Study No. 137 Publication No. 185

Problems and Prospects of Oilseeds Production in

Prof. Ramendu Roy

2013

Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad-211002 PREFACE

India is an agrarian country because more than 70 per cent population of the country directly depends on agriculture and allied sectors. Agriculture is also backbone of economy of the country. A number of crops are grown in the country. Among the crops, wheat, rice, potato, sugarcane, cotton, vegetables etc are main crops of . The pulses and oilseeds are also sown across the country. These are mostly rainfed crops. India was not self sufficient in food production prior to commencement of Green Revolution while it was self sufficient in pulses and oil seeds. India was importing huge quantity of food grains from global markets to meet food requirement of population of the country. Since the independence, the had paid maximum attention on agriculture sectors to pay maximum investment in this sector through Five Year Plan. The result of investment in agriculture sector was found very positive and significant. The role of green revolution was also very significant in boosting the production of wheat and rice. The production of wheat and rice has increased manifold due to introduction of green revolution. Now the country is not only sufficient in the production of wheat and rice rather these are being exported to foreign countries. The impact of green revolution was mostly confined to only wheat and rice. On account of this, the farmers have changed their cropping pattern in favour of rice and wheat crops. The expansions of irrigation network, commencement of Green Revolution were also responsible to reduce the area under pulses and oilseeds.

There was major setback in the production of oilseeds since 1970s. India was exporter of oilseeds, meals extractions and edible oils till mid 60s. With stagnation in production of oilseeds and rise in population, the production of oilseeds felt short against its demand in early seventies. The demand for edible oil was projected at 10 million tones against the domestic production of 7 million tones. Thus, a short fall of 3 million tones of edible oils had been met by importing edible oil in India. It has also been projected that the demand of edible oils would be 20 million tones per annum by 2015 against the production of edible oils of 7 million tones per annum. To bridge the gap of 13 million tones per annum, the growth rate of 15.10 per annum would be required in the production of edible oils in the country.

- 2 - At present the growth rate of edible oils in only 4% per annum. Therefore, the govt. of India will have to import huge quantities of the edible oils to keep pace with demand of edible oils requirement in years to come.

This is challenge before Govt. of India that how the production and productivity could be increased from present level. A number of constraints are being faced by the farmers in the cultivation of oilseed crops. There is high risk involved in production, yield and price in the production of oilseeds compared with its competing crops. Most of the farmers still hesitate to devote more area under oilseed crops. Taking into account of these aspects, the Ministry of Agriculture Govt. of India has entrusted a study on “Problems and Prospects of oilseeds and oil Palm Production in India” to AERCs to identify major constraints in the edible oilseeds and oil palm cultivation and suggest policy options to increase oilseeds production and productivity in the country, under co-ordinatorship of IIM Ahmedabad. The nine oilseeds are mostly grown in India. Among these oilseeds, rap-seed mustard is most important in Uttar Pradesh which accounted for 13.8% of total area of oilseeds of the country in 2010-11. Therefore, rapeseed/mustard has been allotted to AER Centre, Allahabad to conduct this study in Uttar Pradesh. Three districts namely, , and Lakhimpur were selected. Two hundred farmers from 6 villages of 3 blocks of 3 selected districts were selected to know their views and opinions related to cultivation of rapeseed/mustard. The study reveals that the prospects of mustard are better in U.P. due to continuous hike in the MSP. Now the farmers are taking keen interest in the cultivation of mustard. Against this, the area under soyabean and groundnut found negative trends during the study period.

This study had been planned and conducted under overall my guidance and supervision. The draft of report of the study has been done by Shri. D.K. Singh, Ex. Research Officer of the Centre under my supervision. Sri. Ramji Pandey, Sri. R.S. Maurya, Sri. Hasib Ahmad and Dr. H.C. Malviya collected primary data. The tabulation and analysis of data have been done by Sri. R.S. Maurya and Sri Hasib Ahmad. Smt. Nirupama Nigam typed the report. Shri. H.C. Upadhyay did Xeroxing. Sri S.D. Singh and Mrs. M.R. Kesarwani did secretarial services. I am thankful to all of them. I am also thankful to Prof. Dr. Vijay Paul Sharma, Centre for Management in Agriculture (CAM) IIM, Ahmedabad for their valuable guidance to carry out this study in a scientific way.

- 3 - I am extremely thankful to all the government officials of U.P. for their valuable help and cooperation during collection of primary and secondary data for the study.

Comments and suggestions for the improvement of the report are welcome and will be thankfully acknowledged.

(Ramendu Roy) Agro-Economic Research Centre Prof. & Hon. Director University of Allahabad Allahabad.

Date 29.06.2013

- 4 - CREDIT

Project Director Prof. Ramendu Roy

Drafting of Report Shri D.K. Singh

Collection of Primary Data Shri Ramji Pandey Shri R.S. Maurya Shri Hasib Ahmad Dr. H.C. Malviya

Tabulation & Analysis of Data Shri R.S. Maurya Shri Hasib Ahmad

Functional Analysis Shri Hasib Ahmad

Data Entry & Smt. Nirupama Nigam Computer Operations

Secretarial Services Smt. M.R. Kaserwani & Shri S. D. Singh

Xeroxing Shri H.C. Upadhyay

Support Services Shri Raju Kumar Smt. Ramsawari Shri Virendra Kumar

- 5 - CONTENTS

Pages

Preface 2-4 Credit 5 Contents 6-8 List of Tables 9-11

CHAPTER-I Introduction 12-20 I.I Role of Agriculture in the state economy I.II Importance of Oilseeds in the State Agriculture I.III Problems of Oilseeds Production I.IV Objectives of the Study I.V Organization of the Report CHAPTER-II. Coverage, Sampling Design and Methodology 21-25 II.I Coverage and Sampling Design II.II Conceptual Framework and theoretical Model of the Study CHAPTER- Overview of Oilseeds Sector: Current Status and 26-70 III. Growth Behaviour III.1 Area under selected crops in U.P. between TE 1973-74 and TE 2009-10 III.2 Changes in Gross Cropped Area, Area Expansion and Crop Intensification effects: TE 1973-74 to 2009-10 III.3 Net Changes in Area in Absolute and Relative terms for Major Foodgrain Crops in Selected Districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10 over TE 1993-94. III.4 Net Changes in Absolute and relative Terms in Area of Oilseeds and Sugarcane Crop in Selected Districts of U.P. : TE 1993-94 and 2009-10 III.5 Trends in Average Area, Production and Yield of Oilseeds in the State III.6 Changing Shares of Kharif and Rabi Oilseeds in 71-119 major 15 Oilseeds, 15 Producing districts of the State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 III.7 Share of Selected Oilseed, TE 2009-10 III.8 Share of Oilseeds Acreage in the State to all India Area TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 III.9 Production Share of Major Oilseeds of U.P. in All - 6 - India Production for TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 III.10 Irrigated Area under Oilseeds in the Selected Districts in the State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 III.11 Average Area Production and Yield of Mustard the State: 1951 III.12 Share of Area under Mustard in the Selected districts to Total area under Oilseed Crops in the State: TE 1983-84 to TE 2009-10 III.13 Share of Selected districts in Mustard Production in the State: TE 1983-84 to TE 2009-10 III.14 Share of Mustard Irrigated Area to Area under Mustard and Gross Irrigated Area of the Districts: TE 1983-84 to TE 2009-10 III.15 Growth Trends (Absolute and Compound Annual Growth Rates) in Area, Production and Yield of Mustard (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to 2009-10 III.16 Compound Annual Growth in Production of Mustard in the Selected districts and U.P. as a whole in different decades (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s) and from 1970-71 to 2009-10 III.17 Compound Annual Growth Rate in Productivity of Mustard in Selected Districts and U.P. as a whole in different decades i.e. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to 2009-10 in U.P. III.18 Variability in Area of Mustard in Selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s III.19 Variability in Production of mustard in the selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s III.20 Variability in Productivity of Mustard in Selected Districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s) III.21 Variability in Area, Production and Productivity of Mustard (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s in U.P. III.22 Variability in Annual Whole Sale Prices of Major Oilseeds and Edible Oils in the State. III.23 Variability in Annual Whole sale Prices of Edible Oils in the State (from 1989-90 to 2010-11) CHAPTER-IV Problems and Prospects of Mustard Production: An 71-119 Empirical Analysis IV.1 Main Features of Selected villages IV.2 Main Features of Sample Households IV.3 Leased in - Leased out Land IV.4 Irrigation Sources IV.5 Cropping Pattern IV.6 Average Yield of Major Crops on Sample Households IV.7 Production, Retention and Sale Pattern of Mustard - 7 - IV.8 Profitability of Mustard and its competing crops (Wheat and Potato) IV.9 Coefficient of Variance in area, production and productivity and income of mustard on the sample farms IV.10 Access to Improved Technology and Market IV.11 Sale Pattern of Mustard IV.12 Source of Technology and Market Information IV.13 Constraints in the Cultivation of Oil Seed Crops IV.14 Suggestions for Improving Production and Productivity of Oilseeds CHAPTER-V Summary, Conclusion Observations and Policy 120-135 Implications V.1 Introduction V.2 Objectives of the Study V.3 Coverage, Sampling, Design and Methodology V.4 Main Findings based on Secondary data V.5 Findings based on sample farms data V.6 Constraints V.7 Conclusion V.8 Policy Implications Reference 136-138 Annexure 139-141 Summary 142-160

- 8 - LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Page No. Title of Tables

Chapter–I Table-I- 1 Contribution of Oilseeds in Total Value of Output in Agriculture in U.P. Chapter-II Table-II- 1 Details of Selected Districts of U.P. Table-II- 2 Details of Selected Units Chapter-III Table-III- 1 Area under selected crops in the State: TE1973-74 to TE 2009-10 Table-III- 2 Changes in Gross Cropped Area: Area expansion and crop intensification effects: TE 1973-74 to TE 2009-10 Table-III- 3 Net changes in Area in Absolute and Relative terms for Major Foodgrain Crops in the Selected Districts of State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 (Absolute change (A) in '000 ha; Relative change (R) in percentage) Table-III- 4 Net changes in absolute and relative terms in Area of Oilseeds and Sugarcane Crop in the Selected districts of State: TE1993-94 and TE2009-10 (Absolute change (A) in '000 ha; Relative change (R) in %age) Table-III- 5 Trends in Average Area, Production, and Yield of Oilseeds in the State Table-III- 6 Changing Shares of Kharif and Rabi Oilseeds in Major 15 oilseeds Producing Districts in the State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 Table-III- 7 Share of Selected Oilseeds: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 Table-III- 8 Share of Oilseeds Acreage in the State to all India Area TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 (000 Hect.) Table-III- 9 Production share of Major Oilseeds of U.P. in All India Production : TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 (000MT) Table-III- 10 Irrigated Area under Oilseeds in the Selected Districts in the State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 (000 Hectare) Table-III- 11 Average Area, Production, and Yield of Mustard in the State: 1951- 52 to 2009-10 Table-III- 12 Share of Area under Mustard in the Selected districts to total Area under Oilseed Crops in the State: TE 1983-84, TE 1993-94, TE 2003-2004 and TE 2009-10 Table-III- 13 Share of Selected districts in Mustard Production in State: TE 1983-84 and TE 2009-10 Table-III- 14 Share of Mustard Irrigated Area to Area under Mustard and Gross Irrigated Area of the Districts Table-III- 15 Absolute and Compound Annual Growth Rate in Area of Mustard in different decades i.e. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to - 9 - 2009-10 in U.P. Table-III- 15 Classification of Selected Districts according to Growth in Area A under Mustard (U.P.) Table-III- 16 Absolute and Compound Annual Growth Rate in Production of Mustard in different decades i.e. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to 2009-10 in U.P.

Table-III- 16 Classification of Selected Districts according to Growth in A Production under Mustard (U.P.) Table-III- 17 Absolute and Compound Annual Growth Rate in Productivity of Mustard in different decades i.e. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to 2009-10 in U.P.

Table-III- 17 Classification of Selected Districts according to Growth in A Productivity under Mustard (U.P.) Table-III- 18 Variability in Area of Mustard in Selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s)

Table-III- 19 Variability in Production of Mustard in Selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s)

Table-III- 20 Variability in Productivity of Mustard in Selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s) Table-III- 21 Variability in Area, Production and Productivity of Mustard (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s in U.P.

Table-III- 22 Annual Whole Sale Prices of Major Oilseeds and Wheat in U.P. Table-III- 23 Variability in Annual whole sale Price of in Edible Oils in the State during different year from 1989-90 to 2010-11 (Price per litre) Chapter-IV Table-IV- 1 Socio-economic Status of sample households Table-IV- 2 Land ownership pattern on sample households (ha) Table-IV- 3 Terms of lease Table-IV- 4 Irrigation Sources Table-IV-5 Cropping Pattern Table-IV- 6 Average yield of major crops on sample households Table-IV- 7 Total Oilseeds Production, retention and sale pattern of Mustard (q) Table-IV- 8 Profitability of Mustard on the Sample Farms Table-IV- 8 Profitability of Wheat on Sample Farms (A) Table-IV- 8 Profitability of Potato on Sample Farms (B) Table-IV-8 (C Comparative Profitability of Mustard, Wheat and Potato ) Table-IV-9 Coefficient Variance in Area, Production, Productivity and Income of Mustard on the Sample Farms Table-IV-9 A Variance in Area, Production and Productivity of Wheat - 10 - Table-IV-10 Access to Improved Technology and Markets (%) Table-IV-11 Sale Pattern of Mustard Table-IV-12 Sources of Technology and market information Table-IV-13 Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops Table-IV-13A 2. Agro-Climatic Table-IV-13 3. Economic B Table-IV-13 4. Institutional C Table-IV-13 Post Harvest, Marketing and Value Additional C (Continue) Table-IV-14 Composite Indices for Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops on Sample Farms Table-IV-14A Variances of Composite Indices for Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops on Sample Farms Table-IV-15 Suggestions for improving production and productivity of oilseeds Chapter-V Table-V-1 Details of Selected Districts of U.P. Table-V-2 Details of Selected Units Table-V-3 Composite Indices for Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops on Sample Farms References

- 11 -

CHAPTER-I

Introduction

India is an agrarian country because the livelihood of more than 60% population of the country is directly or indirectly dependent on agriculture and allied sectors. At present, around 65% population of the country resides in rural areas. The agriculture is a major livelihood option for a large section of the community. Therefore, agriculture is an important sector of our economy as majority of rural population continues to be engaged in and dependent on it. It is an unfortunate thing that the farmers are unable to get a reasonable return on the time and money invested by them in agricultural activities. On account of these, suicide cases among the farmers have been occurring in few states of the country. The economic condition of farmers is very deplorable and facing serious crises. The productivity capacity of land has been decreasing due to unbalanced use of fertilizers and pesticides. The production of crops has not been increasing at par with increase in population of the country. A research has forecasted that the population of the country will increase to 1.50 billion by the end of 2016. At that time, the country would be in deficit of 169 crore tones of food grains.

More than 18% population of world resides in India, while its share in land is only 2 per cent of the total land of world. Of the total geographical area of India, 14.1 crore hectares of land is only cultivated. Out of 14.1 crore hectares of cultivated land, only 5.5 (39.90%) crore hectares land is irrigated and 61% land is still un- irrigated.

The productivity of crops in irrigated land is about 4 tones per hectare while it is only 1 tone in un-irrigated land. As per estimation of Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, the area under cultivable land has decreased to about 20 lakh hectares from 1990 to 2005 due to expansion of urbanization, industrialization etc. It has been estimated that area under cultivation was decreasing at rate of 1.96 lakh hectares per annum during 1980-90 which has increased to 2.25 lakh hectares during last decade. It shows that per capita availability of land has been decreasing year by year across the country. The per capita availability of cultivated

- 12 - land was 0.27 hectare in previous decades while it is 0.18 hectare at present. Out of total farmers of country, more than 82 per cent is small and marginal farmers who posses less than 2 hectares land. Even then, the dependence of farmers are increasing on agriculture. As per census 1991, 18.53 crore population of the country was engaged in agriculture which has increased to 23.41 crore by the end of 2001, registering 26 per cent increase over the period.

At present, the country is self sufficient in production of rice, wheat and sugarcane while the production of oilseeds and pulses is less than the requirement. The country is importing these two commodities from foreign counties to fulfill the consumption need of people. The production of rice in the country was 8.90 crore tones in 2008-09 which has increased to 10.43 crore tones in 2011-12. In the same manner, the production of wheat has also increased to 9.39 crore tones in 2011-12 from 8 crore tones in 2008-09. On account of this, country has exported about 8 thousand crore tones of rice and wheat in last year. In spite of these facts, the contribution of agriculture to GDP was not satisfactory. The contribution of agriculture in GDP was estimated at 30% in 1990s which has decreased to 14% at present. The growth rate in agriculture is less than 3% per annum in India against 6% of other countries. It shows that the growth of agriculture is neither satisfactory nor encouraging in comparison to other sectors.

Prior to commencement of Green Revolution, India was self sufficient in edible oilseeds and oils. India was also exporter of edible oilseeds. After introduction of Green Revolution in India, the production of oilseeds has decreased sharply in early seventies. On account of sharp decrease in production of oil seeds, the country has become importer of edible oils in eighties. It was major items in the list of importer commodities. This was major challenge before the Government of India to get self sufficiency in the production of oil seeds by use of better package of practices in the cultivation of oilseed crops. To over come the stagnation in oilseeds production in the country, the Government of India had launched “Technology Mission on Oilseeds (TMO)” in May 1986 to increase the production of oilseeds, reduce its imports and achieve self sufficiency in edible oil. In a due course of time, a number of programs had also been launched namely Oil Palm Development Programme (OPDP), Integrated Scheme on Oilseeds, Pulses, Oil Palm and Maize (ISOPOM) across the country to boost the production of edible oil. These programmes had produced a good result because the production of oilseeds had increased significantly by 86% from 10.83 million tones in 1985- - 13 - 86 to 20.11 million tones in 1992-93. As a result of this, the import of oilseeds had come down by 95% during the corresponding period.

India is one of the most oilseed producing countries of the world. About 10% of the total production of oilseeds of world is produced by India. As far as production of vegetable oil is concerned, India contributes 6.7% to the global production of vegetable oil. Oilseed crops occupy 14.9% of the gross cropped area in the country. The contribution of oilseeds in total value of output was estimated to 9.7% in TE 2009-10. It shows that oilseeds are generally sown in different agro-climatic regions of the country. However, the most of oilseeds are localized and sown in particularly agro-climatic zones, Soyabean is sown mostly in Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan which accounted for 95% of total production of the country. Next important oilseed crop is groundnut which is generally grown in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, , Rajasthan, and Maharashtra. Third more important oilseed is rapeseed/mustard which is grown in Rajasthan, U.P., Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. Apart from these oilseed crops, sunflower and sesame are also oilseeds which are grown in few parts of the country. The area under oilseeds has increased from 18.9 million hectares in TE 1885-86 to about 26 million hectares in TE 1993-94. The production of oilseeds has also increased from 12.1 million tones to 20 million tones during corresponding period. The increase in production of oilseeds was due to increase in average yield from 644 kg/ha to 722 kg/ha in the country. In spite of this, the productivity level of oilseeds are very low as compared to other countries, the reason for this is that most of oilseeds are grown in rainfed areas and neglected fields. The availability of edible oil is much low than the requirement in the country. It has been estimated that more than 50% of total requirement of edible oils is being imported to fulfill present requirement.

1.1 Role of Agriculture in State Economy

The is predominantly agrarian and performance of agriculture and allied activities has always been critical in determining the growth rate of the state. Uttar Pradesh is most populous and backward state of the country. Flood and drought are common phenomena in the state. The agriculture is main pursuit for livelihood of majority of population of the state. More than 70 % population of the state lives in villages and their main source of income are agriculture and allied activities. The agriculture is backbone of the

- 14 - state economy. Of the geographical area of 24170 thousand hectares, net area sown accounted for 68.63% and net irrigated area accounted for 55.37% during 2009-10. Of the gross irrigated area being 19354 thousand hectares Tube-wells (diesel and electric) accounted for 71.80% followed by 19.1% by canal. The per capita availability of cultivated land has been decreasing sharply in the state. At present, the per capita availability of land is estimated at about 0.083 hectare in 2009-10. The density of population was 828 per sq km. in 2011 against 382 per sq km. of the country. The cropping intensity was worked out at 153.35% in 2009-10. As per census 2001, 79.22% of total population of state was living in villages. Of the total population of rural areas, the farmers accounted for 30.28% followed by 14.05% agriculture labours in 2001. The distribution of land is very uneven in the state. Out of total holding, the marginal farmers accounted for 77.95% followed by 13.82%, 6.20% and 2.03% of small, medium and large farmers respectively. The small and marginal farmers jointly accounted for 91.77% of total farmers. Thus, more than 91.77% of the small and marginal farmer’s posses less than two hectares land. It shows that most of the farms of the state are economically unviable. The state is economically very poor because about 30% population of the state is living below poverty line. The contribution of agriculture to GDP was about 51% which has come down to 26.8% at current price in 2010-11. The per capita income was Rs. 26,355 at current price in 2011-12. The annual growth rate in agriculture income at current price was estimated at 2.5% between period 2004-05 and 2010-11 which was lower than annual growth rate from other sectors. It shows that annual growth rate of income from agriculture sector was far below from targeted annual growth rate of 4% per annum. The reason for slow annual growth rate of income from agriculture sector was due to less investment in the development of infrastructural facilities. There is a preponderance of small and marginal farmers. The total food grains production in the state was 440.64 lakh tones during 2009-10 which is about 21% of the country’s total production. The rice and wheat are main crops and grown across the state. The production of wheat was 27.52 million tones in 2009-10 in the state which is about 34% of national production and highest among all the states of the country. The production of rice in state was 10.81 million tones in 2009- 10 which was more than 12.13% of the national production and third highest among all the states. The sugarcane and potato are main cash crops of the state. The production of sugarcane in 2009-10 was 117.14 million tones which is highest among all the states. The state is the

- 15 - largest producers of potato with production of 128.50 lakh tones in 2009-10. Apart from these, the state also produces maximum quantity of milk, fish, silk etc. The per capita availability of food grain was 2.24 qtl in 2009-10 which was less than 2.74 qtl in the year 2001-02. The per capita availability of oilseeds in 2009-10 was only 4 kg in the state. The production of vegetables, fruits, flowers is also very satisfactory in the state. However, the productivity of cereals, pulses, oilseeds is very low in comparison to agriculturally advanced states of the country. On account of this, the contribution of agriculture in GDP has been decreasing year by year in U.P.

1.2. Importance of Oilseeds in the State Agriculture

No doubt, India has a prime place in area as well as in production of oilseeds among the major oilseeds producing countries of the world but it is not sufficient against the requirement for ever growing population of the country. According to estimate by National Council of Applied Economics Research (NCAER) in the year 2000-01 that demand for edible oil was 10 million tones against domestic production of 7 million tones. NCAER had also forecasted that the demand of edible oils would be about 20 million tones per annum by the year 2015 against the projection of production of edible oils is about 7 million tones per annum during the same period. To fulfill the gap of 13 million tones per annum, the efforts will have to be required to accelerate growth rate of production of oilseeds by 15% per annum against existing growth rate of 4% per annum. For accelerating the production of oilseeds, Uttar Pradesh can play a prime role in years to ahead. Uttar Pradesh has rich soil and agro-climatic condition which are also suitable for oilseed crops. The irrigation network is better to use the better technology in the cultivation of oilseed crops. In spite of better agro-climatic condition, the average yield of oilseeds is low as compared to neighbouring states. Of the total area under oilseeds in the country, U.P. accounted for only 5.60%. Most of oilseeds, namely rapeseed/mustard, linseed, groundnut, sunflower and sesame are grown in the state. Among these oilseed crops, mustard accounted for lion’s share being 84.28% followed by 7.18% of groundnut. Uttar Pradesh is second largest producer of mustard next to Rajasthan. The most popular oilseed is mustard in U.P. Groundnut and sesame are kharif season oilseeds while mustard and linseed are rabi oilseeds. The total area under oilseeds was 3.48 lakh hectares in 1950-51 which has jumped to 9.40 lakh hectares in 2008-09, showing 172.24% increase over the period. As far as mustard is concerned, the area under mustard

- 16 - was 1.18 lakh hectares in 1950-51 which has increased to 6.22 lakh hectares in 2008-09, registering more than four times increase over the period. Against this, the area under groundnut and linseed has decreased sharply during corresponding period. It shows that total area under oilseeds in U.P. has been maintaining increasing trend from 1950-51 to 2008-09. The maximum increase in area under mustard was noticed followed by sesame during the study period. The contribution of oilseeds in total value of output in agriculture in U.P. from 2004-05 to 2010-11 is shown in Table-I-1. Table-I.1 shows that the contribution of oilseeds in total value of output of agriculture was 2.6% at current price during 2004-05 which has marginally decreased to 2.4% during 2010-11. The contribution of oilseeds in total value of output of agriculture ranged between 2.4% and 2.9% at current prices during the study period. It shows that contribution of oilseeds in agriculture income is very meager as compared to other crops. As far as contribution of oilseeds in total value of output in agriculture at constant price is concerned, table-I-1 shows that the contribution of oilseeds was 2.6% during 2004-05 which has decreased to 2.1% in 2010-11. The maximum contribution of oilseeds in agriculture income was 2.9% in 2007-08 followed by 2.8% in 2005-06. It ranged between 2.1% and 2.9% in 2010-11 and 2007-08 respectively. This analysis shows that contribution of oilseeds in total value of output of agriculture at current and constant prices was more or less same during study period. It reflects that oilseed crops are not getting due weightage as compared to sugarcane, potato, rice, wheat etc. Table I.1 Contribution of Oilseeds in Total Value of Output in Agriculture in U.P. Years At Constant Prices (2004-05 Prices) At Current Prices Value of Value of % Value of Value of % Oilseed Output in Contribution Oilseed Output in Contribution (Lakh Rs.) Agriculture of oilseed in (Lakh Rs) Agriculture of oilseed in (Lakh Rs) Agriculture (Lakh Rs) Agriculture 2004-05 181857 7131642 2.6 181857 713642 2.6 2005-06 206963 7236017 2.9 218999 7905410 2.8 2006-07 192735 7398282 2.6 208879 8633965 2.4 2007-08 188217 7632799 2.5 268686 9406820 2.9 2008-09 200365 7958783 2.5 262429 11564717 2.3 2009-10 211142 7860782 2.7 292839 12827158 2.3 2010-11 198159 8260271 2.4 295023 14155362 2.1 Source: State Planning Institute .

- 17 -

Food and nutrition security are most important for ever growing population of Uttar Pradesh. The total production of foodgrain was 446.64 lakh MT in the state in 2009-10 of which cereal accounted for 95.73% followed by 4.27% pulses.

As far as oilseeds are concerned, it’s contribution in total foodgrain was about 1.81% in 2009-10. Out of total production of oilseeds being 8.08 lakh MT, rapeseed /mustard accounted for 84.28% followed by 7.18% of groundnut. It shows that mustard is most popular oilseed crop in U.P. It has been estimated that the population of U.P. will reach 26 crore by end of 2020 for which 54.19 lakh MT oilseeds will be required. Hence, the maximum emphasis will have to be given to oilseed crops for boosting its production and productivity to provide nutritional and food security to people of the state.

1.3. Problem of Oilseeds Production

Uttar Pradesh is a large state of the country and has very wide range of agro-climatic conditions. The state is divided into 9 agro-climatic zones. However, the oilseeds are grown in almost all agro-climatic zones but there are vast differences in productivity of oilseed crops across different agro-climatic zones. The maximum area of mustard is confined to semi arid area of the state. The south western semi arid zone is most potential for better production of mustard. Agra and districts of this zone accounted for 8.52% and 7.76% respectively of total area of mustard of the state in 2010-11. The average yield of mustard was 18.15 qtls and 17.56 in Mathura and Agra districts respectively in 2010-11 which were maximum among all 72 districts of U.P. The average Yield of Mustard at state level was only 11.88 qtls in 2010-11. The average yield of mustard in U.P. was mostly stagnant from 1995- 96 to 2008-09. It ranged between 8.96 qtls and 11.56 qtls per hectare from 1995-96 to 2008- 09. Except sesame, the average yield per hectare of groundnut and linseed was also more or less stagnant during corresponding period.

In spite of the best efforts, the production of oilseeds could not be pushed upto the desired targets. The price factor could not be exerted for its positive effect on area allocation under oilseed crops. Since, the commencements of Green Revolution, the attitude of farmers towards the farming has changed. The farmers have inclined to devote more area to wheat and paddy than oilseeds.

- 18 -

The oilseed crops were generally grown in un-irrigated land in most parts of the state. Due to expansion of irrigation net works, there was significant charge in cropping pattern in favour of cereal and commercial crops. On account of this, the area under ground nut and linseed has decreased considerably in most of the districts of Uttar Pradesh. The yield of oilseed crops is very low as compared to wheat, rice etc. in U.P. It is also very risky crops. The farmers are not assured to get proper yield from oilseeds. The seed replacement ratio of oilseeds is very low as compared to its competing crops. These are major problems of oilseeds production in U.P.

Most of the farmers of the state are small and marginal, therefore, their first preference is to get cereals from their land for daily consumption. This is also a bottle neck in the expansion of area under oilseeds.

In the absence of improved technology, non-availability of inputs, bad weather and attack of pests, insects and diseases etc. are basic causes for low production of oilseeds in the state.

The lack of adequate market facilities are most important constraints in the way of expansion of oilseeds production. Besides this, the remuneration prices of oilseeds were not adequate in last few years back, so the farmers were not much interested in the cultivation of oilseed crops . 1.4 Objectives of the Study

Following objectives of the study have been framed to get fruitful results.

1. To examine trends and pattern of growth of different edible oilseeds over time and across states/districts and identity the sources of growth in edible oilseeds in India/State. 2. To identity major constraints in edible oilseeds cultivation and suggest policy options to increase oilseeds production and productivity in the state.

- 19 - 1.5 Organization of the Report

The report is divided into five chapters to facilitate the proper representation of cited objectives.

1. Introduction 2. Coverage, Sampling, Design and Methodology 3. Overview of Oilseeds Sector, Current Status and Growth Behaviour 4. Problems and Prospects of Oilseeds, Production , An empirical Analysis 5. Summary, Conclusion, Observations and Policy Implications

- 20 - CHAPTER-II

Coverage, Sampling Design and Methodology

II.1. Coverage and Sampling Design

As it has already been mentioned in the first chapter of the report that the mustard, linseed, groundnut and sesame are the major oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh which occupied 66.05%, 3.75%, 9.30% and 19.01% of total area of oilseeds of Uttar Pradesh during 2008-09 respectively. Thus, rapeseed/mustard crop had been allotted by IIM Ahemdabad to this centre to study its, “Problems and Prospects in context of Uttar Pradesh”. Out of 72 districts of U.P., , , Lalitpur, Hamirpur, , , Hardoi, Kheri, , Barabanki, Dehat, , Etah, Agra and Mathura districts had occupied more than 10 thousand hectares land under mustard in 2010-11. The sampling design and methodology of the study have been fully adopted as per guideline given by coordinator centre, IIM Ahmdabad. Three districts have been selected on basis of average and production share. The district wise latest (2010-11) data of area, production and productivity have been collected from Directorate of Statistics of U.P., Lucknow. The selection of districts was based on area and yield of mustard in 2010-11 as per following classification:

Area Yield High Low High High Area-High Yield (HH) High Area -Low Yield (HL) Low Low Area-High Yield (LH) Low Area -Low yield (LL)

The 72 districts of the state have been classified according to area and yield. Among the 72 districts, had high area and high yield (HH) of mustard in 2010-11. The area under mustard was 51,457 hectares while the production and productivity were 90358 qtls and 17.50 qtls respectively in 2010-11. Therefore, Agra district has been selected for 1st category (HH). The selection for 2nd category i.e. low area-high yield (LH), has been found appropriate among all the districts of the state. Hence, this district has been selected for low area and high yield (LH). The area under mustard in the district was 9,959

- 21 - hectares and productivity was only 15.24 qtls in 2010-11. In the case of selection of district for High area low yield (HL) was found appropriate because the area under mustard was 30,775 hectares but yield was 9.20 qtls per hectare. On account of this, Lakhimpur Kheri has been selected for third category from 72 districts of Uttar Pradesh. The details of category-wise selected districts are shown in Table-II.1 Table-II.1 Classification of Categories Name of the Selected districts I High Area- High Yield (HH) Agra II Low Area- High Yield (LH) Etah III High Area-Low Yield (HL) Lakhimpur Kheri

These three districts have been selected among 72 districts of U.P. for the study. These selected districts also belong to different agro-climatic zones of U.P.

At the second stage, one mustard producing block from each selected district has been selected. Two villages from the each selected block have been selected for the selection of respondents. Thus, 6 villages from 3 blocks of 3 selected districts were the second unit of sampling of the study.

At the third stage, a list of farmers of 6 villages have been prepared and arranged in ascending order to their size of owned land. The number of farmers have been categorized into four groups namely marginal (<1.00 ha.) Small (1-2 ha.), Medium (2-10 ha.) and Large (>10 ha.)The sample households were selected on probability proportion to their numbers in different categories of farms with a condition that at least 20 households to be represented for each category of farm. A total 200 households have been selected from 6 villages of 3 blocks of 3 selected districts of Uttar Pradesh for the study. The details selected units are illustrated in table II.2:

- 22 - Table II.2 Details of Selected Units

Name of the No. of No. of No. of selected households selected districts selected selected Marginal Small Medium Large All blocks village Agra (HH) 1 2 24 19 28 8 79 Etah (LH) 1 2 14 20 12 4 50 Lukhimpur Kheri 1 2 17 29 17 8 71 (HL) Total 3 6 55 68 57 20 200

II.2 Conceptual Framework

Nine oilseeds are produced in the country. Of the nine oilseeds, groundnut, soyabean, sesame rapeseed/mustard, linseed and sunflower are produced in U.P. The area and production of soyabean and groundnut have been decreasing year by year in U.P. but against these, area and production of rapeseed/mustard and sesame have been increasing during the corresponding period in the state due to increase in the harvest price of mustard and sesame. The economic factors also play major role in increasing the area under crops. In the crop, production adjustments, one crop gain at the cost of others is followed. Therefore, the propagation to increase the area under a particular crop destabilizes the production behaviour in the long-run. Farm operators generally face a number of constraints while making production decision in response to changes in the economic environments.

