METHODS AND TECHNIQUES FOR MEASURING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY

Transcription

1 CHAPTER - 2 METHODS AND TECHNIQUES FOR MEASURING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY which they live. If the area is predominantly agricultural, the regional development is largely depend upon agricultural productivity and the total output of agricultural crops. The socio-economic factors influence the agricultural productivity. The measurement of agricultural productivity is not a simple task, as it involves a relationship between inputs and outputs in agricultural production. Input, itself is a complex factor which governs farming efficiency. L.D. Stamp, while attempting to measure crop productivity per unit area emphasises that areal differences in crop productivity are the result partly of natural advantages of soil and climate and partly of farming efficiency. Farming efficiency refers to the properties and qualities of the various inputs, the manner in which they are combined and utilized for production and effective market demands for the output. The increase in agricultural productivity is largely related to the choice of inputs and their relative quantities, the techniques and still with which they are utilized in the production processes and the output that they produce. There is a substantial literature relating to methodological procedures for measuring productivity in agriculture1. The measures of agricultural productivity which are most frequently understood are those of

2 "12 partial productivity and refer to the relation of a single input or a group of inputs to the total output or to a part thereof (yield per hectare, output per man-hour, output per unit of capital). The data required to measure the productivity of a single input is more likely to be-available than are those required for measures of overall productivity. Besides, the aggregation of total inputs may tend to obscure the effect of changes in their composition. Several methods have been adopted for computing agricultural productivity. These are : (i) output per unit area or acre-yields after grading them in ranking order; (ii) input-output ratio and profitability of farming measured in terms of the return for the sum - total of human efforts; (iii) output per unit of labour applied; (iv) out put in terms of grain equivalents per head of population; (v) the value of agricultural outputs. Of these (ii), (iii), and (v) seem to require such statistics as are not easily available in most of the countries of the world; The input output concept has little validity in subsistence farm economy, where (a) food grains constitute 80 to 90 percent of, all agricultural production, (b) the major output is retained for domestic consumption, and (c) most of the inputs are provided by the farmer himself2. Professor Kostrowicki, the Chairman of International Commission on Agricultural Typology is seized of this problem. He sent a questionaire to over 100 scholars of the world, which embodied the following two questions: (a) what methods of measuring intensity of agriculture should be applied in typological studies of various orders.

3 13 (b) What methods measures and indices should be used to define land, labour and capital productivity of agriculture in typological studies of various orders. Approximately fifty geographers from all over the world responded and suggested various approaches to the measurement of agricultural intensity. The opinion of some of them are as follows: (I) Method of measuring intensity of agriculture having necessary basic data : (a) value of fixed and floating assessment i.e., total of production inputs per unit area of agricultural land, (b) this most general quantitative index should be supplemented by separate calculations of value of production funds / reserves per unit area and labour inputs in hours or days per unit area; (c) as a supplementary index a value of gross production of agriculture per unit area should also be applied. (II) To determine land productivity either partial indices / yield of particular crops, value of gross crop production or general quantitative expressions/ value of total final production could be used. The same is to determine labour productivity in agriculture in relation to working hours or days. To determine economic effectiveness of capital inputs / productivity of capital inputs, a value of final production or value of fixed and floating assets should be related ( Rakintov, N.). Intensity of agriculture, I understand to be index of how much of the year the crop surface, be it soil or water in a pond is occupied by crops in ratio of how many crops are grown per year, measured normally against some kind of productivity factor. The later could be calories, or it could be dollars ( Spencer, J.E.).

4 14 (I) Intensity of production should ideally be measured by total by monetary input with allowance for the work of the enterpreneour and his family plus interest on his invested capital. This again would be difficult to apply and partial measure might have to suffice e.g., yields, stock densities, total grain units or labour inputs per unit area a slightly equivocal method would be gross output per unit area; high outputs usually intimate high inputs. (II) Land, labour and capital productivity are partial measures of agricultural productivity. They are extremely difficult to measure independently because the are complementary rather than isolated aspects. Therefore, a measure of land productivity, e.g. output per acre would not necessarily be and indicator of land potential, but rather a measure of the combined utilization of land, labour and capital. In the same way, labour productivity e.g. output per man day is as much reflection of innate land potential and the degree of capital investment as it is of labour efficiency. In the final economic analysis land and labopr are reduced in to the debit side of the farm account and ultimately affect capital productivity i.e. output per unit of input in monetary terms (Taylor, J.A. & Aitchison, J.W.). (I) Intensity qtf agriculture refers to inputs of man power, technical equipment and materials, such as seeds, fertilizers per unit area. (II) In order to measure land, labour and capital productivity agriculture net yields/ value per unit area, per man power unit, and as a percentage of total capital investment are used. The best measure of agricultural intensity is to determine expenditures on capital and labour per unit area of farm land. This information is not readily available in complete form from the census. Total capitalization and number of full time farmers per unit area is available and

