Crop Production and Productivity

Transcription

1 S peedy and rapid developments of agriculture, innovations in this area were introduced with hope that these will be adopted widely. But their adoption varied from region to region and from person to person even in a region. The technical change is of the crucial factors in the development of agriculture which consists of adoption of new inputs and improved farming techniques to bring about diversification and increase of production and greater economic return to the farmers. The main thrust of all agricultural development programmes and strategies has been to raise the productivity. The analysis of this productivity in perspective of adoption of new technologies is the main themes of this chapter. But on the outset, it would be proper to mention that this analysis is based on the information contained in the questionnaires and therefore, mainly concentrates on the relationship between operational and structural determinants with the productivity. However, trend of output and per hectare yield rates of important crops has also been discussed on block level. The Concept of Productivity Measurement and evaluation of agricultural productivity forms a basis for planning, evaluating and taking appropriate measures for improving productivity at various levels. Hence it has been a important concern of scholars of various disciplines. Some times productivity considered to be synonym of efficiency on over all effectiveness of a productive unit be it a plant, farm or company, while at other as ratio of output to resources used. Some have used the term productivity to denote the ratio of output to the corresponding input of labour. Therefore, agricultural productivity could be defined as the ratio of output to input in relation to land, labour, capital and overall resources employed in agriculture. Prof. Jasbir Singh says that 'productivity as defined in economics or agriculture geography means output per unit of input or per unit of area respectively' (Singh and Dhillon, 1984, 226). Since both input and output variables are of diversified nature, their comparison is possible only after converting them into index. Thus, in the words of Shafi, 'agricultural productivity may be defined as the ratio of the index of total 129

2 agricultural output to the index of total input used in form production' (Shafi, 1984, 148). In economics usually productivity is measured in terms of production per unit of input. Pandit has agreed to these views and says that 'productivity is defined in economics as the output per unit of input the art of securing an increase in output from the same input or of getting the same output from a smaller input' (Pandit, 1965, 187). Measures of Agricultural productivity The measures of agricultural productivity which have been frequently adopted in different regional studies of agriculture are usually of 'partial' in nature (Shafi, 1984, 184). Normally only a single input or a group of inputs have been taken into account for the determination of form productivity. A composite measure, where all form components of agriculture could be involved are difficult to be adopted perhaps for two reasons. Firstly, the data required for the measurement of productivity a single input is more likely to be available than those required for the evaluation of overall productivity. Secondly, the aggregation of total inputs may tend to obscure the effects of change in their composition. Among various inputs, land is most permanently fixed and has assumed special importance in the regional studies of agriculture. Therefore, many of the measures of productivity are based on the land component of the farm inputs. In absence of any measure the evaluation of over-all productivity. It must be appreciated that the choice of productivity measure would depend mainly, on the purpose for which its estimation is desired. The land factor would serve the purpose better. The labour productivity could be applied where knowledge of the income of population engaged in agriculture is desired. The cost and benefit situation of farming may be obtained better from the consideration of the capital component of agricultural inputs. It may be noted, however, that capital investment structure is often so much complicated that capital based productivity is difficult to compute and interpret. The problem of the choice of measures of agricultural productivity was discussed at great length at the 23rd annual conference of agricultural economists and it was generally agreed that land factor may be recognized as the principal basis for evaluation of agricultural productivity (I.S.A.E., 1964). The yield rate may therefore, be considered a good measure of productivity while other factor of production may be taken 130

