Ind. Jn. of Agri. Econ. Vol. 60, No. 1, Jan.-March 2005

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM - A REPORT Rainfed Rice Production Systems in Eastern : An On-Farm Diagnosis and Policy Alternatives1

B.C. Barah* and Sushil Pandey**

I

INTRODUCTION

Rice commended recognition, as a supreme commodity to mankind, because rice is truly life, culture, a tradition and a means of livelihood to millions. It is an important staple food providing 60-70 per cent body calorie intake to the consumers. The United Nations General assembly, in a resolution declared the year of 2004 the International Year of Rice, which has tremendous significance to food security. It very eloquently upheld the need to heighten awareness for the role of rice in alleviating poverty and malnutrition (United Nations, 2002). Thus rice plays an important role in the national economy, which is particularly true in eastern India. Rice contributed 42 per cent of the total foodgrain production in India. It has been the major crop in eastern India (in many cases it is the only crop in the kharif season), which is grown in highly diverse ecosystems under almost natural conditions. Because, it was observed that rice was grown with negligible irrigation, minimal chemical inputs use and the level of mechanisation has been the lowest. This traditional mode of rice production system made the productivity of rice in the region one of the lowest in the country. In this context, it is crucial that the unsustainability of intensive system of agriculture (e.g., rice-wheat system in North-western India), has gradually put the ostracised green revolution out of stream. This is likely to threaten the sustainability of food security at large. Hence rice production system, which is though less developed, in eastern India gained prominence. But, rice in eastern India confronts many adversities and diversities, posing a challenge to agricultural policy makers and researchers. The regional disparity in rice research achievement and growing nutritional insecurity has created escalating demand for

* Principal Scientist, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi - 110 012 and ** Agricultural Economist, IRRI, Los Banos, Manila, Philippines, respectively, in collaboration with B.C. Bhowmick, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat - 785 013 (Assam), Jawahar Thakur, Production Economist, Rajendra Agricultural University, Samastipur - 848 125 (Pusa), , Ajay Koshta, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur - 492 006 (), R.K. Singh, Principal Scientist, CRRUS, Hazaribag, Jharkhand, P. Samal, Senior Scientist, Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack (Orissa), Dibakar Naik, Professor and Head of Agricultural Economics, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar (Orissa), B.V.S. Sisudia, Professor and Head of Agricultural Statistics, Narendra Dev Agricultural University and Technology, Faizabad - 224 229 () and Nirmal Saha, Additional Director, Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, respectively.

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 111

appropriate and more location-specific research. Accumulated evidences suggest that gap in research challenges and goals achievement has been bulging out, which also created more demand for rice research in the region (Jha and Pandey, 2005). Hence the main focus of the research programmes is to prioritise the rice research in eastern India to reduce the gap. The major challenge, thus is to enhance the productivity of rice and rice-based systems. It requires a well articulated design of system research in the following thematic areas as lauded by the International Year of Rice 2004 Declaration: Genetic improvement in rice variety for higher yield and stability, better crop management and crop care techniques, effective post-harvest technology, and to strengthen the capacity building of the stakeholders. These cannot be achieved merely by developing modern and new technology without imbibing the traditional knowledge base on the rice production systems. These important facets of future rice research require an accurate understanding of the synergy among the varieties and on-farm dynamics of the existing production systems and their changing pattern. The eastern India has been highly deficient in these respects. The present study attempts to generate required information base and analytical supportive evidences in this understanding. ON-FARM DIAGNOSIS OF RICE PRODUCTION SYSTEM AND TECHNOLOGY IN EASTERN INDIA Eastern India comprises Assam, Bihar, , Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal and eastern Uttar Pradesh, which has been the backward area in the country. Nearly half of the India’s one billion population inhabit in eastern India in about 38 per cent of geographical area (Appendix 1). A very high proportion of people are poor with Bihar and Orissa leading the list of proportion of population living below poverty line (BPL) in the country. Extreme rural poverty has been conspicuous in the region.

Eastern Uttar Assam Bihar t i r

Madhya Pradesh West Bengal Chhattisgarh a

Orissa

Figure 1. Map of Eastern India 112 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Rice is the main staple food in the region, which is grown in around 26 million ha accounting nearly two thirds of total rice area in the country. It however contributed only 49 per cent of production (Appendix 2). The rice yield in eastern India has been low as well as uncertain, because the production system has been primarily monsoon based and vulnerable to the vagaries of nature. The agriculture in eastern India is at stake due to this dependence, as a single year of severe drought or flood is likely to cause substantial reduction in production disrupting the economy at large. The impact of shortfall in production has been more acute at the household level than at aggregative level. Therefore, the problem of household food security looms large. Apparently, plagued by multiple stresses (biotic as well as abiotic) and constrained support services, the production system failed to keep pace with the total food requirement in the region. The production system in the eastern India, is particularly complex owing to diverse ecological situations and socio-economic ethos under which the entire process operates. The agriculture in the region is thus characterised by low and unstable production as it is highly vulnerable to multiple risks of floods, drought and cyclone, etc. Cost-benefits analysis showed negative net return to rice most often in years of droughts, floods and cyclones. That is, the magnitude of climatic risks has been so acute that the farmers not only did not profit, but also lost the production investment. However, in recent years, some positive changes have taken place both in production system and in input use pattern. In some areas, the productivity reached a level almost parallel to that of developed agriculture as in Punjab. This changed environment in eastern India has important implication for the food security in the country. Because extraordinary success in rice production achieved in developed areas, have either reached a plateau or facing production decline. Moreover, at present, the popular rice-wheat system is believed to be an environmental bad as it perpetuated over-exploitation of ground water resources, produced bad soil (salinity and alkaline soil), and nutrient build up in the soil. Therefore, the rainfed production system in eastern India has become of crucial importance to national food security. By extrapolating, it can be shown that if the rice yield is raised to the national level, the region has potential to add more than 13 million tonnes of rice additionally to total rice production, which will insulate the country against the inter-year fluctuation in food production. It however, requires an efficient organisation of the production system, stimulating technical change and improving the input use efficiency. As the eastern India has been, unfortunately, deficient in one or all of the above processes, therefore the challenge for future rice research has become important. Having captured the pattern of change in rice production system at aggregate level, the study specifically attempts to achieve the following objectives: (i) To assess the performance of the production system at the farm level (ii) To diagnose the technology likely to appropriate to specific agro-ecological situation, and finally (iii) To suggest policy intervention to improve the household food security.