5 15 is thus the most satisfactory index to be used in Canada. Another good indication of intensity is the percentage of cultivated crop land per unit area ( Reeds, L.). Complete statistics are not available which may suffice to measures labour or capital productivity of agriculture in Japan. There is no choice then but to estimate the productivity from samples of individual farm management. Land productivity may be measured by the gross / monetary production per average of cultivated land per area (Shiraham, H.). The chairman of the commission, while commenting on the different approaches, pointed out that a special study was needed which may test various methods and techniques to be used in the studies of various scales3. The above mentioned different approaches of measurement of agricultural productivity have been applied and tested by different scholars in India and abroad. The some techniques are more efficient and applicable to measure the agricultural productivity.. Thompson4 (1926) in his study, measured the relative productivity,,of British and Danish farming emphasized and expressed it in terms of gross outputs of crops and livestock. He considered seven parameters. They are : (1) the yield per acre of crops, (2) the livestock per 100 acre, (3) the gross production or output per 100 acres, (4) the production of arable land, (5) the number of persons employed in agriculture and allied activities,

6 16 (6) the cost of production expressed in terms of wages and labour costs, rent or interest, and (7) the prices relative profitability and general economic conditions. Ganguli5 (1938) in his study of the Ganges valley presented a theoratical discussion for computing productivity in agriculture. He used nine loading crops and for each crop he calculated the yield index which may be expressed : acre yield of crop A in the component areal unit acre yield of crop A in the entire region Firstly, he look in account the area under any crop A in a particular unit area belonging to a certain region. This area is expressed as a proportion of the total cropped area under all the selected crops. Secondly, he tried to obtain the index number of yield. This is found by dividing the yield per hectare for the entire region as the standard. This yield may be expressed as a percentage and the percentage may be regarded as the index number of yield. Thirdly, the proportion of the area under A and the corresponding index number of yield were multiplied. There are two advantages which are apparent by using this method, i.e. (i) the relative importance of the crop A in that unit of study is assessed as indicated by the proportion of the cropped area which is under A, and (ii) the yield of crop A5 in comparison to the regional standard. The product thus obtained indicated actually and index of the contribution of the crop A to the productivity of the unit considered. Kendall 6(1939) evolved a measure of determining agricultural efficiency based on output per unit area and devised a system of Ranking

7 M coefficients. He has taken the acre yield of ten leading crops in each of the forty eight administrative counties in England for four selected years, tried on four coefficients ; productivity ranking, money value and starch equivalent or energy. Of the four coefficients, the ranking coefficient is probably the easiest to calculate and gives a reasonable ranking of counties in order of productivity. To obtain the ranking coefficient, Kendall ranked each of the ten crops in the forty eight counties in order of iheir yield then the sum of the ranks occupied by the unit was divided by the number of the crops considered to obtained the average of the unit. Kendall s money value coefficient was based on the value of crop production of each county ( which was obtained by multiplying the volume of production of a particular crop by the price ) and the results of ten crops for each county were added together and the total was divided by the total acreage in the county under the ten crops. Kendall s energy coefficient is based on the total energy value of various arable crops expressed as starch after adding the proportions assignable to by-products and the energy index was constructed by ascertaining the production of energy per acre under crops on the basis of a prepared table showing the energy value of various crops. Hirsch 7(1943) has suggested 4 Crop Yield Index, as the basis of productivity measurement. It expresses the average of the yield s of various crops on a farm or in a locality relative to the yields of the same crops on another farm in a second locality. Zobel8 (1950) has tried to determine the labour productivity. He considered the productivity of labour as the ratio of total output to the total man-hours consumed in the production of that output resulting in output per man-hour. This has been expressed by the following equation :

