India's Pu·lse Production Stagnation and Redressal
INDIA'S PULSE PRODUCTION STAGNATION AND REDRESSAL
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
INDIA'S PULSE PRODUCTION STAGNATION AND REDRESSAL
Usha Tuteja Foreword by
Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat Chairman,University Grants Commision
PRAGUNPUBLICATION New Delhi
© Author 2008
Published by Pragun Publication (A O.K. Publishers Distributors Enterprise)
4224/1, Ansari Road, Daryaganj , New Delhi-II 0002 Tel. : +91-11-41562573-77, Fax:+91-11-41562578 E-mail:
[email protected], uri: www.dkpd.com
Pragun Publication is an enterprise of D.K.Publishers Distributors, engaged in distribution and publishing for more than three decades. Its mission and objective is to make Indian publications widely available amongst the consumers both in India and abroad through its countrywide distribution network.
ISBN 978-81-89920-83-8
All rights reserved. This book is sold to the condition that no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission from the publisher.
Printed at SALASAR IMAGING SYSTEMS C-7, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi-II 0035 Tel.: 011-27185653,9810064311
Dedicated to The Memory of My Parents
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
Foreword
Pulses, the major protein component in the Indian diet, have been one of the lagging sectors in the crop economy of India. The need to rectify this position has become acute in recent years due to stagnant production and a declining per capita availability despite huge imports. The continuously rising prices of pulses are also a serious concern in view of nutritional security of the burgeoning population of the country. This scenario has necessitated an indepth study of pulse production and its redressal in India. In the context of the ongoing food commodity inflation and continuing crisis in the supply of pulses, the publication of this book is timely and extremely useful. Dr. Usha Tuteja's study presents an integrated view of pulse production in India. The analysis has been carried out at the macro level covering a period of two decades. The book examines important indicators of pulse production in detail and traces the causes for the stagnant production of pulses in the country. She argues that since the possibility of area expansion is limited, therefore, special attention needs to be given to yield which is relatively low in comparison to other pulse producing countries. This is possible with the introduction of area specific improved varieties of seeds, application of fertilizers, use of irrigation and adoption of short durationpulse crops. All this will require intensive technical research; appropriate extension programmes and adequate investment accompanied by a well thought out pnce support and procurement policy that will give needed incentive to the farmers. Thus, the book provides a comprehensive view of past strategy and future efforts required to increase pulse production in India. Dr. Tuteja 's painstaking study on pulse production and various issues involved in improving the scenario is an excellent research
viii
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
study. The book will be useful to students and researchers in the field of agricultural economics. Policy makers and development economists will also find it enlightening.
New Delhi May, 2008
Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat, Chairman University Grants Commission
Preface The importance of pulses for human and animal nutrition in India has been well recognized. However, its per capita availability has been declining continuously due to increase in population and stagnation in production. The demand and supply imbalance has resulted in regular and consistently high imports of pulses. The government policy of Minimum Support Prices (MSP) as a safety net, inclusion of pulses in the Technology Mission and the extraordinary spike in prices of pulses has been ineffective in achieving a breakthrough in pulse production. This troublesome scenario encouraged an in-depth study on pulse production at the national, state, district and farm levels, the causes of stagnation in production and future policy to increase pulse production. This study is based on my doctoral dissertation and presents a broad perspective on the subject of pulse production. The major emerging issues concerning pulse production relate to sluggishness in the growth of area and yield of various pulse crops grown in India. In particular, inter regional variations in technology and yield were issues of great concern. The present book on pulse production in India is a departure from existing literature. It has parameterized price and non-price determinants of pulse production. The present study has taken an integrated approach by combining domestic and international concerns. It has also captured issues related to less important pulse crops like moong, urad and massar. It also includes current features of international trade in pulses. An added weightage has been given to the status of technological change among the non-price determinants of pulse production. During the course of this study, I have been benefited by a number of people. I am greatly indebted to Prof. Sukhadeo Thorat
x
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
for providing guidance, cooperation, encouragement and warm affection during the course of the study. At the initial stage of my work, I was benefited by the comments and suggestions of Prof. Kusum Chopra, I express my heartiest gratitude to her. I express deep sense of gratitude to my teachers Prof. G.S. Bhalla, Prof. G.K. Chadha and Prof. Amitabh Kundu for constant encouragement and support. I am indebted to Prof. Sheila Bhalla, Prof. Ramesh Chand, Prof. P.K. Joshi, Dr. Prem S. Vashishtha, Prof. T. Haque and Prof. R.S. Deshpande for their encouragement in completing this work. Special thanks are due to my colleague Mr. Narinder Singh for helping me in computation work. I received immense help and cooperation from my friends Prof. Madhu Bhalla and Mrs. Aradhya Bhardwaj, Dr. Seema Bathla, Dr. Sushila Kaul and Dr. Nisha Mathew Philip during the course of this study. I am thankful to library staff of AERC, IEG and RTL for their enthusiastic help in documentation work. I wish to express my gratitude to my publisher Mr. Parmil Mittal and his associates Mr. Subrata Bhattacharya and Mr. Ishwar Singh for facilitating the publication ofthis work. A special thanks and acknowledgement is due to my family for the support and encouragement they have provided. My husband Dr. S.K. Tutej a has provided me inspiration, moral support and professional help in carrying out this study. I cannot forget the contribution of my children, Divya and Anshumaan who never complained of my absence in the evenings. Finally, I am thankful to all those who contributed towards the completion of this study.
Usha Tuteja
Contents
Foreword Preface List of Tables List of Figures Abbreviations
1. Introduction Problems of Pulse Production Review of Existing Literature Significance of Study Objectives of Study Hypotheses Research Methodology Plan of Study
Vll
IX
xv XXVll
XXIX
1 1 6
17 18 19
20 25
2. Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View Section - 1
27
Importance and Availability of Pulses
28
Section - 2 Pulse Production Scenario in India
36
Section - 3 Sw~s of India in World Pulse Production and Trade
45
Section - 4 Pulses Developmental Strategies during Plans
48
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
XlI
3. Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage and Yield Response of Pulse Crops Section -1 Growth Performance Section - 2 Instability in Production Section - 3 Determinants of Acreage and Yield Rates
4. Status of Pulse Production A District Level Analysis
57 58
93
109
121
5. Effects of Price Movement on Production of Pulses Section - 1
183
Behaviour of Pulse Prices
184
Section - 2 Output Response of Prices of Pulses
6. Technology in Pulse Production Section - 1 Policy Initiatives for Promotion and Transfer of Technology Section - 2 Use of Technology Promoting Inputs by Pulse Growers
213 221
223
242
Section - 3 Benefits of Improved Technology
7. Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops: A Regional Dimension Gram ArIlar Moong
269
273 275 294 305
List of Tables
Xlll
Urad Massar
315 323
8. International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses Section - 1 Status of India in World Pulse Production and Trade Section - 2 International Competitiveness of Indian Pulses
9. Summary and Conclusions Objectives Research Methodology Main Findings Policy Implications
333 335 350 363 363
364 366
382
Bibliography
387
Index
399
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
List of Tables 2.1
Chemical Composition of Pulses, Major Food grains & Oil seeds in India
29
2.2
Net Availability of Pulses in India (1951-2005)
31
2.3
Share of Food Expenditure on Pulses and Substitute Items in India (1972-73 to 1999-2000)
31
2.4
Demand and Supply Gap of Pulses in India
35
2.5
State-wise Percentage of GCA and Area Irrigated under Pulses
37
2.6
Compound Growth Rates of Area, Production, Yield of Rice, Wheat, Cereals, Pulses and Food grains in India (1949-50 to 2006-07)
39
2.7
Relative Performance of Pulses in India (1950-51 to 2005-06)
39
2.8
Important Pulse Crops in India (1997 -98)
41
2.9
Three Largest Pulse Producing States in India (1997-98)
43
2.10
Marketed Surplus of Important Pulses in India (2004-05)
44
2.11
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses
46
xvi
India 's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
in Important Producing Countries in the World (2003) 2.12
Export and Import of Pulses in India (1980-81 to 2005-06)
48
2.13
Major StrategieslProgrammes Introduced for Pulses Development during Five Year Plans
51
2.l4
Minimum Support Prices of Pulses (1980-81 to 2006-07)
54
2.15
Procurement of Pulses by NAFED under Price Support Scheme and Commercial Purchases (2000-01 and 2000-02)
55
2.16
Target and Achievement of Pulse Production (1997-98 to 2006-07)
56
3.1
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Gram in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
60
3.2
Growth Performance of Gram in Important States of India (1981-2002)
61
3.3
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Arhar in Important States of India (2001-02)
65
3.4
Growth Performance of Arhar in Important States of India (1981-2002)
66
3.5
Area, Production and Yield ofMoong in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
68
3.6
Growth Perform2nce of Moong in Important States of India (1981-2002)
69
3.7
Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
72
3.8
Growth Performance of Urad in Important States of India (1981-2002)
73
List of Tables
xvii
Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Important States of India (TE 2001-02) Growth Performance of Massar in Important States of India (1981-2002)
75
3.11
Area, Production and Yield of Kharif Pulses in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
79
3.12
Growth Performance of Kharif Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002)
80
3.13
Area, Production and Yield ofRabi Pulses in Important States of India {TE 200 1-02)
81
3.14
Growth Performance of Rabi Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002)
82
3.15
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
84
3.16
Growth Performance of Total Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002)
85
3.17
Percentage of GCA under Pulse Crops by Farm Size in India (1980-81, 1991-92 and 1998)
88
3.18
Percentage of GCA under Wheat, Rice and Pulses in Three Districts of Madhya Pradesh (1996-97)
91
3.19
Percentage of GCA under Pulses in Two Important Districts of Haryana (1997-98)
92
3.20
Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India (1981-02)
96
3.21
Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India (1981-02)
101
3.22
Correlation Coefficients between Production of Various Crops and Index of Rainfall (1980-81 to 2001-02)
107
3.9 3.10
76
xviii
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
3.23
108 State-wise Per\:entage of Area Covered by Irrigation under Principal Crops dming 1999-2000 Results ofNerlovian Model on Acreage Response 113 of Gram, Arhar, Moong, Urad, Massar and Total Pulses in Important Growing States of India 123 Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000
3.24
4.1
4.2
Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh dming 1998-99
127
4.3
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Important Growing Districts of Rajasthan during 1998-99
130
4.4
Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts ofMaharashtra during 1998-99
132
4.5
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in Major Producing Districts of Kamataka during 1998-99 Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Gram in
134
4.6
135
Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99 4.7
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Important Growing Districts of Maharashtra during 1998-99
137
4.8
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99
138
4.9
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest
141
List of Tables
xix
Price of Arhar in Important Growing Districts of Kamataka during 1998-99 4.10
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Major Producing Districts of Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000
141
4.11
Area, Production, Yield and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Major Producing Districts of Gujarat during 1998-99
144
4.12
Area, Production, Yield, Irrigated Area and Farm Harvest Price of Arhar in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99
145
4.13
Area, Production, Yield ofMoong in Important Growing Districts ofMaharashtra during 1998-99 Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area ofMoong in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99
147
4.15
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area under Moong in Major Producing Districts ofTamil Nadu during 1998-99
151
4.16
Area, Production and Yield ofMoong in Major Producing Districts ofGujarat during 1998-99
152
4.17
Area, Production and Yield ofMoong in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99
154
4.18
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Urad in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1998-99
156
4.19
Area, Production and Yield of Urad in
157
4.14
xx
4.20
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Important Growing Districts ofMaharashtra during 1998-99 Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99
159
4.21
Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Major Producing Districts of Tamil Nadu during 1998-99
160
4.22
Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Major Producing Districts of West Bengal during 1998-99
161
4.23
Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1998-99
163
4.24
Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Major Producing Districts of Bihar during 1992-93
164
4.25
Area, Production, Yield of Massar in Major Producing Districts of West Bengal during 1998-99
165
4.26
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Madhya Pradesh during 1999-2000
167
4.27
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95
170
4.28
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Maharashtra during 1998-99
171
4.29
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Rajasthan during 1997-98
173
4.30
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of
174
List afTables
4.31
Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Andhra Pradesh during 1997-98 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Growing Districts of Kamataka during 1998-99
xxi
177
4.32
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in MajorGrowing Districts of Bihar during 1991-92
178
4.33
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of Gujarat during 1998-99
179
4.34
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Major Producing Districts of West Bengal during 1998-99
180
5.1
Results of Semi-log Functions of Wholesale Prices of Pulses in India (1981-2001)
187
5.2
Results of Semi-log Functions of Farm Harvest Prices of Pulses in Major Growing States (1981-2001)
191
5.3
Results of Semi-log Functions of Retail Prices of Pulses in Delhi Market (1981-2001)
195
5.4
Results of Semi-log Functions of Minimum Support Prices in India (1981-2001)
199
5.5
Cost of Production and Minimum Support Prices 202 of Pulses in Important States during Recent Years
5.6
Percentage Change in Wholesale Price, Farm Harvest Price, Retail Price and Minimum Support Price over Previous Year
205
5.7
Seasonal Index of Wholesale Price of Pulses in Important States in 1981, 1991, 2001
209
5.8
Price Elasticity of Output of Pulses in India and Major Growing States
217
xxii
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Crop-wise Distribution of Certified Seeds of Pulses 1990-91, 1995-96 and 2000-01 Financial Allocation for National Pulses Development Project in Major Growing States of India (1998-99)
226
6.3
Component-wise Pattern of Assistance under the National Pulses Development Project during 1998-99
228
6.4
Component-wise Percentage of Financial Allocation and Physical Achievement under NPDP in Major Growing States during 1998-99
233
6.5
Target and Achievement of Pulse Production in India
238
6.6
Yield Gap and its Indices for Major Pulses in Important Producing States during TE2001-02
240
6.7
Use of Chemical Fertilizer and Organic Manure for Gram and Moong Cultivation by Size Groups in India
244
6.8
Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Gram Cultivation in Major Growing States by Irrigation Status during 1991-92
246
6.9
Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Arhar Cultivation in Major Growing States by Irrigation Status during 1991-92
248
6.10
Use of Chemical Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Gram Cultivation by Farm Size and by Irrigation Status in India during 1991-92
250
6.11
Use of Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides for Arhar Cultivation by Farm
252
6.1 6.2
228
List of Tables
6.12
Size and by Irrigation Status in India during 1991-92 Percentage of Pulse Area under Improved Variety Seeds, Fertilizer & Manure, Pesticides and Weedicides and Tractor Use in Major States (1998-99)
XXlll
256
6.13
Adoption of Improved Variety Seeds of Pulses by Farm-size in Major Growing States (1998-99)
258
6.14
Adoption of Improved Varieties of Chickpea in Andhra Prades
260
6.15
Adoption of Improved Technology for Pulse Cultivation in Punjab and Haryana
262
6.16
Yield Levels of Improved and Local Varieties of Pulse Crops in Punjab and Haryana
269
7.1
Profitability of Gram and its Competing Crops (Wheat and Mustard) in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh during 1981-82
276
7.2
Profitability of Gram and its Competing Crops (Wheat and Mustard) in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan during 1990-91
283
7.3
Profitability of Gram and Iits Competing Crops (Wheat and Mustard) in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh during 2000-01
288
7.4
Profitability of Arhar and its Competing Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh during 1981-82 and 1984-85
295
7.5
Profitability of Arhar and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91
298
7.6
Profitability of Arhar and its Competing
301
xxiv
7.7
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra during 2000-01 Profitability ofMoong and its Competing Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh during 1981-82 and 1984-85
306
7.8
Profitability ofMoong and its Competing Crops (Jowar and Bajra) in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in 1990-91 and 1994-95
311
7.9
Profitability ofMoong and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra during 2000-01
313
7.10
Profitability of Urad and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during and 1981-82
316
7.11
Profitability of Urad and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 1990-91
318
7.12
Profitability of Urad and its Competing Crop (Jowar) in Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 2000-0 1
321
7.13
Profitability of Massar and its Competing Crops (Gram and Mustard) in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh during 2000-01
324
7.14
Summary Table Showing Domestic Competitiveness of Pulse Crops in selected States in India
329
8.1
Area, Production and Yield of Pulses in Important Countries of the World (TE 1981, 1991 and 2001)
336
8.2
World Trade in Pulses (1981-2002)
331
List of Tables
xxv
Share of Exporting Countries in World Exports of Pulses (1981, 1991 and 2002) Share of Importing Countries in World Imports of Pulses (1981, 1991 and 2002)
339
8.5
India's share in World trade in Pulses (1981-2002)
342
8.6
Exports and Imports of Pulses in India
342
8.7
India's Imports of Pulses (1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02)
344
8.8
India's Exports of Pulses (1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02)
345
8.9
Major Destinations of Pulse Exports and Imports in India during 200
348
8.10
Nominal Protection Coefficient (NPC), Effective Protection Coefficient (EPC) and Effective Subsidy Coefficient (ESC) of Pulse Crops in India
353
8.11
Domestic Resource Cost Ratio of Gram, Arhar, Moong, Urad and Massar in Selected States of India
359
8.3 8,4
340
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
List of Figures Figure 2.1
Share of Important Pulses in Area
Figure 2.2
Share of Important Pulses in Production
Figure 5.1
Trends in Wholesale Price of Pulses (1982-2001)
Figure 5.2
Trends in Farm Harvest Prices of Pulses (1982-2001)
Figure 5.3
Trends in Retail Prices of Pulses (1982-2001)
Figure 5.4
Trends in Minimum Support Prices of Pulses (19822001)
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
List of Abbreviations CACP
Commission forAgricultural Costs and Prices
c.i.f.
Cost, Insurance and Freight
DRCR
Domestic Resource Cost Ratio
EPC
Effective Protection Coefficient
ESC
Effective Subsidy Coefficient
FHP
Farm Harvest Price
f.o.b.
Free on Board
FYM
Farm Yard Manure
GCA
Gross Cropped Area
Gal
Government of India
HYV
High Yielding Variety
lCAR
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
lPDP
Intensive Pulses Development Programme
lPM
Integrated Pest Management
lSOPAM
Integrated Scheme of Oil seeds, Pulses, Oil Palm and Maize
MSP
Minimum Support Price
NAFED
National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India
NCA
National Commission on Agriculture
xxx
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
NPC
Nominal Protection Coefficient
NPDP
National Pulses Development Programme
NSSO
National Sample Survey Organisation
RP
Retail Price
TE
Triennium Ending
TMOP
Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses
WP
Wholesale Price
WTO
World Trade Organisation
1 Introduction
Pulses are an important and relatively inexpensive source of protein for human and animal nutrition in India. Their importance as a builder and restorer of soil fertility in arid areas is well recognized. Pulses are known as unique jewels of Indian farming. The per capita net availability of pulses, unfortunately, has been declining continuously and has reached a low level of 26.4 gms/day in 2001 from a much higher level of 61.6 gmslday in 1965. It has declined more during the reforms period indicating a drop from 41.6 gms/day in 1991 to 31.5 gms/day in 2005 (Economic Survey, 2007). This is due to the increase in population and stagnation in production of pulses. Indeed, pulses have been in short supply for nearly two decades. As a result, huge imports of pulses have become a regular feature in the country to bridge the demand and supply gap. A peculiar situation has emerged because rising prices of pulses have not been able to enthuse farmers to increase pulse production.
Problems of Pulse Production India produces nearly a dozen varieties of pulse crops. At the world level, it is the biggest cultivator of pulses. But, unfortunately, these nutritionally superior legumes never received adequate attention from the policy makers. That is why the government policy of minimum support prices as a safety net and the strategy for pulse crops development has failed to enhance its production in the country. The National Pulses Development Programme has been under
2
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
implementation in 30 States and Union Territories on a 75:25 cost sharing basis between the Central and the State Governments for a long time but it has not made any headway in production and productivity. The production of pulses in 2005-06 was 13.4 million tonnes, which is below the target of 16 million tonnes. This was the situation despite claim of the scientists that around 92 improved varieties of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and moth with a high potential of yield improvement have already been released. In addition, new plant protection practices such as Integrated Pest Management are available. All these are making varying degrees of impact in different regions. But, the gap between actual and potential yield remains very high even in agriculturally advanced states like Haryana. Thus, challenges faced in improving the level of production of pulses fou r decades ago, still exist and the situation has not improved despite the government adopting a mission mode approach under the Technology Mission on Oil seeds and Pulses (TMOP) since 1990-9l. Undoubtedly, the constraints faced by pulse production are daunting. Pulse cultivation faces problems such as use of rain fed marginal land, susceptibility to pest and disease attacks, weather aberrations, lack of genetic breakthrough and diversion of pulse area to more remunerative crops as and when irrigation facilities become available. Policies formulated and implemented during different plans have hardly been helpful. Quite unlike wheat and rice growers, who have a ready market in government procurement and that too at higher than market price, pulse growers are left with no market support. The minimum support price announced and hiked annually are notional and have become irrelevant because pulses are neither procured nor market price reaches that level. Production efficiency of the pulse growers is less due to low and fluctuating yield levels. These constraints have affected the pulse growers' enthusiasm to raise input use or to adopt improved technology. In view of the above constraints, pulse production has not been able to keep pace with its demand in India. The successive plan documents have stressed the need to improve the level of pulse production. However, even a modest target of 16 million tonnes has
Introduction
3
not yet been achieved. Now, policy makers are devoting their attention to pulses and oilseeds due to their tremendous growth potential. In addition, non-sustainability of wheat/rice based commercial agriculture followed from 1970 onwards is also a major factor. Therefore, pulse cultivation is being considered one of the important options in cropping pattern diversification. In addition, favourable changes in trade policy are improving the scenario. Recently, export of pulses has been made free realizing the export potential of pulses in the international market though they remain a small percentage of production and lag imports. There is no doubt that this may help pulse producers to realize better prices. But, for its success, productivity and quality standards matching internationally competitive levels are significant challenges. With a view to expanding area, output and yield levels, a concrete strategy of some support is needed at the disaggregated level in the regions with high potential of pulse production. The budgetary allocation for the National Pulses Development Programme is inadequate and its progress is not monitored even in agriculturally advanced states like Punjab and Haryana. It seems that higher output through enhanced level of productivity in core areas can help reverse the dangerous decline in per capita availability. Thus, problem of increasing pulse production still remains unresolved and unsolved. They still remain as one of the lagging sectors in the crop economy. The area under pulses is stagnating or growing at a snail's pace although these crops are vital to the economies of rainfed agriculture. The situation has become more complicated because of the weak price response of pulses. On the productivity front, India is lagging behind other pulse producing nations. In fact, India had the largest cultivated area under pulses (30.32%) in the world but unfortunately productivity (552 kg/ha) was one among the lowest and much below the average productivity (793 kglha) in the world during 2003 (FAO, Production Year Book, 2003). In addition, yield volatility is a great problem. This is perhaps due to the non-adoption of improved technology despite extension support provided to the growers under the specially designed programmes for boosting pulse production.
4
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
At the macro level, a number of factors could be responsible for sluggishness in the growth of area, production and yield of pulse crops. The study of agro-climatic factors, technological change in agriculture, relative profitability, yield, price risk, marketing and processing infrastructure, etc., would help identify the causes of near stagnancy in the production of pulses. One needs to find out answers to several related issues. What is the nature of supply response of pulse crops and what are the major explanations for their slow growth? What are the reasons for the relative neglect of these crops in the process of commercialization? Why are these crops largely located in the production base of rainfed regions? What is the nature of competing crop economy vis-a-vis the economy ofthese crops? What kind of price uncertainty does the cultivators of these crops face? What are the special environmental/policy constraints in the growth of these crops? Are Indian pulses internationally competitive? Whether India should concentrate on pulses or on crops with comparative advantage? Is liberalizing policy environment conducive to generating farmers' confidence in growing pulses? A study of the above-mentioned issues would enable policy makers to initiate steps to increase pulse production in the country. A number of factors influence farmer's choice of crops or crop pattern. The irrigation status ofland, availability oflabour and capital, inputs and technology, etc., are the major deciding factors. Household food and feed security are also important considerations. In addition, history of incidence of insect and pest attacks, diseases, rainfall uncertainty, soil condition, etc., also affects farmer's decision. The marketing support also plays a crucial role. The price uncertainty also depresses area allocation. In fact, pulses stand nowhere in terms of relative profitability of wheat and rice, which received technological as well as market support. The price and non-price factors influencing acreage allocation at the farm/state level need to be carefully analysed. Regional variations in the production and consumption are important issues too. In particular, inter-regional variations in technology and yield gaps are emerging issues of great concern. On the demand side, income elasticity of pulses is gradually drifting
Introduction
5
to the lower side due to changes in the consumption basket at large. People with high income in particular, are diversifying their protein basket and shifting to eggs, meat, etc. The aforesaid problems demand an in-depth investigation at the disaggregated level. In literature, attention has been drawn to area shift in favour of pulse crops in the states ofAndhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. It has declined in some other states like Bihar, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana and West Bengal and that too in states with assured irrigation facilities, which encourage farmers to adopt wheat/rice rotation in their crop pattern due to higher yield and a good market support. Unless a detailed analysis of growth is carried out and the factors constraining pulse production are identified and analysed at the disaggregated level, policy initiatives cannot be oriented to suit the region specific requirement of the strategy to boost pulse production. The impact of economic reforms on agriculture adds one more dimension to the problem of pulse crops. India initiated economic reforms process through the Structural Adjustment Programme in 1991 in response to balance of payments crisis. In addition, India under the aegis of the World Trade Organization signed an agreement on agriculture in 1994. Since then, several trade and tariffmeasures have been introduced. The tariff rates have been reduced for several commodities from time to time. The country has partially libralized trade in agricultural products. With continuation of these policies, Indian economy has been exposed to the international markets. The main objective of these policies is to make the agricultural sector globally competitive by improving the efficiency of inputs with the support of complementary policies. For a country like India where agricultural sector contributes around 58% share in employment and almost 20% in the gross domestic product, it becomes imperative to examine the implications of these policies on the development of various agricultural commodities. The process ofliberalisation has started showing its impact, both at the macro and micro levels, on the growth and development of various crops. At the macro level, trends in prices, imports and exports, demand and supply gap and changes in the level of protection
6
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
are the major concerns. At the micro level, disaggregated scenario at the state/region/district and crop levels assumes significance. This calls for an assessment of changes in area allocation; yield, cost of cultivation, income and profitability at the crop level. A study ofthe economic implications of liberalisation process on domestic production and the competitiveness of pulses at the world level as well as in India, thus, assumes special importance.
