India's Pu·lse Production Stagnation and Redressal
INDIA'S PULSE PRODUCTION STAGNATION AND REDRESSAL
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
INDIA'S PULSE PRODUCTION STAGNATION AND REDRESSAL
Usha Tuteja Foreword by
Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat Chairman,University Grants Commision
PRAGUNPUBLICATION New Delhi
© Author 2008
Published by Pragun Publication (A O.K. Publishers Distributors Enterprise)
4224/1, Ansari Road, Daryaganj , New Delhi-II 0002 Tel. : +91-11-41562573-77, Fax:+91-11-41562578 E-mail:
[email protected], uri: www.dkpd.com
Pragun Publication is an enterprise of D.K.Publishers Distributors, engaged in distribution and publishing for more than three decades. Its mission and objective is to make Indian publications widely available amongst the consumers both in India and abroad through its countrywide distribution network.
ISBN 978-81-89920-83-8
All rights reserved. This book is sold to the condition that no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission from the publisher.
Printed at SALASAR IMAGING SYSTEMS C-7, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi-II 0035 Tel.: 011-27185653,9810064311
Dedicated to The Memory of My Parents
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
Foreword
Pulses, the major protein component in the Indian diet, have been one of the lagging sectors in the crop economy of India. The need to rectify this position has become acute in recent years due to stagnant production and a declining per capita availability despite huge imports. The continuously rising prices of pulses are also a serious concern in view of nutritional security of the burgeoning population of the country. This scenario has necessitated an indepth study of pulse production and its redressal in India. In the context of the ongoing food commodity inflation and continuing crisis in the supply of pulses, the publication of this book is timely and extremely useful. Dr. Usha Tuteja's study presents an integrated view of pulse production in India. The analysis has been carried out at the macro level covering a period of two decades. The book examines important indicators of pulse production in detail and traces the causes for the stagnant production of pulses in the country. She argues that since the possibility of area expansion is limited, therefore, special attention needs to be given to yield which is relatively low in comparison to other pulse producing countries. This is possible with the introduction of area specific improved varieties of seeds, application of fertilizers, use of irrigation and adoption of short durationpulse crops. All this will require intensive technical research; appropriate extension programmes and adequate investment accompanied by a well thought out pnce support and procurement policy that will give needed incentive to the farmers. Thus, the book provides a comprehensive view of past strategy and future efforts required to increase pulse production in India. Dr. Tuteja 's painstaking study on pulse production and various issues involved in improving the scenario is an excellent research
viii
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
study. The book will be useful to students and researchers in the field of agricultural economics. Policy makers and development economists will also find it enlightening.
New Delhi May, 2008
Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat, Chairman University Grants Commission
Preface The importance of pulses for human and animal nutrition in India has been well recognized. However, its per capita availability has been declining continuously due to increase in population and stagnation in production. The demand and supply imbalance has resulted in regular and consistently high imports of pulses. The government policy of Minimum Support Prices (MSP) as a safety net, inclusion of pulses in the Technology Mission and the extraordinary spike in prices of pulses has been ineffective in achieving a breakthrough in pulse production. This troublesome scenario encouraged an in-depth study on pulse production at the national, state, district and farm levels, the causes of stagnation in production and future policy to increase pulse production. This study is based on my doctoral dissertation and presents a broad perspective on the subject of pulse production. The major emerging issues concerning pulse production relate to sluggishness in the growth of area and yield of various pulse crops grown in India. In particular, inter regional variations in technology and yield were issues of great concern. The present book on pulse production in India is a departure from existing literature. It has parameterized price and non-price determinants of pulse production. The present study has taken an integrated approach by combining domestic and international concerns. It has also captured issues related to less important pulse crops like moong, urad and massar. It also includes current features of international trade in pulses. An added weightage has been given to the status of technological change among the non-price determinants of pulse production. During the course of this study, I have been benefited by a number of people. I am greatly indebted to Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat
x
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
for providing guidance, cooperation, encouragement and warm affection during the course of the study. At the initial stage of my work, I was benefited by the comments and suggestions of Prof. Kusum Chopra, I express my heartiest gratitude to her. I express deep sense of gratitude to my teachers Prof. G.S. Bhalla, Prof. G.K. Chadha and Prof. Amitabh Kundu for constant encouragement and support. I am indebted to Prof. Sheila Bhalla, Prof. Ramesh Chand, Prof. P.K. Joshi, Dr. Prem S. Vashishtha, Prof. T. Haque and Prof. R.S. Deshpande for their encouragement in completing this work. Special thanks are due to my colleague Mr. Narinder Singh for helping me in computation work. I received immense help and cooperation from my friends Prof. Madhu Bhalla and Mrs. Aradhya Bhardwaj, Dr. Seema Bathla, Dr. Sushila Kaul and Dr. Nisha Mathew Philip during the course of this study. I am thankful to library staff of AERC, IEG and RTL for their enthusiastic help in documentation work. I wish to express my gratitude to my publisher Mr. Parmil Mittal and his associates Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya and Mr. Ishwar Singh for facilitating the publication ofthis work. A special thanks and acknowledgement is due to my family for the support and encouragement they have provided. My husband Dr. S.K. Tutej a has provided me inspiration, moral support and professional help in carrying out this study. I cannot forget the contribution of my children, Divya and Anshumaan who never complained of my absence in the evenings. Finally, I am thankful to all those who contributed towards the completion of this study.
Usha Tuteja
Contents
Foreword Preface List of Tables List of Figures Abbreviations
1. Introduction Problems of Pulse Production Review of Existing Literature Significance of Study Objectives of Study Hypotheses Research Methodology Plan of Study
Vll
IX
xv XXVll
XXIX
1 1 6
17 18 19
20 25
2. Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View Section - 1
27
Importance and Availability of Pulses
28
Section - 2 Pulse Production Scenario in India
36
Section - 3 Sw~s of India in World Pulse Production and Trade
45
Section - 4 Pulses Developmental Strategies during Plans
48
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
XlI
3. Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage and Yield Response of Pulse Crops Section -1 Growth Performance Section - 2 Instability in Production Section - 3 Determinants of Acreage and Yield Rates
4. Status of Pulse Production A District Level Analysis
57 58
93
109
121
5. Effects of Price Movement on Production of Pulses Section - 1
183
Behaviour of Pulse Prices
184
Section - 2 Output Response of Prices of Pulses
6. Technology in Pulse Production Section - 1 Policy Initiatives for Promotion and Transfer of Technology Section - 2 Use of Technology Promoting Inputs by Pulse Growers
213 221
223
242
Section - 3 Benefits of Improved Technology
7. Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension Gram ArIlar Moong
269
273 275 294 305
List of Tables
Xlll
Urad Massar
315 323
8. International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses Section - 1 Status of India in World Pulse Production and Trade Section - 2 International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
9. Summary and Conclusions Objectives Research Methodology Main Findings Policy Implications
333 335 350 363 363
364 366
382
Bibliography
387
Index
399
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
List of Tables 2.1
Chemical Composition of Pulses, Major Food grains & Oil seeds in India
29
2.2
Net Availability of Pulses in India (1951-2005)
31
2.3
Share of Food Expenditure on Pulses and Substitute Items in India (1972-73 to 1999-2000)
31
2.4
Demand and Supply Gap of Pulses in India
35
2.5
State-wise Percentage of GCA and Area Irrigated under Pulses
37
2.6
Compound Growth Rates of Area, Production, Yield of Rice, Wheat, Cereals, Pulses and Food grains in India (1949-50 to 2006-07)
39
2.7
Relative Performance of Pulses in India (1950-51 to 2005-06)
39
2.8
Important Pulse Crops in India (1997 -98)
41
2.9
Three Largest Pulse Producing States in India (1997-98)
43
2.10
Marketed Surplus of Important Pulses in India (2004-05)
44
2.11
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses
46
xvi
India 's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
in Important Producing Countries in the World (2003) 2.12
Export and Import of Pulses in India (1980-81 to 2005-06)
48
2.13
Major StrategieslProgrammes Introduced for Pulses Development during Five Year Plans
51
2.l4
Minimum Support Prices of Pulses (1980-81 to 2006-07)
54
2.15
Procurement of Pulses by NAFED under Price Support Scheme and Commercial Purchases (2000-01 and 2000-02)
55
2.16
Target and Achievement of Pulse Production (1997-98 to 2006-07)
56
3.1
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Gram in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
60
3.2
Growth Performance of Gram in Important States of India (1981-2002)
61
3.3
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Arhar in Important States of India (2001-02)
65
3.4
Growth Performance of Arhar in Important States of India (1981-2002)
66
3.5
Area, Production and Yield ofMoong in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
68
3.6
Growth Perform2nce of Moong in Important States of India (1981-2002)
69
3.7
Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
72
3.8
Growth Performance of Urad in Important States of India (1981-2002)
73
List of Tables
xvii
Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Important States of India (TE 2001-02) Growth Performance of Massar in Important States of India (1981-2002)
75
3.11
Area, Production and Yield of Kharif Pulses in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
79
3.12
Growth Performance of Kharif Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002)
80
3.13
Area, Production and Yield ofRabi Pulses in Important States of India {TE 200 1-02)
81
3.14
Growth Performance of Rabi Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002)
82
3.15
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
84
3.16
Growth Performance of Total Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002)
85
3.17
Percentage of GCA under Pulse Crops by Farm Size in India (1980-81, 1991-92 and 1998)
88
3.18
Percentage of GCA under Wheat, Rice and Pulses in Three Districts of Madhya Pradesh (1996-97)
91
3.19
Percentage of GCA under Pulses in Two Important Districts of Haryana (1997-98)
92
3.20
Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India (1981-02)
96
3.21
Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India (1981-02)
101
3.22
Correlation Coefficients between Production of Various Crops and Index of Rainfall (1980-81 to 2001-02)
107
3.9 3.10
76
xviii
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
3.23
108 State-wise Per\:entage of Area Covered by Irrigation under Principal Crops dming 1999-2000 Results ofNerlovian Model on Acreage Response 113 of Gram, Arhar, Moong, Urad, Massar and Total Pulses in Important Growing States of India 123 Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000
3.24
4.1
4.2
Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh dming 1998-99
127
4.3
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Important Growing Districts of Rajasthan during 1998-99
130
4.4
Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts ofMaharashtra during 1998-99
132
4.5
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Kamataka during 1998-99 Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in
134
4.6
135
Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99 4.7
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Important Growing Districts of Maharashtra during 1998-99
137
4.8
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99
138
4.9
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest
141
List of Tables
xix
Price of Arhar in Important Growing Districts of Kamataka during 1998-99 4.10
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Major Producing Districts of Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000
141
4.11
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Major Producing Districts of Gujarat during 1998-99
144
4.12
Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99
145
4.13
Area, Production, Yield ofMoong in Important Growing Districts ofMaharashtra during 1998-99 Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area ofMoong in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99
147
4.15
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area under Moong in Major Producing Districts ofTamil Nadu during 1998-99
151
4.16
Area, Production and Yield ofMoong in Major Producing Districts ofGujarat during 1998-99
152
4.17
Area, Production and Yield ofMoong in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99
154
4.18
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Urad in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99
156
4.19
Area, Production and Yield of Urad in
157
4.14
xx
4.20
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Important Growing Districts ofMaharashtra during 1998-99 Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99
159
4.21
Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Major Producing Districts of Tamil Nadu during 1998-99
160
4.22
Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Major Producing Districts of West Bengal during 1998-99
161
4.23
Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99
163
4.24
Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Major Producing Districts of Bihar during 1992-93
164
4.25
Area, Production, Yield of Massar in Major Producing Districts of West Bengal during 1998-99
165
4.26
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000
167
4.27
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95
170
4.28
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Maharashtra during 1998-99
171
4.29
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Rajasthan during 1997-98
173
4.30
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of
174
List afTables
4.31
Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1997-98 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Kamataka during 1998-99
xxi
177
4.32
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in MajorGrowing Districts of Bihar during 1991-92
178
4.33
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Gujarat during 1998-99
179
4.34
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of West Bengal during 1998-99
180
5.1
Results of Semi-log Functions of Wholesale Prices of Pulses in India (1981-2001)
187
5.2
Results of Semi-log Functions of Farm Harvest Prices of Pulses in Major Growing States (1981-2001)
191
5.3
Results of Semi-log Functions of Retail Prices of Pulses in Delhi Market (1981-2001)
195
5.4
Results of Semi-log Functions of Minimum Support Prices in India (1981-2001)
199
5.5
Cost of Production and Minimum Support Prices 202 of Pulses in Important States during Recent Years
5.6
Percentage Change in Wholesale Price, Farm Harvest Price, Retail Price and Minimum Support Price over Previous Year
205
5.7
Seasonal Index of Wholesale Price of Pulses in Important States in 1981, 1991, 2001
209
5.8
Price Elasticity of Output of Pulses in India and Major Growing States
217
xxii
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Crop-wise Distribution of Certified Seeds of Pulses 1990-91, 1995-96 and 2000-01 Financial Allocation for National Pulses Development Project in Major Growing States of India (1998-99)
226
6.3
Component-wise Pattern of Assistance under the National Pulses Development Project during 1998-99
228
6.4
Component-wise Percentage of Financial Allocation and Physical Achievement under NPDP in Major Growing States during 1998-99
233
6.5
Target and Achievement of Pulse Production in India
238
6.6
Yield Gap and its Indices for Major Pulses in Important Producing States during TE2001-02
240
6.7
Use of Chemical Fertilizer and Organic Manure for Gram and Moong Cultivation by Size Groups in India
244
6.8
Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Gram Cultivation in Major Growing States by Irrigation Status during 1991-92
246
6.9
Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Arhar Cultivation in Major Growing States by Irrigation Status during 1991-92
248
6.10
Use of Chemical Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Gram Cultivation by Farm Size and by Irrigation Status in India during 1991-92
250
6.11
Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Arhar Cultivation by Farm
252
6.1 6.2
228
List of Tables
6.12
Size and by Irrigation Status in India during 1991-92 Percentage of Pulse Area under Improved Variety Seeds, Fertilizer & Manure, Pesticides and Weedicides and Tractor Use in Major States (1998-99)
XXlll
256
6.13
Adoption of Improved Variety Seeds of Pulses by Farm-size in Major Growing States (1998-99)
258
6.14
Adoption of Improved Varieties of Chickpea in Andhra Prades
260
6.15
Adoption of Improved Technology for Pulse Cultivation in Punjab and Haryana
262
6.16
Yield Levels of Improved and Local Varieties of Pulse Crops in Punjab and Haryana
269
7.1
Profitability of Gram and its Competing Crops (Wheat and Mustard) in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh during 1981-82
276
7.2
Profitability of Gram and its Competing Crops (Wheat and Mustard) in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan during 1990-91
283
7.3
Profitability of Gram and Iits Competing Crops (Wheat and Mustard) in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh during 2000-01
288
7.4
Profitability of Arhar and its Competing Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh during 1981-82 and 1984-85
295
7.5
Profitability of Arhar and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91
298
7.6
Profitability of Arhar and its Competing
301
xxiv
7.7
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra during 2000-01 Profitability ofMoong and its Competing Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh during 1981-82 and 1984-85
306
7.8
Profitability ofMoong and its Competing Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in 1990-91 and 1994-95
311
7.9
Profitability ofMoong and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra during 2000-01
313
7.10
Profitability of Urad and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during and 1981-82
316
7.11
Profitability of Urad and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 1990-91
318
7.12
Profitability of Urad and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 2000-0 1
321
7.13
Profitability of Massar and its Competing Crops (Gram and Mustard) in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 2000-01
324
7.14
Summary Table Showing Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops in selected States in India
329
8.1
Area, Production and Yield of Pulses in Important Countries of the World (TE 1981, 1991 and 2001)
336
8.2
World Trade in Pulses (1981-2002)
331
List of Tables
xxv
Share of Exporting Countries in World Exports of Pulses (1981, 1991 and 2002) Share of Importing Countries in World Imports of Pulses (1981, 1991 and 2002)
339
8.5
India's share in World trade in Pulses (1981-2002)
342
8.6
Exports and Imports of Pulses in India
342
8.7
India's Imports of Pulses (1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02)
344
8.8
India's Exports of Pulses (1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02)
345
8.9
Major Destinations of Pulse Exports and Imports in India during 200
348
8.10
Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC), Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) and Effective Subsidy Coefficient (ESC) of Pulse Crops in India
353
8.11
Domestic Resource Cost Ratio of Gram, Arhar, Moong, Urad and Massar in Selected States of India
359
8.3 8,4
340
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
List of Figures Figure 2.1
Share of Important Pulses in Area
Figure 2.2
Share of Important Pulses in Production
Figure 5.1
Trends in Wholesale Price of Pulses (1982-2001)
Figure 5.2
Trends in Farm Harvest Prices of Pulses (1982-2001)
Figure 5.3
Trends in Retail Prices of Pulses (1982-2001)
Figure 5.4
Trends in Minimum Support Prices of Pulses (19822001)
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
List of Abbreviations CACP
Commission forAgricultural Costs and Prices
c.i.f.
Cost, Insurance and Freight
DRCR
Domestic Resource Cost Ratio
EPC
Effective Protection Coefficient
ESC
Effective Subsidy Coefficient
FHP
Farm Harvest Price
f.o.b.
Free on Board
FYM
Farm Yard Manure
GCA
Gross Cropped Area
Gal
Government of India
HYV
High Yielding Variety
lCAR
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
lPDP
Intensive Pulses Development Programme
lPM
Integrated Pest Management
lSOPAM
Integrated Scheme of Oil seeds, Pulses, Oil Palm and Maize
MSP
Minimum Support Price
NAFED
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India
NCA
National Commission on Agriculture
xxx
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
NPC
Nominal Protection Coefficient
NPDP
National Pulses Development Programme
NSSO
National Sample Survey Organisation
RP
Retail Price
TE
Triennium Ending
TMOP
Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses
WP
Wholesale Price
WTO
World Trade Organisation
1 Introduction
Pulses are an important and relatively inexpensive source of protein for human and animal nutrition in India. Their importance as a builder and restorer of soil fertility in arid areas is well recognized. Pulses are known as unique jewels of Indian farming. The per capita net availability of pulses, unfortunately, has been declining continuously and has reached a low level of 26.4 gms/day in 2001 from a much higher level of 61.6 gmslday in 1965. It has declined more during the reforms period indicating a drop from 41.6 gms/day in 1991 to 31.5 gms/day in 2005 (Economic Survey, 2007). This is due to the increase in population and stagnation in production of pulses. Indeed, pulses have been in short supply for nearly two decades. As a result, huge imports of pulses have become a regular feature in the country to bridge the demand and supply gap. A peculiar situation has emerged because rising prices of pulses have not been able to enthuse farmers to increase pulse production.
Problems of Pulse Production India produces nearly a dozen varieties of pulse crops. At the world level, it is the biggest cultivator of pulses. But, unfortunately, these nutritionally superior legumes never received adequate attention from the policy makers. That is why the government policy of minimum support prices as a safety net and the strategy for pulse crops development has failed to enhance its production in the country. The National Pulses Development Programme has been under
2
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
implementation in 30 States and Union Territories on a 75:25 cost sharing basis between the Central and the State Governments for a long time but it has not made any headway in production and productivity. The production of pulses in 2005-06 was 13.4 million tonnes, which is below the target of 16 million tonnes. This was the situation despite claim of the scientists that around 92 improved varieties of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and moth with a high potential of yield improvement have already been released. In addition, new plant protection practices such as Integrated Pest Management are available. All these are making varying degrees of impact in different regions. But, the gap between actual and potential yield remains very high even in agriculturally advanced states like Haryana. Thus, challenges faced in improving the level of production of pulses fou r decades ago, still exist and the situation has not improved despite the government adopting a mission mode approach under the Technology Mission on Oil seeds and Pulses (TMOP) since 1990-9l. Undoubtedly, the constraints faced by pulse production are daunting. Pulse cultivation faces problems such as use of rain fed marginal land, susceptibility to pest and disease attacks, weather aberrations, lack of genetic breakthrough and diversion of pulse area to more remunerative crops as and when irrigation facilities become available. Policies formulated and implemented during different plans have hardly been helpful. Quite unlike wheat and rice growers, who have a ready market in government procurement and that too at higher than market price, pulse growers are left with no market support. The minimum support price announced and hiked annually are notional and have become irrelevant because pulses are neither procured nor market price reaches that level. Production efficiency of the pulse growers is less due to low and fluctuating yield levels. These constraints have affected the pulse growers' enthusiasm to raise input use or to adopt improved technology. In view of the above constraints, pulse production has not been able to keep pace with its demand in India. The successive plan documents have stressed the need to improve the level of pulse production. However, even a modest target of 16 million tonnes has
Introduction
3
not yet been achieved. Now, policy makers are devoting their attention to pulses and oilseeds due to their tremendous growth potential. In addition, non-sustainability of wheat/rice based commercial agriculture followed from 1970 onwards is also a major factor. Therefore, pulse cultivation is being considered one of the important options in cropping pattern diversification. In addition, favourable changes in trade policy are improving the scenario. Recently, export of pulses has been made free realizing the export potential of pulses in the international market though they remain a small percentage of production and lag imports. There is no doubt that this may help pulse producers to realize better prices. But, for its success, productivity and quality standards matching internationally competitive levels are significant challenges. With a view to expanding area, output and yield levels, a concrete strategy of some support is needed at the disaggregated level in the regions with high potential of pulse production. The budgetary allocation for the National Pulses Development Programme is inadequate and its progress is not monitored even in agriculturally advanced states like Punjab and Haryana. It seems that higher output through enhanced level of productivity in core areas can help reverse the dangerous decline in per capita availability. Thus, problem of increasing pulse production still remains unresolved and unsolved. They still remain as one of the lagging sectors in the crop economy. The area under pulses is stagnating or growing at a snail's pace although these crops are vital to the economies of rainfed agriculture. The situation has become more complicated because of the weak price response of pulses. On the productivity front, India is lagging behind other pulse producing nations. In fact, India had the largest cultivated area under pulses (30.32%) in the world but unfortunately productivity (552 kg/ha) was one among the lowest and much below the average productivity (793 kglha) in the world during 2003 (FAO, Production Year Book, 2003). In addition, yield volatility is a great problem. This is perhaps due to the non-adoption of improved technology despite extension support provided to the growers under the specially designed programmes for boosting pulse production.
4
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
At the macro level, a number of factors could be responsible for sluggishness in the growth of area, production and yield of pulse crops. The study of agro-climatic factors, technological change in agriculture, relative profitability, yield, price risk, marketing and processing infrastructure, etc., would help identify the causes of near stagnancy in the production of pulses. One needs to find out answers to several related issues. What is the nature of supply response of pulse crops and what are the major explanations for their slow growth? What are the reasons for the relative neglect of these crops in the process of commercialization? Why are these crops largely located in the production base of rainfed regions? What is the nature of competing crop economy vis-a-vis the economy ofthese crops? What kind of price uncertainty does the cultivators of these crops face? What are the special environmental/policy constraints in the growth of these crops? Are Indian pulses internationally competitive? Whether India should concentrate on pulses or on crops with comparative advantage? Is liberalizing policy environment conducive to generating farmers' confidence in growing pulses? A study of the above-mentioned issues would enable policy makers to initiate steps to increase pulse production in the country. A number of factors influence farmer's choice of crops or crop pattern. The irrigation status ofland, availability oflabour and capital, inputs and technology, etc., are the major deciding factors. Household food and feed security are also important considerations. In addition, history of incidence of insect and pest attacks, diseases, rainfall uncertainty, soil condition, etc., also affects farmer's decision. The marketing support also plays a crucial role. The price uncertainty also depresses area allocation. In fact, pulses stand nowhere in terms of relative profitability of wheat and rice, which received technological as well as market support. The price and non-price factors influencing acreage allocation at the farm/state level need to be carefully analysed. Regional variations in the production and consumption are important issues too. In particular, inter-regional variations in technology and yield gaps are emerging issues of great concern. On the demand side, income elasticity of pulses is gradually drifting
Introduction
5
to the lower side due to changes in the consumption basket at large. People with high income in particular, are diversifying their protein basket and shifting to eggs, meat, etc. The aforesaid problems demand an in-depth investigation at the disaggregated level. In literature, attention has been drawn to area shift in favour of pulse crops in the states ofAndhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. It has declined in some other states like Bihar, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana and West Bengal and that too in states with assured irrigation facilities, which encourage farmers to adopt wheat/rice rotation in their crop pattern due to higher yield and a good market support. Unless a detailed analysis of growth is carried out and the factors constraining pulse production are identified and analysed at the disaggregated level, policy initiatives cannot be oriented to suit the region specific requirement of the strategy to boost pulse production. The impact of economic reforms on agriculture adds one more dimension to the problem of pulse crops. India initiated economic reforms process through the Structural Adjustment Programme in 1991 in response to balance of payments crisis. In addition, India under the aegis of the World Trade Organization signed an agreement on agriculture in 1994. Since then, several trade and tariffmeasures have been introduced. The tariff rates have been reduced for several commodities from time to time. The country has partially libralized trade in agricultural products. With continuation of these policies, Indian economy has been exposed to the international markets. The main objective of these policies is to make the agricultural sector globally competitive by improving the efficiency of inputs with the support of complementary policies. For a country like India where agricultural sector contributes around 58% share in employment and almost 20% in the gross domestic product, it becomes imperative to examine the implications of these policies on the development of various agricultural commodities. The process ofliberalisation has started showing its impact, both at the macro and micro levels, on the growth and development of various crops. At the macro level, trends in prices, imports and exports, demand and supply gap and changes in the level of protection
6
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
are the major concerns. At the micro level, disaggregated scenario at the state/region/district and crop levels assumes significance. This calls for an assessment of changes in area allocation; yield, cost of cultivation, income and profitability at the crop level. A study ofthe economic implications of liberalisation process on domestic production and the competitiveness of pulses at the world level as well as in India, thus, assumes special importance.
Review of Existing Literature This study seeks to examine various economic issues related to the problem of improving pulse production in India. Before developing the framework of analysis, it would be pertinent to review the available literature on the related aspects of the present study. A c~itical review of the research conducted on this subject reveals Ahat two types of studies are available in the literature. First, there are macro level studies and papers based on the secondary data at all India and state levels (Chopra and Swamy, 1975, 1982; Ryan and Ashokan, 1977; Singh, 1979; Deshpande and Chandrashekar, 1982; Nadkarni, 1986; Acharya, 1988, 1993; Baldev et aI., 1988; Satyapriya, 1989; Sadasivan, 1989, 1993; Bhatia, 1991; Jain and Singh, 1991; Kelley. and Rao, 1994; Dhindsa and Sharma, 1997; Jain and Singh, 1991; Ramesh Chand, 1999; Ali and Mishra, 2000; C. Ramaswamy, 2002; Joshi and Saxena, 2002; Sathe and Aggarwal, 2004). Second, one comes across micro-level studies based on primary data collected through surveys at village and farm household levels (Sharma and Jodha, 1982; Gangwar, Rai and Sriniwas, 1983; Acharya, 1988; Tuteja 1986,1992,1999,2000; Dey and Banerjee, 1991; Kumar 1993; Pant 1995; Tripathi, 1998; Joshi et aI., 1999; Shiyani, 2000; Gupta, 2001). Such studies are mostly carried out by Agricultural Research Institutes like International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRlSAT), Indian Agricultural Research Institute and Agricultural Economics Research Centres. They have focused their attention primarily on identification of constraints in the growth of pulse production and productivity at the disaggregated level. Some studies were aimed at evaluating the
Introduction
7
performance of the National Pulses Development Programme in different states. This section presents the main findings of the macro as well as micro studies.
(i) Macro Level Studies Chopra and Swamy (1975) in their pioneering study on pulses in India for the period 1951 to 1971 have looked into area shifts under individual pulse crops to competing crops. They have also estimated demand and supply functions. In the demand equation, average quantity of pulses consumed was regressed to total expenditure, price of pulses and price of cereal substitutes. The demand of pulses was found price responsive. The supply side was examined through acreage response model in the Nerlovian framework. The relative yield and relative prices, area irrigated under the competing crops and rainfall were used as the independent variables. The model was applied to major pulse-producing states. The pattern of the individual states was sufficiently different from each other. The increase in irrigation and relative yield were important factors explaining area shifts out of rabi pulses in the green revolution belt. Here, wheat offered a tough competition to pulses. But, rainfall and prices were found significant in the estimated model for kharif pulses. They have projected quantity of demand and supply. It was concluded that the supply will fall short of demand and the gap will widen further. Ryan and Ashokan (1977) in their paper for the six major wheat growing states of India namely Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh for the ten years period before and after 1964-65 found that 22 % of the expansion in wheat acreage during the later periods could be accounted for by the reduction in area under pulses. According to Nadkarni (1986), pulses are left behind by the green revolution. The yield of pulses has been growing at the very slow pace with almost constant area. The major constraint affecting their growth is technological in terms oflower yields. Singh (1979) in his study for the state of Uttar Pradesh examined
8
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
the role of price and non-price factors in determining the farmer's decision on shifts in inter-crop acreage. The study showed that the overall supply-price relationship was weak and in most cases, results did not support the generally expected positive supply price response relationship. The findings indicated that the response ofkharif pulses has been more consistent with the economic theory, suggesting a negative relation between risk and crop acreage. The deterrent impact of risk, weather, yield and prices pointed out to the need for reducing the occurrence of such risk. He suggested that appropriate policies need to focus on (a) favourable pricing and marketing conditions and (b) technological changes in pulses like variety improvements, disease and pest control measures. The performance of various pulse crops has been different across time and space. The estimates of area and production of pulses during the 1960 's, 1970 's and 1980 's indicate that the performance of pulse production has been poor. Not only production has been stagnant for over four decades, but also the growth in production has been far less than the growth in population. Moreover, pulses have been recording significant changes at the seasonal, regional and temporal levels. Around 17% cent of pulse area in irrigated states faced competition from cereals and oilseeds. The remaining 83% of pulse area in rain fed and dry states did not face much competition from other crops. The profit function analysis of gram reveals that non-price factors, such as rainfall influence both the output of gram and the use ofinputs in its cultivation. The elasticity of inputs and output with respect to prices was very low. In fact, the impact of weather was found strongest on the yield growth (Sadasivan, 1989, 1993). The study by Deshpande and Chandrashekar (1982) for Kamataka state observed that the technological change has failed to bring about any positive change in the growth of pulses. The slow growth in production was mainly attributed to stagnancy in yield and decline in area. Their supply response analysis indicated a positive response to real price of the crop and its yield. They opined that the subsistence nature of these crops is primarily responsible for their concentration in smallholdings.
Introduction
9
Baldev et.al. (1988) presented a comprehensive account of various aspects related to pulse crops in India. The details of area, production and productivity, reasons for low productivity and genetics of major pulse crops were analysed with a focus on agronomic aspects. The main reasons cited for low productivity included low genetic yield potential oflocal varieties, application ofpoor agronomic practices, lack of plant protection measures, lack of stability, adverse effects of cultivation under rain fed conditions and improper method of sowing. Acharya (1988) and Acharya and Gupta (1982) observed that the case of Rajasthan was unique and there was no evidence of pulse area being diverted to cereals in the state. But, growth rate of gram area in major wheat-gram producing districts was either zero or negative because incremental production due to irrigation was more for wheat compared to gram and the price difference was not sufficient to offset the yield advantage. The level of use of yield increasing inputs in pulses was very low. Prices of pulses received by farmers though rising at a faster rate compared to cereals and oilseeds but the price at the retail level was not fully transferred at the farm level. They suggested that to increase production of pulses, efforts will have to be supplemented by giving price advantage to the pulse growers through either direct deliberate action or removing imperfections in the pulse marketing system. Acharya (1993) in his presidential address at the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics reviewed overall performance of pulses and its price policy. He opined that the area under pulses declined sharply during the green revolution period in India and rabi pulses suffered the maximum loss in the area during this period. Kharif pulses also suffered. The area from rabi pulses shifted to wheat and from kharif pulses to paddy under the stimulus of expanding irrigation facilities, high yielding variety seeds, support price policy and public procurement system for wheat and paddy. He suggested an urgent need of creating efficient market infrastructure for pulses. The study by Satyapriya (1989) focused more on growth aspect. He observed that the production of pulses in India remained either stagnant in some states/regions or declined in other states. He opined
10
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
that the production of pulses could be improved by bringing down the yield gaps across irrigated and un-irrigated pulses. Bhatia (1991) estimated the growth of area, production and yield of pulses in India for the period 1967-68 to 1989-90. The major constraints for the stagnation in the production of pulses are production under rain fed conditions, low yield and value productivity, higher risk in production and low income from pulse cultivation, low level of adoption of technology, susceptibility to pests and diseases and large price spread. He suggested that evolution of some improved varieties is a must for increasing production of pulses but there is strong need to take up appropriate measures for reducing risk of adopting new technology through expansion of crop insurance scheme to pulse crops. Once productivity of pulse crops is improved, shifting of other resources like irrigation, water, fertilizer and area would follow and its pace of growth of production would go up. Efforts will also have to be made to improve the efficiency of marketing so that producers could get their due share in the price paid by the consumers. Among the state level studies, Dhindsa and Sharma (1997) analysed the Punjab situation with the help of Nerlovian model. They have shown that the non-price factors are relatively more important in the decision-making of the farmers for allocating acreage to pulses. They indicated towards the disappearing nature ofpulse cultivation in Punjab farming. Jain and Singh (1991) examined instability in the pulse production in Punjab with the help of decomposition analysis. They observed that the decline in area was the primary factor responsible for the decline in production. Yet efforts through proper policy formulation are needed to stabilise yield levels and to reduce disparity in the yield across the districts. Moreover, stability in yield levels would induce more area under these crops and will lead to lessening the burden on foreign exchange through economising on imports. There are some macro studies, which assess the impact of trade liberalization on pulses. Ramesh Chand (1999) in his study reviewed the case of four commodities and gram was chosen as one of the major crops. The study analysed production, marketing and trade
Introduction
11
related policy concerns. The impact of trade liberalization was examined with or without situation. The impact of trade liberalization was studied through net protection coefficient. It was observed that price of gram in India was found lower than the border price. The study has shown that implementation of WTO has a mixed impact on net social welfare of India. The author opined that signals of price ratios of domestic to global prices should not be stretched too far. There should be major policy shift. Kelley and Rao (1994) examined chickpea competitiveness in India. They observed that it is not competitive at present. A study by Ali and Mishra (2000) on nutrient management in pulses and pulse based cropping systems highlighted that nutrient imbalance is one of the major constraints limiting productivity of pulses. The built in mechanism of biological nitrogen fixation enables pulse crops to meet 80% of their nitrogen requirements, hence, a small dose of 15-25 kg/ha is sufficient to meet the requirements of most of the pulse crops but even this quantity is not applied and therefore, productivity remains much below the potential. The growth of pulse production has not kept pace with population growth resulting in an overall decline in per capita availability and generally higher prices of pulses. To meet the growing demand, the government has to resort to frequent imports and hold down prices of pulses. Imports are emerging as a cheaper option but a cost effective option for increasing domestic production and infrastructure development should be undertaken urgently. Ramaswamy (2002), Joshi and Saxena (2002) reviewed the recent performance of pulses and tried to identify these constraints. They also examined growth performance of important pulse crops in the new niches. A small section on trade off presented valuable information. The study has shown that pulses are moving from traditional to non-traditional areas. They emphasised the need for research and extension to bring about a yellow revolution in the pulse sector. A recent paper by Sathe and Aggarwal (2004) examined the issues related to opening up of the Indian pulse sector as well as the relationship between production, prices and imports. The prices of pulses are high despite low duty on imports. They argued for further opening
12
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
up of the Indian market for pulses, in view of stagnating domestic production and the nutritional significance of these crops. (ii) Micro Level Studies
Pulse crops in India are grown under a wide range of agro-climatic conditions. Historically, they have found a place in diverse cropping systems in different parts of the country. It is important to recognize this wide range of conditions over which cultivation of a particular pulse crop is distributed in different parts of the country for the purpose of planning, research and development programmes. The primary databased case studies, by and large aimed to fulfill these objectives. The paper by Sharma and Jodha (1982) has reviewed the performance of pulse production in semi -arid regions of India. They have tried to enumerate the factors, which affect decision-making of the farmers in acreage allocation. These are mainly rain fed areas where subsistence nature of farming dominates. They identified agro-climatic, socio-economic and biological constraints in the production of chickpea and pigeon pea. The major constraints in improving pulse production were cited as non-availability of appropriate technology, instability of yield, high risk and lack of adequate capital to invest in expensive inputs. Gangwar et.al, (1983) have analysed the problems faced by the farmers in production and marketing of gram in Haryana. They have narrated non-availability of improved seeds, low yield, high risk and lack of marketing information as the factors for sluggish response of the farmers. The two papers (Joshi et.al. 1999 and Shiyani et.al, 2000) have shown the extent of adoption of newly introduced chickpea varieties and identified the factors influencing their adoption in the tribal villages of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. The sample covered randomly selected adopters and non-adopters of improved varieties. Authors by using the Tobit model revealed that the adoption of newly released chickpea varieties was quite impressive. Their area was gradually increasing in the study area by replacing the prominent local varieties.
Introduction
13
A substantial increase in the yield rates (from 1096 kg/ha to 1700 kg/ha), gross returns (from RS.11245 per ha to Rs.18960 per ha), cost of cultivation (from Rs.2675 per ha to Rs.5360 per ha) was reported. Availability of seeds of new varieties appeared to be a major constraint. A participatory approach of understanding the farmers needs about different variety traits and identifying specific varieties have played a commendable role for wider acceptance and in accelerating the adoption of improved chickpea varieties. In the array, there are some primary databased studies, which go deeper to farm size classes and cross compare the situation. A study by Kumar (1993) examined problems of pulse production in Uttar Pradesh for different categories of farmers. He concluded that the small and marginal farmers are great sufferers, because they have to market their surplus immediately after harvesting at low prices due to weak financial position. The primary databased studies by Tuteja (1986, 1992 and 1999) relate to the problems of pulse production in Haryana in dry and irrigated districts ofBhiwani and Ambala. Historically, pulse crops enj oyed a place of pride in the crop pattern ofHaryana by indicating 30.16 per cent of the gross cropped area in 1964-65. With the increase in irrigation facilities and introduction of high yielding variety cereals, area under pulses has come down to 7.53% of GCA in 1995-96. But, the state of Haryana has tremendous and immense scope for increasing area under pulses. This, however, would be possible only if the existing available improved technology is extended to the farmers for adoption on a wider scale; both in rain fed and irrigated conditions. The results offarm level data showed that the productivity of pulses in Haryana is much above the all India level that was 938 kglha. Gram is much ahead of other pulses in terms of yield. But, it is much below the potential yield. The adoption of improved seeds was found poor and covered merely, 25.35% of pulse acreage during 1999. The major constraints in popularizing pulse technology are lack of information, non-availability of improved seeds, lack of adequate irrigation facilities, uncertainty of rainfall and unfavourable economics of pulse production. The progress of the National Pulses Development Programme in Haryana is very
14
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
slow because the coverage of the programme in terms of pulse producers is limited and insignificant. It is being implemented through the usual Government channels without involving the farmers at the grass root levels. The efforts of the state are also lacking, as proper attention is not paid to crucial components such as improved seeds, rhyzobium culture and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) demonstrations. In a nutshell, the state does not give due priority to this programme and that is why it is neither properly monitored nor evaluated. The case of Punjab (2000) regarding pulse production is depressing and causes great concern. A status enjoyed by pulses (14.55% ofGCA) during 1964-65 has totally vanished by indicating only 1.24% ofGCA in 1996-97 allotted to these nutritive and soil fertility saving legumes. An attempt is now being made to popularize summer moong and inter-cropping of arhar. The adoption of improved technology by farmers in Ludhiana was found impressive but it was not true for Firozpur. The study highlighted unfavourable economics ofpulse crops cultivation in comparison to their competing crops. The price spread was significantly high. The impact of the National Pulses Development Programme/Technology Mission was not visible in pulse farming in Punjab. Dey and Banerjee (1991) in their study on West Bengal revealed that area under pulses is declining and it was being shifted to competing crops such as oilseeds. They also highlighted that producer's share in the consumer's rupee was higher in case of gram than other pulses on sample farms. But, gross returns were found the highest on large farms. For massar, small farmers were ahead of others. Khesari gave the lowest returns but again large farmers enjoyed the benefit. A study conducted at the National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research by Pant (1995) examined various dimensions ofthe problem of pulse production in Madhya Pradesh, which is the major pulse growing state in India. The study is based on field survey data covering 10 districts, 20 blocks, 40 villages and 360 farmers from 9 out of 14 agro climatic zones in the state. A wide variation in the yield was reported. However, this analysis
Introduction
15
was carried out for total pulses. The failure of improved varieties was cited as the major constraint in the yield improvement. The author opined that the rising support prices reflect the policy intention to promote pulse crops cultivation, but in the absence of yield growth, it could not work because of low returns. Pulses were not found price responsive because traders take the advantage due to weak marketing structure. It was felt that success in increasing pulse production depends upon a favourable price regime and on technological break through that can help in realization of higher yields. The study by Tripathi (1998) is based on the survey data of 100 farmers in different agro-ecological situations ofUttarakhand region. It deals with the cost structure, gross/net returns and profitability of urad, soybean, French bean, horse-gram, rajma and arhar in Uttarakhand. The production function analysis was used to estimate the relationship between dependent and independent variables. The gross returns of pulse crops depended on cost of human labour, bullock labour, cost of seed and manure, size of operational holding and number of family workers. It was observed that the marketing surplus of pulses was very low in this region. The author recommended that popularizing improved variety seeds, water management and plant protection measures could provide immediate results in terms of increased pulse production. The importance of life saving irrigation to pulse crops especially in rabi season was highlighted and the author emphasized the need to tap, conserve and recycle scarce run-off water for increasing and stabilizing production of pulses in the area. The marketing infrastructure was inadequate and ineffective. The malpractices, illegal charges, higher taxes and high rate ofwhole seller's commission in regulated markets resulted in lower share of the producer. The effective and honest supervision, development of transportation and communication could help in boosting pulse production in Uttrakhand region. Gupta (2001) carried out a coordinated study on pulses for Agriculture Economics Research Centre by covering 13 states. Two diverse districts with highest acreage under pulses and with low acreage were selected for the field survey in each state. The
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
16
study was based on both primary as well as secondary sources of data. By using secondary data, it was again proved that India is the largest producer of pulses in the world (around 25% of production) however; the productivity was found to be one of the lowest (595 kg/ha) in the world during 1997-98. Among the Indian states, Madhya Pradesh accounted for 21.45% of the total area under pulses and 23.50% share in the country's production. The highest productivity of pulses was observed in Haryana (1002 kg/ha). The area under pulses declined in Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal. But, a reversal in the trend was observed in Andhra Pradesh, Guj arat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, however, growth of productivity was found very slow even in these states. The economics of pulses was found unfavourable in comparison to their competing crops. Most of the farmers sold their market surplus during the harvesting season and a minimum quantity was retained for the sale in the lean season to fetch higher prices. The impact of the National Pulses Development Programme was not found visible on cultivation of pulses. The usefulness of this study lies in its wide canvass, which can help in policy initiatives for the different locations. Strengthening the analytical part could enhance the utility of the study. To sum up, the main findings of the above-mentioned comprehensive and micro level studies suggest that: (i)
The adoption of high yielding varieties of wheat in rabi and paddy in kharif is responsible for the ar:a shift from pulses to superior cereals in irrigated areas. Oil seeds compete for pulse area in un-irrigated regions. Traditionally, they are grown on low productivity marginal lands. But, now pulses are finding new niches and they are shifting from traditional areas to new destinations on rain fed lands. As a result, the area under pulses has increased in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kamataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.
(ii)
The state level trends of area, prod'.lction and yield indicated that pulses suffered more on the yield front.
Introduction
(iii)
17
The growth of pulse area in the past was influenced more by non-price factors such as rainfall due to being rain fed in nature.
(iv) Input use for pulse cultivation is very low and improved technology has not picked up even in agriculturally advanced states. (v)
Increased prices of pulses could not boost area due to low profitability vis-a-vis competing crops and hence, price response of pulses was found weak.
(vi) The Indian pulses are internationally not competitive. (vii) Demand and supply gap is wide. (viii) Hardly any attempts are made to develop area specific improved varieties. (ix)
Small and marginal farmers received very little support.
Most of the secondary databased studies used supply response model of the Nerlovian type to arrive at the results. There are a few studies, which made use of profit function, factor analysis and Tobit model and decomposition analysis to prove their hypotheses. A critical assessment of the research reviewed highlights that the acreage has received adequate attention from various scholars. But, productivity, which is the main casualty in boosting production of pulses, has not received the deserved focus in their studies. The same is true for technology aspects as well. There is lack of studies on monitoring aspect of the National Pulses Development Programme/Technology Mission. Indeed, problems differ from state to state and crop to crop and the factors affecting pulse production vary from region to region.
Significance of Study The major emerging issues concerning stagnant pulse production relate to sluggishness in the growth of area and yield of various pulse crops grown in India. Regional and district level variations in the production is an important issue. In particular, inter regional
18
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
variations in technology and yield gaps are emerging issues of great concern. The status of technological change is less explored area in research. Scholars have paid scant attention to the study of the domestic and international competitiveness of pulse crops. For improving pulse production in the country, policy makers need comprehensive analysis of the issues along with facts for taking initiatives. So far, this information is not available at one place for the recent period and the current study is an attempt in this direction. The present study on pulse production of India is expected to make several departures from the existing literature. The broad objective is to parameterize as far as possible the price and nonprice determinants of pulse production in India and to analyse important ones in detail. In the process, conscious efforts are made to contribute to the literature in four distinct ways. First, the previous literature used supply response and other regression mod~ls for determining the factors influencing pulse production. The present study would take an integrated approach by combining domestic and international concerns together. The efforts are made to capture the issues relating to pulse production at all India, state, district and farm levels. Second, the study also analyses lesser important pulse crops in terms of production and area coverage instead of focusing on gram and arhar only. Third, since international prices are bound to influence pulse supply scenario in India, efforts are made to include current features of international trade in pulses. Finally, an added weightage is given to the status of technological change among the non-price determinants of pulse production. In a nutshell, a modest attempt is made to move towards a total perspective on the subject of pulse production and to put it in a more rigorous format by bring in numerical computations.
Objectives of Study The stagnation in the production of pulses is a serious problem in India. The broad objective of this study is to examine the key determinants of pulse production in some detail during the period 1980-81 to 2001-02. It seeks:
Introduction
19
(i)
to examine the growth performance of important pulse crops in terms of area, production and yield during the reference period at the all India and state levels;
(ii)
to measure the magnitude of instability in area, production and yield of important pulse crops;
(iii) to estimate the contribution of price and non-price factors in determining acreage and yield of selected pulse crops in the core states; (iv) to analyse district level status of pulse production in major growing states; (v)
to examine the impact of price on production of pulse crops;
(vi) to study the adoption of technology for pulse crops at the state and farm size levels; (vii) to examine the domestic competitiveness of pulse crops vis-a-vis competing crops and; (viii) to examine the international competitiveness of the Indian pulses.
Hypotheses Based on the survey ofthe existing literature and the objectives of this study outlined above, it is proposed to test the following hypotheses: (i)
Pulse production performance in India is poor due to low growth of acreage and yield in the study period.
(ii)
The non-price factors are more important than relative prices in acreage allocation to pulse crops by farmers.
(iii) Yield of pulse crops is influenced by fertilizer consumption and rainfall. (iv) Pulse production is responsive to output/input prices. (v) The adoption of technology for pulse crops at state and farm size levels is slow due to small proportion of cropped area covered by improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides.
20
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
(vi) The domestic competitiveness of pulse crops is poor due to lower profitability of pulse crops in comparison to competing crops. (vii) International competitiveness ofthe Indian pulses is low in terms of conventional as well as alternate indices.
Research Methodology The research methodology used in the analysis of set objectives differs for each part of the study depending upon the availability of information and suitability of statistical technique in facilitating the discussion. The study is confined to five major pulse crops (gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar), which constitute 85% of the country's pulse production. The analysis has been carried out at the macro level covering a period of two decades beginning from 198081 to 2001-02. The entire period is sub-divided into two periods. The first period relates to the eighties (1980-81 to 1990-91) and second to the nineties (1990-91 to 2001-02). These sub-periods represent pre- and post-reform periods. The cut off point of 199091 has strategic significance, as pulse crops were included in the Technology Mission (TM) during this year. The study is based on secondary data. The main sources of data have been government publications and field-based studies. The data and methodology used for each aspect is narrated below.
Growth Performance and Instability For estimating the compound growth rates of individual pulse crops in terms of area, production and yield at the state and all India levels, semi-log functions have been used. For measurement of instability indices, Coppock's (1962) methodology oflog variance was adopted. The state-wise time series data on area, production and yield of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses from 1980-81 to 1997-98 were gathered from various issues of "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India", a Government of India publication. The information for the remaining period was collected from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics. The
Introduction
21
farm size evidences are drawn from input surveys, cultivation practices in India and field-based studies.
Acreage Response and Yield Response The Nerlovian modified model of distributed lags has been used for identifying the factors influencing acreage of considered pulses in the major growing states. The current year acreage was regressed on lagged year acreage, lagged year relative farm harvest price, lagged year relative yield, pre-sowing rainfall, yield risk and price risk for the referred pulse crops in the leading states. It is essential to mention that technology related variables could not be included in the model due to non-availability of data. Even, increasing value for time (1, 2, 3, 4 ... n, years) does not seem appropriate as a proxy for technology because there is lack of knowledge about the speed of technological change in pulse cultivation. One-year lag was used in acreage, yield and price assuming that the previous year's acreage; yield and prices influence the decision on acreage allocation for the current year. The required data were once again obtained from above referred sources in addition to various issues of"Statisticai Abstract of India" published by the Government of India. The separate yield response function was estimated for gram in Madhya Pradesh by using data on value productivity as dependent variable and expenditure on fertilizer, seed and rainfall as independent variables. Normally, yield function should include percentage of cropped area under improved seeds. Unfortunately, data on this aspect are not available for pulse crops. The information on time series data on the above variables was collected from the reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). This exercise could not be undertaken for arhar, moong, urad and massar due to non-availability of time series data for any of the major growing states.
District-level Status of Pulse Production After examining the broad perspective of pulse production at the all India and state levels, status of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses at the disaggregated district level is analysed in
22
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
major growing states, The district-wise data on area, production, yield and coverage of irrigation under gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses were obtained from the statistical abstracts of various states. In some cases "District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India" (2003), was used for gathering relevant data. The information on farm harvest prices of gram and arhar for the study period was culled out from "Farm Harvest Prices in India". The coverage of districts is spread to the extent that all districts, which contributed more than one per cent to the state's total production of a particular crop, were included in the analysis. The available statistical abstracts of major growing states were used for data collection but their years were not found uniform. Still, most of the data used in the analysis relate to the year 1998-99 but in exceptional cases information on earlier years was used due to non-availability oflater documents. The coefficients of variation of included variables were measured in order to estimate the degree ofvariability across the districts.
Output Response of Price The main purpose of this exercise is to estimate the influence of own prices on pulse production. For better understanding of the price scenario, trends, variability, growth and inter year changes in the whole sale, farm harvest, retail and minimum support prices of five referred pulse crops were measured for the two sub-periods and the entire study period. The semi-log functions were used for estimation. Since, agricultural prices are known for seasonality component, monthly indices were worked out in wholesale prices in major markets of the core states through deviations from the mean value for 1981, 1991 and 2001. Further, production response of prices of individual pulse crops was estimated through methodology used by Raj Krishna and Raychaudhri (1980). Accordingly, responsiveness of prices to production was measured by estimating separate elasticities of acreage and yield, which were clubbed together to arrive at the output response. The price indices used in the calculation were farm harvest price indices deflated by
Introduction
23
input price indices. This was purposively done because farmers are also sensitive to input prices. For moong, urad and massar, farm harvest prices are not available and therefore wholesale prices in the harvesting months were used as a proxy. The data on prices were culled out from "Agricultural Prices in India" and "Farm Harvest Prices in India". The time series data on input price indices were obtained from the reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) of the year 2003.
Adoption of Technology An examination of the adoption oftechnology, its background and farmers' experiences fulfilled this objective. At the outset, a review of initiatives taken by the Government for promotion and transfer of improved technology in pulse cultivation based on information obtained from plan documents and booklets of Technology Mission on Oil seeds and Pulses (TMOP) was presented. This was followed by yield gap indices of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar computed on the basis of potential yield measured by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (lCAR) on demonstration plots. The analysis of the use of technology enhancing inputs by farmers at the state and farm size levels is based on "Input Survey" data (1976-77 and 1991-92) and "Cultivation Practices in India" (2000). It is essential to mention that "Input Survey", 1991-92 is the latest available comprehensive data on use of fertilizer, manure and pesticides for gram and arhar cultivation by states and farm sizes. However, yield and adoption of improved varieties are the most important missing links in these data. The second aspect is partially taken care of through utilising the data collected by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) in 1998 but the first remained untouched despite its overwhelming importance. Further, an effort is made to identify the factors influencing adoption of technology for pulse cultivation by regressing state-wise percentage of pulse area under improved variety seeds on the percentage of Gross Cropped Area (GCA) under pulse crops, percentage of irrigated area, percentage of pulse area fertilized, manured and covered by pesticides and tractor use. Before concluding the discussion,
24
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
farmers' experiences in terms of benefits of improved technology and their suggestions to popularize are analysed on the basis of field studies.
Domestic Competitiveness The domestic competitiveness of considered five pulse crops is judged on the basis of relative profitability of competing crops in three major producing states for which three points of time data were available from the reports ofthe Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). The competing crops considered for gram were wheat and mustard whereas bajra and j owar were found appropriate for arhar, moong and urad. For massar, gram and mustard were used as alternate crops. The profitability per unit of land and net returns per rupee on investment were computed for the selected pulse crops on operational cost and after inclusion of fixed cost. In the gross returns, value of main as well as by-product was added while in operational cost, expenditure on human labour, bullock labour, machine labour, seed, fertilizer, manures, pesticides, irrigation and interest an working capital were included. In the fixed cost, rental value of owned land, rent paid for leased in land, land revenue and taxes, depreciation and interest on the fixed capital were added. The analysis is carried out for gram (Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan), arhar (Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra), moong (Andhra Pradesh & Maharashtra), urad (Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh) and massar (Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh) at three points of time but massar is excluded from the analysis for first two points of time due to non-availability of data. It is essential to mention that availability of three points of time data has been the major limitation in selection of states. Owing to this difficulty, first ranking state in terms of production of arhar and moong could not be analysed.
International Competitiveness ofIndian Pulses With gradual liberalizion of the economy after the initiation of economic reforms in 1991, agricultural markets are slowly getting
Introduction
25
integrated with the global market. In the current scenario, international trade and prices of commodities have become another factor influencing crop choices of the farmers. Therefore, a study of international competitiveness has become essential for understanding the production prospects of various agricultural commodities. This study has attempted to measure international competitiveness of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar in conventional framework by computing Nominal Protection Coefficients (NPCs), Effective Protection Coefficients (EPCs) and Effective Subsidy Coefficients (ESCs) as well as alternate indices exhibiting social cost in the form of Domestic Resource Cost Ratios (DRCRs) of individual pulse crops. For understanding the overall perspective of pulse trade, important related aspects are also analysed. The international data on trade and production were obtained from FAO Production and Trade Year Books whereas information on pulse exports and imports was gathered from "Foreign Trade Statistics" (2002). The data required for calculating the Domestic Resource Cost Ratios (DRCRs) particularly, information on opportunity cost of inputs going into the production of pulse crops was obtained from the reports of the "Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices".
Plan of Study The study is divided into nine chapters. Chapter-I is introductory in nature. It outlines the problem of stagnation in pulse production in India and emphasises necessity for finding out an early and appropriate solution. This chapter also reviews the existing literature on the subject and identifies the need for undertaking research on pulse production in an integrated manner. In addition, it lists the objectives and hypotheses of the study and touches upon the methodology besides the chapter scheme. Chapter-II presents an overview of pulse economy of India. It highlights the importance of pulses vis-a-vis other vegetable protein foods and net availability along with demand-study gap of pulses in India. This is followed by performance of pulses in comparison to wheat, rice and total food grains. This chapter also gives an idea
26
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
about the pulses development strategy adopted by the Government during the plan period. Chapter - III analyses the production performance of major pulses growing states during the study period with a special emphasis on instability problem. It also attempts to identifY the determinants of pulse production in terms of acreage by using the Nerlovian model of distributed lags and of yield by using the regression model. Chapter - N of the study aims to bring out inter-district variations in area, production and yield of major pulse crops in core producing states. Chapter - V presents the impact of prices on pulse production in India and core producing states besides analysing the trends and variability in wholesale, retail, farm harvest and minimum support prices during the study period. It also looks into yearly changes and seasonality aspects. Chapter - VI deals with adoption of technology in the context of pulse production. It describes the Government's strategy for the transfer and promotion of technology through Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses. It throws light on adoption of technology at state and farm size levels and examines the use of improved variety seeds, consumption of pesticides and fertilizer. The farmer's experiences and suggestions also find a place at the end of this chapter. Domestic competitiveness of pulse crops is the central theme of Chapter - VII. It examines profitability of major pulse crops visa-vis competitive crops in three important pulse growing states at three different points of time, i.e., early 1980s, early 1990s and the recent period. Chapter - VIII examines international competitiveness of the Indian pulses in conventional as well as alternative framework. It also provides information about trade related issues such as magnitude of imports and exports as well as their composition. Chapter - IX presents salient findings ofthe study in an integrated manner. This is followed by policy implications, which include recommendations and suggestions to tackle the problem of stagnant pulse production in India.
Chapter 2
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
Pulses are a wonderful gift of nature as they provide nutrition to human beings and animals. Pulse cultivation improves soil health by fixing nitrogen. Their importance as a source of protein for masses in India is well recognized and therefore, their production and availability assume special significance for the nutritional security of the people. However, pulse production in the country is stagnating due to long standing problems. This disturbs nutritional balance of the population especially of poor and weaker sections who cannot afford expensive animal proteins. The literature survey presented in the previous chapter has revealed that four decades old strategy for increased pulse production in India did not yield desired results vis-a-vis its objectives. While Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses (TMOP) has achieved some success so far as oil seeds are concerned, results in terms of increasing efficiency of pulse production in the country are not encouraging. Hence, there is an urgent need of further research to provide constructive suggestions. In this context, it is important to understand the macro issues, which help in framing pragmatic policies for improving pulse production in the country. Keeping this purpose in mind, this chapter seeks to examine the important aspects related to pulse growth from a broad perspective at the all India level. This chapter is organized as follows. Section-l briefly describes the importance of pulses vis-a-vis other vegetable proteins and their availability in India. Section - 2 provides a broader view ofproduction related aspects while Section - 3 examines the status of India in
28
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
the world pulse production and trade. Finally, Section - 4 focuses on developmental strategies followed in the past to boost pulse production in the country.
Section -1 Importance and Availability of Pulses Importance of Pulses vis-a-vis Other Vegetable Protein Foods At the outset, it would be useful to examine the chemical composition of various pulses and other vegetable protein foods, which can be substitt.ted for pulses. This would help in understanding the relative nutritive value of pulses. The importance of pulses becomes more prominent when chemical composition of major pulses vis-a-vis important cereals and oilseeds is examined. Table 2.1 indicates that each variety of pulse crops has much higher protein content in comparison to wheat, bajra, barley, jowar, maize and ragi. The difference is as wide as more than three times in case of soyabean and wheat. Similarly, rice stands nowhere when compared to any of the pulses. Among pulses, highest protein content is found in soyabean (43.2 gms) followed by lentil (25.1 gms) per 100 gms of grain. Although, all varieties of oil seeds such as ground nut, linseed and mustard are rich in protein content but these cannot be consumed in large quantities due to high content of fats. In addition, some of the pulses contain higher content of fibres, which are often recommended by doctors for controlling heart diseases. The essential components of balanced nutritional food are protein, calcium, fats, fibres and phosphorus. Pulses are equally rich in carbohydrates but rank below rice and wheat. Unlike cereals, pulses like horse gram and Bengal gram are rich source of calcium. The highest calcium content is found in horse gram (287 mg) followed by soybean (240 mg) per 100 gms. Soybean, field bean and cowpea exhibit higher content of phosphorous in comparison to wheat and rice but oil seeds are also rich in this regard. Soybean, lentil and peas contain good content of
29
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
iron. Although, groundnut, mustard and linseed contain higher calories, consumption of pulses also provides more than 300 calories. In a nutshell, pulses are much superior to cereals and oil seeds in terms of protein, fibres, calcium, iron and phosphorous which are considered essential for nutritional security of population in India. Table 2 1 Chemical Composition of Pulses, Major Food grains and Oils('eds in India (Value/IOO g of edible portion)
Items
Protein"
Fat Fibre Crude
Carbon hydrate
CalClum (mg)
Phos- Iron phorus (mg) (mg)
Calories Kcal
Bengal gram
17.1
5.3
3.9
60.9
202
312
4.6
360
Black gram
24.0
1.4
0.9
59.6
154
385
3.8
347
Cowpea
24 I
0.7
3.8
54.5
77
414
8.6
323
Field bean
24.9
0.8
1.4
60.1
60
433
2.7
347
Green gram
24.0
J.3
4.1
56.7
124
326
4.4
334
Horse gram
22.0
0.5
5.3
57.2
287
311
6.77
321
Lentil
25.1
o7
0.7
59.0
69
293
7.58
343
Peas
197
I I
4.5
56.5
75
298
7.05
315
Red gram
22.3
1.7
1.5
57.6
73
304
3 7
335
Soybean
43.2
19.5
3.7
20.9
240
690
10.4
432
Bajra
11.6
5.0
1.2
67.5
42
296
8.0
361
Barley
11.5
J.3
3.9
69.6
26
215
1.67
336
Jowar
104
I 9
1.6
726
25
222
4.1
349
Maize
II.I
3.6
2.7
66.2
10
348
2.3
342
Ragi
7.3
J.3
3.6
72.0
344
283
3.9
328
Rice
8.5
0.6
00
77.4
10
280
2.8
349
Sanwa
62
2 2
9.8
65.5
20
280
5.0
307
Wheat
11.8
1.5
12
71 2
41
306
5.3
346
Groundnut
25.3
40.1
3.1
26.1
90
350
2.5
567
Linseed
20.3
37.1
4.8
i
28 9
170
370
27
530
Mustard
20.0
39.7
1.8
I
23.8
490
700
7.9
• N x 625 Source: Gopalan, Ramasastry and Subramanium, 1999
I
541 I
.J
30
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Net Availability of Pulses In common parlance, the term 'dal roti' denotes a poorman's diet. In recent years, it has begun to sound inapt. For pulses have the dubious distinction of being the single major food item that has declined sharply in terms of net availability. The per capita availability of pulses, the major source of protein for Indians, has fallen by less than half since independence. This is despite India's success in production of wheat and rice. The average per capita availability of wheat and rice together has increased appreciably during this period. The per capita availability of total cereals which .\vas 334.2 gms/ day in 1951 hasrisent0417.3,468.5, 390.9 gms/dayin 1981, 1991 and 2005 respectively. Unfortunately, it has reached to below 1961 level in 2005. In case of pulses, it has drastically fallen from 60.7 gms/day per capita in 1951 to 37.5 gms in 1981,41.6 gms in 1991 and 31.5 gms in 2005. In brief, per capita per day net availability of pulses is woefully lower even after liberal imports. The requiremet for pulses as per physiological norms set by the Indian Council of Medical Research is 43 gms/day per capita (Table 2.2). The Planning Commission has revised this norm to 40 gms/day per capita in view of increasing consumption of other dietary proteins. The current net availability however is much below these norms. This is the consequence of rising population and stagnant pulse production over the past four decades. The long drawn stagnation in production of pulses is likely to reduce per capita availability of this protein rich food in future unless huge imports are resorted to or steps are taken to enhance production of pulses in India.
31
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View Table 2.2
Net Availability of Pulses in India (1951 to 2005) (gmS/day/caplta) Rice
I
I
Year
Gram
Total Pulses
1951
22.5
60.7
158.9
65.7
109 6
1961
30.2
69.0
201.1
79.1
119.5399.7
1971 20.0 51.2 1---19-8-1----+--1-3-4-+-37.5
192.6 J 197.8
Wheat
1036
I 1296
>---1-9-9-1---+--13'-.4--+-4-1-.6--- pzTTT-1'66
I
200 I
8.0
30 0
2002
10.7
35.0
2003
8.3
2004
11.2
2005
10.6
190.5 I
r-------+----+---~
Other I Cereals
Total
334.2
i
1214 89.9
I
56.2
386.2
64.7
457.3
i
4176 4173l
8~-800~8.5l
135.8
I 228.1
164.4
29.1
183.4
181.4
44.7
408.
35.8
1954
162.2
69.3
426.9
31.5
177.3
154.3
59.4
390.9
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Table 2.3
Share of Food Expenditure on Pulses and Substitute Items in India (1972-73 to 1999-2000) (%) NSS Round
1972-73 (27"'Round) 1977-78 (32'" Round) 1983 (3 gtb Round)
Share of Share of Food Share of Food Food expenExpenditure Expenditure diture in Total on Food grains on Pulses Consumption
Rural
Urban
Rural
72.9
64.5
64.3
65.6
Share of total Food Expen diture on Milk, Meat, Eggs & Fish
Urban
Rural
Urban Rural
46.0
27.1
6.87
5.68
13.44
19.53
60.0
37.3
24.5
6.81
6.45
16.17
21.67
59.1
36.3
22.9
5.40
5.75
16.01
21.66
Urban
(Contd.)
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
32 Table 2.3 (Contd.)
Share of Food expenditure in Total Consumption
NSS Round
Share of Food Expenditure on Food grains
Share of Food Expenditure on Pulses
Share of total I Food Expen- I diture on Milk. Meat. Eggs & Fish
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
64.0
56.4
30.6
18.7
6.93
6.38
18.59
23.23
1993-94 (50th Round)
63.2
54.7
28.3
17.3
6.18
5.84
20.25
24.13
1999-00 (55th Round)
59.4
48.1
26.2
15.3
6.57
6.14
20.37
I 24.551
1987-88 (43 nl Round)
Urban Rural
Urban
I
Source: Report No 454, National Sample Survey OrganisatIon, 2003.
In these circumstances, poor are at a greater disadvantage because they cannot afford expensive animal protein substitutes like milk, eggs, meat, etc. They may try to substitute cereals for pulses, which are a poor source of protein. The issue assumes special significance in view of declining availability of pulses and increasing availability of cereals. But, for a balanced diet, pulse proteins are essential due to other rich components. The whole scenario of net availability of pulses causes serious concern in the country. This should be viewed seriously from the point of security and quality of food especially for the poor and the rural population. The information on per capita net availability is not representative of actual level of consumption in the country because these estimates do not take into account any change in stocks in possession of traders, producers and consumers. The household consumption data on varicus agricultural products by income groups are available in the reports of National Sample Survey Organization. The analysis of details is beyond the scope of this study. Nonetheless, it would be useful to provide an overview of changing share of food expenditure on protein items.
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
33
An examination of data on proportion of expenditure on food grains, pulses and their substitutes may provide some insights into the changing pattern of food basket of population (Table 2.3). A major change that has now come to the forefront is the lower share oftotal consumption on food with declining share of food expenditure on food grains in urban as well as in rural areas. The share of pulses in food expenditure has declined marginally in rural areas between 1972-73 and 1999-2000 but it has increased in urban areas from 5.68 per cent to 6.l4 per cent during the same period. The share of protein foods such as milk, meat, eggs and fish has increased in food expenditure. It has increased from 13.44 per cent to 20.37 per cent of total food expenditure in rural areas and from 19.53 per cent to 24.53 per cent in urban areas. It could be due to rising incomes and preference for variety in nutritive food with rising availability.
Demand and Supply Gap The review of literature indicates that production of pulses in India has remained below the estimated demand during the past decades. Some of the studies have estimated demand and supply gap of pulses based on domestic production. The projected results varied due to difference in methodology followed by different researchers. Chopra and Swamy (1975) had estimated the demand for pulses in India as 14.3 million tonnes (effective demand) to 17.8 million tonnes (nutritional minimum) during 1980-81. The National Commission on Agriculture (NCA) (1976) had projected the consumer demand for pulses as 14.83 to 17.73 million tonnes in 1985 and 20.70 to 24.70 million tonnes in 2000. These projections are based on a very high per capita requirement of pulses. The Indian Council of Medical Research has recommended an average requirement of 43 gms/ day per capita considering the increasing consumption of other dietary proteins like milk, eggs, etc. The Planning Commission has suggested that availability of 40 gms/day per capita would be sufficient to meet the dietary protein requirement in India. Taking into account lower recommendations, results are not encouraging. Bhushan and Sobti (1992) and Narayanmurthy (2000) had projected
34
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
demand and supply gap of pulses for the period 1994-95 to 200102. According to them, requirement of pulses as per physiological norms at the rate 43 gms/day per capita after including 12.50 per cent for feed, seed and wastage worked out to be around 20 million tonnes indicating a supply deficit of more than 5 million tonnes. The Tenth Plan estimates about demand for pulses in India are based on extrapolation of per capita income of Rs. 1585 for the year 1999-2000 till the terminal year of the lOth plan, assuming a growth rate of 4. 7 per cent at constant prices, which stands as the actual growth rate in per capita income achieved since 1994-95. A time series of domestic availability was estimated as production plus imports for the period 2001-02 to 2006-07. The consumption for the terminal year of the 9th Plan viz, 2001-02 was extrapolated using a linear trend equation, which gave the trend consumption for the year 2001-02 as 15.17 million tonnes. This for a population of 1027 million translated into 14.68 kg/capita/year of pulses including the requirement for seed, feed and wastage at 12.5 per cent. This per capita consumption was extrapolated for all the five years of lOth Plan taking income elasticity of consumption at 0.62. The estimates for demand for pulses for various years of 10th Plan were obtained by multiplying estimated per capita consumption with the projected population. The total demand for pulses for 2006-07 was worked out at 19.24 tonnes (table 2.4). In view of domestic availability, each year showed a gap of more than 3 million tonnes between demand and supply. The estimated availability of pulses after including imports was also found much lower than the demand. Hence, there is an urgent need to enhance supply of pulses through increasing domestic production.
Table 2.4 Demand and Supply Gap of Pulses in India (million tonnes)
Year
Projected Populatlon (Million)·
Per Capita Income at 1999-
2000 Price (Rs.) •
Per Capita Demand for Pulses (Kg/ year)*
Demand & Supply Gap on
Total Demand for Pulses Includmg DomeSeed, stlC Feed & WasAva!{; tage· ability (D.A.)
Supply
ImO.; orts
Total
D.A.
Total
2001-02
1033 52
17376
1468
15 17
1172
222
13.94
3.45
1.23
2002-03
1053.16
18193
15 10
15.91
9.71
1.99
11.70
6.20
4.21
2003-04
1073.17
19048
15.55
16.68
13.18
1.72
14.90
3.50
1.78
2004-05
1093.56
19943
1600
17.49
II 46
1.34
12.80
6.03
4.69
2005-06
1114.33
20880
16.46
18.35
11.72
1.61
13.33
6.63
5.02
2006-07
1135 51
21862
1694
1924
1269
NA
-
6.55
-
Source
*
••
**.
Report of the working group on Crop Husbandry, Demand and Supply Projections and Agriculture inputs for the Tenth Five Year Plan, Plannmg Commission, 2001 Domestic Availabihty after deductmg 12.5% on account of seed, feed and wastage Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
36
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
In brief, production of pulses has fallen below the demand in recent years similar to 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The gap was 3.45 million tonnes in 2001-02 and that has accentuated year after year. It has reached to 6.63 million tonnes in 2005-06. Thus, magnitude of demand and actual production gap is anticipated to widen gradually in future. At present, the country is bridging demand and supply gap through huge imports. The option of importing pulses in the long run does exist (reviewed in Chapter - vnn, but over dependence on international market will bring higher instability in availability ofpulses. Therefore, indigenous solution has to emerge in view of associated problems of procuring pulses from the world market. Further, with population growth at the current rate, gap between demand and domestic production of pulses is expected to rise unless technological breakthrough takes place and production of pulses rises through improvement in yield.
Section- 2 Pulse Production Scenario in India Pulses occupy an important place in the agrarian economy of India. As a result, around 11 % of cultivated area was devoted to these crops in the year 2001-02. There are states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kamataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, which allocated more than 10% of gross cropped area to pulse crops. The corresponding percentages of GCA allocated to these crops were 19.50%, 16.13%, 15.52%, 15.11%, 13.11 %, 12.85% and 10.13% respectively. The main reason for high share of pulses in crop mix of these states could be that larger proportions of cultivable areas are rainfed and devoid of assured irrigation facilities, which force farmers to take up pulse cultivation. In contrast, irrigated states like Punjab and Haryana accorded low priority to these protein rich crops and devoted as little as 0.79% and 2.22% ofGCA despite knowing their capability in improving soil health and sustainability of agriculture. They are neglected to the extent that only 12.5% of pulse area in the country is covered by irrigation. Punjab followed by Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya
37
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir showed more than 10% of pulse area as irrigated. Considering the importance of improving pulse yield through technological change, these percentages appear to be very low. Table 2.5 State-wise Percentage of GCA and Area Irrigated under Pulses State
Percentage of GCA (2001-02)
% Irrigated
iI
(1999-00)
Andhra Pradesh
15.11
1.01
Arunachal
1.86
Assam
2.84
-
Bihar
8.88
2.2
GUjarat
6.90
8.7
Haryana
2.22
37.7
Himachal Pradesh
3.69
18.7
Jammu & Kashmir
2.66
15.4
Karnataka
15.52
3.9
Keraia
0.80
-
Madhya Pradesh
19.50
26.4
Maharashtra
16.13
7.5
Orissa
8.05
4.6
Punjab
0.79
74.9
Rajasthan
12.85
16.1
Tamil Nadu
13.11
8.8
Uttar Pradesh
10.13
22.9
West Bengal
2.87
-
India
11.17
12.5
Source: Computed from Data on GCA and Irrigated Area, Directorate of
Economics and Statistics, 2004.
38
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Relative Performance of Pulse Crops An examination of macro level performance of pulses in terms of
growth in area, production and yield vis-a-vis important cereals and food grains (Table 2.6) reveals that cereals production in India registered a compound growth rate of 2.81 % per annum between 1949-50 and 2002-03. It is largely contributed by a spectacular growth in the production of wheat and rice, which grew at the rate of 5.19% and 2.62% per annum, whereas it was just 0.51% for pulses. Clearly, cereals production kept pace with the growth in population but pulses lagged behind, as growth in pulses production was extremely low. A look at the compound growth rates of area under different crops presents some interesting facts. The growth rates of area under wheat, rice, cereals and pulses for the period 1949-50 to 2006-07 varied between a range of 0.08% and 0.68% per annum except for wheat where it was 1.91%. However, growth rate of yield per hectare of these crops differed widely. It was 2.91 %, 1.85% and 2.00% for wheat, rice and total cereals but only 0.49% for pulses. Evidences in literature indicate (Acharya; 1988) that technological, price and institutional support for cereals and the lack of similar efforts for the pulses seems to be the major reason for these differential growth rates. There has been a progressive rise in the irrigated area under food grains during the past decades. It has increased from 18.1 % of sown area in 1951 to 43.9% in 1999-2000. But, pulses continue to be grown under rainfed conditions. The extent of irrigated area under total pulses over different points of time for the period 195051 to 2005-2006 is given in Table 2.7. Around 86.5% of the total area under pulses remained un-irrigated. As against 42% irrigated area under food grains, only l3.5% of the total area under pulses was irrigated in 2003-04.
39
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View Table 2.6 Compound Growth Rates of Area, Production, Yield of Rice, Wheat, Cereals, Pulses and Food grains in India (1949-50 to 2006-07) with (Base:TE 1981-82=100) (% Per annum) Crop
Area
Production
Yield
Rice
0.68
2.54
1.85
Wheat
1.91
4.88
2.91
Total Cereals
0.33
2.70
2.00
Pulses
0.08
0.54
0.49
Total Food -grains
0.28
2.35
1.75
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Table 2.7 Relative Performance of Pulses in India (1950-51 to 2005-06) Year
Ratio of Pulse Produetion to that of Food grains
Ratio of Pulse yield to that of Food gains
0.17 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.08
0.84
~80-81
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18
1990-91
0.19
0.08
0.75 0.68 0.60 0.46 0.41
1999-00
0.17
0.06
0.33
2001-02
0.18
0.06
0.35
433
13.0
2002-03
0.19
0.06
0.33
43.2
13.5
I
Ratio of Pulse Area to that of Food grains
1950-51 1960-61 1964-65 1970-71
% of Irrigated Area
to Cropped Area
Food grains
Pulses
18.1 19.1 20.2 24.1 29.7 35 I
9.9 8.0 9.2 8.8 9.0 10.5
43.9
16.1
2003-04
o 19
0.07
0.37
42.2
13.5
2004-05
0.19
0.07
0.35
NA
NA
2005-06
0.18
0.06
0.34
NA
NA
I I
Source: Ibid
This shows that pulses are not grown on irrigated lands and
40
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
have not been provided with essential inputs like irrigation. All these developments affected the status of pulses in food grains. This is reflected in the ratio of area, production and yield (Table 2.7). The ratio of area declined marginally over the period of 55 years but a substantial decline in the ratio of production may be noticed. The share of pulses in total food grains production declined from 16.5% in 1950-51 to 6.29% in 2005-06. This is the outcome of slow growth in productivity of pulses. This is evident from the declining ratio of pulses yield to food grains yield which dropped to 0.34 in 2005-06 from its earlier level of 0.84 in 1950-51. Consequently, ratio of pulse production to food grains production also witnessed a declining trend and it stooped to merely 0.06 in 2005-06 from 0.17 in 1950-51. These results reflect the worsening position of pulses in total food grains scenario of India.
