PREFACE

to have a near tiue horizon. It was soon realised that problems of economic development have long term underpinning. Thougtr the plans were.prepared quinguennially perspective plans prov! ded tweuty-five year period background. Problemq of population growtb, technological change, shift io oecupational structuie, inducing change in inter-industry linkages and shifts in rural.urban population required longer term prspective for achieving worthwhile results and sustaioiirg. them over a
lqng period. Experience of growth over a period of more than three quinquenaia was -mixcd one. While tbe ecotromy moved from near stagnation to thc stage of sustained growth, thc economy faced two unpleasant problems; unemploymert and .poverty. If growth is not. a.panacea, what additional measures could be devised to

India adopted planning as an instrument of economic develop ment in the early fifties. In the initial stages emphasis was on institutional reforms to aid economic progress. Centrally planned economies had demonstrated the success of this path. An equal emphasis was laid on resource mobilisation. Contemporary literature on economic-growth empbasised deployment of real resources on an increasing scale to achieve faster growth of economy. India combined both in her search for solution along the path of mixed ec(momy. Planning to be operational had

eradicate these problems? Remedies for removal of both uncmploy4ent and poverty also would require a. long-term setti:rg

if the problems'had to. be overcome once for all. At the time when the necd for long-term setting for planning .was being emphasised in India, a new . realisation for a similar ged for trnderstanding the'implications of economic growth was being felt at international levcl. The context of the two differed. Grqwth ,.involved use . of. a large variety of ndn-renewable .minerals

resourcgsr many of then being the:supplies of.ivhich were believed to last for ali'mited future on the basis of available knowledge about their reserves. The Club of Rome-a group of experts-

viii

AGRIcuLTURAL PRoDUoTIoN: 2000 e-p.

pauted a grim picture of serious limits to future growth' they visualised serious constraints caused by limited supply of nonrenewable resources. A common concern underlying the awareness of the need for looking into long-term perspective of growth at national and international level was for a search for policy options' It is this concern which has guided the present study.

Futurology is a newly emerging field. It attempts to take a comprehensive view of tbe future based on, on the one hand, knowledge of the past behaviour of the economy and on the other, knorvledge about the untapped potentiai and possible corctraints tbat could emerge in the course of development. We have used both. We have based our exercise on the firm knowledge that there would be serious constraints regarding expansion of land under the plough, at the same time we have used the knowledge that there exists untapped potential of irrigation which if used could more than double the percentage of area under irrigation to total cropped area. Similarly, we have considered it feasible to evolve new technology on the lines ofgreen revolution on the basis of the research results in the pipe line. While constraints. alone would give a grim picture of the future develop.
ment, an emphasis on the use of udtappd potential would paint an optimistic future. With growing population, the need for increased agricultural priqduqtion .will be more keenly felt. The demand for food and g1hpr,,farnr prodgcts would accelerate if the economy develops at &.plajecfad late. .The question we have therefore investigated is:' Sen the ecgnomy cope up. with the rising challenge and how? The.,ansryer .lies in the .bundle of policy options. The findings of t[e sludy suggest .that if the entire irrigation potential is fully {?pB-ed,,if, .fertiliser-input level reaches .close to that currently observed in Japan, if more than .five green revolutions occuf during tlre period intervening betwcen ndw and .the end of. the c,entury and. the improvement in production . technology covers most if,not all important crops, tben there iS a reasonable chance for meeting the ,challenge of rising. demand for food and . farm products. The findings suggest that, even then this wili: be a
iqduce similar expansion

partial suecess: the expansion of production of. crop will not of production of fodder, the supply bf ;. ir..,,,:i .. .... :.. : .

PREFACE

IX

which would barely meet the demand for milk production; alter' native will have to be sought for draught power. Tremendous efforts will be required to provide investmen! resource$ and raw materials br powei. Increased use of irrigatioo will need over Rs. 28,000 crores in terms of 197 4'78 prioes, when spread over subsequent five years plans they would claim around 14 per cent. For fertilisers besides investment, which would be

rqoul to that

for irrigation, there would be a need to sbift the stock increasingly to coal which is les efrcient and use of feed
more expensive substitute. The results of the efforts may be not highly promising' The probability of reaching full employment is low, unles technological level reaches a level equivalent to five green resolutions. Thg inter-State inequality may widen with rice-growing States occupy' ing front ranks. Moving food across long distances and to tiny hamlets would need increased transport, storage, preservatiog and processing efforts. Besides, it may be necessary to move laboui over States if all'India near full employment level prgjected by the exercise has -two

be a reality. With the exception of five green revolutions-the calpriC scenarios-involving intake level in year 2000 A.D. may not improve beyond that

to

now attained.

Agriculture in tbe next two decades may have lower share rapging from 19 to 47 per cent of the G.N.P. If its sharp is Bearer the lower projected level, those in agriculture may experience a widening gap between their incomes and incomes in thc
Bon-agricultural sector. While the above changes take place agriculture would experience a full blast of market economy with inputs purchased fro. p the market accounting for between 40 and 60 per cent of t$n gross value of crop output. The Green Revolutions-a series of them-would make production possible, but their benefits could accrue less equally depending on the ability of tbose engaged il production 1o cope up with market exigencies. Access to markgt too may be unequal for different sections of farming community. Credit needs are likely to inctease nearly 12 times, while production might increase at the highest by 4.35 times. Handling Iarge current investments at firm level will require foresigbi, courage and capabilrty to undertake risks. Under conditions of developing economies it takes 5 to 7 years for research results to

.x

AGRTCULTURAL

pRoDucrroN: 2000 a.o.

reach from research farms to farmers' fields, more complicated and refined results would take longer time. With the need for investment at farm level growing faster, the period of adoption may increase. Is there then a hope or a reason to despair? One should not be led away by either hope or despair, the policy options to meet challenge need initiating realistic and determined measures with.out loss of time if the promise for future has to be a reality and 'if pains on the way are to be minimised. We have adopted relatively simple procedures of projections, using constraints, and method of linear programming. We bave however done the exercise in great detail, separately for land, yield, irrigation and for each State. The science of futurology is growing fast and refned methods of system analysis among others are widely used. We feel howevcr that results of a soohisticated exercise would be qualitatively ditrerent from conclusions suggested by our analysis. Until better results become available, we hope our findings will be of help to policy makers for taking actions and for general.readers in understanding the problems in embryo of the agricultural sector for tbe year 2000 a.p. While both of us have worked together, I own most of the

for approach, analysis and findings. Dr. S.D. Sawant supervised detailed calculations by hand and by computer. Mr. C.V. Achuthan helped in layout of tables and their preparations. Research staff of the Department of Economics of the University of Bombay helped at various stages. To all of them
responsibility

the authors are thankful.

am particularly thankful to Dr.

