CHAPTER - Ill
GROWTH PERFORMANCE, INSTABILITY, ACREAGE AND YIELD RESPONSE OF PULSE CROPS
Introduction
Economists have extensively investigated the growth performance
of rice and wheat during the past four decades. It has been widely
researched at global, regional, national, state and household levels.
Unfortunately, scant attention has been paid to the study of pulse crops,
which play an important role in sustaining crop systems and the nutritional
security of the population in India. Although, evidences are available for
sixties, seventies and eighties, inadequate recent information has impaired
the policy initiatives in the changed agricultural scenario in the country.
Therefore, an attempt must be made to provide current evidence on
temporal and spatial dimensions of the pulse development. The present
chapter is devoted to the analysis of growth performance and instability in
the area, production and yield of five important pulse crops (gram, arhar,
moong, urad and massar) along with total pulses at the all India level and
in major producing states of the country between 1980-81 and 2001-02. In
addition, acreage and yield responses have also been examined. The
entire study period is sub-divided into two periods. The first period relates
to eighties beginning from 1980-81 to 1990-91 and the second period to
nineties from 1990-91 to 2001-02. These represent the pre and post
reforms periods. The cut off point of 1990-91 has strategic significance, as
pulse crops were included in the Technology Mission during this year.
Given this framework, three hypotheses are proposed for testing. First,
pulse production performance in India is poor due to low growth of
acreage and yield in the study period. Second, non-price factors are more
important than price factors in acreage allocation to pulse crops by
62
farmers. Third, expenditure on seed, fertilizer and magnitude of rainfall
influence the yield of pulse crops.
The methodology followed for each aspect is different. For
measuring the growth rates of· area, production and yield, semi log
functions were used while instability indices were estimated by applying
Coppock's methodology of log variance. The Nerlovian modified model of
distributed lags was used to identify the factors influencing acreage of
important pulse crops. Finally, the Cobb Douglas regression model is
applied for segregating the factors effecting yield of referred pulses. The
details of the methodology used are given at the relevant place in the
analysis.
This chapter is organized as follows. The first section examines the
state-wise growth performance of major pulses in India in order to assess
the nature of stagnancy in pulse production in the background of the
changing agricultural scenario in the country. In addition, it looks into the
farm size variation .The second section is devoted to the analysis of
instability in area, production and yield of referred pulses. The third section
identifies the factors influencing acreage and yield of major pulse? in the
core states in India.
Section -I: Growth Performance
Some scholars 1•2
•3 have attempted to document the detailed
performance of pulse crops since independence. The annual growth rate
of production in the pre-green revolution period (1949-50 to 1964-65) with
a base year of triennium ending 1981-82 was 1.41 per cent per annum,
which dropped significantly in the seventies. It was only in the eighties that
growth rate crossed 1 per cent per annum. During this period, pulse
'·Chopra Kusum and Gurushri Swamy, "Pulses: An Analysis of Demand and Supply in India, 1951-1971 ", Sterling Publishers, New Delhi, 1975.
2' Sadashivam S, "Pattern of Pulses Production: An Analysis of Growth Trends": Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol. XXIV (51-52), 1989. 3 Satyapriya V.S., "Pulses in India - Growth, Regional Distribution and Area Responses," Oxford and
IBH Publishing Company, New Delhi, 1989.
63
production grew at the annual growth rate of 1.52 per cent per annum. The
economic re-structuring during the nineties did not prove beneficial for
pulse production and its growth declined substantially. It became 0.61 per
cent per annum between 1990-91 and 1999-00 (Agricultural Statistics at a
Glance, 2003). But, the individual pulse crops behaved differently. The
annual increase in gram production was above average while it was
negligible for arhar. Given this background, it is pertinent to examine the
state-wise growth performance of individual pulse crops in India for the
aforesaid periods. The semi-log equation of the form log y = a + bt is used
to estimate state-wise growth rates in area, production and yield of gram,
arhar, moong, urad, massar, rabi pulses, kharif pulses and total pulses
during the first, second and entire study periods.
Gram
The most important pulse crop in India is gram which occupied an
area of about 5712 thousand hectares during 2001-02. It constitutes
nearly two fifth share of the area of total pulses. It is a multi-purpose crop.
Its leaves are largely eaten as Vegetable and the grain is eaten raw. When
ripe, it is used as a whole, split and after grinding as flour (besan) etc. It is
sown during October and November~ Many times, it is mixed with wheat,
barley, mustard and pea. The crop matures within 95 to 150 days
depending on the variety grown. The crop is irri9ated once or twice only
when soil gets dried up in November or December. Being a leguminous
crop, gram utilizes atmospheric nitrogen through its root nodules. The crop
is neither manured nor fertilized by most of the farmers. The information
on area, production, yield and percentage of irrigated area in important
states during triennium ending 2001-02 is given in Table 3.1.
64
Table: 3.1
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Gram in Important States in India (TE 2001-02)
Area State
2001-02 % Share
Madhya 2187.1 38.29 Pradesh Uttar Pradesh 768.8 13.46
Rajasthan 872.6 15.28
Maharashtra 788.2 13.80
Karnataka 389.5 6.82
Andhra 203.8 3.57 Pradesh Bihar 93.5 1.64
Haryana 107.5 1.88
West Bengal 44.1 0.77
Gujarat 49.1 0.86.
Orissa 28.0 0.49
Punjab 7.0 0.12
Tamil Nadu 6.5 0.11
India* 5711.5 100.00
* Includes mmor producmg states
Production
2001-02 % Share
2006.8 43.28
765.8 16.51
603.0 13.00
466.9 .10.07
235.1 5.07
188.1 4.06
91.6 1.98
78.0 1.68
38.4 0.83
25.8 0.56
15.0 0.32
6.6 0.14
4.2 0.09
4637.2 100.0 0
Area in '000 ha Production in '000 tonnes
1e 1n ,qs. Y' ld. K /h a Yield %of
lrrg. Area.
2001- Rank 2000-02 01
918 5 41.1
996 1 14.8
691 9 50.8
592 13 34.9
604 12 10.9
923 4 6.8
979 2 3.4
726 8 32.6
871 6 NA
526 15 24.2
536 14 NA
943 3 35.7
641 11 NA
812 7 30.9
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture ,Government of India ,New Delhi, 2004
65
·-· Table: 3.2
Growth Performance of Gram in Important States of India (1981-2002)
_{Per cent per annum) State Area Production Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981-91 02 02 91 02 02 91 02 02
Madhya 1.6 0.1 1.2 3.2 1.9 3.4 1.6 1.8 2.2 Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh -1.7 -4.5 -3.6 -1.7 -3.1 -2.9 0.0 1.4 0.7
Rajasthan -3.2 -2.6 -1.1 -4.0 -1.2 -0.7 -0.8 1.4 0.4
Maharashtra 5.1 3.6 3.3 10.8 3.3 6.2 5.7 -0.3 2.9
Karnataka 5.5 6.5 5.3 1.4 12.1 7.0 -4.1 5.6 1.7
Andhra 2.5 11.5 7.9 8.1 14.0 12.7 5.6 2.5 4.8 Pradesh
Bihar -1.5 -4.2 -3.2• 0.6 -4.3 -2.0 2.1 -0.1 1.2
Haryana -4.5 -12.8 -7.7 0.3 -13.1 -4.9 4.8 -0.3 2.8
West Bengal -10.2 6.5 -.4.8 -10.8 8.8 -3.7 -0.6 2.3 1.1
Gujarat 1.1 -9.0 -1.8 -3.2 -9.9 -3.0 -4.3 -0.9 -1.2
Orissa .0.0 -3.3 -2.7 2.0 -5.7 -3.3 2.0 -2.4 -0.6
Punjab -13.7 -18.8 -16.6 -10.1 -16.5 c14.0 3.6 2.3 2.6
Tamil Nadu -3.3 -1.2 -0.9 -1.8 -1.2 -0.6 1.5 0.0 '0.3
India -0.7 -0.8 -0.5 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.8 1.2 . 1.2
Source: Based on data from "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India", 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004
66
It may be noticed that gram is extensively cultivated as a winter crop
in India especially in the state·s of Madhya Pradesh (38.29 per cent),
Rajasthan (15.28 per cent), Maharashtra (13.80 per cent) and Uttar
Pradesh (13.46 per cent). These states together accounted for 81 per cent
of all India area under gram. These are also leading states in terms of
production but Uttar Pradesh crossed Maharashtra and Rajasthan due to
highest productivity. Further, disparities in yield rates were also found
significant. The state of Uttar Pradesh was leading with a yield rate of 996
kgs/ha.
The other high ranking states were Bihar (979 kgs/ha.), Punjab
(943 kgs/ha.) and Andhra Pradesh (923 kgs./ha. ). Nonetheless, these
yield rates are much below the potential yield of 15-20 qtls/ha. It is largely
due to low proportion of irrigated area to total area. Only 30.9 per cent of
gram area was found irrigated during 2000-01. The states with higher
irrigated area are Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab and
Haryana. On the other hand, merely 6.8 per cent of gram area was found
irrigated in Andhra Pradesh.
After analyzing the geographical spread of gram cultivation in India,
it is imperative to examine growth performance in terms of area,
production and yield between 1980-81and 2001-02. It may be observed
from Table 3.2 that growth rate of gram area was found negative at the all
India level. The gram area declined at the rate of 0.8, 0.7 and 0.5 per cent
per annum during the eighties, nineties and the entire study period. It
appears that inclusion of pulses in the Technology Mission on Oilseeds
and Pulses (TMOP) in 1990 did not make any impact to incentivise
farmers to grow this crop. The performance of gram area was found poor
in Punjab, Haryana, Bihar, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar
Pradesh.
The largest decline in gram area was noticed in the case of Punjab
(16.6 per cent per annum) followed by Haryana, which are well-irrigated
states. After the success of green revolution in the sixties, farmers here
67
shifted to wheat, which yielded relatively higher profitability per unit of land
in irrigated regions. In rain fed areas of Haryana, mustard replaced gram.
This has happened despite higher growth of gram yield in these states.
But, productivity growth could not compensate for area decline and hence,
production declined at a high rate of 14.0 per cent and 4.9 per cent per
annum during the study period. The drop in gram production was relatively
higher in the nineties as compared to eighties.
On the other hand, gainer states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa have exhibited a significant
expansion in the area under gram. It was as high as 7.9 per cent in
Andhra Pradesh and 5.3 per cent per annum in Karnataka during the
study period. The clear-cut shift of production base from traditional to new
southern states was noticed. The gram area. in southern states became
almost equal to northern states. Since, yield performance was also
commendable in these states, production grew at the rate of 12.7 per cent
in Andhra Pradesh, 7 per cent in Karnataka, 6.2 per cent in Maharashtra
and 3.4 ·per cent per annum in Madhya Pradesh during the reference
period. Unfortunately, production of gram in Orissa has exhibited a decline
due to negative growth in area as well as in yield. The higher rate of gram
production in Andhra Pradesh may be attributed to high productivity
coupled with favourable prices, good monsoon and availability of improved
variety seeds and efficient extension services. In fact, gram's competitive
edge has weakened in northern states due to shift towards the more
profitable crops like wheat in irrigated areas and mustard in un-irrigated
areas. Moreover, this period faced only three un-favourable monsoon
years in late eighties and ·one in 2001-02. This partially explains the good
performance in production. In addition,· there are evidences to show
(NSSO Report, 451) that pulse growers in Andhra Pradesh are using
improved seeds for pulse cultivation and adoption rate is as high as 70.96
per cent against an all India average of 47 per cent during 1999. The
tendency of increasing area under. gram in rain fed areas of these states
68
may likely to continue due to availability of short duration varieties of gram
with better adaptation in rainfed areas and efficient extension services
available to farmers.
Arhar ranks second amongst the pulse crops of India. It is largely
eaten in the form of split pulse (dal) while its tender green pods constitute
a favourite vegetable in some parts of the country. The outer integuments
of its seed together with part of the kernel provide a valuable feed for the
milch cattle. The stalks are utilized for various purposes such as roofing
and basket making. Arhar is a long duration crop. It is sown in July with -
first rains of the monsoon and ripens about March. But, now short duration
varieties are available with lower maturity periods. At times, it is grown as
. a mixed crop with jowar, bajra and groundnut. This practice not only offers
insurance against the crop failure but also enables the cultivator to obtain
a variety of harvests from the same piece of land. The information on area,
production, yield and irrlgat~d area of arhar in important states of India in
TE 2001-02 is presented in Table 3.3.
It may be noticed that arhar was grown on 3493 thousand hectares
of area in India. The crop is more extensively cultivated in states of
Maharashtra (30.1 0 per cent), Karnataka ( 14.67 per cent), Andhra
Pradesh (13.02 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (11.67 per cent). Their shares
in all India production were 31.68 per cent, 11.60 per cent, 7.7 4 per cent
and 20.69 per cent respectively during triennium ending 2001-02. The
state of Maharashtra is leading by showing little less than one third of all
India area and production. The yield rate for the country as a whole was
693 kgsJha. Bihar was leading in productivity with an yield of 1257
kgs./ha. Among the major producing states, Uttar Pradesh was far ahead
in productivity than Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The
proportion of irrigated area to cropped area was however, only 4.2 per
cent. This indicates poor status of arhar in receiving irrigation. The highest
69
proportion of irrigated area was observed in Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat
against a low share in Bihar (0.3 per cent of cropped area).
