Study no. 124 Publication No. 171

Estimation of Seed, Feed and Wastage Ratio for Estimation of Seed, Feed and Wastage Ratio for Estimation of Seed, Feed and Wastage Ratio for Estimation of Seed, Feed and Wastage Ratio for Major Food grains in U.P.Major Food grains in U.P.Major Food grains in U.P.Major Food grains in U.P.

Prof. S.A. Ansari

Shri. D.K.Singh

AgroAgroAgroAgro----Economic Research CentreEconomic Research CentreEconomic Research CentreEconomic Research Centre University of AllahabadUniversity of AllahabadUniversity of AllahabadUniversity of Allahabad

AllahabadAllahabadAllahabadAllahabad----211002 211002 211002 211002 2006

Preface

Since the Green revolution, the growth rate in crop production has been

significant upto 1990s. The total production of food grain in U.P. which was

194.67 lakh tonnes in 1970-71 has gone up to 442.58 lakh tonnes in 2003-04

showing thereby an increase of 127.35 per cent over the period. Among the

foodgrains, the maximum increase has been registered in the production of wheat

followed by paddy. Against this, the production of pulses and oilseeds could not

get sufficient momentum during the corresponding period. Expansion of irrigation,

network, availability of High Yield Variety seeds, adoption of package of

practices, balanced use of fertilizers and pesticides, were the main inputs to raise

the production of wheat and paddy crops in Uttar Pradesh. There was a major shift

in crop area from pulses to wheat. The per capita net availability of cereal which

was 161.67 Kgs per year in 1970-71 in U.P., has substantially increased by 70.05

per cent (203.90 kg) in 2002-03. The country is not only self sufficient in

foodgrains but also a huge quantity of wheat and rice was exported. The bumper

production of wheat has created huge task before government for its proper storing.

The space of FCI, CWC, SWC etc was insufficient to store such a huge quantity of

foodgrains. Thus a large quantity of grain rots and goes waste each year. The

requirement of seed of the crops per hectare has been decreasing due to use of

HYV/improved seeds. As far as feed for livestock is concerned, it has been

increasing due to increase in population of milch cattle and shrinkage of area under

grazing. Beside this, the majority of households irrespective of size of holding,

keep the improved breed of milch cattle for regular income. Hence, adequate

quantity of foodgrains is also used as feed for livestock. The higher wastage of

foodgrains at different stages is the major problem for the government as well as

farmers. Therefore, there is an urgent need to create required infrastructural

facilities to store foodgrains properly.

The wastage occurs at different stages viz,. harvesting, threshing, storing and marketing.

Apart from this, it also occurs during the consumption by human beings and animals. It has been

estimated that seed, feed and wastages jointly accounted for 12.50 per cent of the total

production of foodgrains. The Techo Economic Research Institute had also conducted a study on

behalf of the Planning Commission to know the seed, feed and wastage ratio in some districts of

Punjab, Haryana and Western U.P. in 1986-87. The result of the study was that on an average

10.31 per cent of total production of food grain was used as seed, feed and waste in the area

under study. The corresponding figure for western U.P. was 12.01 per cent followed by 10.84

per cent and 8.22 per cent for Haryana and Punjab respectively. After 1986-87 none of the

Research Centres, Institutes or Govt. departments undertook any compressive study to assess the

seed, feed and wastage ratio of foodgrain across the country. Therefore, there is an urgent need

to know the seed, feed and waste ratio at present for major foodgrain crops. With this end in

view the present study entitled as, “Estimation of Seed, Feed and Waste Ratios for Major

Food Grains” has been allotted to all AERCs by the Directorate of Economics and Statistics,

Dept of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India on the proposal of

Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. Eminent Economist and

Researcher, Dr. R.S. Deshpande, Professor and Head, ADRT Unit Bangalore is the Coordinator

of this Study at All India level. As per his guidelines on research methodology, two districts of

U.P., namely Gautam Bhudh Nagar for wheat and Hamirpur for gram have been selected for this

study. From each district, 300 farmers have been selected through stratified random sampling.

Thus, 600 farmers have been interviewed through structured questionnaire to collect the primary

data. The finding reveals that the per cent share of seed, feed and wastage to the total production

of wheat accounted for 4.22 per cent 5.95 per cent and 2.12 per cent respectively. While in case

of gram, they accounted for 11.57 per cent 1.06 per cent and 3.35 per cent respectively. Thus,

over all, the seed, feed and waste jointly accounted for 12.29 per cent and 15.98 per cent of the

total production of wheat and gram respectively.

Degradation of natural resources, irregular rainfall, high density of population and

stagnant agricultural productivity are feared to be the major causes of food insecurity in future.

There is an urgent need to achieve the target of 4% growth rate in agricultural sector. The

country needs to utilize the maximum land potential, improve the method of irrigation and

revamp water management and water harvesting. Apart from these, massive awareness campaign

should be initiated to educate the farmers to reduce wastage by adopting proper post harvest

management technique.

I wish to place on record my gratitude to Shri Arvind Mishra, Assistant Joint Director of

Economics and Statistics, State Planning Institute, Lucknow and Director of Agriculture, Uttar

Pradesh for his cooperation in the collection of data and formulation of relevant ideas for the

study. I am also grateful to Shri. T.N. Tripathi, Statistical Officer, Board of Revenue, Lucknow,

for providing the list of villages of the selected districts. DM, SDM, Teshildars and Lekhpals of

both districts had given full support during the survey work. I am thankful to all of them. I have

great pleasure to acknowledge the support in the selection of samples given by Dr. V.K. Singh,

Additional Director of Agriculture and Statistics, U.P. Lucknow and Dr. Ashok Kumar, Head of

Agricultural Economics of K.A. Post Graduate College, Allahabad. I am also thankful to the

selected farmers for their full support during the investigation.

I would like to acknowledge the work done by the members of the project team of the

Centre. All comments and suggestions for the study are welcome and will be thankfully

acknowledged.

Agro-Economic Research Centre

University of Allahabad. (S.A.Ansari)

Allahabad Prof. & Hony. Director

Dated: March 8, 2006

CREDIT

Project Director

1. Prof. S. A. Ansari

Project planning, Analysis & Drafting of the Report

1. Sri. D. K. Singh

Supervision of Selection of Sample Farmers

1. Shri R A G Mahuley

2. Smt B. Sharma

Field Survey

1. Shri K. K. Rajput

2. Shri Ramji Pandey

Field Survey & Tabulation of Data

1. Shri S. N. Shukla

2. Shri G. Q. Abid

Field Survey, Tabulation and Processing of Data

1. Shri R. S. Maurya

2. Shri Hasib Ahmad

Secretarial Services

1. Shri M. S. Ansari

2. Smt M. R. Kesherwani

Typing of the Report

1. Smt. N. Nigam

Tabulation on Computer and Typing of the Report

1. Shri Ovesh Ahmad

Xeroxing of the Report

1. Shri H.C. Upadhyay

Menial Services

1. Shri Raju Kumar

CONTENTCONTENTCONTENTCONTENT

Page no.

Preface

Credit

Content

List of Tables

CHAPTERSCHAPTERSCHAPTERSCHAPTERS

I. Introduction

1.1 History of methods of estimation followed in the State Income Accounting Process.

1.2 Trends over three decades in the Seed, Feed and Wastage Ratios based on State Income

Accounting Methodology

1.3 Probable impact on the State Income Accounting due to this

1.4 Need for the present study

1.5 Objects of the study

II. Description of the Survey

2.1 Sampling Design

2.2 Profile of the State

2.3 Cropping pattern of the State

2.4 Profile of Gautam Budth Nagar District

2.5 Cropping Pattern in G.B. Nagar District

2.6 Cropping Pattern in the Selected Villages of G.B. Nagar

2.7 Profile of Hamirpur District

2.8 Cropping Pattern in Hamirpur District

2.9 Cropping Pattern in Selected Villages of Hamirpur District

2.10 Methods of Data Collection

2.11 Collection of Secondary Data

2.12 Collection of Primary Data

2.13 Crops covered

2.14 Periodicity of Survey

2.15 Field Staff

III. Methodology

3.1 Selection of Crops

3.2 Selection of the Districts

3.3 Selection of Blocks

3.4 Selection of Villages

3.5 Selection of Cultivators

3.6 Schedules

IV. Result and Discussion of Sample Farmers of G.B. Nagar District

4.1 Size-Class wise Distribution of Number of Farmers & Average size of Holdings

4.2 Size-Class wise Distribution of Agricultural Land

4.3 Cropping Pattern on the Sample Farms

4.4 Productivity per Hectare of All Crops

4.5 Utilization of Grain for seed

4.5.1 Process of Utilization of Cereals

4.5.2 Class & Size wise Disposal of Cereals

4.5.3 Methods and assumption

4.5.4 Crop-Wise Estimates for Seed

4.5.5 Farm Size-Wise Estimates

4.6 Utilization of grain for Feed

4.6.1 Process of Utilization

4.6.2 Methods and Assumption

4.6.3 Crop-Wise Estimates for Feed

4.6.4 Farm wise Estimate of Feed

4.7 Crop-Wise Wastages at Different Production Stages

4.7.1 Assumptions and Methods

4.7.2 Crop-wise Estimates of Wastages

4.7.3 Wastages at Storage

4.7.4 Wastages during Consumption Stage

4.7.5 Wastages During Used of Animal Feed

4.8 Farm-Size-Wise Estimates

4.8.1 At Harvesting Stage

4.8.2 Assembling & Threshing Stages

4.8.3 Wastages during Storage

4.8.4 Wastages During Consumption

4.8.5 Wastages During Feeding to Livestock

IV. Result and Discussion of Sample Farmers of Hamirpur District

5.1 Size-Class wise Distribution of Number of Farmers & Average Size of Holdings

5.2 Size-Class wise Distribution of Agricultural Land

5.3 Cropping Pattern on the Sample Farms

5.4 Productivity per Hectare of All Crops

5.5 Utilization of Grain for Feed

5.5.1 Process of Utilization of Pulses

5.5.2 Methods and Estimation

5.5.3 Crop-Wise Estimates for Feed

5.6 Utilization of Grain for Feed

5.6.1 Process of Utilization

5.6.2 Methods and Estimation

5.6.3 Crop-Wise Estimates for Feed

5.6.4 Farm-Size-Wise Estimates

5.7 Wastages at Different Stages

5.7.1 Wastages in Pulses

5.7.2 Estimation and Method of Wastages of Pulses at pre and Post Harvest Stages

5.7.3 Crop-Wise Wastage

(i) Wastages at Harvesting Stage

(ii) Wastages at Threshing and shattered

(iii) Wastages due to grain passing into Straw

(iv) Wastage at Transport Stage

(v) Wastage during Storage

5.7.4 Farm-Wise Estimate of Wastage

VI Summary and Conclusion

• References

• Appendix

• Annexure

LIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLESLIST OF TABLES

Table

No.

Title of Tables Page

No.

CHAPTER –I

I-1 Trends of Seed, Feed and Net Product from Agriculture and Animal Husbandry

(At current Prices) from 1993-94 to 2003-04, U.P.

I-2 Net Availability of Cereals and Pulses in Uttar Pradesh from 1970-71 to 2001-02

CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER ––––IIIIIIII

II-1 Area under cereals and Pulses in Uttar Pradesh during 2000-01 to 2002-03

II-2 Density of Area under wheat and Gram in G.B. Nagar and Hamirpur Districts

II-3 Stratum-wise List of Selected Names of Villages and Total Number of Farmers

for Selected Crop (Wheat) District Gautam Budha Nagar (U.P)

II-4 Stratum-wise List of Selected Names of Villages and Total Number of Farmers

for Selected Crop (Gram) of Hamirpur District

II-5 Percentage Distribution of Area by Crops in Uttar Pradesh

II-6 Cropping Pattern of G.B. Nagar District

II-7 Proportional State of Area Under Different Crops of Selected Villages of G.B.

Nagar District

II-8 Cropping Pattern of Hamirpur District

II-9 Proportional State of Area Under Crops of Selected Villages of Hamirpur

District

CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER CHAPTER ––––IVIVIVIV

IV-1 Details of Sample Farmers of G.B. Nagar District

IV–2 Size-Class Wise Distribution of Number of Farmers and Average Size of

Holding for the Wheat Crop of G.B. Nagar District

IV–3 Size-Class –Wise Distribution of Agricultural Land for Foodgrains in G.B.

Nagar District

IV–4 Cropping Pattern of Sample Farmers for Foodgrains in G.B. Nagar District

IV–5 Productivity Per Hectare of All Crops for Foodgrains in G.B. Nagar District

IV–6 Production and Disposal of Foodgrains of G.B.Nagar District

IV–7 Seed Requirement for Foodgrain in G.B. Nagar District

IV-8 A Consumption of Feed-Fed Cows and Buffaloes of G.B. Nagar District

IV–8B Foodgrain (Home Produced) Consumption as Feed by Live Stock G.B. Nagar

District

IV–9

IV-10 Value of output of Foodgrains on the Selected Farms of G.B. Nagar District of

U.P.

IV –11 Wastage of Cereals at Different Harvest and Post Harvest Stages on the Sample

Farms G.B. Nagar District

IV –12 Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in Production of cereals on the Sample

Farms of G.B. Nagar

IV –13 Crop-Wise Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastages in Production of Cereals on

the Sample Farms in G.B. Nagar District

CHAPTERCHAPTERCHAPTERCHAPTER----VVVV V-1 Details of Sample Farmers of Hamirpur District

V–2 Size-Class-Wise Distribution of Number of Farmers and Average Size of

Holding for Gram Crop of Hamirpur District (U.P.)

V–3 Size-Class-Wise Distribution of Agricultural Land for Pulse (Hamirpur District)

V–4 Cropping Pattern of the Sample Farmers for Pulses of Hamirpur District

V–5 Productivity Per Hectare of All Crops for Pulses of Hamirpur District

V–6 Seed Requirement for Pulses of Hamirpur District

V–7 Production and Disposal of Foodgrains in Hamirpur District

V-8 A Consumption of Feed-Fed Cows and Buffaloes of Hamirpur District in (U.P.)

V-8 B Pulses (Home Produced) Consumed as feed by Live Stock (Hamirpur District

V-9

V-10 Value of Output of Pulses on the Selected Farms of Hamirpur District of U.P

V-11 Wastage of Pulses at Different Harvest and Post Harvest Stage in Hamirpur

District

V-12 Percentage of seed, Feed and Wastage in Production of Pulses in Hamirpur

District

V-13 Crop-Wise Percentage of Seed, feed and Wastage in Production of Pulses in

Hamirpur District

CHAPTERCHAPTERCHAPTERCHAPTER----VIVIVIVI VI-1 Trends of Seed, Feed and Net Product from Agriculture and Animal Husbandry

(At Current Prices) from 1993-94 to 2003-04 in U.P.

VI-2 Production and Disposal of Foodgrains

VI–3 Seed Requirement for Foodgrains

VI–4 Wastage of Foodgrains at Different Post Harvest Stage

VI–5 Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastages in Production of Wheat and Gram by

Size of Holdings

VI–6 Crop-Wise Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in Production of Wheat and

Gram

CHAPTER -I

Introduction

I-1. History of Methods of Estimation Followed in the State / Income Accounting Process

Prior to independence, there was no agency to estimate the regular national income of

India. During 1945-46, some of the estimates were obtained from individual scholars and by

Ministry of Commerce. In 1949, a National Income Committee was set-up, which had prepared a

guideline for the estimation of National Income. This committee had submitted its First report in

1951 and Final report in 1954. The Central Statistical Organization (CSO) was setup in 1951 to

prepare the methodology for the estimation of National Income. There was revisions

improvements, etc. in the methodology for estimation of National Income from 1945-46 and

onwards. The CSO had published a National Income Statistics in May 1961. The revised series

of National Income Estimates from 1955-56 to 1959-60 was fully discussed in a conference on

Research in National Income. The inventory method was found appropriate to estimate the

National Income in the said conference.

A number of changes in the methodology of estimate had taken place in the country after

independence. There were also much differences in the definition of National Income. At the

initial stage, the National Income was defined as the sum of all personal income before taxation.

Few economists had defined National Income as money value of all goods and services

produced in the country during a particular period of time. According to the report of Bowely

Robertson Committee, National Income was defined as is money measure of the aggregate of

goods and services accruing to the inhabitants of a country during a year including net

increments to or excluding net decrement from their individual or collective wealth.

Subsequently, National Income was defined as the income accruing from current production of

goods and services which is now called National Income at factor cost.

At present there are three methods for measuring the National Income.

1. The Income Method.

2. The Inventory Method or Production Method.

3. The Expenditure Method.

The statistics of National Income are being estimated throughout the world, Bowley,

Clark and Keynes of the United Kingdom, Kuznets and Colm of the United States of America

and V.K.R.V. Rao and P.C. Mahalanobis of India had contributed to the building up of the

concepts and improvements in the methodology and technique for estimation of National

Income. At present, almost all the advanced countries of the world are publishing National

Income estimates. Production of all varieties of goods and services is being taken into account

for estimation of National Income.

During 18th

- 19th

century, the estimation of National Income was mostly based on the

concept evolved by Adam Smith. As per his concepts, National Income was aggregate value of

all products produced during a year. In the post world war IInd

period, the concept of J.M.

Keynes had been accepted. According to him, the National Income is a measure of past and

current national production and is forecast of or programme for future national production. There

were two concepts of National Income.

1. Gross National Product.

2. Net National Product.

There were three methods of estimation of National Income.

1. Census of Products Method.

2. Census of Income Method.

3. Census of Expenditure Method.

I-2. Brief History of State Income Estimates in India

The following eminent economists had estimated India's National Income in the Past

Sl.

No.

Prominent Authorities Year Per capita National

Income (Rs.)

1 Dada Bhai Naoroji 1867-68 20

2 Baring and Barboure 1881 27

3 Lord Curzon 1897-98 30

4 Digby 1898-99 18

5 B.N. Sharma 1911 50

6 Vakil and Muranjan 1910-14 58.3

7 Wadia and Joshi 1913-14 44.5

8 Shah and Khambatta 1921 74

9 Findaly Shirras 1921 107

10 V.K.R.V. Rao 1931-32 65

11 V.K.R.V. Rao 1942-43 114

Source: Applied Statistic of India, B.N. Asthana & S.S. Srivastava

In the post independence period the Government of India appointed a Committee to

report on the country's National Income. The committee had submitted its first report on 15th

April, 1951 and final report on 14th

, February 1954. In order to get regular estimates of National

Income, Govt. of India had established Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) at New Delhi

under the Ministry of Finance. The official series of National Income is prepared and published

regularly by CSO in its annual publication of Estimates of National Income of the Country.

In 1949, a National Income committee was set-up under the chairmanship of Prof. P.C.

Mahalanobis. The report of this committee was published in 1954. The CSO was made

responsible to estimate the National Income based on the concepts, sources, materials, etc. as

suggested in the reports. At present, the estimate of National Income is totally based on the

methodology of CSO. The State Government has also setup a State Planning Institute in Yojana

Bhavan, Lucknow for the estimation of National Income of the State.

I-3. A Brief History of State's Income Estimates in Uttar Pradesh

The first series of State Income estimate was worked out on the basis of current and

constant prices by Economics and Statistics Division, State Planning Institute, Uttar Pradesh in

1994. The base year for the estimation was 1948-49, which continued till 1960-61.

In the second phase, in the year 1965, the State Income estimate was prepared from 1960-

61 to 1964-65 at current and constant prices of 1960-61. This estimate was based broadly on the

concepts recommended by the National Income Committee in its final report of 1954.

In the third phase, in the year 1976, the concepts of estimates of the State Income had

been revised in the light of standard methodology as suggested and recommended by the

Working Group on State Income (WGSI) which was set up at Central Statistical Organization in

1957. Based on the concept of WGSI, the second series estimate of Income from 1960-61 to

1975-76 was prepared in 1976, keeping the base year as same i.e. 1960-61.

In the fourth phase, State Income Estimation of U.P. (revised series) was brought in 1971.

It was based on constant price estimates of 1970-71. This series continued till 1998.

In the fifth phase, New Series of National Account Statistics from 1980-81 to 1986-87

based on the base year 1980-81 was published in 1988.

Further, the CSO made suggestions to improve the estimates of State Income of 1986-87.

In the light of those suggestions, a new series of State Income, both at current and constant prices

from 1980-81 to 1987-88 was released in February 1989. The base year of this series was 1980-

81.

In February 1999 new series of National Accounts and Statistics (NAS) taking base year

as 1980-81 was released. This series was very comprehensive because the latest data were taken

by National Accounts Division of the Central Statistical Organization for estimation of the State

Income.

Now the latest and current data collected by various agencies are being used for the

estimation of State Income. The concept and methodology in the estimate of State Income is

generally revised from year to year with change in base year from 1970-71 to 1980-81 for the

estimation of State Income. Up-dated data are being used in the light of latest methodology and

concepts.

I-4. Trends over Last Three Decades in the Seed, Feed and Wastage ratio

based on State Income Accounting Methodology

Trends over the last three decades in seed, feed and wastage ratio based on State Income

Accounting Methodology could not be available from Economics and Statistics Division, State

Planning Institute, Lucknow. The Economics and Statistics Division of U.P. is responsible for

estimating the income from different sources on the basis of guidelines as given by the CSO. The

wastages at pre and post harvest of crops are not considered in the estimation of Net Domestic

Product from agriculture and animal husbandry. None of the Government departments of Uttar

Pradesh has estimated the wastages at different stages of production and disposal of crops

because the literature and studies undertaken in this regard are not available in the Directorate of

Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh and at the State Planning Institute, Lucknow. On account of this, the

study in this direction has not been included in this report.

As far as trends in seed and feed based on State Income Accounting Methodology are

concerned, the time series data from 1993-94 to 2003-04 as available from Economics and

Statistics Division, State Planning Institute, Lucknow, have been analysed as follows:

The estimates of net product from agriculture and animal husbandry at current and

constant price (1993-94) are being prepared annually by Economics and Statistics Division, Uttar

Pradesh. It is annually published in the bulletin entitled as “Estimates of State Income in U.P.”

This Division follows the concept and methodology as recommended and adopted by Central

Statistical Organization (CSO), Government of India in the estimation of State income.”

There are three ways viz production, income generation and final utilization which

generally applied to measure the income of the state.

Except, construction sector, the income from all other sectors are estimated by production

method or income method or the combination of both. In case of agriculture and animal

husbandry, the production method is mostly applied. The agriculture sector includes value of

inputs and outputs of crops along with animal husbandry. The net product from agriculture and

animal husbandry is based on production approach. In this approach, the gross value of products

and by-products and ancillary activities and deduction of the value of inputs, raw material,

services and consumption of fixed capital process of production to obtain net in the value added.

1. The net product from agriculture and animal husbandry at current price from 1993-94 to

2003-04 of U.P. is given in table-1-I. The table indicates that there is an absolute increase in

gross value of output from agriculture and animal husbandry from 1993-94 to 2003-04. The

gross value from agriculture and animal husbandry shows a substantial increase from 1993-94 to

2003-04. The gross value of output from agriculture has jumped to Rs. 62,62,8.71 crore in 2003-

04 from Rs. 29,705.14 crore in 1993-94, thereby showing 110.83 per cent increase over the

period.

2. More or less similar enhancement is also witnessed in gross value of output from animal

husbandry during the corresponding period. While the gross value of output in agriculture and

animal husbandry was Rs. 38,672.14 crore in 1993-94, which has increased to Rs. 86,811.69

crore in 2003-04, showing 124.48 per cent increase over the period, the rate of growth of gross

value of output from animal husbandry is higher than that of gross value of output from

agriculture during the corresponding years. The net domestic product of agriculture and animal

husbandry has been estimated at Rs. 28,357.47 crore in 1993-04 which has gone upto Rs

65,454.62 crores, showing 130.82 per cent increase over the period. In 1993-94, the share of

agriculture and animal husbandry in the state's income was 40.00 per cent at current prices which

has declined to 34.5 per cent in 2003-04. Since 1993-94, the share of agriculture and animal

husbandry in the state's income has showed a decreasing trend.

3. The value of seed accounted for 3.69 per cent of gross value of output from agriculture in

1993-94 which has marginally declined to 3.04 per cent in 2003-04. The value of seed ranged

between 3.69 per cent and 3.03 per cent in 1993-94 and 2001-02 respectively Hence, the

expenditure on seed has significantly affected the gross value of output from agriculture. While

in quantity terms, the share of seed to total production of food grain was estimated at 0.43 per

cent in 1993-94 which has marginally come down to 0.42 per cent in 2003-04. It ranged between

0.45 per cent and 0.40 per cent during 1993-94 and 1999-2000 respectively. This shows that

there is a marginal difference in the share of seed to total production of foodgrains during the

study period. Out of total input costs, the seed value accounted for 24.26 per cent in 1993-94

which has come down to 17.69 per cent in 2003-04.

Table 1-I

Trends of Seed, Feed and Net Product From Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (At

Current Prices) from 1993-94 to 2003-04 in U.P. (Lakh Rs.)

Years Gross

value of

output

from

agriculture

(proper)

Gross

value of

output

from

animal

husbandry

Gross

value of

output in

agri. &

animal

husbandry

Value of

seed

Value

of other

inputs

Net

domestic

product

of agri.

Value

of Feed

of live

Stock

Net

product

from

animal

husbandry

Gross

domestic

Product of

Agri. &

animal

husbandry

Net domestic

product of agri.

& A.H.

1993-94 2970514

(100.00)

896700

(100.00)

3867214

(100.00)

109708

(100.00)

342484

(100.00)

2518322

(100.00)

394876

(100.00)

501824

(100.00)

3020145

(100.00)

2835747

(100.00)

1994-95 3373654

(113.57)

1041429

(116.14)

4415083

(114.17)

122525

(111.68)

408364

(119.23)

2842765

(112.88)

429941

(108.88)

611488

(121.85)

3454253

(114.37)

3247817

(114.53)

1995-96 3760555

(126.60)

1120723

(124.98)

4881278

(126.22)

139356

(127.02)

507085

(148.06)

3114114

(123.66)

475296

(120.37)

645427

(128.62)

3759541

(124.48)

4284947

(151.10)

1996-97 4482615

(150.90)

1261480

(140.68)

5744095

(148.53)

162074

(147.73)

489974

(143.06)

3830567

(152.11)

526727

(133.39)

734753

(146.42)

4565320

(151.16)

4346621

(153.28)

1997-98 4497626

(151.41)

1458647

(162.67)

5956273

(154.02)

153020

(139.48)

570778

(166.66)

3773828

(149.85)

573340

(145.19)

885307

(176.42)

4659135

(154.27)

4804769

(169.44)

1998-99 4793942

(161.38)

1667892

(186.00)

6461834

(167.09)

166016

(151.32)

656650

(191.73)

3971276

(157.69)

519423

(131.54)

1148469

(228.86

5119745

(169.52)

5257580

(185.40)

1999-2000 5319601

(179.08)

1795979

(200.29)

7115580

(184.00)

181751

(165.67)

776393

(226.69)

4361457

(173.19)

527700

(133.64)

1268279

(252.73)

5629736

(186.41)

5359582

(189.00)

2000-01 5418984

(182.42)

1953130

(217.81)

7372114

(190.63)

186824

(170.29)

818898

(239.11)

4413262

(175.25)

658822

(166.84)

1294508

(257.96)

5707770

(188.99)

5354768

(188.83)

2001-02 5593157

(18829)

2053688

(229.03)

7646845

(197.73)

169477

(154.48)

869361

(253.84)

4554319

(180.85)

681911

(172.69)

1371777

(273.36)

5926096

(196.22)

5534278

(195.16)

2002-03 58180888

(195.86)

2194943

(244.78)

8013031

(207.20)

177378

(161.68)

853062

(249.09)

4787648

(190.11)

557924

(141.29)

1637019

(326.21)

6424667

(212.73

6410912

(266.07)

2003-04 6262871

(210.83)

2418298

(269.69)

8681169

(224.48)

190477

(173.62)

886189

(258.75)

5186205

(205.94)

568533

(143.98)

1849765

(368.61)

7035970

(232.97)

6545462

(230.82)

Note: Figures in brackets are Indices

Source-Economics and Statistics Division, Planning Institute, U.P. 2004

It is also evident from Table1-I that the cost of feed of livestock was more than 3 times

than that of the cost of seed during the study period. The share value of feed of live stock was

44.04 per cent of gross value of output from animal husbandry in 1993-94, which has declined to

23.51 per cent in 2003.04. The seed and feed jointly accounted for 13.05 per cent of gross value

of output in agriculture and animal husbandry in 1993-94 which has come down to 8.74 per cent

in 2003-04. It shows that there has been negative correlation between the growth of gross value

of output in agriculture and animal husbandry and cost of seed and feed during the study period.

As far as trends in the seed and feed are concerned, the index number of value of seed

and feed based on State Income Accounting Methodology has been worked out from 1993-94 to

2003-04 which is given in Table 1-I. The value of seed was estimated at Rs. 1097.08 crore in

1993-04 which has increased by 73.62 per cent in 2003-04. There was a positive and steady

growth in the value of seed during the study period. There was also a constant increase in the

value of feed from 1993-94 to 2003-04. The value of feed has increased by 43.98 per cent in

2003-04 over the value of Rs. 3948.76 crore in 1993-94. The positive and steady growth was

also found in the value of feed from 1993-94 to 2003-04. However, the growth in value of seed

was higher than that of feed during the study period.

1.5 Net Availability of Cereals and Pulses in Uttar Pradesh

Prior to Green Revolution, the availability of foodgrains was extremely inadequate to

meet the daily consumption need of human population of Uttar Pradesh. Huge quantity of wheat

had been imported from abroad by expending scarce foreign exchange. Apart from this, huge

quantity of wheat was also available under PLA 480 from U.S.A. to meet the consumption need

of the population. Natural calamities such as droughts and floods etc. were common phenomena

in the State. Irrigation net works were scarce across the State, Agriculture was totally dependent

upon the prospect of the monsoon. On account of these constraints, the per hectare production of

wheat and paddy was very low. There was huge crisis in the net availability of foodgrains for

human consumption. Landless, marginal and small farmers were hardly getting two square meals

a day. Prior to the commencement of Five Year Plans, starvation death were also reported from

the State. As a result of Green Revolution, expansion of irrigation facilities, adoption of a

package of practices, development of infrastructure facilities etc. the production of almost all

crops has increased many fold in the State. The production of wheat and paddy has been

increasing since 1970s to 1990s. In the recent past, the production of these crops did not keep

pace with growth as it was in 1980s and 1990s. The expansion of area under cereal crops and

enhancement of productivity are major contributor for increasing the production of paddy and

wheat. Since, land and water are now diminishing resources, much attention will have to be paid

to maintain pace with growth of production of crops in years to come. In recent past, the growth

of production of foodgrains in the state was not satisfactory. The investment in agriculture was

inadequate to fulfil the target. This has resulted into almaring condition and it may pose the

problem of food insecurity in coming years. The population of the state has been increasing at a

geometric progression Hence, existing pace of growth would not be sufficient to meet

consumption need for the ever growing population of the state. Therefore, there is need to

introduce second Green Revolution for food security in years ahead.

The population of U.P. was 8.93 crore in 1970-71, and it has gone up to 17.53 crore in

2001-02, thereby showing 96.30 per cent increase over the period. This has almost doubled over

last 3 decades. The production of cereals has increased by 149.08 per cent from 163.98 Lac M.

tonnes during the corresponding period. As far as the growth in the production of pulses is

concerned, during the corresponding period, it is negative. The production of pulses has

decreased by 22.80 per cent in 2001-02 from the production of 30.69 lakh M. tonnes in 1970-71.

Even then, the production of foodgrains has increased by 22 per cent in 2001-02 over the

production of 194.67 Lakh M. tonnes in 1970-71. Out of total production of foodgrains only

87.50 per cent is generally available for consumption and other disposals. The rest 12.50 per cent

of the production is used as seed, feed and waste. Table -I-2 shows that the net availability of

cereals was 357.38 Lakh M. tonnes during 2001-02 against the net availability of 144.30 Lakh

M. tonnes during 1970-71. Against this, net availability of pulses was 26.85 lakh M. tonnes

during 1970-71, which has come down to 20.83 lakh M. tonnes in 2001-02. The per capita

availability of cereals was 203.90 kgs per year during 2001-02 against 161.67 kgs during 1970-

71, while the per capita availability of pulses was 30.09 kgs per year, which has drastically

decreased to 11.79 kgs during 2001-02. Over all, the per capita net availability of foodgrains was

215.69 kgs during 2001-02 which was only 191.76 kgs during 1970-71. At present, though the

net availability of cereals is adequate but the low net availability of pulses is a matter of great

concern. It is also evident from the Table that the net availability of cereals was more or less

stagnant during 1990s. By turn of 2021, the population of Uttar Pradesh would be around 26

crores which would require about 497 Lakh M. tonnes foodgrains for consumption. To fulfil the

consumption need of human population, a massive investment would be needed to boost the

production of crops and simultaneously sincere efforts would also be required to reduce the post

harvest losses.

1.6 Impact

State Income Accounting Methodology is a very effective and scientific instrument to

calculate the net product from agriculture and animal husbandry at constant price and current

price. The impact of State Income Accounting Methodology on the estimation of state's income

has been found to be positive as follows:

� There is hundred per cent similarity in the estimation of income from different sources across

the States of the country.

� Since, the years of constant prices and current prices are similar throughout the country, it

gives better understanding to compare the growth of income from different sources among

different states.

� The collection of statistics of area, production, inputs etc has improved.

� The CSO has created a lot of homogeneity.

� The Seed and Farms division of the State maintains accurate data of distribution of different

types of seed in each year.

� A number of crops are being covered under crop cutting experiments.

� Prices of different commodities are being properly maintained in each year.

� The coordination of different departments viz Agriculture, Fishery, Animal Husbandry,

Marketing, Board of Revenue etc. with Economics and Statistics Division, State Planning

Institute has significantly improved.

� Area, production, inputs etc of crops are easily available to Economics and Statistics

Division, U.P. from concerned departments and divisions.

� The estimates of entire series of State Income from 1980-81 to 1988-89 were modified after

discussion with the Finance Department, Govt. of U.P. and CSO.

� Improvement in various base data, coverage and methodology are apparent.

� In agriculture sector, the direct valuation of paddy has been adopted.

� The production of Khandsari, Bura and Gur has been adjusted in agriculture sector which had

earlier been overlooked.

� The Census of livestock used to be done generally by the Board of Revenue while the Census

of livestock for 2001-02 has been made by Animal Husbandry Department.

� It provides high degree of accuracy in the estimation of gross value of output from

agriculture and animal husbandry.

� It also guides the policy makers for making agriculture sustainable.

Need of the Study

India's greater achievement in 20th

Century was to provide adequate quantity of

foodgrains to the ever growing population. However, India had turned from in-sufficiency to

sufficiency in the availability of foodgrains by 1980s. India is proud of its farmers, scientists,

extension workers and policy makers etc. for their sincere efforts and contribution for the

phenomenal increase in the production of foodgrains. Government of India as well as State

Governments had launched a number of policies and programmes to boost the production of

crops. Food production has increased to 441.36 lakh metric tonnes in 2001-02 from 117.75 lakh

metric tonnes in 1950-51. Since inception of green revolution foodgrain production has been

constant increasing and it has touched the highest level of 468.53 lakh tonnes in 191.92 Now,

India is the largest producer of wheat and rice in the world. About 31 per cent and 11 per cent

respectively of rice and wheat of global production are being produced in India. Even then, the

country will face insufficiency of foodgrains in years to come because of higher growth of

population and negative growth of food production. It has been estimated that demand of cereal

would be 254 to 374 million tonnes by the year 2020. Such demand probably will be met through

the second Green Revolution and by preventing losses of foodgrains at different stages. Two

basic factors of production namely land and water are diminishing resources, hence the quantum

of production of crops would be required to increase to meet the food demand in the decades to

come, Government should pay special attention to sustainable increase in productivity of food

grains and its proper storage.

The existing storage capacity is not sufficient to store required quantity of foodgrains in

FCI godowns, Central warehouses etc.

Table No. I-2

Capacity of State Owned Storage in Uttar Pradesh

(Lakh Tonnes)

Sl.

No.

Years

1980-81 1985-86 1990-91 1995-96 1999-2000

1. FCI (i) Owned

(ii) ARDC

--

--

16.18

--

15.86

--

1.52

--

1.52

--

2. S.W.C. 12.88 12.53 13.19 13.04 12.85

3. C.W.C. 5.14 7.22 9.48 8.94 9.50

18.02 35.93 38.53 23.50 23.87

Table 1-II shows that total capacity of storage of different agencies was only 23.87 lakh tonnes

in 1999-00 in Uttar Pradesh which was very limited to store the foodgrains.