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 113

The elaborate farm survey in the eastern India generated plot level information to estimate the cause and effect relationship and identify factors as agent of the change. Appropriate statistical models were used for the purpose. Inter-regional variation in production performances in rice has been specifically examined. The disparity in household income and contribution of source income is studied. On-Farm Difference in Rice Production Systems A detailed primary farm survey was conducted among 1752 households selected with the help of stratified random sampling procedure from 117 villages in 18 rainfed rice growing districts in the eastern India. A structured questionnaire specifically prepared for the survey was used in the study. The survey, though concentrated on rice production systems, but in order to have a realistic comparison of the inter- household differences in income and livelihood pattern, the entire gamut of household activities, including, off farm, non-farm opportunities and services was considered. The selection of sample household was carefully designed to ensure a fair representation of various farm size categories.2 The sample distribution of the household showed that the overall proportion of small and marginal farmers dominated the farming system (Appendix 3). It however varied from 44 per cent in Dinajpur (West Bengal) to 89 per cent in Koderma (Jharkhand). These small landholdings are also fragmented into number of parcel/plots, making the production operations difficult to perform. This has implication on rainfed agriculture as farmers having smaller size of landholdings are unlikely to adopt the labour-displacing modern technology, but prefer high yielding and low material input using ones. The predominance of small and fragmented farm size therefore, also has implication on agricultural management practices and crop technology design. Diversity in Agro Ecological Situations (Land Type) A unique characteristic of rice production system is that it is grown under diverse production conditions. This diversity has been more conspicuous in the eastern India (Appendix 4). Based on their perception, farmers quite succinctly distinguished the ecological situations and broadly classify the land types as upland (unbunded), upland (bunded), medium land, lowland, semi deep water and deep water depending on location of the plots on toposequence and soil hydrology. The definition of land type thus varied from place to place. For example, the upland of Chattisgarh or Inland Orissa could be completely different from that of Eastern Uttar Paredesh. The sample districts in the study represented 13 different heterogeneous agro-ecological situations. The analysis of agricultural production in these ecosystems captured the diversity of production conditions. On the whole, the comparatively more productive land viz., medium land and lowland occupied larger proportion of cropped area in the study area (Figure 2). The medium land and lowland particularly dominated land types in West Bengal and Assam, whereas in agriculturally backward districts like Kalahandi, Mayurbhanj, Samastipur, Maharajganj and Bastar, the proportion of less 114 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

productive upland was substantial. Quality of land was found to be associated with crop yield (as the yield was better in medium land and lowland), while the yield in upland (unbunded) was the least one. The proportion of total upland (bunded and unbunded) was more in the sample districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and inland Orissa. The analysis showed that biophysical characteristics directly influenced the crop yield. It thus called for ecosystem-specific and regionally differentiated research strategy for rice.

Bahraich

Maharajganj

Dinajpur

24 pargana

Darbhanga

Samastipur

Bastar

Raipur

Golaghat

Nagaon

Mayurbhanj

Kalahandi

0 102030405060708090 % Area Upland Medium Lowland

Figure 2. Percentage Area (Landholdings) by Land Type Across the Selected Districts

Relationship Between Landholdings and Productivity The typology of land type is important as it influenced the pattern of adoption of modern technology, input usages and thereby the crop yield (Appendix 5). The analysis of land ownership pattern showed a positive relationship between land type and farm size; implying that large farmers possessed the better quality land. The joint effect of unfavourable land type and low productivity implied that the small and marginal farmers have been more vulnerable to poverty as these farmers are unlikely to adopt modern varieties targeted for well-endowed environment. Therefore in order to ensure food security of the disadvantages group of farmers, the future technology should not only be pro-poor, but it should also suit the unfavourable production conditions. The modern production technology has been scale neutral to farm size with greater emphasis on homogeneous region. Therefore, it befitted the small farmers minimally, particularly in the diverse ecological situations.

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 115

SMALL FARMER-ORIENTED PRODUCTION SYSTEM AND INTER-REGIONAL VARIATION IN LANDHOLDINGS

The growing population pressure, not only resulted in declining size of landholdings but also the land fragmentation. It has been particularly true in areas where the rate of growth of population exceeds food production growth. It has led to mushrooming of the small and marginal farmers. The proportion of the small and marginal farmers among the sample households was found to be about two-thirds of total households, which varied from 57 per cent to 79 per cent. The smallest average farm size was 0.37 ha among the marginal farmers in 24-Parganas (Appendix 5). The trend in declining farm size has set the process of rapid marginalisation of landholdings in eastern India (Jha, 2001). The prevailing land tenancy, however equalised the land holdings to some extent. The Gini measure of inequality of landholdings showed that the operational land holding was more equal than the ownership landholdings. That is, the inequality in operational holdings was less, where the incidence of tenancy is more. Figure 3 shows the relationship of inequality of landholdings and operational holdings, where the inequality coefficient of operational holdings was uniformly lower than that of ownership holdings. The proportion of leased-in land was found more in West Bengal (10 per cent to 20 per cent) and Nagaon district in Assam (13-16 per cent) as well as in Mayurbhanj in Orissa, which resulted in lower inequality of farm size. It may thus be interpreted that the land tenancy is an instrument for the reduction in inequality.

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30 Bastar Gini Coefficient (per cent) (per cent) Coefficient Gini Raipur Nagaon Balasore Dinajpur Golaghat Bahraich Kalahandi Darbhanga 24 pargana Samastipur Kendrapara Mayurbhanj Maharajganj

Operational Holdings Ownership holdings

Figure 3. Inequality in Operational Holdings and Ownership Landholdings

Nonetheless, the size of farm holdings continues to decline and the number of small and marginal farmers has been bulging. This change has important bearing in developing future rice varieties and other related technologies.

116 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

Irrigation Infrastructure and Water Control The eastern India is endowed with rich water resources. The perennial rivers such as the Brahmputra in Assam, the Ganga in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal and the Mahanadi in Orissa are among the large river systems in the country along with an interwoven network of tributaries traversing across the region. This apart, the region receives adequate rainfall ranging from the average of 1000 mm to 2500 mm annually, and also has abundant and rich untapped ground water resources. But, this valuable resource is rarely used to production purposes in systematic manner. The development of water resource has been generally poor in the region. Figure 4 shows the comparative picture of extent of irrigated areas and rainfed areas in the selected disricts. It clearly shows that except a few cases, rainfed systems dominated the region. There are however, some pockets of development of irrigation. The expansion of well irrigation in West Bengal (24 Parganas and Dinajpur) and Eastern Uttar Pradesh (Maharjganj and Bahraich) and of late in Assam has given rich dividend in productivity improvement. It implies that the appropriate policy measures in irrigation development will make big difference to the production of rice in eastern India.

102

82

62

42 c

Per cent area Per cent 22

2 Bastar -18 Raipur Nagaon Dinajpur Bahraich Golaghat Kalahandi Darbhanga 24 pargana Samastipur Mayurbhanj Maharajganj

% Irrigation % Rainfed

Figure 4. Percent of Area under Irrigation and Rainfed Rice

Innovations in Rice Production System Cropping pattern: Rice has been the major crop in the region, although a host of other crops such as wheat, maize, oilseeds, jute, sugarcane and vegetables were also grown, whose area shares has been negligible. On an average about 70 per cent of net cropped area was under rice, which varied from 47 per cent in Samastipur, Bihar to 98 per cent in Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Table 1).

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 117

TABLE 1. AVERAGE AREA UNDER RICE IN SELECTED DISTRICTS IN EASTERN INDIA (per cent) State Districts Rice area (average) Range of area (1) (2) (3) (4) Assam Golaghat 76 63-100 Nagaon 86 71-100 Bihar Samastipur 47 41-54 Darbhanga 91 81-97 West Bengal 24 Parganas 85 76-90 Dinajpur 79 70-84 Orissa Kalahandi 93 88-100 Mayurbhanj 89 69-97 Chhattisgarh Raipur 98 95-99 Bastar 93 88-98 East Uttar Pradesh Maharajganj 76 65-90 Bahraich 53 44-66

Rice by Culture Winter rice is the main crop in eastern India. Unfortunately, most of the rice areas have been highly risk prone and affected by floods as well as droughts, which resulted in low productivity. It is in this context, the introduction of Boro rice (summer rice) in West Bengal, Assam, parts of Bihar and Orissa has emerged as a useful alternative. Boro rice enjoys the advantage of a flood-free crop as well as high-yielding potential to improve the overall rice yield. The extent of area under boro rice was particularly high in 24-Parganas with 41 per cent of total rice area and the corresponding percentage of 38 per cent in Dinajpur (Table 2). The same was 15 per cent in Nagaon and 11 per cent in Golaghat. The area under Boro rice has further expanded in Assam in recent years. The trend in expansion of area under Boro rice was more conspicuous in flood-prone areas, where farmers treated it as a mechanism of risk management. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Boro area has expanded in the non-traditional areas of eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa also. The yield premium of Boro rice was at least double the yield of autumn as well as winter rice. Another advantage of expansion of Boro rice is that it helps in tackling the problem of vast rabi fallow.

