Assessment of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-Grains in Uttar Pradesh

Study No. 139 Publication No. 187

Assessment of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Uttar Pradesh

Prof. Ramendu Roy

2013 Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad Allahabad-211002

Preface

The multi-hued Indian culture has blossomed Uttar Pradesh to be a rainbow land since the time immemorial. Blessed with a variety of geographical land and many cultural diversities, the state of Uttar Pradesh has been the area of activity of the historical heroes like lord Ram, Krishna, Buddha, Mahabir, Ashoka, Harsha, Akbar and Mahatma Gandhi. Tranquil and rich expanses of medows, perennial rivers, dense forests and fertile soil of Uttar Pradesh have contributed numerous golden chapters to the annals of the Indian History. The distinguishing feature of the economy of Uttar Pradesh is it’s regional imbalance. In terms of economic indicators like agricultural productivity, infrastructural facilities, industrial growth the economy of this state has been categorized into four distinct regions. Uttar Pradesh is often seen as a case study of development in the regions of India that currently lag behind the other parts of the country in important aspects of well being and socio-economic progress. Thus, in agricultural economies like India and the state of Uttar Pradesh, it is not sufficient to boost only its agricultural production but it must boost the marketable surplus of agricultural produces regularly. This study entitled “Assessment of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Uttar Pradesh” was entrusted to this centre by the Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India to estimate marketable and marketed surplus of selected cereals, coarse cereals and pulses along-with farm retention for self-consumption, seed, feed, wages etc. and to examine the role of various factors such as institutional, infrastructural and socio-economic in influencing household marketed surplus decision. The major food-grains undertaken for in-depth study were Rice, Bajara, Wheat and Arhar from selected districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The study reveals that the maximum i.e. 47 percent of the gross state income in Uttar Pradesh was shared by tertiary sector against the minimum i.e. 22.2 percent by secondary sector. The share of primary sector was 30.8 percent wherein the maximum i.e. 26.9 percent was reported by agriculture and animal husbandry. The percentage growth in gross state income was continuous during the span of 2005-06 to 2010-11 with slight variation in 2007- 08 and 2010-11.

2 In kharif season area has been shifted from Rice to Bajara and Maize and in Rabi from Pea, Gram, Barley and Arhar to Wheat in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly the area, production and productivity of wheat was in increasing trend through-out the span of 1950- 51 to 2010-11. The ratios of marketable surplus to production were higher in cases of lentil, barley, maize and jowar. While the percentages of marketed surplus to marketable surplus were higher in case of arhar, lentil and rice and the percentages of marketed surpluses to production were higher only in case of lentil.

The study was conducted under my overall supervision. The sampling and survey was done by Sri. S.N. Shukla and Dr. H.C. Malviya under the supervision of Dr. Rajendra Singh. The cleaning of schedules, posting of data on M.S. Excel and preparation of final analytical tables was also done by Sri. S.N. Shukla and Dr. H.C. Malviya under the supervision of Dr. Rajendra Singh who also drafted the report. Sri. Ovesh Ahmad assisted in data posting on M.S. Excel and typed the report. Sri. H.C. Upadhyay did Xeroxing, Smt. M.R. Kesarwani did secretarial services. I express my gratitude to all for extending their cooperation in the completion of this study. Any comments and suggestions for the improvements in the report are solicited and will be acknowledged thankfully.

Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad Allahabad (Ramendu Roy) Prof. & Hony. Director Dated: 25/04/2013

Credit

Prof. Ramendu Roy Overall Supervision

Dr. Rajendra Singh Supervision of Analysis and Drafting of the Report

Shri S. N. Shukla Sampling, Survey, Posting of data on M.S. Excel and Analysis Dr. H.C. Malviya Sampling, Survey, Posting of data on M.S. Excel and Analysis

Shri Ovesh Ahmad Assisted in Data Posting on M.S. Excel & Typing of Report

Smt M. R. Kesarwani Secretarial Services Shri S.D. Singh -Do-

Shri H.C. Upadhyay Photocopy and Setting of the Report

Sri. Raju Kumar Support Service Sri. Virendra Kumar -Do-

4 Contents

Preface 2-3 Credit 4 Contents 5 List of Tables 6-10

Chapters Page No. Chapter – I Introduction 11-20

Chapter – II Coverage, Sampling Design and Methodology Including 21-28 Theoretical Approach

Chapter – III Overview of Food-grains Economy of the State 29-48

Chapter – IV Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in 49-108 the State: An Empirical Analysis

Chapter – V Summary, Concluding, Observation and Policy Implications 109-120

Appendix – I & II 121 &122 Summary 123-135

5 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title of Tables

Chapter-II Table-II-1 Sampling Design

Chapter-III Table-III-1.1 Occupational Sector-wise Gross State Income at Current Price (Base year 2004-05) During 2004-05 to 2010-11 Table-III-1.2 Occupational Sector-wise Percentage Distribution Gross State Income at Current Price (Base year 2004-05) During 2004-05 to 2010-11 Table-III-1.3 Occupational Sector-wise Percentage Growth Over Previous Year in Gross State Income at Current Price (Base year 2004-05) During 2004- 05 to 2010-11 Table-III-2.1 Changing Cropping Pattern in Sample District and Uttar Pradesh during 1999-2000 and 2009-2010 Table-III-3.1 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Rice in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 Table-III-3.2 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Bajara in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 Table-III-3.3 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Wheat in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 Table-III-3.4 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Arhar (Tur) in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 Table-III-3.5 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of selected crops under Rice – Wheat Rotation selected districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1990- 91 to 2010-11 Table-III-3.6 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of selected crops under Bajara – Wheat Rotation selected districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1990- 91 to 2010-11 Table-III-3.7 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of selected crops under Arhar (Tur) Rotation selected districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91 to 2010-11 Table-III-4.1 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 Table-III-4.2 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Shahjahanpur district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 Table-III-4.3 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 Table-III-4.4 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Agra district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95

6 Table-III-4.5 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Budaun district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 Table-III-4.6 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Hamirpur district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 Table-III-4.7 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Fatehpur district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 Chapter-IV Table-IV-1.1 Main Features of Agriculture in Selected Districts Pattern of Land Utilization in Sample Districts of Uttar Pradesh (2009-2010) Table-IV-1.2 Pattern of Area, Production and Productivity of Selected Major Food- grains in Sample Districts of U. P. During 2009-10 Table-IV-2.1 Socio-Economic Profile of Sample Farmers Table-IV-2.2 Land Ownership Pattern of Sample Farmers Table-IV-2.3 Source of Irrigation Availed by Sample Farmers Table-IV-2.4 Terms of Lease Incidence Among the Sampled Farmers Table-IV2.5(a) Cropping Pattern in Paddy-Wheat Rotation Districts (Shahjahanpur and Barabanki) of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-2.5(b) Cropping Pattern in Bajra-Wheat Rotation Districts (Agra and Budaun) of U. P. Table-IV-2.5(c) Cropping Pattern in Arhar Rotation Districts (Hamirpur and Fatehpur) of U. P Table-IV-2.6(a) Yield of Selected Crops Paddy and Wheat in Shahjahanpur and Barabanki Table-IV-2.6(b) Yield of Selected Crops Bajra and Wheat in Agra and Budaun Districts Table-IV-2.6(c) Yield of Selected Crops Arhar in Hamirpur and Fatehpur District Table-IV-2.7(a) Investment Pattern on the Farms of Paddy – Wheat Rotation District Table-IV-2.7(b) Investment Pattern on the Farms of Bajra – Wheat Rotation District Table-IV-2.7(c) Investment Pattern on the Farms of Arhar Rotation District Table-IV-2.8 (a) Pattern of livestock by farm-size in Paddy – Wheat Rotation district of U.P. Table-IV-2.8 (b) Pattern of livestock by farm-size in Bajara – Wheat Rotation district of U.P. Table-IV-2.8 (c) Pattern of livestock by farm-size in Arhar Rotation district of U.P. Table-IV-3.1(a)-1- Crop losses on farm in case of Paddy under Paddy-Wheat Rotation Paddy districts of U.P. Table-IV-3.1(a)-2- Crop losses on farm in case of wheat under Paddy-Wheat Rotation Wheat districts of U.P. Table-IV-3.1(b)-1- Crop losses on farm in case of Bajara under Bajara -Wheat Rotation Bajara districts of U.P. Table-IV-3.1(b)-2- Crop losses on farm in case of Wheat under Bajara -Wheat Rotation Wheat districts of U.P. Table-IV-3.1(c)-1- Crop losses on farm in case of Arhar under Arhar Rotation districts of Arhar U.P. Table-IV-3.2(a)-1- Crop losses during transport in Paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation Paddy districts of U.P.

7 Table-IV-3.2(a)-2- Crop losses during transport in wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation Wheat districts of U.P. Table-IV-3.2(b)-1- Crop losses during transport in Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Bajara districts of U.P. Table-IV-3.2(b)-2- Crop losses during transport in Wheat under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Wheat districts of U.P. Table-IV-3.2(c) Crop losses during transport in Arhar under Arhar Rotation districts of Arhar U.P Table-IV-3.3 (a)-1- Crop losses from storage at producers level in Paddy under Paddy- Paddy Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-3.3 (a) Crop losses from storage at producers level in Wheat under Rice-Wheat Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-3.3 (b) Crop losses from storage at producers level in Bajara under Bajara- Bajara Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-3.3 (b)-2- Crop losses from storage at producers level in Wheat under Bajara- Wheat Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-3.3 (c) Crop losses from storage at producers level in Arhar under Arhar Arhar Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-4.1(a) Crop retention pattern of paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of Paddy U.P. Table-IV-4.1(a)-2- Crop retention pattern of wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of Wheat U.P. Table-IV-4.1(b) Crop retention pattern of Bajara under Bajara -Wheat Rotation District Bajara of U.P. Table-IV-4.1(b)-2- Crop retention pattern of Wheat under Bajara -Wheat Rotation District Wheat of U.P. Table-IV-4.1(c) Crop retention pattern of Arhar under Arhar Rotation District of Arhar Table-IV-4.2(a) Sale in market of Paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Paddy Pradesh Table-IV-4.2(a)-2- Sale in market of Wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Wheat Pradesh Table-IV-4.2(b) Sale in market of Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Bajara Pradesh Table-IV-4.2(c) Sale in market of Arhar under Arhar Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh Arhar Table-IV-4.3 (a)-1- Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals under Rice-Wheat Paddy Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-4.3 (a)-2- Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals of Wheat under Rice- Wheat Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-4.3 (b)1. Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals of Bajara under Bajara Bajara-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Table-IV-4.3 (b)-2- Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals of Wheat under Wheat Bajara-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

8 Table-IV-4.3 (c)1. Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals of Arhar under Arhar Arhar Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-4.4 (a)-1- Sale pattern of selected crops paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation District Paddy of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-4.4 (a)-2- Sale pattern of selected crops wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation District Wheat of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-4.4 (b)-1- Sale pattern of selected crops Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Bajara District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-4.4 (b)-2- Sale pattern of selected crops Wheat under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Wheat District of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-4.4 (c)-1- Sale pattern of selected crops Arhar under Arhar Rotation District of Arhar Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-4.5.1 Pattern of Marketed and Marketed Surplus of Selected Food-grains in Rice-Wheat Rotation Districts Shahjhanpur and Barabanki of Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11 Table-IV-4.5.2 Pattern of Marketed and Marketed Surplus of Selected Food-grains in Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts Agra and Budaun of Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11 Table-IV-4.5.3 Pattern of Marketed and Marketed Surplus of Selected Food-grains in Arhar Rotation Districts Hamirpur and Fatehpur of Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11 Table-IV-5.1. A-1 Distance and type of market under Paddy-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh for Paddy and Wheat Table-IV-5.1.A-2. Characteristics of storage/warehouse under Paddy-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh for Paddy and Wheat Table-IV-5.1. B-1. Distance and type of market under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh for Bajara and Wheat Table-IV-5.1. B-2. Characteristics of storage/warehouse under Bajara-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh for Bajara and Wheat Table-IV-5.1. C-1. Distance and type of market under Arhar Rotation districts of U. P. for Arhar Table-IV-5.1. C-2. Characteristics of storage/warehouse under Arhar Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh for Arhar Table-IV-5.2.A-1 Policy awareness under Paddy-Wheat Rotation district of U.P. for Paddy and Wheat Table-IV-5.2.A-2 Contract farming under Paddy-Wheat Rotation district of U.P. for Paddy and Wheat Table-IV-5.2.A-3 Area covered under improved seed % to Total Area under crop Paddy and Wheat under Paddy-wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-5.2.B-1 Policy awareness under Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of U.P. for Bajara and Wheat Table-IV-5.2.B-2 Contract farming under Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of U.P. for Bajara and Wheat Table-IV-5.2.B-3 Area covered under improved seed % to Total Area under crop Bajara and Wheat under Bajara-wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh

9 Table-IV-5.2.C-1 Policy awareness under Arhar Rotation district of U.P. for Arhar

Table-IV-5.2.C-2 Contract farming under Arhar Rotation district of U.P. for Arhar

Table-IV-5.2.C-3 Area covered under improved seed % to Total Area under crop Arhar under Arhar Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh Table-IV-5.3.A-1 Credit under Paddy-Wheat Rotation district of U.P. for Paddy and Wheat Table-IV-5.3.A-2 Sources of price Information under Rice-Wheat Rotation district of U.P. for Paddy and Wheat Table-IV-5.3.B-1 Credit under Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of U.P. for Bajara and Wheat Table-IV-5.3.B-2 Sources of price Information under Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of U.P. for Bajara and Wheat Table-IV-5.3.C-1 Credit under Arhar Rotation district of U.P. for Arhar Table-IV-5.3.C-2 Sources of price Information under Arhar Rotation district of U.P. for Arhar

10 CHAPTER – I

Introduction

I.1:- Macro Overview of State Agriculture:-

The distinguishing feature of the economy of Uttar Pradesh is its regional imbalance. In terms of economic indicators like agricultural productivity, infrastructural facilities industrial growth, the economy of this state has been categorized into four distinct regions i.e. (1) Western, (2) Eastern, (3) Central and (4) Bundelkhand. The western region of Uttar Pradesh is agriculturally more prosperous relatively industrialized and has greater degree of the urbanization. On the other hand Bundelkhand region has low agricultural growth, less number of industrial units, lesser gross value of industrial products makes this region as the most backward region in the state. Uttar Pradesh is often seen as a case study of development in the regions of India that currently lag behind the other parts of the country in

11 terms of a number of important aspects of well being and socio-economic progress. Some important facts of state agriculture are as follows:-

Important Facts of State Agriculture

Area of the State 2,40,928 Sq. Km. Number of Divisions 18 Number of Districts 71 Number of Tehsils 298 Number of Panchayats 8814 Number of Gram Sabhas 51826 Number of Inhabited Village 97134 Number of Development Blocks 809

Important Minerals:- Morang, Limestone, Diasphore, Pyrefalite, Circasand, Sand, Chinaclay, Lead, Copper, Platinum, Zinc, Tungeston, Tin, Graphite, Granite, Dolomite, Magnesite, Sopastone, Zipsum, Glass Sand, Marble, Phosphorite, Bauxite, Fireclay etc.

Important Industries:- Leather Industry, Automobiles and Automobile Equipments, Electronic Industry, Software, Drugs and Pharmaceutical Industry. Engineering Industry, Food processing, Solar Energy, Textile Industry, Petrochemical Industry, Agriculture Based Industries, Cement, Vanaspati Oil, Cotton cloth, Cotton fibre, Bangle and Glass Industry, Sugar industry, Furnitures, Game Items, Jute, Fertilers etc.

Total workers 29.70 percent Farmers 72.20 percent Industrial workers 7.75 percent Total Income (on current prices) 1,64,630 Crores Per Capita Income (on current prices) Rs. 9765 Crores

12 Percentage of Different Sectors in Income of the State

Primary Sector 38.00 percent Secondary Sector 22.60 percent Tertiary Sector 39.40 percent Wild Life Sanctuary 11 Birds Sanctuary 12 National Garden 1 Total Forest Area 1725 Thousand Ha. Total Cultivated Area 17,585 Thousand Ha. Total Irrigated Area 11,634 Thousand Ha. Gross Irrigated Area 16, 936 Thousand Ha.

Percentage of Irrigated Land by Different Means

Canals 25.42 percent Tube-wells 67.15 percent Ponds, Lakes and others 7.43 percent Agriculture Universities 5 Primary Agriculture Credit Cooperative 7,613 Societies District Cooperative Bank 1304

Area, Production and Productivity of Main Crops During 2009-2010

Rice Area 5190 Thousand Ha. Production 10810 Thousand M.T. Productivity 20.84 Qtls./Ha.

Jowar Area 190 Thousand Ha. Production 170 Thousand M.T. Productivity 8.85 Qtls./Ha.

Bajra Area 850 Thousand Ha. Production 1390 Thousand M.T. Productivity 16.38 Qtls./Ha.

13 Maize Area 710 Thousand Ha. Production 1040 Thousand M.T. Productivity 14.65 Qtls./Ha.

Coarse Cereals Area 1930 Thousand Ha. Production 2970 Thousand M.T. Productivity 15.41 Qtls./Ha.

Wheat Area 8670 Thousand Ha. Production 27520 Thousand M.T. Productivity 30.02 Qtls./Ha.

Gram Area 620 Thousand Ha. Production 510 Thousand M.T. Productivity 8.24 Qtls./Ha.

Arhar Area 310 Thousand Ha. Production 200 Thousand M.T. Productivity 6.62 Qtls./Ha.

Total Pulses Area 2540 Thousand Ha. Production 1900 Thousand M.T. Productivity 20.84 Qtls./Ha.

Total Foodgrains Area 19320 Thousand Ha. Production 43200 Thousand M.T. Productivity 22.36 Qtls./Ha.

Mustard Area 610 Thousand Ha. Production 680 Thousand M.T. Productivity 11.13 Qtls./Ha.

Groundnut Area 90 Thousand Ha. Production 60 Thousand M.T. Productivity 6.70 Qtls./Ha.

Soyabean Area N.A. Production N.A. Productivity N.A.

Sunflower Area 10 Thousand Ha. Production 20 Thousand M.T. Productivity 22.88 Qtls./Ha.

Total Oilseeds Area 1080 Thousand Ha. Production 820 Thousand M.T. Productivity 7.53 Qtls./Ha.

14 Sugarcane Area 1980 Thousand Ha. Production 117140 Thousand M.T. Productivity 592.51 Qtls./Ha.

Potato Area 540.80 Thousand Ha. Production 13447.30 Thousand M.T. Productivity 248.66 Qtls./Ha.

Cotton Area N.A. Production N.A. Productivity N.A.

Onion Area 24.30 Thousand Ha. Production 320.30 Thousand M.T. Productivity 131.81 Qtls./Ha.

Tobacco Area 23.39 Thousand Ha. Production 79.76 Thousand M.T. Productivity 34.10 Qtls./Ha.

I.2.:- Concept of Marketable and Marketed Surplus

Farming is still treated as a tradition and not a business in India by majority of farmers. A flourishing agricultural sector is essential for the development of Indian economy, because it is the surplus generated by the agricultural sector that will help Indian economy to reach the optimum stage as the total savings is made up of both from agricultural sectors savings and industrial sectors savings. But the Indian economy is still predominantly agricultural wherein about half of the country’s national income is derived from agricultural and allied enterprises which absorb about three fourths of its work force. Generally, the predominant agricultural countries like India depend much on the marketable surplus of agricultural produces. As a matter of fact, it is not the total production of agricultural sector but the surplus generated by agricultural sector for the market plays the crucial role in the development of such countries. Thus, in cases of agricultural economies like India and the state of Uttar Pradesh, it is not sufficient to boost only its agricultural production but it must boost the marketable surplus of agricultural produces regularly.

15 Marketable surplus represents the theoretical surplus available for disposal with the producer left after his genuine requirements of family consumption, payment of wages in kind, feed, seed and wastages have been met. Marketed surplus, on the other hand represents only that portion of the marketable surplus which is actually marketed and is placed at the disposal of the non-farm rural and urban population (sadhu and singh, 1983, page 245). In case of commercial agriculture, the farmer as he is motivated by profit considerations, takes his whole produce to the market and purchases his requirements from the market. But in case of subsistence agriculture, farmer generally produces for his own subsistence and it is only the remainder left after meeting his own requirements, which is taken to the market for sale. To the extent that the farmer’s retention is a matter of subjective guess, the concept of “marketable surplus” on the other hand, refers to the actual quantity of produce which enters into the market and as such, it is subjective.

In most of the cases, marketed surplus may be less than the marketable surplus because farmer may not be ready to sell whole of his marketable surplus. He may hoard a part of it in anticipation of rising price of the produce or for some other reasons. In certain cases, marketed surplus may be greater than marketable surplus. This happens when the farmers are driven to distress sales. There may be a subsistence farmer who has produced just to meet his family consumption requirements. But he may take some portion of his produce to the market to meet his immediate cash obligations. In such cases, the marketed surplus released by the farmer will not be the real marketed surplus.

I.3.:- Relevance of the study

The need of estimation of the “Actual Marketed and Marketable Surplus” has been perceived in the country since the time immemorial. After gaining independence this estimation became more important particularly in the context of planned agricultural development, distribution system, effective implementation of development programmes, formulation of various economic policies and pricing policies for agricultural commodities. In case of a developing economy like India, the marketed surplus in agricultural sector is of paramount importance from the following points of view:-

16 1. The increase in marketed surplus helps in releasing some workforce from agricultural to non-agricultural sector causing no decline in agricultural output. 2. It will contribute to capital formation in the non-agricultural sector. Rise in the income of farmers encourages the demand for industrial products and raises the profits and savings of capitalists. 3. Export of the marketed surplus helps in importing capital goods and raw materials for rapid industrialization. 4. It will improve the levels of living in agricultural sector by supplying industrial consumer goods. 5. It will generate the demand for industrial products and lead to the extension of market. Thus, the monetization of agricultural sector would make the farm sales responsive to price rise.

The information on marketable and marketed surplus forms the economic database for decision and formulation of economic policies by the various ministries of Govt. of India. Also the available data on marketable surplus collected by the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection earlier had become obsolete. Thereafter, the Directorate initiated a nation-wide survey for estimation of marketable surplus and post harvest losses for selected food-grains in 25 states and 100 districts during the years 1996-97 to 1998-99. But with the passage of time, the marketable surplus ratios of this survey also became obsolete. Further, there has been persistent demand from the needy organizations for up-dating of the data on realistic lines because it covers crucial information like farm retention, seed, feed, wastages and other disposals apart from marketable and marketed surplus. Thus, the present study is relevant and well justified to be conducted in all the states of India.

Keeping the above cited facts in view this study was entrusted to the various AERCs of the country entitled “Assessment of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in India” Individual State Report to be conducted with the following main objectives:- I.4.:- Objectives of the Study:- The main objectives of the study were

17 1. To estimate marketable and marketed surplus of selected cereals, coarse cereals and pulses in Uttar Pradesh. 2. To estimate farm retention for consumption, seed, feed, wages and other payments in kind etc. and 3. To examine role of various factors such as institutional, infrastructural, socio- economic, etc. in influencing household marketed surplus decision.

I.5.:- Review of Literature on Marketable and Marketed Surplus:-

Sadhu and Singh (1983) defines that Marketable surplus represents the theoretical surplus available for disposal with the produces left after his genuine requirements of family consumption, payment of wages in kind feed, seed and wastage have been met. Marketed surplus on the other hand represents only that portion of the marketable surplus which is actually marketed and is placed at the disposal of the non-farm rural and urban population.

Dobb M. (1961) writes that “there is reason to suppose that it will be the marketed surplus of agriculture which plays the crucial role in the under developed country in setting the limits to the possible rate of industrialization.

Nicholls W.H. (1963) highlights the significance of rising marketed surplus and assets, “until underdeveloped countries succeed in achieving and sustaining a reliable food surplus, they have not fulfilled the fundamental precautions for economic development”.

Bansil P.C. (1961) reports that the long term solution to the problem lies in inducing the farmers to purchase more and more non-agricultural goods with cash by stimulating farmers desire for such goods. “Once he is awakened to this need he will be automatically forced not only to develop agriculture but also report to investment in human capital”.

M.V. Kapde (1969) conducted an impirical study in Ajmer district of Rajasthan about the marketable surplus confirms the view that “ by far the best predictor of per capita marketable surplus is the per capita output of food-grains”. In this connection intensity of

18 cropping becomes an important determinant of marketable surplus. Higher intensity of cropping leads to higher production which in turn accounts for a large margin of marketable surplus.

Dharm Narain (1950-51) worked-out the estimates of marketable surplus of agricultural produce in India for the year 1950-51 according to the size of holdings this study revealed that the marketed surplus as a proportion of the value of the produce declined upto 10 – 15 acres size-group and it steadily increased afterwards.

Vyas and Maharaja (1966) in their empirical study in Gujrat concluded:- “Thus contrary to the belief held in some quarters, marketable surplus does increase progressively on the larger size-groups”.

Misra and Sinha (1961) in their study conducted in Champaran district of Bihar reveals that “the majority of small families had no marketable surplus of grains while more than 50 percent of very large families had some marketable surplus”.

Kahlon and Charles (1961) reported that another important factor affecting the extent of marketable surplus is the consumption habits of the producers. Major proportion of rice produced by the Punjabi farmer will be marketed, since rice is not a staple food of Punjabi. The bench mark survey of Batala community project supported this thesis.

Mathur and Ezchiel (1961) represents the main thesis of one group postulates an inverse relationship between price and marketable surplus. Their findings are based on macro level arguments and hardly supported by any micro-level evidence. The second group on the basis of considerable micro-data propounds the view that the farmers have become highly price conscious.

