agricoop.nic.inagricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/AIR on IS 2011-12_0.pdf · 7 Table 1(a) All India – Distribution of number of holdings, operated area, parcels and cropped area

`

All India Report on Input Survey 2011-12

AGRICULTURE CENSUS DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COOPERATION & FARMERS WELFARE

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE & FARMERS WELFARE NEW DELHI

2016

All India Report

on

Input Survey 2011-12

(AGRICULTURE CENSUS DIVISION) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, COOPERATION & FARMERS WELFARE

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE & FARMERS WELFARE NEW DELHI

2016


LIST OF OFFICERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREPARATION OF ALL INDIA REPORT

Ms. Mamta Saxena Deputy Director General & Agriculture Census

Commissioner Name Designation

Shri Janardan Yadav Shri Cyriac George Shri Gurvinder Singh Shri R.L. Mishra Shri Hemanga Bhargav Shri Tusar Bordoloi Shri Pankaj Dutt Shri Jagdish Tanwar Secretarial Assistance

Shri Anil Kumar Akhria Smt. Chitra Puri Kumari Kanika Nagpal

Director Deputy Director System Analyst Senior Consultant Sr. Statistical Officer Sr. Statistical Officer Data Entry Operator Gr. ‘A Data Entry Operator Gr. ‘A’

Principal Private Secretary Principal Private Secretary Stenographer Gr. ‘D’

~ v ~


CONTENTS S.No. Title Page No.

PART-I 1 Foreword 2 Preface 3 Introduction 4 Chapter 1 - Concepts and Definitions 1 5 Chapter 2 - Sampling Design and Estimation Procedure 9 6 Chapter 3 - Analysis of Input Survey data – All India 14

PART - II Statistical Tables 7 Table 1(a) All India – Distribution of number of

holdings, operated area, parcels and cropped area by major size groups.

33

8 Table 1(b) All India – Distribution of area cropped once and more than once in irrigated & unirrigated areas by major size groups

33

9 Table 2(a) All India – Usage of inputs (Fertilizers, FYM and Pesticides) in All Crops by major size groups

34

10 Table 2(b) All India – Usage of inputs (Fertilizers, FYM and Pesticides) in selected crops by major size groups

35

11 Table 3 All India – Distribution of livestock held by operational holdings by major size groups

48

12 Table 4 All India – Estimated number of operational holdings using agriculture machinery by major size groups

48

13 Table 5 All India – Estimated institutional credit taken for agricultural purpose by major size groups

52

14 Table 6 All India – Estimated number of operational holdings who used certified seeds for agricultural purpose

55

15 Table 7 All India – Estimated number of operational holdings by usual methods of pest control (IPM)

56

16 Table 8 All India – Estimated number of operational holdings by educational status

56

17 Table 9 All India – Estimated average age of 57

~ vi ~


S.No. Title Page No. operational holders (years)

18 Table 10 All India – Estimated average size of household of operational holders (No.)

57

19 Table 1(a) Statewise – Distribution of number of holdings, operated area, parcels and cropped area by major size groups

58

20 Table 1(b) Statewise – Distribution of area cropped once and more than once in irrigated & unirrigated areas by major size groups

67

21 Table 2(a) Statewise – Usage of inputs (All Crops) – Fertilizers, FYM and Pesticides by major size groups

76

22 Table 2(b) Statewise – Usage of inputs (Selected Crops) – Fertilizers, FYM and Pesticides by major size groups

102

23 Table 3 Statewise – Distribution of livestock held by operational holdings by major size groups

341

24 Table 4 Statewise – Estimated number of operational holdings using agriculture machinery by major size groups

346

25 Table 5 Statewise – Estimated institutional credit taken for agricultural purposed by major size groups

418

26 Table 6 Statewise – Estimated number of operational holdings who used certified seeds for agricultural purpose

454

27 Table 7 Statewise – Estimated number of operational holdings by usual methods of pest control (IPM)

478

28 Table 8 Statewise – Estimated number of operational holdings by educational status

490

29 Table 9 Statewise – Estimated average age of operational holders (years)

502

30 Table 10 Statewise – Estimated average size of household of operational holders (No.)

513

Part-I


1

CHAPTER 1

CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS 1.1 Operational Holding 1.1.1 Operational holding is defined as ‘all land used wholly or partly for agricultural production

and operated as one technical unit by one person alone or with others, without regard to the title,

legal form, size or location’. The technical unit has been defined as ‘the unit which is under same

management and has same means of production such as labour force, machinery and animals’. In

Agriculture Census/Input Survey the actual cultivator and not the owner is the unit for data

collection.

1.1.2 An operational holding includes both cultivated and uncultivated area. If, for example, an

operational holding consists of four survey numbers out of which one survey number is put to non-

agricultural uses, total area of the operational holding is worked out as aggregate of geographical

area of all four survey numbers. The holding shall exclude Government forest land, Government

waste land and village common grazing land. However, if Government waste land is allotted to an

individual, it will be included in the holding. ‘Abadi Area’ (Residential Area) is completely excluded

from the total area of the holding.

1.1.3 If all the survey numbers of an operational holding are put to non-agricultural uses, it would

not be considered as an operational holding.

1.1.4 If, during the reference year, the entire area of the operational holdings is under current

fallow, this will be considered as an operational holding for Agriculture Census, but no information

can be gathered from such holding in Input Survey. Therefore, such holdings will not be included in

the sampling frame for Input Survey but will be included for preparation of multiplier tables in their

respective size classes. If the entire area of the holding is under old fallow (fallow other than current

fallow), it will also not be considered as an operational holding for Input Survey.

1.1.5 In some cases, where land is divided amongst all members of a family, i.e. between husband,

wife and minor children but cultivation is done by husband as the head of the family, in such cases

entire land may be treated as one operational holding. 1.1.6 There might be cases where in the record, a holding is shown jointly in the names of more

than one co-sharer while in practice the land might be privately divided and the co-sharers are


2

independently cultivating. In such cases where there is no dispute, these are treated as many

operational holdings as are the number of independent cultivators.

1.1.7 In some States, in the zamabandi register against a Khata, names of three or four persons are

shown. While from the records it would appear that there is only one holding, but in practice, all the

three or four brothers are actually cultivating the land independently of each other although there is

no legal partition of land. Since de facto status of the holdings is considered from the census point of

view, this would constitute three or four operational holdings and thus these would be separately

listed in the Sampling Frame for Input Survey. 1.1.8 For cultivated areas in State forests, no detailed land records are prepared. In absence of land

records such areas are excluded from the coverage of Agriculture Census purposes and thus will not

be included in Input Survey.

1.2 Parcel 1.2.1 A parcel is all land entirely surrounded by land of other holdings or by land not forming part

of any holding. It may consist of one or more cadastral units, plots or fields.

1.3 Holder or the Operator 1.3.1 A person who holds the responsibility for operation of agricultural holding is defined as

holder or the operator for Agriculture Census proposes. He exercises technical initiative and

responsibility for operation of holding and may have full economic responsibility for it (i.e. as

owner) or share this with others (as a tenant). When two or more persons share jointly (as partners)

the economic and technical responsibility for operation of an agricultural holding, each one of them

is to be considered as a holder if they belong to different households, the holding will be termed as

joint holding. For Input Survey, any one of these could be taken as operational holder and be

approached for giving response to questionnaire.

1.4 Total Area of the Holding 1.4.1 The total area of a holding should include all land forming part of a unit which is under the

same technical responsibility and management. It would also comprise of land occupied by farm

buildings, including house of holder, provided such buildings are within the cultivated area. If farm

buildings are located outside cultivated area and are covered under Abadi Area, then area of such

buildings will not be included in the area of the holding.


3

1.5 Agricultural Production

1.5.1 Growing of field crops, fruits, nuts, seeds, tree nurseries (except those of forest trees), bulbs,

vegetables and flowers, plantation crops, fodder, grasses, etc. are treated as agriculture production for

the purpose of Input Survey. 1.5.2 In place where special efforts are made to raise grass, it would be treated as a crop for the

purpose of the survey. 1.6 Land Utilisation

1.6.1 Usually for land records, nine-fold classification of land use is followed by the State

Governments. This has been abridged to six-fold classification for the purpose of Agriculture

Census. For the purpose of Input Survey, this has been further abridged to three categories

comprising net sown area, area under current fallow and area not available for

cultivation/uncultivated area. Net Area Sown

1.6.2 The Net Area Sown represents the total cultivated area during the reference year without

considering the number of times it has been cultivated in a year. Thus for the purpose of finding the

net sown area, the areas cultivated more than once during the same year will be counted only once.