3 into account while making regional comparison of farm production (Dube, 1987, 71-72). On account of its multifarious utility, a number of scholars in the field of geography, economics and agricultural science have long been engaged in evolving methods to measure the agricultural productivity. There seems to be four basic approaches used for the measurement of agricultural efficiency. It may be measured as- (a) output per unit area, (b) output per unit labour applied, i.e. per man hour. (C) Output relation to input i.e. output-input ratio and profit derived from farming and (d) output expressed in term of grain equivalents per head of population. Relative productivity method has been evolved by Thomson (1926), based on gross output of crops and livestock, measuring the relative productivity of British and Denish farming. Ganguli (1938) discussed a theoretical measurement of agricultural efficiency with particular reference to the Ganga Valley. Kendall's Method (1939, 24-28) has been very popular and pioneer one. He computed the agricultural productivity of England by ranking the countries on the basis of crop-yield and findings ranking co-efficient. Stamp (1952) applied Kendall's ranking co-efficient method at international level. Later with modification to this method has been applied by Sapre and Deshpande (1964, ) introducing the method of 'weighted ranking coefficient' for determining productivity in Maharashtra state. Bhatia (1967, ) improved this technique a little further which is called as 'Efficient Index', measuring the agricultural efficiency based on the weightage of acre yield in respect of the proportionate share of each crop to the total cropped acreage of any unit. Sinha (1968, ) has employed more quantified method utilizing 'Standard Deviation Method' to measure agricultural efficiency in India. Hirsch (1943) has suggested 'Crop Yield Index' as the basis of productivity measurement. It expresses the average of the yields of various crops on a farm or in a locality relative to the yield of same crops on another farm in a second locality. Zobel (1950) has attempted to determine the labour productivity. He considered productivity of labour as the ratio of total output to the total man hours consumed in the production of total output resulting in output per man-hour. Buck (1937) assessed the agricultural progress in China by adopting the approach of 'Grain Equivalent'. Some modification was attempted by Clark and Hasewell (1967) on buck's format, 131

4 in which they used the output in terms of kilogrammes of 'wheat equivalent' per head of population. But while all the foodgrain can be added after being converted into grain equivalence other edibles like- oilseeds, tea, coffee, fruits, vegetable etc., can not be added so. Hence the concept of Calories as unit of measurement of agricultural productivity is introduced in which all edibles are converted into calories (Stamp, 1960). But this also not solves the problem of the entire production of agriculture sector because fiberous crop products like jute, cotton, ophium etc. can not be converted into calories. Addition to the above techniques of measuring agricultural productivity, there are many more divised and used by scholars of various disciplines (See Shafi, 1984, and Singh and Dhillon, 1984, ). These all techniques take into account of the agricultural production and amount of inputs particularly land and labour and express productivity in form of index. Determinants of Agricultural Productivity However, whatever unit and component is taken for measurement of agricultural productivity, the common conclusion is that there is considerable spatio-temporal variation in it because crop productivity is the function of various factors including the physical (relief, altitude, climate and soils), socio-economic (Size of operational holding, tenancy system, occupational structure of the population, type of farming) and technical organization, (crop rotation, irrigation, use of manures and fertilizers and mechanization). All these factors, are highly variable and dynamic in nature. Physical factors, which are comparatively static in nature, play very important role. It is more so in developing countries where modernization of agriculture has not yet taken place to a measurable extent. These factors explain more than three-fourths of the variable (Subbiah and Ahmad, 1980, 19-32). The social factors have a direct and indirect bearing on agricultural productivity. Some of them are dynamic, while others are static. The economic and technological factors which are very dynamic emerge in the form of modernization of farming. Several studies have proved that these factors affect agricultural productivity to a large extent directly and indirectly (Sharma, 1980; Sharma and Jain, 1985; Noor Mohummad, 1992, 21). And as such Singh and Sharma concluded that, the institutional and bio- 132

5 technological operational variables have made a significant impact on agricultural productivity in the period of new strategy in which stress was laid on greater adoption of agriculture science and technology. The performance and accomplishments in recent years have already shown that the key factors affecting agricultural productivity are the irrigation water and modern inputs such as intensity of irrigation, farm implements, farm power and use of high yielding varieties of seeds and chemical fertilizers. The adoption of plant protective measurers also has an important bearing on the performance of crops (Singh and Sharma, 1985, 423). Much research has been devoted to the cases of low agricultural productivity and the longer term productivity gains that may be forthcoming from modern technology, but less attention has been devoted to the process of technology adoption by low income farmers. As noted in the recent survey of adoption of agricultural innovations by G. Feder, R.E. Just and D. Zilberman, there have been efforts to model adoption in the context of risk, but there is dearth of empirical evidence on the ways that farmers respond over time as a new production technology is introduced in a risky environment (Feder et al., 1985, ). The present study correlates the adoption of yield-raising technology and productivity on the basis of empirical data. Contemporary Position of Productivity It is reality that extensive efforts have been made to raise the output after independence particularly under green revolution in this state as in the country itself. With other efforts, yi Chapter-5 eld raising technology was spread through out the rural areas. After two decades of introduction of green revolution technology, production particularly of food-grains increased substantially. But the agriculture could not be made dynamic and still is characterised by low productivity in this district. In , 3491 thousand hectares produced thousand tonnes of food grains giving average of 3412 kg per hectare. This is more revealing from the comparison of field rates of importance crops for instance, yield rate of rice, wheat, jowar and maize in the district as ratios of their respective yield rates in the state are 1.06, 1.20, 1.08 and The Table 5.1 presents the position of Dhar district in this respect. 133