Chauhan and Kumar (2010) Concluded that nearly one half of the marketed surplus was mostly disposed off in second quarter (December – February) due to inadequate storage facilities at farmers level and occurrence of the post harvest losses by insect pests attack

19 during storage. The total post harvest losses of maize estimated at the producer level were to the extent of 3.13 percent.

References

1. A.N. Sadhu and Amarjit Singh (1983) In their Book on Fundamentals of Agricultural Economics, first Edition – 1983 PP 245 – 254. 2. M. Dobb (1961) In his Book on Economic Theory and Socialism, 1961. 3. W.H. Nicholls (1963) In his paper “An Agricultural surplus as a factor in Economic Development”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 71, Feb. 1963. 4. P.C. Bansil (1961) In his paper “Problems of Marketable Surplus in India”, I.J.A.E., Vol. XVI, 1961. 5. M.V. Kapde (1969) In his report “Economics of Marketing Cooperatives”, National, Delhi, 1969, P.77. 6. Dharm Narain (1950-51) “Distribution of the Marketed Surplus of Agricultural produce by the size level of Holding in India”, 1950-51, Asia Publication, New Delhi. 7. V.S. Vyas and M.H. Maharaja (1966) “Factors Affecting Marketable Surplus and Marketed Surplus in Arthas Vikas, Vol. 2, No.1, January, 1966, P.59. 8. B. Misra and S.P. Sinha (1961) “A Study of Problems of Marketable Surplus of Food-grains” in a village in Bihar, I.J.A.E., Vol. XVI, 1961. 9. A.S. Kahlan and Charles E. Reed (1961) “Problems of Marketable Surplus in Indian Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agril. Econ., Vol. XVI, (1961). 10. P.N. Mathur and H. Ezchiel (1961) “Marketable Surplus of Food and Price Fluctuations in a developing Economy”. Kyklos, 1961, pp. 316 – 406. 11. S.K. Chauhan and Sushil Kumar (2010) “Production, Marketed Surplus and Post Harvest Losses in Maize Crop of India”, I.J.A.M., Vol. 24, 2010, pp. 29 – 40.

20 CHAPTER – II

II.:- Coverage, Sampling Design and Methodology Including Theoretical Approach:-

II.1:- Coverage, Sampling Design and Methodology:-

II.1.1:- Coverage of the study

The present study was confined to the whole state of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of significant share in total acreage and production of major food-grain crops i.e. Rice (13.20 percent), Bajra (14.70 percent), Wheat (35.40 percent) and Tur (12.70 percent). Thus, the major food-grain crops undertaken for indepth study on marketable and marketed surplus in this state were Rice, Bajra, Wheat and Tur. Further to handle easily and to economise survey work too, the total number of ultimate sample farmers was restricted to 300 the minimum limit put by the coordinator of this study and also by selecting such districts growing more than one selected crop from the prevalent crop rotations followed in the selected districts of the state of Uttar Pradesh. The selection of districts, blocks, villages and ultimate sample farmers was carried-out with the consultations of concerned officials at various levels which are detailed as follows:-

II.I.1.1:- Selection of Districts:-

Out of the total 71 districts falling in the state of Uttar Pradesh about 55 districts have been identified as major districts on the basis of the most common crop rotations prevailing in the state on an overall average. Such crop rotations have emerged as (1) Rice – Wheat, (2) Bajra – Wheat and (3) Tur (Annual with mixtures). Thus, for the present study about 10 percent of the major districts i.e. minimum two districts per crop – rotation on the basis of relatively more acreage as well as production of main crops were undertaken randomly from the state. Such districts are namely (1) Shahjahanpur and (2) Barabanki based on the Rice – Wheat crop rotation, (1) Agra and (2) Budaun based on Bajra – Wheat crop rotation and (1) Fatehpur and (2) Hamirpur based on Tur – crop rotation making a total 6 districts from the whole state based on the 3 main crop rotations at the first stage of sampling.

II.I.1.2:- Selection of Development Blocks:-

At the second stage of sampling two development blocks from each of the district thus, selected were undertaken randomly based on the same criteria i.e. relatively higher acreage and production under the selected crops in crop rotations. Such development blocks were namely (1) Dadraul and (2) Bhawarkhera from Shahjahanpur district, (1) Banki and (2) Sidhaur from Barabanki district, (1) Etmadpur and (2) Khandauli from Agra district, (1) Jagat and (2) Myaun from Budaun district, (1) Bahua and (2) Bhitaura from Fatehpur district, (1) Gohand and (2) Rath from Hamirpur district making a total of 12 blocks in all.

II.I.1.3:- Selection of Villages:-

At the third stage of sampling one suitable village from each of the development block thus, selected was chosen randomly on the same criteria. Such 12 villages were namely (1) Saijana and (2) Shehra Mau from Dadraul and Bhawarkhera blocks of Shahjahanpur, (1) Sultanpur and (2) Bharthal from Banki and Sidhaur block of Barabanki district, (1) Nayawash and (2) Malupur from Etmadpur and Khandauli blocks of Agra district, (1) Jagat and (2) Mayun from Jagat and Myaun blocks of Budaun district, (1) Mahamadpur and (2) Jammupur from Bahua and Bhitaura blocks of Fatehpur district, (1) Sarsai and (2) Mallauha from Gohand and Rath blocks of Hamirpur district. Thereafter, from each of these 12 villages, 25 sample farmers making a total of 300 samples were chosen randomly.

22 II.I.1.4:- Selection of Ultimate Sample Farmers:-

At the fourth and final stage of sampling the lists of farmers growing such crops were procured from each of villages separately. These lists were further categorized into four standard size-groups i.e. (1) Marginal (0 – 1ha), Small (1.01 – 2ha), (3) Medium (2.01 – 4ha) and (4) Large (Above 4ha). Thereafter, the ultimate samples of farmers were chosen according to probability proportion to the total number in each size-group with a condition to get at least 20 sample farmers in each size-group in the state as a whole and as such out of the 300 samples, 178 were marginal, 65 small, 34 medium and 23 were large farmers.

II.I.2:- Sampling Design:-

The sampling technique used in this study was a multi-stage stratified random sampling technique. Since in the whole state of Uttar Pradesh 3 prevalent crop rotations i.e. (1) Rice – Wheat, (2) Bajra – Wheat and (3) Tur – (Annual with mixtures) were there, the districts were undertaken accordingly. At the first stage two districts for each crop rotation making total 6 districts out of 55 major districts growing major food-grain crops were selected randomly. From these districts thus, selected two development blocks from each district making a total 12 blocks were selected randomly on the same criteria. From each of these 12 blocks thus, selected one suitable village making a total 12 villages were undertaken randomly on the same criteria. Lists of farmers from each village were undertaken and categorized into 4 size-groups i.e. (1) Marginal (0 – 1ha), (2) Small (1.01 – 2ha), (3) Medium (2.01 – 4ha) and (4) Large (Above 4ha). Thereafter, the ultimate and final samples were chosen according to probability proportion to total number in each size-group restricting the samples to 25 from each village making 300 samples in all. The detailed sampling design is given in Table-II-1.

23 Table-II-1 Sampling Design

Sl. Prevalent crop Selected Selected Selected Ultimate Sample Farmers No. Rotations in Districts Blocks Villages Marginal Small Medium Large Total the state 1. Rice – Wheat 1. Shahjahanpur 1. Dadraul Saijana 16 3 3 3 25 (R – W) 2. Bhawakhera Shehra Mau 13 7 4 1 25 2. Barabanki 1. Banki Sultanpur 17 6 2 -- 25 2. Sidhaur Bharthal 15 5 2 3 25 Sub-Total 2 4 4 61 21 11 7 100 2. Bajra – Wheat 1. Agra 1. Etmadpur Naya Wash 19 3 2 1 25 (B – W) 2. Khanduli Malupur 15 8 2 -- 25 2. Budaun 1. Jagat Jagat 15 4 4 2 25 2. Myaun Myaun 16 5 3 1 25 Sub-Total 2 4 4 65 20 11 4 100 3. Tur – (Annual 1. Fatehpur 1. Bahua Mahmadpur 12 8 2 3 25 with mix 2. Bhitaura Jammupur 14 6 3 2 25 Tures) 2. Hamirpur 1. Gohand Sarsai 10 6 4 5 25 (T – ) 2. Rath Mallauha 16 4 3 2 25 Sub-Total 2 4 4 52 24 12 12 100 Grand Total 6 12 12 178 65 34 23 300

II.1.3:- Methodology:-

This study was based on both the primary as well as secondary data. The primary data on all the aspects such as general information land utilization, irrigation resources, pattern of area, production, productivity and prices of major food-grains, pattern of investments, pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of food-grains, consumption, retention and other disposals, wastages, losses and factors affecting marketed surplus were collected through the specially prepared schedules and questionnaires by survey method contacting the sample farmers directly on their farms. While the required secondary data on food-grains economy, cropping pattern, output from agriculture, trends in area, production and productivity of selected crops i.e. Rice, Wheat, Bajra and Tur, marketed surplus ratios and trends in consumption of major inputs such as seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, machines, credit and crop insurance etc. were collected from the records available at various levels i.e. state region, district, block and village with the help of concerned officials. Apart from primary and secondary data, personal observations were also done while taking the views and suggestions of sample farmers and all other concerned with marketed surplus of major food- grains in the state. As regards the analysis of data, apart from simple mathematical and statistical analysis, some suitable theoretical approaches such as inverse and positive relationship between prices and marketed surplus by Krishanan and Rajkrishna were tried to

24 assess the marketed surplus of selected crops. The reference period for primary data was agricultural year 2010-11 as well as marketing year 2011-12 and for secondary data was 2000-01 to 2009-10 for the trends of area , production and productivity of selected crops.

II.2:- Conceptual Framework and Estimation of Marketed Surplus:-

II.2.1:- Conceptual Framework of Marketed Surplus:-

1. Positive Relationship Raj Krishna (1952) puts forward the case for a positive relationship between prices and the marketed surplus of food-grains in India. This relation is based on the assumption that farmers are price conscious. By farmers being more price conscious what will happen is that as prices will rise farmers will sell more and retain less. As a result there will be increased surplus. The converse too, holds true. 2. Inverse Relationship:- Krishnan (1965) has argued that the marketed surplus varies inversely with the market price. It is contended that a higher price for a subsistence crop may increase the producers real income sufficiently to ensure that income effect on demand for the consumption of the crop outweights the price effect on production and consumption so in fact there is more real income with the farmers to consume the crop as compared to the higher price leading to greater production.

25 26 Table-III-2.1 Changing Cropping Pattern in Sample District and Uttar Pradesh during 1999-2000 and 2009-2010 (In Percentages) Sl. Crops Shahjahanpur Barabanki Agra Budaun Hamirpur Fatehpur Uttar Pradesh No. 1999- 2009- 1999- 2009- 1999- 2009- 1999- 2009- 1999- 2009- 1999- 2009- 1999- 2009- 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 1. Rice 32.35 32.63 35.21 35.71 0.52 1.20 16.21 9.59 0.39 0.04 22.08 16.07 23.85 22.03 (kharif) 2. Maize 0.43 0.31 1.05 0.91 0.30 0.01 0.49 1.68 10.26 -- 6.56 0.07 1.36 2.85 (Kharif) 3. Bajara 0.74 0.84 0.18 0.14 24.72 26.31 16.99 23.19 0.17 0.15 1.72 2.23 3.17 3.61 4. Jowar 0.65 0.22 1.24 0.39 0.05 0.07 1.97 0.06 -- 6.09 0.09 2.68 3.62 0.82 5. Cereal 35.74 35.50 38.47 39.00 25.76 27.65 36.39 37.43 16.93 14.82 32.54 23.15 33.24 31.63 (Kharif) 6. Wheat 42.89 42.02 31.18 33.73 37.34 32.73 42.54 44.22 25.48 24.58 35.76 41.70 36.02 38.26 7. Barley 0.10 0.06 0.16 0.02 2.45 1.66 0.28 0.13 0.44 0.57 2.40 1.17 1.19 0.68 8. Gram 0.13 0.01 0.91 0.21 2.42 0.37 0.09 0.02 23.67 20.73 11.38 11.74 3.12 2.40 9. Pea 0.21 0.09 0.82 0.56 0.20 0.02 0.50 0.12 8.15 3.36 0.50 0.37 1.55 1.26 10. Arhar (Tur) 0.17 0.04 1.37 0.50 1.24 0.23 0.18 0.12 3.52 5.21 3.71 5.36 1.62 1.32 11. Lentil 1.67 3.80 3.42 3.04 0.36 0.13 1.42 0.69 13.96 13.45 0.19 0.35 2.29 2.44 12. Cereals 45.17 46.03 37.86 38.06 40.02 35.14 45.00 45.30 75.22 67.90 53.94 60.69 45.77 46.37 (Rabi) 13. Total 81.19 82.45 78.09 77.43 65.84 62.84 81.47 82.99 92.16 82.73 86.87 84.84 79.61 78.52 cereals 14. Total 4.52 4.89 2.60 2.99 19.05 14.34 2.58 4.52 4.98 13.63 4.69 6.20 3.71 4.38 Oilseeds 15. Sugarcane 9.01 6.25 3.40 1.76 0.11 0.03 3.34 3.06 0.86 0.27 2.26 1.52 7.62 7.91 16. Potato 1.02 1.50 3.55 2.76 5.70 13.44 3.10 1.87 0.01 0.02 1.50 1.94 1.67 2.04 II.2.2:- Assessment of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Selected Major Food- grains in Uttar Pradesh State:-

Owing to lack of variety-wise data on all the selected major food-grain crops under the present study the model of marketed surplus functions based on Lancaster’s theory of C P consumer choice to the equation i.e. ms1 = ms1 (Z , Z , P, T, V. I ΩHH, ΩF, ΩM) for the empirical analysis to assess the marketed surplus as proposed by the coordinator of this study could not be fitted and as such the theoretical approach by modeling marketed surplus with attributes (varieties of food-grains crops) was not at all possible by us. Thus, the theory of marketable and marketed surplus put forward by Rajkrishanan (1962) and argued by Krishanan (1965) based on inverse and positive relationship between prices and marketed surplus of selected major food-grains was based for the assessment of marketable and marketed surplus of all the four selected food-grain crops i.e. Rice, Wheat, Bajara and Tur in the state of Uttar Pradesh undertaken for this study by us.

As matter of fact after a careful reading of the articles sent by the coordinator and the equation mentioned in the study proposal under the heading Theoretical Approach (Modeling Marketed surplus with Attributers) , it is well clarified that this model can only be attempted when the relevant data on at least two or more varieties (quantity attributes) and agronomic traits of the selected food-grain crops are available. In our case of Uttar Pradesh among none of the selected crops i.e. Tur, Bajara, Wheat and Rice the required data were available except only one variety / quality / agronomic trait and as a result it the proposed model based on Lancaster,s theory of consumer choice leading to the mentioned equation in proposal failed to be tried / attempted by us. Hence, the assessment of marketable and marketed surplus of the selected food-grains was done on the basis of inverse and positive relationship between prices and marketed surplus put forward by Rajkrishnan (1962) and Krishanan (1965). CHAPTER – III

Overview of Food-grains Economy of the State

III.1:- Structural Transformation of the State Economy: Changing Sectoral Shares of the Economy:-

III.1.1:- Occupational Sector-wise Gross State Income at Current Prices During 2004- 05 to 2010-11

The occupational sector-wise gross state income at current prices (Base year 2004-05) during 2004-05 to 2010-11 analyzed in Table-III-1.1 indicates that the gross state income during 2004-05 was Rs. 260.84 thousand crores of which the maximum i.e. Rs. 122.009 thousand crores were shared by tertiary sector against the minimum i.e. Rs. 57.92 thousand crores by secondary sector. The share of the primary sector in the gross state income was Rs. 80.31 thousand crores. Thus, primary sector shared considerably in the gross state income. In primary sector agriculture and animal husbandry shared maximum i.e. Rs. 70.16 thousand crores. While in secondary sector the maximum i.e. Rs. 35.18 thousand crores were shared by manufacturing. Likewise in tertiary sector the maximum i.e. Rs. 33.82 thousand crores were shared by trade, hotel and restaurant in the gross state economy of Uttar Pradesh. Onward 2004-05 the gross state income of Uttar Pradesh has continuously increased from Rs. 293.17 thousand crores in the year 2005-06 to Rs. 595.05 thousand crores till the year 2010-11. The sector-wise analysis shows that tertiary sector has shared maximum during the span of 2004-05 to 2010-11 against the minimum shared by secondary sector during the same span of 2004-05 to 2010-11. While the share by primary sector during the same span of period has been higher throughout estimating Rs. 170.29 thousand crores till the year 2010-11. The related data are given in Table-III-1.1

29 Table-III-1.1 Occupational Sector-wise Gross State Income at Current Price (Base year 2004-05) During 2004-05 to 2010-11 (In 000, Crores Rs.) Sl. Sectors of State Economy 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 No. 1. Agriculture & Animal 70.16 76.60 82.32 92.62 117.89 133.94 152.99 Husbandry 2. Forestry & Lagging 6.42 7.68 8.60 9.33 9.67 10.58 11.94 3. Fishing 0.98 1.05 1.12 1.22 1.28 1.45 1.62 4. Mining & Quarrying 2.73 3.23 2.98 3.02 3.33 3.83 3.71 A Primary Sector (1 – 4) 80.31 88.57 95.04 106.22 132.19 149.76 170.29 5. Manufacturing 35.18 38.34 48.82 55.98 54.92 59.31 68.23 5.1 Registered 18.62 20.38 27.64 31.34 29.16 31.06 36.27 5.2 Unregistered 16.55 17.95 21.18 34.64 25.75 28.24 31.95 6. Construction 19.14 24.11 28.11 32.42 41.48 48.08 55.59 7. Electricity, Gas and 3.58 5.17 5.66 7.17 4.70 8.39 6.01 Water Supply B. Secondary Sector (5 – 7) 57.92 67.63 82.60 95.58 101.12 115.79 129.84 8. Transportation and 20.24 22.79 26.63 30.85 34.28 43.73 52.26 Communication 9. Trade, Hotel & 33.82 37.33 45.03 51.53 57.24 64.59 73.47 Restaurant 10. Banking & Insurance 9.55 10.20 12.23 13.58 16.42 18.21 20.74 11. Real state, Ownership of 23.69 26.44 20.85 33.46 39.21 44.74 50.06 Dwelling & Business service 12. Public Administration 15.02 16.80 18.05 20.67 27.84 39.82 44.41 13. Other Services 20.26 23.37 27.12 31.10 36.36 45.26 53.15 C. Tertiary Sector (8 – 13) 122.09 136.96 158.66 181.21 211.37 256.37 194.92 D. Gross State Income 260.84 293.17 336.31 383.02 444.69 521.93 595.05 Source: State income estimate, Uttar Pradesh, Report No. 315, 2004-05 to 2010-11 Economic & Statistic section, State Planning Institute, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

III.1.1:- Occupational Sector-wise Percentage Distribution of Gross State Income at Current Prices During 2004-05 to 2010-11

The occupational sector-wise percentage distribution of gross state income at current prices (Base year 2004-05) during 2004-05 to 2010-11 worked-out in Table-III-1.2 indicates that during the year 2004-05 the maximum i.e. 47.00 percent of the gross state income was shared by tertiary sector where in the higher amount i.e. 13.00 percent was shared by trade, hotel and restaurant against the minimum by secondary sector accounting 22.2 percent and maximum i.e. 13.5 percent by manufacturing. While the share by primary sector was 30.8 percent wherein the maximum i.e. 26.9 percent was by agriculture and animal husbandry. Thus, in primary sector agriculture and animal husbandry, in secondary sector

30 manufacturing and in tertiary sector trade, hotel and restaurants were the main occupational sectors which contributed maximum in the gross state income of Uttar Pradesh. Further the gross state income in primary sector decreased gradually from 30.8 percent in the year 2004- 05 to 28.6 percent till the year 2010-11. In case of secondary sector firstly it increased from 22.2 percent in the year 2004-05 to 25.00 percent till the year 2007-08 and there after it decreased gradually to 21.8 percent till the year 2010-11. While in tertiary sector it increased throughout from 46.7 percent in the year 2005-06 to 49.6 percent till year 2010-11. Thus, in tertiary sector the gross state income has increased continuously during the span of 2004-05 to 2010-11. But in primary as well as secondary sector it has slightly decreased during the same span of period. The related data are contained in Table-III-1.2 Table-III-1.2 Occupational Sector-wise Percentage Distribution of Gross State Income at Current Price (Base year 2004-05) During 2004-05 to 2010-11 (In Percentage) Sl. Sectors of State Economy 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 No. 1. Agriculture & Animal 26.9 26.1 24.5 24.2 26.5 25.7 25.7 Husbandry 2. Forestry & Lagging 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.0 3. Fishing 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 4. Mining & Quarrying 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 A Primary Sector (1 – 4) 30.8 30.2 28.3 27.7 29.7 28.7 28.6 5. Manufacturing 13.5 13.1 14.5 14.6 12.4 11.4 11.5 5.1 Registered 7.1 7.0 8.2 8.2 6.6 6.0 6.1 5.2 Unregistered 6.3 6.1 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.4 5.4 6. Construction 7.3 8.2 8.4 8.5 9.3 9.2 9.3 7. Electricity, Gas and 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.1 1.6 1.0 Water Supply B. Secondary Sector (5 – 7) 22.2 23.1 24.6 25.0 22.7 22.2 21.8 8. Transportation and 7.8 7.8 7.9 8.1 7.7 8.4 8.8 Communication 9. Trade, Hotel & 13.00 12.7 13.4 13.5 12.9 12.4 12.3 Restaurant 10. Banking & Insurance 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.5 3.5 11. Real state, Ownership of 9.1 9.0 8.8 8.7 8.8 8.6 8.5 Dwelling & Business service 12. Public Administration 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.4 6.3 7.6 7.5 13. Other Services 7.8 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.7 8.9 C. Tertiary Sector (8 – 13) 47.0 46.7 47.1 47.3 47.6 49.1 49.6 D. Gross State Income 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: State income estimate, Uttar Pradesh, Report No. 315, 2004-05 to 2010-11 Economic & Statistic section, State Planning Institute, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

31 III.1.1:- Occupational Sector-wise Percentage Growth Over Previous Year in Gross State Income at Current Prices During 2004-05 to 2010-11

The occupational sector-wise percentage growth over previous years in gross state income at current prices (Base-year 2004-05) during 2005-06 to 2010-11 worked-out in Table-III-1.3. shows that during the year 2005-06 the percentage growth over 2004-05 was 12.4 percent which increased with slight variation during 2007-08 to 17.4 percent till the year 2009-10. But thereafter it decreased to 14.00 percent in the year 2010-11. Thus, the percentage growth in gross state income was continuous during the span of 2005-06 to 2010-11 with slight variation in the year 2007-08 and 201-11. The sector-wise analysis also shows that similar pattern was there during the same span of period. The related data are given in Table-III-1.3. Table-III-1.3 Occupational Sector-wise Percentage Growth Over Previous Year in Gross State Income at Current Price (Base year 2004-05) During 2004-05 to 2010-11 (In Percentage) Sl. Sectors of State Economy 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 No. 1. Agriculture & Animal 9.2 7.5 12.5 27.3 13.6 14.2 Husbandry 2. Forestry & Lagging 19.6 12.0 8.5 3.6 8.9 13.4 3. Fishing 8.1 6.4 9.0 4.8 12.6 12.1 4. Mining & Quarrying 18.0 – 7.5 1.4 10.0 15.0 – 3.1 A Primary Sector (1 – 4) 10.3 7.3 11.8 24.0 13.3 13.7 5. Manufacturing 9.0 27.3 14.7 – 1.9 8.0 15.0 5.1 Registered 9.4 35.6 13.4 – 7.0 6.5 16.8 5.2 Unregistered 8.4 18.0 16.3 4.5 9.7 13.1 6. Construction 25.9 16.6 15.3 27.9 15.9 15.6 7. Electricity, Gas and Water 44.4 9.4 26.8 – 34.4 78.4 – 28.4 Supply B. Secondary Sector (5 – 7) 16.8 22.1 15.7 5.8 14.5 12.1 8. Transportation and 12.6 16.8 15.8 11.1 27.5 19.5 Communication 9. Trade, Hotel & Restaurant 10.4 20.6 14.4 11.1 12.8 13.7 10. Banking & Insurance 6.8 19.9 11.0 21.0 10.9 13.9 11. Real state, Ownership of 11.6 11.9 13.1 17.2 14.1 13.7 Dwelling & Business service 12. Public Administration 11.8 7.4 14.5 34.7 43.0 11.5 13. Other Services 15.4 16.0 14.7 16.9 24.5 17.4 C. Tertiary Sector (8 – 13) 11.7 15.8 14.2 16.6 21.3 15.0 D. Gross State Income 12.4 14.7 13.9 16.1 17.4 14.0 Source: State income estimate, Uttar Pradesh, Report No. 315, 2004-05 to 2010-11 Economic & Statistic section, State Planning Institute, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow

32 III.2:- Changing Structure of State Agriculture: Cropping Pattern and Production from Agriculture:-

III.2.1:- Changing Cropping Pattern in Sample Districts and Uttar Pradesh During 2004-05 to 2010-11

