Crop-Damage Assessment: Choosing a Yield, Computing the Loss, and Deciding on Input-Cost Deduction
During a crop-damage assessment, a Patwari records that a farmer's field measures 2 acres 4 kanal, all under wheat. The village average yield from three years of girdawari is 22 quintals per acre. The farmer produces his own figures: 24 quintals per acre last year and 20 quintals per acre the year before. The support price is ₹2,275 per quintal, and the farmer's cultivation cost is ₹18,500 per acre. After a hailstorm, the field splits into two patches: 1 acre 4 kanal with about 35 per cent damage, and the remaining 1 acre with about 20 per cent damage. The compensation scheme pays for the value of the crop lost, at the support price, per quintal of shortfall, but the tehsil office has in past cases deducted the farmer's input cost before sanctioning the amount.
1. Using the village average yield, compute the shortfall in quintals and the gross value of the loss. Show each step.
Read the worked answer
Convert first: 8 kanal = 1 acre, so 2 acres 4 kanal = 2.5 acres, and 1 acre 4 kanal = 1.5 acres.
| Patch | Area | Yield at 22 q/acre | Damage | Shortfall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1.5 acres | 33 q | 35% | 11.55 q |
| B | 1.0 acre | 22 q | 20% | 4.40 q |
| Total | 2.5 acres | 55 q | - | 15.95 q |
Gross value = 15.95 × ₹2,275. 15 × 2,275 = 34,125; 0.95 × 2,275 = 2,161.25; total = ₹36,286.25, entered as ₹36,286.
Sanity check: 15.95/55 = 29 per cent of the crop lost, which is plausible given one patch at 35 per cent and a smaller patch at 20 per cent.
2. Should input cost be deducted from this figure? Argue the point instead of copying past practice.
Read the worked answer
Test the past practice against arithmetic before following it.
- Full deduction: cost = 18,500 × 2.5 = ₹46,250, which exceeds the loss of ₹36,286 - the 'compensation' would be negative. That alone shows the method is unsound.
- Proportional deduction: cost attributable to the lost output = 46,250 × (15.95/55) = 46,250 × 0.29 ≈ ₹13,413, giving ₹22,873.
The scheme's words are 'value of the crop lost', which is a gross figure. The seed, fertiliser and power were already spent; the money cannot be un-spent, and the farmer still bears harvest and transport costs on the surviving 71 per cent. The only defensible deduction would be costs actually avoided by not harvesting the damaged portion - for standing wheat, essentially nil.
Recommend the gross figure of ₹36,286, and put the past practice on record for the Tehsildar's review rather than silently repeating it.
3. The farmer insists on his own 24 quintals per acre. Which yield should the report use, and how much does the choice matter?
Read the worked answer
Use 22 quintals per acre, the three-year girdawari average, but record the farmer's claim and its basis.
Reasons: the official average is independently verifiable, applies uniformly to every farmer in the village, and cannot be inflated per claimant. The 24 quintal figure is a single year, and the preceding year was 20 - the two together average 22, so the farmer's own data support the village figure rather than contradict it.
Sensitivity: at 24 q/acre the shortfall becomes 15.95 × (24/22) = 17.4 q, worth 17.4 × 2,275 = ₹39,585, i.e. ₹3,299 more. The difference is real but not large; it should be allowed only on contemporaneous evidence - sale receipts from this field, a crop-insurance assessment, or a joint inspection - and any such evidence should be noted in the remarks so the figure is auditable later.