MICRO ANALYSIS OF YIELD GAP AND PROFITABILITY IN PULSES AND CEREALS

Transcription

1 Legume Res., 37 (5) : , 2014 doi: / AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE MICRO ANALYSIS OF YIELD GAP AND PROFITABILITY IN PULSES AND CEREALS N.V. Kumbhare*, S.K. Dubey 1, M.S. Nain and Ram Bahal Division of Agricultural Extension, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi , India Received: Accepted: ABSTRACT The present study was conducted at farmers field in Mathura and Ghaziabad districts of Uttar Pradesh and Bahadurgarh and Gurgaon districts in Haryana during 2010 to The results of micro yield gap analysis from a sample size of 120 farmers revealed that the average yield gap-i (technology gap) for pigeonpea was 1167 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 1250 kg/ha in Haryana. While, the average yield gap-ii (extension gap) for pigeonpea was relatively lower i.e. 183 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 125 kg/ha in Haryana. The average yield gap-i for chickpea was observed as 1641 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 877 kg/ha in Haryana. Whereas, the average yield gap-ii for chickpea was relatively lower i.e. 614 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 622 kg/ha in Haryana. However, there was lower yield gap for paddy and wheat in both the states i.e. Uttar Pradesh and Haryana in comparison to pulses (pigeonpea and chickpea). Therefore, it is summarized that technology gap in pulses (pigeonpea and chickpea) was more than extension gap at farmers field. The potential interventions and various constraints of yield gap in major pulses have been highlighted in this paper. Key words: Constraints, Micro-analysis, Profitability, Yield gap INTRODUCTION Pulses are recognized as one of the most important sources of edible vegetable proteins, which are taken in the form of dal. Besides being a rich source of protein, they maintain soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation in soil and thus play a vi tal role i n furtheri ng sustai nable agriculture (Kannaiyan, 1999). Pulses play an important role in rainfed and irrigated agriculture by improving physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil and are considered excellent crops for natural reso urce m anagem ent, environmental security, crop diversification and consequently for viable agriculture (Ali and Kumar, 2006). During the year , pulse crops were cultivated in an area of million hectares in India with a production of million tones. The average yield of pulse crop in India is only 694 kg/ha (pigeonpea 656 kg/ha and chickpea 912 kg/ha), which is very low in comparison to wheat (3140 kg/ha) and rice (2372 kg/ha) (Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India, 2012). The coefficient of path analysis showed that the gap in chickpea in the use of seeds was the major variable that contributed significantly to the yield gap (Jadhav et al., 2010). According to Rao et al. (2010) the main challenges for research and development are to bridge the gap between actual and attainable yield by enhancing farmers access to quality inputs, improved technologies and information. Patole et al. (2008) revealed that total yield for the production zones ranged from 550 to 770 kg ha -1 for pigeonpea and 610 to 1150 kg ha -1 for chickpea. According to Burman et al. (2010) the overall gap in adoption of technologies was larger in the rainfed situation than in the irrigated situation. The causes of lower pulse productivity in developing countries at large can be attributed to several factors, including: (i) production is largely of subsistence nature; (ii) lack of investment because pulse cultivation is generally a small-scale activity that is not viewed as a sector capable of generating economic returns; (iii) the expansion of irrigated land has pushed pulses into marginal zones with the better *Corresponding author s n_kumbhare@yahoo.com, 1 Zonal Project Directorate, Zone IV, Kanpur.