Having looked into the geographical spread of area and production,
we proceed to examine state-wise growth performance of area, production
and yield of arhar between 1980-81 and 2001-02. It may be observed from
Table 3.4 that growth of arhar area in the country during the study period
was 0.8 per .cent per annum. The first period was major contributor but
area declined at the rate of 0.3 per cent per annum during the second
period. The gainer states included Haryana (3.7 per cent), Andhra
Pradesh (2.9 per cent), Maharashtra (2.5 per cent), Orissa (1.8 per cent),
Karnataka (1.2 per cent) and Gujarat (1 per cent). However, states of
West Bengal (9.0 per cent), Punjab (6 per cent) Madhya Pradesh (2.2 per
cent) and Bihar (1 per cent) were found to be looser in terms of area
during the study period. The states, which have gained in area, also
exhibited· positive growth rates in produCtion. Andhra Pradesh and
Rajasthan have gained more in terms of production due to yield
improvement. The rate of increase in production was observed to be lower
in the nineties as compared to eighties. The states with significant growth
rate in yield are Andhra Pradesh (3.2 per cent) and Rajasthan (3.5 per
cent). The performance of all other states was found dismal in growth of
yield. Thus, growth of arhar production was merely 0.3 per cent per annum
and that too was due to area expansion at the rate of 0.8 per cent per
annum between 1980-81 and 2001-02. The contribution of yield was found
negative. It implies that farmers are either not adopting improved seeds or
their success rate is low.
70
Table: 3.3
Area, Production, Yield and Irrigated Area of Arhar in Important States in India (TE2001-02) Area in '000 ha.
Production in '000 tonnes iel 1n \gs. ha. Y d. K I
Area Production Yield % lrrg. Area State
2001-02 %Share 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 Rank 2000-01
Maharashtra 1051.3 30.10 766.5 31.68 729 6 1.9
Uttar Pradesh 407.6 11.67 500.6 20.69 1228 2 12.8
Karnataka 523.0 14.97 280.7 11.60 537 10 1.3
Madhya Pradesh 330.9 9.47 272.1 11.25 822 4 0.8
Gujarat 336.0 9.62 195.0 8.06 580 9 12.2
Andhra Pradesh 454.9 13.02 187.3 7.74 412. 13 0.8
Orissa 142.3 4.07 74.3 3.07 522 12 0.6
Bihar 42.5 1.22 53.4 2.21 1257 1 0.3
Tamil Nadu 70.9 2.03 48.5 2.01 684 8 3.1
Rajasthan 25.1 0.72 13.1 0.54 523 11 NA
Haryana 14.8 0.42 11.5 0.48 775 5 NA
Punjab 8.7 0.25 7.6 0.31 866 3 NA
West Bengal 5.3 0.15 3.7 0.15 700 7 NA
India* 3493.3 100.00 2419.1 100.00 693 4.2
* Includes mmor producmg states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004
71
Table: 3.4
. Growth Performance of Arhar in Important States of India (1981-2002)
(Percent per annum) Area Production Yield
State 1981-91 1991-02 1981-02 1981-91 1991-02 1981-02 1981-91 1991-02 1981-02
Maharashtra . 4.0 0.3 2.5 4.2 5.1 3.1 0.2 4.8 0.6
Uttar Pradesh -0.7 -2.4 -1.0 -1.2 -1.5 -1.9 -0.5 0.9 -0.9
Karnataka 3.6 1.9 1.2 1.8 6.8 1.5 -1.8 4.9 0.3
Madhya Pradesh -1.0 -1.5 -2.2 2.2 -2.0 -1.9 3.3 -0.5 0.3
Gujarat 2.5 -1.8 1.0 1.2 -5.0 0.6 -1.3 -3.2 -0.4
Andhra Pradesh 4.7 3.6 2.9 4.0 8.0 6.1 -0.7 4.4 3.2
Orissa 6.1 -1.0 1.8 10.0 -6.8 0.2 3.9 -5.8 -1.6
Bihar -4.0 -2.6 -1.0 -0.9 -0.5 -2.1 3.1 2.1 -1.1
Tamil Nadu 6.8 -5.0 -0.4 8.3 -3.5 -0.2 1.5 1.5 0.2
Rajasthan -1.6 0.7 -0.1 2.3 4.9 3.4 3.9 4.2 3.5
Haryana 19.7 -11.0 3.7 19.2 -12.8 3.8 -0.5 -1.8 0.1
Punjab 0.1 -3.7 -6.0 -1.8 -5.3 -6.8 -1.9 -1.6 -0.8
West Bengal -17.3 -1.7 -9.0 -18.1 -0.5 -10~6 -0.8 1.2 -1.6
India 2.3 -0.3 0.8 2.2 0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.6 -0.5
Source: Based on data from "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India~ 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India ,New Delhi, 2004 ·
72
Moong
Moong is fairly important as a pulse crop in India as it contributes
13.30 per cent in area and 8.30 per cent in production of total pulses at the
country level. It is mainly cultivated as kharif season crop in Andhra
Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa,
Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. But, in states of
Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh, it is also
grown in- rabi season as a second crop after p(,lddy. In 1997-98, moong
occupied 2372 thousand hectares in kharif season producing nearly 617
thousand tonnes of beans whereas during the rabi season only 617.
thousand hectares were under this crop giving 245 thousand tonnes of
production. It is also grown as a summer crop in states of Punjab and
Haryana. Summer crop is generally sown in March and is harvested in
June before the monsoon sets in, thus making the land available for the
next paddy crop. The information on state-wise area, production and yield
of moong in triennium ending 2001-02 is presented in Table 3.5.
The all India area under moong was 3015 thousand hectares in TE 2001-
02. Maharashtra (23.34 per cent), Rajasthan (17.41 per cent), Andhra Pradesh
(16.09 per cent) and Karnataka (12.18 per cent) together cropped around 70 per
cent of all l~dia area. Besides, it is grown in Bihar, Orissa, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu
and Uttar Pradesh as well. The states of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh
contributed m·ore than 40 per cent of total production of the country. Surprisingly,
Rajasthan and Karnataka had higher shares in area but due ·to dismal
performance in the yield, their proportion in production declined. Specifically,
share of Rajasthan declined by almost 7 per cent. The yield of moong was
observed to be as low as 357 kgs./ha. in TE 2001-02. It could be partly due to
drought conditions in 2001-02 and partly due to low yield in normal years too. It
is not possible to analyse irrigation status due to non-availability of data on this
aspect.
73
Table: 3.5
Area, Production and Yield of Moong in Important States in India (TE 2001-02}
Area in '000 ha. Production in 'OOO.tonnes
Y" ld. K /h 1e 1n .gs. a. State Area Production Yield
2001-02 %Share 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 Rank
Maharashtra 703.7 23.34 285.0 26.46 405 5
Andhra 485.0 16.09 183.0 16.99 377 6 Pradesh Karnataka 367.3 12.18 126.0 11.70 343 7
Rajasthan 525.0 17.41 109.0 10.12 208 11
Bihar 187.0 6.20 107.7 10.00 576 1
Tamil Nadu 141.3 4.69 63.7 5.91 450 4
Gujarat 142.0 4.71 48.0 4.46 338 8
Uttar Pradesh 100.0 3.32 47.7 4.43 477 3
.Orissa 184.0 6.10 40.0 3.71 217 10
Madhya 107.7 3.57 32.0 2.97 297 .9 Pradesh Punjab 30.7 1.02 17.3 1.61 565 2
India* 3015.0 100.00 1077.0 100.00 357 -* Includes m1nor producmg states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture ,Government of India ,New Delhi, 2004
74
Table: 3.6
Growth Performance of Moong Important States of India (1981-2002)
(Per cent per annum) State Area Production Yield
1981-91 1991-02 1981-02 1981-91 1991-02 1981-02 1981-91 1991-02
Maharashtra 4.8 -1.0 1.9 11.6 -0.6 4.3 6.8 0.4
Andhra Pradesh -2.0 -0.6 -0.9 -4.5 -0.4 -0.8 -2.5 0.2
Karnataka 5.9 3.0 3.4 8.6 -1.1 2.6 2.7 -4.1
Rajasthan 2.5 4.6 5.9 4.1 1.6 8.4 1.6 -3.0
Bihar 3.9 -1.2 0.4 7.3 -1.0 2.2 3.4 0.2
Tamil Nadu 5.9 0.1 0.9 10.1 1.3 4.1 4.2 1.2
Gujarat -2.1 -0.2 2.5 -14.2 0.3 2.2 -12.1 0.5
Uttar Pradesh -2.2 0.2 -2.2 -2.0 -0.3 -0.6 0.2 -0.5
Orissa 0.0 -9.2 -6.9 -1.4 -16.6 -12.9 -1.4 -7.4
Madhya Pradesh -4.1 -3.5 -4.3 -3.2 -3.4 -3.3 0.9 0.1
Punjab 10.3 -5.3 1.6 9.6 -9.6 0.1 -0.7 -4.3
India 2.1 -0.7 0.2 2.8 -2.3 -0.2 0.7 -1.6
Source: Based on data from ·~rea and Production of Principal Crops in India", 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India ,New Delhi, 2004
75
1981-02
2.4
0.1
-0.8
2.5
1.8
3.2
-0.3
1.6
-6.0
1.0
-1.5
-0.4
The growth rates in area, production and yield of moong for India and
important growing states between 1980-81and 2001-02 are shown in Table 3.6.
The all India area· grew at the low rate of 0.2 per cent per annu':l during this
period. The first period indicated a positive growth of 2.1 per cent while it was
observed to be negative in the second period. At the state level, Rajasthan, (5.9
per cent) followed by Karnataka (3.4 per cent) and Gujarat (2.5 per cent) were
the major gainers while Orissa (6.9 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (4.3 per cent)
al'id Uttar Pradesh (2.2 per cent) were the major loosers in moong area during
the study period. Surprisingly, production of moong in India has declined at the
rate of 0.2 per cent per annum during the study period. Particularly, production
performance was found poor in the second period with a negative growth rate of
2.3 per cent per annum. The performance of Rajasthan (8.4 per cent) followed
by Maharashtra (4.3 per cent) and Tamil Nadu (4.1 per cent) was commendable.
But, these gains could not compensate for the losses in major states.
Like arhar, productivity has been the greatest casualty in the case of
moong, which declined at the rate of 0.4 per cent per annum during the
reference period. Although, it grew at the rate of 0.7 per cent in the
eighties, the dismal performance of nineties with a negative growth rate of
1.6 per cent became responsible for overall decline in the growth of
production. To conclude, growth performance of moong during the past.
two decades had been extremely poor because neither area nor yield
favoured this crop.
Urad, like moong is primarily a warm season crop. It is also grown
both in. kharif and rabi seasons. It is a kharif season crop in Andhra
Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. But,
some of these states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and
West Bengal along with Assam grow it in the rabi season too. The crop is
mainly grown for its beans, which are used as a whole or split. The
geographical distribution of area and production along with yield in TE
2001-02 is presented in Table 3.7. It may be observed that urad was
grown on 3069 thousand hectares in India. The leading states in area
allocation are Maharashtra (18.90 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (17.87 per
cent), Andhra Pradesh (17.78 per cent) and Uttar Pradesh (12.34 per
cent). Besides, it is also cultivated in Tamil . Nadu (9.32 per cent),
Karnataka (4.77 per cent) , Rajasthan (4.51 per cent), Gujarat (4.42 per
cent) and Orissa (4.02 per cent). Andhra Pradesh with. 25.96 per cent
share in all India production is the leading state. Maharashtra, Madhya
Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh together grew around 40 per cent. The yield
level of urad was found extremely low at all India level (446 kgs./ha.). The
highest yield of 687 kgs./ha. was reported in Bihar. It is depressing to note
that states of Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Rajasthan
have exhibited yield of urad between three to four qtls per hectare.
The estimates of growth rates of area, production and yield of urad
in all India and major growing states indicate (Table 3.8) that area under -
urad remained almost stagnant (0.2 per cent per annum) during the study
period. The period of eighties was favourable by indicating a growth rate of
2.4 per cent per annum but the negative growth (0.7 per cent) in the
nineties became responsible for overall stagnation in area. The major
states with positive growth in area were Karnataka (5.8 per cent), Andhra
Pradesh (4.8 per cent) and Uttar· Pradesh (3.7 percent). The looser states
constituted Orissa (-7.8 per cent), Bihar (-2.7 per cent) and West Bengal(-
2.3 per·cent). Despite stagnation in area, production of urad grew at the
rate of 1.3 per cent per annum during the reference period. The major
contributors were Karnataka (6.7 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (6.5 per cent),
Andhra Pradesh (4.8 per cent), Maharashtra (4.1 per cent) and Tamil
Nadu (3.9 per cent). It could happen due to good performance of area in
the first three cases and of yield in the remaining two cases. The growth of
yield in India was 3.4 per cent per annum in the eighti_es, but growth rate of
yield in the entire study period was merely 1.1 per cent per annum due to
negative growth of yield (0.4 per cent) in the nineties. Among the high
77
yield performers, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are most important. On the
contrary, yield of urad in Orissa declined at the rate of 3.4 per cent per
annum during the study period.
Massar
Massar is recognized as a valuable pulse crop. It is known to be the
most nutritive of the pulses due to high protein content. It is grown as a
winter crop and sowing time extends from October to December. Since, it
is a short duration crop, it becomes ready for harvest in about three
months. The crop is harvested from February to April depending upon the
time of sowing.
The information on area, production and yield of massar presented
in Table 3.9 shows that massar grew on 1413 thousand hectares and
gave a production of 1134.7 thousand tonnes in India during TE-2001-02.
Uttar Pradesh with 42.37 per cent of all India area and 40.89 per cent of
production is the key state. Next in the array are Madhya Pradesh (33.64
per cent) and Bihar 12.55 per cent) which produced around 20.06 per cent
and 12.98 per cent of country's total massar. Rajasthan is a minor player
in massar cultivation but its yield was as high as 1309 kg/ha during the
triennium ending 2001-02. The productivity in Uttar Pradesh was less than
10 qtls per hectare. Amazingly, Madhya Pradesh, a second ranking state
in area and production has exhibited a low productivity of 479 kgs/ha. It
may be highlighted that yield of massar was observed to be the second
highest among the major pulse crops of India.
Massar has exhibited best growth performance among referred
pulses by indicating around two per cent growth in area and yield during
the study period. The acreage under massar grew at the rate of 1.8 per
cent per year during this period but production has increased at more than
double pace i.e. 4 per cent per annum. ·It could happen due to
commendable performance of yield (2.2 per cent per annum).
