RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LABOUR AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY IN MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB, UTTAR PRADESH: A GEO-SPATIAL ANALYSIS
FINAL REPORT UGC-MAJOR RESEARCH PROJECT F. No. 43-361/2014 (SR) (01/07/15 to 30/06/18)
Submitted To
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI-110002
By Prof. ABDUL MUNIR Department of Geography Maulana Azad Library,Faculty ofAligarh Science Muslim University Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh-202002 (INDIA)
2018 CONTENTS
Page No. Acknowledgements i List of Tables ii - iii List of Figures iv - x
Introduction 1 - 4
CHAPTER I 5 - 40 1.1 Concept and Definition 1.2 Measurement of Labour Productivity 1.3 Measurement of Agricultural Productivity
CHAPTER II 41 - 59 STUDY AREA: MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Study Area 2.3 Soils and Natural Vegetation 2.4 Population Growth 2.5 Sex Ratio 2.6 Distribution of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 2.7 Urban Population 2.8 Literacy Level 2.9 Occupational Structure 2.10 Land use Pattern 2.11 Road Network
CHAPTER III 60 - 94 TREND OF AREA UNDER MAJOR CROPS Maulana3.1 AzadArea underLibrary, Major Crops Aligarh (1995-2015) Muslim University 3.2 District-wise Trend of Major Crops 3.3 Area under Major Crops in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab CHAPTER-IV 95 - 132 TREND OF PRODUCTION UNDER MAJOR CROPS 4.1 Crop-wise Pattern of Production of Major Crops (1995-2015) 4.2 District-wise Trend of Production of Major Crops 4.3 Trend of Production of Major Crops in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab
CHAPTER-V 133 - 183 TREND AND PATTERN OF LABOUR AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY 5.1 Labour Productivity 5.2 Trend of Labour Productivity 5.3 Pattern of Labour Productivity 5.4 Agricultural Productivity 5.5 Trend of Agricultural Productivity 5.6 Pattern of Agricultural Productivity 5.7 Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity
CHAPTER-VI 184 - 212 GENERAL PROFILE OF THE SELECTED VILLAGES
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS 213 - 220
BIBLIOGRAPHY 221 - 227
APPENDICES 228 - 241
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Acknowledgements
First of all, I am highly grateful to Almighty “God” who blessed me with strength and required passionate ardor to overcome all the obstacles in the way of this toilsome journey for research project. In utter gratitude I bow may head before Him. I have come to the successful completion of the major research project which was unrealizable without the support and encouragement of all the admirable and extraordinary people around me.
It is my proud privilege to express my gratitude with wholehearted and gratefulness to University Grants Commission (Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi) for awarding and funding me such a Major Research Project on labour and agricultural productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab region. The project work has helped me in extending and enlarging my research experience regarding labour and agricultural productivity in the region. I am really thankful to the agency and its officials who have helped me to enrich my research and academic through to know about so many new things.
I am highly indebted to Professor Ateeque Ahmad Chairman, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for his magnanimous and generous nature. He has not only furnished valuable suggestions but also provided me all the necessary facilities in the department.
I convey my thanks to the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, for helping me in getting the necessary materials and infrastructure of the department for my project work. During the project work, I have had many opportunities to discuss the results of the research with numerous geography fraternity, colleagues, friends, students and research scholars. For this regard, I extend my appreciation to Dr. Mohd. Sadiq Salman (Project Fellow), Dr. Mohammad Taufique, Dr. Mumtaj Ahmad, Dr. Raisul Bari, Ms. Sadaf and Sahar Fatma for their valuable support.
Last but not the least, I show my gratitude to all survey supervisors and surveyors for the completion of the field work. I praise the help and hospitalities extended to me by my respondents, villagers and informants.
In the last but not the least, I thank to all my well wishers, and everyone who helped me Maulanain this project Azad work. Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Professor Abdul Munir (Principal Investigator)
i LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No. 2.1 Decadal Growth of Total Population in Middle Ganga-Yamuna 48 Doab (1901-2011) 2.2 Distribution of Male and Female Population in Middle Ganga 49 Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 2.3 Distribution of Sex Ratio and Child Sex Ration in Middle Ganga- 50 Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 2.4 Distribution of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Population 52 in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 2.5 Distribution of Urban Population in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 53 (1991-2011) 2.6 Distribution of Literacy, Male Literacy and Female Literacy in 54 Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 2.7 Work Participation Rate in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991- 55 2011) 2.8 Land use Pattern in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2011) 57 3.1 Crop-wise area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 60 (1995) 3.2 Crop-wise area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 61 (2000) 3.3 Crop-wise area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 62 (2005) 3.4 Crop-wise area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 63 (2010) 3.5 Crop-wise area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 63 (2015) 3.6 Crop-wise area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 64 (1995-2015) 4.1 Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 95 (1995) 4.2 Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 96 (2000) 4.3 Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 97 (2005) 4.4 Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab 98 (2010) Maulana4.5 AzadCrop-wise Library, Pattern of Production Aligarh in Middle MuslimGanga-Yamuna DoabUniversity99 (2015) 4.6 Trend of Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga- 100 Yamuna Doab (1995- 2015) 5.01 Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga 137 Yamuna Doab (1995)
ii 5.02 Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga 138 Yamuna Doab (2000) 5.03 Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga 138 Yamuna Doab (2005) 5.04 Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga 139 Yamuna Doab (2010) 5.05 Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga 140 Yamuna Doab (2015) 5.06 Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga 141 Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 5.07 Crop wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (1995) 158 5.08 Crop wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (2000) 158 5.09 Crop wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (2005) 160 5.10 Crop wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (2010) 161 5.11 Crop wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (2015) 162 5.12 District-wise Trend of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (1995- 163 2015) 6.01 Distribution of Population and Sampled Households in Selected 197 Villages of Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2018) 6.02 Land use Pattern of Selected Villages in Middle Ganga-Yamuna 198 Doab (2011) 6.03 Area under Different Crops in Selected Villages in Middle Ganga- 200 Yamuna Doab (2017-18) 6.04 Distribution of Landholdings in Selected Villages of MGYD 201 (2018) 6.05 Share of Net Sown Area (NSA) in Total Reported Area in 202 Selected Villages of MGYD, (2011) 6.06 Area Sown More Than Once and Gross Cropped Area in Selected 203 Villages of MGYD (2018) 6.07 Share of major Crops in GCA in Selected Villages of MGYD 204 (2018) 6.08 Family Size of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018) 205 6.09 Family Structure of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD 206 (2018) 6.10 Age Structure of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD 207 (2018) 6.11 Religion-wise Distribution of Households in Selected Villages of 208 MGYD (2018) 6.12 Caste-wise Distribution of Population in Selected Villages of 208 MaulanaMGYD Azad (2018) Library, Aligarh Muslim University 6.13 Employment Structure of Households in Selected Villages of 209 MGYD (2018) 6.14 Educational Status of Respondents in Selected Villages of MGYD 210 (2018) 6.15 Housing Condition of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD 211 (2018)
iii Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
iv LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page No. No.
2.1 Location Map of the Study Area 42 2.2 Study Area: Soils 44 2.3 Study Area: Natural Vegetation 45 2.4 Study Area: Average Annual Temperature Distribution 46 2.5 Study Area: Drainage Pattern 47 2.6 District wise Distribution of Sex ratio in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 51 2.7 District wise Distribution of Child Sex ratio in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 51 2.8 District wise Distribution of Male-Female Literacy Gap in Middle Ganga- Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 54 2.9 District wise Distribution of Total Work Participation in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 56 2.10 Study Area: Road Network 58 3.01 Trend of Area under Rice in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 65 3.02 Trend of Area under Wheat in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 65 3.03 Trend of Area under Barley in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 65 3.04 Trend of Area under Millet in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 66 3.05 Trend of Area under Maize in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 66 3.06 Trend of Area under Mustard in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 66 3.07 Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 67 3.08 Trend of Area under Potato in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 67 3.09 Trend of Area under Moong in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 67 3.10 Trend of Area under Arhar in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 68 3.11 Trend of Area under Rice in Etah District (1995-2015) 69 3.12 Trend of Area under Wheat in Etah District (1995-2015) 69 3.13 Trend of Area under Barley in Etah District (1995-2015) 69 3.14 Trend of Area under Millet in Etah District (1995-2015) 70 3.15 Trend of Area under Maize in Etah District (1995-2015) 70 Maulana3.16 Trend Azad of Area Library,under Mustard in EtahAligarh District (1995 Muslim-2015) University70 3.17 Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Etah District (1995-2015) 71 3.18 Trend of Area under Potato in Etah District (1995-2015) 71 3.19 Trend of Area under Arhar in Etah District (1995-2015) 71 3.20 Trend of Area under Moong in Etah District (1995-2015) 72 3.21 Trend of Area under Rice in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 72
iv 3.22 Trend of Area under Wheat in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 73 3.23 Trend of Area under Barley in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 73 3.24 Trend of Area under Millet in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 73 3.25 Trend of Area under Maize in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 74 3.26 Trend of Area under Arhar in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 74 3.27 Trend of Area under Mustard in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 74 3.28 Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 75 3.29 Trend of Area under Potato in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 75 3.30 Trend of Area under Moong in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 75 3.31 Trend of Area under Rice in Mathura District (1995-2015) 76 3.32 Trend of Area under Wheat in Mathura District (1995-2015) 77 3.33 Trend of Area under Barley in Mathura District (1995-2015) 77 3.34 Trend of Area under Millet Mathura District (1995-2015) 77 3.35 Trend of Area under Maize in Mathura District (1995-2015) 78 3.36 Trend of Area under Arhar in Mathura District (1995-2015) 78 3.37 Trend of Area under Mustard in Mathura District (1995-2015) 78 3.38 Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Mathura District (1995-2015) 79 3.39 Trend of Area under Potato in Mathura District (1995-2015) 79 3.40 Trend of Area under Moong in Mathura District (1995-2015) 79 3.41 Trend of Area under Rice in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 80 3.42 Trend of Area under Wheat in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 80 3.43 Trend of Area under Barley in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 80 3.44 Trend of Area under Millet Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 81 3.45 Trend of Area under Maize in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 81 3.46 Trend of Area under Moong in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 81 3.47 Trend of Area under Mustard in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 82 3.48 Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 82 3.49 Trend of Area under Potato in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 82 3.50 Trend of Area under Arhar in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 83 3.51 Trend of Area under Rice in Agra District (1995-2015) 83 3.52 Trend of Area under Wheat in Agra District (1995-2015) 84 Maulana3.53 Trend of AreaAzad under BarleyLibrary, in Agra District Aligarh (1995-2015) Muslim University84 3.54 Trend of Area under Millet Agra District (1995-2015) 84 3.55 Trend of Area under Maize in Agra District (1995-2015) 85 3.56 Trend of Area under Arhar in Agra District (1995-2015) 85 3.57 Trend of Area under Mustard in Agra District (1995-2015) 85 3.58 Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Agra District (1995-2015) 86
v 3.59 Trend of Area under Potato in Agra District (1995-2015) 86 3.60 Trend of Area under Moong in Agra District (1995-2015) 86 3.61 Trend of Area under Rice in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 87 3.62 Trend of Area under Wheat in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 87 3.63 Trend of Area under Barley in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 88 3.64 Trend of Area under Moong in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 88 3.65 Trend of Area under Arhar in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 88 3.66 Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 89 3.67 Trend of Area under Potato in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 89 3.68 Trend of Area under Mustard in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 89 3.69 Trend of Area under Millet in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 90 3.70 Trend of Area under Maize in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 90 3.71 Trend of Area under Rice in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 90 3.72 Trend of Area under Wheat in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 91 3.73 Trend of Area under Potato in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 91 3.74 Trend of Area under Millet Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 91 3.75 Trend of Area under Maize in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 92 3.76 Trend of Area under Barley in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 92 3.77 Trend of Area under Mustard in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 92 3.78 Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 93 3.79 Trend of Area under Arhar in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 93 3.80 Trend of Area under Moong in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 93 4.01 Trend of Rice Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 101 4.02 Trend of Wheat Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 102 4.03 Trend of Barley Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 102 4.04 Trend of Millet Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 102 4.05 Trend of Maize Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 103 4.06 Trend of Moong Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 103 4.07 Trend of Arhar Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 103 4.08 Trend of Mustard Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 104 4.09 Trend of Sugarcane Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) 104 Maulana4.10 Trend Azad of Potato Library, Production in Aligarh Aligarh District (1995 Muslim-2015) University104 4.11 Trend of Rice Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 105 4.12 Trend of Wheat Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 105 4.13 Trend of Barley Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 106 4.14 Trend of Millet Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 106 4.15 Trend of Maize Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 106
vi 4.16 Trend of Moong Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 107 4.17 Trend of Arhar Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 107 4.18 Trend of Mustard Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 107 4.19 Trend of Sugarcane Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 108 4.20 Trend of Potato Production in Etah District (1995-2015) 108 4.21 Trend of Rice Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 109 4.22 Trend of Wheat Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 109 4.23 Trend of Barley Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 110 4.24 Trend of Millet Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 110 4.25 Trend of Maize Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 110 4.26 Trend of Moong Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 111 4.27 Trend of Arhar Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 111 4.28 Trend of Mustard Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 111 4.29 Trend of Sugarcane Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 112 4.30 Trend of Potato Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) 112 4.31 Trend of Rice Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 113 4.32 Trend of Wheat Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 113 4.33 Trend of Barley Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 113 4.34 Trend of Millet Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 114 4.35 Trend of Maize Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 114 4.36 Trend of Moong Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 114 4.37 Trend of Arhar Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 115 4.38 Trend of Mustard Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 115 4.39 Trend of Sugarcane Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 115 4.40 Trend of Potato Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) 116 4.41 Trend of Rice Production in Agra District (1995-2015) 117 4.42 Trend of Wheat Production in Agra District (1995-2015) 117 4.43 Trend of Barley Production in Agra District (1995-2015) 117 4.44 Trend of Millet Production in Agra District (1995-2015) 118 4.45 Trend of Maize Production in Agra District (1995-2015) 118 4.46 Trend of Moong Production in Agra District (1995-2015) 118 4.47 Trend of Arhar Production in Agra District (1995-2015) 119 Maulana4.48 Trend of MustardAzad Production Library, in Agra District Aligarh (1995-2015) Muslim University119 4.49 Trend of Sugarcane Production in Agra District (1995-2015) 119 4.50 Trend of Potato Production in Agra District (1995-2015) 120 4.51 Trend of Rice Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 121 4.52 Trend of Wheat Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 121
vii 4.53 Trend of Barley Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 121 4.54 Trend of Millet Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 122 4.55 Trend of Maize Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 122 4.56 Trend of Moong Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 122 4.57 Trend of Mustard Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 123 4.58 Trend of Sugarcane Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 123 4.59 Trend of Arhar Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 123 4.60 Trend of Potato Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) 124 4.61 Trend of Rice Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 125 4.62 Trend of Wheat Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 125 4.63 Trend of Maize Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 125 4.64 Trend of Barley Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 126 4.65 Trend of Millet Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 126 4.66 Trend of Moong Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 126 4.67 Trend of Arhar Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 127 4.68 Trend of Sugarcane Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 127 4.69 Trend of Mustard Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 127 4.70 Trend of Potato Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015) 128 4.71 Trend of Rice Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 128 4.72 Trend of Wheat Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 128 4.73 Trend of Barley Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 129 4.74 Trend of Millet Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 129 4.75 Trend of Maize Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 129 4.76 Trend of Moong Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 130 4.77 Trend of Arhar Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 130 4.78 Trend of Mustard Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 130 4.79 Trend of Sugarcane Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 131 4.80 Trend of Potato Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) 131 5.01 Aligarh: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 142 5.02 Mahamaya Nagar: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 143 5.03 Etah: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 143 5.04 Kanshiram Nagar: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 144 Maulana5.05 Firozabad: Azad Trend Library, of Labour Productivity Aligarh (1995-2015) Muslim University144 5.06 Mathura: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 145 5.07 Agra: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 145 5.08 Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 146 5.09 Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 1995 147
viii 5.10 Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 2000 148 5.11 Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 2005 150 5.12 Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 2010 151 5.13 Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 2015 152 5.14 Aligarh: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 164 5.15 Mahamaya Nagar: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 164 5.16 Etah: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 165 5.17 Kanshiram Nagar: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 165 5.18 Firozabad: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 166 5.19 Mathura: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 167 5.20 Agra: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 167 5.21 Agricultural Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 1995 169 5.22 Agricultural Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 2000 170 5.23 Agricultural Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 2005 171 5.24 Agricultural Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 2010 172 5.25 Agricultural Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, 2015 173 5.26 Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (1995) 175 5.27 Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (2000) 175 5.28 Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (2005) 176 5.29 Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (2010) 177 5.30 Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (2015) 177 6.01 Location of the Selected Villages 184 6.02 Location of Nekpur in Agra District 185 6.03 Nekpur Village (2018) 185 6.04 Location of Udai Garhi in Aligarh 186 6.05 Udai Garhi Village (2018) 186 6.06 Location of Alahdadpur in Aligarh 187 6.07 Alahdadpur Village (2018) 187 6.08 Location of Gangupura in Etah 188 6.09 Gangupura Village (2018) 188 6.10 Location of Lehra in Etah 189 6.11 Lehra Village (2018) 189 Maulana6.12 Location ofAzad Nagla Achal Library, in Firozabad Aligarh Muslim University190 6.13 Nagla Achal Village (2018) 190 6.14 Location of Jamalpur in Firozabad 191 6.15 Jamalpur Village (2018) 191 6.16 Location of Kumrai in Mahamaya Nagar 192
ix 6.17 Kumrai Village (2018) 192 6.18 Location of Nagla Sakat in Mahamaya Nagar 193 6.19 Nagla Sakat Village (2018) 193 6.20 Location of Kucharani in Kanshiram Nagar 194 6.21 Kucharani Village (2018) 194 6.22 Location of Athaiya in Kanshiram Nagar 195 6.23 Athaiya Village (2018) 195 6.24 Location of Siyara in Mathura 196 6.25 Siyara Village (2018) 196
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
x INTRODUCTION
Agriculture has always played a pivotal role in our national economy. Even today, when the country is in transitional phase of industrialization due to globalization, it is backbone of our economy. This may be seen from the fact that it is the largest and main occupation of the population. It gives directly employment to about 58 per cent of the rural households of the country that depend on it for their livelihood. The future prosperity of the population and self-sufficiency in economy is, therefore, largely based on the development of agriculture on scientific lines. The contribution of agriculture sector in Indian economy is, therefore, still much higher than world’s average. India is second largest producer of agricultural products and accounts for 7.68 per cent of total global agricultural output (www.statisticstimes.com). Agricultural efficiency of India is almost the lowest in the world which is indicated by extremely low agricultural productivity.
This is the study of spatial pattern of labour and agricultural productivity and the interrelationships as they obtain in the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab of western Uttar Pradesh. Since agriculture is the mainstay of the economy of the region, difference in the agricultural productivity may be taken as the differences in the economic progress of the region.
The productivity of labour is somewhat a more complex aspect than land productivity. Labour productivity means the income of the population engaged in agriculture and can be measured in terms of output per worker. It takes into account all the labour which contributes to agriculture production. Labour productivity is in fact the most common form of measurement, and is usually implied in economic discussions. In so far as the output per labour is concerned which is one of the major determinants of the general level of economic welfare, labour productivity is significant yard stick of economic progress. MaulanaAgricultural Azad productivityLibrary,can beAligarh defined as a measure Muslim of efficiency University with which an agricultural production system employs land, labour, capital and other resources. The measurement of Agricultural productivity is not a simple task as it involves a relationship between inputs and outputs in agricultural production. The measure of agricultural productivity which are most frequently understood are those of spatial
1 productivity and refer to the relation of single input or a group of inputs to the total output.
Database and Techniques of Analysis:
The measurement of labour and agricultural productivity is based on data related to area and production of different crops and labours. For this, data are obtained from District Statistical Bulletins. These bulletins pertain to the years from 1994 to 2016. Three years moving average has been taken for each period of time. Other relevant data have been obtained from District Census Handbooks, Census Atlas, NATMO and other Government of India publications. The study is supplemented by primary sources of data that were collected through a well- structured questionnaire from the selected villages during 2017-18.
The technique applied to find out labour productivity is described as:
L P = Tc/La Where, LP = Labour Productivity Tc = Total Cost of Produce (Rs/-) La = Total Agricultural Labours Employed
So far as agricultural productivity is concerned there is not a single universally accepted method of measuring agricultural productivity. Different scholars have used different numerical methods to measure agricultural productivity. In the present study Shafi’s method of coefficient of productivity has been applied. This method has been developed in India and is more suitable to Indian specificities of agriculture. The formula is as follows:
AP = (pw/t+ pr/t+ pm/t…………n): (Pw/T+ Pr/T+ Pm/T…………n) Where, MaulanaAP =Agricultural Azad Productivity Library, of a district Aligarh Muslim University pw = production of wheat in the district pr= production of rice in the district pm =production of maize in the district t= total cropped area (of the concerned crop) in district
2 Pw= production of wheat in the region Pr= production of rice in the region Pm =production of maize in the region T= total cropped area (of the concerned crop) in the region. n = number of crops
Karl Pearson’s correlation co-efficient (r) also known as the product moment correlation coefficient was applied to examine the relationship between agriculture and labour productivity in the region. The value of ‘r’ nearer to +1(positive) or –1(negative) indicates high degree of correlation between the two variables.
In order to find out the position of agriculture and other related socio- economic variables, 12 villages have been selected from the study region. Two villages each from the districts of Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar and Firozabad and one village each from the districts of Mathura and Agra have been selected. Mathura and Agra are partial districts (small in area as compared to other districts) in the study area. Therefore, one village each was selected from these districts. The criterion of selection was accessibility i.e. i) along the road and, ii) away from the road. As far as the population-size of the village is concerned, the villages having medium size of population have been selected for the study. 25 per cent households of the villages were sampled applying stratified purposive sampling.
Simple percentages were used for calculation and easy understanding of the data. ArcGIS 10.2.1 was used for analysing of land use pattern and labour and agricultural production in the region. The software was used for showing district-wise cropping pattern and labour productivity in the doab region. All the computations and graphics have been done with the help of a PC using the softwares like MS-Office and SPSS v.16 software.
MaulanaObjectives Azad of the Study: Library, Aligarh Muslim University i) To measure the trend of area under major crops in middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab since the periods from 1995 to 2015. ii) To find out the trend of production under major crops in the middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab since the periods from 1995 to 2015.
3 iii) To explore the relationship between labour and agricultural productivity in middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab since the periods from 1995 to 2015. iv) To find out the level of agricultural and other socio-economic characteristics from the selected villages of the study area.
Organization of the Study:
The work has been organised into six chapters. Chapter first constitutes review of available literature. The second chapter is devoted to the study area. Third chapter examines the trend of area under major crops. Fourth chapter finds out the trend of production under major crops. Fifth chapter examines the trends and patterns of labour and agricultural productivity. Besides, examining the trends and patterns, this chapter also finds out the relationship between labour and agricultural productivity in the study area. Chapter sixth is devoted to selected villages which examine the agriculture and other socio-economic characteristics of the region. Finally, conclusion and suggestions has been given.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
4 CONCEPT AND DEFINITION:
Productivity is a quantitative term which has been defined by several scholars with reference to their own view and discipline. Some have defined it as the ratio between the output and inputs. The term is also interchangeably used for production. The production in its simplest definition is the volume of output, whereas productivity is the output in relation to inputs. The term productivity has been used by scholars to estimate the overall efficiency of a system. Therefore, productivity is measured in units of production upon the inputs. Further, production can be increased by increasing the inputs without changing the productivity and productivity can be increased without increasing the production by decreasing the inputs for the same production level. This will enable production system to produce more efficiently. The term productivity is therefore regarded as the measurement of output over input (Sunil O. and Virendra N., 2014). Pandit A.D. (1965) has stated the connotation of productivity in these words, "Productivity is defined in economics as the output per unit of input...the art of securing an increase in output from the same input or of getting the same output from a smaller input". He further suggests that increase in productivity, whether in industry or agriculture, is generally the result of a more efficient use of some or all the factors of production, viz. land, labour and capital. According to Saxon (1965) basically, productivity is a physical relationship between output and the input which gives rise to that output. Horring J. (1964) considers productivity, in broad terms to denote the ratio of output to any or all associated inputs, in real term.
Thus, agricultural productivity as the term indicates is the measurement of efficiency of an agricultural system which employs land, labour, capital and other resources (Munir, A., 1992). Agricultural productivity has been widely studied by various scholars and its different dimensions have been explored over the last decades. Many attempts have been made to define the connotation of agricultural productivity. It is a multidimensional concept, which includes technological Maulanaadvancement, Azad effective Library, management ofAligarh available resources Muslim and organizational University set-up for the agricultural production. These factors in turn affect the relative production in any region. The term 'Productivity' is regarded as the measurement of production and inputs required for the production of that output is known as agricultural productivity. Agricultural productivity is the interplay of a multitude of many factors, such as
5 environmental, socio-economic and technological factors. Shafi (1984) has defined agriculture productivity as the ratio of index of total agricultural output to the index of total input used in farm production.
According to Dewett (I966), "Productivity expresses the varying relationship between agricultural output and one of the major inputs, like land or labour or capital, other complementary factors remaining the same . . ." It may be borne in mind that productivity is physical rather than a value concept. Rao and Jasbir Singh (1981) considered "Productivity as the degree at which the economic, cultural, technical and organizational variables are able to exploit the biotic resources of the area for agricultural production". Bhatia (1967) has used the term agricultural efficiency instead of agricultural productivity. According to him "the aggregate performance of various crops in regard to their output per acre" is agricultural efficiency. Singh and Dhillon (2000) suggested that the “yield per unit” should be considered to indicate agricultural productivity. This may be defined as the “ratio of index of local agricultural output to the index of total input used in farm production
There are many different concepts of productivity, and still diverse ways for computing it. The Chairman of the International Commission on Agricultural Typology, Kostrowicki, invited different views on this problem by sending a questionnaire to over 100 scholars throughout the world, which embodied, the following two questions;
1. What methods, of measuring intensity of agriculture should be applied in typological studies of various orders?
2. What methods, measures and indices should be used to define land, labour and capital productivity of agriculture in typological studies of various orders?
About fifty geographers from all over the world responded and suggested various approaches to the measurement of agricultural intensity and productivity. The Chairman of the commission while evaluating the different views pointed out, that a Maulanaspecial study for Azad testing various Library, methods and Aligarh techniques to beMuslim used in the studies University of various scales were needed (ICAT, 1966).
Land, labour and capital are various aspects of agricultural productivity. These are the best known partial productivity measures. 'Land' is viewed as area with different natural attributes. It realizes different rents and varies in purchase price.
6 'Labour' represents all human services other than decision making and 'capital’ the non-labour resources employed by the farmer. It is due to pressure of population that special attention is given to land productivity. It is the simplest but in some respects the most useful aspect of agricultural productivity. Maximum production from land can be achieved with available inputs of land measures that can fulfill the pressing demand of the day. Inevitably the inherent chemical and physical properties of the land vary spatially and impose varying limits on the agricultural use of the land, although actual use will be dependent upon technology, profit and cultural constraints (Morgan, W.B. and Munton, R.J.C., 1971).
Land productivity is obviously of primary importance in countries with a high density of population. When land resources are limited the principal means of raising production to keep pace with the growth of population is by raising yields per hectare. However, raising the productivity of land does not mean only raising the yields of individual crops. It encompasses the whole output of a farm or country in relation to the total area of farm land, and may be raised also by changing the pattern of production toward more intensive systems of cultivation or toward higher value crops. A distinction must be made between the measurement of agricultural output in terms of calories (or some other measurement of food values), and in terms of money values. For example, if in temperate countries land is shifted from cereals to potatoes the output per hectare in terms of calories of human food is likely to be increased. But its productivity in terms of money values may be changed up or down according to the relative prices of cereals and potatoes. Again, shifting land from the main crop potatoes to early season potatoes or to luxury vegetables may well increase its productivity in money terms, but will almost certainly reduce it in terms of calories. Good pasture land used for grazing will usually produce less in calories for human food than if cropped with cereals for direct consumption, but may well show higher productivity in money values.
MEASUREMENTS OF LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY
MaulanaThe Azad productivity Library, of labour isAligarh a somewhat moreMuslim complex aspect University than land productivity. Labour productivity means the income of the population engaged in agriculture and can be measured in terms of output per -worker. It takes into account all the labour which contributes to agricultural production, the labour that is used directly on the farm as well as that used indirectly off the farm in producing the
7 materials and services used on agricultural production (Folk D., 1967). The labour input may be expressed as the total number in the labour force or, in order to take into account the intensity of labour, as the number of man hours worked in agriculture. Similarly the total agricultural output may be taken as the gross farm output or it may be taken as the value added by labour and other factors in the agricultural sector; i.e. the value of fertilizers, pesticides, fuels and other inputs from outside the agricultural sector, is subtracted from the value of the output in order to determine the net contribution of the agricultural sector (FAO, 1963).
Labour productivity is in fact the most common form of measurement, and is usually implied in economic discussions when no specific definition is given. In so far as the output per man is one of the major determinants of the general level of economic welfare, labour productivity is a significant yardstick of economic progress. Various measurements of labour productivity may, have specific uses in policy formation, e.g. with regard to income distribution, occupational distribution of labour force etc. Many scholars have studied labour productivity, its definition, trend and the various aspects pertaining to its impact upon agriculture, industry, poverty, socio- economic development and other dimensions.
Bhalla G S and Singh G (1997) have analyzed state level data on area and output of 43 crops for the 30 years from 1962-65 to 1992-95. It is revealed that there was a marked acceleration in the growth rate of agricultural output in India during 1980-83 to 1992-95 as compared with the earlier periods. Furthermore, agricultural growth had become regionally much more diversified. The period 1980-83 to 1992-95 was also characterized by important cropping pattern changes away from coarse cereals towards rice and wheat cultivation on the one hand and towards oilseeds on the other. Finally, the 1980s also witnessed a widespread acceleration in per male agricultural worker productivity in many Indian states. They concluded that if sustained, high labour productivity growth is likely to result in higher wages and will also trigger growth in the non-agricultural sector through input output and Maulanaconsumption linkages. Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Dev S.M. (1988) has analyzed prospects of increasing the productivity of labour in Indian agriculture considering labour productivity, namely, yield and the land person ratio, at a disaggregated level. He finds that the projection of workforce in crop production indicates that there is likely to be a further decline in land-person
8 ratio in all the states. Secondly the estimates on the annual earnings of landless labour households indicate that full time employment at the existing wage rates will not be sufficient to lift the landless poor above the poverty line in a majority of the states. He also analyzed prospects of irrigation coverage at the state level and concluded that even with full utilization of known irrigation potential, over 60 per cent of the net sown area of 1983-84 in four states (Karnataka. Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh) and slightly less than 60 per cent in Gujarat may remain entirely dependent on rainfall while in five states, viz, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa and Assam, moisture stress, if at all present, can be overcome by the exploitation of the known irrigation potential. The analysis of 100 districts with low levels of yields reveal that non-capital constraints such as moisture availability, soil quality and the presence of tribal population may hamper efforts to reduce rural poverty by increasing land productivity in these districts. One feature of the low yield districts is that 85 of the 100 low yield districts are located in five states namely, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. It may be noted that majority of the districts in Madhya Pradesh were characterized by both low levels as well as low growth in overall yields. Finally he suggested improvements in dry land technology, allocation of water to low water intensive crops and promoting a more diversified portfolio of economic activities by creating assets in non-crop activities to be the policy measures needed for reduction in rural poverty in these regions.
Misra V. N. (1984) studied cross-section data for 48 districts of Uttar Pradesh for the period 1971-73 divided into two sets. One set comprises the districts with negative marginal productivity of labour and other set of districts which have a positive marginal productivity, and also all the districts also. The study is a comparative analysis of both sets using same regression equations on productivity. The study concludes that in order to increase productivity increases in factors requiring more labour use will have to be high enough to reduce surplus labour. Increase in the crop intensity and shifts in crop pattern in favour of more labour Maulanaintensive Azad crops would Library, not be of much Aligarhuse unless man -landMuslim ratio is also Universityreduced so that positive contribution to the productivity of worker may result. Further, in the districts of low productivity, creating more non-farm activities would no doubt generate more employment but it would adversely affect productivity. What seems to be important in low productivity districts is that concerted efforts to increase irrigation and
9 availability of tractors should be made. But when a district achieved a particular level of productivity, expansion in non-farm activities and shifts in the cropping pattern favoring labour intensive crops would be of help.
Toufique K.A. (2005) explores the relationship between farm size and productivity in Bangladesh agriculture by analyzing the transaction costs of employing labourers in a high (Madhupur) and a low (Chandina) potential area. He found that in Madhupur, labourers are hired for task specific operations whereas in Chandina they are hired on a daily wage basis. Thus larger farms in Madhupur can employ labour at low transaction costs and hence output per acre is higher as compared to smaller farms. In Chandina, the quality of supervision performed by family labourers falls as farm size increases and hence output per acre is lower as compared to smaller farms.
Dorward A. (2013) argues that fundamental impacts of links between agricultural productivity sustainability and real food price changes which are often overlooked in current policy analysis. This is exacerbated by a lack of relevant and accessible indicators for monitoring agricultural productivity sustainability and real food prices. Two relatively simple and widely applicable sets of indicators are proposed for use in policy development and monitoring. He concludes that not only there is the need for governments and the global community to recognize the public good characteristics of agricultural labour productivity and invest in agriculture despite (indeed to encourage) low prices: environmental challenges require a simultaneous fall in fossil fuel and material inputs which have historically been a major contributor to rising land and labour productivity. Further challenges in agricultural policy, and in the development of related indicators, need to be addressed in, for example, links between agriculture and food systems on the one hand with energy, water use, climate change, land institutions and access, and micro-nutrient deficiencies and diet related non- communicable diseases.
Dev S.M. (1986) examines the growth of labour productivity in agriculture Maulanaduring the period Azad between theLibrary, triennia 1962 -Aligarh65 and 1975-78 Muslim at the level of allUniversity-India and for 56 agro-climatic regions and the contributions of yield, cropping intensity and land-labour ratio to the increase/decrease of labour productivity in each of these agro- climatic regions. He observed that Labour productivity (either productivity per total worker or male worker) in crop producing sector at the all-India level has shown a
10 positive but low growth during the period 1962-65 to 1970-73. Secondly, across 56 regions during the period 1962-65 to 1975-78 the so called 'labour suction mechanism' was not operating in Indian agriculture. In other words, the growth of work force in high agricultural growth regions was lower than that of low growth regions.
Rural poverty was significantly associated with levels of labour productivity since early 1970s. In spite of the increase in labour productivity in agriculture (and the decline in poverty population) for the country as a whole, considerable regional imbalance are observed. The inter-state variation has been increasing for both labour productivity and rural poverty over different time points. The states in Eastern India (Bihar, Orissa, and West Bengal) were having high proportion of population below the poverty line in rural areas with low labour productivity in agriculture. Therefore on the one hand, concentration of growth in land productivity and multiple cropping which was associated with relatively low growth in agricultural workers while on the other hand, many of the regions have experienced low growth in yield and multiple cropping with relatively higher growth in work force in agriculture. It indicates that the relationship between agricultural growth and density of work force on land has been weakening in India.
McErlean S. and Ziping W. (2003) studied regional agricultural labour productivity (ALP) convergence in China using essentially cross-sectional approaches to test the agricultural labour productivity convergence hypothesis.. The study indicates that ALP diverges between 1985 and 1992, but converges between 1992 and 2000. Further analysis shows that these findings can be explained by the different rates of agricultural out-migration in these two periods. They argue that these different rates of regional agricultural out-migration can be attributed to the different government policies and economic conditions before and after 1992. In particular, migrants from rural to urban areas found it easier to obtain both food and work in the post-1992 era.
MaulanaBhalla AzadG.S. Library, and Alagh Y. K.Aligarh (1983) examined Muslim the levels andUniversity changes in labour productivity in agriculture in various regions of India during 1962-65 to 1970- 73 and have statistically explained the inter-district variations in labour productivity in these regions by factors like the intensity of use of capital and other important inputs in 281 districts of India, for 1962-65 and 1970-73.The analysis is based on
11 district-wise data on total agricultural output per hectare of net sown area and male agricultural workers. The study reveals that regression exercises for various subsets of districts classified according to growth of output tend to confirm the hypothesis that labour productivity in agriculture is determined by the use of capital inputs on the one hand and output-augmenting modern biological inputs on the other. Since high growth districts are the predominant users of available tractors and tubewells (and other inputs) in the country, capital intensity per worker is the main determinant of labour productivity in these districts. Fixed capital alone is important, but the addition of variables like gross cropped area and fertilizers results in significant increase in the explanation of variation in labour productivity. This neat relationship, however, gets watered down for the medium, low and to some extent negative growth districts. In traditional agriculture, investment in modern equipment like tractors and tube wells are quite limited and even the working capital requirements are quite low. In these conditions labour productivity depends more on fluctuating output determined by vagaries of monsoons than on quantum of fixed and variable capital.
Dev S.M. (1988) analyses inter-state variations in agricultural labour productivity, sources of labour productivity growth, the incidence of rural poverty and the interrelations between labour productivity and rural poverty over four selected time points (1964-65, 1972-73, 1977-78 and 1982-83).The study revealed the estimates of labour productivity did bring out sharp variations in its levels and pattern of changes. Coefficient of variation increased steadily over the reference points indicating widening of the inter-state disparities in labour productivity. The analysis on the sources of inter-state variability in the levels of labour productivity shows that in the early 1960s, the contribution of land-man ratio to the variability in labour productivity was higher than that of land productivity. After the introduction of new technology, however, contribution of the latter was higher than the former. Relatively low variability in labour productivity in the early 1960s was due to the high negative covariance between land productivity and land-man ratio. However, the negative Maulanacovariance has declinedAzad over Library, time, indicating Aligarh weakening of theMuslim relationship betweenUniversity land productivity and demographic pressures. Similarly incidence of rural poverty also revealed wide inter-state disparities in its levels and pattern of change. The structure of rural poverty indicates that the incidence of poverty was the highest among the agricultural labour households in all the states. The shares of different
12 households in total poverty households revealed that agricultural classes namely, agricultural labour households and self employed in agriculture dominated the poverty households in rural areas. The link between labour productivity and rural poverty was established and the results indicate that both types of households in agriculture namely self employed in agriculture and agricultural labour households benefit from the higher levels of labour productivity. However, the gains in labour productivity have not resulted in proportionate gains in the levels of living of the agricultural labour households. To conclude, the study indicates that increase in labour productivity through technological changes has had a positive impact on the levels of living of the population in rural areas.
Guha S. (1990) seeks to provide a long-term perspective on changes in labour intensity in Indian agriculture. The study uses farm-level data from four periods commencing with the 1880s in order to study the variations in labour used for different crops. The evidence suggests that agriculturally progressive areas showed declines in labour intensity by the 1950s, while increases are observable elsewhere. On the whole, it seems that labour/output levels in late 19th century western India were not lower than those found in the 20th century. Further, labour intensity and population density not only fail to move together, but sometimes even move in opposite directions in the last two decades of the period under study.
Ninan K. N. (1984) discusses selected issues relating to labour use in agriculture, focusing specifically on tapioca and paddy crops which are extensively cultivated in the developing countries, with the help of farm level data pertaining to Kerala. In particular he examines the relationship between labour use on the one hand and yields, farm-size, crop-operations on the other; and also the question of labour productivity in agriculture. Average labour productivity of tapioca increases consistently with an increase in the size of holdings. In the case of paddy, average labour productivity increases with an increase in farm size up to 10 acres and then declines marginally. Both land and labour productivity for tapioca is higher among Maulanabigger farms. Azad This, ofLibrary, course, is not strange.Aligarh When thereMuslim is increasing University use of capital inputs per unit of labour employed, both land and labour productivity could be high among big farms. The correlation coefficient between labour input in man days per acre and average labour productivity per man days in the case of tapioca was -0.3 (statistically significant at one per cent level) taking into account all 140 observations
13 and - 0.6 (statistically significant at one per cent level) in the case of paddy for 59 observations. This suggests that average labour productivity of tapioca and paddy increases significantly only when per acre labour input declines.
Singh R.V. (1972) examines the labour productivity on different size of farms. The data for the study were collected from 120 farms representing small, medium, and large farms from four villages in Meerut district, and The Cobb-Dougles production function along with multiple regression analysis was used to express the input-output relationship. It was found that the selected variables explained more than 47 per cent variation in the output per standard hectare. The average and marginal value product of labour indicated an increasing trend with an increase in farm. Therefore, it is suggested that more additional labour could be applied on large farms followed by medium farms as compared to small farms. Further, it was analyzed that supply of capital inputs is increased simultaneously on all the sizes of farms; the large farms may employ more labour per standard hectare as compared to medium or small farms. A time comparison of the marginal productivity of human labour indicated that the rise in the marginal value product of human labour was more because of rise in the price index of agricultural commodities than because of the yield-increasing technology. However, the marginal value product of labour increased more on large farms as compared to medium or small farms.