2 land used to grow cereals; (iv) an agricultural policy focusing on cereals for food security purposes and (v) limited research, lack of technology and improved-cultivar availability to farmers (Boubaker, 2005). According to Piara et al. (2006) locationspecific integrated approaches would be needed to bridge the gap of the predominant crops grown in the target regions. Against the above background, an action research was conducted with specific objectives to analyze the yield gap of selected pulses (chickpea and pigeonpea) as compared to the cereals (wheat and paddy) and also to analyze the relative profitability of pulses in comparison to cereals. Further, the study also highlighted the potential interventions for higher profitability and reduce the yield gap. MATERIALS AND METHODS An action research was conducted in two selected states namely Uttar Pradesh (Mathura and Ghaziabad districts) and Haryana (Bahadurgarh and Gurgaon districts). From the identified districts of two states, total of 120 farmers growing the selected cereals (paddy and wheat) and pulses (chickpea and pigeonpea) were selected randomly from four villages i.e. 30 farmers per village, who were given profitability demonstrations of aforesaid selected crops. For estimation of yield gap, the yield of recommended varieties of paddy (Pusa 1121, Pusa 2511), wheat (HD 2894, HD 2932), chickpea (BGD 72, Pusa 1003) and pigeonpea (Pusa 992, Pusa 2001) were compared with the yield of farmers variety as well as the on-station yield. Thus, yield gap-i known as technology gap (potential yield of the variety at research station minus yield obtained in on-farm demonstration of the selected cultivar) and yield Gap-II also called extension gap (yield obtained under on-farm demonstration minus yield of local check) were computed. Similarly, the profitability analysis of pulses were done and compared with cereals on the selected economic parameters and benefit: cost ratio was calculated to get objective comparison. Statistical analysis was used to work out the yield gap and profitability. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Yield gap of pigeonpea as compared to paddy: The micro yield gap analysis in pigeonpea as compared to paddy with comparative yield data of demonstration plots, research station plots and Vol. 37, No. 5, farmers plots yield gaps were analyzed and are presented in Table 1. The average yield gap-i for pigeonpea (potential yield of the variety at research station mi nus yield obtai ned in on-farm demonstration of the selected cultivar) was observed as 1167 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 1250 kg/ha in Haryana. Whereas, the average yield gap-ii for pi geonpea (yield obtained under on-farm demonstration minus yield of local check) was relatively lower i.e. 183 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 125 kg/ha in Haryana. However, there was no yield gap-i for paddy in both the states i.e. Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, as on-farm demonstration yield is more than the potential yield of the variety. However, the average yield gap-ii for paddy was relatively more as compare to yield gap I i.e. 650 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 1300 kg/ha in Haryana, respectively. Higher yield gap in case of pigeonpea in both the states may be attributed to fact that the variety recommended for these states may not be appropriate for the existing cropping systems, biophysical situations and other attributes of farming systems. Hence, there is need to take up adaptive research based technology generati on and dissemination in case of pigeonpea in the selected states. Yield gap of chickpea as compared to wheat: The micro analysis of yield gap of chickpea in comparison to wheat has been depicted in Table 2. On-farm profitability demonstrations of chickpea (c.v. BGD 72 and Pusa 1003) and wheat (c.v. HD 2932 and HD 2894) were laid out in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana to find out the yield gap in chickpea as compared to wheat. With comparative yield data of profitability demonstration, research station and farmers field, yield gaps were analyzed. The average yield gap-i for chickpea (potential yield of the variety at research station minus yield obtained in on-farm demonstration of the selected cultivar) was observed as 1641 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 877 kg/ha in Haryana. Whereas, the average yield gap-ii for chi ckpea (yield obtained under on-farm demonstration minus yield of local check) was relatively lower i.e. 614 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 622 kg/ha in H aryana. H owever, there was comparatively lower yield gap-i for wheat in Uttar Pradesh (200 kg/ha) and no yield gap-i in Haryana. However, the average yield gap-ii for wheat was