Sawant who as a colleague willingly agreed to participate in the project. The University authorities and the Director of the Departmetrt of Economics were kind enough to permit me to undertake

the project. The present project wasa follow-up ofthe earlier work on the same problem, undertakOn as a part of the project of the Operations Research Group (ORG), Baroda. ORG had a bigger project for projeCtions for year 2000 a.o. for the entire economy, the work undertaken on behalf of the Resources for Future. We are thankful to the two organisations. I am thankful to the Centre for Policy Research for financing the project and for the publication of the study. Bombay

C.H. Sseu

CONTENTS

Foreword
P

reface

vii
Ir..ttnooucttoN
1

Cslprrn l.
Crnprrn Cruprnn
APPENDIX

2.
3.

P.lcr or Pnocnpss
IMPLTCATIoNS

l0
26 43 48

CneprsR 4, A.

CoNcr,usroNs

PnorrcrrNc Povnnry eNo UNppnNouxlsltl,tsxt Mnmrooorocy

APPBNDIX B.

{t

Cslprsn

Introduction
If population doubles in the next quarter of a century, will food supply keep pace with it? This is the qucstion uppermost
in the minds of many policy makers, economists etc. Till recently, India had passed througb a series of trying periods of fool shortages which widened from year to year. We have also witnessed widespread poverty with a substantial section of the population being unable to have enough food to eat. The green revolutibn embodied in the new seed technology dnd widespiead usc of fertiliser's have changcd the context of the situation. Can we project, with confidence, the gains of the green revolution into .ihe future? Or will we once again face the menacing situation of wideniog food shortages when the population grows in the coming two and half decades?
An excrcise to unravel the future has to facc many uncertainties' The science of futurology is stilf in its embryonic stage. To pro' ject into the future ote has to fall back on the pa$t and the past does not repeat itself in entirety. Hence, one combines judgement with experiencc, the latter as reflected in the data analysis' Even this may trot ensure fully dependable projections. In a dynamic economy, thb state ptays an active role and by its very action influ' cnces the coursc of events. Thisisasit should bc. An exerciec of future projections, has thorefore, to bc acccpted as a guide for action rather tban tha forccast of end rcsults' Thc ccntral objqctive of such an excrcise could bc to throw up issues involled as the future ulfolds. Thesc issues may be of two types, firstly, to realise future projectioff, that is, what should bo the magaitude of the efrorts and to fructify those eforts, ae well a9 $'hat policies should be pursucd; and secondly and mote importantly, if pro' jections based on the past do not match the aspirations (demand) for the f$tutq, what actions should bo ititiated to so changc the

2
course and magnitude

scRrcuLTURAL pRoDUcrIoN: 2000 .1,o,

of

efforts that

the

aspired levcls may be

realised witfi greater certainty. The Challenge Looking back, we- find that in the past population increased at the rate of 2.15 per'cent per year, between 1951 and 1961, and 2.48 per cent per year between 196l and 1971. The increase .is rather steep and in comparison with the past, has been appropriately described as a population explosion. The increase in population is largely due to a rather steep decline in the death rate, 1946 to 16 per thousand in 1971. from 29 per thousand Cqmpared tb the steep decline in the death -rate there was only gentle reduction in the birth rgte from 42 per thousand in 1946 to 39 per thousand in 1971. Thc decline in the birth rate is due to the decline in the general fertility rate, tb latter declining by 8,5 per cent as compared to the 10.8 per cent decline in the former during 1956-71. This decline in the fertility rate (about 85 per cent of it) is rather recent (t966-71)1. While the nation has experienced an unprecedented population growth, one would infer from the recent decline in the fertility rate. !ha( the worst pertaining to the. population is ovei. Nevertheless ' the march of the population continues. Accordl4g to tlre scholars who are concemed about distant dates and npt merely the intervening period, the prospects for the futtre are still fdghtening, Even if the most modest estiqate of population growth is accepted, the population, nearly 70 per aountiy is likely to add to. its million people by year 2000 e.o.'! A medium procent or 380 jection would estimate the growth of population to be 82 per

in

l9tl

cent and according to a high level projection population growth 'will be 89 per cent. .In other wbrds, morq }ban 552 million additional people will be in the country by the turn of the century. -The population wilt thus be nearly doubled,3

'
I r . '

J;xtaposed. -with

the growth of population, thegrowth.of

tilern of under countipg .pl+gues the cansus- Even if adeq]la1e. account is iaken of it the rate of growth wou'd not show a perceptible change' t-Jaipal P. Ambann var, Ibid.

'India Studies, Population, Bombay, Jaipal P. Ambarnavar--Second of India Ltd., lg75,p. 122. Macmillan Conpany a decline in tJre Results of Population Census of 1981 do not suggest was expected 'by scholars' Population grdwth rate of populatlon;which The proincreaied at 24.8 p.c. both during l96i'I971 and' 1971'1981'

INTRODIJCTION

agriculture on th,wbple and even that

of food in

particular

dwing the past t\Yo decadcs may be

2 08 per cent between

regarded as encouraging' While the rate of increase in population pr armum amounted to

l95l and I 97 | , that in total agricultural prodqction was 2.65 per ccnt and in foodgr:ins 2'69 per cent betrveen lg52-53 and 1954-55 aod 1969-70 and 1971-72. In other words, farm production as a whole, as well as production of foodgrains outpaced population growth. If.population was the only factor that spurred the demand for food, the country would have comg

It is now common know' the challenge was greater antl consumption outpaced ledge that the production which required imports of foodgrains to fill the gap. Starting with a low level of consumption of foodgrains-395
out successful in meeting the challenge. grams per day per capita

foodgrains varied from year tO year but they amounted to as much as 8 million tonnes &t pne stag. A nation that plans for the growth of material prosperity.has to take into account the geaeration of additional incofte which is likely to put pressure on demand. A gmall decline in the future rate of the growth of population is likely: to be. inore than made up by the challenge

in l95l-the country developed a incomes' While the per capita income strain on supply in real .tcrms increased by 30 pqr cent, the per capita availabi[ty of foodgrains increased by l8 per cent during l95l-71' and even this performance was hade psssible with imports. lmports of
yith rising

ol titing incomes in future. .At the lowest, the requirement of foodgrains by the year 2000 1.p., is tikely to be close to 200 million tonnes. However' tbO upper ' limit of requirement (not thi uppermost) is likely to be in the neighbourhood of 238 million tonnes or 261 million toitneS (dependinq on assumptions)' The challenge is to attain m.Qre than double the present level of foodgrains production in the ooming quarter of a century, in otheiwords, to achievo the annual compound-rate of growth of

at least 2.81Per cent Per Year. The challenge is far too big. The rate of growth of agriculture in the first decade ofplianning was about 2.0 per cent per annum'

and that of ioodgqain.* 2'1 per centper annum. Ovet half of.the total increase came. from tfie .increased area under cultivation,'. Since this pgrformance could not be repeated in the second de' cade. of planning, bwing to the near exhaustion of the poJen' tiality of expaq$ion 9f tbl afea .under cultivation, thc rate of the

.lcRIcuLTuRAL pRoDUcrIoN: 20@

l.o.

growth of farm production declined sharply despite a nearly 40 pr cent increase in the overall productivity and a 63 per cent increase in foodgrains productivity. Hence, the future growth of production will have to come, almost entirely through increased productivity, a burden which may prove to be too heavy to carry for a still largely traditional agriculture notwithstanding the recent green revolution. We shall see later, that not only food ciops alone but other crops may experience a similar strain on
supplies.