TABLE 2. PERCENTAGE OF GROSS AREA UNDER DIFFERENT RICE CULTURE IN SELECTED DISTRICTS Nagaon Golaghat 24-Parganas Dinajpur (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Pre-kharif 9 12 - - Kharif 76 77 43 40 Rabi 15 11 41 38

Methods of Crop Establishment Transplanting of rice (TPR) was prevalent in the flooded fields, which was commonly followed in Assam, west Bengal, Bihar and parts of Orissa. Unlike the TPR in these areas, the dry seeded rice (DSR) was followed widely in Chhattisgarh 118 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

and inland Orissa. The DSR was practiced in water as well as labour scarce areas (Table 3). Compared to TPR, the rice yield under DSR was, of course very low. However, recent literature shows that alternatives to conventional crop establishment methods such as direct seeding on raised bed, and transplanting on zero tilled plots etc. gives yield comparable to transplanting methods besides considerable saving in irrigation water (Balasubramanian, 2003). Such innovations are required in the production system in the water scarce areas in eastern India.

TABLE 3. AREA UNDER DIFFERENT CROP ESTABLISHMENT (per cent) Area under TPR Area under DSR (1) (2) (3) 24 - Parganas 100 - Dinajpur 100 - Nagaon 100 - Golaghat 95 5 Kalahandi 46 54 Mayurbhanj 38 62 Raipur 4 96 Bastar 22 78 Modern Rice Technology and Technological Changes The analysis of modern rice varieties shows that the distribution of varieties across various ecosystems was unequal and more so at the sub-ecosystem level (Figure 5).

India

142

125

103 101 90 63

6 2

H ill ecosystem Irrigated system R ainfed

1970s 1980s 1990s

Figure 5. Decadal Distribution of Number of Modern Rice Variety by Target Ecosystem in India

The village survey clearly demonstrated this contrasting picture of distribution of rice varieties in the rainfed areas, as fewer modern varieties are available at the farmers’ fields (Appendix 7). It has been interesting to note that the most vulnerable

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 119

and unfavourable ecosystems having even fewer varieties as compared to well endowed irrigated system. Not only among the ecosystems, even within the rainfed system, the distribution was more inequitable in area allocation where better off lands was allocated to the modern variety. It clearly shows that farmers possessing unfavourable land, as often the case with the small and marginal farmers, gets stuck at low and uncertain production due to lack of appropriate varieties. There is tremendous willingness to adopt, if suitable modern variety is made available to farmers. Therefore, notwithstanding the equity problem, the overall adoption has increased in the rainfed areas (Figure 6). It is notable that despite the irrigation facility being less than 40 per cent area, the adoption of modern varieties exceeded the 50 per cent mark in the rainfed areas, which has even touched as high as 90 per cent to 100 per cent level in West Bengal and eastern Uttar Pradesh (Appendix 8). It is another matter that many of these varieties bred for irrigated environments have transgressed into rainfed environments.

95 9 80

65 6 50 yield qtl/ha Per cent area Per cent 35 3 20

5 0 Bastar Raipur Nagaon Balasore Dinajpur Bahraich Golaghat Kalahandi Darbhanga 24 pargana Samastipur Kendrapara Mayurbhanj Maharajganj

% MV Area Yield

Figure 6. Regional Variation in Adoption of Modern Variety and Yield of Rice

Unfortunately, this pattern of adoption has not been translated to higher yield uniformly. Probably, due to poor genetic expression of the varieties, the rice yield remained lower in the rainfed areas than the national average. Alternatively, it is likely that adoption of the varieties was not accompanied by suitable crop management practices to provide the desired yield. Therefore, the relationship between adoption of modern variety and rice yield was somewhat weakened in 120 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

eastern India. The puzzle is that even in the instances of higher input use, the increase in yield is very moderate. It has been observed that despite intensive use of inputs (irrigation, fertiliser and varieties) as in Bahraich of eastern Uttar Pradesh, where the area under modern variety was as high as 95 per cent, the fertiliser use reached 124 kg/ha, labour use was 156 days and irrigation coverage 72 per cent, yet the yield level stuck barely at 2 tonne/ha. The story also repeats in many other areas. With prolific adoption level, the marginal gain in yield is a paradox, which further raises pertinent question that why was the yield of rainfed rice so low, even under accelerated adoption of modern technology? Thus it requires more insight and serious soul- searching on-farm investigation and to determine the cause and effect relationship. Role of Biological Characteristics as Varietal Choice Factor In the heterogeneous environments like the rainfed areas of eastern India, achieving stable yield requires maintaining diversity of rice varieties, each of them having specific niches. The farmers therefore, assign more importance to varietal attributes such as maturity period, grain quality and straw yields, not just the grain yield. Suitable variety irrespective of whether modern or traditional variety, if accompanied by support services and policies, increases the yield as happened in the case Boro rice in Assam and West Bengal. The highest yield of 3.90 tonnes/ha is achieved in Assam and 4.66 tonnes/ha in West Bengal. An important factor affecting such a rewarding yield is the aggressive watershed development implemented in recent period. But lack of modern varieties remained a critical constraint to yield improvement. It is observed that only two or three modern varieties viz, Swarna Mahsuri,3 Pankaj and IET 4094 cover nearly 86 per cent of the area in West Bengal, and similarly Bahadur, Ranjit and Biplab/Mahsuri covered nearly 70 per cent in Assam. This trend is also identical in many other states. Can such narrow varietal- base sustain rice production? Demand Driven Agricultural Technology A variety to be user-friendly, should satisfy higher yielding capability and low cost of cultivation. Usually modern varieties satisfy the yield criteria, but at high cost of production. The yield achieved at a higher cost of cultivation reduces the overall net return and ultimately led to unsustainability. Non-yield characteristics such as consumer preferences, resilience to biotic and abiotic stresses were not considered adequately in the research agenda. Perhaps, this has led to a situation of a fewer modern varieties concentrated in larger areas, while large numbers of traditional varieties spread thinly across the fields (Appendix 9). Hence, the varietal selection programme should take into account the local needs for both modern variety and traditional varieties simultaneously. This synergistic pattern is a proven path for production stability, which should not be neglected any more. In view of the rapid decline in rice biodiversity, it has become imperative to preserve the desirable traits