3 534 LEGUME RESEARCH TABLE 1: Yield gap analysis of pigeonpea in comparison to paddy States Yield (kg/ha) Yield Gap-1(kg/ha) Yield Gap-2(kg/ha) Pigeonpea Paddy Pigeonpea Paddy Pigeonpea Paddy Pigeonpea Paddy Pigeonpea Paddy Demo. (A) Demo. (A) Check (B) Check (B) Research Research (C-A) (C-A) (A-B) (A-B) Station(C) Station (C) Uttar Pradesh Haryana Average TABLE 2: Yield gap analysis of chickpea in comparison to wheat States Yield (kg/ha) Yield Gap-1(kg/ha) Yield Gap-2(kg/ha) Chickpea Wheat Chickpea Wheat Chickpea Wheat Chickpea Wheat Chickpea Wheat Demo. (A) Demo. (A) Check (B) Check (B) Research Research (C-A) (C-A) (A-B) (A-B) Station(C) Station (C) Uttar Pradesh Haryana Average observed as i.e. 300 kg/ha in Uttar Pradesh and 1387 kg/ha in Haryana. Findings further revealed that the yield gap I for chickpea in the Uttar Pradesh was 200% higher than that of in the state of Haryana. This is indicative of technology development process without considering farmers production situations. Profitability analysis of pigeonpea as compared to paddy: A comparative analysis of profitability of pigeonpea as compared to paddy in Table 3 revealed that per hectare average yield of pigeonpea (441.5 kg/ha) was much lower than that of paddy (4475 kg/ha). However, the profitability analysis of IARI pigeonpea (Pusa 991 and Pusa 2001) and paddy (Pusa 1121 and Pusa 1460) varieties revealed that even the 50 per cent reduction of the cost of production in pigeonpea (Rs.10,000/ha), the net profit from pigeonpea (Rs /ha) was lower than the net profit from paddy (Rs. 33,700/ha). The benefit: cost ratio too was low for pigeonpea (1.10:1) than paddy (2.68:1). It showed from the profitability analysis that cultivation of pigeonpea is more risky than paddy because the per hectare yield obtained in pigeonpea is lower than paddy at farmers field and as a result, still farmers prefer cereals (rice and wheat) because of assured income with minimum risk. Profitability analysis of chickpea as compared to wheat: A comparative analysis of profitability of chickpea as compared to wheat (Table 4) revealed that per hectare average yield of chickpea (1303 kg/ ha) was much lower than that of wheat (4584 kg/ ha). However, the profitability analysis of IARI chickpea and wheat varieties revealed that even with the same level of the cost of production (Rs.15,000/ ha), the net profit from chickpea was lower (Rs.17,580/ha) than the net profit from wheat (Rs.40,010/ha). Also the B: C ratio too was higher for wheat (3.6:1) than chickpea (2.17:1). The demonstrations amply showed cultivation of wheat is profitable as compare to chickpea. Perceived constraints of yield gap by the farmers in pulses: The data related to constraints in pulses as perceived by the farmers especially in pigeonpea and chickpea are given in Table 5. The data revealed that a vast majority (65.00 %) of the respondents were perceived the constraints of crop damage by wild animals like blue bulls (neelgay), monkey and wild pigs followed by

4 Vol. 37, No. 5, TABLE 3: Profitability analysis of pigeonpea as compared to paddy Item Pigeonpea Paddy Average yield of crop (kg/ha) Income obtained (Rs./ha) Rs. 25/- per kg) Rs.12/- per kg) Cost of cultivation (Rs. /ha) 10,000/- 20,000/- Net profit (Rs./ha) ,700 B:C Ratio 1.10:1 2.68:1 TABLE 4: Profitability analysis of chickpea as compared to wheat Item Chickpea Wheat Average yield of crop (kg/ha) Income obtained (Rs./ha) 32,580 Rs. 25/- per kg) Rs.12/- per kg) Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) 15,000/- 15,000/- Net profit (Rs./ha) 17,580 40,010.4 B:C Ratio 2.17:1 3.66:1 TABLE 5: Perceived constraints of yield gap in pigeonpea and chickpea N= 120 Constraints in pulses Per cent Rank Crop damage by wild animals I Non-availability of recommended II variety locally High cost of inputs III High infestation pest and diseases IV Theft of crop at harvesting V non-availability of recommended variety of pulses locally (62.50%) and high cost of inputs (60.00 %). The farmers also perceived the constraints like high infestation of pest and diseases (48.33 %) in