The Approach

Looking into.the future for the production of farm products to a date nearly three decades away from now is a task full of hazards. To assume that past will repeat itself amounts to denying the dynamics of a fast changing world, in which technology no longer remains unchanged. At best, the teehnology likely to prevail in the year 2000 Lp., can be iaferred on the basis ofthe one notv obtaining in the pipeline, i.e., at a trial stage. The promise for the future cannot be inferred beyond, this stage. The taste and preferences of the consumers are also likely to change, and accordingly, their willingness to pay the prices of different crops may also undergo a change. To take account of changing tastes and preferences and the consequent willingness to forego the consumption of known commodities for new ones is not an easy task. To do full.justice to the dynarnics of the situation on the demand and the supply sides, we require a projection of the entire system or in terms of a model, a system of equations that would bring out the relationships of prices, production inputs, tastes and preferences, and technology. To them should be added the inter-relationship of these variables with population behaviour. We bave not. aitefirptd the complicated exercise. We have preferred to take the second best course. Our primary occupation io this exercise is regardilg the plojection of the supplies. We accept for our purpose, the demand projection given by the scholars, We also accept the population projections of other scholars and use them for the demand projection as well as for the supply of labour. We depart from the sirrrplistic exercise .,of projecting the past into the futdre in three major ways. Firstly, we,deliberately bring

INTRODUCTION -..

.. :

in tbe possible policy options such as the full exploitation of irrigation potential, attaining the level of crop yields ol the basis of known techniques of high yielding varieties or those observed
on the national demonstration olots. Our second departure is in regard to the level of aggregation. We have worked out the projection for each crop and for each

state separately. We have therefore used an approach which may be termed as 'disaggregative', Thirdly, we have used the component method. The total production depen{s on yields on

irrigated and unirrigated land uader each individual crop. The total cropped area, in turn, depends on both the land available for crop, i.e,, the net sown area.and the cropping intensity. We could not avoid totally, the projection of the past trends into the future. For instance, we had to project the cropping intensity on the basis of the observed trends. However, these exercises have also been carried out at state level. Different forms of relationships were tried. One that gave the best fit was finally selected, For part of the exercise, projected yield levels are used. For projecting the levels of yields the time trends were litted to the yields of each individual crop at a st6te level, Three different forms of equations, namely, ( l) linear, (2) semi-log, (3) doubleJog were used. For each crop, results of that equation which gave the best fit were usecl for projection. Our approach which is essentially the conbination of the component method and the disaggregative procedure thus differs from other work of supply. projection, :!s most of them including those of the FAO and National Commission on Agriculture, provide pro_ jeotions mainly at macro.level at tbe level of the comtry as a whole. Yet another departure of our approach is.that we provide alternative projections under the constraints regarding the total availability of fertilisers, and the attainment of minimum level of production of foodgrains in addition to the constrains on the

availability

different combinations qf potentials of land and irrigation, tcchnology level and fertiliser use.a
Seven Scenarios

9i[rr""t

of land and irrigation. We. have developed sevea scenarios to reprcsent alternative situations. embodying
nei

'

Wc proceed with seven alternatiye scenarios to depict the

Details of methodohogy are givcn in the Appendix.

ecRlcuLTURAL PRoDUcfioN:

20$'e'o'

. farm situations pertaining to the production level and composition for the year 2000 e.p. We intbnd mainly to pose problems. The seven different scenarios represent seven alternatives, each with different implications following from it. The policy-makers will have to select one or the other depending on the options
open to them.

The seveh scenarios can be dividr,;d'into two categories: The first three scenarios are in essence based on the projections. The remaining four scenarios are alternatives evolved on the basis of linear programming exercises. We may term the two groups of scenarios as (l) projection scenarios, and (2) programming

scenarios. The fifst of the three projection scenarios in effect project the past trends into the future. Individually, trends 'regarding land use, area under irrigation, cropping intensity, area under individual crops and crop yields have been fitted. Alternative functions were tried to obtain the best fit. The trends were fitted at the individual state level for each one of them. Past trends for each component for each state have been projected for the future for the year 20O0 l.p. It is the aggregate of the production of each crop for each state that gives the production level for the country as a whole. Scenario II departs from the first one only in regard to the extent of the area uodei irrigation. Instead of projecting the past trends, for Scenario II, it is assumed that the potential for the area under irrigation as indicated by the Irrigation Commission will be fully tapped before the year 2000 l.o. The proportion of the arear under irrigation to the total cropped area would be different for Scenario II from that for Scenario I for each state. This change consequently changes thc total gross cropped area and hence the cropping intensity. Since the yields per acre for irrigated and unirrigated crops are diftrent, the total production obtaining lor each state and the country would be different for Scenario II, The difference between the Scenario I and II reffects essentially the effect of the expansion of irrigation, Scenario'Ill is also a projection scenario, in addition to the assumption of full utilisation of irrigation potential it is assumed that the preseit level of yields of high yielding varieties will obtain for each crop over the entire area. The main reason to allow . the high .yielding varieties to cover the entirc area is that it is believed that the technological improvement would gather.. momontum. The type

.of the green revolution breakthrough now witnessed for wheat

may become available for other grops. $ccording to scientists, while the gains of the first generation high yielding varieties may off, those of the .second and the successive

begin

generations of high yielding varieties will enter the field. Each ge.neration may attain its peak' in about three years' time. The entire cycle of the expansion and decline of the first genemtioa and the introduction of the next generation and its expansion

to taper

and decline may be of five to seven years. In other wordsn during the period of 25 years, th{ee to . five new and bet'ter varietles may be in the field. At any point of time, the superior' most variety may cover only. part ofthe total area. The past generation varieties may. coexist and cover the remaining areas. In Scenario III, thtrefore, . we assume that the levels of yields attained by the first generation high yielding varieties may represbnt the average for the entire area for the year 2000 e.o., when tho fourth or fifth generation high yielding varieties might
be on the scene.