Important Pulse Crops India grows around dozen varieties of pulses, which are cultivated in rabi and kharif seasons (Table 2.8). The most important crop of gram is a rabi crop and contributed 31.82% of area and 42.07% to the all India production during 1997-98. The second ranking pulse crop, arhar is primarily grown in kharif and constituted 15.42% of area and 17.44% of production. These two together accounted for nearly 47% of the area and around 60% of the total production of pulses. The next important pulses are moong and urad, which are cultivated in rabi as well as in kharif seasons. Recently, growing of moong in summer has picked up. Although, they accounted for 26% of area but their share in production was nearly 18% due to very low yields. Massar contributed around 6% to area as well as to production. Besides, kulthi, pea, khesari and moth are also grown and their shares in total pulse area were 4.59%,3.39%,3.92% and 5.72% respectively. Their corresponding contribution in the production of total pulses was 3.00%, 5.23%, 3.04% and 2.22% respectively. All these minor crops together accounted for sizeable area but their contribution in production does not match due to very low productivity except pea, which has exhibited the highest yield
41
Pulse Economy of India : A Macro View
rate among the pulse crops. The other minor pulse crops of India include lobia, raj mash, etc which occupied around 3% area but contributed around 2% to production. It is interesting to note that soybean which occupies an important position in the agriculture of many other countries in the world is not widely cultivated as pulse in India. This is also the highest yielding pulse available in the world today. Besides, it contains highest protein content apart from being a source of edible oils. Although, soyabean should be counted among pulses, it is documented as oilseed in government publications on account of its high utility for edible oils extraction in India. For this reason, soyabean is excluded from the analysis. J
The large number of pulse crops has several implications. First, it puts seIious limit to single pulse- based growth strategy for promotion of production in the country. In view oflimited resources available to pulses as a group for research and development, this implies spreading the resources too thinly to various crops and in turn making the effort inconsequential. This may explain the absence of any major thrust in research'on pulses, which is responsible for stagnation in production. Table 2.8 Important Pulse Crops in India (1997-98) Area : '000 Ha Production : 'OOOTonnes Yield : kg/ha
I! Crop Gram Arhar Urad Moong Massar Kulthi Pea Khesari Moth Minor Pulses Total
Area
% Share
Production
% Share
Yield
7168 3471 2920 2997 1304 1034 763 883 1290 692 22525
31.82 15.42 12.96 13 .30 5.79 4.59 3.39 3.92 5.72 3.07 100.00
5557 2304 1341 1096 827 396 691 401 293 302 13208
42 .07 17.44 10 . IS 8.30 6 .26 3.00 5.23 3.04 2 .22 2.29 100.00
775 663 459 365 634 383 905 455 227 580 586
Source: Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1999.
42
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Figure 2.1
Share of Important Pulses in Area
Figure 2.2
Share of Important Pulses in Production Masur
Kulhi
Pulses
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
43
Table 2.9 Three Largest Pulse Producing States in India (1997-98) (0/0) Crop States I ~----------~---------------------------------~I
Gram Arhar Moong Urad Massar Pea Kulthi Moth
Madhya Pradesh (47.75), Uttar Pradesh (15.75),1 Rajasthan (14.04) i Maharashtra(33.48), Uttar Pradesh (19.57), Madhyai Pradesh (12.17) I Maharashtra (20.29), Rajasthan (17.01), Andhra! Pradesh (12.72) I Maharashtra (42.70), Madhya Pradesh (40.79),: Andhra Pradesh (36.58). I Uttar Pradesh (49.46), Madhya Pradesh (24.73), Bihar i (15.05) i Uttar Pradesh (77.39), Madhya Pradesh (8.98),1 Rajasthan (3.09) Kamataka (36.90), Andhra Pradesh (9.77), Madhya Pradesh (9.95) I Rajasthan (89.79), Maharashtra (8.83), Gujarat (2.40)1
I I I
Total
I
Madhya Pradesh (22.90), Uttar Pradesh (18.12), Maharashtra (14.25) I
Source: Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1999.
Apparently, diversity in the number of pulse crops is very high in India. Furthennore, their spatial distribution also varied (Table 2.9). The attention may be drawn to the three largest growing states of each pulse crop alongwith their share in production. It appeared that gram, urad, massar, pea and moth are region specific in nature because a single state grows more than 40% of all India production. Other pulse crops are strictly not region specific in the sense that a cluster of two or three states accounts for bulk of the country's production. This tendency was the strongest for moth because Rajasthan alone grew 89.79% of all India production. Similarly, Uttar Pradesh grew 77.39% of pea. This concentration of spatial distribution has policy implications. It suggests that there is a great need for region-oriented focus in pulse development programmes in India.
44
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Marketed Surplus of Important Pulse Crops It is generally contended that pulses are subsistence crops and therefore, marketed surplus of pulses is very low and insignificant. But, latest available data given in Table 2.10 refute this belief. The weighted average of marketed surplus of each pulse crop in India was a minimum of7 6. 79% of total production. The marketed surplus of gram was above 90% of production in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. It was however, 85.26% in Rajasthan. It could be due to higher requirement for home consumption. Similarly, marketed surplus of moong, urad and massar was also on a higher side. Surprisingly, it was found lowest in case of arhar in Madhya Pradesh, whereas it has exceeded 70% in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. Arhar in Madhya Pradesh is the only exception in this regard as it shows the lowest marketed surplus of 47.04% of production. In brief, overall results of marketed surplus of pulses in major producing states are indicative oflower proportion devoted to self consumption and higher priority accorded to marketing of the produce for commercial gains. Table 2.10 Marketed Surplus of Important Pulses in India (2004-05) (%) Three Important States
Crop
AI/India Weighted Average
Gram
Madhya Pradesh (96.34)
Uttar Pradesh (96.25)
Rajasthan (85.26)
(93.76)
Arhar
Madhya Pradesh (47.04)
Uttar Pradesh (70.32)
Maharashtra (90.42)
(79.52)
Moong
Andhra Pradesh (61.20)
Rajasthan (86.73 )
Maharashtra (77.91 )
(76.79)
Urad
Andhra Pradesh (77.00)
Madhya Pradesh (90.63 )
Maharashtra (88.74)
(85.76)
~assar
Madhya Pradesh (91.92)
Uttar Pradesh (86.01) (73.44)
Bihar
(85.86)
I Note:
,
Brackets show percentage of production as Marketed Surplus based on CACP data.
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
45
Section-3 Status ofIndia in World Pulse Production and Trade Share of India in World Pulse Production India accounted for 30.32% of pulse area and 21.11 % of pulse production in the world during the year 2003. About 55% of the total global chickpea and 36% of lentil area fall in India with corresponding production of 58% and 42% respectively. The other major pulse producing countries are China (9.21 %), Brazil (5.89%) and Canada (5.43%). It may be observed from Table 2.11 that yield variations among the pulse producing countries are very high. The average yield of pulses in the world was 793 kg/ha in the year 2003. The countries with higher yield included France (4,146 kg/ha), the US, (1,803 kg! ha), China (1,507 kg/ha), Canada (1,506 kg/ha), Argentina (1,237 kg/ha) and Australia (1,209 kg/ha). On the other hand, countries such as Niger, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, Myanmar and Pakistan are lagging far behind these countries due to lower yield rates. Unfortunately, India ranks 12th despite having the largest share of world area under pulses.
Exports and Imports of Pulses India has been exporting pulses for a long period but the total quantity exported has been less than one per cent of the total production. In physical terms, quantity of pulses exported from India amounted to 31,000 tonnes in 1966-67,4,000 tonnes in 1967-68, 26,000 tonnes in 1968-69,41,000 tonnes in 1969-70,30,000 tonnes in 1970-71,22,000 tonnes in 1971-72, 15,000 tonnes in 1972-73 and 8,000 tonnes in 1973-74 (Report of National Commission on Agriculture, 1976). Recently, it has reached to 1608.24 thousand tonnes valued at Rs.2346.90 crore in 2005-06.
46
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 2.11 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Producing Countries in the World (2003) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 MT Yield: kglha
Country
Area
Percentage share
Production
Percentage share
Yield
Rank
Niger
3557
4.98
421
0.74
119
15
Nigeria
5120
7.18
2250
3.98
439
14
Canada
2036
2.86
3067
5.43
1506
4
Mexico
2123
2.98
1752
3.10
825
9
Brazil
4148
5.82
3328
5.89
802
10
China
3456
4.85
5208
9.21
1507
3
India
21615
30.32
11933
21.11
552
12
Pakistan
2289
3.21
1064
1.88
465
13
Turkey
1602
2.25
1577
2.79
984
7
France
467
0.66
1935
3.42
4146
I
Australia
2126
2.98
2570
4.55
1209
6
Myanmar
3143
4.40
2792
4.94
888
8
USA
780
1.09
1406
2.49
1803
2
Bangladesh
453
0.64
350
0.62
772
II
Argentina
224
0.31
277
0.49
1 1237
71280
100.00
56520
100.00
World·
• Includes minor producing countries . . Source: FAO Production Year Book, 2003.
I
793
5
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
47
India has been importing pulses since the early 1980s. This was necessitated by the fact that the domestic demand for essential pulses of mass consumption was rising faster than the increase in production. The imports of pulses kept on rising because the country's self sufficiency level has been considerably eroded over the past two decades. Currently, India imports more than 10% of domestic production. It was observed that demand and production gap per year is around five million tonnes. But, the level of actual imports is far less. The annual imports had averaged around two million tonnes in the recent years. In 2001-02, our country imported more than two million tonnes of pulses. It seems that large imports are inevitable in the current production scenario because gap between demand and supply will continue to be quite wide in view of prolonged stagnation in production of pulses. Once an exporter of pulses, India is presently the largest importer of pulses in the world. Pulses are imported on regular basis, because domestic production is chronically short of domestic demand. The crisis of pulses is gradually increasing due to growth in popUlation and introduction of protein-based food industries. There is a need to check pulse import due to associated problems like pulses being integral item of food for the Indian population, scarce availability of pulses in the world market and fear of jacking up prices owing to high quantity demanded by India. Given the domestic compulsions, India should develop indigenous base to fulfil the demand and supply gap. A limited quantity can always be imported at the world price.
48
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 2.12
Exports and Imports of Pulses in India Quantity: '000 tonnes Value: Rs. croTe Unit value: Rs.lkg Year
Imports
Exports Quantity
Value
Per unit price
1980-81
1.09
0.35
3.21
172.96
29.76
1.72
1985-86
0.57
0.46
8.07
431.44
189.06
4.38
1990-91
-
-
-
791.95
473.24
5.98
Quantity
Value
Per uni price
1995-96
61.36
131.81
21.50
485.65
685.55
14.12
2000-01
264.38
537.67
22.00
353.01
502.86
12.69
2001-02
161.98
370.40
22.84
2306.44
3311.54
14.26
2002-03
144.37
337.23
23.35
1992.29
2737.05
13.73
2003-04
153.88
328.60
21.35
1723.33
2284.87
13.26
2004-05
246.38
553.81
22.48
1296.46
1718.64
13.26
2005-06
444.61
1102.62
24.80
1608.24
2346.90
14.59
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Section-4 Pulses Developmental Strategies during Plans
The poor performance of pulse production in India (see Table 2.6) may be attributed to the neglect of pulse crops in the policy for almost one and a half decades after independence. Like wheat and rice crops, there were no specific programmes of pulses development till the Second Five Year Plan. After observing the continuous decline in the output of pulses and yield per hectare, an All-India Coordinated Pulse Research Project (AICPRP) was
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
49
initiated in 1965 during the Third Five Year Plan to undertake a nation wide research effort on pulses with the headquarters at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) along with regional Centres and four sub Centres. A Pulse Development Directorate was established in 1970. A centrally sponsored scheme for increasing production of pulses was initiated in 30 potential districts of the country in 1972-73. The strategy adopted to increase production included seed multiplication and supply of seeds of short duration or improved varieties at subsidized rates, demonstration of improved pulse production practices and supply of plant protection chemicals and equipment at the subsidized rates. But, between 1969-70 and 1973-74, there was no increase in pulse production; rather it decreased from 11.69 million tonnes in 1969-70 to 10.01 million tonnes in 1973-74. The yield per hectare also registered a continuous decrease during this period. Thus, there was no immediate impact of the scheme on the production of pulses. May be that these efforts averted the rapid decreases which could have occurred in the absence of this scheme. The Fifth Five Year Plan targeted to increase the pulse production by 2.5 million tonnes. Out ofthis, an increase of 0.75 million tonnes was to be achieved by attracting an additional area of 1.5 million hectares under pulses with an assumed production level of 500 kg! ha on this additional area. It was planned to achieve the remaining 1.75 million tonnes by yield improvement of250 kg/ha through the adoption of improved package of practices on seven million hectares. During this plan, the Pulse Development Scheme was extended to 50 districts of the country. The efforts did not succeed this time also. The Fifth Five Year Plan closed a year earlier in 1977-78. By then, production of pulses reached a level of 11.97 million tonnes, though higher than the actual production level of 10.01 million tonnes in 1974-75 but only marginally higher than the base level production (11.5 million tonnes) assumed by the planners. There was some improvement both in area as well as in yield during this plan. In the Sixth Five Year Plan (1978-83), it was proposed to increase the production of pulses to a level of 15 million tonnes by 1982-83. The emphasis proposed was both on area expansion as
50
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
well as yield increase. But, original Sixth Plan was abandoned and revised from April 1, 1980. Assuming a base level production of 11.61 million tonnes in 1980-81, target in the Sixth Five Year Plan was to increasepuiseproduction to a level of 15.50 million tonnes. This proposed increase of3 .89 million tonnes was sub-divided cropwise as gram (1.20 million tonnes), summer moong (1.20 million tonnes), arhar (1.00 million tonnes) and urad and others (0.49) million tonnes). The major strategy for achieving this goal has been set out as:(i) to bring an additional area on.5 million hectares under these crops; and (ii) adoption of package programme over an area of6.3 million hectares in gram, arhar and moong. By the late 1980s, the above-mentioned programmes failed to increase anticipated efficiency in pulse production. Realizing this, pulses were brought under the Technology Mission (TM) in the year 1990. The National Pulses Development Project (NPDP) under the guidance of TM was launched with the main objective of increasing the production of pulses through transfer of improved crop production technology to the farmers' fields in respect of the major pulse crops. At present, the National Pulses Development Programme is being implemented in more than 200 pulse-producing districts of India. The focus and thrust ofNPDP has been a district oriented approach to reach an increased level of productivity and production within a time frame by implementing a two-pronged strategy, viz, area expansion and yield improvement. These programmes also continued in the Eighth (1992-93 to 1996-97) and Ninth Plan (1997-2002). In the Tenth Plan (2002-07), the Technology Mission is still operational but recently four crops namely; oilseeds, pulses, oil palm and maize are clubbed together under the scheme known as ISOPAM (Integrated Scheme of Oilseeds, Pulses, Oil Palm and Maize). The set target of 16 million tonnes still remains elusive despite the implementation of these programmes.
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
51
Table 2.13 Major Strategies/Programmes Introduced for Pulses Development during Plans. Third Plan (1961-62 to 1965-66)
Fourth Plan (1969-70 to 1973-74)
1. All India Coordinated Research Programme was initiated.
1.
"Intensive Pulses District Programme' (IPDP) was initiated.
2. Breeding of suitable varieties for
2.
Adoption of package of practices Including use of improved seeds phosphatic fertilizers, rhizobia culture and plant protectior campaigns.
3. Breeding of suitable varieties of urad for Mixed cropping in North India.
3.
Mini-kit distribution.
4. Breeding of disease resistant varieties.
4.
Extension of pulse area by catch cropping, inter-cropping and mixed cropping with cereals, millets, cotton groundnut and sugarcane. etc.
fitting in multiple cropping.
Fifth Plan (1974-75 to 1978-79)
Sixth Plan (1980-81 to 1984-85)
1. IPDP continued and further intensified.
I.
Introduction of pulse crops in irrigated Farming.
2. Research programme on pulses stepped up through All India Coordinated Research Programme.
2.
Bringing additional area under short Duration varieties of urad, moong, etc. in rice fallows by utilizing the residua moisture in rabi season and in summe Season with irrigation after oil seeds sugarcane, potato and wheat.
3. Breeding of varieties suitable as catch Crops for replacing monsoon fallows.
3.
Multiplication and use of improved pulse seeds.
4. Standardization oftechniques
4.
Use of phosphatic fertilizers and rhizobial culture.
for Fertilizer application. 5. Development of pest control schedules And suitable bacterial culture.
5. Improved post harvest technology.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
52 Table 2.13 (Contd.)
Fifth Plan (1974-75 to 1978-79) 6. Development of more effective agronomic practices.
Sixth Plan (1980-81 to 1984-85) 6.
Organization of "pulse crop village" in Various blocks both in irrigated and rain-fed areas.
7. Special importance on processing of Pulses and modernization of dal milling industry.
Eighth Plan (1992-93 to 1996-97)
Seventh Plan (1985-86 to 1989-90) 1.
Many programmes introduced in the Seventh Plan were allowed to continu( in the Eighth Plan.
2. Bringing additional area under short Duration varieties of moong and urad in rice fallows in the rabi season and as a summer crop where irrigation facilities are available.
2.
Pulse crops brought under TM in 1990-91.
3. Inter-cropping ofarhar, moong and urad With other crops.
3.
Pulse production was intensified by taking up NPDP and the special food grain production programme on pulses.
I. Introduction of pulses in
irrigated farming.
Ninth Plan (1997 to 2002)
4. Multiplication and use of improved Seeds.
5. Adoption of plant protection measures.
1.
Programmes launched in the Eight Plan Were allowed continuing during Ninth Plan.
6. Use of fertilizers and rhizobial culture.
2.
Technology Mission was in operation.
7. Remunerative price relative to Competing crops.
Tenth Plan (2002-2007)
8. Centrally sponsored National Pulses Development Programme (NPDP).
Same as in the Ninth Plan.
Source: Third to Tenth Five Year Plan documents
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
53
In addition to the special programmes for increasing pulse production in India, the Government announces minimum support prices (MSPs) in case of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar each year. Massar has been recently included in the scheme. The MSPs are meant to enable the producers to pursue their efforts with the assurance that the prices of the produce would not be allowed to fall below the level fixed by the government. These prices are expected to cover cost of production and reasonable profits. The MSPs fixed by the government for the pulses are given in Table 2.14. It may be observed that MSPs for pulses have been rising continuously for each of the covered pulses since 1981. The compound growth rates of minimum support prices of gram, arhar, moonglurad are estimated 9.74%, 8.94% and 8.73% per annum respectively between 1980-81 and 2006-07. These growth rates appeared to be quite impressive. But, in reality, the MSPs for pulses have been only notional and ineffective because pulses are not procured. In case offaIling market prices, the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED) procures a very limited quantity under the price support scheme and commercial purchases. Pulses do not have any procurement system like wheat and rice except in emergency when the NAFED procures pulses in small quantity. The prices ofarhar, moong and urad during 2000-01 and 2001-02 were ruling below the MSP during the peak arrival months. NAFED procured a small quantity of total production. It was 98 tonnes of arhar at an average price Rs.l,350 per qtl. However, NAFED intervened in only three markets of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Delhi for price support even though prices were falling below the MSP in other markets of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. It implies that NAFED's intervention is very limited in comparison to the requirement.
54
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 2.14 Minimum Support Prices of Pulses (1980-81 to 2006-07). (Rs/QtI)
Year
Gram
Arhar
MoonglUrad
Massar
-
1980-81
165
190
200
1990-91
450
480
480
1991-92
500
550
550
1992-93
600
600
600
1993-94
640
700
700
-
1994-95
670
760
760
1995-96
700
800
800
1996-97
740
840
840
1997-98
815
900
900
1998-99
895
960
960
1999-00
1015
1105
1105
2000-01
1100
1200
1200
-
2001-02
1200
1320
1320
1200
2002-03*
1220+5*
1320+5*
1330+5*
1300
2003-04
1400
1360
1370
1500
2004-05
1425
1390
1410
1525
2005-06
1435
1400
1520
1535
2006-07
1445
1410
1520
1545
CGR 1980-81 and 2006-07
9.74
8.94
8.73
-
* Special Drought Relief Price (Rs.5 extra). Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
55
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
Table 2.15 Procurement of Pulses by NAFED under Price Support Scheme and Commercial Purchases 2000-01, 2001-02 j Qty: tonnes Value :Rs. Lakh Price: Rs./qtl 200/-02
2000-0/
Commodity Quantity
Value
Price per qtl.
Quantity
Value
Price per qt!.
Price Support Scheme Gram
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arhar
98
13.23
1350
3838
571
1487
Moong
-
-
-
-
-
-
Urad
-
-
-
-
-
-
Massar
-
-
-
-
I
-
I
-
Under Commercial Purchases Gram
18151
2564
1413
26202
4090
1561
Arhar
1920
284
1479
3388
494
1458
Moong
1886
325
1723
5965
1207
2023
31
6
1935
5579
1055
18~
5794
910
1572
2421
396
1637
Urad Massar
I
Source: Reports of the CommlsslOn for Agncultural Costs and Pnces, 2003
In addition, NAFED also makes commercial purchases. It was 18,151 tonnes of gram, 5,794 tonnes of massar, 1,920 tonnes of arhar, 1,886 tonnes of moong and 31 tonnes of urad at an average price ofRs.1413, Rs.1572, Rs.1479, Rs.1723 and RS.1935 per qtl respectively. Commercial purchases were made during 2001-02 also. But, looking at the support required by the pulse growers, these interventions are like peanuts and hardly, make any difference to overall situation (Table 2.15).
56
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Having analysed the strategy for promotion of pulses in India, it is essential to examine the achievement of fixed targets for pulse production in India. It may be noticed (Table 2.16) that the achievement of pulse production in India during the recent past was below the set targets. There is not a single year when the target was fully achieved. The achievement ranged between 70.69% in 200203 and 99.60% in 2003-04. The achievement of targets was found better in 1998-99, 2003-04 and 2006-07. In brief, the overall scenario of pulse production in India calls for a deeper probe and solutions since the country could not achieve even the modest target of 16 million tonnes with the ongoing strategy for pulse development. Table2.16 Target and Achievement of Pulse Production (1997-98 to 2006-07) Year
Target
Achievement
1997-98
15.00
12.97 (86.47)*
1998-99
15.50
14.91 (96.19)
1999-00
15.50
13.41 (86.52)
2000-01
15.00
11.07 (73.80)
. 2001-02
15.00
13.37 (89.13)
2002-03
16.00
11.13 (70.69)
2003-04
15.00
14.94 (99.60)
2004-05
15.30
13.13 (85.82)
2005-06
15.15
13.39 (88.38)
2006-07
15.15
14.10 (93.07)
* Brackets show the percentage of targets achieved. Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Chapter 3
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage and Yield Response of Pulse Crops
Economists have extensively investigated the growth performance of rice and wheat during the past four decades. It has been widely researched at global, regional, national, state and household levels. Unfortunately, scant attention has been paid to the study of pulse crops, which play an important role in sustaining crop systems and the nutritional security of the population in India. Although, evidences are available for 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, inadequate recent information has impaired the policy initiatives in the changed agricultural scenario in the country. Therefore, an attempt must be made to provide current evidence on temporal and spatial dimensions of the pulse development. The present chapter is devoted to the analysis of growth performance and instability in the area, production and yield of five important pulse crops (gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar) along with total pulses at the all India level and in maj or producing states of the country between 1980-81 and 200102. In addition, acreage and yield responses have also been examined. The entire study period is sub-divided into two periods. The first period relates to 1980s beginning from 1980-81 to 1990-91 and the second period to 1990s from 1990-91 to 2001-02. These represent the pre- and post-reforms periods. The cut-off point of 1990-91 has strategic significance, as pulse crops were included in the Technology Mission during this year. Given this framework, three hypotheses are proposed for testing. First, pulse production performance in India is poor due to low growth of acreage and yield in the study period. Second, non-price factors are more important than price
58
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
factors in acreage allocation to pulse crops by farmers. Third, expenditure on seed, fertilizer and magnitude of rainfall influence the yield of pulse crops. The methodology followed for each aspect is different. For measuring the growth rates of area, production and yield, semi-log functions were used while instability indices were estimated by applying Coppock's methodology oflog variance. The Nerlovian modified model of distributed lags was used to identify the factors influencing acreage of important pulse crops. Finally, the CobbDouglas regression model is applied for segregating the factors effecting yield of referred pulses. The details of the methodology used are given at the relevant place in the analysis. This chapter is organized as follows. Section-l examines the state-wise growth performance of major pulses in India in order to assess the nature of stagnancy in pulse production in the background of the changing agricultural scenario in the country. In addition, it looks into the farm size variation. Section - 2 is devoted to the analysis of instability in area, production and yield of referred pulses. Section - 3 identifies the factors influencing acreage and yield of major pulses in the core states in India.
Section -1 Growth Performance Some scholars (Chopra and Swamy, 1975; Sadashivan, 1989; Satyapriya, 1989) have attempted to document the detailed performance of pulse crops since independence. The annual growth rate of production in the pre-green revolution period (1949-50 to 1964-65) with a base year of triennium ending 1981-82 was 1.41 % per annum, which dropped significantly in the 1970s.1t was only in the 1980s that growth rate crossed one per cent per annum. During this period, pulse production grew at the annual growth rate of 1.52% per annum. The economic re-structuring during the 1990s did not prove beneficial for pulse production and its growth declined substantially. It became 0.61 % per annum between 1990-91 and
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
59
1999-00 (Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2003). But, the individual pulse crops behaved differently. The annual increase in gram production was above average while it was negligible for arhar. Given this background, it is pertinent to examine the statewise growth performance of individual pulse crops in India for the aforesaid periods. The semi-log equation of the form log y = a + bt is used to estimate the state-wise growth rates in area, production and yield of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar, rabi pulses, kharif pulses and total pulses during the first, second and entire study periods.
Gram The most important pulse crop in India is gram which occupied an area of about 5,712 thousand hectares during 2001-02. It constitutes nearly two-fifth share of the area of total pulses. It is a multi-purpose crop. Its leaves are largely eaten as vegetable and the grain is eaten raw. When ripe, it is used as a whole, split and after grinding as flour (besan), etc. It is sown during October and November. Many times, it is mixed with wheat, barley, mustard and pea. The crop matures within 95 to 150 days depending on the variety grown. The crop is irrigated once or twice only when soil gets dried up in November or December. Being a leguminous crop, gram utilizes atmospheric nitrogen through its root nodules. The crop is neither manured nor fertilized by most of the farmers. The information on area, production, yield and percentage of irrigated area in important states during triennium ending 2001-02 is given in Table 3.1.
60
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.1
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Gram in Important States in India (TE 2001-02). Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha Area
State
200102
Production
% Share 2001-02
% Share
Yield
%0/ Irrg. Area.
2001- Rank 200002 01
Madhya Pradesh
2187.1
38.29
2006.8
43.28
918
5
41.1
Uttar Pradesh
768.8
13.46
765.8
16.51
996
1
14.8
Rajasthan
872.6
15.28
603.0
13.00
691
8
50.8
Maharashtra
788.2
13.80
466.9
10.07
592
11
34.9
Karnataka
389.5
6.82
235.1
5.07
604
10
10.9
Andhra Pradesh
203.8
3.57
188.1
4.06
923
4
6.8
Bihar
93.5
1.64
91.6
1.98
979
2
3.4
Haryana
107.5
1.88
78.0
1.68
726
7
32.6
West Bengal
44.1
0.77
38.4
0.83
871
6
NA
Gujarat
49.1
0.86
25.8
0.56
526
13
24.2
Onssa
28.0
0.49
15.0
0.32
536
12
NA
Punjab
7.0
0.12
6.6
0.14
943
3
35.7
Tamil Nadu India*
•
6.5
0.11
4.2
0.09
641
9
NA
5711.5
100.00
4637.2
100.00
812
-
30.9
Includes minor producing states. Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004
61
Growth Peiformance, Instability, Acreage
Table 3.2 Growth Performance of Gram in Important States of India (1981-2002): (% per annum)
Area
State
1981- 199102 91
Madhya Pradesh
Production 1981-
02
Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 198191 02 02 91 02 02
1.6
0.1
1.2
3.2
1.9
Uttar Pradesh
-1.7
-4.5
-3.6
-1.7
-3.1
Rajasthan
-3.2
-2.6
-1.1
-4.0
-1.2
Maharashtra
5.1
3.6
3.3
10.8
3.3
Kamataka
5.5
6.5
5.3
1.4
12.1
Andhra Pradesh
2.5
11.5
7.9
8.1
3.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
-2.9
0.0
1.4
0.7
-0.7
-0.8
1.4
0.4
6.2
5.7
-0.3
2.9
7.0
-4.1
5.6
1.7
14.0
12.7
5.6
2.5
4.8
Bihar
-1.5
-4.2
-3.2
0.6
-4.3
-2.0
2.1
-0.1
1.2
Haryana
-4.5
-12.8
-7.7
0.3
-13.1
-4.9
4.8
-0.3
2.8
West Bengal
-10.2
6.5
-4.8
-10.8
8.8
-3.7
-0.6
2.3
1.1
Gujarat
1.1
-9.0
-1.8
-3.2
-9.9
-3.0
-4.3
-0.9
-1.2
Orissa
0.0
-3.3
-2.7
2.0
-5.7
-3.3
2.0
-2.4
-0.6
Punjab
-13.7
-18.8
-16.6
-10.1
-16.5
-14.0
3.6
2.3
2.6
Tamil Nadu
-3.3
-1.2
-0.9
-1.8
-1.2
-0.6
1.5
0.0
0.3
India
-0.7
-0.8
-0.5
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.2
Source: Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 198198 and data complied from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002), 2004.
It may be noticed that gram is extensively cultivated as a winter
crop in India especially in the states of Madhya Pradesh (38.29%), Rajasthan (15.28%), Maharashtra (13.80%) and Uttar Pradesh (13 .46%). These states together accounted for 81 % of all India
62
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
area under gram. These are also leading states in terms of production but Uttar Pradesh crossed Maharashtra and Rajasthan due to highest productivity. Further, disparities in yield rates were also found significant. The state of Uttar Pradesh was leading with a yield rate of 996 kg/ha. The other high ranking states were Bihar (979 kglha), Punjab (943 kg/ha) and Andhra Pradesh (923 kg/ha). Nonetheless, these yield rates are much below the potential yield of 15-20 qtllha. It is largely due to low proportion of irrigated area to total area. Only 30.9% of gram area was found irrigated during 2000-0 1. The states with higher irrigated area are Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana. On the other hand, merely 6.8% of gram area was found irrigated in Andhra Pradesh. After analyzing the geographical spread of gram cultivation in India, it is imperative to examine the growth performance in terms of area, production and yield between 1980-81 and 2001-02. It may be observed from Table 3.2 that the growth rate of gram area was found negative at the all India level. The gram area declined at the rate of 0.8%, 0.7% and 0.5% per annum during the 1980s, 1990s and the entire study period. It appears that the inclusion of pulses in the Technology Mission on Oi1seeds and Pulses (TMOP) in 1990 did not make any impact to incentivise farmers to grow this crop. The performance of gram area was found poor in Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. The largest decline in warn area was noticed in case of Punjab (16.6% per annum) followed by Haryana, which are well-irrigated states. After the success of green revolution in the 1960s, farmers here shifted to wheat, which yielded relatively higher profitability per unit of land in irrigated regions. In rain fed areas of Haryana, mustard replaced gram. This has happened despite higher growth of gram yield in these states. But, productivity growth could not compensate for area decline and hence, production declined at a high rate of 14.0% and 4.9% per annum during the study period. The drop in gram production was relatively higher in the 1990s as compared to the 1980s.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
63
On the other hand, gainer states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa have exhibited a significant expansion in the area under gram. It was as high as 7.9% in Andhra Pradesh and 5.3 % per annum in Karnataka during the study period. The clear-cut shift of production base from traditional to new southern states was noticed. The gram area in southern states became almost equal to northern states. Since, yield performance was also commendable in these states, production grew at the rate of 12.7% in Andhra Pradesh, 7% in Karnataka, 6.2% in Maharashtra and 3.4% per annum in Madhya Pradesh during the reference period. Unfortunately, production of gram in Orissa has exhibited a decline due to negative growth in area as well as in yield. The higher rate of gram production in Andhra Pradesh may be attributed to high productivity coupled with favourable prices, good monsoon and availability of improved variety seeds and efficient extension services. In fact, gram's competitive edge has weakened in northern states due to shift towards the more profitable crops like wheat in irrigated areas and mustard in unirrigated areas. Moreover, this period faced only three un-favourable monsoon years in the late eighties and one in 200 1-02. This partially explains the good performance in production. In addition, there are evidences to show (NSSO Report, 451) that pulse growers in Andhra Pradesh are using improved seeds for pulse cultivation and adoption rate is as high as 70.96% against an all India average of 47% during 1999. The tendency of increasing area under gram in rain fed areas of these states may likely to continue due to availability of short duration varieties of gram with better adaptation in rain-fed areas and efficient extension services available to farmers. Arhar
Arhar ranks second amongst the pulse crops of India. It is largely eaten in the form of split pulse (dal) while its tender green pods constitute a favourite vegetable in some parts of the country. The outer integuments of its seed together with part of the kernel provide a valuable feed for the milch cattle. The stalks are utilized for various purposes such as roofing and basket making. Arhar is a long duration
64
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
crop. It is sown in July with first rains of the monsoon and ripens about March. But, now short duration varieties are available with lower maturity periods. At times, it is grown as a mixed crop with jowar, bajra and groundnut. This practice not only offers insurance against the crop failure but also enables the cultivator to obtain a variety of harvests from the same piece of land. The information on area, production, yield and irrigated area of arhar in important states of India in TE 2001-02 is presented in Table 3.3.
It may be noticed that arhar was grown on 3,493 thousand hectares of area in India. The crop is more extensively cultivated in states of Maharashtra (30.10%), Kamataka (14.67%), Andhra Pradesh (13.02%) and Uttar Pradesh (11.67%). Their shares in all India production were 31.68%, 11.60%, 7.74% and 20.69% respectively during triennium ending 2001-02. The state of Maharashtra is leading by showing little less than one third of all India area and production. The yield rate for the country as a whole was 693 kg/ha. Bihar was leading in productivity with a yield of 1,257 kg/ha. Among the major producing states, Uttar Pradesh was far ahead in productivity than Maharashtra, Kamataka and Andhra Pradesh. The proportion of irrigated area to cropped area was however, only 4.2%. This indicates poor status of arhar in receiving irrigation. The highest proportion of irrigated area was observed in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat against a low share in Bihar (0.3% of cropped area).
65
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
Table 3.3 Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Arhar in Important States in India (TE-2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha Production
Area
State
Yield
%/rrg
Area. Rank
200102
% Share
200102
Maharashtra
1051.3
30.10
766.5
31.68
729
6
1.9
Uttar Pradesh
407.6
11.67
500.6
20.69
1228
2
12.8
14.97
280.7
11.60
537
10
1.3
Karnataka
523.0
% Share 200102
200001
Madhya Pradesh
330.9
9.47
272.1
11.25
822
4
0.8
Gujarat
336.0
9.62
195.0
8.06
580
9
12.2
Andhra Pradesh
454.9
13.02
187 3
7.74
412
13
0.8
Orissa
142.3
4.07
74.3
3.07
522
12
0.6
Bihar
42.5
1.22
53.4
2.21
1257
1
0.3
Tamil Nadu
70.9
2.03
48.5
201
684
8
3.1
Rajasthan
25.1
0.72
13.1
0.54
523
11
NA
Haryana
14.8
0.42
11.5
0.48
775
5
NA
Punjab
8.7
0.25
7.6
0.31
866
3
NA
7
NA
West Bengal India· •
5.3
0.15
3.7
0.15
700
3493.3
100.00
2419.1
100.00
693
Includes minor producing states Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004
4.2
66
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.4
Growth Performance of Arhar in Important States of India (1981-2002). (% per annum) State
Area
Production
Yield
/98/91
/99/-
Maharashtra
4.0
0.3
2.5
4.2
5.1
3.1
0.2
4.8
0.6
Uttar Pradesh
-0.7
-2.4
-1.0
-1.5
0.9
-0.9
1.2
6.8
-1.9 \.5
-0.5
1.9
-1.2 \.8
-1.8
4.9
0.3
02
/98/- /98/- /99/- 198/- 198/- /991- 198191 02 02 9102 02 02-
Karnataka
3.6
Madhya Pradesh
-1.0
-1.5
-2.2
2.2
-2.0
-\.9
3.3
-0.5
0.3
Gujarat
2.5
-1.8
1.0
1.2
-5.0
0.6
-1.3
-3.2
-0.4
Andhra Pradesh
4.7
3.6
2.9
4.0
8.0
6.1
-0.7
4.4
3.2
Orissa
6.1
-1.0
\.8
10.0
-6.8
0.2
3.9
-5.8
-1.6
3.1
2.1
-1.\
Bihar
-4.0
-2.6
-1.0
-0.9
-0.5
-2.1
Tamil Nadu
6.8
-5.0
-0.4
8.3
-3.5
-0.2
1.5
1.5
0.2
Rajasthan
-1.6
0.7
-0.1
2.3
4.9
3.4
3.9
4.2
3.5
Haryana
19.7
-11.0
3.7
19.2
-12.8
3.8
-0 5
-1.8
0.1
Punjab
0.1
-3.7
-6.0
-1.8
-5.3
-6.8
-\.9
-\.6
-0.8
,West Bengal
-17.3
-\.7
-9.0
-18.1
-0.5
-10.6 -0.8
1.2
-\.6
India
2.3
-0.3
0.8
2.2
0.3
0.6
-0.5
Source:
0.3
-0.1
Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1981-98 and Data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-20.02),2004
Having looked into the geographical spread of area and production, the author proceeds to examine the state-wise growth perfonnance of area, production and yield of arhar between 198081 and 2001-02. It may be observed from Table 3.4 that the growth of arhar area in the country during the study period was 0.8% per
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
67
annum. The first period was major contributor but area declined at the rate of 0.3% per annum during the second period. The gainer states included Haryana (3.7%), Andhra Pradesh (2.9%), Maharashtra (2.5%), Orissa (1.8%), Karnataka (1.2%) and Gujarat (1%). However, states ofWest Bengal (9.0%), Punjab (6%) Madhya Pradesh (2.2%) and Bihar (1 %) were found to be loosers in terms of area during the study period. The states, which have gained in area, also exhibited positive growth rates in production. Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan have gained more in terms of production due to yield improvement. The rate of increase in production was observed to be lower in the 1990s as compared to the 1980s. The states with significant growth rate in yield are Andhra Pradesh (3.2%) and Rajasthan (3.5%). The performance of all other states was found dismal in growth of yield. Thus, growth of arhar production was merely 0.3 % per annum and that too was due to area expansion at the rate of 0.8% per annum between 1980-81 and 2001-02. The contribution of yield was found negative. It implies that the farmers are either not adopting improved seeds or their success rate is low.
Moong Moong is fairly important as a pulse crop in India as it contributes 13.30% in area and 8.30% per cent in production of total pulses at the country level. It is mainly cultivated as kharif season crop in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. But, in states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, it is also grown in rabi season as a second crop after paddy. In 1997-98, moong occupied 2,372 thousand hectares in kharif season producing nearly 617 thousand to~es of beans whereas during the rabi season only 617 thousand hectares were under this crop giving 245 thousand tonnes of production. It is also grown as a summer crop in states ofPunjab and Haryana. Summer crop is generally sown in March and is harvested in June before the monsoon sets in, thus making the land available for the next paddy crop. The information on state-wise area, production and yield of moong in triennium ending 2001-02 is presented in Table 3.5.
68
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The all India area under moong was 3,015 thousand hectares in TE 2001-02. Maharashtra (23.34%), Rajasthan (17.41%), Andhra Pradesh (16.09%) and Karnataka (12.18%) together cropped around 70% of all India area. Besides, it is grown in Bihar, Orissa, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh as well. The states of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh contributed more than 40% of total production of the country. Surprisingly, Rajasthan and Karnataka had higher shares in area but due to dismal performance in the yield, their proportion in production declined. Specifically, share of Rajasthan declined by almost 7%. The yield of moong was observed to be as low as 357 kg/ha in TE 2001-02. It could be partly due to drought conditions in 2001-02 and partly due to low yield in normal years too. It is not possible to analyse irrigation status due to non-availability of data on this aspect. Table 3.5 Area, Production and Yield of Moong in Important States in India (TE 2001-02): Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha
State
Area
Production
2001-02 % Share
2001-02 % Share
Yield
2001-02
Rank
Maharashtra
703.7
23.34
285.0
26.46
405
5
Andhra Pradesh
485.0
16.09
183.0
16.99
377
6
Karnataka
367.3
12.18
126.0
11.70
343
7
Rajasthan
525.0
17.41
109.0
10.12
208
11
Bihar
187.0
6.20
107.7
10.00
576
1
Tamil Nadu
141.3
4.69
63.7
5.91
450
4
Gujarat
142.0
4.71
48.0
4.46
338
8
Uttar Pradesh
100.0
3.32
47.7
4.43
477
3
Onssa
184.0
6.10
40.0
3.71
217
10
Madhya Pradesh
107.7
3.57
32.0
2.97
297
9
Punjab
30.7
1.02
17.3
1.61
565
2
India·
3015.0
100.00
1077.0
100.00
357
-
• Includes minor producing states Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
69
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.6 Growth Performance of Moong in Important States ofIndia (1981-2002): (% per annum) Production
Area
State
1981- 1991-
1981-
Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 198191 02 02 91 02 02
91
02
02
Maharashtra
4.8
-1.0
1.9
11.6
-0.6
4.3
6.8
Andhra Pradesh
-2.0
-0.6
-0.9
-4.5
-0.4
-0.8
-2.5
0.2
0.1
Kamataka
5.9
3.0
3.4
8.6
-1.1
2.6
2.7
-4.1
-0.8 2.5
0.4
2.4
Rajasthan
2.5
4.6
5.9
4.1
1.6
8.4
1.6
-3.0
Bihar
3.9
-1.2
0.4
7.3
-1.0
2.2
3.4
0.2
1.8
Tamil Nadu
5.9
0.1
0.9
10.1
1.3
4.1
4.2
1.2
3.2
Gujarat
-2.1
-0.2
2.5
-14.2
0.3
2.2
-12.1
0.5
-0.3
Uttar Pradesh
-2.2
0.2
-2.2
-2.0
-0.3
-0.6
0.2
-0.5
1.6
Orissa
-1.4
-7.4
-6.0
0.0
-9.2
-6.9
-1.4
-16.6
-12.9
Madhya Pradesh
-4.1
-3.5
-4.3
-3.2
-3.4
-3.3
0.9
0.1
1.0
Punjab
10.3
-5.3
1.6
9.6
-9.6
0.1
-0.7
-4.3
-1.5
India
2.1
-0.7
0.2
2.8
-2.3
-0.2
0.7
-1.6
-0.4
Source:
Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India. 198198 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (19992002). 2004.
The growth rates in area, production and yield of moong for India and important growing states between 1980-81 and 2001-02 are shown in Table 3.6. The all India area grew at the low rate of 0.2% per annum during this period. The first period indicated a positive growth of2.1 % while it was observed to be negative in the second period. At the state level, Rajasthan, (5.9%) followed by Kamataka (3.4%) and Gujarat (2.5%) were the major gainers while Orissa (6.9%), Madhya Pradesh (4.3%) and Uttar Pradesh (2.2%) were
70
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
the major loosers in moong area during the study period. Sutprisingly, production ofmoong in India has declined at the rate ofO.2%_per annum during the study period. Particularly, production performance was found poor in the second period with a negative growth rate of 2.3% per annum. The performance of Rajasthan (8.4%) followed by Maharashtra (4.3%) and Tamil Nadu (4.1 %) was commendable. But, these gains could not compensate for the losses in major states. Like arhar, productivity has been the greatest casualty in the case of moong, which declined at the rate of 0.4% per annum during the reference period. Although, it grew at the rate of 0.7% in the 1980s, the dismal performance of the 1990s with a negative growth rate of 1.6% became responsible for the overall decline in the growth of production. To conclude, growth performance of moong during the past two decades had been extremely poor because neither area nor yield favoured this crop.
Urad Urad, like moong is primarily a warm season crop. It is also grown both in kharif and rabi seasons. It is a kharif season crop in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. But, some of these states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal along with Assam grow it in the rabi season too. The crop is mainly grown for its beans, which are used as a whole or split. The geographical distribution of area and production along with yield in TE 2001-02 is presented in Table 3.7. It may be observed that urad was grown on 3,069 thousand hectares in India. The leading states in area allocation are Maharashtra (18.90%), Madhya Pradesh (17.87%), Andhra Pradesh (17.78%) and Uttar Pradesh (12.34%). Besides, it i2 also cultivated in Tamil Nadu (9.32%), Karnataka (4.77%), Rajasthan (4051%), Gujarat (4.42%) and Orissa (4.02%). Andhra Pradesh with 25.96% share in all India 0 PrOduction isDthe leading state. Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh together g2ew aroUnd 40%. The yield level of urad was found extremely low at alL India level 446 kg/ha).
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
71
Th% highest yiEld of 687 kglha was reported in Bihar. It is depressing to note that the states of Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Rajasthan have exhibited yield of urad between three to four quintals per hectare. The estimates of growth rates of area, production and yield of urad in all India and iajor growing states indicate (Table 3.8) that area under urad remained almost stagnant (0.2% per annum) during the stedy period. The period of 1980s was favourable by indicating a growth rate of 2.4% per an.um but tHe negative growth (0.7%) in 4he 1990s became responsible for overall stagnation in area. The major(stateswith posityve growdh in area were KamaTaka (5.8%), Andhra Pradesh (4.8%) an$ Uttar Pradesh (3.7%). The looser states constituted Orissa (-7.8%), Bihar (-2.7%) and West Bengal (-2.3%). Despite stagnation in area, production of erad grew at the rate of 1.3% per annum during the reference period. The major contributors were Karnataka (6.7%), Uttar Pradesh (6.5%), Andhra Pradesh (4.8%), MaharashtraD(4.1%) and Tamil Nadu (3.9%). It could happen due to gooA performance of area in the first three cases and of yi&d in the remaining two cases. The growth of yield in India was 3.4% per annum in the 1980s, but The growth rate of yiehd in the endire study period ras merely 1.1 % per annum due to negative growth of yield (0.4%) in the 1990s. Among the high yield performers, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are most important. On the contrary, yield of urad in Orissa declined at the rate of3.4% per annum during the study period.
72
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.7 Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Important States) in India (TE 2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha
State
Area
Production
200/-02 % Share
2001-02 % Share
Yield
2001-02
Rank
Andhra Pradesh
545.7
17.78
355.7
25.96
652
2
Maharashtra
580.0
18.90
248.3
18.13
428
6
Madhya Pradesh
548.3
17.87
165.0
12.04
301
11
Uttar Pradesh
378.7
12.34
162.7
11.87
430
5
Tamil Nadu
286.0
9.32
128.3
9.37
449
4
Karnataka
146.3
4.77
52.7
3.84
360
8
Bihar
71.3
2.32
49.0
3.58
687
1
West Bengal
72.3
2.36
45.7
3.33
631
3
Orissa
123.3
4.02
46.0
3.36
373
7
Rajasthan
138.3
4.51
44.3
3.24
320
9
Gujarat
135.7
4.42
42.3
3.09
312
10
India·
3069.0
100.00
1370.0
100.00
446
-
*
Includes minor producing states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
73
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
Table 3.8 Growth Performance of Urad in Important States of India (1981-2002) (% per annum) State
Production
Area 198191
1991- 1981-
Yield
1981- 1991- 1981 02 91 02
1991- 1981-
02
02
6.0
0.3
0.0
4.1
6.4
-0.2
3.0
-0.1
-0.6
1.0
0.8
1.6
6.6
3.0
6.5
3.1
-0.1
2.8
14.8
-0.9
3.9
5.1
0.2
3.0
6.1
2.1
6.7
-0.1
-1.6
0.9
-2.7
0.7
0.4
-0.6
3.2
2.8
2.1
-6.1
-2.3
2.5
-5.9
-1.1
2.1
0.2
1.2
2.9
-11.2
-7.8
2.3
-15.2
-11.2
-0.6
-4.0
-3.4
-0.7
-0.5
0.1
-3.6
0.0
0.6
-2.9
0.6
0.5
NA
0.7
NA
NA
1.6
NA
NA
0.9
NA
2.4
-0.7
0.2
5.8
-1.1
1.3
3.4
-0.4
1.1
02
02
10.5
0.0
4.8
16.5
0.3
4.8
ashtra
-1.2
3.2
1.1
5.2
3.0
Madhya Pradesh
-1.8
-0.9
-2.2
-0.8
luttar !Pradesh
3.5
3.1
3.7
[ramil Nadu
9.7
-1.1
0.9
~amataka
6.2
3.7
5.8
Isihar
-2.5
-2.4
/west !Bengal
0.4
prissa
~ajasthan PUJarat
ndia
l-\ndhra Pradesh
1981 91
~aha-
Source:
Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 198198 and data complied from DIrectorate of Economics and StatIstics (1999-2002), 2004
Massar Massar is recognized as a valuable pulse crop. It is known to be the most nutritive of the pulses due to high protein content. It is grown as a winter crop and sowing time extends from October to December. Since, it is a short duration crop, it becomes ready for
74
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
harvest in about three months. The crop is harvested from February to April depending upon the time of sowing. The information on area, production and yield of massar presented in Table 3.9 shows that massar grew on 1,413 thousand hectares and gave a production of 1,134.7 thousand tonnes in India during TE 2001-02. Uttar Pradesh with 42.37% of all India area and 40.89% of production is the key state. Next in the array are Madhya Pradesh (33.64%) and Bihar 12.55%) which produced around 20.06% and 12.98% of country's total massar. Rajasthan is a minor player in massar cultivation but its yield was as high as 1,309 kg/ha during the triennium ending 2001-02. The productivity in Uttar Pradesh was less than 10 qt1/ha. Amazingly, Madhya Pradesh, a second ranking state in area and production has exhibited a low productivity of 479 kg/ha. It may be highlighted that yield of massar was observed to be the second highest among the major pulse crops of India. Massar has exhibited best growth performance among referred pulses by indicating around 2% growth in area and yield during the study period. The acreage under massar grew at the rate of 1.8% per year during this period but production has increased at more than double pace, i.e., 4% per annum. It could happen due to commendable performance of yield (2.2% per annum). For expansion of area, 1990s was a favourable period but for yield growth, the 1980s were far more important. Among maj or growing states, Uttar Pradesh has indicated area growth of around 2.6% per annum during the study period. However, it was higher than .5% during the 1980s. Yield also increased at the rate of 3.4% per annum in this period. As a result, production of massar in Uttar Pradesh increased at the rate of 9% per year in the 1980s. The area expansion along with yield was responsible for production growth in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Thus, massar emerges as the most important pulse crop in terms of growth during the study period.
75
Growth Peiformance, Instability, Acreage
Table 3.9 Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Important States of India (TE 2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha Area
State
Production
Yield
2001-02
% Share
2001-02
% Share
2001-02
Rank
Uttar Pradesh
598.7
42.37
464.0
40.89
775
5
Madhya Pradesh
475.3
33.64
227.7
20.06
479
9
12.55
147.3
12.98
831
3
177.3
Bihar West Bengal
53.7
3.80
57.7
5.08
1057
2
Rajasthan
27.0
1.91
35.3
3.11
1309
1
Haryana
5.7
0.40
4.0
0.35
706
6
Maharashtra
7.7
0.54
4.0
0.35
522
8
Punjab
3.2
0.22
2.5
0.22
800
4
India*
1413.0
100.00
1134.7
100.00
803
-
*
Includes minor producing states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
76
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.10 Growth Performance of Massar in Important States of India (19812002) (% per annum)
IState i
Area
1981- 199102 91
I
Production
198102
Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 198102 91 02 91 02 02
rUttar I
I
5.6
1.3
2.6
9.0
1.3
4.1
3.4
0.0
1.5
Pradesh
1.4
3.5
3.3
4.0
3.3
4.3
2.6
-0.2
1.0
Pradesh
IMadhya Bihar
0.7
-0. I
0.2
2.9
0.0
1.4
2.2
0.1
1.2
West Bengal
-0.3
-2.7
-3.4
7.0
2.4
0.5
7.3
5. I
3.9
Rajasthan
-5.0
9.5
2.9
-2.0
13.0
5.5
3.0
3.5
2.6
-3.9
-9.9
-6.9
-0.2
-8.2
-4.4
3.7
1.7
2.5
. Haryana Maharashtra
-4.9
-0.7
-3.2
0.7
4.7
0.6
5.6
5.4
3.8
[Punjab
-5.9
-8.9
-7.7
-0.1
-7.4
-5.4
5.8
1.5
2.3
India
1.7
2.1
1.8
5.8
3.8
4.0
4.1
1.7
2.2
Source: Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002),2004.
Other Pulses After reviewing the growth performance of major pulse crops, it would be appropriate to give a brief account of other pulses, which cover a small fraction of area and production of total pulses in India. The commonly used pulses include pea, moth, khesari, kulthi, lobia and raj mash. It is pertinent to present changes in area, production and yield of these crops during the study period.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
77
(i) Pea Peas are grown for use as a fresh or processed, sun dried, canned or frozen food. This is an irrigated rabi pulse crop grown extensively in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Orissa. However, Uttar Pradesh accounted for 60% of all India area and 77% of production. The area and production of peas have shown consistently rising trend in both 1980s and 1990s. The area has gone up from 423.2 thousand hectares in 1980-81 to 794.5 thousand hectares in 1997-98. Simultaneously, production has also risen from 291.2 thousand tonnes to 712.4 thousand tonnes during the same period. The yield has increased considerably during this period from 688 kg/ha in 1980-81 to 897 kg/ha in 1997-98. (ii) Moth Moth is a highly drought resistant kharif pulse crop. It is sown in June-July at the onset of monsoon and harvested in OctoberNovember. Rajasthan and Maharashtra are its major producers. Raj asthan accounted for about 80% of the all India area and 89.79% of production during 1997-98. The area under moth in India fell from 1,520.3 thousand hectares in 1980-81 to 1,225.6 thousand hectares in 1997-98. However, production rose from 208.3 thousand tonnes to 333.4 thousand tonnes in this period due to significant rise in yield from 137 kg/ha to 272 kg/ha. (iii) Khesari
Khesari known as lathyrus is mainly cultivated for fodder. But, poor people eat this pulse due to higher prices of other pulses. It is mainly grown as rabi crop in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and West Bengal. The area under khesari fell from 1,352.6 thousand hectares in 1981-81 to 840.1 thousand hectares in 1997-98. The production also followed the declining trend and it fell from 565.5 thousand tonnes to 226.9 thousand tonnes during the same period. Surprisingly, its yield has dropped from 418 kg/ha to 270 kg! ha during this period.
78
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
(iv) Kulthi Kulthi is grown as kharifpulse crop inAndhraPradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Orissa. It is also grown to a small extent in rabi season in states of Andhra Pradesh, Kamataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The area ofkulthi fell from 2, 121 thousand hectares to 1,024 thousand hectares between 1980-81 and 1997-98. The production also declined from 616 thousand tonnes to 398 thousand tonnes during the same period. However, yield has shown appreciable increase from 291 kglha to 389 kglha during the same period. Among minor pulses, lobia and rajmash are important and are in common use in fudia. Lobia is used as a fodder, a vegetable, a pulse and a green manure crop. Rajmash is popular pulse in Jammu and Kashmir. However, these are not sufficiently important pulses in terms of acreage and production. Therefore, their area and production is not recorded in the crop census of the country.
Kharif and Rabi Pulse Crops fu the earlier analysis, attention was drawn to the fact that pulse crops are grown in both kharif and rabi seasons. The major rabi pulses are gram and massar while kharif includes a large variety ranging from arhar to moong, urad and kulthi. The production of rabi season pulses formed about 64% of total production of all pulses with about 50% of total cropped area during the triennium ending 1969-70. Gradually, kharif pulses outpaced the rabi pulses in terms of growth in both production and cropped area. As a result, share of kharif pulses in total production of pulses has increased from 36% in the late 1960s to around 40% in the late 1980s. The proportion of area under these also increased from 41 % to 48% during the same period. Now, kharif and rabi pulses have almost the same share in area but in production, rabi pulses are far ahead due to higher productivity. Tables 3.11 and 3.12 show that kharifpulses have their base in states with poor irrigation availability. Maharashtra (25.00%), Rajasthan (17.51%), Karnataka (12.66%) and Madhya Pradesh (10.58%) together formed 67% of total kharifpulse area during 2001-02. These states accounted for bulk of the production. Rajasthan exhibited precarious situation by indicating only 7.51 %
79
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
share in the country's production as against 17.51% share in area. This is due to poor yield rate. Barring Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, yield was found extremely low, i.e., around 6 qtllha. The high yield rates in Uttar Pradesh and some other states indicate the potential, which is not realized in major kharif pulses growing states. Like kharif pulses, rabi pulses are also primarily grown in rain fed areas of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. These two states accounted for around 53% of all India area and a little higher proportion in production during 200 1-02. Uttar Pradesh is far ahead in yield rates. The productivity of rabi pulses in this state was 896 kglha as against 789 kglha in Madhya Pradesh. Table 3.11
Area, Production and Yield of Kharif Pulses in Important States in India (TE 2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield· kg/ha State
Production
Area
Maharashtra Uttar Pradesh
2001-02
% Share
2599.7 751.3 1316.7 1100.3 932.3 1821.0 635.7 217.0 494.7
25.00 7.23 12.66 10.58 8.97 17.51 6.11 2.09 4.76
1383.7 641.3 526.0 490.0 381.0 354.0 298.7 190.3 170.7
2.82 0.60 0.27 0.42 100.00
133.0 37.0 14.7 27.3 4711.0
Kamataka Madhya Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Rajasthan Gujarat Bihar Orissa Tamil Nadu 293.3 West Bengal 62.3 Haryana 28.3 Punjab 43.7 India· 10398.0
2001-02 % Share
Yield
2001-02
Rank
29.37 13.61 11.17 10.40 8.09 7.51 6.34 4.04 3.62
532 854 399 445 409 194 470 877 345
6 2 12 10
2.82 0.79 0.31 0.58 100.00
453 594 518 626 453
• Includes minor producing states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
1\ 14
8 I 13 9 5 7 3 -
80
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.12 Growth Performance of Kharif Pulses in Important States ofIndia (1981-2002)
(% per annum)
State
Area
Production
Yield
/98/9/
/99/-
/98/-
02
02
Maharashtra
2.1
0.1
1.1
5.6
2.7
3.0
3.5
2.6
1.9
Uttar Pradesh
-0.4
0.0
0.1
-\.I
-0.5
-\.2
-0.7 -0.5
-1.3
Karnataka
0.4
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.6
-0.2
-0.1
0.5
Madhya Pradesh
-1.7
-1.6
-2.1
1.1
-2.5
-1.7
2.8
-0.9
0.4
Andhra Pradesh
-0.3
1.0
-0.2
-0.3
2.8
1.6
0.0
1.8
1.8
Rajasthan
-1.0
-0.4
0.6
2.3
-2.3
3.1
3.3
-1.9
2.5
Gujarat
3.3
-1.8
1.4
4.5
-4.0
2.0
\.2
-2.2
0.6
Bihar
-2.8
-1.5
-2.2
-0.8
1.4
-0.7
2.0
2.9
1.5
Orissa
6.8
-3.2
1.0
7.9
-8.7
-1.9
1.1
-5.5
-2.9
Tamil Nadu
5.4
-9.7
-4.8
9.9
-9.1
-3.3
4.5
0.6
1.5
West Bengal
2.2
-3.2
0.6
-0.5
-2.9
-0.8
-2.7
0.3
-1.4
Haryana
9.9
-6.6
1.2
12.0 -11.6
0.1
2.1
-5.0
-I.I
Punjab
2.6
-5.0
-2.1
2.4
-7.7
-2.9
-0.2 -2.7
-0.8
India
0.9
-0.9
-0.1
3.0
-0.9
0.6
2.1
0.7
/98/ /99/- /98/- /98/ /99/9/ 02 02 9/ 02
0.0
/98/-
02
Source: Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002),2004.
81
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.13 Area, Production and Yield of Rabi Pulses in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha Area
State
Production
2001-02
% Share
2001-02 % Share
Madhya Pradesh
3503.7
34.08
2765.7
Uttar Pradesh
1946.7
18.94
Rajasthan
914.3
Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra
Yield 2001-02
Rank
33.67
789
5
1743.7
21.23
896
2
8.89
662.0
8.06
724
6
855.0
8.32
599.3
7.30
701
8
914.3
8.89
518.3
6.31
567
9
Bihar
623.0
6.06
517.3
6.30
830
3
Kamataka
640.0
6.23
324.7
3.95
507
11
West Bengal
204.0
1.98
165.3
2.01
810
4
Haryana
132.3
1.29
94.3
\.15
713
7
Orissa
177.7
1.73
80.7
0.98
454
12
Gujarat
52.7
0.51
28.0
0.34
532
10
Punjab
16.3
0.16
15.0
0.18
918
1
India·
10279.3
100.00
8213.0
100.00
799
-
• Includes minor producing states Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
82
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.14 Growth Performance of Rabi Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002) (% per annum)
State
Production
Area
198191
1991- 1981-
02
02
198191
Yield
1991 1981- 1981 1991 198102 02 91 02 02
Madhya Pradesh
0.7
0.0
0.8
2.9
1.6
3.2
2.2
1.6
2.4
Uttar Pradesh
0.5
-\.3
-0.7
1.4
-1.4
-0.1
0.9
-0.1
0.6
Rajasthan
-3.2
-2.4
-1.0
-3.7
-0.8
-0.5
-0.5
1.6
0.5
Andhra Pradesh
3.7
0.9
2.9
9.7
2.9
4.3
6.0
2.0
1.4
1.4
3.2
2.0
7.1
4.2
5.0
5.7
1.0
3.0
Bihar
-0.7
-3.2
-2.4
0.9
-2.5
-1.1
1.6
0.7
1.3
Kamataka
3.0
4.2
3.3
0.7
9.1
5.3
-2.3
4.9
2.0
West Bengal
-5.5
-0.7
-4.5
-1.7
1.0
-2.1
3.8
1.7
2.4
Haryana
-4.7
-1 \.3
-7.1
0.2
-11.6 -4.3
4.9
-0.3
2.8
Orissa
0.4
-14.8 -11.8
-0.4
-15.6 -13.5 -0.8
-0.8
-1.7
Gujarat
-1.9
-9.7
-2.3
-4.5
-9.4
-2.9
-2.6
0.3
-0.6
Punjab
-12.1
-10.7 -12.6
-7.5
-8.8 -10.0
4.6
1.9
2.6
India
-0.3
-\.3
-0.7
1.2
0.4
1.5
1.7
1.6
Maharashtra
0.9
Source: Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India,
1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002),2004.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
83
The production of kharif pulses grew at the rate of 0.6% per annum in the study period. The first period was better in area expansion as it grew at the rate of 0.9% per year. It reversed in the second period by showing a decline of the same percentage points. The yield followed the area trend by indicating a rise of2.1 % per annum in the first period and nil in the second period. The period of 1990s was a gloomy period because neither area nor yield ofkharif pulses recorded any positive change. The production performance of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat appeared to be better than other growing states. It was primarily due to higher growth in productivity. A comparison of production performance of rabi pulses with kharif pulses indicates that former registered one and half times growth in production despite declining area in the 1980s and 1990s. It was on account of yield growth, which registered an almost uniform increase of 1.6% per annum. In major producing states of Kamataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, area as well as yield growth was responsible for good performance of production but in Madhya Pradesh, major contributor was productivity.
Total Pulses Table 3.15 provides state-wise information on area, production and yield of pulse crops taken as a whole. Pulses were grown on around 21 million hectares of area and produced nearly 13 million tonnes of grain in TE 2001-02. It is clear that while pulses are widely grown in the country, some states are far more important than others as producers of these protein rich foods. Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan are the most important pulse producing states in that order and accounted together for nearly 66% of their total production in the country. Andhra Pradesh and Kamataka come next, contributing over 14% of the total production. The yield levels across the states show that yield of pulses in India is much below the potential yield of 10-15 qt1/ha. This is true of areas, which are rain fed as well as irrigated. The all India yield of pulses in TE 2001-02 was 597 kg/ha however; it was above average in Uttar Pradesh (883 kg/ha), Bihar (845 kg/ha) and West Bengal
84
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
(759 kg/ha) and Madhya Pradesh (737 kg/ha). Pulses can be further popularized in these areas in lean seasons so that these crops could become part of crop rotation without disturbing existing major crops. It is feasible because pulses are known for low water requirement and adaptability over a wide range of agro-climatic conditions. It would enhance income of the farmers by utilizing the available land in the lean periods and increase sustainability in agriculture. It would make a significant contribution to total production of pulses and also help to evolve a sustainable cropping pattern particularly in northern states with paddy, wheat rotation. Table 3.15 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important States of India (TE 2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha State
Area
Production
Yield
2001-02 % Share
2001-02 % Share 2001-02
Madhya Pradesh
4106.7
19.52
3025.3
24.08
737
Rank 4
Uttar Pradesh
2712.0
12.89
2395.3
19.7
883
1
Maharashtra
3514.0
16.70
1908.0
15.19
543
9
Rajasthan
2735.0
13.00
1016.3
8.09
372
14
Andhra Pradesh
1819.0
8.65
996.3
7.93
548
8
Karnataka
1953.7
9.29
853.7
6.80
437
11
Bihar
762.3
3.62
644.3
5.13
845
2
Gujarat
688.3
3.27
325.3
2.59
473
10
Tamil Nadu
742.3
3.53
324.7
2.58
437
12
Orissa
672.3
3.20
251.3
2.00
374
13
West Bengal
266.0
1.26
202.0
1.61
759
3
Haryana
160.7
0.76
108.3
0.86
674
6
Punjab
60.0
0.29
41.7
0.33
694
5
India·
21040.0
100.00
12561.7
100.00
597
-
• Includes minor producing states Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
85
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.16
Growth Performance of Total Pulses in Important States ofIndia (1981-2002) (% per annum) ~tate
Area 198191
Yreld
Production
1991- 1981-
02
02
198191
1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 198102 91 02 02 02
Madhya Pradesh
-0.1
-1.7
-0.4
2.4
0.0
1.8
2.5
1.7
2.2
Uttar Pradesh
0.3
-0.9
-0.4
0.7
-1.\
-0.3
0.4
-0.2
0.1
Maharashtra
2.1
0.8
1.4
6.2
3.0
3.6
4.1
2.2
2.2
Rajasthan
-2.1
-0.9
0.0
-1.8
-0.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
Andhra Pradesh
\.2
1.2
1.2
5.1
3.1
3.2
3.9
1.9
2.0 1.0
Karnataka
1.4
\.9
\.I
0.5
3.5
2.1
-0.9
1.6
Bihar
-\.I
-3.8
-2.7
0.6
-2.6
-1.3
1.7
1.2
1.4
Gujarat
2.5
-2.6
0.9
2.7
-4.7
\.2
0.2
-2.1
0.3
Tamil Nadu
5.3
-\.3
0.2
10.0
-0.9
\.8
4.7
0.4
\.6
Orissa
1.4
-7.9
-5.7
2.2
-12.3
-8.1
0.8
-4.4
-2.4
West Bengal
-3.9
-1.3
-3.5
-1.4
0.2
-1.9
2.5
\.5
1.6
Haryana
-3.8
-10.6
-6.5
1.3
-11.8
-4.1
5.1
-\.2
2.4
Punjab
-7.7
-6.9
-7.5
-4.7
-8.3
-6.8
3.0
-1.4
0.7
0.7
\,7
0.6
1.0
India Source:
0.2
-0.9
-0.3
1.9
-0.3
Based on complied data from Area and ProductIOn of Principal Crops, (1981-1998) and data compiled from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, (\ 999 to 2002), 2004.
86
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
During the study period, from 1980-81 to 2001-02, production of pulses in India has registered a slow growth rate of 0.7% per annum. The states of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh have shown more than 3% per year growth in pulse production. In addition, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh recorded around 2% growth in the same period. On the other hand, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana, West Bengal and Bihar have exhibited negative growth in pulse production. Ifwe consider two sub-periods, our conclusions change. The period of 1980s with 1.9% growth in pulse production in India appeared to be much better than the 1990s with negative growth of -0.3% per annum. The state-wise changes in production of pulses in the subperiods show that rates of growth of total pulse production in the 1980s were more than one per cent in 7 states out of 11 major states. But, in the 1990s, this number has been reduced to three only. The differential growth rates in the pulse production have brought some important changes in the locational pattern ofpulse production in the country. The higher growth of production in states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh in 1990s implies that growth centres of pulse production shifted to southern states. In most of these states, acceleration in production was primarily due to yield improvement Especially; states like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka exhibited a yield growth of2% per annum in the study period. The area expansion in these states was also around one per cent per year. Thus, whatever little growth has been achieved in pulse production came mainly from yield growth. Contribution of yield growth to production growth was higher in the 1980s. However, yield growth itself was low. The yield growth of total pulses between 1980-81 and 2001-02 was merely one per cent per annum. Agricultural scientists believe that yield of pulses can be easily raised to above 10 qtl/ha in rain fed areas. Therefore, efforts should be made to raise yield levels by popularizing available improved technology for pulse cultivation through implementation of pragmatic policies.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
87
Farm-size Variation The state level variations in the area, production and yield of pulses are determined by variations at the farm size level that are influenced by agronomic factors and other farm characteristics. In view of the given predominance of small and marginal farmers in number and of large farmers in area, the concerns regarding farm size in increasing production of pulse crops appear to be relevant. Past studies conducted on pulses in India offered many reasons for the stagnant production. The main arguments advanced range from allocation of rain fed poor quality land to non-adoption of improved seeds and low consumption of yield raising inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation. Since most of these studies are based on secondary data, these reasons are given on the basis of macro indicators like low irrigation status of pulses in India. These inferences are useful to understand the trends in area and production. Supplementing the field experiences across farm sizes can further enrich these findings. Unfortunately, farm size evidences on indicators like percentage of land allocated to pulses, their irrigation status and yield realized are scarce. The data published in "Agricultural Censuses", "Input Surveys" and "Cultivation Practices in India" provide knowledge about the first two aspects but are silent about the productivity, which is most crucial in enhancing production of pulses. However, the status of pulses in farming across the farm sizes overtime can be well understood by analysing the results of the above sources. Therefore, it is imperative to assess the status of pulses on different categories of farms by operational holdings in 1980-81 and 1991-92 and ownership holdings in 1998. In addition, farm size evidence is cited from two Indian states - Haryana which has made significant progress in agriculture due to success of the Green Revolution and Madhya Pradesh which is the largest producer of pulses but lagging behind in agricultural productivity at the macro level. The main findings of secondary data on allocation of land to pulse crops by farm size during 1980-81, 1991-92 and 1998 are summarized in Table 3.17. It may be noticed that the percentage of GCA devoted to pulse crops was significant by all farm sizes but it was comparatively higher in un-irrigated areas. It ranged between
88
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
2.86% to 18.51 % in 1980-81. The proportions of gram, arhar and other pulses in GCA were 3.7%, 1.5% and 6.8% respectively in the early 1980s. It may be observed that proportion of land devoted for pulse cultivation was significant by all groups. However, it was 15.1 % in large size farms as against 9.5% in marginal farms. The results of "Input Survey" data of 1991-92 on gram and arhar cultivation corroborate the same findings. Table 3.17 Percentage of GCA under Pulse Crops by Farm Size in India (198081,1991-92 and 1998) (%)
193J..-9?'
JSBJ-8l*
Farm Size Gram
Arhar
Other Pulses
Marginal
1.21
0.07
1.58
Small
1.72
0.10
SemiMedium
2.39
Medium
3.75
Large All
Total Pulses
1998'"
Gram
Arhar
Total Pulses
2.86
0.89
0.26
NA
1.41
3.23
1.04
0.39
NA
0.12
1.39
3.90
1.73
0.41
NA
0.16
1.31
5.22
2.21
0.46
NA
5.44
0.11
1.00
6.55
3.13
0.28
NA
2.85
0.12
1.35
4.32
1.68
0.38
NA
Irrigated Area
Un-irrigated Area
Marginal
3.13
1.62
8.60
13.35
1.98
2.03
NA
Small
3.14
1.83
8.37
13.34
2.34
2.95
NA
SemlMedium
3.74
2.17
8.63
14.54
2.22
2.83
NA
Medium
4.35
2.39
11.77
18.51
2.88
3.11
NA
Large
5.07
2.08
10.06
17.21
4.12
2.36
NA
All
4.03
2.08 I
8.95
15.66
2.66
2.73
NA
I
89
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.17 (Contd.)
Irrigated + Un-irrigated Area Marginal
2.41
1.05
6.00
9.46
1.50
1.25
20.00
Marginal
2.41
1.05
6.00
9.46
1.50
1.25
20.00
Small
2.68
1.27
6.10
10.05
1.82
1.94
7.14
Semi-Medium
3.24
1.50
6.25
10.99
2.03
1.80
7.99
Medium
4.19
1.79
6.95
12.93
2.64
2.18
9.53
Large
5.14
1.70
8.29
15.13
3.83
1.74
9.81
All
3.69
1.53
6.80
12.02
2.30
1.86
12.50
Source:
* Agricultural Census, 1980-81 ** Input Survey, 1991-92 *** Cultivation Practices in India, 2000
All farmers allotted around 2.30% of GCA to gram and 1.86% to arhar. The large farmers raised these crops on 3.83 % and 1.74% ofGCA while marginal farmers devoted 1.50% and 1.25% to these crops. It is interesting to note that higher size classes of farmers devoted higher share of GCA to pulses in 1980-81 as well as in 1991-92. There is a strong evidence of clear association between farm size and share of GCA devoted to pulse crops.
In the year 1998, the aforesaid phenomenon was not found true. Farmers especially those with a fair amount of land have shown a declining preference to raise pulses due to emerging options in the form of alternate crops with higher yields and low risk. The percentage of GCA under pulses on large size farms declined in comparison to 1980s and 1990s. On the other hand, percentage of GCA to pulses under small and marginal farms improved significantly, although it appeared to be on higher side in case of marginal farmers. The last column ofTable 3.17 makes this fact amply clear. The small and marginal farmers are mostly subsistence type and that is why, they could not afford to undertake the calculated risk by raising pulses on their tiny holdings. In addition, these holdings are better endowed with irrigation facilities and hence, it is possible to grow superior cereals. But, with the availability of improved seeds and remunerative prices, small and marginal farmers have started devoting larger proportion of GCA to
90
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
pulses. The differences in irrigated vis-a-vis un-irrigated areas were clearly visible as each category offanners in un-irrigated areas allocated higher proportion ofland to pulses. It was as high as 18.51 % of GCA on large farms in 1980-81. The preceding analysis on allocation ofland to pulse crops by farm size presented an overall picture at the country level. But, these results may not corroborate for the core pulse producing states like Madhya Pradesh (Gupta, 1999) where fanners attach higher weightage to pulse cultivation in the absence ofother lucrative alternatives for the rain fed un-irrigated land. Similarly, the results may also deviate in agriculturally advanced states like Haryana (Tuteja, 1999) where pulses are largely grown in lesser-irrigated districts like Bhiwani. Table 3.18 highlights that paddy and pulses are the two major crops ofDurg district in Madhya Pradesh. Farmers devoted around 40% of gross cropped area to pulses. This proportion was found as high as 46% and 45% in case of marginal and small farmers. Among pulses, teora and gram are largely cultivated. But, teora was replaced by urad in Jhabua and Narsinghpur districts. Besides, maize, wheat and soyabean are also grown. There is not a single category of farmers, which devoted less than 30% of cropped area to pulses. The high status of pulses in the farming is primarily due to low availability of water in the region. When the proportion of cropped area devoted by the pulse growers in Madhya Pradesh is compared with Haryana, it was found much lower in the agriculturally advanced district ofAmbala (Table 3.19). It was around 9% of gross cropped area. Interestingly, the share of area allocated to pulses by small and marginal fanners was found higher than that of medium and large farmers. Gram and massar are the major pulse crops of the area. A little of urad is also cultivated. These findings do not hold true for the dry district ofBhiwani. Here, farmers devoted 32.9% of gross cropped area to pulses. The pattern of area allocation to pulses. by different categories of farmers was observed reverse from Ambala as large land owning categories of farmers devoted higher share of gross cropped area to pulse crops. Among pulses, gram is the preferred crop, but some farmers also cultivated moong and massar.