Both field crops and orchards will form part of the net sown area. Area under Current Fallow

1.6.3 The areas which are usually cropped but due to some reason or the other were not cultivated

during the reference year are classified as current fallow. Thus the area kept as fallow during the

current year but cultivated during the previous year will be categorized as current fallow. Any

seedling area, if not cropped in the same year, would be treated as current fallow. The area which are

not being cultivated for more than one year will be categorized as old fallow or culturable waste. Area not Available for Cultivation/Uncultivated Area

1.6.4 This would include the following seven categories :-

i) Fallow land other than current fallow: This would include all land which were taken up

for cultivation but are temporarily out of cultivation for a period of not less than one year

and not more than five years, i.e., equal or greater than one year but less than or equal to

five years. The possible reasons for keeping lands fallow may be one or more of the

following:


4

a) Poverty of cultivators, b) Inadequate supply of water, c) Malerial climate, d) Silting of canals and rivers, and e) Unremunerative nature of farming.

ii) Culturable waste: This includes land available for cultivation, whether or not taken up for

cultivation at any time, but not cultivated during the current year and the last five years or

more in succession for one reason or the other. Such lands may be either fallow or

covered with shrubs and jungles, which are not put to any use. Land once cultivated but

not cultivated afterwards for five years in succession should also be included in this

category at the end of the five years. Culturable waste land belonging to operational

holder would alone be covered for the Input Survey. iii) Permanent pastures and other grazing land: This should include all grazing land, whether

these are permanent pastures and meadows or not. Village common grazing land shall be

excluded for purposes of Census. iv) Land under miscellaneous tree crops: This includes all cultivable land not included in the

net area sown but is put to some agricultural use. Land under Casuarina trees, thatching

grasses, bamboo bushes and in other grooves for fuel which are not included under

‘Orchards’, would be covered under this category. Land of this type outside the holdings

will not be included. v) Forests: This should include all land classified as ‘Forests’ under any legal enactment

dealing with forests or administered as forests, whether State owned or private, and

whether wooded or maintained as potential forest land. The area of crops raised in the

forest and grazing lands or areas open for grazing within the forests should remain

included under the forest area. Only private forests belonging to operational holder

would be covered for the purpose of Agriculture Census and Input Survey. vi) Area under non-agricultural use: This should include all lands occupied by buildings,

tanks and ponds put to uses other than agricultural purpose within the holdings of

operational holder. vii) Barren and uncultivated land: This should include all barren and uncultivated land within

operational holding.


5

1.7 Integrated Pest Management 1.7.1 Traditionally farmers have been adopting a number of practices for plant protection. These

practices could be categorized in four groups, viz., agronomic and cultural control, mechanical

control, biological control and chemical control. Usually, a specific approach keeping in view crop

variety and agro-climatic conditions is adopted by the farmer for protection of his crops against

insects and pests. The approach may be a combination of methods falling in one or more of the

above four categories. For the best results, the experts advise a judicious combination of these

approaches and label it as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The components of IPM program are

outline below: Agronomic and Cultural Practices

1.7.1.1 This is a preventive method which is based upon knowledge of life history and habits of

pest. The practices covered in this category include: deep ploughing after harvesting a crop to expose

the hiding or resting insects, weeding, removing and destroying of stubbles and other trash, adjusting

the time of sowing to avoid peak incidence period of pests, clean cultivation, the removal of

alternative wild hosts, crop rotation and choosing of insect and disease resistant varieties. Physical and Mechanical Control 1.7.1.2 This is one of the oldest methods and includes measures such as collection of eggs and

caterpillars (in active stages of pests), removal and destruction of infested part of the plant, beating of

drums, laying of night traps and yellow traps. These methods are found effective at initial stage of

the pest incidence when practiced by a large number of farmers in a particular area. Biological Control 1.7.1.3 Most of the crops have their natural enemies in the form of parasites and predators and

disease causing organisms. Large scale multiplication and liberation of such other agents, which

naturally occur in environment but are enemies of crops results in effective control of the harmful

organisms. These methods are often applied by specialized agencies in conjunction with chemical

methods so that harmful effects of insecticide do not interfere with the activities of nature based

enemies of pests. Chemical Control 1.7.1.4 This method relates to use of insecticides, pesticides and weedicides, which are used as

dusts, sprays and granules on the crops. Due to their nature of producing immediate results such

chemicals are most popular among the farmers. Serious limitations, particularly those relating to


6

residues on crops and destruction of useful insects, have been noted in recent years in usage of these

chemicals. 1.8 Chemical Fertilizers, Organic Manure, Green Manure and Bio-Fertilizers 1.8.1 The package of practices followed for replenishing the nutrient losses from the soil as a result

of cultivation to maintain the fertility of the soil involves use of organic manure, green manure,

chemical fertilizers and bio-fertilizers. Chemical Fertilizers 1.8.1.1 The term chemical fertilizers refer to chemical compounds which are manufactured in

factories and are used as soil nutrients. These are further classified as “macro nutrients” which

supply nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and Potash (K) and “micro nutrient” fertilizers which supply

Zinc, Manganese, Copper, Iron, Aluminium etc. The popular macro nutrient fertilizers are Urea,

Diammonium Phosphate (DAP), Muriate of Phosphate (MOP), Calcium Ammonium Nitrate (CAN)

and a number of complex fertilizers and the physical mixtures of these. Organic Manure 1.8.1.2 The organic manure is usually not manufactured in chemical factories and is produced by

the farmers in their fields using various types of agricultural wastes. Sometimes these are also

prepared using the sewage silt or municipal waste in urban areas. Organic manure is usually bulky

material and is transported in trolleys. The types of manures covered in this group would be Farm

Yard Manure (FYM), which is prepared by putting agricultural wastes in a pit for decomposition and

composting. This also includes the Vermi Compost. Various forms of oil cakes, which are used as

fertilizers, also fall in this category. Bio-fertilizers 1.8.1.3 Bio-fertilizers are sold in small packets and they are required to be stored at specified

temperature. These carry some living bacteria on organic base. The examples of bio-fertilizers are

Rhizobium, Azabactor, Blue-green Algae and Phosphate Solubalising Bacteria (PSB). When bio-

fertilizers are put in the soil, the bacteria contained in the fertilizer packet spread in the soil and start

their activity, i.e., fixing the nitrogen from air to soil. Hence bio-fertilizers are not soil nutrients in

themselves, rather they act as catalysts/direct agents for making the soil nutrients available. These

types of fertilizers are not very common among farmers and only some progressive farmers use

them. Also, because of their storage requirements these are not available everywhere.


7

Green Manure 1.8.1.4 Green manure refers to cultivation of a specific type of vegetation with the intention of

ploughing it back in the soil when the leaves are tender and easily decomposable. The popular types

of green manure used by the farmers include Sesbania (Dhencha), Sunhemp (Sanai), Indigo, Urd and

Cowpea (lobia). There is also a practice of ploughing back the leafy portion of leguminous crops in

the field after first or second picking for the purpose of green manuring. All such cases will be

counted for the purpose of obtaining area under green manure. 1.9 Seed 1.9.1 Breeder Seed 1.9.1.1 Seed (or vegetative propagating material) increased by the originating, or sponsoring, plant

breeder or institution and which is used as the source for the increase of foundation seed (Pink Tag). 1.9.2 Foundation Seed 1.9.2.1 Seed stocks increased from breeder seed, and so handled as to closely maintain the genetic

identity and purity of a variety. Production of foundation seed is carefully supervised or approved by

representatives of an agricultural experiment station. Foundation seed is the source of certified seed,

either directly or through registered seed (White Tag). 1.9.3 Certified Seed 1.9.3.1 The progeny of foundation, registered or certified seed, produced and handled so as to

maintain satisfactory genetic identity and purity, and approved and certified by an official certifying

agency (Blue Tag). 1.9.4 Hybrid Seed 1.9.4.1 The first generation offspring of a cross between two individuals differing in one or more

genes or progeny of a cross between species of the same genes of different generation. 1.10 Crop-wise Area (Irrigated and Unirrigated) 1.10.1 The following classification has been used for coding of crops for the purpose of Agriculture

Census and Input Survey.

(i) FOOD CROPS: This includes cereals, pulses, fruits, vegetables, spices and condiments

and other food crops which are enumerated below:


8

Cereals: Cereals include rice, jowar, bajra, maize, ragi, wheat, small millets, barley and

other cereals.

Pulses: The area under important pulses may be given cropwise. Pulses include gram,

tur, urad, moong, masur and other pulses.

Foodgrains: The total area under foodgrains includes area covered under both cereals

and pulses.

Fruits: Fruits include mangoes, citrus fruits, bananas, apples, guavas, grapes,

pomegranate, papayas and others. Dried fruits include cashewnuts, almonds, pistachio,

walnut and others. Total fruits include fruits as well as nuts (dried fruits).

Vegetables: Vegetables include potato, carrot, sweet potato, tomato, spinach, brinjal,

cauliflower, etc.

Spices & Condiments: Spices and condiments include black pepper, chillies, ginger,

turmeric, cardamom, betelnuts (arecanuts), garlic, coriander etc.

(ii) NON-FOOD CROPS: These include oilseeds, fibres, dyes and tanning material, drugs

and narcotics, plantation crops, fodder crops, green manure crops etc.

Oilseeds: Include groundnut (nuts in shell), castor seed, seasamum, rapeseed and

mustard, linseed, coconut, niger-seed, safflower seed, cotton seed and other oilseeds.

Fibres: Fibres include cotton (Lint), cotton (Kapas), jute mesta, sunhemp (fibre) and

other fibres.

Dyes & Tanning Materials: Include Indigo and others.

Drugs & Narcotics: Include opium, tobacco and others.

Plantation Crops: Include tea, coffee, rubber and others.

Fodder Crops: Include guar, oats, and other fodder crops.

*******


9

CHAPTER 2

SAMPLING DESIGN AND ESTIMATION PROCEDURE 2.1 Objective 2.1.1 The primary objective of the Survey is to provide information on levels of consumption of

various inputs like chemical fertilizers, farm yard manure/compost, pesticides, agricultural

implements and machinery, livestock and agricultural credit etc. by major size groups of holdings.