It is very seldom that they are hundred per cent responsive to make adjustments in response to various economic stimuli like price of output, cost of production and productivity. In a dynamic agricultural technology situation such constraints still become more severe.

The profitability of crop production generally depends on two aspects, i.e. organizational aspects and research and extension aspects. The organizational aspects consist of (i) price structure of output (ii) extent of use of modern agricultural inputs (III) price of inputs (iv) productivity of crop. The research and extension aspects consist of evolving and diffusion of HYV seeds under prevailing agro-climatic conditions.

- 23 - Inspite of economic factors influencing crop allocation, there are other techno-institutional and subjective factors which have influenced the decision of farmers to cultivate oilseed crops. The relative risk in oilseeds production is attributed to the variability of yield and area.

Generally it is seen that area allocation to the particular crop is governed by household consumption need of the crop, relative market prices of crops grown, cash need through cash crops etc. Price is one of the factors of area allocation to the particular crop cultivation. The hypothesis that relative profitability contribute significantly to area shift between mustard and its competing crops does not hold true. The factors related to techno-institutional and structural aspects are main limiting constraints which prohibit the relative profitability factor to operate under present economic conditions. The mustard cultivation is more risky as compared to wheat cultivation. Prices too played an important role in the dynamics of farmers acreage decision, but as per our hypothesis implies that price influences acreage as much as does the yield. The farmers in the study area do not relied to the relative prices of mustard and wheat crops alone but taken yield as an equivalent factor for acreage change. This can be seen from the fact that in the study area where the positive response is indicated the yield too has a strong influence.

II.3. Theoretical Model of the Study

In spite of economic factors, influencing crop allocation, there are other techno-Institutional and subjective factors which, has influenced the decision of farmers to cultivate mustard crop. The relative risk in mustard production is attributed to the variability of yield and area. The coefficient of variation of yield and area for mustard had decreased to some extent in Uttar Pradesh The production risk of mustard is equally related to yield risk as well as area risk in Uttar Pradesh The farmers do not attach much importance to marketing risks, price risks and productivity risks in the cultivation of mustard but they are much responsive to weather risk. The production of mustard, the relative risk (relative to wheat) in yield has decreased but not as much as the corresponding decrease in relative risk in area allocation.

The farmer’s income is single most important barometer to judge the impact of adopted technologies in the crop production and crop planning. The fluctuation in composition of farmer’s crop income generally determines cropping pattern and crop rotation. The incomes in its various forms have been worked out for describing profitability concept of the sample - 24 - farmers. Indian farm Management concept have been used to estimate the crop income, the statistical tools are used to provide the exact decomposition of the components of change in the mean and variance of mustard area, production and productivity. This method of analysis does not impose any behavioral assumptions on data but reveals how it really works. It is however, able to identify the importance.

The change variances of production (▲VQ) can be decomposed in a analogous way. The changes in mean yield, changes in mean area, interaction between changes in mean area and mean yield and change in area yield covariance-parallel the source of change in average production are also theoretical model of the study.

To ascertain the trends in the growth of area, production and yield of mustard the following exponential function has been used.

Y= a b which is expressed in the following log form Log y=Log a + t log b B= (i+r) *100 Where y= Area/ Production / yield of mustard in the year t T= time period taking 1,2,3…….n A= intercept, b=Regression coefficient The compound growth rates have been worked out on following formula. CGR (r) = (antilog b-1) 100 To measure variability, following formula has been used. CV%= (Standards deviation/mean) * 100 CV% = Coefficient of variation in per cent

- 25 - CHAPT ER-III

Overview of Oilseeds Sector: Current Status and Growth Behaviour

An attempt has been made in this chapter to analyse the over all performance of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh at different periods. The current and growth behaviour of oilseeds in most producing districts of U.P. have also been analyzed in details to know the “Problems and Prospects of oilseeds in U.P”. The findings are based on the analysis of secondary data published from different statistical bulletins, magazines, research papers etc.

The oilseeds are generally grown in the dry land belts, whenever farmers get better infrastructural facilities in such areas, they prefer to grow paddy, wheat, potato in place of oilseeds. Though the edible oils are important components of Indian diet but the production of oilseed has not been significantly increased to commensurate with demand of people. Presently, the availability and requirement of oilseeds are not in equilibrium. The production of oilseed has increased but it is not at par with the population increases, therefore, the gap between demand and supply of oilseeds has also widened during 1993-94 to 2009-10. The major set-back is found in production of Kharif oilseeds, viz ground nut and soyabean. The oilseeds are sown largely under not only in rainfed conditions but also low application of fertilizers and pesticides doses, therefore, the productivity of oilseeds tend to be low and is highly unstable depending upon weather conditions. A major part of standing crop of oilseeds is being damaged in every year which is beyond the human control. Thus, anticipating higher risk farmers are not willing to adopt even modern techniques in the cultivation of oilseeds, hence, neither acreage nor production of oilseeds has been increasing upto optimum level.

The Government of India had paid due attention to popularize the cultivation of soyabean, sunflower and groundnut in Uttar Pradesh but result was not upto the desired mark. The total population of U.P. was 13.20 crore in 1991 which has increased to 19.96 crore in 2011, showing 51.21% increase over the period. The total production of oilseed which was 3.80 thousand MT in 1970-71 has increased to 809 thousand MT in 2009-10, showing 112.63%

- 26 - increase over the period. The per capita availability of oilseeds was 233 Kg per annum in 1970-71 which has decreased to 0.40 Kg in 2009-10.

III.1. Area under selected crops in U.P. between TE 1973-74 and TE 2009-10

The area under different crops between TE 1973-94 and TE 2009-10 in U.P. is shown in Table III.1. Table-III.1 reveals that area under wheat accounted for 37.57% to GCA followed by 22.22% of rice in TE 2009-10 against 26.38% and 19.67% in TE 1973-74 respectively. The percentage allocation of area under wheat and rice to GCA has been maintaining increasing trend from TE 1973-74 to TE 2009-10 in U.P. Against this, percentage allocation of area under pulses to GCA has been decreasing continuously from TE 1973-74 to 2009-10. The total area under pulses accounted for 15.24% to GCA in TE 1973-74 which was 9.34% in TE 2009-10. It is also noticed from Table -III.1 that the area under total oilseeds accounted for 3.05% to GCA in TE 1973-94 which has been marginally increased to 3.98% in TE 2009- 10, registering an increase of 30.49% over the period. The maximum share of oilseeds of GCA was 4.50% in TE 1993-94 while in other remaining study period, the area under oilseeds was more or less stagnant. The area under groundnut and soyabean has been continuously decreasing during study period. The area under rapeseed/mustard and sesame has been increasing during corresponding period. The area under total coarse cereals accounted for 20.28% to GCA in TE 1973-74 which has come down at 8.11% in TE 2009- 10. The area under total coarse cereals has been decreasing from year to year in U.P.

III.2. Factors underlying Change in Cropping Pattern

About 90% of food comes from land based farming. Land is shrinking due to competing demands for its uses of other purpose, while population growth is loading to increasing pressure on the carrying capacity of land. The deforestation, mismanagement of water etc. the fertility of land is also coming down year by year. Therefore, the change in cropping pattern has been taking place since the introduction of green revolution and expansion of irrigational facilities. The factors responsible for changing in cropping pattern in the context of U.P. have been described in following manners.

- 27 - I. Introduction of Green Revolution Since the introduction of Green revolution in U.P., the area of coarse cereals, pulses and oilseeds has been shifted to wheat and paddy crops to get higher yield and income.

II. Expansion of Irrigation Net-Work Since, the very beginning of first Five Year Plan, maximum attention was paid to increase the irrigated land by construction of canals and installation of tube-wells and pump-sets. The most of un-irrigated land have been converted into irrigated land. The coarse cereal crops, pulses and oilseeds were generally grown in un-irrigated land. Due to expansion of irrigation facilities, the un-irrigated area has been converted into irrigated land. Thus, area of pulses, oilseeds and coarse cereals has been shifted to wheat, paddy and vegetable crops. The foodgrain reserves more important for food security than other crops. Hence, the farmers give first preference to cereal crops than other crops.

III. Economic Viability

The cost risk and return structure of crops influence the decision on cropping pattern. An average farmer produces primarily for subsistence not for commercial ends. IV. Remunerative Prices

The Government provides the remunerative prices to the farmers with a view to stepping up production of crops. The farmers devote more area under those crops which are more remunerative. At present, the commercial crops such as mentha, potato, sugarcane, floriculture are more remunerative than the cereals, pulses, oilseeds, etc, so they are getting more preference in cropping pattern.

V. Non-Availability of Quality seeds

Non-availability of quality seeds is a major factor, limiting large scale cultivation of oilseeds and pulses. Against this, the quality seeds of paddy and wheat are available in abundance quantity in the markets. Hence, the farmers give more importance to wheat paddy and maize crops in cropping pattern than pulses and oilseeds to get high production. Non-availability of high potential and disease resistance varieties of oilseeds are limiting factors. The oilseed crops are highly susceptible to pests and diseases than the wheat and paddy crops.

- 28 - Table-III.1 Area under selected crops in the State: TE1973-74 to TE 2009-10

Area (Thousand) Crops TE 1973-74 TE 1983-84 TE 1993-94 TE 2003-04 TE 2009-10 Rice 4522 5268 5230 5671 5653 Wheat 6063 8199 8582 9289 9559 Total coarse cereals 4662 4053 2847 2283 2063 Total cereals 15247 17520 16659 17243 17275 Total pulses 3503 2953 2867 2708 2377 Total foodgrains 18750 20473 19526 19951 19652 Groundnut 332 264 126 92 92 Rapeseed and Mustard 245 405 781 554 593 Soybean - - 18 7 -9 Sunflower - - 29 -7 - Til (Sesame) 56 49 98 93 287 linseed 68 94 99 38 -32 Total oilseeds 701 812 1151 791 1013 Cotton 48 318 12 - - Sugarcane 1352 1707 1782 2098 211 25442 Total cropped area 22986 24849 25503 25061

Percent to Total/Gross Cropped Area Crops TE 1973-74 TE 1983-84 TE 1993-94 TE 2003-04 TE 2009-10 Rice 19.67 21.20 20.51 22.63 22.22 Wheat 26.38 33.00 33.65 37.07 37.57 Total coarse cereals 20.28 10.31 11.16 9.11 8.11 Total cereals 66.33 70.51 65.32 68.81 67.90 Total pulses 15.24 11.88 11.24 10.80 9.34 Total foodgrains 81.57 82.39 76.56 79.61 77.24 Groundnut 1.44 1.06 0.49 0.36 0.36 Rapeseed and Mustard 1.04 1.63 3.06 2.21 2.33 Soybean - - 0.07 0.03 0.03 Sunflower - - 0.11 0.03 - Til 0.24 0.20 0.38 0.37 1.13 Linseed 0.30 0.38 0.39 0.15 0.13 Total oilseeds 3.05 3.27 4.50 3.15 3.98 Cotton 0.21 1.28 0.05 - - Sugarcane 5.88 6.87 6.99 8.37 8.31 Source: State Planning Institute, Lucknow.

- 29 - There is 100% risk in the cultivation of oilseed crops. Therefore, the choice of farmers is much inclined in favour of insured crops than the risky crops. These are the basic factors to influence the decision of farmers during the allocation of areas under different crops on their farms. Apart from these, variable weather conditions, soil type and management system followed with specificity and intensity are also key factors in changing of cropping pattern.

III.2 Changes in Gross Cropped Area, Area Expansion and Crop Intensification effects: TE 1973-74 to 2009-10

The change in gross cropped area, area expansion and crop intensification and change in gross irrigated and net irrigated areas, etc. have been worked out in Table III.2 from TE 1973-74 to 2009-10. Apart from this, decade-wise changes in, GCA, NSA, GIA NIA have also been estimated in Table III.2. It is evident from Table-III.2 that GCA was expanded from TE 1973-74 to TE 2009-10. Hence, change in GCA was most positive during TE 1993- 94 to TE 2009-10. The change in GCA was marginal between TE 1973-94 to TE 2009-10 in U.P.

The net area sown in U.P. has been decreasing throughout the study periods. It is also noticed from Table-III.2 that there was sharp decrease in net area sown. The change in NSA was mostly negative in almost all the years. There was no expansion of NSA from TE 1973-74 to TE 2009-10 in U.P. The crop intensification also not occurred due to decrease in NSA. It shows that the major portion of NSA has been utilizing for other purposes in each year in the state. Due to urbanization and industrialization, expansion of infrastructure facilities etc. the cultivated land is being acquired at a very large scale in every year in the state. However, the GIA and NIA have been increasing significantly during corresponding period. It shows that irrigation facilities has been expending very fast in the state. There was positive change in GIA and NIA in subsequent decades.

- 30 - Table-III.2 Changes in Gross Cropped Area: Area expansion and crop intensification effects: TE 1973-74 to TE 2009-10 (000) Indicators TE 1973-74 TE 1983-84 TE 1993-94 TE 2003-04 TE 1973-74 to 1983-84 to 1993-94 to 2003-04 to 2009-10 to 2009-10 Change in GCA 1863 654 -109 16 2424 Change in GIA 3600 3966 2249 1190 11005 Area Expansion 1863 654 00 00 00 Net Sown Area (NSA) 23 -7 -523 -196 -703 Net irrigated area (NIA) 2595 1543 1657 409 6204 Crop intensification 1840 647 0 0 0 GCA - NSA 1840 647 -632 -180 1721 GIA - NIA 1005 2423 592 781 4801 Source: State Planning Institute, Lucknow.

III.3. Net Changes in Area in Absolute and Relative terms for Major Foodgrain Crops in Selected Districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10 over TE 1993-94.

The net changes in area in absolute and relative terms of major foodgrain crops in selected oilseed producing districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10 over TE 1993-94 is analysised in Table III.3. I. Rice

Rice is the most important cereal crop and it is grown across the state. The acreage of rice fluctuates very much from year to year. The acreage of rice depends on the occurrence of good monsoon. The area under rice had increased by 11% in TE 2009-10 over the area under rice in TE 1993-94 in U.P. Among the 15 selected districts, the area under rice has decreased in 6 districts in TE 2000-09. The maximum decrease in area under rice was noticed in 3 districts in TE 2009-10 which belonged to Bundelkhand region of U.P., these are rainfed districts of U.P.

II. Wheat

Wheat is a dominant crop of U.P. It stands first rank in area as well in production among all the states of the country. The area of wheat has increased by 12% in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94 in U.P. Table III.3 shows that of the 15 selected districts, the area of wheat has decreased in 4 districts namely Agra, Kanpur Dehat, Etah and Hamirpur in TE

- 31 - 2009-10. The major decrease in area under wheat was in Agra district followed by Hamirpur and Khanpur Dehat. The reason for decline in area under wheat in Agra district was due to diversion of wheat area to mustard and potato crops.

III. Maize

Maize is not so important crop in Uttar Pradesh. It is grown in selected districts of U.P. The area of maize has been continuously decreasing in most of the districts of U.P. since the commencement of Green Revolution, the area of maize is being diverted to rice and other commercial crops. Table III.3 shows that area under maize has decreased by 25% in TE 2009-10 over the area of maize in TE 1993-94 in U.P. It is also noticed from Table III.3 that area under maize has decreased in almost all 15 selected districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10 over its area in TE 1993-94.

IV. Total Cereals

The area under total cereal crops has marginally increased by 5% in TE 2009-10 over its area in TE 1993-94. The maximum decrease in area under total cereals was in Hamirpur district being 47% followed by 5%, 3% and 2% in Kanpur Dehat, Jaluan and Lalitpur districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10 over the base period area in TE 1993-94. (Table-III.3)

V. Total Pulses

Since the introduction of green revolution and adoption of vegetable and fruits farming, the area of pulses has been shifting to rice, wheat, vegetables etc. This picture is also observed in Table III.3. The total area under pulses has decreased by 17% in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94 in U.P. It is also noticed from Table III.3 that area under pulses has decreased in 11 selected districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94. The maximum decrease in area under pulses was noticed in Kanpur Dehat followed by Etah, Agra, Mathura and Fetahpur districts in TE 2009-10. However, the area under pulses has increased in Lalitpur, Jaluan, Jhansi and Unnao districts during the study period.

- 32 - VI. Foodgrains

The area under total foodgrains has marginally increased by 2% in TE 2009-10 over the area under total foodgrains in TE 1993-94. Out of 15 producing selected oilseed districts, the area under foodgrains has decreased in 5 districts in TE 2009-10. Table-III.3 Net changes in Area in Absolute and Relative terms for Major Foodgrain Crops in the Selected Districts of State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 (Absolute change (A) in '000 ha; Relative change (R) in percentage) District Rice Wheat Maize A R A R A R Mathura 30554 246 19621 11 -1548 -91 Agra 3558 1540 -291074 -68 -100 -55 Budaun 17419 28 32729 12 -11836 -51 Shahjahanpur 52899 34 24302 11 -3170 -59 Kheri 8803 5 3828 2 -6421 -41 Sitapur 14222 11 32844 18 -5316 -24 Unnao -29331 -35 54083 30 91 0 Hardoi 70500 86 94181 40 4519 11 Etah -5490 -17 -14135 -8 -20268 -36 Kanpur Dehat -17202 -26 -34337 -22 -14367 -50 Jaluan -1082 -70 60084 72 -3 -19 Jhansi 139 7 22502 20 -40 -1 Lalitpur -5221 -63 8627 9 16516 75 Hamirpur -1985 -94 -58434 -39 -3 -75 Fetahpur 1036 1 24727 19 102 37 U.P. 563804 11 1017707 12 -262089 -25 Total Cereals Total Pulses Total Food Grain A R A R A R

Mathura 30596 12 -9291 -70 21305 8 Agra 73696 40 -12524 -78 61172 31 Budaun 68647 14 -7162 -21 61484 12 Shahjahanpur 65597 16 -9369 -23 56228 12 Kheri 10263 3 -16226 -40 -5890 -1 Sitapur 21540 6 -21959 -33 -386 0 Unnao 39049 12 1061 3 40110 11 Hardoi 129345 31 -27064 -41 102280 21 Etah 30524 8 -42314 -78 -111791 -27 Kanpur Dehat -11755 -5 -171356 -79 -80560 -23 Jaluan -4604 -3 43719 40 -73436 -18 Jhansi 12238 9 8802 5 21705 7 Lalitpur -2893 -2 138541 143 135447 53 Hamirpur -102571 -47 -117130 -42 -217701 -44 Fetahpur 9368 4 -61095 -68 2283 1 U.P. 860890 5 -486538 -17 374352 2 Source: Directorate of Statistics, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow.

- 33 - The maximum decrease in area under foodgrains was noticed in Hamirpur followed by Etah, Kanpur Dehat and Jaluan districts in TE 2009-10 (Table III.3). The main reason for this is that, these districts have been divided into two parts during recent decade. The second reason for decreasing in area under foodgrains was also due to sharp decrease in area of pulses in five districts

III.4 Net Changes in Absolute and relative Terms in Area of Oilseeds and Sugarcane Crop in Selected Districts of U.P. : TE 1993-94 and 2009-10

The net changes in absolute and relative terms in area of oilseeds and sugarcane crop in selected districts of U.P. have been worked out in Table III.4.

III.4.I. Ground Nut

Table III.4 shows that net change in area of groundnut in TE 2009-10 was negative in 10 selected districts of U.P. There was sharp decline in area of ground nut in TE 2009-10. At the aggregate level, it has decreased by 27% in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94.

III.4.II. Rapeseed / Mustard

Table III.4 depicts that net change in area of rapeseed/mustard was also negative in TE 2009- 10 in U.P. The area under mustard has decreased by 24% in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94. The net change in area of mustard was negative in 8 districts out of 15 selected districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10. It is also noticed from table III.4 that relative change in area of mustard was quite significant in 7 selected districts.

III.4.III. Sesame

The sesame is getting more importance in cropping pattern in recent years. The price of oil of the sesame has been increasing very fast than the oils of other oilseeds. Table III.4 reflects that net change in area of sesame was quite positive in 9 selected districts of U.P. The area of sesame in U.P. has increased by 195% in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94 (Table III.4).

- 34 - III.4.IV. Soyabean

The soyabean is not important oilseed in Uttar Pradesh. It covers a limited area in U.P. It is mostly sown in Bundelkhand region of U.P. There was major set back in the cultivation of soyabean in U.P. due to lack of proper marketing facilities across the state. Table III.4 reveals that the area of soyabean has decreased by 47% in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94 in U.P. Among the 15 selected districts, the net change in area of soyabean in TE 2009-10 was quite positive being 171% and 150% in Lalitpur and Sitapur districts respectively.

III.4.V. Total Oilseeds

Since the area under each oilseed has been decreasing in U.P. from year to year, hence the total area under all oilseeds has decreased by 12% in TE 2009-10 over the area of base year i.e. TE 1993-94 in U.P. It is evident from Table III.4 that the relative change in area of total oilseed was negative in 11 selected districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993- 94. Table also reveals that relative change in area under oilseeds was quite significant being 125%, 121% and 16% in Jaluan, Jhansi and Lalitpur districts of Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh. These are rainfed districts of U.P. It reflects that oilseeds are still important crops in rainfed belts of U.P. The above discussion also reflects that area under oilseeds is not increasing at par with area under wheat, rice and other commercial crops across the state.

III.4.VI. Sugarcane

The sugarcane is most important cash crop in U.P. The area under sugarcane has increased by 19% in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94 in U.P. The relative change in area of sugarcane was negative in 10 districts in TE 2009-10 (Table III.4) the maximum positive change in area under sugar cane was noticed in Hardoi (121%) followed by Sitapur (78%) and Kheri (50%) in TE 2009-10.

- 35 - Table-III-4 Net changes in absolute and relative terms in Area of Oilseeds and Sugarcane Crop in the Selected districts of State: TE1993-94 and TE2009-10 (Absolute change (A) in '000 ha; Relative change (R) in %age) Districts Groundnut R&M Sesame Soyabean Total Oilseeds Sugarcane GCA A R A R A R A R A R A R A R

Mathura -4 -100 -42423 -47 -587 -57 -1 -100 -48797 -53 -2448 -31 -69528 -16.13 Agra -13 -78 -69027 -55 -1306 -43 0 0 -67569 -53 -505 -74 -9426 -2.58 Budaun -8055 -95 11145 59 -141 -6 -13 -98 -319 -1 5490 29 85497 13.64 Shahjahanpur -3693 -40 342 3 -1451 -16 -11 -16 -5231 -16 -6331 -14 42959 7.59 Kheri 360 5 -2591 -8 749 22 -1 -67 -1814 -4 74876 50 56962 8.73 Sitapur -9761 -82 61605 470 5592 216 7 150 -545 -2 54685 78 79382 13.94 Unnao -7171 -72 1661 15 5078 158 -2 -50 -1282 -5 -8062 -88 50891 12.16 Hardoi -12296 -62 -3575 -20 12434 242 -6 -50 -5750 -13 19795 121 110451 18.95 Etah 22 6 -9413 -41 -874 -72 -1 -100 -11097 -44 -5612 -65 -88933 -17.65 Kanpur Dehat -413 -99 -19067 -46 -2008 -62 1 1 -25092 -51 -5382 -68 -189246 -38.08 Jalaun -37 -64 -1702 -15 52473 1177 -4805 -97 37061 125 221 18 39824 10.47 Jhansi 2820 16 3887 57 72639 1383 -1812 -79 41790 121 -98 -73 114603 33.62 Lalitpur 7327 289 3937 638 5340 99 5194 171 4682 16 -52 -17 147346 52.73 Hamirpur -2270 -93 -1375 -17 12807 147 -921 -97 -6806 -18 -189 -9 -126088 -27.99 Fetahpur 194 120 1681 13 1148 20 -13 -91 2239 11 -2597 -27 8028 2.06

U.P -33917 -27 -187587 -24 189617 195 -8462 -47 -134930 -12 344049 19 10794 0.04

III.4.VII. Gross Cropped Area

It has been already mentioned that net area sown in Uttar Pradesh has been decreasing year by year due to expansion of urbanization, industrialization, infrastructural facilities etc. The per capita availability of land has also been shrinking year by year in U.P. Therefore, the gross cropped area was more or less stagnant during the study period from TE 1993-94 to TE 2009-10. It is also observed from table III.4 that there was only 0.04% change in gross cropped area between TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10. The net change in gross cropped area was positive in 10 districts of 15 selected districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10. It is also noticed from table III.4 that the gap of relative change in gross cropped area across the selected districts was very narrow in TE 2009-10 over the gross cropped area in TE 1993-94.

III.5 Trends in Average Area, Production and Yield of Oilseeds in the State

Table III.5 reveals that average area under oilseeds was 436 thousand hectares during 1951- 52 to 1960-61 which has increased to 918 thousand hectares during 2001-02 to 2009-10, thereby showing 110.55% increase over the period. The maximum total area under oilseeds was 1072 thousand hectares during 1991-92 to 2009-10. Table III.5 also shows that growth

- 36 - rate in total area under total oilseeds were positive during study period. The total production of total oilseeds was 241 thousand MT during 1951-52 to 1960-61 which has increased to 752 thousand MT during 2001-02 to 2009-10, showing 212% increase over the period. The maximum production recorded being 900 thousand MT during 1991-92 to 2000-01. The growth rate in production of total oilseeds was maintaining upward trend throughout the study period. It is noticed from Table-III.5 that growth rate in production of total oilseeds was higher than total area under oilseeds in respective decade. The productivity of total oilseeds was 5.53 qtls per hectare during 1951-52 to 1960-61 which has increased to 8.99 qtls per hectare during 2001-02 to 2009-10, registering 4.8% increase over the period.

Table-III.5 reflects that area production and yield of total oilseeds have been increasing from 1951-52 to 2009-10. The positive growth was noticed in each decade. The period between 1991-92 and 2000-01 was more impressive for oilseeds than other decades.

Table-III.5 Trends in Average Area, Production, and Yield of Oilseeds in the State

1951-52 to 1961-62 to 1971-72 to 1981-82 to 1991-92 to 2001-02 to 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2009-10 Area (000 hectares) 436 654 762 847 1071 918 Production 241 392 405 540 900 752 (’000 tonnes) Yield (kg/ha) 5.53 5.99 5.31 6.38 8.40 8.19 Source: State Planning Institute, Lucknow

III.6 Changing Shares of Kharif and Rabi Oilseeds in major 15 Oilseeds, Producing districts of the State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10

The changing of share of area under Kharif and rabi oilseeds in 15 selected oilseeds producing districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94 have been worked out in Table- III.6. Table- III.6 reveals that per cent share of area under Kharif oilseeds was found less in TE 2009-10 as compared to share of TE 1993-94 in most of selected districts of the state. It is also evident from Table III.6 that area under Kharif oilseeds has decreased in 11 selected districts in TE 2009-10 than that of area in TE 1993-94. The area under Kharif oilseeds in Jhansi, Jaluan and Lalitpur districts has increased in TE 2009-10 over the area of

- 37 - TE 1993-94. Over all, the area under Kharif oilseeds has decreased in TE 2009-10 over the area in TE 1993-94.

In percentage share of area under rabi oilseeds in 15 selected oilseeds producing districts of U.P. in TE 2009-10 over the percentage share in TE 1993-94, table III.6 shows that percentage share of area under rabi oilseeds has increased in TE 2009-10 in almost all the selected districts. However, the major set back was found in Agra and Mathura districts which were the belt of mustard oilseed. It reflects that area under Kharif oilseeds has decreased in U.P. in TE 2009-10 as compared to area under rabi oilseeds in the selected districts of U.P. Table-III.6 Changing Shares of Kharif and Rabi Oilseeds in Major 15 oilseeds Producing Districts in the State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 (%) Districts Kharif Rabi TE 1993-94 TE 2009-10 TE 1993-94 TE 2009-10 Mathura 0.43 0.11 9.10 6.96 Agra 1.27 0.45 12.43 9.46 Budaun 4.57 0.72 2.19 4.78 Shahjahanpur 7.48 3.32 1.37 2.20 Kheri 4.44 3.04 3.31 4.86 Sitapur 5.99 2.65 1.43 2.88 Unnao 5.47 2.86 1.25 2.12 Hardoi 10.39 6.48 1.83 1.98 Etah 0.66 0.19 2.35 2.13 Kanpur Dehat 1.56 0.35 4.50 3.63 Jalaun 3.92 19.01 1.65 1.54 Jhansi 10.60 25.55 1.59 2.41 Lalitpur 4.54 7.46 0.96 0.73 Hamirpur 5.03 5.60 3.06 1.56 Fetahpur 2.52 1.90 1.39 2.38 Others Dist. 31.13 20.31 51.59 50.36 Uttar Pradesh 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

III.7 Share of Selected Oilseed, TE 2009-10

As it has already been mentioned that six oilseeds namely groundnut, soyabean, sesame, mustard, linseed and sunflowers are sown in Uttar Pradesh in different seasons. The groundnut, soyabean and sesame are kharif oilseed crops while mustard and linseed are rabi season oilseed crops. The sun flower belongs to summer season oilseed. Among these six

- 38 - oilseed crops, the area of mustard accounted for 58.04% followed by 28.08%, 8.96% and 3.16% of sesame, groundnut and linseed of total area under oilseeds respectively during TE 2009-10. Out of total area of oilseeds being 1022 thousand hectares during TE 2009-10, the rabi season oilseed crops accounted for 61.20% followed by 37.98% and 0.82% of Kharif and summer season oilseed crops respectively. Table III.7 reflects that mustard and sesame were major oilseed crops which accounted jointly for 86.12% of total area under oilseeds in TE 2009-10 in U.P. The area of soyabean and sunflowers was very negligible in Uttar Pradesh.

As far as production of oilseeds is concerned, table III.7 shows that out of total production of total oilseed being 802 thousand MT, mustard accounted for 83.56% followed by 7.47% and 4.49% of groundnut and sesame respectively. It reflects that mustard, sesame and groundnut were major oilseeds in Uttar Pradesh. The mustard is still dominant oilseed in Uttar Pradesh. Though, the content of oil in mustard is 33% against 40% in groundnut and sesame. The groundnut and sesame are not so assured oilseed crops as compared with mustard. The area and production of soyabean is very limited in U.P. The area of sunflower has been increasing in U.P due to expansion of irrigation net work.

Table-III.7 Share of Selected Oilseeds: TE 2009-10 Oilseeds Area (%) Production (per cent) Oil content of seeds Oilseeds Oil (per cent) Groundnut 8.96 7.47 8.89 40 Soybean 0.94 1.04 0.56 18 Rapeseed-mustard 58.04 83.56 82.09 33 Sesame 28.08 4.49 5.35 40 Sunflower 0.82 1.90 1.58 28 Safflower 0.00 0.00 0 - Niger 0.00 0.00 0 - Castor seed 0.00 0.00 0 37 Linseed 3.16 1.55 1.52 33 Total oilseeds 100.00 100.00 100.00 29 Kharif 37.98 14.80 0 - Rabi 61.20 85.20 0 -

- 39 - III.8. Share of Oilseeds Acreage in the State to all India Area TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10

Share of oilseeds acreage in the state to all India area has been worked-out in Table-III-8 in TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10. Table-III-8 reveals that state percent share of area under total oilseeds in all India area was 3.82% in TE 2009-10 against 4.42% in TE 1993-94 showing 15.71% decrease over the period. The mustard accounted for 12.32% of all India area which has come down to 10.04% in TE 2009-10. The percent share of Soyabean and sunflower has also decreased in TE 2009-10 as compared with its share in TE 1993-94. There was marginal increase in case of ground nut. This analysis reflects that over all the share of area under oilseeds in U.P. has decreased in TE 2009-10 as compared with its share in TE 1993-94.

Table-III.8 Share of Oilseeds Acreage in the State to all India Area TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 (000 Hect.) Oilseeds TE 1993-94 TE 2009-10 Groundnut 126 (1.34) 92 (1.53) Rapeseed-mustard 781 (12.32) 593 (10.04) Sesame 98 287 Soybean 18 (0.48) 10 (0.10) Sunflower 13 (0.57) 8 (0.46) Safflower 0 - Niger 0 - Castor seed 0 - Others 191264 319 (8.50) Total Oilseeds 1157 (4.42) 1022 (3.82) Figures in parentheses show the state’s per cent share in all-India area. Directorate of Economic & Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agri., Govt. of India.

III.9. Production Share of Major Oilseeds of U.P. in All India Production for TE 1993- 94 and 2009-10

The per cent share of production of oilseeds of U.P. during 1993-94 and 2009-10 to all India production of oilseeds was worked out in Table III.9. Table III.9 reveals that the share of total production of oilseeds to all India production was 4.48% in TE 1993-94 which has decreased to 2.92% in TE 2009-10, registering a decrease of 34.82% over the period. - 40 -

The reason for decrease of production of total oilseeds in TE 2009-10 compared to TE 1993- 94 was due to major fall in production of groundnut, soyabean and sesame in TE 2009-10 in Uttar Pradesh. On account of this, the share of production of oilseeds of Uttar Pradesh has also come down in total production of the country. It also reflects that share of production of oilseeds in U.P. was relatively very low in comparison to other oilseeds producing states of the country. It is also noticed from Table III.9 that the percentage share of production of all oilseeds of U.P. in All India production has come down in TE 2009-10 as compared with per cent share of TE 1993-94. Table.III-9 Production share of Major Oilseeds of U.P. in All India Production : TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 (000MT) Oilseeds U.P. TE 1993-94 TE 2009-10

Groundnut 118 (1.50) 60 (0.82) Rapeseed-mustard 677 (12.70) 670 (10.23) Sesame 17* 36* Soybean 17 (0.48) 8 (0.08) Sunflower 33 (2.63) 15 (1.29) Safflower - - Niger - - Castor seed - - Linseed 38* 13* Total Oilseeds 900 (4.48) 802 (2.92) * Not available All India Data. Source: Agricultural Statistics at glance. Directorate of Economic & Statistics, Ministry of Agri., Govt. of India.