On account of this, the public places are being utilized for the storage of purchased

foodgrains, which are responsible for million tonne losses in each rainy season. The proper

scientific attention is not being paid to look after the stored grain. The attack of pest & insects,

termites, rats and dampness etc. is a common phenomenon, which is responsible for heavy losses

every year. Besides these, losses also occur from the harvesting to threshing. To know the post

harvest losses of foodgrains, a study had been conducted in Punjab and Western U.P. in 1985.

The study revealed that post harvest losses were 15 percent of the total production Dr. Rath and

others had estimated about 12.50 per cent post harvest losses in foodgrains.

Dr. J. Singh and M.S. Sidhu had estimated that the annual loss of foodgrain in India was

about 9.33 per cent which amounted to about 20 million tonnes annually.

During 1988-89 the quantity of losses of foodgrains was 18.95 million tonnes which was

sufficient for consumption of 14 million people for a month. Therefore, concert efforts should be

made by policy makers, farmers, and traders, research institutions to reduce massive post harvest

losses to provide food to more than a billion people of the country. This huge loss can be reduced

to zero level through better management and developed infrastructure.

There is no proper estimation about the quantity of foodgrains being used for the purpose

of seed and feed. Estimation of wastage quantity of foodgrains at different stages at farm levels

has not been correctly done at present.

Estimation of seed is generally done by State Accounting Process. The feed rates is

estimated by the help of programmes of animal husbandry and poultry development while no

proper estimation of wastages has been made since long time. The marketing advisers, Govt. of

India, had estimated that about 12.50 per cent of gross production was being used for the seed,

feed and being wasted. Hence, there is a need to estimate the seed, feed and wastage ratios for

major foodgrains.

1.8 Objectives of the study

1. To estimate the total quantity of foodgrains consumed for seed, feed and wastage.

2. To estimate the net availability of foodgrains for human consumption.

References

1. B.N. Asthana and S.S. Srivastava, University of Allahabad

Applied Statistics of India, 1972

Chaitanya Publishing House, 5-A University Road, Allahabad - 2

Page 369 to 387

2. P. C. Bansil

Agricultural Statistics in India, A Guide Third Revised Edition

Oxford & IBH Publishing Co.

New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta

Page - 488

3. Report of Economics and Statistics Division

Planning Institute Yojana Bhawan, Lucknow

Page - 1 to 55

CHAPTER - II

Description of the Survey

2.1 Sampling Design

The sampling design given by the coordinator of the study (ADRT Unit Bangalore) has

been, in total, adopted for the selection of districts, tehsils, blocks, villages and respondents.

Firstly, we had decided two crops (one cereal and one pulse) based on the area predomination in

the state. Among the cereals, area under wheat accounted for maximum share (53.27 per cent)

while the area under gram was the highest (31.73 per cent) of total area under pulses on the basis

of the averages during the three preceding years i.e. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. Hence,

wheat and gram among the cereals and pulses were selected respectively for the study.

Table -II-1

Area under different Cereals and Pulses in Uttar Pradesh during 2000-01 to 2002-03

(In Lakh Hect.)

Sl.

No.

Name of Crops Years Total

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

1. Wheat 92.39 92.56 90.94 275.89

2. Barley 2.87 2.54 2.53 7.94

3. Paddy 59.04 60.68 52.09 171.81

4. Maize 9.08 9.14 7.55 25.77

5. Jowar 3.47 3.23 2.69 9.39

6. Bajra 8.81 8.51 8.31 25.63

Others 0.50 0.49 0.44 1.43

Total Cereals 176.16 177.15 164.55 517.86

Pulses

1. Urd 3.85 4.23 4.54 12.62

2. Moon 0.82 0.72 0.54 2.08

3. Arhar 4.07 3.94 3.28 11.29

4. Gram 8.33 8.41 8.72 25.46

5. Pea 3.33 3.28 3.55 10.16

6. Masoor 6.52 6.25 5.84 18.61

Total Pulses 26.92 26.83 26.47 80.22

Total Foodgrains 203.08 203.98 191.02 598.08

Among the 70 districts of Uttar Pradesh, large density of area under wheat and gram was

found in Gautam Budh Nagar (G.B. Nagar) and Hamirpur districts respectively (Table-II-2).

G.B. Nagar district is in the western region while Hamirpur comes under Bundelkhand region of

Uttar Pradesh. Multi stage sampling design was adopted for this study. In each district, 4 strata

were formed by suitably combining the adjoining blocks. The total lists of villages of both the

districts were gathered with the help of officials of revenue department. The strata wise villages

were arranged and 5 villages were selected from each strata randomly. A list of farmers growing

wheat and gram of selected villages of G.B. Nagar and Hamirpur district respectively was also

prepared.

Five cultivators, each from small, medium and large holdings were selected from the

three enumerated lists of selected villages of Hamirpur district. However, in G.B. Nagar district,

five cultivators each from small, medium and large holding could not be selected because in

most of the selected villages, the number of medium and large holdings was found to be

inadequate. Hence, the quota of medium and large farmers was fulfilled by taking samples from

small holdings.

Table-II-3

Stratum wise List of Selected Name of Villages and Total Number of Farmers

for Selected Crop (Wheat) District Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)

Stratum

No.

Name of Blocks Name of Selected

Villages

Total Number of Farmers in the

Village

I Bishrak 1. Kulsara 111 2. Jalpura 204 3. Asgarpur Jageer 86 4. Bisrakh Jalalpur 120 5. Raipur Khadar 66 Total 587

II Dhankaur 1. Chandrawal 176 2. Daudpur 111 3. Bagpur 147 4. Dadupur 252 5. Rasulpur Ikbal 54 Total 740

III Dadari 1. Dayanagar 77 2. Rasulpur Dasna 172 3. Bairangpur 218 4. Milak Khandra 71 5. Chaksenpur 161 Total 699

IV Jewar 1. Kanpur 197 2. Mayana 143 3. Sirauli Bangar 113 4. Kureb 160 5. Ahmadpur Chauroli 360

Total 973 G.Total 2999

Table-II-4

Stratum wise List of Selected Name of Villages and Total Number of Farmers

for Selected Crop (Gram) of Hamirpur District

Stratum

No.

Name of Blocks Name of Selected

Villages

Total Number of Farmers in

the Village

I Hamirpur H.Q

Kurara 1. Badanpur 77 Sumerpur 2. Issauli 86 3. Surajpur Danda 81 4. Helapur Danda 255 5. Damar 352

Total 851

II Maudaha Muskara 1. Tilsar 150 Maudaha 2. Alra 82 3. Pipraudha 124 4. Chandi Kalan 126

5. Bhainsta 160

Total 642

III Rath Rath 1. Barda 200 2. Barua 120 3. Chilli 231

4. Budharwar 270 5. Tunka 84 Total 905

IV Serila Gohand 1. Bilgoan 138

2. Churha 178 3. Barkhera 109 4. Barakharka 147 5. Pawai 409 Total 981 G. Total 3379

2.2 Profile of the State

Uttar Pradesh is the most populous state of the country. It is a culturally and historically

rich State. The State is divided into four regions namely Western, Central, Eastern and

Bundelkhand on the basis of their own characteristics and natural settings. The state is also

divided into Ten Agro-Climatic Zones on the basis of agro-climatic conditions, topography and

soil characteristics and ground water availability. The Planning Committee of Planning

Commission of the Government of India has divided the state into four Resource Development

Agro-Climatic Regions, namely Western Himalayan, upper Gangetic Plain Region, Central

Plateau Region and Middle Gangetic Plain Region. Agriculture is the mainstay of U.P. economy

and it has made spectacular progress during the last three decades. Agriculture accounted for 59

per cent of gross domestic product in 1950s as against 13 per cent and 18 per cent in case of

industry and services respectively. At present agriculture accounts for 24 per cent of GDP while

the other two make up 25 per cent and 51 per cent respectively. The share of agriculture sector in

domestic product is declining from year to year due to lower investments made by the public as

well as the private sectors in agriculture.

More than 16 per cent population of the country reside in the state while the

proportionate share of land is only 9.97 per cent of the total area of the country. The man and

land ratio of the state is the highest (1:.18 hectares) against 1:1.83 hectares in India. The per

capita net area sown and gross cropped area was estimated at 0.10 and 0.15 hectare in 2001-02

respectively. The density of population has increased from 548 sq km in 1991 to 689 sq km in

2001. The per capita land has declined by 22.22 per cent from 0.18 hectare to 0.14 hectare

between 1991 and 2001.

The number of holdings less than one hectare is estimated at 15.87 crore which is 75.6

per cent of total holdings. The average size of holding in the state was 0.86 hectare in 2001. Out

of total holdings, the small and marginal size of holdings (less than 2 hectares) jointly accounted

for 90.10 per cent in 1995-96 against 9.90 per cent of large and medium size of holdings. It

shows that the distribution of land is very uneven in the state. Out of reporting area of the state,

sodic land accounted for 9.55 per cent followed by 24.91 per cent, 12.00 per cent and 6.72 per

cent as ravines, riverine and water-logged areas respectively. Hence, more than 53 per cent of

reporting area of the state is either lying vacant or mono cropped. The area of cultivable land of

the state has been sharply decreasing from year to year due to increasing population and fast pace

of industrialization and urbanization. The per capita availability of cultivated land was 0.25

hectare in 1951-52, which has reduced to 0.10 hectare during 2001-02. The net area sown

accounted for 69.42 per cent in 2001-02 against 55.47 per cent in 1950-51. This took place due

to expansion of irrigation facilities, Usar Reclamation Programme etc.

2.3. Cropping Pattern in the State

Since Uttar Pradesh has great variety of topography, agro-climatic soil characteristic and

availability of surface and ground water, a number of crops are grown in each region of the state.

The total geographical area of the state is 24202 thousand hectares of which 69.46 per cent was

under crops during 2001-02. More than 76 per cent of net area sown was fully irrigated by

different sources of irrigation during the same period. The gross cropped area was 26.1 million

hectares in 2001-02 while the cropping intensity was 149.5 per cent during the same period. The

cropping pattern in the state is mostly favourable for food crops. Out of gross cropped area of

25448 thousand hectares in 2002-03, food grain crops accounted for 78.85 per cent followed by

3.17 per cent, 9.66 per cent and 1.82 per cent of oilseed, sugarcane and potato respectively. The

detailed cropping pattern of the state from 1980-81 to 2002-03 is presented in Table II-5. It is

evident from Table II-5 that the area under foodgrains had been continuously decreasing since

1980-81 till 2003-04. While the area under cereal crops was more or less stagnant during the

corresponding period. The cause of fall in area under foodgrain was the decrease in area under

pulses during the study period. The area under pulses accounted for 21.21 per cent to gross

cropped area during 1950-51, which has sharply declined to half (10.88 per cent) during 2002-

03. The same tendency was also witnessed in coarse grain crops. Most of rainfed coarse grain

crops have been substituted by paddy and wheat crops on account of expansion of irrigation

facilities. Among the cereal crops, paddy and wheat, as main crops accounted for 21.42 and

37.70 per cent respectively in 2002-03. Out of the total area under cereal crops, paddy and wheat

jointly accounted for 59.12 per cent in 2003-04 Table II-5 also shows that there has been

constant increase in the area of wheat from 1980-81 to 2002-03 while area under paddy remained

almost stagnant during the same period.

Table No. II-5

Percentage Distribution of Area by Crops in Uttar Pradesh In percentage

Crops Years

1980-81 1985-86 1990-91 1995-96 1999-00 2002-03

Rice 21.53 22.08 22.04 21.56 23.12 21.42

Jowar 2.76 2.49 2.07 1.71 1.43 1.11

Bajra 4.05 3.42 3.08 3.26 3.33 3.42

Maize 4.98 4.74 4.30 4.19 3.71 --

Wheat 33.01 32.74 33.63 34.60 36.47 37.70

Other Cereals 11.80 3.94 2.93 2.56 1.30 4.32

Total Cereals 71.66 69.41 68.05 67.86 69.36 67.97

Gram 6.09 5.94 5.00 3.90 3.27 3.52

Moong 0.56 0.60 0.63 0.57 0.39 0.59

Masoor 1.12 1.76 1.74 1.70 1.78 2.35

Other Pulses 3.87 4.24 4.56 4.80 5.19 4.42

Total Pulses 11.64 12.54 11.93 10.97 10.63 10.88

Total Foodgrains 83.30 81.95 79.98 78.83 79.99 78.85

Groundnut 0.78 0.49 0.60 0.54 0.45 0.32

Mustard 1.66 2.24 2.72 2.85 2.56 2.20

Linseed 0.26 0.44 0.36 0.43 0.42 0.14

Other Oilseeds 0.18 0.24 0.31 0.86 0.38 0.51

Total Oilseeds 2.88 3.41 3.99 4.68 3.81 3.17

Sugarcane 5.55 5.89 7.20 7.73 7.80 9.66

Potato 1.08 1.18 1.41 1.44 1.70 1.82

Others 7.19 7.57 7.42 7.32 6.70 6.50

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source: Statistical Abstract of Uttar Pradesh

Among the pulses, gram occupied the maximum area (3.52 per cent of gross cropped

area) in 2002-03 followed by 2.35 per cent and 4.42 per cent of lentil and other pulses

respectively. There has been constant decrease in the area of pulses from 1980-81 to 2002-03 due

to major fall in the area of gram. The major change in cropping pattern was witnessed in favour

of wheat, potato, sugarcane and horticultural crops in the state while the area under coarse grains,

pulses and oilseeds has sharply decreased during the corresponding period. Out of gross cropped

area, cereal crops occupied maximum area (67.97 per cent) followed by 10.88 per cent, 3.17 per

cent and 9.66 per cent of pulses, oilseeds and sugarcane respectively during 2002-03. It is

reflected from the above analysis that cropping pattern in the state is most favourable to food and

horticultural crops. The area under coarse grains, pulses and oilseeds has shown tendency to

decline since the inception of green revolution in the state.

2.4 Profile of Gautam Budh Nagar District

As it has already been mentioned that G.B. Nagar district was selected on the basis of

highest density of area under wheat crop. This is a newly formed district of the state. This district

came into existence in 1997-98. It was ealier a part of Ghaziabad district. It was formed by

cutting two tehsils from Ghaziabad and one tehsil from Bulandshahar district, Delhi and Haryana

are the neighboring states of the district. It is surrounded by Aligarh, Bulandshahar and

Ghaziabad districts in South, East and North respectively. The district has 3 tehsils and 4 blocks.

The total number of villages is 381. The geographical area of this district is 1.95 lakh hectares of

which 71.00 per cent was under cultivation in 2001-02. The per capita availability of cultivated

land was 0.12 hectare in 2001-02. The total population of this district was 770 thousand in 1991,

which has increased to 1201 thousand in 2001, showing 55.97 per cent increase over the period.

The density of population was only 569 in 1991, which has gone up to 939 thereby showing

65.03 per cent, increase in a decade. The over-all literacy percentage in the district was 53.1 of

which literacy percentage for male was 70.5 followed by 31.2 for female in 1991. Most of the

villages are well connected with pucca and kutcha roads. However, the condition of roads is very

deplorable at present. More than 94 per cent of total villages are electrified but supply of

electricity in villages is very much irregular. Consumption of electricity in agricultural

operations to total supply of electricity was ranging between 11.8 and 9.8 per cent during 2000-

01 to 2002-03. The number of agricultural markets per lakh area sown was only 2 in 2001-02.

The commercial and cooperative banks are 78 and 22 in number respectively to serve the

1201 thousand population. The number of commercial banks and RRBs per thousand

populations was estimated at 13.5 in 2001-02. While loan and deposit ratio was worked out 33:7

during the same period. The infrastructure facilities viz, road, railway line, telephone, schools,

colleges and hospitals etc are available in the district.

Dairying is very remunerative occupation in the district. Each and every farmer has

sufficient numbers of cattle to get regular income from milk and milk products. The total

population of livestock was 3.92 lakh in 1997 which worked out to be 3 per household. There is

sufficient number of veterinary hospitals and artificial insemination centres at teshils and blocks

at H.Q. The population of the district is more dependent upon livestock because per capita land

availability is low. Hence, there is need to supplement household income through other sources

and thus obvious choice is to depend on the livestock. This district belongs to the Western region

of the state. It is one of the most economically prosperous districts of the state. NOIDA and

Greater NOIDA, the twin cities are also included in the district.

Out of total reporting area of 1.95 lakh hectares, the net area sown accounted for 71.01

per cent, while cropping intensity was only 115.82 per cent during 2001-02. Total gross cropped

irrigated area was 120937 hectares. Maximum area irrigated was 45.90 per cent by other sources

followed by 44.88 per cent 6.44 per cent by own pumping sets, canals and state tube-wells,

respectively, during 2001-02. The per hectare production of wheat was maximum (37.33 qtls)

followed by 26.85 qtls, 32.01 qtls, 22.19 qtls, 15.57 qtls and 8.63 qtls of barley, paddy, maize,

bajra and jowar respectively during 2001-02. The productivity of all these crops continued the

increasing tendency in the subsequent years. In case of productivity of pulses, the productivity of

pea was maximum (12.09 qtls) followed by 10.74 qtls and 10.01 of qtls arhar and gram

respectively during 2001-02. While productivity of kharif pulses ranged between 4.25 and 4.13

qtls during the same period. The productivity of all cereal and pulse crops of this district was

more than that of average productivity of the state.

The number of storage godowns of foodgrain was only 7 with total capacity of 38400

metric tonnes in 2002-03. Food Corporation of India has constructed storage with capacity of

8900 metric tonnes while Central Warehouse Corporation had 5 storages with capacity of 2900

metric tonnes followed by capacity of 500 metric tonnes of cooperative storages. This reflects

that out of total production of foodgrains of the district, only 10.16 per cent could be stored

during 2001-02. The per capita availability of foodgrains worked out to be 3.00 qtls per year

which means 0.82 kg per day.

Since, it is nearby Delhi nationally reputed educational Institutions and big Industries are

getting established here year after year. Besides these, residential colonies are also being

constructed each year at NOIDA and Greater NOIDA. On account of these, agricultural land in

the vicinity of NOIDA and Dadari are being garbbed by builders. The price of agricultural land

is very high ranging between Rs. 20,00000 to Rs. 25,00000 per hectare. The socio economic

condition of farmers of the district is very pronounced and sound.

2.5 Cropping Pattern in G.B. Nagar District

The cropping pattern of this district is very unique because most of the cultivable area has

been devoted to only two crops viz wheat and fodders. Detail of cropping pattern of this district

from 1997-98 to 2002-03 is presented in Table II-6 which, shows that the cropping pattern of this

district was favourable for the cereals and fodders. The Table reveals that wheat occupied

maximum area (54.64 per cent) of gross cropped area in 2002-03 followed by 18.68 per cent of

fodder. Both crops jointly occupied 73.22 per cent of gross cropped area during 2002-03. The

pulses and oilseeds are not preferred in the district because its proportion in the gross cropped

area was very meagre, only 2.19 per cent and 1.15 per cent respectively during the same period.

The commercial crops namely, sugarcane and potato are also not promising crops in the district.

Paddy, maize and bajra were main crops of kharif season, which accounted for 5.06 per cent,

5.75 per cent and 5.57 per cent respectively during 2002-03. Food crops constituted

approximately 74.62 per cent of gross cropped area. Among the cereals, wheat occupied the

maximum area (54.64 per cent) followed by maize (5.75%), bajra (5.57%) and paddy (5.06%). It

is also noticed from Table II-6 that arhar was the only dominant crop among the pulses. Wheat is

an important crop and grown mostly for consumption purpose while fodder crops are grown for

feeding of the livestock. The Table also shows that there was marginal shift in area from coarse

grain crops to fodders and wheat crops from 1997-98 to 2003-04. However, the area under

different crops was more or less stagnant during the study period.

Table No. II-6

Cropping Pattern of Gautam Budha Nagar District

(In percentage)

Sl.

No.

Crops Years

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

1. Total Paddy 12.00 9.71 9.13 9.44 9.80 5.06

2. Wheat 43.00 43.40 45.12 47.00 44.58 54.64

3. Barley 3.53 3.72 4.19 2.99 3.05 3.60

4. Jowar 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.00

5. Bajra 7.58 7.95 6.71 6.84 7.86 5.57

6. Maize 6.04 7.50 7.22 7.22 7.60 5.75

7. Total Cereals 72.31 72.41 72.50 73.62 73.03 74.62

8. Moong 0.32 0.30 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.28

9. Urd 0.03 0.07 0.30 0.16 0.29 0.04

10. Masoor 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.15

11. Gram 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.05

12. Pea 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.12 0.12 0.19

13. Arhar 1.07 2.20 2.26 2.20 2.25 1.48

14. Total Pulses 1.87 3.07 3.17 2.72 2.88 2.19

15. Total Foodgrains 74.18 75.48 75.67 76.34 75.91 76.81

16. Oilseeds 1.43 1.28 1.55 0.98 0.92 1.15

17. Sugarcane 0.74 2.65 2.73 2.64 2.73 2.64

18. Potato 0.12 0.23 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.22

19. Cotton 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 --

20. Fodders 22.50 19.35 18.86 18.94 19.62 18.68

21. Miscellaneous 0.97 0.93 0.84 0.84 0.57 0.50

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

2.6 Cropping Pattern in the Selected Villages

The detailes of cropping pattern of 20 selected villages of G.B. Nagar district during

2004-05 is presented in Table II-7. Table II-7 shows that wheat and fodder were dominant crops

of all the selected villages. Among the cereals, paddy, bajra and maize also occupied more area

in most of the selected villages. The area under oilseeds was almost negligible in the selected

villages. Pulses were also not widely grown in the selected villages. While fodder of kharif and

rabi seasons were widely grown in all the selected villages during 2003-04 to feed green fodder

to livestock throughout the year. It shows that cropping pattern of selected villages was not based

on commercialization but it was fully based on feed and fodder for human and livestock

consumption.

2.7 Profile of Hamirpur District (Selected for Gram)

Hamirpur is one of the most backward districts of Bundelkhand region of the state. It was

selected because it had highest density of area under gram among the 70 districts of the state.

The infrastructure facilities such as road, railway, electricity, hospitals, reputed educational

institutions means of communication, etc are not so much developed as the districts of western

and central regions of the state area. This district is very famous for good quality of stone and

sand for the construction of buildings and bridges. These give huge revenue to the district and

ample employment to landless labourers every year. This district comes in semi-arid zone. The

average rainfall ranges from 754 to 864 mm. It is the hottest place of the state during the month

of May and June. However, temperature ranges between 2.6 and 47.0 degree centigrade. The

geographical area of this district is 4282 sq. kms. This district has 4 Tehsils and 7 blocks. Total

population of this district was 1042 thousand of which 83.39 per cent resided in the villages in

2001. The density of population was only 241 per sq. km. against 689 per sq. km. of the state. It

shows that the population is thinly spread across the district. The distribution of land is very

much uneven. Out of total operational holdings of 168 thousand hectares, the marginal and small

holdings accounted for 45.88 per cent and 23.21 per cent respectively. Thus the percentage of

medium and large holdings of the district (30.91%) is much higher than the state average. The

per capita availability of cultivable land was 0.29 hectare against 0.10 hectare of the state. The

Land Ceiling Act of land has not been properly enforced in this district.

The literacy percentage of females was low because only 40.65 per cent females were

literate against 72.76 per cent of males in 2001. The girls Schools and Collages are not sufficient

in numbers in the rural areas of the district. The numbers of electrified villages are also

comparatively low than other districts of Bundelkhand region. Most of villages are linked with

pucca roads but condition of roads is not satisfactory. Industrial development of the district is

almost nil. The main source of income is agriculture and labour. The dairy has not received any

special attention due to the lack of green fodders and water. Majority of farmers is not

economically sound because the income from agriculture is not sufficient to cater to their needs.

Although, more than 87 per cent of total villages were electrified by 2004 but supply of

electricity is extremely poor to cope up with the demand of agriculture sector. The number of

commercial banks is also not adequate to cater to the need of farmers. Professional moneylenders

are still charging exorbitant interest rates. The number of CBs and RRBs was estimated at 19.9

per thousand of population. The market network of the district is not adequately developed as per

the norms of regulated markets. The loan and deposit ratio was 39.6 during 2001-02.

As far as livestock population is concerned, the total population of livestock was 6.23

lakhs in 1997 of which 11.53 per cent were milch cows and 13.36 per cent milch buffaloes. Of

the total livestock of 6,23,035 cow breeds accounted for 41.50 per cent followed by 24.08 per

cent, 4.12 and 25.30 per cent of buffaloes, sheep and goats respectively. The per household of

bovine population worked out to be 2.43 in 1997. The average production of milk per day is

about 2.50 kgs for cow, followed by 4.25 kg for buffalo.

From March to June, almost all-dry livestock are self-fed. The small and marginal

farmers sell large quantity of milk to dairy to meet their daily cash requirement. The number of

Veterinary Hospitals and Artificial Insemination Centres to provide medical aid to livestock are

very limited. The number of veterinary hospitals is estimated at 4 per lakh cows and buffaloes.

Most of cows and buffaloes were found of desi breed. Out of total geographical area, the net area

sown accounted for 76.75 per cent during 2001-02. It shows that availability of land for

cultivation was sufficient but due to scarcity of water, single crop was generally grown on land.

Hence, cropping intensity was only 113.37 per cent in 2001-02. The canal and other sources are

main means of irrigation. Of 1,01,447 hectares of net irrigated area, canal and other sources

accounted for 62.42 per cent followed by 37.48 per cent by state tube-wells and private pump-

sets. Out of net area sown of 299 thousand, only 33.78 per cent were irrigated area during 2001-

02 while 31.53 per cent of gross cropped area was irrigated during the same period.

Due to availability of stone plat and lower strata of water, installation of state tube-wells

and pump-sets are very costlier in 3 tehsils of the district. On account of this, only 24.75 per cent

of ground water has been utilized upto 1.04, 2000 while it was 54.31 per cent utilized in the state

during the same period.

Average yield of almost all crops of kharif and rabi seasons was comparatively very low

to average yield of the state. It is evident from records that the average yield of paddy, wheat,

bajra, maize, gram and arhar was lower by 37.08 per cent, 20.11 per cent, 35.41 per cent, 28.36

per cent, 11.93 per cent and 4.49 per cent respectively from the average yield of the state during

2001-02.

The per capita production was estimated at 142.2 kgs for pulses and 209 kgs for cereals.

Hence, the district was in surplus to feed the total population of 1042 thousand. Nevertheless

there is huge potential for better production of gram, in particular, and pea and lentil, in general.

Out of the total production of foodgrains of 4.44 lakh metric tonnes only 5.10 per cent

could be stored in the existing godowns during 1999-2000. The district has no cold storage.

Consumption of fertilizers was also lower in comparison to other districts of the state due

to scarcity of water and maximum area being under pulse crops. While number of tractors were

5831 in 1997 which, worked out to one tractor for 56 hectares of net area sown in the district.

Two important rivers viz. Yamuna and Betwa pass through the district. Besides these, a number

of tributary rivers also exist in different parts of the district. Therefore, flood is a common

phenomenon of the district during rainy season. Drought also frequently occurs. On account of

both these natural calamities, the district suffers a lot every year. For these, by and large, the

resources of the district have not been adequately developed. Thus, the district requires much

capital for investment for the development of rainwater harvesting and expansion of storage

capacity.

2.8 Cropping Pattern in Hamirpur District

Hamirpur district is, by and large, mono cropped. Mixed cropping is a compulsion rather

than choice. The farmers of this district adopt mixed cropping in kharif as well as rabi seasons

generally to avoid risk. These mixed cropping systems are highly drought resistant. The large

farmers prefer to sow the single crop on their cultivable lands. Since large part of land is

unirrigated, the kharif crops are not grown on the maximum of cultivated land. The cropping

intensity was only 113 per cent in 2001-02. It shows that net cultivated area is not properly

cultivated due to lack of irrigation facilities. The cropping pattern of the district from 1997-98 to

2002-03 is shown in Table II-8. Table II-8 shows that area under pulses was higher by 24.34 per

cent than that of area under cereals of 34.38 per cent during 2002-03.

Table No. II-8

Cropping Pattern of Hamirpur District

(In percentage)

Sl.

No.

Crops Years

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

1. Total Paddy 0.43 0.29 0.39 0.46 0.40 0.16

2. Wheat 24.81 24.58 25.48 23.29 25.00 24.05

3. Barley 0.64 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.46 0.46

4. Jowar 11.44 9.14 10.26 10.21 10.60 9.55

5. Bajra 0.11 0.16 0.17 -- 0.10 0.15

6. Other coarse grains 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.01

7. Total Cereals 37.44 34.68 36.76 34.53 36.60 34.38

8. Urd 7.84 4.58 5.43 6.49 6.30 7.26

9. Moong 0.76 0.55 0.66 0.82 0.67 0.69

10. Masoor 9.35 11.10 13.96 16.21 10.65 8.99

11. Gram 24.18 27.00 23.67 26.16 30.00 32.06

12. Pea 8.06 11.10 8.15 5.45 5.75 6.37

13. Arhar 3.96 3.16 3.52 3.62 3.75 3.35

14. Total Pulses 54.15 57.49 55.39 58.74 57.13 58.72

15. Total Foodgrains 91.59 92.17 92.15 93.28 93.72 93.10

16. Total Oilseeds 6.20 5.34 4.98 4.37 3.56 2.89

17. Sugarcane 0.73 0.79 0.86 0.93 0.97 1.03

18. Potato 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02

19. Others 1.10 0.17 1.47 1.00 1.28 2.48

20. Fodders 0.37 0.34 0.53 0.40 0.46 0.48

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Among the pulses, gram accounted for 32.06 per cent of gross cropped area followed by

8.99 per cent, 6.37 per cent and 3.35 per cent of lentil, pea and arhar respectively during 2002-

03. While in case of cereals, wheat accounted for the highest share (24.05 per cent) followed by

9.55 per cent of jowar during the same period. Out of gross cropped area, gram and wheat jointly

occupied 56.11 per cent during 2002-03. Next to these two crops, jowar of cereals and lentil and

pea of pulses also occupied 9.55 per cent, 8.99 per cent and 6.37 per cent of G. C. A. during the

same period. Since the most part of the district is rainfed, kharif crops were grown only on 17.66

per cent of G.C.A. against 82.34 per cent of rabi crops. Among the kharif crops, jowar was the

predominant crop which accounted for 9.55 per cent of G.C.A. during the study period. In kharif

season, jowar is mixed with urd, moong with arhar while gram is mixed with mustard and

linseed. Paddy, potato and sugarcane were not popular in the district. Due to scarcity of water,

the pulses were grown mostly in the district as they require less water. It is evident that most of

areas under pulses were unirrigated. Table II-8 clearly indicates that pulses were the dominant

produce of the district. Among the pulses, gram was predominant crop, which accounted for

32.06 per cent of G.C.A. during 2002-03. Out of G.C.A., fodders accounted for only 0.48 per

cent during the corresponding period. It is also noticed from table II-8 that there was marginal

shift in favour of cereal crops in 2002-03 over the figures of 1997-98. The area under pulses had

increased by 4.57 per cent in 2002-03 over the area of 54.15 per cent in 1997-98.

2.9 Cropping Pattern in Selected Villages of Hamirpur District

It has already been mentioned that Hamirpur is by and large a rain fed district of the State. This

has also been observed in the selected villages. Hence, pulses and oilseeds were the major crops

of the selected villages of the districts. Out of 4 Tehsils of the district. Rath Tehsil is

agriculturally well developed due to better availability of irrigation facilities. The canal and

private tube-wells are the main sources of irrigation in this Tehsil. On account of this, the

cropping pattern of the selected villages of this Tehsil was more or less similar to that prevalent

in the developed villages of western U.P. Therefore, there was much variation in cropping

pattern across the selected villages. However, over all, the pulses, namely urd, arhar, gram, pea

and lentil were the important crops of the selected villages. Mixed cropping, such as, urd with

jowar, urd with arhar, gram with wheat and gram with barley was common in rainfed-selected

villages. Pea occupied larger area than gram in those villages where irrigation networks were

developed. Among the cereals, wheat and barley were major crops in almost all the selected

villages. These crops were grown in irrigated as well unirrigated land. It is also observed that

there was major shift of area under gram to pea, lentil and wheat due to expansion of irrigation

facilities in the selected villages, Water harvesting had also played major role in the expansion of

irrigation. Table-II-9 shows that area under paddy, vegetables and fodder was very limited in the

selected villages. It is reflected from the above analysis that pulses accounted for larger share of

G.C.A. of the selected villages. Gram was grown in all the villages as sole or mixed in the

reference year (2004-05). Table II-9

2.10 Methods of data collection

Secondary as well as primary data were collected as per the guidelines of the coordinator

of the study.

2.11 Collection of secondary data

The area, production and productivity of different crops from 1970-71 to 2003-04 were

collected from Directorate of Statistics, Krishi Bhavan, Lucknow. Literature, history of methods

of estimation of State Income followed in the State Income Accounting process and trends over

one and half decades in the seed, feed and wastage ratios based on State Income Accounting

methodology have been procured from Economics and Statistics Division, State Planning

Institute U.P. Yojana Bhavan, Lucknow.

The lists of selected villages of the two selected districts namely, G.B. Nagar and

Hamirpur have been gathered from Board of Revenue, Lucknow. The lists of the households of

selected villages were prepared with the help of Lakhpals. The information regarding profile of

districts and villages have been collected from the department of Economics and Statistics of the

district and Revenue Records.

2.12 Collection of Primary Data

The well designed schedule was given by the Coordinating Centre, ADRT Bangalore to

collect the primary data from selected respondents. These Schedules were used in collection of

primary data by direct personal interview.

2.13 Crops Covered

Since two crops viz. wheat and gram were selected for the study, the maximum attention

has been given to these crops. Besides, these two crops, the crops of Zaid, kharif and rabi

seasons grown on the sample farms have also been covered.

2.14 Periodicity of Survey

As mentioned in research design, primary data were collected in two rounds in order to

collect the kharif and rabi season crops.

2.15 Field staff

Six Research Associates of the Centre were deputed to collect the primary data from 600

selected farmers of 40 villages of the two districts of the state.

CHAPTER-III

Methodology

This chapter deals with the research methodology used at different stages for the study. A

scientific research design has been applied for the selection of crops, districts, blocks, villages

and respondents. A multi stage sampling design has been adopted in the selection of samples for

the study. The research methodology developed by the Coordinator of the study and used by the

Research Team of the Centre is detailed below:

1. Selection of crops

Two crops (one cereal and pulse) had to be selected for the study. For the selection of two

crops, the proportional share of area under different cereals and pulses to G.C. area from 2000-01

to 2002-03 of Uttar Pradesh was estimated. Among the cereals, the proportional share of area

under wheat was the highest from 2000-01 to 2002-03 in U.P. while area under gram among

pulses was the highest during the corresponding period. Hence, wheat and gram have been

selected for the study.

2. Selection of the Districts

As per the guidelines of the coordinator of the study, two districts were selected on the

basis of having larger density of these crops. For the purpose of selection of the district, area

under wheat and gram of all 70 districts of U.P. for three years proceeding 2002-03 was taken to

find out the average to estimate the crop density. G. B. Nagar for wheat and Hamirpur for gram

had larger density among the 70 districts of U.P. In this way G.B. Nagar and Hamirpur districts

have been finally selected for wheat and gram respectively

Area under Crop in U.P.

Proportional share of Area under crop = ______________________ x 100

G. C. area of the state

Area under wheat / gram of the district

________________________________ x 100

G. C. area of the district

3. Selection of Blocks

In the process of block selection, the blocks of the two selected districts were listed. The

total blocks of the district were categorized into 4 strata by suitably combining the adjoining

blocks. Thus, 4 blocks were selected from each district.

4. Selection of villages

The lists of villages were gathered from Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and

respective district H.Q. From the list of villages, 5 villages were selected from each strata

randomly. Thus 20 villages were selected from each selected district.

5. Selection of cultivators

The list of cultivators of each selected village was prepared with the help of concerned

Lekhpal. The list of cultivators was also verified through visit to the villages. The list of

cultivators of each selected village was categorised into three based on size of holdings viz.

small, medium and large. They were arranged in ascending order in each size of holding. Five

cultivators each from small, medium and large holdings were selected randomly from the

prepared lists. Stratified random sampling has been adopted. The table of Random Numbers

were taken into account in the selection of sample farmers. In case of Hamirpur district 100

sample cultivators from each category were selected while in G.B. Nagar it could not be possible

due to non availability of adequate number of medium and large farmers. Thus, the quota of

medium and large sample farmers was filled up by selecting more samples from small size of

holding.