8 18 n =/(p,l) where II= productivity of labour P = production, and L = labour utilized.' Huntington and Valkenburg 9 (1952) considered land productivity on the basis of acre yields of eight crops raised vary widely in Europe. For each crop, the average yield per acre for Europe as a whole was taken as an index of 100, and the specific yield in each country was calculated accordingly. Stamp 10 (1952) adopted Kendall s ranking coefficient by selecting twenty countries and nine crops. The countries were placed in order of output per acre for each crop. The places occupied by each country in respect to the selected crops were then averaged, and from these averages, the ranking coefficient of agricultural efficiency of each country was obtained. If a country was at the top of every list, it would have a ranking coefficient of one, and if it were at the bottom of every list, it would have a ranking coefficient equal to the total number of countries concerned.'" M.Shafi 11 (.1960) applied ranking coefficient technique for measuring the agricultural efficiency of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of acre yields of eight selected crops. Such technique was first applied by him in India. As described by him, this method of measurement perhaps suffers from two defects : (a) Firstly, the Rohilkhand farmer may be as hard working or even more diligent than the Doab farmer, but on the basis of unit area production, the ranking co-efficient of agricultural production of the Rohilkhand districts is

9 19 the lowest and that of the Doab districts the highest and therefore the agricultural efficiency of Doab farmer is designated as the highest and that of the Rohilkhand farmer as the lowest. (b) Secondly, insignificant acreages under certain crops which show high adaptations with regard to physical factors in the same or in different regions may have higher yield per acre than those crops which occupy substantial acreages under those crops with poor adaptability to physical conditions. Stamp while commenting on this method points out that the aim of this technique is to measure actually the crop productivity per unit acrea which depends partly on the management and organization of the farmer.12 The inherent weakness of the ranking coefficient method is that it considers only the acre yield of a crop and does not take into account the areal spread of that particular crop. For example, an enumeration unit A occupies first rank on the basis of per acre production of wheat, whereas only a fraction of one per cent of cropland is devoted to it. Hence it is obvious that while measuring the agricultural efficiency both the areal spread and the yield per acre should bp considered. Kendall s ranking coefficient was modified by Sapre and Deshpande13 in 1964 by. giving weightage to the area under different crops. The weights for ranks of various crops are proportional to the percentage of cropland under each crop. For example, an enumeration unit A has rank 2 on the basis of wheat acre-yield and occupies 30 per cent of the total cropped acrea, rank 3 on the basis of rice acre-yield and occupies 25 percent of the total cropland area, rank 8 on the basis of gram acre-yield and occupies 10 per cent of the total cropped area. Thus the weighted average of

10 20 the ranks would be (2x30) + (3x25) + (8x10) = 215 divided by the sum of the percentage of crop area ( = 65) as 215/65 =3.3. Using the Kendall s method it would have been =13 divided by the number of crop as 13/3 = 4.3. A refinement in the Sapre and Deshpande s weighted average of the ranks has been done by Bhatia14 in 1967 in determining the agricultural efficiency in Uttar Pradesh. He first calculated the yield indices of various crops and multiplied them by the percentages of cropland under different crops and divided the sum of these by the sum of the percentages of cropland under the different crops. This may be expressed as : Yc (i) Iya = Yr Where - X100 Iya = Yield index of crop a, Yc = Acre yield of crop a in the component unit, and Yr = Acre yield of crop a in the entire region, and (ii) Ei = Iya. Ca + Iyb. Cb +...Iyn. Cn Ca + Cb +..,Cn Where - Ei = Agricultural Efficiency Index. Iya, Iyb...Iyn = Yield indices of various crops Ca,Cb...Cn = Percentage of cropland under different crops. Enyedi(1964)15 while discussing geographical types of agriculture refers the following formula for determining an index of productivity : Y T Yn Tn Where :

11 21 Y = the total yield of the selected crop in the unit area. Yn = the total yield of the crop on national scale. T = total crop area of the district. Tn = total crop area on national scale. Shafi 16 (1972) while measuring the agricultural productivity of Great Indian Plains modified the Enyedi s formula. In the modified formula the summation of the total yield of all the crops in the district is divided by the total area under the crops considered in the district and the position thus obtained is examined in relation to the total yield of all the crops considered at the national level divided by the total area under those crops. The formula would be read as : yw yr ymi Yw Yr Ymi : n t t t T T T n n Ey IY t ' T Or Where: yw, yr, ymi...n = yield of various crops in the unit area, t = total area under those crops in the unit area. Yw, Yr, Ymi...n = Yield of various crops on the national scale. T = total1 area under those crops on the national scale. Buck17 (1937) tried to measure the agricultural productivity in terms of grain equivalents. This method was first used by him in his study of the Chinese agriculture. He realized that, in a subsistence agricultural economy as in China, productivity expressed in terms of