78
Table: 3.7
Area, Production and Yield of Urad in Important States in India (TE 2001·02)
Area in '000 ha. Production in '000 tonnes
1e 1n ~gs. Y ld. K /h a. State Area Production Yield
2001-02 %Share 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 Rank
Andhra 545.7 17.78 355.7 25.96 652 3 Pradesh Maharashtra 580.0 18.90 248.3 18.13 428 7
Madhya 548.3 17.87 165.0 12.04 301 12 Pradesh Uttar Pradesh 378.7 12.34 162.7 11.87 430 6
Tamil Nadu 286.0 9.32 128.3 9.37 449 5
· Karnataka 146.3 4.77 52.7 3.84 360 9
Bihar 71.3 2.32 49.0 3.58 687 2
West Bengal 72.3 2.36 45.7 3.33 631 4
Orissa 123.3 4.02 46.0 3.36 373 8
Rajasthan 138.3 4.51 44.3 3.24 320 10
Gujarat 135.7 4.42 42.3 3.09 312 11
India* 3069.0 100.00 1370.0 100.00 446 1
* Includes mmor producmg states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004
79
Table: 3.8
Growth Performance of Urad Important States of India (1981-2002)
(Per cent per annum) State Area Production Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981-91 02 02 91 02 02 91 02 02
Andhra 10.5 0.0 4.8 16.5 0.3 4.8 6.0 0.3 0.0 Pradesh Maharashtra -1.2 3.2 1.1 5.2 3.0 4.1 .6.4 -0.2 3.0
Madhya -1.8 -0.9 -2.2 -0.8 -0.1 -0.6 1.0 0.8 1.6 -Pradesh Uttar Pradesh 3.5 3.1 3.7 6.6 3.0 6.5 3.1 -0.1 2.8
Tamil Nadu 9.7 -1.1 0.9 14.8 -0.9 3.9 5.1 0.2 3.0
Karnataka 6.2 3.7 5.8 6.1 2.1 6.7 -0.1 -1.6 0.9
Bihar -2.5 -2.4 -2.7 0.7 0.4 . -0.6 3.2 2.8 2.1
West Bengal 0.4 -6.1 -2.3 2.5 -5.9 -1.1 2.1 0.2 1.2
Orissa - 2.9 -11.2 -7.8 2.3 -15.2 -11.2 -0.6 -4.0 -3.4
Rajasthan -0.7 -0.5 0.1 -3.6 0.0 0.6 -2.9 0.6. 0.5
Gujarat NA 0.7 NA NA 1.6 NA NA 0.9 NA
India 2.4 -0.7 0.2 5.8 -1.1 1.3 3.4 -0.4 1.1
Source: Based on data from "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India'; 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004 .
80
For expansion of area, nineties was a favourable period but for yield
growth eighties were far more important. Among major growing states,
Uttar Pradesh has indicated area growth of around 2.6 per cent per annum
during the study period. However, it was higher than 5 per cent during the
eighties. Yield also increased at the rate of 3.4 per cent per annum in this
period. As a result, production of massar in Uttar Pradesh increased at the
rate of 9 per cent per year in the eighties. The area expansion along with
yield was responsible for production growth in Madhya Pradesh,Uttar
Pradesh.and Rajasthan.
Thus, massar emerges as the most important pulse crop in terms of
growth during the study period.
Other Pulses
After reviewing the growth performance of major pulse crops, it
would be appropriate to give a brief account of other pulses, which cover a
small fraction of area and production of total pulses in India. The
commonly used pulses include pea,· moth, khesari, kulthi, lobia and
rajmash. It is pertinent to present changes in area, production and yield of
these crops during the study period.
(i) Pea
Peas are grown for use as a fresh or processed, sun dried, canned or
frozen food. This is an irrigated rabi pulse crop grown extensively in Uttar
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Assam and Orissa. However, Uttar
Pradesh accounted for 60 per cent of all India area and 77 per cent of
production. The area and production of peas have shown consistently
rising trend in both eighties and nineties. The area has gone up from 423.2
thousand hectares in 1980-81 to 794.5 thousand hectares in 1997-98.
Simultaneously, production has also risen from 291.2 thousand tonnes to
712.4 thousand tonnes during the same period. The yield has increased
considerably during this period from 688 kgs/ha. in 1980-81 to 897 kgs/ha
in 1997-98.
81
Table: 3.9
Area, Production and Yield of Massar in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
Area in '000 ha. Production in '000 tonnes
le 1n ,gs. Y' ld. K /h a. State Area Production Yield
2001-02 %Share 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 Rank Uttar Pradesh 598.7 42.37 464.0 40.89 775 5 Madhya Pradesh 475.3 33.64 227.7 20.06 479 9 Bihar 177.3 12.55 147.3 12.98 831 3 West Bengal 53.7 3.80 57.7 5.08 1057 2 Rajasthan 27.0 1.91 35.3 3.11 1309 1 Haryana 5.7 0.40 4.0 0.35 706 6 Maharashtra 7.7 0.54 4.0 0.35 522 8 Punjab 3.2 0.22 2.5 0.22 800 4 India* 1413.0 100.00 1134.7 100.00 803
* Includes mmor producing states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004
Table: 3.10
Growth Performance of Massar in Important States of India (1981-2002)
(Per cent per annum) State Area Production Yield
1981 1991 1981 1981 1991 1981 1981 -1991 1981 -91 -02 -02 -91 -02 -02 -91 -02 -02
Uttar Pradesh 5.6 1.3 2.6 9.0 1.3 4.1 3.4 0.0 1.5 Madhya Pradesh 1.4 3.5 3.3 4.0 3.3 4.3 2.6 -0.2 1.0 Bihar 0.7 -0.1 0.2 2.9 0.0 1.4 2.2 0.1 1.2 West Bengal -0.3 -2.7 -3.4 7.0 2.4 0.5 7.3 5.1 3.9 Rajasthan -5.0 9.5 2.9 -2.0 13.0 5.5 3.0 3.5 2.6 Haryana -3.9 -9.9 -6.9 -0.2 -8.2 -4.4 3.7 1.7 2.5 Maharashtra -4.9 -0.7 -3.2 0.7 4.7 0.6 5.6 5.4 3.8 Punjab ..:5.9 -8.9 -7.7 -0.1 -7.4 -5.4 5.8 1.5 2.3 India 1.7 2.1 1.8 5.8 3.8 4.0 4.1 1.7 2.2
Source: Based on data from "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India'; 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002), Ministry ofAgriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004
82
(ii) Moth
Moth is a highly drought resistant kharif pulse crop. It is sown in
June-July at the onset of monsoon and harvested in October.-November.
Rajasthan and Maharashtra are its major producers. Rajasthan accounted
for about 80.00 per cent of the all India area and 89.79 per cent of
production during 1997-98. The area under moth in India fell from 1520.3
thousand hectares in 1980-81 to 1225.6 thousand hectares in 1997-98.
However, production rose from 208.3 thousand tonnes to 333.4 thousand
tonnes in this period due to significant rise in yield from 137 kgs./ha to 272
kgs./ha.
(iii) Khesari
Khesari known an lathyrus is mainly cultivated for fodder. But, poor
people eat this pulse due to higher prices of other pulses. It is mainly
grown as rabi crop in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Maharasthtra and West
Bengal. The area under khesari fell from 1352.6 thousand hectares in
1981-81 to 840.1 thousand hectares in 1997-98.
The production also followed the declining trend and it fell from
565.5 thousand tonnes to 226.9 thousand tonnes during the same period.
Surprisingly, its yield has dropped from 418 kgs./ha. to 270 kgs./ha during
this period.
(iv) Kulthi
Kulthi is grown as kharif pulse crop in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Orissa. It is also grown to a small
extent in rabi season in states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and
Tamil Nadu The area of kulthi fell from 2121 thousand hectares to 1024
thousand hectares between 1980-81 and 1997-98. The production also
declined from 616 thousand tonnes to 398 thousand tonnes during the
same period. However, yield has shown appreciable increase from 291
kgs./ha. to 389 kgs./ha. during the sameperiod.
83
Among minor pulses, lobia and rajmash are important and are in
common use in India. Lobia is used as a fodder, a vegetable, a pulse and
a green manure crop. Rajmash is popular pulse in Jammu and Kashmir.
However, these are not sufficiently important pulses in terms of acreage
and production. Therefore, their area and production is not recorded in the
crop census of the country.
Kharif and Rabi Pulse Crops
In the earlier analysis, attention was drawn to the fact that pulse
crops are grown in both kharif and rabi seasons. The major rabi pulses are
gram and massar while kharif includes a large variety ranging from arhar
to moong, urad and kulthi. The production of rabi season pulses formed
about 64 per cent of total production of all pulses with about 50 per cent of
total cropped area during the triennium ending 1969-70. Gradually, kharif
pulses outpaced the rabi pulses in terms of growth in both prpduction and
cropped area. As a result, share of kharif pulses in total production of
pulses has increased from 30 per cent in the late sixties to around 40 per
cent in the late eighties. The proportion of area under these also increased
from 41 per cent to 48 per cent during the same period. Now, kharif and
rabi pulses have almost same share in area but in production rabi pulses
are far ahead due to higher productivity. Table 3.11 and 3.12 show that
kharif pulses have their base in states with poor irrigation availability.
Maharashtra (25.00 per cent), Rajasthan (17 .51 per cent), Karnataka
(12.66 per cent) and Madhya Pradesh (1 0.58 per cent) together formed 67
per cent of total kharif pulse area during 2001-02. These states accounted
for bulk of the production. Rajasthan exihibited precarious situation by
indicating only 7.51 per cent share in country's production against 17.51
per cent share in area. This is due to poor yield rate.
Barring Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, yield was found extremely low i.e.
around 6 qtls/ha. The high yield rates in Uttar Pradesh and some other
84
states indicate the potential, which is not realized in major kharif pulses
growing states.
Like kharif pulses, rabi pulses are also primarily grown in rain fed
areas of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. These two states accounted
for around 53 per cent of all India area and a little higher proportion in
production during 2001-02. Uttar Pradesh is. far ahead in yield rates. The
productivity of rabi pulses in this state was 896 kgs/qtl against 789 kgs/ha.
in Madhya Pradesh.
The production of kharif pulses grew at the rate of 0.6 per cent per
annum in the study period. The first period was better in area expansion
as it grew at the rate of 0.9 per cent per year. It reversed in the second
period by showing a decline of the same percentage points. The yield
followed the area trend by indicating a rise of 2.1 per cent per annum in
the first period and nil in the second period. The period of nineties was a
goomy period because neither area nor yield of kharif pulses recorded any
positive change. The production performance of Rajasthan, Maharashtra,
Andhra . Pradesh and Gujarat appeared to be better than other growing
states. It was primarily due to higher growth in productivity. A comparison
of production performance of rabi pulses with kharif pulses indicates that
former registered one and half times growth in production despite
declining area in the eighties and nineties. It was on account of yield
growth, which registered an almost uniform increase of 1.6 per cent per
annum. In major producing states of Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra
Pradesh area as well as yield growth was responsible for good
performance of production but in Madhya Pradesh, major contributor was
productivity.
85
Table: 3.11
Area, Production and Yield of Kharif Pulses in Important States in India (TE 2001-02)
Area in '000 ha. Production in '000 tonnes
Yield in Kgs./ha. Area Production Yield
State 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 Rank Maharashtra 2599.7 25.00 1383.7 29.37 532 6 Uttar Pradesh 751.3 7.23 641.3 13.61 854 2 Karnataka 1316.7 12.66 526.0 11.17 399 12 Madhya Pradesh 1100.3 10.58 490.0 10.40 445 10 Andhra radesh 932.3 8.97 381.0 8.09 409 11 Rajasthan 1821.0 17.51 354.0 7.51 194 14 Gujarat 635.7 6.11 298.7 6.34 470 8 Bihar 217.0 2.09 190.3 4.04 877 1 Orissa 494.7 4.76 170.7 3.62 345 13 Tamil Nadu 293.3 2.82 133.0 2.82 453 9 West Bengal 62.3 0.60 37.0 0.79 594 5 Haryana 28.3 0.27 14.7 0.31 518 7 Punjab 43.7 0.42 27.3 0.58 626 3 India* 10398.0 100.00 4711.0 100.00 453
* Includes mmor producmg states Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004
Table: 3.12
Growth Performance of Kharif Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002)
(Per cent per annum) Area Production Yield
1981 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981--91 02 02 91 02 02 91 02 02
Maharashtra 2.1 0.1 1.1 5.6 2.7 3.0 3.5 2.6 1.9 Uttar Pradesh -0.4 0.0 0.1 -1.1 -0.5 -1.2 -0.7 -0.5 -1.3 Karnataka 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.6 -0.2 -0.1 0.5 M.P. -1.7 -1.6 -2.1 1.1 -2.5 -1.7 2.8 -0.9 0.4 A.P. -0.3 1.0 -0.2 -0.3 2.8 1.6 0.0 1.8 1.8 Rajasthan -1.0 -0.4 0.6 2.3 -2.3 3.1 3.3 -1.9 2.5 Gujarat 3.3 -1.8 1.4 4.5 -4.0 2.0 1.2 -2.2 0.6 Bihar -2.8 -1.5 -2.2 -0.8 1.4 -0.7 2.0 2.9 1.5 Orissa 6.8 -3.2 1.0 7.9 -8.7 -1.9 1.1 -5.5 -2.9 Tamil Nadu 5.4 -9.7 -4.8 9.9 -9.1 ~3.3 4.5 0.6 1.5 West Bengal 2.2 -3.2 0.6 -0.5 -2.9 -0.8 -2.7 0.3 -1.4 Haryana 9.9 -6.6 1.2 12.0 -11.6 0.1 2.1 -5.0 -1.1 Punjab 2.6 -5.0 -2.1 2.4 -7.7 -2.9 -0.2 -2.7 -0.8 India 0.9 -0.9 -0.1 3.0 -0.9 0.6 2.1 0.0 0.7
Source: Based on data from "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India", 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1999-2002), Ministry ofAgriculture, Government of India ,New Delhi, 2004
86
Table: 3.13
Area, Production and Yield of Rabi Pulses in Important States of India (TE 2001-02)
Area in '000 ha. Production in '000 tonnes
le 1n ,gs. Y" ld. K /h a. Area Production Yield
State 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 M.P. 3503.7 34.08 2765.7 33.67 789 Uttar Pradesh 1946.7 18.94 1743.7 21.23 896 Rajasthan 914.3 8.89 662.0 8.06 724 A. P. 855.0 8.32 599.3 7.30 701 Maharashtra 914.3 8.89 518.3 6.31 567 Bihar 623.0 6.06 517.3 6.30 830 Karnataka 640.0 6.23 324.7 3.95 507 West Bengal 204.0 1.98 165.3 2.01 810 Haryana 132.3 1.29 94.3 1.15 713 Orissa 177.7 1.73 80.7 0.98 454 Gujarat 52.7 0.51 28.0 0.34 532 Punjab 16.3 0.16 15.0 0.18 918 India* 10279.3 100.00 8213.0 100.00 799
* Includes minor producing states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004
Table: 3.14
Growth Performance of Rabi Puls.es in Important States of India (1981-2002)
Rank 5 2 6 8 9 3
11 4 7 12 10 1
(Per cent per annum) Area Production Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981-91 02 02 91 02 02 91 02 02
M.P. 0.7 0.0 0.8 2.9 1.6 3.2 2.2 1.6 2.4 Uttar Pradesh 0.5 -1.3 -0.7 1.4 -1.4 -0.1 0.9 -0.1 0.6 Rajasthan -3.2 -2.4 -1.0 -3.7 -0.8 -0.5 -0.5 1.6 0.5 A. P. 3.7 0.9 2.9 9.7 2.9 4.3 6.0 2.0 1.4 Maharashtra 1.4 3.2 2.0 7.1 4.2 5.0 5.7 1.0 3.0 Bihar -0.7 -3.2 -2.4 0.9 -2.5 -1.1 1.6 0.7 1.3 Karnataka 3.0 4.2 3.3 0.7 9.1 5.3 -2.3 4.9 2.0 West Bengal -5.5 -0.7 -4.5 -1.7 1.0 -2.1 3.8 1.7 2.4 Haryana -4.7 -11.3 -7.1 0.2 -11.6 -4.3 4.9 -0.3 2.8 Orissa 0.4 -14.8 -11.8 -0.4 -15.6 -13.5 -0.8 -0.8 -1.7 Gujarat -1.9 -9.7 -2.3 -4.5 -9.4 -2.9 -2.6 0.3 -0.6 Punjab -12.1 -10.7 -12.6 -7.5 -8.8 -10.0 4.6 1.9 2.6 India -0.3 -1.3 -0.7 1.2 0.4 0.9 1.5 1.7 1.6
Source: Based on data from "Area and Production of Principal Crops in India", 1981-98 and data complied from Directorate of Economics, and Statistics (1999-2002), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004 .