6. Schedule

The schedule, prepared by the Coordinating Centre, ADRT Bangalore, has been used in

the collection of primary data from the respondents.

The following formulae were applied to get the result at farm levels.

Owned Area of Selected Farmers

1. Average size of holding = ___________________________

No. of Selected Farmers

Area Under Crop

2. Proportional share of area under different crops = ___________________ x 100

Gross Cropped Area

G.C. Area

3. Cropping Intensity = _____________ x 100

Net Area Sown

Production of Crop (Qtls)

4. Productivity per Ha. = ______________________

Area Under Cultivation (Ha)

5. Gross Value of Production = Production of Crop in Qtls x Harvest Price in Rs.

Quantity of Used/Kept as Seed (kg)

6. Percentage of Seed to Production = _______________________________ x 100

Production in Kg.

Disposal Quantity (Qtls)

7. Percentage of Disposal to Production = _________________________ x 100

Production (Qtls)

Feed Consumed (Kg)

8. Feed for Livestock = ______________________

Number of Livestock

Wastage Quantity in Kg

9. Percentage of Wastage to Production = _________________________ x 100

Production in Kg.

Wastage Quantity in Kg

10. Wastage per ha. = _________________________

Area Under Cultivation (ha.)

11. Index Number

p1 q0

p01 =______ x 100

p0 q0

p01 = Price Index Number

p1 = Base Year Price

p0 = Current Year Price

q0 = Base Year Quantity

CHAPTER - IV

Result and Discussion of Sample Farmers of G.B. Nagar District

This chapter deals with the utilization of foodgrains for seed, feed and wastage on the

sample farms of the two selected districts viz. G.B. Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh. It has already

been mentioned in chapter-II that G.B. Nagar district was selected on the basis of larger density

of area under wheat among the 70 districts of Uttar Pradesh. As per the guidelines of the

Coordinating Centre, ADRT Bangalore, 5 sample farmers each from small, medium and large

were selected randomly from selected villages of the district but it was not possible in G.B.

Nagar district due to non-availability of required number of farmers having medium and large

holdings. Therefore, the shortage of samples in medium and large holdings was made up by

small holding. Table IV-1

4.1 Size Class-wise Distribution of Number of Farmers and Average size of Holdings

Table -IV-2 shows that the maximum number of sample farmers (195) belonged to small

size of holding followed by 71 and 34 of medium and large holdings respectively. The per farm

holding was 0.592 hectare for small sample farmers followed by 2.599 and 5.599 hectares for

medium and large sample farmers respectively. The average size of holding of all sample

farmers was 1.630 hectares. Table -IV-2 reveals that leased in and leased out of land was not a

common practice on the selected farms, although, large sample farmers leased out 5.82 per cent

of their owned area while it was 3.75 per cent leased in of the total area on the small sample

farms. There were few sample farmers of large, medium and small categories who had leased in

or leased out some portion of their operational holdings. Hence, there was marginal variation in

area owned and net cropped area across the size of farms. Most of net area sown had also been

used for double cropping. The cropping intensity was 184.20 per cent, which ranged between

165.87 per cent to 210.65 per cent on large and small sample farms respectively. The cropping

intensity decreases with the increase in size of holdings.

Table-IV-1

Details of Sample Farmers of G. B. Nagar District

Stratum Number

of villages

inhabited

Number of

selected

village

Total number of

farmers in the

selected village

Number of selected farmers

Size of farms

Small Medium Large Total

I 111 5 587 58 14 3 75

II 76 5 740 53 14 8 75

III 74 5 699 48 22 5 75

IV 77 5 973 36 21 18 75

ALL 338 20 2999 195 71 34 300

Table-IV-2

Size-Class Wise Distribution of Number of Farmers and Average Size of

Holding for the Wheat Crop of G.B. Nagar District (U.P)

Size of

Holding

No. of

Farmers

in the

Village

(Nos)

Average

Size of

Holding

(Ha)

Leased in/

out area

as % of

total area

(%)

Net

Cropped

Area

(Average)

per H.H.

(Ha)

Gross

Cropped

Area

(Average)

per H.H.

No of

Sample

Farmers

Selected

(Nos)

Average Size

of Holding

Selected

Sample

Farmers

(Ha)

Small 2718 0.596 3.75 0.618 1.918 195 0.592

Medium 214 2.660 5.22 2.780 7.557 71 2.599

Large 67 5.721 5.82 5.388 15.753 34 5.559

Total 2999 0.858 4.38 0.881 12.629 300 1.630

4.2 Size class wise Distribution of Agricultural land

Net area sown was fully utilized for kharif and rabi crops by sample farmers. Most of the

net area sown was more or less fully irrigated across the size of farms (Table-IV-3).

Table No. IV-3

Size-Class-Wise Distribution of Agricultural Land for Foodgrain in G.B.

Nagar District

Size of holding Area Hectare

Irrigated Un-irrigated Total

Small 115.330

(99.83)

0.195

(0.17)

115.525

(100.00)

Medium 180.103

(97.59)

4.453

(2.41)

184556

(100.00)

Large 183.616

(97.14)

5.400

(2.86)

189.016

(100.00)

All 479.049

(97.95)

10.048

(2.05)

489.097

(100.00)

Figures in brackets are percentage to total

4.3 Cropping Pattern on the sample farms

The cropping pattern on sample farms of G.B. Nagar district during 2004-05 is presented

in Table No. IV-4 showing that wheat and fodder were important crops across the size of farms.

At the aggregate level, wheat and fodder crops accounted for 41.64 per cent and 24.76 per cent

of gross cropped area respectively. Jowar fodder in kharif and jai and barseem in rabi seasons

were important crops for providing green fodder to cows and buffaloes throughout the year.

Cultivation of wheat was carried out in maximum area for the purpose of consumption.

Consumption pattern of the people of the district is mostly based on bread rather than rice and

other coarse grains.

It is also evident from table-IV-4 that the sequence of cropping pattern across the size of

farms was more or less same. Fodder and wheat crops occupied maximum share in different size

of holdings (Table-IV-4). The sample farmers of these three categories did not adopt pulses on

their farms. Arhar occupied only marginal share in gross cropped area. It is also seen from the

Table that more than 70.00 per cent of G.C.A. was occupied by cereals followed by 24.76 per

cent of fodder crops. Availability of irrigation induced the sample farmers to take wheat and

fodder crops. The fodder, wheat system is mostly prevalent on the sample farms.

Table-IV-4

Cropping Pattern of the Sample Farmers for Foodgrain in G.B. Nagar

District (Area in Hectare)

Sl.

No.

Crops Size of Holding

Small Medium Large All Kharif

1. Paddy 36.199

(15.12)

63.864

(18.56)

55.197

(17.61)

155.260

(17.31)

2. Jowar 0.662

(0.28)

0.169

(0.05)

6.940

(2.21)

7.771

(0.87)

3. Bajra 15.878

(6.63)

12.472

(3.63)

21.238

(6.77)

49.588

(5.53)

4. Sugarcane -- 2.575

(0.75)

10.900

(3.48)

13.475

(1.50)

5. Fodder 55.224

(23.07)

72.578

(21.10)

34.556

(11.02)

162.358

(18.10)

6. Arhar 5.798

(2.42)

8.035

(2.34)

5.372

(1.72)

19.205

(2.14)

7. Vegetable -- 1.460

(0.42)

1.350

(0.43)

2.810

(0.31)

8. Maize 5.558

(1.49)

7.021

(2.04)

8.375

(2.67)

18.954

(2.12)

9. Urd 1.289

(0.54)

-- 0.450

(0.15)

1.739

(0.19)

10. Maize+Arhar 1.289

(0.54)

0.335

(0.10)

-- 1.624

(0.18)

11. Jowar+Arhar -- 1.764

(0.51)

-- 1.764

(0.20)

Rabi

12. Wheat 98.683

(41.23)

143.020

(41.57)

131.739

(42.02)

373.442

(41.64)

13. Barseem 6.733

(2.81)

5.203

(1.51)

3.521

(1.12)

15.457

(1.72)

14. Barley 1.060

(0.44)

6.799

(1.98)

13.041

(4.16)

20.900

(2.33)

15. Vegetable 0.808

(0.34)

0.595

(0.17)

0.780

(0.25)

2.183

(0.24)

16. Mustard 0.575

(0.24)

1.800

(0.52)

3.740

(1.19)

6.115

(0.68)

17. Jai (Fodders) 11.614

(4.85)

16.340

(4.75)

16.314

(5.20)

44.268

(4.94)

Gross Cropped

Area (in Ha.)

239.370

(100.00)

344.030

(100.00)

313.513

(100.00)

896.913

(100.00)

Note: Figures in bracket are the area share and the crop (proportion to GCA) Per cent.

4.4 Productivity per hectare of All crops

The production and productivity of foodgrains was quite satisfactory on all size of sample

farms. The productivity of wheat, paddy, maize and jowar was found to be higher on sample

farms than the state average. At the aggregate level, the productivity of wheat, paddy, maize and

bajra worked out to be 31.13 qtls, 27.88 qtls, 11.87qtls and 10.14 qtls on the on sample farms

respectively. Table IV-5 shows that there was marginal variation in per hectare yield of different

crops across the size of farms.

Table –IV-5

Productivity Per Hectare of All Crops for Foodgrain in G.B. Nagar District (Qtls)

Size of

holding

Crop -wise Production Paddy Jowar Bajra Maize Wheat Barley Total gross

value of

production at

farm harvest

prices

Small 1088.35

(30.06)

6.50

(9.82)

150.094

(9.51)

54.47

(11.24)

3154.85

(31.97)

25.45

(24.01)

3327658

Medium 1888.78

(29.57)

1.00

(5.92)

134.31

(10.77)

94.20

(13.42)

4520.70

(31.61)

175.71

(25.84)

5186342

Large 1351.55

(24.48)

58.00

(8.36)

217.34

(10.23)

91.66

(10.94)

3949.80

(29.98)

304.00

(23.31)

4354728

All 4328.68

(27.88)

65.50

(8.43)

502.59

(10.14)

240.33

(11.87)

11625.35

(31.13)

505.16

(24.17)

12868728

Note: Figures in brackets are per hectare production in qtls.

Due to availability of less land under plough, farmers adopt best package of practice of

production to get higher yield from their crops as is evident from Table-IV-5. The production of

all crops was quite satisfactory across the size of farms.

4.5 Utilization of grain for seed

4.5.1 Process of Utilization of Cereals

The marketed surplus of the production of crops is an indicator of progress of agricultural

development. In the case of wheat, a very high proportion of production (54.81 per cent) went to

the markets as marketed surplus. Out of the total production of wheat of 11,625.35 qtls. a major

part (28.88 per cent) was retained by the sample farmers for family consumption followed by

4.22 per cent kept for seed. The proportion share of kind wage to labour and used as animal feed

of the total production worked out to 5.64 per cent and 5.95 per cent respectively (Table IV-6). It

shows that the quantity of wheat used, as animal feed was adequate on the sample farms. It can

be seen from Table IV-6 that marketed surplus of paddy, jowar, bajra and maize was higher,

87.62 per cent, 76.72 per cent, 68.47 per cent and 62.15 per cent respectively, than 54.81 per cent

of marketed surplus of wheat. It shows that the sample farmers used maximum quantity of wheat

as consumption for family.

The sufficient quantity of production of jowar, bajra, maize was also used as animal feed

being 12.75 per cent, 14.62 per cent, 23.13 per cent respectively which was much higher than

that of 5.95 per cent of wheat. Wheat was the sole commodity for consumption purpose on the

sample farms. The marketed surplus was more poised towards the coarse grains.

It shows that marketed surplus of coarse grains was much higher than wheat. Jowar, bajra

and maize were not generally used in consumption for family.

4.5.2 Class and Size wise Disposal of Cereals

The consumption of cereals and millets was more common among the small farmers than

the large farmers. The farmers prefer to consume more nutritious food with increase in their

income. The large farmers do not consume generally coarse grains.

The marginal and small farmers eat whatever they produce with too much consideration

for marketing. In some case, it is noticed that the farmers eat what ever farm produce is left after

sale. The marketed surplus of cereal on the sample farms was between the production and farm

consumption, which included quantity of consumption, seed kept, used as animal feed, kind

wage to labours etc. Higher consumption of wheat production on small farms was the cause of

large family size and less area under wheat than that of large farms. Table IV-6 shows that

marketed surplus of wheat had direct relation with size of farm. The marketed surplus was 71.88

per cent of total production of wheat on large farms against 55.65 per cent and 32.23 per cent on

medium and small farms respectively. On account of relatively higher quantity of consumption,

the proportion share of marketed surplus of wheat increased with the increase in the size of

farms. The marketed surplus of wheat on small and large farms was estimated at 32.23 per cent

and 71.88 per cent respectively. It is also noticed from Table IV-6 that marketed surplus of

paddy, jowar, bajra and maize also increased with increase in size of farms. The marketed

surplus of wheat as well as other coarse grains was mostly influenced by the retained quantity for

consumption followed by quantity of seed kept and used as animal feed across the size of farms.

The quantity kept for seed, kind wage to labour and used as animal feed were important

determinant of marketed surplus of cereals across the size of farm. The production of jowar,

bajra and maize was used maximum as animal feed than wheat production across the size of

farms.

The production and disposal pattern of wheat and other cereals was by and large similar

across the size farms. The kind wage to labour was inversely proportional to the farm size

category. There was no significant difference in the proportional share of production of wheat

used as animal feed across the size of farms.

4.5.3 Methods and Assumption

The quantity of seed of wheat was estimated on the basis of seed rate available from the

agricultural bulletin. In case of wheat, the seed rate per hectare was generally found to be 120

kgs in almost all the selected villages of G.B. Nagar district. On this basis, the seed quantity per

hectare was asked from the respondents. It varied between 125 kgs to 150 kgs per hectare

depending upon the characteristics of soil, availability of irrigation facility, retention capacity of

moisture in the soil and the variety of seed. This is the prescribed seed rate and it does require

many assumptions. The quantity of seed of wheat was calculated on the basis of its average.

Assessment of seed quantity of wheat was considered on the basis of quantity of seed used in the

previous year.

4.5.4 Crop wise Estimates for Seed

The seed requirement for cereals on the sample farms is presented in Table-IV-7. The

recommended seed rate per hectare was 30kgs., 17.50kgs., 5.00kgs., 20.30kgs., 100kgs. and

109kgs. for paddy, jowar, bajra, maize, wheat and barley respectively in G.B. Nagar district

while the sample farmers had used seed per hectare 18.11kgs., 14.80kgs., 10.44kgs., 21.44kgs.,

126.11kgs. and 114.40kgs. for paddy, jowar, bajra, maize, wheat and barley respectively. The

quantity of seed used for paddy was quite low against the recommended rate while quantity of

coarse grains was more or less the same. The reason for low quantity of seed used for paddy was

hybrid varieties. The sample farmers had transplanted single seedlings against double. The seed

rate of jowar and bajra differ because these are used for fodder as well as grain. However, the

seed used for wheat crop was mostly equivalent to the recommend quantity. Table-IV-7 reveals

that out of total production of bajra, only 0.66 per cent seed was kept for next year sowing

followed by 0.60 per cent and 0.52 per cent for paddy and maize respectively. It is also noticed

from Table-IV-7 that the quantity of seed kept of paddy, jowar, bajra and maize was quite low as

compared to the quantity used. It shows that the sample farmers do prefer to purchase seed from

the markets, Government shops etc. to get better yield of the crops.

In so far as wheat is concerned, the quantity of seed kept was 4.22 per cent of total

production which was quite low because the farmers change seed year by year to get better yield

from the certified seed. The overall analysis of the above reflects that sample farmers were well

aquainted with the response of better seed. Therefore, a marginal portion of production of

foodgrain was kept for seed (Table-IV-7).

Table IV-7

Seed Requirement for Foodgrain in G.B. Nagar District

Size of

holding

Crop Area

(ha)

Production

(kg) Quantity of Seed

(kg)

Percentage qty. of Seed

with Production

Used Kept Used Kept

Small Paddy 36.199 108835 661 773 0.61 0.71

Jowar 0.622 650 12 10 1.86 1.54

Bajra 15.878 13571 143 115 1.05 0.85

Maize 4.847 5447 75 10 1.37 0.18

Wheat 98.683 315485 12376 13142 3.92 4.17

Barley 1.060 2545 91 95 3.58 3.73

Medium Paddy 63.864 188878 1149 1040 0.61 0.55

Jowar 0.169 100 3 1.5 --

Bajra 12.472 13431 134 75 0.99 0.56

Maize 7.021 9420 168 45 1.78 0.48

Wheat 143.020 452070 18193 19650 4.02 4.35

Barley 6.799 17571 888 884 5.05 5.03

Large Paddy 55.197 135155 1002 790 0.74 0.58

Jowar 6.940 5800 100 - 1.72 --

Bajra 21.238 21735 241 130 1.10 0.59

Maize 8.375 9166 191 70 2.08 0.76

Wheat 131.739 394980 16525 16250 4.18 4.11

Barley 13.041 30400 1412 1620 4.64 5.33

All Paddy 155.260 432868 2812 2603 0.64 0.60

Jowar 7.771 6550 115 10 1.76 0.15

Bajra 49.588 48736 518 320 1.06 0.65

Maize 20.243 24033 434 125 1.80 0.52

Wheat 373.442 11625 47094 49042 4.05 422

Barley 20.900 50516 2391 2599 4.73 5.14

4.5.5 Farm size-wise estimates

The information regarding seed used and kept for foodgrains by size of farms is shown in

Table-IV-7. Table -IV-7 shows that there was no variation in per hectare use of seed for different

cereals crops across the size of farms. These were more or less equivalent with recommended

quantity. In so far as quantity of seeds used of production is concerned, the Table shows that

large sample farmers had used 0.74 per cent and 2.08 per cent seed of paddy and maize of the

production respectively against 0.61 per cent and 1.37 per cent by small farmers. It reflects that

major portion of seed used for food grains was either purchased or exchanged by sample farmers.

This result is confirmed because quantity of seed used was higher than the quantity of seed kept

in different size of holdings. Thus, it may be concluded that sample farmers of three categories

had kept seed of maize, bajra and paddy in less quantity than its requirement as the seed rate per

hectare being very nominal, could be purchased easily and secondly the farmers wanted to use

better quality of seed. But contrary to the other cereal crops, the farmers of the three categorized

had kept wheat seed in sufficient quantity which was 4.22 per cent, 4.35 per cent, 4.11 per cent

of production on large, medium and small farms respectively.

The per hectare seed used of wheat was calculated to be 125.41 kgs., 127.21kgs. and

125.44 kgs. on small, medium and large farms respectively. There was marginal gap between

percentage quantity of seed used and kept with production of wheat across the size of farms.

Home produced of seed wheat was mostly used by different categories of farmers.

4.6 Utilization of Grains for Feed

In order to estimate the quantum of feed for livestock, the number of livestock on sample

farms was collected and is presented in Table -8-A.

The Table shows that out of total livestock, buffaloes accounted for 54.90 per cent

followed by 27.39 per cent, 9.95 per cent, 4.90 per cent and 2.84 per cent of calves, cows, he-

buffaloes and bullocks respectively. The per farm number of buffaloes was estimated at 2.83

while cow was less than one per farm. The number of bullocks was only 44 on all the selected

farms. Buffalo was the main milch animal across the size of farms. Out of total population of 850

buffaloes, milch buffaloes accounted for 69.29 per cent and the rest were dry buffaloes.

The Table shows that out of 154 cows, milch cows accounted for 73.38 per cent while it

was 26.62 per cent of dry cows. The milch cattle were generally preferred by the sample farmers.

Two milch buffaloes were generally reared by the sample farmers.

It is also evident from the Table that average number of buffaloes was worked out to be 4

on large and medium size of farms while it was 2 on small size of farms. The population of

buffaloes increases with increase in size of farms. The average number of cow per farm was only

one across the size of farms (Table-8A). The population of calves was much higher than he/she

buffaloes across the size of farms.

4.6.1 Process of Utilization

The process of utilization of feed for livestock on the sample farms is presented in Table-

13. Table shows that the use of grains as feed for livestock has been maximum in the form of

wheat followed by barley, bajra and maize to the sampled farms of G.B. Nagar district. Out of

total grains used for feed of 929.21 qtls. wheat accounted for 74.65 per cent followed by 10.59

per cent, 7.67 per cent and 5.98 per cent of barley, bajra and maize respectively.

The per head per year feed worked out to be 401.85 kgs for milch cattle against 227.81

kgs for dry cattle. Out of total production of wheat, the share of feed accounted for 5.95 per cent

while the share of feed of maize, barley, bajra and jowar was 23.13 per cent and 19.47 per cent

respectively. The proportion share of green fodder and dry fodders worked out to be 44.93 per

cent and 49.48 per cent per milch cow per year on the sampled farms respectively. Against this,

proportion share of green and dry fodders was estimated at 43.43 per cent and 51.71 per cent per

year of dry cow on the sampled farms respectively. The proportion share of green and dry

fodders worked out to be 45.06 per cent and 50.47 per cent per year in case of milch buffaloes

against 40.46 per cent and 54.74 per cent in case of dry buffaloes respectively. It shows that

share of dry fodders was higher than the green fodders on the sample farms. The feed quantity of

green and dry fodder, per day for a bullock was 3.88 kgs and 3.64 kgs on the sample farms. The

quantity of concentrate was 0.32 kg per day.

As far as grains used for feed was concerned, the quantity of grains of foodgrains was

estimated at 402 kgs per milch cattle (cows and buffaloes) per year against 228 kgs for dry cattle

on the sampled farms respectively. It shows that there was huge gap in feed of concentrate

between milch and dry cattle. The per day consumption of fodder was much higher (9.24 kgs) in

case of milch buffaloes against 6.25 kgs in case of milch cows.

4.6.2 Methods and Assumption

Feed to livestock depends on weight, size and type of cattle. Besides this, there is vast

difference in quantity of feed between dry and milch cattle. Since, dairy is the main occupation

of the farmers of the district, so the livestock gets the balanced feeding every day. Farmers

provide green and dry fodder along with grains and concentrate to their live-stock. The norm of

feed to livestock was estimated by CSO, which is given below.

Per Day Feed

Sl.

No.

Cattle (kg) Buffalo (kg)

1. Milch animal 0.320 0.660

2. Male animal (over 3 years) 0.306 0.528

3. Young stock 0.199 0.336

4. Not calved even once 0.014 0.012

Annual consumption of concentrates (per head)

Goat 1.680 kg

Sheep 2.440 kg

Pig 1.840 kg

Poultry 9.125 kg

The methods and assumption of feed quantity was based on daily basis. Some of the

respondents had reported more quantity of feed than the prescribed norm while few of them had

reported less than the prescribed quantity. The green as well as dry fodder were generally home

produced while the muster cakes, cotton seed, mineral etc. were purchased from the markets.

Since wheat was in surplus quantity on the sampled farms, wheat grain was used as feed for

livestock. The sampled farmers had used 1 kg wheat grain in processed forms per day for milch

cattle while it was 1/2 kg per day for dry cattle. On the basis of the above norm, the quantity of

grain of wheat required on the selected farms has been estimated.

4.6.3 Crop wise estimate for feed

The crop wise estimate of feed for live stock on the sampled farms is shown in Table-8A.

Table-8A shows that jowar was used as green fodder in kharif season while jai and barseem were

used as green fodders in rabi season on the sampled farms. Bhusa, the by-product of wheat, was

used as dry fodder for livestock across the size of sampled farms. There was no discrimination in

giving the green and dry fodders among the dry and milch cattle on the sampled farms. The per

day and per head fodder was estimated at 9.57 kgs for buffaloes against 6.45 kgs for cow. As far

as feed is concerned the use of maize grain was maximum (23.13 per cent of its production)

followed by 14.12 per cent 12.75 per cent of bajra and jowar respectively. Out of total

production of wheat, only 5.95 per cent was used as feed. Thus, coarse grains were used

maximum used as feed on the sample farms.

4.6.4 Farm wise estimate of feed

Farm wise estimate of feed on the sampled farms, was more or less similar. Table IV-8A

& 8B show that maize, barley, jowar, bajra and wheat grains were the most important

constituents of feed across the size of farms. Since dairy was the main source of income for all

the three selected size of groups, there was no shortage of grains in the feed for livestock. Even

then, the proportion share of wheat total feed was maximum (85.29 per cent) on small farms

against 71.59 per cent and 69.19 per cent for medium and large farms respectively. While daily

use of wheat, as grain was more or less similar across the size of farms. Next wheat, barley and

maize were also the main constituents of concentrate across the size of farms. Sufficient quantity

of concentrate was given to milch cattle by all categories of farmers to get better production of

milk. The per day consumption of green and dry fodders per cow and buffalo was estimated at

5.60 kgs and 8.93 kgs on small farms against 7.06 kgs and 9.89 kgs on large farms

respectively. Out of total production of wheat 6.76 per cent was used as feed on small farms

while it was 6.76 per cent and 4.43 per cent on medium and large farms respectively. It is

revealed from the above analysis that the proportion share of grains used as feed has decreased

with the increase in size of holding. It was due to more availability of grains on the small size of

farms as compared to large size of farms. Secondly, the prices of concentrate viz. cotton seed,

mustard cake etc. were much higher than that of wheat. Hence, the farmers of respective size of

groups had used home produced grains in larger quantity as feed for their live stock.

4.7 Crop-wise Wastage at Different Production Stages

The substantial quantity of produce is lost on account of poor harvest technology and

carelessness in assembling and threshing operations. There is a need for developing appropriate

post harvest technology for foodgrain crops to avoid huge loss in each year. In order to know the

wastages of cereals at harvest and post harvest stages, data was collected from the sampled

farmers which is shown in Table No. 11. The production loss from harvesting to transportation

was estimated at 1.50 per cent of production of wheat followed by 0.69 per cent and 0.71 per

cent of paddy and maize respectively. In case of wheat, the production loss was found to be the

maximum in harvesting (0.70 per cent) followed by 0.45 per cent and 0.18 per cent in threshing

and shattered and straw respectively. The loss at transit from threshing floor to storage place was

estimated at 0.16 per cent of production of wheat. At the aggregate level the post harvest loss

from harvest to storage in wheat worked out to be 1.73 per cent of the production. It is evident

from the Table that the maximum loss occurred in harvesting operation followed by left over

grains in Bhusa. Since threshing of wheat was mostly done by threshers the chances of loss at the

threshing floor was low. Besides this, the ground floor was fully covered by cloth etc. hence,

scattered grains were picked up easily from threshing floor. On this account, loss was not more at

this stage.

Table-IV-10:- Value of output of Foodgrains on the Selected Farms of G.B.

Nagar District of U.P. (Production in Qtls & Value in Rs)

Size of

Holding Crop wise Production and Value

Paddy* Jowar Bajra Maize Wheat Barley Total

gross

value

of crop

output

Pro. Value Pro. Value Pro. Value Pro. Value Pro. Value Pro. Value

Small 1088.35 1251602 6.50 3347 135.71 67855 54.47 27235 3154.85 1956007 25.45 13997 3320043

Medium 1888.78 2172097 1.00 515 134.31 67155 94.20 47100 4520.70 2802834 175.71 96641 5186342

Large 1351.55 1554282 58.00 29870 217.34 108670 91.66 45830 3949.80 2448876 304.00 167200 4354728

All 4328.68 4977981 65.50 33732 487.36 243680 240.33 120165 11625.35 7207717 505.16 277838 12861113

*quality

So far as loss through shattered grains is concerned, it was prevented by the use of good

threshers. Even then, occurrence of shattered grains could not be avoided totally. Loss due to

shattered grains of wheat worked out to be 0.45 per cent of the production. There was very

nominal loss being 0.16 per cent of wheat production during the transportation from threshing

floor to houses. At the aggregate level, per hectare wastage of wheat was calculated to be 22.00

kgs, 14.00 kgs, 5.72 kgs and 4.94 kgs in harvesting, threshing/shattered left, over grains in Bhusa

and transportation respectively.

4.7.1 Assumptions and Methods

The accurate estimation of post harvest loss of wheat is a difficult task for the farmers.

They do not know as to how much of wheat was left during harvesting of crops, scattered on

ground floor and left as by-product during threshing of wheat. However, some of the marginal

and small farmers had collected the grains after harvesting wheat crop and weighed it. It was one

of the methods for estimation of wastage at post harvest of wheat. It depended upon the variety,

time of harvesting (day/night), maturity and method of harvesting of crop. If the farmers do the

harvesting themselves, chances of loss is the minimum in comparison to harvesting done by

labourers. Taking all these into account, the loss ranges between 24 kgs, and 60 kgs per hectare

at the time of harvesting.

As far as the methods and estimation of loss occurred during the threshing is concerned,

the eye estimate was the only method to know the loss of wheat during the threshing. It was

assumed that the farmers who had used better threshers and covered the threshing floor by cloths

the loss was about 1 kg per 100 kgs. The loss of production of wheat was found less in small

farms than that in the large farms. The chance of scattered grain and left as by product was also

estimated on the basis of eye estimate. Few marginal sampled farmers had picked up the

scattered grains from the threshing floor after threshing of wheat. On this basis, estimate for all

the selected farms was made.

Loss does not generally occur during transportation of grains of wheat from threshing

floor to home. Grains were packed in gunny bags or trolley of tractors. In case of trolley, the loss

was about 4-5 kgs per trolley. However, when wheat is transported from house to markets for

sale, chances of loss are more, ranging from 5-10 kgs per trolley depending upon the condition of

roads and distance of markets. Almost all the selected farmers had sold wheat at their respective

doors.

Table-IV-11

Wastage of Cereals at Different harvest and Post harvest Stages

(Wheat-G. B. Nagar District)

Size of

Holding

Crops Production

Kg.

Wastage (Kg) Left in

animal/

poultry

feed

Total

Harvesting Threshing

&

Shattered

Straw Transportation Storage Home

Consumption

Small Paddy 108835 56

(0.05)

92

(0.09)

330

(0.30)

90

(0.08)

266

(0.24)

286

(0.26)

- 1120

(1.03)

Jowar 650 - 7

(1.08)

2

(0.30)

3

(0.46)

5 (0.77) 2

(0.31)

- 19

(2.92)

Bajra 13571 20

(0.15)

46

(0.34)

19

(0.14)

19

(0.14)

72

(0.53)

104

(0.76)

30

(0.22)

310

(2.28)

Maize 5447 1

(0.02)

9

(0.16)

4

(0.07)

6

(0.11)

22

(0.40)

27

(0.49)

5 (0.09) 74

(1.36)

Wheat 315485 1915

(0.61)

1625

(0.52)

608

(0.19)

475

(0.15)

767

(0.24)

1624

(0.51)

376

(0.12)

7390

(2.34)

Barley 2545 16

(0.63)

8

(0.31)

4

(0.16)

2

(0.08)

4 (0.16) 3

(0.12)

12

(0.47)

49

(1.93)

Medium Paddy 188878 270

(0.14)

499

(0.26)

219

(0.12)

268

(0.14)

227

(0.12)

337

(0.18)

- 1820

(0.96)

Jowar

100 - - - - - - - -

Bajra 13431 57

(0.42

165

(1.23)

21

(0.16)

36

(0.26)

75

(0.56)

170

(1.27)

15

(0.11)

539

(4.01)

Maize 9420 16

(0.17)

36

(0.38)

12

(0.13)

10

(0.10)

20

(0.21)

27

(0.29)

30

(0.32)

151

(1.60)

Wheat 452070 3191

(0.71)

2107

(0.47)

783

(0.17)

637

(0.14)

1134

(0.25)

1239

(0.27)

322

(0.07)

9413

(2.08)

Barley 17571 114

(0.67)

94

(0.53)

15

(0.08)

20

(0.11)

60

(0.34)

61

(0.35)

60

(0.33)

424

(2.41)

Large Paddy 135155 187

(0.14)

312

(0.23)

475

(0.35)

169

(0.12)

140

(0.11)

133

(0.10)

- 1416

(1.05)

Jowar 5800 16

(0.27)

20

(0.34)

3

(0.05)

11

(0.19)

16

(0.28)

14

(0.24)

18

(0.31)

98

(1.68)

Bajra 21735 96

(0.44)

136

(0.63)

30

(0.14)

43

(0.20)

98

(0.45)

76

(0.35)

49

(0.22)

528

(2.43)

Maize 9166 9

(0.10)

40

(0.44)

10

(0.11)

19

(0.21)

16

(0.17)

15

(0.17)

8 (0.08) 117

(1.28)

Wheat 394980 3112

(0.79)

1496

(0.38)

745

(0.19)

733

(0.18)

801

(0.20)

703

(0.18)

205

(0.05)

7795

(1.97)

Barley 30400 348

(1.15)

196

(0.65)

125

(0.41)

40

(0.13)

55

(0.18)

3

(0.01)

68

(0.22)

835

(2.75)

All Paddy 432868 513

(0.12)

903

(0.21)

1024

(0.24)

527

(0.12)

633

(0.15)

756

(0.17)

- 4356

(1.01)

Jowar 6550 16

(0.24)

27

(0.41)

5

(0.08)

14

(0.21)

21

(0.32)

16

(0.24)

18

(0.28)

117

(1.78)

Bajra 48736 173

(0.36)

347

(0.71)

70

(0.15)

98

(0.20)

245

(0.50)

350

(0.72)

94

(0.19)

1377

(2.83)

Maize 24033 26

(0.11)

85

(0.35)

26

(0.11)

35

(0.14)

58

(0.24)

69

(0.29)

43

(0.18)

342

(1.42)

Wheat 1162535 8218

(0.71)

5228

(0.45)

2136

(0.18)

1845

(0.16)

2702

(0.23)

3566

(0.31)

903

(0.08)

24598

(2.12)

Barley 50516 478

(0.94)

298

(0.59)

144

(0.28)

62

(0.12)

119

(0.24)

67

(0.13)

140

(0.28)

1308

(2.58)

Note: Figures in brackets are the per centage of production.

4.7.2 Crop-wise Estimates of Wastage

The crop-wise estimates of wastage at different post harvest stages on sample farms is

presented in Table-11. The Table shows that bajra has the maximum wastage (2.83 per cent) of

the production, followed by 2.58 per cent and 2.12 per cent in barley and wheat respectively on

the sample farms. It is also evident from the Table that maximum wastage was at harvesting and

threshing stages as compared to the other stages. The wastage at storage stage was estimated at

0.50 per cent in bajra followed by 0.32 per cent, 0.24 per cent, 0.23 per cent and 0.15 per cent in

jowar barley, maize, wheat and paddy respectively. It shows that wastage at storage stage in

production of kharif cereals was higher than that of rabi cereals. Except bajra, the wastage at

home consumption stage, the Table shows, was ranging between 0.13 per cent and 0.23 per cent

in barley and maize respectively. As regards to wastage at feeding for livestock stage, the

percentage of wastage of production was more or less similar in jowar and bajra, while it was

only 0.08 per cent of the production of wheat. The above analysis reflects that harvesting and

threshing were the major stages of wastage of cereal crops followed by storage and

transportation. The wastage at home consumption and left in animal feed were attributed to

minimum share in total wastage quantity for all crops on the sample farms. The crop-wise per

hectare wastage was worked out to be 65.868 kgs in wheat followed by 62.584 kgs in barley

while in kharif cereals wastage was estimated at 28.056 kgs, 27.769 kgs, 16.89 kgs and 15.056

kgs in paddy, bajra, maize and jowar respectively. It reflects that per hectare wastages in rabi

cereals namely wheat and barley was much higher in comparison to kharif cereals

4.7.3 Wastage at storage

It is evident from Table-11 that at the aggregate level, the loss during storage was 0.23

per cent of the total production of wheat. Out of the total loss of 27.02 qtls, of wheat at storage,

the maximum wastage (70 per cent) occurred due to attack of rats followed by 30 per cent due to

dampness and other causes.

4.7.4 Wastage during consumption stage

The wastage during home consumption generally occurs at of the time of cleaning of

grains, cooking and eating. The details of wastage during consumption on sampled farms is

given in Table -11. The Table shows that at the aggregate level, the wastage was 0.31 per cent of

the total production of wheat. Out of total wastage of 35.66 qtls during consumption, cleanliness

accounted for 80 per cent followed by 20 per cent at the time of cooking and eating.

4.7.5 Wastage during Use of Animal Feed

The wastage quantity as use of animal feed is presented in Table-11. The Table shows

that wastage percentage of feed grains of wheat was only 0.08 per cent at the aggregate level.

The total wastage of wheat at different harvest and post harvest stages was estimated at 2.12 per

cent of the total production of 11625.35 qtls. It worked out to 65.868 kgs per hectare.