III.10 Irrigated Area under Oilseeds in the Selected Districts in the State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10

The percentage share of irrigated area under oilseeds in the selected districts in the state acreage has been worked out in Table-III-10 shows that area under rabi oilseeds was mostly irrigated across the selected districts of U.P. as compared with irrigated area of Kharif oilseeds during TE 1993-94 to TE 2009-10. It is also noticed from Table that per cent share of area irrigated has increased in TE 2009-10 as compared with TE 1993-94. It reflects that

- 41 - the irrigated area of oilseeds has been increasing due to expansion of irrigation net-work across the districts of U.P. Table-III.10 Irrigated Area under Oilseeds in the Selected Districts in the State: TE 1993-94 and TE 2009-10 (000 Hectare) District Kharif Rabi Total

TE 1993-94 TE 2009-10 TE 1993-94 TE 2009-10 TE 1993-94 TE 2009-10 Mathura 55 (1.03) 9 (0.23) 77633 (13.46) 43116 (8.96) 78914 (12.94) 43126 (8.74) Agra 42 (0.78) 39 (1.03) 89320 (15.48) 51500 (10.70) 89510 (14.67) 51541 (10.45) Budaun 133 (2.48) 48 (1.26) 16424 (2.85) 29425 (6.11) 19754 (3.25) 29477 (5.97) Shahjahanpur 330 (616) 374 (9.79) 10390 (1.80) 13355 (2.77) 10847 (1.78) 13739 (2.78) Kheri 31 (0.58) 24 (0.63) 12569 (2.18) 17943 (3.73) 12658 (2.08) 17968 (3.64) Sitapur 47 (0.88) 23 (0.60) 4451 (0..76) 14779 (3.07) 4576 (0.15) 14803 (3.00) Unnao 232 (4.32) 62 (1.63) 7409 (1.28) 12201 (2.53) 8096 (1.33) 12364 (2.51) Hardoi 252 (4.71) 124 (3.24) 9090 (1.58) 10751 (2.23) 9704 (1.59) 11167 (2.26) Etah 194 (3.62) 443 (11.59) 22236 (3.85) 13320 (2.77) 23335 (3.83) 13897 (2.82) Kanpur Dehat 88 (1.64) 0 (0.00) 23550 (4.08) 16574 (3.44) 27080 (4.48) 16608 (3.37) Jalaun 395 (7.38) 2 (0.05) 3440 (0.10) 4170 (0.87) 3941 (0.65) 4171 (0.85) Jhansi 316 (5.90) 16 (0.43) 7008 (1.22) 6330 (1.32) 7324 (1.20) 6347 (1.28) Lalitpur 12 (0.22) 0 (0.00) 511 (0.08) 4435 (0.92) 523 (0.09) 4438 (0.90) Hamirpur 75 (1.40) 5 (0.13) 3232 (0.56) 2709 (0.56) 3310 (0.54) 2714 (0.55) Fetahpur 54 (1.01) 20 (0.53) 4743 (0.82) 8760 (1.82) 4933 (0.81) 8784 (1.78) Other Districts 3101 (57.91) 2632 (68.86) 284728(49.40) 232074(48.20) 305542(50.09 242225(49.10) Uttar Pradesh 5355 3822 576734 481445 610042 493369 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Figures in parentheses show the District’s per cent share in State Acreage Source: Directorate of Statistic, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow.

III.11. Average Area, Production and Yield of Mustard in the State: 1951-52 to 2009-10

The average area, production and yield of mustard in U.P. from 1951-52 to 2009-10 have been worked out and presented in Table III.11. Table III.11 shows that area of mustard was 270 thousand hectares in U.P. during 1951-52 to 1960-61 which has increased to 585 thousand hectares during 2001-02 to 2009-10, showing 116.67% increase over the period. There was much fluctuation in expansion of area under mustard during the decades. The expansion of area under mustard was much better in two decades i.e. 1981-82 to 1990-91 and - 42 - 2001-02 to 2009-10. The area under mustard has come down at low level of 585 thousand hectares in last decade from 806 thousand hectares in 1991-92 to 2000-01. It was 27.42% decrease over the period. It reflects from data for different decades that area under mustard in U.P. has not maintained increasing trends during the study decades. Table III.11 also reveals that there was significant increase in the production of mustard from 1951-52 to 1980-81 in U.P. The production of mustard was 108 thousand MT during 1951-52 to 1960-61 which has gone upto 616 thousand MT during 2001-02 to 2009-10, thereby showing 470% increase over the period. From 1951-52 to 1980-81, the growth of production was not encouraging but from 1981-82 to 2009-10, the pace of growth in production of mustard was found better than that of back decades. Among the 6 decades, fifth decade i.e. 1991-92 to 2000-01 was found best as far as production of mustard is concerned in U.P.

The average yield of mustard was 4.00 qtls per hectare during 1951-52 to 1960-61 which increased to 10.52 qtls per hectare during 2001-02 to 2009-10, showing 16.3% increase over the period. The average yield of mustard per hectare has been continuously increasing from year to year in U.P. The above analysis reflects that area, production and yield of mustard were maintaining the increasing trends from 1951-52 to 2009-10. The prospects of mustard in U.P. are much better than other oilseeds in U.P. The farmers are taking keen interest in the cultivation of mustard on their farms.

Table-III-11 Average Area, Production, and Yield of Mustard in the State: 1951-52 to 2009-10

1951-52 to 1961-62 to 1971-72 to 1981-82 to 1991-92 to 2001-02 to 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2009-10 Area (000 hectares) 270 307 294 501 806 585 Production (’000 108 140 147 358 740 616 tonnes) Yield (kg/ha) 4.00 4.56 5.00 7.15 9.18 10.52 Source: State Planning Institute, Lucknow.

- 43 - III. 12 Share of Area under Mustard in the selected districts to Total area under Oilseed Crops in the State: TE 1983-84 to TE 2009-10

The share of area under mustard in the selected districts to total area under oilseed crops in the state has been found out in Table-III.12 Table III.12 shows that the share of area under mustard to total area under oilseeds of U.P. was maximum being 9.65% in followed by 8.09% 5.49%, 3.67% and 2.87% in Agra, Kheri, Kanpur Dehat and Sitapur districts respectively in TE 2009-10. The share of area under mustard to total area under oilseeds of the state has gone down in Agra, Etah, Kanpur Dehat, Lalitpur and Hamirpur districts in TE 2009-10 as compared with its percentage share in TE 1983-84. The major short fall was witnessed in Agra and Kanpur Dehat districts. However, the share of area under mustard in the state has marginally increased to 48.29% in TE 2009-10 from 48.10% in TE 1983-84. It is also witnessed from Table–III.12 that there was marginal positive change in area under mustard across the districts during TE 1983-84 to TE 2009-10. As far as per cent share of area under mustard within the selected districts is concerned, Table III.12 reveals that the per cent share of area under mustard has increased in 10 districts in TE 2009- 10 as compared with its share in TE 1983-84. Area under mustard has decreased in selected districts of Bundelkhand region of U.P. between TE 1983-84 and TE 2009-10. Table-III.12 Share of Area under Mustard in the selected districts to total Area under Oilseed Crops in the State: TE 1983-84, TE 1993-94, TE 2003-2004 and TE 2009-10

Districts Share in state acreage Share in edible oilseed acreage in the district TE 1983-84 TE 1993-94 TE 2003-04 TE 2009-10 TE 1983-84 TE 1993-94 TE 2003-04 TE 2009-10 Mathura 6.77 11.59 6.89 9.65 3.44 8.10 4.93 4.30 Agra 14.09 16.04 13.84 8.09 8.58 11.22 9.99 5.96 Budaun 1.68 2.41 2.68 5.23 7.48 2.89 9.84 3.20 Shahjahanpur 1.70 1.71 1.78 2.34 2.08 12.60 3.20 2.61 Kheri 4.09 4.23 5.59 4.97 4.57 3.94 5.38 4.13 Sitapur 1.11 1.68 2.74 2.87 3.87 2.27 3.24 2.77 Unnao 1.07 1.44 2.23 2.22 2.24 8.72 2.53 2.40 Hardoi 2.04 2.29 2.34 2.07 6.08 3.80 4.06 3.69 Etah 2.55 2.91 2.46 1.73 2.20 2.21 1.78 1.39 Kanpur Dehat 9.37 3.73 4.02 3.67 4.97 4.30 2.99 2.36 Jalaun 1.77 1.41 0.52 1.79 2.70 2.28 1.98 6.53 Jhansi 0.94 0.87 0.52 2.29 1.75 3.63 4.14 7.48 Lalitpur 2.28 0.08 0.07 1.03 1.48 1.80 2.04 3.27 Hamirpur 2.39 1.01 0.66 1.31 3.85 3.76 1.35 3.08 Fetahpur 2.05 1.71 2.25 2.45 1.23 1.75 2.31 2.18 Others Dist. 48.10 46.91 51.50 48.29 43.49 34.81 40.23 44.65 U.P. 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Source: Directorate of Statistics, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow.

- 44 -

III.13. Share of Selected districts in Mustard Production in the State: TE 1983-84 to TE 2009-10

Table III.13 shows that share of mustard production in Agra district accounted for maximum being 13.01% of total production of mustard of the state followed by 10.88%, 5.42%, 3.84% and 3.71% for Mathura, Budaun, Kanpur Dehat and Kheri districts respectively in TE 2009- 10. It is also evident from this table that per cent share of mustard production to its total production of the state has declined in 8 districts in TE 2009-10 than that of production in TE 1983-94 while it was increased in 7 districts during same period. Table III.13 also shows that the maximum decrease was noticed in Agra followed by in TE 2009- 10 over period TE 1983-84.

Against this, its share within districts was quite progressive. The percentage share of mustard production in the district has maintained positive growth during the study period in TE 1983- 94 to TE 2009-10. The above analysis shows that the expansion of area under mustard is being spread over also in other districts of the state. The productively of mustard has been increasing across the districts of the state since the introduction of TMO in the state. Now the farmers are using the HYV seed of mustard along with balanced use of other inputs. Table-III.13 Share of Selected districts in Mustard Production in State: TE 1983-84 and TE 2009-10 Districts Share in state Production Share in Mustard Production in the district TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE 1983-84 1993-94 2003-04 2009-10 1983-84 1993-94 2003-04 2009-10 Mathura 7.68 12.62 9.92 10.88 99.41 98.42 99.58 99.92 Agra 22.49 19.89 19.21 13.01 99.42 99.20 99.74 99.73 Budaun 1.43 2.05 2.98 5.42 7.50 60.70 93.24 98.35 Shahjahanpur 1.45 1.34 1.20 1.72 37.88 49.31 53.37 72.60 Kheri 4.13 2.58 3.62 3.71 43.22 69.87 76.49 84.40 Sitapur 1.02 1.07 1.77 2.07 11.12 7.42 78.10 84.23 Unnao 0.96 1.11 1.67 1.91 23.45 42.50 73.47 70.31 Hardoi 1.82 2.11 2.02 1.79 17.94 42.29 57.49 53.52 Etah 2.73 3.17 2.74 2.59 72.22 92.97 95.57 97.36 Kanpur Dehat 9.14 6.03 5.47 3.84 92.69 85.75 99.04 98.82 Jalaun 1.35 1.03 0.99 1.35 32.58 52.91 75.87 47.52 Jhansi 0.73 0.54 0.28 1.63 32.31 13.53 9.07 28.72 Lalitpur 0.21 0.05 0.07 0.67 15.19 3.36 4.26 15.94 Hamirpur 1.85 0.62 0.44 0.82 59.79 23.64 49.08 60.38 Fetahpur 2.06 1.67 1.71 1.96 91.70 83.39 84.58 90.32 Other Districts 40.94 44.13 45.91 46.62 - - - - Uttar Pradesh 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 50.59 71.19 81.80 83.56 Source: Directorate of Statistics, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow. - 45 -

III.14 Share of Mustard Irrigated Area to Area under Mustard and Gross Irrigated Area of the Districts: TE 1983-84 to TE 2009-10

The share of mustard irrigated area to area under mustard and gross irrigated area of the districts was worked out in Table III.14. Table III.14 shows that more than 81% of area under mustard of the state was irrigated in TE 2009-10. The most of areas under mustard of 9 selected districts were more or less fully irrigated in TE 2009-190. The area under mustard of selected districts of Bundelkhand region was partially irrigated. It is also evident from Table III.14 that expansion of irrigated area under mustard across the selected districts was positive during 1983-84 to 2009-10. It reflects that mustard was sown mostly in irrigated land. Now it is not un-irrigated crop. Table III.14 also reveals that share of irrigated area of mustard to gross irrigated area of the districts was also maintaining positive increasing trend across the 15 selected districts of the state from TE 1983-84 to TE 2009-10. It reflects that the area under mustard is being irrigated by the farmers of get better yield across the state.

Table-III.14 Share of Mustard Irrigated Area to Area under Mustard and Gross Irrigated Area of the Districts

Districts Share of irrigated mustard to mustard Share of irrigated mustard to gross area of the district irrigated area of the district TE TE TE TE TE TE TE TE 1983-84 1993-94 2003-04 2009-10 1983-84 1993-94 2003-04 2009-10 Mathura 60.30 85.81 96.43 87.12 7.84 12.94 8.58 8.74 Agra 68.38 71.32 73.81 92.45 18.50 14.67 13.40 10.45 Budaun 76.38 87.41 94.74 98.33 2.58 3.24 3.25 5.97 Shahjahanpur 61.97 77.55 90.58 97.21 2.05 1.78 8.30 2.78 Kheri 23.28 38.06 62.96 59.00 1.83 2.07 4.53 3.64 Sitapur 21.71 33.92 65.55 81.94 0.55 0.75 2.35 3.00 Unnao 37.96 64.50 79.23 92.26 0.85 1.33 2.37 2.51 Hardoi 27.81 50.81 77.56 87.09 1.13 1.59 2.43 2.26 Etah 90.52 97.62 99.50 99.98 4.48 3.83 3.18 2.82 Kanpur Dehat 44.75 56.36 72.98 72.98 8.12 4.44 3.86 3.37 Jalaun 23.58 29.42 20.59 16.93 0.89 0.65 0.41 0.85 Jhansi 5.88 59.62 71.58 58.54 0.26 1.20 0.54 1.29 Lalitpur 8.21 41.04 79.49 97.02 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.90 Hamirpur 16.31 36.17 40.60 41.39 1.11 0.54 0.36 0.55 Fetahpur 27.73 35.48 45.08 59.54 1.11 0.81 1.36 1.78 U.P. 50.80 73.09 75.50 81.09 48.61 50.08 44.99 49.09 Source: Directorate of Statistics, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow.

- 46 -

III. 15 Growth Trends (Absolute and Compound Annual Growth Rates) in Area, Production and Yield of Mustard (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to 2009-10

Compound Annual Growth in Area of Mustard in the Selected Districts and U.P. as Whole in Different Decades

The compound annual growth in area of mustard in 15 selected districts and state as a whole in different decades is presented in Table-III-15. Table-III-15 shows that compound annual growth rate in area of mustard in U.P. was positive being 3.05%, 4.22% and 0.98% in 1970s, 1980s and 2000s respectively while it was negative in decade of nineties i.e. from 1990- 2000. It shows that compound annual growth rate in area of mustard in U.P. had maintained an increasing trend from seventies to eighties but it declined in nineties. The pace of compound annual growth rate in area of mustard was satisfactory from 2000-01 to 2009-10 but it was much lower as compared to seventies and eighties decades.

Table III.15 also shows that among 15 selected districts of U.P., 12 districts had positive compound annual growth rate in area of mustard in seventies while it was negative in 3 districts during same decade. The higher compound annual growth in area of mustard was witnessed in Etah being 14.68% followed by 12.69% in in seventies. Against this, the higher negative compound annual growth rate in area of mustard was witnessed in Lalitpur district (-31.37%) followed by (-6.10%) during same decade. The annual growth in area of mustard in U.P. in absolute term was 6.47% against compound annual growth rate of 3.05% in seventies.

In the eighties, compound annual growth rate in area of mustard in U.P. was 4.22% which was higher among the study decades. Table III.15 shows that the compound annual growth rate in area of mustard was positive in 11 districts, out of 15 selected districts in eighties while it was negative in 4 districts during corresponding decade. The higher compound annual growth rate in area of mustard was witnessed in Mathura district being 13.41% followed by Agra district i.e. 7.81% in decade of eighties while higher negative compound annual growth rate in area of mustard was witnessed in Kanpur dehat district i.e. -4.27% followed by i.e. -3.89% in eighties. Over all, the compound annual growth rate in area of mustard was satisfactory during 1980-81 to 1989-90. The compound annual growth

- 47 - rate in area of mustard in absolute term was higher being 42.56% against compound annual growth rate of 4.22% in eighties.

In the nineties, the compound annual growth rate in area of mustard in U.P. was negative being -1.16%. Among the 15 selected districts, 11 districts had positive growth in area of mustard in nineties while it was negative in 4 selected districts during same decade. Agra and Mathura are most potential districts of U.P. in production of mustard. Even then, the compound annual growth rate in area of mustard went negative being -10.79% and -5.30% in Mathura and Agra districts respectively. The pace of growth in area of mustard in remaining 4 selected districts was also very slow. It may be concluded with this result that nineties decade was not favorable in the expansion of area under mustard across the State.

The annual growth rate in area of mustard during last decade i.e. from 2000-01 to 2009-10 was marginally positive being 0.98%. It was better over decade of nineties. It reflects that area of mustard marginally in creased at rate of 0.98% in the state as whole. Among the selected districts, it was found highest i.e. being 31.44% in Lalitpur district followed by 16.15%, 11.54% and 10.02% in Jhansi, Budaun and Mathura districts respectively in last decade i.e. from 2000-01 to 2009-10. The compound annual growth rate in area of mustard was negative in 5 districts out of 15 selected districts in last decade. The highest negative growth was witnessed in Agra being -6.39% followed by -2.56% and -2.35% in Hardoi and Etah districts, respectively. The above analysis shows that compound annual growth in area of mustard was much better up to decade of eighties and after that, it moved in negative trend. The decades of nineties were worst as far as expansion of area under mustard is concerned in the state as a whole.

- 48 -

Table-III.15 A Classification of Selected Districts according to Growth in Area under Mustard (U.P.) 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1970-71 to 2009-10 Significant 12 11 11 10 14 Positive Mathura Mathura Jalaun Mathura Mathura Growth in Agra Agra Budaun Jalaun Agra Area Shahjahanpur Shahjahanpur Shahjahanpur Shahjahanpur Shahjahanpur Kheri Kheri Kheri Sitapur Kheri Sitapur Sitapur Sitapur Unnao Sitapur Unnao Unnao Unnao Lalitpur Unnao Hardoi Hardoi Hardoi Budaun Hardoi Kanpur Budaun Etah Jhansi Etah Dehat Jhansi Jhansi Jhansi Fetahpur Jhansi Fetahpur Etah Fetahpur Hamirpur Fetahpur Hamirpur Lalitpur Lalitpur Hamirpur Etah Budaun Jalaun Lalitpur Significant 3 4 4 5 1 Negative Budaun Kanpur Mathura Kheri Kanpur Growth in Dehat Dehat Area Jalaun Jalaun Agra Agra Lalitpur Fetahpur Kanpur Hardoi Dehat Hamirpur Hamirpur Kanpur Dehat Etah

Table III-15 shows that compound annual growth in rate in area of mustard was positive being 2.59% in U.P. as whole during 4 decades from 1970-71 to 2009-10 while it was 204.55% increase in 2009-10 over the area of mustard in 1970-71. It is also noticed from Table-III-15 that compound annual growth in area of mustard was quite positive in almost all the selected districts except one i.e. Kanpur dehat during 4 decades. The highest growth rate in area of mustard was noticed in Jhansi being 6.73% followed by 6.47%, 6.06% and 5.75% in Etah, Sitapur and Mathura districts respectively. There was sharp increase in area of mustard in 2009-10 over the area in 1970-71 in the selected districts and state as a whole.

- 49 - III.16. Compound Annual Growth in Production of Mustard in the Selected districts and U.P. as a whole in different decades (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s) and from 1970- 71 to 2009-10

The compound annual growth in production of mustard and its change in absolute in different decades in the selected districts of U.P. have been worked out in Table III-16. It is evident from Table III-16 that the positive compound annual growth in production of mustard in U.P. as a whole was highest being 8.44% in decade of eighties followed by 2.92% and 1.92% in 2000s and 1970s respectively while it was negative being 1.50% in decade of nineties. The percentage change in production of mustard was witnessed maximum being 120.47% in 1989-90 over the production of 1980-81, while it was negative in decades of seventies and nineties. The production of mustard in U.P. was 556 thousand M. tones in 2000-01 which has increased to 681 thousand M.tonnes in 2009-10, showing in 47% increase over the period. Among the selected districts, the compound annual growth rate in production of mustard was positive in 13 districts while it was negative in only 2 districts in seventies. The higher growth rate in production of mustard was recorded being 14.53% in Hardoi district followed by 13.59% in Etah district in decade of seventies while higher negative growth was witnessed in Lalitpur district being -36.44 % followed by -7.36% in Budaun district during same decade. It is evident from Table-III-16 that the percentage change in production of mustard in 1979-80 over the production in 1970-71 was negative in 9 districts, out of 15 selected districts of U.P. It was also negative in U.P. as a whole. Over all, this decade was not better for the production of mustard in U.P.

The compound annual growth rate in production of mustard was quite significant in most of the selected districts of state in the decade of eighties. The highest compound annual growth rate in production of mustard was found in Mathura 19.19%followed by Etah 9.82%, Hardoi 9.09% Jhansi 8.86% and Agra 8.71% districts in the eighties. Hamirpur was the only district, out of 15 selected districts which had negative compound annual growth rate in production of mustard during corresponding decade. Table III-16 also reveals that nineties was not better in the production of mustard neither in U.P. as a whole nor in the selected districts. Of the total 15 selected districts, the compound annual growth rates in production of mustard was found negative in five districts namely, Mathura -17.39%, Agra -4.79% Kanpur Dehat -3.33%, Jalaun -1.71% and Hamirpur -8.70% in nineties. The higher positive compound annual

- 50 - growth rate in production of mustard was witnessed in Lalitpur 9.00% followed by Unnao i.e. 7.53% during same decade.

The compound annual growth rate in production of mustard in last decade i.e. 2000-01 to 2009-10 was 2.92% in Uttar Pradesh. It is also noticed from table III-16 that there was significant growth rate in production of mustard in 12 districts, out of 15 selected districts. It was highest being 31.36% in Lalitpur district followed by 18.22%, 15.56%, 10.51%, 9.69%, 6.94% and 6.80% in Jhansi, Budaun, Mathura, Sitapur and Shahajahanpur respectively in last decade. The negative compound annual growth was witnessed in Agra i.e. -2.64%, Hardoi i.e -0.45% and Kanpur Dehat i.e. -0.40% during same decade i.e. 2000-01 to 2009-10.

The above analysis reveals that the compound annual growth in production of mustard was positive in almost all study decades except in 1990s. The compound annual growth rate was positive in all the selected district during 1970-71 to 2009-10 in production of mustard. The compound annual growth rate in production of mustard was more pronounced in eighties (from 1980-81 to 1989-90) as compared to subsequent decades.

In overall U.P. level, there was positive compound annual growth rate in production in mustard in State during 1970s, 1980s, and 2000s but the quantum of increase was more from 1980-81 to 1989-90.

The percentage change in production of mustard was maximum being 120.47% in 1980s followed by 22.41% in 2000s over the production of their respective base year, while it was negative in decades of seventies and nineties (Table-III-16).

- 51 - Table-III.16 A Classification of Selected Districts according to Growth in Production under Mustard (U.P.)

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 1970-71 to 2009-10 Significant 13 14 10 12 15 increase in Mathura Mathura Budaun Mathura Mathura production Agra Agra Shahjahanpur Jalaun Agra Shahjahanpur Shahjahanpur Kheri Shahjahanpur Shahjahanpur Kheri Kheri Sitapur Sitapur Kheri Sitapur Sitapur Unnao Unnao Sitapur Unnao Unnao Hardoi Hardoi Unnao Hardoi Hardoi Etah Kanpur Hardoi Dehat Kanpur Budaun Jhansi Jhansi Etah Dehat Jhansi Jhansi Fetahpur Fetahpur Jhansi Fetahpur Etah Lalitpur Hamirpur Fetahpur Hamirpur Lalitpur Kheri Hamirpur Etah Kanpur Budaun Budaun Dehat Jalaun Jalaun Jalaun Fetahpur Lalitpur Kanpur Dehat Significant 2 1 5 3 1 decline in Budaun Hamirpur Mathura Nil production Lalitpur Agra Agra Kanpur Hardoi Dehat Hamirpur Kanpur Dehat Jalaun

The compound annual growth rate in production of mustard for 4 decades (from 1970-71 to 2009-10 was quite positive being 5.35%. Table III.16 also reveals that compound annual growth rate in production of mustard was positive in all the selected districts of U.P. during four decades from 1970-71 to 2009-10. The higher growth rate was noticed in Jhansi being 9.31%. during period from 1970-71 to 2009-10. The highest compound annual growth rate in production of mustard witnessed being 9.30% followed by 8.62%, 7.74%, 7.71% and 7.60% in Etah, Mathura, Budaun, Unnao and Sitapur districts respectively.

- 52 - The percentage change in production of mustard was 450.22% in 2009-10 over the production of 1970-71. It is also evident from Table III-16 that there was significant increase in production of mustard in 2009-10 over the production in 1970-71.

III.17. Compound Annual Growth Rate in Productivity of Mustard in Selected Districts and U.P. as a whole in different decades i.e. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to 2009-10 in U.P.

The compound annual growth rate in productivity of mustard has been analysed in Table III- 17. Table III-17 shows that the compound annual growth in productivity of mustard in U.P. was negative i.e. -2.09% in decade of seventies followed by -0.65% in nineties. Against this, the compound annual growth rate in productivity of mustard was positive being 4.14% in 1980s followed by 2.04% in 2000s. It shows that compound annual growth rate in per hectare yield of mustard was much better in 1980s and 2000s in Uttar Pradesh while the compound annual growth rate was negative in decades of seventies and nineties.

Table III-17 also shows that among the selected districts, the compound annual growth rate in productivity of mustard was positive in 7 districts while it was negative in 8 districts in decade of seventies. The highest positive growth rate was 1.62% in Jhansi followed by 1.61% in Jalaun districts in seventies. The negative rate in productivity of mustard was found highest i.e.-5.14% in Lalitpur and lowest i.e. -0.48 in Kanpur dehat district in seventies. There was also a sharp decline in productivity of mustard in 1979-80 over the productivity of 1970-71. The productivity of mustard in 14 selected districts had decreased in 1979-80 over the productivity of 1970-71. It shows that the decade of seventies was not favorable for productivity of mustard crop in the state.

The compound annual growth rate in productivity of mustard in selected districts of U.P. in decade of eighties (from 1980-81 to 1989-90) has also been worked out in Table-III-17. Table-III-17 reveals that the productivity of mustard increased at the rate of 4.14% in the state as a whole. While among the districts, it was found highest i.e. 6.35% in Hardoi district against lowest i.e. 0.69% in Unnao and Sitapur districts in eighties.

- 53 - The negative rate in productivity of mustard was found highest i.e. -2.71% in Lalitpur against lowest i.e. –0.05% in Jhansi and Hamirpur districts in corresponding decade. Thus, the increase in the yield of mustard was quite significant in the state during 1980-81 to 1989-90. The productivity of mustard was 5.40 qtls in 1980-81 which has increased to 8.29 qtls in 1989-90 showing 53.52% increase over the period. In the decade of nineties the compound annual growth rate in productivity of mustard declined at rate of 0.65% in the state as a whole. Among the selected districts, the growth rate was positive 7 districts while it was negative in 8 districts of U.P. in decade of nineties. The district-wise analysis shows that productivity of mustard increased at the rate of 2.21% in Unnao followed by 1.61% in Lalitpur and 1.53% in Jhansi districts. In other districts, the rate of increase varied between 1.37% and 0.53% in Hamirpur and Agra districts respectively, while the decrease in productivity in mustard was faster i.e. -3.35% in Mathura district, -3.25% in Jalaun and - 2.60% in Fetahpur districts during same decade. Over an all, the decade of nineties was also not favourable as far as productivity of mustard is concerned.

However, the productivity of mustard in the State has increased to 10.23 qtls in 1999-2000 from the productivity of 9.93 qtls in 1990-91 thereby showing 3.02% increase over the period. The compound annual growth rate in productivity of mustard over 2001-02 to 2009- 10 in selected districts of U.P. had also been worked out in Table III-17. Table III-17 shows that over all productivity of mustard in the state increased at the rate of 2.04%. Out of 15 selected districts, 13 districts had positive compound annual growth rate in productivity of mustard while it was negative in only two districts namely Kanpur dehat (-0.41%) and Lalitpur (-0.08) in 2000s. Among the 13 districts it was found highest in Mathura district i.e. 4.90% against lowest i.e. 0.36% in Jalaun district. Thus, increase in yield of mustard was found to be very significant in the state of U.P. during 2000-01 to 2009-10 (Table-III-17). There was also significant change in productivity of mustard in 2009-10 over the productivity in 2000-01. Table III-17 shows the productivity has marginally increased to 11.06 qtls in 2009-10 from the productivity of 10.00 qtls in 2000-01, showing 10.60% increase over the period.

The compound annual growth rate in productivity of mustard over 1970-71 to 2009-10 has also been analysed in Table III-17. Table III-17 shows that the productivity of mustard increased in the state as whole at the rate of 2.10%. Among the districts it increased at the - 54 - rate of 3.50%, 2.80%, 2.75%, 2.63%, 2.52%, 2.25%, 2.13% and 2.04% in Budaun, Etah Mathura, Unnao, Kanpur Dehat. Kheri, Jhansi and Agra districts respectively.

While the compound annual growth rate in productivity of mustard in remaining 8 districts was below 2% during the same period. It shows the rate of growth of productivity of mustard in the selected district was quite positive from 1970-71 to 2009-10.

III.17A. Classification of selected districts according to growth in Productivity under Mustard crop

The selected districts of U.P. have been classified according to significant increase in yield and significant decline in yield of mustard in Table III-17 A. It is evident from Table III-17A that significant decline in CAGR in yield of mustard was in 4 districts while it was significant increase in yield in 4 districts during period 1980-81 to 1989-90. However, low CAGR in productivity in yield of mustard was noticed in 7 districts of 15 selected districts of U.P. as compared to 5.22% CAGR of country as a whole during corresponding period.

During period 1990-91 to 1999-2000, the CAGR in productivity of mustard was only 0.07% in the country. The CAGR in productivity of mustard in 7 selected of districts of U.P. was higher while it had declined significantly in 8 districts in comparison the CAGR of 0.07% of the country during period 1990-91 to 1999-2000.

During period 2000-01 to 2009-10, Table-17A reveals that the CAGR in productivity of mustard in 5 districts was higher than 2.18% of CAGR in productivity of mustard of country, while it was lower in 8 selected districts of U.P. Two districts namely Kanpur dehat and Lalitpur district had negative CAGR during corresponding period.

During period 1970-71 to 2009-10, Table reveals that CAGR in productivity of mustard had significant increase in 8 districts while it was low in 7 districts of U.P.

- 55 -

Table-III.17 A Classification of Selected Districts according to Growth in Productivity under Mustard (U.P.)

Significant increase Insignificant decline in yield in yield High Productivity 1980-81 to 1999-90 > All India 5.22 Mathura Jhansi Kanpur Dehat, Lalitpur Hardoi Budaun Fetahpur Hamirpur Low Productivity Shahjahanpur Nil Kheri Sitapur Unnao Agra Jalaun

1990-91 to 1999-2000 High Productivity Budaun Etah 0.07 Shahjahanpur Mathura Kheri Kheri Agra Sitapur Unnao Hardoi Lalitpur Kanpur Dehat Hamirpur Jajaun Jhansi Fatehpur

Low Productivity Nil Nil 2000-01 to 2009-10 High Productivity Budaun Kanpur dehat >2.18 Mathura Lalitpur Kheri Sitapur Etah Low Productivity Shahjahanpur Jhansi Jhansi Hamirpur Hamirpur Lalitpur Fatehpur Kanpur Dehat Agra Jalaun Jalaun Unnao Hardoi

- 56 - 1970-71 to 2009-10

High Productivity Budaun Nil >2.00 Mathura Kheri Jhansi Unnao Etah Kanpur Dehat Agra Low Productivity Shahjanpur Nil Sitapur Hardoi Jajaun Lalitpur Hamirpur Fatehpur

III.18. Variability in Area of Mustard in Selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s

The variability in the area of mustard in selected districts of U.P. during 4 decades has been worked out in Table-III-18. Table III-18 shows that the CV was maximum being 19.38% in decade of seventies followed by 16.71%, 8.99% and 6.18% during decade of eighties, nineties and 2000s respectively in U.P. as a whole. Thus, the variability in area of mustard has been decreasing continuously decade by decade in the state. It shows that the fluctuation in allocation of area under mustard was maximum in decade of seventies and eighties as compared to 1990s and 2000s. The area under mustard was more or less stagnant during 2000s in U.P. The district wise CV in area of mustard of selected districts during seventies.

- 57 - - 58 - Table-III-15 Absolute and Compound Annual Growth Rate in Area of Mustard in different decades i.e. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to 2009-10 in U.P.