6 Table No. 5.1 Dhar District : Changes in Production and Yield rate of Crop in to (Production in 000 tonnes, Yield kg/ha) Crops Production Change in Production Yield Change in Yield rate Change Percentage Change Percent Wheat Maize Jowar Rice Total Cereals Gram Tur Urad Total pulses Total food grains Soyabean Groundnut Sesame Total Oilseeds Cotton Sugarcane Total food crop Total non-food crop Source: District Land Record, Dhar. 134

7 In , the average yield of all food grains is 3412 kg/ha. It is evident from the table that excepting rice, gram, tur, groundnut and sesame, all crops have higher yield rates than the state average. As a outcome of higher yield rates of different crops and crop groups, share of this district in their production is higher than their shares in area under the crop. It would be clear from the table 5.2. Even such course grains as wheat, maize and jowar are ahead very high yield of maize presents an example. High yield rates of pulses and oil seeds also manifest themselves in larger production. Growth of agricultural output The production of food-grains increased from thousand tonnes in to thousand tonnes in , recording an increase of per cent in two decades. This trend is clear from the Table 5.2. Table No. 5.2 Dhar District : Trend of Area Production and Yield of Food-grains, to Item Growth in % Area ('000ha) Production ('000 tonnes) Yield (kg/ha) Availability kg per capita Source: District Land Record, Dhar, 2010 Growth in production of food-grains has been made possibly by increasing yield per hectares. It was only 624 kg per hectare in which reached to 3412 kg in , recording an increase of per cent, while area under these crops has decrease by 4.22 per cent during this period. Contrary to it, total population of this district increased by per cent, from 13,67,412 persons in 1991 to 17,40,329 persons in Because of very rapid growth of population, but per capita availability of food-grains slowly growth from kg in to in It would be proper to mention here that production of food-grains increase percent while area are declined per cent during to Productivity of these crops also increase percent during this period (Table 5.3). Thus, growth in output of food-grains has been slow and fluctuating in comparison to the population growth. 135

8 Table No. 5.3 Dhar District : Comparison of Growth in Production and Yield of Crop-groups Crop groups (Production in '000 Tonnes, Yield in kg/he) Production Yield Percent growth Percent growth in yield Cereals Pulses Food-grains Oilseeds Source: District Land Record, Dhar. Growth in output of all crop-groups in the district has been higher. This trend owes to the faster increasing yield rates in the region. Further, growth in production of all food-grains is ( per cent) faster, while output of oilseeds increased per cent during this period. Production of oilseeds increased so rapidly due to rapid increase in yield rate as well as very rapid increase in area under this crop. Area under these crops increased by per cent while yield increased by per cent. Thus, an output of crops has been increasing at faster rate in this district. This may be both cause and effect of using the agricultural innovations after advent of the green revolution. Table No. 5.4 Dhar District : Comparative Position in Respect of Yield Rates of Crops (Area in kg/he) Crops Yield Dhar M.P. as % of MP Wheat Maize Jowar Rice Total Cereals Gram Tur Urad Total pulses Total food-grains Soyabean Groundnut Sesame Total oilseeds Cotton Sugarcane Source: District Land Record, Dhar. 136

9 Trend of Production and Yield of Major Crops The above analysis shows that there is a considerable variation in agricultural productivity of all crops. Variation in agricultural productivity is associated with growth in yield of crops. This growth may be explained in terms of physical, social, economic and technical parameters. Consequently, attempt is to present spatial as well as temporal variation in yield rates of major crops alongwith the analysis of their impact on the growth of output (Table 5.4 & 5.5). Table No. 5.5 Dhar District : Share in Area and Production of Important Crop in Madhya Pradesh, (Area in ha, Production in '000 tonnes) Crops Area Production Dhar M.P. % of M.P. Dhar M.P. % of M.P. Wheat Maize Jowar Rice Total Cereals Gram Tur Urad Total pulses Total foodgrains Soyabean Groundnut Sesame Total Oilseeds Cotton Sugarcane Source: District Land Record, Dhar. Wheat Wheat is the fine food grain and major winter crop of the district. Its total production is 2,82,422 thousand tonnes in , which is per cent of the total production of all food-grains, while it amount only per cent of total area under food-grains. During last twenty years since , total production of wheat increased from 56,493 thousand tonnes to 137