Information is also collected on the extent of scatteredness of holdings. In this survey, the data were

collected for the five major size groups of operational holdings, viz., marginal (below 1 ha.), small (1

- 2 ha.), semi-medium (2 - 4 ha.), medium (4 – 10 ha.) and large (10 ha. and above). 2.2 Coverage 2.2.1 Institutional holdings are excluded from the scope of Input Survey, i.e., only individual and

joint holdings are covered. In addition, resident cultivators of urban areas and deemed resident

cultivators of selected villages were kept out of purview of Input Survey 2011-12. Thus, only

resident cultivators of selected villages in rural areas were covered except in Kerala and Puducherry

where urban wards were also included. However, during Input Survey 2011-12 entire country was

covered. 2.3 Unit of collection of data

2.3.1 The basic unit for which data for various parameters of Input Survey were collected, was

‘operational holding’ as distinct from ‘ownership holding’. 2.4 Reference Period 2.4.1 The reference period for this survey was the agricultural year 2011-12 (July, 2011 to June,

2012). The data was normally collected in two visits separately for kharif and rabi seasons of

2011-12 immediately after the agricultural operations for kharif and rabi were over in order to

minimize reporting-error on account of recall lapse while providing information to field staff at the

time of collection of data. 2.5 Sampling Design 2.5.1 As stated above, Input Survey relates to the collection of data on application of various inputs

such as fertilizers, manures, pesticides etc. in cultivation of different food and non-food crops as also

on multiple cropping, uses of agricultural machinery and implements, livestock, agricultural credit,

seeds, etc.


10

2.5.2 A stratified two-stage sampling design was adopted for Input Survey 2011-12. Tehsils / CD

Blocks constituted the strata, villages within the stratum formed first stage and the operational

holdings in the selected villages constituted the second stage unit. Thus, in each block / tehsil, the

sampling was performed at two stages - a sample of villages and sample of operational holdings in

the sample villages. The ultimate sampling unit was an operational holding. 2.6 Sample Size and Methodology 2.6.1 Seven percent villages in each State were covered for Input Survey 2011-12. These 7 percent

villages were selected randomly out of 20 percent villages already selected for Phase-II of

Agriculture Census 2010-11 for purpose of preparation of sampling frame. In selected villages,

operational holdings were grouped into following five size-groups of operational holdings:-

Sl.No. Operated area Size-group of holding i Below 1 ha. Marginal ii 1 ha. and above but below 2 ha. Small iii 2 ha. and above but below 4 ha. Semi-medium iv 4 ha. and above but below 10 ha. and Medium v 10 ha. and above. Large

2.6.2 Four operational holdings were selected from each of the above mentioned five size groups of

operational holdings. The selection was made separately from each of these size groups following

Sample Random Sampling method. If in a particular size group, the total number of operational

holdings were less than 4, all the holdings of that size group were covered. The data for Input Survey

was collected through field enquiries from these selected operational holders of sampled villages. 2.6.3 The estimates of Input Survey Characteristics were generated at district level. In case State

Governments desire to have the estimates for any administrative Unit smaller than a district, they

were free to do so, provided the sampled observations in respect of various characteristics were

considered adequate to get reliable estimates at the level of these administrative Units. The district

level estimates were pooled to arrive at State level estimates, which were further pooled to get all

India estimates. 2.6.4 For rabi survey, enumerators would cover the same operational holdings which were covered

in kharif season. In case the size of selected holdings changed during the reference period, the area

reported in kharif season was taken as standard. Further, if a particular holding say X in the size

group 1 to 2.0 ha. (small holding) was divided into smaller holdings in such a way that the adjoining

sub-divided holdings belonged to different size classes (marginal holding), the enumerator would


11

select another holding randomly from the same size group of 1 to 2.0 ha. in place of holding X. After

that, the required information for rabi season as well as kharif would be collected for that area of

kharif. On the contrary, if the size of group of the holding changed upwards due to acquiring of

additional area by operational holder, then the area of holding reported in kharif was taken as

standard. The information in kharif, rabi and jaid was related to the original area and the information

in respect of additional area was ignored completely for purpose of Input Survey. 2.7 Unit of Enumeration 2.7.1 Data was collected in respect of operational holding, which is defined as “all land which is

used wholly or partly for agricultural production and is operated as one technical unit by one person

alone or with others, without regard to the title, legal form, size or location”. The technical unit has

been defined as “the unit which is under the same management and has the same means of

production such as labour force, machinery and animals”. Thus, actual cultivator and not the owner

is the unit for collection of data in Input Survey. 2.8 Item Coverage 2.8.1 Under Input Survey, information was collected for five major size groups of operational

holdings on the following items:-

i) Number of parcels; ii) Multiple cropping, separately for irrigated and unirrigated area; iii) Use of chemical fertilizers, organic manures, pesticides, bio-fertilizers and green manure

separately for irrigated and unirrigated areas under major crops (area covered and quantity used);

iv) Livestock (Numbers); v) Usage of agricultural machinery and implements; vi) Agricultural credit; vii) Seeds; viii) Integrated Pest management (IPM); and ix) Age, size of household and educational level of operational holders.

2.9 Identification of Sample Villages 2.9.1 The number of villages covered for the Input Survey 2011-12 was 7 percent of total number

of villages in the State. These villages were randomly selected with the Taluk/CD Block as the

stratum from out of 20 percent (TRS) villages already selected for Agriculture Census 2010-11. 2.9.2 In cases, some uninhabited villages got selected in the sample for Input Survey, such villages

were substituted. At the time of estimation, however, the uninhabited villages were included in the

total number of villages for arriving at multiplication factor.


12

2.10 Estimation Procedure 2.10.1 For estimating the population totals of various characteristics in the Input Survey 2006-07

‘simple unbiased estimate’ method was adopted which is described below: The notations used are as under:

1. ( )ijpY k - Value of characteristic in the pth holding of jth village of the ithTaluk/CD Block

(i.e. the stratum) in the particular size class (say kth). 2. ( )ijN k - Total number of holdings in the kth size class in the jth selected village of the ith

taluk. 3. ( )ijn k - Number of holdings sampled in the kth size class in the jth selected village of ith

taluk. 4. iN - Total number of villages in the i

th Taluk. 5. in - Number of villages selected in the i

th taluk for collection of data on inputs.

6. ^

( )iTY k - Estimate of characteristic under study for the ith taluk in kth size class.

7. - Estimate of characteristic under study for the district in kth size class. 8. M - Number of talukas in the district. Then the estimate of the characteristic under study for the ith taluk/CD Block (i.e. stratum) in

the k-th size class is given by the formula:-

( )^

1 1

( )( ) ( )

( )

iji

i

kiji

T ijpj pi ij

nn kY k k

kNN Yn n= =

= ∑ ∑ ……...(i)

and for the district, it becomes:-

( )^

1 1 1

( )( ) ( )

( )

iji

D

kMiji

ijpi j pi ij

nn kY k k

kNN Yn n= = =

=∑ ∑ ∑ ….(ii)

= ^

1( )

i

M

Ti

Y k=∑

( )kY D∧


13

The sampling error for the characteristic under study for the district is defined as the positive square

root of the sample variance. The formula for the variance is given by

( ) ( )2^ ^

1 1( )

1

iMi i

D ii iji ji i

nV Y k yN n yN n n= =

− = − − ∑ ∑ ..(iii)

where ( )

1

( )( )

( )

ijk

ijijpij

pij

nkk

kNy Yn =

= ∑ …………….(iv)

and 1

1 ii ij

ji

ny yn == ∑ ………………………….(v)

2.11 Limitations of Data 2.11.1 Institutional holdings were not covered in the Input Survey.

2.11.2 The Input Survey 2011-12 was confined only to the resident cultivators of selected villages.

The resident cultivators of urban areas were not covered in the Input Survey except in case of Kerala

and Puducherry where urban wards were also covered.

2.11.3 An operational holding may be treated wholly, partly or not treated at all with

fertilizers/organic manures/ pesticides etc. For the purpose of the survey, holdings were classified

only as treated or not treated with fertilizers/organic manures /pesticides etc. Accordingly, partly

treated holdings were also considered as treated with fertilizer. 2.11.4 The ‘Purely Current Fallow’ holdings have not been included in the sampled holdings of

Input Survey for data collection but such holdings were included in the total number of holdings for

estimation purpose. 2.11.5 Input Survey 2011-12 was conducted in all States/UTs.

*******


14

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF INPUT SURVEY DATA – ALL INDIA DISPERSAL OF OPERATIONAL HOLDINGS 3.1 Distribution of Operational Holdings and Operated Area 3.1.1 According to Input Survey 2011-12, number of operational holdings was estimated at 138.11

million with operated area of 157.61 million hectares (excluding Institutional holdings). 3.2 Dispersal of Operational Holdings 3.2.1 An operational holding may consist of one or more than one parcel. The more the number of

parcels, the more scattered would be the operational holding. All the parcels comprising an

operational holding may lie within the village of residence of the holder or be spread over one or

more villages. 3.2.2 A parcel is defined as “all land entirely surrounded by land of other holdings or land not

forming part of any holding”. It may consist of one or more cadastral units or fields and may not be

synonymous with survey number. Three or four adjoining survey numbers could make one parcel

but two survey numbers of same village, not adjacent to each other, would make two parcels. 3.2.3 The data on number of parcels was collected by interviewing the selected operational holders

with a view to collect information about the dispersal of operational holdings in different parts of the

country. However, the outer limit for collecting the information in Input Survey was restricted to

district. Since an operational holding will have at least one parcel, the average number of parcels per

operational holding cannot be less than one. The distribution of average number of parcels, average

area per parcel and average area per holding in different size groups of holdings as per Input Survey

2011-12, may be seen in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Average number of parcels, average area per parcel and area per holding

Sl. No. Size Groups

No. of parcels per holding Area per parcel (in ha.) Area per holding (in ha.)