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 121

in traditional varieties with the help of the modern cutting edge technologies and use them to improvise the yield characteristics. Farmers’ perception on the choice of technology takes into account the multiple traits including yield, resistance property towards biotic and abiotic stresses, grain quality and aroma, sturdiness and consumer preference. Farmers also expressed their opinion on the problem of access to information as an important constraint and emphasised the need for effective mechanism of knowledge dissemination and transfer of technology among them. Lessons derived from the analysis of farmers’ perception could be integrated in the process of technology improvisation programmes. Rice Biodiversity The seed-fertiliser technology in Indian agriculture has increased manifold the demand for seed as the farmers adopted modern technology. This was the basic requirement behind the success of the green revolution, though it discriminated the less endowed regions and further discriminated the small and marginal farmers. The unfavourable production environment has particularly suffered as it lacked the institution of seed distribution. The analysis clearly brings out that larger proportion of modern variety was targeted for well-endowed areas, leaving a fewer of them for highly diverse but less endowed areas. As much as 376 varieties out of the total of 652 modern varieties were found targeted for irrigated environment, which accounts for 60 per cent of the total varieties for less than 40 per cent of total cropped areas. On the contrary, lack of adequate modern technology in the by-passed rainfed areas resulted in stagnant as well as low productivity. The on-farm survey recorded as many as 230 traditional varieties, which are grown in 14 selected districts in eastern India, whereas the modern varieties were fewer in number (Appendix 10). Traditional varieties dominated the rice production system in rainfed areas, which were also preferred for self-consumption purposes as well as due to their resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. The yield stability has been another advantage of traditional varieties, though at a low level. A careful analysis revealed that the advantage of yield enhancement could not be fulfilled in eastern India as the modern varieties engineered for the resource rich production environs failed to convert their genetic potential into the yield expression in rainfed ecosystem. The diverse use of rice (rice recipes) and preferences for quality rice by the rice- consumers resulted in wider diversity specific to localities in varying regions, production situation and ecosystems (Rai, 2004). The traditional varieties however, are disappearing fast endangering the rice biodiversity. From approximately 150, 000 varieties of rice, it has reduced to a couple thousand at the present period (Saikia, 2005).4 Diverse but natural resource-rich rainfed areas thus require adequate research orientation to fulfil the location specificity. 122 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

As rice production is an age-old production practice, which occupied a unique place in diverse rainfed areas, in order to ensure sustainable food production, a fair and adequate distribution of modern varieties in the rainfed areas has been called for. Regional Variation in Rice Area and Yield Apart from being the major food crop, rice has dubious distinction as a three- season5 crop in Assam, West Bengal and partly in Bihar. The production conditions, varietal suitability, purposes of production and consumption, etc. have been well documented in the olden literatures. The winter rice (also known as kharif rice) accounted for nearly two third of the total rice area. Boro rice is a irrigated crop in the rabi season, which covered 26 per cent of cropped area in West Bengal and 13 per cent in Assam (Figure 7).

68 66

58 70

26

36 13

17

Summer Winter Summer Winter

West Bengal Assam

Area % Prod %

Figure 7. Relative Contribution of area and production of Summer (Boro) Rice

Although, the growth of area under major winter (kharif) rice has been sluggish, the Boro rice achieved a phenomenal growth performance during the past decade, as it increased from barely a 0.8 per cent of total rice area in 1962 to 7 per cent in 1998 and 13 per cent in 2001 in Assam. Similarly, in West Bengal area under summer Boro rice increased from 223 thousand hectares in 1969 to 1.21 million hectares in 1997 and 14.01 million ha in 2000-01. That is to say that Boro rice area, on the whole, doubled every 10 years in West Bengal and gradually spread in Bihar and Orissa. Notwithstanding its emergence, the aggregate productivity of rice has been lower than the national average in several areas. The problem is further accentuated by the inter-regional disparity in yield, which has been an important characteristic of the region. Rice yield varied from 1.75 tonne/ha in Raipur to 4.66 tonnes/ha in 24 Paraganas for modern varieties, and 0.81 tonne/ha in Kendrapra to 3.90 tonnes/ha in Nagaon for traditional varieties. This improvement in yield has been primarily due to

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 123

the introduction of Boro rice. The higher yield potential and the scope of escaping the flood risk have enhanced the adoption of Boro rice (Hossain, 2002). Based on the extent of inter-district variability of yield, the areas are classified into low, medium and high yield categories. The low yield category consists of the districts of Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa, medium yield districts are in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and the selected districts in Assam and West Bengal fall in the high yield category (Figure 8). The intervention to reduce the spatial variation and enhance the yield level in the lagged areas is a challenge, which will have important implication on food security, which is a primary source of productivity growth (Pingali et al., 1990).

5 4.7

4.5 4.2

4 3.7

3.5 3.2 3 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 tonne/ha 2 1.8 1.7 1.5 1 1.0 0.5 0 Bastar Raipur Nagaon Balasore Dinajpur Bahraich Kalahandi Goalaghat Darbhanga Samastipur Kendrapara 24 parganas Mayurbhanj Maharajganj High yield Medium yield Low yield

Figure 8. Rice Yield in the Selected Districts in Eastern India

Difference in Rice Yield By Variety Comparative analysis of modern variety and the traditional varieties showed a mix picture of their differences in yield (Appendix 11). Except one or two locations, difference in yield of modern variety and traditional variety has been quite varied, varying from 1.4 quintal per hectare to nearly a tonne per hectare. This difference was marginal in those locations, where the relative yield of the traditional variety itself was high. It implied that the yield of modern variety was also not satisfactory. Thus along with the adoption, the high yielding capability of the modern variety also require due policy attention.

124 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

By Land Type Like the difference in yield among the varieties, the yield also varied across the land types. The regional difference in yield is estimated for each of the land type. It shows that the rice yield has been usually low in the upland, with the exception in Maharajganj in Uttar Pradesh and Nagaon and Golaghat in Assam. Maharajganj has comparatively better irrigation facility and in Nagaon and Golaghat it was due to better crop care and rainfall. In general, range of the difference of yield across the land type, has been comparatively much wider with the lowest difference being 0.12 tonne per hectare in Dinajpur and highest of 2 tonnes in Golaghat (Appendix 12). This difference is more focussed at the plot level as compared to aggregative data. Because the household aggregation confound the differences in land type particularly under heterogeneous production conditions. Therefore, the farmers having scattered plots in different ecological situations confront highly variable production situation. Appendix 13 shows the differences in rice yield and variability by land type at farm level as well as at plot level. It has been observed that the coefficient of variation among different land types at the farm level varied from 31 per cent to 65 per cent, whereas the same was much higher at the plot level. Again it was higher in upland due to variation in moisture retention capacity and soil hydrology, as well as in lowland owing to the vulnerability to submergence and floods. The coefficient of variation in uplands varied between 31 per cent to 75 per cent and between 22 per cent to 94 per cent in lowlands (Table 11). Therefore plot level information has significant values to explain the actual difference in crop yield exclusively. In this respect, it was found that the biophysical characteristics (such as water control, soil biology, topographical position of plots) and other production characteristics explain the variation more accurately at plot level than at the farm level aggregation, which is usually not the case with the household aggregate data. Input Use, Cost and Net Return To Rice The share of component of cost of cultivation was estimated for various locations and the results presented in the Appendices 14 and 15. The estimates show the variation in various shares across the locations as well as their comparative picture. On an overall basis, the labour cost estimates was found to be higher than the material cost, but varied significantly from place to place. West Bengal, however, was an exception, where the share of material input cost was as high as nearly three- fourth of the total cost (Appendix 16), of which the share of fertiliser cost was about 20 per cent and that of plant protection was about 19 per cent. On the contrary, the input use was comparatively low in Nagaon, so was the cost, and hence the return was high. Thus although the pattern of yield was identical both in Assam and West Bengal, the net return was higher in Assam than in West Bengal primarily due to variation in cost of various components of cost of production. The input use efficiency appeared better in Nagaon (Assam) than in the districts of West Bengal.

