Salient features of village economies in the Semi-Arid Tropics (SAT) of India. KPC Rao, VK Chopde, Y Mohan Rao and D Kumaracharyulu

Transcription

1 Markets, Policy and Impacts ICRISAT Progress Report Salient features of village economies in the Semi-Arid Tropics (SAT) of India KPC Rao, VK Chopde, Y Mohan Rao and D Kumaracharyulu ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute For the Semi-Arid Tropics June

2 Table of Contents Page Introduction 1 Changes in Population Characteristics 3 Occupational distribution 4 Details of Land Ownership 5 Operated area 6 Livestock Ownership 8 Cropping Patterns 11 Major Production Constraints in rainfed crops 16 Utilization of farm produce 19 Economics of Crop Enterprises 21 Crop economics as per the farm management concepts 27 Comparison of crop economics with the seventies 32 Economics of milk production in VLS villages 33 Economics of maintaining draft animals 35 Economics of small ruminants in VLS villages 36 Changes in the composition of net household income in VLS villages 39 Consumption expenditures and nutritional standards 41 Labour market participation and wages 44 Perceived benefits from soil conservation works 48 Perceptions of respondents about climate changes 52 Conclusions 54 References 57 2

3 Salient Features of Village Economies in the Semi-Arid Tropics (SAT) of India K P C Rao, V K Chopde, Y Mohan Rao and D Kumaracharyulu Introduction India s famed green revolution has largely bypassed the dry, semi-arid tropics (SAT). Regions such as India s SAT, with comparatively limited potential for agricultural growth but with rapid population growth, pose difficult problems for an agricultural based strategy of rural development. Village Level Studies (VLS) of ICRISAT, which commenced in 1975, studied three contrasting dryland regions based on the criteria of climate, soils and cropping patterns: The Telengana region in Andhra Pradesh, the western Maharashtra (Bombay Deccan) and Vidarbha region, also in Maharashtra. Two villages were selected carefully to represent each of these regions: Aurepalle and Dokur (Mahaboobnagar), Shirapur and Kalman (Solapur) and Kanzara and Kinkheda (Akola). These six villages were studied during the period to , tracking them by monitoring 40 sample households from each of these six villages using cost-accounting method. The sample of 40 households was divided equally between the landless, small, medium and large farmers categories. Among the six villages, Aurepalle, Shirapur and Kanzara were studied even more intensively on a regular basis by complementing the regular data collection with several special purpose surveys. This longitudinal database, by virtue of its quality and richness, attracted several researchers all over the world and formed basis for a number of publications. It was rated as an International Public Good (IPG) by the World Bank. Several changes swept through the semi-arid tropics of India over the 17 years period between , when the first generation VLS was suspended and , when the second generation VLS surveys were resumed. Globalization of agricultural markets, deepening resource crisis (in terms of land degradation and water depletion), growing population and integration of labour markets have changed the livelihood options and living standards of the rural people in the SAT. In order to accommodate the emerging areas of interest, new modules were added on livestock enterprise economics; natural resource development and water exploration investments; migration; benefits received from the Government programmes etc. In 3

4 order to make a comparative study of the changes in the VLS villages, the same size group classifications as earlier were retained for the landless, small, medium and large farm categories. But, in order to increase the representativeness of the sample to the village population, 15 percent of the households in the village were selected in the sample. Care was taken to include all the sample households of the earlier rounds and their split households in the new sample. After accommodating all these households, the balance sample units were drawn randomly from the population using the probability proportion to size method. The sample design was finalized in consultation with the statistician, who advised to take account of the variability with respect to key parameters in different size groups for deciding the sample distribution between the size groups. Large farm group exhibited a lot more variability than other groups with respect to both the key parameters, income and size of the land. In order to take care of the greater variability in the large farms group, a large proportion of the sample was to be allotted to that group. But it would amount to biasing the sample in favour of large farms group. Since the study of livelihood options and development pathways is the major objective of the study, a sample in which the poorer households are under-represented was not considered desirable. Hence, it was decided to stick with the probability proportion to size method for drawing a representative sample. The total sample size has increased from 240 to 446 households (table 1). Table 1. Sample details of old and new VLS surveys. Landless Small Medium Large Total Sl No Village Old New Old New Old New Old New Old New 1 Aurepalle Dokur Kanzara Kinkheda Shirapur Kalman Total The sample size has doubled or more than doubled in the four larger villages belonging to Mahaboobnagar district (A.P) and Solapur district (Maharashtra). Among the two Akola villages, sample size increased by 30 percent in case of Kanzara, but it fell by 25 percent in case of Kinkheda. In case of all the four Maharashtra villages, the number of large farms in the sample has fallen. In general, the proportion of small farms has increased very much, while the shares of medium and large farms reduced. This sample distribution reflects the fact that the average size 4