The changing cropping pattern in sample districts and the state of Uttar Pradesh during 1999-2000 and 2009-10 worked-out in Table-III-2.1 shows that the area under total cereals in the state of Uttar Pradesh has decreased from 79.61 percent in the year 1999-2000 to 78.52 percent in the year 2009-10. While in case of kharif cereals it has decreased from 33.24 percent in 1999-2000 to 31.63 percent in the year 2009-10 and that of Rabi cereals it has increased from 45.77 percent in 1999-2000 to 46.37 percent. Thus, it is well clarified that the area under total cereals has declined over the decades (1999-2000 to 2009-10). The decrease has been caused much due to decrease in kharif cereals. In Rabi cereals there was a slight increase in 2009-10. The area under total oilseeds has slightly increased from 3.71 percent in 1999-2000 to 4.38 percent in the year 2009-10. The area under sugarcane has also increased from 7.62 percent in 1999-2000 to 7.91 percent in 2009-10. While the area under Rice (kharif) has slightly decreased from 23.85 percent in 1999-2000 to 22.03 percent in 2009-10. But the area under Bajra and maize has increased from 3.17 percent and 1.36 percent in 1999-2000 and 2.85 percent in 2009-10 respectively. In case Rabi crops the area under wheat has increased from 36.02 percent in 1999-2000 to 38.26 percent in 2009-10. But in case of all other food-grains such as barley, gram, pea and arhar it has decreased considerably during the same span of period. While in case of Lentil it has increased slightly from 2.29 percent in 1999-2000 to 2.44 percent in 2009-10. Thus, it is evidently clear that in kharif area has been shifted from Rice to Bajra and Maize and in Rabi it has shifted from Gram, Pea, Barley and Arhar to Wheat in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

The analysis on cropping pattern in selected districts shows more or less similar shifts and decrease / increase with variations in all the kharif as well as Rabi cereals. The area under rice in all the districts except Shahjahanpur and Barabanki has decreased. But in case of wheat it has increased in all the districts with slight variations. The area under total cereals has slightly increased in Shahjahanpur and Budaun. But in Barabanki, Agra, Hamirpur and Fatehpur districts has decreased during the same span of 1999-2000 to 2009-10. Thus, it is

33 evidently clear that the slight increase in total cereals is due to the slight increase in the area of wheat during Rabi. The related data are given in Table-III-2.1. III.3:- Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Selected Crops in the State: District-wise Analysis During 1950-51 to 2010-11:-

III.3.1:- Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Rice in the State of Uttar Pradesh During 1950-51 to 2010-11

The trends in area, production and productivity of rice in the state of Uttar Pradesh during

1950-51 to 2010-11 analyzed in Table-III-3.1 shows that the area under rice in the state of

Uttar Pradesh has increased continuously from 3852.21 thousand hectares in 1950-51 to

6071.32 thousand hectares till 2001-02. But thereafter it decreased continuously with fluctuations to 5631.94 thousand hectares till 2010-11. Thus, the area under rice has firstly increasing trend till 2001-02 but thereafter it has a declining trend continuously with fluctuations till 2010-11. Accordingly the production of rice in the state of Uttar Pradesh has also increased from 1998.77 thousand M.T. in 1950-51 to 12855.85 thousand M.T. till the year 2001-02. But thereafter, it suddenly decreased from 9596.33 thousand M.T. in 2002-03 to 11938.07 thousand M.T. till 2010-11. While the productivity of rice has increased from

5.19 qtls./ha in the year 1950-51 to 21.17 qtls./ha till the year 2001-02 and thereafter it decreased from 18.41 qtls./ha in 2002-03 to 21.19 qtls./ha till the year 2010-11. Thus, the area, production as well as productivity of rice has firstly increased till the year 2001-02 showing an increasing trend. But thereafter the trend in respects of area, production and productivity has shown declining trend with fluctuations. The related data given in Table-

III-3.1

34 Table-III-3.1 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Rice in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 (Area in 000 ha., Production in 000 M.T., Productivity in Qtls./ha.) Years Area Production Productivity 1950-51 3852.21 1998.77 5.19 1960-61 4184.48 3150.91 7.53 1970-71 4447.68 3605.15 8.16 1980-81 5291.34 5569.41 10.53 1990-91 5616.72 10260.34 18.27 2000-01 5907.15 11679.15 19.77 2001-02 6071.32 12855.85 21.17 2002-03 5213.42 9596.33 18.41 2003-04 5727.77 12494.93 21.81 2004-05 5948.37 10782.73 18.13 2005-06 5883.97 11741.48 18.96 2006-07 5836.05 10912.44 18.70 2007-08 5778.24 11844.54 20.57 2008-09 5991.83 13046.76 21.77 2009-10 5811.88 12492.41 21.49 2010-11 5631.94 11938.07 21.19 Source: Statistical Abstract, Uttar Pradesh, 2010, Economic & Statistic Division, State Planning Institute, Uttar Pradesh.

III.3.2:- Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Bajara in the State of Uttar Pradesh During 1950-51 to 2010-11

The trends in area, production and productivity of Bajara in the state of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 analyzed in Table-III-3.2 shows that the area of Bajara has increased from 1044.74 thousand hectares in 1950-51 to 1221.08 thousand hectares till the year 1970- 71 but thereafter it has decreased from 994.88 thousand hectares in 1980-81 to 935.27 thousand hectares till the year 2010-11 with extreme variations during nineties to 2002-03. Thus, area of Bajara has a declining trend on an overall. Regarding production of Bajara it has increased continuously from 429.12 thousand M.T. in 1960-61 to 1556.89 thousand M.T. in 2010-11. Thus, the trends in production of Bajara have been all along increasing during the span of 1950-51to 2010-11. Accordingly the trends of productivity of Bajara has also been all along increasing from 3.97 qtls./ha in 1960-61 to 16.64 qtls./ha till the year 2010-11. Thus, despite of the declining trend in the area of Bajra, the trends in production

35 and productivity of Bajara have been all along increasing during the span of 1960-61 to 2010-11 in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The related data contained in Table-III-3.2. Table-III-3.2 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Bajara in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 (Area in 000 ha., Production in 000 M.T., Productivity in Qtls./ha.) Years Area Production Productivity 1950-51 1044.74 672.68 6.44 1960-61 1089.44 429.12 3.97 1970-71 1221.08 881.95 7.87 1980-81 994.88 733.09 7.37 1990-91 785.10 875.07 11.15 2000-01 881.01 1277.36 14.50 2001-02 850.72 967.73 11.38 2002-03 831.30 1072.52 12.90 2003-04 924.20 1188.10 12.86 2004-05 878.39 1335.46 15.20 2005-06 888.60 1285.52 14.47 2006-07 902.43 1332.19 14.78 2007-08 934.36 1411.07 15.10 2008-09 866.22 1397.32 16.13 2009-10 900.74 1477.10 16.39 2010-11 935.27 1556.89 16.64 Source: Statistical Abstract, Uttar Pradesh, 2010, Economic & Statistic Division, State Planning Institute, Uttar Pradesh.

III.3.3:- Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Wheat in the State of Uttar Pradesh During 1950-51 to 2010-11

The trends in area, production and productivity of wheat in the state of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 worked-out in Table-III-3.3 shows that the area of wheat has increased continuously from 3315.66 thousand hectares in 1950-51 to 9669.27 thousand hectares till the year 2008-09 and thereafter decreased to 9636.54 thousand hectares till the year 2010- 11. Thus, the trends in area of wheat has been increasing on an overall in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly the production of wheat has been continuously increasing from 2721.11 thousand M.T. in the year 1950-51 to 30000.63 thousand M.T. till the year 2010-11 with slight variations. Like-wise the productivity of wheat has also increased continuously from 8.21 qtls./ha in 1950-51 to 35.19 qtls./ha till the year 2009-10 in the state of Uttar Pradesh and productivity of wheat has an increasing trends throughout the span of 1950-51 to 2010-11 in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The related data are given in Table-III-3.3.

36 Table-III-3.3 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Wheat in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 (Area in 000 ha., Production in 000 M.T., Productivity in Qtls./ha.) Years Area Production Productivity 1950-51 3315.66 2721.11 8.21 1960-61 3938.77 3944.59 10.01 1970-71 3907.17 7689.51 13.01 1980-81 8111.93 13364.97 16.50 1990-91 8567.67 18600.05 21.71 2000-01 9239.31 25168.33 27.24 2001-02 9255.93 25498.00 27.55 2002-03 9164.10 23748.23 25.91 2003-04 9443.10 26340.91 27.90 2004-05 9373.40 23430.04 25.00 2005-06 9315.73 24089.77 25.86 2006-07 9389.52 26026.89 27.72 2007-08 9399.02 26311.90 27.99 2008-09 9669.27 28976.98 29.97 2009-10 9652.90 33977.27 35.19 2010-11 9636.54 30000.63 31.13 Source: Statistical Abstract, Uttar Pradesh, 2010, Economic & Statistic Division, State Planning Institute, Uttar Pradesh.

III.3.4:- Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Arhar (Tur) in the State of Uttar Pradesh During 1950-51 to 2010-11

The trends in area, production and productivity of Arhar (Tur) in the state of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 analyzed in Table-III-3.4 shows that the area in Arhar has decreased firstly from 466.31 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 360.47 thousand hectares till the year 2003-04 but thereafter it gradually increased to 479.52 thousand hectares with variation till the year 2008-09 and again decreased to 344.18 thousand hectares till the year 2010-11. Thus, the trends in area of Arhar have been declining with fluctuations in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly the production of Arhar has decreased from 576.54 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 341.79 thousand M.T. till the year 2002-03 and thereafter it increased with fluctuations to 549.19 thousand M.T. till the year 2008-09 and again decreased to 308.41 thousand M.T. till the year 2010-11. Thus, the trends in production of Arhar in Uttar Pradesh have also been declining with varying fluctuations. Like-wise the productivity of Arhar has also decreased from 12.54 qtls./ha in 2000-01 to 7.36 qtls./ha till 2006-07 and

37 thereafter, it increased to 11.45 qtls./ha till 2008-09 and again decreased to 8.96 qtls./ha till 2010-11. Thus, the trends in productivity of Arhar in Uttar Pradesh have also been declining with fluctuations. The related data are given in Table-III-3.4.

Table-III-3.4 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Arhar (Tur) in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1950-51 to 2010-11 (Area in 000 ha., Production in 000 M.T., Productivity in Qtls./ha.) Years Area Production Productivity 1950-51 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1960-61 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1970-71 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1980-81 N.A. N.A. N.A. 1990-91 466.31 576.54 12.34 2000-01 406.59 509.75 12.54 2001-02 394.23 456.23 11.57 2002-03 357.90 341.79 9.55 2003-04 360.47 395.68 10.98 2004-05 407.52 392.03 9.62 2005-06 390.60 387.48 9.92 2006-07 386.73 284.58 7.36 2007-08 409.10 392.16 9.59 2008-09 479.52 549.19 11.45 2009-10 451.61 480.34 10.64 2010-11 344.18 308.41 8.96 Source: Statistical Abstract, Uttar Pradesh, 2010, Economic & Statistic Division, State Planning Institute, Uttar Pradesh.

III.3.5:- Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Selected Crops under Rice- Wheat Rotation Selected District of Uttar Pradesh During 1990-91 to 2010-11

The trends in area, production and productivity of selected crops under Rice-Wheat rotation selected districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91 to 2010-11 worked-out in Table-III-3.5 indicates that the area under rice has increased from 136.15 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 211.07 thousand hectares till 2010-11 in Shahajahanpur district. While the production of rice has increased from 320.54 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 483.17 thousand M.T. till 2004-05 and decreased to 430.17 thousand M.T. till 2010-11. But productivity of rice decreased from 23.54 qtls./ha 1990-91 to 20.38 qtls./ha till 2010-11. Thus, the area and production of rice

38 have increased but productivity has decreased during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11 in Shahjahanpur district.

In case of wheat in Shahjahanpur the area increased from 214.11 thousand hectares in 1990- 91 to 259.57 thousand hectares till 2004-05 and decreased to 249.55 thousand hectares in 2010-11. The production of wheat increased from 528.24 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 898.65 thousand M.T. till 2010-11. Accordingly the productivity of wheat in Shahjahanpur increased from 24.67 qtls./ha in 1990-91 to 36.01 qtls./ha till the year 2010-11. Thus, production and productivity of wheat have increased despite the decrease in the area of wheat in Shahjahanpur.

In the other district Barabanki of rice-wheat rotation belt the area under rice increased from 171.60 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 186.98 thousand hectares till 2004-05 and decreased suddenly to 176.86 thousand hectares till 2010-11. The production of rice in this district increased from 304.86 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 461.76 thousand M.T. till 2004-05 and decreased to 420.93 thousand M.T. till 2010-11. Accordingly the productivity of rice increased from 17.77 qtls./ha 1990-91 to 24.69 qtls./ha till 2004-05 and decreased to 23.80 till 2010-11. Thus, the area, production and productivity of rice in Barabanki district has an increasing trend during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11.

While in case of wheat the area has increased from 149.85 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 167.40 thousand hectares till the year 2010-11 with a slight variation in 2000-01. Accordingly the production of wheat has increased from 308.06 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 544.39 thousand M.T. till the year 2010-11. The productivity of wheat has also increased from 20.56 qtls./ha in 1990-91 to 32.52 qtls./ha till the year 2010-11. Thus, in Barabanki district the area, production and productivity of wheat have increased continuously during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11. The related data are given in Table-III-3.5.

39 40 Table-III-3.5 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of selected crops under Rice – Wheat Rotation selected districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91 to 2010-11 (Area in 000 ha., Production in 000 M.T., Productivity in Qtls./ha.) Years District Shahjahanpur District Barabanki Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity 1990-91 136.15 320.54 23.54 214.11 528.24 24.67 171.60 304.86 17.77 149.85 308.06 20.56 2000-01 195.85 443.65 22.65 257.83 844.81 32.77 159.13 282.91 17.78 132.72 373.58 28.15 2004-05 204.91 483.17 23.58 252.57 782.58 30.98 186.98 461.76 24.69 163.85 431.72 26.35 2010-11 211.07 430.17 20.38 249.55 898.65 36.01 176.86 420.93 23.80 167.40 544.39 32.52

Table-III-3.6 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of selected crops under Bajara – Wheat Rotation selected districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91 to 2010-11 (Area in 000 ha., Production in 000 M.T., Productivity in Qtls./ha.) Years District Agra District Budaun Bajara Wheat Bajara Wheat Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity 1990-91 78.51 81.10 10.33 93.64 255.95 27.33 87.87 97.13 11.05 242.41 580.02 23.93 2000-01 103.22 145.09 14.06 137.77 420.78 30.54 117.91 209.69 17.78 295.95 902.90 30.51 2004-05 99.84 195.14 19.55 124.27 401.87 32.34 142.83 199.08 13.94 300.94 751.55 24.97 2010-11 121.21 214.77 17.72 138.09 519.42 37.03 146.57 263.65 17.99 306.47 1040.79 33.96

III.3.6:- Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Selected Crop under Bajra- Wheat Rotation Selected Districts of Uttar Pradesh During 1990-91 to 2010-11

The trends in area, production and productivity of selected crops under Bajara – Wheat rotation selected districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91 to 2010-11 analyzed in Table-III- 3.6 shows that in Agra district the area in Bajara increased from 78.51 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 121.21 thousand hectares till 2010-11 with slight variation in 2004-05. The production of Bajara increased continuously from 81.10 thousand M.t. in 1990-91 to 214.77 thousand M.T. till 2010-11. But the productivity of Bajara increased from 10.33 qtls./ha in 1990-91 to 19.55 qtls./ha till 2004-05 and thereafter decreased to 17.72 qtls./ha till 2010-11. Thus, the trends in area, production and productivity of Bajara in Agra district was increasing during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11.

In case of wheat in Agra district the area increased from 93.64 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 138.00 thousand hectares till 2010-11 with a slight variation in 2004-05. The production of wheat has increased from 255.95 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 519.42 thousand M.T. till 2010-11 with slight variation in 2004-05. But the productivity of wheat has continuously increased from 27.33 qtls./ha in 1990-91 to 37.03 qtls./ha till 2010-11. Thus, the trends in area, production and productivity of wheat in Agra district have been increasing all along the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11.

In Budaun district the area under Bajara increased from 87.87 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 146.57 thousand hectares till 2010-11. The production of Bajara increased from 97.13 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 263.65 thousand M.T. 2010-11. Accordingly the productivity of Bajara increased from 11.05 qtls./ha in 1990-91 to 17.99 qtls./ha till 2010-11. Thus, the area, production and productivity of Bajara in Budaun district have been increasing during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11. In case of wheat the area increased from 242.41 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 306.47 thousand hectares till 2010-11. The production of wheat increased from 580.02 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 1040.79 thousand M.T. till 2010-11. Accordingly the productivity of wheat in Budaun district increased from 23.93 qtls./ha 1990-91 to 33.96 qtls./ha till 2010-11. Thus, the trends of area, production and productivity of wheat in Budaun district have been increasing during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11. The related data are given in Table-III-3.6. III.3.7:- Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Selected Crop under Arhar (Tur) Rotation Selected Districts of Uttar Pradesh During 1990-91 to 2010-11

The trends in area, production and productivity of selected crops under Arhar (Tur) rotation selected districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91 to 2010-11 worked-out in Table-III-3.7 shows that in Hamirpur district the area under Arhar firstly decreased from 22.88 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 12.99 thousand hectares till 2000-01 and thereafter it increased to 19.91 thousand hectares till 2010-11. The production of Arhar firstly decreased from 31.28 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 11.71 thousand M.T. till 2000-01 and thereafter increased to 18.00 thousand M.T. till 2010-11. The productivity of Arhar in Hamirpur district decreased from 13.67 qtls./ha in 1990-91 to 9.04 qtls./ha till 2010-11 with slight variation in 2004-05. Thus, the productivity of Arhar has decreased during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11 despite the mixed trends in area and production of Arhar in Hamirpur district.

In Fatehpur district the area under Arhar increased from 14.28 thousand hectares in 1990-91 to 25.70 thousand hectares till 2010-11and thereafter decreased to 21.50 thousand hectares till 2010-11. The production decreased continuously from 34.56 thousand M.T. in 1990-91 to 20.50 thousand M.T. till 2010-11.The productivity decreased from 24.20 qtls./ha in 1990- 91 to 9.53 qtls./ha till 2010-11. Thus, production and productivity of Arhar decreased continuously despite the increase in area in Fatehpur district.

Table-III-3.7 Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of selected crops under Arhar (Tur) Rotation selected districts of Uttar Pradesh during 1990-91 to 2010-11

(Area in 000 ha., Production in 000 M.T., Productivity in Qtls./ha.) Years District Hamirpur District Fatehpur Arhar (Tur) Arhar (Tur) Area Production Productivity Area Production Productivity 1990-91 22.88 31.28 13.67 14.28 34.56 24.20 2000-01 12.99 11.71 9.01 15.70 33.33 21.22 2004-05 18.48 15.17 8.21 25.70 29.59 11.51 2010-11 19.91 18.00 9.04 21.50 20.50 9.53

III.4:- Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in the state and Selected Districts During 1994-95

Since, the decade-wise or any time-series data on marketable and marketed surplus of major food-grains in Uttar Pradesh were not available at state as well as regional levels the data

43 available in published form are analyzed and presented for instances to compare the empirical data which are as follows:-

III.4.1:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Uttar Pradesh During 1994-95

The trends pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of major food-grains in the state of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 worked-out in Table-III-4.1 indicates that the percentages of marketable surplus to production of major food-grains varied from 51.80 percent in rice to 79.05 percent in lentil. In case of Bajara it was minimum i.e. 28.72 percent. In case of wheat and Arhar it was 34.00 percent. In Jowar it was 62.57 percent, in maize 60.74 percent, barley 70.77 percent. Thus, the ratios of marketable surplus to production were higher in case of lentil, barley, maize and jowar.

While the percentages of marketed surplus to marketable surplus were higher in case of Arhar (83.03 percent), lentil (70.61 percent), rice (66.43 percent). But the percentages of marketed surplus to production were higher only in case of lentil (55.82 percent). Thus, the major food-grains whose marketed of surplus ratios were higher in the state of Uttar Pradesh were lentil, arhar, rice and Bajara. The related data are given in Table-III-4.1. Table-III-4.1 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in the State of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95

Sl. Major Food- Marketable Percentage Marketable Percentage Percentage No. grains surplus in to surplus in to to 000, M.T. production 000, M.T. Marketable production % surplus % % 1. Rice 5244.14 51.80 3483.94 66.43 34.41 2. Jowar 256.15 62.57 54.86 21.42 13.40 3. Bajara 231.28 28.72 99.90 43.19 12.40 4. Maize 855.51 60.74 218.66 25.56 15.53 5. Wheat 7872.57 34.90 3121.54 39.65 13.84 6. Barley 538.03 70.77 66.90 12.43 8.80 7. Gram 507.20 56.53 157.54 31.05 17.56 8. Arhar 176.49 34.00 146.53 83.03 28.23 9. Lentil 283.97 79.05 200.52 70.61 55.82 10. Mustard 450.25 55.82 210.70 46.80 26.12 Source: Office of the Directorate of Agril. Marketing, U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhutikhand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.), January, 1997.

44 III.4.2:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Selected Major Food-grains in Shahjahanpur District of Uttar Pradesh During 1994-95

The pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of selected major food-grains in Shajahanpur district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 worked-out in Table-III-4.2 shows that the percentages of marketable surplus to production were 77.08 percent in case of rice and 66.78 percent in case of wheat. While the percentages of marketed surplus to marketable surplus were 147.05 percent in case of rice and 79.83 percent in case of wheat. While the percentage of marketed surplus to production in case of rice was 113.34 percent and in case of wheat it was 53.31 percent, incase of Arhar 13.03 percent. Thus, in Shahjahnpur ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus was highest which shows that more than marketable surplus was marketed in case of rice. The related data are given in Table-III-4.2. Table-III-4.2 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Shahjahanpur district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 (In 000 M.T., in %) Sl. Major Food- Marketable Percentage Marketable Percentage Percentage No. grains surplus in to surplus in to to 000, M.T. production 000, M.T. Marketable production % surplus % % 1. Rice 280.06 77.08 411.82 147.05 113.34 2. Bajara – 1.70 0.00 0.12 0.00 1.95 3. Wheat 486.30 66.78 388.24 79.83 53.31 4. Arhar – 1.93 0.00 0.33 0.00 13.03 Source: Office of the Directorate of Agril. Marketing, U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhutikhand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.), January, 1997.

III.4.3:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Selected Major Food-grains in Barabanki District of Uttar Pradesh During 1994-95

The trends pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of selected major food-grains in Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 worked-out in Table-III-4.3 shows that the percentage of marketable surplus to production in case of rice in Barabanki district was estimated to 71.80 percent and in case of wheat it was 28.64 percent in case of Arhar it was 24.65 percent. While the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus in case of rice was 18.73 percent in case of wheat it was 68.55 percent and in case of Arhar it was 50.29 percent. Thus, the ratios of marketed surplus to marketable surplus were considerably

45 higher in case of wheat as well as Arhar in Barabanki district. The related data are contained in Table-III-4.3. Table-III-4.3 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 (In 000 M.T., in %) Sl. Major Food- Marketable Percentage Marketable Percentage Percentage No. grains surplus in to surplus in to to 000, M.T. production 000, M.T. Marketable production % surplus % % 1. Rice 251.46 71.80 47.11 18.73 13.45 2. Bajara – 9.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Wheat 101.56 28.64 69.61 68.55 19.63 4. Arhar 1.91 24.65 0.96 50.29 12.40 Source: Office of the Directorate of Agril. Marketing, U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhutikhand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.), January, 1997.

III.4.4:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Selected Major Food-grains in Agra District of Uttar Pradesh During 1994-95 The pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of selected major food-grains in Agra district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 worked-out in Table-III-4.4 shows that the percentage of marketable surplus to production in case of Bajra was 84.39 percent, Arhar 33.51 percent and Wheat 20.49 percent. While the percentage of marketed surplus to the marketable surplus incase of Bajra was 6.52 percent, wheat 5.30 percent and Arhar 119.75 percent. Thus, it is evidently proved that in Agra district the ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus was considerably higher in case of Arhar. The related data are given in Table-III-4.4. Table-III-4.4 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Agra district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 (In 000 M.T., in %) Sl. Major Food- Marketable Percentage to Marketable Percentage to Percentage to No. grains surplus in production % surplus in Marketable production % 000, M.T. 000, M.T. surplus % 1. Rice – 75.15 0.00 0.21 0.00 4.44 2. Bajara 72.19 84.39 4.71 6.52 5.50 3. Wheat 69.94 20.49 3.70 5.30 1.09 4. Arhar 3.34 33.51 3.99 119.75 40.13 Source: Office of the Directorate of Agril. Marketing, U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhutikhand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.), January, 1997.

III.4.35:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Selected Major Food-grains in Budaun District of Uttar Pradesh During 1994-95

The pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of selected major food-grains in Budaun district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 worked-out in Table-III-4.5 shows that the percentage of marketable surplus to production in case of Bajra was 84.38 percent and in case of wheat it was 59.45 percent. While the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus in case of rice was 65.32 percent, bajra 9.60 percent and in case of wheat it was 49.23 percent. Thus, the ratios of marketed surplus to marketable surplus in case of rice and wheat were considerably higher in Budaun district of Uttar Pradesh. The related data are given in Table-III-4.5. Table-III-4.5 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Budaun district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 (In 000 M.T., in %) Sl. Major Food- Marketable Percentage Marketable Percentage Percentage No. grains surplus in to surplus in to to 000, M.T. production 000, M.T. Marketable production % surplus % % 1. Rice 24.74 23.52 16.16 65.32 15.36 2. Bajara 86.03 84.38 8.25 9.60 8.10 3. Wheat 418.23 59.45 205.88 49.23 29.26 4. Arhar – 3.49 0.00 1.85 0.00 95.06 Source: Office of the Directorate of Agril. Marketing, U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhutikhand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.), January, 1997

III.4.6:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Selected Major Food-grains in Hamirpur District of Uttar Pradesh During 1994-95

The pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of selected major food-grains in Hamirpur district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 analyzed in Table-III-4.6 shows that the percentage of marketable surplus to production in case of Arhar was 77.77 percent and in case of wheat it was 33.54 percent. While the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus in Arhar was 70.07 percent. Thus, it is concluded that only the ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus in case of Arhar was considerable in Hamirpur district. The related data are given in Table-III-4.6.