91
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.18
Percentage of GCA under Wheat, Rice and Pulses in Three Districts of Madhya Pradesh (1996-97) Farm Size Crop
Marginal
Small
SemiMedium
Medium
Large
All
5144
38.56
45.80
Durg District
IPaddy
47.98
50.13
37.63
Wheat
-
1.19
2.36
1.05
9.65
2.80
Soya bean
-
-
5.70
4.27
8.43
4.37
Vegetables
1.15
1.81
0.47
2.14
-
1.30
Gram
4.62
2.38
22.50
16.37
10.85
13.82
Teora
40.48
42.06
19.91
18.08
26.50
25.10
Lentil
0.62
2.41
0.73
I Kodo+Arhar
-
-
-
0.53
Urad Teora
-
-
-
5_75
1----
Urad
Soyabean+ Arhar
1.81
1.07
2.42
0.83
2.65
-
1.34
-
1.19
0.46
-
1.26
3.42
5_34
Jhabua District 4.74
7.29
3.51
Wheat
-
17.95
15.90
13.75
Maize
20.87
12.64
16.50
22.46
-
1.08
5.31
10.33
-
3.80
9.38
1.76
8.62
-
Paddy
Jowar Soya bean Castor
-
1.08
2.20
Gram
7.59
10.60
10.57
-
-
-
0.88
-
3.80
-
-
-
Groundnut+Arhar
-
0.92
-
-
-
Urad
44.02
22.67
32.56
17.25
Arhar
-
1.98
1.10
Maize+Urad+ Moong
-
0.67
-
-
-
Moong Jowar + Arhar
15.94 1547 3.58 6.12 1.36 9.40 26.90 1.35 0.34 0.17 0.42 0.31
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
92 Table 3./8 (Contd.)
Farm Size Marginal
Crop
Small
SemiMedium
Medium
Large
All
Narsinghpur District
Paddy
-
1.44
-
-
-
0.16
Wheat
13.45
12.32
18.22
16.43
11.38
15.83
Soya bean
39.84
33.38
43.77
39.55
45.46
41.20
Sunflower
-
-
5.13
-
-
3.45
-
1.89
Sugarcane
-
1.27
Batari
-
10.62
1.34
2.17
20.44
5.30
Gram
28.88
28.39
23.10
17.07
Urad (kharit)
7.52
-
-
-
-
18.37
1.48
-
1.29
-
0.64
Arhar
-
-
2.01
0.65
-
095
Massar
10.31
12.37
8.64
12.10
17.05
11.55
-
-
0.44
1.55
-
0.72
Urad (summar)
Pea
0.20
Source: Based on Gupta, 1999 Table 3.19 Percentage of GCA under Pulses in Two Important Districts of Haryana (1997-98) Farm Size
Crop
Marginal
Small
Semi-
Medium
Large
All
Medium Ambala District Gram
6.25
7.65
3.66
4.06
3.23
3.92
Massar
6.25
3.83
3.66
2.39
0.90
4.11
Mash
0.00
10.46
4.35
1.97
2.32
1.10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.50
21.94
11.67
8.42
6.45
9.13
Moong Any other Total pulses
I
93
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3./9 (Contd.)
Farm Size Crop
Marginal
Small
Semi-
Medium
Large
All
Medium
Bhiwani District Gram
13.04
18.09
13.24
19.47
16.00
17.14
Moong
0.00
1.42
11.35
8.53
7.27
8.02
Massar
6.53
2.12
8.11
6.63
4.36
5.79
Arhar
-
3.55
2.98
0.50
1.46
1.40
Moth Total pulses
-
-
-
1.30
-
0.55
19.57
25.18
35.68
36.43
29-09
32-90
Source: Based on Tuteja, 1999.
Section-2 Instability in Production
The preceding section highlights that growth performance of pulse crops had been poor during the reference period. The slow pace of growth is further compounded by high instability arising out of yield and price variability. Wide fluctuations in crop output not only affect price and bring sharp fluctuations in them but also result in wide variations in disposable income of the farmers. Therefore, an analysis of instability is important for understanding the nature and stability of income (Ray, 1989). The estimation of instability also helps the producer and policy makers in choosing separate risk responses such as stabilization versus crop insurance programmes. The accurate measurement of the sources of variability can help in targeting policies to reduce or offset the effects of instability. In the past, scholars (Hazell, 1982; Ray, 1989; Jain and Singh, 1991; Mahendradev, 1997) have analysed instability in the production of
94
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
food grains. In these studies, pulse crops are treated as a group and therefore, do not provide the estimates of instability in the area, production and yield of individual pulse crops over time. A large proportion of cropped area under pulses is rain fed which increases instability in the yield due to uncertainly of rainfall. But, the degree of instability is expected to vary from crop to crop and from region to region. In irrigated areas, yield of pulses are less unstable while reverse may be true in dry areas. Given this background, statewise instability in the area, production and yield of five major pulse crops (gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar), rabi pulses, kharif pulses and total pulses was estimated in three referred periods. In constructing an instability index of a parameter, several methods such as moving averages, coefficient of variation and standard deviation of the annual growth rates are commonly used by the scholars. A scrutiny of results shows that different measures result in different numerical values for the same data series. Coppock (1962) measured international instability in exports and imports through log variance method. We have used this method to estimate instability in area, production and yield of the above-mentioned five individual pulse crops, kharif pulses, rabi pulses and total pulses during the earlier referred three periods for the all India level and in major producing states. The magnitude of index exhibits the degree of instabiiity. The formula for calculating the Coppock instability index is as follows: • Coppock's Instability Index Vlog=
X., 1 2:(log--m) X
N Instabilityll'ldflx: = antilog(.jVlcg-l)
X, - variable (area, production and yield of the crop) in year 't' m - arithmetic mean of the difference between the logs of X, and XI+ 1 Vlog -logarithmic variance ofthe series N - number of years minus one (1)
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
95
The instability index (I-I) of selected pulse crops based on log variance in Table 3.20 shows that I-I of gram production in India was 25.08% during the period 1981-2002. The uncertainty in acreage (17.14%) was observed to be higher than yield (12.58%). This is the outcome of availability of relatively profitable crops like wheat in irrigated areas and mustard in rain fed areas in the rabi season. In favourable circumstances, farmers immediately switch over to these crops. Furthermore, yield I-I was also high despite some success of improved technology in gram cultivation. Among the sub-periods, the second period has indicated higher I-I for both area and production. But, the yield I-I dropped marginally. This implies that Technology Mission on Oil seeds and Pulses (TMOP) in the 1990s did not contribute substantially in reducing fluctuations in yield of gram in India. A look at the state-wise I-I indices of area makes clear that acreage fluctuations were of very high degree in Gujarat (83.37%), Haryana (71.41 %), Rajasthan (50.41 %), Tamil Nadu (46.12%) and Punjab (35.62%). But, the I-I of acreage in Uttar Pradesh (6.77%), Madhya Pradesh (12.82%) and Bihar (15.26%) was lower than all India. These figures are indicative of relative stability of area under gram in these states. The situation is further compounded by higher yield uncertainty in Haryana (49.02%), Andhra Pradesh (46.91%), Karnataka (25.07%), Bihar (26.06%), Punjab (30.42%) and Rajasthan (20.95%). Tamil Nadu exhibited the lowest instability index for yield of gram (5.83%) during the study period. The I-I of production in most of the states exceeded acreage and yield. It implies that changes in area and yield did not offset each other, rather they moved together. A comparison of uncertainty in production of gram in eighties and nineties in different states indicated mixed results. Among the leading states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, production instability during the reform period has increased in the first and third while it has declined slightly in the second case.
Table 3.20 Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India (1981-02)
Gram
State
Area Production
Area
Production
Urad
Moong
Arhar Yield
(%)
Yield
Area
ProductIOn
Yield
Area
Production
Yield
19.67
1980-81 to 1990-91 1864
30.15
30.14
7.59
41.20
42.44
6.13
3555
35.70
9.60
20.56
9.67
12.13
12.76
13.59
26.27
29.54
5.17
14.16
15.59
7.44
17.51
GUJarat
45.35
65.50
23.71
7.66
38.73
36.47
110.86
258.22
106.04
Haryana
80.66
161.43
71.12
74.72
146.45
71.35
-
-
-
Karnataka
17.78
34.20
16.90
4.55
23.Q9
23.12
17.27
44.27
30.50
6.60
35.34
Madhya Pradesh
7.40
14.39
7.52
24.06
31.67
23.45
4.16
14.85
11.89
381
17.55
17.23
Maharashtra
9.59
37.28
26.64
4.96
28.14
26.88
10.05
25.22
23.98
11.22
41.74
3731
645
16.97
Andhra Pradesh Bihar
-
-
11.13
31.77
16.38
Orissa
1557
11.78
10.85
8.17
17.83
16.67
10.73
11.44
6.76
Punjab
30.47
73.28
42.63
43.26
50.22
20.35
23.17
30.12
13.48
Rajasthan
4640
62.46
20.67
59.01
197.97
92.16
27.00
148.35
120.49
16.18
89.08
89.01
Tamil Nadu
50.80
50.28
4.37
25.47
39.15
23.15
24.76
49.29
25.04
27.53
34.78
19.92
Uttar Pradesh
5.81
16.44
17.73
525
14.87
14.75
10.52
19.03
17.57
9.83
25.85
16.12
West Bengal
2877
22.87
24.16
53.83
70.34
34.27
-
-
-
1672
2844
1704
India
13.17
2254
12.91
3.85
13 05
9.72
16.14
12.45
3.97
8.05
6.85
-
-
-
6.31
Table 3.20 (Contd) State
Gram Area Production
Arhar YIeld
Are
Producllon
Moong Yield
Area
Production
Urad Yield
Area
Producllon
YIeld
1990-91 to 2001-02
Andhra Pradesh
3797
8494
5966
12.82
6435
5259
6.42
3388
31.15
11.01
28.15
Bihar
18.71
37.58
34.74
170.10
18.44
159.90
4.15
13.50
11 04
739
16.84
1218
GUJarat
110.70
140.24
25.06
769
5430
4654
2603
9944
65.90
25.49
58.25
78.68
Haryana
6136
87.95
22.58
61.52
89.23
18.72
-
Karnataka
25.23
44.48
29.85
18.03
6418
58.95
38.32
Madhya Pradesh
16.27
26.31
13.39
1039
28.80
24.01
5.53
21.23
15.51
5.51
1588
13.76
Maharashtra
23.71
56.22
3209
3.32
4868
48.76
581
60.87
58.32
466
58.53
53.60
Orissa
23.91
35.54
13.05
22.47
40.67
57.59
50.21
90.00
31.69
6228
112.75
3367
Punjab
39.67
52.69
15.17
13.89
25.11
18.03
12.73
19.79
11.50
Rajasthan
53.40
66.76
21.05
34.25
104.62
77.63
21.36
146.82
122.23
25.38
5471
37.19
TamilNadu
41.45
47.20
690
14.98
33.26
27.42
19.25
29.75
20.74
15.32
26.24
17.89
17.10
35.23
21.72
Uttar Pradesh
6.86
15.28
19.28
6.05
8.16
9.00
West Bengal
29.15
42.43
22.75
58.20
6564
27.73
IndIa
20.03
27.18
12.25
4.97
22.27
20.53
6.99
72.36
17.39
-
-
43.84
8.88
1673
-
73.40
-
2309
73.89
-
986
2128
20.12
14.83
38 IS
2475
597
11.20
10.35
Table 3.20 (Con/d.) Gram
State Area
ProductlOn
Arhar Y,eld
Area
Produc-
Moong Y,eld
Area
lIOn
Produ-
Urad Y,eld
Area
Produclion
Y,eld
33.41
11.06
2573
21.69 11.83
CllOn
1980-81 to 2001·02 Andhra Pradesh
30.00
61.74
46.91
10.69
53.97
48.05
631
34.77
Bihar
15.26
2807
26.06
106.44
22.42
104.26
5.45
14.29
13.39
7.41
17.26
GUJarat
8337
107.68
2443
814
47.68
42.03
71.87
175.22
85.77
.
Haryana
71.41
12425
49.02
71.61
120m
47.98
-
.
-
Karnataka
2194
40.53
25.07
13.27
47.18
44.11
3008
61.43
38.52
7.88
5686
Madhya Pradesh
1282
2140
10.95
17.95
30.47
24.08
4.97
18.40
13 91
4.77
1670
15.49
Maharashtra
18.25
4839
30.01
4.75
3972
3951
8.29
46.59
4431
8.83
5094
46.60
Orissa
20.33
26.80
12.50
1745
32.65
41.65
35.67
6089
22.96
43.56
7591
Punjab
35.62
6301
30,42
30.39
38.31
19.22
21.54
29.00
1271
.
.
Rajasthan
50.41
6481
20.95
47.00
150,07
8487
24.16
14764
121.48
2140
7186
TamIiNadu
4612
4880
5.83
2152
36.82
25.45
22.40
4018
22.88
22.54
31.64
19.00
Uttar Pradesh
677
1586
18.63
5.68
11.77
12 03
1433
28.36
1983
9.86
2357
18.31
West Bengal
31 31
3683
23.50
5660
6920
31.32
IndIa
1714
2508
12.58
4.72
1839
16.13
-
7.03
-
-
55.89
2652
. 64.11
.
-
16.18
3399
2U3
17.06
1490
530
1039
8.85
Source. Based on data from Area and ProduclIon of PrincIpal Crops (1982 to 1997) and data from Directorate of Economics and StalIslIcs, (1998-2002),
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
99
The production instabllity of arhar was estimated much lower than gram at the all India level during the study period. The most notable feature in this case was small I-I of area (4.72%) although it increased marginally during the second period. The contribution ofyield fluctuations in production instability was found higher in this case. It was roughly more than double. The states with very high instability in production of arharwere Rajasthan (150.07%) and Haryana (120.02%) but the state of Uttar Pradesh has shown the lowest I-I index (11.77%). The yield uncertainty was extremely high in Bihar and I-I index crossed 100 (104.26%). It implies wide year-to-year fluctuations in yield. The area I-I in Bihar was also the highest (106.44%). Like gram, production instability of arhar in the 1990s was higher than the 1980s. The acreage and yield I-Is in the first period were 3.85% and 9.72% respectively as against 4.97% and 20.53% in the recent period. At state level, production instability was the highest in Rajasthan (197.97% and 104.62%) during both the sub-periods. The case ofUttar Pradesh emerged as an excellent example of production stability for arhar in the second period due to small I-I of area (6.05%) as well as yield (9%). In fact, area and yield together provided stable production in this case. Like arhar, the degree of production instability of moong was also found significantly high. Once again, area was far more stable than yield at the all India level. The direction of results was almost uniform in both the periods. Among the major producing states, Gujarat (175.22%) followed by Rajasthan (147.64%) has indicated the highest I-I of production due to higher yield uncertainty. The lowest instability in production was observed in Bihar (14.29%) followed by Madhya Pradesh (18.40%) due to low instability in area as well as in yield. In case of Gujarat, both area (7l.87%) and yield (85.77%) reinforced production instability. In the first period, Orissa has shown the minimum instability in the production while Gujarat has exhibited the maximum. The contribution of area instability in production was relatively higher in Madhya Pradesh but in Gujarat acreage and yield both revealed I-I more than 100%. After 1990-91, production of moong was found more stable in Bihar, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh. On the other hand, Rajasthan with an I-I of 146.82% indicated extreme instability in production of moong largely due to yield uncertainty.
100
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The production instability behaviour ofurad diverged from the earlier discussed three pulse crops. Here, area as well as yield was found relatively stable by indicating I-I equal to 5.30% and 8.85%. The low value ofI-I for production is clearly the result of compensatory relations between area and yield as higher area was partly offset by lower yields while lower yields were partly offset by higher area. A complete offsetting would putI-Iforproduction at zero. Between the two referred periods, the fITst period was better when acreage instability is as low as 3.97% and yield instability around 6.31 %. In the second period, both increased and resulted in higher instability in production. At the state level, Orissa was most unstable in the entire period, Rajasthan in the first period and again Orissa in the second period emerged as the states with higher instability in the production of urad. Unexpectedly, the instability in the production of urad was found lowest (16.70%) in Madhya Pradesh between 1980-81 and 2001-02. Nonetheless, this was also on the higher side. An examination of instability index of production of massar at all India level indicates comparatively higher stability vis-a-vis gram, arhar and moong. Nonetheless, it was more than urad. The I-I of massar production was 11.80% in the 1980s, 14.65% in the 1990s and 13.41 % for the entire period. The yield volatility has been the main source of uncertainty. It is evident from Table 3.21 that the area I-I was around half of the yield I-I. Among the states, Madhya Pradesh followed by Uttar Pradesh revealed lower production instability. The area and yield both together were responsible for stable production. On the other hand, Maharashtra (64.69%) followed by Rajasthan (51.27%) showed the maximum uncertainty due to area and yield variability. In the early 1980s, production instability of massar was low in Madhya Pradesh with below 10% I-I for area as well as for yield. However, state of Maharashtra has exhibited the highest instability that was 38.31% for area and 27.63% for yield. After a decade, Punjab outpaced Madhya Pradesh in stability of massar production but Maharashtra maintained the lowest position in this period too.
Table 3.21 also reveals instability indices in the production of rabi, kharif and total pulses. It is interesting to note that production of rabi and kharif pulses was almost equally uncertain during the
(%)
Table 3 2 \Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India 1981-02 Gram
Slale Area
ProduellOn
Yield
Area
Produe/Ion
Urad
Moong
Arhar Yield
Area
ProduellOn
Yield
Area
ProduelIOn
Yield
1980-81 to 1990-91 Andhra Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra
9.85
-
-
-
7.44
13.83
17.98
8.04
30.50
27.14
6.06
928
9.82
1282
8.86
5.56
7.92
5.70
5.41
1245
8.98
4.09
7.08
5.12
-
8339
10617
18.67
19.87
56.87
36.44
22.92
61.30
3474
-
2714
50.85
30.60
76.29
14963
66.14
23.07
31.43
18.22
68.36
12090
5649
-
-
-
14.99
3042
17.63
10.40
23.41
20.00
9.53
2579
17.27
469
741
7.56
7.34
12 46
5.69
2.18
25.30
24.49
5.08
1191
8.43
38.31
58.98
27.63
2184
38.44
20.15
6.15
19.93
18.24
634
20.80
16.33
Onssa
-
-
7.79
7.49
7.95
7.10
16.51
10.92
7.93
9.01
7.51
Punjab
36.89
4393
-
1657
28.17
58.21
34.55
16.28
25.14
1778
1961
3131
17.08
Rajasthan
27.06
4195
19.46
45.89
6080
19.72
23.19
18527
15285
30.86
70.01
3560
-
19.89
1770
1323
1737
19.74
1090
-
Uttar Pradesh
1289
14.02
1817
567
12.95
12.44
3.99
15.68
1574
4.93
986
11 08
West Bengal
12.45
18.20
21.76
12.07
15.47
13.49
57.27
5848
1600
11.69
1670
10.90
8.27
11.80
1321
7.73
14.48
9.66
5.96
1528
11.01
5.85
1\.38
702
IndIa
-
-
-
-
Tarml Nadu
.... ....o
-
Table 321 (Contd) State
Gram Area
Produ-
Arhar Yield
Area
Produc-
Yield
Area
Produ-
Yield
Area
Produclion
Yield
etlon
lIon
elton
S
Urad
Moong
1990-91 to 2001-02 Andhra Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra
12.39
13.54
641
10.17
27.40
22.33
9.58
45 II
38.36
4.75
25.64
2313
4.85
31.23
30.76
406
2046
1895
410
13.39
1276
5.69
1864
15.97
-
92.81
124.95
28.31
7.57
46.56
40.19
II 19
5145
38.15
11.91
51.99
76.93
22.17
4297
73.19
2346
48.64
71.13
20.08
21 33
25.97
1964
14.82
36.84
2662
8.54
22.99
19.79
3748
-
39.21
-
-
7.98
15.81
921
9.68
21.62
1427
5.37
18.52
14.58
11.28.
22.15
12.52
48.88
69.71
2107
24.11
50.26
2787
5.72
4750
4790
5.92
46.42
41.50
-
-
-
7512
90.86
12.31
1463
33.96
1892
36.76
51.36
1598
Punjab
14.56
11.45
16.20
30.Q9
30.43
973
8.74
1577
1095
10.81
13.58
8.92
Rajasthan
4351
59.06
32.11
51.84
62.18
19.48
1655
123.83
101.87
27.81
66.07
35.07
-
-
-
19.82
35.19
16.47
14.04
19.80
12.66
Orissa
Tamil Nadu
-
-
-
Uttar Pradesh
7.96
16.07
12.59
3.45
14.91
14.51
4.75
780
8.01
2.40
11.37
11.50
West Bengal
32.00
40.33
42.19
17.94
27.57
13.28
1410
31.16
24.08
13.47
24.24
11.93
4.78
14.65
1290
1426
1878
969
4.07
16.83
15.78
505
1373
10.23
India
-
Table 3 21 (Contd) State
Gram Area
Produ-
Arhar Yield
Area
etlon
Produe-
Urad
Moong Yield
Area
Produ-
tlon
Yield
Area
Produe-
Yield
tlon
etlon I
1980-81 to 2001-02 Andhra Pradesh BIhar GUJarat Haryana Kamataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa
7.61
-
23.95
-
-
899
2185
20.39
8.88
3862
33.36
541
19.27
22.60
5.02
15.81
14.09
4.81
12.95
11.13
5.25
1446
11.98
-
8954
11749
2411
14.90
5227
3864
18.05
56.99
3672
6461
113 11
4610
35.57
5703
21.35
5896
9618
39.97
18.61
28.92
19.23
12.88
31.00
23.68
9.03
24.36
18.62
17.82
1095
4.15
22.11
1994
9.01
18.05
10.76 31.29
33.10
45.19
-
-
6.64
12.45
8.57
8.73
44.02
64.69
2435
-
-
2231
-
1781
2308
45.01
2451
595
3609
35.80
6.15
35.75
-
51.73
61.45
10.47
12.67
2850
16.05
26.57
3693
13.13
13.64
21.67
14.62
15.51
23.39
13.45
Punjab
26.96
30.31
16.42
2919
44.84
24.06
Rajasthan
3635
51.27
26.77
49.33
61.62
1967
19.93
135.46
126.76
29.32
68.08
35.37
-
-
21.77
3022
15.16
16.18
2064
11.98
TamilNadu
-
-
-
-
Uttar Pradesh
11.05
16.02
15.57
4.82
14.15
13.57
443
12.13
12 22
3.89
10.74
11.31
West Bengal
2426
31.66
33.70
1572
2247
13.51
3900
45.31
2069
12.76
20.91
1149
6.67
13.41
13.07
1164
16.93
9.68
5.12
16.31
13 78
555
12.81
8.87
IndIa
Source: Based on data from Area and ProductIon of Pnnclpal Crops (1982 to 1997) and data from DIrectorate of Economics and Statistics, (1998- 2002),
o
UJ
104
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
study span. But, acreage of rabi pulses after the economic reforms in the 1990s was found more unstable due to availability of better technology and extension services for oilseeds cultivation under the TMOP. Surprisingly, it did not reduce yield instability of pulses. Especially, it has increased in the case kharifpulses. The differences in the instability in production ofkharifpulses in the two selected periods were marginal despite some fluctuations in area as well as in yield. The instability indices for the production of total pulses in India were estimated 11.38% in the first period, 13.73% in the second period and 12.81% during the entire study span. Out of the two (area and yield), yield contributed relatively much more to in~tability and it has increased during the reforms period. It may be mentioned that instability around the trend in case of area was relatively low in comparison to yield. Among the states, highest uncertainty was found in Haryana and the lowest in Uttar Pradesh in the first as well as in the second period. Particularly, area I-I in Uttar Pradesh was found extremely low (2.40%) during the reforms period but efforts should be made to reduce yield instability, which was found more than 10%. The findings for the entire period were also similar. The following important points emerge from the analysis of instability in the production of pulses: •
First, the I-I index ofpulse production showed high uncertainty at individual level as well as at the aggregate level barring a few exceptions when I-I index was below 10%.
•
Second, the instability behaviour of individual pulses is diverse. The crops of urad and massar indicated lower production instability in comparison to major crops like gram and arhar.
•
Third, the evidences of higher instability in yield are much more than area except gram, which has indicated reverse pattern. In six out of total eighl cases, yield variability is responsible for uncertain production.
•
Fourth, the range of instability in production of total pulses is quite wide at the state level. It was estimated as high as
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
105
96% in Haryana. In contrast, it was found around 11 % in Uttar Pradesh due to very low index of area instability (3.89%). •
Fifth, more than 90% of analysed states have indicated pulse production instability above the all India level.
Causes of Instability It is found that instability in production of pulses is on the higher side in India. The important source appeared to be yield variability. This is because pulses are mostly grown in rain fed areas. The quantum of rainfall influences area allocation at the pre-sowing stage and later to the yield by receiving one or two irrigations. In the absence of irrigation support for the pulse crops, rains are the only solace, failing which yield falls by considerable percentage. Other factors, which cause instability in production of pulses, are price variability and adoption of technology, which will be discussed in Chapters - V and VI. Here, we have presented information on two factors, i.e., dependence on rainfall and lack of irrigation, which cause production instability in pulses.
Relationship Between Rainfall and Production of Pulses One of the main causative factors of the poor performance of pulse production seems to be the excessive dependence of pulses on rainfall. It has been found that the correlation between the index of rainfall and pulse production at the national level was as high as 0.67 (meaning 67% dependence) during the period 1980-81 to 200102. While there is a significant correlation between the rainfall index and production of all food grain crops, but it was highest in case of pulses. It may be seen from Table 3.22 that the dependence of pulse production on rainfall in major producing states ofRajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was found very high. On the other hand, states like Bihar, Orissa and Punjab have exhibited relatively lower dependence on rainfall.
106
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Inadequate Irrigation Cover The rain dependence of pulses is not surprising especially in view of the very low irrigation cover accorded to them in almost all the states. Only 16.1 % of the area covered under pulses at the national level was irrigated in 1999-2000, as compared to 87.2% for wheat and 53.9% for rice. It is not surprising that Rajasthan, the fourth largest producer of the crop in the country recorded the lowest average yield of pulses (372 kg/ha) during TE 2001-02 as the irrigation cover for pulses in the state was as low as 15.01 % during 1999-2000. Similarly, irrigation coverage for pulses in other major growing states of Madhya Pradesh (26%), Uttar Pradesh (22.9%), Maharashtra (7.5%), AndhraPradesh (1%), Kamataka (3.9%) and Gujarat (23.2%) was found below 30% during the year 2000-01. Among the major growing states, pulses received maximum irrigation coverage in Madhya Pradesh, but Uttar Pradesh leads other states in the country in yield level (883 kg/ha). The irrigation cover accorded to pulses in Madhya Pradesh is the second highest in the country, while it ranks fourth in average yield (737 kg/ha) attained during triennium ending 200 1-02. The substantial difference in yield levels between Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh is surprising considering the difference in irrigation cover accorded to pulses in these states. The much lower levels of yield attained in other states can also probably be attributed to the lesser irrigation cover accorded to pulses in those states (Table 3.23).
107
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.22 Correlation Coefficients between Production of Various Crops and Index of Rainfall (1980-81 to 2001-02) Pulses
Rice
Wheat
Coarse Cereals
Oi/seeds
Andhra Pradesh
0.41
0.54
0.25
-0.16
0.53
Bihar
0.14
0.44
0.24
-0.18
0.25
Gujarat
0.47
0.53
0.87
0.56
0.77
Haryana
0.58
0.27
0.28
0.56
0.39
Karnataka
0.41
0.62
0.39
0.61
0.49
Madhya Pradesh
0.55
0.71
0.41
0.13
0.13
Maharashtra
0.43
0.60
0.65
0.26
0.48
Orissa
0.23
0.57
-0.03
0.09
0.25
Punjab
0.00
0.07
0.13
-0.40
0.01
Rajasthan
0.76
0.43
0.43
0.63
0.50
Tamil Nadu
-0.13
0.25
-0.08
0.03
0.26
Uttar Pradesh
0.54
0.16
0.07
0.37
0.22
West Bengal
-0.09
0.27
-0.22
0.22
0.33
All-India
0.67
0.36
0.27
0.17
0.28
State
Source: Dadhlch, 2002.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
108
Table 3.23 State-Wise Percentage of Area Covered by Irrigation under Principal Crops during 2000-01 States
Pulses
Rice
Wheat
Total Food grains
All CropJ
Andhra Pradesh
l.l
95.7
77.3
56.3
43.7
Bihar
2.2
40.7
90.0
49.1
47.8
Gujarat
23.2
60.0
87.7
30.4
33.9
Haryana
37.7
99.8
99.1
85.3
85.4
Karnataka
3.9
72.5
42.8
23.6
26.6
-
59.9
-
57.0
15.2
Madhya Pradesh
26.4
14.8
70.4
33.1
24.0
Maharashtra
7.5
28.5
87.1
14.8
17.4
Orissa
4.6
37.8
100.00
28.4
27.0
Punjab
-
99.2
97.5
96.9
96.0
16.01
61.6
98.8
28.9
31.9
Tamil Nadu
8.8
93.2
-
60.8
55.1
Uttar Pradesh
22.9
65.7
92.2
66.1
67.3
-
42.1
79.0
42.4
37.0
12.5
53.6
88.1
43.4
40.2
Kerala
Rajasthan
West Bengal All India
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. 2004.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
109
Section - 3 Determinants of Acreage and Yield Rates The foregoing analysis revealed that the growth ofpulse production in India has been extremely poor between 1980-81 and 2001-02. It was further compounded by instability. The production of pulses like other agricultural commodities is determined by acreage and yield. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to investigate factors influencing these parameters. We have used two models for this purpose. The first is an area response model based on the Nerlovian framework and the second is yield response function of the CobbDouglas type. A variety of price and non-price factors influence the farmers' decisions regarding land allocation to various crops. The first segment includes input and output prices. These range from last year's harvest price of the crop, availability of minimum support price, last year's harvest price of the competing crop to prices of fertilizer, power, seed, water, insecticides and availability of credit. Similarly, a host of non-price factors also play an important role. The chief among them are last year's acreage and yield, availability of improved seeds and irrigation, rainfall, facility of procurement by government agencies, resistance of crop to pest attacks, extension services, home consumption and availability of alternate crops, credit and assured market. Unfortunately, crop specific information on all these variables is lacking and therefore, even tabular analysis is not possible. Owing to this difficulty, findings of acreage response models are based on a few variables for which data are available. Thus, factors affecting pulse acreage are numerous and their contribution is generally estimated through an acreage response model. Existing literature on the nature of acreage response to price and non-price factors in case of pulse crops is mixed. Some studies have concluded that there is a positive acreage response to changes in the prices of pulses while others have observed a reverse phenomenon.
110
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
However, most of the researchers (Chopra and Swamy, 1975; Deshpande and Chandrashekar, 1982; Sadasivan, 1993; Dhindsa and Sharma, 1997) held the view that non-price factors are more important than the price factors in explaining the acreage response behaviour of the farmers. Most ofthese studies cover a period up to early 1990s but policy scenario s changing after graudal liberalization of agriculture and inclusion of pulse crops in Technology Mission in 1990-91. How the changing scenario has impacted acreage under important pulse crops appeared to be the major concern. Second, most of the studies confme to gram, arhar and total pulses while moong, urad and massar also play an important role in the pace of growth. Moreover, nature of acreage response differs from crop to crop and region to region. This emphasizes the need for regional studies on acreage response of different pulse crops. Keeping this in mind, responsiveness of price and non-price factors in area allocation by farmers under gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses in the states which covered between 80% and 90% of production of these crops is estimated through a modified Nerlovian supply response function. The empirical knowledge of acreage response of pulses will be useful for rational formulation ofpolicies in bringing a break through in the production of pulses. For the model, required time series data on acreage, yield, farm harvest price and pre-sowing rainfall were collected from secondary sources like "Area and Production of Principal Crops", "Agricultural Statistics at a Glance", "Farm Harvest Prices in India" and "Agricultural Prices in India" for the period 1980-81 to 2000-01. Rainfall data were obtained from statistical abstracts of various states and statistical abstracts of India published by the Central Statistical Organization, New Delhi. When farm harvest price for the crop was not available, wholesale price of the main market in the state for harvesting month was used as a proxy. The relative word refers to competing crop, which can be grown on the same piece ofland. For rabi pulses such as gram and massar, wheat in irrigated areas and mustard in rainfed areas are considered as competing crops. Particularly, mustard is used due to higher share
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
111
of gram area under rainfed conditions. In case of kharif pulses such as arhar, moong and urad, competing crops are jowar and bajra, butjowar is mostly preferred in the major growing states. To examine the acreage response of different pulse crops during the current year, pulse acreage has been regressed on lagged acreage; lagged relative price and yield; price and yield risk; and pre-sowing rainfall in the leading states in terms of production of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses. One year lag is used in acreage, yield and price assuming that the current year acreage, yield and price generally influence the decision about area allocation in the next year. Using Nerlovian adjustment lag model as a basic framework, the reduced form of equation for the acreage response function for pulses is specified as follows: a + b l A '-I + b 2 R P'_I + b J R Y'_I + b4 P R + b s Y R + b 6 R F, + u,
A, where A,
- area in hectares under the crop
A'_I
- area in hectares under the crop in the year '-I
RP'_I -
relative price in year '-I
RY'_I -
relative yield in the year '-I
PRy
-
price risk measured in terms of standard deviation of past three years
YRy
-
yield risk measured in terms of standard deviation of past three years
RF,
-
Pre-sowing rainfall (nun) in the year,
The empirical results on the extent of responsiveness of price and non-price factors in area allocation under gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses for all India and core growing states are summarized in Table 3.24. Apparently, elasticities oflagged acreage; lagged relative price and yield; price and yield risk; and pre-sowing rainfall vary significantly across the individual pulses in different milieu. However, some uniformity in the acreage response behaviour of farmers growing rabi pulses as well as kharif pulses may be noticed. The impact of previous year's acreage was found most pronounced on area allocation under gram at the national level and in important growing states. Its elasticities are positive and significant
112
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
in six out of seven cases. The highest coefficient of lagged acreage was estimated for Maharashtra (0.77) and the lowest for Rajasthan (0.13). Another factor affecting area under gram appears to be lagged relative price. Its elasticity is weak but significant at the country level. Similarly, farmers in major growing states seemed to be responsive to price factor except in Uttar Pradesh where it turned out to be insignificant. The highest coefficient of lagged relative price was estimated in Andhra Pradesh (0.23) followed by Maharashtra (0.19) where growth performance of gram was commendable during the study period. This result implies that gram growers are responding to commercial stimuli in some locations and at the aggregate level. Further, elasticity of pre-sowing rainfall, though insignificant at the country level, showed its impact on acreage allocation to gram in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra where gram is mostly grown under rainfed conditions. The coefficient of rainfall was negative and significant in these states. The responsiveness ofRY, PR and YR is found poor and insignificant in most of the cited cases except for Andhra Pradesh where these factors seemed to be influencing gram acreage. The impact of yield risk was found significant in Uttar Pradesh too. This implies that the farmers in these states consider yield risk as one of the factors in land allocation under gram. The most appropriate function was obtained for Uttar Pradesh, which explained 85% variation in the area allocation to gram. An examination of the estimated elasticities of six included variables in the acreage response model of arhar at the all India and state level indicate that coefficient of lagged acreage was positive, high and significant in all the analysed cases. Its magnitude was found the highest in Maharashtra (0.94) and the lowest in Madhya Pradesh (0.21). The low and insignificant acreage response of lagged relative price in most of the states reveals weak responsiveness of price factor. But it was significant at 10% level in Maharashtra. On the other hand, influence of pre-sowing rainfall was negative and significant at the all India level and in four major states. Its elasticity was the maximum in Gujarat. The low and insignificant coefficients ofRY, PR and YR imply that the farmers do not attach any importanc~ to these variables in decision-making
Table 3. 24 Results of Nerlovian Model on Acreage Response of Gram, Arbar, Moong, Urad, Massar and Total Pulses in Important Growing States of India State
Intercept
Area ,./
RP,./
Price Risk
RY,.,
Yield Risk
Pre-sowmg Ramfall
Ad. Coefii
Iii
Q ~
§.
MP
618
049 (2.32)*
0.06 (2.96)*
0.04 (0.46)
0.03 (1.13)
007 (076)
-010 (-1.73)*-
051
064
~ ~ ~ I:l
UP
-134
073 (825)*
003 (1.90)--
-0.01 (-0.15)
-0 02 (-1.25)
-0 04 (-1.76)--
-0.09 (-1.33)
027
085
J~
Rajasthan
1404
0.13 (0.39)
009 (I 40)
0.13 (0.27)
003 (024)
-002 (-0 12)
-0.46 (-I 79)"
0.87
033
0.41
077 (3.15)*
0.19 (1.73)-*
-0.17 (-0.82)
001 (0.31)
0.02 (014)
-021 (190)**
0.23
0.49
GRAM
Maharashtra Kamataka
1.51
0.50 (3.11)*
0.17(287)*
-0.01 (-002)
0.01 (025)
0.03(0.41)
022 (0.52)
0.50
0.65
AP
177
0.47 (262)*
023 (3.47)*
0.43 (260)-
-0 12 (-1.73)--
0.17 (1.84)*-
0.11 (025)
053
084
11.36
064 (1.91)*'
0.06 (1.81)--
0.05 (0.28)
-0.03 (-088)
-004 (-0.96)
-0.24 (-0.97)
036
0.41
All IndIa
;::!
~
""(;Jis"
::::.;
§.
:t.. (")
~
~ ~
ARHAR Maharashtra
0.24
094 (8.35)*
0.10 (I 81)"
0.04 (1.15)
-0.01 (-072)
')01 (013)
-0.22 (1.74)**
006
UP
1.91
063 (205)**
0.01 (0.01)
0.07 (0.81)
-0.01 (-042)
-0.01(-(0.22)
-0.09 (-I 82)**
0.37
Kamataka
327
o 58 (2.46)*
0.14 (0.76)
0.03 (0.34)
-0.03 (-0.79)
001 (020)
-0 16 (1.48)
093 029
0.42
0.37
MP
568
021 (I 82)**
0.06 (0.28)
0.46 (2.17)*
-007 (-034)
-0.05 (-059)
-0.12 (-1.73)'*
0.79
040
GUJarat
1 35
055 (265)*
005 (039)
007 (0.74)
0.02 (0.91)
-0.02 (-003)
-025 (1.91)**
045
050
AP
036
084 (4.05)*
0.12 (0.62)
-002 (-0.19)
-0.01 (-0.33)
001 (026)
0.09(0.34)
0.16
0.55
All IndIa
277
060 (3 12)*
011 (081)
-002 (-0.46)
-001 (-064)
000 (0.04)
-0.08 (-I 96)**
0.40
060
--
I.;.>
. ".
Table 3.24 (Contd.) Slale
Intercepl
Area t.1
RP,_J
Price Risk
RY"
Yield RISk
I
Pre-sowmg Ramfall
Ad. Coefii
R]
0.79
MOONG
om
Maharashtra
0.20
0.66 (4.03)·
(0.07)
-0.03 (-0.54)
0.03 (0.86)
AP
182
0.67 (3.19)·
-0.08 (-071)
-0.01 (-0.18)
om
Kamataka
453
0.71 (2.72)·
019 (096)
Rajasthan
001 (034)
-039 (-2.14)·
0.34
(0.14)
-001 (-0.24)
007 (0.44)
0.33
0.40
-0.02 (-0 15)
-0.03 (-0.31)
0.12 (0.97)
-081 (-1.80)··
0.29
029 078
-006
0.85 (6.65)·
0.23 (1.87)--
-0.09 (-096)
-0.03 (-0.36)
0.12 (268)-
-0.04 (-1.88)-·
015
Bihar
0.56
070 (4.01)*
0.04 (0.50)
0.02 (0.31)
-0.01(-0.35)
0.0310.9~)
0.19j19f}··
0.30
0.76
TamdNadu
494
066 (1.87)·-
-0.27 (-0.83)
-0.08 (-0.33)
-0.05 (063)
-923 (-0.00)
-0 11 (-1.74)·-
0.34
0.38
All India
4.58
049 (2.13)-
0.12 (114)
005 (0.49)
0.02 (0.70)
-0.01 (-005)
-0.14 (-1.81)--
051
037
URAD
AP
1.66
087 (8.45)-
0.1 1 (1.10)
0.12 (1.65)
0.02 (063)
-0.01 (-1.22)
-0.14 (2.15)·
013
0.92
Maharashtra
270
063 (236)·
-0.03 (-031)
-0.04 (-0.43)
0.00 (0.14)
001 (0.19)
-0 08 (-1.80)--
037
028
MP
120
0.93 (9.83)-
-005 (-1.12)
o 16 (1.73··)
-002 (-0.95)
-002 (-1.08)
-0.09 (-0 70)
007
0.91
UP
308
0.74 (4.73)·
0.01 (001)
042 (2.17)-
-0.01 (-0.22)
-0.01 (-0.Q4)
-0.27 (-1.00)
0.26
0.82
Tamil Nadu
0.20
0.63 (3.00)-
-0.03 (-0 13)
0.03 (0.12)
-0 \0 (-I 39)
-0 14 (-0.96)
0.64 (1.83)"
037
0.40
Kamataka
002
089 (480)-
-0.07 (-076)
-004 (-088)
004 (1 45)
0.09 (3.14)-
0.07 (039)
011
0.96
All IndIa
339
064 (3.78)·
002 (046)
o 18 (223)·
-002 (-I 05)
0.00 (-0.11)
-0 09 (-2.1 0)·
0.36
0.53
_.
Table 3.24 (Contd.) Slate
Illtercept
... ,
1-/
RP/.,
RY.1
Price RIsk
j
Yield Risk
-
Pre-sowing Rainfall
Ad. Coej1l
R'
MASSAR -0.05 (-1.21)
0.04 (0.76)
-0.26 (-1.15)
016
0.51
-0.0 I (-0.63)
-0.06 (-1.51)
-0.13 (-1.88)*'
0.27
0.96
0.Q7 (1.07)
-0.02 (-1.11)
0.01 (0.56)
-0.02 (-0.17)
0.43
0.23
-0.14 (-0.83)
0.24 (1.45)
-0.07 (-1.25)
O.oz (0.55)
-0.42 (-1.13)
0.28
0.64
0.24 (0.59)
-0.66 (-1.33)
0.02 (0.18)
0.28 (1.30)
-0.35 (-0.47)
0.22
0.61
-0.02 (-0.17)
-0.01 (-0.29)
om
-0.03 (-0.14)
0.23
0.43
UP
2.34
0.84 (4.03)*
MP
0.59
0.73 (8.51)*
0.07 (1.82)**
Bihar
2.29
0.57 (2.37)*
0,01 (0.07)
W. Bengal
3.53
0.72 (4.25)'
Rajasthan
0.69
0.78 (2.71)*
All India
189
0.77 (3.39)'
0.28 (1.39)
0.08 (2.62)' -0.16 (-1.99)"
0.09 (1.90)"
(0.17)
TOTAL PULSES
MP
7.24
0.53 (2.84)'
0,01 (0.07)
-0.0 I (-0.02)
-0.0 I (-0.30)
0.04 (1.43)
0.47
0.56
UP
6.15
0.49 (2.03)'
0.04 (1.14)
-0.05 (-0.26)
-0.03 (-1.33)
0.00 (-0.37)
-0.07 (-0.36)
0.51
0.45 0.73
Maharashtra Rajasthan AP
8.06 12.91 4.14
0.42 (1.76)" 0.38 (1.41) 0.39 (1.97)"
Bihar
1.41
Karnataka
7.65
0.37 (1.83)"
All India
15.82
0.52 (1.90)"
0.78 (2.15)'
-0.17 (-1.83)"
0.06 (0.67)
0.06 (1.02)
-0.06 (0.67)
-0.23 (-2.28)'
0.58
0.15 (0.88)
0.16 (0.48)
-0.03 (-0.38)
-0.23 (-2.21)'
-0.63 (-2.21)'
0.62
0.47
0.11 (3.99)'
-0.01 (-0.14)
0.00 (0.34)
-0.01 (-0.01)
0.61
0.81
0.32
0.51
0.11 (1.81)"
0.05 (0.91) 0.05 (1.98)" 0.05 (0.47)
-0.05 (-3.61)"
0.11 (0.72)
0.01 (0.30)
0.02)(0.17)
-0.09 (-0.58)
0.Q2 (0.63)
0.05 (0.88)
0.10 (1.55)
-0.02 (-1.65)
-0.03 (-0.92)
-0.19 (-1.73)" -0.28 (-1.47) -0.13 (-1.82)"
Brackets show t-values, ' and ,. indIcate significance below 5% and 10% level of probability; # is the adjustment coefficient
0.63
0.52
0.48
0.46
116
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
about area allocation to arhar. But, the impact of relative yield was significant in Madhya Pradesh. The included explanatory variables explained the highest variance in Maharashtra (0.93). The overall findings of the model reveal dominance of non-price factors over price factor in acreage allocation to arhar in major growing states and at the all India level. The results of the acreage response model for other kharifpulses, i.e., moong and urad were on the similar lines. Like arhar, most important factor influencing acreage of these crops was lagged acreage. Its elasticities were significant in all the cases. The elasticities of relative price were found low and insignificant. However, it was positive and significant in Rajasthan. On the other hand, pre-sowing rainfall has shown its impact on area at the all India level and in majority of the referred states. The relative yield showed its impact on area allocation under urad in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and at the all India level. The PR and YR in the analysed states did not play any role in acreage decisions of the farmers related to moong and urad cultivation. But, coefficient of yield risk was significant in Rajasthan for moong and in Kamataka for urad. The overall results clearly show that the growers ofthe~e crops do not respond to commercial incentives. The value of R2 ranged between 0.28 and 0.96. This suggests that the model was a good fit in some cases while it could partially explain variations in other cases due to dominance of other factors in acreage decisions of the farmers. The estimates of elesticities of explanatory variables for massar appear to be somewhat consistent with the results obtained for gram. The responsiveness of area was skewed towards lagged area followed by lagged relative price at the all India level. But, at the state level, price factor was found significant in two states (Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh) out of five referred states. The impact ofrelative yield was significant in Madhya Pradesh. Generally, influence of relative yield, price and yield risk and pre-sowing rainfall on area allocation was found insignificant. The pre- sowing rainfall showed significant impact on area allocation to massar in Madhya Pradesh.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
117
An analysis of estimated elasticities of selected variables for total pulses at the all India and state level reveals that the responsiveness oflagged acreage was positive, high and significant in all the cases except Rajasthan. The magnitude of coefficient above 6.40 is indicative of moderate to high responsiveness of c~opped area in the previous year. The influence oflagged relative price, despite being low was found significant in the states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra where growth performance of total pulses was observed creditable. Factors like RY, PR and YR do not seem to be contributing to acreage allocation under total pulses. The pre-sowing rainfall appeared to be impacting area allocation decisions of the farmers in majority ofthe analysed cases. But, influence varied from region to region. For instance, its elasticity was estimated to be 0.63 in Rajasthan against 0.10 inAndhra Pradesh. Its impact was negative and significant at the all India level. This result merits notice because increase in rainfall reduces area under pulse crops as traditional varieties of these crops give low yield and profitability in comparison to superior cereals. It may be noticed that the acreage response of total pulses is lower than some of the individual pulses primarily because magnitude of elasticity depends on the extent to which the farmers would increase acreage and other inputs and there possibility in individual cases is high. The Nerlovian coefficient of adjustment provides information about the speed of adjustment of acreage to changing levels of the explanatory variables in the supply response equation. In the case of pulses, this coefficient ranged from a low of 0.06 to a high of 0.87. However, around 60% cases indicate the magnitude of adjustment below 0.40. This implies that the farmers are adjusting their area under the cultivation of pulses at a slow rate with changing levels of institutional and technological factors. To sum up, lagged acreage and lagged relative price appeared to be most important determinants of area allocation under rabi pulses, while lagged acreage and presowing rainfall were found most crucial in case ofkharif pulses. The overall findings of acreage response model suggest that the nonprice factors still influence area of pulse crops more than price factor like 1960s and 1970s. But, commercial incentives have started showing their impact in some locations for gram, massar and total pulses.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
118
In this context, it would be useful to identify the factors influencing yield ofpulse crops. Generally, factors like type of seed, consumption offertilizer, manure, pesticides and availability of water affect productivity of various crops. The comprehensive time series data on these variables for pulse crops are not available. However, reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) provide information on yield, consumption of seed, fertilizer and manure in physical and financial terms and expenditure on irrigation for major pulse crops in core growing states. But, nonavailability of time series data constrains the rigorous analysis. Often, number of years and states for which data are available are not uniform for individual pulse crops. Therefore, analysis ofproductivity is confined to only gram in Madhya Pradesh. A regression model of the Cobb-Douglas type was used to exa:mine the efficiency of each explanatory variable. The model is specified as under: I
2
3
Y = a XI b X2 b X3 b or log Y = log a + b l log XI + b2 log X2 + b3 log X3 where Y - yield of gram in Rslha XI - expenditure on seed in Rslha X 2 - expenditure on fertilizer in Rslha X3 -rainfall in rom b l • b2 and b3 are regression coefficients Y = 0.720 + 0.97 XI + 0.02 X2 + 0.65 X3
(5.83)*
(0.32)
(1.91)**
R2= 0.94 Brackets show t-values * significant below 5% level of probability; ** significant below 10% level of probability.
The results of the above equation indicate that the expenditure on seed (Xl) and pre-sowing rainfall (X3 ) have influenced the productivity of gram in Madhya Pradesh. The coefficients of these variables are high, positive and significant. The non-significant
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
119
response of fertilizer can be attributed to the fact that gram in Madhya Pradesh is generally grown under rain fed conditions whereas the response of fertilizer is high under irrigated conditions. The value of R2 indicates that about 94% variation in the value productivity of gram in the state is explained by included variables in the model. The un-explained proportion of variance is very small and it could be due to factors like quality of soil. The overall findings of the model suggest that policy should focus on seed input along with availability ofwater to enhance growth in yield of pulse crops. Before concluding this chapter, it would be appropriate to recall the hypotheses set and show the results. The first hypothesis related to poor production performance of pulse crops in India due to low growth in acreage and yield was fully confirmed for gram, arhar, moong, urad, rabi and kharif pulses and total pulses. But it was rejected for massar which showed 4% per year growth in the production due to high growth in area (1.8%) and yield (2.2%) between 1980-81 and 2001-02. The next hypothesis aboutthe greater responsiveness of non-price factors in comparison to price factors in acreage allocation to pulse crops was fully confirmed for kharif pulses but partially accepted for gram and massar since relative prices also affected their area allocation at the national as well as in some regions. The last hypothesis regarding the influence of expenditure on seed, fertilizer and magnitude of rainfall on the productivity of pulse crops was partially confirmed because fertilizer response was not found significant on the productIvity of gram in Madhya Pradesh.
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
Chapter 4
Status of Pulse ProductionA District Level Analysis
In the preceding chapter, growth performance of pulse crops was examined in the broad perspective at the all India and state level. The analysis revealed large inter-state variations in the growth of pulse production between 1980-81 and 2001-02. But, the overall view conceals district level variations, which have an important bearing on the production of individual pulse crops at the macro level. This is because states are aggregated units and contain districts with significant agro-c1imatic variations. Keeping in mind these considerations, present chapter is devoted to the analysis of pulse production at the disaggregated district level. It examines interdistrict variations in area, production and yield of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses in the recent period. In order to fulfill the above objective, secondary data were collected from published sources. The district is used as the basic unit of the analysis. At the outset, it would be essential to mention that the district-wise data on important indicators related to pulse crops are marred by the shortcomings in terms of coverage posing serious limitations to in-depth analysis (Bhalla and Alagh, 1979; Bhalla and Tyagi, 1989). For instance, district-wise information on fertilizer consumption, use of improved seeds and pesticides in any form for pulse crops is not available. Although, irrigation is an important factor in the growth of productivity, district-wise data on coverage of irrigation are available for gram, arhar and total pulses for a few states only. In a large number of government publications, this information is not available at all. Similarly, information on farm
122
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
harvest prices of pulse crops is limited to gram and arhar despite price being one of the catalytic factors to incentivize farmers to grow pulse crops. Further, partitioning and repartitioning of districts during the past decades has made inter-temporal comparisons extremely difficult in a vast country like India. In view of these limitations, it appeared more realistic to restrict the analysis to cross sectional comparisons among the districts and to draw conclusions regarding the district level status of pulse production. The district-wise data on area, production, yield and coverage of irrigation under gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses were obtained from "Statistical Abstracts of States", which contributed between 80% to 90% in the production to national kitty. When information was not available for the major states, lower ranking states were included. In some cases "District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India" was used for gathering relevant data. However, some states could not be included in the analysis due to non-availability of district level data. The information on farm harvest prices of gram and arhar was culled out from "Farm Harvest Prices in India". The coverage of districts is spread to the extent that all districts, which contributed more than one per cent to state's total production of a particular crop, were included in the analysis. The available statistical abstracts ofmaj or growing states were used for data collection but their years were not found uniform. StilL most of the data used in the analysis relate to the year 1998-99 but in exceptional cases, information on earlier years was used due to non-availability of the documents. The <;:oefficients of variation for area, production, yield and farm harvest price were measured in order to estimate degree of variability across the districts.
Gram Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Kamataka and Andhra Pradesh together contribute more than 90% ::-hare to gram production of India. Therefore, district level analysis ; ') confined to mainly these states. Table 4.1 presents area, ,'roduction, yield, percentage share of each district in the state in
123
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
tenns of area and production and fann harvest price of gram in Madhya Pradesh during the year 1999-2000. Gram occupied an important place in the crop pattern of Madhya Pradesh with 12.60% share in gross cropped area (GCA) during 1999-2000. The districts with more than 15% area occupancy included Vidisha (28.57%), Guna (26.58%), Neemach (24.67%), Panna (23.46%), Datia (23.41%), Shajjapur (19.75%), Raisen (18.86%), Sagar (18.58%), Shivpuri (17.34%), Ujjain (15.76%) and Dewas (15.44%) respectively. Accordingly, ranks of Vi dish a and Guna with 8.88% and 6.90% share in the total production of state were observed to be first and second. The important districts with more than 5% contribution were Shajjapur (6.11 %) and Ujjain Table 4. I Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
%
% of Produ-
%
Yield Rank
FHP
1002
State
GCA
ction
State
2.29
1208
Jabal Pur
480
1.86
13.07
580
Chmdwara
280
1.09
450
330
1.30
1179
7
956
Seoni
300
\.18
6.52
230
0.91
767
24
1042
Sagar
1260
4.03
18.58
1100
4.34
873
21
1002
Damoh
830
3.24
21.67
750
2.96
904
18
987
Panna
690
2.69
23.46
470
1.85
681
26
1016
1407
2
1044
5
Tikamgarh
270
1.03
6.63
380
1.50
Chhatrapur
710
2.77
14.37
790
3.12
1113
8
1056
Rewa
630
2.46
12.47
650
2.56
1032
12
1133
Sidhl
380
1.47
7.44
180
0.71
474
31
970
Satna
690
2.68
1408
440
1.74
638
27
1080
124
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 4. I (Contd.) District
Area
%
% of Produ-
%
State
GCA
ction
State
Yield Rank
FHP
Indore
430
1.66
0.95
380
1.50
884
20
963
Dhar
520
2.03
7.16
300
1.18
577
28
976
Jhabua
300
I. I 8
7.25
170
0.68
567
29
1030
Nimar
310
1.20
3.26
240
0.95
774
23
1067
Ujjain
1310
5.09
15.76
1280
5.05
977
15
1071
Mandsaur
700
2.71
12.02
600
2.37
857
22
995
Neemach
450
1.71
24.67
460
1.81
1022
13
998
Ratlam
720
2.80
14.09
510
2.01
708
25
1005
Dewas
930
3.61
15.44
1010
3.98
1086
10
929
Shajjapur
1440
5.58
19.75
1550
6.1 I
1076
11
954
Bhind
440
1.69
12.09
480
1.89
1091
9
1189
Shivpuri
940
3.66
17.34
1110
4.38
1181
6
1043
Guna
1980
7.69
26.58
1750
6.90
884
19
1025
Datia
480
1.85
23.41
700
2.76
1458
I
1045
Bhopal
400
1.57
14.18
380
1.50
950
17
983
Sehore
820
3. I 8
13.97
800
3.16
975
16
970
Raisen
1030
4.01
18.86
1040
4.10
1010
14
988
Vidisha
1820
3.97
28.57
2250
8.88
1236
3
990
Betul
290
1.14
5.40
150
0.59
517
30
964
Rajgarh
940
3.64
15.31
1160
4.58
1234
4
1023
Hoshangabad
620
2.40
12.76
600
2.37
968
17
975
10.34
290
I. 14
967
18
1009
986
-
1019
Harda
300
1.17
State"
25720
100.00
CV ....
61
-
Note:
12.60 25350 100.00
-
70
-
26
5
Information on area irrigated is not available for Madhya Pradesh • Includes minor producing districts; CV·· - coefficient of variation; FHP - farm harvest price (Rs./qtl)
Source: Basic Agricultural Statistics of Madhya Pradesh, 2003; Farm Harvest Prices in India, 2001
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
125
(5.09%). It may be highlighted that share of some districts in area and production does not correspond. For instance, Sidhi and Jhabua contributed more than one per cent to gram area of the state but their share in production was found lower than this proportion. It is due to differentials in productivity. The average yield of gram in Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000 was 986 kglha. Around 41.94% of districts showed above mean level yield. The highest productivity was achieved in Datia (1,458 kg/ha) followed by Tikamgarh (1,407 kg/ha). The other districts with more than 10 qtl/ha yield were Jabalpur(1,208 kglha), Chindwara (1,179 kglha), Chhatrapur(l,l13 kg/ha). Dewas (1,086 kg/ha), Rewa (1 ,032 kg/ha), Neemach (1,022 kg/ha), Shajjapur (1,076 kg/ha) and Bhind (1,091 kg/ha), Raisen (1,010 kg/ha), Vidisha (1,236 kg/ha) and Rajgarh (1,234 kg/ha) respectively. The coefficients of variation of area, production and yield are estimated to be 61 %, 70% and 26% respectively. Evidently, disparities in the first two indicators appeared to be higher than yield across districts in the state. The coefficient of yield above 20% could be due to differentials in the use of yield augmenting inputs like improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides by farmers and availability of water. The obtained value of coefficient of variation in yield across the districts implies inequality in the application of these inputs. This calls for immediate policy attention particularly in those districts where crop occupied high share in GCA and yields are very low. These are Seoni, Panna, Sidhi, Jhabua, Nimar, Mandsaur and Dewas. It is worth noticing that coefficient of variation in case of farm harvest price among the districts was only 5%. It is indicative of lower differentials in price received by the farmers in referred districts of Madhya Pradesh. The district-wise status of gram production in Uttar Pradesh is exhibited in Table 4.2. It indicates that gram occupied 3.15% of GCA and produced 7,254 hundred qtls of grain during the year 1998-99. A clear-cut tendency of negative and positive variations from mean area and production was observed in the referred districts. Some of the districts such as Mahoba, Hamirpur, Chitrakoot and Banda devoted more than 20% of GCA to gram. It was as high as
126
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
29.52% in Mahoba. Most ofthese districts fall in the lesser-irrigated areas of Uttar Pradesh. Here irrigation facilities are limited and therefore, farmers do not have much choice but to grow gram during the rabi season. On the other hand, area allocated to gram in better irrigated districts like Kanpur, Etawah and Agra was found less than 10% of the total cropped area. Similar type of variations may be noticed in production too. The districts ofBanda, Hamirpur, Jalaun, Fatehpur, Lalitpur and Kanpur contributed 11.48%, 11.03%,7.84%, 6.45%,5.62% and 9% to gram production ofthe state. Like Madhya Pradesh, ranks of some districts in area and production do not match. For example, Jhansi contributed 3.74% in production against a share of5.88% in cropped area. Gonda and Jalaun too exhibit such type of imbalances, which have arisen due to low productivity. In brief, a high share in cropped area in some cases contributes a low share in production and vice versa also holds true. The mean yield of gram in Uttar pradesh was 880 kglha during 1998-99. Agra and Kanpur with yield levels of 1,457 kglha and 1,308 kglha were observed to be top ranking districts. It seems that the higher proportion of irrigated area contributed towards the yield in the first case. Surprisingly, it was high in second case despite low coverage of irrigation. It could be due to good rainfall in the crop season during 1998-99. It is intriguing that district like Lalitpur and Gonda show a yield of789 kg/ha and 567 kglha in spite of 93.61 % and 63.94% coverage of irrigation. Amazingly, average yield in Uttar Pradesh was below Madhya Pradesh. However, some major districts show productivity above mean level in Madhya Pradesh. The coefficients ofvariation of area, production and yield were estimated 78%, 71 % and 26% respectively. Like Madhya Pradesh, coefficient of yield was above 20%, which is indicative of high variability across the districts. It could be due to differentials in input use and variations in rainfall received by various districts during this particular year. In fact, yield of gram has fluctuated from one district to another due to difference in availability of rainwater and use other inputs. The variability in the irrigation status of gram across the districts was observed exceptionally high. The degree of variation in price could not be calculated due to data gaps.
Tabl.e4.2
Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
%
Production
State
3.43
204
2.81
State
%0/ GCA
%
Yield
Rank
% Irrig. Area
FHP
1457
I
38.57
1038
Agra
140
1.70
Allahabad BaHia Banda Chitrakoot Etawah
295
3.58
5.36
273
3.76
925
7
6.77
-
104
1.26
3.00
86
U8
827
12
34.62
1436
944
11.44
22.00
833
11.48
882
10
2.86
1068
422
5.12
22.69
346
4.77
820
13
87
1.06
1.90
106
1.46
1218
3
442
5.36
10.89
468
6.45
1059
Fatehpur
-
-
63.22
1329
4
6.78
II 24
-
Gonda Hamirpur
208
2.52
4.75
1I8
1.63
567
19
63.94
962
11.66
27.40
800
11.03
832
II
15.18
II 97
Jalaun
750
9.09
19.18
569
7.84
759
16
10.00
II 46
Jaunpur
100
1.21
2.23
89
1.22
890
9
6.00
-
tv
-...J
N
Table 4.2 (Contd.)
District
00
Area
% State
%0/ GCA
Production
% State
Yield
Rank
% Irrig. Area
FHP
Jhansi
485
5.88
11.74
314
3.74
647
18
29.48
1047
Kanpur
499
6.05
8.57
653
9.00
1308
2
6.81
1129
Kaushambi
211
2.56
11.92
211
2.91
1000
5
Laiitpur
517
6.27
15.25
408
5.62
789
15
93.61
1048
Mahoba
387
4.69
29.52
271
3.73
700
17
-
Mirzapur
197
2.39
6.27
180
2.48
914
8
6.09
-
Pratapgarh
83
1.01
2.35
82
1.13
988
6
7.22
1036
Soanbhadra
158
1.92
5.51
129
1.78
816
14
1.89
1257
Suitanpur State* CV
-
86
1.04
1.95
65
0.90
756
17
4.65
-
8246
100.00
3.15
7254
100.00
880
1142
78
-
71
-
26
-
20.50 115.73
-
-
*Includes minor producing districts; FHP - farm harvest price (Rs./qtl)
Source: District-wise Area and Production of Crops in India, 2003; Farm Harvest Prices in India, 2001.
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
129
Rajasthan is the third ranking gram growing state in India. The district-wise area, production, yield and farm harvest price are presented in Table 4.3. Gram occupied 13.15% ofGCAin the state during 1998-99. The results show that it is one of the most important crops in districts like Hanumangarh and Churn where 36.04% and 32.39% of the total cropped area was devoted to gram. Besides, Junjhunu, Ajmer and Banswara showed more than 20% of GCA under this crop. It may be noticed that none of the analysed districts showed less than 10% of GCA allocated to this crop except Bikaner where its share was marginally below 10%. These variations are further reflected in share of each district in total cropped area of the state. Churn and Hanumangarh enjoyed a special status in gram production with 19.37% and 14.89% share in area against 8.83% and 14.76% in production. Among the two, Churn contributed much lower proportion to the total production of the state due to extremely low productivity, which was 336 kglha. The average yield of gram in Rajasthan was 737 kglha, which is much below Madhya Pradesh as well as Uttar Pradesh. It could be due to low proportion of cropped area covered by irrigation. However, within the state, there are productive pockets such as Karuli, Bharatpur, Sikar, Banswara, Sawai Madhopur which attained a yield levels of 1,785 kglha, 1,425 kglha, 1,305 kglha and 1,286 kglha respectively during 1998-99. The extremely low productivity of gram in Churn calls for immediate policy intervention. But, this holds true for many other referred districts. The share of net irrigated area to net sown area was 36% in Rajasthan. In such circumstances, crop productivity wholly depends on rainfall, which is uncertain and unevenly distributed across the districts. The coefficients of variation of area, production, yield and farm harvest price was estimated 97%, 70%, 46% and 6% respectively. Evidently, value of coefficient was highest for the area and the lowest for price. The explanations provided for Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh hold true for Rajasthan as well.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
l30
Table 4.3
Area, Produdion, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Important Growing Districts of Rajasthan during 1998-99 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qtI Yield: kglha District
Area
State
% of GCA
Production
State
21.39
673
%
Yield
Rank
FHP
3.25
544
16
1152
%
Ajrner
1238
4.40
Alwar
1110
3.94
14.09
1267
6.11
1141
6
1072
Banswara
348
1.24
22.21
454
2.19
1305
4
1101
Bharatpur
562
1.99
10.11
801
3.86
1425
2
1052
Bhilwara
782
2.78
15.35
357
1.72
457
18
1024
Bikaner
1153
4.10
9.80
964
4.65
836
9
1111
Chittor
862
3.06
13.83
786
3.79
912
7
990
Churu
5453
19.37
32.39
1831
8.83
336
19
1103
Ganganagar
1654
5.87
14.98
977
4.71
591
15
1260
Hanumangarh 4194
14.89
36.04
3063
14.76
730
12
1143
Jaipur
1557
5.53
15.76
1090
5.26
700
13
1085
Jhalawar
606
2.15
11.97
464
2.24
766
11
1050
Jhunjhunu
1729
6.14
22.94
1497
7.21
866
8
1149
Karu1i
512
1.82
17.04
914
4.41
1785
1
987
Nagaur
775
2.75
4.72
411
1.98
530
17
1130
Pali
839
2.98
11.09
245
1.18
292
20
1066
Sawai Madhopur
433
1.54
11.89
557
2.69
1286
5
1127
Sikar
1200
4.26
16.08
1710
8.24
1425
3
1105
Tonk
1117
3.97
18.48
886
4.27
793
10
995
Udaipur State CV
Note: Source:
368
1.31
10.28
253
1.22
688
14
1126
28156
100.00
13.15
20739
100.00
737
1173
97
-
-
70
-
46
-
6
Infonnation on area imgated is not available.... Includes minor producing districts District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 2003; Fann Harvest Prices in India, 2001
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
131
Next, district-wise results on status of gram production in Maharashtra are presented in Table 4.4. Gram occupied 3.36% of GCA and produced 3,760 thousand qt1s of grain during 1998-99. The major gram growing districts included Osmanabad, Wardha, Nasikand Nagpurwhere 6.04%, 5.78%, 5.06% and 5.11% oftotal cropped area was devoted to this crop. Similar types of variations in production were noticed across the districts. The contribution of Jalgaon, Amravati, Akola, Ahmednagar, Prabhani, Osmanabad, Sangli and Nasik in total production of the state was found more than 5% in each case. As per the earlier discussed states, share of some districts in area and production does not correspond in Maharashtra too. The maximum difference occurred in the case of Sangli. It contributed 5.40% to production against 3.56% share in cropped area. This was the outcome of higher level of productivity that was 796 kglha and above average productivity (524 kg/ha). It is essential to mention that yield of gram in Maharashtra is much below Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The district level data also supports this finding as most of the analysed districts exhibit yield below 600 kglha. The highest productivity was attained in Amravati (909 kg/ha) followed by Sangli (796 kglha). This is the situation despite better irrigation status of gram in most of the analysed districts. It could be due to lacunae in other factors such as low adoption of improved seeds and low consumption of fertilizer and pesticides. It is surprising that Pune, Dhule and Aurangabad with around half of the gram area under irrigation show poor yield levels. The estimates of coefficients of variation of area, production and yield ranged between 26% and 30%. But, variability in irrigated area across the districts was found exceptionally high. These results imply that variations in first three indicators were not substantial but the latter showed highest variation among the districts. The value of coefficient for farm harvest price was measured 5% which reflects narrow range between the prices received by the farmers in different locations of the state. However, variability in the gram area covered by irrigation across the districts was measured above 50%.
132
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 4.4 Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Maharashtra during 1998-99
Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
% State
%01 GCA
Production
% State
Yield
Rank
% Irrig. Area
FHP
Nasik
488
6.80
5.06
251
6.76
514
10
40.36
1011
Dhu1e
235
3.28
2.93
125
3.32
532
7
51.06
1171
Ja1gaon
471
6.57
4.18
288
7.12
611
3
40.54
998
Ahm:dN~
370
5.16
2.70
220
5.85
594
6
56.26
1)39
Pune
392
5.47
3.43
188
5.00
480
14
58.16
1151
Satara
198
2.76
2.91
119
3.16
601
4
22.72
1168
Sangli
255
3.56
3.88
203
5.40
796
2
19.60
109
Solapur
309
4.31
2.76
163
4.33
528
9
21.03
1198
Aurangabad
360
5.02
4.00
148
3.93
406
16
49.17
1147
Prabhani
407
5.67
3.35
209
5.56
511
II
22.36
1184
Nanded
245
3.42
3.05
84
3.04
343
17
12.24
1202
Osmanabad
427
5.95
6.04
206
5.47
482
13
27.63
1210
Latur
289
4.03
4.28
172
4.57
595
5
22.14
1198
Buldhana
334
4.66
4.06
180
4.78
598
18
17.36
1118
Akola
434
6.05
4.18
229
609
528
8
25.34
116
Amaravati
442
6.16
4.45
254
6.75
909
I
7.23
109~
Wardha
222
3.09
5.78
100
2.65
450
15
11.26
113C
Nagpur
362
5.05
5.11
175
4.65
483
12
20.16
118
State
7171
100.00 3.36
3760
100.00 524
113
26
-
27.45
cv·
54.76
5
-
-
30
-
27
* Includes minor producing districts Source: Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra, 2003; Farm Harvest Prices in India,
2001
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
133
The status of gram production in major growing districts in Kamataka varied widely ranging from 31 % share of Gulbarga to 2.97% ofBellary and Koppal in total production of the state (Table 4.5). It was largely concentrated in Gulbarga, Bidar and Bijapur which together accounted for nearly 55% of the total production. On the other extreme were Bellary and Koppal with around 6% share in area and production. In general, most of the analysed districts have exhibited poor yield level. None of the districts has crossed 1000 kg/ha mark. Among the analysed districts, Bagalkot has indicated the highest productivity that was 842 kgs/ha. Further, farm harvest price of gram in Kamataka was Rs.1,1l9 per qtl. Surprisingly, merely two districts have shown above mean level price. The disparities in analysed indicators were further reflected in coefficients of variation of area, production, yield and farm harvest price. The higher coefficients of variation for area and production indicated high variations among the districts. The district-wise information on status of gram production in Andhra Pradesh is presented in Table 4.6. Farmers devoted 1.47% ofGCA to this crop in the state during 1998-99. In particular, Kumool and Medak crossed 5% mark. Kumool,_Prakasham, Anantpur and Cuddapah together produced around 90% of gram in Andhra Pradesh. It is essential to mention that three districts (Prakasham, Guntur and Cuddapah) have achieved phenomenal yield level above 1,500 kglha. This was achieved despite low irrigation coverage. This could be due to adoption of improved seeds and application of yield raising inputs. At the other extreme were districts such as Nizamabad, Medak, Rangareddy, Adilabad and Mahbubnagar where yield was extremely poor and below 200 kglha. The farm harvest price of gram was Rs.1, 168 per qtl in Andhra Pradesh. Farmers in Mahbubnagar realized the highest price for their produce. It is evident from Table 4.6 that the highest coefficient of variation among the above variables was obtained for production. It implies that disparities in this indicator across the districts were higher than rest of the cases.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
134
Arhar Arhar is the second important crop among the Indian pulses. The states
ofMaharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh grow around 90% of the all India production. Therefore, district level analysis is confined to only these States. Table 4.5
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Han'est Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Karnataka during 1998-99 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtJ Yield: kglha District
Area
State
%0/ GCA
Production
State
%
%
Yield Rank
FHP
Bagalkot
178
5.01
3.32
150
7.43
842
1
-
Belgaum
242
6.82
2.45
180
8.91
744
2
877
93
2.62
1.59
60
2.97
645
4
1287
Bidar
417
11.75
9.00
190
9.41
456
10
1008
Bijapur
481
13.55
5.52
290
14.36
603
5
1026
Dharwad
254
7.15
5.46
150
7.43
591
6
1106
Gadag
262
7.38
5.87
130
6.44
496
9
NA
Gulbarga
1195
33.68
8.41
620
30.69
519
8
1172
Koppal
112
3.15
2.62
60
2.97
535
7
-
Raichur
146
4.11
2.27
100
4.95
685
3
1092
3548
100.00
2.88
569
-
1119
96
-
-
20
-
12
Bellary
State* CV
2020 100.00 85
-
Infonnation on area irrigated is not available; * includes minor producing districts Source: Statistical Abstract of Karnataka, 200 I; Fann Harvest Prices in India, 2001
Note:
135
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
Table 4.6 Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99
Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha Districl
Area
%
% oj Produ-
%
Slale
GCA
clion
Slale
Yield
Rank
%
FHP
lrrig. Area
Guntur
14
0.96
0.49
27
2.07
1929
2
-
1164
Prakasham
130
8.92
3.05
254
19.55
1954
1
-
1164
Kumool
544
37.31
5.78
445
34.25
818
5
0.36
1210
Anantpur
262
17.97
3.00
259
19.93
989
4
0.65
1117
Cuddapah
174
11.93
4.01
266
20.47
1529
3
0.72
1164
Rangareddy
56
3.84
2.28
7
0.54
125
8
0.50
996
Nizarnabad
26
1.78
1.33
3
0.23
115
9
0.90
1060
Medak
176
12.07
5.01
21
1.62
119
10
0.27
1062
Mahbubnagar 29
1.99
0.47
4
0.31
138
7
0.59
1267
29
1.99
0.78
4
0.31
138
6
-
1162
1299
100.00
891
1.05
1168
125
-
-
-
41.51
7
Adilabad State·
1458
CV
114
100.00 1.47
-
-
• Includes minor producing districts Source:
District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops, 2003; Farm Harvest Prices in India, 2001,
136
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Arhar assumes a special status in the crop pattern ofMaharashtra where around 5% of gross cropped area was devoted during 199899. The district level information on area, production, yield and farm harvest price of arhar is given in Table 4.7. It shows that the place of arhar in the farming ofWardha, Yevatmal and Osmanabad was overwhelming as more than 10% of total cropped area was covered by this crop. Particularly, Yevatmal contributed maximum in area as well as in the production of state. It was 12.11% in area and 17% in production. In contrast, lower ranking districts ofDhule and Jalgaon accounted for 2% to 3% proportion in area and production of arhar in Maharashtra. It is depressing to note that the productivity ofarhar in Maharashtra was observed to be poor (595 kglha). This yield is much below the potential yield. But a mixed scenario was noticed across the districts. At one hand, yield of arhar crossed 800 kglha in Amravati, Wardha, Akola and Yevatmal. On the other hand, Solapur, Aurangabad, Jalana and Nanded were at the bottom and could realize below 300 kg/ha by investing one hectare ofland. The disparities in farm harvest price of arhar among the referred districts were found low. The mean price in Maharashtra was Rs.l,994/qtl. Specially, farmers in Dhule realized Rs.2,273 against Rs.l ,919 in Latur. The estimated values of coefficients of variation of the above mentioned indicators reflect district level disparities more sharply. The highest coefficient was obtained for production (78%) followed by yield (46%) and area (44%). Even, the estimated coefficient of yield was quite high due to significant variability among the districts. After examining the district level status of arhar production in Mahrashtra, the same is analysed for Uttar Pradesh which grew arhar on 4,246 hundred ha of area during 1998-99 (Table 4.8). It occupied 1.62% of GCA in the state. It is mainly cultivated in Chitrakoot (5.60% of GCA) followed by Balrampur (5.55% of GCA), Mirzapur (4.71% of GCA), Kaushambi (4.29% of GCA) and Pratapgarh (4.24% of GCA). All these districts together contributed around 25% in the arhar area ofthe state. Their shares in production were 4.80%, 1.25%, 3.70%, 3.94% and 4.42% respectively during the reference year.