Review of Existing Literature This study seeks to examine various economic issues related to the problem of improving pulse production in India. Before developing the framework of analysis, it would be pertinent to review the available literature on the related aspects of the present study. A c~itical review of the research conducted on this subject reveals Ahat two types of studies are available in the literature. First, there are macro level studies and papers based on the secondary data at all India and state levels (Chopra and Swamy, 1975, 1982; Ryan and Ashokan, 1977; Singh, 1979; Deshpande and Chandrashekar, 1982; Nadkarni, 1986; Acharya, 1988, 1993; Baldev et aI., 1988; Satyapriya, 1989; Sadasivan, 1989, 1993; Bhatia, 1991; Jain and Singh, 1991; Kelley. and Rao, 1994; Dhindsa and Sharma, 1997; Jain and Singh, 1991; Ramesh Chand, 1999; Ali and Mishra, 2000; C. Ramaswamy, 2002; Joshi and Saxena, 2002; Sathe and Aggarwal, 2004). Second, one comes across micro-level studies based on primary data collected through surveys at village and farm household levels (Sharma and Jodha, 1982; Gangwar, Rai and Sriniwas, 1983; Acharya, 1988; Tuteja 1986,1992,1999,2000; Dey and Banerjee, 1991; Kumar 1993; Pant 1995; Tripathi, 1998; Joshi et aI., 1999; Shiyani, 2000; Gupta, 2001). Such studies are mostly carried out by Agricultural Research Institutes like International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRlSAT), Indian Agricultural Research Institute and Agricultural Economics Research Centres. They have focused their attention primarily on identification of constraints in the growth of pulse production and productivity at the disaggregated level. Some studies were aimed at evaluating the
Introduction
7
performance of the National Pulses Development Programme in different states. This section presents the main findings of the macro as well as micro studies.
(i) Macro Level Studies Chopra and Swamy (1975) in their pioneering study on pulses in India for the period 1951 to 1971 have looked into area shifts under individual pulse crops to competing crops. They have also estimated demand and supply functions. In the demand equation, average quantity of pulses consumed was regressed to total expenditure, price of pulses and price of cereal substitutes. The demand of pulses was found price responsive. The supply side was examined through acreage response model in the Nerlovian framework. The relative yield and relative prices, area irrigated under the competing crops and rainfall were used as the independent variables. The model was applied to major pulse-producing states. The pattern of the individual states was sufficiently different from each other. The increase in irrigation and relative yield were important factors explaining area shifts out of rabi pulses in the green revolution belt. Here, wheat offered a tough competition to pulses. But, rainfall and prices were found significant in the estimated model for kharif pulses. They have projected quantity of demand and supply. It was concluded that the supply will fall short of demand and the gap will widen further. Ryan and Ashokan (1977) in their paper for the six major wheat growing states of India namely Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh for the ten years period before and after 1964-65 found that 22 % of the expansion in wheat acreage during the later periods could be accounted for by the reduction in area under pulses. According to Nadkarni (1986), pulses are left behind by the green revolution. The yield of pulses has been growing at the very slow pace with almost constant area. The major constraint affecting their growth is technological in terms oflower yields. Singh (1979) in his study for the state of Uttar Pradesh examined
8
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
the role of price and non-price factors in determining the farmer's decision on shifts in inter-crop acreage. The study showed that the overall supply-price relationship was weak and in most cases, results did not support the generally expected positive supply price response relationship. The findings indicated that the response ofkharif pulses has been more consistent with the economic theory, suggesting a negative relation between risk and crop acreage. The deterrent impact of risk, weather, yield and prices pointed out to the need for reducing the occurrence of such risk. He suggested that appropriate policies need to focus on (a) favourable pricing and marketing conditions and (b) technological changes in pulses like variety improvements, disease and pest control measures. The performance of various pulse crops has been different across time and space. The estimates of area and production of pulses during the 1960 's, 1970 's and 1980 's indicate that the performance of pulse production has been poor. Not only production has been stagnant for over four decades, but also the growth in production has been far less than the growth in population. Moreover, pulses have been recording significant changes at the seasonal, regional and temporal levels. Around 17% cent of pulse area in irrigated states faced competition from cereals and oilseeds. The remaining 83% of pulse area in rain fed and dry states did not face much competition from other crops. The profit function analysis of gram reveals that non-price factors, such as rainfall influence both the output of gram and the use ofinputs in its cultivation. The elasticity of inputs and output with respect to prices was very low. In fact, the impact of weather was found strongest on the yield growth (Sadasivan, 1989, 1993). The study by Deshpande and Chandrashekar (1982) for Kamataka state observed that the technological change has failed to bring about any positive change in the growth of pulses. The slow growth in production was mainly attributed to stagnancy in yield and decline in area. Their supply response analysis indicated a positive response to real price of the crop and its yield. They opined that the subsistence nature of these crops is primarily responsible for their concentration in smallholdings.
Introduction
9
Baldev et.al. (1988) presented a comprehensive account of various aspects related to pulse crops in India. The details of area, production and productivity, reasons for low productivity and genetics of major pulse crops were analysed with a focus on agronomic aspects. The main reasons cited for low productivity included low genetic yield potential oflocal varieties, application ofpoor agronomic practices, lack of plant protection measures, lack of stability, adverse effects of cultivation under rain fed conditions and improper method of sowing. Acharya (1988) and Acharya and Gupta (1982) observed that the case of Rajasthan was unique and there was no evidence of pulse area being diverted to cereals in the state. But, growth rate of gram area in major wheat-gram producing districts was either zero or negative because incremental production due to irrigation was more for wheat compared to gram and the price difference was not sufficient to offset the yield advantage. The level of use of yield increasing inputs in pulses was very low. Prices of pulses received by farmers though rising at a faster rate compared to cereals and oilseeds but the price at the retail level was not fully transferred at the farm level. They suggested that to increase production of pulses, efforts will have to be supplemented by giving price advantage to the pulse growers through either direct deliberate action or removing imperfections in the pulse marketing system. Acharya (1993) in his presidential address at the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics reviewed overall performance of pulses and its price policy. He opined that the area under pulses declined sharply during the green revolution period in India and rabi pulses suffered the maximum loss in the area during this period. Kharif pulses also suffered. The area from rabi pulses shifted to wheat and from kharif pulses to paddy under the stimulus of expanding irrigation facilities, high yielding variety seeds, support price policy and public procurement system for wheat and paddy. He suggested an urgent need of creating efficient market infrastructure for pulses. The study by Satyapriya (1989) focused more on growth aspect. He observed that the production of pulses in India remained either stagnant in some states/regions or declined in other states. He opined
10
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
that the production of pulses could be improved by bringing down the yield gaps across irrigated and un-irrigated pulses. Bhatia (1991) estimated the growth of area, production and yield of pulses in India for the period 1967-68 to 1989-90. The major constraints for the stagnation in the production of pulses are production under rain fed conditions, low yield and value productivity, higher risk in production and low income from pulse cultivation, low level of adoption of technology, susceptibility to pests and diseases and large price spread. He suggested that evolution of some improved varieties is a must for increasing production of pulses but there is strong need to take up appropriate measures for reducing risk of adopting new technology through expansion of crop insurance scheme to pulse crops. Once productivity of pulse crops is improved, shifting of other resources like irrigation, water, fertilizer and area would follow and its pace of growth of production would go up. Efforts will also have to be made to improve the efficiency of marketing so that producers could get their due share in the price paid by the consumers. Among the state level studies, Dhindsa and Sharma (1997) analysed the Punjab situation with the help of Nerlovian model. They have shown that the non-price factors are relatively more important in the decision-making of the farmers for allocating acreage to pulses. They indicated towards the disappearing nature ofpulse cultivation in Punjab farming. Jain and Singh (1991) examined instability in the pulse production in Punjab with the help of decomposition analysis. They observed that the decline in area was the primary factor responsible for the decline in production. Yet efforts through proper policy formulation are needed to stabilise yield levels and to reduce disparity in the yield across the districts. Moreover, stability in yield levels would induce more area under these crops and will lead to lessening the burden on foreign exchange through economising on imports. There are some macro studies, which assess the impact of trade liberalization on pulses. Ramesh Chand (1999) in his study reviewed the case of four commodities and gram was chosen as one of the major crops. The study analysed production, marketing and trade
Introduction
11
related policy concerns. The impact of trade liberalization was examined with or without situation. The impact of trade liberalization was studied through net protection coefficient. It was observed that price of gram in India was found lower than the border price. The study has shown that implementation of WTO has a mixed impact on net social welfare of India. The author opined that signals of price ratios of domestic to global prices should not be stretched too far. There should be major policy shift. Kelley and Rao (1994) examined chickpea competitiveness in India. They observed that it is not competitive at present. A study by Ali and Mishra (2000) on nutrient management in pulses and pulse based cropping systems highlighted that nutrient imbalance is one of the major constraints limiting productivity of pulses. The built in mechanism of biological nitrogen fixation enables pulse crops to meet 80% of their nitrogen requirements, hence, a small dose of 15-25 kg/ha is sufficient to meet the requirements of most of the pulse crops but even this quantity is not applied and therefore, productivity remains much below the potential. The growth of pulse production has not kept pace with population growth resulting in an overall decline in per capita availability and generally higher prices of pulses. To meet the growing demand, the government has to resort to frequent imports and hold down prices of pulses. Imports are emerging as a cheaper option but a cost effective option for increasing domestic production and infrastructure development should be undertaken urgently. Ramaswamy (2002), Joshi and Saxena (2002) reviewed the recent performance of pulses and tried to identify these constraints. They also examined growth performance of important pulse crops in the new niches. A small section on trade off presented valuable information. The study has shown that pulses are moving from traditional to non-traditional areas. They emphasised the need for research and extension to bring about a yellow revolution in the pulse sector. A recent paper by Sathe and Aggarwal (2004) examined the issues related to opening up of the Indian pulse sector as well as the relationship between production, prices and imports. The prices of pulses are high despite low duty on imports. They argued for further opening
12
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
up of the Indian market for pulses, in view of stagnating domestic production and the nutritional significance of these crops. (ii) Micro Level Studies
Pulse crops in India are grown under a wide range of agro-climatic conditions. Historically, they have found a place in diverse cropping systems in different parts of the country. It is important to recognize this wide range of conditions over which cultivation of a particular pulse crop is distributed in different parts of the country for the purpose of planning, research and development programmes. The primary databased case studies, by and large aimed to fulfill these objectives. The paper by Sharma and Jodha (1982) has reviewed the performance of pulse production in semi -arid regions of India. They have tried to enumerate the factors, which affect decision-making of the farmers in acreage allocation. These are mainly rain fed areas where subsistence nature of farming dominates. They identified agro-climatic, socio-economic and biological constraints in the production of chickpea and pigeon pea. The major constraints in improving pulse production were cited as non-availability of appropriate technology, instability of yield, high risk and lack of adequate capital to invest in expensive inputs. Gangwar et.al, (1983) have analysed the problems faced by the farmers in production and marketing of gram in Haryana. They have narrated non-availability of improved seeds, low yield, high risk and lack of marketing information as the factors for sluggish response of the farmers. The two papers (Joshi et.al. 1999 and Shiyani et.al, 2000) have shown the extent of adoption of newly introduced chickpea varieties and identified the factors influencing their adoption in the tribal villages of Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh. The sample covered randomly selected adopters and non-adopters of improved varieties. Authors by using the Tobit model revealed that the adoption of newly released chickpea varieties was quite impressive. Their area was gradually increasing in the study area by replacing the prominent local varieties.
Introduction
13
A substantial increase in the yield rates (from 1096 kg/ha to 1700 kg/ha), gross returns (from RS.11245 per ha to Rs.18960 per ha), cost of cultivation (from Rs.2675 per ha to Rs.5360 per ha) was reported. Availability of seeds of new varieties appeared to be a major constraint. A participatory approach of understanding the farmers needs about different variety traits and identifying specific varieties have played a commendable role for wider acceptance and in accelerating the adoption of improved chickpea varieties. In the array, there are some primary databased studies, which go deeper to farm size classes and cross compare the situation. A study by Kumar (1993) examined problems of pulse production in Uttar Pradesh for different categories of farmers. He concluded that the small and marginal farmers are great sufferers, because they have to market their surplus immediately after harvesting at low prices due to weak financial position. The primary databased studies by Tuteja (1986, 1992 and 1999) relate to the problems of pulse production in Haryana in dry and irrigated districts ofBhiwani and Ambala. Historically, pulse crops enj oyed a place of pride in the crop pattern ofHaryana by indicating 30.16 per cent of the gross cropped area in 1964-65. With the increase in irrigation facilities and introduction of high yielding variety cereals, area under pulses has come down to 7.53% of GCA in 1995-96. But, the state of Haryana has tremendous and immense scope for increasing area under pulses. This, however, would be possible only if the existing available improved technology is extended to the farmers for adoption on a wider scale; both in rain fed and irrigated conditions. The results offarm level data showed that the productivity of pulses in Haryana is much above the all India level that was 938 kglha. Gram is much ahead of other pulses in terms of yield. But, it is much below the potential yield. The adoption of improved seeds was found poor and covered merely, 25.35% of pulse acreage during 1999. The major constraints in popularizing pulse technology are lack of information, non-availability of improved seeds, lack of adequate irrigation facilities, uncertainty of rainfall and unfavourable economics of pulse production. The progress of the National Pulses Development Programme in Haryana is very
14
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
slow because the coverage of the programme in terms of pulse producers is limited and insignificant. It is being implemented through the usual Government channels without involving the farmers at the grass root levels. The efforts of the state are also lacking, as proper attention is not paid to crucial components such as improved seeds, rhyzobium culture and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) demonstrations. In a nutshell, the state does not give due priority to this programme and that is why it is neither properly monitored nor evaluated. The case of Punjab (2000) regarding pulse production is depressing and causes great concern. A status enjoyed by pulses (14.55% ofGCA) during 1964-65 has totally vanished by indicating only 1.24% ofGCA in 1996-97 allotted to these nutritive and soil fertility saving legumes. An attempt is now being made to popularize summer moong and inter-cropping of arhar. The adoption of improved technology by farmers in Ludhiana was found impressive but it was not true for Firozpur. The study highlighted unfavourable economics ofpulse crops cultivation in comparison to their competing crops. The price spread was significantly high. The impact of the National Pulses Development Programme/Technology Mission was not visible in pulse farming in Punjab. Dey and Banerjee (1991) in their study on West Bengal revealed that area under pulses is declining and it was being shifted to competing crops such as oilseeds. They also highlighted that producer's share in the consumer's rupee was higher in case of gram than other pulses on sample farms. But, gross returns were found the highest on large farms. For massar, small farmers were ahead of others. Khesari gave the lowest returns but again large farmers enjoyed the benefit. A study conducted at the National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research by Pant (1995) examined various dimensions ofthe problem of pulse production in Madhya Pradesh, which is the major pulse growing state in India. The study is based on field survey data covering 10 districts, 20 blocks, 40 villages and 360 farmers from 9 out of 14 agro climatic zones in the state. A wide variation in the yield was reported. However, this analysis
Introduction
15
was carried out for total pulses. The failure of improved varieties was cited as the major constraint in the yield improvement. The author opined that the rising support prices reflect the policy intention to promote pulse crops cultivation, but in the absence of yield growth, it could not work because of low returns. Pulses were not found price responsive because traders take the advantage due to weak marketing structure. It was felt that success in increasing pulse production depends upon a favourable price regime and on technological break through that can help in realization of higher yields. The study by Tripathi (1998) is based on the survey data of 100 farmers in different agro-ecological situations ofUttarakhand region. It deals with the cost structure, gross/net returns and profitability of urad, soybean, French bean, horse-gram, rajma and arhar in Uttarakhand. The production function analysis was used to estimate the relationship between dependent and independent variables. The gross returns of pulse crops depended on cost of human labour, bullock labour, cost of seed and manure, size of operational holding and number of family workers. It was observed that the marketing surplus of pulses was very low in this region. The author recommended that popularizing improved variety seeds, water management and plant protection measures could provide immediate results in terms of increased pulse production. The importance of life saving irrigation to pulse crops especially in rabi season was highlighted and the author emphasized the need to tap, conserve and recycle scarce run-off water for increasing and stabilizing production of pulses in the area. The marketing infrastructure was inadequate and ineffective. The malpractices, illegal charges, higher taxes and high rate ofwhole seller's commission in regulated markets resulted in lower share of the producer. The effective and honest supervision, development of transportation and communication could help in boosting pulse production in Uttrakhand region. Gupta (2001) carried out a coordinated study on pulses for Agriculture Economics Research Centre by covering 13 states. Two diverse districts with highest acreage under pulses and with low acreage were selected for the field survey in each state. The
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
16
study was based on both primary as well as secondary sources of data. By using secondary data, it was again proved that India is the largest producer of pulses in the world (around 25% of production) however; the productivity was found to be one of the lowest (595 kg/ha) in the world during 1997-98. Among the Indian states, Madhya Pradesh accounted for 21.45% of the total area under pulses and 23.50% share in the country's production. The highest productivity of pulses was observed in Haryana (1002 kg/ha). The area under pulses declined in Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Orissa and West Bengal. But, a reversal in the trend was observed in Andhra Pradesh, Guj arat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, however, growth of productivity was found very slow even in these states. The economics of pulses was found unfavourable in comparison to their competing crops. Most of the farmers sold their market surplus during the harvesting season and a minimum quantity was retained for the sale in the lean season to fetch higher prices. The impact of the National Pulses Development Programme was not found visible on cultivation of pulses. The usefulness of this study lies in its wide canvass, which can help in policy initiatives for the different locations. Strengthening the analytical part could enhance the utility of the study. To sum up, the main findings of the above-mentioned comprehensive and micro level studies suggest that: (i)
The adoption of high yielding varieties of wheat in rabi and paddy in kharif is responsible for the ar:a shift from pulses to superior cereals in irrigated areas. Oil seeds compete for pulse area in un-irrigated regions. Traditionally, they are grown on low productivity marginal lands. But, now pulses are finding new niches and they are shifting from traditional areas to new destinations on rain fed lands. As a result, the area under pulses has increased in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kamataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.
(ii)
The state level trends of area, prod'.lction and yield indicated that pulses suffered more on the yield front.
Introduction
(iii)
17
The growth of pulse area in the past was influenced more by non-price factors such as rainfall due to being rain fed in nature.
(iv) Input use for pulse cultivation is very low and improved technology has not picked up even in agriculturally advanced states. (v)
Increased prices of pulses could not boost area due to low profitability vis-a-vis competing crops and hence, price response of pulses was found weak.
(vi) The Indian pulses are internationally not competitive. (vii) Demand and supply gap is wide. (viii) Hardly any attempts are made to develop area specific improved varieties. (ix)
Small and marginal farmers received very little support.
Most of the secondary databased studies used supply response model of the Nerlovian type to arrive at the results. There are a few studies, which made use of profit function, factor analysis and Tobit model and decomposition analysis to prove their hypotheses. A critical assessment of the research reviewed highlights that the acreage has received adequate attention from various scholars. But, productivity, which is the main casualty in boosting production of pulses, has not received the deserved focus in their studies. The same is true for technology aspects as well. There is lack of studies on monitoring aspect of the National Pulses Development Programme/Technology Mission. Indeed, problems differ from state to state and crop to crop and the factors affecting pulse production vary from region to region.
Significance of Study The major emerging issues concerning stagnant pulse production relate to sluggishness in the growth of area and yield of various pulse crops grown in India. Regional and district level variations in the production is an important issue. In particular, inter regional
18
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
variations in technology and yield gaps are emerging issues of great concern. The status of technological change is less explored area in research. Scholars have paid scant attention to the study of the domestic and international competitiveness of pulse crops. For improving pulse production in the country, policy makers need comprehensive analysis of the issues along with facts for taking initiatives. So far, this information is not available at one place for the recent period and the current study is an attempt in this direction. The present study on pulse production of India is expected to make several departures from the existing literature. The broad objective is to parameterize as far as possible the price and nonprice determinants of pulse production in India and to analyse important ones in detail. In the process, conscious efforts are made to contribute to the literature in four distinct ways. First, the previous literature used supply response and other regression mod~ls for determining the factors influencing pulse production. The present study would take an integrated approach by combining domestic and international concerns together. The efforts are made to capture the issues relating to pulse production at all India, state, district and farm levels. Second, the study also analyses lesser important pulse crops in terms of production and area coverage instead of focusing on gram and arhar only. Third, since international prices are bound to influence pulse supply scenario in India, efforts are made to include current features of international trade in pulses. Finally, an added weightage is given to the status of technological change among the non-price determinants of pulse production. In a nutshell, a modest attempt is made to move towards a total perspective on the subject of pulse production and to put it in a more rigorous format by bring in numerical computations.
Objectives of Study The stagnation in the production of pulses is a serious problem in India. The broad objective of this study is to examine the key determinants of pulse production in some detail during the period 1980-81 to 2001-02. It seeks:
Introduction
19
(i)
to examine the growth performance of important pulse crops in terms of area, production and yield during the reference period at the all India and state levels;
(ii)
to measure the magnitude of instability in area, production and yield of important pulse crops;
(iii) to estimate the contribution of price and non-price factors in determining acreage and yield of selected pulse crops in the core states; (iv) to analyse district level status of pulse production in major growing states; (v)
to examine the impact of price on production of pulse crops;
(vi) to study the adoption of technology for pulse crops at the state and farm size levels; (vii) to examine the domestic competitiveness of pulse crops vis-a-vis competing crops and; (viii) to examine the international competitiveness of the Indian pulses.
Hypotheses Based on the survey ofthe existing literature and the objectives of this study outlined above, it is proposed to test the following hypotheses: (i)
Pulse production performance in India is poor due to low growth of acreage and yield in the study period.
(ii)
The non-price factors are more important than relative prices in acreage allocation to pulse crops by farmers.
(iii) Yield of pulse crops is influenced by fertilizer consumption and rainfall. (iv) Pulse production is responsive to output/input prices. (v) The adoption of technology for pulse crops at state and farm size levels is slow due to small proportion of cropped area covered by improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides.
20
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
(vi) The domestic competitiveness of pulse crops is poor due to lower profitability of pulse crops in comparison to competing crops. (vii) International competitiveness ofthe Indian pulses is low in terms of conventional as well as alternate indices.
Research Methodology The research methodology used in the analysis of set objectives differs for each part of the study depending upon the availability of information and suitability of statistical technique in facilitating the discussion. The study is confined to five major pulse crops (gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar), which constitute 85% of the country's pulse production. The analysis has been carried out at the macro level covering a period of two decades beginning from 198081 to 2001-02. The entire period is sub-divided into two periods. The first period relates to the eighties (1980-81 to 1990-91) and second to the nineties (1990-91 to 2001-02). These sub-periods represent pre- and post-reform periods. The cut off point of 199091 has strategic significance, as pulse crops were included in the Technology Mission (TM) during this year. The study is based on secondary data. The main sources of data have been government publications and field-based studies. The data and methodology used for each aspect is narrated below.
Growth Performance and Instability For estimating the compound growth rates of individual pulse crops in terms of area, production and yield at the state and all India levels, semi-log functions have been used. For measurement of instability indices, Coppock's (1962) methodology oflog variance was adopted. The state-wise time series data on area, production and yield of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses from 1980-81 to 1997-98 were gathered from various issues of "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India", a Government of India publication. The information for the remaining period was collected from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics. The
Introduction
21
farm size evidences are drawn from input surveys, cultivation practices in India and field-based studies.
Acreage Response and Yield Response The Nerlovian modified model of distributed lags has been used for identifying the factors influencing acreage of considered pulses in the major growing states. The current year acreage was regressed on lagged year acreage, lagged year relative farm harvest price, lagged year relative yield, pre-sowing rainfall, yield risk and price risk for the referred pulse crops in the leading states. It is essential to mention that technology related variables could not be included in the model due to non-availability of data. Even, increasing value for time (1, 2, 3, 4 ... n, years) does not seem appropriate as a proxy for technology because there is lack of knowledge about the speed of technological change in pulse cultivation. One-year lag was used in acreage, yield and price assuming that the previous year's acreage; yield and prices influence the decision on acreage allocation for the current year. The required data were once again obtained from above referred sources in addition to various issues of"Statisticai Abstract of India" published by the Government of India. The separate yield response function was estimated for gram in Madhya Pradesh by using data on value productivity as dependent variable and expenditure on fertilizer, seed and rainfall as independent variables. Normally, yield function should include percentage of cropped area under improved seeds. Unfortunately, data on this aspect are not available for pulse crops. The information on time series data on the above variables was collected from the reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). This exercise could not be undertaken for arhar, moong, urad and massar due to non-availability of time series data for any of the major growing states.
District-level Status of Pulse Production After examining the broad perspective of pulse production at the all India and state levels, status of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses at the disaggregated district level is analysed in
22
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
major growing states, The district-wise data on area, production, yield and coverage of irrigation under gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses were obtained from the statistical abstracts of various states. In some cases "District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India" (2003), was used for gathering relevant data. The information on farm harvest prices of gram and arhar for the study period was culled out from "Farm Harvest Prices in India". The coverage of districts is spread to the extent that all districts, which contributed more than one per cent to the state's total production of a particular crop, were included in the analysis. The available statistical abstracts of major growing states were used for data collection but their years were not found uniform. Still, most of the data used in the analysis relate to the year 1998-99 but in exceptional cases information on earlier years was used due to non-availability oflater documents. The coefficients of variation of included variables were measured in order to estimate the degree ofvariability across the districts.
Output Response of Price The main purpose of this exercise is to estimate the influence of own prices on pulse production. For better understanding of the price scenario, trends, variability, growth and inter year changes in the whole sale, farm harvest, retail and minimum support prices of five referred pulse crops were measured for the two sub-periods and the entire study period. The semi-log functions were used for estimation. Since, agricultural prices are known for seasonality component, monthly indices were worked out in wholesale prices in major markets of the core states through deviations from the mean value for 1981, 1991 and 2001. Further, production response of prices of individual pulse crops was estimated through methodology used by Raj Krishna and Raychaudhri (1980). Accordingly, responsiveness of prices to production was measured by estimating separate elasticities of acreage and yield, which were clubbed together to arrive at the output response. The price indices used in the calculation were farm harvest price indices deflated by
Introduction
23
input price indices. This was purposively done because farmers are also sensitive to input prices. For moong, urad and massar, farm harvest prices are not available and therefore wholesale prices in the harvesting months were used as a proxy. The data on prices were culled out from "Agricultural Prices in India" and "Farm Harvest Prices in India". The time series data on input price indices were obtained from the reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) of the year 2003.