In the programqing sconarios, we do more or less the same exercise and use irnportant information obtaining for the lirst
three scenarios. Wc permit allocation of land to alternative crops on the basis of most efficient us! of scarce resources like land, irr.rgation, supply of fertilisers, etc. We carry with us for the programming scenarios, the total. land available for the cultivation of crops, the total potential of land thai can be covered by irrigation and the extent of cropping intensity. In so far as the crop yields are concerned, for Scenario IV, we use the projected level of crop y.ields whicb are similar to those used for Scenario Il. Scenario IV is thus an alternative for Scenario II but the results are based on a .programming exercise. For the programming exercise, itr eddition to ths constraints of the scarce
r"sour"us such as land, irrigation and fertilisers, we have imposed a fufther restriction that the minimum requirement of foodgrains .as estimated by,the demand projections of the National Commission on Agriculture will be met'and the remaining areas will be

allotted to the non-foodgrain crops. Essentially' Scenario IV provides the gains of the efficient allocation of scarce resources' -For Scenarios V, Vtr .and VII, crop yields are drawn from the experience of the deruonsiration plots. It is postulated that the teihnology in the pipeline is represented by demonstration plots.

fofueuLruRAl phobucrroN: 2000 l.o.

The demonstration plots in a way simulate field conditions for

trying out the newly evolved technologies;

It

can be assumed

that what is now being demonstrated to the producers can be fruitfully extended to the fatmers' fields all over in the coming quarter of a cefltury. The demonstration plot results pertain to different crops under both irrigated and unirrigated condiScenario V uses the same constraiats as Scenario IV. In addition, we introduce ihe available labour supply projected for the year 2000 e.o., as a constraiut. The objective function maximises the net return or the profit rcpresentitrg the difference between inputs and output.s Scenario Vl is an extension of Scenario V. Instead of maximising the differmce between the output and inputs, we oaximise the total output subject to the coristraints of the available levels of scarce reseurces and the need to meet the minimurh food requirements. Scenario VII takes off the constraint re$arding the supply, of fertilisers. It postulates
tions.

that fertilisers would be available

in

adequate quantity to

maximise the production with given land and irrigation facilities. The details as to how the constraints regarding fertilisers supply is obtained are given elsewhere. .It may be stated that the purchase of inputs by the agricultural sector from the other sectors

and the gross domestic product for the nation from all sectors have a fixed relationship, Oncc the gross domestic product for the nation is fixed for the year 2000 e.o., levels of supplies of
purchased inputs. Essentially our seven different scenarios attempt to answer the What will be the future levels if the following questions:

the fertilisers can be derived as part of the total

(l)

past repeats itself in future? This question is answered by Scenario L (2) If the community makes a successful attempt to realise fuliy the irrigation potential, will the minimum needs of the community as represented by the projected demands, be met? This question is answered by Scenario II, and Scenario IV. Scenario IV provides additional evidence as to whether the future land-use pattern based on projeclions will be optimum

Under this sccnario we rnaximise tho surplus of value of ourput over the total opetating costs of production whbh include imputed cost of family labour and bullock labour in additioo to thc bxpnss for othr
purchased inputs.

INIRODUCTION

or not. (3) What wilt be the impact of high yielding varieties or the new technology, now in the pipeline, as embodied in the yield levels obtaining. on the demonstration plots? Does the new technology promise abundance or would it provide just the level required to meet the projected demand? Scenarios lII, V, VI, and VII will provide the answer to this question. (4) Like the irrigation potential level, will the supplies of fertilisers restrict the total farm production that can be obtained despite the promise of the new technology? The difference between the

VI and VII answers this question. Our major attempt in the study is to project agricultural production for the year 2000 1.o., and examine its implications
Scenarios

in terms of investment, cmployment, researoh etrort, etc., at the

national examining implications a string of assumptions unrelated to the main theme of the report. However, the problem of poverty cannot be overlooked altogether. Implications of various growth possibility io terms of the extent of poverty that would still exist in the terninal year are examined. separately by way of an appendix given at the .end. It follows the last chapter which sums up final conclusions.

level.

Wp have desisted

fro6

of growth in terms of equity, for it involves

CHlprBn. 2

Pace of Progress

per cent per

scenarios are

ssate of the

Source: Draft Five Year P:an, 1978-83, Vol, Planning Commission, New Delhi, p. 7.

If,

Government

of

India,

PACE OF PROGRES5

.ll

implied would enhance our understandin$ of trends in production by the different production situations' ' .Of thetwo iypes of scenarios, i'e', based on (l) projections (for area under crops), and on (2) linear progfammrng exerclses' we get a lower area under crops for the latter especially for Scenirios V and VI (Table 2'3). This rdduction in the cropped area is

the direct result of the assumptio[ of the consiraint on fertilisor supply. The lbvels of yields realised on the national demonstration plots, though high, are associated with

utilise minimum necessary level of foodgrain production with' lower levels of yields and doses of fertilisers under Scenario IV' expaiision of the area under foodgrains and consequently, that of the total area under grops was necessary. Scenario VII, in tbe absence of constraint on fertiliser supply, allocates a relatively highcr share of area to foodgrains with substantially higher yield levels'' With the assu$ption of a continuation of past trends itr regard to the expansion of the area under crops, the irrigated yields antl allocation of land to different crops, the u.i", "top crop prodoitlon would increase annually at a compound rate af l.?6 per cent. This is Scenario I. The growth rate is likely to slow down in the future in Scenario I, compared to that observed in the past, mainly because the limit to the expansion of land under crops will be reached rhuch before the end ofthe present century, The expansioa of irrigation in the past has not been at a rate adequate enough to slrpport a high rate of growth of yield per hectare. For Scenario I yields would grow annually at a compound rate of 1.27 per cent, Two nl'ore scenarios are also an exercise in projecting into the future past experience with sobe variations: An additional assumption that tbe irrigation potential would be fully exploited before the nd of this century gives us jumps to 2'5 Scenario II. Wittl this single change, the growth rate mainly the result of increased yields per heclare, per cent and is pt since the rale of growth of yield improves from l'27 to l'74 cropped area also increases because of oent pr annum.r Gross

heavy doses df fertilisers and thus restrict the expansion of area under foodgrains in Scenarios V aird YI' Scenarios lV and VII almoit the entire land potential' In order to achieve the

.!

as irrigation may facilitatc growing two or more crops on the

land,

The area under crops will increase at

slightly higher tate

in

as

nirich
same

t2

AGR TCULTURAL

pRoDucrroNr 2000

,c,,o.

higher cropping intensity on irrigated land. . .]eghnglogy has undergone a rapid change in the past and a half decade. High-yielding varieties represent a major breakthrough iri reprd to wheat. Slow but perceptible progress has achier,red in regard to paddy. Though some problems have been faced regarding bajra, jowar and maize, new strains on the basis of hybridisation have been successfully developed for these crops. Of late new varieties of pulses especially of mung are also
developed.

meeting the minimum needs regarding foodgrains, and in some labour available for cultivation. Scenario IV is essentially Scenario II recast on the basis of the programming exercise , which aims at the attainment of the minimum needs of foodgrains subject to the constraiDt on thg total availability of fertilisers. Instead of crop pattern changing on the basis of the past trends, we assume that optimum attocaiion ofland to aiternative crops would obtain. However, this exercise
cases, regarding the

expansion is witnessed regarding yields per hectare. The temaining four scenarios belong to the linear prograrF ming exercises. While major assumptions regarding the expansion of area under crops and land under irrigation remain the same. constraints have been introduced regarding the use of fertilisers,

According to the informed sources, the technological breakthrough witnessed during the late 60s may be repeated on a similar or a little lower scale for diferent on an average, "ropr, at atr interval of five to seven years. Three to fve new break_ throughs may therefore be expected in the next two and half decades.s It may therefore be possible to cover almost the entire land under foodgrains and cotton with high-yielding varieties, Though the newly introduced varieties may have higher yield levels and the older varieties may be on the way out, the average yield per hectare which may be assumed with some confidence, may average around the yield levels now obtaining for high yielding varieties in the farmers' fields. With these assumptions, under Scenario III the growth rate of production junps up to a little less than twice that obtained for Scbnario Il. White growth rate of the gross cropped area remains limited, the maior

National Commission on Agriculture, p. 45.

