of major food grains in rajasthan...3.3.2 area, production and yield of major crops in selected...
TRANSCRIPT
AAEERRCC RREEPPOORRTT 115500
Marketed and Marketable Surplus
of Major Food grains in Rajasthan
V. D. Shah
Manish Makwana
Agro-Economic Research Centre For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan
(Sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)
Sardar Patel University,
Vallabh Vidyanagar, Dist. Anand, Gujarat
April 2013
AAEERRCC RREEPPOORRTT 115500
Marketed and Marketable Surplus of
Major Food grains in Rajasthan
V. D. Shah
Manish Makwana
Report submitted to the
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India,
New Delhi
Agro-Economic Research Centre For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan
(Sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)
Sardar Patel University,
Vallabh Vidyanagar, Dist. Anand, Gujarat
April 2013
ii
AERC Report No. 150
© Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120, Dist. Anand, Gujarat,
India.
Prepared by
Shri V.D.Shah (Research Officer)
Shri Manish Makwana (Research Associate)
Research Team
Shri V. D. Shah, Research Officer
Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate
Shri T. B. Parihar, Research Associate
Shri Himanshu Parmar, Research Fellow
Shri J. S. Raj, Agriculture Assistant (CCS)
Shri J. N. Singh, Computer (CCS)
Published by
The Director
Agro-Economic Research Centre
For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan
(Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)
H.M. Patel Institute of Rural Development, Opp. Nanadalaya Temple,
Post Box No. 24, Sardar Patel University,
Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120, Dist. Anand, Gujarat.
Ph. No. +91-2692-230106, 230799;
Mobile- 09822437451; 7383554616
Fax- +91-2692-233106
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Published in April 2013
iii
Foreword
In the context of proposed National Food Security Bill, 2013, which is considered
to be the world's largest experiment in ensuring food security to poor (as it intends to meet
the food needs of 75 per cent of rural and 50 per cent urban households), production
performance of food grains and generation of its adequate marketed surplus assume
greater significance. In the absence of adequate marketed surplus of food grains, the
development process of a country can be adversely affected. The quantum of marketed
and marketable surplus generated by different strata of farmers is likely to differ from year
to year, from region to region and farm to farm in same region. Thus in order to feed our
1.24 billion population (2011), it is important to understand the latest behaviour pattern of
marketable and marketed surplus of food grains as well as the variables affecting it, so as
to frame sound policies in respect of marketing, prices, import and export of food grains.
During the year 1996-1999, Directorate of Marketing and Inspection (DMI) had conducted
nationwide survey for estimation of marketed surplus and post-harvest losses for all
important food grain crops. However, in the post-1999 era, significant changes have been
taken place in crop pattern, retention pattern, dietary habits, marketing pattern etc. Thus,
the estimates generated from the survey conducted during 1996-1999 are not reflecting the
recent changes and has become obsolete. Therefore, recognizing the need of conducting
fresh survey for generating reliable and update estimates at household level on (i)
marketed and marketable surplus and factors influencing same as well as (ii) crucial items
like retention for family consumption, seed, feed, wastage, post harvest losses etc., the
Directorate of Economics and Statistic (DES), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of
India, has asked our Centre to undertake this empirical study for the state of Rajasthan
covering four major food grain crops viz., bajra, wheat, maize and gram. The Centre for
Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmadabad acted as a
coordinator of this empirical study.
The study is based on secondary and primary data. For study, primary data were
collected by recall method for agriculture year 2011-12 from 453 sample households
spread over 5 sample districts of Rajasthan, viz. Alwar, Chittorgarh, Churu, Hanumangarh
and Udaipur. The primary data were collected during the period from September to
November 2012. The few important findings emerged from the study are as under:
1. The marketed surplus output ratio (MSR) for bajra, maize, wheat and gram was found
63.68 percent, 79.08 percent, 54.87 percent and 84.38 percent, respectively. MSR for
wheat and bajra was lower as compared to maize and gram mainly because of lower
size of output and higher retention for home consumption and other purposes.
2. Entire marketed surplus of wheat, maize, bajra and gram was disposed off within three
months after the crop harvest, invariably realizing the lower prices. The reasons quoted
by the selected farmers were lack of appropriate storage, cash needs, repayment of
debts, small size of marketed surplus and lack of tendency to hold for speculative
purpose.
iv
3. The food grains market was highly dominated by the private agencies. Overall, out of
the total marketed surplus of bajra, maize and gram, more than 80 percent quantity was
sold to private agencies. The presence of private traders and money lenders were
observed who exploited the producers in the absence of an organised dissemination of
market information. There was not much active role of government agencies/regulated
markets in food grains marketing. Thus, owing to various reasons, access to regulated
market was very low.
4. In case of most of the small land holding size households, marketed surplus was found
higher than marketable surplus for the crops like wheat, bajra and gram. This indicates
the distress sale in order to meet immediate cash needs for discharging their liabilities
and to purchase necessaries for family. In fact, after some time farmer has to buy the
same product from market at much higher prices for family consumption purpose.
5. Size of output and size of retention are the most influencing factors in determining the
size of marketed and marketable surplus. Family size, farm size, access to institutional
credit, irrigation, market integration etc. are the other factors which are impacting on
marketed surplus of food grains.
6. Despite of importance of estimates on marketed and marketable surplus, there is no
system of generating these estimates at regular time interval. The proper arrangements
needed to generate these estimates regularly at pre-determine time period.
From the study, it is clear that for ensuring food security to our people, ensuring
adequate marketed surplus of food grains is needed. The increase in food grains
production through improving farm productivity is essential condition in order to increase
marketed surplus. Therefore, efforts are needed to increase productivity level.
I would like to congratulate to Shri V. D. Shah, Research Officer, Shri Manish
Makwana, Research Associate and entire project team who have put in lot of efforts and
unquantifiable work in preparing this excellent research report. We would be extremely
rewarded if the findings of the study can generate sufficient interest among academicians,
policy makers and those who have keen interest in marketing system of food grains.
(Dr. S. S. Kalamkar)
Agro-Economic Research Centre
For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan (Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)
Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120,
Dist. Anand, Gujarat, India
Director
v
Acknowledgements
The study on “Marketed and Marketable Surplus of Major Food grains in
Rajasthan” has been carried out at the Agro-Economic Research Centre, S.P University,
Vallabh Vidyanagar, as suggested and sponsored by Directorate of Economics and
Statistic (DES), MoA, GoI, New Delhi.
I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to Prof. Vijay Paul Sharma and
Dr. Munish Alagh, Centre for Management in Agriculture, IIM Ahmedabad, who as
coordinator of the study, provided intellectual support as and when required.
I am thankful to Dr. S. S. Kalamkar (Director), Dr. Mahesh Pathak (Hon. Adviser)
and Dr. R. A. Dutta (Dy. Director) of our centre for providing valuable guidance and
infrastructural support as and when needed.
I express my sincere gratitude to DES, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of
India, New Delhi for their encouragement and support at every stage of the study.
I express my sincere thanks to the Commissionerate of Agriculture, Directorate of
Agriculture Marketing, Jaipur and Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur and Agriculture Supervisor of selected villages for providing necessary
data, help and support at all stages of the study.
My special thanks to Shri Manish Makwana, Research Associate, Shri Himanshu
Parmar, Research Fellow, entire project team and staff of AERC, Vallabh Vidyanagar for
their valuable support and contribution in making this study enrich.
I am thankful to sample farmers of selected villages and all others who directly or
indirectly extended cooperation and support for the study.
Agro-Economic Research Centre For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan
(Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India)
Sardar Patel University,
Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120,
Dist. Anand, Gujarat, India
V. D. Shah
29-04-2013
vi
Contents
Foreword iii
Acknowledgements v
List of Tables vii
List of Figures xi
List of Abbreviations x
Chapter I
Introduction
01
Chapter II Sampling Design and Research Methodology 15
Chapter III Review of Agriculture and Food grains Economy of
State and Selected Districts
22
Chapter IV Marketed and Marketable Surplus of Major Food
grains in Rajasthan: An Empirical Analysis
55
Chapter V Summary and Conclusions 102
Bibliography 119
Annexure 122
Appendix 127
vii
List of Tables
Table
No.
Title Page
1.1 Per Capita Availability of Food grains in India 1
1.2 Marketed Surplus Ratio (MSR) of Important Food Crops in Various
States (Based on cost of cultivation scheme data).
7
1.3 State-wise estimates of Production of Selected Crops in 2010-11 8
1.4 Farm size-wise Marketable and Marketed Surplus-Output Ratio for
Wheat, Rice and Maize (1983-91)
11
1.5 Marketed Surplus of Agricultural Commodities During 1950-51 and
1999-2000.
12
2.1 Crop-wise Selected Districts and Crops Covered. 15
2.2 List of Selected Districts, Blocks, Villages & Number of Sample HHs.
in Rajasthan State.
17
2.3 District, Crops-wise & Category-wise Nos. of Selected sample farmers
in Rajasthan.
18
3.1 Vital Statistics of Selected Districts and State -2010-11 24
3.2 Cropping Pattern and Crop-wise Irrigation Coverage in Selected
Districts and State in TE 2010-11
29
3.3.1 District-wise Area, Production and Yield of Selected Crops in Rajasthan
for TE 2010-11
32
3.3.2 Area, Production and yield of Major Crops in Selected Districts of
Rajasthan in TE 2010-11
34
3.4 CAGR of Area, Production and Yield of Selected Crops in Rajasthan-
1990-91 to 2010-11
36
3.5 Category-wise Number and Area of Operational Holdings in State and
Selected Districts (As per 2006 censuses)
39
3.6 Consumption of Fertilizer in Rajasthan 41
3.7 Area under HYVs of Study Crops in Rajasthan State. 42
3.8 Source-wise Agricultural Credit Disbursement in Rajasthan during
2011-12
43
3.9 Performance of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme in Rajasthan 44
3.10 Performance of Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme in Rajasthan 44
3.11 District-wise Number of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (KUMS) in
Rajasthan State-2011-12
45
3.12 Commodity-wise Arrivals at KUMs in Rajasthan 46
3.13 Warehousing Capacity and No. of Godowns (as on 30th June, 2012) 47
3.14 Year-wise Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) at Current and
Constant (2004-05) Prices.
49
viii
3.15 Year-wise Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) and Per Capita Income
at Current and Constant Prices (2004-05).
51
3.16 Category-wise Total Value of Produce at Current Price 52
3.17 Value of Produce of Important Crops at Current Price 53
3.18 Marketed Surplus Ratio (MSR)* of Selected Crops in Rajasthan 53
4.1 Socio-Economic-Demographic Characteristics of Sample Households. 57
4.2 Size of Operational Area of Total Sample Farm Households 59
4.3 District-wise, Crop-wise and Category-wise Average Size of
Operational Area
60
4.4 Terms of Lease-In Land Taken by Sample Farm Households 61
4.5 Sources of Irrigation on the Sample Farm Household (Own + Hired) 62
4.6 Number of Livestock Units per Sample Household 63
4.7 Cropping Pattern Per Sample Household 64
4.8 Overall Cropping Intensity of Sample Households 65
4.9 Average Productivity of Major Crops Grown by Selected Households 66
4.10 Farm Machinery Investments by Sample Households 67
4.11 Category-wise Availability of Selected Crops During 2011-12 68
4.12.1 Purpose-wise Retention of Selected Crops by the Sample Households 71
4.12.2 Purpose-wise Percentage Share of Retention of Selected Crops to Total
Farm
74
4.13.1 Production Losses at Different Stages of Harvest -Selected Crops 76
4.13.2 Quantity Lost During Transportation at Producers Level -Selected
Crops
79
4.13.3 Crop-Losses During Storage at Producers level -Selected Crops 82
4.13.4 Estimation of Production Losses at different stage of Handling-Selected
Crops
84
4.14 Marketed Surplus of Selected Crops and Its Sale Pattern 87
4.15 Extent of Marketable Surplus of Selected Crops 90
4.16 Marketable and Marketed Surplus for Selected Crops 92
4.17 Regression Coefficients of Factors Affecting Marketed Surplus of
Selected Crops
94
4.18.1 Sources of Price Information for Sample Farm Households 96
4.18.2 Source-wise and Purpose of Credit on Sample Farm Households 97
4.18.3 Awareness of MSP and Sale possibilities with Increase in Price 99
4.18.4 Disposal Pattern of Marketed Surplus According to Type of Market
(Primary and Secondary) and Transportation Cost.
100
4.18.5 Percentage of Area Covered under Purchased Seed 101
5.1 List of Selected Districts, Blocks, Villages & Number of Sample HHs.
in Rajasthan State.
104
5.2 Area and Productivity of Important Crops in Selected Districts-TE
2010-11
107
ix
List of Figures
Figure
No.
Figures Page
3.1 Requirement and Distribution of Certified /Quality Seeds 42
3.2 Sectoral Distribution of GSDP for 2011-12 at Constant Prices
(2004-05) 48
3.3 Sectoral Distribution of NSDP for 2011-12 at Constant Prices
(2004-05) 50
4.1 Crop-wise Marketable Surplus 91
4.2 Comparisons of Marketed & Marketable Surplus 92
x
List of Abbreviations
A - Area
CAGR - Compound Annual Growth Rate
CV - Co-efficient of Variation (%)
DES - Directorate of Economics & Statistics
DMI - Directorate of Marketing and Inspection
FYM - Farm Yard Manure
GCA - Gross Cropped Area
GDP - Gross Domestic Product
GIA - Gross Irrigated Area
GoI - Government of India
GoR - Government of Rajasthan
GSDP - Gross State Domestic Product
Ha. - Hectare
HH - Household
HYV - High Yielding Variety
Kg. - Kilogram
KUM - Krishi Upaj Mandi
L.I. - Leased-in
L.O. - Leased-out
LF - Large Farmers
MDF - Medium Farmers
MF - Marginal Farmers
MoA - Ministry of Agriculture
MSP - Minimum Support Price
MSR - Marketed Surplus-Output Ratio
NIA - Net Irrigated Area
NSA - Net Sown Area
O.H. - Operational Holding
Qtl. - Quintal
SF - Small Farmers
SMF - Semi-Medium Farmers
SRR - Seed Replacement Ratio
Y - Yield
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Backdrop
Agriculture is a critical sector of the Indian economy. Agriculture is providing both,
a source of livelihood and food security to a vast section of the society. Its performance and
particularly of food grains assumes greater significance in the context of National Food
Securities Bill, 2013, introduced recently in parliament. To meet the challenge of feeding
our vast population, “self reliance” in food grains and adequate marketable surplus has been
the central focus of our agricultural policies in post independence era. India made
sustainable progress in terms of overcoming national food security by following an
agricultural strategy, known as “Green Revolution”. With the advent of technology led
green revolution in the mid 1960s, total food grains production in the country increased
from 82.02 million tonnes in 1960-61 to about 254.42 million tonnes in 2011-12, an all time
high so far. This resulted in enabling the country which was importing huge quantities of
food grains to become self sufficient. Also, resultant marketable and marketed surplus of
food grains touched to new heights. However, owing to higher growth in population of
India, compared to growth in supply of food grains, per capita net availability of food grains
in country came down from 510 grams per day in 1991 to 439 grams per day in 2010 (see
Table 1.1).
Table 1.1: Per Capita Availability of Food grains in India
Year 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001 2005 2010 2011 (P)
Food grains
availability
(gram/person/day)
395 489 469 455 510 416 422 437
463
Source: GoI (2012).
In fact, not the agricultural production but the surplus it generates for the market that
plays a pivotal role in ensuring food securities of the country. In the absence of adequate
marketable surplus, the development efforts of such a country can be adversely affected.
This calls for continuation of making strenuous efforts of generating sufficient
marketable surplus through increasing total food production to meet increasing demand.
The programmes of increasing food grains production are plagued by sharp fluctuations in
marketed surplus of food grains and its prices. And the prices of food grains depend on the
2
quantity of marketable and marketed surplus and not just on total production. The
generation of marketed and marketable surplus food grains and its quantum by different
strata of farmers is likely to differ from year to year, from region to region in the same year
and in the same region from farm to farm depending on number of operating factors.
Moreover, in recent years, it has been increasingly realized that only increase in physical
production of crop no longer guarantees the smooth development of agriculture, particularly
of its marketing.
Further, in last few years, agricultural marketing scenario changed substantially
owing to WTO agreement. In WTO regime, focus has shifted beyond self sufficiency to
development of internationally competitive agricultural sector and improving market
integration and efficiency. Marketing function has to play a major role as there is a need for
a paradigm shift from supply driven agriculture to market oriented agriculture. Market
oriented agriculture requires development of systems and processes to understand markets,
reorient production, minimize losses in post harvest and other operations so that consumer
requirements are met with minimum marketing cost and time. Hence, now a days in
planning for agricultural, much more attention than customarily assigned to marketing
system and increasing marketable surplus of food grains. It is felt that the quantity of
marketable surplus of food grains will also increase with increase in production in order to
feed the growing population of the country. Therefore, marketable and marketed surplus of
food grains are most important aspects for critical investigation and agricultural planning.
The marketing practices of the farmers are determined mainly on the basis of surplus
available with them, after meeting own requirements. The market structure and behavior on
the other hand determine the incentives for the farmers to sell their surplus. Further, market
structure and conduct depend on the quantity of surpluses available to be handled by the
system. In this context, the estimates of marketed and marketable surplus assume critical
importance for farmers, marketing system as well as for framing suitable policy. Volume of
marketed and marketable surplus of food grains also affects the supplies and prices of food
for the non-farm population and agro based industries. In this context, estimation of
marketed and marketable surplus ratio for agricultural commodities and particularly of food
grains has attracted the more attention of researchers and policy makers.
The food grains grown by the farmers are not merely for meeting own family needs
but are also for sale in the market to earn cash income and satisfying the needs of non-
farming population. But surplus quantity of food grains available for sale varies from farmer
3
to farmer owing to various reasons. All the produce of food grain crops is not available for
sale because part of the produce is retained for home consumption, seed purpose, kind
payment, gifts to friends and relatives and some quantity is lost due to spoilage,
transportation etc. In the context of such situation, two concepts viz. “Marketable surplus”
and “Marketed surplus” have been coined to ascertain the quantity of produce available for
marketing and the quantity actually marketed.
The marketed or marketable surplus depends upon types of crops i.e. food grains,
other food crops or non-food crops. In the case of food grains, particularly for wheat,
paddy, maize, bajra and gram, situation is quite different. The farmers are both producers
and consumers and they dispose only the surplus net of their own household consumption
requirements. The marketed surplus-output ratio is generally lower for coarse grains among
cereals and it is lower for cereals among food grains. It is lower for food grains than for
other food crops and non food cash crops like cotton, sugarcane, jute etc., as their retentions
by farmers being negligible. For cash, non-food crops the marketed surplus is nearly 100
percent. The marketed surplus–output ratios also vary widely across size groups of farmers.
Smaller farmers with lower output per farm usually sell a smaller proportion of their food
grains output than the larger farmers. The ratio is also expected to go up with the increase in
per farm output owing to increase in productivity.
Prior to green revolution, small farmers had not any marketable surplus of food
grains. Now, the majority farmers with the same size of holdings have marketable surplus of
food grain produce, as use of modern agricultural practices and technology on their farms
substantially raised the farm productivity. Now large farm size farmers are in a position to
keep part of their marketable surplus of food grains as stocks for future sales in anticipation
of further increase in prices. Some farmers with small size of holdings sell their produce
immediately after the harvest to meet their immediate cash requirements for their various
needs. In the process, sometimes, sale quantity (marketed surplus) may be higher than their
marketable surplus which constitutes distress or forced sales. The predicament of small
farmers sometimes is that they have to sell superior quality produce produced by them and
to purchase inferior quality produce from the market or ration shops for home consumption
purpose because of their low income. Therefore, the problems of dependence of farmers
having marketable surplus and magnitude of distress sales need to be explored empirically
in details at farm level.
4
The determination of marketed and marketable surplus for different crops has many
policy implications from point of view of development of good organized market and other
infrastructure facilities such as roads, storage, transportation, market information, cleaning
and grading etc. Despite so much importance of estimates of marketable and marketed
surplus, there is no regular system of generating such estimates at some pre-determine time
interval.
1.2 Marketed and Marketable Surplus:
i. Marketable Surplus:
Often the term “Marketable surplus” and “Marketed surplus” are used as synonyms;
though theoretically distinctions between marketed and marketable surplus has already been
acknowledged. They cannot be used interchangeably. According to Moore et al. (1973), the
marketable surplus is a theoretical concept and it refers to the quantity which is the excess
or residual left with the producer-farmer after meeting his genuine requirements for family
consumption, farm needs for seeds and feed for cattle, wage payment to labourers in kind,
gift to friends and relatives, kind payment to artisans, mechanic, carpenters, contractual
obligations to the landlords (as rent) and the wastage undergone in the process of post
harvest operations such as storage, transportation etc. If producer-farmer’s consumption
habits/needs or mode of payment to labour/landlords changes over time, the marketable
surplus would also change accordingly. The concept of marketable surplus is a subjective.
The marketable surplus is computed by the following algebraic formula,
MS=P-C,
Where MS=Marketable surplus,
P=Gross production in the year,
C=Total requirements in the same year for family consumption (retention +
purchase), payment of wages in kind, feed, seed, barter, payment of loan/irrigation
and physical losses/wastage in storage/transportation/threshing.
In case of some marginal and small farmers, the quantity actually retained is less
than the quantity actually required for consumption owing to the constraints of the size of
holding and production. They make up the deficit with the help of borrowings, market
purchase, gifts or receipt from kind wages etc. Hence, instead of quantity retained for family
consumption, the quantity required for consumption is taken into consideration for
estimation of marketable surplus. It can be obtained by adding the quantity retained for
5
consumption, quantity purchased for consumption and total receipts in kind for
consumption.
In case of marketable surplus, there is a need to ascertain whether the farm
household has produced the output in excess of all its compulsory retentions. In fact this is
the ‘real marketable surplus’ generated on the farm.
The quantum of marketable surplus is influenced by the factors operating both in the
pre production and post production stages. The factors operating in the pre production
stages are those which determine the level of production i.e. nature and area under the crop,
input used and investment resources, productivity of crops etc. The post production factors
affecting marketable surplus are consumption needs for family, feeding animals, local
practices regarding cash and kind payments, price policies, socio-economic conditions of
the producers, physical losses in storage, transportation etc. The extent of marketable
surplus in case of food crops is mostly lower than it in the case of cash crops like cotton,
tobacco, oilseeds etc.
Common experience shows that the amount of marketable surplus differs from
region to region or even in the same region, from crop to crop. Marketable surplus may not
be always positive. It may be equal, less or even higher than the marketed surplus. In
distress sale situation, marketable surplus might be lower than marketed surplus. When
there is no distress sale, the marketable surplus and marketed surplus might be equal.
Marketable surplus will be higher than the marketed surplus when the farmers especially
larger ones with better retention capacity retain some of marketable surplus in anticipation
of higher prices in future.
ii. Marketed Surplus:
Marketed surplus of agriculture produce plays a vital role in the economic
development of country. Increasing marketed surplus in an economy is one of the
significant indices of economic development. Marketed surplus as compared to marketable
surplus is a practical concept and refers to that quantity of produce which is actually
marketed by the producer. In other words, marketed surplus is that quantity of the produce
which the producer farmer actually sells in the market irrespective of his requirements for
family consumption, farm needs, feeds, payment in kind and others.
The concept of “Marketable surplus” is subjective because the feature of retention
by the farmer is a matter of subjective guess. On the other hand, concept of “Marketed
surplus” is objective, because it refers specifically to the actual marketed quantity i.e. to the
6
actual quantity which sells in the market. It thus, does not take into account the kind of
disposal patterns of the farm households. Thus, marketed surplus includes ‘distress sale’ by
farmers (majority small and marginal) owing to cash needs for discharging their immediate
liabilities and for purchasing of all necessaries for the family. At later, he may repurchase
some quantity of the same product from the market to meet his domestic needs. However, it
excludes quantity of storage done in expectation of realization of higher prices. Marketed
surplus can be less, equal or even more than the marketable surplus and each of these
situations has its economic and social implications. Marketed surplus will be higher when
the farmer retains less of the produce than his requirements for home and farm needs. This
would be true especially for small and marginal farmers. This situation of selling more than
the marketable surplus is being termed as distress or forced sell. This happens under
pressure of meeting immediate cash needs. In such situation, farmer either purchase grains
at later stage or takes grain loan to meet his requirements. The marketed surplus is less than
the marketable surplus when farmer has financial capacity and go for storage of some of his
surplus produces in expectation of securing higher prices.
The most important factors determining the size of marketed surplus are nature of
crops, size of output, consumption habit and size of family, size of holdings, level of debt
and economic status of producer; price level of the produce commodities and availability of
storage facilities.
The increase in production of agriculture commodities is a pre-requisite for
increasing marketable and marketed surplus. However, surplus does not rise automatically
as a result of an increase in productivity.
1.3 Marketed Surplus-Output Ratio for Important Food Crops in Various States of
India:
The state wise as well as for nation, marketed surplus-output ratio (MSR) in
percentage for important food crops for 2006-07 to 2008-09 obtained using cost of
cultivation scheme (CACP) data is given in Table 1.2.
From the table, it is seen that as Punjab and Haryana being non-rice eating states,
retention of rice was less and hence 95 to 99 percent production of rice was marketed
surplus. UP being leading wheat producing state, even though it generated marketed surplus
between 30 to 67 percent. This is so because UP being wheat eating state and hence
retention of wheat was higher and marketed surplus lower. Similar situation found in
Rajasthan in case of bajra, maize and wheat crops.
7
Table 1.2: Marketed Surplus-Output Ratio (MSR) of Important Food Crops in Various States (Based on cost of cultivation scheme data) Figures are % of total production)
States
Rice Wheat Bajra Maize Gram 2
006
-07
2007
-08
2010
-11
2006
-07
2007
-08
2010
-11
2006
-07
2007
-08
2010
-11
2006
-07
2007
-08
2010
-11
2006
-08
2007
-09
2010
-11
Andhra
Pradesh 84.46 91.99 91.06 - - - - - - 97.59 100.00 90.81 - - -
Assam 34.55 25.96 38.54 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bihar 79.28 80.03 77.50 66.55 73.58 74.58 - - - 77.51 90.48 87.19 78.79 70.61 77.27
Haryana 99.05 95.18 97.09 72.46 81.53 83.54 82.60 81.49 80.93 - - - - - -
Karnataka 94.59 85.47 94.56 - - - - - - 96.54 98.79 98.26 - - -
Madhya
Pradesh 63.04 78.98 73.77 65.57 75.95 73.77 - - - 30.87 52.45 77.02 83.65 97.28 92.92
Punjab 98.66 98.06 99.70 81.33 90.58 86.74 - - - - - - - - -
Rajasthan - - - 62.61 64.38 44.41 62.43 44.21 53.03 58.24 67.34 67.77 62.43 77.09 86.46
Gujarat - - - 85.74 66.99 87.77 76.82 79.99 84.00 - - - - - -
Himachal
Pradesh - - - 51.52 49.88 39.48 - - - 57.17 52.85 48.19 - - -
Uttar Pradesh
79.62 76.85 76.20 53.63 29.90 66.99 89.07 80.67 81.60 64.59 54.59 83.28 68.76 85.48 56.83
Maharashtra - - - - - - 68.83 63.76 75.56 - - - - - -
West Bengal
68.40 64.45 67.72 - - - - - - - - - - - -
All India 79.17 78.61 80.65 66.09 61.87 73.20 72.21 61.78 67.38 78.56 82.87 86.00 76.81 90.81 86.68
Source: GoI (2012).
The data clearly illustrated that diet menu of the people have direct impact on
retention for consumption and in turn on marketed and marketable surplus of the crop.
1.4 State-wise Production of Major Food grains:
Table 1.3 gives state-wise production for selected food grains crops. From the Table
1.3, it is evident that Rajasthan, UP and Gujarat are leading producers of bajra. For maize,
Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan states are leading producers. In
respect of wheat, UP, Punjab, Haryana, MP and Rajasthan are major producing states. For
gram, MP and Rajasthan are leading producing states. This shows that in Rajasthan, bajra,
maize, wheat and gram are important food grains crops.
8
Table 1.3: State-wise estimates of Production of Selected Crops in 2010-11
(Production -Million Tonnes) Sr. No. State/ UT Bajra Maize Wheat Gram
1 Madhya Pradesh 0.31 1.05 7.63 2.69
(2.99) (4.83) (8.78) (32.73)
2 Rajasthan 4.57 2.05 7.21 1.60
(44.07) (9.43) (8.30) (19.46)
3 Maharashtra 1.12 2.60 2.30 1.30
(10.80) (11.97) (2.65) (15.82)
4 Uttar Pradesh 1.56 1.11 30.00 0.53
(15.04) (5.11) (34.53) (6.45)
5 Andhra Pradesh 0.10 3.96 NA 0.72
(0.96) (18.22) - (8.76)
6 Karnataka 0.33 4.44 0.28 0.63
(3.18) (20.43) (0.32) (7.66)
7 Gujarat 1.09 0.82 4.02 0.20
(10.51) (3.77) (4.63) (2.43)
8 Haryana 1.19 NA 11.63 0.11
(11.48) - (13.39) (1.34)
9 Bihar NA 1.44 4.10 0.06
- (6.63) (4.72) (0.73)
10 Punjab NA 0.49 16.47 NA
- (2.25) (18.96) -
11 All India 10.37 21.73 86.87 8.22
(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Notes: NA=Not Available; Figure in brackets denote percentage to total production in All India
Source: GoI (2012).
1.5 Needs of the study:
The need for precise “Estimation of marketed and marketable surplus” for
agricultural commodities at some pre-determined time interval has been felt necessary in the
context of planning for agricultural development, food distribution programs and framing
pricing, procurement, export and import policies for agricultural commodities. The
information on marketed surplus and marketable surplus and ratio of marketed surplus to
output is extensively used by the “Department of Statistics” and “Ministry of Planning” in
generating estimates of “net national product” of agricultural sector, consumption,
expenditure, savings, capital formulation etc. which are published in “National Account
Statistics”. This information is also used in long and short term supply and demand
projection of commodities as well as estimating availability of commodities for
consumption. The marketable surplus ratios are also very useful for planning the
procurement operations, market development programmes and assigning weights to
9
different agricultural commodities in compilation of “All India Index Numbers of
Wholesale Prices”.
Therefore, understanding the behavior of marketed and marketable surplus and
variables affecting it can be of major importance in framing sound policies with respect to
agricultural marketing and prices, imports and exports, national reserves of agricultural
products etc.
The available data of marketable surplus of food grain crops based on the surveys
conducted by Directorate of Marketing and Inspection (DMI) during earlier decades had
became obsolete. During 1996-1999, DMI conducted nationwide survey for estimation of
marketable and marketed surplus and post harvest losses of selected food grains. Owing to
significant changes in crop pattern, use pattern, feeding pattern, wastages, dietary habits,
marketing pattern, income level etc. with the passage of time, the marketed surplus ratios
obtained from survey conducted in 1996-1999 has also became obsolete. There has been
persistent demand from the users and researchers for fresh study in different agro-climatic
zones in the country for revision and updating of the marketable and marketed surplus data
to make it more realistic and in the tune with the recent changes in the agriculture sector and
agricultural economy of the country. This fresh survey will provide reliable information not
only on marketable/marketed surplus ratios for different food grains but also on other
crucial items like farm retention for family consumption, seed, feed and wastages etc.
Further, it will through light on the magnitude of distress sales and the factors affecting the
same.
In the light of the issues discussed hitherto, the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA),
Government of India (GoI), asked Agro-Economic Research Centre, Vallabh Vidyanagar to
undertake this empirical study for estimating the marketable and marketed surplus for four
main food grain crops viz. Bajra, Wheat, Maize and Gram in Rajasthan state as these crops
occupies a prominent place in the state in respect of production and area under cultivation.
This study is an attempt to generate estimates of marketed and marketable surplus of above
mentioned four crops in Rajasthan and also to examine factors influencing marketed surplus
decision at household level. This common study carried in 10 states and it is to be co-
ordinate by CMA, IIM, Ahmedabad. The study is undertaken with the following objectives.
10
1.6 Objectives of the Study:
Specifically, main objectives of the study are:
1. To estimate marketable and marketed surplus of selected Wheat, Bajra, Maize and
Gram crops in Rajasthan.
2. To estimate proportion of farm retention for consumption, seed, feed, wages and
other payments in kind etc. for selected crops.
3. To examine role of various factors such as institutional, infrastructural, socio-
economic, etc., in influencing household’s marketed surplus decision.
1.7 Review of Literature on Marketable/Marketed Surplus:
A brief review of available literature on marketed/marketable surplus is given here.
A large number of empirical studies were carried out in India on the problems of marketed
and marketable surplus of food grains and other crops and the factors affecting the same.
These studies used two concepts of marketed surplus-Gross and Net. Gross marketed
surplus minus repurchases of food grains is defined as net marketed surplus. Gross
marketed surplus is actually marketed quantity. From these studies, majority have focused
on the relationship between marketed/marketable surpluses on the one hand and output, size
of holdings and market prices on the other. The results of such studies would also enable us
to understand the nature of response and behavior of marketed and marketable surplus of
food grains in the context of changes in production, prices, consumption pattern etc.
However, results emerging from these studies cannot be generalized for all regions as agro-
socio-economic-climatic conditions are non-homogeneous. There is a conceptual difference
in these studies, therefore interpretation of results obtained in these studies to be done with
necessary caution.
Rice based farm household survey conducted by Phil rice (2006-07) showed that
farm product price, yield of crops and seed technology used were found to be vital
determinant of marketed/marketable surplus. Marketed surplus is most responsive to price.
Sudhakar Dwivedi and Jha (2011) conducted micro level study of marketed and
marketable surplus of rice in Bihar. They concluded that both, marketed and marketable
surplus increased with increase in the size of land holdings and with quantum of rice
production. The ratio of marketable and marketed surplus to production of rice also
increased with increase in the size of holdings. Rice is main staple food crop which is grown
for home consumption. Hence, marketed surplus found lower than marketable surplus in all
11
the categories of households because farmers prefer to keep part of rice production for
consumption purpose and like to keep more quantity as there is no guarantee of good
harvest in the next season.
The Directorate of Marketing and Inspection (1995) has generated farm size wise
national estimates of marketed surplus-output ratios for three important cereals. These
estimates are presented in below given Table 1.4.
These estimates reveal that the marketable surplus-output ratios and marketed
surplus-output ratios are increasing with the increase in farm size. Further, it shows that
marketed surplus was higher than marketable surplus for all three crops in case of marginal
farmers. This indicates the distress sale by marginal farmer in all three food grain crops. In
case of small, medium and large farmers, marketed surplus was lower (except large farmers
for wheat) than marketable surplus for all 3 crops suggesting negligible level of distress
sale.
Table: 1.4 Farm size-wise Marketable and Marketed Surplus-Output Ratio for Wheat,
Rice and Maize (1983-91)
(% of production)
Commodity Marginal
(0-1 Ha.)
Small
(1-2 Ha.)
Medium
(2-5 Ha.)
Large
(5< Ha.) Overall
Wheat
MLS
MS
4.1
23.5
49.6
32.5
61.4
62.3
70.8
73.0
59.7
58.9
Paddy/
Rice
MLS
MS
-9.0
27.6
23.9
34.8
61.7
43.8
76.4
51.7
46.5
41.7
Maize
MLS
MS
5.8
12.3
28.1
20.6
49.6
38.1
50.5
45.0
32.3
28.9 Notes: MLS=Marketable surplus, MS= Marketed surplus.
Source: GoI(1995). .
Raj Krishna (1965) puts forward the case for positive relationship between prices
and the marketed surplus of food grains in India. This relationship is based on the
assumption that farmers are price conscious and hence farmers will sell more and retain less
when prices will rise.
Acharya (2004) estimated quantity of marketed surplus of individual agricultural
products or product groups and changes there in during fifty years i.e.1950-51 to 1999-200.
He found that during this period marketed surplus and market surplus-output ratio for rice,
wheat, cereals, food grains, oilseeds etc. have gone up tremendously. For wheat, marketed
surplus estimated at 46.4 tonnes for 1999-2000, an increase of 23.42 percent as compared to
12
1.9 million tonnes in 1950-51. Similarly, marketed surplus of rice moved up from 6.2
million tonnes in 1950-51 to 53.8 million tonnes in 1999-2000. For food grains as a whole,
marketed surplus estimated at 124.6 million tonnes for 1999-2000 as against only 15.4
million tonnes for 1950-51 (See Table 1.5).
Table: 1.5 Marketed Surplus of Agricultural Commodities during 1950-51 &1999-00
(Million Tonnes)
No. Commodities
1950-51 1999-2000
Production MS Ratio
in % MS Production
MS Ratio
in % MS
1 Rice 20.6 30.1 6.2 89.5 60.1 53.8
2 Wheat 6.5 29.4 1.9 75.6 61.4 46.4
3 Bajra 2.6 26.9 0.7 5.6 46.6 2.6
4 Maize 1.7 23.1 0.4 10.8 59.4 6.4
5 Jowar 5.5 23.6 1.3 8.7 55.2 4.8
6 Other Cereals 5.5 18.1 1.0 5.3 46.8 2.5
7 Total Cereals 42.4 27.1 11.5 195.5 59.6 116.5
8 Gram 3.7 35.6 1.3 5.1 47.2 2.4
9 Arhar 1.7 52.3 0.9 2.7 52.8 1.4
10 Other Pulses 3.0 55.9 1.7 5.8 74.5 4.3
11 Total Pulses 8.4 46.4 3.9 13.5 60.0 8.1
12 Total Food grains 50.8 30.3 15.4 209.0 59.6 124.6
13 Groundnut 3.5 69.0 2.4 5.3 83.0 4.4
14 Mustard 0.8 78.9 0.6 6.0 70.0 4.2
15 Other Oilseeds 0.9 87.0 0.8 9.6 90.6 8.7
16 Total Oilseeds 5.2 73.6 3.8 20.9 82.8 17.3 Notes: MS=Marketed surplus; MS-output ratio based on Government of India (1995, 2001c)
Sources: Dharam Narain (1961); Raju (1976); GoI (1995, 2001) and Kumar and Mathur (1996).
Zarembka (as quoted in Prasad, 1990), through an elegant neo classical model show
that growth rates for a less developed economy are lower when the income elasticity of food
demand is higher. For him, marketable surplus problem is basically a confluence of slow
technical improvement in agriculture, a high population growth rate and high income
elasticity of demand for food. If supply of wage goods or marketable surplus is not elastic
enough, an inflationary process is bound to be appearing.
As per Patnaik Utsa (1975) estimates and picture obtained from the RBI’s Rural
Debt and Investment survey, no size-class has negative marketable surplus. However,
estimates of marketable surplus seem to be over estimated. One reason for this as admitted
by Patnaik herself is that the estimate is not net of repurchased quantities. The RBI data also
not netted out for repurchases. Further, among the ascending ordered size classes, she found
no fluctuations in proportions of marketed surplus.
13
Rastyannikor (1975) using the secondary data of RBI survey tried to estimate the
behavior of marketed surplus. He found that the behavior of marketed surplus was fairly the
same as found in Utsa Patnaik’s study. He found that proportion of marketed surplus to total
production increased steadily from 19.8 percent for lowest asset group to 41.4 percent in the
highest asset group. Both the studies by Patnaik and Rastyannikor have similar limitations
of using gross sales and non-inclusion of the purchased quantities of food grains.
The study based on indirect estimation using farm management and NSS Survey
data- 1960-61 by Sharma (1972) found that small farmers (below 2.0 ha) have negative
marketable surplus at national level and in all the states except AP, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
The proportion of marketable surplus to net production of food grains also increased
consistently with increase in the size of holding.
A micro-level study by Singh and Singh (1979) for Amritsar and Karnal districts in
Punjab shows that 91 percent of production of paddy was sold on the whole, the proportion
ranging from 88 percent among marginal farmers to 92 percent among large farmers. In
Punjab, even a small farmer grows paddy mainly as cash crop and depends on other crops
for consumption. Hence, proportion of marketable surplus of paddy was much higher. These
farmers have sold a much lower proportion of maize and wheat crops as both are consumed
by them on larger proportion. For example, marginal farmers sold 37 percent desi maize
against 55 percent for all households and 48 percent desi wheat against 63 percent for all
households.
Muthaiah C. (1964) analyzed the data collected from 6 villages of Rajasthan and two
villages of MP for jowar and wheat crops. The study found that marketed surplus of wheat
and jowar as a proportion of net produce steadily increasing with the increase in land
holding size. Further, study also revealed a positive relationship between the per capita
annual income of cultivators and proportion of marketed surplus to total production.
Talukdar K. C. (1984) in a field study conducted in Assam found that factors like
family size, size of holdings, level of debt, gross-income, total consumption, kind receipts
of the crop and total production of substitute crops significantly affected the marketed
surplus of rice and areca nut. Major amount of marketed surplus was contributed by
medium and large farmers.
Sen and Banerjee (1995) used Farm Management Survey data and concluded that
yield was the most important determinant of the volume of marketable surplus than
population for non-major food crops in UP and Punjab. For major food crops, population
14
pressure on land played a dominant role, specifically if the average farm size was small and
fragmented.