47 Table-III-4.6 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Hamirpur district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 (In 000 M.T., in %) Sl. Major Food- Marketable Percentage Marketable Percentage Percentage No. grains surplus in to surplus in to to 000, M.T. production 000, M.T. Marketable production % surplus % % 1. Rice – 41.85 0.00 0.017 0.00 0.76 2. Bajara – 5.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Wheat 79.49 33.54 1.27 1.60 0.54 4. Arhar 16.40 77.77 11.49 70.07 54.49 Source: Office of the Directorate of Agril. Marketing, U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhutikhand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.), January, 1997.

III.4.7:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Selected Major Food-grains in Fatehpur District of Uttar Pradesh During 1994-95

The pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of selected major food-grains in Fatehpur district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 worked-out in Table-III-4.7 shows that the percentage of marketable surplus to production in case of Arhar was 81.73 percent, wheat 31.90 percent and rice 32.97 percent. While the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus in case of rice was 132.09 percent and in case of Arhar it was 11.80 percent. Thus, it is clarified that only the ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of rice was considerably higher in Fatehpur district of Uttar Pradesh. The related data are given in Table-III-4.7. Table-III-4.7 Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in Fatehpur district of Uttar Pradesh during 1994-95 (In 000 M.T., in %) Sl. Major Food- Marketable Percentage Marketable Percentage Percentage No. grains surplus in to surplus in to to 000, M.T. production 000, M.T. Marketable production % surplus % % 1. Rice 32.20 32.97 42.53 132.09 43.55 2. Bajara – 0.36 0.00 0.47 0.00 5.93 3. Wheat 93.38 31.90 7.55 8.09 2.58 4. Arhar 29.95 81.73 3.53 11.80 9.64 Source: Office of the Directorate of Agril. Marketing, U.P. Kisan Mandi Bhawan, Vibhutikhand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.), January, 1997.

48 CHAPTER – IV

Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in the State: An Empirical Analysis

IV.1:- Main Features of Agriculture in Selected Districts:-

IV.1.1:- Pattern of Land Utilization in Sample Districts of Uttar Pradesh (2009-10)

The pattern of land utilization in sample districts of Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 worked- out in table-IV-1.1 indicates that out of the total reporting area of the state of Uttar Pradesh the highest reporting area i.e. 2.15 percent was accounted in Budaun district of Bajra-wheat rotation belt wherein in Agra district it was reported to be 1.65 percent. In Rice-wheat rotation belt it was higher i.e., 1.81 percent in Shahjahanpur district and 1.61 percent in Barabanki district. While in Arhar rotation belt it was higher i.e. 1.75 percent against 1.62 percent in Hamirpur district. Thus, Budaun in bajra-wheat belt, Shahjahanpur in rice-wheat belt and Fatehpur in Arhar belt had covered higher reporting area than rest of the districts in these belts. While the forest area was reported to be highest i.e. 2.15 percent in Agra district against the lowest i.e. 0.42 percent in Budaun district. In Hamirpur district it was 1.47 percent. Thus, the forest area was higher in Agra as well as Hamirpur districts among the 6 sample districts. The unculturable and barren land area was comparatively higher in Hamirpur (1.80%), Budaun (1.78%) and Barabanki (1.75%). Similarly the area under pastures, miscellaneous trees and culturable wastes was reported to be higher in Barabanki (2.18%), Fatehpur (2.17%) and Budaun (1.39%). Thus, pastures and culturable wastes area was higher in Barabanki and Fatehpur districts. The fallow and current fallow land area was also reported to be higher in Barabanki (2.75%) and in Fatehpur (2.66%).

The net area sown was found to be highest i.e. 2.51 percent in Budaun district against the lowest i.e. 1.55 percent in Barabanki district. The area sown more than once was also highest i.e. 3.22 percent in Budaun district against the lowest i.e. 0.07 percent in Hamirpur district. The gross cropped area was also found to be highest i.e. 2.76 percent in Budaun district against the lowest i.e. 1.19 percent in Hamirpur district. Thus, Budaun district has

49 been considered better in respect of land use pattern and Hamirpur district as poorest in land use pattern. As regards the cropping intensity it was highest i.e. 188.79 percent in Barabanki district against the lowest i.e. 106.50 percent in Hamirpur district. While the average cropping intensity in the whole state of Uttar Pradesh was 153.79 percent. Thus, Barabanki, Shahjahanpur and Budaun districts had better land use pattern in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Table-IV-1.1 Main Features of Agriculture in Selected Districts Pattern of Land Utilization in Sample Districts of Uttar Pradesh (2009-2010) (Area in 000 ha.) Sample districts Reporti Forest Uncultu Pastures, Fallow Net Area Gross Croppi ng area area rable & Misc. current sown sown cropped ng barren Trees & fallow area more area intensit culturable area than y wastes once 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A. Bajra-wheat Rotation 1. Agra 398.97 35.68 43.82 12.01 23.15 284.31 131.97 416.28 146.42 (1.65) (2.15) (0.03) (1.39) (1.29) (1.72) (1.48) (1.63) 2. Budaun 520.08 6.90 58.55 12.04 26.39 416.20 286.86 703.06 168.92 (2.15) (0.42) (1.78) (1.39) (1.46) (2.51) (3.22) (2.76) B. Rice-wheat Rotation 1. Shahjahanpur 437.48 10.50 47.38 8.47 20.74 350.39 262.01 612.40 174.77 (1.81) (0.63) (1.44) (0.98) (1.15) (2.12) (2.94) (2.40) 2. Barabanki 388.59 5.57 57.61 18.92 49.48 257.02 228.20 485.21 188.79 (1.61) (0.34) (1.75) (2.18) (2.75) (1.55) (2.56) (1.90) C. Arhar Rotation 1. Hamirpur 390.87 24.47 41.13 5.54 35.71 284.01 18.45 302.45 106.50 (1.62) (1.47) (1.25) (0.64) (1.98) (1.71) (0.02) (1.19) 2. Fatehpur 422.13 7.62 59.18 18.78 48.00 288.56 111.57 400.13 140.42 (1.75) (0.46) (1.80) (2.17) (2.66) (1.74) (1.25) (1.57) Uttar Pradesh 24170.16 1662.09 3277.66 866.71 1801.52 16562.17 8908.60 25470.77 153.79 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Source: Statistical Abstract, Uttar Pradesh, 2010 Figures in parenthesis denotes percentages to reporting area.

IV.1.2:- Pattern of Area, Production and Productivity of Selected Major Food-grains in Sample Districts of Uttar Pradesh During 2009-10

The pattern of area, production and productivity of selected major food-grains in sample districts of Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 analyzed in Table-IV-1.2 shows that the area under rice was comparatively higher i.e. 3.56 percent in Shahjahanpur and 2.84 percent in Barabanki district. Accordingly the production was also higher being 3.70 percent in Shahjahanpur and 2.68 percent in Barabanki. The productivity was estimated 22.62 qtls./ha

50 in Shahjahanpur and 20.52 qtls./ha in Barabanki. While the productivity of rice in the whole state of Uttar Pradesh was estimated to 21.77 qtls./ha. Thus, the productivity of rice in Shahjahanpur was comparatively higher than the state average but in Barabanki it was slightly lower than the state average productivity.

In case of wheat the area was highest i.e. 3.19 percent in Budaun district against the lowest i.e. 1.40 percent in Agra district. Accordingly the production was also higher i.e. 9.92 percent in Budaun district against lowest i.e. 1.52 percent in Agra district. While the productivity of wheat was highest i.e. 36.04 qtls./ha in Shahjahanpur against lowest i.e. 30.69 qtls./ha in Barabanki district. The productivity of wheat in the state of Uttar Pradesh was 29.97 qtls./ha. Thus, the productivity of wheat in the sample districts was higher than the state average productivity of wheat.

51 52 Table-IV-1.2 Pattern of Area, Production and Productivity of Selected Major Food-grains in Sample Districts of U. P. During 2009-10 Sample districts Selected Major Food-grains Rice Wheat Bajra Arhar Area Prod. Pvty. Area Prod. Pvty. Area Prod. Pvty. Area Prod. Pvty. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 A. Bajra-wheat Rotation 1. Agra ------135.65 146.59 32.92 107.73 169.17 15.70 ------(1.40) (1.52) (12.44) (12.11) 2. Budaun ------299.87 958.82 31.97 138.82 208.35 15.01 ------(3.10) (9.92) (16.02) (14.91) B. Rice-wheat Rotation 1. Shahjahanpur 213.17 482.19 22.62 255.28 920.04 36.04 ------(3.56) (3.70) (2.64) (9.52) 2. Barabanki 170.33 349.52 20.52 160.46 492.38 30.69 ------(2.84) (2.68) (1.66) (5.09) C. Arhar Rotation 1. Hamirpur ------18.72 11.60 6.20 (4.15) (2.41) 2. Fatehpur ------17.03 7.79 4.57 (3.77) (1.62) Uttar Pradesh 5991.84 13046.77 21.77 9669.28 28976.99 29.97 866.22 1397.33 16.13 451.62 480.35 10.64 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Source: Statistical Abstract, Uttar Pradesh, 2009-2010 Figures in parenthesis denotes percentages to area and production in the state of U.P. during 2009-10.

In case of Bajra the area was higher i.e. 16.02 percent in Budaun and 12.44 percent in Agra. Accordingly the production was also higher i.e. 14.91 percent in Budaun and 12.11 percent in Agra district. While productivity was almost similar i.e. 15.70 qtls./ha in Agra district and 15.01 qtls./ha in Budaun district. While the productivity of Bajra in the state as a whole was estimated to 16.13 qtls./ha. Thus, the productivity of Bajra in both the sample districts was slightly less than the state average productivity.

In case of Arhar the area was estimated to 4.15 percent in Hamirpur district and 3.77 percent in Fatehpur district. Accordingly the production was comparatively higher i.e. 2.41 percent in Hamirpur than 1.62 percent in Fatehpur district. The productivity of Arhar was comparatively higher i.e. 6.20 qtls./ha in Hamirpur than 4.57 qtls./ha in Fatehpur district. While the productivity of Arhar in the state of Uttar Pradesh as a whole was estimated 10.64 qtls./ha. Thus, the productivity of Arhar in the sample districts was considerably lower than the state average productivity. The related data are given in the Table-IV-1.2

IV.2:- Main Features of Sample Farmers:-

IV.2.1:- Socio-Economic Profile of Sample Farmers

The socio-economic profile of sample farmers worked-out in Table-IV-2.1 indicates that the average age of sample farmers was reported to 21 – 85 years on an overall. The main occupation of sample farmers was agriculture and all were practicing crop farming. As subsidiary occupation the maximum i.e. 103 farmers out of 300 had opted farm labourer, 34 dairy, 12 service and 49 as other subsidiary occupations. The size-group-wise analysis indicates that marginal and small farmers had opted more subsidiary occupation. Regarding education it was found that 244 out of 300 were literates wherein 180 were upto the level of H.S. and 64 were above the H.S. level. Among the family members the number of males was higher than females. As regards the social grouping the number of OBC farmers among the total samples was highest i.e. 171, general were 83 and 46 were S.C. & S.T. The gender of the heads of families was majority i.e. 290 as males and only 10 females. The related data are given in Table-IV-2.1 Table-IV-2.1 Socio-Economic Profile of Sample Farmers

Characteristics Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Age of decision maker (yrs) 21 – 85 21 – 75 26 – 80 32 – 85 21 – 85 Main Occupation (%) Agriculture 100 100 100 100 100 Crop Farming 178 65 34 23 300 Dairy 21 6 6 1 34 Service 8 -- -- 4 12 Farm labour 77 23 2 1 103 Others. 23 13 9 4 49 Education(years of schooling) Upto H.S. 102 42 23 13 180 Above H.S. 21 30 6 7 64 Family Size (no.) 1290 521 334 207 2352 Male 416 154 105 67 742 Female 352 123 92 56 623 Social Grouping ------General 47 12 13 11 83 SC/ST 37 7 2 -- 46 OBC 94 46 19 12 171 Others ------Gender of head of household (%) Male 172 62 34 22 290 Female 6 3 -- 1 10

IV.2.2:- Land Ownership Pattern of Sample Farmers

The land ownership pattern of sampled farmers analyzed in Table-IV-2.2 shows that the total land owned by all the sample farmers was under cultivation and not a single case of leasing-in or leasing-out was reported in the area under the study as is evident from the data contained in Table-IV-2.2.

55 Table-IV-2.2 Land Ownership Pattern of Sample Farmers (Area in ha.) Size Class Owned Leased in Land Leased out land Total Operational Holding of Farm Land Area under cultivation(1.1)+ Leased in Land(2)-Leased out Land(3) Irr. Unirr. Irr. Unirr. Irr . Unirr. Irr. Unirr. Marginal 104.16 ------104.16 -- Small 96.94 ------96.94 -- Medium 98.60 ------98.60 -- Large 127.10 ------127.10 -- All farms 426.80 ------426.80 --

IV.2.3:- Sources of Irrigation Availed by Sample Farmers

The sources of irrigation availed by sample farmers worked-out in Table-IV-2.3 indicates that in whole of the area under study only surface-canals and tube-wells were the main sources of irrigation. The size-group-wise analysis shows that tube-wells irrigation was comparatively more commonly utilized by the marginal farmers (64.73 percent). While canal irrigation was more common among small farmers 931.58 percent). Among the medium and large farmers tube-well irrigation was found to be more commonly used (12.40 percent). The related data are given in Table-IV-2.3 Table-IV-2.3 Sources of Irrigation Availed by Sample Farmers (In numbers) Size Class Source of Irrigation (%) of Farm Surface/Canal Tube Well/Ground-Water Tanks Others Marginal 11 167 Nil Nil (57.89) (64.73) Small 6 59 Nil Nil (31.58) (22.86) Medium 2 32 Nil Nil (10.53) (12.40) Large -- 23 Nil Nil (8.91) All farms 19 258 Nil Nil (100.00) (100.00) Note: Figures in brackets are percentages to total farmers.

56 IV.2.4:- Terms of Lease Incidence Among the Sample Farmers

The terms of lease incidence among the sample farmers worked-out in Table-IV-2.4 shows that there was not a single incidence of leasing-in or leasing-out land reported in the whole area under study. Hence, the terms of fixed money, produce and shares as well as rent were also not reported by the farmers. Although, leasing-in and leasing-out was told to be practiced in other areas of U.P. more commonly. The reporting are given in the Table-IV-2.4 Table-IV-2.4 Terms of Lease Incidence Among the Sampled Farmers (In numbers) Incidence Terms (%) Rent Size % % For Fixed Share Others For Fixed Share Class of Area HHs fixed produce of fixed produce of Farm leased leasing money (Qtl.) Produce money (Qtl.) Produce in in (Rs.) (%) (Rs.) (%) Marginal Nil -- Nil ------Nil -- -- Small Nil -- Nil ------Nil -- -- Medium Nil -- Nil ------Nil -- -- Large Nil -- Nil ------Nil -- -- All Nil -- Nil ------Nil -- -- farms

IV.2.5(a):- Cropping Pattern in Paddy – Wheat Rotation Districts (Shahjahanpur and Barabanki) of Uttar Pradesh

The cropping pattern in paddy – wheat rotation districts (Shahjahanpur and Barabanki) analyzed in Table-IV-2.5(a) shows that during kharif only paddy was reported which covered 45.87 percent area on an overall in the sample districts. The size-group-wise analysis shows that coverage under paddy was found decreasing from 48.87 percent in marginal category to 43.62 percent in medium category of farms. On large farms it was

45.82 percent on an average. Thus, coverage during kharif was 45.87 percent and the total was covered by paddy. While in Rabi 45.20 percent was covered by wheat and the pattern was similar to that of paddy. A negligible area i.e. 1.53 percent was covered by Rabi vegetables. The area covered by sugarcane (annual) was estimated as 7.40 percent of the grass cropped area. The related data are given in Table-IV-2.5(a).

57 IV.2.5(b):- Cropping Pattern in Bajra – Wheat Rotation Districts (Agra and Budaun) of Uttar Pradesh

The cropping pattern in Bajra – wheat rotation districts (Agra and Budaun) of Uttar Pradesh worked-out Table-IV-2.5(b) indicates that total coverage under kharif was 44.48 percent of which the maximum i.e. 37.97 percent was covered by other cereals mainly bajra, 4.26 percent by paddy and 2.25 percent by kharif vegetables. In rabi the maximum i.e. 42.11 percent was covered by wheat, 10.36 percent was covered by vegetables and others. Thus, the total coverage in rabi was higher i.e. 52.47 percent. During zaid (summer) the total coverage was 6.30 percent. Thus, Bajra in kharif and wheat in rabi were the main crops in both of these sample districts. The related data are given in Table-IV-2.5(b).

58 Table-IV2.5(a) Cropping Pattern in Paddy-Wheat Rotation Districts (Shahjahanpur and Barabanki) of Uttar Pradesh (Area in ha) Crops Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Kharif. Area Area Area Area Area (hec) (hec) (hec) (hec) (hec) Paddy (Absolute) 37.28 24.15 27.70 35.60 124.73 % to GCA (48.87) (44.36) (43.62) (45.82) (45.87) Other Cereals (Absolute) % to GCA Pulses (Absolute) % to GCA Oilseeds (Absolute) % to GCA Cotton (Absolute) % to GCA Vegetables and others (Absolute) % to GCA Rabi Wheat (Absolute) 37.20 23.40 26.70 35.60 122.90 % to GCA (48.77) (42.99) (42.05) (45.82) (45.20) Other cereals (Absolute) % to GCA Pulses (Absolute) % to GCA Oilseeds (Absolute) % to GCA Vegetables and others -- 0.65 1.00 2.50 4.15 (Absolute) % to GCA -- (1.19) (1.57) (3.21) (1.53) Summer Perennial Sugarcane(Absolute) 1.80 6.24 8.10 4.00 20.14 % to GCA (2.36) (11.46) (12.76) (5.15) (7.40) Fruit (Absolute) % to GCA Others (Absolute) GCA 76.28 54.44 63.50 77.70 271.92 Percentage (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

59 Table-IV-2.5(b) Cropping Pattern in Bajra-Wheat Rotation Districts (Agra and Budaun) of U. P. (Area in ha) Crops Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Kharif. Area Area Area Area Area (hec) (hec) (hec) (hec) (hec) Paddy (Absolute) Nil 1.30 2.50 5.00 8.80 % to GCA (2.56) (4.78) (15.29) (4.26) Other Cereals Mainly Bajra 35.05 21.40 14.75 7.25 78.45 % to GCA (49.44) (42.17) (28.23) (22.17) (37.97) Pulses (Absolute) % to GCA Oilseeds (Absolute) % to GCA Vegetables and others Fodder -- -- 4.65 -- 4.65 % to GCA -- -- (8.90) -- (2.25) Total Kharif 35.05 22.70 21.90 12.25 91.90 % to GCA (49.44) (44.73) (41.91) (37.46) (44.48) Rabi Wheat (Absolute) 35.05 20.60 19.10 12.25 87.00 % to GCA (49.44) (40.59) (36.56) (37.46) (42.11) Other cereals (Absolute) % to GCA Pulses (Absolute) % to GCA Oilseeds (Absolute) % to GCA Vegetables and others (Absolute) 0.80 7.45 9.15 4.00 21.40 % to GCA (1.13) (14.67) (17.51) (12.23) (10.36) Total Rabi 35.85 28.05 28.25 16.25 108.40 % to GCA (50.56) (55.27) (54.07) (49.69) (52.47) Summer Perennial Sugarcane(Absolute) -- -- 2.10 4.20 6.30 % to GCA -- -- (4.02) (12.84) (3.05) Fruit (Absolute) % to GCA Total Summer -- -- 2.10 4.20 6.30 % to GCA -- -- (4.02) (12.84) (3.05) GCA 70.90 50.75 52.25 32.70 206.60 Percentage (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

60 IV.2.5(c):- Cropping Pattern in Arhar Rotation Districts (Hamirpur and Fatehpur) of Uttar Pradesh

The cropping pattern in Arhar Rotation Districts (Hamirpur and Fatehpur) of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-2.5(c) shows that the total coverage in kharif was 49.29 percent of which the maximum i.e. 16.24 percent was covered by paddy, 11.24 percent by Oilseeds, 10.26 percent by Arhar and 4.09 percent by vegetables and others. During rabi the total coverage was 50.70 percent of which the maximum i.e. 37.68 percent was covered by wheat, 10.26 percent by Arhar and 2.77 percent by rabi vegetables. Thus, the maximum was covered by paddy, oilseeds and arhar during kharif and during rabi the maximum was covered by wheat and arhar in these districts. The related data are given in Table-IV-2.5(c). Table-IV-2.5(c) Cropping Pattern in Arhar Rotation Districts (Hamirpur and Fatehpur) of U. P

(Area in ha) Crops Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Kharif. Area Area Area Area Area (hec) (hec) (hec) (hec) (hec) Paddy (Absolute) 9.94 15.15 7.15 17.35 49.59 % to GCA (20.85) (20.43) (11.97) (14.23) (16.24) Other Cereals Jowar (Absolute) 0.72 7.50 6.30 7.85 22.37 % to GCA (1.51) (10.11) (10.54) (6.44) (7.37) Pulses Arhar (Absolute) 8.28 6.70 5.00 11.15 31.13 % to GCA (17.37) (9.04) (8.37) (9.15) (10.26) Oilseeds (Absolute) -- 5.80 5.80 22.50 34.10 % to GCA -- (7.82) (9.71) (18.46) (11.24) Cotton (Absolute) ------% to GCA ------Vegetables and others (Absolute) -- 3.00 7.00 2.40 12.40 % to GCA -- (4.05) (11.72) (1.97) (4.09) Kharif Total 18.94 38.15 31.25 61.25 149.59 % to GCA (39.73) (54.45) (52.30) (50.25) (49.29) Rabi Wheat (Absolute) 20.45 28.00 22.60 43.30 114.35 % to GCA (42.90) (37.76) (37.82) (35.52) (37.68) Other cereals (Absolute) % to GCA Pulses (Absolute) Arhar 8.28 6.70 5.00 11.15 31.13 % to GCA (17.37) (9.04) (8.37) (9.15) (10.26) Oilseeds (Absolute)

61 % to GCA Vegetables and others (Absolute) -- 1.30 0.90 6.20 8.40 % to GCA -- (1.75) (1.51) (5.08) (2.77) Rabi Total 28.13 30.00 28.50 60.65 153.88 % to GCA (60.26) (48.55) (47.69) (47.01) (50.70) Summer Perennial Sugarcane(Absolute) % to GCA Others (Absolute) GCA 47.67 74.15 59.75 121.90 303.47 Percentage (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

IV.2.6(a):- Yield of Selected Crops Paddy and Wheat in Shahjahanpur and Barabanki Districts of Uttar Pradesh

The yield of selected crops paddy and wheat in Shahjahanpur and Barabanki districts of

Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-2.6(a) indicates that the yield of paddy on an overall was estimated as 5673 kgs./ha. The size-group-wise analysis shows that the yield decreased from 5781 kgs./ha on marginal farms to 5209 kgs./ha on medium farms. But the yield on large farms was 6087 kgs./ha. While in rabi season the average yield of wheat was 3680 kgs./ha. The yield on large farms was estimated as 3811 kgs./ha. Thus, yield of both paddy as well as wheat were higher on large farms. But the yield of sugarcane was higher on marginal farms. The yield of vegetables was also higher on marginal farms in these districts.

The related data are given in Table-IV-2.6(a).

62 Table-IV-2.6(a) Yield of Selected Crops Paddy and Wheat in Shahjahanpur and Barabanki (Yield in Kg/ha) Crops Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Kharif. Yield Yield Yield Yield Yield (kg./ha) (kg./ha) (kg./ha) (kg./ha) (kg./ha) Paddy (Absolute) 5784 5423 5209 6087 5673 Other Cereals (Absolute) ------Pulses (Absolute) ------Oilseeds (Absolute) ------Cotton (Absolute) ------Vegetables and others ------(Absolute) Rabi Wheat (Absolute) 3677 3579 3636 3811 3680 Other cereals (Absolute) ------Pulses (Absolute) ------Oilseeds (Absolute) ------Vegetables and others -- 177 80 80 95 (Absolute) Summer Perennial Sugarcane(Absolute) 700 649 655 650 656 Fruit (Absolute) ------Others (Absolute) ------

IV.2.6(b):- Yield of Selected Crops Bajra and Wheat in Agra and Budaun Districts of Uttar Pradesh

The yield of selected crops Bajra and Wheat in Agra and Budaun districts analyzed in Table- IV-2.6(b) shows that the yield of bajra on an overall was estimated as 2221 kgs/ha on large farms it was 2069 kgs/ha against highest i.e. 2319 kgs/ha on medium farms. The yield of paddy on an overall was 4181 kgs/ha and on small farms it was highest i.e. 4762 kgs/ha against the lowest i.e. 3840 kgs/ha on large farms. While the yield of wheat was estimated as 3642 kgs/ha on an average and on small farms it was highest i.e. 3774 kgs/ha. The yield of sugarcane on an average was 54048 kgs/ha and on medium farms it was higher. The related data are given in Table-IV-2.6(b).