2006-07 2011-12 2006-07 2011-12 2006-07 2011-12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Marginal (Below 1.0 ha.) 1.64 1.63 0.26 0.25 0.42 0.40 2 Small (1.0 – 2.0 ha.) 2.63 2.34 0.54 0.60 1.42 1.41 3 Semi-medium (2.0 – 4.0 ha.) 3.46 2.98 0.79 0.91 2.72 2.69 4 Medium (4.0 – 10.0 ha.) 4.46 3.79 1.30 1.50 5.78 5.70 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above) 5.61 5.06 2.78 3.06 15.57 15.46

All size groups 2.22 2.01 0.59 0.57 1.30 1.14


15

3.2.4 The average number of

parcels per holding in 2011-12

was estimated at 2.01 as

compared to 2.22 in 2006-07.

This shows that the number of

parcels per holding had

decreased. The number of parcels

per holdings for marginal, small,

semi-medium, medium and large

holdings for 2011-12 was 1.63,

2.34, 2.98, 3.79 and 5.06,

respectively against corresponding figures of 1.64, 2.63, 3.46, 4.46 and 5.61 of Input Survey

2006-07. The graphical

presentation of average number of

parcels per holding is given in

Figure 3.1(a). 3.2.5 The average area per

parcel was 0.57 hectare during

2011-12 against 0.59 hectare in

2006-07. The corresponding

figures for marginal, small, semi-

medium, medium and large holdings in 2011-12 had been found as 0.25, 0.60, 0.91, 1.50 and 3.06

respectively as compared to 0.26, 0.54, 0.79, 1.30 and 2.78 in 2006-07. The graphical presentation is

given in Figure 3.1(b). 3.2.6 The average operated area

per holding was 1.14 hectare in

2011-12 against 1.30 hectare in

2006-07, showing a decrease of

12.31%. A marginal decline of

4.76, 0.70, 1.10, 1.38 and 0.70 was

observed in all the size groups i.e.

marginal, small, semi-medium,


16

medium and large respectively. The graphical presentation of average operated area is given in

Figure 3.1(c).

MULTIPLE CROPPING 3.3 Extent of Multiple Cropping 3.3.1 There are mainly two cropping seasons in the country in a year viz., Kharif and Rabi. The

Kharif season is normally spread from May to mid-October and the Rabi from mid-October to mid-

April. A cultivator may raise two crops on his operational holding during the agriculture year - one in

Kharif season and another in Rabi season. In some States during the period from May to April, more

than two crops are grown. In such cases, the cultivator is said to have cropped his land twice or more

and gross cropped area would be twice or more of the net area sown depending upon the number of

times the crops have been taken. For example, when a cultivator raises three crops during the year,

gross cropped area would be three times that of net sown area.

3.3.2 The net area sown as per Input Survey 2011-12 was 139.65 million hectares out of which

65.3 percent was cropped once, 33.5 percent was cropped twice and only 1.2 percent was cropped

more than twice. Size-groupwise distribution of net area sown may be seen in Table 3.2. In 2011-12,

45.2 percent of net irrigated area was cropped once while 52.2 percent was cropped twice. The net

irrigated area cropped more than twice accounted for only 2.5 percent (Table 3.3). Similarly, out of

the net unirrigated area of 75.30 million hectares, 82.42 percent was cropped once while remaining

17.58 percent was cropped more than once.

3.3.3 The percentage distribution of Net Sown Area according to cropped once, cropped twice and

cropped more than twice is given in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Distribution of Net Sown Area according to number of crops taken

Sl. No. Size Groups

Net sown area (in '000 ha.) Once Twice More than twice

1 2 3 4 5 1 Marginal (Below 1.0 ha.) 20989 (62.2) 12063 (35.8) 676 (2.0) 2 Small (1.0 – 2.0 ha.) 21173 (66.8) 10070 (31.8) 439 (1.4) 3 Semi-medium (2.0 – 4.0 ha.) 22235 (66.7) 10792 (32.4) 296 (0.9) 4 Medium (4.0 – 10.0 ha.) 18866 (65.1) 9932 (34.3) 176 (0.6) 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above) 7912 (66.3) 3985 (33.4) 45 (0.4) All size groups 91176 (65.3) 46842 (33.5) 1631 (1.2) Note: (1) Total may not tally due to rounding off. (2) Figures in brackets are percentages.


17

Table 3.3: Distribution of Net Irrigated Area according to number of crops taken

Sl. No. Size Groups

Net irrigated area cropped (in '000 ha.) Once Twice More than twice

1 2 3 4 5 1 Marginal (Below 1.0 ha.) 7473 (43.8) 8929 (52.3) 676 (4.0) 2 Small (1.0 – 2.0 ha.) 6960 (48.8) 6866 (48.1) 439 (3.1) 3 Semi-medium (2.0 – 4.0 ha.) 7271 (48.2) 7508 (49.8) 296 (2.0) 4 Medium (4.0 – 10.0 ha.) 5686 (43.1) 7331 (55.6) 176 (1.3) 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above) 1728 (36.4) 2968 (62.6) 45 (0.9) All size groups 29118 (45.2) 33602 (52.2) 1631 (2.5) Note: (1) Total may not tally due to rounding off. (2) Figures in brackets are percentages.

3.3.4 In a total of 139.65 million hectares of net area sown, only 34.71 percent was utilized for

growing crops more than once while bulk of area of about 65.29 percent was cropped only once

during the year. The practice of cropping area more than once was more prevalent among marginal

and small holdings than in higher size class as percentage of net area sown cropped more than once

for different categories of holdings worked out to 37.8 percent for marginal, 33.2 percent for small,

33.3 percent for semi-medium, 34.9 percent for medium and 33.8 percent for large.

3.4 Cropping Intensity 3.4.1 As per Input Survey 2011-12, cropping intensity at all India level was estimated at 135.88

which matches closely with the figure of 137.15 percent estimated through Agriculture Census

2010-11. It may be noted that cropping intensity for preceding Input Survey was estimated at 130.32

percent.

3.5 Cropping Pattern 3.5.1 A set of crops was identified for each State/UT for collection of data on inputs in the Survey.

These crops were selected on the basis of their importance in each State depending upon the

percentage of cropped area in relation to gross cropped area. A crop which may be important in one

State may not be so for some other State and were so put under ‘other crops’ in case of latter States.

Consequently, the total area of a particular crop at all India level may not reflect the factual position

owing to its possibility of having been merged under ‘other crops’ in some State. Thus, the area

under a particular crop reflects the area in major growing States. With this limitation, data on major

crops, viz. Paddy, Jowar, Bajra, Maize, Wheat, Tur (Arhar), Sugarcane, Groundnut and Cotton have

been presented separately for the purpose of analysis. The area of remaining crops has been

categorized under ‘other crops’. Thus the total of all these nine crops aggregated with ‘other crops’

would form the total for ‘all crops’.


18

3.5.2 From percentage distribution of gross cropped area among various crops (Table 3.4(a)), it

may be seen that about 80.2 percent of gross irrigated area and 53.3 percent of gross unirrigated area

Size G

roups

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

ed1

Margin

al108

18699

8105

1058

223992

514281

5682

2744

28546

99354

125514

695134

1368

6807

1240

08231

34(45

.1)(30

.3)(0.4

)(4.6

)(0.9

)(4.3

)(2.1

)(12

.2)(28

.4)(3.2

)(0.1

)(2.4

)(4.1

)(0.2

)(0.5

)(2.2

)(2.9

)(5.8

)(15

.4)(34

.9)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)2

Small

6742

4807

147158

8174

1084

458218

1524

6654

33985

1147

75189

662126

3229

4357

5932

5189

75236

55(35

.5)(20

.3)(0.8

)(6.7

)(0.9

)(4.6

)(2.4

)(9.2

)(27

.6)(2.8

)(0.2

)(4.2

)(6.0

)(0.3

)(1.0

)(2.8

)(6.7

)(9.7

)(18

.8)(39

.4)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)3

Semi-m

edium

5913

4168

142162

7223

1453

441206

9620

3703

57109

3113

575

222679

1692

2457

3896

10455

19925

24780

(29.7)

(16.8)

(0.7)

(6.6)

(1.1)

(5.9)

(2.2)

(8.4)

(31.1)

(2.8)

(0.3)

(4.4)

(5.7)

(0.3)

(1.1)

(2.7)

(8.5)

(9.9)

(19.6)

(42.2)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

4Me

dium

4496

2523

114114

7223

1918

335143

3605

0565

37853

68149

232445

1680

1730

4241

10506

18090

21169

(24.9)

(11.9)

(0.6)

(5.4)

(1.2)

(9.1)

(1.9)

(6.8)

(33.4)

(2.7)

(0.2)

(4.0)

(3.8)

(0.2)

(1.3)

(2.1)

(9.3)

(8.2)

(23.4)

(49.6)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

5Lar

ge150

9693

28299

106160

098

360238

4264

6232

1497

127126

566306

2026

5131

6999

9019

(21.6)

(7.7)

(0.4)

(3.3)

(1.5)

(17.7)

(1.4)

(4.0)

(34.1)

(2.9)

(0.1)

(2.6)

(2.1)

(0.1)

(1.8)

(1.4)

(8.1)

(3.4)

(28.9)

(56.9)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

6All

Size G

roups

29479

19190

537571

9949

7047

1846

8858

26706

2930

161371

0410

5260

894242

6589

7812

8174

24434

89879

97101

757(33

.5)(18

.9)(0.6

)(5.6

)(1.1

)(6.9

)(2.1

)(8.7

)(30

.3)(2.9

)(0.2

)(3.6

)(4.7

)(0.3

)(1.0

)(2.4

)(6.7

)(8.0

)(19

.8)(42

.7)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)No

te: (1)

Figure

in bra

ckets a

re perc

entage

s. (2) T

otal m

ay not

tally d

ue to r

oundin

g off.