137
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
Kanpur contributed 4.47% in area and 6.57 in production. The other prominent districts in terms of production were Allahabad (6.29%), Fatehapur (6.25%), Banda (5.97%) respectively. The state deserves special Table 4.7 Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Important Growing Districts of Maharashtra during 1998-99 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
State
% of GCA
Produ ction
State
%
%
Yield Rank
FHP
Dhule
314
3.00
3.92
137
2.20
436
10
2273
Jalgaon
256
2.45
2.27
180
2.89
703
6
2167
Solapur
270
2.58
2.41
67
\.07
248
15
1930
\.64
234
16
2091
13
1953
Aurangabad
436
4.17
4.84
102
Jalana
430
4.11
5.96
120
1.92
279
Prabhani
755
7.22
6.21
350
5.62
464
9
1999
Beed
528
5.03
5.63
226
3.63
428
II
2078
Nanded
466
4.45
7.71
120
\.92
258
14
2002
Osmanabad
735
7.03
10.39
235
3.78
320
12
2001
Latur
611
5.84
9.04
397
6.38
650
7
1919
Buldhana
703
6.73
8.55
555
8.92
789
5
1965
Akola
768
7.35
7.40
667
10.72
868
3
1960
Amaravati
909
8.69
9.15
878
14.\1
966
I
1975
Yevatmal
1266
12.11
13.19
1058
17.00
836
4
1990
Wardha
522
4.99
13.59
351
5.64
872
2
1992
Nagpur
546
5.22
9.22
339
5.45
621
8
2023
4.90
6220 100.00
595
-
1994
State CV·
10451 100.00 44
-
-
78
-
46
5
Note: Information on area irrigated is not available. Source: Statistical Abstract ofMaharashtra, 2003; Farm Harvest Prices in India, 2001
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
138
Table 4.8 Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kg/ha Dislriel
Area
Siale
%0/ GCA
Produelion
Slate
%
%
Yield Rank
FHP
- I -
Aligarh
162
3.82
3.35
57
1.15
352
25
Allahabad
119
2.80
2.16
313
6.29
2630
1
Balrampur
156
3.67
5.55
62
1.25
397
23
-
Banda
138
3.25
3.22
297
5.97
2152
3
1660
Basti
89
2.10
3.05
30
0.60
337
26
1659
Bulandshahar
108
2.54
2.22
39
0.78
361
24
Chitrakoot
119
2.80
5.60
239
4.80
2008
5
-
Deoria
110
2.59
2.01
66
1.33
600
20
-
Etah
64
1.51
1.23
44
0.88
683
18
-
Fatehpur
148
3.48
3.65
311
6.25
2101
4
16111
Ghazipur
60
1.41
1.50
71
1.43
1183
12
Gonda
62
1.46
1.42
37
0.74
597
21
Gorakhpur
94
2.20
2.49
56
1.13
596
22
1531
Hamirpur
III
2.61
3.16
121
2.43
1090
14
1619
HardOl
93
2.19
1.47
98
1.97
1054
15
1536!
Hathras
66
1.55
2.89
45
0.90
682
19
1488
JaJaun
69
1.62 I
1.76
94
1.89
1362
9
1630
Jaunpur
113
2.66
2.52
134
2.69
1186
JI
-
Kanpur
190
4.47
3.26
377
6.57
1984
8
1583
Kaushambi
76
1.79
4.29
196
3.94
2579
2
Mirzapur
148
3.49
4.71
184
3.70
1243
10
~~
I -
139
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis Table 4.8 (Contd.) Area
% State
%0/ GCA
Produ ction
% State
Yield
Rank
FHP
Pratapgarh
150
3.53
4.24
220
4.42
1467
7
1527
Raebarelly
141
3.32
3.33
156
3.13
1106
13
-
Sitapur
153
3.60
2.59
170
3.42
1111
12
1752
Soanbhadra
106
2.52
3.69
99
\.99
934
17
1222
Sultanpur
108
2.54
2.44
195
3.92
1806
6
-
91
2.14
16
1524
-
1619
District
Unnao State· CV
4246 100.00 31
-
2.08
85
1.71
934
\.62
4977
100.00
117~
-
71
-
50
-
• Includes minor producing districts Source:
District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 2003; Farm Harvest Prices in India 2001
appreciation due to excellent perfonnance of yield rate. It was 1,172 kg/ha during 1998-99. Particularly, Allahabad, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Banda realized above 2,000 kglha. The reason for this success cannot be spelt out in the absence of primary data based area specific studies. But, experiences of other crops show that adoption of technology and availability of water are the main factors in augmenting yield. It appears that good rainfall could have contributed positively in this achievement. Assured irrigation plays an important role in achieving high productivity but association between the two cannot be examined due to the non-availability of an adequate database. The district-wise data on farm harvest price of arhar in Uttar Pradesh are incomplete, however, available data indicates significant variations in the price received by the arhar growers in the state. The estimated coefficients of variation of area, production and yield of arhar across the districts in Uttar Pradesh show high variability in production followed by yield.
140
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Kamataka is another state where arhar was grown on 4,727 hundred ha, which accounted for 3.84% of gross cropped area during 1998-99 (Table 4.9). The cultivati')n of arhar in the state was concentrated in Gulbarga and Bidar, which together constituted around 70% of area and contributed around 75% to the total production. The productivity profile of arhar across the districts is found quite disturbing. The yield levels are dismally low and disparities are extremely marked and pronounced. For instance, yield ofarhar in kolar was 866 kg/ha against an average yield of 157 kg/ha in Raichur. Even the core district of Gulbarga has shown poor productivity of 454 kg/ha. None of the referred districts touched 1,000 kg/ha mark. When productivity of arhar was compared with the earlier discussed states of Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, Kamataka was lagging far behind. Like Uttar Pradesh, farm harvest price data are incomplete and district level disparities appeared quite marked. The examination of coefficients of variation makes amply clear that its value was estimated phenomenally high for production (190%) as well as area (161 %). The extremely high value of coefficients of area and production reflect substantial change from one district to another district. Arhar is the second important pulse crop in Madhya Pradesh. The spatial distribution of area across the districts indicates wide variations (Table 4.10). It ranged from 10.53% of the state area in Sidhi to 0.49% in Umariya.
141
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
Table 4.9 Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Important Growing Districts of Karnataka during 1998-99 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
%
% of
State
GCA
Production
%
Yield
Rank
FHP
State
Belgaum
86
1.82
0.87
40
1.80
465
4
-
Bellery
76
1.61
1.30
20
0.91
263
8
1877
Bidar
543
11.48
11.73
410
18.55
755
2
1831
Bijapur
143
3.02
1.64
50
2.26
350
6
1841
Gulbarga
2734
57.83
58.80
1240
56.10
454
5
1971
Haveri
75
1.59
1.62
20
0.90
267
7
-
Kolar
127
2.69
3.05
110
4.98
866
1
-
Koppal
135
2.86
3.15
30
1.36
222
9
-
Raichur
191
4.04
2.97
30
1.36
157
10
1522
.-
Tumkur
1142
3.00
2.15
70
3.17
493
3
-
State
4727
100.00
3.84
2210
100.00
467
1878
CV"
161
-
-
190
-
58
-
-
Source:Statistical Abstract of Kamataka, 2001; Farm Harvest Prices in India,
2001. Table 4.10 Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Major Producing Districts of Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
%
% of
State
GCA
Production
State
%
Yield
Rank
FHP 1358
Jabal Pur
52
1.69
1.41
74
2.56
1423
3
Katni
37
1.20
1.70
43
1.49
1162
7
1468
251
8.15
4.04
309
10.69
1231
5
1269
Chindwara Seoni
56
1.82
1.22
67
2.31
1196
6
1657
Narsmghpur
136
4.41
3.25
210
7.27
1544
2
1424
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
142 Table 4.10 (Contd.) District
Area
41
Panna
Yield
Rank
FHP
0.83
585
20
1322
State
% of GCA
Production
State
1.33
1.39
24
%
%
Chhatrapur
115
3.74
2.33
67
2.32
583
21
1497
Rewa
116
3.77
2.30
73
2.53
629
16
1540
Sidhi
324
10.53
6.34
190
6.57
586
19
1520
Satna
131
4.26
2.67
81
2.80
618
18
1561
Shahdol
95
3.09
2.18
59
2.04
621
17
1820
Umariya
15
0.49
1.03
30
1.04
2027
I
1763
Dhar
48
1.56
0.67
25
0.87
521
22
1291
Jhabua
45
1.46
1.09
21
0.73
467
23
1337
Nimar
299
9.71
3.30
216
7.47
722
II
1570
Dewas
89
2.89
1.48
60
2.08
674
14
1489
Morena
67
2.14
2.10
68
2.35
1030
8
2405
Bhind
88
2.86
2.42
63
2.18
716
12
1512
Datia
42
1.36
2.05
30
1.04
714
13
1763
Sehore
79
2.57
1.35
52
1.80
658
15
1975
Raisen
219
7.12
4.01
223
7.72
1018
9
1500
Betul
162
5.26
3.02
136
4.71
840
10
1700
Hoshangabad 114 State·
' CV Source:
3.70
2.34
154
5.33
1351
4
1713
3077
100.00
1.51
2890
100.00
939
1525
75
-
-
80
-
44
-
9
• Includes minor producing districts Basic Agricultural Statistics of Madhya Pradesh, 2003; and Farm Harvest Prices in India, 200 I.
The major growing districts are Chindwara, Raisen, Nimar, Narsinghpur and Sidhi that together produced around 40% of total arhar of the state. At the other extreme are districts like Jhabua, Dhar and Panna that could contribute less than one per cent share in production despite more than one per cent share in area. Thus, production of arhar in Madhya Pradesh is found asymmetric like earlier discussed states of Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Kamataka. The yield levels across the districts vary significantly.
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
143
Umariya attained a creditable productivity of2,027 kglha. In addition, eight districts have achieved yield level of more than 1,000 kglha. These are Hoshangabad, Raisen, Narsinghpur, Seoni, Chindwara, Katni, Morena and Jabalpur. The excellent yield performance of these districts may be attributed to the consumption of yield augmenting inputs like fertilizer, which in turn is influenced by differences in the basic agro-climatic factors and availability of water. The average farm harvest price of arhar in Karnataka was Rs.l ,525/ qt1 during 1998-99 but farmers in Morena realized a high price of Rs.2,405/qt1 for their produce. The inter-district disparities reflected from the coefficients of variation of area, production and yield appeared to be quite high. The minimum coefficient was observed for price (9%). It shows relatively lower variability in price received by farmers of the analysed districts. The analysis of arhar production in Guj arat indicates that arhar was grown extensively in the state on 3,956 hundred ha of land during 1998-99 (Table 4.11). It accounted for 3.55% ofGCA. The area under arhar across districts in Gujarat varied widely ranging from around 1,240 hundred ha in Bharuch to 51 hundred ha in Banaskantha. Particularly, it was little less than one third of total cropped area in Bharuch. Especially, four districts namely, Vadodara, Panchmahals and Sabarkantha together produced most of the arhar and accounted for around 85% of total production. An examination of district-wise yield of arhar in Gujarat makes amply clear that the productivity is not impressive in the state and in most of the referred districts. It was low barring Panchmahals and Sabarkantha that exhibited an average yield of 1,076 kg/ha and 1,011 kg/ha respectively. A comparison of yield levels of arhar in Gujarat with earlier discussed states points out that it is below Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh but certainly above Maharashtra and Kamataka. Further, per quintal farm harvest price of arhar was Rs.l,76'3 in the state during 1998-99 but farmers in Bharuch realized the highest incremental price ofRs.2,080.
144
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 4.11 Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Major Producing Districts of Gujrat during 1998-99 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha
State
%0/ GCA
Production
State
51
1.29
4.50
38
1.28
745
5
-
1240
31.47
29.92
647
21.84
522
9
2080
Gandhinagar
63
1.59
1.51
47
1.59
746
4
-
Kheda
144
3.64
22.68
104
3.51
722
7
1650
Panchmahals
459
11.60
7.46
494
16.67
1076
I
1758
Sabarkantha
462
11.67
8.29
467
15.77
lOll
2
1526
Surat
238
6.02
5.07
170
5.74
714
6
1775
Vadodara
1054
26.64
18.79
826
27.88
784
3
1820
62
1.57
1.75
35
1.18
565
8
-
3.55
2962
100.00
749
-
1768
-
95
-
24
-
-
District
Area
Banas Kanthl Bharuch
Valsad
%
3956 100.00
State CV
III
*
-
%
Yield
Rank FHP
I
Includes minor producing districts
Source: Statistical Abstract ofGujarat, 2002; Farm Harvest Prices in India, 200 I
145
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis Table 4.12
Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qt\ Yield: kg/ha District
Area
% State
% of
Produ ction
% State
Yield
Rank
% Irrig. Area
FHP
GCA
Adilabad
360
9.14
0.08
128
7.49
356
11
-
1661
Anantpur
274
6.96
2.93
91
5.33
332
13
0.62
1440
Chittoor
61
1.55
1.32
10
0.59
164
15
0.02
1440
Cuddapah
76
1.93
2.18
44
2.58
579
3
0.34
1440
Guntur
273
6.93
4.41
209
12.24
766
1
0.19
1517
Karimnagar
57
1.45
1.67
21
1.23
368
9
3.51
1551
Khmmam
237
6.02
5.64
118
6.91
498
5
0.12
-
Krishna
89
2.26
1.82
51
2.99
573
4
-
1517
Kurnool
270
685
3.25
102
5.98
378
8
0.49
1449
Mahbubnagar
494
1.25
7.77
120
7.03
243
14
0.03
1754
Medak
180
4.56
4.51
63
3.69
350
12
-
1572
Nalgonda
264
6.70
5.44
119
6.97
451
6
0.09
-
Prakasham
476
12.08
9.67
304
17.81
639
2
0.47
1517
Rangareddy
356
9.04
13.52
154
9.02
433
7
-
1650
Warangal
331
8.40
9.71
118
6.91
356
10
0.85
1623
State·
3939 100.00 13.97
1707
100.00 433
0.29
1570
-
76
-
163.32
6
CV
55
-
-
36
• Includes minor producing districts
Source: Distnct-wise Area and Production of Principa: Crops in India. 2003; Farm Harvest Prices in India. 2001
146
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The inter district disparities reflected from coefficients of variation of area and production were found high. But, yield variability was found to be 24%, which is much lower in comparison to area and production. At last, we would discuss the district level production profile of arhar in Andhra Pradesh, which is one ofthe agriculturally developed states. Table 4.12 shows that the area under arhar in the state was as high as 3,939 hundred ha, which translated into 13.97% of the GCA. Prakasham, Adilabad and Rangareddy together constituted around 30% of area in the state. Other important districts in this regard are Anantpur, Guntur, Kumool, Khammam, Nalgonda and Warangal where more than 6% of total cropped area was occupied by arhar during 1998-99. But, Prakasham followed by Guntur produced around 30% of arhar in the state due to their relatively higher yield rates. Particularly, Guntur exhibited the highest yield rate of 766 kg/ha but this seems very moderate. The extremely poor productivity was reported in Mahbubnagar where farmers could reap below 300 kg/ha of grain after investing one hectare ofland. Thus, overall productivity scenario of arhar in Andhra Pradesh is quite depressing. Owing to this reason, ranks of districts like Warangal, Medak, Kumool and Chitto or do not match in area and production. In fact, arhar productivity of only 433 kg/ha in the state is quite disturbing given its status in agricultural development. It could be due to the non-availability of area specific improved varieties of arhar. Further, the per quintal farm harvest price of arhar was Rs.l ,570 in the state and the highest price ofRs.l,754 was realized in Mahbubnagar. The coefficients of variation for area, production and yield of arhar in Andhra Pradesh were estimated as 55%, 76% and 36% respectively. The above 150% coefficient of variation for arhar area covered by irrigation indicates extreme disparities across the districts. However, the value of coefficient for price was only 6%. It implies that farmers were getting almost uniform price in different districts for their produce.
147
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
Moong It would be worthwhile to analyse the district level status of moong production in a comparative framework within major growing states of India. As already stated in Chapter - ill, Maharashtra is the dominant state in moong production where around 3% of GCA was devoted to this crop during 1998-99 (Table 4.13). Table 4.13
Area, Production, Yield of Moong in Important Growing Districts of Maharashtra during 1998-99 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qt\ Yield: kg/ha District
Area
%
State Ahmed Nagar Ako1a Amaravati Aurangabad
156 1214 576 135
Beed Bu1dhana Dhu1e Ja1gaon Ja1ana Latur Nanded Nasik Osmanabad Prabhani Pune Sangh Satara Yevatma1
172 637 335 332 532 242 356
State*
c---
Il'\'
79 126 788 78 69 55 477 6491 87
2.40 18.70 8.87 2.08 2.65 9.81 5.16 5.11 8.20 3.73 5.48 \,22
% of GCA
1.20 1.06 0.85
\.13 11.70 5.80 \.50 \.83 7.74 4.18 2.94 7.38 3.58 4.43 0.82 1.78 6.49 0.68 \.05 0.81
7.35 100.00
4.97 3.04
-
-
1.94 12.14
Production 91 936 302 71 70 411 196 231 295 135 194 53 44 250 40 30 32 312 3757 106
%
Yield
Rank
583 771 524 526 407 645 585 696 555 558 545
7 1 13 12
671 349 317 513 435 582 654 579 22
3 17 18 14 15 8 4
State 2.42 24.91 8.04 \.89 \.86 10.94 5.22 6.15 7.85 3.59 5.16 1.41 \,17 6.65 1.06 0.80 0.85 8.30 100.00
-
* Includes minor producing districts Source:
Di~trict-wise Area
and Production of Principal Crops in India, 2003
16 5 6 2 10 9 11
-
-
148
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 4. 14
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Moong in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha Area
Dislriel
%
% of
Slale
NAS
Produ- % elion Slale
Yield Rank
%
Irrig.
Adilabad
221
4.70
4.31
58
2.67
262
16
-
East Godawari
638
13.57
16.05
287
13.20
450
10
0.04
Guntur
165
3.51
2.67
92
4.23
558
6
0.24
Karimnagar
386
8.21
11.28
103
4.74'
267
15
0.17
Khmmam
353
7.51
8.40
169
7.77
479
9
0.05
Krishna
279
5.93
5.69
177
8.14
634
3
-
Kurnool
60
1.28
0.72
34
1.56
567
5
0.65
Mahbubnagar
283
6.02
4.49
124
5.70
438
12
-
Medak
378
8.04
9.47
166
7.64
439
11
0.09
Nalgonda
436
9.27
8.99
221
10.16
507
8
0.48
Nellore
70
1.49
2.20
19
0.87
271
14
4.74
Nizamabad
129
2.74
5.75
76
3.50
589
4
0.34
Prakasham
163
3.47
3.31
108
4.97
663
1
1.52
Rangareddy
162
3.45
6.15
105
4.83
648
2
Srikakulam
244
5.19
7.91
92
4.23
377
13
Vizianaganm
193
4.11
5.86
48
2.21
249
17
-
Warangal
432
9.19
12.67
239
10.99
553
7
-
State
4701
100.00
4.73
2174
100.00
462
-
0.29
56
-
-
7
-
30
-
-
CV
... Includes minor producing districts
Source: District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 2003
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
149
Akola followed by Prabhani, Buldhana, Amaravati, Jalna and Yevatmal contributed almost 65% to area and 67% to total production. The ranks of some districts do not match in area and production due to yield differentials. For instance, Akola shared 24.91 % in production against 18.70% in area. The reverse may be observed in case of low productivity districts. Pune, Sangli and Osmanabad fall in this category. It is disappointing to note that the level of productivity of moong in Maharashtra is quite dismal and was noted below 600 kglha. About 25% among the referred districts could cross this mark. The poorest level of yield may be observed in Prabhani, which is one of the leading districts of the state in area allocation. Unfortunately, district-wise data on farm harvest price of moong are not available and hence, it is not possible to analyse variations in this important indicator. The primary tool we have applied for measuring the degree of variations in area, production and yield across the districts is coefficient of variation. The results indicate high disparities in production followed by area, but, coefficient of variation for yield was 22%, which is much lower than area and production. The above analyses viewed district level variations in moong production in Maharashtra. In this regard, Andhra Pradesh is the next important state in India. Table 4.14 indicates that it allocated a huge area of 4, 701 hundred ha to moong cultivation during 1998-99. When district level status of moong in a similar framework is examined, East Godawari with 13.57% and 13.20% shares in total area and total production of the state emerged as the prominent district. The other districts with sizeable proportion of cropped area under moong included Warangal, Nalgonda, Medak, Srikakulam, Mahbubnagar, Krishna, Khammam and Karim nagar respectively. The importance of this crop suggests possibility and opportunity of reaping higher productivity. But, state level yield of moong was found lower than Maharashtra. It was merely 462 kglha during 1998-99 due to extremely low productivity in districts such as Vizianganam, Nellore, Karimnagar and Adilabad where farmers could not reap even 300 kg/ha after investing one hectare of land. Unfortunately, irrigated area under moong in the state was almost negligible. Even the leading district had very low coverage of area
150
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation a1ld Redressal
irrigated under moong. The inter district variability in area and production of moong in Andhra Pradesh appeared to be less than Maharashtra. Nonetheless, yield variability across districts is found higher despite Andhra Pradesh being an agriculturally developed state. The scenario of area, production and yield of moong in Tamil Nadu presented in Table 4.15 reveals a relatively poor status ofthe crop in the farming system with an allocation of less than 2% of GCA during 1998-99. But, district level findings are mixed and more than 50% of analysed districts have exhibited a higher percentage of cropped area under the moong cultivation. Nagapattinam alone shared 16.89% and 15.26% of the total area and total production of the state. Besides, Tiruvarur, Salem, Tiruvallur, Thanjavur and Thoothukudi and Namakkal contributed around 40% to total cropped area. Among these districts, highest share in production is witnessed by Salem, which contributed 14.22% in total production against 8.69 in total area. It could be possible due to high yield of 889 kglha. The yield level in rest of the districts appeared to be on lower side as only three districts Namakkal, Dindigul and Tiruvallur attained more than 600 kg/ha. The reason for poor productivity could be lack of policy support, which did not protect pulses adequately. The pattern of disparities in area, production and yield across the districts in Tamil Nadu is almost similar to that ofMaharashtra, but significantly deviated from Andhra Pradesh in case of production. The 14 referred districts from Guj arat accounted for more than 95% ofthe cropped area under moong during 1998-99 (Table 4.16). It represented 1.54% ofGCA of the state. It is amazing to note that these districts also accounted for almost same share in the total production. The share of some districts does not match in area and production. This has happened due to declining share of production over area. For instance, Kutch with 37.15% share in total area contributed 29.63% in total production. On the contrary, a much higher share in production has occurred in districts ofBhavnagar, Junagadh, Panchmahals and Sabarkantha. The importance of Bharuch can be gauged from the fact that it produced 2.52% of the total moong in Gujarat against a share of 1.34% in area due to higher yield that was 739 kglha.1t is disappointing to note that the average productivity of
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
151
moong in Gujarat was as poor as 392 kglha. It can be attributed to a disproportionate share of a number of districts in area and production. Table4.15 Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area under Moong in Major Producing Districts of Tamil Nadu during 1998-99 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha Area
% State
% of GCA
Production
% State
Yield
Rank
Tiruvallur
79
6.36
3.96
50
7.41
633
4
Cuddalore
41
3.30
1.39
20
2.96
487
13
District
Vellore
55
4.42
1.73
30
4.44
545
7
Tiruvannamalai
29
2.33
0.80
16
2.37
552
6
Salem
108
8.69
2.96
96
1422
889
I
Namakkal
70
5.63
2.87
52
7.70
743
2
Dharmapuri
22
1.77
0.49
12
177
545
8
Erode
15
38
3.06
1.15
18
2.67
474
Coimbatore
55
4.42
1.55
27
4.00
491
II
Thanjavur
76
6.11
2.83
37
5.48
487
14
Tiruvarur
116
9.33
5.91
44
6.52
379
17
Nagapattinam
210
16.89
8.32
103
1526
490
12
Madurai
59
4.75
3 33
33
4.89
559
5
Theni
17
1.37
1.31
9
1.33
529
10
Dindigul
56
4.51
1.93
38
5.63
679
3
Virudhunagar
64
5.15
3.97
29
4.30
453
16
Tirunelveli
50
4.02
2.57
27
4.00
540
9
Thoothukudi
73
5.88
3.70
23
3.41
315
18
1243
100.00
1.87
675
10000
543
65
-
-
70
-
24
State CV
Source:
.. Includes minor dIstricts Statistical Abstract of Tamil Nadu, 2001;
I
- j
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
152
Table 4.16
Area, Production and Yield of Moong in Major Producing Districts of Gujrat during 1998-99 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qt1 Yield: kglha District
Area
State
% of GCA
Production
State
%
%
Yield
Rank
Ahmedabad
24
1.40
3.84
13
1.93
542
7
Amreli
30
1.74
5.70
17
2.52
567
5
Banas Kantha
263
15.29
23.21
60
8.89
228
14
Bhavnagar
58
3.37
8.45
42
6.22
724
3
1.34
5.53
17
2.52
739
1
425
10
700
4
Bharuch
23
Jamnagar
40
2.33
6.01
17
2.52
Junagadh
50
2.91
7.45
35
5.19
Kutch
639
37.15
8.85
200
29.63
313
13
Mehsana
231
13.43
25.56
84
12.44
364
12
33
1.92
5.37
24
3.56
727
2
Panchmahals Rajkot
78
4.53
9.65
32
4.74
410
11
Sabarkantha
152
8.84
27.29
79
11.70
520
8
Surendemagar
56
3.26
7.76
28
4.15
500
9
23
1.34
4.09
13
1.93
565
6
State
1720
100.00
1.54
675
100.00
392
CV
139
-
-
106
-
31
-
Vadodara
* Includes minor producing districts Source: District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 2003
Since, district-wise farm harvest price figures are not available for moong, nothing can be concluded about variations in price received by the farmers. The coefficients of variation of area and production of moong in Gujarat around 139% and 106% reflect high variability across the districts. The value of coefficient for yield (31 %) is in line with other growing states.
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
153
Now, the district level concern regarding moong production is addressed in the state of Uttar Pradesh which is home to almost one fifth of Indian population. It may be noticed from Table 4.17 that the importance of moong in crop pattern is extremely low as it occupied only 0.42% , ofGCA during 1998-99. The area allocated to moong in referred districts was also low except Unnao where around 5% of GCA was devoted to moong cultivation. The total cropped area under moong in the state was found unevenly distributed but Etah, Aligarh, Hathras, Jhansi and Mainpuri were found prominent because each of these districts indicated more than 5% share in total moong area of the state. The other districts namely, Firozabad, Lucknow, Mahoba, Mathura and Pratapgarh contributed between 2% to 4% proportion in the total moong area. In contrast, four districts such as Etawah, Hamirpur, Kannauz and Unnao exhibited low share in the state's moong area that was below 2% during the reference year. Like earlier discussed states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, productivity level of moong is low in Uttar Pradesh. It was merely 428 kg/ha. However, districts like Bulandshahar and Kannauz acquired a good deal of significance due to attainment of the higher yield. This achievement may be attributed to availability of irrigation. Nonetheless, these represent only 12.5% of the referred districts. But looking at the higher productivity districts, one may infer that there exists considerable potential for improving crop productivity. This is possible through appropriate technology and incentive package given to the growers of moong. The state of Uttar Pradesh exhibits high variability in area and production of moong among the districts. Even the yield coefficient of 51 % seems very high given the level of agricultural development in the state.
154
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 4. 17 Area, Production and Yield of Moong in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99
Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
State
%0/ GCA
Production
State
%
%
Yield
Rank
Aligarh
98
8.89
2.02
32
6.78
327
8
Allahabad
30
2.71
0.55
13
2.75
433
7
Bulandshahar
27
2.45
0.55
18
3.81
667
I
[tah
211
19.12
4.06
125
26.48
592
4
Etawah
20
1.81
0.43
5
1.06
250
II
Firozabad
44
3.99
1.61
II
2.31
250
12
Hamirpur
22
1.99
0.63
4
0.85
182
14
Hathras
92
8.34
4.07
25
5.30
272
10
Jhansi
68
6.17
1.65
8
1.69
118
16
Kannauz
18
1.63
0.77
12
2.54
667
2
Lucknow
44
3.99
2.05
13
2.75
295
9
Mahoba
35
3.17
1.39
8
1.69
229
13
Matnpuri
84
7.62
2.65
54
1.14
643
3
3.90
1.12
20
4.24
465
6
1-
Mathura
43
Pratapgarh
37
3 35
1.05
19
4.03
514
5
Unnao
22
1.99
5.05
3
0.64
136
IS
1103
100.00
0.42
472
100.00
428
87
-
-
130
-
51
-
State CV
* Includes minor producing districts Source: District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 2003
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
155
Urad The growth of area, production and yield of urad within India was analysed in Chapter - III. The major growing states of urad are Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kamataka. But, district level data are available for four states. Therefore, we have included West Bengal, a lower ranking state in terms of production due to availability of relevant information. F or each of the analysed districts, both absolute and relative area, production and yield are given for the latest available year. Urad occupied 4.33% of gross cropped area in Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99. However, this figure hides the dramatic variations across the districts. Table 4.18 shows that urad indicates tremendous diversity in the importance of crop within Andhra Pradesh. It encompassed large proportion of total cropped area in Guntur, East Godavari, Krishna and Srikakulam where more than 10% of GCA was devoted to urad cultivation. These districts together contributed around 65% to total area and 80% to total production. The productivity of urad in Andhra Pradesh was 608 kglha which is much below the potential yield. Within state, diversity in yield ranged from 843 kg/ha in Guntur to 136 kglha in Medak. The low yield in Medak could be attributed to low rainfall during that year. The coefficients of variation of area and production of urad in Andhra Pradesh were estimated at 126 and 170% respectively. But, yield coefficient was much lower. Next to Andhra Pradesh is Maharashtra in urad production among the Indian states. The district level allocation of area, production and yield in relative and absolute terms is presented in Table 4.19. The districts of Akola, Buldhana and Nanded appeared to be winners on the preference scale of farmers because they allocated more than 5% ofGCA to urad during 1998-99. The other prominent districts were Dhule, Jalgaon, Jalana, Prabhani and Yevatmal. Like area, production of urad kept on varying from district to district. Akola contributed around 17% to total production of the state. Buldhana, Jalgaon and Latur were other major districts in terms of production. The yield level in Maharashtra was around the same as observed for Andhra Pradesh. The productivity of urad in Maharashtra was 636 kglha. But, this does not reveal disparities
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
156
across the districts. The productivity shows better results in Dhule followed by Akola and Latur. It is evident from the figures that none of these districts showed impressive results regarding productivity. Even the highest yield is much below the potential yield. The quantum of inter district disparities in area and production of urad in Maharashtra is estimated at 71 % and 80% respectively. Like other states, coefficient of yield was lower around 19%. Table 4.18
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Urad in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99 Area: 'DOha Production: '000 qt1 Yield: kglha District
Area
%
State
%0/ NAS
Production
%
Yield Rank
State
%
Irrig
Adilabad
176
4.09
3.44
64
2.45
364
12
-
East Godawari
642
14.92
16.15
200
7.65
312
13
0.13
Guntur
1310
30.44
21.19
1104
42.21
843
I
0.05
Khmmam
38
0.88
0.90
20
0.76
526
8
0.76
Krishna
830
19.29
16.93
632
24.17
761
3
0.01
Kurnool
37
0.86
0.44
25
0.96
676
4
6.00
Medak
235
5.46
5.89
32
1.22
136
14
-
Nellore
60
1.39
1.89
40
1.53
667
5
2.68
Nizamabad
148
3.44
6.60
73
2.79
493
9
0.16
Prakasham
123
2.86
2.50
72
·2.7::-
585
7
1.21
Srikakulam
349
8.11
11.32
144
5.51
413
I1
Vishakhapatnam
54
1.25
1.72
39
1.49
722
2
Vizianaganm
116
2.70
3.52
76
2.91
655
6
-
West Godawari
60
1.39
1.28
25
0.96
417
10
10.23
4303
100.00
4.33
2615
100.00
608
-
0.03
126
-
-
170
-
36
-
-
State CV
* Includes minor producing districts Source: District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 2003
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
157
Table 4. 19 Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Important Growing Districts of Maharashtra during1998-99 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
State
% of GCA
Produetion
State
%
%
Yield
Rank
Akola
767
14.43
7.39
561
16.60
731
2
Amaravati
99
1.86
0.99
54
1.60
545
10
Seed
84
1.58
090
33
0.98
393
14
Suldhana
637
11.98
7.74
410
12.13
644
7
Dhule
326
6.13
4.07
265
7.84
813
1
Jalgaon
568
10.69
2.89
373
11.04
657
6
Jalana
151
2.84
2.09
96
2.84
636
8
Latur
768
14.44
\.14
523
15.47
681
3
Nanded
485
9.13
6.03
319
9.44
658
5
Nasik
129
2.43
1.34
72
2.13
558
9
Osmanabad
319
6.00
4.51
147
4.35
461
13
Prabhani
283
5.32
2.33
138
4.08
488
12
Sangli
86
1.62
1.31
58
1.72
674
4
Yevatmal
241
4.53
2.51
130
3.85
539
11
State
5315
100.00
2.49
3380
100.00
636
71
-
-
80
-
19
- I
CV
I
I
Source: Ibid
Now, district level status of urad production is reviewed in Uttar Pradesh where this crop has lesser significance in comparison to Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Roughly, 1.27% of GCA was devoted to urad in the state during 1998-99. The land allocated to this crop among the analysed districts exhibited tremendous diversity. It ranged from a high share of 11.45% of GCA in Jhansi to a low of 0.19% in Fatehpur. Unfortunately, shares of prominent districts in area and production of the state are found disproportionate. For
158
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
instance, Jhansi and Lalitpur with 14.19% and 10.67% shares in state area contributed a low of 7.31 % and 7.41 % to production. This was the outcome of extremely poor yield that was 154 kglha and 208 kglha respectively. The story does not end here. Almost 50% of referred districts show productivity below 300 kglha. Even the highest productivity achieved in irrigated district ofMuzaffernagar was not impressive (667 kglha). This is indicative of a weak policy support to the crop in Uttar Pradesh. Hence, urgent attention should be paid to causes oflow productivity, particularly in irrigated districts and solutions should be devised to enhance yield. Like earlier discussed states, variability in area and production of urad across the districts was found higher than yield. There is only one difference that yield coefficient was above 40%. It implies significant change in yield from one district to another district. The district-wise area, production and yield of urad in Tamil Nadu is given in Table 4.21. It reveals that urad was grown on 3.41 % of GCA in the state during 1998-99. Like earlier discussed states, spatial diversity may be observed in the importance of the crop. The major growing districts included Nagapattinam, Cuddalore, Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli and Selam respectively. These together constituted 60.29% of total area and grew 61.4% of total production ofthe state. Although, role of yield in the growth of output is immense, it was found poor at the state level (518 kglha). None ofthe districts achieved a yield of 1,000 kglha. The highest productivity of 872 kg! ha was attained in Selam followed by 787 kg/ha in Namakkal. It is disappointing to note that Nagapattinam and Cuddalore with first and second ranks in area could not cross the productivity level of 500 kg/ha. Extremely poor yield was observed in Thanjavur, Tiruvanamalai and Thoothukudi respectively. Thus, with a few exceptions, most of urad growing districts experienced problem of poor productivity. The degree of variability in the selected variables across the districts was found to be the maximum in production and minimum in yield.
159
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
Table 4.20 Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during1998-99 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Barabanki
Area
82
State
% of GCA
Production
State
2.46
1.91
39
%
Yield
Rank
3.90
476
3
%
Fatehpur
76
2.27
0.19
26
2.60
342
7
Hamirpur
206
6.18
5.86
50
5.01
243
13
Hardoi
126
3.78
\.99
24
2.40
190
15
Jaunpur
60
\.80
1.34
29
2.90
483
2
JaJaun
154
4.61
0.39
41
4.10
266
12
Jhansi
473
14.19
11.45
73
7.31
154
17
Kanpur
127
3.81
2.18
21
2.10
304
9
Kheri
50
\.50
0.71
14
1.40
280
11
LaJitpur
356
10.67
10.50
74
7.41
208
14
Lucknow
52
1.56
2.41
8
0.80
154
18
Mahoba
136
4.08
5.41
46
4.60
338
8
M uzaffernagar
51
\.53
\.04
34
3.40
667
1
Pratapgarh
93
2.79
2.62
42
4.20
452
5
Raebarelly
190
5.70
4.48
75
7.51
395
6
Saharanpur
82
2.46
\.89
10
\.00
122
19
Sitapur
104
3.12
1.76
31
3.10
298
10
SuJtanpur
91
2.73
2.05
43
4.30
473
4
Unnao
91
2.73
2.09
16
\.60
176
16
State·
3334
100.00
\,27
999
100.00
300
80
-
-
56
-
45
-
CV
• Includes minor producing districts Source: District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 2003
160
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 4.21 Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Major Producing Districts of Tamil Nadu during 1998-99 Area: 'DOha Production: '000 qt1 Yield: kglha District
Area
State
% of GCA
Production
State
%
%
Yield
Rank
Tiruvallur
45
1.99
2.26
23
1.96
511
9
Cuddalore
349
15.44
11.79
194
16.57
556
5
Villupuram
36
1.59
0.86
18
1.54
500
10
VeIl ore
88
3.89
2.77
46
3.93
523
6
Tiruvanamalai
57
2.52
1.58
18
1.54
316
IS
Salem
195
8.62
5.34
170
14.52
872
1
Namakkal
89
3.94
3.64
70
5.98
787
2
Dharmapuri
25
1.11
0.55
13
1.11
520
7
Coimbatore
43
1.90
1.21
22
1.88
512
8
Thanjavur
106
4.69
3.95
34
2.90
321
14
Tiruvarur
120
5.31
6.12
44
3.76
367
13
Nagapattinam
541
23.93
21.42
251
21.43
464
12
693
3
Dindigul
75
3.32
2.59
52
4.44
Virudhunagar
59
2.61
3.66
33
2.82
559
4
Tirunelveli
130
5.75
6.68
61
5.21
469
11
Thoothukudi State· CV
148
6.55
7.49
43
3.67
291
16
2261
100.00
3.41
1171
100.00
518
103
-
-
105
-
31
-
• Includes minor producing districts Source: Statistical Abstract of Tamil Nadu, 2001
Before winding up the discussion on district-wise status of urad production in major states, we would focus on West Bengal, which is a lower ranking state in urad production offudia. Table 4.22 indicates that the presence of urad in the state is not very impressive as 1.57%
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
161
of total cropped area was allocated to this crop during 1998-99. There is a clear indication of district-wise disparities in area, production and yield of urad. The districts ofMaida, Murshidabad, Nadia, Purulia and Pargnas contributed around 60% share in total urad area of the state. These districts grew more than 75% of urad of the state. Among these districts, MaIda has a special merit by attaining highest productivity that was 787 kg/ha against the mean productivity of 640 kg/ha. Another important feature of urad cultivation in West Bengal was the narrow gap between the highest and lowest productivity. The coefficient of variation of production was higher than area and yield. It may be mentioned that the variability in the yield across districts in West Bengal was found much lower in comparison to major growing states. Table 4.22 Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Major Producing Districts of West Bengal during 1998-99 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qti Yield: kglha District
Area
% State
%0/ GCA
Production
% State
Yield
Rank
Parganas
33
3.84
5.94
22
4.00
667
2
Burdwan
13
1.51
2.73
8
1.45
615
4
Cooch Behar
60
6.98
2.49
38
6.90
633
5
Dinazpur
68
790
2.78
92
16.73
547
9
Jalpaiguri
35
4.07
1.08
21
3.82
600
7
MaIda
178
20.69
6.20
140
25.45
787
1
Murshidabad
104
12.09
3.70
66
12.00
638
6
Nadia
99
11.51
3.38
55
10.00
556
8
Purulia
139
16.16
3.93
83
15.09
640
3
State"
860
100.00
1.57
550
100.00
640
-
CV
67
-
-
72
-
11
-
.. Includes minor producing districts Source: District-wise Area and Production ofPrincipai Crops in India, 2003
162
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Massar Massar is the fastest moving pulse crop in terms of growth of output in India during past two decades. Uttar Pradesh is the largest producer of massar in the country. The district-wise area, production and yield ofmassar in Uttar Pradesh is presented in Table 4.23. It indicates that a large number of districts grew massar on sizeable proportion of cropped area. But, importance of the crop varied significantly across the analysed districts. Bahrich, Banda and Hamirpur showed more than 10% ofGCA under massar cultivation. Their share in total area and total production of massar is around 25%. The other important massar growing districts in Uttar Pradesh included Jalaun, Jhansi, Lalitpur, Balrampur, Mohaba, Shravasti, Kushinagar and Bareilly. Each one of these districts grew massar on more than 5% of the total cultivated area. These districts contributed a significant proportion to total production of massar in the state. The ranks of many districts do not match in area and production due to productivity differentials. For instance, share of Banda in production was 9.36% against 7.98% share in area. The reverse pattern may be observed in Shahjahanpur, Mahoba, Kheri, Jhansi and Bareilly. Indeed, these districts contributed lower proportion to output in comparison to the area. The average productivity of massar in Uttar Pradesh was 726 kg/ha during 199899. Harnirpur achieved the highest productivity of 890 kg/ha. It is commendable that around 80% of the referred districts attained a yield level above 600 kg/ha. The degree of variability in area, production and yield of massar across districts measured through coefficient of variation clearly indicates higher value for production in comparison to other variables like area and yield. A clear look at the district-wise status of massar production in Bihar reveals that it occupied 2.68% ofGCA during 1991-92 (Table 4.24). The recent figures could not be provided due to non-availability oflatest government document. The area and production ofmassar across the districts varied significantly. The contribution of Patna and Nalanda was found the maximum as both together grew 37% of total production in the state. The other districts with higher contribution were Bhojpur, Rohtas, Aurangabad Champaran and
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
163
Munger. Further, districts like Rohtas and Munger contributed a much lower proportion to production in comparison to area due to productivity differentials. The productivity of massar in Bihar was 824 kg/ha, which is higher than the major producing state of Uttar Pradesh. Table 4.23 Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99 Area: 'DOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kg/ha District
Area
% State
% of
GCA
Production
% State
Yield
1.11 44 595 74 1.36 1.17 9.23 12.06 326 647 8.22 504 125 2.29 101 808 2.55 3.59 4.10 142 3.58 634 224 6.44 436 7.98 9.36 851 10.16 371 141 2.58 3.27 120 3.03 851 2.16 118 6.52 70 593 1.77 117 2.14 2.91 2.37 94 803 2.09 114 2.84 95 2.40 833 374 6.85 10.65 8.40 890 333 1.24 61 1.12 0.96 49 803 6.63 362 271 6.84 749 9.25 5.29 289 6.99 4.59 182 630 179 274 5.01 3.88 4.52 653 1.21 66 1.21 5.05 48 727 236 4.32 6.96 163 4.11 691 2.97 4.60 102 162 2.57 630 3.32 97 2.45 181 5.41 536 1.79 2.22 71 587 121 2.11 4.63 253 5.32 177 4.47 700 4.07 180 222 3.76 4.54 811 1.45 2.95 79 66 835 1.66 5460 100.00 3964 100.00 726 2.09 CV 61 65 15 • Includes mmor producmg dIstricts Source: District-wise Area and ProductIOn of Principal Crops in India, 2003
Baduan Bahraich Ballia Balrampur Banda Barabanki Bareilly Ghazipur Gonda Hamirpur Hardoi lalaun lhansi Kheri Kushinagar Lalitpur Maharajganj Mahoba Shahjahanpur Shravasti Sitapur Sonbhadra State·
Rank
18 14 7 15 2 3 19 8 5 1 9 10 16 13 11 12 17 21 20 10 6 4
-
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
164
Table 4.24 Area, Production, Yield of Massar in Major Producing Districts of Biharduring 1991-92 Area: '00 ha Production: '000 qtI Yield: kg/ha District
Area
State
%01 GCA
Production
State
%
%
Yield
Rank
Patna
340
18.68
1.19
390
26.00
1147
1
Na1anda
190
10.44
2.67
160
10.67
842
4
Bhojpur
140
7.69
3.06
130
8.67
929
3
Rohtas
130
7.14
1.15
80
5.33
615
10
Gaya
70
3.85
2.50
50
3.33
714
7
lahanabad
70
3.85
4.24
50
3.33
714
8
Aurangabad
140
7.69
5.16
110
7.33
786
5
Champaran
130
7.14
1.70
130
8.67
1000
2
Darbhanga
40
2.20
2.86
30
2.00
750
6
Madhubani
50
2.75
1.59
30
2.00
600
11
Munger
110
6.04
3.38
70
4.67
636
9
State
1820
100.00
2.68
1500
100.00
824
65
-
-
91
-
22
-
CV
Source: Bihar Statistics, 1993
165
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis Table 4.25
Area, Production, Yield of Massar in Major Producing Districts of West Bengal during 1998-99 Area: 'DOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
%
% of
State
GCA
Production
State
%
Yield
Rank
24 Parganas
62
12.11
1.12
37
10.57
597
5
Birbhum
38
7.42
1.48
39
11.14
1026
1
Burdwan
13
2.54
2.73
7
2.00
538
6
Jalpaiguri
10
1.95
3.09
6
1.71
600
4
MaIda
46
8.98
1.62
23
6.57
500
7
Murshidabad
146
28.51
5.50
121
34.57
829
2
Nadia
180
35.15
6.40
109
31.14
606
3
State
512
100.00
0.93
350
100.00
684
94
-
-
96
-
28
-
CV
Source: Statistical Abstract of West Bengal, 2002.
Patna attained the highest level of yield (1,147 kg/ha). It could be an outcome offertile soil ofthe district. It is interesting to note that coefficient of variation of yield of massar was estimated much lower (22%) than production (91 %) and area (65%). The state of West Bengal grew massar on 512 hundred ha which constituted a low share of GCA (0.93%) during 1998-99 (Table 4.25). Its cultivation is largely concentrated in Nadia, Murshidabad and Parganas. These together covered around 75% of the total area and contributed 77% of total production in the state. The productivity of massar in West Bengal was 684 kg/ha during the reference year. It was above mean level in Birbhum and Murshidabad. The achievement of Birbhum in this regard is worth emulating. Like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, degree of variability in yield was found lower than area and production.
166
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Total Pulses So far, district-wise status of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar was analysed in the major states of India. A significant diversity was visible in the importance of each variety of pulse across the districts. Since, analysis is carried out at individual crop level, it does not provide a comprehensive scenario of total pulse production in the referred districts. This is possible by combining all varieties of pulses grown in the district. Now, results of district-wise status of total pulse production in major growing states are presented. The district level data for total pulses in case of Tamil Nadu were not available therefore; lower ranking states of Gujarat and West Bengal were included in the analysis. Among pulse producing states of India, Madhya Pradesh is the foremost. The information on district-wise area, production and yield of total pulses in Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000 is given in Table 4.26. The higher presence of pulses in crop systems of the state is clearly visible as 17.3 9% of gross cropped area was devoted to these crops in the state during the above-mentioned year. Within the state, Jabalpur, Sagar, Damoh, Panna, Narsinghpur, Guna, Raisen and Vidisha indicated more than 30% of total cropped area under pulses. It implies that pulses enjoyed a special status in these districts. It could be an outcome of large unirrigated area, improvement in yield through the adoption of improved seeds or change in price structure. But, contribution of these districts in total pulse production ofthe state does not correspond with their share in area. It is due to yield differentials. Often, districts with higher yield contributed more or vice versa holds true in the case of poor yields. The average yield of total pulses in Madhya Pradesh was 638 kg/ha during 1990-2000. Three districts namely, Jhabua, Narsinghpur and
Hosangabadcrossed I,OOOkglha.Onthecontrary,around3?'loofanalysed districts exhibited yield of pulses below 500 kg/ha. The coefficient of variation was estimated to be the highest for production. It is indicative of higher variations across the districts in comparison to area and yield. The second ranking pulse producing state in India is Uttar Pradesh. It grew pulses on 10.67% of total cropped area during 1994-95 (Table 4.27). These crops enjoyed an overwhelming status
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
167
in the districts ofBahraich, Banda, Hamirpur, Lalitpur, Jhansi and Jalaun where these crops occupied more than 30% of total cropped area. Besides, Farrukhabad, Gonda, Faizabad and Varansi showed above 20% of GCA under pulse cultivation. In contrast, there are districts like Jaunpur where less than one per cent of cultivated area was devoted to pulses. It could be due to higher profitability of alternate crops. These variations are further reflected in the share of each district in pulse area ofthe state. Hamirpur and Banda enjoyed a special status in pulse production of the state with 19% share in area and 16% share in production. Among the two, Hamirpur contributed disproportionately in the production due to relatively low productivity that was 721 kg/ha. The average yield of total pulses in Uttar Pradesh was 888 kglha, which is much higher than Madhya Pradesh. It could be attributed to better agro-climatic conditions and higher input use. Furthermore, achievements of Kanpur, Etawah, Fatehpur, Allahabad, Jaunpur, Ghazipur, Etah, Bulandshahar and Mirzapur in attaining yield above 1,000 kg/ha are creditable. The inter district variations in area and production of pulses were found extremely high but these were observed much lower in case of yield. Table 4.26 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qt1 Yield: kg/ha District
Area
State
%0/ GCA
Production
State
%
%
Yield
Rank
Jabal Pur
1370
3.86
37.33
703
3.10
513
20
Katni
380
1.07
14.02
185
0.82
487
21
Chindwara
670
1.88
10.77
456
2.01
681
12
Seoni
650
1.83
14.13
235
10.38
362
28
Narsinghpur
1800
2.81
42.95
1897
8.38
1053
3
Sagar
2250
6.33
33.18
1005
4.44
447
23
Damoh
1480
4.17
38.64
811
3.58
548
18
Panna
1040
2.92
35.37
437
1.93
420
25
168
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 4.26 (Contd.) District
Area
State
% of GCA
Production
State
597
2.64
%
%
Yield
Rank
591
16
Tikamgarh
1010
2.85
24.82
Chhatrapur
1570
4.42
31.78
850
3.75
541
19
Rewa
1060
2.99
20.99
714
3.15
674
13
Sidhi
870
2.45
17.03
371
1.64
426
24
Satna
1360
3.83
27.76
558
2.46
410
27
Dhar
410
1.15
5.69
143
6.32
349
29
Jhabua
1030
2.90
24.87
1154
5.10
1120
1
Nimar
790
2.23
8.30
2367
10.45
300
30
Dewas
370
1.04
6.15
288
1.27
778
10
Shajapur
460
1.30
6.31
301
1.33
654
14
Bhind
790
2.23
21.70
452
1.99
572
17
Gwalior
490
1.38
18.70
471
2.08
961
5
Shivpuri
1290
3.63
23.80
993
4.39
970
4
Guna
2330
6.56
31.27
1048
4.63
450
22
Datia
970
2.73
47.31
848
3.75
874
7
Bhopal
380
1.07
13.48
313
1.38
824
8
Sehore
600
1.69
10.22
528
2.33
880
6
Raisen
2110
5.94
38.64
1628
7.19
772
11
Vidisha
2680
7.55
42.07
2207
9.75
824
9
Betul
470
1.32
10.76
197
0.87
419
26
Rajgarh
530
1.49
8.63
325
1.44
613
15
Hoshangabad
810
2.28
16.67
898
3.97
1109
2
35500
100.00
17.39
22643
100.00
638
60
-
-
73
-
37
-
State CV
Source: Basic Agricultural Statistics of Madhya Pradesh, 2003.
Table 4.28 contains information on district-wise area, production and yield of total pulses in Maharashtra during 1998-99. The presence of pulses in crop pattern of the state was found quite impressive as around 15% of total cropped area was under cultivation of pulses. As per the earlier discussed states of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, district level variations in the importance of pulses are
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
169
found pronounced. Akola and Buldhana indicated more than 30% of GCA under pulses. In contrast, farmers of Ahmadnagar accorded low priority to pulses and allocated around 6% of total cropped area to these crops. Similar to area, Akola maintained first rank in total pulse production of the state. It shared 10% in the state's production. Other important districts in terms of production are Yevatmal, Amravati, Buldhana, Latur and Prabhani. All these districts together contributed nearly 37% to pulse production of Maharashtra. But, unfortunately, productivity levels are pathetic and cause great concern. The average productivity of pulses in the state was merely 503 kg/ha, which is much lower than Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. It is disheartening to note that districts like Akola with higher identity in pulse production showed productivity level below 500 kg/ha. It was even worse for the pulse cultivators of Aurangabad, Jalana and Osmanabad where they could not reap even 400 kg/ha by investing one hectare oftheir land. The inter district variability in area and production of total pulses in Maharashtra was estimated 44% and 52% respectively. The variations in yield were 22%. Rajasthan is another central Indian state with large cultivated area under pulse crops. Table 4.29 shows that around 22% of total cropped area was devoted to pulse crops in the state during 199798. The presence of pulses in the crop pattern of referred districts was found quite impressive as none of the districts grew pulses on less than 15% of the total cultivated area. The importance of pulses was outstanding in the crop economy of Churn, Hanumangarh, Jhunjhunu and Ajmer where more than 35% of GCA was under pulses.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
170
Table 4.27 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
State
% of GCA
Production
State
%
%
Yield
Rank
Bulandshahar
293
1.05
6.04
320
1.29
1092
6
Aligarh
613
2.20
12.67
595
2.40
971
12
Etah
526
\.88
9.88
627
2.53
1192
5
Badaun
301
1.08
4.78
256
1.03
852
16
Shahjahanpur
351
1.26
6.14
238
0.96
680
33
Kheri
375
1.34
5.30
281
1.13
751
26
Sitapur
591
2.12
10.01
419
1.70
710
32
Hardoi
530
1.90
8.36
380
1.53
717
31
Unnao
336
1.21
7.67
204
0.82
606
35
Farukhabad
467
1.00
20.13
268
1.09
962
11 3
Etawah
515
1.85
11.27
672
2.71
1305
Kanpur
997
3.57
17.13
1500
6.05
1505
1
Raebarelly
467
1.68
11.01
373
1.50
797
21
la1aun
1975
7.08
30.51
1503
6.06
761
24
lhansi
1674
5.60
30.53
1264
5.10
755
25
Lalitpur
1113
3.99
32.83
892
3.60
801
20
Hamirpur
2963
10.61
34.41
2135
8.61
721
30
Banda
2239
8.02
32.19
1936
7.81
865
15
2.78
19.11
973
3.92
1254
4
Fatehpur
776
Pratapgarh
401
1.43
11.32
315
1.27
787
22
Allahabad
906
3.25
16.47
1290
5.20
1424
2 23
Bahraich
982
3.52
42.57
771
3.11
785
Gonda
926
3.31
21.14
825
3.33
891
14
Barabanki
444
1.59
10.32
326
1.31
734
27
Faizabad
358
1.28
26.05
287
1.16
802
19
Sultanpur
471
1.69
10.66
345
1.39
733
28
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
171
Table 4.27 (Conld.) Dislricl
Area
Siale
%of GCA
Produclion
Slate
%
%
Yield
Rank
Basti
338
1.21
11.58
279
1.13
826
18
Gorakhpur
281
1.00
13.42
204
0.83
724
29
Azamgarh
338
1.21
6.79
281
1.13
832
17
Jaunpur
373
1.33
0.93
383
1.54
1028
8
Ballia
443
1.59
12.73
417
1.68
940
13
Varanasi
470
1.68
27.49
469
1.89
999
10
Ghazipur
395
1.42
9.85
424
I. 71
1074
7
Mirzapur
447
1.60
14.24
454
1.83
1016
9
Sonbhadra State CV
326
1.67
12.21
218
0.88
668
34
27910
100.00
10.67
24792
100.00
888
88
-
-
80
-
24
-
Source: Statistical Abstract of Uttar Pradesh, 1996 Table 4.28 Area, Production, Yield of Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Maharashtra during 1998-99
Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha Districi
Area
% State
% of GCA
Production
% Siale
Yield
Rank
467
12
Nasik
1037
3.14
10.75
484
2.91
Dhule
1471
4.45
20.38
957
5.76
651
3
Jalgaon
1633
4.94
14.50
844
5.08
517
8
Ahmad Nagar
858
2.60
6.26
428
2.58
493
II
Sangli
835
2.53
12.58
444
2.67
532
7
Aurangabad
1232
3.73
13.68
394
2.37
320
18
Jalana
1439
4.35
19.95
474
2.85
329
19
Prabhani
2361
7.14
19.44
915
5.51
388
16
Beed
1083
3.28
11.55
463
2.79
428
15
Nanded
1313
3.97
16.33
578
3.48
440
14
Osmanabad
1543
4.67
21.82
594
3.58
385
17
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
172 Table 4.28 (Contd.) District
Area
%
% of
State
GCA
Production
State
Yield
Rank
7.00
628
4
%
Latur
1849
5.59
27.35
1162
Buldhana
2518
7.62
30.61
1263
7.60
502
9
10.00
494
10
8.14
691
1
Akola
3362
1.17
32.40
1661
Amaravati
1956
5.92
19.69
1352
Yevatmal
2197
6.65
22.89
1480
8.91
674
2
Wardha
809
2.45
21.05
482
2.90
596
5
Nagpur
1083
3.28
18.60
576
3.47
532
6
Chandarpur State CV
850
2.57
14.66
383
2.31
451
13
33050
100.00
15.49
16609
100.00
503
44
-
-
52
-
22
-
Source: Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra, 2003.
Besides, Tonk, Silear, Nagaur, Jaipur, Bikaner, Bhilwara and Banswara were found prominent pulse producing districts. These districts together produced around 90% of total pulses of the state. The rank of Churn in area and production does not correspond due to extremely low productivity. It contributed 16.58% in area against 9.06% in the production of the state. The yield of pulses was merely 288 kg/ha in this district despite being the most prominent district in terms of area. The general level of productivity of pulses was found poor in Rajasthan. It was only 526 kg/ha during 1997-98. In the array of districts, yield performance of Karuli, Bharatpur and Alwar was commendable. All these districts yielded more than 1,000 kg/ha. The yield level of 1,765 kgIha in Karuli is worth emulating for other districts. The state ofRajasthan points out high variability in area, production and yield across the districts. There is one difference from the earlier discussed states that yield variations were phenomenal. The energy rich pulse crops occupied a prominent position in the crop pattern of Andhra Pradesh with 15.76% of GCA during 1997-98 (Table 4.30). The districts with above 20% area occupancy included Guntur (33.70%), Krishna (27.87%), Medak (24.49%), Srikakulam (24%), Rangareddy (23.84%) and Vizianaganam
173
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
respectively. These districts constituted around 90% oftotal pulse area in the state. It may be highlighted the Guntur contributed a higher share in production than area. On the contrary, a large number of districts such as Karimnagar, Krishna, Mahbubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Pnikasham, Rangareddy and Warangal indicated relatively lower proportion in production. This situation occurred due to poor performance of productivity. At the state level, the scenario was in no way better. In fact, average productivity of pulse crops (330 kg/ha) is extremely discouraging and dissuades farmers to grow pulse crops. It is amazing to note that maximum productivity of pulses was only 526 kg/ha in Krishana. This yield level was less than half of recommended yield of pulse crops. These results suggest that policy makers should accord high priority to measures, which could enhance productivity of pulse crops and make pulse cultivation profitable for the farmers. The pattern of inter district disparities in area, production and yield of total pulses in Andhra Pradesh was similar to states analysed earlier. Table 4.29 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Rajasthan during 1997-98 Area: 'DOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
State
% of GCA
%
Production
State
%
Yield
Rank
Ajrner
1754
3.78
30.29
696
2.85
397
13
Alwar
1169
2.52
14.84
1341
5.49
1147
3
Banswara
854
1.84
24.25
688
2.81
806
5
Barrner
2110
4.54
15.76
320
0.13
151
19
Bharatpur
889
1.91
15.99
1267
5.18
1425
2
Bhilwara
1060
2.28
20.81
394
\.61
372
15
Bikaner
3157
6.80
26.82
1201
4.91
380
14
Chittor
1173
2.53
18.82
905
3.70
772
6
ChUTU
7699
16.58
45.73
2214
9.06
288
16
Ganganagar
1700
3.66
15.40
993
4.06
584
12
174
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 4.29 (Contd.) District Jaipur
Area 2137
%
% of
State
GCA
Production
State
Yield
Rank
4.60
21.63
1442
5.90
674
10
%
Jhalawar
861
1.85
17.01
605
2.48
703
8
Jhunjhunu
2403
5.17
31.88
1634
6.68
680
9
Jodhpur
2085
4.49
18.27
380
0.16
182
19
Nagaur
4070
8.76
24.77
1013
4.14
249
17
Pali
1127
2.43
14.90.
261
1.07
232
18
Sikar
1930
4.15
25.87
1874
3.58
970
4
Tonk
1541
3.32
25.49
944
3.86
613
II
Hanumangarh
4434
9.55
38.11
3131
12.80
706
7
Karuli
521
1.12
17.34
920
3.76
1765
I
State
46449
100.00
21.70
24443
100.00
526
78
-
-
64
-
65
-
CV
Source: Statistical Abstract of Rajasthan, 1999 Table 4.30 Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Total Pulses in Important "Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1997-98
Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
State
% of GCA
%
Produ% ction State
Yield
Rank
%
Irrig.
Adilabad
899
5.74
17.57
136
2.64
151
18
-
Anantpur
571
3.65
6.12
193
3.74
338
10
2.25
Cuddapah
211
1.35
6.05
88
1.71
417
4
1.00
East & West Godawari
1345
8.59
15.50
503
9.75
373
8
0.74
Guntur
2083
13.31
33.70
998
19.34
480
3
0.75
Karimnagar
529
3.38
15.46
94
1.82
178
16
0.85
Khmmam
779
4.98
18.55
306
5.93
393
6
0.61
Krishna
1366
8.73
27.87
72
1.40
526
1
-
Kurnool
778
4.97
9.35
5
0.77
324
6.28
416
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
175
Table 4.30 (Contd.) District
Area
% State
% of GCA
Mahbubnagar
764
4.88
12.01
Production
% State
Yield Rank
% Irrig.
132
2.56
173
15
0.05
Medak
977
6.24
24.49
153
2.96
157
17
0.16
Na1gonda
962
6.15
19.85
123
2.38
128
19
12.82
Nlzamabad
360
2.30
16.05
141
2.73
392
7
0.25
Prakasham
866
5.53
17.59
224
4.34
259
12
0.72
Rangareddy
628
4.01
23.84
123
2.38
196
14
-
Srikakulam
740
4.73
24.00
365
7.07
494
2
-
Vizianaganm
733
4.68
22.24
247
4.79
337
II
-
Vishakhapatnam
265
1.69
8.44
92
1.78
347
9
Warangal
513
3.28
15.05
104
2.02
203
13
-
15.76
5160
100.00
330
-
94
-
41
-
State CV
15650 100.00 54
-
1.21
-
Source: Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh, 1998.
Karnataka was another state where pulses were grown extensively on large area of 18,020 hundred ha during 1998-99. It fonned around 15% of total cropped area. The production of pulses was highly concentrated in Gulbarga and Bidar, which together constituted around 42% of state's area and 43% of production. At the other extreme were districts ofBagalkot, Bellary, Haveri, Kolar, Koppal, Mandya and Raichur, which contributed on an average 2.5% to the aggregate area and production. Like Andhra Pradesh, productivity of pulse crops in the state was found substantially low. It was only 414 kg/ha during 1998-99. Besides, the highest yield of pulses was 547 kg/ha in kolar. It is surprising that districts like Gadag, Haveri and Koppal could not attain a yield level of 300 kg/ha. Thus, productivity of pulses appears to be the major casualty and policy should pay immediate attention to this aspect. The coefficients of variation of area and production of total pulses in Karnataka were estimated 125% and 133% respectively. These are extremely high and suggest a substantial change from one district to another. But, value of coefficient for yield around 19% indicates a reasonable disparity in this indicator among the districts.
176
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The state of Bihar grew pulses on 6,770 hundred ha of land during 1991-92 despite being a part of fertile Indo-Gangetic plains. This information pertains to early 1990s because district-wise data are not available for recent years. It may be observed from Table 4.32 that pulse area across districts in Bihar varied widely ranging from around 80 hundred ha in Katihar to 830 hundred ha in Patna. Specially, three districts namely, Patna, Rohtas and Bhojpur accounted for almost one third of area and around 39% of state's pulse production. The next category consisted of districts like Nalanda, Aurangabad and Munger where more than 6% of GCA was found under pulse cultivation. The remaining districts exhibited less than 4% of total cropped area under these crops. Similar types of disparities across the districts were noticed in production as well. Notwithstanding the asymmetric area and production of pulses among districts, Bihar attained landmark in productivity of pulses that was 930 kg/ha during 1991-92. The incremental yield of pulses over earlier discussed states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Kamataka may be attributed to soil fertility of the region. Possibly, application of inputs like fertilizer consumption might have also contributed in this achievement. The real impact of these inputs can be gauged when information on usage is made available. Nonetheless, differences in yield were extremely marked. On one hand, Bhojpur and Patna grew more than 1,000 kg/ha while Champaran indicated an extremely low productivity of 123 kg/ha. The coefficient of variation for production was estimated at 97% while it was 81 % and 29% in the case of area and yield. The earlier offered explanations may hold true for high value ofthe coefficient for area and production. But, 29% variability in yield appears to be on the higher side.
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
177
Table 4.31 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Karnataka during 1998-99
Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha I
District
Bagalkot
Area
465
% State
Yield Rank
GCA
Produ ction
% Irrig
8.69
220
2.95
473
3
10.9
%
% of
State 2.58
Belgaum
817
4.53
8.26
360
4.82
441
5
13.4f
Bellary
391
2.16
6.70
150
2.01
384
II
19.6S
Bidar
2271
12.60
49.04
870
11.65
383
12
0.35
Bijapur
1211
6.72
13.88
490
6.56
405
10
6.69
Dharwad
559
3 10
12.02
230
3.08
411
8
10.5'
Gadag
709
3.93
15.90
210
2.81
296
14
6.49
Gulbarga
5390
29.91
37.93
2350
31.46
436
6
0.96
Hassan
580
3.21
13.43
240
3.21
414
7
1.55
Haveri
455
2.52
9.81
130
1.74
286
15
4.18
Kolar
384
2.52
9.23
210
2.81
547
1
1.30
Koppal
531
2.94
12.40
150
2.01
282
16
3.20
Mandya
417
2.31
13.39
210
2.81
504
2
2.40
Mysore
860
4.77
17.66
350
4.69
407
9
5 12
Raichur
470
2.61
7.30
160
2.14
340
13
1.49
3.36
9.21
Tumkur State
CV
606 18020
125
100.00 14.64
-
-
280
3.75
462
4
1.49
7470
100.00
414
-
3.92
133
-
19
Source: Statistical Abstract of Karnataka, 200 I
-
98
178
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 4.32
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Bihar durin1t.1991-92 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
State
% of GCA
Production
State
%
%
Yield
Rank
Patna
830
12.26
2.90
910
14.44
1096
2
Nalanda
470
6.94
1.76
400
6.35
851
10
Bhojpur
670
9.89
1.46
710
11.27
1059
3
Rohtas
750
11.07
1.24
730
11.58
973
4
Gaya
270
3.99
1.42
200
3.17
740
13
Jahanabad
270
3.99
1.64
230
3.65
851
9
Navada
100
1.48
5.81
90
1.43
900
6
Aurangabad
420
6.20
1.55
320
5.08
761
11
Sewan
110
1.62
3.92
130
2.07
1181
1
Muzzaffarpur
90
1.33
4.46
70
1.11
778
10
Sitamarhi
160
2.36
6.11
120
1.90
750
12
Champaran
220
3.24
2.88
270
4.29
123
21
Darbhanga
140
2.07
5.76
100
1.59
714
14
Madhubani
150
2.22
4.79
80
1.27
533
20
Begusarai
80
1.18
3.88
50
0.79
625
19
Sahrasa
140
2.07
3.77
90
1.42
642
17
Madhopura
130
1.92
6.19
90
1.43
692
16
Purnia
90
1.33
8.65
80
1.27
888
7
Katihar
80
1.18
3.05
50
0.79
625
18
Bhagalpur
300
4.43
9.14
210
3.33
700
15
Munger
410
6.06
12.62
280
4.44
683
8
Palamu State CV
240
3.55
9.76
230
3.65
958
5
6770
100.00
6.46
6300
100.00
931
81
-
-
97
-
29
-
Source: Bihar Statistics, 1993.
179
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
Coming to the district-wise status of pulse production in Gujrat, figures in Table 4.33 point out that these nutritive crops were grown on 884 hundred ha ofland during 1998-99. This area translated into 7.93% of GCA. Major pulse producing four districts namely, Panchmahals, Vadodara, Bharauch and Kutch constituted around 50% of area and 54% of pulse production of the state. Other important districts included Banaskantha, Sabarkantha, Mehsana, Surat and Val sad where pulses were cultivated on more than 5% of total cultivated area. The ranks ofmany districts in area and production do not match due to productivity differentials. For instance, Sabarkantha contributed 12.50% in production against 5.65% in area. On the contrary, Kutch shared merely 4.69% in production against 10.74% in area. The average yield of pulses was 799 kg/ha in Gujarat during 1998-99. The attainment of Valsad with 1,699 kglha of productivity is commendable and worth emulating. At the other extreme, farmers in Kutch reaped an extremely low yield of 312 kg! ha. It is certain that efforts should be made to enhance productivity of pulses in such districts. As per earlier discussed states, value of coefficients of variation of area and production was found at a high of 71 % and 80% respectively. It is surprising that coefficient of variation of yield was found to be 46%, which is second highest among the analysed states. It reflects substantially higher disparities in pulse yield across the districts in Gujarat. Table 4.33
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Gujrat during..1998-99 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qtl Yield: kglha District
Area
%
State
% oj GCA
Production
%
Yield
Rank
State
Jamnagar
30
3.39
4.51
21
3.28
700
8
Rajkot
18
2.04
2.22
13
2.03
722
9
Surendernagar
14
1.58
1.94
7
1.09
500
14
615
10
1292
2
Bhavnagar
13
1.47
1.90
8
1.25
Junagadh
24
2.71
3.58
31
4.84
180
. India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 4.33 (Contd.) District Kutch
Area 95
State
% of GCA
Production
10.74
13.13
30
4.69
%
%
Yield
Rank
316
16
State
Banas Kantha
67
7.58
5.91
27
4.22
403
15
Sabarkantha
50
5.65
8.97
80
12.50
1600
6
Mehsana
48
5.43
5.31
24
3.75
500
13
Ahmedabad
30
3.39
4.80
18
2.81
600
12
Kheda
30
3.39
4.70
37
5.78
1233
3
Panchmahals
117
13.23
19.02
110
17.10
940
5
Vadodara
IlO
12.44
19.60
93
14.53
845
7
Bharauch
108
12.24
24.96
65
10.15
602
II
Surat
46
5.20
9.81
49
7.66
1065
4
Valsad
25
2.82
7.08
17
2.65
680
1
State
884
100.00
7.93
640
100.00
724
CV
71
-
-
80
-
46
-
Source: Statistical Abstract of Gujarat, 2002
Table 4.34 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of West Bengal during 1998-99 Area: 'OOha Production: '000 qt\ Yield: kg/ha District
Area
State
% of GCA
Production
State
%
%
Yield
Rank
Birbhum
120
5.41
3.62
110
7.19
916
1
Midnapur
150
6.76
4.19
130
8.50
867
2
Hooghly
100
4.50
4.39
20
0.13
200
10
Nadia
410
18.47
13.99
230
15.03
560
9
Murshidabad
430
19.37
10.54
360
23.53
837
3
Dinajpur
150
6.76
3.38
120
7.84
800
4
Status of Pulse Production-A District Level Analysis
181
Table 4.34 (Contd.) District
Area
% State
% of
Production
% State
Yield
Rank
GCA
MaIda
290
13.06
10.10
210
13.73
724
5
Jalpaiguri
70
3.15
2.17
40
2.61
571
8
Cooch Behar
80
3.60
3.21
50
3.27
625
6
Puru1ia
190
8.56
5.38
110
7.19
579
7
2220
100.00
4.06
1530
100.00
689
67
-
-
750
-
32
-
State CV
Source: Statistical Abstract of West Bengal, 2001
The results of pulse production in West Bengal show that pulses were grown on 2,220 hundred ha of area during 1998-99 (Table 4.34). It accounted for 4.06% ofGCA. The cultivation of pulses is found largely concentrated in three districts, namely Nadia, MaIda and Murshidabad. These together constituted almost 50% of area and 53% of pulse production of West Bengal. Other important districts included Midnapur, Birbhum, Dinajpur and Purulia where pulses were produced on more than 5% of total cropped area. Substantial variations may be noticed in pulse production in these districts. An examination of yield level makes amply clear that productivity of pulses ranged between a high of 916 kglha in Birbhum and an extremely low of200 kg/ha in Hooghly. It may be highlighted that the majority of districts indicated pulse yield above 500 kg/ha. The coefficients of variation of area and production across the analysed districts in West Bengal were estimated at 67% and 75% respectively due to high variability in these indicators. However, a value of 32% for yield is also a reflection of high disparities in productivity of pulses among the referred districts in West Bengal.
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
Chapter 5
Effects of Prive Movements on Production of Pulses
The structure and behaviour of prices of farm products are of considerable importance in the context of finding out ways and means to increase their production. Prices are known to be coefficients of decision-making. Often, producers decide what to produce and how much to produce in response to prices (Nerlove, 1958; Kahlon and Tyagi, 1983; Acharya, 1997). The farmer's decision regarding production and allocation of resources, namely, land and expensive inputs, is influenced by changes in agricultural prices. The instability and higher fluctuations in commodity prices fail to serve as an adequate guide to production plans and, thus, cause inefficiency in allocation of resources and induce income uncertainty. These problems can be avoided through formation and implementation of a proper agricultural prices stabilization policy, which requires information on price movements, fluctuations over time and their impact on production. Realizing the importance of prices in improving the production of agricultural commodities, it would be pertinent to focus on issues related to prices of pulse crops in India. It is hypothesized that prices have a significant effect on output/production of pulses. The main purpose of this chapter is to analyse the influence of prices on the production of pulses. For a proper understanding, however, it is important to analyse trends and movements of various types of prices over time. Keeping this in mind, present chapter is organized as follows. Section - 1 presents a panoramic view of trends, variability, growth and inter year changes in the wholesale,
184
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
farm harvest, retail and minimum support prices of five important pulses, namely, gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses from 1981 to 2001. Semi-log functions are used to analyse time series data on prices of pulses. The seasonality component has been reviewed for wholesale prices. As a part of the government policy, the quantum of pulses bought by NAFED under price support and commercial purchases is also examined. In Section - 2 details the production response of prices as estimated for the whole country and for the core states producing individual pulses. The methodology used by Raj Krishna and Raychaudhri (1980) was followed for this purpose. The responsiveness of production to prices is measured in terms of elasticity. Since production of pulses depends on area and yield, the elastic ties ofthese parameters are worked out separately through regression equations and clubbed together to arrive at the output response. The price index used in the regressions was of farm harvest price index deflated by input price index. Since farm harvest prices were not available for moong, urad and massar , wholesale prices during the harvesting month were used as a proxy for the estimation of price trends and elasticities. The adopted methodologies are given in the text at the relevant places. The data on output prices were obtained from "Harvest Prices in India" and "Agricultural Prices in India". The information on input price index, which included prices paid for intermediate consumption inputs and for capital goods was gathered from the "Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices", 2003.
Section -1 Behaviour of Pulse Prices Agricultural prices play an important role in the resource allocation, distribution of income and in inducing capital formation in India. Realizing their importance, R&j Krishna (1963) viewed them as an integral part of growth policy. The prices of foodgrains and pulses are the most basic among the price structure of agricultural commodities. Exceptional rise in their prices touches economic life
Effects of Private Movements on Production ofPulses
185
at many points by affecting the consumption and real income of the people. The rapidly rising prices of pulses in the recent past have put them in the special category and have caused widespread concern throughout the country. But, a scant attention has been, generally, paid to their analysis in the literature despite the paramount importance of pulses in protecting the nutritional security oflargely vegetarian population of India. Therefore, it is proposed to analyse the price behaviour of pulses in this section. The study of trends in prices is very important. By trend, we mean a continuous or sustained direction indicated by a long-term movement. The annual series of prices has three components, viz., trend, cycle and irregularity. The simplest way to analyse the annual series of prices is to establish the trend, study its direction and slope, compare trend in different pulse crops and nature of deviations from the trend. The movement of prices around trend line indicates the extent of instability in prices, which may have significant effect on production through effecting acreage and yield. The semi-log equations were used to estimate the trends in prices of pulses (i.e., wholesale prices, farm harvest prices, retail prices and minimum support prices) for the period 1981-2001. Symbolically log y
= a+ bt
where y - independent variable (price) a - intercept b - regression coefficient (annual rate of change) t
- time period (1-20 years)
To analyse seasonality aspect in wholesale prices, seasonality index was computed through calculating deviations from mean value for each month in major markets of the core states for 1981, 1991 and 2001.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
186
Before examining the prices and its related issues, a discussion on the selection of the state and market as a unit of analysis would be in order. It was observed earlier (Chapter - ill) that pulses are grown in almost all the states of India but the pattern of distribution of area and production of each pulse crop was found regionally concentrated. Keeping this in mind, the following states and markets were chosen for the price analysis of considered pulses between 1981 and "0 1. Crop
Wholesale Price/Farm Harvest Price
Retail Price
Gram
Madhya Pradesh (Bhind Market)
Delhi Market
Arhar
Maharashtra (Aurangabad Market)
Delhi Marjet
Moong
Maharashtra (Aurangabad Market)
Delhi Market
Urad
Andhra Pradesh (Vijayvada Market)
Dehhi Market
Massar
Uttar Pradesh (Kanpur Market)
Delhi MarketD
Now, the results on the t!"ends, variability and growth of prices oflJpulses are presented.