In order to arrive at detailed estimates of marketed surplus for different crops for
major states, NCAER (1990) surveyed 58 agro-climatic regions in 1988-89 by selecting
36818 households. The average estimates of marketed surplus as a proportion of output at
the all India level were estimated as: 59 percent for rice, 54 percent for wheat, 53-75 percent
for pulses, 95 percent for cotton and 64-94 percent for oilseeds.
Bardhan and Bardhan (1971) analyzed the national level data on consumption and
output of farm sector. The main findings of study were, I) The responsiveness of marketed
surplus with respect to the ratio of cereal prices to the prices of food products was positive;
II) Ratio of cereal prices to non-cereal prices influenced the marketed surplus of cereals due
to substitution in consumption at source.
Chauhan and Chhabra (2005) conducted study on marketed surplus, production,
disposal and price spread of maize cultivation in Hamirpur district of Himachal Pradesh.
The study revealed that marketable surplus of maize was 53.21 percent of the total output.
About two-thirds of marketable surplus of maize was disposed of by about 72 percent
farmers in first quarter of harvesting period.
The results thrown up by micro-level and indirect studies discussed above have not
universally applicable values and they are hardly comparable as they vary widely in
concepts, time horizon, assumptions, types of data, crop coverage and regions involved.
However, from these studies, we can make a few generalizations:
1. The proportion as well as absolute quantity of marketable and marketed surplus
increases significantly as the scale of farming increases (measured either in area or
in produce), particularly in respect of food crops. This is true for both, dry and
irrigated regions.
2. Sizeable proportion of marginal and small farmers mostly in dry land regions are
found deficit in marketable surplus, not being able to meet their consumption
needs from their farm produce. The line of viability is subject to regional variation.
3. No conclusive evidence available from the studies on the responsiveness of
marketable surplus to prices.
15
Chapter 2
Sampling Design and Research Methodology
The sampling design used for the study in selection of sample districts, sample
blocks and sample households as well as methodology used for the collection of survey
data, secondary data and analysis of the same have been discussed in this chapter.
2.1 Selection of Study Crops: Rajasthan is a leading state of India in respect of food grains
production. In terms of production of bajra, Rajasthan state occupied first rank and in
India’s total bajra production, share of Rajasthan was almost 48.20 percent in 2008-09. In
terms of production of gram, Rajasthan state ranks second in the country. It is also a major
producer of wheat (9.03 %) and maize (9.30 %). Keeping in views, the importance of these
four food grains crops, co-coordinator of the study suggested us to take Bajra, Wheat,
Maize and Gram as study crops for the purpose of estimation of marketable and marketed
surplus in Rajasthan state.
2.2 Sampling Design and Sample Size: The study used both, primary as well as secondary
data. For primary data collection, using multi-stage stratified random sampling design,
selection of sample districts, blocks, villages and sample farmers was made in the following
manner:
1) Selection of districts: There are 33 districts in the state. For each crop, number of major
producing (production share >5%) districts varying between 5 to 12. However, it was
decided to select about 10 percent of major producing districts (minimum 2 districts per
study crop) of the selected crop in the state. While selecting districts, we also take care to
select those districts which are growing more than one selected crops with a view to
economies on survey. Accordingly, at first stage, for each study crop, two sample districts
were selected purposively by considering their share in state’s production of the selected
crop. The crop-wise list of selected districts is shown in below given Table 2.1:
Table 2.1: Crop-wise Selected Districts and Crops Covered.
Study Crop Selected Districts
Wheat Hanumangarh (9.04%), Alwar (9.54%)
Bajra Alwar (10.91%), Churu (6.41%)
Maize Chittorgarh (25.93%), Udaipur (13.67%)
Gram Churu (11.62%), Hanumangarh (11.73 %)
Note: Figures in brackets denote percentage share of crop production of the district to total crop production in
the state, TE 2008-10.
16
These districts besides major producers of the selected crops also represent five
distinct agro-climate zones of the state.
2) Selection of Blocks/Tehsils: At second stage, from each selected district, two tehsils
having significantly large area under study crops and have large share in production of
study crops were selected purposively in consultation with concern agriculture as well as
marketing officers at district level. For Maize crop, one block from each selected district
was purposively selected as per criterion shown above (Table 2.2).
3) Selection of Sample Villages: At third stage, for conducting household survey, two
sample villages from each of selected tehsil/block were selected purposively considering
location criteria shown below:
a) Selected villages must have large area under selected crops and adequate number
of growers of selected study crops.
b) One village near to (within 15 kms.) market yard/town
c) One village which is at least 15 kms. away from market yard / town
The basic aim of choosing sample villages at different distances and locations was to
take care of differences in marketable and marketed surplus and price received by the
farmers at different locations and distances. The list of selected
districts/tehsils/blocks/villages is given in Table 2.2.
4) Selection of Sample Households: Finally, from each selected village, atleast 25
cultivator households which were growers of selected crops in reference year and
representing different farm categories (Marginal 0-1 ha., Small 1-2 ha., Semi-Medium 2-4
ha., Medium 4-10 ha., and Large >10 ha.) based on size distribution at district/block level
were selected in such a manner that we may get at least 20 sample households in each
category for each study crop in a state as a whole. Further, for each study crop, we must
have data on marketable and marketed surplus for minimum 100 households in a state.
Further, it was decided that total sample households to be selected for the study
should be atleast 300. The crop-wise, minimum sample size decided for study was as
follow:
Crop Wheat Bajra Gram Maize Total
Sample size (hhs.) 150 150 150 100 550
Further, to economies household survey (to reduce the canvassing of number of
households), care was taken to select those households who had grown more than one study
17
crops. The possible crop combination available in the selected villages was Wheat + Bajra +
Gram and Maize +Wheat. Using this combination, we able to reduce number of households
to be surveyed form 550 to 453 (See Table 2.2). Category-wise number of sample
households selected from each selected district is shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: List of Selected Districts, Blocks, Villages & Number of Sample HHs. in
Rajasthan State
No
Agro-
Climatic
Zone
Selected
MF SF SMF MDF LF All District
Block/
Tehsil Villages
1
III b-Flood
prone
eastern plain
zone
Alwar
Alwar Shahpura
5 25 14 12 2 58 Malakheda
Tijara Malekpurturk
12 28 10 5 2 57 Mainaki
District's Total 17 53 24 17 4 115
2
I b-Irrigated
north
western
plaine zone
Hanumnagarh
Nohar Parlika
2 10 16 22 8 58 Dalpatpura
Bhadra Karanpura
3 15 13 25 2 58 Chhanibadi
District's Total 5 25 29 47 10 116
3
II a-
Transitional
plaine of
luni basin
zone
Churu
Churu Untawalia 0 7 10 7 5 29
Taranagar
Mikhala
2 9 18 42 16 87 Bhanil
Buchawas
District's Total 2 16 28 49 21 116
4
IV a-Sub
humid
southern
plaine zone
Chittorgarh
Kapasan Rupakheri
4 17 15 10 6 52 Singhpur
District's Total 4 17 15 10 6 52
5
IV b-Humid
southern
plain zone
Udaipur Bhinder
Khetakhera 5 18 15 14 2 54
Menar
District's Total 5 18 15 14 2 54
6 Total Sample HHs. 33 129 111 137 43 453
NoteS: MF=Marginal (<1Ha.), SF=Small (1-2 Ha.), SMF=Semi-Medium (2-4 Ha.), MDF=Medium (4-10
Ha.), LF=Large (>10Ha.) Farmers.
Source: Field survey data.
5) Crop-wise Number of Selected Sample Households: From the selected sample
households, many households had grown more than one-study crops. Some households had
grown two study crops whereas some households had grown three study crops. Out of 453
sample households, 300 households had grown bajra, 213 households had grown gram, 293
households had grown wheat and 118 households had grown maize crop (Table 2.3). From
the 115 selected sample households of Alwar district, 109 were bajra growers, 110 wheat
growers and 19 gram growers. This suggests that most of the sample households of the
Alwar district had grown more than one study crops. Similar situation also prevailed in
18
other selected districts. Category-wise and crop-wise data on number sample farmers in
each district have been presented in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3: District, Crops-wise & Category-wise Nos. of Selected Sample Farmers in
Rajasthan
No. Districts Crop MF SF SMF MDF LF All
1 Alwar 1 Bajra 14 51 23 17 4 109
2 Gram 1 7 3 7 1 19
3 Maize 0 0 0 1 0 1
4 Wheat 13 52 24 17 4 110
5 Total 28 110 50 42 9 239
2 Chittorgarh 1 Bajra 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 Gram 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Maize 4 19 17 12 7 59
4 Wheat 3 15 14 9 6 47
5 Total 7 34 31 21 13 106
3 Churu 1 Bajra 2 15 27 48 21 113
2 Gram 2 12 23 44 20 101
3 Maize 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Wheat 0 0 1 2 4 7
5 Total 4 27 51 94 45 221
4 Hanumnagarh 1 Bajra 2 13 19 34 8 76
2 Gram 2 14 19 41 10 86
3 Maize 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Wheat 4 17 19 38 7 85
5 Total 8 44 57 113 25 247
5 Udaipur 1 Bajra 0 1 0 1 0 2
2 Gram 0 2 1 3 1 7
3 Maize 5 19 16 16 2 58
4 Wheat 1 16 12 13 2 44
5 Total 6 38 29 33 5 111
6 Gross Total 1 Bajra 18 80 69 100 33 300
2 Gram 5 35 46 95 32 213
3 Maize 9 38 33 29 9 118
4 Wheat 21 100 70 79 23 293
5 Total 53 253 218 303 97 924 Note: MF=Marginal Farmer (<1ha.), SF=Small Farmer (1-2 ha.), SMF=Semi-Medium Farmer (2-4 ha.),
MDF=Medium Farmer (4-10 ha.), LF=Large Farmer (>10 ha).
Source: Field survey data.
19
2.4 Data Collection for Study: The relevant data used in this study have been collected
from both, primary as well as secondary sources.
i) Primary data: For primary survey, questionnaire was prepared by coordinator CMA,
IIM, Ahmedabad after consultation with all associated AERCs. The primary data for study
in respect of four selected crops were collected by recall method from the selected farmers
through comprehensive field survey by interviewing personally the decision maker of
selected households. The quantitative/qualitative data were collected in a structured
questionnaire; keeping in view the objectives of the study. The collected data relate to
aspects such as socio-economic aspects, educational background, landholdings, cropping
pattern, irrigation, production, quantity sold and marketing pattern, crop retention pattern,
crop losses at post harvest stages and transportation, factors influencing marketable and
marketed surplus, access to credit and warehousing / storage facilities etc. Further, opinions
from selected farmers on various aspects related with marketing of crops, storage etc., were
also collected.
ii) Secondary data: The secondary data required for the study were collected from the state
government offices including Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Commissionerate of
Agriculture, Rajasthan state and regional offices of Agricultural Marketing Board, websites
of Rajasthan government and central government and various private as well as state/central
government publications. District-wise time series data on area, yield and production for
selected study crops were collected. Also data on irrigation, number of regulated market
etc., were collected from different sources mentioned above.
2.5 Reference year: Agricultural year 2011-12 was selected as reference year. Therefore,
field survey data relates to crop year 2011-12.
2.6 Concepts and Definitions: It is always desirable to clearly define the various concepts
used in the study so as to avoid ambiguity in understanding the analysis.
1. Cultivating household: Household is a unit in which all the members of family carry out
joint operations for their livelihood. Some members may be engaged in cultivating activities
and some in other activities, but there is a single decision making body for the household.
The household will be treated as cultivating household, if it had cultivated some land
(own/leased-in/mortgage-in) during the reference year.
20
2. Size of operational holding: Operational holding here refers to land size operated by a
household during the reference year i.e.
O.H. = Own land + L.I. /M.I. land – uncultivated land – L.O. /M.O. land
Where, O.H. =Operational holding size
L.I. = Leased-in land
L.O. = leased-out land
M.I. = Mortgage-in land
M.O. = Mortgage-out land
3. Marketed Surplus: Marketed surplus refers to the actually marketed quantities of the
produce. No consideration of repurchase quantity.
4. Marketable Surplus: Marketable Surplus is a theoretical ex ante concept which
represents the surplus which the farmer/producer has available with himself for disposal
once the genuine requirements of the farmer of family consumption (retention + purchase),
payment of wages in kind, feed, seed wastage and purchases have been met.
The marketable surplus is computed by the following algebraic formula,
MS=P-C,
Where MS=Marketable surplus,
P=Gross production in the year,
C=Total requirements in the same year for family consumption
(retention+purchase), payment of wages in kind, feed, seed, barter, payment of
loan/irrigation and physical losses/wastage in storage/transportation/threshing.
2.7 Analytical Framework: The basic purpose of the primary survey of the present study is
to generate state level estimates of marketed / marketable surplus for the study crops as well
as to study retention pattern of selected food grain crops at household level in the selected
districts and state. Therefore, principal findings of the study are based on a cross-section
field data of 453 households surveyed from 16 villages of five districts of Rajasthan State.
The data of sample households are tabulated and analysed to study the marketed and
marketable surplus by farm size and to identify factors affecting them. However,
households in each category are pooled together crop-wise and hence no separate analysis
attempted for district/block/village level. The tabular analysis across farm size categories is
done to examine the effect of specified factors on marketed and marketable surplus. The
multiple regression analysis has been undertaken as an analytical tool. For state level
21
regression analysis, all classes of farmers pooled together and no separate regressions
analysis attempted for different districts and farm size categories.
An important limitation of the household data collected was that only one
agricultural year was taken into account. The reference year was good year in terms of
monsoon, climatic conditions, price realization etc. Hence, conclusions drawn from the
analysis may not be fully applicable for non-normal/other years, owing to variations in
rainfall, climatic conditions, farm harvest price etc. Generally, the responses of farmers
were based on memory bias of the farmers and personal bias. However, investigators took
care to verify data by cross questioning so that collected data have more reliability and
minimum loss of accuracy.
As field data pertained to short period of one year, the variation in cross sectional
farm price of study crops was not so significant. Thus, the effect of price on marketed
surplus not measured.
2.8 Organization of study report: The study is divided into five chapters. Chapter-1
presents the introductory notes, need of the study and sets out the main objectives of the
study. Methodology used for selection of districts/blocks/sample households, sample size,
crop-covered, data base, analytical and conceptual framework and concepts used in the
study are presented in second chapter. Chapter three presents macro overview of agriculture
in state and selected districts. It also analyse major trends in area, production and
productivity of selected crops in selected districts using time series data. It also presents
trends in consumption of major inputs and services such as HYVs, irrigation, fertilizers,
credit etc. in state. It also discusses structural transformation of the state economy. Chapter
four presents the socio-economic background of surveyed households according to different
farm size categories. It also deals with marketable and marketed surplus, crop-wise, size
group-wise and at aggregate level of the households surveyed. Further crop losses at
different stages are estimated. Tabulation and regression analysis has been used for working
out the factors affecting the marketed and marketable surplus. Lastly, Chapter five presents
the summary, conclusions and policy implications.
22
Chapter 3
Review of Agriculture and Food grains Economy
of State and Selected Districts
Marketable and marketed surplus of food crops in a particular region is a function of
so many variables such as crop output, productivity, retention pattern, market prices etc.
Moreover, production and productivity is a function of many agro-climatic characteristics
such as rainfall, soil type, irrigation availability, input used, prevailing agricultural practices
in the region etc. Keeping these in the view, for accessing more precisely marketed and
marketable surplus of selected food grain crops in selected regions, it is pertinent to have a
glance at important agricultural and non-agricultural characteristics of the state and selected
districts, which are influencing directly or indirectly on the marketable and marketed
surplus. With this in view, some aspects such as rainfall, land use pattern, soil type,
distribution of operational holdings according to size, irrigation, inputs, crop pattern and
trend in area, production and productivity of selected crops etc. has been discussed in this
chapter for the state as well as selected districts. The contribution of agriculture sector in
GSDP and NSDP has also been discussed here.
Physio-climatic characteristics:
i) State: Rajasthan is the largest state of India with area of 342.24 lakh sq.kms and occupies
10.41 percent of land mass of the country. As per census 2011, population of the state was
6.68 crore (Table 3.1). Of the total population, SC/ST constitutes about 29.80 percent. The
state is situated between 23030’ and 30
012’ N latitude and 69
030’ and 78
017’ E longitudes.
It is bounded by Punjab, Haryana, UP, MP, Gujarat and Pakistan. Administratively, the
state is divided into 33 districts. The regions to the west and North West of Aravalli Hills
range, comprising of 12 districts and covering about 61 percent geographical area of the
state is known as “Great Indian Desert” (Thar) accompanied by extreme temperature, high
wind velocity and low humidity resulting in arid and semi arid condition. Although, whole
state bears hypothermic conditions, the areas of west of Aravalli (deserted condition) are
very hostile with extremes temperatures, high wind velocity, highly dependent on rainfall
for water requirement and frequently facing drought conditions. The daily minimum and
maximum temperature (2008-10) in Rajasthan was -1.80C in winter to 48
0C in summer
23
(Table 3.1).Rajasthan is predominantly agrarian state and about 70 percent of the population
depending on it and allied activities. State as a whole deficient in water resources and not
have perennial river originating from the state. The groundwater resources are inadequate
and fast depleting. The prime source of water in the state is confined only 3 to 4 months
under south west monsoon. Water resources being very scare, the agricultural prospects in
the state largely depends upon timely arrival of monsoon, quantum and distribution of
rainfall. The rainfall is usually erratic, scanty, low and irregular. The normal annual rainfall
(average of 50 years) in state varies from only 185.50 mm in western district Jaisalmer to
950.30 mm in Banswara district with mean annual rainfall of 575 mm for the state (Table
3.1). In reference year 2011-12, actual rainfall of the state was much higher than normal
rainfall (780 mm). Agriculture in state is essentially rainfed and susceptible to the vagaries
of monsoon. The scanty and erratic rainfall and unfavorable natural conditions are the
limiting factors against shaping of dynamic agriculture in the state. On the basis of agro-
climatic conditions, state is sub-divided into nine zones (please see Annexure-I). Rajasthan
is rich in mineral resources. Important minerals are Zinc, Copper ore, Phosptiosite, Marble,
Granites, Stone etc.
ii) Selected Districts: The basic data on area coverage, population, temperature, rainfall,
longitude, latitude and soil type etc. for selected districts has been given in Table 3.1.
Amongst selected districts, Alwar has lowest area coverage of 8380 sq.kms. Whereas,
Churu district has highest area coverage of 16830 sq.kms. Despite lowest area coverage,
Alwar has highest population of 36.72 lakh. The Chittorgarh district had the lowest
population of 15.44 lakh. The selected districts, except Udaipur are predominantly agrarian
and more than two -third population is depending on agriculture and allied activities for
livelihood. Udaipur is a famous tourist place and part of the population associated with
hospitality business. The five selected districts are falling into four different agro-climatic
zones of the state and hence great variation exist in their soil type, rainfall, climate, crop
pattern, crop productivity, consumption pattern and so on. The maximum daily temperature
ranges between 440c (Udaipur) to 48
0c (Churu) during summer. The minimum temperature
drops down considerable at night in winter and it touched to -1.80c in Churu (Table3.1).
Amongst selected districts, there is a considerable variation in amount of annual rainfall.
The normal annual rainfall varies from 842 mm in Chittorgarh district to only 274 mm in
Hanumangarh. It is 657 mm in Alwar and 385 mm in Churu (Table 3.1).
24
Table 3.1: Vital Statistics of Selected Districts and State -2010-11
Sr.
No.
Particulars Unit Selected Districts Rajasthan state
Alwar Chittorgarh Churu Hanumangarh Udaipur
1 Area covered Sq.kms 8380 (2.45) 10856 (3.17) 16830 (4.92) 9656 (2.82) 13419 (3.92) 342239 (100.00)
2 Population Lakh 36.72 (5.35) 15.44 (2.25) 20.41 (2.97) 17.8 (2.59) 30.67 (4.47) 686.21 (100.00)
3 Location
i) N. Latitudes 27030'-28
030' 23
032'-25
013' 27
024'-29
000' 29
050'-30
060' 23
046'-25
050' 23
030'-30
012'
ii) E. Longitudes 76070'-77
017' 74
012'-75
049' 73
044'-75
041' 74
000'-75
030' 73
090'-74
035' 69
030'-78
017'
4 Temperature(2008-10)
i) Minimum C0 2.5 0.5 -1.8 4 2.5 -1.8
ii) Maximum C0 46.5 45.5 48 46 44 48
5 Rainfall
i) Normal mm. 657 842 355 274 645 575
ii) Actual
(Average 2009-11)
mm. 772 772 548 393 769 613,
780(2011-12)
7 Soil type Alluvial plane,
desert soil
Red loam
foothills and
alluvial plane
Desert soil,
loamy and sand
dunes
Alluvial soil, some
part salty and sand
dunes
Browny sandy loams,
alluvial plane, yellowish
foot hill and alluvial
plane
-
8 Land use pattern(2008-09)
i) Total Reporting Area Ha. 783315 750761 1385898 970360 1388255 34269886
(100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100)
ii) Forest Area Ha. 79674 120136 6616 18439 396979 2727944
(10.16) (16.00) (0.48) (1.90) (28.57) (7.96)
iii) Net Sown Area Ha. 504049 306481 1165171 818089 231272 17551414
(64.35) (40.82) (84.07) (84.31) (16.66) (51.22)
iv) Area sown more than
once
Ha. 305139 185823 293599 418510 72214 5219845
(38.95) (24.75) (21.18) (43.13) (5.20) (15.23)
v) Gross Cropped Area Ha. 809188 492304 1458770 1236599 303486 22771259
(103.30) (65.57) (105.26) (127.44) (21.88) (66.45)
9 Cropping Intensity % 160.54 160.63 125.2 151.16 131.22 129.74
Cont….
25
Sr.
No.
Particulars Unit Selected Districts Rajasthan state
Alwar Chittorgarh Churu Hanumangarh Udaipur
10 Irrigation (2008-09)
i) Net Irrigated Area
(NIA)
Ha. 454780 190697 67103 364149 59813 6245048
ii) Gross Irrigated Area
(GIA)
Ha. 482680 200385 88987 676127 61998 7909927
iii) Irrigation Intensity % 106.13 105.08 132.61 185.67 103.65 126.66
iv) %of NIA to NSA % 90.23 62.22 5.76 44.51 25.86 35.58
v) %of GIA to GCA % 59.65 40.7 6.1 54.68 20.43 34.74
11 Source-wise Irrigation as % to GIA (2010-11)
i) Canal % 0.35 0.4 0.54 97.63 0.8 31.11
ii) Well/tube wells % 99.64 97.91 99.46 2.37 91.68 67.49
iii) Others % 0.01 1.69 - - 7.52 1.4
12 Fertilizers Nutrients(NPK)
consumption (2010-11) Kg/ha. 90.67 99.66 5.17 68.02 85.7 69.66
13 Important crops
i)Cereals Bajra, Wheat,
Jowar
Maize, Wheat Bajra, Wheat Bajra, Wheat,
Barley
Maize, Wheat Bajra, Wheat,
Maize
ii)Pulses Gram Gram Gram, Moth
bean, Moong
Gram, Moth
bean
Gram Gram, Moth bean,
Moong
iii)Oilseeds Rapeseed &
Mustard
Rapeseed &
Mustard,
Groundnut,
Soybean
Rapeseed &
Mustard
Rapeseed &
Mustard, Castor
Rapeseed &
Mustard
Rapeseed &
Mustard,
Groundnut,
Soybean
iv)Others Guar seed,
Onion Guar seed, Guar seed,
Cotton
- Guar seed, Onion,
Cotton
Sources: i) Statistical Abstract- 2011, DEC, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur
ii) Agricultural Statistic of Rajasthan (1956-2006), DES, GOR, Jaipur
Rajasthan Agricultural Statistic at a glance -2010-11, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Rajasthan, Jaipur-
26
During the reference year 2011-12, actual rainfall in all the selected districts was far
better and somewhat excess as compared to normal rainfall. Generally, rainfall in all selected
district is highly variable and erratic and hence causing high fluctuations in growth of
production and yield of food grain crops. The soil types of the Udaipur and Chittorgarh is
predominantly sandy loam, yellowish foot hills and have water logging problem. Whereas, it
is alluvial plane in some part and desert soil in some part in Alwar district. Hanumangarh
have alluvial as well as salty soil. Churu’s soil is desert loamy and sand dunes. In all selected
districts, some parts have problematic soil suffering from salinity, soil erosion and water
logged conditions. Ultimately, it is causing adverse impact on crop-production.
3.2 Land Use Patterns:
i) State: The land use pattern in the state and selected districts for year 2008-09 is presented
in Table 3.1. The state is high deficient in terms of forest cover. Out of the total geographical
area of 342.70 lac hectares, forests occupied only 7.96 percent. The net sown area, gross
cropped area and crop productivity in the state are highly dependent on the monsoon
condition. And hence, gross cropped area and area sown more than once fluctuating from
year to year depending on monsoon behavior. The net sown area was 175.51 lakh hectares
accounting for about 51.22 percent of the total reporting area. The chances of bringing more
area under plough are negligible. The net sown area in last five years varied in very narrow
range. The gross cropped area was 227.71 lakh hectares, out of which 52.20 lakh hectares
(29.74%) was sown more than once. The cropping intensity in the state worked out to only
129.74 percent (Table 3.1), mainly due to scanty water resources for irrigation.
ii) Selected Districts: Land use pattern of Udaipur and Chittorgarh is characterized by large
coverage of area under forest, pasture and barren land and hence net sown area available for
sowing is very limited. In Udaipur and Chittorgarh area under forest was 28.57 percent and
16.00 percent respectively. Owing to high proportion of hilly and barren lands in the total
reporting area, net area sown in Udaipur district was very low and it was only 16.66 percent.
Whereas it was only 40.82 percent in Chittorgarh. Area sown more than once is fluctuating
every year as it depends upon monsoon behavior. In 2011-12, owing to better rainfall, double
cropped area as well as cropping intensity found higher than it was in normal year. In Churu
and Hanumangarh districts, area under forest and non cultivable land is very low and hence
net sown area in these two districts always remains much higher. In both districts, it was little
higher than 84.00 percent of the total land reported for utilization (Table 3.1). In Churu, due
27
to scanty rainfall and availability of limited irrigation, area sown more than once and
cropping intensity are absolutely dependent on vagaries of monsoon. In Hanumangarh,
rainfall is scanty and low, but owing to availability of water for irrigation in rabi season from
ING and Bhakhara canals, gross cropped area and cropping intensity found comparatively at
higher side with lower fluctuation from year to year. In Alwar, about 10.16 percent of total
area was under forest. Owing to higher rainfall and reliably better irrigation facilities, area
sown more than once, gross cropped area and hence cropping intensity in the Alwar district
generally remaining at higher level compared to other selected districts (Table 3.1).
3.3 Irrigation and Sources of Irrigation:
i) State: State is seriously handicapped in terms of availability of water resources. The
groundwater resources are inadequate and fast depleting over the years as there is more
drawal than replenishment with scanty groundwater situation. Large area in the state are now
declared as the ‘dark zones’ from the point of view of the availability of ground water.
Irrigation situation in districts such as Alwar, Bharatpur, Jaipur, Sikar, Churu etc. turned
alarming. The Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (IGNP) which covers nearly two million hectare
as its command area has already changed the face of Hanumangarh and Shri Ganganagar
districts. It also covers some desert areas from where it flows. The net and gross irrigated area
and irrigation intensity in the selected districts and state for year 2008-09 has been presented
in Table 3.1. In state, out of the total net sown area (17551414 Ha.), 6245048 hectares was
net irrigated through various sources accounting for 35.48 percent. Out of gross cropped area,
only 34.63 percent area was under irrigation and rest of the area (65.37%) was rainfed. The
irrigation intensity for the state worked out to only 126.66 percent (Table3.1). The major
sources of irrigation are wells/tubewells and canals accounting for 67.49 and 31.11 percent
respectively.
ii) Selected Districts: Amongst selected districts, very wide fluctuation notice in percentage
of net irrigated area to net sown area owing to variation in rainfall and availability of water
resources. Alwar district had 90.23 percent (454780 ha.) of its net sown area under irrigation,
which was 62.22 percent in Chittorgarh, 44.51 percent in Hanumangarh and 25.86 percent in
Udaipur. Owing to mono cropping, scare water resources and low level of rainfall, irrigation
availability is very negligible in Churu district. Hence, in Churu district, out of total cropped
area, only 6.10 percent area was under irrigation. Rest of the areas was rainfed. The irrigation
intensity in Alwar (103.13%), Chittorgarh (105.08%) and Udaipur (103.65%) was found very
28
low due to large dependence on wells/Tubewells for irrigation. The discharge capacity of
wells/Tubewells in these districts largely depends on the amount of rainfall and in turn
command area of wells/Tubewells and net irrigated area also vary from year to year. In
Hanumangarh, irrigation intensity was as high as 155.67 percent owing to availability of
canal water for irrigation throughout the year.
Except Hanumangarh district, wells/tubewells are major source of irrigation in
selected districts. In Hanumangarh, canal irrigation accounts for 97.63 percent (Table 3.1).
3.4 Cropping Pattern and Crop-wise Area Irrigated in State & Selected Districts:
i) State: The particulars set out in below given Table 3.2 reveals that, in spite of unfriendly
climate and many constraints, a wide range of crops are being cultivated in the state due to
great diversity in soil and climate condition. Table 3.2 further reveals that the cereals
occupied (43.12%) the bulk of the total cropped area followed by oilseed (20.39%) and
pulses (16.87%). Of the total cropped area, 60.86 percent claimed by food grain crops. This
indicates that Rajasthan is a leading state in food grains production. Amongst the cereals,
bajra (pearl millet) occupied the largest area i.e. 53.14 percent of the total cereals and 24.02
percent of total cropped area (GCA) of the state. Maize is another important kharif cereal
crop covering 5.06 percent area of state’s total cropped area. Wheat is most important
irrigated rabi cereal crop covering about 11.01 percent of GCA. Among pulses, moth bean,
gram and green gram (moong) are important crops covering 5.98, 4.07 and 4.82 percent area
of GCA respectively. In the state, food grain crops are dominating in the cropping pattern
covering 60.86 percent of GCA. Among oilseeds, rapeseed and mustard, soybean and
groundnut are important crops. Rapeseed and mustard, groundnut and soybean claimed
10.17, 1.60 and 3.58 percent of GCA respectively. Amongst other crops, guar seed and cotton
are important crops and guarseed claimed as much as 11.90 percent of GCA. Amongst
different states of India, in terms of area Rajasthan ranked first in bajra, second in maize and
gram and fourth in wheat. In the State, bajra, maize, jowar, moth bean, soybean and guarseed
are generally grown as unirrigated and hence percentages of area irrigated for these crops are
negligible or small (Table 3.2). Wheat and rapeseed & mustard crops are generally grown in
the state under irrigated condition. Nearly 99 percent area under wheat and 83 percent area
under rapeseed and mustard were irrigated. Gram is grown under both, irrigated as well as
unirrigated conditions (Table 3.2). Of the total cropped area, 32.24 percent area under gram
was irrigated.
29
Table 3.2: Cropping Pattern and Crop-wise Irrigation Coverage in Selected Districts and State in TE 2010-11* (Area in Hect.)
Sr.
No. Crops
Alwar Chittorgarh Churu Hanumangarh Udaipur Rajasthan
Area
(Ha.) % IA
Area
(Ha.) % IA
Area
(Ha.) % IA
Area
(Ha.) % IA
Area
(Ha.) % IA Area (Ha.) % IA
1 Bajra 258819
(1.83) 20
(3.33) 412835
(1.13) 74847
(10.82) 37
(0.00) 5277278
(3.71) (30.95) (0.00) (28.84) (6.34) (0.01) (22.62)
2 Maize 8331
(2.72) 173995
(0.09) 0
(0.00) 4
(100.00) 177418
(0.04) 1097163
(0.72) (1.00) (37.66) (0.00) (0.00) (58.65) (4.70)
3 Jowar 33246
(28.52) 8058
(0.00) 5
(66.67) 153
(0.65) 7451
(0.00) 673979
(0.38) (3.98) (1.74) (0.00) (0.01) (2.46) (2.89)
4 Wheat 185655
(99.99) 84433
(99.99) 22501
(99.55) 217324
(99.82) 42811
(98.68) 2575068
(98.96) (22.20) (18.27) (1.57) (18.42) (14.15) (11.04)
5 Total Cereals 500136
(41.21) 272785
(33.31) 440987
(7.21) 340815
(80.02) 238617
(19.87) 10057952
(30.85) (59.82) (59.04) (30.80) (28.89) (78.88) (43.12)
6 Gram 12636
(39.06) 7036
(41.75) 269670
(8.40) 181185
(15.46) 8372
(10.70) 1309035
(35.21) (1.51) (1.52) (18.84) (15.36) (2.77) (5.61)
7 Moth bean 21
(0.00) 0
(0.00) 333879
(0.06) 62833
(2.07) 36
(0.00) 1362344
(0.37) (0.00) (0.00) (23.32) (5.33) (0.01) (5.84)
8 Total Pulses 16168
(40.12) 12363
(31.33) 636763
(3.59) 261545
(14.37) 19585
(7.80) 3934651
(13.90) (1.93) (2.68) (44.48) (22.17) (6.47) (16.87)
9 Total Food grains 516304
(41.17) 285148
(33.22) 1077750
(5.07) 602360
(51.52) 258202
(18.95) 13992603
(26.08) (61.75) (61.71) (75.28) (51.06) (85.35) (59.99)
10 Rapeseed &
Mustard 257990
(94.40) 57853
(97.28) 17512
(89.95) 96084
(94.83) 13899
(65.61) 2480086
(82.98) (30.86) (12.52) (1.22) (8.14) (4.59) (10.63)
11 Soybean 0
(0.00) 39723
(0.04) 0
(0.00) 2
(100.00) 1706
(0.12) 791109
(1.53) (0.00) (8.60) (0.00) (0.00) (0.56) (3.39)
12 Total Oilseeds 264602
(92.61) 133655
(42.55) 44772
(85.35) 111823
(91.81) 23634
(38.68) 4756843
(51.38) (31.65) (28.93) (3.13) (9.48) (7.81) (20.39)
13 Guar Seed 30028
(1.41) 4229
(0.02) 297272
(0.08) 286216
(25.59) 12771
(0.00) 2965928
(8.68) (3.59) (0.92) (20.76) (24.26) (4.22) (12.72)
14 All Crops (GCA) 836127
(56.31) 462072
(34.96) 1431697
(7.19) 1179772
(54.25) 302511
(19.68) 23325178
(32.24) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)
Notes: * Area shown is triennium ending 2010-11., % IA= Percentage of irrigated area to total area under respective crop,; Figure in brackets percentage area under crop to GCA.
Source: "Rajasthan Agriculture Statistics at a glance"- 2008-09 to 2010-11, Commissionerate of Agri. Jaipur, Rajasthan
30
ii) Selected Districts: Area under major crops and under broad categories viz. food grains,
pulses and oilseeds for selected districts has been presented in Table 3.2. Amongst selected
districts, crop pattern as well as irrigation pattern varying significantly.
Alwar: Table 3.2 reveals that nearly 60 percent of district GCA occupied by cereals. Area
under pulses was only 1.93 percent. Thus agricultural economy of the district is highly
dependent on cereal crops. Bajra is the most important rainfed cereal crop. Wheat is the most
important irrigated rabi cereal crop. Bajra and wheat together accounted for 53.15 percent of
the gross cropped area and 88.87 percent of the total area under cereals. Of the total cropped
area, oilseed crops accounted for 30.86 percent. In oilseeds, Rapeseed and Mustard is most
important and from total area under oilseed crops, it claimed more than 97 percent. Guarseed
is also important crop and it claimed 2.88 percent area of GCA. The pulses are grown in the
district on a very small scale. Gram is important pulse crop and accounted for only 1.15
percent of GCA. Bajra, Jowar, and Guarseed are grown mostly as unirrigated crops. Wheat
(99.99%), Rapeseed and Mustard (94.40%) are grown mainly under irrigated condition.
Gram is grown as both irrigated as well as unirrigated (Table 3.2).
Chittorgarh: Table 3.2 reveals that maize and wheat are two important cereal crops covering
41.52 and 15.40 percent area of GCA. The other food grain crops not have much contribution
in food grain economy of the district. The food grain crops occupied the bulk of the area
(61.71%) followed by oilseed crops (28.93%). In Oilseed crops, rapeseed and mustard
(12.52%) and soybean (8.60%) are most important crops. Soybean is grown as inter crop as
well as sole crop. The pulses are grown on a very limited scale (Table 3.2). Wheat (99.99%)
and rapeseed & mustard (97.28%) are grown in irrigated areas whereas maize and soybean
are grown generally as unirrigated.
Churu: Amongst cereals crops, bajra is the main crop and claiming 28.84 percent of GCA
and 85.38 percent of total area of cereal crops. Owing to lack of adequate irrigation, area
under wheat (1.57%) was not significant. In the crop pattern, pulses are dominating. The area
devoted to pulse crops was as much as 44.18 percent of GCA. Amongst pulses, moth bean
and gram are very important crops and covering 23.32 and 18.84 percent of GCA
respectively. Owing to large area under pulses, area devoted to total food grain crops comes
to 73.31 percent of GCA. Guarseed is also very important crop of the district and it claimed
as much as 20.76 percent of GCA (Table 3.2). Generally, bajra, moth bean and guarseed are
grown in unirrigated areas. The majority area under gram (91.60%) was unirrigated due to
limited availability of water for irrigation.
31
Hanumangarh: Of the GCA, share of area under cereals, pulses, food grains and oilseeds
crops were 28.89, 22.17, 51.06 and 19.48 percent respectively. Wheat and bajra are important
cereal crops and claiming 18.42 and 6.34 percent area of GCA respectively. Gram and moth
bean are two important pulse crops claiming 15.36 and 5.33 percent area of GCA
respectively. Rapeseed & mustard is important oilseed crop and claiming 8.14 percent of
GCA. The district is a leading producer of guarseed. In the district’s crop pattern, guarseed
have dominating position. Of the GCA, are under guarseed was 24.26 percent. In the district,
normal rainfall is very low, but canal irrigation is available throughout the year. Hence, of the
GCA, nearly 63 percent area was under irrigation. Wheat and rapeseed & mustard are mostly
grown as irrigated crops whereas gram and guarseed are grown as both unirrigated as well as
irrigated (Table 3.2).
Udaipur: In Udaipur, crop pattern is highly dominated by cereal crops (78.88%). Maize and
wheat are most important cereal crops of the district. Maize (58.65%) and wheat (14.15%)
together accounted for 72.80 percent of GCA and 92.30 percent of total area under cereals.
Pulses including gram are grown on small scale, mostly as unirrigated crop. Rapeseed &
mustard is grown mostly under irrigated condition and confined to certain pockets of the
district. Guar seed is also important crop claiming 4.22 percent area of GCA. Maize, jowar,
guarseed and gram are mostly grown under unirrigated condition. Of the total wheat area,
98.68 percent was irrigated.
3.5 Production and Yield of Major Crops in Selected Districts and State-2010-11:
(1) District-wise Area, Production and Yield of Selected Crops in Rajasthan- TE 2010-11:
Table 3.3.1 given below depicts that among all districts of state, area under bajra
found highest in Barmer (18.40%) followed by Jodhpur (11.40%) and Churu (7.80%). These
three districts have desertic conditions and rainfed farming. Hence productivity of all crops
including of bajra in these districts generally remains lower and below state average. In these
districts, in case of bajra, share of production in the state total found remarkably lower than
its corresponding share in area. This clearly suggests very low yield level of bajra compared
to other districts. Across districts, bajra yield showing wide variation. It varied from 233
kg./ha. in Barmer to 1836 kg./ha. in Karauli districts.
Maize is an important crop and generally grown in tribal pockets of the state. In terms
of area and production of maize crop, Chittorgarh, Bhilwara, Banswara and Udaipur are the
prime districts of the state. These four districts together covering nearly 66 percent of maize
area of the state and contributing 62 percent in state production (Table 3.3.1).
32
Table 3.3.1: District-wise Area, Production and Yield of Selected crops in Rajasthan for TE 2010-11 (Area in Ha; Production in MT and Yield in Kg./Ha.)