Sl.No. Name of 1971-72 to 1979-80 1980-81 to 1989-90 1990-91 to 1999-2000 2000-01 to 2009-10 1970-71 to 2009-10 Districts Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g 1 Mathura 4.84 12.86 13.41 301.85 -10.79 -64.10 10.02 216.98 5.75 939.81 2 Agra 4.56 21.46 7.81 58.80 -5.30 -34.84 -6.39 -36.11 1.99 88.62 3 Badaun -6.10 -47.32 5.63 16.64 0.57 12.29 11.54 151.11 4.94 678.92 4 Shahjahanpur 2.83 -4.39 2.71 8.21 2.84 29.61 5.30 56.24 2.05 316.13 5 Kheri 1.63 10.59 5.69 15.34 0.86 15.16 -0.42 -6.02 2.38 105.61 6 Sitapur 5.79 50.72 7.28 86.17 2.56 21.83 2.64 23.09 6.06 657.63 7 Unnao 7.34 62.23 1.21 -0.22 5.33 71.59 1.63 30.73 5.64 638.10 8 Hardoi 12.69 121.97 2.66 5.19 3.81 39.20 -2.56 -26.71 3.70 441.82 9 Etah 14.68 142.91 5.26 25.81 4.27 99.21 -2.35 -40.98 6.47 1338.98 10 Kanpur Dehat 4.30 22.45 -4.27 -34.29 -3.16 -15.50 -0.28 -5.64 -1.06 -12.06 11 Jalaun -0.71 -21.75 -3.89 -25.44 1.54 35.28 2.98 66.76 1.25 113.98 12 Jhansi 0.10 77.62 8.91 296.52 1.49 62.23 16.15 389.96 6.73 2562.31 13 Lalitpur -31.37 -87.03 0.84 107.75 7.41 47.65 31.44 1668.83 2.90 688.71 14 Hamirpur 4.18 35.29 -2.42 3.75 -7.56 -36.42 8.50 181.63 1.19 293.73 15 Fetahpur 7.82 51.64 -1.95 -7.08 1.20 14.50 2.24 17.24 3.63 337.64 Uttar Pradesh 3.05 6.47 4.22 42.56 -1.16 -5.44 0.98 10.73 2.91 204.55 Table-III-16 Absolute and Compound Annual Growth Rate in Production of Mustard in different decades i.e. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to 2009-10 in U.P.

Sl.No. Name of 1971-72 to 1979-80 1980-81 to 1989-90 1990-91 to 1999-2000 2000-01 to 2009-10 1970-71 to 2009-10 Districts Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g 1 Mathura 3.43 -17.92 19.19 501.28 -17.39 -63.43 10.51 234.75 8.26 1662.74 2 Agra 3.56 -30.48 8.71 125.54 -4.79 -26.07 -2.64 -24.51 5.03 310.40 3 Badaun -7.36 -55.21 5.83 -1.40 1.93 33.88 15.56 320.59 7.74 2414.01 4 Shahjahanpur 1.58 -18.67 7.16 103.34 3.53 46.39 6.80 70.02 3.92 720.95 5 Kheri 2.40 -15.10 3.46 65.17 0.33 6.60 3.08 4.95 3.88 271.95 6 Sitapur 6.47 15.67 7.97 185.20 1.18 17.51 6.94 64.88 7.60 1304.33 7 Unnao 10.58 99.13 1.90 52.79 7.53 126.57 2.72 37.15 7.71 1615.17 8 Hardoi 14.53 74.32 9.01 95.62 1.97 38.81 -0.45 -21.96 5.92 1058.98 9 Etah 13.59 76.88 9.82 104.35 0.36 11.56 1.80 -18.75 8.62 3305.91 10 Kanpur Dehat 2.73 -7.20 1.27 7.03 -3.33 3.62 -0.40 -12.77 1.96 49.17 11 Jalaun 0.95 -27.99 0.83 59.90 -1.71 28.86 3.35 155.72 3.74 464.93 12 Jhansi 1.84 61.80 8.86 399.41 3.01 139.16 18.22 576.55 9.31 6220.79 13 Lalitpur -36.44 -2.57 0.79 162.31 9.00 117.57 31.36 2100.79 5.18 1773.65 14 Hamirpur 5.80 23.28 -2.48 30.73 -8.70 -48.10 9.69 309.51 3.23 769.57 15 Fetahpur 3.39 -13.07 3.29 83.31 0.00 1.45 3.26 37.79 5.03 431.71 Uttar Pradesh 1.19 -32.37 8.44 120.47 -1.50 -2.92 2.92 22.41 5.35 450.22

- 60 - Table-III-17 Absolute and Compound Annual Growth Rate in Productivity of Mustard in different decades i.e. 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 1970-71 to 2009-10 in U.P.

Sl.No. Name of 1971-72 to 1979-80 1980-81 to 1989-90 1990-91 to 1999-2000 2000-01 to 2009-10 1970-71 to 2009-10 Districts Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g Comp g Absol.g 1 Mathura -1.41 -27.29 6.02 49.58 -3.35 1.88 4.90 52.69 2.75 127.85 2 Agra -1.00 -42.77 3.50 42.03 0.53 13.71 1.21 -85.62 2.04 81.11 3 Badaun -1.25 -14.94 -0.62 -15.37 1.27 19.21 4.02 67.46 3.50 169.67 4 Shahjahanpur -1.25 -14.94 4.37 87.88 0.67 12.60 1.49 8.75 1.83 64.68 5 Kheri 0.78 -23.22 1.90 43.23 -0.52 -7.43 3.50 11.63 2.25 26.32 6 Sitapur 0.68 -23.22 0.69 53.07 -1.38 -3.47 4.31 34.05 1.92 29.53 7 Unnao 0.68 -23.22 0.69 53.07 2.21 32.18 1.09 4.88 2.63 62.28 8 Hardoi 0.68 -23.22 6.35 85.87 -1.41 -0.59 2.10 6.52 1.52 49.44 9 Etah -2.42 -27.19 4.58 62.44 -0.93 -2.12 4.12 37.81 2.80 144.02 10 Kanpur Dehat -0.48 -24.07 5.54 62.89 -0.56 20.12 -0.41 -12.34 2.52 89.82 11 Jalaun 1.61 -8.82 4.42 114.37 -3.25 -4.75 0.36 53.32 1.36 70.11 12 Jhansi 1.62 -8.82 -0.05 26.15 1.53 47.43 2.07 37.95 2.13 67.13 13 Lalitpur -5.14 1.09 -2.71 -22.57 1.61 47.43 -0.08 24.48 1.89 50.80 14 Hamirpur 1.80 -8.82 -0.05 26.15 1.37 47.43 1.19 45.38 1.45 55.40 15 Fetahpur -4.45 -42.78 5.24 97.38 -2.60 -11.42 1.03 17.49 0.80 83.67 Uttar Pradesh -2.09 -36.12 4.14 53.52 -0.65 3.02 2.04 10.60 2.10 73.35

- 61 - - 62 - Table-III-18 Variability in Area of Mustard in Selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s)

Sl.No. Name of 1970-71 to 1980-81 to 1990-91 to 2000-01 to Districts 79-80 89-90 99-00 09-10 1 Mathura 31.08 42.80 32.23 29.11 2 Agra 27.23 32.11 17.30 22.38 3 Budaun 41.75 33.81 28.94 37.55 4 Shahjahanpur 39.61 17.86 21.58 28.07 5 Kheri 6.60 23.56 7.39 3.15 6 Sitapur 20.45 28.59 10.44 10.43 7 Unnao 26.89 9.99 19.14 8.38 8 Hardoi 45.82 16.79 13.02 13.40 9 Etah 57.59 30.20 23.48 21.42 10 Kanpur Dehat 21.96 20.93 16.45 3.33 11 Jalaun 32.62 15.29 13.90 22.05 12 Jhansi 44.41 84.34 31.27 76.57 13 Lalitpur 42.78 34.63 30.60 102.14 14 Hamirpur 21.66 29.47 26.81 38.80 15 Fetahpur 31.40 14.91 6.60 7.83 Uttar Pradesh 19.38 16.71 8.99 6.18

Table-III.18 shows that the maximum CV i.e. 57.59% was witnessed in Etah district followed by 45.82%, 44.41% and 42.78% in Hardoi, Jhansi and Lalitpur districts respectively in decade of seventies. It is also found from Table III-18 that CV in area of mustard was more in 14 of the 15 selected districts than CV of 19.38% of State as a whole. The lowest CV was witnessed in Kheri district i.e. 6.60%. In the decade of eighties, the CV in area of mustard was highest being 84.34% in Jhansi and lowest being 9.99% in . The CV percentage in area of mustard was higher in 12 districts of 15 selected districts from 16.71% of state as a whole during eighties. It shows that variability in area of mustard was more in the selected districts during eighties. In nineties the CV in area of mustard was only 8.99% in the state as a whole. It varied between 31.27% in Jhansi and 6.60% in Fetahpur district. It is also noticed from Table-III-18 that CV% in area of mustard was lower in only one district of the 15 selected districts than 8.99% CV of the state as a whole in decade of nineties.

It shows that there was a marginal variability in area of mustard among the selected districts during nineties. As far as CV percentage in area of mustard is concerned during the 2000s, table III-18 reveals that the CV percentage was lowest being 6.18% in state as a whole during 2000s among all the study decades. However, there was much variation in CV percentage among the selected districts in this decade i.e. from 2000-01 to 2009-10. The highest CV percentage was 102.14 in Lalitpur district and lowest CV was 3.15% in Kheri district. Out of total 15 selected districts, only two districts witnessed had lower CV percentage in area of mustard from 6.18% CV of state as a whole.

The above analysis reflects that variability in area of mustard was lowest in 1990s and 2000s than that of 1970s and 1980s in the state. It is also observed from above discussion that the variability in area of mustard was much in the selected districts of Bundelkhand region (rainfed region) than other selected districts of western and central regions of U.P. during the study decades.

III.19. Variability in Production of mustard in the selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s

The CV in production of mustard in the selected districts and state as a whole has been worked out in Table-III-19 during four decades. i.e. 1970, 1980, 1990s and 2000s. Table-III- 19 reveals that the CV percentage in production of mustard was highest in U.P. being 30.63% in 1980s followed by 29.30%, 17.73% and 11.95% during 1970s, 1990s and 2000s respectively. Thus, the variability in production of mustard was much higher in decades of eighties and seventies than their counter part decades in state as a whole.

The CV in production of mustard among the selected districts was highest being 204.51% and lowest was 27.52% in Etah and Agra districts respectively in the decade of seventies. The CV percentage in production of mustard was much higher in the 14 selected districts than the CV of 29.30% of state as a whole in seventies. It shows that there was much inconsistency in CV percentage in production of mustard among the selected districts of U.P. during the seventies. It reflects that the variability in production of mustard was much wide across the selected districts of U.P. during the seventies. In the decade of eighties, there was less fluctuation in variability in production of mustard among the selected districts. Table-III- 19 shows that the CV varied between 91.16% and 18.73% in Jhansi and Kanpur dehat districts respectively during eighties. Out of the 15 selected districts, only three districts,

- 64 - namely Kanpur dehat, Jalaun and Kheri districts had the CV less than 30.63% of states as a whole during the eighties. Table-III-19 Variability in Production of Mustard in Selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s)

Sl.no. Name of 1970-71 to 79-80 1980-81 to 89-90 1990-91 to 99-00 2000-01 to 09-10 Districts 1 Mathura 41.08 55.28 58.07 29.62 2 Agra 27.52 38.69 28.07 12.58 3 Budaun 54.41 42.31 23.71 45.60 4 Shahjahanpur 53.63 34.30 28.83 34.22 5 Kheri 31.04 23.25 22.83 15.36 6 Sitapur 43.13 46.16 33.19 25.43 7 Unnao 45.79 30.73 35.71 18.44 8 Hardoi 73.33 33.50 24.31 17.55 9 Etah 204.51 35.87 20.89 24.44 10 Kanpur Dehat 52.43 18.73 25.82 12.78 11 Jalaun 43.38 23.21 23.47 42.27 12 Jhansi 51.01 91.16 31.36 87.95 13 Lalitpur 58.01 42.48 41.85 104.21 14 Hamirpur 39.80 39.93 31.63 52.64 15 Fetahpur 35.54 31.60 36.06 18.44 Uttar Pradesh 29.30 30.63 17.73 11.95

During the period 1990-91 to 1999-2000, the variability in production of mustard was more or less stagnant across the selected districts of U.P. Table III-19 reveals that CV varied between 58.07% and 20.89% in Mathura and Etah districts respectively. The percentage of CV in production of mustard in all the selected districts was higher than percentage of CV being 17.73% of the state as a whole during nineties.

The variability in production of mustard during period 2000-01 to 2009-10 was found more constant in comparison to other decades. It varied between 104.21% and 12.58% in Lalitpur and Agra districts respectively. Table-III-19 reveals that CV per cent much higher in all the selected districts than CV of 11.95% of the state as a whole during period 2000-01 to 2009- 10.

- 65 - It shows the that variability in production of mustard in the state was lowest in period 2000- 01 to 2009-10 as compared to variability in productivity of mustard in selected districts of U.P. during 1970s, 1980s and 2000s.

III.20. Variability in Productivity of Mustard in Selected Districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s)

The coefficient variation in productivity of mustard during 4 decades in the selected districts and state as a whole has been calculated in Table III-20. Table-III.20 shows that VC in productivity of mustard in U.P. was highest being 21.57% in 1980s followed by 20.87%, 16.90% and 8.62% in 1970s, 1990s, and 2000s respectively. It shows that variability in productivity of mustard was relatively much higher in 1980s than variability in 2000s in Uttar Pradesh. Table-III-20 Variability in Productivity of Mustard in Selected districts of U.P. (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s)

Sl.no. Name of Districts 1970-71 to 79-80 1980-81 to 89-90 1990-91 to 99-00 2000-01 to 09-10 1 Mathura 26.57 21.57 24.17 17.03 2 Agra 21.79 20.99 23.93 8.30 3 Budaun 16.52 19.33 12.39 17.25 4 Shahjahanpur 16.52 22.92 14.97 11.92 5 Kheri 26.39 18.87 22.84 14.99 6 Sitapur 25.97 30.75 27.94 15.98 7 Unnao 25.97 30.75 22.24 15.29 8 Hardoi 25.97 26.47 25.10 12.34 9 Etah 23.66 18.80 13.76 17.73 10 Kanpur Dehat 25.46 22.33 20.89 12.05 11 Jalaun 27.47 23.35 23.23 26.15 12 Jhansi 27.53 14.78 20.34 15.79 13 Lalitpur 27.42 15.74 21.59 21.34 14 Hamirpur 27.59 14.78 22.54 20.63 15 Fetahpur 29.98 26.51 20.26 14.42 Uttar Pradesh 20.84 21.57 16.90 8.62

The productivity of mustard has under gone ups and downs in almost all the selected districts. There was high degree of inconsistency in productivity of mustard among the selected districts during the study decades. The extent of variation in the yield was found comparatively low in 2000s as compared to period 1970s.

- 66 - III.21. Variability in Area, Production and Productivity of Mustard (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s in U.P.

The coefficient variation in area, production and productivity of mustard in Uttar Pradesh has been worked out during different decades in Table III-21. Table reveals that the variability in production of mustard was much higher as compared to variability in area and productivity in different decades. The variability in area and productivity of mustard were more or less same during period 1970-71 to 1979-80, in the decade of eighties. The variability in area and productivity has decreased by 2.67% and 6.06% as compared to variability of seventies. Against it, variability of production of mustard has marginally increased in eighties than that of seventies.

During period 1990-91 to 1999-2000, the variability of production and productivity are much higher than variability in area of mustard. It shows that expansion in area of mustard was more or less stagnant in the state during the period i.e. from 1990-91 to 1999-200. As far as period 2000-01 to 2009-10 is concerned, Table-III.21 reveals that the variability in area of mustard was comparatively lower than the variability in production and productivity of mustard. It reflects from above discussion that production of mustard has increased due to the higher productivity rather than expansion in area of mustard particularly during 1990s and 2000s in Uttar Pradesh. The above analysis also confirms that changes in variability in yield of mustard within districts and state have an important contribution to the increase in coefficient of variation. The increase in mustard yield variances within districts was less important for instability of state production than inter district yield covariance with in the state. Table-III-21 Variability in Area, Production and Productivity of Mustard (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s in U.P.

Period CV% Area Production Productivity 1970-71 to 1979-80 19.38 29.30 20.84 1980-81 to 1999-90 16.71 30.63 14.78 1990-91 to 1999-2000 8.99 17.73 16.90 2000-01 to 2009-10 6.18 11.95 8.62

- 67 - III. 22. Variability in Annual Whole Sale Prices of Major Oilseeds and Edible Oils in the State

The coefficient variance of annual wholesale prices of mustard, linseed and groundnut for 20 years i.e. from 1992-93 to 2011-12 in Uttar Pradesh are presented in Table-III-22. Table- III.22 shows that the annual whole sale price of mustard was Rs. 920.50 per qtl in 1992-93 which has increased to Rs. 2619 in 2011-12, showing 184.52% increase over the period. The CV was worked out to be 33.00% during this period. Table-III.22 Annual Whole Sale Prices of Major Oilseeds and Wheat in U.P. (Rs. /Qtl) Year Whole Sale Prices Mustard Linseed G.Nut Wheat 1992-93 920.5 1003.5 1251 342 1993-94 970 1027 1580 425 1994-95 1100 1138 1429 402 1995-96 1181 1200 1600 412 1996-97 1180 1305 1622 577 1997-98 1142 1266 1675 526 1998-99 1694 1692 2088 585 1999-2000 1393 1469 2132 666 2000-01 1150 1274 1905 568 2001-02 1243 1377 1641 588 2002-03 1465 1597 1787 632 2003-04 1880 1892 1969 674 2004-05 1705 1799 1909 686 2005-06 1617 1753 1901 769 2006-07 1665 1825 2071 951 2007-08 2050 2271 2648 970 2008-09 2559 2801 2981 1011 2009-10 2335 2713 3148 1121 2010-11 2294 2618 3308 1139 2011-12 2619 2861 3677 1085 SD 530.4033 606.0836 675.0538 253.9711 Variance 281327.7 367337.3 455697.7 64501.31 Mean 1608.125 1744.075 2116.1 706.45 CV 33.0 34.8 31.9 36.0 Source: Mandi Parshad, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow

The annual wholesale price of linseed was Rs. 1003.50 per qtl in 1992-93 which has increased to Rs. 2861.00 per qtl, showing 185.10% increase over the period. The CV was 34.80% during corresponding period. The annual whole sale price of ground nut was Rs.

- 68 - 1251 per qtl in 1992-93 which has increased to Rs. 3677.00 per qtl in 2011-12, showing 193.92% increases over period. The CV was estimated at 31.90% during the same period. It reflects that variability in annual whole sale price of linseed was more being 34.8% followed by 33.00% and 31.90% in mustard and groundnut respectively. Table-III.22 also shows that the annual whole sale prices of mustard, linseeds and groundnut found significant increase from year 2007-08 onwards.

The wheat is main competing crop of mustard in Uttar Pradesh. The whole sale annual price of wheat was Rs. 342 per qtl in 1992-93 which has increased to Rs. 1085 per qtl in 2011-12 showing 217.25% increase over the period. The CV of wheat was 36% during same period. It shows that percentage change in whole sale annual price as well as CV percentage in wheat were higher in comparison to mustard during study period from 1991-92 to 2011-12 in Uttar Pradesh.

III.23. Variability in Annual Whole sale Prices of Edible Oils in the State (from 1989-90 to 2010-11) The coefficient of variation of annual whole sale prices of edible oils of mustard, groundnut and Til has been calculated in Table-III-23 to know its variability in edible oils for 22 years i.e. from 1989-90 to 2010-11. Table shows that the CV in annual whole price of groundnut oil was higher being 46.39% as compared to 38.30 per cent and 32.34% of til and mustard respectively. The annual whole sale price of mustard oil was Rs. 23.00 per litre. in 1989-90 which has increased to Rs. 75 per litre in 2010-11, showing 266% increase over the period. The annual whole sale price of groundnut oil was Rs. 27 per litre in 1989.90 which has gone up to Rs. 126 per litre in 2010-11, showing 367% increase over the period.

Incase of til, the annual whole sale price of its oil was Rs. 30 per litre in 1989-90 which has increased to Rs. 126 per litre in 2010-11 showing 320% increase over the period. It is also witnessed from Table III-23 that the fluctuation in annual whole sale price of groundnut oil was much higher than that of mustard and til oils during the study period. The annual whole sale price of ground nut oil was higher in each year from 1989-90 to 2010-11 in comparison to mustard and til oils.

- 69 - It is also confirmed from standard deviation. The SD was higher in groundnut oil than that of mustard and til oils. It may be concluded with this result that the variability in annual whole sale price in oil of groundnut was much higher than the oil of til and mustard during the study year.

Table-III-23 Variability in Annual whole sale Price of Inedible Oils in the State during different Year from 1989-90 to 2010-11 (Price per litre)

Years Mustard Oil G. Nut Oil Til Oil 1989-90 23 27 30 1990-91 33 34 28 1991-92 38 40 42 1992-93 35 51 46 1993-94 35 47 42 1994-95 40 47 51 1995-96 43 51 60 1996-97 42 52 62 1997-98 41 53 56 1998-99 67 66 69 1999-2000 47 54 84 2000-01 40 78 71 2001-02 44 81 67 2002-03 47 85 69 2003-04 65 101 82 2004-05 60 102 90 2005-06 57 93 93 2006-07 59 107 94 2007-08 70 122 98 2008-09 85 153 117 2009-10 76 140 114 2010-11 75 126 126 SD 16 36 28 Mean 51 78 72 CV% 32.34 46.39 38.30

- 70 - CHAPTER-IV

Problems and Prospects of Mustard Production: An Empirical Analysis

An attempt has been made in this chapter to analyse “Problems and Prospects of Mustard Production” based on empirical data collected from 200 households of three selected districts of U.P. IV.1 Main Features of the Study Villages IV.2 Main Feature of Sample Households

IV.1 Main Features of Selected villages

It has already been reported in the 2nd chapter of the report that 3 major mustard producing districts namely Agra, Etah and Lakhimpur Kheri were selected for this study. From each district, two villages were selected to select the sample farmers. The main features of selected villages are being described in a systematic manner. I. Agra district Two villages namely Qutakpur Gola and Nawgoan/Tiwaha were selected from Agra district. (a) Qutakpur Gola It is situated at 35 Km away from Agra headquarter. It comes under jurisdiction of Fetahabad block. It is also well connected with block as well as district headquarters. The village was fully electrified. The private tube-wells were major source of irrigation. The post office and rural bank were not situated in the village. The total households of this village were about 150. The total population of village was dominated by OBC followed by SC. There were also some limited Brahamin families. More than 80% of gross cropped area of village was occupied by mustard during the reference period. Apart from this, wheat, potato and bajra were also main crops of the village.

(b) Nawgoan and Tiwaha

This village is situated at 38 Km away from district headquarter. Fetehabad is block of this village. The distance of block from this village is about 10 Km., This was electrified village. Most of infrastructural facilities were not available in the village.

- 71 - Main source of irrigation of this village was private tube-wells. The numbers of inhabited households of village were 125 of which 60% was OBC caste. The distribution of land was uneven among the households. Of the total household, more than 70% were small and marginal households. Of the total area of rabi season, more than 80% area was occupied by only mustard. The wheat was also important crop. The bajra was also dominant crop in Kharif as well as in summer seasons. The bajra was extensively cultivated in kharif and summer seasons by the farmers of this village.

2. Etah district

Two villages namely Siyayan and Leesukhpur were selected from Etah district.

(a) Siyayan Siyapur village belongs to Sitalpur block of Etah district. It is located at distance of 12 Km from district head quarter. The facilities of post office, bank, health care centre etc were not available in the village. Total numbers of households were around 130 of which 89% was Lodhi caste. The OBC was dominating in the village. Most of the households were agriculturist. They were also small farmers. The literacy percentage of village was about 70% during 2010-11. The tube-well was main source of irrigation. Rice, wheat and mustard were main crops of this village.

(b) Lessukhpur

This village also belongs to Sitalpur block of Etah district. The distance of village from district and block was 18 Km and 15 Km respectively. This was fully electrified and well connected with pucca road from district and block headquarters. However, the basic amenities were not adequately available in the village. The village had 220 households of which 80% were farmers. Rice, wheat and mustard were main crops of this village.

3. Lakhimpur Kheri

Lahkimpur Kheri is in Tari district of Uttar Pradesh. The soil health of this district is very potential in comparison to other districts of U.P. Most of cultivated land of this district was fully irrigated. Sugarcane, rice, wheat and mustard were principal crops of this district. Two villages namely Gopalpur and Korai-Jangal and Peerpur were selected for the study.

- 72 - (a) Gopalpur

Gopalpur village is 16 Km away from district headquarter. The name of block of this village is Lakhimpur Kheri which is 16 Km away from Gopalpur village. The village was well connected with pucca road from district as well from block H.Q. Adequate infrastructure facilities were not available in the village. However, it was an electrified village. The tube- wells were main source of irrigation. It is medium sized village and had 200 households. All of them were farmers. All castes lived in this village. The literacy percentage of village was about 60%. The rice and wheat were grown at large scale. The mustard is also grown in rabi season. Wheat is competing crop of mustard.

(b) Korai Jangal/Peerpur

Peerpur village was selected from Lakhiimpur Kheri district. It is situated at a distance of 8 Km from district headquarter. It was also electrified village. It was well connected with district and block and headquarters. The canal and tube-wells/ pump-sets were source of irrigation. All cultivated land of village was irrigated. More than 180 families lived in the village of which 160 families were dependent on agriculture. The main crop of this village was sugarcane followed by rice and wheat. Mustard was also sown in rabi season. Wheat is competing crop of mustard in the village.

IV.2 Main Features of Sample Households IV.2.1 Socio-Economic Status of Sample Household

The socio-economic status of sample households is presented in Table-IV.1. Table-IV.1 shows that average age of head of household was about 54 years. All the head of sample households were matured and were more than 50 years old. The average size of sample family members was about 8 which ranged between 6.49 and 12.65 members on marginal and large size of farms respectively. It shows that large farmers believe in living jointly. The sex ratio of male and female was more or les same across the size of farms.

- 73 - IV.2.2. Social Groups

Of the total 200 sample households, OBC accounted for 56.50% followed by 30% and 13.50% for General and SC respectively. The percentage of OBC of total samples was more than 50% across the size of farms. The SC was found less in number as compared to general caste. The SC was mostly small and marginal farmers. It reflects that OBC was dominant on the sample farms than the general and SC in the study area. Table-IV.1 also reveals that male was mostly head of family. It is noticed from Table-IV.1 that 97% male was head of households against 3% of female. This type of tendency witnessed across the sample farms. It shows that the families of rural areas are still governed by the male. Table-IV-1 Socio-Economic Status of Sample Households Indicators Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Age (years) 55.70 53.40 56.93 60.45 54.36 Main Occupation (%) Crop farming 89.09 89.71 85.96 95.00 89.00 Service 10.91 10.29 12.28 5.00 10.50 Farm Labour - - 1.76 - 0.50 Others Education (years of schooling) 6.56 7.76 7.82 5.95 7.27 Average Family Size (no) 6.49 7.69 18.98 12.65 8.23 Male 3.25 3.85 4.84 6.15 4.20 Female 3.24 3.84 4.14 6.50 4.03 Social Groups (%) General 15 19 22 4 60 (27.27) (27.94) (38.60) (20.00) (30.00) SC/ST 13 12 2 - 27 (23.64) (17.65) (3.51) (13.50) OBC 27 37 33 16 113 (49.09) (54.41) (57.89) (80.00) (56.50) Others - - - - - Head of household (%) Male 96.36 95.59 100.00 95.00 97.00 Female 3.64 4.41 - 5.00 3.00 Figures in brackets are percentage to total households of respective size group of farms.

- 74 - IV.2.3 Main Occupation

The main occupations of sample farmers are also shown in Table-IV.1. It is witnessed from table-IV.1 that farming was main occupation of sample farmers. More than 89% of total sample households were engaged in crop farming and it was their main occupation. Next to crop farming, service was also main occupation of 10.50% of total 200 sample farmers. It shows that almost all the sample farmers were fully engaged in agriculture sector.

IV.2.4. Land Ownership Pattern on Sample Households

The land ownership pattern on sample households is analysed in Table-IV.2. Table shows that per farm owned area was 0.83 hectare, 1.59 hectares, 8.54 hectares and 11.30 hectares of marginal, small, medium and large sample farmers respectively. Table-IV- 2 Land Ownership Pattern on Sample Households (ha)

Indicators Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms 1. Total owned land 45.68 108.89 202.01 225.99 581.97 (0.83) (1.59) (8.54) (11.30) (2.91) Irrigated 45.68 108.29 201.01 220.30 575.28 Un-irrigated - - 1.00 5.69 6.69 2. Area under cultivation 45.68 108.29 202.01 220.30 576.28 Irrigated 45.68 108.29 201.01 214.61 569.59 Un-irrigated - - 1.00 5.69 6.69 3. Leased-in land Irrigated - - - - - Un-irrigated - - - - - 4. Leased-out land Irrigated - - - - - Un-irrigated - - - - - 5. Total Operational holding 45.68 108.29 202.01 220.30 576.28 (2+3-4) (0.83) (1.59) (3.54) (11.02) (2.88) Irrigated 45.68 108.29 201.01 214.61 569.59 Un-irrigated 1.00 5.69 6.69 Note: Figures in brackets are per farm

- 75 - At the aggregate level, it was worked out to 2.91 hectares. Out of total owned area of 581.97 hectares, 98.85% was irrigated and rest only 1.15% was un-irrigated which belonged to 0.17% and 0.98% of medium and large farms respectively. The total owned area of marginal and small farmers was fully irrigated. It is also apparent from Table-IV.2 that the total owned area of marginal, small and medium farmers was fully under cultivation where as, 97.48% of owned area of large farmers was under cultivation. It reflects that all owned land of sample farmers was fully under cultivation. This was due to expansion of irrigation net work in the study areas.

IV.3 Leased in - Leased out Land

The sample farmers neither leased-in land nor leased-out land during the reference period, it shows that leased-in land leased-out land were not prevalent in the study areas. (Table-IV-3). Table-IV- 3 Terms of lease

Farm Incidence of Terms of Leasing (%) Terms of Lease Size lease (%) (Rent/amount) % area % HHs For For fixed Share Others Fixed Fixed leased- leasing fixed produce Cropping money produce in in money Marginal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Medium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Large 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 farms

IV.4. Irrigation Sources

Canal and pump-sets (diesel and electric) were main sources of irrigation of the study area. Sources of irrigation on the sample farms are presented in Table-IV.4. Table-IV.4 reveals that of the total cropped area, 57.50% area was irrigated at the aggregate level. The percentage of irrigated area to total cropped area ranged between 54.99 on large and 60.74 on small farms. It shows that more than 50% of total cropped area was irrigated by surface and ground water across the size of farms. It is also noticed from table-IV.4 that most of area under rabi crops were irrigated by all categories of sample farmers. Table-IV.4 also reveals - 76 - that ground water was main source of irrigation followed by surface water. Tanks and other sources were not used by the sample farmers. More than 90% of total cropped area was irrigated by ground water. The small and marginal sample farmers had also used only surface source of irrigation, which was 25.39% and 8.76% respectively. The ground water was only used by medium and large sample farmers. The analysis reveals that pump-sets were main source of irrigation devices on the sample farms than the canal. It also shows that expansion of canal was limited in the study areas. In spite of this, ground water is much assured than the surface water. Table-IV-4 Irrigation Sources

Indicators Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Area under irrigation (% to 56.70 60.74 58.85 54.99 57.50 total cropped area) Sources of irrigation (%) Surface 8.76 25.39 - - 5.53 Groundwater 91.24 74.61 100.00 100.00 94.47 Tanks - - - - - Others - - - - -

IV.5. Cropping Pattern

The information about crops and area occupied by the sample farms in the reference year is furnished in Table-IV.5. Table-IV.5 reveals total area under crops was 99,067 hectares of which 45.73% accounted for rabi season crops followed by 39.19% and 15.08% of Kharif and summer season crops respectively. Of the total cropped area, cereal crops accounted for 49.05 % followed by 22.86%, 6.54%, 6.23% and 15.32% of oilseeds, cash crops, pulses and other crops respectively. Among the cereal crops, wheat, bajra, maize and paddy were major crops accounted for 17.31%, 18.35%, 6.68% and 6.71% of GCA respectively during the reference period. It shows that coarse cereals namely, maize and bajra were also main crops jointly accounted for 25.03% of GCA on the sample farms. Sugarcane and potato were main cash crops accounted for 9.86% and 5.61% of GCA respectively on the sample farms. Among the oilseeds, mustard and sesame were main oilseed crops which accounted for 19.37% and 3.49% of GCA respectively on the sample farms. It reflects that mustard was - 77 - second most important crop on the sample farms. It was also treated as cash crop in Agra district. The sequence of cropping pattern was more or less same across the size of sample farms. All the area under rabi crops were fully irrigated by all category of farmers. The percentage allocation of area under mustard across the size of farms is shown in Table-IV.5 which shows that maximum share of GCA being 24.91% was under mustard on marginal farms followed by 22.72%, 20.32% and 15.86% on small, medium and large farms respectively. Table-IV-5 Cropping Pattern (ha) Season/Crop Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Rice 7.35 19.25 23.90 16.00 66.50 (9.12) (10.80) (7.00) (4.10) (6.71) Irrigated 7.35 19.25 23.90 16.00 66.50 (9.12) (10.80) (7.00) (4.10) (6.71) Unirrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Maize 4.25 14.50 20.45 27.00 66.20 (5.27) (8.13) (5.99) (6.92) (6.68) Irrigated 4.25 14.50 20.45 27.00 66.20 (5.27) (8.13) (5.99) (6.92) (6.68) Unirrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Coarse Cereals 19.09 32.28 55.82 56.00 163.19 (23.69) (18.10) (16.34) (14.34) (16.47) Irrigated 1.90 6.65 - 11.80 20.35 (2.36) (3.73) (3.02) (2.05) Unirrigated 17.19 25.63 55.82 44.20 142.84 (21.33) (14.37) (16.34) (11.32) (14.42) Pulses 1.30 2.36 13.36 17.16 34.18 (1.61) (1.32) (3.91) (4.40) (3.45) Irrigated 0.10 1.25 12.86 - 14.21 0.12) (0.70) (3.97) (1.43) Unirrigated 1.20 1.11 0.50 17.16 19.97 (1.49) (0.62) (0.14) (4.40) (2.02) Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 Groundnut 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Unirrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Sesame 0.00 0.50 3.12 31.00 34.62 (0.28) (0.92) (7.94) (3.49) Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Unirrigated 0.00 0.50 3.12 31.00 34.62 (0.28) (0.92) (7.94) (3.49) Sunflower 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Unirrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Soybean 0 0 0 0 0

- 78 - Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Un-irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Unirrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Cotton 0 0 0 0 0 Vegetables 0.85 2.27 3.42 2.56 9.10 (1.05) (1.27) (1.00) (0.67) (0.92) Other crops 1.20 2.50 5.21 5.55 14.46 (1.49) (1.40) (1.53) (1.42) (1.46) Rabi Wheat 17.66 36.10 50.43 67.30 171.49 (21.92) (20.25) (14.76) (17.24) (17.31) Irrigated 17.66 36.10 50.43 67.30 171.49 (21.92) (20.25) (14.76) (17.24) (17.31) Coarse Cereals 0.00 0.36 1.10 3.68 5.14 (0.20) (0.32) (0.94) (0.52) Irrigated 0.00 0.36 1.10 3.68 5.14 (0.20) (0.32) (0.94) (0.52) Un-irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Pulses 0 0.36 4.50 3.25 8.11 (0.20) (1.32) (0.83) (0.82) Irrigated 0 0.36 2.00 3.25 5.61 (0.20) (0.59) (0.83) (0.25) Un-irrigated 0 0 2.50 0 2.50 (0.25) (0.73) Rapeseed & Mustard 20.07 40.51 69.42 61.90 191.90 (22.72) (20.32) (15.86) (19.37) (24.91) Irrigated 20.07 40.51 69.42 61.90 191.90 (22.72) (20.32) (15.86) (19.37) (24.91) Sugarcane 4.70 13.10 34.85 45.00 97.65 (5.83) (7.35) (10.20) (11.53) (9.86) Summer Crops 0.24 3.90 8.30 6.40 18.84 Fodder (0.30) (2.19) (2.43) (1.64) (1.90) Bajra 1.00 0.50 4.75 7.25 13.50 (1.24) (0.28) (1.39) (1.86) (1.36) Pulses 0 0 11.45 8 19.45 (3.36) (2.05) (1.96) Note: Figures in brackets are percentage to total area under crops.