63 Table-IV-2.6(b)

Yield of Selected Crops Bajra and Wheat in Agra and Budaun Districts (Yield in Kg/ha) Crops Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Kharif. Yield Yield Yield Yield Yield (kg./ha) (kg./ha) (kg./ha) (kg./ha) (kg./ha) Paddy (Absolute) -- 4762 4560 3840 4181 Other Cereals Bajra 2221 2286 2319 2069 2221 Pulses (Absolute) ------Oilseeds (Absolute) ------Cotton (Absolute) ------Vegetables and others ------(Absolute) Rabi Wheat (Absolute) 3661 3774 3690 3645 3642 Other cereals (Absolute) ------Pulses (Absolute) ------Oilseeds (Absolute) ------Vegetables and others ------(Absolute) Summer Perennial Sugarcane(Absolute) -- -- 62140 50000 54048 Fruit (Absolute) ------Others (Absolute) ------

IV.2.6(c):- Yield of Selected Crops Arhar in Hamirpur and Fatehpur Districts of Uttar Pradesh

The yield of selected crop Arhar in Hamirpur and Fatehpur districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-2.6(c) shows that the yield of paddy on an average was estimated as 5485 kgs/ha, Jowar 198 kgs/ha, Sesamum (Til) 318 kgs/ha, kharif vegetables 531 kgs/ha, wheat 3559 kgs/ha, Arhar 825 kgs/ha and rabi vegetables 1057 kgs/ha in these district. The pattern on all the farms of different size groups was almost similer. Thus, in Arhar rotation districts also paddy and wheat were the main food-grains crops. Arhar was found to be cultivated on rainfed and marginal land. The related data are given in Table-IV-2.6(c).

64 Table-IV-2.6(c)

Yield of Selected Crops Arhar in Hamirpur and Fatehpur District (Yield in Kg/ha) Crops Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Kharif. Yield Yield Yield Yield Yield (kg./ha) (kg./ha) (kg./ha) (kg./ha) (kg./ha) Paddy (Absolute) 5831 5835 4930 5210 5485 Other Cereals Jowar 437 335 195 48 198 Pulses (Absolute) ------Oilseeds (Til) -- 340 314 313 318 Cotton (Absolute) ------Vegetables and others -- 600 479 600 531 (Absolute) Rabi Wheat (Absolute) 3568 3463 3639 3575 3559 Other cereals (Absolute) ------Pulses (Arhar) 861 830 834 791 825 Oilseeds (Absolute) ------Vegetables and others -- 985 1000 1081 1057 (Absolute) Summer Perennial Sugarcane(Absolute) ------Fruit (Absolute) ------Others (Absolute) ------

IV.2.7:- Investment Pattern on the Farms of Selected Districts of Uttar Pradesh The investment pattern on the farms of all the selected districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-2.7(a), IV-2.7(b) and IV-2.7(c) shows that the levels of average investments on the farms of various categories of all the three district categories of districts on the basis of crop-rotations were one and the same for similar agricultural operations. Thus, the pattern of investments on the farms of all the sample districts was one and the same in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The related data are given in Table-IV-2.7(a), IV-2.7(b) and IV-2.7(c).

65 Table-IV-2.7(a) Investment Pattern on the Farms of Paddy – Wheat Rotation District

Size of Level of Investment in Rs/Ha. Farm 2 Tractors Combined Threshing Tube Total Avg. Investment Harvester Machine Well per ha. Marginal 800 Nil 300 80 1180 Small 900 Nil 450 90 1440 Medium 1000 Nil 500 100 1600 Large 1000 Nil 520 100 1620 All farms 925 Nil 443 93 1460

Table-IV-2.7(b) Investment Pattern on the Farms of Bajra – Wheat Rotation District

Table-IV-2.7(c) Investment Pattern on the Farms of Arhar Rotation District

66 IV.2.8:- Pattern of Live-stocks on Sample farms of different selected districts of U.P.:-

IV.2.8(a):- Pattern of Live-stocks on Sample farms of Paddy-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The distribution of live-stocks on sample farms of paddy-wheat rotation districts Shahjahanpur and Barabanki of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-2.8(a) shows that the number of buffaloes on an overall was 149, draught cattle only 1 and other cattles were 5. The size-group-wise analysis shows that marginal farmers had maximum number i.e. 74 buffaloes, one draught cattle and 5 other cattles against the minimum i.e. 13 buffaloes owned by large farmers. A few of medium and small farmers had raised buffaloes on their farms. Thus, buffaloes were raised more commonly in both of these districts. The related data are given in Table-IV-2.8(a). Table-IV-2.8 (a) Pattern of livestock by farm-size in Paddy – Wheat Rotation district of U.P. (In Numbers) Size of Farm Draught cattle Buffalo Others Marginal 1 74 5 Small -- 33 -- Medium -- 29 -- Large -- 13 -- All Farms 1 149 5

IV.2.8(b):- Pattern of Live-stocks on Sample farms by size-group in Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The pattern of live-stocks on sample farms by size-group in bajara-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-2.8(b) shows that the number of draught cattles was only on an overall and that too on medium farms only. The number of buffaloes was 132 of which the maximum i.e. 71 were raised by marginal farmers only against the minimum i.e. 8 only by large farmers. The number of buffaloes on small farms was more considerable than on medium farms. Thus, in these districts too only buffaloes were raised commonly. The related data are given in Table-IV-2.8(b).

67 Table-IV-2.8 (b) Pattern of livestock by farm-size in Bajara – Wheat Rotation district of U.P. (In Numbers) Size of Farm Draught cattle Buffalo Others Marginal -- 71 -- Small -- 29 -- Medium 4 24 -- Large -- 8 -- All Farms 4 132 --

IV.2.8(c):- Pattern of Live-stocks on Sample farms by size-group in Arhar Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The pattern of live-stocks on sample farms by size in arhar rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-2.8(c) shows that the number of draught cattles on an overall was 12 of which the maximum i.e. 10 were raised by marginal farmers. The number of buffaloes was 122 on an overall. The size-group-wise distribution shows that small as well as large farmers had raised comparatively higher numbers of buffaloes i.e. 39 and 38 respectively than on marginal and medium farms i.e. 24 and 31 respectively. Thus, in these districts small and large farmers had raised buffaloes more commonly. Thus related data are given in Table-IV-2.8(c). Table-IV-2.8 (c) Pattern of livestock by farm-size in Arhar Rotation district of U.P. (In Numbers) Size of Farm Draught cattle Buffalo Others Marginal 10 24 -- Small -- 39 -- Medium -- 31 -- Large 2 28 -- All Farms 12 122 --

IV.3:- Estimation of crop losses at different stage.:-

IV.3.1(a)-1-Paddy:- Crop losses on farm in case of paddy under Paddy-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop losses on farm in case of paddy under paddy-wheat rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.1(a)-1-Paddy shows that method of harvesting and threshing in these districts was manual on almost all the farms. About losses, it was on an overall 1.29

68 percent in harvesting 1.63 percent in threshing and 0.88 percent in winnowing of paddy. Thus, there was a total 3.80 percent loss in paddy on the farm. The size-group-wise distribution of the losses in paddy on the farm indicates that on marginal farms the loss was higher i.e. 4.18 percent against the lower i.e. 3.35 percent on large farms. The losses on small and medium farms were also considerable being 3.81 percent and 3.87 percent respectively. The operation-wise losses on the farms of all the size-groups was similar in these districts. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.1(a)-1-Paddy. Table-IV-3.1(a)-1- Paddy Crop losses on farms in case of Paddy under Paddy-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P.

Size Class of Mode/ % Loss in Mode/ % loss in % Loss in Total % Farm Marginal Method Harvesting Method Threshing Winnowing loss . Marginal Manual 1.44 Manual 1.81 0.93 4.18 Small Manual 1.24 Manual 1.66 0.91 3.81 Medium Manual 1.42 Manual 1.59 0.86 3.87 Large Manual 1.09 Manual 1.46 0.80 3.35 All farms Manual 1.29 Manual 1.63 0.88 3.80

IV.3.1(a)-2-Wheat:- Crop losses on farms in case of wheat under Paddy-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop losses on farms in case of wheat under paddy-wheat rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.1(a)-2-wheat shows that on an overall the total loss in wheat on the farm was estimated to 3.70 percent of which the maximum i.e. 1.57 percent was reported in threshing and minimum i.e. 0.87 percent in winnowing. The losses in harvesting was also considerable being 1.26 percent. The size-group-wise analysis shows that losses in wheat was highest i.e. 4.16 percent on marginal farms against the lowest i.e. 3.54 percent on large farms. The analysis on operation-wise losses indicates that maximum i.e. 1.57 percent loss was incurred in threshing of wheat followed by 1.26 percent in harvesting of wheat on an average. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.1(a)-2-Wheat.

69 Table-IV-3.1(a)-2-Wheat

Crop losses on farms in case of wheat under Paddy-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. (in %) Size Class of Mode/ % Loss in Mode/ % loss in % Loss in Total % Farm Marginal Method Harvesting Method Threshing Winnowing loss . Marginal Manual 1.47 Manual 1.79 0.90 4.16 Small Manual 1.17 Manual 1.53 0.88 3.58 Medium Manual 1.30 Manual 1.46 0.81 3.57 Large Manual 1.11 Manual 1.53 0.90 3.54 All farms Manual 1.26 Manual 1.57 0.87 3.70

IV.3.1(b)-1-Bajara:- Crop losses on farms in case of Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop losses on farms in Bajara under bajara-wheat rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.1(b)-1-Bajara shows that in case of Bajara all the farm operations were done by manual method. The total loss on an overall was estimated as 4.45 percent of which the maximum i.e. 1.86 percent was in threshing, 1.51 percent in harvesting and 1.08 percent in winnowing. Thus, the maximum loss was under threshing in case of Bajara. The size-group- wise analysis shows that loss in Bajara on farm was more or less similar being higher on large farms. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.1(b)-1-Bajara.

Table-IV-3.1(b)-1- Bajra

Crop losses on farms in case of Bajra under Bajra -Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. (in %) Size Class of Mode/ % Loss in Mode/ % loss in % Loss in Total % Farm Marginal Method Harvesting Method Threshing Winnowing loss . Marginal Manual 1.50 Manual 1.87 1.02 4.39 Small Manual 1.56 Manual 1.80 1.17 4.53 Medium Manual 1.33 Manual 1.80 1.09 4.22 Large Manual 1.81 Manual 2.08 1.08 4.97 All farms Manual 1.51 Manual 1.86 1.08 4.45

70 IV.3.1(b)-1-Wheat:- Crop losses on farms in wheat under Bajra-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop losses on farms in case of wheat under bajra-wheat rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.1(b)-2-Wheat shows that the total loss in wheat on farm was estimated to 4.18 percent on an average of which the maximum i.e. 1.72 percent was incurred in threshing, 1.49 percent in harvesting and 0.97 percent in winnowing. Thus, in wheat also maximum loss was reported in threshing. The size-group-wise distribution shows that losses were higher on large farms and lower on medium farms. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.1(b)-2-wheat.

Table-IV-3.1(b)-2-Wheat

Crop losses on farms in case of Wheat under Bajra -Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. (in %) Size Class of Mode/ % Loss in Mode/ % loss in % Loss in Total % Farm Marginal Method Harvesting Method Threshing Winnowing loss . Marginal Manual 1.48 Manual 1.76 1.02 4.26 Small Manual 1.54 Manual 1.68 1.05 4.27 Medium Manual 1.22 Manual 1.57 0.82 3.61 Large Manual 1.85 Manual 1.87 0.95 4.67 All farms Manual 1.49 Manual 1.72 0.97 4.18

IV.3.1(c)-1-Arhar:- Crop losses on farms in Arhar under Arhar Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop losses on farms in case of Arhar under arhar rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.1(c)-1-Arhar shows that the total loss in arhar on the farms was estimated as 3.74 percent of which the maximum i.e. 1.56 percent was in threshing, 1.40 percent in harvesting and 0.78 percent in winnowing. Thus, in Arhar too higher losses were in threshing. Among size-groups the loss was higher on medium farms and lower on large farms. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.1(c)-1-Arhar.

71 Table-IV-3.1(c)-1-Arhar Crop losses on farms in case of Arhar under Arhar Rotation districts of U.P. (in %) Size Class of Mode/ % Loss in Mode/ % loss in % Loss in Total % Farm Marginal Method Harvesting Method Threshing Winnowing loss . Marginal Manual 1.41 Manual 1.61 0.78 3.80 Small Manual 1.33 Manual 1.52 0.73 3.58 Medium Manual 1.53 Manual 1.65 0.85 4.03 Large Manual 1.36 Manual 1.49 0.77 3.62 All farms Manual 1.40 Manual 1.56 0.78 3.74

IV.3.2:- Crop losses During Transport.:-

IV.3.2(a)-1-Paddy:- Crop losses in paddy during Transport under Wheat-Paddy Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

Crop losses during transport in Paddy under rice-wheat rotation district of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.2(a)-1-Paddy indicates that the losses during transport from field to threshing floor was estimated as 0.73 percent on an overall average. While the losses from farm to market was estimated to 0.53 percent on an average. Thus, losses from field to threshing floor was comparatively higher. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.2(a)-1-Paddy. Table-IV-3.2(a)-1-Paddy Crop losses during transport in Paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P.

Size Class of Field to threshing floor Field/Farm to Market Farm Mode/Method % losses Mode/Method % losses Marginal Manual 0.87 Mech./ Mannual 0.69 Samll Manual 0.89 Mech. 0.57 Medium Manual 0.90 Mech. 0.63 Large Manual 0.39 Mech. 0.28 All farms Manual 0.73 0.53

IV.3.2(a)-2-Wheat:- Crop losses during Transport in wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

Crop losses during transport in wheat under rice-wheat rotation district of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.2(a)-2-Wheat shows that the losses from field to threshing floor was 0.73 percent on an average. While the losses from farm to market was 0.54 percent. Thus, losses were higher during transport from field to threshing floor. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.2(a)-2-Wheat.

Table-IV-3.2(a)-2-Wheat Crop losses during transport in wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P.

Size Class of Field to threshing floor Field/Farm to Market Farm Mode/Method % losses Mode/Method % losses Marginal Bundle 0.86 Bags 0.66 Samll Bundle 0.83 Bags 0.54 Medium Bundle 0.95 Bags 0.71 Large Bundle 0.36 Bags 0.27 All farms 0.73 0.54

IV.3.2(b)-1-Bajara:- Crop losses during Transport in Bajra under Bajra-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

Crop losses during transport in Bajara under bajara-wheat rotation district of U.P. worked- out in Table-IV-3.2(b)-1-Bajara shows that losses from field to threshing floor was 1.04 percent on an average. While, the losses from farm to market was 0.79 percent. Thus, losses was higher during transport from field to threshing floor. The related data are contained in Table-IV-3.2(b)-1-Bajara. Table-IV-3.2(b)-1-Bajra Crop losses during transport in Bajra under Bajra-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P.

Size Class of Field to threshing floor Field/Farm to Market Farm Mode/Method % losses Mode/Method % losses Marginal Manual 1.09 Manual 0.85 Samll Manual 0.92 Manual 0.69 Medium Manual 0.98 Manual 0.63 Large Manual 1.27 Manual 1.22 All farms Manual 1.04 Manual 0.79

IV.3.2(b)-2-Wheat:- Crop losses during Transport in Wheat under Bajra-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh. Crop losses during transport in wheat under bajra-wheat rotation district of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.2(b)-2-Wheat shows that the losses in wheat from field to threshing floor was 1.05 percent and losses from farm to market was 0.82 percent. Thus, losses from field to threshing floor was comparatively higher in wheat. The size-group-wise distribution of losses shows that on large farms it was higher. The related data are given in Table-IV- 3.2(b)-2-Wheat.

73 Table-IV-3.2(b)-2-Wheat

Crop losses during transport in Wheat under Bajra-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P.

Size Class of Field to threshing floor Field/Farm to Market Farm Mode/Method % losses Mode/Method % losses Marginal Manual 1.08 Manual 0.83 Samll Manual 0.99 Manual 0.78 Medium Manual 0.93 Manual 0.59 Large Manual 1.24 Manual 1.21 All farms Manual 1.05 Manual 0.82

IV.3.2(c)-1-Arhar:- Crop losses during Transport in Arhar under Arhar Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

Crop losses during transport in Arhar under arhar rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.2(c)-1-Arhar shows that the losses in Arhar from field to threshing floor was 0.41 percent on an average and losses from farm to market was 0.38 percent. Thus, in arhar also the losses were slightly higher from field to threshing, floor and on larger farms it was higher. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.2(c)-1-Arhar. Table-IV-3.2(c) Arhar

Crop losses during transport in Arhar under Arhar Rotation districts of U.P. Size Class of Field to threshing floor Field/Farm to Market Farm Mode/Method % losses Mode/Method % losses Marginal Manual 0.12 Manual 0.03 Samll Manual 0.05 Manual 0.02 Medium Manual 0.78 Manual 0.73 Large Manual 0.70 Manual 0.71 All farms Manual 0.41 Manual 0.38

IV.3.3:- Crop losses from storage at producers level.:-

IV.3.3(a)-1-Paddy:- Crop losses from storage at producers level in paddy under Rice- Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

Crop losses from storage at producers level in paddy under rice-wheat rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.3(a)-1-Paddy shows that the total amount stired was 1326.22 qtls. on an overall of which the maximum i.e. 64.43 percent was stored in bags and remaining 35.57 percent in steel drums. The average loss was 3.40 percent. The losses were

74 higher 1.73 percent i.e. in bags against steel drums for 62 days of storage. Thus, storage in bags was not beneficial. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.3(a)-1-Paddy. Table-IV-3.3 (a)-1-Paddy Crop losses from storage at producers level in Paddy under Paddy-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Type of Amount of % of Total % of Stored Storage Time Average Cost Storage Quantity Storage Quantity Lost in Days of Storage stored in Qtls. Capacity Rs/Month Steel 471.80 35.57 1.68 65 NA Drum Bags 854.42 64.43 1.73 68 NA Total 1326.22 100.00 3.41 62 NA IV.3.3(a)-2-Wheat:- Crop losses from storage at producers level in wheat under Rice- Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

Crop losses from storage at producers level in wheat under rice-wheat rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.3(a)-2-Wheat shows that the percentage of total wheat stored to the total storage capacity was 74.57 percent on the whole of which 79.87 percent was stored in bags and 65.77 percent in steel drums. The losses were higher i.e. 5.06 percent in steel drums against 2.48 percent in bags for 64 days of storage. Thus, storage of wheat in bags was beneficial. The data are given in Table-IV-3.3(a)-2-Wheat. Table-IV-3.3 (a) Wheat Crop losses from storage at producers level in Wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Type of Amount of % of Total % of Stored Storage Time Average Cost Storage Quantity Storage Quantity Lost in Days of Storage stored in Qtls. Capacity Rs/Month Steel 465.22 65.77 5.06 66 NA Drum Bags 771.23 79.87 2.48 62 NA Total 1236.45 74.57 3.45 64 NA

IV.3.3(b)-1-Bajara:- Crop losses from storage at producers level in Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

Crop losses from storage at producers level in bajara under bajara-wheat rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.3(b)-1-Bajara shows that the losses in Bajara on an average was 3.24 percent being maximum i.e. 4.62 percent on large farms for 54 days of storage. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.3(b)-1- Bajara.

75 Table-IV-3.3 (b) Bajara Crop losses from storage at producers level in Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Farm size Type of Amount of % of Total % of Storage Average Storage Quantity Storage Stored Time in Cost of stored in Capacity Quantity Days Storage Qtls. Lost Rs/Month Marginal Bags 250.22 NA 3.29 45 NA Small Bags 142.50 NA 2.95 54 NA Medium Bags 97.00 NA 2.90 60 NA Large Bags 47.00 NA 4.62 58 NA All farms Bags 536.72 NA 3.24 54 NA

IV.3.3(b)-2-Wheat:- Crop losses from storage at producers level in Wheat under Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

Crop losses from storage at producers level in wheat under bajara-wheat rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.3(b)-2-Wheat indicates that the loss in wheat was 3.71 percent on an overall being maximum i.e. 4.09 percent on small farms for 80 days of storage on an average. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.3(b)-2-Wheat.

Table-IV-3.3 (b)-2-Wheat Crop losses from storage at producers level in Wheat under Bajara-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Farm size Type of Amount of % of Total % of Storage Average Storage Quantity Storage Stored Time in Cost of stored in Capacity Quantity Days Storage Qtls. Lost Rs/Month Marginal Bags 408.51 NA 3.34 75 NA Small Bags 193.85 NA 4.09 70 NA Medium Bags 169.23 NA 2.85 85 NA Large Bags 100.00 NA 3.49 90 NA All farms Bags 871.59 NA 3.71 80 NA IV.3.3(c)-1-Arhar:- Crop losses from storage at producers level in Arhar under Arhar Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

Crop losses from storage at producers level in Arhar under arhar rotation districts of U.P. worked-out in Table-IV-3.3(c)-1-Arhar indicates that the losses in Arhar were 4.94 percent on an average being higher 6.62 percent on medium and large farms from May to September generally. The related data are given in Table-IV-3.3(c)-1-Arhar.

Table-IV-3.3 (c) Arhar Crop losses from storage at producers level in Arhar under Arhar Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Farm size Type of Amount of % of Total % of Storage Average Storage Quantity Storage Stored Time in Cost of stored in Capacity Quantity Days Storage Qtls. Lost Rs/Month Marginal Bags 1663.75 NA 3.79 May to Sep. NA Small Bags 910.20 NA 4.78 May to Sep. NA Medium Bags 529.00 NA 6.62 May to Sep. NA Large Bags 1006.20 NA 6.11 May to Sep. NA All farms Bags 4109.15 NA 4.94 May to Sep. NA

IV.4:- Estimation of Marketable and Marketed Surplus Ratios of Selected Crops in Uttar Pradesh.:-

IV.4.1(a)-1-Paddy:- Crop Retention Pattern of paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop retention pattern of paddy under rice-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-4.1(a)-1-Paddy indicates that the total retention on an aggregate was estimated to 1629.98 qtls. of which the maximum i.e. 1237.58 qtls. was on account of self consumption, 46.85 qtls. as seed, 134.75 as feed, 210.80 qtls as others and 15.50 qtls. as payment in kinds. Thus, self consumption was the main item of retention on the farms. The size-group-wise analysis indicates that retention was highest i.e. 637.25 qtls. on marginal farms against the lowest i.e. 263.65 qtls. on small farms and 270.06 qtls. on large farms. Thus, retention was higher on marginal and medium farms. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.1(a)-1-Paddy.

77 Table-IV-4.1(a) Paddy Crop retention pattern of paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of U.P. (In Qtls) Farm Size Self-consumption in Qtls. Seed Feed Others Payments Total (2) (3) (4) in kind retention Retention Purchased Qty (1+2+3+ (1) Qty Price 4) Marginal 551.35 -- -- 17.00 68.10 0.80 5.50 637.25 Small 223.15 -- -- 9.35 31.15 -- -- 263.65 Medium 315.02 -- -- 18.50 25.25 100.00 8.00 459.02 Large 148.06 -- -- 2.00 10.00 110.00 2.00 270.06 All farms 1237.58 -- -- 46.85 134.75 210.80 15.50 1629.98

IV.4.1(a)-2-Wheat:- Crop Retention Pattern of wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop retention pattern of wheat under rice-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-4.1(a)-2-Wheat shows that the total retention of wheat on an aggregate level was estimated to 1467.48 qtls. of which the maximum i.e. 1195.22 qtls. was on account of self consumption, 129.03 qtls. as seed, 141.90 qtls. as feed, 1.33 qtls. as other and 11.70 qtls. as payments in kind. Thus, maximum of wheat was retained for self consumption. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.1(a)-2-Wheat. Table-IV-4.1(a)-2-Wheat Crop retention pattern of wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of U.P. (in Qtls) Farm Size Self-consumption in Qtls. Seed Feed Others Payments Total (2) (3) (4) in kind retention Retention Purchased Qty (1+2+3+ (1) Qty Price 4) Marginal 447.18 -- -- 46.73 64.40 0.70 4.10 559.01 Small 262.20 -- -- 28.80 36.50 0.63 3.00 328.13 Medium 321.01 -- -- 34.50 29.00 -- 8.00 384.51 Large 164.83 -- -- 19.00 12.00 -- 1.00 195.83 All farms 1195.22 -- -- 129.03 141.90 1.33 16.70 1467.48

IV.4.1(b)-1-Bajara:- Crop Retention Pattern of Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop retention pattern of Bajara under bajara-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-4.1(b)-1-Bajara indicates that the total retention of Bajara was

78 estimated to 477.07 qtls. of which the maximum i.e. 329.09 qtls. were retained as self consumption, 4.00 qtls. as seed, 141.70 qtls. as feed and 2.35 qtls. as others. Thus, maximum Bajara was retained for self consumption. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.1(b)-1- Bajara. Table-IV-4.1(b) Bajara

Crop retention pattern of Bajara under Bajara -Wheat Rotation District of U.P. (in Qtls) Farm Size Self-consumption in Qtls. Seed Feed Others Payments Total (2) (3) (4) in kind retention Retention Purchased Qty (1+2+3+ (1) Qty Price 4) Marginal 178.82 -- -- 1.00 58.75 -- -- 238.57 Small 64.24 -- -- 1.00 39.55 0.75 -- 105.50 Medium 59.00 -- -- 2.00 40.40 0.60 -- 102.00 Large 27.00 ------3.00 1.00 -- 31.00 All farms 329.09 -- -- 4.00 141.70 2.35 -- 477.07

IV.4.1(b)-2-Wheat:- Crop Retention Pattern of wheat under Bajara-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop retention pattern of wheat under bajara-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-4.1(b)-2-Wheat indicates that the total retention of wheat at aggregate level was estimated to 961.26 qtls. of which the maximum i.e. 796.19 qtls. was on account of self consumption, 83.02 qtls. as seed, 72.20 qtls. as feed, 6.85 qtls. as others. Thus, the maximum retention was reported for self consumption. The related data are contained in Table-IV-4.1(b)-2-Wheat. Table-IV-4.1(b)-2-Wheat Crop retention pattern of Wheat under Bajara -Wheat Rotation District of U.P. (in Qtls) Farm Size Self-consumption in Qtls. Seed Feed Others Payments Total (2) (3) (4) in kind retention Retention Purchased Qty (1+2+3+ (1) Qty Price 4) Marginal 422.46 3 1200 27.80 27.50 0.55 -- 481.31 Small 156.00 -- -- 19.85 26.20 0.80 -- 202.85 Medium 136.73 -- -- 20.05 14.50 1.50 -- 172.78 Large 81.00 -- -- 15.32 4.00 4.00 -- 104.32 All farms 796.19 3 1200 83.02 72.20 6.85 -- 961.26

IV.4.1(c)-1-Arhar:- Crop Retention Pattern of Arhar under Arhar Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop retention pattern of Arhar under arhar rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked- out in Table-IV-4.1(c)-1-Arhar shows that the total retention of Arhar was estimated to 4543.99 qtls of which the maximum i.e. 4461.75 qtls. was retained as self consumption and only 82.24 qtls. as feed. Thus, almost entire quantity of Arhar was retained for self consumption only. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.1(c)-1-Arhar. Table-IV-4.1(c) Arhar Crop retention pattern of Arhar under Arhar Rotation District of U.P. (in Qtls) Farm Size Self-consumption in Qtls. Seed Feed Others Payments Total (2) (3) (4) in kind retention Retention Purchased Qty (1+2+3+ (1) Qty Price 4) Marginal 1627.75 0.25 1375 -- 22.24 -- -- 1649.99 Small 10.23 ------0.05 -- -- 10.28 Medium 5.88 ------0.40 -- -- 6.28 Large 12.23 ------0.15 -- -- 12.38 All farms 4461.75 0.25 1375 -- 82.24 -- -- 4513.99

IV.4.2(a)-1-Paddy:- Sale in Market of Paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation district of Uttar Pradesh.