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 125

Thus clearly the difference in cost of production directly influenced input use efficiency. While further examining the cost benefit equation more intrinsically, the value of family owned resources were imputed. For the sake of simplicity, the family owned resources were valued at the prevailing market prices. The wage expenditure emerged as an important part of total cost of cultivation. It was found that the inter-district difference in the utilisation of family labour and hired labour by gender was significant, which resulted in exclusive pattern of difference in total cost as well as net return. The analysis of operation-wise input use has been revealing too. Like the cost of cultivation, return to rice across the districts was also varied widely both in spatio-temporal dimension. The net return over the paid-out cost for modern rice variety varied from a low of Rs. 2,515/ha in Kendrapara to Rs. 15,233/ha in Nagaon (Appendix 17). The net return reduced to negative as observed in Kendrapara, Bahraich and Raipur. This is due to natural disasters like cyclone in 1999-2000 and severe drought in 2000-01 in Chattisgarh plains, which ravaged the region severely. Incidentally, the probability of occurrence of natural disaster has been high in many parts of eastern India. Actually, yield and cost together determined the quantum of variation of net return. Thus while higher yield drove higher net return in Golaghat, Nagaon and Dinajpur, and low yield reduced it in Balasore, Bastar and Raipur. It indicates that the trade-off between cost of cultivation and yield has been a critical factor for inter-regional equity in return to rice production. Rice fallow: Fallowing of cropped area in major part of a year has been a concern. The extent of fallow land has been uniformly high in the region. After the harvest of the main crop (usually rice) in kharif season, a very high proportion of cropped area were kept fallow in the entire rabi season. Appendix 18 gives the extent of fallow land in the selected districts. Except the selected districts of West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the percentage of cropped areas of fallow has been as high in the region as in the range of 64 per cent to 97 per cent of net cropped area. Effective policy strategies to promote rabi cultivation including expanding the area under Boro rice will be useful to contain the problem of rabi fallow.

DETERMINANTS OF INTER-FARM AND INTER-PLOT VARIATION IN ADOPTION IN MODERN TECHNOLOGY

The factors determining the adoption of modern varieties were analysed with the help of the probit model. A selected set of plot-specific variables, farm-specific variables, socio-economic and bio-physical factors were used in the model. The Probit model has been used to explain the inter-farm and inter-parcel/plot differences in the adoption of modern varieties. The model took into account the agro-biological and climatic factors and crop management practices, which influenced the inter-farm variation in the adoption of modern technology. The climatic factors such as rainfall, land type and soil types characterising the natural production condition, were normally not subjected to management controls, whereas, crop management practices 126 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

reflect the human adaptations to agro-climatic situations as well as the socio- economic conditions of the farmers. Realising this, farmers allocated favourable plots to modern varieties and the other plots to traditional varieties. The probability of adoption of modern variety was found high in favourable land type and quality soil type, which were the important plot-specific characteristics. Such characterisation of cultivated plot or parcel will be useful for farm planning. The estimated coefficient of age, education, workforce (labour-land ratio) and farm size, land type and soil quality appeared important factors. The impact of education was not significant as the education level of the head of the household in most cases was either low or negligible. The effect of other factors varied across the districts depending on the social and economic infrastructure, access to input and output markets, etc. The bio-physical variables such as favourable land type and quality soil, and man-land ratio (workforce) increased the probability of adoption of modern variety. That is, the chance of adoption was high if the farmers possessed superior land type and soil quality along with other favourable factors. Again among the land types, the probability of adoption was high in bunded upland and lowland with clay soil. In general, while the modern variety was adopted in better quality land, the traditional variety was grown to marginal and lesser productive land. Therefore, if the modern varieties did not perform due to adoption of non-targeted varieties, but, the yield of traditional rice varieties has been low because they were grown mostly in unfavourable land. The estimated yield response equation shows that along with the bio-physical factors, modern variety dummy and fertiliser coefficients were positive. For example, an additional kilogram of fertiliser gave around 15 kilograms of additional yield per hectare as observed in Assam. The positive coefficient implied that fertiliser enhanced yield, despite low level of current fertiliser use. The contribution could be much higher in the fertiliser use intensive areas. The coefficient of modern variety dummy was positive and significant indicating direct impact of modern variety on yield. The modern variety could increase the yield as high as 1.40 tonne/ha as compared to traditional varieties, provided favourable support services were guaranteed. The irrigation did not show encouraging results with the present data pertaining to rainfed production system, because of very low level of irrigation. The analysis showed that not only the socio-economic variables, the bio-physical factors play important role in explaining inter-farm and inter-plot variation in adoption of modern variety and yield. This thus emphasised the need for ecosystem specific research orientation in rice production system.

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND POLICY PERSPECTIVES

The findings of the study show that the rice production system in eastern India has been under going tremendous dynamism. Production practices changed, adoption

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 127

of modern varieties accelerated and there is improvement in yield too. The innovation of Boro rice is gaining importance in Assam, West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, which has benefited the region significantly. This summer rice is particularly crucial for the flood-prone areas in these states. Moreover, some of the non-traditional states like Chhattisgarh is also experimenting with summer rice for the past couple of years. Due to these desirable properties, summer rice has become a farmers’ friendly alternative in the areas with dependable irrigation facility. Therefore, it has raised many policy challenges in developing ecosystem specific varieties, irrigation facility and other input support systems. Along with summer rice, there are also other changes in the overall rice production system, including considerable improvement in total rice yield, particularly in West Bengal, eastern Uttar Pradesh and in Assam. The pattern of growth also improved. But, the weirdest concern is that the change is not uniform across the region. There are many districts, particularly in Chhattisgarh and Orissa, where the change has been very slow and productivity unchanged. Therefore, there is need for differentiated policy interventions across the region to break the yield barrier. While research on yield improvement is high priority in these areas, but in other areas where yield level has increased, emphasis on resource use efficiency has become more crucial. The inter-regional disparity in rice productivity has been a major concern. Rice yield varied across the states from a low of around 1 tonne/ha (rough rice) in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh to over 4 tonnes/ha in West Bengal and Assam. Accumulated evidences show that bridging the existing yield gap in rice needs more concerted efforts through appropriate policy measures for technology dissemination and developing adequate modern varieties. Lack of modern high-yielding varieties and proper seed has become a deterrent to adoption. The “variety gap” arising from unequal distribution of modern varieties across ecosystems, has been substantial, which affects the yield at farmers’ field, and accentuated the yield barrier. Actually, despite adoptions and higher use of irrigation and fertilisers, the low yield level is an unwanted conundrum (example of Bahraich district is cited) in the developmental path for production improvement. One possible reason of near stagnation situation in rice yield is the adoption of non-targeted varieties in specific ecosystems. In fact, due to lack of appropriate variety, farmers grow the same variety in all the three seasons and different ecosystems, which apparently have been unable to give uniform yield. The suitable variety could make an impact as observed at the overwhelming farmers’ response to adopt newer innovation such as Boro rice, as observed in rapid expansion of area in Assam, West Bengal and Bihar, which has been a positive sign to improve rice production. Therefore, developing yield augmenting varieties and efficient management practices is an urgent need to meet the challenge of increasing rice production. Apart from ecosystem specific varietal development, more emphasis is also needed on stress resistant varieties, improvement in farmers’ friendly practices such as methods of crop establishment of dry seeded rice, and biasi method of beushening. 128 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