Kurian N. J. (1990) observes that an alarming aspect of the Indian economy during the recent past has been the deceleration in the growth of employment which accompanied the accelerated economic growth. He systematically explores the employment potential in the rural areas with particular emphasis on agriculture and allied sectors. Further, analysis of trends in distribution of operational holdings on the basis of the available time series data was undertaken. The employment potential of animal husbandry and allied activities and their spatial distribution are also discussed. Finally a detailed analysis of labour absorption in the crop sector on the basis of cost of cultivation data for all the major crops in the country is presented with a discussion Maulanaof issues emerging Azad from the Library, present analysis Aligarh which have a bearingMuslim on public University policy planning for the future.
Polyzos and Arabatzis (2005) in their paper examine the labor productivity in Greece. They are of the opinion that labor productivity plays an important role for developing the conditions that are necessary for overall economic development.
14 During the study it was found that the differences in the regional economic productivity are the main cause for the rising regional disparity. The article examines the factors responsible for the differences in the labor productivity and it tries to correlate productivity and its determinants empirically by using statistical data from the last five years. Moreover, present article concludes that there is a positive relation between certain factors and productivity such as total employment in the agricultural sector (EMP), hypsometric level of the cultivated agricultural areas (ZON) and the investment in the agricultural sector (INV) while others appeared statistically insignificant such as the irrigated agricultural areas (IRR), the degree of divisibility of the cultivated agricultural areas (PAR) and the geographic position of the cultivated agricultural areas (KLIM).
Thapa (2007) in his article tries to find out the relationship between farm size and productivity in Mardi Watershed Area of Kaski district in the western hills of Nepal. For the present analysis a total of 250 farmhouses were surveyed. The study concludes that the hypothesis that the inverse relationship is due to variations in regional as well as access to resources among farm holders. The article also examined total cash input and labor hours per hectare in order to measure the productivity differentials. The results are significant and consistent with the model of output per hectare showing that the small farms use more input than the larger farms.
Evenson (1967) studied agricultural productivity with the objective of estimating the impact of research on agricultural production, and estimating the time lag between research expenditure and its impact. The study was based on data from the state agricultural experiment stations (SAES) and all the states of the U. S. for the period of 1938-1963. Econometric method (iterative nonlinear least-squares estimating procedure) was used to estimate an aggregate Cobb-Douglas production function.
Okyere et al. (2011) in their article tries to understand the interaction between farm labor productivity and health and nutrition. Present article is basically a review Maulanapaper which Azad brings Library, out various ways Aligarh in which farming,Muslim especially University farm labor productivity, and health and nutrition are linked. The authors are of the opinion that agricultural production of a region is directly related to the health and nutrition of the people specially farmers because higher the agricultural production higher will be the income of the farmer’s. Higher income of the farmer’s enables them to increase their
15 dietary diversity leading to good health. They also examined the impact of health and nutrition on farm labor productivity. When the health of the people deteriorates it brings hardships to the households’ leading to reduction in the strength of the person to do work, less amount of money for household expenditure, loss of labor and sometimes death. Poor health of the farmer’s lessen the farmer’s ability to innovate, experiment and bring changes in the agricultural systems.
Gutierrez (2000) in his article tries to find out that why agricultural productivity in some countries of the world is higher than the others on the basis of recent theories of economic growth and new data sets for forty four countries during the period 1980-1993. The present paper tries to give the answer of the question which arise out because the growth in agricultural productivity in some region around the world is truth but when we try to find out the reason behind the growth and regional imbalance in agricultural productivity the unanimity disappears. The study concludes that the countries where the agricultural labor productivity is higher have a high rate of investment in physical and human capital as well. Moreover, free trade and agricultural liberalization help to grow agricultural labor productivity and may also lead to the reduction in productivity differentials.
Moon and Lee (2013) in their article firstly reviewed the literature related to the concepts, ideas and theories which favor the idea that role of agriculture is important in the process of economic development. Secondly, article compares the agricultural labor productivity of Korea and eleven Southeast Asian countries. The article concludes that improvement in the labour productivity is considerably lagging behind land productivity in Southeast Asian countries, showing that economic condition of the people in rural areas did not improve as much as the measures of agricultural growth rates and cereals yields. A comparative analysis shows that agricultural land productivity in Southeast Asian countries is catching up with Korea but labor productivity has diverged considerably over the last two decades.
Gorman M and Pandey M (2010) in their article opined that during the last Maulanafour decades the Azad disparity inLibrary, the agricultural Aligarhlabor productivity Muslim across the developing University world has increased substantially. The article tries to answer that to what extent did the diffusion of Green Revolution seed varieties contribute to increasing agricultural labor productivity disparity across the developing nations. For analyzing the agricultural labor productivity present article has taken into account about 79
16 countries over as period of 1965-2000. Almost 40 per cent of the variation in agricultural labor productivity across countries can be attributed to the variation in capital, fertilizer and land per worker.
Chang and Zepeda (2001) determined how to promote agricultural productivity growth to achieve sustainable food security most efficiently in Asia and the Pacific. The study looked at the role of investment, both in physical and human capital, in maintaining and increasing agricultural productivity. In order to achieve the objectives the study used TFP and partial factor productivity functions. Results indicate that agricultural output growth has remained positive from 1961 to 1994 with only one exception, Japan, compared to a slowdown during 1975-1987 in output and labour productivity growth in Australia and the United States.
Dayal (2010) in his article for obtaining the map productivity pattern in India opted three index of agricultural productivity namely; land productivity, labor productivity and aggregate productivity. The article traces out that there is a large regional disparity in the levels of productivity. On the basis of regression analysis the article shows that the spatial variation of land productivity is positively related to fertilizer use, irrigation and urban-industrial development and is negatively related to population density. Labor productivity is positively associated with agricultural wages and fertilizer use and negatively with the density of agricultural workers on net sown area.
Nicolini (2011) in her article tries to trace out the evolution of labour productivity across Spanish regions during the period from 1977 to 2002. Through applying the Kernel technique the author focused on the transition dynamics of labour productivity and its determinants in industry and services. The labour productivity across Spanish regions in both the sector shows a convergence process in the 1977- 1993 sub period that was largely governed by the movement of human capital. Moreover, during 1977 to 1986 the convergence dynamics across the regions largely occurred in industry, while in 1986 to 1993 the same happened to services. The MaulanaSpanish Azad region shows Library, that the human Aligarh capital effect Muslim is less important University and the investment in physical capital seems not to have a triggering effect on labour productivity growth.
17 Czumanski T. and Lödding H. (2012) have attempted to introduce a state- oriented approach providing the possibility to identify and prioritize the different impacts on labor productivity for subsequent process enhancements. With a case study, they show how to visualize and evaluate state data of an assembly cell to establish a goal-oriented improvement process. The approach enables the user to conduct a comprehensive analysis of worker states using different data sources depending on the acquisition methods and specific procedures applied within a company. It leads to high transparency over productivity potentials with a relatively low data acquisition effort. Furthermore, the evaluation is to be done with other industrial partners to cover different types of production, such as multi-machine operations and tact-based assembly lines. Increases in the productivity of land and of labour often go hand in hand. When crop yields are increased or the pattern of cropping intensified there is usually - although not always - an increase in output per man. Similarly when improved methods are adopted to increase efficiency and raise labour productivity and farm incomes, there is often, as a secondary result, an increase in land productivity and total output. In countries with agricultural surplus problems this may be embarrassing, and increased labour productivity may then have to go hand in hand with measures to limit the area under cultivation.
Capital productivity of agriculture is particularly complicated to compute and difficult to interpret. This is largely because off diversity of capital being utilized in agricultural production: for land purchased for improvement, reclamation, drainage, irrigation, farm buildings, mechanical power, machinery and implements, livestock, feeds, seeds, fertilizers, crop protection chemicals etc. The presence or absence, amount, quality and price of each factor of production vary spatially, affecting the relationships between them and their deployment on individual farms. These spatial patterns are not static, labour and capital being geographically mobile. The use of each production factor will not depend solely upon its availability. It will be influenced by technological, economic and social circumstances which permit the Maulanasubstitution of Azadone for another Library, and in turn Aligarh will be affected Muslim by their degree University of divisibility.
Estimates of capital productivity give relatively little guidance in ensuring the most efficient use of the limited capital resources. In part this is because the statistics on capital in agriculture are less informative than those on land and labour, not
18 because much of this investment, especially in less developed countries, consists of non-monetized investment stemming from the unpaid labour of the farmers themselves. The terracing of slopes, the bunding of paddy fields, the construction of irrigation ditches are examples of this type of non-monetized investment which is of crucial importance -for raising both output and productivity. This does not mean, of course, that capital is .not of vital importance to agriculture. The requirements of fixed capital stock in agriculture - even excluding land - often appear to be greater in relation to the output than those of manufacturing industries and mining, though there are considerable differences between countries in methods of estimation.
The productivity of livestock is again more difficult to measure than the productivity, of land. The difficulty arises both in the measurement of the input and the output. Much of the livestock production results in more than one end product; cattle may produce milk, beef and hides, sheep may produce wool and meat etc. A comparison of, say, the milk output of specialized dairy cows with that of dual purpose animals kept for both milk and beef may be misleading. To aggregate the output of all livestock products, with suitable price weights, solves part of the problem but not all of it, because of the widespread use of livestock, particularly in the less developed regions, for draft power. A complete accounting of the output would, therefore, also require the inclusion of the draft power produced by livestock. The principal input is the capital represented by the livestock itself, other inputs include the feeding stuffs which they consume, whether from grazing or in the form of preserved or concentrate feeds, and the land which is pasture or cropland is devoted to livestock production.
The above measurements when combined shall not give a very satisfactory indication of productivity. The simplest and the most frequently used comparison is the output of milk or meat per animal, which would be significant when cattle are of about the same size or weight. But if in one country the common breeds of livestock are large and in another small, differences between the average output per animal in Maulanathe two countriesAzad will Library, in part reflect theseAligarh differences Muslimin size rather than University their relative efficiency. And since small cattle eat less and since more small cattle can be kept on a given area, the total output of meat or milk per unit of feed or per hectare of land may be as high in one country as in the other. It could not then be said that the average productivity of the larger breeds was greater than that of the smaller breeds.
19 The whole output from each hectare of land used for agriculture is known as the overall productivity of land. It is more significant than crop yields per hectare or livestock yields. The individual yields reflect only the efficiency of crop husbandry or livestock husbandry, the overall productivity also takes into account the managerial skill with which the various farm enterprises are integrated to increase the total farm output. The overall productivity reflects also the opportunities to produce high-value crops, e.g. tobacco, or in suitable climates or under irrigation to raise more than one crop per year from the same land. Thus, the countries with the highest total output per hectare appear to have an overall productivity some 40 times greater (exceptionally even more) than those with the least intensive agricultures.
MEASUREMENTS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
The agricultural productivity is a complex task because it involves the measure of relationship between inputs and output in agricultural production. Stamp (1960) emphasized that areal differences in crop productivity are the result partly of natural advantages of soil, and climate and partly of “farming efficiency”. Farming efficiency refers to the properties and qualities of the various inputs, the manner in which they are combined and utilized for production and effective market demands for the output.
Many scholars have studied different methodological procedures for measuring productivity in agriculture and a substantial literature relating to methodological procedures for measuring productivity in agriculture is available. The measures of agricultural productivity which are most frequently understood are those of partial productivity and refer to the relation of a single input or a group of inputs to the total output or to a part thereof (yield per hectare, output per man-hour and output per unit of capital). The data required to measure the productivity of a single input are more likely to be available than are those required for measures of overall productivity. Besides, the aggregate of total inputs may tend to obscure the effect of changes in their composition. Many attempts have been made to measure the Maulanaagricultural productivity Azad in variousLibrary, countries ofAligarh the world. Muslim University
In the early nineteenth century Thompson (1926) while measuring the relative productivity of British and Danish farming emphasized and expressed it in terms of gross output of crops and livestock. He considered seven parameters. They are: (i) the
20 yield per acre of crops, (ii) the livestock per 100 acres, (iii) the gross production or output per 100 acres, (iv) the production of arable land, (v) the number of persons employed, (vi) the cost of production expressed in terms of wages and labour costs, rent or interest, and (vii) prices relative profitability and general economic conditions.
Buck (1937) assessed the agricultural progress in China by adopting the approach of Grain Equivalent. For this purpose he converted all the agricultural products into kilograms of grain equivalent in order to select as a unit of measure a kilogram, with whatever kind of grain was predominant in the region. A modification in this method was attempted by Clark and Haswell (1967) by expressing the output in terms of kilograms of wheat equivalent per head of population.
Kendall (1939) taking the acre yield of ten leading crops in each of the forty eight administrative counties in England for four selected years, tried on four coefficients: productivity, ranking, money value and starch equivalent or energy. Of the four coefficients, the ranking coefficient is probably the easiest to calculate and gives a reasonable ranking of counties in order of productivity. To obtain the ranking coefficient, Kendall ranked each of the ten crops in the forty eight counties in order of their yield, and then the sum of the ranks occupied by the unit was divided by the number of the crops considered to obtain the average rank of the unit. Kendall’s money value coefficient was based on the value of crop production of each county (which was obtained by multiplying the volume of production of a particular crop by the price) and the results of ten crops for each county were added together and the total was divided by the total acreage in the county under the ten crops. Kendall’s energy coefficient is based on the total energy value of various arable crops expressed as starch after adding the proportions assignable to by products and the energy index was constructed by ascertaining the production of energy per acre under crops on the basis of a prepared table showing the energy value of various crops.
Kendall’s money value coefficient poses one major difficulty, that data for certain crops are not available, for example, there are many vegetables and beans Maulanawhich are Azad grown mostly Library,for the consumption Aligarh on the farms Muslim and their price University data are not recorded in contrast to cereal crops whose data are adequate. While determining the money value coefficient, another difficulty arises with regard to the prices-for example, the prices prevailing in the area should be adopted, or those prevailing in the region or in the country as a whole, in addition to the local variations in the prices
21 which depend on circumstances like, proximity to the market or the relative nutritive character of the product. Significant differences in prices per tonne between the crops affect the final result heavily in favour of the higher priced commodity.
In this method, the crop productions of each unit area is valued by multiplying the volume of production of a particular crop by the price, and then add the results for the selected number of crops together. The total is divided by the total acreage in the unit area under the total selected crops. The result gives for each unit area a figure of money value per acre or hectare under the crops considered. So far as energy coefficient is concerned, an index based on nutritional factor ignores local variations because of the absence of data.
Kendall, therefore, suggests starch equivalent as the most suitable unit. While calculating a coefficient based on starch equivalent it should be decided: (a) whether a gross or net digestible energy figure is to be taken, (b) whether any allowance is to be made for by products, such as-wheat and barley straws or the green stalks of maize, jowar and bajra, and (c) whether any account should be taken of the fact that the energy in certain foods has first to be fed to livestock and then wheat and milk is used for human consumption. The basic question that arises in this technique is whether the gross starch equivalent of the various crops should be considered or the net equivalent. Net energy refers to the amount of energy for work and body building whereas, a gross figure includes the energy employed in the digestive process of the consuming animal and similar non-reliable forms. Kendall suggested that production of energy be preferred as the gross figures.
Hirsch (1943) has suggested ‘Crop yield Index’ as the basis of productivity measurement. It expresses the average of the yields of various crops on a farm or in a locality relative to the yields of the same crops on another farm in a second locality. Zobel (1950) has attempted to determine the Labour productivity. He considered the productivity of labour as the ratio of total output to the total man-hours consumed in the production of that output resulting in output per man-hour. This has been Maulanaexpressed by the Azad following equation:Library, Aligarh Muslim University
π = f (P, L)
Where,
π = productivity of labour
22 P = production, and
L = labour utilized
Huntington and Valkenburg (1952) considered land productivity on the basis of acre yields of eight crops raised very widely in Europe. For each crop, the average yield per acre for Europe as a whole was taken as an index of 100, and the specific yield in each country was calculated accordingly. Stamp (1952) adopted Kendall’s ranking coefficient by selecting twenty countries and nine crops. The countries were placed in order of output per acre for each crop. The places occupied by each country in respect to the selected crops were then averaged, and from these averages, the ranking coefficient of one, and if it were at the bottom of every list, it would have a ranking coefficient equal to the total number of countries concerned.
Another approach to measure productivity is to convert the total food production into calories. Quantitative food requirements are usually estimated in terms of heat units - calories. A physiological calorie (also called kilocalorie and abbreviated Kcal) is the amount of heat necessary to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree centigrade. The caloric intake is a measure of the general health of a person because it determines the amount of heat and energy needed by the human body.
Stamp (l958) has taken calorific value of farm production in measuring the agricultural productivity. He calculated the Standard Nutrition Unit (SNU) by converting all the food production per acre in calories. The British Medical Association has carried out ‘an exhaustive enquiry based on all available sources and published a table to show the caloric intake among adults from 2,100 a day for a woman in sedentary occupation to 4,250 for a man engaged in active manual work. For children’ the desirable intake is calculated at 800 a day for infants under one year to 3,400 for teenage boy. The average of the different categories worked out at 2,540 calories a day. Taking into consideration the age structure of the population, the range Maulanaof occupations, Azad the Library, weight and height Aligarh of the people Muslim living under University the climatic conditions of north western Europe, the ‘average is 2,460 calories a day or about 9,00,000 calories per year.
The Nutrition Expert Group of Indian Council of Medical Research has recommended the daily allowances of Nutrients for Indians. They published a table to
23 show the caloric intake among adults from 1900 a day for a woman in sedentary work to 3,900 for a man engaged in heavy work. For children it was recommended 110 calories per kg weight of the body per day for infants under one year to 3,000 for teenage boy.
Shafi (1960) has calculated this under Indian conditions in the twelve villages of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. The net caloric intake ranges from 1,828 a day (667, 677 a year) to 2,175 a day (795,514 a year). According to him in no case it reaches the 9, 00,000 calories postulated as the Standard Nutrition Unit. He concluded that in the well drained and irrigated villages of Eastern Uttar Pradesh the caloric intake per person amounts to about 2,000 a day. Where the caloric intake drops below 2,000 a day, both standard of living and standard of health are perceptibly lower.
Loomis and Barton (1961) have measured United States agricultural input and productivity in aggregate. To them, aggregate productivity depends upon conceptually consistent measures of agricultural output and input. The measures of inputs include all the production factors that depend directly on the decisions of farmers. Meiburg and Brandt (1962) have surveyed the earlier indices relating to the United States agricultural output, e.g., output estimates of total productivity. They considered eight indices of agricultural production which cover various phases of the period extending between the years 1866 and 1960. Mackenzie (1962) has measured the efficiency of production in Canadian agriculture by using the coefficient of output relative to input. He mentions, that the concept of productivity measurement is difficult to define and even more difficult to quantify. Commen (1962) while working ‘out the trends of productivity in agriculture of the state of Kerala (India) has measured productivity on the basis of yield per acre.
Enyedi (1964) while describing geographical types of agriculture in Hungary used the following formula for determining agricultural productivity:
Y T : Maulana Azad Library,Yn Tn Aligarh Muslim University Where, Y = total yield of the respective crop in the unit area, Yn = total yield of the crop at the national level, T = total cropped area of the unit,
24 Tn = total cropped area at the national level.
Horring (1964) has suggested that the concept of productivity is based not only on the single relationship between output and input, but rather on the differences between two or more relationships, i.e. differences in the same agricultural region or sub-region as between successive periods (in time), and between similar agricultural regions in different countries or regions during- the same period (in space). It may also be possible to make comparisons between the trends of productivity for different products, between different regions of the national economy or between the agricultural regions and the national economy as a whole.
The Indian Society of Agricultural Economics considered the problem and published a series of articles under the broad head ‘Regional Variations in Agricultural Development and productivity. Among the contributors Chatterji and Maitreya (1964) have determined the levels of agricultural development and productivity during 1950-51 to 1957-58 in the state of West Bengal taking two crops (rice and jute) in consideration. They utilized the acre yield figures for this purpose. Dhondyal (1964) has measured variations in agricultural development and productivity by selecting three representative districts from the three regions of the Uttar Pradesh, while assessing the role of credit, intensive crop enterprises, and the influence of irrigation water during 1962-63.
Garg (1964) worked out the trends in agricultural development with respect to total cropped area, gross irrigated area and food grain production in the two districts of Uttar Pradesh, viz. Gorakhpur representing the eastern region and Meerut from the western region and productivity by assessing acreage, production and average yield per acre of three important crops, viz, rice, wheat and sugarcane. This study extends from 1951-52 to 1960-61 covering the period between the First and Second Five-Year Plans. Gopalkrishnan and Ramakrishna (1964) have taken Andhra Pradesh India firstly to measure the degree of variations with respect to agricultural output per acre Maulana(Rs.) and Azad output per Library,head of agricultural Aligarh population (Rs.) Muslim and secondly University to account the causes of variations in each of twenty districts of the state during 1959-60. The variables relating to the level of output per acre are selected as follows: (a) normal level of rainfall, (b) Percentage of current and old fallows,(c) Percentage of area under irrigation, (d) Percentage of literacy, (e) Percentage of population in agriculture, (f)
25 Intensity of cropping, (g) Percentage of gross value other than food grains and fodder, (h) the percentage of area under all crops excluding fodder and food grains, (i) density of agricultural population per acre, and (j) percentage of total area under commercial crops including rice.
Sapre and Deshpande (1964) modified the Kendall’s ranking coefficient by giving weight age to the area under different crops. The weights for ranks of various crops are proportional to the percentage of cropland under each crop For example, an enumeration unit ‘A’ has rank 2 on the basis of wheat acre-yield and occupies 30 per cent of the total cropped area, rank 3 on the basis of rice acre-yield and occupies 25 per cent of the total cropped area, rank 8 on the basis of gram acre-yield and occupies 10 per cent of the total cropped area. Thus the weighted average of the ranks would be: (2 x 30) + (3 x 25) + (8 x 10) = 215 divided by the sum of the weights as 215/65 = 3.3. According to Kendall’s method it would have been 2+3+8 13 divided by the number of crops as 13/3 = 4.3.
The Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, organized a symposium on the topic, ‘Measurement of Agricultural Productivity’ at the 17th Annual Conference of the society held at Jaipur in 1964. The research papers contributed by different scholars appeared in the society’s journal, viz., Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, in the succeeding issue of 1965. Sarma (1965) while defining the concept of agricultural productivity has suggested various parameters on which it can be measured. According to him, productivity can be considered in relation to land, labour and capital. It can also be considered in terms of overall resources employed in agriculture. In case of commodities like food grains, fruits and vegetables, sugarcane, and edible seeds, he suggests that the output of these commodities be converted into calories. While considering the other non- food crops such as cotton and other fibres the only common measure being the value which involves the pricing of different products. For evaluating value of production, farm harvest or wholesale prices have the definite significance. He also emphasized agricultural workforce as the basis of Maulanaproductivity measurement Azad e.g.,Library, the total number Aligarh of labourers Muslim employed (in orderUniversity to account the intensity of labour) or the number of man-hours worked in agriculture per unit of area.
Shafi (1965) has assessed the productivity on the basis of labour population engaged in agriculture. According to him, it can be computed by dividing the gross
26 production in an unit area by the number of man hours or less precisely by the numbers employed in agriculture. In order to assess the productivity on the basis of population engaged in agriculture it can either be obtained by dividing the total production with the number of workers, or a reverse index be applied where the total number of workers per unit of production is assessed.
Agarwal (1965) has adopted Factorial Approach while measuring agricultural efficiency in Bastar district of Madhya Pradesh. In this approach a number of human controlled factors relating to agricultural production as: crop superiority, crop commercialization, crop security, land use intensity and power input have been selected, excluding the environmental factors.
Clark and Haswell (1967) modified the approach of Grain Equivalent undertaken by Buck (1937) by expressing the output in terms of kilograms of wheat equivalent per head of population to assess the agricultural progress. Shafi (1967 and 1969) applied Stamps Standard Nutrition Unit technique for measuring the efficiency of agriculture in India. He has considered the district as the areal unit, and has selected all the food crops grown in India.
Noort (1967) considered net total productivity (being the relationship between the net product and factor input) as a method for the measurement of field productivity and also to assess comparisons in time or in space. The purpose of this measure is to account changes in labour and capital inputs in agriculture.G. R. Saini (1971) has found the inverse relationship between farm size and productivity is a confirmed phenomenon in Indian agriculture and its statistical validity, the author argues, is adequately established by an analysis of dis-aggregated farm management data. Indian agriculture is ruled in general by 'constant returns to scale'. The inverse relationship between size and productivity is perfectly consistent with the three phases of the returns to scale and can be explained simply in terms of the law of variable proportions. The analysis presented here strongly suggests that the explanation for the non-remunerative status of Indian agriculture, as shown by the reported loss in some Maulanasize-classes Azad of farms, Library, lies not in the valuation Aligarh of family Muslim labour at the ruling University wage rate, but in the imputation of a value to owned land.
The Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics in its 30th Annual Conference held at Bhubaneswar (Orissa) India, discussed some aspects on agricultural
27 productivity in the Indian context. Raheja, et al. (1977) have measured the impact of high yielding varieties based on data collected under the scheme, Sample Surveys for Assessment of High yielding Varieties Programme’, during 1973-74 and regional variations in productivity on the basis of yield per hectare in India. Singh et al. (1977) have accounted the level of increase in the yield of different crops during three decennial years i.e., 1950-51, 1960-61 and 1970-71 in each state of India, considering the relationship between the output of food grains and related inputs like, the application of fertilizer, proportion of area sown more than once and gross irrigated area.
Nangia et al. (1977) conducted a field survey in the village Khandewala, of Haryana state. The study takes into account the productivity levels at different fields of the village in terms of money value during 1974-75 and a number of factors enumerated in three broad categories, viz, environmental, technological and institutional which hold responsibilities for the productivity variations. Bhalla (1978) has considered output per person on constant average price for measuring productivity of labour in Indian agriculture in order to account for nineteen crops during the trienniums 1962-65 and 1970-73 for each district of India. Singh (1979) devised a method of presenting a two-dimensional picture of agricultural productivity comprising two components viz., intensity and spread considering three variables (i) yield, (ii) grain equivalent, and (iii) cropping system in the districts of the State, of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, a relative share of intensity and spread for each micro unit (district) has been computed to the macro unit (state) separately for the above three variables with the help of equations that have been derived.
Ganguli (1983) in his study of the Ganges Valley presented a theoretical discussion for computing productivity in agriculture. Firstly, he took into account the area under any crop ‘A’ in a particular unit area belonging to a certain region. This area is expressed as a proportion of the total cropped area under all the selected crops, Secondly, Ganguli tried to obtain the index number of yield. This is found by dividing Maulanathe yield per hectare Azad for the Library,entire region as theAligarh standard. This Muslim yield may be expressed University as a percentage and the percentage may be regarded as the index number of yield. Thirdly, the proportion of the area under A and the corresponding index number of yield were multiplied. There are two advantages which are apparent by using this method, i.e. (a) the relative importance of the crop A in that unit of study is assessed
28 as indicated by the proportion of the cropped area which is under A, and (b) the yield of the crop A in comparison to the regional standard. The product thus obtained indicates actually an index of the contribution of the crop A to the productivity of the unit considered. Singh J. et al. (1985) made an attempt to calculate the agricultural productivity by considering the labour productivity, expressed as gross agricultural output in terms of ‘grain unit’ (one grain unit is equal to100 kilograms of wheat) per hectare of cropped area or persons actively employed in agriculture where gross agricultural output (in rupees) was divided by the wheat support price for converting into a grain unit. Ranade C.G. (1986) In his pioneering article on the sources of growth of agricultural productivity during 1952-53 to 1972-73 in India, the late DharmNarain had shown that in the period prior to the Green Revolution, the locational shift of crops had significantly contributed to growth along with the cropping pattern effect, while in the latter period it was the pure yield effect which was mainly responsible for growth. There are, however, anomalies in the data used by him. With the data corrected for the anomalies one gets an exactly opposite result. An extension of his work for the period upto 1982-83 suggests-that locational shifts in fact became-important in the post-Green Revolution period as area under short duration rice varieties expanded in Punjab and Haryana. Shafi M. (1972) has used his formula to measure the agricultural productivity of the great Indian plains. The formula used by him is as follows: A P = (pw/t+ pr/t+ pm/t…………n) : (Pw/T+ Pr/T+ Pm/T…………n) Where,
AP =Agricultural Productivity of a district
pw= production of wheat in the district pr= production of rice in the district pm =production of maize in the district t= total cropped area (of the concerned crop) in district MaulanaPw Azad= production Library, of wheat in the Aligarhregion Muslim University Pr= production of rice in the region Pm =production of maize in the region T= total cropped area (of the concerned crop) in the region. n = number of crops
29 Munir (1988) highlighting the weaknesses of Kendall’s ‘ranking coefficient’ and Enyedi’s Productivity Index methods attempted to apply Bhatia’s and Shafi’s methods in calculating the productivity indices of the Sub-Himalayan East region which lies in between the Ghaghara river in the south, and Nepal in the north. Dholakia R.H. and Dholakia B. H. (1993) have estimated the sources of growth of Indian agriculture for three sub-periods during 1950-51 to 1988-89. They also estimated the contribution of adverse weather conditions and intensity of resource use to total factor productivity growth. It is found that TFPG has contributed significantly to the acceleration of agricultural growth facilitating release of scarce resources from agriculture to other sectors in the economy. Thus, TFPG in agriculture has been the prime driving force behind the acceleration of overall growth in the Indian economy achieved during the eighties. The main determinant of TFPG has been found to be the use of modern inputs like fertilizer, HYV seeds and irrigation.
Namboodiri N.V. and Desai B.M. (1998) have shown that past literature shows that technical change in agriculture is determined by non-price factors like government expenditure on research and development and infrastructure. But more recent literature also considers relative farm prices that would provide incentives for technical change. This has been reinforced by the present policy in the wake of reforms that reduce protection to trade and industry for advocating its prime role for technical change. They have developed a more comprehensive framework of price and non-price factors for studying this change. Among the non-price factors it separately considers government investment in R and D, inputs, credit, rural literacy, and marketing and banking infrastructure density in addition to land reforms. Rahman H. (2003) attempted to examine variations in crop productivity in North Bihar Plain considering 17 major crops grown in the districts of the region during the period of 1995-2000. To compute productivity he used Yang’s ‘Crop Yield Index’ method due to the fact that it considers the yield of all crops compared with the average yield of crops in the region.
MaulanaRahman, Azad H., Wahab, Library, A. and Asif Aligarh (2008) examined Muslim the variations University in crop productivity in Ganga-Yamuna Doab using Yang’s ‘Crop Productivity Index’. They examine the crop productivity variations of 17 major crops (grouped under cereal, pulses, oilseeds and cash crops) grown in the districts of the region during 1990-94 and 2000-04. The overall analysis shows that during the period of 1990-94, there were
30 only four districts with low productivity, while during the period 2000-04, the number of districts characterized with low productivity increased to nine. Agricultural performance over a large part of the Doab is characterized with marked productivity variations. These variations in productivity are influenced by the physical and socio- economic factors. Soil fertility as determined by the constituents of a number of nutrients which play a vital role in enhancing crop growth and yield per hectare. In the Doab region there is a substantial variation in respect of soil fertility. Among the socio-economic factors, the size of landholdings is also responsible for decision making of farmers. There is a preponderance of small and semi-medium holdings, and the fields are highly fragmented (also some efforts have been made to consolidate the fields) which show low yields in farming areas. Therefore, it is needed that the productivity of crops per hectare be increased at least in medium and low productivity areas. Application of new agricultural technology brought with high-yielding varieties will be of great help. They concluded that the task of increasing agricultural productivity can also be achieved by dividing the Doab into a number of micro agro- climatic zones and intensive efforts should be made to evolve new high-yielding varieties which may suit to each agro-climatic zone, taking into consideration the factors of socio-economic and cultural background of the region.
Dharmasiri (2012) has applied average productivity index to measure the agriculture productivity in Sri Lanka. Kalaivani et al. (2010) used Compound Growth Rate to measure the growth actions of area, production and yield for selected crops in Tamil Nadu. In his study maize was recorded a positive trend in Tamil Nadu. Mandal S and Dhara A. (2012) studied the spatial variation of agriculture productivity using Z - score model and categorized the blocks as Very High, High, Medium and Low of agricultural productivity in south 24 PGS, Districts of West Bengal. Muthumurugan et al. (2012) suggested composite index analysis to study the agriculture development of Tamil Nadu. He classified the districts based on the index value as highly developed, medium developed and low developed. Pandit P.M. Maulana(2012) in Azadhis study revealedLibrary, that road, Aligarh railway, agricultural Muslim labour, bank, University good climate and modern technology are the important factors in the agriculture development of Nasik District. Rotaru A.S. et al. (2012) demonstrated factor analysis in agriculture by downsizing the data with various crops in the regions of Romania. Shafiquallah
31 (2013) applied the technique Z-score model to study regional disparities and agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh.
Kumar C. A. and Manimannan G. (2014) have identified spatial pattern of Cauvery Delta zone based on agriculture productivity index, based upon Enyedi’s Method .They have considered the production data of 15 major crops for 2011-12 to identify the spatial patterns of productivity. It was found that variations in productivity are influenced by physical and socio economic factors. Soil fertility as determined by the constituents of a number of nutrients play a vital role in enhancing crop growth and yield per hectare. Among the socio-economic factors the size of land holdings is also responsible for decision making of farmers. Therefore it is needed that the productivity of crops per hectare be increased at least in Medium and Low Productivity Regions. Application of new agricultural technology brought with high yielding varieties which may suit to the agro-climate zone will be of great help. Shortage of rainfall, uncertainty dates of opening and closing of Mettur dam water for irrigation, delayed monsoon, lack of adequate drainage facility in the delta region, the drainage cum irrigation net work in the delta could not drain the excess water in the monsoon season are the main reasons that affect the agricultural productivity in the Cauvery Delta zone.
Ogale S. and Nagarale V. (2014) attempted to identify agricultural productivity region of Baramati tahsil in Pune district for its better landuse planning. Enyedi's method was used to compute crop productivity for Baramati tahsil because of its accuracy. Productivity index values were calculated for six sample village representative to entire tahsil for the year 2010-11 and the productivity regions were demarcated. It was observed that crop productivity is a combined effect of physio- socio-economic factors. The physiography has direct influence on the soil types and its spatial distribution. Among all crops, the productivity shows increasing trend toward south to north in the study area. It is an indication of development in agriculture sector. In northern part due to adverse relief condition, coarse shallow soil Maulanaand non-availab ilityAzad of irrigation Library, leads to low Aligarh productivity. SoMuslim there is needed University to get financial support and integrated efforts for development of agriculture to reduce regional disparities in Baramati tehsil.
Niti Aayog, (2015) on the basis of the work of Task Force on Agricultural Development constituted by the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI)
32 Aayog, Government of India in March 2015 concentrates on a subset of important issues confronting Indian agriculture and does not try to be exhaustive. It observes that progress in agriculture has a bearing on the fate of the largest proportion of the low income population in India. The paper identifies five important aspects of agriculture that need immediate attention to bring economic advantages to millions of farm families. First, output per hectare, which is a common measure of agricultural productivity, remains low for many crops when compared to many other countries. Second, on average, farmers do not realize remunerative prices due to limited reach of the minimum support prices (MSP) and an agricultural marketing system that delivers only a small fraction of the final price to the actual farmer. Third, the farm size of the majority of the household has declined to unviable levels inducing farmers to leave land and look for better job opportunities elsewhere. Fourth, relief measures in the event of natural disasters are inadequate and suffer from procedural inefficiencies and delays. The risk adaptation measures are poorly executed and have not worked effectively. Finally the potential of the eastern region needs to be harnessed with suitable interventions. This region is unique for its suitability to the production of certain commodities. However, taking advantage of this potential would require institutional support and investment in technological innovations. The paper offers ideas on how these problems can be addressed so as to accelerate agricultural growth and bring remunerative prices to farmers.
Mundhe F. (2015) has tried to examine the performance of Trends of Agriculture growth and production in India. He concludes that overall performance of the Indian agriculture growth and production has shown the significant change in the last three decades. Further, the variation in annual production of all food grains and rice, cereals, wheat and pulses have increased comparatively over the last few years. He has also elaborated the factors effecting agricultural productivity.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
33 REFERENCES
1. Agarwal P.C. (1965) Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency in Bastar District: A Factorial Approach, Unpublished Proceedings of the Summer School in Geography held at Naini Tal, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, pp. 14.
2. Bhalla G S and Singh G (1997) Recent Developments in Indian Agriculture: A State Level Analysis, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 13, pp. A2-A18.
3. Bhalla G.S. and Alagh Y. K. (1983) Labour Productivity in Indian Agriculture, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 18, No. 19/21, pp.825-834.
4. Bhalla, C.S. (1978) Spatial Patterns of Agricultural Labour Productivity, Yojana. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 9-11.
5. Bhatia, S.S. (1967) Spatial Variations, Changes and Trends in Agricultural Efficiency in Uttar Pradesh 1953-63, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics.
6. Buck J.L. (1937) Land Utilization in China, Nanking.
7. Chang, H. and Zepeda, L. (2001)Agricultural Productivity for Sustainable Food Security in Asia and the Pacific: the Role of Investment. FAO Corporate Document Repository, originated by: Economic and Social Development Department.
8. Chatterji A. and Maitreya P. (1964) Some Aspects of Regional Variations in Agricultural. Productivity and Development in West Bengal, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1,pp. 207-12.
9. Clark C. and Haswell, M., (1967)The Economics of Subsistent Agriculture, London, pp. 51-52.
10. CommenM.A. (1962) Agricultural Productivity Trends in Kerala, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol. No. 4 pp. 333-36.
11. Czumanski T. and Lödding H.(2012) Integral Analysis of Labor MaulanaProductivity, AzadProcedia Library, CIRP 3 , pp. 55 Aligarh–60. Muslim University 12. Dayal E. (2010) Agricultural Productivity in India: A Spatial Analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 74(1), pp. 98-123.
13. Dev S.M. (1986) Growth of Labour Productivity in Indian Agriculture: Regional Dimensions, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 21, No. 25/26 (pp. A65- A74.
34 14. Dev S.M. (1988) Prospects of Enhancing Labour Productivity in Indian Agriculture, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 39, pp. A106-A113.
15. Dev S.M. (1988) Regional Disparities in Agricultural Labour Productivity and Rural Poverty in India, Indian Economic Review, New Series, Vol. 23, No. 2 , pp. 167-205.
16. Dewett, K.K. and Singh, G. (1966) Indian Economics, Delhi.
17. Dharmasiri L. M. (2012) Measuring Agricultural Productivity using the Average Productivity Index, Sri Lanka Journal of Advanced Social Studies vol.1 – No.2. 18. Dholakia R.H. And Dholakia B. H. (1993) Growth of Total Factor Productivity in Indian Agriculture, Indian Economic Review, New Series, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Vol. 28, No. 1 pp. 25-40.
19. Dhondyal S.P. (1964) Regional Variations in Agricultural Development and Productivity in the Eastern and Western Regions of Uttar Pradesh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 193-97.
20. Dorward A. (2013) Agricultural Labour Productivity, Food Prices and Sustainable Development Impacts and Indicators Food Policy 39, pp. 40–50.
21. Enyedi G.Y. (1964) Geographical Types of Agriculture, Applied Geography in Hungary, Budapest, pp. 61.
22. Evenson, R. (1967) The Contribution of Agricultural Research to Production. Journal of Farm Economics, 49(5), pp. 1415-1425.
23. F.A.O. (1963) The State of Food and Agriculture, Rome page 98.
24. Folk D.(1967) Productivity of Labour in Agricultural Production, Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 726, Urbana, University of Illinois, College of Agriculture. U.S.A.
25. G. R. Saini (1971) Holding Size, Productivity, and Some Related Aspects of Indian Agriculture, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 6, No. 26, pp. A79- 85.
26. Ganguli, B.N. (1983) Trends of Agriculture and Population in the Ganges MaulanaValley, Azad London, Library, p. 93. Aligarh Muslim University
27. Garg J.S. (1964) Variation Studies in the Agricultural Development and Productivity in the Eastern and Western Regions of Uttar Pradesh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 193-97.
35 28. Gopalkrishnan M.D. and Ramakrishna P.T. (1964) Regional Variations in Agricultural Productivity in Andhra Pradesh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1 , pp. 227-36.
29. Guha S. (1990) Labour Intensity in Indian Agriculture, 1880-1970: Some Findings, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 25, No. 52, pp. A189-A192. 30. Gutierrez L (2000) Why is Agricultural Labour Productivity Higher in Some Countries than Others? 2000 Annual Meeting American Agricultural Economics Association. Tampa, Florida.
31. Hirsch H.G. (1943) Crop Yield Index, Journal of Farm Economic, Vol. 25(3), p. 583.
32. Horring J. (1964) Concept of Productivity Measurement in Agriculture on a National Scale, OECD, Documentation in food and Agriculture 57, Paris, p. 10
33. Huntington and Valkenburg (1952) Europe, New York, 1952, p. 102.
34. I.C.A.T. (1966) Proceedings of the International Commission on Agricultural Typology (unpublished) Warsaw, Poland.
35. Jasbir Singh (1981) A New Technique for Measurement of Agricultural Productivity-A Perspective in Agricultural Geography, Vol.4, Mohammed Noor, (Ed.) Pp. 169-182. 36. Kalaivani M. and Saravanadurai A. (2010) Growth Actions of Selected Cereal crops in Tamil Nadu state, International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology, Vol. I; issue 3, pp 778-785.