The sale of paddy in market under rice-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-4.2(a)-1-Paddy indicates that on an overall 61.75 percent of paddy was marketed in regulated market at the distance of 3 – 15 kms and the remaining 38.25 percent of paddy was marketed in unregulated market in the villages itself. The size-group-wise analysis shows that maximum i.e. 91.17 percent of medium farmers sold their paddy in regulated market. While maximum i.e. 54.68 percent of large farmers sold their paddy in unregulated market. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.2(a)-1-Paddy.

80 Table-IV-4.2(a) Paddy Sale in market of Paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh (In %) Farm % Size Regulated Unregulated Primary Secondary Qty. Distance Qty. Distance Qty. Distance Qty. Distance (%) Km. (%) in Village (%) (%) Marginal 60.92 3 – 15 39.08 0 – 0 ------Small 63.50 3 – 15 36.50 0 – 0 ------Medium 91.17 3 – 15 8.83 0 – 0 ------Large 45.32 3 – 15 54.68 0 – 0 ------All farms 61.75 3 – 15 38.25 0 – 0 ------

IV.4.2(a)-2-Wheat:- Sale in Market of Wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The sale of wheat in market under rice-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-4.2(a)-2-Wheat shows that on an average 63.73 percent of wheat was sold in regulated market at the distance of 3 – 15 kms and remaining 36.27 percent in unregulated market. The sale was similar on the farms. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.2(a)-2- Wheat. Table-IV-4.2(a)-2-Wheat Sale in market of Wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh (In %) Farm % Size Regulated Unregulated Primary Secondary Qty. Distance Qty. Distance Qty. Distance Qty. Distance (%) Km. (%) in Village (%) (%) Marginal 69.37 3 – 15 30.63 0 – 0 ------Small 68.69 3 – 15 31.31 0 – 0 ------Medium 91.75 3 – 15 8.25 0 – 0 ------Large 42.32 3 – 15 57.68 0 – 0 ------All farms 63.73 3 – 15 36.27 0 – 0 ------IV.4.2(b)-1-Bajara:- Sale of Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The sale of bajara in market under bajara-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked- out in Table-IV-4.2(b)-1-Bajara shows that the entire 100 percent of bajara was sold in regulated market under these districts. the related data are given in Table-IV-4.2(b)-1- Bajara. Table-IV-4.2(b) Bajara

81 Sale in market of Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh (In %) Farm % Size Regulated Unregulated Primary Secondary Qty. Distance Qty. Distance Qty. Distance Qty. Distance (%) Km. (%) in Village (%) (%) Marginal 100.00 ------Small 100.00 ------Medium 100.00 ------Large 100.00 ------All farms 100.00 ------IV.4.2(c)-1-Arhar:- Sale of Arhar under Arhar Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The sale of Arhar in market under Arhar rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.2(c)-1-Arhar shows that the entire Arhar 100 percent was sold by all the farmers in the unregulated market at a distance of 5.90 kms. The related data are given in Table-IV- 4.2(c)-1- Arhar. Table-IV-4.2(c) Arhar Sale in market of Arhar under Arhar Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh (In %) Farm % Size Regulated Unregulated Primary Secondary Qty. Distance Qty. Distanc Qty. Distance Qty. Distance (%) Km. (%) e Km (%) (%) Marginal -- -- 52.53 4.00 ------Small -- -- 4.12 5.90 ------Medium -- -- 32.93 5.90 ------Large -- -- 69.91 5.90 ------All farms -- -- 196.57 5.90 ------

IV.4.3(a)-1-Paddy:- Crop-wise Availability of Paddy by farm size under Rice-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop-wise availability of paddy by farm size in quintals under rice-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.3(a)-1-Paddy indicates that the beginning stock on an overall was estimated to 301.65 qtls. and production was accounted to 7075.59 qtls. Thus, the availability on aggregate level was 7377.24 qtls. The size-group-wise distribution indicates that the availability was higher on marginal and large farms. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.3(a)-1-Paddy.

82 Table-IV-4.3 (a)-1-Paddy Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals under Rice-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh

Farm Size Paddy Beginning Stock Production Availability (1) (2) (1+2) Marginal 69.95 2156.14 2226.09 Small 65.70 1309.65 1375.35 Medium 118.00 1443.00 1561.00 Large 48.00 2166.80 2214.80 All farms 301.65 7075.59 7377.24 IV.4.3(a)-2-Wheat:- Crop-wise Availability of Wheat by farm size under Rice-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop-wise availability of Wheat by farm size in quintals under rice-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.3(a)-2-Wheat indicates that the beginning stock on an overall was accounted to 250.70 qtls. and the production at aggregate level was estimated to 4532.93 qtls. Thus, the availability was accounted to 4383.63 qtls. at aggregate level. The availability was higher on marginal farms. Table-IV-4.3 (a)-2-Wheat Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals of Wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh Farm Size Wheat Beginning Stock Production Availability (1) (2) (1+2) Marginal 58.70 1367.93 1426.63 Small 50.50 831.40 887.90 Medium 99.00 970.80 1069.80 Large 42.50 1356.80 1399.30 All farms 250.70 4532.93 4383.63

IV.4.3(b)-1-Bajara:- Crop-wise Availability of Bajara by farm size under Bajara- Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop-wise availability of bajara by farm size under Bajara-Wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.3(b)-1-Bajara shows that the beginning stock on an overall was estimated to 30.10 qtls. and the production was accounted to 1759.95 qtls. at an aggregate level. Thus, the availability at aggregate level was accounted to 1790.05 qtls. The availability on marginal farms was comparatively much higher than the farms of all other size groups. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.3(b)-1-Bajara.

83 Table-IV-4.3 (b)1. Bajara Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals of Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh Farm Size Bajara Beginning Stock Production Availability (1) (2) (1+2) Marginal 4.80 778.55 783.35 Small 8.30 489.35 497.65 Medium 6.00 342.05 348.05 Large 11.00 150.00 161.00 All farms 30.10 1759.95 1790.05

IV.4.3(b)-2-Wheat:- Crop-wise Availability of Wheat by farm size under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop-wise availability of wheat by farm size under Bajara-Wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.3(b)-2-Wheat shows that the beginning stock was 183.65 qtls. on an overall and production of wheat at aggregate level was 3212.10 qtls. Thus, the availability of wheat was 3395.75 qtls. at aggregate level. The availability was higher on marginal farms. the related data are given in Table-IV-4.3(b)-2-Wheat. Table-IV-4.3 (b)-2-Wheat Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals of Wheat under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh

Farm Size Wheat Beginning Stock Production Availability (1) (2) (1+2) Marginal 64.90 1283.30 1348.20 Small 33.95 777.50 811.45 Medium 31.30 704.80 736.10 Large 53.50 446.50 500.00 All farms 183.65 3212.10 3395.75

IV.4.3(c)-1-Arhar:- Crop-wise Availability of Arhar by farm size under Arhar Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The crop-wise availability of arhar by farm size under Arhar rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.3(c)-1-Arhar indicates that the beginning stock of Arhar was accounted to 1.85 qtls. and the production of arhar was estimated to 256.78 qtls. Thus, the availability of Arhar on an aggregate level was 258.63 qtls. The size-group distribution shows that the production as well as the availability of arhar was higher on large farms in

84 comparison of the farms of all other size-group in these districts. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.3(c)-1-Arhar. Table-IV-4.3 (c)1. Arhar Crop Wise Availability by Farm Size in Quintals of Arhar under Arhar Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh Farm Size Wheat Beginning Stock Production Availability (1) (2) (1+2) Marginal 0.57 71.28 71.85 Small 0.52 55.60 56.12 Medium 0.37 41.70 42.07 Large 0.39 88.20 88.59 All farms 1.85 256.78 258.63

IV.4.4:- Sale Pattern of Selected Crops in Uttar Pradesh.:-

IV.4.4(a)-1-Paddy:- Sale Pattern of paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The sale pattern of paddy under rice-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.4(a)-1-Paddy indicates that the total production of paddy on aggregate level was 7075.59 qtls. of which 5374.02 qtls. was sold in the months of October to December. Further 61.75 percent of the total paddy was sold to the Govt. agency and 38.25 percent to private traders. The size-group-wise analysis shows that the higher amount of paddy was sold by large farmers comparatively. The prices ranged between Rs. 800 to Rs. 1080 by Govt. agencies and Rs. 800 / qtls to 900/qtls. by private traders. The related data are contained in Table-IV-4.4(a)-1-Paddy. IV.4.4(a)-2-Wheat:- Sale Pattern of wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The sale pattern of wheat under rice-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.4(a)-2-wheat shows that the total production of wheat was 4532.93 qtls. on aggregate level of which 3072.69 qtls. was sold in the months of April to June. The quantity of wheat sold to Govt. agencies at the rate of Rs. 1000 to 1285 / qtls. was 63.73 percent and to private traders at the rate of Rs. 1000 to 1150 / qtls. was 36.27 percent of the total quantity sold. The amount sold was higher on large farms. The concerned data are given in Table-IV-4.4(a)-2-Wheat.

85 86 Table-IV-4.4 (a)-1-Paddy Sale pattern of selected crops paddy under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Size Class of Total Total Month Distance To whom and quantity sold in quintals Farms Produ qty. of Sales (in km) Govt. Agencies Pvt. Trader or Processor/Miller Others ction sold Money Lender in in Qty. Price Qty.(% Price Qty.(% Price Qty.(% Price Qtls. Qtls. (% of of of of Total) Total) Total) Total) Qty. in Price / Qty. in Price / Qty. in Price / Qty. in Price / Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Marginal 2156.14 1459.63 Oct. to 1 – 2 889.25 800 – 570.38 800 – ------Dec. (60.92) 1080 (39.08) 950 Small 1309.65 1043.07 Oct. to 1 – 2 662.33 800 – 380.74 825 – ------Dec. (63.50) 1080 (36.50) 900 Medium 1443.00 1015.67 Oct. to 1 – 2 925.97 800 – 89.70 850 – ------Dec. (91.17) 1080 (8.83) 900 Large 2166.80 1855.65 Oct. to 1 – 2 841.05 800 – 1014.60 850 – ------Dec. (45.32) 1080 (54.68) 900 All farms 7075.59 5374.02 Oct. to 1 – 2 3318.60 800 – 2055.42 800 – ------Dec. (61.75) 1080 (38.25) 900 Table-IV-4.4 (a)-2-Wheat Sale pattern of selected crops wheat under Rice-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Size Class of Total Total Month Distance To whom and quantity sold in quintals Farms Produ qty. of Sales (in km) Govt. Agencies Pvt. Trader or Processor/Miller Others ction sold Money Lender in in Qty. Price Qty.(% Price Qty.(% Price Qty.(% Price Qtls. Qtls. (% of of of of Total) Total) Total) Total) Qty. in Price / Qty. in Price / Qty. in Price / Qty. in Price / Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Marginal 1367.93 785.21 April to 1 – 2 544.69 1000 – 240.52 1000 – ------June (69.37) 1285 (30.63) 1185 Small 831.40 515.13 April to 1 – 2 353.86 1050 – 161.27 1050 – ------June (68.69) 1285 (31.31) 1000 Medium 970.80 626.58 April to 1 – 2 574.89 1100 – 51.69 1050 – ------June (91.75) 1285 (8.25) 1100 Large 1356.80 1145.77 April to 1 – 2 484.92 1200 – 660.85 1100 – ------June (42.32) 1285 (57.68) 1150 All farms 4532.93 3072.69 April to 1 – 2 1958.36 1000 – 1114.33 1000 – ------June (63.73) 1285 (36.27) 1150

Table-IV-4.4 (b)-1- Bajara Sale pattern of selected crops Bajara under Bajara-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Table-IV-4.4 (b)-2-Wheat Sale pattern of selected crops Wheat under Bajara-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Table-IV-4.4 (c)-1-Arhar Sale pattern of selected crops Arhar under Arhar Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh

Size Class of Total Total Month Distance To whom and quantity sold in quintals Farms Produ qty. of Sales (in km) Govt. Agencies Pvt. Trader or Processor/Miller Others ction sold Money Lender in in Qty. Price Qty.(% Price Qty.(% Price Qty.(% Price Qtls. Qtls. (% of of of of Total) Total) Total) Total) Qty. in Price / Qty. in Price / Qty. in Price / Qty. in Price / Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Qtls. Marginal 71.28 52.53 April to In village -- -- 5253 2200 – ------May 3200 Small 55.60 41.20 April to In village -- -- 4120 2800 – ------May 3200 Medium 41.70 32.93 April to In village -- -- 3293 2800 – ------May 3200 Large 88.20 69.91 April to In village -- -- 6991 2800 – ------May 3200 All farms 256.78 169.57 April to In village -- -- 168.57 2800 – ------May 3200 IV.4.4(b)-1-Bajara:- Sale Pattern of paddy under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The sale pattern of Bajara under bajara-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.4(b)-1-Bajara shows that the total production of bajara was estimated to 1769.95 qtls. on aggregate level. While 1085.65 qtls. was sold during April to May. The percentage of quantity sold to Govt. agency was only 5.82 percent and to private traders was 94.18 percent. Thus, the maximum quantity of bajara was sold to private traders. The amount sold by marginal farmers was much higher in comparison of all the farmers of other size-groups. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.4(b)-1-Bajara.

IV.4.4(b)-2-Wheat:- Sale Pattern of wheat under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The sale pattern of bajara under bajara-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.4(b)-2-wheat indicates that the total production of wheat was 3212.10 qtls. on an aggregate level of which 1965.32 qtls. was sold in the months of April to May in the village itself. The percentage of quantity sold to Govt. agency was only 7.36 percent. Thus, the maximum of wheat was sold to private traders in this district. The amount sold by marginal and small farmers was higher. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.4(b)-2- Wheat.

IV.4.4(c)-1-Arhar:- Sale Pattern of Arhar under Arhar Rotation districts of U. P.

The sale pattern of Arhar under arhar rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh worked-out in Table-IV-4.4(c)-1-Arhar shows that the total production of Arhar was estimated to 256.78 qtls. of which 168.57 qtls. was sold in the months of April – May. The entire quantity of Arhar was sold to private traders. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.4(c)-1-Arhar.

IV.4.5:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Selected Crops in Selected Districts of Uttar Pradesh.:-

IV.4.5.1:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed surplus of selected crops under Rice- Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of selected food-grains in rice-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-4.5.1 shows that the percentage of marketable surplus to production of rice was 81.01 percent and of wheat was 73.16 percent. While the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of rice was 93.76 percent and that of wheat was 92.66 percent. But the percentage of marketed surplus to production of rice was 75.95 percent and that of wheat was 67.79 percent, Thus, the percentage of marketed surplus to production of rice was comparatively higher than that of wheat in these districts. The data are given in Table-IV-4.5.1 IV.4.5.2:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed surplus of selected food-grains in Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of selected food-grains in bajara-wheat rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-4.5.1 indicates that the percentage of marketable surplus to production of bajara was 72.90 percent and that of wheat was 70.07 percent. While the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of bajara was 84.62 percent and that of wheat was 87.32 percent. But the percentage of marketed surplus to production of bajara was 61.69 percent and that of wheat was 61.19 percent. Thus, the percentage of marketed surplus to production of bajara was slightly higher than that of wheat in these districts. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.5.2.

IV.4.5.3:- Pattern of Marketable and Marketed surplus of selected food-grains in Arhar Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh.

The pattern of marketable and marketed surplus of selected food-grains in Arhar rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh analyzed in Table-IV-4.5.3 indicates that the percentage of marketable surplus to production of Arhar was 82.30 percent. While the percentage of marketable surplus of Arhar was 93.20 percent. But the percentage of marketed surplus to production of Arhar was 76.71 percent in these districts. Thus, the percentage of marketed surplus to production of Arhar was lesser than the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus. The related data are given in Table-IV-4.5.3.

94 Table-IV-4.5.1 Pattern of Marketed and Marketed Surplus of Selected Food-grains in Rice-Wheat Rotation Districts Shahjhanpur and Barabanki of Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11

Category Production in Marketable Percentage to Marketed surplus Percentage to Percentage to of Qtls. surplus in Qtls production in Qtls. Marketable Production samples surplus Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Rice Wheat Marginal 2156.14 1367.93 1588.84 867.63 73.69 63.43 1459.63 785.21 91.87 90.50 67.70 57.40 Small 1309.65 831.40 1111.62 553.77 84.88 66.61 1043.07 515.13 93.83 93.02 79.64 61.96 Medium 1443.00 970.80 1101.98 685.29 76.37 70.59 1015.67 626.58 92.17 91.43 70.39 64.54 Large 2166.80 1356.80 1944.741203.47 89.75 88.70 1855.65 1145.77 95.42 95.21 85.64 84.45 All 7075.59 4532.93 5731.743316.15 81.01 73.16 5374.02 3072.69 93.76 92.66 75.95 67.79 farms Source: Field survey of sample farmers/districts

Table-IV-4.5.2 Pattern of Marketed and Marketed Surplus of Selected Food-grains in Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts Agra and Budaun of Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11

Category Production in Marketable Percentage to Marketed surplus Percentage to Percentage to of Qtls. surplus in Qtls production in Qtls. Marketable Production samples surplus Bajara Wheat Bajara Wheat Bajara Wheat Bajara Wheat Bajara Wheat Bajara Wheat Marginal 778.55 1283.10 539.98 801.99 69.36 62.50 456.12 702.31 84.47 87.57 58.58 54.74 Small 489.35 777.50 383.85 574.65 78.44 73.91 335.31 512.07 87.35 89.11 68.52 65.86 Medium 342.05 704.80 240.05 532.02 70.18 75.48 177.56 445.95 73.97 83.82 51.91 63.27 Large 150.00 446.50 119.00 342.18 79.33 76.64 116.66 305.00 98.03 89.13 77.77 68.31 All 1759.95 3212.10 1282.942250.84 72.90 70.07 1085.65 1965.33 84.62 87.32 61.69 61.19 farms Source: Field survey of sample farmers/districts Table-IV-4.5.3

Pattern of Marketed and Marketed Surplus of Selected Food-grains in Arhar Rotation Districts Hamirpur and Fatehpur of Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11

Category Production Marketable Percentage Marketed Percentage Percentage of samples in Qtls. surplus in to surplus in to to Qtls production Qtls. Marketable Production surplus Arhar Arhar Arhar Arhar Arhar Arhar Marginal 71.28 54.79 76.87 52.53 95.88 73.69 Small 55.60 45.32 81.51 41.20 90.91 74.10 Medium 41.70 35.42 84.94 32.93 92.97 78.97 Large 88.20 75.82 85.96 69.91 92.21 79.26 All farms 256.78 211.34 82.30 196.97 93.20 76.71 Source: Field survey of sample farmers/districts

IV.5:- Factors Affecting Marketed Surplus of Selected Crops in Uttar Pradesh.:-

IV.5.1:- Infrastructural Factors.

IV.5.1.A-1:-Distance and Type of Market under Paddy-Wheat Rotation Districts for Paddy and Wheat.

Table-IV-5.1.A-1 reveals that 67 percent of paddy and wheat are sold in local market. Among sample farmers 73.77 percent of paddy and wheat are sold in local market. Only 33 percent of paddy and wheat are sold in distant market. The average transport cost was reported as Rs. 5 / qtls. on an overall. The villages were connected with pucca roads. The data are given in Table-IV-5.1.A-1.

Table-IV-5.1. A-1. Distance and type of market under Paddy-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh for Paddy and Wheat

Factors Size of Farm Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Sale in Local Market (%) 73.77 57.14 63.64 42.86 67 Distant Market (%) 26.23 42.86 36.36 57.14 33 Avg. Transport Cost 5 5 5 5 5 (Rs/Qtl.) Type of market ------Primary % ------Secondary % ------Regulated √ √ √ √ √ Unregulated ------Distance to market ------Connected with Pucca road 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 (%) Connected with Kutcha ------Road (%) IV.5.1.A-2:-Characteristics of storage/warehouse under Paddy-Wheat Rotation Districts for Paddy and Wheat.

Table-IV-5.1.A-2 reveals that there was not any Govt. or private storage and warehouses available in the area. Table-IV-5.1. A-2. Characteristics of storage/warehouse under Paddy-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Paddy and Wheat

Characteristics Available Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Availability of Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Storage/Warehouse(%) Agency a. Govt. Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil b. Pvt. Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil c. Cooperative Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Adequate Storage Facility (%) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Quality of Storage (%) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Cost of Storage (Rs/Qtl.) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Awareness of Warehouse Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Receipt Program (%)

97 IV.5.1.B-1:- Distance and Type of Markets under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts for Bajara and Wheat.

Table-IV-5.1.B-1 reveals that 100 percent of Bajara and wheat were sold in local market. There was not any transport cost reported. The market was regulated and 100 percent connected with pucca road. Table-IV-5.1. B-1. Distance and type of market under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh for Bajara and Wheat Factors Size of Farm Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Sale in Local Market (%) 100 100 100 100 100 Distant Market (%) ------Avg. Transport Cost (Rs/Qtl.) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Type of market ------Primary % ------Secondary % ------Regulated 100 100 100 100 100 Unregulated ------Distance to market ------Connected with Pucca road (%) 100 100 100 100 100 Connected with Kutcha Road (%) ------

IV.5.1.B-2:- Characteristics of storage and warehouses under Bajara-Wheat Rotation District for Bajara and Wheat.

Table-IV-5.1.B-2 shows that no such facilities were available in the area. Table-IV-5.1. B-2. Characteristics of storage/warehouse under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Bajara and Wheat Characteristics Available Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Availability of Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Storage/Warehouse(%) Agency a. Govt. Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil b. Pvt. Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil c. Cooperative Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Adequate Storage Facility (%) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Quality of Storage (%) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Cost of Storage (Rs/Qtl.) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Awareness of Warehouse Receipt Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Program (%)

98 IV.5.1.C-1:- Distance and Type of Market under Arhar Rotation Districts for Arhar.

Table-IV-5.1.C-1 reveals that 35 percent of sample farmers sold in local market. Average transport cost was reported to be Rs. 7 / qtls. 42 farmers sold their produces in regulated markets and 33 in unregulated market. The distance of market was 4.15 kms 100 percent of villages were connected with pucca roads. Table-IV-5.1. C-1. Distance and type of market under Arhar Rotation districts of U. P. for Arhar

Factors Size of Farm Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Sale in Local Market (%) 13 9 6 7 35 Distant Market (%) ------Avg. Transport Cost (Rs/Qtl.) 7 7 7 7 7 Type of market R R R R R Primary % ------Secondary % ------Regulated 21 8 6 7 42 Unregulated 13 9 6 5 33 Distance to market 4 – 5 4 – 5 4 – 5 4 – 5 4 – 5 Connected with Pucca road (%) 100 100 100 100 100 Connected with Kutcha Road (%) ------

IV.5.1.C-2:- Characteristics of storage and warehouses under Arhar Rotation Districts for Arhar.

Table-IV-5.1.C-2 shows that availability of storage / warehouses was nil in the area of study. Table-IV-5.1. C-2. Characteristics of storage/warehouse under Arhar Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh for Arhar

99 IV.5.2:- Technological Factors.

IV.5.2.A-1:-Policy Awareness under Paddy-Wheat Rotation Districts for Paddy and Wheat.