It shows that percentage allocation of area under mustard of GCA decreases with increase in size of farms. The total area under mustard was fully irrigated by all the sample farmers. The ground nut soyabean, sun-flowers were not grown by the sample farmers. It is also noticed from Table-IV.5 that allocation of area under wheat and mustard was jointly accounted for

- 79 - 36.68% of total GCA. The percentage allocation of area under mustard was a marginally higher than that of percentage allocation of wheat on marginal small and medium farms. It shows that mustard was important oilseed on the sample farms. Among the all crops grown in different season, the percentage allocation area under mustard to GCA was much higher to other crops across the sample size of farms. Bajra was also important coarse cereal crop on sample farms. It was grown in Kharif as well as in summer seasons. It was sown in summer season particularly in Agra and Etah districts. Potato was main cash crop on the sample farms of Agra district while sugarcane was most important cash crop on the sample farms of Lukhimpur Kheri district. The above analysis reflects that the sample farmers had attached more significance to mustard crop in the cropping pattern. Generally mustard crop is grown in the fields which are kept fallow in Kharif season in Agra district, Mustard is grown as single crop by the sample farmers of selected districts. It is generally competitive with wheat in rabi season. The main competitive crops for mustard were wheat and potato in the study area. The cropping pattern followed by the farmers under different size group of holdings was more or less same. There were minute deviations among the different size groups.

IV.6. Average yield of Major Crops on Sample Households

The average yield of major crops on the sample households has been worked out in Table- IV.6. The average yield of rice of per hectare at the aggregate level was 42.20 qtls which ranged between 37.63 qtls and 44.57 qtls on large and medium size of farms respectively. It shows that average yield of rice per hectare was much better than the state average yield of 20.96 qtls per hectare in 2009.10. The reason for tremendous increase in production of rice was due to use of Hybrid seed. The average yield of maize was worked out to 27.06 qtls per hectare which ranged between 25.89 qtls and 30.24 qtls per hectare on large and marginal size of sample farms respectively. It was also higher by 85.85% over average yield of state as a whole of 14.56 qtls per hectare. The average yield of bajra per hectare was 24.09 qtls at the aggregate level. Table-IV.6 also shows that average yield of bajra under irrigated land was 20.81 qtls against 24.55 qtls under un-irrigated land. As far as sesame oilseed is concerned, the average yield per hectare was 1.92 qtls at the aggregate level which ranged between 0.88 qtl and 11.54 qtls on the large and medium size of sample farms respectively. There was high variation in average yield of sesame across the size of farms. It is very risky crop and mostly grown in upland. The above analysis shows that average yield of kharif

- 80 - season crops was higher on marginal and small farms than the large farms. It has been already mentioned that wheat was competing crop of mustard. Apart from this, potato was also competing crop only in Agra district. These three crops are grown in rabi season in the selected districts.

The average yield of wheat was worked out to 31.36 qtls per hectare at the aggregate level which was highest being 32.74 qtls on marginal farms followed by 32.66 qtls on small farms. The average yield of wheat per hectare decreases with increase in the size of farms. As far as average yield of mustard per hectare is concerned, Table-IV.6 shows that at the aggregate level it was 22.70 qtls per hectare which was ranged between 22.23 qtls and 24.40 qtls on the large and marginal size of farms respectively. The average yield of mustard per hectare also decreases with increase in the size of farms. There was marginal variation in average yield of mustard per hectare among the sample size of farms. The average yield of mustard per hectare was higher by 105.24% on the sample farms over the state average yield of 11.06 qtls per hectare in 2009-10.

The potato was also competing crop of mustard on the sample farms of Agra district. The average yield of potato was 284.70 qtls per hectare which ranged between 192.79 qtls and 298.83 qtls on marginal and large farms respectively. There was vast variation in average yield of potato across the size of farms. The average yield of potato per hectare increases with increase in the size of farms. As far as sugarcane is concerned, Table-IV.6 shows that at the aggregate level, the average yield per hectare was 501.75 qtls which was below the state average of 591.53 qtls in 2009-10. The average yield of sugarcane was highest being 697.10 qtls on the small farms and lowest was 492.22 qtls on the large farms. The average yield of summer bajra was very encouraging on the sample farms.

- 81 - Table-IV-6 Average yield of major crops on Sample Households (q/ha) Season/Crop Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Rice 43.71 42.47 44.57 37.63 42.20 Irrigated 43.71 42.47 44.57 37.63 42.20 Unirrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Maize 30.24 29.31 26.36 25.89 27.06 Irrigated 30.24 29.31 26.36 25.89 27.06 Unirrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Coarse Cereals 27.74 27.30 23.83 21.25 24.09 Irrigated 35.53 25.71 0 15.67 20.81 Unirrigated 26..88 27.62 23.83 22.78 24.55 Pulses 15.78 13.98 14.07 11.14 12.65 Irrigated 15.00 16.00 14.00 9 4.82 Unirrigated 15.83 11.71 14.07 11.12 18.21 Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 Groundnut 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Unirrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Sesamum 0 6.00 11.54 0.88 1.92 Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Unirrigated 0 6.00 11.54 0.88 1.92 Sunflower 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Unirrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Soybean 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Un-irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Cotton 0 0 0 0 0 Vegetables 0 0 0 0 0 Rabi 0 0 0 0 0 Wheat 32.74 32.66 31.26 30.39 31.36

- 82 - Irrigated 32.74 32.66 31.26 30.39 31.36 Coarse Cereals 0 22.22 36.36 26.15 25.88 Irrigated 0 22.22 36.36 26.15 25.88 Un-irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Pulses 0 22.22 11.78 12.43 12.50 Irrigated 0 22.22 12.00 12.43 12.91 Un-irrigated 0 0 11.60 0 11.60 Oilseeds 0 0 0 0 0 Groundnut 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Un-irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Rapeseed & Mustard 24..40 22.32 22.86 22.23 22.70 Irrigated 24.40 22.32 22.86 22.23 22.70 Un-irrigated 0 0 0 0 0 Vegetables (Potato) 192.79 240.74 280.85 298.83 284.70 Summer crops Sugarcane 552.12 697.70 509.90 492.22 501.75 Summer Bajra 9.50 36.00 31.37 31.59 32.15 Summer Pulses 0 0 10.00 11.62 10.67

It reflects from the discussion that the average yield of almost all crops grown by the sample farmers was quite impressive. The average yield per hectare of rice, wheat, mustard and potato was higher on the sample farms than normal yield of selected districts during the reference year.

It reflects that mustard was intensively cultivated by sample farmers of the study areas. The analysis also reveals that productivity of wheat was higher than mustard across the size of sample farms. It was higher by 38.15% over the average yield of 22.70 qtls per hectare of mustard at the aggregate level.

The per hectare yield of mustard on the sample farms was worked out to 22.70 qtls at aggregate level which ranged between 24.12 qtls and 22.23 qtls on marginal and large sample farm respectively. It is also evident from table-IV-6 that per hectare yield of mustard was

- 83 - more or less equal on small, medium and large farms. There was a marginal variation in per hectare yield of mustard across the size of farms. The gap of per hectare yield of mustard was 2.17 qtls in higher and lower productivity of mustard across the sample farms.

IV.7. Production, Retention and Sale Pattern of Mustard

Since, the only mustard was selected for the study, hence the production, retention and sale pattern of this oilseed has been worked out at sample farms level. The details of production, retention and quantity sold of mustard are presented in Table-IV.7. Table shows that at the aggregate level, the production of mustard was 4356.70 qtls of which 93.79% was sold and rest 6.21% was retained for consumptions purpose. Table-IV.7 shows that large sample farmers had sold maximum quantity of production of mustard being 96.51% followed by 94.16%, 91.64% and 88.94% by medium, small and marginal farmers respectively. It shows that the proportion share of marketed quantity of total production of mustard increases with the increase in sample size. It reflects that mustard was cash crop of all sample farms of the study areas. The sample farmers had retained a very small quantity of mustard for their consumption purpose.

As for as price of mustard per qtl is concerned Table-IV.7 shows that there was marginal gap between lower and higher per qtl price of mustard across the size of farms. At the aggregate level, the price of mustard per qtl was worked out at Rs. 3136. Among the size of farms, the price of mustard per qtl was estimated at Rs. 3212, Rs. 3177, Rs. 3161 and Rs. 2993 on small, marginal, medium and large farms respectively. It shows that per qtl price of mustard was much higher than the MSP during the reference year. TableIV-7 Production, retention and sale pattern of Mustard (q) Rabi Oilseed (Mustard) Production Retention Sold Price (Rs/q) Marginal 489.30 54.10 (11.06) 435.20 (88.94) 3177 Small 904.20 75.55 (8.36) 828.65 (91.64) 3212 Medium 1587.20 92.70 (5.84) 1494.50 (94.16) 3161 Large 1376.20 48.00 (3.49) 1328.00 (96.51) 2993 All farms 4356.70 270.35 (6.21) 4086.35 (93.79) 3136 Note: Figures in Brackets are percentage to production.

- 84 - IV.8. Profitability of Mustard and its competing crops (Wheat and Potato) Operational Costs: IV-8.1. (Mustard)

The operational costs of mustard comprised expenses incurred on seed, fertilizer and manure, insecticides and pesticides, human labour (family and hired), machine labour bullock labour irrigation, etc. Beside these the costs, harvesting and threshing are also major components of operational costs of mustard. There operational costs of mustard on the sample farms have been worked out in Table IV-8. On an average, the total operational cost was estimated at Rs. 27,414 per hectare of which machine labour accounted for 24.95% followed by 24.64%, 20.56%, 12.41%, 12% and 1.62% on fertilizers/manure, harvesting and threshing, human labour, irrigation and seed respectively.

It shows that maximum expenditure was incurred on machine labour being 24.95% followed by 24.64% on fertilizer and manure. The mustard growers had used heavy quantity of manure in mustard crop. It is also evident from table-IV.8 that there was narrow range of per hectare operational costs across the different size of sample farms.

In absolute terms, the cost incurred per hectare on seed varied from Rs. 377 to Rs. 497.24 across the size of sample farms. The machine labour, human labour and fertilizer and manure were reported to be major components of inputs on all size of farms. The share of family labour showed an increasing trend with increase in the size of holding. As far as the per hectare costs of different inputs incurred in mustard in different size of sample farmers is concerned, Table IV.8 indicates at the aggregate level, it was Rs. 27,414 of which, highest share being Rs. 6,839 on machine labour followed by Rs. 6,754, Rs. 5,633 and Rs. 3,291 on fertilizers and manure, harvesting and threshing and irrigation respectively. This type of tendency was more or less found same across the size of farms. The per hectare operational costs was worked out Rs. 29,849 on medium sample farms followed by Rs. 28,645, Rs. 26,013 and Rs. 24,772 on marginal, large and small size of farms respectively. The per hectare net income of mustard at aggregate level worked out at Rs. 44,999 while it was Rs. 50,122, Rs. 48,089, Rs. 43,758 and Rs. 41,605 on marginal small, medium size of farms respectively. It shows that per hectare net income of mustard increases with increase in the size of farms. - 85 - Table-IV. 8 Profitability of Mustard on the Sample Farms (Rs/ha) Cost items Oilseed I (Mustard) Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Operational costs 20.07 40.51 69.42 61.90 191.90 Seed 396.35 377.06 447.50 497.84 443.52 Fertiliser & manure 6337.48 4993.30 8190.49 6430.87 6754.18 Insecticides& pesticides 75.24 71.71 70.94 57.79 67.31 Human labour Family 2584.79 1913.13 1475.45 854.31 1483.51 Hired 2111.48 1652.88 2315.05 1593.95 1921.38 Machine labour 7095.17 5596.51 7266.75 7090.27 6839.29 Bullock labour 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation 3681.61 3006.66 3817.92 2758.64 3290.72 Harvesting & threshing 5528.65 5596.15 5395.42 5971.73 5637.62 Interest on working 834.32 1564.28 869.39 757.66 976.37 capital 1. Total Operational 28645.08 24771.68 29848.92 26013.05 27413.90 Costs Yield (per hect./ qtls) 24.38 22.32 22.86 22.23 22.70 Price (Per Rs./ qtls) 3177 3212 3161 2993 3136 2. Value of main- 77454.22 71693.17 72272.24 66532.60 71196.51 product 3. Value of by-product 1313.20 1168.03 1335.45 1086.05 1217.33 Net Income (2+3) – (1) 50122.33 48089.52 43758.77 41605.60 44999.94 Cost of production/q 1174.96 1109.84 1305.51 1170.21 1207.66 Cost of production/ha 28645.08 24771.68 29848.92 26013.05 27413.90

The value of main-product and by product of mustard on the sample farms was also worked out in Table IV.8.Table IV.8 shows that per hectare value of main-product at aggregate level were Rs. 71,196 against Rs. 1,217 of by product. It shows that value of by- product had attributed very small amount in total income of mustard. The per hectare value of main-

- 86 - product was higher being Rs. 77,454 on marginal farms while lowest was Rs. 66,532 on large size of farms.

The per hectare net income and cost of product in per qtl and per hectare of mustard on the sample farms were also worked out and presented in Table-IV-8. TableIV-8 reveals that per hectare net income derived Rs. 44,999.94 from mustard on the investment of Rs. 27,413.90 at the aggregate level. The per hectare net income was maximum being Rs. 50,122 had been obtained by marginal sample farmers followed by Rs. 48,089, Rs. 43,759 and Rs. 41,606 by small, medium, large sample farmers. It shows that per hectare net income decrease with an increase in size of farms. The gap was Rs. 8,516 between lower and higher limit of per hectare net income of mustard on the sample farms. The profitability of mustard was quite encouraging on the sample farms of the study areas. The remunerative price and good yield of mustard in the reference year had contributed in enhancing the over all income of mustard on the sample farms. The cost of production per qtl was worked out at Rs. 1,208 against the price of Rs. 3,136 per qtl at the aggregate level. It shows that price of mustard per qtls was higher by 159.61% over cost of production per qtl of Rs. 1,208. This reflects that mustard was more profitable oilseed crop on the sample farms during study period.

Profitability of Competing Crops

IV-8.2. Wheat

Wheat and potato are competitive crops in the study areas. Wheat and potato are also sown in rabi season in the selected districts. The area under mustard is generally substituted by wheat and potato. The substitution of area under different crops is based on post experienced and future prospects of net income. The profitability of wheat crop on the sample farms was worked out and presented in table IV-8A. Table IV-8A shows that the per hectare net income from wheat was Rs. 16,132 at the aggregate level which ranged between Rs. 20,164 and Rs. 14,010 on small and large size farms respectively. The per hectare net income of wheat also decreases with in increase in size of farms. The operational costs per hectare were estimated at Rs. 23,494 at aggregate level which ranged between Rs. 25,957 and Rs. 21,214 on medium and small size of farms respectively. It shows that there was marginal gap in operational costs across the sample farms. Among the cost items, machine labour was costlier input

- 87 - accounted for 22.72% to total operational costs followed by 21.37%, 19.84% and 14.58% for irrigation, harvesting and threshing and fertilizers and manure respectively. Table-IV. 8 (A) Profitability of Wheat on Sample Farms (Rs/ha) Cost items Wheat Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Operational cost (Area) 17.66 36.10 50.43 67.30 171.49 Seed 1768.89 1885.25 1887.43 1837.89 1855.32 Fertiliser & manure 3334.02 2992.52 4232.80 2954.77 3377.60 Insecticides & pesticides 107.59 188.37 165.58 167.68 165.23 Human labour 0 0 0 0 0 Family 2336.62 1617.51 1295.44 721.61 1245.26 Hired 683.16 712.74 1550.00 1201.96 1147.90 Machine labour 6024.92 5335.18 6698.39 4140.94 5338.42 Bullock labour 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation 3988.67 3099.17 4302.99 6857.95 5019.88 Harvesting & threshing 4787.66 4765.93 5068.41 4265.23 4660.62 Interest on working capital 690.95 617.90 756.03 664.44 684.31 Total Operational Costs 23722.48 21214.57 25957.07 22812.48 23494.54 Yield (Ha.) 32.74 32.66 31.26 30.39 31.36 Price (Rs./Qtls) 1035 1010 1020 1028 1021 Value of main-product 33874.86 32983.07 31880.31 31237.75 32019.59 Value of by-product 9157.42 8395.51 9198.16 5584.99 7607.04 Net Income (2+3)-(1) 19309.80 20164.02 15121.41 14009.66 16132.09 Cost of production/q 724.56 649.63 830.49 750.75 749.19 Cost of production/ha 23722.48 21214.57 25957.07 22812.48 23494.54

This type of input costs was also witnessed across the size of farms. The expenditure on seed per hectare was around Rs. 1,855 on different size of farms. It is also noticed from table IV-8A that machine labour and human labour were most costly inputs for wheat crop on the sample farms. Beside these, irrigation and fertilizer and manure were also costlier inputs of total operational costs. Table IV-8A reveals that per hectare operational costs was

- 88 - Rs. 25,957 on medium size of farms followed by Rs. 23,722, Rs. 22,812 and Rs. 21,214 on marginal, large and small farms respectively.

The per hectare yield of wheat was worked out to 31.36 qtls at aggregate level which ranged between 32.6 qtls and 30.39 qtls on marginal and large farms respectively. It shows that the per hectare yield of wheat decreases with an increase in size of farms. The per hectare yield of wheat on sample farms was also higher than the state average per hectare production in the reference year.

The per qtl harvest price of wheat was Rs. 1021 at aggregate level which ranged between Rs. 1,035 and Rs. 1,010 in the study areas, which was lower than MSP. The cost of production per qtl of wheat was worked out to be Rs. 749.19 at aggregate level. The cost of production of per qtl of wheat highest being Rs. 830.49 on medium farms while it was lowest Rs. 649.63 on small farms. The per hectare net income was estimated at Rs. 16,132 at aggregate level. The per hectare net income of wheat was highest being Rs. 20,164 on small size of farms followed by 19,310, Rs. 15,121 and Rs. 14,009 on marginal, medium and large farms respectively. It shows that per hectare net income on large farms was lowest in comparison to other sample farms due to low productivity of wheat and higher operational costs. It is inferred from above discussion that profitability of wheat crop on the sample farms was quite low during reference year. The per qtl value of main product and by product of wheat on the sample farms was worked out at Rs. 1264 against Rs. 749 of per qtl operational costs. The benefit cost ratio of wheat was estimated at 1:1.69 at aggregate level.

IV-8.3. Potato

Potato is also a competitive crop of mustard particularly in Agra district. Last few years back, the potato was most profitable crop in Agra district. On account of this, farmers of this district have been devoting more areas under potato. There were major changes in cropping pattern in favour of potato. As a result of this, area of wheat and mustard has been decreasing in Agra district. The per hectare cost of production and net income of potato on the sample farms were worked out and presented in Table-IV-8B. Table IV.8 B shows that per hectare operational cost was 99,401 at the aggregate level. The per hectare operational cost varied very much across the sample size of farms, it ranged between Rs. 1,34,074 and Rs. 55,082 on medium and large size of farms respectively. Among the operational costs, fertilizers and - 89 - manure, machine labour, human labour and irrigation were most expensive inputs in the production of potato on the sample farms. Table-IV. 8 (B) Profitability of Potato on Sample Farms (Rs/ha) Cost items Potato Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Operational costs 1.50 2.27 3.42 2.36 9.10 Seed 16846.15 17720.00 15494.42 12548.64 14398.92 Fertiliser & manure 25438.70 20529.78 35474.42 14978.60 25902.77 Insecticides & pesticides 3615.38 3329.63 2692.05 652.61 2049.75 Human labour 0 0 0 0 0 Family 7620.19 5747.39 5089.81 1984.44 4180.11 Hired 7411.54 6773.18 12030.56 4873.54 8596.27 Machine labour 16670.67 19809.62 25279.14 7408.56 17405.34 Bullock labour 0 0 0 0 0 Irrigation 9711.54 11296.30 16333.18 4221.79 10742.54 Harvesting & threshing 15817.31 14129.63 17775.79 6770.43 13239.03 Interest on working 3093.95 2980.07 3905.08 1604.36 2895.00 capital 1. Total Operational 106225.44 102315.59 134074.46 55082.96 99410.17 Costs Yield (Quintals) 260.10 252.78 289.19 300.00 289.56 Price 669 664 602 656 648 2. Value of main- 174004.33 167844.44 174093.35 196800.00 187636.64 product 3. Value of by-product 0 0 0 0 0 Net Income (2+3) – (1) 67778.89 65528.85 40018.89 141717.04 88226.47 Cost of production/q 408.40 404.76 463.62 183.61 343.31 Cost of production/ha 106225.44 102315.59 134074.46 55082.96 99410.17

- 90 - The per hectare yield of potato was worked out to 289.56 qtls at the aggregate which varied from 300 qtls to 252.78 qtls on large and small sample size of farms respectively. The per hectare productivity increases with an increased in size of farms. It is also evident from Table-IV.8B that there was marginal gap between high and low per hectare production of potato across the sample size of farms. The per qtl price of potato was very much high being Rs. 648 in the study area during the survey period. On account of this, per hectare net income was very high being Rs. 88,226 at the aggregate level. There was a vast variation in per hectare net-income across the sample farms. The per hectare net income of potato was lowest of Rs. 40,019 on medium size of sample farms while it was highest of Rs. 1,41,717 on large sample size of farms. The per hectare net income of potato was more or less same on marginal and small size of farms. The per qtl cost of production of potato at aggregate level was estimated to Rs. 343 against the price of Rs. 648 per qtl. It reflects that potato was most profitable crop on the sample farms than mustard and wheat during reference year. In spite of this, the farmers of the study areas are more interested in the production of mustard as compared to potato. The reason for this is that the mustard requires less cost than potato. Second reason for this is that there was more fluctuation in price of potato in different years. It is also very risky crop than mustard.

IV.8.4. Comparative analysis of Profitability of mustard with its competing Crops of Wheat and Potato

The per hectare cost of production, gross income, net income etc. of mustard, wheat and potato on the sample farms have been estimated in Table IV-8C. This table reveals that the per hectare gross income of mustard was Rs. 72,414 against Rs. 39,627 of wheat on the sample farms, showing 82.73% higher over the per hectare gross-income of wheat. This was due to 207% higher price of mustard over Rs. 1021 per qtl price of wheat during the same period. In spite of being higher the per hectare operational costs of mustard than that of wheat, per hectare income of mustard was about more than two times higher than the per hectare net income of Rs. 16,133 of wheat on the sample farms. It shows that mustard was more profitable than wheat on the sample farms of selected districts of U.P. in reference year. It is also noticed from Table-IV-8 to Table- IV.8A that the mustard was more remunerative and profitable oilseed across the sample farms than that of wheat. On account of this, area of mustard has not been replaced by wheat and other cereal crops from few years back. At - 91 - present, the farmers are also using balanced inputs and applying modern techniques to get better yield from mustard. The per hectare production of mustard has increased upto 22.70 qtls at farm level while the productivity of wheat is mostly stagnant during corresponding period.

As far as second competing potato crop is concerned, Table IV-8C shows that the per hectare gross income as well as net income of potato was much higher than the mustard across the sample size of farms.

The per hectare net income of potato was about two times higher than the per hectare net income of Rs. 45000 of mustard. The per hectare operational costs of potato was Rs. 99,410 against Rs. 27,414 of mustard. The per hectare yield of potato was 289.56 qtls against 22.70 qtls of mustard. The productivity was basic factor to push the net income of potato on the sample farms. Thus, the potato was profitable crop compared to mustard across the sample farms of selected districts in reference year. In spite of being a very profitable potato crop, it does not generally substitute mustard at large scale and for a long time. Potato is perishable crop and more risky than mustard. The price, income and yield risks are found more incase of potato than mustard. It is also localized crop.

Table-IV-8 (c) Comparative Profitability of Mustard, Wheat and Potato (Rs./HA.) Name of the Operational Gross Income Net Income Cost of Crops Cost Production (per Qtl) Mustard 27413.90 72413.64 44999.74 1207.66 Wheat 23494.54 39626.63 16132.09 749.19 Potato 99410.17 187636.64 88226.47 343.31

Therefore, the wheat is important competing crop to mustard across the state. Above analysis reflects that mustard was more profitable crop than the wheat across the size of sample farms in the study areas. If the productivity and harvest price of mustard continue to maintain up trend in coming years, the area of mustard will definitely increase in years to a head. The extension support from agriculture department is also very essential to guide the farmers to use quality inputs and modern techniques in the cultivation of mustard to maintain the tempo of productivity of mustard across the state.

- 92 - IV-9. Coefficient of Variance in area, production and productivity and income of mustard on the sample farms

Coefficient Variance in area, production, productivity and income of mustard on the sample farms have been worked out in table IV-9. Table-IV-9 shows that the SD in area of mustard was higher being 0.90 on large farms followed by 0.53, 0.23 and 0.12 on medium, small and marginal farms respectively. The CV in area of mustard was highest i.e. 44.36% on medium farms followed by 37.80% and 33.17% and 30.60% on small, marginal and large farms respectively. It shows that SD and CV in area of mustard increases with increase in the size of farms. However, these were marginally closed across the sample farms.

As far as production of mustard on the sample farm is concerned, Table-IV-9 shows that the dispersion in production of mustard was lower on marginal and small farms than the medium and large sample farms. There was huge dispersion in production of mustard on the large sample farms. It is also noticed from this Table IV-9 that CV in production of mustard was higher being 59.10% on medium followed by 52.10%, 51.97% and 47.84% on large, small and marginal farms respectively. It shows that the variability in production of mustard was higher on medium and large farms than that of small and marginal farms.

As far as productivity of mustard is concerned, Table IV-9 reveals that dispersion of productivity of mustard was near about close among the different categories of sample farms. The standard deviation varied between 6.97 and 6.32 on medium and small farms respectively. The CV in productivity of mustard was highest being 33.09% on medium farms followed by 30.50%, 29.64% and 27.79% on large, small and marginal farms respectively. It shows that the attribution of productivity in enhancement of production of mustard was higher than that of area under mustard during the reference year on the sample farms. The CV percentage of income derived from mustard was more or less close on large, medium and small farms. It shows that variability income of mustard was very low across the sample farms.

- 93 - Table-IV-9 Coefficient Variance in Area, Production, Productivity and Income of Mustard on the Sample Farms

Groups Area Production Yield Income Marginal SD 0.12 4.26 6.47 9790.48 Mean 0.36 8.90 23.30 18076.60 CV% 33.17 47.84 27.79 54.16 Small SD 0.23 6.91 6.32 16377.50 Mean 0.60 13.30 21.33 28238.20 CV% 37.80 51.97 29.64 58.00 Medium SD 0.53 16.17 6.97 35422.90 Mean 1.20 27.37 21.05 57964.50 CV% 44.36 59.10 33.09 61.11 Large SD 0.90 35.80 650 86405.20 Mean 3.10 68.80 21.30 142835 CV% 30.60 52.10 30.50 60.49 All SD 13.50 306.60 6.41 49885.62 Mean 1.97 44.65 21.82 4575.48 CV% 686.26 686.83 29.36 109.94

IV.9.1. Coefficient Variance in area, production and productivity and income of wheat (competing crop) on the sample farms

Variability in area, yield and net income of wheat on the sample farmers was also worked out in Table IV9A. Table IV-9.A shows that CV was 146.25% in area of wheat on the sample farms against 11.76% and 152.00% in yield and net income respectively. It shows that the variability in area of wheat had much inconsistence than yield on the sample farms. It shows that yield per hectare of wheat was not much fluctuating across the sample farmers while it was reverse in case of area under wheat during the reference year.

- 94 - Table-IV-9A Variability in area, production and productivity of wheat

Size of Area Yield Income Farm Mean SD CV% Mean SD CV% Mean SD CV% Marginal 0.36 0.18 49.66 32.24 4.07 12.64 8211.00 7587.00 92.00 Small 0.56 0.34 11.72 32.583.82 11.7210603.00 8898.00 84.00 Medium 0.88 0.72 80.87 32.66 3.53 10.7913365.00 14868.00 111.00 Large 3.37 2.77 82.46 29.653.00 10.0454825.00 50554.00 92.00 All 0.90 1.31 146.2532.23 3.79 11.6615444.00 23409.00 152.00

IV.10. Access to Improved Technology and Market

IV.10.1 Use of HYV

The use of HYV seed of mustard by the sample farmers is illustrated in Table IV.10. It is evident from Table IV.10 that the more than 94% of total sample households had used the HYV seed of mustard during the reference year. Of the total large sample farmers, 15% had also used traditional seed of mustard on their field. The allocation of area under HYV to total area under mustard at the aggregate level was 95.66% which ranged between 96.83% on medium farms and 94.01% on small farms. It shows that use of HYV of mustard was mostly prevalent across the size of farms. The traditional varieties of mustard have been mostly replaced by HYV of mustard in the study areas.

IV.10.2. Source of Seed

The seed of mustard had been mostly purchased from markets by the sample farmers. Of the total sample farmers, 90.50% had purchased seed of mustard from market and only rest 9.50% had used own seed. However, the market source of seed increases with increase in size of farms. A very few number of sample farmers had used own seed of mustard. It shows that the sample farmers were very conscious about use of good seed of mustard on their farms.

- 95 - IV.10.3. Use of Recommended doses of Fertilizer Table.IV.10 shows that all the sample farmers were well known about the recommended doses of fertilizers for mustard crop. The recommended doses of fertilizer had been used in mustard crop by all the sample farmers of the study areas. IV.10.4. Awareness about MSP

Table IV.10 reveals that 92.50% of sample farmers were fully aware about the MSP and only 7.50% were unaware about the MSP at the aggregate level. Table-IV-10 Access to Improved Technology and Markets (%) Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Use of HYV Yes 52 64 55 17 188 No 3 4 2 3 12 Area under HYV (% to total 95.32 94.01 96.83 95.48 95.66 area under oilseeds) Source of Seed Own 7 8 3 1 19 (12.73) (11.76) (5.26) (5.00) (9.50) Market purchased 48 60 54 19 181 (87.27) (88.24) (94.74) (95.00) (90.50) Use of recommended doses of fertilizers Yes 55 68 57 20 200 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) No 0 0 0 0 0 Don’t know 0 0 0 0 0 Awareness about MSP 0 0 0 0 0 Yes 48 60 57 20 185 (87.27) (88.24) (100.00) (100.00) (92.50) No 7 18 0 0 15 (12.73) (11.76) (7.50) MSP (Rs/q) – 2011-12 Crop I (Mustard) 1850 1860 1860 1860 1860 Crop II (Wheat) 1170 1170 1170 1170 1170 Crop III (Potato) 305 305 305 305 305 Crop IV Price realization ≥MSP 55 68 57 20 200.00 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00)

- 96 - It is also evident from table-IV.10 that 12.73% and 11.76% of marginal and small sample farmers were unaware about MSP respectively while medium and large sample farmers were fully aware about the MSP. It shows that unawareness about MSP was only found among the target group of sample farmers.

IV.10.5. MSP (Rs/Q-) 2011-12

MSP of mustard had been declared at Rs. 1,850 per qtl for 2011-12. While MSP of wheat and potato was Rs.1,170 and 305 respectively during corresponding period

IV.10.6. Price Realization

The market price of mustard per qtl was found higher than MSP during 2011-12 in the study areas. All the selected farmers of different categories had obtained higher price than MSP after sale of their mustard.

IV.10.7. Market Problems

Table IV.10 shows that none of sample farmers of different categories had faced any market problems during sale of mustard, in the reference year. No. market problems had been reported by the sample farmers during the survey period.

IV.11. Sale Pattern of Mustard

The sale pattern of mustard on the sample farms is shown in Table IV.11. It is evident from Table-IV.11 that local village traders, processing mill, government agency, commission agents and private companies were main purchasers of mustard in the study areas. Among these agencies, Commission agents, local village traders and processing mills were major purchasers of mustard which accounted for 63.50%, 18.50% and 11% of total purchases of mustard respectively. It shows that the sample farmers of all categories of farms had first preference to sell the mustard to commission agents followed by local traders and processing mills. A few number of sample farmers of medium and large categories had sold mustard to private companies. It is also evident from Table IV.11 that the only 4 sample farmers had sold mustard to Government agency during reference year. None of marginal and small sample farmers sold mustard to Government agency. It shows that the commission agents were first choice of sample farmers in the sale of mustard. The price of mustard was obtained

- 97 - by sample farmers ranged between Rs. 3,150 and Rs. 3,290. The average price of mustard per qtl was Rs. 3,230. There was a marginal gap between lower and higher price received per qtl mustard by the sample farmers in the reference year 2011-12.