District Bajra Maize Wheat Gram
Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
Ajmer 87663 (1.7) 72161 (1.7) 823 35497 (3.2) 27077 (1.6) 763 29896 (1.2) 89019 (1.1) 2978 44025 (3.4) 33976 (3.3) 772
Alwar 258819 (4.9) 400311 (9.7) 1547 7664 (0.7) 11340 (0.7) 1480 185655 (7.2) 742336 (8.8) 3998 12636 (1.0) 16620 (1.6) 1315
Banswara 145 (0.0) 112 (0.0) 772 136182 (12.4) 233446 (13.9) 1714 80878 (3.1) 152198 (1.8) 1882 13039 (1.0) 11867 (1.1) 910
Baran 3424 (0.1) 3576 (0.1) 1045 14205 (1.3) 28346 (1.7) 1995 116447 (4.5) 419126 (5.0) 3599 5148 (0.4) 6788 (0.7) 1319
Barmer 967915 (18.3) 225799 (5.5) 233 2 (0.0) 3 (0.0) 1600 14466 (0.6) 19213 (0.2) 1328 369 (0.0) 327 (0.0) 885
Bharatpur 114470 (2.2) 195320 (4.7) 1706 6 (0.0) 8 (0.0) 1471 150562 (5.8) 628908 (7.5) 4177 5887 (0.4) 8221 (0.8) 1396
Bhilwara 3655 (0.1) 3059 (0.1) 837 189645 (17.3) 260389 (15.5) 1373 70513 (2.7) 184837 (2.2) 2621 23869 (1.8) 19192 (1.8) 804
Bikaner 252198 (4.8) 104102 (2.5) 413 7 (0.0) 11 (0.0) 1524 64667 (2.5) 157760 (1.9) 2440 151421 (11.6) 117801 (11.3) 778
Bundi 3540 (0.1) 3721 (0.1) 1051 39766 (3.6) 81845 (4.9) 2058 125305 (4.9) 455624 (5.4) 3636 6999 (0.5) 7179 (0.7) 1026
Chittorgarh 20 (0.0) 16 (0.0) 817 173995 (15.9) 390192 (23.3) 2243 84433 (3.3) 312891 (3.7) 3706 7036 (0.5) 6621 (0.6) 941
Churu 412835 (7.8) 197795 (4.8) 479 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 22501 (0.9) 45052 (0.5) 2002 269670 (20.6) 132977 (12.8) 493
Dausa 132892 (2.5) 198859 (4.8) 1496 1008 (0.1) 1340 (0.1) 1329 85259 (3.3) 290917 (3.5) 3412 7707 (0.6) 8231 (0.8) 1068
Dholpur 80851 (1.5) 147997 (3.6) 1831 12 (0.0) 19 (0.0) 1556 55598 (2.2) 204606 (2.4) 3680 2942 (0.2) 3600 (0.3) 1224
Dungarpur 153 (0.0) 111 (0.0) 728 89144 (8.1) 88335 (5.3) 991 30547 (1.2) 48901 (0.6) 1601 11560 (0.9) 10327 (1.0) 893
Ganganagar 13518 (0.3) 18578 (0.4) 1374 33 (0.0) 57 (0.0) 1735 217264 (8.4) 811388 (9.7) 3735 102306 (7.8) 88331 (8.5) 863
Hanumangarh 74847 (1.4) 77496 (1.9) 1035 4 (0.0) 7 (0.0) 1750 217324 (8.4) 735068 (8.7) 3382 181185 (13.8) 101583 (9.8) 561
Jaipur 307572 (5.8) 380610 (9.2) 1237 3845 (0.4) 4385 (0.3) 1140 144958 (5.6) 487842 (5.8) 3365 46410 (3.5) 74513 (7.2) 1606
Jaisalmer 167735 (3.2) 31858 (0.8) 190 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 11805 (0.5) 24180 (0.3) 2048 66389 (5.1) 35482 (3.4) 534
Jalore 329833 (6.3) 164380 (4.0) 498 36 (0.0) 57 (0.0) 1593 33175 (1.3) 59724 (0.7) 1800 2963 (0.2) 1269 (0.1) 428
Jhalawar 7 (0.0) 6 (0.0) 864 37959 (3.5) 78764 (4.7) 2075 65745 (2.6) 204189 (2.4) 3106 37532 (2.9) 33559 (3.2) 894
Jhunjhunu 276539 (5.2) 312164 (7.5) 1129 1 (0.0) 2 (0.0) 1500 76973 (3.0) 257015 (3.1) 3339 87012 (6.6) 92108 (8.9) 1059
Jodhpur 606282 (11.5) 296351 (7.2) 489 20 (0.0) 30 (0.0) 1542 51310 (2.0) 121172 (1.4) 2362 2194 (0.2) 1929 (0.2) 879
Karauli 128156 (2.4) 235318 (5.7) 1836 174 (0.0) 264 (0.0) 1517 74016 (2.9) 293211 (3.5) 3961 16812 (1.3) 19045 (1.8) 1133
Kota 68 (0.0) 51 (0.0) 755 11030 (1.0) 18210 (1.1) 1651 97963 (3.8) 352307 (4.2) 3596 6605 (0.5) 6799 (0.7) 1029
Nagaur 493369 (9.3) 466036 (11.3) 945 56 (0.0) 78 (0.0) 1401 73876 (2.9) 187477 (2.2) 2538 32152 (2.5) 43001 (4.1) 1337
Pali 86637 (1.6) 50049 (1.2) 578 20608 (1.9) 17945 (1.1) 871 44888 (1.7) 81488 (1.0) 1815 20404 (1.6) 15655 (1.5) 767
Pratapgarh 18 (0.0) 15 (0.0) 833 56246 (5.1) 100557 (6.0) 1788 47209 (1.8) 132629 (1.6) 2809 25575 (2.0) 24248 (2.3) 948
Rajsamand 469 (0.0) 365 (0.0) 778 60037 (5.5) 69593 (4.2) 1159 16809 (0.7) 49413 (0.6) 2940 667 (0.1) 566 (0.1) 849
S. Madhopur 79935 (1.5) 125462 (3.0) 1570 688 (0.1) 1035 (0.1) 1506 66275 (2.6) 222977 (2.7) 3364 18902 (1.4) 23079 (2.2) 1221
Sikar 313137 (5.9) 340285 (8.2) 1087 21 (0.0) 31 (0.0) 1484 92256 (3.6) 298473 (3.6) 3235 53220 (4.1) 58341 (5.6) 1096
Sirohi 16437 (0.3) 11216 (0.3) 682 28404 (2.6) 32753 (2.0) 1153 27284 (1.1) 70422 (0.8) 2581 3131 (0.2) 2570 (0.2) 821
Tonk 64105 (1.2) 73370 (1.8) 1145 13451 (1.2) 11298 (0.7) 840 56400 (2.2) 165715 (2.0) 2938 34896 (2.7) 23498 (2.3) 673
Udaipur 37 (0.0) 21 (0.0) 577 177418 (16.2) 217547 (13.0) 1226 42811 (1.7) 97992 (1.2) 2289 8372 (0.6) 9540 (0.9) 1140
State 5277278 (100.0) 4136575 (100.0) 784 1097163 (100.0) 1674965 (100.0) 1527 2575068 (100.0) 8404072 (100.0) 3264 1309035 (100.0) 1038841 (100.0) 794
Note: 1. Figures in parenthesis shows percentage of respective state's total. 2. Triennial average ending 2010-11. Source: Agricultural statistics, 2008-09 to 2010-11, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Rajasthan, Yojana Bhawan, Jaipur.
33
The productivity of maize is varying largely across the districts. It varied from mere 763
kg./ha. in Ajmer to 2243 kg./ha. in Chittorgarh district. Wheat is most important rabi cereal
crop of the state and grown in almost all the districts of the state. In case of wheat, in respects
of area and production, Alwar, Bharatpur, Ganganagar, Hanumangadh and Jaipur are the
leading districts of the state. Wheat is grown as both irrigated and unirrigated. Obviously
productivity of irrigated wheat is much higher than it is grown as unirrigated. Therefore,
across districts, owing to variation in irrigation level, significant variation noticed in wheat
yield. It varied from 1328 kg./ha. in Barmer district to 4177 kg./ha. in Bharatpur district
(Table 3.3.1).
Gram is very important rabi pulse crop of the state. It is grown on large scale in 13
districts of the state. It is grown as both, irrigated as well as unirrigated. Across districts, wide
variations observed in the yield level of gram. In terms of area under gram, Churu (20.60%),
Hanumangadh (13.80%), Bikaner (11.60%) and Ganganagar (7.80%) were the leading
districts of the state. Incidentally, these four districts are also leading gram producing
districts. In state’s total gram production, share of these four districts was to the extent of
42.40 percent. However, productivity record of these districts was poor. The gram
productivity was only 493 kg./ha. in Churu and 561 kg./ha. in Hanumangadh district. It was
highest in Jaipur (1604 kg./ha.) followed by Bharatpur (1361 kg./ha.) and Nagaur (1337
kg./ha.) (Table 3.3.1).
(2) Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops in Selected Districts:
Table 3.3.2 presents data on area, production and yield of major crops in selected
districts and state.
It is clearly evident that for each crop, yield level fluctuating to a great extent across
the selected districts. Although, area under bajra in Alwar district was much lower than it in
Churu district, production was much higher in Alwar than it in Churu. This has been mainly
due to achievement of much higher yield. In case of bajra, wheat, total pulses, total food
grains, guarseed and all crops together, the yield in all selected districts except Churu,
exceeded the state average. In Churu district, except total oilseeds, yield of each crop was
found remarkably lower than state average. Across selected districts, yield level of bajra
fluctuating between 39.98 Qtl. in Alwar to 20.02 Qtl. in Churu district. For maize, it ranged
between 22.43 Qtl. in Chittorgarh to 12.26 Qtl. in Udaipur district. For gram, it ranged from
13.15 Qtl. in Alwar to 4.93 Qtl. in Churu district.
34
Table 3.3.2: Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops in Selected Districts of Rajasthan in TE 2010-11*
(Area in ha.; Production in Tonne and Yield in Qtl./ha.)
No. Crops Alwar Chittorgarh Churu Hanumangadh Udaipur Rajasthan
1 Bajra A 258819 (4.90) 20 Neg. 412835 (7.82) 74847 (1.42) 37 Neg. 5277278
P 400311 (9.68) 16 Neg. 148461 (3.59) 77496 (1.87) 21 Neg. 4136575
Y 15.47
8.17
3.60
10.35
5.77
7.84
2 Maize A 7664 (0.70) 173995 (15.86) 0 (0.00) 4 (0.00) 177418 (16.17) 1097163
P 11340 (0.68) 390192 (23.30) 0 (0.00) 7 (0.00) 217547 (12.99) 1674965
Y 13.61
22.43
0.00
17.50
12.26
15.27
3 Jowar A 33246 (4.93) 8058 (1.20) 5 (0.00) 153 (0.02) 7451 (1.11) 673979
P 17008 (5.39) 5552 (1.76) 2 (0.00) 22 (0.01) 3910 (1.24) 315344
Y 5.12
6.89
4.00
1.46
5.25
4.68
4 Wheat A 185655 (7.21) 84433 (3.28) 22501 (0.87) 217324 (8.44) 42811 (1.66) 2575068
P 742336 (8.83) 312891 (3.72) 45052 (0.54) 735068 (8.75) 97992 (1.17) 8404072
Y 39.98
37.06
20.02
33.82
22.89
32.64
5 Total Cereals
A 500136 (4.97) 272785 (2.71) 440987 (4.38) 340815 (3.39) 238617 (2.37) 10057952
P 1224928 (7.85) 725514 (4.65) 254347 (1.63) 986232 (6.32) 333458 (2.14) 15598386
Y 24.49
26.60
5.77
28.94
13.97
15.51
6 Gram A 12636 (0.97) 7036 (0.54) 269670 (20.60) 181185 (13.84) 8372 (0.64) 1309035
P 16620 (1.60) 6621 (0.64) 132977 (12.80) 101583 (9.78) 9540 (0.92) 1038841
Y 13.15
9.41
4.93
5.61
11.40
7.94
7 Moth bean
A 21 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 333879 (24.51) 62833 (4.61) 36 (0.00) 1362344
P 6 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 79850 (21.02) 23552 (6.20) 10 (0.00) 379883
Y 2.90
0.00
2.39
3.75
2.80
2.79
8 Total
Pulses A 16168 (0.41) 12363 (0.31) 636763 (16.18) 261545 (6.65) 19585 (0.50) 3934651
P 19309 (1.00) 8984 (0.47) 226891 (11.77) 132240 (6.86) 15352 (0.80) 1927568
Y 11.94
7.27
3.56
5.06
7.84
4.90
9 Total Food
grains
A 516304 (3.69) 285148 (2.04) 1077750 (7.70) 602360 (4.30) 258202 (1.85) 13992603
P 1244170 (7.10) 734498 (4.19) 481239 (2.75) 1118472 (6.38) 348811 (1.99) 17525954
Y 24.10
25.76
4.47
18.57
13.51
12.53
10 Rapeseed
&
Mustard
A 257990 (10.40) 57853 (2.33) 17512 (0.71) 96084 (3.87) 13899 (0.56) 2480086
P 422383 (12.35) 70769 (2.07) 22154 (0.65) 172549 (5.04) 15918 (0.47) 3420512
Y 16.37
12.23
12.65
17.96
11.45
13.79
11 Soybean A 0 (0.00) 39723 (5.02) _ _ 2 (0.00) 1706 (0.22) 791109
P 0 (0.00) 46540 (4.92) _ _ 2 (0.00) 1761 (0.19) 946135
Y 0.00
11.72
0.00 - 10.00
10.32
11.96
12 Total
Oilseeds A 264602 (5.56) 133655 (2.81) 44772 (0.94) 111823 (2.35) 23634 (0.50) 4756843
P 426686 (7.91) 148661 (2.75) 65922 (1.22) 187645 (3.48) 21560 (0.40) 5396813
Y 16.13
11.12
14.72
16.78
9.12
11.35
13 Guar Seed
A 30028 (1.01) 4229 (0.14) 297272 (10.02) 286216 (9.65) 12771 (0.43) 2965928
P 23596 (2.35) 2678 (0.27) 54893 (5.47) 201869 (20.13) 9147 (0.91) 1002936
Y 7.86
6.33
1.85
7.05
7.16
3.38
14 Total A 836127 (3.58) 462072 (1.98) 1431697 (6.14) 1179772 (5.06) 302511 (1.30) 23325178
P 1782264 (6.75) 1007429 (3.81) 608075 (2.30) 1893241 (7.17) 410850 (1.56) 26416682
Y 21.32
21.80
4.25
16.05
13.58
11.33
Note: Figure in brackets show percentage state's total. * Area, Production and Yield shown are triennium ending 2010-11. A= Area; P=Production;
Y= Yield. Neg. = Negligible.
Source: "Rajasthan Agriculture Statistics at a glance"- 2008-09 to 2010-11, Commissionerate of Agri. Jaipur, Rajasthan
35
In Alwar, Chittorgarh, Hanumangadh and Udaipur districts, for most of the crops, share of
production in state’s total, was remarkably higher than its corresponding share in area. The
availability of relatively better water resources, higher use of quality inputs and favorable
agro-climatic conditions helped these districts to achieve better productivity and crop
production. Among selected districts, in terms of production and yield of crops, Alwar and
Hanumangadh performed better. The performance of Churu district was worse because of
large scale rainfed farming (93%) and deserted soil condition.
The data further show that Alwar and Hanumangadh districts are leading producer of
wheat, food grains and oilseeds. Churu and Hanumangarh districts for gram whereas
Chittorgarh and Udaipur districts for maize are leading producer.
3.6 Trend Rates of Growth in Area (A), Production (P) and Yield (Y) of Crops/ Crop
Groups in the State- 1991-2011:
The performance and trends in area, production and yield of study crops/ crop groups
of the state has been analyzed using compound annual growth rates (CAGR) for the period
1991-2011. Further, time series period 1991-2011 was divided into two sub-periods 1991-92
to 2000-01 (period-I) and 2001-02 to 2010-11 (period-II). The CAGR is estimated by fitting a
log-linear regression trend to the time series data. The CAGR provides a rigorous estimate of
average annual compound rate of growth (CAGR) during the period under consideration
using all observations in the time-series data set. Further, to judge the variability and
instability in area, production and yield, coefficient of variation (CV) also worked out. The
concern data are presented in Table 3.4.
High coefficient of variation for production and productivity for maize, bajra and
gram crops suggests instability in production and productivity. The CV for production and
productivity of wheat suggests lower instability compared to other crops. Very high CV for
gram clearly suggests very high fluctuation in area and production under gram across years
(Table 3.4). The CV for area under bajra and wheat also suggests instability across years.
The instability in area under crop across years arised owing to various factors like
changes in rainfall and weather factors, crop rotation system, introduction of new crops,
changes in relative profitability of the crops arising out of changes in relative yield level and
prices, changes in availability of irrigation etc. The farmer’s inability to meet/ adjust to
requirements and factors which are not under the control of farmers are causing instability in
crop yield. The variability in production is the result of the instability in area and yield.
36
Table 3.4: CAGR of Area, Production and Yield of Selected Crops in Rajasthan- 1990-91 to 2010-11 (Area in Ha.; Production in MT and Yield in Kg./ Ha.)
Years Maize Bajra Wheat Gram
Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
1991-92 949061 767199 808 4597049 1071674 233 1779244 4478405 2517 1028748 678857 660
1992-93 954191 1009713 1058 5002565 2893480 578 2250846 5147828 2287 1448708 793690 548
1993-94 920472 924794 1005 4363530 1047718 240 2013047 3459540 1719 1221819 747244 612
1994-95 927174 674782 728 4978124 2568433 516 2321909 5612776 2417 1586465 1371148 864
1995-96 911089 811823 891 4271716 1156349 271 2196237 5493277 2501 1620273 1090257 673
1996-97 927924 1028638 1109 4710260 2315199 492 2474278 6782028 2741 1519132 1071014 705
1997-98 969273 1222429 1261 4703272 2509716 534 2679908 6701008 2500 2213909 1924551 869
1998-99 946350 1022458 1080 4183532 1800328 430 2766290 6879818 2487 2815730 2073813 737
1999-00 933578 968657 1038 3945217 1300764 330 2650187 6731932 2540 975347 677876 695
2000-01 969898 1015326 1047 4636922 2046659 441 2309637 5547100 2402 672644 396620 590
2001-02 1017433 1478871 1454 5129949 3819783 745 2287498 6389030 2793 969625 735528 759
2002-03 983553 870264 885 3215390 717945 223 1800659 4878020 2709 449680 340620 757
2003-04 1110655 2069389 1863 5868008 6669825 1137 2103059 5875862 2794 1117506 707192 633
2004-05 1042511 1262251 1211 4587712 3011070 656 2010241 5706613 2839 1036792 772951 746
2005-06 1004963 1103841 1098 4993678 2168332 434 2123910 5865293 2762 1081932 478932 443
2006-07 1032079 1117941 1083 4910409 3440400 701 2564840 7755883 3024 1010754 872559 863
2007-08 1050663 1954358 1860 5077396 4223266 832 2591804 7124921 2749 1231273 574157 466
2008-09 1052181 1827232 1737 5174591 4283444 828 2294848 7287016 3175 1259474 981189 779
2009-10 1100216 1148612 1044 5223564 2053190 393 2394213 7500844 3133 884680 534894 605
2010-11 1143078 2052946 1796 5488742 6091406 1110 3036141 10424350 3433 1783274 1600704 898
CAGR for 1991-92
to 2000-01 0.20 2.92 2.71 -1.13 2.18 3.34 3.47 4.96 1.44 -0.90 0.10 1.00
CAGR for 2001-02
to 2010-11 0.98 3.45 2.44 2.25 6.78 4.43 3.66 5.89 2.15 7.07 7.22 0.14
CAGR for 1991-92
to 2010-11 1.00 4.06 3.03 0.75 5.63 4.84 0.78 2.78 1.98 -1.56 -1.53 0.03
CV (%) 6.90 35.40 29.16 12.23 58.64 48.54 13.81 23.18 13.76 41.29 52.24 18.59
Cont….
37
Table 3.4: Contd….
Years Total Cereals Total Pulses Total food grains Total Oilseed Total Crops
A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y A P Y
1991-92 8457454 7064416 835 2830664 916750 324 11288118 7981166 707 3561941 2710672 761 18093392 14697930 812
1992-93 9396346 10021280 1067 3440702 1457891 424 12837048 11479171 894 3358746 2541531 757 20167344 19110053 948
1993-94 8301016 5983757 721 3328068 1071214 322 11629084 7054971 607 3613113 2405311 666 19254591 13432026 698
1994-95 9323553 9744884 1045 3601800 1965516 546 12925353 11710400 906 3491627 2834033 812 20380496 19195109 942
1995-96 8328392 8111328 974 3573876 1455782 407 11902268 9567110 804 3843153 3069900 799 19672913 17994992 915
1996-97 9090575 10976724 1207 3760049 1844732 491 12850624 12821456 998 3883320 3529377 909 20693323 22761816 1100
1997-98 9358223 11403552 1219 4381476 2632644 601 13739699 14036196 1022 4421452 3300042 746 22325051 22561984 1011
1998-99 8831900 10490308 1188 4643947 2444266 526 13475847 12934574 960 4305294 3815414 886 21401036 20646068 965
1999-00 8480139 9793252 1155 2478863 892609 360 10959002 10685861 975 3635294 3405798 937 19286014 17744471 920
2000-01 8997272 9308604 1035 2374851 731449 308 11372123 10040053 883 2646283 2032563 768 19230240 15571897 810
2001-02 9385652 12575743 1340 3357272 1465138 436 12742924 14001881 1099 3105618 3129005 1008 20798311 19360273 931
2002-03 6824992 7050764 1033 1802829 484449 269 8627821 7535213 873 2448976 1754675 716 13217538 10463058 792
2003-04 10120664 15727272 1554 3861030 2281909 591 13981694 18009181 1288 3228894 3996418 1238 21664039 24751620 1143
2004-05 8502839 10819961 1273 3576313 1338533 374 12079152 12158494 1007 5154275 5561449 1079 21062486 19657606 933
2005-06 9040687 9923684 1098 3490097 899945 258 12530784 10823629 864 5284440 5934905 1123 21699348 19220882 886
2006-07 9526125 13448552 1412 3207214 1479765 461 12733339 14928317 1172 4527700 5166933 1141 21533809 22427347 1041
2007-08 9737249 14504897 1490 3869957 1552796 401 13607206 16057693 1180 3995585 4197690 1051 22208291 24939280 1123
2008-09 9532260 14852634 1558 3672486 1826363 497 13204746 16678997 1263 4648967 5178458 1114 22392759 25616388 1144
2009-10 9829343 11657710 1186 3403605 702129 206 13232948 12359839 934 4158096 4436613 1067 21744877 19321808 889
2010-11 10871416 20307267 1868 4754808 3254331 684 15626224 23561598 1508 5488491 6604783 1203 25472805 34311849 1347
CAGR for 1991-
92 to 2000-01 0.15 3.64 3.49 -0.95 -0.14 0.82 -0.03 3.35 3.37 -0.32 1.44 1.76 0.66 1.75 1.09
CAGR for 2001-
02 to 2010-11 2.48 5.43 2.89 4.64 6.00 1.30 3.03 5.56 2.46 6.08 8.55 2.33 3.47 6.56 2.99
CAGR for 1991-
92 to 2010-11 0.68 3.60 2.90 0.55 0.31 -0.24 0.64 3.22 2.56 1.56 4.28 2.68 0.84 2.19 1.34
CV (%) 9.24 30.23 22.17 20.71 46.85 29.81 11.34 30.71 21.04 20.94 35.55 19.12 11.42 25.33 15.54
Source: "50 Years Agriculture Statistics of Rajasthan", Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Rajasthan, Yojana Bhawan, Jaipur
38
The analysis revealed that the estimated CAGRs for area, production and yield for
maize were higher for combined period (1991-2011) and two sub-periods. The growth in
area, production and yield was faster in period-II (2000-2011) compared to that with period-I
(1991-2001). During total period of 1991-2011, maize area in the state has grown at 1.00
percent per annum whereas yield registered CAGR of 3.03 percent. In the same period, maize
production increased at the rate of 4.06 percent per annum. The higher growth rate for maize
production achieved mainly through higher growth in yield and to some extent through
expansion in area (Table 3.4). For wheat crop, CAGR for area, production and yield found
positive and statistically significant during period-I, period-II and combine period. During
period I (1991-2001) and period-II (2001-2011), growth in wheat area was impressive
compared to growth in yield. This shows that in growth of wheat production, expansion of
wheat area played a major role. During total period of 1991-2011, wheat production recorded
CAGR of 2.78 percent. In the same period, CAGR for wheat area was only 0.78 percent as
against 1.98 percent in yield. This shows that growth in wheat production was largely
contributed by the growth in productivity and to some extent by expansion in area during
total period of 1991-2011.
The examination of CV for area, production and yield for gram crop reveals very high
variation across years during time periods under consideration. During period-I, CAGR of
area for gram was negative whereas it was positive but negligible for production. The annual
growth rates of area (7.07%) and production (7.22%) for gram increased significantly in
period-II compared to that in period-I. However in period-II growth rate of gram yield
declined to only 0.14 percent. This shows that growth in gram production came mainly
through expansion of area. During total period of 1991-2011, the CAGR for area and
production was negative. The CAGR of gram yield was positive but negligible suggesting
near stagnation.
For total cereals, CAGRs of area, production and productivity were positive for all
three time periods. The growth rates of productivity in all the three time periods were higher
than growth rates for area. This suggests that growth in production mainly attributed to
growth in productivity and to little extent by growth in area. Similar trends witnessed in case
of total food grains.
During the first period, CAGR of area and production of pulses were negative.
However during second period, the area and production of pulses experienced significant
growth. For the total period (1991-2011), yield recorded mild growth.
39
In the first period, CAGR of area under total oilseeds was negative but for production
it was positive. This suggests, declined in area and increase in production of total oilseeds.
The positive growth in oilseeds production period-I was contributed by growth in
productivity only. In second period, the area, production and yield of oilseeds registered very
high growth. The area of oilseeds has grown at rate of 6.08 percent per annum whereas
production grown at rate of 8.55 percent. The significant growth for oilseeds during second
period was contributed by both, area as well as productivity. During total time period, CAGR
of production of oilseeds was 2.68 percent. During total time period, for significant growth in
oilseeds production, both productivity and expansion in area were the contributing factors.
In all the three time periods, CAGRs of area, production and productivity of total
crops (all crops together) exhibited positive growth.
3.7 Category-Wise Number and Area of Operational Holdings (2005-06):
The category-wise number of holdings and operated area for both selected districts
and the state is given in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5: Category-wise Number and Area of Operational Holdings in State and
Selected Districts (As per 2006 Census)
Operational
Holdings Unit
Selected Districts
Alwar Churu Hanumangarh Chittorgarh Udaipur Rajasthan
MF
(<1 ha)
Nos. 178693
(51.56)
6038
(3.24)
15152
(8.93)
105730
(39.60)
168554
(53.97)
2073099
(33.51)
ha. 90282
(17.25)
3648
(0.29)
8804
(1.00)
56495
(10.60)
75131
(16.47)
1016367
(4.85)
SF
(1-2 ha)
Nos. 87793
(25.32)
17885
(9.59)
27024
(15.93)
74155
(27.77)
74526
(23.86)
1321126
(21.36)
ha. 123347
(23.57)
27214
(2.15)
39400
(4.49)
104859
(19.68)
103823
(22.75)
1895062
(9.05)
SMF
(2-4 ha)
Nos. 55191
(15.92)
48015
(25.76)
46396
(27.35)
54722
(20.50)
47715
(15.28)
1260369
(20.37)
ha. 152796
(29.20)
142067
(11.21)
136127
(15.50)
151939
(28.52)
131310
(28.78)
3569694
(17.05)
MOF
(4-10 ha)
Nos. 23094
(6.66)
77716
(41.68)
60703
(35.78)
28788
(10.78)
19226
(6.15)
1103263
(17.83)
ha. 130721
(24.98)
497706
(39.28)
381747
(43.46)
167730
(31.48)
109747
(24.06)
6796010
(32.46)
LF
(>10 ha)
Nos. 1889
(0.54)
36787
(19.73)
20390
(12.01)
3604
(1.35)
2298
(0.74)
428625
(6.93)
ha. 26158
(5.00)
596402
(47.07)
312239
(35.55) 51798 (9.72)
36221
(7.94)
7661858
(36.59)
TOTAL
Nos. 346600
(100)
186441
(100)
169665
(100)
266999
(100)
312319
(100)
6186482
(100)
Ha. 523304
(100)
1267037
(100)
878317
(100)
532821
(100)
456232
(100)
20938991
(100)
Average size
of holding ha. 1.51 6.80 5.18 2.00 1.46 3.38
Note: Figure within brackets shows percentage to respective total.
Source: - Statistical Abstract- 2011, pp 158-159, DES, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
40
i) State: The highest number of holdings falls under marginal (33.51%) category followed by
small (21.36%), semi medium (20.37%), medium (17.83%) and large (6.93%) holdings in
descending order. Marginal and small holdings when put together, constitute 54.87 percent of
total operational holdings of the state. Although, area under small and marginal holdings was
only 13.90 percent of total operated area, yet these holdings matters a lot in bringing out
overall increase in agricultural production and productivity. In large category, numbers of
holding were only 6.93 percent but covering 36.59 percent of total operated area of the state.
The average size of operational land holding was semi medium and is 3.38 ha (Table-3.5).
ii) Selected Districts: In the total holdings of the districts, the marginal and small holdings
when put together, constitute 77.83 percent in Udaipur, 67.37 percent in Chittorgarh and
76.88 percent in Alwar district. As against such high percentage, area covered by these small
and marginal holdings together was only 39.22 percent in Udaipur, 30.28 percent in
Chittorgarh and 40.82 percent in Alwar district. The proportion of large farmers in Udaipur,
Chittorgarh and Alwar districts was very low and it was only 0.74, 1.35 and 0.54 percent of
total holdings. Hence, in these 3 districts, during sample survey, we faced difficulties in
selection of large farmer. The category-wise distribution of number of operational holdings
and area in Churu and Hanumangarh district was totally different than it in other three
selected districts. In Churu and Hanumangarh district, number of small and marginal holdings
and area covered by them was very less and maximum number of holdings falls in medium
category (4-10ha), followed by semi medium. In Hanumangarh, when semi medium, medium
and large farmers were put together, constitute 68.84 percent holdings covering 97.56 percent
of total operational area of the district. The average size of operational land holding was 1.51
ha. in Alwar, 6.80 ha. in Churu, 5.18 ha. in Hanumangarh, 2.0 ha. in Chittorgarh and 4.46 ha.
in Udaipur (Table 3.5)
3.8 Fertilizer Consumption:
i) State: Fertilizer is an important input for increasing agriculture productivity and growth.
The consumption of fertilizers nutrients in Rajasthan is one of the lowest among different
states of India. The fertilizer nutrient (NPK) consumption per hectare mainly depends on
nature of crops, availability of irrigation and soil type. The nutrients consumption per hectare
in the state in different years was as follow:
Year 1981-82 1991-92 1999-2000 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Per ha NPK
consumption (kg)
Rajasthan 7.42 24.37 42.37 44.23 47.38 48.33 69.66
India 31.9 65.5 95.9 115.27 127.21 135.27 144.01
Source: FAI, New Delhi.
41
Overall, per hectare consumption of fertilizer nutrients in the state as well as in
country is showing increasing trends over a period of time. During 1981-2000 in Rajasthan, it
moved from 7.42 kg. /ha. to 42.37 kg. /ha., showing an increase of about 471 percent. It
further moved to 69.66 kg. /ha. in 2010-11. As against, in India, consumption moved up from
31.9 kg./ha. in 1981-82 to 144 kg./ha. in 2010-11. Thus, as compared to India, per hectare
fertilizer consumption in Rajasthan remained much lower. The increase in water availability
for irrigation and area under HYVs, changes in crop pattern, improvement in adoption of new
technology and availability of institutional credit were mainly responsible for sustainable
increase in per hectare fertilizer consumption. Of the total fertilizer consumption,
consumption of ‘N’ ranged from 72-78 percent whereas consumption of ‘P2O5’ranged from
20-25 percent.
From below given Table-3.6, it is evident that overall consumption of fertilizer
quantity in Rajasthan has increased substantially during 1991-2012 by 212.70 percent and
during 2000-01 to 2011-012 by 107.37 percent. The use of Potassium fertilizer during 2001-
2012 increased at a much faster rate and registered increase of 800 percent.
Table 3.6: Consumption of Fertilizer in Rajasthan
(Qty. in Lac tonnes)
Type
Fertilizer quantity consumed % change in
2011-12
1991-92 2000-01 2010-11 2011-12
(Estimated)
Over
1991-92
Over
2000-01
Nitrogenous (N) 2.92 4.96 8.70 9.25 216.78 86.49
Phosphorus (P) 1.41 1.64 4.13 4.09 190.01 149.39
Potassium (K) 0.08 0.05 0.35 0.45 462.50 800.00
Total NPK 4.41 6.65 13.18 13.79 212.70 107.37 Source: Directorate of Agriculture, Krishi Pant Bhavan, GoR, Jaipur.
ii) Selected Districts: Among selected districts, use of fertilizer nutrients consumption per
hectare in 2010-11 was higher than state average of 69.66 kgs. in high rainfall districts
namely Alwar (90.67 kg./ha), Chittorgarh (99.66 kg./ha.) and Udaipur (85.70 kg./ha.).
Owing to rainfed and mono cropping farming, majority farmers are not using fertilizer
nutrients in Churu district. Hence use of fertilizer nutrients was only 5.17 kg./ha. Though,
Hanumangarh is a low rainfall district, fertilizer nutrients consumption was at higher level
(68.02 kg./ha.) mainly because of availability of canal irrigation (Table 3.1).
42
3.9 Crop-wise Area Under HYVs Seeds and SRR in State:
Seed is considered to be a catalyst for bringing changes in agriculture and crop
productivity. The data of area under HYV for selected crops are given in Table 3.7. Table
shows that area under high yielding varieties for bajra, maize and wheat crops has been
improving but improvement was not so spectacular. The main reason of low growth in area
under HYV seeds was limited availability of certified seeds in some parts of Rajasthan. As
stated in figure-3.1 there was a significant shortfall in availability of quality/certified seeds in
Rajasthan during 2011-12.
Table 3.7: Area under HYVs of Study Crops in Rajasthan State
(Area in ’00 ha)
Year Bajra Maize Wheat Jowar
2004-05 19115 (41.67) 5106 (48.98) 15885 (79.02) 1886 (33.17)
2005-06 22486 (45.03) 5386 (53.59) 17961 (84.57) 2139 (36.13)
2006-07 25349 (51.62) 5944 (57.59) 23704 (92.42) 1748 (26.40)
2007-08 24840 (48.92) 6947 (66.12) 23796 (91.81) 1972 (31.51)
2008-09 23440 (45.30) 6783 (64.47) 21707 (94.59) 1039 (18.01)
Source: Statistical Abstract-2011, DES, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
The SRR during 2011-12 in the state for bajra, maize, wheat, gram, cotton and
mustard was 58.8 percent, 51.7 percent, 34.0 percent, 98.0 percent and 85.9 percent
respectively. The seed replacement rate of bajra, cotton, groundnut and soybean increased
significantly in decade ending 2010-11.
Figure: 3.1 Requirements and Distribution of Certified /Quality Seeds (Qtl.)
43
3.10 Institutional Credit and Crop Insurance:
Institutional Credit and Insurance availability and agricultural insurances are
important drivers of growth in agriculture. Owing to poor repayment capacity and illiteracy,
the access to institutional credit is quite limited for poor marginal and small farmers.
From Table 3.8, it is evident that about 54.4 percent of targeted amount of agricultural
loans have been disbursed in Rajasthan during 2011-12. Source-wise, about 49.10 percent of
total agricultural loans and about 44.10 percent of total crop loans were disbursed by
commercial banks. The co-operative banks disbursed about 30.30 percent of total agricultural
loans.
Table 3.8: Source-wise Agricultural Credit Disbursement in Rajasthan during 2011-12
(Rs. in Crore) Type of
Loans
Target/
Achievement
Commercial
Bank
Regional
Rural
Banks
Cooperative
Bank
Others Total
Crop Loan
Target 10612 4288 7807 9 22716
Achievement 5785 2871 4450 0 13106
(54.5) (67.0) (57.0) (0.0) (57.7)
Term Loan
Target 4642 809 1221 24 6696
Achievement 2071 429 406 0 2906
(44.6) (53.0) (33.3) (0.0) (43.4)
Total
Agriculture
loan
Target 15254 5097 9028 33 29412
Achievement 7856 3300 4856 0 16012
(51.5) (64.7) (53.8) (0.0) (54.4)
Note: Figures in parentheses are the percentages of targeted loan amount
Source: Directorate of Agriculture, GoR, Jaipur
As far as the status of agricultural insurance and weather based crop insurance is
concerned, it may be noted from Table 3.9 and Table 3.10 that performance of weather based
crop insurance has been much better than that of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme
(NAIS). The number of farmers insured under the weather based crop insurance has increased
from 1.67 lakh during Rabi 2007 to 27.33 lakh during Rabi 2011. Similarly, the number of
farmers insured under the same scheme has increased from 0.19 lakh during Kharif 2008 to
47.38 lakh during Kharif 2011. On the other hand, the growth in number of farmers insured
and area insured under NAIS has been almost stagnated over the last couple of years.
44
Table 3.9: Performance of National Agricultural Insurance Scheme in Rajasthan
Sr.
No.
Crop/Season/Year Farmers
Insured
(Lakh
No.)
Farmers
Benefitted
(Lakh No.)
Area
Insured
(Lakh
Ha.)
Sum
Insured
(Rs. In
Crore)
Premium
Paid
(Rs in
Crore)
Claims
(Rs in
Crore)
State
share
(Rs in
crore)
1 Kharif 2007 21.47 2.30 39.65 1777.00 52.11 88.41 18.15
2 Kharif 2008 13.86 4.57 27.61 1394.00 40.19 247.49 103.65
3 Kharif 2009 25.93 21.03 46.73 2724.00 79.51 1399.20 659.85
4 Kharif Average
20.42 9.30 38.00 1965.00 57.27 578.37 260.55
(75.6) (82.8) (77.3) (64.4) (64.9) (89.5) (92.6)
5 Rabi 2007 6.88 2.81 11.39 1014.00 22.04 77.53 28.76
6 Rabi 2008 8.64 2.20 15.36 1527.00 46.30 76.52 14.38
7 Rabi 2009 4.21 0.79 6.77 720.00 24.63 50.49 19.36
8 Rabi Average
6.58 1.93 11.17 1087.00 30.99 68.18 20.83
(24.4) (17.2) (22.7) (35.6) (35.1) (10.5) (7.4)
9 Gross Total
27.00 11.23 49.17 3052.00 88.26 646.55 281.38
(100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0)
Source: Directorate of Agriculture, GoR, Jaipur.
Table 3.10: Performance of Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme in Rajasthan
Sl.
No.
Crop/Season/Year Farmers
Insured
(Lakh
No.)
Farmers
Benefitted
(Lakh No.)
Sum
Insured
(Rs. in
Crore)
Premium
Paid
(Rs in
Crore)
State
Share
(Rs in
Crore)
Central
Share
(Rs in
Crore
Claims
(Rs in
Crore)
1 Rabi 2007 5.91 1.67 1626.40 46.13 51.36 51.36 83.49
2 Kharif 2008 0.19 0.06 40.45 1.51 2.00 2.00 1.94
3 Rabi 2008 0.24 0.10 157.09 3.52 5.66 5.66 8.19
4 Kharif 2009 3.20 2.42 517.52 18.80 20.58 20.58 44.58
5 Rabi 2009 6.59 2.42 1160.97 33.52 50.14 50.14 105.93
6 Kharif 2010 35.15 7.81 2728.91 93.23 104.96 104.96 37.09
7 Rabi 2010 27.33 11.71 4257.76 99.46 117.95 117.95 228.33
8 Kharif 2011 47.38 12.10 4288.54 131.79 150.05 150.05 90.79
Source: Directorate of Agriculture, GoR, Jaipur.
3.11 Agriculture Marketing:
An effective marketing structure plays an important role in extending the maximum
values of the agriculture products to the farmers.
The farmers sell their produce in both, regulated as well as non-regulated (Private)
markets. The unregulated market sources could be village traders, wholesalers, village hats
etc. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (KUMS/APMC) and co-operatives are regulated market.
KUMS ensure sales through auction method, reliable weighting, cash payment without
45
undue/unfair deductions and other many pro-farmers amenities. Regulated market also
provides storage facilities and advances to producers.
Table 3.11: District-wise number of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (KUMS) in Rajasthan
State-2011-12
Sr.
No.
Name of
Districts Nos. of KUMS
Sr.
No.
Name of
Districts Nos. of KUMS
1 Ajmer 6 17 Jalore 3
2 Jaipur 6 18 Barmer 2
3 Dausa 5 19 Nagaur 5
4 Sikar 4 20 Pali 5
5 Jhunjhunu 4 21 Sirohi 1
6 Alwar 3 22 Kota 4
7 Bharatpur 6 23 Baran 4
8 Dholpur 1 24 Bundi 3
9 S. Madhopur 2 25 Jhalawar 4
10 Karauli 1 26 Tonk 5
11 Bikaner 5 27 Banswara 1
12 Churu 6 28 Dungarpur 1
13 Sri Ganganagar 15 29 Udaipur 3
14 Hanumangarh 7 30 Bhilwara 4
15 Jodhpur 5 31 Chittorgarh 6
16 Jaisalmer 1 32 Rajsamand 1
33 Rajasthan State 129 Source: “Rajasthan Agriculture Statistics at a glance” 2010-11, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
Table 3.11, presents district-wise number of regulated KUMS, market yards/sub yards
in the state. At present, total 129 regulated markets in the state. As geographical area of the
state is very large, area served per market yard is also quite high. The farmers, particularly
small farmers of interior villages have to travel long distance and it increasing the cost of
transportation. As a result, marketing cost goes up and farmers end up in getting a lower net
price for the produce. Multiplicity of market charges, weightment charges and other cesses
etc. also reducing the return to farmers.