5 of holding is falling even in the SAT areas due to population pressure on land. Over time, large and medium farms are becoming smaller on account of fragmentation and sub-division. Changes in Population Characteristics Information on the demographic features and educational levels of the sample households in the six VLS villages is presented in table 2. Table2. Family size and literacy levels of sample households in VLS villages, S No Details Aurepalle Dokur Kanzara Kinkheda Shirapur Kalman 1 Total family members Average family size Percentage of literates Distribution of literates (%) (a) Primary school (b) Secondary school ( c) High school (d) Intermediate (e) Graduation (f) Post graduation Literacy percentage among young men(5-30 yrs) Literacy percentage among young women(5-30 yrs) The average size of family decreased over the last two decades from 8.37 to 5.10, as more and more families became nucleated. Aurepalle village had the smallest family size and Kalman had the largest family size, on an average in The literacy rates are above 80 in Akola villages, 64 in Solapur villages and about 45 in Mahaboobnagar villages. Maharashtra villages also showed higher levels of education among literates when compared to A.P villages. Educational inequality by gender persists in A.P villages to a substantial extent while this got eliminated in Maharashtra villages. In Maharashtra villages, women have even higher literacy levels than men in the 5-30 years age group in Akola villages, while they are slightly lagging behind men in Solapur villages. The goal of universal education has been nearly reached in the Maharashtra villages. But the situation in Andhra Pradesh villages is bad with respect to education. Nearly one half of the girls and young women and nearly one-fourth of the boys and young men are still illiterate. During , about 50 per cent of men and 15 per cent of women were literate among adults nineteen and above. Compared to that, literacy levels among 5

6 women improved dramatically. Even male literacy rates improved to some extent, if not by the same proportion as in case of females. Occupational distribution The distribution of the sample households in the VLS villages by principal occupation is summarized in table 3. These data show that agriculture is not a principal source of income to more than 50 percent of the households in A.P villages. 39 percent of the households in Aurepalle consider agriculture as their principal source of income, while only 16 percent of the households consider it as their principal source of income in Dokur. Persistent drought and water scarcity have forced the sample households to look for alternate sources of income and occupation. As many as 28 percent of the households in Dokur depend on migration as their major source of income. Table 3. Primary occupation of the sample households in VLS villages. S No Primary occupation Aurepalle Dokur Shirapur Kalman Kanzara Kinkheda Total 1 Agriculture 2 Agricultural or non-agricultural labor earnings 3 Business 4 Service 5 Caste occupation 6 Others 39 (39) 13 (16) 57 (65) 62 (66) 27 (27) 22 (28) 20 (23) 16 (17) 3 (3) _ 27 (27) 4 (4) 6 (8) 1 (1) 3 (3) _ 9 (10) 11 (12) 8 (10) 1 (1) 2 (2) 31* (39) Total 100 (100) 80 (100) 88 (100) 94 (100) *22 households mentioned migration as their primary source of income 35 (67) 11 (21) 3 (6) 23 (72) 7 (22) 1 (2) 2 (6) 2 (4) 229 (51) 103 (23) _ 16 (4) 23 (5) _ 40 (9) 35 (8) 52 (100) 32 (100) 46 (100) In contrast, about two-thirds of the households in Maharashtra villages consider agriculture as their principal source of occupation and income. 23 households from Maharashtra villages regard service as their primary source of income, but none of the households in A.P villages consider service as their principal occupation. Obviously, the higher literacy and education levels in Maharashtra villages have catapulted some of them into the formal service sector. Labour earnings, caste occupations and migration are providing sustenance to a higher proportion of households in A.P villages than in Maharashtra villages. About four percent of the sample households derive their major source of income from business. Sample households from 6

7 Dokur and Kanzara are depending more on business as their principal occupation when compared to other four villages. Other miscellaneous sources of occupation are also of some importance, besides migration in A.P villages. These are in the informal services sector. Details of Land Ownership Land is the most important asset for agriculture. With the growth in population and subdivision of families the pressure on land is increasing and the ownership holdings are getting smaller. The average size of ownership holding which was 5.17 ha in the VLS sample during , has fallen to 2.35 ha in Similarly, the average size of operational holding has also fallen from 5.90 ha in to 2.38 ha in But wherever irrigation facilities increased, the intensity of cultivation increased. A comparison with the land ownership in the VLS villages in 1982 is made in table 4. The same methodology followed in 1982 (Walker and Ryan, 1990) was used to compute the median size of ownership holdings in The land of each farmer was converted to standard dryland equivalent hectares by multiplying the irrigable hectares with four and adding the dryland hectares to that. This land holding in terms of standard dryland hectares was arranged in an ascending order and the land holding of the middle farmer was picked up as the median land holding. Table 4. Median size of owned holding in dryland equivalent hectares in 1982 and 2001, by village. Year Village Percentage change Aurepalle Dokur Shirapur Kalman Kanzara Kinkheda Since two opposite forces (sub division of holdings and increase in irrigable area) were at work, the land holding in terms of dryland equivalent hectares decreased in some villages (Aurepalle, Dokur and Shirapur), remained constant in Kalman and increased in Akola villages (Kanzara and Kinkheda). The most dramatic reduction was in case of Dokur, where the land holding in terms of dryland equivalent hectares fell by 50 percent (This would have been even 7