37. Kendall M.G. (1939)The Geographical Distribution of Crop Productivity in England, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 52, pp. 21-48.
38. Kumar C. A. and Manimanna G. (2014)Spatial Pattern of Agriculture Productivity of Crops in Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu, IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS) , Volume 7, Issue 11 Ver. II (Nov. 2014), pp.01-07.
39. Kurian N. J. (1990) Employment Potential in Rural India: An Analysis , Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 25, No. 52 , pp. A177-A188.
Maulana40. Loomis Azad R.A. and BartonLibrary, G.T. (1961) AligarhProductivity Muslim of Agriculture University in the United States 1870-1958, Technical Bulletin No. 1238, USDA, Washington, D.C., p. 1.
36 41. Mackenzie W. (1962)The Impact of Technological Change on the Efficiency of Production in Canadian Agriculture, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.1, p. 41.
42. Mandal S and Dhara A. (2012) Measurement of Agricultural productivity and levels of development in south 24 Pargana district, West Bengal, International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research Vol.2 Issue 4 pp 91 -98. 43. McErlean S. and Ziping W. (2003)Regional agricultural labour productivity convergence in China, Food Policy, Vol. 28 , pp. 237–252.
44. Meiburg C.O. and Brandt K.(1962) Agricultural Productivity in the United States: 1870-1960, Food Research institute Studies, Vol. 3, No.2, p. 64.
45. Misra V. N. (1984) Productivity per Worker under 'Disguised' Unemployment in Rural Uttar Pradesh, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 186-210.
46. Moon W and Lee JM (2013) Economic Development Agricultural Growth and Labour Productivity in Asia, Journal of Comparative Asian Development. 12(1), pp. 113-146.
47. Morgan, W.B. and Munton, R.J.C. (1971) Agricultural Geography, Methuen & Co Ltd, London.
48. Mundhe F. (2015) Agricultural productivity in India: trends during five year plans, The Business & Management Review, Volume 5 Number 4, pp. 175- 181. 49. Munir, A. (1988) Agricultural Productivity and Regional Development- A Case Study of the Sub-Himalyan East Region of Uttar Pradesh, The Geographer,Vol.35, No.2, pp.48-49.
50. Munir, A. (1992) Agricultural Productivity and Regional Development, Manak Publications, Pvt., Ltd., Delhi.
51. Muthumurugan et al. (2012) Composite Index Analysis of Inter-Regional Variations in Agricultural Development of Tamil Nadu, International Journal of Social Sciences and Inter Disciplinary Research Vol.1 No.4 pp 58 -62. Maulana52. Namboodiri Azad Library, N. V. And Desai Aligarh B. M. (1998) MuslimDeterminants ofUniversity Total Factor Productivity in Indian Agriculture, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 52, pp.A165-A171.
53. Nangia, S., et al. (1977) Variations in Field Productivity - A Case Study of Khandewala, Haryana, Occasional Papers No. 7 (Mimeo), Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
37 54. Nicolini R (2011)Labour productivity in Spain: 1977–2002, Applied Economics, 43(4), pp. 465-485.
55. Ninan K. N. (1984) Labour Use in Agriculture: Case Studies of Tapioca and Paddy, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 51/52, pp. A199-A204.
56. NitiAayog, (2015) Raising Agricultural Productivity and Making Farming Remunerative For Farmers, An Occasional Paper ,Government of India , New Delhi.
57. Noort, P.C. van den (1967) Agricultural Productivity in Western Europe, Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol.15 , No.2, p. 166. 58. Gorman M and Pandey M (2010) Cross country disparity in agriculture productivity: Quantifying the role of modern seed adoption. The Journal of Development Studies. 46(10), pp. 1767-1785. 59. Ogale S. and Nagarale V. (2014) Agricultural Productivity of BarmatiTashil, Pune District (Maharashtra), Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, Volume 7; issue 5, pp. 25-30. 60. Okyere K.A., Chiang C, Thangata P, Andam K and Mekonnen A. D. (2011) Understanding the Interaction between Farm Labor Productivity and Health and Nutrition: A Survey of the Evidence. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics. 3(3), pp. 80-90.
61. Pandit A.D. (1965) Application of Productivity Concept to Indian Agriculture, Productivity, Special Issue on Agricultural Productivity, Vol. 6,( 2 and 5) p.187.
62. Pandit P.M. (2012) Agricultural Development and Land Use Pattern in Nashik District of Maharastra, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.3 (16) pp. 151-161. 63. Polyzos S and Arabatzis G (2005) Labor productivity of the Agricultural Sector in Greece: determinants Factors and interregional Differences Analysis. Discussion Paper Series, 11(12). pp. 209-226.
64. Raheja, S., et al. (1977) Factors Contributing to Regional Variations in Productivity and Adoption of High Yielding Varieties of Major Cereals in India, Symposium on Regional Imbalances and Economic Development with Special Reference to Agriculture, Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural MaulanaStatistics, Azad Vol. 29 , No.1,Library, pp. 112-13. Aligarh Muslim University 65. Rahman H. (2003) Spatial Distribution of Agricultural Productivity and Its Correlates in North Bihar Plain, The Geographer, Vol. 50, No. 1, , pp.73-84.
66. Rahman H., Wahab A. and Asif (2008) Agricultural Productivity and Productivity Regions in Ganga-Yamuna Doab, The Geographer, Vol. 55, No. 1, January, pp. 10-21.
38 67. Ranade C. G. (1986)Growth of Productivity in Indian Agriculture Some Unfinished Components of Dharm Narain's Work, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 21, No. 25/26 pp. A 75-80. 68. Rotaru A.S. et al. (2012) Usefulness of Principal Component Analysis in Agriculture, Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 69(2) pp 504 -509.
69. Sapre S.G. and Deshpande V.D. (1964) Inter-District Variations in Agricultural Efficiency in Maharashtra State, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 243.
70. Sarma J.S. (1965) Measurement of Agricultural Productivity - Concepts, Definitions, etc., Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, Vol. 27, No.2, pp. 253-57.
71. Saxon, B.A. (1965) Special Concepts of Productivity, Productivity, Special issue on agricultural productivity. Vol.6, No.2 and 3, p.226.
72. Shafi M (1984) Agricultural productivity and Regional imbalances, New Delhi, Concept Publishing Company.
73. Shafi M. (1960) Land Utilization in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Aligarh, p. 222.
74. Shafi M. (1965) Approaches to the Measurement of the Agricultural Efficiency, Unpublished Proceedings of the Summer School in Geography held at Naini Tal, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, p. 4.
75. Shafi M. (1972) Measurement of Agricultural productivity of the Great Indian Plains, The Geographer, Vol. 19 No1, pp 4-13.
76. Shafi, M. (1967) Food Production Efficiency and Nutrition in India, The Geographer, Vol.14, pp. 23-27.
77. Shafi, M. (1969) Can India Support Five Times Her Population? Science Today, Vol.3, pp. 21-27.
78. Shafiqullah (2013) Impact of Regional disparities on Agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh – A Geographical Analysis, Global Journal of Human Social Science, Geography, Geo science, Environmental Management. MaulanaVol. Azad 2 issue 5Library, version 1.0 pp. Aligarh 36 -46. Muslim University 79. Singh D. et al. (1977) Crop Productivity Variation in India, Symposium on Regional Imbalances and Economic Development with Special Reference to Agriculture, Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, pp. 113- 15.
39 80. Singh J. and Dhillon S.S. (2000) Agricultural Geography (2nd edition) New Delhi, Tata McGraw Hill.
81. Singh R.V. (1972) Labour Productivity and Size of Farm, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 245-253.
82. Singh, J. et al. (1985) Agricultural Geography, New Delhi, p. 242.
83. Singh, V.R. (1979) A Method for Analyzing Agricultural Productivity, Agriculture and Food Supply in Developing Countries (ed., J.T. Coppock), Published for the Commission on World Food Problems and Agricultural Productivity of the IOU, Department of Geography, University of Edinburg, pp. 43-51.
84. Stamp L.D. (1952) The Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency with Special Reference to India, Silver Jubilee Souvenir Volume, Indian Geographical Society, pp. 177-78.
85. Stamp L.D. (1958) The Measurement of Land Resources, The Geographical Review, Vol. 48, No. 1. p. 3.
86. Stamp L.D. (1960) Our Developing World, London, 1960, p. 108.
87. Sunil O. and Virendra N. (2014) Agricultural Productivity of Barmati Tashil, Pune District (Maharashtra), Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, Volume 7; issue5, pp 25-30.
88. Thapa S (2007) The Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: Empirical Evidence from the Nepalese mid-hills. Contributed paper prepared for presentation at the 106th seminar of the EAAE, 25th to 27th October, 2007. Montpellier, France.
89. Thompson R.J. (1926) The Productivity of British and Danish Farming, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, Part II, 1926, p. 28.
90. Toufique K.A.(2005) Farm Size and Productivity in Bangladesh Agriculture: Role of Transaction Costs in Rural Labour Markets, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 10, pp. 988-992.
91. Zobel S.P. (1950) On the Measurement of Productivity of Labour, Journal of MaulanaAmerican Azad Statistical Library,Society, Vol. 45, Aligarhp. 218. Muslim University
40 INTRODUCTION:
There are various interlinked socio-economic factors that influence the agriculture of a region. Each region has its own unique personality and as such its problems should be studied in relation to its local environment. By keeping in mind the impact of a local condition of a region, a study of agricultural productivity of the Indian plains is of great importance. The north Indian plain is a highly productive region supporting a huge population. The plain formed as a result of filling of a deep depression lying between the Himalaya in the north and the Deccan plateau in the south, by the depositional work of the Himalayan rivers. The deposition of the alluvium in the region is continued throughout the Pleistocene age. There are various distinguishable hypotheses of distinguished scholars regarding the geological evolution of this plain. Wadia (1958) is of the opinion that these plains were originally a deep depression or furrow lying between the Peninsula and the mountain region. Austrian geologist Edward Suess has mentioned that a fore-deep was formed when the Himalayas were uplifted from the bottom of Tethys Sea. This trough was gradually deposited by thedetritus brought by the Himalayan and Peninsular rivers.
Sir Sydney Burrard (1912) on the other hand, thinks that the Indo-Gangetic depression is a great sub-crustal creek or rift in the earth several kilometers deep, this fracture subsequently filled up by depositional works of the rivers. Geologically the alluvial deposits are classified into two subdivisions. First, the Khadar or newer alluvium or Sandy soils, generally of light colour and secondly, the Bhangar or older alluvium which is generally of dark colour and contains sufficient amount of kankars (Khullar D.R., 2000).
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
41 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Source: State Atlas of Uttar Pradesh, NATMO (2008) Figure 2.1: Study Area: Location
42 The Ganga-Yamuna Doab is one of the most fertile parts of the plains. It can be divided into upper, middle and lower Ganga-Yamuna Doab. The middle Ganga Yamuna Doab stretches across seven districts namely Aligarh, Agra, Mathura, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar and Firozabad. The middle Ganga- Yamuna Doab, is part of a region which is largest alluvial tract of the world and is known as the Great Plain of North India.It stretches between the parallels of 260 53′ 37″ N to 280 08′ 19″ N latitudes and 770 27′ 51″E to 790 16′ 35″E longitudes (figure 2.1). Physiographically, the middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab consists of one vast plain and possesses uniformity of the surface except for the several depressions in the north near Aligarh formed by the river valleys and natural drainage lines. Total area of the middle Ganga-Yamuna doab is 13907.24 square kilometres and has total population of 1,18,59,812 (Census, 2011), District Statistical Booklet Agra & Mathura, 2011). The study area includes only few blocks of Agra and Mathura districts. The blocks of Agra district lying in the middle Ganga Yamuna Doab are Khandauli and Etmadpur whereas in the case of Mathura there are four blocks namely, Nojhil, Mat, Raya and Baldeo.
The expansion of the doab covers the districts Aligarh in the north, Kanshiram Nagar, Etah, Firozabad in the east, Mathura in the west, Agra in the south and Mahamaya Nagar in the centre. Besides the two big rivers, the Yamuna and the Ganga, which flow to the west and to the east of the region respectively, the area is drained by the several smaller rivers such as Karon, Sengar, Rind, Isan, and Kali (figure 2.5). All these rivers run parallel to one another and follow the general slope of the land. Except Ganga, Yamuna and Kali rivers all others are ephemeral in nature.
Soils and Natural Vegetation
The Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab region is well distributed by the typical fertile alluvium soil. The figure 2.2 clearly exhibits the distribution of different types of soils in the region. The north-eastern part of the region comprising Aligarh and Kanshiram Nagar districts is covered by the excessively drained soil. The well- Maulanadefined fineAzad loamy soilLibrary, is found over Aligarh eastern part of Muslimthe region. This University type of soil is found in Etah and Kanshiram Nagar districts of the doab. The central part of the region is covered by the imperfectly-drained fine loamy soil and is distributed in Mahamaya Nagar, Etah and northern part of the Firozabad district.
43 MaulanaSource: State Atlas Azad of Uttar Library,Pradesh, NATMO Aligarh (2008) Muslim University Figure 2.2: Study Area: Soils
44 MaulanaSource: StateAzad Atlas ofLibrary, Uttar Pradesh, NATMOAligarh (2008) Muslim University Figure 2.3: Study Area: Natural Vegetation
45 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Source: State Atlas of Uttar Pradesh, NATMO (2008) Figure 2.4: Study Area: Average Annual Temperature Distribution
46 MaulanaSource: StateAzad Atlas ofLibrary, Uttar Pradesh, NATMOAligarh (2008) Muslim University Figure 2.5: Study Area: Drainage Pattern
47 The region is homogenous fertile land and is mostly devoted to agricultural activities. There are some irregularities and one may have patches of scrubs and bushes in the districts of Kanshiram Nagar, Etah, Firozabad and Aligarh. The Figure 2.3 displays the patches of forest covers in the region which mostly lies in the southern part of the Firozabad district.
Population Growth:
The region has shown a steady growth of population since the last century. The table 2.1 shows that the total population of the middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab was only 4.2 million in 1901 which rose to 17.9 million in 2011 i.e. 426 percent over the last 110 years.The initial two decades have shown a decline in the total population by -4.45 percent in 1911 and -7.45 per cent in 1921 respectively but thereafter an increase in total population is observed in every decade. The decadal increase in the total population during 1931 to 2011 ranges from 8.44 per cent in 1931 to 26.45 per cent in 2001. The steep increase in population during the last decades especially after independence is mainly due to high fertility rate, low level of literacy and conservative attitude towards family planning.
Table 2.1 Decadal Growth of Total Population in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1901-2011)
Total Decadal Growth Rate Year Population* Change (%) 1901 4211345 - 1911 4023718 -187627 -4.45 1921 3723938 -299780 -7.45 1931 4038364 314426 8.44 1941 4791409 753045 18.64 1951 5462255 670846 14.00 1961 6449605 987350 18.07 1971 7842459 1392854 21.59 Maulana1981 Azad Library,9511263 Aligarh1668804 Muslim21.27 University 1991 11756241 2244978 23.60 2001 14866637 3110396 26.45 2011 17913933 3047296 20.49 Source: Census (1991) & Primary Census Abstract 2001, 2011. *The population of whole districts of Agra and Mathura is included.
48 The table 2.2 shows the districtwise distribution of total population and the share of male and female population during 1991-2011. The total population of middle Ganga Yamuna Doab in 1991 was 11756241 which increased to 14866637 in 2001 and 17913933 in 2011.The share of male and female population in 1991 was 54.62 percent and 45.38 percent respectively. In 2001 the share of female population increased marginally to 45.97 per cent and finally it was recorded as 46.61 per cent in 2011. Thus the increase in female population was recorded over the last two decades due to increase in sex ratio over the last decades. Table 2.2 Distribution of Male and Female Population in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
1991* 2001* 2011* Districts Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Aligarh 3295982 1788880 1507102 2992286 1607402 1384884 3673889 1951996 1721893 Etah 2244998 1230561 1014437 2790410 1509199 1281211 1774480 947339 827141 Kanshiram ------1436719 764165 672554 Nagar Mahamaya - - - 1336031 718930 617101 1564708 836127 728581 Nagar Mathura 1931186 1063487 867699 2074516 1127512 947004 2547184 1367125 1180059 Firozabad 1533054 836926 696128 2052958 1108668 944290 2498156 1332046 1166110 Agra 2751021 1501927 1249094 3620436 1961282 1659154 4418797 2364953 2053844 TOTAL 11756241 6421781 5334460 14866637 8032993 6833644 17913933 9563751 8350182 Source: Primary Census Abstract UP, 1991, 2001 and 2011. *The population of whole districts of Agra and Mathura is included.
Sex Ratio:
The average sex ratio in the middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab was found to be 830 in 1991 which improved in 2001 to become 851 and further 873 in 2011. The sex ratio in the different districts of the middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab is quite variable (figure 2.6). The table 2.3 shows the variation in sex ratio and child sex ratio over the last three decades. In 1991 highest sex ratio was found to be 842 in Aligarh followed Maulanaby Agra Azad (832) and Library, Firozabad (831 ).AligarhThe least sex Muslimratio was found University in Mathura (815).Thus, the difference between the highest and the lowest sex ratio was found to be 27. In 2001also the highest sex ratio was maintained in Aligarh district (861) followed by Mahamaya Nagar (858) and Etah (848). Mathura and Etah districts have shown a relatively larger increase in sex ratio than the other districts over the same
49 period. Still Mathura was at the bottom level and it has a sex ratio of 839. The difference between the highest and the lowest sex ratio was bridged over the last decade and it has reduced from 32 in 1991 to 22 in 2001.
In 2011, still the highest sex ratio was observed in Aligarh (882) followed by Kanshiram Nagar (880) and Firozabad (875) whereas the least sex ratio was found in Mathura (863). Etah, Firozabad and Mathura have shown a maximum increase in sex ratio during 2001-2011.Therefore, the difference between the highest and the lowest sex ratio was found to be 19. Further, over the last three decades Aligarh has shown the highest sex ratio among the districts of middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab. Interestingly, Mathura was found to have lowest sex ratio during 1991, 2001 and 2011 but the maximum increase in sex ratio is also found in Mathura over the last decades.
Table 2.3 Distribution of Sex Ratio and Child Sex Ratio in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
Child Sex Ratio (0-6 Years) Sex Ratio* S. No. Districts * 1991 2001 2011 1991 2001 2011 1. Aligarh 842 861 882 890 885 877 2. Etah 824 848 873 887 891 878 Kanshiram 3. - - 880 - - 893 Nagar Mahamaya 4. - 858 871 - 885 864 Nagar 5. Mathura 815 839 863 890 872 869 6. Firozabad 831 851 875 884 886 880 7. Agra 832 845 868 886 865 860 TOTAL 830 851 873 888 880 873 Source: Primary Census Abstract, 1991, 2001 & 2011. *The population of whole districts of Agra and Mathura is included.
The child sex ratio in the middle Ganga-Yamuna plain was found to be 888 in 1991 which declined to 880 in 2001 and 873 in 2011. Thus there is an overall decline in the child sex ratio over the last decades. District wise variation of child sex ratio for Maulana1991-2011 is given Azad in the Library, table 2.3. It isobserved Aligarh that in regionalMuslim perspective, University the child sex ratio in Ganga-Yamuna Doab varies greatly from one district to another district.
50 Sex Ratio Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 900
880
860
840
820
800
780
760 Aligarh Etah Kasganj Hathras Mathura Firozabad Agra
1991 2001 2011
Figure 2.6: District wise Distribution of Sex ratio in Middle Ganga- Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
Child Sex Ratio Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 900
850
800 Aligarh Etah Kasganj Hathras Mathura Firozabad Agra
1991 2001 2011
Maulana FigureAzad2.7: Library,District wise Distribution Aligarh of Child Muslim Sex ratio in MiddleUniversity Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
In 1991 out of the total of 7 districts, highest child sex ratio was found to be 890 in Aligarh and Mathura districts followed by in Etah district (891) and Firozabad (886), Aligarh and Mahamaya Nagar (885). The trend of the given study explains the
51 movements of child sex ratio over period of time. The child sex ratio (CSR) has declined faster than the overall sex ratio (OSR). Census 2011 has revealed highest child sex ratio in Kanshiram Nagar district (893) followed by Firozabad (880) and Etah 878). It means the whole of Ganga–Yamuna Doab is characterized with excessive deficiency of females as shown in figure 2.7.
Distribution of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes:
The total population of SC in the middle Ganga Yamuna Doab was 21.02 per cent in 1991 which declined to 20.39 in 2001 and 20.37 in 2011.The maximum share of SC population in 1991 was found to be 23.21 per cent in Agra district followed by Aligarh (23.00 per cent) and Firozabad (19.27 per cent). In 2001 the maximum share of SC population was observed in Mahamaya Nagar (25.2 percent) followed by Agra (21.77 per cent) and Aligarh (21.19 per cent). Further in 2011 the highest share of SC was observed in Mahamaya Nagar (24.76 per cent) followed by Agra (22.43 per cent) and Aligarh (20.55 per cent).
Table 2.4: Distribution of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Population in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
S. Scheduled Castes* Scheduled Tribes* Districts No. 1991 2001 2011 1991 2001 2011 1. Aligarh 23.00 21.19 20.55 0.004 0.007 0.017 2. Etah 17.31 17.15 15.83 0.003 0.001 0.007 3. Kanshiram - - 17.69 - - 0.010 Nagar 4. Mahamaya - 25.20 24.76 - 0.005 0.017 Nagar 5. Mathura 20.23 19.59 19.88 0.008 0.011 0.059 6. Firozabad 19.27 18.85 18.96 0.007 0.009 0.102 7. Agra 23.21 21.77 22.43 0.009 0.023 0.164 Total 21.02 20.39 20.37 0.006 0.010 0.069 Source: Primary Census Abstract, 1991, 2001 &2011. *The population of whole districts of Agra and Mathura is included. MaulanaThe total Azad ST population Library, in the middle Aligarh Ganga-Yamuna Muslim Doab was 0.006 University per cent in 1991 which increased to become 0.010 per cent in 2001 and 0.069 per cent in 2011. The share of ST population was almost negligible in all the districts of the middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab in 1991. The maximum share was observed in Agra (0.009 per cent) followed by Mathura (0.008 per cent) and Firozabad (0.007 per cent).
52 In 2001 the maximum share of ST population was recorded in Agra (0.023 per cent) followed by Mathura (0.011 per cent) and Firozabad (0.009 per cent). Further, in 2011 the maximum ST population was found in Agra (0.164 per cent) followed by Firozabad (0.102 per cent) and Mathura (0.059 per cent).
Urban Population:
The total urban population in the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab was found to be 27.02 percent in 1991 which increased to 29.53 per cent in 2001 and 31.92 per cent in 2011.The district wise variation was also seen in 1991. It was found that total urban population in 1991 was highest in Agra district (40.38 percent) followed by Firozabad (26.58 per cent) and Aligarh (25.13 per cent). Table 2.5: Distribution of Urban Population in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
Percentage of Urban Population* S.No. Districts 1991 2001 2011 1. Aligarh 25.13 28.89 33.13 2. Etah 16.71 17.33 15.11 3. Kanshiram Nagar - - 20.06 4. Mahamaya Nagar - 19.79 21.26 5. Mathura 23.57 28.29 29.67 6. Firozabad 26.58 30.32 33.35 7. Agra 40.38 43.30 45.80 Total 27.02 29.53 31.92 Source: Primary Census Abstract, 1991, 2001 &2011. *The population of whole districts of Agra and Mathura is included.
Similarly in 2001 also the highest share of urban population was found in Agra (43.30 per cent) followed by Firozabad (30.32 per cent) and Aligarh (28.89 per cent). In 2011 also similar trend was observed. Thus, highest urban population was found in Agra (45.80 per cent) followed by Firozabad (33.35 per cent) and Aligarh (33.13 per cent).
MaulanaLiteracy Azad Level: Library, Aligarh Muslim University
The total literacy in the middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab was found to be 45.14 per cent in 1991 which improved to 60.37 per cent in 2001 and further to 69.71 per cent in 2011. The district wise variation was revealed in table 2.6. It revealed that in 1991 the total literacy was highest in Agra (48.58 per cent) followed by Firozabad
53 (46.28 per cent) and Aligarh (45.21 per cent). In 2001 the highest total literacy was found in Firozabad (64.47 per cent) followed by Agra (62.6 per cent) and Mahamaya Nagar (62.48 per cent). In 2011 the highest total literacy was observed in Firozabad (71.92 per cent) followed by Mahamaya Nagar (71.59 per cent) and Agra (71.57 per cent). The variation in male and female literacy was also shown in table 2.6 and the male female literacy gap is elaborated in figure 2.8.
Table 2.6: Distribution of Literacy, Male literacy and Female Literacy in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
S. 1991* 2001* 2011* Districts No. Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female 1 Aligarh 45.21 60.19 27.16 58.47 71.7 43.02 67.51 77.97 55.68 2 Etah 40.15 54.08 22.91 54.62 67.51 39.35 70.8 81.28 58.8 Kanshiram 3 ------61.01 71.56 49 Nagar Mahamaya 4 - - - 62.48 76.27 46.3 71.59 82.38 59.23 Nagar 5 Mathura 45.02 62.55 23.04 61.46 76.46 43.43 70.35 81.97 56.89 6 Firozabad 46.28 59.75 29.81 64.47 75.88 50.94 71.92 80.82 61.75 7 Agra 48.58 63.08 30.83 62.6 74.59 48.34 71.57 80.62 61.18 TOTAL 45.14 60.00 38.98 60.37 73.28 45.076 69.71 79.80 58.15 Source: Primary Census Abstract, 1991, 2001 &2011. *The population of whole districts of Agra and Mathura is included.
Male-Female Literacy Gap Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Maulana0 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Aligarh Etah Kasganj Hathras Mathura Firozabad Agra total
1991 2001 2011
Figure 2.8: District wise Distribution of Male-Female Literacy Gap in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
54 Occupational Structure:
The work participation rate in the various districts of middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab during 1991-2011 is shown in table 2.7. It reveals that work participation rate in 1991 was 27.64 per cent which improved in 2001 to become 29.76 per cent and further to 31.64 per cent in 2011. The district wise variation in work participation was also shown in table 2.7. It shows that highest work participation rate in 1991 was found in Etah (28.50 per cent) followed by Mathura (27.82 per cent) and Agra (27.41 per cent). In 2001 the highest work participation rate was observed in Mathura (37.16) followed by Aligarh (30.62 per cent) and Mahamaya Nagar (29.33 per cent). In 2011 the highest rate of work participation was found in Mathura (33.01) followed by Kanshiram Nagar (32.90 per cent) and Aligarh (31.96 per cent). The decadal variation in work participation rate is shown in figure 2.9.
Table 2.7 Work Participation Rate in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
Work Participation Rate* Districts 1991 2001 2011 1. Aligarh 27.38 30.62 31.96 2. Etah 28.50 28.75 30.76 3. Kanshiram Nagar - - 32.90 4. Mahamaya Nagar - 29.33 30.93 5. Mathura 27.82 37.16 33.01 6. Firozabad 27.14 27.22 30.48 7. Agra 27.41 27.18 31.45 TOTAL 27.64 29.76 31.64 Source: Primary Census Abstract, 1991, 2001 &2011. *The population of whole districts of Agra and Mathura is included.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
55 Total Work Participation Rate Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011) 40
30
20
10
0 Aligarh Etah Kasganj Hathras Mathura Firozabad Agra
1991 2001 2011
Figure 2.9: District wise Distribution of Total Work Participation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1991-2011)
Land use Pattern:
The table 2.8 shows the land use pattern of the different district of the middle Ganga Yamuna Doab in 2011. The largest share was devoted to net sown area (79.09 percent) followed by area devoted to non agricultural use (10.57 per cent) and current fallow land (2.44 per cent). Further, the area under forest was reported to be 1.21 per cent, cultivable wasteland 2.51 per cent, Other Fallow land 2.13 per cent, Barren land 1.75 per cent and pasture 0.31 per cent. On analysing table 2.8 it was observed that the largest area under net sown area was found in Agra (84.96 per cent) followed by Mathura (84.13 per cent) and Mahamaya Nagar (82.62 per cent). Similarly percentage share of land under non agricultural use was found to be largest in Kanshiram Nagar (12.83 per cent) followed by Mathura (10.84 per cent) and Aligarh (10.76 per cent). Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
56 Table 2.8 Land use Pattern in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2011) Area in Hectares Kanshiram Mahamaya Land use Aligarh Etah Mathura Firozabad Agra MGYD Nagar Nagar Net sown 303954 185922 143455 148675 101045 182150 36591 1101792 area (81.94) (76.36) (73.57) (82.62) (84.13) (75.71) (84.96) (79.09) Land under non- 39903 21577 25022 18924 13016 25384 3419 147245 agricultural (10.76) (8.86) (12.83) (10.52) (10.84) (10.55) (7.94) (10.57) use Current 6110 10212 5995 1910 1978 6293 1458 33956 fallow Land (1.65) (4.19) (3.07) (1.06) (1.65) (2.62) (3.39) (2.44) Area under 2577 1033 2058 1770 240 8646 498 16822 forest (0.69) (0.42) (1.06) (0.98) (0.20) (3.59) (1.16) (1.21) Cultivable 5330 12946 10213 1431 1832 3025 185 34962 wasteland (1.44) (5.32) (5.24) (0.80) (1.53) (1.26) (0.43) (2.51) Other 5277 9130 4584 2588 768 6643 664 29654 fallow Land (1.42) (3.75) (2.35) (1.44) (0.64) (2.76) (1.54) (2.13) Barren and 6051 2319 3429 3611 956 7820 185 24371 uncultivated (1.63) (0.95) (1.76) (2.01) (0.80) (3.25) (0.43) (1.75) land 1731 328 245 1035 273 624 68 4304 pastures (0.47) (0.13) (0.13) (0.58) (0.23) (0.26) (0.16) (0.31) 370933 243467 195001 179944 120108 240585 43068 1393106 Total (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) (100.00) Source:Statistical Bulletin (2011) District Aligarh, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Mathura, Agra, Firozabad and Mahamaya Nagar, Economics and Statistics, Division, Planning Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. *Values in Brackets show percentage to total
The share of area under current fallow land was found maximum in Etah (4.19 per cent) followed by Agra (3.39 per cent) and Kanshiram Nagar (1.06 per cent). The share of area under forest was found to be largest in Firozabad (3.59 per cent) followed by Agra (1.16 per cent) and Kanshiram Nagar (1.06 per cent). The percentage share of cultivable wasteland was recorded largest in Etah (5.32 per cent) followed by Kanshiram Nagar (5.24 per cent) and Mathura (1.53 per cent). The other fallow land was also found to be variable in the districts of the middle Gang-Yamuna Doab. Thus, the largest share was found to be present in Etah (3.75 per cent) followed by Firozabad (2.76 per cent) and Kanshiram Nagar (2.35 per cent). The share of barren and uncultivable land was found to be maximum in Firozabad (3.25 per cent) Maulanafollowed Azad by Mahamaya Library, Nagar (2.01 perAligarh cent) and Kanshiram Muslim Nagar University(1.76 per cent). Finally, the distribution of pastures in the various districts was also observed. It was found to be maximum in Mahamaya Nagar (0.58 per cent) followed by Aligarh (0.47 per cent) and Firozabad (0.26 per cent).
57 Road Network: The Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab is well connected by different parts of the state and the country by railway and road network. The Grand trunk road passes through the centre of the region connecting Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar and Etah. Agra and Firozabad districts are well connected to NCR by the Yamuna expressway and Bombay by NH3.Further, Mathura, Agra and Firozabad are connected to NCR through NH 2. The Delhi–Kanpur railway line and the Delhi- Mumbai railway route passes through the region.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Source: State Atlas of Uttar Pradesh, NATMO (2011) Figure 2.10: Study Area: Road Network
58 References:
1. Burrard S.G. (1912) Origin of the Himalayan Mountains: Geological Survey of India, No.12, Calcutta, p11,
2. Census of India (1991) Uttar Pradesh Series-25, Table A-2, Directorate of Census Operations , Lucknow.
3. Khullar D.R., (2000) India: A Comprehensive Geography, Kalyani Publisher, New Delhi, pp. 59-61
4. NATMO (2011) State Atlas of Uttar Pradesh, National Atlas and Thematic Mapping Organization, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, Kolkata.
5. Primary Census Abstract (1991), Census of India, Directorate of Census Operations, Lucknow.
6. Primary Census Abstract (2001), Census of India, Directorate of Census Operations, Lucknow.
7. Primary Census Abstract (2011), Census of India, Directorate of Census Operations, Lucknow.
8. Statistical Bulletin (2011) District Aligarh, Etah, Kasganj, Mathura, Agra, Firozabad and Hathras, Economics and Statistics, Division, Planning Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
9. Wadia D. N. (1958) Geology of India, London, p 385.
10. http://statisticstimes.com/economy/sectorwise-gdp-contribution-of-india.php
11. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ (Central intelligence Agency)
12. https://www.statisticstimes.com
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
59 This chapter includes the changing trend of area under major crops of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. The share of ten major crops in all the seven districts of the study area taken for the year 2015 and the trend of area under cultivation and production of those same crops were studied since 1995. Thus, the trend of area under cultivation of all those crops was calculated from 1995 to 2015 with the help of using three years moving average. For example, the data pertaining to the year 1995 was found out by three years moving average of 1994, 1995, and 1996.
AREA UNDER MAJOR CROPS (1995-2015)
The table 3.1 reveals that largest area under Rice noticed in Aligarh whereas lowest in Agra during 1995. The largest area under Wheat was found in Aligarh and low area under Wheat has been recorded in Mathura. Aligarh has registered the largest area under Barley and whereas lowest in Mathura. In case of Millet, Aligarh district covers the maximum area and minimum area under this crop has been observed in Mathura district. Largest area under Moong, Arhar and Sugarcane recorded in Aligarh whereas smallest in Agra. Aligarh has largest area of Mustard and Potato whereas Mathura district recorded smallest area under Mustard as well as Potato.
Table 3.1: Crop-wise Area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995) (In Hectares) S.No. Crops Aligarh Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD 1 Rice 15994 5331 1777 592 155 70849 2 Wheat 224969 74990 24997 8332 16058 580909 3 Barley 34194 11398 3799 1266 2538 77911 4 Millet 89406 29802 9934 3311 13307 243029 5 Maize 51133 17044 5681 1894 85 120339 6 Moong 16086 5362 1787 596 134 44758 7 Arhar 24114 8038 2679 893 673 36458 8 Mustard 51834 17278 5759 1920 11722 142508 Maulana9 Sugarcane Azad Library,11270 3757 Aligarh1252 Muslim417 19University21543 10 Potato 5245 1748 583 194 3951 34003 TOTAL 524245 174748 58249 19416 48643 1372307 Source: District Statistical Booklet 1994, 1995 & 1996.
60 Table 3.2: Crop-wise Area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2000) (In Hectares) Mahamaya S.No. Crops Aligarh Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD Nagar 1 Rice 33400 9778 43157 20420 10388 255 117398 2 Wheat 210383 93370 204111 106867 68517 18155 701404 3 Barley 22839 9154 15306 13897 6451 2484 70132 4 Millet 80313 43119 70627 60922 27782 13469 296233 5 Maize 41410 7938 60385 8685 448 105 118972 6 Moong 5824 4110 13536 2320 662 36 26489 7 Arhar 16632 6982 6129 1495 2128 255 33621 8 Mustard 20619 15481 16874 13335 11230 6110 83649 9 Sugarcane 8990 484 9757 189 1099 10 20528 10 Potato 6130 12501 8006 20252 5549 8099 60538 TOTAL 446541 202918 447889 248382 134255 48979 1528963 Source: District Statistical Booklet 1999, 2000 & 2001.
The table 3.2 shows that largest area under Rice is found in Etah and smallest in Agra. Aligarh has registered largest area under Wheat and Agra has the smallest area under Wheat in 2000. Aligarh has registered largest area under Barley, Millet, Arhar, Mustard and Sugarcane crops whereas smallest in Agra. Maximum area under maize and Moong has been noticed in Etah and minimum area under maize and Moong has been observed in Agra. Largest area under Potato has been observed in Firozabad whereas smallest area observed in Mathura.
Table 3.3 depicts that the largest area under Rice has been found in Aligarh followed by Etah and Firozabad whereas lowest area has been observed in Agra. Higher area under Barley, Millet, Arhar, Mustard and Sugarcane has been recorded in Aligarh whereas lowest area in Agra. Etah has largest area of Wheat, maize and Moong whereas Agra has shown the smallest area under these crops. Mahamaya Nagar has shown the maximum area under Potato followed by Firozabad, Agra, Aligarh, Etah and Mathura. Sugarcane has largest share of area under cultivation in Aligarh followed by Etah whereas all the other districts have very less area under MaulanaSugarcane cultivation. Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
61 Table 3.3: Crop-wise Area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2005) (In Hectares) Mahamaya S.No. Crops Aligarh Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD Nagar 1 Rice 43370 10316 38213 15341 8619 159 116018 2 Wheat 218204 91036 226455 103625 67366 15852 722538 3 Barley 14955 5546 12958 10909 4651 1876 50895 4 Millet 82761 47452 78740 65689 24992 13346 312979 5 Maize 9552 1649 21707 3128 64 40 36139 6 Moong 3300 1874 4585 1366 688 11 11824 7 Arhar 17899 6403 5546 802 1172 119 31940 8 Mustard 23933 12632 17287 14528 15941 5713 90034 9 Sugarcane 9283 444 8917 123 383 11 19161 10 Potato 11404 26116 10061 21639 7868 11916 89005 TOTAL 434662 203467 424468 237150 131744 49043 1480534 Source: District Statistical Booklet 2004, 2005 & 2006.
Table 3.4 depicts that largest area under Rice is registered in Aligarh Followed by Etah and Mahamaya Nagar. Similarly area under Wheat was found to be maximum in Aligarh followed by Etah and Firozabad. Other crops like Millet, Moong, Arhar, Mustard and Sugarcane have largest area in Aligarh. Etah district has registered largest area under Barley and Agra shown the smallest area under this crop. Kanshiram Nagar shares the maximum area under Maize followed by Etah Firozabad, Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Mathura and Agra. Largest area under Potato crop is found in Firozabad followed by Mahamaya Nagar whereas smallest area was found in in Kanshiram Nagar during 2010.
Table 3.5 shows that the area under Rice, Wheat, Millet, Moong, Arhar, Mustard has been found maximum in Aligarh while Agra district has shown the smallest area under these crops. Largest area under maize and Sugarcane has been registered in Kanshiram Nagar whereas smallest in Agra. Etah district has shown the maximum area under Barley whereas minimum area under this crop has been registered in Agra district. Largest area under Potatoes been observed in Firozabad Maulanafollowed Azad by Mahamaya Library, Nagar, Aligarh, Aligarh Mathura, Agra, Muslim Etah and Kanshiram University Nagar.
62 Table 3.4: Crop-wise Area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2010) (In Hectares) Mahamaya Kanshiram S.No. Crops Aligarh Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD Nagar Nagar 1 Rice 66195 17768 19414 15515 19051 10501 178 148622 2 Wheat 224012 85093 135520 96155 102561 67637 16749 727726 3 Barley 7968 2578 9010 3230 7755 2925 1574 35040 4 Millet 89071 43655 42402 35481 67818 24489 12921 315836 5 Maize 305 195 1531 2492 469 22 37 5051 6 Moong 3607 1449 3061 1186 1344 852 21 11519 7 Arhar 12333 4322 3103 1544 1172 888 95 23457 8 Mustard 18575 7802 11080 8332 9208 15795 3166 73958 9 Sugarcane 7487 220 245 6636 76 357 5 15027 10 Potato 22193 40297 6183 4043 46369 9419 13316 141819 TOTAL 451745 203379 231549 174615 255821 132886 48061 1498055 Source: District Statistical Booklet 2009, 2010 & 2011.
Table 3.5: Crop wise area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (2015) (In Hectares) Mahamaya Kanshiram S.No. Crops Aligarh Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD Nagar Nagar 1 Rice 88450 25057 22145 16807 22081 10088 739 185367 2 Wheat 222666 82031 134363 96101 100046 66678 14984 716870 3 Barley 7885 2051 7955 2745 7654 2548 1252 32090 4 Millet 88362 44345 48912 42770 50610 25557 12885 313441 5 Maize 334 316 2643 5188 1044 42 33 9598 6 Moong 4353 1628 3068 1128 1521 752 30 12480 7 Arhar 10097 4067 1762 1530 782 982 100 19321 8 Mustard 18536 8056 9392 9546 12477 14136 3070 75214 9 Sugarcane 7062 239 212 7364 89 473 3 15442 10 Potato 23173 45639 6072 4464 48920 11987 11861 152115 TOTAL 470918 213429 236523 187643 245223 133242 44958 1531937 Source: District Statistical Booklet 2014, 2015 & 2016.