Size G

roups

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

edIrri

gated

Unirri

gated

Irrigat

edUn

irrigat

ed1

Margin

al108

18699

8105

1058

223992

514281

5682

2744

28546

99354

125514

695134

1368

6807

1240

08231

34(36

.7)(36

.5)(19

.5)(18

.5)(23

.5)(14

.1)(27

.8)(31

.8)(25

.5)(25

.4)(17

.1)(14

.7)(24

.2)(20

.9)(14

.0)(21

.2)(11

.8)(16

.5)(21

.2)(18

.6)(27

.3)(22

.7)2

Small

6742

4807

147158

8174

1084

458218

1524

6654

33985

1147

75189

662126

3229

4357

5932

5189

75236

55(22

.9)(25

.1)(27

.5)(27

.8)(18

.3)(15

.4)(24

.8)(24

.6)(19

.6)(22

.3)(20

.6)(26

.5)(28

.0)(28

.9)(21

.1)(27

.3)(21

.4)(28

.2)(20

.5)(21

.4)(21

.6)(23

.2)3

Semi-m

edium

5913

4168

142162

7223

1453

441206

9620

3703

57109

3113

575

222679

1692

2457

3896

10455

19925

24780

(20.1)

(21.7)

(26.5)

(28.4)

(23.5)

(20.6)

(23.9)

(23.4)

(23.2)

(24.0)

(35.5)

(29.5)

(27.6)

(28.8)

(24.8)

(28.0)

(28.7)

(30.2)

(22.4)

(24.0)

(22.6)

(24.4)

4Me

dium

4496

2523

114114

7223

1918

335143

3605

0565

37853

68149

232445

1680

1730

4241

10506

18090

21169

(15.3)

(13.1)

(21.2)

(20.1)

(23.5)

(27.2)

(18.2)

(16.2)

(22.7)

(19.3)

(23.0)

(23.0)

(16.6)

(18.8)

(25.9)

(18.3)

(28.5)

(21.3)

(24.3)

(24.2)

(20.6)

(20.8)

5Lar

ge150

9693

28299

106160

098

360238

4264

6232

1497

127126

566306

2026

5131

6999

9019

(5.1)

(3.6)

(5.3)

(5.2)

(11.2)

(22.7)

(5.3)

(4.1)

(8.9)

(9.0)

(3.7)

(6.2)

(3.6)

(2.5)

(14.3)

(5.2)

(9.6)

(3.8)

(11.6)

(11.8)

(8.0)

(8.9)

6All

Size G

roups

29479

19190

537571

9949

7047

1846

8858

26706

2930

161371

0410

5260

894242

6589

7812

8174

24434

89879

97101

757(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)(10

0.0)

(100.0

)No

te: (1)

Figure

in bra

ckets a

re perc

entage

s. (2) T

otal m

ay not

tally d

ue to r

oundin

g off.

(Area

in '000

ha.)

Table 3

.4(a): S

hare o

f Majo

r Crop

s in Irr

igated

and U

nirrig

ated a

reas fo

r vario

us Siz

e Grou

p of Ho

ldings

(Area

in '000

ha.)

Sl.

No.

Paddy

Jowar

Bajra

Maize

Wheat

Tur (A

rhar)

Sugar

cane

Ground

nutCo

ttonOth

er Cro

psAll

Crops

Table 3

.4(b): S

hare o

f Vario

us Siz

e Grou

ps of H

olding

s in Irr

igated

and U

nirrig

ated a

reas u

nder va

rious

crops

All Cr

opsSl.

No

.Pa

ddyJow

arBa

jraMa

izeWh

eatTur

(Arha

r)Su

garcan

eGro

undnut

Cotton

Other

Crops


19

was covered by nine principal crops.

Under gross irrigated area, paddy was

the most dominant crop

having a share of 33.5 percent

followed by wheat (30.3 percent),

cotton (6.7 percent), sugarcane (4.7

percent) etc. In case of gross

unirrigated area also, paddy

accounted for the highest share of

18.9 percent followed by maize (8.7

percent), cotton (8.0 percent), bajra

(6.9 percent), jowar (5.6 percent), tur

(3.6 percent), wheat (2.9 percent) and

groundnut (2.4 percent). The

percentage share of major crops in

irrigated and unirrigated areas are

given in Table 3.2(a) and Table

3.2(b) respectively. 3.5.3 In 88.00 million hectares of gross irrigated area (all crops) in the country (Table 3.4(b)), the

share of marginal holdings was the highest, i.e., 27.3 percent followed by semi-medium (22.6

percent), small (21.6 percent) and medium (20.6 percent) and large (8.0 percent). The percentage of

gross unirrigated area was the highest for semi-medium holdings (24.4 percent) followed by small

(23.2 percent), marginal (22.7 percent), medium (20.8 percent) and large holdings (8.9 percent). 3.5.4 The graphical presentations of gross irrigated and gross unirrigated areas under various crops

in different size groups of holdings may be seen in Figures 3.3(a) to 3.3(j).


20


21

CROPWISE USE OF INPUTS

3.6 Application of Chemical Fertilizer, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides in Irrigated and

Unirrigated Areas 3.6.1 Chemical fertilizers are used to increase agricultural production and pesticides are used to

protect the crops from insects and pests. Besides chemical fertilizers, organic manure is also used to

raise the soil fertility. The most commonly used chemical fertilizers are Urea, Di-Ammonium

Phosphate, Super Phosphate, Potash, complex fertilizers, fertilizer mixture and micronutrient

fertilizers like Ammonium Sulphate etc. On the other hand, Farm Yard Manure (FYM)/compost and

oil cakes are the most common organic manures in use by the cultivators. Input Survey data was

collected separately for both the under High Yielding Varieties (HYV) and ‘Others’ and use of

fertilizers separately for different categories. Normally, the first dose of fertilizer is given at the

sowing stage and subsequently a few more applications are given to the crop. Thus, the same area

may receive one or more application of fertilizers but for the purpose of estimation of area of usage

of fertilizer, only net area under the crop in a particular season has been taken into account. 3.6.2 Input data was collected in each State and Union Territory for different crops. The crops

grown differ from State to State and not all crops are common in all the States and Union Territories.

Further area covered in selected crops in each State and Union Territory need not be the same as the

total cropped area, as other minor crops are also grown by the cultivators.

3.7 Percentage of Irrigated and Unirrigated Areas Treated with Chemical Fertilizers, Farm Yard Manure and Pesticides

3.7.1 Table 3.5 gives percentage of irrigated and unirrigated areas treated with chemical fertilizers,

FYM and pesticides to the corresponding gross cropped area under ‘all crops’ at All India level. Table 3.5: Percentage of Irrigated and Unirrigated Areas Treated with Chemical Fertilizers, FYM and Pesticides

for ‘All Crops’

Sl. No. Size Groups

Percentage of irrigated area treated with

Percentage of unirrigated area treated with

Chemical Fertilizers

Farm Yard

Manures Pesticides Chemical Fertilizers

Farm Yard

Manures Pesticides

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 89.2 19.6 43.4 65.8 28.2 35.9 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 89.4 20.6 46.9 69.5 24.7 42.5 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 89.9 18.2 48.8 67.9 22.1 42.3 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 90.3 15.8 53.5 60.2 18.6 38.9 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 91.0 13.7 58.9 41.5 14.3 32.4

All Size Groups 89.8 18.2 48.7 63.9 22.7 39.3


22

3.7.2 It may be seen that 89.8 percent of gross irrigated area and 63.9 percent of gross unirrigated

area were treated with different chemical fertilizers. Similarly, about 18.2 percent of gross irrigated

area and 22.7 percent of gross unirrigated area were treated with FYM. In case of pesticides 48.7

percent of gross irrigated area and 39.3 percent of gross unirrigated area were treated with pesticides. 3.7.3 The use of chemical fertilizers was observed to be higher in irrigated area than in unirrigated

area as out of an area of 143.98 million hectare, 54.85 percent area under irrigation and 45.15 percent

without irrigation was treated with fertilizer. 3.7.4 The percentage of irrigated area treated with FYM was highest in case of small holdings

(20.6) followed by marginal (19.6), semi-medium (18.2), medium (15.8) and large (13.7). In case of

unirrigated area also, percentage of area treated with FYM for marginal holdings was highest (28.2

percent) followed by small (24.7 percent), semi-medium (22.1 percent), medium (18.6 percent) and

large (14.3 percent). 3.7.5 In case of use of pesticides, percentage of irrigated area treated with pesticides was highest

in large holdings (58.9) followed by medium (53.5), semi-medium (48.8), small (46.9) and marginal

holdings (43.4). Thus, use of pesticides in irrigated area increased with increase in size of holdings.