10 2,82,422 thousand tonnes recording an increase of per cent. Area under wheat increased by only per cent during the same period. Sardarpur block is a big producer in the district. Average production of wheat of this block was thousand tonnes in , contributing nearly 15 per cent of total district average production. It is followed by Nalchha block, where 43,676 thousand tonnes (13.74 per cent of the district) is produced. Badnawar produced 41,170 thousand tonnes (12.95 per cent), and lowest produced in Dahi block 4228 thousand tonnes (1.33 per cent) in the district. There is wide variation in growth of areas under production of wheat in this district (Table 5.6). Table No. 5.6 Dhar District : Changes in Area Production of Wheat to Period Average Area(ha) (Yield kg/ha, Production '000 tonnes) Area Production Yield % change area Average Production % change Production Yield % change Yield Source: District Land Record, Dhar. It is evident that area under wheat increased by only per cent during Production of wheat increased from the average of 56,493 thousand tonnes during to 2,82,422 thousand tonnes during This increase is per cent. However, much higher growth of production than that of area under wheat proves that growth in yield rates has played crucial role in growth of wheat production. Manawar block records highest growth ( percent) in growth in production under wheat in the district. It is followed by Gandhwani ( percent), Nalchha ( percent), Kukshi ( percent), Sardarpur ( percent), Bagh ( per cent), Dharampuri ( percent), Nisarpur ( percent) and Bankaner ( percent) is higher production than the district average. Contrary to it Tirla ( percent), Dhar ( per cent), Dahi ( per cent) and Badnawar ( per cent) block is lower production than the district average (i.e per cent). 138

11 Table No. 5.7 Dhar District : Block-wise Change in Wheat Cropped Area & Production Block Over to Area Production Area Production (Production in 000 tones, area in ha) Change during Production Percent Dhar Tirla Nalchha Badnawar Kukshi Bagh Nisarpur Dahi Manawar Bankaner sardarpur Gandhwani Dharampuri District Source: District Land Record, Dhar. Because of this fact, district recorded slowly growth in area, records highest growth (i.e per cent) in production of wheat. It means growth in productivity of wheat has been rapidly in this district. It is evident from Table 5.7. At present, average yield of wheat in this district is 2,403 kg per hectare during as against 2000 kg/ha in It means yield is slightly declined ( percent) in this district. This pattern of yield is not associated with the proportion of wheat cropped area under irrigation and HYV. Growth of yield rate is not uniform in time and space. Average yield rate increased from 693 kg/ha during to 2000 kg/ha during , recording per cent increase. In this period highest growth ( per cent in ) was recorded in this district. 139

12 With the view to assess the impact of new agricultural strategy on yield and production of wheat in recent times have been, drawn. It is evident from that the yield rates are much higher in post-green revolution period. But this increase has not been consistent. There is slight variation in both production and yield rates. Co-efficient of variation in yield rates during to Table 5.7 also represents high variation in yield rates. It means components of green revolution do not contribute towards stabilization of wheat production in district, while these constituents have helped in consistently increasing yield and production of wheat within this state itself. High annual fluctuations cause conditions of scarcity alternatively. Maize Among cereals maize has registered second highest growth in production (15.32 per cent), from thousand tonnes in to thousand tonnes in (Table 5.8). It is evident from the table that total average area also decreased by 5.90 percent from hectares in to hectares, ( per cent) in Production of maize increased from thousand tonnes (84.02 per cent) to thousand tonnes (15.32 per cent) in the district during the same period. It means growth rate of productivity is much slower (34.80 per cent). Table No. 5.8 Dhar District : Changes in Area Production of Maize to (Yield kg/ha, Production '000 tonnes) Period Average Area(ha) Area Production Yield % change area Average Production % change Production Yield % change Yield Source: District Land Record, Dhar. Gandhwani block is the largest producer of maize in this district. Average production of maize of this block is tonnes during It is followed by Bagh ( tonnes), Bankaner ( tonnes), Manawar ( tonnes), Kukshi ( tonnes), Sardarpur ( tonnes), Badnawar ( tonnes), Dharampuri ( tonnes) and 140