87
,
Total Pulses
Table 3.15 provides state-wise information on area, production and
yield of pulse crops taken as a whole. Pulses were grown on around 21
million hectares of area and produced nearly 13 million tonnes of grain in
TE 2001-02. It is clear that while pulses are widely grown in the country,
some states are far more important than others as producers of these
protein rich foods. Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Rajasthan are the most important pulse producing states in that order and
accounted together for nearly 66 per cent of their total production in the
country. Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka come next, contributing over 14
per cent of the total production. The yield levels across the states show
that yield of pulses in India is much below the potential yield of 10-15
qtls/ha. This is true of areas, which are rainfed as well as irrigated. The all
India yield of pulses in TE 2001-02 was 597 kgs/ha. however, it was above
average in Uttar Pradesh (883 kgs/ha.),Bihar (845 kgs/ha) and West
Bengal (759 kgs/ha.) and Madhya Pradesh (737 kgs/ha. ). Pulses can be
further popularized in these areas in lean seasons so that these crops
could become part of a crop rotation without disturbing existing major.
crops. It is feasible because pulses are known for low water requirement
and adaptability· over a wide range of agro-climatic conditions. It would
enhance income of the farmers by utilizing the available land in the lean
periods and increase sustainability in agriculture. It would make a
significant contribution to total production of pulses and also help to evolve
a sustainable cropping pattern particularly in northern states with paddy,
wheat rotation.
Over the study period, from 1980-81 to 2001-02, production of
pulses in India has registered a slow growth rate of 0.7 per cent per
annum. The states of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh have shown more
than 3 per cent per year growth in pulse production. In addition,
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Madhya .Pradesh recorded around 2 per cent
growth in the same period.
88
Table: 3.15
Area, Production and Yield of Total Pulses in Important States of India {TE 2001-02)
Area in '000 ha. Production in '000 tonnes
Yield in Kgs /ha Area Production Yield
State 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 %Share 2001-02 Madh)l_a Pradesh 4106.7 19.52. 3025.3 24.08 737 Uttar Pradesh 2712.0 12.89 2395.3 19.7 883 Maharashtra 3514.0 16.70 1908.0 15.19 543 Rajasthan 2735.0 13.00 1016.3 8.09 372 Andhra Pradesh 1819.0 8.65 996.3 7.93 548 Karnataka 1953.7 9.29 853.7 6.80 437 Bihar 762.3 3.62 644.3 5.13 845 Gujarat 688.3 3.27 325.3 2.59 473 Tamil Nadu 742.3 3.53 324.7 2.58 437 Orissa 672.3 3.20 251.3 2.00 374 West Bengal 266.0 ' 1.26 202.0 1.61 759 Haryana 160.7 0.76 108.3 0.86 674 Punjab 60.0 0.29 41.7 0.33 694 India* 21040.0 100.00 12561.7 100.00 597 * Includes m1nor produc1ng states
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2004
Table: 3.16
Growth Performance of Total Pulses in Important States of India (1981-2002)
Rank 4 1 9 14 8 11 2 10 12 13 3 6 5
(Per cent per annum State Area Production Yield
1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991- 1981- 1981- 1991-. 1981-91 02 02 91 02 02 91 02 02
M.P -0.1 -1.7 -0.4 2.4 0.0· 1.8 2.5 1.7 2.2 Uttar Pradesh 0.3 -0.9 -0.4 0.7 . -1.1 -0.3 0.4 -0.2 0.1 Maharashtra 2.1 0.8 1.4 6.2 3.0 3.6 4.1 2.2 2.2 Rajasthan -2.1 -0.9 0.0 -1.8 -0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 A.P. 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.1 3.1 3.2 3.9 1.9 2.0 Karnataka 1.4 1.9 1.1 0.5 3.5 2.1 -0.9 1.6 1.0 Bihar -1.1 -3.8 -2.7 0.6 -2.6 -1.3 1.7 1.2 1.4 Gujarat 2.5 -2.6 0.9 2.7 -4.7 1.2 0.2 -2.1 0.3 Tamil Nadu 5.3 -1.3 0.2 10.0 -0.9 1.8 4.7 0.4 1.6 Orissa 1.4 -7.9 -5.7 2.2 -12.3 -8.1 0.8 -4.4 -2.4 West Bef!g_al -3.9 -1.3 -3.5 -1.4 0.2 -1.9 2.5 1.5 1.6 Haryana -3.8 -10.6 -6.5 1.3 -11.8 -4.1 5.1 -1.2 2.4 Punjab -7.7 -6.9 -7.5 -4.7 -8.3 -6.8 3.0 -1.4 0.7 India 0.2 -0.9 -0.3 1.9 -0.3 0.7 1.7 0.6 1.0
Source: Based on Complied data from Area and Production of Principal Crops,(1981 to 1998) and data compiled from Directorate of Economics and Statistics ,(1999to 2002), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2 004.
89
On the other hand, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana, West Bengal and Bihar
have exhibited negative growth in pulse production. If we consider two
sub-periods, our conclusions change. The period of eighties with 1.9 per
cent growth in pulse production in India appeared to be much better than
the nineties with negative growth of -0.3 per cent per annum. The state-
. wise changes in production of pulses in the sub-periods show that rates of
growth of total pulse production in eighties were more than one per cent in
seven states out of eleven major states. But, in nineties, this number has
been reduced to three only.
The differential growth rates in the pulse production have brought
some important changes in the locational pattern of pulse production in the
country. The higher growth of production in states of Maharashtra, Andhra -
Pradesh, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh in nineties implies that growth
centres of pulse production shifted to southern states. In most of these
states, acceleration in production was primarily due to yield improvement
Specially, states like Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka
exhibited a yield growth of two per cent per annum in the study period.
The area expansion in these states was also around one per cent per
year. Thus, whatever little growth has been achieved in pulse production
came mainly from yield growth. Contribution of yield growth to production
growth was higher in the eighties. However, yield growth itself was low.
The yield growth of total pulses between 1980-81 and 2001-02 was merely
one per cent per annum.Agricultural scientists believe that yield of pulses
can be easily raised to above 10 qtls/ha. in rain fed areas. Therefore,
efforts should be made to raise yield levels by popularizing available
improved technology for pulse cultivation through implementation of
pragmatic policies.
Farm-size Variation
The state level variations in the area, production and yield of pulses
are determined by variations at the farm size level that are influenced by
90
agronomic factors and other farm characteristics. In view of the given
predominance of small and marginal farmers in number and of large
farmers in area, the concerns regarding farm size in increasing production
of pulse crops appear to be relevant. The past studies conducted on
pulses in India offered many reasons for the stagnant production. The
main arguments advanced range from allocation of rain fed poor quality
land to non-adoption of improved. seeds and low consumption of yield
raising inputs such as fertilizer and irrigation. Since most of these studies
are based on secondary data, these reasons are given on the basis of
macro indicators like low irrigation status of pulses in India. These
inferences are useful to understand the trends in area and production.
Supplementing the field experiences across farm sizes can further enrich
these findings. Unfortunately, farm size evidences on indicators like
percentage of land allocated to pulses, their irrigation status and yield
realized are scarce. The data published in Agricultural Censuses, Input
Surveys and Package of Practices provide knowledge about the first two
aspects but are silent about the· productivity, which is most crucial in
enhancing production of pulses. However, the status of pulses in farming
across the farm sizes overtime can be well understood by analyzing the
results of the above sources. Therefore, it is imperative to assess the
status of pulses on different categories of farms by operational holdings in.
1980-81 and 1991-92 and ownership holdings in 1998. In addition, farm
size evidence is cited from two Indian state.s - Haryana which has made
significant progress in agriculture due to success of the Green Revolution
and Madhya Pradesh which is the largest producer of pulses but lagging
behind in agricultural productivity at the macro level.
The main findings of secondary data on allocation of land to pulse
crops by farm size during 1980-81, 1991-92 and 1998 are summarized in
Table 3.17. It may be noticed that the percentage of GCA devoted to pulse
crops was significant by all farm sizes but it was comparatively higher in
un-irrigated areas. It ranged between 2.86 per cent to 18.51 per cent in
91
1980-81. The proportions of gram, arhar and other pulses in GCA were
3.7 per cent, 1.5 per cent and 6.8 per cent respectively in the early
eighties.
It may be observed that proportion of land devoted for pulse
cultivation was significant by all groups. However, it was 15.1 per cent in
large size farms against 9.5 per cent in marginal farms. The results of
Input Survey data of 1991-92 on gram and arhar cultivation corroborate
the same findings. All farmers allotted around 2.30 per cent of GCA to
gram and 1.86 per cent to arhar. The large farmers raised these crops on
3.83 per cent and 1.74 per cent of GCA while marginal farmers devoted
1.50 per cent and 1.25 per cent to these crops. It is interesting to note that
higher size classes of farmers devoted higher share of GCA to pulses in
1980-81 as well as in 1991-92. There is a strong evidence of clear
association between farm size and share of GCA devoted to pulse crops.
In the year 1998, the aforesaid phenomenon was not found true.
Farmers especially those with a fair amount of land have shown a
declining preference to raise pulses due to emerging options in the form of
alternate crops with higher yields and low risk. The percentage of GCA
under pulses on large size farms declined in comparison to eighties and
nineties. On the other hand, percentage of GCA to pulses under small and
marginal farms improved significantly, although it appeared to be on
higher side in case of marginal farmers. The last columns of Table 3.17
make this fact amply clear. The small and marginal farmers are mostly
subsistence type and that is why, they could riot afford to undertake the
calculated risk by raising pulses on their tiny holdings. In addition, these
holdings are better endowed with irrigation facilities and hence, it is
possible to grow superior cereals. But, with the availability of improved
seeds and remunerative prices, small and marginal farmers have started
devoting larger proportion of ·GcA to pulses. The differences in irrigated
vis-a-vis un-irrigated areas were clearly visible as each category of
92
farmers in. un-irrigated areas allocated higher proportion of land to pulses.
It was as high as 18.51 per cent of GCA on large farms in 1980-81.
The preceding analysis on allocation of land to pulse crops by farm
size presented an overall picture at the country level. But, these results
may not corroborate for the core pulse producing states like Madhya
Pradesh4 where farmers attach higher weightage to pulse cultivation in the
absence of other lucrative alternatives for the rainfed un-irrigated land.
Similarly, the results may also devia.te in agriculturally advanced states like
Haryana5 where pulses are largely grown in lesser-'irrigated districts like
Bhiwani.
Table 3 .. 18 highlights that paddy and pulses are the two major crops
of Durg district in Madhya Pradesh. Farmers devoted around 40 per cent
of gross cropped area to pulses. This proportion was found as high as 46
and 45 per cent in case of marginal and small farmers. Among pulses,
teora and gram are largely cultivated. But, teora was replaced by urad in
Jhabua and Narsinghpur districts. Besides, maize, wheat and soyabean
are also grown. There is not a single category of farmers, which devoted
less than 30 per cent of cropped area to pulses. The high status of pulses
in the farming is primarily due to low availability of water in the region.
When the proportion of cropped area devoted by the pulse growers
in Madhya Pradesh is compared with Haryana, it was found much lower in
the agriculturally advanced district of Ambala (Table 3.19). It was around 9
per-cent of gross cropped area. Interestingly, the share of area allocated
to pulses by small and marginal farmers was found higher than that of
medium and large farmers. Gram and massar are the major pulse crops of
the area. A little of urad is also cultivated.