The corresponding figure in unirrigated area was highest (42.5 percent) in small category followed

by semi-medium (42.3 percent), medium (38.9 percent), marginal (35.9 percent) and large holdings

(32.4 percent).

3.8 Rate of application of Fertilizer Nutrient (N,P,K) and FYM in Irrigated and Unirrigated Areas

All Crops 3.8.1 Table 3.6 gives break-up of rate of application of nutrients, viz., Nitrogen(N), Phosphate(P)

and Potash(K) and FYM for ‘all crops’ in irrigated and unirrigated areas. The data has been

computed from estimated consumption of various types of fertilizers by operational holders, by

taking into account nutrient content in each type of fertilizer. The rate of application of nutrients, like

N,P,K and FYM has been calculated by dividing the quantity of each nutrient, i.e., N,P,K and FYM

consumed by corresponding gross irrigated and unirrigated areas treated with fertilizer/manure for

irrigated and unirrigated areas separately. Table 3.6: Rate of Application of Fertilizer Nutrients (N,P,K) and FYM in Irrigated and Unirrigated Areas in All Crops

(Kgs/hectare) Sl. No. Size Groups

N P K FYM Irrigated Unirrigated Irrigated Unirrigated Irrigated Unirrigated Irrigated Unirrigated

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 174.4 119.9 73.0 50.8 30.9 22.3 4831.0 3720.3


23

Sl. No. Size Groups

N P K FYM Irrigated Unirrigated Irrigated Unirrigated Irrigated Unirrigated Irrigated Unirrigated

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 118.3 76.3 58.5 39.2 26.0 14.0 4079.2 2992.8 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 110.6 62.3 52.8 34.6 19.0 10.9 4054.0 2575.3 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 106.2 52.7 48.0 30.6 13.0 8.6 3873.4 2174.6 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 114.6 44.0 44.3 25.3 8.5 8.4 3372.7 1944.3

All Size Groups 128.9 76.4 57.8 38.3 21.6 13.7 4214.7 2901.2

3.8.2 The use of N for ‘all crops’ at All India level was 128.9 kg./ha. in irrigated area against

76.4 kg./ha. in unirrigated area. The corresponding rate of consumption for marginal, small, semi-

medium, medium and large holdings in irrigated area were 174.4, 118.3, 110.6, 106.2 and 114.6

(kg./ha.) against 119.9, 76.3, 62.3, 52.7 and 44.0 (kg./ha.) in unirrigated area. This indicates that the

rate of application of N (kg./ha.) was higher in irrigated area as compared to unirrigated area.

3.8.3 The use of P at all India level in irrigated area was 57.8 kg./ha. against 38.3 kg./ha. in

unirrigated area. Its use (kg./ha.) in irrigated area was the highest (73.0) in marginal holdings

followed by small (58.5), semi-medium (52.8), medium (48.0) and large holdings (44.3). The rate of

application (kg./ha.) in unirrigated area under various categories of holdings was 50.8 (marginal),

39.2 (small), 34.6 (semi-medium), 30.6 (medium) and 25.3 (large), showing similar pattern as

observed in case of application of N except large irrigated holdings.

3.8.4 The use of Potash (K) was 21.6 kg./ha. in irrigated area against 13.7 kg./ha. in unirrigated

area. The use of K in irrigated as well as unirrigated areas had decreased with increase in size of

holdings. In general, as observed in Table 3.6, the rate of application of Fertilizer Nutrients (N,P,K)

is comparatively high in smaller holdings.

3.8.5 The use of FYM in irrigated area was 4214.7 kg./ha. against 2901.2 kg./ha. in unirrigated

area. The use (kg./ha.) of FYM in irrigated area over various size-groups of holdings was more than

the corresponding figures in unirrigated area. The use of FYM had decreased as size of holdings

increased in both irrigated and unirrigated areas.

3.9 Livestock 3.9.1 Distribution of livestock held by operational holders in 2011-12 may be seen in Table 3.7(a).

Total number of cattle and buffaloes possessed by operational holders during 2011-12 were 201.63

million and 96.73 million respectively. The number of cattle possessed by operational holders was

highest (110.21) in marginal holdings followed by small (44.97 million), semi-medium (28.81

million), medium (14.59 million) and large (3.06 million) categories of holdings.


24

Table 3.7(a): Distribution of livestock held by operational holders by Major Size Groups (in million)

Sl. No. Size Groups Cattle Buffaloes 1 2

1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 110.21 47.88 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 44.97 21.44 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 28.81 16.19 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 14.59 9.17 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 3.06 2.05 All Size Groups 201.63 96.73 Note: Total may not tally due to rounding off. 3.9.2 Number of cattle per 100 number of operational holders in marginal, small, semi-medium,

medium and large (Table 3.7 (b)) was estimated at 118.9, 181.7, 207.7, 249.2 and 321.14

respectively against 146 for ‘all size groups’. Further, number of buffaloes per 100 of corresponding

number of operational holders at All India level in marginal, small, semi-medium, medium and large

was estimated at 51.7, 86.7, 116.7, 156.6 and 214.6 respectively against 70 for ‘all size groups’.

Table 3.7(b): Distribution of number of livestock per 100

operational holders in each Major Size Groups

Sl. No. Size Groups Cattle* Buffaloes* 1 2 3 4

1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 118.9 51.7 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 181.7 86.7 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 207.7 116.7 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 249.2 156.6 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 321.4 214.6 All Size Groups 146.0 70.0 * The figures are rounded off to nearest integer 3.10 Agricultural Implements and Machinery 3.10.1 In Input Survey 2011-12, information relating to usage of agricultural implements/machinery

was collected. A consolidated statement on number of operational holdings using some of important

machineries during 2011-12 is given in Table 3.8. In a total of 138.11 million operational holdings

estimated by Input Survey 2011-12 in the country, holdings using different kinds of agriculture

implements/machinery were ploughs (wooden/steel) (39.8 percent), tractor drawn mould board

plough (17.6 percent), pumpsets (diesel/electric) (38.3 percent), power tiller (5.8 percent), power

tractor (44.3 percent), cane crusher (animal/power) (1.5 percent), and sprinklers (2.5 percent). The

proportion of holdings using tractor was the highest (67.0 percent) in large holdings followed by


25

medium (54.5percent), semi-medium (44.1 percent), marginal (43.8 percent) and small (42.7

percent).

Table 3.8: Estimated number of operational holdings using agricultural implements/machinery

(in ‘000)

S.No. Size Groups

Total number of operational

holdings

Number of operational holdings using

Wooden Plough

Mould Board Plough

Pumpsets (Diesel/ Electric)

Power Tiller Tractor

Cane Crusher (Animal/ Power)

Sprinklers

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Marginal (Below 1.0

ha.) 92688 34176 13444 33482 4801 40615 1152 1314

(36.9) (14.5) (36.1) (5.2) (43.8) (1.2) (1.4) 2 Small (1.0 – 2.0 ha.) 24746 11682 6032 9802 1704 10572 512 984

(47.2) (24.4) (39.6) (6.9) (42.7) (2.1) (4.0) 3 Semi-medium (2.0 –

4.0 ha.) 13869 6432 3408 6206 956 6117 304 724

(46.4) (24.6) (44.8) (6.9) (44.1) (2.2) (5.2) 4 Medium (4.0 – 10.0

ha.) 5854 2367 1256 2893 428 3190 141 362

(40.4) (21.5) (49.4) (7.3) (54.5) (2.4) (6.2) 5 Large (10.0 ha. and

above) 953 308 138 459 65 638 24 60

(32.3) (14.5) (48.2) (6.8) (67.0) (2.5) (6.3) All Size Groups 138110 54965 24278 52843 7954 61133 2134 3444 (39.8) (17.6) (38.3) (5.8) (44.3) (1.5) (2.5) Note: (1) Total may not tally due to rounding off. (2) Figures in brackets are percentages. 3.11 Institutional Credit 3.11.1 In Input Survey, data was collected on institutional credit taken by operational holders for

agricultural purposes during agriculture year 2011-12. The institutional credit categorized into short-

term, medium-term and long-term was recorded in the schedule. The percentage of operational

holders availing institutional credit for agricultural purposes from various institutions was 34.5 at All

India level with 28.6 in case of marginal, 44.5 for small, 47.5 for semi-medium, 51.4 for medium and

52.4 for large holdings (Table 3.9(a)).

Table 3.9(a): Percentage of estimated number of operational holders availing institutional

credit under different size groups

Sl. No. Size Groups

Percentage of operational holders

availing institutional credit

Percentage of operational holdings availing credit from

PACS PLDB/ SLDB CBB RRBB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 28.6 40.8 2.9 45.7 13.9 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 44.5 49.8 4.3 33.3 17.6 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 47.5 52.7 4.7 30.1 19.4 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 51.4 55.7 5.4 27.2 22.0 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 52.4 57.0 7.1 23.8 28.5 All Size Groups 34.5 45.6 3.7 39.3 16.2 Note: Total may not tally due to rounding off.


