Economic and Social Effects of Rice Cultivation Practices Operation (Case Study: Rice Cultivator Villages in Rasht County)

Journal of Research and Rural Planning

مقاله 6، دوره 7، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 21، تیر 2018، صفحه 161-175   

نوع مقاله: علمی

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22067/jrrp.v5i4.55787

نویسندگان

Majid Yasouri^{* 1}؛ Nader Ofoghi¹؛ Fatemeh Emami²

¹University of Guilan

²University of Tehran

چکیده

Extended abstract
1. INTRODUCTION
Distribution of villages of the country in terms of ownership forms before land reform, indicates that 42% of the land was classified as small-scale, and 29% of the agricultural land was owned by farmers. Also, in this year, only half a percent of the country's land was allocated to the first deck of the exploiters, while the first to fifth decks, allocated only 11.5% and the 10th deck, allocated just 40% of the agricultural land. By implementing land reform and benefiting about two million rural households of land ownership, 58 percent of rural households owned agricultural land. In this research, we investigated the ways of exploitation (mechanized, traditional and semi-mechanized) in rice cultivation in Rasht city and the impact on rural economic and social indicators in this city. In fact, by identifying the indicators of increasing income, increasing production, reducing product losses, timely agricultural operations and reducing production costs in economic dimensions, indicators of reducing the hard work, youth's interest in agricultural production, reducing the migration of rural households to the city, local people's participation, the desire to have children, poverty reduction in people with low land, the increase of socially-intensive career opportunities in social dimensions, we are trying to examine the impact of each type of exploitation on this indicator.
2. METHODOLOGY
In this research, descriptive-analytical method has been used and in order to collect the required data, a survey method (collecting questionnaire) has been used from cluster-type of rural households. The level unit, is rural households study and Morgan table is used to calculate the sample size. Similarly, for analyzing the findings and achieving the final model of research in the hypothesis, ANOVA model was used using SPSS software. In fact, in this research and based on the estimation, 400 samples were selected from Rasht. It was completed on the field.
3. DISCUSSION
The studied area is Rasht in Guilan province, which is located in the White River plain. The city has 6 sections (central, Khomam, Khoshkbijar, Sangar, Kochesfahan and Lasht Nesha), 6 city points (Rasht, Sangar, Kochesfahan, Lashte Nesha, Khoshkbijar and Khomam), 18 rural districts and 296 villages. The low level cultivation of rice in this city is 62336 hectares, of which about 11.6 percent (7200 hectares) are mechanized and 88.44 percent (55136 hectares) are traditionally exploited. It can be said with 95% confidence, that the three methods of exploitation, have a significant difference in terms of economic and social impacts and the consequences that they leave. Therefore, according to this report, it can be said that the traditional cultivation method, in the city is more than other two methods. So, if we are to make a ranking based on this test, we can say that traditional cultivation is ranked first, the semi-mechanized in second and mechanized in the third place, by regarding the fact that most people in the city, prefer the traditional exploitation rather than the two other methods of exploitation. This is due to issues such as lack of sufficient training and skill in the use of machinery, lack of primary capital for machinery, etc. However, at this stage, we want to measure the impact of each of the practices on economic indicators such as increased revenues, increased production, reduced product losses, timely agricultural operations. According to the analysis test of variance in the socioeconomic model, this is clear, despite the fact that mechanized cultivation is much more convenient and cost effective than the traditional one, but in this city the traditional way of exploitation is more popular and desirable. This may be due to lack of sufficent training in the mechanization or ineffectiveness of specialized training or inappropriate use of these trainings or the minority status of the land utilization system, and hence the low ability of exploiters to purchase agricultural machines and generation to generation cycling of technical knowledge in indigenous people, which has led villagers to avoid cultivation in a mechanized way and still use traditional practices that have long been customary.
5. CONCLUSION
The results of the research based on ANOVA analysis test, showed 95% confidence, that there is a significant difference between the three methods of exploitation and the effects on each of the economic and social indicators. In fact, based on this test, people in the county level tend to use more traditional way, and this factor itself can have many positive and negative effects, including the effects of increasing participation, creating correlation, childbearing desire to help future farms, increased workforce, etc. Negative effects are, such as lowering incomes in mechanized methods, increasing product losses, failing to timely crop operations in some cases. In fact, this study was carried out by Hasan Jani et al. (2007) research in an article entitled "Evaluation of different methods of harvesting rice in Guilan province, recommending the best method for harvesting in Guilan province, harvesting methods (manual, reaper and combine) as testing and Four different cities in the province. Effective field capacity parameters were determined as, total harvesting waste percentage, harvesting percentage and, number of required worker and harvest costs. The results showed that the difference was significant between the percentage of total lesions in the level of 5% and other factors at 1% level. Effective farm capacity in harvesting, with reaper was more than other methods, while the lowest percentage of total waste was related to harvesting with combine (1.92%). In this study, the reduction of product losses is one of the social indicators to be considered, manual and combine method is a traditional and mechanized method.

