Possibilities and Constraints in Adoption of Alternative...

Study No. 142 Publication No. 190

Possibilities and Constraints in Adoption of Alternative

Crops to Paddy in Green Revolution belt of North India

(Western U.P.)

Prof. Ramendu Roy

2014

Agro-Economic Research Centre

University ofUniversity ofUniversity ofUniversity of Allahabad Allahabad Allahabad Allahabad AllahabadAllahabadAllahabadAllahabad----211002 211002 211002 211002

PREFACE

Prior to Green Revolution, India was facing acute shortage of foodgrains to fulfill the

consumption needs of the people. The huge quantities of wheat were imported from USA

under PL 480 to meet the consumption requirement of the people across the country. After

advent of Green Revolution in the country, the diversion in cropped area has taken place

very fast in favour of rice and wheat. The expansion of irrigation net-works, use of HYV

seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, new scientific techniques, adoption of mechanization in

agriculture, etc. were also cause of diversification of areas under coarse grains, pulses and

oilseeds towards rice and wheat crops. On account of use of new strategy in rice and wheat

crops, the yield and profitability of these two crops have increased manifold in comparison

to its competing crops. In order to get high yield and maximum profitability, the farmers

had devoted maximum area to rice and wheat crops in the cropping pattern than other

crops. The rice-wheat has become common rotation in cropping sequence. The repeating of

rice-wheat rotation is in neither good for soil health nor agro-ecosystem. In spite of this,

dwindling ground water resources due to excessive withdrawal of water for irrigation, led

to impurities in water, a cause of attendant crop health effect.

This mono- cropping system is also cause of stagnancy in the yield of rice and wheat.

Because of this, the profitability of rice and wheat crops has been showing the diminishing

trends since last decade. The continuous adoption of rice wheat rotation is also cause of

infestation weeds, contamination of ground water, incidences of pests, diseases and

deterioration of soil health. Hence, it is needed to diversify the area under paddy to its

competing crops to improve the soil texture, check the depleting ground water and enhance

the farm income. To maintain the dynamic equilibrium of agro-ecosystem and improve the

quality of soil texture, the diversification of area of paddy to maize, bajra, urd etc are most

important task at present scenario. In this context, Government of India has issued

guidelines for crops diversifying in original Green Revolution belts of the country. Nine

states of the country have been covered under this programme. The finance Ministry has

provided an amount Rs. 500 crores to nine states for this programme to diversify the area of

paddy to alternative crops in year 2013-14. Among nine states, U.P. is one of them, where

this programme has been initiated during 2013-14.

The area under paddy was 3059.70 thousand hectares in U.P. in year TE 1970-71 which

has significantly increased to 5797.30 thousand hectares in TE 2012-13, there by showing

89.47% increase over the period. Out of GCA during 2009-10, paddy accounted for 23%

area alone in U.P. The area under paddy has been continuously increasing from year to year

since 1970-71 in U.P. On account of this, the ground water table in paddy producing

districts of Uttar Pradesh has been going down and will pose a cute shortage of drinking

water in years to ahead.

In the wake of this emerging scenario in the country, Government of India is advising to

the rice producing states to motivate the farmers to devote some areas to alternative crops

from paddy. The decline in ground water table has been observed maximum in western

region of Uttar Pradesh. The same observation has also been noticed in Punjab and

Haryana states. Therefore, AER Centre, Ludhiyana has proposed to undertake a study

entitled “Possibility and Constraints in Adoption of Alternative Crops to Paddy in

Green Revolution Belt of North India”. On the advice of AER Centre Ludhiyana, the

AER Centre, Allahabad has also conducted this study in six districts namely, Aligarh,

Mainpuri, Buland Shahar, Barielly and Amroha of western region of Uttar Pradesh. The

total 210 sample farmers were selected from six mentioned districts of west U.P. for the

study. The research methodology and analysis of secondary and primary data have been

followed as per guidelines of Co-ordinator Centre, Ludhiyana. The over all findings of the

study are that the paddy is still dominant crop on the sample farms due to its higher yield

and net income in comparison to alternative crops. The production efficiencies and

marketing efficiency of paddy are also better than the bajra, maize, urd etc. However, the

farmers are now realizing the importance of alternative crops and giving weightage in

cropping pattern.

I am highly obliged to Director of AER Centre, Ludhiyana (Punjab) to provide us an

opportunity to under-take this study in western region of U.P. I am also thankful to Director

of Agriculture and Director of Economics and Statistics of Uttar Pradesh for their full

support and cooperation in smooth conduct of the study in six selected districts of western

region of U.P. The Deputy Director of Agriculture of Aligarh, Mainpuri, Buland Shahar,

Mathura, Bareilly and Amorha had provided full support to research team of the centre,

during the collection of secondary and primary data of the study. I am thankful to them.

My appreciation also goes to research team members namely Shri Ramji Pandey, Shri S. N.

Shukla, Shri R.S. Maurya, Shri Hasib Ahmad and Dr. H.C. Malviya for doing hard work in

the completing the study. Smt. N. Nigam and Shri Ovesh Ahmad have also done excellent

work in compilation of secondary data. Computer typing of manuscript of the report and

posted the data on M.S. Excel has been done by Smt. N. Nigam. I pay my good wishes to

them. The report has been drafted by Shri D.K. Singh, Ex. Research Officer of the Centre

for which he deserves the credit. The ministerial and technical staff of Centre have also

supported in the completion of the report. I am thankful to them.

I also acknowledge the help of sample farmers to support the research team during filling

up the schedules and questionnaires of the study. Any comments and suggestions for the

improvement in the report are solicited and will be acknowledged thankfully.

(Ramendu Roy)

Agro-Economic Research Centre Prof. & Hon. Director

University of Allahabad

Allahabad.

Date 01.05.2015

CREDITCREDITCREDITCREDIT

Overall Supervision Prof. Ramendu Roy

Drafting of Report Shri D.K. Singh, Ex R.O.

Collection of Primary Data Shri Ramji Pandey

Shri. S.N. Shukla Shri R.S. Maurya

Shri Hasib Ahmad Dr. H.C. Malviya

Tabulation & Analysis of Data Shri Ramji Pandey Posting of Data on M.S. Excel & Computer Typing Smt. Nirupama Nigam Secretarial Services Smt. M.R. Kesherwani &

Shri S. D. Singh

Xeroxing Shri H.C. Upadhyay

Support Services Shri Raju Kumar

Shri Virendra Kumar

CONTENTSCONTENTSCONTENTSCONTENTS

Pages

Preface

Credit

Contents

List of Tables

Chapter-1 Introduction

Chapter-2 Production Status for major Kharif Crops in State and Six Selected districts

Chapter-3 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Growers

Chapter-4 Economics of Production for Paddy vis-à-vis Competing Crops on the Sample Farms,

2012-13

Chapter-5 Constraints/Potentials Analysis for Various Alternative Crops

Chapter-6 Suggestions to Increase the Yield of Competing Crops

Chapter-7 Summary, Conclusion, Major Findings and Policy Implications

References

Appendix-1

Appendix-2

LIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title of Tables Page

No.

Chapter–I Table-I Selected Units

Chapter–II

Table 2.1.1 (a) Trends in Area, production and yield for major kharif crops, 1970-

71 to 2012-13, in U.P.

Table 2.1.1 (b) Trends in Area, production and yield for major kharif crops, 1970-

71 to 2012-13, Sample district -I (Aligarh)

Table 2.1.1 (c) Trends in Area, production and yield for major kharif crops, 1970-

71 to 2012-13, Sample district -II (Mathura)

Table 2.1.1 (d) Trends in Area, production and yield for major kharif crops, 1970-

71 to 2012-13, Sample district -III (Buland Shahar)

Table 2.1.1 (e) Trends in Area, production and yield for major kharif crops, 1970-

71 to 2012-13, Sample district IV (Mainpuri)

Table 2.1.1 (F) Trends in Area, production and yield for major kharif crops, 1970-

71 to 2012-13, Sample district V (Bareilli)

Table 2.1.1 (g) Trends in Area, production and yield for major kharif crops, 1970-

71 to 2012-13, Sample district VI (Amroha)

Table 2.1.2 (a) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops,

1970-71 to 2012-13, in U.P.

Table 2.1.2 (b) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops,

1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district I (Aligarh)

Table 2.1.2 (c) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops,

1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district II (Mathura)

Table 2.1.2 (d) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops,

1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district III (Buland Shahar)

Table 2.1.2 (e) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops,

1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district IV(Mainpuri)

Table 2.1.2 (f) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops,

1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district V (Bareilly)

Table 2.1.2 (g) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops,

1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district VI (Amroha)

Table 2.2 Procurement of Major Kharif Crops by different Agencies, 1970-71

to 2010-11,

Chapter–III

Table: 3.1 General Characteristics of sample households, 2012-13,

Table: 3.2 Average land holding of sample households, 2012-13

Table 3.3 Average Farm inventory ownership, sample households, 2012-13

Table 3.3 (a) Total value of farm inventory, ownership, sample households, 2012-

13

Table 3.4.1 Cropping Pattern of sample households, 2012-13

Table 3.4.2 Potential alternative crops to paddy crop as perceived by Sample

households, 2012-13

Table 3.5.1 (a) Production and Crop retention pattern of Paddy, sample households,

2012-13

Table 3.5.1 (b) Production and Crop retention pattern of Competing crop -I (Bajra)

sample households, 2012-13

Table 3.5.1 (c) Production and Crop retention pattern of Competing (Maize),


Table 3.5.1 (d) Production and Crop retention pattern of Competing crop III (Urd),


Table 3.5.2 (a) Disposal pattern of paddy, sample households, 2012-13

Table 3.5.2 (b) Disposal pattern of Competing Crop-1 (Bajra), sample households,

2012-13

Table 3.5.2 (c) Disposal pattern of Competing Crop-II (Maize), sample households,

2012-13

Table 3.5.2 (d) Disposal pattern of Competing Crop-III (Urd), sample households,

2012-13

Chapter–IV

Table 4.1 (a) Input use pattern for cultivation of paddy, sample households,

2012-13

Table 4.1 (b) Input use pattern for cultivation of competing crop I (Bajra), sample

households, 2012-13

Table 4.1 (c) Input use pattern for cultivation of competing crop-II (Maize),


Table 4.1 (d) Input use pattern for cultivation of competing crop III (Urd), sample

households, 2012-13

Table 4.2 (a) Cost of cultivation (Variable cost) of paddy, sample households,

2012-13

Table 4.2 (b) Cost of cultivation (Variable cost) of Bajra, sample households,

2012-13

Table 4.2 (c) Cost of cultivation (Variable cost) of Maize, sample households,

2012-13

Table 4.2 (d) Cost of cultivation (Variable cost) of Urd, sample households, 2012-

13

Table 4.3 Economics of paddy vis-à-vis competing crops, sample households,

2012-13

Table 4.4.1 Estimated yield function paddy vis-à-vis competing crops, sample

households, 2012-13

Table 4.4.2 (a) The Marginal Value Product (MVP) and Marginal Factor Cost

(MFC) of Important inputs for paddy, sample households, 2012-13

Table 4.4.2 (b) The Marginal Value Product (MVP) and Marginal Factor Cost

(MFC) of Important inputs for Bajra, sample households, 2012-13

Table 4.4.2 (c) The Marginal Value Product (MVP) and Marginal Factor Cost

(MFC) of Important inputs for Maize, sample households, 2012-13

Table 4.4.2 (d) The Marginal Value Product (MVP) and Marginal Factor Cost

(MFC) of Important inputs for Urd, sample households, 2012-13

Chapter–V

Table 5.1.1 (a) Reasons for attraction to paddy as revealed by farmers, sample

farms, 2012-13

Table 5.1.1 (b) Reasons for attraction to competing crop I (Bajra) as revealed

by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.1.1 (c) Reasons for attraction to competing crop II (Maize) as

revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.1.1 (d) Reasons for attraction to competing crop III (Urd) as revealed


Table 5.1.2 (a) Main problems faced during production of paddy as revealed by

farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.1.2 (b) Main problems faced during production of competing crop I

(Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.1.2 (c) Main problems faced during production of competing crop II

(Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.1.2 (d) Main problems faced during production of competing crop III

(Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.1.3.1 (a) Problems of Diseases faced during basmati rice production as


Table 5.1.3.1 (b) Problems of Insects/pests faced during basmati rice production as

revealed by farmers, sample farms,2012-13

Table 5.1.3.1 (c) Problems of weeds faced during basmati rice production as


Table 5.1.3.2 (a) Problems of Diseases faced during maize production as revealed


Table 5.1.3.2 (b) Problems of Insects/pests faced during maize production as


Table 5.1.3.2 (c) Problems of weeds faced during maize production as revealed by


Table 5.1.3.3 (a) Problems of Diseases faced during bajra production as revealed by


Table 5.1.3.3 (b) Problems of Insects/pests faced during bajra production as


Table 5.1.3.3 (c) Problems of weeds faced during bajra production as revealed by


Table 5.1.3.4 (a) Problems of Diseases faced during Urd production as revealed by


Table 5.1.3.4 (b) Problems of Insects/pests faced during Urd production as revealed


Table 5.1.3.4 (c) Problems of weeds faced during Urd production as revealed by


Table 5.1.4 (a) Problems of environment stress faced during production of

competing crop I (Bajra)as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

State, 2012-13

Table 5.1.4 (b) Problems of environment stress faced during production of

competing crop II( Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

State, 2012-13

Table 5.1.4 (c) Problems of environment stress faced during production of

competing crop III( Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

State, 2012-13

Table 5.2.1 (a) Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing

crop I (Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.2.1 (b) Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing

crop II (Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.2.1 (c) Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing

crop III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.2.2 (a) Problems faced during marketing of produce for competing crop I

(Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.2.2 (b) Problems faced during marketing of produce for competing crop II

(Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 5.2.2 (c) Problems faced during marketing of produce for competing crop

III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Chapter–VI

Table 6.1 (a) Suggestions to increase yield of competing crop I (Bajra) as


Table 6.1 (b) Suggestions to increase yield of competing crop II (Maize) as


Table 6.1 (c) Suggestions to increase yield of competing crop III (Urd) as


Table 6.2 (a) Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing

crop I (Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 6.2 (b) Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing

crop II (Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 6.2 (C) Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing

crop III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 6.3 (a) Suggestions to improve marketing of produce for competing crop

I (Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 6.3 (b) Suggestions to improve marketing of produce for competing crop

II (Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 6.3 (c) Suggestions to improve marketing of produce for competing crop

III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Table 6.4 Suggestions to improve extension activities for the competing

crops as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Chapter–VII

Table-7-1 Selected Units

CHAPTER-I

Introduction

Prior to introduction of Green Revolution, country was insufficient in food production to

provide adequate quantity of food grains to ever growing population of the country. Huge

quantity of foodgrains had been imported from foreign countries to meet the required

quantity of foodgrains of people of the country. After advent of Green Revolution in the

country, the production of rice and wheat has tremendously increased which was even

beyond the expectation. The production of food grains was only 50.82 million tones in

1950-51 which has gone-up to 244.49 million tones in 2010-11, thereby showing 381%

increase over the period. This increase in production of foodgrains was mostly attributed by

huge production of rice and wheat. The production of rice was 20.59 million tones in 1950-

51 which has gone up to 95.98 million tones in 2010-11, thereby showing 366% increase

over the period. The significant growth in production of wheat was also witnessed during

corresponding period. The production of wheat was only 6.46 million tones in 1950-51

which went up to 86.87 million tones in 2010-11, showing 1245% increase over the period.

Since 1970-71, the area under rice and wheat has been increasing at the cost of decrease of

area under coarse grains, pulses and oil seeds crops. The maximum change in cropping

pattern was witnessed in rice growing belts. The foodgrain crops structure has shifted in

favour of rice and wheat. Crop composition has also shifted towards rice and wheat.

The rice and wheat are still dominant crops across the country. The area under rice was

37.68 million hectares in 1969-70 which has increased to 44.02 million hectares in 2011-

12, thereby showing 16.80% increase over the period. The area under wheat was 16.63

million hectares in 1969-70 which has gone to 29.86 million hectares, showing 79.55%

increase over the period. On account of higher production, low risk, high margin of profit

etc, the farmers were inclined to shift the cropping pattern in favour of rice and wheat

crops. These two crops also require maximum water than its competing crops. The

maximum availability of ground and surface, sources of water are being utilized in the

fields of rice and wheat. Hence, water is not distributed equitably and it is not used

efficiently. The rains due to monsoon are not only inadequate but highly unequal in respect

of seasonal distribution.

In recent past decade, the yield of rice and wheat has been either decreasing or stagnant due

to adoption of mono-cropping sequence such as rice –wheat.

It is also noticed from records that net profit of both crops has been maintaining

diminishing trends. This was mostly observed in North-West Plains, comprising Punjab

Haryana and West U.P. These three states have been withdrawing maximum quantity of

ground water for irrigation of rice crop. This happens more at time of failure of monsoon.

To check the depletion of ground water table and maintain the fertility in soil, etc. in

Original Green Revolution States, Government of India has constituted a Committee of

Secretaries (COS) in 2013-14 to advice ways and means to divert the area of paddy to

alternative crops in Kharif season. The continuous cultivation of rice wheat cropping

system is cause of the stagnancy in rice yield, infestation of weeds, depletion of water

table, incidence of pests and diseases and deterioration of soil health in Original Green

Revolution states. Therefore, it calls for immediate diversification in crop rotation through

promotion of technical innovations in alternative crops. This would be helpful in improving

soil fertility, check the depletion of ground water and enhance the farms income. The Crop

Diversification Programme has also been introduced in Punjab, Haryana and West U.P. in

2013-14.

At least 5% area under paddy in identified blocks should be diverted towards alternative

crops during 2013-14. The total area under paddy was 1537.2 thousand hectares in QE

2011-12 in West U.P. of which 80 thousand hectares was targeted to divert towards

alternative crops during 2013-14. To fulfill this target, the farmers were advised to grow

the maize, bajra and urd etc in place of paddy. An amount of Rs. 500.00 crores was

remarked in this programme under RKVY funds for the year 2013-14.

Out of total funds being Rs. 500.00 crores of the programme, the share of Punjab was

maximum being 49.90% followed by 25.10% and 19.70% for West U.P. and Haryana

respectively. The allocation of funds was maximum being 50% for demonstration followed

by 23%, 15%, 2% and 10% for farm mechanization, site specific activities, contingency for

awareness, training and incentive for implementation of programme respectively for the

year 2013-14 in West U.P.

In order to proper grass-root-level execution of this programme, the national level, state

level and district level teams have been constituted to proper implementation and

monitoring of the programme.

In order to popularize this programme, assistance @ of Rs. 10,000 per ha. for maize, kharif

pulses and oilseeds has been allotted to farmers to devote more area under these crops. The

Crop Diversification Programme in western U.P. would be definitely fruitful in years to

come. This would also be beneficial in maintaining the ground water level in the districts of

West U.P. which has been used indiscriminately and uncontrolled by paddy growers.

Uttar Pradesh is largest state in India as far as population is concerned. Of the total

population of India, 16.49% population resides only in U.P. The geographical area of the

state was 240928 Sq Km. in 2001. The density of population was estimated at 828 per Sq.

Km against 382 Sq Km. of the country. The per capita availability of land was only 0.12

ha. in 2011. More than 70% population of the state is directly or indirectly dependent upon

agriculture and allied sectors. The net area sown was 16589 thousand ha. which was

68.63% of reporting area of the state during 2009-10. The cropping intensity was 153.35%

in corresponding period. The rice and wheat are the main crops across the state. Of GCA,

the area under wheat accounted for 38% followed by 22% of rice during 2009-10. It shows

that both crops accounted for 60% area of GCA of the State.

The area under rice and wheat has been continuously increasing from 1970-71 to 2010-11.

The increase in area of wheat in U.P. is also due to decrease in area of coarse cereals and

pulses while the cause of increase in area under rice is due to decrease in area of millet

crops and pulses. The expansion of irrigation net work coupled with high profitability, the

shift has gone in favour of rice and wheat. Out of 4 economic regions of the states, the

maximum shifting of area has witnessed in western region of U.P. Uttar Pradesh is one of

the vast states of the country and has different types of climate conditions, topography, soil

characteristic and ground water availability. On that ground, the state is divided into four

economic regions namely, western, central, eastern and Bundelkhand. Among these

regions, western region is economically and agriculturally well advanced and much

prosperous than other regions of the state. The introduction of Green Revolution was firstly

introduced in western region of the state because of much availability of irrigation sources.

The advent of Green Revaluation and expansion of irrigation network along with adoption

of good scientific techniques, the production of rice and wheat has touched at about

optimum level in the region.

The new strategy made a significant impact on cropping pattern in west U.P. The Green

Revolution has affected the attitudes and behaviors of farmers of west U.P. Assured

irrigation is the base of new strategy in agriculture. Hence, irrigation got high priority in

this region. Maximum investment was made in the installation of diesel and electric pump

sets in this region. The soil of the region is agriculturally rich and irrigation potential is

very high. Therefore, the farmers of this region have devoted maximum area under rice

than the maize, bajra and urd in kharif season. Paddy requires heavy rainfall and assured

availability of irrigation sources. The irrigation intensity is very high in this region as

compared to other regions of the state. The continuous cultivation of paddy has resulted

depletion of ground water and flood irrigation in paddy crop is also cause of expansion of

salinity soil. Apart from this, the yield of rice is either stagnant or moving in decreasing

trends. Therefore, the diversification of cropping pattern from paddy to coarse grain crops

is very much needed in the districts of western region of Uttar Pradesh.

Need of the Study

Paddy occupied 22% of GCA in 2009-10 in Uttar Pradesh which has increased by 32.23%

over the area in 1970-71. The state has contributed about 13% rice to total production of

rice of the country during the past years. Uttar Pradesh is still second most important state

of the country in the production of rice. Since, the advent of Green Revolution and

expansion of irrigation, the diversification in cropping pattern has taken place in favour of

rice. The high yield, maximum net profit and less risk in the cultivation of paddy have

motivated the farmers to devote more under paddy in the state. A number of schemes were

also introduced in the state to boost the production of rice in the state. The main aim of the

scheme was to increase production of rice through expansion of area under rice. Since

1970s the farmers have been changing the cropping pattern in favour of rice in Kharif

season. On account of this, cropping pattern was dominated by wheat, rice rotation. Both

crops require maximum water than its competing crops. Therefore, the underground water

table has been continuously going down particularly in rice growing belt of U.P.

The contribution of rice and wheat production in total pool of food grains in the country

was 56.35% in 1966-67 which has increased to 65.79%. At present the storage capacity of

FCI, CWC, SWC etc is not sufficient to store the bumper production of rice and wheat.

Due to lack of proper storage facilities, huge quantity of both commodities goes wastage in

each year. Since, the commencement of Green Revolution, the area under rice and wheat

has been continuously increasing across the country. The high productivity and profit of

both crops than its competing crops have compelled to the farmers to devote more area

under rice and wheat crops. The cropping pattern on farms has become unbalanced. The

area under coarse cereals, millets etc has been decreasing from year to year across the

country. The unbalanced adopting of cropping sequence, the incidence of pests and

diseases have become more common. The use of high dose of pesticides, fungicides,

fertilizers etc are producing high level pollution in water, soil and atmosphere. The water

table of ground water has been going down very fast in the rice growing north belt of the

country. Assured irrigation facilities are base of new strategy in agriculture. In the Five

Year Plans, irrigation got high priority to get success in increasing the production of rice

and wheat in the country.

Apart from this, water is being polluted due to heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides in

paddy crop. The soil health, soil texture etc are also much degraded because of mono

cropping system. The fertility of land has been degrading because of the neglect of pulses

and coarse grain crops in cropping pattern. These factors are disturbing natural soil

composition. The degrading of land, erosion in soil, decrease in water table etc are much

witnessed in the districts of western regions of the state. The farmers of the region are still

devoting maximum area under paddy in Kharif season. Paddy is water intensive crop,

hence, it is responsible for water-table depletion in tube-well irrigated areas. Due to

unregulated use of canal water in paddy crop, the water logging problem has emerged in

the districts of western U.P. The mono culture districts of paddy and wheat has resulted

into increasing the incidence of nutrient deficiency in the soil which could be posing major

threats to productivity. These were posing a serious cause of concern for agricultural

scientists and Government officials. There is a need to aware the farmers to diversify the

cropping pattern towards coarse grains and pulses.

In wake of this emerging scenario in country, the Union Government is advising to launch

a Crop Diversification Programme in Haryana, Punjab and western Uttar Pradesh for

sustainable agriculture with increased productivity and profitability. Hence, this study has

been under taken in western U.P. because it is most problematic region of the state

Objectives of the Study

The following objectives have been framed for the study.

a. To examine the production and procurement of paddy in U.P.

b. To workout the relative economics of paddy vis-à-vis competing/alternative crops.

c. To bring out the constraints in adoption of alternative crops.

d. To suggest policy measure to overcome in adoption of alternative crops to paddy in

Uttar Pradesh.

Coverage of Crops

The paddy is dominant crop of Kharif season in western of U.P. Maize, bajra and urd are

important competing crops to paddy in this region. Hence, these three crops namely bajra,

maize and urd have been selected for comparative analysis against paddy.

Data Collection

This study is based on primary and secondary data, therefore primary data were collected in

well designed schedules from selected sample farmers while secondary data were collected

from Directorate of Agriculture and Statistics, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow and also from

other concerned Directorates of the State.

Selection of Units

Among the 23 districts of western region of U.P. 6 districts namely Buland Shahar,

Mainpuri, Aligarh, Mathura, Bareilly and Amroha were selected. The area of Maize was

found highest in Buland Shahar and Mainpuri districts in Western U.P. in 2013 while the

share of area under bajra was maximum in Aligarh and Mathura districts in corresponding

year. The share of area of urd was highest in Bareilly and Amroha districts during the same

year. Hence, Buland Shahar and Mainpuri were selected for maize crop. Aligarh and

Mathura were selected for bajra crop. Since share of area under urd was maximum in

Bareilly and Amroha districts, hence these were found appropriate for the selection of urd

crop. These crops were also alternative crops of paddy in Kharif season in the respective

districts of western U.P. From each selected district, one block was selected randomly.

From each block a cluster of 3 to 5 villages were randomly chosen. A sample of 35 farmers

were selected randomly from each selected cluster spreading over various farm size

categories i.e. small (less than two hectares), medium (2-10 hectares) and large (more than

10 hectares) based on the size of operational holding, making a total sample of 210 farmers,

with minimum 80 for each selected crop. Thus, 108 small, 90 medium and 12 large are the

sample farmers of the study.

The reference year of the study is 2012-13. The detail of selected units is illustrated in

Table-1-I

Table-1-1

Selected Units Name of selected Crops

Name

of Selected Districts

% of

area under

selected

crops to area

under

kharif crops

No. of

block selected

No. of

village selected

No. of samples selected

according to size of farmers

Competing crop-wise selected

farmers

<2.00 2-10 More

than 10

Hect.

Total Paddy Bajra Maize Urd

Aligarh 47.09 1 3 16 11 8 35 35 35 16 10 Bajra

Mathura 44.03 1 3 17 18 - 35 35 35 -

B. Shahar 31.00 1 3 18 17 - 35 35 9 35 - Maize

Mainpuri 34.00 1 3 26 9 - 35 35 4 35 -

Bareilly 6.98 1 4 14 17 4 35 35 12 - 35 Urd

Amroha 8.70 1 3 17 18 - 35 35 2 - 35

Total - 6 19 108 90 12 210 210 97 86 80

Note:- All the samples are paddy growers. Few sample farmers had also grown more than

two selected crops on their farms during reference year 2012-13.

Organization of the report

The report is divided into seven chapters as per guideline of coordinator AER, PAU,

Ludhiana. The chapter-wise details are given below:-

Chapter-I

Chapter-I contains introduction, status of area and production of paddy and wheat in the

country and Uttar Pradesh. Significance of paddy and wheat crops in the Uttar Pradesh has

been described in this chapter. The crop Diversification Programme in Haryana, Punjab

and Uttar Pradesh has also been described. Need of the study, objectives, Coverage of

crops, selection of units and reference year have also been covered in this chapter.

Chapter-2

In this chapter trends in area, production, and yield for major kharif crops from 1970-71 to

2012-13 in U.P. and six selected districts have been analyzed. Compound annual growth

rates of area, production and yield of major crops from 1970-71 to 2012-13 of the state and

six selected districts have also been described in this chapter. Procurement of major kharif

crops by different agencies from 1970-71 to 2013-14 of state has also been dealt in this

chapter.

Chapter-3

Demographic characteristic of sample farmers has been described. Land resources, farm

power and machinery, cropping pattern, production and disposal, etc. of select crops on the

sample farms have been analyzed in this chapter.

Chapter-4

This chapter contains the economics of production for paddy vis-à-vis competing crops i.e.

bajra, maize and urd. The input use pattern for cultivation of paddy, bajra maize and urd

has been analyzed in this chapter. The cost of cultivation, returns over variable cost, yield

etc of paddy and its competing crops viz bajra, maize and urd on the sample farms have

also been estimated. The estimated yield function of paddy and its competing crops have

been discussed in this chapter.

Chapter-5

This chapter contains the constraints/potential analysis for various alternative crops.

Reasons for attraction to paddy cultivation and its competing crops viz bajra, maize and urd

have been analysed in this chapter.

Main problems faced during production of paddy, bajra, maize and urd have also been

analysed in this chapter. Problems of diseases, pests and weeds faced by sample farms

during rice, bajra, maize and urd production have also been narrated. Environmental stress

presented problems during last production cycle of paddy, bajra, maize and urd have been

discussed.

Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing crops viz bajra, maize and

urd have been analysed. Apart from this, problems faced during marketing of produce of

bajra, maize and urd have been reported in the chapter.

Chapter-6

This chapter contains the suggestions to increase the yield of competing crops i.e. bajra,

maize and urd. Suggestions to researchers and suggestions to improve marketing produce

for competing crops (bajra, maize and urd) have been discussed in this chapter.

Chapter-7

This chapter contains the summary, conclusion, findings and policy implication etc.

References

CHAPTER-2

Production status for major kharif crops in State and Six Selected Districts

The chapter deals with trends in area, production and yields of major kharif crops in six

selected districts and the state as a whole for the period (i) TE 1970-71 (ii) TE 1985-86

(iii)TE 2000-01 and (iv) TE 2012-13. The compound growth rates of area, production and

yield of major kharif crops of selected districts and state as a whole have also been

estimated in different periods in this chapter. Apart from these, the procurement of major

kharif crops by different agencies at different periods i.e. 1980-81, 1990-91, 2001-02 and

2010-11 has also been analysed in this chapter.

2.1.1 (a) Trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from 1970-71 to

2012-13 in Uttar Pradesh.

The trends in area, production and yield of major kharif crops in the state for different

periods are presented in Table 2.1.1(a) Table shows that area under paddy was 3059. 70

thousand hectares in TE in 1970-71 which has increased to 5797.30 thousand hectares in

TE 2012-13, showing 89.47% increase over the period. However the maximum increase in

area under paddy was found during TE 2000-01. The production of paddy has been

continuously increasing from TE 1970-71 to TE 2012-13 in U.P.

The production of paddy was 2362.32 thousand metric tones in TE 1970-71 which has

gone upto 13418.24 thousand metric tones in TE 2012-13 showing 468% increase over the

period. The yield of paddy was 7.67 qtls per ha. in TE 1970-71 which has increased to

23.12 qtls per ha. in TE 2012-13 thereby showing 201% increase over the period. It shows

that area, production and yield of paddy have positive rate of growth during the study

periods. The pace of growth in production of paddy was more than area and yield during

the study periods. The highest rate of growth in yield is recorded during TE 2012-13 in

U.P. Against this, the maximum rate of growth in area and production of paddy is

witnessed during TE 2000-01. It shows that area, production and yield of paddy have

significantly increased in TE 1985-86, TE 2000-01 and TE 2012-13 from the area,

production and yield in TE 1970-71. It reflects that the farmers of U.P. have been

increasing the area under paddy since the commencement of Green Revolution.

Table 2.1.1 (a)

Trends in Area, production and yield for major kharif crops, 1970-71 to 2012-13, in

U.P.

Note: TE indicates Triennium Ending Average

Area: 000’ ha., Production: 000’ metric tonnes and Yield: qtl/ha

Crops TE 1970-71 TE 1985-86 TE 2000-01 TE 2012-13

Area 3059.70 5209.01 5953.03 5797.30

Production 2362.32 6946.81 12092.29 13418.24 Paddy

Yield 7.67 12.33 20.30 23.12

Area 1454.78 1119.13 953.08 720.44

Production 1292.84 1393.13 1288.85 1191.40 Maize

Yield 8.84 12.49 13.61 16.55

Area 1064.90 950.06 852.94 907.93

Production 731.53 829.99 1140.65 1649.18 Bajra

Yield 6.85 6.48 13.36 18.18

Area 134.28 188.20 293.90 508.65

Production 51.96 47.18 107.95 340.11 Urd

Yield 3.91 1.49 3.66 6.69

Area 51.38 16.58 6.58 4.21

Production 35.08 2.37 0.89 0.92 Cotton

Yield 2.50 1 1.37 2.17

Area 1284.50 1533.25 1974.68 2166.322

Production 52600.30 72024.63 1126565.60 129089.30 Sugar cane

Yield 409.37 471.03 570.34 595.52

Area - 208.654 250.693 548.42

Production - 51.68 124.47 358.71 Pulses

Yield - 2.48 5.00 6.54

Area - 8308.814 8606.25 8175.40

Production - 9824.92 15143.20 16847.92

Total food

Grains

Yield - 11.82 17.59 20.60

Area - 242.71 250.70 446.38

Production - 125.00 124.48 176.81

Total

oilseed

Yield - 5.23 5.00 3.96

Table-2.1.1(a) reflects that area and production of maize have maintained the decreasing

trends during corresponding periods. The area under maize was 1454.78 thousand hectares

in TE 1970-71 which has decreased to 720.44 thousand hectares in TE 2012-13, thereby

showing 50.48% decrease over the period while the yield of maize has maintained the

increasing trends from TE 1970-71 to TE 2012-13. The trends of growth in area of maize

were negative during study periods. It shows that area under maize was shifting to another

kharif crops in U.P. despite its better yield per ha.