The question on the marginal trade-off in yield of modern rice variety over the traditional variety at substantial cost differential also requires more research attention. As the rice-only practice has been unremunerative, there is a need for promoting rice-plus policy for income growth. There is also need for creating more non-farm opportunities at the rural areas to supplement the farm income. Farm income share declines drastically in the unfavourable environments and in unfavourable years, although it has been inequality reducing. Interventions on remunerative prices, support infrastructure such as affordable irrigation, other input supply facilities and market are of critical importance in eastern India. Continuous erosion of rice biodiviersity has been a larger concern. Utilising the desirable merits of traditional rice varieties has important implication in the conservation of rice biodiversity, which has implications on food security and stability. A desirable trait of the traditional varieties should be utilised for varietal improvement with the help of modern cutting-edge technology such as biotechnology. Developing appropriate technology to fit into the tiny and fragmented plots of land particularly in the small farmers-oriented agriculture, is another major future challenge. Because, the farmers are unlikely to adopt labour displacing technology, but prefer low material input using technology. As the unsustainability of intensive system of agriculture (e.g., Rice-wheat system in North-western India), has gradually put the ostracised green revolution out of stream, the rice in eastern India has potentially gained more prominence and is crucial for food security in the country. Therefore, there is urgent need for prioritising future rice research and rice development programmes.

NOTES

1. The World Bank - aided National Agricultural Technology Project (ICAR) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Manila, Philippines provided the funding support to the project on “Socio-Economic Dynamics of Changes in Rice Production in Eastern India”. The project was implemented by the National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAP), New Delhi. The authors are grateful to the National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP), New Delhi, India and the IRRI for the funding support. The findings of the project were presented and discussed in a National Symposium sponsored jointly by the NCAP, IRRI and the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics Mumbai. We are grateful to Mangala Rai, Director General, ICAR, New Delhi; Ronald Cantrell, former Director General, IRRI, Manila; A. Vaidyanathan, Emeritus Professor, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai and former President, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, Mumbai, E.A. Siddiq, former National Professor, ICAR and other luminaries for their valuable comments at the Symposium. The authors are grateful to the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, for the support and in publishing the synthesis of the report of the larger project. The paper synthesises the findings and draws most material from the project report submitted to the NATP (ICAR). We thank the authorities in NCAP, IRRI, Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam, India, Rajendra Agricultural University, Samastipur (Pusa), Bihar; Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India, CRRUS, Hazaribag, Jharkhand, India, Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Orissa, Orissa University of Agricultural and Technology, Bhubaneswar, Orissa, Narendra Dev Agricultural University and Technology, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, and Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, Kolkata, for their help and co-operation during the project. We thank the co-CCPIs of the respective centres for their research support and involvement in the project. However, the views expressed in the paper do not pertain to those of the organisations. The usual disclaimers apply. We bereaved the untimely demise of M.G. Nema, Head, Department of Agricultural Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Viswa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, who was an active member of our research team, during the project period.

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 129

2. Marginal farmer <1 hectare, Small farmer 1-2 hectares Medium farmer 2-4 hectares Large farmer >4 hectares. 3. Swarna was released originally in in 1982 for rainfed shallow water, Mahsuri is an old and widely adopted variety. It belongs to the Taichung 65 family and released in 1971 for rainfed shallow water. 4. Traditional ways of assigning exclusive nomenclature of different rice varieties, besides rice is being revered as a supreme commodity for life, has been interesting. The names of rice varieties characterised the grain size, cooking quality, number of uses in the recipe, ecosystems representing production conditions, skin colour and hardness of grain, consumer preference and even social groups growing them, are all imbibed in the names of the varieties. 5. Pre-kharif rice during Feb - June, Kharif rice during June - October, Summer rice during November - May. REFERENCES Balasubramanian, V. (2003), American Society of Agronomy, Special pubication 65. Barah, B.C. et al., (2003), Socio-Economic Dynamics of Rice Production Systems in Eastern India, Report submitted to the AED, NATP, Hyderabad. Hossain, Mahabub (2002), Development of Boro Rice in Bangladesh: Trends and Policies, Social Science Division, IRRI, Manila. Jha, Dayanatha (2001), Agricultural Research and Small Farms, Presidential Address, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, Kalyani, West Bengal. Jha, D. and S.K. Pandey (2005), Resource Allocation for Agricultural Research: An Empirical Description, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi, personal communication. Pandey, S., B. C. Barah and R.A. Villano (2000), Socio Economic Dynamics of Rice Economy in Assam: A Methodological Note, RRPS 2, NATP, New Delhi. Pingali, P.L et al. (1990), The Post-green Revolution Blues in Asian Rice Production, The Diminished Gap between Experiment Station and Farmer Yields, IRRI paper 90-01, SSD, IRRI, Manila. Rai, M. (2004), International Year of Rice - An Overview, Special Issue on IYR 2004, Indian Farming, New Delhi. Saikia, P. (2005), Vividhata & Vaichitra Thapnat Dhan, Prantik, March 15. Singh, B.N. (2002), Rice Ecology in India, United National General Assembly, A/Res/57/162; dated16 December 2002; www.rice2004.org

APPENDIX STATISTICAL TABLES APPENDIX 1. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF RICE IN EASTERN INDIA IN 1999-2000 Percentage share of rice Geographical area (per cent) Area Production (1) (2) (3) (4) Assam 2.4 5.8 5.2 Bihar 3.1 11.0 6.9 Jharkhand 2.2 - 3.0 Madhya Pradesh 10.1 12.3 1.2 Chhattisgarh 3.4 - 3.5 Orissa 4.7 10.1 4.5 Uttar Pradesh 9.0 13.4 11.2 West Bengal 2.7 13.6 19.8 Ratio of Eastern India to All-India (Per cent) 37.6 66.3 55.2

APPENDIX 2. SHARE OF RICE AREA AND PRODUCTION IN INDIA BY ZONE (2001-02) (per cent) Zone Rice area Rice production (1) (2) (3) East* 60 49 South 17 24 North 15 19 West 9 8

* Eastern zone include only the eastern part of Uttar Pradesh. 130 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

APPENDIX 3. DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS BY FARM SIZE GROUPS

Percentage District Marginal Small Medium Large Total of S & M* (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Maharajganj 71 14 19 4 107 79 Bahraich 39 37 16 8 100 76 24 Parganas 20 25 36 19 100 45 Dinajpur 16 28 35 20 99 44 Raipur 56 23 29 10 118 67 Bastar 41 12 26 5 84 63 Jabalpur 17 33 29 21 100 50 Shahdol 32 30 21 17 100 62 Samastipur 48 17 30 5 100 65 Darbhanga 50 19 28 3 100 69 Golahgat 14 31 24 6 75 60 Nagaon 11 39 10 15 75 67 Balasore 55 13 18 5 91 75 Kendrapara 43 15 35 9 102 57 Hazaribagh 56 29 15 - 101 84 Koderma 73 16 6 5 100 89 Kalahandi 42 30 20 8 100 72 Mayurbhanj 42 30 20 8 100 72 Total 726 441 417 168 1,752 67 Per cent 41 25 24 10 100 * S&M= Small and marginal farmers (< 2 ha).