National Commission on Agriculturo: Rice Development in India Problems and Prospects, Report oftbc Study Team constituted by the

P^cB OF

PR@RFs8

13

gives 6 little lower overall rate of growth due to a marginal de. cline in the use of land, and.a lower share of foodgrains than that under Scenario II. Essentially Scenario IV gives the same rcsults as Sceaario II. For Scenarios V tO VII wc have used yields per hectare as obtaining on demonstration plots. These yield rates are higher than those observed for high yielding varietias on tha

farmers' fields. We postulate that in the comirg years what is now being proved to be a success at the trial stage will be exten; ded to farmers'fields. Scenario V also assumes that there would be a constraint regardiug tbe availability of fertilisers Qut the economy would maximise the surplus denoted by the excess of output over inputs. This exercise gives a higher compound rate of growth of 3.87 per cent per annum. It suggests a decline in the total area under crops which is compensated, partially, by a higber growth rate of yietds per hectare than under Scenario III.

V. lnstead pf and output, the exer; maximising the surplus between the inputs cise postulates maximising of the gross value of the product. Scenario VI gives the growth rate which is only slightly above that of Scenario III, though the yield rates are much higher compared to Scenario III. This is because the former under-utilises the land. The last scenario, namely, Scenario VII is worked out with only three constraints, namely land under crops, area under irrigation and minimum requirement of foodgrains. We drop the constraint regarding the availability of fertilisers. With the demonstration plot yields atrd tro constraint on tbe supply of fertilisers, the compound growth rate ofcrop production would cross the mark of 5 per cent per annum, with the area under crops increasing at 0.64 per cent per annum and crop yields increasing at the compound rate of 4,27 per cent per annum. Scenarios VI and VII give equal rates of yield . increases but the absence of the constraint on fertiliser use enables the area under crops to
Scenario

VI is essentially the s'me as

Scenario

iqcrease at a faster rate (i.e., at the rate of 0.64 per cent) which is the same as tbe one observed for Scenario IV.

I as being tbe most conservative and the most optimistic one and allow for expansion of yield per hectare on the basis of the new technology, we can obtain the growth rate of 4.5 per cent.for crop. production. Is this growth rate adequate? Is it realistic? Expecting the per capita income to double in the next 25
Ifwe drop
Scenario Scenario

VII,

as

14

AGRTcULTURAL pnoDucrroN: 2000 a.o.

years, may not be considered an ambitious goal. This goal jmplies that the p6r capita income should expand at a compound rate of 21 per cent per annum. To make an allowance for linkages, the rates of growth of per capita income may have to be close to 3 per cent pqr annum. If the population, on an average, is expected to double between l97l and the year 2000 1.o., the compound rate of the growth of population would be around 2.34 per cent. It may even be slightly higher. Some of the estimates suggest that in less than a quarter of a century from 1976, the population may increase by 77 per cent. The minimum rate of growth of the economy as a whole, to attain the goal of doubling tbe per capita income and also to keep pace with the growth of population, should be an overall growth rate ol above 5 per cent. A safe margin would suggest that the rate should bc closer to 5.5 per cent. A four per cent growth rate for agriculture, therefore, should be considered a minimal necessity, and a little higher than 4 per cent (about 4.4J may be considered desirable.a Scenarios III, V and VI project this rate of growtb. We should, however, remind ourselves that the rate of growth of crop production envisaged by us presumes a much faster increase in the area under irrigation, a much higher rate ofincrease in research activity to improve the technology and a much faster expansion of ttre use of fertilisers.

Nuhition Levei
The level of production envisaged through the different scenanutrition. Since in.the first three scenarios, no attempt is made to restrict the growth of any one crop, and the cropping pattem is allowed to change on the basis qf the past trends, we find that a fairly high level of calories and protein intake per day per person may -obtain in the year 2000

rios suggest varying levels of

f -

Tol(ioubl theper capita incom6 in 25 years, a compound growth rate of 2.7 per cent per annum for.per capita ingoms is n9gessary.' Popula. tion is projeated to grow at abqut the same rate annually, hence the
aggregat national income should increase annually at a compound rate

of5.4/percent. If income elasticity of demand for agricultural products (fobil and non-food) is taken at 0.6 per capita demand for agricultuial produbts may increase annually at a compound rate of l;62 per cent. Aggregate farm.production (crops only) should therefore
ingress an0ually ot a compound rato of 4.36 pr cent,

l5
e.o., (Table 2.4). Once again tbe exercise in tbe. projection of pait trends (Scenario I) gives us consqrvative resultg. It sqggests that the per cdpita inlake'of calories ''deiived from giains alone may be around 166?, with 300 to 400,additional I calories . derived from other foods. The calorie intake in 2000 a.o.; may, just permit a holding on to,the level obtaining in 1971. According to the National Copmission on'Agriculture, in l97l' the per capita availability of calories was around 2080. The protein level from, crbps war 44 grams in 19715. , According to .rise to 50 graqs. rAn. Scenario I, per capita protein level may additional l0 grdms..frorn other .sourss may give 4n adequalg proteir level. Scenario II which additionally assumes ful-[ 'potontial, gives a.calorie utilisation of ' .irrigation 'level up to 2365, with a comfortable. level of prolein, i.e., 68 grems fron ftrodgiains alone. lts counterpart, based on.the linear programming exercise (Scengrio IV), wliich implies efficiont allocatlon of limited resouices, gives a lower level .of calories, i.e., 1904. .. A' projection on the basis of Scenario III, involving theuseof high yielding varieties and the crop pattern changing on the basis 'of past trends, gives a very high levei of per capita intake' of calories and protein which is surpassed only by the level pro' jeoted under Scenario VII, which assumes demonstration plot yields and implies no constraint on the supply of ferti.lisers.I If both these xtremes are dropped, then for Scenarios V and VI, the protein level would be close to 60 but the calorie level wsuld be close to the one prescribed as the minimum necessar')f. The higher iate of growth of tho. production of these scenarios arc mainly due to the higher rate of.growth of non-foodgrain crgps, as .the solution of the programming exercise hits'only the minirnum level of grain production. required, as envisaged. by the. National Commission on Agriculture. By any- other standards the fogd, grain demand may perhapo be . ligher than tho supply level given by the linear programming . excrciee. This happens because in the years to omc, the_advantage now enjoyed,by loodgrains may' shift in favour',of aqn-foodgrain crops with tho imprluement of theii production by the technology now in the prpeline, as indicated by the demonstration plots.
.