The area under bajra was 1064.90 thousand hectares in TE 1970-71 which has decreased to

907.93 thousand hectares in TE 2012-13, showing 14.74% decrease over the period.

However, there was a marginal fluctuation in area under bajra over a period of 42 years. It

is also observed from 2.1.1(a) that the production as well as yield of bajra have maintained

rising trends during the study periods. There was significant increase in yield of bajra

during the study periods of 42 years. The highest growth rate of yield is recorded during TE

2012-13.

Urd is most important kharif pulse in Uttar Pradesh. Table 2.1.1 (a) shows that area

production and yield of urd have also maintained increasing trends over a period of 42

years. The area under urd was 51.96 thousand hectares in TE 1970-71 which has gone up to

508.65 thousand hectares in TE 2012-13 showing 878.93% increase over the period, while

yield rate of urd varied from 1.49 qtls per ha in TE 1985-86 to 6.69 qtls per ha. in TE 2012-

13. It reflects from the table 2.1.1.(a) that the area, production and yield of urd have

positive rate of growth during the study periods. As far as other Kharif crops is concerned,

table-2.1.I(a) shows that area, production and yield of sugarcane and pulses have

significantly increased in U.P. in the study period. It may be concluded with this

impression that among Kharif crops of U.P. the maximum decline in area under maize was

witnessed during the study periods. The area, production and yield of most of other

important kharif crops of U.P. have maintained rising trends in U.P. during the study

periods.

2.1.1 (b) Trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from 1970-71 to

2012-13 in sample district-I (Aligarh)

The trends of area, production and yield of major kharif crops in TE 1970-71 TE 1985-86

TE 2000-01 and TE 2012-13 of Aligarh district have been worked out in Table 2.1.1 (b).

Aligarh district was selected for bajra crop for the purpose of the study.

Table 2.1.1 (b)

Trends in Area, production and yield for major kharif crops, 1970-71 to 2012-13,

Sample district I (Aligarh)


Area: 000’ ha., Production: 000’ metric tonnes and Yield: qtl /ha

Crops TE 1970-71 TE 1985-86 TE 2000-01 TE 2012-13

Area 22.12 14.855 29.58 73.68


Yield 7.49 12.59 18.00 22.31

Area 74.14 52.88 40.97 18.66


Yield 10.66 10.05 17.31 22.29

Area 103.42 101.91 76.76 88.82


Yield 8.30 10.47 15.37 21.37

Area 0.56 1.25 0.47 0.72

Production 0.22 0.31 0.18 0.48 Urd

Yield 3.80 2.45 3.66 6.69

Area 11.60 6.810 1.86 0.86


Yield 1.50 1.71 1.29 1.94

Area 20.140 13.95 9.12 9.58


Yield 305.95 448.72 599.21 603.88

Area - 1.41 0.70 0.87


Yield - 2.41 3.35 1.94

Area - 172.99 148.02 182.16

Production - 190.73 242.65 397.44

Total food

Grains

Yield - 10.97 16.25 21.72

Area - 0.55 0.05 0.17

Production - 0.12 0.01 0.09 Total oilseed

Yield - 2.45 2.45 3.58

It is noticed from Table 2.1.1 (b) that area under maize, bajra, sugarcane, pulses and

oilseeds has come down in TE 2012-13 from the area in TE 1970-71. There was a major

shift of area in favour of paddy crop in the district. Against this, the yield of mentioned

crops has increased during the corresponding periods. The area under paddy was 22.12

thousand hectares in TE 1970-71 which has gone upto 73.68 thousand hectares in TE 2012-

13, thereby showing 233% increase over the period while the area under maize and bajra

has declined by 74.83% and 14.12% in TE 2012-13 from the area of TE 1970-71

respectively. The area of urd, maize and bajra has been decreasing trends during study

periods. The yield of major kharif crops of the district has positive growth throughout

entire study periods. The area under maize, bajra, sugarcane, oilseeds and pulses has been

continuously shifting in favour of paddy crop during the study periods. On account of this,

the area under paddy of this district has increased to 33.73% and 233% in TE 2000-01 and

TE 2012-13 from the area in TE 1970-71 respectively.

2.1.1 (C)Trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from 1970-71 to

2012-13 in sample district II (Mathura).

The trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops in TE 1970-71, TE 1985-86,

TE 2000-01 and TE 2012-13 of Mathura district are worked out in table 2.1.1(c ). Mathura

district was also selected for bajra crop because it was found competing crop to paddy crop.

The area of bajra was 58.40 thousand hectares in TE 1970-71 which has drastically

decreased to 41.08 thousand hectares, showing 29.66 decrease over the period. Table also

reveals that area under bajra was maximum during TE 1985-86 in this district. However the

yield was 6.10 qtls per ha in TE 1970-71 which has increased to 13.17 qtls per ha. in TE

2012-13, showing an increase of 115.9% over the period. The area of paddy was only 5.07

thousand hectares in TE 1970-71 which has gone up to 47.22 thousand hectares in TE

2012-13, showing 831% increase over the period. There was significant increase in area of

paddy in Mathura district. Except paddy crop, the area of other kharif crops of Mathura

district was decreasing from year to year. The maximum fall in area of maize, urd and

sugarcane is witnessed in Mathura district during the study periods. It shows that there was

much diversion of area in favour of paddy crop in this district. The area of competing crops

namely bajra, maize and urd to paddy crop was decreasing during the study periods.

Against this, yield of major kharif crops have shown rising trends through out the study

periods in this district.

Table 2.1.1 (C)


Sample district II (Mathura)



Crops TE 1970-71 TE 1985-86 TE 2000-01 TE 2012-13

Area 5.07 5.083 36.638 47.22


Yield 7.14 12.16 20.20 22.96

Area 9.48 3.610 0.612 0.158


Yield 7.94 9.35 14.13 24.82

Area 58.40 63.20 51.20 41.08


Yield 6.10 6.17 11.52 13.17

Area 0.89 1.45 0.450 0.143

Production 0.33 0.35 0.168 0.096 Urd

Yield 3.79 2.45 3.66 6.69

Area 7.33 3.358 0.837 1.30


Yield 1.35 1.04 1.11 2.38

Area 18.06 13.343 10.831 3.405


Yield 327.01 334.13 566.40 479.11

Area - 1.58 0.521 0.158

Production - 368 187 0.103 Pulses

Yield - 2.43 3.51 6.53

Area - 75.837 89.72 88.68

Production - 48.834 136.24 163.11

Total food

Grains

Yield - 6.47 15.03 18.41

Area - 1.270 1.923 0.46


Yield - 1.16 2.17 2.01

2.1.1(d) Trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from 1970-71 to

2012-13 in sample district III (Buland Shahar).

Buland Shahar district was selected for maize crop because it was competing crop to paddy

crop. The trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from 1970-71 to 2012-

13 are presented in table 2.1.1(d).

Table 2.1.1 (d)


Sample district III (Buland Shahar)


Area: 000’ ha. Production: 000’ metric tonnes and Yield: qtl /ha

Crops TE 1970-71 TE 1985-86 TE 2000-01 TE 2012-13

Area 11.76 8.27 34.20 83.30


Yield 8.66 9.53 21.86 24.03

Area 103.55 126.23 83.19 48.20


Yield 12.81 18.18 17.79 22.20

Area 38.99 26.05 8.99 11.19


Yield 4.28 9.68 14.55 19.61

Area 0.51 0.78 0.56 1.52

Production 0.19 0.21 0.21 1.02 Urd

Yield 3.80 2.81 3.66 6.69

Area 9.87 - 0.37 0.12

Production 2.99 - 0.063 0.024 Cotton

Yield 1.39 - 1.86 2.17

Area 46.32 51.93 44.05 53.76


Yield 370.51 462.67 579.68 592.83

Area - 0.958 1.05 2.06


Yield - 2.56 3.86 6.11

Area - 165.08 127.84 144.43

Production - 291.93 232.12 328.53

Total food

Grains

Yield - 17.63 18.15 22.74

Area - 0.40 0.047 0.015


Yield - 1.00 2.06 5.76

Table shows that there was a significant increase in area, production and yield of paddy in

this district during the period of 42 years. The area under paddy was 11.76 thousand

hectares in TE 1970-71 which has increased to 83.30 thousand hectares in TE 2012-13

showing 608% increase over the period. The yield per ha. was 8.66 qtls in TE 1970-71

which has maintained rising trends from year to year and reached upto 24.03 qtls per ha. in

TE 2012-13, showing 177.48% increase over the period of 42 years. Table 2.1.1 (d) shows

that the production of Buland Shahar was 9.64 thousand metric tones in TE 1970-71 which

has increased to 198.89 thousand metric tones in TE 2012-13, showing an increase of

1963% over the period. This shows that there was significant increase in area, production

and yield of paddy crop in Buland Shahar district during the study periods. Against this,

there was drastic fall in area of maize and bajra in the district during corresponding periods.

However, the progress of production and yields of both crops in the district was also not

satisfactory during the same periods.

The progress of remaining major kharif crops of the district was also not satisfactory during

the periods of 42 years. It reflects that area, production and yield of paddy crop in the

district have maintained steady growth from TE 1970-71 to TE 2012-13 on the cost of

other important kharif crops.

2.1.1 (e) Trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from 1970-71 to

2012-13 in sample district IV (Mainpuri).

Mainpuri district was also selected for maize crop because maize is competing crop to

paddy crop. The trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from TE 1970-

71 to 2012-13 of the district is worked out in Table-2.1.1 (e) Table 2.1.1 (e) shows that area

under paddy was 49.09 thousand hectares in TE 1970-71 which has increased by 28.08%,

28.87% and 18.15% in TE 1985-86, TE 2000-01 and TE 2012-13 respectively while the

production of paddy in the district has increased by 116.37%, 245.60% and 295.41%

during the corresponding periods. This shows that pace of growth in the production of

paddy in the district much faster than area under paddy during the study periods. This was

due to higher increase in productivity of paddy crop. The yield of paddy was only 7.88 qtls

per ha in TE 1970-71 which has gone upto 25.61 qtls in TE 2012-13 showing an increase

of 225% over the period.

Table 2.1.1 (e)


Sample district IV (Mainpuri)



As far as maize crop is concerned, Table 2.1.1(e) shows that area under maize was 51.94

thousand hectares in TE 1970-71 which was more than the area of paddy in the district

which went down to 39.23 thousand hectares in TE 2012-13 showing 24.47% decrease

Crops TE 1970-71 TE 1985-86 TE 2000-01 TE 2012-13

Area 49.09 62.87 63.26 58.00


Yield 7.88 12.93 20.59 25.61

Area 51.94 43.69 32.34 39.23


Yield 12.01 13.50 17.65 24.59

Area 48.55 49.38 16.06 17.70


Yield 6.98 8.88 14.39 21.78

Area 0.40 1.25 0.23 0.29

Production 0.15 0.30 0.078 0.19 Urd

Yield 3.79 2.45 3.66 6.69

Area 0.025 0 0 0.000

Production 0.012 0 0 0.000 Cotton

Yield 1.42 0 0 0.000

Area 3.99 1.98 0.46 0.51


Yield 452.04 380.24 559.95 479.11

Area - 1.334 0.260 0.396


Yield - 2.40 3.53 6.17

Area - 160.79 113.10 115.97

Production - 188.81 211.76 285.29

Total food

Grains Yield - 11.75 18.71 24.49

Area - 2.21 0.28 1.36


Yield - 4.07 4.61 8.33

over the period. The production and yield of maize crop in the district have increased by

56.48% and 104.75% from TE 1970-71 to TE 2012.13 respectively. The area under bajra

was 48.55 thousand hectares in TE 1970-71 which has decreased by 63.54% in TE 2012-

13. Against this, the production and yield of bajra in this district have increased by 12.37%

and 222% in TE 2012-13 over the year TE 1970-71 respectively. There was also downfall

in the area of urd but production and yield of this crop have maintained rising trends during

the study periods. The area under sugarcane, pulses and oilseeds have maintained

decreasing trends through-out the study period of 42 years.

Above analysis reflects that the area of maize, bajra, urd, sugarcane, pulses and oilseeds

has maintained decreasing trends from one period to another period but it was just reverse

in case of paddy crop. On account of this, area of important kharif crops of this district has

been shifting to paddy crops since the period-I of the study. It is also interesting to note that

yield of almost all kharif crops in the district has been increasing since TE 1870-71 to TE

2012-13.

2.1.1(F) Trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from 1970-71 to

2012-13 in sample district-V (Bareilly)

Bareilly district is bowl of paddy. Paddy is dominant crop of kharif season of the district.

The agro-climatic condition of the district is very much suitable for paddy crop. Hence, the

farmers of the district devote very limited area of their land to urd crop. The urd is also

treated as alternative crop to paddy crop in the district. The trends in area, production and

yield for major kharif crops of the district from TE 1970-71 to 2012-13 are presented in

Table 4.1.1(f). The area under paddy was 101.02 thousand hectares in TE 1970-71 which

has increased by 58.80% in TE 2012-13. Against this, area under urd has increased by

777.98% in TE 2012-13 over the area of TE 1970-71. The area under maize and bajra has

decreased by 98.66% and 50.22% respectively in TE 2012-13 over the area of TE 1970-71.

It shows that the area of maize and bajra has been shifting in favour paddy crop during the

study periods. There was tremendous increase in the production of paddy in the district.

The production of paddy was 78.63 thousand metric tones in TE 1970-71 which has

increased by 186.52%, 364.57% and 330.38% in TE 1985-86 TE 2000-01 and TE 2012-13

respectively. The higher increase in the production of paddy in the district was due to its

better response of yield in respective years.

Table 2.1.1 (F)


Sample district VI (Bareilly)

Note: TE indicates Triennium Ending Average, Area: 000’ ha. Production:

000’ metric tonnes and Yield: qtl /ha

It is also noticed from table 2.1.1(f) that production of bajra was more or less stagnant

throughout the study periods while the drastic decline in production of maize is witnessed

in TE 2000-01 and TE 2012-13. The production of urd was 0.41 thousand MT in TE 1970-

Crop TE 1970-71 TE 1985-86 TE 2000-01 TE 2012-13

Area 101.02 135.45 178.18 158.40


Yield 7.82 16.60 20.50 21.00

Area 17.16 9.25 0.40 0.24


Yield 8.91 8.99 11.80 18.78

Area 15.45 14.16 8.91 7.69


Yield 6.45 8.44 10.14 14.22

Area 1.09 2.65 1.36 9.57

Production 0.41 0.50 0.47 7.19 Urd

Yield 3.79 1.89 3.95 9.57

Area 0.008 0.00 0.004 0.00


Yield 0.99 0.00 0.87 0.00

Area 39.11 29.31 66.33 84.67

Production 1622.89 1279.65 3786.65 5022.99 Sugar

cane Yield 414.04 444.64 571.40 560.61

Area - 2.70 1.37 9.57


Yield - 1.88 3.94 6.96

Area - 177.41 190.59 176.00

Production - 246.17 375.88 357.00

Total food

Grains Yield - 13.86 19.72 20.22

Area - 14.78 1.97 4.30

Production - 12.12 0.51 1.12

Total

oilseed

Yield - 8.28 2.56 2.63

71 which has increased by 1653.66% in TE 2012-13. The per ha. yield of urd was only 3.79

qtls in TE 1970-71 which has increased to 9.72 qtls per ha. in TE 2012.13 showing

152.51% increase over the period. There was also a positive growth in area, production and

yield of sugarcane and pulses in the district during the study periods, while it was just

reverse in case of total oilseeds. There was negative growth in area, production and yield of

total oilseeds in the district during the study periods. The above analysis shows that paddy

is still a dominant crop in the district and has been getting more preference in cropping

pattern since beginning of the study period. As far as urd is concerned, it was also

acceptable crop in the district and is getting due weightage in cropping pattern

2.1.1(g) Trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from 1970-71 to

2012-13 in sample district VI (Amroha)

Amroha is one of the newly born districts of western region of Uttar Pradesh, it was created

in 1984-85. On account of this, the data related to area, production and yield for major

kharif crops are available from 2000-01 on-wards.

The trends of area, production and yield for major crops are presented in Table 2.1.1 (g) for

only two periods i.e. TE 2000-01 and TE 2012-13. Amroha district was selected for urd

crop because it was competing crop to paddy crop. It is surprising to note from Table 2.1.1

(g) that area, production and yield of paddy have decreased in TE 2012-13 than that of year

TE 1970-71. The production has decreased by 28.66% followed by 16.64% and 14.65% in

area and yield respectively in TE 2012-13. The area and production of maize in this district

has also decreased in TE 2012-13. Against this, the area of urd was 1.13 thousand hectares

in TE 2000-01 which has increased by 172.57% in TE 2012-13. The positive trends in area,

production and yield of sugarcane and pulses of the district are witnessed from Table

2.1.1(g). It is evident from Table 2.1.1(g) that area and production of total oilseeds have

decreased by 83.08% and 200% in TE 2012-13 from the area and production of TE 2000-

01 respectively. However, yield has increased by 167.13% during corresponding period.

The above discussion reflects that the area, production and yield of paddy crop in the

district have maintained negative growth during the period of 12 years. The area of maize

and bajra of the district went in favour of sugarcane and pulses. The farmers of the district

were devoting much area under urd crop.

Table 2.1.1 (g)


Sample district- V (Amroha)

Crop TE 1970-71 TE 1985-86 TE 2000-01 TE 2012-13

Area N.A. N.A. 30.11 25.10

Production N.A. N.A. 67.94 48.47

Paddy

Yield N.A. N.A. 22.53 19.23

Area N.A. N.A. 5.63 2.07


Maize

Yield N.A. N.A. 13.18 11.60

Area N.A. N.A. 6.63 3.58


Bajra

Yield N.A. N.A. 7.53 7.25

Area N.A. N.A. 1.13 3.08


Urd

Yield N.A. N.A. 5.86 8.59

Area N.A. N.A. 0.001 0.00


Cotton

Yield N.A. N.A. 0.87 0.00

Area N.A. N.A. 72.14 76.38

Production N.A. N.A. 4286.02 4794.25

Sugarcane

Yield N.A. N.A. 591.17 627.28

Area N.A. N.A. 1.21 3.13


Pulses

Yield N.A. N.A. 5.72 8.53

Area N.A. N.A. 43.66 33.8


Total Food

Grains

Yield N.A. N.A. 18.55 16.55

Area N.A. N.A. 0.13 0.022


Total oilseed

Yield N.A. N.A. 1.43 3.82

Note: TE indicates Triennium Ending Average, Area: 000’ ha. Production:

000’ metric tonnes and Yield: qtl /ha

2.1.2(a) Compound annual Growth Rates(CAGR) for major Kharif Crops 1970-71 to

2012-13 in Uttar Pradesh.

In order to analyse the CAGR for major Kharif crops in the state and six selected districts

of western region of Uttar Pradesh, data period has been divided into 4 periods i.e. period I

(1970-71 to 1984-85), period II (1985-86 to 1999-2000), period III (2000-01 to 2012-13

and period IV (1970-71 to 2012-13). The CAGR has been calculated separately for each

period. The CAGR for major kharif crops of state as a whole for mentioned periods is

worked out in Table 2.1.2(a). Table 2.1.2 (a) reveals that the CAGR of area, production and

yield of paddy crop was positive during all the periods in Uttar Pradesh. The CAGR of

production and yield of paddy was mucher high than the CAGR of area across the

mentioned periods. Among the different periods, the CAGR of area, production and yield

of paddy crop in U.P. was maximum in period-I than other study periods.

Table 2.1.2 (a)

Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops, 1970-71 to 2012-

13, in U.P.

(Percent/annum) Period I, 1970-71 to

1984-85

Period II, 1985-86 to

1999-2000

Period III, 2000-01

to 2012-13

Overall, 1970-71 to

2012-13 Crop

A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y

Paddy 1.71 4.62 3.32 0.79 3.82 3.61 0.03 1.51 1.48 0.81 3.65 2.87

Maize -2.58 -0.66 1.97 -2.97 0.25 19.28 -1.82 -0.59 1.24 -1.67 0.47 2.01

Bajra -0.59 0.99 1.58 0.11 3.80 20.21 0.45 3.81 3.36 -0.41 2.37 2.76

Urd 3.42 1.63 -2.56 2.81 5.64 16.60 2.89 8.09 5.20 3.48 5.19 1.79

Cotton -3.88 -13.35 -2.11 -9.08 -10.35 -1.24 -2.07 1.76 2.11 -6.76 -6.68 1.30

Sugar cane 1.50 2.47 0.98 1.44 3.17 1.42 0.60 1.05 0.45 1.27 2.34 1.05

Pulses 3.96 7.88 1.87 2.74 5.44 4.10 2.92 8.03 5.11 3.52 6.16 2.54

Total food

Grains 0.37 8.67 11.95 0.12 3.16 1.65 -0.12 1.53 1.65 0.06 2.83 2.98

Total

oilseed -12.21 -15.40 4.89 5.38 1.16 -4.22 8.16 4.78 -3.38 -0.35 -1.98 -0.98

Note: A: Area, P: Production and Y: Yield

Over all, the area, production and yield of paddy in U.P. have been increasing at rate of

0.81%, 33.65% and 2.87% per annum respectively during 1970-71 to 2012-13.

The area under paddy in Uttar Pradesh was increasing at the rate of 1.71% per annum in

period-I against increase of 4.62% and 3.32% per annum of production and yield

respectively during same period. This type of momentum was not witnessed during period

II and III. As far as maize crop is concerned, table shows that CAGR of area was negative

during entire periods of the study, while the CAGR of yield was positive during the

corresponding periods.

The CAGR of production of maize in the state was also negative in the period Ist and III

rd.

It shows that the CAGR of area and production of maize in U.P. was mostly negative

during the entire periods of the study. The area under maize of U.P. was decreasing at the

rate of 2.58% per annum during period-I followed by 2.97% and 1.82% during period II

and III respectively while the yield of this crop was increasing at the rate of 1.97%, 19.28%

and 1.24% per annum during period I, II and III respectively. Over all period i.e. 1970-71

to 2012-13, growth rate of area of maize in U.P. was negative being 1.67%.

In case of bajra crop, CAGR of area, production and yield was positive during IInd

and IIIrd

periods of study. The period III i.e. 2000-01 to 2012-13 was found very favourable for

bajra crop because the CAGR was maximum being 0.45%, 3.81% and 3.36% of area,

production and yield respectively. The CAGR of area under bajra has registered negative

growth being -0.59% during period Ist.

It is also evident from table 2.1.2 (a) that area under bajra was decreasing at the rate of

0.59% per annum during period-I while it was increasing at the rate of 0.11% and 0.45%

per annum during period II and III respectively. However, the production and yield of bajra

in the state have maintained rising trends during, overall period i.e. 1970-71 to 2012-13, the

area under bajra in U.P. has been decreasing at the rate of 0.41% per annum.

The prospect of urd in Uttar Pradesh is quite satisfactory. The CAGR of area, production

and yield was quite significant across the different periods of the study. The CAGR of area,

production and yield of urd crop in U.P. was highest being 2.89%, 8.09% and 5.20%

respectively during period III.

It is also evident from Table 2.1.2(a) that area under urd in U.P. was increasing at the rate

of 3.42%, 2.81% and 2.89% during period I, II, and III respectively. The growth rate of

yield of this crop was negative during period I, but after that the growth rate of yield of this

crop was increasing at rate of 16.60% and 5.20% per annum during period II and III

respectively. On account of this, growth rate of production per annum of this crop was

higher than that of growth rate of area during period II and III. Over all period i.e. 1970-71

to 2012-13, the area, production and yield of urd have maintained the rising trends by

3.48%, 5.19% and 1.79% per annum respectively. The CAGR of area, production and yield

of sugarcane has registered significant increase in subsequent period.

The area under sugarcane was increasing at the rate of 1.50%, 1.44% and 0.60% per annum

during period I, II and III respectively, while the production of sugarcane was increasing

much faster than its area during corresponding periods.

The CAGR of area, production and yield of pulses in U.P. was positive during entire

periods of the study. The growth rate of area per annum was better during period I in

comparison to period II and III. While the growth rate of production per annum of pulses in

U.P. was more or less same during different periods of the study. The over all, growth rate

of area, production and yield of pulses in U.P. worked out to be 3.52%, 6.16% and 2.54%

per annum respectively.

It is also evident from Table 2.1.2 (a) that there was a marginal increase of area under food

grains in U.P. across the mentioned periods. The pace of growth in production of food

grains was faster than that of its area during different periods, over all, the area, production

and yield was increasing at the rate of 0.06%, 2.83% and 2.98% per annum respectively.

The position of oilseeds in Uttar Pradesh was very deplorable during all the periods. The

CAGR of area, production and yield of oilseeds in U.P. was worked out to be –0.35%,

-1.98% and -0.98% respectively during over all periods i.e. 1970-71 to 2012-13.

2.1.2 (b) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops, 1970-71

to 2012-13 in sample district-I (Aligarh).

The CAGR of area, production and yield of major kharif crops of Aligarh district for

mentioned periods is worked out in Table 2.1.2 (b). The bajra was competing crop to paddy

crop of the district. Table reveals that the CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy

crop of the district was highest being 5.91%, 7.32% and 1.41% respectively during period

IInd

. The CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy crop was positive during the

different study periods. It is also evident from Table no. 2.1.2 (b) that the CAGR of area

under paddy was below from the CAGR of production during different periods. Table 2.1.2

(b) also shows that growth rate of production of paddy crop in the district was much better

than that of area during study periods.

The over all (1970-71 to 2012-13) the growth rate of area under paddy in the district was

4.11% per annum against 6.60% and 2.40% per annum growth rate of production and yield

respectively.

Table-2.1.2 (b)

Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops,

1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district I (Aligarh)

(Percent/annum)

Period I, 1970-71 to

1984-85

Period II, 1985-86

to 1999-2000

Period III, 2000-

01 to 2012-13

Overall, 1970-71 to

2012-13 Crop


Paddy 1.25 2.52 0.57 5.91 7.32 1.41 5.79 6.11 0.32 4.11 6.60 2.40

Maize -5.25 -6.55 -1.30 -2.71 1.26 5.29 -3.89 -1.78 2.11 -3.04 -0.01 3.08

Bajra 0.76 1.97 1.21 -0.35 2.99 3.34 3.32 6.15 2.83 -1.72 0.72 2.44

Urd 6.77 3.97 -2.71 -3.46 1.10 4.56 0.07 3.23 3.66 -1.21 0.71 1.91

Cotton -3.64 -12.11 2.55 -8.98 -11.45 -0.55 -2.90 -12.70 1.64 -7.14 -6.33 1.88

Sugar cane -0.71 1.98 2.69 -3.17 -0.68 2.49 -7.12 -1.00 -0.13 -1.70 -0.31 1.65

Pulses -8.65 -7.42 2.04 -1.01 2.60 3.63 0.98 4.34 3.36 -1.30 0.93 2.27

Total food

Grains -34.23 9.14 10.03 -0.50 2.85 3.35 1.40 2.96 1.56 -2.26 2.98 3.20

Total

oilseed -2.37 -9.75 -10.95 -18.84 -10.23 8.61 9.62 11.20 1.26 -9.11 -9.21 -0.43


The CAGR of area, production and yield of bajra crop in the district was maximum being

3.32%, 6.15% and 2.83% respectively during period-III. The CAGR of area of bajra has

registered negative growth during period II i.e. 1985-86 to 1999-2000. Except this, the

CAGR of area of bajra has registered positive growth in other two study periods. Table also

reveals that the CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy crop in the district was much

better than its competing bajra crop during the study periods. The growth rate of area under

paddy was increasing at the rate of 1.25% per annum during period-I followed by 5.91%

and 5.79% per annum during period II and III respectively. It shows that growth rate of

area under paddy per annum was much faster than its competing bajra crop.

The position of maize in the district was not satisfactory during study periods. The CAGR

of area under maize crop has registered negative growth during all the study periods. The

CAGR of area, production and yield of maize crop in the district was negative being -

5.25%, -6.55% and -1.30% respectively during period-I. Except this period, the CAGR of

production and yield has registered positive trends during IInd

and IIIrd

periods. The area

under maize has declined at the rate of -3.04% per annum during over all period (1970-71

to 2012-13) while yield of this crop has increased by 3.08% per annum during the

corresponding period. The CAGR of area under sugarcane was negative in different study

periods, while the production and yield of sugarcane had positive trends in different study

periods. It is also evident from table that there was negative growth per annum of area

under pulses, total foodgrains and oilseeds in the districts during over all period i.e. from

1970-71 to 2012-13. It may be concluded with this impression that CAGR of area,

production and yield of paddy crop in the district was positive and significant during

mentioned periods against its competing crop. It reflects that the farmers of the district had

been giving much weightage to paddy in the cropping pattern than other kharif crops.

2.1.2 (C ) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops 1970-71

to 2012-13 in sample district II (Mathura)

The CAGR of area, production and yield of major kharif crops of Mathura district for

different periods is shown in Table 2.1.2 ©. The bajra was competing crop to paddy crop of

this district in the reference year. Table 2.1.2 © reveals that CAGR of area, production and

yield of paddy crop of Mathura district was much better than other kharif crops during

entire study periods. The CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy crop was highest

being 16.20%, 19.52%, 3.32% respectively during period II. The growth rate of area,

production and yield of paddy crop of this district had maintained positive trends from

1970-71 to 2012-13. However, the pace of CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy

crop of the district was much below during period III than that of period II. Table 2.1.2 (c )

also reveals that growth rate of area under paddy was much faster being 16.20% per annum

during period II against 2.68% and 0.86% per annum during period III and I respectively.

While the area under bajra was decreasing at the rate of 1.17% and 0.24% per annum

during period III and II respectively. The over all production of paddy was increasing at the

rate of 10.60 per annum against 7.90% per annum growth of its area.

Table 2.1.2 (c)


13, Sample district II (Mathura)

(Percent/annum)


It is evident from Table 2.1.2 (C) that the CAGR of area under bajra crop was negative

being -0.24% and -1.17% during period II and III respectively. In stead of this, CAGR of

production and yield of this crop was positive during corresponding periods. It is also

evident from table that area under maize had registered negative growth in every study

period. The CAGR of production of maize had also registered negative trends in almost all

the study periods. The CAGR of production and yield of urd crop was positive being

6.50%, 3.56% respectively during period-I but after that CAGR of area and production of

urd crop of the district had registered negative trends during period II and III.

It is also evident from Table 2.1.2 © that CAGR of area under sugarcane was negative

being -0.26%, -0.52% and -4.75% during period I, II and III respectively. There was much

down fall in the area of sugarcane of Mathura district in different study periods. The over

all performance of area, production and yield of total foodgrains in the district was

Period I, 1970-71 to 1984-85

Period II, 1985-86 to 1999-2000

Period III, 2000-01 to 2012-13

Overall, 1970-71 to 2012-13

Crop


Paddy 0.86 2.09 1.66 16.20 19.52 3.32 2.68 3.52 0.84 7.90 10.60 2.79

Maize -12.34 -13.97 -1.63 -17.68 -10.84 4.54 -12.12 -9.78 2.33 -10.92 -5.59 5.25

Bajra 0.58 1.07 0.48 -0.24 5.39 5.62 -1.17 0.25 1.42 -1.55 1.63 3.18

Urd 6.50 3.56 -2.71 -6.13 -1.55 4.56 -7.87 -4.17 3.66 -4.77 -2.91 1.91

Cotton -5.54 -17.81 -1.27 -9.64 -9.25 2.14 0.24 -5.32 3.66 -4.75 -3.16 2.77

Sugar

cane -0.26 -2.34 -2.08 -0.52 2.51 3.03 -4.75 -4.85 -10.22 -4.20 -3.20 1.76

satisfactory. The area of pulses and oilseeds of the district was decreasing at rate of -6.45%

and -4.04% per annum respectively during over all period (1970-71 to 2012-13).

The above analysis reflects that paddy is still dominant crop in the district and has

maintained increasing trends during the study periods. The most of area under maize and

sugarcane of the district has gone in favour of paddy crop during the mentioned periods.

2.1.2 (d) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major Kharif crops, 1970-71

to 2012-13 in sample district-III (Buland Shahar)

The maize is main crop of kharif season of Buland Shahar district. It is also competing crop

to paddy crop. The CAGR of area, production and yield of major kharif crops of the district

is worked out in Table 2.1.2 (d) for mentioned periods. It is evident from table that CAGR

of area, production and yield of paddy crop of the district was negative being -10.26%, -

10.48% and -0.28% respectively during periods-I, while these were positive during period

II and III.

However, the period II and III were encouraging for the production and yield of paddy in

the district. The maximum CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy crop in the district

is witnessed during period II. The over all growth of area, production and yield of paddy

was positive in the district. The area, production and yield of paddy in the district have

increased at the rate of 4.05%, 6.91% and 2.83% per annum respectively during overall

period i.e. 1970-71 to 2012-13. The CAGR of area of maize was negative being -0.13%, -

3.00% and -4.00% during period I, II and III respectively. It was declining from one period

to other period. Against this, CAGR of production and yield of this crop was mostly found

positive during the corresponding periods. The overall period from (1970-71 to 2012-13)

the CAGR of area under maize was negative being 2.27% while it was positive in case of

yield. More or less same trends of area, production and yield of bajra crop were also

noticed from Table 2.1.2 (d). It reflects that the area under maize and bajra of the district

has registered a declining trends from period to period. The period II (1985-86 to 1999-

2000) was not favourable for almost all Kharif crops except paddy in the district. The

CAGR of area and production of maize, bajra and urd was negative during period II. It is

interesting to note that CAGR of yield of all major kharif crops of the district has

maintained rising trends across the selected periods. The above discussion reflects that

there is no alternative kharif crop to paddy crop in this district. Since period II to period IV

the CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy crop in the district has maintained

positive trends.