26

3.11.2 The percentage of operational holdings availing agricultural credit from different sources,

viz., Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS), Primary Land Development Banks (PLDB),

Commercial Banks (CBB) and Regional Rural Banks (RRBB) was 40.8, 2.9, 47.5 and 13.9 in

marginal category; 49.8, 4.3, 33.3 and 17.6 in small holdings; 52.7, 4.7, 30.1 and 19.4 in semi-

medium; 55.7, 5.4, 27.2 and 22.0 in medium; 57.0, 7.1, 23.8, and 28.5 in large holdings with an

average of 45.6, 3.7, 39.3 and 16.2 at All India level. It is clarified that there were some operational

holders who took institutional credit from more than one source and hence there was an overlapping

in number of operational holdings availing credit through above mentioned sources. The above

distribution shows that Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (45.6 percent) were main source of

credit of operational holders followed by commercial banks (39.3 percent) and regional rural banks

(16.2 percent).

3.11.3 From Table 3.9(b), it may be seen that percentage of short-term, medium-term, and long-

term loans taken by operational holders at All India level was 64.7, 24.8 and 10.5 respectively with

64.0, 27.2 and 8.8 for marginal; 65.2, 24.8 and 10.0 for small; 66.0, 22.7 and 11.3 for semi-medium;

65.0, 21.9 and 13.1 for medium; and 60.0, 25.4 and 14.6 for large holdings. This distribution

indicates that percentage of short-term loan taken by each size group operational holders was more

prevalent than medium and long-term loans, which is normally found that short-term loan is

frequently borrowed to meet requirement of seasonal agricultural operations.

Table 3.9(b): Percentage distribution of short-term, medium-term and long-term loans to

corresponding total loan in each size group

Sl. No. Size Groups Short-term Medium-term Long-term

1 2 3 4 5 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 64.0 27.2 8.8 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 65.2 24.8 10.0 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 66.0 22.7 11.3 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 65.0 21.9 13.1 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above) 60.0 25.4 14.6 All Size Groups 64.7 24.8 10.5 Note: Total may not tally due to rounding off. 3.11.4 From the table 3.9(c), it may be seen that marginal holdings availed 37.3 percent of total

agricultural credit of about ₹90721 crores against their presentation of 67.1 percent in total number

of operational holdings of 138.11 million estimated through Input Survey 2011-12. Similarly, small,

semi-medium, medium and large holdings availed 23.3 percent, 20.5 percent, 15.0 percent and 3.9


27

percent of total agricultural credit respectively against their proportions of 17.9 percent, 10.0 percent,

4.2 percent and 0.7 percent in total number of holdings.

Table 3.9(c): Percentage distribution of agricultural credit by size-groups

Sl. No. Size Groups Percentage of number of operational holdings Percentage of agricultural

credit availed

1 2 3 4 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 67.1 37.3 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 17.9 23.3 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 10.0 20.5 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 4.2 15.0 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 0.7 3.9 All Size Groups 100.0 100.0 Note: Total may not tally due to rounding off. 3.11.5 In Input Survey 2011-12, disbursement of short-term loan was collected under three

components, viz., loan used for purchasing fertilizer, loan utilized for other inputs and amount of

loan taken in cash from financial institutions. It was observed that highest share of short-term loan

was received in form of cash which constituted 92.2 percent at All India level against 5.5 percent for

purchasing fertilizer and only 2.2 percent for ‘other inputs’(Table 3.9(d)).

Table 3.9(d): Percentage distribution of short-term loan according to uses

Sl. No. Size Groups

Loan amount utilized for purchase of Loan amount received in

cash Fertilizer Other Inputs

1 2 3 4 5 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 31.1 8.2 60.7 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 20.6 7.7 71.8 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 18.2 7.0 74.8 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 17.6 7.0 75.4 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 14.7 5.8 79.4 All Size Groups 23.3 7.5 69.2 Note: Total may not tally due to rounding off. 3.12 Seeds 3.12.1 The estimated number of operational holdings who used improved quality seeds (certified

seeds) for agricultural purposes may be seen in Table 3.10. Out of a total of 138.11 million

operational holdings estimated for Input Survey 2011-12, 39.41 percent used certified seeds while

26.96 percent of it used seed of notified variety. Out of total operational holding, only 9.84 percent

used hybrid seeds and 3.45 percent carried out foundation programme of seeds.


28

Table 3.10: Estimated number of operational holdings using certified seeds for agricultural purpose

(in million)

Sl. No. Size Groups

Total No. of Operational

Holdings

No. of Holdings

using Certified

Seeds

No. of Holdings

using Notified

Seeds

No. of Holdings

using Hybrid Seeds

No. of Holdings who took

foundation Prog.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 92.69 32.90 22.84 7.67 2.75 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 24.75 11.61 7.78 3.15 1.02 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 13.87 6.79 4.52 1.86 0.67 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 5.85 2.77 1.84 0.79 0.29 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 0.95 0.36 0.25 0.12 0.04 All Size Groups 138.11 54.43 37.23 13.59 4.76 Note: Total may not tally due to founding off. 3.12.2 The crop-wise distribution of operational holdings using notified variety of certified seeds

showed that out of a total of 37.23 million holdings which used seed of notified variety, about 46.56

percent holders used for paddy crop, 27.48 percent for wheat, 10.02 percent for maize, 6.13 percent

for cotton, 5.18 percent for Jowar, 5.12 percent for sugarcane, 3.93 percent for tur (arhar), 3.87

percent for bajra, 2.09 percent for rapeseed & mustard and 1.02 percent for groundnut. 3.12.3 In a total of 13.59 million operational holders using hybrid seed, about 49.86 percent used

for paddy crop, about 12.87 percent for cotton crops, 12.43 percent for wheat, 10.10 percent for

maize, 9.75 percent for Jowar, 7.34 percent for bajra, 2.58 percent for rapeseed & mustard, 0.71

percent for sugarcane, 0.64 percent for tur (arhar) and 0.55 percent for groundnut.

3.12.4 It was also found that Agriculture Departments of State Governments were the second

largest source from where farmers purchased certified seeds as out of estimated 54.43 million

operational holders using certified seeds, 41.90 percent purchased their seeds from Agriculture

Departments while 57.78 percent holders met their requirement from private seed dealers. 3.13 Pest Control Measures (Integrated Pest Management) and Soil Test 3.13.1 Traditionally, there have been a number of practices adopted by farmers as plant protection

measures. For the first time, data on practices usually followed by operational holder for protection

of his crops against insects and pests was collected in Input Survey 2001-02 under Integrated Pest

Management (IPM), keeping in view crop variety and agro-climatic conditions. The data in Input

Survey 2011-12 was collected under following types of pest control measures:


29

- Agronomic and Cultural Practices - Mechanical Control - Biological Control - Chemical Control - Others - No Efforts

3.13.2 The percentage distribution of number of operational holders who adopted above mentioned

practices for plant protection by major size groups of holdings may be seen in Table 3.11(a).

Table 3.11(a): Percentage distribution of operational holdings adopting usual methods of pest control by Major Size Groups of holdings

Sl. No. Size Groups


Holdings

Number of Operational

Holdings performed Soil Test

Number of

holdings which

adopted Pest

Control

Agronomic and

Cultural Practices

Mechanical Control

Biological Control

Chemical Control Others

No Efforts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 67.1 58.0 63.8 61.1 69.5 68.5 63.3 75.4 76.3 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 17.9 21.0 19.6 20.0 15.6 17.7 20.0 13.9 13.3 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 10.0 13.2 11.1 12.0 9.4 9.4 11.3 7.6 7.0 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 4.2 6.8 4.7 5.7 4.6 3.9 4.7 2.8 2.9 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 All Size Groups 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Total may not tally due to rounding off. 3.13.3 The percentage of holdings adopting agronomic and cultural practices was highest (29.9) in

large size group followed by medium (22.5), semi-medium (20.1), medium (19.1) and marginal

(17.9). Largest holdings had highest share of 7.5 percent even for mechanical control, followed by

marginal (6.7 percent), medium (6.0 percent), semi-medium (5.2 percent) and small (4.9 percent)

categories of holdings. In biological methods, marginal holdings had highest share of 5.8 percent

followed by small (4.8 percent), semi-medium (4.5 percent), medium (4.4 percent) and large (4.1

percent). Under chemical methods, highest percentage of holdings belonged to small category (87.6)

followed by semi-medium (87.2), medium (85.7), marginal (85.2) and large (81.9). 3.13.4 The percentage distribution of operational holdings in each size groups of holdings by

various methods of pest control is given in Table 3.11(b). Table 3.11(b): Percentage distribution of operational holdings in various size groups of holdings by usual methods

of pest control

Sl. No. Size Groups

Number of

holdings which

adopted Pest

Control

Agronomic and

Cultural Practices

Mechanical Control

Biological Control


No Efforts

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 69.7 12.5 4.7 4.0 59.4 2.3 30.3 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 80.2 15.3 3.9 3.9 70.3 1.6 19.8


30

Sl. No. Size Groups

Number of

holdings which

adopted Pest

Control

Agronomic and

Cultural Practices

Mechanical Control

Biological Control


No Efforts

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 81.4 16.4 4.2 3.7 71.0 1.5 18.6 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 81.7 18.4 4.9 3.6 70.0 1.3 18.3 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 81.7 24.4 6.1 3.4 66.9 1.0 18.3 All Size Groups 73.4 13.7 4.5 3.9 63.0 2.0 26.6 It is clarified that one operational holder may follow more than one practices to protect his crop(s)

from insects or pests. 3.13.5 It may be observed that chemical control method was most popular among various pest

control measures as 63.0 percent holdings adopted this approach followed by agronomic & cultural

practices (13.7 percent) etc. However, 26.6 percent of total holdings did not go for any plant

protection measures. 3.13.6 For the first time, during Input Survey 2011-12, information on soil test carried out by

operational holdings was collected. The size group-wise percentage distribution of operational

holders conducted soil testing is presented in the following table (3.11(c)). Among the 138.11

million estimated operational holders for Input Survey 2011-12, 6.6 percent have conducted soil

testing till 30th June, 2012.