MaulanaTable 3.6 Azad shows that Library, the total area under AligarhRice was 70849 Muslim hectares in Universitythe year 1995 whereas it has increased to 185367 hectares in 2015 in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. The area under Wheat shows an increasing trend in all study periods. It occupied an area of 580909 hectares in 1995 which increased to 722538 hectares in 2005. The area further increased to 716870 hectares in 2015. The area under Barley was 77911 hectares in 1995 and it has declined as 32090 hectares in 2015. The area
63 under Millet has been slightly increased from 243029 hectares in 1995 to 313441 hectares in 2015. Maize is also one of the staple foods of the people of the study region. The area under this category was 120339 hectares in 1995 which reduced to 9598 hectares in 2015. The total area of Moong in middle Ganga Yamuna Doab was 44758 hectares in 1995 and it rapidly declined to 12480 hectares in 2015.The total area under Arhar was 36458 hectares in 1995 which declined as 19321 hectares in 2015. The area of Mustard was 142508 hectares in 1995 while it come down as 75214 hectares in 2015. The area under Sugarcane was 21543 hectares and it constantly declined to 15442 hectares in 2015. It is clearly seen that the area under Potato has increased from 34003 hectares in 1995 to 152115 hectares in 2015.
Table 3.6: Crop-wise Area under Cultivation in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) (In Hectares) S.No. Crops 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1 Rice 70849 117398 116018 148622 185367 2 Wheat 580909 701404 722538 727726 716870 3 Barley 77911 70132 50895 35040 32090 4 Millet 243029 296233 312979 315836 313441 5 Maize 120339 118972 36139 5051 9598 6 Moong 44758 26489 11824 11519 12480 7 Arhar 36458 33621 31940 23457 19321 8 Mustard 142508 83649 90034 73958 75214 9 Sugarcane 21543 20528 19161 15027 15442 10 Potato 34003 60538 89005 141819 152115 TOTAL MGYD 1372307 1528963 1480534 1498055 1531937 Source: District Statistical Booklet of Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra (1994 to 2016).
District-wise Trend of Major Crops:
The district wise analysis of major crops in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab reveals that there has been a change in area under all the crops in almost each district. The figures 3.01 to 3.10 reveal the trend of area under major crops in Aligarh District.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
64 ALIGARH Rice: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 17771x - 3830.1 100000 R² = 0.9822 80000 60000 40000 20000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR Figure 3.01: Trend of Area under Rice in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH Wheat: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 902.27x + 217340 230000 R² = 0.0567
220000
210000 AREA (Hectares) AREA 200000 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.02: Trend of Area under Wheat in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH Barley: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = -6749x + 37815 R² = 0.9165 40000 30000 20000
AREA (Hectares) AREA 10000 0 Maulana Azad1995 Library,2000 Aligarh2005 2010 Muslim2015 University YEAR
Figure 3.03: Trend of Area under Barley in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
65 ALIGARH Millet: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 96000 y = 667x + 83982 R² = 0.0641 88000
80000
72000 AREA AREA (Hectares) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.04: Trend of Area under Millet in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGAH Maize : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015
60000 y = -14270x + 63358 R² = 0.8816 40000
20000 AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.05: Trend of Area under Maize in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH Mustard : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 60000 y = -6864x + 47291 R² = 0.5824 40000
20000 AREA AREA (Hectares) Maulana Azad0 Library, Aligarh Muslim University 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.06: Trend of Area under Mustard in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
66 ALIGARH Sugarcane : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = -991.77x + 11794 12000 R² = 0.8852 8000
4000
AREA AREA (Hectaras) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
YEAR Figure 3.07: Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH Potato : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 5191.8x - 1946.2 30000 R² = 0.911
20000
10000
0 AREA AREA (Hectares) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.08: Trend of Area under Potato in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH Moong: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015
20000 y = -2568.4x + 14339 15000 R² = 0.5712 10000 5000 AREA AREA (Hectares) Maulana 0Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.09: Trend of Area under Moong in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
67 ALIGARH Arhar: Area under Cultivation 30000 1995-2015 25000 y = -3233.4x + 25915 R² = 0.8866 20000 15000 10000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 5000 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR Figure 3.10: Trend of Area under Arhar in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
It is observed that area under Rice and Potato has shown a regular and significant increase in Aligarh district whereas all the other crops have either shown a decline in area or little change during the same period. Wheat and Millet have shown a very little change whereas Arhar, Moong, Sugarcane, Mustard, Maize and Barley have shown a regular decline. Thus, the areas under these crops have shifted to Potato and Rice over the last two decades. This change is due to the changing situation of agricultural marketing, irrigation, perception of farmers regarding farming and increasing demand of few crops in the market.
The figures 3.11 to 3.20 reveal the trend of area under major crops in Etah District. It was observed Rice, Wheat, Millet and Potato have shown an overall growth during the last two decades. The increase in area under Rice has taken place in 2010 and thereafter a regular decline was observed till 2015.The area under Potato increased from 1995 to 2015 and thereafter it declined in 2010 and 2015. Still an overall increase was observed. Further, Barley, Maize, Mustard, Arhar, Sugarcane and Moong have registered a decline during the same time period. The decline is found more in case of Mustard and Arhar. The area under Mustard cultivation has shown a regular decline in all years except 2005 where a little growth was registered. MaulanaSimilarly, AzadArhar has Library, also reported a Aligarh regular decline Muslim except in 2005 University with a meager increase in area under cultivation.
68 ETAH Rice: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 988.43x + 22687 50000 R² = 0.0105
25000 AREA (Hectares) AREA 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.11: Trend of Area under Rice in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH Wheat: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 5015.5x + 140041 300000 R² = 0.0171 200000 100000
Area (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.12: Trend of Area under Wheat in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH Barley: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = -1318.3x + 15280 20000 R² = 0.4931 15000 10000 5000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Maulana Azad Library, AligarhYEAR Muslim University Figure 3.13: Trend of Area under Barley in Etah District (1995-2015)
69 ETAH Millet: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 999.42x + 51098 100000 R² = 0.0061 75000 50000 25000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.14: Trend of Area under Millet in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH Maize: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = -8765.7x + 46959 80000 R² = 0.3366 60000 40000 20000 0 AREA AREA (Hectares) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year
Figure 3.15: Trend of Area under Maize in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH Mustard : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = -2156.7x + 20852 20000 R² = 0.7905
10000 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 0 AREA AREA (Hectares) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.16: Trend of Area under Mustard in Etah District (1995-2015)
70 ETAH Sugarcane : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = -1660x + 9557.7 15000 R² = 0.3274 10000
5000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.17: Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH Potato : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 15000 y = 682.31x + 4367.2 R² = 0.1232 10000
5000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.18: Trend of Area under Potato in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH Arhar : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 9000 y = -1557.8x + 9588.9 R² = 0.9766 6000
Maulana3000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.19: Trend of Area under Arhar in Etah District (1995-2015)
71 ETAH Moong: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 16000 y = -1506.4x + 10441 12000 R² = 0.297
8000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 4000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.20: Trend of Area under Moong in Etah District (1995-2015)
Figure 3.21 to 3.30 have shown the trend of area under different major crops of Firozabad district. It is observed that the district has shown an overall growth in all the crops except Moong, Arhar, Sugarcane and Maize during the last two decades. The area under Rice increased from 1995 to 2000 and thereafter it declined in 2005. Further a little increase was observed during 2005 to 2015. In case of Wheat also the increase in area was observed in 2000 but a gradual decline was followed in the coming years. A step increase in area under Potato cultivation is observed in the Firozabad district. Thus, an increase in area found in 2000 and a little decline was seen in 2005. Thereafter further increase was seen in 2010 and a little decline in 2015. Still, an overall increase was found in area under Potato. The crops showing decline in area were Moong, Arhar, Sugarcane and Maize whereas Maize and Sugarcane has shown a larger decline during the same time period.
FIROZABAD Rice: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 3923.8x + 3962.6 R² = 0.5741 30000
20000 Maulana Azad10000 Library, Aligarh Muslim University AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.21: Trend of Area under Rice in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
72 FIROZABAD Wheat:Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 14579x + 43881 160000 R² = 0.4315 120000 80000 40000 Area (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.22: Trend of Area under Wheat in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD Barley: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 16000 y = 156.6x + 8333.1 R² = 0.0042 12000 8000 4000 AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.23: Trend of Area under Barley in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD Millet: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 8824.8x + 24520 80000 R² = 0.341
60000
40000
Maulana AREA (Hectares) 20000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.24: Trend of Area under Millet in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
73 FIROZABAD Maize :Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 12000 y = -1749.2x + 9048.8 R² = 0.6573 9000 6000 3000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.25: Trend of Area under Maize in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD Arhar: Area under Cultivation y = -411.77x + 2621.4 1995-2015 R² = 0.6959
3000 2000 1000 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 AREA AREA (Hectares) YEAR
AREA Linear (AREA)
Figure 3.26: Trend of Area under Arhar in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD Mustard : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 930.97x + 8268.6 18000 R² = 0.1708
12000
6000
Maulana Azad AREA (Hectares) Library, Aligarh Muslim University 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.27: Trend of Area under Mustard in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
74 FIROZABAD Sugarcane : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015
1600 y = -243.98x + 1077.7 1200 R² = 0.5753
800
400 AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.28: Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD Potato : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 12279x - 9284.8 60000 R² = 0.9271
40000
20000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 YEAR
Figure 3.29: Trend of Area under Potato in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD Moong : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = -150.94x + 2120.5 R² = 0.3464 3000 2000 1000 0 Maulana AREA (Hectares) Azad1995 Library,2000 Aligarh2005 2010 Muslim2015 University YEAR
Figure 3.30: Trend of Area under Moong in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
75 Figure 3.31 to 3.40 have shown the trend of area under different major crops of Mathura district. It was observed that the district has shown an overall growth in all the crops except Maize since 1995 to 2015. The area under Rice, Wheat, Mustard and Potato has shown a significant growth along with other crops during the same time period. The area under Rice has increased significantly during 2000 and then it declined in 2005. Similarly Wheat has also shown a large increase in 2000 and thereafter a little declining trend is seen in 2005, 2010 and 2015. Still, overall increase is registered in case of Wheat. Potato has shown a remarkable increase and a regular growth is found in area under cultivation. Maize has exceptionally shown a decline and the decline is also regular over the last years. The decline in Maize can be associated with the increasing area under other crops. Thus Maize has been gradually replaced by other crops in the district.
Figure 3.41 to 3.50 have shown the trend of area under different major crops of Mahamaya Nagar district during 2000 to 2015. It was observed that the district has decline in area under all crops except Potato Millet and Rice. Thus, it was found that most of the crops have a declining trend although some have shown a very little decline in area like Wheat but some crops have shown a rapid decline in area. The maximum decline is found in Maize. It has shown a rapid decline in 2000 and 2010 and thereafter decline was found in 2015 also. Similarly, Barley, Moong, Mustard, Sugarcane and Arhar have also registered a regular decline in area. The crops showing increase in area have gradually gained the area of the other crops. Millet has shown a marginal increase in area over the last two decades but Potato and Rice have shown a regular increasing trend in area.
MATHURA Rice: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 1910.5x + 2306.3 16000 R² = 0.51
12000 Maulana Azad8000 Library, Aligarh Muslim University
AREA AREA (Hectares) 4000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.31: Trend of Area under Rice in Mathura District (1995-2015)
76 MATHURA Wheat: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 11581x + 20963 R² = 0.4778 75000
50000
25000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.32: Trend of Area under Wheat in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA Barley: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 8000 y = -96.289x + 3857.3 R² = 0.0057 6000
4000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 2000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.33: Trend of Area under Barley in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA Millet: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 4119.8x + 8866.7 40000 R² = 0.4165
30000
Maulana20000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
10000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.34: Trend of Area under Millet in Mathura District (1995-2015)
77 MATHURA Maize : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 2400 y = -412.99x + 1732.9 R² = 0.6627
1600
AREA AREA (Hectares) 800
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.35: Trend of Area under Maize in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA Arhar : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 3000 y = -106.16x + 1531 R² = 0.1025 2000
1000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.36: Trend of Area under Arhar in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA Mustard: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 2899.7x + 3105.3 20000 R² = 0.6159
Maulana Azad10000 Library, Aligarh Muslim University AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.37: Trend of Area under Mustard in Mathura District (1995-2015)
78 MATHURA Sugarcane: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 1200 y = -63.148x + 735.39 R² = 0.1022 800
AREA AREA (Hectares) 400
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.38: Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA Potato: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 18000 y = 2745.4x - 1233.1 R² = 0.9434
12000
6000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.39: Trend of Area under Potato in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA Moong : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015
1200 y = 50.275x + 559.27 R² = 0.6695 800 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 400 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.40: Trend of Area under Moong in Mathura District (1995-2015)
79 MAHAMAYA NAGAR Rice: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 30000 y = 5329x + 2407.3 R² = 0.9109
20000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 10000
0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.41: Trend of Area under Rice in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR Wheat: Area under Cultivation y = -3996x + 97873 2000-2015 R² = 0.9727 100000
75000
50000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 25000
0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.42: Trend of Area under Wheat in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR Barley: Area under Cultivation 2000-2015 12000 y = -2427.9x + 10902 R² = 0.9208 9000 Maulana Azad6000 Library, Aligarh Muslim University 3000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.43: Trend of Area under Barley in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
80 MAHAMAYA NAGAR Millet: Area Under Cultivation 1995-2015 50000
46000
y = -11.9x + 44673 42000 R² = 6E-05 AREA AREA (Hectares)
38000 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.44: Trend of Area under Millet in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR Maize: Area under Cultivation 2000-2015 9000
6000 y = -2432.2x + 8604.8
AREA AREA (Hectares) R² = 0.7324 3000
0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.45: Trend of Area under Maize in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR Moong: Area under Cultivation 2000-2015 6000 y = -787.13x + 4233.2 R² = 0.6691 Maulana4000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 2000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.46: Trend of Area under Moong in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
81 MAHAMAYA NAGAR Mustard: Area under Cultivation 2000-2015 20000 y = -2710.5x + 17769 R² = 0.8823
10000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.47: Trend of Area under Mustard in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR Sugarcane: Area under Cultivation 2000-2015 600 y = -95.767x + 586 R² = 0.8216 400
200 AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.48: Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR Potato: Area under Cultivation 2000-2015 60000 y = 11359x + 2740.2 R² = 0.9677
40000 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 20000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.49: Trend of Area under Potato in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
82 MAHAMAYA NAGAR Arhar: Area under Cultivation 2000-2015 8000 y = -1082.5x + 8149.5 R² = 0.9099 6000
4000 AREA AREA (Hectares) 2000
0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.50: Trend of Area under Arhar in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
Figure 3.51 to 3.60 have shown the trend of area under different major crops of Agra district during 1995 to 2015. It was observed that the district has shown an overall decline in area under all crops except Potato and Rice. Although it varies from one crop to another.The steep decline was found in Sugarcane, Maize, Arhar and Mustard while Wheat, Barley, Millet and Moong have shown a gentle decline during the same period. The area under Sugarcane was very small and it has shown a regular decline over the last years. Presently in 2015 the area under Sugarcane is quite less with respect to other crops. The area under Arhar has also shown a decline regularly over the last years. Further, increase in area was observed both in Rice and Potato but the area under Potato has increased significantly and it has been recorded almost three time growth during 1995 to 2015. In case of Rice, increase in area is almost five times but still the total area under Rice is much smaller than area under Potato.
AGRA Rice: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 109.1x - 30.033 800 R² = 0.4746
600
Maulana400 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Area (Hectares) 200
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.51: Trend of Area under Rice in Agra District (1995-2015)
83 AGRA Wheat: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 19000
18000 y = -355.43x + 17426 17000 R² = 0.2249 Hectares) ( 16000
15000 AREA 14000 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.52: Trend of Area under Wheat in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA Barley: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 ) 3000 y = -348.17x + 2989.3 R² = 0.9587 2000
AREA AREA (Hectares 1000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.53: Trend of Area under Barley in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA Millet: Area under Cultivation y = -139.1x + 13603 14000 1995-2015 R² = 0.6884
13500
Maulana Azad13000 Library, Aligarh Muslim University AREA AREA (Hectares) 12500 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.54: Trend of Area under Millet in Agra District (1995-2015)
84 AGRA Maize: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015
120 y = -17.167x + 111.3 R² = 0.6886
80
40 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.55: Trend of Area under Maize in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA Arhar: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015
900 y = -130.63x + 640.57 R² = 0.703 600
AREA AREA (Hectares) 300
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.56: Trend of Area under Arhar in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA Mustard: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 18000
y = -2024.9x + 12031 12000 R² = 0.8292
Maulana AREA (Hectares) 6000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.57: Trend of Area under Mustard in Agra District (1995-2015)
85 AGRA Sugarcane: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 30 y = -3.7667x + 20.967 R² = 0.8782 20
10 AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.58: Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA Potato: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 2103.8x + 3517.3 18000 R² = 0.7606
12000
6000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.59: Trend of Area under Potato in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA Moong: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 180 y = -22.467x + 113.73 R² = 0.503 120 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
AREA AREA (Hectares) 60
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.60: Trend of Area under Moong in Agra District (1995-2015)
86 Figure 3.61 to 3.70 have shown the trend of area under different major crops of Kanshiram Nagar district during 2010 to 2015. Among the total 10 crops under the study most of the crops have shown and increasing trend. Only four crops have shown a declining trend. The crops showing a decline in area are Wheat, Barley, Moong and Arhar. Among them Wheat and Barley have shown a steeper decline with respect to Moong and Arhar. Among the crops showing increase in area, the large increase in area is recorded in Rice, Sugarcane, Mustard and Potato. The area under Rice was found to be 15515 hectares which increased to 16807 hectares in 2015. Similarly, area under Sugarcane was found to be 6636 hectares which increased to 7364 hectares. The area under Potato was found to be 4043 hectares which increased to 4464 hectares in 2015. In case of Mustard also the increase was registered from 8332 hectares to 9546 hectares.
KANSHIRAM NAGAR Rice: Area under Cultivation 2010-2015 y = 1291.7x + 14224 R² = 1 17000
16000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 15000
14000 2010 2015
Figure 3.61: Trend of Area under Rice in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR Wheat: Area under Cultivation 2010-2015 96200 y = -54.333x + 96210 R² = 1 Maulana96150 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 96100 AREA AREA (Hectares) 96050 2010 2015
Figure 3.62: Trend of Area under Wheat in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
87 KANSHIRAM NAGAR Barley: Area under Cultivation 2010-2015 3300 y = -485x + 3715.3 3000 R² = 1
AREA AREA (Hectares) 2700
2400 2010 2015
Figure 3.63: Trend of Area under Barley in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR Moong: Area under Cultivation 2010-2015 1200 y = -57.667x + 1243.7 R² = 1 1150
AREA AREA (Hectares) 1100
1050 2010 2015
Figure 3.64: Trend of Area under Moong in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR Arhar: Area under Cultivation 2010-2015
1550 y = -14x + 1558 R² = 1 1540 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 1530 AREA AREA (Hectares)
1520 2010 2015
Figure 3.65: Trend of Area under Arhar in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
88 KANSHIRAM NAGAR Sugarcane: Area under Cultivation 2010-2015 y = 728x + 5908.3 7600 R² = 1
7200
6800
6400 AREA AREA (Hectares) 6000 2010 2015
Figure 3.66: Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR Potato: Area under Cultivation 2010-2015 4500 y = 420.67x + 3622.3 R² = 1 4200
3900 AREA AREA (Hectares)
3600 2010 2015
Figure 3.67: Trend of Area under Potato in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR Mustard: Area under Cultivation 2010-2015 y = 1214.7x + 7117 10000 R² = 1
Maulana9000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 8000 AREA AREA (Hectares) 7000 2010 2015
Figure 3.68: Trend of Area under Mustard in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
89 KANSHIRAM NAGAR Millet: Area under Cultivation 2010-2015 y = 7289x + 28192 R² = 1 60000
40000
20000 AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 2010 2015
AREA Linear (AREA)
Figure 3.69: Trend of Area under Millet in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR Maize: AREA UNDER CULTIVATION 2010-2015 6000 y = 2696x - 204 R² = 1
4000
2000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 2010 2015
Figure 3.70: Trend of Area under Maize in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
TREND OF AREA UNDER MAJOR CROPS IN MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Rice: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 26026x + 49573 200000 R² = 0.9359 160000 Maulana Azad120000 Library, Aligarh Muslim University 80000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 40000 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 3.71: Trend of Area under Rice in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
90 MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Wheat: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 y = 29824x + 600416 R² = 0.5839 800000
600000
400000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 200000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.72: Trend of Area under Wheat in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Potato: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 200000 y = 31750x + 244.93 R² = 0.9696 150000
100000
50000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.73: Trend of Area under Potato in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Millet: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015) y = 16043x + 248175 400000 R² = 0.6788 300000
Maulana200000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
AREA AREA (Hectares) 100000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.74: Trend of Area under Millet in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
91 MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Maize: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 160000 y = -33540x + 158641 120000 R² = 0.8504
80000
40000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.75: Trend of Area under Maize in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Barley: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 100000 y = -12674x + 91234 R² = 0.9572 75000
50000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 25000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.76: Trend of Area under Barley in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Mustard : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015
180000 y = -14428x + 136357 R² = 0.6452 120000
Maulana Azad60000 Library, Aligarh Muslim University AREA AREA (Hectares) 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.77: Trend of Area under Mustard in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
92 MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Sugarcane : Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 30000 y = -1770.2x + 23651 R² = 0.8929 20000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 10000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.78: Trend of Area under Sugarcane in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Arhar: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 40000 y = -4443.8x + 42291 R² = 0.9403 30000
20000
AREA AREA (Hectares) 10000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.79: Trend of Area under Arhar in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB Moong: Area under Cultivation 1995-2015 60000 y = -7952.5x + 45271 R² = 0.7525 Maulana40000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 20000 AREA AREA (Hectares)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 3.80: Trend of Area under Moong in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
93 Figure 3.71 to 3.80 have shown the trend of area under different major crops of Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab during 1995 to 2015. The figures show that most of the crops have shown a decline in area over the last two decades and only Rice, Wheat, Potato and Millet have shown an increase in area. It was observed that the total area under cultivation in the MGYD during 1995 was 1372307 hectares which rose to 1531937 hectares (table 3.6). Thus a little increase in total area under cultivation was also reported still it was observed that most of the crops have shown a declining trend .Thus, it shows that few crops have gradually replaced most of the crops in the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab.
It was observed that during the last two decades the area under Potato has increased by 347.36 per cent followed by Rice (161.63 per cent), Millets (28.97 per cent) and Wheat (23.40 per cent). Further, decline was found to be maximum in Maize (-92.02 per cent) followed by Moong (-72.11 per cent), Barley (-58.81 per cent) and Mustard (-47.22 per cent). In terms of area maximum area was increased in Wheat (135961 hectares) followed by Potato (118112 hectares) Rice (114518 hectares) and Millet (70412 hectares). The decline in area was found to be maximum in Maize (-110741 hectares), Mustard (-67294 hectares), Barley (-45121 hectares) and Moong (-32278 hectares).
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
94 This chapter includes the trend of production for major crops of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. The crops were arranged in descending order with respect to area under cultivation in the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab in 2015. Thus, ten crops covering the largest area under cultivation were selected for studying the trend of production in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab since 1995. Thus, the trend of production of all those crops was calculated since 1995 to 2015 with the help of using three years simple moving average.
CROP-WISE PATTERN OF PRODUCTION OF MAJOR CROPS (1995-2015):
The table 4.1 reveals that largest production in the region is found in wheat, sugarcane and potato whereas the minimum production was seen in Moong followed by Arhar and rice in 1995. On analyzing the crop-wise scenario it was found that wheat has a dominating position in the region except Firozabad and Agra districts where maximum production is contributed by potato. The district-wise overview of major crop production in the region reveals that the largest production is recorded in Aligarh followed by Etah whereas minimum production is reported in Agra district. In Aligarh the largest production among other crops was found to be of Wheat followed by Sugarcane and millet and the minimum production is reported for Moong which is similar to that of the whole Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. In case of Etah it is wheat having the largest production followed by sugarcane and potato.
Table 4.1: Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995) (Metric Tonnes) S. No. Crops Aligarh Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD 1 Rice 26730 63302 24255 10652 300 125239 2 Wheat 689182 512685 276312 136847 52330 1667356 3 Barley 105958 44534 42642 18049 7172 218354 4 Millet 127544 100218 63592 29473 16375 337203 5 Maize 76232 94991 11665 981 110 183979 6 Moong 9250 18273 1490 2029 68 31110 Maulana7 ArharAzad Library,20880 6317 Aligarh1895 Muslim1842 1170 University32104 8 Mustard 61748 25942 33737 32819 16391 170637 9 Sugarcane 672410 495984 14735 73179 1083 1257391 10 Potato 122144 154353 356506 60540 113512 807055 TOTAL 1912078 1516599 826829 366411 208511 4830428 Source: District Statistical Booklet 1994, 1995 & 1996.
95 Table 4.2: Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2000) (Metric Tonnes) S. Mahamaya Crops Aligarh Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD No. Nagar 1 Rice 63262 17200 71557 34033 21481 469 208002 2 Wheat 678531 313866 624450 316109 222240 60344 2215540 3 Barley 83058 26750 41285 41433 20498 7409 220433 4 Millet 125106 41566 112862 88363 31627 19053 418577 5 Maize 84319 13584 108792 17228 810 187 224920 6 Moong 1804 1438 7116 919 130 12 11419 7 Arhar 12384 4761 4866 1041 1522 440 25014 8 Mustard 25662 19291 19380 17675 13993 8581 104582 9 Sugarcane 561299 26570 505654 9540 62995 509 1166567 10 Potato 162855 375112 165098 551370 160296 258427 1673158 TOTAL 1798280 840138 1661060 1077711 535592 355431 6268212 Source: District Statistical Booklet 1999, 2000 & 2001.
The table 4.2 reveals that largest production in the region is found in wheat, Potato and Sugarcane whereas the minimum production was seen in Moong followed by Arhar and Mustard in 2000. On analyzing the crop wise scenario it was found that wheat has a dominating position in the region as well as all the districts except Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad and Agra where maximum production of potato is recorded. In case of the various districts it was observed that largest production is recorded in Aligarh followed by Etah and Firozabad whereas minimum production is reported in Agra district. In Aligarh the largest production among all crops was found to be of Wheat followed by Sugarcane and potato and the minimum production is reported for Moong which is similar to that of the whole Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab in 2000. In case of Etah it was wheat having the largest production followed by sugarcane and potato but the minimum production is found in Arhar.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
96 Table 4.3: Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2005) (Metric Tonnes) S. No. Crops Aligarh Mahamaya Nagar Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD 1 Rice 92098 21187 81466 45118 20786 346 261001 2 Wheat 637857 272954 613069 305219 207325 49081 2085505 3 Barley 42539 47873 34754 30532 12769 4947 173414 4 Millet 147033 77683 133552 123273 30786 21114 533441 5 Maize 46840 6982 105011 19004 128 74 178039 6 Moong 1297 1078 2967 743 382 5 6472 7 Arhar 13803 6206 5237 691 1038 106 27081 8 Mustard 30210 15239 21850 18756 23429 7530 117014 9 Sugarcane 509546 22730 453508 6367 17545 565 1010261 10 Potato 280720 782406 199027 685031 223680 299099 2469963 TOTAL 1801943 1254338 1650441 1234734 537868 382867 6862191 Source: District Statistical Booklet 2004, 2005 & 2006.
The table 4.3 reveals that largest production in the region is found in Potato followed by wheat and Sugarcane whereas the minimum production was seen in Moong followed by Arhar and Mustard in 2005. On analyzing the crop wise scenario it was found that Potato has a dominating position in the region as well as all the districts except Aligarh and Etah where Wheat has the maximum production. In case of the various districts it was observed that largest production is recorded in Aligarh followed by Etah and Mahamaya Nagar whereas minimum production is reported in Agra district. In Aligarh the largest production among all crops was found to be of Wheat followed by Sugarcane and potato and the minimum production is reported for Moong. In case of Etah Potato was having the largest production followed by wheat and millets and the minimum production is found in Moong.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
97 Table 4.4: Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2010) (Metric Tonnes) S. No. Crops Aligarh Mahamaya Nagar Etah Kanshiram Nagar Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD 1 Rice 146019 33155 44423 35207 53794 22818 372 335788 2 Wheat 780055 259566 442044 315769 363388 240458 60527 2461807 3 Barley 27495 7739 27709 10353 24636 9264 5018 112214 4 Millet 169797 54674 92973 79354 144158 29760 23177 593893 5 Maize 41041 6750 53791 71333 21299 50 63 194327 6 Moong 2398 1104 2287 814 950 640 14 8207 7 Arhar 8580 3166 4144 1298 881 616 70 18755 8 Mustard 26244 9880 17585 13745 13333 27035 5432 113254 9 Sugarcane 433645 12343 13669 351353 3570 17289 236 832105 10 Potato 556137 1813645 174554 111362 1310042 275867 333374 4574981 TOTAL 2191411 2202022 873179 990588 1936051 623797 428283 9245331 Source: District Statistical Booklet 2009, 2010 & 2011.
The table 4.4 reveals that largest production in the region is found in Potato followed by wheat and Sugarcane whereas the minimum production was seen in Moong followed by Arhar and Barley in 2010. On analyzing the crop wise scenario it was found that Potato has a dominating position in the region as well as all the districts except Aligarh, Etah and Kanshiram Nagar where Wheat recorded maximum production in Aligarh and Etah and Sugarcane had maximum production in Kanshiram Nagar. In case of the various districts it was observed that largest production is recorded in Mahamaya Nagar, Aligarh and Firozabad whereas minimum production is reported in Agra district. In Mahamaya Nagar the largest production among all crops was found to be of Potato followed by wheat and Millet and the minimum production is reported for Moong. In case of Aligarh wheat was having the largest production followed by potato and Sugarcane the minimum production is found in Moong. Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh98 Muslim University Table 4.5: Crop-wise Pattern of Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2015) (Metric Tonnes) S. No. Crops Aligarh Mahamaya Nagar Etah Kanshiram Nagar Firozabad Mathura Agra MGYD 1 Rice 203596 54037 52591 41094 62628 24181 1850 439977 2 Wheat 689395 264020 398998 291175 306218 207037 48868 2205711 3 Barley 23997 6283 24997 8354 22062 7382 3732 96807 4 Millet 227173 87351 145860 133303 167006 35633 28356 824682 5 Maize 47571 6756 76350 110641 17537 102 80 259037 6 Moong 2348 1067 1900 735 1057 615 26 7748 7 Arhar 11671 4012 2181 1864 1204 1172 116 22220 8 Mustard 27787 7963 16014 15988 14655 21211 4913 108531 9 Sugarcane 429400 14273 12708 431979 5058 21186 137 914741 10 Potato 606344 1248545 154561 110956 1284495 300395 308167 4013463 TOTAL 2269282 1694307 886160 1146089 1881920 618914 396245 8892917 Source: District Statistical Booklet 2014, 2015 & 2016.
The table 4.5 reveals that largest production in the region is found in Potato followed by wheat and Sugarcane whereas the minimum production was seen in Moong followed by Arhar and Barley in 2015. On analyzing the crop wise scenario it was found that Potato has a dominating position in the region as well as all the districts except Aligarh, Etah and Kanshiram Nagar where Wheat recorded maximum production in Aligarh and Etah and Sugarcane had maximum production in Kanshiram Nagar. In case of the various districts it was observed that largest production is recorded in Aligarh followed by Firozabad and Mahamaya nagar whereas minimum production is reported in Agra district. In Aligarh the largest production among all crops was found to be of wheat followed by potato and sugarcane and the minimum production is reported for Moong. In case of Firozabad potato was having the largest production followed by wheat and millet whereas the minimum production is found in Moong.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh99 Muslim University Table 4.6: Trend of Crop-wise Production in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) (Metric Tonnes) S. No. Crops 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1 Rice 125239 208002 261001 335788 439977 2 Wheat 1667356 2215539 2085504 2461807 2205711 3 Barley 218354 220433 173414 112214 96806 4 Millet 337203 418578 533440 593894 824682 5 Maize 183979 224920 178039 194327 259038 6 Moong 31110 11418 6472 8207 7749 7 Arhar 32104 25013 27081 18754 22220 8 Mustard 170637 104583 117013 113253 108530 9 Sugarcane 1257391 1166568 1010261 832105 914742 10 Potato 807054 1673159 2469963 4574981 4013463 TOTAL 4830427 6268213 6862188 9245330 8892918 Source: District Statistical Booklet of Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra (1994 to 2016).
The table 4.6 represents the crop wise production in the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab since 1995. It was found that the total production of all crops in the study area has increased by 4,06,22,490 metric tonnes since 1995. Thus, it accounts for an overall growth of 84.10 percent. Among the ten selected crops Potato, wheat, millet, rice and maize have shown an increase in the last two decades. The maximum increase in production was found in potato followed by wheat and millet. Thus, potato production has increased tremendously (397.30 per cent) because the area under potato has increased from 34003 hectares in 1995 to 152115 hectares in 2015. Thus, increasing area has led to increasing production over the last two decades. Wheat has shown an increase of 32.29 per cent in total production and it can be directly associated with the increasing area under wheat cultivation during 1995 to 2015 (Table 3.6).
The decline in production was found to be largest in Sugarcane (3, 42,649 Maulanametric tonnes), BarleyAzad (1,21,548 Library,metric tonnes Aligarh) and Mustard Muslim (62,107 metric Universitytonnes) during 1995 to 2015.This decline is associated with decline in the area under sugarcane from 21,543 hectares to 15,442 hectares during 1995 to 2015.Thus, a decline of 6,101 hectares was reported in two decades. Similarly, decline in production of Barley and Mustard can be related directly to the decline in the area
100 under cultivation during 1995 to 2015. Thus, it was observed that there is a decline of 45,821 hectares in area under cultivation of Barley and 67,294 hectares of area under cultivation of Mustard during last two decades.
DISTRICT-WISE TREND OF PRODUCTION OF MAJOR CROPS:
The district wise analysis of major crops in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab reveals that there has been a change in production under all the crops in each district. The figures 4.01 to 4.10 reveal the trend of production under major crops in Aligarh District. All the crops have shown a declining trend in production except rice, wheat, millet and potato. Thus, we find that rice has shown a tremendous increase in production since 1995. The increase in production in wheat is very small and production is almost same for 1995 and 2015. In between these years fluctuations in wheat production was observed in 2005 and 2015. In case of Potato a steady growth in production is found during the same period. Decline in production in other crops is related to decline in area under cultivation. This decline is due to shifting cropping pattern towards few specific crops. Steep decline is production is found in Barley and sugarcane.
ALIGARH PRODUCTION OF RICE y = 8729.8x - 2E+07 1995-2015 r² = 0.9806 300000
200000
100000
0 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
YEARS Rice Linear (Rice)
Figure 4.01: Trend of Rice Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015) Maulana Azad Library,*MT= Aligarh Metric Tonnes Muslim University
101 ALIGARH PRODUCTION OF WHEAT y = 2039x - 3E+06 1995-2015 r² = 0.0959 800000 (MT)
700000 PRODUCTION
600000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.02: Trend of Wheat Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH PRODUCTION OF BARLEY 120000 1995-2015 100000 y = -4389.7x + 9E+06 (MT) r² = 0.9186 80000 60000 40000
PRODUCTION 20000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.03: Trend of Barley Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH PRODUCTION OF MILLET y = 4879x - 1E+07 r² = 0.8447 250000 1995-2015
200000 (MT) 150000
Maulana100000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
50000 PRODUCTION 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.04: Trend of Millet Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
102 ALIGARH y = -2012x + 4E+06 PRODUCTION OF MAIZE r² = 0.6577 1995-2015 100000
(M) 80000 60000 40000 20000
PRODUCTION 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 405: Trend of Maize Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH PRODUCTION OF MOONG y = -264.21x + 533154 1995-2015 r² = 0.403 10000
8000 (MT) 6000
4000
2000 PRODUCTION 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.06: Trend of Moong Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH PRODUCTION OF ARHAR 1995-2015 y = -444.4x + 90453 25000 r² = 0.592
(MT) 20000
15000
Maulana10000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
5000 PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.07: Trend of Arhar Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
103 ALIGARH PRODUCTION OF MUSTARD 80000 1995-2015 y = -1346.8x + 3E+06 r² = 0.4763
(MT) 60000
40000
PRODUCTION 20000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.08: Trend of Mustard Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE y = -12273x + 3E+07 800000 1995-2015 r² = 0.9253
(MT) 600000
400000
200000 PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.09: Trend of Sugarcane Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
ALIGARH PRODUCTION OF POTATO 1995-2015 y = 27234x - 5E+07 800000 r² = 0.9278 (MT) 600000 Maulana400000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 200000 PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.10: Trend of Potato Production in Aligarh District (1995-2015)
104 The figures 4.11 to 4.20 reveal the trend of production under major crops in Etah District. All the crops have shown a declining trend in production except Millet and Potato. Thus, the production of Millets was found to increase over the last two decades. This increase was found in 2000, 2005 and 2015 whereas 2010 has registered a decline in production. Still there is an overall increase in the total production of Millets in the district. Similarly, Potato has also registered an increase in production in 2000 and 2005 but a decline in 2010 and 2015. Still, overall increase in production was registered over the last two decades. Decline in production was found in most of the crops but steep decline is observed in Sugarcane, Mustard and Moong. Further, low level of decline in production was observed in Rice and Wheat.
ETAH PRODUCTION OF RICE 100000 y = -971.13x + 2E+06 1995-2015 r² = 0.2719
75000
50000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 25000
0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Figure 4.11: Trend of Rice Production in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH PRODUCTION OF WHEAT y = -8195.6x + 2E+07 800000 1995-2015 r² = 0.4164
600000
400000
200000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Maulana Azad Library, AligarhWheat MuslimLinear (Wheat) University
Figure 4.12: Trend of Wheat Production in Etah District (1995-2015)
105 ETAH PRODUCTION OF BARLEY 1995-2015 y = -1053x + 2E+06 50000 r² = 0.9792
(MT) 40000
30000
20000
PRODUCTION 10000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.13: Trend of Barley Production in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH PRODUCTION OF MILLET y = 1427.9x - 3E+06 160000 1995-2015 r² = 0.2571 (MT) 120000
80000
PRODUCTION 40000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.14: Trend of Millet Production in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH PRODUCTION OF MAIZE 1995-2015 120000 y = -1845.6x + 4E+06 r² = 0.4102 100000 80000 60000 40000
Maulana (MT)PRODUCTION 20000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.15: Trend of Maize Production in Etah District (1995-2015)
106 ETAH PRODUCTION OF MOONG 1995-2015 y = -751.48x + 2E+06 r² = 0.7416 20000 (MT)
10000 PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.16: Trend of Moong Production in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH PRODUCTION OF ARHAR 1995-2015 y = -179.87x + 365195 8000 r² = 0.854
6000
4000
2000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.17: Trend of Arhar Production in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH PRODUCTION OF MUSTARD 1995-2015 y = -433.02x + 888359 32000 r² = 0.772
(MT) 24000
Maulana16000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
8000 PRODUCTION 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.18: Trend of Mustard Production in Etah District (1995-2015)
107 ETAH 800000 PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE 1995-2015 y = -29171x + 6E+07 (MT) 600000 r² = 0.7916
400000 PRODUCTION 200000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.19: Trend of Sugarcane Production in Etah District (1995-2015)
ETAH 300000 PRODUCTION OF POTATO 1995-2015 (MT)
200000
PRODUCTION 100000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.20: Trend of Potato Production in Etah District (1995-2015) MT= Metric Tonnes
The figures 4.21 to 4.30 reveal the trend of production under major crops in Firozabad District. All the crops have shown a declining trend in production except Wheat, Rice, Maize, Millet and Potato. The increasing trend was found to be more in case of Rice, Millet and Potato. In case of Rice continuous growth is observed over Maulanathe last two decades. Azad Further, Library, Millet has also Aligarh shown the same Muslim increasing trend University like Rice. In case of Potato increase in production was observed consistently except in 2005 where a little decline in production is recorded. Other crops showing increase in production are Wheat and Maize. Both these crops have not recorded a regular increase in production but still an overall increase in production is recorded over the
108 same period. Barkey, Moong, Arhar, Mustard and Sugarcane have recorded a decline in production over the last two decades. Among these crops barley and sugarcane have recorded a regular decline in production.