The average distance to sale point was worked out to 7 Km. at the aggregate level. The average distance to sale points increases with increase in the size of farms. The reason of this is that the selected villages are situated near by markets. Table -IV. 11 Sale Pattern of Mustard (No.) Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms Agency to whom sold (% share) Local village trader 14 15 3 2 37 (25.45) (26.47) (5.26) (10.00) (18.50) Processing mill 4 8 8 2 22 (7.27) (11.76) (14.04) (10.00) (11.00) Government agency 1 0 7 2 10 (1.82) (12.28) (10.00) (5.00) Commission agent 36 42 37 12 127 (65.46) (61.77) (64.91) (60.00) (63.50) Private company (contract 0 0 2 2 4 arrangement) (3.51) (10.00) (2.00 Total 55 68 57 20 200 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Price Received (Rs/q) Local village trader 3171 3306 3135 3200 3203 Processing mill 3088 3281 3375 3175 3290 Government agency 3350 0 3100 3225 3225 Commission agent 3133 3299 3319 3375 3282 Private company (contract 0 0 3125 3175 3150 arrangement) Others 0 0 0 0 0 Average Distance to sale point 5.94 6.18 7.60 10.30 6.93 (km) Note: Figures in bracket are percentage to total.

- 98 - IV.12. Source of Technology and Market Information

The source of technology and market information is presented in table-IV-12. Seeds, extension services and market information were covered under source of technology and market information. The responses of respondents have been narrated in item-wise as given below. Table-IV. 12 Sources of Technology and market information (%) Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms I. Seeds Own 7 8 12 7 34 (12.73) (11.76) (21.05) (35.00) (17.00) Fellow farmer 0 0 0 0 0 State Dept. of Agri. 7 6 9 2 24 (12.72) (8.83) (15.79) (10.00) (12.00) ICAR/SAU/KVK 0 0 0 0 0 Commission agent/ Ahrtiya 0 0 0 0 0 Market 41 54 36 11 142 (74.55) (79.41) (63.15) (55.00) (71.00) Others (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 II. Extension Services 0 0 0 0 0 Number of Sample farmers 55 68 57 20 200 (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00 Private company 0 0 0 0 0 Input dealer 0 0 0 0 0 SAU/ICAR/KVK 0 0 0 0 0 Others (specify) 0 0 0 0 0 III. Market Information Radio/TV 0 0 2 0 2 (3.51) (1.00) Print media 0 0 6 5 11 (10.53) (25.00) (5.50) Fellow farmer 22 14 17 3 56 (40.00) (20.59) (29.82) (15.00) (28.00) APMC mandi 4 4 5 2 15 (7.27) (5.88) (8.77) (10.00) (7.50) Commission agent/ Ahrtiya 29 46 21 7 103 (52.73) (67.65) (36.84) (35.00) (15.50) Private company 0 4 6 3 13 (5.88) (10.53) (15.00) (6.50) Others (specify) - 0 0 0 0 Total 55 68 57 20 200

- 99 - IV.12.I. Seed

The seed is an important input in mustard crop and plays a vital role for the success of productivity of mustard. Use of quality seed alone can increase the productivity of mustard to an extent of 25% to 30%. The seed sector has made significant progress over last three decades in Uttar Pradesh. In spite of best efforts made by state Government, the quality seed is not available as per requirement of farmers during sowing period of mustard in the study areas. The seed replacement Ratio (SRR) in case of mustard is very low in comparison to wheat paddy etc. Table-IV.12 shows that the State Dept. of Agriculture, ICAR/SAUs/KVKs, commission agents and markets were main sources of Technology with regard to seeds of mustard on the sample farms during the reference year. Among these sources, market and State Department of Agriculture were main sources of technology accounted for 71% and 12% respectively. The own retained seed of mustard was also used by 17% of sample farmers. It is also evident from Table IV.12 that the large sample farmers had used own retained seed of mustard than other categories of sample farmers. The role of state agriculture department in supply of quality seed was negligible in comparison to markets. It shows that the market was best source of technology of quality seed of mustard on the sample farms of the study areas.

IV.12.II. Extension Services

Most of the farmers are poor in resources and do not having access to necessary expertise, so they need technology support to apply the modern technologies in the cultivation of mustard crop. The extension services are very helpful to farmers for enhancing their farm resources. The extension services are very useful in the promotion of technical attitude of the farmers. The extension services are generally provided to farmers by State Department of Agriculture, private companies, input dealer, (SAUs/ICAR) KVKs, etc. Among these, Market and State Agriculture Department had provided extension services to the sample farmers for the promotion of mustard crop during reference year in the study areas. It shows that extension services were not disseminated by private companies, input dealers and SAUs/ICAR, KVKs in the study areas. (Table-IV.12)

- 100 - IV.12.III. Market Information

The information technology is very useful in market information at present scenario. Websites through the internet can provide valuable market information of mustard. Hence, it is necessary to strength information network on mustard through information technology. The views of sample farmers with regard to market information on mustard are presented in Table-IV.12. Table IV.12 reflects that commission agents were main source of market information followed by fellow farmers and APMC Mandi. The role of radio/T.V, print media and private companies were negligible in providing the market information (Table -IV.12). It shows that commission agents and fellow farmers were main source of market information in the study areas.

IV.13. Constraints in the Cultivation of Oil Seed Crops

At present, oilseed crops are found much profitable due to its hike in prices and enhancement of productivity across the state. The MSP of oilseeds has also been increased at reasonable level to provide better income to the oilseed growers. In spite of this, the farmers still hesitate to devote more area to oilseed crops as compared to its competing crops. The kharif oilseed crops are much risky than rabi oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh. The area under soyabean has drastically decreased in Uttar Pradesh since recent past because of the lack of its proper marketing facilities in U.P. Among the oilseed crops, the mustard is most popular oilseed in U.P. and is grown by all categories of farmers across the state. The oil of mustard is mostly consumed by the majority of population of U.P. Hence, the demand of mustard and its oil is very high in U.P. as well as in neighouring States, namely, and Uttrakhand. The U.P. is not so self sufficient in the production of oilseeds, hence it is purchased from Rajasthan, Gujarat and M.P. states to meet the domestic needs of edible oil.

There are a number of constraints or hurdles in production of oilseed crops which are basically categorized into 5 major heads, namely, technological, Agro-Economic factors, Economic Viability, Institutional, post harvest, marketing and value addition. The information about the cited constraints of oilseeds were asked from 200 sample households of different categories of farmers of selected districts of U.P. The opinions of sample farmers about each constraint have been divided into four degree of level, namely severe, moderate, minor and not important and given its weights 4, 3, 2, and 1 respectively. - 101 -

The details of opinions of sample farmers about the constraints of oil seeds are fully illustrated in Tables IV.13, 13A, 13B, 13C

IV.13.1. Technological

The majority of all categories of sample farmers had expressed their views that incidence of diseases, insects and pests were severe constraints in the production of oilseeds. Non- availability of suitable varieties, weed infection and poor seed germination were found moderate constraints in the cultivation of oil seeds on the sample farms.

IV.13.1.1. Non-availability of Suitable Varieties

The table IV.13 reveals that non-availability of suitable seeds of oil seed was severe constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds in case of marginal and small sample farmers, while it was not important for large sample farmers.

IV.13.1.2. Poor Germination

The poor germination of seeds of oilseeds was also a cause of concern for oilseed growers at present. The quality of seeds is not generally found at standard level in the markets, hence, hundred percent of germination of seeds can not be ensured. Table IV-13 reveals that 19 per cent sample farmers across the size of farms had reported that the germination of seed was poor. Of the total sample farmers, 19 per cent had expressed their views that poor germination of seeds was severe constraint while 35 per cent was of the opinion that it was a moderate constraint. Over all, the poor germination of seeds of oilseeds was a minor and not an important constraint across the size of farms.

IV.13.1.3 Lack of Irrigation Facilities

The non-availability of water at different intervals was also a major constraint in getting the adequate production from oilseed crops in the sample farms of the study areas. Table IV-13 reveals that 49 per cent of sample farmers had reported that it was severe constraint while 34.50 per cent had considered it was moderate constraint in the production of oilseed crops.

- 102 - IV.13.1.4. Incidence of Disease

The oilseed crops are very susceptible to diseases. Table shows that 36 per cent of total sample farmers had opined that it was severe and 69 per cent was in a view that it was moderate constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds. These types of opinions were also witnessed across the sample farms.

IV.13.1.5. Incidence of Insects and Pests

The attack of insects and pests is a common phenomena on oilseeds plants. The attack of insects and pests generally occur at the flowering stage of plants of oilseeds. Table reveals that 72 per cent of sample farmers had expressed their views that it was moderate constraint followed by 28 per cent who were of the opinion that it was severe constraint.

It is also evident from Table IV.13 that the 89 per cent and 92 per cent marginal and small sample farmers respectively had reported that it was a moderate constraint while 59 per cent and 55 per cent of medium and large farmers had opined that it was severe constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds. None of sample farmers across the size of farms had reported that it was minor and not important constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds.

IV.13.1.6. Weeds Infection

The weeds infection was also major constraint in getting better yield from oilseeds. Table shows that it was severe and moderate constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds. Of the total 200 sample farmers, 84 per cent had expressed their views that it was severe constraint and rest 16 per cent had said it was moderate constraint. Among the sample farmers, 91 per cent of medium farmers followed by 81 per cent and 79 per cent of marginal and small sample farmers were of the view that it was a severe constraint in the cultivation of oilseed. None of the sample farmers across the sample farms had expressed that it was minor or not important constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds.

IV.13.1.7. Poor Quality of Soil

The production of oilseeds is also dependent on quality and structure of soil. The sandy soil is very much suitable for better growth of oilseed plants. Table IV-13 reveals that poor quality of soil was severe constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds across the size of farms. - 103 - The 97 per cent of total sample farmers had reported that poor quality of soil was severe constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds on their farms. This type of views was also reported by majority of sample farmers of different size groups of farms.

Table IV-13 Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops

1. Technological (No.) Categories No availability of Poor Germination Lack of Irrigation facility of farms Suitable Variety 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal 18 33 4 - 11 17 - 27 21 27 - 7 (32.74) (60.00) (7.28) (20.00) (30.91) (49.09) (38.18) (49.09) (12.73) Small 27 36 5 - 9 25 - 34 22 36 - 10 (39.21) (62.94) (7.35) (13.24) (36.76) (50.00) (32.35) (52.94) (14.71) Medium 3 16 10 28 13 22 23 1 39 4 6 8 (5.26) (28.07) (17.54) (49.12) (22.81) (35.09) (40.35) (1.75) (68.42) (7.82) (10.53) (14.03) Large 2 5 1 12 5 8 7 - 16 2 1 1 (10.00) (25.00) (5.00) (60.00) (25.00) (40.00) (35.00) (80.00) (10.00) (5.00) (5.00) Total 50 90 20 40 38 70 30 62 98 69 7 26 (25.00) (45.00) (10.00) (20.00) (19.00) (35.00) (15.00) (31.00) (49.00) (34.50) (3.50) (13.00)

Categories Incidence of Incidence of Weeds Infestation Poor quality of soil of farms Disease Insect/Pest 4 5 6 7 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal 14 41 - - 6 49 - - 45 10 - - 55 - - - (25.45) (74.55) (10.91) (89.09) (81.82) (18.18) (100.00) Small 11 57 - - 5 63 - - 54 14 - - 68 - - - (16.18) (83.82) (7.35) (92.65) (79.41) (20.59) (100.00) Medium 37 20 - - 34 23 - - 52 5 - - 52 2 3 - (64.91) (35.09) (59.65) (40.35) (91.23) (8.77) (91.23) (3.51) (5.26) Large 110 10 - - 11 9 - - 17 3 - - 19 1 - - (50.00) (50.00) (55.00) (45.00) (55.00) (15.00) (95.00) (5.00) Total 72 128 - - 56 144 - - 168 32 - - 194 3 3 - (36.00) (64.00) (28.00) (72.00) (84.00) (16.00) (97.00)) (1.50) (1.50) Note: Figures in brackets are percentage views of sample farmers Code= 4= Severe 3= Moderate 2= Minor 1= Not important

IV.13.2. Agro-Climatic Factors

Most of oilseed crops are much sensitive to climate changes. The excess rain, deficient rainfall, high variation in temperature etc. are major adverse factors to reduce the overall production of oilseeds in the State. These are the natural constraints, hence, these are not - 104 - under control of farmers. The drought, excess rains, extreme variation in temperature, poor pod/grain setting, yield variability are constraints in the production of oilseeds across the state. These constraints have been fully analysed in Table IV-13 A as per perception of different categories of sample farmers.

IV.13.2.I. Drought at Critical Stage of Crop

The most of kharif oilseeds namely groundnut, soyabean and sesame are rainfed crops. Therefore, these oilseeds require adequate rains during their biological growth, Table IV-13 A shows that 82.50 per cent of total sample farmers had opined that it was severe constraint in the production of oilseeds on their farms. These types of views were also expressed by 91per cent, 85 per cent 78 per cent by small, marginal and medium sample farmers respectively. It shows that it was severe constraint in the production of oilseeds on the sample farms of selected districts.

IV.13.2.II. Excess Rains

The excess rains are also dangerous for oilseeds. The most of kharif oilseeds can not bear excess rains. The roots and stem of kharif oilseed are much tender and can not bear excess rains. Sesame is very sensitive to excess rains. Table IV-13 A reveals that it was severe constraint as reported by 88 per cent of respondents.

IV.13.2.III. Extreme Variations in Temperature

The extreme variation in temperature is also responsible to curtail the better growth of oilseed plants. The extreme variations in temperature were severe constraint as 82 per cent of total sample farmers had reported. Table-IV-13A also reveals that about 80 per cent of each category of farmers had reported that variation in temperature during growth of oilseed plants was severe constraint on their farms.

IV.13.2.IV. Poor Pod Grain Setting

Since, the most of oil seed crops are very much risky and have not much capacity to bear the adverse agro-climate conditions, therefore, the formation of pods and grains setting are generally affected. The poor pod and grain setting were severe constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds on the sample farms. It is noticed from table IV-13 A that more than 77 per cent - 105 - of sample farmers of respective category had a view that it was severe constraint. Few of them had opined that it was moderate constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds.

IV.13.2.V. Crop failure /Yield Variability

The oilseeds are not sure crops. A very high risk is evolved from its sowing to harvesting. On account of this, the chances of failure and variability in yield are much found in oilseed crops. Table-IV 13 A shows that about 70 per cent respondents had reported that it was severe constraint. Except medium Sample farmers, the majority of sample farmers of respective category of farms had expressed that it was severe constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds. About 14 per cent of sample farmers had opined that this constraint was not important on their farms. Table-IV-13.(A) 2. Agro-Climatic Categor- Drought Excess Rain Temp. Variation es of 1 2 3 farms 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal 47 8 - - 51 4 - - 44 11 - (85.45) (14.55) (92.73) (7.27) (80.00) (20.00) Small 62 6 - - 65 3 - - 59 9 - (91.18) (8.82) (95.59) (4.41) (86.76) (13.24) Medium 45 5 5 2 43 6 8 - 45 4 8 (78.95) (8.77) (8.77) (3.51) (75.44) (10.53) (14.03) (78.95) (7.02) (14.03) Large 11 2 7 - 17 1 2 - 16 2 2 (55.00) (10.00) (35.00) (85.00) (5.00) (10.00) (80.00) (10.00) (10.00) Total 165 21 12 2 176 14 10 - 164 26 10 (82.50) (10.50) (6.00) (1.00) (88.00) (7.00) (5.00) (82.00) (13.00) (5.00)

Continue Table-IV-13 (A) Categories Poor Pod. Grain setting Crop failure/Yield variability of farms 4 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal 51 4 42 9 4 (92.73) (7.27) (76.36) (16.36) (7.28) Small 65 3 58 7 3 (95.59) (4.41) (85.29) (10.30) (4.41) Medium 44 7 5 1 22 9 6 20 (77.19) (12.28) (8.77) (1.76) (38.60) (15.79) (10.53) (35.08) Large 17 3 - - 17 2 - 1 (85.00) (15.00) (85.00) (10.00) (5.00) Total 177 17 5 1 139 11 22 28 (88.50) (8.50) (2.50) (0.50) (69.50) (5.50) (11.00) (14.00)

- 106 - IV.13.3. Economic Factors

High-input Costs (Diesel, Fertilizers Agro-Chemical) The economic constraints relate to input costs, human labour, price risk and profitability etc. These are also key factors to reduce the expansion of area under oilseed crops. All these constraints have been analysed in Table IV-13 B

IV.13.3.I. Input Costs

Table IV-13 B shows that input costs are not so important constrain across the size of farms. Of the total sample farmers, 70.50 per cent sample farmers had reported that input costs were not important constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds. This type of attitude was also noticed across the size of farms. The few large and medium sample farmers had felt that it was severe constraint during the reference period.

IV.13.3.II. Shortage of Human Labour

Since, there was abundance availability of human labour in the villages, so it was also not important constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds. (Table IV-13 B).

IV.13.3.III. Low and Fluctuating Prices

The low and fluctuating prices in case of oilseeds are common phenomena. But at present, the prices of oilseeds are very remunerative. However, fluctuations in prices were severe constraint. It is also noticed from table-IV-13 B that the 70.50 per cent of total sample farmers had opined that it was severe constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds. Almost all the marginal and small farmers had understood that it was severe constraint.

IV.13.3.IV. Price Risk

Table IV 13 B reveals that price risk was severe and moderate constraints in the cultivation of oilseed. This type of views had been endorsed by the sample farmers. The price risks were severe economic constraint in the cultivation of oilseeds. The price risk is much more evolved in soyabean and sunflower in context to Uttar Pradesh. More than 65 per cent sample farmers had reported that price risk was severe constraint while 33 per cent had considered that it was moderate constraint. - 107 -

IV.13.3.V. Profitability

The views of farmers with regard to the profitability of oilseeds compared with other crops are shown in Table-IV-13B. Table IV 13B reflects that oilseeds were less profitable compared with its competing crops. Of the total 200 sample farmers, 83 per cent had opined that oilseeds are less profitable compared with its competing crops. There is high risk involved particularly in kharif oilseed crops. This was severe as well as moderate constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds.

The above analysis shows that almost all the economic constraints were severe and moderate on the sample farms during reference period. Table IV-13 (B) 3. Economic

Categor- Input Costs Human Labour Low & Fluctuation ies of Prices farms 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal - - 15 40 12 22 13 8 54 1 - - (27.27) (72.73) (21.82) (48.00) (23.64) (14.54) (98.18) (1.82) Small - - 17 51 25 27 10 6 66 2 - - (25.00) (75.00) (36.76) (39.71) (14.71) (8.82) (97.06) (2.94) Medium 3 6 10 38 3 6 16 32 14 9 20 14 (5.26) (10.53) (17.54) (66.67) (5.26) (10.53) (28.07) (56.14) (24.56) (15.79) (35.09) (24.56) Large 2 2 4 12 1 2 8 9 7 - 11 2 (10.00) (10.00) (20.00) (60.00) (5.00) (10.00) (40.00) (45.00) (35.00) (55.00) (10.00) Total 5 8 46 141 41 57 47 55 141 12 31 16 (2.50) (4.00) (23.00) (70.50) (20.50) (28.50) (23.50) (27.50) (70.50) (6.00) (15.50) (8.00)

Categories Price Risk Profitability More Risky of farms 4 5 6 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal 47 8 - - 42 13 - - - - 18 37 (85.45) (14.55) (76.36) (23.64) (32.73) (67.27) Small 62 6 - - 58 10 - - - - 18 50 (91.18) (8.52) (85.29) (14.71) (26.47) (73.53) Medium 18 37 2 - 48 5 3 1 31 3 8 15 (31.58) (64.91) (13.51) (84.21) (8.77) (5.26) (1.76) (54.39) (5.26) (14.04) (26.31) Large 9 16 - - 18 - 2 - 12 - 1 7 (20.00) (80.00) (90.0) (10.00) (60.00) (5.00) (35.00) Total 131 67 2 - 166 28 5 1 43 3 45 109 (65.50) (33.5) (1.00) (83.00) (14.00) (2.50) (0.50) (21.50) (1.50) (22.50) (54.50)

- 108 -

IV.13.4. Institutional Factors

IV.13.4.I. Seed Availability

The constraints related to institutions are shows in Table IV-13C. Perusal of the table revealed that majority of the selected farmers (45.50 per cent) had reported that the availability of seed was not important constraint. Of the total sample farmers only 19 per cent had reported that it was severe constraint followed by 9.50 per cent who were of the view that it was a moderate constraint. It shows that availability of seed of oilseeds was not a major problem for majority of selected farmers.

IV.13.4.II. Non-Availability of Other Inputs

Table IV-13C shows that majority of sample farmers (54%) had expressed opinion that the non-availability of other inputs was not important constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds. This type of reaction was found across the size of farms. Few of sample farmers of large and medium categories had reported that it was severe constraints during the sowing of oilseed crops.

IV.13.4.III. Poor Quality of Inputs

The poor quality of inputs is an important constraint in the promotion of oilseed crops. Table IV-13C reveals that 26 per cent of the sample farmers had reported that poor quality of inputs was severe constraint while 32.50 per cent was of the opinion that it was a moderate constraint. Against this, about 30 per cent had felt, that it was not important constraint in the cultivation of oilseed crops.

IV.13.4.IV. Lack of Extension Service

The extension services play key role in the promotion of oilseed crops. There is a need to strengthen the extension services at grass-root level to guide the farmers to use the latest techniques and modern inputs in the cultivation of oilseed crops. It is noticed from Table IV- 13C that extension services were available in the study areas. Of the total sample farmers, 34 per cent were considered as not important constraint, while 46 per cent of sample farmers considered as minor constraint. It is also witnessed from table that only 7 per cent of the total

- 109 - sample farmers had considered it as a severe constraint. It reflects that extension services were adequate in the study areas.

IV.13.4.V. Inadequate Knowledge about Disease and Pest Management

The most of oilseed crops are very much susceptible to insects, pests etc. Incidence of diseases is very common on oilseed crops. However, the majority of farmers have no proper knowledge about the diseases and also unable to use the proper insecticides and pesticides to save their crops from attack of diseases. Table IV-13-C shows that it was severe and moderate constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds. Table IV-13-C shows that 53% of total sample farmers had reported that it was severe constraint followed by 19.50% who had considered it as moderate constraint.

IV.13.4.VI. Non-Availability of Credit

Since, the price of inputs has been increasing very rapidly, therefore, poor farmers are not in a position to purchase essential inputs from their own resources. Hence, the role of financial institutions is very important to provide the adequate credit to needy farmers to purchase the inputs for their crops. Table IV-13C shows that non-availability of credit was severe and moderate constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds. More than 35 per cent and 33 per cent of the sample farmers had considered it as severe and moderate constraints respectively in the cultivation of oilseeds. The marginal and small sample farmers were bigger sufferers as compared to medium and large farmers.

Table IV-13 (C) 4. Institutional Categor- Seed Availability Non-Availability of other Poor quality of Inputs ies of inputs farms 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal 10 4 (7.27) 13 28 - - 18 37 12 22 - 21 (18.18) (23.64) (50.91) (32.73) (67.27) (21.82) (40.00) (38.18) Small 18 6 (8.82) 12 32 - - 18 50 20 32 - 16 (26.47) (17.65) (47.06) (26.47) (73.53) (29.41) (47.06) (23.53) Medium 9 7 (12.28) 19 22 12 26 4 15 16 9 17 15 (15.79) (33.33) (38.60) (21.05) (45.61) (7.02) (26.32) (28.07) (15.79) (29.82) (26.32) Large 1 (5.00) 2 (10.00) 8 9 2 10 2 6 4 2 7 7 (40.00) (45.00) (10.00) (50.00) (10.00) (30.00) (20.00) (10.00) (35.00) (35.00) Total 38 19 (9.50) 52 91 14 36 42 108 52 65 24 59 (19.00) (26.00) (45.50) (7.00) (18.00) (21.00) (54.00) (26.00) (32.5) (12.00) (29.50)

- 110 - Catego Poor Extension Disease and pest Credit Power/Elec. -ries of Management farms 4 5 6 7 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal 3 4 36 12 39 4 4 8 28 27 - - - 4 - 51 (5.45) (7.27) (65.46) (21.82) (70.91) (7.27) (7.27) (14.55) (50.91) (49.09) (7.27) (92.73) 5 12 42 9 41 16 4 7 36 32 - - - 3 - 65 Small (7.35) (17.65) (61.76) (13.24) (60.29) (23.53) (5.88) (10.30) (52.94) (47.06) (4.41) (95.59) 4 9 11 33 12 16 4 25 5 6 13 33 8 5 9 35 Medium (7.02) (15.79) (19.30) (57.89) (21.05) (28.07) (7.02) (43.86) (8.77) (10.53) (22.81) (57.89) (14.04) (8.77) (15.79) (61.40 2 1 3 14 14 3 - 3 2 2 - 16 5 2 5 8 (40) Large (10.00) (5.00) (15.00) (70.00) (70.00) (15.00) (15.00) (10.00) (10.00) (80.00) (25.00) (10.00) (25.00) 14 26 92 68 106 39 12 43 71 67 13 49 13 14 14 159 Total (7.00) (13.00) (46.00) (34.00) (53.00) (19.50) (6.00) (21.50) (35.50) (33.50) (6.50) (24.5) (6.50) (7.00) (7.00) (79.50

IV.13.5. Post harvest, Marketing and Value Addition

The views and opinions of respondents related to post harvest marketing and value addition constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds have been analyzed in Table IV-13.C

IV.13.5.I. Poor Marketing System and Access to Markets

It is evident from Table IV-13 C that poor marketing system and access to markets were not important constraints as had been reported by 78% of sample farmers. Only 7% and 4.50% sample farmers had felt that the poor marketing system and access to market were severe and moderate constrains respectively. It shows that farmers did not face any marketing problems in the marketing of oilseeds.

IV.13.5.II. Lack of Information about the price and Markets

Table IV.13 C reveals the lack of information about the price and markets were severe constraints in the cultivation of oilseed crops. Of the total sample farmers, 77% had complained that it was severe constraints. Incase of marginal and small sample farmers, it was 100% severe constraints. However, it was not severe constraints on medium and large sample farms.

IV.13.5.III. Exploitation of Middleman

TableIV-13C shows that exploitation of middlemen in the marketing of oilseeds was not important constraint as had been reported by 37% of the sample farmers. Against this, 23% of sample farmers had expressed their views that it was severe constraint in the marketing of oilseeds. Some of them had also opined that it was moderate constraint in the cultivation of

- 111 - oilseed. It shows that the opinion about this constraint differs from farmer to farmer in the study areas.

IV.13.5.IV. Lack of Processing Facilities in the Area

It is evident from TableIV-13C that the lack of processing facilities in the study areas was delineated as moderate constraint on the sample farms. This type of response was also noticed from all categories of farms.

IV.13.5.V. Lack of Appropriate Transport Facilities

Table-IV-13 C reveals that about 76% of the sample farmers had reported that lack of appropriate transport facilities was severe constraint. Among the sample farmers, the marginal and small farmers had faced adequate shortage of transport facilities as compared with their counterpart.

IV.13.5.VI. Inadequate Storage Facilities

The small and marginal farmers had limited storage facilities in their houses. Table-IV-13 C shows that all the small and marginal farmers had reported that inadequate storage facilities were severe constraint. However, the 46% and 40% of sample farmers of medium and large groups respectively had said that it was severe constraints.

IV.13.5.VII. Poor Road Infrastructure

Most of link roads of villages of Uttar Pradesh are in very poor conditions. Hence, they face difficulties in bringing the agricultural produces from village to market. This is also noticed from Table IV-13 C that 80% of total sample farmers had reported that it was severe constraint. These types of response were reported by the marginal and small sample farmers. However, the medium and large sample farmers were of the opinion that it was also moderate constraint.

- 112 - Table-IV-13 C Post Harvest, Marketing and Value Additional

Poor marketing System Lack of information about Exploitation by Market Price & market middlemen 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal - 55 55 - - - 12 12 - 31 (100.00) (100.00) (21.82) (21.82) (56.36) Small - 68 68 - - - 23 18 - 27 (100.00) (100.00) (33.82) (26.47) (39.71) Medium 11 7 15 24 25 10 3 19 9 14 25 9 (19.30) (12.28) (26.32) (42.10) (43.86) (17.54) (5.26) (33.33) (15.79) (24.56) (43.86) (15.79) Large 3 2 6 9 7 2 9 2 3 7 2 8 (15.00) (10.00) (30.00) (45.00) (35.00) (10.00) (45.00) (10.00) (15.00) (35.00) (100.00) (40.00) Total 14 9 21 156 155 12 12 21 47 51 27 75 (7.00) (4.50) (10.50) (78.00) (77.5) (6.00) (6.00) (10.50) (23.5) (25.50) (13.50) (37.5)

Lack of processing facilities in the area Lack of appropriate transport facilities 4 5 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 - 55 - - 55 (100.00) - - - (100.00) - 68 - - 68 (100.00) - - - (100.00) 11 5 (8.77) 20 21 (36.84) 22 (38.60) 6 (10.52) 22 (38.60) 7 (12.28) (19.30) (35.09) 2 4 (20.00) 8 (10.00) 6 (30.00) 7 (35.00) 1 (5.00) 9 (45.00) 3 (15.00) (100.00) 13 (6.50) 132 28 27 (13.50) 152 (76.00) 7 (3.50) 31.00 10 (5.00) (66.00) (14.00) (15.50)

Inadequate storage Poor Infrastructure High Transport Costs Price & Market facilities information 6 7 8 9 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 Marginal 55 - - - 55 ------55 55 - - - (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Small 68 - - - 68 ------68 68 - - - (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Medium 26 9 13 9 26 17 8 6 13 11 13 20 3 (5.26) 19 13 22 (45.61) (15.79) (22.81) (15.79) (45.62) (29.82) (14.04) (10.52) (22.81) (19.30) (22.81) (35.08) (33.33) (22.81) (38. 60) Large 8 3 3 6 10 6 2 2 6 - 8 6 8 6 3 3 (40.00) (15.00) (15.00) (30.00) (50.00) (30.00) (10.00) (10.00) (30.00) (40.00) (30.00) (40.00) (30.00) (15.00) (15. 00) Total 157 12 16 15 159 23 10 8 19 11 21 149 134 25 16 25 (78.50) (6.00) (8.00) (7.50) (79.5) (11.50) (5.00) (4.00) (9.50) (6.50) (10.5) (74.50) (67.00) (12.50) (8.00) (12. 50)

- 113 -

IV.13.5.VIII. High Transport Cost

Since, the farmers generally sell the oilseeds to village traders and local processors, so they do not bear high transport costs. Table IV-13 C also indicates that more than 74% of total samples farmers had expressed that it was not important constraint in the cultivation of oilseed. About 26% of sample farmers belonging to medium and large farmers had treated it as severe constraints.

The above analysis reflects that most of the constraints related to Post harvest marketing and value addition were severe constraints in the cultivation of oilseeds in the study areas.

IV.13.5.IX. Composite Indices for Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops

Multidimensional scaling is one of the multivariate techniques for constructing composite indices. A type of index can arise if a survey involves determining attitudes or views, say of the quality of access to facilities like technological support or Institutional support for crop cultivation activity. The response is on a four point scale where 4 indicate severe problems while 1 indicates that the factor is not important. The resulting scores are summed across all relevant responses to provide a matrix reflecting farmers’ views of the value of the facilitating factors. This is also called a ‘distance matrix’ obtained by cross tabulation of the response scores. A simple matching coefficient is worked out by taking averages row-wise for each case and averaging these again for the entire number of cases for the group.

Two types of indices have been constructed on the basis of these coefficients;

1. A relative index uses the averages for each case/group with the average of the entire sample as base. 2. An ideal index is constructed by taking the middle value of the responses: 2.5 being the value indicating the ‘ideal’ position between Severe/Moderate and Minor/Not important (Severe =4, Moderate=3, Minor=2, Not Imp. =1).

In both the cases, the index for a group is higher if problems are ‘Severe’ or ‘Moderate’ and lower if they are ‘Minor’ or ‘Not Important’. The following table summarizes the indices so obtained:

- 114 - Table-IV-14 Composite Indices for Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops on Sample Farms

Constraint Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers Relative Ideal Relativ Ideal Relative Ideal Relative Ideal Index Index e Index Index Index Index Index Index Technologica 100.6694 69.9221 102.7173 71.3445 98.1475 68.1704 94.0236 69.4571 l Agro-climatic 93.2977 48.2909 88.1898 45.6470 119.8514 62.0351 102.0093 52.8 Economic 96.6922 87.2727 93.8159 84.6766 108.8146 98.2143 104.1455 94.0 Institutional 99.9281 110.9610 95.6571 106.2185 104.3006 125.7143 102.9222 114.2857 Post-harvest 88.7940 69.2727 86.23899 67.2794 118.9102 92.7678 124.6554 97.25 marketing and value addition All 94.6633 78.8235 91.8375 76.4706 117.2695 97.6470 70.6443 58.8235 Constraints

Considering the entire sample of 200 farmers, medium farmers score high on the problems while large farmers score the least on the constraints as per their severity. Both the relative indices and the ideal indices reveal similar patterns. The indices can be compared across the groups where marginal and small farmers seem to have higher problems for technological and institutional constraints. Medium and large farmers have higher problems with institutional and post harvest facilities.