In some regulated markets, traders are forming cartel and under such situation farmers
are receiving low price bidding from traders. Owing to such non-legal activities by traders at
market yards, many farmers are selling quantities of produce in non-regulated market. In non-
regulated markets, traders offering price on the basis of quality and consideration of other
factors. The quality decided by visual observations.
46
3.12 Commodity-wise Arrivals at Krushi Upaj Mandi Samitis (KUMs) in Rajasthan:
With a view to providing better regulation of selling of agriculture produce in the
wholesale market and safeguarding the interests of the cultivator, Krushi Upaj Mandis
(KUMS) were established in the state. These regulated mandis work on democratic
principles. These regulated markets (mandis) promote fair market practice and save
cultivators from arbitrary deductions and other malpractices. The commodity-wise market
arrivals at KUMs in the state are presented in Table 3.12. It is clear from the table that market
arrivals at KUMs for each commodity fluctuated across years mainly due to fluctuation in
production and variation in market prices in non regulated markets and regulated markets.
The percentage of output marketed at KUMs during 2002-2011 for wheat, maize, bajra, total
cereals and total food grains always remained below 33.38 percent. This shows that nearly
two-third farmers opted to sell food grains in unregulated market sources like shopkeeper,
trader, big landlord or private wholesale market. the reasons of opting to unregulated markets
were many and varied from farmer to farmer. Table further reveals that as oilseeds are cash
crops, percentage of output marketed at KUMs found much higher and it was 63.44 percent
in 2009-10 and 49.89 percent in 2010-11. This shows that for selling oilseeds, farmers have
high preference for KUMs. Owing to wide fluctuation in pulses production across years,
percentage of market arrivals at KUMs varied significantly for pulses and gram. For gram, it
varied from only 9.80 percent in 2010-11 to 58.91 percent in 2002-03. Similar trend
witnessed in case of total pulses too.
Table 3.12: Commodity-wise Arrivals at KUMs in Rajasthan
Sr.
No. Commodity
Arrivals in M.T.
2002-03 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
1 Wheat 1194264 1795532 1727681 1366411
(18.69) (24.64) (23.03) (13.11)
2 Bajra 215822 503968 540146 626303
(30.06) (11.74) (26.30) (10.28)
3 Maize 167649 519777 382467 474176
(19.26) (28.39) (33.38) (23.10)
4 Total Cereals 1879825 3546915 3523906 3110455
(26.66) (23.86) (30.23) (15.32)
5 Gram 200663 174129 238988 156831
(58.91) (17.74) (44.98) (9.80)
6 Total Pulses 292319 501867 366026 572199
(60.34) (27.48) (52.11) (17.58)
7 Total Food grains 2172144 4048782 3889932 3682654
(28.83) (24.25) (31.48) (15.63)
8 Total Oilseeds 1698189 2655622 2814181 3295272
(96.78) (51.06) (63.44) (49.89) Note: Figures in parentheses are market arrivals as percent of total production of the crop in the state.
Source: Directorate of Agriculture Marketing, GoR, Jaipur; Economic Review 2010-11, DES, Rajasthan, Jaipur
47
3.13 Warehouse/Storage Facilities:
To ensure adequate returns on farm produce, better marketing channels and adequate
facilities are most essential. The existing warehousing capacity in the state is shown in below
given Table 3.13. The Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation (RSWC) was established in
1957 with main objective to build godowns and warehouse in the state for scientific storage
of agricultural produces, seeds, fertilizers etc., of the farmers, traders, co-operatives,
government and others. As on June-2012, RSWC has 413 godowns with total storage
capacity of 7.87 lakh MT (Table 3.13). Further from Table 3.13, it may be noted that there
are total 440 godowns in 31 districts with warehousing capacity of 8.43 lakh metric tonnes
are available in Rajasthan state. This implies that only 3 godowns with capacity of 6414
metric tonnes are available per 1 lakh cultivators in Rajasthan state resulting overutilization
of warehouses. In contrast, if we look at the market arrivals of crop output in APMCs/Market
yards in state, it was found that the total market arrivals in the state has been more than
doubled from 689.3 lakh Qtl. in 2002-03 to 1444.9 lakh Qtl. in 2011-12. Thus, there is a need
of further expansion of network of warehouse in the state. The RSWC is providing loan
assistance to the farmers of 75 percent value of their agriculture produce stored in the
warehouses. The RSWC is providing 70 percent, 60 percent and 10 percent rebate on storage
charges respectively to SC/ ST farmers, other farmers and co-operatives.
Table 3.13: Warehousing Capacity and No. of Godowns (as on 30th June, 2012)
Sl.
No.
Particulars of Godowns No. of
Godowns
Warehousing
Capacity
(in M.Ts.)
Utilization
Warehousing Capacity
(M.Ts.) (%)
1 Own constructed (RSWC) 413 787240 855398 109
2 Other Than Own Constructed
3 (a) Hired From
KUMS/PWD/GOVT/Corpn. 18 17000 16874 99
4 (b) Private 9 38890 39568 102
5 Total (a+b) 440 843130 911840 108 Source: Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3.14 Structural Transformation of the State Economy and Sectoral Shares of the
Economy:
The principal indicator to measure economic progress of agricultural sector is the
share of agricultural sector in gross state domestic product (GSDP) and net state domestic
product (NSDP). GSDP/NSDP valued at current prices as well as at constant prices
48
prevailing in a base year 2004-05. It is valued at constant prices with a view to capture
variation in the real income over the time.
i) Sectoral shares in GSDP: The composition of gross state domestic product (GSDP) by
broad sectors of the economy from the year 2004-05 onwards, at current and constant (2004-
05) prices is depicted in the below given Table 3.14.
The Rajasthan economy is largely agrarian in nature with greater fluctuation in
agricultural production and productivity that has resulted in notable fluctuation in GSDP over
the years. However, in recent years the state economy has exhibited a healthy growth path.
The state’s GSDP at current prices for the year 2011-12 is estimated to be Rs. 368319.52
crore showing an increase of 13.79 percent over previous year and 188.32 percent over 2004-
05. At constant prices (2004-05), state GSDP for 2011-12 estimated to be Rs. 215453.58
crore, showing an increase of 68.64 percent over 2004-05 and 5.41 percent over previous
year. During 1980-2000, share of agriculture in GSDP has fluctuated between 38 to 50
percent, with no discernible trends. However, contribution of agriculture sector in GSDP
started to decline in post 1995 era, and that of the industries and service sectors showed
significant improvement. The share of agriculture in GSDP at current price fluctuated
between 24 to 26 percent during period 2004-12. And its share in GSDP at constant price
fluctuated between 19 to 26 percent during 2004-12. Further, the share of agriculture in
GSDP is declining and that of service sector growing faster. This is not a desirable
development for agriculture sector (Table 3.14).
Sectoral distribution of GSDP for 2011-12 at constant prices (2004-05) is shown in
Figure-3.2.
Figure: 3.2 Sectoral distribution of GSDP 2011-12 At Constant Prices (2004-05) As
% Share in Total GSDP
49
Table 3.14: Year-wise Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) at Current and Constant (2004-05) Prices
(Rs. In Lakh)
Sr.
No. Year
Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) at
Current Prices (Rs. In Lakh)
Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP)
at Constant (2004-05) Prices (Rs. In Lakh)
Agriculture
Sector
Industries
Sector
Service
Sector Total GSDP
Agriculture
Sector
Industries
Sector
Service
Sector Total GSDP
1 1980-81 N.A. N.A. N.A. 627011 N.A. N.A. N.A. 2607435
(100.00) (100.00)
2 1993-94 N.A. N.A. N.A. 3806839 N.A. N.A. N.A. 5866545
(100.00) (100.00)
3 1999-00 N.A. N.A. N.A. 9010589 N.A. N.A. N.A. 92372285
(100.00) (100.00)
4 2004-05 3272993 3903738 5597834 12774565 3272993 3903738 5597834 12774565
(25.62) (30.56) (43.82) (100.00) (25.62) (30.56) (43.82) (100.00)
5 2005-06 3455583 4426416 6341615 14223614 3283043 4238250 6107203 13628496
(24.29) (31.12) (44.59) (100.00) (24.09) (31.10) (44.81) (100.00)
6 2006-07 4189060 5915779 7399434 17504273 3529677 4987806 6701384 15218867
(23.93) (33.80) (42.27) (100.00) (23.19) (32.77) (44.03) (100.00)
7 2007-08 4884546 6041837 8555831 19482214 3586702 5118510 7296450 16001662
(25.07) (31.01) (43.92) (100.00) (22.41) (31.99) (45.60) (100.00)
8 2008-09 5544469 7177754 10372709 23094932 3737060 5481210 8237305 17455575
(24.01) (31.08) (44.91) (100.00) (21.41) (31.40) (47.19) (100.00)
9 2009-10 (P) 6148558 7980884 12196359 26325801 3650632 5807277 8961009 18418918
(23.36) (30.32) (46.33) (100.00) (19.82) (31.53) (48.65) (100.00)
10 2010-11 (Q) 8849505 9210085 14308631 32368221 4643428 6119432 9676908 20439768
(27.34) (28.45) (44.21) (100.00) (22.72) (29.94) (47.34) (100.00)
11 2011-12 (A) 9856404 10533729 16441819 36831952 4759665 6430588 10355105 21545358
(26.76) (28.60) (44.64) (100.00) (22.09) (29.85) (48.06) (100.00) Notes: Agriculture sector includes A.H. Forestry and Fisheries, N.A. =Not Available, P= Provisional estimates,
Q= Quick estimates, A= Advance estimates
Source: Economic Review-2011-12, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
50
ii) Sectoral Share in NSDP:
The sector-wise data on Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) is given in below Table
3.15. The state’s NSDP at current prices for the year 2011-12 is estimated to be Rs.
325265.55 crore showing an increase of 13.73 percent over 2010-11 and 188.78 percent over
2004-05. At constant price (2004-05), state NSDP for 2011-12 estimated at Rs. 187749.14
crore showing an increase of 5.37 percent over previous year and 66.69 percent over 2004-
05.
The share of agriculture sector in total NSDP at current price was 27.06 percent in
2004-05 and 28.27 percent in 2011-12, showing marginal improvement. However, at constant
price (2004-05), the contribution of agriculture sector showing downward trend and it came
down from 27.06 percent in 2004-05 to 23.35 percent in 2011-12. The contribution of service
sector at constant prices moved up from 44.48 percent in 2004-05 to 48.96 percent in 2011-
12. Thus, from 2004-05 onwards, share of agriculture declining in total NSDP at constant
prices whereas share of services sector increasing.
Sectoral distribution of NSDP for 2011-12 at constant prices (2004-05) is shown in
Figure-3.3.
Figure: 3.3.Sectoral distribution of NSDP for 2011-12 at constant prices (2004-05)
As % share in Total NSDP
iii) Per Capita Income: The year-wise estimates of per capita income from 1980-81 to 2011-
12 at constant prices (2004-05) are given in Table 3.14. The per capita income at constant
prices during 2011-12 is estimated at Rs. 27421 as compared to Rs. 7725 in 1980-81, Rs.
18565 in 2004-05 and Rs. 27421 in 2011-12.
51
Table 3.15: Year-wise Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) and Per Capita Income at Current and Constant Prices (2004-05).
(Rs. In Lakh)
Sr.
No. Year
Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) at Current
Prices (Rs. In Lakh)
Net State Domestic Product (NSDP) at Constant
Prices (Rs. In Lakh)
Per Capita Income
(Rs.)
Agriculture
Sector
Industries
Sector
Service
Sector
Total
NSDP
Agriculture
Sector
Industries
Sector
Service
Sector
Total
NSDP
Current
Prices
Constant
Prices
1 1980-81 N.A. N.A. N.A. 601367 N.A. N.A. N.A. 2607435 1781 7725
(100.00) (100.00)
2 1993-94 N.A. N.A. N.A. 3437399 N.A. N.A. N.A. 5866545 7333 12516
(100.00) (100.00)
3 1999-00 N.A. N.A. N.A. 8160729 N.A. N.A. N.A. 92372285 14984 16960
(100.00) (100.00)
4 2004-05 3048036 3205122 5010413 11263571 3048036 3205123 5010413 11263572 18565 18565
(27.06) (28.46) (44.48) (100.00) (27.06) (28.46) (44.48) (100.00)
5 2005-06 3206806 3668331 5658194 12533331 3045290 3517583 5457405 12020278 20275 19448
(25.59) (29.27) (45.15) (100.00) (25.33) (29.26) (45.40) (100.00)
6 2006-07 3908469 4617739 6616578 15142786 3277661 4167618 5989712 13434991 24055 21342
(25.81) (30.49) (43.69) (100.00) (24.40) (31.02) (44.58) (100.00)
7 2007-08 4560934 5005443 7658588 17224965 3312408 4210884 6523856 14047148 26882 21922
(26.48) (29.06) (44.46) (100.00) (23.58) (29.98) (46.44) (100.00)
8 2008-09 5178946 5953773 9261141 20393860 3447467 4439156 7341731 15228354 31279 23356
(25.39) (29.19) (45.41) (100.00) (22.64) (29.15) (48.21) (100.00)
9 2009-10 (P) 5747839 6561815 10886632 23196286 3369020 4671192 7984567 16024779 34982 24166
(24.78) (28.29) (46.93) (100.00) (21.02) (29.15) (49.83) (100.00)
10 2010-11 (Q) 8255880 7576957 12767971 28600808 4276764 4930493 8611169 17818426 42434 26436
(28.87) (26.49) (44.64) (100.00) (24.00) (27.67) (48.33) (100.00)
11 2011-12 (A) 9195790 8684536 14646229 32526555 4383080 5199391 9192443 18774914 47506 27421
(28.27) (26.70) (45.03) (100.00) (23.35) (27.69) (48.96) (100.00) Notes: Agriculture sector includes A.H. Forestry and Fisheries, N.A. =Not Available, P= Provisional estimates, Q= Quick estimates, A= Advance estimates
Source: Economic Review-2011-12, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan State.
52
Thus, per capita income in 2011-12 was 3.55 times than it was in 1980-81. Also, it shows
an increase of 3.73 percent over the previous year (Table 3.15). The per capita income at
current prices moved from Rs. 18565 in 2004-05 to Rs. 47506 in 2011-012, showing an
increase of 155.89 percent. As compared to 2010-11, per capita income in 2011-12 increased
by 11.95 percent.
3.15 Composition of Value of Output of Important Crops in State
Table 3.16 and Table 3.17 represent composition of value of output for important
crops and main categories of crops. It is evident from the Table 3.16 that value of total food
grains increased from Rs. 9049 crore in 2000-01 to Rs. 25499 crore in 2010-11 showing an
increase of 181.79 percent. Comparative higher price realization of crop output in 2010-11
and increase in production were responsible for increase in the value of output of food grain
crops. As compared to 2001-02, value of output of bajra, maize, wheat and gram and other
crops increased manifolds in 2010-11. In total value of food grains, the percentage share of
value of bajra moved up from 16.08 percent in 2000-01 to 20.64 percent in 2010-11. It
moved up for wheat from 45.83 percent to 48.40 percent. Similarly, percentage share of
output in total food grains moved up for maize, barley and jowar. However, it marginally
declined in case of gram. In 2010-11, in total value of food grains, highest contribution
(48.40%) came from wheat, followed by bajra (20.64%) and gram (13.50%). Hence, in terms
of value of output wheat, bajra and gram are important food grain crops of the state (Table
3.17).
Table 3.16: Category-wise Total Value of Produce at Current Price
(Rs. In Crore)
Sr.
No. Crops
2000-01 2010-11
Value of
output (Rs.)
% of Grand
Total
Value of
output (Rs.)
% of Grand
Total
1 Total Food grains 9049 56.47 25499 52.11
2 Total Oilseeds 3709 23.15 11580 23.67
3 Others 3266 20.38 11853 24.22
4 Grand Total 16024 100.00 48932 100.00 Source: Directorate of Agriculture, Krishi Pant Bhavan, GoR, Jaipur.
Category-wise data on value of output shows that value of gross output in 2000-01
was Rs. 16024 crore, which due to rise in production and higher price realization touched to
Rs. 48932 crore in 2010-11. In gross value of output, share of food grains came down from
53
56.47 percent in 2000-01 to 52.11 percent in 2010-11. The share of oilseeds in gross value of
output recorded marginal change during period 2000-2011 (Table 3.16).
Table 3.17: Value of Produce of Important Crops at Current Price
(Rs. In Crore)
Sr.
No.
Crops 2001-02 2010-11
Value of output
(Rs.)
% of Total
Food grain
Value of
output (Rs.)
% of Total Food
grain
1 Bajra 1455 16.08 5263 20.64
2 Maize 677 7.48 2258 8.86
3 Wheat 4147 45.83 12342 48.40
4 Barley 190 2.10 1018 3.99
5 Jowar 126 1.39 691 2.71
6 Gram 1256 13.88 3442 13.50
7 Total Food grains 9049 100.00 25499 100.00 Source: Directorate of Agriculture, Krishi Pant Bhavan, GoR, Jaipur.
3.16 Year-wise Marketed Surplus Ratio (MSR) of selected Crops in Rajasthan (1999-
2009):
Marketed surplus ratio (MSR) denotes the percentage of output marketed. Year-wise
individual data on MSR for study crops in Rajasthan is given in Table 3.18. The main factors
which play an important role in determining proportion of output marketed are family size,
retention pattern, consumption habit, market price of output, size of output, cash need of
producers etc. From the data in Table 3.17, it is evident that percentage of output marketed
for wheat, bajra and maize varying in wide range across different years. For wheat, it varied
from mere 27.20 percent in 2004-05 to 81.10 percent in 2000-01. In case of maize, it varied
from 37.50 percent in 1999-2000 to 70.89 percent in 2008-09. In case of maize MSR shows
upward trend during period 1999-2009. In case of bajra, barring 2004-05 and 2006-07, MSR
varied in narrow range between 37 and 45 percent.
Table 3.18: Marketed Surplus Ratio (MSR)* of selected Crops in Rajasthan (MSR in %)
Year MSR (%) of
Wheat Maize Bajra Gram
1999-2000 49.50 37.50 40.60 80.70
2000-01 81.10 36.80 37.90 82.20
2001-02 62.90 42.30 37.50 NA
2002-03 NA NA NA NA
2003-04 73.03 48.53 43.80 69.82
2004-05 27.20 56.22 66.27 85.26
2005-06 49.25 55.30 44.77 77.78
2006-07 62.61 58.24 62.43 62.43
2007-08 64.38 67.34 44.21 77.09
2008-09 53.30 70.89 42.90 72.31 Notes: NA: Not Available; * Based on cost of cultivation data
Source: Agriculture Statistics at a Glance, DES, MoA, GoI, New Delhi.
54
Wheat and bajra are the most important staple diet of the people of state. Maize is
important diet in tribal belt of state, which also includes selected Chittorgarh and Udaipur
districts. Gram is not as important food item for farmers as wheat and bajra. Hence,
consumption of gram is supplementary and occasionally. Therefore, marketed surplus ratio of
gram found much higher than that for wheat, bajra and maize. The proportion of marketed
output of gram varied from 62.43 percent in 2006-07 to 85.26 percent in 2004-05. As bajra
and maize are rain fed crops, output of crops and hence their marketed surplus ratio are
highly depends upon behavior of rainfall. The erratic nature of rainfall in the state is causing
fluctuation in crop-output and market surplus ratio across years.
55
Chapter4
Marketed and Marketable Surplus of Major
Food Grains in Rajasthan:An Empirical Analysis
4.1 Introduction:
The marketed surplus of food grains largely determined by the factors such as
consumption habits of the producer’s family, economic condition, size of family, nature of
crop, relative price level of different farm products and attitude of producers towards the
market. The most important factor which affects the size of marketed surplus is the size of
output. In the context of these, it is pertinent to look into the socio-economic aspects, land
holding pattern, crop-pattern, crop production and investment pattern of sample farmers
before examining aspects related with marketing, marketable and marketed surplus. As
production on the farm constitutes the basis of the farmer’s marketable surplus, an analysis
of production and marketing pattern of selected crops would be helpful in understanding the
aspects of marketed surplus and marketing system followed by sample households.
Though increase in production is a pre-requisite for increasing marketed surplus of
foodgrains, it would not lead to an automatic increase in marketed surplus. If a simultaneous
increase in marketing services not ensured, it can affected smooth functioning of the
marketing system and also create interruption in the supply of marketed surplus. The level
of debt, cash needs of the producers, institutional structures in the region etc. are other
factors which are affecting the marketed surplus of the crops. With this in view, all factors
affecting marketable and marketed surplus of selected food grain crops has been covered
and analyzed in this chapter.
4.2 Socio-Economic Profile of Sample Households:
The socio-economic characteristics of sample households have been presented in
Table 4.1. As discussed earlier, for the study, total 453 sample households comprising of 33
marginal (MF), 129 small (SF), 111 semi-medium (SMF), 137 medium (MDF) and 43 large
(LF) farm households were selected. The socio-economic characteristics attempted here are
based upon combine data of 453 sample households selected from five sample districts of
the state.
56
i) Family size:
The retention pattern of food grains and thereby marketed and marketable surplus of
food grains depends upon the size and composition of family. The availability of human
labour from the family members is also affecting the cost of cultivation of crop and
profitability from sale of crop produce. In this context, the family size of sample households
is being examined. Table 4.1 shows that, overall, average size of family was of 7.96
persons, consisting of 4.14 males and 3.81 females. The examination of data reveals
positive relationship between family size and farm size. Marginal farm households had least
family size of 7.06 persons whereas large farm households had largest family size of 9.72
persons.
ii) Gender and Age of Decision Maker:
Of the total sample households, 98.90 percent households had male and only 1.10
percent had female as head/ decision maker. All the semi-medium, medium and large
sample households had only male as decision maker (head). The average age of head/
decision maker of family for overall sample was of 47 year and category-wise it ranged
from 44.48 years for small farm households to 51.04 years for large farm households.
iii) Education Status:
Apart from other factors, education level of decision maker of household plays an
important role in adoption of new yield enhancing technology and crop pattern. Further, it is
assumed that head of household with good education level has better understanding about
the prevailing market scenario and hence he is in better position to realize higher return
through efficient marketing of their farm products. With this is view, educational status of
head of sample households is examined here. The data shows that an average year of
schooling of head of sample households was 7.07 years and category-wise it ranged
between 6.21 years in case of marginal and 8.58 years in case of large farm households. The
data reveals increase in education level with the increase in size of operational holding. Of
the total 453 sample households, decision makers of 112 households (24.72%) were
illiterate. The percentage of illiterate households was lowest (9.30%) among large and
highest (39.39%) among marginal farm households.
iv) Main and Subsidiary Occupation:
The data given in table 4.1 reveals that overall, 91.61 percent households had
agriculture as their main occupation, the highest (96.97%) by marginal and lowest (88.29%)
by semi-medium farm households. Of the total households, 7.51 percent households had
57
service, 0.44 percent had dairy and 0.44 percent had farm labour as their main occupation.
None of the small, semi-medium and large households had dairy as their main occupation.
Table 4.1: Socio-Economic-Demographic Characteristics of Sample Households
Sr.
No.
Characteristics Marginal Small Semi-
Medium
Medium Large All
1 Avg. Age of Decision Maker (Yrs.) 46.37 44.48 47.20 48.15 51.04 47.00
2 Main Occupation (% HHs.)
i Crop farming 96.97 94.57 88.29 90.51 90.70 91.61
ii Dairy 3.03 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.44
iii Service 0.00 4.65 10.81 8.76 9.30 7.51
iv Farm labour 0.00 0.78 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.44
v Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 Subsidiary Occupation (% HHs.)
i Crop farming 5.26 6.86 16.46 12.26 11.11 11.11
ii Dairy 73.68 83.33 75.95 84.91 88.89 82.16
iii Service 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
iv Farm labour 57.89 34.31 32.91 28.30 16.67 31.58
v Others 5.26 2.94 5.06 13.21 19.44 8.48
4 Education of Decision Maker
i No. of Illiterate Head
of HHs.
Nos. 13 34 27 34 4 112
% (39.39) (26.36) (24.32) (24.82) (9.30) (24.72)
ii Education of Decision Maker
(Avg. Years of schooling) 6.21 6.28 7.09 7.51 8.58 7.07
5 Average Family Size (Nos.)
i Male 3.79 3.99 3.83 4.33 5.07 4.14
ii Female 3.27 3.43 3.59 4.23 4.65 3.81
iii Total 7.06 7.42 7.42 8.55 9.72 7.96
6 Social grouping (% HHs.)
i SCs 27.27 13.95 7.21 8.03 9.30 11.04
ii STs 3.03 3.88 2.70 3.65 2.33 3.31
iii OBCs 60.61 62.79 71.17 62.77 72.09 65.56
iv General 9.09 19.38 18.92 25.55 16.28 20.09
v Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
7 Gender of Head of Household/Decision Maker (% HHs.)
i Male 93.94 97.67 100.00 100.00 100.00 98.90
ii Female 6.06 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10
iii Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Source: Field Survey
58
As regards subsidiary occupation, it was observed that many sample households
pursue more than one subsidiary occupation. Overall, of the 453 sample households, 82.16
percent had dairy, 31.58 percent had farm labour and 11.11 percent had crop-farming
(agriculture) as their subsidiary occupation.
5) Social Composition of Sample Households:
Generally, farmers with higher social and economic status are in a better position to
market their produce with slightly higher margin and on better terms and conditions. With
this in view, social composition of sample households is examined here.
The data given in table 4.1 reveals very low representation of schedule tribes
(3.31%) and schedule castes (11.04%) in the sample households. Overall, 65.56 percent and
20.09 percent of sample households belonged to other backward classes (OBC) and general
castes respectively. Of the total large farm households, 72.09 percent belonged to OBC.
Category-wise, percentage of OBC sample households varied from 60.61 percent from
marginal farm to 72.09 percent large farm households. The percentage of general castes
households was highest (25.55%) for medium size farm households.
4.3 Category-wise Average Size of Operational Holding Per Household:
1) For Overall Sample:
Apart from other factors, size of operational land holding is impacting mainly on the
cost of cultivation, decision to allocate area to different foodgrain crops and size of capital
investment in agriculture. In this context, size of operational land holding of sample
households has been examined here. Table 4.2 presents the category-wise total operational
land and average operated land area of all sample households. The total operational land
area of all sample households was nearly 2094 ha. The overall average operational land size
per sample household for entire sample worked out to 4.62 ha. comprising of 2.79 ha.
unirrigated and 1.83 ha. irrigable land. For different farm size groups, the overall average
size of operational land per household worked out to 0.55 Ha. for MF, 1.53 ha. for SF, 3.05
ha. for SMF, 6.35 ha. for MDF and 15.59 ha. for LF. Few households involved in lease-in
and lease-out of land.
59
Table 4.2: Size of Operational Area of Total Sample Farm Households
(Area in Hectare) Farm
Size
Total
Owned
Land
Own area
available
for cultivation
Cultivable
Wasteland
Non-cultivable
land
Leased in
Land
Leased-out
Land
Total
Operational
Holding
I UI Total I UI Total I UI Total I UI Total I UI Total I UI Total I UI Total
Marginal
(MF)
11.06
(0.34)
6.78
(0.21)
17.84
(0.54)
11.06
(0.34)
6.78
(0.21)
17.84
(0.54)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.40
(0.01)
0.40
(0.01)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
(0.00)
11.06
(0.34)
7.18
(0.22)
18.24
(0.55)
Small
(SF)
133.20
(1.03)
68.26
(0.53)
201.46
(1.56)
130.83
(1.01)
65.26
(0.51)
196.09
(1.52)
0.80
(0.01)
1.40
(0.01)
2.20
(0.02)
1.60
(0.01)
2.60
(0.02)
4.20
(0.03)
4.45
(0.03)
1.80
(0.01)
6.25
(0.05)
2.40
(0.02)
4.00
(0.03)
6.40
(0.05)
133.65
(1.04)
63.46
(0.49)
197.11
(1.53)
Semi-
Medium
(SMF)
155.38 (1.40)
176.45 (1.59)
331.83 (2.99)
151.83 (1.37)
167.30 (1.51)
319.13 (2.88)
1.80 (0.02)
0.40 (0.00)
2.20 (0.02)
2.00 (0.02)
8.50 (0.08)
10.50 (0.09)
12.20 (0.11)
8.00 (0.07)
20.20 (0.18)
2.40 (0.02)
1.00 (0.01)
3.40 (0.03)
163.18 (1.47)
174.95 (1.58)
338.13
(3.05)
Medium (MDF)
352.18 (2.57)
523.28 (3.82)
875.46 (6.39)
350.18 (2.56)
501.18 (3.66)
851.36 (6.21)
2.00 (0.01)
4.40 (0.03)
6.40 (0.05)
0.00 (0.00)
17.70 (0.13)
17.70 (0.13)
17.50 (0.13)
20.30 (0.15)
37.80 (0.28)
22.00 (0.16)
3.15 (0.02)
25.15 (0.18)
347.68 (2.54)
522.73 (3.82)
870.41
(6.35)
Large
(LF)
177.75
(4.13)
494.75
(11.51)
672.50
(15.64)
173.75
(4.04)
475.95
(11.07)
649.70
(15.11)
0.00
(0.00)
10.00
(0.23)
10.00
(0.23)
4.00
(0.09)
8.80
(0.20)
12.80
(0.30)
5.00
(0.12)
12.50
(0.29)
17.50
(0.41)
6.00
(0.14)
1.00
(0.02)
7.00
(0.16)
172.75
(4.02)
497.45
(11.57)
670.20
(15.59)
ALL 829.57
(1.83)
1269.52
(2.80)
2099.09
(4.63)
817.65
(1.80)
1216.47
(2.69)
2034.12
(4.49)
4.60
(0.01)
16.20
(0.04)
20.80
(0.05)
7.60
(0.02)
37.60
(0.08)
45.20
(0.10)
39.15
(0.09)
43.00
(0.09)
82.15
(0.18)
32.80
(0.07)
9.15
(0.02)
41.95
(0.09)
828.32
(1.83)
1265.77
(2.79)
2094.09
(4.62)
Notes: I: Irrigated, UI: Unirrigated;
Figures in parenthesis indicate average operated area per HHs.
MF=Marginal (<1ha.), SF=Small (1-2 ha.), SMF=Semi-Medium (2-4 ha.), MDF=Medium (4-10 ha.), LF=Large (>10ha.) Farmers.
Source: Field survey
60
2) In Selected Districts:
Table 4.3 presents category-wise average size of operational land holding per sample
household in each selected district. The data reveals wide variation in overall size of land
holding across selected districts. It varied from 2.74 ha. in Alwar district to 6.41 ha. in Churu
district. It was 4.56 ha. in Chittorgarh, 5.27 ha. in Hanumangarh and 3.46 ha. in Udaipur
district.
Table 4.3: District-wise, Crop-wise and Category-wise Average Size of Operational
Area
(Area in ha.) Sr.
No. Districts
Total
HHs Crops MF SF SMF MDF LF All
1 Alwar 109 Bajra 0.58 1.58 2.91 5.75 13.88 2.83
19 Gram 0.25 1.64 3.00 6.21 12.50 4.04
01 Maize 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.50 0.00 4.50
110 Wheat 0.55 1.59 2.90 5.75 13.88 2.84
115 All 0.54 1.58 2.90 5.75 13.88 2.74
2 Chittorgarh 00 Bajra 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
00 Gram 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
59 Maize 0.60 1.47 3.31 6.80 16.43 4.80
47 Wheat 0.59 1.45 3.28 6.40 15.83 4.73
116 All 0.60 1.47 3.29 6.56 15.83 4.56
3 Churu 113 Bajra 0.63 1.47 3.02 6.32 15.49 6.49
101 Gram 0.63 1.45 3.05 6.30 15.51 6.70
00 Maize 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
07 Wheat 0.00 0.00 3.00 8.50 16.63 12.36
116 All 0.63 1.49 3.00 6.31 15.49 6.41
4 Hanumnagarh 76 Bajra 0.63 1.49 3.10 6.67 16.91 5.81
86 Gram 0.32 1.35 3.18 6.82 17.03 6.16
00 Maize 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
85 Wheat 0.69 1.53 3.11 6.70 17.07 5.43
50 All 0.58 1.47 3.07 6.64 17.03 5.27
5 Udaipur 02 Bajra 0.00 1.80 0.00 8.00 0.00 4.90
07 Gram 0.00 1.60 2.60 4.87 10.20 4.37
58 Maize 0.52 1.51 3.04 6.05 12.10 3.46
44 Wheat 0.80 1.58 3.13 6.15 12.10 3.81
54 All 0.52 1.57 3.08 6.13 12.10 3.46
6 Gross Total 300 Bajra 0.59 1.55 3.00 6.36 15.64 4.98
213 Gram 0.43 1.46 3.09 6.47 15.73 6.17
118 Maize 0.55 1.49 3.18 6.31 15.47 4.14
229 Wheat 0.59 1.56 3.08 6.42 15.68 4.27
453 All 0.55 1.53 3.05 6.35 15.59 4.62 Note: MF=Marginal (<1ha.), SF=Small (1-2 ha.), SMF=Semi-Medium (2-4 ha.), MDF=Medium (4-10 ha.),
LF=Large (>10 ha.) Farmers.
Source: Field survey
61
3) For Selected Crops:
Earlier, we have seen that out of the total 453 sample households, 300 had grown
bajra, 293 had grown wheat, 213 had grown gram and 118 had grown maize. The average
size of operational holding for growers of study crops have been presented in Table 4.3. The
data reveals that average size of operational area per household was highest at 6.17 ha. for
gram growers whereas it was lowest at 4.14 ha. for maize growers. It was 4.98 ha. and 4.27
ha. for bajra and wheat growers respectively.
4.4 Proportion and Terms of Leased-In Land:
Table 4.4 presents terms of lease-in land taken by sample households. Although on
small scale, all the categories of sample households reported leased-in land in their
operational area. Of the 453 sample households, 47 households (10.38%) had taken land on
lease. Overall, of the total operational area of sample households, 3.92 percent was leased-in
area. Category-wise, it ranged from 2.19 percent for MF to 5.97 percent for SMF (Table 4.4).
The data further reveals that 14.41 percent of semi-medium farmers had leased-in land which
accounted for 5.97 percent of their operational area. Of the 47 sample farmers, who had
leased-in land, 19.15 percent had taken land on lease by paying fixed money as rent which
ranged from Rs. 42250 per ha. by medium farmer’s to Rs. 46000 per ha. by small farmers
(Table 4.4). From sample farmers who leased in the land, 80.85 percent had taken it on terms
of sharing 50 percent (net of paid out cost) of crop-production (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4: Terms of Lease-In Land Taken by Sample Farm Households
Farm
Size
Nos. of
HHs
with
Leased
-In
land
Incidence Terms (% of HHs.)
of Leased-In Rent/terms of leased-in
%Area
leased- in (to total)
% HHs with
leased-in
land
For fixed
money
Fixed
produce
Share of
Produce
For fixed
money (Rs. /ha.)
Fixed Produce
(Qtl.
/ha.)
Share of
Produce
(%)
Marginal 1 2.19 3.03 --- --- 100.00 0 --- 50
Small 9 3.17 6.98 22.22 --- 77.78 46000 --- 50
Semi-
Medium 16 5.97 14.41 18.75 --- 81.25 40666 --- 50
Medium 18 4.34 13.14 22.22 --- 77.78 42250 --- 50
Large 3 2.61 6.98 0.00 --- 100.00 0 --- 50
All 47 3.92 10.38 19.15 --- 80.85 42555 --- 50 Source: Field survey
4.5 Sources of Irrigation:
Timely and adequate availability of irrigation water along with other requisite inputs
is one of the key factors for increasing crop-productivity. Moreover, keeping in view the
62
availability of irrigation, farmers are deciding on type and variety of crops to be grown and
use level of requisite inputs. In Rajasthan, water resources are scare and hence water
availability for irrigation is not adequate in Churu, Udaipur and Chittorgarh districts. In
Hanumangadh district canal irrigation is available.
Table 4.5: Sources of Irrigation on the Sample Farm Households (Own + Hired)
(% HHs.)
No. Farm Size Sources of Irrigation (% HHs)
Canal
Electric
Tubewell Diesel Tubewell Borewell Tank Others
1 Marginal 6.06 36.36 18.18 0.00 0.00 6.06
2 Small 12.40 57.36 19.38 0.00 0.78 0.78
3 Semi-Medium 22.52 39.64 22.52 2.70 0.90 0.00
4 Medium 31.39 25.55 15.33 2.19 0.73 2.92
5 Large 20.93 20.93 13.95 6.98 0.00 0.00
6 Total 20.97 38.41 18.32 1.99 0.66 1.55 Source: Field Survey
Table 4.5 presents sources of irrigation (Own + Hired) available on farms of sample
households. Some sample households had used more than one source for irrigation. For
example, some households availed irrigation water from two sources, canal and tubewell
whereas some received it from tank and tubewell. Owing to non-availability of electric
supply on farms, some farmers installed diesel operated pump-set on tubewells. As water
resources are scare, availability of irrigation sources on farms not give guarantee of adequate
availability of irrigation water to crops at required stages. Overall, 66.45 percent sample
households had availed irrigation water through different sources and category-wise, it
ranged from 51.16 percent of large farmers to 79.07 percent of small farmers. About 20.97
percent used canal, 38.41 percent used electric tube wells, 18.32 percent used diesel operated
tube wells and 1.99 percent used bore wells for irrigating crops. Many farmers used more
than one source for irrigating crops.
4.6 Livestock Units Per Sample Households:
Table 4.6 presents ownership of number of livestock units per sample households. It
is obvious from the table that ownership of total livestock unit is increasing with increase in
farm size. Overall, on an average, number of livestock unit per household was 4.65, which
was comprised of 1.26 cattle, 1.92 buffalo and 1.47 others (goat, sheep, etc.). Category-wise,
number of livestock unit per household varied from 1.85 for marginal to 6.84 for large farm
households. Ownership of number of buffaloes is also moving up with the up move of farm
63
size. On an average, marginal, small and large sample households owned 0.64, 1.53 and 3.53
units of buffalo respectively.
Table 4.6: Number of Livestock Units per Sample Households
Sr.No. Farm Size Cattle Buffalo Others Total
1 Marginal 0.55 0.64 0.67 1.85
2 Small 1.25 1.53 1.52 4.30
3 Semi-Medium 1.16 1.71 1.68 4.56
4 Medium 1.47 2.25 1.32 5.04
5 Large 1.40 3.53 1.91 6.84
6 All 1.26 1.92 1.47 4.65 Source: Field Survey
4.7 Cropping Pattern Per Sample Household:
The cropping pattern is a function of several variables such as marketing arrangement,
prevailing price of crop, consumption needs of family, suitability of soil and climatic
conditions, resources available etc. As our main objective of the study is to know retention
pattern of foodgrains and assessment on marketed and marketable surplus of major food grain
crops, it is pertinent to examine crop-pattern followed by sample households.
The cropping pattern data given in table 4.7, exhibits per household area under
various crops. The data is given for overall sample households (sample HHs of all selected
districts together) and not district-wise. Overall, average gross cropped area (GCA) per
household worked out to 6.53 ha. Category-wise, it was 0.93 ha. for MF, 2.46 ha. for SF, 4.70
ha. for SMF, 9.20 ha. for MDF and 19.23 ha. for LF. Total cropped area of all sample
households together was 2957.76 ha. Overall, of the gross cropped area (GCA), 59.28 percent
devoted to kharif crops and 40.58 percent devoted to rabi crops. Owing to negligible
availability of water resources for irrigation, area devoted to summer crops and perennial
crops was very negligible.
Among kharif crops, bajra was most important food grain crop which alone occupied
16.42 percent of gross cropped area. Other important kharif food grain crops were moth
(5.14%), maize (3.76%), jowar (1.47%) and moong (2.59%). In recent years, important of
guar had increased at a fast pace as farmer realized unexpected very high market price.
Hence, farmers trended to devote a higher proportion of their area to guar crop. The guar
alone occupied 18.13 percent of GCA and 30.50 percent of total kharif cropped area. Cotton
was important cash crop of kharif claiming 4.75 percent of GCA respectively. Category-wise,
64
except SF, percentage of area under kharif crops to GCA increasing with increase in farm-
size.
Table 4.7: Cropping Pattern of Sample Households
(Area in ha./ hhs.)