APPENDIX 4. DIVERSE RICE ECOLOGIES: (Area, Production and Productivity) Area (mh) Area Production Productivity Productivity (2) (per cent) (mt) (per cent) (tonne/ha) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) Irrigated rice 20.5 46 60 70 2.9 Wet season 16.5 36 46 50 2.8 Dry season 4.0 9 14 20 3.5 Upland (mh) 6 14 5.5 6 0.9 Favourable 2 5 3 4 1.5 Drought prone 4 9 2.5 2 0.6 Rainfed lowland 13 29 16 19 1.2 Drought prone 4 9 6 7 1.5 Favourable 3 7 6 7 2.0 Medium deep, 3 7 2.5 3 0.8 waterlogged Submergence/flood prone 3 7 1.5 2 0.5 Deep water 4 9 3 4 0.8 Deep water 3 6 2.5 3 0.8 Floating rice 1 2 0.5 1 0.5 Coastal Wetland 1 2 1 1 1 Total 44.5 100 85.5 100 1.9 Source: Singh, 2002.

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 131

APPENDIX 5. AVERAGE SIZE OF OWNERSHIP HOLDINGS BY FARM SIZE CATEGORIES (ha) District Marginal Small Medium Large All (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 24 Parganas 0.37 1.24 2.63 - 1.02 Dinajpur 0.55 1.25 2.32 4.38 1.12 Maharajganj 0.65 1.31 2.88 4.69 1.68 Bahraich 0.54 1.19 2.74 10.33 1.40 Raipur 0.49 1.40 2.77 7.55 1.78 Bastar 0.67 1.51 2.84 6.64 1.64 Samstipur 0.47 1.30 2.62 4.40 1.18 Darbhanga 0.48 1.37 2.59 - 1.20 Kendrapara 0.54 1.35 2.65 4.92 1.51 Balasore 0.39 1.39 2.61 8.76 1.37 Kalahandi 0.69 1.38 2.39 6.20 1.68 Mayurbhanj 0.54 1.23 2.28 5.48 1.11 Golaghat 0.55 1.22 2.41 5.67 1.83 Nagaon 0.64 1.33 2.44 5.60 2.34 Jabalpur 0.53 1.70 3.28 10.96 3.97 Jharkhand 0.53 1.46 2.56 - 1.52

APPENDIX 6. SELECTION OF AGRO ECOLOGICAL ZONES/DISTRICTS

State Agro-ecosystem Districts Implementing centre (1) (2) (3) (4)

1) Assam Central Brahmputra Valley Zone Nowgong 1) AAU, Jorhat (Flood-prone) Upper Brahmputra Valley Zone Golaghat

(Rainshed/Flood-free) 2) Bihar North Bihar Samastipur, Darbhanga 2) RAU, Pusa, Bihar 3) Chattisgarh Chattisgarh Plains Raipur 3) IGAU, Raipur Bastar Plateau Bastar 4) Jharkhand Chotanagpur Hazaribagh, Koderma 4) CRURRS, Hazaribagh 5) Madhya Pradesh Kymore Satpura range, Jabalpur, 5) JNKVV, Northern Hills Shahdol Jabalpur 6) Eastern NEPZ Baharaich/Maharajgang 6) NDUAT, Uttar Pradesh Faizabad 7) Orissa Coastal Kendrapara, Balasore 7) CRRI, Cuttack Upland (Tribal) Mayurbhanj, Kalahandi 8) OUAT, Bhubaneswar 8) West Bengal New Alluvium 24-Parganas (N) 9) Ministry of Agriculture, Old Alluvium Dinajpur Government of West Bengal 132 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

APPENDIX 7. MODERN VARIETY BY ECOSYSTEMS AND STATES DURING 1965-2000 (Number) Rainfed Semi

State Irrigated Hill Deep Intermediate Shallow Rainfed Deep Scented Grand water upland water rice total (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Assam 7 1 18 2 28 Andhra Pradesh 43 5 25 8 1 82 Bihar 11 1 1 2 7 15 1 38 14 1 5 1 21 Haryana 4 1 1 6 Himachal Pradesh 6 4 1 11 Jammu and Kashmir 6 1 1 1 9 Karnataka 24 2 1 6 33 Kerala 28 0 0 0 4 9 41 Maharastra 24 4 13 2 43 Manipur 6 1 7 Meghalaya 1 3 4 Madhya Pradesh 14 2 6 22 Orissa 39 0 0 7 15 18 3 0 82 Pondy 5 1 6 Punjab 21 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 24 Rajasthan 3 1 2 6 Tamil Nadu 45 0 1 11 16 1 2 76 Tripura 0 4 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 Uttar Pradesh 24 0 0 3 8 7 1 0 41 CVRC 40 14 11 23 102 10 18 11 62 Grand total 365 123 667

APPENDIX 8. RICE IN EASTERN INDIA PATTERN OF ADOPTION OF MODERN VARIETY (MV) IN EASTERN INDIA

District Percentage rice area Percentage MV yield TV yield (kharif) MV area Golaghat 68 58 3.40 2.10 Nagaon 76 61 4.40 3.90 Samastipur 47 89 2.77 1.63 Darbhanga 91 70 2.38 2.00 Raipur 98 55 1.75 1.56 Bastar 93 17 1.95 1.75 Kalahandi >85 57 2.28 1.36 Kendrapara 100 91 1.38 0.81 Balasore 99 95 2.82 1.34 Mayurbhanj >85 46 2.13 1.94 Maharajganj 76 93 3.20 2.20 Bahraich 53 95 2.10 2.10 24 pargana 81 100 4.66 - Dinajpur 80 100 4.46 -

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 133

APPENDIX 9. TOP THREE RICE VARIETIS AT FARMERS’ FIELD IN EASTERN INDIA (MODERN AND TRADITIONAL VARIETY)

Modern Traditional

Area Year Yield Name of (per Yield of Name of Area (per tonne State Variety Duration cent) tonne/ha release variety Duration cent) /ha (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Uttar Pradesh Mahsuri Medium 20 3.12 1971 Mala 22 2.56 Indrasan Short 5 2.59 China 44 2.07 Sarjoo 52 Short 62 3.29 1980 Orisswa 15 2.15 Chattisgarh Swarna Long 45 1.76 1982 Ranikajar Long 48 1.56 Culture Medium 20 1.88 BD safri Long 37 1.68 Mahamaya Medium 13 1.89 1994 IR-64 Medium 15 1.64 1989 Assam Mahsuri Medium 37 4.70 Prasadbhog Medium 38 2.20 Ranjit Long 21 3.80 1991 Jahinga Medium 35 1.90 Bahadur Long 11 4.30 1991 Laxmanbhog Medium 19 3.80 Latasali Medium 16 3.60 Orissa Swarna Long 45 2.10 1982 Mugai - - 2.30 Annapurna Short 24 4.23 1972 Kainch - - 1.74 Lalat Short 20 2.83 1988 Sola/BhalukiShort 35 0.84 Parijat Short 4 2.10 1976 Udaisali Medium 28 1.54 Bihar Parmal Short 47 2.43 Bakol Short 16 1.63 Swarna Medium 18 2.86 1982 Dudhia Short 12 1.42 Mahsuri Medium 15 2.10 1971 Mushi Short 13 1.74 Swarna West Bengal mahsuri Medium 14 4.31 IET 1444 Medium 50 4.53 IET 4059 Short 36 5.25