Table-IV-5.2.A-1 shows that 51 percent of sample farmers were aware of MSP. About sale possibilities 62 percent of sample farmers reported about less retention for seed and feed and 38 percent about less retention for self consumption. Table-IV-5.2.A-1 Policy awareness under Paddy-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. for Paddy and Wheat

Policy Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Aware of MSP (%) 40.98 71.43 45.45 85.71 51.00 Aware of Futures Trading (%) ------Used Futures (%) ------Futures Helped in Price Risk ------Management (%) Sale Possibilities (Qs.10 in ------Questionnaire.) Yes (%) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes If Yes, Source ------a. Less Retention for seed 15 10 3 3 31 and feed. (60.00) (66.67) (75.00) (50.00) (62.00) b. Less Retention for self 10 5 1 3 19 consumption. (40.00) (33.33) (25.00) (50.00) (38.00) c. Change in Consumption ------Pattern

IV.5.2.A-2:-Contract Farming under Paddy-Wheat Rotation District of Uttar Pradesh for Paddy and Wheat.

Table-IV-5.2.A-2 shows that no contract farming was reported in these districts. Table-IV-5.2.A-2 Contract farming under Paddy-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. for Paddy and Wheat

Factors Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Use % Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Crop name Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Beneficial (%) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

100 IV.5.2.A-3:- Area Covered under Improved seed % to Total area under Paddy and Wheat in Paddy-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh.

Table-IV-5.2.A-3 indicates that in rice on an average 99 percent of the area was covered under improved seed by almost all the farmers. While in case of wheat only 53 percent of the area was reported to be covered under improved seed. Table-IV-5.2.A-3 Area covered under improved seed % to Total Area under crop Paddy and Wheat under Paddy-wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh

Size of Farm Name of Crop Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Rice 98.36 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.00 Wheat 52.46 52.38 54.55 57.14 53.00 Bajra ------Tur ------Other Crop ------

IV.5.2.B-1:-Policy Awareness under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Bajara and Wheat.

Table-IV-5.2.B-1 reveals that only 21 percent of sample farmers were aware of MSP. About other information nothing was reported. Table-IV-5.2.B-1 Policy awareness under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. for Bajara and Wheat

Policy Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Aware of MSP (%) 7.69 40.00 63.64 25.00 21.00 Aware of Futures Trading (%) ------Used Futures (%) ------Futures Helped in Price Risk ------Management (%) Sale Possibilities (Qs.10 in ------Questionnaire.) Yes (%) ------If Yes, Source ------a. Less Retention for seed ------and feed. b. Less Retention for self ------consumption. c. Change in Consumption ------Pattern

101

IV.5.2.B-2:-Contract Farming under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Bajara and Wheat.

Table-IV-5.2.B-2 shows that contract farming was not reported in these districts. Table-IV-5.2.B-2 Contract farming under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. for Bajara and Wheat

Factors Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Use % Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Crop name Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Beneficial (%) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

IV.5.2.B-3:- Area Covered under Improved seed to Total area under Bajara and Wheat in Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh.

Table-IV-5.2.B-3 reveals that only 17 percent of area under wheat was reported to be covered under improved seed. While in case of Bajara 39 percent of area was reported to be covered under improved seed. The data are given in Table-IV-5.2.B-3.

Table-IV-5.2.B-3

Area covered under improved seed % to Total Area under crop Bajara and Wheat under Bajara-wheat Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh

Size of Farm Name of Crop Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Rice ------Wheat 7.69 25.00 54.55 25.00 17.00 Bajra 33.85 40.00 72.73 25.00 39.00 Tur ------Other Crop ------

IV.5.2.C-1:-Policy Awareness under Arhar Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Arhar.

Table-IV-5.2.C-1 reveals that on the whole 72 percent sample farmers were aware of MSP. About sale possibilities 40 percent reported of yes wherein 22 percent reported about less retention for seed and feed. While 18 percent of such farmers reported about less retention for self consumption. The related data are given in Table-IV-5.2.C-1.

102 Table-IV-5.2.C-1 Policy awareness under Arhar Rotation districts of U.P. for Arhar

Policy Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Aware of MSP (%) 32.00 19.00 9.00 12.00 72.00 Aware of Futures Trading (%) ------Used Futures (%) ------Futures Helped in Price Risk ------Management (%) Sale Possibilities (Qs.10 in ------Questionnaire.) Yes (%) -- Yes Yes Yes Yes If Yes, Source -- 20 10 10 40 a. Less Retention for seed and -- 10 7 5 22 feed. b. Less Retention for self -- 10 4 4 18 consumption. c. Change in Consumption ------Pattern

IV.5.2.C-2:-Contract Farming under Arhar Rotation Districts of U. P. for Arhar.

Table-IV-5.2.C-2 shows that contract farming was not reported in these districts.

Table-IV-5.2.C-2 Contract farming under Arhar Rotation districts of U.P. for Arhar

Factors Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Use % Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Crop name Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Beneficial (%) Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

IV.5.2.C-3:- Area Covered under Improved seed % to Total area under Arhar in Arhar Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh.

Table-IV-5.2.C-3 reveals that 100 percent of area was reported to be covered under improved seed of Arhar crop in these districts.

103 Table-IV-5.2.C-3

Area covered under improved seed % to Total Area under crop Arhar under Arhar Rotation districts of Uttar Pradesh

Size of Farm Name of Crop Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Rice ------Wheat ------Bajra ------Arhar 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Other Crop ------

IV.5.3.A-1:- Credit under Paddy-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Paddy and Wheat crops.

Table-IV-5.3.A-1 indicates that only 30 percent of sample farmers had access to credit to commercial banks. On the aggregate level the credit amount reported was Rs. 3012500. The total outstanding was Rs. 631000. 29 percent of sample farmers had kisan credit cards whose limit was told to be 3 years. The related data are given in Table-IV-5.3.A-1. Table-IV-5.3.A-1 Credit under Paddy-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. for Paddy and Wheat Factors Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Access to Credit (%) 18.03 42.86 27.27 100.00 30.00 Source ------Private money lender ------Commission Agent ------Relatives and Friends ------Commercial Bank 11 9 9 1 30 Miller ------Co-operative Society ------Others ------Purpose ------Crop loan ------

104 Investment-loan ------Consumption ------Credit Amount 1155000 805000 705000 347500 3012500 Total Outstanding 455000 56000 80000 40000 631000 Problem in getting loan ------from bank (yes %) Have Kisan Credit Card (%) 10 9 3 7 29 If yes, Limit of KCC 37 37 37 37 37

IV.5.3.A-2:- Sources of Price Information under Rice-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Paddy and Wheat crops.

Table-IV-5.3.A-2 reveals that 15 percent of sample farmers received information from traders, 10 percent from print media, 2 percent radio, 10 percent from market and the majority i.e. 63 percent from the buyers in the villages. The related data are contained in Table-IV-5.3.A-2 Table-IV-5.3.A-2 Sources of price Information under Rice-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. for Paddy and Wheat

Source Size of Farms (%) Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Trader 8.20 33.33 18.18 14.29 15.00 Print media 4.92 14.29 18.18 28.57 10.00 Radio -- -- 9.10 14.29 2.00 APMC Mandi ------Telephone ------Visit to Market 4.92 9.52 27.27 28.57 10.00 Buyers in Village 81.96 42.86 27.27 14.28 63.00 Cooperative Society ------Others ------

105 IV.5.3.B-1:- Credit under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Bajara and Wheat crops.

Table-IV-5.3.B-1 reveals that on the whole 21 percent of sample farmers had access to credit of which 17 percent had been credited by commercial banks and only 4 percent by relatives and friends. No problem in getting loan from bank was reported of 6.15 percent of sample farmers had Kishan credit cards.

Table-IV-5.3.B-1 Credit under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. for Bajara and Wheat

Factors Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Access to Credit (%) 16.92 25.00 27.27 50.00 21.00 Source ------Private money lender ------Commission Agent ------Relatives and Friends 1.54 10.00 9.09 -- 4.00 Commercial Bank 15.38 15.00 18.18 50.00 17.00 Miller ------Co-operative Society ------Others ------Purpose ------Crop loan ------Investment-loan ------Consumption ------Credit Amount ------Total Outstanding ------Problem in getting loan from Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil bank (yes %) Have Kisan Credit Card (%) 3.08 5.00 -- 25.00 6.15 If yes, Limit of KCC ------

IV.5.3.B-2:- Sources of Price Information under Bajara-Wheat Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Bajara and Wheat crops.

Table-IV-5.3.B-2 reveals that 15 percent of sample farmers received information about prices by the print media, 5 percent by telephones 26 percent by buyers in the villages and the majority i.e. 58 percent of sample farmers by cooperative societies. The related data are given in Table-IV-5.3.B-2

106 Table-IV-5.3.B-2 Sources of price Information under Bajara-Wheat Rotation districts of U.P. for Bajara and Wheat Source Size of Farms (%) Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Trader ------Print media 13.84 25.00 9.09 -- 15.00 Radio ------APMC Mandi ------Telephone -- 5 -- -- 5 Visit to Market ------Buyers in Village 24.62 20.00 54.55 -- 26.00 Cooperative Society 61.54 50.00 36.36 100.00 58.00 Others ------

IV.5.3.C-1:- Credit under Arhar Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Arhar crops.

Table-IV-5.3.C-1 reveals that only 8 percent of sample farmers had access to credit by commercial banks. The credit amount on an aggregate level was Rs. 1066000. The total outstanding was Rs. 130000. These, the credit system was deplorably poor in these district. Table-IV-5.3.C-1 Credit under Arhar Rotation districts of U.P. for Arhar

Factors Size of Farms Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Access to Credit (%) -- -- 6.00 8.00 8.00 Source ------Private money lender ------Commission Agent ------Relatives and Friends ------Commercial Bank -- -- 6.00 8.00 8.00 Miller ------Co-operative Society ------Others ------Purpose ------Crop loan -- -- 6 8 8 Investment-loan ------Consumption ------

107 Credit Amount -- -- 345000 430000 1066000 Total Outstanding -- -- 50000 100000 130000 Problem in getting loan ------from bank (yes %) Have Kisan Credit Card (%) ------If yes, Limit of KCC ------

IV.5.3.C-2:- Sources of Price Information under Arhar Rotation Districts of Uttar Pradesh for Arhar crops.

Table-IV-5.3.C-2 indicates that 15 percent farmers received information from traders 8 percent by radio, 27 percent by the market and majority 50 percent by buyers in villages. Table-IV-5.3.C-2 Sources of price Information under Arhar Rotation districts of U.P. for Arhar

Source Size of Farms (%) Marginal Small Medium Large All farms Trader 10 3 1 1 15 Print media ------Radio 2 2 2 2 8 APMC Mandi ------Telephone -- 5 -- -- 5 Visit to Market 10 5 6 6 27 Buyers in Village 30 14 3 3 50 Cooperative Society ------Others ------

108 CHAPTER – V

Summary, Concluding, Observation and Policy Implications

V.1:- Main Findings:-

 This study reveals that in the state of Uttar Pradesh the maximum i.e. 47 percent of the gross state income was shared by tertiary sector against the minimum i.e. 22.2 percent by secondary sector. The share of primary sector was 30.8 percent wherein the maximum i.e. 26.9 percent was shared by agriculture and animal husbandry.  In primary sector, agriculture and animal husbandry, in secondary sector manufacturing and in tertiary sector trade, hotel and restaurants were the main occupational sectors which contributed maximum in the gross state income of Uttar Pradesh.  The percentage growth in the gross state income of Uttar Pradesh was continuous during the span of 2005-06 to 2010-11 with a slight variation in the year 2007-08 and 2010-11.  It is very well clarified that the area under total cereals has declined over the decades from (1999-2000 to 2009-10). This decrease has been caused much due to decrease in kharif cereals.  It is evidently clear that in kharif area has been shifted from rice to Bajra and maize and in Rabi it has been shifted from Gram, Pea, Barley and Arhar to Wheat in Uttar Pradesh.  It is evidently clear that the slight increase in total cereals is due to the slight increase in the area of wheat during Rabi season.  The area under rice has firstly increasing trend till 2001-02 but thereafter it has a declining trend continuously with fluctuations till 2010-11. Accordingly the production has also increased till the year 2001-02 but thereafter suddenly decreased.

109  The area, production as well as productivity of rice has firstly increased till 2001-02 showing increasing trend but thereafter the trend in area production and productivity has shown a declining trend with fluctuations.  The area of Bajara has a declining trend on an overall. But the trends in production of Bajara have been all along increasing during the span of 1960-61 to 2010-11. Thus, despite decling trend in area of bajara, the trends in production and productivity of bajara have been increasing during the span of 1960-61 to 2010-11.  The trend in area of wheat has been increasing in the state of U.P. Accordingly the trend of production and productivity has also been increasing. The area, production and productivity of wheat has an increasing trend during 1950-51 to 2010-11.  The trends in area of Arhar have been declining with fluctuations in the Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly the trends in production of Arhar have also been declining with varying fluctuations and hence the trends of productivity of Arhar have also been declining with fluctuations in Uttar Pradesh.  In Shahjahanpur district the area and production of rice have increased but productivity has decreased during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11. But the production and productivity of wheat have increased despite the decrease in the area of wheat in Shahjahanpur.  The area, production and productivity of rice in Barabanki district has an increasing trend during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11. In case of wheat also the area, production and productivity in this district have increased continuously during the same span of period.  The trends in area, production and productivity of Bajara in Agra district have been increasing during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11. In case of wheat also the trends in area, production and productivity have also been increasing all along the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11.  The trends of area, production and productivity of wheat in Budaun district have been increasing during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11.  The productivity of Arhar has decreased during 1990-91 to 2010-11despite the mixed trends in area and production of Arhar in Hamirpur district. In Fatehpur

110 district the production and productivity of Arhar decreased continuously despite the increase in area of Arhar.  The ratios of marketable surplus to production were higher in case of lentil, barley, maize and jowar during 1994-95. The major food-grains whose marketed surplus ratios were higher in Uttar Pradesh were lentil, arhar, rice and bajara.  In Shahjahanpur district the ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus was highest which shows that more than marketable surplus was marketed in case of rice. In Barabanki the ratios of marketed surplus to marketable surplus were considerably higher in case of wheat and arhar.  In agra district the ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of arhar was considerably higher. In Budaun the ratios of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of rice and wheat were much higher.  In Hamirpur only the ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of arhar was considerable. In Fatehpur it was higher in case of rice during 1994-95.  Regarding land utilization, Budaun in Bajara-Wheat belt, Shahjahanpur in rice-wheat belt and Fatehpur in Arhar belt had covered higher reporting area than rest of districts in these belts.  The pastures and culturable wastes area was higher in Barabanki and Fatehpur districts. The gross cropped area was highest in Budaun district and hence it has been better in land-use pattern and Hamirpur poorest in land-use pattern.  The cropping intensity was highest i.e. 188.79 percent in Barabanki against the lowest i.e. 106.50 percent in Hamirpur district. While the average cropping intensity in Uttar Pradesh was 153.79 percent. Barabanki, Shahjahanpur and Budaun hare better land-use pattern.  The productivity of rice in Shahjahanpur was comparatively higher than the state average productivity but in Barabanki was slightly lower than the state average productivity. The productivity of wheat in sample districts was higher than the state average productivity of wheat.  The productivity of Bajara in Agra and Budaun was slightly lesser than the state average productivity. The productivity of Arhar in Hamirpur and Fatehpur was much lower than the state average productivity of Arhar.

111  The total land owned by all the sample farmers was under cultivation and not a single case of leasing-in or leasing-out was reported in the area under study.  In the whole area of study only surface canals and tube-wells were the main sources of irrigation. Tube-wells were utilized more commonly by marginal farmers (64.73 percent). While canals by small farmers (31.58 percent).  Coverage during kharif was 45.87 percent and was covered by paddy. In Rabi 45.20 percent was covered by wheat. A negligible area i.e. 1.53 percent was covered by Rabi vegetables.  Bajara in kharif, wheat in Rabi, were the main crops in Agra and Budaun districts. The coverage in Rabi was higher i.e. 52.47 percent during summer (Zaid) the total coverage was 6.30 percent.  In Hamirpur and Fatehpur during kharif the coverage was 49.29 percent and in Rabi it was 50.70 percent. The maximum was covered by paddy, oilseed and Arhar in kharif and Rabi by paddy and Arhar.  The yields of paddy and wheat were higher on large farms in Shahjahanpur and Barabanki. The yield of sugarcane was higher on marginal farms.  In Arhar rotation districts paddy and wheat were the main food-grain crops. Arhar was found to be cultivated on rainfed and marginal lands only.  The pattern of investments on the farms of all the sample districts was one and the same in the state of Uttar Pradesh.  As regards the pattern of live-stocks on the sample farms of selected districts, the buffaloes were raised more commonly in both of these districts under paddy-wheat rotation. In Bajara-Wheat belt too the buffaloes were raised more commonly. In Arhar rotation districts small and large farmers had raised buffaloes more commonly.  There was a total 3.80 percent loss in paddy under rice-wheat belt. The higher loss i.e. 4.18 percent was on marginal farms against the lower i.e. 3.35 percent on large farms. In wheat also loss was highest i.e. 4.16 percent on the marginal farms against lowest i.e. 3.54 percent on large farms.  The maximum loss was incurred in threshing incase of Bajara. In wheat also maximum loss was reported in threshing. The losses were maximum on large farms

112 and minimum on medium farms. In Arhar also maximum losses were in threshing of Arhar on medium farms.  The losses from field to threshing floor were comparatively higher in case of wheat under rice-wheat rotation districts than in case of farm to market. In Bajara-Wheat belt the losses were higher in transport from field to threshing floor.  In Bajara-Wheat rotation districts the losses in wheat was higher during transport from field to threshing floor. In Arhar also the losses were slightly higher in case from field to threshing floor and on large farms it was higher.  The storage in bags was not beneficial as the losses were higher in comparison of storage in steel drums. The storage of wheat in bags was beneficial. In Bajara under Bajara-Wheat districts. The losses were maximum i.e. 4.62 percent on large farms.  In Arhar rotation belt the losses in Arhar was higher (6.62 percent) on medium and large farms. The average losses were 4.94 percent in case of Arhar.  Self consumption was the main item of retention on the farms under rice-wheat rotation districts. The retention was higher on marginal and medium farms of this belt.  In case of wheat under rice-wheat rotation districts the maximum of wheat was retained for self-consumption. While in Bajara-Wheat belt the maximum of bajara was retained for self consumption. In case of wheat in this, belt wheat was retained maximum for self consumption.  In case of Arhar in Arhar rotation districts almost entire quantity of Arhar was retained for self consumption only.  As regards sale in market the paddy under rice-wheat belt 61.75 percent of paddy was marketed in regulated market at the distance of 3.15 kms. In wheat 63.73 percent was sold in regulated market.  The sale of bajara in bajara-wheat districts was done 100 percent in regulated market. But Arhar was sold in unregulated market at a distance of 5.90 kms.  The availability of paddy on the aggregate level was 7377.24 qtls. It was higher on marginal and large farms. While that of wheat availability was accounted to 4383.63 qtls. at the aggregate level.

113  In case of Bajara under bajara-wheat rotation districts the availability at aggregate level was 1790.05 qtls. The availability on marginal farms was comparatively much higher than the farms of all other size-groups. The availability of wheat was 3395.75 qtls. at aggregate level.  The availability of Arhar at aggregate level was 258.63 qtls. and was higher on large farms in comparison of the farms of all other size-groups in these districts.  The sale pattern of paddy under rice-wheat rotation indicates that 61.75 percent of paddy was sold to Govt. agencies and 38.25 percent to private traders. The prices paid by private traders was lesser than that paid by Govt. agencies.  The sale pattern of wheat shows that 68.73 percent of wheat was sold to Govt. agencies and 36.27 percent to private traders. The prices paid by private traders were much lower.  The sale pattern of bajara shows that only 5.82 percent of total bajara was sold to Govt. agencies and 94.18 percent was sold to private traders. The quantity sold by marginal farmers was higher.  The sale pattern of Arhar shows that entire quantity was sold to the private traders in the months of April – May.  The percentages of marketed surplus to production of rice was 75.95 percent and that of wheat was 67.75 percent. Thus, percentage of marketed surplus to production of rice was comparatively higher than that of wheat in the selected districts.  The percentage of marketed surplus to production of Bajara was 61.69 percent and that of wheat was 61.19 percent. Thus, marketed surplus to production of bajara was slightly higher than wheat in the bajara-wheat belt.  The percentage of marketed surplus to production of Arhar in Arhar rotation districts was 76.71 percent and was lower than the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of Arhar.  Due to poor infrastructure 73.77 percent of paddy and wheat were sold in local market under rice-wheat rotation districts. There was not any storage or warehouse in the area available any where.  In Bajara-Wheat rotation districts too there was not any facilities of storage and warehouses available in the area.

114  In Arhar rotation districts 42 percent of farmers sold their produce in regulated market and 33 percent in unregulated markets. No storages was available in the area.  Regarding technological factors 51 percent of sample farmers were aware of MSP and 62 percent of farmers reported less retention for seed and feed and 38 percent about less retention for self consumption.  No contract farming was reported in any of the six selected districts in any village.  In rice 99 percent of farmers had covered under improved seeds. But in case of wheat only 53 percent of area was reported to be covered under improved seeds.  In Bajara-Wheat rotation districts only 21 percent of sample farmers were aware of MSP hence policy awareness was deplorably poor in this area. No contract farming was reported in this belt.  In bajara-wheat rotation districts only 17 percent of area under wheat was covered under improved seed. While that of bajara 39 percent was covered under improved seed.  In Arhar rotation districts 72 percent of sample farmers were aware of MSP. About 40 percent told yes for sale possibilities. 22 Percent reported less retention for seed and feed and 18 percent for self consumption. No contract farming was reported in the area.  Regarding institutional factor in rice-wheat rotation districts only 30 percent of farmers had access to credit by commercial banks. 29 percent had Kisan Credit Cards for the limit of 3 years.  Regarding sources of price information majority of farmers reported to receive information by buyers in the villages.  Credit facilities in other selected districts were under pitiable conditions and farmers were quit helpless in this respects.

V.2:- Conclusions:-

115 paramount importance in the state which lags behind the other states of the country. The area under total cereals has declined over the decades from 1999-2000 to 2009- 10. Kharif area has been shifted from rice to bajara and maize and in Rabi from Gram, Pea, Arhar and Barley to wheat in Uttar Pradesh.  The area, production and productivity of rice has firstly increased till 2001-2002 showing increasing trend but thereafter has shown a declining trend with fluctuations. The trend in area, production and productivity of wheat has been increasing during 1950-51 to 2010-11. The trends in area, production and productivity of Arhar have also been declining with fluctuations in Uttar Pradesh. The trends in area, production and productivity of bajara have also been increasing during 1990-91 to 2010-11.  The ratios of marketable surplus to production were higher in case of Lentil, Barley, Maize and Jowar during 1994-95. The major food-grains whose marketed surplus ratios were higher in Uttar Pradesh were lentil, arhar, rice and bajara during 1994-95.  The cropping intensity was highest i.e. 188.79 percent in Barabanki district against the lowest i.e. 106.50 percent in Hamirpur district. Barabanki, Shahjahanpur and Budaun have better land utilization pattern. The total land owned by all the sample farmers was under cultivation and not a single case of leasing-in or leasing-out was reported in the area of study. The investment pattern was one and the same in the state of Uttar Pradesh.  The maximum loss was incurred in threshing of bajara. In wheat also maximum loss was reported in threshing. The losses were maximum on large farms and minimum on medium farms. In Arhar also maximum losses were in threshing on medium farms.  The storage in bags was not beneficial as the losses were higher in comparison of storage in steel drums. Self consumption was the main item of retention on the farms under rice-wheat rotation districts. The retention was higher on marginal and medium farms of these districts. Maximum of bajara was also retained for self consumption. In arhar too the entire quantity inmost of the cases was retained for self consumption only.

116  Regarding sale in market the paddy under rice-wheat rotation districts 61.75 percent of paddy was marketed in regulated market at the distance of 3.15 kms. In wheat 63.73 percent was sold in regulated market. The sale of bajara was done 100 percent in regulated market. But arhar was sold in unregulated market at a distance of 5.90 kms.  The percentage of marketed surplus to production of bajara was 61.69 percent and that of wheat was 61.19 percent. The percentage of marketed surplus to production of arhar was 76.71 percent and was lower than the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of arhar.  Regarding factors affecting the marketed surplus it was found that due to poor infrastructure 73.77 percent of paddy and wheat were sold in local markets. There was not any storage or warehouse.  No contract farming was reported in any village of the six selected districts. In bajara-wheat belt only 21 percent of farmers were aware of MSP. Hence, policy awareness was deplorably poor in the area under the study.  In bajara-wheat rotation districts only 17 percent of the area under wheat was covered under improved seed. While in case of bajara 39 percent was covered under improved seeds.  Regarding intuitional factors affecting the marketed surplus in rice-wheat rotation districts only 30 percent of farmers had access to credit by commercial banks. 29 percent of farmers had Kisan Credit Cards for the limit of 3 years.  Regarding sources of price information the majority of farmers reported to receive information by buyers in the villages of selected districts.