Season/Crops Marginal Small Semi-Medium Medium Large Total
No. of HHs. 33 129 111 137 43 453
Kharif
Bajra 0.22 (23.59) 0.46 (18.80) 0.85 (18.12) 1.34 (14.55) 3.27 (17.01) 1.07 (16.42)
Maize 0.10 (11.00) 0.14 (5.54) 0.33 (7.02) 0.26 (2.78) 0.43 (2.25) 0.25 (3.76)
Jowar 0.02 (2.05) 0.05 (2.22) 0.10 (2.13) 0.09 (1.02) 0.27 (1.43) 0.10 (1.47)
Guar 0.04 (4.07) 0.25 (10.33) 0.51 (10.81) 1.89 (20.51) 4.35 (22.64) 1.18 (18.13)
Cotton 0.07 (7.58) 0.17 (6.71) 0.32 (6.80) 0.47 (5.15) 0.38 (1.97) 0.31 (4.75)
Fodder Crops 0.02 (2.21) 0.03 (1.11) 0.08 (1.73) 0.13 (1.46) 0.05 (0.26) 0.07 (1.14)
Moong 0.00 (0.33) 0.03 (1.05) 0.08 (1.70) 0.28 (3.09) 0.59 (3.07) 0.17 (2.59)
Moth 0.02 (1.63) 0.02 (0.88) 0.13 (2.80) 0.53 (5.72) 1.44 (7.50) 0.34 (5.14)
Soybean 0.01 (0.65) 0.06 (2.61) 0.08 (1.71) 0.09 (0.96) 0.48 (2.48) 0.11 (1.69)
Other Kharif Crops 0.03 (3.03) 0.16 (6.42) 0.25 (5.31) 0.35 (3.84) 0.62 (3.24) 0.27 (4.20)
Total Kharif Crops 0.52 (56.13) 1.37 (55.67) 2.73 (58.12) 5.44 (59.09) 11.89 (61.82) 3.87 (59.28)
Rabi
Gram 0.06 (6.12) 0.22 (8.75) 0.78 (16.62) 1.98 (21.46) 4.37 (22.75) 1.27 (19.44)
Barley 0.01 (0.81) 0.04 (1.53) 0.04 (0.79) 0.08 (0.85) 0.21 (1.11) 0.06 (0.99)
R & M 0.07 (7.42) 0.26 (10.35) 0.37 (7.83) 0.59 (6.42) 0.89 (4.63) 0.43 (6.60)
Wheat 0.27 (28.70) 0.55 (22.28) 0.76 (16.16) 1.07 (11.67) 1.79 (9.32) 0.86 (13.12)
Other Rabi Crops 0.01 (0.81) 0.03 (1.40) 0.02 (0.49) 0.03 (0.35) 0.02 (0.12) 0.03 (0.43)
Total Rabi Crops 0.41 (43.87) 1.09 (44.30) 1.97 (41.88) 3.75 (40.75) 7.29 (37.94) 2.65 (40.58)
Summer
Fodder Crops 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.03) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.13) 0.02 (0.12) 0.01 (0.09)
Perennial
Sugarcane 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.03) 0.02 (0.12) 0.00 (0.05)
Total Cropped Area 0.93 (100.0) 2.46 (100.0) 4.70 (100.0) 9.20 (100.0) 19.23 (100.0) 6.53 (100.0)
(GCA) 30.73* 317.82* 521.61* 1260.81* 826.79* 2957.76*
Notes: Figures in the parenthesis indicates the percentages of Gross Cropped Area (GCA).
* Total area under all crops of all sample households of respective farm category Source: Field Survey
In rabi, wheat and gram were most important food grain crops claiming 13.12 and
19.44 percent of GCA respectively. These two crops accounting for more than 80 percent of
total rabi area. Rapeseed and Mustard was important oilseed crop of rabi in terms of area
devoted and it accounted for 6.60 percent of GCA. Other rabi crops were less important in
terms of area devoted. Category-wise, except MF, percentage of area devoted to rabi crops
showing declining trend with increase in farm-size. However, absolute area devoted to kharif
as well as rabi crop increased with increase in farm size.
65
Overall, total area devoted to four study crops namely bajra, maize, wheat and gram
was 52.74 percent of GCA. Category-wise it was 69.41 percent for MF, 55.87 percent for SF,
57.92 percent for SMF, 50.46 percent for MDF and 51.33 percent for LF. The percentage of
area devoted to maize and wheat shows downward trend with increase in farm-size.
The data further reveals dominating position of food grain crops in crop-pattern
followed by sample households.
4.8 Cropping Intensity
Study crops namely wheat and gram are rabi crops. Wheat is generally grown as
irrigated crop. The area and hence production of wheat crop depends upon the extent of
availability of irrigation and level of soil-moisture. Hence, it is pertinent to look at cropping
intensity of sample households.
Table 4.8: Cropping Intensity of Sample Households
No. Particulars
Category of Sample Households
Marginal
(MF)
Small
(SF)
Semi-Medium
(SMF)
Medium
(MDF)
Large
(LF) All
1 Average Operated
Area Per hhs. 0.55 1.53 3.05 6.35 15.59 4.62
2 Gross Cropped
Area Per hhs. 0.93 2.46 4.70 9.20 19.23 6.53
3 Cropping Intensity
(%) 169.09 161.78 154.10 144.88 123.35 141.34
Source: Field Survey
The data regarding cropping intensity of sample households (per hhs.) have been
displayed in Table 4.8. For overall sample, cropping intensity worked out to 141.34 percent
and across farm categories, it varied from 123.35 percent for LF to 169.09 percent for MF.
Further, category-wise examination of data reveals that cropping intensity is decreasing with
the increase in size of operational land suggesting inverse relationship.
4.9 Crop Productivity
As size of crop output on the farm constitutes the basis of the farmer’s marketable and
marketed surplus, an analysis of production and productivity of important crops grown on
sample farms would be of great help.
The productivity of various crops sown on the sample farms have been given in Table
4.9. In Case of bajra crop, overall productivity per hectare was 9.56 qtl. and across different
farm size, it varied from lowest 7.76 qtl. for large farmers to highest 15.49 qtl. for marginal
66
farmers. Examination of yield data of bajra across selected districts reveals significant inter-
district variation. Category-wise, except medium farmers, bajra productivity has been seen
decreasing with the increase in farm-size.
In case of maize, overall yield per hectare was 21.79 qtl. and across different farm
size, it varied from 24.91 qtl. for marginal to 18.80 qtl. for semi-medium farm households.
Among kharif crops, guar is most important crop. Overall, productivity per hectare for
guar was 7.03 qtl. and it was highest at 9.60 qtl. for marginal and lowest at 5.48 qtl. for large
farm households. Overall, productivity per hectare for soybean, jowar, moong and moth was
16.33 qtl., 9.35qtl., 5.12qtl. and 4.21qtl. respectively.
In rabi crops, overall productivity per hectare for wheat crop was 35.86 qtl. and it was
found varying between 31.75 qtl. (MF) and 39.81 qtl. (SMF). Across selected districts, wheat
productivity is varying significantly.
In case of gram, overall productivity per hectare was 8.43 qtl. and across farm size, it
was highest at 9.15 qtl. for small farmers and lowest at 8.08 qtl. for semi-medium farmers.
Category-wise gram productivity varied in a narrow range.
Table 4.9: Average Productivity of Major Crops Grown by Selected Households
No. Season/ Crops Productivity (Qtl./ha.)
Marginal Small Semi-Medium Medium Large All
Kharif
1 Bajra 15.49 15.45 8.33 9.44 7.76 9.56
2 Maize 24.91 22.39 18.80 22.65 24.89 21.79
3 Jowar 7.94 8.51 9.19 9.26 10.17 9.35
4 Guar 9.60 8.79 8.87 7.51 5.48 7.03
5 Cotton 5.36 5.44 5.30 4.77 5.05 5.05
6 Moong 6.00 5.99 4.28 4.95 5.56 5.12
7 Moth 6.00 6.41 4.68 4.44 3.71 4.21
8 Soybean 10.00 13.31 13.56 13.97 20.22 16.33
Rabi
1 Gram 8.85 9.15 8.08 8.44 8.47 8.43
2 Barley 16.00 25.57 32.20 32.19 25.43 28.82
3 Rapeseed
& Mustard 13.68 15.40 17.03 13.62 16.34 15.17
4 Wheat 31.75 34.06 39.81 35.68 34.00 35.86
Perennial
1 Sugarcane - - - 562.50 650.00 625.00
Source: Field Survey
Rapeseed and Mustard is also important oil-seed crop of rabi season. Across farm
categories, the productivity of this crop varied between 13.62 qtl. (MDF) to 17.03 qtl. (SMF).
Overall, per hectare productivity of rapeseed and mustard crop was 15.17 qtl. Sugarcane was
67
grown only by few medium and large farmers. It is a perennial crop. Overall productivity per
hectare of sugarcane was 625 qtl. during reference year.
4.10 Investment on Farm Machineries by Sample Households:
The use of modern farm implements and machineries has a direct bearing on cost of
production and productivity of crops. Farm mechanization and investment on irrigation helps
farmers for effective utilization of agriculture inputs, completion of agricultural operations in
time, reducing labour costs, cost of cultivation and production loss, providing irrigation as
and when needed and increasing productivity of land and labour. Further, it helps in reducing
the drudgery involved in farm operations. In this context, it is pertinent to examine
investment on farm power and machineries by sample households.
The data relating to level of investment per hectare on farm machineries and attached
implements by sample households have been presented in Table 4.10. Overall, total
investment per hectare on machineries by sample households was of Rs. 38469. Of the total
investment, highest investment of Rs. 24114 (62.68%) was on tube wells/ bore wells
followed by Rs. 11475 (29.83%) on tractors and its attached implements and Rs. 1786
(4.64%) on other major machineries.
Table 4.10: Farm Machinery Investments by Sample Households
(Rs./ ha.)
Farm
Size
Farm Machinery Investment in Rs./Ha. Tractors
and related
implements
Threshing machine
Tube wells/ Bore
wells
Other major machinery
Total Investment
Marginal 8224 0 39474 1316 49013
(16.78) (0.00) (80.54) (2.68) (100.00)
Small 14281 964 55994 1027 72267
(19.76) (1.33) (77.48) (1.42) (100.00)
Semi-Medium 15024 932 45840 2867 64663
(23.23) (1.44) (70.89) (4.43) (100.00)
Medium 13286 1502 20128 2220 37137
(35.78) (4.04) (54.20) (5.98) (100.00)
Large 6595 716 8535 910 16756
(39.36) (4.27) (50.93) (5.43) (100.00)
All 11475
(29.83)
1095 24114 1786 38469
(2.85) (62.68) (4.64) (100.00)
Note: Figure in brackets denotes percentage to total Investment.
Source: Field Survey
Overall, total investment per hectare on machineries by MF, SF, SMF, MDF and LF
found to be Rs. 49013, Rs. 72267, Rs. 64663, Rs. 37137 and Rs. 16756 respectively. Thus,
small farmers had highest and large farmers had least investment per hectare on farm
implements and machineries.
68
Almost all famers considered tube wells/ bore wells and tractor as most valuable,
important and essential assets. In general (except MF), investment per hectare on farm
machineries showed negative correlation with farm size. Introduction of various schemes by
state/ central government to promote farm mechanization and creation of irrigation potential
had helped farmers to increase their investment on farm machineries and irrigation.
4.11 Total Availability of Selected Crops with Sample Households:
Category-wise total availability of selected crops with sample households during
reference year have been given in Table 4.11.
Table 4.11: Category-wise Availability of Selected Crops During 2011-12
(Qtl. / hhs.) No. Farm Size No. of hhs. Availability of Selected Crops (Qtl. /hhs.)
Beginning Stock
(1)
Production
(2)
Net Availability
(1+ 2)
i. Bajra
1 Marginal 18 2.09 6.24 8.33
2 Small 80 3.18 11.54 14.72
3 Semi-Medium 69 2.64 11.41 14.04
4 Medium 100 3.99 17.32 21.30
5 Large 33 4.93 33.04 37.97
All 300 3.45 15.48 18.93
ii. Maize
1 Marginal 9 0.22 9.36 9.58
2 Small 38 0.70 10.37 11.07
3 Semi-Medium 33 0.44 20.85 21.28
4 Medium 29 1.01 27.38 28.39
5 Large 9 1.67 51.44 53.11
All 118 0.74 20.54 21.28
iii. Wheat
1 Marginal 21 4.60 13.33 17.93
2 Small 100 5.33 24.12 29.45
3 Semi-Medium 70 8.20 47.92 56.12
4 Medium 79 10.43 66.45 76.88
5 Large 23 21.38 113.91 135.29
All 293 8.60 47.49 56.09
iv. Gram
1 Marginal 5 0.51 3.33 3.84
2 Small 35 2.27 7.27 9.54
3 Semi-Medium 46 0.96 15.23 16.19
4 Medium 95 0.77 24.03 24.81
5 Large 32 5.18 49.81 54.99
All 213 1.72 22.76 24.48
Source: Field Survey
69
i.) Bajra: Overall, per bajra growing household, total availability of bajra during reference
year was 18.93 quintal. The beginning stock of bajra was 3.45 qtl. and across farm size, it
varied from 2.09 qtl. for MF to 4.93 qtl. for LF. Overall, an average production per household
was 15.48 qtl. and across farm size, it ranged from 6.24 qtl. for MF to 33.04 qtl. for LF. The
total availability of bajra during reference year with marginal, small, semi-medium, medium
and large farm households was 8.33, 14.72, 14.04, 21.30 and 37.97 qtl./ hh. respectively.
Except semi-medium households, availability of bajra is moving up with increase in the farm
size.
ii.) Maize: Overall, on an average per maize grower household, total availability of maize
during reference year was 21.28 qtl. which comprised of 0.74 qtl. as beginning stock and
20.54 qtl. as production during the reference year. Total availability of maize per household
varied from 9.58 qtl. for MF to 53.11 qtl. for LF. Total availability of maize per household
and farm size are positively correlated.
iii.) Wheat: Overall, on an average per wheat grower household, stock of wheat at the
beginning of year was 8.60 qtl. which ranged from 4.60 qtl. for MF to 21.38 qtl. for LF.
Overall, an average wheat production during the year was 47.49 qtl. Hence, total availability
of wheat production during the year was 56.09 qtl./ hh. Across different farm sizes, total
wheat availability per household varied from 17.93 qtl. for MF to 135 qtl. for LF. Positive
correlation seen between size of wheat availability and farm size.
iv.) Gram: Overall, on an average, total availability of gram per gram growing household
was 24.48 qtl. which comprised of 22.76 qtl. production during the reference year and 1.72
qtl. beginning stock. Across farm size, data reveals significant variation in total availability of
gram. It was only 3.84 qtl. for MF and 54.99 qtl. for LF. Availability of gram with household
has been increasing with increase in farm size.
4.12 Retention Pattern of Selected Crops:
For determination of marketable surplus and distress sales, there is a need to ascertain
level of compulsory retentions from production by producer for different purposes namely
self consumption, farm and feed needs, payment in kind etc. Here, retention pattern analyzed
in relation to farm size for each study crop.
Purpose-wise retention of bajra, gram, maize and gram production by the sample
households is given in Table 4.12.1. The purpose-wise percentage share of retention to total
production is given for selected crops in Table 4.12.2.
70
i) Bajra: Overall, on an average total retention of bajra per household was 4.72 quintals, out
of which 80.25 percent (3.79 qtl.) was retained for self consumption, 15.94 percent (0.75 qtl.)
retained for feed purpose and 1.96 percent (0.09 qtl.) for seed purpose. Quantity used for
payment in kind and other purpose was negligible. For marginal, small, semi-medium,
medium and large farmers, the total bajra quantity retained was 2.96, 4.09, 3.54, 5.57 and
7.11 qtl. per household respectively. For all size farm categories, major and significant
proportion of total retention was for self consumption purpose followed by use for feeding
animals. Except semi-medium farms, size of total retention of bajra and farm size are found
positively correlated.
Overall, total retention of bajra (4.72 qtl) per household accounted for 30.48 percent
of total farm production. Purpose-wise retention for self consumption, feed and seed
accounted for 24.46, 4.86 and 0.60 percent of bajra production respectively (Table 4.12.2). It
is discernible from table 4.12.1 that sample households of all the farm categories purchased
small quantity of bajra for home consumption purpose from the market or fellow farmers by
paying higher market price. This has been mainly due to distress sale by few households
under the pressure of immediate cash needs and some households purchased deshi bajra from
the market for home consumption and sold grown bajra H.B.
ii) Maize: Table 4.12.1 reveals that overall, total retention of maize quantity per household
was 3.52 quintals, out of which 2.93, 0.38 and 0.19 quintals constituting 83.17, 10.70 and
5.29 percent of the total retention was kept for self consumption, seed and feed purpose
respectively. The quantity retained for kind payment and other purpose was negligible. The
maize quantity retained by marginal, small, semi-medium, medium and large farmers was
1.78, 2.16, 3.78, 3.82 and 9.11 qtls. respectively. The data further reveals direct positive
relationship between farm size and total retention of maize quantity (Table 4.12.1).
Overall, total retention of maize (3.52 qtl.) accounted for only 17.16 percent of total
maize production on farms (Table 4.12.2). Across different farm categories, it varied from
20.86 percent for small farmers to 13.95 for medium farmers (Table 4.12.2). Purpose-wise
retention for self consumption, seed and feed accounted for 14.27, 1.84 and 0.91 percent of
maize production respectively. Owing to distress sale and varietal difference in diet taste, few
households of different farm categories purchased deficient quantity of maize require for self
consumption from the open market (Table 4.12.1) by paying higher price.
71
Table 4.12.1: Purpose-wise Retention of Selected Crops by the Sample Households
(Retention in Qtl. /hhs.) Sr.
No.
Farm Size Requirement for Self-
consumption
Seed Feed Given to friend
& relative
Others Payments
in Kind
Total Retention
(1+4+5+6+7+8)
Retention Purchased
Qty. Price*
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
i. Bajra
1 Marginal 2.82 1.42 1000 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 2.96
(95.31)
(0.00) (4.50) (0.00) (0.19) (0.00) (100.00)
2 Small 3.14 0.41 1075 0.09 0.76 0.04 0.07 0.00 4.09
(76.79)
(2.14) (18.50) (0.95) (1.62) (0.00) (100.00)
3 Semi-Medium 3.12 0.49 1043 0.02 0.34 0.03 0.02 0.00 3.54
(88.33)
(0.61) (9.69) (0.86) (0.51) (0.00) (100.00)
4 Medium 4.25 0.25 1060 0.16 1.06 0.06 0.05 0.00 5.57
(76.32)
(2.87) (18.96) (1.02) (0.82) (0.00) (100.00)
5 Large 5.87 0.33 1050 0.10 1.02 0.01 0.02 0.09 7.11
(82.57)
(1.36) (14.28) (0.17) (0.34) (1.28) (100.00)
6 All 3.79 0.43 1037 0.09 0.75 0.04 0.04 0.01 4.72
(80.25)
(1.96) (15.94) (0.80) (0.85) (0.21) (100.00)
ii.Maize
1 Marginal 1.78 0.33 1050 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78
(100.00)
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00)
2 Small 1.91 0.43 943 0.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 2.16
(88.08)
(9.49) (0.61) (0.00) (0.00) (1.82) (100.00)
3 Semi-Medium 3.32 0.15 950 0.33 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.78
(87.67)
(8.73) (3.60) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00)
4 Medium 2.95 0.69 1000 0.53 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.82
(77.17)
(13.81) (9.03) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00)
5 Large 6.94 0.00 0 1.17 0.78 0.22 0.00 0.00 9.11
(76.22)
(12.80) (8.54) (2.44) (0.00) (0.00) (100.00)
6 All 2.93 0.38 967 0.38 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.01 3.52
(83.17)
(10.70) (5.29) (0.48) (0.00) (0.36) (100.00)
Contd…
72
Contd… Table 4.12.1.
Sr.
No.
Farm Size Self-consumption Seed Feed Given to
friend &
relative
Others Payments
in Kind
Total Retention
(1+4+5+6+7+8) Retention Purchased
Qty. Price
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
iii. Wheat
1 Marginal 5.14 2.67 1246 0.09 0.46 0.09 0.02 0.04 5.84
(87.94)
(1.55) (7.91) (1.55) (0.33) (0.73) (100.00)
2 Small 8.10 1.27 1263 0.41 0.70 0.10 0.09 0.04 9.42
(85.94)
(4.30) (7.42) (1.03) (0.91) (0.40) (100.00)
3 Semi-Medium 15.21 3.16 1270 1.52 2.04 0.14 0.25 0.31 19.46
(78.12)
(7.80) (10.48) (0.73) (1.27) (1.59) (100.00)
4 Medium 18.52 3.60 1321 1.48 2.60 0.37 0.23 0.97 24.17
(76.63)
(6.13) (10.75) (1.55) (0.93) (4.02) (100.00)
5 Large 39.79 5.91 1312 2.18 3.58 0.13 0.11 0.13 45.92
(86.64)
(4.74) (7.79) (0.29) (0.25) (0.28) (100.00)
6 All 14.88 2.82 1289 1.08 1.74 0.19 0.16 0.36 18.41
(80.85)
(5.86) (9.46) (1.01) (0.87) (1.97) (100.00)
iv.Gram
1 Marginal 0.62 0.00 0 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.80
(77.50)
(15.00) (5.00) (0.00) (2.50) (0.00) (100.00)
2 Small 0.80 0.04 3200 0.19 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.08
(74.21)
(17.20) (6.75) (0.26) (1.59) (0.00) (100.00)
3 Semi-Medium 1.27 0.01 3000 0.37 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.76
(71.87)
(20.91) (6.11) (0.12) (0.99) (0.00) (100.00)
4 Medium 1.60 0.04 3325 0.59 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.00 2.29
(70.01)
(25.71) (2.39) (0.90) (0.99) (0.00) (100.00)
5 Large 1.83 0.01 3200 1.75 0.25 0.01 0.02 0.00 3.84
(47.48)
(45.53) (6.42) (0.16) (0.41) (0.00) (100.00)
6 All 1.41 0.03 3238 0.64 0.10 0.01 0.02 0.00 2.18
(64.76)
(29.35) (4.49) (0.51) (0.90) (0.00) (100.00) Note: Figures in parentheses indicates the percentages of total retention, *Price in Rs. /Qtl.
Source: Field Survey
73
iii) Wheat: Purpose-wise retention of wheat production per wheat growing household have
been given in Table 4.12.1. Overall, total retention was 18.41 quintals of which 14.88
quintals (80.85%) and 1.74 quintals (9.46%) retained for self consumption and feed purpose
respectively. About 1.08 quintals (5.86%) retained for seed purpose. In all farm size
categories, major proportion was retained for self consumption varying from 87.94 percent
for marginal farmers to 76.63 percent for medium farmers. Wheat quantity retained by
marginal, small, semi-medium, medium and large farmers was 5.84, 9.42, 19.46, 24.17 and
45.92 quintals respectively. This shows positive correlation between farm size and retention
of wheat quantity (Table 4.12.1).
Overall, total retention of wheat quantity per household (18.41 qtl.) accounted for
38.75 percent of total farm production of wheat (Table 4.12.2). As wheat is most important
staple diet of the people, percentage of total retention of wheat is higher compared to other
food grain crops. Purpose-wise, average quantity of wheat retained for self consumption,
feed, seed and kind payment accounted for 31.33, 3.66, 2.27 and 0.76 percent of wheat
production (Table 4.12.2) respectively. Across various farm size categories, percentage of
wheat production retained for different usage varied from 36.37 percent for medium farmers
to 43.82 percent for marginal farmers. Some farmers belonging to different farm categories
retained less quantity than the quantity actually required for home consumption during the
year. Hence, they make up deficit with the help of market purchase by paying higher price.
iv) Gram: Item-wise retentions of gram production per gram growing household is given in
Table 4.12.1. Overall, total retention of gram per household was of 2.18 quintals of which
1.41 quintals (64.76%) were for self consumption, 0.64 quintals (29.35%) for seed usage and
0.10 quintals (4.19%) for feed. For marginal, small, semi-medium, medium and large farm
categories, quantity of gram retained was 0.80, 1.08, 1.76, 2.29 and 3.84 quintals
respectively. Of the total gram quantity retained, major proportion was retained for self
consumption. The total quantity of gram retained for different usage rises with the rise in
farm size. Gram is used for consumption but not very often. It is used once or twice a week.
Hence proportion of gram quantity retained for self consumption was less than as compared
to same for wheat and bajra.
Overall, total retention of gram per household accounted for 9.56 percent of total
gram production (Table 4.12.2). Purpose-wise retained quantity of gram for self
consumption, seed and feed usage were accounted for 6.19, 2.80 and 0.43 percent of gram
production respectively. The percentage share of total retention of gram in total production
74
declined with the increase in farm size (Table 4.12.2).
Table 4.12.2: Purpose-wise Percentage Share of Retention of Selected Crops to Total
Farm Production
(Per hhs.) Sr.
No.
Farm Size Self-
consumption
Seed
Feed
Given to
friend
& relative
Others
Payments
in Kind
Qty.
Total
Retention
(1 to 6)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
i.Bajra
1 Marginal 45.24 0.00 2.14 0.00 0.09 0.00 47.46
2 Small 27.20 0.76 6.55 0.34 0.57 0.00 35.42
3 Semi-Medium 27.38 0.19 3.00 0.27 0.16 0.00 31.00
4 Medium 24.53 0.92 6.10 0.33 0.26 0.00 32.15
5 Large 17.76 0.29 3.07 0.04 0.07 0.28 21.52
6 All 24.46 0.60 4.86 0.24 0.26 0.06 30.48
ii. Maize
1 Marginal 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.00
2 Small 18.38 1.98 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.38 20.86
3 Semi-Medium 15.92 1.58 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.15
4 Medium 10.77 1.93 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.95
5 Large 13.50 2.27 1.51 0.43 0.00 0.00 17.71
6 All 14.27 1.84 0.91 0.08 0.00 0.06 17.16
iii. Wheat
1 Marginal 38.54 0.68 3.46 0.68 0.14 0.32 43.82
2 Small 33.57 1.68 2.90 0.40 0.36 0.16 39.06
3 Semi-Medium 31.73 3.17 4.26 0.30 0.52 0.65 40.61
4 Medium 27.87 2.23 3.91 0.56 0.34 1.46 36.37
5 Large 34.93 1.91 3.14 0.12 0.10 0.11 40.31
6 All 31.33 2.27 3.66 0.39 0.34 0.76 38.75
iv. Gram
1 Marginal 18.64 3.61 1.20 0.00 0.60 0.00 24.05
2 Small 11.02 2.55 1.00 0.04 0.24 0.00 14.85
3 Semi-Medium 8.31 2.42 0.71 0.01 0.11 0.00 11.57
4 Medium 6.67 2.45 0.23 0.09 0.09 0.00 9.53
5 Large 3.66 3.51 0.50 0.01 0.03 0.00 7.72
6 All 6.19 2.80 0.43 0.05 0.09 0.00 9.56
Note: Figure denotes percentage to total Farm production of respective crop.
Source: Field Survey
4.13 Estimation of Crop Production Losses at Different Harvesting stages (Per HH):
The production of foodgrain crops suffer losses at different stages before it reach to
the consumers. All the farm produces undergoes for harvesting, threshing, storage, packing
and transportation before reaching to the market. The grain loss varies from farmer to farmer
75
due to variation in mode and method used for harvesting, threshing, storage and
transportation. In selected regions, common mode of transport of surplus produce to nearby
town/ market was bullock/ camel carts, tractors and tempos. Here an attempt is made to
quantify losses for study crops at harvesting, storage and transportation stages.
4.13.1 Production Losses During Different Harvesting Operations:
The quantitative and percent losses of production during different stages of harvesting
i.e. harvesting, threshing and winnowing for selected crops have been displayed in Table
4.13.1. Sample farmers used both, manual and mechanical methods to carry out different
operations. During harvesting of crop, the losses occurred as some of ears or grains from ears
fell on ground due to defective machine operation or shattering. Similarly during threshing,
losses of produce occurred owing to some grains goes with straw and some mixes with dirt in
the threshing process.
i) Bajra:
Overall, per household total losses of bajra production during different harvesting
operations turned out to be 36.20 kg. which was 2.34 percent of total production. For bajra,
entire harvesting operation performed manually whereas entire threshing operation performed
mechanically. Of the total losses of 36.20 kg., losses during crop harvesting accounted for
20.68 kg. (57.13%) which was 1.34 percent of total production. And losses during threshing
accounted for 15.52 kg (42.87%) which was 1.00 percent of total production (Table 4.13.1).
Category-wise, percentage of total losses of bajra production during different harvesting
operations was 2.77, 2.32, 2.65, 2.20 and 2.30 percent for MF, SF, SMF, MDF and LF
respectively (Table 4.13.1).
ii) Maize:
For Maize entire harvesting operation carried out manually whereas for threshing,
farmers opted for both, manual as well as mechanical operations. Overall, per household total
losses of maize production during different harvesting operations worked out to be 36.79 kg.
which was 1.79 percent of the total production of maize. Of the total losses of 36.79 kg.,
losses of 18.73 kg. (50.91%) and 18.06 kg. (49.09%) occurred during manual and mechanical
operations respectively. Of the total maize production, 0.64, 1.06, and 0.09 percent losses
occurred at harvesting, threshing and winnowing stages respectively. Category-wise total
losses of production vary from 1.35 percent for LF to 2.74 percent for SF (Table 4.13.1).
76
Table 4.13.1: Production Losses at Different Stages of Harvest -Selected Crops
(Qty. in Qtl. /hhs.) Sr.
No.
Farm
Size
Mode/
Method
Losses
Harvesting Threshing Winnowing Total
Qty. % Qty. % Qty. % Qty. %
i. Bajra
1 Marginal Manual 0.1044 (1.67) - - - - 0.1044 (1.67)
Mechanical - - 0.0683 (1.10) - - 0.0683 (1.10)
Total 0.1044 (1.67) 0.0683 (1.10) - - 0.1728 (2.77)
2 Small Manual 0.1524 (1.32) - - - - 0.1524 (1.32)
Mechanical - - 0.1159 (1.00) - - 0.1159 (1.00)
Total 0.1524 (1.32) 0.1159 (1.00) - - 0.2683 (2.32)
3 Semi-
Medium Manual 0.1543 (1.35) - - - - 0.1543 (1.35)
Mechanical - - 0.1477 (1.29) - - 0.1477 (1.29)
Total 0.1543 (1.35) 0.1477 (1.29) - - 0.3020 (2.65)
4 Medium Manual 0.2152 (1.24) - - - - 0.2152 (1.24)
Mechanical - - 0.1661 (0.96) - - 0.1661 (0.96)
Total 0.2152 (1.24) 0.1661 (0.96) - - 0.3812 (2.20)
5 Large Manual 0.4794 (1.45) - - - - 0.4794 (1.45)
Mechanical - - 0.2806 (0.85) - - 0.2806 (0.85)
Total 0.4794 (1.45) 0.2806 (0.85) - - 0.7600 (2.30)
6 All Manual 0.2068 (1.34) - - - - 0.2068 (1.34)
Mechanical - - 0.1552 (1.00) - - 0.1552 (1.00)
Total 0.2068 (1.34) 0.1552 (1.00) - - 0.3620 (2.34)
ii. Maize
1 Marginal Manual 0.0689 (0.74) 0.0456 (0.49) 0.0289 (0.31) 0.1433 (1.53)
Mechanical - - 0.0178 (0.19) - - 0.0178 (0.19)
Total 0.0689 (0.74) 0.0633 (0.68) 0.0289 (0.31) 0.1611 (1.72)
2 Small Manual 0.0903 (0.87) 0.0550 (0.53) 0.0345 (0.33) 0.1797 (1.73)
Mechanical - - 0.1042 (1.00) - - 0.1042 (1.00)
Total 0.0903 (0.87) 0.1592 (1.54) 0.0345 (0.33) 0.2839 (2.74)
3 Semi-
Medium Manual 0.1294 (0.62) 0.0326 (0.16) 0.0103 (0.05) 0.1723 (0.83)
Mechanical - - 0.1945 (0.93) - - 0.1945 (0.93)
Total 0.1294 (0.62) 0.2271 (1.09) 0.0103 (0.05) 0.3668 (1.76)
4 Medium Manual 0.1572 (0.57) 0.0300 (0.11) 0.0083 (0.03) 0.1955 (0.71)
Mechanical - - 0.2472 (0.90) - - 0.2472 (0.90)
Total 0.1572 (0.57) 0.2772 (1.01) 0.0083 (0.03) 0.4428 (1.62)
5 Large Manual 0.2922 (0.57) - - - - 0.2922 (0.57)
Mechanical - - 0.4000 (0.78) - - 0.4000 (0.78)
Total 0.2922 (0.57) 0.4000 (0.78) - - 0.6922 (1.35)
6 All Manual 0.1314 (0.64) 0.0377 (0.18) 0.0182 (0.09) 0.1873 (0.91)
Mechanical - - 0.1806 (0.88) - - 0.1806 (0.88)
Total 0.1314 (0.64) 0.2183 (1.06) 0.0182 (0.09) 0.3679 (1.79)
Contd…
77
Contd… 4.13.1 Sr.
No.
Farm Size Mode/Method Losses
Harvesting Threshing Winnowing Total
Qty. % Qty. % Qty. % Qty. %
iii. Wheat
1 Marginal Manual 0.1671 (1.25) - - - - 0.1671 (1.25)
Mechanical - - 0.1957 (1.47) - - 0.1957 (1.47)
Total 0.1671 (1.25) 0.1957 (1.47) - - 0.3629 (2.72)
2 Small Manual 0.2707 (1.12) - - - - 0.2707 (1.12)
Mechanical 0.0144 (0.06) 0.2403 (1.00) - - 0.2547 (1.06)
Total 0.2851 (1.18) 0.2403 (1.00) - - 0.5254 (2.18)
3 Semi-
Medium Manual 0.3561 (0.74) - - - - 0.3561 (0.74)
Mechanical 0.0360 (0.08) 0.3001 (0.63) - - 0.3361 (0.70)
Total 0.3921 (0.82) 0.3001 (0.63) - - 0.6923 (1.44)
4 Medium Manual 0.3189 (0.48) - - - - 0.3189 (0.48)
Mechanical 0.0604 (0.09) 0.2572 (0.39) - - 0.3176 (0.48)
Total 0.3792 (0.57) 0.2572 (0.39) - - 0.6365 (0.96)
5 Large Manual 0.2135 (0.19) - - - - 0.2135 (0.19)
Mechanical 0.1783 (0.16) 0.1783 (0.16) - - 0.3565 (0.31)
Total 0.3917 (0.34) 0.1783 (0.16) - - 0.5700 (0.50)
6 All Manual 0.2922 (0.62) - - - - 0.2922 (0.62)
Mechanical 0.0438 (0.09) 0.2511 (0.53) - - 0.2949 (0.62)
Total 0.3360 (0.71) 0.2511 (0.53) - - 0.5871 (1.24)
iv. Gram
1 Marginal Manual 0.0960 (2.88) 0.0520 (1.56) 0.0360 (1.08) 0.1840 (5.53)
Mechanical - - 0.0340 (1.02) - - 0.0340 (1.02)
Total 0.0960 (2.88) 0.0860 (2.58) 0.0360 (1.08) 0.2180 (6.55)
2 Small Manual 0.0814 (1.12) 0.0209 (0.29) 0.0209 (0.29) 0.1231 (1.69)
Mechanical - - 0.0460 (0.63) - - 0.0460 (0.63)
Total 0.0814 (1.12) 0.0669 (0.92) 0.0209 (0.29) 0.1691 (2.33)
3 Semi-
Medium Manual 0.1735 (1.14) 0.0322 (0.21) 0.0152 (0.10) 0.2209 (1.45)
Mechanical - - 0.0987 (0.65) - - 0.0987 (0.65)
Total 0.1735 (1.14) 0.1309 (0.86) 0.0152 (0.10) 0.3196 (2.10)
4 Medium Manual 0.1963 (0.82) - - - - 0.1963 (0.82)
Mechanical - - 0.1479 (0.62) - - 0.1479 (0.62)
Total 0.1963 (0.82) 0.1479 (0.62) - - 0.3442 (1.43)
5 Large Manual 0.3547 (0.71) - - - - 0.3547 (0.71)
Mechanical - - 0.2613 (0.52) - - 0.2613 (0.52)
Total 0.3547 (0.71) 0.2613 (0.52) - - 0.6159 (1.24)
6 All Manual 0.1939 (0.85) 0.0116 (0.05) 0.0076 (0.03) 0.2131 (0.94)
Mechanical - - 0.1349 (0.59) - - 0.1349 (0.59)
Total 0.1939 (0.85) 0.1465 (0.64) 0.0076 (0.03) 0.3480 (1.53)
Note: Figures in Parenthesis indicates Percent of losses to average production of respective category/crops
Source: Field Survey
iii) Wheat:
Overall, per household total losses of wheat production during different harvesting
operations worked out to be 58.71 kg. which was only 1.24 percent of total wheat production.
78
Of the total losses, 50.22 percent (29.49 kg.) occurred during mechanical operation and 49.78
percent occurred during manual operation. For manual operation, losses occurred only during
harvesting of produce as threshing operation carried out mechanically. For mechanical
operation, losses occurred during harvesting and threshing stage. Of the total wheat
production, 0.71 and 0.53 percent losses reported at harvesting and threshing operation
respectively. Category-wise percentage of production losses was 2.72, 2.18, 1.44, 0.96, and
0.50 for MF, SF, SMF, MDF and LF respectively. Thus, percentage of total losses at different
harvesting stages declining with the increase in farm size giving indication of inverse
relationship (Table 4.13.1).
iv) Gram:
Overall, average total losses of gram production during various harvesting operations
was of 34.80 kg. which was 1.53 percent of total gram production. Of the total losses of 34.80
kg. losses occurred at harvesting was 19.39 kg (55.31%) and at threshing was 14.65 kg.
(42.10%). Of the total production losses of 34.80 kg, losses occurred during manual operation
was 21.31 kg. (61.24%) and during mechanical operation was 13.49 kg. (38.76%). The
percentage of losses to total production was highest at 6.55 percent for marginal and least at
1.24 per cent for large farmers. Across farm size, percentage of losses to total production
moving downward with rise in farm size indicating inverse relationship (Table 4.13.1).
4.13.2 Production Losses During Transportation at Producer’s Level:
Wastages/Losses of crop produce at producer’s level also occurred during
transportation of produce from field to threshing floor and field/ storage to market.
Production losses also occurred due to lack of proper handling of the produce during packing
and transportation process. Majority farmers used head load mode for transportation of
produce from field to threshing floor. Common mode of transport of surplus produce from
farm/ storage to market was bullock/ camel carts, tractor-trolley and tempo (3 wheeler
vehicle). Majority farmers carried out their marketed surplus to the market place in gunny/
polyethylene bag packing. Losses occurred during packing, shattering, loading and unloading
of produce are considered here as a part of transportation losses.
Table 4.13.2 shows per household losses occurred during transportation stages and
handling of marketed surplus produce.
79
Table 4.13.2: Quantity Lost During Transportation at Producers Level -Selected Crops
(Qtl. / hhs.)
Farm Size
Field to threshing floor Field /Farm to Market Total transport
losses
Mode /
Method *
Packing **
Qty.
(Qtl.)
%
Losses
Mode /
Method
*
Packing
**
Qty.
(Qtl.)
%
Losses
Qty.
(Qtl.)
%
Losses
Bajra
Marginal 1 2,3 0.067 (1.07) 2,3,4 1,3 0.024 (0.38) 0.091 (1.45)
Small 1 2,3 0.109 (0.95) 2,3,4 1,3 0.034 (0.29) 0.143 (1.24)
Semi-Medium 1 2,3 0.121 (1.06) 2,3,4 1,3 0.031 (0.27) 0.152 (1.33)
Medium 1 2,3 0.163 (0.94) 2,3,4 1,3 0.050 (0.29) 0.213 (1.23)
Large 1 2,3 0.185 (0.56) 2,3,4 1,3 0.108 (0.33) 0.293 (0.89)
All - - 0.136 (0.88) - - 0.046 (0.30) 0.182 (1.17)
Maize
Marginal 1,2 1,2,3 0.109 (1.16) 2,3 1,3 0.038 (0.40) 0.147 (1.57)
Small 1,2,3 1,2,3 0.070 (0.68) 2,3 1,2,3 0.045 (0.44) 0.115 (1.11)
Semi-Medium 1,2,3 2,3 0.129 (0.62) 2,3 1,2,3 0.080 (0.38) 0.209 (1.00)
Medium 1,2 2,3 0.210 (0.77) 2,3 1,2 0.088 (0.32) 0.298 (1.09)
Large 1,2,3 2,3 0.192 (0.37) 2,3,4 1,3 0.209 (0.41) 0.401 (0.78)
All - - 0.133 (0.65) - - 0.077 (0.38) 0.211 (1.03)
Wheat
Marginal 1,2,3 2,3 0.154 (1.16) 2,3,4 1,2,3 0.065 (0.49) 0.219 (1.64)
Small 1,2,3 2,3 0.176 (0.73) 2,3,4 1,2,3 0.079 (0.33) 0.255 (1.06)
Semi-Medium 1,2,3 2,3 0.305 (0.64) 2,3,4 1,2,3 0.115 (0.24) 0.420 (0.88)
Medium 1,2,3 2,3 0.279 (0.42) 2,3,4 1,2,3 0.160 (0.24) 0.439 (0.66)
Large 1,2,3 2,3 0.306 (0.27) 2,3,4 1,2,3 0.161 (0.14) 0.466 (0.41)
All - - 0.243 (0.51) - - 0.115 (0.24) 0.358 (0.75)
Gram
Marginal 1,2 1,2,3 0.127 (3.82) 2,4 1,3 0.013 (0.40) 0.140 (4.22)
Small 1,2,3 1,2,3 0.253 (3.48) 2,3 1,2,3 0.017 (0.24) 0.270 (3.72)
Semi-Medium 1,2,3 1,2,3 0.479 (3.15) 2,3,4 1,2,3 0.031 (0.21) 0.511 (3.35)
Medium 1,2,3 1,2,3 0.604 (2.51) 2,3,4 1,2,3 0.053 (0.22) 0.657 (2.73)
Large 1,2,3 1,2,3 0.683 (1.37) 2,3,4 1,2,3 0.097 (0.19) 0.780 (1.57)
All - - 0.520 (2.29) - - 0.048 (0.21) 0.568 (2.50)
Notes: *Head Load=1, Bullock/ camel/ buffalo cart=2, Tractor trolley=3, Tempo/ three wheeler=4, Truck=5, others=6, **Bags=1, in
bulk=2, both in bags and bulk=3; Figures in brackets denotes the percent of losses to average production per hhs.