8 sharper had we considered actual irrigated area instead of irrigable area). Dokur has a large tank, which was getting filled up every year and was supporting two rice crops in the command area all through the seventies and eighties. But during the last one decade, there was no water in the tank due to scanty rainfall and cessation of inflows from the catchment area. Most of the command area is lying fallow. Yet some respondents reported it as irrigable. In Aurepalle village, there was no significant increase in irrigable area despite increase in the number of borewells. The village tank has dried up in this village also and many of the open wells also dried up. Overall, a 9.7 percent reduction was recorded in the land holding in terms of dryland equivalent hectares. In Solapur villages also, both the forces were at work. Irrigation facilities improved in Shirapur village both due to canal irrigation from Ujni dam (although it is unreliable) and from the borewells sunk. But the subdivision effect seemed to be stronger here, as the land holding size (in terms of dryland equivalent hectares) declined by 18.7 percent. In Kalman village, the only sources of irrigation water are the borewells. The subdivision effect does not seem to be very strong in this village, due to which the size of land holding remained about the same as it was in In both Akola villages, which are receiving canal water for Rabi crops (although uncertainty is quite high), the irrigation effect seems to be much stronger than the subdivision effect. The land holding increased by 64 percent in Kanzara and by 9.5 percent in Kinkheda. Operated area Walker and Ryan (1990) reported the prevalence of tenancy in the VLS villages, but they mentioned that tenancy was on the decline when compared with the fifties. We find that the tenancy has declined even further in 2001(Table 5). The average operational holding was larger than the average ownership holding in Aurepalle, Dokur, Shirapur and Kanzara. The reverse was the case in case of Kalman and Kinkheda villages. The sum of land leased in and leased out relative to the land owned ranged between 5 percent in Kinkheda to 28 percent in Kanzara, with the average for the six villages being about 15 percent. 8

9 Table 5. Pattern of land ownership and operation in VLS villages, 2001(ha). No.of Average land / land owner in the sample Village farmers owning land Total land Owned Leased in Leased out Fallow Operated Aurepalle (0.46) (0.43) Dokur (0.65) (0.64) Shirapur (1.07) (1.15) Kalman (1.42) (1.50) Kanzara (1.65) Kinkheda (1.64) *Figures in parentheses represent irrigable areas. (1.84) 2.61 (1.61) Walker and Ryan (1990) noted that the share of irrigated area in the gross cropped area increased from 12 percent in to 20 percent in They also observed that irrigation figured prominently in the A.P villages, particularly in Dokur, when compared with the Maharashtra villages. But, over the last two decades, irrigation declined in Dokur, while it remained stagnant in Aurepalle. But irrigation facilities improved remarkably in Maharashtra villages during these two decades period. Expect for Kalman, the other three Maharashtra villages received the benefit of canal irrigation (although not very assured), which also helped in improving the ground water levels. The share of irrigable area in the gross cropped area ranged between 45 and 60 percent in the Maharashtra villages, while it was only 25 percent in Aurepalle and 46 percent in Dokur. The actual irrigated area is of a still lower proportion in A.P villages, as the irrigation tanks are rarely getting filled up during the last one decade. Maharashtra villages, which are better endowed with respect to soils are better off now with the irrigation support, while the two Andhra Pradesh villages are currently worse off with respect to both soils as well as irrigation support. 9

10 Livestock Ownership Table 6. Pattern of livestock ownership in VLS villages, (No. Per household). S No Type of livestock Aurepalle Dokur Shirapur Kalman Kanzara Kinkheda 1 Draft animals (0.86) (0.78) (0.82) (1.20) 0.96 (1.46)0.88 (1.06) 2 Cows 3 Young cattle 4 She buffaloes 5 Goats 6 Sheep 7 Poultry 8 Others 0.18 (0.33) 0.19 (0.62) 0.36 (0.50) 0.36 (0.10) 2.17 (1.20) 0.01 (0.59) 0.49 (0.60) 0.74 (0.78) 0.06 (0.00) 5.13 (3.61) (0.08) 0.94 (2.20) 0.51 (0.93) 0.22 (0.57) 0.75 (0.88)0.53 (0.72) 0.78 (0.40) 0.48 (0.69) 0.63 (0.78) 0.43 (0.61) 0.64 (1.88) 0.88 (1.27) 0.73 (0.75) 0.50 (0.34) 0.10 (0.54) 0.13 (0.16) 2.27 (0.58) 0.16 (0.25) 0.19 (1.89) 0.62 (1.28) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 1.69 (1.19) 0 (0.85) 0.00 (0.04) 0.00 (0.25) 0.23 (0.00) (0.12) 0.00 (0.00) Total 4.64 (3.69) 7.71 (8.55) 5.09 (7.89) 3.25 (6.47) 4.81 (4.37) 2.20 (2.78) Figures in the parentheses represent the livestock owned by the sample households in as they could recall. Livestock are considered important sources of income as well as wealth in the rainfed regions. But due to pressure of population, the common property resources are depleting and it is becoming difficult for many households to maintain them. Water shortage is gradually rendering livestock rearing a competitive activity with agriculture. As a result of land and water shortage, farmers are reducing the number of livestock owned by them over the years. The data furnished in table 6 point to a general decline in the average number of animals owned by the sample households. This is particularly true in case of cattle and buffaloes. However, there was an increase in the number of small ruminants in some of the villages. Tractorisation might have reduced the requirement for draft animals. In case of milch animals (cows and buffaloes), there seems to be a substitution of quality for quantity. Rearing of small ruminants is attracting the attention due to higher meat prices. She buffaloes are the important sources of milk in A.P villages, while cows are the dominant sources of milk in Akola villages. Both cows and she buffaloes are contributing to milk production in Solapur villages. Poultry rearing is not common in any of the six villages. 10