4 Gupta S. K. ( 1999), "Economics of Pulses Production and Identification of constraints in Raising Production in Madhya Pradesha", Agricultural Economics Research Centre Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, 1999.
5 Tutcja Usha, "Economics of Pulses Production and Identification of Constraints in Raising Production in Haryana", Agricultural Economics Research Centre, University of Delhi, 1999
93
Table: 3.17
Percentage of GCA under Pulse Crops by Farm Size in India - (1980-81,1991-92 & 1998)
Farm- 1980-81* 1991-92** Size
Gram Arhar Other Total Gram Pulses
Irrigated
Marginal 1.21 0.07 1.58 2.86 0.89
Small 1.72 . 0.10 1.41 3.23 1.04
Semi- 2.39 0.12 1.39 3.90 1.73 "Medium Medium 3.75 0.16 1.31 5.22 2.21
Large 5.44 0.11 1.00 6.55 3.13
All 2.85 0.12 1.35 4.32 1.68
Un-irrigated
Marginal 3.13 1.62 8.60 13.35 1.98
Small 3.14 1.83 8.37 13.34 2.34
Semi- 3.74 2.17 8.63 14.54 2.22 Medium Medium 4.35 2.39 11.77 18.51 2.88
Large 5.07 2.08 10.06 17.21 4.12
All 4.03 2.08 8.95 15.66 2.66
lrrigated+U n-irrigated
Marginal 2.41 1.05 6.00 9.46 1.50
Small 2.68 1.27 6.10 10.05 1.82
Semi- 3.24 1.50 6.25 10.99 . 2.03 Medium Medium 4.19 1.79 6.95 12.93 2.64
Large 5.14 1.70 8.29 15.13 3.83
All 3.69 1.53 6.80 12.02 2.30
Source: *Agricultural Census, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, 1980-81 **Input Survey, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, 1991-92,
***Package of Practices, National Sample Survey Organization, 1998
94
Arhar
0.26
0.39
0.41
0.46
0.28
0.38
2.03
2.95
2.83
3.11
2.36
2.73
1.25
1.94
1.80
2.18
1.74
1.86
1998***
Total Pulses
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.00
7.14
7.99
9.53
9.81
12.50
Table: 3.18
Percentage of GCA under Wheat, Rice and Pulses in Three Districts of Madhya Pradesh (1996-97)
Farm Size Crop Marginal Small Semi- Medium Large All
Medium Durg District
Paddy 47.98 50.13 37.63 51.44 38.56 45.80 Wheat - 1.19 2.36 1.05 9.65 2.80 Soybean - - 5.70 4.27 8.43 4.37 Vegetable 1.15 1.81 0.47 2.14 - 1.30 Gram 4.62 2.38 22.50 16.37 10.85 13.82 Teora 40.48 42.06 19.91 18.08 26.50 25.10 Lentil - 0.62 - 0.53 2.41 0.73 Urad - - - 1.07 2.42 0.83 Urad Teora - 1.81 - 2.65 - 1.34 Kodo+Arhar - - - - 1.19 0.46 Soybean+Arhar - - 5.75 - - 1.26
Jhabua District Paddy 4.74 7.29 3.51 3.42 - 5.34 Wheat - 17.95 15.90 13:75 - 15.94 Maize 20.87 12.64 16.50 22.46 - 15.47 Jowar - 1.08 5.31 10.33 - 3.58
·Soybean 3.80 9.38 1.76 8.62 - 6.12 Castor - 1.08 2.20 - - 1.36 Gram 7.59 10.60 10.57 - - 9.40 Urad 44.02 22.67 32.56 17.25 - 26.90 Arhar - 1.98 1.10 - - 1.35 Moong - - 0.88 - - 0.34 Jowar+Arhar 3.80 - - - - 0.17 Groundnut+Arhar - 0.92 - - - 0.42
Maize+Urad+Moon - 0.67 - - - 0.31 g_
Narsinghpur District Paddy - 1.44 - - - 0.16 Wheat 13.45 12.32 18.22 16.43 11.38 15.83 Soybean 39.84 33.38 43.77 39.55 45.46 41.20 Sunflower - - - 5.13 - 1.89 Sugarcane - - - 3.45 - 1.27 Batari - 10.62 1.34 2.17 20.44 5.30 Gram 28.88 28.39 23.10 17.07 - 18.37 Urad (kharif) 7.52 - - - - 0.20 Urad (summar) - 1.48 - 1.29 - 0.64 Arhar - - 2.01 0.65 - 0.95 Massar 10.31 12.37 8.64 12.10 17.05 11.55 Pea - - 0.44 1.55 - 0.72
Source: Based on Gupta, 1999
95
Table: 3.19
Percentage of GCA under Pu.lses in Two Important Districts of Haryana
Crop Farm Size Marginal Small Semi- Medium Large All
I
Medium Ambala District
Gram 6.25 7.65 3.66 4.06 3.23 3.92 Massar 6.25 3.83 3.66 2.39 0.90 4.11
Mash 0.00 10.46 4.35 1.97 2.32 1.10 Moong - - - - . - -Any Other - - - - - -Total 12.50 21.94 11.67 8.42 6.45 9.13 Pulses
Bhiwani District Gram 13.04 18.09 13.24 19.47 16.00 17.14
Moong 0.00 1.42 11.35 8.53 7.27 8.02
Massar 6.53 2.12 8.11 6.63 4.36 5.79
Arhar - 3.55 2.98 0.50 1.46 1.40 Moth - - - 1.30 - 0.55 Total 19.57 25.18 35.68 36.43 29-09 32-90 Pulses
Source: Based on Tuteja, 1999
96
These findings do not hold true for the dry district of Bhiwani. Here,
farmers devoted 32.9 per cent of gross cropped area to pulses. The
pattern of area allocation to pulses by different categories of farmers was
observed reverse from Ambala as large land owning categories of farmers
devoted higher share of gross cropped area to pulse crops. Among
pulses, gram is the preferred crop, but some farmers also cultivated
moong and massar.
Section II: Instability in Production
The preceding section highlights the fact that growth performance of
pulse crops had been poor during the past two decades. The slow pace of
growth is further compounded by high instability arising out of yield and
price variability. Wide fluctuations in crop output not only affect price and
bring sharp fluctuations in them but also result in wide variations in
disposable income of the farmers. Therefore, an analysis of instability is
important for understanding the nature and stability of income6. The
estimation of instability also helps the producer and policy makers in
choosing separate risk responses such as stabilization versus crop
insurance programmes. The accurate measurement of the sources of
variability can help in targeting policies to reduce or offset the effects of
instability. In the past, scholars7'8
'9
'10 have analysed instability in the
production of food grains. In these studies, pulse crops are treated as a
group and therefore, do not provide the estimates of instability in the area,
production and yield of individual pulse crops over time. A large proportion
of cropped area under pulses is rain fed which increases instability in the
6 Ray SK, "U11st'abte Agriculture and Droughts", Implication for Policy, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, 1989. ·
7' Hazell, P.B.R., "instability in indian Food Grains Production" Research Repoti 30, International Food
Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC. USA, 1982. 8
• Ray S.K. 1989 op. cit. 9
· Mahendradev S., "Growth and Instability in Foodgrains Production: An Inter state Analysis", Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXII (39), 1997
10 Jain I<.. I<.. & Singh A.J., "An Economic Analysis of Growth and Instability of Pulses Production in Punjab", Agricultural Situatio11 in india, April, 1991
97
yield due to uncertainly of rainfall. But, the degree of instability is expected
to varyfrom crop to crop and from region to region. In irrigated areas, yield
of pulses are less unstable while reverse may be true in dry areas. Given
this background, state wise instability in the area, production and yield of
five major pulse crops (gram, arhar, moong, urad, massar), rabi pulses,
kharif pulses and total pulses was estimated in three referred periods.
In constructing an instability index of a parameter, several methods
such as moving averages, coefficient of variation, standard deviation of
the annual growth rates are commonly used by scholars. A scrutiny of
results shows that different measures result in different numerical values
for the same data series. Coppock 11 measured international instability in
exports and imports through ·log variance method. We have used this
method to estimate instability in area, production and yield of the above
mentioned five individual pulse crops, kharif pulses, rabi pulses and total
pulses during th~ earlier referred three periods for the all India level and in \
major producing states. The magnitude of index exhibits the degree of
instability. The formula for calculating the Coppock instability index is as
follows.
• Coppock's Instability Index
Xt = m = Vlog = N =
" Xi+l 2
L..(log--m) Vlog = Xi
N
Instability!ndex = (anti log ~V log-1) )
Variable (area, production and yield of the crop) in year 't' Arithmetic mean of the difference between the logs of X1 and X1+1
Logarithmic variance of the series Number of Years minus one (1)
The instability index (1-1) of selected pulse crops based on log
variance in Table 3.20 shows that 1-1 of gram production in India was 25.08
per cent during the period 1981-2002. The uncertainty in acreage (17.14
11 Coppock .I.D, "International Economic Instability: The Experience after World War II", Me Graw Hill Book Company, New York, 1962.
98
per cent) was observed to be higher than yield (12.58 per cent). This is the
outcome of availability of relatively profitable crops like wheat in irrigated
areas and mustard in rainfed areas in the rabi season. In favourable
circumstances, farmers immediately switch over to these - crops.
Furthermore, yield 1-1 was also high despite some success of improved
technology in gram cultivation. Among the sub periods, period second has
indicated higher 1-1 for both area and production. But, the yield 1-1 dropped
marginally. This implies that Technology Mission on Oilseeds and Pulses
(TMOP) in the nineties did not contribute substantially in reducing
fluctuations in yield of gram in India. A look at the state-wise 1-1 indices of
area makes clear that acreage fluctuations were of very high degree in
Gujarat (83.37 per cent), Haryana (71.41 per cent), Rajasthan (50.41 per
cent), Tamil Nadu (46.12 per cent) and Punjab (35.62 per cent). But, the I
I of acreage in Uttar Pradesh (6.77 per cent), Madhya Pradesh (12.82 per
cent) and Bihar (15.26- per cent) was lower than all India. These figures
are indicative of relative stability of area under gram in these states. The
situation is further compounded by higher yield unce.rtainty in Haryana
(49.02 per cent), Andhra Pradesh (46.91 per cent), Karnataka (25.07),
Bihar (26.06), Punjab (30.42) and Rajasthan (20.95). Tamil Nadu
exhibited the lowest instability index for yield of gram (5.83 per cent) in the
study period.
The 1-1 of production in most of the states exceeded acreage and
yield. It implies that changes in area and yield did not offset each other,
rather they moved together. A comparison of uncertainty in production of
gram in eighties and nineties in different states indicated mixed results.
Among the leading states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and
Rajasthan, production instability during the reform period has increased in
the first and third while it has declined slightly in the second case.
99
Table: 3.20
Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India (1981-02)
State Gram Arhar Moong Urad Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
1980-81 to 1990-91 AP 18.64 30.15 30.14 7.59 41.20 42.44 6.13 35.55 35.70 9.60 20.56 19.67
Bihar . 9.67 12.13 12.76 13.59 26.27 29.54 5.17 14.16 15.59 7.44 17.51 11.13
Gujarat 45.35 65.50 23.71 7.66 38.73 36.47 110.86 258.22 106.04 - - -Haryana 80.66 161.43 71.12 74.72 146.45 .71.35 - - - - - -
Karnataka 17.78 34.20 16.90 4.55 23.09 23.12 17.27 44.27 30.50 6.60 35.34 31.77
MP 7.40 14.39 7.52 24.06 31.67 23.45 4.16 14.85 11.89 3.81 "17.55 17.23
Maharashtra 9.59 37.28 26.64 4.96 28.14 26.88 10.05 25.22 23.98 11.22 41.74 37.31
Orissa 15.57 11.78 10.85 8.17 17.83 16.67 10.73 11.44 6.76 6.45 16.97 16.38
Punjab 30.47 73.28 42.63 43.26 50.22 20.35 23.17 30.12 13.48 - - -
Rajasthan 46.40 62.46 20.67 59.01 197.97 92.16 27.00 148.35 120.49 16.18 89.08 89.01
Tamilnadu 50.80 50.28 4.37 25.47 39.15 23.15 24.76 49.29 25.04 27.53 34.78 19.92
UP 5.81 16.44 17.73 5.25 14.87 14.75 10.52 19.03 17.57 9.83 25.85 16.12
West Bengal 28.77 22.87 24.16 53.83 70.34 34.27 - - - 16.72 28.44 17.04
India 13.17 22.54 12.91 3.85 13.05 9.72 6.85 16.14 . 12.45 3.97 8.05 6.31
100
Table: 3.20 (contd.)
1990-91 to 2001-02 AP 37.97 84.94 59.66 12.82 64.35 52.59 6.42 33.88 31.15 11.01 28.15 23.09
Bihar 18.71 37.58 34.74 170.10 18.44 159.90 4.15 13.50 11.04 7.39 16.84 12.18
Gujarat 110.70 140.24 25.06 7.69 54.30 46.54 26.03 99.44 65.90 25.49 58.25 78.68
Haryana 61.36 - 87.95 22.58 61.52 89.23 18.72 - - - - - -
Karnataka 25.23 44.48 29.85 18.03 64.18 58.95 38.32 72.36 43.84 8.88 73.40 73.89
MP 16.27 26.31 13.39 10.39 28.80 24.01 5.53 21.23 15.51 5.51 15.88 13.76
Maharashtra 23.71 56.22 32.09 3.32 48.68 48.76 5.81 60.87 58.32 4.66 58.53 53.60
Orissa 23.91 35.54 13.05 22.47 40.67 57.59 50.21 90.00 31.69 62.28 112.75 33.67
Punjab 39.67 52.69 15.17 13.89 25.11 18.03 12.73 19.79 11.50 - - -Rajasthan 53.40 66.76 21.05 34.25 104.62 77.63 21.36 146.82 122.23 25.38 54.71 37.19
Tamilnadu 41.45 47.20 6.90 14.98 33.26 27.42 19.25 29.75 20.74 15.32 26.24 17.89
UP 6.86 15.28 19.28 6.05 8.16 9.00 17.10 35.23 21.72 9.86 21.28 20.12
West Bengal 29.15 42.43 22.75 58.20 65.64 27.73 - - - 14.83 38.15 24.75
India 20.03 27.18 12.25 4.97 22.27 20.53 6.99 17.39 16.73 5.97 11.20 10.35
101
Table: 3.20 (contd.)