Table-2.1.2 (d)


1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district I (Buland Shahar)

(Percent/annum)

Period I, 1970-71 to 1984-85

Period II, 1985-86 to 1999-2000

Period III, 2000-01 to

2012-13

Overall, 1970-71 to 2012-13

Crop


Paddy -10.26 -10.48 -0.28 8.49 14.84 6.36 7 8 0.83 4.05 6.91 2.83

Maize -0.13 2.50 2.63 -3.00 -2.57 1.28 -4 -3 1.34 -2.27 -0.60 1.70

Bajra -3.08 1.32 3.84 -5.14 -2.77 2.38 2 5 3.20 -3.90 0.04 3.86

Urd 5.11 5.20 0.13 -4.52 -0.56 3.94 4 10 5.20 1.74 2.92 1.19

Cotton -9.71 -21.27 -0.56 -11.46 -10.75 2.55 -8 -7 1.08 -10.28 -9.48 2.37

Sugar cane 2.02 3.95 1.93 -0.83 0.87 1.70 1 1 0.02 -0.07 1.05 1.12

Pulses -4.89 -5.19 -0.31 -1.17 2.91 4.08 -6 -5 1.00 1.14 2.62 1.48

Total food

Grains 3.18 25.28 18.35 -2.03 -0.61 1.43 2 3 1.32 -0.68 3.72 2.83

Total

oilseed 17.99 -0.97 -15.74 -17.69 -7.24 10.48 5 8 3.45 -13.08 -12.61 1.33


As a whole (from 1970-71 to 2012-13) the area under food grains, oilseeds and sugarcane

in the district has maintained negative growth being -0.68%, -13.08% and -0.07% per

annum respectively.

2.1.2 (e) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major Kharif crops, 1970-71

to 2012-13 in sample district-IV (Mainpuri)

Mainpuri district is famous for the production of coarse grain crops. Even then, the farmers

of the district are still devoting the maximum under paddy crop during kharif season. The

CAGR of area, production and yield of major kharif crops for four mentioned periods is

worked out in Table 2.1.2 (e). Table reveals that CAGR of area, production and yield of

paddy crop was positive being 3.01%, 4.87% and 1.64% respectively during period I which

were more or less similar during period II. The growth of area under paddy was 3.01 per

annum during period I which has decreased during period II and III. It is also evident from

table that growth of production of paddy was higher than its area. As a whole (1970-71 to

2012-13), the CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy was positive. The growth rate

of area, production and yield of paddy in the district was 1.00%, 3.78% and 3.02% per

annum respectively during over all period i.e. 1970-71 to 2012-13. Against this, growth

rates of area under maize has registered a negative trends during period I and II. It is also

evident from this table that growth of production and yield was also negative during

period-I. The period III was quite encouraging for maize crop in the district because CAGR

of area, production and yield has registered positive trends. However, the CAGR of area,

production and yield of the maize crop for over all period i.e. (from 1970-71 to 2012-13)

was estimated at -1.00%, 1.79% and 2.96% respectively.

Table-2.1.2 (e)


1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district I (Mainpuri)

(Percent/annum)

Period I, 1970-71 to

1984-85

Period II, 1985-86 to

1999-2000

Period III, 2000-

01 to 2012-13

Overall, 1970-71 to

2012-13 Crop


Paddy 3.01 4.87 1.64 0.59 3.86 3.27 -0.61 2 2.78 1 3.78 3.02

Maize -2.14 -3.59 -1.45 -2.52 0.60 3.22 12.52 15 2.71 -1 1.79 2.96

Bajra 0.20 0.36 0.16 -7.38 -3.32 4.05 1.89 6 4.59 -4 -1.10 2.80

Urd 6.35 3.56 -2.71 -13.18 -8.60 4.57 5.58 11 5.20 -5 -3.08 1.85

Cotton -8.68 -19.19 0.66 -52.48 -45.88 -31.01 0.00 0 0.00 -27 -2.64 -16.09

Sugar

cane -3.58 -4.51 -0.92 -11.14 -5.03 6.11 0.74 -1 -1.25 -6 -4.80 1.10

Pulses -1.64 7.87 4.94 -12.83 -8.63 4.21 7.61 12 4.45 -7 -3.90 2.61

Total food

Grains 0.16 7.95 10.24 -2.18 1.83 4.02 0.29 3 2.80 -1 2.79 3.67

Total

oilseed 7.61 0.41 -5.21 -12.64 -6.02 6.61 20.78 26 5.00 -5 -4.80 0.78


Table 2.1.2 (e) also reveals that CAGR of area and production of bajra crop in the district

was negative during period II. Except this period, CAGR of area, production and yield of

this crop has registered positive growth during period I and II. As a whole, it was negative.

The growth of yield of bajra in the district was better than the growth of area and

production. As far as Urd crop is concerned, Table 2.1.2(e) shows that CAGR of area and

production of urd was negative during period-II while in other study periods, there was a

positive growth. The position of sugarcane was not satisfactory in the district during

selected periods. There was much downfall in area and production of sugarcane in the

district during period I and II. The CAGR of area and production of pulses in the district

was negative being -12.83% and -58.63% respectively during period-II. The area under

pulses, foodgrains and oilseeds was decreasing at rate of -7.00%, -1.00% and -5.00% per

annum respectively during over all period i.e. (1970-71 to 2012-13).

The period II was not found suitable for major kharif crops in the district except paddy

crop. It may be concluded with this result that the growth in area, production and yield of

paddy in the district has maintained rising trends during all the study periods. There was no

substitute of paddy crop in the district. It is still a dominant crop during kharif season.

2.1.2 (F) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major Kharif crops, 1970-71

to 2012-13 in sample district-V (Bareilly)

Paddy and sugarcane are principal crops of kharif season of the district. Since, it belongs to

Tarai region of Uttar Pradesh, so the paddy and sugarcane are very suitable crops for the

district. Urd is also grown in up lands of the district. It is also treated as competing crop to

paddy in the district. The CAGR of area, production and yield for major kharif crops of the

district are presented in table 2.1.2 (f). It is evident from Table 2.1.2 (f) that the CAGR of

area, production and yield of paddy crop in the district was positive during period-I and II.

However, the growth of area under paddy was negative during period III. The growth of

production and yield of paddy was positive during same period. The maximum growth in

area, production and yield is witnessed during period II. The period III was not suitable for

this crop. The over all period (1970-71 to 2012-13) CAGR of area, production and yield of

paddy was worked out to be 0.79%, 3.00% and 1.85% respectively.

It is also evident from Table2.1.2 (f) that the growth rate in production of paddy in the

district was faster than its area during over all the period i.e. from 1970-71 to 2012-13. It is

also witnessed from Table 2.1.2 (f) that CAGR of area, production and yield of maize in

the district was negative being -6.62%, -8.81%, -2.19% respectively during period-I. The

growth of area under maize has registered negative trends during all the study periods. The

growth rates of area under bajra was also negative during entire periods of the study.

However, there was marginal improvement in CAGR of production of maize and bajra in

period III in comparison to period I and II. As far as urd crop is concerned, table shows that

CAGR of area was negative being -5.16% during period II while it was positive during

period I and III. The over all growth rates of area, production and yield of urd crop have

registered positive trends.

Table-2.1.2 (F)


1970-71 to 2012-13, Sample district I (Bareilly)

(Percent/annum)

Period I, 1970-71 to 1984-85

Period II, 1985-86 to 1999-2000

Period III, 2000-01 to 2012-13

Overall, 1970-71 to 2012-13

Crop


Paddy 1.83 4.86 2.99 2.15 3.48 1.33 -0.35 0 0.37 0.79 3.00 1.85

Maize -6.62 -8.81 -2.19 -23.26 -22.31 0.70 -3.24 -1 2.36 -11.69 -9.58 3.81

Bajra -0.39 -0.42 -0.03 -1.67 0.97 2.64 -0.48 2 2.02 -0.89 0.89 2.29

Urd 8.19 5.41 -2.90 -5.16 -3.66 1.49 9.22 13 3.29 3.32 6.21 2.62

Cotton -2.21 0.35 21.77 5.92 15.45 -4.57 -15 1.53 -12.51 -8.27 -9.51

Sugar cane 0.22 0.46 0.19 3.04 4.00 0.97 0.65 1 0.30 1.52 3.37 1.21

Pulses -0.84 11 7.36 -5.16 -3.67 1.50 9.09 12 3.34 3.87 6.87 4.09

Total food

Grains 2.41 24 12.79 0.61 2.77 2.16 -0.15 0 0.31 0.40 3.36 2.40

Total

oilseed -0.14 -6 -4.28 -9.97 -19.25 -9.28 8.49 6 -2.23 -2.83 -11.29 -5.15


The area, production and yield of urd in this district have registered a positive growth being

3.32%, 6.21% and 2.62% per annum during over all period i.e. (1970-71 to 2012-13)

respectively. The sugarcane is second most important crop of the district which has

registered positive growth rate of area production and yield in different selected periods of

the study. The area, production and yield of food grains in the district have also positive

growth during the overall period (1970-71 to 2012-13). The position of kharif of pulses and

oilseeds was not much better in the district. There was much substitution of area under

maize and bajra towards paddy crop during the study periods.

2.1.2 (g) Compound Annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major Kharif crops, 1970-71

to 2012-13 in sample district-VI (Amroha)

Since it is a newly born district of western region of U.P., so data of area, production and

yield of different crops were available only from 1985-86 onwards. The CAGR for major

kharif crops has been worked out from 1885-86 to 2012-13 in table 2.1.2 (g). It is evident

from table 2.1.2 (g) that CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy crop in the district

was negative during the entire periods of the study. The CAGR of area, production and

yield of this crop was negative being -1.36%, 0.27% and -1.35% during over all period i.e.

1985-86 to 2012-13. The CAGR of area and production of maize and bajra was also

negative during over all period i.e. 1985-86 to 2012-13.

Table 2.1.2 (g)


13, in Sample district VI (Amroha)

(Percent/annum) Period II, 1985-86 to

1999-2000 Period III, 2000-01 to

2012-13 Overall, 1970-71 to

2012-13 Crop

A P Y A P Y A P Y

Paddy -3.58 -11.51 -7.94 -0.63 -2 -1.65 -1.36 -0.27 -1.35

Maize -5.73 -12.48 -6.76 -6.47 -6 0.00 -8.57 -0.98 -1.20

Bajra -6.42 -18.74 -12.28 -5.03 -6 -0.63 -5.58 -0.55 0.13

Urd -20.08 -25.44 -5.36 1.08 5 3.64 6.89 1.11 4.21

Cotton -230.26 0.00 -253.13 -22.53 -15 -16.56 0.00 0.00 0.00

Sugar cane -9.55 -17.45 -7.90 0.90 1 0.33 0.23 0.02 0.00

Pulses -19.48 -25.16 -5.70 1.00 5 3.69 6.51 1.08 4.33

Total food

Grains -4.68 -12.20 -7.50 -1.53 -3 -0.98 -2.11 -0.30 -0.91

Total

oilseed -49.04 -69.31 -20.17 17.47 16 14.03 11.62 2.45 10.57


It is also surprising to note that CAGR of area and production of urd in the district has

registered a increasing growth during over all period i.e. 1985-86 to 2012-13. These were

increasing at the rate of 6.89% and 1.11% per annum respectively during over all period.

The CAGR of area, production and yield of urd was negative being -20.08%, -25.44% and

-5.36% respectively during period -II (1985-86 to 1999-2000. It is also witnessed from

Table 2.1.2 (g) that CAGR of area, production and yield of sugarcane, pulses, foodgrains

and oilseeds was negative during period II. It reflects that period-II was not favourable for

these crops. Overall the urd was acceptable crop in the district along with paddy crop.

2.2 Procurement of major Kharif Crops by Different Agencies from 1970-71 to

2010-11 in Uttar Pradesh

The details procurement of paddy crop from Uttar Pradesh during 1980-81, 1990-91, 2001-

02 and 2010-11 by different agencies is presented in Table 2.2. The paddy was only

procured by different agencies during the mentioned periods. The data of procurement of

paddy was not available for year 1970-71. Table 2.2 shows that State Government, U.P.

Cooperative Federation, U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation, U.P.

State Agro-Industrial Corporation, Development Corporation and Food Corporation of

India were important agencies to procure the paddy from the state during different years.

Among these agencies, the State Government and U.P. State Cooperative Federation were

main agencies to procure the paddy during 1980-81, 1990-91, 2000-01 and 2010-11. Out of

total procured quantity of paddy of 1385.523 thousand MT in 2010-11, 41.01% was

procured by State Government followed by 28.55%, 12.95%, 11.77%, 5.54% and 0.18% by

U.P. Cooperative Federation, Development Corporations other, U.P. State Agro-Industrial

Corporation, U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation and Food

Corporation of India respectively.

It is also noticed from Table 2.2 that State Government and U.P. Cooperative Federation

were main procurement agencies to procure major quantity of paddy during the study

periods. More than 90% of the total procured quantity of paddy was purchased by State

Government and U.P. Cooperative Federation during 1980-81, 1990-91 and 2000-01. Next

to these two agencies, U.P. State Agro-Industrial Corporation and Development

Corporation/ others had also purchased the paddy during 2010-11. Out of total procured

quantity of paddy during 2010-11, the share of Development Corporation/ others was

12.95% followed by 11.17% of U.P. State Agro-Industrial Corporation. The role of Food

Corporation of India was very negligible in procuring of paddy from U.P. during the stated

periods.

Table 2.2

Procurement of Paddy Crops by different Agencies, 1970-71 to 2010-11, State

(000’ tones)

Agencies 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2001-02 2010-11

Paddy

State government N.A. 476.76

(80.76)

4.592

(46.94)

514.40

(57.14)

568.03

(41.01)

U.P. Cooperative

Federation N.A.

89.75

(15.20)

3.68

(37.62)

298.60

(33.17)

395.55

(28.55)

U.P. State Food &

Essential Commodities

Corporation

N.A. 23.47

(3.98) - -

76.73

(5.54)

U.P. State agro-Industrial

Corporation N.A.

0.18

(0.03)

1.33

(13.60)

61.64

(6.85)

163.00

(11.71)

Development

Corporation/Others N.A. -

0.03

(0.31)

25.63

(2.84)

179.43

(12.95)

Food Corporation of India N.A. 0.16

(0.03)

0.15

(1.53) -

2.49

(0.18)

Total N.A. 590.32

(100.00)

9.782

(100.00)

900.27

(100.00)

1385.23

(100.00)

Note: Figures in brackets are percentage to total.

CHAPTER-3

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Growers

An attempt has been made in this chapter to know the socio-economic characteristics of

210 sample farmers of six selected districts of western region of Uttar Pradesh. It has

already been mentioned in first chapter of this report that 210 sample farmers were selected

randomly from six districts of western U.P. to know the “Possibility and constraints in

Adoption of Alternative Crops to Paddy in Green Revolution belt of North India”.

3.1. Demographic Characteristic of Sample Farmers

The demographic characteristic of 210 sample farmers is presented in Table-3.1. Table 3.1

shows that out of 210 sample farmers, small and marginal farmers accounted for 51.43%

followed by 42.86% and 5.71% for medium and large sample farmers respectively. Hence,

small and medium sample farmers jointly accounted for 94.29% of the total 210 sample

farmers. Number of large farmers available in the selected districts of western region of

U.P. were very less. The average size of members on sample farms was 9.21 which varied

from 8.86 to 13.42 members on small and large sample farms respectively. The age of head

of family was found maximum above 50 years across the size of farms. It is also witnessed

from table 3.1 that only few of head of family members were upto age of 30 years old

across the size of sample farms.

As far as educational status of head of sample farmers is concerned table 3.1 shows that

majority of head of families across the size of sample farms were educated upto matric

level. Of the total head of families of 210 households, 19.52% were educated upto graduate

and above. Maximum they belonged to medium sample farms. Table 3.1 also reveals that

about 21% of total head of families of small sample households were illiterate followed by

11% of medium sample households. None of the head of family of large sample households

was illiterate. It shows that educational status of head of families of medium and large

sample households were much better than that of small sample households. The main

occupation of head of families was agriculture across the size of sample farms. It is also

evident from table 3.1 that the agriculture as subsidiary occupation was adopted by only

4.63% head of families of small sample farms. No head of families belonging to medium

and large sample farms had adopted agriculture as subsidiary occupation on their farms

during the reference year.

Table: 3.1

General Characteristics of sample households, 2012-13

(Per cent)

Particulars Small Medium Large Overall

Age of Head (Years)

Up to 30 3.70 4.44 0 3.81

30-50 31.48 37.78 50.00 35.24

Above 50 64.82 57.78 50.00 60.95 Educational status of head of the family

Illiterate 21.30 11.11 0 15.72

Primary 11.11 7.78 8.33 9.52

Matric 43.52 25.56 41.67 35.72

Secondary 17.59 22.22 1.67 19.52

Graduate and above 6.48 33.33 3.33 19.52 Average Family Size (No.)

Males 4.47 4.70 7.17 4.78

Females 4.29 4.37 6.25 4.43

Total 8.86 9.07 13.42 9.21 Age of family members (Years)

Up to 18 40.44 35.54 370.27 38.11

18-35 31.14 30.27 24.84 30.25

35-60 22.15 26.47 32.92 24.87

Above 60 6.27 7.72 4.97 6.77 Occupation of Head of family Agriculture as Main

occupation 95.37 100.00 100.00 97.62

Agriculture as

Subsidiary

occupation

4.63 0.00 0.00 2.38

Permanent farm labour Male Number 0 2 3 5 Wages (Rs./month) Female Number 0 0 0 0 Wages (Rs./month) 0 0 0 0 Children Number 0 0 0 0 Wages (Rs./month) 0 0 0 0

The permanent farm labour was not engaged by the small sample farmers of six districts of

western U.P. during the reference year. However, large sample farmers had engaged 3

permanent labours followed by 2 by medium sample farmers. The engagement of casual

labours was much practiced to do the agricultural activities on the sample farms of the

study areas.

3.2 Average Land Holding of Sample Households 2012-13

The average land holding of sample households of six selected districts of western region

of U.P. during 2012-13 worked out in Table 3.2 indicates that over all, the average size of

owned land holding was estimated at 2.61 ha. which was fully irrigated. The average size

of owned land holding was highest being 10.29 ha. on large sample farms .followed by

3.34 ha and 1.26 ha. for medium and small sample farms respectively. Table 3.2 also

reveals that leased-in and leased-out land were not much prevalent on the sample farms.

Table: 3.2

Average land holding of sample households, 2012-13, State

(Hectares)


Owned land

Irrigated 1.26 3.34 10.29 2.61

Unirrigated - - - -

Total 1.26 3.34 10.29 2.61

Leased-in land

Irrigated 0.08 0.40 3.25 0.40

Unirrigated - - - -

Total 0.08 0.40 3.25 0.40

Leased-out land

Irrigated 0.02 - 0.25 0.03

Unirrigated - - - -

Total 0.02 - 0.25 0.03

Current Fallow

Irrigated - - - -

Unirrigated - - - -

Total - -- - -

Total operational land

Irrigated 1.32 3.74 13.29 3.04

Unirrigated - - - -

Total 1.32 3.74 13.29 3.04

The large sample farmers had taken much area of leased-in land than small and medium

sample farmers. It is also noticed from Table 3.2 that area under current fallow was not left

across the size of sample farms during reference year. Over all, the average size of

operational holding was worked out to be 3.04 ha. against 13.29 ha., 3.74 ha. and 1.32 ha.

on large, medium and small size of sample farms respectively. Table 3.2 also reveals that

the area of operational holding was higher than that of owned area across the size of farms.

This was due to increase in area of leased-in land than the area of leased-out land. The total

operational area of 210 sample farmers was fully irrigated and cultivated.

3.3. Average Farm Inventory Ownership on Sample Farms 2012-13

The mechanization in agriculture has been increasing very fast since advent of Green

Revolution in the country. The Commercial Banks, Land Development Banks, Cooperative

Banks, Governments of Central and states etc. have been providing adequate loans to the

farmers to purchase tractors and its accessories, pump sets, spry pumps etc. Due to the

liberal system of loaning by institutional and non institutional banks etc, the farmers

irrespective of size of land holdings are purchasing agricultural assets to perform the

agricultural activities in scientific and efficient manner.

The maximum emphasis has been given on expansion of irrigation resources. The pump

sets of diesel and electric have been given at subsidized rate of interest to the farmers.

Therefore, the agriculture assets are generally found in much numbers on the farm across

the state at present which were rare before 1970-71. The farmers of western U.P. are

economically sound, so they possess the essential agricultural assets on their farms. The

average farm inventory ownership on the sample farms during 2012-13 is worked out in

table 3.3. Table 3.3 shows that the all the sample households of large farms had a tractor

while 50% and 7.41% of total sample households of medium and small households had

possessed tractors respectively. The over all, the average present value of a tractor was

estimated at Rs. 2,73,470 which varied between Rs. 2,28,125 and Rs. 3,84,667 on small

and large farms respectively.

It is also noticed from Table 3.3 that the each and very large sample farmer possessed

trolley and harrow along with tractor while it was not found in case of small and medium

sample farms. On an average, the present value of trolley, harrow and cultivator was

estimated at Rs. 64775, Rs. 19600 and Rs 12456 respectively. Out of 210 sample

household, 63.33% households had diesel engines while 31.90% sample households had

kept the electric motors on their farms. Few of them had kept both types of pump sets. Of

the total small sample farmers only 64.81% small sample farmers had kept both engines.

The number of diesel engines was more than electric motors on the small sample farms.

The value of a diesel engine was worked out to be Rs. 19,056 against Rs. 38,478 of a

electric motors. The per farm value of a diesel engine was Rs 12,164 while it was Rs. Rs

12,276 of a electric motor. Table 3.3 also shows that per farm value of a electric engine

was maximum being Rs. 35,833 on large farms which varied between Rs. 17,167 and Rs.

55833 on medium and small size of sample farms respectively. The spry pumps were also

purchased by sample farmers. Out of total sample households, 24.76% households possessed the

spry pumps. Out of total 52 spry pumps, 51.92% belonged to medium size of sample farms

followed by 32.69% and 15.38% on small and large size of sample farms respectively.

Table 3.3

Average Farm inventory ownership, sample households, 2012-13

(Per farm) Small Medium Large Overall Type of machine

No. PV No. PV No. PV No. PV

1. Tractor 0.07 16898 0.50 122233 1.25 480833 0.32 88552

2. Trolley 0.05 6481 0.34 20967 1.08 48917 0.23 15114

3. Harrow 0.06 1435 0.39 7476 1.00 17583 0.25 4947

4. Cultivator 0.07 1083 0.48 5724 1.08 13750 0.30 3796

5. Electric motor 0.20 5583 0.41 17167 0.67 35833 0.32 12276

6. Diesel Engine 0.44 7333 0.77 14694 1.33 36667 0.63 12164

7. Submersible

pump

- - 0.06 5056 - - 0.02 2167

8. Spray pump 0.16 97 0.30 183 - 758 0.25 171

9. Generator - - 0.01 222 - - 0.01 91

10. Cart 0.20 2532 0.28 6233 0.67 2250 0.23 4102

11. Drip System - - - - - - - -

12. Others 8.54 3678 10.17 7271 15.00 1183 9.62 5684

Note: PV is the Present value (Rs.)

The per farm present value of a spry pump was worked out to Rs. 758 on large sample

farms followed by Rs. 183 and Rs 97 on medium and small sample size of farms

respectively. The average current value of a spry pump was worked out to Rs. 692 which

varied between Rs. 1137 and Rs 615 and large and small size of sample farms respectively.

The above discussion reflects that the number of farm assets and its value increases with

increase in size of farms. The large sample farmers had better farm inventory than their

counter parts.

Table 3.3 (a)

Total Value of Farm inventory ownership, sample households, 2012-13

(Per farm) Small Medium Large Overall Type of machine

No. PV No. PV No. PV No. PV

1. Tractor 8 1825000

(228125)

45 11001000

(244466)

15 5770000

(384666)

68 18596000

(273471)

2. Trolley 5 700000

(140000)

31 1087000

(68871)

13 587000

(45154)

49 3174000

(64776)

3. Harrow 6 155000

(25883)

35 672800

(19223)

12 211000

(17583)

53 1038800

(19600)

4. Cultivator 8 117000

(25833)

43 515200

(11981)

13 165000

(12698)

64 797200

(12456)

5. Electric motor 22 603000

(27409)

37 1545000

(41757)

8 430000

(53750)

67 2578000

(38478)

6. Diesel Engine 48 792000

(16500)

69 1322500

(19167)

16 440000

(27500)

133 2554500

(19207)

7. Submersible pump - - 5 455000

(91000)

- - 5 455000

(91000)

8. Spray pump 17 10460

(615)

27 16430

(608)

8 9100

(1137)

52 35990

(692)

9. Generator - - 1 20000

(20000)

- - 1 20000

(20000)

10. Cart 22 273400

(12427)

25 561000

(22440

2 27000

(13500)

49 861400

(17580)

11. Drip System - - -- - -- - -- -

12. Others 922 397270

(431)

915 654430

(715)

183 142000

(776)

2020 1193700

(591)

Note: PV is the Present value (Rs.) Note: Figures in brackets are the present value per

inventory.

3.4.1 Cropping Pattern of Sample Households during 2012-13

The proportional share of area under different crops to net cropped area is presented in

Table 3.4.1. Table 3.4.1 reveals that wheat, paddy, bajra, vegetables, urd mustard and

maize were important crops on the sample farms which accounted for 56.64%, 41.02%,

17.44%, 12.42%, 11.24%, 10.69% and 10.67% to net cropped area respectively. Paddy,

bajra, maize, urd and sugarcane were important crops in kharif season while wheat,

rapeseed/mustard, vegetables were dominant crops in rabi season. This type of cropping

sequence was witnessed across the size of sample farms.

Table 3.4.1 reveals that paddy was dominant crop on all categories of sample farms in

Kharif season which had occupied 52.80% to net cropped area on small sample farms

followed by 41.76% and 28.91% on medium and large sample farms respectively. Next to

paddy, maize was an important crop on small sample farms while bajra was second

important crop on the medium and large farms during the study period. As far as urd crop

is concerned, Table 3.4.1 shows that it accounted for 16.90% to net cropped area on large

sample farms followed by 9.65% and 8.63% on medium and small sample farms

respectively. It shows that there was much diversion of net cropped area in favour of bajra,

maize and urd in the kharif season on large and medium sample farms. The shift of net

cropped area towards the maize, bajra and urd was not much prevalent on small sample

farms as compared to medium and large sample farms. The above discussion shows that the

large and medium sample farmers had devoted more area under bajra, maize, urd than

small sample farmers in the reference year. Wheat was most important crop in rabi season

across the sample farms. Out of net cropped area, wheat accounted for 66.83%, 54.00% and

53.12% on small, medium and large farms respectively during reference year.

Next to wheat crop, the vegetable and rapeseed/mustard were also important crops across

the sample size of farms in rabi season. Out of total net cropped area, the area under

vegetable accounted for 13.48% on large farms followed by 12.15% and 12.03% on small

and medium sample farms respectively. The area under rapeseed/mustard accounted for

12.79% to net cropped area on large farms followed by 10.12% and 8.50% on medium and

small sample farms respectively during the study period. Of the total net cropped area of

210 sample farmers of six districts of western U.P., 97.81% area was covered by kharif

crops in the study period against 89.90% of area under rabi crops. It shows that 10.10% and

2.19% of net cropped was not cultivated by sample farmers in rabi and kharif season

respectively. The analysis of cropping pattern reflects that bajra, maize and urd crops were

alternative crops to paddy crop in the six selected districts of western U.P.

Table 3.4.1

Cropping Pattern of sample households, 2012-13 (Per cent to Net cropped area) Season/Crops Small Medium Large Overall

A. Kharif

1. Paddy 52.80 41.76 28.91 41.02

2. Maize 16.01 9.31 8.78 10.67

3. Bajra 14.57 16.72 21.51 17.44

4. Jowar Fodder 3.94 6.45 1.29 4.60

5. Cotton - - - -

6. Sugarcane 3.72 10.90 7.95 8.57

7. Groundnut 0.63 0.74 0 0.53

8. Moong 0 0.07 0.63 0.20

9. Soyabean 0 0 0 0

10. Urd 8.63 9.65 16.90 11.24

11. Sorghum 0 0 0 0

12.Other 0.42 1.13 11.41 -97.81

B. Rabi

1. Wheat 66.83 54.00 53.12 56.64

2. Gram 0 0 0 0

3. Sunflower 0 0 0 0

4. Rapeseed &

Mustard

8.50 10.12 12.79 10.69

5. Vegetable 12.15 12.03 13.48 12.42

6. Berseem 4.94 4.40 1.32 3.75

7.Other 2.53 5.59 11.79 6.40

C. Summer 0 0 0 0

Crops 0 0 0 0

1. Maize 0 0 0 0

2. Bajra 0 0 0 0

3. Cowpea 0 0 0 0

4. Other___ 0 0 0 0

Net cropped area (ha.)

142.38 336.18 159.45 638.01

3.4.2 Potential Alternative crops to paddy crop as perceived by sample households.

2012-13

The potential alternative crops to paddy crop as perceived by sample farmers is analysed in

Table 3.4.2. Table 3.4.2 shows that bajra, maize and urd crops were main alternative crops

to paddy crop on all the sample size of farms. The percent multiple response of small

sample farmers was maximum in favour of maize and bajra. Table 3.4.2 indicates that

37.04%, 13.59% and 11.88% multiple responses of small farmers had gone in favour of

bajra, maize and urd as alternative crops respectively to paddy crop.

The multiple responses of medium sample farmers towards alternative crops to paddy crop

were bajra, urd and maize which accounted for 50%, 40% and 33.33% respectively.

However, the large sample farmers were given much weightage to bajra and urd as

alternative crops to paddy crop. Over all, bajra followed by maize crops were treated as

alternative crops to paddy crop on the sample farms of six districts of western region of

Uttar Pradesh.

Table 3.4.2

Potential alternative crops to paddy crop as perceived by Sample households, 2012-13

(Per cent multiple response)

Crops Small Medium Large Overall

1. Bajra 37.04 50.00 100.00 46.19

2. Maize 13.59 33.33 41.67 40.19

3. Cotton 0 0 0 0

4. Groundnut 0 0 0 0

5. Moong 0 0 0 0

6. Soyabean 0 0 0 0

7. Mash/urd 11.88 40.00 100.00 38.10

8. Forage legume 0 0 0 0

9. Other 0 0 0 0

3.5.1 (a) Production and Crop Retention Pattern of paddy on Sample households

2012-13

The per farm production and retention pattern of paddy crop on the sample households

during 2012-13 is worked out in Table 3.5.1 (a). Table 3.5.1 (a) shows that the per farm

production of paddy was highest being 166.42 qtls on large sample households followed by

71.91 qtls and 32.36 qtls on medium and small sample households respectively. The per

hectare production of paddy worked out to 46.49 qtls on small farms followed by 46.09 qtls

and 43.32 qtls on medium and large sample farms respectively. It shows that the per

hectare production of paddy decreases with increase in the size of farms. The per farm

production was highest on large sample farms and lowest on small sample farms. Out of

total per farm production of paddy being 32.36 qtls on small farms, 87.89% was sold and

12.11% was retained for self consumption and for the payment in kind. Out of total

retained quantity of 3.92 qtls per farm, self consumption accounted for 99.48% and rest

accounted for 0.52% for payment in kind. The small sample farmers had retained nominal

quantity of production of paddy for feed purpose during the study period. It increases with

increase in size of sample farms. The gap of production of paddy between lowest and

highest quantity was 134.06 qtls per farm.

In case of medium sample farms, Table 3.5.1 (a) shows that out of total per farm quantity

of production of paddy, 93.21% was sold and rest 6.79% was retained for self consumption

and payments in kind. The medium sample households had also not retained the production

of paddy for seed purposes. As far as large sample households are concerned, table 3.5.1

(a) shows that 94.14% of total production of paddy was sold and 5.86% was retained for

self consumption and payments in kind purposes. Over all, 91.82% of total production of

paddy was marketed and rest 8.18% was retained for self consumption and payments in

kind. None of sample households had retained any quantity of total production of paddy for

seed purposes during the reference year. It is emerged from above discussion that the

marketed quantity of production of paddy increases with increase in size of farms. There

was positive correlation between marketed surplus and farms size in the study areas. Paddy

was not stored for seed by the sample farmers in the reference year.

Table 3.5.1 (a)

Production and Crop retention pattern of Paddy, sample households, 2012-13

(Qtl/farm)


Production 32.36

(100.00)

71.91

(100.00)

166.42

(100.00)

56.97

(100.00)

Retention for

Self consumption 3.861

(11.93)

4.78

(6.65)

9.33

(5.61)

4.59

(8.06)

Seed - - - -

Feed 0.01

(0.03)

0.05

(0.07)

- 0.03

(0.05)

Payments in kind 0.05

(0.15)

0.05

(0.07)

0.42

(0.25)

0.05

(0.09)

Total retention 3.92

(12.11)

4.88

(6.79)

9.75

(5.86)

4.66

(8.18)

Total qty. sold 28.44

(87.89)

67.03

(93.21)

156.67

(94.14)

52.31

(91.82)

Note: Figures in brackets are percentage to total production.

3.5.1 (b) Production and Crop Retention Pattern of Competing crop-I (Bajra) on

sample households 2012-13

The bajra was second most important alternative crop to paddy on the sample farms during

study period. The per farm production and crop retention pattern of competing crop-I

(bajra) on the sample farms during 2012-13 is presented in Table 3.5.1 (b). Table 3.5.1 (b)

shows that at the aggregate level, the per hectare production of bajra was worked out to

32.88 qtls which ranged between 30.33 qtls and 32.92 qtls on medium and large sample

farms respectively. It shows that the per hectare production of bajra was more or less same

across the sample farms. However, the per farm production was lowest being 6.52 qtls on

small sample farms. The per farm production of bajra on medium sample farms was 20.46

qtls during the same period. Over all, the per farm production of bajra was estimated at

17.42 qtls. Out of total per farm production of 17.42 qtls marketed surplus accounted for

87.72% followed by 5.68%, 4.13% and 0.23% for self consumption, feed, seed and

payments in kind respectively. Table 3.5.1 (b) also reveals that more than 96.5%

production of bajra was sold by large sample farmers followed by 84.36% and 82.51% by

medium and small sample farmers respectively. It shows that the marketed surplus of bajra

increases with increase in size of farms. It is also noticed from Table that sample farmers

across the size farms had kept the bajra grain for seed and feed purposes but it was very

nominal quantity. It shows that the bajra was mostly produced for sale purpose in the study

areas.