Table 3.11(c): Size group-wise estimated number and percentage of operational holdings performed soil testing

Sl. No. Size Groups Total Number of

Operational Holdings (000’)

Number of holdings performed soil testing (000’)

Percentage of holding conducted soil testing

1 2 3 4 5 1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 92688.0 5310.5 5.7 2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 24746.1 1922.8 7.8 3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 13869.1 1210.3 8.7 4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 5853.7 619.4 10.6 5 Large (10.0 ha. and above) 953.0 97.3 10.2 All Size Groups 138109.9 9160.3 6.6 3.14 Educational Qualification of Operational Holder 3.14.1 In Input Survey 2011-12, data was collected relating to educational qualification of selected

operational holders and an estimate was generated at different levels, like district, state and all India.

The information was collected on different educational levels, like illiterate, up to primary level,

middle, secondary, senior secondary, technical diploma below degree level and graduates and above. 3.14.2 The percentage distribution of operational holdings in each size groups by educational

status may be seen in Table 3.12.


31

Table 3.12: Percentage distribution of operational holders in each size groups by educational status

Sl. No. Size Groups


Holders

Educational Qualifications of Operational Holders

Illiterate Up to Class V Middle Secondary Senior

Secondary

Technical Diploma

below Degree Level

Graduate & above

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 100.0 31.3 22.2 23.4 15.3 4.8 1.2 1.8

2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 100.0 30.2 23.0 21.5 15.5 5.8 1.4 2.6

3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 100.0 28.9 23.2 21.7 15.8 6.2 1.2 2.9

4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 100.0 28.6 23.6 20.5 15.8 6.4 1.4 3.6

5 Large (10.0 ha. and above 100.0 31.1 22.5 18.8 15.4 6.1 1.6 4.6

All Size Groups 100.0 30.7 22.5 22.7 15.4 5.2 1.3 2.1 Note: Total may not tally due to rounding off. 3.14.3 Out of a total of 138.11 million estimated operational holders for Input Survey 2011-12,

about 69.3 percent were literate, 22.5 percent studied up to class V, 22.7 percent up to middle class,

15.4 percent up to secondary, 5.2 percent up to senior secondary, 1.3 percent technical diploma

holders below degree level and rest 2.1 percent has graduation and above. 3.15 Average Age of Operational Holder

3.15.1 In Input Survey 2011-12, information relating to age of sampled operational holders (in

completed years) was collected. Based on the estimated figure, the percentage distribution of number

of operational holders into pre-defined age-groups may be seen in Table 3.13. The average age of an

operational holder was estimated at 50 years while maximum number of operational holders (33.7

percent) belonged to the age group (41 – 50 ) years followed by (51 – 60) years (33.2 percent), (31 –

40) years (12.6 percent) etc., lowest being in age group – up to 30 years (3.5 percent). Table 3.13: Percentage distribution of number of operational holders into different age groups

Sl. No. Size Groups


Holders

up to 30

years

31 - 40 years

41 - 50 years

51 - 60 years

61 - 65 years

66 years

& above

Average age

(years)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 100.0 3.2 12.1 34.7 34.1 9.9 6.0 50.08

2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 100.0 4.3 14.7 32.5 30.7 11.4 6.4 49.61

3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 100.0 4.0 12.7 31.4 31.6 12.1 8.1 50.47

4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 100.0 3.6 12.0 29.1 32.5 13.1 9.7 51.23

5 Large (10.0 ha. and above) 100.0 2.8 9.0 27.5 33.6 14.3 12.7 52.72

All Size Groups 100.0 3.5 12.6 33.7 33.2 10.5 6.5 50.10 Note: (1) Total may not tally due to rounding off. (2) Figures in Col.3 to 9 are percentages.


32

3.16 Size of Household of Operational Holder

3.16.1 The percentage distribution of number of operational holders in each size-group of holdings

according to different size of households is given in Table 3.14. The average size of household of an

operational holder was estimated at 5.01. Also, 50.9 percent of operational holders had their family

size between 4 to 6 followed by size of households up to 3 (27.1 percent), 7 to 9 (18.3 percent) etc.

Table 3.14: Percentage distribution of number of operational holdings by size of households

Sl. No. Size Groups


Holders

Size of household of operational holder Average Size (no.) Up to

3 4 to 6 7 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 to

19 20 & above

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Marginal (below 1.0 ha.) 100.0 26.9 52.0 18.0 2.3 0.5 0.2 0.1 4.96

2 Small (1.0 - 1.99 ha.) 100.0 28.9 50.3 16.7 3.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 4.93

3 Semi-medium (2.0 - 3.99 ha.) 100.0 25.4 47.7 21.4 3.9 1.1 0.3 0.1 5.28

4 Medium (4.0 - 9.99 ha.) 100.0 25.1 45.4 22.4 4.9 1.4 0.5 0.3 5.45

5 Large (10.0 ha. and above) 100.0 29.1 44.1 17.3 6.4 1.9 0.8 0.5 5.36

All Size Groups 100.0 27.1 50.9 18.3 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.1 5.01 Note: (1) Total may not tally due to rounding off. (2) Figures in Col.3 to 10 are percentages.

*******

Part-II Statistical Tables

All India R

eport on Input Survey 2011-12

33

TABLE 1A : DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF HOLDINGS, OPERATED AREA, PARCELS AND CROPPED AREA BY MAJOR SIZE GROUPS

Number in ‘000 Units

Area in ‘000 Hect.

Sl. No. Size group(ha)

Number of holdings

Operated area

Number of parcels

Average Net sown area Gross cropped area

Number of parcels per

holdings

Area per parcel

Area per

holding Irrigated Unirrigated Total Irrigated Unirrigated Total

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 MARGINAL (BELOW 1.0 ) 92688 37242 151022 1.63 0.25 0.4 17077 16651 33728 24009 23134 47142

2 SMALL (1.0-1.99) 24746 34872 57973 2.34 0.6 1.41 14265 17417 31682 18975 23655 42630 3 SEMI-MEDIUM (2.0-3.99) 13869 37369 41283 2.98 0.91 2.69 15075 18248 33322 19925 24780 44706

4 MEDIUM (4.0-9.99) 5854 33387 22211 3.79 1.5 5.7 13193 15781 28974 18090 21169 39258 5 LARGE (10 AND ABOVE) 953 14735 4819 5.06 3.06 15.46 4741 7201 11942 6999 9019 16018

ALL GROUPS 138110 157605 277309 2.01 0.57 1.14 64351 75298 139649 87997 101757 189755 Note:-Total May not Tally Due to Rounding Off.

TABLE 1B : DISTRIBUTION OF AREA CROPPED ONCE AND MORE THAN ONCE IN IRRIGATED AND UNIRRIGATED AREAS BY MAJOR SIZE

GROUPS


Sl.no. Size group(ha)

Net irrigated area Net unirrigated area

Cropped once

Cropped twice Cropped more than twice

Total Cropped once

Cropped more than

once Total One crop

irrigated Two crops irrigated

One crop irrigated

Two crops irrigated

More than two crops irrigated

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 MARGINAL (BELOW 1.0 ) 7473 2967 5962 47 289 340 17077 13517 3134 16651 2 SMALL (1.0-1.99) 6960 2805 4061 40 149 250 14265 14213 3204 17417

3 SEMI-MEDIUM (2.0-3.99) 7271 3089 4418 41 77 178 15075 14963 3284 18248 4 MEDIUM (4.0-9.99) 5686 2703 4628 27 29 119 13193 13180 2601 15781 5 LARGE (10 AND ABOVE) 1728 780 2188 8 5 32 4741 6184 1017 7201

ALL GROUPS 29118 12345 21257 163 548 921 64351 62058 13241 75298 Note:-Total May not Tally Due to Rounding Off.

All India R

eport on Input Survey 2011-12

34

TABLE 2A: USAGE OF INPUTS-FERTILIZERS BY MAJOR SIZE GROUPS ALL CROPS


Quantity in Metric Ton

Sl. No.

Size Group

(ha)

Gross cropped

area

Area treated

with fertilizers

Quantity Applied Area treated with Quantity of FYM applied DAP Urea

Super Phosphate

Ammo-nium

Sulphate

Others Total Farm Yard

Manure Pestici

Documents

agricoop.nic.inagricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/AIR on IS 2011-12_0.pdf · 7 Table 1(a) All India – Distribution of number of holdings, operated area, parcels and cropped area