State Gram Arhar Moong Urad Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
1980-81 to 2001-02 AP 30.00 61.74 46.91 10.69 53.97 48.05 6.31 34.77 33.41 11.06 25.73 21.69
Bihar 15.26 28.07 26.06 106.44 22.42 104.26 5.45 14.29 13.39 7.41 17.26 11.83 Gujarat 83.37 107.68 24.43 8.14 47.68 42.03 71.87 175.22 85.77 - - -Haryana 71.41 124.25 49.02 71.61 120.02 47.98 - - - - - -Karnataka 21.94 40.53 25.07 13.27 47.18 44.11 30.08 61.43 38.52. 7.88 56.86 55.89
MP 12.82 21.40 10.95 17.95 30.47 24.08 4.97 18.40 13.91 4.77 16.70 15.49 Maharashtra 18.25 48.39 30.01 4.75 39.72 39.51 8.29 46.59 44.31 8.83 50.94 46.60 Orissa 20.33 26.80 12.50 17.45 32.65 41.65 35.67 60.89 22.96 43.56 75.91 26.52 Punjab 35.62 63.01 30.42 30.39 38.31 19.22 21.54 29.00 12.71 - - -Rajasthan 50.41 64.81 20.95 47.00 150;07 84.87 24.16 147.64 121.48 21.40 71.86 64.11
Tamilnadu 46.12 48.80 5.83 21.52 36.82 25.45 22.40 40.18 22.88 22.54 31.64 19.00
UP 6.77 15.86 18.63 5.68 11.77 12.03 14.33 28.36 19.83 9.86 23.57 18.31 West Bengal 31.31 36.83 23.50 56.60 69.20 31.32 - - - 16.18 33.99 21.33
India 17.14 25.08 12.58 4.72 18.39 16.13 7.03 17.06 14.90 5.30 10.39 8.85
Source: Based on data from ':Area and Production of Principal Crops" (1982 to 1997) and data from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, (1998-2002), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.
102
The production instability of arhar was estimated much lower than
gram at the all India level during the study period. The most notable
feature· in this case was small·l-1 of area (4.72 per cent) although it
increased marginally during the second period. The contribution of yield
fluctuations in production instability was found higher in this case. It was
roughly more than double. The states with very high instability in
production of arhar were Rajasthan (150.07 per cent) and Haryana
(120.02 ,per cent) but state of Uttar Pra.desh has shown the lowest 1- index I
.(11.77 per cent). The yield uncertainty was extremely high in Bihar and 1-1
. index crossed 100 (104.26 per cent). It implies wide year-to-year
fluctuations in yield. The area I-I in Bihar was also the highest (1 06.44 per
cent). Like gram, production instability of arhar in nineties was higher than
eighties. The acreage and yield l-Is in the first period were 3.85 and 9.72
per cent respectively against 4.97 and 20.53 per cent in the recent period.
At state level, production instability was the highest in Rajasthan (197.97
and 104.62 per cent) during both the sub-periods. The case of Uttar
Pradesh emerged as an excellent example of production stability of arhar
in the second period due to small I-I of area (6.05 per cent) as well as yield
(9.00 per cent). In fact, area and yield together provided stable production ·
in this case.
Like arhar, the degree of production instability of moong was also
found significantly high. Once again, area was far more stable than yield at
the all India level. The direction of results was almost uniform in both the
periods. Among the major producing states, Gujarat (175.22 per cent)
followed by Rajasthan (147.64 per cent) has indicated the highest 1-1 of
production due to higher yield uncertainty. The lowest instability in
production was observed in Bihar (14.29 per cent) followed by Madhya
Pradesh (18.40 per cent) due to low instability in area as well as in yield.
In case of Gujarat, both area (71.87 per cent) and yield (85.77 per cent)
reinforced production instability. In the first period, Orissa has shown the
minimum instability in the production while Gujarat has exhibited the
103
maximum. The contribution of area instability in production was relatively
higher in Madhya Pradesh but in Gujarat acreage and yield both revealed
1-1 more than 1 00 per cent. After 1990-91, production of moong was found
more stable in Bihar, Punjab and Madhya Pradesh. On the other hand,
Rajasthan with an 1-1 of 146.82 indicated extreme instability in production
of moong largely due to yield uncertainty.
The production instability behaviour of urad diverged from the earlier
discussed three pulse crops. Here, area as well as yield both were found
relatively stable by indicating 1-1 equal to 5.30 and 8.85 per cent. The low
value of 1-1 for production is clearly the result of compensatory relations
between area and yield as higher area was partly offset by lower yields
· while lower yields were ·partly offset by higher area. A complete offsetting
would· put I-I for production at zero. Among the two referred periods,
period first was better when acreage instability is as low as 3.97 per cent
and yield instability around 6.31 per cent. In the second period, both
increased and resulted in higher instability in production. At the state level,
Orissa was most unstable in the entire period, Rajasthan in the first period
and again Orissa in the second period emerged as the states with higher
instability in the production of moong. Unexpectedly, the instability in the
production of urad was found lowest (16.70 per cent) in Madhya Pradesh
between 1980-81 and 2001-02. Nonetheless, this was also on the higher
side.
An examination of instability index of production of massar at all
India level indicates comparatively higher stability vis-a-vis gram, arhar
and moong. Nonetheless, it was slightly more than urad. The 1-1 of massar
production was 11.80 per cent in the eighties, 14.65 per cent in the
nineties and 13.41 per cent for the entire period. The yield volatility has
been the main source of uncertainty. It is evident from Table 3.21 that area
1-1 was around half of the yield 1-1. Among the .states, Madhya Pradesh
followed by Uttar Pradesh revealed lower production instability. The area
and yield both together were responsible for stable production. On the
104
other hand, Maharashtra (64.69 per cent) followed by Rajasthan (51.27
per cent) showed the maximum uncertainty due to area and yield
variability. In the early eighties, production instability of massar was low in
Madhya Pradesh with below 10 per cent ~-I for area as well as for yield.
However, state of Maharashtra has exhibited the highest instability that
was 38.31 per cent for area and 27.63 per cent for yield. After a decade,
Punjab outpaced Madhya Pradesh in stability of massar production but
Maharashtra maintained the lowest position in this period too.
Table 3.21 also reveals instability indices in the production of rabi,
kharif and total pulses. It is interesting to note that production of rabi and
kharif pulses was almost equally uncertain during the study span. But;
acreage of rabi pulses after the economic reforms in nineties was found
more unstable due to availability of better technology and extension
services for oilseeds cultivation under the TMOP. Surprisingly, it did not
reduce yield instability of pulses. Specially, it has increased in the case
kharif pulses. The differences in ·the instability in production of kharif
pulses in the two selected periods were marginal despite some
fluctuations in area as well as in yield.
The instability indices for the production of total pulses in India were
estimated 11.38 per cent in the first period, 13.73 per cent in the second \
period and 12.81 per cent in the entire study span. Out of the two (area
and yield), yield contributed relatively much more to instability and it has
increased during the reforms period. It may_ be mentioned that instability
around the trend in case of area was relatively low in comparison to yield.
Among the states, highest uncertainty was found in Haryana and the
lowest in Uttar Pradesh in the first as well as in the second period.
Particularly, area 1-1 in Uttar Pradesh was found extremely low (2.40 per
cent) during the reforms period but efforts should be made to reduce yield
instability, which was found more than 10 per cent. The findings for the
entire period were also similar.
105
Table: 3.21
Instability Indices of Major Pulses in Important States of India 1981-02
State Massar Rabi Pulses Kharif Pulses Total Pulses
Area Production Yield Area Producti [ Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield on
1980-81 to 1990-91
AP - 7.44 13.83 17.98 8.04 30.50 27.14 6.06 9.28 9.82
Bihar 9.85 12.82 8.86 5.56 7.92 5.70 5.41 12.45 8.98 4.09 7.08 5.12
Gujarat - - 83.39 106.17 18.67 19.87 56.87. 36.44 22.92 61.30 34.74
Haryana 27.14 50.85 30.60 76.29 149.63 66.14 23.07 31.43 18.22 68.36 120.90 56.49
Karnataka - - - 14.99 30.42 17.63 10.40 23.41 20.00 9.53 25.79 17.27
MP 4.69 7.41 7.56 7.34 12.46 5.69 2.18 25.30 24.49 5.08 11.91 8.43
Maharashtra 38.31 58.98 27.63 21.84 38.44 20.15 6.15 19.93 18.24 6.34 20.80 16.33
Orissa - - - 7.79 7.49 7.95 7.10 16.51 10.92 7.93 9.01 7.51
Punjab 36.89 43.93 16.57 28.17 58.21 34.55 16.28 25.14 17.78 19.61 31.31 17.08
Rajasthan 27.06 41.95 19.46 45.89 60.80 19.72 23.19 185.27 152.85 30.86 70.01 35.60
Tamilnadu - - - - - - 19.89 17.70 13.23 17.37 19.74 10.90
UP 12.89 14.02 18.17 5.67 12.95 12.44 3.99 15.68 15.74 4.93 9.86 11.08
West Bengal 12.45 18.20 21.76 12.07 15.47 13.49 57.27 58.48 16.00 11.69 16.70 10.90
India 8.27 11.80 13.21 7.73 14.48 9.66 5.96 15.28 11.01 5.85 11.38 7.02.
1990-91 to 2001-02
AP 12.39 13.54 6.41 10.17 27.40 22.33 9.58 45.11 38.36 4.75 25.64 23.13
Bihar 4.85 31.23 30.76 4.06 20.46 18.95 4.10 13.39 12.76 5.69 18.64 15.97
Gujarat - - - 92.81 124.95 28.31 7.57 46.56 40.19 11.19 51.45 38.15
Haryana 37.48 39.21 11.91. 51.99 76.93 22.17 42.97 73.19 23.46 48.64 71.13 20.08
Karnataka - - 21.33 25.97 19.64 14.82 36.84 26.62 8.54 22.99 19.79
MP 7.98 15.81 9.21 9.68 21.62 14.27 5.37 18.52 14.58 11.28. 22.15 1252
Maharashtra 48.88 69.71 21.07 24.11 50.26 27.87 5.72 47.50 47.90 5.92 46.42 41.50
Orissa I - - 75.12 90.86 12.31 14.63 33.96 18.92 36.76 51.36 15.98
Punjab 14.56 11.45 16.20 30.09 30.43 9.73 8.74 15.77 10.95 10.81 13.58 8.92
Rajasthan 43.51 59.06 32.11 51.84 62.18 19.48 16.55 123.83 101.87 27.81 66.07 35.07
Tamilnadu - - - - 19.82 35.19 16.47 14.04 19.80 12.66
UP 7.96 16.07 12.59 3.45 14.91 14.51 4.75 7.80 8.01 2.40 11.37 11.50
West Bengal 32.00 40.33 42.19 17.94 27.57 13.28 14.10 31.16 24.08 13.47 24.24 11.93
India 4.78 14.65 12.90 14.26 18.78 9.69 4.07 16.83 15.78 5.05 13.73 10.23
106
Table: 3.21 (Contd)
State Massar Rabi Pulses KharifPulses Total Pulses
Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
1980-81 to 2001.{12
AP - 8.99 21.85 20.39 8.88 38.62 33.36 5.41 19.27 17.81
Bihar 7.61 23.95 22.60 5.02 15.81 14.09 4.81 12.95 11.13 5.25 14.46 11.98
Gujarat - - 89.54 117.49 24.11 14.90 52.27 38.64 18.05 56.99 36.72
Haryana 33.10 45.19 22.31 64.61 113.11 46.10 35.57 57.03 21.35 58.96 96.18 39.97
Karnataka - - 18.61 28.92 19.23 12.88 31.00 23.68 9.03 24.36 18.62
MP 6.64 12.45 8.57 8.73 17.82 10.95 4.15 22.11 19.94 9.01 18.05 10.76
Maharashtra 44.02 64.69 24.35 23.08 45.01 24.51 5.95 36.09 35.80 6.15 35.75 31.29
Orissa - - - 51.73 61.45 10.47 12.67 28.50 16.05 26.57 36.93 13.13
Punjab 26.96 30.31 16.42 29.19 44.84 24.06 13.64 21.67 14.62 15.51 23.39 13.45
Rajasthan . 36.35 51.27 26.77 49.33 61.62 19.67 19.93 135.46 126.76 29.32 68.08 35.37
Tamilnadu - - - - - - 21.77 30.22 15.16 16.18 20.64 11.98'
UP 11.05 16.02 15.57 4.82 14.15 13.57 4.43 12.13 12.22 3.89 10.74 11.31
West Bengal 24.26 31.66 33.70 15.72 22.47 13.51 39.00 45.31 20.69 12.76 20.91 11.49
India 6.67 13.41 13.07 11.64 16.93 9.68 5.12 16.31 13.78 5.55 12.81 8.87
Source: Based on data from ·~rea and Production of Principal Crops" (1982 to 1997) and data from Directorate of Economics and Statistics, (1998-2002), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.
107
T_he following important points emerge from the analysis of instability
in the production of pulses. First, the 1-1 index of pulse production showed
high uncertainty at individual level as well as at the aggregate level barring
a few exceptions when I-I index was below 10 per cent. Second, the
instability behaviour of individual pulses is diverse. The crops of urad and
massar indicated lower production instability in comparison to major crops
like gram and arhar. Third, the evidences of higher instability in yield are
much more than area except gram, which has indicated reverse pattern. In
six cases out of total eight cases, yield variability is responsible for
uncertain production. Fourth, the range of instability in production of total
pulses is quite wide at the state level. It was estimated as high as 96 per
cent in Haryana. In contrast, it was found around 11 per cent in Uttar
Pradesh due to very low index of area instability (3.89 per cent). Fifth,
more than 90 per cent of analysed states have indicated pulse production
instability above the all India level.