s Saurce.' Report of 'tho National Commission on Agriculture,

Part

1976,:

III,

Demand and Supply, Table 10, 12, p; 2E,

l6
Demend Supply Grp Our Scenarios I to

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION: 2OOO A.D.

the year 2000 a.o:, (fable 2.5). We have not worked out the demand projections independently. Several independent estimates of thc demand for foodgrcins and other crops are available on the basis of exercises donc by other scholars (Table 2.6.). The National Commission on Agriculture, in its report (an ofrcial document) gives projections of gross and net demand for different crops. Itr the case of foodgrains, thed ifferenc betwen the gross and the net is about l8 per cent and is accounted for by the requirements for seed, fpcd and
wa$Bge.

VII

project levels of supplies of crops for

V.M. Rao:s study is a prrt of the Ford Foundation studies relating to Second India in the year 2@0 e.n. He projects conrumption levels on the basis of NSS data. His projection is based oo the assumption that the lowest 30 per cent ofthe total population will eventually move upward and that their level of per capita consumption of foodgrains will improve at- least up to the level now enjoyed by families in the middle income groups. The National Commission on Agriculture has assumed different expenditure elasticities of demand for different items of foodgrains for rur4l and urban areas. These are based on NSS data for 1971. Their demand projections are based on the assumption that the proportion of the urban and the rural population would change. As envisaged by them, the quantity of foodgrains consumed would increase between l97l andthe year 2000 A,D., at a compound rate of 2.16 at the lowest and 2.47 at the highest per cent per airnrim. However, this increase would give a lower 0;32 per cent and 0.75 per cent increase respectively in the calorie intake. Kirit Parikh's estimates suggest the higher level of demand for foodgrains at 474 million tonnes and the lowest at 288 million tonnes, compared to the l97l level this would imply at the highest, a 5 per cent annual compound rate of growth of demand, and at the lowest, a 3.31 per ceDt annual compound rate of demand for foodgrains (Table 2,7). While Kirit Parikh's demand projections seem to be on the higher side, that of the National Commission on Agriculture seems to be rather low. V.M. Rao's projections suggest thc annual compound rate of growth at 2.99 per cent. If population grows at thc ratc of 2.ll per ccnt, then the per capita

'

PACE OF

PROGRESS

Ii

rate of growth for foodgrains intake implied in the demand projections of V.M, Rao would be 0'88. Kirit Parikh's demand projection estimates suggest the. per capita increase in foodgrain consumption at the lowest of 1.80, which is nearly double that of V.M. Rao's eetimate, but a little more than double that projec'. ted by the National Commission on Agriculture. The highest growth rate of demand per 'capita of 2.66 projected by Kirit Parikh, is three times the rate implied by the estimates of V.M'
Rao.

When we compare the levels just mentioned of demand projection for foodgrains with the supply projections obtaining from different scenarios, we find that the trend projection undei Scenario I may be below almost all projections of demand for foodgrains (Table 2.5). The highest level for demand projected by Kirit Parikh may be matched only by the Scenario VII proJection wbich means an unconstrained supply of fertilisers. Even that may fall slightly short of the demand projected by Kirit Parikh. V.M. Rao's demand for foodgrains may be rnet by Scenatio IIl. None of the programming exercises which accept

the National Commission level of demand projection as a minimum level would meet the demand projections of V.M. Rao or the lower level projected by Kirit Parikh. Scenarios V, VI would meet the demand projections given by the National Com'' nission on Agriculture. They would leave a little surplus.
Pulses

While the overall foodgrain position may suggest a comfortable supply in the year 2000 r.p., almost all supply projections under Scenarios I to VII suggest a low level of production of pulses, leaving a *ide margin between the projected demand ard theprojected supply of pulses. The only exception is Scenario V, which, though it does not suggest a surplus, at least meets the lowest projected demand. It may be recalled that under almost all scenarios, a fairly comfortable level of protein intake per day per capita may obtain. This is partly due to the fact that there might be a shift in the consumption from inferior to superior cereals. Grains like wheat have a high protein content.'

Protein content per 100 grams: rice (milled) 6.4; ric (hand pounded)

?.S maize ll.l; bajra 11.6; ragi 7.3; batley 11.5; vheat (whole) 11.8.

jo*ar

10,4 ind

tB

AGRrcuLruRAL pRoDucrroN:2000 e.p.

'25 per cent, the gap that may be left by a lower supply of
pulses may perhaps be adequately filled up by an increased con. $umption of superior cereals.

Wheat for'instance, gives around 11.8 per cent protein. Maize; bajra and jowar have a protein content of about l0 or 1.I per cent, Though for pulses, the protein content may vary between,22.and

We have assumed the relative prices

of

commodities to

remain. unchanged. However, a serious gap between the demand

for and the supply of pulses may create pressures on the prices of pulses, This pressuie of rising prices may be inadequate ro initiate transfer of land from cereals to pulses, if the former enjoy a big technological advantage.
Non-foodgrain Crops

Relatively less data projections

is

available

relating to important non-foodgrain

demand for groundnut, oil seeds, sugarcenc, cotton; fruits and vegetables. The National Comrnission on Agriculture gives demand projections for oil seeds, sugarcane, cotton, jute, tea, coffee and tobacco. Wed o not have firm supply projections for coffee. Interesting observations follow from comparisons of demand and supply projections for other non foodgrain crops. Against Kirit Parikh,s projection of total oilseeds ranging from l0 to 2 I million tonnes, that. of the National Commission on Agriculture is in the range of g to l0 million

of

crops. Kirit parikh

for

demand projections
gives

tonnes (Table 2.8). T'he National Commission projections are in terms of vegetable oils, which when converted into oil seeds, would amount to about 24 to 30 million tonnes of seedsti Against these two, our supply projections on the basis of trends and high yielding varieties range from 8 to 14 million tonnes and on the basis of programming exercises range from lg to 53 million tonnes. Even if we omit the unconstrained production exercises, the highest level we get is around 36 million tonnes, We have. thus a marginally comfortable position regarding oil seeds. The demand level for. cotton ranges in the case of Kirit Parikb, from . l0 to 33 million bales, while in the case of the National. Commission on Agriculture, it ranges from 10 to 17

'

,Soyrce.