Adoption of Technology An examination of the adoption oftechnology, its background and farmers' experiences fulfilled this objective. At the outset, a review of initiatives taken by the Government for promotion and transfer of improved technology in pulse cultivation based on information obtained from plan documents and booklets of Technology Mission on Oil seeds and Pulses (TMOP) was presented. This was followed by yield gap indices of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar computed on the basis of potential yield measured by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (lCAR) on demonstration plots. The analysis of the use of technology enhancing inputs by farmers at the state and farm size levels is based on "Input Survey" data (1976-77 and 1991-92) and "Cultivation Practices in India" (2000). It is essential to mention that "Input Survey", 1991-92 is the latest available comprehensive data on use of fertilizer, manure and pesticides for gram and arhar cultivation by states and farm sizes. However, yield and adoption of improved varieties are the most important missing links in these data. The second aspect is partially taken care of through utilising the data collected by the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO) in 1998 but the first remained untouched despite its overwhelming importance. Further, an effort is made to identify the factors influencing adoption of technology for pulse cultivation by regressing state-wise percentage of pulse area under improved variety seeds on the percentage of Gross Cropped Area (GCA) under pulse crops, percentage of irrigated area, percentage of pulse area fertilized, manured and covered by pesticides and tractor use. Before concluding the discussion,
24
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
farmers' experiences in terms of benefits of improved technology and their suggestions to popularize are analysed on the basis of field studies.
Domestic Competitiveness The domestic competitiveness of considered five pulse crops is judged on the basis of relative profitability of competing crops in three major producing states for which three points of time data were available from the reports ofthe Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). The competing crops considered for gram were wheat and mustard whereas bajra and j owar were found appropriate for arhar, moong and urad. For massar, gram and mustard were used as alternate crops. The profitability per unit of land and net returns per rupee on investment were computed for the selected pulse crops on operational cost and after inclusion of fixed cost. In the gross returns, value of main as well as by-product was added while in operational cost, expenditure on human labour, bullock labour, machine labour, seed, fertilizer, manures, pesticides, irrigation and interest an working capital were included. In the fixed cost, rental value of owned land, rent paid for leased in land, land revenue and taxes, depreciation and interest on the fixed capital were added. The analysis is carried out for gram (Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan), arhar (Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra), moong (Andhra Pradesh & Maharashtra), urad (Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh) and massar (Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh) at three points of time but massar is excluded from the analysis for first two points of time due to non-availability of data. It is essential to mention that availability of three points of time data has been the major limitation in selection of states. Owing to this difficulty, first ranking state in terms of production of arhar and moong could not be analysed.
International Competitiveness ofIndian Pulses With gradual liberalizion of the economy after the initiation of economic reforms in 1991, agricultural markets are slowly getting
Introduction
25
integrated with the global market. In the current scenario, international trade and prices of commodities have become another factor influencing crop choices of the farmers. Therefore, a study of international competitiveness has become essential for understanding the production prospects of various agricultural commodities. This study has attempted to measure international competitiveness of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar in conventional framework by computing Nominal Protection Coefficients (NPCs), Effective Protection Coefficients (EPCs) and Effective Subsidy Coefficients (ESCs) as well as alternate indices exhibiting social cost in the form of Domestic Resource Cost Ratios (DRCRs) of individual pulse crops. For understanding the overall perspective of pulse trade, important related aspects are also analysed. The international data on trade and production were obtained from FAO Production and Trade Year Books whereas information on pulse exports and imports was gathered from "Foreign Trade Statistics" (2002). The data required for calculating the Domestic Resource Cost Ratios (DRCRs) particularly, information on opportunity cost of inputs going into the production of pulse crops was obtained from the reports of the "Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices".
Plan of Study The study is divided into nine chapters. Chapter-I is introductory in nature. It outlines the problem of stagnation in pulse production in India and emphasises necessity for finding out an early and appropriate solution. This chapter also reviews the existing literature on the subject and identifies the need for undertaking research on pulse production in an integrated manner. In addition, it lists the objectives and hypotheses of the study and touches upon the methodology besides the chapter scheme. Chapter-II presents an overview of pulse economy of India. It highlights the importance of pulses vis-a-vis other vegetable protein foods and net availability along with demand-study gap of pulses in India. This is followed by performance of pulses in comparison to wheat, rice and total food grains. This chapter also gives an idea
26
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
about the pulses development strategy adopted by the Government during the plan period. Chapter - III analyses the production performance of major pulses growing states during the study period with a special emphasis on instability problem. It also attempts to identifY the determinants of pulse production in terms of acreage by using the Nerlovian model of distributed lags and of yield by using the regression model. Chapter - N of the study aims to bring out inter-district variations in area, production and yield of major pulse crops in core producing states. Chapter - V presents the impact of prices on pulse production in India and core producing states besides analysing the trends and variability in wholesale, retail, farm harvest and minimum support prices during the study period. It also looks into yearly changes and seasonality aspects. Chapter - VI deals with adoption of technology in the context of pulse production. It describes the Government's strategy for the transfer and promotion of technology through Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses. It throws light on adoption of technology at state and farm size levels and examines the use of improved variety seeds, consumption of pesticides and fertilizer. The farmer's experiences and suggestions also find a place at the end of this chapter. Domestic competitiveness of pulse crops is the central theme of Chapter - VII. It examines profitability of major pulse crops visa-vis competitive crops in three important pulse growing states at three different points of time, i.e., early 1980s, early 1990s and the recent period. Chapter - VIII examines international competitiveness of the Indian pulses in conventional as well as alternative framework. It also provides information about trade related issues such as magnitude of imports and exports as well as their composition. Chapter - IX presents salient findings ofthe study in an integrated manner. This is followed by policy implications, which include recommendations and suggestions to tackle the problem of stagnant pulse production in India.
Chapter 2
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
Pulses are a wonderful gift of nature as they provide nutrition to human beings and animals. Pulse cultivation improves soil health by fixing nitrogen. Their importance as a source of protein for masses in India is well recognized and therefore, their production and availability assume special significance for the nutritional security of the people. However, pulse production in the country is stagnating due to long standing problems. This disturbs nutritional balance of the population especially of poor and weaker sections who cannot afford expensive animal proteins. The literature survey presented in the previous chapter has revealed that four decades old strategy for increased pulse production in India did not yield desired results vis-a-vis its objectives. While Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses (TMOP) has achieved some success so far as oil seeds are concerned, results in terms of increasing efficiency of pulse production in the country are not encouraging. Hence, there is an urgent need of further research to provide constructive suggestions. In this context, it is important to understand the macro issues, which help in framing pragmatic policies for improving pulse production in the country. Keeping this purpose in mind, this chapter seeks to examine the important aspects related to pulse growth from a broad perspective at the all India level. This chapter is organized as follows. Section-l briefly describes the importance of pulses vis-a-vis other vegetable proteins and their availability in India. Section - 2 provides a broader view ofproduction related aspects while Section - 3 examines the status of India in
28
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
the world pulse production and trade. Finally, Section - 4 focuses on developmental strategies followed in the past to boost pulse production in the country.
Section -1 Importance and Availability of Pulses Importance of Pulses vis-a-vis Other Vegetable Protein Foods At the outset, it would be useful to examine the chemical composition of various pulses and other vegetable protein foods, which can be substitt.ted for pulses. This would help in understanding the relative nutritive value of pulses. The importance of pulses becomes more prominent when chemical composition of major pulses vis-a-vis important cereals and oilseeds is examined. Table 2.1 indicates that each variety of pulse crops has much higher protein content in comparison to wheat, bajra, barley, jowar, maize and ragi. The difference is as wide as more than three times in case of soyabean and wheat. Similarly, rice stands nowhere when compared to any of the pulses. Among pulses, highest protein content is found in soyabean (43.2 gms) followed by lentil (25.1 gms) per 100 gms of grain. Although, all varieties of oil seeds such as ground nut, linseed and mustard are rich in protein content but these cannot be consumed in large quantities due to high content of fats. In addition, some of the pulses contain higher content of fibres, which are often recommended by doctors for controlling heart diseases. The essential components of balanced nutritional food are protein, calcium, fats, fibres and phosphorus. Pulses are equally rich in carbohydrates but rank below rice and wheat. Unlike cereals, pulses like horse gram and Bengal gram are rich source of calcium. The highest calcium content is found in horse gram (287 mg) followed by soybean (240 mg) per 100 gms. Soybean, field bean and cowpea exhibit higher content of phosphorous in comparison to wheat and rice but oil seeds are also rich in this regard. Soybean, lentil and peas contain good content of
29
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
iron. Although, groundnut, mustard and linseed contain higher calories, consumption of pulses also provides more than 300 calories. In a nutshell, pulses are much superior to cereals and oil seeds in terms of protein, fibres, calcium, iron and phosphorous which are considered essential for nutritional security of population in India. Table 2 1 Chemical Composition of Pulses, Major Food grains and Oils('eds in India (Value/IOO g of edible portion)
Items
Protein"
Fat Fibre Crude
Carbon hydrate
CalClum (mg)
Phos- Iron phorus (mg) (mg)
Calories Kcal
Bengal gram
17.1
5.3
3.9
60.9
202
312
4.6
360
Black gram
24.0
1.4
0.9
59.6
154
385
3.8
347
Cowpea
24 I
0.7
3.8
54.5
77
414
8.6
323
Field bean
24.9
0.8
1.4
60.1
60
433
2.7
347
Green gram
24.0
J.3
4.1
56.7
124
326
4.4
334
Horse gram
22.0
0.5
5.3
57.2
287
311
6.77
321
Lentil
25.1
o7
0.7
59.0
69
293
7.58
343
Peas
197
I I
4.5
56.5
75
298
7.05
315
Red gram
22.3
1.7
1.5
57.6
73
304
3 7
335
Soybean
43.2
19.5
3.7
20.9
240
690
10.4
432
Bajra
11.6
5.0
1.2
67.5
42
296
8.0
361
Barley
11.5
J.3
3.9
69.6
26
215
1.67
336
Jowar
104
I 9
1.6
726
25
222
4.1
349
Maize
II.I
3.6
2.7
66.2
10
348
2.3
342
Ragi
7.3
J.3
3.6
72.0
344
283
3.9
328
Rice
8.5
0.6
00
77.4
10
280
2.8
349
Sanwa
62
2 2
9.8
65.5
20
280
5.0
307
Wheat
11.8
1.5
12
71 2
41
306
5.3
346
Groundnut
25.3
40.1
3.1
26.1
90
350
2.5
567
Linseed
20.3
37.1
4.8
i
28 9
170
370
27
530
Mustard
20.0
39.7
1.8
I
23.8
490
700
7.9
• N x 625 Source: Gopalan, Ramasastry and Subramanium, 1999
I
541 I
.J
30
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Net Availability of Pulses In common parlance, the term 'dal roti' denotes a poorman's diet. In recent years, it has begun to sound inapt. For pulses have the dubious distinction of being the single major food item that has declined sharply in terms of net availability. The per capita availability of pulses, the major source of protein for Indians, has fallen by less than half since independence. This is despite India's success in production of wheat and rice. The average per capita availability of wheat and rice together has increased appreciably during this period. The per capita availability of total cereals which .\vas 334.2 gms/ day in 1951 hasrisent0417.3,468.5, 390.9 gms/dayin 1981, 1991 and 2005 respectively. Unfortunately, it has reached to below 1961 level in 2005. In case of pulses, it has drastically fallen from 60.7 gms/day per capita in 1951 to 37.5 gms in 1981,41.6 gms in 1991 and 31.5 gms in 2005. In brief, per capita per day net availability of pulses is woefully lower even after liberal imports. The requiremet for pulses as per physiological norms set by the Indian Council of Medical Research is 43 gms/day per capita (Table 2.2). The Planning Commission has revised this norm to 40 gms/day per capita in view of increasing consumption of other dietary proteins. The current net availability however is much below these norms. This is the consequence of rising population and stagnant pulse production over the past four decades. The long drawn stagnation in production of pulses is likely to reduce per capita availability of this protein rich food in future unless huge imports are resorted to or steps are taken to enhance production of pulses in India.
31
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View Table 2.2
Net Availability of Pulses in India (1951 to 2005) (gmS/day/caplta) Rice
I
I
Year
Gram
Total Pulses
1951
22.5
60.7
158.9
65.7
109 6
1961
30.2
69.0
201.1
79.1
119.5399.7
1971 20.0 51.2 1---19-8-1----+--1-3-4-+-37.5
192.6 J 197.8
Wheat
1036
I 1296
>---1-9-9-1---+--13'-.4--+-4-1-.6--- pzTTT-1'66
I
200 I
8.0
30 0
2002
10.7
35.0
2003
8.3
2004
11.2
2005
10.6
190.5 I
r-------+----+---~
Other I Cereals
Total
334.2
i
1214 89.9
I
56.2
386.2
64.7
457.3
i
4176 4173l
8~-800~8.5l
135.8
I 228.1
164.4
29.1
183.4
181.4
44.7
408.
35.8
1954
162.2
69.3
426.9
31.5
177.3
154.3
59.4
390.9
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Table 2.3
Share of Food Expenditure on Pulses and Substitute Items in India (1972-73 to 1999-2000) (%) NSS Round
1972-73 (27"'Round) 1977-78 (32'" Round) 1983 (3 gtb Round)
Share of Share of Food Share of Food Food expenExpenditure Expenditure diture in Total on Food grains on Pulses Consumption
Rural
Urban
Rural
72.9
64.5
64.3
65.6
Share of total Food Expen diture on Milk, Meat, Eggs & Fish
Urban
Rural
Urban Rural
46.0
27.1
6.87
5.68
13.44
19.53
60.0
37.3
24.5
6.81
6.45
16.17
21.67
59.1
36.3
22.9
5.40
5.75
16.01
21.66
Urban
(Contd.)
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
32 Table 2.3 (Contd.)
Share of Food expenditure in Total Consumption
NSS Round
Share of Food Expenditure on Food grains
Share of Food Expenditure on Pulses
Share of total I Food Expen- I diture on Milk. Meat. Eggs & Fish
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural
64.0
56.4
30.6
18.7
6.93
6.38
18.59
23.23
1993-94 (50th Round)
63.2
54.7
28.3
17.3
6.18
5.84
20.25
24.13
1999-00 (55th Round)
59.4
48.1
26.2
15.3
6.57
6.14
20.37
I 24.551
1987-88 (43 nl Round)
Urban Rural
Urban
I
Source: Report No 454, National Sample Survey OrganisatIon, 2003.
In these circumstances, poor are at a greater disadvantage because they cannot afford expensive animal protein substitutes like milk, eggs, meat, etc. They may try to substitute cereals for pulses, which are a poor source of protein. The issue assumes special significance in view of declining availability of pulses and increasing availability of cereals. But, for a balanced diet, pulse proteins are essential due to other rich components. The whole scenario of net availability of pulses causes serious concern in the country. This should be viewed seriously from the point of security and quality of food especially for the poor and the rural population. The information on per capita net availability is not representative of actual level of consumption in the country because these estimates do not take into account any change in stocks in possession of traders, producers and consumers. The household consumption data on varicus agricultural products by income groups are available in the reports of National Sample Survey Organization. The analysis of details is beyond the scope of this study. Nonetheless, it would be useful to provide an overview of changing share of food expenditure on protein items.
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
33
An examination of data on proportion of expenditure on food grains, pulses and their substitutes may provide some insights into the changing pattern of food basket of population (Table 2.3). A major change that has now come to the forefront is the lower share oftotal consumption on food with declining share of food expenditure on food grains in urban as well as in rural areas. The share of pulses in food expenditure has declined marginally in rural areas between 1972-73 and 1999-2000 but it has increased in urban areas from 5.68 per cent to 6.l4 per cent during the same period. The share of protein foods such as milk, meat, eggs and fish has increased in food expenditure. It has increased from 13.44 per cent to 20.37 per cent of total food expenditure in rural areas and from 19.53 per cent to 24.53 per cent in urban areas. It could be due to rising incomes and preference for variety in nutritive food with rising availability.
Demand and Supply Gap The review of literature indicates that production of pulses in India has remained below the estimated demand during the past decades. Some of the studies have estimated demand and supply gap of pulses based on domestic production. The projected results varied due to difference in methodology followed by different researchers. Chopra and Swamy (1975) had estimated the demand for pulses in India as 14.3 million tonnes (effective demand) to 17.8 million tonnes (nutritional minimum) during 1980-81. The National Commission on Agriculture (NCA) (1976) had projected the consumer demand for pulses as 14.83 to 17.73 million tonnes in 1985 and 20.70 to 24.70 million tonnes in 2000. These projections are based on a very high per capita requirement of pulses. The Indian Council of Medical Research has recommended an average requirement of 43 gms/ day per capita considering the increasing consumption of other dietary proteins like milk, eggs, etc. The Planning Commission has suggested that availability of 40 gms/day per capita would be sufficient to meet the dietary protein requirement in India. Taking into account lower recommendations, results are not encouraging. Bhushan and Sobti (1992) and Narayanmurthy (2000) had projected
34
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
demand and supply gap of pulses for the period 1994-95 to 200102. According to them, requirement of pulses as per physiological norms at the rate 43 gms/day per capita after including 12.50 per cent for feed, seed and wastage worked out to be around 20 million tonnes indicating a supply deficit of more than 5 million tonnes. The Tenth Plan estimates about demand for pulses in India are based on extrapolation of per capita income of Rs. 1585 for the year 1999-2000 till the terminal year of the lOth plan, assuming a growth rate of 4. 7 per cent at constant prices, which stands as the actual growth rate in per capita income achieved since 1994-95. A time series of domestic availability was estimated as production plus imports for the period 2001-02 to 2006-07. The consumption for the terminal year of the 9th Plan viz, 2001-02 was extrapolated using a linear trend equation, which gave the trend consumption for the year 2001-02 as 15.17 million tonnes. This for a population of 1027 million translated into 14.68 kg/capita/year of pulses including the requirement for seed, feed and wastage at 12.5 per cent. This per capita consumption was extrapolated for all the five years of lOth Plan taking income elasticity of consumption at 0.62. The estimates for demand for pulses for various years of 10th Plan were obtained by multiplying estimated per capita consumption with the projected population. The total demand for pulses for 2006-07 was worked out at 19.24 tonnes (table 2.4). In view of domestic availability, each year showed a gap of more than 3 million tonnes between demand and supply. The estimated availability of pulses after including imports was also found much lower than the demand. Hence, there is an urgent need to enhance supply of pulses through increasing domestic production.
Table 2.4 Demand and Supply Gap of Pulses in India (million tonnes)
Year
Projected Populatlon (Million)·
Per Capita Income at 1999-
2000 Price (Rs.) •
Per Capita Demand for Pulses (Kg/ year)*
Demand & Supply Gap on
Total Demand for Pulses Includmg DomeSeed, stlC Feed & WasAva!{; tage· ability (D.A.)
Supply
ImO.; orts
Total
D.A.
Total
2001-02
1033 52
17376
1468
15 17
1172
222
13.94
3.45
1.23
2002-03
1053.16
18193
15 10
15.91
9.71
1.99
11.70
6.20
4.21
2003-04
1073.17
19048
15.55
16.68
13.18
1.72
14.90
3.50
1.78
2004-05
1093.56
19943
1600
17.49
II 46
1.34
12.80
6.03
4.69
2005-06
1114.33
20880
16.46
18.35
11.72
1.61
13.33
6.63
5.02
2006-07
1135 51
21862
1694
1924
1269
NA
-
6.55
-
Source
*
••
**.
Report of the working group on Crop Husbandry, Demand and Supply Projections and Agriculture inputs for the Tenth Five Year Plan, Plannmg Commission, 2001 Domestic Availabihty after deductmg 12.5% on account of seed, feed and wastage Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
36
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
In brief, production of pulses has fallen below the demand in recent years similar to 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The gap was 3.45 million tonnes in 2001-02 and that has accentuated year after year. It has reached to 6.63 million tonnes in 2005-06. Thus, magnitude of demand and actual production gap is anticipated to widen gradually in future. At present, the country is bridging demand and supply gap through huge imports. The option of importing pulses in the long run does exist (reviewed in Chapter - vnn, but over dependence on international market will bring higher instability in availability ofpulses. Therefore, indigenous solution has to emerge in view of associated problems of procuring pulses from the world market. Further, with population growth at the current rate, gap between demand and domestic production of pulses is expected to rise unless technological breakthrough takes place and production of pulses rises through improvement in yield.
Section- 2 Pulse Production Scenario in India Pulses occupy an important place in the agrarian economy of India. As a result, around 11 % of cultivated area was devoted to these crops in the year 2001-02. There are states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Kamataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, which allocated more than 10% of gross cropped area to pulse crops. The corresponding percentages of GCA allocated to these crops were 19.50%, 16.13%, 15.52%, 15.11%, 13.11 %, 12.85% and 10.13% respectively. The main reason for high share of pulses in crop mix of these states could be that larger proportions of cultivable areas are rainfed and devoid of assured irrigation facilities, which force farmers to take up pulse cultivation. In contrast, irrigated states like Punjab and Haryana accorded low priority to these protein rich crops and devoted as little as 0.79% and 2.22% ofGCA despite knowing their capability in improving soil health and sustainability of agriculture. They are neglected to the extent that only 12.5% of pulse area in the country is covered by irrigation. Punjab followed by Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya
37
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir showed more than 10% of pulse area as irrigated. Considering the importance of improving pulse yield through technological change, these percentages appear to be very low. Table 2.5 State-wise Percentage of GCA and Area Irrigated under Pulses State
Percentage of GCA (2001-02)
% Irrigated
iI
(1999-00)
Andhra Pradesh
15.11
1.01
Arunachal
1.86
Assam
2.84
-
Bihar
8.88
2.2
GUjarat
6.90
8.7
Haryana
2.22
37.7
Himachal Pradesh
3.69
18.7
Jammu & Kashmir
2.66
15.4
Karnataka
15.52
3.9
Keraia
0.80
-
Madhya Pradesh
19.50
26.4
Maharashtra
16.13
7.5
Orissa
8.05
4.6
Punjab
0.79
74.9
Rajasthan
12.85
16.1
Tamil Nadu
13.11
8.8
Uttar Pradesh
10.13
22.9
West Bengal
2.87
-
India
11.17
12.5
Source: Computed from Data on GCA and Irrigated Area, Directorate of
Economics and Statistics, 2004.
38
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Relative Performance of Pulse Crops An examination of macro level performance of pulses in terms of
growth in area, production and yield vis-a-vis important cereals and food grains (Table 2.6) reveals that cereals production in India registered a compound growth rate of 2.81 % per annum between 1949-50 and 2002-03. It is largely contributed by a spectacular growth in the production of wheat and rice, which grew at the rate of 5.19% and 2.62% per annum, whereas it was just 0.51% for pulses. Clearly, cereals production kept pace with the growth in population but pulses lagged behind, as growth in pulses production was extremely low. A look at the compound growth rates of area under different crops presents some interesting facts. The growth rates of area under wheat, rice, cereals and pulses for the period 1949-50 to 2006-07 varied between a range of 0.08% and 0.68% per annum except for wheat where it was 1.91%. However, growth rate of yield per hectare of these crops differed widely. It was 2.91 %, 1.85% and 2.00% for wheat, rice and total cereals but only 0.49% for pulses. Evidences in literature indicate (Acharya; 1988) that technological, price and institutional support for cereals and the lack of similar efforts for the pulses seems to be the major reason for these differential growth rates. There has been a progressive rise in the irrigated area under food grains during the past decades. It has increased from 18.1 % of sown area in 1951 to 43.9% in 1999-2000. But, pulses continue to be grown under rainfed conditions. The extent of irrigated area under total pulses over different points of time for the period 195051 to 2005-2006 is given in Table 2.7. Around 86.5% of the total area under pulses remained un-irrigated. As against 42% irrigated area under food grains, only l3.5% of the total area under pulses was irrigated in 2003-04.
39
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View Table 2.6 Compound Growth Rates of Area, Production, Yield of Rice, Wheat, Cereals, Pulses and Food grains in India (1949-50 to 2006-07) with (Base:TE 1981-82=100) (% Per annum) Crop
Area
Production
Yield
Rice
0.68
2.54
1.85
Wheat
1.91
4.88
2.91
Total Cereals
0.33
2.70
2.00
Pulses
0.08
0.54
0.49
Total Food -grains
0.28
2.35
1.75
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Table 2.7 Relative Performance of Pulses in India (1950-51 to 2005-06) Year
Ratio of Pulse Produetion to that of Food grains
Ratio of Pulse yield to that of Food gains
0.17 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.08
0.84
~80-81
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.18 0.18
1990-91
0.19
0.08
0.75 0.68 0.60 0.46 0.41
1999-00
0.17
0.06
0.33
2001-02
0.18
0.06
0.35
433
13.0
2002-03
0.19
0.06
0.33
43.2
13.5
I
Ratio of Pulse Area to that of Food grains
1950-51 1960-61 1964-65 1970-71
% of Irrigated Area
to Cropped Area
Food grains
Pulses
18.1 19.1 20.2 24.1 29.7 35 I
9.9 8.0 9.2 8.8 9.0 10.5
43.9
16.1
2003-04
o 19
0.07
0.37
42.2
13.5
2004-05
0.19
0.07
0.35
NA
NA
2005-06
0.18
0.06
0.34
NA
NA
I I
Source: Ibid
This shows that pulses are not grown on irrigated lands and
40
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
have not been provided with essential inputs like irrigation. All these developments affected the status of pulses in food grains. This is reflected in the ratio of area, production and yield (Table 2.7). The ratio of area declined marginally over the period of 55 years but a substantial decline in the ratio of production may be noticed. The share of pulses in total food grains production declined from 16.5% in 1950-51 to 6.29% in 2005-06. This is the outcome of slow growth in productivity of pulses. This is evident from the declining ratio of pulses yield to food grains yield which dropped to 0.34 in 2005-06 from its earlier level of 0.84 in 1950-51. Consequently, ratio of pulse production to food grains production also witnessed a declining trend and it stooped to merely 0.06 in 2005-06 from 0.17 in 1950-51. These results reflect the worsening position of pulses in total food grains scenario of India.