Causes of Instability
It is found that instaqility in production of pulses is on the higher side
in India. The important source appeared to be yield variability. This is
because pulses are mostly grown in rainfed areas. The .amounts of rainfall
influences area allocation at the pre-sowing stage and later yield by
receiving one/two watering. In the absence of irrigation. support for the
pulse crops, rains are the only solace, failing which yield falls by
considerable percentage. Other factors, which cause instability in
production of pulses, are price variability and adoption of technology,
which will be discussed in Chapter V and VI. Here, we have presented
information on two factors i.e. dependence on rainfall and lack of irrigation,
which cause production instability in pulses.
108
Relationship Between Rainfall and Production of Pulses
One of the main causative factors of the poor performance of pulse
production seems to be the excessive dependence of pulses on rainfall. It
has been found that the correlation between the index of rainfall and pulse
production at the national level was as high as 0.67 (meaning 67 per _cent
dependence) during the period 1980-81 to 2001-02. While there is a
significant correlation between the rainfall index and production of all food
grain crops, but it was highest in case of pulses.
It may be seen from Table 3.22 that the dependence of pulse
production on rainfall in major producing states of Rajasthan, Madhya
Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh was found very high. On the other hand,
states like Bihar, Orissa and Punjab have exhibited relatively lower
dependence on rainfall.
Inadequate Irrigation Cover
The rain-dependence of pulses is not surprising especially in view of
the very low irrigation cover accorded to them in almost all the states. Only
16.1 per cent of the area covered under pulses at the national level was
irrigated in 1999-00, as compared to 87.2 per cent for wheat and 53.9 per
cent for rice. It is not surprising that Rajasthan, the fourth largest producer
of the crop in the country recorded the lowest average yield of pulses (372
kgs. per hectare) during TE 2001-02 as the irrigation cover for pulses in
the state was as low as 15.01 per cent during 1999-00.
Similarly, irrigation coverage for pulses in other major growing states
of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Andhra . Pradesh,
Karnataka and Gujarat was found below 30 per cent. It was around 21 per
cent, 27.4 per cent, 26.02 per cent, 1 per cent, 3.1 per cent and 13.5 per
cent respectively during the year 1999-00. Among the major growing
states, pulses received maximum irrigation coverage in Uttar Pradesh,
109
which leads other states in the country in yield level (883 kgs/hectare).
The irrigation cover accorded to pulses in Madhya Pradesh is the fifth
highest in the country, while it ranks fourth in average yield (737
kgs/hectare) attained during triennium endirig 2001-02. The substantial
difference in yield levels between Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh is
not surprising considering the difference in irrigation cover accorded to
pulses in these States. The much lower levels of yield attained in other
states can also probably be attributed to the lesser irrigation cover
accorded to pulses in those states (Table 3.23).
Section- Ill: Determinants of Acreage andYield Rates
The foregoing analysis revealed that growth of pulse production in
India has been extremely poor between 1980-81 and 2001-02. It was
further compounded by instability. The production of pulses like other
agricultural commodities is determined by acreage and yield. Therefore, it
would be worthwhile to investigate factors influencing these parameters.
We have used two models for this purpose. The first is an area response
model based on the Nerlovian framework and the second is yield
response function of the Cobb Douglas type.
A variety of price and non-price factors influence the farmers'
decisions regarding land allocation to various crops. The first segment -
includes input and output prices. This range from last year's harvest price
of the crop, availability of minimum support price, last year's harvest price
of the competing crop to prices of fertilizer, power, seed, water,
insecticides and availability of credit. Similarly, a host of non-price factors
also play an important role. The chief among them are last year's acreage . and yield, availability of improved seeds and irrigation, rainfall, facility of
procurement by government agencies, resistance of crop to pest attacks,
extension services, home consumption, availability of alternate crops,
credit and assured market. Unfortunately, crop specific information on all
these variables is lacking and therefore tabular analysis is not possible.
110
Table: 3.22
Correlation Coefficients between Production of Various Crops and Index of Rainfall (1980-81 to 2001-02)
State Pulses Rice Wheat Coarse Oilseeds Cereals
Andhra Pradesh 0.41 0.54 0.25 -0.16 0.53 Bihar 0.14 0.44 0.24 -0.18 0.25 Gujarat 0.47 0.53 0.87 0.56 0.77 Haryana 0.58 0.27 0.28 0.56 0.39 Karnataka 0.41 0.62 0.39 0.61 0.49 Madhya Pradesh 0.55 0.71 0.41 0.13 0.13 Maharashtra 0.43 0.60 0.65 0.26 0.48 Orissa 0.23 0.57 -0.03 0.09 0.25 Punjab 0 .. 00 0.07 0.13 -0.40 0.01 Rajasthan 0.76 0.43 0.43 0.63 0.50 Tamil Nadu -0.13 0.25 -0.08 0.03 0.26 Uttar Pradesh 0.54 0.16 0.07 0.37 0.22 West Bengal -0.09 0.27 -0.22 0.22 0.33 All-India 0.67 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.28
Source: Oadhich C.L. ':4 Study of Growth Pattern of Foodgrains with Special Reference to Pulses", Paper submitted for the Conference of Indian Society of Agriculture Economics, 2002.
Table: 3.23
State-Wise Percentage of Area Covered by Irrigation Under Principal Crops during 1999-00
States Pulses Rice Wheat Total Food All Crops grains
A.P. 1.0 95.7 77.3 57.2 44.1 Bihar 2.2 41.8 89.5 49.5 48.2 Gujarat 13.5 65.3 84.0 37.8 37.8 Haryana 45.4 99.8 98.8 85.0 85.0 Karnataka 3.1 72.0 43.1 23.5 26.1 Kerala - 59.7 - 57.0 15.7 M.P. 21.0 24.8 72.4 32.8 27.1 Maharashtra 26.02 27.6 79.9 14.3 16.6 Orissa 6.6 40.7 100.00 30.4 29.5 Punjab 90.36 99.2 97.4 96.q 95.6 Rajasthan 15.01 61.6 97.8 32.2 36.0 Tamil Nadu 7.5 93.2 - 60.7 55.0 Uttar Pradesh 27.4 65.7 92.2 64.9 66.5 West Bengal - 42.1 79.0 42.3 36.8 All-India 16.1 53.9 87.2 43.9 40.8
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi, 2003.
111
Owing to this difficulty, the findings of acreage response models are based
on a few variables for which data are available. Thus, factors affecting '
pulse acreage are numerous and their contribution is generally estimated
through an acreage response model. Existing literature on the nature of
acreage response to price and non-price factors in case of pulse crops is
mixed. Some studies have concluded that there is a positive acreage
response . to changes in the prices of pulses while others have
observed a reverse phenomenon. However, most of the
researchers 12·13
·14
·15 held the view that the non-price factors are more
important than the price factors in explaining the acreage response
behavior of farmers.
Most of these studies cover a period up to early nineties but policy
scenario has dramatically changed after gradual liberalization of
agriculture and inclusion of pulse crops in Technology Mission in 1990 -91 ..
How the changing scenario has impacted acreage under important pulse
crops appeared to be the major concern. Secondly, most of the studies
confine to gram,arhar and: total pulses while moong, urad and massar
also play an important role in the pace of growth. Moreover, nature of
· acreage response differs from crop to crop and region to region.
This emphasizes the need for regional studies on acreage response
of different pulse crops. Keeping this in mind, the responsiveness of price
and non-price factors in area allocation by farmers under gram, arhar,
moong, urad, massar and total .. pulses in the states which covered
between 80-90 per cent of production of these crops is estimated through
a modified Nerlovian supply response function. The empirical knowledge
12· Chopra and Swamy, 1975 op. cit
13' Deshpande, R.S. and H. Chandrashekar, "Growth and Supply Response of Slow Growth Crops- A Case of Pulses, "Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 37(3), 1982.
14' Dhindsa, K.S. and Anju Sharma, "A Regional Analysis of Growth and Supply Response of Pulses- A Study of Punjab", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 52 (1 ), 1997.
15 Sadasivam, S., "Price and Non-price Factors in Input Use and Output Supply- A Case of Gram in Uttar Pradesh". Indian Economic Review, Vol. 28 (1), 1993.
112
of acreage response of pulses will be useful for rational formulation of
policies in bringing a break through in the production of pulses.
For the model, required time series data on acreage, yield, farm
harvest price and pre-sowing rainfall were collected from secondary
sources like Area and Production of Principal Crops, Agricultural Statistics -
at a Glance, Farm Harvest Prices in India and Agricultural Prices in India
for the period 1980-81 to 2000-01. Rainfall data were obtained from
Statistical Abstract, India published by Central Statistical Organization,
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of
India, New Delhi. When farm harvest price for the crop was not available,
wholesale price of the main market in the state for harvesting month was
used as a proxy. The relative word refers to competing crop, which can be
grown on the same piece of land. For rabi pulses such as gram and
massar, wheat in irrigated areas and mustard in rainfed areas are
considered as competing crops. Particularly, mustard is used due to
higher share of gram area under rainfed conditions. In case of kharif
pulses such as arhar, moong and urad, competing crops are Jowar and
bajra but jowar is preferred because of its importance as a competing crop
in the major growing states. To examine the acreage response of different
pulse crops during the current year, pulse acreage has been regressed on
lagged acreage, lagged relative price, lagged relative yield, price risk,
yield risk, and pre-sowing rainfall in the leading states in terms of
production of gram, arhar, moong, urad , massar and total pulses. One
year lag is used in acreage, yield and price assuming that the current year
acreage, yield and price generally influence the decision about area
allocation in the next year. Using Nerlovian adjustment lag model as a
basic framework, the reduced form of equation for the acreage response
function for pulses is specified as follows:
113
At =a + b1 A t-1 + b2 R Pt-1 + b3 R Yt-1 + b4 P R + b5 Y R + b5 R Ft + Ut
where
At -Area in hectares ,under the crop.
A t-1 -Area in hectares under the crop in the year t-1
RP t-1 -Relative price in year t-1
RY t-1 -Relative yield in the year t-1
PRy -Price risk measured in terms of standard deviation of past three years
YRy -Yield risk measured in terms of standard deviation of past three years
RFt - Pre-sowing rainfall (mm) in the year t
The empirical results on the extent of responsLveness of price and
non price factors in area allocation under gram, arhar, moong, urad,
massar and total pulses for all India and core growing states are
summarized in Table 3.24. Apparently, elasticities of lagged acreage,
lagged relative price, lagged relative yield, price risk, yield risk and pre
sowing rainfall vary significantly across the individual pulses in different
milieu. However, some uniformity in the acreage response behaviour of
farmers growing rabi pulses as well as kharif pulses may be noticed.
The impact of previous year's acreage was found most pronounced
on area· allocation under gram at the national level and in important
growing states. Its elasticities are positive and significant in six out of
seven cases. The highest coefficient of lagged acreage was estimated for
Maharashtra (0.77) and the lowest for Rajasthan (0.13). Another factor
affecting area u~der gram appears to be lagged relative price. Its elasticity
is weak but significant at the country level. Similarly, farmers in major
growing states seemed to be responsive to price factor except Uttar
Pradesh where it turned out to be insignificant. The highest coefficient of
lagged relative price was estimated in Andhra Pradesh (0.23) followed by
Maharashtra (0.19) where growth performance of gram was commendable
during. the study period. This result implies that gram growers are
responding to commercial stimuli in some locations and at the aggregate
114
level. Further, elasticity of pre-sowing rainfall, though insignificant at the
country level, showed its impact on acreage allocation to gram in Madhya
Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra where gram is mostly grown under
rainfed conditions. The coefficient of rainfall was negative and significant
in these states. The responsiveness of RY, PR and YR is found poor and
insignificant in most of the cited cases except for Andhra Pradesh where
these factors seemed to be influencing gram acreage. The impact of yield
risk was found significant in Uttar Pradesh too. This implies that farmers
in these states consider yield risk as one of the factors in land allocation
under gram. The most appropriate function was obtained for Uttar
Pradesh, which explained 85 per cent variation in the area allocation to
gram. An examination of estimated elasticities of six included variables in
the acreage response model of arhar at the all India and state level
indic~te that coefficient of lagged acreage was positive, high and
significant in all the analysed cases. Its magnitude was found the highest ·
in Maharashtra (0.94) and the lowest in Madhya Pradesh (0.21 ). The low
and insignificant acreage response of lagged relative price in most of the
states reveals weak responsiveness of price factor. But it was significant
at 10 per cent level in Maharashtra. On the other hand, influence of pre
sowing rainfall was negative and significant at the all India level and in four
major states. Its elasticity was the maximum in Gujarat. The low and
insignificant coefficients of RY, PR and YR imply that farmers do not
attach any importance to these variables in decision-making about area
allocation to arhar. But, the impact of relative yield was significant in
Madhya Pradesh. The included explanatory variables explained highest
variance in Maharashtra (0.93). The overall findings of the model reveal
dominance of non-price factors over price factor in acreage allocation to
arhar in major growing states and at the all India level.