V.3:- Suggestions for Policy Implications:-

1. In the whole state of Uttar Pradesh the marketing of rice, wheat, bajara and arhar is still not assured on the MSP declared by the C.A.C.P. Hence, there is urgent need to implement regulated marketing of these food-grains in Uttar Pradesh strictly. 2. Infrastructural developments are deplorably poor which hampers the market arrivals of marketable surplus. Therefore, it is the first need to provide all weather roads to

117 each and every village at least of the potential pockets in the whole state of Uttar Pradesh. 3. To regulate the market is most essential for saving the farmers from the clutches of the cruel traders. Strict regulated marketing will automatically eradicate the middlemen and rush of private traders who captures the market arrivals of major food-grains. 4. As majority of farmers still depend much for receiving price information by the traders/buyers who use to rush in villages usually and cheat them. Thus, information on prevailing prices in each and every market must be made available to farmers for making proper marketing decisions. 5. In most of the areas in Uttar Pradesh storage/warehouses are almost nil. Thus, farm level storage structures must either be facilitated by the Govt. or the farmers must be provided assistance to develop their own farm level storage structures. 6. To minimize operational losses at farm or farm to threshing floor the farmers must be provided harvesters or combines at cheaper rates so that they may afford the costs. 7. Credit facilities to needy farmers were also reported deplorably poor in Uttar Pradesh. Hence access to credit must be developed by increasing numbers of branches of commercials banks in the villages. 8. Adequate quantity of improved seeds must be made available timely to increase marketable surplus by increasing productivity. 9. Contract farming must be encouraged by the Govt. agencies to increase the production with the minimum costs. 10. Farmers must be educated or must be aware that boosting marketed surplus is more essential than boosting agricultural production on their farms.

118 Appendix – I

Coordinators Comments on the Draft Report dispatched on 25/04/2013 Date of Receipt of Comments 26/06/2013 Coordinators Review Report including comments:-

Review Report

Title of the Draft Study Report Examined: “Assessment of Marketed and Marketable Surplus of Major Foodgrains in UP by AERC Allahabad.

1. Date of Receipt of the Draft Report: 27-04- 2013

2. Date of Despatch of Comments: June 14, 2013

3. Comments on the Objectives of the study: Objectives of the project as mentioned by Ministry of Agriculture, GOI in January 2012 have been followed by report writers.

4. Comments on the Methodology: i.With regard to the Concepts of Marketed and Marketable Surplus particularly on pages five and six it may be noted that distress sales is an element which can be further explained in the identity, the concept of Surplus without considering distress sales may actually be considered to be Marketed Surplus since this concept refers to the actually marketed quantities, meanwhile the Net Surplus can actually be specified as the concept of Marketable Surplus since it refers to the idea of consumption as the quantities actually required for consumption not the quantities actually retained for consumption, thus here distress sales are considered and buybacks or repurchases are subtracted whereas in the Gross Concept of Marketed Surplus there is no consideration of Repurchase quantity.

The above concept may be used in elaborating the relation between Marketed and Marketable Surplus as on page 6 using the concept of distress sales. A more detailed description of the concept is in the Attached Sheet.(Final Analytical and Accounting Concept of Marketed Surplus.doc) ii. Literature Review on pages 8-10 should have more on some description of earlier theoretical work on Marketed Surplus like Raj Krishna and Behrman as also some International contemporary literature. iii. A table on State wise share of selected foodgrain crops in India in a recent year may be given to describe the Overall National picture before going into state detail in Chapter 3.

119 iv. In Chapter 1 there should be more elaboration of concepts used, specifically more emphasis should be given on factors affecting marketed surplus which concept is later used for descriptive tables in Chapter 4, specifically page 81 onwards. v. Although table IV-1.1 on page 38 gives some information on the selected districts a much more detailed table giving information like source of irrigation, occupation of farmers, yield of crops, farm machinery used and proportion of sold production (not exact but obtained through informal questioning), this information should be provided at the early stage of the report which would have been obtained through informal questioning by the surveyors in the districts and villages surveyed, this informal information obtained by the surveyor could be given .

vi. The Empirical Analysis part in page in Chapter 4 cannot be faulted for level of detail and clarity however it may be noted that in the case of Determination of Factors Affecting Marketed Surplus, there is need for a Regression between Marketed Surplus and Factors affecting it, which may be in order and help in getting more specified and significant relationship.

5. Comments on the Presentation, Get up etc.: Acceptable.

6. Overall View on Acceptability of the Report: Acceptable after comments on methodology taken into consideration.

120 Appendix – II

Comments-wise Action Taken on Coordinators Comments:-

1. Action taken for comments on objectives of the study:- Objectives mentioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India were followed as such without any change. 2. Action taken for comments on Methodology:- (i) The concept of distress sale has not at all been used in computation of marketed surplus in the instant study. As a matter of fact, it is only described under the heading concept of marketable and marketed surplus on page 6 in fifth line of second para of chapter – I. It is very well clarified in the para second itself that it will not be the real marketed surplus. (ii) The review of available literature on marketed surplus has already been described. For some more literature on it more time will be required. (iii) It should have been pointed out in the chapter scheme earlier. At this point of time it is very difficult to include. However, it would be best to include the said table on state-wise share for describing the overall national picture in the combined report itself to be prepared by coordinator. (iv) Due to unavailability of data as well as scanty data on factors affecting marketable surplus, more elaborations or descriptions were not at all possible as most of the columns of the maximum tables are reported nil particularly page 81 onwards. It is because of the main reason that marketing of agricultural produces is quite neglected, undeveloped and deplorable in whole of the U.P. state. (v) The information which are now commented and desired to be included at the early stage of the report should have been provided in the schedules and questionnaires and accordingly included in the analytical Tables prepared for this study. These lapses can be completed only after resurvey of the selected districts and villages as informal questioning by the surveyors in the district and villages were not done due to lack of information at that stage.

121 (vi) About this comments we have to say that the regression analysis is not possible between marketed surplus and factor affecting it, because most of the data relating to factors affecting the marketed surplus were either reported nil or were found scanty in all the six selected districts. Thus, regression analysis as desired is not at all possible. 3. No action on presentation and getup etc. has been taken as it is acceptable to the coordinator. 4. Overall view on acceptability of the report:- Action for all the six comments on methodology has been duly undertaken with valid reasons and justifications after perusing all the six comments which are on methodology only. The methodology provided by the coordinator was followed by us fully and blindly. 5. Finalized Report dispatched on 17/07/2013.

122 Executive Summary

Background of the Study:-

Generally the predominant agricultural countries like India depend much on the marketable surplus of agricultural produces. As a matter of fact, it is not the total production of agricultural sector but the surplus generated by the agricultural sector for the market plays the crucial role in the development of such countries. Thus, in cases of agricultural economics like India and the state of Uttar Pradesh, it is not sufficient to boost only its agricultural production but it must boost the marketable surplus of agricultural produces regularly. Marketable surplus represents the theoretical surplus available for disposal with the producer left after his genuine requirements of family consumption, payment of wages in kind, feed, seed and wastages have been met. Marketed surplus on the other hand represents only that portion of the marketable surplus which is actually marketed and is placed at the disposal of the non-farm rural and urban population (Sadhu and Singh, 1983, page 245). In case of commercial agriculture, the farmer as he is motivated by profit considerations takes his whole produce to the market and purchases his requirements from the market. But in case of subsistence agriculture, farmer generally produces for his own subsistence and it is only the remainder left after meeting his own requirements, which is taken to the market for sale. To the extent that the farmer’s retention is a matter of subjective guess, the concept of marketable surplus on the other hand, refers to the actual quantity of produce which enters into the market and as such, it is subjective. In most of the cases, marketed surplus may be less than the marketable surplus because farmer may not be ready to sell whole of his marketable surplus. He may hoard a part of it in anticipation of rising price of the produce or for some other reasons. There may be a subsistence farmer who has produced just to meet his family consumption requirements. But he may take some portion of his produce to the market to meet his immediate cash obligations. In such cases, the marketed surplus released by the farmer will not be the real marketed surplus.

The need of estimation of the actual marketable and marketed surplus has been perceived in the country since the time immemorial. After gaining independence these estimations

123 became more important particularly in the context of planned agricultural development, distribution system, effective implementation of the development programmes, formulation of various economic policies and pricing policies for agricultural commodities. Thus, the instant study is relevant and well justified to be conducted in all the states of India.

Keeping the above cited facts in view this study was entrusted to the various AERCs of the country entitled as “Assessment of Marketable and Marketed Surplus of Major Food-grains in India”, Individual state report to be conducted with the following main objectives:-

Objectives of the Study:- The main objectives of the study were 4. To estimate marketable and marketed surplus of selected cereals, coarse cereals and pulses in Uttar Pradesh. 5. To estimate farm retention for consumption, seed, feed, wages and other payments in kind etc. and 6. To examine role of various factors such as institutional, infrastructural, socio- economic, etc. in influencing household marketed surplus decision.

Research Methodology:-

(a) Coverage of the study:-

This study was confined to the whole state of U.P. on the basis of significant share in total acreage and production of major food-grains i.e. (1) Rice, (2) Bajara, (3) Wheat and (4) Tur. The number of ultimate sample farmers was restricted to 300 from the districts growing more than one selected crop from the prevalent crop rotations in selected districts of U.P.

(b) Sampling Design:- The sampling technique used in this study was a multistage stratified random sampling technique. From the 3 prevalent crop-rotations i.e. (1) Rice – Wheat, (2) Bajara – Wheat and (3) Tur – annual with mixtures, two districts from each crop-rotations were selected randomly. From the selected districts two developments blocks from each district making

124 total 12 blocks were selected randomly on the same criteria. From each of such block one suitable village making total 12 villages were undertaken randomly. List of farmers from each of such villages were taken and categorized in 4 size-groups i.e. (1) Marginal, (2) Small, (3) Medium and (4) Large. Thereafter ultimate samples were chosen according to probability proportion to total numbers in each size-groups restricting 25 samples from each village making 300 samples in all.

(c) Methodology:- This study was based on both primary as well as secondary data. The primary data on all aspects of the present study were collected through the specially prepared schedules and questionnaires by survey method contacting the sample farmers directly on their farms. The required secondary data were collected from the records available at various levels with the help of concerned officials. Personal observations were also done. As regards the analysis of data apart from simple mathematical and statistical analysis, the inverse and positive relationships between prices and marketed surplus by Krishanan and Rajkrishna were tried to assess the marketed surplus of selected crops. The reference year was agricultural year 2010-11 as well as marketing year 2011-12 and for secondary data was 2000–01 to 2009-10.

Main Findings:-

125  It is very well clarified that the area under total cereals has declined over the decades from (1999-2000 to 2009-10). This decrease has been caused much due to decrease in kharif cereals.  It is evidently clear that in kharif area has been shifted from rice to Bajra and maize and in Rabi it has been shifted from Gram, Pea, Barley and Arhar to Wheat in Uttar Pradesh.  It is evidently clear that the slight increase in total cereals is due to the slight increase in the area of wheat during Rabi season.  The area under rice has firstly increasing trend till 2001-02 but thereafter it has a declining trend continuously with fluctuations till 2010-11. Accordingly the production has also increased till the year 2001-02 but thereafter suddenly decreased.  The area, production as well as productivity of rice has firstly increased till 2001-02 showing increasing trend but thereafter the trend in area production and productivity has shown a declining trend with fluctuations.  The area of Bajara has a declining trend on an overall. But the trends in production of Bajara have been all along increasing during the span of 1960-61 to 2010-11. Thus, despite decling trend in area of bajara, the trends in production and productivity of bajara have been increasing during the span of 1960-61 to 2010-11.  The trend in area of wheat has been increasing in the state of U.P. Accordingly the trend of production and productivity has also been increasing. The area, production and productivity of wheat has an increasing trend during 1950-51 to 2010-11.  The trends in area of Arhar have been declining with fluctuations in the Uttar Pradesh. Accordingly the trends in production of Arhar have also been declining with varying fluctuations and hence the trends of productivity of Arhar have also been declining with fluctuations in Uttar Pradesh.  In Shahjahanpur district the area and production of rice have increased but productivity has decreased during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11. But the production and productivity of wheat have increased despite the decrease in the area of wheat in Shahjahanpur.  The area, production and productivity of rice in Barabanki district has an increasing trend during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11. In case of wheat also the area,

126 production and productivity in this district have increased continuously during the same span of period.  The trends in area, production and productivity of Bajara in Agra district have been increasing during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11. In case of wheat also the trends in area, production and productivity have also been increasing all along the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11.  The trends of area, production and productivity of wheat in Budaun district have been increasing during the span of 1990-91 to 2010-11.  The productivity of Arhar has decreased during 1990-91 to 2010-11despite the mixed trends in area and production of Arhar in Hamirpur district. In Fatehpur district the production and productivity of Arhar decreased continuously despite the increase in area of Arhar.  The ratios of marketable surplus to production were higher in case of lentil, barley, maize and jowar during 1994-95. The major food-grains whose marketed surplus ratios were higher in Uttar Pradesh were lentil, arhar, rice and bajara.  In Shahjahanpur district the ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus was highest which shows that more than marketable surplus was marketed in case of rice. In Barabanki the ratios of marketed surplus to marketable surplus were considerably higher in case of wheat and arhar.  In agra district the ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of arhar was considerably higher. In Budaun the ratios of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of rice and wheat were much higher.  In Hamirpur only the ratio of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of arhar was considerable. In Fatehpur it was higher in case of rice during 1994-95.  Regarding land utilization, Budaun in Bajara-Wheat belt, Shahjahanpur in rice-wheat belt and Fatehpur in Arhar belt had covered higher reporting area than rest of districts in these belts.  The pastures and culturable wastes area was higher in Barabanki and Fatehpur districts. The gross cropped area was highest in Budaun district and hence it has been better in land-use pattern and Hamirpur poorest in land-use pattern.

127  The cropping intensity was highest i.e. 188.79 percent in Barabanki against the lowest i.e. 106.50 percent in Hamirpur district. While the average cropping intensity in Uttar Pradesh was 153.79 percent. Barabanki, Shahjahanpur and Budaun hare better land-use pattern.  The productivity of rice in Shahjahanpur was comparatively higher than the state average productivity but in Barabanki was slightly lower than the state average productivity. The productivity of wheat in sample districts was higher than the state average productivity of wheat.  The productivity of Bajara in Agra and Budaun was slightly lesser than the state average productivity. The productivity of Arhar in Hamirpur and Fatehpur was much lower than the state average productivity of Arhar.  The total land owned by all the sample farmers was under cultivation and not a single case of leasing-in or leasing-out was reported in the area under study.  In the whole area of study only surface canals and tube-wells were the main sources of irrigation. Tube-wells were utilized more commonly by marginal farmers (64.73 percent). While canals by small farmers (31.58 percent).  Coverage during kharif was 45.87 percent and was covered by paddy. In Rabi 45.20 percent was covered by wheat. A negligible area i.e. 1.53 percent was covered by Rabi vegetables.  Bajara in kharif, wheat in Rabi, were the main crops in Agra and Budaun districts. The coverage in Rabi was higher i.e. 52.47 percent during summer (Zaid) the total coverage was 6.30 percent.  In Hamirpur and Fatehpur during kharif the coverage was 49.29 percent and in Rabi it was 50.70 percent. The maximum was covered by paddy, oilseed and Arhar in kharif and Rabi by paddy and Arhar.  The yields of paddy and wheat were higher on large farms in Shahjahanpur and Barabanki. The yield of sugarcane was higher on marginal farms.  In Arhar rotation districts paddy and wheat were the main food-grain crops. Arhar was found to be cultivated on rainfed and marginal lands only.  The pattern of investments on the farms of all the sample districts was one and the same in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

128  As regards the pattern of live-stocks on the sample farms of selected districts, the buffaloes were raised more commonly in both of these districts under paddy-wheat rotation. In Bajara-Wheat belt too the buffaloes were raised more commonly. In Arhar rotation districts small and large farmers had raised buffaloes more commonly.  There was a total 3.80 percent loss in paddy under rice-wheat belt. The higher loss i.e. 4.18 percent was on marginal farms against the lower i.e. 3.35 percent on large farms. In wheat also loss was highest i.e. 4.16 percent on the marginal farms against lowest i.e. 3.54 percent on large farms.  The maximum loss was incurred in threshing incase of Bajara. In wheat also maximum loss was reported in threshing. The losses were maximum on large farms and minimum on medium farms. In Arhar also maximum losses were in threshing of Arhar on medium farms.  The losses from field to threshing floor were comparatively higher in case of wheat under rice-wheat rotation districts than in case of farm to market. In Bajara-Wheat belt the losses were higher in transport from field to threshing floor.  In Bajara-Wheat rotation districts the losses in wheat was higher during transport from field to threshing floor. In Arhar also the losses were slightly higher in case from field to threshing floor and on large farms it was higher.  The storage in bags was not beneficial as the losses were higher in comparison of storage in steel drums. The storage of wheat in bags was beneficial. In Bajara under Bajara-Wheat districts. The losses were maximum i.e. 4.62 percent on large farms.  In Arhar rotation belt the losses in Arhar was higher (6.62 percent) on medium and large farms. The average losses were 4.94 percent in case of Arhar.  Self consumption was the main item of retention on the farms under rice-wheat rotation districts. The retention was higher on marginal and medium farms of this belt.  In case of wheat under rice-wheat rotation districts the maximum of wheat was retained for self-consumption. While in Bajara-Wheat belt the maximum of bajara was retained for self consumption. In case of wheat in this, belt wheat was retained maximum for self consumption.

129  In case of Arhar in Arhar rotation districts almost entire quantity of Arhar was retained for self consumption only.  As regards sale in market the paddy under rice-wheat belt 61.75 percent of paddy was marketed in regulated market at the distance of 3.15 kms. In wheat 63.73 percent was sold in regulated market.  The sale of bajara in bajara-wheat districts was done 100 percent in regulated market. But Arhar was sold in unregulated market at a distance of 5.90 kms.  The availability of paddy on the aggregate level was 7377.24 qtls. It was higher on marginal and large farms. While that of wheat availability was accounted to 4383.63 qtls. at the aggregate level.  In case of Bajara under bajara-wheat rotation districts the availability at aggregate level was 1790.05 qtls. The availability on marginal farms was comparatively much higher than the farms of all other size-groups. The availability of wheat was 3395.75 qtls. at aggregate level.  The availability of Arhar at aggregate level was 258.63 qtls. and was higher on large farms in comparison of the farms of all other size-groups in these districts.  The sale pattern of paddy under rice-wheat rotation indicates that 61.75 percent of paddy was sold to Govt. agencies and 38.25 percent to private traders. The prices paid by private traders was lesser than that paid by Govt. agencies.  The sale pattern of wheat shows that 68.73 percent of wheat was sold to Govt. agencies and 36.27 percent to private traders. The prices paid by private traders were much lower.  The sale pattern of bajara shows that only 5.82 percent of total bajara was sold to Govt. agencies and 94.18 percent was sold to private traders. The quantity sold by marginal farmers was higher.  The sale pattern of Arhar shows that entire quantity was sold to the private traders in the months of April – May.  The percentages of marketed surplus to production of rice was 75.95 percent and that of wheat was 67.75 percent. Thus, percentage of marketed surplus to production of rice was comparatively higher than that of wheat in the selected districts.

130  The percentage of marketed surplus to production of Bajara was 61.69 percent and that of wheat was 61.19 percent. Thus, marketed surplus to production of bajara was slightly higher than wheat in the bajara-wheat belt.  The percentage of marketed surplus to production of Arhar in Arhar rotation districts was 76.71 percent and was lower than the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of Arhar.  Due to poor infrastructure 73.77 percent of paddy and wheat were sold in local market under rice-wheat rotation districts. There was not any storage or warehouse in the area available any where.  In Bajara-Wheat rotation districts too there was not any facilities of storage and warehouses available in the area.  In Arhar rotation districts 42 percent of farmers sold their produce in regulated market and 33 percent in unregulated markets. No storages was available in the area.  Regarding technological factors 51 percent of sample farmers were aware of MSP and 62 percent of farmers reported less retention for seed and feed and 38 percent about less retention for self consumption.  No contract farming was reported in any of the six selected districts in any village.  In rice 99 percent of farmers had covered under improved seeds. But in case of wheat only 53 percent of area was reported to be covered under improved seeds.  In Bajara-Wheat rotation districts only 21 percent of sample farmers were aware of MSP hence policy awareness was deplorably poor in this area. No contract farming was reported in this belt.  In bajara-wheat rotation districts only 17 percent of area under wheat was covered under improved seed. While that of bajara 39 percent was covered under improved seed.  In Arhar rotation districts 72 percent of sample farmers were aware of MSP. About 40 percent told yes for sale possibilities. 22 Percent reported less retention for seed and feed and 18 percent for self consumption. No contract farming was reported in the area.

131  Regarding institutional factor in rice-wheat rotation districts only 30 percent of farmers had access to credit by commercial banks. 29 percent had Kisan Credit Cards for the limit of 3 years.  Regarding sources of price information majority of farmers reported to receive information by buyers in the villages.  Credit facilities in other selected districts were under pitiable conditions and farmers were quit helpless in this respects.

Conclusions:-

 In the state of Uttar Pradesh the share of primary sector was 30.8 percent of the gross state income wherein the maximum i.e. 26.9 percent was shared by agriculture and animal husbandry. Thus, importance of agriculture and animal husbandry is of paramount importance in the state which lags behind the other states of the country. The area under total cereals has declined over the decades from 1999-2000 to 2009- 10. Kharif area has been shifted from rice to bajara and maize and in Rabi from Gram, Pea, Arhar and Barley to wheat in Uttar Pradesh.  The area, production and productivity of rice has firstly increased till 2001-2002 showing increasing trend but thereafter has shown a declining trend with fluctuations. The trend in area, production and productivity of wheat has been increasing during 1950-51 to 2010-11. The trends in area, production and productivity of Arhar have also been declining with fluctuations in Uttar Pradesh. The trends in area, production and productivity of bajara have also been increasing during 1990-91 to 2010-11.  The ratios of marketable surplus to production were higher in case of Lentil, Barley, Maize and Jowar during 1994-95. The major food-grains whose marketed surplus ratios were higher in Uttar Pradesh were lentil, arhar, rice and bajara during 1994-95.  The cropping intensity was highest i.e. 188.79 percent in Barabanki district against the lowest i.e. 106.50 percent in Hamirpur district. Barabanki, Shahjahanpur and Budaun have better land utilization pattern. The total land owned by all the sample farmers was under cultivation and not a single case of leasing-in or leasing-out was

132 reported in the area of study. The investment pattern was one and the same in the state of Uttar Pradesh.  The maximum loss was incurred in threshing of bajara. In wheat also maximum loss was reported in threshing. The losses were maximum on large farms and minimum on medium farms. In Arhar also maximum losses were in threshing on medium farms.  The storage in bags was not beneficial as the losses were higher in comparison of storage in steel drums. Self consumption was the main item of retention on the farms under rice-wheat rotation districts. The retention was higher on marginal and medium farms of these districts. Maximum of bajara was also retained for self consumption. In arhar too the entire quantity inmost of the cases was retained for self consumption only.  Regarding sale in market the paddy under rice-wheat rotation districts 61.75 percent of paddy was marketed in regulated market at the distance of 3.15 kms. In wheat 63.73 percent was sold in regulated market. The sale of bajara was done 100 percent in regulated market. But arhar was sold in unregulated market at a distance of 5.90 kms.  The percentage of marketed surplus to production of bajara was 61.69 percent and that of wheat was 61.19 percent. The percentage of marketed surplus to production of arhar was 76.71 percent and was lower than the percentage of marketed surplus to marketable surplus of arhar.  Regarding factors affecting the marketed surplus it was found that due to poor infrastructure 73.77 percent of paddy and wheat were sold in local markets. There was not any storage or warehouse.  No contract farming was reported in any village of the six selected districts. In bajara-wheat belt only 21 percent of farmers were aware of MSP. Hence, policy awareness was deplorably poor in the area under the study.  In bajara-wheat rotation districts only 17 percent of the area under wheat was covered under improved seed. While in case of bajara 39 percent was covered under improved seeds.

133  Regarding intuitional factors affecting the marketed surplus in rice-wheat rotation districts only 30 percent of farmers had access to credit by commercial banks. 29 percent of farmers had Kisan Credit Cards for the limit of 3 years.  Regarding sources of price information the majority of farmers reported to receive information by buyers in the villages of selected districts.

Suggestions for Policy Implications:-

11. In the whole state of Uttar Pradesh the marketing of rice, wheat, bajara and arhar is still not assured on the MSP declared by the C.A.C.P. Hence, there is urgent need to implement regulated marketing of these food-grains in Uttar Pradesh strictly. 12. Infrastructural developments are deplorably poor which hampers the market arrivals of marketable surplus. Therefore, it is the first need to provide all weather roads to each and every village at least of the potential pockets in the whole state of Uttar Pradesh. 13. To regulate the market is most essential for saving the farmers from the clutches of the cruel traders. Strict regulated marketing will automatically eradicate the middlemen and rush of private traders who captures the market arrivals of major food-grains. 14. As majority of farmers still depend much for receiving price information by the traders/buyers who use to rush in villages usually and cheat them. Thus, information on prevailing prices in each and every market must be made available to farmers for making proper marketing decisions. 15. In most of the areas in Uttar Pradesh storage/warehouses are almost nil. Thus, farm level storage structures must either be facilitated by the Govt. or the farmers must be provided assistance to develop their own farm level storage structures. 16. To minimize operational losses at farm or farm to threshing floor the farmers must be provided harvesters or combines at cheaper rates so that they may afford the costs. 17. Credit facilities to needy farmers were also reported deplorably poor in Uttar Pradesh. Hence access to credit must be developed by increasing numbers of branches of commercials banks in the villages.

134 18. Adequate quantity of improved seeds must be made available timely to increase marketable surplus by increasing productivity. 19. Contract farming must be encouraged by the Govt. agencies to increase the production with the minimum costs. 20. Farmers must be educated or must be aware that boosting marketed surplus is more essential than boosting agricultural production on their farms.

135