4.8 Farm-size wise estimates

4.8.1 At Harvesting Stage

Barring a few sampled farms, cereals as well as pulses were harvested by sickles to get

sufficient by-products. At the time of harvesting, ear-heads of wheat were generally scattered on

the fields. Some of the sample farmers had collected the ear-heads from the fields while larger

farmers did not bother to collect the scattered ear-heads from their fields. Since the marginal and

small farmers had abundant family labour they had done better harvesting, assembling, threshing

and transporting operations than the large sampled farmers. The small farmers had tried their

best to prevent loss during different operations. Hence, the loss of foodgrains increased with the

increase in farm size. Table IV-11 shows that loss of production of wheat at harvesting was only

0.61 per cent on small farms against 0.79 per cent on large farms, thereby showing a favourable

difference of 0.18 per cent in the wastage on the small farms. The small farmers had harvested

wheat crop themselves while the large farms had engaged hired labourers for harvesting wheat

crops. Even then, loss of wheat crop at harvesting was estimated at 0.61, per cent, 0.71 per cent

and 0.79 per cent of the production of wheat on small, medium and large sample farms

respectively. The per hectare loss of wheat at this stage was calculated to be 19.406 kgs, 22.31

kgs and 23.62 kgs on small, medium and large farms respectively.

4.8.2 Assembling and threshing stages

Table-11 shows that wastage of wheat in assembling and at threshing floor accounted for

0.52 per cent 0.47 per cent and 0.38 per cent of the total production of wheat on small, medium

and large farms respectively. The above analysis also reflects that the loss was 0.52 per cent on

the small farms, which was 0.38 per cent on large farms. The percentage loss of production of

wheat at assembling and threshing stages decreases with increase in size of farms (TableIV-11).

4.8.3 Wastage during Storage

Now-a-days, the well-to-do farmers of G.B. Nagar district store foodgrains in steel-bin to

protect them from the attack of rats and insects. Since, the large as well as the medium sampled

farmers had stored wheat in steel-bins and also used insecticides, the quantity of loss of wheat

during storage was found nominal on large farms while the loss was 0.24 per cent of stored

grains of wheat on small sampled farms. This was due to use of gunny bags and kutcha Bukheri

for storing the grains. These are attack prone from in-sects and rats. Dampness also occurred due

to moisture in rooms, due to which loss of wheat during storage became higher by 0.24 per cent

on small sampled farms than that of 20 per cent on large farms. The percentage loss of stored

quantity of wheat decreased with increase in size of holding as is evident from Table-IV-11. It

shows that the large as well as medium sampled farmers had better storing facilities than small

sampled farmers. The basic reason for loss in stored quantity was due to maximum use of gunny

bags on small farms. Besides this, grains were stored in room, which were damaged by rodents

and moisture.

The maximum quantities of marketable surplus were generally sold after few months of

storage, hence loss during the storage of grains of wheat was found very nominal across the

sampled farms.

4.8.4 Wastage during consumption

The wastage during consumption by size of farms is presented in Table IV-11. It is clear

from the Table IV-11 that the percentage of wastage of total consumption was 0.51 on the small

sampled farms against 0.27 per cent, 0.18 per cent on medium, large farms respectively. The

proportion of wastage during consumption was significantly higher by 0.33 per cent on small

farms over 0.18 per cent on large farms. Among size groups of farm corresponding percentage

varied from 0.18 per cent to 0.51 per cent. This loss is mainly attributed to cleaning of the

produce, cooking and eating.

4.8.5 Wastage during feeding to livestock

Since the dairy is the most promising enterprise across the sampled farms of G.B. Nagar

district, balanced feed were given to cows and buffaloes. Apart from green and dry fodder, husk

of wheat, cottonseed, mustard cakes etc. were also given to milch cattle. The foodgrains of wheat

were given in husk form along with other concentrates. Details of wastage during feeding to

livestock are presented in Table IV-11. The Table shows that out of total feed of wheat grains,

only 1.17 per cent loss was estimated on large farms followed by 1.05 per cent, 1.78 per cent on

medium and small farms respectively.

CHAPTER-V

Result and Discussion of Sample Farmers of Hamirpur District

5.1 Size -Class-Wise Distribution of Number of Farmers and Average Size of Holding

The total number of farmers in the 20 selected villages of the district was 3,379 of which

72.30 per cent was small farmers followed by 16.25 per cent and 11.45 per cent of medium and

large farmers respectively. While 11.45 per cent of large farmers had 41.38 per cent of the total

area against 31.75 per cent of the area held by small farmers. The distribution of land among

different categories was highly skewed in the selected villages. The average size of holding was

estimated at 0.736 hectare on small size of farm while it was 2.771 hectares and 6.056 hectares

on medium and large farms respectively. The leased in or out area was not found much

operational on different size of holdings. The small farmers had leased in only 4.24 per cent of

the total area against 7.25 per cent leased out area by large farmers. (Table-V-1 & V-2)

Table-V-1

Details of Sample Farmers of Hamirpur District

Stratum Number of

village

inhabited

Number of

selected

village

Total number of

farmers in the

selected village

Number of selected farmers

Size of farms

Small Medium Large Total

I 144 5 851 25 25 25 75

II 166 5 642 25 25 25 75

III 136 5 905 25 25 25 75

IV 65 5 981 25 25 25 75

ALL 511 20 3379 100 100 100 300

Table-V-2

Size-Class-Wise Distribution of Number of Farmers and Average Size of

Holding for Gram Crop of Hamirpur District (U.P)

Size of

holding

No. of

Farmers

in the

Village

(Nos)

Average

Size of

Holding

(Ha.)

Leased in/

out area

as % of

total area

(%)

Net

Cropped

Area

(Average)

per H.H.

(Ha.)

Gross

Cropped

Area

(Average)

per H.H.

(Ha.)

No of

Sample

Farmers

Selected

(Nos)

Average

Size of

Holding

Selected

Sample

Farmers

(Ha.)

Small 2443 0.736 4.24 0.768 1.830 100 0.920

Medium 549 2.771 8.01 2.993 7.096 100 2.813

Large 387 6.056 7.25 5.67 12.089 100 5.820

Total 3379 1.676 6.50 1.685 3.860 300 3.185

5.2 Size Class- Distribution of Agricultural Land

Table V-3 shows that out of total agricultural land on sample farms, only 37.92 per cent

was irrigated. It reflects that 62.08 per cent of agricultural land on the sample farms was

dependent on monsoon. More than 50 per cent of agricultural land was not in command of any

source of irrigation. The network of canals was not properly spread over in tehsils, blocks and

villages of the district. Out of four blocks of the district, only one block namely Rath had

sufficient irrigation facilities. The installation of tube-wells was very difficult due to the layers of

stone in the lower strata of the soil in most parts of the district.

Table V-3 also reveals that small farmer was a little bit better placed than medium and

large farmers in irrigation. More than 60 per cent of agricultural land was also unirrigated across

the size of holding. On account of scarcity of water, most of agricultural land across the size of

farms was vacant in kharif season. Hence, the cropping intensity was very low being only 128.33

per cent, varying in the range of 125.04 per cent on large farms and 135.149 per cent on medium

farms.

Table –3

Size-Class -Wise Distribution of Agricultural Land for Pulse

(Hamirpur District)

Size of holding Area (Hectare)

Irrigated Un-irrigated Total Small 41.187

(44.74)

50.862

(55.26)

92.049

(100.00)

Medium 111.302

(39.56)

170.028

(60.44)

281.330

(100.00)

Large 209.831

(36.05)

372.172

(63.95)

582.003

(100.00)

All 362.32

(37.92)

593.062

(62.08)

955.382

(100.00)

Figures in brackets are percentage to total.

5.3 Cropping Pattern on the Sample Farms

Due to lack of irrigation facilities, the cropping pattern on the sample farms was most

favourable to pulse crops,. There was marginal shift in favour of wheat and horticultural crops.

Out of gross cropped area of 1226.678 hectares on all the sample farms, the pulses occupied

maximum proportion share (64.51 per cent) followed by 28.68 per cent and 5.36 per cent in

cereals and oilseeds respectively. The coarse grain crops occupied 9.02 per cent of the gross

cropped area. Among the pulses, gram was the major pulse which occupied 27.75 per cent (of

the total area of pulse crops of 790.571 hectares) followed by 19.63 per cent, 16.69 per cent of

lentil and pea respectively. This type of sequence of cropping pattern was also witnessed across

the size of holding. There was no adequate scope to divert the area from pulse crops to other

remunerative crops. The possibility of reallocating area under crops across the size of farms was

also very limited due to scarcity of water.

Gram and lentil of rabi season and moong, urd and arhar of kharif season were generally

grown in rainfed areas. Apart from these pulse crops, bajra and jowar were also grown in rainfed

areas. Pea and wheat were grown on irrigated land by the sample farmers across the size of

holding.

Table-V4:- Cropping Pattern of the Sample Farmers for Pulses of Hamirpur District (Area in Hect.)

Sl.

No.

Crops Size of Holding

Small Medium Large All 1. Paddy 0.170

(0.13)

- 0.800

(0.11)

0.970

(0.08)

2. Jowar 9.231

(7.24)

39.241

(10.32)

61.15

(8.51)

109.623

(8.94)

3. Bajra - - 1.00

(0.14)

1.00

(0.08)

4. Arhar 10.225

(8.02)

33.889

(8.91)

57.253

(7.96)

101.367

(8.27)

5. Urd 18.470

(14.48)

46.590

(12.25)

82.45

(11.47)

147.51

(12.06)

6. Moong 4.058

(3.18)

10.865

(2.86)

20.15

(2.80)

35.073

(2.86)

7. Oil Seed (til) 2.879

(2.26)

2.770

(0.73)

12.618

(1.76)

18.267

(1.49)

8. Fodder 0.682

(0.53)

0.645

(0.17)

3.786

(0.53)

5.113

(0.42)

9. Vegetable &

Others - 0.400

(0.11)

1.165

(0.16)

1.565

(0.05)

Sub Total 45.715

(35.84)

134.40

(35.35)

240.372

(33.44)

420.487

(34.25)

10. Wheat 22.811

(17.88)

78.186

(20.56)

136.006

(18.92)

237.003

(19.33)

11. Barley 1.048

(0.82)

0.720

(0.19)

1.291

(0.18)

3.059

(0.25)

12. Gram 37.041

(29.04)

66.223

(17.42)

116.096

(16.15)

219.360

(17.89)

13. Pea 9.330

(7.32)

39.516

(10.39)

83.178

(11.57)

132.024

(10.77)

14. Masoor 7.284

(5.71)

42.641

(11.22)

105.312

(14.65)

155.237

(12.66)

15. Oil Seed 4.00

(3.14)

16.960

(4.46)

26.518

(3.69)

47.478

(3.87)

16. Fodders 0.183

(0.14)

0.386

(0.10)

2.638

(0.37)

3.207

(0.26)

17. S. Cane - 1.150

(0.30)

7.441

(1.04)

8.591

(0.70)

18. Vegetables 0.148

(0.11)

0.035

(0.01)

- 0.183

(0.01)

19. Others - - 0.049

(0.01)

0.049

(0.01)

Sub Total 81.845

(64.16)

245.817

(64.65)

478.529

(66.56)

806.191

(65.75)

Gross Cropped

Area 127.56

(100.00)

380.217

(100.00)

718.901

(100.00)

1226.678

(100.00) Note: Figures in brackets are the area share and the crop (Proportion to GCA) per cent.

Mixed cropping namely gram with wheat, jowar with moong and arhar with urd/moong

was very popular on the sample farms. Over all, the pulses were dominant in cropping pattern on

the sample farms. The area under fodder, vegetable and paddy was very negligible on different

size of holding. This shows that there was not much choice of substitution in cropping pattern

across the size of farms. (Table V-4)

5.4 Productivity per hectare of All Crops

Coarse cereals and pulses, except pea, are still dependent on the vagaries of weather. The

production of wheat and paddy on sample farms was quite below the state average. The

productivity of jowar and bajra estimated at 8.67 qtls and 4.00 qtls at the aggregate level on the

sample farms respectively, fell by 4.62 per cent and 68.99 per cent below the State average. The

productivity of wheat and paddy estimated at 27.49 qtls and 26.80 qtls at the aggregate level on

the sample farms, was higher by 6.09 and 45.57 per cent, from the state average. As far as per

hectare production of pulses is concerned, the productivity of gram was 10.22 qtls followed by

16.08 qtls and 11.60 qtls of pea and masoor respectively. The per hectare productivity of arhar

worked out to 11.34 qtls followed by 5.20 qtls and 4.05 qtls of moong and urd respectively. It

shows that per hectare production of rabi and kharif pulses was quite significant on the sample

farms. The productivity of almost all pulses on the sample farms was higher than the state

average.

The Table V-5 also reveals that there was a marginal gap in the per hectare production of

different crops across the size of holding. In case of gram, the per hectare production was 9.26

qtls on small farms against 10.35 qtls and 10.45 qtls on medium and large farms respectively.

There was also marginal gap in per hectare production of cereal crops across the size of holding.

Since the sample farmers had mostly sown the rabi pulses, the production of these crops was

found better even in rainfed area across the size of holding (Table-V-5).

Table-V-5

Productivity Per Hect. of All Crops for Pulses of Hamirpur District

Sl.

No.

Crops

Crop-wise Production in Qtls

Small Medium Large All Total Gross Value

of Production at

Farm Harvest

Prices

Kharif 1. Paddy 1.00

(5.88)

- 25.00

(31.25)

26.00

(26.80)

14,300

2. Jowar 102.83

(11.14)

299.90

(7.64)

548.10

(8.96)

950.83

(8.67)

4,75,415

3. Bajra - - 4.00

(4.00)

4.00

(4.00)

2,000

4. Arhar 102.95

(10.07)

414.85

(12.24)

631.40

(11.03)

1149.20

(11.34)

1,585,896

5. Urd 82.94

(9.18)

220.05

(4.72)

294.20

(3.57)

597.19

(4.05)

842038

6. Moong 17.25

(4.25)

71.27

(6.56)

93.97

(4.66)

182.49

(5.20)

255486

7. Oil Seed (til) 9.38

(3.26)

8.00

(2.89)

40.30

(3.19)

57.68

(3.16)

126896

Rabi 8. Wheat 724.85

(31.78)

2036.50

(26.05)

3754.30

(27.60)

6515.65

(27.49)

3,97,45,47

9. Barley 16.25

(15.50)

15.50

(21.53)

18.00

(13.94)

49.75

(16.26)

26,368

10. Gram 342.95

(9.26)

685.40

(10.35)

1212.90

(10.45)

2241.25

(10.22)

31,93,782

11. Pea 140.10

(15.02)

665.10

(16.83)

1318.30

(15.85)

2123.50

(16.08)

27,60,550

12. Masoor 87.20

(11.97)

542.50

(12.72)

1170.40

(11.11)

1800.10

(11.60)

27,45,153

13. Oil Seeds 23.60

(5.90)

83.80

(4.94)

162.60

(6.13)

270.00

(5.69)

4,59000

14. Sugarcane 603.750

(525.00)

3683.33

(495.01)

4287.08

(499.02)

4,50,144

Note: Figures in brackets are per hectare production in qtls.

5.5 Utilization of Grain for Seed

5.5.1 Process of Utilization of Pulses

At the aggregate level, more than 77 per cent of the total production of pulses was

marketed while only 23 per cent was utilized for different purposes (Table V-7). In respect of

gram, the maximum quantity (11.57 per cent) of the production was kept for seed followed by

8.81 per cent was retained for consumption. The kind wages to labour accounted for 4.88 per

cent of the production while quantity used as feed for animals and sold for seed accounted for

marginal share (1.07 per cent and 1.79 per cent) of the total production respectively. This trend

also prevailed in the case of other pulses also. The pulses were generally used only for

consumption and seed and rest were sold. Since the prices of pulses were higher than cereals,

these were used marginally as feed for animal. Gram had been given to pregnant buffaloes, so

the quantity of gram as feed was higher than its counter parts. The quantity of seed and

consumption of gram jointly accounted for 20.38 per cent of total production. The above analysis

shows that pulses were commercial crops on the sample farms. Table V-7 also reveals that more

than 70 per cent of production of pulses was sold followed by the percentage kept for seed for

next year and that retained for home consumption.

5.5.2 Methods of Estimation

Hamirpur is a major pulse-producing district of the state. Its contribution was 191335

Met. Tonne (7.02%) in total production of the state in 1999-2000. It ranks first in area, as well as

production of pulses among the 70 districts of the state. Almost all the pulses of kharif and rabi

season are grown in each and every village of the district. Urd, moong, arhar, gram, pea and

lentil are important pulses occupying more than 50.72 per cent of gross cropped area of the

district. Since time immemorial, these pulses have been grown in the district. Among the pulses,

gram is more popular than others due to favourable agro-climatic condition for this crop. The

pulse growers are well acquainted with seed rate per hectare of different pulses. There is vast

difference in seed rate between the mixed crop and sole crop. Besides this, the irrigated land

requires less seed per hectare than the unirrigated land. The estimates of quantity of seed of

pulses are worked out on the basis of seed rate from NSS reports. Cost of Cultivation data and

Directorate of Agriculture of Uttar Pradesh. The per hectare quantity of seed was available from

Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The seed rate of different

pulses is given below.

Seed Rates

Sl.

No.

Name of Pulses Kg. per hectare

1. Arhar 12-15

2. Urd 12-15

3. Pea 80-125

4. Gram 75-80 (90-100 for large size)

5. Lentil 40-60

There was marginal gap between recommended per hectare seed rate and used per

hectare on the sample farms.

5.5.3 Crop-Wise Estimates for Seed

The crop-wise estimates for seed on the sample farms is given in Table V-6. The per

hectare quantity of seed worked out to 15.184 Kg., 16.593 Kg 23.341 Kg, 106.117 Kg, 145.556

Kg and 62.163 Kgs for urd, moong, arhar, gram, pea and lentil on sample farms respectively. It

shows that the quantity of seed used for different crops was within the limit of recommended

seed rate per hectare. It could differ between only in terms of irrigated and unirrigated sown

areas. The pulse growers had used seed in slightly higher quantity in their fields to avoid risk in

the lower germination of seed in unirrigated land. The percentage of ‘kept seed’ with production

is estimated at 11.57% for gram followed by 7.88 per cent and 6.40 per cent for pea and lentil

respectively. The Table -V-6 also shows that the pulse growers had used mostly home produced

seed and also kept sufficient quantity for sowing next year. It reflects that the seed replacement

ratio was not adequately popularized on the sample farms. Traditional varieties of pulses were

popular than improved varieties. Mostly the grains are kept upto three years for seed. Barring

pea, the quantity of kept seed was higher than that of seed used. The above analysis shows that

there was better matching between quantity of seed used and quantity of seed kept across the size

farms. Out of total production of gram of 2241.25 qtls, the quantity of seed kept accounted for

11.57 per cent against 10.39 per cent foe seed used.

Table-V-6 Seed requirement for Pulses of Hamirpur District

Crops Area (ha) Production

(kg)

Quantity of Seed (kg) Percentage qty. of Seed

with Production

Used Kept Used Kept

Urd 147.916 69719 2246 2355 3.22 3.38

Moong 35.073 18249 582 699 3.19 3.83

Arhar 101.367 114920 2366 3702 2.06 3.22

Gram 219.360 224125 23278 25930 10.39 11.57

Pea 132.024 212350 19217 16735 9.05 7.88

Masoor 155.237 180010 9650 11521 5.36 6.40

5.5.4 Farm-Size-Wise Estimates

The farm wise estimates of seed of different pulses is also given in Table-V-7. The Table

V-7 shows that the quantity of seed used per hectare of different pulses was almost equal across

the size of holdings. The table also reveals that the quantity kept for seed was higher than that of

used seed on different size of sample farms.

Out of total production of gram, the quantity of seed kept was marginally lower (11.31%)

on small farms than the 11.57 per cent and 11.88 per cent on medium and large farms

respectively. As regards to pea, the percentage of quantity of seed kept of production ranged

between 7.56 per cent on large farms and 10.17 per cent on small farms. It shows that small

sample farmers had kept less quantity of seed than the large farmers. The quantity of seed kept

was higher than the quantity of seed used across the size of farms. The table also depicts that

sample farmers kept the sufficient quantity of seed for next year sowing. There was no

compromise in this regard. There was a marginal gap between the quantity used for seed and

quantity kept for seed across size of farms. The farmers sow the home produced seed probably

for three years.

5.6 Utilization of Grain for Feed

5.6.1 Process of Utilization

It has already been mentioned earlier that this is a drought prone district. The sources of

irrigation were not adequately developed. On account of this, the area under fodder of Kharif and

rabi seasons was witnessed in a very limited area on the sample farms. The dry fodder is

generally given to livestock throughout the year. Apart from this, dry cows, buffaloes and young

livestock are generally left for self-grazing from March to June each year. This practice has been

going on since very long time. The milch cows and buffaloes are kept in cattle sheds to get the

milk. The dairy occupation is also not so much popular among the farmers. The quantity of

concentrate given to cows and buffaloes are very inadequate against its requirement.

The total population of livestock on the sample farms is estimated at 1226 in number

which comes to 3.75 cattle per household. Out of total livestock, the number of buffaloes

accounted for 33.77 per cent followed by 17.32 per cent of cows. The milch cows were 62 per

cent while milch buffaloes were 69 per cent on the sample farms. It is also clear reflects from

Table-V-8A that either milch cows or milch buffaloes were generally preferred on the sample

farms. Table-V-8 reveals that the number of milch cattle increases with the increase in the size of

farms. The proportion of young stock among the cows was higher than that among the buffaloes.

At the aggregate level, the number of draught animals per hectare worked out to 6. The number

of draught cattle per hectare decreases with the increase in size of farms. It shows that

mechanization on large farms was common than that on small farms.

5.6.2 Methods and Estimations

There is a general formula that concentrates need to feed at the rate of one Kg concentrate

to two and a half Kgs of milk produced. This formula of estimation was not correct in the context

of a poor district. Apart from this, the quantity of feed stuffs varies with season. The availability

of green and dry fodder was higher in winter season than the summer season. In this district, it is

a common phenomenon that most of dry and young livestock are left for 4 months for self-

grazing. The pastures grow abundance of nutritious grass. Therefore, grains are not given as per

recommended quantity of feed to livestock.

The estimation of feed are made on the basis of the weight, location period, milk

production etc. The response of individual sample farmer had been considered. It varied from

individual to individual.

5.6.3 Crop-wise Estimates for Feed

Among the pulses, gram was the major component of feed across the size of sample

farms. Lentil was not used as feed. At the aggregate level 1.07 per cent of total production of

gram was used as feed followed by 0.52 per cent of moong 0.40 per cent and 0.23 per cent of urd

and pea respectively. Table-V-8B shows that only 2.39 Kgs grains of pulses of the production

were fed to cows against 7.06 Kgs and 0.90 Kg to buffaloes and bullock per year on the sample

farms.

Since the performance of buffaloes in the milk yield was higher to that of the cows, the

sample farmers had given more grains of pulses to buffaloes than that to cows. The above

analysis shows that pulses were used in very minimal quantity as feed on the sample farms.

Gram is generally given to pregnant buffaloes. Secondly, price of pulses was much higher than

that of wheat, barley etc. so the farmers did not use much of pulses as feed for livestock.

5.6.4 Farm-Size Wise Estimates

Farm size wise estimates of consumption of feed for cows, buffaloes bullocks and calves

etc is also presented in Table-8. The table shows that quantity of fodder given among different

livestock was more or less equal across the size of farms. The per day consumption of fodder for

a milch cow was a little higher, being 5.67 Kgs, on the large sample farms than 5.63 Kg on the

small farms. The per day quantity of concentrate was double on large farms than the 0.26 Kg on

small farms. It shows that consumption of feed by cows increases with increase in the size of

farms. In case of buffaloes reverse tendency was noticed. The per day consumption of feed

worked out to 5.69 Kgs on the small sample farms against 7.31 Kgs on large sample farms. The

consumption of feed was found equal on medium and large farms. The consumption of

concentrate was 0.50 Kg per day on the small farms against 0.69 kg per day on large farms.

Hence, there was marginal gap in per day consumption of fodders and concentrate across the size

of farms. Out of total production of gram only 1.24 per cent grain of gram was used as animal

feed on large sample farms followed by 1.00 per cent and 0.78 per cent on small and medium

farms respectively. It shows that only a nominal quantity of gram of its production was used as

animal feed across the size of farms.

As far as feedstuff bullocks is concerned, the Table shows that per day per bullock

consumption of fodder was 5.44 Kgs on small farms while it was 5.74 Kgs and 7.31 Kgs on

medium and large farms respectively. It reflects that there is marginal gap in the quantity of per

day feed for bullocks across the size of farms. The quantity of concentrate was more less equal

on the small and medium farms while it was 0.33 Kg per day on large farms. It shows that the

large farmers had given much attention towards their livestock than large farmers.

The Table-V-12 shows that the proportion of feed to production of pulses was higher on

large farms and lower on small farms. Below one per cent of the production of urd, moong,

arhar, pea, lentil was utilized as feed for livestock across the size of farms. In case of gram, one

per cent of production was utilized as feed for livestock by small and large farmers. Among the

pulses, gram was the major component of concentrate on each size of farm.

Table-V-10

Value of Output of Pulses on the Selected Farms of Hamirpur District of U.P.

(Production in Qtls. & Value in Rs.)

Size of

Holding Crop wise Production and Value Total

Gross

Value

of

Crop-

out

Urd Moong Arhar Gram Pea Masoor

Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value

Small 82.94 116945 17.25 24150 102.95 142071 342.95 4, 88704 140.10 182130 87.20 132980 1086980

Medium 220.05 310271 71.27 99778 414.85 572493 685.40 976695 665.10 864630 542.50 827313 3651180

Large 394.20 555822 93.97 131558 631.40 871332 1212.90 1728383 131830 1713790 1170.40 1784860 6785745

All 697.19 983038 182.49 255486 1149.20 1585896 2241.25 3193782 2123.50 2760550 1800.10 2745153 11523905

5.7 Wastage at Different Stages

5.7.1 Wastage in Pulses

The area under pulses occupied maximum share being 64.51 per cent of gross cropped

area on the sample farms. Among the pulses, gram the main pulse, accounted for 31.36 per cent,

17.42 per cent and 15.95 per cent of gross cropped area on small, medium and large size of

holding respectively. The share of pulses of the total value of production of all crops was 67.38

per cent. Almost all pulses were harvested with sickles by the selected samples of the district.

Threshing of pulses was mostly done by the help of threshers. A few of sample farmers had also

used the bullocks in threshing operation of pulses. The grains of pulses were transported by

tractor-trollies, bullock carts and head load from threshing floors to homes. The same mode of

transports was generally used to carry the grains from homes to markets. The farmers had sold

their marketable surplus after harvesting at door or near by markets because of the inadequate

retaining capacity and want of immediate payment of loans etc. The large farmers had retained

the grains for 3 to 4 months from harvesting to get better prices. The grains were stored in

traditional methods. The gunny bags, steel bin, earthen pots were used for the purpose of storage

of grains. The stored grains were much susceptible to pests/insects and dampness since most of

marketable surplus was sold immediately after harvesting, hence loss at storage stage was found

within limit on the sample farms. The pulses were not used much as feed for livestock on the

sample farmers. Hence, loss was very nominal at this stage.

Wastage of pulses at different harvest and post harvest stages on the sample farms is

presented in Table-V-11, Table-V-11 predicts that maximum loss occurred during harvesting

being 0.97 per cent of total production of pulses of 8193.73 qtls. followed by 0.67 per cent, 0.43

per cent, 0.35 per cent, 0.31 per cent and 0.20 per cent in threshing and shattered, storage,

transportation, home consumption and left in straw respectively. Harvesting and threshing jointly

accounted for 1.64 per cent loss of the total production. This type of tendency was found in

almost all pulses across the size of farms. The per hectare loss at aggregate level worked out to

be 10.100 kg, 6.916 kg and 2.053 kg in harvesting, threshing and shattered left in straw and

transport respectively. Thus, total wastage per hectare at different stages was estimated at 30.411

kg, which was around 2.94 per cent of the production.

5.7.2 Estimation and Method of Wastages of Pulses at pre and post harvest stages.

The estimation of wastages at pre and post harvest stages is completely based on the

response of the respondents. The literature and material published in this respect are not

available in the Directorate of Agriculture of Uttar Pradesh and Directorate of Economics &

Statistics Planning Institute of Uttar Pradesh. None has estimated the wastage of pulses at pre

and post harvest stages at farm level in Uttar Pradesh because it is not available as published

records. The wastage during harvesting of pulses is based on the eyewitness estimates. How

much quantity was generally scattered in a particular plot during the harvesting was the basis of

estimation. With regard to wastage at threshing stage, it was estimated on the basis of the

collected quantity of scattered grain of pulses from threshing floor. It was an accurate system of

estimation of wastage at threshing stage. In case of wastage at storage stage, it was estimated on

the basis of gap between stored quantity and final availability of grains for seed, consumption

and feed. The wastage at consumption stage was estimated on daily basis.

5.7.3 Crop-wise Wastage

(i) Wastage at Harvesting Stage:

At the time of harvesting, the grains crack from pods and fell on the ground due to high

ripeness. Besides this, ears of plants are also scattered on the field. Some plants are also left on

the fields during harvesting. These are the main causes of wastage during harvesting of pulse

crops. The study brings out that at the aggregate level, wastage of gram was 12.37 kg per

hectare, which accounted for 1.21 per cent of the production.

As far as pea and lentil are concerned, the wastage at harvesting stage is estimated at

16.60 kg and 8.85 kg per hectare respectively. It shows that out of total production of pea and

lentil, the proportional share of wastage at harvesting stage was 1.03 per cent and 0.76 per cent

respectively on the sample farms.

The dry cows, buffaloes and young stock were mostly dependent on pasture grass. The

grazing land was the main source of green fodder. Since pulses could not provide huge straw to

meet the feed requirements of livestock, they were freed from March to April for self grazing. In

case of kharif pulses viz urd, moong and arhar, the Table shows that wastage at harvesting stage

was 0.65 per cent, 0.92 per cent and 0.94 per cent of the total production of respective crop on

the sample farms. The above analysis shows that pulse growers had taken maximum care in

harvesting of pulses. This was a good effort to reduce the wastage at harvesting stage.

(ii) Wastage at Threshing and Shattered

Threshers and bullocks generally do the threshing operation of gram, pea and lentil.

Threshing floor is made clean and plain to protect the scattered grains during threshing

operation. Good threshers are generally used to reduce shattered grains during threshing of the

crops. Thus the growers mostly protect the wastage at this stage. Table-V-11 shows that at the

aggregate level, moong had the maximum wastage (0.93 per cent of the production) followed by

0.77 per cent, 0.76 per cent and 0.64 per cent for lentil, gram and arhar respectively. The wastage

at this stage to production was only 0.60 per cent and 0.49 per cent for urd and pea. It shows that

the wastage was below one kg per 100-kg production of different pulses on the sample farms. It

proves that the sample farmers had taken adequate care to protect the wastage during threshing

operation.

(iii) Wastage due to grain passing into straw

Except pea, almost all pulse crops contain a little quantity of by product in comparison to

cereal crops. Hence, chance of wastage due to grain passing into straw was very limited as given

in Table-V-11. Out of the total production of pulses of 8193.73 qtls only 0.20 per cent wastage

occurred at this stage and ranged between 0.16 per cent and 0.30 per cent in case of pea and

moong respectively. The per hectare wastage at the aggregate level worked out to 2.053 kgs. In

case of gram wastage, at this stage accounted for 2.316 kgs per hectare i.e. 0.23 per cent of the

production. The maximum wastage (0.30 per cent) at this stage was in case of moong followed

by 0.23 per cent, 0.22 per cent, 0.19 per cent and 0.17 per cent in gram, lentil, urd and arhar

respectively.

(iv) Wastage at Transport Stage

The wastage during transport of grains from threshing floor to home was found to be

negligible. But when it was transported from home to market by tractor-trolley and bullock cart,

the wastage was found to be higher because of bad condition of link road. Table-V-11 shows that

out of the total production of pulses, the wastage during transport accounted for 0.35 per cent,

which ranged between 0.26 per cent and 0.46 per cent in pea and lentil respectively. In respect of

gram it was 0.35 per cent of the productions since the rabi pulses were generally sold in the

markets, therefore, the wastage of rabi pulses was higher than that of kharif pulses. The wastage

worked out to 0.473 kg per 100 kg of marketed surplus of gram followed by 0.324 kg and

0.581kg in pea and lentil respectively. It may be concluded on the basis of this result that

wastage quantity at transport stage, by and large, was within limits.

(v) Wastage during Storage

Pulses are mostly stored for seed and consumption purposes. The marketable surplus is

marketed within 2 to 3 months after threshing. Hence, losses at storage were not much in pulses

on the sample farms. Data given in Table-V-11 show that at the aggregate level, the wastage at

this stage was 0.43 per cent of the total production of pulses. It was 0.45 per cent in case of gram.

The maximum wastage (0.71 per cent of production) was in the case of moong followed by 0.58

per cent, 0.47 per cent, 0.45 per cent, 0.44 per cent and 0.32 per cent in urd, arhar, gram, lentil

and pea respectively. The wastage was higher in kharif pulses than the rabi pulses at storage

stage. Out of the total stored quantity of gram of 607.31 qtls the wastage was estimated at 1017

kg (1.67 per cent). Rats, insect, pests and dampness were the major enemies of stored grains of

pulses.

As far as wastage at consumption stage is concerned, Table-V-11 reveals that only 0.31

per cent of production of pulses is wasted at consumption stage. However, it was 0.33 per cent of

the production of gram. Out of quantity of consumption of gram of 197.55 qtls the wastage is

estimated at 7.46 qtls (3.77 per cent) followed by 7.40 per cent, 3.62 per cent, 3.23 per cent, 3.15

per cent and 2.82 per cent for pea, urd, lentil, moong and arhar respectively.

The above analysis reveals that out of the total production of pulses on the sample farms

the maximum wastage occurred during harvesting and threshing operations followed by

transportation, storage and consumption. The wastage at different stage was estimated at 2.94 per

cent of the total production of pulses at the aggregate level. This was around 30.411 kg per

hectare. In case of gram the total wastage worked out to be 3.35 per cent of the total production

out of which 1.21 per cent, 0.76 per cent, 0.45 per cent, 0.35 per cent, 0.33 per cent and 0.23 per

cent was attributed to harvesting, threshing, storage, transportation, consumption and left grains

in straw. The harvesting and threshing accounted for 58.88 per cent of the total wastage at

different stages in gram.

Over all, it may be concluded that the wastage witnessed at different stage was not so

alarming because the sample pulse growers were much vigilant to prevent the wastage at

different stages. They had given adequate attention in each operation from the very beginning of

harvesting to the end of the last stage of the disposal of grains of pulses.

5.7.4 Farm-wise Estimate of Wastage

The farm-wise estimate of wastage of pulses on different stages on the sample farms is

also presented in Table-V-11. It is revealed from the table that total wastage was higher (3.97 per

cent of total production of pulses) on small farms than that of 3.13 per cent and 2.72 per cent on

medium and large farms respectively. It shows that wastage on pre and post harvest stages of

pulse decreases with increase in the size of farm. The wastage was inversely related to the size of

farm. This was presumably due to fact that the small farmers had used mostly traditional way of

operations at different stages. While the reason of lower wastage at medium and large farms was

due to higher production and adoption of better techniques compared to small farms.

A substantial quantity of produce of pulses was lost on account of poor post harvest

technology and careless attitude in harvesting, threshing, storing etc. With respect to gram, the

total wastage was estimated at 3.95 per cent on small farms while the corresponding percent was

3.51 and 3.09 on medium and large farms respectively. Table-V-11 also reveals that wastage of

gram at harvest and post harvest stage was higher on small farms compared to medium and large

farms. It decreases with increase in the farm size. This trend in the wastage at harvest and post

harvest stages of different pulses occurred across the size of farms. The maximum wastage

occurred during harvesting and threshing followed by storage, consumption and transportation in

almost all pulses across the size of farms. Maximum loss occurring in harvesting accounted for

1.21 per cent in gram across the size of farms. Threshing comes next with share of 0.76 per cent

followed by 0.45 per cent, 0.35 per cent, 0.33 percentage and 0.23 per cent for consumption,

storage, transportation and left in straw respectively.