APPENDIX 10. TRADITIONAL RICE VARIETIES AT THE FARMERS’ FIELDS IN EASTERN INDIA

Districts Traditional varieties (#) (1) (2) Golaghat 32 Nagaon 40 Samastipur 7 Darbhanga 24 Raipur 12 Bastar 31 Kendrapara 21 Balasore 22 Kalahandi 14 Mayurbhanj 8 Maharajganj 10 Bahraich 9 24 parganas - Dinajpur - 134 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

APPENDIX 11. YIELD DIFFERENCE BY VARIETY (tonne/ha) Modern variety Traditional variety Difference (1) (2) (3) (4) Maharajganj 3.24 2.99 0.25 Bahraich 2.15 1.59 0.56 Golaghat 3.40 2.10 1.30 Nagaon 4.50 4.10 0.40 Kalahandi 2.28 1.36 0.92 Mayurbhanj 2.13 1.94 0.19 Bastar 2.03 1.89 0.14 Raipur 1.76 1.59 0.17 Samastipur 2.43 1.48 0.95 Darbhanga 2.52 1.39 1.13

APPENDIX 12. DIFFERENCE IN YIELD OF MODERN VAREITY BY LAND TYPE District Upland Medium Lowland Range ofvariation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Maharajganj 2.58 3.37 3.08 0.8 Bahraich 2.23 2.02 2.04 0.2 Golaghat 4.60 2.57 3.53 2.0 Nagaon 5.10 4.19 4.58 0.6 24 Parganas Neg. 4.57 4.67 0.1 Dinajpur Neg. 4.06 4.18 0.1 Kalahandi 1.66 2.35 2.28 0.7 Mayurbhanj 1.99 2.06 2.20 0.2 Bastar 1.29 2.23 2.06 0.9 Raipur 1.67 1.69 1.44 0.3

APPENDIX 13. VARIATION IN YIELD AT FARM LEVEL AND AT PLOT LEVEL Farm level Plot level District Mean SD CV Land type Mean SD CV (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Kalahandi 1.96 0.73 37 Upland 1.66 0.64 39 Medium 2.35 0.59 25 Lowland 2.28 0.51 22 Mayurbhanj 2.03 0.95 46 Upland 1.99 1.01 51 Medium 2.06 0.87 42 Lowland 2.2 0.78 35 Golaghat 2.68 0.92 34 Upland 3.34 2.51 75 Medium 2.41 0.68 28 Lowland 2.96 0.99 33 Nagaon 3.92 1.23 31 Upland 4.03 1.42 35 Medium 3.72 1.38 37 Lowland 4.13 0.7 17 Maharajganj 3.21 2.1 65 Upland 2.58 1.17 45 Medium 3.37 1.37 41 Lowland 3.08 2.88 94 Bahraich 2.1 0.59 28 Upland 2.02 0.62 31 Medium 2.23 0.52 23 Lowland 2.04 0.63 31 Raipur 1.67 0.73 44 Upland 1.67 0.65 39 Medium 1.69 0.78 46 Lowland 1.44 0.61 42 Bastar 1.78 0.89 50 Upland 1.29 0.58 45 Medium 2.23 0.88 39 Lowland 2.06 0.89 43

NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM – A REPORT 135

APPENDIX 14. INPUT USE AND YIELD OF MODERN RICE VARIETY IN VARIOUS DISTRICTS

District NPK Irrigation Labour MV area MV Yield (kg/ha) (per cent) (d/ha) (per cent) tonne/ha (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Bahraich 99 72 156 95 2.10 Maharajganj 110 80 156 93 3.20 24 Parganas 174 100 103 100 4.66 Dinajpur 174 100 102 100 4.22 Goalaght 67 23 133 55 3.40 Nagaon 69 29 139 51 4.40 Raipur 80 10 111 55 1.55 Bastar 14 12 110 14 1.73 Kalahandi 73 1 104 57 2.28 Mayurbhanj 34 9 168 46 2.13 Samastipur 69 12 90 84 2.56 Darbhanga 61 22 91 70 2.36 Kendrapara 48 10 74 59 1.39 Balasore 83 40 107 85 2.82

APPENDIX 15. SPATIAL VARIATION IN LABOUR USE PATTERN

District Labour Wage Family Female Percentage (days/ha) Rs./day labour labour share of (per cent) (per cent) labour cost (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Golaghat 133 47.7 67 38 43% Nagaon 140 47.2 56 39 62% Samastipur 102 39.2 23 47 49% Darbhanga 100 47.3 23 43 58% Raipur 111 26.8 78 48 32% Bastar 111 20.8 66 54 60% Kendrapara 100 51.5 58 4 65% Balasore 100 53.8 58 3 63% Kalahandi 116 36.5 83 20 75% Mayurbhanj 167 31.1 94 20 83% Maharajganj 156 30.1 79 39 47% Bahraich 156 36.4 69 32 58% 24 Parganas 100 31.0 22 <1 30% Dinajpur 100 27.0 26 <1 26%

136 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS

APPENDIX 16. PERCENTAGE SHARE OF INPUT COST TO TOTAL COST OF CULTIVATION (PAID OUT AND IMPUTED COST) District Seed Fertiliser and Plant protection Labour manure (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Golaghat 3.5 11 0.0 38 Nagaon 4 17 0.5 48 Samastipur 4 16 1.8 53 Darbhanga 4 16 3.0 57 Raipur 10 25 0.5 47 Bastar 13 17 1.5 56 Kendrapara 4 14 1.2 64 Balasore 4 19 1.4 65 Kalahandi - 47 1.2 43 Mayurbhanj 17 51 0.2 24 Maharajganj 7 26 - 47 Bahraich 6 15 - 58 24 Parganas 6 19 19.9 30 Dinajpur 6 19 19.8 26

APPENDIX 17. NET RETURN TO RICE AND COMPARATIVE PROFITABILITY BY VARIETY District Cost of cultivation Return to rice over Return over Relative profitability Rs./ha paid out cost (MV) total cost MV over TV (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Dinajpur 11658 (74%)* 5135 4106 MV only 24 Parganas 11404 (70%) 3679 2800 MV only Raipur 5734 (68%) 7335 4253 1040 Golaghat 7885 (57%) 10488 7743 4025 Maharajganj 9989 (53%) 8413 1961 922 Samastipur 7789 (51%) 4350 1941 1410 Bahraich 8579 (42%) 2820 -3028 729 Darbhanga 7064 (42%) 4601 3000 2184 Bastar 4918 (40%) 8789 6152 579 Nagaon 5936 (38%) 15233 13052 3452 Kendrapara 3709 (37%) 2515 -1714 1790 Kalahandi 3519 (35%) 7040 2128 1579 Balasore 6594 (25%) 7271 2513 3958 Mayurbhanj 7847 (17%) 7120 593 517 *Figures in parentheses indicates the share of material inputs to total cost of cultivation.

APPENDIX 18. PERCENTAGE OF CROPPED AREA KEPT FALLOW IN DIFFERENT SEASONS District Kharif Rabi (1) (2) (3) Golaghat 18 72 Nagaon 13 70 Samastipur 35 Nil Darbhanga 9 2 Raipur 7 64 Bastar 5 96 Kendrapara 0 94 Balasore 1 85 Mayurbhanj 7 97 Kalahandi 5 97 Maharajganj <2 <2 Bahraich <2 <2 24 Parganas Nil Nil Dinajpur Nil Nil