Table 3.5.1 (b)

Production and Crop retention pattern of Competing crop -I (Bajra) sample

households, 2012-13

(Qtl/farm)

Crop Small Medium Large Overall

Production 6.52

(100.00)

20.46

(100.00)

92.82

(100.00)

17.42

(100.00)

Retention for


(10.12)

2.21

(10.80)

1.36

(1.47)

0.99

(5.68)

Seed 0.001

(0.01)

0.02

(0.09)

- 0.39

(2.24)

Feed 0.42

(6.44)

0.94

(4.59)

1.88

(2.03)

0.72

(4.13)


(0.92)

0.03

(0.15)

- 0.04

(0.23)


(17.49)

3.20

(15.64)

3.24

(3.49)

2.14

(12.28)


(82.51)

17.26

(84.36)

89.58

(96.51)

15.28

(87.72)


3.5.1 (C) Production and Crop Retention Pattern of Competing crop II (Maize) on

Sample Households 2012-13

The maize is also competing crop to paddy crop in the selected districts of western region

of Uttar Pradesh. It is widely grown in few districts of the western region of U.P. The

production and retention of maize crop is illustrated in Table 3.5.1 ©. Table 3.5.1 (c )

shows that at the aggregate level, the per hectare production was estimated at 34.39 qtls

which was highest being 43.57 qtls on large sample farms followed by 32.64 qtls and 31.17

qtls on medium and small sample farms respectively. The per hectare production of maize

also increases with increase in size of farms. However, the per farm production of maize

was worked out to be 38.25 qtls, 11.35 qtls and 6.75 qtls on large, medium and small

sample farms respectively. The over all, per farm production was 10.52 qtls of which

88.22% was sold and rest 11.78% was retained for self consumption, feed etc. Table 3.5.1

(c) also reveals that out of per farm production, of maize, 97.28% was sold by large sample

farmers followed by 88.81% and 81.48% by medium and small sample farmers

respectively. The marketed surplus increases with increase in the size of farms. It was also

retained for self consumption, seed and feed by sample farmers. The large sample farmers

had retained maize in less quantity than medium and small sample farmers in the reference

year.

Table 3.5.1 (C)

Production and Crop retention pattern of Competing (Maize), sample households,

2012-13

(Qtl/farm)


Production

6.75

(100.00)

11.35

(100.00)

38.25

(100.00)

10.52

(100.00)

Retention for


(11.11)

0.66

(5.81)

0.67

(1.75)

0.70

(6.65)

Seed 0.01

(0.15)

0.02

(0.18)

0.17

(0.44)

0.02

(0.19)

Feed 0.49

(7.26)

0.56

(4.94)

0.20

(0.53)

0.50

(4.75)

Payments in kind - 0.03

(0.26)

- 0.02

(0.19)


(18.52)

1.27

(11.19)

1.04

(2.72)

1.24

(11.78)


(81.48)

10.08

(88.81)

37.21

(97.28)

9.28

(88.22)


3.5.1 (d) Production and Crop retention pattern of Competing Crop III (Urd) on

Sample Households 2012-13

Urd is an important kharif pulse in the selected districts. It is generally grown in up lands

and also requires less water. It is also competing crop to paddy in few selected districts of

western region. The per farm production and retention of urd of selected households in the

reference year is worked out in Table 3.5.1 (d). It is evident from Table 3.5.1 (d) that per

hectare production at aggregate level, was 11.76 qtls which was maximum being 12.32 qtls

on medium sample farms followed by 11.46 qtls and 11.07 qtls on large and small sample

farms respectively. It shows that per hectare production of urd was more or less same

across the sample size of farms. The per farm production of urd was highest being 25.75

qtls on large sample farms followed by 4.44 qtls and 1.26 qtls on medium and small sample

farms respectively. It shows that the per farm production of urd increases with increase in

the size of sample farms.

Out of total per farm production of urd of 4.02 qtls, 89.30% was sold and rest of 10.70%

was retained by the sample farmers. Table also reveals that large households had sold

93.20% of the total production of urd against 88.51% and 82.54% by medium and small

sample households respectively. The urd was also retained for self consumption by the

sample households.

Table 3.5.1 (d)

Production and Crop retention pattern of Competing crop III (Urd), sample

households, 2012-13

(Qtl/farm)


Production 1.26

(100.00)

4.44

(100.00)

25.75

(100.00)

4.02

(100.00)

Retention for - - - -


(16.67)

0.49

(11.04)

1.75

(6.80)

0.42

(10.45)

Seed - 0.01

(0.22)

- 0.002

(0.05)

Feed - 0.01

(0.23)

- 0.002

(0.05)


(0.79)

- - 0.01

(0.25)


(17.46)

0.51

(11.49)

1.75

(6.80)

0.43

(10.70)


(82.54)

3.93

(88.51)

24.00

(93.20)

3.59

(89.30)


3.5.2 (a) Disposal Pattern of paddy on sample households 2012-13

The disposal pattern of paddy on the sample households in reference year is worked out in

Table 3.5.2 (a). This table shows that all quantity of paddy was sold to only local /private

traders. None of other marketing functionaries was involved in the marketing of paddy in

the study areas.

Table 3.5.2 (a)

Disposal pattern of paddy, sample households, 2012-13


Paddy 0 0 0 0

1. Local trader 0 0 0 0

Quantity 3071.70

(28.44)

6033.00

(67.03)

1880.00

(156.67)

10904.70

(51.92)

Price/Qtls 2188 2630 2711 2539

2.Govt. agency 0 0 0 0

Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0

3. Processor/Miller 0 0 0 0

Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0

4. Pvt. Company 0 0 0 0

Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0

5. Any other 0 0 0 0

Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0

6. Total 0 0 0 0

Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0 Note: Quantity indicate quantity of total produce sold (in quintals) through a particular market

functionary and Price is in Rs./q.

Note: Figures in brackets are Q/per farm..

The per qtl price of paddy at aggregate level was Rs. 2539 which ranged between Rs. 2188

and Rs. 2711 on small and large farms respectively. It shows that large sample farmers

received more Rs.523 per qtl sold price of paddy than the price received by small sample

farmers. There was wide gap between price received by large and small sample farmers

during same period.

3.5.2 (b) Disposal Pattern of Competing Crop I (Bajra) on the Sample Households-

2012-13

The disposal pattern of bajra on the sample farms in reference year is worked out in Table

3.5.2 (b). This table shows that the sample farmers had sold total the quantity of bajra to

only local/private traders in the reference year. None of other marketing agencies was

involved, in trading of bajra. Over all, the price of bajra per qtl worked out to be Rs. 1104.

The per qtl price of bajra was more or less same across the sample size of farms.

Table 3.5.2 (b)

Disposal pattern of Competing Crop-I (Bajra), sample households, 2012-13


Paddy 0 0 0 0


Quantity 580.50

(14.51)

1553

(34.51)

1075.00

(89.58)

3208.50

(33.08)

Price/qtl 1107 1108 1095 1104


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0

6. Total 0 0 0 0

Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0 Note: Quantity indicate quantity of total produce sold (in quintals) through a particular market functionary

and Price is in Rs./q.

Note: Figures in brackets are Q/per farm..

3.5.2 (C) Disposal Pattern of Competing Crop II (Maize) on the Sample Households-

2012-13

The disposal pattern of maize crop is worked out in Table 3.5.2 ©. Table shows that all the

sample farms of different size groups had sold the total quantity of maize to only local

private traders. None of other marketing agencies was involved in marketing of maize in

reference year.

Table 3.5.2 (C)

Disposal pattern of Competing Crop-II (Maize), sample households, 2012-13


Paddy 0 0 0 0


Quantity 594.00

(11.65)

907.50

(30.25)

446.50

(89.30)

1948.00

(22.65) Price/qtl 1347 1312 1336 1328


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0

6. Total 0 0 0 0

Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0 Note: Quantity indicate quantity of total produce sold (in quintals) through a particular market

functionary and Price is in Rs./q.

Note: Figures in brackets are Q/per farm.

The per qtl price of maize received was Rs. 1347 by small sample farmers followed by Rs

1336, Rs 1312 by medium and large sample farmers respectively. Over all, the per qtl price

of maize was Rs. 1328, which ranged between Rs. 1312 and Rs 1347 on medium and small

sample farms respectively. It shows that there was marginal difference in per qtl price of

maize across the size of farms.

3.5.2 (d) Disposal Pattern of Competing Crop III (Urd) on the Sample Households-

2012-13

The disposal pattern of competing crop-III urd on the sample farm is worked out in Table

3.5.2 (d). Table shows that on an aggregate level about 89% of the total production of urd

was sold by the sample farmers. Over all, the per qtl price received by sample farmers was

Rs. 3551 which ranged between Rs. 3659 and Rs 3530 on small and large sample farms

respectively The small sample farmers received more than Rs. 129 per qtls price from the

received price of Rs. 3530 per qtl by large sample farmers.

Table 3.5.2 (d)

Disposal pattern of Competing Crop-III (Urd), sample households, 2012-13


Paddy 0 0 0 0


Quantity 112.70

(3.52)

353.75

(9.83)

300.00

(25.00)

766.45

(9.58)

Price/qtl 3659 3535 3530 3551


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0


Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0

6. Total 0 0 0 0

Quantity 0 0 0 0

Price 0 0 0 0 Note: Quantity indicate quantity of total produce sold (in quintals) through a particular market functionary

and Price is in Rs./q. Note: Figures in bracket are Q/per farm.

The per qtl price of urd was more or less same on the medium and large farms. It is also

witnessed from Table 3.5.2 (d) that all the sample farmers irrespective of size of farms had

sold urd to only local/private traders. No other market functionary was involved in

marketing of urd during the reference year in the study areas.

CHAPTER-4

Economics of Production for Paddy vis-à-vis Competing Crops on the

Sample Farms, 2012-13

This chapter contains input use pattern for major kharif crops and cost of cultivation for

paddy vis-à-vis competing crops. Apart from these, economic viability of paddy vis-à-vis

competing crops and resource use efficiency for major kharif crops have also been analysed

in this chapter.

4.1 (a) Input use pattern for paddy on sample households, 2012-13.

The input use pattern for cultivation of paddy on the sample farms is presented in Table 4.1

(a).

Table 4.1 (a)

Input use pattern for cultivation of paddy, sample households, 2012-13

(Per hectare) Inputs Unit Small Medium Large Overall

1. Human labor Mandays i) Hired 59.387 70.719 74.810 68.184 ii) Family 34.507 23.210 16.578 25.284 2. Machine labor Hours 13.881 11.372 12.430 12.088 3. Seed Kg. 16.652 16.353 17.527 16.646 4. FYM Quintals 79.210 34.224 24.512 45.437 5. Fertilizer Kg. i. Urea 243.017 211.951 220.607 222.401 ii. CAN 0 0 0 0 iii. DAP 136.903 127.593 114.317 127.928 iv. MOP 2.128 2.849 0 2.140 v. SSP 0 0 0 0 vi. Other 0 0 0 0 6. Micro Nutrient Kg. 19.77 16.65 16.27 17.48 7. Plant protection

measures Rs. 688 678 856 712

8. Irrigation Hours 53.285 39.423 44.707 44.337 9. Any other - - - - -

The Table shows that human and machine labour had been used intensively in the

cultivation of paddy in the study areas in the reference year. Over all, the per hectare use of

human labour days was 93 followed by 12 hours of machine labour in the cultivation of

paddy on the sample farms.

The seed rate per ha. was 16.65 Kg., 16.353 Kg, 17.527 Kg. on small, medium and large

farms respectively which was more or less same across the size of farms. The per hectare

use of FYM was maximum being 79 qtls on small size of farms followed by 34 qtls and 24

qtls on medium and large size of sample farms respectively. The per ha. use of urea was

maximum being 243 Kg on small farms followed by 220 Kg and 212 kg on the large and

medium sample farms respectively The per ha. use of DAP was 137 Kg on small sample

farms against 128 Kg and 114 Kg on medium and large farms respectively. Thus, per ha.

use of DAP decreases with increase in sample size of farms. The urea and DAP were used

in much quantities by small sample farmers in paddy than their counter parts.

It is also evident from Table 4.1 (a) that the expenditure on plant protection measures was

maximum Rs 856 per ha on the large sample farms followed by Rs 688 and Rs 678 per ha.

on small and medium sample farms respectively. The large sample farmers had applied

more plant protection measures in their paddy crop than the medium and small sample

farmers. The per ha. use of irrigation hours witnessed more on small sample farms than

medium and large farms. Over all, more than 44 hours were used in irrigation sources to

provide irrigation water to paddy. It shows that input use pattern for cultivation of paddy

crop was more or less similar across the size of sample farms. All the essential inputs were

fully used by all the categories of sample farmers to get the better production of paddy

from their farms.

4.1. (b) Input use pattern for cultivation of Competing Crop-I (Bajra) on the Sample

households-2012-13

The input use pattern in the cultivation of bajra on the sample farms is worked out in Table

4.1 (b) in the reference year. Table shows that per ha human labour days at the aggregate

level were 40 which was highest being 46 days on small farms. The per hectare family

labour days was also maximum on small farms against medium and large farms. The per

ha. machine labour hours was found more on large farms than that of medium and small

farms. It shows that large farmers had taken keen interest in the cultivation of bajra crop

than medium and small farmers. Over all, the machine labour hours worked out to be

11.067 per ha. which was more or less similar across the size of farms. The per ha. seed

rate at the aggregate level was worked out to 6 Kg which was more or less similar across

the size of sample farms. The FYM was also used by the sample farmers, though its per ha.

quantity was inadequate. The per ha. used quantity of FYM worked out to be 10 qtls at the

aggregate level.

Table 4.1 (b)

Input use pattern for cultivation of competing crop I (Bajra), sample households,

2012-13


1. Human labor Mandays

i) Hired 19.2531 26.323 25.911 24.878

ii) Family 26.819 13.190 10.569 14.978

2. Machine labor Hours 11.578 10.435 11.793 11.067

3. Seed Kg. 5.422 6.317 5.729 5.969

4. FYM Quintals 10.843 12.90 5.539 10.247

5. Fertilizer Kg.

i. Urea 70.843 32.313 47.738 72.225

ii. CAN 0 0 10.204 3.146

iii. DAP 36.241 30.374 23.907 29.474

iv. MOP 0 0 0 0

v. SSP 0 0 0 0

vi. Other 0 0 0 0

6. Plant protection

measures

Rs. 0 4.09 243.00 76.989

7. Irrigation Hours 8.337 7.117 5.773 6.930

8. Any other - - - -

The urea and DAP were also used by almost all the sample farmers in the bajra crop. The

per ha used quantity of urea was maximum being 70.84 kg on small farms followed by

47.74 kg and 32.31 kg on large and medium farms respectively. It shows that per ha. use

of Urea in bajra crop decreases with increase in the size of sample farms. The per ha. use of

DAP was higher being 36 Kg on small sample farms followed by 30.38 Kg and 23.91 Kg

on medium and large farms respectively. It reflects that the use of urea and DAP were not

adequately used by large sample farmers in bajra crop in comparison to small and medium

sample farmers. Against this, plant protection measures were much applied by large sample

farmers in bajra crop than other categories of sample farmers. Since bajra does not require

much water hence, about 7 hours were given to the irrigation of bajra crop. The above

analysis shows that the sample farmers of different categories had used the sufficient

quantity of essential inputs in the cultivation of bajra crop in 2012-13.

4.1.C Input use pattern for cultivation of competing crop II (Maize) on the sample

households, 2012-13

The per ha. input use pattern for the cultivation of maize crop on the sample farms is shown

in Table 4.1.(c). It shows that all the essential inputs were used by all the categories of

sample farmers in the cultivation of maize crop in the reference year. It is also witnessed

from this table that per ha. use of inputs was more or less similar across the sample farms.

The family labour were more employed by small sample farmers in the cultivation of maize

in comparison to medium and large farmers. The per ha. use of machine labour hours was

higher on large sample farms than that of medium and small sample farms. The hired

labour days per ha. was worked out to be 23.32, 23.14 and 19.25 on large, medium and

small sample farm respectively. At the aggregate level, machine labour hours worked out to

be 9.95 which ranged between 10.63 and 9.38 hrs on large and medium farms respectively.

The per ha. seed rate is worked out to be 17.83 Kg. at the aggregate, which ranged

marginally across the size of farms. The per ha. use of urea was estimated at about 142 Kg

on the small sample farms against 124 kg and 45.71 Kg on medium and large sample farms

respectively. The per ha. use of DAP was maximum being 101.447 kg on small farms

against 91.853 Kg and 45.714 Kg on medium and large sample farms respectively. The use

of urea and DAP per ha. decreases with increase in the size of farms. The cost incurred on

plant protection measures was also highest being Rs. 501 per ha. on small farms while it

was Rs. 193 and Rs. 188 on large and medium sample farms respectively. Since, the maize

is a kharif crop, so it requires very less water. On account of this, overall, only 19 hours

had been devoted in the irrigation activities. The small sample farmers had devoted 23.55

hours in irrigation activities followed by 19 hours and 10.86 hours by medium and large

farmers respectively. The above discussion shows that the essential inputs were used more

by small farmers than medium and large sample farmers in maize crop. The maize crop

was intensively cultivated on the small sample farms than large sample farms in the

reference year.

Table 4.1 (C)

Input use pattern for cultivation of competing crop-II (Maize), sample households,

2012-13



i) Hired 19.253 23.317 23.143 24.878

ii) Family 28.542 11.621 7.679 16.478


3. Seed Kg. 17.695 18.083 15.000 17.827

4. FYM Quintals 17.675 47.083 35.714 34.993

5. Fertilizer Kg.

i. Urea 141.798 124.12 45.714 111.718

ii. CAN 0 0 35.714 7.342

iii. DAP 101.447 91.853 45.714 75.962

iv. MOP 0 0 0 0

v. SSP 0 0 0 0

vi. Other 0 0 0 0

6. Plant protection

measures

Rs. 501.10 187.60 192.86 293.64


8. Any other - - - - -

4.1. (d) Input use Pattern for cultivation Competing Crop III (Urd) on the Sample

Households 2012-13.

Urd is also a competing crop to paddy in the selected districts of western region of Uttar

Pradesh. It is an important Kharif pulse and it is generally grown in upland. It is also

profitable pulse crop, so the farmers prefer to devote some area under urd crop in every

year. The input use pattern for cultivation of urd on the sample farms is presented in Table

4.1 (d).

Table 4.1 (d)

Input use pattern for cultivation of competing crop III (Urd), sample households,

2012-13



i) Hired 18.165 10.955 21.299 16.080

ii) Family 26.912 19.800 9.954 17.318


3. Seed Kg. 12.612 12.635 13.544 12.979

4. FYM Quintals 22.945 22.496 17.811 28.81

5. Fertilizer Kg.

i. Urea 56.956 28.505 64.935 47.078

ii. CAN 0 0 0 0

iii. DAP 28.885 28.659 39.318 32.710

iv. MOP 0 0 0 0

v. SSP 0 0 0 0

vi. Other 0 0 0 0

6. Plant protection

measures

Rs. 162.734 63.174 166.976 94.155


8. Any other - - - - -

Table 4.1(d) shows that the over all human labour days per ha. was worked out to be 33.40

in the all activities of its cultivation. The per ha. family labour days was highest on the

small sample farms and lowest was on large sample farms. In case of per ha. use of hired

labour days, it was totally opposite. The per ha. seed rate was estimated at 13 Kg at the

aggregate level, which was marginally ranged across the size of sample farms. The per ha.

use of urea was estimated at 64.94 kg on the large sample farms against 56.956 Kg and

28.505 Kg on small and medium sample farms respectively. The per ha. use of DAP was

39.318 Kg on large sample farms followed by 28.885 Kg and 28.659 Kg on the small and

medium sample farms respectively. It shows that large sample farmers had used much

quantity of urea and DAP in urd crop than the small and medium sample farmers. The plant

protection measures were also applied by all categories of sample farmers. The cost

incurred on plant protection measure was maximum being Rs 167 on large farms followed

by Rs 163 and Rs 63 on small and medium sample farms respectively. The irrigation

source was very nominally used in urd crop by all the categories of sample farmers. The

irrigation sources were used only 3.327 hours at the aggregate level, which ranged between

1.790 and 4.787 hours on small and large sample farms respectively.

4.2(a) Cost of Cultivation (Variable Cost) of Paddy on Sample Farms in 2012-13

The per ha. cost of cultivation of paddy on the sample farms in the reference year is worked

out in Table 4.2 (a). Table shows that overall the value of variable costs in the paddy crop

was Rs 39,372 per ha. of which 46.35% was incurred on human labour followed by

17.56% on machine labour. The fertilizer and manure accounted for 14.93% of total cost of

Rs. 39372.26 per ha. followed by 5.26% and 7.79% for irrigation and seed respectively. It

is also witnessed from the table 4.2 (a) that the total per ha. variable cost was highest being

Rs 40,959 on small sample farms followed by Rs 38,849 and Rs 38,379 on medium and

large size of sample farms respectively. It shows that the total variable costs, decreases

with increase in the size of farms. Among per ha. variable costs human as well as machine

labour components accounted for maximum share than other input items in the cultivation

of paddy in all the selected sample farms. Next to this, irrigation manure and fertilizers and

seed were expensive inputs in the cultivation of paddy crop on selected sample farms.

Table also reveals that the ha. cost on plant protection measures was maximum beings 856

large sample farms followed by Rs 688 and 678 on small and medium sample farms

respectively.

Table 4.2 (a)

Cost of cultivation (Variable cost) of paddy, sample households, 2012-13

(Rs/ha) Inputs Small Medium Large Overall 1. Human labor i) Hired 12114.79

(29.58)

13065.94

(33.63)

14529.28

(37.86)

13050.47

(33.15) ii) Family 7111.333

(17.36)

4822.265

(12.41)

3216.92

(8.38)

5197.10

(13.20) 2. Machine labor 6855.746

(16.74)

7036.731

(18.11)

6631.236

(17.28)

6913.30

(17.56) 3. Seed 2222.001

(5.42)

2001.766

(5.15)

2030.369

(5.29)

2070.08

(5.26) 4. FYM 1346.103

(3.29)

1377.707

(3.55)

965.2928

(2.52)

1295.97

(3.29) 5. Fertilizer 5052.088

(12.33)

4470.321

(11.52)

4154.252

(10.82)

4581.78

(11.64) 6. micro nutrient 923.5967

(2.25)

652.849

(1.68)

671.5835

(1.75)

733.93

(1.86) 7. Plant protection

measures 687.6962

1.68)

678.0698

(1.75)

855.7918

(2.23)

712.14

(1.80) 8. Irrigation 2871.442

(7.02)

2989.259

(7.69)

3612.581

(9.40)

3065.22

(7.79) 9. Interest on

working capital 1175.539

(2.87)

1112.842

(2.86)

1100.022

(2.87)

1128.60

(2.87) 10. Misc. expenses* 598.5634

(1.46)

641.0256

(1.65)

611.7137

(1.60)

623.66

(1.58)

Total cost 40958.9

(100.00)

38848.77

(100.00)

38379.05

(100.00)

39372.26

(100.00)

Note: *- Transportation and marketing cost may be included.

Note: Figures in brackets are percentage to total cost.

The total variable cost per ha. was marginally higher on the small sample farms in

comparison to medium and large sample farms.

4.2 (b) Cost of cultivation (variable Cost) of Competing Crop-1 (bajra) on Sample

Farms in 2012-13

The per ha. cost of cultivation (variable cost) of bajra crop on the sample farms is estimated

in Table 4.2 (b). This table shows that the per ha. variable cost on an average was worked

out to be Rs 17,290 in bajra crop which was higher being Rs 17,954 on small sample farms

followed by Rs 17,177 and Rs 17,074 on medium and large sample farms respectively.

Among all inputs used, the human labour charge was maximum being Rs 7822 per ha

followed by Rs 5427 on machinery charge. It accounted for 45.24% of total variable costs

of Rs 17,290 followed by 31.39% on machinery charge. The manure and fertilizers

accounted for 9.88% followed by 4.55% and 3.34% for seed and irrigation charge

respectively. It shows that human labour and machine labour were major components of

variable costs in the cultivation of bajra crop on the selected farms in the reference year.

The per ha. variable cost was higher by 4.90% and 4.33% on small sample farms from per

ha. variable cost of Rs 117,074 and 17,177 on large and medium sample farms

respectively. It shows that the variable costs in the cultivation of bajra decreases with

increase in size of farms.

Table 4.2 (b)

Cost of cultivation (Variable cost) of Bajra, sample households, 2012-13

(Rs/ha) Inputs Small Medium Large Overall

1. Human labor

i) Hired 3889.16

(21.66)

5362.10

(31.22)

5031.20

(29.47)

4985.35

(28.83) ii) Family 5038.55

(28.06)

2617.79

(15.24)

1862.97

(10.91)

2836.58

(16.41) 2. Machine labor 5033.98

(28.04)

5078.29

(29.56)

6236.01

(36.52)

5426.97

(31.39) 3. Seed 791.57

(4.41)

827.05

(4.81)

715.01

(4.19)

785.89

(4.55) 4. FYM 424.10

(2.36)

533.45

(3.11)

541.11

(3.17)

515.42

(2.98) 5. Fertilizer 1333.30

(7.43)

1193.42

(6.95)

1108.02

(6.49)

1193.18


measures 0.00

(0.00)

4.09

(0.02)

243.00

(1.42)

76.99

(0.44) 7. Irrigation 802.89

(4.47)

625.09

(3.64)

363.99

(2.13)

577.75



(3.00)

487.24

(2.84)

483.03

(2.83)

495.61

(2.87) 9. Misc. expenses* 101.20

(0.57)

448.40

(2.61)

489.80

(2.87)

396.40

(2.29)

Total cost 17953.83

(100.00)

17176.92

(100.00)

17074.14

(100.00)

17290.14

(100.00)



4.2 (c) Cost of Cultivation (Variable Cost) of Competing crop-II (Maize) on the

Sample farms in 2012-13

Maize is an important competing crop to paddy which is widely grown in the western

districts of U.P. It is a kharif crop and is generally sown in June and July. The per ha. cost

of cultivation (variable Costs) of maize crop on the sample farms is worked out in Table

4.2 (c )

Table 4.2 (C)

Cost of cultivation (Variable cost) of Maize, sample households, 2012-13

(Rs/ha) Inputs Small Medium Large Overall

1. Human labor i) Hired 3478.07

(16.17)

4690.10

(21.94)

4685.71

(23.78)

4283.41

(20.32) ii) Family 5743.42

(26.71)

3838.66

(17.96)

1535.71

(7.79)

4002.94

(18.99) 2. Machine labor 3973.68

(18.47)

4677.32

(21.88)

4571.43

(23.20)

4419.97

(20.97) 3. Seed 2513.82

(11.68)

2346.96

(10.98)

2785.71

(14.13)

2493.02

(11.83) 4. FYM 723.68

(3.37)

945.69

(4.43)

1685.71

(8.55)

1023.49

(4.86) 5. Fertilizer 2607.85

(12.13)

2997.28

(14.02)

2128.57

(10.80)

2688.31


measures 501.10

(2.33)

187.60

(0.88)

192.86

(0.98)

293.64

(1.39) 7. Irrigation 1207.02

(5.61)

850.96

(3.98)

928.57

(4.71)

986.12



(2.89)

616.04

(2.88)

555.43

(2.82)

605.73

(2.87) 9. Misc. expenses* 135.09

(0.63)

225.24

(1.05)

637.86

(3.24)

279.88

(1.33)

Total cost 21506.18

(100.00)

21375.85

(100.00)

19707.57

(100.00)

21076.52

(100.00)



Table 4.2 (c ) shows that on an average variable cost in maize was estimated to Rs 21077

per ha. in reference year. The per ha. variable cost on small sample farms was higher by

8.36% from per ha. variable cost of Rs 19708 on large sample farms. The per ha. variable

cost on medium sample farms was worked out to be 21,376 which was less than Rs 130

from per ha variable cost of Rs 21,506 on small sample farms. It shows that the variable

cost per ha. was more or less similar on small and medium sample farms. Among different

component of inputs costs incurred in cultivation of maize crop on the sample farms, the

human labour charge accounted for maximum share being 39.32% followed by 20.97% of

machine charge. Out of total per ha variable cost of Rs 21,076, the manure and fertilizer

accounted for 17.64% followed by 11.83%, 4.68% and 1.39% for seed irrigation and plant

protection measures respectively. This type of cost structure was witnessed in different size

group of sample farms. It reflects that human labour and machine labour were most

expensive inputs in the cultivation of maize crop. It also reflects that small sample farmers

had incurred more amounts in the cultivation of maize crop than the medium and large

sample farmers in the reference year.

4.2 (d) Cost of Cultivation (Variable Cost) of competing crop-III (Urd) on the Sample

Farms in 2012-13

Urd is the only kharif pulse crop which is competing to paddy in the study areas. The per

ha. cost of cultivation of urd crop on the sample farms is worked out in Table 4.2 (d). It

shows that the average cost of cultivation of urd was estimated at Rs 15,637 per ha which

ranged between Rs 15,196 and Rs 16,946 on medium and small farms respectively. Thus

the per ha. cost of cultivation of urd on the small sample farm was higher by 10.33% and

8.11% than the per ha. of cost of cultivation on medium and large sample farms

respectively.

The reason for higher per ha. cost of cultivation on small farms was due to higher payment

to human labours in comparison to medium and large farms. Out of total per ha. cost of

cultivation of urd at the aggregate level, the human labour accounted for 42.10% followed

by 32.12% for machine labour. The manure and fertilizers accounted for 10.58% of total

per ha. cost of inputs followed by 8.30%, 2.13% and 0.76% for seed irrigation and plant

protection measures respectively. Thus, payment to human labour and machine labour was

maximum across the sample farms. There was marginal difference in cost components in

the cultivation of urd across the sample farms.

Table 4.2 (d)

Cost of cultivation (Variable cost) of Urd, sample households, 2012-13, State

(Rs/ha) Crop Small Medium Large Overall

1. Human labor i) Hired 3604.56

(21.27)

2191.06

(14.42)

4166.98

(26.76)

3176.18

(20.31)

ii) Family 5321.40

(31.40)

3981.51

(26.20)

1840.45

(11.82)

3406.33

(21.78)

2. Machine labor 4019.53

(23.72)

5812.76

(38.25)

4526.90

(29.07)

5021.96

(32.12)

3. Seed 1106.18

(6.53)

1144.22

(7.53)

1569.57

(10.09)

1297.60

(8.30)

4. FYM 820.18

(4.84)

808.94

(5.32)

756.96

(4.86)

791.32

(5.06)

5. Fertilizer 1076.08

(6.35)

372.11

(2.45)

1357.33

(8.72)

863.16

(5.52)

6. Plant protection

measures

162.73

(0.96)

63.17

(0.42)

166.98

(1.07)

119.26

(0.76)

7. Irrigation 216.44

(1.28)

164.25

(1.08)

589.98

(3.79)

333.24

(2.13)

8. Interest on

working capital

488.77

(2.88)

436.15

(2.87)

449.24

(2.88)

450.09

(2.88)

9. Misc. expenses* 130.19

(0.77)

221.88

(1.46)

146.57

(0.94)

177.85

(1.14)

Total cost 16946.05

(100.00)

15196.06

(100.00)

15570.95

(100.00)

15636.99

(100.00)



4.3 Economics of paddy vis-à-vis competing crops on the sample farms in 2012-13

The economics of paddy vis-à-vis competing crops namely bajra, maize and urd which

were grown on the different size of sample farms in reference year is worked out in table

4.3. Table 4.3 illustrates the returns per rupee over variable costs. The result shows that the

returns per rupee invested in case of paddy was maximum being Rs 1.94 followed by Rs

1.73 of urd crop. The returns per rupee invested in case of bajra and maize crops was only

Rs 1.10 and Rs 1.07 respectively during the same period. It is also evident from table 4.3

that returns per rupee invested in paddy was maximum being Rs 2.12 on medium farms

followed by Rs 2.06 and Rs 1.48 on large and small farms. It shows that returns over

variable cost was maximum on medium sample farms.

In case of bajra, the returns over variable costs was highest being 1.11 on medium sample

farms followed by Rs 1.09 and Rs 1.08 on small and large size of sample farms

respectively. The maximum returns over variable cost was Rs 1.22 on large size of sample

farms and minimum was 1.001 on small size of sample farms. Hence, it was not much

profitable crop on the sample farms in reference year.

In case of maize Table 4.3 reveals that returns over variable costs was also not gainful

across the size of sample farms The returns on variable costs of maize is worked out to be

Rs 1.01, Rs 1.06 and Rs 1.22 on small, medium and large farms respectively. It shows that

returns on variable costs were more or less same across the size of farm. It is also noticed

from Table 4.3 that returns per rupee invested in Urd crop was higher than that of bajra and

maize due to its higher price than bajra and maize.