13 Dahi ( tonnes). Nalchha ( tonnes), Nisarpur ( tonnes), Tirla ( tonnes) and Dhar ( tonnes) blocks are small maize producer. There is wide variation in production of maize in this district. The growth is negative in nine blocks, it is remaining that Dhar block ( per cent) is highest negative growth in the disrtrict in It is followed by Tirla (45.63 per cent), Sardarpur ( per cent), Bankaner ( per cent), Nisarpur (25.30 per cent), Manawar ( per cent), Nalchha ( per cent) blocks has negative growth than the district average (i.e per cent). Contrary, to it production, Maize output shows positive trend. In Dahi (28.70 per cent), Bagh (15.92 per cent), Kukshi (12.93 per cent) and Badnawar (8.47 per cent) blocks have positive growth in the district. Over all district growth rate is decrease ( per cent) Table 5.9. Table No. 5.9 Dhar District : Block wise change in Maize Cropped Area & Production Block Over to (Production in 000 tones, area in ha) Area Production Area Production Change during Production Percent Dhar Tirla Nalchha Badnawar Kukshi Bagh Nisarpur Dahi Manawar Bankaner Sardarpur Gandhwani Dharampuri District Source: District Land Record, Dhar. High growth in production is the consequence of increasing area under the crop and yield, which rose from 1224 kg/ha in to 2126 kg in This works an increase of about per cent. But yield in 141

14 the district declined by per cent in It is because of high growth in yield rate by per cent. This growth in yield might have been possible by using HYVs and use of fertilizers under the green revolution in this district. Jowar Jowar is the third largest contributor towards total production of cereals in this district. Its average production increased from thousand tonnes in to thousand tonnes in , recording decrease of per cent during this period, while area under this crop also decreased from hectares in to hectares in This is slowly declined by per cent to per cent in same period (Table 5.10). Table No Dhar District : Changes in Area & Production of Jowar to (Yield kg/ha, Production '000 tonnes) Area Production Yield Period Average % change Average % change % change Yield Area (ha) area Production Production Yield Source: District Land Record, Dhar. Bagh block is a big producer in the district. Average production of jowar of this block was tonnes in It is followed by Gandhwani ( tonnes), Dahi ( tonnes), Kukshi ( tonnes), Manawar ( tonnes), Nisarpur ( tonnes) and Bankaner ( tonnes) blocks. Dharampuri ( tonnes), Sardarpur ( tonnes), Nalchha ( tonnes), Tirla (59.30 tonnes), Badnawar (35.10 tonnes) and Dhar (1.30 tonnes) blocks are small jowar producer. There is wide variation in production of jowar in this district. The growth is negative in eight blocks, it is remaining that Dhar block is highest negative growth rate ( per cent) in the district in It is followed by Tirla ( per cent), Badnawar ( per cent), Nalchha ( per cent), Dharampuri ( per cent), Sardarpur ( per cent), Bankaner ( per cent) and Manawar ( per cent) blocks has higher negative growth than the district average (i.e per cent) during to Contrary to it, Nisarpur block is the highest growth in the 142

15 district. Highest growth occurred in Nisarpur block i.e per cent followed by Kukshi ( per cent), Dahi ( per cent), Bagh ( per cent), and Gandhwani block records very nominal increase in production (i.e per cent) (Table 5.11). Table No Dhar District : Block wise Change in Jowar Cropped Area and Production Over to (Production in 000 tones, area in ha) Area Production Area Production Change during Block Production Percent Dhar Tirla Nalchha Badnawar Kukshi Bagh Nisarpur Dahi Manawar Bankaner Sardarpur Gandhwani Dharampuri District Source: District Land Record, Dhar. This is evident from the table that the growth of production has been slowly dependent on increasing yield. It is because of the declining area under jowar. In the case of jowar, it is definite that production went up due to increasing yield rate. This has been made possible by bringing of jowar cropped area under high yielding variety of seeds. Average yield per hectare of jowar, rose by per cent from 383 kg in to 1300 ( per cent) in This growth in higher than the state's growth of per cent during the same period. 143