Table –IV-14 A Variances of Composite Indices for Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops on Sample Farms

Technological Agro-climatic factors Group Base: average Base: 2.5 Base: average Base: 2.5 (relative index) (ideal index) (relative index) (ideal index) Marginal Mean:1.748052 Mean: 2.5 Mean:1.207273 Mean: 2.5 Var: 0.110328 Var: 0.673748 Var:0.082909 Var:1.752545 Small Mean:1.783613 Mean: 2.5 Mean:1.141176 Mean: 2.5 Var: 0.105692 Var: 0.617347 Var:0.059772 Var:1.905294 Medium Mean:1.704261 Mean: 2.5 Mean:1.550877 Mean: 2.5 Var: 0.086632 Var: 0.718314 Var:0.233258 Var:1.13 Large Mean:1.632653 Mean: 2.5 Mean:1.32 Mean: 2.5 Var: 0.052578 Var: 0.796939 Var:0.186947 Var:1.57 All Mean:1.736429 Mean: 2.5 Mean:1.20375 Mean: 2.5 Var: 0.437671 Var: 0.679592 Var:0.15514 Var:1.6088

- 115 -

Economic Institutional Group Base: average Base: 2.5 Base: average Base: 2.5 (relative index) (ideal index) (relative index) (ideal index) Marginal Mean:2.181818 Mean: 2.5 Mean:2.774026 Mean: 2.5 Var:0.064067 Var:0.164141 Var:0.143379 Var:0.215863 Small Mean:2.116915 Mean: 2.5 Mean:2.655462 Mean: 2.5 Var:0.053117 Var:0.198529 Var:0.142087 Var:0.164166 Medium Mean:2.455357 Mean: 2.5 Mean:2.895408 Mean: 2.5 Var:0.117668 Var:0.11756 Var:0.501049 Var:0.650875 Large Mean:2.35 Mean: 2.5 Mean:2.857143 Mean: 2.5 Var:0.204386 Var:0.216667 Var:0.491944 Var:0.594898 All Mean:2.256457 Mean: 2.5 Mean:2.776023 Mean: 2.5 Var:0.107975 Var:0.168063 Var:0.283945 Var:0.358707

Post-harvest, marketing and All Constraints value addition Group Base: average Base: 2.5 Base: average Base: 2.5 (relative index) (ideal index) (relative index) (ideal index) Marginal Mean:1.731818 Mean: 2.5 Mean:2.018717 Mean: Var:0.026862 Var:0.616477 Var:0.016768 Var:0.248097 Small Mean:1.681985 Mean: 2.5 Mean:1.968858 Mean: Var:0.027255 Var:0.696002 Var:0.018667 Var:0.300504 Medium Mean:2.319196 Mean: 2.5 Mean:2.240498 Mean: Var:0.2795 Var:0.307199 Var:0.057381 Var:0.123697 Large Mean:2.43125 Mean: 2.5 Mean:2.194118 Mean: Var:0.326439 Var:0.314844 Var:0.06405 Var:0.154412 All Mean:1.950377 Mean: 2.5 Mean:2.081681 Mean: Var:0.22535 Var:0.22535 Var:0.046858 Var:0.221582

IV.14. Suggestions for Improving Production and Productivity of Oilseeds

The suggestions for improving production and productivity of oilseeds had been obtained from 200 sample farmers of different categories of the study areas during the survey period. The responses of sample farmers are shown in Table-IV-15. The suggestions have been categorized into10 major heads which are described as given below:-

IV.14.1. Availability of Certified Seeds of Oilseeds

The availability of certified seeds of oilseeds should be available at proper time and at responsible price. This could increase the production of oilseeds by 20% from existing level of production and productivity at farm level. All the selected farmers had also suggested for improving the supply of quality seeds of oilseeds in the markets. - 116 -

IV.14.II. Ban on Adulterated Inputs

The adulterated inputs are much flooded in the markets at present which are responsible to damage the growth of plants. On account of this, the production of crops goes down in every year. It is evident from Table IV.15 that all sample farmers had opined against the supply of adulterated inputs. The ban on adulterated inputs would be more beneficial to increase the production and productivity of oilseeds.

IV.14.III. Increase the Strength of Plant Protection Department

Since, the oilseeds are more susceptible to pests, insects and diseases, so it needs high intensity of plant protection measure to reduce the damage of production of oilseeds.

It is also witnessed from Table-IV-15 that the majority of respondents had opined that the strength of Plant Protection Department should be increased to safeguard the interest of oilseed growers to minimize the losses of oilseeds production.

IV.14.IV. Crop Insurance Scheme

The oilseeds have very high risk in comparison to its competing crops, Hence, the farmers hesitate to devote the more area under oilseed crops.

The crop insurance scheme would be more beneficial to boost the moral of farmers to use the proper inputs in the cultivation of oilseeds. This would increase the production and productivity of oil seeds.

IV.14.V. Compensation is needed on Failure of Oilseeds

It is witnessed from Table IV-15 that all selected farmers had expressed their opinion that the compensation should be provided to farmers on the failure of oilseed crops to create enthusiasm among the farmers to devote more area under oilseeds in next year.

IV.14.VI. Development of Entrepreneurial Activities to Safeguard in the Oilseed Growers

The small as well as marginal farmers have poor access to market of oilseeds. They generally sell their agricultural produces at door at the lower rate than market rate. They are mostly

- 117 - illiterate and poor, so they do not take risk to retain the grains of oilseeds for a long time in their home. Therefore, development of entrepreneurial activities are required among the growers to get remunerative price of oilseed crops. This would be helpful in increasing the production and productivity of oilseeds in years to come.

IV.14.VII. Easy Access to Loan from Financial Institutions

It has been observed that mustard are generally sold in grain forms by the majority of sample farmers. The price of mustard grains is generally found much lower than its value addition price. Therefore, the loan should be provided to needy oilseed growers to establish the oil mills with in the village. This would also be helpful in providing better price of grains of oilseeds to the farmers in the village. On account of this, farmers will devote more area under oilseeds and will also use the modern package practices in the cultivation of oilseeds to get better yield.

IV.14.VIII. Development of Market Infrastructural facilities and Market Network.

It is evident from Table-IV-15 that the majority of sample farmers of all categories had opined that development of infrastructural facilities and market network could be increase the production and productivity of oilseeds in coming years. This will eliminate the existing foul means in the marketing of oilseeds.

IV.14.IX. Strengthening of Extension Service

The role of ICAR, SAUs and KVKs were negligible in the promotion of oilseeds production in the study areas. The extension services at grass root level were as also very poor. On account of this, all the sample farmers of different categories of farms had suggested to strengthen the extension services at farms level to provide the latest techniques to better use of essential inputs in the cultivation of oilseeds. This would be helpful in increasing the production and productivity of oilseed in U.P. in years to come.

- 118 - Table-IV. 15 Suggestions for improving production and productivity of oilseeds (%) Suggestions Marginal Small Medium Large All Farms I. Availability of certified seed of oilseeds 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 II. Availability of pesticides & insecticide at 100 100 100 100 100 reasonable price III. Adulterated inputs should not be allowed 100 100 100 100 100 in the markets IV. Increase the strength of Plant Protection 82 88 100 100 93.50 Department V. Crop Insurance Scheme should be 100 100 100 100 100 effectively implemented across the State VI. Compensation should be provided at 100 100 100 100 100 failure of oilseed- crops to encourage the oilseed growers VII Development the entrepreneurial 51 59 100 100 68 activities to safeguard the interest of growers VII Loan should be provided to establish the 64 74 100 100 65 I oil mills in potential areas. IX. Development of market infrastructural 100 100 100 100 100 facilities and market-net work X Extension services should be improved to 100 100 100 100 100 guide the farmers to use better techniques in cultivation of oilseed to crops

IV.14.X. Since, the technical and institutional constraints were found more severe on the marginal and small sample farms in the cultivation of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh, hence, Governments of Centre and state, research scientists, etc should pay more attention to provide them essential inputs at subsidized rate.

IV.14.XI. The medium and large farmers were facing severe problems of institutional and marketing in the cultivation of oilseeds in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, there is a need to provide the better facilities of institutional and marketing to medium and large oilseed growers through development of integrated approach.

- 119 - CHAPTER-V

Summary, Concluding Observations and Policy Implications

V.1. Introduction

Since, independence, the Government of India had paid maximum attention on agriculture sector by making huge investment through Five Year Plan. The result of investment in agriculture sector was found very tangible, positive and significant. The role of green revolution was very significant in boosting the production of wheat and rice. The production of wheat and rice has increased manifold due to introduction of green revolution. Now the country is not only sufficient in the production of wheat and rice rather these are being exported to foreign countries. The impact of green revolution was mostly confined to only wheat and rice. On account of this, the farmers have changed their cropping pattern in favour of rice and wheat crops. The expansion of irrigation network is also responsible to increase the area under rice and wheat on the cost of coarse cereals, oilseed and pulse crops.

Prior to commencement of green revolution India was self sufficient in edible oilseeds and oils. India was also exporter of edible oilseeds. On account of sharp decrease in production of oil seeds, the country has become importer of edible oils in the eighties. It was major items in the list of import commodities. This was major challenge before the Government of India to get self sufficiency in the production of oil seeds by use of better package of practices in the cultivation of oilseed crops to overcome the stagnation in oilseeds production in the country. India had launched “Technology Mission on Oilseeds (TMO)” in May 1986 to increase the production of oilseeds, reduce its import and achieve self-sufficiency in edible oil. This programme had produced a good result because the production of oilseeds had increased significantly by 86% from 10.83 million tones in 1985-86 to 20.11 million tones in 1991-92. As a result of this, the import of oilseeds had come down by 95% during corresponding period. India is one of the most oilseeds producing countries of the world. About 10% of the total production of oil seeds of world is produced by India. The oilseeds crops occupy 14.9% of GCA of the country. The contribution of oilseeds in total value of output was estimated at 9.7% in TE 2009-10. Nine oilseed crops are important which are grown across the country in

- 120 - different seasons. Among these oilseeds, soyabean, groundnut, sesame, linseed rapeseed/mustard, sunflower are most important oilseed crops in . The most of oilseeds are mostly grown in rainfed areas and neglected fields. On account of this, productivity of oilseeds is still far below from targeted yield in most parts of the country. It has been estimated that more than 50% of total requirement of edible oils is being imported to fulfill present requirement.

As per estimation of NCAER, the demand for edible oil was 10 million tones against domestic production of 7 million tones. NCAER had also forecasted that demand of edible oils would be about 20 million tones per annum by the year 2015 against the projection of production of edible oils of about 7 million tones during the same period. To fulfill the gap of 13 million tones per annum, the efforts will have to be required to accelerate growth rate of production oilseeds by 15% per annum against existing growth rate of 4% per annum. For accelerating the production of oilseeds, Uttar Pradesh can play a prime role in years ahead. Uttar Pradesh has rich soil and better agro climatic conditions which are suitable for oilseed crops. However, the productivity of oilseeds in the state is low in comparison to neighbouring states. Most of oilseeds namely rapeseed/mustard, linseed, groundnut, sunflower and sesame are grown in the state. Among these oilseeds crops, mustard accounted for lion’s share being 84.28% of total area under oilseeds. Even then the contribution of oilseeds in total value of output is very meager as compared to other crops. The oilseeds are not getting due weightage as compared to sugarcane, potato, rice, wheat etc. in U.P. Of total production of food grains of 446.64 lakh M.T. in the state in 2009-10, cereal crops accounted for 95.75% followed by 4.27% pulses while the contribution of oilseeds was only 1.81% during 2009-10.

India is second largest country of the world as far as area under oilseeds is concerned. Even then, the country is not self sufficient in edible oilseeds. This is a matter of serious concern for Government of India. To overcome the stagnation in oilseed production, a number of centrally sponsored schemes had been initiated across the country to increase production of oilseeds, reduce imports and achieve self sufficiency in edible oil. As a result of these sponsored schemes, there was a significant progress in the production of oilseeds from mid 1980s to mid 1990s. The production of oilseed was stagnant about 20 million tones during 1990s in the country. However, it has increased upto 27.9 million tones in TE 2010-11. The - 121 - average productivity was only 872Kg/ha/ in TE 2000-01 which has increased to 1042 Kg/ha in TE 2010-11. The average productivity of oilseeds is still very low as compared to world average and other countries. The reason of low productivity of oilseeds in the country is due to mainly its dry land farming. Most of oilseeds are still grown in rainfed areas. About 28% of total area under oilseeds is under irrigation in the country at present. In spite of this, a numbers of constraints namely biotic, a biotic, stress, technological, institutional and socio- economic constraints are also hurdle in the pave of growth of productivity and production of oilseeds. The change in weather atmosphere in recent past is also serious concern for oilseed growers. They do not want to take risk to devote more area under oil seeds to fear against adverse weather condition. Taking into account the changing environment, increasing demand, slow growth in domestic production, rising imports, the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India had asked to AER Centres, to under take the study on “Productions and Prospects of Oilseeds and Oil Palm Production in India”, to analyse performance and potential of India oilseeds and oil palm sector and identify major problems- constraints facing the sectors:

V-2. Objectives of the Study

Following objectives of the study have been framed to get fruitful results.

1. To examine trends and pattern of growth of different edible oilseeds over time and across states/districts and identity the sources of growth in edible oilseeds in India/State. 2. To identity major constraints in edible oilseeds cultivation and suggest policy options to increase oilseeds production and productivity in the state.

V.3. Coverage, Sampling, Design and Methodology

The mustard, linseed, groundnut and sesame are the major oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh which occupied 66.05%, 3.75%, 9.30% and 19.01% of total area of oilseeds of Uttar Pradesh during 2008-09 respectively. Thus, rapeseed/mustard crop had been allotted by IIM Ahemdabad to this centre to study its, “Problems and Prospects in context of Uttar Pradesh”. Out of 72 districts of U.P., Jhansi, Jalaun, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Shahjahanpur, Unnao, Hardoi, Kheri, Sitapur, Barabanki, Kanpur Dehat, Budaun, Etah, Agra and Mathura districts had occupied more than 10 thousand hectares land under mustard in 2010-11. The - 122 - sampling design and methodology of the study have been fully adopted as per guideline given by coordinator centre, IIM Ahmdabad. Three districts have been selected on basis of average and production share. The district wise latest (2010-11) data of area, production and productivity have been collected from Directorate of Statistics of U.P., Lucknow. The selection of districts was based on area and yield of mustard in 2010-11 as per following classification:

Area Yield High Low High High area-High yield (HH) High area- Low yield (HL) Low Low area-High yield (LH) Low area -Low yield (LL)

The 72 districts of the state have been classified according to area and yield. Among the 72 districts, Agra district had high area and high yield (HH) of mustard in 2010-11. The area under mustard was 51,457 hectares while the production and productivity were 90358 qtls and 17.50 qtls respectively in 2010-11. Therefore, Agra district has been selected for 1st category (HH). The selection for 2nd category i.e. low area-high yield (LH), Etah district has been found appropriate among all the districts of the state. Hence, this district has been selected for low area and high yield (LH). The area under mustard in the district was 9,959 hectares and productivity was only 15.24 qtls in 2010-11. In the case of selection of district for High area low yield (HL) Lakhimpur Kheri district was found appropriate because the area under mustard was only 30,775 hectares but yield was 9.20 qtls per hectare. On account of this, Lakhimpur Kheri has been selected for third category from 72 districts of Uttar Pradesh. The details of category-wise selected districts are shown in Table-V.1.

Table-V.1 Classification of Categories Name of the Selected districts I High Area- High Yield (HH) Agra II Low Area- High Yield (LH) Etah III High Area-Low Yield (HL) Lakhimpur Kheri

- 123 - These three districts have been elected among 72 districts of U.P. for the study. These selected districts also belong to different agro-climatic zones of U.P.

At the second stage, one mustard producing block from each selected district has been selected. Two villages from the each selected block have been selected for the selection of respondents. Thus, 6 villages from 3 blocks of 3 selected districts were the second unit of sampling of the study.

At the third stage, a list of farmers of 6 villages have been prepared and arranged in ascending order to their size of owned land. The number of farmers have been categorized into four groups namely marginal (<1.00 ha.) Small (1-2 ha.), Medium (2-10 ha.) and Large (>10 ha.)The sample households were selected on probability proportion to their numbers in different categories of farms with a condition that at least 20 households to be represented for each category of farm. A total 200 households have been selected from 6 villages of 3 blocks of 3 selected districts of Uttar Pradesh for the study. The details selected units are illustrated in Table V.2. Table V.2 Details of Selected Units Name of the No. of No. of No. of selected households selected districts selected selected Marginal Small Medium Large All blocks village Agra (HH) 1 2 24 19 28 8 79 Etah (LH) 1 2 14 20 12 4 50 Lukhimpur Kheri 1 2 17 29 17 8 71 (HL) Total 3 6 55 68 57 20 200

V.4. Main Findings based on Secondary data

The findings are based on the analysis of secondary data published from different statistical bulletins, magazines research paper etc.

 The state per cent share of area under total oilseeds in all India was 3.82% in TE 2009-10 against 4.42% in TE 1993-94, showing 15.71% decrease over the period. The area in mustard accounted for 12.32% of all India area in TE 1993-94 which has come down to 10.04% in TE 2009-10. The per cent share of area under soyabean and sunflower has also decreased in TE 2009-10 as compared with its share in TE 1993-94. There was marginal - 124 - increase in case of groundnut during corresponding period. Area under oilseeds is not increasing at par with area under wheat and commercial crops across the state.

 The share of total production of oilseeds in U.P. in all India production was 4.48% in TE 1993-94 which has decreased to 2.92% in TE 2009-10, registering a decrease of 53.42% over the period. This was due to fall in production of groundnut, soyabean and sesame in TE 2009-10 in Uttar Pradesh.

 Net area sown in U.P. has been decreasing year by year due to expansion of urbanization, industrialization, infrastructural, facilities etc, while the GCA was more or less stagnant during study period from TE 1993-94 to TE 2009-10.

 The average area under oilseeds was 436 thousand hectares during 1951-52 to 1960-61 in U.P. which has increased to 919 thousand hectares during 2001-02 to 2009-10, thereby showing 110.79% increase over the period.

 The total production of oilseeds was 241 thousand MT during 1951-52 to 1960-61 which has increased to 752 thousand MT during 2001-02 to 2009-10, showing 212% increase over the period. The growth rate in production in total oilseed was maintaining upward trend throughout study period.

 The productivity of total oilseeds was 5.53 qtls per hectare during 1951-52 to 1960-61 which has increased to 8.19 qtls per hectare during 2001-02 to 2009-10, registering 48% increase over the period.

 The six oilseeds namely, ground nut, soyabean, sesame, mustard, linseed and sunflower are sown in U.P. in different seasons. Among these six oil seed crops, the area under mustard accounted for 58.04% followed by 28.08%, 8.96%, 3.16%, 0.94% and 0.82% of sesame, groundnut, linseed, soyabean and sunflowers respectively of total area under oilseeds during TE 2009-10. Thus, rabi season oilseed crops accounted for 61.20% followed by 37.98 and 0.82% of Kharif and summer seasons oilseed crops respectively. The mustard and sesame are major oilseed crops in U.P. which accounted jointly for

- 125 - 86.12% of total area under oilseeds in TE 2009-10 in U.P. The area of soyabean and sun flower was very negligible among oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh.

 As far as production of oilseeds is concerned, the analysis reveals that out of total production of total oilseed being 802 thousand MT in TE 2009-10, mustard accounted for 83.56% followed by 7.47% and 4.49% of groundnut and sesame respectively. It reflects that mustard, sesame and groundnut were major oilseeds in U.P. Among these, mustard is still very dominant oilseed in U.P. The groundnut and sesame are not so much assured oilseed crops as compared with mustard The area and production of soyabean is very limited in U.P. due to lack of its proper marketing facilities in the State..

 The area of mustard was 270 thousand hectares in U.P. during 1951-52 to 1960-67 which has increased to 585 thousand hectares during 2001-02 to 2009-10, showing 116.67% increase over the period. However, there was much fluctuation in area of mustard during the different decades in U.P. The area under mustard in U.P. has not maintained positive trends during the study periods.

 The production of mustard was 108 thousand MT during 1951-52 to 1960-61 in U.P. which has gone upto 616 thousand MT during 2001-02 to 2009-10, thereby showing 470% increase over the period. The analysis also reveals that the average yield of mustard per hectare has been continuously increasing from year to year in Uttar Pradesh.

 The CAGR in area of mustard was positive being 2.59% in U.P. as a whole during 4 decade i.e. from 1970-71 to 2009-10.

 The CAGR in production of mustard in U.P. as a whole was highest being 8.44% in decade of eighties followed by 2.92% and 1.92% in 2000s and 1970s respectively while it was negative being -1.50% in decade of nineties. The CAGR in production of mustard was more pronounced in eighties (from 1980 to 1989-90) as compared to subsequent years.

 In over all U.P. level, there was positive CAGR in production of mustard in U.P. during 1970s, 1980s and 2000s, but quantum of increase was more from 1980-81 to 1989-90. - 126 -

 The CAGR in productivity of mustard in U.P. was negative i.e.-2.09% in the decade of seventies followed by -0.65% in nineties. Against this, CAGR in productivity of mustard was positive being 4.14% in 1980s followed by 2.04% in 2000s.

 The variability in area of mustard was comparative lower than the variability in production and productivity of mustard in U.P. The production of mustard increased in U.P. due to higher productivity rather than expansion in area of mustard during the 4 decades.  Among the four decades, decade of nineties (from 1990-91 to 1999-2000) was found worst because the rate of growth in area and production of mustard had gone negative in Uttar Pradesh.

 The variability in area of mustard was lowest in 1990s and 2000s than that of 1970s and 1980s in the state. It was found more in the selected districts of Bundelkhand region than the selected districts of western and central regions of U.P.

 The variability in production of mustard in the state was lowest in period 2000-01 to 2009-10 as compared to the variability of other periods. The variability in production of mustard was maximum in decade of eighties followed by seventies and nineties decades in U.P. It reflects that variation in area and production of mustard was much consistent in period 2000-01 to 2009-10 as compared to other study periods.

 The variability in productivity of mustard was also much consistent in period 2000-01 to 2009-10 in U.P. as compared to other decades in U.P.

 The CV in annual whole sale price of linseed was more being 34.8% followed by 33.00% and 31.90% in mustard and groundnut respectively during period from 1989-90 to 2010- 11. The annual whole sale prices of mustard, linseed and groundnut had received big push from 2007-08 onwards.

 Among the 72 districts of U.P. Mathura, Agra and Budaun are most potential districts in the production of mustard out of total production of mustard of U.P., the contribution of Mathura, Agra and Budaun districts were 10.89%, 13.01% and 5.41% respectively during TE 2009-10. The productivity of mustard has been increasing across the districts of the state since the introduction of TMO in the State.

- 127 -

 The oilseed crops are still important crops in rainfed belts of U.P. The area under oilseeds is not increasing at par with area under wheat, rice and other commercial crops across the state. It is still very risky across the state and also very susceptible to pests and disease. The weather risk is very much involved in the cultivation of mustard crop.

V.5. Findings based on sample farms data

Two hundred farmers were selected from 6 villages of three districts belonging to different agro-climatic zones of Uttar Pradesh.

 Of the total 200 sample households, OBC accounted for 56.50% followed by 30.00% and 13.50% for general and SC respectively.

 The agriculture was main occupation of the sample farmers. More than 89% of total sample households were engaged in crop farming.

 The per farm owned area was 0.83 hectare, 1.59 hectares, 8.54 hectares and 11.30 hectares of marginal, small, medium and large farms respectively. At the aggregate level, it was 2.91 hectares.

 The leased –in and leased-out land were not witnessed across the sample size of farms.

 Canal and pump sets (diesel and electric) were main sources of irrigation on the sample farms. However, the pump-sets were main source of irrigation devices on the sample farms than the canal. The ground water was much utilized than the surface water by the sample farmers.

 Of the total cropped area, cereal crops accounted for 49.05% followed by 22.86%, 6.54%, 6.23% and 15.32% of oilseeds, cash crops, pulses and other crops respectively.

 Among the cereal crops, wheat, bajra and maize were major crops accounted for 17.71%, 18.35%, 6.68% and 6.71% of GCA respectively.

 Sugarcane and potato were main cash crops accounted for 9.86% and 5.61% of GCA respectively on the sample farms.

 Among the oilseeds, mustard and sesame were main oilseed crops which accounted for 19.37% and 3.49% of GCA respectively on the sample farms. The mustard was second

- 128 - most important crop on the sample farms. It was also treated as cash crop by the sample farms.

 The maximum share of GCA being 24.91% was under mustard on marginal farms followed by 22.72%, 20.32% and 15.86% on small medium and large farms respectively.

 The sample farmers had attached more significance to mustard crop in cropping pattern. Generally mustard is grown in the fields which are kept fallow in kharif season in Agra district. Mustard is also grown as a single crop by the sample farmers of selected districts.

 The main competitive crops for mustard were wheat and potato in the study areas.

 The cropping pattern followed by the sample farms under different size group of holdings was more or less same. There were minute deviations among the different size groups.

 The average yield of wheat was 31.36 qtls per hectare at the aggregate level which was highest being 32.74 qtls on marginal farms followed by 32.66 qtls on small farms. The average yield of wheat per hectare decreases with increase in size of farms. The average yield per hectare of mustard at the aggregate level was 22.70 qtls which ranged between 22.23 qtls and 24.40 qtls on large and marginal farms respectively. The average yield of mustard also decreases with increase in size of farms. The average yield per hectare of wheat was higher by 38.15% over the average yield of 22.70 qtls per hectare of mustard.

 The average yield of mustard per hectare was higher by 105.24% on the sample farms over the average yield of 11.06 qtls per hectare of U.P. in 2009-10.

 Potato was also competing crop on the sample farms of Agra district. The average yield of potato was 284.70 qtls per hectare which ranged between 192.79 qtls and 298.83 qtls across the size of farms.

 The average yield of almost all crops grown on sample farms was much higher than the state average yield in reference year.

- 129 -  At the aggregate level, the production of mustard was 4356.70 qtls of which 93.79% was sold and rest 6.21% was retained for consumption and other purposes. The large sample farms had sold maximum quantity of mustard production being 96.51% followed by 94.16% and 88.94% by medium, small and marginal farmers respectively. It shows that mustard was cash crop across the sample farms.

 The price of mustard per qtl was Rs. 3136 at the aggregate level which varied between Rs. 3212 and Rs. 2993 on small and large farms respectively. It shows that per qtl price of mustard on the sample farms was much higher than its MSP during the reference year.

 The per hectare gross income of mustard was Rs. 72,414 against Rs. 39,627 of wheat on the sample farms, showing 82.74% higher over the per hectare gross income of wheat. The per hectare net income of mustard was worked out to Rs. 44,999 against Rs. 16,132 per hectare net income of wheat on the sample farms. Thus, the mustard was more profitable than wheat on the sample farms in reference year.

 The mustard was more profitable than the wheat across the size of farms of the selected districts. This was due to higher productivity and hike in price of mustard during the reference year. On account of this, the area of mustard has not been replaced by wheat and other cereal crops from few years back in the selected districts of U.P.

 The potato was found much profitable than mustard across the sample farms. In spite being a very profitable potato crop, it does not generally substitute mustard at large scale for a long time. Potato is perishable crop and more risky than mustard. The price risk, income risk, yield risks are found more in case of potato than mustard. It is also localized crop than mustard.

Constraints

There are a number of constraints in handling production of oilseed crops which are basically categorized into 5 major heads namely technological, agro-economic factors, economic variability, institutional, marketing and value addition.

- 130 - I. Technological Factors

Non-availability of suitable varieties, weed infection, incidence of diseases and pests etc. are major technological constraints in the cultivation of oilseed crops on the sample farms.

II. Agro-Climatic Factors

The excess rain, deficient rainfall, high variation in temperature etc are major adverse factors to reduce the over all production of oilseeds in the state.

III. Economic factors

The economic constraints relate to input costs of human labour, price risk and profitability etc. are also key factors to reduce the expansion of area under oilseed crops.

IV. Institutional Factors

The poor quality of input, lack of expansion services, inadequate knowledge about disease and pest management, non availability of credit etc are also severe constraints in the cultivation of oilseed crops in the state. Table-V-3 Composite Indices for Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops on Sample Farms

Constraint Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers Relative Ideal Relativ Ideal Relative Ideal Relative Ideal Index Index e Index Index Index Index Index Index Technologica 100.6694 69.9221 102.7173 71.3445 98.1475 68.1704 94.0236 69.4571 l Agro-climatic 93.2977 48.2909 88.1898 45.6470 119.8514 62.0351 102.0093 52.8 Economic 96.6922 87.2727 93.8159 84.6766 108.8146 98.2143 104.1455 94.0 Institutional 99.9281 110.9610 95.6571 106.2185 104.3006 125.7143 102.9222 114.2857 Post-harvest 88.7940 69.2727 86.23899 67.2794 118.9102 92.7678 124.6554 97.25 marketing and value addition All 94.6633 78.8235 91.8375 76.4706 117.2695 97.6470 70.6443 58.8235 Constraints

Considering the entire sample of 200 farmers, medium farmers score high on the problems while large farmers score the least on the constraints as per their severity. Both the relative

- 131 - indices and the ideal indices reveal similar patterns. The indices can be compared across the groups where marginal and small farmers seem to have higher problems for technological and institutional constraints. Medium and large farmers have higher problems with institutional and post harvest facilities.

V. Marketing and value addition

Due to lack of processing units in the villages, the oilseed growers do not get appropriate price of oilseeds. There is vast gap between the price of oilseeds and edible oil, hence, the processors get more profit than oilseeds growers.

Conclusion

On an average the farmer received Rs. 44,999.00 per hectare net income from the cultivation of mustard than Rs. 16,132 from wheat. On an average a cultivator received Rs. 1.64 on the investment of Rs. 1.00 on mustard crop while the sample farmer received Rs. 0.69 on investment Rs. 1.00 on wheat. The hundred per cent sample farmers reported that the major problems in the cultivation of mustard in the study area was adverse weather conditions at time of flowering of mustard.

There is also high risk involved at time of harvesting mustard. Most of sample farmers had not faced any problems during the marketing of mustard. Since, it has good demand and has also very remunerative price, hence the farms are taking much interest in the cultivation of mustard instead of wheat. The prospect of mustard is very high in U.P. because it’s price continues remain upward trends.

Policy Implications

 For increasing the area under mustard, the crop should be properly and adequately covered under crop insurance scheme. This would motivate the farmers to devote more area under mustard without any hesitation.

 The sincere efforts should be made for strengthening the local based scientific research on soil and climate conditions of the various agro-climatic regions of the state.

- 132 -  The efforts should be made for proper transfer of new scientific techniques in the cultivation of mustard at gross-root level. This could be possible by the strengthening extension services.

 The inputs supply should be prompt. The seed, fertilizers, pesticides etc should be available timely, adequately and at reasonable prices.

 Since, the mustard is highly susceptible to pests and diseases, hence, the tolerance varieties of mustard should be available to farmers to reduce the attack of pests and diseases.

 The State Government should make comprehension efforts to propagate the TMO and developmental schemes and programs in the neglected districts/regions other of U.P. to motivate farmers to use the better inputs and latest techniques in the cultivation of mustard. This would definitely accelerate the yield growth rate in mustard.

 The demonstration of mustard should be performed in each village by the state government to educate the farmers to use the balanced inputs in the mustard crop. This would be useful in boosting the production of mustard on the sample farms.

 To avoid weather risk, such seed should be evolved which is suitable between kharif and rabi periods. This may provide farmers an opportunity to take double crop in single cropped area.

 Plant protection measures and marketing structure should be strengthened to get better yield and price of mustard. The marginal and small farmers should be linked effectively under a system of integrated credit cum marketing system. There is also a need to provide adequate incentive to the farmers for increasing local production and marketable surplus.

 In order to further enhance production of mustard, the appropriate remunerative prices should be available to the farmers. The incentive price than support price should be considered in agricultural price policy to boost the farmers for better investment in the production of mustard. This would minimize the price risk.

 The Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh is mostly rainfed. The sesame, linseed and soyabean are mostly sown in this region. Therefore, expansion in irrigation facilities are

- 133 - much needed in this region. This could be reduced the dependence of farmers on nature. On account of these, yield risk could be minimized to some extent.

 There is a need to redesign the price policy taking all the aspects into consideration such as cultivating oilseeds in lean and cheap years, checking the price going down in case of bumper production and prices going up in case of crop failure.

 The scientists should produce short duration HYV of oilseeds. These varieties have the capacity to protect from heat stress and drought.

 Since the traditional and local varieties of mustard produce the low yield, therefore specific varieties of mustard should be developed to produce higher production. In order to provide the better varieties of mustard to farmers, a sound policy is needed in this regard. The Seed Replacement Ratio (SRR) of mustard is low in comparison to wheat, due to non availability, adequate certified seeds at the time sowing of mustard crop. The research institute, SAUs, ICAR etc should give first priority to develop the genetic production potential varieties of mustard.

 For boasting the area, production and yield of oilseeds, some crop specific and area specific approach should be considered by changing the existing agricultural policies in the state.

 Irregularities in provision of government measures, recurrent failure of rain, lack of marketing facilities, high cost of cultivation are the main reasons for the persistence of high degree of variability in growth of oilseeds in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, the state government should take adequate step to overcome the existing obstacle in the way of better production of oilseeds in the state.

 There is a need for strengthening the extension services so that the existing farm technology can be improved by replacing it with new ones.

 Since, the oilseeds are mostly localized, therefore, the efforts should be made to local need based scientific research for these oil seed crops suited to the soil and climatic conditions of various agro-climatic zones of the state.

- 134 -  There is a need to set up processing units in potential areas of the districts. This would be helpful in increasing the bargaining power of the farmers. This can also promote general development of regions.

 Since, the technical and institutional constraints were found more severe on the marginal and small sample farms in the cultivation of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh, hence, Governments of Centre and state, research scientists, etc should pay more attention to provide them essential inputs at subsidized rate.

 The medium and large farmers were facing severe problems of institutional and marketing in the cultivation of oilseeds in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, there is a need to provide the better facilities of institutional and marketing to medium and large oilseed growers through development of integrated approach.