12 22 monetary value has no meaning, because most of the crops grown for personal and domestic uses and only a small part of it is sold for cash. Therefore, the natural unit for measuring production in such a community is the kilogram of grain products to grain equivalents either in accordance with rates at which they exchanged against grain in the local market or on the basis of their calorific value. Grain equivalents as a device of measuring i n agricultural progress was also used by Vries. He presented a modification of Buck s method by expressing all output of grains in Asian countries in terms of milled rice per head of total population. Buck had considered all grains to be equal but Vries converted various kinds of grains into rice- equivalents according to the local market price of each grain. Another modification in this method was presented by Clark and Haswell19 in 1967, they, expressed the output in terms of kilograms of wheat equivalents per person. The scale accords with the weighing system used by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations20. The FAO weighing system is based on the regional wheat relative price weights. The total agricultural production is expressed in terms of kilogram of economic \yheat equivalent/person/annum in this scale. Shafi21 (1965) applied the acre-yield index method of Huntington and Valkenburg to measure the intensity of agriculture in the districts of Uttar Pradesh. The results, when mapped showed that the districts of Doab, with the exception of certain pockets, had the highest intensity of production while the lowest intensity was found in some of the sub-montane districts and in some districts of Bundelkhand. The intensity of the districts of Rohilkhand did not appear as the lowest in the scale of this map. In fact in one district, Bijnore, the intensity appeared next to the

13 23 highest. According to Shafi, this method attempts to measure the relative productivity from an arbitrary standard curve and suffers from the same defects as the ranking coefficient method. Khusro22 (1965) has linked assessment of productivity with the output per unit of a single input and output per unit of cost of all inputs in the agricultural production. Sharma (1965) while defining the concept of agricultural productivity has suggested various parameters on which it can be measured. According to him, productivity can be measured in relation to land, labour and capital. It can also be considered in terms of overall resources employed in agriculture. In case of commodities like food grains, fruits and vegetables, sugarcane and edible seeds, he suggests that the output of these commodities be converted into calories. While considering the other non-food crops such as cotton and other fibres the only common measure being the value which involves the pricing of different products. The farm harvest or wholesale prices have the definite significance for evaluating value of production. He also emphasized agricultural work force as the basis of productivity measurement, e.g. the total number of labourers employed or the number. pf man-hours worked in agriculture per unit of area. Saran24(19 65) has applied Cobb-Douglas production function approach for the measurement of productivity. The common purpose of this function is to express input-output relationship between several inputs and one output in the agricultural system. The function takes the following form Y= A b c d ey Xi x2 x3 X4... n

14 24 Where xi, X2, X3, X denote various inputs like land, labour capital and other working expenses. The value of b,c,d...y represent elasticities of the respective inputs. Tambad2s(1965 and 1970) has adopted Crop Yield Index as the basis for measuring agricultural productivity. He explains, that the purpose of this technique is to express the average yield of various crops on a farm or in a region relative to the yield of same crops on an another farm or in a second region. It can be described by the following equation. n I Y, i = Aj Yio Crop Yield Index = n I Aj i = 1 Where i = 1,2,3...n are the number of crops considered in an unit area or year, Yi = the yield per acre of crop I, in a farm area or year. Ai = the weightage of crop I, denoted by the area.under the crop as a percentage of total cropped, and Yio = the average yield per acre of crop I, at the group of farms, or entire region or the base year. Loomis and Barton26(1961) have measured United States agricultural input and productivity in aggregate. The aggregate productivity depends upon. conceptually consistent measures of agricultural output and input. The measures of inputs include all the production factors that depend directly on the decision of farmers. Commen27 (1962) while working out the

15 25 trends of productivity in agriculture of the state of Kerala (India) has measured productivity on the basis of yield per acre. Meiburg and Brandt28(19 62) have surveyed the earlier indices relating to the United State agricultural output e.g. output estimates of total productivity. They considered eight indices of agricultural production which cover various phases of the period extending between the years 1866 and I960. Mackenzie (1962) has measured the efficiency of production in Canadian agriculture by using the coefficient of output relative to input. He mentioned,, that the concept of productivity measurement is difficult to define and even more difficult to quantify. Horring30(1964) has suggested that the concept of productivity is based not only on the single relationship between output and input, but rather on the differences between two or more relationship si.e. differences in the same agricultural region or sub-region as between successive periods (in times) and between similar agricultural regions in different countries or regions during the same period ( in space ). It may also be possible to make comparison between the trends of productivity for different products, between different regions of the national economy orjbetween the agricultural regions and the national economy as whole. The problem of measurement of agricultural productivity is also considered by the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics. The body has published a series of articles under the head Regional Variation in Agricultural Development and Productivity 31.m Among the contributors Chatterj.i and Maitreya32(1964) have determined the levels of agricultural development and productivity during to in West Bengal taking two crops, rice and jute in consideration:~they utilized the acre yield