Source: Field Survey
i) Bajra:
Overall, average losses of bajra during transportation were 18.2 kg. per household,
which was accounted for 1.17 percent of total bajra production. Category-wise absolute
quantity of bajra lost during transportation varied from 29.3 kg. for LF (0.89% of production)
to 9.1 kg for MF(1.45 % of production). As bajra production increased with farm size,
80
absolute quantity of transportation losses also increased. However, transportation losses as
percentage to total bajra production shows declining trend with the increase in farm size. Of
the total transportation losses, 74.73 percent occurred during transportation of produce from
field to threshing floor. These losses seem to be on higher side because farmers used head
load mode for bringing produce from field to threshing floor. The bajra quantity transported
to market in bag packing or bulk form (Table 4.13.2). For transportation of produce to
market, farmers used bullock/camel carts, tempo and tractor-trolley.
ii) Maize:
Overall, total transportation losses per household for maize were 21.1 kg. which was
1.03 per cent of reported maize production. Of the total losses of 21.1 kg., losses occurred
during transportation of maize produce from field to threshing floor was 13.3 kg which was
63.03 percent of total transportation losses. Category-wise, percentage of total transportation
losses to total maize production was showing declining trend (except MDF) with increase in
farm size. For transportation of maize produce from farm to market, farmers used bullock/
camel carts, tractor-trolley and tempo/ three wheelers. The quantity of maize to be marketed
was transported in bag packing or bulk form.
iii) Wheat:
Overall, total wheat losses per household during transportation were 35.8 kg. which
was about 0.75 percent of reported wheat production. Of the total transportation losses, 67.88
percent occurred during transportation of produce from field to threshing floor. Category-
wise absolute quantity of wheat losses during transportation is increasing with increase in the
farm-size. However, percentage of total transport losses to total wheat production shows
inverse relationship with farm-size (Table 4.13.2). For transportation of produce from farm to
market; tractor-trolley three-wheelers and bullock/ camel carts were used. The wheat quantity
transported to market by majority farmers in bag packing. Few farmers transported it in bulk
form.
iv) Gram:
Overall, total losses of gram per household during transportation were 56.8 kg. which
was 2.50 percent of total gram production. Of the total transportation losses of 56.8 kg. losses
of 52.0kg. (91.50%) occurred during transportation of produce from field to threshing floor.
The main reason for high losses at this stage was use of head load mode for transportation of
produce, for transportation of gram from field to market; Tractor-trolley, three wheeler and
bullock/ camel carts were used. Category-wise, absolute quantity lost during transportation is
81
increasing with the farm size. However, percentage of transportation losses to total gram
production shows inverse relationship with farm size (Table 4.13.2). Majority producers used
bag packing or bulk form used for transporting gram from farm to market place.
4.13.3: Crop Losses During Storage at Producer’s Level:
Grain is a living organism and the storage structure of grain has to be suitability
designed to protect it from pests, rodents, moulds and micro-organism. Bulk and bag packing
are generally adopted for indoor and outdoor storage structures. The objective of storage is to
keep grain for longer period with minimum quality deterioration and least grain loss with
minimum cost. For grains retained for home consumption and other usage, traditionally in
house storage used by producers. For in house storing, they are using earthen pot, steel bin,
kutcha storage with earthen wall, stone used storage structure etc. Some economically sound
farmers keep part of their marketable surplus of foodgrains as stock for future sales in
anticipation of further increase in price. Such stock they stored in farmhouses or home
godowns. It may be pucca or kutcha. For storage in farm houses or home godowns, grains are
packed in jute/polyethylene bags. To protect stored grains from pests and weevil infestation,
rodents, mould and damage from rain and wind, farmers are spending on plastic/polyethylene
sheet, mercury, insecticides (BHC, Gamaxin, Cellfoss) etc. The physical losses during
storage occurred due to weight loss, fungus/pests infestation, humidity, bird/mouse, shrinkage
due to poor packing, storage, bulk form and improper handling. The quantity of grains stored
was gradually withdrawn from the storage as and when needed, but part of it remained stored
for whole year. The details of crop losses during storage at producer’s level for selected crops
have been given in Table 4.13.3.
i) Bajra: Overall, average quantity of bajra stored per household was 9.12 quintals against
the storage capacity of 11.844 quintals. For storage, farmers used steel bin, kutcha earthen
storage and pucca storage with cemented floor. Quantity of bajra stored by marginal farmers
and large farmers was 4.74 and 14.53 quintals respectively. Average quantity lost during
storage was 0.163 quintal which accounted for 1.78 percent of total quantity stored.
Category-wise, storage loss as percent to total stored quantity varied from 1.12 percent for
marginal farmers to 2.02 percent for medium farmers. Overall, 1.05 percent of total bajra
production was lost during storage. Category-wise, it varied from 0.78 percent for large
farmers to 1.25 percent for medium farmers. Overall, average monthly cost of bajra storage at
producer’s level worked out to Rs. 1.32 per quintal which ranged from Rs. 0.84 for large
farmers to Rs. 2.00 for marginal and semi-medium farmers (Table 4.13.3).
82
ii) Maize: Overall, average quantity of maize stored per household was 5.04 quintals as
against storing capacity of 6.26 quintals. The mode of storage used by majority households
was steel bin, earthen pot or earthen/stone structures. Category-wise, the average quantity
stored by MF, SF, SMF, MDF and LF was 2.37, 3.12, 5.06, 5.92 and 12.84 respectively. An
average storage loss reported by sample households was 0.096 quintals which was 1.90
percent of total stored quantity of maize. The storage losses were 0.47 percent of total maize
production and it was 0.24 percent for MF and 0.61 percent for LF (Table 4.13.3). Overall,
monthly average storage cost of maize worked out to Rs. 1.13 per quintal and it was lowest at
Rs. 0.92 per quintal for LF.
Table: 4.13.3 Crop-Losses During Storage at Producers level -Selected Crops
(Per HHs.) Sl Farm Size Type of
Storage
*
Amount
of
Quantity
Stored
(Qtl.)
capacity
storage
(Qtl.)
Quantit
y Lost
(Qtl.)
% of
Quantit
y Lost
to
total
stored
% of
Storag
e
loss
to
Avg.
Prod.
Storage
Time
in Days
Averag
e Cost
of
Storage
(Rs./
Month)
Average
Cost
of
Storage
(Rs./
Quintal/
Month)
i.Bajra
1 Marginal 1,2,3 4.74 5.93 0.053 1.12 0.85 365 9.50 2.00
2 Small 1,2,3 7.93 9.91 0.104 1.31 0.90 365 11.10 1.40
3 Semi-Medium 1,2,3 6.72 10.07 0.135 2.00 1.18 365 13.43 2.00
4 Medium 1,2,3 10.74 13.97 0.217 2.02 1.25 365 12.05 1.12
5 Large 1,2,3 14.53 16.95 0.258 1.77 0.78 365 12.27 0.84
6 All 1,2,3 9.12 11.84 0.163 1.78 1.05 365 11.99 1.32
ii.Maize
1 Marginal 1,2,3 2.37 2.97 0.022 0.94 0.24 365 2.97 1.25
2 Small 1,2,3 3.12 3.37 0.030 0.97 0.29 365 3.90 1.25
3
Semi-
Medium 1,2,3 5.06 7.08 0.119 2.35 0.57 365 5.31 1.05
4 Medium 1,2,3 5.92 7.11 0.110 1.86 0.40 365 7.40 1.25
5 Large 1,2,3 12.84 16.04 0.313 2.44 0.61 365 11.87 0.92
6 All 1,2,3 5.04 6.26 0.096 1.90 0.47 365 5.69 1.13
iii.Wheat
1 Marginal 1,2,3 10.42 13.55 0.222 2.13 1.67 365 1.56 0.15
2 Small 1,2,3 16.30 18.74 0.279 1.71 1.16 365 4.07 0.25
3 Semi-Medium 1,2,3 30.85 38.56 0.715 2.32 1.49 365 8.22 0.27
4 Medium 1,2,3 39.15 46.98 0.754 1.93 1.14 365 10.84 0.28
5 Large 1,2,3 73.80 92.24 1.714 2.32 1.50 365 11.39 0.15
6 All 1,2,3 30.03 36.49 0.620 2.06 1.31 365 7.29 0.24
iv.Gram
1 Marginal 1,2,3 0.94 1.13 0.011 1.21 0.34 365 1.14 1.21
2 Small 1,2,3 3.43 3.50 0.029 0.85 0.40 365 0.69 0.20
3 Semi-Medium 1,2,3 3.49 3.77 0.034 0.97 0.22 365 0.70 0.20
4 Medium 1,2,3 4.63 5.00 0.040 0.87 0.17 365 0.69 0.15
5 Large 1,2,3 12.43 13.45 0.110 0.88 0.22 365 0.82 0.07
6 All 1,2,3 5.27 5.67 0.047 0.89 0.21 365 0.72 0.14
Notes: * Kutcha storage with Earthen floor, wall, roof=1, Pucca storage with cemented floor, wall, roof=2,
Steel storage bin=3
Source: Field Survey
83
iii) Wheat: In case of wheat, majority farmers used steel/earthen bins, farm houses and
godowns for storage. Wheat quantity stored was much higher as compared to it for other
crops as wheat is the most important staple diet of people. Moreover, quantity stored was
higher mainly due to carry over stock of previous year and some large farmers keep part of
the produce for future sales in anticipation of further increase in market price.
Overall, average quantity of wheat stored per household was 30.03 quintals and it
ranged from 10.42 quintals for MF to 73.80 quintals for LF. Quantity of wheat stored and
farm size shows positive relationship. Overall, average storage loss reported by sample
household was 2.06 percent (0.620 quintals) of total stored quantity and it varied from 1.71
percent for SF to 2.32 for LF. The storage loss of wheat was 1.31 percent of total production.
Across farm-size, it varied from 1.14 percent for MDF to 1.67 percent for MF. Quantity of
wheat stored was gradually withdrawn from the storage as and when needed either for own
purpose or marketing purpose. The average monthly storage cost per quintal worked out to
Rs. 0.24 only (Table 4.13.3).
iv) Gram: Overall, average quantity of gram stored per household was 5.27 quintals as
against storing capacity of 5.67 quintals. The mode of storage was earthen pot, steel bin,
kutcha/pucca storage houses. Category-wise average quantity of gram stored varied between
0.94 quintals for MF to 12.43 quintals for LF. The average quantity lost during storage was
0.047 quintals, which accounted for 0.89 percent of total quantity stored. As stored quantity
increased with the farm size, absolute quantity lost during storage also increasing with farm
size (Table 4.13.3). Overall, storage loss as percentage to total production was only 0.21
percent and it varied from 0.17 percent for MDF to 0.40 percent for SF. Average monthly
cost of storage per quintal worked out to Rs. 0.14 only.
4.13.4: Estimation of Total Production Losses at Different Stage of Handling- Selected
Crops:
Total losses at various stages of handling as percentage of production for selected
crops have been provided in Table 4.13.4. Overall, total losses of bajra production at various
stages accounted for 4.56 percent. For maize, overall total losses at different stages was 3.28
percent of total production. For bajra and maize, highest losses of production occurred during
harvesting stage followed by transportation (Table 4.13.4). For wheat, overall total losses at
various stages of handling accounted for 3.30 percent of total production on sample farms.
For wheat, highest losses occurred during storage (1.31%) followed by harvesting (1.24%).
For gram, average total losses per household worked out to 4.23 percent of farm production.
84
For gram, highest losses occurred during transportation (2.50%) followed by harvesting
(1.53%). For wheat and gram, percentage of total production losses is declining with increase
in farm size, which indicates the inverse relationship.
Table:4.13.4 Estimation of Production Losses at different stage of Handling
Sr.
No.
Farm Size
Production
(Qtl. /HHs.)
% Losses of Production at stages
Harvesting Transportation Storage Total
i.Bajra
1 Marginal 6.24 2.77 1.45 0.85 5.07
2 Small 11.54 2.33 1.24 0.90 4.47
3 Semi-Medium 11.41 2.65 1.33 1.18 5.16
4 Medium 17.32 2.20 1.23 1.25 4.68
5 Large 33.04 2.30 0.89 0.78 3.97
6 All 15.48 2.34 1.17 1.05 4.56
ii. Maize
1 Marginal 9.36 1.72 1.57 0.24 3.53
2 Small 10.37 2.74 1.11 0.29 4.14
3 Semi-Medium 20.85 1.76 1.00 0.57 3.33
4 Medium 27.38 1.62 1.09 0.40 3.11
5 Large 51.44 1.35 0.78 0.61 2.73
6 All 20.54 1.79 1.03 0.47 3.28
iii.Wheat
1 Marginal 13.33 2.72 1.64 1.67 6.03
2 Small 24.12 2.18 1.06 1.16 4.39
3 Semi-Medium 47.92 1.44 0.88 1.49 3.81
4 Medium 66.45 0.96 0.66 1.14 2.75
5 Large 113.91 0.50 0.41 1.50 2.41
6 All 47.49 1.24 0.75 1.31 3.30
iv.Gram
1 Marginal 3.33 6.55 4.22 0.34 11.10
2 Small 7.27 2.33 3.72 0.40 6.45
3 Semi-Medium 15.23 2.10 3.35 0.22 5.67
4 Medium 24.03 1.43 2.73 0.17 4.33
5 Large 49.81 1.24 1.57 0.22 3.02
6 All 22.76 1.53 2.50 0.21 4.23 Notes: % indicates of total losses of as percentage to total production.
Source: Field Survey
4.14 Marketed Surplus, Market Disbursement and Sale Pattern of Selected Crops:
Marketed surplus is the quantity of produce actually sells by producer irrespective of
his needs for self consumption and other requirements. The proportion of output actually
marketed is determined largely by the consumption habits of the family of producer, family
size, the nature of crop economic condition of the producer etc. The most important and vital
factor in determining the size of the marketed surplus is the size of output. Marketed surplus
output ratio (MSR) is a percentage of output actually marketed to total output.
85
Government agencies like Krushi Upaj Mandis (KUMs) and sub-yards and private
agencies like private traders, wholesale traders, village shopkeepers and money lenders are
the main purchasers of crop produce from the producer farmers. For selling crop produce to
different sources, price received by farmers shows significant variations. For selling produce
at different point of time, price realization by producer also varied. The variations in prices
occurred because of various factors. Hence, to judge variations in prices for selling produce
to different agencies, sale pattern of marketed surplus is studied here. To know about the
tendency of producers to hoard produce for speculative purpose and time period of sale after
the crop harvest, market disbursement pattern of households surveyed is also examined here.
Table 4.14 shows crop-wise, farm size-wise marketed surplus, time of sale after crop
harvest and actual quantity sold to different agencies and average price realization.
i) Bajra: Overall, bajra production per sample household was 15.48 quintals out of which
total marketed surplus accounted for 63.36 percent (9.81 qtl.) category-wise the marketed
surplus output ratio (MSR) of bajra was found highest for large farmers at 70.94 percent and
the lowest for marginal farmers at 57.45 percent. Further, Table 4.14 reveals that except
medium farmers, marketed surplus per household found to be positively related with farm
size. Regarding time of sale, it was found that producers sold entire marketed surplus of bajra
in the first quarter after harvesting of crop i.e. during the month of October, November and
December. This indicates that majority farmers have either no tendency or no capacity of
hoarding of produce for speculative purpose. Majority farmers of all categories tried to
dispose off their produce immediately after harvesting. The reasons for immediate sale by
farmers might be lack of appropriate storage, cash needs, indebtness to money lenders/
private traders, repayment of debt and small size of output to be marketed. The average
distance covered to sell was 5.42 km. with least by marginal farmers (2.75 km.) and highest
by small farmers (7.51 km.). Of the total quantity of marketed surplus, 78.98 percent of bajra
was sold in unregulated market i.e. private traders/ money lenders/ village shopkeepers and
remaining (21.02%) to government agencies (sub market yards, KUMs). Owing to non-start
market of procurement under minimum support price programme by the state government,
indebtness, cash needs, small size of output to be sold and to save cost on packing, loading
and unloading and transportation, many farmers sold their produce to village shopkeepers,
traders, money lenders or big landlords. This unregulated private marketing system exploited
the farmers and farmers realized much lower prices. Against the minimum support price of
86
Rs. 980/ qtl., bajra, farmers received net Rs. 922/ qtl. for sell to government agencies and net
Rs. 885/qtl. for sell to private agencies (Table 4.14). Despite lower realization of sale price,
farmers sold bulk quantity of marketed surplus to private sources owing to various
considerations and compulsion as discussed above.
ii) Maize: Overall, average maize production per household was 20.54 quintals, out of which
total marketed surplus accounted for 79.08 percent (16.24 qtl.). Category-wise marketed
surplus output ratio (MSR) of maize ranged from 76.66 percent for small farmers to 82.05
percent for medium farmers. Tribal and backward people of Udaipur and Chittorgarh are
using maize in their daily diet. Many sample households growing maize HB but using deshi
maize for home consumption purpose. Also many maize growing households are
economically very poor and borrowed money from village shopkeepers/ money lenders.
Therefore, for cash needs to repay private debt immediately after harvest and varietal
difference in food consumption, majority maize producers sold high proportion of maize
production. Therefore, marketed surplus ratio found to be higher for maize. All farm
categories disposed off entire marketed surplus within the two months after crop harvesting
i.e. in October and November. The reasons for immediate sale by sample households might
be cash needs, indebtness, varietal difference in food habit and no adequate facility of
storage. Of the total marketed surplus, 92.35 percent of maize was sold to private traders/
money lenders (Table 4.14). This indicate dominant role of private agencies in maize market.
Average distance covered to sell maize was only 3.50 km. as majority farmers sell produce to
traders/ village shopkeepers residing in the village or nearby village. Against the MSP of Rs.
980/ qtl. maize growers realized little less price i.e. Rs. 954/ qtl. for selling to private
agencies. However, for selling maize to government agencies, farmers fetched net average
price of Rs. 1147/ qtl. which was much higher than MSP as well as price received from sale
to private agencies. It was observed that some households, especially marginal and small are
heavily indebted to private traders/ money lenders and hence they lost their bargaining power
and were compelled to sell their produce at lower price to whom they were indebted.
Therefore, they realized much lower price for selling maize to private sources. However, for
selling to private agencies, producers saved expense on transportation, market cess, weight
man charges, packing and loading and unloading.
87
Table 4.14: Marketed Surplus of Selected Crops and Its Sale Pattern (Per hhs.) Sr.
No
Farm Size
Total
Prod.
(Qtl.)
Total
Qty.
Sold
(Qtl.)
MSR
(%)
Month of
Sales*
Average
Distance
(Kms.)
Agencies to whom sold
Govt. Agencies Pvt. Trader/Money Lender Others
Qty.
(Qtl.)
% to total
Sold
Price
(Rs./Qtl.)
Qty.
(Qtl.)
% to total
Sold
Price
(Rs./Qtl.)
Qty.
(Qtl.)
% to
total
Sold
Price
(Rs./
Qtl.)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
i.Bajra
1 Marginal 6.24 3.58 57.45 10-11 -12 2.75 0.89 (24.80) 823 2.70 (75.20) 806 - - -
2 Small 11.54 6.79 58.85 10-11 -12 7.51 2.15 (31.66) 885 4.64 (68.34) 894 - - -
3 Semi-Medium 11.41 7.33 64.24 10-11 -12 5.09 1.09 (14.93) 899 6.23 (85.07) 858 - - -
4 Medium 17.32 10.56 60.98 10-11 -12 4.61 1.35 (12.79) 938 9.21 (87.21) 859 - - -
5 Large 33.04 23.44 70.94 10-11 -12 4.50 6.67 (28.44) 955 16.77 (71.56) 952 - - -
6 All 15.48 9.81 63.36 10-11 -12 5.42 2.06 (21.02) 922 7.75 (78.98) 885 - - -
ii.Maize
1 Marginal 9.36 7.20 77.00 10-11 1.12 0.00 (0.00) 0 7.20 (100.00) 900 - - -
2 Small 10.37 7.95 76.66 10-11 4.68 1.44 (18.14) 1035 6.51 (81.86) 906 - - -
3 Semi-Medium 20.85 16.23 77.85 10-11 3.18 0.54 (3.32) 1307 15.69 (96.68) 979 - - -
4 Medium 27.38 22.46 82.05 10-11 1.54 0.00 (0.00) 0 22.46 (100.00) 944 - - -
5 Large 51.44 40.28 78.29 10-11 8.50 8.22 (20.41) 1192 32.05 (79.59) 983 - - -
6 All 20.54 16.24 79.08 10-11 3.50 1.24 (7.65) 1147 15.00 (92.35) 954 - - -
iii.Wheat
1 Marginal 13.33 7.50 56.29 04-05 6.95 1.57 (20.94) 1330 5.93 (79.06) 1220 - - -
2 Small 24.12 13.15 54.53 04-05 10.82 4.81 (36.55) 1347 8.34 (63.45) 1202 - - -
3 Semi-Medium 47.92 25.27 52.73 04-05 8.16 10.04 (39.74) 1334 15.23 (60.26) 1167 - - -
4 Medium 66.45 37.72 56.77 04-05 9.10 16.19 (42.91) 1351 21.54 (57.09) 1166 - - -
5 Large 113.91 61.50 53.98 04-05 10.06 37.45 (60.90) 1374 24.04 (39.10) 1128 - - -
6 All 47.49 26.06 54.87 04-05 9.43 11.46 (43.96) 1352 14.60 (56.04) 1170 - - -
iv.Gram
1 Marginal 3.33 2.90 87.05 04-05-06 5.30 0.00 (0.00) 0 2.90 (100.00) 3046 - - -
2 Small 7.27 6.11 84.00 04-05-06 5.60 0.29 (4.68) 2860 5.82 (95.32) 3136 - - -
3 Semi-Medium 15.23 12.71 83.43 04-05-06 6.65 0.02 (0.17) 2800 12.68 (99.83) 3118 - - -
4 Medium 24.03 20.18 83.96 04-05-06 6.09 0.11 (0.55) 2933 20.07 (99.45) 3075 - - -
5 Large 49.81 42.56 85.45 04-05-06 7.03 0.88 (2.06) 2800 41.68 (97.94) 3117 - - -
6 All 22.76 19.21 84.38 04-05-06 6.26 0.23 (1.21) 2840 18.98 (98.79) 3098 - - -
Notes:* Month of Sales given in Numeric (01- January to 12-December). MSR in coln. (5) denotes the percentage share of sold quantity to total production;Figures in parenthesis in coln. (9), coln. (12)
and coln. (15) denotes the percentage of sold quantity to total sold quantity.
Source: Field Survey
88
iii) Wheat: Overall, average wheat production per household was 47.49 quintals, out of
which total marketed surplus accounted for 54.87 percent (26.06 qtl.). Category-wise
marketed surplus- output ratio (MSR) varied in a narrow range from 52.73 percent for semi-
medium to 56.77 percent for medium farmers. Regarding time of sale, entire marketed
surplus was disposed off in the month of April and May i.e., within the two months of crop
harvesting. As compare to other states, MSR for wheat in Rajasthan is found somewhat on
lower side mainly owing to lower size of output and higher retention for home consumption
and other purposes. For selling wheat, average distance covered was 9.43 kms. with the
highest by the small farmers (10.82 kms.) and lowest by the marginal farmers (6.95 kms.). On
procurement of wheat under MSP policy, state government declared bonus on and above
MSP of Rs. 1285/ qtl. Hence, 43.96 percent of total marketed surplus of wheat sold to
government agencies and for that they realized average price of Rs. 1352/ qtl. The average
price realized for sale of wheat to government agencies was much higher than MSP owing to
bonus declaration by state government. About 56.04 percent of total marketed surplus of
wheat sold to private agencies and for that they realized average price of Rs. 1170/ qtl. much
lower than price realization through sale to government agencies. Despite financial
disadvantage, many marginal, small and medium farmers compelled to sell wheat
immediately to private traders/ village shopkeepers/ money lenders mainly because of
indebtness, cash needs, small size of output to be sold, rejection under MSP due to inferior
quality of produce and delay in starting procurement operation under MSP policy. Further,
indebtness of farmers to private traders and big landlords reduced their bargaining power and
private traders/ money lenders continued to exploit them. Except medium farm size,
percentage of marketed surplus sold to private agencies showed inverse relationship with
farm size. This shows that large farmers are better placed in respect of bargaining power
mainly because of large size of output and majority large farmers had zero debt of private
traders/ money lenders.
iv) Gram: Overall, average gram production per household was 22.76 qtl. of which total
marketed surplus (19.21 qtl.) accounted for 84.38 percent. Category-wise MSR varied from
83.43 percent for semi-medium to 87.05 percent for marginal farmers. As compared to other
crops, MSR for gram was found higher because gram is not used regularly in daily diet. It is
used once or twice in a week. Moreover, because of higher price in open market, gram
producer retained less and sold more quantity in the market. Regarding time of sale, entire
marketed surplus was disposed off in the first quarter after the crop harvesting i.e., in April,
May and June. The average distance covered to sell gram was 6.26 kms. As open market
89
price of gram was much higher than MSP of Rs. 2800/ qtl., producers sold 98.79 percent of
the total marketed surplus to private agencies. For selling gram to private agencies, they
realized average price of Rs. 3098/qtl. Only 1.21 percent of total marketed surplus was sold
to government agencies and for that they realized average price of Rs. 2840/ qtl. Not a single
marginal farmer reported sale of gram to government agencies.
4.15 Extent of Marketable Surplus of Selected Crops:
The marketable surplus at farm level is the residual left with the producer-farmer after
meeting his genuine requirements for family consumption, farm seed, feeding, barter system,
wage payment in kind to labour, social obligation and physical losses at post harvest stages.
Farmers reported net production after deducting physical losses during harvesting, threshing
and winnowing operations. Therefore, here marketable surplus computed by the formula:
MS= A - B
Where MS = Marketable surplus
A = Gross production of the given crop in the reference year
B = Requirement for family consumption (retention + purchase), farm seed, animal
feeding, barter system, social obligation, kind payment to labour, land owner as share of
produce and physical losses during transportation and storage.
The marketable surplus computed using above mentioned formula has been depicted
in Table 4.15 and shown in Figure-4.1.
i) Bajra: Overall, marketable surplus was 64.54 percent of total production. Out of total
bajra production of 4644.50 quintals by sample households, 1415.54 quintals retained for
different purposes and loss of 103.29 quintals occurred during transportation and storage.
Farmers repurchase 128.10 quintals from the market. Except medium farmers, percentage of
marketable surplus increasing with farm size. It varied from 27.44 percent for MF to 75.81
percent for LF.
ii) Maize: Overall, of the total maize production of 2423.20 quintals, 79.51 percent
(1926.65 qtl.) was marketable surplus. Across different farm categories, it varied from 73.55
percent for SF to 82.04 percent for MDF. Of the total production of 2423.20 quintals, 415.90
quintals (17.16%) retained for self consumption and other purposes and total losses occurred
during transportation and storage was of 36.15 quintals (1.50%) (Table 4.15). Farmers
repurchase 44.50 quintal from the market for self consumption.
iii) Wheat: Overall, of the total wheat production of 13916 quintals, 5392.70 quintals
(38.75%) retained for home consumption and other purposes and total quantity lost during
90
transport and storage was 286.54 quintals (2.06%). Sample farmers repurchase 825.30
quintals from market for self consumption. Therefore, of the total wheat production, 53.26
percent (7411.46 qtl.) was marketable surplus. The high proportion of wheat production
retained for home consumption and other purposes was mainly responsible for lower
percentage of marketable surplus. Category-wise, marketable surplus of wheat varied from
32.87 percent for MF to 56.41 percent for MDF (Table 4.15).
Table 4.15: Extent of Marketable Surplus of Selected Crops
No.
Farm Size Total
Prod.
(Qtl.)
Total
Retention
(Qtl.)
Purchased
(Qtl.)
Losses (Qtl.) Marketable
Surplus
(3-(4+5+8)
Transport Storage Total Qty.
(Qtl.)
%
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
1.Bajra
1 Marginal 112.30 53.30 25.60 1.63 0.96 2.59 30.82 27.44
2 Small 923.10 327.00 33.00 11.47 8.29 19.76 543.34 58.86
3 Semi-Medium 787.20 244.04 33.50 10.49 9.29 19.78 489.88 62.23
4 Medium 1731.50 556.60 25.00 21.29 21.71 42.99 1106.91 63.93
5 Large 1090.40 234.60 11.00 9.66 8.51 18.17 826.63 75.81
6 All 4644.50 1415.54 128.10 54.53 48.76 103.29 2997.57 64.54
2.Maize
1 Marginal 84.20 16.00 3.00 1.32 0.20 1.52 63.68 75.63
2 Small 394.00 82.20 16.50 4.38 1.15 5.53 289.77 73.55
3 Semi-Medium 688.00 124.90 5.00 6.91 3.93 10.84 547.26 79.54
4 Medium 794.00 110.80 20.00 8.64 3.20 11.84 651.36 82.04
5 Large 463.00 82.00 0.00 3.61 2.81 6.42 374.58 80.90
6 All 2423.20 415.90 44.50 24.86 11.29 36.15 1926.65 79.51
3.Wheat
1 Marginal 280.00 122.70 56.00 4.60 4.67 9.27 92.03 32.87
2 Small 2411.80 942.00 127.40 25.48 27.87 53.36 1289.04 53.45
3 Semi-Medium 3354.60 1362.40 221.40 29.42 50.07 79.49 1691.31 50.42
4 Medium 5249.60 1909.40 284.50 34.68 59.60 94.28 2961.42 56.41
5 Large 2620.00 1056.20 136.00 10.73 39.41 50.14 1377.66 52.58
6 All 13916.00 5392.70 825.30 104.91 181.63 286.54 7411.46 53.26
4.Gram
1 Marginal 16.64 4.00 0.00 0.70 0.06 0.76 11.88 71.39
2 Small 254.55 37.80 1.50 9.46 1.02 10.48 204.77 80.44
3 Semi-Medium 700.59 81.05 0.50 23.49 1.56 25.05 593.98 84.78
4 Medium 2283.05 217.60 4.10 62.40 3.81 66.21 1995.14 87.39
5 Large 1593.78 123.00 0.40 24.96 3.52 28.48 1441.91 90.47
6 All 4848.60 463.45 6.50 121.01 9.96 130.98 4247.68 87.61
Source: Field Survey
91
iv) Gram: Overall, of the total gram production of 4848.60 quintals, 4247.68 quintals was
marketable surplus, which accounted for 87.61 percent of total gram production. Category-
wise percentage of marketable surplus of gram increasing with increase in farm size
indicating positive relationship. Across farm categories, the percentage of marketable surplus
varied between 71.39 for MF to 90.47 for LF (Table 4.15).
4.16: Relationship of Marketed and Marketable Surplus:
Marketed surplus can be less, equal or even more than the marketable surplus and
each of these situations has its own economic and social implications. Marketed surplus will
be higher when the farmer retains less of the produce than his requirements for home
consumption and farm needs. This would be true especially of small and marginal farmers.
This situation of selling more than the marketable surplus is being termed as distress or
forced sell. This happens under pressure of meeting immediate cash needs for discharging
their immediate liabilities and purchasing of all necessaries for family. At later he may
repurchase some quantity of the same product from the market to meet his domestic needs.
Marketed surplus can be less than the marketable surplus when farmer go for storage of some
of his surplus produces. In a situation when there is no distress sale or no storage of
marketable surplus, marketed surplus and marketable surplus can be equal.
For judging the distress sales and studying the relationship between marketable
surplus and marketed surplus, the related data is given in Table 4.16 and trends are shown in
Figure-4.2.
92
Table: 4.16 Marketable and Marketed Surpluses for Selected Crops
(Figures in % of Prod.) Farm
Size
% of Production
Bajra Maize Wheat Gram
Marketable
Surplus
Marketed
Surplus
Marketable
Surplus
Marketed
Surplus
Marketable
Surplus
Marketed
Surplus
Marketable
Surplus
Marketed
Surplus
Marginal 27.44 57.45 75.63 77.00 32.87 56.29 71.39 87.05
Small 58.86 58.85 73.55 76.66 53.45 54.53 80.44 84.00
Semi-
Medium 62.23 64.24 79.54 77.85 50.42 52.73 84.78 83.43
Medium 63.93 60.98 82.04 82.05 56.41 56.77 87.39 83.96
Large 75.81 70.94 80.90 78.29 52.58 53.98 90.47 85.45
All 64.54 63.36 79.51 79.08 53.26 54.87 87.61 84.38 Source: Field Survey
Figure 4.2: Comparisons of Marketed & Marketable Surplus
From the data, it is evident that for marginal farmers, marketed surplus of bajra, wheat
and gram found higher than marketable surplus. For small farmers, similar situation found for
maize and gram crops. This gives indication of distress sales by majority of marginal and
small farmers for meeting immediate cash needs or repayment of debt to private sources.
Further, it reflects the poor economic condition of marginal and small farmers. For semi-
medium, medium and large farmers, marketed surplus found somewhat lower than
marketable surplus for bajra, maize, wheat and gram. This indicates no distress sales by
majority farmers and storage of part of production in anticipation of fetching higher price in
93
future. The difference between marketed surplus and marketable surplus is small suggesting
low level of storage activity.
4.17: Determinations of Factors Affecting Marketed Surplus -Regression Analysis:
The tabular analysis in the previous sections gives us an idea of the behavior of
marketed surplus for the total output of different crops across various farm size groups. This
analysis takes into consideration the aggregate impact of all the variables. Nonetheless, the
multiple regression analysis gives us the direction of the relationship as well as the quantum
effects of each of the individual variables affecting the marketed surplus. Here, for each
selected crop, regression analysis is carried out on the aggregate data for all the categories
rather than separate regression for each farm size. In the regression analysis, the marketed
surplus was taken in physical terms.
The regression analysis attempted with a view to ascertain results of tabular analysis
regarding the various factors affecting marketed surplus of foodgrain crops. Here analysis
attempted for four study crops namely bajra, maize, wheat and gram. The regression equation
used was:
Y= aX1b1
X2b2
X3b3
X4b4
X5b5
X6b6
X7b7
eu
Where,
Y= Total marketed surplus (Qtl.)
X1= Education of Decision makers (Year of schooling)
X2= Family size (No. of members)
X3= Farm size (Ha.)
X4= Total production of crops (qtl.)
X5= Productivity (Qtl. /Ha.)
X6= Total retention (Home consumption, feed, seed and others) in Qtl.
X7= Credit availability (0 for non availability and 1 for availability)
a= constant
e=error term
The estimated regression coefficients of variables for study crops are presented in
Table 4.17. The co-efficient of multiple determinations turned out to be significance for bajra,
maize, wheat and gram which confirm that included variables explained about 84,94,86 and
96 percent variation in the marketed surplus of bajra, maize, wheat and gram respectively.
The co-efficient of production found positive and significance at 1 % level for all four study
crops. This indicates that size of output was the most important variables determining the size
of marketed surplus of selected crops.
94
Table: 4.17 Regression Coefficients of Factors Affecting Marketed Surplus of Selected Crops
Factors
Bajra Maize Wheat Gram
Co-
efficient
Std.
Error
t Co-
efficient
Std.
Error
t Co-efficient Std.
Error
t Co-
efficient
Std.
Error
t
Constant -0.84 *** 0.15 -5.44 -0.67 * 0.34 -1.95 -1.08 *** 0.27 -3.98 -0.52 *** 0.17 -3.06
Education of
DM 0.01
0.02 0.35 0.02
0.03 0.78 0.06 * 0.03 1.70 0.04 ** 0.02 2.32
Family Size 0.03
0.05 0.53 -0.09
0.07 -1.35 -0.10
0.07 1.43 -0.03
0.03 -0.98
Farm Size -0.17 *** 0.04 -4.34 0.04
0.04 0.84 0.03
0.05 -0.57 -0.04
0.03 -1.58
Production 1.54 *** 0.05 34.15 1.35 **** 0.04 30.87 1.71 *** 0.05 31.40 1.21 *** 0.03 48.20
Productivity -0.18 *** 0.06 -3.23 0.01
0.12 -0.11 0.11
0.08 -1.37 -0.07
0.06 -1.05
Retention -0.57 *** 0.03 -19.25 -0.44 **** 0.05 -9.67 -0.86 *** 0.06 -14.89 -0.27
0.02 -
10.93
Credit
availability 0.07
0.05 1.30 -0.09
0.06 -1.57 -0.09
0.07 -1.30 0.03
0.03 0.82
R2 0.84 0.94 0.86 0.96
Adjusted R2 0.84 0.93 0.85 0.95
No. of
observations 300 118 293 213
Notes: *** 1% level of significance, **5 % level of significance, *10% level of significance
Source: Field Survey.
95
Further, it indicated that with one percent increase in output of bajra, maize, wheat and gram
crops, marketed surplus of these crops would go up by 1.54, 1.35, 1.71 and 1.21 percent
respectively. The co-efficient of productivity of maize and wheat found positive but
insignificant. Further, co-efficient for total retention was found negative and significant for all
four crops. This indicates that quantity of retention was affecting significantly on marketed
surplus. And, marketed surplus will increase with decline in retention quantity. The co-efficient
of education level of decision maker of households found positive but insignificant for bajra and
maize crops and significant for wheat and gram. This shows that education level of decision
makers affected significantly on marketed surplus of wheat and gram. The impact of credit
availability on marketed surplus was positive for bajra and gram but it was non-significant. For
maize and wheat, farm size shows positive but insignificant relationship with marketed surplus.
4.18: Factors Affecting Marketed Surplus-Farmers’ Perception:
Marketed surplus of foodgrains crops not only determining the income level of the
producers, but it also ensure food security to the non-farming population. Therefore, without
generation of adequate marketed surplus of foodgrains, it is unlikely to achieve desired level of
development in the country. In this context, it is relevant to know the factors operating at
producer level, which are affecting the marketed surplus of foodgrains crops.
Earlier, the data analysis reveals that size of output had positive influence on the
marketed surplus of foodgrains crops. As farm size is increasing the size of output also
increasing. Retentions for home consumption and other needs had a negative relationship with
marketed surplus. Non-availability of adequate credit for farming from institutional sources also
creating negative impact on size of output and hence it is indirectly impacting negatively on the
marketed surplus. Apart from above factors, there are other institutional and non-institutional
factors operating at producers level, which are directly or indirectly influencing on marketed
surplus of foodgrains. On the basis of information collected from sample farmers, factors
impacting on marketed surplus are discussed below:
4.18.1: Sources of Market Information:
Market information means communications of knowledge or intelligence. The
information needed for decision making in marketing is varied and relates to arrivals, sales,
96
demand and prices of commodities from various centers in country or outside. Market
information is very useful to farmers in planning the sale of their produce. Farmers can base the
pattern of their sale of produce through understanding the trends depicted by market data.
Guided by correct and timely information, farmers can choose the appropriate time and place to
market their produce to maximize their net returns.
With advancement of science and technology, information technology is being widely
implemented in agricultural marketing. Information regarding the local trading is being
disseminated through the mass media such as TV, radio, newspapers etc. The personal visit of
farmers to the market yard is also important source of market information.
In the regions surveyed, sample farmers relied on number of sources for getting market
information of which only few are reliable. However, the advantage of information technology
for market intelligence was not available to these sample cultivators who had limited means and
ill-equipped. The related data on sources of market information used by sample households is
displayed in Table 4.18.1.
Table: 4.18.1 Sources of Price Information for Sample Farm Households
(% hhs.) Sr.
No.
Source
Size of Farms
Marginal Small Semi-Medium Medium Large All
1 Trader/Shopkeepers 58.82 52.94 66.10 67.35 65.12 62.13
2 Print-Media 23.53 24.26 20.34 20.41 23.26 21.97
3 Electronic-Media 0.00 2.94 4.24 3.40 0.00 2.93
4 Radio 2.94 0.74 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.63
5 APMC Mandi 0.00 10.29 2.54 6.80 9.30 6.49
6 Telephone Message 0.00 1.47 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.63
7 Personal visit to Market Centre 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.42
8 Inquires from buyers
coming to village 14.71 6.62 5.08 1.36 2.33 4.81
9 Information to
co-operative societies 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
10 Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Source: Field Survey
From the table, it is evident that the most prevalent source of market information was
shopkeepers/traders. This source of information was not accurate and reliable. Nearly, 62.13
percent sample farmers had accessed to price information through traders/village shopkeepers.
Next important source of market information found was print media (21.97%) mainly the
newspapers. APMC mandi (6.49%) and buyers coming to village (4.81%) were other sources of
price information used by sample farmers. The use of other sources like TV, Internet, Radio,
97
Telephone, Co-operative Societies etc. by sample farmers for availing market information was
negligible. The data reveals that among the majority households, there was a lack of market
intelligence.