The per ha. net income of paddy was Rs 76,254 at the aggregate level which was highest

being Rs 82,394 on medium sample farms followed by Rs 60,761 and Rs 79,062 on small

and large farms respectively. The average yield per ha. was worked out to be Rs 45.72 qtls

which is more or less similar across the sample size of farms. The net income of bajra was

Rs 19,021 at aggregate level which was less than 4 times from the per ha. net income of

paddy. The per ha. yield of bajra was also very much lower than the average yield of

paddy. The per ha net income of maize was also very much below from the net income of

paddy. The average yield per ha. of maize was worked out to be 32.44 qtls against 45.72

qtls per ha. of paddy. It shows that paddy was much profitable than maize on the sample

farms in the reference year. The per ha. net income of urd was estimated at Rs 27,117

against Rs 76,254 per ha. net income of paddy. The over all, per ha. yield of urd was

worked out to be 12.04 qtls which ranged between 11.07 qtls and 12.51 qtls on small and

medium size of sample farms. The above analysis shows that paddy was much more

remunerative crop across the sample size of farms than its competing crops during the

reference year. The higher yield and better market price of paddy were attributed to its

higher net income in comparison to alternative crops viz. bajra, maize, urd in the reference

year. Hence, the paddy is still dominant crop on the sample farms of selected districts of

western region of Uttar Pradesh

Table 4.3

Economics of paddy vis-à-vis competing crops, sample households, 2012-13 (Rs./ha)


Paddy

Yield(qtls/ha) 46.49 46.10 4332 45.72

Price(Rs/qtls) 2188 2630 2711 2529

Gross returns 101720 121243 117441 115626

Total Variable cost 40959 38849 38379 39372

Net Income 60761 82394 79062 76254

Returns over variable cost 1.48 2.12 2.06 1.94

Competing crop I Bajra

Yield(qtls/ha) 33.91 32.77 32.47 32.89

Price(Rs/qtls) 1107 1108 1095 1104

Gross returns 37538 36309 35555 36311


Net Income 19584 19133 18481 19021


Competing crop II Maize

Yield(qtls/ha) 31.96 32.64 32.79 32.44

Price(Rs/qtls) 1347 13.47 1336 1345

Gross returns 43050 43966 43807 43632


Net Income 21544 22590 24099 22555


Competing crop III Urd

Yield(qtls/ha) 11.07 12.51 11.95 12.04

Price(Rs/qtls) 3659 3535 3530 3551

Gross returns 40505 44223 42184 42754


Net Income 23559 29027 26613 27117


.

4.4.1. Estimated yield function paddy viz-a viz competing crops, sample households,

2012-13.

The estimated yield function paddy vis-à-vis competing crops on the sample farms are

calculated in Table No. 4.4.1. Table No. 4.4.1 shows that human labour days and machine

hours were much higher in the cultivation of paddy crop than its competing crops across

the size of farms. Over all, 93 days of human labour per ha. were involved in the

cultivation of paddy while it was only 40 days, 42 days and 33 days were involved in the

cultivation of bajra, maize and urd respectively. The machine hours per ha. were more or

less same in paddy, bajra, maize and urd. It ranged between 9.95 and 12 hours per ha in the

cultivation of maize and paddy respectively. The per ha. expenditure on seed of maize was

maximum being Rs 2493 against Rs 2070 of paddy. The per ha. expenditure on seed of

bajra and urd was Rs 786 and Rs 1297 respectively. The per ha expenditure of fertilizers

was maximum being Rs 4582 in paddy crop against Rs 2688, Rs 1193 and Rs 863 in maize,

bajra and urd respectively. The per ha. expenditure on plant protection measures was also

maximum being Rs 712 in paddy against Rs 294, Rs 119 and Rs 77 in maize, urd and bajra

respectively.

The number of irrigation was also much involved in the cultivation of paddy than its

competing crops. The above analysis reflects that per hectare use of human labour days and

machine hours were much higher in paddy crop in comparison to its competing crop on the

sample farms. Apart from this, the per ha. expenditure on fertilizers and plant protection

measures were also costlier in paddy than maize, bajra and urd. It shows that paddy across

the size of sample farms was costlier crop than its competing crops. Next to paddy, maize

was found more expensive crop than bajra and urd on the sample farms.

Table 4.4.1

Estimated yield function paddy vis-à-vis competing crops, sample households, 2012-13


Paddy

Intercept

Human labor (mandays/ha) 94 94 92 93

Machine labor (hours/ha) 14 11 12 12

Expenditure on seed (Rs/ha) 2222 2002 2031 2070

Fertilizer expenses (Rs/ha) 5052 4470 4154 4582

Plant protection expenses (Rs/ha) 688 678 856 712

No. of irrigations 3 3 3 3

R2 0.6476 0.8124 0.8151 0.8595

Σbi 1.1568 1.3151 1.2521 1.1445

Competing crop I (Bajra)

Intercept


Machine labor (hours/ha) 11.59 10.45 11.79 11.07


Fertilizer expenses (Rs/ha) 1330 11.43 1108 1193



R2 0.717 0.7974 0.907 0.195371

Σbi 0.8702 1.028 1.2864 1.24796

Competing crop II (Maize)

Intercept







R2 0.9614 0.94 - 0.85369

Σbi 8.0678 -0.4897 - -0.054538

Competing crop III (Urd)

Intercept







R2 0.578 0.6802 0.919 0.7906

Σbi 1.06 1.13 -7.0432 0.98535

4.4.2 (a) The Marginal Value Product (MVP) and Marginal Factor Cost (MFC) for

important inputs for Paddy, Sample Farms, 2012-13

The MVP and MFC for important inputs for paddy on the sample farms in reference year

have been worked out through regression coefficient method in Table 4.4.2(a). In order to

show the efficiency of different inputs, the MVPs were also worked out at geometric mean

level. A perusal of table 4.4.2 (a) shows that the MVPs of human labour were higher than

that of other important inputs across the size of farms. This reflects that additional

investment would increase income through rice production. Table shows that MVPs of

inputs for paddy on the sample farms were positive and significant to influence on the

production of paddy. It is also evident from Table that one percent increase in human

labour will result in 1.19% increase in total production of rice keeping other factor constant

at their mean level. Similarly, at aggregate level one per cent increase in machine labour,

fertilizer, seed and pesticides will result in 1.02%, 1.03%, 0.81% and 0.25% in total

production of rice.

The estimates for return to scale were much higher and significantly different from unity

increase of human labour, machine labour and fertilizer, which indicates the increasing

returns to scale. However, the seed pesticides were lower from one, indicating the

decreasing returns to scale. The positive price response was more effective in increasing

the area under rice in comparison to other factors. The yield and price were equivalent

factor to acreage change of rice.

Resource Use Efficiency

The resource use efficiency of cultivation is worked out in Table 4.4.2 (a). Table shows

that ratio of MVPs to MFC for human labour, machine labour and fertilizers were greater

than one on the sample farms. This suggests that there is a scope to increase the gross

return from paddy production by using more human labour, machine labours and fertilizers,

keeping other inputs at their respective geometric mean level of use. It is also evident from

Table that seed and plant production measures were used uneconomically.

Hence it would not be profitable to further increase the use of these factors unless the other

factors of production varied. However, using of additional unit of human labour machine

labour, seed, fertilizer and plant protection chemical could increase the gross return from

paddy in small farm categories. Table also shows that the marginal value product to

marginal factor cost for human labour, machine labour, seed fertilizers pesticides and

irrigation were greater than one on the medium size of farms in reference year. It suggests

that there is a scope to increase the gross returns from paddy production by using the

mentioned inputs. In the large size of sample farms the ratio of MVPs to MFC for human

labour, machine labour, seed, fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation were also greater than

one. Therefore, there is a scope to increase gross return from paddy production by more use

of these inputs. The same result is also noticed on overall farm. Overall, using additional

unit of human labour, machine labour, seed and plant protection chemical could increase

the gross return from the paddy across the size of farms in the study areas.

Table 4.4.2 (a)

The Marginal Value Product (MVP) and Marginal Factor Cost (MFC) of important

inputs for paddy, sample households, 2012-13


Human labor

MVP (Rs.) 1.036207 1.18219 1.247795 1.193749

MFC (Rs.) 1.10545 1.098763 1.217739 1.052496

MVP: MFC 1.066824 1.075928 1.024681 1.134208

Machine labor

MVP (Rs.) 0.88857 0.824872 0.85743 1.01939

MFC (Rs.) 0.735881 0.704212 0.736739 0.852655

MVP: MFC 1.207492 1.17134 1.163818 1.195547

Seed

MVP (Rs.) 0.547796 0.786622 0.967137 0.811071

MFC (Rs.) 0.531429 0.716788 0.834605 0.720106

MVP: MFC 0.970123 1.097427 1.158795 1.126322

Fertilizer

MVP (Rs.) 0.817877 0.921422 1.048807 1.0286054

MFC (Rs.) 0.741767 0.849454 0.946149 0.904832

MVP: MFC 1.102607 1.084723 1.108501 1.136846

Plant protection expenses

MVP (Rs.) 0.214554 0.534942 0.034299 0.258824

MFC (Rs.) 0.337882 0.402147 0.001216 0.226703

MVP: MFC 0.901934 1.330212 28.20425 1.141691

Irrigation

MVP (Rs.) 0.298868 0.38463 0.708156 -0.109124

MFC (Rs.) 0.282594 0.273063 0.662597 -0.082133

MVP: MFC 1.05759 1.408571 1.068758 1.328626

4.4.2 (b) The Marginal Value Product (MVP) and Marginal Factor Cost (MFC) for

important inputs for computing crop-I Bajra, Sample Farms, 2012-13

The MVP and MFC for important inputs for bajra on the sample farms in reference year is

worked out in Table-4.4.2 (b). Table 4.4.2 (b) shows that MVP and MFC of human labour,

machine labour and seed for bajra were positive and significant to influence on the

production of bajra.

The estimate for return to scale were much higher and significantly different farm unity in

case of human labour, machine labour and seed which shows the increasing returns to

scale. The price and yield were major important and significant factors to increase the area

under bajra. It is also evident from Table 4.4.2 (b) that MVP for human labour, machine

labour, seed and fertilizer and irrigation was higher than MFC across the size of farms. The

ratios were also greater than one across the sample farms. Therefore, there is a scope to

increase the gross return from bajra production by more use of these inputs.

Table 4.4.2 (b)


inputs for competing crop I-Bajra, sample households, 2012-13

Particulars Small Medium Large Overall Human labor

MVP (Rs.) 1.023941 0.893758 1.229029 1.290455

MFC (Rs.) 1.023941 0.893758 1.229029 1.045898

MVP: MFC 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.233825

Machine labor

MVP (Rs.) 0.649467 0.885204 0.964739 1.285147

MFC (Rs.) 0.649467 0.885204 0.964739 0.727434

MVP: MFC 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.766685

Seed

MVP (Rs.) 0.741983 0.676458 0.797403 1.253443

MFC (Rs.) 0.741983 0.676458 0.797405 0.850272

MVP: MFC 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.474167

Fertilizer

MVP (Rs.) 0.157121 0.302239 0.316178 0.731263

MFC (Rs.) 0.157121 0.302239 0.316178 0.421272

MVP: MFC 1.000 1.00 1.00 1.735845


MVP (Rs.) 0 0 0 0

MFC (Rs.) 0 0 0 0

MVP: MFC 0 0 0 0

Irrigation

MVP (Rs.) 0.338572 0.533461 0.320902 1.314724

MFC (Rs.) 0.338572 0.533461 0.320902 0.526462

MVP: MFC 1.000 1.00 1.00 2.49728

4.4.2 (c) The Marginal Value Product (MVP) and Marginal Factor Cost (MFC) for

important inputs for computing crop-II Maize, Sample Farms, 2012-13

The MVP and MFC of important inputs of maize on the sample farms are worked out in

reference year in Table 4.4.2. (c). The human labour, machine labour, seed, fertilizers plant

protection measures and irrigation are the in separable part of maize production. The better

output of maize cannot be obtained in absence of any of these six inputs. Table 4.4.2(c )

shows that out of six inputs used, the expenditure incurred on human labour was highest

across the size of farms. The MFC on human labour was higher than MVP at the aggregate

level. The ratio between MVP and MFC was also less than one at the aggregate level. It

shows that human labour was extensively used than machine labour by different categories

of sample farmers. The result also shows that role of seed and fertilizer was insignificant to

increase the production maize. The fertilizers, plant protection etc were utilized by the

sample farmers. There is a need to increase the price of maize to get more gross return from

this crop. Table 4.4.2 (c ) also shows that seed, fertilizers were not used efficiently by the

sample farmers because the ratio between MVP and MFC was found negative at aggregate

level. However, the irrigation was used efficiently by all the categories of sample farms. It

was significant variable enhancing the production of maize.

Table 4.4.2 (c)


inputs for competing crop II- Maize, sample households, 2012-13


Human labor MVP (Rs.) 1.17726 0.012281 0.85884 0.374948

MFC (Rs.) 1.14422 0.824478 1.109331 1.205219

MVP: MFC 1.028875 0.014895 0.774197 0.311103

Machine labor

MVP (Rs.) 0.703745 0.066842 0.960564 -0.006194

MFC (Rs.) 0.720191 0.789387 0.824972 0.931872

MVP: MFC 0.977165 0.084676 1.164361 -0.006647

Seed

MVP (Rs.) 0.869072 -0.0288 0.914466 -0.073026

MFC (Rs.) 0.826558 0.836741 0.878404 0.912497

MVP: MFC 1.051435 -0.034419 1.041055 -0.080028

Fertilizer

MVP (Rs.) 0.462023 0.019086 1.065448 -0.156903

MFC (Rs.) 0.496862 0.623568 0.974316 0.660678

MVP: MFC 0.929883 0.030608 1.893534 -0.237488


MVP (Rs.) 0.426131 -0.188557 0.617861 1.68978

MFC (Rs.) 0.389497 0.366349 0.773776 0.32248

MVP: MFC 1.094054 -0.514691 0.798501 5.239948

Irrigation

MVP (Rs.) 0.661436 -0.025173 0.770701 0.116022

MFC (Rs.) 0.674624 0.347212 0.620705 0.700861

MVP: MFC 0.980451 -0.072499 1.241654 0.165542

4.4.2 (d) The Marginal Value Product (MVP) and Marginal Factor Cost (MFC) for

important inputs for computing crop-III Urd, Sample Farms, 2012-13

The MVP and MFC for urd crop on the sample farms in the reference year is worked out in

Table 4.4.2 (d). This table reveals that human and machine labour were intensively used by

sample farmers in the cultivation of urd. On account of this, the ratios between MVP and

MCF was more or less equal to one.

This reflects that the role of human and machine labour was positive and significant to

increase the production of urd on the sample farms. It shows that an increase of these inputs

in the urd would result in more than proportionate increase in total production of urd on the

sample farms. As far as seed of urd is concerned, table shows that MFC was higher than

MVP across the sample farms which shows that production of urd was not upto optimum

level. However, the role of fertilizers and irrigation was positive to increase the production

of urd. The MVP of fertilizer was slightly higher than MFC across the size of sample

farms. The price of urd was quite reasonable but yield was found insignificant across the

sample farmers. Hence, there is need to push the production of urd by adopting the new

techniques in the cultivation of urd in the selected districts of the state.

Table 4.4.2 (d)


inputs for competing crop III-Urd, sample households, 2012-13

Particulars Small Medium Large Overall Human labor

MVP (Rs.) 0.859708 1.154566 0.562165 1.113605

MFC (Rs.) 0.826384 1.137559 0.63767 1.118695

MVP: MFC 1.040325 1.01495 0.881593 0.995451

Machine labor

MVP (Rs.) 0.593616 0.860314 0.65474 0.742445

MFC (Rs.) 0.58562 0.840299 0.738929 0.74988

MVP: MFC 1.0154488 1.023819 0.88607 0.990085

Seed

MVP (Rs.) 0.830973 0.711932 0.562165 0.81863

MFC (Rs.) 0.816879 0.720429 0.63767 0.832069

MVP: MFC 1.017253 0.988206 0.881593 0.983848

Fertilizer

MVP (Rs.) 0.443895 0.69183 0.689184 0.816292

MFC (Rs.) 0.420384 0.6749 0.78184 0.81048

MVP: MFC 1.055928 1.025086 0.881488 1.007169


MVP (Rs.) 0 0 0.64762 0.648722

MFC (Rs.) 0 0 0.889463 0.943749

MVP: MFC 0 0 0.728102 0.687388

Irrigation

MVP (Rs.) 0 0.886048 0.538708 0.970503

MFC (Rs.) 0 0.839183 0.614504 0.9374

MVP: MFC 0 1.055846 0.876656 1.035314

This phenomena was indicative of the price consciousness on the part of farmers and

reflected in their area allocation behaviour in accordance with economic rationale. The

farmers generally allocate the area to that crop which the relative price movements tend to

be favourable. The allocation of land to better priced crop is practiced to fetch more

revenue. Therefore, efforts should be made to increase the price of the competing crops viz

(bajra and maize) to paddy in years to a head. This would be helpful to decrease the area

under paddy in paddy growing belts of state. The statistical estimates relate to economic

efficiency of resource in farming sector has also been described in nut-shell in following

manner:-

Assessment of Marginal Value Product and Marginal Factor Cost

The statistical estimates relate to economic efficiency of resource use in farming sector

across three groups of farmers (small, medium and large) and across four crops (paddy,

Bajra Maize and Urd . It focuses on the relationship between the respective crop outputs,

the revenue fetched from them and the various inputs used by the farmers, elasticity and

economic efficiency of resource used in production of the crops. The basic concepts

examined statistically are those of Marginal Value Product and Marginal Factor Cost for

each input used in each crop. A Cobb Douglas specification has been used and the data on

variables were transformed into logarithms to make the large number of estimations

required comparable across the crops and across the farmer groups.

The simplified specifications are:

1. For Marginal Value Product: Ri = f(Xi) where R is the revenue obtained from sale

of part of crop (value of retained output is not added) and X is the value or cost of

respective input.

2. For Marginal Factor Cost: Yi = f(Xi) where Y is the respective crop output and X is

the (same) value or cost of respective input.

For example, the estimated equations for Maize crop by Small farmers and Human Labour

Input are:

MVP lnR = -0.6985 + 1.17726 lnH

(-0.5994) (8.7914)

Adjusted R2 = 0.6071 F = 76.7273 n=50

MFC lnY = -2.77142 + 1.14422 lnH

(-3.39512) (12.15392)

Adjusted R2 = 0.7496 F = 147.7177 n=50

Where R is the revenue, H is the cost of human labour and Y is the physical output (kg).

Figures in brackets are the respective t-statistics for the coefficients. More critical to the

estimates is the Ratio MVP/MFC which is 1.02887. However, it may be noted that the null

hypothesis for each coefficient H0 is whether it is =0. More stringent tests will be required

to assess whether a coefficient is = 1 or not. Results are interpreted for the present null

hypothesis.

The above equation can be interpreted as MVP and MFC are significant for Maize Crop of

Small Farmers and the resource human labour is being efficiently used. Such estimates are

obtained for each input (two equations for MVP and MFC) for each farmer groups. A total

of 4 crops (Paddy, Maize, Urd and Bajra), 4 farmer groups (Small, Medium, Large and

Overall) and 6 inputs (Human Labour, Machine Labour, Seed, Fertilizers, Plant Protection

and Irrigation). Besides these, estimates of equations including all inputs are also obtained

for the 4 crops for the Overall (all groups combined) farmers data.

We assess the importance of various inputs for MVP and MFC firstly on the basis of

multiple regression results obtained for all inputs for the overall (total) sample of farmers.

Irrigation is not included in these equations as it is assumed to be made of some

components of human and machine labour only.

Paddy: On the basis of t-statistics of coefficients, the major contributors to revenue (MVP)

for paddy are Human Labour, Machine Labour and Fertilizers. For Cost, (MFC), the

significant inputs are Human Labour, Seed and Fertilizers. The overall results for this

estimation indicate existence of productive efficiency in paddy.

Bajra: For bajra MVP, significant input is only Machine Labour and for MFC, Human

Labour, Machine Labour and Seeds are significant. This may be indicating that

mechanization may be at the cost of human labour. In other words, the terms of trade for

human labour do not seem good in the case of bajra. The ratio (MVP/MFC), however still

indicates productive efficiency. The R2 in case of bajra MVP is also very poor, indicating

that the market terms of trade are good for the farmers but not for human labour which is

insignificant in the MVP equation but not in the MFC equation.

Maize: For the crop of maize, only plant protection and machine labour seem to be

significant contributors to revenue (MVP) while fertilizer shows a negative relationship.

For MFC, the major components of cost are being formed by seed and fertilizers only. The

ratio MVP/MFC is also not significant indicating inefficient use of resources in maize.

Urd: For Urd, significant contributers are the inputs Machine Labour and Seed while major

contributors to cost are again Machine Labour and Seed. The ratio indicates, however that

the resources combinations do maintain productive efficiency.

For closer interpretations, these results may be examined in the light of separate single

variable equations where for each farmer group and each crop, one input is taken at a time.

Overall Paddy all inputs MVP

Regression Statistics

Multiple R 0.927096

R Square 0.859506

Adjusted R Square 0.851613

Standard Error 0.341009

Observations 95

ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F

Regression 5 63.31593 12.66319 108.896 2.19E-36

Residual 89 10.34954 0.116287

Total 94 73.66546

Coefficients Standard

Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept 0.417277 0.573336 0.727804 0.468644 -0.72193 1.556484 -0.72193 1.556484

Hum Lab 0.56336 0.145181 3.880396 0.0002 0.274888 0.851832 0.274888 0.851832

Mach Lab 0.411404 0.106098 3.877597 0.000202 0.20059 0.622218 0.20059 0.622218

Seed 0.030258 0.072695 0.416236 0.678239 -0.11419 0.174702 -0.11419 0.174702

Fert 0.235282 0.105616 2.227723 0.02842 0.025426 0.445139 0.025426 0.445139

-0.09579 0.053069 -1.80493 0.074468 -0.20123 0.009661 -0.20123 0.009661

1.14452 Overall Paddy All Inputs MFC

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.957162

R Square 0.916158

Adjusted R Square 0.911448 Standard Error 0.224467

Observations 95


Regression 5 49.00108 9.800216 194.5054 2.54E-46

Residual 89 4.484294 0.050385

Total 94 53.48538


Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept -1.16952 0.377395 -3.09894 0.0026 -1.9194 -0.41965 -1.9194 -0.41965

Hum Lab 0.585954 0.095565 6.131507 2.34E-08 0.39607 0.775839 0.39607 0.775839

Mach Lab 0.069691 0.069838 0.997896 0.321035 -0.06908 0.208458 -0.06908 0.208458

Seed 0.134322 0.047851 2.807094 0.006142 0.039243 0.229401 0.039243 0.229401

Fert 0.290198 0.069521 4.174256 6.95E-05 0.152061 0.428334 0.152061 0.428334

-0.06199 0.034932 -1.77451 0.079398 -0.1314 0.007422 -0.1314 0.007422

1.018178

Ratio 1.124086

Overall Bajra all inputs MVP


Multiple R 0.442008

R Square 0.195371



Observations 77


Regression 4 94.00813 23.50203 4.370571 0.003209

Residual 72 387.1683 5.377337

Total 76 481.1764



Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept 3.705033 3.894998 0.951229 0.344671 -4.0595 11.46956 -4.0595 11.46956

Hum Lab -0.57182 0.816344 -0.70047 0.485893 -2.19917 1.055529 -2.19917 1.055529

Mach Lab 1.231758 0.602298 2.045097 0.044501 0.0311 2.432417 0.0311 2.432417

Seed 0.532398 0.557126 0.955615 0.342464 -0.57821 1.643007 -0.57821 1.643007

Fert 0.055631 0.347042 0.1603 0.873094 -0.63618 0.747446 -0.63618 0.747446

1.247965 Overall Bajra All Inputs MFC


R Square 0.872021



Observations 77


Regression 4 39.71394 9.928484 122.6485 2.33E-31

Residual 72 5.828451 0.080951

Total 76 45.54239



Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept -0.47779 0.477897 -0.99977 0.320769 -1.43046 0.474881 -1.43046 0.474881

Hum Lab 0.454872 0.100161 4.541391 2.19E-05 0.255204 0.654539 0.255204 0.654539

Mach Lab 0.254799 0.073899 3.44794 0.000947 0.107484 0.402114 0.107484 0.402114

Seed 0.410617 0.068357 6.006986 7.04E-08 0.27435 0.546883 0.27435 0.546883

Fert -0.06279 0.04258 -1.47468 0.144657 -0.14767 0.02209 -0.14767 0.02209

1.057495 Ratio 1.180114

Overall Maize all inputs MVP


Multiple R 0.923957

R Square 0.853697



Observations 19


Regression 5 33.44848 6.689697 15.17131 4.96E-05

Residual 13 5.73227 0.440944

Total 18 39.18075



Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept 9.051293 4.180503 2.165121 0.049567 0.019868 18.08272 0.019868 18.08272

Hum Lab 1.096745 1.170575 0.936928 0.365876 -1.43213 3.625618 -1.43213 3.625618

Mach Lab 1.111799 0.710997 1.563718 0.141892 -0.42422 2.647814 -0.42422 2.647814

Seed 0.140142 0.674037 0.207915 0.838517 -1.31603 1.59631 -1.31603 1.59631

Fert -3.32167 0.68921 -4.81954 0.000335 -4.81062 -1.83273 -4.81062 -1.83273

0.918449 0.308661 2.975593 0.010731 0.251628 1.58527 0.251628 1.58527

-0.05454 Overall Maize All Inputs MFC


R Square 0.870667

Adjusted R Square 0.820924 Standard Error 0.233668

Observations 19


Regression 5 4.778411 0.955682 17.50316 2.28E-05

Residual 13 0.709807 0.054601

Total 18 5.488219



Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept -0.66403 1.471077 -0.45139 0.659146 -3.8421 2.514037 -3.8421 2.514037

Hum Lab 0.208922 0.411914 0.507199 0.620509 -0.68096 1.098807 -0.68096 1.098807

Mach Lab 0.031308 0.250193 0.125134 0.902332 -0.5092 0.571816 -0.5092 0.571816

Seed 0.42391 0.237187 1.787243 0.097223 -0.0885 0.936321 -0.0885 0.936321

Fert 0.367229 0.242526 1.514183 0.153908 -0.15672 0.891175 -0.15672 0.891175

1.060284

Ratio -0.05144

Overall Urd all inputs MVP


Multiple R 0.889191

R Square 0.79066



Observations 63


Regression 4 50.0587 12.51467 54.76541 4.83E-19

Residual 58 13.25382 0.228514

Total 62 63.31252



Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept 2.907174 0.925482 3.141254 0.002648 1.05462 4.759729 1.05462 4.759729

Hum Lab 0.133504 0.202606 0.658936 0.512545 -0.27206 0.539063 -0.27206 0.539063

Mach Lab 0.277261 0.093422 2.967824 0.004353 0.090256 0.464266 0.090256 0.464266

Seed 0.538196 0.123039 4.374171 5.14E-05 0.291905 0.784486 0.291905 0.784486

Fert 0.036388 0.138301 0.263109 0.793399 -0.24045 0.313227 -0.24045 0.313227

Overall Urd All Inputs MFC


R Square 0.833446



Observations 63


Regression 4 50.70691 12.67673 72.55903 6.7E-22

Residual 58 10.13313 0.174709

Total 62 60.84004



Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%

Intercept -0.55487 0.809225 -0.68568 0.495648 -2.17471 1.064971 -2.17471 1.064971

Hum Lab 0.120166 0.177155 0.678309 0.500273 -0.23445 0.474779 -0.23445 0.474779

Mach Lab 0.280379 0.081687 3.432369 0.00111 0.116865 0.443893 0.116865 0.443893

Seed 0.578319 0.107583 5.375539 1.42E-06 0.362968 0.793671 0.362968 0.793671

Fert 0.001367 0.120928 0.011302 0.991022 -0.2407 0.24343 -0.2407 0.24343

0.98023 Ratio 1.005221

CHAPTER-5

Constraints/Potentials Analysis for Various Alternative Crops

An attempt has been made in this chapter to know the constraints/potential in the

cultivation of paddy and its competing crops viz bajra, maize and urd. The views and

opinions of sample farmers had been collected with regard to constraints and potential in

the cultivation of paddy, bajra, maize and urd. It has already mentioned in first chapter of

this report that 210 sample farmers were exclusively paddy growers. Among them, 46.19%,

40.96% and 38.09% were also bajra, maize and urd growers respectively. The views and

opinions of sample growers have been analyzed properly in different tables. The ranks have

been given to each reason in order of their importance.

5.1.1 (a) Reasons for attraction to paddy cultivation on the sample farms, 2012-13

The reasons for attraction to paddy as revealed by sample farmers are analyzed in Table

5.1.1 (a). Table shows that attractive price of paddy in markets followed by suitable soil,

efforts of government and suitable climatic conditions were most important factors to

attract the sample farmers to devote maximum area under paddy crop. However, the sample

farmers have also given least important rank to residue use as fodder. This type of opinion

had been narrated by different categories of sample farmers.

Table 5.1.1 (a)

Reasons for attraction to paddy as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

(% multiple response) Small Medium Large Overall Reason

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Well adapted to

the climatic

conditions

(rainfall etc.)

18.52 4.63 4.63 16.67 17.78 16.67 0 0 0 16.67 10.00 9.52

Well adapted to

the soil type

27.78 27.78 27.78 22.22 20.00 16.67 0 0 8.33 23.81 22.86 21.91

Fetches an

attractive price in

the market

32.41 19.44 19.44 33.33 31.11 16.66 50.00 33.33 41.67 33.81 25.24 19.52

Government

stimulates its

growing

18.52 13.89 11.11 20.00 17.78 22.22 33.33 41.67 25.00 20.00 17.14 16.67

Fits well into

overall cropping

pattern

0 6.48 9.26 0 3.33 5.56 0 0 0 0 4.76 7.14

It allows for

multiple picking

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The residue can

be used as fodder

2.77 27.78 27.78 7.78 10.00 22.22 16.67 25.00 25.00 5.71 20.00 25.24

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - -

Note: Ranks are in order of importance from 1 (most important), 2 ( important), to 3

(least important)

5.1.1 (b) Reasons for attraction to competing Crop-I (bajra) on the sample farms in

reference year

The reasons for attraction to bajra crop as revealed by sample farmers on their farms during

reference year have been analysed in Table 5.1.1(b). The percentage of multiple response

of sample of bajra growers have been worked out in Table 5.1.1 (b). Table reveals that

suitable soil and attractive price in the markets were most important reasons for attraction

to bajra crop on the sample farms. The climatic conditions (rainfall etc.) were least

important reasons for attraction to bajra as have been revealed by majority of sample

growers of bajra. These reasons for attraction to bajra were also witnessed across the size

of sample farms.

Table 5.1.1 (b)

Reasons for attraction to competing crop I (Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample

farms, 2012-13


1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Well adapted to

the climatic

conditions

(rainfall etc.)

12.50 15.00 12.50 11.11 11.11 13.33 16.67 8.33 8.33 12.37 12.37 12.37

Well adapted to

the soil type

27.50 22.50 20.00 26.67 22.25 17.78 41.67 33.33 25.00 28.87 23.71 20.62

Fetches an

attractive price

in the market

25.00 20.00 20.00 24.45 22.22 20.00 16.67 33.34 33.34 23.71 22.69 21.65

Government

stimulates its

growing

25.00 15.00 20.00 22.22 17.77 20.00 16.66 8.33 16.67 22.69 15.46 18.56

Fits well into

overall cropping

pattern

10.00 12.50 12.50 11.11 8.88 13.33 8.33 8.34 8.33 10.30 10.31 12.37

It allows for

multiple picking

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The residue can

be used as

fodder

0 15.00 15.00 4.44 17.77 15.56 0 8.33 8.33 2.06 15.46 14.43

Any other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


(least important)

5.1.1 (C) Reasons for attraction to competing Crop II (Maize) on the sample farms in

reference year.

The percentage of multiple responses of sample growers of maize with regard to reasons

for attraction to maize are presented in Table 5.1.1 (c). Table reveals that climatic

conditions and suitable soil were most important reasons for the attraction to maize on

sample farms. Apart from these, out of total sample growers of maize, 12.79% and 11.63%

growers had expressed their views in favour of government support and attractive price in

the markets respectively for attraction to maize on the sample farms.

Table 5.1.1 (c)

Reasons for attraction to competing crop II (Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample

farms, 2012-13


1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Well adapted to

the climatic

conditions

(rainfall etc.)

23.53 19.61 11.76 20.00 20.00 26.67 20.00 40.00 40.00 22.09 20.93 18.60

Well adapted to

the soil type

35.30 17.65 15.69 13.33 6.67 13.33 40.00 20.00 20.00 27.91 13.95 15.12

Fetches an

attractive price

in the market

11.77 7.84 11.76 13.33 6.67 13.33 0 0 0 11.63 6.98 11.63

Government

stimulates its

growing

7.84 15.69 13.73 16.67 23.33 13.33 40.00 40.00 40.00 12.79 19.77 15.12

Fits well into

overall cropping

pattern

7.84 13.73 13.73 13.33 16.67 6.67 0 0 0 9.30 13.95 10.46

It allows for

multiple picking

3.92 11.76 13.72 10.00 16.66 16.67 0 0 0 5.81 12.79 13.95

The residue can

be used as

fodder

9.80 13.72 19.61 13.34 10.00 10.00 0 0 0 10.47 11.63 15.12

Any other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


(least important)

5.1.1 (d) Reasons for Attraction to Competing Crop III (Urd) on the Sample

Farms

The reasons for attraction to urd crop as had been perceived by the sample growers are

illustrated in Table 5.1.1 (d). Table reveals that the attractive price in the marketed

followed by suitable soil were most important reasons for attraction to urd on the sample

farms during the reference year. Of the total sample growers of urd, 23.75% sample

growers had also given most important reason of government efforts for attraction to urd

crop on the sample farms. These types of reasons for attraction to urd crop were also

witnessed across the sample size of farms.

Table 5.1.1 (d)

Reasons for attraction to competing crop III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample

farms, 2012-13

(% multiple response)

Small Medium Large Overall Reason

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Well adapted to

the climatic

conditions

(rainfall etc.)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Well adapted to

the soil type

31.25 40.63 28.13 27.78 41.67 33.33 25.00 41.67 25.00 28.75 41.25 30.00

Fetches an

attractive price

in the market

46.88 37.50 25.00 38.89 13.89 27.78 50.00 33.33 25.00 43.75 26.25 26.25

Government

stimulates its

growing

21.87 12.50 25.00 27.77 33.33 22.22 16.67 16.67 25.00 23.75 22.50 26.25

Fits well into

overall cropping

pattern

0 9.37 21.87 5.56 11.11 16.67 8.33 8.33 25.00 3.75 10.00 17.50

It allows for

multiple picking

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

The residue can

be used as

fodder

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Any other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


(least important)

5.1.2 (a) Main Problems faced during Production of Paddy as revealed by

Sample Farmers in 2012-13

The percentage of multiple responses of sample farmers with regard to main problem faced

during the production of paddy in the reference year are presented in Table5.1.2 (a) Table

5.1. 2(a) shows that out of total small sample of growers, 62% had revealed that marketing

of paddy was most important problem while 27.18% had treated it as important problem.