16 26 figures for this purpose. Dhondyal33(1964) has measured variations in agricultural development and productivity by the selection of three representative districts from the three regions of the Uttar Pradesh, while assessing the role of credit, intensive crop enterprises, and the irrigation water influence during Garg34(1964) worked out the trends in agricultural development with respect to total cropped area, gross irrigated area and food grain production in the two districts of Uttar Pradesh, viz. Gorakhpur representing the eastern region and Meerut from the western region and productivity by assessing acreage, production and average yield per acre of three important crops viz. rice, wheat and sugarcane. The study extends from to covering the period between the first and second five year plans. o e Gopalkrishnan and Ramakrishna (1964) have taken Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of study; * (1) To measure the degree of variations with the respect to (a) agricultural output per acre(rs),(b) output per head of agricultural population(rs.).and,,* (2) to account the causes of variations in each of twenty districts of the state during The variables relating to the level of output per acre are (i) (ii) selected as follows: normal level of rainfall, percentage of current and old follows, (iii) percentage of area under irrigation, (iv) percentage of literacy, (v) percentage of gross value other than foodgrains and fodder.

17 27 (vi) intensity of cropping, (vii) percentage of population engaged in agriculture, (viii) percentage of area under all crops excluding fodder and food grains. (ix) density of agricultural population per acre, and (x) percentage of total area under commercial crops including rice. Another approach to measure productivity is to convert the total food production into calories. Quantitative food requirement are usually estimated in terms of heat units- calories36. A physiological calorie (also termed Kilo calories i.e. one thousand calories and abbreviated Kcal). It is the amount of heat necessary to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree centigrade. The caloric intake is a measure of the general health of a person because it determines the amount of heat and energy needed by the human body. Stamp37(1958) has taken caloric value of farm production in measuring the agricultural productivity. He calculated the standard Nutrition Unit (SNU) by converting all the food production per acre in calories. The British Medical Association has carried out an exhaustive enquiry based on all available sources and published a table to show the caloric intake among adults from 2,100 a day for a woman in sedentary occupation to 4,250 for a man engaged in active manual work. For children V the desirable intake is calculated at 800 a day for infants under one year to 3,400 for teenage boy. The average of the different categories worked out at 2,540 calories a day. Taking into consideration the age.structure of the population, the range of occupations, the weight and height of the people living under the climatic conditions of north western Europe, the average is

18 28 2,460 calories a day or about 9,00,000 calories per year. Making allowance for a loss of 10 per cent in harvesting, cooking and food preparation the figure of 1000,000 calories a year in terms of farm production may be accepted38. The Nutrition Expert Group (1968) of Indian Council of Medical Research has recommended the daily allowance of Nutrients for Indians. They published a table to show the caloric intake among adults from 1,900 a day for a woman in sedentary work to 3,900 for a man engaged in heavy work. For children it was recommended 110 calories per kg. body weight per day for infants under one year to 3,000 for teenage boy39. Shafi4 (1960) has calculated this under Indian conditions in the twelve villages of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. The net caloric intake ranges from 1,828 a day (667,677 a year ) to 2,175 a day (795,514 a year). According to him in no case it reaches the 900,000 calories postulated as the SNU. He calculated that in the well drained and irrigated villages of Eastern Uttar Pradesh the caloric intake per person amounts to about 2,000 a day. Where the caloric intake drops below 2,000 a day, both standard of living and standard qf-health are perceptibly lower. Shafi41(1967) further considered the district as the unit of study and converted the acre yield of each crop grown in the acre into calories. These were added together and divided by the number of crops considered. The results thus obtained revealed the output of calories per. acre. Considering the actual intake of 2,000 calories per person per day as the minimum requirement under Indian conditions (equivalent to a farm production of about 800,000 calories taking into account a loss of 10 per cent in the general rate of extraction, and known losses in food production),