115
Table: 3. 24
Results of Nerlovian Model on Acreage Response of Gram, Arhar, Moong, Urad, Massar and Total Pulses in Important Growing States of India
State Inter- Areat-1 RPt-1 RYt-1 Price Risk Yield Risk Pre-sowing Ad.Coef# cept Rainfall R"2
GRAM MP 6.18 0.49 (2.32)* 0.06 (2.96)* 0.04 (0.46) 0.03 (1.13) 0.07 (0.76) -0.10 (-1.73)** 0.51 0.64 UP -1.34 0.73 (8.25)* 0.03 (1.90)** -0.01 (-0.15) -0.02 (-1.25) -0.04 (-1.76)** -0.09 (-1.33) 0.27 0.85 Rajasthan 14.04 0.13 (0.39) 0.09 (1.40) 0.13 (0.27) 0.03 (0.24) -0.02 (-0.12) -0.46 (-1.79)** 0.87 0.33 Maharashtra 0.41 0.77(3.15j*. 0.19 (1.73)** -0.17 (-0.82) 0.01 (0.31J 0.02 (0.14) -0.21 (1.90)** 0.23 0.49 Karnataka 1.51 0.50 (3.11 )* 0.17 (2.87)* -0.01 (-0.02) 0.01 (0.25) 0.03(0.41) 0.22 (0.52) 0.50 0.65 AP 1.77 0.47 (2.62)* 0.23 (3.47)* 0.43_12.60)* -0.12 (-1.73)** 0.17 (1.84}** 0.11_(0.25) 0.53 0.84 All India 11.36 0.64(1.91 )** 0.06 (1.81 )** 0.05 (0.28) -0.03 (-0.88) -0.04 (-0.96) -0.24 (-0.97) 0.36 0.41
ARHAR Maharashtra 0.24 0.94 (8.35)* 0.10 (1.81 }** 0.04 (1.15} -0.01 (-0.72} 0.01 (0.13} -0.22 (1.74}** 0.06 0.93 UP 1.91 0.63 (2.05)** 0.01 (0.01) 0.07 (0.81) -0.01 (-0.42) . -0.01 (-(0.22} -0.09 (-1.82)** 0.37 0.29 Karnataka 3.27 0.58 (2.46)* 0.14 (0.76) 0.03 (0.34) -0.03 (-0.79) 0.01 (0.20) -0.16 (1.48) 0.42 0.37 MP 5.68 0.21 (1.82)** 0.06 (0.28) 0.46 (2.17)* -0.07 (-0.34) -0.05 (-0.59) -0.12 (-1.73)** 0.79 0.40 Gujarat 1.35 0.55 (2.65j* 0.05 (0.39) 0.07 (0.74} 0.02 (0.91) -0.02 (-0.03) -0.25 (1.91 )** 0.45 0.50 AP 0.36 0.84 (4.05j* 0.12 (0.62) -0.02 (-0.19) -0.01 (-0.33) 0.01 (0.26) 0.09(0.34) 0.16 0.55 All India 2.77 0.60 (3.12)* 0.11 (0.81) -0.02 (-0.46) -0.01 (-0.64) 0.00 (0.04) -0.08 (-1.96)** 0.40 0.60
MOONG Maharashtra 0.20 0.66 (4.031* 0.01 (0.07) -0.03 (-0.54) 0.03 (0.86) 0.01 (0.34) -0.39 (-2.14)* 0.34 0.79 AP 1.82 0.67 (3.19)* -0.08 (-0.71) -0.01 (-0.18) 0.01 (0.14) -0.01 (-0.24) 0.07 (0.44) 0.33 0.40 Karnataka 4.53 0. 71 (2.72)* 0.19 (0.96) -0.02 (-0.15) . -0.03 (-0.31) 0.12 (0.97) -0.81 (-1.80)** 0.29 0.29 Rajasthan -0.06 0.85 (6.65)* 0.23 (1.87)** -0.09 (-0.96) -0.03 (-0.36) 0.12 (2.68)* -0.04 (-1.88)** 0.15 0.78 Bihar 0.56 0.70 (4.01 )* 0.04 (0.50) 0.02 (0.31} -0.01 (-0.35) 0.03 (0.93) 0.19 (1.92)** 0.30 0.76 Tamil Nadu 4.94 0.66 (1.87)** -0.27 (-0.83) -0.08 (-0.33) -0.05 (0.63) -9.23 (-0.00) -0.11 (-1:74)** 0.34 0.38 All India 4.58 0.49 (2.13)* 0.12 (1.14) 0.05 (0.49) 0.02 (0.70) -0.01 (-0.05) -0.14 (-1.81)** 0.51 0.37
116
Table: 3. 24 (contd .. )
--URAD
AP 1.66 0.87 (8.45)* 0.11 (1.10) 0.12 (1.65) 0.02 (0.63) -0.01 (-1.22) -0.14 (2.15)* 0.13 0.92 ~aharashtra 2.70 0.63 (2.36)* -0.03 (-0.31) -0.04 (-0.43) 0.00 (0.14J 0.01 (0.19) -0.08 (-1.80)** 0.37 0.28 _jy!P 1.20 0.93 (9.83)* -0.05 (-1.12) 0.16 (1.73**) -0.02 (-0.95) -0.02 (-1.08) -0.09 (-0.70) 0.07 0.91
UP 3.08 0.74 (4.73)* 0.01 (0.01) 0.42 (2.17)* -0.01 (-0.22) -0.01 (-0.04) -0.27 (-1.00) 0.26 0.82 _J}mil Nadu 0.20 0.63 (3.00)* -0.03 (-0.13) 0.03 (0.12) -0.10 (~1.39) -0.14 (-0.96) 0.64 (1.83)** 0.37 0.40
Karnataka 0.02 0.89 (4.80)* -0.07 (-0.76) -0.04 (-0.88) 0.04(1.45) 0.09 (3.14}_* 0.07 (0.39) 0.11 0.96 All India 3.39 0.64 (3.78)* 0.02 (0.46) 0.18 (2.23)* -0.02 (-1.05) 0.00 (-0.11) -0.09 (-2.1 0)* 0.36 0.53
MASSAR UP 2.34 0.84 (4.03)* 0.07 (1.82)** 0.28 (1.39) -0.05 (-1.21) 0.04 (0.761 -0.26 (-1.15) 0.16 0.51 MP 0.59 0.73 (8.51 )* 0.08 (2.62)* -0.16 (-1.99)** -0.01 (-0.63) -0.06 (-1.51) -0.13 (-1.88)** 0.27 0.96 Bihar 2.29 0.57 (2.37)* 0.01 (0.07) 0.07 (1.07) -0.02 (-1.11) 0.01 (0.56) -0.02 (-0.17)_ 0.43 0.23 W. Bengal 3.53 0.72 (4.25)* -0.14 (-0.83) 0.24 (1.45) -0.07 (-1.25) 0.02 (0.55) -0.42 (-1.13) 0.28 0.64 Rajasthan 0.69 0.78 (2.71)* 0.24 (0.59) -0.66 (-1.33) 0.02 (0.18) 0.28 (1.30) -0.35 {-0.47) 0.22 0.61 All India 1.89 0.77 (3.39)* 0.09 {1.90)** -0.02_1-0.17)_ -0.01 {-0.29) 0.01 {0.17) -0.03 (-0.14) 0.23 0.43.
TOTAL PULSES MP. 7.24 P.53 (2.84)* 0.01 {0.07) -0.01 (-0.02) -0.01 (-0.30) 0.04 {1.431 -0.17 (-1.83)** 0.47 0.56 UP 6.15 P.49 {2.03)* 0.04 {1.14) -0.05 {-0.26) -0.03 (-1.33) 0.00 {-0.37) -0.07 {-0.36) 0.51 0.45 Maharashtra 8.06 kl.42 {1.76)** 0.11 {1.81)** 0.06 {0.67) 0.06 (1.02) -0.06 {0.67) -0.23 {-2.28)* 0.58 0.73 Rajasthan 12.91 kl.38 {1.41) 0.15 {0.88) 0.16 {0.48) -0.03 (-0.38) -0.23{·2.21 )* -0.63 (-2.21J* 0.62 0.47 AP 4.14 P.39 {1.97)** 0.11 {3.99)* -0.01 {-0.14) 0.00 {0.34) -0.05 {-3.61 )** -0.01 (-0.01) 0.61 0.81 Bihar 1.41 kl. 78 (2.15)* 0.05 (0.91) 0.11 {0.72) 0.01 (0.30) 0.02) (0.17) -0.19 {-1.73)** 0.32 0.51
,-~a rna taka 7.65 P.37 (1.83)** 0.05 (1.98)** -0.09 (-0.58) 0.02 (0.63) 0.05 (0.881 . -0.28 (-1.47) 0.63 0.52 '-~II India 15.82 ~52 (1.90)** 0.05 (0.47) 0.10 {1.55) -0.02 (-1.65) -0.03 {-0.92) -0.13 {-1.82)** 0.48 0.46 . . . .
Brackets show t-values. * & ** lnd1cate s1gn1f1cance below 5 per cent and 10 per cent level of probability . # Adjustment coefficient
117
The results of the acreage response model for other kharif pulses
i.e. moong and urad were on the similar lines. Like arhar, most important
factor influencing acreage of these crops was lagged acreage. Its
elasticities were significant in all the cases. The elasticities of relative price
were found low and insignificant. However ,it was positive and significant in
Rajasthan. On the other hand, pre-sowing rainfall has shown its impact on
area at the all India level and in majority of the referred states. The relative
yield showed its impacton area allocation under urad in Madhya Pradesh,
Uttar Pradesh and at the all India level. The PR and YR in the analysed
states did not play any role in acreage decisions of the farmers related to
moong and urad cultivation. But, coefficient of yield risk was significant in
Rajasthan for moong and in Karnataka for urad. The overall results clearly
show that growers of these crops do not respond to commercial
incentives. The value of R2 ranged between 0.28to 0.96. This suggests
that model was a good fit in some cases while it could partially explain
variations in other cases due to dominance of other factors in acreage
decisions of the farmers.
The estimates of elesticities of explanatory variables for massar
appear to be somewhat consistent with the results obtained for gram. The
responsiveness of area was skewed towards lagged area followed by
lagged relative price at the all India level. But, at the state level, price
factor was found significant in two states (Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh) out of five- referred states. The impact of relative yield was
significant in Madhya Pradesh. Generally, influence of relative yield, price
risk, yield risk and pre-sowing rainfall on area allocation was found in
significant. The pre- sowing rainfall showed significant impact on area
allocation to massar in Madhya Pradesh .
An analysis of estimated elasticities of selected variables for total
pulses at the all India and state level reveals that responsiveness of
118
lagged acreage was positive, high and significant in all the cases except
Rajasthan. The magnitude of coefficient above 0.40 is indicative of
moderate to high responsiveness of cropped area in the previous .Year.
The influence of lagged relative price, despite being low was found
significant in the states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra
where growth performance of total pulses was observed creditable .. The
factors like RY, PR and YR do not seem to be contributing to acreage
allocation under total pulses. The pre-sowing rainfall appeared to be
impacting area allocation decisions. of the farmers in majority of the
analysed cases. But, influence varied from region to region. For instance,
its elasticity was estimated to be 0.63 in Rajasthan against 0.10 in Andhra
Pradesh. Its impact was negative and significant at the all India level. This
result merits notice because increase in rainfall reduces area under pulse
crops because traditional varieties of these crops give low yield and
profitability in comparison to superior cereals. It may be noticed that the
acreage response of total pulses is lower than some of the individual
pulses primarily because magnitude of elasticity depends on the extent to
which farmers would increase acreage and other inputs and there
possibility in individual cases is high.
The Nerlovian coefficient of adjustment provides information about
the speed of adjustment of acreage to changing levels of the explanatory
variables in the supply response equation. In the case of pulses, this
coefficient ranged from a low of 0.06 to a high of 0.87. However, around
60 per cent cases indicate the magnitude of adjustment below 0.40. This
implies that farmers are adjusting their area under the cultivation of pulses
at a slow rate with changing levels of institutional and technological
factors. To sum up, lagged acreage and lagged relative price appeared to
be most important determinants of area allocation under rabi pulses, while
lagged acreage and pre-sowing rainfall were found most crucial in case of
kharif pulses. The overall findings of acreage response model suggest that
non-price factors still influence area of pulse crops more than price factor
119
like sixties and seventies. But, commercial incentives have started
showing their impact in some locations for gram, massar and total puls~s.
In this context, it would be useful to identify the factors influencing
yield of pulses crops. Generally, factors like type of seed, consumption of
fertilizer, manure, pesticides and availability of water affect productivity of
various crops. The comprehensive time series data on these variables for
pulse crops are not available. However, reports of the Commission for
Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) provide information on yield,
consumption of seed, fertilizer and manure in physical and financial terms
and expenditure on irrigation for major pulse crops in core growing states.
But, non-availability of time series data constrains the rigorous analysis.
Often, number of years and states for which data are available are not
uniform for individual pulse crops. Therefore, analysis of productivity is
confined to only gram in Madhya Pradesh. A reg.ression model of the
Cobb-Douglas type was used to examine the efficiency of each
explanatory variable. The model is specified as under: b b b y = a x1 1 x2 2 x3 3
Or
where
Y- Yield of gram in Rs./ha. X1- Expenditure on seed in Rs./ha. X2 - Expenditure on fertilizer in Rs./ha. X3 - Rainfall in mm
b1, b2 and b3 are regression coefficients
Y = 0.120 + o.97 x1 + o.o2 x2 + o.65 x3
The results of above equation indicate that expenditure on seed
(X1) and pre-sowing rainfall (X3) have influenced the productivity of gram in
Madhya Pradesh. The coefficients of these variables are high, positive and
significant. The non-significant response of fertilizer can be attributed· to
the fact that gram in Madhya Pradesh is generally grown under rain fed
conditions whereas the response of fertilizer is high under irrigated
conditions. The value otR2 indicates that about 94 per cent variation in the·
value productivity of gram in the state is explained by included variables in
the model. The un-explained proportion of variance is very small and it
could be due to factors .like quality of .soil. The overall findings of the
model suggest that policy. should focus on seed input along with
availability of water to enhance growth in yield of pulse crops.
Before concluding this chapter, it would be appropriate to recall the
hypotheses set and show the results. The first hypothesis related to poor
production performance of pulse crops in India due to low growth in
acreage and yield was fully confirmed for gram, arhar, moong, urad, rabi
pulses, kharif pulses and total pulses but it was rejected for massar which
showed 4 per cent per year growth in the production due to high growth in
area (1.8 per cent) and yield (2.2 per cent) between 1980-81 and 2001-02.
The next hypothesis about the greater responsiveness of non-price factors
in comparison to price factors in acreage allocation to pulse crops was
fully confirmed for kharif pulses but partially accepted for gram and massar
since relative prices also affected their area allocation at the national as
well as in some regions. The last hypothesis regarding the influence of
expenditure on seed, fertilizer and magnitude of rainfall on the productivity
of pulse crops was partially confirmed because fertilizer response was not
found significant on the productivity of gram in Madhya Pradesh.
121
Top Related