16 Rice This is not major occupant of the land but is the fourth major constituent of the total cereal production of the district. Its total production is 1297 thousand tonnes in , which is 0.20 per cent of the total production of all cereals, while it occupies only 0.62 per cent of total cereal's area. During last twenty years total production of rice increased from 3551 thousand tonnes in to 1297 thousand tonnes in , recording on decrease of per cent. Also area under rice decrease by percent during the same period. Sardarpur block is the largest producer of rice in this district. Average production of rice of this block is 475 thousand kg during , contributing per cent of total district production. It is followed by Gandhwani (235.6 thousand kg or per cent), Bagh (141.5 thousand kg or per cent), Bankaner (118.7 thousand kg or per cent) block. Nalchha (71.2 thousand kg) Kukshi (33.2 thousand kg), Manawar (25.6 thousand kg), Tirla (17.1 thousand kg), Dharampuri (15.2 thousand kg), Badnawar (9.5 thousand kg), Dahi (2.8 thousand kg) and Dhar (1.90 thousand kg) are small rice producer. In all block both area under rice and its production showed negative growth. Highest negative growth in Manawar ( per cent) block to lowest negative growth in Gandhwani ( per cent) block in the district. It is followed by Tirla ( %), Badnawar (-84.8%), Dharampuri (-76.61%), Dhar (-76.25%), Kukshi (-72.96%), Sardarpur (-68.66%), Nalchha (-59.8%), Dahi (-59.28%), Bankaner (-55.77%) and Bagh (-54.77%) blocks (Table 5.12). Table No Dhar District : Changes in Area & Production of Rice to (Yield kg/ha, Production '000 tonnes) Area Production Yield Period Average % change Average % change % change Yield Area(ha) area Production Production Yield Source: District Land Record, Dhar. It means constituents of green revolution could not contribute towards dynamic pace of rice production. Consequently, yield rate is much lower than state. It is only 950 kg/ha during in the district as 144

17 against state average of 1562 kg. change in yield rate is also not uniform temporally. Average yield per hectare was 500 kg in , which rose to 950 kg/ha in , recording 90.0 percent increase (Table 5.13). Block Table No Dhar District : Block-wise Change in Rice Cropped Area & Production Over to (Production in 000 tones, area in ha) Area Production Area Production Change during Production Percent Dhar Tirla Nalchha Badnawar Kukshi Bagh Nisarpur Dahi Manawar Bankaner Sardarpur Gandhwani Dharampuri District Source: District Land Record, Dhar. Area under rice decrease most rapidly in this district. But production as well as productivity progressively increased in the district. This crop is produced entirely without irrigation and high yielding variety of seeds probably because of low yield proportion of area devoted to this crop is low in the district. Gram Gram is the first ranking pulse crop in the district. Its total production is 15,980 tonnes in which is 2.93 per cent of the total gram production in the state in During last twenty years since , total production of gram increased from 16,759 tonnes in to 75,980 tonnes in , recording an increase of per cent. Badnawar block is the largest gram producing block in this district. Production of gram in this block was tonnes during , contributing more than 145

18 one-third (37.54 per cent) of total district production. It is followed by Dhar block ( tonnes or per cent), Sardarpur block ( tonnes or per cent), Tirla block ( tonnes), Nalchha block ( tonnes) and Gandhwani ( tonnes). Bagh ( tonnes), Manawar ( tonnes), Bankaner ( tonnes), Kukshi ( tonnes), Nisarpur ( tonnes), Dharampuri ( tonnes) and Dahi ( tonnes) block are small gram producer (Table 5.14). Table No Dhar District : Changes in Area & Production of Gram to (Yield kg/ha, Production '000 tonnes ) Period Average Area(ha) Area Production Yield % change Average % change Yield area Production Production % change Yield Source: District Land Record, Dhar. Area under gram increased from 43,193 hectares in to 84,422 hectares in , which rose to per cent, but per cent decline in Block wise variation in growth in production of gram is presented in Table Gram production increased very rapidly. Highest growth occurred in Tirla block i.e per cent followed by Gandhwani ( per cent), Dhar ( per cent) and Badnawar ( per cent) is higher growth than the district average (i.e per cent) in contrary to it, Sardarpur ( per cent), Nalchha ( per cent), Bagh ( per cent), Bankaner ( per cent), Manawar ( per cent), Kukshi ( per cent), Dahi ( per cent), Dharampuri ( per cent) and Nisarpur ( per cent) block is lower increase than the district average in There is wide variation in growth of area and production of gram in this district. 146

19 Table No Dhar District : Block-wise Change in Gram Cropped Area and Production Over to (Production in 000 tones, area in ha) Area Production Area Production Change during Block Production Percent Dhar Tirla Nalchha Badnawar Kukshi Bagh Nisarpur Dahi Manawar Bankaner Sardarpur Gandhwani Dharampuri District Source: District Land Record, Dhar. High growth of production is the consequence of increasing yield rate from 388kg/ha in to 900 kg/ha in This works an increase of about per cent. Thus increasing yield is the principal reason of increasing production of gram in the district. Tur Tur occupies about 2.80 per cent area of total pulses in the district in This crop produces 3.40 per cent of total production of all pulses, productivity of tur has also been higher than the state. Tur cropped area and production decreased by per cent and per cent, respectively, during to (Table 5.16). Table No Dhar District : Changes in Area and Production of Tur to (Yield kg/ha, Production '000 tonnes ) Area Production Yield Period Average % change Average % change % change Yield Area(ha) area Production Production Yield Source: District Land Record, Dhar. 147