19 29 the per acre calories were converted into SNUs. The calculations in Uttar Pradesh revealed that all the Doab districts produced 1.4 to 2 SNUs per acre, while the sub-montane districts, some Rohilkhand districts and all the Bundelkhand districts with the exception of Banda produced 1 to 1.4 Standard Nutrition Units. Jasbir Singh42(1972) has attempted to measure the agricultural efficiency of Haryana in terms of nutrition units per unit area. He has tried to measure the carrying capacity per square mile in the area unit which can be expressed as : Where: Cp= Sn Cp = Carrying capacity. Co = Caloric output per square mile. Sn = Standard Nutrition. Dr. Singh expressed it as a percentage of the carrying capacity in the entire region to obtain index numbers, which give a measure of the agricultural efficiency of the areal unit relative to "the entire region. The above may be expr^m as : Coe Iae = x Cor Where: Iae = the index number of agricultural efficiency of an enumeration unit. Cpe = the carrying capacity in terms of population in the component enumeration unit. Cpr = the carrying capacity in the entire region. \

20 30 He considered the following points while measuring the index number of agricultural efficiency : (a) the acre-yields of each crops; (b) the sharing of harvested land by the different crops; (c) the agricultural land covered by cereals, pulses, food crops and oilseeds occupying 85 to 95 per cent of the harvested land for assessing farming efficiency; (d) the total deduction in the form of disappearance and consumption from the total gross production leaving behind production available for human fuel; (e) the differential-caloric value of each crop and calories available for ingestion per unit area; and (f) the standard nutrition unit estimated by giving weightage to the proportions of age/sex groups, lactating mothers, pregnant mothers and type of work in which rural population is engaged. This method does not take into account of livestock products, for these are produced in such small quantities that the commission makes no difference to the index number. Another approach is to measure agricultural efficiency in terms of labour and capital effectiveness. Productivity of labour can be obtained by dividing the total production in any unit area by the number of man hours or less precisely by the number of persons employed in agriculture; The concept of capital outlays is extremely complicated and difficult to be applied on a scientific basis and it becomes more difficult when the value of the output is introduced especially in the context of arbitrary rates of exchange between the world currencies. Even, different approaches have been applied while

21 31 considering the agricultural productivity on the basis of the efficiency of labour. One approach is to divide total production by the number of workers engaged in agriculture. In another approach a reverse index may be applied where the total number of workers per unit of production is assessed. Shafi 43(1965) while highlighting the different approaches to measurement of agricultural efficiency applied this method and mapped the production per worker in tons in respect of selected food crops in Uttar Pradesh. The results indicated that the districts of Saharanpur in the Doab, and Bijnore in Rohilkhand enjoy the highest position in the scale of efficiency, and the farmers of the four districts of the upper Doab occupy the second position, while the districts of almost the entire sub-montane region and some of the districts of central Uttar Pradesh are lowest in the scale. Shafi applied the second approach and prepared another map in which he showed the number of workers needed per ton of production in respect of the selected food crops. According to the calculations, in most of the Doab districts, broadly speaking, one ton of food (cereals and sugar) is produced by one worker per year, while two or three workers are needed to produce the ame amount in the sub-montane districts. This approach also reflects the situation of labour surpluses in agriculture which is important factor in the study. The efficiency of labour can t be_equated with agricultural efficiency. Moreover, high productivity per unit of labour may be obtained by large inputs of capital although production per unit of labour may be low due to larger number of workers than needed. Again, the same unit of labour with equal amount of capital outlay may be more productive and therefore more efficient in one region with favourable natural factors than in another

22 32 region with relatively less favourable factors. Dovring44(19 67) has measured the productivity of labour in United State agriculture in aggregate since 1919 to 1954 as a whole, as well as commodity-wise. In 30th Annual Conference of The Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics held at Bhubaneshwar, India, some aspect on agricultural productivity in the Indian context were discussed45. Raheja et al. 46( 1977) has measured the impact of high yielding varieties based on data collected under the scheme Sample Surveys for Assessment of Highyielding varieties programme during and regional variations in productivity on the basis of yield per hectare in India. Singh 47( 1977) have accounted the level of increase in the yield of different crops during three decennial year i.e , and in each state of India, considering the relationship between the output of food grains and related inputs like, the application of fertilizer, proportion of area sown more than once and gross irrigated area. Nangia48(1977) conducted a field survey in the village Khandewala, of Haryana state. The study takes into account the productivity levels at different fields of the village in terms of money value during and a number of factors enumerated in three broad categories viz. Environmental, technological and institutional which hold responsibilities for the productivity variations. Bhalla49(1978) has considered output per <«person on constant average price for measuring productivity of labour in Indian agriculture in order to account for nineteen crops during the trienniums and for each districts of India. Singhso(1979) devised a method of presenting a two dimensional picture of agricultural productivity comprising two components viz. intensity and spread