The environmental problems were treated important as had been revealed by 33.33% of

small sample farmers. The 50% of large sample farmers had also revealed that the

marketing was most important constraints in the production of paddy on their farms during

the reference year. The marketing problem was also most important constraints in the

cultivation of paddy across different categories of sample farms during 2012-13. The

diseases, pest/insects and weeds were least important problems in the cultivation of paddy

across the sample size of farms during reference years.

Table 5.1.2 (a)

Main problems faced during production of paddy as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Diseases 7.41 6.48 6.48 3.33 4.44 5.56 8.33 0 0 5.71 5.24 5.71

Insects/ pests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weeds 9.26 9.26 18.52 10.00 22.22 13.33 8.33 16.67 25.00 9.52 15.24 16.67

Environmental

problems (drought,

waterlogging, high

temperature etc.)

9.26 33.33 28.70 20.00 24.45 30.00 16.67 25.00 25.00 14.29 29.05 29.05

Non-availability of

inputs (seeds,

fertilizer,chemicals

labour, credit etc.)

11.11 23.15 37.04 13.33 26.67 26.67 16.67 25.00 33.33 12.38 24.76 32.38

Marketing

problems (storage,

prices, information,

transport, demand

etc.)

62.96 27.78 9.26 53.34 22.22 24.44 50.00 33.33 16.67 58.10 25.71 16.19

Any other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


(least important)

5.1.2 (b) Main problems faced during production of bajra as revealed by the

sample growers of bajra in 2012-13

The percentage multiple responses of sample growers of bajra in context to main problems

faced during production of bajra in the reference year are presented in Table 5.1.2 (b).

Table 5.1.2 (b) reveals that 42.26% of total 97 bajra growers of different categories of

farms had revealed that marketing problems were most important Constraints in the

cultivation of bajra on their farms during the reference year. Apart from this, weeds and

environment were also most important problems in the cultivation of bajra in the reference

year. These were also witnessed as most important problems across the size of sample

farms. The weeds and environment were also important problems in the cultivation of bajra

as had been revealed by 31.96% and 32.99% of sample growers of bajra respectively. The

non-availability of inputs was least important problem in the cultivation of bajra across the

sample size of farms in the reference year.

Table 5.1.2 (b)

Main problems faced during production of competing crop I (Bajra) as revealed by

farmers, sample farms, 2012-13 (% multiple response)


1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Diseases 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Insects/ pests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weeds 20.00 30.00 35.00 24.44 33.33 31.11 16.67 33.33 50.00 21.65 31.96 35.05

Environmental

problems (drought,

waterlogging, high

temperature etc.)

30.00 35.00 27.50 31.11 26.67 35.56 16.67 50.00 33.33 28.87 32.99 31.96

Non-availability of

inputs (seeds,



0 10.00 12.50 15.56 13.33 6.66 0 0 0 7.22 10.31 8.25

Marketing

problems (storage,


transport, demand

etc.)

50.00 25.00 25.00 28.89 26.67 26.67 66.66 16.67 16.67 42.26 24.74 24.74

Any other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


(least important)

5.1.2. (C) Main Problems faced during the production of maize as revealed by

sample growers of maize in 2012-13

The multiple response of 86 maize sample of growers about the main problems in the

cultivation of maize on their farms during reference year are analysed in Table 5.1.2 (c) It

is evident from Table that the majority of sample growers of maize across the sample size

of farms had revealed that marketing of maize was most important problem while non-

availability of inputs, drought, water logging and weeds were important problems in the

cultivation of maize during reference period. The storage prices, information, transport-

demand etc are witnessed to be most important constraints for all categories of sample

farms as more than 50 of sample farmers had revealed during the survey of the study.

Table 5.1.2 (c)

Main problems faced during production of competing crop II (Maize) as revealed by



1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Diseases 0 0 0 3.33 6.67 0 0 0 0 1.16 2.23 0

Insects/ pests 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weeds 11.76 19.61 35.29 16.67 13.33 20.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 13.95 18.60 30.23

Environmental

problems (drought,

waterlogging, high

temperature etc.)

11.77 31.37 19.61 16.67 33.33 40.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 13.96 31.39 26.74

Non-availability of

inputs (seeds,



9.80 29.41 31.37 20.00 26.67 20.00 0 20.00 20.00 12.79 27.91 26.75

Marketing

problems (storage,


transport, demand

etc.)

66.67 19.61 13.73 43.33 20.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 20.00 58.14 19.77 16.28

Any other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


(least important)

5.1.2 (d) Main problems faced during the production of urd as revealed by the sample

growers of urd in 2012-13

The multiple response of 80 sample growers of urd about main problems in the cultivation

of urd on their farms during reference year are analysed in Table 5.1.2 (d). Table5.1.2 (d)

shows that about 62% and 50% of small and large ample farmers respectively had revealed

that marketing of urd was most important problem in the cultivation of urd on their farms

during the reference year. However, about 38% medium sample growers of urd had

revealed that environment and marketing were most important hurdle in way of proper

cultivation of urd on their farms during reference year. The weeds were also important

problems as had been faced by sample growers during the cultivation of urd on their farms.

Non availability of inputs was not considered as any problem. In case of diseases and

insects/pests about 96% of respondents were in the opinion that diseases and insects/pests

factors were no constraint in the urd cultivation.

Table 5.1.2 (d)

Main problems faced during production of competing crop III (Urd) as revealed by



1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Diseases 0 0 0 0 0 8.33 0 0 0 0 0 3.75

Insects/ pests 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Weeds 75.00 37.50 31.25 22.22 41.67 27.78 25.00 25.00 50.00 23.75 37.50 32.50

Environmental

problems (drought,

waterlogging, high

temperature etc.)

12.50 31.25 31.25 38.89 25.00 36.11 25.00 50.00 25.00 26.25 31.25 32.50

Non-availability of

inputs (seeds,



62.50 31.25 37.50 38.89 33.33 27.78 50.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 50.00 31.25

Marketing

problems (storage,


transport, demand

etc.)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Any other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


(least important)

5.1.3.1.(a) Problems of Diseases faced during rice production as revealed by


The details of problems of diseases faced during rice production cycle on sample farms are

presented in Table 5.1.3.1. (a). The blast, foot rot, bacterial leaf spot, anthracnose, pod rot

etc. are major diseases of paddy. Among these, the blast, anthracnose and pod rot did not

occur during the last rice production cycle. However, bacterial leaf spot and pod rot

occurred during the last rice production cycle as had been reported by sample growers.

These diseases had produced slight problem. On account of this, only 0.80% and 0.85%

yield loss was occurred due to attack by foot rot and pod rot respectively. None of

mentioned diseases had created sever problem and very sever problems during last rice

production cycle on the sample farms.

Table 5.1.3.1 (a)

Problems of Diseases faced during basmati rice production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13


Small Medium Large Overall Particulars

1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Blast - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Foot rot 97.22 2.78 - - 1.50 95.56 4.44 - - 1.00 1.00 - - - - 96.67 3.33 - - 0.80

Bacterial-

leaf spot

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anthrac-

nose

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pod Rot 93.52 6.48 - - 1.00 95.56 4.44 - - 1.00 1.00 - - - - 94.76 5.24 - - 0.85

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Note: Ranks are in order of importance from 1 (No problem), 2 (slight problem), 3 (moderate problem), to 4 (severe problem) Y means Per cent yield loss.

5.1.3.1.(b) Problems of Insects/Pests faced during rice production as revealed by

farmers, sample farms 2012-13

The details of problems faced insects and pests during last rice production cycle on the

sample farms are reported in table 5.1.3.1.(b). Table 5.1.3.1(b) shows that rice hispa and

hairy caterpillar did not occur during last rice production cycle on the sample farms.

However, white fly, stem borer and leaf folder occurred during last rice production cycle on

the sample farms as had been revealed by 3.81%, 9.71% and 7.62% respectively. These had

produced only slight problem. On account of this, only 2.50%, 1.90% and 2.00% yield loss

occurred due to attack of white fly, stem borer and leaf folder respectively.

5.1.3.1.(C) Problems of Weeds faced during rice production as revealed by farmers,

sample farms 2012-13

Since, rice is generally transplanted in rainy season, therefore, the possibility of germination

of weeds in the field of rice is very high. The ltsit, mathana, bhakhra, motha, grass etc. are

important weeds in the fields of paddy. Among these, Motha and grass are much visible in

the fields of paddy. The position of problems of different types of weeds faced during last

rice production cycle on the sample farms are shown in table 5.1.3.1.(C). Table shows that

ltsit, mathana and bhakhra weeds did not occur during last rice production cycle while motha

and grass occurred during last rice production cycle on the sample farms as have been

reported by 18.10% and 18.57% of sample farmers. The impact of occurrence of motha and

grass was slight on the production of rice. The yield loss in paddy was reported 2.00% and

2.00% due to occurrence of motha and grass respectively on the sample farms.

Table 5.1.3.1 (b)

Problems of Insects/pests faced during basmati rice production as revealed by farmers, sample farms,2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Rice hispa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Whitefly 97.22 2.78 - - 1.50 97.78 2.22 - - 1.50 75.0 25.00 -- - 4.00 96.19 3.81 - - 2.50

Stemborer 92.59 7.41 - - 1.50 97.78 2.22 - - 1.50 83.33 16.67 - - 3.50 94.20 9.71 - - 1.90

Hairy

caterpillar

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Leaf folder 92.51 7.41 - - 1.50 95.56 4.44 - - 1.00 66.67 33.33 - - 3.00 92.38 7.62 - - 2.00

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Note: Ranks are in order of importance from 1 (No problem), 2 (slight problem), 3 (moderate problem), to 4 (severe problem)

Y means Per cent yield loss.

Table 5.1.3.1 (c)

Problems of weeds faced during basmati rice production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Itsit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mathana - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bhakhra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Motha 83.33 16.67 - - 2.00 83.33 16.67 - - 2.50 38.33 41.67 - - 1.00 81.90 18.10 - - 2.00

Grass 83.33 16.67 - - 2.00 83.33 16.67 - - 2.50 50.00 50.00 - - 1.00 81.43 18.57 - - 2.00

Sonfa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



5.1.3.2.(a) Problems of Diseases faced during bajra production as revealed by


The powdery mildew, grain smut, ergot, late blight, pod rot etc are major diseases of bajra.

Among these diseases, grain smut and late blight are much common in the study areas. The

views of the respondents about the diseases presented a problem in last bajra production

cycle are shown in Table 5.1.3.2.(a). Table shows that 13.40% of sample growers had

reported that occurrence of grain smut was slight during last bajra production cycle, while

16.49% sample growers had reported that occurrence of late blight was not serious. On

account of this, 0.80% yield loss was occurred due to attack of grain smut while 0.80%, yield

loss occurred due to late blight disease.

5.1.3.2.(b) Problems of Insects/Pests faced during bajra production as revealed by


The problem of insects and pests faced during last bajra production cycle as had been

reported by sample growers are shown in table 5.1.3.2.(b). Table shows that root bug, hairy

cater pillar, maize borer and leaf folder did not attack during the last production cycle of

bajra. The occurrence of grass hopper had presented sight problem. On account of this,

1.20% loss in yield of bajra occurred

5.1.3.2.(C) Problems of weeds faced during bajra production as revealed by farmers,


The details of problems of weeds faced during last bajra production cycle on the sample

farms are presented in table 5.1.3.2.(c ). This table reveals that, among the weeds, grass and

motha had germinated during the last bajra production cycle on the sample farms. On

account of this, 2.00% loss occurred in the yield of bajra as had been reported by 37.17%

of sample farmers.

Table 5.1.3.2 (a)

Problems of Diseases faced during bajra production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Powdery

mildew

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grain smut 87.50 12.50 - - 1.00 88.89 11.11 - - 1.00 75.00 25.00 - - 1.00 86.60 13.40 - - 0.80

Ergot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Late blight 80.00 20.00 - - 1.00 88.89 11.11 - - 1.00 75.00 25.00 - - 1.00 83.51 16.49 - - 0.80

Pod Rot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Table 5.1.3.2 (b)

Problems of Insects/pests faced during bajra production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Root bug - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grass hopper 75.00 25.00 - - 2.00 82.22 17.78 - - 3.00 1.00 - - - - 81.44 18.56 - - 1.20

Maize borer - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hairy

caterpillar

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Leaf folder - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Table 5.1.3.2 (c)

Problems of weeds faced during bajra production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Itsit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mathana - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bhakhra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Motha 90.00 10.00 - - 1.00 82.22 17.78 - - 1.00 66.67 33.33 - - 1.00 83.51 16.49 - - 1.00

Grass 75.00 25.00 - - 1.00 82.22 17.78 - - 1.50 66.67 33.33 - - 1.00 77.32 22.68 - - 1.00

Sonfa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



5.1.3.3.(a) Problems of Diseases faced during maize production as revealed by


The powdery mildew, seed rot, leaf blight, late blight, pod rot etc are important diseases of

maize. The details of occurrence of mentioned diseases and their impact on yield of maize

during last maize production cycle are presented in table 5.1.3.3.(a). Table shows that seed

rot, late blight did not occur during last maize production cycle. These were not harmful for

maize. However, the occurrence of powdery mildew and leaf bright during last maize

production cycle had been report by 15.12% and 15.12% of sample farmers respectively.

These had created slight problem during last maize production cycle. The loss in yield in

maize was 1.50% and 1.50% due to occurrence of powdery mildew and leaf blight

respectively.

5.1.3.3(b) Problems of Insects/Pests faced during maize production as revealed by


The maize is not much affected by insects and pests. Even then, the occurrence of maize

shoot fly, thrips, maize, borer, hairy caterpillar, leaf folder etc. were visible in the maize. The

details of occurrence of mentioned insects/pests on maize production cycle as had been

reported by sample farmers are presented in table 5.1.3.3.(b). Table reflects that among the

five insects and pests, the maize borer and leaf folder had attacked on last maize production

cycle but there was a slight problem as had been reported by 8.60% and 17.44% of sample

farmers respectively. The loss in yield due to occurrence of leaf folder and maize borer was

estimated at 2.00% and 2.00% respectively.

Table 5.1.3.3 (a)

Problems of Diseases faced during maize production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Powdery

mildew

88.24 11.76 - - 2.00 80.00 20.00 - - 2.00 80.00 20.00 - - 1.00 84.88 15.12 - - 1.50

Seed rot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Leaf blight 88.24 11.76 - - 2.00 80.00 20.00 - - 2.00 80.00 20.00 - - 1.00 84.88 15.12 - - 1.50

Late blight - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pod Rot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Table 5.1.3.3 (b)

Problems of Insects/pests faced during maize production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Maize shoot

fly

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thrips - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Maize borer 78.43 21.57 - - 3.00 86.67 13.33 - - 3.00 80.00 20.00 - - 1.00 81.40 18.60 - - 2.00

Hairy

caterpillar

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Leaf folder 76.47 23.53 - - 3.00 93.33 6.67 - - 3.00 80.00 20.00 - - 1.00 82.56 17.44 - - 2.00

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



5.1.3.3 (C) Problems of weeds faced during maize production as revealed by farmers,


The weeds are major problem in the cultivation of maize. Therefore, inter-culture process is

important activities to get better growth of plant of maize. The details of views of the

respondents about problems of weeds during last maize, production cycle are presented in

table 5.1.3.3.(C). Table shows that occurrence of weeds was slight problem during last maize

production cycle. On account of this, 3.00% loss in yield occurred.

5.1.3.4.(a) Problems of disease faced during urd production as revealed by farmers,


The problems of disease faced during urd production as revealed by sample farmers are

presented in table 5.1.3.4(a). Table shows that mungbean yellow mosaic virus and cercospora

leaf spot occurred on urd crop on the sample farms in 2012-13. These diseases had erected

only slight problem as revealed by sample growers of urd. On account of occurrence of these

two diseases, only 2.05% yield loss is witnessed from table 5.1.3.4.(a)

5.1.3.4.(b) Problems of Insects/Pests faced during urd production as revealed by


The views of sample farmers regarding the problems of insects/pests faced during urd

production are reported in table 5.1.3.4. (b). Table shows that pod borer and hairy caterpillars

were only insects/pests which had damaged urd crop in 2012-13. The attack was only slight

as revealed by 35% of the sample farmers. On account of this, 2.00% loss in yield occurred.

5.1.3.4.(c) Problems of Weed faced during urd production as revealed by farmers,


The problems of weeds faced during urd production as revealed by sample farmers are

presented in Table 5.1.3.4 (c ). The table shows that grass had only created problems in the

urd production as revealed by 42.50% of sample farmers. The attack of grass was only slight

and on account of this, 2.00% loss in yield of urd occurred.

5.1.4. Environmental stress presented a problem during last production cycle of

competing crops to paddy crop on the sample farms

The impact of environmental stress is very effective on the production of crops. The

productions of crops are still depended on good and bad monsoon. The drought and excess

rains are most common across the country. The maximum area under kharif crops are

generally destroyed/damaged by the rains and drought in every alternative year. The kharif

crops are mostly effected by drought and excess rains in Uttar Pradesh. The rainfall has been

diminishing owning to climate change which are responsible to decrease the yield of kharif

crops in Uttar Pradesh. Making agricultural production sustainable is going to require new

technologies. Farming will have to become environmentally sustainable. Meanwhile climates

are seemingly ever less reliable and erratic. Agriculture has to become both environmentally

sustainable as well as compatible with climate change. The sample farmers were asked

regarding the environmental stress presented problem during last production cycle of bajra,

maize and urd which are presented in Table 5.1.4 (a), 5.1.4 (b) and 5.1.4 (c).

5.1. 4. (a) Problems of Environmental stress during last production cycle of

competing crop -I (Bajra) on the sample farms

The problem of environmental stress faced during last production cycle of bajra on the

sample farms are shown in table 5.1.4. (a). Table shows that environmental stress did not

occur during last production cycle of bajra on the sample farms. The drought and excess rain

and lower temperature did not occur from pre sowing to maturity stage during last production

of cycle bajra on the sample farms. However, the high temperature occurred during pod

development stage and on account of this, 1% loss occurred during last production cycle of

bajra on the sample farms.

Table 5.1.3.3 (c)

Problems of weeds faced during maize production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Itsit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mathana - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bhakhra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Motha 86.27 13.73 - - 2.00 83.33 16.67 - - 1.00 80.00 20.00 - - 2.00 84.88 15.12 - - 1.50

Grass 78.43 21.57 - - 2.00 80.00 20.00 - - 1.00 60.00 40.00 - - 2.00 77.91 22.09 - - 1.50

Sonfa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Table 5.1.3.4 (a)

Problems of Diseases faced during Urd production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Mungbean

yellow

mosaic virus

87.50 12.50 - - 2.00 83.33 16.67 - - 1.00 83.33 16.67 - - 1.00 85.00 1.50 - - 1.25

Cercospora

leaf spot

93.75 6.25 - - 1.00 94.44 5.56 - - 1.00 83.33 16.67 - - 1.00 92.50 7.50 - - 0.80

Bacterial

leaf spot

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Anthracnose - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Pod Rot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Table 5.1.3.4 (b)

Problems of Insects/pests faced during Urd production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Thrips - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Whitefly - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Podborer 84.38 15.62 - - 2.00 83.33 16.67 - - 1.00 75.00 25.00 - - 1.00 82.50 17.50 - - 1.10

Hairy

caterpillar

84.38 15.62 - - 2.00 83.33 16.67 - - 1.00 75.00 25.00 - - 1.00 82.50 17.50 - - 1.10

Dhora - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Table 5.1.3.4 (c)

Problems of weeds faced during Urd production as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Itsit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mathana - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Bhakhra - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Motha - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Grass 62.50 37.50 - - 2.50 55.36 44.44 - - 2.00 30.00 50.00 - - 2.30 57.50 42.50 - - 2.00

Sonfa - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



Table 5.1.4 (a)

Problems of environment stress faced during production of competing crop I (Bajra)as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Drought at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity

stage

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Rain at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity stage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

High temperature at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

92 5.00 - - 1.5 97.28 2.22 - - 0.90 100 - - - - 96.91 3.09 - - 1.00

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity

stage

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Low temperature at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



5.1.4.(b) Problems of Environmental stress faced during last production cycle of

competing crop -II (Maize) on the sample farms

The problems of environmental stress faced by sample farmers during last production cycle

of maize are presented in table 5.1.4 (b). It shows that drought and high temperature did not

occur at any stage during the last production cycle of maize on the sample farms. The rain

occurred at flowering stage and on account of this, 0.5% yield loss occurred in the total

production of maize.

5.1.4.(C) Problems of environmental stress faced during last production cycle of

competing crop –III (urd) on the sample farms

The problems of environmental stress faced by sample farmers during last production cycle

of urd are presented in table 5.1.4. (C). It is evident from this table that excess rains occurred

at the maturity stage of urd. It was only moderate problem as revealed by the sample growers

of urd. On account of this, 3% yield loss occurred. However drought, high and low

temperature did not occur during the last production cycle of urd on the sample farms.

5.2.1(a) Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing Crop-I

(Bajra) on the sample farms, 2012-13

The details of problems regarding inputs faced during production of bajra as revealed by

different categories of sample farmers are presented in Table 5.2.1 (a). It is evident from

table 5.2.1 (a) that lack of irrigation facilities, shortage of labour, low yield and non

availability of disease resistant varieties were sever problems faced by 36.08%, 36.08%,

32.99% and 29.90% of sample growers during the production of bajra on their farms

respectively in the reference year. The availability of fertilizer was sufficient as had been

reported by 74.23% of sample growers while 25.77% of sample had faced a slight problem

during the production of bajra in reference year. The lack of credit and non-suitable of land

were also moderate problems as had been revealed by 52.58% and 35.05% of sample

growers respectively during the production of bajra in reference year.

Table 5.1.4 (b)

Problems of environment stress faced during production of competing crop II( Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Drought at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity stage 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Rain at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

96.08 3.92 - - 1.00 96.67 3.33 - - 0.02 8.00 20.0 - - 0.03 96.51 3.49 - - 0.50

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity stage 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

High temperature at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity stage 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Low temperature at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity stage 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Any other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -



Table 5.1.4 (C)

Problems of environment stress faced during production of competing crop III(Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

2012-13



1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y 1 2 3 4 Y Drought at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Rain at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity stage 87.50 12.50 - - 2.00 88.89 11.11 - - 4.00 83.33 16.67 - - - 87.50 12.50 - - 3.00

High temperature at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Low temperature at

Pre-sowing

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Flowering

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Pod

development

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Early seeding

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Maturity

stage

100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - - 100.00 - - - -

Any other



Table 5.2.1 (a)

Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing crop I(Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Lack of irrigation

facility

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 8.89 22.22 26.67 42.22 33.33 66.67 - - 12.37 26.81 24.74 36.08

Shortage of land 20.00 20.00 25.00 35.00 33.33 33.33 33.34 - 33.33 66.67 - - 27.84 31.96 25.77 14.43

Non-availability

of quality seeds

20.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 13.33 24.45 31.11 31.11 41.67 58.33 - - 19.59 30.93 24.74 24.74

Non-availability

of fertilizer

75.00 25.00 - - 66.67 33.33 - - 100.00 - - - 74.23 25.77 - -

Non-availability

of chemicals/

pesticides

15.00 15.00 45.00 25.00 - 33.33 44.45 22.22 - 50.00 50.00 - 6.19 27.83 45.36 20.62

Shortage of

labour

- 25.00 25.00 50.00 - 33.33 33.33 33.33 - 50.00 50.00 - - 31.96 31.96 36.08

Timeliness of

field operation

15.00 25.00 25.00 35.00 - 33.33 33.33 33.34 - 50.00 50.00 - 6.19 31.96 31.95 29.90

Availability

machinery

15.00 40.00 35.00 10.00 17.78 35.56 35.56 11.11 - 50.00 50.00 - 14.43 39.18 37.11 9.28

Lack of credit - - 45.00 55.00 17.78 22.22 60.00 - - 50.00 50.00 - 8.25 16.49 52.58 22.68

Non Suitable

Land

37.50 20.00 32.50 10.00 11.11 40.00 31.11 17.78 - 41.67 58.33 - 20.62 31.96 35.05 12.37

Low Yield 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 17.78 17.77 26.67 37.78 16.67 16.67 25.00 41.66 20.62 20.62 25.77 32.99

Non availability

of disease

resistant varieties

25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 20.00 20.00 26.67 33.33 - 33.33 33.33 33.34 19.59 23.71 26.80 29.90


5.2.1 (b) Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing Crop-II

(Maize) on the sample farms, 2012-13

The problems regarding inputs faced during production of maize as revealed by different

categories of sample farmers are presented in Table 5.2.1 (b). Table 5.2.1(b) shows that non-

availability of chemical/pesticides, shortage of labour, lack of irrigation facilities and

shortage of land were severe problems as had been revealed by 47.68%, 38.37%, 22.09% and

32.56% of sample growers respectively during the production of maize on their farms in

reference year.

It is also evident from table 5.2.1 (b) that the fertilizer, machinery and credit were mostly

available during the production of maize on their farms as had been reported by 53.49%,

38.37% and 37.21% of the sample growers respectively. Apart from these, 46.51%, 32.56%,

29.07% and 26.75% of sample growers had reported that non-availability of fertilizers, low

yield, lack of credit and timelines of field operation were slight problems during the

production of maize on their farms in reference year. The non-availability of credit, non

suitable land, non-availability of machinery and shortage of labour were moderate problem

during the production of maize as had been reported by 19.77%, 27.91%, 25.28% and

23.26% of sample farmers respectively.

5.2.1 (c) Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing Crop-III

(Urd) on the sample farms 2012-13.

The problems regarding inputs faced during the production of urd are worked out by the

percentage multiple response of respondents in the table 5.2.1(C). Table shows that non

availability of disease resistant varieties, shortage of labour, non availability of quality seeds

and shortage of land were severe problem during the production of urd as had been reported

by 33.75%, 27.50%, 20.00% and 20.00% of sample farmers respectively in the reference

year.

Table 5.2.1 (B)

Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing crop II(Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

2012-13




facility

15.69 19.61 29.41 35.29 10.00 46.67 40.00 3.33 80.00 20.00 - - 17.44 29.07 31.40 22.09

Shortage of land 17.65 19.61 19.61 43.14 13.33 20.00 46.67 20.00 - 40.00 60.00 - 15.12 20.93 31.40 32.56

Non-availability of

quality seeds

23.53 23.53 29.41 23.33 36.67 30.00 20.00 13.33 20.00 80.00 - - 27.91 29.07 24.42 18.60

Non-availability of

fertilizer

60.78 39.22 - - 33.33 66.67 - - 100.00 - - - 53.49 46.51 - -

Non-availability of

chemicals/

pesticides

- 19.61 35.29 45.10 - - 40.00 60.00 60.00 40.00 - - 3.49 13.95 34.88 47.68

Shortage of labour 25.49 19.61 19.61 35.29 16.67 16.67 33.33 33.33 - - - 100.00 20.93 17.44 23.26 38.37

Timeliness of field

operation

29.41 19.61 35.29 15.69 16.67 43.33 26.67 13.33 100.00 - - - 29.07 26.75 30.23 13.95

Availability

machinery

35.30 23.53 29.41 11.76 33.33 26.67 23.33 16.67 100.00 - - - 38.37 23.26 25.58 12.79

Lack of credit 33.33 29.41 23.53 13.73 33.33 33.33 16.67 16.67 100.00 - - - 37.21 29.07 19.77 13.95

Non Suitable Land 29.41 29.41 2.49 15.69 26.67 26.67 26.66 20.00 - 40.00 60.00 - 26.75 29.07 27.91 16.28

Low Yield 35.29 31.37 19.61 13.73 40.00 33.33 20.00 6.67 - 40.00 60.00 - 34.88 32.56 22.09 10.47

Non availability of

disease resistant

varieties

6.67 30.00 53.33 10.00 - 20.00 20.00 60.00 10.47 29.07 41.86 18.60


Table 5.2.1 (C)

Problems regarding inputs faced during production of competing crop III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

2012-13




facility

31.25 31.25 37.50 - 33.33 33.33 33.34 - 50.00 50.00 - - 35.00 35.00 30.00 -

Shortage of land 12.50 37.50 18.75 37.50 33.33 22.22 11.11 - 33.33 66.67 - - 25.00 37.50 17.50 20.00

Non-availability of

quality seeds

37.50 25.00 25.00 12.50 16.67 27.78 22.22 33.33 33.33 66.67 - - 27.50 32.50 20.00 20.00

Non-availability of

fertilizer

56.25 31.25 12.50 - 22.22 33.33 44.45 - 100.00 - - - 47.50 27.50 25.00 -

Non-availability of

chemicals/

pesticides

21.88 46.87 31.25 - 22.22 33.33 33.33 11.11 100.00 - - - 33.75 33.75 27.50 5.00

Shortage of labour 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 16.67 27.78 27.78 27.78 - 33.33 33.33 33.34 17.50 27.50 27.50 27.50

Timeliness of field

operation

37.50 25.00 25.00 12.50 38.89 27.78 22.22 11.11 - 33.33 33.33 33.34 32.50 27.50 25.00 15.00

Availability

machinery

37.50 21.88 21.87 18.75 44.45 22.22 22.22 11.11 50.00 50.00 - - 42.50 26.25 18.75 12.50

Lack of credit 37.50 25.00 25.00 12.50 27.78 27.78 33.33 11.11 50.00 50.00 - - 35.00 30.00 25.00 10.00

Non Suitable Land 31.25 31.25 21.88 15.12 27.78 38.89 22.22 11.11 33.33 66.67 - - 30.00 40.00 18.75 11.25

Low Yield 31.25 31.25 25.00 12.50 27.78 38.89 25.00 8.33 - - 33.33 66.67 25.00 30.00 26.25 18.75

Non availability of

disease resistant

varieties

6.25 31.25 21.88 40.62 5.56 33.33 22.22 38.89 16.67 33.33 50.00 - 7.50 32.50 26.25 33.75


It is also evident from table that most of inputs for the production of urd did not pose any

problem. The non- suitable land, shortage of land, lack of irrigation facilities, non availability

of chemical/pesticides, posed slight problems during the production of urd as had been

revealed by 40.00%, 37.50%, 35.00% and 33.75% of the sample farmers respectively. The

non availability of disease resistant varieties, low yield, lack of credit, lack of irrigation

facilities, shortage of labour and timelines of field operation had posed moderate problems

during the production of urd as had been reported by 26.25%, 26.25%, 25.00%, 30.00%,

27.50% and 25.00% of sample growers respectively in the reference year.

5.2.2 (a) Problems faced during marketing of produce for competing Crop-I (Bajra) as

revealed by farmers on the sample farms, 2012-13

No doubt the production of each and every crop has increased significantly but the farmers do not get

remunerative prices of their produce. The farmers are still facing number of problems during

marketing of their produces in markets as well as at door. The problems faced during the marketing of

bajra as reported by sample growers are worked out by percentage multiple response in Table 5.2.2

(a) Table shows that the majority of different categories of sample farmers did not face severe

problems during the marketing of bajra. However, 16.49%, 9.28%, 7.22% and 5.15% of the

respondents had reported that they were facing the severe problems due to non-availability of markets

near by village, lack of transport facilities, lack of packing materials and low demand of produce in

the markets respectively. It is also evident from the table that most of respondents had faced only

slight and moderate problems during marketing of bajra in the reference year. It is also evident from

the table that small sample farmers did not face much problems during the marketing of bajra as

compared to medium and large sample farmers.

5.2.2 (b) Problems faced during marketing of produce for competing Crop-II (Maize) as revealed by farmers on the sample farms, 2012-13

The multiple response of sample farmers regarding the problems faced during the marketing of maize

are worked out in table 5.2.2 (b). Table shows that majority of small and medium sample farmers did

not get adequate information about prevailing price of maize of different markets. The non-

availability of markets nearby village, losses during the storage, variability of price and low demand

in the markets were severe problems during marketing of produce of maize as had been reported by

20.93%, 20.93%, 16.63% and 4.65% of the sample farmers respectively. It is also evident from the

table that small sample farmers had faced much problems during the marketing of maize than that of

medium and large sample farmers.

Table 5.2.2 (a)

Problems faced during marketing of produce for competing crop I (Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Difficult to access

information on price

25.00 37.50 37.50 - - 44.44 44.44 11.11 - 100.00 - - 30.93 48.45 20.62 -

Variability of price - 50.00 50.00 - - 44.44 44.44 11.11 - 100.00 - - 53.61 41.24 5.15 -

Losses during

storage

37.50 37.50 25.00 - 33.33 33.34 22.22 11.11 - 00.00 - - 30.93 43.30 20.62 5.15

High labor needs for

sorting/ packaging

40.00 30.00 30.00 - 31.11 26.67 26.67 15.55 - 66.67 33.33 - 30.93 32.99 28.86 7.22

Transport to market 45.00 37.50 17.50 - 26.67 26.67 26.66 20.00 66.67 33.33 - - 39.17 31.96 19.59 9.28

Low market demand 45.00 35.00 20.00 - 40.00 26.67 22.22 11.11 83.33 16.67 - - 47.42 28.87 18.56 5.15

No nearby markets 20.00 30.00 30.00 20.00 31.11 26.67 24.44 17.78 33.33 33.33 33.34 - 26.80 28.87 27.84 16.49

Other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Table 5.2.2 (b)

Problems faced during marketing of produce for competing crop II (Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Difficult to access

information on

price

- 47.06 52.94 - - - 100.00 - - 80.00 20.00 - - 32.56 67.44 -

Variability of price 19.61 35.29 25.49 19.61 20.00 33.33 46.67 - - - 100.00 - 18.60 37.21 32.56 16.63

Losses during

storage

23.53 23.53 17.65 35.29 20.00 33.33 46.67 - - 80.00 20.00 - 20.93 30.23 27.91 20.93

High labor needs

for sorting/

packaging

33.33 33.33 33.34 - - 40.00 40.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 - - 22.09 37.21 33.72 6.98

Transport to

market

39.22 33.33 27.45 - 33.33 33.33 33.34 - 40.00 60.00 - - 37.21 34.88 27.91 -

Low market

demand

35.29 29.41 27.45 7.84 33.33 33.33 33.34 - 100.00 - - - 38.37 29.07 27.91 4.65

No nearby markets - 45.10 19.61 35.29 16.67 50.00 33.33 - 40.00 60.00 - - 8.14 47.67 23.26 20.93

Other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


5.2.2 (c) Problems faced during marketing of produce for competing Crop-III (Urd) as revealed by farmers on the sample farms 2012-13

The multiple problems faced during marketing of urd are worked out in Table 5.2.2 (c). The table

shows that most of the problems faced during the marketing of urd during reference year were slight

in nature. However, the non-availability of labour, sorting packing and lack of information were

severe problems during the marketing of urd as had been revealed by 17.50% and 17.50% of sample

farmers respectively. It is also evident from the table that small sample farmers had faced more

problems during the marketing of urd as compared to medium and large farmers.