FIROZABAD PRODUCTION OF RICE y = 1930.1x - 4E+06 r² = 0.9978 80000 1995-2015 (MT) 60000
40000
PRODUCTION 20000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.21: Trend of Rice Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD y = 2141.8x - 4E+06 PRODUCTION OF WHEAT r² = 0.2867 400000 1995-2015
(MT) 300000
200000
100000 PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.22: Trend of Wheat Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
109 FIROZABAD PRODUCTION OF BARLEY 1995-2015 y = -1159.1x + 2E+06 60000 r² = 0.9408
45000
30000
15000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.23: Trend of Barley Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD PRODUCTION OF MILLET 1995-2015 y = 5252.5x - 1E+07 r² = 0.9924 180000
120000
60000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.24: Trend of Millet Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD PRODUCTION OF MAIZE 1995-2015 y = 316.29x - 616822 r² = 0.4933 25000
20000 Maulana15000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 10000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 5000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.25: Trend of Maize Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
110 FIROZABAD PRODUCTION OF MOONG y = -16.693x + 34502 1995-2015 r² = 0.222 1600
1200
800
400 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.26: Trend of Moong Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD PRODUCTION OF ARHAR 1995-2015 y = -30.827x + 62950 r² = 0.2786 2000
1500
1000
500 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.27: Trend of Arhar Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD PRODUCTION OF MUSTARD 1995-2015 y = -850.13x + 2E+06 r² = 0.6742 40000
30000
20000 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 10000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.28: Trend of Mustard Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
111 FIROZABAD PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE 1995-2015 16000 y = -506.47x + 1E+06 r² = 0.8162
12000
8000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 4000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.29: Trend of Sugarcane Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015)
FIROZABAD PRODUCTION OF POTATO 1995-2015 y = 52293x - 1E+08 r² = 0.9123 1600000
1200000
800000
400000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.30: Trend of Potato Production in Firozabad District (1995-2015) MT= Metric Tonnes
The figures 4.31 to 4.40 reveal the trend of production under major crops in Mathura District. All the crops have shown a declining trend in production except Wheat, Rice, Maize, Millet and Potato. Potato has shown a tremendous increase in production over the last two decades. Thus a regular increase in observed over the period of time. Further, Rice and Wheat have also shown an overall increase but they have not registered a regular growth in production. The remaining six crops have Maulanashown a declinin Azadg trend in production.Library, Barley, AligarhMaize and Sugarcane Muslim have registered University a larger decline with respect to Arhar, Moong and Mustard over the same period. Barley has registered a decline in production regularly except in 2005 where an increase in production was recorded. Further, Maize has recorded a regular decline except in 2015 where an increase in production was recorded.
112 MATHURA PRODUCTION OF RICE 1995-2015 y = 567.86x - 1E+06 32000 r² = 0.6973
24000
16000
8000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.31: Trend of Rice Production in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA PRODUCTION OF WHEAT 1995-2015 y = 3172x - 6E+06 r² = 0.4067 320000
240000
160000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 80000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.32: Trend of Wheat Production in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA PRODUCTION OF BARLEY 1995-2015 y = -651.36x + 1E+06 24000 r² = 0.845
18000
12000
Maulana (MT)PRODUCTION 6000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.33: Trend of Barley Production in Mathura District (1995-2015)
113 MATHURA PRODUCTION OF MILLET 1995-2015 y = 209.08x - 387749 r² = 0.4418 40000
30000
20000
10000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.34: Trend of Millet Production in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA PRODUCTION OF MAIZE 1995-2015 y = -50.383x + 101432 1200 r² = 0.8024
900
600
300 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.35: Trend of Maize Production in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA PRODUCTION OF MOONG 1995-2015 y = -46.382x + 93755 2500 r² = 0.2459
2000
1500
Maulana1000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 500
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.36: Trend of Moong Production in Mathura District (1995-2015)
114 MATHURA PRODUCTION OF ARHAR 1995-2015 y = -44.92x + 91303 r² = 0.5749 2000
1500
1000
500 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.37: Trend of Arhar Production in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA PRODUCTION OF MUSTARD 1995-2015 y = -203.48x + 431671 40000 r² = 0.0531
32000
24000
16000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 8000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.38: Trend of Mustard Production in Mathura District (1995-2015)
MATHURA PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE 1995-2015 y = -2993.8x + 6E+06 80000 r² = 0.7491
60000
Maulana 40000Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 20000
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.39: Trend of Sugarcane Production in Mathura District (1995-2015)
115 MATHURA PRODUCTION OF POTATO 1995-2015 y = 11906x - 2E+07 r² = 0.9491 400000
300000
200000
100000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.40: Trend of Potato Production in Mathura District (1995-2015) MT= Metric Tonnes
The figures 4.41 to 4.50 reveal the trend of production under major crops in Agra District. All the crops have shown a declining trend in production except Rice, Millet and Potato. Rice has shown a tremendous increase in production over the last two decades. Although there was a declining trend from 2000 to 2010 but a steep increase in production was recorded in 2015. Thus overall increase in production of Rice was recorded during 1995 to 2015. Millet has shown a regular increase in production over the last two decades. The production of Millet in 1995 was 16,375 metric tonnes which increased to 28356 metric tonnes in 2015. Similarly Potato has also shown an increasing trend since 1995 except 2015 where a decline in Potato production was recorded. The remaining seven crops have shown a declining trend in production. Barley, Mustard and Sugarcane have registered a larger decline with respect to Wheat, Arhar, Moong and Maize over the same period. Barley has registered a decline in production regularly except in 2005 and 2010 where a marginal increase in production was recorded. Further, Mustard has recorded a regular decline during 1995 to 2015 and Sugarcane has also followed the same declining trend except in 2005 where a little increase in production was registered. Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
116 AGRA PRODUCTION OF RICE y = 300.42x - 233.91 1995-2015 r² = 0.5117 2000 1500 1000 500
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.41: Trend of Rice Production in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA PRODUCTION OF WHEAT 1995-2015 y = -674.17x + 56253 80000 r² = 0.0334 60000
40000
20000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.42: Trend of Wheat Production in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA PRODUCTION OF BARLEY 1995-2015 10000 y = -927.26x + 8437.4 r² = 0.861
5000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
Maulana 0Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.43: Trend of Barley Production in Agra District (1995-2015)
117 AGRA PRODUCTION OF MILLET 1995-2015 y = 2808.5x + 13189 r² = 0.9602 30000
20000
10000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.44: Trend of Millet Production in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA PRODUCTION OF MAIZE 1995-2015 y = -18.317x + 157.94 200 r² = 0.3326 150
100
50
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.45: Trend of Maize Production in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA PRODUCTION OF MOONG 1995-2015 80 y = -8.199x + 49.37 60 r² = 0.265
40 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 20 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.46: Trend of Moong Production in Agra District (1995-2015)
118 AGRA PRODUCTION OF ARHAR 1995-2015 y = -247.86x + 1123.8 1500 r² = 0.7073
1000
500
0
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 -500
Figure 4.47: Trend of Arhar Production in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA PRODUCTION OF MUSTARD 1995-2015 20000 y = -2610.6x + 16401 15000 r² = 0.7973
10000
5000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.48: Trend of Mustard Production in Agra District (1995-2015)
AGRA PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE 1995-2015 y = -216.52x + 1155.8 1200 r² = 0.8594 1000 800 Maulana600 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 400
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 200 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.49: Trend of Sugarcane Production in Agra District (1995-2015)
119 AGRA PRODUCTION OF POTATO y = 46426x + 123239 1995-2015 r² = 0.7029 400000
300000
200000
100000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.50: Trend of Potato Production in Agra District (1995-2015) MT= Metric Tonnes
The figures 4.51 to 4.60 reveal the trend of production under major crops in Mahamaya Nagar district. All the crops have shown a declining trend in production except Rice, Millet and Potato. This situation is similar to that of Agra district as discussed before. Rice has shown a tremendous increase in production over the last two decades. The production rose from 17200 metric tonnes in 1995 to 54037 metric tonnes in 2015. Thus overall increase in production of Rice was recorded during 1995 to 2015. Millet has shown an overall increase in production over the last two decades. The production of Millet in 1995 was 41,566 metric tonnes which increased to 87,351 metric tonnes in 2015.Similarly Potato has also shown an increasing trend since 1995 except in 2015 where a decline in Potato production was recorded. The remaining seven crops have shown a declining trend in production. Mustard and Sugarcane have registered a larger decline with respect to Wheat, Barley, Arhar, Moong and Maize over the same period. Mustard has registered a regular decline in production regularly except in 2010 and where a marginal increase in production was recorded. Further, Sugarcane has recorded a regular decline during 1995 to 2010 and thereafter an increase in production was registered. Still, overall decline in Sugarcane production was observed during last two decades. Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
120 MAHAMAYA NAGAR PRODUCTION OF RICE 2000-2015 y = 2449.6x - 5E+06 r² = 0.9131 60000
45000
30000
15000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1998 2004 2010 2016
Figure 4.51: Trend of Rice Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR PRODUCTION OF WHEAT 2000-2015 y = -3258.5x + 7E+06 r² = 0.7188 400000
300000
200000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 100000
0 1998 2004 2010 2016
Figure 4.52: Trend of Wheat Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR PRODUCTION OF BARLEY 2000-2015 y = -2030.7x + 4E+06 60000 r² = 0.4513
45000
30000 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 15000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Figure 4.53: Trend of Barley Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
121 MAHAMAYA NAGAR PRODUCTION OF MILLET 2000-2015 y = 2286.9x - 5E+06 r² = 0.4968 100000 80000 60000 40000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 20000 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Figure 4.54: Trend of Millet Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
HATHRAS PRODUCTION OF MAIZE y = -414.29x + 840212 2000-2015 r² = 0.6264 15000
12000
9000
6000
3000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1998 2004 2010 2016
Figure 4.55: Trend of Maize Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR PRODUCTION OF MOONG 2000-2015 y = -21.713x + 44761 r² = 0.6205 1800 (MT)
1200 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 600 PRODUCTION
0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Figure 4.56: Trend of Moong Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
122 MAHAMAYA NAGAR PRODUCTION OF MUSTARD 24000 2000-2015 y = -786.86x + 2E+06 18000 r² = 0.9715
12000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 6000
0 1997 2003 2009 2015
Figure 4.57: Trend of Mustard Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE 2000-2015 y = -945.56x + 2E+06 r² = 0.8106 32000
24000
16000
8000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Figure 4.58: Trend of Sugarcane Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
MAHAMAYA NAGAR PRODUCTION OF ARHAR 2000-2015 y = -105.73x + 216783 r² = 0.2799 7500
5000
Maulana2500 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Figure 4.59: Trend of Arhar Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015)
123 MAHAMAYA NAGAR PRODUCTION OF POTATO 2000-2015 y = 73031x - 1E+08 r² = 0.58 2000000
1500000
1000000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 500000
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.60: Trend of Potato Production in Mahamaya Nagar District (2000-2015) MT= Metric Tonnes
The figures 4.61 to 4.70 reveal the trend of production under major crops in Kanshiram Nagar district. Most of the crops have shown an increase in production except Wheat, Barley, Moong and Potato. This situation is not similar to the other districts where most of the crops have shown a declining trend. Further, Potato has generally shown an increase in production in all the districts but it’s not in case of Kanshiram Nagar. Maize and Rice have shown a higher growth in production with respect to other crops. The production of Rice was recorded as 35,207 in 1995 which rose to 41,094 metric tonnes in 2015. Thus a tremendous increase in rice production took place over the last two decades. Maize production was reported as 71333 metric tonnes in 1995 which rose to 110641 metric tonnes in 2015. This increase in production was recorded in a short span of five years only. The crops have shown a declining trend in production had variable decline over the same period. Potato and Wheat have shown a larger decline in production than Barley and Moong.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
124 KANSHIRAM NAGAR PRODUCTION OF RICE 2010-2015 y = 1177.5x - 2E+06 42000 r² = 1.00
40000
38000
36000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
34000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 4.61: Trend of Rice Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR PRODUCTION OF WHEAT 2010-2015 y = -24594x + 340363 310000 r² = 1.00
300000
290000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
280000 2010 2015
Figure 4.62: Trend of Wheat Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR PRODUCTION OF MAIZE 120000 2010-2015
100000 y = 7861.7x - 2E+07 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim r²University = 1.00 80000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
60000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Figure 4.63: Trend of Maize Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
125 KANSHIRAM NAGAR PRODUCTION OF BARLEY 12000 2010-2015 y = -1999x + 12352 r² = 1.00 10000
8000
6000
4000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 2000
0 2010 2015
Figure 4.64: Trend of Barley Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR PRODUCTION OF MILLET 160000 2010-2015
120000 y = 10790x - 2E+07 r² = 1.00 80000
40000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 4.65: Trend of Millet Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR 850 PRODUCTION OF MOONG y = -15.8x + 32572 2010-2015 r² = 1.00
800
Maulana750 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
700 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 4.66: Trend of Moong Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015
126 KANSHIRAM NAGAR PRODUCTION OF ARHAR 2100 y = 113.13x - 226100 2010-2015 r² = 1.00 1700
1300
900 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION
500 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 4.67: Trend of Arhar Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE y = 16125x - 3E+07 500000 2010-2015 r² = 1.00 400000
300000
200000
100000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 4.68: Trend of Sugarcane Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
KANSHIRAM NAGAR PRODUCTION OF MUSTARD 17000 y = 448.6x - 887941 2010-2015 r² = 1.00
16000
15000 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 14000
13000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 4.69: Trend of Mustard Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
127 KANSHIRAM NAGAR 111500 PRODUCTION OF POTATO y = -81.2x + 274574 2010-2015 r² = 1.00 (MT)
111000 PRODUCTION 110500 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 4.70: Trend of Potato Production in Kanshiram Nagar District (2010-2015)
TREND OF PRODUCTION OF MAJOR CROPS IN MIDDLE GANGA- YAMUNA DOAB
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB PRODUCTION OF RICE 1995-2015 y = 75726x + 46823 500000 r² = 0.9883 400000 300000 200000 100000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.71: Trend of Rice Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB PRODUCTION OF WHEAT 1995-2015 y = 132298x + 2E+06 3000000 r² = 0.5161
2000000 Maulana1000000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.72: Trend of Wheat Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
128 MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB PRODUCTION OF BARLEY y = -35132x + 269639 1995-2015 r² = 0.9194 250000 200000 150000 100000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 50000 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.73: Trend of Barley Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB PRODUCTION OF MILLET 1995-2015 y = 115027x + 196477 r² = 0.9461 900000
600000
300000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.74: Trend of Millet Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB PRODUCTION OF MAIZE 1995-2015 y = 11953x + 172203 r² = 0.3138 300000 250000 200000 150000 Maulana100000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 50000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.75: Trend of Maize Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
129 MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB y = -4993.4x + 27971 PRODUCTION OF MOONG r² = 0.5886 1995-2015 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000
PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 5000 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.76: Trend of Moong Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB PRODUCTION OF ARHAR y = -2602.5x + 32842 1995-2015 r² = 0.6672 40000
30000
20000
10000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.77: Trend of Arhar Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB PRODUCTION OF MUSTARD 1995-2015 y = -11554x + 157466 r² = 0.4528 200000
150000 Maulana100000 Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University 50000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.78: Trend of Mustard Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
130 MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB PRODUCTION OF SUGARCANE y = -101976x + 1E+06 1995-2015 r² = 0.8455 1500000
1000000
500000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.79: Trend of Sugarcane Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB PRODUCTION OF POTATO 1995-2015 y = 931464x - 86668 5000000 r² = 0.8737 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 PRODUCTION (MT)PRODUCTION 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 4.80: Trend of Potato Production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015) MT= Metric Tonnes The figures 4.71 to 4.80 reveal the trend of production under major crops in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. Rice, Wheat, Millet, Maize and Potato have shown an increase in production while Barley, Arhar, Moong, Mustard and Sugarcane have registered a decline during the same period. Among the crops showing increase in overall production Rice, Millet and Potato have shown a larger increase in production with respect to Wheat and Maize. The rice production was recorded as 12539 metric Maulanatonnes inAzad 1995 which Library, increased by 314738Aligarh metric tonnesMuslim in two decades University to reach 439977 metric tonnes in 2015. Similarly, Millet production was 337203 metric tonnes in 1995 which rose to 824682 metric tonnes. Thus an increase of 487479 metric tonnes was recorded in two decades. In case of Potato the production in 1995 was
131 recorded as 807054 metric tonnes which increased tremendously to 4013463 metric tonnes in 2015.
The crops showing a declining trend in production had recorded variable decline over the same period. Barley and Sugarcane have recorded higher decline than moong, Arhar and Mustard. Barley production was reported as 2,18,354 metric tonnes in 1995 which declined to 93803 metric tonnes. Similarly, Sugarcane production also declined from 12,57,391 metric tonnes to 9,14,742 metric tonnes in 2015. The present analysis reveals that production of some crops has increased tremendously in the study area whereas others have reported a steep decline in production during the same period.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
132 LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY:
The Labour productivity is one of the major aspects of agricultural productivity. Labour productivity is in fact the most common form of measurement, and is usually implied in economic discussions when no specific definition is given. In simple terms it is the measure of output upon labour employed. Thus, it is the ratio of the output per –worker. The labour input may be expressed as the total number in the labour force or, in order to take into account the intensity of labour, as the number of man hours worked in agriculture. Similarly the total agricultural output may be taken as the gross farm output or it may be taken as the value added by labour and other factors in the agricultural sector; i.e. the value of fertilizers, pesticides, fuels and other inputs from outside the agricultural sector, is subtracted from the value of the output in order to determine the net contribution of the agricultural sector (FAO, 1963).
Polyzos and Arabatzis (2005) in their paper examine the labor productivity in Greece. They are of the opinion that labor productivity plays an important role for developing the conditions that are necessary for overall economic development. During the study it was found that the differences in the regional economic productivity are the main cause for the rising regional disparity. The article examines the factors responsible for the differences in the labor productivity and it tries to correlate productivity and its determinants empirically by using statistical data from the last five years. Moreover, present article concludes that there is a positive relation between certain factors and productivity such as total employment in the agricultural sector (EMP), hypsometric level of the cultivated agricultural areas (ZON) and the investment in the agricultural sector (INV) while others appeared statistically insignificant such as the irrigated agricultural areas (IRR), the degree of divisibility of the cultivated agricultural areas (PAR) and the geographic position of the cultivated agricultural areas (KLIM).
Thapa (2007) tries to find out the relationship between farm size and Maulanaproductivity Azad in Mardi Library, Watershed Area Aligarh of Kaski district Muslim in the western University hills of Nepal. For the present analysis a total of 250 farmhouses were surveyed. The study concludes that the hypothesis that the inverse relationship is due to variations in regional as well as access to resources among farm holders. The article also examined total cash input and labor hours per hectare in order to measure the productivity
133 differentials. The results are significant and consistent with the model of output per hectare showing that the small farms use more input than the larger farms.
Evenson (1967) studied agricultural productivity with the objective of estimating the impact of research on agricultural production, and estimating the time lag between research expenditure and its impact. The study was based on data from the state agricultural experiment stations (SAES) and all the states of the U. S. for the period of 1938-1963. Econometric method (iterative nonlinear least-squares estimating procedure) was used to estimate an aggregate Cobb-Douglas production function.
Okyere et al. (2011) in their article tries to understand the interaction between farm labor productivity and health and nutrition. Present article is basically a review paper which brings out various ways in which farming, especially farm labor productivity, and health and nutrition are linked. The authors are of the opinion that agricultural production of a region is directly related to the health and nutrition of the people specially farmers because higher the agricultural production higher will be the income of the farmer’s. Higher income of the farmer’s enables them to increase their dietary diversity leading to good health. They also examined the impact of health and nutrition on farm labor productivity. When the health of the people deteriorates it brings hardships to the households’ leading to reduction in the strength of the person to do work, less amount of money for household expenditure, loss of labor and sometimes death. Poor health of the farmer’s lessened the farmer’s ability to innovate, experiment and bring changes in the agricultural systems.
Gutierrez (2000) in his article tries to find out that why agricultural productivity in some countries of the world is higher than the others on the basis of recent theories of economic growth and new data sets for forty four countries during the period 1980-1993. The present paper tries to give the answer of the question which arise out because the growth in agricultural productivity in some region around the world is truth but when we try to find out the reason behind the growth and Maulanaregional imbalance Azad in agricultural Library, productivity Aligarh the unanimity Muslim disappears. The University study concludes that the countries where the agricultural labor productivity is higher have a high rate of investment in physical and human capital as well. Moreover, free trade and agricultural liberalization help to grow agricultural labor productivity and may also lead to the reduction in productivity differentials.
134 Moon and Lee (2013) in their article firstly reviewed the literature related to the concepts, ideas and theories which favor the idea that role of agriculture is important in the process of economic development. Secondly, article compares the agricultural labor productivity of Korea and eleven Southeast Asian countries. The article concludes that improvement in the labour productivity is considerably lagging behind land productivity in Southeast Asian countries, showing that economic condition of the people in rural areas did not improve as much as the measures of agricultural growth rates and cereals yields. A comparative analysis shows that agricultural land productivity in Southeast Asian countries is catching up with Korea but labor productivity has diverged considerably over the last two decades.
Bhalla and Alagh (1983) made an attempt to examine the levels and changes in labour productivity in agriculture in 281 districts of India during 1962-65 to 1970- 73 and to statistically explain the inter-district variation in labour productivity in these regions by factors like intensity of use of capital and other important inputs. The variation in male worker productivity is explained using double log regression analysis. The study found that tractor alone was able to explain fairly large variation in labour productivity in both periods. Since high growth districts were the predominant users of available tractors and tube wells, capital intensity per worker was the main determinant of labour productivity in these districts. Fixed capital alone was important, but additional variables like gross cropped area and fertilizers resulted in significant increase in the explanation of variation in labour productivity. As investment in modern equipment like tractors and tube wells was limited and even the working capital requirements were quite low in traditional agriculture, labour productivity depended more on the vagaries of monsoons than on quantum of fixed and variable capital.
Gorman M and Pandey M (2010) in their article opined that during the last four decades the disparity in the agricultural labor productivity across the developing world has increased substantially. The article tries to answer that to what extent did Maulanathe diffusion Azad of Green Library, Revolution seed Aligarh varieties contribute Muslimto increasing University agricultural labor productivity disparity across the developing nations. For analyzing the agricultural labor productivity present article has taken into account about 79 countries over a period of 1965-2000. Almost 40 per cent of the variation in
135 agricultural labor productivity across countries can be attributed to the variation in capital, fertilizer and land per worker.
Chang and Zepeda (2001) determined how to promote agricultural productivity growth to achieve sustainable food security most efficiently in Asia and the Pacific. The study looked at the role of investment, both in physical and human capital, in maintaining and increasing agricultural productivity. In order to achieve the objectives the study used TFP and partial factor productivity functions. Results indicate that agricultural output growth has remained positive from 1961 to 1994 with only one exception, Japan, compared to a slowdown during 1975-1987 in output and labour productivity growth in Australia and the United States.
Dayal (2010) in his article for obtaining the map productivity pattern in India opted three index of agricultural productivity namely; land productivity, labor productivity and aggregate productivity. The article traces out that there is a large regional disparity in the levels of productivity. On the basis of regression analysis the article shows that the spatial variation of land productivity is positively related to fertilizer use, irrigation and urban-industrial development and is negatively related to population density. Labor productivity is positively associated with agricultural wages and fertilizer use and negatively with the density of agricultural workers on net sown area.
Nicolini (2011) in her article tries to trace out the evolution of labour productivity across Spanish regions during the period from 1977 to 2002. Through applying the Kernel technique the author focused on the transition dynamics of labour productivity and its determinants in industry and services. The labour productivity across Spanish regions in both the sector shows a convergence process in the 1977- 1993 sub periods that was largely governed by the movement of human capital. Moreover, during 1977 to 1986 the convergence dynamics across the regions largely occurred in industry, while in 1986 to 1993 the same happened to services. The Spanish region shows that the human capital effect is less important and the Maulanainvestment in physicalAzad capital Library, seems not Aligarh to have a triggering Muslim effect on University labour productivity growth.
The present study also aims to calculate the labour productivity in the study area since 1995 to 2015. The labour productivity was calculated by Dev S.M. (1986
136 and 1988) and K. N. Ninan (1984) and various others as the ratio of total cost of produce to the total labors employed. Thus, the same method has been adopted to calculate the labour productivity. The formula used is as follows:
L P = Tc/La Where, LP=Labour Productivity Tc = Total Cost of Produce (Rs/-) La =Total Agricultural Labours Employed
The tables below show the spatial distribution of labour productivity in the districts of Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. The table 5.01 reveals that the average labour productivity in the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab during 1995 was 41.09 thousand rupees per labour. In terms of agricultural production Aligarh and Etah districts have highest shares in the study area. Among the all districts of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab Etah with 69.46 thousand has the highest labour productivity followed by Firozabad (40.74 thousands rupees/labour). The labour productivity recorded in Mathura and Aligarh district was 23.30 and 31.81 thousand rupees/labour respectively. The districts of the eastern part of the region that includes Etah and Firozabad have high labour productivity as compared to the districts of the western part of the study area. Table 5.01: Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995)
Total Labour Productivity Agricultural Districts Production (In 000 Rs per Labourers (000 Rs) Labour) Aligarh 6606676 207694 31.81 Etah 6332997 91170 69.46 Firozabad 2485535 61007 40.74 Mathura 807512.9 34663 23.30 MaulanaAgra Azad Library,649876 Aligarh16357 Muslim University39.73 Total MGYD 16882596 410891 41.09 Source: Calculated on basis of data obtained from District Statistical Handbook of Aligarh, Etah, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra (1995).
137 Table 5.02: Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2000) Districts Total Agricultural Labour Productivity Production Labourers (In 000 Rs per (000 Rs) Labour) Aligarh 7241921 145093 49.91 Mahamaya Nagar 3433312 83687 41.03 Etah 9311733 91170 102.14 Firozabad 5191295 61007 85.09 Mathura 2864211 34663 82.63 Agra 1075862 16357 65.77 Total MGYD 29118335 431977 67.41 Source: Calculated on basis of data obtained from District Statistical Handbook of Aligarh, Etah, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra (2000).
Table 5.03: Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2005) Districts Total Agricultural Labour Productivity Production Labourers (In 000 Rs per (000 Rs) Labour) Aligarh 10725555 94109 113.97 Mahamaya Nagar 7989895 72854 109.67 Etah 11188730 96713 115.69 Firozabad 7358122 58907 124.91 Mathura 3033362 27944 108.55 Agra 1151815 9422 122.25 Total MGYD 41447479 359949 115.15 Source: Calculated on basis of data obtained from District Statistical Handbook of Aligarh, Etah, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra (2005).
The data given in table 5.02 clearly show that the highest labour productivity during 2000 was recorded by Etah district which was 102.14 thousand rupees per Maulanalabour followed Azadby Firozabad Library, (85.09), Mathura Aligarh (82.63), Agra Muslim(65.77), Aligarh University (49.91) and Mahamaya Nagar (41.03). It is clear that during 2000, the lowest labour productivity was registered in Mathura district of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. The average agricultural production in the study area was 29118335000 rupees during 2000 and number of agricultural labour during the said year was 431977 persons. The
138 average labour productivity in the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab during 2000 was 67.41 thousand rupees per labour. However, in terms of agricultural production Aligarh and Mathura district have sufficient agricultural production in the region but have very low labour productivity as both the district have large number of agricultural labours.
Table 5.04: Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2010)
Districts Total Agricultural Labour Productivity Production Labourers (In 000 Rs per (000 Rs) Labour) Aligarh 17391267 148952 116.76 Mahamaya Nagar 19010854 77479 245.37 Etah 8584821 79940 107.39 Kanshiram Nagar 6723105 64982 103.46 Firozabad 13740165 88589 155.10 Mathura 5124613 40967 125.09 Agra 1599357 16585 96.43 Total MGYD 72174182 517494 139.47 Source: Calculated on basis of data obtained from District Statistical Handbook of Aligarh, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra (2010).
The average labour productivity of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab was 115.15 thousand rupees per labour. Table 5.03 clearly bring out the picture of labour productivity in the study area and is observed that Firozabad district has highest labour productivity (124.91) followed by Agra (122.25), Etah (115.69), Aligarh (113.97) and Mathura (108.55). The lowest labour productivity was found in Mathura district (108.55). In terms of agricultural production Etah and Aligarh districts have considerably highest shares as compare to other districts of the region. The average agricultural production of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab as whole was 41447479000 rupees during 2005 and number of agricultural labour during the same Maulanayear was Azad313709 persons. Library, Largest number Aligarh of agricultural Muslim labourers wasUniversity recorded in Aligarh followed by Etah, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra district.
From the given table 5.04 it is evident that the highest labour productivity during 2010 was found to be in district of Mahamaya Nagar with 245.37 thousand
139 rupees per labour. The highest labour productivity among all other districts of the region is followed by Firozabad (155.10), Mathura (125.09), Aligarh (116.76), Etah (107.39), Kanshiram Nagar (103.46) and Agra district (96.43). The table 5.04 shows that there is huge regional imbalance as Mahamaya Nagar district has 245.37 thousand rupees per labour and ranked first in the study area whereas, Agra district exhibits only 96.43 thousand rupees per labour and is at bottom in terms of labour productivity. The labour productivity gap between high and low productivity district is 148.94 thousand rupees/labour in the study area. The average agricultural production in the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab area was 72174182000 rupees during 2010 and number of agricultural labour during the said year was 517494 persons.
Table 5.05: Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2015)
Total Production Agricultural Labour Productivity Districts (000 Rs) Labourers (In 000 Rs per Labour) Aligarh 29289028.67 148952 196.63 Mahamaya Nagar 19788513.67 77479 255.40 Etah 14114312 79940 176.56 Kanshiram Nagar 12783183.67 64982 196.72 Firozabad 20807572.67 88589 234.88 Mathura 6414473.353 40967 156.58 Agra 3845290.802 16585 231.85 Total MGYD 107042374.8 517494 206.85 Source: Calculated on basis of data obtained from District Statistical Handbook of Aligarh, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra (2015). The perusal study of the table 5.05 demonstrates that during 2015 the average labour productivity of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab area is 206.86 thousand rupees per labour. It is found that Mahamaya Nagar has highest labour productivity (255.40 thousand rupees) per labour followed by Firozabad (234.88), Agra (231.85), Aligarh (196.63), Kanshiram Nagar (196.72), Etah (176.56) and Mathura (156.58) Maulanathousand rupees Azad per labour. Library,Firozabad and Aligarh Agra districts Muslimhave considerably University high labour productivity as compare to the other districts of the study area. The average agricultural production of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab as whole was10, 704.23crorerupees during 2015 and number of agricultural labour during the said year was 517494 persons. The highest number of agricultural labourers as well as
140 agricultural production was recorded in Aligarh district followed by Firozabad district.
Table 5.06: Spatial Distribution of Labour Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
(In 000 Rs per Labour) S.No Districts 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1 Aligarh 31.81 49.91 113.97 116.76 196.63 2 Mahamaya Nagar NA 41.03 109.67 245.37 255.40 3 Etah 69.46 102.14 115.69 107.39 176.56 4 Kanshiram Nagar NA NA NA 103.46 196.72 5 Firozabad 40.74 85.09 124.91 155.10 234.88 6 Mathura 23.30 82.63 108.55 125.09 156.58 7 Agra 39.73 65.77 122.25 96.43 231.85 Total MGYD 41.09 67.41 115.15 139.47 206.85 Source: Calculated on basis of data obtained from District Statistical Handbook of Aligarh, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra (1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 & 2015)
The table 5.06 clearly reveals that during 1995 highest labour productivity (69.46 thousand rupees per labour) in the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab was found to be in Etah district whereas; Mathura has displayed minimum labour productivity (23.73). In the year 2000 again the highest labour productivity was recorded in Etah district (102.14) whereas in 2005 it was Firozabad (124.91) that has exhibited highest labour productivity in the study area. During 2005 the lowest labour productivity was noted in Mathura district (108.55). Mahamaya Nagar district has indicated impressive improvement and ranked first for labour productivity during 2010-2015 in the study area. In the year 2010 and 2015, Agra as well as Mathura district have lowest labour productivity respectively. MaulanaThe Azad table 5 .0Library,6 also highlights Aligarh the year wise Muslim average labour University productivity in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. There is continuous positive growth of labour productivity in the study area as in 1995 the labour productivity was 41.09 thousand rupees per labour and it increased to 206.85 thousand rupees per labour in the year 2015. If we see table 6 we can also visualize the district wise trend and performance
141 of labour productivity in the Doab. The enquiry of the table shows that Aligarh, Kanshiram Nagar and Mathura have shown positive trend of labour productivity during 1995 and 2015. There are three districts of the study area namely Etah, Firozabad and Agra that have revealed erratic trends of labour productivity during the aforesaid period.
Trend of Labour Productivity:
The figure 5.01 shows the trend of labour productivity in Aligarh during the year 1995 to 2015.The year-wise trend of labour productivity in the district reveals steady and continuous growth except the year of 2010 and 2015. The lowest growth was recorded during the year 2010.
Aligarh: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 250
200
150
100
(in 000Rsper labour) 50
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.01
The figure 5.02 reveals the trend of labour productivity during 1995 to 2015. It reveals a steady growth from 2000 to 2010. The growth since 2010 has shown a decline from 2010 to 2015.The figure 5.3 shows the trend of labour productivity in Etah during the year of 1995 and 2015.The year-wise trend of labour productivity in the district reveals unsteady trend and growth of labour productivity. During 1995 and Maulana2005 there had beenAzad steady Library,growth for labour Aligarh productivity in Muslimthe district whereas, University the time period between 2005 and 2010 had experience plumped down trend of labour productivity with negative growth. During the year 2010 and 2015 have shown positive trend of labor productivity and there is constant proliferation of labour productivity.
142 Mahamaya Nagar: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 300
250
200
150
100 (in 000Rsper labour) 50
0 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.02
Etah: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 200
160
120
80 (in 000 Rs per labour) 40
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.03
The figure 5.04 and 5.05 shows the trend of labour productivity in Kanshiram Nagar and Firozabad district. During 2010 to 2015 a steady growth of labour productivity is seen in Kanshiram Nagar whereas a regular growth is found in MaulanaFirozabad Azad district during Library, 1995 and 2005. Aligarh It is observed Muslim from the figure University 5.05 that the year 2005-2010 had shown negative and declining trends of labour productivity in the district. After the year 2010 there is striking upswing in labour productivity in Firozabad district.
143 Kanshiram Nagar: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 250
200
150
100
50 (in 000 Rs per labour)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.04
Firozabad: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 250
200
150
100
(in 000 Rs per labour) 50
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.05
The figure 5.06 shows the trend of labour productivity in Mathura district for the period of 1995 and 2015. It is clearly noticeable from the line graph there is continuous growth trend of labour productivity with only exception of 2005 and 2010 Maulanaperiod during which Azad there was Library, slow growth ofAligarh labour productivity Muslim in the district. University The figure 5.07 shows the trends of labour productivity in Agra district. It is observed from the line that the time period of 1995-2000, 2000-2005 had persistent rise in labour productivity whereas, the year 2005-2010 had shown negative and sharp declining trends of labour productivity in the district. After the year 2010 there is striking pickup in labour productivity in Agra district.
144 Mathura: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 200
150
100
50 (in 000 Rs per labour)
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.06
Agra: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 250
200
150
100
(in 000 Rs per labour) 50
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.07
The figure 5.08 indicates the trends of labour productivity in Middle Ganga- Yamuna Doab as whole. During the mentioned period there is constant growth of labour productivity in the region. The year of 1995-2000 had experienced slow trends whereas during 2000 and 2005 there was sharp increase in labour productivity in the Maulanaregion. AgainAzad the trend Library, line for the year Aligarh 2005 and 2010 Muslimhas a gentle slope Universityas compare to the previous years. It is noticed that the time period between 2010 and 2015 have sharp trend line of labour productivity in the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab.
145 Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab: Trend of Labour Productivity (1995-2015) 250
200
150
100
(In 000 Rs per labour) 50
0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.08 Pattern of Labour Productivity:
The region has been categorized into three classes of high, medium and low. First of all, the mean and standard deviation of labour productivity has been calculated. One standard deviation has been taken as the width of a class. Thus, high grade represents more than mean +0.5 SD, medium grade represents the values between Mean -0.5 SD to mean + 0.5 SD and the low grade represents less than mean -0.5 SD.
The figure 5.09 shows the pattern of Labour productivity in the study area during 1995. Thus, it shows five districts since Mahamaya Nagar and Kanshiram Nagar districts were parts of Aligarh and Etah Districts respectively. The figure 5.09 shows that only Etah district has high labour productivity whereas Agra and Firozabad districts lie in medium category. The remaining two districts Aligarh and Mathura lie in low category. Thus, the eastern and southern part of the study area has higher labour productivity as compared to western part of the middle Ganga Yamuna Maulanadoab Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
146 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 5.09
147 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Figure 5.10
148 The figure 5.10 shows that among the six districts of the study area two districts i.e. Etah and Firozabad fall in high category. This is due to higher production in Firozabad with respect to 1995. The districts in medium category were Agra and Mathura forming a continuous region is south western part of the middle Ganga Yamuna doab. Mathura has shifted from low category in 1995 to medium category in 2000. The remaining two districts ie Aligarh and Mahamaya Nagar fall in low category. Earlier in 1995 both these districts were united and the combined region was represented by Aligarh district which was falling in low category in 1995 also. The distribution of labour productivity in 2005 is shown in figure 5.11. It reveals that there are two districts in high category. Etah has maintained its position in high category along with Mahamaya Nagar which was in low category in 2000. Further, Firozabad which was in high category in 2000 has shifted to low category in 2005. The districts falling in medium category were Mathura and Aligarh making a continuous region in North-west part of the study area. Mathura has maintained its position in the medium category while Aligarh has improved from low category in 2000 to medium category in 2005.The remaining two districts Agra and Firozabad fall in low category. In 2010 there is a large variation in the spatial distribution of labour productivity as shown in figure 5.12.The bifurcation of Etah district has resulted in total seven districts in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. The Mahamaya Nagar district alone is found in high category and it has maintained its position since 2005. Further, Aligarh Mathura and Firozabad were found in medium category. In 2005 Aligarh and Mathura were in medium category and Firozabad was in low category. Thus it has improved and is now falling in medium category. The districts falling in Low category of labour productivity were Etah, Kashiram Nagar and Agra. These three districts form a strip of low labour productivity region in the study area starting from north east to south west. Agra district was already in low productivity region while the Etah district which was located in high category has shifted to low category. In Maulana2008 the Azad Etah district Library, was bifurcated Aligarhand the newly created Muslim Kanshiram University Nagar district was also found to have low labour productivity. This steep decline in labour productivity in the Etah district is due to decline in total production (in Rs) along with a little increase in total labours. In other districts the decline in production was not found thus Etah district has recorded a steep decline in labour productivity during 2010.
149 Maulana Azad Library,Figure 5Aligarh.11 Muslim University
150 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Figure 5.12
151 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 5.13
152 The figure 5.13 shows that there are three districts lying in high category of labour productivity. Thus, Mahamaya Nagar, Agra and Firozabad districts fall in high category. Mahamaya Nagar district has maintained its position in high category while the Agra and Firozabad districts have shifted from low category and medium category respectively. The Districts of Aligarh and Kanshiram Nagar were found in medium category. The Aligarh district has maintained its position while the Kanshiram Nagar district has improved and shifted from low category tomedium category. The districts in low category were Mathura and Etah. Etah was already in low category in 2010 while Mathura was in medium category. Thus, Mathura shifted to low category in 2015.
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY:
Agricultural productivity as the term indicates is the measurement of efficiency of an agricultural system which employs land, labour, capital and other resources (Munir, A., 1992). Agricultural productivity is a multidimensional concept and is the interplay of a multitude of many factors such as environmental, socio- economic and technological. Shafi (1984) has defined agriculture productivity as the ratio of index of total agricultural output to the index of total input used in farm production. According to Dewett (1966) "Productivity expresses the varying relationship between agricultural output and one of the major inputs, like land or labour or capital, other complementary factors remaining the same . . ." It may be borne in mind that productivity is physical rather than a value concept.
Bhatia (1967) has used the term agricultural efficiency instead of agricultural productivity. According to him "the aggregate performance of various crops in regard to their output per acre" is agricultural efficiency. Singh and Dhillon (2000) suggested that the “yield per unit” should be considered to indicate agricultural productivity. This may be defined as the “ratio of index of local agricultural output to the index of total input used in farm production. Land, labour and capital are various aspects of agricultural productivity. These are the best known partial productivity Maulanameasures. Azad 'Land' is viewedLibrary, as area with Aligarh different natural Muslim attributes. It realizes University different rents and varies in purchase price. 'Labour' represents all human services other than decision making and 'capital’ the non-labour resources employed by the farmer.
153 The calculation or measurement of agricultural productivity is a complex task because it involves the measure of relationship between inputs and output in agricultural production. Stamp L.D. (1960) emphasized that areal differences in crop productivity are the result partly of natural advantages of soil, and climate and partly of “farming efficiency”. Farming efficiency refers to the properties and qualities of the various inputs, the manner in which they are combined and utilized for production and effective market demands for the output.
Many scholars have studied different methodological procedures for measuring productivity in agriculture and a substantial literature relating to methodological procedures for measuring productivity in agriculture is available. In the early nineteenth century Thompson R.J. (1926) while measuring the relative productivity of British and Danish farming emphasized and expressed it in terms of gross output of crops and livestock. Buck J.L. (1937) assessed the agricultural progress in China by adopting the approach of Grain Equivalent. For this purpose he converted all the agricultural products into kilograms of grain equivalent in order to select as a unit of measure a kilogram, with whatever kind of grain was predominant in the region. A modification in this method was attempted by Clark and Haswell (1967) by expressing the output in terms of kilograms of wheat equivalent per head of population.
Kendall (1939) taking the acre yield of ten leading crops in each of the forty eight administrative counties in England for four selected years, tried on four coefficients: productivity, ranking, money value and starch equivalent or energy. Of the four coefficients, the ranking coefficient is probably the easiest to calculate and gives a reasonable ranking of counties in order of productivity. To obtain the ranking coefficient, Kendall ranked each of the ten crops in the forty eight counties in order of their yield, and then the sum of the ranks occupied by the unit was divided by the number of the crops considered to obtain the average rank of the unit.