CHAPTER VI

Summary and Conclusion

Prior to independence, there was no agency to estimate the regular national income of

India. The CSO had published the National Income Statistics in May 1961. The Inventory

Method was used in the estimation of the National Income. There are economists who had

defined National Income as money value of all goods and services produced in the country

during a particular period of time. In order to get regular estimates of National Income, the Govt.

of India established the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) at New Delhi under the Ministry

of Finance. At present the estimates of National Income is fully based on the methodology

adopted by CSO. The State Government has also set up a State Planning Institute in Yojana

Bhawan, Lucknow for the estimation of income of the State. Thus the State Income has been

defined as a measurement in monetary terms of all commodities and services produced during a

given period of time, generally a year within the geographical boundary of the State accounted,

without duplication.

At present, there are three methods viz. Production, Income Generation and Final

Utilization which are generally applied to measure the income of the State Except the

Construction sector, the income from all other sectors are estimated by the Production Method or

Income Method or the combination of both Methods. In February, 1999 new series of National

Accounts and Statistics (NAS) was released taking 1980-81 as base year. This series was

comprehensive because latest data were taken by National Account Division of CSO for

estimation of the State Income. The agriculture sector includes value of inputs and outputs of

crops along with animal husbandry.

The net product from agriculture and animal husbandry was based on Production

Method. In this Method from the gross value of products and by-products and ancillary activities

are deducted the value of inputs of raw material services and consumption of fixed capital in the

process of production, to obtain net value added.

In 1993-94, the share of agriculture and animal husbandry in the state income was 40.00

per cent at current prices which has declined to 34.50 per cent 2003-04. From 1993-94 to 2003-

04 the share of agriculture and animal husbandry in the state's income has showed a decreasing

trend. The value of seed accounted for 3.69 per cent of gross value of output from agriculture in

1993-94, which has marginally declined to 3.04 per cent in 2003-04. While in quantity terms the

share of seed to total production of foodgrain was estimated at 0.43 per cent in 1993-94, which

has marginally come down to 0.42 per cent in 2003-04. While out of total input costs, the seed

value accounted for 24.26 per cent in 1993-94 which has come down to 17.69 per cent in 2003-

04. The share value of feed of livestock was 44.04 per cent of gross value of output from animal

husbandry in 1993-94. It has declined to 23.51 per cent in 2003-04.

Table V1-I

Trends of Seed, Feed and Net Product From Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (At

Current Prices) from 1993-94 to 2003-04 in U.P. (Lakh Rs.)

Years Gross

value of

output

from

agriculture

(proper)

Gross

value of

output

from

animal

husbandry

Gross

value of

output in

agri. &

animal

husbandry

Value of

seed

Value

of other

inputs

Net

domestic

product

of agri.

Value

of Feed

of live

Stock

Net

product

from

animal

husbandry

Gross

domestic

Product of

Agri. &

animal

husbandry

Net domestic

product of agri.

& A.H.

1993-94 2970514

(100.00)

896700

(100.00)

3867214

(100.00)

109708

(100.00)

342484

(100.00)

2518322

(100.00)

394876

(100.00)

501824

(100.00)

3020145

(100.00)

2835747

(100.00)

1994-95 3373654

(113.57)

1041429

(116.14)

4415083

(114.17)

122525

(111.68)

408364

(119.23)

2842765

(112.88)

429941

(108.88)

611488

(121.85)

3454253

(114.37)

3247817

(114.53)

1995-96 3760555

(126.60)

1120723

(124.98)

4881278

(126.22)

139356

(127.02)

507085

(148.06)

3114114

(123.66)

475296

(120.37)

645427

(128.62)

3759541

(124.48)

4284947

(151.10)

1996-97 4482615

(150.90)

1261480

(140.68)

5744095

(148.53)

162074

(147.73)

489974

(143.06)

3830567

(152.11)

526727

(133.39)

734753

(146.42)

4565320

(151.16)

4346621

(153.28)

1997-98 4497626

(151.41)

1458647

(162.67)

5956273

(154.02)

153020

(139.48)

570778

(166.66)

3773828

(149.85)

573340

(145.19)

885307

(176.42)

4659135

(154.27)

4804769

(169.44)

1998-99 4793942

(161.38)

1667892

(186.00)

6461834

(167.09)

166016

(151.32)

656650

(191.73)

3971276

(157.69)

519423

(131.54)

1148469

(228.86

5119745

(169.52)

5257580

(185.40)

1999-2000 5319601

(179.08)

1795979

(200.29)

7115580

(184.00)

181751

(165.67)

776393

(226.69)

4361457

(173.19)

527700

(133.64)

1268279

(252.73)

5629736

(186.41)

5359582

(189.00)

2000-01 5418984

(182.42)

1953130

(217.81)

7372114

(190.63)

186824

(170.29)

818898

(239.11)

4413262

(175.25)

658822

(166.84)

1294508

(257.96)

5707770

(188.99)

5354768

(188.83)

2001-02 5593157

(18829)

2053688

(229.03)

7646845

(197.73)

169477

(154.48)

869361

(253.84)

4554319

(180.85)

681911

(172.69)

1371777

(273.36)

5926096

(196.22)

5534278

(195.16)

2002-03 58180888

(195.86)

2194943

(244.78)

8013031

(207.20)

177378

(161.68)

853062

(249.09)

4787648

(190.11)

557924

(141.29)

1637019

(326.21)

6424667

(212.73

6410912

(266.07)

2003-04 6262871

(210.83)

2418298

(269.69)

8681169

(224.48)

190477

(173.62)

886189

(258.75)

5186205

(205.94)

568533

(143.98)

1849765

(368.61)

7035970

(232.97)

6545462

(230.82)

Note: Figures in brackets are Indices

Source-Economics and Statistics Division, Planning Institute, U.P. 2004

The seed and feed jointly accounted for 13.05 per cent of gross value of output in

agriculture and animal husbandry in 1993-94, which has come down to 8.74 per cent in 2003-04.

The value of seed was estimated at Rs. 1097.08 crore in 1993-94, which has increased by

73.62 per cent in 2003-04. The value of feed has increased by 43.98 per cent in 2003-04 over the

value of 3948.76 crore in 1993-94. However, the growth in value of seed was higher than that of

feed during the study period.

India's significant achievement in the 20th

century was the provision of food security to

ever growing population. Food production has increased to 441.30 lakh m. tonnes in 2001-02

from 117.75 lakh m. tonnes in 1950-51. Even then, the country may face insufficiency of

foodgrains in years to come because of higher growth of population and lower growth of food

production. It has been estimated that demand of cereal would be 254 to 374 million tonnes by

the year 2020. Such demand probably will be met through the second Green Revolution and by

prevent losses of foodgrains at different stages. The attack of pests and insects termites, rats and

dampness etc. is common phenomenon, which is responsible for heavy losses every year.

Besides, losses also occur at different stage from harvesting to threshing. Dr. J. Singh and M.S.

Sidhu had estimated that the annual loss of foodgrains in India was about 9.33 per cent which

amounted to about 20 million tonnes annually. During 1988-89 the quantity of losses of

foodgrains was 18.95 million tonnes, which was sufficient for consumption by 14 million people

for a month. This huge loss can be reduced to zero level through proper management and

developed infrastructure. There is no proper estimation about the quantity of foodgrains being

used for the purpose of seed and feed. Estimation of wastage quantity of foodgrains at different

stages at farm levels has not been correctly done at present.

Estimation of seed is generally done by State Accounting Process. There is an urgent

need to estimate the seed, feed wastage ratio for major foodgrains.

Objectives of the Study

1. To estimate the total quantity of foodgrains consumed as seed, feed and wastage.

2. To estimate the net availability of foodgrains for human consumption.

Firstly we decided two crops (one cereal and one pulse) based on the area predomination

in the State. Among the cereals, the area under wheat accounted for maximum share (53.27 per

cent) while the area under gram was the highest (31.73 per cent of total area under pulses) on the

basis of the average during three the preceding years i.e. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. Hence,

wheat and gram among the cereals and pulses were selected respectively for the study.

Among the 70 district of U. P. larger density of area respectively under wheat and gram

was found in Gautam Buddh Nagar (G.B. Nagar) and Hamirpur districts. Therefore, G.B. Nagar

and Hamirpur district have been selected. Multi stage sampling design has been adopted for the

study. In each district, 4 strata have been formed by suitably combining the adjoining blocks.

The strata-wise villages have been arranged and 5 villages have been selected from each stratum

randomly. Five cultivators each from small, medium and large holdings have been selected from

the enumerated lists of selected villages of Hamirpur district

However, in G.B. Nagar district, five cultivators each from small, medium and large

holding could not be selected because in most of the selected villages, the number of medium

and large holdings was found to be inadequate. Hence, the (quote) of medium and large farmers

was filled up by taking samples from small holdings. Thus, 300 cultivators from 20 villages of 4

strata of blocks of the district have been selected. Thus 600 simple farmers of 40 villages of the

two districts have been selected for this study. Well-designed schedules have been used in the

collection of primary data by direct personal interview.

Since two crops viz, wheat and gram were selected for the study, the maximum attention

has been given to these crops. Besides, these two crops, the crops of zaid, kharif and rabi seasons

grown on the sample farms have also been covered. The primary data have been collected in two

rounds in order to collect the kharif and rabi season crops.

The reference period of the study is 2004-05

Profile of the District

(i) Gautam Buddh Nagar District

G. B. Nagar district was selected on the basis of highest density of area under wheat crop.

It is a newly formed district. It belongs to the western region of Uttar Pradesh. It is industrially

and agriculturally advanced district of the state. Two important cities of the country viz. NOIDA

and Greater NOIDA also form part of this district. The district has 3 tehsils, 4 blocks and 381

villages. The geographical area of this district is a 1.95 lakh hectare of which was 71.00 per cent

was under cultivation in 2001-02. The per capita availability of cultivated land was 0.12 hectare

in 2001-02. The infrastructural facilities are well developed. Almost all the net area sown was

fully irrigated. Dairy is a very remunerative occupation in the district. The cropping pattern of

this district is very unique because most of the cultivable area has been devoted only to two

crops viz. wheat and fodder. Wheat occupied maximum area (54.64 per cent) of G.C.A. in 2002-

03 followed by 18.68 per cent by fodder. The cropping pattern of the 20 selected villages is

favourable for wheat and fodder cultivation. The cropping pattern of the selected villages is not

for commercialization but for food and fodder for consumption by humans and livestock. The

productivity of cereal and pulse crops of the district is above the average productivity of the

state.

The number of storages/godowns is only 7 with total capcity of 38400-M. tonnes. Out of

the total production of foodgrains of the district, only 10.16 per cent could be stored during

2001-02. The per capita availability of foodgrains worked out to be 3.040 qtls. per year.

(ii) Hamirpur District

It is one of the most backward districts of Bundelkhand region of the state. It was

selected because it had the highest density of area under gram among the 70 districts of the state.

The social and economic infrastructural facilities are still inadequate. This district comes in semi-

arid zone. The geographical area of this district is 4282 sq. kms. The district has 4 tehsils and 7

blocks. The distribution of land is uneven. The per capita availability of land was 0.29 hectare

against 0.10 hectare of the State. The main source of income is agriculture and labour. Dairy has

not received any special attention due to lack of green fodder and water. Majority of farmers is

not economically sound because the income from agriculture is not sufficient to cater their needs.

The district is by and large mono-cropped. Mixed cropping is a compulsion rather than choice.

Since the most part of this district is rainfed kharif crops are grown on only 17.66 per cent of

G.C..A against 82.34 per cent of rabi crops. Pulses are the dominant produce of the district. Due

to scarcity of water, pulses are grown mostly in the district, as it requires less water. Among the

pulses, gram is the predominant crop accounting for 32.06 per cent of G.C.A. during 2002-03.

The cropping pattern of the 20 selected villages of this district is favourable to pulse crops.

Among the pulses gram, pea, lentil, urd, moong and arhar were the crops across the selected

villages. However, there was also variation in cropping pattern among the selected villages.

Average yield of crops was comparatively lower than the State average. The per capita

production of pulses was estimated at 142.2 kgs. Hence the district was surplus in the production

of pulse. Out of the total production of foodgrain of 4.44 lakh m. tonnes only 5.10 per cent could

be stored in the existing godowns during 1999-2000. Pulses dominated the cropping pattern of

all 20 selected villages of the district.

Findings of the Study

The share of seed, feed and waste ratio of major foodgrains on the 600 sample farms of

40 villages of the two selected districts of Uttar Pradesh have been analysed. The major findings

of the analysis are as follows.

1. The average size of holding of 600 sample farms was 2.40 hectares. The average size of

holding of small farms was 0.703 hectare and corresponding figure for medium and large

farms were 2.724 and 5.754 hectares respectively.

2. 'Leased in' and 'leased out' systems were not much prevalent on the sample farms of the

two districts.

3. All the agricultural land of sample farms of G.B. Nagar district was fully irrigated while

only 37.92 per cent of agricultural land of the sample farms of Hamirpur district was

irrigated.

4. Wheat and fodder, the dominant crops, covered more than 66 per cent of gross cropped

area on the sample farms of G.B. Nagar district. While pulses and wheat were the

dominant crops covering 83 per cent of G.C.A. on the sample farms of Hamirpur district.

Out of G.C.A. of G.B. Nagar district wheat accounted for 41.64 per cent followed by

24.76 per cent as fodder on the sample farms. The pulses accounted for 64.46 per cent

followed by 19.33 per cent as wheat crop on the sample farms of Hamirpur district. The

area under wheat and gram had higher density of G.C. area on the sample farms of G.B.

Nagar and Hamirpur districts respectively. At the aggregate level foodgrain crops account

for maximum share (84.41 per cent) of G.C. area followed by 10.84 per cent, 3.39 per

cent and 1.36 per cent of fodder, oilseeds and others respectively.

5. The productivity of wheat estimated at 31.13 qtls at the aggregate level ranged between

31.97 qtls and 29.98 qtls while productivity of gram worked out to be 10.22 qtls, ranging

between 9.26 qtls on small farms and 10.45 qtls on large farms. The productivity of

wheat and gram was by and large equal across the sample farms of G.B. Nagar and

Hamirpur districts respectively.

Process of Utilization of Production of Wheat and Gram

Out of the total production of 11625.35 qtls of wheat on all the sample farms of G.B.

Nagar district, the marketed surplus accounted for 54.81 per cent and the rest (45.19 per cent)

was utilized as consumption, feed kind wage and seed. Of the total production of wheat,

maximum share (28.88 per cent) was utilized as home consumption followed by 5.95 per cent,

5.64 per cent and 4.22 per cent used as animal feed, kind wage to labour and kept seed for next

time sowing.

In case of gram, the marketed surplus accounted for 72.90 per cent of the total production

and the rest (27.10 per cent) was used as seed (11.57 per cent), home consumption (8.81 per

cent) kind wage to labour (4.88 per cent) and used as feed for livestock (1.06 per cent). As

against wheat, gram was not much utilized as feed for livestock or home consumption.

-98-

Table-VI-2

Production and Disposal of Foodgrains

Name

of

districts

Size of

holdings

Crops Total

production

(qtls)

Quantity (Qtls) for Marketed

surplus Previous

years

seed

used

Kept

seed for

next

time

Seed

for

sold

Home

Consumption

Kind

wages

to

labour

Used

as

animal

feed

Total

G.B.

Nagar

Small

Wheat

3154.85

(100.00)

123.76

(3.92)

131.42

(4.17)

1150

(0.36)

1578.55

(50.04)

205.00

(6.49)

211.63

(6.71)

2138.10

(67.77)

1016.75

(32.33)

Medium 4520.70

(100.00)

181.93

(4.02)

196.50

(4.34)

37.00

(0.82)

1210.70

(26.78)

255.25

(5.65)

305.45

(6.76)

2004.90

(44.35)

2515.80

(55.65)

Large 3949.80

(100.00)

165.25

(4.18)

162.50

(4.11)

10.00

(0.25)

567.70

(14.37)

195.85

(4.96)

174.79

(4.43)

1110.84

(28.12)

2838.96

(71.88)

Total 11625.35

(100.00)

470.94

(4.05)

490.42

(4.22)

58.50

(0.50)

3356.95

(28.88)

656.10

(5.64)

691.87

(5.95)

5253.84

(45.19)

6371.51

(54.81)

Hamirpur

Small

Gram

342.95

(100.00)

35.96

(10.49)

38.79

(11.31)

2.70

(0.79)

63.01

(18.37)

8.75

(2.55)

3.43

(1.00)

116.68

(34.02)

226.27

(65.98)

Medium 685.40

(100.00)

71.94

(10.50)

81.40

(11.88)

12.00

(1.75)

59.70

(8.71)

30.43

(4.44)

5.35

(0.78)

188.88

(27.56)

496.52

(72.44)

Large 1212.90

(100.00)

124.88

(10.30)

139.11

(11.47)

2.50

(0.21)

74.84

(6.17)

70.25

(5.79)

15.05

(1.24)

301.75

(24.88)

911.15

(75.12)

Total 2241.25

(100.00)

232.78

(10.39)

259.30

(11.57)

17.20

(0.77)

197.55

(8.81)

109.43

(4.88)

23.83

(1.06)

607.31

(27.10)

1633.94

(72.90)

Both All 13866.60

(100.00)

703.72

(5.07)

749.72

(5.41)

75.70

(0.55)

3554.50

(25.63)

765.53

(5.52)

715.70

(5.16)

5861.15

(42.27)

8005.45

(57.73)

Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage to total production.

On the whole out of the total production of 13866.60 qtls of wheat and gram, the

marketed surplus accounted for 57.73 per cent. Out of total disposal of 5861.15 qtls, the share of

25.63 per cent was utilized for consumption followed by 5.52 per cent, 5.41 per cent and 5.16 per

cent for kind wage to labour, kept seed for next time and used as animal feed respectively.

The percentage of seed kept to wheat production was 4.22 against 11.57 per cent of gram

seed to its production. The per hectare used seed of wheat was estimated at 126.11 kgs against

106.11 kgs of gram on the sample farms. The percentage of seed kept to production was

marginally higher than that of the percentage of seed used both for wheat and gram. It shows that

the sample farmers of wheat and gram keep sufficient quantity of seed for next years sowing.

Table-VI-3

Seed Requirement for Foodgrains

Name of

districts Wheat Gram

Area

(ha.)

Production

(Kg.)

Quantity of seed

(kg)

%age qty of

seed with

production

Area Produ-

ction

Quantity of seed

(kg)

%age qty of

seed with

production

Used Kept used Kept Used Kept Used Kept

G.B.

Nagar

373.442 1162535 47094 49042 4.05 4.22 - - - - - -

Hamirpur - - - - - - 2.19360 224125 23278 25930 10.39 11.57

All 373.442 1162535 47094 49042 4.05 4.22 2.19360 224125 23278 25930 10.39 11.57

The analysis of farm size-wise estimates also reveals that the percentage of used seed of

wheat to its production was a little higher (4.18 per cent) on large sample farms than that of 3.92

per cent on small sample farms. The percentage of kept seed to the production of wheat was

higher than that of used seed across the sample farms of G.B. Nagar district. In case of gram, the

percentage of seed kept to production was more or less equal across the size of farms. It reflects

that all the three categories of sample farms of both districts had kept seed as per their

requirement.

With regards to the feeding by livestock on the sample farms of both the districts it is

clear that per day consumption of fodder per buffalo was 9.89 kgs on sample farms of G.B.

Nagar district against 6.86 kgs on the sample farms of Hamirpur districts while the per day

consumption of fodder per cow was estimated at 7.06 kgs and 4.67 kgs on the sample farms of

G.B. Nagar and Hamirpur districts respectively.

At the aggregate level, out of total feed stuff for buffaloes, straw accounted for 57.41 per

cent followed by 37.25 per cent and 5.34 per cent for green fodder and hay respectively. In case

of cows the percentage of straw, green fodder and hay to the total feed stuff was estimated at

62.14, 31.96 and 5.90 respectively. At the aggregate level, per day per buffalo quantity of

concentrate worked out to be 0.958 kgs against 0.432 kg for a cow.

Jowar, bajra, maize, wheat and barley grains were used as feed for livestock on the

sample farms of G.B. Nagar district while grains of moong, arhar, gram and pea were used as

feed in meager quantity. Out of total production of wheat of 1162.35 qtls only 5.95 per cent was

used as feed on the sample farms of G.B. Nagar. While out of the total production of gram

2241.25 qtls only 1.06 per cent was used as feed on the sample farms of Hamirpur district.

Out of the total production of wheat, 6.71 per cent was used as feed by small farmers

followed by 6.76 per cent and 4.43 per cent by medium and large farmers respectively. In case of

gram, 1.00 per cent, 0.78 per cent and 1.24 per cent of total production were used as feed on the

sample farms of Hamirpur district.

Wastage of foodgrains

Wastage at different production stages

The study reveals that wastages at harvesting stage was the maximum (0.79 per cent of

the total production) followed by 0.50 per cent, 0.31 per cent, 0.27 per cent, 0.19 per cent and

0.07 per cent in threshing, consumption storage, passed in straw and feed respectively. It shows

that the wastage at harvesting and threshing levels jointly accounted for 1.29 per cent of the total

production. The percentage of total wastage to production of foodgrains (wheat and gram) was

2.32 per cent on the sample farms of both the districts. The total quantity of wastage of

foodgrains was 321.03 qtls on the sample farms, which worked out to be 53.88 kgs per hectare.

There was variation in the extent of wastage at different stages among wheat and gram on

the sample farms. The wastage at harvesting and threshing stages of the production was higher

(1.21 per cent and 0.76 per cent) in gram than 0.71 per cent and 0.45 per cent respectively in case

of wheat. The wastage at transportation stages for gram was higher (0.35 per cent of total

production of gram) than that of 0.16 per cent for wheat. Since gram was not much used as feed

for livestock, the wastage at this stage was below (0.02 per cent) in comparison to 0.08 per cent

wastage of wheat.

Table-VI-4

Wastage of Foodgrains at Different Post Harvest Stage

Name of

Districts

Size of

Holding

Crops Production (Kg)

Wastages (Kg) Home

Consu

mption

Left in animate feed

Total

Harvest

-ing

Threshi

-ng &

shalt

area

Straw Transp

ortation Storages

G.B.

Nagar

Small

Wheat

315485

(100.00)

1915

(0.61)

1625

(0.52)

608

(0.19)

475

(0.15)

767

(0.24)

1624

(0.51)

376

(0.12)

7390

(2.34)

Medium 452070

(100.00)

3191

(0.71)

2107

(0.47)

783

(0.17)

637

(0.14)

1134

(0.25)

1239

(0.27)

322

(0.07)

9413

(2.08)

Large 394980

(100.00)

3112

(0.79)

1496

(0.38)

745

(0.19)

733

(0.18)

801

(0.20)

703

(0.18)

205

(0.05)

7795

(1.97)

All 1162535

(100.00)

8218

(0.71)

5228

(0.45)

2136

(0.18)

1845

(0.16)

2702

(0.23)

3566

(0.31)

903

(0.08)

24598

(2.12)

Hamirpur

Small

Gram

34295

(100.00)

463

(1.35)

323

(0.94)

82

(0.24)

131

(0.38)

192

(0.56)

159

(0.46)

8

(0.02)

1358

(3.96)

Medium 68540

(100.00)

879

(1.28)

545

(0.80)

186

(0.27)

211

(0.31)

325

(0.47)

246

(0.36)

11

(0.02)

2403

(3.51)

Large 121290

(100.00)

1373

(1.13)

836

(0.69)

240

(0.20)

433

(0.36)

500

(0.41)

341

(0.28)

21

(0.02)

3744

(3.09)

Total 224125

(100.00)

2715

(1.21)

1704

(0.76)

508

(0.23)

775

(0.35)

1017

(0.45)

746

(0.33)

40

(0.02)

7505

(3.35)

All 1386660

(100.00)

10933

(0.79)

6932

(0.50)

2644

(0.19)

2620

(0.19)

3719

(0.27)

4312

(0.31)

943

(0.07)

32103

(2.32)

Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage to total production.

Since gram as against wheat is much susceptible to pests and insects the wastage at

storage stage was higher in gram (0.45 per cent of the production) than that of 0.23 per cent in

wheat. The analysis reflects that the total wastage was higher (3.35 per cent) in case of gram

production than that of 2.12 per cent for wheat. The latter was largely attributable to the wastages

at the stage of harvesting and threshing.

The percentage of wastage at different stages of production of wheat was the highest

(2.34 per cent) on small size of farms and lowest (1.97 per cent) on large size of farms.

In gram, wastage was the highest (3.96 per cent of gram production) on small farms and

the lowest (3.09 per cent) on large farms. It decreased with increase in the size of farms. The

analysis reflects that seed, feed and waste accounted for 12.29 per cent and 15.98 per cent of the

production of wheat and gram respectively. But when both the crops are merged, the over-all

wastage ratio to the total production of wheat and gram comes down to 12.88 per cent.

Table-VI-5

Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in Production of Wheat and Gram by

Size of Holdings Name of

Districts

Size of

Holdings

Crops Area

(ha.)

Production

(in Kg)

Seed used Seed Kept Used as feed Wastage

Qty

(Kg)

% Qty

(Kg)

% Qty

(Kg)

% Qty

(Kg)

%

G.B.

Nagar

Small

Wheat

98.683 315485 12376 3.92 13142 4.17 211.63 6.71 7390 2.34

Medium 143.020 452070 18193 4.02 19650 4.35 305.45 6.76 9413 2.08

Large 131.739 394980 16525 4.18 16250 4.11 17479 4.43 7795 1.97

All 373.442 1162535 47094 4.05 49042 4.22 691.87 5.64 24598 2.12

Hamirpur

Small

Gram

37.041 34295 3596 10.49 3879 11.31 343 1.00 1358 3.95

Medium 66.233 68540 7194 10.50 8140 11.88 535 0.78 2403 3.51

Large 116.006 121290 12488 10.30 13911 11.47 1505 1.24 3744 3.09

Total 219.36 224125 23278 10.39 25930 11.57 2383 1.06 7505 3.35

Both All 592.802 1386660 70372 5.07 74972 5.41 71570 5.16 32103 2.32

Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage to total production.

Table-VI-6

Crop-wise percentage of seed, feed and Wastage in production of Wheat and

Gram

Crops Area

(ha)

Produc-

tion

(Kg)

Seed used Seed Kept Used as feed Wastage Consumption as

seed, feed &

wastage Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) %

Wheat 373.442 1162535 47094 4.05 49042 4.22 69187 5.95 24598 2.12 142827 12.29

Gram 219.360 224125 23278 10.39 25930 11.57 2383 1.06 7505 3.35 35818 15.98

All 592.802 1386660 70372 5.07 74972 5.41 71570 5.16 32103 2.32 178645 12.88

Suggestions for Policy Implications

The production of food grains suffers a lot due to huge wastage at pre and post harvest

stages. This study reveals that seed, feed and wastage jointly accounted for more than 12.50 per

cent of the total production of foodgrains on the sample farms of the two selected districts of

U.P. There is urgent need to increase the food production from the existing level to satisfy the

consumption need of the ever growing population of the State. Besides this, efforts are also

needed to reduce the post harvest losses to zero level by the adoption of scientific methods and

better management techniques in these areas. On the basis of information gathered from the

sampled farmers and government officials and on the basis of observation of the research team in

the field the following suggestions are offered with a view to minimise the pre and post harvest

wastage of foodgrains in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

1. It should be ensured that certified seeds of cereals and pulses are distributed on time, in

adequate quantity and at reasonable prices. This would be helpful in reducing quantity of

seed per hectare. (Seed and Farms Division, Directorate of Agriculture, U.P.)

2. The farmers should use seeds at recommended rate only. (Directorate of Agriculture,

Uttar Pradesh)

3. Availability of insecticides and pesticides should be ensured at reasonable prices so that

they can be use in sufficient quantity in 'kept seed' (Plant Production Deptt., U.P.)

4. To get better germination the farmers should ensure the seed treatment before sowing of

crops. (Extension deptt., U.P.)

5. Huge quantity of food grains are being used as feed by livestock per year. Most of the

farmers do not give balanced feed to their livestock. Hence, huge wastage occurs during

feeding. Therefore, it requires better management during feeding by livestock.

(Directorate of Animal Husbandry, U.P.)

6. The farmers should grow more fodder crops on their irrigated land, to economics the use

of grams. (Directorate of Agriculture of Uttar Pradesh).

7. Training should be given to farmers for the preparation of hay. (KVKs)

8. Encroachment on pasture land and grazing land should be stopped. (Revenue Deptt. of

U.P.)

9. Farmers should give the grains in the processed form to livestock to reduce the wastage

during feeding by livestock. (Directorate of animal husbandry, U.P.)

10. Increased availability of surplus of raw produces leads to huge wastage during feeding by

livestock. Therefore, awareness programmes should be launched to advise the farmers to

provide the grains in balanced quantity as feed for livestock. (Directorate of Animal

Husbandry U.P.)

11. Research Laboratories should be upgraded to devise ways and means for proper care of

livestock. (Directorate of Animal Husbandry, U.P.)

12. Stability in terms of availability and price in the Feed Market should be ensured.

13. Incentives in the form subsidy should be given to entrepreneurs to establish animal feed

factories in the remote areas.

14. Private sector participation in the development of dairy should also be encouraged (U.P.

Govt.)

15. Mixed cropping pattern should not be encouraged to reduce the wastage at harvesting and

threshing operations (Directorate of Agri., U.P., Govt.)

16. Marginal and small farmers should use sickles in harvesting operations. (Directorate of

Agri., U.P., Govt.)

17. Harvesting should be done in the morning or night to avoid the winds. The harvested

plants should be collected at a place just after harvesting to minimize scatter of grains.

(Deptt. of Extension Uttar Pradesh)

18. The farmers should use only quality thrashers. Maximum subsidy should be provided to

farmers for purchasing threshers (Govt. of Uttar Pradesh)

19. Availability of quality threshers in the markets should be ensured. (Farms and Machinery

Deptt., U.P.)

20. Training should be given to the farmers for proper handling of threshers. (Farms and

Machinery, Deptt. of U.P.)

21. The subsidy should be given to the farmers to purchase quality fans for proper cleaning

of the grains. (Deptt. of Farms and Machinery, U.P.)

22. Huge food production has created the storage problem at farms level as well as in

warehouses/godowns. More than 60 per cent of the food production is generally stored

for the following purpose:-

(i) Domestic consumption

(ii) Seed and feed

(iii) For meeting future adversity

(iv) For getting better prices

(v) For kind wage payment to labour

The main enemies of wastage at storage stage are insects/pests, rate dampness, birds etc.

The Union Food Ministry had launched a special programme namely "Save Grain Compaign"

three decades ago throughout the country. Main objective of this programme was propagate the

scientific method of storage of foodgrain at farm level. The Save Grain Compaign should be

popularized at grass root level. (Ministry of Agri. Govt. of India)

23. Education, motivation and persuasion through training and demonstration are needed for

the farmers to minimize post harvest wastages. (Deptt. of Extension, U.P.)

24. Steel bin should be provided at subsidized rate to the farmers for better storage of grains.

(Govt. of U.P.)

25. Farmers should ensure to fully dry the grains and clean them before storage. (Deptt. of

Extension, U.P.)

26. Farmers should follow the guidelines for the use of prescribed to prevent the wastage of

stored grains. (Deptt. of Plant Protection, U.P. Govt.)

27. Rat control measures for adoption in the store rooms should be propagated. (Deptt. of

Plant Protection, U.P.)

28. Economic storage facilities are needed at the farm level. (FCI)

29. Services of NGOs and Voluntary organizations should be enlisted for the successful

implementation of "Save Grain Compaign" in the State.

30. FCI, Central Warehouse Corporation, State Warehouse Corporation should take initiative

to build godowns in the remote villages also.

31. Private sector should also be invited to invest capital for the construction of godowns in

rural areas. (Govt. of U.P.)

32. There should be proper storage facility in regulated markets. (Directorate of Agricultural

Marketing, U.P.)

33. Functioning of market system should be improved. (Directorate of Agricultural

Marketing, U.P.)

34. Each and every village should be connected with the regulated markets by all season

pucca road to minimize the wastage during transportation. (U.P. Govt.)

35. Data on Wastage of foodgrains should be collected at par with the collection of Statistics

on Area and yield every year. (Director of Economics and Statistics, U.P.)

36. Incentive should be given to farmers to establish the rice flour and pulse mills in potential

areas. (Govt. of U.P.)

37. There is need to evolve such varieties of foodgrains that are less susceptible to post

harvested losses. (Research Institutes of ICAR, New Delhi and State Agricultural

Universities)

References Books

1. A. Kumar, An Introduction to Sampling, Student's, Friends, 6, Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad

2. B. N. Asthana and S.S. Srivastava, Applied Statistics of India, Chaitanya Publishing House,

Allahabad

3. Clarence H. Eckles, Dairy Cattle and Milk Production, The Macmillan Company, New Yark

4. P.C. Bansil, Agricultural Statistics in India, P.B.H., Press Bara Hindu Road, Delhi

5. P.C. Bansil, Agricultural Statistics in India (A Guide), Third Revised Edition, Oxford and

I.B.H. Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta

6. Richard F. Davis, Modern Dairy Cattle Management, Prentice-Hall of India (Private) Ltd.

New Delhi

7. R.K. Govil and B.B. Tripathi, Agricultural Economy of India, Bioved Research Society,

103/42 M.L.N. Road, Allahabad

8. Satish Y. Deodhar, Strategic Food Quality Management, Analysis of Issues and Policy

Options, Oxford and I.B.H. Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi

9. S.K. Misra and V.K. Puri, Indian Economy 1999, Himalaya Publishing House, New Delhi

10. S.R.S. Chandel, A Hand Book of Agricultural Statistics, Achal Prakashan Mandir, 117/574

Pandu Nagar, Kanpur

11. R.S. Dixit, Agricultural Marketing in India, Shubhi Publication, 15 A.K.D. Towers Sec-14,

Gurgaon Haryana, India

Journals

1. Agriculture and Live Stock in Rajasthan, National Council of Applied Economic Research,

New Delhi

2. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 51 January - June 1996, Indian Society of

Agricultural Economics 46-48 Esplanade Mansions, M.G. Road,Fort, Mumbai

3. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 52 January - March 1997, Indian Society of

Agricultural Economics 46-48 Esplanade Mansions, M.G. Road,Fort, Mumbai

4. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 53 July - September 1998, Indian Society of

Agricultural Economics 46-48 Esplanade Mansions, M.G. Road,Fort, Mumbai

5. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 55 October - December 2004, Indian Society

of Agricultural Economics 46-48 Esplanade Mansions, M.G. Road,Fort, Mumbai

6. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 60 July - September 2005, Indian Society of

Agricultural Economics 46-48 Esplanade Mansions, M.G. Road,Fort, Mumbai

7. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, Vol. 15 Number-3 September- December, 2001,

Indian Society of Agricultural Marketing 57/IV Seminary Hills, Nagpur -44006

8. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, Vol. 17 January - April 2003, Indian Society of

Agricultural Marketing 57/IV Seminary Hills, Nagpur -44006

9. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, Vol. 18, October - December, 2004, Indian Society

of Agricultural Marketing 57/IV Seminary Hills, Nagpur -44006

10. Indian Journal of Economics, Vol. LXXXIII, October - 2002, The Dept. of Economics and

Commerce, University of Allahabad, Allahabad

11. Margin, Vol. 17, No. 3, April, 1985 (NCAER) National Council of Applied Economic

Research.

12. National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (ICAR) Policy Paper - 2

State Publications

1. Agricultural Statistics of U.P. from 1970-71 to 1993-94, Directorate of Statistics, Krishi

Bhawan, Lucknow

2. Statistical Diary, Uttar Pradesh from 1995-96 to 2003-04, Economics and Statistics Division,

State Planning Institute, Lucknow

3. The Estimates of Net State Domestic Product (Revised Series) 1977, Economic and Statistics

Division, State Planning Institute Lucknow.

4. Estimates of State's Income in U.P. 1993-94 to 2003-04, Publication No. 292, Economics and

Statistic Division, State Planning Institute, Lucknow.

5. Reports of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Dept. of Agriculture and

Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, New Delhi

Reports of AER Centre, University of Allahabad, Allahabad

1. Evaluation of Management of Seed Supply in Oilseeds and Pulses in U.P. (1999), Publication

No. 157

2. Building up of An Efficient Marketing System to Obviate the Need for Large Scale State

Intervention Study No. 122, Publication No. 169

3. Agricultural Policy in Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal - A Policy Matrix 2004, Publication

No. 170.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Prior to independence, there was no agency to estimate the regular national income of

India. The CSO had published the National Income Statistics in May 1961. The Inventory

Method was used in the estimation of the National Income. There are economists who had

defined National Income as money value of all goods and services produced in the country

during a particular period of time. In order to get regular estimates of National Income, the Govt.

of India established the Central Statistical Organisation (CSO) at New Delhi under the Ministry

of Finance. At present the estimates of National Income is fully based on the methodology

adopted by CSO. The State Government has also set up a State Planning Institute in Yojana

Bhawan, Lucknow for the estimation of income of the State. Thus the State Income has been

defined as a measurement in monetary terms of all commodities and services produced during a

given period of time, generally a year within the geographical boundary of the State accounted,

without duplication.