Table 5.2.2 (C)

Problems faced during marketing of produce for competing crop III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Difficult to access


- 36.25 25.00 18.75 - 50.00 27.78 22.22 33.33 66.67 - - 5.00 55.00 22.50 17.50

Variability of price - 46.88 46.87 6.25 - 55.56 44.44 - 16.67 83.33 - - 2.50 56.25 37.75 2.50

Losses during

storage

- 46.88 46.87 6.25 - 50.00 50.00 - 8.33 91.67 - - 1.25 55.00 41.25 2.50

High labor needs for

sorting/ packaging

31.25 31.25 25.00 12.50 - 27.78 44.44 27.78 - 50.00 50.00 - 12.50 32.50 37.50 17.50

Transport to market 31.25 31.25 37.50 - 27.78 33.33 25.00 13.89 100.00 - - - 40.00 27.50 26.25 6.25

Low market demand 37.50 37.50 18.75 12.50 33.33 27.78 22.22 16.67 33.33 66.67 - - 35.00 37.50 17.50 10.00

No nearby markets 25.00 31.25 37.50 6.25 27.78 50.00 22.22 - 50.00 50.00 - - 30.00 42.50 25.00 2.50

Other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


CHAPTER-6

Suggestions to increase the yield of competing crops

This chapter contains the suggestions to increase yield of competing crops (bajra, maize and

urd) as revealed by sample farmers during the investigation of study. The suggestions related

to availability of inputs for the competing crops have been described in the chapter. Apart

from this, suggestions to researchers and extension agencies have also been discussed in this

chapter.

6.1 (a) Suggestions to increase the yield of Competing Crop-I (Bajra) on the Sample

Farms

The yield of bajra can be increased from present level through use of new varieties and new

techniques of crop production. The suggestions to increase yield of bajra as revealed by

sample of bajra growers are presented in Table-6.1 (a). This table shows that timely planting/

sowing of bajra followed by timely weeding are most important inputs to increase the yield

of bajra. On the whole, 45.36% of sample growers of bajra had revealed that timely sowing

of the crop is most important input to increase the yield of bajra while 30.93% had

considered it as an important input. Timely weeding and timely irrigation are also important

factors to increase the yield of bajra as had been revealed by 21.65% and 20.62% of sample

bajra growers respectively. The application of fertilizer is considered least important factor of

production of bajra as had been reported by 26.80% of the samples of bajra growers. It is also

evident from table 6.1. (a) that 50% sample of small growers followed by 50% large growers

and 40% medium sample growers had given first priority to timely sowing of bajra as most

important factor to increase the yield of bajra.

6.1.(b) Suggestions to increase the yield of Competing Crop-II (Maize) on the Sample

Farms

The suggestions to increase yield of maize as revealed by the sample of maize growers are

reported in Table 6.1.(b). To maintain stable growth in yield of maize, the technology

Table 6.1 (a)

Suggestions to increase yield of competing crop I (Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Increase the

plant

population

0 12.50 20.00 20.00 17.78 24.45 0 0 0 9.28 13.40 19.59

Use more

fertilizer

17.50 12.50 20.00 11.11 11.11 33.33 16.67 25.00 25.00 14.43 13.40 26.80

Use more

chemicals

7.50 0 0 0 0 0 16.67 0 0 5.15 0 0

Timely

planting

50.00 25.00 20.00 40.00 37.78 11.11 50.00 25.00 25.00 45.36 30.93 16.49

Timely

weeding

25.00 25.00 20.00 17.78 15.55 13.33 16.66 33.33 33.33 20.62 21.65 18.56

Provide

irrigation at

right time

0 25.00 20.00 11.11 17.78 17.78 0 16.67 17.67 5.16 20.62 18.56

Any other

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Note: Ranks are in order of importance from 1 (most important), 2 ( important), to 3 (least important)

Table 6.1 (b)

Suggestions to increase yield of competing crop II (Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Increase the

plant

population

9.80 - 19.61 0 16.67 0 0 0 0 5.81 5.81 11.63

Use more

fertilizer

9.80 - 9.80 0 10.0 13.33 0 40.00 0 5.81 5.81 10.46

Use more

chemicals

9.81 - 9.81 0 6.67 26.67 0 0 40.00 5.82 2.33 17.44

Timely

planting

29.41 29.41 11.76 50.00 33.33 16.67 100.00 0 0 40.70 29.07 12.79

Timely

weeding

11.77 39.22 29.41 16.67 16.67 33.33 0 40.00 60.00 12.79 31.40 32.56

Provide

irrigation at

right time

29.41 31.37 19.61 33.33 16.66 10.00 0 20.00 0 29.07 25.58 15.12

Any other

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -


improvements are most important input to push the yield of maize on the sample farms.

Table 6.1.(b) shows that 40.70% of sample growers were of the opinion that timely sowing of

maize is most important factor of production to increase the yield of maize while 29.07% of

sample growers had considered it as an important factor to increase the yield of maize.

Instead of this, timely irrigation is also most important factor of production to increase the

yield of maize as revealed by 29.07% of sample growers.

6.1.(c) Suggestions to increase the yield of Competing Crop-III (Urd) on the Sample

Farms

The suggestions to increase yield of urd as reported by sample growers of urd are presented

in Table 6.1.(c). It is evident from Table 6.1.(c) that majority of sample of urd growers had

expressed their views that timely sowing of urd and coupled with timely weeding are most

important catalyze inputs to raise the yield of urd. Apart from these, suggestion, the proper

application of fertilizers in urd crop is also most important input to increase the yield of urd

as had been revealed by 17.50% of the sample growers. However, 22.50% of the sample

growers had considered it was an important input to raise the yield of urd. In U.P.

Technology improvements in terms of high yielding varieties of urd would be required to

increase the yield further.

6.2. Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing crops (Bajra, Maize and

Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13

Promotion of sustainable land use should be agenda of research and extension services. The

researchers are advised to evolve such varieties of bajra, maize and urd which should be local

based. The researchers should take sincere efforts to evolve short duration drought tolerant

and excess moisture tolerant varieties of bajra, maize and urd at par with evolved varieties of

paddy. On account of this, the production of completing crops will increase in coming years.

These will also be assured crops as similar as paddy crop. The suggestions to researchers to

increase the yield of competing crops viz bajra, maize and urd as had been revealed by

sample farmers are presented in Table 6.2 (a), 6.2 (b) and (6.2 (c) respectively.

Table 6.1 (c)

Suggestions to increase yield of competing crop III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Increase the

plant

population

12.50 9.38 18.75 11.11 5.56 11.11 0 0 0 10.00 6.25 12.50

Use more

fertilizer

25.00 25.00 9.38 16.67 16.67 11.11 0 33.33 16.67 17.50 22.50 11.25

Use more

chemicals

12.50 21.87 12.50 22.22 27.78 25.00 25.00 16.67 25.00 18.75 23.75 20.00

Timely

planting

34.38 25.00 28.12 33.33 27.77 27.78 58.33 16.67 25.00 37.50 25.00 27.50

Timely

weeding

15.62 18.75 31.25 16.67 22.22 25.00 16.67 33.33 33.33 16.25 22.25 28.75

Provide

irrigation at

right time

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Any other

- - - - - - - - - - - -


6.2. (a) Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing crop-I (Bajra) as

revealed by sample farmers, 2012-13

Table 6.2 (a) suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing crop I (Bajra) as

revealed by sample farmers, 2012-13 are presented in table 6.2 (a). It is noticed from table

6.2.(a) that the farmers had suggested to research scientists to evolve the short duration,

drought tolerant and disease resistant varieties of bajra because it was most important input to

increase the yield of bajra. Out of total sample growers, 37.50% and 22.22% of small and

medium growers respectively had also suggested researchers to develop, excess moisture

tolerant varieties of bajra because it was also important inputs to increase the yield of bajra.

6.2. (b) Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing crop-II (Maize) as


The suggestions of different categories of sample farmers to researchers regarding

development of new varieties of maize are presented in Table 6.2 (b). This table shows that

the sample farmers of maize had suggested to research scientists to develop, short duration,

drought tolerant and disease resistant varieties of maize. These varieties were much

demanded by sample farmers. These were also most important choice of sample growers.

The other suggestions related to development of varieties of maize were least important in

eyes of sample farmers.

6.2. (c) Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing crop-III (Urd) as


The suggestions to researchers to increase yield of urd as revealed by sample farmers are

presented in table 6.2 (c). The eight suggestions are mentioned in Table 6.2 (c) of which

three were reported by sample growers of urd. They were of the opinion that development of

short duration varieties, drought tolerant varieties and disease resistant varieties are most

important inputs to increase the production of urd. Hence, they had requested researchers to

evolve the mentioned varieties to increase the production of urd.

Table 6.2 (a)

Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing crop I (Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13


Small Medium Large Overall Suggestions

1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Increase the seed

size - - - - - - - -- - - - -

Increase number

of pods per plant

- - 12.50 - 11.11 11.11 - - -- - 5.16 10.31

Develop fertilizer

responsive

varieties

- - 7.50 - 11.11 13.33 - - - - 5.15 9.28

Develop short

duration varieties

40.00 37.50 30.00 46.67 22.22 17.78 66.67 16.67 16.67 46.39 17.53 22.68

Develop drought

tolerant varieties

30.00 25.00 22.50 33.33 22.22 17.78 16.67 33.33 50.00 29.90 24.74 23.71

Develop disease

resistant varieties

30.00 25.00 27.50 20.00 33.34 17.78 16.66 50.00 30.00 23.71 31.96 23.71

Develop excess

moisture tolerant

varieties

- 37.50 - - - 22.22 - - - - 15.46 11.34

Any other

- - - - - - - - - - - -


Table 6.2 (b)

Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing crop II (Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

2012-13




size - - - - - - - - - - - -

Increase number

of pods per plant

- - 13.73 - - - - - - - - 8.14

Develop fertilizer

responsive

varieties

- - 15.69 - - 13.33 - - - - 12.99 13.95

Develop short

duration varieties

39.22 21.57 23.53 40.00 26.67 30.00 40.00 40.00 20.00 39.54 23.26 25.58

Develop drought

tolerant varieties

35.29 19.61 23.53 33.33 40.00 26.67 40.00 20.00 40.00 34.88 32.56 25.58

Develop disease

resistant varieties

25.49 29.41 23.52 26.67 33.33 30.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 25.58 31.40 26.75

Develop excess

moisture tolerant

varieties

- 29.41 - - - - - - - - - -

Any other

- - - - - - - - - - - -


Table 6.2 (C)

Suggestions to researchers to increase yield of competing crop III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13




size - - - - - - - - - - - -

Increase number

of pods per plant

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Develop fertilizer

responsive

varieties

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Develop short

duration varieties

43.75 40.63 15.62 41.67 27.78 30.56 41.67 25.00 33.33 42.50 32.50 25.00

Develop drought

tolerant varieties

31.25 28.12 40.63 25.00 38.89 36.11 33.33 41.67 25.00 28.75 35.00 36.25

Develop disease

resistant varieties

25.00 31.25 43.75 33.33 33.33 33.33 25.00 33.33 41.67 28.75 32.50 38.75

Develop excess

moisture tolerant

varieties

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other

- - - - - - - - - - - -


It reflects from above discussion that the farmers had attached more importance to short

duration, drought tolerant, disease resistant, and moisture tolerant varieties of bajra, maize

and urd. These types of varieties of bajra, maize and urd are not adequately available in the

markets and government stores. Therefore, it is challenge to the research scientists to evolve

these types of varieties of bajra, maize and urd at large scale to attract the farmers to devote

the maximum area under bajra, maize and urd.

6.3 (a) Suggestions to improve marketing of produce for competing Crop-I (Bajra) as

revealed by sample farms, 2012-13

The multiple responses of sample farmers regarding the suggestions to improve marketing of

produce of bajra are presented in Table 6.3 (a). The majority of sample farmers of different

categories of farms had suggested to improve the efficiency of government procurement

agencies to purchase maximum quantities of bajra from their farms. This was most important

suggestion as had been revealed by 72.50%, 66.67%, 66.67% of small, medium, and large

sample farmers respectively. Apart from these, the sample farmers had also suggested to

increase the access to information on price to farmers to get the better price of the produce of

bajra and reduce the role of middlemen from the marketing channels.

6.3 (b) Suggestions to improve marketing of produce for competing Crop-II (Maize) as


The suggestions to improve marketing of produce of maize as revealed by different

categories of sample farms are presented in Table 6.3 (b). This table shows that 62.74%,

66.66% and 60.00% of small, medium and large sample farmers respectively had suggested

to increase the efficiency of government procurement agencies in rural areas to open more

purchasing Centres. This was most important suggestion to improve marketing efficiency of

maize.

Table 6.3 (a)

Suggestions to improve marketing of produce for competing crop I (Bajra) as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

2012-13



1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Increase the access to


27.50 5.00 50.00 33.33 33.33 44.44 - 50.00 50.00 26.81 23.71 44.48

Decrease Losses during

storage

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Improve the grading

facilities

- 70.00 30.00 - 44.45 44.45 33.33 33.33 33.33 4.12 53.61 35.05

Effective procurement

by Govt. agencies

72.50 25.00 20.00 66.67 22.22 11.11 66.67 16.67 16.67 69.07 22.68 15.47


storage

- - - - - - - - - - -

Any other

- - - - - - - - - - -


Table 6.3 (b)

Suggestions to improve marketing of produce for competing crop II (Maize) as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13





13.73 52.94 56.86 16.67 46.67 60.00 20.00 20.00 60.00 15.12 48.84 58.14


storage

- - -- - - - - - - - - -

Improve the grading

facilities

23.53 23.53 29.41 16.67 30.00 30.00 20.00 60.00 20.00 20.93 27.90 29.07

Effective procurement by

Govt. agencies

62.74 23.53 13.73 66.66 23.33 10.00 60.00 20.00 20.00 63.95 23.26 12.79


storage

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other

- - - - - - - - - - - -


It is also noticed from table 6.3 (b) that the improvements of grading facilities were also

suggested by 23.53%, 16.67% and 20.00 small, medium and large categories of farms

respectively. They were of the opinion that this was most important aspect to improve

marketing of produce of maize in rural areas. Increase the access to information to improve

marketing of produce of maize was also among important suggestions.

6.3 (c) Suggestions to improve marketing of produce for competing Crop-III (Urd) as


The multiple response of sample farmers regarding their suggestions to improve marketing

efficiency of urd are shown in Table 6.3(c). Table 6.3.(c) reveals that the strengthening of

government procurement agencies is a need of present scenario. It is most important aspect

of marketing of urd. There is a need to establish more and more purchasing centres in remote

villages. Increase the access to information on price at grass root level is very essential and

important. Therefore, it requires more improvement. The grading is also an important

function of marketing of produce of urd to get better price. Hence, improving the grading

facilities in rural areas is also required.

6.4. Suggestions to improve extension activities for competing crops viz bajra, maize

and urd as revealed by sample farmers, 2012-13.

Making agricultural production sustainable is going to require new technologies. There is

less scope for increasing land area than there is for improving yields. The production of

wheat and paddy is based on the unsustainable exploitation of water resources. Hence there is

need to manage land and water resources sustainable. Since, paddy is very water intensive

crop and on account of this, the water table has been going down in paddy growing belts of

western region of Uttar Pradesh. Apart from this, the soil structure is also deteriorating very

fast in the paddy growing belts. In order to over come on this prevailing situation, the farmers

should be advised to grow alternative crops to paddy. The extension department of the state

should take necessary action to promote the alternative crops to paddy. The views of

respondents regarding their suggestions to improve extension activities for competing crops

are presented in Table 6.4. Table shows that the majority of sample farmers of different

categories in a view that the training programmes and

information regarding HYVs should be organized and disseminated on large scale

respectively to motivate the farmers to devote more and more area to bajra, maize and urd

crops. Table 6.4 also reveals that more than 49.48% of the sample growers of bajra were in a

view to increase number of training programmes because it was most important extension

activities to attract the farmers to denote the maximum area under bajra crop. Apart from

this, the information regarding HYVs should also be given to the farmers because it is also

most important activity of extension as has been reported by 34.02% of the sample farmers.

The sample of small, medium and large farmers had revealed that the increase in number of

training programme and dissemination, the information regarding HYVs were most

important extension activities to increase the area under bajra.

As far as maize and urd crops are concerned Table 6.4 shows that the majority of sample

growers of both crops had suggested to increase the number of training programmes and

dissemination of information regarding HYVs as they were more important to motivate the

farmers to substitute the area from paddy to maize and urd. A number of sample farmers

were realizing that these are most important extension activities to increase the production of

maize and urd on their farms (Table 6.4)

Table 6.3 (c)

Suggestions to improve marketing of produce for competing crop III (Urd) as revealed by farmers, sample farms,

2012-13





12.50 37.50 50.00 16.67 36.11 47.22 - 66.67 83.35 12.50 41.25 53.75


storage

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Improve the grading

facilities

25.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 50.00 25.00 25.00 16.67 8.33 25.00 45.00 22.50

Effective procurement by

Govt. agencies

62.50 12.50 25.00 38.33 13.89 27.78 75.00 16.66 8.34 62.50 13.75 23.75


storage

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Any other

- - - - - - - - - - - -


Table 6.4

Suggestions to improve extension activities for the competing crops as revealed by farmers, sample farms, 2012-13



1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Competing crop I (Bajra)

Increase the number of

training programmes

55.00 20.00 25.00 44.44 22.22 33.33 50.00 33.33 16.67 49.48 22.68 17.53

Information regarding HYVs 30.00 42.50 27.50 35.56 40.00 24.45 41.67 33.33 25.00 34.02 40.21 25.78

Any other 15.00 37.50 47.50 20.00 37.78 42.22 8.33 33.34 58.33 16.50 37.11 46.39

Competing crop II (Maize) Increase the number of

training programmes

47.06 27.45 25.49 46.67 40.00 13.33 40.00 20.00 40.00 46.51 31.40 22.09


Any other 15.68 29.41 54.90 6.66 26.67 66.67 20.00 40.00 40.00 12.79 29.07 58.14

Competing crop III (Urd)

Increase the number of

training programmes

56.25 31.25 12.50 50.00 25.00 25.00 33.33 41.67 25.00 50.00 30.00 20.00


Any other 12.50 37.50 50.00 13.89 41.67 44.44 16.67 33.33 50.00 13.75 41.25 45.00


CHAPTER-7

Summary, Conclusion, Major Findings and Policy Implications

Major findings and Policy Implications to Promote Various Alternative Crops

With the introduction of Green Revolution in India, the use of HYVS, fertilizers,

pesticides and expansion of irrigation networks have increased in manifold which are

core responsible to boost the productivity of rice and wheat in the country. The area

under rice was 37.68 million hectares in 1969-70 in the country which has increased to

44.01 million hectares in 2011-12, thereby showing 16.80% increase over the period. The

area under wheat was 16.63 million hectares in 1969-70 in the country which has gone

upto 29.86 million hectares, showing 79.55% increase over the period. Against this, the

area under coarse cereals in the country has decreased by 44.07% in 2011-12 from the

area of 47.24% million hectares in 1969-70. The rice and wheat are still dominant crops

across the country. Of the total area under foodgrains being 123.57 million hectares in

1969-70 in the country, the share of rice accounted for 30.49% which has increased to

35.28% in 2011-12. The share of area under wheat to total area under foodgrains was

13.45% and 23.94% in 1969-70 and 2011-12 respectively. Thus, area under rice and

wheat jointly accounted for 59.22% to total area of foodgrains in 2011-12 against 43.94%

in 1969-70. On account of higher production, low risk, high margin of profit, better

marking efficiency etc. the farmers were inclined to shift the cropping pattern in favour

of rice and wheat. The cropping pattern on farms has become unbalanced. The soil

health, soil texture etc. are much degraded because of mono cropping system. The

fertility of land has been degrading because of the neglect of pulses and coarse grain

crops in cropping pattern. The continuation of cultivation of rice-wheat in cropping

system is cause of the stagnancy in wheat rice yield, infestation of weeds, depletion of

water tables, incidence of pests and diseases and deterioration of soil health in original

Green Revolution states of the country. Besides these, the net profit of both crops has

been decreasing or stagnant due to adoption of mono cropping sequence such as rice-

wheat. The yield of both crops is more or less stagnant since last few years. Keeping in

view of the importance of above mentioned problems, the Government of India has

launched a programme for crop Diversification in original Green Revolution states of the

country during 2013-14. The finance Ministry has provided an amount Rs 500 crores for

this programme in 9 major rice growing states of the country. Punjab, Haryana and Uttar

Pradesh have also been covered under this programme during 2013-14. The rice-wheat

rotation is very much prevalent across the states of Uttar Pradesh. The state was main

producer of coarse cereals, pulses and oilseeds prior to introduction of Green Revolution.

There was a drastic change in cropping pattern in favour of rice and wheat during post

Green revolution in the state. More than 60% of GCA during 2009-10 was occupied by

rice and wheat crops.

The area under rice and wheat has been continuously increasing in U.P. from 1970-71 to

2010-11. The increase of area of wheat in U.P. is due to decrease in area of rabi coarse

cereals and pulses while cause of increase in area under rice is due to decrease in millet

crops and pulses. The continuing cultivation of paddy has resulted maximum depletion of

groundwater in western districts of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the diversification of

cropping pattern from paddy to maize, bajra, urd etc. is much needed in the districts of

western region of Uttar Pradesh. This would be fruitful in improving soil fertility check

depletion of ground water and enhancement of farm income in years to come. In wake of

this emerging scenario in the country, the government of India has advised the states to

motivate the farmers to shift some area towards the production of other crops.

Diversification of cropping pattern specially from paddy towards environment friendly

crops with emphasis on quality output and promotion of agro-processing output and

promotion of agro-processing industry is need of hour.

2. Objectives of the Study


1. To examine the production and procurement pattern of paddy in U.P.

2. To workout the relative economics of paddy vis-à-vis competing/alternative

crops.

3. To bring out the constraints in adoption of alternative crops.

4. To suggest policy measure to overcome in adoption of alternative crops to

paddy in Uttar Pradesh.

3. Research Design




share of area under bajra was maximum in Aligarh and Mathura districts in

corresponding year. The share of area of urd was highest in Bareilly and Amroha districts

during the same year. Hence, Buland Shahar and Mainpuri were selected for maize crop.

Aligarh and Mathura were selected for bajra crop. Since share of area under urd was

maximum in Bareilly and Amroha districts, hence these were found appropriate for the

selection of urd crop. These crops were also alternative crops of paddy in Kharif season

in the respective districts of western U.P. From each selected district, one block was

selected randomly. From each block a cluster of 3 to 5 villages were randomly chosen. A

sample of 35 farmers were selected randomly from each selected cluster spreading over

various farm size categories i.e. small (less than two hectares), medium (2-10 hectares)

and large (more than 10 hectares) based on the size of operational holding, making a total

sample of 210 farmers, with minimum 80 for each selected crop. Thus, 108 small, 90

medium and 12 large are the sample farmers of the study.


Table-VII-I

Table-7-1

Selected Units Name of selected

Crops

Name of Selected Districts

% of area under

selected crops to area under

kharif crops

No. of block selected

No. of village selected

No. of samples selected according to size of farmers

Competing crop-wise selected farmers

<2.00 2-10 More

than 10

Hect.


Aligarh 47.09 1 3 16 11 8 35 35 35 16 10 Bajra

Mathura 44.03 1 3 17 18 - 35 35 35 -

B. Shahar 31.00 1 3 18 17 - 35 35 9 35 - Maize

Mainpuri 34.00 1 3 26 9 - 35 35 4 35 -

Bareilly 6.98 1 4 14 17 4 35 35 12 - 35 Urd

Amroha 8.70 1 3 17 18 - 35 35 2 - 35

Total - 6 19 108 90 12 210 210 97 86 80



4. Major Findings

Since this study is based on secondary and primary data, hence, the findings have been

given separately.

4.A Finding based on secondary data

The trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from TE 1970-71 to TE

2012-13 in U.P. and six selected districts of West U.P. have been worked out. The trends

in area, production and yield of paddy and its competing crops during study periods are

given below:

4.A.I The trends in area, production and yield of paddy in U.P. have maintained rising

trends during the study periods. The maximum rate of growth in area and production of

paddy in U.P. was witnessed during TE 2000-01. The pace of growth in production of

paddy was found more than its area and yield during entire periods of study. However,

the area and production of maize in U.P. have maintained decreasing trends during the

corresponding periods. The area under bajra has decreased by 14.74% in TE 2012-13

from the area of 1064.90 thousand hectares in TE 1970-71, while the production and

yield of bajra have maintained rising trends during different study periods.

4.A.II. The area, production and yield of urd in U.P. have also maintained the increasing

trends across the study periods. As far as other important kharif crops in U.P. are

concerned, the area, production and yield have positive growth during the study periods.

Among the major kharif crops in U.P., the maximum down fall in area of maize was

witnessed followed by bajra in U.P. during the study periods.

As far as the trends in area, production and yield of major kharif crops in the selected

districts during mentioned periods are concerned, the following findings have been

observed:-

4.A.III. The area under maize, bajra and oilseeds has maintained decreasing trends

in almost all six selected districts. The area under maize, bajra, pulses and oilseed has

shifted in favour of paddy crop across the selected districts.

4.A.IV. The maximum down fall in area under maize and bajra was witnessed in the

selected districts.

4.A.V. The yield of almost all important kharif crops has maintained rising trends from

period to period.

4.B. Compound annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops in U.P. and six

selected districts has also been estimated at different periods i.e. I (1970-71 to 1984-85),

II (1985-86 to 1999-2000), III (2000-01 to 2012-13) and IV (1970-71-2012-13).

4.B.I. The CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy in U.P. was positive during all

the mentioned periods. Against this, CAGR of area under maize in U.P. was negative

during entire periods of study. The area under bajra in U.P. has been decreasing at the

rate of 0.41% per annum. In contrast of this, the yield of maize and bajra has maintained

rising trends during the mentioned periods.

4.B.II. The CAGR of area, production and yield of urd in U.P. was quite significant

across the different periods of the study. The area, production and yield of urd in U.P.

have maintained rising trends by 3.48%, 5.19% and 1.79% per annum respectively during

the over all period (1970-71 to 2012-13).

4.B.III. The CAGR of area, production and yield of sugarcane has recorded a significant

increase in subsequent period. The area under sugarcane was increasing at the rate of

1.50%, 1.44% and 0.60% per annum during periods -I, II and III respectively.

4.B.IV. The CAGR of area, production and yield of pulses in U.P. was positive during

the entire periods of the study. However, there was a marginal increase in area,

production and yield of foodgrains across the mentioned periods. The area, production

and yield of kharif foodgrains was increasing at the rate of 0.06%, 2.83% and 2.98% per

annum respectively during over all mentioned periods. The position of oilseed in U.P.

was very deplorable during all the periods. The area, production and yield of kharif

oilseeds was decreasing at the rate of 0.35%, 1.98% and 0.98% per annum, during over

all period i.e 1970-71 to 2012-13.

4.C. The selected district-wise compound annual growth rate of area, production and

yield have also been worked out in different periods which are as follows.

4.C.I. The CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy in Aligarh district was found

positive during 4 mentioned periods. However, over all (1970-71 to 2012-13), the annual

growth rate of area under paddy was estimated at 4.11% against 6.60% and 2.40% per

annum growth rate of production and yield respectively. Against this the CAGR of area,

production and yield of bajra (competing crop to paddy) in the district was worked out to

be -1.72%, 0.72% and 2.44% during over all periods i.e. 1970-71 to 2012-13. The growth

rate of area under paddy per annum was much faster than its competing bajra crop in

different periods of the study.

4.C.II. The bajra was also competing crop to paddy in the Mathura district. The growth

rate of area, production and yield of paddy was faster than that of bajra crop during the

study periods. The bajra and maize were not much preferred by farmers of this district

due to lower yield than paddy.

4.C.III. The maize was competing crop to paddy in Bulandshahar and Mainpuri

districts. The area under maize had maintained decreasing trends in four mentioned

periods, while the area under paddy had maintained increasing trends during

corresponding periods. Higher yield, low risk, higher profit etc. of paddy than maize are

being compiled to farmers to devote more area under paddy than maize and other kharif

crops in Buland Shahar and Mainpuri districts.

4.C.IV. The urd was competing crop to paddy in Bareilly and Amroha districts.

The area, production and yield of urd have maintained increasing trends across the

selected periods of the study. However, pace of growth was slow in comparison to paddy

in both districts. The CAGR of area, production and yield of urd was found positive in

different periods. Against this, CAGR of area, production and yield of maize and bajra

was found negative in different study periods in both districts. The increase in area under

paddy in both districts was due to decrease in area of bajra, maize etc. The paddy was

found dominant crop in both districts.

4.C.V. There was no challenge to paddy crop from its competing crops in U.P. as a

whole and six selected districts. However, the pace of growth of area under paddy was

not so fast as it was found in production during different periods of the study.

5. Findings based on Primary Data

As it has already been mentioned that 210 sample households were randomly selected

from six districts of western region of Uttar Pradesh for the study. The following findings

have emerged from the analysis of primary data.

5.I. Out of total 210 sample households, the small households accounted for 51.43%

followed by 42.86% and 5.71% of medium and large households respectively.

5.II. The average size of members on sample household was 9.21 which varied from

8.86 to 13.42 members on small and large sample households respectively. The age of

heads of family members was found maximum above 50 years across the size of

households. The majority of heads of families across the size of sample households were

educated upto metric level. However, 21% of heads of the families of small sample

households were illiterate followed by 11% of medium sample households. The main

occupation of heads of families was agriculture across the size of sample farms.

5.III. The average size of land holding of 210 households was 2.61 hectares which was

fully irrigated. Over all, the average size of operational holdings was worked out to be

3.04 hectares against 13.29 ha., 3.74 ha. and 1.32 ha. on large, medium and small size of

sample households. The operational holdings across the sample farms were fully irrigated

and cultivated.

5.IV. The farm inventory across the size of sample households was sound. Almost all

essential farm assets had been kept by the sample farmers, however large sample farmers

had better farm inventory than medium and small sample farmers. The tractors, trolly,

harrow, electric and diesel engines, spry pumps etc, were adequate in numbers across the

size of farms.

5.V. The cropping intensity was about 200% across the sample size of farms. The

paddy and wheat were dominant crops which accounted for 56.64% and 41.02% to net

cropped area respectively during reference year. The important crops on the sample farms

were bajra, vegetables, mustard, maize, urd, sugarcane across the size of sample farms.

Out of total area under kharif season across the sample farms, bajra, maize and urd

accounted for 17.83%, 10.91% and 14.4% respectively. The diversion of net area towards

bajra, maize and urd was not much popular on small size of sample farms but it was

found more on large size of sample farms.

5.VI. The sample farmers have been giving importance to bajra and maize in the

cropping pattern.

5.VII. The average production of paddy per farm was 56.97 qtls against 17.42 qtls and

10.52 qtls and 4.02 qtls of bajra, maize and urd respectively. Out of total production of

paddy being 56.97 qtls per farm, 91.82% was sold and 8.12% retained. None of sample

farmers had retained paddy for seed purpose during reference year. Out of total per farm

production of bajra, 89.90% was sold and rest 10.10% retained for different purposes.

Against this, 88.21 per farm of total production of maize was sold and rest 11.79%

retained by sample farmers. The bajra and maize were also retained for self consumption,

seed feed etc. Out of total per farm production of urd, 89.30% was sold and 10.70%

retained.

5.VIII. The per qtls price of paddy was Rs 2539 against per qtl price of Rs 1328 of maize

followed by Rs 1104 of bajra. The per qtls price of urd was Rs 3551 in reference year.

5.IX. The paddy, bajra, maize and urd were sold to only local traders by the sample

farmers. None of other marketing functionaries was involved in purchasing of paddy,

bajra, maize in the study areas.

5.X. The input use pattern for paddy was more or less common across the size of farms.

The human labour and machine labour were major components of inputs for paddy crop.

The human labour days were per ha. was 93 in paddy against 42.40 and 33 days per ha. in

maize, bajra and urd respectively. However the machine labour hours was marginally

higher being 12 hrs on paddy against 11.07 hrs, 10.52 hrs, 9.95 hrs in bajra, urd and

maize respectively. The fertilizers pesticides and irrigation were also used by sample

farmers in paddy, bajra, maize and urd. The per ha. expenditure on fertilizer was Rs 4,582

in paddy against Rs 2688, Rs 1,193 and Rs 863 in maize bajra and urd respectively. The

expenditure seed was maximum in maize followed by paddy. The family labour days

were much engaged by small farmers than medium and large farmers in the cultivation of

paddy, bajra, maize and urd while the machine labour days were much used by the large

sample farmers than the medium and small farmers. The per ha. variable cost is worked

out to be Rs 39,372 in the cultivation of paddy against Rs. 21,077, Rs 17,290 and Rs

15,637 in maize, bajra and urd respectively. The per ha. yield of paddy was 45.72 qtls

against 32.89 qtls, 32.44 qtls and Rs. 12.04 qtls in bajra, maize and urd respectively. The

per qtl price of paddy, maize, bajra and urd was Rs 2519, Rs 1345, Rs 1104 and Rs 3551

respectively during the reference year. It shows that per qtls price of paddy was higher by

46.8% and 56.35% over its price of maize and bajra respectively.

