of cut flower. The aggregate demand of 358.74 lakh stems exceeds the projected supply of 335.88 lakh stems thereby indicating scope for area expansion. Mumbai, Nagpur, Pune and Hyderabad are the potential domestic markets and Dubai and Singapore appear to be good international markets. • Organically cultivated rosemary and thyme leaves are dried and the rest is processed into oil. Drying of 500 kg of rosemary fetches net returns of Rs.3150 as compared to Rs.2240 in thyme. Oil extraction from 500 kg of leaves fetches Rs.1900 in Thyme and Rs.700 in rosemary. The marketing margin varies from 25% (fresh leaves) to 53.84% (rosemary for drying). There exists a huge gap between supply and demand. The excess demand is to the tune of 292.06 tonnes of rosemary and 44 tonnes of thyme thereby indicating the scope for expansion of area under these crops. Market research on underutilized fruit products With the main objective of identifying the marketable underutilized fruit products for establishing a market linkage for the community level processing units, market research was initiated in Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat. • Market survey indicated the existence of underutilized fruit products with different brand names and the community level processing units face competition. • Small scale processing of amla and tamarind in the BAIF resource centres indicated the economic feasibility and profitability of processing as the net profit was observed to be Rs.5.94/kg in case of tender tamarind chutney, Rs.9.96/kg for amla pickle and Rs.24.99/bottle of 500 ml. amla squash. Since there is a market for underutilized fruit products, there exists scope for commercial exploitation and for exports. Diagnostic study of constraints to higher income from mango cultivation Diagnosis of constraints was attempted in terms of productivity, post harvest management and market factors. The main constraints are: • Low yield levels (2.34-6.73 t/ha) and high variability in productivity (CV=26-110%) due to i) uneven rainfall affecting planning of cultural operations, flowering and fruit set, ii) cultivating mango with different varieties and less of choice varieties), iii) different age group of orchards (2-70 years), v) inappropriate canopy (>70), nutrient (66%-96%) and pest and disease management (18%-80%). Only about 30% apply proper chemicals for flower regulation and prevention of fruit drop, Mango orchards are low in organic carbon (0.4-06) and are deficient in nutrients like zinc, boron and potash. • Poor quality of mangoes supplied to market due to manual harvesting method (shaking and use of clippers), absence of grading and post harvest disease management and improper packing (loosely loaded into trucks or use of gunny bags). • Low returns (Rs.11625/ha - Rs.27000/ha) and high variability in returns (CV = 73% - 105%) due to sale of mangoes mainly to PHC and wide variability in returns across different marketing practices – Rs.8831/ha (PHC) in Dharmapuri to Rs.56667/ha (Processor) in Krishnagiri.

Important Publications: 

1. Gajanana, T.M., IND Gowda and BMC Reddy, 2010. Exploring market potential and developing linkages – a case of underutilized fruit products in India, Agricultural Economics Research Review, 23 (Conference Number):437-443 2. Gajanana, T.M., D. Sreenivasa Murthy and M. Sudha, 2011. Post harvest losses in fruits and vegetables in South India – A review of concepts and quantification of losses, Indian Food Packer, November-December, 2011: pp.178-187 (Kejriwal Award for Best Article of Interest to Industry) 3. Gajanana, T.M., D. Sreenivasa Murthy and M. Sudha, 2002 Marketing and Post harvest loss assessment of Banana var. Poovan in Tamil Nadu Agricultural Economics Research Review, 15(2):56-65 4. Sreenivasa Murthy, D., T.M. Gajanana, M. Sudha and K.V. Subrahmanyam, 2002 Post Harvest Loss Estimation in Mango at Different Stages of Marketing – A Methodological perspective Agricultural Economics Research Review, 15(2):188-200 5. Gajanana, T.M., Krishan P. Singh, K.V. Subrahmanyam and S.C. Mandhar, 2003 Protected Cultivation of Cut Flowers: Economic Analysis of Gerbera Indian Journal of Horticulture, 60(1):104-107 6. Sreenivasa Murthy, D, T.M. Gajanana and M. Sudha, 2004 Post harvest loss estimation and its impact on marketing cost, margin and efficiency: A study on grapes in Karnataka Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(4):772-786 7. Gajanana, T.M., P.N. Krishna Moorthy, H.L. Anupama, R.Raghunath and G.T. Prasanna Kumar, 2006 Integrated pest and disease management in tomato – economic analysis Agricultural Economics Research Review, 19(2): 269-280 8. Sudha, M, T.M. Gajanana and D. Sreenivasa Murthy, 2006 Economic impact of comer-cial hybrid seed production in vegetables on farm income, employment and welfare – a case of tomato and okra in Karnataka Agricultural Economics Research Review, 19(2):251-268 9. Sreenivasa Murthy, D. T.M. Gajanana, M. Sudha and V. Dakshinamoorthy, 2007 Estimation of marketing loss as a separate component and its impact on market margin and efficiency: A case study of Banana var. Ney Poovan in Karnataka Agricultural Economics Research Review, 20(1):47-60 10. Gajanana, T.M., M. Sudha, D. Sreenivasa Murthy and V. Dakshinamoorthy, 2008 Economics of production and marketing of bulbous ornamentals – case study of liliums Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 22(2): 170-183

Contact Details
Address for Communication: 
IIHR, Bangalore-89
Email Address: 
gajanana@iihr.res.in
Telephone #: 
94489 88485
X