4.18.2 Source-wise and Purpose-wise Borrowing:
For credit, generally farmers depend on institutional and non-institutional (Private)
sources. Easy and adequate availability of institutional finance is an important element for
development and if it put to productive uses can strengthen the overall economic position of the
borrowers. Further, credit availability either for purchasing various agricultural inputs or for
owns use for non-agricultural purposes is likely to affect the marketed surplus of crops. Table
4.18.2 puts forward the borrowing position of the sample households.
Table: 4.18.2 Source-wise and Purpose of Credit on Sample Farm Households
Particulars
Size of Farms
Marginal Small Semi-
Medium
Medium Large All
Access to Credit (%) 21.21 37.98 46.85 60.58 60.47 47.90
Sources (%)
Private money lender / Traders 75.00 72.00 59.26 29.76 25.93 47.53
Commission Agent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Relatives and Friends 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Commercial Bank 12.50 18.00 29.63 40.48 51.85 33.18
Miller 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Co-operative Society 12.50 10.00 11.11 29.76 22.22 19.28
Others 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Purpose (%)
Crop loan 71.43 86.79 83.33 94.12 96.30 89.38
Investment loan 0.00 7.55 5.56 3.53 3.70 4.87
Consumption and other purpose 28.57 5.66 11.11 2.35 0.00 5.75
Credit Amount (Rs. /borrowing HHs.) 38571 117796 98250 187157 173462 143756
Total Outstanding
(Rs. /borrowing HHs.)
30000 74327 45250 63976 51923 59286
% outstanding to credit amount 77.77 63.10 46.06 34.18 25.93 41.24
Problems in getting loan
from bank (Yes %)
28.57 26.53 21.15 31.33 34.62 28.11
Have Kisan Credit Card (KCC - %) 18.18 37.21 55.86 67.15 65.12 52.10
If Yes, limit of KCC (Rs. /KCC HHs.) 41667 174979 154548 211000 351250 201178
Source: Field Survey
Overall, only 47.90 percent of the sample farmers had access to the credit. This means
that about 52 percent sample households were not accessible to credit. Category-wise,
percentages of sample farmers having access to credit were ranged from 21.21 percent for MF to
60.58 percent for MDF. Generally, access to credit is increasing with increase in farm size. Of
the total farmers who had access to credit, 47.53 percent obtained credit from private money
98
lenders/traders. The rest 52.47 percent obtained credit from institutional sources. Of the total
borrowers, 33.18 percent obtained credit from commercial banks and 19.28 percent from co-
operative societies. Category-wise, borrowing from money lenders/traders decreasing with
increase in farm size whereas, borrowing from commercial banks increasing with increase in
farm size. This clearly suggests that for majority marginal, small and semi-medium farmers
availability of institutional credit was most difficult and hence they relied more on credit from
private sources. Hence, they were in a strong clutch of private money lenders/traders. Due to
indebtness of private money lenders, farmers were compelled to sell higher proportion of their
output to them at a much lower price as a pay back to their debts.
Of the total credit taken by sample farmers, 89.38 percent was for crop loan, 5.75 percent
for consumption purpose and 4.87 percent for the investment purpose. Credit taken for
consumption purpose was highest at 28.57 percent for MF. Overall, amount loan taken by
medium and large farmers were much higher than that of marginal farmers. Overall, credit taken
per borrowing household was Rs. 143756, and it was lowest for MF at Rs.38571 and highest at
Rs. 187157 for MDF. The percentage of outstanding to credit decreasing with increase in farm
size which indicates poor repayment capacity of MF,SF and better repayment capacity of MDF,
LF. Overall, 28.11 percent sample households reported problems in getting loan from the banks.
Overall, 52.10 percent sample households were found to have Kisan Credit Card (KCC) facility.
Category-wise, only 18.18 percent of MF had KCC whereas more than 65 percent of LF and
MDF had KCC facility.
4.18.3 Awareness of MSP and Impact of Increase in Price on Sale:
Undoubtedly, besides size of output, price is the most important economic factor which is
influencing the marketed surplus to a great extent. To protect farmers from undeserved economic
loss due to depressed market prices and encourage for enhancing crop production by offering
assured remunerative price to producers, government introduced minimum support price (MSP)
mechanism and other programmes. Here an attempt is made to know the level of awareness of
sample farmers about MSP, contract farming, future trading and warehouse receipt programme.
Further, on the basis of farmer’s perception, we tried to judge the farmers behavior on marketed
surplus when the market prices of food grains goes significantly high. The related data is given
in Table 4.18.3.
99
The data reveals that awareness level of sample households on minimum support price
(MSP) was at low level. Overall, only 38.19 percent households were aware about MSP of
selected crops. The level of awareness and farm size were found positively related. The main
reasons for low level of awareness on MSP were low level of literacy and lack of adequate
efforts made by government departments and APMC for dissemination of information on MSP
and other programmes. None of the sample households found aware about the future trading of
agricultural commodities and warehouse receipt programme. Not a single farmer adopted
contract farming. Access of storage warehouse in selected villages was not available and not
used by anyone. Regarding additional sale possibilities under the situation of significant rise in
price, 7.06 percent sample households reported that they will increase the marketed surplus by
retaining less for home consumption, seed and feed. Category-wise, 6.06, 8.53, 3.60, 6.57 and
13.95 percent of MF, SF, SMF, MDF and LF respectively revealed such possibility. The MF,
SMF and MDF informed that they will increase marketed surplus by curtailing seed/feed
requirements. Whereas, SF and LF informed that they will increase marketed surplus by less
retention for seed, feed and home consumption. The SF and MDF also informed that they will
make necessary changes in their consumption pattern for increasing marketed surplus when
prices rise significantly.
Table 4.18.3 Awareness of MSP and Sale possibilities with Increase in Price
(% hhs.)
Particulars
Size of Farms
Marginal Small Semi-Medium Medium Large All
Awareness of MSP (%) 18.18 34.11 41.44 42.34 44.19 38.19
Aware of Futures Trading (%) - - - - - -
Use of Futures (%) - - - - - -
Futures Helped in Price Risk Management(%) - - - - - -
Sale Possibilities at higher prices
Increase in Sale (% HHs.) 6.06 8.53 3.60 6.57 13.95 7.06
If Yes, Source
i.Less retention for seed, feed 100.00 72.73 100.00 77.78 66.67 78.13
ii.Less retention for self consumption 0.00 18.18 0.00 0.00 33.33 12.50
iii.Change in consumption pattern 0.00 9.09 0.00 22.22 0.00 9.38
Contract farming of crops
Yes (%) - - - - - -
Access of storage/warehouse at village level
Yes (%) - - - - - -
Awareness about warehouse receipt programme
Yes (%) - - - - - -
Source: Field Survey
100
4.18.4 Disposal Pattern of Marketed Surplus According to Type of Market and
Transportation Cost:
Earlier, we estimated that of the total marketed surplus, 78.98 percent of bajra, 92.35
percent of maize, 56.04 percent of wheat and 98.79 percent of gram was disposed off by sample
households in unregulated market (private agencies). The proportion of marketed surplus sold
through regulated market was very low. The disposal pattern of marketed surplus according to
type of market is presented in Table 4.18.4. Overall, 64.02 percent of marketed surplus was
disposed off in local market and rest 35.98 percent in distant market. For selling in distant
market, the average cost of transportation born by farmers was Rs. 9.88 /qtl. which was found
lowest at Rs. 5.71 /qtl. in case of MF and highest at Rs. 13.70 /qtl. in case of LF. Of the total
marketed surplus, 75.94 percent was disposed off through secondary markets and only 24.06
percent was sold in primary market. Overall, of the total distance covered by the farmers for
selling marketed surplus, 97.59 percent was covered by pucca roads and only 2.41 percent was
covered by kutcha roads.
Table 4.18.4: Disposal Pattern of Marketed Surplus According to Type of Market (Primary
and Secondary) and Transportation Cost
Particulars
Size of Farms
Marginal Small Semi-Medium Medium Large All
Sale in Local Market (%) 45.45 61.24 57.66 73.72 72.09 64.02
Distant Market (%) 54.55 38.76 42.34 26.28 27.91 35.98
Avg. Transport Cost (Rs. /Qtl.) 5.71 6.33 9.79 12.38 13.70 9.88
Type of Market
Primary (%) 12.12 22.48 25.23 26.28 27.91 24.06
Secondary (%) 87.88 77.52 74.77 73.72 72.09 75.94
Connected with Pucca road (%) 98.64 98.06 96.11 97.70 98.38 97.59
Connected with Kutcha road (%) 1.36 1.94 3.89 2.30 1.62 2.41 Source: Field Survey
4.18.5 Area Covered under Purchased (HYVs) Seeds:
Earlier, we find that size of output and marketed surplus are positively related. Now, size
of output can be enhanced by bringing improvement in crop productivity. Modern technological
inputs such as HYV seeds, fertilizers, irrigation intensity, farm mechanization etc. are the key
drivers of growth in crop productivity. The farmer has to purchase HYV seeds compulsorily
from the market. The percentage of area covered under purchased seeds (HYVs) to total area for
selected crops is depicted in Table 4.18.5.
101
Table 4.18.5: Percentage of Area Covered under Purchased Seed
(% to total crops area)
Name of
Crops
Size of Farms
Marginal Small Semi-Medium Medium Large All
Bajra 46.25 36.31 35.84 42.10 42.29 39.13
Maize 10.60 4.95 4.98 5.21 4.30 5.40
Wheat 48.83 45.22 37.73 39.86 39.06 41.07
Gram 4.55 12.63 15.67 18.20 23.49 15.33 Source: Field Survey
The seed replacement ration (SRR) is a ratio of area under HVY (purchased) seeds to
total area under crop and it is an indicator of technological awareness among the farmers.
Overall, 39.13 percent of the total area under bajra on sample farms was sown by purchased
seeds. Category-wise, it ranged from 46.25 percent for MF to 35.84 percent for SMF.
In case of maize, area under purchased seeds (SRR) was only 5.40 percent. In case of
wheat and gram, it was 41.07 and 15.33 percent respectively. The seed replacement ratio (SRR)
found substantial lower for maize and gram. It was also low for bajra. The land which has little
or no access to irrigation is generally used for gram, maize and bajra and therefore, farmers are
not taking risk to use purchased inputs like HYV seeds, fertilizers, pesticides etc. It indicates that
farmers in the selected regions are following subsistence/traditional farming for maize and gram
crops. The sincere efforts from state agriculture department are needed to increase seed
replacement ratio for maize and gram and bajra.
102
Chapter 5
Summary and Conclusions 5.1 Introduction:
In the context of proposed National Food Securities Bill, 2013, which is considered
to be the world’s largest experiment in ensuring food security to poor (it intends to meet the
food needs of 75 per cent of rural and 50 per cent urban households), production
performance of food grains and its adequate generation of marketed surplus assume greater
significance. In the absence of adequate marketed surplus of food grains, the development
process of a country can be adversely affected. The quantum of marketed and marketable
surplus generated by different strata of farmers is likely to differ from year to year, from
region to region in same year and farm to farm in same region. All the produce of food
grains are not available for sale because part of it retained by producers for home
consumption and other purposes. Hence, two concepts viz., “Marketable Surplus” and
“Marketed Surplus” are coined to ascertain the quantity of produce available for marketing
and actually quantity marketed.
For feeding our 1.24 billion population (2011), it is important to understand the
latest behaviour pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of food grains as well as
variables affecting it, so as to frame sound policies in respect of marketing, prices, import
and export of food grains. During 1996-1999, Directorate of Marketing and Inspection
(DMI), conducted nationwide survey for estimation of marketed surplus and post harvest
losses for all important food grain crops. In post 1999 era, significant changes took place in
crop pattern, retention pattern, dietary habits, marketing pattern etc. The estimates generated
from the survey in 1996-1999 are not reflecting recent changes and has become obsolete.
Recognizing the need of conducting fresh survey for generating reliable and update
estimates not only on marketed surplus of food grains but also on crucial items like
retention for family consumption, seed, feed, wastage, post harvest losses etc. and to
examine factors influencing the marketed surplus, Directorate of Economics and Statistic
(DES), MoA, GoI asked our centre to undertake this empirical study for four main food
grain crops viz, bajra, wheat, maize and gram in Rajasthan state. CMA, IIM, Ahmedabad
acted as a coordinator of this empirical study.
103
5.2 Objectives of the study:
Specifically, objectives of the study are as follow:
1. To estimate marketable and marketed surplus for Wheat, Bajra, Maize and Gram
crops in Rajasthan.
2. To estimate proportion of farm retention for consumption, seed, feed, wages and
other payments in kind etc. for selected crops.
3. To examine role of various factors such as institutional, infrastructural, socio-
economic etc. in influencing marketed surplus decision at households level.
5.3 Sampling Methodology:
The data used in this study have been collected from both, secondary as well as
primary sources. The study is confined only to four major food grain crops of Rajasthan
state namely wheat, bajra, gram and maize. For primary survey, at first stage, five districts
namely Alwar, Chittorgarh, Churu, Hanumangadh and Udaipur were selected
considering their production share of study crops in state’s total production. Selected
districts also represent distinct agro-climatic regions of the state. At second stage as shown
in Table 5.1, total 8 blocks from these five selected districts were selected purposively on
the basis of their production and area devoted to study crops. At third stage, two sample
villages from each selected block (total 16 villages) were selected purposively in
consultation with concern agriculture officer (Table 5.1). Finally, from each selected
village, atleast 25 cultivator households which had grown atleast one study crops in
reference year and comprising marginal (<1 ha.), small (1-2 ha.), semi-medium (2-4 ha.),
medium (4-10 ha.) and large (> 10 ha.) were selected using prescribed criteria. To
economies household survey, care was taken to select those households who had grown
more than one study crops. Overall, total 453 sample households comprising 33 marginal,
129 small, 111 semi-medium, 137 medium and 43 large farmers formed the basis for this
survey (Table 5.1).
In 453 selected households, 300, 293, 213 and 118 households had grown bajra,
wheat, gram and maize respectively. The primary data were collected by recall method by
canvassing a pre-designed schedule for agricultural year 2011-2012.
104
Table 5.1: List of Selected Districts, Blocks, Villages & Number of Sample HHs
Sl. Agro-Climatic
Zone
Selected
MF SF SMF MDF LF All District
Block/
Tehsil Villages
1
III b-Flood
prone eastern
plain zone
Alwar
Alwar Shahpura
5 25 14 12 2 58 Malakheda
Tijara Malekpurturk
12 28 10 5 2 57 Mainaki
District's Total 17 53 24 17 4 115
2
I b-
Irrigated north
western plain
zone
Hanumnagarh
Nohar Parlika
2 10 16 22 8 58 Dalpatpura
Bhadra Karanpura
3 15 13 25 2 58 Chhanibadi
District's Total 5 25 29 47 10 116
3
II a-
Transitional
plain of luni
basin zone
Churu
Churu Untawalia 0 7 10 7 5 29
Taranagar
Mikhala
2 9 18 42 16 87 Bhanil
Buchawas
District's Total 2 16 28 49 21 116
4
IV a-
Sub humid
southern plain
zone
Chittorgarh
Kapasan Rupakheri
4 17 15 10 6 52 Singhpur
District's Total 4 17 15 10 6 52
5
IV b-
Humid
southern plain
zone
Udaipur Bhinder
Khetakhera 5 18 15 14 2 54
Menar
District's Total 5 18 15 14 2 54
6 Total Sample HHs. 33 129 111 137 43 453
Note: MF=Marginal (<1ha.), SF=Small (1-2 ha.), SMF=Semi-Medium (2-4 ha.), MDF=Medium (4-10 ha.), LF=Large (>10ha.) Farmers. Source: Field survey
5.4 Agricultural Characteristics of Rajasthan State:
Agriculture plays an important role in Rajasthan economy. State as a whole deficient
in water resources and not have Perennial River originating from the state. The groundwater
resources are inadequate and fast depleting. About 61 percent geographical area of the state
is either arid or semi-arid. The agriculture prospect of the state largely depends upon
behaviour of monsoon. The normal annual rainfall of state is 575 mm and across districts it
ranged from low of 84 mm to 1354 mm. The scanty and erratic rainfall and adverse natural
conditions are the limiting factors against shaping of dynamic agriculture in the state. The
drought condition has been appearing frequently. About 34.74 percent of gross cropped area
was irrigated. Wells/Tube wells are the prime sources of irrigation. The irrigation intensity
was 126.66 percent and cropping intensity was 129.74 percent. Agriculture in state is
essentially rainfed and susceptible to the vagaries of monsoon. State is sub-divided into nine
agro-climatic zones.
105
In the state, food grain crops are dominating in the cropping pattern covering 60.86
percent of GCA. Oilseed crops occupied 20.39 percent of GCA. Among cereals, bajra,
maize and wheat are most important crops claiming 24.02, 5.06 and 11.01 percent area of
GCA respectively. Among pulses, moth bean, gram and green gram (moong) are important
crops covering 5.98, 4.07 and 4.82 percent area of GCA respectively. Rapeseed and
mustard, soybean and groundnut are the major oilseed crops. Rajasthan is a leading
producer of guar, cumin and coriander. Among different states of India, in terms of area,
Rajasthan ranked first in bajra, second in maize and gram and fourth in wheat. Bajra and
maize are grown generally as unirrigated and wheat as irrigated. Gram is grown as irrigated
as well as unirrigated crop.
The per hectare fertilizer nutrient consumption was low at 69.66 Kg. /ha. and across
districts it varied significantly from 5 Kg./ha. to 128 Kg./ha. For period TE 2010-11, yield
of bajra was 784 Kg./ha., maize 1527 Kg./ha., wheat 3264 Kg./ha. and gram 794 Kg./ha.
Across years, production and productivity of bajra, maize, wheat and gram shows instability
and greater fluctuation mainly due to changes in rainfall, climatic factors and availability of
irrigation.
There are 129 Krishi Upaj Mandis (KUMs) in the state. The arrival of foodgrains at
KUMs was around 15.63 percent of crop production. In the state warehouse/ storage
facilities is inadequate. Generally, farmers are not using hired warehouse/storage facilities.
The state’s GSDP at current prices for the year 2011-12 estimated to be Rs. 368320
crore and at constant prices (2004-05) estimated at Rs. 213454 crore. During 2004-12, share
of agriculture in GSDP at current price fluctuated between 24 to 26 percent whereas at
constant prices (2004-05), it fluctuated between 19 to 26 percent. Over the years, the share
of agriculture in GSDP is declining and that of service sector growing faster.
5.5 Agriculture Profile of Selected Districts:
Owing to high proportion of hilly and barren lands, of the total reporting area, net
area sown was only 16.66 and 40.82 percent in Udaipur and Chittorgarh district
respectively. In Churu, Hanumangadh and Alwar district, net sown area was 84.07, 84.31
and 64.35 percent respectively. The selected districts have extreme temperature ranging
from -1.80C in winter to 48
0C in summer during period 2008-2010. Selected districts are
predominantly agrarian.
The normal annual rainfall varies from 842 mm in Chittorgarh to only 274 mm in
Hanumangadh. It is 657 mm in Alwar and 385 mm in Churu. Rainfall in all selected
106
districts is highly variable and erratic. And hence, across years, it is causing high
fluctuations in area, production, yield and marketed surplus of food grain crops. Amongst
selected districts, very wide fluctuation noticed in percentage of net irrigated area owing to
wide variation in rainfall and availability of water resources. Alwar district had 90.23
percent of its net sown area under irrigation, whereas it was 62.22 and 25.86 percent in
Chittorgarh and Udaipur respectively. Despite low rainfall, on account of availability of
canal water, it was 44.51 percent in Hanumangadh. Owing to desertic condition, scare water
resources and low level of rainfall, irrigation availability was negligible and hence 93.90
percent cropped area of Churu district was rainfed. The irrigation intensity of Alwar
(103.13%), Chittorgarh (105.08%) and Udaipur (103.65%) was very low as discharge
capacity of wells/tubewells in these districts largely depends on the amount of rainfall and
in turn command area of wells/tube wells vary from year to year. In Hanumangadh,
irrigation intensity was as high as 155.67 percent owing to availability of canal irrigation
throughout the year. Except Hanumangadh district, Wells/Tubewells are prime sources of
irrigation in selected districts.
Owing to soil type, mono-cropping and rainfed farming, fertilizer nutrient
consumption in Churu district was only 5.17Kg./ha. where as in the rest selected districts, it
was above the state average of 69.66 Kg./ha.
The cropping intensity in Churu was low at 125.20 percent mainly due to scanty
rainfall and limited availability of irrigation. It was about 161 percent in Alwar and
Chittorgarh. In Hanumangadh, rainfall is scanty and low but owing to availability of canal
irrigation, cropping intensity was 151.16 percent.
Table 5.2 given below shows area and yield of important crops in selected districts
during TE 2010-11. In Alwar, 61.75 percent of district GCA occupied by food grains. Bajra,
wheat and rapeseed and mustard are most important crops of the district. As compared to
other selected districts, productivity of all the crops found higher in Alwar district. In
Chittorgarh district, maize, wheat, rapeseed and mustard and soybean are important crops.
The productivity of maize and soybean in Chittorgarh found higher than other districts. In
Churu district, bajra, gram, moth bean and guar seed are important crops and productivity of
all crops found very very poor. In Hanumangadh, wheat, gram, and guar seed are most
important crops and productivity of wheat was 33.82 qtl. /ha. In Udaipur, maize and wheat
are most important crops in terms of area. Maize is grown as unirrigated and wheat as
irrigated.
107
In Udaipur and Chittorgarh, some farmers are growing hybrid maize but using deshi
maize for consumption purpose in daily diet. In Alwar and Churu, many farmers are
growing hybrid bajra but some of them using deshi bajra for home consumption. They are
purchasing deshi maize and bajra from the market or fellow farmers. Some farmers are
growing deshi maize/ bajra for their consumption on small parcel of their land.
Table 5.2: Area and Productivity of Important Crops in Selected Districts-TE 2010-11
Crop A/Y Area (A) and Yield (Y) of Crops
Alwar Chittorgarh Churu Hanumangadh Udaipur
Bajra A 30.95 -- 28.84 6.34 0.01
Y 15.47 -- 3.60 10.35 5.77
Maize A 1.00 37.66 -- -- 58.65
Y 13.61 22.43 -- -- 12.26
Wheat A 22.20 18.27 1.57 18.42 14.15
Y 39.98 37.06 20.02 33.82 22.89
Gram A 1.51 1.52 18.84 15.36 2.77
Y 13.15 9.41 4.93 5.61 11.40
Total
Foodgrains
A 61.75 61.71 75.28 51.06 85.35
Y 24.10 25.76 4.47 18.57 13.51
Rapeseed &
Mustard
A 30.86 12.52 1.22 8.14 4.59
Y 16.37 12.23 12.65 17.96 11.45
Guar seed A 3.59 0.92 20.76 24.26 4.22
Y 7.86 6.33 1.85 7.05 7.16
Soybean A -- 8.60 -- -- 0.56
Y -- 11.72 -- -- 10.32
Note: A= Area under crop as % to GCA, Y= Yield in Qtl. /ha.
5.6 Major Findings of the Primary Survey:
1) Overall, average size of family was 7.96 persons consisting of 4.14 males and 3.81
females. Positive correlation found between family size and farm size. Of the total sample
households, 98.90 percent households had male as the family head and the average age of
head of the family in overall sample was of 47 years. Average year of schooling of head of
sample households was 7.07 years with highest (8.58 years) in case of large farmers and the
lowest (6.21 years) in case of marginal farmers. Overall, 91.61 percent households had
agriculture and 7.51 percent had service as their main occupation. Majority sample
households pursue more than one subsidiary occupation. Overall, 82.16 percent had dairy
and 31.58 percent had farm labour as their subsidiary occupation. Of the total sample
households, 65.56 percent and 20.09 percent households belonged to other backward classes
(OBC) and general castes respectively.
108
2) Overall, size of operational land holding per sample household worked out to 4.62 ha.
comprising of 2.79 ha. unirrigated and 1.83 ha. irrigated land. Across farm size, it was 0.55
ha. for MF, 1.53 ha. for SF, 3.05 ha. for SMF, 6.35 ha. for MDF and 15.59 ha. for LF.
Overall, average size of land holding across selected districts varied widely. It varied from
2.74 ha. in Alwar to 6.41 ha. in Churu district. It was 4.56 ha. in Chittorgarh, 5.27 ha. in
Hanumangadh and 3.46 ha. in Udaipur. Overall, average size of land holding was highest at
6.17 ha. for gram growers whereas it was lowest at 4.14 ha. for maize growers. It was 4.98
ha. for bajra growers and 4.27 ha. for wheat growers.
3) All the categories of sample households reported incidences of leasing in land on small
scale. Overall, 47 households (10.38%) had taken land on lease. Of the total operational
area of sample households. 3.92 percent was leased-in area. From the sample farmers who
had leased-in land, 80.85 percent had taken it on terms of sharing 50 percent of crop-
production (net of paid out expenses)and rest had taken land on lease by paying fix money
as rental value.
4) Many sample farmers used more than one sources for crop irrigation. The sample farmers
who had no own irrigation sources, availed hired irrigation. Overall, 66.45 percent sample
households availed irrigation water from different sources. Wells/Tube wells were the major
source used for crop irrigation. About 20.97 percent households used canal irrigation.
5) Overall, per sample household, total livestock units were 4.65 comprising of 1.26 cattle,
1.92 buffaloes and 1.47 others. Category-wise number of buffalo units per household
increased with the farm size.
6) Overall, the average investment per hectare on farm machineries and attached
implements by sample households was of Rs 38469. Of the total investment, highest
investment of Rs.24114 (62.68%) was on tubewells/ borewells followed by Rs
1145(29.83%) on tractor and its attached implements.
7) Overall, average gross cropped area (GCA) per household worked out to be 6.35 ha.
Category -wise, it was 0.93 ha. for MF, 2.46 ha. for SF, 4.70 ha. for SMF, 9.20 ha. for MDF
and 19.23 ha. for LF. Of the GCA, 59.28 percent area devoted to kharif crops and 40.58
109
percent to rabi crops. Among kharif crops, bajra was most important food grain crop and
occupied 16.42 percent of GCA. Other important kharif food grain crops were moong
(5.14%), maize (3.76%), and moth bean (1.69%). In non-food crops, guar seed was most
important which alone occupied 18.13 percent of GCA. Cotton (4.75%) and soybean
(4.20%) were other important kharif crops of selected districts. Among rabi crops, wheat
and gram were most important food grain crops claiming 13.2 and 19.44 per cent of GCA
respectively, Rapeseed and mustard was most important oilseed crop of rabi and it
accounted for 6.60 percent of GCA. Overall, cropping intensity of selected households was
141 percent.
8) Below given is the yield achievement by sample households for study crops.
Crop Bajra Maize Wheat Gram Guar Rapeseed & Mustard Soybean
Yield
(Qtl. /ha.) 9.56 21.79 35.86 8.43 7.03 15.17 16.33
For bajra, yield per hectare decreasing with increase in farm size, which indicates inverse
relationship. For maize, wheat and gram, no such trend witness. Significant inter-districts
variation observed in the yield of study crops. Across farm size, variations also noticed in
the yield level of study crops. Productivity of almost all crops found lowest in Churu
district compared to that with other selected districts.
9) Overall, per sample household carry over stock of previous year production, and net
available quantity of selected crops during reference year was as below:
(Per hhs.)
Crop Beginning (Qtl.) Production (Qtl.) Net Availability (Qtl.)
Bajra 3.45 15.48 18.93
Maize 0.74 20.54 21.28
Wheat 8.60 47.49 56.09
Gram 1.72 22.76 24.48
10) Overall, total retention of bajra per household was 4.72 quintals of which 80.25 percent
(3.79qtl.) was retained for self consumption, 15.94 percent (0.75qtl.) for seed propose
and1.96 percent (0.09qtl.) for feed propose. Bajra quantity used for kind payment was
negligible. Total retention of bajra (4.72qtl.) accounted for 30.48 percent of production. In
all farm categories, few sample households purchased deficit quantity of bajra from the
open market by paying higher market price. This indicates distress sale by few households
110
under the pressure of immediate case needs or to repay the debt of village shopkeepers/
private traders/ money tenders.
11) Overall, total retention of maize quantity per household was 3.52 quintals, out of which
2.93, 0.38 and 0.19 quintals constituting 83.17, 10.70 and 5.29 percent of the total retention
was retained for self consumption, seed and feed purpose respectively. Direct positive
relationship observed between farm size and total retention of maize. Overall, total maize
retention per household (3.52qtl.) accounted for 17.16 percent of total production. Owing to
distress sale and varietal difference in diet taste, few sample households purchased small
quantity of deshi maize from the open market.
12) Overall, total retention of wheat production per household was 18.41quintals of which
14.88 quintals (80.85%), 1.74 quintals (9.46%) and 1.08 quintals (5.86%) retained for self
consumption, feed and seed propose respectively. In all farm categories, major proportion
was retained for self consumption. The positive correlation seen between farm size and total
retained quantity of wheat. Total retention of wheat per household accounted for 38.75
percent of total production of wheat. As wheat is most important staple diet of the people in
the selected regions, percentage of wheat retention found higher as compared to other food
grain crops.
13) Overall, total retention of gram per household was 2.18 quintals of which 1.41 quintals
(64.76%) for self consumption, 0.64 quintals (29.35%) for seed and 0.10 quintal (4.49%) for
feed propose. The total quantity of gram retained for different usage rises with the rise in
farm size. Gram is not used for consumption very often. It is used once or twice in a week.
Hence, quantitative retention of gram found lower than it for wheat and bajra. Overall, gram
retention accounted for 9.56 percent of total gram production.
14) Harvesting, threshing and winnowing of crop are the different stages of harvesting
operation preformed at producer level. During crop harvesting, crop losses occurred as
some of ears or grains from ears fell on ground. During threshing, losses occurred as some
grains goes with straw and some mixes with dirt. Both methods, manual as well as
mechanical were used for harvesting and threshing of crops. During different harvesting
operations, per household total losses occurred are shown below:
111
Crop Losses during Harvesting stages (kg.)
Manual Operation
(Kg.) Mechanical operation (kg.) Total losses (kg.)
% losses to
total production
Bajra 20.68 15.52 36.20 2.34
Maize 18.73 18.06 36.79 1.79
Wheat 54.33 4.38 58.71 1.24
Gram 21.31 13.49 34.80 1.53
Majority households used manual method for harvesting of crops and for threshing used
both, manual as well as mechanical method. Majority households used manual method for
harvesting of wheat and hence losses of wheat production were much higher for manual
operation. Among selected crops, percentage of total losses of production at different
harvesting stages was minimum for wheat (1.24%), followed by gram (1.53%), maize
(1.79%) and bajra (2.34%).
15) Majority farmers used head load mode for transportation of produce from field to
threshing floor. Bullock/Camel carts, tractor-trolley and tempos were the common mode of
transportation used by sample households to transport their produce from field/storage to
the market place. The transportation losses occurred during packing, loading and unloading
and due to shrinkage of produce. The details of production losses during transportation are
as follow:
Crop Bajra Maize Wheat Gram
Total Transportation losses (Kg. /hh.) 18.20 21.10 35.80 56.80
% of Production 1.17 1.03 0.75 2.58
Absolute quantity lost during transportation of produce is increasing with farm-size for all
four selected crops. However, by and large, the percentage of production loss during
transportation is declining with increase in farm size. The percentage of production loss was
minimal for wheat (0.75%) and maximum for gram (2.58%).
16) The details of overall production losses during storage of produce of selected crops are
as follow:
Crop Quantity
stored Per hh. (Qtl.)
Quantity
Lost (Qtl.)
% of storage
loss to stored quantity
% of storage
loss to production
Average storage cost
(Rs./Month/Qtl.)
Bajra 9.12 0.16 1.78 1.05 1.32
Maize 5.04 0.09 1.90 0.47 1.33
Wheat 30.03 0.62 2.06 1.31 0.24
Gram 5.27 0.04 0.89 0.21 0.14
112
Not a single farmer used hired godowns or warehouses for storing grains. Majority
sample households used in house storage. For in house storage, they used earthern pots,
steel drums, earthern/stone wall storage structures. Few households used kutcha or pucca
farm houses or home godowns. For storage, quantity stored was gradually withdrawn as and
when needed either for own consumption or marketing purpose. To protect stored grains
and minimize losses, sample households spend on plastic/polyethylene sheet, insecticides,
gunny bags, mercury etc. The storage losses occurred due to weight loss, shrinkage, poor
packing, improper storage and handling, pests infestation, humidity, unseasonal rainfall etc.
The production losses during storage were 1.05, 0.47, 1.31 and 0.21 percent for bajra,
maize, wheat and gram respectively. Average monthly cost of storage ranged between
Rs.0.14 per quintal for gram to Rs. 1.32 per quintal for bajra.
17) The total production losses during post harvest operations (Harvesting + Storage +
Transportation) were 4.56, 3.29, 3.30 and 4.23 percent for bajra, maize, wheat and gram
respectively. The high production losses at harvesting, storage and transportation not only
reduced the financial gains of producers but also reduced the quantity of marketed surplus.
The large post harvest losses of food grains have remained a key concern. The efforts are
needed to minimize same.
18) Marketed surplus is the quantity of produce actually sells by producer irrespective of his
needs for self consumption and other requirements. In selected regions, government
agencies like Krushi Upaj Mandis (KUMs), sub yard, co-operatives and private agencies
like village shopkeepers, money lenders, big landlords, traders etc. were the main
purchasers of the crop produces from farmers. For selling crop produces farmers received
different prices due to differences in market arrivals and channels of sale.
19) Below given table shows for overall sample, crop wise, marketed and marketable
surplus (per hh.), as percentage to production, time of sale after crop harvest, quantity sold
to different agencies and average price realization by producers.
Overall, of the total bajra production, marketable surplus and marketed surplus
accounted for 64.54 and 63.36 percent respectively. Narrow gap between marketable and
marketed surplus suggest low level activity of storage. Category-wise, marketed surplus-
output ratio (MSR) of bajra found highest at 70.94 percent for LF and the lowest at 57.45
113
percent for MF. Except medium farmers, marketed surplus ratio for bajra found to be
positively related with farm size. The average distance covered to sell bajra was 5.42 km.
Of the total quantity of marketed surplus, 78.98 percent of bajra was sold to private
traders/village shopkeepers/money lenders and rest 21.02 percent to government agencies.
Crop Total
Prod.
(Qtl.)
Qty.
sold
(Qtl.)
% of Prod Month of
Sales*
Agencies to whom sold Average
distance
(Kms.) Marketed
Surplus
(MSR)
Marketable
Surplus
Govt. Agencies Pvt. Agencies
% of
sold
Qty.
Price
(Rs.
/Qtl.)
% of
sold
Qty.
Price
(Rs.
/Qtl.)
Bajra 15.48 9.81 63.36 64.54 10-11-12 21.02 922 78.98 885 5.42
Maize 20.54 16.24 79.08 79.51 10-11 7.65 1147 92.35 954 3.50
Wheat 47.49 28.06 54.87 53.26 04-05 43.96 1352 56.04 1170 9.43
Gram 22.76 19.21 84.38 87.61 04-05-06 1.21 2840 98.79 3098 6.26
* Month of Sales given numeric i.e.10 for October, 11 for November.
Overall, maize production per household was 20.54 quintals, out of which total
marketable and marketed surplus accounted for 79.51 and 79.08 percent respectively.
Average distance covered to sell maize was only 3.50 km. Of the total marketed surplus,
92.35 percent of maize was sold to private agencies. This indicates dominant role and strong
hold of private agencies in maize market.
Overall, wheat production per household was 47.49 quintals, out of which total
marketed surplus accounted for 54.87 percent (26.06 qtl.) and marketable surplus accounted
for 53.26 percent. Thus, in case of wheat, marketed surplus found little higher than
marketable surplus. This happened mainly owing to declaration of bonus by state
government over and above MSP. MSR for wheat was found somewhat lower owing to
lower size of output and higher retention for home consumption and other purposes. For
selling wheat, average distance covered was 9.43 kms. On procurement of wheat under
MSP, state government declared bonus on and above MSP of 1285/qtl. and hence 43.96
percent of marketed surplus of wheat sold to government agencies. About 56.04 percent of
marketed surplus of wheat sold to private agencies.
Overall, per household gram production was 22.76 quintal, of which marketed
surplus accounted for 84.38 percent (19.21 qtl.) and marketable surplus accounted for 87.74
percent. MSR for gram was higher because gram is not regularly used in daily diet and
hence relatively retention was much low. As open market price of gram was much higher
than MSP of Rs.2800/qtl., about 98.79 percent of the marketed surplus of gram sold to
private agencies.
For few marginal farmers, marketed surplus of bajra, wheat and gram found higher
than marketed surplus, which gives indication of distress sales by them mainly for meeting
114
immediate cash needs, repayment of debts and to purchase other necessaries. Later on
farmers purchased same commodity from the market by paying higher price.
Regarding time of sale, it was found that almost total marketed surplus of bajra,
wheat, gram and maize were disposed off in the first quarter after the crop harvesting. The
reasons for immediate sale by farmers might be lack of appropriate storage at farm level,
cash needs, indebtness and repayment of debt to money lenders/private traders, small size of
output to be marketed etc. Further, this indicated that majority producers have either no
tendency or no capacity of hoarding of produce for a longer period for speculative purpose.
Of the total quantity of marketed surplus, 78.98, 92.35, 56.04 and 98.79 percent of
bajra, maize, wheat and gram respectively sold to private agencies. This indicates dominant
role and strong hold of unregulated private agencies in food grains market. For selling bajra,
maize and wheat to private agencies, farmers fetched net average price substantially lower
than MSP as well as they received it for selling to government agencies. They received per
quintal Rs. 885 for bajra as against MSP of Rs. 980, Rs. 954 for maize as against MSP of
Rs. 980 and Rs. 1170 for wheat as against MSP of Rs. 1285 plus bonus. Despite of financial
disadvantage, majority MF, SF, SMF and MDF farmers compelled to sold bulk quantity of
marketed surplus to unregulated private sources like private traders/money lenders/village
shopkeepers mainly because of indebtness, cash needs, small size of output to be sold,
inferior quantity and non-start of procurement operation under MSP immediately after
harvest of crops. Further, indebtness of farmers to private traders, money lenders and big
landlords reduced their bargaining power and they remained in a strong clutch of private
sources. Hence, producers were compelled to sell their produce at lower price to whom they
were indebted. This unregulated private marketing system exploited the farmers to a great
extent. The percentage of marketed surplus sold to private sources showed inverse
relationship with farm size, which suggests that large farmers were better placed in respect
of bargaining power because of large size of output and nearly zero or low debt to private
traders/money lenders. Hence, as compared to MF and SF, large and medium farmers
realized better sale price of their produces. For selling produce to private agencies, farmers
saved expenses on transportation, packing and loading/unloading. This shows wide spread
imperfections in the agricultural produce markets.
20) Nearly, 62.13 percent sample farmers had accessed to market information through
traders/village shopkeepers. This source of information was biased, non accurate and non
115
reliable. Next important sources for market information were print media (21.97%), APMC
(6.49%) and buyers coming to village (4.81%). The data reveals that majority households
were lacking in market intelligence. The data reveals that awareness level of sample
households on MSP was at low level. Overall, only 38.19 percent were aware about MSP.
None of the sample households found aware about the future trading of agricultural
commodities and warehouse receipt programme.
21) About 47.90 percent of the sample farmers had access to the credit. Category-wise,
access to credit ranged from only 21.21 percent for MF to 60.58 percent for MDF.
Generally, access to credit increasing with increase in farm size. From the total borrowers,
47.53 percent obtained credit from private money lenders/traders and remaining 52.47
percent from institutional sources. Borrowing from money lenders decreasing with increase
in farm size. This clearly suggests that farmers having small land holding were in a strong
clutch of private money lenders/traders.
22) Size of output and marketed surplus are positively related. The size of output can be
enhanced by raising crop-productivity. The crop productivity can be enhanced by bringing
more area under irrigation and HYV seeds i.e. improving seed replacement ratio (SRR). In a
case of bajra, maize, wheat and gram, SRR was 39.13, 5.40, 41.07 and 15.33 percent
respectively. The SRR for maize and gram was found substantially lower. The land which
has little access or no irrigation is generally used for gram and maize and hence farmers
avoided the use of purchased inputs like HYV seeds, fertilizers etc. There exist a large
scope for enhancing SRR for all four study crops.
23) The regression analysis reveals that size of output was the most important variable
determining the size of marketed surplus. The co-efficient of size of output found positive
and significant for all four crops. The co-efficient of total retention was found negative and
significant for all crops. This indicates that quantity of retention is affecting significantly on
marketed surplus. And marketed surplus will increase with decline in retentions. The co-
efficient of education level of decision maker found positive but insignificant for bajra and
maize crops and significant for wheat and gram. The impact of credit availability on
marketed surplus found positive but insignificant.
116
5.7 Concluding Observations and Policy Implications:
The present study is undertaken with the objective of estimation of marketed and
marketable surplus at producer’s level for bajra, maize, wheat and gram; the important food
grain crops of Rajasthan state. The study is based on primary data collected from 453
sample households spreads over five districts of Rajasthan. The primary data pertains to the
agricultural year 2011-12.