5.XI. The per ha. net income of paddy is worked out to be Rs 76,254 against Rs 27,117,

Rs 22,555 and Rs 19,021 in urd, maize and bajra respectively. It reflects that per ha. net

income from paddy is higher by 64.44%, 70.42% and 75.60% from per ha. net income of

urd, maize and bajra respectively. The returns over variable cost was maximum being Rs.

1.94 in paddy followed by Rs 1.73, Rs 1.10 and 1.07 in urd, bajra and maize respectively.

It reflects that paddy is much more remunerative crop across the sample size of farms

than its competing crops during reference years. The higher yield and better market price

of paddy were attributed to higher net income in comparison to its competing crops viz

bajra, maize and urd. Hence, the paddy was dominant crop on the sample farms of

selected districts of western region of U.P.

5.XII. The attractive price in the markets suitable soil, climatic conditions and

government support were most important reasons for attraction for competing crops on

the sample farms.

5.XIII. The marketing of produce of paddy, bajra, maize and urd was most important

problems as had been revealed by sample farmers. The weeds, environment and non

availability of inputs were important problems in the cultivation of competing crops. The

diseases, pests, weeds etc were only slight problem in the cultivation of competing crops

during reference year.

5.XIV. The environmental stress was not sever problems on the sample farms. It was

only moderate problems in the reference year.

5.XV. Non-availability of disease resistant varieties shortage of labour, non-availability

of quality seeds and shortage of land were seven problem during the production of

competing crops.

6. Policy Implications

Since the paddy is a dominant crop in Kharif season in almost all the districts of western

region of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, depletion of ground water, attack of pests and

diseases, infestation of weeds etc. are the common phenomena for this region. The

fertility of land has also been decreasing year by year in rice growing belts of western

U.P. On account of this, the yield of rice has been decreasing or it is more or less stagnant

since last decade. The eco-agro system is also deteriorating due to adoption of mono crop

rotation. The maize, bajra, urd etc are the competing crops to paddy crop of western

region of U.P. In order to popularize the maize, bajra, urd etc in cropping pattern in place

of paddy crop, the following suggestions have been recommended to motivate the

farmers to devote some area to its competing crops, namely maize, bajra, urd etc.

I. There is a need to increase the production and marketing efficiency of maize,

bajra and urd to provide the best scientific techniques to the farmers.

II. The marketing structures of competing crops are not well developed at par with

paddy crop. Therefore, the state government should improve the existing

infrastructure facilities to provide better access to maize, bajra and urd in the

markets.

III. The coarse cereals, pulses and oilseeds can not be grown in low laying areas and

flooded fields. Therefore, drainage net works should be expanded in low laying

and flooded areas to enable the farmers to grow the maize and bajra in place of

paddy during kharif season.

IV. The per hectare average yield of paddy is about 45.72 qtls against the average

yield of 35.44 qtls, 33.18 qtls, 11.78 qtls of maize, bajra and urd. It shows that the

average yield of paddy is much higher than its competing crops. Therefore, the

high yield of seeds of maize, bajra and urd should be available at reasonable

prices and well before sowing times. The Seed Replacing Rates (SRR) of maize,

bajra and urd is much less as compared to SRR of paddy. Therefore, an effort

should made by research scientists to make available certificate seeds of maize,

bajra, urd etc at par with certified seeds of paddy.

V. The extension department of state should organize training programme at village

level to tell farmers about the bad consequence due to repetition of rice and wheat

crop rotation. The farmers should be advised to devote some area to maize, bajra

and urd to maintain dynamic, equilibrium of agro-system.

VI. The demonstration and promotion of improved production techniques of

alternative crops should be organized at grass root level for diversion of paddy

cultivation.

VII. The farmers should be advised to grow leguminous crops to restore the soil

fertility.

VIII. The guidelines for crop diversification in original Green Revolution states issued

by Government of India should be implemented in rice growing belts of the state.

This will motivate the farmers to choose appropriate crop alternatives.

IX. The total assistance of crop Diversification Programme should be available to

farmers to establish agro-based food processing units to generate additional

income and restore soil fertility.

X. There is a need to increase the MSP of bajra, maize and urd to attract the farmers

to devote the maximum area under bajra, maize, urd crops during kharif season.

XI. The researchers should take sincere efforts to evolve short duration drought

tolerant and excess moisture tolerant varieties of bajra, maize and urd at par with

evolved varieties of paddy.

XII. There is a need to improve the efficiency of government procurement agencies to

purchase maximum quantities of produce of bajra, maize and urd at minimum

support price from the farmers.

References

Books

1. Asthana B.N. and Srivastava S.S. – Applied Statistics of India, Chaitana

Publishing House, Allahabad

2. Dhondyal S.P. and Tandon R.K.- Principals and Methodology of Farm

Management Published by Joshi 34/24 Azad Nagar, Kanpur, 1974.

3. Dhondyal S.P. and Will.s J.E - A guide to Research Methodology in Agricultural

Economics and Other Social Sciences Published by Lions Publications Civil

Lines, Kanpur, 1967.

4. Dixit R.S. -Agricultural Marketing in India Published by Shubhi Publication 15

A.K. D Towers Sector-14 Gurgaon. Haryana.

5. Govil R.K. and Tripathi B.K. - Agricultural Economy of India Published by

Kitab Mahal, 22 Sarogani Naidu Marg, Allahabad (2010)

6. Singh H.K. and Singh Meera - Marketing Management Published by A, P.H.

Publishing Corporation, 5, Ansari Road Daryaganj, New Delhi (2005)

Publications and Research Papers

1. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of agriculture and

Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India :–

Agricultural Statistics at a glance 2008







4. Economics and Statistics Department, State Planning Institute:-

Uttar Pradesh, Statistical Diary (2006)





7. U.P. Government, Department of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar

Pradesh:-

Intensive Cultivation of Kharif Crops (2011)

Research Paper

1. Dimension of Food Security in a Selected State- Uttar Pradesh by Rukhsana

2. Growth and Inequality in Agriculture (August 1984) by Govil R.K., Department

of Economics, University of Allahabad (Research Study Project ICSSR) Printed

at Seshsewa Press 10 Sammelan Marg, Allahabad.

Journals

1. Agricultural Situation in India Nov. 2007, Directorate of Economics and

Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,

Govt. of India.

2. Agricultural Situation in India, December 2007, Directorate of Economics and


Govt. of India.

3. Agricultural Situation in India, November, 2012, Directorate of Economics and


Govt. of India.

4. Agricultural Out Look and Situation, Analysis Reports June 2014 (Third Semi-

annual) Medium-Term, Agricultural Outlook Report Prepared by National –

Council of Applied Economic Research.

5. Crop Diversification Programme in Haryana, Punjab and Western Uttar Pradesh,

Sustainable Agriculture with increased productivity and profitability 2013-14.

Govt. of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Crops Division, Krishi

Bhawan, New Delhi 110011.

6. Rural 21, The International Journal for Rural Development No4/2013, Volume

47, ISSN 1866-8011, D205066 F Agricultural Policies- Finding the Right

Approach.

Appendix-1

Comments on the report “Possibilities and Constraints in Adoption of Alternative

Crops to Paddy in Green Revolution belt of North India (Western U.P.)” submitted

by AERC, Allahabad

1. Title of the Draft report examined:

Possibilities and Constraints in Adoption of Alternative Crops to Paddy in Green

Revolution belt of North India (Western U.P.)

2. Date of receipt of the Draft report: March 2, 2015

3. Date of dispatch of the report: March 16, 2015

4. Comments on the Objectives of the study:

The study addresses all the four objectives set forth for the study.

5. Comments on the methodology

The study has adopted a common methodology proposed for all the coordinating centres.

The details of statistical analysis carried out in the report is missing which can be

incorporated.

6. Comments on analysis, organization, presentation etc.

Report is analytically good and presents the results in a lucid manner. For

compilation/consolidation of the report, I request you to address to the following gaps

and inadequacies, so that uniformity may be maintained which will immensely help in

compilation/ consolidation of the report by our centre.

I. In Table 3.5.1 (a to c) and 4.2 (a to c) the percentage to total may be

incorporated to draw meaningful information.

II. In Tables related to CAGR, the level of significance may be incorporated to

facilitate uniformity in consolidated of the report.

III. The prices provided in table 3.5.2 (a), seems to be mixed for paddy and

basmati-paddy, which need to be separated out for indepth analysis as for

other competing crops viz. maize, bajra and cotton. This basmati paddy crops

may be treated as one of the alternative crop to paddy to explore the

possibilities of further acreage expansion under the crop.

IV. Table 2.2 seems to be related to paddy crop, whereas shows kharif crops.

V. In Table 3.3 the total present value may also be incorporated to draw

meaningful conclusion.

VI. In Table 3.5,2 the quantity may be provided on Q/Farm basis to facilitate

uniformity in consolidation of the report.

VII. The regression analysis studying the factors affecting crop productivities

needs to be revisited and modify Table 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 accordingly. For your

reference/assistance the analysis done by AERC, Ludhiana is being sent to

you for doing the needful.

Appendix-2

Action Taken

Title of the Study “Possibilities and Constraints in Adoption of Alternative Crops to

Paddy in Green Revolution belt of North India (Western U.P.)”

Date of Comments: 23.03.2015

Date of dispatch of Final report: 01.05.2015

The report has been revised in the light of comments received from AER Centre,

Department of Economics and Sociology PAU, Ludhiyana. Point-wise suggestions

incorporated in the text.

Comments Action taken with regard to comments of the study

I. Percentages to total in the stated tables have been calculated.

II. Almost all the five selected districts have been divided during the study

periods. The hill region of U.P. has also been separated during the period.

Hence, the level of significance of CACR could not be estimated.

III. The all sample farms had grown only basmati rice on their farms during

reference year. Therefore, the price of basmati rice only has been

mentioned in the tables.

IV. The heading of the table has been corrected.

V. Total value of assets has been presented in Table -3.3 (a).

VI The per farm quantity of selected crops have been estimated in Table-3.5.2

(a) to Table -3.5.2 (d).

VII The Production Function Analysis has been worked out as per previous

requirement.

Study No. 142 Publication No. 190

Executive Summary

Possibilities and Constraints in Adoption of Alternative

Crops to Paddy in Green Revolution belt of North India

(Western U.P.)

Prof. Ramendu Roy

2014

AgroAgroAgroAgro----Economic Research CentreEconomic Research CentreEconomic Research CentreEconomic Research Centre

University of AllahabadUniversity of AllahabadUniversity of AllahabadUniversity of Allahabad AllahabadAllahabadAllahabadAllahabad----211002 211002 211002 211002

Executive Summary

Summary, Conclusion, Major Findings and Policy Implications

Major findings and Policy Implications to Promote Various Alternative Crops

With the introduction of Green Revolution in India, the use of HYVS, fertilizers,

pesticides and expansion of irrigation networks have increased in manifold which are

core responsible to boost the productivity of rice and wheat in the country. The area

under rice was 37.68 million hectares in 1969-70 in the country which has increased to

44.01 million hectares in 2011-12, thereby showing 16.80% increase over the period. The

area under wheat was 16.63 million hectares in 1969-70 in the country which has gone

upto 29.86 million hectares, showing 79.55% increase over the period. Against this, the

area under coarse cereals in the country has decreased by 44.07% in 2011-12 from the

area of 47.24% million hectares in 1969-70. The rice and wheat are still dominant crops

across the country. Of the total area under foodgrains being 123.57 million hectares in

1969-70 in the country, the share of rice accounted for 30.49% which has increased to

35.28% in 2011-12. The share of area under wheat to total area under foodgrains was

13.45% and 23.94% in 1969-70 and 2011-12 respectively. Thus, area under rice and

wheat jointly accounted for 59.22% to total area of foodgrains in 2011-12 against 43.94%

in 1969-70. On account of higher production, low risk, high margin of profit, better

marking efficiency etc. the farmers were inclined to shift the cropping pattern in favour

of rice and wheat. The cropping pattern on farms has become unbalanced. The soil

health, soil texture etc. are much degraded because of mono cropping system. The

fertility of land has been degrading because of the neglect of pulses and coarse grain

crops in cropping pattern. The continuation of cultivation of rice-wheat in cropping

system is cause of the stagnancy in wheat rice yield, infestation of weeds, depletion of

water tables, incidence of pests and diseases and deterioration of soil health in original

Green Revolution states of the country. Besides these, the net profit of both crops has

been decreasing or stagnant due to adoption of mono cropping sequence such as rice-

wheat. The yield of both crops is more or less stagnant since last few years. Keeping in

view of the importance of above mentioned problems, the Government of India has

launched a programme for crop Diversification in original Green Revolution states of the

country during 2013-14. The finance Ministry has provided an amount Rs 500 crores for

this programme in 9 major rice growing states of the country. Punjab, Haryana and Uttar

Pradesh have also been covered under this programme during 2013-14. The rice-wheat

rotation is very much prevalent across the states of Uttar Pradesh. The state was main

producer of coarse cereals, pulses and oilseeds prior to introduction of Green Revolution.

There was a drastic change in cropping pattern in favour of rice and wheat during post

Green revolution in the state. More than 60% of GCA during 2009-10 was occupied by

rice and wheat crops.

The area under rice and wheat has been continuously increasing in U.P. from 1970-71 to

2010-11. The increase of area of wheat in U.P. is due to decrease in area of rabi coarse

cereals and pulses while cause of increase in area under rice is due to decrease in millet

crops and pulses. The continuing cultivation of paddy has resulted maximum depletion of

groundwater in western districts of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, the diversification of

cropping pattern from paddy to maize, bajra, urd etc. is much needed in the districts of

western region of Uttar Pradesh. This would be fruitful in improving soil fertility check

depletion of ground water and enhancement of farm income in years to come. In wake of

this emerging scenario in the country, the government of India has advised the states to

motivate the farmers to shift some area towards the production of other crops.

Diversification of cropping pattern specially from paddy towards environment friendly

crops with emphasis on quality output and promotion of agro-processing output and

promotion of agro-processing industry is need of hour.

2. Objectives of the Study


1. To examine the production and procurement pattern of paddy in U.P.

2. To workout the relative economics of paddy vis-à-vis competing/alternative

crops.

3. To bring out the constraints in adoption of alternative crops.

4. To suggest policy measure to overcome in adoption of alternative crops to

paddy in Uttar Pradesh.

3. Research Design




share of area under bajra was maximum in Aligarh and Mathura districts in

corresponding year. The share of area of urd was highest in Bareilly and Amroha districts

during the same year. Hence, Buland Shahar and Mainpuri were selected for maize crop.

Aligarh and Mathura were selected for bajra crop. Since share of area under urd was

maximum in Bareilly and Amroha districts, hence these were found appropriate for the

selection of urd crop. These crops were also alternative crops of paddy in Kharif season

in the respective districts of western U.P. From each selected district, one block was

selected randomly. From each block a cluster of 3 to 5 villages were randomly chosen. A

sample of 35 farmers were selected randomly from each selected cluster spreading over

various farm size categories i.e. small (less than two hectares), medium (2-10 hectares)

and large (more than 10 hectares) based on the size of operational holding, making a total

sample of 210 farmers, with minimum 80 for each selected crop. Thus, 108 small, 90

medium and 12 large are the sample farmers of the study.


Table-I

Table-1

Selected Units Name of selected

Crops

Name of Selected Districts

% of area under

selected crops to area under

kharif crops

No. of block selected

No. of village selected

No. of samples selected according to size of farmers

Competing crop-wise selected farmers

<2.00 2-10 More

than 10

Hect.


Aligarh 47.09 1 3 16 11 8 35 35 35 16 10 Bajra

Mathura 44.03 1 3 17 18 - 35 35 35 -

B. Shahar 31.00 1 3 18 17 - 35 35 9 35 - Maize

Mainpuri 34.00 1 3 26 9 - 35 35 4 35 -

Bareilly 6.98 1 4 14 17 4 35 35 12 - 35 Urd

Amroha 8.70 1 3 17 18 - 35 35 2 - 35

Total - 6 19 108 90 12 210 210 97 86 80



4. Major Findings

Since this study is based on secondary and primary data, hence, the findings have been

given separately.

4.A Finding based on secondary data

The trends in area, production and yield for major kharif crops from TE 1970-71 to TE

2012-13 in U.P. and six selected districts of West U.P. have been worked out. The trends

in area, production and yield of paddy and its competing crops during study periods are

given below:

4.A.I The trends in area, production and yield of paddy in U.P. have maintained rising

trends during the study periods. The maximum rate of growth in area and production of

paddy in U.P. was witnessed during TE 2000-01. The pace of growth in production of

paddy was found more than its area and yield during entire periods of study. However,

the area and production of maize in U.P. have maintained decreasing trends during the

corresponding periods. The area under bajra has decreased by 14.74% in TE 2012-13

from the area of 1064.90 thousand hectares in TE 1970-71, while the production and

yield of bajra have maintained rising trends during different study periods.

4.A.II. The area, production and yield of urd in U.P. have also maintained the increasing

trends across the study periods. As far as other important kharif crops in U.P. are

concerned, the area, production and yield have positive growth during the study periods.

Among the major kharif crops in U.P., the maximum down fall in area of maize was

witnessed followed by bajra in U.P. during the study periods.

As far as the trends in area, production and yield of major kharif crops in the selected

districts during mentioned periods are concerned, the following findings have been

observed:-

4.A.III. The area under maize, bajra and oilseeds has maintained decreasing trends

in almost all six selected districts. The area under maize, bajra, pulses and oilseed has

shifted in favour of paddy crop across the selected districts.

4.A.IV. The maximum down fall in area under maize and bajra was witnessed in the

selected districts.

4.A.V. The yield of almost all important kharif crops has maintained rising trends from

period to period.

4.B. Compound annual Growth Rates (CAGR) for major kharif crops in U.P. and six

selected districts has also been estimated at different periods i.e. I (1970-71 to 1984-85),

II (1985-86 to 1999-2000), III (2000-01 to 2012-13) and IV (1970-71-2012-13).

4.B.I. The CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy in U.P. was positive during all

the mentioned periods. Against this, CAGR of area under maize in U.P. was negative

during entire periods of study. The area under bajra in U.P. has been decreasing at the

rate of 0.41% per annum. In contrast of this, the yield of maize and bajra has maintained

rising trends during the mentioned periods.

4.B.II. The CAGR of area, production and yield of urd in U.P. was quite significant

across the different periods of the study. The area, production and yield of urd in U.P.

have maintained rising trends by 3.48%, 5.19% and 1.79% per annum respectively during

the over all period (1970-71 to 2012-13).

4.B.III. The CAGR of area, production and yield of sugarcane has recorded a significant

increase in subsequent period. The area under sugarcane was increasing at the rate of

1.50%, 1.44% and 0.60% per annum during periods -I, II and III respectively.

4.B.IV. The CAGR of area, production and yield of pulses in U.P. was positive during

the entire periods of the study. However, there was a marginal increase in area,

production and yield of foodgrains across the mentioned periods. The area, production

and yield of kharif foodgrains was increasing at the rate of 0.06%, 2.83% and 2.98% per

annum respectively during over all mentioned periods. The position of oilseed in U.P.

was very deplorable during all the periods. The area, production and yield of kharif

oilseeds was decreasing at the rate of 0.35%, 1.98% and 0.98% per annum, during over

all period i.e 1970-71 to 2012-13.

4.C. The selected district-wise compound annual growth rate of area, production and

yield have also been worked out in different periods which are as follows.

4.C.I. The CAGR of area, production and yield of paddy in Aligarh district was found

positive during 4 mentioned periods. However, over all (1970-71 to 2012-13), the annual

growth rate of area under paddy was estimated at 4.11% against 6.60% and 2.40% per

annum growth rate of production and yield respectively. Against this the CAGR of area,

production and yield of bajra (competing crop to paddy) in the district was worked out to

be -1.72%, 0.72% and 2.44% during over all periods i.e. 1970-71 to 2012-13. The growth

rate of area under paddy per annum was much faster than its competing bajra crop in

different periods of the study.

4.C.II. The bajra was also competing crop to paddy in the Mathura district. The growth

rate of area, production and yield of paddy was faster than that of bajra crop during the

study periods. The bajra and maize were not much preferred by farmers of this district

due to lower yield than paddy.

4.C.III. The maize was competing crop to paddy in Bulandshahar and Mainpuri

districts. The area under maize had maintained decreasing trends in four mentioned

periods, while the area under paddy had maintained increasing trends during

corresponding periods. Higher yield, low risk, higher profit etc. of paddy than maize are

being compiled to farmers to devote more area under paddy than maize and other kharif

crops in Buland Shahar and Mainpuri districts.

4.C.IV. The urd was competing crop to paddy in Bareilly and Amroha districts.

The area, production and yield of urd have maintained increasing trends across the

selected periods of the study. However, pace of growth was slow in comparison to paddy

in both districts. The CAGR of area, production and yield of urd was found positive in

different periods. Against this, CAGR of area, production and yield of maize and bajra

was found negative in different study periods in both districts. The increase in area under

paddy in both districts was due to decrease in area of bajra, maize etc. The paddy was

found dominant crop in both districts.

4.C.V. There was no challenge to paddy crop from its competing crops in U.P. as a

whole and six selected districts. However, the pace of growth of area under paddy was

not so fast as it was found in production during different periods of the study.

5. Findings based on Primary Data

As it has already been mentioned that 210 sample households were randomly selected

from six districts of western region of Uttar Pradesh for the study. The following findings

have emerged from the analysis of primary data.

5.I. Out of total 210 sample households, the small households accounted for 51.43%

followed by 42.86% and 5.71% of medium and large households respectively.

5.II. The average size of members on sample household was 9.21 which varied from

8.86 to 13.42 members on small and large sample households respectively. The age of

heads of family members was found maximum above 50 years across the size of

households. The majority of heads of families across the size of sample households were

educated upto metric level. However, 21% of heads of the families of small sample

households were illiterate followed by 11% of medium sample households. The main

occupation of heads of families was agriculture across the size of sample farms.

5.III. The average size of land holding of 210 households was 2.61 hectares which was

fully irrigated. Over all, the average size of operational holdings was worked out to be

3.04 hectares against 13.29 ha., 3.74 ha. and 1.32 ha. on large, medium and small size of

sample households. The operational holdings across the sample farms were fully irrigated

and cultivated.

5.IV. The farm inventory across the size of sample households was sound. Almost all

essential farm assets had been kept by the sample farmers, however large sample farmers

had better farm inventory than medium and small sample farmers. The tractors, trolly,

harrow, electric and diesel engines, spry pumps etc, were adequate in numbers across the

size of farms.

5.V. The cropping intensity was about 200% across the sample size of farms. The

paddy and wheat were dominant crops which accounted for 56.64% and 41.02% to net

cropped area respectively during reference year. The important crops on the sample farms

were bajra, vegetables, mustard, maize, urd, sugarcane across the size of sample farms.

Out of total area under kharif season across the sample farms, bajra, maize and urd

accounted for 17.83%, 10.91% and 14.4% respectively. The diversion of net area towards

bajra, maize and urd was not much popular on small size of sample farms but it was

found more on large size of sample farms.

5.VI. The sample farmers have been giving importance to bajra and maize in the

cropping pattern.

5.VII. The average production of paddy per farm was 56.97 qtls against 17.42 qtls and

10.52 qtls and 4.02 qtls of bajra, maize and urd respectively. Out of total production of

paddy being 56.97 qtls per farm, 91.82% was sold and 8.12% retained. None of sample

farmers had retained paddy for seed purpose during reference year. Out of total per farm

production of bajra, 89.90% was sold and rest 10.10% retained for different purposes.

Against this, 88.21 per farm of total production of maize was sold and rest 11.79%

retained by sample farmers. The bajra and maize were also retained for self consumption,

seed feed etc. Out of total per farm production of urd, 89.30% was sold and 10.70%

retained.

5.VIII. The per qtls price of paddy was Rs 2539 against per qtl price of Rs 1328 of maize

followed by Rs 1104 of bajra. The per qtls price of urd was Rs 3551 in reference year.

5.IX. The paddy, bajra, maize and urd were sold to only local traders by the sample

farmers. None of other marketing functionaries was involved in purchasing of paddy,

bajra, maize in the study areas.

5.X. The input use pattern for paddy was more or less common across the size of farms.

The human labour and machine labour were major components of inputs for paddy crop.

The human labour days were per ha. was 93 in paddy against 42.40 and 33 days per ha. in

maize, bajra and urd respectively. However the machine labour hours was marginally

higher being 12 hrs on paddy against 11.07 hrs, 10.52 hrs, 9.95 hrs in bajra, urd and

maize respectively. The fertilizers pesticides and irrigation were also used by sample

farmers in paddy, bajra, maize and urd. The per ha. expenditure on fertilizer was Rs 4,582

in paddy against Rs 2688, Rs 1,193 and Rs 863 in maize bajra and urd respectively. The

expenditure seed was maximum in maize followed by paddy. The family labour days

were much engaged by small farmers than medium and large farmers in the cultivation of

paddy, bajra, maize and urd while the machine labour days were much used by the large

sample farmers than the medium and small farmers. The per ha. variable cost is worked

out to be Rs 39,372 in the cultivation of paddy against Rs. 21,077, Rs 17,290 and Rs

15,637 in maize, bajra and urd respectively. The per ha. yield of paddy was 45.72 qtls

against 32.89 qtls, 32.44 qtls and Rs. 12.04 qtls in bajra, maize and urd respectively. The

per qtl price of paddy, maize, bajra and urd was Rs 2519, Rs 1345, Rs 1104 and Rs 3551

respectively during the reference year. It shows that per qtls price of paddy was higher by

46.8% and 56.35% over its price of maize and bajra respectively.

5.XI. The per ha. net income of paddy is worked out to be Rs 76,254 against Rs 27,117,

Rs 22,555 and Rs 19,021 in urd, maize and bajra respectively. It reflects that per ha. net

income from paddy is higher by 64.44%, 70.42% and 75.60% from per ha. net income of

urd, maize and bajra respectively. The returns over variable cost was maximum being Rs.

1.94 in paddy followed by Rs 1.73, Rs 1.10 and 1.07 in urd, bajra and maize respectively.

It reflects that paddy is much more remunerative crop across the sample size of farms

than its competing crops during reference years. The higher yield and better market price

of paddy were attributed to higher net income in comparison to its competing crops viz

bajra, maize and urd. Hence, the paddy was dominant crop on the sample farms of

selected districts of western region of U.P.

5.XII. The statistical estimates relate to economic efficiency of resource use in farming

sector across three groups of farmers (small, medium and large) and across four crops

(paddy, Bajra, Maize and Urd).

Paddy: On the basis of t-statistics of coefficients, the major contributors to revenue

(MVP) for paddy are Human Labour, Machine Labour and Fertilizers. For Cost, (MFC),

the significant inputs are Human Labour, Seed and Fertilizers. The overall results for this

estimation indicate existence of productive efficiency in paddy.

Bajra: For bajra MVP, significant input is only Machine Labour and for MFC, Human

Labour, Machine Labour and Seeds are significant. This may be indicating that

mechanization may be at the cost of human labour. In other words, the terms of trade for

human labour do not seem good in the case of bajra. The ratio (MVP/MFC), however still

indicates productive efficiency. The R2 in case of bajra MVP is also very poor, indicating

that the market terms of trade are good for the farmers but not for human labour which is

insignificant in the MVP equation but not in the MFC equation.

Maize: For the crop of maize, only plant protection and machine labour seem to be

significant contributors to revenue (MVP) while fertilizer shows a negative relationship.

For MFC, the major components of cost are being formed by seed and fertilizers only.

The ratio MVP/MFC is also not significant indicating inefficient use of resources in

maize.

Urd: For Urd, significant contributers are the inputs Machine Labour and Seed while

major contributors to cost are again Machine Labour and Seed. The ratio indicates,

however that the resources combinations do maintain productive efficiency.

Table-2

Coefficient Standard Error and T. State of MVP (Overall Inputs)

Paddy Bajra Maize Urd Name of

Inputs Coefficient Standard

Error

T.Stat. Coefficient Standard

Error

T. Stat. Coefficient Standard

Error


Error

T. Stat.

1. Intercept 0.417 0.573 0.728 3.701 3.894 0.951 9.051 4.181 2.165 2.907 0.925 3.141

2. Human

Labour

0.563 0.145 3.880 -0.572 0.816 -0.700 1.097 1.171 0.937 0.133 0.202 0.659

3. Machine

Labour

0.411 0.106 3.878 1.232 0.602 2.045 1.112 0.711 1.564 0.277 0.093 2.967

4. Seed 0.302 0.073 0.416 0.532 0.557 0.955 0.140 0.674 0.208 0.538 0.123 4.374

5.Fertilizer 0.235 0.1056 2.23 0.056 0.347 0.160 -3.322 0.689 -4.819 0.036 0.138 0.263

6. Plant

Protection

-0.096 0.053 -1.805 0 0 0 0.918 0.309 2.976 0 0 0

All 1.144 0 0 1.248 0 0 -0.054 0 0 0 0 0

Table-3

Coefficient Standard Error and T. State of MFC (Overall Inputs)

Paddy Bajra Maize Urd Name of

Inputs Coefficient Standard

Error


Error

T. Stat. Coefficient Standard

Error


Error

T. Stat.

1. Intercept -1.169 0.377 -3.098 -0.478 0.478 -0.999 -0.664 1.471 0.451 -0.554 0.809 -0.686

2. Human

Labour

0.586 0.096 6.131 0.455 0.100 4.541 0.209 0.412 0.507 0.120 0.177 0.678

3. Machine

Labour

0.069 0.069 0.998 0.255 0.074 3.448 0.031 0.250 0.125 0.280 0.082 3.432

4. Seed 0.134 0.048 2.801 0.411 0.068 6.007 0.424 0.237 1.787 0.578 0.108 5.376

5.Fertilizer 0.290 0.069 4.174 -0.06 0.0425 1.475 0.367 0.243 1.514 0.001 0.121 0.011

6. Plant

Protection

-0.062 0.035 -1.774 0 0 0 0.029 0.108 0.267 0 0 0

All 1.018 0 0 1.180 0 0 1.060 0 0 0.980 0 0

Ratio

(MVP/MFC)

-1.124 0 0 1.057 0 0 0.57 0 0 1.005 0 0

5.XIII. The attractive price in the markets suitable soil, climatic conditions and government

support were most important reasons for attraction for competing crops on the sample farms.

5.XIV. The marketing of produce of paddy, bajra, maize and urd was most important

problems as had been revealed by sample farmers. The weeds, environment and non

availability of inputs were important problems in the cultivation of competing crops. The

diseases, pests, weeds etc were only slight problem in the cultivation of competing crops

during reference year.

5.XV. The environmental stress was not sever problems on the sample farms. It was only

moderate problems in the reference year.

5.XVI. Non-availability of disease resistant varieties shortage of labour, non-availability of

quality seeds and shortage of land were seven problem during the production of competing

crops.

6. Policy Implications

Since the paddy is a dominant crop in Kharif season in almost all the districts of western

region of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, depletion of ground water, attack of pests and diseases,

infestation of weeds etc. are the common phenomena for this region. The fertility of land has

also been decreasing year by year in rice growing belts of western U.P. On account of this,

the yield of rice has been decreasing or it is more or less stagnant since last decade. The eco-

agro system is also deteriorating due to adoption of mono crop rotation. The maize, bajra, urd

etc are the competing crops to paddy crop of western region of U.P. In order to popularize

the maize, bajra, urd etc in cropping pattern in place of paddy crop, the following suggestions

have been recommended to motivate the farmers to devote some area to its competing crops,

namely maize, bajra, urd etc.

I. There is a need to increase the production and marketing efficiency of maize, bajra

and urd to provide the best scientific techniques to the farmers.

II. The marketing structures of competing crops are not well developed at par with

paddy crop. Therefore, the state government should improve the existing

infrastructure facilities to provide better access to maize, bajra and urd in the markets.

III. The coarse cereals, pulses and oilseeds can not be grown in low laying areas and

flooded fields. Therefore, drainage net works should be expanded in low laying and

flooded areas to enable the farmers to grow the maize and bajra in place of paddy

during kharif season.

IV. The per hectare average yield of paddy is about 45.72 qtls against the average yield of

35.44 qtls, 33.18 qtls, 11.78 qtls of maize, bajra and urd. It shows that the average

yield of paddy is much higher than its competing crops. Therefore, the high yield of

seeds of maize, bajra and urd should be available at reasonable prices and well before

sowing times. The Seed Replacing Rates (SRR) of maize, bajra and urd is much less

as compared to SRR of paddy. Therefore, an effort should made by research scientists

to make available certificate seeds of maize, bajra, urd etc at par with certified seeds

of paddy.

V. The extension department of state should organize training programme at village

level to tell farmers about the bad consequence due to repetition of rice and wheat

crop rotation. The farmers should be advised to devote some area to maize, bajra and

urd to maintain dynamic, equilibrium of agro-system.

VI. The demonstration and promotion of improved production techniques of

alternative crops should be organized at grass root level for diversion of paddy

cultivation.

VII. The farmers should be advised to grow leguminous crops to restore the soil fertility.

VIII. The guidelines for crop diversification in original Green Revolution states issued by

Government of India should be implemented in rice growing belts of the state. This

will motivate the farmers to choose appropriate crop alternatives.

IX. The total assistance of crop Diversification Programme should be available to farmers

to establish agro-based food processing units to generate additional income and

restore soil fertility.

X. There is a need to increase the MSP of bajra, maize and urd to attract the farmers to

devote the maximum area under bajra, maize, urd crops during kharif season.

XI. The researchers should take sincere efforts to evolve short duration drought tolerant

and excess moisture tolerant varieties of bajra, maize and urd at par with evolved

varieties of paddy.

XII. There is a need to improve the efficiency of government procurement agencies to

purchase maximum quantities of produce of bajra, maize and urd at minimum support

price from the farmers.

Possibilities and Constraints in Adoption of Alternative...

Documents

Transcript of Possibilities and Constraints in Adoption of Alternative...