Important Pulse Crops India grows around dozen varieties of pulses, which are cultivated in rabi and kharif seasons (Table 2.8). The most important crop of gram is a rabi crop and contributed 31.82% of area and 42.07% to the all India production during 1997-98. The second ranking pulse crop, arhar is primarily grown in kharif and constituted 15.42% of area and 17.44% of production. These two together accounted for nearly 47% of the area and around 60% of the total production of pulses. The next important pulses are moong and urad, which are cultivated in rabi as well as in kharif seasons. Recently, growing of moong in summer has picked up. Although, they accounted for 26% of area but their share in production was nearly 18% due to very low yields. Massar contributed around 6% to area as well as to production. Besides, kulthi, pea, khesari and moth are also grown and their shares in total pulse area were 4.59%,3.39%,3.92% and 5.72% respectively. Their corresponding contribution in the production of total pulses was 3.00%, 5.23%, 3.04% and 2.22% respectively. All these minor crops together accounted for sizeable area but their contribution in production does not match due to very low productivity except pea, which has exhibited the highest yield
41
Pulse Economy of India : A Macro View
rate among the pulse crops. The other minor pulse crops of India include lobia, raj mash, etc which occupied around 3% area but contributed around 2% to production. It is interesting to note that soybean which occupies an important position in the agriculture of many other countries in the world is not widely cultivated as pulse in India. This is also the highest yielding pulse available in the world today. Besides, it contains highest protein content apart from being a source of edible oils. Although, soyabean should be counted among pulses, it is documented as oilseed in government publications on account of its high utility for edible oils extraction in India. For this reason, soyabean is excluded from the analysis. J
The large number of pulse crops has several implications. First, it puts seIious limit to single pulse- based growth strategy for promotion of production in the country. In view oflimited resources available to pulses as a group for research and development, this implies spreading the resources too thinly to various crops and in turn making the effort inconsequential. This may explain the absence of any major thrust in research'on pulses, which is responsible for stagnation in production. Table 2.8 Important Pulse Crops in India (1997-98) Area : '000 Ha Production : 'OOOTonnes Yield : kg/ha
I! Crop Gram Arhar Urad Moong Massar Kulthi Pea Khesari Moth Minor Pulses Total
Area
% Share
Production
% Share
Yield
7168 3471 2920 2997 1304 1034 763 883 1290 692 22525
31.82 15.42 12.96 13 .30 5.79 4.59 3.39 3.92 5.72 3.07 100.00
5557 2304 1341 1096 827 396 691 401 293 302 13208
42 .07 17.44 10 . IS 8.30 6 .26 3.00 5.23 3.04 2 .22 2.29 100.00
775 663 459 365 634 383 905 455 227 580 586
Source: Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1999.
42
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Figure 2.1
Share of Important Pulses in Area
Figure 2.2
Share of Important Pulses in Production Masur
Kulhi
Pulses
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
43
Table 2.9 Three Largest Pulse Producing States in India (1997-98) (0/0) Crop States I ~----------~---------------------------------~I
Gram Arhar Moong Urad Massar Pea Kulthi Moth
Madhya Pradesh (47.75), Uttar Pradesh (15.75),1 Rajasthan (14.04) i Maharashtra(33.48), Uttar Pradesh (19.57), Madhyai Pradesh (12.17) I Maharashtra (20.29), Rajasthan (17.01), Andhra! Pradesh (12.72) I Maharashtra (42.70), Madhya Pradesh (40.79),: Andhra Pradesh (36.58). I Uttar Pradesh (49.46), Madhya Pradesh (24.73), Bihar i (15.05) i Uttar Pradesh (77.39), Madhya Pradesh (8.98),1 Rajasthan (3.09) Kamataka (36.90), Andhra Pradesh (9.77), Madhya Pradesh (9.95) I Rajasthan (89.79), Maharashtra (8.83), Gujarat (2.40)1
I I I
Total
I
Madhya Pradesh (22.90), Uttar Pradesh (18.12), Maharashtra (14.25) I
Source: Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1999.
Apparently, diversity in the number of pulse crops is very high in India. Furthennore, their spatial distribution also varied (Table 2.9). The attention may be drawn to the three largest growing states of each pulse crop alongwith their share in production. It appeared that gram, urad, massar, pea and moth are region specific in nature because a single state grows more than 40% of all India production. Other pulse crops are strictly not region specific in the sense that a cluster of two or three states accounts for bulk of the country's production. This tendency was the strongest for moth because Rajasthan alone grew 89.79% of all India production. Similarly, Uttar Pradesh grew 77.39% of pea. This concentration of spatial distribution has policy implications. It suggests that there is a great need for region-oriented focus in pulse development programmes in India.
44
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Marketed Surplus of Important Pulse Crops It is generally contended that pulses are subsistence crops and therefore, marketed surplus of pulses is very low and insignificant. But, latest available data given in Table 2.10 refute this belief. The weighted average of marketed surplus of each pulse crop in India was a minimum of7 6. 79% of total production. The marketed surplus of gram was above 90% of production in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. It was however, 85.26% in Rajasthan. It could be due to higher requirement for home consumption. Similarly, marketed surplus of moong, urad and massar was also on a higher side. Surprisingly, it was found lowest in case of arhar in Madhya Pradesh, whereas it has exceeded 70% in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. Arhar in Madhya Pradesh is the only exception in this regard as it shows the lowest marketed surplus of 47.04% of production. In brief, overall results of marketed surplus of pulses in major producing states are indicative oflower proportion devoted to self consumption and higher priority accorded to marketing of the produce for commercial gains. Table 2.10 Marketed Surplus of Important Pulses in India (2004-05) (%) Three Important States
Crop
AI/India Weighted Average
Gram
Madhya Pradesh (96.34)
Uttar Pradesh (96.25)
Rajasthan (85.26)
(93.76)
Arhar
Madhya Pradesh (47.04)
Uttar Pradesh (70.32)
Maharashtra (90.42)
(79.52)
Moong
Andhra Pradesh (61.20)
Rajasthan (86.73 )
Maharashtra (77.91 )
(76.79)
Urad
Andhra Pradesh (77.00)
Madhya Pradesh (90.63 )
Maharashtra (88.74)
(85.76)
~assar
Madhya Pradesh (91.92)
Uttar Pradesh (86.01) (73.44)
Bihar
(85.86)
I Note:
,
Brackets show percentage of production as Marketed Surplus based on CACP data.
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
45
Section-3 Status ofIndia in World Pulse Production and Trade Share of India in World Pulse Production India accounted for 30.32% of pulse area and 21.11 % of pulse production in the world during the year 2003. About 55% of the total global chickpea and 36% of lentil area fall in India with corresponding production of 58% and 42% respectively. The other major pulse producing countries are China (9.21 %), Brazil (5.89%) and Canada (5.43%). It may be observed from Table 2.11 that yield variations among the pulse producing countries are very high. The average yield of pulses in the world was 793 kg/ha in the year 2003. The countries with higher yield included France (4,146 kg/ha), the US, (1,803 kg! ha), China (1,507 kg/ha), Canada (1,506 kg/ha), Argentina (1,237 kg/ha) and Australia (1,209 kg/ha). On the other hand, countries such as Niger, Nigeria, Mexico, Brazil, Myanmar and Pakistan are lagging far behind these countries due to lower yield rates. Unfortunately, India ranks 12th despite having the largest share of world area under pulses.
Exports and Imports of Pulses India has been exporting pulses for a long period but the total quantity exported has been less than one per cent of the total production. In physical terms, quantity of pulses exported from India amounted to 31,000 tonnes in 1966-67,4,000 tonnes in 1967-68, 26,000 tonnes in 1968-69,41,000 tonnes in 1969-70,30,000 tonnes in 1970-71,22,000 tonnes in 1971-72, 15,000 tonnes in 1972-73 and 8,000 tonnes in 1973-74 (Report of National Commission on Agriculture, 1976). Recently, it has reached to 1608.24 thousand tonnes valued at Rs.2346.90 crore in 2005-06.
46
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 2.11 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important Producing Countries in the World (2003) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 MT Yield: kglha
Country
Area
Percentage share
Production
Percentage share
Yield
Rank
Niger
3557
4.98
421
0.74
119
15
Nigeria
5120
7.18
2250
3.98
439
14
Canada
2036
2.86
3067
5.43
1506
4
Mexico
2123
2.98
1752
3.10
825
9
Brazil
4148
5.82
3328
5.89
802
10
China
3456
4.85
5208
9.21
1507
3
India
21615
30.32
11933
21.11
552
12
Pakistan
2289
3.21
1064
1.88
465
13
Turkey
1602
2.25
1577
2.79
984
7
France
467
0.66
1935
3.42
4146
I
Australia
2126
2.98
2570
4.55
1209
6
Myanmar
3143
4.40
2792
4.94
888
8
USA
780
1.09
1406
2.49
1803
2
Bangladesh
453
0.64
350
0.62
772
II
Argentina
224
0.31
277
0.49
1 1237
71280
100.00
56520
100.00
World·
• Includes minor producing countries . . Source: FAO Production Year Book, 2003.
I
793
5
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
47
India has been importing pulses since the early 1980s. This was necessitated by the fact that the domestic demand for essential pulses of mass consumption was rising faster than the increase in production. The imports of pulses kept on rising because the country's self sufficiency level has been considerably eroded over the past two decades. Currently, India imports more than 10% of domestic production. It was observed that demand and production gap per year is around five million tonnes. But, the level of actual imports is far less. The annual imports had averaged around two million tonnes in the recent years. In 2001-02, our country imported more than two million tonnes of pulses. It seems that large imports are inevitable in the current production scenario because gap between demand and supply will continue to be quite wide in view of prolonged stagnation in production of pulses. Once an exporter of pulses, India is presently the largest importer of pulses in the world. Pulses are imported on regular basis, because domestic production is chronically short of domestic demand. The crisis of pulses is gradually increasing due to growth in popUlation and introduction of protein-based food industries. There is a need to check pulse import due to associated problems like pulses being integral item of food for the Indian population, scarce availability of pulses in the world market and fear of jacking up prices owing to high quantity demanded by India. Given the domestic compulsions, India should develop indigenous base to fulfil the demand and supply gap. A limited quantity can always be imported at the world price.
48
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 2.12
Exports and Imports of Pulses in India Quantity: '000 tonnes Value: Rs. croTe Unit value: Rs.lkg Year
Imports
Exports Quantity
Value
Per unit price
1980-81
1.09
0.35
3.21
172.96
29.76
1.72
1985-86
0.57
0.46
8.07
431.44
189.06
4.38
1990-91
-
-
-
791.95
473.24
5.98
Quantity
Value
Per uni price
1995-96
61.36
131.81
21.50
485.65
685.55
14.12
2000-01
264.38
537.67
22.00
353.01
502.86
12.69
2001-02
161.98
370.40
22.84
2306.44
3311.54
14.26
2002-03
144.37
337.23
23.35
1992.29
2737.05
13.73
2003-04
153.88
328.60
21.35
1723.33
2284.87
13.26
2004-05
246.38
553.81
22.48
1296.46
1718.64
13.26
2005-06
444.61
1102.62
24.80
1608.24
2346.90
14.59
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Section-4 Pulses Developmental Strategies during Plans
The poor performance of pulse production in India (see Table 2.6) may be attributed to the neglect of pulse crops in the policy for almost one and a half decades after independence. Like wheat and rice crops, there were no specific programmes of pulses development till the Second Five Year Plan. After observing the continuous decline in the output of pulses and yield per hectare, an All-India Coordinated Pulse Research Project (AICPRP) was
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
49
initiated in 1965 during the Third Five Year Plan to undertake a nation wide research effort on pulses with the headquarters at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) along with regional Centres and four sub Centres. A Pulse Development Directorate was established in 1970. A centrally sponsored scheme for increasing production of pulses was initiated in 30 potential districts of the country in 1972-73. The strategy adopted to increase production included seed multiplication and supply of seeds of short duration or improved varieties at subsidized rates, demonstration of improved pulse production practices and supply of plant protection chemicals and equipment at the subsidized rates. But, between 1969-70 and 1973-74, there was no increase in pulse production; rather it decreased from 11.69 million tonnes in 1969-70 to 10.01 million tonnes in 1973-74. The yield per hectare also registered a continuous decrease during this period. Thus, there was no immediate impact of the scheme on the production of pulses. May be that these efforts averted the rapid decreases which could have occurred in the absence of this scheme. The Fifth Five Year Plan targeted to increase the pulse production by 2.5 million tonnes. Out ofthis, an increase of 0.75 million tonnes was to be achieved by attracting an additional area of 1.5 million hectares under pulses with an assumed production level of 500 kg! ha on this additional area. It was planned to achieve the remaining 1.75 million tonnes by yield improvement of250 kg/ha through the adoption of improved package of practices on seven million hectares. During this plan, the Pulse Development Scheme was extended to 50 districts of the country. The efforts did not succeed this time also. The Fifth Five Year Plan closed a year earlier in 1977-78. By then, production of pulses reached a level of 11.97 million tonnes, though higher than the actual production level of 10.01 million tonnes in 1974-75 but only marginally higher than the base level production (11.5 million tonnes) assumed by the planners. There was some improvement both in area as well as in yield during this plan. In the Sixth Five Year Plan (1978-83), it was proposed to increase the production of pulses to a level of 15 million tonnes by 1982-83. The emphasis proposed was both on area expansion as
50
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
well as yield increase. But, original Sixth Plan was abandoned and revised from April 1, 1980. Assuming a base level production of 11.61 million tonnes in 1980-81, target in the Sixth Five Year Plan was to increasepuiseproduction to a level of 15.50 million tonnes. This proposed increase of3 .89 million tonnes was sub-divided cropwise as gram (1.20 million tonnes), summer moong (1.20 million tonnes), arhar (1.00 million tonnes) and urad and others (0.49) million tonnes). The major strategy for achieving this goal has been set out as:(i) to bring an additional area on.5 million hectares under these crops; and (ii) adoption of package programme over an area of6.3 million hectares in gram, arhar and moong. By the late 1980s, the above-mentioned programmes failed to increase anticipated efficiency in pulse production. Realizing this, pulses were brought under the Technology Mission (TM) in the year 1990. The National Pulses Development Project (NPDP) under the guidance of TM was launched with the main objective of increasing the production of pulses through transfer of improved crop production technology to the farmers' fields in respect of the major pulse crops. At present, the National Pulses Development Programme is being implemented in more than 200 pulse-producing districts of India. The focus and thrust ofNPDP has been a district oriented approach to reach an increased level of productivity and production within a time frame by implementing a two-pronged strategy, viz, area expansion and yield improvement. These programmes also continued in the Eighth (1992-93 to 1996-97) and Ninth Plan (1997-2002). In the Tenth Plan (2002-07), the Technology Mission is still operational but recently four crops namely; oilseeds, pulses, oil palm and maize are clubbed together under the scheme known as ISOPAM (Integrated Scheme of Oilseeds, Pulses, Oil Palm and Maize). The set target of 16 million tonnes still remains elusive despite the implementation of these programmes.
Pulse Economy ofIndia: A Macro View
51
Table 2.13 Major Strategies/Programmes Introduced for Pulses Development during Plans. Third Plan (1961-62 to 1965-66)
Fourth Plan (1969-70 to 1973-74)
1. All India Coordinated Research Programme was initiated.
1.
"Intensive Pulses District Programme' (IPDP) was initiated.
2. Breeding of suitable varieties for
2.
Adoption of package of practices Including use of improved seeds phosphatic fertilizers, rhizobia culture and plant protectior campaigns.
3. Breeding of suitable varieties of urad for Mixed cropping in North India.
3.
Mini-kit distribution.
4. Breeding of disease resistant varieties.
4.
Extension of pulse area by catch cropping, inter-cropping and mixed cropping with cereals, millets, cotton groundnut and sugarcane. etc.
fitting in multiple cropping.
Fifth Plan (1974-75 to 1978-79)
Sixth Plan (1980-81 to 1984-85)
1. IPDP continued and further intensified.
I.
Introduction of pulse crops in irrigated Farming.
2. Research programme on pulses stepped up through All India Coordinated Research Programme.
2.
Bringing additional area under short Duration varieties of urad, moong, etc. in rice fallows by utilizing the residua moisture in rabi season and in summe Season with irrigation after oil seeds sugarcane, potato and wheat.
3. Breeding of varieties suitable as catch Crops for replacing monsoon fallows.
3.
Multiplication and use of improved pulse seeds.
4. Standardization oftechniques
4.
Use of phosphatic fertilizers and rhizobial culture.
for Fertilizer application. 5. Development of pest control schedules And suitable bacterial culture.
5. Improved post harvest technology.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
52 Table 2.13 (Contd.)
Fifth Plan (1974-75 to 1978-79) 6. Development of more effective agronomic practices.
Sixth Plan (1980-81 to 1984-85) 6.
Organization of "pulse crop village" in Various blocks both in irrigated and rain-fed areas.
7. Special importance on processing of Pulses and modernization of dal milling industry.
Eighth Plan (1992-93 to 1996-97)
Seventh Plan (1985-86 to 1989-90) 1.
Many programmes introduced in the Seventh Plan were allowed to continu( in the Eighth Plan.
2. Bringing additional area under short Duration varieties of moong and urad in rice fallows in the rabi season and as a summer crop where irrigation facilities are available.
2.
Pulse crops brought under TM in 1990-91.
3. Inter-cropping ofarhar, moong and urad With other crops.
3.
Pulse production was intensified by taking up NPDP and the special food grain production programme on pulses.
I. Introduction of pulses in
irrigated farming.
Ninth Plan (1997 to 2002)
4. Multiplication and use of improved Seeds.
5. Adoption of plant protection measures.
1.
Programmes launched in the Eight Plan Were allowed continuing during Ninth Plan.
6. Use of fertilizers and rhizobial culture.
2.
Technology Mission was in operation.
7. Remunerative price relative to Competing crops.
Tenth Plan (2002-2007)
8. Centrally sponsored National Pulses Development Programme (NPDP).
Same as in the Ninth Plan.
Source: Third to Tenth Five Year Plan documents
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
53
In addition to the special programmes for increasing pulse production in India, the Government announces minimum support prices (MSPs) in case of gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar each year. Massar has been recently included in the scheme. The MSPs are meant to enable the producers to pursue their efforts with the assurance that the prices of the produce would not be allowed to fall below the level fixed by the government. These prices are expected to cover cost of production and reasonable profits. The MSPs fixed by the government for the pulses are given in Table 2.14. It may be observed that MSPs for pulses have been rising continuously for each of the covered pulses since 1981. The compound growth rates of minimum support prices of gram, arhar, moonglurad are estimated 9.74%, 8.94% and 8.73% per annum respectively between 1980-81 and 2006-07. These growth rates appeared to be quite impressive. But, in reality, the MSPs for pulses have been only notional and ineffective because pulses are not procured. In case offaIling market prices, the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India (NAFED) procures a very limited quantity under the price support scheme and commercial purchases. Pulses do not have any procurement system like wheat and rice except in emergency when the NAFED procures pulses in small quantity. The prices ofarhar, moong and urad during 2000-01 and 2001-02 were ruling below the MSP during the peak arrival months. NAFED procured a small quantity of total production. It was 98 tonnes of arhar at an average price Rs.l,350 per qtl. However, NAFED intervened in only three markets of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Delhi for price support even though prices were falling below the MSP in other markets of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. It implies that NAFED's intervention is very limited in comparison to the requirement.
54
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 2.14 Minimum Support Prices of Pulses (1980-81 to 2006-07). (Rs/QtI)
Year
Gram
Arhar
MoonglUrad
Massar
-
1980-81
165
190
200
1990-91
450
480
480
1991-92
500
550
550
1992-93
600
600
600
1993-94
640
700
700
-
1994-95
670
760
760
1995-96
700
800
800
1996-97
740
840
840
1997-98
815
900
900
1998-99
895
960
960
1999-00
1015
1105
1105
2000-01
1100
1200
1200
-
2001-02
1200
1320
1320
1200
2002-03*
1220+5*
1320+5*
1330+5*
1300
2003-04
1400
1360
1370
1500
2004-05
1425
1390
1410
1525
2005-06
1435
1400
1520
1535
2006-07
1445
1410
1520
1545
CGR 1980-81 and 2006-07
9.74
8.94
8.73
-
* Special Drought Relief Price (Rs.5 extra). Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
55
Pulse Economy of India: A Macro View
Table 2.15 Procurement of Pulses by NAFED under Price Support Scheme and Commercial Purchases 2000-01, 2001-02 j Qty: tonnes Value :Rs. Lakh Price: Rs./qtl 200/-02
2000-0/
Commodity Quantity
Value
Price per qtl.
Quantity
Value
Price per qt!.
Price Support Scheme Gram
-
-
-
-
-
-
Arhar
98
13.23
1350
3838
571
1487
Moong
-
-
-
-
-
-
Urad
-
-
-
-
-
-
Massar
-
-
-
-
I
-
I
-
Under Commercial Purchases Gram
18151
2564
1413
26202
4090
1561
Arhar
1920
284
1479
3388
494
1458
Moong
1886
325
1723
5965
1207
2023
31
6
1935
5579
1055
18~
5794
910
1572
2421
396
1637
Urad Massar
I
Source: Reports of the CommlsslOn for Agncultural Costs and Pnces, 2003
In addition, NAFED also makes commercial purchases. It was 18,151 tonnes of gram, 5,794 tonnes of massar, 1,920 tonnes of arhar, 1,886 tonnes of moong and 31 tonnes of urad at an average price ofRs.1413, Rs.1572, Rs.1479, Rs.1723 and RS.1935 per qtl respectively. Commercial purchases were made during 2001-02 also. But, looking at the support required by the pulse growers, these interventions are like peanuts and hardly, make any difference to overall situation (Table 2.15).
56
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Having analysed the strategy for promotion of pulses in India, it is essential to examine the achievement of fixed targets for pulse production in India. It may be noticed (Table 2.16) that the achievement of pulse production in India during the recent past was below the set targets. There is not a single year when the target was fully achieved. The achievement ranged between 70.69% in 200203 and 99.60% in 2003-04. The achievement of targets was found better in 1998-99, 2003-04 and 2006-07. In brief, the overall scenario of pulse production in India calls for a deeper probe and solutions since the country could not achieve even the modest target of 16 million tonnes with the ongoing strategy for pulse development. Table2.16 Target and Achievement of Pulse Production (1997-98 to 2006-07) Year
Target
Achievement
1997-98
15.00
12.97 (86.47)*
1998-99
15.50
14.91 (96.19)
1999-00
15.50
13.41 (86.52)
2000-01
15.00
11.07 (73.80)
. 2001-02
15.00
13.37 (89.13)
2002-03
16.00
11.13 (70.69)
2003-04
15.00
14.94 (99.60)
2004-05
15.30
13.13 (85.82)
2005-06
15.15
13.39 (88.38)
2006-07
15.15
14.10 (93.07)
* Brackets show the percentage of targets achieved. Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2007
Chapter 3
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage and Yield Response of Pulse Crops
Economists have extensively investigated the growth performance of rice and wheat during the past four decades. It has been widely researched at global, regional, national, state and household levels. Unfortunately, scant attention has been paid to the study of pulse crops, which play an important role in sustaining crop systems and the nutritional security of the population in India. Although, evidences are available for 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, inadequate recent information has impaired the policy initiatives in the changed agricultural scenario in the country. Therefore, an attempt must be made to provide current evidence on temporal and spatial dimensions of the pulse development. The present chapter is devoted to the analysis of growth performance and instability in the area, production and yield of five important pulse crops (gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar) along with total pulses at the all India level and in maj or producing states of the country between 1980-81 and 200102. In addition, acreage and yield responses have also been examined. The entire study period is sub-divided into two periods. The first period relates to 1980s beginning from 1980-81 to 1990-91 and the second period to 1990s from 1990-91 to 2001-02. These represent the pre- and post-reforms periods. The cut-off point of 1990-91 has strategic significance, as pulse crops were included in the Technology Mission during this year. Given this framework, three hypotheses are proposed for testing. First, pulse production performance in India is poor due to low growth of acreage and yield in the study period. Second, non-price factors are more important than price
58
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
factors in acreage allocation to pulse crops by farmers. Third, expenditure on seed, fertilizer and magnitude of rainfall influence the yield of pulse crops. The methodology followed for each aspect is different. For measuring the growth rates of area, production and yield, semi-log functions were used while instability indices were estimated by applying Coppock's methodology oflog variance. The Nerlovian modified model of distributed lags was used to identify the factors influencing acreage of important pulse crops. Finally, the CobbDouglas regression model is applied for segregating the factors effecting yield of referred pulses. The details of the methodology used are given at the relevant place in the analysis. This chapter is organized as follows. Section-l examines the state-wise growth performance of major pulses in India in order to assess the nature of stagnancy in pulse production in the background of the changing agricultural scenario in the country. In addition, it looks into the farm size variation. Section - 2 is devoted to the analysis of instability in area, production and yield of referred pulses. Section - 3 identifies the factors influencing acreage and yield of major pulses in the core states in India.
Section -1 Growth Performance Some scholars (Chopra and Swamy, 1975; Sadashivan, 1989; Satyapriya, 1989) have attempted to document the detailed performance of pulse crops since independence. The annual growth rate of production in the pre-green revolution period (1949-50 to 1964-65) with a base year of triennium ending 1981-82 was 1.41 % per annum, which dropped significantly in the 1970s.1t was only in the 1980s that growth rate crossed one per cent per annum. During this period, pulse production grew at the annual growth rate of 1.52% per annum. The economic re-structuring during the 1990s did not prove beneficial for pulse production and its growth declined substantially. It became 0.61 % per annum between 1990-91 and
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
59
1999-00 (Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, 2003). But, the individual pulse crops behaved differently. The annual increase in gram production was above average while it was negligible for arhar. Given this background, it is pertinent to examine the statewise growth performance of individual pulse crops in India for the aforesaid periods. The semi-log equation of the form log y = a + bt is used to estimate the state-wise growth rates in area, production and yield of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar, rabi pulses, kharif pulses and total pulses during the first, second and entire study periods.