At present, there are three methods viz. Production, Income Generation and Final

Utilization which are generally applied to measure the income of the State Except the

Construction sector, the income from all other sectors are estimated by the Production Method or

Income Method or the combination of both Methods. In February, 1999 new series of National

Accounts and Statistics (NAS) was released taking 1980-81 as base year. This series was

comprehensive because latest data were taken by National Account Division of CSO for

estimation of the State Income. The agriculture sector includes value of inputs and outputs of

crops along with animal husbandry.

The net product from agriculture and animal husbandry was based on Production

Method. In this Method from the gross value of products and by-products and ancillary activities

are deducted the value of inputs of raw material services and consumption of fixed capital in the

process of production, to obtain net value added. In 1993-94, the share of agriculture and animal

husbandry in the state income was 40.00 per cent at current prices which has declined to 34.50

per cent 2003-04. From 1993-94 to 2003-04 the share of agriculture and animal husbandry in the

state's income has showed a decreasing trend.

Table -I

Trends of Seed, Feed and Net Product From Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (At

Current Prices) from 1993-94 to 2003-04 in U.P. (Lakh Rs.)

Years Gross

value of

output

from

agriculture

(proper)

Gross

value of

output

from

animal

husbandry

Gross

value of

output in

agri. &

animal

husbandry

Value of

seed

Value

of other

inputs

Net

domestic

product

of agri.

Value

of Feed

of live

Stock

Net

product

from

animal

husbandry

Gross

domestic

Product of

Agri. &

animal

husbandry

Net domestic

product of agri.

& A.H.

1993-94 2970514

(100.00)

896700

(100.00)

3867214

(100.00)

109708

(100.00)

342484

(100.00)

2518322

(100.00)

394876

(100.00)

501824

(100.00)

3020145

(100.00)

2835747

(100.00)

1994-95 3373654

(113.57)

1041429

(116.14)

4415083

(114.17)

122525

(111.68)

408364

(119.23)

2842765

(112.88)

429941

(108.88)

611488

(121.85)

3454253

(114.37)

3247817

(114.53)

1995-96 3760555

(126.60)

1120723

(124.98)

4881278

(126.22)

139356

(127.02)

507085

(148.06)

3114114

(123.66)

475296

(120.37)

645427

(128.62)

3759541

(124.48)

4284947

(151.10)

1996-97 4482615

(150.90)

1261480

(140.68)

5744095

(148.53)

162074

(147.73)

489974

(143.06)

3830567

(152.11)

526727

(133.39)

734753

(146.42)

4565320

(151.16)

4346621

(153.28)

1997-98 4497626

(151.41)

1458647

(162.67)

5956273

(154.02)

153020

(139.48)

570778

(166.66)

3773828

(149.85)

573340

(145.19)

885307

(176.42)

4659135

(154.27)

4804769

(169.44)

1998-99 4793942

(161.38)

1667892

(186.00)

6461834

(167.09)

166016

(151.32)

656650

(191.73)

3971276

(157.69)

519423

(131.54)

1148469

(228.86

5119745

(169.52)

5257580

(185.40)

1999-

2000

5319601

(179.08)

1795979

(200.29)

7115580

(184.00)

181751

(165.67)

776393

(226.69)

4361457

(173.19)

527700

(133.64)

1268279

(252.73)

5629736

(186.41)

5359582

(189.00)

2000-01 5418984

(182.42)

1953130

(217.81)

7372114

(190.63)

186824

(170.29)

818898

(239.11)

4413262

(175.25)

658822

(166.84)

1294508

(257.96)

5707770

(188.99)

5354768

(188.83)

2001-02 5593157

(18829)

2053688

(229.03)

7646845

(197.73)

169477

(154.48)

869361

(253.84)

4554319

(180.85)

681911

(172.69)

1371777

(273.36)

5926096

(196.22)

5534278

(195.16)

2002-03 58180888

(195.86)

2194943

(244.78)

8013031

(207.20)

177378

(161.68)

853062

(249.09)

4787648

(190.11)

557924

(141.29)

1637019

(326.21)

6424667

(212.73

6410912

(266.07)

2003-04 6262871

(210.83)

2418298

(269.69)

8681169

(224.48)

190477

(173.62)

886189

(258.75)

5186205

(205.94)

568533

(143.98)

1849765

(368.61)

7035970

(232.97)

6545462

(230.82)

Note: Figures in brackets are Indices

Source-Economics and Statistics Division, Planning Institute, U.P. 2004

The value of seed accounted for 3.69 per cent of gross value of output from agriculture in

1993-94, which has marginally declined to 3.04 per cent in 2003-04. While in quantity terms the

share of seed to total production of foodgrain was estimated at 0.43 per cent in 1993-94, which

has marginally come down to 0.42 per cent in 2003-04. While out of total input costs, the seed

value accounted for 24.26 per cent in 1993-94 which has come down to 17.69 per cent in 2003-

04. The share value of feed of livestock was 44.04 per cent of gross value of output from animal

husbandry in 1993-94. It has declined to 23.51 per cent in 2003-04. The seed and feed jointly

accounted for 13.05 per cent of gross value of output in agriculture and animal husbandry in

1993-94, which has come down to 8.74 per cent in 2003-04.

The value of seed was estimated at Rs. 1097.08 crore in 1993-94, which has increased by

73.62 per cent in 2003-04. The value of feed has increased by 43.98 per cent in 2003-04 over the

value of 3948.76 crore in 1993-94. However, the growth in value of seed was higher than that of

feed during the study period.

1. Need of the Study

India's significant achievement in the 20th

century was the provision of food security to

ever growing population. Food production has increased to 441.30 lakh m. tonnes in 2001-02

from 117.75 lakh m. tonnes in 1950-51. Even then, the country may face insufficiency of

foodgrains in years to come because of higher growth of population and lower growth of food

production. It has been estimated that demand of cereal would be 254 to 374 million tonnes by

the year 2020. Such demand probably will be met through the second Green Revolution and by

prevent losses of foodgrains at different stages. The attack of pests and insects termites, rats and

dampness etc. is common phenomenon, which is responsible for heavy losses every year.

Besides, losses also occur at different stage from harvesting to threshing. Dr. J. Singh and M.S.

Sidhu had estimated that the annual loss of foodgrains in India was about 9.33 per cent which

amounted to about 20 million tonnes annually. During 1988-89 the quantity of losses of

foodgrains was 18.95 million tonnes, which was sufficient for consumption by 14 million people

for a month. This huge loss can be reduced to zero level through proper management and

developed infrastructure. There is no proper estimation about the quantity of foodgrains being

used for the purpose of seed and feed. Estimation of wastage quantity of foodgrains at different

stages at farm levels has not been correctly done at present.

Estimation of seed is generally done by State Accounting Process. There is an urgent

need to estimate the seed, feed wastage ratio for major foodgrains.

2. Objectives of the Study

1. To estimate the total quantity of foodgrains consumed as seed, feed and wastage.

2. To estimate the net availability of foodgrains for human consumption.

3. Sampling Design

Firstly we decided two crops (one cereal and one pulse) based on the area predomination

in the State. Among the cereals, the area under wheat accounted for maximum share (53.27 per

cent) while the area under gram was the highest (31.73 per cent of total area under pulses) on the

basis of the average during three the preceding years i.e. 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. Hence,

wheat and gram among the cereals and pulses were selected respectively for the study.

Among the 70 district of U. P. larger density of area respectively under wheat and gram

was found in Gautam Buddh Nagar (G.B. Nagar) and Hamirpur districts. Therefore, G.B. Nagar

and Hamirpur district have been selected. Multi stage sampling design has been adopted for the

study. In each district, 4 strata have been formed by suitably combining the adjoining blocks.

The strata-wise villages have been arranged and 5 villages have been selected from each stratum

randomly. Five cultivators each from small, medium and large holdings have been selected from

the enumerated lists of selected villages of Hamirpur district

However, in G.B. Nagar district, five cultivators each from small, medium and large

holding could not be selected because in most of the selected villages, the number of medium

and large holdings was found to be inadequate. Hence, the (quota) of medium and large farmers

was filled up by taking samples from small holdings. Thus, 300 cultivators from 20 villages of 4

strata of blocks of the district have been selected. Thus 600 simple farmers of 40 villages of the

two districts have been selected for this study.

4. Crops Covered

Since two crops viz, wheat and gram were selected for the study, the maximum attention

has been given to these crops. Besides, these two crops, the crops of zaid, kharif and rabi seasons

grown on the sample farms have also been covered. Primary data were collected from 600

selected farmers of 40 villages of two districts namely G.B. Nagar and Hamirpur of the State.

5. Profile of the District

(i) Gautam Buddh Nagar District

G. B. Nagar district was selected on the basis of highest density of area under wheat crop.

It is a newly formed district. It belongs to the western region of Uttar Pradesh. It is industrially

and agriculturally advanced district of the state. Two important cities of the country viz. NOIDA

and Greater NOIDA also form part of this district. The district has 3 tehsils, 4 blocks and 381

villages. The geographical area of this district is a 1.95 lakh hectare of which was 71.00 per cent

was under cultivation in 2001-02. The per capita availability of cultivated land was 0.12 hectare

in 2001-02. The infrastructural facilities are well developed. Almost all the net area sown was

fully irrigated. Dairy is a very remunerative occupation in the district. The cropping pattern of

this district is very unique because most of the cultivable area has been devoted only to two

crops viz. wheat and fodder. Wheat occupied maximum area (54.64 per cent) of G.C.A. in 2002-

03 followed by 18.68 per cent by fodder. The cropping pattern of the 20 selected villages is

favourable for wheat and fodder cultivation. The cropping pattern of the selected villages is not

for commercialization but for food and fodder for consumption by humans and livestock. The

productivity of cereal and pulse crops of the district is above the average productivity of the

state.

The number of storages/godowns is only 7 with total capcity of 38400-M. tonnes. Out of

the total production of foodgrains of the district, only 10.16 per cent could be stored during

2001-02. The per capita availability of foodgrains worked out to be 3.040 qtls. per year.

Table No. 2

Cropping Pattern of Gautam Budha Nagar District (In percentage)

Sl.

No.

Crops Years

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

1. Total Paddy 12.00 9.71 9.13 9.44 9.80 5.06

2. Wheat 43.00 43.40 45.12 47.00 44.58 54.64

3. Barley 3.53 3.72 4.19 2.99 3.05 3.60

4. Jowar 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.00

5. Bajra 7.58 7.95 6.71 6.84 7.86 5.57

6. Maize 6.04 7.50 7.22 7.22 7.60 5.75

7. Total Cereals 72.31 72.41 72.50 73.62 73.03 74.62

8. Moong 0.32 0.30 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.28

9. Urd 0.03 0.07 0.30 0.16 0.29 0.04

10. Masoor 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.13 0.14 0.15

11. Gram 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.04 0.03 0.05

12. Pea 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.12 0.12 0.19

13. Arhar 1.07 2.20 2.26 2.20 2.25 1.48

14. Total Pulses 1.87 3.07 3.17 2.72 2.88 2.19

15. Total Foodgrains 74.18 75.48 75.67 76.34 75.91 76.81

16. Oilseeds 1.43 1.28 1.55 0.98 0.92 1.15

17. Sugarcane 0.74 2.65 2.73 2.64 2.73 2.64

18. Potato 0.12 0.23 0.29 0.20 0.20 0.22

19. Cotton 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 --

20. Fodders 22.50 19.35 18.86 18.94 19.62 18.68

21. Miscellaneous 0.97 0.93 0.84 0.84 0.57 0.50

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

(ii) Hamirpur District

It is one of the most backward districts of Bundelkhand region of the state. It was

selected because it had the highest density of area under gram among the 70 districts of the state.

The social and economic infrastructural facilities are still inadequate. This district comes in semi-

arid zone. The geographical area of this district is 4282 sq. kms. The district has 4 tehsils and 7

blocks. The distribution of land is uneven. The per capita availability of land was 0.29 hectare

against 0.10 hectare of the State. The main source of income is agriculture and labour. Dairy has

not received any special attention due to lack of green fodder and water. Majority of farmers is

not economically sound because the income from agriculture is not sufficient to cater their needs.

The district is by and large mono-cropped. Mixed cropping is a compulsion rather than choice.

Table No. 3

Cropping Pattern of Hamirpur District (In percentage)

Sl.

No.

Crops Years

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03

1. Total Paddy 0.43 0.29 0.39 0.46 0.40 0.16

2. Wheat 24.81 24.58 25.48 23.29 25.00 24.05

3. Barley 0.64 0.49 0.44 0.44 0.46 0.46

4. Jowar 11.44 9.14 10.26 10.21 10.60 9.55

5. Bajra 0.11 0.16 0.17 -- 0.10 0.15

6. Other coarse grains 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.04 0.01

7. Total Cereals 37.44 34.68 36.76 34.53 36.60 34.38

8. Urd 7.84 4.58 5.43 6.49 6.30 7.26

9. Moong 0.76 0.55 0.66 0.82 0.67 0.69

10. Masoor 9.35 11.10 13.96 16.21 10.65 8.99

11. Gram 24.18 27.00 23.67 26.16 30.00 32.06

12. Pea 8.06 11.10 8.15 5.45 5.75 6.37

13. Arhar 3.96 3.16 3.52 3.62 3.75 3.35

14. Total Pulses 54.15 57.49 55.39 58.74 57.13 58.72

15. Total Foodgrains 91.59 92.17 92.15 93.28 93.72 93.10

16. Total Oilseeds 6.20 5.34 4.98 4.37 3.56 2.89

17. Sugarcane 0.73 0.79 0.86 0.93 0.97 1.03

18. Potato 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02

19. Others 1.10 0.17 1.47 1.00 1.28 2.48

20. Fodders 0.37 0.34 0.53 0.40 0.46 0.48

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Since the most part of this district is rainfed kharif crops are grown on only 17.66 per

cent of G.C..A against 82.34 per cent of rabi crops. Pulses are the dominant produce of the

district. Due to scarcity of water, pulses are grown mostly in the district, as it requires less water.

Among the pulses, gram is the predominant crop accounting for 32.06 per cent of G.C.A. during

2002-03. The cropping pattern of the 20 selected villages of this district is favourable to pulse

crops. Among the pulses gram, pea, lentil, urd, moong and arhar were the crops across the

selected villages. However, there was also variation in cropping pattern among the selected

villages. Average yield of crops was comparatively lower than the State average. The per capita

production of pulses was estimated at 142.2 kgs. Hence the district was surplus in the production

of pulse. Out of the total production of foodgrain of 4.44 lakh m. tonnes only 5.10 per cent could

be stored in the existing godowns during 1999-2000. Pulses dominated the cropping pattern of

all 20 selected villages of the district.

6. Findings of the Study

The share of seed, feed and waste ratio of major foodgrains on the 600 sample farms of

40 villages of the two selected districts of Uttar Pradesh have been analysed. The major findings

of the analysis are as follows.

1. The average size of holding of 600 sample farms was 2.40 hectares. The average size of

holding of small farms was 0.703 hectare and corresponding figure for medium and large

farms were 2.724 and 5.754 hectares respectively.

2. 'Leased in' and 'leased out' systems were not much prevalent on the sample farms of the two

districts.

3. All the agricultural land of sample farms of G.B. Nagar district was fully irrigated while only

37.92 per cent of agricultural land of the sample farms of Hamirpur district was irrigated.

Table-4

Size Class-wise Distribution of Agricultural Land for Foodgrains (Hectare)

Size of

holding

Districts

G.B. Nagar Hamirpur All Irrigated Unirri. Total Irrigated Unirri. Total Irrigated Unirri. Total

Small 115.330

(99.83)

0.195

(0.17)

115.525

(100.00)

41.187

(44.74)

50.862

(55.26)

92.049

(100.00)

156.517

(75.40)

51.057

(24.60)

207.574

(100.00)

Medium 180.103

(97.59)

4.453

(2.41)

184.556

(100.00)

111.302

(39.56)

170.028

(60.44)

281.330

(100.00)

291.405

(62.55)

174.481

(37.45)

465.886

(100.00)

Large 183.616

(97.14)

5.40

(2.86)

189.016

(100.00)

209.831

(36.05)

372.172

(63.95)

582.003

(100.00)

393.447

(51.03)

377.572

(48.97)

771.019

(100.00)

Total 479.049

(97.95)

10.048

(2.05)

489.097

(100.00)

362.32

(37.92)

593.062

(62.08)

955.382

(100.00)

841.369

(58.25)

603.110

(41.75)

1444.479

(100.00)

Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage to total.

4. Wheat and fodder, the dominant crops, covered more than 66 per cent of gross cropped area

on the sample farms of G.B. Nagar district. While pulses and wheat were the dominant crops

covering 83 per cent of G.C.A. on the sample farms of Hamirpur district. Out of G.C.A. of

G.B. Nagar district wheat accounted for 41.64 per cent followed by 24.76 per cent as fodder

on the sample farms. The pulses accounted for 64.46 per cent followed by 19.33 per cent as

wheat crop on the sample farms of Hamirpur district. The area under wheat and gram had

higher density of G.C. area on the sample farms of G.B. Nagar and Hamirpur districts

respectively. At the aggregate level foodgrain crops account for maximum share (84.41 per

cent) of G.C. area followed by 10.84 per cent, 3.39 per cent and 1.36 per cent of fodder,

oilseeds and others respectively.

5. The productivity of wheat estimated at 31.13 qtls at the aggregate level ranged between 31.97

qtls and 29.98 qtls while productivity of gram worked out to be 10.22 qtls, ranging between

9.26 qtls on small farms and 10.45 qtls on large farms. The productivity of wheat and gram

was by and large equal across the sample farms of G.B. Nagar and Hamirpur districts

respectively.

Table-5

Cropping Pattern on Sample Farms

Districts Gross

Cropped

Area

(Ha.)

Area Under Different Crops (Ha.) Wheat Gram Other

Cereals

Other

pulses

Total

food

grains

Fodder Oilseeds Others

G.B. Nagar 896.913

(100.00)

373.442

(41.64)

- 252.473

(28.15)

24.332

(2.71)

650.247

(72.50)

222.083

(24.76)

6.115

(0.68)

18.468

(2.06)

Hamirpur 1226.678

(100.00)

237.003

(19.33)

219.360

(17.89)

114.651

(9.35)

571.211

(46.57)

1142.225

(93.12)

8.320

(0.68)

65.745

(5.36)

10.388

(0.84)

Total 2123.591

(100.00)

610.445

(28.75)

219.360

(10.33)

367.124

(17.29)

595.543

(28.04)

1792.472

(84.41)

230.403

(10.84)

71.860

(3.39)

28.856

(1.36)

Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage to total.

Table-6

Productivity Per Hect. of All Crops for Foodgrains Name

of

district

Size of

Holding Crops-wise Production in Qtls

Paddy Jowar Bajra Urd Moong Oil

seeds

(K)

Wheat Barley Gram Pea Lentil Rabi

oil

seeds

S.cane Maize

G.B.

Nagar

Small 30.06 9.82 9.51 - - - 31.97 24.01 - - - - - 11.24

Medium 29.57 5.92 10.77 - - - 31.61 25.84 - - - - - 13.42

Large 24.48 8.36 10.23 - - - 29.98 23.31 - - - - - 10.94

Total 27.88 8.43 10.14 - - - 31.13 24.17 - - - - - 11.87

Hamir

Pur

Small 5.88 11.14 - 9.18 4.25 3.26 31.78 15.50 9.26 15.02 11.97 5.90 - -

Medium - 7.64 - 4.72 6.56 2.89 26.05 21.53 10.35 16.83 12.72 4.94 525.00 -

Large 31.25 8.96 4.00 3.57 4.66 3.19 27.60 13.94 10.45 15.85 11.11 6.13 495.01 -

Total 26.80 8.67 4.00 4.05 5.20 3.16 27.49 16.26 10.22 16.08 11.60 5.69 499.02 -

All 27.87 8.66 10.01 4.05 5.20 3.16 29.72 23.13 10.22 16.08 11.60 5.69 499.02 11.87

7. Utilization of grain for seed

(i) Process of utilization of production of wheat and gram

Out of the total production of 11625.35 qtls of wheat on all the sample farms of G.B.

Nagar district, the marketed surplus accounted for 54.81 per cent and the rest (45.19 per cent)

was utilized as consumption, feed kind wage and seed. Of the total production of wheat,

maximum share (28.88 per cent) was utilized as home consumption followed by 5.95 per cent,

5.64 per cent and 4.22 per cent used as animal feed, kind wage to labour and kept seed for next

time sowing.

In case of gram, the marketed surplus accounted for 72.90 per cent of the total production

and the rest (27.10 per cent) was used as seed (11.57 per cent), home consumption (8.81 per

cent) kind wage to labour (4.88 per cent) and used as feed for livestock (1.06 per cent). As

against wheat, gram was not much utilized as feed for livestock or home consumption.

On the whole out of the total production of 13866.60 qtls of wheat and gram, the

marketed surplus accounted for 57.73 per cent. Out of total disposal of 5861.15 qtls, the share of

25.63 per cent was utilized for consumption followed by 5.52 per cent, 5.41 per cent and 5.16 per

cent for kind wage to labour, kept seed for next time and used as animal feed respectively.

Table-7

Production and Disposal of Foodgrains

Name

of

districts

Size of

holdings

Crops Total

production

(qtls)

Quantity (Qtls) for Marketed

surplus Previous

years

seed

used

Kept

seed for

next

time

Seed

for

sold

Home

Consumption

Kind

wages

to

labour

Used

as

animal

feed

Total

G.B.

Nagar

Small

Wheat

3154.85

(100.00)

123.76

(3.92)

131.42

(4.17)

1150

(0.36)

1578.55

(50.04)

205.00

(6.49)

211.63

(6.71)

2138.10

(67.77)

1016.75

(32.33)

Medium 4520.70

(100.00)

181.93

(4.02)

196.50

(4.34)

37.00

(0.82)

1210.70

(26.78)

255.25

(5.65)

305.45

(6.76)

2004.90

(44.35)

2515.80

(55.65)

Large 3949.80

(100.00)

165.25

(4.18)

162.50

(4.11)

10.00

(0.25)

567.70

(14.37)

195.85

(4.96)

174.79

(4.43)

1110.84

(28.12)

2838.96

(71.88)

Total 11625.35

(100.00)

470.94

(4.05)

490.42

(4.22)

58.50

(0.50)

3356.95

(28.88)

656.10

(5.64)

691.87

(5.95)

5253.84

(45.19)

6371.51

(54.81)

Hamirpur

Small

Gram

342.95

(100.00)

35.96

(10.49)

38.79

(11.31)

2.70

(0.79)

63.01

(18.37)

8.75

(2.55)

3.43

(1.00)

116.68

(34.02)

226.27

(65.98)

Medium 685.40

(100.00)

71.94

(10.50)

81.40

(11.88)

12.00

(1.75)

59.70

(8.71)

30.43

(4.44)

5.35

(0.78)

188.88

(27.56)

496.52

(72.44)

Large 1212.90

(100.00)

124.88

(10.30)

139.11

(11.47)

2.50

(0.21)

74.84

(6.17)

70.25

(5.79)

15.05

(1.24)

301.75

(24.88)

911.15

(75.12)

Total 2241.25

(100.00)

232.78

(10.39)

259.30

(11.57)

17.20

(0.77)

197.55

(8.81)

109.43

(4.88)

23.83

(1.06)

607.31

(27.10)

1633.94

(72.90)

Both All 13866.60

(100.00)

703.72

(5.07)

749.72

(5.41)

75.70

(0.55)

3554.50

(25.63)

765.53

(5.52)

715.70

(5.16)

5861.15

(42.27)

8005.45

(57.73)

Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage to total production.

(ii) Crop-wise estimates for seed

The percentage of seed kept to wheat production was 4.22 against 11.57 per cent of gram

seed to its production. The per hectare used seed of wheat was estimated at 126.11 kgs against

106.11 kgs of gram on the sample farms. The percentage of seed kept to production was

marginally higher than that of the percentage of seed used both for wheat and gram. It shows that

the sample farmers of wheat and gram keep sufficient quantity of seed for next years sowing.

Table-8

Seed Requirement for Foodgrains

Name of

districts Wheat Gram

Area

(ha.)

Production

(Kg.)

Quantity of seed

(kg)

%age qty of

seed with

production

Area Produ-

ction

Quantity of seed

(kg)

%age qty of

seed with

production

Used Kept Used Kept Used Kept Used Kept

G.B.

Nagar

373.442 1162535 47094 49042 4.05 4.22 - - - - - -

Hamirpur - - - - - - 2.19360 224125 23278 25930 10.39 11.57

All 373.442 1162535 47094 49042 4.05 4.22 2.19360 224125 23278 25930 10.39 11.57

(iii) Farm-size-wise estimates for seed

The analysis of farm size-wise estimates also reveals that the percentage of used seed of

wheat to its production was a little higher (4.18 per cent) on large sample farms than that of 3.92

per cent on small sample farms. The percentage of kept seed to the production of wheat was

higher than that of used seed across the sample farms of G.B. Nagar district. In case of gram, the

percentage of seed kept to production was more or less equal across the size of farms. It reflects

that all the three categories of sample farms of both districts had kept seed as per their

requirement.

8. Utilization of grain feed

(i) With regards to the feeding by livestock on the sample farms of both the districts it is

clear that per day consumption of fodder per buffalo was 9.89 kgs on sample farms of G.B.

Nagar district against 6.86 kgs on the sample farms of Hamirpur districts while the per day

consumption of fodder per cow was estimated at 7.06 kgs and 4.67 kgs on the sample farms of

G.B. Nagar and Hamirpur districts respectively.

(ii) At the aggregate level, out of total feed stuff for buffaloes, straw accounted for 57.41 per

cent followed by 37.25 per cent and 5.34 per cent for green fodder and hay respectively. In case

of cows the percentage of straw, green fodder and hay to the total feed stuff was estimated at

62.14, 31.96 and 5.90 respectively. At the aggregate level, per day per buffalo quantity of

concentrate worked out to be 0.958 kgs against 0.432 kg for a cow.

(iii) Jowar, bajra, maize, wheat and barley grains were used as feed for livestock on the

sample farms of G.B. Nagar district while grains of moong, arhar, gram and pea were used as

feed in meager quantity. Out of total production of wheat of 1162.35 qtls only 5.95 per cent was

used as feed on the sample farms of G.B. Nagar. While out of the total production of gram

2241.25 qtls only 1.06 per cent was used as feed on the sample farms of Hamirpur district.

Out of the total production of wheat, 6.71 per cent was used as feed by small farmers

followed by 6.76 per cent and 4.43 per cent by medium and large farmers respectively. In case of

gram, 1.00 per cent, 0.78 per cent and 1.24 per cent of total production were used as feed on the

sample farms of Hamirpur district.

9. Wastage of foodgrains

(i) Wastage at different production stages

The study reveals that wastages at harvesting stage was the maximum (0.79 per cent of

the total production) followed by 0.50 per cent, 0.31 per cent, 0.27 per cent, 0.19 per cent and

0.07 per cent in threshing, consumption storage, passed in straw and feed respectively. It shows

that the wastage at harvesting and threshing levels jointly accounted for 1.29 per cent of the total

production. The percentage of total wastage to production of foodgrains (wheat and gram) was

2.32 per cent on the sample farms of both the districts. The total quantity of wastage of

foodgrains was 321.03 qtls on the sample farms, which worked out to be 53.88 kgs per hectare.

There was variation in the extent of wastage at different stages among wheat and gram on

the sample farms. The wastage at harvesting and threshing stages of the production was higher

(1.21 per cent and 0.76 per cent) in gram than 0.71 per cent and 0.45 per cent respectively in case

of wheat. The wastage at transportation stages for gram was higher (0.35 per cent of total

production of gram) than that of 0.16 per cent for wheat. Since gram was not much used as feed

for livestock, the wastage at this stage was below (0.02 per cent) in comparison to 0.08 per cent

wastage of wheat.

Table-9

Wastage of Foodgrains at Different Post Harvest Stage Name of

Districts

Size of

Holding

Crops Production (Kg)

Wastages (Kg) Home

Consu

mption

Left in animate feed

Total

Harvest

-ing

Threshi

-ng &

shalt

area

Straw Transp

ortation Storages

G.B.

Nagar

Small

Wheat

315485

(100.00)

1915

(0.61)

1625

(0.52)

608

(0.19)

475

(0.15)

767

(0.24)

1624

(0.51)

376

(0.12)

7390

(2.34)

Medium 452070

(100.00)

3191

(0.71)

2107

(0.47)

783

(0.17)

637

(0.14)

1134

(0.25)

1239

(0.27)

322

(0.07)

9413

(2.08)

Large 394980

(100.00)

3112

(0.79)

1496

(0.38)

745

(0.19)

733

(0.18)

801

(0.20)

703

(0.18)

205

(0.05)

7795

(1.97)

All 1162535

(100.00)

8218

(0.71)

5228

(0.45)

2136

(0.18)

1845

(0.16)

2702

(0.23)

3566

(0.31)

903

(0.08)

24598

(2.12)

Hamirpur

Small

Gram

34295

(100.00)

463

(1.35)

323

(0.94)

82

(0.24)

131

(0.38)

192

(0.56)

159

(0.46)

8

(0.02)

1358

(3.96)

Medium 68540

(100.00)

879

(1.28)

545

(0.80)

186

(0.27)

211

(0.31)

325

(0.47)

246

(0.36)

11

(0.02)

2403

(3.51)

Large 121290

(100.00)

1373

(1.13)

836

(0.69)

240

(0.20)

433

(0.36)

500

(0.41)

341

(0.28)

21

(0.02)

3744

(3.09)

Total 224125

(100.00)

2715

(1.21)

1704

(0.76)

508

(0.23)

775

(0.35)

1017

(0.45)

746

(0.33)

40

(0.02)

7505

(3.35)

All 1386660

(100.00)

10933

(0.79)

6932

(0.50)

2644

(0.19)

2620

(0.19)

3719

(0.27)

4312

(0.31)

943

(0.07)

32103

(2.32)

Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage to total production.

(ii) Since gram as against wheat is much susceptible to pests and insects the wastage at

storage stage was higher in gram (0.45 per cent of the production) than that of 0.23 per cent in

wheat. The analysis reflects that the total wastage was higher (3.35 per cent) in case of gram

production than that of 2.12 per cent for wheat. The latter was largely attributable to the wastages

at the stage of harvesting and threshing.

The percentage of wastage at different stages of production of wheat was the highest

(2.34 per cent) on small size of farms and lowest (1.97 per cent) on large size of farms.

In gram, wastage was the highest (3.96 per cent of gram production) on small farms and

the lowest (3.09 per cent) on large farms. It decreased with increase in the size of farms. The

analysis reflects that seed, feed and waste accounted for 12.29 per cent and 15.98 per cent of the

production of wheat and gram respectively. But when both the crops are merged, the over-all

wastage ratio to the total production of wheat and gram comes down to 12.88 per cent.

Table-10

Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in Production of Wheat and Gram by

Size of Holdings Name of

Districts

Size of

Holdings

Crops Area

(ha.)

Production

(in Kg)

Seed used Seed Kept Used as feed Wastage

Qty

(Kg)

% Qty

(Kg)

% Qty

(Kg)

% Qty

(Kg)

%

G.B.

Nagar

Small

Wheat

98.683 315485 12376 3.92 13142 4.17 211.63 6.71 7390 2.34

Medium 143.020 452070 18193 4.02 19650 4.35 305.45 6.76 9413 2.08

Large 131.739 394980 16525 4.18 16250 4.11 17479 4.43 7795 1.97

All 373.442 1162535 47094 4.05 49042 4.22 691.87 5.64 24598 2.12

Hamirpur

Small

Gram

37.041 34295 3596 10.49 3879 11.31 343 1.00 1358 3.95

Medium 66.233 68540 7194 10.50 8140 11.88 535 0.78 2403 3.51

Large 116.006 121290 12488 10.30 13911 11.47 1505 1.24 3744 3.09

Total 219.36 224125 23278 10.39 25930 11.57 2383 1.06 7505 3.35

Both All 592.802 1386660 70372 5.07 74972 5.41 71570 5.16 32103 2.32

Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage to total production.

Table-11

Crop-wise percentage of seed, feed and Wastage in production of Wheat and

Gram

Crops Area

(ha)

Produc-

tion

(Kg)

Seed used Seed Kept Used as feed Wastage Consumption as

seed, feed &

wastage Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) %

Wheat 373.442 1162535 47094 4.05 49042 4.22 69187 5.95 24598 2.12 142827 12.29

Gram 219.360 224125 23278 10.39 25930 11.57 2383 1.06 7505 3.35 35818 15.98

All 592.802 1386660 70372 5.07 74972 5.41 71570 5.16 32103 2.32 178645 12.88

10. Suggestions for Policy Implications

The production of food grains suffers a lot due to huge wastage at pre and post harvest

stages. This study reveals that seed, feed and wastage jointly accounted for more than 12.50 per

cent of the total production of foodgrains on the sample farms of the two selected districts of

U.P. There is urgent need to increase the food production from the existing level to satisfy the

consumption need of the ever growing population of the State. Besides this, efforts are also

needed to reduce the post harvest losses to zero level by the adoption of scientific methods and

better management techniques in these areas. On the basis of information gathered from the

sampled farmers and government officials and on the basis of observation of the research team in

the field the following suggestions are offered with a view to minimise the pre and post harvest

wastage of foodgrains in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

1. It should be ensured that certified seeds of cereals and pulses are distributed on time, in

adequate quantity and at reasonable prices. This would be helpful in reducing quantity of

seed per hectare. (Seed and Farms Division, Directorate of Agriculture, U.P.)

2. The farmers should use seeds at recommended rate only. (Directorate of Agriculture, Uttar

Pradesh)

3. Availability of insecticides and pesticides should be ensured at reasonable prices so that they

can be use in sufficient quantity in 'kept seed' (Plant Production Deptt., U.P.)

4. To get better germination the farmers should ensure the seed treatment before sowing of

crops. (Extension deptt., U.P.)

5. Huge quantity of food grains are being used as feed by livestock per year. Most of the

farmers do not give balanced feed to their livestock. Hence, huge wastage occurs during

feeding. Therefore, it requires better management during feeding by livestock. (Directorate of

Animal Husbandry, U.P.)

6. The farmers should grow more fodder crops on their irrigated land, to economics the use of

grams. (Directorate of Agriculture of Uttar Pradesh).

7. Training should be given to farmers for the preparation of hay. (KVKs)

8. Encroachment on pasture land and grazing land should be stopped. (Revenue Deptt. of U.P.)

9. Farmers should give the grains in the processed form to livestock to reduce the wastage

during feeding by livestock. (Directorate of animal husbandry, U.P.)

10. Increased availability of surplus of raw produces leads to huge wastage during feeding by

livestock. Therefore, awareness programmes should be launched to advise the farmers to

provide the grains in balanced quantity as feed for livestock. (Directorate of Animal

Husbandry U.P.)

11. Research Laboratories should be upgraded to devise ways and means for proper care of

livestock. (Directorate of Animal Husbandry, U.P.)

12. Stability in terms of availability and price in the Feed Market should be ensured.

13. Incentives in the form subsidy should be given to entrepreneurs to establish animal feed

factories in the remote areas.

14. Private sector participation in the development of dairy should also be encouraged (U.P.

Govt.)

15. Mixed cropping pattern should not be encouraged to reduce the wastage at harvesting and

threshing operations (Directorate of Agri., U.P., Govt.)

16. Marginal and small farmers should use sickles in harvesting operations. (Directorate of Agri.,

U.P., Govt.)

17. Harvesting should be done in the morning or night to avoid the winds. The harvested plants

should be collected at a place just after harvesting to minimize scatter of grains. (Deptt. of

Extension Uttar Pradesh)

18. The farmers should use only quality threshers. Maximum subsidy should be provided to

farmers for purchasing threshers (Govt. of Uttar Pradesh)

19. Availability of quality threshers in the markets should be ensured. (Farms and Machinery

Deptt., U.P.)

20. Training should be given to the farmers for proper handling of threshers. (Farms and

Machinery, Deptt. of U.P.)

21. The subsidy should be given to the farmers to purchase quality fans for proper cleaning of the

grains. (Deptt. of Farms and Machinery, U.P.)