Hirsch H.G. (1943) has suggested ‘Crop yield Index’ as the basis of Maulanaproductivity measurem Azadent. ItLibrary, expresses the average Aligarh of the yields Muslim of various crops University on a farm or in a locality relative to the yields of the same crops on another farm in a second locality. Zobel S.P. (1950) has attempted to determine the Labour productivity. He considered the productivity of labour as the ratio of total output to
154 the total man-hours consumed in the production of that output resulting in output per man-hour.
Huntington and Valkenburg (1952) considered land productivity on the basis of acre yields of eight crops raised very widely in Europe. For each crop, the average yield per acre for Europe as a whole was taken as an index of 100, and the specific yield in each country was calculated accordingly. Stamp L.D. (1952) adopted Kendall’s ranking coefficient by selecting twenty countries and nine crops. The countries were placed in order of output per acre for each crop. The places occupied by each country in respect to the selected crops were then averaged, and from these averages, the ranking coefficient of one, and if it were at the bottom of every list, it would have a ranking coefficient equal to the total number of countries concerned.
Another approach to measure productivity is to convert the total food production into calories. The caloric intake is a measure of the general health of a person because it determines the amount of heat and energy needed by the human body. Thus, Stamp L.D. (l958) has taken calorific value of farm production in measuring the agricultural productivity. He calculated the Standard Nutrition Unit (SNU) by converting all the food production per acre in calories.
Shafi (1960) has calculated this under Indian conditions in the twelve villages of Eastern Uttar Pradesh. He concluded that in the well drained and irrigated villages of Eastern Uttar Pradesh the caloric intake per person amounts to about 2,000 a day. Where the caloric intake drops below 2,000 a day, both standard of living and standard of health are perceptibly lower.
Loomis and Barton (1961) have measured United States agricultural input and productivity in aggregate. To them, aggregate productivity depends upon conceptually consistent measures of agricultural output and input. The measures of inputs include all the production factors that depend directly on the decisions of farmers. Meiburg and Brandt (1962) considered eight indices of agricultural Maulanaproduction Azad of United Library, States which Aligarh cover various phasesMuslim of the period University extending between the years 1866 and 1960.
Mackenzie (1962) has measured the efficiency of production in Canadian agriculture by using the coefficient of output relative to input. He mentions, that the concept of productivity measurement is difficult to define and even more difficult to
155 quantify. Commen (1962) while working out the trends of productivity in agriculture of the state of Kerala (India) has measured productivity on the basis of yield per acre. Enyedi (1964) while describing geographical types of agriculture in Hungary calculated the agricultural productivity as the ratio between total yield of the respective crop in the unit area to total yield of the crop at the national level and total cropped area of the unit to total cropped area at the national level.
Recently Munir (1988) highlighting the weaknesses of Kendall’s ‘ranking coefficient’ and Enyedi’s Productivity Index methods attempted to apply Bhatia’s and Shafi’s methods in calculating the productivity indices of the Sub-Himalayan East region which lies in between the Ghaghara river in the south, and Nepal in the north.
Rahman, H., Wahab, A. and Asif (2008) examined the variations in crop productivity in Ganga-Yamuna Doab using Yang’s ‘Crop Productivity Index’. They examine the crop productivity variations of 17 major crops (grouped under cereal, pulses, oilseeds and cash crops) grown in the districts of the region during 1990-94 and 2000-04. Mandal S and Dhara A. (2012) studied the spatial variation of agriculture productivity using Z - score model and categorized the blocks as Very High, High, Medium and Low of agricultural productivity in south 24 PGS, Districts of West Bengal.
Muthumurugan et al. (2012) suggested composite index analysis to study the agriculture development of Tamil Nadu. He classified the districts based on the index value as highly developed, medium developed and low developed. Pandit P.M. (2012) in his study revealed that road, railway, agricultural labour, bank, good climate and modern technology are the important factors in the agriculture development of Nasik District. Rotaru A.S. et al. (2012) demonstrated factor analysis in agriculture by downsizing the data with various crops in the regions of Romania.
Shafiqullah (2013) applied the technique Z-score model to study regional disparities and agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh. Kumar C. A. and MaulanaManimannan G.Azad (2014) have Library,identified spatial Aligarh pattern of Cauvery Muslim Delta zone University based on agriculture productivity index, based upon Enyedi’s Method .They have considered the production data of 15 major crops for 2011-12 to identify the spatial patterns of productivity. It was found that variations in productivity are influenced by physical and socio economic factors.
156 The present study has used Shafi’s method to calculate the agricultural productivity. According to him the agricultural productivity of a district is to be calculated with the following formula:
AP=(pw/t+ pr/t+ pm/t…………n) : (Pw/T+ Pr/T+ Pm/T…………n)
Where, AP =Agricultural Productivity of a district pw= production of wheat in the district pr= production of rice in the district pm =production of maize in the district t= total cropped area (of the concerned crop) in district Pw= production of wheat in the region Pr= production of rice in the region Pm =production of maize in the region T= total cropped area (of the concerned crop) in the region. n = number of crops
Thus Shafi’s (1972) method was used for calculating the agricultural productivity of all the districts of the study area during 1995 to 2015. In order to find out the coefficient of agricultural productivity ten crops of the region have been selected. These crops represent more than ninety five percent of the total cropped area in the region. The Crop-wise trend of agricultural productivities in Middle Ganga- Yamuna Doab during 1995 is given in table 5.07. The perusal of the table exhibits an interesting result. The maximum coefficient of productivity is recorded in Agra district (1.04) followed by Mathura, Aligarh, Firozabad, and Etah district. As far as crop productivity is concerned Mathura leads in rice productivity (1.22) and least is recorded by Firozabad district (0.93). Agra district shows the highest wheat productivity (1.14) and the lowest is recorded in Mathura (0.87). Barley occupies the leading position (1.11) in Aligarh district and lowest position is occupied by Mathura Maulanadistrict (0.81).Azad Millet Library, shares the same Aligarhproductivity position Muslim (1.03) in both University Aligarh and Etah district. The lowest productivity is found in Agra district (0.89).
157 Table 5.07: Crop-wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (1995)
S.No. Crops Aligarh Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra 1 Rice 0.95 1.02 0.93 1.22 1.09 2 Wheat 1.07 0.93 1.04 0.87 1.14 3 Barley 1.11 0.92 0.95 0.81 1.01 4 Millet 1.03 1.03 0.95 0.97 0.89 5 Maize T. 0.98 1.05 0.84 0.86 0.85 6 Moong T. 0.83 1.21 0.76 0.74 0.73 7 Arhar 0.98 0.97 0.99 1.00 1.97 8 Mustard 0.99 0.90 1.02 1.01 1.17 9 Sugarcane 1.02 0.97 1.00 1.02 0.96 10 Potato 0.98 0.76 1.09 1.06 1.21 Total 1.01 0.92 1.01 1.02 1.04 Source: Calculated on basis of Data in District Statistical Booklet of 1995 (Aligarh, Etah, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra)
The maximum coefficient of productivity recorded in Agra (1.04) during 1995 is being explained by three independent variables of irrigation, chemical fertilizer and tractorization. The irrigated area in 1995 was more than 70 per cent. The application of chemical fertilizers was 174 kg. per hectare. Though, the impact of tractorization was least effecting factor.
Table 5.08: Crop-wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (2000) S.No. Crops Aligarh Mahamaya Nagar Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra 1 Rice 1.07 0.99 0.94 0.94 1.17 1.04 2 Wheat 1.02 1.06 0.97 0.94 1.03 1.05 3 Barley 1.16 0.93 0.86 0.95 1.01 0.95 4 Millet 1.10 0.68 1.13 1.03 0.81 1.00 5 Maize T. 1.08 0.91 0.95 1.05 0.96 0.95 6 Moong T. 0.72 0.81 1.22 0.92 0.45 0.76 7 Arhar 1.00 0.92 1.07 0.94 0.96 2.32 8 Mustard 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.06 1.00 1.12 9 Sugarcane 1.10 0.97 0.91 0.89 1.01 0.90 10 Potato 0.96 1.09 0.75 0.99 1.05 1.15 Total 1.05 1.00 0.87 0.93 1.02 0.99 Source: Calculated on basis of Data in District Statistical Booklet of 2000 (Aligarh, MaulanaMahamaya Nagar Azad, Etah, Firozabad, Library, Mathura andAligarh Agra) Muslim University
Crop-wise trend of agricultural productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab during 2000 reveals more or less the same situation as recorded in 1995. The maximum coefficient of productivity is recorded in Aligarh (1.05) which is followed
158 by Mathura, Mahamaya Nagar, Agra, Firozabad and Etah districts. Table 5.08 depicts that highest productivity of rice is found in Mathura district (1.17) and least is recorded in both Etah and Firozabad districts. Wheat occupies a dominant position in Mahamaya Nagar (1.06), a bifurcated district from Aligarh and the least is recorded in Firozabad district. Barley occupies a dominant position in Aligarh district (1.16) and the least productivity is recorded in Etah district (0.86).In case of Potato it was observed that maximum productivity was recorded in Agra District (1.15) whereas lowest productivity was found in District Etah (0.75). The data related to trends of other crops i.e. Millet, Maize, Moong, Arhar, Mustard and Sugarcane are given in table 5.08.
The maximum coefficient of productivity recorded in Aligarh (1.05) during 2000 is being explained by three independent variables of irrigation, chemical fertilizers and tractorization. The irrigated area was recorded highest in Aligarh district followed by Mahamaya Nagar, Mathura and other districts (Appendix 1a…1f). The position of application of chemical fertilizers is comfortable in Agra followed by Mahamaya Nagar, Etah and other districts (Appendix 2a…2f). The tractorization is more effective in Mathura district followed by Mahamaya Nagar, Agra and other districts (Appendix 3a…3g).
Crop-wise productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab in 2005 is depicted in table 5.09. The table reveals that highest coefficient of productivity is found in Mahamaya Nagar (1.05), which is followed by Firozabad, Aligarh, Agra, Mathura and Etah districts. As far as crop-wise productivity is concerned, it is observed that Firozabad (1.31) occupies the highest in rice productivities, followed by Mathura, Agra, Etah, Aligarh and Mahamaya Nagar districts. Mathura and Agra have the same productivity coefficient (1.07) for wheat followed by Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad, Aligarh, and Etah districts. Productivity of barley is found highest (2.53) in Mahamaya Nagar district and the least is occupied by Agra (0.77) district. The positions of other crops are depicted in table 5.09. Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
159 Table 5.09: Crop-wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (2005)
Mahamaya S.No. Crops Aligarh Nagar Etah Firozabad Mathura Agra 1 Rice 0.94 0.91 0.95 1.31 1.07 0.97 2 Wheat 1.01 1.04 0.94 1.02 1.07 1.07 3 Barley 0.83 2.53 0.79 0.82 0.81 0.77 4 Millet 1.04 0.96 1.00 1.10 0.72 0.93 5 Maize T. 1.00 0.86 0.98 1.23 0.41 0.38 6 Moong T. 0.72 1.05 1.18 0.99 1.01 0.80 7 Arhar 0.91 1.14 1.11 1.02 1.04 1.04 8 Mustard 0.97 0.93 0.97 0.99 1.13 1.01 9 Sugarcane 1.04 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.87 0.97 10 Potato 0.89 1.08 0.71 1.14 1.02 0.90 Total 0.98 1.05 0.89 1.04 0.90 0.92 Source: Calculated on basis of Data in District statistical Booklet of 2005(Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra)
The causative factors of productivity during 2005 are explained by three independent variables of irrigation, chemical fertilizers and tractorization in the study region. Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar and Etah enjoying the highest percentage under irrigation also recorded higher value of agricultural productivity during 2005 (Appendix 1a…1f). Agra and Firozabad enjoy the higher position in the application of chemical fertilizers followed by remaining districts of the region (Appendix 2a…2f). Agra, Aligarh and Mathura district region enjoys the higher positions in tractorization followed by other districts of the region (Appendix 3a…3g).
It is evident from table 5.10 that agriculture productivity during 2010 is highest in Aligarh (1.65) followed by Mahamaya Nagar (1.06), Firozabad (0.97), Etah (0.96), Kanshiram Nagar (0.88), Mathura (0.67) and Agra (0.63) districts. As far as Maulanathe cropwise productivity Azad isLibrary, concerned, it is Aligarhobserved from Muslimthe table that Firo Universityzabad (1.25) occupies the first position in rice productivity followed by Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Aligarh, Mathura, Agra, and Mahamaya Nagar districts. Agra recorded the highest (1.07) productivity of wheat followed by Firozabad (1.05), Mathura (1.05), Aligarh (1.03), Kanshiram Nagar (0.97), Etah (0.96) and Mahamaya Nagar (0.90).
160 Aligarh enjoys highest position in barley productivity (1.08), Kanshiram Nagar and Agra have equal status in barley productivity; where Firozabad and Mathura again have equal productivity coefficients. Mahamaya Nagar and Etah districts are lagging behind in barley productivity.
Table 5.10: Crop-wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (2010)
S. Crops Aligarh Mahamaya Etah Kanshiram Firozabad Mathura Agra No. Nagar Nagar 1 Rice 0.98 0.83 1.01 1.00 1.25 0.96 0.93 2 Wheat 1.03 0.90 0.96 0.97 1.05 1.05 1.07 3 Barley 1.08 0.94 0.96 1.00 0.99 0.99 1.00 4 Millet 1.01 0.67 1.17 1.19 1.13 0.65 0.95 5 Maize 3.50 0.90 0.91 0.74 1.18 0.06 0.04 6 Moong 0.93 1.07 1.05 0.96 0.99 1.05 0.92 7 Arhar 0.87 0.92 1.67 1.05 0.94 0.87 0.92 8 Mustard 0.92 0.83 1.04 1.08 0.95 1.12 1.12 9 Sugar- 1.05 1.01 1.01 0.96 0.85 0.87 0.85 cane 10 Potato 0.78 1.40 0.88 0.85 0.88 0.91 0.78 Total 1.65 1.06 0.96 0.88 0.97 0.67 0.63 Source: Calculated on basis of Data in District statistical Booklet of 2010 (Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra) The causative factors of agriculture productivity during 2010 are explained by three independent variables of irrigation, chemical fertilizer and tractorization. The lower percentage of irrigation corresponds to the low agricultural coefficient values of Mathura and Agra districts. The moderate percentage of irrigation corresponds to the higher values productivity in Aligarh and Mahamaya Nagar districts. Application of chemical fertilizers per hectare is found highest in Mahamaya Nagar, which records higher (1.06) productivity coefficient.
The crop-wise pattern of agricultural productivity in the study area is specified in table 5.11. It is noticed that the highest rice productivity was recorded in Firozabad (1.19) whereas, Mahamaya Nagar district exhibit lowest (0.91) rice productivity in the MaulanaDoab. During Azad the yearLibrary, 2015, Agra demonstratesAligarh highest Muslim wheat productivity University (1.06) followed by Mahamaya Nagar (1.05), Aligarh (1.01), Mathura (1.01), Firozabad (0.99), Kanshiram Nagar (0.98) and Etah (0.97) district. Regarding potato productivities in the districts of the region it is found that Mahamaya Nagar (1.04) district shows the highest potato productivity in the region whereas Kanshiram Nagar
161 (0.94) has the lowest productivity. The pattern of barley productivity in the region shows that Etah with 1.04 maintained highest barley productivity among the other districts of the region whereas, lowest barley productivity during the year 2015 was recorded in Firozabad and Mathura with same (0.96) productivity. As far as average crop wise productivity in the region is concerned, it is noticed from the table 5.11 that Aligarh (1.92) held the foremost position in average crop productivity followed by Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Agra and Mathura.
Table 5.11: Crop-wise Pattern of Agricultural Productivity in MGYD (2015)
S. Crops Aligarh Mahamaya Etah Kanshiram Firozabad Mathura Agra No. Nagar Nagar 1 Rice 0.97 0.91 1.00 1.03 1.19 1.01 1.05 2 Wheat 1.01 1.05 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.01 1.06 3 Barley 1.01 1.02 1.04 1.01 0.96 0.96 0.99 4 Millet 0.98 0.75 1.13 1.18 1.25 0.53 0.84 5 Maize 5.27 0.79 1.07 0.79 0.62 0.09 0.09 6 Moong 0.87 1.06 1.00 1.05 1.12 1.32 1.41 7 Arhar 1.01 0.86 1.08 1.06 1.34 1.04 1.01 8 Mustard 1.04 0.69 1.18 1.16 0.81 1.04 1.11 9 Sugar- 1.03 1.01 1.01 0.99 0.96 0.76 0.77 cane 10 Potato 0.99 1.04 0.96 0.94 1.00 0.95 0.98 Total 1.92 0.96 1.02 0.95 0.91 0.67 0.70 Source: Calculated on basis of Data in District statistical Booklet of 2015 (Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra) Aligarh district has revealed maximum coefficient of crop productivity (1.92) during 2015 is being elucidated by three selected independent variables of irrigation, chemical fertilizer and tractorization. The total irrigated area of the region in 2015 was nearly 84 per cent. The high percentage of irrigated area corresponds with high crop productivity in Etah district whereas in Aligarh district moderate irrigation corresponds with high productivity. The low per cent of irrigation and productivity match in Agra district which show low irrigated areas as well as low productivity in Maulanathe region. Aligarh Azad again hasLibrary, the highest number Aligarh of tractors Muslim which relates itUniversity to the highest crop productivity in the district during 2015. Kanshiram Nagar district has the very low number of tractors but have moderate productivity (table 5.12). Aligarh and Etah reveal moderate use of chemical fertilizer and high productivity.
162 Table 5.12: District-wise Trend of Agricultural Productivity in MGP (1995-2015)
S. No. District 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1 Aligarh 1.01 1.05 0.98 1.65 1.92 2 Mahamaya Nagar - 1 1.05 1.06 0.96 3 Etah 0.92 0.87 0.89 0.96 1.02 4 Kanshiram Nagar - - - 0.88 0.95 5 Firozabad 1.01 0.93 1.04 0.97 0.91 6 Mathura 1.02 1.02 0.9 0.67 0.67 7 Agra 1.04 0.99 0.92 0.63 0.7 Source: Calculated on basis of Data in District statistical Booklet of 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015 of Aligarh, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Kashiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra districts.
The table 5.12 shows that Aligarh has shown a regular increase in agricultural productivity except in 2005. This increase is related with the continuous increase in the total production of all crops over the last two decades. The district Mahamaya Nagar was created in 1997 and in 2000 it recorded lesser agricultural productivity than Aligarh district. Further, since 2000 it has shown an increasing trend till 2010 and thereafter a decline is seen in 2015. The district Etah has recorded a lesser agricultural productivity than the other adjoining districts in 1995 and thereafter it has shown a declining trend in 2000 and 2005. A little improvement was observed in 2010 and further in 2015.The Kanshiram Nagar district has recorded below average agricultural productivity in 2010 and has improved a little in 2015.Firozabad in 1995 has recorded average agricultural productivity but in the coming years its coefficients have shown a decline except for year 2005. District Mathura and Agra have recorded medium and high agricultural productivity coefficients with respect to the other districts in 1995 and thereafter a declining trend in agricultural productivity is recorded over the next two decades.
MaulanaTrend of Azad Agricultural Library, Productivity: Aligarh Muslim University The figure 5.14 shows that the agricultural productivity of Aligarh district has increased since 1995. The increase was almost negligible till 2005 and thereafter a steep rise in agricultural productivity was observed in 2010 and 2015. The steep rise in agricultural productivity during 2010 and 2015 is due to increase in the total
163 production of different crops. Although the total area also increased in those years but still it was not proportionate to the increasing production. The figure 5.15 reveals the trend of agricultural productivity in Mahamaya Nagar. It is observed that there is an overall declining trend over the last two decades. This decline is not regular and initially there is a little growth in agricultural productivity from 2000 to 2010 and thereafter a steep decline is found in 2015.The decline in 2015 is related with the decline in total production of all crops.
Aligarh: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5 Coefficient ofAg.Product. 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.14
Mahamaya Nagar: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 1.5
1
0.5
0 Coefficient of Ag.Product. 2000 2005 2010 2015
Maulana Azad Library,Figure 5Aligarh.15 Muslim University
164 Etah: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 1.5
1
0.5
Coefficient ofAg.Product. 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Figure 5.16
Kanshiram Nagar: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015)
1.5
1
0.5
Coefficient ofAg.Product. 0 2010 2015
Figure 5.17
The figure 5.16 reveals the trend of agricultural productivity of Etah district since 1995 to 2015. It was observed that there is an overall increase in agricultural productivity in Etah but it is not very much variable from that of 1995. Thus, the overall growth is very little and a decline in coefficient of agricultural productivity is found in 2000. Thereafter an increasing trend is observed from 2005 to 2015. The newly created district Kanshiram Nagar in 2008 has recorded medium agricultural Maulanaproductivity Azad (0.88) inLibrary, 2010 and thereafter Aligarh an increase isMuslim found in 2015 (Universityfigure 5.17). Figure 5.18 represents the trend of agricultural productivity of Firozabad district since 1995.There is a decline in the coefficient of agricultural productivity in 2000 but thereafter it increases in 2005 and further decline in 2010 and 2015. Thus, overall there is a declining trend of agricultural productivity in the district during the
165 last two decades. The trend of agricultural productivity of Mathura district is shown in figure 5.19. It reveals that agricultural productivity is same in 1995 and 2000 but it declines thereafter in 2005 and 2010. Finally it remains same in 2015 and is constant for 2010 and 2015. This overall trend reveals a decline over the last two decades where major decline is seen in 2005 and 2010. The figure 5.20 shows that Agra district also follows almost the same trend as that of Mathura. There is a gradual decline in agricultural productivity in 2000 and 2005 and thereafter a steep decline is found in 2010.After 2010 improvement is observed in coefficient of agricultural productivity in 2015 but still there is an overall decline over the last decades.
The trends of agricultural productivity of seven districts of middle Ganga Yamuna Doab over the last decades show that generally the districts have shown a decline in agricultural productivity except Aligarh, Etah and Kanshiram Nagar. Even Etah and Kanshiram Nagar have shown a little increase in agricultural productivity. The agricultural productivity of a district is the comparative analysis of that district with respect to the region. Thus, the overall agricultural production has increased over the period of time in the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab. The area under cultivation, area sown more than once and the net sown area have also increased but that increase is not in proportion to the increasing production. Thus in general the area in the districts and the region as a whole has not changed significantly but the change in production is variable for all the districts. Thus those districts where the production is proportionately more than the region have shown a positive growth in agricultural productivity and vice versa.
Firozabad: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 1.5
1
0.5 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Coefficient ofAg.Product. 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 5.18
166 Mathura: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 1.5
1
0.5
Coefficients ofAg. Product. 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 5.19
Agra: Trend of Agricultural Productivity (1995-2015) 1.5
1
0.5
Coefficient ofAg.Product. 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Figure 5.20
PATTERN OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY:
The pattern of agricultural productivity in the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab in 1995 shown in figure 5.21 reveals that among the five districts only Agra District falls in High category whereas Aligarh, Mathura and Firozabad fall in medium category. Only one district i.e., Etah lies in low category. Thus, north eastern part of the study area lies in low agricultural productivity region whereas the maximum area is under medium agricultural productivity region.
MaulanaIn Azad 2000 the Library, agricultural productivity Aligarh in the MiddleMuslim Ganga Yamuna University Doab is shown in figure 5.22. It is observed that two districts i.e. Aligarh and Mathura fall in high category. Earlier in 1995 both these districts were lying in medium category. Thus they improved and shifted to high category. The districts which fall in medium category are Agra and Mahamaya Nagar. The district Mahamaya Nagar was a part of Aligarh in 1995 which was in medium category while the Agra district has slipped
167 down from High category to medium category. Further, Etah and Firozabad lie in low category. The Etah district has maintained its position and was in low category in 1995 also but Firozabad district has shifted from medium category in 1995 to low category in 2000. On analyzing the figure 5.22 it is found that all the three categories have formed a distinct region. Thus, starting from west to east we find the high, medium and low agricultural productivity regions.
The figure 5.23 shows that Mahmaya Nagar and Agra districts fall in high category in 2005. Earlier in 2000 both the districts were in medium category. Further, Agra was in high category in 1995. Only Aligarh district was found to be present in medium category and it has shifted from high category in 2000. Earlier also the district was in medium category in 1995. Thus since 1995 to 2005 the district changed its position from medium to high and then returned back to medium category. There were three districts in low category in 2005. They were Etah Firozabad and Mathura. Although both Etah and Firozabad districts have been in low category in 2000 but Mathura district was in high category in 2000. Thus, it changed its position over the period of time. The central part of the district is covered by high agricultural productivity region while the northern part is having medium productivity region while the eastern and western part of the district are occupied by low productivity region.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
168 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Figure 5.21
169 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 5.22
170 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Figure 5.23
171 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Figure 5.24
172 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 5.25
173 The figure 5.24 represents the agricultural productivity regions of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab in 2010. Thus, it was found that Aligarh district alone was in high category while the maximum districts were found in medium category. Earlier in 2005 Aligarh was located in medium category but it improved and shifted to high category in 2010. The districts in medium category were Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Mahamaya Nagar and Firozabad. Among these districts none were found in medium category in 2005. The Etah and Firozabad districts were in low category and they improved while the Mahamaya Nagar district was in high category in 2005 and shifted to medium category in 2010. Further, the remaining two districts of Mathura and Agra fall in low category. The Mathura district was already in low category in 2005 while the Agra district was found in high category. Thus it has experienced a sharp decline in agricultural productivity.
The figure 5.25 reveals the agricultural productivity regions of the Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab in 2015. It reveals that only Aligarh district lies in high category and four districts namely, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar and Firozabad fall in medium category. Further, two remaining districts Mathura and Agra lie in low category. A similar pattern was found in 2010 also. Thus, although the districts remained in same category but the coefficients of agricultural productivity have changed in 2015. The coefficient of agricultural productivity for Aligarh was 1.65 in 2010 which was recorded as 1.92 in 2015. Similarly, in case of districts lying in medium category the coefficients have increased in all districts except Firozabad. In Mathura the coefficients were same in 2010 and 2015 but in Agra it declined from 0.97 to 0.91.
Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity:
In order to analyze the relationship between labour and agricultural productivity scatter diagram was drawn for the various years. The X axis of the diagram represents labour productivity and Y axis represents the agricultural Maulanaproductivity of Azad a particular Library, year. The figure Aligarh 5.26 represents Muslim a strong negativeUniversity relationship (-0.86) between labour and agricultural productivity in year 1995. Thus, it is observed that districts having high labour productivity have a corresponding low coefficient of agricultural productivity and vice versa. The five districts under study in 1995 have variable labour productivity. It was seen that low labour productivity was found in Mathura and Aligarh whereas high labour productivity was recorded in Etah.
174 Figure 5.26: Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (1995)
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 5.27: Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (2000)
175 The figure 5.27 shows the relationship between labour and agricultural productivity for the year 2000. It was observed that there is a strong negative relationship (-0.76) between them as seen in 1995.Thus, that districts having high labour productivity have a corresponding low coefficient of agricultural productivity and vice versa. The six districts under study in 1995 have variable labour productivity. It was seen that low labour productivity was found in Mahamaya Nagar and Aligarh whereas high labour productivity was recorded in Etah and Firozabad districts. Thus, almost similar relationship between labour and agricultural productivity is observed both in 1995 and 2000.
The figure 5.28 shows the relationship between labour and agricultural productivity for the year 2005. It was observed that there is a weak positive relationship (0.14) between them which is different from the observed relationship in 1995 and 2000. Thus, that districts having high labour productivity may not necessary have high agricultural productivity and vice versa. The six districts under study in 2005 have variable labour productivity. It was seen that low labour productivity was found in Agra and Firozabad whereas high labour productivity was recorded in Mahamaya Nagar and Etah districts.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 5.28: Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (2005)
176 Figure 5.29: Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (2010)
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 5.30: Relationship between Labour and Agricultural Productivity (2015)
The figure 5.29 shows the relationship between labour and agricultural productivity for the year 2010. It was observed that there is a weak positive (0.16)
177 relationship between them which is similar to 2005. Thus, that districts having high labour productivity may not necessary have high agricultural productivity and vice versa as already seen in 2005 also. The seven districts under study in 2010 have variable labour productivity. It was seen that low labour productivity was found in Agra Kanshiram Nagar and Etah whereas highest labour productivity was recorded in Mahamaya Nagar district.
The figure 5.30 shows the relationship between labour and agricultural productivity for the year 2015. It was observed that there is a weak negative relationship between them which is different from the observed relationship in 2005 and 2010. Thus, that districts having high labour productivity may not necessary have low agricultural productivity and vice versa. The seven districts under study in 2015 have variable labour productivity. It was seen that low labour productivity was found in Mathura and Etah districts whereas high labour productivity was recorded in Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad and Agra districts.
On analyzing the relationship between labour and agricultural productivity over the last two decades it was observed that initially there was a negative relationship between the two during 1995 and 2000 which changed to weak positive relationship later. Thus it was observed that during 1995 Aligarh and Mathura districts has low labour productivity while Firozabad and Agra districts had medium and only Etah district was having high labour productivity. In 2015 the Mathura and Etah districts have low labour productivity and Aligarh and Kanshiram Nagar had medium labour productivity. Further, the remaining three districts Firozabad, Agra and Mahamaya Nagar had high labour productivity. Thus, over the last two decades Aligarh has shifted from low to medium category, Firozabad and Agra have shifted from medium to high category and Etah has shifted from high to low category. The corresponding agricultural productivity has generally shown a negative or a very weak positive relationship.
MaulanaThe present Azad study is Library,in conformity to Aligarh the results of GutierrezMuslim (2000) Universitywhere he found that increasing agricultural labor productivity may also lead to the reduction in productivity differentials and vice versa. Similarly Moon and Lee (2013) viewed that improvement in the labour productivity is considerably lagging behind land productivity in Southeast Asian countries, showing that economic condition of the
178 people in rural areas did not improve as much as the measures of agricultural growth rates and cereals yields. A comparative analysis shows that agricultural land productivity in South-east Asian countries is catching up with Korea but labor productivity has diverged considerably over the last two decades.
The farm size in the study area is quite small and thus it has a direct impact upon labour productivity and agricultural productivity. The inverse relationship between the two has also been found in other studies. Singh R.V. (1972) examines the labour productivity on different size of farms. He analyzes that the average and marginal value product of labour indicated an increasing trend with an increase in farm. Therefore, it is suggested that more additional labour could be applied on large farms followed by medium farms as compared to small farms. Similarly Thapa (2007) finds that significant and consistent results with the model of output per hectare showing that the small farms use more input than the larger farms thereby decline in labour productivity with increasing agricultural productivity. On analyzing the results and the related studies it can be stated that the relationship obtained between the labour and agricultural productivity in the study area is in conformity with the other studies undertaken at national and international levels.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
179 References:
1. Bhalla G.S. and Alagh Y. K. (1983) Labour Productivity in Indian Agriculture, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 18, No. 19/21, pp.825-834.
2. Bhatia, S.S. (1967) Spatial Variations, Changes and Trends in Agricultural Efficiency in Uttar Pradesh 1953-63, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics.
3. Buck J.L. (1937) Land Utilization in China, Nanking.
4. Chang, H. and Zepeda, L. (2001)Agricultural Productivity for Sustainable Food Security in Asia and the Pacific: the Role of Investment. FAO Corporate Document Repository, originated by: Economic and Social Development Department.
5. Clark C. and Haswell, M., (1967)The Economics of Subsistent Agriculture, London, pp. 51-52.
6. Commen M.A. (1962) Agricultural Productivity Trends in Kerala, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol. No. 4 pp. 333-36.
7. Dayal E. (2010) Agricultural Productivity in India: A Spatial Analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 74(1), pp. 98-123.
8. Dewett, K.K. and Singh, G. (1966) Indian Economics, Delhi.
9. District Statistical Handbook (2015) Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Vikas Bhawan Aligarh, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra.
10. District Statistical Handbook (2010) Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Vikas Bhawan Aligarh, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra.
11. District Statistical Handbook (2005) Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Vikas Bhawan Aligarh, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra.
12. District Statistical Handbook (2000) Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Vikas Bhawan Aligarh, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra.
13. District Statistical Handbook (1995) Directorate of Statistics and MaulanaEconomics, Azad Vikas Bhawan Library, Aligarh, Et Aligarhah, Firozabad, MathuraMuslim and Agra. University 14. Enyedi G.Y. (1964) Geographical Types of Agriculture, Applied Geography in Hungary, Budapest, pp. 61.
15. Evenson, R. (1967) The Contribution of Agricultural Research to Production. Journal of Farm Economics, 49(5), pp. 1415-1425.
180 16. F.A.O. (1963) The State of Food and Agriculture, Rome page 98.
17. Gorman M and Pandey M (2010) Cross country disparity in agriculture productivity: Quantifying the role of modern seed adoption. The Journal of Development Studies. 46(10), pp. 1767-1785.
18. Gutierrez L (2000) Why is Agricultural Labour Productivity Higher in Some Countries than Others? 2000 Annual Meeting American Agricultural Economics Association. Tampa, Florida.
19. Hirsch H.G. (1943) Crop Yield Index., Journal of Farm Economic, Vol. 25(3), p. 583.
20. Huntington and Valkenburg (1952) Europe, New York, 1952, p. 102.
21. Kendall M.G. (1939)The Geographical Distribution of Crop Productivity in England, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 52, pp. 21-48.
22. Kumar C. A. and Manimanna G. (2014)Spatial Pattern of Agriculture Productivity of Crops in Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu, IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS) , Volume 7, Issue 11 Ver. II (Nov. 2014), pp.01-07.
23. Loomis R.A. and Barton G.T. (1961) Productivity of Agriculture in the United States 1870-1958, Technical Bulletin No. 1238, USDA, Washington, D.C., p. 1.
24. Mackenzie W. (1962)The Impact of Technological Change on the Efficiency of Production in Canadian Agriculture, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.1, p. 41.
25. Mandal S and Dhara A. (2012) Measurement of Agricultural productivity and levels of development in south 24 Pargana district, West Bengal, International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research Vol.2 Issue 4 pp 91 -98.
26. Meiburg C.O. and Brandt K.(1962) Agricultural Productivity in the United States: 1870-1960, Food Research institute Studies, Vol. 3, No.2, p. 64.
27. Moon W and Lee JM (2013) Economic Development Agricultural Growth and Labour Productivity in Asia, Journal of Comparative Asian Development. 12(1), pp. 113-146.
28. Munir, A. (1988) Agricultural Productivity and Regional Development- A MaulanaCase Azad Study Library, of the Sub-Himalyan Aligarh East Region Muslim of Uttar University Pradesh, The Geographer,Vol.35, No.2, pp.48-49.
29. Munir, A. (1992) Agricultural Productivity and Regional Development, Manak Publications, Pvt., Ltd., Delhi.
181 30. Muthumurugan et al. (2012) Composite Index Analysis of Inter-Regional Variations in Agricultural Development of Tamil Nadu, International Journal of Social Sciences and Inter Disciplinary Research Vol.1 No.4 pp 58 -62.
31. Nicolini R (2011)Labour productivity in Spain: 1977–2002, Applied Economics, 43(4), pp. 465-485.
32. Okyere KW, Chiang C, Thangata P, Andam K and Mekonnen A (2011) Understanding the Interaction between Farm Labor Productivity and Health and Nutrition: A Survey of the Evidence. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics. 3(3), pp. 80-90.
33. Pandit P.M. (2012) Agricultural Development and Land Use Pattern in Nashik District of Maharastra, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.3 (16) pp. 151-161.
34. Polyzos S and Arabatzis G (2005) Labor productivity of the Agricultural Sector in Greece: eterminants Factors and interregional Differences Analysis. Discussion Paper Series, 11(12). pp. 209-226.
35. Rahman H., Wahab A. and Asif (2008) Agricultural Productivity and Productivity Regions in Ganga-Yamuna Doab, The Geographer, Vol. 55, No. 1, January, pp. 10-21.
36. Rotaru A.S. et al. (2012) Usefulness of Principal Component Analysis in Agriculture, Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 69(2) pp 504 -509.
37. Shafi M (1984) Agricultural productivity and Regional imbalances, New Delhi, Concept Publishing Company.
38. Shafi M. (1960) Land Utilization in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Aligarh, p. 222.
39. Shafi M. (1972) Measurement of Agricultural productivity of the Great Indian Plains, The Geographer, Vol. 19 No1, pp 4-13.
40. Shafiqullah (2013) Impact of Regional disparities on Agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh – A Geographical Analysis, Global Journal of Human Social Science, Geography, Geo science, Environmental Management. Vol. 2 issue 5 version 1.0 pp. 36 -46.
41. Singh J. and Dhillon S.S. (2000) Agricultural Geography (2nd edition) New Delhi, Tata McGraw Hill.
42. Singh R.V. (1972) Labour Productivity and Size of Farm, Indian Journal of MaulanaIndustrial Azad Relations, Library,Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. Aligarh 245-253. Muslim University 43. Stamp L.D. (1952) The Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency with Special Reference to India, Silver Jubilee Souvenir Volume, Indian Geographical Society, pp. 177-78.
44. Stamp L.D. (1958) The Measurement of Land Resources, The Geographical Review, Vol. 48, No. 1. p. 3.
182 45. Stamp L.D. (1960) Our Developing World, London, 1960, p. 108.
46. Thapa S (2007) The Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: Empirical Evidence from the Nepalese mid-hills. Contributed paper prepared for presentation at the 106th seminar of the EAAE, 25th to 27th October, 2007. Montpellier, France.
47. Thompson R.J. (1926) The Productivity of British and Danish Farming, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, Part II, 1926, p. 28.
48. Zobel S.P. (1950) On the Measurement of Productivity of Labour, Journal of American Statistical Society, Vol. 45, p. 218.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
183 GENERAL PROFILE OF THE SELECTED VILLAGES
The study area comprises of seven districts viz, Aligarh, Agra, Etah, Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanshiram Nagar and Mathura of the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab region (MGYD). From these seven districts of the study area 12 villages have been selected for study (Fig. 6.01).
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Fig. 6.01: Location of the selected villages (2018)
184 LOCATION OF THE SELECTED VILLAGES
NEKPUR
According to Census the location code of Nekpur village is 124477. Nekpur village is located in Etmadpur Tehsil of Agra district in Uttar Pradesh, India. It is situated 18 km away from sub-district headquarters Etmadpur and 20 km away from district headquarters Agra. The Nekpur village is also a gram panchayat. The total geographical area of village is 258 hectares and the Net Sown area in 235 hectares. Nekpur has a total population of 2,777 peoples. There are about 443 houses in Nekpur village. The village is dominated by general class and the majority of people are either marginal or small landholders. Etmadpur is nearest town to Nekpur.
Figure 6.02: Location of Nekpur in Agra District
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 6.03: Nekpur Village (2018)
185 UDAI GARHI
According to Census 2011 the location code or village code of Udai Garhi village is 121811. Udai Garhi village is located in Khair Tehsil of Aligarh district in Uttar Pradesh, India. It is situated 5 km away from sub-district headquarters Khair and 28 km away from district headquarters Aligarh. Udai Garhi village is also a gram panchayat. The total geographical area of village is 158.60 hectares and the net sown area is 128.90 hectares. Udai Garhi has a total population of 1,862 peoples. There are about 298 houses in Udai Garhi village. The village is dominated by general class population and the majority of people are either marginal or small landholders. Khair is nearest town to Udai Garhi.
Figure 6.04: Location of Udai Garhi in Aligarh
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 6.05: Udai Garhi Village (2018)
186 ALAHDADPUR
The Census of India, 2011 has delineated Alahdadpur village with the code 122569 for the location of the selected village. The village is located in Koil tehsil of Aligarh district of Western Uttar Pradesh. It is situated 12 km away from district headquarters Aligarh. The total geographical area of the gram panchayat is 249.20 hectares and the Net Sown area in 225.10 hectares. Alahdadpur has a total population of 3111. There are about 461 households in Alahdadpur village. The village is dominated by backward class population (unprivileged) and majority of people are either marginal or small landholders. Aligarh is nearest city to Alahdadpur which is approximately 20 km away.
Figure 6.06: Location of Alahdadpur in Aligarh
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 6.07: Alahdadpur Village (2018)
187 GANGUPURA
According to census 2011, the location code or village code of Gangupura village is 214435 and it lies in Aliganj block of Etah district of Western Uttar Pradesh. It is situated 24 km away from sub-district headquarters and 28 km away from the district headquarters Etah. The Gangupura village is also a gram panchayat. The total geographical area of the village is 218.30 hectares and the Net Sown Area of the village is 155.50 hectares. The village has total population of 1706. According to census 2011, the total households of the villages are 294. Gangupura village is dominated by the general population. Nearly one-third population of the village is landless and other is marginal and small landholders. Aliganj is the nearest town to Gangupura village.