(of footnote 6) :

C,

Gopalan, e/

Foods, Nalional Institute

Research, Hyderabad, 197d Table

of Nurrition, Indian Council of

l,
pp. 6G6t.

a/, Nutritive Valu of. Indian

Medical

PAoB

oF

PRocREss

19

million bales. Supply prcijections give a very wide range. The projection Scenarios 0, Il, III) give a range of 8 to 29 million bales when we exclude the programming exercise not based oh demonstration plot yields. Taking the highest demand level, we find that the suppiy of cotton will be marginally below the demand for it in the year 2000 l.o. The position regarding sugarcane (rather gur) needs to be explained' Sugarcane growin! is relatively the most profitable. We have introduced a con$i traint that the irrigated area under foodgrains in the kharif season, along with the sugarcane area, should not exceed the net irrigated area available. Similar constraint bas also been introduced for irrigated area under rabi crops.T Despite that, we get a fairly comfortable ppsition regardirig the sugar supply. Perhaps our economy may be in a position to export part of the sugar supply. Regarding tea and tobacco, we find that domestic demand may be met with some difficulty On the whole, we find that there would be a relatively better position regarding non-foodgraiu crops in the year 2000 l.o'; especially if high yielding varieties are introduced. While at the moment, high yielding vdrieties of foodgrains like wheat are more profitable and therefore the progress in the immediate past was somewhat sluggish in regard to non-food-qrains, in the years to come, non-fobdgrains may occupy a front position in the growth scenarios. If irrigation is fully realised and if demostration plot results regarding yields are attained, the total foodgrain supply may just match the demand. If a comfortable position with a sizeable buffer stock is to be reached, some of the area under sugarcane, ootton or oil seeds may have to be diverted to tbe production of foodgrains. Consequently, the over-all rate' of the growth for agriculture may be lower to that extent'
Food from Animal Proilucts The prospects for the future seems to be a bit dim when we nove from crops to animal products. The protein gap perhapo gots widened if tbe milk supply does not match the projected demand. In our exercise, we attempt to illustrate the serious-

'

ness

of the problem by

concentrating

on milk supply and

We had to introduce this additional constraint because the land availability constraint.for irrigatd and unirrigated 4ro4 h4s leen specified ir1
aroa' lerms.gf the gross croPPed

20

AcRtcuLTURAL pRoDucrroN:

2S0 e.s;

dcmonstrating that enough feed and fodder supply may not be rvailable to meet the demand for milk. Additional demand for fodder and feed to feed bullocks br other animals would copBtrain the supplies further and thus widen the gap between the demand and supply. We get the demand projections regarding milk supply on the basis of the National Commission on Agriculmre as well as from thb work of Whyte and Mathur.s Whyte and Mathur provide two different bases: (l) 0.17 kg. milk consumption ler head per day which is considered a conservative level and assumes adequate availability of vegetable proteins in diet; (2) on the basis of 0.28 kg. milk per head per day, which is based on the nutritioual norm suggested by the Nutrition Advisory Committee of the Indian Council of Medical Research (1944). The National Commission on Agriculture, on the other hand, arrived at the demand for milk on the basis of income elasticity. It gives two differont levels of demand projections on the basis of two levels of population projections. Considering two different levels of milk yields per animal, viz., (l) 1000 litres, (2) 2500 litres per lactation and the proportion of one breeder animdl for one anirnal in milk and two young ones at the same time and the stdndards of feeding corresponding to these two milk yield levels, we have worked out the requirements for concentrates, green fodder and dry fodder to meet with the projected demand for milk. The supply of fodder has been projected on the basis of l0 tonnes of green fodder per acre of land under .foddcr and twothirds of a tonne of dry fodder per acre of area under foodgrains. We give the supply and demand positions of conontrates and green and dry fodder in Tables 2,9 and 2.10. The projected supply ofdry fodder would be much below the demand for dry fodder requirement even to meet the demand for milk. This situation obtains even when we assume a high level of milk yield of 2500 litres per lactation per animal. The positiotr regarding green fodder is slightlv better. The programming exercise for profit . nalimisation, .scenario V or the '1*ogramming exercise for production maximisation, Scenario VI

give a comfortable position regarding green fodder. It should;

Wryte and Mathur, ,planning of Orient Longmans, 1968.

Milk

production in Ir{aia,, go.bay,

PACE OF PROORESS

2l

'

however. be stated that the area under all other crops is asumcd to be devoted to fodder crops only. We have also assumed that the area not brought under crops since it may not be profitablo to do so under the efficient programming exercise, will be devo' ted to growing green fodder. Under these restrictive assump' tions, we barely reach the level of requirement of green fodder to meet the milk demand. As soon as we add to this thc demand for green and dry fodder for diought power, the gap between the demand and the supply would widen. The slightly better position regarding non-foodgrain crops mentioned earlier
is

to be balanced against the extremely precarigus csndition

regarding milk or animal products as

whole and the demand

for drought power.

of growth of crop production projected till 2000 vary for different crops and different states. The range is A.D., fairly wide. A widely varying range portends uneven progress for different crops and different regions.
The rates

Pattern of Growth

Growth Rates of CroPs

One general observation that emerges from the growtb rates of individual crops iq that for all the seven scenarios, all the growth. In other words, the crops show a positive rate pervasive. The range of growth however growth would be

of

wide. The highest rate of growth for any indiqrop, taking all scenarios together would be 8.95 per cent vidual (cornpound) per annum for maize (Scenario VII)' The lowest annual compound rate of growth would be 0.02 per cent for gran (Sccnario I). If we leave out Scenario VII, for all the remaining scenarios, sugarcane shows the highest rate of growth which varies from 3.56 (Scenario l) to 8.15 per cent (Scenario VI). The lowest rate of growth has been observed in four out of six Soenarios for grair (Scenarios I, V, VI and VII). For two more sirnerios (Scenarios III and IV), the lowest rate of growth has been observed for pulses. Only in Scenario II do oil seeds show the lowest rate of growth. Thus, though the future developme,lrt would depend heavily on the gieen revolution, the highest rata of growth will be achieved both in projection scenarios and ii" programming scenarios by a highly irrigated commercial crop.
would be very