11 Asset Structure Table 7. Asset structure of the sample households in VLS villages, (Rs / household). Values of different assets Village Land Livestock Farm equipment Farm buildings Aurepalle Dokur Shirapur Kalman Kanzara Kinkheda (57) (51) (72) (67) (70) (75) Consumer durables 9691 (6) 9316 (5) (24) (8) 9211 (6) (7) (26) (10) (4) (4) (13) (8) (4) (6) (14) (9) (3) (4) (17) (6) 3016 (2) 3031 (1) (13) (8) Total (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (100) (4) (4) (17) (8) (100) Average (68) Figures in parentheses represent percentages to the row total The average value of assets owned by a sample household in the VLS villages was Rs.2,67,973. The asset values in A.P villages are much lower than those in Maharashtra villages. It is on account of lower land prices per hectare and smaller sizes of holding in A.P villages. In Kinkheda village, land value accounted for three-fourths of the total value of assets, while it accounted for only 51 percent in Dokur village. On an average, land value accounted for 68 percent of the total value of assets. The shares of livestock and farm equipment in the total asset value were only four per cent each. Farm buildings accounted for 17 percent of the total asset value in the aggregate sample. The share of farm buildings in the total asset value was relatively higher in A.P villages than in Maharashtra villages. Consumer durables made up the remaining eight percent of the assets. Financial liabilities Although the sample households own considerable assets, most of them are in material form. They are generally short of liquid financial resources required for investment on their farm. A large majority of them borrow from either financial institutions or money lenders. The details of savings and borrowings of the sample households are furnished in table 8. 11

12 Table 8. Average financial savings and borrowings of sample households in VLS villages, Sno (Rs per household). Village Financial savings / lendings Institutional sources Borrowings Non-institutional sources Total Net borrowings 1 Aurepalle Dokur Shirapur Kalman Kanzara Kinkheda Average On an average, a household in the VLS sample saved or lent Rs.7171 and borrowed Rs.19956, with a net borrowing of Rs Institutional sources provided 55 percent of the loans borrowed by the sample households, with the remaining 45 percent coming from the noninstitutional sources. But there are considerable differences between the villages with respect to the financial assets and liabilities. Both the Andhra Pradesh villages reported very little financial savings / lendings, when compared with the Maharashtra villages. They also depended much less on financial institutions and many times more on non-institutional sources of credit. Among the Maharashtra villages, Kanzara stood out in terms of savings / lendings. Maharashtra villages depended on institutional sources of credit many times more than on the non-institutional sources. Kinkheda households had the lowest borrowings per household among the six villages. Dokur village, which is suffering from persistent droughts, had the highest net borrowings per household. Dokur households also reported the lowest value of assets among the households of six villages. With the lowest asset value and highest net borrowing, this drought stricken village has the lowest net worth per household among the six VLS villages. In fact, the net worth of an average household in Dokur (Rs ) is far less than one half of the net worths of Kalman, Shirapur and Kinkheda villages. Kalman, which is the poorest of the four Maharashtra villages, also had an average net worth of Rs and it is 87 percent higher than that of Dokur. The average net worth of the four Maharashtra villages was about 112 percent higher than the average net worth of the two A.P villages. During the first round of VLS surveys, the position of the two Andhra Pradesh villages in comparison to Maharashtra villages was not as bad as it is in While the A.P villages suffered erosion of their wealth due to persistent droughts, the Maharashtra villages grew wealthier due to advent of irrigation and better education. 12

13 Cropping Patterns Cropping patterns change over time in response to changes in weather patterns, and relative prices. Over years, Indian agriculture has moved from a deficit scenario to a surplus position in case of food grains. An elaborate public distribution system was built and a competitive private trade has emerged. All these factors together have dispelled the food insecurity, which was a matter of concern a few decades ago. The transaction costs have come down and farmers are freed to some extent from the compulsion to produce the food grains and other agricultural commodities they need for consumption. And also because of the faster advances made in productivity of food grains, the amount of land resource that needs to be allocated for food production has come down. At the level of the country, a few decades ago, nearly three-fourths of land was allocated to food grain crops. Now this proportion has been reduced to two-thirds. The cropping pattern changes at the micro-level can be very revealing. Tables 9,10 and 11 present the cropping patterns in Mahaboonagar, Solapur and Akola villages. Cotton has emerged as the dominant crop in Aurepalle village, accounting for 53 percent of the sown area in Kharif. It was also grown along with pigeonpea (intercrop) in another three percent area. Next to cotton, castor was the most important crop in the village, with 13 percent Kharif area under its sole crop and another 11 percent area under its intercropping with pigeonpea. Paddy remained the crop of irrigated lands covering 9 percent area in Kharif and 90 percent area in Rabi. Sorghum was relegated to fourth position, covering 6 percent of Kharif area as the sole crop and 4 percent of Kharif area as an intercrop with pigeonpea. Out of the gross cropped area in Aurepalle village, cotton and cotton based intercrop covered 51 percent area. It was followed by castor and castor based intercrop in 22 percent area, paddy in 16 percent area and sorghum and sorghum based intercrop in 10 percent area. Crops like sunflower, sesamum and horsegram accounted for the remaining one percent area. 13