Wholesale Prices Wholesale prices are the most important segment of prices. These reflect the overall demand and supply situation of a commodity in the economy. It is the leader price, which sets stage for the farm harvest prices and the retail prices (Acharya, 1988). Therefore, we have presented behaviour of wholesale prices of pulses at the country level. The magnitude and direction of change in wholesale prices of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses in the first, second and entire study periods in India are presented in Table 5.1. The results show that wholesale prices of total pulses hive witnessed a hiGh increase of! 0.09% annum between 1)81 and 2001. The lowest growth was observed for gram (9.61 % per annum) afd the highest for massar (10.50% per annum). In the first sub-period, Compound fbowth rate of wholesale prices of pulses was 10.11 % per year, which declined "y around 1% in the second period and became 9.04%.
187
Effects ofPrivate Movements on Production ofPulses
The maximuM difference in the compound growth rates of wholesale prices of the referred pulses in the two sub-peRiods occurred ij the case of arhar and the minimum in the case of moong. The high positive growth in the wholesale price indices of individual pulse crops in the study period is reflected in Fig. 5.1. It may be observed that long-term movement of wholesale prices of individual pulses and total pulses has been steadily upward despite occasional ups and downs. However, the pace of the price movement has not been uniform. The rise has been greater in the wholesale prices of massar than that of four other pulses. Furthermore, short-term fluctuations in the wholesale prices of individual pulse crops have been very wide. This has affected the degree of variability over time. Although, magnitude of variation measured through coefficient of variation was of high order, i.e., more than 50% in all cases, it was as high as 58.13%
TableS.l Results of Semi-log Functions of Wholesale Prices of Pulses in India (1981-2001) Commodity
Intercept (a)
Coefficient of time (b)
Coefficient of Compound Multiple Growth Determi- Rate (%) nation if2
Coefficient of variation (%)
1981-2001 Gram
-177.39
0.091 (15.18)*
092
9.61
52.29
Arhar
-185.39
0.095 (15.86)**
0.93
10.06
53.75
Moong
-188.66
0.097 (23.95)*
0.97
10.24
55.70
Urad
-190.97
0.098 (20.25)**
0.96
10.38
56.46
Massar
-193.59
0.099 (20.99)*
0.96
10.50
58.13
Total Pulses
-185.99
0.096 (26.62)*
0.98
10.09
53.45
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
188 Table 5.1 (Contd.) Commodity
Intercept (a)
Coefficient of lime (b)
Coefficient of Compound Multiple Growth Determi- Rate (%) nation R2
Coefficient of varialion (%)
1981-1991 Gram
-199.71
0.103 (5.27)*
0.74
10.85
35.42
Arhar
-175.31
0.091 (6.30)*
0.81
9.50
30.91
Moong
-179.04
0.093 (7.65)**
0.86
9.70
30.06
Urad
-192.25
0.099 (73.65)**
0.95
10.45
30.33
Massar
-179.50
0.092 (8.02)*
0.88
9.72
30.51
Total Pulses
-186.41
0.096 (10.68)"*
0.93
10.11
30.91
1991-2001
Gram
-159.53
0.083 (6.28)·
0.79
8.63
28.89
ArhaT
-134.85
0.071 (4.89)*
0.73
7.31
25.65
Moong
-191.22
0.098 (9.68)-
0.90
10.38
31.55
Urad
-176.77
0.091 (5.85)-
0.77
9.59
31.22
Massar
-189.78
0.097 (7.32)-
0.84
10.29
33.10
Total Pulses
-166.85
0.086 (11.11)-
0.92
9.04
27.47
Brackets show t-values and * indicates level of significance; * Significant at below 5% level of probability; ** Significant at below 10% level of probability Source: Based on data from Agricultural Prices in India and data obtained from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi,
1981-2001.
189
Effects of Private Movements on Production of Pulses Fig. 5.1 Trends in Wholesale Prices of Pulses (1982-2001)
1882
tees
,_
'881
'884
,.7
lOOO
1882
V_
1aes
,_
tlll81 V_
'"
..,.Tr_"d I" Whal_l. Prie. I"d ••
18111
:mao
(Tot-Pu~
o '002
for massar. The coefficient of variation of wholesale prices oftotal pulses in the decade prior to economic reforms worked out to be 30.91%, which, though, came down to 27.47% in the 1990s, yet remained substantially high. It could be the impact of imports, which increased supply in the market. An examination of the two subperiods through which the prices passed may be described as a period of boom. Between these two periods, however, there was also a transitional phase during which the agricultural economy of India was trying to adjust itself from a state control to decontrol in the early 1990s. The first may be characterized by a gradual increase in the wholesale prices of pulses due to inherent inflationary
190
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
tendencies in a developing economy like India. But, the second period of 1990s has exhibited some influence of high imports and declining international prices. Though, there was a general decline in the wholesale prices of all agricultural commodities as an influence of declining international prices, the prices of pulses increased at a compound rate of around 9% per annum between 1991 and 2001. The trend values of wholesale prices of individual pulses and total pulses over the past two decades reveal a rising tendency with high degree of variability. This is more objectively brought out through estimation of semi-log trend equations. The estimates of trend coefficients with values and level of significance are presented in Table 5.1. Clearly, 'b' coefficient or slope of the trend line is positive and significant. Most of the coefficients are significant at below 5% level of probability. Only 5 out of the 18 coefficients turned out to be significant at below 10% level. None of them was insignificant. The rate of change in wholesale prices of pulses in most of the cases as measured through slope varied between 9% and 10% per annum. The rate of increase was the lowest for arhar (about 7%) in the second period and the highest for gram (10.30%) in the first period. The overall increase in wholesale price of pulses was estimated 9.6% per annum between 1981 and 2001. It may be noticed that R 2 for all these trend equations is very high (above 0.90) which implies that the time factor is an important element in explaining variations in wholesale prices of pulses. A comparison of results for 1980s and 1990s makes it amply clear that the slope of the trend was between 0.09 and 0.10 but explanatory power of time in terms of R2 is found different for different crops. For instance, R2 of gram became 0.79 in the second period from its earlier level of 0.74 in the first period. Similar types of variations were noticed in case of other crops too.
Farm Harvest Prices These represent the average prices at which the producers at the village site dispose off the commodity during the post-harvest period. The changes in farm harvest prices affect farmers directly by influencing their incomes because a major part of the surplus is
191
Effects of Private Movements on Production ofPulses
marketed in the period immediately after the harvest. Whether the trend and magnitude of fluctuations observed in the wholesale prices of pulses was also reflected in the actual prices received by the farmers? This is examined through estimating the trends, variability and growth in farm harvest prices of individual pulses in the earlier mentioned markets for the study period. The results are presented in Table 5.2. The farm harvest prices of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar have been rising at a compound growth rate of 9.62%, 10.73%, 10.93%,8.95% and 10.21% between 1981 and 2001. Evidently, growth in moong prices appeared to be higher than other pulses. The inter crop comparisons of growth in farm harvest prices between the two periods revealed that the escalation in prices of massar in the first period and for moong in the second period exceeded other crops. The overall increase in the farm harvest prices of gram
Table 5.2 Results of Semi-log Functions of Farm Harvest Prices of Pulses in Major States (1981-2001) Commodity
Intercept (a)
Coefficient of time (b)
Coefficient of Multiple Determination
Compound Growth Rate (%)
Coefficient o~ variation (%
0.93
9.62
49.18
Ri 1981-2001
-177.39
0.092 (16.95)*
Arhar
-197 .73
0.101 (16.53)*
0.93
10.73
58.09
Moong
-200.76
0.103 (18.87)·
0 .95
10.93
59 . 18
Urad
- 165.26
0.085 (1 \.91)··
0 .88
8.95
52.43
Massar
-188 .15
0.097 (15 .82)·*
0.93
10.21
51.52
Gram
192
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 5.2 (Contd.) Commodity
Intercept (a)
CoejJicient of time (b)
CoejJicient of Multiple Determination iii
Compound Growth Rate (%)
CoejJicient OJ variation (%
0.88
12 .28
35.44
1981-1991
-225 .00
0 .115 (8.19)*
Arhar
-141.36
0 .073 (3 .91)*
0 .61
7 .63
30.56
Moong
-178.02
0.092 (4.49)*
0 .68
9.66
32 .89
Urad
-133.22
0.069 (5 .72) *
0.78
7 .20
23.49
Massar
-232 .36
0.119 (8 .24)*
0.88
12 .69
36 .03
Gram
1991-2001
Gram
-135.50
0.070 (6.34)**
0.80
7 .35
23 .74
Arhar
-159.31
0.082 (9 .36)**
0.90
8.63
27.65
Moong
-179 .52
0.093 (12 .28)**
0 .94
9 .75
31.42
Urad
-168 .90
0.088 (3.63)*
0 .55
9.15
32.18
Massar
-133 .05
0.070 (5 .07)*
0 .71
7.21
23 .67
Brackets show t-values; • indicates level of significance; • Significant at below 5% level of probability; •• Significant at below 10% level of probability
Source: Based on data from Farm Harvest Prices in India and data obtained from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1981-200 I.
Effects of Private Movements on Production ofPulses
193
Figure 5.2 Trends in Farm Harvest Prices of Pulses (1982-2001)
.00
:~
1=
!1IJO~""""'=1885
,_
18&1
1884
1,""
2000
and massar by passed rest of the pulses in the first phase while moong and urad took over in the second period. The rising tendency of farm harvest prices of considered pulses is shown in Fig. 5.2. The farm harvest prices ofthese pulses in the major markets of core states continued to increase despite up and down swings. The maximum increase in farm harvest price of gram was noticed in 200 1. It was also found high in the year 1998 but there was a sharp decline of 56 points in the following year. Similarly, the farm harvest price index of arhar was 482 in 1998, which declined to 448 in the year 1999. After analysing the trend lines, we would focus attention on the results of semi-log functions. The regression coefficients (b) in each case turned out to be positive and significant. Out of total 15
194
India's Pulse Production : Stagnation and Redressal
coefficients, 10 are found statistically significant at below 5% level and the rest 5 are significant at below 10% level. But, the slope ranged between 0.070 and 0.119. The overall rate of increase in the farm harvest prices was higher for arhar and moong than rest of the pulse crops. The values ofR 2for the farm harvest prices of individual pulses indicate much wider range than the wholesale prices. Although in most of the referred cases, R 2explained a good part of variations in farm harvest prices, arhar in 1980, and urad in 1990s appeared as exceptions showing its explanatory power below 70%. The wide variations in farm harvest prices of individual pulse crops in core states is a common feature. The highest coefficient of variation was estimated for moong (59.18%) followed by arhar (58.09%) in the study period. On the other hand, lowest coefficient of variation was observed for massar (23.49%) in the first period. All these results imply higher volatility in the farm harvest prices of pulses in the core states during the reference period. These results are also indicative of higher uncertainty in income from cultivation of these crops.
Retail Prices Retail prices relate to the price paid by the ultimate consumer while buying from a retailer. Retail prices of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar are analysed for the Delhi market because it is the central market obtaining supply from different states and demand here remains buoyant throughout the year due to its being a distribution centre. The growth in the retail prices of considered pulses exceeded increases in the wholesale and farm harvest prices during the study period (Table 5.3). The compound growth rate in each case was measured more than 10% per annum. The maximum growth occurred in the retail prices of arhar and the minimum in case of gram in the aforesaid period. The escalations in retail prices of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar in the pre-reform period were 11.78% 10.96% 10.57%, 10.15% and 11.34% per annum. In most cases, these growth rates recovered in the post-reforms period except for gram. Its retail price showed a decline of around 3% per
Effects ofPrivate Movements on Production ofPulses
195
annum during this period. It may be noted that retail price of urad has been increasing at the phenomenal rate of 18.97% per year during the 1990s. The above analysis of growth rates does not reveal the year-toyear fluctuation in the price series. The movements in indices of retail prices of individual pulses in the Delhi market are exhibitted in Fig. 5.3. It reveals an upward rising tendency in all cases but up and down swings also feature in each case. The years of acceleration and deceleration appeared different for individual pulses. For instance, year 1998 exhibited a phenomenal rise in the index of retail price of gram but the peak period for arhar was 1997. The years 1995, 1998 and 1999 were noticed as a periods of boom in case of moong, urad and massar. An abrupt phenomenal rise/decline in the retail price indices in a particular year is indicative of huge demand and supply gap in that year. The pattern of declining prices was also of the same nature. Thus, the overall price situation as
Table 5.3 Results of Semi-log Functions of Retail Prices of Pulses in Delhi ~arket(1981-2001)
Commodity
Intercept (a)
Coefficient of time (b)
Coefficient of Multiple Determination iii
Compound Growth Rate (%)
Coefficient of variation (%)
1981-2001
Gram
-197.24
0.10 (18.40) •
0.95
11.02
54 .8
Arhar
-200 .00
0.10 (21.30) •
0.96
11.81
62 .0
Moong
-206 .10
0.11 (24.44) •
0.97
11.66
60.7
Urad
-185.05
0.09 (17 .59) ••
0.94
11 .09
58 .7
Massar
-199 .09
0.10 (27.81) •
0.98
10.91
59 .6
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
196 Table 5.3 (Conld.) Commo dity
Intercept (a)
Coefficient of time (b)
Coefficient of Multiple Determination jfi
Compound Growth Rate (%)
Coefficient of variation (%)
1981-1991
Gram
-250 .33
0.13 (8 .58) •
0 .89
11.78
37 .7
Arhar
-222.73
0.11 (10.33) •
0 .92
10.96
36.3
Moong
-216 .92
0.11 (12 .50) •
0 .95
10.57
34 .1
Urad
-179.47
0.09 (10.40) ••
0.92
10.15
30.6
Massar
-233 .95
0.12 (18.70) ••
0.97
11.34
32 .6
1991-2001
Gram
-145 .85
0.08 (8.05) •
0 .86
8.51
25 .8
Arhar
-170.92
0.09 (6.79) ••
0 .82
13 .21
35.4
Moong
-169.18
0.09 (7.70) ••
0 .85
11 .02
33 .1 37 .9 36.1
Urad
-179 .34
0.09 (5.32) •
0 .73
18 .97
Massar
-184.76
0.01 (8.72) •
0 .88
13 .13
Brackets show t-values and • indicates level of significance; • significant at below 5% level of probability; •• significant at below 10% level of probability Source: Based on data from Agricultural Prices in India and data obtained from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1981-200 I.
Effects of Private Movements on Production ofPulses
197
Fig. 5.3 Trends in Retail Prices of Pulses (1982-2001)
J:
I
i"'"
measured by the movements of retail price indices of pulses in the study period was mixed. The positive and negative fluctuations in retail prices of pulses reflect the net effect of all the factors influencing demand and supply. In addition, prices of substitutes also affect retail prices. Particularly, Delhi market also gets influenced by the demand and supply imbalances in other states. All these factors bring uncertainty in prices and increase the degree of instability. For these reasons, coefficients of variation of retail prices of some pulses were observed to be more than 60%. The highest coefficient of variation was estimated for arhar and the lowest for gram during 1981-2001. But, even the lowest coefficient was on the higher side. This indicates a preponderance of demand over that of supply as well as influence of international price. Out of the two periods, the degree of variability was found higher for gram
198
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
and arhar in the first period, while urad and massar showed higher variability in the second period. A further exploration in the trends through semi-log functions was carried out and the results of trend equations of retail prices of selected pulses presented in Table 5.4 indicate that all trend coefficients are positive and significant. The regression coefficients are around 0.10 except for urad (0.09). It maybe noticed that R2 for estimated trend equations appeared to be very high, i.e., above 0.90. It implies that time is an important factor in explaining variations in retail prices of pulses. The values of R 2 in the reforms period declined in all the cases. In other words, explanatory power of trend variables deteriorated during this period.
Minimum Support Prices Theoretically, prices influence crop production by impacting area under the crop. The role of farm harvest price is significant but government policy also influences the production scenario. The most important quantitative indicator of government policy is the fixation of minimum support prices (MSP) at which the government would be ready to purchase the commodity if wholesale prices fall below the MSP. These prices are annually fixed by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) for the all India in case of five pulses, namely, gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar. Massar has been recently included in the list. The prices recommended, as MSP should be such that they cover not only the cost of production but also provide a reasonable margin of profit to farmers of major growing regions of the country. The rationale has been that such prices should provide enough incentives for producers to make investments and adopt new technology for increasing productivity and production. Table 5.4 and Fig. 5.4 present the growth rates and trend in the MSP of pulses for the referred to period. The estimates of trend equations of the MSP of gram, arhar, moong and urad are presented in Table 5.4. The regression coefficients in all cases, turned out to be positive and significant. They are found quite close to one another. Out of the total 12
199
Effects of Private Movements on Production of Pulses
coefficients, 8 are significant at below 5% level of probability and rests of them are significant at below 10% level. The rate of change measured from the slope differs marginally between gram and arhar. It was 9.2% per year in the first case against 9.6% in the second case. For remaining two pulses, i.e., moong and urad, it was the same due to uniformity in the minimum support prices. Across the two periods, increase in the minimum support price of gram was found lower in the 1980s (7.5%) as compared to the 1990s (8.2%). It was 8.8% and 8.5% with respect to arhar.1t may be noticed that the value of R 2 was estimated above 0.90 in all cases except for gram with lower value of 0.85 in the 1980s. This implies that the semi-log functions explained a very high proportion of variations in the MSP in most of the referred cases. It does not mean absence of variability. It was equally high in the minimum support prices as in the case of wholesale prices,
Table 5.4 Results of Semi-log Functions of Minimum Support Prices of Pulse Crops in India (1981-2001) Commodity
Intercept (a)
Coefficient of time (b)
Coefficient of MUltiple DetermireI:i:n R
CompOUnt Growth Rate (%)
Coefficient 0 variation (%
1981-2001 Gram
-177 .10
0.092 (28.33)-
0.97
9 .61
52.85
Arhar
-186.53
0.096 (45.02)·-
0.99
10. 12
54.31
Moong
-183.04
0.094 (42.13)-
0.98
9.93
53 .80
Urad
-183.G4
0.094 (42.13)-
0.98
9.93
53 .80
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Massar
200
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 5.4 (Contd.) Commodity
Intercept (a)
Coefficient of time (b)
Coefficient of Multiple Determination jf2
Compound Growth Rate (%)
Coefficient 0 variation (%
1981-1991
Gram
-145 .61
0.075 (7 .37)"
0.85
7.88
25.42
Arhar
-171.76
0.088 (18 .67)"
0.97
9.31
27 .62
Moong
-161 .46
0.084 (15.90)·
0.97
8.74
26.28
Urad
-161.46
0.084 (15 .90)·
0.97
8.74
26 .28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Massar
1991-2001
Gram
-159.59
0.082 (19.84)"
0.98
8.65
27.28
'Arhar
-164 .33
0.085 (21.97)·
0.98
8.91
27 .82
Moong
-164.33
0.085 (21.97)·
0.98
8.91
27 .82
Urad
-164.33
0.085 (21.97)·
0.98
8.91
27 .82
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Massar
Brackets show t-values and • indicates level of significance; • significant at below 5% level of probability; •• significant at below 10% level of probability
Source: Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, 1981-200 I.
Effects of Private Movements on Production of Pulses
201
Fig. 5.4 Trends in Minimum Support Prices of Pulses (1982-2001)
fann harvest prices and retail prices of individual pulses. Indeed, the estimated coefficient of variation of each pulse was above 50% over the study period. However, two sub-periods showed only marginal difference in the degree of variability ofMSP of pulses. It may be observed that the price support to pulses has been constantly on the rise after the crop season 1981. The MSP of gram has been growing at the compound rate of 9.61 % per year in this period. Similarly, the MSPs of arhar and other kharif pulses have been rising at 10.12% and 9.93% per annum. These growth rates reflect the policy intention to promote pulse cultivation. However, pulse production did not commensurate with the increase in the support price.
Are minimum support prices of pulses attractive for growers and have an effective influence on fanners? In fact, the effective support price should cover the cost of production after including the imputed value offamily labour and managerial cost. A price fixed
202
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
on this basis would insure commercial farmers against loss in good harvest years and would provide subsistence to small and marginal growers. Thus, it is necessary to compare the cost of production and the MSP fixed by the government. This information is presented in Table 5.5. The estimates of cost of cultivation for major pulses in important states showed that the MSP fixed for gram and massar for rabi pulses and for arhar, moong and urad among kharif pulses was lower than cost C3 which covers all costs including managerial cost of 10%. In most cases it was higher than cost A2 plus imputed value of family labour. Particularly, for moong in Maharashtra and Rajasthan and for urad in Maharashtra, it did not even cover this cost. Thus, minimum support price appears to be ineffective in providing incentives to increase pulse production. Owing to this reason, it seems that announcing of the MSPs could not provide enough incentive
TableS.S
Cost of Production and Minimum Support Prices of Pulses in Important States during the Recent Years (Rs.lqt\) State
Cost Al+FL
Cost cJ
MSP
Gram
Madhya Pradesh (2000-01)
663.70
1251.27
1100
Uttar Pradesh (2000-01)
537.79
1050.14
1100
Massar
Uttar Pradesh (2000-01)
808.93
1470.48
1200
Madhya Pradesh (2000-01)
587 .31
1200.15
1200
Effects of Private Movements on Production ofPulses
203
Table 5.5 (Contd.) State
Cost A,+FL
Cost CJ
MSP
Arhar
Andhra Pradesh (1999-2000)
1020.13
1726.97
1105
Madhya Pradesh (1999-2000)
1092.25
1288.37
1105
Maharashtra (1999-2000)
872.88
959.95
1105
Uttar Pradesh (1999-2000)
455.94
1134.64
1105
Moong
Andhra Pradesh (1999-2000)
714.89
1450.38
1105
Maharashtra (1999-2000)
1250.28
1836.10
1105
Rajasthan (1999-2000)
1761.99
2562.88
1105
Urad
Andhra Pradesh (1999-00)
716.78
1455.64
1105
Madhya Pradesh (1999-00)
1088.02
1992.01
1105
1339.55
1891.85
1105
Maharashtra (1999-00)
I
Source: Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, 2003.
to the fanners to raise pulse production. Although, minimum support prices were found to be higher than cost ~ plus imputed value of family labour in most cases, it was unable to cover the full cost incurred by fanners. The designated agency for implementing the MSP is the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED). This agency bought only 3,838 tonnes ofarhar under the price support during 2001-02. In addition, around 26, 3, 6, 16 and 2 thousand tonnes of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar were bought under commercial purchases. The quantity purchased is so miniscule that it cannot have any impact on the pulse production in a country like India. The NAFED had to limit its operations due to lack of financial
204
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
support from the government during 2002-03. Only Rs.I00 crore have been provided in the budget against a requirement ofRs.452 crore. In fact, government should make adequate budgetary provision for price support operations of pulses by the NAFED so that it can be effective in implementing the price policy. Otherwise, fixing the MSP for pulses would remain only a farce.
Inter Year Changes in Pulse Prices In the earlier part of this section, movement and direction of different types of prices of pulses during the reference period have been studied with the help of trend analysis of time series data on prices. It may be noted that the prices of pulses have exhibited a rising tendency with occasional ups and downs. The minimum support prices emerged as a special category, which indicated only upward movement. This analysis, however, does not reflect the exact magnitude of year-to-year changes in the various types of prices, which help in an in-depth understanding of price behaviour of pulses. This is a common knowledge that prices of agricultural commodities, including pulses, fluctuate annually on account of variations in weather and climatic conditions through changes in area and yield of which later appeared to be more important in case of the Indian pulses. For ascertaining the accurate nature of yearto-year price variations, we have worked out percentage change in the prices of individual pulses over the previous year. The results of annual variations in the wholesale, farm harvest, retail and minimum support prices of individual pulses over the study period are presented in Table 5.6. The estimates of percentage change indicate that our belief of continuously rising prices of pulses holds true only in the case of minimum support prices, which have been increasing year after year between 1981 and 2001. However, percentage change appeared to be different in each year in case of various pulses. For gram, the highest improvement was noticed in the year 1983 (37.6%) as compared to the previous year. Similarly, calendar year 1991 has exhibited a sharp rise of 29.5% over 1990. Further, the years of 1993, 1994, 1999 and 2001 have shown more than 10% increase in
Table 5.6 Percentage Change In Wholesale Price, Fann Harvest Price, Retail Price and Minimum Support Price of Important Pulses over Previous Year (%)
Wholesale Price Year Gram f4rhar Moong
Urad
Ma· SJaT
1982
5.2
3.5
4.2
4.8
Retail Price
Fann Harvest Price
3.9
Total Pulses
4.7
Gram Arhar Moong
5.1
3.6
9.0
Urad
8.2
Minimum Support Price
Ma- Gram Arhar Moong Urad ssar
6.1
4.60
5.98
3.10
4.9
Arhar
MOtXI#' Urad
5.2
6.2 20.0
7.7
-6.4
14.8
-13.9
-5.2
-4.8
4.0
40.0
12.2
0.00
20.41
3.46
37.6
7.5
20.4
7.7
17.4
-2.6
8.4
30.9
-3.5
39.1
15.7
38.3 45.93
2.04
7.41
22.86
28.57
3.5
14.0
4.2
1985
53.7
-1.0
25.0
17.4
30.3
23.6
39.4
2.0
-4.9
-8.3
15.4 39.29
-6.78
3.45
1.01
8.68
2.1
12.2
10.0
1986
21.1
-15.7
20.0
4.8
6.8
8.1
-4.3
-21.1
-9.9
18.2
9.59 20.17
5.39
10.22
2.1
9.1
9.1
3.3
5.0
1984
1987 -15.3
17.5
1988
-4.7
44.0
1989
53.0
11.8
1990
17.2
-7.5
2.8
-16.0
21.2
4.0 32.1
-2.54 21.61
7.21
Gram
-4.9
1983 -19.7
-29.2
1.32
MassaT
-9.29
6.66
-0.71
3.33
6.1
9.32 28.74
8.98
32.54
7.7
4.8
3.2
30.77
5.29
3.6
10.8
10.8
7.56
5.53
12.1
11.1
11.1
-2.65 40.72
0.5
9.4
-5.2
-11.6
40.8
-12.0
9.3
4.1
1.3
11.2
29.9
10.3
35.7
0.0
42.4
19.0
23.8
31.6
27.4
7.5
28.7
-4.8
9.2 30.16 16.18 18.18
20.0
17.8
8.1
10.5
18.8
-14.2
33.3
5.4 19.51 6.6 -1.4
1991
-0.2
22.0
0.0
4.8
3.1
6.1
-5.7
30.8
47.5
-23.8
1992
-2.9
29.0
8.8
16.9
24.6
11.7
3.3
29.2
11.0
19.7
15.5 14.34
8.86
2.56
-1.53 10.85
6.67
2.34
23.81
29.5
20.0
20.0
2.59 15.38 30.47
3.05
3.85
6.9
14.6
14.6
9.1
9.1
1993
1.5
1.8
20.0
0.5
-7.1
4.3
24.7
-2.7
11.1
13.0
35.4 23.74
-9.09
-4.19
1.85
1.85
11.1
1994
43.6
2.1
1.8
-9.0
-1.5
12.4
28.0
0.9
2.5
89.1
20.0 30.61 13.33
6.25
23.64
1.82
20.0
16.71 16.7
N
o
0\
Table 5.6 (Contd.) Wholesale Price IYear Gram Arhar Moong
1995
28.5
109
1996 -28.5 1997
8.5
1998 1999 t2000 001
Retail Price
Farm Harvest Price
Urad
Ma- Gram Arhar Moong Urad
Ma-
ssar
SSQr
ssar
Total Gram Arhar Moong Urad Pulses
27.4
245
32
118
2.4
11.2
22.2
Ma-
MlIIimum Support Price
-6.25 23.53 3529
70.59
800 23.81
13.04
-5.17
4.32 11.54
7.69
-182
2.0 16.39 11.21
19.4
46.6
419
17.8
432
25.8
9.9
-10.2
25.2
24.9
-15.0
-12.6
107
26.6
14
357
122
29.3
-1.1
6.8
-6.8
2.0
31.0
-17.6
-3.9
-11.9
-15.6
-1.7
-11.3
30.9
17.9
-5.5
53
9.3
6.5
5.6
12.3
7.0
09
-70
21.2
15.4
18.1
6.4
-3.0
-2.1
3.9
44
27
153
2.8
-9.5
-6.3
-12.1
24
-4.2
2.1
3.9
-5.4
3.4
6.4
12
2.2
38.7
13.0
7.8t
Gram
Ar- Moonghar Urad
6.7
8.6
8.6
19.21
4.7
5.3
53
33.3
4.5
5.0
50
5.36
3.89
14.5!
5.7
7.1
7.1
130
1.69
2.14
1.8
10.1
6.7
6.7
10.51 -11.75
-1.67
1.22
-2.3\
9.8
15.1
15.1
0.41
1.03
0.7(
13.4
8.6
8.6
-7.63
3.49
146
Source' Estimates based on data compbed from Agricultural Prices m india (1981 to 2001), Farm Harvest Prices in india (1981 to 2001) and CACP Reports, (1985, 1993 and 2003) and Directorate of Economics and Stallstics, MiniStry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
Effects of Private Movements on Production ofPulses
207
the minimum support price of gram over the previous year. For the second important pulse crop, i.e., arhar, the highest positive variation in the minimum support price was observed in the year 1991 over the year 1990. The other exceptional years in this regard were 1991, 1994 and 2000. On the other hand, the year 1987 showed a small rise of 3.3% over the previous year. More or less, similar pattern of positive changes in the minimum support prices of moong/ urad appeared to be true during the study period. The inter year percentage change in the wholesale, farm harvest and retail price of individual pulses during the reference period do not corroborate the above findings as all of them had positive as well as negative variations in the intervening years. The wholesale price of gram dropped 7 out of 20 times, while this frequency in case of arhar was six years. There is not a single pulse, which had only positive changes. All of them have shown declining prices at one or the other time but these years do not coincide except for 1998 in which wholesale prices of all individual pulses dropped except for gram, which has shown a buoyant rise of 31 % over the previous year. Out of all the pulses, urad appeared a case apart by indicating negative variations only twice in 1994 and 1998. Like wholesale price, farm harvest and retail prices of individual pulses also showed rising as well as falling phases in the study period. The frequency distribution of annual changes was different in each case. The highest positive variation in the farm harvest price of gram may be seen in the year 1985 (39.4%) while the lowest was in 1999 (0.9%). It may be mentioned that the negative variations were found much smaller in comparison to positive variations. A similarity is found in results related to arhar, moong, urad and massar. The retail prices of pulses have shown sharper fluctuations over the study period. The range of positive variations in case of gram falls between 45.93% and 1.32%. Similarly, arharprices moved in broader dimensions. It seems that the other pulses such as moong and urad also followed them and showed wide variations in annual prices between 1981 and 2001.
208
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The following conclusions emerge from the analysis of yearto-year percentage change in the various types of prices of individual pulses. First, separate range of positive and negative annual variations was observed in each case. Particularly, sharper changes were noticed in the price of gram and arhar because these are in greater demand for consumption than other pulses. Second, the higher positive variations in more number of years imply that growers had favourable terms to trade in larger part of the study period. Third, an interesting feature of the price variations in the terminal years of the study is the lower fluctuations in prices not merely across the different crops but it is also in different types of prices. Fourth, when two sub-periods are separately examined, it came out clearly that reforms period did not make any impact on the year-toyear fluctuations in the prices.
Seasonality in Pulse Prices The earlier analysis of inter year prices ofpulses displayed a tendency of wide fluctuations. During the period of bumper harvest, prices declined and vice versa. In addition, agricultural prices generally exhibit intra year variations due to seasonal nature of agricultural commodities because output arrives in the particular period, which floods the market. The seasonal nature of agricultural production results in uneven distribution of supplies in any year. In such a situation, prices of agricultural commodities would naturally be depressed during the post-harvest period and would tend to rise during the period of lean supply after the farmers dispose off most of their produce. Price fluctuations within a year introduce an element of uncertainty and demand heavily on the marketing decision making ability of the farmers. The up and down swings in prices that occur with some regularity during the year are termed as seasonal price variations. The seasonality aspect is examined in the monthly wholesale prices of selected five pulses in the major markets of the core producing states in 1981, 1991 and 2001. The monthly indices along with coefficient of variation for gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar are presented in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7 Seasonal Index of Wholesale Prices of Pulses in Important States in 1981, 1991 and 2001 Massar
Gram Months
1981
Urad
Moong
Arhar
1991
2001
1981
1991
2001
1981
1991
2001
968
98.7
99.2
92.1
1981
1991
2001
1981
1991
2001
905
994
984
98.0
96.0
101.7
January
105.8
1074
1064
88.5
100.6
February
995
1020
103.9
934
100.1
81.4
95.6
877
89.5
91.3
90 I
957
980
97.2
103.2
March
958
99.1
988
939
95.9
91.4
96.6
82.5
82.2
100.5
957
94.0
101.7
100.4
104.7
April
91.4
91.6
93.4
952
93.1
94.2
99.2
88.7
83.6
103.4
932
96.0
102.1
102.2
107.6
97 I
95.2
110.0
101.5
108.3
914
109.1
93.2
90.0
106.8
106.1
108.8 110.9
May
929
88.8
925
June
970
926
94.5
99.3
98.7
114.2
103.4
105.8
96 I
109.1
99.6
102.5
1072
108.5
July
984
946
96.8
108.3
99.4
118.5
104.0
\085
1010
106.3
1025
102.5
109 I
110.8
114.0
August
1005
993
1003
107.7
101.2
117 I
105.6
1104
1036
107.7
1056
103 I
1112
112.5
106.2
September
1058
105.2
102.9
1062
104.3
122.8
109.0
108 I
1086
104.8
1087
1173
104.1
105.2
104.1 102.5
October
106 I
105.1
103.0
104.1
111.2
122.8
108.7
1063
1086
102.5
1118
102.5
980
96.1
November
1020
101.8
103.5
1008
102.9
115.7
109.1
105.8
III 8
89.0
104.3
102.5
99 I
99.1
95.5
December
1048
108.5
1046
97.2
105.7
960
108.0
102.1
1243
890
102.1
94.5
99.5
98.7
86.3
Mean Price
319
617
1375
385
719
1750
298
969
1520
348
805
1756
275
807
1623
CV
774
5.39
924
5 16
4.74
13 29
7.25
10.50
1232
8.02
6.51
6.98
7.21
5.40
690
Source' Agncultural Prices in India, 1984, 1993 and 2002
210
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The results show that gram prices remain lowest in April and May, which are the post-harvest months for gram crop. Thereafter, these show an upward trend till they reach the highest level. The falling phase commences from February and continues upto next post-harvest season with marginal up and down swings. Apart from this general trend, there is some indication of a downward tendency in gram prices during the month of November. This period is the post-harvest season for kharif pulse crops and it appears that downward pressure on kharif pulse crops prices is also reflected on gram prices. This holds true for 1981 and 1991 but in the year 2001, upward movement continued till December. The seasonal pattern of massar prices in Kanpur market in Uttar Pradesh is shown in Table 5.7. It reveals that the prices remained low during first three months and high during the terminal months of the year in the early eighties (1981). But, in the year 2001, low price month was February and high price months were SeptemberOctober. Massar prices after reaching a low level during post-harvest season reveal an upward tendency for a few months and again go down with prices of kharif pulses in December. There appears to be a difference of prices worth Rs.434 in 1981 and 1991. This difference further accentuated in 1990s and became Rs.1,365 in the year 2001. The seasonal behaviour of wholesale prices of kharif pulses (arhar, moong and urad) shows that prices ruled low in the postharvest season and remained high during pre-harvest season. After reaching an intra year peak during July to October, prices start falling and the falling phase continues well past the post-harvest season. Downward pressure on prices of rabi foodgrains commencing in January and February also gets reflected on prices ofkharifpulses. Therefore, prices ofkharifpulses continue to fall upto February. Therenfter, the rising prices phase starts as the sowing season is approached and this phase continues well past the sowing season. More or less the same tendency was observed when separate prioe indices are reviewed in 1981, 1991 and 2001. The wholesale prices of moong had two lowest levels one in kharifharvesting season and another in summer moong harvesting
Effects ofPrivate Movements on Production ofPulses
211
season. Moong prices remained generally low during November to February. But the peak price season was different at two points of time. It was July-September during 1980s and 1990s but it was March-April in the recent period. Apart from this shift during the peak period, moong prices follow the usual intra year price pattern as observed for kharif pulses. The intra year seasonal price pattern for urad was similar to kharif pulses. The lower price months were October-December and the higher price months were pre-harvesting period beginning from September. The analysis brought out that the price of pulses showed a significant increase in all the selected markets between 1981 and 2001. This might be on account of general rise in prices and failure of supply to keep pace with its increased demand in case of pulses. The duration of the decline and of the subsequent recovery and rise in prices varies from pulse to pulse and from market to market. When there is more than one season for the same crop during the year, as in the case ofmoong, the cycle discovered above is repeated but the extent of seasonal variations is not necessarily reduced. The coefficient ofvariation differs from crop to crop. As far as the gram market at Bhind in Madhya Pradesh is concerned, variation is very small that is below 10%. It may be noted that the state of Madhya Pradesh has surplus gram and a major proportion of the produce is exported out of the state. The small coefficient of variation may be an indication of the relative mobility and efficiency of marketing in this centre. In case of arhar, in the Vijayavada market in Maharashtra, coefficient of variation is found little lower than gram in the early 1980s but seasonal variations were comparatively larger in the early 1990s and even during the recent period. The higher coefficients of variations could be due to lack of balance in the competitive strength of the buyers and sellers. It indicates lower efficiency of the market organization. The extent of variability in the prices ofmoong and urad was most of the time low. This may be due to the reason that both the producers and the consumers are fairly organized and have considerable holding and bargaining power in these markets. In other words, the balancing of the competitive position of the buyers and the sellers results in
212
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
far higher efficiency in the market organization and tends to keep the prices stable throughout the year. The prevalence of this type of bargaining and high spatial mobility points to a more efficient organization of the market for these crops. Thus, the comparative study of degree of seasonal variations over the three selected points of time for the referred pulses in the selected markets shows that variations in prices of arhar have been relatively higher in the years 1991 and 2001 in comparision to other analysed cases. To conclude, the seasonality in the wholesale prices of pulses is found conspicuous. The indices of gram prices were found the lowest in April and the highest in October. The prices started decreasing from February and reached lowest in the month of April. The increasing phase continued up to next January. Arhar too indicated lowest prices in the months of December and January. In moong, there are two lows, one in September and the other in October (the harvesting season of kharif moong). For urad, prices started declining from October and rose after February. In case of massar, lowest prices were observed in the months of January and February. It gradually recovered and reached to peak in October. The intra year variance in seasonal prices of gram was observed to be lower during early eighties and nineties compared to the recent period. The variations in prices of arhar have been relatively higher than gram in the year 1991 and 2001 but marginally lower in 1981. The cases of urad and moong exhibit below 10% variability. Massar has shown 5%, 16%,4.74% and 13.29% coefficients of variation in the years of 1981, 1991 and 2001. The following major points emerge from the preceding analysis of behaviour of prices of pulses in the study period. •
First, all types ofprices ofpulses have increased significantly between 1981 and 2001, but the rate of increase has been different for different pulses and also varied between different periods. The rise in the wholesale price and retail price was higher, as supply could not cope up with the demand due to growth ofpopulation and stagnant production of pulses in the country. Even, imports in recent years could not bring stability in price.
Effects of Private Movements on Production of Pulses
213
•
Second, the semi-log equations successfully explained the price behaviour of pulses. The regression coefficients of time were found positive and significant in most ofthe cases. In addition, R2 turned out to be more than 0.90 in majority of equations. It suggests that time is an important element in explaining variations in prices of pulses.
•
Third, the results of coefficient of variations of prices of pulses over the study period are indicative of very high variability, which increased more in the reforms period.
•
Fourth, the year-to-year percentage change in prices of pulses was generally positive but negative changes were also observed in the wholesale, farm harvest and retail prices in the first as well as in the second sub-periods. The minimum support prices ofindividual pulses have been rising throughout during the study period but the rate of increase varied from year to year.
•
Fifth, seasonal price variations in wholesale price of pulses is a common phenomenon in the major markets of core states, However, coefficient of variation was found the highest for gram, arhar and massar in 2001 but it was highest for moong and urad in 1981.
•
Sixth, the overall price behaviour ofpulses indicatespreponderance of the demand factor over that of supply. Recently, imports have made some impact by increasing supply, which appeared to have slowed down the growth in prices ofpulses.
Section-2 Output Response of Prices of Pluses So far, we have reviewed the trends in prices and the rate of change in prices of the pulses over the study period. This analysis helped in understanding the effect of prices on output of pulses but it is inadequate in estimating the output response. Earlier in Chapter ill, the role of relative prices alongwith other important variables in
214
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
detennining pulse acreage was estimated during the study period. These results showed that this parameter was found significant in some ofthe referred cases. Now, the analysis would be focused on output response of prices of pulses. This would be done through estimating the price elasticity of output for gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses at the all India level and for major growing states by using time series data from 1981 to 2001. In core states for total pulses, weighted wholesale price of important pulses was used as a proxy. Theoretically, pulse production is the product of acreage and yield Therefore, Q=A.Y----~(i)
where
Q - total production of the crop in year A - area planted in hectares Y - yield per hectare After differentiating with respect to price: dQ aA ay - = y-+A-................... (2) dP ap ap In tennsof elasticities, we have eq = e~ +e~ ............................... (3)
This equation shows that the price elasticity of output can be disaggregated into area and yield price elasticity. According to Raj Krishna and Raychaudhri (1980), "the elasticity of output with respect to the price is the sum of the elasticity of acreage and the elasticity of yield per acre .The elasticity of acreage can be a good approximation to the elasticity of output only if yield is stagnant or in sensitive to price changes. For this reason, the elasticity of output with respect to relative price should be much higher than the elasticity of acreage with respect to relative price .... In response to price changes, fanners adjust not only acreage but also the quantities of other inputs applied from year to year. In other words,
Effects of Private Movements on Production ofPulses
215
a yield response on their part would have been added to acreage response to generate the recorded response to output". In the reference period, yield of pulses is not stagnant, but it is growing at a slow rate in India. It is rising at a faster rate in some of the major growing states. Therefore, it seems appropriate to estimate acreage and yield response to price in case of pulses in explaining the output response. Moreover, an attempt to examine the effect of prices on production with reference to only that crop appears incomplete. The significance of a price change when input prices remain constant is different from what it would be when these prices also change. Hence, the need for correction in output prices seems quite logical. Raj Krishna and Raychaudhri have deflated wholesale output price index by input cost index for estimating the output response of wheat and rice in India and in its major states. The rationale behind deflating output price by input price lies in the fact that farmers are not only concerned with output prices but they also consider input prices as an important factor in decision-making about the crop choices. Accordingly, we have deflated output price index by input price index obtained from the reports ofthe Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (2003). The estimated elasticities with respect to output-input prices of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses in India and core producing states are presented in Table 5.8. The results show that there is a large variation in the magnitude of price elasticities of output for the selected pulse crops at the all India level. The output response ranges from a high of 0.66 in case of massar to a low of 0.05 in case ofarhar.Although, 8 out of 12 estimated elasticities for acreage and yield are positive, only six turned out to be significant. The output elasticity is extremely low, i.e., 0.05 for arhar and negative for moong (0.02). Massar has indicated significant coefficients with expected signs for both acreage and yield. The price elasticity with respect to acreage turns out to be 0.26 and it is even higher for yield (0.40). The output response of urad was estimated 0.25 despite negligible acreage response. This difference was due to price elasticity of yield (0.24). Surprisingly, the all India price elasticity coefficient of output for the dominant pulse crop gram was lower than massar and urad. It may be further noted that acreage response
216
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
to prices in this case was negative (0.02). Still the output response coefficient was estimated at 0.19, primarily, due to yield coefficient being equal to 0.21. It implies that the price factor does not influence acreage of gram at the country level but it has influenced yield. Arhar production displays very low sensitivity to prices. The output response coefficient is estimated only 0 .05 that is very low. But the acreage elasticity with respect to prices was positive and significant (0.18). It should be pointed out that the estimated price elasticity for yield of arhar has turned out to be negative (-0.13), which is indicative of very low adoption of technology. The output response to prices for total pulses was estimated at 0.12. Here, acreage response was negative (-0.04) and insignificant. Therefore, positive and significant yield response (0.16) was primarily responsible for the positive low response. The price elasticity for moong output was estimated negative (-0.02). It was low for acreage (0.07) and negative for yield (-0.09). In brief, there is no uniformity on pattern in the results about the influence of prices on production of selected pulse crops in India. It comes out clearly that two pulse crops with positive output response had relatively higher price elasticity with respect to yield. This is more evident for massar. This result is quite consistent with our findings in Chapter - ill that yield of massar is increasing at a higher rate than rest of the pulse crops implying higher adoption of improved seeds and application of fertilizer. The price response is less evident for gram where substitution to oil seeds has become more profitable. It is interesting to note that the magnitude and direction of output response with respect to price for the five main pulses and total pulses in the core states varied widely but in several cases; it was estimated to be higher than the all India level. The price elasticity of gram output in Madhya Pradesh was moderate (0.50). But, it was high in Andhra Pradesh (1.86), Maharashtra (1.24) and Kamataka (0.84). Both acreage and yield responses were found positive and significant in the two states under the current production conditions. Nonetheless, price elasticity coefficient of yield was prominent in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh.
217
Effects of Private Movements on Production of Pulses TableS.8
Price Elasticity of Output of Pulses in India and Major Growing States Urad
Massar
Total Pulses
0.07
0.01
0.26**
-0.04
-0.13
-0.09
0.24**
0.40*
0.16**
0.05
-0.02
0.25
0.66
0.12
Item
Gram
Arhar
Area
-0.02
0.18**
Yield
0.21 ** 0.19
Moong
All India
Output
Major Producing States M.P.
Maharashtra
Maharashtra
A.P.
M.P
U.P.
Area
0.16**
0.51*
0.44*
0.42*
0.41 *
-0.02
Yield
0.34*
0.04
0.41*
0.14
0.32*
0.45**
0.50
0.55
0.85
0.56
0.73
0.43
U.P
A.P.
Output
U.P.
Maharashtra
M.P.
U.P.
Area
-0.29**
-0.10
-0.06
0.11
0.63*
-0.09
Yield
0.19**
-0.07
0.22**
0.51 *
0.17**
0.01
-0.10
-0.17
0.16
0.66
0.80
-0.08
Kamataka
Kamataka
M.P.
Bihar
Output
Rajasthan
Maha
rashtra Area
-0.08
0.17**
0.65*
-0.51 *
0.11
0.33*
Yield
0.16**
0.16**
0.32*
0.41 *
0.23**
0.44*
0.08
0.33
0.97
-0.10
0.34
0.77
Maharashtra
M.P.
Rajasthan
W. B.
Rajasthan
Area
0.59*
-0.17
0.62*
0.73*
-0.45*
0.06
Yield
0.65*
0.09
0.36*
0.76*
0.58*
0.23**
1.24
-0.08
0.98
1.49
0.13
0.29
Output
Output
U.P.
218
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 5.8 (Contd.) Item
Gram
Karnataka
Arhar
Gujarat
Moong
Bihar
Urad
Massar
Total Pulses
T.N.
Rajasthan
A.P.
Area
0.80*
0.30*
0.09
0.05
0.59*
0.26**
Yield
0.04
-0.08
0.40*
0.63*
0.50*
0.27**
Output
0.84
0.22
0.49
0.68
1.09
0.53
A.P.
A.P.
Tamil Nadu
Karnataka
0.21**
0.09
-
1.24
-
0.35
Area
1.09*
0.47*
0.23**
1.15*
Yield
0.77*
0.36*
0.67*
1.86
0.83
0.90
Output
Karnataka
0.14
Bihar Area
-0.10
Yield
0.37*
Output
0.27
Note: Output in used for production of the crop
* Significant at below 5% level of probability ** Significant at below 10% level of probability Source: Based on GO! data on Output Price, Input Price, Area and Yield
The price elasticity coefficient for the next important pulse crop in terms of production, i.e., arhar was estimated as 0.55 in Maharashtra, and 0.83 in Andhra Pradesh primarily due to moderate acreage response in the first case while acreage and yield both contributed in the second case. It should be pointed out that yield response of arhar was found negative in some of the analysed cases. It appeared to be low in other states too. It implies that arhar producers are using traditional methods of cultivation and hardly any attention is being paid to the yield augmenting inputs due to
Effects of Private Movements on Production ofPulses
219
their higher prices and yield uncertainty. Surprisingly, moong for which negative output response was observed at the all India level has exhibited relatively much better response in the state ofRajasthan (0.98), Tamil Nadu (0.90), Maharashtra (0.85), Karnataka (0.97) and Bihar (0.49). The price response with respect to acreage as well as yield was found significant and positive in Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Kamataka. The output response of urad in Andhra Pradesh deviated significantly from the country level. Its coefficient was estimated 0.56 against the all India coefficient of 0.24. The results show that yield response was positive (0.14) but acreage response was positive and significant (0.42). The price response to output of urad was high in Maharashtra (0.66), Uttar Pradesh (1.49), Tamil Nadu (0.68) and Karnataka (1.24). The results of massar in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan showed high output response to prices, i.e., 0.73,0.80, and 1.09 respectively. But, acreage response dominated in most of the cases. In Rajasthan, both the coefficients were moderate and significant and contributed almost equally to output response. In brief, the price elasticities of output ofthe analysed pulse crops in major growing states are mostly higher than the country as a whole. It may be mentioned here that the price response to output oftotal pulses in major growing states deviated significantly from individual pUlses. It was extremely weak in Uttar Pradesh. In contrast, it was high in Maharashtra and moderate in Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. It could be due to higher level of technology adopted for pulse production by the farmers in these states. However, output response is higher in many cases primarily due to acreage response. It is essential to understand the reasons for the relatively higher production response of output-input prices in some of the core states in comparison to the country level. It could be due to the success of technology mission in states with higher elasticity coefficients of yield because farmers do not have much choice except to grow pulses and this forces them to use improved seeds, chemical fertilizer and adopt recommended package of practices. The yield response was generally, found very poor for arhar and mixed for moong and urad at the state level. The reason could be the non-availability of area specific successful improved varieties of these pulses. The
220
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
hypothesis that output-input prices have a significant effect on output of pulses is rejected at the all India level for gram, arhar, moong and total pulses but accepted for urad and massar. It is also partially accepted at the state level in view of around 70% positive and significant elasticity coefficients of output-input price index for the analysed pulses. These results have some important policy implications in terms of increasing pulse production in the country. First, around two-third ofthe estimated price elasticities of output for the main pulses in core states bring out the importance of price as a stimulant of production. This refutes the widely held view of some scholars that output-input prices do not have any impact on the production of pulses. More than 50% of price elasticities at the state level show that production of pulses is responsive to price. Second, the all India price elasticity of output for total pulses with respect to output-input price ratio implies that in a normal year, a 10% increase in price ratio would produce 1.2% increase in output. This rate is lower than the population growth in the country and therefore, may not be able to fulfill increased demand of pulses arising out ofthe population growth.
Chapter 6
Technology in Pulse Production
In the third chapter, attention was drawn to the low and unstable yield of pulse crops. The limited evidence in the literature (Tripathi, 1998; Gupta, 1999; Tuteja, 1999) attributes this to slow adoption of technology in cultivation. A few studies (Joshi, et aI. 1999; Shiyani et aI., 2000) indicate that improved varieties are gradually replacing traditional varieties. These studies are useful as they throw some light on this aspect. However, they do not present a comprehensive picture of various aspects related to adoption of technology in pulse cultivation in India. In this background, this chapter aims to examine the adoption of technology for pulse crops, its historical background and farmers' experiences. The analysis is based on data collected from "Input Surveys", "Cultivation Practices in India" and information obtained from micro level studies based on field surveys. This would enable us to test the hypothesis that adoption of technology for pulse cultivation at state and farm size levels is slow due to small proportion of pulse area covered by the improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides. This chapter is organized as follows. Section - 1 presents a brief review of past initiatives taken by the Government of India to promote and transfer improved technology in pulse cultivation. The next section examines the adoption of improved technology at the state and farm size levels. Finally, farmers' experiences are discussed by analysing the benefits of improved technology to pulse growers and their suggestions for popularizing improved technology.
222
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
What is Technology Technology means knowledge applied to production process. Technology permits an upward shift of a nation's production possibilities and creates the potential for greater output and income from the same resources. In agriculture, technology enhances the production through increase in yield by adoption of improved seeds along with complimentary inputs. Technology, thus, encompasses adoption of improved seeds for pulse crops cultivation along with utilization of irrigation, fertilizer and manure, pesticides and weedicides and use of tractor. The information about the use of some of these inputs in pulse cultivation is available in the "Input Surveys". However, there is lack of knowledge about the adoption of improved seeds. It is not possible to analyse the biological aspect of technology in terms of adoption of improved seeds for pulse cultivation prior to 1998 due to non-availability of data. Technology offers an opportunity to enlarge total agricultural production through a more productive use of resources in crop enterprises. The measurement of the level of technology is a difficult task and different approaches are used for this purpose. Rao (1975) in his book on technological change has suggested that the magnitude of technological change can be assessed either by estimating the increase in output attributed to modem inputs or by measuring the growth or quantum in the use of modem inputs themselves. Y. Eswara et aI., (1993) treated yield as a proxy for technology and measured its level by computing a gap between the actual and potential yield of the pulse crops. Based on this value, they have worked out yield gap indices. Low value signified higher adoption of technology or vice versa. Alshi et aI., (1983) measured capital/ output ratio and ascertained the level of technology on the basis of its value. This approach is based on the proposition that capital flows in when technological change takes place unless it is capital saving type. To facilitate the analysis, these approaches are combined depending upon the purpose and availability of data.
Technology in Pulse Production
223
Section -1 Policy Initiatives for Promotion and Transfer of Technology The stagnancy in pulse production has reached a stage when transfer of technology has become extremely important. But, extension of improved technology has been a continuous problem due to their large number and diverse cropping systems ranging from rain fed to irrigated areas. It has been a national concern and reflected in the policy during the Five Year Plans. The strategy for pulse crops development was initiated by launching the All India Coordinated Pulses Research Project during the Third Five Year Plan. The main thrust of this programme was research on breeding disease resistant varieties. It was extended by a centrally sponsored scheme known as Intensive Pulses Development Programme during 1972-73. Under this scheme, fmancial assistance was provided to the state governments as subsidy for laying out extension demonstrations, plant protection, rhizobium culture and seed supply in 30 districts of different states with high potential for pulse production.
It was felt during 1980-81 that efforts made for the development of pulses did not make much impact due to the limited area covered under the schemes. In February 1982, a comprehensive strategy for pulse crops development was evolved with an emphasis on yield maximization through the adoption of improved seeds, use of rhyzobium culture and fertilizer. In addition, following aspects were also incorporated in the strategy, i.e., (i)
increasing the irrigated area under moong, urad, gram and arhar;
(ii) bringing additional area under short duration varieties of urad, moong, etc., in rice fallows by utilizing the residual moisture in rabi season;
(iii) cultivation of short duration varieties of moong in summer after oilseeds; (iv) inter cropping of arhar with soybean, bajra, cotton and groundnut, both under irrigated and un-irrigated conditions.
224
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Since, the aforesaid programmes did not yield the desired results, the National Pulses Development Project (NPDP) was launched in 1986-87, with the main objective of increasing the production of pulses through transfer of improved production technology to the farmers' fields with respect to the major pulse crops, namely, gram, peas, arhar, moong, urad, lentil, moth and raj mash. But, achievements regarding the increased production of pulses remained poor by the end of the 1980s. The decades' stagnation in the yield and production of pulses in India called for an integrated and multi-dimensional approach and strategy which covered improved production technology, processing technology, inputs and service support to the farmers, price support, storage, processing and marketing. In brief, 'Mission' mode approach like oilseeds was considered necessary for pulses to attain a production level of22 million tonnes by the year 2000 in order to meet the nutritional requirement in terms of protein intake of the vast majority in the country. Accordingly, NPDP has been brought within the ambit of the 'Technology Mission' re-named as Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses (TMOP) since August 1990. Its main objective was to increase pulse production through transfer of improved technology to the farmers' fields. At present, National Pulses Development Project (NPDP, 1996-97) is being implemented in all major pulse-producing districts of India. The focus and thrust ofNPDP had been a district-oriented approach to reach an increased level ofproductivity and production within a time frame by implementing a two-pronged strategy, viz., (a) Securing area expansion by bringing additional area under short-duration improved varieties of pulses under irrigated conditions; introduction of summer pulses in the irrigated areas; inter-cropping; multi-cropping; etc.
(b) Attaining increase in productivity through adoption of improved technology on a much larger area. (i)
The recommended package of practices should be popularized and adopted on a much larger area for each pulse crop, which includes both monetary and non-
Technology in Pulse Production
225
monetary inputs. It included use of improved seeds, Ihyzobiumculture, timely sowing, optimum plant population, application offertilizer, timely weed management, control ofpests and applying life saving irrigation. (ii)
Pulses are well known for their inter-cropping capability. The inter-cropping techniques evolved by the scientists provide 60% additional yield of pulse crop without sacrificing the yield ofthe principal crop. The farmers may be advised to adopt these practices for increasing pulse production.
According to the Eighth Five Year Plan, 2300 high yielding varieties (HYVs) and hybrids were developed and released by the ICAR system. In all, 452 HYVs and hybrids of various field crops were released for general cultivation. Of these, only 92 improved varieties were made available for the entire range of pulse crops. The number of pulse crops is around 13. Looking at the percentage of GCA under pulses and large number of pulse crops, this achievement is low. It amply clarifies that pulses did not receive the desired attention in research despite being the integral part of the Indian food and main source of cheap protein for the poor, which constitute around 20% of total population. The NPDP aimed at diffusion oflatest proven economically viable technology. In this endeavour, certified seeds of pulse crops are distributed to farmers since 1990-91. Around 3 lakhs qt1s seeds of different pulses were distributed during this year and 75.77% of target was achieved. After five years, marginally higher quantity of certified seeds was distributed but achievement in target was found lower than 1990-91. The programme continued and around 4.69 lakh qtls of certified seeds were distributed during 2001-02 and only 72.15% of target was fulfilled. Gram received the highest priority because of its coverage in area. Some of the minor pulse crops like cowpea were also considered, although their share was small in total distribution of seeds.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
226
Table 6.1
Crop-wise Distribution of Certified Seeds of Pulses during 1990-91, 1995-96,2001-02 (lakh qtl) Crop
/990-91
1995-96
2001-02
Gram
1.14
1.22
1.53
Lentil
0.09
0.05
0.29
Peas
0.32
0.27
0.31
Urad
0.65
0.69
0.97
Moong
0.60
0.63
0.83
Arhar
0.49
0.57
0.64
Cowpea
0.10
0.15
0.05
Others
0.02
-
0.07
Total
3.41
3.58
4.69
Target
4.50
5.00
6.50
75.77
71.6
72.15
% of Target Achieved
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2003
The micro level studies (Dey and Banerjee, 1991; Tripathi, 1998; Gupta, 1999; Tuteja, 1999) show that the non-availability of certified seeds of pulse crops has been one of the major constraints in adoption of technology. Therefore, any effort to induce the farmers towards technological change gets constrained by this difficulty. For removing this bottleneck, genuine certified seeds should be distributed well in time before the sowing season.
Outlay The total financial outlay for the National Pulses Development Project in India was Rs.4, 350 lakh in 1998-99. This allocation had been distributed among the major pulse producing states on the basis of area, production and the contribution of states to the total pulse production ofthe country and past performance of the states. The pattern of funding the outlay is based on 75:25 sharing basis between the Government of India and the State Government. It
Technology in Pulse Production
227
included centrally implemented components like the production/supply of breeder seeds, organization of frontline demonstrations by lCAR, production/supply offoundation and certified seeds, which are all funded currently at 100% by the Government of India (Table 6.2). The project implementing agencies were advised to ensure that at least 25% of the total farm level assistance should flow to SC/ST farmers. This amount was to be spent for the approved components other than staff and contingencies. The State Government was asked to change/adjust this percentage depending upon the population; percentage of SC/ST communities in the state and it should not be less than the percentage of population of these communities. Components of National Pulses Development Programme (NPDP) The NPDP consisted a considerable number of components, VIZ.,
1. Procurement/purchase of breeder seeds and production of foundation seeds, 2. Seed village scheme 3. Distribution of certified seeds 4. Distribution of seed mini-kits, 5. Laying out frontline demonstrations, 6. Organizing block demonstrations,
7. Pheromone traps, 8. IPM demonstrations, 9. Micro-nutrients, 10. Supply of improved farm implements, 11. Storage bins, 12. Rhyzobium culture,
13. Training, 14. Sprinkler sets, 15. PP chemicals, 16. Staff and contingencies.
228
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 6.2 Financial Allocation for National Pulses Development Programme in Major Growing States during 1998-99
(lakh) GOI Share
State
Madhya Pradesh
State Share
630
208
Total
% Share
838
19.26
Uttar Pradesh
550
182
732
16.83
Rajasthan
525
173
698
16.05
Maharashtra
430
142
572
13.14
Orissa
180
60
240
5.52
Kamataka
150
50
200
4.60
Tamil Nadu
150
50
200
4.60
Gujarat
130
43
173
3.98
Andhra Pradesh
125
41
166
3.82
Other States
400
131
531
12.20
AU India
3270
1080
4350
100.00
Source: Report of Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses, 2001 Table 6.3 Component-wise Pattern of Assistance under the National Pulses Development Project during 1998-99
S.No.
1
Component
Rate ofAssistance
Basis ofsharing the subsidy between the Centre and State Government
Seed
100% cost reimbursement
100%
Breeder Seed Procurement
Rs.400/qtJ
75:25
Production of Foundation Seed
Rs.200/qtJ
75:25
Seed Village Scheme
Rs.300/qt1
75:25
Distribution of Certified Seed
As approved by state level committee
75:25
Distribution of Seed Minikits
Free of cost
75:25
229
Technology in Pulse Production Table 6.3 (Contd.)
'so No.
2
3
Component
Rate ofAssistance
Basis ofsharing the subsidy between the Centre and State Government
IPM Demonstrations
Rs.I, 500/ha
75:25
Pheromone Traps Demonstrations
Rs.500/2 ha
75:25
Chemicals for Seed Treatment
Actual cost
75:25
Organising Demonstrations
75:25
(a) Block Demonstrations
75:25
(i) Gram and Peas
Rs.I,400/ha
75:25
(ii) Arhar, Moong, Urad, etc.
Rs 900lha
75:25
(iii) Lentil
Rs.I,OOO/ha
75:25
(iv) Rajmah
Rs.2,300/ha
75:25
Assistance to ICAR
100%
(b) Frontline Demonstrations by ICAR 4
Supply of Improved Farm Implements
5.0"10 of actual cost
100%
5
Supply of Storage Bins
50"10 of actual cost
100%
6
Dal Processors
50"10 of cost subject to a maximum of Rs.4,OOO each
100%
7
Distribution of Rhyzobium Culture or Phosphate Subsidizing Bacteria
50% of cost subject to maximum of Rs.251ha
75:25
8
Micro Nutrients
Rs.IOO/ha on selective basis
75:25
Rs.I0,000 per training camp
75:25
9
Training' of Farmers
I
Source: Guidelines for Implementation of National Pulses Development Project,1996-97
230
India s Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Under the NPDP, assistance is provided to the farmers by way of subsidies on certified seeds, rhyzobium culture, plant protection chemicals, farm implements, etc. In addition, assistance is also provided to the State Government for procuring breeder seed and laying out demonstrations to motivate the farmers to adopt the improved package of practices for pulses cultivation. It was observed that the highest subsidy ofRs.400 per qtl was provided for production of foundation seed among the seed related components. The training is an essential part of the entire programme. This is provided to the farmers and extension workers so that they may be well versed with the latest know-how. Therefore, an assistance of Rs.l 0,000 per camp was provided under the NPDP (Table 6.2). The success of the programme depends on the production and distribution of improved seeds of different pulses. It is done through seed village scheme. The basic concept of this scheme is to get the seed produced of the appropriate varieties of various pulse crops locally. The following four activities are included in the seed village scheme: (1) seed production; (2) seed procurement, cleaning and storage; (3) seed distribution and (4) financial assistance. The detailed data for each one of them are not available but the overall progress of the seed programme in India has been dismal. It has, however, been observed that the distribution of seeds is not made before the start of sowing season both in rabi as well as in kharif to the farmers at a reasonable price. It is advised that the distribution centre should be confined within the block or at the most in the same district, so that the farmers may not face the problems of procuring seeds in time. Further, it is suggested that the seed production programme at village level should take care of the following issues. First, seed village should be organized in a compact area comprising of few villages. Second, the area selected for seed village should produce enough seeds to meet the requirements of that particular area, i.e., block or district for which the seed village has been organized. Third, selection of the area should be made well in time and the area selected for the programme should not change every year, rather, it should be kept permanent for at least 5-10 years. Fourth,
Technology in Pulse Production
231
the selected fanners should be provided, training in seed production so that they are in a position to take all possible care. Fifth, area selected for the village should have assured irrigation so that it can be applied at critical stages. Sixth, area selected should be suitable for growing both rabi and kharif pulses, so that the seed production becomes a continuous activity with the farmers. Seventh, for the production of certified seeds, efforts should be made to supply the foundation seed. In case of shortage of foundation seed for a particular crop and variety, production programme may be organized from certified to certified seeds. Next, the selected farmers should be progressive and willing to make requisite investment. In addition, minimum limit of area and number of beneficiaries may be fixed for eligibility of village to become seed village. The success of the seed production programme depends on the procurement of seeds, its cleaning and storage. This aspect should be given careful attention. Seeds produced under seed village are required to be first cleaned by cleaning equipment and then stored in the off-season. There are difficulties in getting appropriate godowns in the village. If, the selected village is permanent, a seed godown should be constructed. The distribution of seed is an important activity and this has to be executed before the commencement of sowing seasons both for kharif and rabi pulses. Distribution of seed should be confined to the areas within the block and at the most in same district where seed has been produced so that the transportation cost is minimal.
Pattern of Fund Allocation It is evident from Table 6.3 that the maximum proportion of fund was allocated to sprinkler sets distribution and block demonstrations in major pulse growing states. Next, in the array was certified seeds production and seed village, which accounted for around 20% ofthe total allotment under the NPDP in core states. Other significant components were distribution of seed mini-kits and farm implements with regard to fund allocation. Although, the pattern of fund allocation is more or less the same in the five analysed states, however, marginal variations do exist.
232
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Progress of Different Components ofthe NPDP in Major States The NPDP is a district level mission, which is designed to achieve the increased level of productivity and production. These are achieved through implementing the different components. Table 6.4 presents component-wise percentage allocation and achievements of the physical targets of the NPDP in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh during 199899. (i) Seed Related Components
Seed is a vital input in pulse cultivation. There has been shortage of improved seeds of different pulses in the past. It has, therefore, been considered necessary to provide special attention to the production and distribution of improved seeds. Seeds include four components, viz., breeder and foundation seeds; certified seeds; seed village programme and seed mini-kit distribution to the pulse growers. The achievements of the set targets regarding breeder seed procurement were good in Andhra Pradesh where 70.20% of target was achieved. However, it was extremely poor in Maharashtra with an achievement of only 37.62%. The performance of components related to foundation seed production and certified seed production/seed villages was equally disheartening as none of the premier states achieved even 70% of the target. The progress of certified seeds distribution and seed mini-kits distribution was commendable as majority of the states achieved more than 70% of the set targets. The case of Andhra Pradesh is worth appreciating due to the fact that it was the best achiever of some of the crucial targets. The achievements regarding the distribution of seed mini -kits to the farmers under the NPDP were commendable in the analysed states. However, the field studies (Tuteja, 1999,2000; Gupta, 2001) have shown that mini-kits distributed to the pulse growers often contain old varieties. It is, therefore, advised thatthe mini-kits should be checked thoroughly before distribution and only new tested
Table 6.4 Component-wise Percentage of Financial Allocation and Physical Achievement under NPDP in Major States during 1998-99
Component
Madhya Pradesh % AlJdted
% Achieved
Uttar Pradesh % ADntted
Maharashtra
% % % Achieved Allotted ~chieved
Andhra Pradesh
Rajasthan
% % % % AOated Achieved ADntted Achieved
Breeder Seed Procurement
1.79
55.45
2.56
56.05
1.75
37.62
1.15
48.9
1.20
70.20
Foundation Seed Production
7.16
59.09
10.23
62.31
8.74
47.29
4.30
52.13
2.40
68.02
Certified Seed Production! Seed Village
10.73
58.05
6.39
64.01
12.23
51.26
5.73
49.62
8.43
59.05
Certified Seed Distribution
11.93
73.45
12.79
88.33
13.99
87.05
7.16
58.71
12.05
92.92
Seed Mini-kits Distribution
9.55
77.38
12.79
92.00
5.94
80.76
14.33
76.52
8.43
95.32
Block Demonstrations
16.71
79.39
13.42
70.20
15.73
79.93
15.47
75.12
12.05
87.44
!PM Demonstrations
3.58
87.88
0.38
94.26
2.10
61.50
1.72
80.06
4.81
92.27
Training
0.48
87.80
0.26
85.96
0.35
90.25
0.29
68.92
1.20
89.16
Rhyzobium Culture
0.72
91.20
1.02
93.50
1.05
75.30
1.15
90.26
3.01
94.21
Micro Nutrients
0.60
79.20
0.26
85.21
0.35
60.12
0.14
82.52
0.60
87.21
Table 6.4 (Contd.) Component
Madhya Pradesh %
%
A1InttaJ
Achieved
Uttar Pradesh % % Al/oaed iAchieved
Andhra Pradesh
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
% % % Al/ntta:J Achieved Al/ntta:J
%
chieved
%
%
AUotted ~chieved
Storage Bins and Dal Processors
0.48
90.00
-
89.25
0.35
85.26
0.29
58.76
1.20
89.32
Distribution ofFann Implements
4.77
93.94
2.56
92.76
4.37
86.32
2.15
86.72
12.05
88.40
PP Equipment and Seed Treatment
2.15
84.32
1.28
81.12
2.27
72.10
1.15
82.91
2.41
90.12
28.63
90.00
34.78
85.00
29.72
70.10
44.11
76.62
28.91
81.45
Staffand Contingencies
0.78
100
1.28
83.00
1.06
90.00
0.86
92.60
1.25
94.23
Total Financial Outlay
100.00
-
100.00
-
100.00
-
100.00
-
100.00
-
Sprinkler set Distribution
Source: Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses, 200 1
Technology in Pulse Production
235
improved varieties should be distributed. The mini-kits should contain sufficient seeds for covering 0.2 ha (0.5 acres) area. In a nutshell, the overall achievement of seed related four components was poor except for distribution of certified seeds and seed mini -kits, which have shown good performance. The production and distribution offoundation and certified seeds are very important components for the successful implementation of the NPDP. This would call for a greater emphasis on seed production programme, which should be regularly monitored by the Central and State Governments.
(ii) Block Demonstrations/Integrated Pest Management Demonstrations To help and promote technology transfer to the farmers, block demonstrations had been envisaged involving demonstration (to the farmers) of the improved production technology including the effect of all the production inputs, like, use of latest varieties, fertilizer, rhyzobium culture, weed control and plant protection chemicals. Such demonstrations need to be organized in a routine manner. They should be based on the identified local needs including the agro-climatic conditions and area-specific problems, etc. The "Guidelines" (TMOP, 1996-97) suggest that such demonstrations may be organized on (a) package of practices, (b) introduction of non-traditional pulses in new areas, (c) irrigation demonstrations at critical stages and (d) fertilizer use, etc. The coverage under block demonstrations was appreciable and achieved the set targets. The Integrated Pest Mangement (lPM) demonstration component was introduced during 1993-94. Its progress was worth appreciating in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh barring states of Maharashtra and Rajasthan. Thus, achievements in the demonstration components were impressive in most of the analysed states but two states out of five were lagging far behind.
236
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
(iii) Rhyzobium Culture Rhyzobium culture is the crucial input for increased productivity of the pulses. It has a distinction of being the cheapest input among the various inputs identified for increasing the production of pulses. Its achievements were good and more than 90% of the proposed targets were achieved in two-third of the above states. It indicates that the use of this important component has picked up in the states. However, efforts should be made to popularize this useful and low priced input. (iv) Training Training is an essential part of the entire programme. It provided an opportunity to the extension workers and farmers to know about the latest technical know-how. The training programme has indicated commendable achievement in all the five states and the set target of this component was achieved to the tune of more than 85%.
(v) Dal Processors and Storage Bins Traditionally, pulses are mostly milled in the chakkies. These obsolete techniques result not only of poor quality of dal, but also in high scouring losses, resulting in low yields. Central food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysore has developed small-scale machinery operated by hand as well as by motor on scientific principles to provide higher yield and consume comparatively less energy. The capacity of these machines vary from 50 kg/hr to 200 kg.1hr costing around Rs.8,000 to Rs.l2,000 per unit. This equipment will be helpful to the farmers in converting pulse produce into dal and get remunerative price in the market. It is proposed to provide 50% of the cost ofthe dal processing equipment as assistance to the farmers subject to a ceiling ofRs.4,OOO per machine. Fortunately, the use of this equipment in the analysed states has become popular and recorded nearing full achievement of the target. Storage of pulses is a big problem with the farmers and therefore, assistance is provided to the farmers for buying storage bins. It has
Technology in Pulse Production
237
shown good performance and the target was well achieved.
(vi) Staff and Contingencies The state department of agriculture is implementing the NPDP in referred states with their existing staff at the field and district level. In order to co-ordinate the programme at the state level, a post of joint director of agriculture (pulses) has been provided along with some supporting staff. For this component, the allotted fund was fully utilized. The following conclusions may be drawn from the above analysis. First, the NPDP appeared to be making very slow progress in major producing states because the allocation of funds by the Government of India for different components covered under the NPDP seems inadequate to popularize the programme. Second, it is being implemented through government channels without involving farmers at the grass root levels. As a result, the impact ofNPDP is hardly visible on the production of pulses in the country. It is, therefore, suggested that sufficient funds should be given so that different components of the NPDP may be taken care of. Third, states need to give proper attention to the crucial components related to improved production technology. These are related to production and distribution of foundation and certified seeds and rhyzobium culture. These components should be properly implemented and monitored. Lastly, monitoring and evaluation of the programme need to be given due priority by the states. Overall Achievement The preceding analysis highlighted the performance of different components of the NPDP in major pulse producing states. The analysis would be incomplete without assessing the impact of the programme at macro level in terms of the production increase that has resulted from the programme. Table 6.5 provides information about the pulse production target and achievement in India during the recent years.
238
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 6.5 Target and Achievement of Pulse Production in India
(million tonnes) Year
Target
Achievement
% Achievement
1997-98
15.00
12.97
86.47
1998-99
15.50
14.91
96.19
1999-2000
15.50
13.41
86.52
2000-2001
15.00
11.07
73.80
2001-02
15.00
13.37
89.13
2002-03
16.00
11.34
70.88
Ninth Plan
76.00
65.73
86.49
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2003
It may be noticed that the achievement of pulse production in India was always below the set targets. The performance was better in the year 1998-99 as 96.19% of the target was achieved. It is unfortunate that the country could not achieve even the modest target of 15-16 million tonnes of production in any of the year. In brief, overall scenario of pulse production in India calls for pressing concern and needs a bolder programme with a larger outlay to support pulse growers. Additional schemes to exclusively boost pulse production are the need of the hour. It seems urgent that the State Governments should introduce area specific special programmes to supplement the central scheme.
Yield Gaps of Important Pulses in India Since increasing productivity of pulse crops is the main thrust of policy initiatives towards promoting technology, it would be pertinent to compute the yield gap in potential and actual yield of gram, arhar, urad, moong and massar in major growing states. The potential yield is defined as the yield level achieved under national demonstration trials with the adoption of recommended level of
Technology in Pulse Production
239
improved technology. The difference between potential and actual yield is termed as 'yield gap' , which is the unrealized yield potential. It is converted into a yield gap index by using the following formulation.
I(y)=
Elf)-A(f,}xIOO A ([)
where I (Yg index of yield gap in year 't'
£if) - potential yield rate of the crop A (f). - actual yield rate of the crop in year 't'
The computed yield gap indices ofthe above-mentioned five pulse crops in important growing states are given in Table 6.6. The results presented in Table 6.6 are indicative of high yield gaps between potential and actual yield of all the pulse crops in India. The yield gap was the highest for gram (1,188 kglha) followed by moong (843 kglha). Surprisingly, none of the pulse crops such as gram and arhar indicated less than 2.72 qtls as yield gap. Massar emerged as an exception by indicating the lowest yield gap. Thus, most of the pulse crops under review have shown poor levels of yield in comparison to potential yield except massar. Further, significant variations may be found in yield gaps at the state level. In case of gram, lowest yield gap was observed in Uttar Pradesh (1,004 kg/ ha) and the highest in Maharashtra (1,408 kglha). Surprisingly, Andhra Pradesh has indicated above 1,000 kglha yield gap in case of arhar. In contrast, Uttar Pradesh has shown the lowest that was 272 kglha during the triennium ending 2001-02. In case of moong, Bihar was the front-runner by exhibiting the minimum gap of 624 kglha. On the other hand, it was observed to be the highest (992 kg! ha) in Rajasthan. It is worth noticing that Andhra Pradesh has shown the lowest yield gap for urad whereas the same was found 899 kg! ha in Madhya Pradesh. Massar emerged as a unique pulse crop in all major states by showing the low yield gaps in comparison to
240
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
other pulse crops. It is commendable that Rajasthan has shown yield gap below 100 kglha in this case. Table 6.6 Yield Gap and its Indices for Major Pulses in Important Producing States during TE 2001-02 (Yield: kg/hay State
Actual Yield
Yield Gap
Yield Gap Index
Gram
Madhya Pradesh
918
1082
117.86
Uttar Pradesh
996
1004
100.80
Rajasthan
691
1309
189.44
Maharashtra
592
1408
237.84
Karnataka
604
1396
231.13
Andhra Pradesh
923
1077
116.68
All India
812
1188
146.31
Arhar
Maharashtra
729
771
105.76
Uttar Pradesh
1228
272
22.15
Karnataka
537
949
176.72
Madhya Pradesh
822
678
82.48
Andhra Pradesh
580
920
158.62
Gujarat
412
1088
264.08
All India
693
807
116.45
241
Technology in Pulse Production Table 6.6 (Contd.) Actual Yield
State
Yield Gap
Yield Gap Index
Mooog
Maharashtra
405
795
196.30
Andhra Pradesh
377
823
218.30
Kamataka
343
857
249.85
Rajasthan
208
992
476.92
Bihar
576
624
108.33
Tamil Nadu
450
750
166.67
All India
357
843
236.13
Urad
Andhra Pradesh
652
548
84.05
Maharashtra
428
772
180.37
Madhya Pradesh
301
899
298.67
Uttar Pradesh
430
770
179.07
1--.