22. Huge food production has created the storage problem at farms level as well as in

warehouses/godowns. More than 60 per cent of the food production is generally stored for

the following purpose:-

(i) Domestic consumption

(ii) Seed and feed

(iii) For meeting future adversity

(iv) For getting better prices

(v) For kind wage payment to labour

The main enemies of wastage at storage stage are insects/pests, rate dampness, birds etc.

The Union Food Ministry had launched a special programme namely "Save Grain Compaign"

three decades ago throughout the country. Main objective of this programme was propagate the

scientific method of storage of foodgrain at farm level. The Save Grain Compaign should be

popularized at grass root level. (Ministry of Agri. Govt. of India)

23. Education, motivation and persuasion through training and demonstration are needed for the

farmers to minimize post harvest wastages. (Deptt. of Extension, U.P.)

24. Steel bin should be provided at subsidized rate to the farmers for better storage of grains.

(Govt. of U.P.)

25. Farmers should ensure to fully dry the grains and clean them before storage. (Deptt. of

Extension, U.P.)

26. Farmers should follow the guidelines for the use of prescribed to prevent the wastage of

stored grains. (Deptt. of Plant Protection, U.P. Govt.)

27. Rat control measures for adoption in the store rooms should be propagated. (Deptt. of Plant

Protection, U.P.)

28. Economic storage facilities are needed at the farm level. (FCI)

29. Services of NGOs and Voluntary organizations should be enlisted for the successful

implementation of "Save Grain Compaign" in the State.

30. FCI, Central Warehouse Corporation, State Warehouse Corporation should take initiative to

build godowns in the remote villages also.

31. Private sector should also be invited to invest capital for the construction of godowns in rural

areas. (Govt. of U.P.)

32. There should be proper storage facility in regulated markets. (Directorate of Agricultural

Marketing, U.P.)

33. Functioning of market system should be improved. (Directorate of Agricultural Marketing,

U.P.)

34. Each and every village should be connected with the regulated markets by all season pucca

road to minimize the wastage during transportation. (U.P. Govt.)

35. Data on Wastage of foodgrains should be collected at par with the collection of Statistics on

Area and yield every year. (Director of Economics and Statistics, U.P.)

36. Incentive should be given to farmers to establish the rice flour and pulse mills in potential

areas. (Govt. of U.P.)

37. There is need to evolve such varieties of foodgrains that are less susceptible to post harvested

losses. (Research Institutes of ICAR, New Delhi and State Agricultural Universities)

Table II-7:- Proportional Share of Area Under Different Crops of Selected Villages of G.B. Nagar

District

Name of

Villages Paddy Bajra Maize

Wheat

Barley

Total

Cereals

Total

pulses

Total

Oilseed Vegetable

Kharif

Fodder

Rabi

.fodder Others % age Kuleshara 16.66 3.31 0.93 53.35 74.25 0.59 0.70 1.48 18.78 4.19 100.00

Jalpura 17.57 3.46 0.04 51.34 1.05 73.46 1.62 1.14 0.19 21.66 1.92 100.00

Asgarpur Jageer 7.69 7.07 59.06 1.24 75.06 1.80 0.18 18.37 4.59 100.00

Bisarakh Jalalpur 23.87 2.53 49.89 0.10 76.39 0.70 0.03 22.41 0.47 100.00

Raipur Khadar 50.00 50.00 50.00 100.00

Chandrawal 5.94 16.51 21.88 45.11 2.44 91.88 0.40 0.63 5.94 1.15 100.00

Daudpur 3.1 2.97 84.49 1.38 91.94 1.74 3.10 3.22 100.00

Bagpur 9.46 26.1 46.08 2.29 83.93 2.58 9.46 4.03 100.00

Dadupur 2.08 36.96 2.53 40.03 5.10 86.70 5.30 2.08 5.92 100.00

Rasulpur Ekbal 27.85 7.58 31.32 1.47 68.22 2.08 27.85 1.86 100.00

Daya Nagar 2.39 0.66 44.10 47.15 6.14 38.38 6.39 1.94 100.00

Rasulpur Dasna 18.12 0.07 51.13 0.37 70.29 29.18 0.49 0.04 100.00

Bairangpur 6.06 0.05 0.45 48.32 0.49 55.37 44.26 0.37 100.00

Milak

Khandera 29.33 0.07 44.93

74.33 0.42 24.66 0.59 100.00

Chaksenpur 35.54 51.90 0.34 87.78 0.18 11.83 0.21 100.00

Kanpur 7.17 6.85 14.54 45.75 3.09 77.41 0.73 0.17 0.16 7.17 12.66 1.70 100.00

Mayana 15.44 10.54 7.41 31.14 7.21 71.74 4.55 2.24 15.44 3.07 2.95 100.00

Serauli Bangar 10.24 7.82 11.86 48.00 0.20 78.12 8.96 2.12 0.07 10.24 0.49 100.00

Kuraeb 19.88 13.77 4.81 29.18 3.05 70.70 0.17 1.58 19.88 6.92 0.75 100.00

Ahmadpur

Chauroli 14.29 7.44 10.18 27.99 7.08

66.98 1.41 14.29 11.03 6.30 100.00

All 15.54 7.69 4.99 40.66 3.10 71.98 1.51 0.55 0.10 18.92 5.12 1.82 100.00

Table -II-9 Proportional share of Area under crops of selected villages of Hamirpur District

Name of Crops (%) Name of

Village

Jowar+

Arhar

Bajra+

Arhar

Bajra Urd Moo

ng

Vege

table

Fodd

ers

Oilse

ed

Other

s

padd

y

Wheat Wheat

Gram

Barle

y

Mixe

d

Gram Masoo

r

Pea Oilse

eds

S.can

e

Vege

.

Others Fodder % age

Badanpur 16.23 0.09 0.54 0.98 0.10 13.66 - 22.00 13.88 0.13 1.38 17.91 5.70 3.11 0.39 3.90 100.00

Isrouli 23.34 5.52 0.18 2.34 0.23 - 28.12 1.83 32.50 0.07 5.55 0.25 0.07 100.00

Surjpur Danda 20.68 13.98 1.17 6.38 2.01 -- 17.56 2.03 21.95 9.59 0.60 3.47 0.58 100.00

Helapur 5.15 3.79 20.30 0.35 0.32 6.00 2.77 5.13 -- 28.63 4.72 0.38 15.62 4.16 0.12 1.36 0.83 0.37 100.00

Damar 1.12 0.60 1.51 0.40 0.51 0.01 1.17 12.20 0.71 0.38 0.04 16.10 48.17 8.43 1.61 0.04 0.17 6.80 0.03 100.00

Til saras 14.48 4.04 0.79 4.11 6.44 0.15 0.04 25.85 1.78 0.37 18.66 5.63 0.61 16.38 0.13 0.05 0.49 100.00

Alra 0.58 16.80 10.03 0.66 0.74 1.14 0.13 0.14 23.64 - 0.29 4.56 8.16 29.54 2.90 0.69 100.00

Pipraduda 0.89 0.79 0.46 1.17 27.99 5.68 12.04 45.45 0.10 5.20 0.23 100.00

Chandikalan 4.78 10.76 0.49 0.15 1.84 0.21 0.26 12.74 8.04 0.07 9.56 47.00 0.02 3.92 0.14 0.02 100.00

Bhaista 18.16 12.95 2.21 1.21 26.32 0.10 0.19 22.94 3.26 12.66 100.00

Barda 3.72 23.33 4.68 1.56 0.20 1.86 0.70 19.65 0.23 1.79 6.16 28.73 0.07 7.22 0.10 100.00

Baruwa 0.80 6.71 7.34 1.27 1.15 1.01 1.98 2.35 29.85 0.08 2.79 13.56 24.08 0.13 6.12 0.04 0.74 100.00

Chilli 4.36 0.09 22.87 4.28 2.01 0.02 0.27 20.05 0.26 4.70 2.87 36.11 0.03 0.77 0.68 0.63 100.00

Budharwar 0.65 0.57 16.57 3.99 2.84 0.65 0.08 0.93 57.09 0.37 6.32 1.94 2.06 0.71 2.40 2.47 0.36 100.00

Tunka 1.19 7.22 19.02 1.77 0.20 0.04 0.30 0.02 0.62 22.17 0.03 0.31 2.98 15.11 27.38 0.09 0.42 0.64 0.43 0.06 100.00

Bilgaon 16.61 2.32 1.01 1.44 0.10 10.28 3.94 0.05 34.58 20.83 4.91 3.79 0.09 0.03 0.02 100.00

Churha 1.38 0.70 9.93 0.06 4.42 0.04 20.35 0.34 3.42 23.82 35.42 0.10 0.02 100.00

Barkhera 21.75 2.81 2.76 0.12 5.63 5.33 35.98 9.79 4.40 11.43 100.00

Barakharka 7.98 1.34 9.49 0.34 1.22 0.39 10.36 - 0.10 22.73 16.78 28.55 0.05 0.47 0.20 100.00

Pawai 12.50 0.14 6.33 0.64 0.10 0.25 2.07 2.28 0.61 16.77 0.09 0.19 10.86 25.53 20.23 0.23 1.02 0.16 100.00

Table –IV-6:- Production and Disposal of Foodgrain of G.B. Nagar District Size of

holding

Crops Total

production

(qtls./ Hect)

Quantity (Qtls) For Previous

years seed

used

Kept for

seed for

next time

Exchange

as seed Sold for

seed

Home

consumpt

ion

Kind

wages to

labour

Used as

animal

feed

Used as

poultry

feed

Total Marketed

surplus

I Paddy 1088.35 6.61 7.73

(0.71)

-- -- 176.94

(16.25)

1.50

(0.14)

-- -- 186.17

(17.10)

902.18

(82.90)

Jowar 6.50 0.12 0.10

(1.54)

-- -- 2.50

(38.46)

-- 1.25

(19.23)

-- 3.85

(59.23)

2.65

(40.77)

Bajra 135.71 1.43 1.15

(0.84)

-- -- 32.31

(23.81)

1.00

(0.74)

22.00

(16.21)

-- 56.46

(41.60)

79.25

(58.40)

Maize 54.47 0.75 0.10

(0.18)

-- -- 10.90

(20.01)

-- 2.50

(4.59)

-- 13.50

(24.78)

40.97

(75.22)

Wheat 3154.85 123.76 131.42

(4.17)

-- 9.50

(0.30)

1762.01

(55.85)

209.17

(6.63)

213.40

(6.76)

-- 2325.50

(73.71)

829.35

(26.29)

Barley 25.45 0.91 0.95

(3.73)

-- -- 8.55

(33.60)

1.40

(5.50)

10.75

(42.24)

-- 21.65

(85.07)

3.80

(14.93)

II Paddy 1888.78 11.49 10.40

(0.55)

-- -- 171.63

(9.09)

19.30

(1.03)

2.00

(0.10)

-- 203.33

(10.77)

1685.45

(89.23)

Jowar 1.00 0.03 -- -- -- -- 1.00 (100) -- 1.00 (100) --

Bajra 134.31 1.34 0.75

(0.56)

-- -- 19.66

(14.64)

2.00

(1.48)

20.40

(15.19)

-- 42.81

(31.87)

91.50

(68.13)

Maize 94.20 1.68 0.45

(0.48)

-- -- 16.25

(17.24)

1.00

(1.06)

48.70

(51.70)

-- 66.40

(70.49)

27.80

(29.51)

Wheat 4520.70 181.93 196.50

(4.34)

-- 37.00

(0.82)

1210.70

(26.78)

255.25

(5.65)

305.45

(6.76)

-- 2004.90

(44.35)

2515.80

(55.65)

Barley 175.71 8.88 8.84

(5.03)

-- -- 7.00

(3.98)

16.50

(9.39)

49.12

(27.96

-- 81.46

(46.36)

94.25

(53.64)

III Paddy 1351.55 10.02 7.90

(0.58)

-- -- 136.50

(10.10)

2.00

(0.15)

-- -- 146.40

(10.83)

1205.15

(89.17)

Jowar 58.00 1.00 -- -- 4.30

(7.41)

-- 6.10

(10.52)

-- 10.40

(17.93)

47.60

(82.07)

Bajra 217.34 2.41 1.30

(0.60)

-- -- 16.64

(7.66)

7.60

(3.50)

28.85

(13.27)

-- 54.39

(25.03)

162.95

(74.97))

Maize 91.66 1.91 0.70

(0.77)

-- -- 5.96

(6.50)

-- 4.40

(4.80)

-- 11.06

(12.07)

80.60

(87.93)

Wheat 3949.80 165.25 162.50

(4.11)

-- 10.00

(0.25)

567.70

(14.37)

195.85

(4.96)

174.79

(4.43)

-- 1110.84

(28.12)

2838.96

(71.88)

Barley 304.00 14.12 16.20 -- -- 4.15 33.05 38.50 -- 91.90 212.10

Continued

Continued

(5.33) (1.37) (10.87) (12.66) (30.23) (69.77)

All Paddy 4328.68 28.12 26.03

(0.60)

-- -- 485.07

(11.20)

22.80

(0.53)

2.00

(0.05)

-- 535.90

(12.38)

3792.78

(87.62)

Jowar 65.50 1.15 0.10

(0.15)

-- -- 6.80

(10.38)

-- 8.35

(12.75)

-- 15.25

(23.28)

50.25

(76.72)

Bajra 487.36 518 3.20

(0.66)

-- -- 68.61

(14.08)

10.60

(2.17)

71.25

(14.62)

-- 153.66

(31.53)

333.70

(68.47)

Maize 240.33 434 1.25

(0.52)

-- -- 33.11

(13.78)

1.00

(0.42)

55.60

(23.13)

-- 90.96

(37.85)

149.37

(62.15)

Wheat 11625.35 470.94 490.42

(4.22)

-- 56.50

(0.48)

3540.41

(30.45)

660.27

(5.68)

693.64

(5.97)

-- 5441.24

(46.80)

6184.11

(53.20)

Barley 505.16 23.91 25.99

(5.14)

-- -- 19.70

(3.90)

50.95

(10.09)

98.37

(19.47)

-- 195.01

(38.60)

310.15

(61.40)

Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage of production.

Table IV 8-A Consumption of Feed-Fed Cows and Buffaloes of G.B. Nagar District

(Qty= Qtl.)

Feed Cows Buffaloes Bullocks Calves He Buffaloes

Dry Milch Total Dry Milch Total No. Qty No. Qty No Qty

No Qty No Qty No Qty No Qty No Qty No Qty

Small Green Fodder 18 178

(2.709)

45 545

(3.318)

63 723

(3.144)

107 1647

(4.217)

311 4038

(3.57)

418 5685

(3.726)

17 160

(2.578)

236 372

(0.432)

34 536

(4.319)

Straw 166

(2.526)

539

(3.282)

705

(3.066)

1783

(4.565)

6363

(5.605)

8146

(5.339)

238

(3.836)

289

(0.336)

501

(4.037)

Hay 27

(0.4109)

172

(1.047)

199

(0.865)

121

(0.310)

415

(0.366)

536

(0.351)

19

(0.306)

33

(0.038)

73

(0.588)

Concentrate 7

(0.1067)

129

(0.785)

136

(0.591)

255

(0.653)

1430

(1.260)

1685

(1.104)

18

(0.290)

85

(0.098)

38

(0.306)

Medium Green Fodder 17 124

(1.998)

37 332

(2.458)

54 456

(2.314)

106 1377

(3.559)

177 2563

(3.967)

283 3940

(3.814)

16 290

(4.966)

91 102

(0.307)

14 136

(2.661)

Straw 234

(3.771

436

(3.228)

670

(3.399)

1860

(4.807)

4011

(6.208)

5871

(5.684)

214

(3.664)

130

(0.391)

297

(5.812)

Hay 12

(0.193)

46

(0.341)

58

(0.294)

145

(0.375)

183

(0.283)

328

(0.318)

22

(0.377)

15

(0.045)

23

(0.450)

Concentrate 22

(0.355)

60

(0.444)

82

(0.416)

282

(0.729)

740

(1.145)

1022

(0.989)

18

(0.308)

27

(0.081)

20

(0.391)

Large Green Fodder 6 41

(1.872)

15 160

(2.922)

21 201

(2.622)

48 535

(3.054)

88 1377

(4.287)

136 1912

(3.852)

4 63

(4.315)

63 110

(0.478)

20 278

(3.808)

Straw 68

(3.105)

224

(4.091)

292

(3.810)

872

(4.977)

1770

(5.511)

2642

(5.322)

41

(2.808)

79

(0.343)

290

(3.973)

Continued

Continued

Hay 8

(0.365)

40

(0.731)

48

(0.626)

111

(0.634)

244

(0.760)

355

(0.715)

14

(0.959)

46

(0.200)

39

(0.534)

Concentrate 9

(0.411)

37

(0.676)

46

(0.600)

113

(0.645)

425

(1.323)

538

(1.084)

3

(0.205)

25

(0.109)

21

(0.288)

All Green Fodder 41 343

(2.292)

97 1037

(2.929)

138 1380

(2.740)

261 3559

(3.736)

576 7978

(3.795)

837 11537

(3.776)

37 513

(3.799)

390 584

(0.410)

68 950

(3.827)

Straw 468

(3.127)

1199

(3.387)

1667

(3.310)

4515

(4.739)

12144

(5.776)

16659

(5.453)

493

(3.650)

498

(0.349)

1088

(4.384)

Hay 47

(0.314)

258

(0.729)

305

(0.606)

377

(0.396)

842

(0.400)

1219

(0.399)

55

(0.407)

94

(0.066)

135

(0.544)

Concentrate 38

(0.254)

226

(0.638)

264

(0.524)

650

(0.682)

2595

(1.234)

3245

(1.062)

39

(0.289)

137

(0.096)

79

(0.318)

Note:- Figures in brackets are per day per animal consumption in Kg.

Table IV 8-B Food grain (Home produced) Consumed as Feed by Live Stock (G.B. Nagar District)

Crops Name of

Animals

In Milk Dry Total

(kg)

Total nos of animal

/Consumption of Crop/Animal

(Kg) No. Qtly (Kg) No. Qtly (Kg)

Cow 97 - 41 - - 138

Jowar

Bajra 700 200 900 6.523

Maize 800 325 1125 8.152

Wheat 8500 500 9000 65.522

Barley 500 200 700 5.0725

Paddy - - - -

Buffalo 576 261 837

Jowar 675 160 835 0.998

Bajra 4500 1500 6000 7.168

Maize 3435 1000 4435 5.299

Wheat 40339 17575 57914 69.192

Barley 5557 1443 7000 8.363

Paddy - - - -

Bullock 37 37

Jowar - - -

Bajra - - -

Maize - - -

Wheat 875 875 23.649

Barley 153 1536 41.351

Paddy - - -

Calves 390 390

Jowar - -

Bajra 100 100 0.256

Maize -

Wheat 900 900 2.308

Barley 350 350 0.897

Paddy 200 200 0.513

He Buffalo 68 68

Jowar

Bajra 125 125 1.838

Maize - - -

Wheat 675 675 9.926

Barley 251 251 3.691

Table IV-12:- Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in production of Cereals in G.B. Nagar District

Sl.

No

Size of

holding

Crops Area (ha) Production

(kg)

Seed used Seed kept Used as Feed Wastage

Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) %

1 Small Paddy 36.199 108835 661 0.61 773 0.71 -- -- 1120 1.03

2 Jowar 0.622 650 12 1.86 10 1.54 125 19.23 19 2.92

3 Bajra 15.878 13571 143 1.05 115 0.85 2200 16.21 310 2.28

4 Maize 4.847 5447 75 1.37 10 0.18 250 4.59 74 1.36

5 Wheat 98.683 315485 12376 3.92 13142 4.17 21340 6.76 6287 1.99

6 Barley 1.060 2545 91 3.58 95 3.73 1075 42.24 49 1.93

1 Medium Paddy 63.864 188878 1149 0.61 1040 0.55 200 0.10 1820 0.96

2 Jowar 0.169 100 3 3.00 -- -- 100 100 -- --

3 Bajra 12.472 13431 134 0.99 75 0.56 2040 15.19 539 4.01

4 Maize 7.021 9420 168 1.78 45 0.48 4870 51.70 151 1.60

5 Wheat 143.020 452070 18193 4.02 19650 4.35 30545 6.76 9339 2.06

6 Barley 6.799 17571 888 5.05 884 5.03 4912 27.95 424 2.41

1 Large Paddy 55.197 135155 1002 0.74 790 0.58 -- -- 1416 1.05

2 Jowar 6.940 5800 100 1.72 - -- 610 10.52 98 1.68

3 Bajra 21.238 21734 241 1.10 130 0.59 2885 13.27 528 2.43

4 Maize 8.375 9166 191 2.08 70 0.76 440 4.80 117 1.28

5 Wheat 131.739 394980 16525 4.18 16250 4.11 17479 4.43 7772 1.97

6 Barley 13.041 30400 1412 4.64 1620 5.33 3850 12.66 835 2.75

1 All Paddy 155.260 432868 2812 0.64 2603 0.60 200 0.05 4356 1.01

2 Jowar 7.771 6550 115 1.76 10 0.15 835 12.75 117 1.78

3 Bajra 49.588 48736 518 1.06 320 0.65 7125 14.62 1377 2.83

4 Maize 20.243 24033 434 1.80 125 0.52 5560 23.13 342 1.42

5 Whe

at

373.442 1162535 47094 4.05 49042 4.22 69364 5.97 23398 2.01

6 Barley 20.900 50516 2391 4.73 2599 5.14 9837 19.47 1308 2.58

Table IV-13:- Crop-wise percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in production of Cereals in

G.B. Nagar District

Sl.

No.

Crops

1

Area (ha)

2 Production

(kg)

3

Seed used

4

Seed kept

5

Used as feed

6

Wastage

7

Consumption as

seed, feed and

wastage (kg)

8

Qty (kg) % Qty

(kg)

% Qty

(kg)

% Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) %

1 Paddy 155.260 432868 2812 0.64 2603 0.60 200 0.05 4356 1.01 7159 1.65

2 Jowar 7.771 6550 115 1.76 10 0.15 835 12.75 117 1.79 962 14.69

3 Bajra 49.588 48736 518 1.06 320 0.65 7125 14.62 1377 2.83 8822 18.10

4 Maize 20.243 24033 434 1.80 125 0.52 5560 23.13 342 1.42 6027 25.07

5 Wheat 373.442 1162535 47094 4.05 49042 4.22 69364 5.97 23398 2.01 141804 12.20

6 Barley 20.900 50516 2391 4.73 2599 5.14 9837 19.47 1308 2.58 13738 27.19

Table –V-7 -Production and Disposal of Foodgrains in Hamirpur District

Quantity in Qtls

Size of

holding

Crops Total

production

(qtls./ Hect)

Previous

years seed

used

Kept for

seed for

next time

Exchange

as seed Sold for

seed

Home

consumption Kind to

wages to

labour

Used as

animal

feed

Total Make

table

surplus

Small Urd 82.94 2.05

(2.46)

3.55

(4.28)

-- -- 24.86

(29.97)

0.76

(0.92)

0.30

(0.36)

29.47

(35.53)

53.47

(64.47)

Moong 17.25 0.74

(4.29)

0.68

(3.94)

-- -- 4.44

(25.74)

-- -- 5.12

(29.68)

12.13

(70.32)

Arhar 102.95 2.40

(2.33)

3.15

(3.06)

-- -- 23.10

(22.44)

1.78

(1.73)

0.02

(0.02)

28.05

(27.25)

74.90

(72.75)

Gram 342.95 35.96

(10.49)

38.79

(11.31)

-- 2.70

(0.79)

64.01

(18.37)

8.75

(2.55)

3.43

(1.00)

116.68

(34.02)

226.27

(65.98)

Pea 140.10 10.38

(7.41)

14.25

(10.17)

-- 7.50

(5.35)

13.45

(9.60)

3.05

(2.18)

-- 38.25

(27.30)

101.85

(72.70)

Masoor 87.20 4.30

(4.93)

6.22

(7.13)

-- 5.00

(5.74)

10.25

(11.75)

2.70

(3.10)

-- 24.17

(27.72)

63.03

(72.28)

Total 773.39 55.85

(4.22)

66.64

(8.62)

-- 15.20

(1.97)

139.11

(17.99)

17.04

(2.20)

3.75

(0.48)

241.74

(31.26)

531.65

(68.74)

Medium Urd 220.05 9.54

(4.34)

7.23

(3.28)

-- -- 37.57

(17.07)

4.85

(2.21)

0.53

(0.24)

50.18

(22.80)

169.87

(77.20)

Moong 71.27 2.15

(3.02)

2.19

(3.07)

-- 1.00

(1.41)

13.80

(19.36)

3.30

(4.63)

0.50

(0.70)

20.79

(29.17)

50.48

(70.83)

Arhar 414.85 7.45

(1.80)

12.96

(3.12)

-- 1.10

(0.27)

56.22

(13.55)

15.65

(3.77)

0.30

(0.07)

86.23

(20.78)

328.62

(79.22)

Gram 685.40 71.94

(10.50)

81.40

(11.88)

-- 12.00

(1.75)

59.70

(8.71)

30.43

(4.44)

5.35

(0.78)

188.88

(27.56)

496.52

(72.44)

Pea 665.10 45.70

(6.87)

53.40

(8.03)

-- 20.50

(3.08)

21.94

(3.30)

32.75

(4.93)

2.55

(0.38)

131.14

(19.72)

533.96

(80.28)

Masoor 542.50 26.48

(4.88)

32.12

(5.92)

-- 15.33

(2.83)

28.85

(5.32)

16.30

(3.00)

-- 92.60

(17.07)

449.90

(82.93)

Total 2599.17 163.26

(6.28)

189.30

(7.28)

-- 47.93

(1.85)

218.08

(8.39)

103.28

(3.97)

9.23

(0.36)

567.82

(21.85)

2031.35

(78.15)

Large Urd 394.20 10.87

(2.76)

12.77

(3.24)

-- -- 42.20

(10.71)

8.81

(2.23)

2.00

(0.51)

65.78

(16.69)

328.42

(83.31)

Moong 93.97 2.93

(3.12)

4.12

(4.38)

-- -- 17.95

(19.10)

3.90

(4.15)

0.45

(0.48)

26.42

(28.11)

67.55

(71.89)

Arhar 631.40 13.81

(2.19)

20.91

(3.31)

-- 1.40

(0.22)

81.18

(12.86)

35.50

(5.62)

2.75

(0.44)

141.74

(22.45)

489.66

(77.55)

Gram 1212.90 124.88 139.11 -- 2.50 74.84 70.25 15.05 301.75 911.15

(10.30) (11.47) (0.21) (6.17) (5.79) (1.24) (24.88) (75.12)

Pea 1318.30 136.09

(10.32)

99.70

(7.56)

-- 31.50

(2.39)

25.49

(1.94)

80.95

(6.14)

2.40

(0.18)

240.04

(18.21)

1078.26

(81.79)

Masoor 1170.40 65.72

(5.62)

76.87

(6.57)

-- 46.00

(3.93)

74.15

(6.33)

71.70

(6.13)

0.50

(0.04)

269.22

(23.00)

901.18

(77.00)

Total 4821.17 354.30

(7.35)

353.48

(7.33)

-- 81.40

(1.69)

315.81

(6.55)

271.11

(5.62)

23.15

(0.48)

1044.95

(21.67)

3776.22

(78.33)

All Urd 697.19 22.46

(3.22)

23.55

(3.38)

-- -- 104.63

(15.01)

14.42

(2.07)

2.83

(0.40)

145.43

(20.86)

551.76

(79.14)

Moong 182.49 5.82

(3.19)

6.99

(3.83)

-- 1.00

(0.55)

36.19

(19.83)

7.20

(3.94)

0.95

(0.52)

52.33

(28.67)

130.16

(71.33)

Arhar 1149.20 23.66

(2.06)

37.02

(3.22)

-- 2.50

(0.22)

160.50

(13.97)

52.93

(4.60)

3.07

(0.27)

256.02

(22.28)

893.18

(77.72)

Gram 2241.25 232.78

(10.39)

259.30

(11.57)

-- 17.20

(0.77)

197.55

(8.81)

109.43

(4.88)

23.83

(1.07)

607.31

(27.10)

1633.94

(72.90)

Pea 2123.50 192.17

(9.05)

167.35

(7.88)

-- 59.50

(2.80)

60.88

(2.87)

116.75

(5.50)

4.95

(0.23)

409.43

(19.28)

1714.07

(80.72)

Masoor 1800.10 96.50

(5.36)

115.21

(6.40)

-- 66.33

(3.68)

113.25

(6.29)

90.70

(5.04)

0.50

(0.03)

385.99

(21.44)

1414.11

(78.56)

Total 8193.73 573.39

(7.00)

609.42

(7.44)

-- 146.53

(1.79)

673.00

(8.21)

391.43

(4.78)

36.13

(0.44)

1856.51

(22.66)

6337.22

(77.34)

Note: Figures in brackets are percentage of production

Table-V-8-B:- Pulses (Home Produced) Consumed as Feed by Live Stock (Hamirpur District)

Crops Name of

Animals

In Milk Dry Total Consumption of

Crop/Animal (kg) No. Qtly (Kg) No. Qtly (Kg) Cow 121 74 195

Urd 40 20 60 0.31

Moong 20 2 22 0.11

Arhar 50 25 75 0.38

Gram 100 40 140 0.72

Pea 170 - 170 0.87

Masoor -

Buffalo 285 129 414

Urd 200 23 223 0.54

Moong 73 -- 73 0.18

Arhar 100 50 150 0.36

Gram 2000 100 2100 5.07

Pea 275 50 325 0.79

Masoor 50 -- 50 0.12

Bullock 156 156

Urd

Moong

Arhar 40 40 0.26

Gram 100 100 0.64

Pea

Masoor

Calves 359 359

Urd

Moong

Arhar 40 40 0.11

Gram 40 40 0.11

Pea

Masoor

He Buffalo 2 2

Urd

Moong

Arhar 2 2 1.00

Gram 3 3 1.50

Pea

Masoor

Table -V-11 Wastage of Pulses at different harvest and post harvest stage in Hamirpur District

-80-

Size of

Holding

Crops

Wastage (Kg)

Production

Kg

Harvesti

ng

Threshing

&

Shattered

Straw Transport

ation

Storage Home

consump

tion

Left in

Animal/

poultry feed

Total

Small Urd 8294 62

(0.75)

74

(0.89)

23

(0.28)

42

(0.51)

54

(0.65)

106

(1.28)

1

(0.01)

362

(4.37)

Moong 1725 16

(0.93)

22

(1.27)

5

(0.29)

11

(0.64)

9

(0.52)

16

(0.93)

-- 79

(4.58)

Arhar 10295 96

(0.93)

66

(0.64)

18

(0.17)

39

(0.38)

70

(0.68)

47

(0.46)

-- 336

(3.26)

Gram 34295 463

(1.35)

323

(0.94)

82

(0.24)

131

(0.38)

192

(0.56)

159

(0.46)

8

(0.02)

1358

(3.95)

Pea 14010 205

(1.46)

60

(0.43)

65

(0.46)

56

(0.40)

74

(0.53)

49

(0.35)

-- 509

(3.63)

Masoor 8720 135

(1.55)

98

(1.12)

48

(0.55)

39

(0.44)

75

(0.86)

38

(0.44)

-- 433

(4.96)

Total 77339 977

(1.26)

643

(0.83)

241

(0.31)

318

(0.41)

474

(0.61)

415

(0.54)

9

(0.01)

3077

(3.97)

Medium Urd 22005 125

(0.57)

131

(0.60)

37

(0.16)

69

(0.31)

112

(0.51)

121

(0.55)

6

(0.03)

601

(2.73)

Moong 7127 50

(0.70)

52

(0.73)

14

(0.20)

19

(0.27)

39

(0.55)

48

(0.67)

3

(0.04)

225

(3.16)

Arhar 41485 378

(0.91)

269

(0.65)

67

(0.16)

129

(0.31)

175

(0.42)

181

(0.43)

1

(0.01)

1200

(2.89)

Gram 68540 879

(1.28)

545

(0.80)

186

(0.27)

211

(0.31)

325

(0.47)

246

(0.36)

11

(0.02)

2403

(3.51)

Pea 66510 737

(1.11)

434

(0.65)

112

(0.17)

172

(0.26)

255

(0.38)

126

(0.19)

4

(0.01)

1840

(2.77)

Masoor 54250 725

(1.34)

370

(0.68)

105

(0.19)

320

(0.59)

251

(0.46)

87

(0.16)

-- 1858

(3.42)

Total 259917 2894

(1.11)

1801

(0.69)

521

(0.20)

920

(0.36)

1157

(0.45)

809

(0.31)

25

(0.01)

8127

(3.13)

Large Urd 39420 268

(0.68)

216

(0.55)

70

(0.18)

126

(0.32)

237

(0.60)

152

(0.38)

6

(0.02)

1075

(2.73)

Moong 9397 102

(1.09)

95

(1.01)

35

(0.37)

49

(0.52)

82

(0.87)

50

(0.53)

1

(0.01)

414

(4.40)

Arhar 63140 610

(0.97)

400

(0.63)

116

(0.18)

200

(0.32)

296

(0.46)

225

(0.36)

4

(0.01)

1851

(2.93)

Gram 121290 1373

(1.13)

836

(0.69)

240

(0.20)

433

(0.36)

500

(0.41)

341

(0.28)

21

(0.02)

3744

(3.09)

Pea 131830 1250 557 166 328 346 276 2 2925

(0.95) (0.42) (0.13) (0.24) (0.26) (0.21) (0.01) (2.22)

Masoor 117040 515

(0.44)

923

(0.78)

235

(0.20)

463

(0.40)

465

(0.40)

241

(0.20)

-- 2842

(2.43)

Total 472117 4118

(0.87)

3027

(0.64)

862

(0.18)

1599

(0.34)

1926

(0.41)

1285

(0.27)

34

(0.01)

12851

(2.72)

All Urd 69719 455

(0.65)

421

(0.60)

130

(0.19)

237

(0.34)

403

(0.58)

379

(0.54)

13

(0.02)

2038

(2.92)

Moong 18249 168

(0.92)

169

(0.93)

54

(0.30)

79

(0.43)

130

(0.71)

114

(0.62)

4

(0.02)

718

(3.93)

Arhar 114920 1084

(0.94)

735

(0.64)

201

(0.17)

368

(0.32)

541

(0.47)

453

(0.40)

5

(0.01)

3387

(2.95)

Gram 224125 2715

(1.21)

1704

(0.76)

508

(0.23)

775

(0.35)

1017

(0.45)

746

(0.33)

40

(0.02)

7505

(3.35)

Pea 212350 2192

(1.03)

1051

(0.49)

343

(0.16)

556

(0.26)

675

(0.32)

451

(0.21)

6

(0.01)

5274

(2.48)

Masoor 180010 1375

(0.76)

1391

(0.77)

388

(0.22)

822

(0.46)

791

(0.44)

366

(0.20)

-- 5133

(2.85)

Total 819373 7989

(0.97)

5471

(0.67)

1624

(0.20)

2837

(0.35)

3557

(0.43)

2509

(0.31)

68

(0.01)

24055

(2.94)

Note: Figures in brackets are percentage of production

Table-V-12 Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in production of pulses in Hamirpur District

Size of

Holding

Crops Area (ha) Production

(kg)

Seed used Seed kept Used as Feed Wastage

Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) %

Small Urd 9.038 8294 205 2.47 355 4.28 30 0.36 362 4.37

Moong 4.058 1725 74 4.29 68 3.94 - - 79 4.58

Arhar 10.225 10295 240 2.33 315 3.06 2 0.02 336 3.26

Gram 37.041 34295 3596 10.49 3879 11.31 343 1.00 1358 3.95

Pea 9.330 14010 1038 7.39 1425 10.17 - - 509 3.63

Masoor 7.284 8720 430 4.93 622 7.13 - - 433 4.96

Medium Urd 46.588 22005 954 4.34 723 3.28 53 0.24 601 2.73

Moong 10.865 7127 215 3.02 219 3.07 50 0.70 225 3.16

Arhar 33.889 41485 745 1.80 1296 3.12 30 0.07 1200 2.89

Gram 66.223 68540 7194 10.50 8140 11.88 535 0.78 2403 3.51

Pea 39.516 66510 4570 6.87 5340 8.03 255 0.38 1840 2.77

Masoor 42.641 54250 2648 4.88 3212 5.92 - - 1858 3.42

Large Urd 92.290 39420 1087 2.76 1277 3.24 200 0.51 1075 2.73

Moong 20.150 9397 293 3.12 412 4.38 45 0.48 414 4.40

Arhar 57.253 63140 1381 2.19 2091 3.31 275 0.43 1851 2.93

Gram 116.096 121290 12488 10.30 13911 11.47 1505 1.24 3744 3.09

Pea 83.178 131830 13609 10.32 9970 7.56 240 0.18 2925 2.22

Masoor 105.312 117040 6572 5.62 7687 6.57 50 0.04 2842 2.43

All Urd 147.916 69719 2246 3.22 2355 3.38 283 0.41 2038 2.92

Moong 35.073 18249 582 3.19 699 3.83 95 0.52 718 3.93

Arhar 101.367 114920 2366 2.06 3702 3.22 307 0.27 3387 2.95

Gram 219.360 224125 23278 10.39 25930 11.57 2383 1.06 7505 3.35

Pea 132.024 212350 19217 9.05 16735 7.88 495 0.23 5274 2.48

Masoor 155.237 180010 5650 5.36 11521 6.40 50 0.03 5133 2.85

Table-V-13

Crop-wise Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in production of Pulses in Hamirpur District

Sl.