14 Table 9. Cropping patterns in Aurepalle and Dokur villages (Mahaboobnagar district, A.P) in (hectares). Aurepalle Dokur Sno Crop Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total 1 Cotton Cotton + pigeonpea Castor Castor + pigeonpea Sorghum Sorghum + pigeonpea Paddy Finger millet Others Total area Castor crop occupied 27 percent of Kharif area in Dokur villages. Its intercropping with pigeonpea covered another 42 percent of the Kharif area. Paddy remained the favourite crop of irrigated lands, accounting for 16 percent of the Kharif area and 44 percent of the Rabi area. Sorghum hardly occupied one percent of the Kharif area but was grown in 34 percent of the Rabi area. Farmers of Dokur wait till August with the fond hope of getting the tank filled but when it is belied some of them plant sorghum as an early Rabi crop. Sorghum along with pigeonpea was grown in 4 percent of Kharif area. Finger millet was grown in 12 percent of the Rabi area. Other crops like groundnut, garden and fodder crops covered 8 percent of Kharif area and 10 percent of Rabi area. Out of the gross cropped area, castor and castor + pigeonpea together accounted for 56 percent area, followed by paddy in 21 percent area, sorghum and sorghum + pigeonpea together accounted for 10 percent area, with other crops like finger millet, groundnut, garden and fodder crops occupying the remaining 10 percent. A few broad generalizations can be made. Nearly forty three percent of the land was left fallow in Dokur during Kharif season due to failure of rains and consequent non-filling of the village tank. The extent of fallowing in Kharif was only 10 percent in Aurepalle, although this village also received sub-optimal rains. The number of crops grown in both the villages has reduced when compared with the cropping patterns in the period. Cash crops are now dominating the cropping patterns in both the villages when compared to the earlier period. Only a part of the borewell-irrigated areas were sown more than once in both the villages. 14

15 Table 10. Cropping patterns in Shirapur and Kalman villages (Solapur district, Maharashtra) in (hectares). Shirapur Kalman Sno Crop Kharif Rabi Summer Annual Total Kharif Rabi Summer Annual Total 1 Pigeonpea Vegetables Matki + kulthi Blackgram Maize Sorghum Wheat Chickpea Groundnut Sugarcane Fruit crops Cotton Others Total Rabi sorghum remained the most important crop in both Shirapur and Kalman villages occupying 49 percent and 65 percent respectively in the gross cropped areas of these villages. Pigeonpea, Vegetables, Maize, Black gram and Matki + Kulthi were the important Kharif crops in both the villages. Wheat and chickpea were the important Rabi crops (other than Sorghum). Sugarcane and fruit crops were the Important annual / perennial crops in both the villages with the advent of irrigation and ground water exploration, wheat and sugarcane gained areas in both the villages. Yet, with Rabi sorghum retaining its position, the cropping patterns did not alter radically in Solapur villages. The cropping intensities remained low. Kharif cropping is still rare due to the inadequate rainfall in the early part of the season. Table 11. Cropping patterns in Kanzara and Kinkheda villages (Akola district, Maharashtra) in (hectares). Kanzara Kinkheda Sno Crop Kharif Rabi Summer Total Kharif Rabi Summer Total 1 Cotton Sorghum Mungbean Vegetables Soybean Wheat Chickpea Others Total

16 Cotton was the dominant crop in both the villages during the Kharif season. Sorghum and Mungbean were the other important crops. Wheat was the dominant crop in the Rabi season in both the villages. Vegetables were grown in all the seasons in Kanzara village, but they were only grown in Rabi in Kinkheda village. In the Rabi season, chickpea was grown to some extent in Kanzara, while sunflower was grown in Kinkheda by some farmers. The cropping intensities were higher in Akola villages when compared with either Solapur or Mahaboobnagar villages. Changes over the years In table 12, some comparisons were made between and (figures for were drawn from Jodha (1977)). The average size of holding fell by more than one half in all the villages except Kanzara, where it fell by 47 percent. The average size of holding of the entire VLS sample fell by 54 percent from 5.23 to 2.38 hectares over the 26 years period. The relative importance of the food crops decreased in all the villages both in case of sole crops as well as in case of inter / mixed crops. On an average, the percentage area under food grains to the gross cropped area under sole crops fell from to percent in case of the sole crops. The decline in the share of food grains in the gross cropped area under mixed/ inter crops was even sharper from percent to 7.96 percent. Thus, the shift away from food grain crops was even greater in the VLS villages than that at the macro level. This shift in favour of cash crops was particularly pronounced in case of Mahaboobnagar and Akola villages. In Solapur villages, Rabi sorghum is still the favourite (or there is no better substitute crop) due to which the share of food grains in the total area under sole crops remained high. Mixed cropping practice has given Table 12. Changes in the percentage area under food grains under sole and mixed crop systems between and Sno Village Percentage area of Average sizepercentage area of Percentage area of Average sizepercentage area of solemixed crops under holding sole crops under mixed crops under holding (ha) crops under food grains food grains (operational) food grains food grains 1 Aurepalle Dokur Shirapur Kalman Kanzara N.A* 6 Kinkheda N.A* Average *No mixed crops were reported to have been grown way to intercropping. These days, it is uncommon to have more than two crops even in the intercropping system. In Akola villages, even intercropping practice has vanished, while in 16