1-.
Tamil Nadu
449
751
167.26
Karnataka
360
840
233.33
All India
446
754
169.06
Massar
Uttar Pradesh
775
625
80.65
Madhya Pradesh
479
921
192.28
Bihar
831
569
68.47
West Bengal
1057
343
32.45
Rajasthan
1309
91
6.95
All India
803
597
74.35
Source:
Yield gaps between actual and potential yield are based on lCAR information. Indian Council ofAgricultural Research for Potential Yield and Directorate of Economics and Statistics for Actual Yield, 2003.
242
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
In a nutshell, the most important state in terms of pulse production, that is, Madhya Pradesh, emerged as laggard state in terms of productivity and yield gap. The second important state of Uttar Pradesh seems to be the forerunner in case of arhar but its performance was equally bad in case of gram. Rajasthan did well in the case of massar. The performance of Andhra Pradesh was found appreciable in the case of urad.
Section-2 Use of Technology Promoting Inputs by Pulse Growers This section focuses on the adoption of technology promoting inputs, which include improved seeds, application of fertilizer and manure, pesticides and insecticides and tractor use for important pulse crops. The findings are based on data collected from "Input Surveys", "Cultivation Practices in India" and field level studies.
Results of Input Surveys Input surveys were conducted during 1976-77, 1980-81, 1986-87, 1991-92 and 1995-96, however, analysis is restricted to 1976-77 and 1991-92 because there were some methodological problems related to early 1980s survey and 1986-87 was a drought year.. The first attempt to study the yield augmenting inputs for pulse crops may be traced way back in 1976-77 in "Input Survey". The data on application of chemical fertilizer and organic manure were collected for five major crops namely, paddy, wheat, maize, sugarcane and groundnut in each state and union territories. Since, pulse crops were not included in the principal crops, information is available only for gram and moong. The rate of application for the all India was worked out by aggregating the state level data. Table 6.7 presents the rate of application of fertilizer and manure by size class for gram and moong production separately in irrigated and unirrigated areas.
Technology in Pulse Production
243
The rate of application of fertilizer and manure showed substantial variation across gram and moong. These inputs were used by all categories of farmers. In irrigated areas, 97 kglha of fertilizer and 691 kglha of manure were used for gram cultivation. The utilization of these inputs was reported substantially higher in unirrigated areas because pulses are one of the major crops grown in these regions. It appeared that organic manure was the most common input used by the growers. Among the different categories of farmers, small farmers in irrigated areas and marginal farmers in unirrigated areas used higher doses of these inputs in comparison to the other categories. On the other hand, large farmers applied the lowest doses in both scenarios. The quantity of fertilizer and manure application differs significantly in case of moong. The average rate of application of fertilizer and manure was 102 kglha and 593 kglha in irrigated areas while it was 49 kg/ha and 976 kglha in unirrigated areas. The rate of application was the lowest on medium holdings in irrigated as well as in unirrigated areas except for organic manure, which exhibited lowest use in semi-medium holdings. The semi-medium farmers applied the highest doses of fertilizer and manure in irrigated areas but marginal farmers in unirrigated areas were ahead of others in consuming fertilizer for moong cultivation. Surprisingly, large farmers used exceptionally higher doses of manure per unit ofland.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
244
Table 6.7 Use of Chemical Fertilizer and Organic Manure for Gram and Moong Cultivation by Size Groups in India
Fertilizer: kglha Manure: kglha Size Group
Irrigated Chemical Fertilizer
Organic Manure
Un irrigated Chemical Fertilizer
Organic Manure
Gram Marginal
116
1472
275
10248
Small
161
1521
96
2820
Semi-medium
131
925
83
3096
Medium
96
733
129
5938
Large
90
156
81
11154
All
97
691
112
1110
Moong
Marginal
138
529
85
1006
Small Semi-medium
125
774
54
977
183
838
67
908
63
109
44
991
Large
105
123
74
5566
All
102
593
49
976
Medium
Source: Input Survey, 1976-77, YoU, 1983.
The efforts to understand the spread and use of yield augmenting inputs continued in future and consequently another input surveys were conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. But, "Input Survey, 199192" (2000) contains the most comprehensive data on input use in a normal year. It provides information on the levels of consumption of chemical fertilizer, farmyard manure (FYM) and pesticides for
Technology in Pulse Production
245
the cultivation of five principal crops by major size groups of holdings separately in irrigated and unirrigated areas of the country. Although, pulses do not fall in the principal crops covered by the survey, it does provide information on the use of chemical fertilizer, manure and pesticides for gram and arhar. The basic unit was operational holdings. The reference year for this survey was agricultural year 1991-92. The two stage random sampling design was adopted with village as the first stage unit and operational holding as the second stage unit. In all, 7% of the villages in each state were covered. The estimates for input use were prepared at district level and these were pooled to get state level estimates. The results on proportion of GCA, chemical fertilizer and FYM application along with area treated with pesticides for gram and arhar in important states are presented in Tables 6.8 and 6.9. The proportion ofGCA under gram was 1.68% in irrigated, 2.66% in unirrigated areas and 2.30% at the over all level in India. The corresponding area treated with fertilizer was 57.10%, 22.02% and 31.53% respectively. These figures for FYM were 8.37%, 5.11 % and 5.99% respectively. The area treated with pesticides for gram cultivation was as low as 6.11 % in irrigated, 1.85% in unirrigated areas and 3.01 % at the mean level. The rate of application of chemical fertilizer and farmyard manure were found much higher in irrigated areas as compared to unirrigated areas. For example, fertilizer use for gram cultivation in irrigated areas was34.33 kg/ha as against 9.20 kg/ha in unirrigated areas. Similarly, the consumption ofFYM was 253 kg/ha as against 146 kg/ha. An enquiry into the state level results also reveals wide variations in coverage and rate of application of fertilizer and farmyard manure in irrigated and un irrigated areas. Madhya Pradesh followed by Rajasthan allocated the highest percentage of GCA to gram. In contrast, Punjab has shown a negligible 0.75% of GCA under gram. As far as area fertilized is concerned, Gujarat was leading in irrigated areas. Interestingly, consumption of fertilizer was found the highest in Maharashtra in all the three scenarios.
246
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Table 6.8 Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Gram Cultivation in Major Growing States by Irrigation Status during 1991-92 (kglha) State
%of GCA Cropped
%of Area Treated with Fertilizer
Per Hectare Consumption of Fertilizer
%of Area Treated with FYM
%of Area Treated with Pesticides
Per Hectare Use of FYM
Irrigated Area Gujarat
0.61
70.58
35.11
17.65
17.65
103
Madhya Pradesh
12.06
62.30
34.\5
4.17
1.98
62
Maharashtra
2.21
60.31
36.33
19.04
30.15
18
Onssa
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Punjab
0.10
25.00
27.25
12.5
12.5
579
Rajasthan
4.27
43.65
33.92
14.91
17.12
500
Uttar Pradesh
1.90
55.86
34.65
8.96
0.68
484
Total
1.68
57.10
34.33
8.37
6.11
253
14.06
0.00
690 20
Unirrigated Area
I
Gujarat
0.84
57.81
15.70
Madhya Pradesh
7.15
28.73
11.77
2.93
1.64
Maharashtra
0.52
26.67
19.50
13.33
16.00
8
Orissa
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Punjab
12.62
64.71
11.15
0.00
5.00
59
Rajasthan
6.10
9.52
3.56
7.80
2.64
220
Uttar Pradesh
7.00
17.82
9.19
4.38
0.26
241
Total
2.66
22.02
9.20
5.11
1.85
146
247
Technology in Pulse Production Table 6.8 (Contd.) State
%of GCA Cropped
%of Area Treated with Fertilizer
Per Hectare Consumption of Fertilizer
%of Area Treated with FYM
%of Area Treated with Pesticides
Per Hectare Use of FYM
Irrigated + Unirrigated Areas Gujarat
0.78
61.25
20.08
13.75
5.00
573
Madhya Pradesh
8.15
38.9
18.55
3.38
\.68
32
Maharashtra
0.81
41.72
26.90
5.82
22.3
13
Orissa
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Punjab
0.75
59.32
13.33
1.69
1.69
129
Rajasthan
5.62
16.13
9.43
8.18
5.45
274
Uttar Pradesh
4.00
28.40
16.27
5.66
0.28
309
Total
2.30
3 I .53
16.02
5.99
3.01
175
Source: Input Survey, 1991-92, 20aO
The share of area treated with pesticides was found much lower in all the three situations. But consumption ofFYM was the highest in Punjab in irrigated and Gujarat in unirrigated areas. Maharashtra was also leading in area covered with pesticides. The results of input use for gram cultivation were found poor in Punjab. These findings suggest that there is a wide gap in percentage of gram area fertilized and covered by pesticides, which save pulse grain from diseases. Therefore, the real emphasis should be to induce farmers to use the recommended doses of pesticides. After reviewing the input use for gram cultivation, we would discuss the same for arhar. It may be noticed from Table 6.9 that arhar occupied 0.37% ofGCA in irrigated, 2.73% in unirrigated areas and 1.86% at the aggregate level. As expected, area treated with chemical fertilizer was lower (44.33 %) in unirrigated areas in comparison to irrigated areas (57.14%). The same holds true for manure application. The area treated with manure was 31.51 % of
248
India s Pulse PrQduction: Stagnation and Redressal
the cropped area in irrigated conditions against 23.39% in unirrigated conditions. It is interesting to note that the proportion of area treated with pesticides was almost equal in two situations but once again application ofFYM was much higher (1,001 kg/ha) in irrigated areas as compared to unirrigated areas (620 kg/ha). Thus, a general belief of higher use of expensive inputs in irrigated areas was also confirmed for arhar cultivation. Table 6.9
Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Arhar Cultivation in Major Growing States by Irrigation Status during 1991-92 (kg/ha) State
%of GCA Cropped
%of Area Treated with Fertilizer
Per Hectare Consumption of Fertilizer
%of Area Treated with FYM
Per %of Area Hectare Treated Use of FYM with Pesticides
Irrigated Area Andhra Pradesh
0.11
71.42
65.86
28.57
42.85
1125
Gujarat
3.06
83.33
60.88
70.23
60.71
2141
Karnataka
0.43
69.23
100.46
38.46
69.23
2778
Madhya Pradesh
0.19
12.50
9.00
5.00
2.00
35
Maharashtra
1.22
58.82
33.18
20.59
4!.l8
75
Uttar Pradesh
0.60
34.78
28.41
2.17
0.00
151
Total
0.37
57.14
44.94
31.51
32.35
1001
Unirrigated Area Andhra Pradesh Gujarat
4.18 4.58
55.65 53.31
57.87 23.03
33.89 45.53
40.40 32.56
1737 128
Karnataka
4.93
73.25
31.63
33.53
70.99
1045
Madhya Pradesh
1.88
12.13
3.45
2.62
2.29
30
Maharashtra
5.96
45.72
28.99
24.03
39.27
17
Uttar Pradesh
5.42
22.98
9.52
5.31
0.00
386
Total
2.73
44.33
25.68
23.39
32.24
620
249
Technology in Pulse Production Table 6.9 (Contd.) State
%of GCA Cropped
%of Area Treated with Fertilizer
Per Hectare Consumption of Fertilizer
%of Area Treated with FYM
Per %of Area Hectare Treated Use of with FYM Pesticides
Irrigated + Unirrigated Areas
Andhra Pradesh
2.51
55.67
58.02
33.79
40.44
58
Gujarat
4.18
59.40
30.41
50.35
38.05
1451
Kamataka
3.89
73.15
33.43
33.67
70.94
1089
Madhya Pradesh
\.53
1 \.82
3.60
2.56
2.24
31
Maharashtra
5.19
46.11
29.15
23.90
39.35
29
Uttar Pradesh
2.59
2459
12.09
4.88
0.00
354
Total
\.86
43.33
27.13
24.00
32.24
649
Source: Input Survey, 1991-92, 2000
The examination of data regarding input use for arhar cultivation in major states showed variations across the states. The range of area allocation varied from 0.11 % in Andhra Pradesh to 3.06% in Gujarat in irrigated conditions, from 1.88% to 5.96% in unirrigated conditions. However, variations were less pronounced in the latter. The area treated with fertilizer, manure and pesticides was more in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, and Maharashtra in comparison to Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. It may be highlighted that Madhya Pradesh was the bottom ranking state with respect to area treated by these inputs as well as in the quantity applied. The analysis on input usage will remain incomplete without analysing the farm size variations, which shed light on farmer's behaviour in different categories. The information on input use for growing gram and arhar by size class of holdings for the year 199192 is presented in Tables 6.10 and 6.11. It may be noticed that the proportion of GCA allocated to gram
250
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
was found the highest in large farms in irrigated and unirrigated areas and at the overall level in the country. In contrast, it was the lowest on the marginal farms. Although, chemical fertilizer was used by all size categories of farmers, proportion of gram area fertilized was found the highest in large holdings in irrigated areas, medium holding in unirrigated areas and at the overall level. However, applicatioa of fertilizer was found to be highest on smallholdings. Besides, organic manure was also used to raise the soil fertility. Its coverage was observed to be the highest under smallholdings in irrigated, semi-medium holdings in unirrigated areas and on marginal holdings at the overall level. The consumption per hectare was the highest on marginal farms in all scenarios. The Table 6.10 Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Gram Cultivation by Farm Size and by Irrigation Status in India during 1991-92 (Kglha.) State
%of GCA Cropped
%of Area Treated with Fertilizer
Per %of Hectare Area Consum- Treated ption of with Fertilizer FYM
I
%of Area Treated with Pesticides
Per Hectare Use of FYM
Irrigated Area
Marginal
0.89
43.59
27.59
10.25
1.71
501.93
Small
1.04
62.58
40.01
12.94
7.19
469.60
Semi-medium
1.73
54.50
30.96
7.45
5.49
204.71
Medium
2.21
55.32
34.24
8.28
7.99
195.83
Large
3.13
66.51
38.36
5.58
5.58
125.75
251
Technology in Pulse Production Table 6./0 (Contd.) State
%of GCA Cropped
%of Area Treated with Fertilizer
Per %of Hectare Area Consum- Treated ption of with Fertilizer FYM
%of Area Treated with Pesticides
Per Hectare Use of FYM
1.22
274.87
Unirrigated Areas
Marginal
1.98
17.74
9.40
Small Semi-medium
6.11
2.34
21.92
10.92
3.82
1.48
141.97
2.22
22.06
9.60
6.30
1.58
170.16
Medium
2.88
25.18
8.55
4.87
2.80
147.32
Large
4.12
20.27
8.36
4.80
1.50
62.64
All
2.66
22.02
9.20
5.11
1.86
145.86
Irrigated + Unirrigated Areas
Marginal
1.50
!
24.55
14.19
7.20
1.35
334.70
31.03
17.56
5.91
2.79
216.75
Small
1.82
Semi-medium
2.03
32.24
16.22
6.64
2.79
181.05
Medium
2.64
33.96
16.04
5.86
4.31
161.46
Large
3.83
31.56
15.68
4.99
2.50
78.04
All
2.30
31.53
16.02
5.99
3.01
175.05
Source: Input Survey, 1991-92, 2000
252
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 6.11 Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Arhar Cultivation by Farm Size and by Irrigation Status in India during 1991-92 (Kg/ha.)
State
%of GCA Cropped
%of Area Treated with Fertilizer
Per Hectare Consumption of Fertilizer
%of Area Treated with FYM
%of Area Treated with Pesticides
Per Hectare Use of FYM
Irrigated Areas Marginal
0.26
28.57
30.71
8.57
8.57
359.34
Small
0.39
56.60
42.33
20.57
24.52
505.69
Semi-medium
0.41
65.00
46.61
38.33
33.33
1127.53
Medium
0.46
57.74
53.73
45.07
46.47
1608.53
Large
0.28
52.63
40.63
31.58
36.84
857.79
All
0.38
57.14
44.94
3 \.51
32.35
1001.23
Un irrigated Areas Marginal
2.03
27.24
18.55
11.07
9.88
532.65
Small
2.95
37.37
26.57
23.40
25.42
878.80
Semi-medium
2.83
46.92
29.05
26.12
33.78
601.85
Medium
3.11
50.84
26.21
25.08
39.03
523.81
Large
2.36
49.73
22.82
25.00
43.42
557.03
All
2.73
44.33
25.60
23.39
32.24
620.63
253
Technology in Pulse Production Table 6.11 (Contd.) State
%0/
%0/
GCA Cropped
Area Treated with Fertilizer
Per Hectare Consumption 0/ Fertilizer
%0/
%0/
Area Treated with FYM
Area Treated with Pesticides
Per Hectare Use 0/ FYM
Irrigated + Unirrigated Areas
27.64
19.71
10.84
9.76
1.94
38.94
27.86
23.34
25.50
848.24
1.80
48.29
30.39
27.05
33.88
641.73
2.18
51.98
28.25
26.56
39.68
604.10
Large
1.74
50.12
23.66
25.31
43.10
573.11
All
1.86
45.32
27.13
24.00
32.24
649.24
Marginal
1.25
Small Semi-medium Medium
516.20
Source: Input Survey, 1991-92,2000
pesticides were used by the lower proportion of fanners but medium farmers in irrigated (7.99%) and unirrigated areas (2.80%) and at the aggregate level (4.31%) were ahead of other categories of farmers. Apparently, marginal fanners used lesser expensive inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides for gram cultivation. However, they tried to substitute fertilizer by using higher quantity of organic manure. Table 6.11 provides data on use of these inputs for arhar cultivation across farm size categories. The medium farmers in irrigated (0.46%) and unirrigated areas (3.11 %) and at the aggregate level devoted the highest percentage of GCA to arhar. In contrast, marginal farmers allocated minimum proportion ofthe GCA to this crop. The category of semi-medium farmers in the first conditions and medium farmers in the second and third conditions treated the highest percentage of cropped area with fertilizer. The same groups were leading in percentage of cropped area treated with FYM but the rate of application was found the highest on small farms. The proportion of area covered by pesticides was the highest on medium farms in irrigated, on large farms ill unirrigated areas and at the overall level. It appeared from these results that the medium farmers
254
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
were using more of fertilizer, FYM and pesticides to improve the yield of arhar on their farms. In contrast, marginal farmers were found economizing on these inputs due to their poor economy, which does not allow investing in expensive inputs unless returns are certain.
Results of Cultivation Practices The input survey data gave valuable information about the use of chemical fertilizer, organic manure and pesticides for two major pulse crops in important states during 1991-92. Since, these surveys are silent about the adoption of improved seeds and yield rates, nothing worthwhile can be concluded on the technology aspect. The only source which provides some information on the use of advanced technology embodying the use of improved seeds, chemical fertilizer, manure, pesticides, weedicides and tractor for five major crops by states and farm size categories is a survey on cultivation practices conducted by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) in 1998. Pulses were one among these crops. The data were collected from a sample of households by interview method from January to June 1998. The sample design adopted for the survey was a two stage stratified design with census villages as the first stage unit and household as the second stage unit. In all, 10,978 villages were surveyed. The households were divided in the standard groups based on ownership ofland. The basic difference between the Input Survey data and the National Sample Survey data is that information in prior is based on operational holdings while in latter; data is based on ownership holdings. Second, these surveys are silent about the use of improved seeds, which is the pre-requisite for measuring technological change in the pulse farming. Nonetheless, major shortcomings of the NSSO data are the absence of information on individual pulse crops, lack of data on quantity of modem inputs used for cultivation and yield rates ofthese crops. In fact, most ofthe indicators are given in percentage form. Since, cultivation practices are the only source providing latest information on technology related inputs for pulse cultivation, it seems prudent to use these data for ascertaining the level of technology at the state and farm size levels.
Technology in Pulse Production
255
Table 6.12 presents information on the use of improved seeds, chemical fertilizer, pesticides, manure, weedicides and tractor for cultivation of pulse crops. The following major points emerge from the analysis of the state-wise data. (i)
The estimates corroborate the widely held view that the progress of adoption of improved technology in pulse farming has been uneven in different parts of the country. The states of Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal have progressed better than the rest of the country. At the other end, major pulses growing states like Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh are lagging far behind.
(ii) Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh demonstrated a close association between adoption rate of improved seeds and use of fertilizer but in Tamil Nadu, area fertilized was much lower than the area covered by improved seeds. Unfortunately, in progressive states like Punjab and Haryana, percentage of pulse area covered by improved seeds was lower than the national average, but in the first case area fertilized was above 90%. (iii) A very low coverage of pulse area by pesticides and weedicides at the all India level as well as in the major growing states emerged as a serious constraint despite their importance as quantity and quality savers.
(iv) The use of tractor for tilling was extensive in states like Rajasthan and Haryana but it was low in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.
Farm Size Scenario The state-wise analysis of adoption of improved seeds of pulses and its complementary factors provides a macro view but it is necessary to continue the analysis at the micro level so that the farm size concerns are not ignored because they play an important role in adoption of technology in India. Table 6.13 provides farm size level information on percentage ofGCA allotted to pulse crops, percentage of pulse area under improved seeds and share of pulse
256
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
area tilled by tractor in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and at the all India level. Although, coverage of fertilizer, pesticides and weedicides are important indictors of technological change but it is not possible to present infonnation on these indicators due to non-availability of data. Table 6.12 Percentage of Pulse Area under Improved Variety Seeds, Fertilizer and Manure,Pesticides and Weedicides and Tractor Use in Major States of India during 1998 State
% of
GCA under Pulses
Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir Kamataka
17.11 1.63 2.08 1.01 8.11
% of Pulse Area under Improved Seeds
% of Pulse Area Treated with Fertilizer & Manure
% of Pulse Area Treated with Pesticides & Weedicides
% of Pulse Area Tilled with Tractor
70.96 44.68 25.47 32.55 81.35 26.90 25.72 60.13 50.68 28.74
69.3 2.0 27.8 37.7 83.2 22.5 32.5 76.9 67.0
25.8 0.10 7.5 10.0 20.3 18.6 0.5 3.0 8.0
25.0 6.1 5.0 43.0
9.50 15.12 2.94 17.85 Kerala 3.22 Madhya Pradesh 14.49 30.91 Maharashtra 49.83 17.12 Orissa 12.70 59.10 43.21 Punjab 0.53 Rajasthan 62.01 14.44 Tamil Nadu 14.63 72.63 Uttar Pradesh 34.19 9.32 West Bengal 68.62 2.04 India 12.50 46.62 Source. CultIvation Practices In IndIa, 2000
28.7 44.4 44.8 49.9 96.2 36.1 45.1 53.0 42.0 48.6
47.6 84.3 3.3 3.3 15.0
-
-
13.3 4.3 18.5 43.2 3.1 18.6 10.8
36.3
7.2 10.7
11.0 10.7 66.1 88.3 36.0 66.9 38.5 46.6
Technology in Pulse Production
257
An examination ofTable 6.13 indicates that the share ofpulse crops in GCA was about 13% at the all India level. Pulses were cultivated by all categories of farmers but small holders devoted higher proportion of GCA to pulses. The marginal farmers grew pulses on 20% of GCA against 9.81 % by large farmers. The same pattern was observed in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh but Rajasthan emerged as an exception. Here, all classes devoted less than 7.60% of GCA to pulse crops and variations across farm size were minimal. It could be due to popularity and high profitability of alternate crops like mustard. The pattern of results observed for pulse area under improved seeds appeared to be just reverse. The farm size and proportion of area under improved varieties of pulse crops are positively related. The data clearly display positive relationship between area under improved variety seeds and size of holding at the all India level. The difference in adoption was as high as 26% between marginal and large farmers. This is because modem farming based largely on the use of improved seeds, chemical fertilizer and pesticides with assured supply of water for irrigation demands high investment, which small farmers cannot afford. This phenomenon observed at the all India level holds true only in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Rest of the three states, namely, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, do not reflect this position. In these states, there is no evidence of clear association between the size class and percentage of pulse area under improved variety seeds. In Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, landless farmers devoted 100%,86.11% and 41.95%_of pulse area to improved varieties. The percentage of farmers using tractor for pulse cultivation at the all India level was around 46.4%. This proportion is almost the same as for percentage of pulse area under improved variety seeds. Around 83% of large farmers were using tractor. However, a sizeable part of marginal, small and medium farmers were also using tractor for pulse cultivation. The higher percentage of area covered by tractor reflects a fair degree of dependence of improved seeds on it. The use of tractor exceeds area under improved seeds
N
Vt 00
Table 6.13.Adoption of Improved Variety Seeds of Pulses by Farmsize in Major Growing States (1998)
Madhya Pradesh FannSize (Ha.)
Pulse area as % of GCA
% of Pulse area sown with Impro. ved seeds
Uttar Pradesh
Maharashtra
Pulse area as % of GCA
% of Pulse area sown wlIh Impro ved seeds
% of Pulse area IIIled wlIh trac· tor
Pulse area as % of GCA
% of Pulse area sown wllh impro· ved seeds
100.00 100.OC 4.76
% of Pulse area IIl1ed With trac· tor
Pulse area as % of GCA
India
Andhra Pradesh
Rajasthan
% of Pulse area IIl1ed with trac· tor
% of Pulse area sown With Impro ved seeds
%of Pulse area tilled wllh trac· tor
Pulse area as % of GCA
% of % of Pulse Pulse area area sown tilled With wllh Impro trac· ved tor seeds
.
.
33.33 86.11
.
Pulse area as % of GCA
% of Pulse area
% of Pulse area sown tilled wllh With Impro· trac· ved tor seeds
o to O.oJ
60.00 25.66
53.1
25.00
41.95
93.1
.
20.00
30.86
56.7
0.01-0.20
50.00 18.78
33.7
14.29
11 61
374
20.00 35.74 27.6
5.55
6.69
87.6
4000 46.22 25.0
12.50
22.32
38.1
0.21·0.50
6.38
16.97
18.1
IO 00
19.10
46.7
5.13
39.48 83
7.46
33.35 37.1
1590 5492 44.9
5.66
37.16
32.7
051·1.00
8.65
27.60
16.7
960
2486
57.9
5.88
4370 8.9
636
3417 56.6
2500 6932 41.3
5.50
40.37
32.0
I 01·2.00
10.00 2604
23.8
9.73
3243
63.0
886
5-S 52 99
704
50.66 75.9
8.33
70.49 36.2
7.14
44.45
34.5
7.45
74 II 32.0
7.99
4463
40.2
2.01·4.00
10.00 26.57
250
1032
37.17
68.3
10.32 4096 8.8
5.80
5641 84.6
4.01·100
12.14 35.26
41.8
9.54
40.88
77.9
9.04
57.23 8.7
7.60
67.25 89.7
9.14
81.07 48.4
9.53
50.91
53.6
10m & above
10.96 42.15
87.6
8.33
63.47
.
823
38.28 295
4.07
71.20 99.2
0.46
3822 50.9
9.81
56.40
83.5
All
14.85 30.91
36.3
13.55
34.19
669
17.11 49.83
4.69
6210 883
17.10 70.96 40.3
12.50
46.62
46.4
Source: Cultivation Practices in India, 2000
11.0
Technology in Pulse Production
259
in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh but it was below this level in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The tractor use for pulse cultivation in Rajasthan is observed to be exceptionally high (88.3%). This implies that the use of this device is very common in the state and even crops like pulses receive enough of it. The data reveals a positive association between farm size and tractor use in majority of the analyzed states. Two broad conclusions emerge from the analysis of adoption of technology related inputs in pulse cultivation by farmers. First, use of improved seeds is slowly spreading but farm size plays a crucial role. Particularly, marginal and small farmers indicated lower coverage of pulse area under improved seeds. This could be attributed to non-availability of improved seeds and weak extension services. Second, percentage of pulse area under improved seeds and use of fertilizer, manure and tractor was almost the same. Third, the real problem is lower adoption of pesticides as they covered only 11 % of pulse area. Therefore, policy should focus on tackling this issue. The findings show that marginal and small farmers did not adopt improved seeds of pulses on a large scale by the year 1998. Therefore, the critical policy issue is to induce them to adopt improved seeds and for adopters to make them efficient by complementing with inputs like pesticides. For achieving these goals, input support system and vigorous extension system is an urgent need, which should be paid immediate attention.
Findings of Field Studies Although, improved seeds have a tremendous role in boosting pulse production through increase in yield levels, comprehensive information on this important aspect is seldom documented in literature. A few studies (Joshi et aI., 1999; Tuteja, 1999, 2000) shed some light on adoption of improved variety seeds of pulses in Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana. First study shows that area under chickpea in Andhra Pradesh has increased at the rate of around 5% per annum during the past decade. The rapid increase in prices and availability of improved varieties are two important reasons for area expansion under chickpea. The estimates on area
260
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
under improved varieties of chickpea suggested that 27.50% of area was sown under improved varieties in the state in 1994-95. Interestingly, the local high yielding variety was still ruling which covered around 58% of chickpea area. In Medak district, the area under improved chickpea varieties was around 48% whereas in Anantpur and Kurnool, it was 19.40% and 23.15% respectively. The improved varieties were slowly replacing the local varieties. This was due to their early maturity and other characteristics. In a nutshell, these varieties are spreading at a faster rate in tltis region. The results of regression analysis of factors influencing area expansion of chickpea in selected districts of Andhra Pradesh confirmed that policy support in terms of favourable prices and technological change through availability of improved varieties are necessary conditions for chickpea area expansion in Andhra Pradesh. Table 6.14 Adoption of Improved Varieties of Chickpea in Andhra Pradesh (%) District
Improved Variety
Local Improved
Local Variety
Anantpur
19.40
32.35
48.25
Kurnoo1
23.15
67.50
7.35
Medak
48.10
13.85
38.05
Andhra Pradesh
27.50
57.60
15.20
Source: Joshi et a!., 1999.
Another study related to pulse growers in Punjab and Haryana revealed that 12.60% ofGCA in Ludhiana and 17.36% ofGCA in Firozpur was devoted to pulse crops. The irrigation status of these plots was creditable. The pulse economy of Ludhiana is dominated by summer moong and of Firozpur by gram and summer moong both. The area under improved variety seeds of pulses was as high as 61.08% in Ludhiana whereas it was 38.42% in Firozpur. It was observed that the use of improved varieties for moong is popular
Technology in Pulse Production
261
but gram is lagging far behind. The proportion of pulse area under improved seeds and farm size were positively related in both the selected districts. The coverage of pulse area under improved seeds in case of small farms was 51.95% as against 80% on large farms in Ludhiana. Similarly, it was 36.01% and 52.97% in Firozpur. In brief, adoption of improved seeds for pulse cultivation was creditable in Ludhiana and relatively poor in Firozpur. The share of adopters was higher among large farmers in comparison to small farmers. The results for Haryana on adoption of improved varieties of pulses by farmers deviate significantly from Punjab. The share of GCA devoted to pulses by farmers in wet district of Ambala and dry district of Bhiwani also differed substantially. Around 9.13 % of GCA in the first case and 32.90% of GCA in the second case was devoted to pulses. The irrigation status was also found to be poor in both the situations. Gram in Bhiwani and massar i:1 Ambala were the dominant pulse crops. The adoption of improved seeds for pulse cultivation was poor (20.08%) even in agriculturally developed district of Ambala. It was found still better in Bhiwani with 33.10% of pulse area covered by improved seeds. The positive association between share of pulse area under improved seeds and farm size observed at the all India level and Punjab state was confirmed in Ambala district where share of pulse area under improved seeds on small farms was nil as against 55.56% on large farms. Likewise, it was 18.31% and 38.75% respectively in Bhiwani. But, semimedium farmers in this district were ahead of others in adoption of improved seeds. It seems that adoption of technology in pulse farming is poor at the overall level in Haryana; however, initiatives oflarge farmers in Ambala and semi-medium farmers in Bhiwani are worth appreciating. It could be due to their investment capability or political influence in procuring extension services and other support needed for adoption of improved technology for pulse production.
In addition, information was collected on the extent of adoption of recommended package of practices by pulse growers during the survey. These included sowing time, land preparation, seed treatment, method of sowing, depth of seeds, application ofmanure and fertilizer, weeding and inter-culture, irrigation status, and plant protection measures.
Table 6.15 Adoption of Improved Technology for Pulse Cultivation in Punjab and Haryana Item
Marginal
Small
Semi-Medium
Medium
Large
All
Ludhiana (punjab)
Percentage ofGCA under Pulses % of Pulse Area under Improved Seeds % Irrigated Area Sowing Practices (% of Adopters) Seed Practices (% of Adopters) Organic Manure (% Area) Fertilizer (% Area) Pesticides and Weedicides (%Area) Weeding and Interculture (%Adopters)
16.70
26.10
14.10
9.90
8.10
12.60
-
51.95
61.99
72.03
80.00
61.08
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
-
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
33.33
37.50
50.00
66.67
42.85
27.32
28.60
31.15
21.27
27.14
34.15
49.57
66.45
73.40
57.00
17.48
30.51
45.90
68.09
41.53
75.14
69.59
45.89
39.36
56.79
Table 6.15 (Contd.)
Item
Marginal
Small
I Semi-Medium
Medium
Large
All
Firozpur (Punjab) Percentage of GCA under Pulses
27.60
20.51
17.70
14.29
16.10
17.36
% of Pulse Area under Improved Seeds
24.93
36.01
29.98
33.99
52.97
38.42
% Irrigated Area
100.00
73.00
68.00
85.00
63.00
70.00
Sowing Practices (% of Adopters)
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Seed Practices (% of Adopters)
50.00
50.00
33.33
50.00
60.00
43.75
Organic Manure (% Area)
35.00
57.00
31.51
17.01
19.83
24.32
Fertilizer (% Area)
25.00
25.48
62.33
78.42
70.54
60.97
Pesticides and Weedicides (%Area)
14.00
15.92
31.51
48.96
50.10
39.63
Weeding and Interculture (%Adopters)
100.00
76.43
58.90
41.49
40.08
53.02
Table 6.15 (Contd.) Item
Marginal
Small
I Semi-Medium
Medium
Large
All
Ambala (Haryana)
Percentage of GCA under Pulses % of Pulse Area under Improved Seeds % Irrigated Area Sowing Practices (% of Adopters) Seed Practices (% of Adopters) Organic Manure (% Area) Fertilizer (% Area) Pesticides and Weedicides (%Area) Weeding and Inter culture (%Adopters)
12.50
21.94
11.67
8.42
6.45
9.13
-
-
7.84
7.741
55.56
20.08
50.00
19.77
33.33
7.41
16.67
17.87
-
-
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
37.50
47.61
50.00
44.89
45.83
33.33
16.66
38.78
25.00
38.09
50.00
34.69
16.67
28.57
33.33
24.49
79.16
57.14
33.33
67.34
Table 6.15 (Contd.)
Item Item
Marginal Small Semi-Medium Bhiwani (Haryana)
Medium
Large
All
Percentage of GCA under Pulses
19.57
25.18
35.68
36.43
29.09
32.90
% of Pulse Area under Improved Seeds
4.44
18.31
42.42
27.27
38.75
33.10
% Irrigated Area
22.22
19.72
53.03
51.38
33.75
44.58
Sowing Practices (% of Adopters)
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Seed Practices (% of Adopters)
20.83
32.00
30.43
36.84
22.22
31.00
Organic Manure (% Area)
45.83
32.00
30.43
31.58
22.22
34.00
Fertilizer (% Area)
16.67
28.00
39.13
52.63
66.66
36.00
Pesticides and Weedicides (% Area)
12.50
20.00
26.09
57.89
55.55
30.00
Weeding and Inter-culture (% Adopters)
83.33
76.00
65.21
63.16
44.44
70.00
Source: TuteJa (1999, 2000)
266
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The package of practices is a progressive idea that is suited to the needs of the pulse cultivation through technological improvement. These are essential for realizing a good yield. Table 6.15 makes clear that the pulse growers partially used recommended packages for raising yield from the adoption of improved technology. Most of them are using these on an inadequate scale. It may be noted that sowing practices related to preparation of land, time and method were adopted by all categories of pulse growers. The seed practices such as seed rate, seed treatment and depth of seeds were practiced by much lower percentage of adopters. These constituted 43% in Ludhiana and Firozpur districts of Punjab. The adoption rate was observed lower in Bhiwani whereas it was 45% in Ambala. Majority ofthe adopters did not use organic manure during the crop season. Only, 27.14% ofpulse area under improved seeds was manured in Ludhiana. It appeared that its application for pulses is not popular in Firozpur too where 24% of area received this input. The use of fertilizer was also found below the recommended level because it was expensive. Around 57% and 61 % of pulse area under improved seeds in Ludhiana and Firozpur, 34.69% in Ambala and 36% in Bhiwani received some doses of fertilizer. The pesticides and weedicides were used on the lowest percentage of pulse area under improved seeds despite knowing their importance as a quantity and quality savers. These were applied on around 40% of area in Ludhiana and Firozpur. However, this percentage was about 24% and 30% in Ambala and Bhiwani. The main reason given for not applying these expensive inputs was financial stringency. The practice of weeding and inter-culture was resorted by most of the farmers in all situations. Although, it was accepted by the adopters that one/two irrigations are essential for the success of improved technology, only 48% in Punjab and 33% in Haryana irrigated their fields that too only once. It was due to limited ayailability of water which farmers reserved for superior cereals. Significant farm size variations were observed in adoption of recommended package of practices. The small farmers were more particular in sowing practices and inter-culture but they missed on adopting the practices related to fertilizer, pesticides and weedicides,
Technology in Pulse Production
267
which involve finance. In contrast, large farmers paid more attention towards these practices. The main reasons advanced by the adopters for neglecting the recommended package of practices were limited irrigation facilities at their disposal, high prices of fertilizer, pesticides and weedicides and uncertain yield of pulse crops.
Factors Affectirg Adoption of Technology The preceding analysis revealed that the adoption of technology related factors in pulse cultivation were not satisfactory at the macro as well as at the micro level. However, this is the only way to enhance the yield levels of pulse crops and solve the problem of low pulse production. The adoption of improved technology at the farm level is influenced by a number of economic and non-economic factors such as size of holding; percentage ofGCA under the crop; resource endowment; educational level of farmers; experience of growing the selected improved varieties; duration of the crop and availability of complementary inputs like irrigation, fertilizer and pesticides. The data on all these explanatory variables are not available. However, information on some ofthe technology related indicators such as percentage of pulse cultivated area under improved variety seeds, percentage of area fertilized and manured, coverage of pesticides and weedicides and use of tractor is available in the NSSO data (1998). It is important to know the formal relationship between the pulse area under improved seeds and aforesaid indicators. An attempt is made to shed light on this question by making use of state level data for the year 1998. The limitations of these data in terms of aggregates of pulse crops are already mentioned. It is assumed that adoption of improved seeds embodies technological change, which requires changes in associated inputs such as irrigation, fertilizer and pesticides for higher output ofpulses. A linear regression model is used to explain the relationship among important variables. The used model is given below: Y = a + b1x 1+ b2 X 2 + ...........+ bn Xn
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
268 Where
y (PPAIS) - percentage of pulse area under improved seeds XI
(PGCAP) - percentage of GCA under pulses
x2 (PIAP) - percentage of irrigated area under pulses Xl
(PFMAP) - percentage of fertilized and manured area under pulses
x 4 (pPATPW) - percentage of pulse area treated with pesticides and weedicides XS
PPAIS
(PPATI) - percentage of pulse area tilled with tractor
=
4.827 + 0.037 PGCAP + 0.606 PIAP + 0.222 PFMAP + 0.023 PPATPW - 0 653 PPATT (0.509)
(0
R2
=
(3.043)·
(2.&02)*
(0.306!
(-1.403)··
0.66
Brackets show t-values;* significant below 5% level of probability;
** significant belowil 0% level of probability. The pesults ofthe regression model used for understanding the association between adoption rate of improved seeds of pulses and other important factors show that the most important variables are percentage of irrigated area and fertilized plus manured area under pulses, which indicate large and significant coefficients. Here, an addition of 10% would increase pulse area under improved varieties by 6% and 2% respectively. The regression coefficient of percentage of GCA under pulses (0.037) and percentage of pulse area covered by pesticides and weedicides (0.023) are low and positive but insignificant. This indicates that an addition in these would promote improved variety seeds at a snail speed but would not make a significant difference. The regression coefficient of percentage of area tilled by tractor is negative and significant. This result appears logical because tractor is mostly used for superior cereals in irrigated areas and does not play an important role in pulse cultivation under rainfed conditions. The coefficient of determination is 0.66. It implies that selected variables explain 66% variation in area under improved variety seeds of pulses and rest could be explained by uncovered qualitative and quantitative variables. This analysis is not conclusive but provides some in sight on the relationship between adoption of improved seeds of pulses
269
Technology in Pulse Production
and complementary inputs. It is necessary to mention that these factors influence adoption of technology, however these cannot be the sole factors responsible for technology transfer because investment in research and development is the most crucial institutional determinant in inducing technological change at the farm level.
Section-3 Benefits oflmproved Technology The major data sources on technology aspect are silent about the benefits of the adoption of improved technology to the pulse growers in terms of yield and profitability. In fact, yield factor is missing altogether in Input Survey data as well as in the NSSO data. Did adoption of improved technology of pulse crops benefit farmers? This is an important question to be answered for the faster diffusion of technology. In the absence of macro level data, an effort is made to throw some light on the basis of earlier quoted Punjab and Haryana surveys. The yield levels of improved and local varieties and their gap for major pulses grown in these states are presented in Table 6.16. Table 6.16 Yield Levels of Improved and Local Varieties of Pulse Crops in Punjab and Haryana
(kg/ha) Crop
Improved Variety
Local Variety
Yield Gap
Percentage
Punjab Gram
890
967
-77
-7.96
Moong
838
699
139
19.88
Haryana Gram
860
950
-90
-9.47
Massar
983
889
94
10.57
Source: Tuteja, 1999,2000
270
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
An examination of the fmdings suggests that productivity of gram under improved technology was estimated lower than local varieties in Punj ab as well as in Haryana. The yield rates of improved varieties were 890 kg/ha and 860 kg/ha as against an average productivity of 967 kg/ha and 950 kg/ha from the traditional varieties. The negative gap works out to be 7.96 and 9.47 percentage points. These results are contrary to expectations but it is not impossible in view of partial adoption of recommended complementary package of practices by adopters. On the other hand, moong and massar sown under improved varieties have shown positive results. The yield per hectare of moong under improved varieties in Punjab was significantly higher than traditional varieties. It jumped from 699 kg/ha to 838 kg/ha. Similarly, in case of massar in Haryana, it rose from 889 kg/ha to 983 kg/ha. These results indicate the superiority of improved technology in attaining higher yields of moong and massar. However, thu full potential of improved technology was not harnessed in any of the narrated cases as the realized yield rates were+much below the potential rates. In fact, farmers do noT resort to complementary package of practices required for the success of improved technology for pulse culthvation because of financial stringency and risk hnvolved. Once they become sure about the benefits; they can take the calculated risk. Therefore, it is suggested that policy sepport through providing basic inputs and improved extension sepvices is the only way to popularize improved technology and benefit pulse growers. In brief, improved varieties of gram were not found beneficial in terms of productIvity but in case of massar and moong, these were found better than traditional varieties.
Farmers' Experiences In the fore'oing analysis, "Enefits of improved technology of pulses were discussed on the basis of very limited evidence. For a deeper understanding of the phenomenon, the constraints faced by farmers at the grass root levels should be known and understood. These are not reflected in the previous analysis. In order to capture this aspect, it is necessary to probe into the perceptions of farmers regarding
Technology in Pulse Production
271
the adoption of improved technology for pulse cultivation. The findings of earlier cited micro studies are used to answer this query. It is well known that technological change in pulse farming is a package approach, which includes improved seeds, fertilizer, rhizobium culture and minimum irrigation facilities. The core ofthis package is improved seed, which are highly responsive to fertilizer input. These improved seeds are equally vulnerable to pest attacks, which has necessitated the need for rhizobium culture. In addition, irrigation is must, without which the potential of the improved seeds would not develop. What are the opinions offarmers regarding the adoption of the full package of improved technology for pulse cultivation is an important concern in view of increasing pulse production in the country. The opinions of farmers regarding spread of improved technology for pulse production are noteworthy. They rated relative profitability ofpulses vis-a-vis competing crops as the most important factor in land allocation. This is one of the factors hindering growth of puhes in comparison to competing crops. The other depressing factors narrated by the farmers were non-availability of improved seeds, genuine pesticides and insecticides and insufficient extension support. Since adoption of technology depends on these factors, they should be given top priority in policy. They opined that availability of inputs and procurement of pulses by government agencies at remunerative prices can help in harnessing the yield potential through adoption of improved technology and increase pulse production in the country. In a nutshell, there are a number of factors, which hinder spread of full package of improved pulse production technology at the farm level. The major constraints in way of popularizing this technology are lack of information, inadequate availability of improved variety seeds, complementary inputs and weak financial support to pulse development. Before concluding this chapter, it would be essential to recall the proposed hypothesis that adoption of technology for pulse cultivation at the state and farm size levels is slow due to small proportion of cropped area covered by improved seeds, fertilizer
272
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
and pesticides. The results of the earlier sections reveal that around half of the major pulse producing states had less than 50% of pulse area under improved seeds. This proportion was higher for pulse area fertilized (61 %) and tilled by tractor (72%). The coverage of pesticides was extremely low in all the states. At farm level, all categories of farmers except large farmers had sown less than 50% of pulse area under improved seeds. The pulse area tilled by tractors was more than 50% in marginal, medium and large farms. Thus, the proposed hypothesis was partially confirmed at the state as well as at the farm level.
Chapter 7
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension
Domestic competitiveness of various crops is judged by their relative profitability. It is one of the most important determinants of production of agricultural commodities governing the behaviour of producers. In reality, perceptions of profitability drive crop options. Farmers grow crops, which offer the highest returns per unit of their scarcest resources such as land and dearer inputs. Over time, choice of crop may change as individual plots ofland shift to their best use in response to a changed relationship between profits of different crops (Jha and Kumar, 1976; Vyas, 1994). Normally, area shifts take place on the basis of competitiveness in terms of profitability. Although, a number of crops can compete for a given piece of land, a few effectively compete for the same piece of land. It is this shift, which is used as a measure of competitiveness in our analysis. Competitiveness is defined as the ability of a crop to remain profitable in comparison to the alternate crop grown on the same piece ofland. Profitability being a catalytic factor in increased production of agricultural commodities, it is proposed to examine the same for selected pulse crops with principal competing crops in three major producing states for early eighties, early nineties and recent period. The analysis of profitability in this chapter is based on the yearly data generated under the "Comprehensive Scheme for Studying Cost of Cultivation". The discussion is confined to gram, arhar, moong. urad and massar for which cost of cultivation data are
274
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
available. The crop of massar was recently included in the scheme and therefore, it is excluded from the analysis for the first two points of time. An effort is made to select the first three ranking states growing the aforesaid pulses but, at times, states with lower ranking have been chosen due to availability of data. The standard methodology used in the literature is adopted for working out the profitability per unit ofland and net returns per rupee on investment. The operational cost was considered appropriate for measuring profitability of a particular crop in the short run. But in the long run, rental value of owned land in terms of its opportunity cost is one of the major factors in choosing crop options. Realizing this, profitability was calculated at operational as well as total cost. The profitability for each crop was worked out by subtracting costs from gross returns. In gross returns, value of the main product and by product were added while in operational cost, expenditure on human labour, bullock labour, machine labour, seed, fertilizer, manure, pesticides, irrigation and interest on working capital were included. The fixed cost comprised the rental value of owned land, rent paid for leased land, land revenue and taxes, depreciation on fixed capital and interest on fixed capital (CACP, 2003). It may be mentioned here that the net returns and profitability are used interchangeably in the analysis. The following hypotheses are proposed in this regard: (i)
The domestic competitiveness of pulse crops in terms of profitability per hectare is lower in comparison to the competing crops.
(ii) The cost on technology enhancing inputs (seed, fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation) has increased gradually in the pulse cultivation. (iii) The share of machine labour in per hectare variable cost has improved while that of human labour and animal labour has declined over the study period.
Now, results on profitability of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar vis-a.-vis their competing crops in core states are presented for the early 1980s, the early 1990s and the recent period.
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension 275
Gram At the outset, information on gross returns, cost and net returns of gram cultivation in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan in early eighties is presented in Table 7.1. The main competing crops considered are wheat and mustard. It may be noticed that gross returns per hectare from gram cultivation were Rs.2,055 in Madhya Pradesh, Rs.2,424 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.l,924 in Rajasthan during the early 1980s. Uttar Pradesh has indicated the highest value productivity due to having higher proportion of gram area as irrigated. The lowest gross returns were reaped by the farmers in Rajasthan which was an arid region and largely dependent on rainfall for cultivation purpose. The operational cost followed a similar order but it reversed for net returns, which were found to be the highest in Madhya Pradesh (Rs.l ,210) followed by Uttar Pradesh (Rs.l,194) and Rajasthan (Rs.l,043). The scenario changes when fixed cost is added. The profitabiIityper hectare at total cost became Rs.484 in Madhya Pradesh, Rs.270 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.512 in Rajasthan. Clearly, returns in Uttar Pradesh appeared to be the lowest due to highest rental value of owned land. The cost structure in all the three locations was almost the same. The human labour and bullock labour constituted more than 50% of operational cost whereas rental value of owned land was the major cost component in fixed cost. The story of wheat, which is the main competing crop of gram in irrigated areas, is different. The gross returns per hectare from wheat cultivation were Rs.4,577 in Madhya Pradesh, Rs.3,800 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.4,502 in Rajasthan during the early 1980s. The corresponding operational costs were Rs.l ,096, Rs.2,443 and Rs.2,328 respectively. The net returns after deducting the operational cost were Rs.3,481 in Madhya Pradesh, Rs.l ,357 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.2,174 in Rajasthan. Uttar Pradesh farmers earned the smallest amount by cultivating wheat. When net returns are examined after adding fixed cost, these were found to be Rs.2,573 in Madhya Pradesh, Rs.228 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.l,181 in Rajasthan. The cost structure of wheat cultivation was different from gram cultivation in all the three states. The cost of fertilizer
Table 7.1
Profitability of Gram and its Competing Crops (Wheat and Mustard) in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh during 1981-82 (Rs.lha) Item
Rajasthan
Madhya Pradesh Wheat
Gram
Mustard
Wheat
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
Human Labour
256.73 (30.40)·
293.99 (26.83)
313.52 (35.600
312.05(41.13)
594.34 (25.33)
Bullock Labour
200.43 (23.73)
244.69 (22.33)
234.29 (26.60)
230.35 (30.36)
618.56 (26.57)
Machine Labour
17.12(2.03)
46.77 (4.27)
38.31 (4.35)
35.64 (4.70)
232.43 (9.98)
Gram
I. Operational cost:
Seed
275.79 (32.65)
209.99(19.16)
219.33 (24.90)
26.25 (3.46)
245.55 (10.55)
Fertilizer
37.42 (4.43)
162.77 (14.85)
8.22(0.93)
21.80 (2.87)
417.65(17.94)
Manure
2.61 (0.31)
1.43 (0.13)
1.67 (0.19)
1.00 (0.13)
12.68 (0.54)
Insecticides
12.76 (1.51)
0.15 (0.01)
2.92 (0.33)
0.07 (0.01)
0.35 (0.02)
Irrigation
20.81 (2.46)
107.41 (9.80)
43.39 (4.90)
116.57 (15.36)
149.28 (6.41)
Interest on Working Capital
20.96 (2.48)
28.81 (2.63)
19.12(2.17)
15.06 (1.98)
56.85 (2.44)
Operational Cost
844.63 (100.00)
1096.01 (100.00)
880.77(100.00) 758.77 (100.00) 2327.99 (100.00)
Table 7 J (Contd)
Item
Rajasthan
Madhya Pradesh Gram
Wheat
Gram
Mustard
Wheat
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
Rental Value of Owned Land
506.59 (69.78)**
637.97 (70.27)
283.71 (53.49)
367.28 (54.16)
691.10 (69.55)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
44.82 (8.45)
76.09(11.22)
68.18 (6.86)
Land revenue and Taxes
5.29(0.72)
6.32 (0.70)
7.22 (1.36)
5.23 (0.77)
6.38 (0.64)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
71.06 (9.79)
80.82 (8.9Q)
22.3 (4.21)
19.94 (2.94)
25.93 (2.61)
Interest on fixed Capital
143.08 (19.71)
183.53 (20.22)
172.31 (32.49)
209.57 (30.91)
202.02 (20.33)
Fixed Cost
726.02 (100.00)
907.84 (100.00)
530.37 (100.00) 678.11 (100.00) 993.61 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
1570.65
2003.85
1411.14
1436.88
3321.60
1873.92
4076.39
1619.83
2200.82
3698.96
II. Fixed cost
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product Value of Byproduct
180.63
500.77
303.67
111.77
803.23
Gross Returns
2054.55
4577.16
1923.50
2312.59
4502.19
At Operational Cost
1209.92
3481.15
1042.73
1553.82
2174.20
At Total Cost
483.90
2573.31
512.36
875.71
1180.59
IV. Net Returns
Table 7 I (Contd)
N
-..J
Item
Net Returns per Re.
00
Rajasthan
Madhya Pradesh Gram
Wheat
Gram
Mustard
Wheat
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
1.18
2.05
0.93
1.43
3.18
Yield (kglha}
7.54
21.22
6.97
6.23
22.86
Price per qt1
248.53
192.10
232.40
353.26
161.81
Uttar Pradesh Item
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
I. Operational Cost: Human Labour
415.71 (33.8)*
605.32 (24.77)
414.20 (34.98)
Bullock Labour
403.47 (32.81)
549.72(22.50)
363.50 (30.69)
Machine Labour
46.70 (3.80)
281.51 (11.52)
59.22 (5.00) 32.61 (2.75)
Seed
269.18 (21.89)
206.33 (8.45)
Fertilizer
20.42 (1.66)
498.58 (20.41)
122.73 (10.36)
Manure
16.06(1.31)
40.55 (1.66)
46.77 (3.95)
Insecticides
0.38 (0.03)
0.14 (0.01)
0.08 (0.01)
Irrigation
29.81 (2.42)
198.92 (8.14)
118.29 (9.99)
Table 7. J (Contd.)
Uttar Pradesh Item
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
Interest on Working Capital
27.76 (2.26)
61.92 (2.53)
26.84 (2.27)
Operational Cost
1229.41 (100.00)
2442.99(100.00)
1184.24 (100.00)
Rental Value of Owned Land
600.78 (64.99)**
751.49 (66.52)
734.28 (66.16)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
48.96 (5.30)
49.90 (4.42)
42.87 (3.86)
Land revenue and Taxes
17.22 (1.87)
16.70 (1.48)
20.89 (1.88)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
50.05 (5.41)
67.32 (5.96)
64.17 (5.780
Interest on fixed Capital
207.37 (22.43)
244.35 (21.62)
247.54(22.31)
Fixed Cost
924.38 (100.00)
1129.76 (100.00)
1109.75
Total Cost (I + II)
2153.87
3572.75
2293.99
Value of Main Product
2243.50
3157.63
3134.84
Value of Byproduct
180.02
642.81
157.38
II. Fixed Cost
III. Gross Returns
N 00
o
Table 7.1 (Contd.)
Uttar Pradesh Gram
Wheat
Mustard
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
2423.52
3800.44
3292.22
At Operational·Cost
1194.11
1357.45
2107.98
At Total Cost
269.65
227.69
998.23
Net Returns per Re.
0.97
0.56
1.78
Yield (kglha)
8.67
21.37
7.71
Price per qtl
258.77
147.76
406.59
Item
Gross Returns JV. Net Returns
*. •• Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost Source: Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India, 1991
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension 281
was an important component in this case besides human labour and bullock labour. Mustard competes with gram in unirrigated areas where it is largely grown. The costs and returns data of mustard cultivation in Madhya Pradesh for early 1980s are not available. The gross returns from mustard cultivation in rest ofthe two states were Rs.3, 292 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.2,313 in Rajasthan during 1981-82. After deducting the operational cost, these observed to be Rs.2, 108 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.l,554 in Rajasthan. The gap in profitability between these states gets reduced when fixed costs are added as farmers earned Rs.998 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.876 in Rajasthan. The results of gram and its two principal completing crops amply clarify that profitability of wheat followed by mustard was higher than gram in the three leading gram-growing states. But, the situation improved when results on net returns per rupee on investment were scrutinized. In Madhya Pradesh, wheat showed more than double returns. Mustard, howeve~, was ahead of wheat as well as gram in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. After analysing the relative profitability of gram and its principal competing crops in three core states during the early 1980s, the same is examined for early 1990s. Since, information on these aspects for Rajasthan is not available for the year 1990-91, the analysis is based on 1992-93 data. Table 7.2 reveals that gross returns per hectare by gram cultivation were Rs.6, 506 in Madhya Pradesh, Rs.7, 970 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.5,863 in Rajasthan. The corresponding operational costs were Rs.2, 401, Rs.3, 021 and Rs.2,012 respectively. After subtracting operational cost from gross returns, a sum ofRs.4, 105, Rs.4,948 and Rs.3,851 was realized as profitability in the corresponding locations during the mentioned years. Clearly, the net returns were found to be the highest in Uttar Pradesh and increased by 228.86% over 198182. It happened due to yield growth and price escalation. Surprisingly, profitability of wheat in Uttar Pradesh was observed lower than gram in this particular year. The scenario was entirely different in Madhya Pradesh where wheat followed by gram and mustard was the sequence of profitability. As expected, wheat emerged as the superior
282
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
crop because it indicated more than double profitability in comparison to gram and mustard. In less irrigated state of Rajasthan, wheat followed by mustard and gram was the ordering of profitability during 1992-93. Thus, the overall results regarding profitability were in favour of wheat in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The results for Uttar Pradesh were found contrary to general perception by indicating higher profitability of gram in comparison to wheat. It was due to exceptionally higher yield of gram in Uttar Pradesh during this particular year. In fact, higher yield and higher prices of gram coupled with lower cost offset the advantage of wheat. Like returns, cost structure in the above cases has also undergone major changes between the early and early 1990s.The share of human labour and bullock labour has declined significantly while fertilizer and irrigation has gained prominence in operational cost. But, this shift is lower for gram in comparison to wheat in all the three analysed scenarios. Attention may now be drawn to profitability scenario of gram and its competing crops in 2000-01. The recent years in Indian economy witnessed major policy changes as a result of economic reforms initiated in 1991 and signing of agreements with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994. These policy changes were aimed at making Indian agriculture globally competitive. The continued liberalization of trade has also been influencing agriculture in the country. Whether, these changes have made some positive impact on the relative profitability of gram, is an important issue. Table 7.3 reveals that gross returns per hectare from producing gram were Rs.14,154 in Madhya Pradesh, Rs.19,782 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.15,171 in Rajasthan during 2000-01. The corresponding operational costs were Rs.6,130, Rs.6,254 and Rs.6,328 respectively. The net returns were Rs.8,024 Rs.13,528 and Rs.8,847 respectively. The profitability of gram in Uttar Pradesh was found to be maximum. These results are indicative of tremendous increase in the profitability of gram in Uttar Pradesh where it has jumped from Rs.4,948 per hectare in 1990-91 to Rs.13, 528 in 2000-01. It happened primarily due to growth in yield, which has increased by 29.46% during this period. Similarly, profitability of gram in Madhya Pradesh has almost doubled during the same
Table 7.2
Profitability of Gram and its Competing Crops (Wheat and Mustard) in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan during 1990-91 and 1992-93 (Rslha) Item
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh Gram
Wheat
1990-91
1990-91
Wheat
Mustard
1990-91
1990-91
1994-95
Human Labour
353.73 (14.81)*
612.20 (28.56)
741.06 (25.73)
929.35 (30.75)
1211.24 (26.97)
Bullock Labour
387.56(16.14)
195.20 (9.11)
379.43 (13.18)
706.47 (23.38)
758.86 (16.89)
Machine Labour
225.63 (9.93)
462.24 (21.57)
331.41 (11.51)
398.60 (13.19)
712.49 (15.86)
Gram
I. Operational Cost:
Seed
633.25 (26.37)
65.35 (3.05)
418.03 (14.51)
733.44 (24.27)
396.60 (8.83)
Fertilizer
158.84 (6.62)
413.88(19.31)
337.80 (11.73)
55.43 (1.83)
662.21 (14.74)
Manure
50.49 (2.10)
0.00 (0.00)
21.92 (0.76)
0.54 (0.02)
17.20 (0.38)
Insecticides
71.06 (2.96)
0.47 (0.02)
0.10 (0.00)
2.01 (0.07)
1.95 (0.04)
Irrigation
157.46 (6.56)
340.94(15.91)
574.53 (19.94)
119.00 (3.94)
617.07 (13.14)
Interest on Working Capital
61.97 (2.58)
52.65 (2.46)
75.82 (2.63)
76.57 (2.53)
113.07 (2.52)
Operational Cost
2400.89 (100.00)
2142.93 (100.00)
2879.85 (100.00)
3021.40 (100.00
4490.69 (100.00)
Table 7.2 (Con/d.)
Item
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh Gram
Wheat
Mustard
Gram
Wheat
1990-91
1990-91
1994-95
1990-91
1990-91
II. Fixed Cost Rental Value'ofOwned Land
1412.46 (68.711** 1796.14 (63.96)
1556.66 (65.68)
1962.46 (74.25)
1685.6 (63.21)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
0.00(0.00)
5.75 (0.20)
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.001
37.17 (1.39)
Land Revenue and Taxes
5.25 (0.26)
0.00 (0.000
5.93 (0.25)
18.69JO.72)
10.27 (0.38)
'Depreciation on Fixed Capital
179.12(8.71)
167.85 (5.98)
201.52 (8.50)
100.32 (3.80)
198.08 (7.43)
Interest on Fixed Capital
458.73 (22.31)
838.06
605.91 (25.56)
561.40 (21.23)
735.46 (27.50)
Fixed Cost
2055.56 (100.00}
2807.80 (100.00)
2370.02 (100.00
2642.85 (100.00
2666.60 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
4456.45
4650.73
5249.87
5664.25
7157.29
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product
6184.16
11031.37
4879.76
7593.61
6680.67
Value of Byproduct
321.98
56.24
1370.57
376.08
1542.82
Gross Returns
6506.14
11087.61
6250.33
7969.69
8223.49
IV. Net Returns At Operational Cost
4105.25
8944.68
3370.48
4948.29
3732.80
At Total Cost
2049.69
6436.88
1000.46
2305.44
1066.20
Net Returns per Re.
1.71
4.17
1.17
1.64
0.83
Yield (lqy'ha)
7.23
13.54
16.06
12.07
26.43
Price per qtl
855.35
814.72
303.84
629.13
252.77
Table 7 2 (Contd.)
Rajasthan Item
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
1992-93
1992-93
1992-93
I. Operational Cost
Human Labour
812.39 (40.39)*
1909.59 (34.28)
1063.96 (36.53)
Bullock Labour
441.87 (21.97)
783.14 (14.06)
469.90 (16.13)
Machine Labour
196.10(9.75)
683.54 (12.27)
427.04 (14.66)
Seed
409.11 (20.34)
566.86 (10.17)
67.14 (2.31)
Fertilizer
12.77 (0.63)
550.12 (9.87)
276.74 (9.50)
Manure
7.84(0.39)
54.63 (0.98)
81. 20 (2.79)
Insecticides
13.85 (0.69)
10.07 (0.18)
4.12(0.14)
894.47 (16.06)
460.88 (15.82)
Irrigation
77.77 (3.87)
Interest on Working Capital
39.80 (1.98)
118,85 (2.13)
61.52 (2.11)
Operational Cost
2011.50 (100.00)
5571.27 (100.00)
2912.50 (100.00)
Rental Value of Owned Land
842.74 (58.46)**
1691.26 (52.16)
1121.74 (43.98)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
264.14 (18.32)
595.96 (18.38)
435.43 (17.07)
Land Revenue and Taxes
3.45 (0.24)
7.22(0.22)
784 (0.31)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
74.20 (5.15)
120.75 (3.72)010 .40 (3.94)
Intrest on Fixed Capital
256.95 (17.83)
826.83 (25.50)
II. Fixed Cost
885.44(34.71)
IV
00 Vl
N
00
01
Table 7.2 (Contd.)
Rajasthan Item
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
1992-93
1992-93
1992-93
Fixed Cost
1441.48 (100.00)
3242.02 (100.00!
2550.85 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
34%2.)8
8813.29
5463.35
Value of Main PpodeEt
5189.46
9859.26
7801.61
Value of By product
673.39
2408.65
99.11
Gross Returns
5862.85
12367.93
7900.72
III. Gross Returns
IV. Net Returns At Operational Co3t
3851.A5
6796.66
4988.22
At Total Cost
2409.87
3554.64
2437.37
Net Returns per Re.
1.91
1.22
1.71
Yield (kglha)
6.80
30.19
9.39
Price per qtl
763.16
326.57
830.84
*, ** Brackets show percentage of 0 perational cost and fixed cost Source: Cost ofCuItivation of Principal Crops in India, 2000
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension 287
period. The gains from wheat and mustard cultivation have also risen significantly during this decade in these states. Like gram, yield is the major contributory factor. Unfortunately, physical productivity of mustard has declined in Madhya Pradesh from 16.06 qtllha in 1990-91 to 11.96 qtllha in 2000-01. These results represent short run scenario. But, in the long run, fixed cost, particularly, opportunity cost of owned land plays a major role in crop choices. A review of profitability at total cost reveals that net returns from gram cultivation were Rs.3,072 in Madhya Pradesh, Rs.7,753 in Uttar Pradesh and RsA,671 in Rajasthan. Once again, Uttar Pradesh was ahead of the remaining two states by indicating more than double profitability. Surprisingly, profitability of wheat was much lower than gram. In Madhya Pradesh, it was as low as Rs.618 per ha. Mustard was the leading crop in this state but in Uttar Pradesh, its profitability was the lowest among gram, wheat and mustard. Like 1990s, cost structure has undergone major changes in the similar direction. The operational cost became more skewed towards fertilizer and irrigation in all the cases but shift was sharper in case of wheat than gram and mustard. It may be mentioned that cost of production of gram was found the lowest all through. The following broad conclusions emerge from the above analysis. •
First, the performance of gram in terms of profitability in core states has improved over the selected two decades. It has been better in 2000-01 than that of early 1980s and 1990s.
•
Second, the yield advantage of wheat is gradually getting off set by growing yield and higher per unit price of gram in states like Uttar Pradesh. In fact, gram has emerged as a fastest growing crop in this region.
•
Third, cost of cultivation of gram in comparison to wheat and mustard was found lower in three important regions due to low requirement of fertilizer and irrigation.
•
Fourth, cost structure of operational cost has shifted towards fertilizer and irrigation while in fixed cost, rental value of owned land has moved much faster over the study period.
to.)
Table7.3
00 00
Profitability of Gram and its Competing Crops (Wheat and Mustard) in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan during 2000-01 Item
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
Human Labour
1879.26 (30.65)*
2309.28 (32.49)
1550.26 (25.20)
2547.09 (40.73)
3395.84 (32.65)
3347.10 (44.14)
Bullock Labour
540.75 (8.82)
545.84 (7.68)
77.80 (12.65)
616.35 (9.86)
372.94 (3.59)
283.15 (3.73)
Machine Labour
977.86 (15.95)
1085.02 (15.27)
1712.84 (27.84)
909.35 (l4.54)
2058.09 (19.79)
1170.36 (15.43)
Seed
1491 (24.32)
867.77 (12.21)
115.41 (1.88)
1526.68 (24.41)
952.57 (9.16)
153.60 (2.03)
Fertilizer
479.08 (7.82)
995.78 (14.01)
1792.56 (2.91)
173.08 (2.77)
1647.35 (15.83)
979.92 (12.92)
I. Operational Cost
Table 7.3 (Contd.) Item
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh Gram
Wheat
2000-0J
Manure
Mustard
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
2000-01
2000-0J
2000-0J
20oo-0J
2000-0J
7.8 (0.13)
10.98 (0.15)
-
25.32 (0.40)
106.34 (1.02)
611.72 (8.07)
Insecticides
25.79 (0.42)
1.31 (0.02)
-
3.83 (0.06)
5.78 (0.05)
-
Irrigation
576 (9.40)
1121.17 (15.77)
746.37 (12.13)
317.6 (5.08)
1616.34 (15.54)
874.79 (11.53)
Interest on Working Capital
151.80 (2.48)
169.84 (2.39)
155.49 (2.53)
134.38 (2.15)
245.61 (2.36)
163.08 (2.15)
Operational Cost
6129.91 (100.00)
7106.99 (100.00)
6150.73 (100.00)
6253.68 (100.00)
10400.86 (100.00)
7583.45 (100.00)
3538.56 (71.45)"
3154.31 (64.48)
3582.37 (76.77)
4263.44 (73.83)
4527.45 (72.89)
4672.31 (73.50)
II. Fixed Cost Rental Value of Owned Land
Table 7 3 (Contd.) Item
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
-
-
-
216.46 (3.75)
69.21
-
(Lll)
Land Revenue and Taxes
6.94 (0.14)
620 (0.13)
10.10 (0.22)
11.79 (0.20)
7.82 (0.13)
19.41 (0.31 )
Depreciation on
3.83.05
397.56
216.97
214.06
415.04
225.33
Fixed Capital
(7.73)
(8.13)
(4.65)
(5.09)
(6.68)
(3.45)
Interest on Fixed Capital
1023.97 (20.68)
1333.74 (27.26)
856.76 (18.36)
989.11 (17.12)
1192.20 (19.19)
1439 (22.64)
Fixed Cost
4952.52 (l00.00)
4891.81 (100.00)
4666.20 (l00.00)
5774.86 (100.00)
6211.72 (100.00)
6356.64 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
11082.43
11998.80
10816.93
12028.54
16612.58
13940.09
Table 7.3 (Contd.)
Item
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh Gram
Wheat
Mustard
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
Value of Main Product
13487.76
10652.17
14170.24
19216.93
17643.84
15537.66
Value of Byproduct
666.47
1965.08
159.25
564.70
2555.72
422.33
Gross Returns
14154.23
12617.25
14329.49
19781.63
20199.56
15959.93
At Operational Cost
8024.32
5510.26
8178.76
13527.95
9798.70
8376.48
At Total Cost
3071.80
618.45
3512.32
7753.09
3586.98
2019.84
Net Returns per Re.
1.30
0.77
1.33
1.24
0.94
1.10
Yield (kglha)
9.36
17.20
11.96
12.24
32.59
13.29
Price per qtJ
1441.00
619.31
1184.80
1570.01
541.39
1169.12
III. Gross Returns
IV. Net Returns
I
Table 7.3 (Contd.) Rajasthan
Item Gram
Wheat
Mustard
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
Human Labour
2761.84 (43.67)*
4836.20 (39.95)
3343.37 (44.98)
Bullock Labour
601.92 (9.52)
523.83 (4.33)
242.73 (3.27)
I. Operational Cost
Machine Labour
956.06 (15.11)
1798.83 (14.86)
1633.08 (21.97)
Seed
899.43 (14.22)
1258.86 (10.40)
136.63 (1.84)
Fertilizer
125.09 (1.98)
1305.32 (10.78)
892.58 (12.00)
Manure
-
61.58 (0.51)
-
Insecticides
6.15 (0.09)
12.80 (0.10)
2.84(0.04)
Irrigation
857.64 (13.56)
2056.90 (16.99)
1044.73 (14.05)
Interest on Working Capital
115.74 (1.85)
251.19(2.08)
137.30 (1.85)
Operational Cost
6327.87 (100.00)
12105.51 (100.00)
7433.26 (100.00)
II. Fixed Cost Rental Value of Owned Land
2444.16 (58.53)**
4031.66 (65.00)
2534.38 (56.49)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
163.34 (3.91)
184.01 (2.97
182.88 (4.08)
Land Revenue and Taxes
11.07(0.27)
12.95 (0.21)
10.96 (0.24)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
163.97 (3.93)
207.65 (3.35)
149.52 (3.33)
Table 7.3 (Contd.)
Rajasthan
Item
Gram
Wheat
Mustard
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
Interest on Fixed Capital
1393.32 (33.36)
1765.85 (28.47)
1608.88 (35.86)
Fixed Cost
4175.86(100.00)
6202.12D OO.OQl
4486.62 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
10499.73
18307.63
11919.88
Value of Main Product
14320.04
20151.41
15568.37
Value of Byproduct
850.86
4527.54
151.52
Gross Returns
15170.90
24678.95
15719.89
At Operational Cost
8847.03
12573.44
8286.63
At Total Cost
4671.17
6371.32
3800.00
III. Gross Returns
IV. Net Returns
Net Returns per Re.
1.40
1.04
l.l1
Yield (kglha)
7.97
29.20
13.46
Price per qtl
1796.74
690.12
1156.64
• Brackets show percentage of operational cost and·· shows percentage of fixed cost
Source: Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, 2004.
294
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Arhar After analysing the comparative profitability ofgram with its alternate crops, the same exercise is repeated for arhar which is the second ranking pulse crop in area and production at the all India level. Unfortunately, CACP estimates on returns and costs for Maharashtra, which is the leading state in arhar production in the country, are not available for the early 1980s and early 1990s. But, data for later period are available. Moreover, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh are the only two states for which CACP estimates are available for the above-mentioned periods. It may be further highlighted that information for Uttar Pradesh in early 1980s is available for the year 1984-85. The information on gross returns, fixed and variable costs and net returns per hectare of arhar and its competing crops pertaining to early 1980s is demonstrated in Table 7.4. It may be mentioned that bajra and j owar are the principal competing crops of arhar and both are grown in Madhya Pradesh as well as in Uttar Pradesh. However, CACP estimates of costs and returns are available only for jowar in Madhya Pradesh and bajra in Uttar Pradesh. Table 7.4 explains that the gross returns per hectare of arhar were Rs.3,025 in Madhya Pradesh during 1981-82 and Rs.5,210 in Uttar Pradesh during 1984-85. The operational costs including paid out expenses and imputed value of family labour were Rs.l ,219 and Rs.l ,497 respectively. After subtracting the costs, farmers earned net returns ofRs.1.806 and Rs.3.713 in these states. Ifreturns are calculated at total cost, these declined to Rs.810 and Rs.2,101 respectively. The net returns from jowar at these cost concepts were Rs.639 and RS.195 respectively. The case of bajra was more depressing by indicating a profitability ofRs.544 at the operational cost and negative at the total cost. Furthermore, net returns per rupee of arhar in both the states were also found higher than jowar and bajra. Indeed, these were as low as 86 paise and 40 paisa at the variable cost. Moreover, these turned out to be negative when calculated at total cost. Evidently, arhar has emerged as the most profitable crop in both the analysed states in comparison to competing crops in the early 1980s.
Table 7.4 Profitability of Arhar and its Competing Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh during 1981-82 and 1984-85
~ ~
~
(Rs'/ha) Madhya Pradesh
Item
Uttar Pradesh
R"
g ~
Arhar
Jowar
Arhar
Bajra
1981-82
1981-82
1984-85
1984-85
::::: ~.
Human Labour
613.23 (50.30)*
301.5& (40.80)
840.69(56.14)
736.34 (54.44)
Bullock Labour
291.61 (23.92)
170.54 (23.08)
433.08 (28.92)
362.65 (26.88)
'" ~
Machine Labour
20.64 (1.69)
29. 17(3.95)
57.44 (3.83)
81.80(6.05)
I. Operational Cost
~
~
Seed
84.62 (6.94)
30.01 (4.06)
90.77 (6.06)
21.99 (1.63)
Fertilizer
70.38(5.77)
123.08 (16.65)
13.84 (0.92)
95.46 (7.06)
Manure
98. I 5 (8.05)
55.1 9 (7.46)
15.3 1(1.020
15.38 (I.I4)
Insecticides
7.32(0.60)
4.14 (0.56)
0.03 (0.00)
0.00(0.00)
Irrigation
9.69(0.79)
6.01 (0.81)
19.15 (1.28)
1 1.44 (0.85)
Interest on Working Capital
25.42 (1.92)
19.31 (2.61)
27.17 (1.81)
27.39 (2.03)
Operational Cost
1219.06 (100.00)
739.03 (100.00)
1497.47 (100.00)
1352.45 (100.00)
Rental Value of Owned Land
747.81 (75.08)**
292.02 (65.76)
1272.61 (78.95)
578.83 (73. II)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
II. Fixed Cost
;p 1:;(\)
Q
.g ~
~
~
~ 5' ::s
1:1
Table 7.4 (Contd.)