No.

Crops Area

(ha.) Production

(kg)

Seed used Seed kept Used as Feed Wastage Consumption as

seed, feed and

wastage (Kg)

Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) %

1 Urd 147.916 69719 2246 3.22 2355 3.38 283 0.41 2038 2.92 4676 6.71

2 Moong 35.073 18249 582 3.19 699 3.83 95 0.52 718 3.93 1512 8.28

3 Arhar 101.367 114920 2366 2.06 3702 3.22 307 0.27 3387 2.95 7396 6.44

4 Gram 219.360 224125 23278 10.39 25930 11.57 2383 1.06 7505 3.35 35818 15.98

5 Pea 132.024 212350 19217 9.05 16735 7.88 495 0.23 5274 2.48 22504 10.60

6 Masoor 155.237 180010 5650 5.36 11521 6.40 50 0.03 5133 2.85 16704 9.28

Annexure -1

Details of land utilization and population of sample farmers of G.B. Nagar District (Wheat)

Size of

Holdings

Land Utilization in Hectare Number of Members Caste (Nos.)

Area owned Area

cultivated

Gross

Cropped

Area

Children Adults Total OBC SC/ST Others Total

Small 115.525 114.677 243.354 666 813 1479 109 27 59 195

Medium 184.556 179.338 344.030 380 504 884 38 1 32 71

Large 189.016 179.955 313.513 186 256 442 19 -- 15 34

All 489.097 473.970 900.897 1232 1573 2805 166 28 106 300

Annexure -2

Details of land utilization and population of sample farmers of Hamirpur District

Size of

Holdings

Land Utilization in Hectare Number of Members Caste (Nos.)

Area owned Area

cultivated

Gross

Cropped

Area

Children Adults Total OBC SC/ST Others Total

Small 92.049 91.197 118.128 228 406 634 59 22 19 100

Medium 281.330 288.161 380.215 360 463 823 63 13 24 100

Large 582.003 573.425 727.749 363 578 941 60 1 39 100

All 955.382 952.783 1226.092 951 1447 2398 182 36 82 300

Table- V-8-A Consumption of Feed-Fed Cows and Buffaloes of Hamirpur District in (U.P.)

(Qty= Qtl.)

Feed Cows Buffaloes Bullocks He Buffaloes

Dry Milch Total Calves Dry Milch Total Calves No. Qty No Qty

No Qty No Qty No. Qty No. Qty No Qty No Qty No Qty No Qty

Small Green Fodder 23 49

(0.58)

29 102

(0.96)

52 151

(0.80)

30 27.10

(0.25)

30 101

(0.92)

76 287

(1.03)

106 388

(1.00)

52 117.28

(0.62)

39 156

(1.10)

1 3

(0.82)

Straw 208

(2.48)

443

(4.19)

651

(3.43)

86.5

(0.79)

554

(5.06)

1125

(4.06)

1679

(4.34)

96.95

(0.51)

575

(4.04)

14

(3.84)

Hay 11

(0.13)

51

(0.48)

62

(0.33)

11.61

(0.11)

37

(0.34)

100

(0.36)

137

(0.35)

21.41

(0.11)

42

(0.30)

-

Concentrate 28

(0.33)

45

(0.43)

73

(0.38)

7.38

(0.07)

43

(0.39)

149

(0.53)

192

(0.50)

11.89

(0.06)

38

(0.27)

1.50

(0.41)

Medium Green Fodder 29 54

(0.51)

46 172

(1.02)

75 226

(0.83)

44 36.82

(0.23)

36 132

(1.00)

75 438

(1.60)

111 570

(1.41)

80 109.50

(0.38)

66 248

(1.03)

1 4

(1.10)

Straw 293

(2.77)

591

(3.52)

884

(3.23)

137.37

(0.86)

610

(4.64)

1514

(5.53)

2124

(5.24)

311.42

(1.07)

1031

(4.28)

15

(4.11)

Hay 24

(0.23)

41

(0.24)

65

(0.24)

15.53

(0.10)

127

(0.97)

92

(0.34)

219

(0.54)

39.11

(0.13)

103

(0.43)

2

(0.55)

Concentrate 16

(0.15)

61

(0.36)

77

(0.28)

5.35

(0.03)

45

(0.34)

187

(0.68)

232

(0.57)

28.95

(0.10)

72

(0.30)

1.50

(0.41)

Large Green Fodder 22 73

(0.91)

46 159

(0.95)

68 232

(0.93)

41 28.38

(0.19)

63 277

(1.20)

134 645

(1.32)

197 922

(1.28)

112 108.92

(0.27)

51 208

(1.12)

Straw 274

(3.41)

694

(4.13)

968

(3.90)

105.69

(0.71)

1110

(4.83)

2612

(5.34)

3722

(5.18)

366.07

(0.90)

854

(4.59)

Hay 21

(0.26)

67

(0.40)

88

(0.35)

8.15

(0.05)

98

(0.43)

316

(0.65)

414

(0.58)

38.30

(0.10)

84

(0.45)

Concentrate 23

(0.29)

87

(0.52)

110

(0.44)

7.98

(0.05)

108

(0.47)

389

(0.80)

497

(0.69)

39.97

(0.10)

62

(0.33)

-78-

All Green Fodder 74 176

(0.65)

121 433

(0.98)

195 609

(0.85)

115 92.30

(0.22)

129 510

(1.08)

285 1370

(1.32)

414 1880

(1.24)

244 335.70

(0.38)

156 612

(1.07)

2 7

(0.96)

Straw 775

(2.87)

1728

(3.91)

2503

(3.52)

329.56

(0.78)

2274

(4.83)

5251

(5.05)

7525

(4.98)

774.44

(0.87)

2460

(4.32)

29

(3.97)

Hay 56

(0.21)

159

(0.36)

215

(0.30)

35.29

(0.08)

262

(0.56)

508

(0.49)

770

(0.51)

98.82

(0.11)

229

(0.41)

2

(0.27)

Concentrate 67

(0.25)

193

(0.44)

260

(0.37)

20.71

(0.05)

196

(0.42)

725

(0.70)

921

(0.61)

80.81

(0.09)

172

(0.30)

3

(0.41)

Note:- Figures in brackets are per day per animal consumption in Kg.

Table- V-8-A Consumption of Feed-Fed Cows and Buffaloes of G.B. Nagar District in (U.P.)

(Qty= Qtl.)

Feed Cows Buffaloes Bullocks He Buffaloes

Dry Milch Total Calves Dry Milch Total Calves No. Qty No Qty

No Qty No Qty No. Qty No. Qty No Qty No Qty No Qty No Qty

Small Green Fodder 18 178

(2.71)

61 614

(2.76)

79 792

(2.75) 31 44.37

(0.39)

107 1647

(4.22)

324 5060

(4.28)

431 6707

(4.26)

183 339.11

(0.51)

24 271

(3.09)

34 377

(3.04)

Straw 166

(2.53)

563

(2.53)

729

(2.53) 41.26

(0.36)

1783

(4.56)

5036

(4.26)

6819

(4.33)

271.37

(0.41)

303

(3.46)

429

(3.46)

Hay 27

(0.41)

66

(0.30)

93

(0.32) 16.46

(0.15)

121

(0.31)

415

(0.35)

536

(0.34)

36.85

(0.06)

22

(0.25)

73

(0.59)

Concentrate 7

(0.11)

111

(0.50)

118

(0.41) 9.19

(0.08)

257

(0.66)

1428

(1.21)

1685

(1.07)

82.12

(0.12)

30

(0.34)

38

(0.31)

Medium Green Fodder 17 237

(3.82)

37 383

(2.84)

54 620

(3.15)

25 35.64

(0.39)

106 1411

(3.65)

177 2941

(4.55)

283 4352

(4.21)

93 159.89

(0.47)

16 290

(4.97)

22 328

(4.08)

Straw 291

(4.69)

505

(3.74)

796

(4.04)

25.90

(0.28)

2206

(5.70)

3698

(5.72)

5904

(5.72)

151.72

(0.45)

240

(4.11)

342

(4.26)

Hay 16

(0.26)

38

(0.28)

54

(0.27)

2.50

(0.03)

194

(0.50)

272

(0.42)

466

(0.45)

18.00

(0.05)

22

(0.38)

36

(0.45)

Concentrate 30

(0.48)

96

(0.71)

126

(0.64)

8.82

(0.10)

274

(0.71)

1003

(1.55)

1277

(1.24)

46.06

(0.14)

18

(0.31)

54

(0.67)

Large Green Fodder 6 41

(1.87)

15 160

(2.92)

21 201

(2.62)

15 17.35

(32)

48 535

(3.05)

88 1377

(4.29)

136 1912

(3.85)

77 99.12

(0.35)

4 63

(4.32)

20 278

(3.81)

Straw 86

(3.11)

206

(3.76)

292

(3.81)

12.47

(0.23)

872

(4.98)

1770

(5.51)

2642

(5.32)

72.62

(0.26)

41

(2.81)

290

(3.97)

Hay 8

(0.37)

40

(0.73)

48

(0.63)

6.10

(0.11)

111

(0.63)

244

(0.76)

355

(0.72)

42.32

(0.15)

14

(0.96)

39

(0.53)

Concentrate 9

(0.41)

37

(0.68)

46

(0.60)

4.67

(0.09)

113

(0.65)

425

(1.32)

538

(1.08)

21.81

(0.08)

3

(0.21)

21

(0.29)

CONTINUE-50-

All Green Fodder 41 456

(3.05)

113 1157

(2.81)

154 1613

(2.87)

71 97.36

(0.38)

261 3593

(3.77)

589 9378

(4.36)

850 12971

(4.18)

353 598.12

(0.46)

44 624

(3.88)

76 983

(3.54)

Straw 543

(3.63)

1274

(3.09)

1817

(3.23)

79.63

(0.31)

4861

(5.10)

10504

(4.88)

15365

(4.95)

495.71

(0.38)

584

(3.64)

1061

(3.82)

Hay 51

(0.34)

144

(0.35)

195

(0.35)

25.06

(0.10)

426

(0.45)

931

(0.43)

1357

(0.44)

97.17

(0.08)

58

(0.36)

148

(0.53)

Concentrate 46

(0.31)

244

(0.59)

290

(0.52)

22.68

(0.09)

644

(0.68)

2856

(1.33)

3500

(1.13)

149.99

(0.12)

51

(0.32)

113

(0.41)

Note:- Figures in brackets are per day per animal consumption in Kg.

-51-

CONTINUED

Table I-3

Net Availability of Cereals and Pulses Years Population

(000)

Cereals (MT) Pulses (MT) Per Capita Net Availability (Kg) Production Net

Availability

Production Net

Availability

Cereals Pulses Food Grains

1970-71 8,92,56 1,63,97,890 1,44,30,143 30,69,258 26,85,601 161.67 30.09 191.76

1971-72 9,11,08 1,47,53,443 1,29,09,263 29,19,906 25,54,918 141.69 28.09 169.78

1992-73 9,30,49 1,82,10,200 1,59,33,925 29,22,307 25,57,019 171.24 27.48 198.72

1973-74 9,50,85 1,37,13,899 1,19,99,662 18,49,564 16,18,444 126.20 17.02 143.22

1974-75 9,72,22 1,41,42,913 1,23,75,049 21,84,887 19,11,776 127.29 19.66 146.95

1975-76 9,94,69 1,67,99,088 1,46,99,202 26,56,722 23,24,632 147.78 23.37 171.15

1976-77 10,18,31 1,72,79,704 1,51,19,741 26,28,806 23,00,205 148.48 22.59 171.07

1977-78 10,43,19 1,88,13,971 1,64,62,225 24,20,892 21,18,280 157.81 20.31 178.12

1978-79 10,69,41 2,07,43,113 1,81,50,224 23,64,615 20,69,038 169.72 19.35 189.07

1979-80 10,97,07 1,48,83,350 1,30,22,931 15,55,693 13,60,231 118.71 12.40 131.11

1980-81 11,24,00 2,24,21,452 1,96,18,770 25,26,430 22,10,626 174.54 19.67 194.21

1981-82 11,50,82 2,20,25,976 1,92,72,729 22,67,754 19,84,285 167.47 17.24 184.71

1982-83 11,78,17 2,39,42,158 2,09,49,388 25,56,666 22,37,083 177.81 18.99 196.80

1983-84 12,05,98 2,67,00,668 2,33,63,084 24,98,826 21,86,473 193.73 18.13 211.86

1984-85 12,34,20 2,72,13,182 2,38,11,534 27,05,029 23,66,900 192.93 19.18 212.11

1985-86 12,62,77 2,85,94,857 2,50,20,500 28,31,609 24,77,658 198.14 19.62 217.76

1986-87 12,91,60 2,76,34,097 2,41,79,835 25,65,713 22,44,999 187.21 17.38 204.59

1987-88 13,20,63 2,63,34,192 2,30,42,418 23,61,793 20,66,569 174.48 15.65 190.13

1988-89 13,49,76 3,27,72,573 2,86,76,001 26,62,642 23,29,812 212.45 17.26 229.71

1989-90 13,78,91 3,13,76,335 2,74,54,293 24,12,726 21,11,135 199.10 15.31 214.41

1990-91 14,05,94 3,27,44,380 2,87,05,332 27,71,809 24,25,333 204.17 17.25 221.42

1991-92 14,31,44 4,34,77,655 3,80,42,948 25,74,734 22,52,892 265.77 15.74 281.51

1992-93 14,56,91 3,37,25,969 2,95,10,223 25,23,372 22,07,950 202.55 15.16 217.71

1993-94 14,82,28 3,46,94,537 3,03,57,720 25,15,852 22,01,370 204.80 14.85 219.65

1994-95 15,07,44 3,68,96,177 3,22,84,155 24,79,163 21,69,268 214.17 14.39 228.56

1995-96 15,32,40 3,61,66,081 3,16,45,321 21,88,331 19,14,790 206.51 12.50 219.01

1996-97 15,57,23 3,97,61,087 3,47,90,951 26,17,001 22,89,876 223.42 14.70 238.12

1997-98 15,81,95 3,97,75,340 3,44,53,422 23,08,661 20,20,078 217.79 12.77 230.56

1998-99 16,82,89 3,81,04,230 3,33,41,201 23,27,024 20,36,146 198.12 12.10 210.22

1999-00 17,17,03 4,34,77,655 3,80,42,948 25,74,734 22,52,767 221.56 13.12 234.68

2000-01 17,52,71 4,05,75,547 3,55,03,604 21,60,356 18,90,311 202.56 10.79 213.35

2001-02 17,52,71 4,08,44,122 3,57,38,607 23,61,350 20,66,356 203.90 11.79 215.69

Note:- Net Production has been taken as 87.5 per cent of gross production 12.5 per cent being provided for feed, seed requirements and wastages.

Table-II-2

Density of Area under Wheat and Gram in G.B. Nagar and Hamirpur District.

Name of

the

Districts

Area in (Hect.)

Wheat Gram

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Total for

3 years

Average % of

G.C. 1999-

00

2000-

01

2001-

02

Total for

3 years Average % of

G.C.

G.B.

Nagar

74396 77919 85012 237327 79109 4826

Hamirpur - - - - - - 84685 93974 109590 288249 96083 2756

U.P. 9113970 9239311 9081035 27434316 9144751 36.16 820923 833007 862985 2516915 838972 3.32

Table II-7:- Proportional Share of Area Under Different Crops of Selected Villages of G.B. Nagar

District

Name of Villages Name of Crop

Paddy Bajra Maize

Wheat

Barley

Total

Cereals

Total

pulses

Total

Oilseed

Vegetable Kharif

Fodder

Rabi

.fodder

Others % age

Kuleshara 16.66 3.31 0.93 53.35 74.25 0.59 0.70 1.48 18.78 4.19 100.00

Jalpura 17.57 3.46 0.04 51.34 1.05 73.46 1.62 1.14 0.19 21.66 1.92 100.00

Asgarpur Jageer 7.69 7.07 59.06 1.24 75.06 1.80 0.18 18.37 4.59 100.00

Bisarakh Jalalpur 23.87 2.53 49.89 0.10 76.39 0.70 0.03 22.41 0.47 100.00

Raipur Khadar 50.00 50.00 50.00 100.00

Chandrawal 5.94 16.51 21.88 45.11 2.44 91.88 0.40 0.63 5.94 1.15 100.00

Daudpur 3.1 2.97 84.49 1.38 91.94 1.74 3.10 3.22 100.00

Bagpur 9.46 26.1 46.08 2.29 83.93 2.58 9.46 4.03 100.00

Dadupur 2.08 36.96 2.53 40.03 5.10 86.70 5.30 2.08 5.92 100.00

Rasulpur Ekbal 27.85 7.58 31.32 1.47 68.22 2.08 27.85 1.86 100.00

Daya Nagar 2.39 0.66 44.10 47.15 6.14 38.38 6.39 1.94 100.00

Rasulpur Dasna 18.12 0.07 51.13 0.37 70.29 29.18 0.49 0.04 100.00

Bairangpur 6.06 0.05 0.45 48.32 0.49 55.37 44.26 0.37 100.00

Milak Khandera 29.33 0.07 44.93 74.33 0.42 24.66 0.59 100.00

Chaksenpur 35.54 51.90 0.34 87.78 0.18 11.83 0.21 100.00

Kanpur 7.17 6.85 14.54 45.75 3.09 77.41 0.73 0.17 0.16 7.17 12.66 1.70 100.00

Mayana 15.44 10.54 7.41 31.14 7.21 71.74 4.55 2.24 15.44 3.07 2.95 100.00

Serauli Bangar 10.24 7.82 11.86 48.00 0.20 78.12 8.96 2.12 0.07 10.24 0.49 100.00

Kuraeb 19.88 13.77 4.81 29.18 3.05 70.70 0.17 1.58 19.88 6.92 0.75 100.00

Ahmadpur Chauroli 14.29 7.44 10.18 27.99 7.08 66.98 1.41 14.29 11.03 6.30 100.00

All 15.54 7.69 4.99 40.66 3.10 71.98 1.51 0.55 0.10 18.92 5.12 1.82 100.00

Table -II-9 Proportional share of Area under crops of selected villages of Hamirpur District

Name of Crops Name of

Village

Jowar+

Arhar

Bajra+

Arhar

Bajra Urd Moo

ng

Vege

table

(k)

Fodd

ers

(k)

Oilse

ed

(k)

Other

s

padd

y

Wheat Wheat

+

Gram

Barle

y

Mixe

d

Gram Masoo

r

Pea Oilse

eds

(R)

S.can

e

Vege

.(R)

Others

(R)

Fodder % age

Badanpur 16.23 0.09 0.54 0.98 0.10 13.66 - 22.00 13.88 0.13 1.38 17.91 5.70 3.11 0.39 3.90 100.00

Isrouli 23.34 5.52 0.18 2.34 0.23 - 28.12 1.83 32.50 0.07 5.55 0.25 0.07 100.00

Surjpur Danda 20.68 13.98 1.17 6.38 2.01 -- 17.56 2.03 21.95 9.59 0.60 3.47 0.58 100.00

Helapur 5.15 3.79 20.30 0.35 0.32 6.00 2.77 5.13 -- 28.63 4.72 0.38 15.62 4.16 0.12 1.36 0.83 0.37 100.00

Damar 1.12 0.60 1.51 0.40 0.51 0.01 1.17 12.20 0.71 0.38 0.04 16.10 48.17 8.43 1.61 0.04 0.17 6.80 0.03 100.00

Til saras 14.48 4.04 0.79 4.11 6.44 0.15 0.04 25.85 1.78 0.37 18.66 5.63 0.61 16.38 0.13 0.05 0.49 100.00

Alra 0.58 16.80 10.03 0.66 0.74 1.14 0.13 0.14 23.64 - 0.29 4.56 8.16 29.54 2.90 0.69 100.00

Pipraduda 0.89 0.79 0.46 1.17 27.99 5.68 12.04 45.45 0.10 5.20 0.23 100.00

Chandikalan 4.78 10.76 0.49 0.15 1.84 0.21 0.26 12.74 8.04 0.07 9.56 47.00 0.02 3.92 0.14 0.02 100.00

Bhaista 18.16 12.95 2.21 1.21 26.32 0.10 0.19 22.94 3.26 12.66 100.00

Barda 3.72 23.33 4.68 1.56 0.20 1.86 0.70 19.65 0.23 1.79 6.16 28.73 0.07 7.22 0.10 100.00

Baruwa 0.80 6.71 7.34 1.27 1.15 1.01 1.98 2.35 29.85 0.08 2.79 13.56 24.08 0.13 6.12 0.04 0.74 100.00

Chilli 4.36 0.09 22.87 4.28 2.01 0.02 0.27 20.05 0.26 4.70 2.87 36.11 0.03 0.77 0.68 0.63 100.00

Budharwar 0.65 0.57 16.57 3.99 2.84 0.65 0.08 0.93 57.09 0.37 6.32 1.94 2.06 0.71 2.40 2.47 0.36 100.00

Tunka 1.19 7.22 19.02 1.77 0.20 0.04 0.30 0.02 0.62 22.17 0.03 0.31 2.98 15.11 27.38 0.09 0.42 0.64 0.43 0.06 100.00

Bilgaon 16.61 2.32 1.01 1.44 0.10 10.28 3.94 0.05 34.58 20.83 4.91 3.79 0.09 0.03 0.02 100.00

Churha 1.38 0.70 9.93 0.06 4.42 0.04 20.35 0.34 3.42 23.82 35.42 0.10 0.02 100.00

Barkhera 21.75 2.81 2.76 0.12 5.63 5.33 35.98 9.79 4.40 11.43 100.00

Barakharka 7.98 1.34 9.49 0.34 1.22 0.39 10.36 - 0.10 22.73 16.78 28.55 0.05 0.47 0.20 100.00

Pawai 12.50 0.14 6.33 0.64 0.10 0.25 2.07 2.28 0.61 16.77 0.09 0.19 10.86 25.53 20.23 0.23 1.02 0.16 100.00

Note: K = Kharif

R = Rabi

Table –IV-6:- Production and Disposal of for Foodgrain of G.B. Nagar District

Size of

holding

Crops Total

production

(qtls./ Hect)

Quantity (Qtls) For Previous

years seed

used

Kept for

seed for

next time

Exchange

as seed Sold for

seed

Home

consumpt

ion

Kind

wages to

labour

Used as

animal

feed

Used as

poultry

feed

Total Marketed

surplus

I Paddy 1088.35 6.61 7.73

(0.71)

-- -- 176.94

(16.25)

1.50

(0.14)

-- -- 186.17

(17.10)

902.18

(82.90) Jowar 6.50 0.12 0.10

(1.54)

-- -- 2.50

(38.46)

-- 1.25

(19.23)

-- 3.85

(59.23)

2.65

(40.77) Bajra 135.71 1.43 1.15

(0.84)

-- -- 32.31

(23.81)

1.00

(0.74)

22.00

(16.21)

-- 56.46

(41.60)

79.25

(58.40) Maize 54.47 0.75 0.10

(0.18)

-- -- 10.90

(20.01)

-- 2.50

(4.59)

-- 13.50

(24.78)

40.97

(75.22) Wheat 3154.85 123.76 131.42

(4.17)

-- 11.50

(0.36)

1578.55

(50.04)

205.00

(6.50)

211.63

(6.71)

-- 2138.10

(67.77)

1016.75

(32.23) Barley 25.45 0.91 0.95

(3.73)

-- -- 8.55

(33.60)

1.40

(5.50)

10.75

(42.24)

-- 21.65

(85.07)

3.80

(14.93) II Paddy 1888.78 11.49 10.40

(0.55)

-- -- 171.63

(9.09)

19.30

(1.03)

2.00

(0.10)

-- 203.33

(10.77)

1685.45

(89.23) Jowar 1.00 0.03 -- -- -- -- 1.00

(100)

-- 1.00

(100)

--

Bajra 134.31 1.34 0.75

(0.56)

-- -- 19.66

(14.64)

2.00

(1.48)

20.40

(15.19)

-- 42.81

(31.87)

91.50

(68.13) Maize 94.20 1.68 0.45

(0.48)

-- -- 16.25

(17.24)

1.00

(1.06)

48.70

(51.70)

-- 66.40

(70.49)

27.80

(29.51) Wheat 4520.70 181.93 196.50

(4.34)

-- 37.00

(0.82)

1210.70

(26.78)

255.25

(5.65)

305.45

(6.76)

-- 2004.90

(44.35)

2515.80

(55.65) Barley 175.71 8.88 8.84

(5.03)

-- -- 7.00

(3.98)

16.50

(9.39)

49.12

(27.96

-- 81.46

(46.36)

94.25

(53.64) III Paddy 1351.55 10.02 7.90

(0.58)

-- -- 136.50

(10.10)

2.00

(0.15)

-- -- 146.40

(10.83)

1205.15

(89.17)

Jowar 58.00 1.00 -- -- 4.30

(7.41)

-- 6.10

(10.52)

-- 10.40

(17.93)

47.60

(82.07) Continued

Continued

Bajra 217.34 2.41 1.30

(0.60)

-- -- 16.64

(7.66)

7.60

(3.50)

28.85

(13.27)

-- 54.39

(25.03)

162.95

(74.97)) Maize 91.66 1.91 0.70

(0.77)

-- -- 5.96

(6.50)

-- 4.40

(4.80)

-- 11.06

(12.07)

80.60

(87.93) Wheat 3949.80 165.25 162.50

(4.11)

-- 10.00

(0.25)

567.70

(14.37)

195.85

(4.96)

174.79

(4.43)

-- 1110.84

(28.12)

2838.96

(71.88) Barley 304.00 14.12 16.20

(5.33)

-- -- 4.15

(1.37)

33.05

(10.87)

38.50

(12.66)

-- 91.90

(30.23)

212.10

(69.77) All Paddy 4328.68 28.12 26.03

(0.60)

-- -- 485.07

(11.20)

22.80

(0.53)

2.00

(0.05)

-- 535.90

(12.38)

3792.78

(87.62) Jowar 65.50 1.15 0.10

(0.15)

-- -- 6.80

(10.38)

-- 8.35

(12.75)

-- 15.25

(23.28)

50.25

(76.72) Bajra 487.36 518 3.20

(0.66)

-- -- 68.61

(14.08)

10.60

(2.17)

71.25

(14.62)

-- 153.66

(31.53)

333.70

(68.47) Maize 240.33 434 1.25

(0.52)

-- -- 33.11

(13.78)

1.00

(0.42)

55.60

(23.13)

-- 90.96

(37.85)

149.37

(62.15) Wheat 11625.35 470.94 490.42

(4.22)

-- 58.50

(0.50)

3356.95

(28.88)

656.10

(5.64)

691.87

(5.95)

-- 5253.84

(45.19)

6371.51

(54.81) Barley 505.16 23.91 25.99

(5.14)

-- -- 19.70

(3.90)

50.95

(10.09)

98.37

(19.47)

-- 195.01

(38.60)

310.15

(61.40) Note:- Figures in brackets are percentage of production.

Table IV 8-B Food grain (Home produced) Consumed as Feed by Live Stock (G.B. Nagar District)

Crops Name of

Animals

In Milk Dry Total

(kg)

Total nos of animal

/Consumption of Crop/Animal

(Kg) No. Qtly (Kg) No. Qtly (Kg)

Cow 113 - 41 - - 154

Jowar

Bajra 700 200 900 5.844

Maize 800 325 1125 7.305

Wheat 8500 500 9000 58.441

Barley 500 200 700 4.545

Paddy - - - -

Buffalo 589 261 850

Jowar 675 160 835 0.982

Bajra 4500 1500 6000 7.059

Maize 3435 1000 4435 5.218

Wheat 40339 17575 57914 68.134

Barley 5557 1443 7000 8.235

Paddy - - - -

Bullock 44 44

Jowar - - -

Bajra - - -

Maize - - -

Wheat 875 875 19.886

Barley 153 1536 34.909

Paddy - - -

Calves 424 424

Jowar - -

Bajra 100 100 0.236

Maize -

Wheat 900 900 2.120

Barley 350 350 0.825

Paddy 200 200 0.472

He Buffalo 76 76

Jowar

Bajra 125 125 1.645

Maize - - -

Wheat 675 675 8.882

Barley 251 251 3.303

Table IV-12:- Percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in production of foodgrain in G.B. Nagar District

Sl.

No

Size of

holding

Crops Area

(ha)

Production

(kg) Seed used Seed kept Used as Feed Wastage

Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) % Qty (kg) %

1 Small Paddy 36.199 108835 661 0.61 773 0.71 -- -- 1120 1.03

2 Jowar 0.622 650 12 1.86 10 1.54 125 19.23 19 2.92

3 Bajra 15.878 13571 143 1.05 115 0.85 2200 16.21 310 2.28

4 Maize 4.847 5447 75 1.37 10 0.18 250 4.59 74 1.36

5 Wheat 98.683 315485 12376 3.92 13142 4.17 21163 6.71 7390 2.34

6 Barley 1.060 2545 91 3.58 95 3.73 1075 42.24 49 1.93

1 Medium Paddy 63.864 188878 1149 0.61 1040 0.55 200 0.10 1820 0.96

2 Jowar 0.169 100 3 3.00 -- -- 100 100 -- --

3 Bajra 12.472 13431 134 0.99 75 0.56 2040 15.19 539 4.01

4 Maize 7.021 9420 168 1.78 45 0.48 4870 51.70 151 1.60

5 Wheat 143.020 452070 18193 4.02 19650 4.35 30545 6.76 9413 2.08

6 Barley 6.799 17571 888 5.05 884 5.03 4912 27.95 424 2.41

1 Large Paddy 55.197 135155 1002 0.74 790 0.58 -- -- 1416 1.05

2 Jowar 6.940 5800 100 1.72 - -- 610 10.52 98 1.68

3 Bajra 21.238 21734 241 1.10 130 0.59 2885 13.27 528 2.43

4 Maize 8.375 9166 191 2.08 70 0.76 440 4.80 117 1.28

5 Wheat 131.739 394980 16525 4.18 16250 4.11 17479 4.43 7795 1.97

6 Barley 13.041 30400 1412 4.64 1620 5.33 3850 12.66 835 2.75

1 All Paddy 155.260 432868 2812 0.64 2603 0.60 200 0.05 4356 1.01

2 Jowar 7.771 6550 115 1.76 10 0.15 835 12.75 117 1.78

3 Bajra 49.588 48736 518 1.06 320 0.65 7125 14.62 1377 2.83

4 Maize 20.243 24033 434 1.80 125 0.52 5560 23.13 342 1.42

5 Whe

at

373.442 1162535 47094 4.05 49042 4.22 69187 5.95 24598 2.12

6 Barley 20.900 50516 2391 4.73 2599 5.14 9837 19.47 1308 2.58

-63-

Table-13:- Crop-wise percentage of Seed, Feed and Wastage in production of foodgrains in

G.B. Nagar District

Sl.

No.

Crops

1

Area

(ha)

2

Productio

n (kg)

3

Seed used

4

Seed kept

5

Used as feed

6

Wastage

7

Consumption as

seed, feed and

wastage (kg)

8

Qty

(kg)

% Qty

(kg)

% Qty

(kg)

% Qty

(kg)

% Qty

(kg)

%

1 Paddy 155.260 432868 2812 0.64 2603 0.60 200 0.05 4356 1.01 7159 1.65

2 Jowar 7.771 6550 115 1.76 10 0.15 835 12.75 117 1.79 962 14.69

3 Bajra 49.588 48736 518 1.06 320 0.65 7125 14.62 1377 2.83 8822 18.10

4 Maize 20.243 24033 434 1.80 125 0.52 5560 23.13 342 1.42 6027 25.07

5 Wheat 373.442 1162535 47094 4.05 49042 4.22 69187 5.95 24598 2.12 142827 12.29

6 Barley 20.900 50516 2391 4.73 2599 5.14 9837 19.47 1308 2.58 13738 27.19

-64-

Table IV 8-A Consumption of Feed-Fed Cows and Buffaloes of G.B. Nagar District in U.P.

(Qty.=Qtls.)

Feed Dry Cows Milch

Cows

Total

Cows

Dry

Buffaloes

Milch

Buffaloes

Total

Buffaloes

Bullocks Calves He

Buffaloes No Qty. No Qty. No Qty. No Qty. No Qty. No Qty. No Qty. No Qty. No Qty.

Small

Green

Fodder

18 178

(2.71)

61 614

(2.76)

79 792

(2.75)

107 1647

(4.22)

324 5060

(4.28)

431 6707

(4.26)

24 271

(3.09)

236 372

(0.43)

34 377

(3.04)

Straw 166 (2.53)

563

(2.53)

729

(2.53)

1783

(4.56)

5036

(4.26) 6819

(4.33) 303

(3.46) 289

(0.34)

429

(3.46)

Hay 27

(0.41)

66

(0.30)

93

(0.32)

121

(0.31)

415

(0.35) 536

(0.34) 22

(0.25)

33

(0.04)

73

(0.59) Concentrate 7

(0.11)

111

(0.50)

118

(0.41)

257

(0.66)

1428

(1.21) 1685

(1.07) 30

(0.34)

85

(0.10)

38

(0.31)

Medium

Green

Fodder

17 237

(3.82)

37 383

(2.84)

54 620

(3.15)

106 1411

(3.65)

177 2941

(4.55)

283 4352

(4.21) 16 290

(4.97)

91 152

(0.46)

22 328

(4.08)

Straw 291

(4.69)

505

(3.74)

796

(4.04)

2206

(5.70)

3698

(5.72) 5904

(5.72) 240

(4.11)

152

(0.46)

342

(4.26)

Hay 16

(0.26)

38

(0.28)

54

(0.27)

194

(0.50)

272

(0.42) 466

(0.45) 22

(0.38)

16

(0.05)

36

(0.45) Concentrate 30

(0.48)

96

(0.71)

126

(0.64)

274

(0.71)

1003

(1.55) 1277

(1.24) 18

(0.31)

26

(0.08)

54

(0.67)

Large

Green

Fodder

6 41

(1.87)

15 160

(2.92)

21 201

(2.62)

48 535

(3.05)

88 1377

(4.29)

136 1912

(3.85) 4 63

(4.32)

63 110

(0.48)

20 278

(3.81)

Straw 86

(3.11)

206

(3.76)

292

(3.81)

872

(4.98)

1770

(5.51) 2642

(5.32) 41

(2.81)

79

(0.34)

290

(3.97)

Hay 8

(0.37)

40

(0.73)

48

(0.63)

111

(0.63)

244

(0.76) 355

(0.72) 14

(0.96)

46

(0.20)

39

(0.53) Continued

Continued

Concentrate 9

(0.41)

37

(0.68)

46

(0.60)

113

(0.65)

425

(1.32) 538

(1.08) 3

(0.21)

25

(0.11)

21

(0.29)

All

Green

Fodder

41 456

(3.05)

113 1157

(2.81)

154 1613

(2.87)

261 3593

(3.77)

589 9378

(4.36)

850 12971

(4.18) 44 624

(3.88)

390 634

(0.45)

76 983

(3.54)

Straw 543

(3.63)

1274

(3.09)

1817

(3.23)

4861

(5.10)

10504

(4.88) 15365

(4.95) 584

(3.64)

520

(0.37)

1061

(3.82)

Hay 51

(0.34)

144

(0.35)

195

(0.35)

426

(0.45)

931

(0.43) 1357

(0.44) 58

(0.36)

95

(0.07)

148

(0.53) Concentrate 46

(0.31)

244

(0.59)

290

(0.52)

644

(0.68)

2856

(1.33) 3500

(1.13) 51

(0.32)

136

(0.10)

113

(0.41)

Note:- Figures in brackets are per day per animal consumption in Kg.