23 33 considering three variables (a) yield (b) grain equivalent and (c) cropping system in the districts of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly a relative share of intensity and spread for each micro unit (state) separately for the above three variables with the help of equations that have been ilerived. emnce 1. Raising agricultural productivity in developing countries through technological improvement, The State of Food and Agriculture, FAO, 1968 Rome;Folke Dovring, Productivity of labour in agricultural production, Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin No. 726, Urbana, University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, 1967; Durost, D.D. and Barton, G.T., Changing sources of farm output, Production Research Report No. 36, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Washington D.C., 1960; Horring, J., Concept of productivity measurements in agriculture on a national scale, OECD, Documentation in Food and Agriculture, No. 57, Paris 1964; Kendrick, J.W., Productivity trends in the United States, General Series, No. 71, Princeton,National Bureau of Economic Research 1961; Loomis, R.A., and Barton G.T., Productivity of Agriculture in the United States, , Technical Bulletin, No USDA Agricultural Research Service, Washington, D.C., 1961; The State of Food and Agriculture, FAO, Rome, 1963; Hayami, Y. and Ruttan V.W., Agricultural productivity differences among countries, The American Economic Review, Vol.60, no ; Shishido, T., Japanese Agriculture: Productivity Trend and Development of Technique, Journal of Farm Economies, Vol, 43, 1961; Van den Noort, P.C. Agricultural Productivity in Western Europe, Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. 15, No. 2,1967; Symposium on Measurement of Agricultural productivity, 1* Journal of Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, Vol. 17 No. 2,1965; Regional Variations in Agricultural Development and Productivity, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol 19, 1964; Productivity, Special Issue on Agricultural Productivity, National Productivity Council Journal, Vol. 6, Nos.2 and 3, Singh, J. (1972): A New Technique for Measuring Agricultural Efficiency in Haryana, India, The Geographer, Vol. XIX, No. 1 p Shaft, M.(1970): Measurement of Food Productivity in India: Presidential Address Delivered at the Annual Meeting of Indian Council of Geographers, Kharagpur, Jan Thompson, R.J. (1926): The Productivity of British and Danish Farming, Journal of the Royal Statislical Society, 89, Part II, p. 218.

24 34 5. Ganguli, B.N., (1938): Trends of Agriculture and Population in the Ganges Valley, Landon. pp Kendall, M.G. (1939) : The Geographical Distribution of Crop Productivity in England, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 52, pp Hirsch, H.G.(1943) : Crop Yield Index, Journal of Farm Economics, 25 (3), p Zobel, S.P.(1950): On the Measurement of Productivity of Labour, Journal of American Statistical Society, 45, P Huntington, E. and Valkenburg, S. (1952): Europe, London & New York p Stamp, L.D. (1952) : Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency with Special Reference to India, Silver Jubilee Souvenir Volume, Indian Geographical Socielypp Shafi, M.(1960) : Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency in Uttar Pradesh, Economic Geography, Vol. 36, No.4 pp Shafi, M. (1965): Approaches to the Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency, Proceedings of Summer School in Geography, Nainital, p Sapre, S.G. and Deshpande, V.D.,(1964): Inter-District Variations in Agricultural Efficiency in Maharashtra State, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No.l, pp Bhatia, S.S.(1967): A New Measure of Agricultural Efficiency in Uttar Pradesh, India, Economic Geography, Vol. 43, No. 3, p Enyedi, G.Y.(1964): Geographical Types of Agriculture, Applied Geography in Hungary, Budapest. 16. Shafi, M.(1972): Measurement of Agricultural Productivity of the Great Indian Plains. The Geographer, Vol. XIX, No. 1 p Buck, J.L. (1937): Land Utilization in China, Vol.l University of Nanking. 18. Quoted by Clark,- C. and Haswell, M. (1967) : The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture, London, pp Ibid, pp FAO (1960): Production Year Book, Vol. 9 No.3, pp Shaft, M. (1974): Perspective on the Measurement of Agricultural Productivity, The Geographer, VoLXXl, No. 1, pp Khusro, A. M. (1965): Measurement of Productivity at Macro and Micro level, Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 27(2), pp Sharma, J.S. (1965): Measurement of Agricultural Productivity - Concepts, Definitions, etc. Ibid pp Saran, R. (1965): Production Function Approach to the Measurement of Productivity in Agriculture, Ibid, p.268.