17 Solapur villages, the only intercropping practices is that of two minor pulses i.e., matki and kulthi. Productivity levels The average productivity levels of major crops in A.P villages are furnished in table 13. The productivity levels were higher in Aurepalle in case of castor, castor + pigeonpea and paddy, while the yields were higher in Dokur in case of sorghum, sorghum + pigeonpea and cotton. The yields of groundnut and finger millet were quite impressive in Dokur village. But these crops were grown in Rabi with irrigation support. Table 13. Average productivity levels of major crops in Aurepalle and Dokur (Mahaboonagar) villages, (Kg / hectare). Sno Crops Aurepalle Dokur 1 Castor Castor + pigeonpea Paddy Sorghum Cotton Cotton + pigeonpea _ 7 Sorghum + pigeonpea Pigeonpea _ Groundnut _ Finger millet -_ 1976 The productivity levels of major crops in Maharashtra villages are presented in table 14. Table 14. Productivity levels of major crops in Maharashtra villages Yield levels in Kg per hectare Sno Crops Shirapur Kalman Kanzara Kinkheda 1 Cotton 878 _ Greengram Kharif sorghum Wheat Sugarcane Rabi sorghum Chickpea Groundnut Maize Pigeonpea Onion _ 12 Blackgram _ Chillies _ _ 14 Cucumber _ Cotton + pigeonpea _ The set of crops grown in Akola villages are different from those grown in Solapur villages. Among Akola villages, Kanzara farmers recorded higher yields than those in Kinkheda 17

18 virtually in case of every crop. Among the Solapur villages, Shirapur farmers obtained better yields in case of wheat, chickpea and onion. Kalman farmers fared better in case of sugarcane, rabi sorghum, groundnut, maize and pigeonpea. Kanzara farmers obtained a better yield of chillies than Kalman farmers. Major Production Constraints in rainfed crops The major production constraints in case of rainfed crops as perceived by farmers differ by crop and village. In Aurepalle, drought was perceived as the most important production constraint by the farmers irrespective of the rainfed crop. Pests, diseases and weeds are the other constraints in that order of importance. In Dokur village, persistent drought has rendered the paddy fields into long-term fallows. Prosopis weed has grown like shrub bushes in those lands, harbouring wild boars. These wild boars have become the biggest menace to all the edible crops in the village. Wild boar menace was rated as the most serious production constraint in case of millet and groundnut crops. It was rated as an important constraint in case of sorghum and pigeonpea. Drought was rated as the most important constraint in case of cotton and as the second most important constraint in case of castor, millet and pigeonpea. Pests were regarded as the most important constraints in case of castor, sorghum and pigeonpea. Diseases and weeds were the important constraints in case of some crops. In Solapur villages, drought was identified as the most important production constraint in case of rabi sorghum. Insect pests (pord borer) were the most important production constraint in case of pigeonpea and chickpea. Diseases were the most limiting production constraint in case of groundnut. Excess rain was perceived as the most important constraint in case of matki, a minor pulse crop. Poor soils and weeds were also mentioned as important production constraints in case of some crops. 18

19 Table 15. Ranking of major production constraints by crop in VLS villages. Village Crop Drought Pests Diseases Poor seed Poor soil Weeds Excess rain Others (wild boar) Aurepalle Castor Cotton Pigeonpea Sorghum Dokur Castor Cotton Millet Groundnut Pigeonpea Sorghum Shirapur Sorghum Pigeonpea Groundnut Matki Cotton Kalman Sorghum Pigeonpea Groundnut 2 1 Chickpea Kanzara Sorghum Pigeonpea Chickpea Cotton Greengram 1 2 Kinkheda Sorghum Pigeonpea Greengram 2 1 Cotton In Akola villages, pests and diseases were important production constraints in case of pigeonpea, chickpea, cotton and sorghum. Interestingly, excess rain was considered a more important production constraint than drought in these rainfall assured villages. Poor seed was regarded as one of the production constraints in case of sorghum, while weeds were regarded as one of the constraints in case of cotton. Thus, rainfed crops are facing both biotic and abiotic production constraints with varying degrees of importance across crops and regions. Sources of Information Farmers depend on several sources of information, besides learning from their own experience. Particularly when they want to try something new, they try to get the information and advice from a source on which they have confidence. Information on the primary sources of information 19