Item
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Arhar
Jawar
Arhar
Bajra
1981-82
1981-82
1984-85
1984-85
Land Revenue and Taxes
8.55 (0.86)
5.09 (1.15)
21.27 (1.32)
12.62 (1.59)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
99.51 (10.00)
27.17 (6.12)
72.85 (4.52)
50.32 (6.36)
Interest on Fixed Capital
140.14 (14.07)
119.96(26.97)
244.99 (15.20)
149.99 (18.94)
Fixed Cost
996.01 (100.00)
444.04 (100.00)
1611.72(100.00)
791.76 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
2215.07
1183.07
3109.19
2144.21
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product
2816.00
1125.29
4398.87
1367.61
Value of Byproduct
209.43
252.79
811.49
528.92
Gross Returns
3025.43
1378.08
5210.36
1896.53
At Operational Cost
1806.37
639.05
3712.89
544.08
At Total Cost
810.36
195.01
2101.17
-247.68 0.40
IV. Net Returns
Net Returns per Re.
1.48
0.86
2.47
Yield (kglha)
11.21
9.23
13.18
12.57
Price per qti
251.20
121.92
333.75
108.80
"', "'* Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost Source: Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India, 1991
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension 297
A review of item-wise cost structure of arhar, jowar and bajra has revealed that cost of human labour and bullock labour together constituted more than 60% of variable cost. It exceeded 80% in Uttar Pradesh. The expenditure on fertilizer and irrigation varied significantly across these crops. For arhar, fertilizer cost was around one per cent of variable cost in Uttar Pradesh and more than 5% in Madhya Pradesh. In fixed cost, rental value of owned land was the major component covering more than 65% in each case. In the early 1990s, the gross returns from arhar cultivation increased by almost 70% in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh over early 1980s. Table 7.5 indicates that the gross returns per hectare of arhar were observed to be Rs.5,236 in Madhya Pradesh and Rs.8,855 in Uttar Pradesh. The corresponding operational costs were Rs.l, 655 and Rs.2,359 respectively. After netting out these costs, net returns received were Rs.3,581 and Rs.6,496 respectively. It may be highlighted that the net returns over operational costs in case of jowar were much lesser than that of arhar in Madhya Pradesh. Consequently, ratio of net returns over cost was also higher for arhar thanjowar. It is not possible to compare the profitability of the second competing crop, namely bajra in Madhya Pradesh due to the non-availability of the CACP estimates. Surprisingly, these estimates for Uttar Pradesh are not available for any of the competing crops. Therefore, estimates ofjowar in Madhya Pradesh are used as a proxy for understanding the comparative advantage. The profitability of arhar in Uttar Pradesh was around five times more than that ofjowar despite a significant increase between the early 1980s and early 1990s. The cost structure was more or less the same over this period. The cost of human and bullock labour accounted for more than 70% of variable cost. The proportion of seed component in arhar cultivation has improved significantly in Madhya Pradesh but the share of fertilizer cost has declined.
The estimates of costs and returns of arhar in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra are presented for the year 2000-
Table 7.5 Profitability of Arhar and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Madhya Prades.h and Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91 (Rs.lha) Item
Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
Arhar
Jowar
Arhar
1990-91
1990-91
1990-91
865.54 (52.29)*
817.04(46.75)
1224.30 (51.89)
1. Operational Cost Human Labour Bullock Labour
363.56 (21. 96)
427.54 (24.46)
761.38 (32.27)
Machine Labour
0.00 (0.00)
65.65 (3.76)
143.67 (6.09)
Seed
186.55 (11.27)
62.35 (3.56)
150.58 (6.38)
Fertilizer
67.34 (4.07)
164.96 (9.43)
17.76 (0.75)
Manure
129.88 (7.85)
171.20 (9.79)
7.64(0.32)
Insecticides
0.36(0.02)
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
Irrigation
6.32 (0.38)
0.00(0.00)
12.15 (0.52)
Interest on Working Capital
35.70(2.16)
38.75 (2.22)
41.55 (1. 76)
1655.25 (100.00)
1747.49(100.00)
2359.02 (100.00)
1135.95 (70.27)**
749.16 (54.55)
2247.90(80.26)
Operational Cost II. Fixed Cost Rental Value of Owned Land
Table 7.5 (Con/d.)
Item
Madhya Pradesh Arhar
Uttar Pradesh Jowar
Arhar
1990-91
1990-91
1990-91
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
0.00 (0.00)
0.00(0.00)
28.31 (1.01)
Land Revenue and Taxes
614(0.37)
7.18 (0.52)
57.60 (2.06)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
166.11 (10.27)
205.25 (14.94)
131.59(4.70)
Interest on Fixed Capital
308.29(19.07)
411.64 (29.97)
335.23 (11.96)
Fixed Cost
1616.49 (100.00)
1373.23 (100.00)
2800.63 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
3271.74
3120.72
5159.65
Value of Main Product
5204.90
2201.08
8071.76
Value of Byproduct
31.39
824.26
783.37
Gross Returns
5236.29
3025.34
8855.13 6496.11
III. Gross Returns
IV. Net Returns At Operational Cost
3581.04
1277.85
At Total Cost
1964.55
95.38
3695.48
Net Returns per Re.
2.16
0.73
2.75
Yield (kglha)
4.66
10.35
10.43
Price per qtl
1116.93
212.66
773.90
*, ** Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost Source: Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India, 2000.
300
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
01. Among the competing crops, estimates are available for jowar in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, bajra in Uttar Pradesh. The data on costs and returns of arhar and its competing crops are presented in Table 7.6. It may be noticed that the gross returns per hectare from arhar cultivation were Rs.7,503 in Madhya Pradesh, Rs.I6,022 in Uttar Pradesh and 11,463 in Maharashtra. The corresponding variable costs were Rs.3,630, 4,578 and Rs.5,207 respectively. The net returns at operational costs were Rs.3,673, Rs.II ,444 and Rs.6,256 per hectare. Evidently, Uttar Pradesh was much ahead of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra in profitability due to yield advantage. When net returns are calculated at total cost, these turned out to be Rs.870, Rs.5, 185 and Rs.2,679 respectively. There was a small gap ofRs.22 in per quintal price received by the farmers. When these returns are compared to bajra in Uttar Pradesh and jowar in Madhya Pradesh, these are found much higher. The component-wise review of cost items indicated that the highest proportion of variable cost was incurred on human labour in each case. The share of bullock labour has fallen drastically in Uttar Pradesh while proportion of machine labour has increased over the study period. However, cost of bullock labour was quite prominent in Maharashtra and it constituted around 19% in case of arhar and 22% in case ofjowar. Surprisingly, the shares of fertilizer, manures and insecticides in Uttar Pradesh were less than one per cent. On the other hand, fertilizer and manure together constituted around 10% of variable cost of arhar in Madhya Pradesh. It is interesting to note that fertilizer constituted 7% of operational cost ofbajra in Uttar Pradesh. The results on profitability of arhar and its competing crops at three points oftime during the selected two decades establish the superiority of arhar over bajra and jowar at operational as well as at total cost in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra which are among the major growing states.
Table 7.6 Profitability of Arhar and its Competing Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra during 2000-01 Item
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh Arhar
Jowar
Arhar
Bajra
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
1839.33 (52.65)
3053.29 (66.70)
3198.90 (61.81)
I. Operational Cost Human Labour
2268.60 (59.23)*
Bullock Labour
661.71 (17.28)
849.72 (24.32)
469.65 (10.26)
305.52 (5.90)
Machine Labour
268.07 (7.00)
289.58 (8.29)
520.10 (1l.36)
914.30 (17.67)
Seed
347.85 (9.08)
-
337.49 (7.37)
271.32 (5.24)
FertiliZer
103.72 (2.71)
172.78 (4.95)
16.73 (0.37)
339.68 (6.56)
Manure
113.36 (2.96)
113.16 (3.24)
41.18 (0.90)
29.78 (0.58)
Insecticides
-
117.27 (3.36)
1.70 (0.04)
-
Irrigation
39.88 (1.14)
56.57 (1.24)
20.68 (0.40)
Interest on Working Capital
66.59 (1.74)
72.04 (2.05)
81.03 (l.76)
95.27 (1.84)
Operational Cost
3829.99 (100.00)
3493.76 (100.00)
4577.74 (100.00)
5175.45 (100.00)
Rental Value of Owned Land
1875.81 (66.90)**
1499.34 (53.75)
4341.33 (69.36)
1808.17 (53.28)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
-
-
15.63 (0.25)
658.90 (19.42)
II. Fixed Cost
w
Table 7.6 (Contd.)
o
N
Item
Madhya Pradesh A,har
Land Revenue and Taxes
Uttar Pradesh Jowar
Arhar
Bajra
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
7.89 (0.28)
8.56 (0.31)
22.07 (0.35)
6.10 (0.18)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
353.50(12.61)
240.72(8.63)
464.80 (7.43)
213.75 (6.30)
Interest on Fixed Capital
566.46 (20.21)
1040.78(37.31)
1414.92 (22.61)
706.82 (20.82)
Fixed Cost
2803.66 (100.00)
2789.40 (100.00)
6258.75 (100.00)
3393.74 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
6633.56
6283.16
10836.49
8569.09
Value of Main Product
7114.47
4576.95
14475.58
5824.41
Value of Byproduct
388.75
1420.41
1546.06
1789.49
Gross Returns
7503.22
5997.36
16021.64
7613.90
At Operational Cost
3673.32
2503.60
11443.90
2438.45
At Total Cost
869.66
285.80
5185.15
955.19
Net Returns per Re.
0.96
0.72
2.49
0.47
Yield (kg/ha)
4.74
8.46
10.27
17.42
Price per qt1
1500.94
541.01
1409.50
334.35
III. Gross Returns
IV. Net Returns
Table 7.6 (Contd.)
Item
Maharashtra Arhar
Jowar
2000-01
2000-01
Human Labour Bullock Labour Machine Labour
2920.93 (56.10)*
3749.58 (47.57)
Seed
401.30(7.71)
300.53 (3.81)
Fertilizer Manure Insecticides Irrigation Interest on Working Capital Operational Cost II. Fixed Cost Rental Value of Owned Land Rent Paid for Leased in Land
445.11 (8.55)
873.17 (11.08)
34.28 (0.66)
163.64 (2.08)
14.68 (0.28)
-
51.75 (0.99)
259.15 (3.29)
117.06 (2.25)
185.38 (2.35)
5206.57 (100.00)
7882.12 (100.00)
1910.87 (53.41)**
1509.66 (50.89)
I. Operational Cost
Land Revenue and Taxes Depreciation on Fixed Capital Interest on Fixed Capital
979.04 (18.80)
1728.84 (21.93)
242.42 (4.66)
621.83 (7.89)
-
-
30.25 (0.85)
25.47 (0.86)
533.34 (14.91)
321.22 (10.83)
1103.31 (30.83)
1110.40 (37.42)
Table 7.6 (Contd.) Item
Maharashtra Arhar
Jowar
2000-01
2000-01
Fixed Cost
3577. 77 (100.00)
2966.75 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
8784.34
10848.87
Value of Main Product
10521.10
5824.17
Value of Byproduct
941.81
3231.98
Gross Returns
11462.90
9056.15
At Operational Cost
6256.34
1174.03
At Total Cost
2678.56
-1792.72
Net Returns per Re.
1.20
0.15
Yield (kglha)
7.26
12.07
Price per qtl
1449.19
482.53
III. Gross Returns
IV. Net Returns
* Brackets show percentage of operational cost and"
shows percentage of fixed cost
Source: Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, 2004
--
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension 305
Moong The gross returns, costs and net returns of moong and its two competing crops, i.e.,jowar and bajra in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh are presented in Table 7.7. Of these three, Andhra Pradesh is the only state for which cost and returns estimates are available for the early 1980s, the early 1990s and the later period, however, these start from the year 1984-85. The selection of the other two states for the analysis at each point of time is based on the availability of data. Surprisingly, Maharashtra is the largest producer of moong but costs and returns estimates are not available for the early 1980s. It may be observed that gross returns per hectare by moong cultivation were Rs.l,850 in Andhra Pradesh during 1984-85, Rs.759 and Rs.l ,582 in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh during 1981-82. The corresponding operational costs were Rs.945, Rs.716 and Rs.895 respectively. After netting out costs, farmers received Rs.905, Rs.243 and Rs.687 as profits. Ifnet returns are examined at the total cost, farmers earned a paltry sum ofRs.156 in Andhra Pradesh and Rs.322 in Madhya Pradesh. They incurred losses in Maharashtra. The main culprit was low productivity that was only 483 kglha. When net returns from moong are compared with j owar, moong appeared to be profitable at operational as well as at the total cost. Unfortunately..farmers lost Rs.245 at total cost by jowar cultivation in Andhra Pdradesh during 1984-85. The reverse pattern was observed in Rajasthan where jowar followed by bajra emerged as superior crops than moong in terms of profitability during 198182. The same sequence was observed for the net returns per rupee. This happened due to exceptionally low yield of moong (265 kglha) during 1981-82. However, moong was noticed marginally profitable over jowar in Madhya Pradesh. But, jowar has exhibited higher net returns per rupee over operational cost. The cost composition for moong and its competing crops in the analysed states appeared to be more or less uniform. The operational cost was skewed towards human labour plus bullock labour covering more than 70% of variable cost. The rental value of owned land was the main item in fixed cost constituting between 50% to 70% share in each case.
w
Table 7.7
o
Profitability of Moong and its Competing Crops (Jowar, Bajra) in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh during 1984-85 and1981-82 [ (Rs.lha)
Item
Andhra Pradesh Moong Jowar
Moong
Rajasthan Jowar
1984-85
1984-85
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
Human Labour
392.64 (41.53)*
368.Q1 (39.32)
358.63 (50.09)
301.58.(40.81)
214.99 (50.95)
Bullock Labour
290.79 (30.75)
358.85 (38.34)
211.46 (29.54)
170.54 (23.08)
130.27 (30.87)
29.17(3.95)
25.78 (6.11)
Bajra
I. Operational Cost
Machine Labour
12.91 (1.37)
5.33 (0.57)
Seed
87.38 (9.24)
27.40 (2.93)
82.81 (11.57)
30.01 (4.06)
13.44 (3.12)
Fertilizer
49.89 (5.28)
88.85 (9.49)
2.73 (0.64)
Manure
62.04 (6.56)
46.44 (4.96)
55.19(7.47)
9.13 (2.16)
Insecticides
24.36 (2.58)
1.81 (0.19)
- - - -
123.08 (16.65) 4.14 (056)
- -
Irrigation
0.00(0.00)
14.57 (1.56)
1.12 (0.16)
6.01 (0.81)
18.03 (4.27)
Interest on Working Capital
25.87 (2.74)
24.70 (2.64)
12.52 (1. 75)
19.31 (2.61)
7.57 (1.79)
Operational Cost
945.38 (100.00)
935.96 (100.00)
715.94(100.00)
739.03 (100.00)
421.94 (100.00)
154.90 (41.79)
292.02 (65.76)
I 49.40 (6.90)
II. Fixed Cost Rental Value of Owned Land
547.84 (73.23)**
368.02 (67.28)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
- -
- -
135.88 (52.18) 1.84 (0.71)
01
Table 7.7 (Contd.)
Item
Land Revenue and Taxes
Andhra Pradesh Moon}! Jowar
Rajasthan Moon}!
Jowar
Ba;ra
1984-85
1984-85
1981-82
1981-82
1981-82
7.13 (0.95)
3.33 (0.60)
5.50 (0.15)
5.09 (1.15)
3.04 (1.16)
Depreciation on Implement etc. 42.17 (5.52)
36.82 (6.73)
25.38 (6.84)
27.17 (6.12)
12.29(4.72)
Interest on fixed Capital
151.01 (20.18)
13 8. 77 (25.77)
184.86(49.88)
119.76 (26.97)
107.32 (41.21)
Fixed Cost
746.15(100.00)
456.95 (100.00)
370.64 (100.00)
444.04 (lOO.OO)
260.37(100.001
Total Cost (1+11)
1693.531
1482.90
1086.58
1183.Q7
682.31
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product
1790.27
954.12
702.10
1260.59
486.54
Value of Byproduct
59.62
283.71
256.63
224.97
356.80
Gross Returns
1849.89
1237.83
758.73
1485.56
843.34
IV. Net Returns At Operational Cost
904.51
301.87
242.79
746.53
421.40
At Total Cost
156.36
-245.07
-127.85
302.49
161.03
Net Returns per Re.
0.96
0.32
0.06
1.01
1.00
Yield (kglha)
4.83
6.21
2.65
8.97
3.22
Price per qtl
370.65
153.64
264.94
140.53
151.09
Vol
Table 7.7 (Contd.)
o
I. Operational Cost Human Labour Bullock Labour Machine Labour Seed Fertilizer ManurK Insecticides Irrigation 0
Interest on Working Capital OperatIonal 0 Cost II. Fixed Cost Reltal Value of Owned Land Rent Paid for Leased in Land Land Revenue and Taxes Depreciation on ImPlement etc. Interest on Fixed Capital
00
Madhya Pradesh
Item
Moong
Jowar
1984-85
1984-85
337.89 (37.76)*
324.39 (45.11)
187.16 (20.92)
299.10(41.59)
-
8.19 (1.14)
-
49.53 (5.54)
25.10(3.49)
104.57 (11.69)
32.06 (4.45)
3.24 (0.36)
IlL 79 (2.06)
- - -
- -
12.44 (1.39)
15.0/04 (2.16)
894.83 (100.00)
719.17 (100.00»
0 338.28 (59.90)**
351.02 (64.03)
- -
- -
7.13 (1.26)
5.97 (1.09)
47.83 (8.47)
76.50(13.96)
121.53(21.52)
114.68 (20.92)
Table 7.7 (Contd.)
Item
Fixed Cost Total Cost (I + II)
Madhya Pradesh Moong
Jowar
1984-85
1984-85
564.77 (100.00)
548.17 (100.00)
1259.60
1267.34
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product
1528.70
1125.29
Value of By Product
52.96
252.79
Gross Returns
1581.66
1378.08
At Operational Cost
686.83
658.91
At Total Cost
322.06
110.74
Net Returns per Re.
0.77
0.92
Yield~a)
3.03
9.23
Price per qtl
5.06.19
121.92
IV. Net Returns
., .* Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost Source: Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India, 1991
310
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The costs and returns estimates for moong and its competing crops for the early 1990s are available only for Andhra Pradesh among the states analysed earlier. These are available for Maharashtra beginning from 1994-95. Table 7.8 contains data on gross returns, costs and net returns of the above stated crops. An assessment of data indicates that the gross returns per hectare from moong cultivation were Rs.2,144 in Andhra Pradesh during 1990-91 and Rs.3,139 in Maharashtra during 1994-95. The corresponding operational costs were Rs . l,333 and Rs.2,034 respectively. After subtracting operational costs, farmers earned Rs.811 and Rs.l, 106 respectively. When returns were calculated at total cost, these became negative in Andhra Pradesh and a meager sum of Rs.3 51 in Maharashtra. If these returns are compared to jowar in Andhra Pradesh, moong was found relatively profitable and competitive. But, the scenario in Maharashtra was observed to be different as jowar was the most profitable crop among the competing crops. Moong was the second and bajra was the third ranking crop. The same pattern emerged for the net returns per rupee too. Like 1980s, human labour and animal labour continued to remain the major items of operational cost covering more than 65% share in each case. The position of rental value of owned land in fixed cost was also more or less the same. The estimates on costs and returns of moong and its competing crop in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra during 2000-0 1are shown in Table 7.9. It may be observed that the gross returns from moong cultivation were Rs.7,973 in Andhra Pradesh and Rs.8,250 in Maharashtra. The corresponding operational costs were Rs. 5,564 and Rs. 5,262 respectively. The farmers earned Rs 2,409 and Rs. 2988at the operational cost. These returns slipped to Rs.-l ,039 and Rs.930 at the total cost. When profitability ofmoong is compared to jowar in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, moong emerged as superior and competitive crop. Surprisingly, the cost composition did not show any perceptible change in the study period and human plus animal labour accounted for more than 60% of operational cost. Irrigation maintained its negligible share but the share of
Table 7.8 Profitability of Moong and its Competing Crops (Jowar, Bajra) in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra during 1990-91 and 1994-95 (Rs./ha) Item
Andhr.: Pradesh
Maharashtra
Moong
Jowar
Moong
Jowar
bajra
1990-91
1990-91
1994-95
1994-95
1994-95
Human Labour
689.85 (51.76)*
531.41 (39.34)*
830.08 (40.81)
1488.82 (48.46)
1235.38(49.31)
Bullock Labour
327.83 (24.60)
537.02 (39.76)
541.81 (26.64)
721.66 (23.48)
722.62 (28.84)
Machine Labour
21.04 (1.58)
4.16(0.31)
68.01 (3.34)
163.96 (5.35)
76.93 (3.07)
Seed
145.66 (10.93)
34.23 (2.53)
259.81 (12.77)
121.19(3.94)
113.07 (4.51)
I. Op_erational Cost
Fertilizer
56.09 (4.21)
157.60 (11.67)
243.41 (11.97)
348.50 (11.34)
214.24 (8.55)
Manure
29.16 (2.19)
43.65 (3.23)
34.43 (\.69)
77.30 (2.52)
53.48 (2.13)
Insecticides
26.06 (1.96)
0.49 (0.03)
2.18 (0.11)
3.21 (0.10)
0 .. 00(0.00)
Irrigation
0.39 (0.03)
6.26 (0.46)
1.01 (0.05)
74.57 (2.43)
31. 76 (1.27)
Interest on Working Capital
36.48 (2.73)
36.00 (2.67)
53.06(2.61)
73.41 (2.39)
57.94 (2.31)
Operational Cost
1332.56 (100.00)
1350.81 (100.00)
2033.80 (100.00)
3072.22 (100.00)
2505.41 (100.00)
623.67 (63.02)**
580.13 (51.34)
523.34 (69.35)
1016.56 (63.99)
554.08 (51.73)
II. Fixed Cost Rental Value of Owned Land
Table 7.8 (Contd.)
Item
Maharashtra
Andhra Pradesh Moong
Jowar
Moong
Jowar
bajra
1994-95
1990-91
1990-91
1994-95
1994-95
0.00 -
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
1.14 (0.07)
0.00(0.00)
Land Revenue and Taxes
19.48 (1.96)
4.32 (0.38)
50.49 (6.69)
9.39 (0.59)
519 (0.48)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
78.60 (7.94)
221.16(19.57)
65.21 (8.66)
138.28 (8.70)
129.94 (12.13) 382.48 (35.71)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
Interest on Fixed Capital
267.98 (27.080
324.38 (28.71)
160.59 (21.28)
423.15 (26.65)
Fixed Cost
989.73 (100.00)
1129.99(100.00)
754.63 (100.00)
1588.53(100.00) 1071.69 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
2322.29
2480.79
2788.43
4660.75
3577.10
2125.30
1460.26
3041.63
4088.60
2614.97
Value of Byproduct
18.55
487.87
97.80
2011.76
708.83
Gross Returns
2143.85
1948.13
3139.43
6100.36
3323.80
At Operational Cost
811.29
597.32
1105.63
3028.14
818.39
At Total Cost
-178.44
-532.66
351.00
1439.61
-253.30
Net Returns per Re.
0.61
0.44
0.54
0.99
0.33
Yield (kglha)
3.23
7.43
3.32
9.67
6.71
Price per qtl
658
197
916
423
3.90
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product
IV. Net Returns
"', ** Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost Source: Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India, 2000.
Table 7.9
Profitability of Moong and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra during 2000-01 (Rs./OO) Item Moong
Andhra Pradesh Jower
Moong
U harashtra Jowar
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
Human Labour
2909.84 (52.29)*
2513.47 (46.76)
2587.93(49.18)
3749.58 (47.57)
I. Operational Cost Bullock Labour
910.74 (16.37)
11 02.24 (20.51)
1157.77 (22.00)
1728.84(21.93)
Machine Labour
90.36 (1.62)
269.85 (5.02)
140.66 (2.67)
621.83 (7.89)
Seed
464.53 (8.35)
168.44 (3.13)
508.69 (9.67)
300.53 (3.81)
Fertilizer
866.09 (15.56)
997.91 (18.57)
664.77 (12.63)
873.17 (11.08)
Manure
53.62 (0.96)
152.42 (2.84)
48.90 (0.93)
163.64 (2.08)
Insecticides
80.08 (1.44)
28.90 (0.54)
11.00 (0.21)
-
Irrigation
55.28 (0.99)
14.81 (0.27)
10.10(0.19)
259.15 (3.29)
Interest on Working Capital
133.85 (2.42)
127.50 (2.36)
132.21(2.52)
185.38 (2.35)
Operational Cost
5564.39 (100.00)
5375.54 (100.00)
5262.03 (100.00)
7882.12 (100.00)
Rental Value of Owned Land
2391.95 (69.38)**
2021.35 (54.49)
1375.30 (66.82)
1509.66 (50.88)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
-
32.93 (0.89)
-
-
II. Fixed Cost
Table 7.9 (Contd.)
Item
Andhra Pradesh Moong
Jower
Moong
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
Maharashtra Jowar 2000-01
Land Revenue and Taxes
8.73 (0.25)
5.28 (0.14)
12.67 (0.62)
25.47 (0.86)
Depreciation on Implements
346.97 (10.07)
398.69 (10.75)
181.60 (8.82)
321.22 (10.83)
Interest on fixed Capital
700.02 (20.30)
1251.07 (33.73)
488.80 (23.74)
1110.40 (37.43)
Fixed Cost
3447.67 (100.00)
3709.32 (100.00)
2058.37 (100.00)
2966.75 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
9012.06
9084.86
7320.40
10848.87
Value of Main Product
7660.85
58.26.73
8196.42
5824.17
Value of Byproduct
312.33
1062.57
53.74
3231.98
Gross Returns
7973.18
6889.30
8250.16
9056.15
At Operational Cost
2408.79
1513.76
2988.13
1174.03
At Total Cost
-1038.89
-2195.56
929.76
-1792.72
Net Returns per Re.
0.43
0.28
0.57
0.15
Yield (kg/ha)
4.66
10.60
4.24
12.07
Price per qtJ
1643.96
549.69
1933.12
482.53
III. Gross Returns
IV. Net Returns
*, ** Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost Source: Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, 2004
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension 315
fertilizer has improved considerably. The position of rental value of owned land continued to remain the same between the three points of time for all the analysed crops in all the states.
Urad Costs and returns of urad and its competing crop are analysed in states of Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh for which estimates are available for the early 1980s. Table 7.10 contains this information. It may be noticed that gross returns per hectare from urad cultivation were Rs.2,680 in Andhra Pradesh during 1984-85 and Rs.l ,573 in Madhya Pradesh during 1981-82. The corresponding operational costs were Rs.l, 048 and Rs.711 respectively. After deducting the costs, farmers earned Rs.l ,632 per ha and Rs.862 per ha. When net returns are examined at the total cost, these turned out to be Rs.693 and Rs.379 respectively. A comparison of these returns with the main competing crop jowar shows that these returns are higher and urad emerged as a superior and competitive crop. In terms of net returns per rupee also, the same results were obtained. It may be mentioned that the profitability of urad could not be compared with the second principal competing crop, i.e., bajra due to non-availability of CACP estimates for Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The composition of operational cost for urad in Andhra Pradesh during 1984-85 was found different from rest of the cases in the sense that animal labour constituted around 10% share along with 6% share of machine labour. In rest of the cases, cost of human and bullock labour were the dominant items of cost. One more difference is worth noticing, that is the shares of seed and insecticides were 14% and 13% respectively but fertilizer constituted only 1.44% of the operational cost. In fixed cost, rental value of owned land covered 82.16% share while it was around 70% in other cases. In 1990-91,' gross returns per hectare from urad cultivation in
Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh became Rs.3, 962 and Rs.3,025 respectively (Table 7.11). The corresponding operational costs were observed to be Rs.l,415 and Rs.1,747 per hectare.
Table 7.10
(Rs./ha) Item
Andhra Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Urad
Jowar
Urad
Jowar
1984-85
1984-85
1981-82
1981-82
520.82 (49.69)*
368.01 (39.32)
344.87 (48.50)
301.58 (40.80)
I. Operational Cost Human Labour
Vol
Profitability of Urad and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 1984-85 and1981-82
Bullock Labour
102.88 (9.82)
358.85 (38.34)
238.42 (33.53)
170.54 (23.08)
Machine Labour
65.19(6.22)
5.33 (0.57)
0.34(0.04)
29.17 (3.95)
Seed
143.22 (13.67)
27.40 (2.93)
54.48 (7.66)
30.01 (4.06)
Fertilizer
15.07 (1.44)
88.85 (9.49)
50.58 (7.11)
123.08 (16.65)
Manure
37.49 (3.58)
46.44(4.96)
7.91 (1.11)
55.19 (7.46)
Insecticides
133.57 (12.74)
1.81 (0.19)
0.00(0.00)
4.14 (0.56).
Irrigation
0.01 (0.00)
14.57 (1.56)
0.00(0.00)
6.01 (0.81)
Interest on Working Capital
29.82 (2.85)
24.70(2.64)
14.54 (2.04)
19.31 (2.61)
Operational Cost
1048.07 (100.00)
935.96 (l00.00)
711.14 (100.00)
739.03 (100.00)
Rental Value of Owned Land
771.16 (82.16)·*
368.02 (67.29)
343.80 (71.28)
292.02 (65.76)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
0.00. (0.00)
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
II. Fixed Cost
0\
Table 7.10 (Con/d.)
Item
Andhra Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Jowar
Urad
Jowar
1984-85
1984-85
1981-82
1981-82
32.74 (3.49)
3.33 (0.60)
3.05 (0.01)
5.09 (l.l5)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
42.07 (4.48)
36.82(6.73)
54.28 (11.25)
27.17 (6.12)_
Interest on Fixed Capital
92.68 (9.87)
138.77 (25.37)
81.18 (16.63)
119.96 (26.97)
Urad
Land Revenue and Taxes
Fixed Cost
938.65 (100.000
546.04 (100.00)
482.31 (10.00)
444.04 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
1986.72
1482.90
1193.45
1183.07
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product
2615.71
954.12
1487.36
1125.29
Value of Byproduct
63.96
283.71
85.42
252.79
Gross Returns
2679.67
1237.83
1572.78
1378.08
IV. Net Returns At Operational Cost
1631.60
301.87
861.64
639.05
At Total Cost
692.95
-245.07
379.33
195.oI
Net Returns per Re.
1.56
0.32
1.21
0.86
Yield (kglha)
6.38
6.21
4.82
9.23
Price per qtI
409.99
153.64
308.58
121.92
., •• Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost Source: Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India, 1991
Table 7.11 Profitability of Urad and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 1990-91
(Rs'/ha) Item
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh Jowar
Urad
Jowar
1990-91
1990-91
1990-91
1990-91
Human Labour
639.31 (45.16)*
531.41 (39.34)*
817.04 (56.76)
902.98 (52.44)
Bullock Labour
77.37 (5.47)
537.02 (39.76)
427.54 (24.47)
390.05 (22.66)
Machine Labour
108.54 (7.67
4.16 (0.31)
65.65 (3.76)
45.94 (2.67)
Urad I. Operational Cost
Seed
348.21 (24.60)
34.23 (2.53)
62.35 (3.57)
63.35 (3.68)
Fertilizer
5.83 (0.41)
157.60 (11.67)
164.96 (9.44)
209.59 (12.17)
Manure
1.60 (0.11)
43.65 (3.23)
171.20 (9.80)
70.75 (4.11)
Insecticides
191.16 (13.51)
0.49 (0.03)
0.00(0.00)
3.23 (0.19) 0.00(0.00)
Irrigation
3.40 (0.240)
6.26 (0.46)
0.00 (0.00)
Interest on Working Capital
39.93 (0.03)
36.00 (2.67)
38.75 (2.22)
35.72 (2.07)
1415.37 (100.00)
1350.81 (100.00)
1747.49 (100.00)
1721.61 (100.00)
1151.50 (81.22)**
580.13 (51.34)
749.16 (54.55)
646.10(59.64}
Rent Paid fOr Leased in Land
0.00(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0.00(0.001
Land Revenue and Taxes
37.18 (2.62)
4.32 (0.38)
7.18(0.52)
6.83 (0.63)
Total Operational Cost II. Fixed Cost Rental Value of Owned Land
--
VJ
00
Table 7.11 (Contd.)
Item
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
Andhra Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Urad
Jowar
Urad
Jowar
1990-91
1990-91
1990-91
1990-91
104.30 (7.36)
221.16(19.57)
205.25 (14.95)
159.32 (14.71)
Interest on fixed Capital
124.12 (8.76)
324.38 (28.71)
411.64 (29.97)
272.16 (25.12)
Fixed Cost
1417.60 (100.00)
1129.99(100.00)
1373.23 (100.00)
1083.41 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
2832.95
2480.79
3120.72
2805.02
3909.38
1460.26
2201.08
1910.89
Value of By product
52.89
487.87
824.26
696.81
Gross Returns
3962.27
1948.13
3025.34
2606.70
2546.32
597.32
1277.85
886.09
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product
IV. Net Returns At Operational Cost At Total Cost
1129.32
-532.66
95.38
-197.32
Net Returns per Re.
1.80
0.44
0.73
0.52
Yield (kglha)
4.98
7.43
3.68
9.94
785.02
197
598.12
192.24
Price per qtl
*,
** Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost
Source: Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India, 2000
320
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
After deducting the costs, farmers received Rs.2, 546 and Rs.l ,278 respectively. These returns at the total cost turned out to be Rs.l, 129 in Andhra Pradesh but became only Rs.95 in Madhya Pradesh due to higher cost and low productivity (368 kg/ha). Per quintal price in Madhya Pradesh was also observed to be much lower than in Andhra Pradesh during the same year. A comparison of these returns with jowar reveals that urad was found superior and competitive crop in Andhra Pradesh as well as in Madhya Pradesh. The net returns per rupee followed the same pattern in both the states. The cost structure of urad cultivation has shown perceptible changes over early 1980s in Andhra Pradesh. The component of human and bullock labour declined by almost 10%. Amazingly, fertilizer component became less than one per cent while insecticides were around 14%. In rest of the cases, a marked change was not found and the similar items dominated in the operational cost as well as in the fixed cost. The estimates of costs and returns of urad and its competing crop in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 2000-01 are presented in Table 7.12. It may be observed that the gross returns per hectare from urad cultivation were Rs.13,477 and Rs.5,828 respectively. The corresponding operational costs were Rs.4,361 and Rs.3,673 respectively. After deducting costs, producers earned Rs.9, 116 inAndhra Pradesh and Rs.2, 155 in Madhya Pradesh.These earnings dropped to Rs.4,687 and Rs.l1 at the total cost. A comparison of profitability of urad withjowar indicates that the first was superior and competitive crop in Andhra Pradesh but not in Madhya Pradesh. A definite change was observed in the cost composition of urad in Andhra Pradesh. The shares of machine labour and seed reached to 11 % and 15% of the operational cost. Another 14% was insecticides and fertilizer. It is indicative of higher uses of inputs related to improved technology in the state for urad cultivation. In Madhya Pradesh, around half of the operational cost was human labour but shares of seed and manures increased over early 1990s. A maj or difference was also noticed in the share of rental value of owned land in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. It constituted around 91 % of fixed cost in the first case against 67% in the second case.
Table 7.12 Profitability of Urad and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 2000-01.
(Rs'/ha) Item
Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh Urad
lowar
Urad
lower
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
Human Labour
2287.30 (52.44)·
2513.47 (46.75)
1906.07 (51.89)
1839.33 (52.65)
Bullock Labour
114.34 (2.62)
1102.24 (20.50)
870.53 (23.70)
849.72(24.32)
Machine Labour
483.73 (11.09)
269.85 (5.02)
215.16(5.86)
289.58 (8.28)
Seed
669.71 (15.36)
168.44 (3.13)
444.63 (12.10)
-
Fertilizer
234.63 (5.38)
997.91 (18.56)
67.83 (1.85)
172.78(4.95)
Manure
74.57(1.72)
152.42 (2.84)
59.43 (1.62)
113.16(3.24)
Insecticides
379.57 (8.70)
28.90 (0.54)
7.16 (0.19)
117.27 (3.36)
Irrigation
0.20 (0.00)
14.81 (0.28)
31.82 (0.87)
39.88 (1.14)
I. Operational Cost
Interest on Working Capital
117.40(2.69)
127.50 (2.38)
70.38 (1.92)
72.04 (2.06)
Operational Cost
4361.45 (100.00)
5375.54 (100.00)
3673.01 (l00.00)
3493.76 (100.00)
4019.60 (90.76)**
2021.35 (54.49)
1456.91 (67.26)
1499.34 (53.75)
II. Fixed Cost Rental Value of Owned Land
Table 7.12 (Contd.)
Item
Andhra Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Urad
Jowar
Urad
Jower
2000-0J
2000-0J
2000-0J
2000-0J
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
13.96 (0.32)
32.93 (0.89)
-
-
Land Revenue and Taxes
22.76 (0.51)
5.28 (0.15)
8.81 (0.41)
8.56 (0.31)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
131.63 (2.97)
398.69 (10.74)
213.91 (9.88)
240.72 (8.63)
Interest on Fixed Capital
240.86 (5.44)
1251.07 (33.73)
486.30 (22.45)
1040.78 (37.31)
Fixed Cost
4428.81 (100.00)
3709.32 (100.00)
2165.93 (100.00)
2789.40 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
8790.26
9084.86
5838.94
6283.16
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product
13272.40
58.26.73
5455.15
4576.95
Value of By product
204.57
1062.57
372.50
1420.41
Gross Returns
13476.97
6889.30
5827.65
5997.36
IV. Net Returns At Operational Cost
9115.52
1513.76
2154.64
2503.60
At Total Cost
4686.71
-2195.56
11.29
285.80
Net Returns per Re.
2.09
0.28
0.59
0.72
Yield (kglha)
6.58
10.60
3.17
8.46
Price per qtl
2017.08
549.69
1720.87
541.01
*, ** Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost Source: Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, 2004
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension 323
Massar Finally, costs and returns of massar and its two competing crops namely, gram and mustard are examined for Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. The analysis is restricted to the recent period since data for the earlier points of time are not available. The information presented in Table 7.13 shows that gross returns per hectare from massar cultivation were Rs.9,400 in Uttar Pradesh and Rs.12,735 in Madhya Pradesh during 2000-0l. The corresponding operational costs were Rs.4,357 and Rs.4,662 respectively. After incurring this expenditure, producers earned Rs.5,043 and Rs.8,073 respectively. These returns were reduced to Rs.l, 078 and Rs.3,747 at the total cost. Obviously, massar in Madhya Pradesh was more profitable than Uttar Pradesh. When this profitability is compared to its two main competing crops in the ;abi season, massar was not found competitive to gram as well as mustard. It exhIbited profi.tability ofRs.-5,042 as against Rs.13, 528 for gram and Rs.8, 376 for mustard at the variable cost. But, the case of Madhya Pradesh appeared to be different because there was a very narrow gap in the profitability of massar, gram and mustard. It was Rs.8,073 per ha as against Rs.8,024 per ha and Rs.8, 179 per ha respectively.
Table 7.13 Profitability of Massar and its Competing Crops (Gram and Mustard) in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 2000-01 (Rs'/ha) Item
Uttar Pradesh Massar
Gram
Mustard
1860.92 (42.71)*
2547.09(40.73)
3347.10(44.14)
I. Operational Cost
Human Labour Bullock Labour
516.02(11.84)
616.35 (9.86)
283.15(3.73)
Machine Labour
939.37 (21.56)
909.35 (14.54)
1170.36 (15.43)
Seed
727.60(16.70)
1526.68(24.41)
153.60 (2.03)
Fertilizer
68.86(1.58)
173.08(2.77)
979.92 (12.92)
Manure
21. 72 (0.50)
25.32 (0.40)
611.72 (8.07)
Insecticides
-
3.83(0.06)
-
Irrigation
134.35 (3.08)
317.6(5.08)
874.79 (11.53)
Interest on Working Capital
87.99 (2.02)
134.38 (2.15)
163.08 (2.15)
Operational Cost
4356.83 (100.00)
6253.68 (100.00)
7583.45 (100.00)
Rental Value of Owned Land
2491.80 (63.50)**
4263.44 (73.83)
4672.31 (73.50)
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
396.50 (10.1 0)
216.46 (3.75)
-
II. Fixed Cost
Table 7. J3 (Contd.)
Item
Uttar Pradesh Massar
Gram
Mustard
Land Revenue and Taxes
12.06 (0.31)
11. 79 (0.20)
19.41 (0.31)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
270.41 (6.89)
214.06 (5.09)
225.33 (3.45)
Interest on Fixed Capital
793.58 (20.22)
989.11 (17.12)
1439(22.64)
Fixed Cost
3924:35 (1oo.00l
5774.86 (100.00)
6356.64 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
8321.18
12028.54
13940.09
III. Gross Returns
Value of Main Product
9150.05
19216.93
15537.66
Value of Byproduct
249.52
564.70
422.33
Gross Returns
9399.57
19781.63
15959.93
At Operational Cost
5042.74
13527.95
8376.48
IV. Net Returns At Total Cost
1078.39
7753.09
2019.84
Net Returns per Re.
1.16
1.24
1.10
Yield (kglha)
6.06
12.24
13.29
Price per qt~
1536.04
1570.01
1169.12
Table 7.13 (Contd,)
Item I. Operational Cost
W N 0\
Madhya Pradesh Massar
Mustard
Gram
2000-01
2000-01
2000-01
Human Labour
1637.95 (35.13)*
1550.26 (25.20)
1879.26 (30.65)*
Bullock Labour
762.99 (16.37)
77.80 (12.65)
540.75 (8.82)
Machine Labour
588.64 (12.63)
1712.84(27.84)
977.86 (15.95)
Seed
1011.37 (21.69)
115.41 (1.88)
1491 (24.32)
Fertilizer
391.02 (8.39)
1792.56 (2.91)
479.08 (7.82)
Manure
13.09 (0.28)
Insecticides
-
7.8 (0.13)
14.65 (0.31)
Irrigation
123.96 (2.66)
746.37 (12.13)
576 (9.40)
25.79 (0.42)
Interest on Working Capital
118.46 (2.54)
155.49 (2.53)
151.80 (2.48)
Operational Cost
4662.13 (l00.00)
6150.73 (l00.00)
6129.91 (l00.00)
Rental Value of Owned Land
31.83.74 (73.61)**
3582.37 (76.77)
3538.56 (71.45)**
Rent Paid for Leased in Land
-
-
-
Land Revenue and Taxes
8.38 (0.19)
10.10 (0.22)
6.94 (0.14)
Depreciation on Fixed Capital
198.80 (4.60)
216.97 (4.65)
3.83.05 (7.73)
Interest on Fixed Capital
934.44 (21.60)
856.76 (18.36)
1023.97 (20.68)
II. Fixed Cost
Table 7.13 (Contd.)
I Item I
II
Madhya Pradesh
Massar
I
Mustard
Gram
I Fixed Cost
4325.36 (100.00)
4666.20 (100.00)
4952.52 (100.00)
Total Cost (I + II)
8987.49
10816.93
11082.43
III. Gross Returns Value of Main Product
12303.68
14170.24
13487.76
Value of Byproduct
431.29
159.25
666.47
Gross Returns
12734.97
14329.49
14154.23
8072.84
8178.76
8024.32
3512.32
3071.80
1.33
1.30
IV. Net Returns At Operational Cost
r-e:
Total Cost
Net Returns per Re.
I
I
3747.48 ~
1.73
i I
Yield (kglha)
8.01
11.96
9.36
Price per qtl
1509.91
1184.80
1441.00
*, ** Brackets show percentage of operational cost and fixed cost Source: Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, 2003
I
I
i
328
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
But, strictly speaking in terms of absolute figures, mustard followed by massar and gram was the ordering of profitability at the operational cost but massar turned out to be superior at the total cost. The cost structure of massar was skewed towards human labour followed by machine labour in Uttar Pradesh. The bullock labour constituted 11.84% of operational cost. Although, seed, fertilizer and irrigation accounted for 22% of variable cost but expenditure on insecticides was found nil. The cost composition of variable cost for massar cultivation in Madhya Pradesh was marginally different because seed and bullock labour were the major items of cost besides human labour. Particularly, seed constituted 22% of variable cost. The technology augmenting inputs constituted around 36% of the variable cost. In fixed cost, rental value of owned land was the major cost item covering around 64% and 74% shares in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Finally, the results emerging from testing of the proposed hypotheses are summarized in Table 7.14. The first hypothesis that domestic competitiveness of pulse crops is low was fully valid for gram in Madhya Pardesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan for the early 1980s but partially acceptable for the early 1990s and the recent period. It happened because gram's performance in Central India (in states like Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) appears to be improved because higher prices and rising yield of gram has more than offset the comparative yield differentials. The hypothesis is fully discarded for arhar in all the analysed states at the referred three points of time. Since, the results for moong are mixed in the early 1980s and 1990s, the hypothesis is partially accepted but fully rejected for the recent period. The same hypothesis is fully discarded for urad except one case that was of Madhya Pradesh in the early 1990s and 2000-01 when urad was not found competitive to jowar. The same
Table 7.14 Summary Table Showing Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops in selected States in India Crop Competitive
Early 1980s Not Competitive
Competitive
Early 1990s Not Competitive
Recent Period Competitive Not Competitive
Gram pram/Wheat pramIMustard
-
MP, UP, Raj.
UP
MP, Raj.
MP, UP
Raj
UP, Raj.
MP
Raj.
UP, Raj.
MP
-
MP, Mah.
-
Arhar ~har/Jowar
MP
~harlBajra
UP
-
MP, UP
-
UP
Moong Moong/Jowar
AP, MP
Raj.
AP
Mah.
AP, Mah.
~oongIBajra
-
Raj.
-
Mah.
-
-
AP
MP
AP
MP
-
-
-
-
Urad ~radlJowar
AP, MP
UradlBajra
-
-
w w
o
Table 7.14 (Contd.)
rrops Competitive
Early 1980s Not Competitive
Ear~1990s
Competitive
Not Competitive
Recent Period Competitive Not Competitive
Massar
Massar/Gram rvtassar/Mustard
-
Source: Based on earlier results
-
-
-
MP
UP
-
UP, MP
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension 331
hypothesis for massar in the latest period was accepted for Uttar Pradesh but partially rejected for Madhya Pradesh. The second hypothesis relates to gradual increase in the share of technology enhancing inputs (seed, fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation) in the operational cost is supported to a large extent for gram, arhar, moong and urad for all the analysed states. The third hypothesis was about the increasing share of machine labour and decreasing shares of human and animal labour is fully accepted for selected pulse crops in all the analysed states.
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
Chapter 8
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
The preceding chapter revealed that domestic competitiveness of pulse crops vis-a-vis alternative crops has gradually improved despite poor production performance in major growing states between 198081 and 2001-02. Further, policy scenario has changed after the initiation of economic reforms in 1991. The process of reforms gained momentum since India became part of the multilateral trading system in 1994 under the aegies of the WTO. The country signed an agreement on agriulture. As a result, a slew of trade, tariff and administrative measures have been introduced._ The taritT rates for several commodities have been reduced in varying proportions form time to time. In addition, quantitative restrictions on agricultural trade have been partially removed. These policy changes have paved way for gradual liberalization of the economy. Indian agricultural commodity markets have been integrating with the global market and international trade has gained more importance. Therefore, agricultural production needs to be examined from the point of view of trade (Vyas, 1994; Bhalla, 1995; Rao, 1995). In the current scenario, international competitiveness in terms of comparative advantage in prices of commodities has become a crucial factor that plays an important role in the decision-making process about crop choices. If international prices are higher and producers are in a position to reap the benefit, farmers would be induced to allocate a larger area under the crop and this would result in increased production. On the other hand, lower international prices are sure to encourage larger inflow of cheap imports into the country, which
334
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
is already burdened with low indigenous production. Therefore, a study of international competitiveness has become necessary to understand the production prospects of various agricultural commodities. Gulati et aI., 1994 has investigated the global competitiveness of cereals, fruits, vegetables, processed fruits and processed vegetables and determined that India is moderately to highly competitive in most of these products. The international competitiveness of pulse crops has been a less researched area in literature. Only a few scholars (Kelley, 1994; Gulati, and Kelley, 1999) have examined the comparative price advantage of pulse crops in the conventional and alternate framework by working out Nominal Protection Coefficients (NPCs), Effective Protection Coefficients (EPCs), Effective Subsidy Coefficients (ESCs) and Domestic Resource Cost Ratios (DRCRs) based on importable and exportable hypotheses. They have observed that gram and arhar were internationally competitive in exportable scenario. However, these studies do not provide a comprehensive view of the international competitiveness of individual pulses, which are important in the import and export basket of India. Given this background, it is essential to analyse the global competitiveness of the Indian pulses. It is hypothesized that the international competitiveness of the Indian pulses is low in terms of conventional as well as alternate indices. The broad objective of this chapter is to examine the international competitiveness of the Indian pulses. An effort has also been made to strengthen the analysis by including important trade related aspects such as status of India in the global production of pulses; international trade in pulses; quantity and value of exports and imports of pulses; major destinations of trade; and recent policy reforms in the trade of pulses and their potential implications. The international competitiveness of pulse crops is worked out by estimating conventional as well as alternate indices. The data on relevant aspects were obtained fromFAO's ''Trade Year Book", "Production Year Book", "Foreign Trade Statistics" and "Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices".
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
335
Section -1 Status ofIndia in World Pulse Production and Trade Place of India in World Pulse Production India has been the largest producer of pulses in the world. Table 8.1 indicates that it accounted for 37.27% of acreage and 25.51% of production in triennium ending (TE) 1981. These shares dropped to 35.06% and 24.35% in TE 1991 and further declined to 31.54% and 23.84% in TE 2001. The other countries with higher acreage of pulses in the early 1980s included China (8.89%), Brazil (7.80%), Mexico (3.00%), Pakistan (2.46%), Nigeria (2.39%), Niger (1.80%) and Turkey (1.17%). The shares of Niger, Nigeria, Canada, Mynamar, Turkey and Australia in the world acreage under pulses improved between TE 1981 and TE 2001. In contrast, shares of India, China, USA and Brazil declined during the same period. The highest drop of around 6% was observed in the case of India. The share of some countries in production improved considerably. Especially, the share of Canada, France, Australia and Mynamar jumped from, 0.45%, 0.83%, 0.34% and 0.89% of total global production in TE 1981 to 3.21%, 4.02%, 4.67% and 3.26% in TE 2001. It could be due to higher adoption rate of improved technology for pulse cultivation by these countries. It helped in realizing higher yield rates. The yield performance of major pulse producing countries varied widely in TE 1981, 1991 and 2001 respectively. The highest yield was achieved by France (4,559 kg/ha) followed by Canada (3,747 kg/ha) and USA (1,906 kg/ha). It was noted that the all Asian countries lagged far behind in productivity of pulses. However, performance of China is worth emulating. The yield of pulses here became 1,398 kglha in 2001. Unfortunately, India ranked 12th despite being the leading producer. Productivity of pulses has improved from 461 kglha in the 1980s to 610 kg/ha in the year 2001.
Table 8.1 Area, Production and Yield of Pulses in Important Countries of the World (TE 1981, 1991, 2001) Area: '000 ha Production '000 tonnes Yield: kglha
Country
Area
ProductIOn
Yield
1979-81
1989-91
1999-2001
1979-81
1989-91
1999-2001
1979-81
1989-91
1999-01
Niger
1101 (1.80)
2487 (3.66)
3143 (4.60)
292 (0.71)
313 (0.56)
370 (0.67)
265 (15)
126 (15)
117 (15 )
Nigeria
1462 (2.39)
1898 (2.79)
5209 (7.62)
647(1.57)
1363 (2.44)
2193 (3.97)
443 (13)
718 (8)
421 (14)
Canada
128 (0.21)
398 (0.59)
2188 (3.20)
186 (0.45)
633 (1.13)
1771 (3.21)
1453 (2)
1590 (3)
3747 (2)
Mexico
1834 (3.00)
1970 (2.90)
1817 (2.66)
1311 (3.18)
1412 (2.53)
1363 (2.47)
715 (8)
717 (9)
740 (9)
Brazil
4773 (7.80)
5214 (7.68)
4011 (5.86)
2206 (5.36)
2471 (4.42)
2788 (5.05)
462 (ll)
474 (14)
695 (ll)
China
5434 (8.89)
3375 (4.97)
3462 (5.06)
6648 (16.14)
4575 (8.19)
4841 (8.77)
1356 (4)
1354 (4)
1398 (4)
23817(35.06) 21576 (31.54) 10509 (25.51)
3604 (24.35)
3161 (23.84)
461 (12)
571 (12)
610 (12)
1044 (1.87)
931 (1.69)
396(14)
552 (13 )
590 (13)
India Pakistan
22780 (37.27) 1502 (2.46)
1890 (2.78)
1577 (2.31)
595 (1.44)
Table 8.1 (Contd.)
Area
Country
YIeld
ProductIOn
1979-81
1989-91
1999-2001
1979-81
1989-91
1999-2001
1979-81
1989-9/
1999-01
Turkey
717 (1.17)
2196 (3.23)
1562 (2.28)
817 (1.98)
1946 (3.48)
1377 (2.49)
1139 (5)
886 (7)
882 (7)
France
102 (0.17)
698 (1.03)
487 (0.71)
340 (0.83)
3310 (5.93)
2220 (4.02)
3333 (I)
4742 (I)
4559 (1)
Australia
159 (0.26)
1488 (2.19)
2178 (3.18)
141 (0.34)
1530 (2.74)
2581 (4.67)
887 (7)
1028 (6)
1185 (5)
Myanmar
627 (1.03)
674 (0.99)
2446 (3.58)
365 (0.89)
435 (0.78)
1800 (3.26)
588 (10)
645 11 )
736 (10)
USA
893 (1.46)
882 (1.30)
808 (1.18)
1457 (3.54)
1623 (2.91)
1540 (2.79)
1457 (3)
1840 (2)
1906 (3)
Bangladesh
985 (1.61)
732 (1.08)
490 (0.72 )
637 (1.55)
512 (0.92)
379 (0.69 )
637 (9)
699 (10)
773 (8)
Argentina
260 (0.43)
224 (0.33)
317 (0.46)
239 (0.58)
249 (0.45)
354 (0.64)
918 (6)
1112 (5)
1117 (6)
61123 (100.00)
67933 (100.00)
68398 (100.00)
41194 (100.00)
55861 (100.00)
55209 (100.00)
674
822
807
Wor1d*
.Includes minor producing countries .brackets show percentage of world in area, production and rank in yield Source: FAD Production Year Book, 2003
338
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
but this achievement appears quite unimpressive when compared to countries like France and USA which could raise pulse yield many folds during the past two decades. It is worth mentioning that yield rates of many countries with small proportion of global acreage in pulses are far above the world level. Specifically, these included Netherlands (4,320 kglha), Ireland (4,891 kglha), New Zealand (3,036 kg/ha), Switzerland (3,582 kg/ha), UK (3,597 kg/ha) and Germany (3,398 kg/ha). All these are developed countries where the level of agricultural advancement is much better in comparison to the developing Asian countries. Moreover, they grow peas, which, incidentally, are the highest yielding crop among pulses.
International Trade in Pulses The annual world trade in pulses amounted to 71.87 thousand tonnes in 2002. It constituted 12.64% of global production. It was smaller than this ratio in 1981 as well as in 1991. The exports of pulses were reported 7.23% in the year 1981 and improved to 1l.36% in 1991. Thus, ratio of trade to production in this case had been small with gradual upward trend because the bulk of pulses production occurs in the Asian countries, which are also major consumers. Only developed countries with larger surplus export higher quantities of pulses. One may notice a marginal difference in the figures of percentage of production exported and imported in 1981, 1991 and 2002. This may be attributed to reporting errors of the trading partners. The major exporting countries of pulses in the world are Canada (16.27%), France (11.35%), Mynamar (12.67%), Australia (12.24%), and China (9.90%). The contribution of Canada, China, Myanmar, France and Australia has increased in quantity as well as in value between 1981 and 2002. In contrast, shares of USA, Turkey, Argentina and Netherlands moved in the opposite direction.
339
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses Table 8.2 World Trade in Pulses (1981-2002) (%)
Imports
Exports·
Year 1981
7.23
7.54
1991
11.36
11.09
2002
12.64
12.60
Note: • Exports and imports are percentage oftotal production of pulses in the world Source: FAOTrade Year Book, 2002
Table 8.3 Share of Exporting Countries in World Exports of Pulses (1981, 1991, 2002) ( %) Countries
Quantity
Value
/98/
/99/
2002
/98/
/99/
2002
5.19
6.80
16.27
4.67
6.60
15.99
Mexico
2.14
0.69
1.79
3.42
\.36
3.53
USA
31.56
9.66
6.35
38.48
13.21
10.33
Argentina
4.78
2.43
2.91
4.38
4.23
3.92
China
3.42
12.58
9.90
3.03
10.40
11.53
India
0.17
0.20
1.74
0.19
0.31
2.62
Myanmar
2.58
2.42
12.67
1.64
2.53
10.36
Syna
0.57
0.71
0.16
0.60
0.62
0.33
Turkey
14.43
8.64
2.81
12.66
10.24
3.91
Belgium
1.28
0.77
0.65
\.32
0.78
0.78
France
5.01
21.21
1\.35
3.62
19.00
6.25
Netherlands
2.15
\.30
0.70
2.72
2.84
1.82
Canada
U.K.
3.86
3.72
~49
2.41
3.71
0.81
Australia
0.04
6.21
12.24
0.15
4.41
9.05
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
World
Source: FAOTrade Year Book, 2002
340
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 8.4 Share of Importing Countries in World Imports of Pulses (1981,1991,2002) (%)
Countries
Quantity
1981
1991
Algeria
2.69
E.I1:vpt
5.84
Cuba
3.69
Mexico
1.71
USA
1.25
1.21
Value
2002
1981
1991
2.41
1.95
4.33
2.83
2.85
1.44
4.81
1.81
1.58
5.18
1.29
1.33
4.28
1.24
1.38
0.74
1.75
0.98
1.01
2.76
2.97
1.46
1.83
4.77
2002
Brazil
0.65
1.78
1.34
0.76
2.39
1.10
China
2.41
1.49
2.28
1.81
1.05
1.61
Japan
7.69
2.99
1.84
8.41
4.01
2.91
Pakistan
0.36
1.39
5.36
0.55
1.25
4.51
Belgium
3.25
7.74
2.94
2.39
6.19
1.99
France
3.51
1.92
1.39
4.10
3.58
2.29
Germany
3.48
1.92
0.55
2.92
0.90
1.15
Italy
3.42
7.88
1.59
2.08
7.27
4.57
Netherlands
7.04
14.95
2.26
4.14
11.42
2.60
Spain
2.92
6.78
2.38
2.21
6.68
4.47
UK
4.70
3.03
1.07
5.61
4.25
3.14
25.2
2.05
India
2.59
8.05
World
100.00
100.00
Source: FAO Trade Year Book, 2002
100.00 100.00
6.35
19.71
100.00
100.00
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
341
The biggest looser was USA which showed a decline of around 25% in volume and 28% in value. The share of India in world exports of pulses was as low as 0.17% in 1981. It has improved over the years and stood at 1.74% in the year 2002. But, it is far behind the leading exporting countries. India is the major importer of pulses. Its share in world imports of pulses has increased from 2.59% in 1981 to 8.05% in 1991 and further to 25.20% in 2002. The other importing countries include Pakistan (5.36%), Egypt (4.81 %), Spain (2.38%), USA (2.97%), Belgium (2.94%), Netherlands (2.26%) and China (2.28%). The shares of India, Pakistan and USA have accentuated in pulse imports during the past two decades in both quantity and value. On the other hand, relative shares of Algeria, Egypt, Cuba, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and the UK dropped significantly (Table 804).
Indian Trade in Pulses India is the leading importer of pulses in the international market. In 1990-91, pulses imports were valued at RsA 73 crore. It accounted for 39.22% of total agricultural imports. There was a substantial increase in the imports of pulses during 2001-02 but its share came down to 20.37% due to the rising value of agricultural imports. Moreover, even this share is on a higher side. This is due to India's heavy dependence on imports of pulses to fulfill the demand and supply gap. This has resulted into rising share in the world imports from 2.59% in 1981 to 25.20% in 2002. In fact, lifting of quantitative restrictions on imports has resulted in large imports of pulses, which account for around 10% of total domestic production. The low rainfall has adversely affected the production ofkharifpulses during 2001-02 and therefore, imports increased significantly during this year.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
342
Table 8.5
India's Share in World Trade in Pulses (1981-2002) (%) Year
ImrJorts· Value
Exports· Quantity
Value
Quantity
1981
0.17
0.19
2.59
2.05
1991
0.20
0.31
8.05
6.35
2002
1.74
2.62
25.20
19.71
... Percentage of India's share in the world Source: FAD TradeYear Book, 2002
Table 8.6
Exports and Imports of Pulses in India Quantity: '000 tonnes Value: Rs. crore Unit value: Rs.lkg Year
Imports
Exports Quantity
Value
Value Per Unit
Quantity
Value
Value Per Unit
1980-81
1.09
0.35
3.21
172.96
29.76
\.72
1985-86
0.57
0.46
8.07
431.44
189.06
4.38
1990-91
-
-
-
79\.95
473.24
5.98
1995-96
61.36
13 \.81
21.50
485.65
685.55
14.12
2000-01
264.38
537.67
22.00
353.01
502.86
12.69
7001-02
16 \.98
370.40
22.84
2306.44
3311.54
14.26
2002-03
144.37
337.23
23.35
1992.29
2737.05
13.73
2003-04
153.88
328.60
21.35
1723.33
2284.87
13.26
2004-05
246.38
553.81
22.48
1296.46
1718.64
13.26
005-06
444.61
1102.62
24.80
1608.24
2346.90
14.59
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
From the beginning, the exports of pulses from fudia were marginal and were as low as 1.09 thousand tonnes in 1981. After two decades in 2000-01, it jumped to 264.38 thousand tonnes valued at Rs.53 7.67
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
343
crore but it was a miniscule 1.87% of total agricultural exports despite showing a strong growth. The estimated compound growth rates of pulse exports in physical and financial terms worked out to be 31 % and 44.31 % per annum between 1980-81 and 2005-06. However, India remained a marginal contributor to world exports of pulses. Despite the advantage of diverse base in terms of varieties of pulses, India's export potential could not be realized due to poor productivity, low level of processing, grading and quality control (Economic Survey, 2003).
Composition of Trade in Pulses The quantity and value of pulse imports and exports (Tables 8.7 and 8.8) reveals that imports of pulses during 1999-2000 have been above one lakh tonnes spread over peas, chickpeas, arhar, moong, etc., accounting for 36.81 %, 22.40%, 15.35% and 6.89% of total pulse imports. The largest quantity of pulses was imported during 2001-02. It was more than 2 million tonnes that formed around 17% of domestic production. A scrutiny makes it clear that the imports of pulses were found quite diversified in the recent years. The share of each pulse in total imports amply gives evidence that India imports more than 10 varieties of pulses. It appears that the import basket of pulses is reasonably diversified in India. Like imports, exports of pulses from India were also not confined to a few varieties. It exported around 14 varieties of pulses. The largest quantity of pulses in physical as well as value terms was exported during 2000-01. The exports of pulses were around 1.61 lakh tonnes during 2001-02. The major ones were massar, urad and arhar accounting for 65.50%, 14.30% and 5.61 % of the total pulse exports in the aforesaid year. This clearly endorses the diversity of pulse exports. Thus, exports as well as imports of pulse crops in India were found significantly diversified in the recent years. It is interesting to note that the import prices of individual pulses
were lower than the export prices and the gap was found quite significant. The export price for gram was RS.26.24 per kg as against the import price ofRs.17.48 per kg in 2001-02. The similar difference
Table 8.7 Quantity: tonnes
India's Imports of Pulses (1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02)
Value: Rs. crore Unit Value: Rs./kg
Item
Quantity
Value
Unit Value
QuantiI}'
1999-00
I. Peas (dried, shelled)
145932
I
Value
I Unit Value
Quantity
2000-01
157.50
10.79
137383
Value
Unit Value
2001-02
137.15 I
9.98
849019
928.71
10.93
2. Chickpeas
11025
22.05
19.99
63976
92.75
14.50
516819
861.74
16.67
3. Guar seeds
12689
22.17
17.47
22844
50.13
21.95
31241
57.71
18.47
4. Small red beans 5. Kidney beans 6. Lentil (Massar)
16
0.04
20.00
2994
5.06
16.92
4185
5.83
13.93
7761
13.28
17.11
15184
21.85
14.39
25212
35.88
14.23 16.21
31015
66.29
21.37
21019
40.57
19.30
86975
141.02
7. Broad beans
65
0.11
-
-
-
-
135
0.25
18.51
8. Other beans
16465
26.90
16.33
2451
5.05
20.60
88630
127.81
14.42
2671
4.94
18.50
8296
19.09
23.00
15684
27.43
17.48
-
-
-
100
0.19
19.00
6826
11.88
17.40
13831
22.31
16.31
18519
32.55
17.58
159076
311.39
19.57
6082
11.22
18.45
43459
6.28
14.44
354176
484.56
13.68
9. Gram 10. Gramdal
II. Moong 12. Tur 13. Urad 14. Others Total
2896
5.02
17.31
11559
26.95
23.31
19302
35.63
18.45
16756
29.76
17.76
4727
9.88
20.89
149164
258.12
17.30
267204
381.59
14.28
3530Il
502.86
12.69
2306444
3311.54
14.26
Source: Reports of the COlIll1llsslOn for Agncultural Costs and Prices, 2003
Table 8.8 India's Exports of Pulses (1999-2000, 2000-01. 2001-02)
Item
Quantity
Value
3902 4071 21
5.16 5.21 0.05
13.23 13.32 23.05
942 2570 24
-
8 31 270 119134
Unit Value
Quantity
1999-00
1. Peas (dried, shelled) 2. Chickpeas 3. Guar seed 4. Small red beans 5. Kidney beans 6. Other beans 7. Lentil (Massar) 8. Broad beans 9. Gram 10. Gramdal 11. Mool'\g 12. Tur 13. Urad f 14.
i
Others Total
I
Value
Quantity: tonnes Value: Rs. crore Unit Value: Rs./kg
IUnit Value Quantity
2000-01
-
-
-
-
54 147289
0.15 320.59
27.96 21.77
-
-
-
3311 6756 5155 7051
5.89 13.34 12.12 20.05
17.80 19.75
3766 12827 194203
9.97 26.96 419.70
2~.51
10 1906 8453 7412
28.44 26.48 21.02 21.84
7401 5805 18422 264388
Source: Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, 2003
1.66 4.56 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.50 407.95 0.02 4.42 19.30 19.01 19.24 16.81 44.04 537.67
Value
Unit ValuE
2001-02
17.61 17.75 26.29 19.38 26.10 18.43 21.34 21.70 23.19 22.83 25.64 25.99 28.96 23.91
887 1427 363 9 6 345 106109 3 1376 4277 8308 9087 6614 23171
22.00
161982
1.34 2.54 0.92
om 0.01 1.28 230.78
15.11 17.79 25.34 22.22 16.66 37.10 21.74
-
-
3.61 11.39 21.14
26.24 26.63 25.44 26.95 27.23 23.69 22.86
24.49 18.01 54.88 370.40
346
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
was observed in case of other pulses too. The following reasons may be attributed for this phenomenon. First, most ofthe exporting developed countries grow pulses as cattle feed and they export surplus to the developing countries for human consumption. Second, the main exported variety from these countries is pea, which has very high yield rates, and this reduces cost of production per kilogram. Therefore, they can afford to sell at rock bottom prices. On the other hand, export prices of Indian pulses are higher because it has yield disadvantage which raises the cost of production per unit and hence, it would be uneconomical to sell at the competitive rates in the global market. It should also be noted that India also grows a large variety of pulses. Most of the importing countries buy for non-resident Indian population settled in these countries. India has the added advantage because some of the pulses are grown only in India due to its agro-climatic diversity. Destinations of Trade Major destinations for pulse export are determined by several factors such as geographical and political proximity, difference in comparative advantage and degree of trade barriers. In order to identify the major trading partners in trade of pulses, the countrywise shares of each pulse in 2001-02 in exports and imports are presented in Table 8.9. It may be noticed that more than a dozen varieties of pulses are exported from India with more popular being gram, arhar, moong and massar. L'ldia exports gram mainly to the UK, USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia and UAB. Each ofthese accounted for 20.15%,20.15%, 12.38%,9.66% and 8.13% respectively of total exports of gram in 2001-02. In addition, it exports a small quantity to Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Bahrian, etc. The prices charged from each country were found different. It ranged from a high of Rs.32.37 per kg from UAB to a low of Rs.ll.98 per kg from Bangladesh. India also exports gram dal to several countries such as USA, the UK, Sri Lanka, Kuwait and Malaysia. These countries accounted for high shares like 27.80%, 13.95%, 10.84%, 8.93% and 8.69% per cent respectively. There is a whole list of other countries, which
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
347
import gram dal from India in small quantities. These included Bahamas, Baharian, Bangladesh, Canada, Mauritius, etc. The per unit value realized ranged between a very high of 41.91 per kg from Bahamas to 19.66 per kg from Sri Lanka. India imports gram from Myanmar, Tanzania, Canada, Iran and Thailand. Myanmar has been the single largest exporter accounting for 55.41 % share in total Indian imports of gram during 2001-02. Similarly, Canada has emerged as the largest exporter of gram dal in terms of quantity in 2001-02 with its two fifth share. Among other varieties, India imports chickpeas in large quantities. It imported 5,16,819 tonnes during 2001-02. They are imported mainly from Canada, Australia, Iran, Mynamar and Turkey each accounting for 28.52%, 26.88%, 16.17%, 5.59% and 5.41 % shares in total imports. The per unit value of chickpeas was correspondingly, Rs.14.98, Rs.15.64, Rs.15.80, Rs.16.50 andRs.18.80 during 200102. India exports a very small quantity of chickpeas mainly to UAE, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, USA and Mauritius. The major destinations of arhar exports are USA, UAE, the UK, Kuwait and Malaysia with 38.65%, 22.63%, 7.35%, 5.60% and 4.60% shares in physical quantity of exports during 2001-02. The highest per unit price was realized from sale to USA. It was Rs.29.83 per kg as against an average price ofRs.26.94 per kg. It may be observed from Table 8.8 that the highest per unit price was realized during 1999-2000. The pattern of arhar imports is more revealing as Myanmar emerged as the leading exporter by forming around 95.59% share. Singapore and Kenya are other countries from where India imports small quantities of arhar. The per unit value of imports from Myanmar was Rs.13.52 per kg, which was found the lowest. India exports as well imports moong to a large number of countries. For exports, major destinations are USA, the UK, Kuwait, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia with 26.28%, 14.33%,8.57%,6.31 % and 6.12% shares during 2001-02. The highest price of Rs.33.60 per kg was realized from Hong Kong as against an average price ofRs.25.45 per kg. The imports were almost five times higher than
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
348
Tab\e-S.9 Major Destinations of Pulse Exports and Imports in India during 2002 Country Commodity
Exports
Gram
UK (20.15)*, USA (20.15), Canada (12.38), Saudi Arabia (9.66), UAE (8.13)
Gram dal
USA (27.80), UK (13.95), Sri Lanka (10.84), Kuwait (8.93), Malaysia (8.69)
Chickpeas
UAE (34.33), Sri Lanka (31.60), Bangladesh (20.67), USA (9.95), Mauritius (1.47)
Arhar
USA (38.65), UAE (22.63), UK (7.35), Kuwait (5.60), Malaysia (4.60)
Moong
USA (26.28), UK (14.33), Kuwait (8.57), Bangladesh (6.31), Saudi Arabia (6.12)
Urad
USA (\ 9.55), UAE (18.29), Sri Lanka (15.49), UK (8.83), Singapore (7.08)
Massar
Bangladesh (43.81), Sri Lanka (20.99), Iraq (6.59), Sudan (6.19), Egypt (4.01)
Peas
Sri Lanka (60.54), Bangladesh (30.77), Saudi Arabia (2.71), Pakistan (1.69), Japan (1.47)
Gram
Mynamar (55.41), Tanzania (22.\3), Iran (7.76), Canada (5.48), Thailand (4.35)
Gram dal
Canada (38.34), Iran (28.11), Turkey (10.03), UAE (9.51), Pakistan (3.84)
Chickpeas
Canada (28.52), Australia (26.88), Iran (16.17), Mynamar (5.59), Turkey (5.41)
Arhar
Mynamar (95.59), Singapore (2.33), Kenya (0.72), Nepal (0.52), Iran (0.12)
Moong
Mynamar (63.17), Iran (17.22), Pakistan (7.06), China (5.69), Austraha (2.82)
Urad
Mynamar (89.92), Singapore (6.73), Hong Kong (1.14), Australia (0.46)
Massar
Australia (49.72), Canada (30.04), Nepal (19.45), Pakistan (0.47), USA 0.29)
Peas
Canada (54.42), Australia (19.78), France (\3.34), Mynamar (7.65), China (\.25)
Imports
* Brackets
show per cent share of the country Source: FAO Trade Year Book, 2002
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
349
the exports. Mynamar is the major country contributing around 63.17% of the total imports during 2001-02. The prices charged by different countries differed widely ranging between Rs.24.26 per kg by Kenya to a low of Rs.14.60 per kg by USA. In addition to the above pulses, urad is exported to USA, UAE, Sri Lanka, the UK and Singapore with their corresponding shares of 19.58%, 18.29%, 15.49%,8.83% and 7.08% respectively. The highest price was realized from Korea worth Rs.33.96 per kg as against an average price of Rs.27.24 during 2001-02. It may be observed that the exports have risen significantly during the recent years. India imports urad in much larger quantities. The leading destination is Myanmar with 89.92% share. A small quantity is imported from Singapore (6.73%) and Hong Kong (1.14%). Myanmar charged an average price ofRs.18.20 per kg during 2001-02. It is interesting to note that the per unit price of imported urad was RS.18.45 as against an export price ofRs.27.23 during the year 2001-02. Massar is one pulse, which India exports (0 a large number of countries, but its import has fallen during the recent years. It exports mainly to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Sudan and Egypt. The corresponding shares of these countries in total exports during 200102 were 43.81%, 20.99%, 6.59%, 6.19% and 4.01% respectively. Like other pulses, price per kilogram differed widely across the countries. The highest price was realized from Qatar, that is, Rs.32.93 per kg as against an average export price ofRs.21.74 per kg. A mixed pattern of increase or decrease was noticed in the exports to individual countries. India imports massar from Australia (49.72%), Canada (30.04%), Nepal (19.45%) and Pakistan (0.47%). Peas, dried and shelled were exported in very small quantity from India and were imported in huge quantity of 849 thousand tonnes during 200 1-02. Canada, Australia and France are the major countries covering around 87.54% imports. Canada alone had 54.42% share in Indian peas imports during the year 200 1-02 and the value per unit of peas imported from Canada was Rs.l 0.18 per kg as against an average import price of Rs.l 0.94 per kg. The import of peas in India has become almost six times between 1999-2000 and 2001-02.
350
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Section-2 International Competitiveness oflndian Pulses In the preceding section, attention was drawn to the fact that India is world's top producer of pulses but its contribution to world trade is almost negligible. Further more, changes in agricultural trade policy necessary to comply with commitments made under the WTO are affecting Indian pulse producers. This included removal of quantitative restrictions on imports and exports, increase in the market access and converting all non-tariff barriers into tariff barriers. These policies have increased world access to the Indian market and Indian access to the world market. In these circumstances, it is important to understand whether Indian pulses are internationally competitive. This is a difficult but most important question, which can have a huge impact on the welfare of millions of pulse producers. Competitiveness is a complex term and can be measured in several ways ranging from domestic resource cost ratio (DRCR) to competitive advantage. The most popular measures (Corden, 1971; Balassa and Schydilowsky, 1972; Gulati and Kelley, 1999)ofintemational competitiveness are: Nominal Protection Coefficient, (NPC), Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) and Effective Subsidy Coefficient (ESC). These ratios are simple and easy to understand. The NPC is the simplest ofthese ratios and measures divergence between domestic and border prices. The EPC and ESC bring added dimensions of tradable and non-tradable inputs, subsidies and taxes. The coefficients are calculated either under exportable hypothesis or under importable hypothesis depending upon whether the commodity under consideration is treated as exportable or importable item Under exportable scenario, domestic commodities compete in the international market while in the case of importable scenario; competition takes place in the domestic market. As a result, the relevant border price under the exportable hypothesis is f.o.b. (free on board) price while under importable hypothesis relevant border price is c.i.f. (cost, insurance and freight) at the port plus cost of transportation, port charges and handling cost. Generally, these costs protect the domestically produced items.