20 Block wise variation in production of tur is presented in table Bankaner block is the largest tur producing block in this district. Production of Tur in this block was tonnes during , contributing per cent of total district production. It is followed by Gandhwani ( tonnes), Dharampuri ( tonnes), Manawar ( tonnes), Bagh ( tonnes), Nisarpur ( tonnes), Kukshi ( tonnes), Dahi ( tonnes). Sardarpur (96.03 tonnes), Badnawar (90.21 tonnes), Nalchha (68.87 tonnes), Tirla (40.74 tonnes) and Dhar (14.55 tonnes) block are small tur producer. The growth is negative in six blocks, there are Dhar block is highest negative growth ( per cent) in the district in It is followed by Nalchha ( per cent), Tirla ( per cent), Sardarpur ( per cent), Dharampuri ( per cent) and Bagh ( per cent). Contrary to it, only seven block out of thirteen have production growth in the district in The highest growth in Dahi block per cent, followed Gandhwani (73.65 per cent), Bankaner (42.34 per cent), Badnawar (39.32 per cent), Manawar (14.31 per cent), Nisarpur (11.86%) and Kukshi (2.77 per cent) block. Overall district growth rate is per cent in Table No Dhar District : Block-wise Change in Tur Cropped Area and Production Over to (Production in 000 tones, area in ha) Area Production Area Production change during Block Production Percent Dhar Tirla Nalchha Badnawar Kukshi Bagh Nisarpur Dahi Manawar Bankaner Sardarpur Gandhwani Dharampuri District Source: District Land Record, Dhar. 148

21 Table 5.17 clearly shows that declining area under tur. In the case of tur, it is definite that production went up due to increasing yield rate. This has been made possible by bringing of tur cropped area is decline. Average yield per hectare of tur, rose by per cent from 350 kg in to 970 kg ( per cent) in Soyabean Apart from the high yield potential and possessing a high nutritional value, it is the richest, cheapest and easiest source of best quality proteins and fats and having a vast multiplicity of use as food and industrial product, is called a wonder crop. By adopting sufficient improved technology, improved varieties of soyabean, yield of 30 to 35 quintals per hectares can be obtained (Singh, 1984, 245). This is not only major occupant of the cropped land but also the major contributor of the oilseed production in this district. Total production of soyabean was only 50,562 thousand tonnes in , which reached to 3,64,199 thousand tonnes in Soyabean became a popular crop after In this district only 91,267 hectares were under this crop in , which rose to 2,60,142 hectares in (Table 5.18). Table No Dhar District : Changes in Area Production of Soyabean to (Yield kg/ha, Production '000 tonnes) Area Production Yield Period Average % change Average % change % change Yield Area(ha) area Production Production Yield Source: District Land Record, Dhar. During last twenty years since total production of soyabean increased from thousand tonnes to 3,64,199 thousand tonnes recording an increase of per cent. Badnawar block is one of the major soyabean producing block of the district. Production of soyabean in this block is thousand tonnes in , contributing nearly one fourth (23.02 percent) of the total district production. It is followed by Sardarpur ( ), Dhar (64,111.60), Nalchha ( ), Tirla ( ), Gandhwani ( ), Bagh ( ), Manawar (8,822.80), Dharampuri ( ), Bankaner (7,362.60), Nisarpur 149