20 to the farmers in the VLS villages is summarized in table 16. Farmers are relying more on the shopkeepers for information on purchased inputs like pesticides fertilizers and seeds. They are relying more on progressive farmers for information on all types of technologies than on any other sources, particularly for information on agronomic practices and improved seeds. Extension officers are accessible, to some extent, to the farmers of Solapur villages, but not to those in Mahaboobnagar and Akola villages. Relatives and friends and mass media are also serving as supplementary sources of information. Overall, informal sources dominate the formal sources like extension officers and mass media in providing information to the farmers in the SAT region. Table 16. Sources of Information to farmers in VLS villages, Village Type of Information Source of Information Progressive farmer Extension Shopkeeper Relatives/ friends Mass media Aurepalle Use of Improved seed Use of Chemical fertilizers Agronomic practices pest/disease control Dokur Use of Improved seed Use of Chemical fertilizers Agronomic practices pest/disease control Kalman Use of Improved seed Use of Chemical fertilizers Agronomic practices pest/disease control Shirapur Use of Improved seed Use of Chemical fertilizers Agronomic practices pest/disease control Kanzara Use of Improved seed Use of Chemical fertilizers Agronomic practices pest/disease control Kinkheda Use of Improved seed Use of Chemical fertilizers Agronomic practices pest/disease control Total Use of Improved seed Use of Chemical fertilizers Agronomic practices pest/disease control

21 Utilization of farm produce Farmers in the SAT areas were known to be subsistence farmers. But the situation is fast changing with the farmers shifting to commercial crops and a better linking of the villages with the markets. The pattern of utilization of farm produce in the Mahaboobnagar villages is presented in table 17. Table 17. Utilization pattern of Farm Produce (grain) in VLS villages of Mahaboobnagar district (in Kgs). Village Crop Total production Used for own consumption Retained for other uses Sold in the market Percentage sold Aurepalle Paddy Cotton Castor Sorghum Pigeonpea Sunflower Dokur Paddy Cotton Castor Sorghum Pigeonpea Finger millet Groundnut produce In case of commercial crops like castor, cotton and sunflower, the entire produce was sold. Most of the production of sorghum and pigeon pea was retained for own consumption and other uses. More than one half of paddy production was sold in the market. In Dokur, the bulk of production of finger millet and groundnut was also sold in the market. The utilization pattern of farm produce in Solapur villages is presented in table 18. In these villages, a substantial part of wheat, maize and rabi sorghum was retained by the households for consumption and other uses. 21

22 Table 18. Utilization pattern of Farm Produce (grain) in Solapur villages (Kg). Village Crop Total production Used for own consumption Retained for other uses Sold in the market Percentage produce sold Kalman Rabi sorghum Wheat Maize Pigeonpea Onion Sugarcane Vegetables Shirapur Rabi sorghum Wheat Maize Sugarcane Onion Pigeonpea Groundnut Cotton Table 19. Utilization of Farm Produce (grain) in Akola villages (Kg). Village Crop Total production Used for own consumption Retained for other uses Sold in t he market Percentage sold Kanzara Hybrid sorghum Pigeonpea Green gram Wheat Cotton Chilies Onion Chickpea Vegetables Kinkheda Hybrid sorghum Pigeonpea Green gram Wheat Cotton produce Less than one half of the production of these food crops only was sold in the market. A little more than one third of the pigeon pea production was retained by the households for consumption and other uses and the rest was sold in the market. In case of Onion, sugarcane, cotton, groundnut and vegetables, the bulk of production was sold in the market. The utilization pattern of farm produce in Akola villages is presented in table 19. Since the production levels are quite substantial in the Akola villages, the proportion of produce sold was quite high in these villages even in case of food crops like hybrid jowar, wheat, pigeonpea and chickpea. In case of commercial crops, the bulk of production was sold in the market. Data presented in tables 17 22

23 through 19 highlight the fact that the farmers in the SAT villages are selling a substantial proportion of their produce in the market. Crop shifts in favour of commercial crops and reduced transaction costs are mainly responsible for the transformation of subsistence agriculture into commercial agriculture even in the rainfed areas of Semi-Arid Tropics. Economics of Crop Enterprises The input-output data collected from farmers was aggregated and analysed to compute the costs and returns of different crop enterprises in the VLS villages. The details of costs and returns of crop enterprises in the two VLS villages of Mahaboobnagar are presented in table 20. Table 20. Costs and returns of crops in Mahaboobnagar villages (Rs/hectare), Village Crop Total variable costs Total fixed costs Total costs Gross Returns Net Returns Aurepalle Castor Paddy Cotton Pigeonpea Sorghum Castor + pigeonpea Cotton + pigeonpea Sorghum + pigeonpea Dokur Paddy Cotton Sorghum Castor Castor + pigeonpea Finger millet Fodder sorghum In Aurepalle village, all the costs were recovered in case of paddy and cotton+pigeonpea intercropping only. Atleast variable costs were recovered in case of cotton, pigeonpea and sorghum + pigeonpea. But in case of castor, sorghum and castor + pigeonpea, even variable costs were not fully recovered. Dokur fared even worse than Aurepalle in case of crop economics. Except fodder sorghum, no other crop yielded sufficient returns to cover all the costs of cultivation. Variable costs were covered in case of paddy, cotton, sorghum and finger millet. But even variable costs were not recovered in case of castor and castor + pigeonpea. 23

