Mechanisation of harvesting brings new kinds of disputes between farmers and agro-processors. Examine with reference to the sugarcane sector.

The quarrel between cane farmers and mills used to be about late payment. With 99.5% of cane dues for 2022-23 already paid [3], it is now about how much cane and sugar gets counted. Machine harvesting adds new disputes of this kind. That is why the Ramesh Chand Committee (Oct 2026) must examine weight deductions on machine-cut cane [1].

New disputes from mechanisation

• Flat weight deductions: Mills deduct a fixed share of the weight of harvester-cut cane for trash and juice loss. Farmers say this is more than the real loss, and the committee must check deductions against actual losses [1].
• Lower recovery figures: Cut cane loses sugar while it waits to be crushed. Harvesters deliver large loads at once, so queues at the mill gate lower the recorded recovery. Each 0.1% of recovery changes the price by ₹3.56/qtl on an FRP of ₹365/qtl [2]. A 0.5-point shortfall costs about ₹17.8/qtl, nearly 5% of the FRP.
• Weighing disputes: Farmers must rely on the mill's own weighbridge. Calibration and inspection are in the committee's terms of reference, and the Joint Secretary (Legal Metrology) sits on it [1].

Implications

• Economic: Farm income falls quietly even when the full FRP is paid on time. The FRP is set at about 100% above the A2+FL cost [2], but under-measurement eats into that margin.
• Trust: The mill measures and the farmer cannot check. This one-sided information breeds suspicion.
• Federal and administrative: The Centre fixes the FRP, Legal Metrology covers weighing scales, and states regulate cane supply. States must therefore be consulted [1].
• Social: The complaint came from farmers in Karnataka and Maharashtra [1]. Smallholders there have little bargaining power.

Way forward

• Set deduction norms by field measurement, separately for each region and variety, instead of a flat cut [1].
• Have recovery tested jointly or by a third party, with results published to farmers.
• Use digital, tamper-proof weighbridges, with Legal Metrology checking them on a fixed schedule.
• Schedule harvests so cane is crushed soon after cutting.
• Adopt the Rangarajan Committee's 70:30 revenue-sharing model [4] to link what farmers earn to what mills earn.

Mechanisation cannot be reversed and is needed for productivity. The disputes come from opaque measurement, not from the machines. If the Chand Committee sets clear measurement norms that farmers can check, mechanisation can benefit both sides, supporting SDG 2 and cooperative federalism.