- 135 - References

1. Acharya S.S. and N.L. Agrawal (2204), Agriculture Marketing in India OXFORD IBH Publishing Co. PVT LTD 2. Agrawal A.L., Bharti Krishi, Arthshashtra Published by Rajashtan Granth, Academy, Jaipur. 3. Agrawal H.S. & Borlla C.AS, International Economics Published by Laxmi Narian Agrawal, Agra-3 4. Bancil P.C. Agricultural Statistics 5. Dhondyal S.P. and I.E Wills-A Guide to Research Methodology in Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Lion Publication Civil Lines, Kanpur, 1967. 6. Dixit R.S. (2003) Agricultural Marketing in India, Shugh Publication Gur Gaon, Haryana 7. Elhance D.N. Fundamentals of Statistics, Published by Kitab Mahal 22-A. Sarojini Nadu Marg, Allahabad U.P. 8. George P. S .Etc, The Oilseeds 9. GOI (2008 and 2010) Agricultural Statistic at Glance 2008 and 2010, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India. 10. Govt. of U.P., 2009 and 2010, statistical Abstract Uttar Pradesh, Economics and Statistic Division, State Planning Institute, Uttar Pradesh. 11. Govt. of U.P., Statistical Diary, U.P. 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011, Economics and Statistics Division State Planning Institute, U.P. 12. Mahajan V.S, Growth of Oilseeds and Allied Industries in India 13. Raja S.K. V. Analysis of Productivity Levels and Economic Efficiency in Agriculture 14. Roy Ramendu, Principles of Statistics, Prayag Pustak Bhawan, Allahabad. 15. Tripathi B.L. Tripathi, Bharti Krishi, Published by Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, U.P. 16. Singh R.K. Agriculture Prices & Policy in India

- 136 - Publications

1. Agricultural Situation in India , August 1988, Ministry of Agril –Govt. of India 2. Agricultural Situation in India, July, 2007, Ministry of Agril –Govt. of India 3. Agriculture Policy of Uttar Pradesh, 1999, Ministry of Agriculture of India 4. Journal of Rural Development Volume-27, Oct-Dec 2008, NIRD, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad 5. Indian Journal of agricultural Marketing (i) Vol., 17, No-2 May-Aug., 2003 (ii) Vol., 18, No-1 June-April, 2004 (iii) Vol.,20, No-3 Sept.-Oct. 2006 (iv) Vol., 21, No32 Sept-Dec. 2007 Published by Indian Society of Agricultural, Marketing Nagpur 6. Kurukshetra, A Journal on Rural Development, Vol.-57-No.7-May 2009 7. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics (i) Vol.57, No.1 (ii) Vol. 59 Jan-March 2002-01-01 (iii) Vol. 59, No.3 July-Sept (iv) Vol. 64, No.3, July-Sept, 2009 Published by Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, 2004, Mumbai 8. The Indian Journal of Economics (i) No.-338 Jan. 2005 Vol. LXXXV (ii) No.-339 April. 2005 Vol. LXXXV (iii) No.-341 Oct. 2005 Vol. LXXXVI (iv) No.-347 April. 2007 Vol. LXXXVII Published by the Departments of Economics and Commerce, University of Allahabad, Allahabad

- 137 - Reports of AER Centre, Allahabad

1. Problems of Growth of Oilseed Mustard in U.P. 1984 2. Problems and Prospects of Oilseeds Cultivation in Bundelkhand region of U.P. 1988 3. Likely Impact of Liberalized Imports and Low Tariff on Edible Oil Sector in U.P. 2001 4. (Vol.-I) Prospects of Changing Cropping Pattern in Favour of oilseeds and Pulses Production in Uttar Pradesh (in two Vol.) (1989) 5. (Vol.-II) Prospects of Changing Cropping Pattern in Favour of Oilseeds and Pulses Production in Uttar Pradesh (in two Vol.) 6. Building-Up of an Efficient Marketing System to Obviate the Need for a Large Scale State Intervention 2003.

- 138 -

Annexure I

Review Report

1. Title of the Draft Study Report Examined:

Problems and Prospects of Oilseeds Production in Uttar Pradesh 2. Date of Receipt of the Draft Report:

March 20, 2013 3. Date of Despatch of Comments:

May 17, 2013 4. Comments on the Objectives of the study:

The objectives of the study are quite comprehensive and the study addresses major issues related to problems in oilseeds production in the State. The study specifically studies trends and pattern of growth of different edible oilseeds over time and across states/districts and identifies sources of growth in edible oilseeds output in state; examines the impact of price and non-price factors influencing the supply response behavior and demand for edible oilseeds and oils in the state; and identifies major constraints in the edible oilseed cultivation and suggest policy options to increase oilseeds production and productivity in the State. 5. Comments on the Methodology:

Appropriate sampling technique has been used by the author for selection of district(s), blocks, villages and sample households. The study is based on both primary and secondary data. The study uses simple analytical tools like averages, percentages, annual compound growth rates, coefficient of variations, etc. 6. Comments on the Presentation, Get up etc.: After a brief discussion on role of agriculture and oilseeds sector in the state economy and objectives of the study in Chapter 1, second chapter presents technical aspects like coverage of the study, sampling design, methodology and conceptual framework of the study. Chapter 3 gives an overview of the oilseeds sector in the State and analyzes its current status and growth behaviour in terms of acreage, production and productivity over time using secondary information. Problems and prospects of oilseed production of mustard production in the State are discussed in Chapter 4 through an empirical investigation at the farm household level using

- 139 - primary household data. The last chapter summarizes the major findings of the study and suggests broad policy implications for addressing the problems.

The report is nicely presented but there are some editorial/grammatical mistakes in the text, which need to be taken care of while finalizing it.

The 2nd objective of the study has not been covered in the report, so it is suggested that either it should be removed from the objectives (page 9) or analysis should be carried out to examine impact of various factors on supply response behavior/demand for oilseeds/oils in the state.

It may be useful to compute composite index of constraints (Table IV-13 to IV-13C) rather than giving raw indices of intensity of severity of constraints to get an idea about relative importance of various constraints in cultivation of oilseed crops in the State and make useful recommendations.

Overall View on Acceptability of the Report:

The report may be accepted for publication and authors may wish to address some of the points suggested above.

(Vijay Paul Sharma) Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad

- 140 -

Annexure II

Action Taken

Title of the study:-

“Problems and Prospects of Oilseeds Production in Uttar Pradesh.”

1. Date of Comments received - May 31st, 2013 2. Date of dispatch of Final Report- June 29th, 2013

I am grateful to Prof. Vijay Paul Sharma, IIM Ahmedabad for his valuable suggestions in improving the quality of this report

Action taken with regard to comments of the study

I. The editorial /grammatical mistakes of the text have been corrected. II. The 2nd objective has been removed from the report. III. The composite Index of constraints has been computed in the report and suggestions in the light of constraints have also been addressed.

- 141 - Executive Summary

Study no. 137 Publication No. 185

Problems and Prospects of Oilseeds Production in Uttar Pradesh

Prof. Ramendu Roy

2013

Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad Allahabad-211002

- 142 - Executive Summary

Summary, Concluding Observations and Policy Implications

1. Introduction

Since, independence, the Government of India had paid maximum attention on agriculture sector by making huge investment through Five Year Plan. The result of investment in agriculture sector was found very tangible, positive and significant. The role of green revolution was very significant in boosting the production of wheat and rice. The production of wheat and rice has increased manifold due to introduction of green revolution. Now the country is not only sufficient in the production of wheat and rice rather these are being exported to foreign countries. The impact of green revolution was mostly confined to only wheat and rice. On account of this, the farmers have changed their cropping pattern in favour of rice and wheat crops. The expansion of irrigation network is also responsible to increase the area under rice and wheat on the cost of coarse cereals, oilseed and pulse crops.

Prior to commencement of green revolution India was self sufficient in edible oilseeds and oils. India was also exporter of edible oilseeds. On account of sharp decrease in production of oil seeds, the country has become importer of edible oils in the eighties. It was major items in the list of import commodities. This was major challenge before the Government of India to get self sufficiency in the production of oil seeds by use of better package of practices in the cultivation of oilseed crops to overcome the stagnation in oilseeds production in the country. India had launched “Technology Mission on Oilseeds (TMO)” in May 1986 to increase the production of oilseeds, reduce its import and achieve self-sufficiency in edible oil. This programme had produced a good result because the production of oilseeds had increased significantly by 86% from 10.83 million tones in 1985-86 to 20.11 million tones in 1991-92. As a result of this, the import of oilseeds had come down by 95% during corresponding period. India is one of the most oilseeds producing countries of the world. About 10% of the total production of oil seeds of world is produced by India. The oilseeds crops occupy 14.9% of GCA of the country. The contribution of oilseeds in total value of output was estimated at

- 143 - 9.7% in TE 2009-10. Nine oilseed crops are important which are grown across the country in different seasons. Among these oilseeds, soyabean, groundnut, sesame, linseed rapeseed/mustard, sunflower are most important oilseed crops in north India. The most of oilseeds are mostly grown in rainfed areas and neglected fields. On account of this, productivity of oilseeds is still far below from targeted yield in most parts of the country. It has been estimated that more than 50% of total requirement of edible oils is being imported to fulfill present requirement.

As per estimation of NCAER, the demand for edible oil was 10 million tones against domestic production of 7 million tones. NCAER had also forecasted that demand of edible oils would be about 20 million tones per annum by the year 2015 against the projection of production of edible oils of about 7 million tones during the same period. To fulfill the gap of 13 million tones per annum, the efforts will have to be required to accelerate growth rate of production oilseeds by 15% per annum against existing growth rate of 4% per annum. For accelerating the production of oilseeds, Uttar Pradesh can play a prime role in years ahead. Uttar Pradesh has rich soil and better agro climatic conditions which are suitable for oilseed crops. However, the productivity of oilseeds in the state is low in comparison to neighbouring states. Most of oilseeds namely rapeseed/mustard, linseed, groundnut, sunflower and sesame are grown in the state. Among these oilseeds crops, mustard accounted for lion’s share being 84.28% of total area under oilseeds. Even then the contribution of oilseeds in total value of output is very meager as compared to other crops. The oilseeds are not getting due weightage as compared to sugarcane, potato, rice, wheat etc. in U.P. Of total production of food grains of 446.64 lakh M.T. in the state in 2009-10, cereal crops accounted for 95.75% followed by 4.27% pulses while the contribution of oilseeds was only 1.81% during 2009-10.

India is second largest country of the world as far as area under oilseeds is concerned. Even then, the country is not self sufficient in edible oilseeds. This is a matter of serious concern for Government of India. To overcome the stagnation in oilseed production, a number of centrally sponsored schemes had been initiated across the country to increase production of oilseeds, reduce imports and achieve self sufficiency in edible oil. As a result of these sponsored schemes, there was a significant progress in the production of oilseeds from mid 1980s to mid 1990s. The production of oilseed was stagnant about 20 million tones during - 144 - 1990s in the country. However, it has increased upto 27.9 million tones in TE 2010-11. The average productivity was only 872Kg/ha/ in TE 2000-01 which has increased to 1042 Kg/ha in TE 2010-11. The average productivity of oilseeds is still very low as compared to world average and other countries. The reason of low productivity of oilseeds in the country is due to mainly its dry land farming. Most of oilseeds are still grown in rainfed areas. About 28% of total area under oilseeds is under irrigation in the country at present. In spite of this, a numbers of constraints namely biotic, a biotic, stress, technological, institutional and socio- economic constraints are also hurdle in the pave of growth of productivity and production of oilseeds. The change in weather atmosphere in recent past is also serious concern for oilseed growers. They do not want to take risk to devote more area under oil seeds to fear against adverse weather condition. Taking into account the changing environment, increasing demand, slow growth in domestic production, rising imports, the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India had asked to AER Centres, to under take the study on “Productions and Prospects of Oilseeds and Oil Palm Production in India”, to analyse performance and potential of India oilseeds and oil palm sector and identify major problems- constraints facing the sectors:

2. Objectives of the Study

Following objectives of the study have been framed to get fruitful results.

3. To examine trends and pattern of growth of different edible oilseeds over time and across states/districts and identity the sources of growth in edible oilseeds in India/State. 4. To identity major constraints in edible oilseeds cultivation and suggest policy options to increase oilseeds production and productivity in the state.

3. Coverage, Sampling, Design and Methodology

The mustard, linseed, groundnut and sesame are the major oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh which occupied 66.05%, 3.75%, 9.30% and 19.01% of total area of oilseeds of Uttar Pradesh during 2008-09 respectively. Thus, rapeseed/mustard crop had been allotted by IIM Ahemdabad to this centre to study its, “Problems and Prospects in context of Uttar Pradesh”. Out of 72 districts of U.P., Jhansi, Jalaun, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Shahjahanpur, - 145 - Unnao, Hardoi, Kheri, Sitapur, Barabanki, Kanpur Dehat, Budaun, Etah, Agra and Mathura districts had occupied more than 10 thousand hectares land under mustard in 2010-11. The sampling design and methodology of the study have been fully adopted as per guideline given by coordinator centre, IIM Ahmdabad. Three districts have been selected on basis of average and production share. The district wise latest (2010-11) data of area, production and productivity have been collected from Directorate of Statistics of U.P., Lucknow. The selection of districts was based on area and yield of mustard in 2010-11 as per following classification:

Area Yield High Low High High area-High yield (HH) High area- Low yield (HL) Low Low area-High yield (LH) Low area -Low yield (LL)

The 72 districts of the state have been classified according to area and yield. Among the 72 districts, Agra district had high area and high yield (HH) of mustard in 2010-11. The area under mustard was 51,457 hectares while the production and productivity were 90358 qtls and 17.50 qtls respectively in 2010-11. Therefore, Agra district has been selected for 1st category (HH). The selection for 2nd category i.e. low area-high yield (LH), Etah district has been found appropriate among all the districts of the state. Hence, this district has been selected for low area and high yield (LH). The area under mustard in the district was 9,959 hectares and productivity was only 15.24 qtls in 2010-11. In the case of selection of district for High area low yield (HL) Lakhimpur Kheri district was found appropriate because the area under mustard was only 30,775 hectares but yield was 9.20 qtls per hectare. On account of this, Lakhimpur Kheri has been selected for third category from 72 districts of Uttar Pradesh. The details of category-wise selected districts are shown in Table-1.

Table-1 Classification of Categories Name of the Selected districts I High Area- High Yield (HH) Agra II Low Area- High Yield (LH) Etah III High Area-Low Yield (HL) Lakhimpur Kheri

- 146 -

These three districts have been elected among 72 districts of U.P. for the study. These selected districts also belong to different agro-climatic zones of U.P.

At the second stage, one mustard producing block from each selected district has been selected. Two villages from the each selected block have been selected for the selection of respondents. Thus, 6 villages from 3 blocks of 3 selected districts were the second unit of sampling of the study.

At the third stage, a list of farmers of 6 villages have been prepared and arranged in ascending order to their size of owned land. The number of farmers have been categorized into four groups namely marginal (<1.00 ha.) Small (1-2 ha.), Medium (2-10 ha.) and Large (>10 ha.)The sample households were selected on probability proportion to their numbers in different categories of farms with a condition that at least 20 households to be represented for each category of farm. A total 200 households have been selected from 6 villages of 3 blocks of 3 selected districts of Uttar Pradesh for the study. The details selected units are illustrated in Table -2.

- 147 - Table -2 Details of Selected Units Name of the No. of No. of No. of selected households selected districts selected selected Marginal Small Medium Large All blocks village Agra (HH) 1 2 24 19 28 8 79 Etah (LH) 1 2 14 20 12 4 50 Lukhimpur Kheri 1 2 17 29 17 8 71 (HL) Total 3 6 55 68 57 20 200

4. Main Findings based on Secondary data

The findings are based on the analysis of secondary data published from different statistical bulletins, magazines research paper etc.

 The state per cent share of area under total oilseeds in all India was 3.82% in TE 2009-10 against 4.42% in TE 1993-94, showing 15.71% decrease over the period. The area in mustard accounted for 12.32% of all India area in TE 1993-94 which has come down to 10.04% in TE 2009-10. The per cent share of area under soyabean and sunflower has also decreased in TE 2009-10 as compared with its share in TE 1993-94. There was marginal increase in case of groundnut during corresponding period. Area under oilseeds is not increasing at par with area under wheat and commercial crops across the state.

 The share of total production of oilseeds in U.P. in all India production was 4.48% in TE 1993-94 which has decreased to 2.92% in TE 2009-10, registering a decrease of 53.42% over the period. This was due to fall in production of groundnut, soyabean and sesame in TE 2009-10 in Uttar Pradesh.

 Net area sown in U.P. has been decreasing year by year due to expansion of urbanization, industrialization, infrastructural, facilities etc, while the GCA was more or less stagnant during study period from TE 1993-94 to TE 2009-10.

 The average area under oilseeds was 436 thousand hectares during 1951-52 to 1960-61 in U.P. which has increased to 919 thousand hectares during 2001-02 to 2009-10, thereby showing 110.79% increase over the period.

- 148 -  The total production of oilseeds was 241 thousand MT during 1951-52 to 1960-61 which has increased to 752 thousand MT during 2001-02 to 2009-10, showing 212% increase over the period. The growth rate in production in total oilseed was maintaining upward trend throughout study period.

 The productivity of total oilseeds was 5.53 qtls per hectare during 1951-52 to 1960-61 which has increased to 8.19 qtls per hectare during 2001-02 to 2009-10, registering 48% increase over the period.

 The six oilseeds namely, ground nut, soyabean, sesame, mustard, linseed and sunflower are sown in U.P. in different seasons. Among these six oil seed crops, the area under mustard accounted for 58.04% followed by 28.08%, 8.96%, 3.16%, 0.94% and 0.82% of sesame, groundnut, linseed, soyabean and sunflowers respectively of total area under oilseeds during TE 2009-10. Thus, rabi season oilseed crops accounted for 61.20% followed by 37.98 and 0.82% of Kharif and summer seasons oilseed crops respectively. The mustard and sesame are major oilseed crops in U.P. which accounted jointly for 86.12% of total area under oilseeds in TE 2009-10 in U.P. The area of soyabean and sun flower was very negligible among oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh.

 As far as production of oilseeds is concerned, the analysis reveals that out of total production of total oilseed being 802 thousand MT in TE 2009-10, mustard accounted for 83.56% followed by 7.47% and 4.49% of groundnut and sesame respectively. It reflects that mustard, sesame and groundnut were major oilseeds in U.P. Among these, mustard is still very dominant oilseed in U.P. The groundnut and sesame are not so much assured oilseed crops as compared with mustard The area and production of soyabean is very limited in U.P. due to lack of its proper marketing facilities in the State..

 The area of mustard was 270 thousand hectares in U.P. during 1951-52 to 1960-67 which has increased to 585 thousand hectares during 2001-02 to 2009-10, showing 116.67% increase over the period. However, there was much fluctuation in area of mustard during the different decades in U.P. The area under mustard in U.P. has not maintained positive trends during the study periods.

- 149 -

 The production of mustard was 108 thousand MT during 1951-52 to 1960-61 in U.P. which has gone upto 616 thousand MT during 2001-02 to 2009-10, thereby showing 470% increase over the period. The analysis also reveals that the average yield of mustard per hectare has been continuously increasing from year to year in Uttar Pradesh. Table-3 Average Area, Production, and Yield of Mustard in the State: 1951-52 to 2009-10

1951-52 to 1961-62 to 1971-72 to 1981-82 to 1991-92 to 2001-02 to 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2009-10 Area (000 hectares) 270 307 294 501 806 585 Production (’000 108 140 147 358 740 616 tonnes) Yield (kg/ha) 4.00 4.56 5.00 7.15 9.18 10.52 Source: State Planning Institute, Lucknow.

 The CAGR in area of mustard was positive being 2.59% in U.P. as a whole during 4 decade i.e. from 1970-71 to 2009-10.

 The CAGR in production of mustard in U.P. as a whole was highest being 8.44% in decade of eighties followed by 2.92% and 1.92% in 2000s and 1970s respectively while it was negative being -1.50% in decade of nineties. The CAGR in production of mustard was more pronounced in eighties (from 1980 to 1989-90) as compared to subsequent years.

 In over all U.P. level, there was positive CAGR in production of mustard in U.P. during 1970s, 1980s and 2000s, but quantum of increase was more from 1980-81 to 1989-90.

 The CAGR in productivity of mustard in U.P. was negative i.e.-2.09% in the decade of seventies followed by -0.65% in nineties. Against this, CAGR in productivity of mustard was positive being 4.14% in 1980s followed by 2.04% in 2000s.

 The variability in area of mustard was comparative lower than the variability in production and productivity of mustard in U.P. The production of mustard increased in

- 150 - U.P. due to higher productivity rather than expansion in area of mustard during the 4 decades.  Among the four decades, decade of nineties (from 1990-91 to 1999-2000) was found worst because the rate of growth in area and production of mustard had gone negative in Uttar Pradesh.

 The variability in area of mustard was lowest in 1990s and 2000s than that of 1970s and 1980s in the state. It was found more in the selected districts of Bundelkhand region than the selected districts of western and central regions of U.P.

 The variability in production of mustard in the state was lowest in period 2000-01 to 2009-10 as compared to the variability of other periods. The variability in production of mustard was maximum in decade of eighties followed by seventies and nineties decades in U.P. It reflects that variation in area and production of mustard was much consistent in period 2000-01 to 2009-10 as compared to other study periods.

Table-4 Variability in Area, Production and Productivity of Mustard (1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s in U.P.

Period CV% Area Production Productivity 1970-71 to 1979-80 19.38 29.30 20.84 1980-81 to 1999-90 16.71 30.63 14.78 1990-91 to 1999-2000 8.99 17.73 16.90 2000-01 to 2009-10 6.18 11.95 8.62

 The variability in productivity of mustard was also much consistent in period 2000-01 to 2009-10 in U.P. as compared to other decades in U.P.

 The CV in annual whole sale price of linseed was more being 34.8% followed by 33.00% and 31.90% in mustard and groundnut respectively during period from 1989-90 to 2010- 11. The annual whole sale prices of mustard, linseed and groundnut had received big push from 2007-08 onwards.

 Among the 72 districts of U.P. Mathura, Agra and Budaun are most potential districts in the production of mustard out of total production of mustard of U.P., the contribution of Mathura, Agra and Budaun districts were 10.89%, 13.01% and 5.41% respectively during

- 151 - TE 2009-10. The productivity of mustard has been increasing across the districts of the state since the introduction of TMO in the State.

 The oilseed crops are still important crops in rainfed belts of U.P. The area under oilseeds is not increasing at par with area under wheat, rice and other commercial crops across the state. It is still very risky across the state and also very susceptible to pests and disease. The weather risk is very much involved in the cultivation of mustard crop.

5. Findings based on sample farms data

Two hundred farmers were selected from 6 villages of three districts belonging to different agro-climatic zones of Uttar Pradesh.

 Of the total 200 sample households, OBC accounted for 56.50% followed by 30.00% and 13.50% for general and SC respectively.

 The agriculture was main occupation of the sample farmers. More than 89% of total sample households were engaged in crop farming.

 The per farm owned area was 0.83 hectare, 1.59 hectares, 8.54 hectares and 11.30 hectares of marginal, small, medium and large farms respectively. At the aggregate level, it was 2.91 hectares.

 The leased –in and leased-out land were not witnessed across the sample size of farms.

 Canal and pump sets (diesel and electric) were main sources of irrigation on the sample farms. However, the pump-sets were main source of irrigation devices on the sample farms than the canal. The ground water was much utilized than the surface water by the sample farmers.

 Of the total cropped area, cereal crops accounted for 49.05% followed by 22.86%, 6.54%, 6.23% and 15.32% of oilseeds, cash crops, pulses and other crops respectively.

 Among the cereal crops, wheat, bajra and maize were major crops accounted for 17.71%, 18.35%, 6.68% and 6.71% of GCA respectively.

 Sugarcane and potato were main cash crops accounted for 9.86% and 5.61% of GCA respectively on the sample farms.

- 152 -  Among the oilseeds, mustard and sesame were main oilseed crops which accounted for 19.37% and 3.49% of GCA respectively on the sample farms. The mustard was second most important crop on the sample farms. It was also treated as cash crop by the sample farms.

 The maximum share of GCA being 24.91% was under mustard on marginal farms followed by 22.72%, 20.32% and 15.86% on small medium and large farms respectively.

 The sample farmers had attached more significance to mustard crop in cropping pattern. Generally mustard is grown in the fields which are kept fallow in kharif season in Agra district. Mustard is also grown as a single crop by the sample farmers of selected districts.

 The main competitive crops for mustard were wheat and potato in the study areas.

 The cropping pattern followed by the sample farms under different size group of holdings was more or less same. There were minute deviations among the different size groups.

 The average yield of wheat was 31.36 qtls per hectare at the aggregate level which was highest being 32.74 qtls on marginal farms followed by 32.66 qtls on small farms. The average yield of wheat per hectare decreases with increase in size of farms. The average yield per hectare of mustard at the aggregate level was 22.70 qtls which ranged between 22.23 qtls and 24.40 qtls on large and marginal farms respectively, the average yield of mustard also decreases with increase in size of farms. The average yield per hectare of wheat was higher by 38.15% over the average yield of 22.70 qtls per hectare of mustard.

 The average yield of mustard per hectare was higher by 105.24% on the sample farms over the average yield of 11.06 qtls per hectare of U.P. in 2009-10.

 Potato was also competing crop on the sample farms of Agra district. The average yield of potato was 284.70 qtls per hectare which ranged between 192.79 qtls and 298.83 qtls across the size of farms.

 The average yield of almost all crops grown on sample farms was much higher than the state average yield in reference year.

- 153 -

 At the aggregate level, the production of mustard was 4356.70 qtls of which 93.79% was sold and rest 6.21% was retained for consumption and other purposes. The large sample farms had sold maximum quantity of mustard production being 96.51% followed by 94.16% and 88.94% by medium, small and marginal farmers respectively. It shows that mustard was cash crop across the sample farms.

 The price of mustard per qtl was Rs. 3136 at the aggregate level which varied between Rs. 3212 and Rs. 2993 on small and large farms respectively. It shows that per qtl price of mustard on the sample farms was much higher than its MSP during the reference year.

 The per hectare gross income of mustard was Rs. 72,414 against Rs. 39,627 of wheat on the sample farms, showing 82.74% higher over the per hectare gross income of wheat. The per hectare net income of mustard was worked out to Rs. 44,999 against Rs. 16,132 per hectare net income of wheat on the sample farms. Thus, the mustard was more profitable than wheat on the sample farms in reference year. Table-5 Comparative Profitability of Mustard, Wheat and Potato (Rs./HA.) Name of the Operational Gross Income Net Income Cost of Crops Cost Production (per Qtl) Mustard 27413.90 72413.64 44999.74 1207.66 Wheat 23494.54 39626.63 16132.09 749.19 Potato 99410.17 187636.64 88226.47 343.31

 The mustard was more profitable than the wheat across the size of farms of the selected districts. This was due to higher productivity and hike in price of mustard during the reference year. On account of this, the area of mustard has not been replaced by wheat and other cereal crops from few years back in the selected districts of U.P.

 The potato was found much profitable than mustard across the sample farms. In spite being a very profitable potato crop, it does not generally substitute mustard at large scale for a long time. Potato is perishable crop and more risky than mustard. The price risk, income risk, yield risks are found more in case of potato than mustard. It is also localized crop than mustard.

- 154 -

Constraints

There are a number of constraints in handling production of oilseed crops which are basically categorized into 5 major heads namely technological, agro-economic factors, economic variability, institutional, marketing and value addition.

- 155 - I. Technological Factors

Non-availability of suitable varieties, weed infection, incidence of diseases and pests etc. are major technological constraints in the cultivation of oilseed crops on the sample farms.

II. Agro-Climatic Factors

The excess rain, deficient rainfall, high variation in temperature etc are major adverse factors to reduce the over all production of oilseeds in the state.

III. Economic factors

The economic constraints relate to input costs of human labour, price risk and profitability etc. are also key factors to reduce the expansion of area under oilseed crops.

IV. Institutional Factors

The poor quality of input, lack of expansion services, inadequate knowledge about disease and pest management, non availability of credit etc are also severe constraints in the cultivation of oilseed crops in the state.

V. Marketing and value addition

Due to lack of processing units in the villages, the oilseed growers do not get appropriate price of oilseeds. There is vast gap between the price of oilseeds and edible oil, hence, the processors get more profit than oilseeds growers.

- 156 - Table-6 Composite Indices for Constraints in Cultivation of Oilseed Crops on Sample Farms

Constraint Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Medium Farmers Large Farmers Relative Ideal Relative Ideal Relative Ideal Relative Ideal Index Index Index Index Index Index Index Index Technologica 100.6694 69.9221 102.7173 71.3445 98.1475 68.1704 94.0236 69.4571 l Agro-climatic 93.2977 48.2909 88.1898 45.6470 119.8514 62.0351 102.0093 52.8 Economic 96.6922 87.2727 93.8159 84.6766 108.8146 98.2143 104.1455 94.0 Institutional 99.9281 110.9610 95.6571 106.2185 104.3006 125.7143 102.9222 114.2857 Post-harvest 88.7940 69.2727 86.23899 67.2794 118.9102 92.7678 124.6554 97.25 marketing and value addition All 94.6633 78.8235 91.8375 76.4706 117.2695 97.6470 70.6443 58.8235 Constraints

Considering the entire sample of 200 farmers, medium farmers score high on the problems while large farmers score the least on the constraints as per their severity. Both the relative indices and the ideal indices reveal similar patterns. The indices can be compared across the groups where marginal and small farmers seem to have higher problems for technological and institutional constraints. Medium and large farmers have higher problems with institutional and post harvest facilities.

Conclusion

On an average the farmer received Rs. 44,999.00 per hectare net income from the cultivation of mustard than Rs. 16,132 from wheat. On an average a cultivator received Rs. 1.64 on the investment of Rs. 1.00 on mustard crop while the sample farmer received Rs. 0.69 on investment Rs. 1.00 on wheat. The hundred per cent sample farmers reported that the major problems in the cultivation of mustard in the study area was adverse weather conditions at time of flowering of mustard.

There is also high risk involved at time of harvesting mustard. Most of sample farmers had not faced any problems during the marketing of mustard. Since, it has good demand and has also very remunerative price, hence the farms are taking much interest in the cultivation of mustard instead of wheat. The prospect of mustard is very high in U.P. because it’s price continues remain upward trends.

- 157 -

Policy Implications

 For increasing the area under mustard, the crop should be properly and adequately covered under crop insurance scheme. This would motivate the farmers to devote more area under mustard without any hesitation.

 The sincere efforts should be made for strengthening the local based scientific research on soil and climate conditions of the various agro-climatic regions of the state.

 The efforts should be made for proper transfer of new scientific techniques in the cultivation of mustard at gross-root level. This could be possible by the strengthening extension services.

 The inputs supply should be prompt. The seed, fertilizers, pesticides etc should be available timely, adequately and at reasonable prices.

 Since, the mustard is highly susceptible to pests and diseases, hence, the tolerance varieties of mustard should be available to farmers to reduce the attack of pests and diseases.

 The State Government should make comprehension efforts to propagate the TMO and developmental schemes and programs in the neglected districts/regions other of U.P. to motivate farmers to use the better inputs and latest techniques in the cultivation of mustard. This would definitely accelerate the yield growth rate in mustard.

 The demonstration of mustard should be performed in each village by the state government to educate the farmers to use the balanced inputs in the mustard crop. This would be useful in boosting the production of mustard on the sample farms.

 To avoid weather risk, such seed should be evolved which is suitable between kharif and rabi periods. This may provide farmers an opportunity to take double crop in single cropped area.

 Plant protection measures and marketing structure should be strengthened to get better yield and price of mustard. The marginal and small farmers should be linked effectively under a system of integrated credit cum marketing system. There is also a need to provide adequate incentive to the farmers for increasing local production and marketable surplus.

- 158 -  In order to further enhance production of mustard, the appropriate remunerative prices should be available to the farmers. The incentive price than support price should be considered in agricultural price policy to boost the farmers for better investment in the production of mustard. This would minimize the price risk.

 The Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh is mostly rainfed. The sesame, linseed and soyabean are mostly sown in this region. Therefore, expansion in irrigation facilities are much needed in this region. This could be reduced the dependence of farmers on nature. On account of these, yield risk could be minimized to some extent.

 There is a need to redesign the price policy taking all the aspects into consideration such as cultivating oilseeds in lean and cheap years, checking the price going down in case of bumper production and prices going up in case of crop failure.

 The scientists should produce short duration HYV of oilseeds. These varieties have the capacity to protect from heat stress and drought.

 Since the traditional and local varieties of mustard produce the low yield, therefore specific varieties of mustard should be developed to produce higher production. In order to provide the better varieties of mustard to farmers, a sound policy is needed in this regard. The Seed Replacement Ratio (SRR) of mustard is low in comparison to wheat, due to non availability, adequate certified seeds at the time sowing of mustard crop. The research institute, SAUs, ICAR etc should give first priority to develop the genetic production potential varieties of mustard.

 For boasting the area, production and yield of oilseeds, some crop specific and area specific approach should be considered by changing the existing agricultural policies in the state.

 Irregularities in provision of government measures, recurrent failure of rain, lack of marketing facilities, high cost of cultivation are the main reasons for the persistence of high degree of variability in growth of oilseeds in the state of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, the state government should take adequate step to overcome the existing obstacle in the way of better production of oilseeds in the state.

 There is a need for strengthening the extension services so that the existing farm technology can be improved by replacing it with new ones. - 159 -  Since, the oilseeds are mostly localized, therefore, the efforts should be made to local need based scientific research for these oil seed crops suited to the soil and climatic conditions of various agro-climatic zones of the state.

 There is a need to set up processing units in potential areas of the districts. This would be helpful in increasing the bargaining power of the farmers. This can also promote general development of regions.

 Since, the technical and institutional constraints were found more severe on the marginal and small sample farms in the cultivation of oilseed crops in Uttar Pradesh, hence, Governments of Centre and state, research scientists, etc should pay more attention to provide them essential inputs at subsidized rate.

 The medium and large farmers were facing severe problems of institutional and marketing in the cultivation of oilseeds in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, there is a need to provide the better facilities of institutional and marketing to medium and large oilseed growers through development of integrated approach.

- 160 -