Gram The most important pulse crop in India is gram which occupied an area of about 5,712 thousand hectares during 2001-02. It constitutes nearly two-fifth share of the area of total pulses. It is a multi-purpose crop. Its leaves are largely eaten as vegetable and the grain is eaten raw. When ripe, it is used as a whole, split and after grinding as flour (besan), etc. It is sown during October and November. Many times, it is mixed with wheat, barley, mustard and pea. The crop matures within 95 to 150 days depending on the variety grown. The crop is irrigated once or twice only when soil gets dried up in November or December. Being a leguminous crop, gram utilizes atmospheric nitrogen through its root nodules. The crop is neither manured nor fertilized by most of the farmers. The information on area, production, yield and percentage of irrigated area in important states during triennium ending 2001-02 is given in Table 3.1.
60
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.1
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Gram in Important States in India (TE 2001-02). Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha Area
State
200102
Production
% Share 2001-02
% Share
Yield
%0/ Irrg. Area.
2001- Rank 200002 01
Madhya Pradesh
2187.1
38.29
2006.8
43.28
918
5
41.1
Uttar Pradesh
768.8
13.46
765.8
16.51
996
1
14.8
Rajasthan
872.6
15.28
603.0
13.00
691
8
50.8
Maharashtra
788.2
13.80
466.9
10.07
592
11
34.9
Karnataka
389.5
6.82
235.1
5.07
604
10
10.9
Andhra Pradesh
203.8
3.57
188.1
4.06
923
4
6.8
Bihar
93.5
1.64
91.6
1.98
979
2
3.4
Haryana
107.5
1.88
78.0
1.68
726
7
32.6
West Bengal
44.1
0.77
38.4
0.83
871
6
NA
Gujarat
49.1
0.86
25.8
0.56
526
13
24.2
Onssa
28.0
0.49
15.0
0.32
536
12
NA
Punjab
7.0
0.12
6.6
0.14
943
3
35.7
Tamil Nadu India*
•
6.5
0.11
4.2
0.09
641
9
NA
5711.5
100.00
4637.2
100.00
812
-
30.9
Includes minor producing states. Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004
61
Growth Peiformance, Instability, Acreage
Table 3.2 Growth Performance of Gram in Important States of India (1981-2002): (% per annum)
Area
State
1981- 199102 91
Madhya Pradesh
Production 1981-
02
Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 198191 02 02 91 02 02
1.6
0.1
1.2
3.2
1.9
Uttar Pradesh
-1.7
-4.5
-3.6
-1.7
-3.1
Rajasthan
-3.2
-2.6
-1.1
-4.0
-1.2
Maharashtra
5.1
3.6
3.3
10.8
3.3
Kamataka
5.5
6.5
5.3
1.4
12.1
Andhra Pradesh
2.5
11.5
7.9
8.1
3.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
-2.9
0.0
1.4
0.7
-0.7
-0.8
1.4
0.4
6.2
5.7
-0.3
2.9
7.0
-4.1
5.6
1.7
14.0
12.7
5.6
2.5
4.8
Bihar
-1.5
-4.2
-3.2
0.6
-4.3
-2.0
2.1
-0.1
1.2
Haryana
-4.5
-12.8
-7.7
0.3
-13.1
-4.9
4.8
-0.3
2.8
West Bengal
-10.2
6.5
-4.8
-10.8
8.8
-3.7
-0.6
2.3
1.1
Gujarat
1.1
-9.0
-1.8
-3.2
-9.9
-3.0
-4.3
-0.9
-1.2
Orissa
0.0
-3.3
-2.7
2.0
-5.7
-3.3
2.0
-2.4
-0.6
Punjab
-13.7
-18.8
-16.6
-10.1
-16.5
-14.0
3.6
2.3
2.6
Tamil Nadu
-3.3
-1.2
-0.9
-1.8
-1.2
-0.6
1.5
0.0
0.3
India
-0.7
-0.8
-0.5
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.2
Source: Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 198198 and data complied from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002), 2004.
It may be noticed that gram is extensively cultivated as a winter
crop in India especially in the states of Madhya Pradesh (38.29%), Rajasthan (15.28%), Maharashtra (13.80%) and Uttar Pradesh (13 .46%). These states together accounted for 81 % of all India
62
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
area under gram. These are also leading states in terms of production but Uttar Pradesh crossed Maharashtra and Rajasthan due to highest productivity. Further, disparities in yield rates were also found significant. The state of Uttar Pradesh was leading with a yield rate of 996 kg/ha. The other high ranking states were Bihar (979 kglha), Punjab (943 kg/ha) and Andhra Pradesh (923 kg/ha). Nonetheless, these yield rates are much below the potential yield of 15-20 qtllha. It is largely due to low proportion of irrigated area to total area. Only 30.9% of gram area was found irrigated during 2000-0 1. The states with higher irrigated area are Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana. On the other hand, merely 6.8% of gram area was found irrigated in Andhra Pradesh. After analyzing the geographical spread of gram cultivation in India, it is imperative to examine the growth performance in terms of area, production and yield between 1980-81 and 2001-02. It may be observed from Table 3.2 that the growth rate of gram area was found negative at the all India level. The gram area declined at the rate of 0.8%, 0.7% and 0.5% per annum during the 1980s, 1990s and the entire study period. It appears that the inclusion of pulses in the Technology Mission on Oi1seeds and Pulses (TMOP) in 1990 did not make any impact to incentivise farmers to grow this crop. The performance of gram area was found poor in Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. The largest decline in warn area was noticed in case of Punjab (16.6% per annum) followed by Haryana, which are well-irrigated states. After the success of green revolution in the 1960s, farmers here shifted to wheat, which yielded relatively higher profitability per unit of land in irrigated regions. In rain fed areas of Haryana, mustard replaced gram. This has happened despite higher growth of gram yield in these states. But, productivity growth could not compensate for area decline and hence, production declined at a high rate of 14.0% and 4.9% per annum during the study period. The drop in gram production was relatively higher in the 1990s as compared to the 1980s.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
63
On the other hand, gainer states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa have exhibited a significant expansion in the area under gram. It was as high as 7.9% in Andhra Pradesh and 5.3 % per annum in Karnataka during the study period. The clear-cut shift of production base from traditional to new southern states was noticed. The gram area in southern states became almost equal to northern states. Since, yield performance was also commendable in these states, production grew at the rate of 12.7% in Andhra Pradesh, 7% in Karnataka, 6.2% in Maharashtra and 3.4% per annum in Madhya Pradesh during the reference period. Unfortunately, production of gram in Orissa has exhibited a decline due to negative growth in area as well as in yield. The higher rate of gram production in Andhra Pradesh may be attributed to high productivity coupled with favourable prices, good monsoon and availability of improved variety seeds and efficient extension services. In fact, gram's competitive edge has weakened in northern states due to shift towards the more profitable crops like wheat in irrigated areas and mustard in unirrigated areas. Moreover, this period faced only three un-favourable monsoon years in the late eighties and one in 200 1-02. This partially explains the good performance in production. In addition, there are evidences to show (NSSO Report, 451) that pulse growers in Andhra Pradesh are using improved seeds for pulse cultivation and adoption rate is as high as 70.96% against an all India average of 47% during 1999. The tendency of increasing area under gram in rain fed areas of these states may likely to continue due to availability of short duration varieties of gram with better adaptation in rain-fed areas and efficient extension services available to farmers. Arhar
Arhar ranks second amongst the pulse crops of India. It is largely eaten in the form of split pulse (dal) while its tender green pods constitute a favourite vegetable in some parts of the country. The outer integuments of its seed together with part of the kernel provide a valuable feed for the milch cattle. The stalks are utilized for various purposes such as roofing and basket making. Arhar is a long duration
64
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
crop. It is sown in July with first rains of the monsoon and ripens about March. But, now short duration varieties are available with lower maturity periods. At times, it is grown as a mixed crop with jowar, bajra and groundnut. This practice not only offers insurance against the crop failure but also enables the cultivator to obtain a variety of harvests from the same piece of land. The information on area, production, yield and irrigated area of arhar in important states of India in TE 2001-02 is presented in Table 3.3.
It may be noticed that arhar was grown on 3,493 thousand hectares of area in India. The crop is more extensively cultivated in states of Maharashtra (30.10%), Kamataka (14.67%), Andhra Pradesh (13.02%) and Uttar Pradesh (11.67%). Their shares in all India production were 31.68%, 11.60%, 7.74% and 20.69% respectively during triennium ending 2001-02. The state of Maharashtra is leading by showing little less than one third of all India area and production. The yield rate for the country as a whole was 693 kg/ha. Bihar was leading in productivity with a yield of 1,257 kg/ha. Among the major producing states, Uttar Pradesh was far ahead in productivity than Maharashtra, Kamataka and Andhra Pradesh. The proportion of irrigated area to cropped area was however, only 4.2%. This indicates poor status of arhar in receiving irrigation. The highest proportion of irrigated area was observed in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat against a low share in Bihar (0.3% of cropped area).
65
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
Table 3.3 Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Arhar in Important States in India (TE-2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha Production
Area
State
Yield
%/rrg
Area. Rank
200102
% Share
200102
Maharashtra
1051.3
30.10
766.5
31.68
729
6
1.9
Uttar Pradesh
407.6
11.67
500.6
20.69
1228
2
12.8
14.97
280.7
11.60
537
10
1.3
Karnataka
523.0
% Share 200102
200001
Madhya Pradesh
330.9
9.47
272.1
11.25
822
4
0.8
Gujarat
336.0
9.62
195.0
8.06
580
9
12.2
Andhra Pradesh
454.9
13.02
187 3
7.74
412
13
0.8
Orissa
142.3
4.07
74.3
3.07
522
12
0.6
Bihar
42.5
1.22
53.4
2.21
1257
1
0.3
Tamil Nadu
70.9
2.03
48.5
201
684
8
3.1
Rajasthan
25.1
0.72
13.1
0.54
523
11
NA
Haryana
14.8
0.42
11.5
0.48
775
5
NA
Punjab
8.7
0.25
7.6
0.31
866
3
NA
7
NA
West Bengal India· •
5.3
0.15
3.7
0.15
700
3493.3
100.00
2419.1
100.00
693
Includes minor producing states Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004
4.2
66
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.4
Growth Performance of Arhar in Important States of India (1981-2002). (% per annum) State
Area
Production
Yield
/98/91
/99/-
Maharashtra
4.0
0.3
2.5
4.2
5.1
3.1
0.2
4.8
0.6
Uttar Pradesh
-0.7
-2.4
-1.0
-1.5
0.9
-0.9
1.2
6.8
-1.9 \.5
-0.5
1.9
-1.2 \.8
-1.8
4.9
0.3
02
/98/- /98/- /99/- 198/- 198/- /991- 198191 02 02 9102 02 02-
Karnataka
3.6
Madhya Pradesh
-1.0
-1.5
-2.2
2.2
-2.0
-\.9
3.3
-0.5
0.3
Gujarat
2.5
-1.8
1.0
1.2
-5.0
0.6
-1.3
-3.2
-0.4
Andhra Pradesh
4.7
3.6
2.9
4.0
8.0
6.1
-0.7
4.4
3.2
Orissa
6.1
-1.0
\.8
10.0
-6.8
0.2
3.9
-5.8
-1.6
3.1
2.1
-1.\
Bihar
-4.0
-2.6
-1.0
-0.9
-0.5
-2.1
Tamil Nadu
6.8
-5.0
-0.4
8.3
-3.5
-0.2
1.5
1.5
0.2
Rajasthan
-1.6
0.7
-0.1
2.3
4.9
3.4
3.9
4.2
3.5
Haryana
19.7
-11.0
3.7
19.2
-12.8
3.8
-0 5
-1.8
0.1
Punjab
0.1
-3.7
-6.0
-1.8
-5.3
-6.8
-\.9
-\.6
-0.8
,West Bengal
-17.3
-\.7
-9.0
-18.1
-0.5
-10.6 -0.8
1.2
-\.6
India
2.3
-0.3
0.8
2.2
0.3
0.6
-0.5
Source:
0.3
-0.1
Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1981-98 and Data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-20.02),2004
Having looked into the geographical spread of area and production, the author proceeds to examine the state-wise growth perfonnance of area, production and yield of arhar between 198081 and 2001-02. It may be observed from Table 3.4 that the growth of arhar area in the country during the study period was 0.8% per
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
67
annum. The first period was major contributor but area declined at the rate of 0.3% per annum during the second period. The gainer states included Haryana (3.7%), Andhra Pradesh (2.9%), Maharashtra (2.5%), Orissa (1.8%), Karnataka (1.2%) and Gujarat (1%). However, states ofWest Bengal (9.0%), Punjab (6%) Madhya Pradesh (2.2%) and Bihar (1 %) were found to be loosers in terms of area during the study period. The states, which have gained in area, also exhibited positive growth rates in production. Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan have gained more in terms of production due to yield improvement. The rate of increase in production was observed to be lower in the 1990s as compared to the 1980s. The states with significant growth rate in yield are Andhra Pradesh (3.2%) and Rajasthan (3.5%). The performance of all other states was found dismal in growth of yield. Thus, growth of arhar production was merely 0.3 % per annum and that too was due to area expansion at the rate of 0.8% per annum between 1980-81 and 2001-02. The contribution of yield was found negative. It implies that the farmers are either not adopting improved seeds or their success rate is low.
Moong Moong is fairly important as a pulse crop in India as it contributes 13.30% in area and 8.30% per cent in production of total pulses at the country level. It is mainly cultivated as kharif season crop in Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. But, in states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, it is also grown in rabi season as a second crop after paddy. In 1997-98, moong occupied 2,372 thousand hectares in kharif season producing nearly 617 thousand to~es of beans whereas during the rabi season only 617 thousand hectares were under this crop giving 245 thousand tonnes of production. It is also grown as a summer crop in states ofPunjab and Haryana. Summer crop is generally sown in March and is harvested in June before the monsoon sets in, thus making the land available for the next paddy crop. The information on state-wise area, production and yield of moong in triennium ending 2001-02 is presented in Table 3.5.
68
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The all India area under moong was 3,015 thousand hectares in TE 2001-02. Maharashtra (23.34%), Rajasthan (17.41%), Andhra Pradesh (16.09%) and Karnataka (12.18%) together cropped around 70% of all India area. Besides, it is grown in Bihar, Orissa, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh as well. The states of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh contributed more than 40% of total production of the country. Surprisingly, Rajasthan and Karnataka had higher shares in area but due to dismal performance in the yield, their proportion in production declined. Specifically, share of Rajasthan declined by almost 7%. The yield of moong was observed to be as low as 357 kg/ha in TE 2001-02. It could be partly due to drought conditions in 2001-02 and partly due to low yield in normal years too. It is not possible to analyse irrigation status due to non-availability of data on this aspect. Table 3.5 Area, Production and Yield of Moong in Important States in India (TE 2001-02): Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha
State
Area
Production
2001-02 % Share
2001-02 % Share
Yield
2001-02
Rank
Maharashtra
703.7
23.34
285.0
26.46
405
5
Andhra Pradesh
485.0
16.09
183.0
16.99
377
6
Karnataka
367.3
12.18
126.0
11.70
343
7
Rajasthan
525.0
17.41
109.0
10.12
208
11
Bihar
187.0
6.20
107.7
10.00
576
1
Tamil Nadu
141.3
4.69
63.7
5.91
450
4
Gujarat
142.0
4.71
48.0
4.46
338
8
Uttar Pradesh
100.0
3.32
47.7
4.43
477
3
Onssa
184.0
6.10
40.0
3.71
217
10
Madhya Pradesh
107.7
3.57
32.0
2.97
297
9
Punjab
30.7
1.02
17.3
1.61
565
2
India·
3015.0
100.00
1077.0
100.00
357
-
• Includes minor producing states Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
69
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.6 Growth Performance of Moong in Important States ofIndia (1981-2002): (% per annum) Production
Area
State
1981- 1991-
1981-
Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 198191 02 02 91 02 02
91
02
02
Maharashtra
4.8
-1.0
1.9
11.6
-0.6
4.3
6.8
Andhra Pradesh
-2.0
-0.6
-0.9
-4.5
-0.4
-0.8
-2.5
0.2
0.1
Kamataka
5.9
3.0
3.4
8.6
-1.1
2.6
2.7
-4.1
-0.8 2.5
0.4
2.4
Rajasthan
2.5
4.6
5.9
4.1
1.6
8.4
1.6
-3.0
Bihar
3.9
-1.2
0.4
7.3
-1.0
2.2
3.4
0.2
1.8
Tamil Nadu
5.9
0.1
0.9
10.1
1.3
4.1
4.2
1.2
3.2
Gujarat
-2.1
-0.2
2.5
-14.2
0.3
2.2
-12.1
0.5
-0.3
Uttar Pradesh
-2.2
0.2
-2.2
-2.0
-0.3
-0.6
0.2
-0.5
1.6
Orissa
-1.4
-7.4
-6.0
0.0
-9.2
-6.9
-1.4
-16.6
-12.9
Madhya Pradesh
-4.1
-3.5
-4.3
-3.2
-3.4
-3.3
0.9
0.1
1.0
Punjab
10.3
-5.3
1.6
9.6
-9.6
0.1
-0.7
-4.3
-1.5
India
2.1
-0.7
0.2
2.8
-2.3
-0.2
0.7
-1.6
-0.4
Source:
Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India. 198198 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (19992002). 2004.
The growth rates in area, production and yield of moong for India and important growing states between 1980-81 and 2001-02 are shown in Table 3.6. The all India area grew at the low rate of 0.2% per annum during this period. The first period indicated a positive growth of2.1 % while it was observed to be negative in the second period. At the state level, Rajasthan, (5.9%) followed by Kamataka (3.4%) and Gujarat (2.5%) were the major gainers while Orissa (6.9%), Madhya Pradesh (4.3%) and Uttar Pradesh (2.2%) were
70
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
the major loosers in moong area during the study period. Sutprisingly, production ofmoong in India has declined at the rate ofO.2%_per annum during the study period. Particularly, production performance was found poor in the second period with a negative growth rate of 2.3% per annum. The performance of Rajasthan (8.4%) followed by Maharashtra (4.3%) and Tamil Nadu (4.1 %) was commendable. But, these gains could not compensate for the losses in major states. Like arhar, productivity has been the greatest casualty in the case of moong, which declined at the rate of 0.4% per annum during the reference period. Although, it grew at the rate of 0.7% in the 1980s, the dismal performance of the 1990s with a negative growth rate of 1.6% became responsible for the overall decline in the growth of production. To conclude, growth performance of moong during the past two decades had been extremely poor because neither area nor yield favoured this crop.
Urad Urad, like moong is primarily a warm season crop. It is also grown both in kharif and rabi seasons. It is a kharif season crop in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. But, some of these states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal along with Assam grow it in the rabi season too. The crop is mainly grown for its beans, which are used as a whole or split. The geographical distribution of area and production along with yield in TE 2001-02 is presented in Table 3.7. It may be observed that urad was grown on 3,069 thousand hectares in India. The leading states in area allocation are Maharashtra (18.90%), Madhya Pradesh (17.87%), Andhra Pradesh (17.78%) and Uttar Pradesh (12.34%). Besides, it i2 also cultivated in Tamil Nadu (9.32%), Karnataka (4.77%), Rajasthan (4051%), Gujarat (4.42%) and Orissa (4.02%). Andhra Pradesh with 25.96% share in all India 0 PrOduction isDthe leading state. Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh together g2ew aroUnd 40%. The yield level of urad was found extremely low at alL India level 446 kg/ha).
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
71
Th% highest yiEld of 687 kglha was reported in Bihar. It is depressing to note that the states of Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Rajasthan have exhibited yield of urad between three to four quintals per hectare. The estimates of growth rates of area, production and yield of urad in all India and iajor growing states indicate (Table 3.8) that area under urad remained almost stagnant (0.2% per annum) during the stedy period. The period of 1980s was favourable by indicating a growth rate of 2.4% per an.um but tHe negative growth (0.7%) in 4he 1990s became responsible for overall stagnation in area. The major(stateswith posityve growdh in area were KamaTaka (5.8%), Andhra Pradesh (4.8%) an$ Uttar Pradesh (3.7%). The looser states constituted Orissa (-7.8%), Bihar (-2.7%) and West Bengal (-2.3%). Despite stagnation in area, production of erad grew at the rate of 1.3% per annum during the reference period. The major contributors were Karnataka (6.7%), Uttar Pradesh (6.5%), Andhra Pradesh (4.8%), MaharashtraD(4.1%) and Tamil Nadu (3.9%). It could happen due to gooA performance of area in the first three cases and of yi&d in the remaining two cases. The growth of yield in India was 3.4% per annum in the 1980s, but The growth rate of yiehd in the endire study period ras merely 1.1 % per annum due to negative growth of yield (0.4%) in the 1990s. Among the high yield performers, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are most important. On the contrary, yield of urad in Orissa declined at the rate of3.4% per annum during the study period.
72
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.7 Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Important States) in India (TE 2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha
State
Area
Production
200/-02 % Share
2001-02 % Share
Yield
2001-02
Rank
Andhra Pradesh
545.7
17.78
355.7
25.96
652
2
Maharashtra
580.0
18.90
248.3
18.13
428
6
Madhya Pradesh
548.3
17.87
165.0
12.04
301
11
Uttar Pradesh
378.7
12.34
162.7
11.87
430
5
Tamil Nadu
286.0
9.32
128.3
9.37
449
4
Karnataka
146.3
4.77
52.7
3.84
360
8
Bihar
71.3
2.32
49.0
3.58
687
1
West Bengal
72.3
2.36
45.7
3.33
631
3
Orissa
123.3
4.02
46.0
3.36
373
7
Rajasthan
138.3
4.51
44.3
3.24
320
9
Gujarat
135.7
4.42
42.3
3.09
312
10
India·
3069.0
100.00
1370.0
100.00
446
-
*
Includes minor producing states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
73
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
Table 3.8 Growth Performance of Urad in Important States of India (1981-2002) (% per annum) State
Production
Area 198191
1991- 1981-
Yield
1981- 1991- 1981 02 91 02
1991- 1981-
02
02
6.0
0.3
0.0
4.1
6.4
-0.2
3.0
-0.1
-0.6
1.0
0.8
1.6
6.6
3.0
6.5
3.1
-0.1
2.8
14.8
-0.9
3.9
5.1
0.2
3.0
6.1
2.1
6.7
-0.1
-1.6
0.9
-2.7
0.7
0.4
-0.6
3.2
2.8
2.1
-6.1
-2.3
2.5
-5.9
-1.1
2.1
0.2
1.2
2.9
-11.2
-7.8
2.3
-15.2
-11.2
-0.6
-4.0
-3.4
-0.7
-0.5
0.1
-3.6
0.0
0.6
-2.9
0.6
0.5
NA
0.7
NA
NA
1.6
NA
NA
0.9
NA
2.4
-0.7
0.2
5.8
-1.1
1.3
3.4
-0.4
1.1
02
02
10.5
0.0
4.8
16.5
0.3
4.8
ashtra
-1.2
3.2
1.1
5.2
3.0
Madhya Pradesh
-1.8
-0.9
-2.2
-0.8
luttar !Pradesh
3.5
3.1
3.7
[ramil Nadu
9.7
-1.1
0.9
~amataka
6.2
3.7
5.8
Isihar
-2.5
-2.4
/west !Bengal
0.4
prissa
~ajasthan PUJarat
ndia
l-\ndhra Pradesh
1981 91
~aha-
Source:
Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 198198 and data complied from DIrectorate of Economics and StatIstics (1999-2002), 2004
Massar Massar is recognized as a valuable pulse crop. It is known to be the most nutritive of the pulses due to high protein content. It is grown as a winter crop and sowing time extends from October to December. Since, it is a short duration crop, it becomes ready for
74
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
harvest in about three months. The crop is harvested from February to April depending upon the time of sowing. The information on area, production and yield of massar presented in Table 3.9 shows that massar grew on 1,413 thousand hectares and gave a production of 1,134.7 thousand tonnes in India during TE 2001-02. Uttar Pradesh with 42.37% of all India area and 40.89% of production is the key state. Next in the array are Madhya Pradesh (33.64%) and Bihar 12.55%) which produced around 20.06% and 12.98% of country's total massar. Rajasthan is a minor player in massar cultivation but its yield was as high as 1,309 kg/ha during the triennium ending 2001-02. The productivity in Uttar Pradesh was less than 10 qt1/ha. Amazingly, Madhya Pradesh, a second ranking state in area and production has exhibited a low productivity of 479 kg/ha. It may be highlighted that yield of massar was observed to be the second highest among the major pulse crops of India. Massar has exhibited best growth performance among referred pulses by indicating around 2% growth in area and yield during the study period. The acreage under massar grew at the rate of 1.8% per year during this period but production has increased at more than double pace, i.e., 4% per annum. It could happen due to commendable performance of yield (2.2% per annum). For expansion of area, 1990s was a favourable period but for yield growth, the 1980s were far more important. Among maj or growing states, Uttar Pradesh has indicated area growth of around 2.6% per annum during the study period. However, it was higher than .5% during the 1980s. Yield also increased at the rate of 3.4% per annum in this period. As a result, production of massar in Uttar Pradesh increased at the rate of 9% per year in the 1980s. The area expansion along with yield was responsible for production growth in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Thus, massar emerges as the most important pulse crop in terms of growth during the study period.
75
Growth Peiformance, Instability, Acreage
Table 3.9 Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Important States of India (TE 2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha Area
State
Production
Yield
2001-02
% Share
2001-02
% Share
2001-02
Rank
Uttar Pradesh
598.7
42.37
464.0
40.89
775
5
Madhya Pradesh
475.3
33.64
227.7
20.06
479
9
12.55
147.3
12.98
831
3
177.3
Bihar West Bengal
53.7
3.80
57.7
5.08
1057
2
Rajasthan
27.0
1.91
35.3
3.11
1309
1
Haryana
5.7
0.40
4.0
0.35
706
6
Maharashtra
7.7
0.54
4.0
0.35
522
8
Punjab
3.2
0.22
2.5
0.22
800
4
India*
1413.0
100.00
1134.7
100.00
803
-
*
Includes minor producing states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
76
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.10 Growth Performance of Massar in Important States of India (19812002) (% per annum)
IState i
Area
1981- 199102 91
I
Production
198102
Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 198102 91 02 91 02 02
rUttar I
I
5.6
1.3
2.6
9.0
1.3
4.1
3.4
0.0
1.5
Pradesh
1.4
3.5
3.3
4.0
3.3
4.3
2.6
-0.2
1.0
Pradesh
IMadhya Bihar
0.7
-0. I
0.2
2.9
0.0
1.4
2.2
0.1
1.2
West Bengal
-0.3
-2.7
-3.4
7.0
2.4
0.5
7.3
5. I
3.9
Rajasthan
-5.0
9.5
2.9
-2.0
13.0
5.5
3.0
3.5
2.6
-3.9
-9.9
-6.9
-0.2
-8.2
-4.4
3.7
1.7
2.5
. Haryana Maharashtra
-4.9
-0.7
-3.2
0.7
4.7
0.6
5.6
5.4
3.8
[Punjab
-5.9
-8.9
-7.7
-0.1
-7.4
-5.4
5.8
1.5
2.3
India
1.7
2.1
1.8
5.8
3.8
4.0
4.1
1.7
2.2
Source: Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002),2004.