کلیدواژه‌ها

Exploitation؛ economic؛ social؛ ANOVA؛ Rasht County

مراجع

1. Abdolahi, M. (1377/1998). Iran's system of land utilization. Tehran: The Ministry of Agriculture, Department of farming system. [in Persian]

2. Afsarpanah, M. (1978/1999). Check and compare the productivity of farming systems on agricultural land endowments of Astan Quds Razavi. (Unpublished master’s thesis), State Management Training Center Khorasan, Mashhad, Iran. [in Persian]

3. Alston, J. M., & Pardey, P. G. (2007). Attribution and other problems in assessing the returns to agricultural R&D. Agricultural economics, 25(2-3), 141-152. ‏

4. Azkia, M. (1374/1995). Sociology of rural underdevelopment in Iran. Tehran: Eteleat press. [In Persian]

5. Bafekr, H., & Niazi, J. (1363/1984). Review issues related to the transfer of land and condominium units in Gorgan, Gonbad. Tehran: Ministry of Agriculture, Research Center for Rural and Agricultural Economics. [In Persian]

6. Bagherzadeh, A. (1390/2011). A new concept in Agricultural Economics. Tehran: Jahad press. [In Persian]

7. Bagherzadeh, A. (1389/2010). Calculation and analysis of total factor productivity growth in the agricultural sector agricultural methods Vector Lag model (ARDL). Journal of Crop Sciences, 3(10), 99-115. [In Persian]

8. Daneshvar Khaki, M., Karbasi, A., & Afsar Panah, A. (1379/2000). Check the status of farming systems in agricultural areas of Astan Quds Razavi. Journal of Economics and Development, 8 (29), 180-203. [In Persian]

9. Evenson, R. E., Pray, C., & Rosegrant, M. W. (1995). Agricultural research and productivity growth in India (Vol. 109). Intl Food Policy Res Inst.‏

10. Hasn Jani, H., Hoseini, M., Khadem alhoseini, N., & Alizadeh, M. (1386/2007). Assess different methods of rice in the Gilan province. Journal of Agricultural, 9(1), 23-38. [In Persian]

11. Haverkort, A. (1998). Knowledge systems agricultural development, Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 100(14), 8086-8091.

12. Jalal zadeh, M. (1384/2005). Small farmers and peasant's systems: challenges and directions, Small and peasant farming systems conference. Tehran: Ministry of Agriculture, Deputy Format farming systems. [In Persian]

13. Jhiovani, e. (1377/1998). Problems of rural sociology, (M. Azkiya, Trans.). Tehran: Roozbahan press. [In Persian]

14. Kamali, H. (1384/2005). Problems and challenges of growing small and small farmers and peasant agriculture conference in Tehran. Tehran: Ministry of Agriculture, Deputy Format farming systems.

15. Kupahi, M., Barikani, H., Kavoosi, M., & Sasooli, M. (1388/2009). The effect of risk factors on rice production in Gilan Province. Science and Technology of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 13(48), 357/364. [In Persian]

16. Lahsai Zadeh, A. (1372/1993). Sociology of Agriculture. Tehran: Institute of Information and Social Research. [In Persian]

17. Lahsai Zadeh. A. (1382/2003). Social changes in the villages of Iran. Shiraz: Shiraz Navid Publications. [In Persian]

18. Leal Filho, W. (2004). Ecological agriculture and rural development in Central and Eastern European countries. NATO Science Series V: IOS Press. ‏

19. Monajem, S., Ranji. A., Khani., M, Attari, H., & Dorosti, H. (1392/2013). Evaluation of rice production in Gilan province using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Quarterly journal of cereal research, 3(3), 255-266. [In Persian]

20. Moradi, A. (1381/2002). Study of factors of production in the agricultural sector and its impact on rural migration (Unpublished master’s thesis). Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]

21. Motiei langroodi, H. (1390/2011). Economic geography of Iran (agriculture, industry, services). Mashhad: Jahad University Press. [In Persian]

22. Motiei langroodi, H., Rezvani, M., Faraji, H., & Shahkoohi, A. (1388/2009). Sustainability analysis of the operation of a family farm and rural production cooperatives (Case study: Aq Qala county). Iranian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 2(3), 323-333. [In Persian]

23. Niazi, A. (1354/1975). A preliminary study on rural production cooperatives and their effect on economic and social conditions of the village. Tehran: Ministry of Agriculture, Economic Research Center for Rural and Agricultural. [In Persian]

24. Pilar, C. L. (1985). Effect of agricultural mechanization on farm income patterns. Journal of Philippine Development, 12 (1), 98-210.

25. Shakeri, A. (1385/2006). The place of agriculture in the country's economic development. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development, 12(48), 105-136. [In Persian]

26. Vosooghi, M. (1366/1987). Rural Sociology. Tehran: Keyhan press. [In Persian]

27. Zafarnejad. F. (1367/1988). Farming system in Iran and the pattern of utilization of agricultural development projects. Tehran: Bina press. [in Persian]