24 The situation is only a little better in Solapur villages. The data on crop economics of Shirapur and Kalman are furnished in table 21. Small profits were made in Shirapur village only in case of chickpea, sugarcane and groundnut. At the other extreme, even variable costs were not recovered in case of maize and pigeonpea. Wheat, rabi sorghum, cotton and onion lie in between, with the returns exceeding the variable costs but not covering the fixed costs. Table 21. Economics of crop enterprises in Solapur villages (Rs/hectare), Village Crop Variable costs Fixed costs Total costs Returns (gross) Net Returns Shirapur Wheat Sugarcane Rabi sorghum Chickpea Cotton Groundnut Maize Pigeonpea Onion Kalman Wheat Sugarcane Rabi sorghum Chickpea Pigeonpea Onion Maize Groundnut French bean Table 22. Economics of crop enterprises in Akola villages (Rs/hectare), Village Crop Variable costs Fixed costs Total costs Returns (gross) Net Returns Kanzara Cotton + greengram + pigeonpea Cotton + pigeonpea Chillies Cotton Greengram Onion Sorghum Wheat Kinkheda Wheat Sorghum Greengram Cotton + greengram + pigeonpea Cotton Cotton + pigeonpea

25 In Kalman also, farmers made small profits in case of sugarcane and groundnut, besides French bean. In case of wheat, rabi sorghum, chickpea, pigeonpea and maize, farmers could get back the variable costs but not the fixed costs. They did not recover even variable costs in case of onion. The crop economics were a little better in Akola villages. In Kanzara village, cotton, chillies and cotton-based intercropping systems could recover all costs and yielded some profits. But in case of greengram, onion, sorghum and wheat, farmers could recover the variable costs, but not all the fixed costs. They ended up with small to moderate losses in case of these crops. In Kinkheda village, the farmers did not recover even the variable costs in case of sorghum. They could recover variable costs in case of wheat, greengram and cotton, but not all the fixed costs. However, they recovered all costs and earned small profits in case of cotton-based cropping system. Distribution of returns by plots in Mahaboobnagar villages The average costs and returns of different crops are presented in tables 20 through 22. But the presentation of costs and returns from different crops by plots will give the proportion of plots and farmers making losses and profits in each of the crops grown. Table 23 presents the distribution of costs and returns by plots (and farmers) in Mahaboobnagar villages. In Aurepalle village, farmers failed to recover even the variable costs in 46 per cent of the plots. In another 29 per cent plots, they could cover the variable costs, but not the fixed costs. They could make some profits only in 25 per cent of the plots. In case of pigeonpea and cotton + pigeonpea, a majority of the farmers made profits. Profits were earned in 18 out of 47 plots planted to paddy and in 13 out of 57 plots planted to cotton. They did not make profits in any of the plots planted to sorghum + pigeonpea. In a majority of the plots planted to castor, cotton, sorghum and castor + pigeonpea, they did not recover even the variable costs. 25

26 Table 23. Comparison of costs and returns of crop enterprises in Mahaboobnagar VLS Villages. Village Crop No. of plots (farmers) Percentage of plots (farmers) gross returns were > Variable costs but less than total < Variable costs costs > Total costs Aurepalle Castor 19 (18) 14 (13) 3 (4) 2 (1) Paddy 47 (30) 5 (3) 24 (16) 18 (11) Cotton 57 (51) 35 (31) 9 (8) 13 (12) Sorghum 15 (14) 10 (9) 3 (3) 2 (2) Castor + pigeonpea 14 (14) 10 (10) 3 (3) 1 (1) Sorghum + pigeonpea 8 (8) 2 (2) 6 (6) _ Pigeonpea 3 (3) 1 (1) _ 2 (2) Cotton + pigeonpea 4 (4) 1 (1) 1 (1) 2 (2) All crops 174 (149) 81 (73) 50 (42) 43 (34) Dokur Paddy 22 (16) 5 (4) 9 (4) 8 (8) Castor 11 (10) 7 (6) 4 (4) _ Castor + pigeonpea 12 (11) 6 (5) 6 (6) _ Sorghum 8 (8) 4 (4) 4 (4) _ Cotton 2 (2) _ 1 (1) 1 (1) Finger millet 4 (4) _ 4 (4) _ Fodder sorghum 3 (3) _ 1 (1) 2 (2) Pigeonpea 2 (2) 2 (2) Sorghum + pigeonpea 2 (2) 1 (1) 1 (1) _ All crops 68 (60) 26 (23) 31 (26) 11 (11) The economics of crop enterprises are also on similar lines in Dokur village. In 38 per cent plots, farmers did not recover even the variable costs. In 46 per cent plots, farmers could recover the variable costs, but not the fixed costs. Farmers made profits only in 16 per cent plots. Profits were made only in case of some plots of paddy, fodder sorghum and cotton. None of the farmers made any profits in castor, castor + pigeonpea, sorghum, finger millet, pigeonpea and sorghum + pigeonpea. In both the villages of Mahaboobnagar, farmers incurred considerable losses in a majority of the plots under crop enterprises due to sub-normal rainfall, stagnant output prices and increasing input costs. 26