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