The study reveals that family size increased as the farm size increased. Owing to low
and erratic rainfall, arid or semi arid situation and low access to irrigation, productivity of
majority crops is low in Rajasthan. Due to low or no access to irrigation, use of modern
inputs and area under HYV seeds, i.e. SRR also found at low level for gram, maize and
bajra crops. By encouraging farmers for sprinkler and drip irrigation, more area can be
covered under irrigation and HYV seeds. This will increase the crop productivity and
subsequently marketed surplus. Further high dependence on rainfall causing inter years
fluctuation and instability in production and marketed surplus.
The study reveals that credit access in the selected regions was low. Only 21.21
percent of marginal farmers had access to credit, of which 75.00 percent borrowed it from
unregulated private sources and only 25.00 percent borrowed it from institutional sources.
However, 60.70 percent large farmers had access to credit, of these 74.07 percent had
borrowed it from institutional sources. Due to lack of access to institutional credit, majority
marginal and small farmers borrowed loan from private sources. Hence, majority marginal
and small farmers were found in a strong clutches of private money lenders/traders. Due to
indebtness to private money lenders, the bargaining power of farmers reduced and they
were compelled to sell higher proportion of their output to private agencies at a significantly
lower price as a pay back to their debts. In view of this, there is a strong need to free
farmers from the clutches of money lenders/traders by expanding institutional credit
network and providing adequate credit to small farmers.
Development of efficient agricultural marketing is crucial for accelerating the
growth of agricultural production and marketed surplus. An efficient marketing system must
ensure best possible return for sell of produce. The investigation reveals that food grains
market is highly dominated by private sector and traders were observed to exploit producers
in the absence of an organized dissemination of market information. Out of the total
marketed surplus of bajra, maize and gram, the quantity handled by private sector was
around 80 percent. The movement in prices in regulated and unregulated market for the
117
same commodity found divergent. The net price received for selling produce to private
agencies were significantly lower (lower than the MSP also) than they obtained it from
selling in regulated markets. Hence, there is a need for appropriate steps for increasing the
sale of produces in regulated markets. For this, effective implementation of MSP policy in
all regions of the state must needed. The procurement under MSP must be start with the
start of harvesting of crops. There are several areas where market yards (KUMs/APMC) and
link roads are still not available. For few villages, mandi were located at a far off distance
place. Therefore, more expansion of KUMs/APMC is needed in the state. Marketing system
of food grains in the selected regions found not so efficient and imperfect as it not ensured
best possible return to producers.
The investigation reveals that, in the regions, private marketing system for
agricultural produces is more exploitative, economically inefficient and operates with high
margins. The study reveals that majority households were lacking marketing intelligence.
Nearly 62.13 percent sample farmers were obtaining market information relates to arrivals,
sales, prices in various centres etc. from traders/village shopkeepers. These sources of
information were biased, not accurate and non-reliable. Therefore, there is a need to
strengthened information system at APMC/KUMs and made it farmers friendly. Further,
marketing extension services to the farmers should be provided by the APMC to promote
marketing of agricultural produces in the regulated markets and reducing the role of private
marketing.
The study illustrated that total production losses during different post harvest
operations were high. It was 4.56 percent for bajra, 3.28 percent for maize, 3.30 percent for
wheat and 4.23 percent for gram. By minimizing the losses at different stages, marketed
surplus and financial benefits to producers can be enhanced. For minimization of losses,
technical backup and support with regard to scientific storage, use of mechanical operations
at harvesting stages, mode of packing and transportation should be disseminated. Moreover,
creation of proper and adequate storage facilities at producers’ level will reduce the storage
losses and enhanced the bargaining power of producers in the marketing of produces, which
in turn will create positive impact on their net profitability.
The study illustrated that marketed surplus output ratio (MSR) for bajra, maize,
wheat and gram was found 63.68, 79.08, 54.87 and 84.38 percent respectively. As
compared to other states and crops, MSR for wheat and bajra found somewhat on lower side
mainly because of comparative lower size of output owing to lower productivity, and higher
118
retention for home consumption and other purposes. Regarding time of sale, entire marketed
surplus of wheat, gram, bajra and maize was disposed off within three months after the crop
harvesting. The reasons for immediate sale by farmers may be lack of appropriate storage,
cash needs, repayment of debts, small size of marketed surplus and no tendency to hoard for
speculative purpose.
The study revealed that for semi-medium, medium and large farm households,
marketed surplus of all four crops found somewhat lower than marketable surplus. However
for marginal farm households and few small households, marketed surplus of wheat, bajra
and gram crops found little higher than marketable surplus. This give indication of distress
sales by marginal farmers for meeting immediate cash needs for discharging their liabilities
including repayment of debt of private sources and purchasing of all necessaries for family.
The regression analysis showed that size of output and size of retentions for home
consumption and other purposes are the significant factors for determining the marketed
surplus. Farm size, family size, proportion of unirrigated area, education level, access to
institutional credit etc. are other factors which are directly or indirectly impacting on
marketed surplus. The increase in production is a pre-requisite for increasing marketed
surplus. As there is little scope of increasing area under crops, crop productivity and
production can be enhance by making an arrangement for easy and reliable access to yield
improvement inputs such as HYV seeds, fertilisers, irrigation etc., access to suitable
technology meeting specific needs, supportive infrastructure and effective marketing
arrangement were producers market their produce efficiently and effectively with best price
transmission.
The study gives clear message that for ensuring food security to the people of our
nation, ensuring an adequate generation of marketed surplus of food grains every year will
be the key factor. Therefore, concerted efforts by all concerns are needed to be initiated for
strengthening food grains production and marketed surplus through introduction of
development programmes and policy measures. Further, determination of marketed and
marketable surplus of food grains crops has many policy implications from point of view of
development of organized market information, institutional credit structure, cleaning,
packing, grading etc. Despite so much importance of estimates of marketed and marketable
surplus, there is no regular system of generating such estimates at regular time interval.
Hence, there is a need to make arrangement to generate estimates of marketed and
marketable surplus of food grains at pre-determine time interval.
119
Bibliography
Acharya S. S. (1997), “Agricultural Marketing In India: Policy Framework Emerging Issues
& Needed Initiatives” Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur.
Acharya S. S., M. S. Rathod and Sharma (1998), “Agricultural Marketing- A National
Dialogue” Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur.
Acharya S.S. (2004), State of Indian Farmer- A Millennium Study- Agricultural Marketing
(Volume-17), Academic Foundation, New Delhi.
Bardhan, P. and K. Bardhan (1971), “Price Response of Marketed Surplus of Food Grains”,
Oxford Economics Papers, 23(2): pp.255-67.
Bathia, Seema (2004), “Agricultural Market Intervention Policies: Trends and Implications in
a New Regime” National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai.
Chand, Ramesh and Parmod Kumar (2004),“Determinates of Capital Formation and
Agriculture Growth, Some New Explorations”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.
XXXIX, No. 52, December, 25-31, pp. 5611-5616.
Chauhan, S.K and Amit Chhabra (2005), “Marketable Surplus and Price-Spread for Maize in in Hamirpur District of Himachal Pradesh, Agricultural Economics Research Review,
Vol.18, pp.39-49.
Deodhar, Satish Y., Vijay Paul Sharma; Gopal Naik; Vijay Intodia (2004), “Market Access
and Marketing Constraints for Agricultural Commodities in India”, Centre for
Management in Agriculture, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.
Dharma, Narain (1961), “Distribution of the Marketed Surplus of Agricultural Produce by
Size-Level of Holding in India”, Occasional Paper No. 2:33-8, Institute of Economic
Growth Delhi.
DMI (2002), “Marketable surplus and post harvest losses of paddy in India” Directorate of
Marketing & Inspection, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and
Cooperation, Brach Head Office, Nagpur.
DMI (2002), “Marketable surplus and post harvest losses of Wheat in India” Directorate of
Marketing & Inspection, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and
Cooperation, Brach Head Office, Nagpur.
DOA (2011), “Is Marketed Surplus of Farmers Enough to Meet Their Basic Needs?, Rice
Science for Decision Makers”, Vol.2, No.1, Philippine Rice Research Institute,
Department of Agriculture.
Gaikwad, V.R.; Shreekant Sambrani; V. Prakash; S.D. Kulkarni and P. Murari (2004), Post
Harvest Management Volume-16, State of the Indian Farmer- A Millennium Study,
Academic Foundation, New Delhi.
120
GoI (1995), Report of the Task Force on Terms of Trade between Agricultural and Non
Agricultural Sectors, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
GoI (2001), Report of the Working Group on Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure as a part
of the Expert Committee Report on Strengthening and Developing of Agricultural
Marketing, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
GoI (2002), Estimation of Marketable surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Food grains in
India, Directorate of Marketing & Inspection, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of
India, Nagpur.
GoI (2011, 2012), Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Agricultural Statistics Division, Dept.
of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New
Delhi.
GoR (2008), Agricultural Statistics of Rajasthan-1956-57 to 2005-06, Directorate of
Economics and Statistics, Yojana Bhavan, Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur.
GoR (2011), Agricultural Statistics of Rajasthan, 2009-10, Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, Yojana Bhavan, Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur.
Kumar, Parmod (2007), Farm Size and Marketing Efficiency, Pre and Post Liberalization,
Concept Publication Company, New Delhi.
Muthaia, C. (1964), “Marketed Surplus of Food grains by Size Level of Holdings and
Income”, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 95-98.
Nadkarni, M.V. (1980), “Marketable Surplus and Market Dependence in a Millet Region”,
Allied Publishers, New Delhi.
NCAER (1990), “Marketable Surplus Ratios for Agricultural Commodities”, Mimeo,
NCAER, New Delhi.
NRAA (2011), “Challenges of Food Securities and its Management” by National Rainfed
Area Authority, Planning Commission, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
Patnaik, Utsa (1975), “Contribution to Output and Marketable Surplus of Agricultural
Products by Cultivating Groups in India, 1960-61”, Economic and Political Weekly
(Review of Agriculture), Vol. X, No.52, Review of Agriculture, October-December,
pp. A 90-A 100.
Prasad, J. and A. Prasad (1992), Indian Agricultural Marketing, Mittal Publication, New
Delhi.
Prasad, Jagdish (1989), Marketable Surplus and Market Performance- A Study with Special
Reference to Muzaffarpur Food grains Market in Bihar, Mittal Publications, New
Delhi.
Prasad, Jagdish (1990), Marketable Surplus and Disposal Pattern of Important Agricultural
Commodities in Bihar, Encyclopedia of Agricultural Marketing Vol. II (Ed), Mittal
Publication, New Delhi
121
Raj, Krishna (1965), “The Marketable Surplus Function for a Subsistence Crop: An Analysis
with Indian Data”, The Economic Weekly, Annual Number, Vol. 17, No.57, PP.309-
320.
Raju, V.T (1976), “Marketed Surplus of Farm Products in India (Literature Review),
Economics Program, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics, Hyderabad.
Raju, V.T and G.G. Marakana (1989), “Marketing of Bajra in Bhavnagar District of Gujarat”,
Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, Conference Special Issue, 3 (3): pp.21-22.
Ramgopal, N. (2003), Building Up of an Efficient Marketing System to obviate the Need for a
large scale state Intervention in Andhra Pradesh, Agro-Economic Research Centre,
Andhra University, Vishakhapatnam.
Sen, Ispita and Banerjee (1995), “Behaviour of Marketable Surplus of Some Major and
Minor Food Crops in India”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 50, No.
1, Jan- March, PP. 80-85.
Sharma, P.C. (1972), “Estimation of Marketable Surplus of Food grains by Size Classes of
Holdings in Rural Cultivating Households- A Physical Approach”, Agricultural
Situation In India, Vol. xxvii, No.5, August, pp. 327-335.
Singh and Singh (1979), “A Study into the Costs and Margins for Wheat and Paddy in the
Punjab State”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 40, pp. 39.
Dwivedi, Sudhakar and A.K. Jha (2011), “A Study of Marketed and Marketable Surplus of
Rice in Bihar: A Micro- Level Approach”, Economic Affairs, Vol. 56, No.1, March-
2011, pp. 25-28.
Talukdar, K.C. (1985); “Efficiency and Equity of Farm Prices in Assam State: A Case Study
of Small Farmers”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2 (XI), April-June,
pp.362-68.
Upender, M. (1990), Marketable and Marketed Surplus in Agriculture- A Study at Farm
Land, Mittal Publication, New Delhi.
Vyas, V. S. and Maharaja (1966), “Factors Governing Marketable Surplus and Marketed
Surplus: A Study of Two Regions of Gujarat and Rajasthan”, Artha Vikas, Vol.2,
No.1, pp. 52-78.
Website refereed:
(i) www.agricoop.nic.in;
(ii) http://dacnet.nic.in/eands
122
Annexure-I: Agro climatic Zones of Rajasthan-Characteristics Zone Are
(Million Ha.)
District
Covered
Range
Rainfall
(mm)
Temp 0C Major Crops Soils
Total Net
Sown
Max. Min. Kharif Rabi
Ia 4.74 2.34 Barmer & part
of Jodhpur
200-370 40.0 8.0 Pearlmillet,
Mothbean,S
esamum
Wheat,
Mustard,
Cumin
Desert soils and
sand dunes
aeolian soil,
coarse sand in
texture some
places calcareous
Ib 2.10 1.60 Sriganganagar,
Hanumangarh
100-350 42.0 4.7 Cotton,
Clusterbean
Wheat,
Mustard,
Gram
Alluvial deposits
calcareous, high
soluble salts &
exchangeable
sodium
Ic 7.70 2.44 Bikaner,
Jaisalmer,
Churu
100-350 48.0 3.0 Pearlmillet,
Mothbean,
Clusterbean
Wheat,
Mustard,
Gram
Desert soils and
sand dunes
aeolian soil,
loamycoarse in
texture &
calcareous
IIa 3.69 2.68 Nagaur, Sikar,
Jhunjhunu,
part of Churu
300-350 39.7 5.3 Pearlmillet,
Clusterbean
, Pulses
Mustard,
Gram
Sandy loam,
sallow depth red
soils in
depressions
IIb 3.00 1.93 Jalore, Pali,
part of Sirohi,
Jodhpur
300-350 38.0 4.9 Pearlmillet,
Clusterbean
, Sesamum
Wheat,
Mustard
Red desert soils in
Jodhpur, Jalore &
Pali sierozems in
Pali & Sirohi
IIIa 2.96 1.77 Jaipur, Ajmer,
Dausa, Tonk
500-700 40.6 8.3 Pearlmillet,
Clusterbean
, Sorghum
Wheat,
Mustard,
Gram
Sierozens, eastern
part alluvial, west
north west
lithosols, foot
hills, brown soils
IIIb 2.77 1.41 Alwar,
Dholpur,
Bharatpur,
S.Madhopur,
Karauli
500-700 40.0 8.2 Pearlmillet,
Clusterbean
, Groundnut
Wheat,
Barley,
Mustard,
Gram
Alluvial prone to
water loging,
nature of recently
alluvial calcareous
has been observed
iv a 3.36 0.92 Bhilwara,
Sirohi,
Udaipur,
Chittorgarh
500-900 38.6 8.1 Maize,
Pulses,
Sorghum
Wheat,
Gram
Soil are lithosolsat
foot hills &
alluvials in plains
iv b 1.72 0.57 Dungarpur,
Udaipur,
Banswara,
Pratapgarh
500-
1100
39.0 7.2 Maize,
Paddy,
Sorghum,
Black gram
Wheat,
Gram
Predominantly
reddish medium
texture, well
drained
calcareous,
shallow on hills,
deep soil in
valleys
v 2.70 1.27 Kota,
Jhalawar,
Bundi, Baran
650-
1000
42.6 10.6 Sorghum,
Soybean
Wheat,
Mustard
Black of alluvial
origin, caly loam,
groundwater
salinity
Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Yojana Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
123
Annexure-II: District-wise Area, Production and Yield of Bajra in Rajasthan
Districts 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
Ajmer 83304 (1.60) 81596 (1.90) 979 85338 (1.63) 6464 (0.31) 76 94322 (1.72) 128399 (2.11) 1361
Alwar 226349 (4.35) 380460 (8.86) 1681 276962 (5.30) 312113 (15.20) 1127 273147 (4.98) 508361 (8.35) 1861
Banswara 94 (0.00) 78 (0.00) 830 169 (0.00) 67 (0.00) 396 171 (0.00) 190 (0.00) 1111
Baran 3206 (0.06) 3933 (0.09) 1227 3593 (0.07) 1412 (0.07) 393 3472 (0.06) 3853 (0.06) 1110
Barmer 1011401 (19.43) 131202 (3.06) 130 967622 (18.52) 18611 (0.91) 19 945072 (17.22) 529021 (8.68) 560
Bharatpur 100146 (1.92) 157434 (3.67) 1572 121235 (2.32) 193505 (9.42) 1596 122028 (2.22) 235022 (3.86) 1926
Bhilwara 2720 (0.05) 2944 (0.07) 1082 3167 (0.06) 599 (0.03) 189 5105 (0.09) 5666 (0.09) 1110
Bikaner 256896 (4.93) 155778 (3.63) 606 247147 (4.73) 18875 (0.92) 76 252548 (4.60) 137653 (2.26) 545
Bundi 2558 (0.05) 3138 (0.07) 1227 3182 (0.06) 2607 (0.13) 819 4881 (0.09) 5417 (0.09) 1110
Chittorgarh 33 (0.00) 27 (0.00) 818 12 (0.00) 5 (0.00) 417 15 (0.00) 17 (0.00) 1133
Churu 427985 (8.22) 335074 (7.80) 783 407615 (7.80) 8580 (0.42) 21 402905 (7.34) 249732 (4.10) 620
Dausa 119575 (2.30) 211087 (4.92) 1765 138516 (2.65) 184637 (8.99) 1333 140584 (2.56) 200853 (3.30) 1429
Dholpur 69923 (1.34) 121083 (2.82) 1732 86376 (1.65) 167775 (8.17) 1942 86253 (1.57) 155134 (2.55) 1799
Dungarpur 102 (0.00) 84 (0.00) 824 206 (0.00) 81 (0.00) 393 151 (0.00) 168 (0.00) 1113
Ganganagar 17998 (0.35) 30942 (0.72) 1719 4356 (0.08) 4497 (0.22) 1032 18037 (0.33) 20017 (0.33) 1110
Hanumangarh 80113 (1.54) 129123 (3.01) 1612 53642 (1.03) 24142 (1.18) 450 91086 (1.66) 79359 (1.30) 871
Jaipur 295678 (5.68) 455910 (10.62) 1542 318687 (6.10) 258204 (12.58) 810 330658 (6.02) 445792 (7.32) 1348
Jaisalmer 150591 (2.89) 3732 (0.09) 25 161684 (3.10) 1115 (0.05) 7 191205 (3.48) 90732 (1.49) 475
Jalore 332531 (6.39) 138981 (3.24) 418 347240 (6.65) 17265 (0.84) 50 348449 (6.35) 346028 (5.68) 993
Jhalawar 6 (0.00) 5 (0.00) 833 6 (0.00) 2 (0.00) 333 10 (0.00) 11 (0.00) 1100
Jhunjhunu 279816 (5.37) 329619 (7.68) 1178 263704 (5.05) 108404 (5.28) 411 286096 (5.21) 498470 (8.18) 1742
Jodhpur 608851 (11.69) 247504 (5.76) 407 574821 (11.00) 20234 (0.99) 35 635173 (11.57) 621315 (10.20) 978
Karauli 117307 (2.25) 204258 (4.76) 1741 133662 (2.56) 247772 (12.07) 1854 133500 (2.43) 253925 (4.17) 1902
Kota 47 (0.00) 39 (0.00) 830 83 (0.00) 33 (0.00) 398 74 (0.00) 82 (0.00) 1108
Nagaur 492278 (9.46) 488584 (11.38) 992 469992 (9.00) 164891 (8.03) 351 517838 (9.43) 744634 (12.22) 1438
Pali 85901 (1.65) 50305 (1.17) 586 79409 (1.52) 595 (0.03) 7 94599 (1.72) 99248 (1.63) 1049
Pratapgarh 30 (0.00) 25 (0.00) 833 10 (0.00) 4 (0.00) 400 14 (0.00) 16 (0.00) 1143
Rajsamand 497 (0.01) 410 (0.01) 825 458 (0.01) 180 (0.01) 393 453 (0.01) 503 (0.01) 1110
S. Madhopur 65778 (1.26) 103503 (2.41) 1574 84792 (1.62) 106249 (5.17) 1253 89235 (1.63) 166633 (2.74) 1867
Sikar 306517 (5.89) 444771 (10.36) 1451 303948 (5.82) 144741 (7.05) 476 328946 (5.99) 431344 (7.08) 1311
Sirohi 14438 (0.28) 7789 (0.18) 540 18087 (0.35) 3686 (0.18) 204 21626 (0.39) 24001 (0.39) 1110
Tonk 53482 (1.03) 74511 (1.74) 1393 67765 (1.30) 35814 (1.74) 529 71067 (1.29) 109786 (1.80) 1545
Udaipur 11 (0.00) 9 (0.00) 818 78 (0.00) 31 (0.00) 397 22 (0.00) 24 (0.00) 1091
State 5206162 (100.00) 4293938 (100.00) 825 5223564 (100.00) 2053190 (100.00) 394 5488742 (100.00) 6091406 (100.00) 1110
Notes: 1. Figures in parenthesis shows percentage of respective total, 2. Area in Hectares; Production in Metric Tonnes and Yield in Kg./ha.
Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Yojana Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
124
Annexure-III: District-wise Area, Production and Yield of Maize in Rajasthan
Districts 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
Ajmer 35740 (3.39) 25704 (1.40) 719 35274 (3.21) 2131 (0.19) 60 35419 (3.10) 53352 (2.60) 1506
Alwar 8351 (0.79) 14901 (0.81) 1784 7868 (0.72) 6920 (0.60) 880 6773 (0.59) 12200 (0.59) 1801
Banswara 131187 (12.45) 279075 (15.24) 2127 142326 (12.94) 138131 (12.03) 971 140653 (12.30) 290592 (14.15) 2066
Baran 12233 (1.16) 18012 (0.98) 1472 13470 (1.22) 22435 (1.95) 1666 16913 (1.48) 44591 (2.17) 2636
Barmer 12 (0.00) 21 (0.00) 1750 1 (0.00) 1 (0.00) 1000 1 (0.00) 2 (0.00) 2000
Bharatpur 6 (0.00) 10 (0.00) 1667 6 (0.00) 6 (0.00) 1000 5 (0.00) 9 (0.00) 1800
Bhilwara 179714 (17.05) 280903 (15.34) 1563 187259 (17.02) 129266 (11.25) 690 202328 (17.70) 371547 (18.10) 1836
Bikaner 7 (0.00) 12 (0.00) 1714 7 (0.00) 7 (0.00) 1000 7 (0.00) 13 (0.00) 1857
Bundi 32697 (3.10) 73577 (4.02) 2250 37989 (3.45) 49572 (4.32) 1305 48612 (4.25) 122387 (5.96) 2518
Chittorgarh 166361 (15.79) 466162 (25.46) 2802 175429 (15.94) 306439 (26.68) 1747 180249 (15.77) 398108 (19.39) 2209
Churu 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0
Dausa 1379 (0.13) 1722 (0.09) 1249 960 (0.09) 1067 (0.09) 1112 685 (0.06) 1230 (0.06) 1796
Dholpur 21 (0.00) 37 (0.00) 1762 5 (0.00) 5 (0.00) 1000 5 (0.00) 9 (0.00) 1800
Dungarpur 88368 (8.39) 77617 (4.24) 878 90004 (8.18) 56935 (4.96) 633 89064 (7.79) 130457 (6.35) 1465
Ganganagar 63 (0.01) 110 (0.01) 1746 3 (0.00) 3 (0.00) 1000 32 (0.00) 58 (0.00) 1813
Hanumangarh 9 (0.00) 16 (0.00) 1778 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 3 (0.00) 5 (0.00) 1667
Jaipur 4211 (0.40) 5109 (0.28) 1213 3842 (0.35) 1748 (0.15) 455 3515 (0.31) 6313 (0.31) 1796
Jaisalmer 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0
Jalore 52 (0.00) 90 (0.00) 1731 28 (0.00) 29 (0.00) 1036 32 (0.00) 57 (0.00) 1781
Jhalawar 37581 (3.57) 80376 (4.39) 2139 35711 (3.25) 71116 (6.19) 1991 40584 (3.55) 84800 (4.13) 2089
Jhunjhunu 1 (0.00) 2 (0.00) 2000 2 (0.00) 2 (0.00) 1000 1 (0.00) 2 (0.00) 2000
Jodhpur 38 (0.00) 66 (0.00) 1737 17 (0.00) 18 (0.00) 1059 4 (0.00) 7 (0.00) 1750
Karauli 273 (0.03) 474 (0.03) 1736 172 (0.02) 180 (0.02) 1047 77 (0.01) 138 (0.01) 1792
Kota 7296 (0.69) 10546 (0.58) 1445 11699 (1.06) 15560 (1.35) 1330 14095 (1.23) 28524 (1.39) 2024
Nagaur 67 (0.01) 116 (0.01) 1731 51 (0.00) 30 (0.00) 579 49 (0.00) 88 (0.00) 1796
Pali 20124 (1.91) 11074 (0.60) 550 20393 (1.85) 7525 (0.66) 369 21307 (1.86) 35235 (1.72) 1654
Pratapgarh 55575 (5.27) 123844 (6.76) 2228 56135 (5.10) 97238 (8.47) 1732 57121 (5.00) 80767 (3.93) 1414
Rajsamand 56464 (5.36) 70778 (3.87) 1254 59590 (5.42) 59165 (5.15) 993 63620 (5.57) 78298 (3.81) 1231
S. Madhopur 792 (0.08) 1376 (0.08) 1737 735 (0.07) 767 (0.07) 1044 536 (0.05) 963 (0.05) 1797
Sikar 25 (0.00) 43 (0.00) 1720 23 (0.00) 24 (0.00) 1043 14 (0.00) 25 (0.00) 1786
Sirohi 28261 (2.68) 36233 (1.98) 1282 28004 (2.55) 10327 (0.90) 369 28948 (2.53) 51700 (2.52) 1786
Tonk 13356 (1.27) 14293 (0.78) 1070 13951 (1.27) 3596 (0.31) 258 13046 (1.14) 16006 (0.78) 1227
Udaipur 173614 (16.47) 238811 (13.04) 1376 179262 (16.29) 168369 (14.66) 939 179380 (15.69) 245463 (11.96) 1368
State 1053878 (100.00) 1831110 (100.00) 1737 1100216 (100.00) 1148612 (100.00) 1044 1143078 (100.00) 2052946 (100.00) 1796
Note: 1. Figures in parenthesis shows percentage of respective total, 2. Area in Hectares; Production in Metric Tonns and Yield in Kg./ha.
Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Yojana Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
125
Annexure-IV: District-wise Area, Production and Yield of Wheat in Rajasthan
Districts 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
Ajmer 16605 (0.72) 37499 (0.51) 2258 8761 (0.37) 21652 (0.29) 2471 64322 (2.12) 207905 (1.99) 3232
Alwar 170172 (7.42) 688076 (9.44) 4043 192800 (8.05) 722874 (9.64) 3749 193992 (6.39) 816059 (7.83) 4207
Banswara 76116 (3.32) 118511 (1.63) 1557 80466 (3.36) 161762 (2.16) 2010 86052 (2.83) 176322 (1.69) 2049
Baran 95802 (4.17) 346163 (4.75) 3613 105609 (4.41) 397171 (5.30) 3761 147930 (4.87) 514045 (4.93) 3475
Barmer 11467 (0.50) 9986 (0.14) 871 15200 (0.63) 23129 (0.31) 1522 16732 (0.55) 24526 (0.24) 1466
Bharatpur 133758 (5.83) 551718 (7.57) 4125 160732 (6.71) 630274 (8.40) 3921 157196 (5.18) 704731 (6.76) 4483
Bhilwara 54375 (2.37) 143160 (1.96) 2633 38384 (1.60) 103366 (1.38) 2693 118780 (3.91) 307984 (2.95) 2593
Bikaner 58932 (2.57) 141123 (1.94) 2395 55947 (2.34) 98721 (1.32) 1765 79123 (2.61) 233437 (2.24) 2950
Bundi 117809 (5.13) 429814 (5.90) 3648 107862 (4.51) 366088 (4.88) 3394 150244 (4.95) 570970 (5.48) 3800
Chittorgarh 84045 (3.66) 303325 (4.16) 3609 65075 (2.72) 214409 (2.86) 3295 104177 (3.43) 420936 (4.04) 4041
Churu 17325 (0.75) 27853 (0.38) 1608 22674 (0.95) 42534 (0.57) 1876 27504 (0.91) 64769 (0.62) 2355
Dausa 77365 (3.37) 245789 (3.37) 3177 83956 (3.51) 291788 (3.89) 3475 94455 (3.11) 335173 (3.22) 3548
Dholpur 50807 (2.21) 185291 (2.54) 3647 56832 (2.37) 222278 (2.96) 3911 59191 (1.95) 206385 (1.98) 3487
Dungarpur 18296 (0.80) 24530 (0.34) 1341 36010 (1.50) 64072 (0.85) 1779 37334 (1.23) 58101 (0.56) 1556
Ganganagar 213503 (9.30) 809140 (11.10) 3790 202210 (8.45) 575623 (7.67) 2847 236076 (7.78) 1049386 (10.07) 4445
Hanumangarh 207479 (9.04) 680021 (9.33) 3278 217397 (9.08) 657210 (8.76) 3023 227096 (7.48) 867972 (8.33) 3822
Jaipur 136789 (5.96) 425084 (5.83) 3108 139226 (5.82) 447503 (5.97) 3214 158861 (5.23) 590946 (5.67) 3720
Jaisalmer 9521 (0.41) 7878 (0.11) 827 10768 (0.45) 12725 (0.17) 1182 15127 (0.50) 51937 (0.50) 0
Jalore 23600 (1.03) 37105 (0.51) 1572 30967 (1.29) 61604 (0.82) 1989 44957 (1.48) 80464 (0.77) 1790
Jhalawar 58810 (2.56) 163674 (2.25) 2783 67915 (2.84) 226609 (3.02) 3337 70511 (2.32) 222286 (2.13) 3153
Jhunjhunu 71814 (3.13) 253157 (3.47) 3525 79516 (3.32) 257934 (3.44) 3244 79590 (2.62) 259955 (2.49) 3266
Jodhpur 41501 (1.81) 81665 (1.12) 1968 53143 (2.22) 132805 (1.77) 2499 59285 (1.95) 149046 (1.43) 2514
Karauli 62737 (2.73) 228085 (3.13) 3636 73134 (3.05) 285646 (3.81) 3906 86163 (2.84) 365855 (3.51) 4246
Kota 86611 (3.77) 320290 (4.40) 3698 91999 (3.84) 325222 (4.34) 3535 115280 (3.80) 411409 (3.95) 3569
Nagaur 67100 (2.92) 173274 (2.38) 2582 77165 (3.22) 194171 (2.59) 2516 77362 (2.55) 194987 (1.87) 2520
Pali 30185 (1.32) 51077 (0.70) 1692 24350 (1.02) 48209 (0.64) 1980 80115 (2.64) 145154 (1.39) 1812
Pratapgarh 44610 (1.94) 116629 (1.60) 2614 47698 (1.99) 158095 (2.11) 3314 49319 (1.62) 123163 (1.18) 2497
Rajsamand 12069 (0.53) 26966 (0.37) 2234 6461 (0.27) 16811 (0.22) 2602 31898 (1.05) 104461 (1.00) 3275
S. Madhopur 53450 (2.33) 164400 (2.26) 3076 61185 (2.56) 213165 (2.84) 3484 84191 (2.77) 291367 (2.80) 3461
Sikar 85657 (3.73) 250455 (3.44) 2924 90628 (3.79) 301181 (4.02) 3323 100483 (3.31) 343783 (3.30) 3421
Sirohi 24790 (1.08) 52778 (0.72) 2129 18016 (0.75) 44115 (0.59) 2449 39045 (1.29) 114372 (1.10) 2929
Tonk 40643 (1.77) 105913 (1.45) 2606 39926 (1.67) 106733 (1.42) 2673 88632 (2.92) 284498 (2.73) 3210
Udaipur 41115 (1.79) 86645 (1.19) 2107 32201 (1.34) 75365 (1.00) 2340 55118 (1.82) 131966 (1.27) 2394
State 2294858 (100.00) 7287074 (100.00) 3175 2394213 (100.00) 7500844 (100.00) 3133 3036141 (100.00) 10424350 (100.00) 3433
Note: 1. Figures in parenthesis shows percentage of respective total, 2. Area in Hectares; Production in Metric Tonns and Yield in Kg./ha.
Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Yojana Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
126
Annexure-V: District-wise Area, Production and Yield of Gram in Rajasthan
Districts 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
Ajmer 20783 (1.65) 9456 (0.96) 455 158 (0.02) 65 (0.01) 410 111133 (6.23) 92406 (5.77) 831
Alwar 14301 (1.14) 18391 (1.87) 1286 9941 (1.12) 10828 (2.02) 1089 13665 (0.77) 20640 (1.29) 1510
Banswara 12386 (0.98) 9264 (0.94) 748 12904 (1.46) 15575 (2.91) 1207 13828 (0.78) 10763 (0.67) 778
Baran 3582 (0.28) 3946 (0.40) 1102 4234 (0.48) 4359 (0.81) 1029 7628 (0.43) 12059 (0.75) 1581
Barmer 35 (0.00) 18 (0.00) 528 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 1072 (0.06) 962 (0.06) 897
Bharatpur 6176 (0.49) 8190 (0.83) 1326 6600 (0.75) 7900 (1.48) 1197 4885 (0.27) 8572 (0.54) 1755
Bhilwara 18944 (1.50) 12784 (1.30) 675 2577 (0.29) 1295 (0.24) 503 50088 (2.81) 43496 (2.72) 868
Bikaner 171781 (13.64) 149390 (15.23) 870 118711 (13.42) 58561 (10.95) 493 163770 (9.18) 145452 (9.09) 888
Bundi 5022 (0.40) 5749 (0.59) 1145 6911 (0.78) 5108 (0.95) 739 9065 (0.51) 10680 (0.67) 1178
Chittorgarh 7773 (0.62) 6855 (0.70) 882 4519 (0.51) 4276 (0.80) 946 8817 (0.49) 8731 (0.55) 990
Churu 287902 (22.86) 144495 (14.73) 502 162383 (18.35) 31623 (5.91) 195 358725 (20.12) 222812 (13.92) 621
Dausa 6765 (0.54) 7736 (0.79) 1144 6091 (0.69) 4870 (0.91) 800 10265 (0.58) 12086 (0.76) 1177
Dholpur 2748 (0.22) 3240 (0.33) 1179 3778 (0.43) 5486 (1.03) 1452 2266 (0.13) 2034 (0.13) 898
Dungarpur 7704 (0.61) 4461 (0.45) 579 13409 (1.52) 13932 (2.60) 1039 13566 (0.76) 12587 (0.79) 928
Ganganagar 121652 (9.66) 110500 (11.26) 908 81279 (9.19) 55642 (10.40) 685 103991 (5.83) 98854 (6.18) 951
Hanumangarh 200540 (15.92) 119335 (12.16) 595 149032 (16.85) 58564 (10.95) 393 193983 (10.88) 126850 (7.92) 654
Jaipur 28912 (2.30) 28812 (2.94) 997 6126 (0.69) 5587 (1.04) 912 104503 (5.86) 189422 (11.83) 1813
Jaisalmer 66962 (5.32) 35367 (3.60) 528 52675 (5.95) 19044 (3.56) 362 79529 (4.46) 52035 (3.25) 654
Jalore 963 (0.08) 509 (0.05) 528 15 (0.00) 9 (0.00) 600 7910 (0.44) 3290 (0.21) 416
Jhalawar 30036 (2.38) 30570 (3.12) 1018 46093 (5.21) 41786 (7.81) 907 36467 (2.04) 28323 (1.77) 777
Jhunjhunu 76098 (6.04) 85409 (8.71) 1122 55499 (6.27) 49102 (9.18) 885 129439 (7.26) 141812 (8.86) 1096
Jodhpur 617 (0.05) 481 (0.05) 780 163 (0.02) 99 (0.02) 607 5802 (0.33) 5208 (0.33) 898
Karauli 12686 (1.01) 14831 (1.51) 1169 21115 (2.39) 20067 (3.75) 950 16625 (0.93) 22226 (1.39) 1337
Kota 5130 (0.41) 5795 (0.59) 1130 6742 (0.76) 7215 (1.35) 1070 7942 (0.45) 7387 (0.46) 930
Nagaur 24359 (1.93) 41437 (4.22) 1701 15129 (1.71) 19492 (3.64) 1288 56970 (3.19) 68076 (4.25) 1195
Pali 6595 (0.52) 6758 (0.69) 1025 107 (0.01) 116 (0.02) 1084 54510 (3.06) 40090 (2.50) 735
Pratapgarh 30137 (2.39) 25738 (2.62) 854 24260 (2.74) 25494 (4.77) 1051 22326 (1.25) 21509 (1.34) 963
Rajsamand 400 (0.03) 312 (0.03) 780 173 (0.02) 105 (0.02) 607 1428 (0.08) 1282 (0.08) 898
S. Madhopur 10644 (0.85) 13242 (1.35) 1244 26832 (3.03) 28017 (5.24) 1044 19231 (1.08) 27978 (1.75) 1455
Sikar 43455 (3.45) 50786 (5.18) 1169 31369 (3.55) 30123 (5.63) 960 84841 (4.76) 94121 (5.88) 1109
Sirohi 1670 (0.13) 824 (0.08) 493 209 (0.02) 139 (0.03) 663 7515 (0.42) 6746 (0.42) 898
Tonk 23296 (1.85) 17729 (1.81) 761 11061 (1.25) 5553 (1.04) 502 70332 (3.94) 47211 (2.95) 671
Udaipur 9374 (0.74) 8725 (0.89) 931 4585 (0.52) 4862 (0.91) 1060 11157 (0.63) 15004 (0.94) 1345
State 1259428 (100.00) 981135 (100.00) 779 884680 (100.00) 534894 (100.00) 605 1783274 (100.00) 1600704 (100.00) 898
Note: 1. Figures in parenthesis shows percentage of respective total, 2. Area in Hectares; Production in Metric Tonns and Yield in Kg./ha.
Source: Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Yojana Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
127
Appendix I:
Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report
1. Title of the Draft Study Report Examined: Marketed and Marketable Surplus of
Major Food grains in Rajasthan
2. Date of Receipt of the Draft Report: May 2, 2013
3. Date of Dispatch of Comments: June 11, 2013
4. Comments on the Objectives of the study: Objectives of the project as mentioned
by Ministry of Agriculture, GOI in January 2012 have been followed by report
writers.
5. Comments on the Methodology:
i. In the first part of the report a very clear description of the sample with a clear
outline of the methodology to be used is described in the report. However with regard
to the Concepts of Marketed and Marketable Surplus particularly on pages four and
nineteen, it may be noted that the concept outlined particularly as gross surplus on
page nineteen may actually be considered to be Marketed Surplus since this concept
refers to the actually marketed quantities, meanwhile the concept defined there as Net
Surplus can actually be specified as the concept of Marketable Surplus since it refers
to the idea of consumption as the quantities actually required for consumption not the
quantities actually retained for consumption, thus here distress sales are considered
and buybacks or repurchases are subtracted whereas in the Gross Concept of
Marketed Surplus there is no consideration of Repurchase quantity.
A more detailed description of the concept is in the Attached Sheet.(Analytical and
Accounting Concept of Marketed Surplus.doc)
ii. Literature Review in Chapter 1 should have more on some description of earlier
theoretical work on Marketed Surplus like Raj Krishna and Behrman as also some
International contemporary literature.
iii. A table on State wise share of selected foodgrain crops in India in a recent year
may be given on Page 1.
iv. Although table 2.2 on page 16 gives some information on the sample a much more
detailed table giving information like source of irrigation, occupation of farmers, yield
of crops, farm machinery used and proportion of sold production (not exact but
obtained through informal questioning), this information should be provided at the
early stage of the report which would have been obtained through informal
questioning by the surveyors in the villages surveyed.
v. In Chapter 3 on the part on Research Methodology more emphasis should be given
on a description of factors affecting marketed surplus which concept is later used both
for regression and descriptive tables in Chapter IV.
128
vi. The Empirical Analysis part in Chapter 4 cannot be faulted for level of detail and
clarity however it may be noted that in the case of Determination of Factors Affecting
Marketed Surplus Regression a testing for Problems of Heteroscedasticity may be in
order and help in getting more specified and significant relationship.
6. Comments on the Presentation, Get up etc.: Acceptable.
7. Overall View on Acceptability of the Report: Acceptable after comments on
methodology taken into consideration.
Appendix II:
Action taken on Coordinator’s Comments on the Draft Report
All the comments made by the Coordinator of the Study have been addressed at the
appropriate places in the final report.
Agro-Economic Research Centre For the states of Gujarat and Rajasthan
(Sponsored by Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India) H.M. Patel Institute of Rural Development, Opp. Nanadalaya Temple, Post Box No. 24,
Sardar Patel University,
Vallabh Vidyanagar 388120, Dist. Anand, Gujarat.
Ph. No. +91-2692-230106, 230799; Fax- +91-2692-233106 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]