pulses and theft of crop at harvesting stage (37.50 %). Hence, State Governments policy interventions are required to check these constraints for promoting pulses for reduction of yield gap. Potential interventions as perceived by the farmers: The potential interventions as perceived by the farmers are shown in Table 6. revealed that a majority of the farmers (54.17%) perceived that government policy initiatives for management of wild animals is urgently required as the wild animals like blue bulls (neelgay) damaging the crops specially pulses. About 48 per cent farmers perceived that development of location specific package of practices like for soil testing, seed rate, seed treatment, plant population, foliar spray, irrigation schedule and methods, use of biofertilizers and on-farm testing and demonstrations at farmers field would be crucial technological interventions to reduce the yield gap I (technology gap). Also, per cent of the farmers perceived adequate quality and timely availability of inputs followed by availability of genuine seeds of HYVs of pulses locally (44.17%). In addition, about 42 per cent farmers perceived that organization of Farmers Field Schools on pulses during crop season followed by per cent farmers perceived that special awareness campaign for pulses is required to improve the production and productivity in pulses. CONCLUSION The technology gap in pulses (pigeonpea and chickpea) was observed more than extension gap at farmers field. Hence, the potential extension interventions are needed to reduce the technological gap as well as extension gap in pulses. Also, well defined location specific package of practices need to be developed for soil testing, seed rate, seed treatment, plant population, foliar spray, irrigation schedule and methods, use of biofertilizers and onfarm testing and demonstrations at farmers field as TABLE 6: Perceived potential interventions by the farmers Constraints in pulses Per cent Rank Policy initiatives for management of wild animals I Development of location specific package of practices II Adequate quality and timely availability of inputs III Availability of genuine seeds of HYVs of pulses locally IV Organization of Farmers Field Schools on pulses V Special awareness campaign for pulses VI N= 120

5 536 LEGUME RESEARCH a technological interventions to reduce the yield gap I (technology gap). As this study also revealed relatively more economic advantages from pulses as compared to cereals, it is essential for the state extension managers to plan the strategy for greater inclusion of pulses in prevailing cropping sequences. Hence, special pulse awareness campaign is needed before the onset of the season for motivating farmers with availability of high yielding variety seed locally to the farmers. Also, training to the farmers and extension personnel, organization of Farmers Field School on pulses and integrated pest management (IPM) would be an important extension intervention for the empowerment of the farming community and helpful in reducing the extension gap in pulses and ultimately enhance the productivity in pulses. REFERENCES Boubaker (2005). A paper contributed by FAO to the 4 th International Food Legumes Research Conference (IFLRC-IV) held in New Delhi, India, on18-22 October Burman, R.R. Singh, S.K. Singh, A.K. (2010). Gap in adoption of improved pulse production technologies in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education; 10: Jadhav, M.S., Waiwal, V.D., Gavali, A.V. (2010). Yield gap analysis of Chickpea in Maharashtra. Agricultural Situation in India; 67: Kannaiyan, S. (1999). Bioresources Technology for Sustainable Agriculture Associated Publishing Company, New Delhi. p Masood Ali and Shiv Kumar (2006). Paradigm shift in planning needed. The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, GOI (2012). agricoop.nic.in/agristatistics Patole, S.D. Shinde, H.R. Yadav, D.B. (2008). Chickpea production in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra: a technological gap analysis. Journal of Food Legumes; 21: Piara Singh, Vijaya, D. Srinivas, K. Wani, S.P. (2006). Potential productivity, yield gap, and water balance of soybeanchickpea sequential systematic selected benchmark sites in India. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research; 2: Rao, P.P. Birthal,P.S. Bhagavatula, S. Bantilan, M.C.S. (2010). Chickpea and pigeonpea economies in Asia: facts, trends and outlook. VI+ 68pp.25.