25 Tambad, S.B.(1965): Spatial and Temporal Variations in Agricultural Productivity in Mysore, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 20, p.41. Tambad, S.B. and Patel, K.V. (1970): Crop Yield Index as a measure of Productivity, Economic and Political Weekly, 5 (25), pp Loomis, R.A. and Barton, G.T. (1961): Productivity of Agriculture in the United States , TechnicalBultetin'Ho. 1238, USDA, Washington, D.C., p.l. 27. Commen, M.A. (1962), Agricultural Productivity Trends in Kerala, Agricultural Situation in India, 17 (4), pp Meiburg, C.O. and Brandt, K.(1962), Agricultural Productivity in the United States: , Food Research Institute Studies, 3(2), p Mackenzie, W., (1962): The Impact of Technological change'on the Efficiency of Production in Canadian Agriculture, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics,(\) p Horring, J. (1964): Concept of Productivity Measurement in Agriculture on a National Scale, OECD, Documentation in Food and Agriculture, 57, Paris, p Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 19(1), 1964, pp , 32. Chatterji, A., and Maitreya, P. (1964): Some Aspects of Regional Variations in Agricultural Productivity and Development in West Bengal, Ibid, pp Dhondyal, S.P., (1964): Regional Variations in Agricultural Development and Productivity in the Eastern and Western Regions of Uttar Pradesh, Ibid, pp Garg, J.S.(1964): Variation Studies in the Agricultural Development and Productivity in the '. / Eastern and Western Region of Uttar Pradesh, Ibid, pp Gopalkrishnan, M.D., and Ramakrishnan, P.T.(1964): Regional Variation in Agricultural Productivity in Andhara Pradesh, Ibid, pp A recommendation was made recently by international organisation like the Fao, WHO and the International Union of Nutritional Sciences that the unit Joule should be used instead of calorie for expression of energy values. The new units kilojoule (KJ) and Megajouie(MJ) may, therefore, eventually replace the kilocalorie used now for expressing the energy value of foodstuffs. The relationship between the two units is as follows: 1 Kilocalorie = Kilojoules (KJ) (Physiological Calories) or 4,184 Joules, 1000 Kilocalories = Megajoules (MJ). In Nutritive value of Indian Foods by Gopalan, C. and others. National Institute of Nutrition, I.C.M.R., Hyderabad, 1980, p Stamp, L.D. (1958): The Measurement of Land Resources, The Geographical Review, Vol, 48, No. 1, p.3, 38. Stamp, L.D.( 1960): Our Developing World, London p.l 10.

26 Gopalan, C., Rama Sastri, B.V. and Baiasubramanian, S.C., (1980): Nutritive value of Indian Foods, National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research, Hyderabad, India, P Shaft, M. (1960) : Land Utilization in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Aligarh, p Shaft, M. (1967) : Measurement offood Production Efficiency and Nutrition in India, The Geographer, Vol. XIV, pp Singh, Jasbir (1972): A New Technique for Measuring Agricultural Efficiency in Haryana, The Geographer, Vol. XIX, No.l, pp Shafi, M.(1965): Approaches to the Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency, Unpublished Proceedings of the Summer School in Geography held at Nainital, Department of Geography, A.M.U.Aligarh, p Dovring, F.(1967) :Productivity of Labour in Agricultural Production, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, No. 726, College of Agriculture, Urbana, Illinois. 45. Symposium on Regional Imbalances and Economic Development with special Reference to Agriculture, Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 29(1), 1977, pp Raheja, S. et al.(1977): Factors Contributing to Regional Variations in Productivity and Adoption o of High Yielding Varieties of Major Cereals in India, Ibid, pp Singh, D. (1977): Crop Productivity Variation in India, op. cit. pp Nangia, S.(1977): Variations in Field Productivity - A Case Study of Khandewala, Haryana, Occasional Paper No. 7, centre for the Study of Regional Development, J.N.U.New Delhi. 49. Bhalla, G.S.,(1978): Spatial Patterns of Agricultural Labour Productivity, Yojna, 22(3), pp Singh, V.R., (1979)A Method for Analysing Agricultural Productivity, Agriculture and Food -»*. Supply in Developing Countries (ed. J.T. Coppock), Commission on World Food Problems and Agricultural Productivity of the IGU, Department of Geography, University of Edinburg, pp