Figure 6.08: Location of Gangupura in Etah
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure 6.09: Gangupura Village (2018)
188 LEHRA
According to Census 2011 the location code or village code of Lehra village is 214765. Lehra village is located in Nidhauli Kalan block of Etah district in Uttar Pradesh, India. It is situated 8 km away from block headquarters of Nidhauli Kalan and is located 28 km toward west from district headquarters Etah. According to census 2011, the total population of Lehra village is 1320 and it is also a gram panchayat. The total geographical area of village is 100.10 hectares and the net sown area is 84.10 hectares. There are about 325 households in Lehra village. The village is mostly inhabited by other backward class population (unprivileged people) and the majority of people are either marginal or small landholders.
Figure: 6.10 Location of Lehra in Etah
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure: 6.11 Lehra Village (2018)
189 NAGLA ACHAL
Nagla Achal is a gram panchayat of Eka block of Firozabad district. According to census 2011, the locational code of the village is 125692. It is situated 16 km away from sub-district headquarters Eka and 52 km away from district headquarters Firozabad. The total geographical area of the village is 395.60 hectares, whereas the net sown area of the village is 299.20 hectares. There are 296 households in the village and 1679 population. The village is dominated by general class population and the most farmers of the village are small and medium landholders. Firozabad is the nearest city to Nagla Achal village.
Figure: 6.12 Location of Nagla Achal in Firozabad
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure: 6.13 Nagla Achal Village (2018)
190 JAMALPUR
According to census 2011, village code of Jamalpur village is 125605 and is located in Firozabad block of Firozabad district. It is situated 8 km towards east from Firozabad district headquarters. The Jamalpur village is also a gram panchayat. The total geographical area of the village is 154.90 hectares and the Net Sown Area of the village is 136.20 hectares that is 87.93 per cent of the total geographical area of the village. The total population of village is 2383 people. According to census 2011, the total households of the village are 390. Jamalpur village is mostly inhabited by general class population. Maximum numbers of households of the village are marginal as well as landless landholders. Firozabad is the nearest city to the village which is only 2 km of distance.
Figure: 6.14 Location of Jamalpur in Firozabad
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure: 6.15 Jamalpur Village (2018)
191 KUMRAI
According to Census 2011 the location code or village code of Kumrai village is 123244. Kumrai village is located in Hathras block of Mahamaya Nagar district in Western Uttar Pradesh, India. It is 12 km away from district headquarters Mahamaya Nagar. Kumrai village is also a gram panchayat. The total geographical area of village is 204.40 hectares and the net sown area is 190.80 hectares. Kumrai has a total population of 2053 peoples. There are about 317 households in Kumrai village. The village is dominated by general class population and the majority of people are either marginal or small landholders. Hathras is nearest town to Kumrai which is roughly 8 km away.
Figure: 6.16 Location of Kumrai in Mahamaya Nagar
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure: 6. 17 Kumrai Village (2018)
192 NAGLA SAKAT
In 2011, the location of Nagla Sakat is defined by village code (census code) 123131. The village lies in Masayan block of Mahamaya Nagar district of Uttar Pradesh, India. The total geographical area of Nagla Sakat village is 300.00 hectares and the net sown area of the village is 254.00 hectares. Nagla Sakat village is settled by 304 households and has total population of 1768 people. The village is situated in the eastern part of the district. Sikandra Rao is the nearest town to the Nagla Sakat village which is nearly 17 km away.. Most of the households of the village is marginal and small landholders. The village is dominated by general class population.
Figure: 6.18 Location of Nagla Sakat in Mahamaya Nagar
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure: 6.19 Nagla Sakat Village (2018)
193 KUCHARANI
According to census 2011, the location code of Kucharani village is 215926 and is located in Sidhpura block of Kanshiram Nagar district. It is situated 36 km away from Kanshiram Nagar district headquarters. Kucharani village is also a gram panchayat. The total geographical area of the village is 267.80 hectares and the Net Sown Area of the villages is 198.30 hectares that is 74.05 per cent of the total geographical area of the village. In 2011, total population of the village is 1707 people. According to census 2011, the total households of the village are 380. Kucharani village is evenly distributed by general and backward class population. Most of households of the village are marginal and small landholders. Kanshiram Nagar is the nearest town (3 km away) to the village.
Figure: 6.20 Location of Kucharani in Kanshiram Nagar
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure: 6.21 Kucharani Village (2018)
194 ATHAIYA
According to Census 2011, village code of Athaiya village is 215481. Athaiya village is located in Kasganj block of Kanshiram Nagar district of Western Uttar Pradesh, India. It is situated 9 km toward west of the district headquarters. The Athaiya village is also a gram panchayat and its total geographical area of village is 168.20 hectares and the Net Sown area of the village is 148.60 hectares. Athaiya has a total population of 1735 peoples. There are about 291 households in Athaiya village. The village has large section of scheduled castes population as compared to other section of the society. Majority of households in the village are either marginal or small landholders. Kasganj is the nearest town to Athaiya village.
Figure: 6.22 Location of Athaiya in Kanshiram Nagar
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure: 6.23 Athaiya Village (2018)
195 SIYARA
The location code of the sampled village Siyara is 124065 and the village is located in Raya block of Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh. Siyara village is situated in the eastern part of the district and is 13 km away from the district headquarters Mathura. The Siyara village is a gram panchayat of Raya block. The total geographical area of village is 174.60 hectares and the Net Sown area is 57.30 hectares which is nearly 33 per cent of the total area of the village. Siyara has a total population of 1714 peoples. There are about 287 households in Siyara village. The village is dominated by backward class population (unprivileged) and nearly half of people are marginal landholders. Mahaban is nearest town to Siyara village.
Figure: 6.24 Location of Siyara in Mathura
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Figure: 6.25 Siyara Village (2018)
196 Table 6.01 shows that there are 4086 households in all the 12 selected villages in the MGYD out of which 1023 households were sampled and surveyed. 25 per cent households were sampled applying stratified purposive sampling. Highest number of households (443) has been observed in Nekpur village of Agra district, whereas Siyara village of Mathura district has lowest (287) households among the selected villages in the region. Alahdadpur, Nekpur, Jamalpur and Kucharani have comparatively larger number of households in these selected villages of the region.
Table 6.01: Distribution of Population and Sampled Households in Selected Villages of Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2018) S. Total Total Sampled District Selected Villages No. Population Households Households 1 Agra Nekpur 2777 443 111 2 Aligarh Udai Garhi 1862 298 75 3 Aligarh Alahdadpur 3111 461 115 4 Etah Gangupura 1706 294 74 5 Etah Lehra 1320 325 81 6 Firozabad Nagla Achal 1679 296 74 7 Firozabad Jamalpur 2383 390 98 Mahamaya 8 Kumrai 2053 317 79 Nagar Mahamaya 9 NaglaSakat 1768 304 76 Nagar Kanshiram 10 Kucharani 1707 380 95 Nagar Kanshiram 11 Athaiya 1735 291 73 Nagar 12 Mathura Siyara 1714 287 72 TOTAL 23815 4086 1023 Source: Field Survey, 2018
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
197 Table 6.02: Land use Pattern of Selected Villages in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2011) (Area in Hectares)
Area Under Land under S. Selected Non Barren and Permanent Culturable Other Current Total Forest Miscellaneous NSA No. Village Agricultural Uncultivated Pastures Wasteland fallow Fallow Area Trees use
1 Nekpur 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 235 258 2 Udai Garhi 0.9 0 14.8 8.2 0 5.8 0 0 128.9 158.6 3 Alahdadpur 0 20.5 0 2 0 0.6 0 1 225.1 249.2 4 Gangupura 0 18.8 0 0 0 44 0 0 155.5 218.3 5 Lehra 0 10.8 0 0 2.4 0.8 0.5 1.5 84.1 100.1 6 NaglaAchal 17.7 10.3 64.1 0 0 2.9 0.6 0.8 299.2 395.6 7 Jamalpur 0 17.9 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.7 136.2 154.9 8 Kumrai 13.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 190.8 204.4 9 NaglaSakat 0 36 0 0 0 0 10 0 254 300 10 Kucharani 0 17.2 4.5 4.6 0 1.3 40.5 1.4 198.3 267.8 11 Athaiya 0 0 14.5 0 0 1.3 3.1 0.7 148.6 168.2 12 Siyara 0 89.2 0 0.5 27.6 0 0 0 57.3 174.6 Average of the 32.1 54.7 6.2 220.7 (8.33) 97.9 (3.69) 15.3 (0.58) 53 (2.00) 56.8 (2.14) 176.08 2649.7 Selected Villages (1.21) (2.06) (0.23) Source: District Census Handbook, Census (2011), Series 10, Part XIIA: Agra Aligarh, Firozabad, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanshiram Nagar and Mathura.
Maulana Azad Library, 198Aligarh Muslim University The land use pattern of the selected villages for year (2011) is given in table 6.02. The table clearly shows the geographical area of the selected villages of the region is 2649.70 hectares. The average net sown area of these selected villages is 176.08 hectares of the total land area of the selected villages. The share of current fallow land is 0.23 per cent whereas land utilization for non- agriculture accounts for 8.33 per cent of the total land. Barren and uncultivable land constitutes 3.69 per cent of the total land area of these selected villages, whereas, forest covers only 1.21 per cent of the total land use of the selected villages of the region. There are only two villages Nagla Achal (17 per cent) and Kumrai (13.50 per cent) in the region that have some geographical area under forest cover. Highest net sown area is recorded by Kumrai village which is 93.34 per cent of the total land area of the villages whereas Siyara village exhibits the lowest area (32.81 per cent) under net sown area in the region. Highest percentage of area under non-agricultural land use is recorded in Siyara village (51.09 per cent).
The table 6.02 shows that there are only four villages in the selected villages that have some area under barren and uncultivable land. Nagla Achal has the highest share of (64.01 hectares) barren and uncultivable land to the total area in the region followed by Udai Garhi (14.8 hectares), Athaiya (14.5 hectares) and Kucharani (4.5 hectares). There are only four selected villages that have area under permanent pasture land and these villages are Udai Garhi (8.2 hectares), Kucharani (4.6 hectares), Alahdadpur (2 hectares) and Siyara (0.5 hectares).
Table 6.03 reveals the area under different crops of selected villages in the Middle- Ganga Yamuna Doab region. The total geographical area of the selected villages is 2649.07 hectares and the average gross cropped area of these selected villages is 225.34 hectares. At village level there is distinguishable spatial variations in the share of cross cropped area in the region. The table clearly shows that among all the crops grown in the selected villages on an average highest cropped area is found to be under wheat crop (40.95 per cent) followed by potatoes (27.52 per cent). MaulanaOther important Azad crops that Library, are grown in the Aligarh study area are Muslim millet (6.61 per University cent), barley (4.31 per cent), rice (5.22 per cent), mustard (2.73 per cent), arhar (2.10 per cent), moong (1.60 per cent) and maize (0.73 per cent). Nearly 7.78 per cent of the total gross cropped area in the selected villages is occupied by the different miscellaneous crops.
199 Table 6.03: Area under Different Crops in Selected Villages in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2017-18) (Area in Hectares) Selected S. No. Rice Wheat Barley Millet Maize Moong Arhar Mustard Sugarcane Potato Other GCA Village 1 Nekpur 0 25.26 0 13.37 0 0 0 0 0 258.49 0 297.12 2 Udai Garhi 64.64 32.76 0 5 0 0 12.01 0 11.54 69.93 0 195.88
3 Alahdadpur 0 227.83 39.39 0 16.48 0 0 31.42 0 0 0 315.12
4 Gangupura 0 160.75 0 10.85 0 14.02 8.06 0 0 0 0 193.68
5 Lehra 25.25 53.87 0 20.2 0 0 5.89 0 0 0 0 105.21
6 NaglaAchal 0 102.94 46.29 19.33 0 0 16.66 0 0 157.22 27.85 370.29
7 Jamalpur 0 119.64 0 71.78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 191.42 8 Kumrai 13.67 45.26 0 3.16 0 0 4.12 21.69 0 146.14 1.68 235.72
9 NaglaSakat 0 116.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88.3 78.11 283.01
10 Kucharani 0 97.1 0 35.12 0.17 16.11 0 18.12 0 11.73 51.19 229.54
11 Athaiya 21.48 107.88 31.11 0 3.05 0 0.58 0 0 0 46.61 210.71 12 Siyara 16.05 17.57 0 0 0 13.22 9.63 2.67 0 12.38 4.89 76.41 Average of the 141.09 1107.46 116.79 178.81 19.7 43.35 56.95 73.9 11.54 744.19 210.33 2704.11 Selected Villages (5.22) (40.95) (4.32) (6.61) (0.73) (1.60) (2.11) (2.73) (0.43) (27.52) (7.78) (225.34) Source: Field Survey 2017-18.
Maulana Azad Library, 200Aligarh Muslim University Table 6.04: Distribution of Landholdings in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018)
S. Selected Landless Marginal Small Medium Large Total No. Village (<1Hect.) (1-2 (4-10 (>10 Sampled Hect.) Hect.) Hect.) Households 1 Nekpur 21.62 37.84 26.13 11.71 2.70 111 2 Udai Garhi 42.67 26.67 22.67 5.33 2.67 75 3 Alahdadpur 29.57 38.26 31.30 0.87 0.00 115 4 Gangupura 33.78 20.27 29.73 16.22 0.00 74 5 Lehra 33.33 34.57 25.93 6.17 0.00 81 6 Nagla Achal 28.38 13.51 22.97 29.73 5.41 74 7 Jamalpur 45.92 26.53 19.39 7.14 1.02 98 8 Kumrai 53.16 25.32 15.19 6.33 0.00 79 9 Nagla Sakat 46.05 28.95 14.47 9.21 1.32 76 10 Kucharani 20.00 58.95 13.68 7.37 0.00 95 11 Athaiya 28.77 45.21 16.44 8.22 1.37 73 12 Siyara 44.44 47.22 5.56 2.78 0.00 72 TOTAL 35.64 33.61 20.29 9.25 1.21 1023 Source: Field Survey, 2018
The village-wise distribution of landholdings in the study area is given in the table 6.04. The size of landholdings is categorized as marginal size of landholdings (less than 1 hectare), Small size of landholdings (1-2 hectare), Medium size of landholdings (4-10 hectares) and Large size of land holdings (larger than 10 hectares). The total sampled households of the selected villages are 1023 households. There are 35.64 per cent of the households landless in the study area. Kumrai village shows highest (53.16 per cent) landless households whereas Kucharani village has lowest (20.00 per cent) landless households. There are 33.61 per cent of households with marginal, 20.29 per cent small, medium 9.25 per cent and 1.21 per cent larger landholdings in the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab region. The highest percentage (58.95 per cent) of marginal landholding is recorded in Kucharani village whereas it is lowest (13.51 per cent) in Nagla Achal village. The table clearly shows that MaulanaAlahdadpur village Azad has highest Library, number (31. Aligarh 30 per cent) of Muslim households with University small landholding, whereas it is lowest (5.56 per cent) in Siyara Village. Nagla Achal village reveals highest percentages of households with respect to both medium (29.73 per cent) and large 5.41 per cent) landholdings in the study area.
201 Table 6.05: Share of Net Sown Area (NSA) in Total Reported Area in Selected Villages of MGYD, (2011) S. No. Selected Village Total Reported Area NSA (Hectares)* 235 1 Nekpur 258.00 (91.09) 128.9 2 Udai Garhi 158.60 (81.27) 225.1 3 Alahdadpur 249.20 (90.33) 155.5 4 Gangupura 218.30 (71.23) 84.1 5 Lehra 100.10 (84.02) 299.2 6 Nagla Achal 395.60 (75.63) 136.2 7 Jamalpur 154.90 (87.93) 190.8 8 Kumrai 204.40 (93.35) 254 9 Nagla Sakat 300.00 (84.67) 198.3 10 Kucharani 267.80 (74.05) 148.6 11 Athaiya 168.20 (88.35) 57.3 12 Siyara 174.60 (32.82) 2113 Total 2649.70 (79.74)
Source: District Census Handbook, Census (2011), Series 10, Part XIIA: Agra, Aligarh, Firozabad, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanshiram Nagar and Mathura. * Values in Brackets show percentage to Total Reported Area
Table 6.05 shows the net sown area as well as total reported area in the Middle-Ganga Yamuna Doab region. Total reported area of the selected village is 2649.70 hectares and the net sown area of is 79.74 per cent. Kumrai village has the highest percentage of area under net sown area i.e. 93.35 per cent, whereas Siyara has Maulanathe lowest Azad percentage Library, of area under Aligarh (32.82 per cent Muslim) net sown area University in the region. There are three selected villages in the region which have more than 90 per cent of its area under net sown area viz., Kumrai (93.33 per cent), Nekpur (91.09 per cent) and Alahdadpur (90.33 per cent).
202 The average net sown area of the selected villages of MGYD is 176.08 hectares whereas, area sown more than once is 49.09 hectares and the average gross cropped area is 225.34 hectares. Nagla Achal village has the highest area under net sown area (299.20 hectares) as well as highest gross cropped area (370.28 hectares) among the selected villages in the region, whereas highest area for sown more than once has been recorded in Alahdadpur village (90.02 hectares). Table 6.06 shows that Siyara village has lowest ranking in all the three aspects of net sown area (57.30 hectares), area sown more than once area (19.11 hectares) as well as gross cropped area (76.41 hectares) in the region.
Table 6.06: Area Sown More than Once and Gross Cropped Area in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018) Area Sown Gross Cropped S. Net Sown Area More Than Selected Village Area No. (Hectares) Once ( Hectares) (Hectares)
1 Nekpur 235.00 62.12 297.12
2 Udai Garhi 128.90 66.99 195.89
3 Alahdadpur 225.10 90.02 315.12 4 Gangupura 155.50 38.17 193.67
5 Lehra 84.10 21.11 105.21
6 Nagla Achal 299.20 71.08 370.28
7 Jamalpur 136.20 55.22 191.42
8 Kumrai 190.80 44.91 235.71
9 Nagla Sakat 254.00 29.01 283.01 10 Kucharani 198.30 31.24 229.54
11 Athaiya 148.60 62.11 210.71
Maulana12 Siyara Azad Library,57.30 Aligarh19.11 Muslim76.41 University
Average 176.08 49.25 225.34
Source: District Census Handbook, Census (2011), Series 10, Part XIIA: Agra, Aligarh, Firozabad, Etah,Mahamaya Nagar, Kanshiram Nagar and Mathura and Field Survey 2018.
203 Table 6.07: Share of major Crops in GCA in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018)
S. No. Crops Area Share in Gross (Hectares) Cropped Area (%) 1 Wheat 1107.45 40.95
2 Potato 744.2 27.52
3 Other 210.32 7.78
4 Millet 178.8 6.61
5 Rice 141.09 5.22
6 Barley 116.79 4.32
7 Mustard 73.9 2.73
8 Arhar 56.95 2.11
9 Moong 43.35 1.60
10 Maize 19.7 0.73
11 Sugarcane 11.54 0.43
Gross Cropped Area 2704.09 100.00 (GCA)
Source: Field Survey 2018.
There is large variation in the share of different crops in the region. Traditionally the region is dominated by crops like wheat, potato, millets and barley that are mostly grown in Western Uttar Pradesh. Table 6.07 clearly depicts the area- wise different crops in the region. Wheat (40.95 per cent of the total gross cropped area) is the utmost significant crops of the selected villages followed by Potato (27.52 per cent), Millet (6.61 per cent), Rice (5.22 per cent), Barley (4.32 per cent), Mustard (2.72 per cent) and Arhar (2.11 per cent). Maize and Sugarcane crops cover least Maulanapercentage Azad of gross croppedLibrary, area in the Aligarh region. Muslim University
204 Table 6.08: Family Size of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018)
S. Selected Village Small (<5) Mediu Large Total Sampled No. m (5-8) (>8) Households 1 Nekpur 52.25 21.62 26.13 111 2 Udai Garhi 54.67 29.33 16.00 75 3 Alahdadpur 59.13 31.30 9.57 115 4 Gangupura 47.30 29.73 22.97 74 5 Lehra 48.15 24.69 27.16 81 6 Nagla Achal 56.76 31.08 12.16 74 7 Jamalpur 60.20 34.69 5.10 98 8 Kumrai 48.10 39.24 12.66 79 9 Nagla Sakat 51.32 42.11 6.58 76 10 Kucharani 50.53 28.42 21.05 95 11 Athaiya 53.42 26.03 20.55 73 12 Siyara 56.94 29.17 13.89 72 TOTAL 53.23 30.62 16.15 1023 Source: Field Survey 2018.
More than half of the households have (53.23 per cent) small size of family which is less than 5 members per family. There are 30.62 per cent households that have medium size of family (5-8 members), whereas 16.15 per cent households have large size of family. Highest percentage of small size of family is recorded in Jamalpur village (60.20 per cent), whereas Gangupura has the lowest percentage of small size of family (47.30 per cent) in the region. The above table 6.08 shows that the highest percentage of large family is found to be in Lehra village (27.16 per cent), whereas minimum number (5.10 per cent) of large size of family is found in Jamalpur village of the region.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
205 Table 6.09: Family Structure of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018)
S. No. Selected Village Nuclear Joint Total Sampled Households
1 Nekpur 63.96 36.04 111
2 Udai Garhi 77.33 22.67 75
3 Alahdadpur 66.09 33.91 115
4 Gangupura 79.73 20.27 74
5 Lehra 71.60 28.40 81
6 NaglaAchal 82.43 17.57 74
7 Jamalpur 74.49 25.51 98
8 Kumrai 62.03 37.97 79
9 NaglaSakat 72.37 27.63 76
10 Kucharani 71.58 28.42 95
11 Athaiya 73.97 26.03 73
12 Siyara 72.22 27.78 72
TOTAL 72.32 27.68 1023 Source: Field Survey 2018.
Table 6.09 reports the share of households within the selected villages that have nuclear and joint types of family. There are 72.32 per cent of the households that have nuclear types of family in the MGYD region during field survey (2018), whereas only 27.68 per cent of the households have joint family system in the region. In all the selected villages more than 60 per cent of family are nuclear families. Gangupura village has the highest (79.73 per cent) percentage of nuclear types of family and Maulanalowest (20.27Azad per cent)Library, joint family Aligarh types in the region,Muslim whereas KumraiUniversityvillage shows the lowest (62.03 per cent) nuclear type of family and highest (37.97 per cent) joint type of system in the region.
206 Table 6.10: Age Structure of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018)
S. Selected 0 to 14 15-59 60 and Total Sampled No. Village Above Households 1 Nekpur 23.42 65.77 10.81 111 2 Udai Garhi 18.67 52.00 29.33 75 3 Alahdadpur 34.78 48.70 16.52 115 4 Gangupura 31.08 52.70 16.22 74 5 Lehra 30.86 54.32 14.81 81 6 NaglaAchal 10.81 59.46 29.73 74 7 Jamalpur 19.39 62.24 18.37 98 8 Kumrai 30.38 51.90 17.72 79 9 NaglaSakat 32.89 51.32 15.79 76 10 Kucharani 37.89 43.16 18.95 95 11 Athaiya 13.70 60.27 26.03 73 12 Siyara 22.22 61.11 16.67 72 TOTAL 25.51 55.24 19.25 1023 Source: Field Survey, 2018
A brief description of the age structure of the selected villages of the MGYD region has been provided. Table 6.10 shows the age structure of the sampled households in the year 2018. Out of the total households 25.51 per cent of the sampled households of the region fall in the age group of 14 years or less. More than half (55.24 per cent) of the sampled households comes under the age groups of 15-59 of years, whereas 19.25 per cent of the households comes under the age groups of 60 and above.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
.
207 Table 6.11: Religion-wise Distribution of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018) S. No. Selected Village Hindu Muslim Total Sampled Households 1 Nekpur 92.79 7.21 111 2 Udai Garhi 96.00 4.00 75 3 Alahdadpur 100.00 0.00 115 4 Gangupura 100.00 0.00 74 5 Lehra 92.59 7.41 81 6 Nagla Achal 100.00 0.00 74 7 Jamalpur 96.94 3.06 98 8 Kumrai 51.90 48.10 79 9 Nagla Sakat 100.00 0.00 76 10 Kucharani 100.00 0.00 95 11 Athaiya 100.00 0.00 73 12 Siyara 100.00 0.00 72 TOTAL 94.18 5.82 1023 Source: Field Survey, 2018. Table 6.11 shows the religion-wise distribution of households in the region. The region is dominated by the Hindu religion and it constitutes 94.18 per cent of the total sampled population. Muslim is the second largest religious group in the region that constitutes 5.82 per cent of the total population of the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab Region.
Table 6.12: Caste-wise Distribution of Population in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018)
S. Selected Village General Other Scheduled Total No. Backward Castes/Tribes Sampled Classes) Households 1 Nekpur 46.85 44.14 9.01 111 2 Udai Garhi 46.67 37.33 16.00 75 3 Alahdadpur 29.57 62.61 7.83 115 4 Gangupura 58.11 33.78 8.11 74 5 Lehra 34.57 51.85 13.58 81 6 Nagla Achal 58.11 29.73 12.16 74 7 Jamalpur 50.00 32.65 17.35 98 Maulana8 Kumrai Azad Library,77.22 Aligarh15.19 Muslim7.59 University79 9 Nagla Sakat 60.53 27.63 11.84 76 10 Kucharani 44.21 40.00 15.79 95 11 Athaiya 34.25 39.73 26.03 73 12 Siyara 29.17 54.17 16.67 72 TOTAL 47.44 39.06 13.50 1023 Source: Field Survey, 2018
208 The table 6.12 shows the pattern of caste-wise distribution of population in the selected villages of the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab region. Out of the total sampled households 47.44 per cent of households were from general category whereas, 39.06 per cent of the households were other backward classes (OBSs). There were 13.50 households from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes population in the region. Kumrai village has the highest share of general population (77.22 per cent) and lowest SCs/STs (7.59) and OBCs (15.19) population among the selected villages in the region. Alahdadpur village has the highest share of OBCs (62.61) to its total population in the Doab.
Table 6.13: Employment Structure of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018)
S. Selected Crop Labo Business/ Service/ Dairy/ Total No. Village Cultivation urer Household Job Poultry Sampled Industry Households 1 Nekpur 66.67 31.53 0.00 0.90 0.90 111 2 Udai Garhi 54.67 34.67 0.00 10.67 0.00 75 3 Alahdadpur 73.04 25.22 0.00 0.00 1.74 115 4 Gangupura 68.92 13.51 10.81 6.76 0.00 74 5 Lehra 56.79 34.57 3.70 0.00 4.94 81 6 Nagla Achal 56.76 43.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 74 7 Jamalpur 53.06 44.90 0.00 2.04 0.00 98 8 Kumrai 56.96 27.85 12.66 2.53 0.00 79 9 Nagla Sakat 55.26 38.16 0.00 0.00 6.58 76 10 Kucharani 48.42 42.11 3.16 5.26 1.05 95 11 Athaiya 72.60 23.29 4.11 0.00 0.00 73 12 Siyara 29.17 50.00 0.00 0.00 20.83 72 TOTAL 57.69 34.08 2.87 2.34 3.00 1023 Source: Field Survey, 2018
Table 6.13 shows the employment structurer of the selected villages in the region. It is clear from the table that agriculture is the backbone of the region as among all the economic activities 57.69 per cent households are somehow directly related to crop cultivation. There are two villages where more than 70 per cent of the Maulanapeople are crop cultivators.Azad Library,The highest crop Aligarhcultivator is found Muslim in Alahdadpur University (73.04 per cent) and lowest in Siyara village (29.17 per cent). The table depicts that 34.08 per cent of the total households are engaged in labour activities. The highest percentage of labourers to the total households is recorded in Siyara village (50.00 per cent). Business/households industry account for 2.87 per cent of total workers in the region.
209 The proportion of service and job employment among the selected villages is 2.34 per cent whereas nearly 3.00 per cent households are engaged in dairy and poultry activities.
Table 6.14: Educational Status of Respondents in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018)
S. Selected Illiterate High Intermediate Graduate Above Total No. Village School Graduation Sampled Households 1 Nekpur 14.41 59.46 19.82 5.41 0.90 111 2 Udai Garhi 20.00 54.67 20.00 2.67 2.67 75 3 Alahdadpur 14.78 57.39 19.13 6.96 1.74 115 4 Gangupura 9.46 60.81 20.27 6.76 2.70 74 5 Lehra 19.75 48.15 23.46 6.17 2.47 81 6 Nagla Achal 16.22 44.59 35.14 2.70 1.35 74 7 Jamalpur 16.33 42.86 33.67 5.10 2.04 98 8 Kumrai 12.66 41.77 31.65 11.39 2.53 79 9 Nagla Sakat 3.95 48.68 38.16 6.58 2.63 76 10 Kucharani 15.79 45.26 32.63 6.32 0.00 95 11 Athaiya 21.92 56.16 16.44 4.11 1.37 73 12 Siyara 8.33 45.83 34.72 8.33 2.78 72 TOTAL 14.47 50.47 27.09 6.04 1.93 1023 Source: Field Survey, 2018.
The household survey shows poor condition of education in the selected villages of the MGYD region. The table 6.14 clearly reveals that the average illiterates in the region are 14.47 per cent. Highest percentage of illiterates (21.92 per cent) is recorded in Athaiya village whereas lowest per cent of illiterates are found in Nagala Sakat village (3.95 per cent). More than half of the households of the selected villages have high school education and 27.09 per cent have intermediate level education. The table shows that 6.04 per cent households of the villages in the region were graduates whereas only 1.93 per cent of the households have education higher than graduation in these selected villages. Among all the selected villages Kumrai, MaulanaSiyara, Gangupura,Azad LLibrary,ehra, Nagla Sakat Aligarh have relatively Muslim higher education University in the MGYD region.
210 Table 6.15: Housing Condition of Households in Selected Villages of MGYD (2018)
S. No. Selected Village Kutcha Thatched Cemented Total Sampled Households 1 Nekpur 2.70 9.01 88.29 111 2 Udai Garhi 16.00 6.67 77.33 75 3 Alahdadpur 1.74 9.57 88.70 115 4 Gangupura 0.00 12.16 87.84 74 5 Lehra 3.70 17.28 79.01 81 6 Nagla Achal 6.76 16.22 77.03 74 7 Jamalpur 2.04 12.24 85.71 98 8 Kumrai 6.33 21.52 72.15 79 9 Nagla Sakat 11.84 19.74 68.42 76 10 Kucharani 4.21 17.89 77.89 95 11 Athaiya 0.00 12.33 87.67 73 12 Siyara 2.78 15.28 81.94 72 TOTAL 4.84 14.16 81.00 1023 Source: Field Survey, 2018.
From the above table 6.15 it is very much clear that out of the total 1023 sampled households 4.84 per cent have completely kutcha houses for their dwelling, whereas 14.16 per cent households do have thatched or semi-kutcha houses. The remaining 81.00 per cent households of the region are living in cemented or pucca houses. Maximum number of cemented houses is found in Alahdadpur (88.70 per cent), Nekpur (88.29 per cent), Gangupura (87.84 per cent) and Athaiya (87.67 per cent). Gangupura village has zero per cent of kutcha dwelling, whereas Udai Garhi village has highest (16.00 per cent) share of kutcha houses among the other selected villages in the region.
The above section of the study is related to the general profile of the selected villages of the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab region. Total 12 villages have been selected from the seven districts of the region on the basis of distance from the main Maulanaroad and size of Azadthe villages Library, as well as geographical Aligarh area of the Muslim districts. According University to census 2011, there are 4086 households in the selected villages out of which 1023 households were sampled for the study. The selected villages of the MGYD region constitute 2649.70 hectares of the total area of the region. The average net sown area of the selected villages is 176.08 hectares which is 79.74 per cent of the total
211 geographical area of the region; whereas the average reported area was 220.80 hectares. The area sown more than once constitutes about 50 hectares of the total area of selected villages. Wheat (40.95 per cent) and potatoes (27.52 per cent) crops have the highest cropped area under cultivation in the region. Nearly 54 per cent of the households are marginal or small landholders in the MGYD region. On an average the small size of the family of the selected villages of the region is 53. 23 per cent and medium and large size of the family of the region is 30.62 and 16.15 per cent respectively. The study shows that 72.32 per cent of the households have nuclear types of the family and remaining has joint type of family. About 45 per cent of the total population of the selected villages are dependent population whereas, 55 per cent population in the region are working population. There is 47.44 per cent general population in the selected villages of the region and 39.06 and 13.50 per cent of the households are OBC and SC/ST population respectively. Nearly 77.5 per cent of populations of the selected villages have education of high school and intermediate level. The region is dominated by the cultivators and agricultural labourers. As the region is mostly dependent on agriculture there are only few proportion of the households of the selected villages of the region involved in business or service sectors. There are 81 per cent of the households that are living in cemented houses and only 19 per cent of the total households lives in kutcha and thatched houses.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
212 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
The present study is related to the labour and agricultural productivity in the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab. The study is very much relevant to the Doab as it is agriculturally most advanced region of Uttar Pradesh in comparison to other regions. Agriculture has always played a pivotal role in our national economy. Even today, when the country is in transitional phase of industrialization due to globalization, it is backbone of our economy. This may be seen from the fact that it is the largest and main occupation of the population of the country. It gives direct employment to about 58 per cent of the rural households of the country that depend on it for their livelihood. The future prosperity of the population and self-sufficiency in economy is therefore, largely based on the development of agriculture on scientific lines. The study of agricultural and labour productivity is complicated but interested one. Agricultural productivity has been widely studied by various scholars and its different dimensions have been explored over the last decades. Many attempts have been made to define the connotation of agricultural productivity. It is a multidimensional concept, which includes technological advancement, effective management of available resources and organizational set-up for the agricultural production. These factors in turn affect the relative production in any region. The term 'Productivity' is regarded as the measurement of production and inputs required for the production of that output. Agricultural productivity is the interplay of a multitude of many factors, such as environmental, socio-economic and technological factors.
The selected study covers the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (MGYD) which stretches across seven districts namely, Aligarh, Agra, Mathura, Mahamaya Nagar, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar and Firozabad. It is part of a region which is largest alluvial tract of the world and is known as the Great Plain of North India. The Middle Ganga- Yamuna Doab possesses uniformity of the surface except for the several depressions in the north near Aligarh formed by the river valleys and natural drainage lines. The Maulanaregion is Azad traversed byLibrary, the Ganga, the AligarhYamuna and others Muslim various smaller University rivers. The total area of the MGYD region is 13907.24 square kilometres which is 5.77 per cent of the total area of Uttar Pradesh. The region is not only suitable for agricultural practices but it also supports 1.79 crore population which is nearly 8.96 per cent of total population of the Uttar Pradesh. Nearly 68 per cent of the total population of the
213 region lives in villages and 31.92 per cent lives in urban part of the doab. There is tremendous improvement in education in the region during the previous years. On an average the literacy rate of the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab region is 69.71 per cent (2011). Firozabad, Mahamaya Nagar and Agra districts have higher literacy rate as compared to other districts of the region. The work participation rate of the region has improved with the time; in 2011 it was 31.64 per cent. It was found that the region is primarily occupied by agriculture and the share devoted to net sown area was (79.09 per cent) followed by non-agricultural (10.57 per cent) activity. Agra and Mathura districts have notable share of net sown area as compared to other districts of the region.
The trend of area under cultivation of ten major crops was calculated from 1995 to 2015 with the help of using three years moving average. For example, the data pertaining to the year 1995 was found out by three years moving average of 1994, 1995, and 1996. The study reveals that the Aligarh district covers the maximum area under different crops as compared to other districts of the region in 1995. It was found that in 2000, Etah and Aligarh districts have the highest area under Rice and Wheat crops respectively. The highest area under Potato was recorded in Firozabad district. The highest area under various crops in 2005, chosen for the study was found to be in Aligarh district whereas; during the same year area under Potato crop was highest in Mahamaya Nagar district. In 2010, again Aligarh has the highest area under Rice cultivation followed by Etah and Firozabad. Although, Etah has the maximum area under Wheat crop as compared to other districts of the region and Mahamaya Nagar has the highest area under Potato crop during the year of 2010. It was observed that during 2015 Aligarh district has the highest share of different crops like Rice, Wheat, Millet, Moong, Arhar, and Mustard while highest area under Maize and Sugarcane during the same year was recorded in Kanshiram Nagar. In the year 2015, Firozabad has the highest area under Potato cultivation followed by Mahamaya Nagar. It was observed by the study that area under Rice and Potato has shown a Maulanaregular and significant Azad increase Library, in Aligarh districtAligarh whereas allMuslim the other crops University have either shown a decline in area or little change during the same period. Wheat and Millet have shown a very little change whereas Arhar, Moong, Sugarcane, Mustard, Maize and Barley have shown a regular decline. Thus, the areas under these crops have shifted to Potato and Rice over the last two decades. This change is due to the
214 changing situation of agricultural marketing, irrigation, perception of farmers regarding farming and increasing demand of few crops in the market.
Ten important crops covering the largest area under cultivation were selected for studying the trend of production in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab since 1995. Thus, the trend of production of all these crops was calculated since 1995 to 2015 with the help of using three years moving average. The study reveals that largest production in the region is found in Wheat, Sugarcane and Potato whereas the minimum production was seen in Moong followed by Arhar and Rice in 1995. On analysing the crop-wise scenario it was found that Wheat has a dominating position in the region except Firozabad and Agra districts where maximum production is contributed by Potato. The district-wise overview of major crops production in the region reveals that the largest production is recorded in Aligarh followed by Etah whereas minimum production is reported in Agra district. In Aligarh the largest production was found to be of Wheat followed by Sugarcane and Millet and the minimum production was reported for Moong which is similar to that of the whole Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab. In case of Etah it was Wheat having the largest production followed by Sugarcane and Potato. The study shows that the total production of all crops in the study area has increased by 4,06,22,490 metric tonnes since 1995 and it accounts for an overall growth of 84.10 percent. Among the ten selected crops Potato, Wheat, Millet, Rice and Maize have shown an increase in the last two decades but the remaining five crops Arhar, Moong, Mustard, Barley and Sugarcane have shown a decline in total production during the same period. The maximum increase in production was found in Potato (32, 06,409 metric tonnes) followed by Wheat (5, 38,355 metric tonnes) and Millet (4, 87,479 metric tonnes). Thus, Potato production has increased tremendously (397.30 per cent) because the area under Potato has increased from 34003 hectares in 1995 to 152115 hectares in 2015. Thus, an increase in area has led to increase in production over the last two decades. Wheat has shown an increase of 32.29 per cent in total production and it can Maulanabe directly Azad associated Library, with the increas Aligarhe in area under MuslimWheat cultivation University during 1995 to 2015. The trend of production of major crops in Aligarh district shows that most of the crops indicated declining trends except Rice, Wheat, Millet and Potato. There was declining trend in production except Millet and Potato in Etah district during 1995 and 2015. It was found that in Firozabad district all the crops have shown a declining
215 trend in production except Wheat, Rice, Maize, Millet and Potato, whereas in Mathura district Wheat, Rice, Maize and Millet have shown positive trends and other selected crops have shown negative trends in its production. There were three crops in Mathura district that have shown positive trends in production. In Mahamaya Nagar district all the crops have shown a declining trend in production except Rice, Millet and Potato. This situation was similar to that of Agra district as discussed above. Most of the crops grown in Kanshiram Nagar have shown an increase in production except Wheat, Barley, Moong and Potato during 1995-2015.
The study demonstrates that the trend of production under major crops in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab like Rice, Wheat, Millet, Maize and Potato have increased in production while Barley, Arhar, Moong, Mustard and Sugarcane have registered a decline during the same period. Among the crops showing increase in overall production Rice, Millet and Potato have shown a larger increase in production with respect to Wheat and Maize. The crops showing a declining trend in production has recorded variable decline over the same period. Barley and Sugarcane have recorded higher decline than Moong, Arhar and Mustard. The analysis reveals that production of some crops has increased tremendously in the study area whereas others have reported a steep decline in production during the same period.
The labour productivity in the study area was calculated by using methods provided by the scholars like Dev S.M. and K.N. Ninan and it was found that the average labour productivity in the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab during 1995 was 41.09 thousand rupees per labour. In 1995, the highest share of agricultural production in the study area was found in Aligarh followed by Etah district whereas, the highest labour productivity was found in Etah followed by Firozabad district. The districts of the eastern part of the region that includes Etah and Firozabad have high labour productivity as compared to the districts of the western part of the study area. In the year 2000, Etah district has recorded highest labour productivity followed by Firozabad, Mathura, Agra, Aligarh and Mahamaya Nagar. The average labour Maulanaproductivity in theAzad Middle Library, Ganga-Yamuna Aligarh Doab during 2000 Muslim was 67.41 thousandUniversity rupees per labour. However, in terms of agricultural production Aligarh and Mathura districts have sufficient agricultural production in the region but have very low labour productivity as both the district have large number of agricultural labours. In 2005 it was Firozabad district that has the highest labour productivity and lowest one was
216 recorded in Mathura district. In terms of agricultural production Etah followed by Aligarh district has considerably highest share as compared to other districts of the region. Largest number of agricultural labourers ware recorded in Aligarh followed by Etah, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra district. The highest and lowest labour productivity during 2010 was found to be in the districts of Mahamaya Nagar and Agra respectively. During the year 2010 the labour productivity gap between high and low productivity district is 148.94 thousand rupees per labour in the study area. In the year 2015 the average labour productivity of the Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab region was 206.86 thousand per labour and highest labour productivity was recorded in Mahamaya Nagar whereas, at the bottom of productivity was Mathura district.