Other Pulses After reviewing the growth performance of major pulse crops, it would be appropriate to give a brief account of other pulses, which cover a small fraction of area and production of total pulses in India. The commonly used pulses include pea, moth, khesari, kulthi, lobia and raj mash. It is pertinent to present changes in area, production and yield of these crops during the study period.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
77
(i) Pea Peas are grown for use as a fresh or processed, sun dried, canned or frozen food. This is an irrigated rabi pulse crop grown extensively in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Orissa. However, Uttar Pradesh accounted for 60% of all India area and 77% of production. The area and production of peas have shown consistently rising trend in both 1980s and 1990s. The area has gone up from 423.2 thousand hectares in 1980-81 to 794.5 thousand hectares in 1997-98. Simultaneously, production has also risen from 291.2 thousand tonnes to 712.4 thousand tonnes during the same period. The yield has increased considerably during this period from 688 kg/ha in 1980-81 to 897 kg/ha in 1997-98. (ii) Moth Moth is a highly drought resistant kharif pulse crop. It is sown in June-July at the onset of monsoon and harvested in OctoberNovember. Rajasthan and Maharashtra are its major producers. Raj asthan accounted for about 80% of the all India area and 89.79% of production during 1997-98. The area under moth in India fell from 1,520.3 thousand hectares in 1980-81 to 1,225.6 thousand hectares in 1997-98. However, production rose from 208.3 thousand tonnes to 333.4 thousand tonnes in this period due to significant rise in yield from 137 kg/ha to 272 kg/ha. (iii) Khesari
Khesari known as lathyrus is mainly cultivated for fodder. But, poor people eat this pulse due to higher prices of other pulses. It is mainly grown as rabi crop in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Maharashtra and West Bengal. The area under khesari fell from 1,352.6 thousand hectares in 1981-81 to 840.1 thousand hectares in 1997-98. The production also followed the declining trend and it fell from 565.5 thousand tonnes to 226.9 thousand tonnes during the same period. Surprisingly, its yield has dropped from 418 kg/ha to 270 kg! ha during this period.
78
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
(iv) Kulthi Kulthi is grown as kharifpulse crop inAndhraPradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Orissa. It is also grown to a small extent in rabi season in states of Andhra Pradesh, Kamataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The area ofkulthi fell from 2, 121 thousand hectares to 1,024 thousand hectares between 1980-81 and 1997-98. The production also declined from 616 thousand tonnes to 398 thousand tonnes during the same period. However, yield has shown appreciable increase from 291 kglha to 389 kglha during the same period. Among minor pulses, lobia and rajmash are important and are in common use in fudia. Lobia is used as a fodder, a vegetable, a pulse and a green manure crop. Rajmash is popular pulse in Jammu and Kashmir. However, these are not sufficiently important pulses in terms of acreage and production. Therefore, their area and production is not recorded in the crop census of the country.
Kharif and Rabi Pulse Crops fu the earlier analysis, attention was drawn to the fact that pulse crops are grown in both kharif and rabi seasons. The major rabi pulses are gram and massar while kharif includes a large variety ranging from arhar to moong, urad and kulthi. The production of rabi season pulses formed about 64% of total production of all pulses with about 50% of total cropped area during the triennium ending 1969-70. Gradually, kharif pulses outpaced the rabi pulses in terms of growth in both production and cropped area. As a result, share of kharif pulses in total production of pulses has increased from 36% in the late 1960s to around 40% in the late 1980s. The proportion of area under these also increased from 41 % to 48% during the same period. Now, kharif and rabi pulses have almost the same share in area but in production, rabi pulses are far ahead due to higher productivity. Tables 3.11 and 3.12 show that kharifpulses have their base in states with poor irrigation availability. Maharashtra (25.00%), Rajasthan (17.51%), Karnataka (12.66%) and Madhya Pradesh (10.58%) together formed 67% of total kharifpulse area during 2001-02. These states accounted for bulk of the production. Rajasthan exhibited precarious situation by indicating only 7.51 %
79
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
share in the country's production as against 17.51% share in area. This is due to poor yield rate. Barring Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, yield was found extremely low, i.e., around 6 qtllha. The high yield rates in Uttar Pradesh and some other states indicate the potential, which is not realized in major kharif pulses growing states. Like kharif pulses, rabi pulses are also primarily grown in rain fed areas of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. These two states accounted for around 53% of all India area and a little higher proportion in production during 200 1-02. Uttar Pradesh is far ahead in yield rates. The productivity of rabi pulses in this state was 896 kglha as against 789 kglha in Madhya Pradesh. Table 3.11
Area, Production and Yield of Kharif Pulses in Important States in India (TE 2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield· kg/ha State
Production
Area
Maharashtra Uttar Pradesh
2001-02
% Share
2599.7 751.3 1316.7 1100.3 932.3 1821.0 635.7 217.0 494.7
25.00 7.23 12.66 10.58 8.97 17.51 6.11 2.09 4.76
1383.7 641.3 526.0 490.0 381.0 354.0 298.7 190.3 170.7
2.82 0.60 0.27 0.42 100.00
133.0 37.0 14.7 27.3 4711.0
Kamataka Madhya Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Rajasthan Gujarat Bihar Orissa Tamil Nadu 293.3 West Bengal 62.3 Haryana 28.3 Punjab 43.7 India· 10398.0
2001-02 % Share
Yield
2001-02
Rank
29.37 13.61 11.17 10.40 8.09 7.51 6.34 4.04 3.62
532 854 399 445 409 194 470 877 345
6 2 12 10
2.82 0.79 0.31 0.58 100.00
453 594 518 626 453
• Includes minor producing states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
1\ 14
8 I 13 9 5 7 3 -
80
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.12 Growth Performance of Kharif Pulses in Important States ofIndia (1981-2002)
(% per annum)
State
Area
Production
Yield
/98/9/
/99/-
/98/-
02
02
Maharashtra
2.1
0.1
1.1
5.6
2.7
3.0
3.5
2.6
1.9
Uttar Pradesh
-0.4
0.0
0.1
-\.I
-0.5
-\.2
-0.7 -0.5
-1.3
Karnataka
0.4
1.0
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.6
-0.2
-0.1
0.5
Madhya Pradesh
-1.7
-1.6
-2.1
1.1
-2.5
-1.7
2.8
-0.9
0.4
Andhra Pradesh
-0.3
1.0
-0.2
-0.3
2.8
1.6
0.0
1.8
1.8
Rajasthan
-1.0
-0.4
0.6
2.3
-2.3
3.1
3.3
-1.9
2.5
Gujarat
3.3
-1.8
1.4
4.5
-4.0
2.0
\.2
-2.2
0.6
Bihar
-2.8
-1.5
-2.2
-0.8
1.4
-0.7
2.0
2.9
1.5
Orissa
6.8
-3.2
1.0
7.9
-8.7
-1.9
1.1
-5.5
-2.9
Tamil Nadu
5.4
-9.7
-4.8
9.9
-9.1
-3.3
4.5
0.6
1.5
West Bengal
2.2
-3.2
0.6
-0.5
-2.9
-0.8
-2.7
0.3
-1.4
Haryana
9.9
-6.6
1.2
12.0 -11.6
0.1
2.1
-5.0
-I.I
Punjab
2.6
-5.0
-2.1
2.4
-7.7
-2.9
-0.2 -2.7
-0.8
India
0.9
-0.9
-0.1
3.0
-0.9
0.6
2.1
0.7
/98/ /99/- /98/- /98/ /99/9/ 02 02 9/ 02
0.0
/98/-
02
Source: Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India, 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002),2004.
81
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.13 Area, Production and Yield of Rabi Pulses in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha Area
State
Production
2001-02
% Share
2001-02 % Share
Madhya Pradesh
3503.7
34.08
2765.7
Uttar Pradesh
1946.7
18.94
Rajasthan
914.3
Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra
Yield 2001-02
Rank
33.67
789
5
1743.7
21.23
896
2
8.89
662.0
8.06
724
6
855.0
8.32
599.3
7.30
701
8
914.3
8.89
518.3
6.31
567
9
Bihar
623.0
6.06
517.3
6.30
830
3
Kamataka
640.0
6.23
324.7
3.95
507
11
West Bengal
204.0
1.98
165.3
2.01
810
4
Haryana
132.3
1.29
94.3
\.15
713
7
Orissa
177.7
1.73
80.7
0.98
454
12
Gujarat
52.7
0.51
28.0
0.34
532
10
Punjab
16.3
0.16
15.0
0.18
918
1
India·
10279.3
100.00
8213.0
100.00
799
-
• Includes minor producing states Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
82
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal Table 3.14 Growth Performance of Rabi Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002) (% per annum)
State
Production
Area
198191
1991- 1981-
02
02
198191
Yield
1991 1981- 1981 1991 198102 02 91 02 02
Madhya Pradesh
0.7
0.0
0.8
2.9
1.6
3.2
2.2
1.6
2.4
Uttar Pradesh
0.5
-\.3
-0.7
1.4
-1.4
-0.1
0.9
-0.1
0.6
Rajasthan
-3.2
-2.4
-1.0
-3.7
-0.8
-0.5
-0.5
1.6
0.5
Andhra Pradesh
3.7
0.9
2.9
9.7
2.9
4.3
6.0
2.0
1.4
1.4
3.2
2.0
7.1
4.2
5.0
5.7
1.0
3.0
Bihar
-0.7
-3.2
-2.4
0.9
-2.5
-1.1
1.6
0.7
1.3
Kamataka
3.0
4.2
3.3
0.7
9.1
5.3
-2.3
4.9
2.0
West Bengal
-5.5
-0.7
-4.5
-1.7
1.0
-2.1
3.8
1.7
2.4
Haryana
-4.7
-1 \.3
-7.1
0.2
-11.6 -4.3
4.9
-0.3
2.8
Orissa
0.4
-14.8 -11.8
-0.4
-15.6 -13.5 -0.8
-0.8
-1.7
Gujarat
-1.9
-9.7
-2.3
-4.5
-9.4
-2.9
-2.6
0.3
-0.6
Punjab
-12.1
-10.7 -12.6
-7.5
-8.8 -10.0
4.6
1.9
2.6
India
-0.3
-\.3
-0.7
1.2
0.4
1.5
1.7
1.6
Maharashtra
0.9
Source: Based on data from Area and Production of Principal Crops in India,
1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002),2004.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
83
The production of kharif pulses grew at the rate of 0.6% per annum in the study period. The first period was better in area expansion as it grew at the rate of 0.9% per year. It reversed in the second period by showing a decline of the same percentage points. The yield followed the area trend by indicating a rise of2.1 % per annum in the first period and nil in the second period. The period of 1990s was a gloomy period because neither area nor yield ofkharif pulses recorded any positive change. The production performance of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat appeared to be better than other growing states. It was primarily due to higher growth in productivity. A comparison of production performance of rabi pulses with kharif pulses indicates that former registered one and half times growth in production despite declining area in the 1980s and 1990s. It was on account of yield growth, which registered an almost uniform increase of 1.6% per annum. In major producing states of Kamataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, area as well as yield growth was responsible for good performance of production but in Madhya Pradesh, major contributor was productivity.
Total Pulses Table 3.15 provides state-wise information on area, production and yield of pulse crops taken as a whole. Pulses were grown on around 21 million hectares of area and produced nearly 13 million tonnes of grain in TE 2001-02. It is clear that while pulses are widely grown in the country, some states are far more important than others as producers of these protein rich foods. Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan are the most important pulse producing states in that order and accounted together for nearly 66% of their total production in the country. Andhra Pradesh and Kamataka come next, contributing over 14% of the total production. The yield levels across the states show that yield of pulses in India is much below the potential yield of 10-15 qt1/ha. This is true of areas, which are rain fed as well as irrigated. The all India yield of pulses in TE 2001-02 was 597 kg/ha however; it was above average in Uttar Pradesh (883 kg/ha), Bihar (845 kg/ha) and West Bengal
84
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
(759 kg/ha) and Madhya Pradesh (737 kg/ha). Pulses can be further popularized in these areas in lean seasons so that these crops could become part of crop rotation without disturbing existing major crops. It is feasible because pulses are known for low water requirement and adaptability over a wide range of agro-climatic conditions. It would enhance income of the farmers by utilizing the available land in the lean periods and increase sustainability in agriculture. It would make a significant contribution to total production of pulses and also help to evolve a sustainable cropping pattern particularly in northern states with paddy, wheat rotation. Table 3.15 Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important States of India (TE 2001-02) Area: '000 ha Production: '000 tonnes Yield: kglha State
Area
Production
Yield
2001-02 % Share
2001-02 % Share 2001-02
Madhya Pradesh
4106.7
19.52
3025.3
24.08
737
Rank 4
Uttar Pradesh
2712.0
12.89
2395.3
19.7
883
1
Maharashtra
3514.0
16.70
1908.0
15.19
543
9
Rajasthan
2735.0
13.00
1016.3
8.09
372
14
Andhra Pradesh
1819.0
8.65
996.3
7.93
548
8
Karnataka
1953.7
9.29
853.7
6.80
437
11
Bihar
762.3
3.62
644.3
5.13
845
2
Gujarat
688.3
3.27
325.3
2.59
473
10
Tamil Nadu
742.3
3.53
324.7
2.58
437
12
Orissa
672.3
3.20
251.3
2.00
374
13
West Bengal
266.0
1.26
202.0
1.61
759
3
Haryana
160.7
0.76
108.3
0.86
674
6
Punjab
60.0
0.29
41.7
0.33
694
5
India·
21040.0
100.00
12561.7
100.00
597
-
• Includes minor producing states Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2004.
85
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.16
Growth Performance of Total Pulses in Important States ofIndia (1981-2002) (% per annum) ~tate
Area 198191
Yreld
Production
1991- 1981-
02
02
198191
1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 198102 91 02 02 02
Madhya Pradesh
-0.1
-1.7
-0.4
2.4
0.0
1.8
2.5
1.7
2.2
Uttar Pradesh
0.3
-0.9
-0.4
0.7
-1.\
-0.3
0.4
-0.2
0.1
Maharashtra
2.1
0.8
1.4
6.2
3.0
3.6
4.1
2.2
2.2
Rajasthan
-2.1
-0.9
0.0
-1.8
-0.8
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
Andhra Pradesh
\.2
1.2
1.2
5.1
3.1
3.2
3.9
1.9
2.0 1.0
Karnataka
1.4
\.9
\.I
0.5
3.5
2.1
-0.9
1.6
Bihar
-\.I
-3.8
-2.7
0.6
-2.6
-1.3
1.7
1.2
1.4
Gujarat
2.5
-2.6
0.9
2.7
-4.7
\.2
0.2
-2.1
0.3
Tamil Nadu
5.3
-\.3
0.2
10.0
-0.9
\.8
4.7
0.4
\.6
Orissa
1.4
-7.9
-5.7
2.2
-12.3
-8.1
0.8
-4.4
-2.4
West Bengal
-3.9
-1.3
-3.5
-1.4
0.2
-1.9
2.5
\.5
1.6
Haryana
-3.8
-10.6
-6.5
1.3
-11.8
-4.1
5.1
-\.2
2.4
Punjab
-7.7
-6.9
-7.5
-4.7
-8.3
-6.8
3.0
-1.4
0.7
0.7
\,7
0.6
1.0
India Source:
0.2
-0.9
-0.3
1.9
-0.3
Based on complied data from Area and ProductIOn of Principal Crops, (1981-1998) and data compiled from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, (\ 999 to 2002), 2004.
86
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
During the study period, from 1980-81 to 2001-02, production of pulses in India has registered a slow growth rate of 0.7% per annum. The states of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh have shown more than 3% per year growth in pulse production. In addition, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh recorded around 2% growth in the same period. On the other hand, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana, West Bengal and Bihar have exhibited negative growth in pulse production. Ifwe consider two sub-periods, our conclusions change. The period of 1980s with 1.9% growth in pulse production in India appeared to be much better than the 1990s with negative growth of -0.3% per annum. The state-wise changes in production of pulses in the subperiods show that rates of growth of total pulse production in the 1980s were more than one per cent in 7 states out of 11 major states. But, in the 1990s, this number has been reduced to three only. The differential growth rates in the pulse production have brought some important changes in the locational pattern ofpulse production in the country. The higher growth of production in states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh in 1990s implies that growth centres of pulse production shifted to southern states. In most of these states, acceleration in production was primarily due to yield improvement Especially; states like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka exhibited a yield growth of2% per annum in the study period. The area expansion in these states was also around one per cent per year. Thus, whatever little growth has been achieved in pulse production came mainly from yield growth. Contribution of yield growth to production growth was higher in the 1980s. However, yield growth itself was low. The yield growth of total pulses between 1980-81 and 2001-02 was merely one per cent per annum. Agricultural scientists believe that yield of pulses can be easily raised to above 10 qtl/ha in rain fed areas. Therefore, efforts should be made to raise yield levels by popularizing available improved technology for pulse cultivation through implementation of pragmatic policies.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
87
Farm-size Variation The state level variations in the area, production and yield of pulses are determined by variations at the farm size level that are influenced by agronomic factors and other farm characteristics. In view of the given predominance of small and marginal farmers in number and of large farmers in area, the concerns regarding farm size in increasing production of pulse crops appear to be relevant. Past studies conducted on pulses in India offered many reasons for the stagnant production. The main arguments advanced range from allocation of rain fed poor quality land to non-adoption of improved seeds and low consumption of yield raising inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation. Since most of these studies are based on secondary data, these reasons are given on the basis of macro indicators like low irrigation status of pulses in India. These inferences are useful to understand the trends in area and production. Supplementing the field experiences across farm sizes can further enrich these findings. Unfortunately, farm size evidences on indicators like percentage of land allocated to pulses, their irrigation status and yield realized are scarce. The data published in "Agricultural Censuses", "Input Surveys" and "Cultivation Practices in India" provide knowledge about the first two aspects but are silent about the productivity, which is most crucial in enhancing production of pulses. However, the status of pulses in farming across the farm sizes overtime can be well understood by analysing the results of the above sources. Therefore, it is imperative to assess the status of pulses on different categories of farms by operational holdings in 1980-81 and 1991-92 and ownership holdings in 1998. In addition, farm size evidence is cited from two Indian states - Haryana which has made significant progress in agriculture due to success of the Green Revolution and Madhya Pradesh which is the largest producer of pulses but lagging behind in agricultural productivity at the macro level. The main findings of secondary data on allocation of land to pulse crops by farm size during 1980-81, 1991-92 and 1998 are summarized in Table 3.17. It may be noticed that the percentage of GCA devoted to pulse crops was significant by all farm sizes but it was comparatively higher in un-irrigated areas. It ranged between
88
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
2.86% to 18.51 % in 1980-81. The proportions of gram, arhar and other pulses in GCA were 3.7%, 1.5% and 6.8% respectively in the early 1980s. It may be observed that proportion of land devoted for pulse cultivation was significant by all groups. However, it was 15.1 % in large size farms as against 9.5% in marginal farms. The results of "Input Survey" data of 1991-92 on gram and arhar cultivation corroborate the same findings. Table 3.17 Percentage of GCA under Pulse Crops by Farm Size in India (198081,1991-92 and 1998) (%)
193J..-9?'
JSBJ-8l*
Farm Size Gram
Arhar
Other Pulses
Marginal
1.21
0.07
1.58
Small
1.72
0.10
SemiMedium
2.39
Medium
3.75
Large All
Total Pulses
1998'"
Gram
Arhar
Total Pulses
2.86
0.89
0.26
NA
1.41
3.23
1.04
0.39
NA
0.12
1.39
3.90
1.73
0.41
NA
0.16
1.31
5.22
2.21
0.46
NA
5.44
0.11
1.00
6.55
3.13
0.28
NA
2.85
0.12
1.35
4.32
1.68
0.38
NA
Irrigated Area
Un-irrigated Area
Marginal
3.13
1.62
8.60
13.35
1.98
2.03
NA
Small
3.14
1.83
8.37
13.34
2.34
2.95
NA
SemlMedium
3.74
2.17
8.63
14.54
2.22
2.83
NA
Medium
4.35
2.39
11.77
18.51
2.88
3.11
NA
Large
5.07
2.08
10.06
17.21
4.12
2.36
NA
All
4.03
2.08 I
8.95
15.66
2.66
2.73
NA
I
89
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.17 (Contd.)
Irrigated + Un-irrigated Area Marginal
2.41
1.05
6.00
9.46
1.50
1.25
20.00
Marginal
2.41
1.05
6.00
9.46
1.50
1.25
20.00
Small
2.68
1.27
6.10
10.05
1.82
1.94
7.14
Semi-Medium
3.24
1.50
6.25
10.99
2.03
1.80
7.99
Medium
4.19
1.79
6.95
12.93
2.64
2.18
9.53
Large
5.14
1.70
8.29
15.13
3.83
1.74
9.81
All
3.69
1.53
6.80
12.02
2.30
1.86
12.50
Source:
* Agricultural Census, 1980-81 ** Input Survey, 1991-92 *** Cultivation Practices in India, 2000
All farmers allotted around 2.30% of GCA to gram and 1.86% to arhar. The large farmers raised these crops on 3.83 % and 1.74% ofGCA while marginal farmers devoted 1.50% and 1.25% to these crops. It is interesting to note that higher size classes of farmers devoted higher share of GCA to pulses in 1980-81 as well as in 1991-92. There is a strong evidence of clear association between farm size and share of GCA devoted to pulse crops.
In the year 1998, the aforesaid phenomenon was not found true. Farmers especially those with a fair amount of land have shown a declining preference to raise pulses due to emerging options in the form of alternate crops with higher yields and low risk. The percentage of GCA under pulses on large size farms declined in comparison to 1980s and 1990s. On the other hand, percentage of GCA to pulses under small and marginal farms improved significantly, although it appeared to be on higher side in case of marginal farmers. The last column ofTable 3.17 makes this fact amply clear. The small and marginal farmers are mostly subsistence type and that is why, they could not afford to undertake the calculated risk by raising pulses on their tiny holdings. In addition, these holdings are better endowed with irrigation facilities and hence, it is possible to grow superior cereals. But, with the availability of improved seeds and remunerative prices, small and marginal farmers have started devoting larger proportion of GCA to
90
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
pulses. The differences in irrigated vis-a-vis un-irrigated areas were clearly visible as each category offanners in un-irrigated areas allocated higher proportion ofland to pulses. It was as high as 18.51 % of GCA on large farms in 1980-81. The preceding analysis on allocation ofland to pulse crops by farm size presented an overall picture at the country level. But, these results may not corroborate for the core pulse producing states like Madhya Pradesh (Gupta, 1999) where fanners attach higher weightage to pulse cultivation in the absence ofother lucrative alternatives for the rain fed un-irrigated land. Similarly, the results may also deviate in agriculturally advanced states like Haryana (Tuteja, 1999) where pulses are largely grown in lesser-irrigated districts like Bhiwani. Table 3.18 highlights that paddy and pulses are the two major crops ofDurg district in Madhya Pradesh. Farmers devoted around 40% of gross cropped area to pulses. This proportion was found as high as 46% and 45% in case of marginal and small farmers. Among pulses, teora and gram are largely cultivated. But, teora was replaced by urad in Jhabua and Narsinghpur districts. Besides, maize, wheat and soyabean are also grown. There is not a single category of farmers, which devoted less than 30% of cropped area to pulses. The high status of pulses in the farming is primarily due to low availability of water in the region. When the proportion of cropped area devoted by the pulse growers in Madhya Pradesh is compared with Haryana, it was found much lower in the agriculturally advanced district ofAmbala (Table 3.19). It was around 9% of gross cropped area. Interestingly, the share of area allocated to pulses by small and marginal fanners was found higher than that of medium and large farmers. Gram and massar are the major pulse crops of the area. A little of urad is also cultivated. These findings do not hold true for the dry district ofBhiwani. Here, farmers devoted 32.9% of gross cropped area to pulses. The pattern of area allocation to pulses. by different categories of farmers was observed reverse from Ambala as large land owning categories of farmers devoted higher share of gross cropped area to pulse crops. Among pulses, gram is the preferred crop, but some farmers also cultivated moong and massar.