22 (2,555.00) and Dahi ( ) each thousand tonnes. Only one out of thirteen blocks have decrease production in the district in This is are Dharampuri ( tonnes) per cent. There is wide variation in growth of area and production of soyabean in this district (Table 5.19). However, very high growth in production occurred in Dahi ( percent) followed by Kukshi ( per cent), Bagh ( per cent), Nisarpur ( per cent), Gandhwani ( per cent), Bankaner ( per cent), Manawar (709.60%), Sardarpur ( per cent), Tirla (129.94%) and Nalchha ( per cent). Badnawar (77.49 per cent) and Dhar (65.31 per cent) show very slow growth in production in Only one out of thirteen blocks have declined in growth rate. This is Dharampuri (-34.36%) block in this period. Table No Dhar District : Block-wise Change in Soyabean Cropped Area and Production Over to (Production in 000 tones, area in ha) Area Production Area Production Change during Block Production Percent Dhar Tirla Nalchha Badnawar Kukshi Bagh Nisarpur Dahi Manawar Bankaner Sardarpur Gandhwani Dharampuri District Source: District Land Record, Dhar. Area under soyabean increased by per cent during the same period. There is hectares area under soyabean in , which is about per cent of total cropped area. It is evident that average yield of soyabean in this district is 1400 kg/ha during , as against 1120 kg/ha in the state. It means yield is high in this district. Than the state growth of yield rate is not uniform in time to space. Average yield increased from 554kg/ha during to 1400 kg/ha during , recording per cent increase. 150

23 PRODUCTIVITY OF FOOD GRAINS PER HECTARE It is fact that agriculture in this district is dominated by non-food grains which occupy per cent of total cropped area in Therefore, productivity of food-grains per unit of area and as per hectare agricultural workers has been analysed. Total production of all food-grains as thousand tonnes from thousand hectares of area in It gives yield of 1548 kg/ha in the district (Table 5.20). Only Dharampuri block has higher yield than the district average and Badnawar has lower yield (836.6 kg/ha) under food-grains (Plate 5.1). PRODUCTION OF FOOD-GRAINS PER WORKER As per census of 2001, total number of agricultural workers is thousand persons. If total production of food grain in is divided by this number, it results 1122 kg per agricultural worker in this district. Only three block (Dhar 3167 kg, Nalchha 1979 kg, and Tirla 1354 kg) have higher than the district average, while ten block has lower productivity of these grains. But Dahi block has very poor condition in this respect. Per capita productivity is low in this block because of high proportion of agricultural workers and low yield per hectare. Therefore, yield per unit of area must be raised for improving the situation in this block (Table 5.20 & Plate 5.2). Block Table No Dhar District : Block wise Productivity of foodgrains, Agricultural Area Production Yield (kg/ha) Workers (ha) ('000 t) ('000 in2001) Production Per Worker (kg) Dhar Tirla Nalchha Badnawar Kukshi Bagh Nisarpur Dahi Manawar Bankaner Sardarpur Gandhwani Dharampuri District Source: District Land Record, Dhar. It can be summed up that condition of productivity is satisfactory in Bagh, Manawar, Sardarpur and Dharampuri block but Dahi, Nisarpur, Gandhwani, Kukshi, Badnawar and Bankaner is below the hundred kg 151

24 average in this respect and situation is deplorable. Therefore, every effort must be made to enhance productivity in these blocks. STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS AND PRODUCTIVITY In the preceding chapter, those factors have been discussed which have gone long way in influencing the pattern of yield raising technology in the district. The relationship between these factors along with the technology and with the productivity is being examined here. The analysis of this section is entirely based on the data generated through the structured questionnaire. At the same time, only significant determinants have been considered, and productivity is measured in terms of yield per hectare. Variations in productivity at all levels could mainly be explained in terms of physical, social, economic and technological parameters. The personal and household characteristics with the farming attributes also affect agricultural productivity. Therefore, in succeeding lines attempts have been made to find out the relationship between some of these parameters and agricultural productivity. Although age, level of education, social position, family size, level of exposure to mass media, level of innovativeness, level of knowledge, level of involvement are important determinants which affect the agricultural productivity their relationship could not be discussed here. Only relationship of size of holding, caste, family labour, area under HYV and irrigation and per hectare expenditure with the productivity is discussed below. CASTE STRUCTURE AND PRODUCTIVITY There are two basic themes of this study. Firstly, different castes have different occupations in which they specialize and have monopoly to a certain extent. Secondly, there are certain castes whose overall agricultural productivity is higher as compared to non-scheduled caste. It is mostly the occupation of their choice, when it is, by and large, their family occupation (Noor Mohammad, 1992, 155). Caste structure is supposed to directly related with the efficiency of the farmer and farms (Chandravanshi, 1992, 221). Certain castes are more adoptive while other are less. This inter and intra-caste variation in agricultural productivity is due to variety of reasons. Along with physical characteristics, their several socio-economic and cultural status also play important role in influencing the agricultural productivity. People of certain castes are strong, sturdy, laborious, hard 152