There is continuous positive growth of labour productivity in the study area as in 1995 the labour productivity was 41.09 thousand rupees per labour and it increased to 206.85 thousand rupees per labour in the year 2015. It was found that Kanshiram Nagar and Mathura have positive trend of labour productivity during 1995 and 2015. There were three districts of the study area namely, Etah, Firozabad and Agra that have revealed erratic trends of labour productivity during the aforesaid period. For the analysis of pattern of labour productivity the MGYD region was categorized into three classes of high, medium and low. In 1995, it was found that Etah district has the high labour productivity whereas in 2000 Etah as well as Firozabad districts have shown high labour productivity which covers the eastern part of the region. The western part of the region shows pattern of low labour productivity. In 2005 the picture of labour productivity reveals that Etah district has maintained its position in high category whereas, Mahamaya Nagar district has shown positive growth and ranked in high labour productivity. Firozabad and Agra districts located in the southern part of the region fall into low category. It was found that in 2010 the pattern of labour productivity has totally changed in the region and the eastern part of the region that had earlier shown high rank came down to the low rank. Mahamaya Nagar has maintained its position of high rank of labour productivity during the same year. MaulanaThe pattern Azad of labour Library, productivity inAligarh the year 2015 Muslim shows that one University of the central district of the region (Mahamaya Nagar) and other two districts of southern part of the doab lie in high category of labour productivity.
Shafi’s (1972) method was used for the calculation of agricultural productivity in the region. In 1995 maximum coefficient of productivity was recorded
217 in Agra district (1.04) followed by Mathura, Aligarh, Firozabad, and Etah districts whereas, in 2000 maximum coefficient of productivity was recorded in Aligarh (1.05) followed by Mathura, Mahamaya Nagar, Agra, Firozabad and Etah districts. In 2005, highest coefficient of productivity was found in Mahamaya Nagar (1.05), followed by Firozabad, Aligarh, Agra, Mathura and Etah districts and in 2010 the highest coefficient of productivity was recorded by Aligarh district followed by Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad, Etah, Kanshiram Nagar, Mathura and Agra districts. Again in 2015 Aligarh district revealed maximum coefficient of productivity and the lowest was recorded in Mathura district.
It was observed that initially the relationship between labour and agricultural productivity over the last two decades was negative between the two during 1995 and 2000 which changed to weak positive relationship later. Thus, it was observed that during 1995 Aligarh and Mathura districts have low labour productivity while Firozabad and Agra districts have medium whereas, only Etah district was having high labour productivity. In 2015 the Mathura and Etah districts have low labour productivity and Aligarh and Kanshiram Nagar have medium labour productivity. Further, the remaining three districts Firozabad, Agra and Mahamaya Nagar have high labour productivity. Thus, over the last two decades Aligarh has shifted from low to medium category, Firozabad and Agra have shifted from medium to high category and Etah has shifted from high to low category. The corresponding agricultural productivity has generally shown a negative or a very weak positive relationship.
Total 12 villages were selected from the seven districts of the Middle Ganga- Yamuna Doab region on the basis of distance from the main road and size of the villages as well as geographical area of the districts. According to census 2011, there are 4086 households in the selected villages out of which 1023 households were sampled for the study. The selected villages of the MGYD region constitute 2649.70 hectares of the total area of the region. The average net sown area of the selected villages is 176.08 hectares which is 79.74 per cent of the total geographical area of the Maulanaregion; whereas Azadthe average Library,reported area was Aligarh 220.80 hectares. MuslimThe area sown University more than once constitutes about 50 hectares of the total area of selected villages. Wheat (40.95 per cent) and Potatoes (27.52 per cent) crops have the highest cropped area under cultivation in the region. Nearly 54 per cent of the households are marginal or small landholders in the MGYD region. On an average the small size of the family of
218 the selected villages of the region is 53. 23 per cent and medium and large size of the family of the region is 30.62 and 16.15 per cent respectively. The study shows that 72.32 per cent of the households have nuclear types of the family and remaining has joint type of family. About 45 per cent of the total population of the selected villages are dependent population whereas, 55 per cent population in the region are working population. There is 47.44 per cent general population in the selected villages of the region and 39.06 and 13.50 per cent of the households are OBC and SC/ST population respectively. Nearly 77.5 per cent of populations of the selected villages have education of high school and intermediate level. The region is dominated by the cultivators and agricultural labourers. As the region is mostly dependent on agriculture there are only few proportion of the households of the selected villages of the region involved in business or service sectors. There are 81 per cent of the households that are living in cemented houses and only 19 per cent of the total households lives in kutcha and thatched houses.
Despite the considerable improvements in the productivity in case of major crops the productivity trends in India is far below those obtained in many developed nations. The general causes of low productivity are related to: (i) excessive pressure of population on land (ii) social environment (iii) land degradation (iv) lack of general infrastructural facilities (v) inadequate agricultural capital formation. The institutional causes includes: (i) defective land tenure systems (ii) uneconomic land holdings (iii) inadequate credit and marketing facilities. The technical causes are concerned with (i) technological backwardness (ii) increasing input cost and (iii) inadequate irrigation facilities.
Government of India has initiated various measures to overcome the problem of low agricultural productivity. The measures that should be strengthened are: (i) effective implementation of land reforms (ii) greater uses of modern technology (iii) better credit facilities (iv) restructuring cropping pattern (v) development of irrigation facilities (vi) development of research institutions (vii) management of affordable and Maulanabetter cold Azad storages Library,and warehouses (viii)Aligarh strengthening Muslim of co-operative University farming and marketing systems and ((ix) population control.
The following suggestions will be helpful for the agricultural development of the region.
219 1. The input cost of chemical fertilizers, irrigation and tractorization is very alarming that is why most of the farmers are not able to support fully to adopt these burgeoning costs.
2. The region is well suited for the production of potato and wheat crops which demands that the government should give incentives to the farmers that will ultimately promote the cultivation of these crops in the region.
3. The region is also suited for the production of pulses, government should provide special package to the farmers to grow pulses in the region.
The farmers of the region are not satisfied with government sponsored programme of minimum support price (MSP) due to the misappropriation of it by middlemen and local government agencies. The programme is very crucial for the agricultural development if it is being implemented properly at grass-roots level.
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
220 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Agarwal P.C. (1965) Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency in Bastar District: A Factorial Approach, Unpublished Proceedings of the Summer School in Geography held at Naini Tal, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, pp. 14. Bhalla G S and Singh G (1997) Recent Developments in Indian Agriculture: A State Level Analysis, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 13, pp. A2-A18. Bhalla G.S. and Alagh Y. K. (1983) Labour Productivity in Indian Agriculture, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 18, No. 19/21, pp.825-834. Bhalla, C.S. (1978) Spatial Patterns of Agricultural Labour Productivity, Yojana. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 9-11. Bhatia, S.S. (1967) Spatial Variations, Changes and Trends in Agricultural Efficiency in Uttar Pradesh 1953-63, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Buck J.L. (1937) Land Utilization in China, Nanking. Burrard S.G. (1912) Origin of the Himalayan Mountains: Geological Survey of India, No.12, Calcutta, p11, Census of India (1991) Uttar Pradesh Series-25, Table A-2, Directorate of Census Operations , Lucknow. Chang, H. and Zepeda, L. (2001) Agricultural Productivity for Sustainable Food Security in Asia and the Pacific: the Role of Investment. FAO Corporate Document Repository, originated by: Economic and Social Development Department. Chatterji A. and Maitreya P. (1964) Some Aspects of Regional Variations in Agricultural. Productivity and Development in West Bengal, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1,pp. 207-12. Clark C. and Haswell, M., (1967) The Economics of Subsistent Agriculture, London, pp. 51-52. Commen M.A. (1962) Agricultural Productivity Trends in Kerala, Agricultural Situation in India, Vol. No. 4 pp. 333-36. Czumanski T. and Lödding H.(2012) Integral Analysis of Labor Productivity, Procedia CIRP 3 , pp. 55–60. MaulanaDayal E. Azad (2010) Agricultural Library, Productivity Aligarh in India: A MuslimSpatial Analysis. University Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 74(1), pp. 98-123. Dev S.M. (1986) Growth of Labour Productivity in Indian Agriculture: Regional Dimensions, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 21, No. 25/26 (pp. A65- A74.
221 Dev S.M. (1988) Prospects of Enhancing Labour Productivity in Indian Agriculture, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 23, No. 39, pp. A106-A113. Dev S.M. (1988) Regional Disparities in Agricultural Labour Productivity and Rural Poverty in India, Indian Economic Review, New Series, Vol. 23, No. 2 , pp. 167-205. Dewett, K.K. and Singh, G. (1966) Indian Economics, Delhi. Dharmasiri L. M. (2012) Measuring Agricultural Productivity using the Average Productivity Index, Sri Lanka Journal of Advanced Social Studies vol.1 – No.2. Dholakia R.H. And Dholakia B. H. (1993) Growth of Total Factor Productivity in Indian Agriculture, Indian Economic Review, New Series, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, Vol. 28, No. 1 pp. 25-40. Dhondyal S.P. (1964) Regional Variations in Agricultural Development and Productivity in the Eastern and Western Regions of Uttar Pradesh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 193-97. District Statistical Handbook (1995) Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Vikas Bhawan Aligarh, Etah, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra. District Statistical Handbook (2000) Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Vikas Bhawan Aligarh, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra. District Statistical Handbook (2005) Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Vikas Bhawan Aligarh, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra. District Statistical Handbook (2010) Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Vikas Bhawan Aligarh, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra. District Statistical Handbook (2015) Directorate of Statistics and Economics, Vikas Bhawan Aligarh, Etah, Mahamaya Nagar, Kanshiram Nagar, Firozabad, Mathura and Agra. Dorward A. (2013) Agricultural Labour Productivity, Food Prices and Sustainable Development Impacts and Indicators Food Policy 39, pp. 40–50. Enyedi G.Y. (1964) Geographical Types of Agriculture, Applied Geography in Hungary, Budapest, pp. 61. Evenson, R. (1967) The Contribution of Agricultural Research to Production. Journal of Farm Economics, 49(5), pp. 1415-1425. MaulanaF.A.O. (1963) The Azad State of FoodLibrary, and Agriculture, Aligarh Rome page Muslim 98. University Folk D.(1967) Productivity of Labour in Agricultural Production, Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 726, Urbana, University of Illinois, College of Agriculture. U.S.A.
222 Ganguli, B.N. (1983) Trends of Agriculture and Population in the Ganges Valley, London, p. 93. Garg J.S. (1964) Variation Studies in the Agricultural Development and Productivity in the Eastern and Western Regions of Uttar Pradesh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 193-97. Gopalkrishnan M.D. and Ramakrishna P.T. (1964) Regional Variations in Agricultural Productivity in Andhra Pradesh, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1 , pp. 227-36. Gorman M and Pandey M (2010) Cross country disparity in agriculture productivity: Quantifying the role of modern seed adoption. The Journal of Development Studies. 46(10), pp. 1767-1785. Guha S. (1990) Labour Intensity in Indian Agriculture, 1880-1970: Some Findings, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 25, No. 52, pp. A189-A192. Gutierrez L (2000) Why is Agricultural Labour Productivity Higher in Some Countries than Others? 2000 Annual Meeting American Agricultural Economics Association. Tampa, Florida. Hirsch H.G. (1943) Crop Yield Index, Journal of Farm Economic, Vol. 25(3), p. 583. Horring J. (1964) Concept of Productivity Measurement in Agriculture on a National Scale, OECD, Documentation in food and Agriculture 57, Paris, p. 10 http://statisticstimes.com/economy/sectorwise-gdp-contribution-of-india.php https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ (Central intelligence Agency) https://www.statisticstimes.com Huntington and Valkenburg (1952) Europe, New York, 1952, p. 102. I.C.A.T. (1966) Proceedings of the International Commission on Agricultural Typology (unpublished) Warsaw, Poland. Jasbir Singh (1981) A New Technique for Measurement of Agricultural Productivity-A Perspective in Agricultural Geography, Vol.4, Mohammed Noor, (Ed.) Pp. 169-182. Kalaivani M. and Saravanadurai A. (2010) Growth Actions of Selected Cereal crops in Tamil Nadu state, International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology, Vol. I; issue 3, pp 778-785. MaulanaKendall Azad M.G. (1939) Library,The Geographical Aligarh Distribution Muslim of Crop ProductivityUniversity in England, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 52, pp. 21-48. Khullar D.R., (2000) India: A Comprehensive Geography, Kalyani Publisher, New Delhi, pp. 59-61 Kumar C. A. and Manimanna G. (2014) Spatial Pattern of Agriculture Productivity of Crops in Cauvery Delta Zone of Tamil Nadu, IOSR Journal of Agriculture
223 and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS) , Volume 7, Issue 11 Ver. II (Nov. 2014), pp.01-07. Kurian N. J. (1990) Employment Potential in Rural India: An Analysis, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 25, No. 52 , pp. A177-A188. Loomis R.A. and Barton G.T. (1961) Productivity of Agriculture in the United States 1870-1958, Technical Bulletin No. 1238, USDA, Washington, D.C., p. 1. Mackenzie W. (1962) The Impact of Technological Change on the Efficiency of Production in Canadian Agriculture, Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol.1, p. 41. Mandal S and Dhara A. (2012) Measurement of Agricultural productivity and levels of development in south 24 Pargana district, West Bengal, International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research Vol.2 Issue 4 pp 91 -98. McErlean S. and Ziping W. (2003) Regional agricultural labour productivity convergence in China, Food Policy, Vol. 28 , pp. 237–252. Meiburg C.O. and Brandt K.(1962) Agricultural Productivity in the United States: 1870-1960, Food Research institute Studies, Vol. 3, No.2, p. 64. Misra V. N. (1984) Productivity per Worker under 'Disguised' Unemployment in Rural Uttar Pradesh, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 186-210. Moon W and Lee J.M. (2013) Economic Development Agricultural Growth and Labour Productivity in Asia, Journal of Comparative Asian Development. 12(1), pp. 113-146. Morgan, W.B. and Munton, R.J.C. (1971) Agricultural Geography, Methuen & Co Ltd, London. Mundhe F. (2015) Agricultural productivity in India: trends during five year plans, The Business & Management Review, Volume 5 Number 4, pp. 175-181. Munir, A. (1988) Agricultural Productivity and Regional Development- A Case Study of the Sub-Himalyan East Region of Uttar Pradesh, The Geographer,Vol.35, No.2, pp.48-49. Munir, A. (1992) Agricultural Productivity and Regional Development, Manak Publications, Pvt., Ltd., Delhi. Muthumurugan et al. (2012) Composite Index Analysis of Inter-Regional Variations Maulanain Agricultural Azad Development Library, of Tamil Aligarh Nadu, International Muslim Journal ofUniversity Social Sciences and Inter Disciplinary Research Vol.1 No.4 pp 58 -62. Namboodiri N. V. And Desai B. M. (1998) Determinants of Total Factor Productivity in Indian Agriculture, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 52, pp.A165-A171.
224 Nangia, S., et al. (1977) Variations in Field Productivity - A Case Study of Khandewala, Haryana, Occasional Papers No. 7 (Mimeo), Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. NATMO (2011) State Atlas of Uttar Pradesh, National Atlas and Thematic Mapping Organization, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, Kolkata.
Nicolini R (2011) Labour productivity in Spain: 1977–2002, Applied Economics, 43(4), pp. 465-485. Ninan K. N. (1984) Labour Use in Agriculture: Case Studies of Tapioca and Paddy, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 51/52, pp. A199-A204. Niti Aayog, (2015) Raising Agricultural Productivity and Making Farming Remunerative For Farmers, An Occasional Paper ,Government of India , New Delhi. Noort, P.C. van den (1967) Agricultural Productivity in Western Europe, Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol.15 , No.2, p. 166. Ogale S. and Nagarale V. (2014)Agricultural Productivity of BarmatiTashil, Pune District (Maharashtra), Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, Volume 7; issue 5, pp. 25-30. Okyere K.A., Chiang C, Thangata P, Andam K and Mekonnen A. D. (2011) Understanding the Interaction between Farm Labor Productivity and Health and Nutrition: A Survey of the Evidence. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics. 3(3), pp. 80-90. Pandit A.D. (1965) Application of Productivity Concept to Indian Agriculture, Productivity, Special Issue on Agricultural Productivity, Vol. 6,( 2 and 5) p.187. Pandit P.M. (2012) Agricultural Development and Land Use Pattern in Nashik District of Maharastra, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.3 (16) pp. 151-161. Polyzos S and Arabatzis G (2005) Labor productivity of the Agricultural Sector in Greece: Determinants Factors and Interregional Differences Analysis. Discussion Paper Series, 11 (12). pp. 209-226. Primary Census Abstract (1991), Census of India, Directorate of Census Operations, Lucknow. Primary Census Abstract (2001), Census of India, Directorate of Census MaulanaOperations, Azad Lucknow.Library, Aligarh Muslim University Primary Census Abstract (2011), Census of India, Directorate of Census Operations, Lucknow. Raheja, S., et al. (1977) Factors Contributing to Regional Variations in Productivity and Adoption of High Yielding Varieties of Major Cereals in India, Symposium on Regional Imbalances and Economic Development with Special
225 Reference to Agriculture, Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, Vol. 29 , No.1, pp. 112-13. Rahman H. (2003) Spatial Distribution of Agricultural Productivity and Its Correlates in North Bihar Plain, The Geographer, Vol. 50, No. 1, , pp.73-84. Rahman H., Wahab A. and Asif (2008) Agricultural Productivity and Productivity Regions in Ganga-Yamuna Doab, The Geographer, Vol. 55, No. 1, January, pp. 10-21. Ranade C. G. (1986)Growth of Productivity in Indian Agriculture Some Unfinished Components of Dharm Narain's Work, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 21, No. 25/26 pp. A 75-80. Rotaru A.S. et al. (2012) Usefulness of Principal Component Analysis in Agriculture, Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 69 (2) pp 504 -509. Saini G. R. (1971) Holding Size, Productivity, and Some Related Aspects of Indian Agriculture, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 6, No. 26, pp. A79-85. Sapre S.G. and Deshpande V.D. (1964) Inter-District Variations in Agricultural Efficiency in Maharashtra State, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 243. Sarma J.S. (1965) Measurement of Agricultural Productivity - Concepts, Definitions, etc., Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, Vol. 27, No.2, pp. 253-57. Saxon, B.A. (1965) Special Concepts of Productivity, Productivity, Special issue on agricultural productivity. Vol.6, No.2 and 3, p.226. Shafi M (1984) Agricultural productivity and Regional imbalances, New Delhi, Concept Publishing Company. Shafi M. (1960) Land Utilization in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Aligarh, p. 222. Shafi M. (1965) Approaches to the Measurement of the Agricultural Efficiency, Unpublished Proceedings of the Summer School in Geography held at Naini Tal, Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, p. 4. Shafi M. (1972) Measurement of Agricultural productivity of the Great Indian Plains, The Geographer, Vol. 19 No1, pp 4-13. Shafi, M. (1967) Food Production Efficiency and Nutrition in India, The Geographer, Vol.14, pp. 23-27. Shafi, M. (1969) Can India Support Five Times Her Population? Science Today, MaulanaVol.3, pp. Azad 21-27. Library, Aligarh Muslim University Shafiqullah (2013) Impact of Regional disparities on Agricultural development in Uttar Pradesh – A Geographical Analysis, Global Journal of Human Social Science, Geography, Geo science, Environmental Management. Vol. 2 issue 5 version 1.0 pp. 36-46.
226 Singh D. et al. (1977) Crop Productivity Variation in India, Symposium on Regional Imbalances and Economic Development with Special Reference to Agriculture, Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, pp. 113- 15. Singh J. and Dhillon S.S. (2000) Agricultural Geography (2nd edition) New Delhi, Tata McGraw Hill. Singh R.V. (1972) Labour Productivity and Size of Farm, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 245-253. Singh, J. et al. (1985) Agricultural Geography, New Delhi, p. 242. Singh, V.R. (1979) A Method for Analyzing Agricultural Productivity, Agriculture and Food Supply in Developing Countries (ed., J.T. Coppock), Published for the Commission on World Food Problems and Agricultural Productivity of the IOU, Department of Geography, University of Edinburg, pp. 43-51. Stamp L.D. (1952) The Measurement of Agricultural Efficiency with Special Reference to India, Silver Jubilee Souvenir Volume, Indian Geographical Society, pp. 177-78. Stamp L.D. (1958) The Measurement of Land Resources, The Geographical Review, Vol. 48, No. 1. p.3. Stamp L.D. (1960) Our Developing World, London, 1960, p. 108. Statistical Bulletin (2011) District Aligarh, Etah, Kasganj, Mathura, Agra, Firozabad and Hathras, Economics and Statistics, Division, Planning Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Sunil O. and Virendra N. (2014) Agricultural Productivity of Barmati Tashil, Pune District (Maharashtra), Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, Volume 7; issue5, pp 25-30. Thapa S (2007) The Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: Empirical Evidence from the Nepalese mid-hills. Contributed paper prepared for presentation at the 106th seminar of the EAAE, 25th to 27th October, 2007. Montpellier, France. Thompson R.J. (1926) The Productivity of British and Danish Farming, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 89, Part II, 1926, p. 28. Toufique K.A.(2005) Farm Size and Productivity in Bangladesh Agriculture: Role of Transaction Costs in Rural Labour Markets, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 40, No. 10, pp. 988-992. Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Wadia D. N. (1958) Geology of India, London, p 385. Zobel S.P. (1950) On the Measurement of Productivity of Labour, Journal of American Statistical Society, Vol. 45, p. 218.
227 Appendix 1a MGYD: District wise Share of Gross Irrigated Area in GCA (1995) District GrossCropped Area Gross Irrigated Area Share in (hectares) (hectares) GCA ( %) Aligarh 634475 542478 85.50 Hathras - - - Etah 508259 385269 75.80 Kasganj - - - Firozabad 260972 190049 72.82 Mathura 141239 110693 78.37 Agra 48823 34413 70.49 MGYD 1593768 1262902 79.24 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 1995
1b MGYD: District wise Share of Gross Irrigated Area in GCA (2000) District Gross Cropped Area Gross Irrigated Area Share in (hectares) (hectares) GCA ( %) Aligarh 483570 403265 83.39 Hathras 225654 179527 79.56 Etah 519606 390050 75.07 Kasganj - - - Firozabad 273863 193020 70.48 Mathura 146798 116133 79.11 Agra 56002 37203 66.43 MGYD 1705493 1319198 77.35 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2000
1c MGYD: District wise Share of Gross Irrigated Area in GCA (2005) District Gross Cropped Area Gross Irrigated Area Share in (hectares) (hectares) GCA ( %) Aligarh 498453 498453 100.00 Hathras 230110 187356 81.42 Etah 520599 409631 78.68 Kasganj - - Firozabad 278207 201715 72.51 Mathura 152464 115601 75.82 Agra 54032 36904 68.30 MGYD 1733865 1449660 83.61 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2005 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
228 1d MGYD: District wise Share of Gross Irrigated Area in GCA (2010) District Gross Cropped Area Gross Irrigated Area Share in (hectares) (hectares) GCA ( %) Aligarh 531183 433676 81.64 Hathras 237217 196436 82.81 Etah 296741 266932 89.95 Kasganj 244790 208895 85.34 Firozabad 293293 216401 73.78 Mathura 146998 116070 78.96 Agra 54101 38483 71.13 MGYD 1804323 1476893 81.85 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2010
1e MGYD: District wise Share of Gross Irrigated Area in GCA (2015) District Gross Cropped Area Gross Irrigated Area Share in (hectares) (hectares) GCA (%) Aligarh 546346 462093 84.58 Hathras 248674 210980 84.84 Etah 300300 299554 99.75 Kasganj 264608 218974 82.75 Firozabad 311144 225922 72.61 Mathura 146148 116018 79.38 Agra 53560 37168 69.40 MGYD 1870780 1570709 83.96 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2015
1f MGYD: Trend of District wise Share of Irrigated Area (1995-2015) District Share in GCA (%) 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Aligarh 85.50 83.39 100.00 81.64 84.58 Hathras - 79.56 81.42 82.81 84.84 Etah 75.80 75.07 78.68 89.95 99.75 Kasganj - - - 85.34 82.75 Firozabad 72.82 70.48 72.51 73.78 72.61 Mathura 78.37 79.11 75.82 78.96 79.38 Agra 70.49 66.43 68.30 71.13 69.40 MGYD 79.24 77.35 83.61 81.85 83.96 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 1995-2015 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
229 Appendix 2a District-wise use of Chemical Fertilizer in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995)
S. No. District Net Sown Current Other Total Chemical Kg/Hectare Area Fallow Fallow Cultivated Fertilizers of TCA (NSA) Area (Hectares) (Kg) 1 Aligarh 394304 10779 13490 418573 47317000 113.04
2 Mahamaya ------Nagar
3 Etah 306545 20017 26440 353002 43265000 122.56
4 Kanshiram ------Nagar 5 Firozabad 173280 10023 9983 193286 23487000 121.51
6 Mathura 98289 2725 2853 103867 10473000 100.83
7 Agra 37544 844 1004 39392 6868000 174.35
Total MGYD 1009962 44388 53770 1108120 131410000 118.59 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 1995.
2b District-wise use of Chemical Fertilizer in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2000)
S. District Net Sown Current Other Total Chemical Kg/Hectare No. Area Fallow Fallow Cultivated Fertilizers of TCA (NSA) Area (Hectares) (Kg) 1 Aligarh 294945 5259 9686 309890 44219000 142.69
2 Mahamaya 145618 2099 4167 151884 29977000 197.37 Nagar
3 Etah 322729 16296 21559 360584 53456000 148.25 4 Kanshiram ------Nagar
5 Firozabad 174048 11377 9040 194465 26135000 134.39 Maulana6 Mathura Azad Library,97334 3011 Aligarh3163 103508 Muslim15039000 University145.29
7 Agra 37810 1338 657 39805 8700000 218.57
Total MGYD 1072484 39380 48272 1160136 177526000 153.02 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2000.
230 2c District-wise use of Chemical Fertilizer in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2005)
S.No. District Net Current Other Total Chemical Kg/Hectare Sown Fallow Fallow Cultivated Fertilizers of TCA Area Area (Kg) (NSA) (Hectares)
1 Aligarh 301918 7578 6230 315726 57384000 181.75
2 Mahamaya 147922 2940 2538 153400 30506000 198.87 Nagar 3 Etah 326125 14093 20506 360724 55784000 154.64
4 Kanshiram ------Nagar 5 Firozabad 180908 8783 7086 196777 40835000 207.52
6 Mathura 100790 1683 1502 103975 18964000 182.39
7 Agra 36710 1558 637 38905 10225000 262.82
Total MGYD 1094373 36635 38499 1169507 213698000 182.72 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2005.
2d District-wise use of Chemical Fertilizer in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2010)
S. District Net Sown Current Other Total Chemical Kg/Hectare No. Area Fallow Fallow Cultivated Fertilizers of TCA (NSA) Area (Hectares) (Kg)
1 Aligarh 303147 6875 5392 315414 79892000 253.29
2 Mahamaya 148334 2330 2560 153224 44504000 290.45 Nagar 3 Etah 186300 9272 9389 204961 49351000 240.78
4 Kanshiram 141983 6938 7363 156284 32901000 210.52 Nagar Maulana5 Firozabad Azad181492 Library,7563 7256 Aligarh196311 Muslim52798000 University268.95 6 Mathura 100848 1922 805 103575 24846000 239.88
7 Agra 36544 1579 673 38796 11165000 287.79
Total MGYD 1098648 36479 33438 1168565 295457000 252.84 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2010.
231 2e District-wise use of Chemical Fertilizer in Middle Ganga Yamuna Doab (2015)
S. No. District Net Sown Current Other Total Chemical Kg/Hectare Area Fallow Fallow Cultivated Fertilizers of TCA Area (Hectares) (NSA) (Kg)
1 Aligarh 304013 3367 5317 312697 78900000 252.32 2 Mahamaya 149138 1898 2437 153473 39952000 260.32 Nagar
3 Etah 185870 10255 8632 204757 44774000 218.67 4 Kanshiram 143139 4988 4471 152598 55390000 362.98 Nagar
5 Firozabad 185908 5448 6407 197763 37818000 191.23
6 Mathura 100483 1989 936 103408 59755000 577.86
7 Agra 36175 1384 734 38293 10105000 263.89
Total MGYD 1104726 29329 28934 1162989 326694000 280.91 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2015. 2f District-wise use of Chemical Fertilizer in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
S. No. District 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
1 Aligarh 113.04 142.69 181.75 253.29 252.32
2 Mahamaya - 197.37 198.87 290.45 260.32 Nagar
3 Etah 122.56 148.25 154.64 240.78 218.67
4 Kanshiram - - - 210.52 362.98 Nagar
5 Firozabad 121.51 134.39 207.52 268.95 191.23
6 Mathura 100.83 145.29 182.39 239.88 577.86
7 Agra 174.35 218.57 262.82 287.79 263.89
Total MGYD 118.59 153.02 182.72 252.84 280.91 MaulanaSource: DistrictAzad Statistical Library, Booklet, 1995 Aligarh to 2015. Muslim University
232 Appendix 3a District-wise Distribution of Tractors /10000 of TCA in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995)
S.No. District Net Sown Current Other Total Cultivated No of No of Area (NSA) Fallow Fallow Area (Hectares) Tractors Tractors/ 10000 TCA 1 Aligarh 394304 10779 13490 418573 7594 181.43 2 Mahamaya ------Nagar 3 Etah 306545 20017 26440 353002 3924 111.16 4 Kanshiram ------Nagar 5 Firozabad 173280 10023 9983 193286 2290 118.48 6 Mathura 98289 2725 2853 103867 2193 211.14 7 Agra 37544 844 1004 39392 229 58.13 Total MGYD 1009962 44388 53770 1108120 16230 146.46 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 1995.
3b District-wise Distribution of Tractors /10000 of TCA in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2000)
S.No. District Net Sown Current Other Total No of No of Area Fallow Fallow Cultivated Tractors Tractors/ (NSA) Area 10000 (Hectares) TCA 1 Aligarh 294945 5259 9686 309890 6918 223.24 2 Mahamaya 145618 2099 4167 151884 3921 258.16 Nagar 3 Etah 322729 16296 21559 360584 4416 122.47 4 Kanshiram ------Nagar 5 Firozabad 174048 11377 9040 194465 4368 224.62 6 Mathura 97334 3011 3163 103508 3566 344.51 7 Agra 37810 1338 657 39805 901 226.35 MaulanaTotal MGYD Azad1072484 Library,39380 Aligarh48272 1160136 Muslim24090 University207.65 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2000.
233 3c District-wise Distribution of Tractors /10000 of TCA in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2005) S.No. District Net Current Other Total No of No of Sown Fallow Fallow Cultivated Tractors Tractors/ Area Area 10000 (NSA) (Hectares) TCA 1 Aligarh 301918 7578 6230 315726 18245 577.87 2 Mahamaya 5518 359.71 147922 2940 2538 153400 Nagar 3 Etah 326125 14093 20506 360724 8345 231.34 4 Kanshiram ------Nagar 5 Firozabad 180908 8783 7086 196777 8332 423.42 6 Mathura 100790 1683 1502 103975 5799 557.73 7 Agra 36710 1558 637 38905 3545 911.19 Total MGYD 1094373 36635 38499 1169507 49784 425.68 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2005.
3d District-wise Distribution of Tractors /10000 of TCA in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2010)
S.No. District Net Sown Current Other Total No of No of Area Fallow Fallow Cultivated Tractors Tractors/ (NSA) Area 10000 TCA (Hectares) 1 Aligarh 303147 6875 5392 315414 23571 747.30 2 Mahamaya 148334 2330 2560 153224 7765 506.77 Nagar 3 Etah 186300 9272 9389 204961 12426 606.26 4 Kanshiram 141983 6938 7363 156284 213.97 Nagar 3344 5 Firozabad 181492 7563 7256 196311 12296 626.35 6 Mathura 100848 1922 805 103575 8032 775.48 Maulana7 Agra Azad36544 Library,1579 673 Aligarh38796 Muslim6189 University1595.27 Total MGYD 1098648 36479 33438 1168565 73623 630.03 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2010.
3e
234 District-wise Distribution of Tractors /10000 of TCA in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (2015) S.No. District Net Sown Current Other Total No of No of Area Fallow Fallow Cultivated Tractors Tractors/ (NSA) Area 10000 TCA (Hectares) 1 Aligarh 304013 3367 5317 312697 30452 973.85 2 Mahamaya 149138 1898 2437 153473 711.98 Nagar 10927 3 Etah 185870 10255 8632 204757 18503 903.66 4 Kanshiram 143139 4988 4471 152598 4980 326.35 Nagar 5 Firozabad 185908 5448 6407 197763 16260 822.20 6 Mathura 100483 1989 936 103408 10265 992.67 7 Agra 36175 1384 734 38293 8833 2306.69 Total MGYD 1104726 29329 28934 1162989 100220 861.75 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 2015. 3f District-wise Distribution of Tractors in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
District 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1 Aligarh 7594 6918 18245 23571 30452 2 Mahamaya 5518 - 3921 7765 Nagar 10927 3 Etah 3924 4416 8345 12426 18503 4 Kanshiram - - - 4980 Nagar 3344 5 Firozabad 2290 4368 8332 12296 16260 6 Mathura 2193 3566 5799 8032 10265 7 Agra 229 901 3545 6189 8833 Total MGYD 16230 24090 49784 73623 100220 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 1995-2015.
3g District-wise Distribution of Tractors /10000 of TCA in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab (1995-2015)
S.No. District 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1 Aligarh 181.43 223.24 577.87 747.30 973.85 2 Mahamaya Nagar - 258.16 359.71 506.77 711.98 3 Etah 111.16 122.47 231.34 606.26 903.66 4 Kanshiram Nagar - - - 213.97 326.35 5 Firozabad 118.48 224.62 423.42 626.35 822.20 Maulana6 Mathura Azad Library,211.14 Aligarh344.51 557.73Muslim775.48 University992.67 7 Agra 58.13 226.35 911.19 1595.27 2306.69 Total MGYD 146.46 207.65 425.68 630.03 861.75 Source: District Statistical Booklet, 1995-2015
235 Appendix (A) MAJOR RESEARCH PROJECT University Grants Commission (UGC), Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002
Principal Investigator: Prof. Abdul Munir Department of Geography, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (UP)-202002
QUESTIONNAIRE Relationship Between Labour and Agricultural Productivity in Middle Ganga-Yamuna Doab, Uttar Pradesh: A Geo- Spatial Analysis
Section I: Village Profile
District: …………….…… Tehsil: ………………… Block: ……………..… Village: ……………….
Nearest Town: …………………….. Distance from nearest town (in Kms.): …………………………
On Main Road: Yes/No Away from Main Road: Yes/No Distance from main road: ….
Total Households: ….………..… Total Population: ………………… Population (Gen): …………
Population (OBC): ……………….. Population (SC): ………………… Population (ST): ……..…….
Total Area (Hect.): …… Area under Cultivation (Hect.): …… Net Sown Area (Hect.): ………
Total Irrigated area (Hect.): …………………………… No. of landless Households: ……………
Land-Use Pattern: S. No Category Area (In Hect.) Share in TRA (%) 1 Forest 2 Cultivable Wasteland 3 Current Fallow 4 Other Fallow 5 Barren and Uncultivable Land Maulana6 Land Azad Under Non Library,Agricultural Use Aligarh Muslim University 7 Pastures/Grazing land 8 Misc. Tree and Groves 9 Water Bodies (Lakes Ponds, etc.) 10 Net Sown Area (NSA) 11 Total Reported Area (TRA)
236 Section 2: General Profile
1. Name of the Head: …………………………………...
2. Sex: (a) Male (b) Female
3. Age Structure:
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60 and Total Above Age Group
4. Religion:
(a) Hindu (b) Muslim (c) Christian (d) Sikh (e) Other
5. Castes: (a) General (b) OBC (c) SC/ST
6. Marital Status:
Married Unmarried Divorced Widower Total Marital Status
7. Educational Status: (a) Literate: ………… (b) Illiterate: …………..
High School Intermediate GraduationHigher/TechnicalTotal Educational Status
8. Employment Status:
(a) Employed: ……………… (b) Unemployed: ……………..
Farmer Labourer Business Household Service/Job Dairy/PoultryOther Maulana Azad Library, AligarhIndustry Muslim University
237 Section 3: Agricultural Status
9. Landholding Status: (a) Marginal (<1 Hect.) (b) Small (1-2 Hect.) (c) Semi-medium (2-4 Hect.) (d) Medium (4-10 Hect.) (e) Large (>10 Hect.)
10. Type of agriculture practiced:
(a) Subsistence (b) Commercial (c) Both
11. Area, Production and Yield of Major Crops:
Area Production Name of Crop Yield S. No. (hectares) (In Qt.) (In Rs./-) 1 Rice 2 Wheat 3 Barley 4 Millet 5 Maize 6 Moong 7 Arhar 8 Mustard 9 Sugarcane 10 Potato 11 Other Total
12. Types of Agricultural inputs used (a)Application of Fertilizer (Kg/ha): ……………….. (b) Application of HYVs: Yes/No (c) Application of Insecticides: Yes/No (d) Use of Tractor (No. of Tractors/ Cultivated land): ………………….. (e) Use of Thresher (No. of Threshers/ Cultivated land): ……………… Maulana(f) Azad Other Implements Library, AligarhYes/No Muslim University 13. Annual Input /Hectare (Rs/-) ……………………… 14. Annual Output/Hectare (Rs/-) ………………......
238 15. Sources and Area under Irrigation:
Tube well (Govt.)Tube well (Private) Canal Pond Other
16.Cause for increase in production: (a) Irrigation facility (b) Farm implements (c) HYV seeds
(d) Use of Insecticides/pesticides (e) other
Section 3: Profile of Labourers
17.Details of Labour Operations (per hectare):
Daily labour Family Labour Rate Per Name of S. No. Category Labour Days Category Labour Days Labour (Rs./-) Crop M F C M F C M F C M F C M F C 1 Rice
2 Wheat
3 Barley
4 Millet
5 Maize
6 Moong
7 Arhar
8 Mustard
9 Sugarcane
10 Potato
11 Other
Total Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
Section 4: Socio-economic Profile
18. Do you own a house? Yes/No
239 19. Status of house :
(a) Kachha (b) Thatched (c) Cemented
20. Type of Family:
(a) Single (b) Nuclear (c) Joint
21. Family Size:
(a) Small (<05) (b) Medium (06-10) (c) large (>10)
22. Drinking water facility:
Public: (a) Tap water (b) Well (c) Hand pump (d) Tube well
Private: (a) Tap water (b) Well (c) Hand pump (d) Tube well
23. Do you have access to electricity? Yes/No
24. How many hours do you receive electricity
(a) <6 Hrs. (b) 6-12 Hrs. (c) 12-18 Hrs. (d) >18 Hrs
25. Gender, age and occupational structure of family:
Occupation Age Monthly Male Female Education (Agriculture/Non Group Income Agriculture) 0-14 15-29
30-44
45-59
>60
Total
26. Sources of income: Maulana (a)Azad Agricultural Library,: …………………… Aligarh(b) NonMuslim Agricultural: University …….………… 27. Household annual income (in Rs./-) from all sources:
(a) < 20,000 (b) 20,001-40,000
(c) 40,001-60, 000 (d) > 60,000
240 28. Number of family members employed? ………………..
29. Are you under debt? Y/N
30. Source of lending money:
(a) Relatives /friends (b) Bank/Co-operative society
(c) Money lender (d) Businessmen
31. Do you have any saving? Y /N
32. Disposal of household waste: (a) In Drain (b) Around house (c) Opens Space
33. Healthcare facilities: (a) Primary Health Centre (b) Private clinic
(c) Govt. Hospital (d) Local Doctor /Hakim/Vaidya
34. Recreational facilities: (a) Village programs (b) local/nearby fairs (c) Radio
(d) Television (e) other
35. Material Possession: (a) Ceiling /Table Fan (b) Cooler (c) Refrigerator (d) Generator (e) Television (f) Radio/transistor (g) Mobile/landline phone (h) Scooter/Motorcycle (i) Cycle (j)Tractor (k) Thresher (l) Tube well (m)Fodder machine (n) other
36. Observations:
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University
241 Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University INTRODUCTION
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Chapter I REVIEW OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University Chapter II STUDY AREA: MIDDLE GANGA-YAMUNA DOAB
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University CHAPTER III
TREND OF AREA UNDER MAJOR CROPS
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University CHAPTER IV
TREND OF PRODUCTION UNDER MAJOR CROPS
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University CHAPTER V
TREND AND PATTERN OF LABOUR AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University CHAPTER VI GENERAL PROFILE OF THE SELECTED VILLAGES
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University BIBLIOGRAPHY
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University APPENDICES
Maulana Azad Library, Aligarh Muslim University