91
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.18
Percentage of GCA under Wheat, Rice and Pulses in Three Districts of Madhya Pradesh (1996-97) Farm Size Crop
Marginal
Small
SemiMedium
Medium
Large
All
5144
38.56
45.80
Durg District
IPaddy
47.98
50.13
37.63
Wheat
-
1.19
2.36
1.05
9.65
2.80
Soya bean
-
-
5.70
4.27
8.43
4.37
Vegetables
1.15
1.81
0.47
2.14
-
1.30
Gram
4.62
2.38
22.50
16.37
10.85
13.82
Teora
40.48
42.06
19.91
18.08
26.50
25.10
Lentil
0.62
2.41
0.73
I Kodo+Arhar
-
-
-
0.53
Urad Teora
-
-
-
5_75
1----
Urad
Soyabean+ Arhar
1.81
1.07
2.42
0.83
2.65
-
1.34
-
1.19
0.46
-
1.26
3.42
5_34
Jhabua District 4.74
7.29
3.51
Wheat
-
17.95
15.90
13.75
Maize
20.87
12.64
16.50
22.46
-
1.08
5.31
10.33
-
3.80
9.38
1.76
8.62
-
Paddy
Jowar Soya bean Castor
-
1.08
2.20
Gram
7.59
10.60
10.57
-
-
-
0.88
-
3.80
-
-
-
Groundnut+Arhar
-
0.92
-
-
-
Urad
44.02
22.67
32.56
17.25
Arhar
-
1.98
1.10
Maize+Urad+ Moong
-
0.67
-
-
-
Moong Jowar + Arhar
15.94 1547 3.58 6.12 1.36 9.40 26.90 1.35 0.34 0.17 0.42 0.31
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
92 Table 3./8 (Contd.)
Farm Size Marginal
Crop
Small
SemiMedium
Medium
Large
All
Narsinghpur District
Paddy
-
1.44
-
-
-
0.16
Wheat
13.45
12.32
18.22
16.43
11.38
15.83
Soya bean
39.84
33.38
43.77
39.55
45.46
41.20
Sunflower
-
-
5.13
-
-
3.45
-
1.89
Sugarcane
-
1.27
Batari
-
10.62
1.34
2.17
20.44
5.30
Gram
28.88
28.39
23.10
17.07
Urad (kharit)
7.52
-
-
-
-
18.37
1.48
-
1.29
-
0.64
Arhar
-
-
2.01
0.65
-
095
Massar
10.31
12.37
8.64
12.10
17.05
11.55
-
-
0.44
1.55
-
0.72
Urad (summar)
Pea
0.20
Source: Based on Gupta, 1999 Table 3.19 Percentage of GCA under Pulses in Two Important Districts of Haryana (1997-98) Farm Size
Crop
Marginal
Small
Semi-
Medium
Large
All
Medium Ambala District Gram
6.25
7.65
3.66
4.06
3.23
3.92
Massar
6.25
3.83
3.66
2.39
0.90
4.11
Mash
0.00
10.46
4.35
1.97
2.32
1.10
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12.50
21.94
11.67
8.42
6.45
9.13
Moong Any other Total pulses
I
93
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3./9 (Contd.)
Farm Size Crop
Marginal
Small
Semi-
Medium
Large
All
Medium
Bhiwani District Gram
13.04
18.09
13.24
19.47
16.00
17.14
Moong
0.00
1.42
11.35
8.53
7.27
8.02
Massar
6.53
2.12
8.11
6.63
4.36
5.79
Arhar
-
3.55
2.98
0.50
1.46
1.40
Moth Total pulses
-
-
-
1.30
-
0.55
19.57
25.18
35.68
36.43
29-09
32-90
Source: Based on Tuteja, 1999.
Section-2 Instability in Production
The preceding section highlights that growth performance of pulse crops had been poor during the reference period. The slow pace of growth is further compounded by high instability arising out of yield and price variability. Wide fluctuations in crop output not only affect price and bring sharp fluctuations in them but also result in wide variations in disposable income of the farmers. Therefore, an analysis of instability is important for understanding the nature and stability of income (Ray, 1989). The estimation of instability also helps the producer and policy makers in choosing separate risk responses such as stabilization versus crop insurance programmes. The accurate measurement of the sources of variability can help in targeting policies to reduce or offset the effects of instability. In the past, scholars (Hazell, 1982; Ray, 1989; Jain and Singh, 1991; Mahendradev, 1997) have analysed instability in the production of
94
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
food grains. In these studies, pulse crops are treated as a group and therefore, do not provide the estimates of instability in the area, production and yield of individual pulse crops over time. A large proportion of cropped area under pulses is rain fed which increases instability in the yield due to uncertainly of rainfall. But, the degree of instability is expected to vary from crop to crop and from region to region. In irrigated areas, yield of pulses are less unstable while reverse may be true in dry areas. Given this background, statewise instability in the area, production and yield of five major pulse crops (gram, arhar, moong, urad and massar), rabi pulses, kharif pulses and total pulses was estimated in three referred periods. In constructing an instability index of a parameter, several methods such as moving averages, coefficient of variation and standard deviation of the annual growth rates are commonly used by the scholars. A scrutiny of results shows that different measures result in different numerical values for the same data series. Coppock (1962) measured international instability in exports and imports through log variance method. We have used this method to estimate instability in area, production and yield of the above-mentioned five individual pulse crops, kharif pulses, rabi pulses and total pulses during the earlier referred three periods for the all India level and in major producing states. The magnitude of index exhibits the degree of instabiiity. The formula for calculating the Coppock instability index is as follows: • Coppock's Instability Index Vlog=
X., 1 2:(log--m) X
N Instabilityll'ldflx: = antilog(.jVlcg-l)
X, - variable (area, production and yield of the crop) in year 't' m - arithmetic mean of the difference between the logs of X, and XI+ 1 Vlog -logarithmic variance ofthe series N - number of years minus one (1)
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
95
The instability index (I-I) of selected pulse crops based on log variance in Table 3.20 shows that I-I of gram production in India was 25.08% during the period 1981-2002. The uncertainty in acreage (17.14%) was observed to be higher than yield (12.58%). This is the outcome of availability of relatively profitable crops like wheat in irrigated areas and mustard in rain fed areas in the rabi season. In favourable circumstances, farmers immediately switch over to these crops. Furthermore, yield I-I was also high despite some success of improved technology in gram cultivation. Among the sub-periods, the second period has indicated higher I-I for both area and production. But, the yield I-I dropped marginally. This implies that Technology Mission on Oil seeds and Pulses (TMOP) in the 1990s did not contribute substantially in reducing fluctuations in yield of gram in India. A look at the state-wise I-I indices of area makes clear that acreage fluctuations were of very high degree in Gujarat (83.37%), Haryana (71.41 %), Rajasthan (50.41 %), Tamil Nadu (46.12%) and Punjab (35.62%). But, the I-I of acreage in Uttar Pradesh (6.77%), Madhya Pradesh (12.82%) and Bihar (15.26%) was lower than all India. These figures are indicative of relative stability of area under gram in these states. The situation is further compounded by higher yield uncertainty in Haryana (49.02%), Andhra Pradesh (46.91%), Karnataka (25.07%), Bihar (26.06%), Punjab (30.42%) and Rajasthan (20.95%). Tamil Nadu exhibited the lowest instability index for yield of gram (5.83%) during the study period. The I-I of production in most of the states exceeded acreage and yield. It implies that changes in area and yield did not offset each other, rather they moved together. A comparison of uncertainty in production of gram in eighties and nineties in different states indicated mixed results. Among the leading states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, production instability during the reform period has increased in the first and third while it has declined slightly in the second case.
Table 3.20 Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India (1981-02)
Gram
State
Area Production
Area
Production
Urad
Moong
Arhar Yield
(%)
Yield
Area
ProductIOn
Yield
Area
Production
Yield
19.67
1980-81 to 1990-91 1864
30.15
30.14
7.59
41.20
42.44
6.13
3555
35.70
9.60
20.56
9.67
12.13
12.76
13.59
26.27
29.54
5.17
14.16
15.59
7.44
17.51
GUJarat
45.35
65.50
23.71
7.66
38.73
36.47
110.86
258.22
106.04
Haryana
80.66
161.43
71.12
74.72
146.45
71.35
-
-
-
Karnataka
17.78
34.20
16.90
4.55
23.Q9
23.12
17.27
44.27
30.50
6.60
35.34
Madhya Pradesh
7.40
14.39
7.52
24.06
31.67
23.45
4.16
14.85
11.89
381
17.55
17.23
Maharashtra
9.59
37.28
26.64
4.96
28.14
26.88
10.05
25.22
23.98
11.22
41.74
3731
645
16.97
Andhra Pradesh Bihar
-
-
11.13
31.77
16.38
Orissa
1557
11.78
10.85
8.17
17.83
16.67
10.73
11.44
6.76
Punjab
30.47
73.28
42.63
43.26
50.22
20.35
23.17
30.12
13.48
Rajasthan
4640
62.46
20.67
59.01
197.97
92.16
27.00
148.35
120.49
16.18
89.08
89.01
Tamil Nadu
50.80
50.28
4.37
25.47
39.15
23.15
24.76
49.29
25.04
27.53
34.78
19.92
Uttar Pradesh
5.81
16.44
17.73
525
14.87
14.75
10.52
19.03
17.57
9.83
25.85
16.12
West Bengal
2877
22.87
24.16
53.83
70.34
34.27
-
-
-
1672
2844
1704
India
13.17
2254
12.91
3.85
13 05
9.72
16.14
12.45
3.97
8.05
6.85
-
-
-
6.31
Table 3.20 (Contd) State
Gram Area Production
Arhar YIeld
Are
Producllon
Moong Yield
Area
Production
Urad Yield
Area
Producllon
YIeld
1990-91 to 2001-02
Andhra Pradesh
3797
8494
5966
12.82
6435
5259
6.42
3388
31.15
11.01
28.15
Bihar
18.71
37.58
34.74
170.10
18.44
159.90
4.15
13.50
11 04
739
16.84
1218
GUJarat
110.70
140.24
25.06
769
5430
4654
2603
9944
65.90
25.49
58.25
78.68
Haryana
6136
87.95
22.58
61.52
89.23
18.72
-
Karnataka
25.23
44.48
29.85
18.03
6418
58.95
38.32
Madhya Pradesh
16.27
26.31
13.39
1039
28.80
24.01
5.53
21.23
15.51
5.51
1588
13.76
Maharashtra
23.71
56.22
3209
3.32
4868
48.76
581
60.87
58.32
466
58.53
53.60
Orissa
23.91
35.54
13.05
22.47
40.67
57.59
50.21
90.00
31.69
6228
112.75
3367
Punjab
39.67
52.69
15.17
13.89
25.11
18.03
12.73
19.79
11.50
Rajasthan
53.40
66.76
21.05
34.25
104.62
77.63
21.36
146.82
122.23
25.38
5471
37.19
TamilNadu
41.45
47.20
690
14.98
33.26
27.42
19.25
29.75
20.74
15.32
26.24
17.89
17.10
35.23
21.72
Uttar Pradesh
6.86
15.28
19.28
6.05
8.16
9.00
West Bengal
29.15
42.43
22.75
58.20
6564
27.73
IndIa
20.03
27.18
12.25
4.97
22.27
20.53
6.99
72.36
17.39
-
-
43.84
8.88
1673
-
73.40
-
2309
73.89
-
986
2128
20.12
14.83
38 IS
2475
597
11.20
10.35
Table 3.20 (Con/d.) Gram
State Area
ProductlOn
Arhar Y,eld
Area
Produc-
Moong Y,eld
Area
lIOn
Produ-
Urad Y,eld
Area
Produclion
Y,eld
33.41
11.06
2573
21.69 11.83
CllOn
1980-81 to 2001·02 Andhra Pradesh
30.00
61.74
46.91
10.69
53.97
48.05
631
34.77
Bihar
15.26
2807
26.06
106.44
22.42
104.26
5.45
14.29
13.39
7.41
17.26
GUJarat
8337
107.68
2443
814
47.68
42.03
71.87
175.22
85.77
.
Haryana
71.41
12425
49.02
71.61
120m
47.98
-
.
-
Karnataka
2194
40.53
25.07
13.27
47.18
44.11
3008
61.43
38.52
7.88
5686
Madhya Pradesh
1282
2140
10.95
17.95
30.47
24.08
4.97
18.40
13 91
4.77
1670
15.49
Maharashtra
18.25
4839
30.01
4.75
3972
3951
8.29
46.59
4431
8.83
5094
46.60
Orissa
20.33
26.80
12.50
1745
32.65
41.65
35.67
6089
22.96
43.56
7591
Punjab
35.62
6301
30,42
30.39
38.31
19.22
21.54
29.00
1271
.
.
Rajasthan
50.41
6481
20.95
47.00
150,07
8487
24.16
14764
121.48
2140
7186
TamIiNadu
4612
4880
5.83
2152
36.82
25.45
22.40
4018
22.88
22.54
31.64
19.00
Uttar Pradesh
677
1586
18.63
5.68
11.77
12 03
1433
28.36
1983
9.86
2357
18.31
West Bengal
31 31
3683
23.50
5660
6920
31.32
IndIa
1714
2508
12.58
4.72
1839
16.13
-
7.03
-
-
55.89
2652
. 64.11
.
-
16.18
3399
2U3
17.06
1490
530
1039
8.85
Source. Based on data from Area and ProduclIon of PrincIpal Crops (1982 to 1997) and data from Directorate of Economics and StalIslIcs, (1998-2002),
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
99
The production instabllity of arhar was estimated much lower than gram at the all India level during the study period. The most notable feature in this case was small I-I of area (4.72%) although it increased marginally during the second period. The contribution ofyield fluctuations in production instability was found higher in this case. It was roughly more than double. The states with very high instability in production of arharwere Rajasthan (150.07%) and Haryana (120.02%) but the state of Uttar Pradesh has shown the lowest I-I index (11.77%). The yield uncertainty was extremely high in Bihar and I-I index crossed 100 (104.26%). It implies wide year-to-year fluctuations in yield. The area I-I in Bihar was also the highest (106.44%). Like gram, production instability of arhar in the 1990s was higher than the 1980s. The acreage and yield I-Is in the first period were 3.85% and 9.72% respectively as against 4.97% and 20.53% in the recent period. At state level, production instability was the highest in Rajasthan (197.97% and 104.62%) during both the sub-periods. The case ofUttar Pradesh emerged as an excellent example of production stability for arhar in the second period due to small I-I of area (6.05%) as well as yield (9%). In fact, area and yield together provided stable production in this case. Like arhar, the degree of production instability of moong was also found significantly high. Once again, area was far more stable than yield at the all India level. The direction of results was almost uniform in both the periods. Among the major producing states, Gujarat (175.22%) followed by Rajasthan (147.64%) has indicated the highest I-I of production due to higher yield uncertainty. The lowest instability in production was observed in Bihar (14.29%) followed by Madhya Pradesh (18.40%) due to low instability in area as well as in yield. In case of Gujarat, both area (7l.87%) and yield (85.77%) reinforced production instability. In the first period, Orissa has shown the minimum instability in the production while Gujarat has exhibited the maximum. The contribution of area instability in production was relatively higher in Madhya Pradesh but in Gujarat acreage and yield both revealed I-I more than 100%. After 1990-91, production of moong was found more stable in Bihar, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh. On the other hand, Rajasthan with an I-I of 146.82% indicated extreme instability in production of moong largely due to yield uncertainty.
100
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
The production instability behaviour ofurad diverged from the earlier discussed three pulse crops. Here, area as well as yield was found relatively stable by indicating I-I equal to 5.30% and 8.85%. The low value ofI-I for production is clearly the result of compensatory relations between area and yield as higher area was partly offset by lower yields while lower yields were partly offset by higher area. A complete offsetting would putI-Iforproduction at zero. Between the two referred periods, the fITst period was better when acreage instability is as low as 3.97% and yield instability around 6.31 %. In the second period, both increased and resulted in higher instability in production. At the state level, Orissa was most unstable in the entire period, Rajasthan in the first period and again Orissa in the second period emerged as the states with higher instability in the production of urad. Unexpectedly, the instability in the production of urad was found lowest (16.70%) in Madhya Pradesh between 1980-81 and 2001-02. Nonetheless, this was also on the higher side. An examination of instability index of production of massar at all India level indicates comparatively higher stability vis-a-vis gram, arhar and moong. Nonetheless, it was more than urad. The I-I of massar production was 11.80% in the 1980s, 14.65% in the 1990s and 13.41 % for the entire period. The yield volatility has been the main source of uncertainty. It is evident from Table 3.21 that the area I-I was around half of the yield I-I. Among the states, Madhya Pradesh followed by Uttar Pradesh revealed lower production instability. The area and yield both together were responsible for stable production. On the other hand, Maharashtra (64.69%) followed by Rajasthan (51.27%) showed the maximum uncertainty due to area and yield variability. In the early 1980s, production instability of massar was low in Madhya Pradesh with below 10% I-I for area as well as for yield. However, state of Maharashtra has exhibited the highest instability that was 38.31% for area and 27.63% for yield. After a decade, Punjab outpaced Madhya Pradesh in stability of massar production but Maharashtra maintained the lowest position in this period too.
Table 3.21 also reveals instability indices in the production of rabi, kharif and total pulses. It is interesting to note that production of rabi and kharif pulses was almost equally uncertain during the
(%)
Table 3 2 \Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India 1981-02 Gram
Slale Area
ProduellOn
Yield
Area
Produe/Ion
Urad
Moong
Arhar Yield
Area
ProduellOn
Yield
Area
ProduelIOn
Yield
1980-81 to 1990-91 Andhra Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra
9.85
-
-
-
7.44
13.83
17.98
8.04
30.50
27.14
6.06
928
9.82
1282
8.86
5.56
7.92
5.70
5.41
1245
8.98
4.09
7.08
5.12
-
8339
10617
18.67
19.87
56.87
36.44
22.92
61.30
3474
-
2714
50.85
30.60
76.29
14963
66.14
23.07
31.43
18.22
68.36
12090
5649
-
-
-
14.99
3042
17.63
10.40
23.41
20.00
9.53
2579
17.27
469
741
7.56
7.34
12 46
5.69
2.18
25.30
24.49
5.08
1191
8.43
38.31
58.98
27.63
2184
38.44
20.15
6.15
19.93
18.24
634
20.80
16.33
Onssa
-
-
7.79
7.49
7.95
7.10
16.51
10.92
7.93
9.01
7.51
Punjab
36.89
4393
-
1657
28.17
58.21
34.55
16.28
25.14
1778
1961
3131
17.08
Rajasthan
27.06
4195
19.46
45.89
6080
19.72
23.19
18527
15285
30.86
70.01
3560
-
19.89
1770
1323
1737
19.74
1090
-
Uttar Pradesh
1289
14.02
1817
567
12.95
12.44
3.99
15.68
1574
4.93
986
11 08
West Bengal
12.45
18.20
21.76
12.07
15.47
13.49
57.27
5848
1600
11.69
1670
10.90
8.27
11.80
1321
7.73
14.48
9.66
5.96
1528
11.01
5.85
1\.38
702
IndIa
-
-
-
-
Tarml Nadu
.... ....o
-
Table 321 (Contd) State
Gram Area
Produ-
Arhar Yield
Area
Produc-
Yield
Area
Produ-
Yield
Area
Produclion
Yield
etlon
lIon
elton
S
Urad
Moong
1990-91 to 2001-02 Andhra Pradesh Bihar Gujarat Haryana Karnataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra
12.39
13.54
641
10.17
27.40
22.33
9.58
45 II
38.36
4.75
25.64
2313
4.85
31.23
30.76
406
2046
1895
410
13.39
1276
5.69
1864
15.97
-
92.81
124.95
28.31
7.57
46.56
40.19
II 19
5145
38.15
11.91
51.99
76.93
22.17
4297
73.19
2346
48.64
71.13
20.08
21 33
25.97
1964
14.82
36.84
2662
8.54
22.99
19.79
3748
-
39.21
-
-
7.98
15.81
921
9.68
21.62
1427
5.37
18.52
14.58
11.28.
22.15
12.52
48.88
69.71
2107
24.11
50.26
2787
5.72
4750
4790
5.92
46.42
41.50
-
-
-
7512
90.86
12.31
1463
33.96
1892
36.76
51.36
1598
Punjab
14.56
11.45
16.20
30.Q9
30.43
973
8.74
1577
1095
10.81
13.58
8.92
Rajasthan
4351
59.06
32.11
51.84
62.18
19.48
1655
123.83
101.87
27.81
66.07
35.07
-
-
-
19.82
35.19
16.47
14.04
19.80
12.66
Orissa
Tamil Nadu
-
-
-
Uttar Pradesh
7.96
16.07
12.59
3.45
14.91
14.51
4.75
780
8.01
2.40
11.37
11.50
West Bengal
32.00
40.33
42.19
17.94
27.57
13.28
1410
31.16
24.08
13.47
24.24
11.93
4.78
14.65
1290
1426
1878
969
4.07
16.83
15.78
505
1373
10.23
India
-
Table 3 21 (Contd) State
Gram Area
Produ-
Arhar Yield
Area
etlon
Produe-
Urad
Moong Yield
Area
Produ-
tlon
Yield
Area
Produe-
Yield
tlon
etlon I
1980-81 to 2001-02 Andhra Pradesh BIhar GUJarat Haryana Kamataka Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa
7.61
-
23.95
-
-
899
2185
20.39
8.88
3862
33.36
541
19.27
22.60
5.02
15.81
14.09
4.81
12.95
11.13
5.25
1446
11.98
-
8954
11749
2411
14.90
5227
3864
18.05
56.99
3672
6461
113 11
4610
35.57
5703
21.35
5896
9618
39.97
18.61
28.92
19.23
12.88
31.00
23.68
9.03
24.36
18.62
17.82
1095
4.15
22.11
1994
9.01
18.05
10.76 31.29
33.10
45.19
-
-
6.64
12.45
8.57
8.73
44.02
64.69
2435
-
-
2231
-
1781
2308
45.01
2451
595
3609
35.80
6.15
35.75
-
51.73
61.45
10.47
12.67
2850
16.05
26.57
3693
13.13
13.64
21.67
14.62
15.51
23.39
13.45
Punjab
26.96
30.31
16.42
2919
44.84
24.06
Rajasthan
3635
51.27
26.77
49.33
61.62
1967
19.93
135.46
126.76
29.32
68.08
35.37
-
-
21.77
3022
15.16
16.18
2064
11.98
TamilNadu
-
-
-
-
Uttar Pradesh
11.05
16.02
15.57
4.82
14.15
13.57
443
12.13
12 22
3.89
10.74
11.31
West Bengal
2426
31.66
33.70
1572
2247
13.51
3900
45.31
2069
12.76
20.91
1149
6.67
13.41
13.07
1164
16.93
9.68
5.12
16.31
13 78
555
12.81
8.87
IndIa
Source: Based on data from Area and ProductIon of Pnnclpal Crops (1982 to 1997) and data from DIrectorate of Economics and Statistics, (1998- 2002),
o
UJ
104
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
study span. But, acreage of rabi pulses after the economic reforms in the 1990s was found more unstable due to availability of better technology and extension services for oilseeds cultivation under the TMOP. Surprisingly, it did not reduce yield instability of pulses. Especially, it has increased in the case kharifpulses. The differences in the instability in production ofkharifpulses in the two selected periods were marginal despite some fluctuations in area as well as in yield. The instability indices for the production of total pulses in India were estimated 11.38% in the first period, 13.73% in the second period and 12.81% during the entire study span. Out of the two (area and yield), yield contributed relatively much more to in~tability and it has increased during the reforms period. It may be mentioned that instability around the trend in case of area was relatively low in comparison to yield. Among the states, highest uncertainty was found in Haryana and the lowest in Uttar Pradesh in the first as well as in the second period. Particularly, area I-I in Uttar Pradesh was found extremely low (2.40%) during the reforms period but efforts should be made to reduce yield instability, which was found more than 10%. The findings for the entire period were also similar. The following important points emerge from the analysis of instability in the production of pulses: •
First, the I-I index ofpulse production showed high uncertainty at individual level as well as at the aggregate level barring a few exceptions when I-I index was below 10%.
•
Second, the instability behaviour of individual pulses is diverse. The crops of urad and massar indicated lower production instability in comparison to major crops like gram and arhar.
•
Third, the evidences of higher instability in yield are much more than area except gram, which has indicated reverse pattern. In six out of total eighl cases, yield variability is responsible for uncertain production.
•
Fourth, the range of instability in production of total pulses is quite wide at the state level. It was estimated as high as
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
105
96% in Haryana. In contrast, it was found around 11 % in Uttar Pradesh due to very low index of area instability (3.89%). •
Fifth, more than 90% of analysed states have indicated pulse production instability above the all India level.
Causes of Instability It is found that instability in production of pulses is on the higher side in India. The important source appeared to be yield variability. This is because pulses are mostly grown in rain fed areas. The quantum of rainfall influences area allocation at the pre-sowing stage and later to the yield by receiving one or two irrigations. In the absence of irrigation support for the pulse crops, rains are the only solace, failing which yield falls by considerable percentage. Other factors, which cause instability in production of pulses, are price variability and adoption of technology, which will be discussed in Chapters - V and VI. Here, we have presented information on two factors, i.e., dependence on rainfall and lack of irrigation, which cause production instability in pulses.
Relationship Between Rainfall and Production of Pulses One of the main causative factors of the poor performance of pulse production seems to be the excessive dependence of pulses on rainfall. It has been found that the correlation between the index of rainfall and pulse production at the national level was as high as 0.67 (meaning 67% dependence) during the period 1980-81 to 200102. While there is a significant correlation between the rainfall index and production of all food grain crops, but it was highest in case of pulses. It may be seen from Table 3.22 that the dependence of pulse production on rainfall in major producing states ofRajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was found very high. On the other hand, states like Bihar, Orissa and Punjab have exhibited relatively lower dependence on rainfall.
106
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
Inadequate Irrigation Cover The rain dependence of pulses is not surprising especially in view of the very low irrigation cover accorded to them in almost all the states. Only 16.1 % of the area covered under pulses at the national level was irrigated in 1999-2000, as compared to 87.2% for wheat and 53.9% for rice. It is not surprising that Rajasthan, the fourth largest producer of the crop in the country recorded the lowest average yield of pulses (372 kg/ha) during TE 2001-02 as the irrigation cover for pulses in the state was as low as 15.01 % during 1999-2000. Similarly, irrigation coverage for pulses in other major growing states of Madhya Pradesh (26%), Uttar Pradesh (22.9%), Maharashtra (7.5%), AndhraPradesh (1%), Kamataka (3.9%) and Gujarat (23.2%) was found below 30% during the year 2000-01. Among the major growing states, pulses received maximum irrigation coverage in Madhya Pradesh, but Uttar Pradesh leads other states in the country in yield level (883 kg/ha). The irrigation cover accorded to pulses in Madhya Pradesh is the second highest in the country, while it ranks fourth in average yield (737 kg/ha) attained during triennium ending 200 1-02. The substantial difference in yield levels between Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh is surprising considering the difference in irrigation cover accorded to pulses in these states. The much lower levels of yield attained in other states can also probably be attributed to the lesser irrigation cover accorded to pulses in those states (Table 3.23).