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
351
The competitiveness of crop depends on the value of coefficient. If, the value of the coefficient is below 0.75, the commodity in question is considered highly competitive. In case, the value ofthe coefficient is above 0.75; but below unity, the commodity is considered moderately competitive. When the value exceeds unity, commodity in question is considered not competitive. It means that the government is protecting the commodity because, under free trade, the price would be lower; symbolically NPC = PjPb where Pd - domestic price of the commodity Pb - border price adjusted for relevant transportation and handling cost
The NPC captures only output price effect and does not account for variations in input prices because production considerations do not at all enter in the calculation ofNPC. It is essential to combine the input price effect because producers are also concerned with input prices. To overcome this shortcoming, an advance measurement of competitiveness was calculated in terms of EPC, which captures the effect of output prices along with the prices of tradable component of inputs. The tradable inputs in case of pulses are fertilizer, pesticides and diesel oil. However, analysis is restricted to fertilizer due to non-availability ofdata on per unit use ofpesticides and diesel oil for pulse crops. The data on per unit use offertilizer for growing pulse crops were obtained from reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). The EPCs were calculated by using the following formula: EPC=VNNN
VNI and VAh stand for value added at domestic and international prices. Value added is the difference between the output price and value of all tradable inputs used per unit of output. In calculating VAh, the border price of tradable inputs is measured under the importable hypothesis. The interpretation of the EPC is the same as for the NPC.
352
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The further refinement over EPC was done through estimating EPS. The EPC though a better measure of competitiveness than the NPC, does not capture the effect of non-tradable inputs, which are subsidized or taxed. In India, power and irrigation are greatly subsidized while land is taxed. The data on these aspects were once again obtained from the CACP reports. The ESC accounts for subsidies and net out the taxes; symbolically ESC= (VN+ NS)/VN
where NS is the net subsidy after subtracting the taxes on nontradable inputs like electricity, irrigation and credit. Since, ESC takes care of distortions in the markets for both tradable and non-tradable inputs, it is considered the most appropriate measure for the analysis of international competitiveness of agricultural commodities. The estimated values ofNPCs, EPCs and ESCs for gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar computed under importable and exportable hypotheses for 1981, 1991 and 2000 are presented in Table 8.10. The estimates ofNPCs under exportable hypothesis show that its value was always below unity in all the referred years for all the pulse crops except for gram in 1981 with a value of 1.36, which indicates non-competitiveness ofthis crop in the international market. It may be observed that arhar with a coefficient of 0.66 and urad with 0.70 in 1981 were found highly competitive. In 1991, the competitiveness levels changed as gram, which was not competitive in 1981, became highly competitive with an estimated value of 0.55 under the exportable hypothesis. The competitiveness ofmoong also improved. However, urad and arhar lost their competitive edge experienced earlier in 1981. The overall competitiveness of pulse crops improved between 1981 and 1991 because NPC indicated a declining trend, which reflected low domestic prices during this period. The international competitiveness witnessed an improvement after almost a decade in 2000 because the NPC came down to 0.71 in the year 2000 from its earlier level of 0.82 in 1981. It implies that the relative movement of domestic
Table 8.10 Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC), Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) and Effective Subsidy Coefficient (ESC) of Pulse Crops in India
Crops
Nominal Protection Coefficient
Effoctive Protection Coefficient
Effoctive Subsidy Coefficient
1981
1981
2000
1981
1991
2000
1991
2000
1991
Exportable Hypothesis Gram
1.36
0.55
0.68
1.34
0.51
0.62
1.33
0.50
0.71
Arhar
0.66
0.85
0.67
0.63
0.82
0.63
0.62
0.80
0.69
Moong
0.86
0.68
0.77
0.84
0.65
0.73
0.83
0.64
0.76
Urad
0.73
0.77
0.57
0.71
0.75
0.53
0.70
0.73
0.57
Massar
-
0.94
0.85
0.98
0.81
0.86
-
-
0.90
-
0.86
-
0.92
Peas
-
-
0.92
Total Pulses
0.96
0.82
0.71
0.94
0.80
0.66
0.95
0.78
0.71
Table 8.10 (Contd.)
Crops
Nominal Protection Coefficient
Effictive Protection Coefficient
Effictive Subsidy Coefficient
1981
1981
2000
1981
1991
2000
1991
2000
1991
Importable Hypothesis
Gram
1.20
1.45
0.60
1.16
1.41
0.56
1.15
lAO
0.64
Arhar
1.04
1.43
1.03
1.01
lAO
1.01
0.98
1.38
1.09
Moong
1.16
lAO
1.10
1.14
1.35
1.07
1.13
1.35
1.11
Urad
1.02
1.51
0.87
1.01
1.47
0.83
1.00
1.46
0.87
Massar
-
1.54
0.87
-
1.51
0.84
-
1.49
0.89
Peas
1.05
1.29
1.10
1.03
1.23
1.07
1.03
1.22
1.14
Total Pulses
1.15
1.43
1.09
1.13
1.41
1.06
1.12
1.01
1.11
Source: Estimated from data on Prices and Costs, 1981,1991,2000
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
355
price and international price of pulses has been such that the gap between the two sets of prices overtime is narrowing down. Judged on the basis of importable hypothesis, Indian pulses were not found competitive in 1981 and 1991. The NPCs of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar were observed above unity in both the years. However, these ratios were not steady in referred years, mainly due to variations in the world prices of pulses. The high value ofNPCs is mainly due to large export subsidies on pulses by most of the producing countries, which distort and depress the international prices. But, the position improved in the year 2000 when gram, the main pulse crop became competitive with a ratio of 0.60. In addition, the coefficients for arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses also declined but a significant improvement was noticed in the comparative advantage of urad and massar which became moderately competitive. Although, the level of international competitiveness of Indian pulse crops has improved, they still remain uncompetitive under the importable hypothesis. As stated earlier, the EPC is a ratio of value added in domestic prices to value added in world prices, where value added is defined as the difference between the price of output and value of tradable inputs that go to make one unit of output. The values ofEPCs were marginally different from NPCs because farmers apply a negligible quantity ofthese expensive inputs to pulse crops. The EPC, under exportable and importable hypotheses give more or less the same results. Under first, gram, arhar, moong and urad were highly competitive in 2000 while rest of the two were observed moderately competitive. In a nutshell, peas and massar were found more protected than gram, arhar, moong and urad under the prevailing world prices. Similarly, the values of the EPCs under importable scenario do not deviate much from their corresponding NPC values due to extremely low share of tradable inputs in the overall cost structure of pulses. For instance, the value of fertilizer per kilogram of output in Madhya Pradesh was merely 8 paisa and 1.4 paisa in the year 1981. The results of EPCs under importable hypothesis reveals that each one of the referred pulse crop was not internationally competitive in 1981 and 1991 but the competitive
356
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
edge for fudian pulses after 1991 has improved and the EPC became 1.06 in 2000 from its earlier level of 1.41 in 1991. The ESC captures the effect of subsidies and taxes. The ESCs were estimated by adding the value of subsidies on non-traded inputs and netting out taxes. Once again, the difference in the coefficients was insignificant due to the negligible use of subsidized inputs, mainly irrigation and electricity in the cultivation of pulse crops and miniscule value of land revenue and cess due to low per hectare value of output. Hence, the scenario of competitiveness of each pulse crop under the exportable as well as under the importable hypotheses was the same. But, the extent of distortion is of marginal significance as the values ofESCs indices differ insignificantly for each pulse crop over the study period. To sum up, the international competitiveness of the fudian pulses over the study period has improved significantly. This could be due to declining international prices of pulses since 1990. This has made imports cheaper. However, dependence on imports would not only affect domestic producers through declining prices but also harm the consumers over time. The huge demand from fudia will affect international prices adversely, especially in case of pulses, which have limited supply in the world.
Domestic Resource Cost Ratio (DRCR) The traditional global competitiveness coefficients offudian pulses indicate that these indices being below unity based on exportable hypothesis and above unity based on importable hypothesis show that fudian pulses are export competitive. These indices provide some indication of the potential gains from trade but these measures examine competitiveness from a trader's point of view without considering the social cost of resources that goes into the production of various commodities. The social cost in terms of opportunity cost of resources is one of the important considerations in framing future policies. fu real world, production decisions are normally based on availability of alternatives. To overcome these limitations, scholars (Morris, 1990; Gulati and Kelley, 1999; Datta, Kapoor and Bhasin, 2001) have used DRCR as an improved methodology which
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
357
captures the true resource cost of producing any crop at home visa-vis option of importing from the world market. Some scholars have applied this methodology within Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) structure where inputs and outputs are classified into tradable and non-tradable items and their economic border pric~s in case of tradable items are also accounted. The DRCR indicates how much domestic resource cost is involved in earning a dollar. A DRCR of 0.60 means that it costs 60 cents, equivalent of domestic resources to earn a dollar from the commodity. A value ofDRCR equal to or greater than one, therefore, means a comparative disadvantage. Comparative disadvantage refers to the resource position of a country, which enables it to produce goods cost effectively. A country's resource endowments in terms of soil, agro-climatic conditions and human resources may enable it to produce certain crops at comparatively lower cost than other countries. In applying the concept of relative comparative advantage, the DRCR of a crop (A) is compared with the DRCR of the alternative crop (B). A and B compete for resources and the one with lower DRCR wins the competition. The DRCR methodology used by scholars (Bruno, 1972; Scandizzo and Bruce, 1980; Morris, 1990) differs marginally from case to case. The present study has used the simplified version of the formula given by the Scandizzo and Bruce (1980).
±a.P. DRCRj = -,,-,,"'-,--"-
P·-La,P.
where DRCR, domestic resource cost ratio ati-q..H1t::iWafj' input used to produce one unit of output I Pdj - domestic price of jlh input Pbi G) - border price of output or input
For calculating the DRCR of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar, the information on quantity and prices of inputs and outputs of these crops and competing crops for calculating opportunity cost were
358
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
obtained from published "Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices" (2003). The competing crops for calculating opportunity cost remained the same as for domestic competitiveness. Among the tradable inputs, seed and fertilizer were included while in non-tradable inputs human labour, bullock labour and irrigation were considered appropriate. The DRCRs were calculated for three points of time in the states of Madhya Pradesh for gram, Uttar Pradesh for arhar and massar and Andhra Pradesh for moong and urad. Although, first ranking state in terms of production was preferred, at times, next ranking state was chosen for analysis due to availability of three points of time data for the main crop and the competing crop. The years for computation also differ for the same reason. The DRCRs were calculated at the importable hypothesis considering the fact that India imports huge quantity of pulses regularly to bridge the demand and supply gap. Therefore, it is urgent to increase domestic production to substitute imports. Once, the domestic demand is fulfilled it can opt for increasing share in world exports of pulses. The values ofDRCRs for five referred pulses presented in Table 8.11 show that these were estimated below unity, however, the magnitude and direction varied significantly for the analysed pulse crops. India seems to enjoy a fabulous comparative advantage in case of urad by indicating the value of the DRCR as 0.19 in the year 2000 and 0.17 in the year 1991. It may be noticed that comparative advantage of urad production has improved in the 1980s but again it has declined marginally in the year 2000. The comparative advantage of Indian arhar was also found remarkable in terms of resource utilization. Its DRCR has come down from 1.46 in 1980s to 0.33 in 1990s and further to 0.21 during the year 2000. But, it should be borne in mind that arhar is a relatively long duration crop among pulses and occupies the most precious resource, i.e., land for a longer period in comparison to other pulses. The case of moong is almost similar and its competitiveness has gradually improved from 1.01 to 0.43 between 1981 and 2000. Although, production of gram has been growing at a higher rate than other pulses, it has exhibited relatively higher DRCR, which implies comparatively
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
359
Table 8.11 Domestic Resource Cost Ratio of Gram, Arbar, Moong, Urad and Massar in Selected States of India Year
DRCR
State Gram
1981
Madhya Pradesh
1995
Madhya Pradesh
1.05
2000
Madhya Pradesh
0.39
1985
Uttar Pradesh
1.46
1991
Uttar Pradesh
0.33
2000
Uttar Pradesh
0.20
1.32
Arhar
Mooog 1981
Andhra Pradesh
1991
Andhra Pradesh
0.67
2000
Andhra Pradesh
0.43
1.01
Urad 1981
Andhra Pradesh
0.34
1991
Andhra Pradesh
0.17
2000
Andhra Pradesh
0.19
2000
Uttar Pradesh
Massar
Source:
0.26
Estimated from data on Prices and Costs, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1980 to 2003.
lower advantage in production. The DRCR for rnassar was estimated only 0.26 for the year 2000 because data for calculating opportunity cost were not available for the earlier periods. It is evident that comparative advantage in terms ofresource utilization is fairly high in case of massar by showing the DRCR much lower than one (0.26). It seems that the entry of India into world market of pulses in a big way by competing with countries enjoying great yield advantage
360
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
has prevented India to become a major player in the world trade of pulses. It appeared that pulses do have some comparative strength particularly as import substituting activity. It may be observed that comparative advantage of most pulses has improved overtime. Recently, pulses have gained some strength through limited adoption of improved varieties, which has caused some growth in production of pulses. To conclude, the price competitiveness of Indian pulses has brought out clearly that Indian pulses are export competitive while they are not import competitive in terms of traditional indices, which tend to judge competitiveness merely from the viewpoint of a trader. It may be mentioned that the indices of traditional measures of global competitiveness are relatively high while the DRCRs are considerably lower for all five pUlses. It means when one looks price competitiveness of pulses in an integral manner by analysing pulse system as a whole, India is quite comfortable in terms of relative indices (DRCRs). It implies that India can promote pulse exports after looking at the domestic needs, which requires faster adoption of technology to keep up the comparative advantage. This can alter the comparative advantage of pulse producing countries through saving in yield and reducing the cost of production. Indeed, developing new technologies and adopting them quickly would be needed in order to compete effectively in the international market. These results partially substantiate the set hypothesis that the international competitiveness of the Indian pulses is low in terms of the conventional as well as alternate indices. What do these results signify? This analysis implies that India has comparative advantage in importing pulses because international prices of pulses are below the domestic prices but when competitiveness of pulses is examined in integral framework, India appeared to be quite comfortable. In view of the increasing demandsupply gap of pulses in the country and pulses being one of the most important items of Indian food, should the country depend on imports or increase domestic production? Before making policy decisions, the following limitations of imports should be reviewed carefully. First, the number of pulse producing countries in the world is not
International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
361
very large and hence, supply is limited. India cannot import desired quantity all the time. Second, India's quantity demanded in view of its population size would be very high and this wouldjack up prices in the international market in the absence of matching supply and the country may be a net looser. In fact, world market for pulses is imperfect and the quantity traded of total production is around 10% only. Third, 80% of pulses in India are grown in rainfed areas of the country. It is not possible to shift the area from pulses to other desired crops unless alternate profitable options emerge. Fourth, growing pulses for food security reasons is essential because pulses being integral part of human and animal diet and a main source of protein, India cannot afford to take the calculated risk. Undoubtedly, a country can partially depend on imports to bridge the demand and supply gap. In view of the above constraints and rising demand of pulses, it would be prudent for India to increase domestic production so that a large part of the increased demand may be fulfilled at home and the rest can be imported at the international prices.
Trade Policies for Pulses in India India had followed protective trade policies in case of agricultural products, including pulses before economic reforms in 1991. The trade ofthese items was regulated through quantitative restrictions, canalization, licenses, quotas and high tariff rates. Over the past few years, efforts have been made to liberalize trade policies by removing quantitative restrictions on imports to create policies consistent with economic reforms and to fulfill the commitment as a WTO member. Among the strategies to achieve export growth are unshackling of controls, simplifying procedures and bringing down the transition costs. As per the Exim Policy announced in 1992, imports and exports of pulses were restricted. But, in the next Exim Policy (1997-2002), the list of freely importable and exportable items was expanded considerably. In the Exim Policy of 2002, the imports of pulses were further liberalized and pulses were moved to the list of freely exportable and importable commodities. With this development,
362
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
almost all the agricultural products including pulses were allowed to be freely exported from April 2002. Now, the government completely freed the export ofpulses. Prior to this, the export ofpulses was permitted only in upto 5 kg bags. The bulk exports of pulses required a license. The situation has smoothened because exporting in bulk reduces cost. The money spent in packaging pulses in 5 kg bags was a waste oftime and labour in packing in India and opening outside India. Packaging in bags of up to 5 kg had a meaning if the Indian exporters were to market pulses under their own brands in the overseas market which was not the case. Lifting of quantitative restrictions on imports since April 2000 has resulted in large imports of pulses, which accounted for a significant proportion of domestic pulse production. The surge in pulse imports has affected the producers adversely. India has the option to counter cheap imports ofpulses through imposition ofbound tariffs permissible under WTO agreements. The rate of custom duty as on 1.3.2005 for pulses other than peas was 10% but the bound duty rate as on 1.1.2004 was 100%. This provided a fair deal of protection to the growers. India can also impose countervailing duties to restrict imports from exporting countries, which subsidize exports. For instance, import duty for pulses was raised in 2002-03 from 5% to 10%. But, prices of pulses have been rising sharply due to shortage in the domestic market. Therefore, import duty on pulses was reduced to zero. In addition, India clamped a ban on pulse exports in June 2007 and it was extended for another 12 months in April, 2008. Since, the country has been exporting a very small quantity ofpulses, it did not effect rising domestic prices. But, a decisive break from more than four decades of inward orientation since 1991, even today India is hardly in the reckoning as a significant player on the world scene of pulse exports. India's share in the world trade is merely 1.74%. If this share were to increase by significant per cent in the near future, country's exports ofpulses would have to rise significantly by taking into account the export growthrate in the world trade over the next five years. There is a growing realization that pulses export tlnust will be meaningless unless productivity is enhanced through investment in irrigation and research and development of new area specific improved varieties along with extension efforts to popularize them.
Chapter 9
Summary and Conclusions
This chapter presents the main fmdings of this study and the policy implications for improving pulse production in India. The study is a departure from earlier literature in the sense that it provides an overall perspective ranging from growth performance to international competitiveness of major pulse crops grown in the country. The main focus of this research has been on mapping the diverse and complex factors, which play an important role in the growth of pulse production. At the outset, it would be useful to present a brief summary of objectives, data and methodology to provide a backdrop of issues related to pulse development in India.
Objectives Stagnation in the pulse production is a serious problem in India and there is an urgent need to find its solution. For this purpose, it would be essential to examine the key determinants of pulse production in India. This study therefore has been undertaken with the following objectives in mind: (i)
to examine the growth performance of important pulse crops in terms of area, production and yield during the reference period at the all India and state levels;
(ii)
to measure the magnitude of instability in area, production and yield of important pulse crops;
(iii)
to estimate the contribution of price and non-price factors in determining acreage and yield of selected pulse crops in the core states;
364
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
(iv)
to analyse district level status of pulse production in major growing states;
(v)
to examine the impact of price on production of pulse crops;
(vi)
to study the adoption of technology for pulse crops at the state and farm size levels;
(vii)
to examine the domestic competitiveness of pulse crops vis-a-vis competing crops; and
(viii) to examine the international competitiveness of the Indian pulses.
Research Methodology This study is based on secondary data collected from the government and international publications and field-based research studies. The important data sources included "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India", "Agricultural Prices in India", "Farm Harvest Prices in India", "Agricultural Statistics at a Glance", "Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices", "Foreign Trade Statistics", "Economic Surveys", "Bulletin on Food Statistics", Plan documents, "Trade and Production Year Books" ofFAO. The analysis is confined to five major pulse crops (gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar), which cover around 85% of pulse production in India. The study has covered a period of two decades beginning from 1980-81 to 2001-02. The entire period is divided into two sub-periods, which represent the pre- (1980-81 to 1990-91) and post-reforms period (1990-91 to 2001-02). The cut-off point of 1990-91 has strategic significance too as pulse crops were included in the Technology Mission (TM) during this year. Besides, the process of economic reforms was also initiated during this year. The methodology used in the analysis of set objectives differs for each part of the study depending on the availability of data and suitability of statistical technique in facilitating the discussion. The growth of area, production and yield of individual and total pulses in major growing states during the study period was estimated by using semi-log functions while instability indices were based on log variance method. Further, identification of factors influencing the acreage of individual pulse crops in major states has been based on the modified
Summary and Conclusions
365
Nerlovian model of distributed lags. The current year acreage was regressed on lagged year acreage, lagged year relative price, lagged year relative yield, pre-sowing rainfall, yield risk and price risk. Besides, yield response function was estimated for gram in Madhya Pradesh, by including expenditure on seed and fertilizer in addition to rainfall as independent variables. The adoption of technology influences yield rates but it could not be included in the model due to non-availability of data on pulse area covered by improved seeds. This exercise could not be undertaken for remaining four pulse crops for the same reason. The district-wise status of pulse production was examined in all the states, which contributed between 80% and 90% to the total production in the country. Each district accounting for at least one per cent to the production of individual pulses in the selected states was included. The inter district variations in area, production and yield of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses were examined for the available period. The coefficients of variation of included variables were estimated. Theoretically, price is one of the most important factors affecting production. In the Nerlovian model, relative price was used as one of the independent variables. In addition, production response of pulse prices was separately estimated by measuring elasticities of acreage and yield, which were clubbed together to arrive at the output response. The price indices used in the regression equations were lagged farm harvest price or wholesale price indices deflated by input price indices. This was purposively done because farmers are also sensitive to input prices. In order to understand the underlying analytics of the price behaviour of pulses in India, trend, variability, inter-year changes and seasonality aspects were also incorporated in the analysis. The adoption of technology assumes special significance in improving production of agricultural commodities. The analysis of this aspect included a review of policies ensued by the government for promotion and transfer of technology, yield gap between actual and potential yield, use of technology enhancing inputs in major states and by farm size. Further, relationship among the factors influencing adoption of technology was ascertained through a regression model which included percentage of pulse area under improved seeds as dependent variable and percentage of GCA under pulse crops, percentage of irrigated area, percentage of pulse area fertilized, manured and covered by pesticides and tractor use as
366
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
independent variables. Fanners' experiences in terms of benefits of improved technology and their suggestions to popularize technology in pulse cultivation are added. Besides, prices and technology, the competitiveness of pulse crops is considered an important factor affecting pulse production in the country. The domestic competitiveness of important pulses was judged on the basis of relative profitability of competing crops in major producing states for the early 1980s, early 1990s and the recent period. The profitability per hectare was worked out at the operational cost as well as at total cost. Among the multiple factors, which are important for boosting pulse production, international competitiveness seems to be significant in liberalizing and globalizing scenario. It was estimated for five considered pulses in terms of conventional (NPCs, EPCs and ESCs) as well as alternate indices (DRCRs). The analysis also incorporated important aspects related to pulse trade in India and in the world.
Main Findings Pulses have been a weak component in the food grains production mix of India. They covered an area of 18% of all food grains and contributed only 8% to production in 1980-81, which declined to 6% in 2005-06. This was the outcome of extremely low productivity of pulse crops. The ratio of pulse yield to food grains yield dropped from 0.84 in 1950-51 to 0.34 in 2005-06. Consequently, share of pulse production in total food grains production has witnessed a declining trend. These developments worsened the position of pulses in total foodgrains scenario of India.
Growth Performance of Pulses State Level Analysis The all India pulse production grew at the dismal rate of 0.7% per annum between 1980-81 and 2001-02. The growth in area was found almost stagnant whereas yield increased at a slow rate of one per cent. The growth pattern of pulse production varied widely across the major growing states. It exceeded 3% per year in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. The states of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and
Summary and Conclusions
367
Tamil Nadu also recorded around 2% per annum growth in pulse production. In three states, growth in production resulted from increase in area and yield while in Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh, yield was the major contributor. The pre-economic reforms period with 1.9% per annum growth in pulse production in India was far better than the post-reforms period with negative growth of 0.3% per annum. The positive growth of 0.6% in yield could not compensate for a negative growth of 0.9% in area. The pattern of lower growth in pulse production during the 1990s in comparison to the 1980s was visible in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa, Haryana and Tamil Nadu. But, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra registered more than 3% growth in pulse production between 199091 and 2001-02. The achievements of Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh with a phenomenal growth rate of 10%, 6.2% and 5.1 % per annum in the 1980s are worth emulating. Growth in pulse production in these states was largely due to area expansion and increase in yield. But, states like Punjab and Haryana showed a decline in pulse production. Therefore, overall production performance of total pulses deteriorated in India during the 1990s despite inclusion of pulses in the TM since 1990-91.The pulse yield at the all India level was 597 kg per ha which was much below the global level. This segment needs strengthening in view of the declining per capita availability of pulses from over 70 gmsIday in the mid-1950s to around 30 gms/ days in the recent period. The tendency of slow growth in the production visible for total pulses at the all India level was also observed for individual pulse crops except massar. It emerged as the fastest growing crop in production due to area as well as yield growth. Gram, the most important crop in pulses, registered an increase of less than one per cent per year during the selected two decades despite negative growth in area. However, it recorded a phenomenal increase of around 13% per year in Andhra Pradesh due to exceptionally higher growth in area and around 5% growth in yield. Karnataka followed by Mabarashtra and Madhya Pradesh are the other states exhibiting this trend in production. In the first three, area expansion outsmarted yield growth while yield played a key role in Madhya Pradesh. The growth of gram production in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka was higher in the 1990s
368
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
while reverse happened in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. At the all India level, first as well as second period showed insignificant growth in gram production. The production perfonnance of arhar was found poorer than gram. It grew at the marginal rate of 0.3% per annum at the all India level between 1980-81 and 2001-02. This miniscule growth came from area expansion. Yield emerged as the great casualty by showing a negative growth. However, some of the major growing states perfonned well. For instance, arhar production in Andhra Pradesh grew at the rate of 6.1 % per annum and yield contributed more than area. In other faster growing states of Haryana, Rajasthan and Maharashtra, area was primarily responsible for acceleration except Rajasthan where yield was the sole factor. When production perfonnance is examined in the two sub-periods, 1980s appeared to be far better than 1990s. However, 1990s were observed to be exceptionally impressive for the states of Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka and Maharashtra where yield happened to be the major contributor in the growth of production. The case of moong was the worst among all the individual pulse crops because its production declined at the rate of 0.2% per annum during the study period at the aggregate level. Neither area expansion nor yield helped in arresting this declining trend. However, moong production in Rajasthan registered an increase of8.4% per year during this period. Other states with high growth in production were Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra. In Rajasthan, area contributed more than yield while in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, yield played an important role in boosting production. Moreover, period of 1980s appeared to be much better than the 1990s in the leading states as well as in India. It is appreciable, that moong production in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka grew at the phenomenal rate of 11.6%, 10.1% and 8.6% per annum during the 1980s. The production of urad increased at the rate of 1.3% in India between 1980-81 and 2001-02 due to yield improvement. The period of 1980s exhibited an exceptional growth of 5.8% per annum, which occurred due to yield improvement and area expansion. Among the major growing states, Kamataka (6.7%) and Uttar Pradesh (6.5%) were most successful but growth in first came from area expansion whereas in the second case, both area and yield were found important.
Summary and Conclusions
369
Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu were other states with more than 3% growth in the production of urad during the reference period. The production performance of massar has been most impressive during the study period. Its production increased at the rate of 4% per year against a growth rate of 0.7% for total pulses. This success is the outcome of positive growth in area as well as in yield. The states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have shown commendable results by indicating 5.5%,4.1 % and 4.3% per annum growth in the production of massar during the reference period. The pattern of growth in case of rabi and kharif pulses was different during the study period. They have almost same share in the total area under pulses at the country level but rabi pulses outsmarted kharif pulses and contributed 64% to total pulse production. Further, kharif pulses have their base in states ofMaharashtra, Rajasthan, Kamataka and Madhya Pradesh where yield rates are extremely low. The high yield rates in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar indicate the potential, which can be realized in other states too. Rabi pulses are also primarily grown in rainfed areas of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. The productivity of rabi pulses was 896 kg per ha in Uttar Pradesh as against 789 kg per ha in Madhya Pradesh. However, production of kharif as well as rabi pulses grew at the marginal rate of 0.6% and 0.9% per annum during the selected two decades. The first period was important in terms of growth while second period was gloomy due to negative growth in production of kharif pulses and low growth in production of rabi pulses. One notable feature of pulse production in the country worth mentioning is that growth in production ofkharif pulses has been less than that of rabi pulses which grew at the rate of 0.9% per annum in the study period despite declining trend in area. It was primarily achieved due to yield improvement. The period-wise growth rates indicated that production performance of rabi pulses in the 1980s was better than the 1990s. In kharif pulses too, a moderate production growth of 3% per year was noticed in the pre-reforms period. The production performance of rabi and kharif pulses during the chosen period reveals that neither area nor yield has been effective in pushing production .
370
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Rellressal
The common belief that production perfonnance of pulses is poor due to low growth in area and yield was fully conftnned for total pulses at the all India level. But, state level ftndings partially support this hypothesis as Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra exhibited above 3% and Kamataka followed by Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu around 2% growth in pulse production due to area expansion, yield improvement or both during the study period. The aforesaid hypothesis for gram, arhar, moong and urad was substantiated but it was rejected for massar at the country level because massar exhibited 4% growth in production resulting from 1.8% and 2.2% per annum growth in area and yield during the reference period. It was also rejected for gram in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka; for arhar in Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh; for moong in Maharashtra and Rajasthan; for urad in Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and for massar in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Instability in Production The instability indices of area, production and yield of individual and total pulses at the state and all India level were found diverse. The following important conclusions emerged from the analysis. First, the production of total pulses showed uncertainty level of 12.81 %. The role of yield instability was higher than that of area instability. Moreover, it was higher in the 1990s than 1980s. This implies that economic reforms and policies pursued for the improvement of pulse production under the Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses (TMOP) did not help in reducing the uncertainty in the pulse production of India. Second, degree ofinstability in the production of individual pulses did not coincide with the overall pattern. The crops of urad and massar indicated lower instability in comparison to major crops like gram and arhar. The evidences of higher instability in yield are much more than area except for gram, which has shown reverse pattern. In 75% of analysed cases, yield variability has been responsible for uncertainty in production. Third, range of instability in production of total pulses is quite wide across the states. It was estimated as high as around 96% in Haryana. In contrast, it was found around 11 % in Uttar Pradesh due to very low index of area instability (3.89%). Fourth, majority of the referred states have indicated pulse production instability above the all India level.
Summary and Conclusions
371
District Level Status of Pulse Production The status of individual and total pulses is analysed in the major growing districts in important states of India. The study revealed that variations in the presence of pulses among the districts show a mirror image of changes in area and production from one district to another district. The identification of important districts in the production of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar in India highlighted that major producing districts of each pulse crop by and large showed regional concentration. For instance, top-producing districts of gram, arhar, moong and massar belonged to Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. This tendency was found lower in case of urad as top producing districts were scattered in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. The status of pulses in crop economy is largely determined by the availability of water through irrigation or rainfall. If availability of water were high, farmers would prefer alternate profitable crops. Otherwise, they stick to cultivation of drought resistant crops like pulses. The low yield rates of pulses appeared to be serious constraint demanding urgent attention of the policy makers. A corresponding analysis of top districts with highest productivity of pulses in the country revealed that most of these districts belonged to Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. The highest yield rates of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses were achieved in Prakasham (1,954 kglha, Andhra Pradesh), Allahabad (2,630 kglha, Uttar Pradesh), Salem (889 kglha, Tamil Nadu), Selam (872 kglha, Tamil Nadu) and Birbhum (1,026 kglha, West Bengal), Karuli (1,765 kglha, Rajasthan). These results indicate the significant possibilities of harnessing yield potential in the country. The factors responsible for impressive yield levels achieved in these locations cannot be spelt out due to the absence of micro level studies; however, higher adoption of technology could be the main force behind attaining higher productivity. For replicating such fruitful experiences for boosting pulse production through increased yield rates in other districts, these should be treated, as model districts and research should be carried out in order to understand the factors behind the success. The estimated coefficients of variation of area, production and yield of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses across the districts in major growing states indicated an extremely high variability
372
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
in area and production. However, value of coefficient for yield was also estimated more than 20% in large number of cases.
Adoption of Technology Since the late 1960s, a variety of programmes have been initiated to induce technological change in pulse production in the country with a view to increasing productivity. But, their implementation over the four decades did not lead to any discernible impact on the slow growth of yield and production of pulses in India. The limited micro evidences attributed this to inadequate allocation of funds, late sanctions and poor network of extension services. The fact remains that past programmes including Technology Mission could not succeed in inducing widespread adoption of improved technology for pulse cultivation. Despite the diversities of policies adopted and the differences in the agro-climatic conditions in which programmes are implemented, three conclusions emerge with some clarity. First, policies do not automatically lead to technological breakthroughs. Further, it requires careful ancillary provisions in the form of inputs. Second, lack of interest on the part of farmers in the absence of proven benefits of technology made their adoption slow. Third, the country could not reap the benefits of these programmes in terms of increased pulse production along the lines expected by the policy makers. A scrutiny of recent state-wise and farm size data on the use of improved seeds, fertilizer, manure, pesticides and tractor for pulse cultivation suggests that progress of adoption of improved technology in pulse farming has been uneven across different parts of the country. The states of Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal have progressed better than the rest of the country. But, major pulse growing states like Madhya Pradesh are lagging far behind. Unfortunately, in the progressive states like Punjab and Haryana, percentage of pulse area covered by improved seeds was lower than the national average. Thus, low adoption of technology emerges as a serious constraint despite its importance in increasing pulse production. Pulses are cultivated by all categories of farmers but small holders devoted higher proportion of GCA to pulse crops. This pattern was observed in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Andhra
Summary and Conclusions
373
Pradesh except Rajasthan where variations across farm size were minimal. The pattern of pulse area under improved seeds was the reverse. The farm size and proportion of area under improved seeds are found positively related. This relationship was clearly visible at the all India level. The difference in adoption rate between marginal and large farmers was as high as 26%. It sounds logical because modem farming was based largely on the use of improved seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides with assured supply of water for irrigation demands high investments, which small farmers cannot afford. This phenomenon observed at the all India level was found true for Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan but rest of the three major pUlse-producing states, i.e., Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh did not reflect it. The regression model was used to unravel association between percentage of pulse area under improved seeds and some of the important factors inducing technological change. It revealed strong influence of area irrigated and fertilization on the adoption of improved seeds. The findings of micro level studies of Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana showed that improved varieties were slowly replacing the local varieties. In Andhra Pradesh, these varieties are spreading at a faster rate due to policy support in terms of favourable prices and technological change through availability of improved varieties. In Punjab, use of improved varieties for moong was found common but gram was found lagging behind. The proportion of pulse area under improved seeds and farm size are found positively related in Punjab as well as in Haryana. The extent of adoption of recommended package of practices by pulse growers was not found satisfactory. Sowing practices related to preparation ofland, time and method were adopted by majority of the growers but seed practices, use of recommended doses of fertilizer, pesticides and weedicides were found deficient. The lower rung farmers were more particular in sowing practices but they missed in adopting practices related to fertilizer, pesticides and weedicides, which involved finance. In contrast, large farmers paid more attention to these practices. The main reasons advanced by the adopters for neglecting the recommended package of practices were limited irrigation facilities at their disposal, high prices of fertilizer, pesticides, weedicides and uncertain yield of pulse crops. Thus, the principal concern regarding technological change appears
374
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
to be the poor adoption rate of improved seeds. It is further accentuated by less than recommended application of yield augmenting inputs. The micro level studies highlight the experiences of producers regarding the factors hindering spread of full package of improved technology in pulse fanning. The fanners rated lack of assured profitability as the most important factor in the adoption of technology, which requires investment in expensive inputs. The other constraints in popularizing technology reported by them included lack of infonnation, inadequate availability of genuine improved seeds, pesticides, weedicides and insufficient extension support. Since, adoption of technology at the grass root level depends on these factors, they should be given top priority in policy. The hypothesis that adoption of technology for pulse cultivation at the all India, state and farm size levels is slow due to low proportion of cropped area covered by improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides is fully confinned at the country level because less than half of the pulse area is covered by these inputs. But, some of the major pulse producing states showed more than 50% of pulse area under improved seeds. This proportion was even higher for pulse area fertilized and tilled by tractor. The coverage of pesticides was extremely low in all the states. At the farm level, all categories of farmers except large fanners had sown less than 50% of pulse area under improved seeds. The pulse area tilled by tractor was more than 50% in marginal, medium and large fanns. Thus, the aforesaid hypothesis was partially confinned at the state as well as at the farm level.
Farm Size Variation The macro variations in the. area, production and yield of pulse crops arise due to differences at the farm size level, which play an important role in India, given the predominance of small and marginal fanners in number and of large fanners in area. Unfortunately, the all India evidences such as agricultural censuses, input surveys and cultivation practices in India did not give detailed infonnation by fann size on pulse crops and neglected important aspects like productivity. However, these sources help in understanding the status of pulse farming across farm sizes over time. In 1980-81, percentage of GCA devoted to pulse crops was significant on all fann sizes. The irrigated
Summary and Conclusions
375
and unirrigated area differentials were found substantial. In the 1980s and 1990s, large fanners devoted higher percentage of GCA to pulses in comparison to small and marginal farmers. This phenomenon reversed in the recent period. Fanners especially those with fair amount of land have shown a declining preference to raise pulses due to emerging options in the form of alternative crops with higher yields and low risk. The percentage of GCA under pulses on large size fanns declined in comparison to the 1980s and 1990s. On the other hand, small and marginal fanners who could not undertake risk by raising pulse crops on their tiny holdings have started devoting higher proportion of GCA in response to limited availability of improved seeds and remunerative prices. The results of fann size evidence-regarding proportion of GCA allocated to pulse crops from two Indian states - Haryana and Madhya Pradesh - suggested that in advanced district of Ambala in Haryana, marginal and small fanners devoted higher proportion of GCA to pulse crops in comparison to large fanners. But, in the agriculturally backward and lesser-irrigated district of Bhiwani, large farmers allocated a very high share of GCA to pulse crops and they used improved seeds on 38.75% of pulse area. In contrast, marginal farmers allocated 19.57% ofGCA to pulse crops and applied improved seeds only on 4.44% of pulse area during 1997-98. In the leading pulse growing state of Madhya Pradesh, marginal fanners devoted more than 40% of GCA to pulse crops in Durg, Jhabua and Narsingpur districts. Large fanners however, allocated less than 30% ofGCA in Jhabua and Narsingpur and more than 30% in Durg district during 1996-97. Thus, a positive relationship between fann size and area allocated to pulse crops observed in the irrigated areas was not confirmed in the unirrigated areas. The adoption rate of improved seeds was zero per cent and 55.56% of pulse area.
Determinants of Acreage and Yield The empirical results on the extent of responsiveness of price and non-price factors to acreage of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses in India and major growing states varied widely in different milieu. The estimates of elasticities of lagged area, lagged relative price, lagged relative yield, price risk, yield risk and pre-sowing
376
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
rainfall revealed that the acreage allocation in rabi pulses, i.e., gram and massar got influenced by lagged acreage followed by relative price in most of the analysed cases. It implies that the farmers are significantly responsive to commercial stimuli in addition to non-price factors like lagged acreage. This judgment, however, does not apply to kharif pulses. In allocating land to arhar, moong and urad, farmers considered lagged acreage and magnitude of pre-sowing rainfall as the most important factors. The low and insignificant elasticity coefficient of relative price for kharif pulses in most of the referred states suggests dominance of non-price factors over price factors in area allocation to these crops. It appears quite logical because alternate options for kharif pulses are limited to coarse cereals, which are inferior to pulses in profitability. The lagged relative yield, price risk and yield risk though theoretically important, turned out to be insignificant for rabi as well as kharifpulses in most of the analysed states. This suggests that the farmers do not attach higher weightage to these factors in acreage allocation under pulses. The Nerlovian coefficient of adjustment provides information about the speed of adjustment of acreage to changing levels of the explanatory variables in the supply response equation. In the case of pulses, this coefficient ranged from a low of 0.06 to a high of 0.S7. However, around 60% cases revealed magnitude of adjustment below 0.40. This implies that the farmers are adjusting their area under the cultivation of pulses at a slow rate with changing levels of institutional and technological factors. The hypothesis related to the greater responsiveness of the nonprice factors in comparison to relative price in acreage allocation to pulse crops was fully confirmed for the total pulses at the all India level. But, it was partially substantiated at the state level as relative prices affected area allocation in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Kamataka and Maharashtra. Among the selected pulses, it was partially accepted for gram and massar since relative price influenced farmers' decisions in area allocation at the national level and in some of the analysed states. However, this hypothesis was by and large confirmed for kharifpulses barring two states, namely Maharashtra and Rajasthan where relative prices were found significant in case of arhar and
Summary and Conclusions
377
moong. The results of the Cobb-Douglas yield function of gram in Madhya Pradesh indicated that seed was the most responsive input followed by rainfall during the selected two decades. The response of fertilizer was not significant and this can be attributed to the fact that gram in Madhya Pradesh is generally grown under rainfed conditions whereas; response of fertilizer is higher under irrigated conditions. Thus, the belief regarding the influence of expenditure on seed, fertilizer and magnitude of rainfall on the productivity of pulse crops was partially confirmed because fertilizer response was not found significant on the productivity of gram in Madhya Pradesh.
Output Response of Pulse Prices The findings emanating from the analysis of the behaviour of prices of pulses in the study period are summarized below. All types of prices of selected pulse crops increased significantly during the study period but the rate of increase had been different for different pulses and also varied between different periods. The rise in the wholesale price and retail price was higher, as supply could not cope up with the demand due to growth of population and stagnant production of pulses in the country. Even, higher imports in recent years could not bring stability in price. The semi-log equations successfully explained the price behaviour of pulses. The regression coefficients of time were found positive and significant in most of cases. In addition, Ri turned out to be more than 0.90 in majority of the equations. It suggests that time is an important element in explaining variations in prices of pulses. The results of coefficients of variation of prices of pulses over the study period are indicative of very high variability, which increased more in the reforms period. The year-to-year percentage change in prices of pulses was generally positive but negative changes were also observed in the wholesale, farm harvest and retail prices in the first as well as in the second sub-periods. The minimum support prices of individual pulses have been rising through out the study period but the rate of increase varied from year to year.
378
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Seasonal price variations in wholesale price of pulses is a common phenomenon in the major markets of core states, However, coefficient of variation was found the highest for gram, arhar and massar in 2001. But, it was the maximum for moong and urad in 1981. The overall price behaviour of pulses indicates preponderance of the demand factor over that of supply. Recently, imports have made some impact by increasing supply, which appeared to have slowed down the growth in prices of pulses. Output response of prices of pulses was found low at all India level but moderate and high in some of the major growing states. It was particularly high in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh. But, production could not increase to the desired level because of low/negative response in some other states. These results partially substantiate the hypothesis that pulse production is responsive to output/input prices. It is rejected at the all India level for gram, arhar, moong and total pulses but accepted for urad and massar. It is partially accepted at the state level in view of around 70% positive and significant elasticity coefficients of output/ input price found for the analysed pulse crops.
Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops The domestic competitiveness of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar in terms of relative profitability was examined in the core states for the early 1980s, early 1990s and the recent period. The analysis of data revealed that profitability of gram vis-a-vis its competing crops namely, wheat and mustard has improved over the study period. Especially, domestic competitiveness of gram in Uttar Pradesh during the recent period could be well established because yield advantage of wheat is gradually getting off set by growing yield and higher per unit price of gram in this state, where it has emerged as the faster growing crop in terms of profitability than the alternate crops. The analysis of gross returns, costs and net returns per hectare of arhar and its competing crops (bajra and jowar) in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra during the referred three points of time has established the superiority of arhar over the alternate crops. The profitability of arhar in Madhya Pradesh has risen from Rs.1 ,806 per ha. in 1981-82 to Rs.3,673 per ha. in 2000-01 at the operational
Summary and Conclusions
379
cost. The similar increase was noticed in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra as well. The estimates of profitability of moong and its two competing crops Gowar and bajra) in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh in the early 1980s, early 1990s and recent period provided mixed results. It was competitive in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh barring Rajasthan where jowar and bajra were more profitable during the early 1980s. The scenario did not change in Andhra Pradesh during early 1990s but it became non-competitive in Maharashtra. However, the recent estimates of profitability of moong vis-a-vis its competing crops in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra were observed to be favourable for moong. An examination of domestic competitiveness of urad in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh showed mixed results, as the crop was found profitable over jowar in the early 1980s. However, it was noncompetitive in Madhya Pradesh during 1990s as well as in 2000-01. Andhra Pradesh indicated uniform performance during the study period. The findings of massar on relative profitability in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during the recent period did not establish the superiority of this crop over its three competing crops gram, wheat and mustard in Uttar Pradesh but results were better for Madhya Pradesh where it was found profitable over gram. A gradual increase in the proportion of expenditure on technology enhancing inputs (seed, fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation) in the operational cost was noticed for gram, arhar. moong and urad in all the analysed states. The results emerging from testing of the set hypotheses are as follows. The first hypothesis that domestic competitiveness of pulse crops is low was fully valid for gram in Madhya Pardesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan for the early 1980s but partially acceptable for the early 1990s and the recent period. It happened because gram's performance in Central India (in states like Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) appeared to be improved because higher prices and rising yield of gram has more than offset the comparative yield differentials. The hypothesis is fully discarded for arhar in all the analysed states at the referred three points of time. Since, results for moong are mixed
380
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
in the early 1980s and 1990s, this hypothesis is partially accepted but fully rejected for the recent period. The same hypothesis is fully discarded for urad in Andhra Pradesh but Madhya Pradesh showed its competitiveness over jowar in early 1980s but it became noncompetitive in 1990s and the recent period. The same hypothesis for massar in the latest period was accepted for Uttar Pradesh but partially rejected for Madhya Pradesh. The hypothesis relating to gradual increase in the share of technology enhancing inputs (seed, fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation) in the operational cost is supported to a large extent for gram, arhar, moong and urad for all the analysed states. The hypothesis about the increasing share of machine labour and decreasing shares of human and animal labour is fully accepted for selected pulse crops in all the analysed states.
International Competitiveness ofIndian Pulses The overall perspective of the international competitiveness of pulses was examined by including trade related issues like status of India in global pulse production, international trade in pulses, major destinations of pulse exports and imports and recent changes in trade policy. The major fmdings are as under. Pulses occupied 68.32 million hectares of area and contributed 57.51 million tonnes to the world food basket during 2000. India has been the largest producer of pulses in the world accounting for 37.27% of area and 25.51% of global production in TE 1981. These shares dropped to 3l.54% and 23.84% in TE 200l. On the other hand, shares of Canada, France, Australia and Mynamar in global pulse production improved over the last two decades. The yield growth is primarily responsible for their success. The leading country is France, which produced 4,559 kg/1m as against 610 kg/ha by India during the TE year 2001. International trade in pulses constituted 12.46% of global production during 2002. The major exporting countries included Canada, Mynamar, Australia, France and China with corresponding shares of 16.27%, 12.67%, 12.24%, 1l.35% and 9.90% respectively in the world exports of pulses. India's share is marginal (l.74%) despite being the leading producer ofpulses. This is basically due to stagnation in pulse production and higher domestic demand, which cOllverted India into the biggest
Summary and Conclusions
381
importer of pulses in the world. Its share was as high as around 25% during 2002. The other importing countries comprised Pakistan, Egypt, USA, Belgium, Spain, China and Netherlands. India exports as well as imports a large variety of pulses. Massar among the exports and pea among the imports accounted for the largest share. A significant variation was noticed in the unit value of the Indian exports and imports of pulses. The export prices were higher than the import prices in all individual cases. This may be attributed to yield advantage, which reduced cost in major exporting countries. In addition, high export subsidies might have also played an important role. Therefore, countries like France can afford to sell pulses at low prices. Second, India grows a large variety of pulses. Most of the importing countries buy for non-resident Indian population settled in these countries. India has an added advantage because some of the pulses are grown only in India due to agro-climatic diversity. India exports pulses to several countries. The leading importers included USA, the UK., UAE, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. On the other hand, India imports pulses in huge quantity from Mynamar, Canada, Tanzania, Iran, Australia and France. Mynamar accounting for 55.41% share has been the single largest exporter of gram to India. Similarly, Iran with its two-fifth share in total Indian imports of gram dal happened to be the largest exporter. The international competitiveness of the Indian pulses judged on the basis of conventional indices such as Nominal Protection Coefficients (NPCs), Effective Protection Coefficients (EPCs) and Effective Subsidy Coefficients (ESCs) revealed that the export competitiveness of the Indian pulses is high while import competitiveness is low. The overall strength of international competitiveness of the Indian pulses has improved between 1981 and 2000. A further examination of the international competitiveness of the Indian pulses on the basis ofDRCRs highlighted that these are import competitive and therefore, a country should go ahead in enhancing the domestic pulse production. India had followed protective trade policies for pulse trade before the initiation of economic reforms in 1991. The trade of these items was regulated through quantitative restrictions, canalization, licenses,
382
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
quotas and high tariff rates. It is gradually being liberlized. The quantitative restrictions on imports are partially removed since April 2000. The rate of custom duty as on 1.3.2005 for pulses other than pea was 10% but the bound duty rate as on 1.1.2004 was 100%. This was an effort to provide some protection to pulse growers despite huge imports. Owing to the shortage of pulses in domestic market and soaring prices, import duty was reduced to zero and a ban was clamped on exports of pulses si~ce June, 2007. It was hypothesized that the international competitiveness of the Indian pulses is low in terms of conventional as well as alternate indices. The findings of this study show that the Indian pulses are export competitive but not import competitive in terms of conventional indices. The results of international competitiveness of the Indian pulses based on alternate indices calculated as DRCRs revealed that the Indian pulses are import competitive. Therefore, the set hypothesis regarding the international competitiveness of the Indian pulses was partially confirmed.
Policy Implications The pulse production performance in India between 1980-81 and 2001-02 has been extremely poor. More than a decade after the initiation of economic reforms , instead of experiencing boom in growth, there has been a deceleration in the rate of growth of pulse output as compared with the same achieved during the decade immediately before the onset of reforms. It has fallen from 1.9% per annum in the 1980s to negative growth of -0.3% per year in the 1990s. There has also been a sharp decline in the yield growth rate from 1.7% per annum to 0.6% per annum during this period. This situation has resulted in a demand and supply gap of more than 3 million tonnes per year. So far, our country has been bridging this gap through huge imports, which have become a regular feature in the recent years. This reflects declining self-reliance and increasing import dependence. The current per capita availability of pulses in India is much below the nutritional minimum and this is going to fall further with rising population and growth in income. The deficit in future has to be filled either through imports or through increase in domestic production. In the context of first option, limited availability of pulses
Summary and Conclusions
383
in tenns of quantity and variety and the price competitiveness in the international market are great constraints. Even, if the situation improves in future, problem of pulse growers in rainfed areas in the form of threat to their livelihoods from large-scale imports need to be addressed. This also merits attention regarding policy prescription related to the minimum level of self-sufficiency that the country should adhere to over the years with respect to pulses. The anticipated situation demands a careful scrutiny of policies given the importance of pulses in the Indian human and animal nutrition and their role in farming. In the era of globalizing and increasing market access, comparative advantage in the production has become an important factor to be reviewed before embarking upon a policy framework to improve production of agricultural commoditie·s. The broad conclusions emerging from the analysis of the international competitiveness of the Indian pulse crops suggest that the country is price competitive in exports but not in imports. However, analysis of price competitiveness of pulses in an integral manner by analysing pulse system as a whole suggested that India seemed to be quite comfortable in terms of opportunity cost of domestic production. Besides, domestic competitiveness was also found favourable in some of the major growing states. This implies that India should increase pulse production and can promote pulse exports after looking at the domestic needs. But, export thrust is not possible without increasing the productivity of the Indian pulses, which face tough competition in the world. For this purpose, the real emphasis should be on improving yields, reducing costs and improving the quality of the produce. Given the international scenario and ground realities of pulse production in India, it would be prudent to plan on the premise that a good part of the anticipated demand in future may have to be met through domestic production and the rest can be imported. There is a need to address the structural issues that stymie growth of pulse production. The large part of pulses is grown on un-irrigated lands in rainfed areas. The farmers here face challenges on yield, marketing and prices. For removing these bottlenecks, there is a strong case for further policy initiatives in tenns of research and development. As such, past policies did not succeed in improving the pulse production. The inclusion of pulses in the Technology Mission (TM) in 1990-91 demanded a high priority to supply of improved seeds and
384
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
complementary inputs. Owing to the strategic importance of these critical inputs in improving pulse production through increased productivity, the onus fell on the government to ensure that improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides were available, accessible and affordable. The positive contribution of the TMOP has been in bringing around 47% of pulse area under improved seeds in 1998. But, unfortunately targets of yield-enhancing inputs remained elusive or partially achieved. For the success of the TMOP, its percolation to grass root levels in all pulse growing states is of utmost importance. It was found high in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu andAndhra Pradesh but the major growing states of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh showed an adoption rate of 30.91 % and 34.19% respectively. Further, the adoption rate of small and marginal farmers has been much lower than the mean level. In case of these farmers, the critical issue is to induce them to adopt improved seeds through a support mechanism. For others, making their use viable by adopting associated practices is extremely important. The adoption of complementary package of practices has so far received little attention and there are evidences of deficiencies on this front. For correcting these shortcomings, vigorous extension system is required urgently. This calls for strengthening the already existing programmes in terms of coverage, input delivery system, evaluation and regular monitoring of the key components along with in time sanction of funds. The price and marketing support to pulse growers is inadequate. The NAFED provides this support by procuring a small quantity of pulses at the minimum support prices under the price support and commercial purchases. But, looking at the area covered and number of farmers involved in pulse cultivation in the country, interventions of the NAFED were found marginal and hence made hardly any difference to the overall situation. This could be one of the reasons that pulse production could not pick up despite increasing the market and minimum support prices in comparison to other agricultural commodities. Farmers did not respond enthusiastically to price signals due to yield disadvantage and price uncertainty involved in pulse farming and low effectiveness of the MSP in the absence of procurement system. Therefore, procurement of pulses from the farmers during the peak season at the MSP and canalizing the produce through the Public Distribution System (PDS) will be the right step to
Summary and Conclusions
385
protect farmers. In addition, changes in trade policy according to circumstances may further strengthen the support system. To sum up, growth in pulse production in India has to be induced primarily through widespread adoption of technology. There is an urgent need to increase the supply of inputs that lead to yield improvements. But, transfer of technology may be impeded or thwarted by unfavourable price regime. Hence, a favourable price support to pulse growers is an utmost need to incentivise farmers in stepping up the rate of adoption of technology and to induce them to use yield augmenting inputs, which may usher in enhanced overall profitability. It is sanguinely hoped that these measures will lead to growth as well as stability in the production of pulses in India.
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
Chapter 10
Bibliography
Acharya, S.S. "Agricultural Production, Marketing and Price Policy in India - A Study ofPulses", Mittal Publications, Delhi, 1988. Acharya, S.S. "Oilseeds and Pulses - Price Policy and Production Performance, Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 48. (3),1993. Acharya, S.S. "Agricultural Price Policy and Development: Some Facts and Emerging Issues", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 52 (1), (1997). Acharya S.S. and G.S. Gupta, "Production of Pulse Crops: Performance, Constraints and Prospects", Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 37(1-4), 1982. Acharya, S.S. and D.P. Chaudhri, "Indian Agricultural Policy at Crossroads" (edited), Rawat Publications, New Delhi, 2001. Ahluwalia, M.S. "New Economic Policy and Agriculture: Some Reflections", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 51 (3), 1996. Ali Masood and J.P. Mishra, ''Nutrient Management in Pulses and Pulse Based Cropping Systems", Fertilizer News, April, 2000 Alshi, M.R., P. Kumar and v.c. Mathur, ''Technological Change and Factor Shares in Cotton Production: A Case Study of Akola Cotton Farms", Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 38 (3), 1983.
388
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Askari, H. and J.T. Cummings, "Factors Affecting Fanner's Responsiveness to Price", Asian Economic Review, Vol. 15, 1973. - - "Output Price Response in Agriculture: An Evaluation", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 29 (2), 1974. - - "Agricultural Supply Response: A Survey of Econometric Evidence", Praeger Publishers, New York, 1976. Balassa, Bela and D.M. Schydilowsky, "Domestic Resource Costs and Effective Protection Once Again", Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 80 (1),1972. Baldev, B., S. Ramannjam and H.K. Jain, "Pulse Crops", Oxford & IDH Publishing, New Delhi, 1988. Bapna, S.L., H.P. Binswanger and J.B. Quizon, "Systems of Output Supply and Factor Demand Equations for the Semi-Arid Tropical India", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 39(2),1981. Bathla Seema, "Trade Policy Reforms and Openness of Indian Agriculture: Analysis at the Commodity Level, South Asia Economics Journal Vol-7, No.-l, 2006. Bhalla, G.S. "Globalisation and Agricultural Policy in India", presidential address, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 50(1),1995. Bhalla, GS. and YK. Alagh, "Performance of Indian Agriculture: A District-wise Study", Sterling Publishers, New Delhi, 1979. Bhalla, GS and D.S. Tyagi, "Pattern in Indian Agricultural Development: A District Level Study", Institute for Studies in Industrial Development, New Delhi, 1989. Bhalla, G.S. and Peter Hazell, "Food Grain Demand in India to 2020", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32 (52), 1997. Bhatia, M.S., "Economic Constraints in Increasing Pulses Production" Agricultural Situation in India, August, 1991 Bhushan, Brij and Renu Sobti, "Pulses Present Status and Prospect", Yojana, Vol. 36, (3), 1992. Bruno, Michael, "Domestic Resource Costs and Effective Protection:
Bibliography
389
Clarification and Synthesis Journal ofPolitical Economy, Vol. LXXX (1), 1972. C. Ramaswamy, "Pulses, Oi1seeds and Coarse Cereals: Why they are Slow Growth Crops", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 57 (3), 2002. Chopra, Kusum, "Pulse Production in India - A State-wise Analysis", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 37(3), 1982 Chopra, Kusum and GUfUShri Swamy, "Pulses: An Analysis of Demand and Supply in India, 1951-1971 ", Sterling Publishers, New Delhi,1975. Coppock, J.D., "International Economic Instability: The Experience after World War II", Mc Graw Hill Book Company, New York, 1962. Corden,W.M, ''The Theory of Protection", Oxford University Press, London, UK,1971. Cummings, J.T. "The Supply Responsiveness of Indian Farmers in the Post-Independence Period: Major Cereals and Cash Crops". Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 30 (1), 1975. Dadhich, C.L. "A Study of Growth Pattern ofFoodgrains with Special Reference to Pulses", Paper submitted for the Conference of Indian Society ofAgriculture Economics, 2002. Datta, S.K., Sanjeev Kapoor and Y.K. Bhasin, "Towards a Total Perspective on Export of Indian Rice", Centre for Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute ofManagement, Ahmedabad, 2001. Deshpande, R.S., "Demand and Supply ofAgricultural Commodities", Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 51 (1-2), 1996. Deshpande, R.S. and H. Chandrashekar, "Growth and Supply Response of Slow Growth Crops - A Case of Pulses", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 37(3), 1982. Dey, A.K. and B.N. BaneIjee, "Production and Marketing of Pulses and Oilseeds ", Mittal Publications, Delhi, 1991. Dhindsa,K.S. andAnjuSharma, "A Regional Analysis of Growth and Supply Response ofPulses - A Study of Punjab" , Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 52 (1), 1997.
390
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) o( the United Nations. "Production Year Book", Rome, (Vol. 44, 1990; Vol. 55,2001; Vol. 57; 2003. Food and Agriculture .Organization (FAO) ofthe United Nations. "Trade YearBook", Rome, (Vol. 36, 1983; Vol. 47; 1994, Vol. 56; 2002). Gangwar, A.c., K.N. Sriniwas and Rai. "Production and Marketing of Gram in Haryana", Department of Agricultural Economics, HAU, Hissar, Haryana, 1983. Gangwar, A.c. and R.M. Pandey, "Stagnation in Production ofPulses: An Economic Analy~is", Agricultural Situation in India, Volume 37(5),1982. Gopalan, C., B.V. Ramasastry and S.c. Balasubramanium, "Nutritive Value of Indian Foods", Revised and Updated, National Institute ofHyderabad, 1999. Government of India. "Agricultural Prices in India", Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1982-2002. --Agricultural Census, Ministry ofAgriculture, New Delhi, 1981 --"Agricultural Statistics at a Glance", Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi,2001-2007. - - "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India", Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1984-1999. - - "Bulletin on Food Statistics", EE. Division, Directorate ofEconomics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, 2003. - - "Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India", Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1991. --"Cost of Cultivation of Principal Crops in India", Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 2000. - -"Cultivation Practices in India", Report No. 451, National Sample Survey Organization, 54th Round (Jan-Jun 1998), New Delhi, 2000. - - ''Directorate ofEconomics and Statistics", Ministry ofAgriculture, New Delhi.
Bibliography
391
- -"District-wise Area and Production ofPrincipal Crops in India", Ministry ofAgriculture, New Delhi, 2003. - - "Economic Survey", Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, 2001 to 2007. - - "Farm Harvest Prices in India", Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1980-2001. - - "Foreign Trade Statistics, ''Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi, 1980-2002. - -"Guidelines for Implementation ofNational Pulses Development Project", Ministry of Agriculture, 1996-97. - - Household Expenditure in India, 1999-2000, "Report No 454, Key Results", National Sample Survey Organisation, 2003. - - "Input Survey, 1976-77", Vol. 1, Agricultural Census Division, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1983. --"Input Survey, 1991-92", Agricultural Census Division, Ministry ofAgriculture, New Delhi, 2000. - - ''Rqx>rt of the National Commission on Agriculture", Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1976. - - "Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices", Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 1981-2004. --"Report of the working group on Crop Husbandry, Demand and Supply Projections and Agriculture inputs for the Tenth Five Year Plan", ChairmanK. Raj an, Planning Commission, 2001. - - "Statistical Abstract of India", Central Statistical Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 19842004. - - "Sarvekshana", Issue No. 84, July-Sept, 2000. --''Technology Mission on Oilseeds, Pulses and Maize (TIvIOP): Guidelines for Implementation ofNational Pulses Development Project ", Ministry ofAgriculture, New Delhi, 1996-97. - - "Technology Mission on Oil seeds, Pulses and Maize (TMOP): Towards SelfReliance", Profile of Progress (1986-98), Ministry ofAgriculture, New Delhi, 1998.
392
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
--Third (1961-82 to 1965-1966) to Tenth (2002-2007) Five-Year Plan Documents, Planning Commission, New Delhi. Government of Andhra Pradesh, "Statistical Abstract of Andhra Pradesh", 1993. Government ofBihar, "Bihar Statistics", 1993. Government ofGujarat, "Statistical Abstract of Gujarat" , 2002. Government of Kamataka, "Statistical Abstract of Kamataka", 2001. Government of Madhya Pradesh, "Basic Agricultural Statistics of Madhya Pradesh, 2003. Government of Maharashtra, "Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra", 2003. Government of Rajasthan, "Statistical Abstract of Rajasthan" 1999. Government ofTamil Nadu, "Statistical Abstract ofTamil Nadu" 2001. Government of Uttar Pradesh, "Statistical Abstract of Uttar Pradesh", 1996. Government of West Bengal, "Statistical Abstract of West Bengal", 2001. Gulati, Ashok and Anil Shanna, "Resource Use Efficiency, Effective Incentives and Changing Cropping Patterns in Indian Agriculture", Discussion Paper, NCAER, New Delhi, 1997. Gulati, Ashok, Anil Sharma, C. Kailash Sharma, Shipra Das and Vandana Chhabra, "Export Competitiveness ofSelectedAgricultural Commodities", NCAER, New Delhi, 1994. Gulati, Ashok and Tim Kelley, "Trade Liberalization and IndianAgriculture," Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999. Gupta, S.K., "Economics of Pulses Production and Identification of Constraints in Raising Production in Madhya Pradesha", Agricultural Economics Research Centre, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, 1999. Gupta, S.K., "All India Coordinated Study on Pulses", Agricultural Economics Research Centre, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, 1999. Hazell, P.B.R., "Instability in Indian Food Grains Production" Research
Bibliography
393
Report 30, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 1982. Hazell, P.B.R. andJ.R.Andersen, "Variability in Grain Yields: Implications for Agricultural Research and Policy in Developing Countries", John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1989. Jaikrishna and M.s. Rao., "Dynamics of Acreage Allocation for Wheat in Uttar Pradesh - A Study in Supply Response", Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 22 (1), 1967. Jain, K.K. and AJ. Singh, "An Economic Analysis of Growth and Instability of Pulses Production in Punj ab", Agricultural Situation in India, April, 1991. Jha, D.N., "Diversification of Agriculture and Food Security in the Context of New Economic Policy", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 52 (1) 1997. Jha, D.N. and P. Kumar, "Effect of Price Changes on Cost Structure
and Factor Demand: A Case Study of Selected Farms in Delhi Territory" Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 31(3),1976. Joshi, P.K., M. Ashokan and M.e. Bantilan, "Silent Chickpea Revolution in Non-traditional Areas: Some Evidence from Andhra Pradesh", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 54 (3), 1999. Joshi, P.K. and Raka Saxena, "AProfile ofPulses Production in India: Facts, Trends and Opportunities", Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol, 57(3), 2002. Kahlon, A.S. and D.S. Tyagi, "Agricultural Price Policy in India", Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1983. Kelley, T.G and P. Parthasarathy Rao, "Chickpea Competitiveness in India", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29 (26), 1994. Kumar, B.L., "Changing Patterns in the Cultivation of Pulses by Size Groups of Holdings", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 48 (3), 1993. Mahendradev, S., "Growth and Instability in Foodgrains Production:
394
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
An Inter State Analysis", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXll(39),1997. Masters, William A. and Alex Winter-Nelson, ''Measuring the Comparative Advantage of Agricultural Activities: Domestic Resource Costs and the Social Cost-Benefit Ratio", American Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 77, May 1995. Morris, Michael L., "Determining Comparative Advantage through DRCAnalysis, Guidelines Emerging from CIMMYr's Experience", Economic Paper No. I,_Mexico, CIMMYr, 1990. Nadkarni, M.V., "Backward Crops in Indian Agriculture: Economy of Coarse Cereals and Pulses", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXI (38-39), 1986. Nadkarni, M.Y. andR.S. Deshpande, "Agricultural Growth, Instability in Productivity and Rainfall: A Case Study ofKarnataka", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. xvn (52), 1982. Narayanamurthy A., "Demand and Supply Position ofPulses: A Macro Level Analysis", Productivity, Vol. 41(2),A2000. Nerlove M., "The Dynamics of Supply: Estimation of Farmers Response to Prices", Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1958. Ninan, K.N. and H. Chandrashekhar, "Green Revolution, Dry Land Agriculture and Sustainability - Insights from India", Economic and Political Weekly, 28 and l3): A2-A7, 1993 Pant, S.P., "Production Prospects and Constraints to Higher Productivity of Pulses in Madhya Pradesh", National Centre for Agricultural Economic and Policy Research, Pusa, New Delhi, 1995 Raj Krishna, "Farm Supply Response in India-Pakistan: A Case Study of the Punjab Region", The Economic Journal, Vol. 73, September, 1963. Raj Krishna and G.S. Raychaudhri "Some Aspects of Wheat and Rice Price Policy in India", The World Bank Staff Working Paper No.381, World Bank, Washington, DC, 1980. Ramesh Chand, "Removal ofImport Restrictions and India's Agricul-
Bibliography
395
ture: The Challenge and Strategy", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. (Vol), 1998. Ramesh Chand, "Removal ofImport Restrictions and India'sAgriculture" The Changes and Strategy, Economics and Political Weekly, Vol.xxxm,No.15, 1998. Ramesh Chand, "Effects ofTrade Liberalization on Agriculture in India", Centre for Gram, Pulses and Tuber Crops Research. 1999. Ranga Rao, IV. andA.K. Ray, "Stagnation in Production of Pulses: A Quantitative Analysis", Agricultural Situation in India, Vol. XL,(5),1985. Rao, C.H.H, "Technological Change and Distribution of Gains in Indian Agriculture", Macmillan, New Delhi, 1975. Rao, C.H.H, "Liberalization of Agriculture in India: Some major Issues", Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 50(3), 1995. Ray, S.K, ''Unstable Agriculture and Droughts, Implication for Policy", Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, 1989 . Ryan, J.G and M. Ashokan, "Effect of Green Revolution in Wheat on Production of Pulses and Nutrients in India", Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 32(3), 1977. Sadasivan, S, "Pattern of Pulses Production: An Analysis of Growth Trends", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXN (51-52), 1989 Sadasivan, S, "Price and Non-price Factors in Input Use and Output Supply - A Case of Gram in Uttar Pradesh", Indian Economic Review, Vol. 28(1),1993. Sathe, D. and S. Aggarwal, "Liberalization of Pulses Sector: Production, Prices and Imports", Economic and Political Weekly, July 24,2004. Satyapriya, V.S., "Pulses in India - Growth, Regional Distribution and Area Responses," Oxford & IBH Publishing, New Delhi, 1989. Satyasai, K.J.S., K.u., Viswanathan, "Diversification ofIndianAgriculture and Food Security", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 51(4),1996.
396
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Scandizzo, P.L. and Colin Bruce, "Methodologies for MeasuringAgricultural Price Intervention Effects", World Bank StaffWorking PaperNo. 394, World Bank, Washington DC, 1980. Shanna, D. and N.S. Jodha, "Pulses Production in Semi-Ared Regions ofIndia, Constraints and Opportunities", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XVII (51), 1982. Shiyani, R.L., P.K. Joshi, Ashokan, M.C.S. Bantilan, "Adoption of Improved Chickpea Varieties: Evidence from Tribal Regions of Gujarat", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 55(2)2000. Singh, RD., "Shifts in Pulses Acreage: An Inter Regional Analysis of Dynamics of Farmers' Response", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 34(3), 1979. Singh, AJ., K. Sethi, A. Kaur and S. Sekhon, "A study into Production Behaviour of Pulses in India with Special Reference to Punjab State", Agricultural Situation in India, Vol. XLIV(9) 1989. Singh, K.M., J.N. Chaudhari and RK.P. Singh, "An analysis of Compound Growth Rates and Factors Affecting Area, Production and Productivity of Gram in Bihar, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol. XLVII, (11),1993 Swaminathan M, "Science and Technology for Sustainable Food Security", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 51 (1-2), M 1996. Swaminathan M., "Pulses, Oil Seeds Ouput: Poor Policy Support to Blame", Business Line, 10th July, 2001. Swaminathan M., "Huge Imports of Pulses, Oil Seeds Defy Logic", Business Line, 7th July, 2001. Thorat, Sukhadeo, "Land Ownership Structure and Non-farm Employment of Rural Households in India", Indian Journal of Labour Economics, Vol. 36 (2), 1993. Tripathi, RS., "Production and Marketing of Pulses", Mittal Publications, Delhi, 1998. Tuteja, Usha, "Problems and Prospects of Pulse Crops Cultivation in Haryana", Agricultural Economics Research Centre, Univer-
Bibliography
397
sityofDelhi, 1986. - - "An Evaluation of Pulses Development Programme in Haryana", Agricultural Economics Research Centre, University of Delhi, 1992. - -"Economics ofPulses Production and Identification ofConstraints in Raising Production in Haryana", Agricultural Economics Research Centre, University of Delhi, 1999. --"Economics ofPulses Production and Identification ofConstraints in Raising Production in Punjab", Agricultural Economics Research Centre, University of Delhi, 2000. --and Narinder Singh, "Management Strategy for Increasing Pulses Production in Punjab", PSE Economic Analyst. Volume 21, No. 1,2002. --"Need for Private Initiatives in Marketing and Processing of Pulses in Haryana", Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, Sept-Dec. 2002. - - " ... and Pulses Quietly Disappeared", Tribune, June 2, 2003. --"Adoption of Technology in Pulse Production: An Urgent Need", Souvenir, Agriculture Summit, Ministry ofAgriculture and Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, October, 2006. --"Growth Performance and Acreage Response of Pulse Crops: A State Level Analysis", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 61, No.2, April-June 2006. Vyas, V.S., "Agricultural Policies for the Nineties: Issues and Approaches", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXIX (26), 2000_. - - ''Diversification inAgriculture: Concept, Rationale and Approaches", Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics, Vol. 51 (4), 1996. Y. Eswara Prasad, M. Mahohar Rao and B. Vijyayabhinandana, "Analysis of On Farm Trials and Level of Technology on Oilseeds and Pulse Crops in Northern Telangana Zone ofAndhra Pradesh", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 48 (3),1993.
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
Index
A
Achievement offlXed targets 56,238 Acreage 109; response 7, 21,110 Adoption of technology 242-269 Area under pulses; instability 95; percentage of gross cropped 31,57,123,127,132,135,137-13, 141,144,145,147,148,151,152, 154,156,157,159-61,163-65,167, 170-75,177-81 percentage irrigated 39, 60, 65,107, 127, 132, 135, 145, 148, 156, 174,177,246,248,250,252,262 B
Behaviour ofpulse prices 184-201
c Calcium in pulses 29 Causes of instability 105-108 Chemical composition of pulses 29 Chemical fertilizer 244 Coefficient; correlation 107; effective protection 25,334,350,
353; effective subsidy25, 334, 350, 353; nominal protection 25,334,350, 353; ....... of variation in area, production and yield (see pp.124181) Conunercial purchases 55 Competing crop 110 Competitiveness, domestic 24; of arhar 294; ofgram 275; ofmassar 323; ofmoong 305; of urad 315; international 24,334,350-361 Compound growth rates of area, production and yield 39; arhar 66; gram 61; kharif pulses 80; massar76; moong 69; rabi pulses 82; total pulses 85; urad 73. Concentration ofspatial distribution 43 Cost of cultivation, operational (bullock, fertilizer, human, insecticides, interest on working capital, irrigation, machine, manure, seeds) 276-324 Cost of cultivation, fixed (depreciation, interest on fixed capital; land revenue and taxes, rent paid for leased in land, rental
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
400
value of owned land) 276-324 Cultivation practices in India 87, results of .... 254-259
Farm size scenario 250,255,262-269 Farm-size variation 87-93 Farmyard manure 243, 245-248, 250,
D
Fibre in pulses 29 Financial allocation 228 Five Year Plan; Eighth 52; Fourth 51; Fifth 51, 52; Ninth 52; Sixth 51,52; Second 48; Seventh 52; Tenth 52; Third 51; Food expenditure 31 Fund allocation 231
252
Development strategy 48-52 Demand and supply gap 33-36 Determinants 18, 109 District level variations in area, production and yield of; arhar 134-146; gram 122-133; massar 162-165; moong 147-154; total pulses 166-181; urad 155-161 Diversity 43 Domestic competitiveness of; 24, arhar 294-304; gram 275-293; massar 323-328; moong, 305-315; urad,315-322 Domestic resource cost ratio 25, 334, 356
G Geographical spread 62, 66 Growth performance of area, production, yield of, 58, arhar 66; gram 61;kharifpulses 80; massar 76;moong 69; rabi pulses 82; total pulses 85; urad 73
E H Economic reforms 5, 333 Effective protection coefficient 24, 334,350 Effective subsidy coefficient 24, 334,350 Elasticities, 22, 214; - - - o f lagged acreage, relative yield and price 111 Exports of pulses 45,339,342 F
Factors influencing yield 118 Farmharvestprices22,11O, 123, 127, 130,132,134,135,137,138,141, 144,145,190
Hypothesis, for details see p. 19, exportable, 334,350; importable 334,350
I
Imports of pulses 45,340,342 Improved variety seeds 256, 258, 260,262 Input Survey 87, results 242-254 Instability 58,93; causes of .... 105108; ofarea 96, 101; ofproduction 96, 101; of yield 96, 101 Integrated Schemes of Oilseeds,
401
Index Pulses, Palm oil and Maize (ISO PAM) 50 Inter year changes in prices of pulses 204 International competitiveness 24, 334,350-61 Iron in pulses 29 K
Kharifpulse crops 78-83 Khesari 77 Kulthi,78 L
Lagged relative price 21, 111 Largest pulse producing states 43 Lobia78 Log variance 58, 94 M
Machine labour in cultivation of arhar 295; gram 276; massar 324; moong 306; urad 316 Macro level performance 38 Major producing states of total pulses 84 Marketed surplus of pulses 44 Minimurn support prices 54, 198-202 Moth 77 N
,
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation 55 National Pulses Development Project 224-237 Nerlovian coefficient of adjustment
113,117 Net availability of pulses 31 Nominal protection coefficient 25, 334,350,353
o Other pulses 76 Output response of price 22, 213
P Pattern of assistance 228 Pea 77 Pesticides use 246, 248, 250, 252, 253 Phosphorous in pulses 29 Pre-sowing rainfall 111 Price and non-price factors 109 Price and yield risk 111 Prices of pulses 184; farm harvest 190; minimum support 198; retail 194; wholesale 186; Price support 55 Protein in pulses 29 Pulses developmental strategies 48
R Rabi pulses 78-83 Rajrnash78 Regional variation 4 Returns of pulses (gross, net and per rupee) of arhar 296, 299, 302, 304; gram 277-84, 286,291,293; massar 327; moong 307,309,312,314; urad 317,319,322
s Seasonality in pulse prices 208
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
402
Status of production of (district level in important pulse growing states) arhar 134-146; gram 122133; moong 147-154; massar 162165; total pulses 166-181 ;urad
V Vegetable protein foods 28
W
15~IM
T Technology, adoption of 23; benefits of 269; components of 232; fund allocation for 231; policy initiatives for 223; promoting inputs for 242-269 Tractor use 256,258 Trade in pulses 45; composition of 343; destinations of346; Indian 341; International 338.
Weedicides in pulse cultivation 256 World pulse production 45,335
Y Yield gaps 238
1