107
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage Table 3.22 Correlation Coefficients between Production of Various Crops and Index of Rainfall (1980-81 to 2001-02) Pulses
Rice
Wheat
Coarse Cereals
Oi/seeds
Andhra Pradesh
0.41
0.54
0.25
-0.16
0.53
Bihar
0.14
0.44
0.24
-0.18
0.25
Gujarat
0.47
0.53
0.87
0.56
0.77
Haryana
0.58
0.27
0.28
0.56
0.39
Karnataka
0.41
0.62
0.39
0.61
0.49
Madhya Pradesh
0.55
0.71
0.41
0.13
0.13
Maharashtra
0.43
0.60
0.65
0.26
0.48
Orissa
0.23
0.57
-0.03
0.09
0.25
Punjab
0.00
0.07
0.13
-0.40
0.01
Rajasthan
0.76
0.43
0.43
0.63
0.50
Tamil Nadu
-0.13
0.25
-0.08
0.03
0.26
Uttar Pradesh
0.54
0.16
0.07
0.37
0.22
West Bengal
-0.09
0.27
-0.22
0.22
0.33
All-India
0.67
0.36
0.27
0.17
0.28
State
Source: Dadhlch, 2002.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
108
Table 3.23 State-Wise Percentage of Area Covered by Irrigation under Principal Crops during 2000-01 States
Pulses
Rice
Wheat
Total Food grains
All CropJ
Andhra Pradesh
l.l
95.7
77.3
56.3
43.7
Bihar
2.2
40.7
90.0
49.1
47.8
Gujarat
23.2
60.0
87.7
30.4
33.9
Haryana
37.7
99.8
99.1
85.3
85.4
Karnataka
3.9
72.5
42.8
23.6
26.6
-
59.9
-
57.0
15.2
Madhya Pradesh
26.4
14.8
70.4
33.1
24.0
Maharashtra
7.5
28.5
87.1
14.8
17.4
Orissa
4.6
37.8
100.00
28.4
27.0
Punjab
-
99.2
97.5
96.9
96.0
16.01
61.6
98.8
28.9
31.9
Tamil Nadu
8.8
93.2
-
60.8
55.1
Uttar Pradesh
22.9
65.7
92.2
66.1
67.3
-
42.1
79.0
42.4
37.0
12.5
53.6
88.1
43.4
40.2
Kerala
Rajasthan
West Bengal All India
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance. 2004.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
109
Section - 3 Determinants of Acreage and Yield Rates The foregoing analysis revealed that the growth ofpulse production in India has been extremely poor between 1980-81 and 2001-02. It was further compounded by instability. The production of pulses like other agricultural commodities is determined by acreage and yield. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to investigate factors influencing these parameters. We have used two models for this purpose. The first is an area response model based on the Nerlovian framework and the second is yield response function of the CobbDouglas type. A variety of price and non-price factors influence the farmers' decisions regarding land allocation to various crops. The first segment includes input and output prices. These range from last year's harvest price of the crop, availability of minimum support price, last year's harvest price of the competing crop to prices of fertilizer, power, seed, water, insecticides and availability of credit. Similarly, a host of non-price factors also play an important role. The chief among them are last year's acreage and yield, availability of improved seeds and irrigation, rainfall, facility of procurement by government agencies, resistance of crop to pest attacks, extension services, home consumption and availability of alternate crops, credit and assured market. Unfortunately, crop specific information on all these variables is lacking and therefore, even tabular analysis is not possible. Owing to this difficulty, findings of acreage response models are based on a few variables for which data are available. Thus, factors affecting pulse acreage are numerous and their contribution is generally estimated through an acreage response model. Existing literature on the nature of acreage response to price and non-price factors in case of pulse crops is mixed. Some studies have concluded that there is a positive acreage response to changes in the prices of pulses while others have observed a reverse phenomenon.
110
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
However, most of the researchers (Chopra and Swamy, 1975; Deshpande and Chandrashekar, 1982; Sadasivan, 1993; Dhindsa and Sharma, 1997) held the view that non-price factors are more important than the price factors in explaining the acreage response behaviour of the farmers. Most ofthese studies cover a period up to early 1990s but policy scenario s changing after graudal liberalization of agriculture and inclusion of pulse crops in Technology Mission in 1990-91. How the changing scenario has impacted acreage under important pulse crops appeared to be the major concern. Second, most of the studies confme to gram, arhar and total pulses while moong, urad and massar also play an important role in the pace of growth. Moreover, nature of acreage response differs from crop to crop and region to region. This emphasizes the need for regional studies on acreage response of different pulse crops. Keeping this in mind, responsiveness of price and non-price factors in area allocation by farmers under gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses in the states which covered between 80% and 90% of production of these crops is estimated through a modified Nerlovian supply response function. The empirical knowledge of acreage response of pulses will be useful for rational formulation ofpolicies in bringing a break through in the production of pulses. For the model, required time series data on acreage, yield, farm harvest price and pre-sowing rainfall were collected from secondary sources like "Area and Production of Principal Crops", "Agricultural Statistics at a Glance", "Farm Harvest Prices in India" and "Agricultural Prices in India" for the period 1980-81 to 2000-01. Rainfall data were obtained from statistical abstracts of various states and statistical abstracts of India published by the Central Statistical Organization, New Delhi. When farm harvest price for the crop was not available, wholesale price of the main market in the state for harvesting month was used as a proxy. The relative word refers to competing crop, which can be grown on the same piece ofland. For rabi pulses such as gram and massar, wheat in irrigated areas and mustard in rainfed areas are considered as competing crops. Particularly, mustard is used due to higher share
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
111
of gram area under rainfed conditions. In case of kharif pulses such as arhar, moong and urad, competing crops are jowar and bajra, butjowar is mostly preferred in the major growing states. To examine the acreage response of different pulse crops during the current year, pulse acreage has been regressed on lagged acreage; lagged relative price and yield; price and yield risk; and pre-sowing rainfall in the leading states in terms of production of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses. One year lag is used in acreage, yield and price assuming that the current year acreage, yield and price generally influence the decision about area allocation in the next year. Using Nerlovian adjustment lag model as a basic framework, the reduced form of equation for the acreage response function for pulses is specified as follows: a + b l A '-I + b 2 R P'_I + b J R Y'_I + b4 P R + b s Y R + b 6 R F, + u,
A, where A,
- area in hectares under the crop
A'_I
- area in hectares under the crop in the year '-I
RP'_I -
relative price in year '-I
RY'_I -
relative yield in the year '-I
PRy
-
price risk measured in terms of standard deviation of past three years
YRy
-
yield risk measured in terms of standard deviation of past three years
RF,
-
Pre-sowing rainfall (nun) in the year,
The empirical results on the extent of responsiveness of price and non-price factors in area allocation under gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses for all India and core growing states are summarized in Table 3.24. Apparently, elasticities oflagged acreage; lagged relative price and yield; price and yield risk; and pre-sowing rainfall vary significantly across the individual pulses in different milieu. However, some uniformity in the acreage response behaviour of farmers growing rabi pulses as well as kharif pulses may be noticed. The impact of previous year's acreage was found most pronounced on area allocation under gram at the national level and in important growing states. Its elasticities are positive and significant
112
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
in six out of seven cases. The highest coefficient of lagged acreage was estimated for Maharashtra (0.77) and the lowest for Rajasthan (0.13). Another factor affecting area under gram appears to be lagged relative price. Its elasticity is weak but significant at the country level. Similarly, farmers in major growing states seemed to be responsive to price factor except in Uttar Pradesh where it turned out to be insignificant. The highest coefficient of lagged relative price was estimated in Andhra Pradesh (0.23) followed by Maharashtra (0.19) where growth performance of gram was commendable during the study period. This result implies that gram growers are responding to commercial stimuli in some locations and at the aggregate level. Further, elasticity of pre-sowing rainfall, though insignificant at the country level, showed its impact on acreage allocation to gram in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra where gram is mostly grown under rainfed conditions. The coefficient of rainfall was negative and significant in these states. The responsiveness ofRY, PR and YR is found poor and insignificant in most of the cited cases except for Andhra Pradesh where these factors seemed to be influencing gram acreage. The impact of yield risk was found significant in Uttar Pradesh too. This implies that the farmers in these states consider yield risk as one of the factors in land allocation under gram. The most appropriate function was obtained for Uttar Pradesh, which explained 85% variation in the area allocation to gram. An examination of the estimated elasticities of six included variables in the acreage response model of arhar at the all India and state level indicate that coefficient of lagged acreage was positive, high and significant in all the analysed cases. Its magnitude was found the highest in Maharashtra (0.94) and the lowest in Madhya Pradesh (0.21). The low and insignificant acreage response of lagged relative price in most of the states reveals weak responsiveness of price factor. But it was significant at 10% level in Maharashtra. On the other hand, influence of pre-sowing rainfall was negative and significant at the all India level and in four major states. Its elasticity was the maximum in Gujarat. The low and insignificant coefficients ofRY, PR and YR imply that the farmers do not attach any importanc~ to these variables in decision-making
Table 3. 24 Results of Nerlovian Model on Acreage Response of Gram, Arbar, Moong, Urad, Massar and Total Pulses in Important Growing States of India State
Intercept
Area ,./
RP,./
Price Risk
RY,.,
Yield Risk
Pre-sowmg Ramfall
Ad. Coefii
Iii
Q ~
§.
MP
618
049 (2.32)*
0.06 (2.96)*
0.04 (0.46)
0.03 (1.13)
007 (076)
-010 (-1.73)*-
051
064
~ ~ ~ I:l
UP
-134
073 (825)*
003 (1.90)--
-0.01 (-0.15)
-0 02 (-1.25)
-0 04 (-1.76)--
-0.09 (-1.33)
027
085
J~
Rajasthan
1404
0.13 (0.39)
009 (I 40)
0.13 (0.27)
003 (024)
-002 (-0 12)
-0.46 (-I 79)"
0.87
033
0.41
077 (3.15)*
0.19 (1.73)-*
-0.17 (-0.82)
001 (0.31)
0.02 (014)
-021 (190)**
0.23
0.49
GRAM
Maharashtra Kamataka
1.51
0.50 (3.11)*
0.17(287)*
-0.01 (-002)
0.01 (025)
0.03(0.41)
022 (0.52)
0.50
0.65
AP
177
0.47 (262)*
023 (3.47)*
0.43 (260)-
-0 12 (-1.73)--
0.17 (1.84)*-
0.11 (025)
053
084
11.36
064 (1.91)*'
0.06 (1.81)--
0.05 (0.28)
-0.03 (-088)
-004 (-0.96)
-0.24 (-0.97)
036
0.41
All IndIa
;::!
~
""(;Jis"
::::.;
§.
:t.. (")
~
~ ~
ARHAR Maharashtra
0.24
094 (8.35)*
0.10 (I 81)"
0.04 (1.15)
-0.01 (-072)
')01 (013)
-0.22 (1.74)**
006
UP
1.91
063 (205)**
0.01 (0.01)
0.07 (0.81)
-0.01 (-042)
-0.01(-(0.22)
-0.09 (-I 82)**
0.37
Kamataka
327
o 58 (2.46)*
0.14 (0.76)
0.03 (0.34)
-0.03 (-0.79)
001 (020)
-0 16 (1.48)
093 029
0.42
0.37
MP
568
021 (I 82)**
0.06 (0.28)
0.46 (2.17)*
-007 (-034)
-0.05 (-059)
-0.12 (-1.73)'*
0.79
040
GUJarat
1 35
055 (265)*
005 (039)
007 (0.74)
0.02 (0.91)
-0.02 (-003)
-025 (1.91)**
045
050
AP
036
084 (4.05)*
0.12 (0.62)
-002 (-0.19)
-0.01 (-0.33)
001 (026)
0.09(0.34)
0.16
0.55
All IndIa
277
060 (3 12)*
011 (081)
-002 (-0.46)
-001 (-064)
000 (0.04)
-0.08 (-I 96)**
0.40
060
--
I.;.>
. ".
Table 3.24 (Contd.) Slale
Intercepl
Area t.1
RP,_J
Price Risk
RY"
Yield RISk
I
Pre-sowmg Ramfall
Ad. Coefii
R]
0.79
MOONG
om
Maharashtra
0.20
0.66 (4.03)·
(0.07)
-0.03 (-0.54)
0.03 (0.86)
AP
182
0.67 (3.19)·
-0.08 (-071)
-0.01 (-0.18)
om
Kamataka
453
0.71 (2.72)·
019 (096)
Rajasthan
001 (034)
-039 (-2.14)·
0.34
(0.14)
-001 (-0.24)
007 (0.44)
0.33
0.40
-0.02 (-0 15)
-0.03 (-0.31)
0.12 (0.97)
-081 (-1.80)··
0.29
029 078
-006
0.85 (6.65)·
0.23 (1.87)--
-0.09 (-096)
-0.03 (-0.36)
0.12 (268)-
-0.04 (-1.88)-·
015
Bihar
0.56
070 (4.01)*
0.04 (0.50)
0.02 (0.31)
-0.01(-0.35)
0.0310.9~)
0.19j19f}··
0.30
0.76
TamdNadu
494
066 (1.87)·-
-0.27 (-0.83)
-0.08 (-0.33)
-0.05 (063)
-923 (-0.00)
-0 11 (-1.74)·-
0.34
0.38
All India
4.58
049 (2.13)-
0.12 (114)
005 (0.49)
0.02 (0.70)
-0.01 (-005)
-0.14 (-1.81)--
051
037
URAD
AP
1.66
087 (8.45)-
0.1 1 (1.10)
0.12 (1.65)
0.02 (063)
-0.01 (-1.22)
-0.14 (2.15)·
013
0.92
Maharashtra
270
063 (236)·
-0.03 (-031)
-0.04 (-0.43)
0.00 (0.14)
001 (0.19)
-0 08 (-1.80)--
037
028
MP
120
0.93 (9.83)-
-005 (-1.12)
o 16 (1.73··)
-002 (-0.95)
-002 (-1.08)
-0.09 (-0 70)
007
0.91
UP
308
0.74 (4.73)·
0.01 (001)
042 (2.17)-
-0.01 (-0.22)
-0.01 (-0.Q4)
-0.27 (-1.00)
0.26
0.82
Tamil Nadu
0.20
0.63 (3.00)-
-0.03 (-0 13)
0.03 (0.12)
-0 \0 (-I 39)
-0 14 (-0.96)
0.64 (1.83)"
037
0.40
Kamataka
002
089 (480)-
-0.07 (-076)
-004 (-088)
004 (1 45)
0.09 (3.14)-
0.07 (039)
011
0.96
All IndIa
339
064 (3.78)·
002 (046)
o 18 (223)·
-002 (-I 05)
0.00 (-0.11)
-0 09 (-2.1 0)·
0.36
0.53
_.
Table 3.24 (Contd.) Slate
Illtercept
... ,
1-/
RP/.,
RY.1
Price RIsk
j
Yield Risk
-
Pre-sowing Rainfall
Ad. Coej1l
R'
MASSAR -0.05 (-1.21)
0.04 (0.76)
-0.26 (-1.15)
016
0.51
-0.0 I (-0.63)
-0.06 (-1.51)
-0.13 (-1.88)*'
0.27
0.96
0.Q7 (1.07)
-0.02 (-1.11)
0.01 (0.56)
-0.02 (-0.17)
0.43
0.23
-0.14 (-0.83)
0.24 (1.45)
-0.07 (-1.25)
O.oz (0.55)
-0.42 (-1.13)
0.28
0.64
0.24 (0.59)
-0.66 (-1.33)
0.02 (0.18)
0.28 (1.30)
-0.35 (-0.47)
0.22
0.61
-0.02 (-0.17)
-0.01 (-0.29)
om
-0.03 (-0.14)
0.23
0.43
UP
2.34
0.84 (4.03)*
MP
0.59
0.73 (8.51)*
0.07 (1.82)**
Bihar
2.29
0.57 (2.37)*
0,01 (0.07)
W. Bengal
3.53
0.72 (4.25)'
Rajasthan
0.69
0.78 (2.71)*
All India
189
0.77 (3.39)'
0.28 (1.39)
0.08 (2.62)' -0.16 (-1.99)"
0.09 (1.90)"
(0.17)
TOTAL PULSES
MP
7.24
0.53 (2.84)'
0,01 (0.07)
-0.0 I (-0.02)
-0.0 I (-0.30)
0.04 (1.43)
0.47
0.56
UP
6.15
0.49 (2.03)'
0.04 (1.14)
-0.05 (-0.26)
-0.03 (-1.33)
0.00 (-0.37)
-0.07 (-0.36)
0.51
0.45 0.73
Maharashtra Rajasthan AP
8.06 12.91 4.14
0.42 (1.76)" 0.38 (1.41) 0.39 (1.97)"
Bihar
1.41
Karnataka
7.65
0.37 (1.83)"
All India
15.82
0.52 (1.90)"
0.78 (2.15)'
-0.17 (-1.83)"
0.06 (0.67)
0.06 (1.02)
-0.06 (0.67)
-0.23 (-2.28)'
0.58
0.15 (0.88)
0.16 (0.48)
-0.03 (-0.38)
-0.23 (-2.21)'
-0.63 (-2.21)'
0.62
0.47
0.11 (3.99)'
-0.01 (-0.14)
0.00 (0.34)
-0.01 (-0.01)
0.61
0.81
0.32
0.51
0.11 (1.81)"
0.05 (0.91) 0.05 (1.98)" 0.05 (0.47)
-0.05 (-3.61)"
0.11 (0.72)
0.01 (0.30)
0.02)(0.17)
-0.09 (-0.58)
0.Q2 (0.63)
0.05 (0.88)
0.10 (1.55)
-0.02 (-1.65)
-0.03 (-0.92)
-0.19 (-1.73)" -0.28 (-1.47) -0.13 (-1.82)"
Brackets show t-values, ' and ,. indIcate significance below 5% and 10% level of probability; # is the adjustment coefficient
0.63
0.52
0.48
0.46
116
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
about area allocation to arhar. But, the impact of relative yield was significant in Madhya Pradesh. The included explanatory variables explained the highest variance in Maharashtra (0.93). The overall findings of the model reveal dominance of non-price factors over price factor in acreage allocation to arhar in major growing states and at the all India level. The results of the acreage response model for other kharifpulses, i.e., moong and urad were on the similar lines. Like arhar, most important factor influencing acreage of these crops was lagged acreage. Its elasticities were significant in all the cases. The elasticities of relative price were found low and insignificant. However, it was positive and significant in Rajasthan. On the other hand, pre-sowing rainfall has shown its impact on area at the all India level and in majority of the referred states. The relative yield showed its impact on area allocation under urad in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and at the all India level. The PR and YR in the analysed states did not play any role in acreage decisions of the farmers related to moong and urad cultivation. But, coefficient of yield risk was significant in Rajasthan for moong and in Kamataka for urad. The overall results clearly show that the growers ofthe~e crops do not respond to commercial incentives. The value of R2 ranged between 0.28 and 0.96. This suggests that the model was a good fit in some cases while it could partially explain variations in other cases due to dominance of other factors in acreage decisions of the farmers. The estimates of elesticities of explanatory variables for massar appear to be somewhat consistent with the results obtained for gram. The responsiveness of area was skewed towards lagged area followed by lagged relative price at the all India level. But, at the state level, price factor was found significant in two states (Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh) out of five referred states. The impact ofrelative yield was significant in Madhya Pradesh. Generally, influence of relative yield, price and yield risk and pre-sowing rainfall on area allocation was found insignificant. The pre- sowing rainfall showed significant impact on area allocation to massar in Madhya Pradesh.
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
117
An analysis of estimated elasticities of selected variables for total pulses at the all India and state level reveals that the responsiveness oflagged acreage was positive, high and significant in all the cases except Rajasthan. The magnitude of coefficient above 6.40 is indicative of moderate to high responsiveness of c~opped area in the previous year. The influence oflagged relative price, despite being low was found significant in the states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra where growth performance of total pulses was observed creditable. Factors like RY, PR and YR do not seem to be contributing to acreage allocation under total pulses. The pre-sowing rainfall appeared to be impacting area allocation decisions of the farmers in majority ofthe analysed cases. But, influence varied from region to region. For instance, its elasticity was estimated to be 0.63 in Rajasthan against 0.10 inAndhra Pradesh. Its impact was negative and significant at the all India level. This result merits notice because increase in rainfall reduces area under pulse crops as traditional varieties of these crops give low yield and profitability in comparison to superior cereals. It may be noticed that the acreage response of total pulses is lower than some of the individual pulses primarily because magnitude of elasticity depends on the extent to which the farmers would increase acreage and other inputs and there possibility in individual cases is high. The Nerlovian coefficient of adjustment provides information about the speed of adjustment of acreage to changing levels of the explanatory variables in the supply response equation. In the case of pulses, this coefficient ranged from a low of 0.06 to a high of 0.87. However, around 60% cases indicate the magnitude of adjustment below 0.40. This implies that the farmers are adjusting their area under the cultivation of pulses at a slow rate with changing levels of institutional and technological factors. To sum up, lagged acreage and lagged relative price appeared to be most important determinants of area allocation under rabi pulses, while lagged acreage and presowing rainfall were found most crucial in case ofkharif pulses. The overall findings of acreage response model suggest that the nonprice factors still influence area of pulse crops more than price factor like 1960s and 1970s. But, commercial incentives have started showing their impact in some locations for gram, massar and total pulses.
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
118
In this context, it would be useful to identify the factors influencing yield ofpulse crops. Generally, factors like type of seed, consumption offertilizer, manure, pesticides and availability of water affect productivity of various crops. The comprehensive time series data on these variables for pulse crops are not available. However, reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) provide information on yield, consumption of seed, fertilizer and manure in physical and financial terms and expenditure on irrigation for major pulse crops in core growing states. But, nonavailability of time series data constrains the rigorous analysis. Often, number of years and states for which data are available are not uniform for individual pulse crops. Therefore, analysis ofproductivity is confined to only gram in Madhya Pradesh. A regression model of the Cobb-Douglas type was used to exa:mine the efficiency of each explanatory variable. The model is specified as under: I
2
3
Y = a XI b X2 b X3 b or log Y = log a + b l log XI + b2 log X2 + b3 log X3 where Y - yield of gram in Rslha XI - expenditure on seed in Rslha X 2 - expenditure on fertilizer in Rslha X3 -rainfall in rom b l • b2 and b3 are regression coefficients Y = 0.720 + 0.97 XI + 0.02 X2 + 0.65 X3
(5.83)*
(0.32)
(1.91)**
R2= 0.94 Brackets show t-values * significant below 5% level of probability; ** significant below 10% level of probability.
The results of the above equation indicate that the expenditure on seed (Xl) and pre-sowing rainfall (X3 ) have influenced the productivity of gram in Madhya Pradesh. The coefficients of these variables are high, positive and significant. The non-significant
Growth Performance, Instability, Acreage
119
response of fertilizer can be attributed to the fact that gram in Madhya Pradesh is generally grown under rain fed conditions whereas the response of fertilizer is high under irrigated conditions. The value of R2 indicates that about 94% variation in the value productivity of gram in the state is explained by included variables in the model. The un-explained proportion of variance is very small and it could be due to factors like quality of soil. The overall findings of the model suggest that policy should focus on seed input along with availability ofwater to enhance growth in yield of pulse crops. Before concluding this chapter, it would be appropriate to recall the hypotheses set and show the results. The first hypothesis related to poor production performance of pulse crops in India due to low growth in acreage and yield was fully confirmed for gram, arhar, moong, urad, rabi and kharif pulses and total pulses. But it was rejected for massar which showed 4% per year growth in the production due to high growth in area (1.8%) and yield (2.2%) between 1980-81 and 2001-02. The next hypothesis aboutthe greater responsiveness of non-price factors in comparison to price factors in acreage allocation to pulse crops was fully confirmed for kharif pulses but partially accepted for gram and massar since relative prices also affected their area allocation at the national as well as in some regions. The last hypothesis regarding the influence of expenditure on seed, fertilizer and magnitude of rainfall on the productivity of pulse crops was partially confirmed because fertilizer response was not found significant on the productIvity of gram in Madhya Pradesh.
"This page is Intentionally Left Blank"
Chapter 4
Status of Pulse ProductionA District Level Analysis
In the preceding chapter, growth performance of pulse crops was examined in the broad perspective at the all India and state level. The analysis revealed large inter-state variations in the growth of pulse production between 1980-81 and 2001-02. But, the overall view conceals district level variations, which have an important bearing on the production of individual pulse crops at the macro level. This is because states are aggregated units and contain districts with significant agro-c1imatic variations. Keeping in mind these considerations, present chapter is devoted to the analysis of pulse production at the disaggregated district level. It examines interdistrict variations in area, production and yield of gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses in the recent period. In order to fulfill the above objective, secondary data were collected from published sources. The district is used as the basic unit of the analysis. At the outset, it would be essential to mention that the district-wise data on important indicators related to pulse crops are marred by the shortcomings in terms of coverage posing serious limitations to in-depth analysis (Bhalla and Alagh, 1979; Bhalla and Tyagi, 1989). For instance, district-wise information on fertilizer consumption, use of improved seeds and pesticides in any form for pulse crops is not available. Although, irrigation is an important factor in the growth of productivity, district-wise data on coverage of irrigation are available for gram, arhar and total pulses for a few states only. In a large number of government publications, this information is not available at all. Similarly, information on farm
122
India's Pulse Production: Stagnation and Redressal
harvest prices of pulse crops is limited to gram and arhar despite price being one of the catalytic factors to incentivize farmers to grow pulse crops. Further, partitioning and repartitioning of districts during the past decades has made inter-temporal comparisons extremely difficult in a vast country like India. In view of these limitations, it appeared more realistic to restrict the analysis to cross sectional comparisons among the districts and to draw conclusions regarding the district level status of pulse production. The district-wise data on area, production, yield and coverage of irrigation under gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar and total pulses were obtained from "Statistical Abstracts of States", which contributed between 80% to 90% in the production to national kitty. When information was not available for the major states, lower ranking states were included. In some cases "District-wise Area and Production of Principal Crops in India" was used for gathering relevant data. However, some states could not be included in the analysis due to non-availability of district level data. The information on farm harvest prices of gram and arhar was culled out from "Farm Harvest Prices in India". The coverage of districts is spread to the extent that all districts, which contributed more than one per cent to state's total production of a particular crop, were included in the analysis. The available statistical abstracts ofmaj or growing states were used for data collection but their years were not found uniform. StilL most of the data used in the analysis relate to the year 1998-99 but in exceptional cases, information on earlier years was used due to non-availability of the documents. The