22

AchlCtrLiuRAL phoDircfroN: 2000 e,O,

narnely, sugarcane. Since green revolution is not likely to bene-

fft pulses, from among the foodgraiirs, gram individually or

pulses taken as a whole would grow at the slowest pace. It is interesting to examine the crops which would rank the second from top or bottom in regard to their compound rates of growth per annum for difrerent scenarios. Here we find that no

one particular crop dominates the picture. Taking the second top ranking crop for the diflerent scenarios, we find the range of rates of growth to vary between, at the highest, a 7.71 per cent compound rate per annum for jowar (Scenario VII), and at the lowest, a 3.3 per cent per annum for wheat (Scenario I). Wheat occupies the second top rank for all the three projection scenarios. Wheat recedes into the background in the programming scenarios, perhaps for the reason that wheat rvould not be the mcist paying crop. Ol the four programming scenarios, for Scenarios V and VI, groundnut occupies the second top rank position with the rates ofgrowth at 5.31 per cent per annum (compound) for Scenario V and at 7.42 per.cent .pr annum (compound) for Scenario VI. For Scenario IV, bajra ociupies the same rank and for Scenario VlI, jowar. Thus for programming scenarios eitber millets or a commercial crop like groundnut are in the second leading pbsition next to sugarcane. Among slow moving crops are jute, ragi and jowar. The second rank from the bottom is occupied by jute, in three out of four programming scenarios (Scenarios V, VI and VIII). Irr Scenario IV, jowar is the second slowest progressing crop. In the projection scenarios also jute occupies second rank from the bottom in Scenar io ! and in the remaining two projection scenarios, ragi occupies second from the bottom. As we already know, in the programming scenarios, Scenario IV is the alternate for Scenario I[ as it uses projected levels of yields per acre. For the remaining tbree scenarios, den:onstration plot yields data are .used. . If we leave out Scenario IV which is an alternate for Scenario II, we find that production or profit maximisation wben full irrigation potential is available gives the second highest rank not to the irrigated crop, as is the case in the first rank, but, to high yielding varieties ofjowar or the new varidty of groundnut. Ragi and jute are the two crops which are least likely to benefit

from theyield increases in the programming exercises. Hence, jute occupies the second lowest rank, and in that regard, is close

PACE OF PROGRESS

t5

mentioning that important crops like rice among foodgrains or cotton among non-foodgrains would occupy middle ranks regarding the annual compound rates of growth'

to

gram. It is worth

Pattern of Farm Production Growtb for States The tletails of the rates of growth for different states have been worked for programming scenarios only. In regard to the states also, the range of growth varies very widely' However, over all the states, it is observed that the production of all crops will move upward in all the programming exercises. The highost per cent per annum for Aridhra Pradesh (Scenario V) while the lowest rate of growth is observed to bq 0.06 per cent per annumt
rate

of

growth for an ' indiriidual state was observed to be 7,33

for Jammu and Kashmir (Scenario VI. Table 2.1l). Such a wide range of annual compound rates of growth of crop pro-

'

duction for different states would eventually lead to certain areas being agriculturally depressed while others would move fast. Out of the four programming scenarios, rve find that Andhra Pradesh occupies tlre top rank for $cenarios IV and V. For Scenarios VI and VII, Orissa tops the list while for Scenarios VI and VII' Andhra Pradesh occupies the. second rank from the top fior Scenario IV with the sole exception of Maharashtra occupying second top rank for Scenario V. In other words, the eastern bdt of:rice growing regions is likely to be the leading area oi agricultural progress in the next quarter of a century, Their progress however will not necessarily be due to the growth o.f food production. The slow moving states, at the lowest level, included besides Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal (Scenarios V and VII) and Assam (Scenario IV). The rates of growth observed for all of them ale below 1.66 per cent per annum, as low as 0.02 for West Bengal for Scenario V and 0.19 for Assam for Scenario IV. Wittl the exception of Jammu and Kashmir, the slow moving states afe also in rice growing regions but ir the extreme ndrth east corner. The second rank from the bottom, i.e., nert to the slow moving states include Punjab for Scenarios VI and VII' with annual com' oound rates of growth of crop production of 2.38 per cent ?scenario V) and 3.49 per cent (Scenario VII). For Scenario IV; iiujarat has the second lowest rank and for Scenario V, Jammu and Kashmir has the lowest rank.

24

AGRICULTURAL PRoDUCTI0N: 2OOO

I.o.

We can view the problem from yet another angle. We rank the states for Scenarios V and VI, on the basis of the first five ranks from the top and the five ranks from the bottom, the former indicating progressive states and the latter indicating slow

moving regions (Table 2,l2), For Scenario V, i.e., where demonstration plot yields are used, with land and irrigation as the two constraints and production maximised, we find among
progressive states,

in order of their rdnk, Andhra Pradesh"

"to Maharashtra in tbe west coast. These states woul<l cover about 28 per cent of the total area and would account for 54 per cent of the total value of production. In Scenario VI, the five states from the bottom, in order of the rank, would be, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Gujarat, West Bengal and Assam, In otber words, the trorthern and north-eastern states would occupy the low ranks and these states will acccount for nearly 38 per cent of the total area and only 26 per cent of the total value of production in the year 2000 A.D' Regarding tbe foodgrains for Scenario V, we find the five leading states in order of their rank, to be Assam, Bihar, Andhra Pladesh, Kerala and Tarnil Nadu. Except Andhra Pradesh, the rmaining four states do not feature among the leading states, taking tbe overall position for all crops together. In the progrgprmiDg scanarios, despite the green revolution, net foodgrains for non-foodgrains would help the states to move fast. Among

Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. They will account for 35 per cent of the total area but will command nqarly 58 por cent of the total value of production in the year 2000 e.o. As against this, for Scenario V, the slow moving states from the bottom, in order of their rank, would be West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, i.e., the northem belt. These states, among them will account for rLeafly 42 per cent of the area but will contribute less than onefourth (23 per cent) ofthe total value of production in the terminal year. They would, therefore, be the slow moving areas. If we take Scenario VI, i.e., when production is maximised with constraint regarding land irrigation and fertiliser supply, we find that in the first five ranks, in ord.er of their rank, are the states of Orissa, Maharashtra, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya Pr.adesh. These states constitute a continuum right at the centre ofthe country, a belt stretching from Orissa in the east coast

PACE OF

PROGRESS

25

them, the leadlbg crop would be sugarcane. The jute growing states would be the slow moving states. It is worth noting that the five leading states regarding foodgrains are all rice growing states. For Scenario VI also, four out of_ five states featuring among the leading ones in Scenario V are repeated, with Tamil Nadu being replaced by Maharashtra. Thus it seems that in regard to foodgrains, the rice growing states would occupy the leading position. The future hope to tackle the food problem of India seems to lie in the rice regions mainly in the easf and the
south.

with ranks lrom the bottom, for Scenario V, for foodgrains, states like Jammu and find Kashmir, West Bengal, Karnataka, Punjab and Madbya Pradesb. For Scenario Vl, the same five states are repeated. Punjab and Madhya Fradesh are from the wheat belt area; Karnataka from the millets region. If we exclude Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal is the only state in the rice belt region which is likely to have a slow rate of growth mainly on account of the slow rate projected for jute. Though we do not have the rates of the growth of population for Scenario VI the overall rate of growth of production of foodgrains for the country would be slightly above the rate of the growth of population. For this scenario, eight states, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pladesh, Karnataka, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, may experience food shortage if the population grows more or less at the rate at whidh it grows for the country as a whole. It should be also noted that with the exception of Assam and Kamataka for which the overall rate of growth would be higher than the overall rate of growth in India as a whole, all the remaining six states would have lower overall rate of growth of population compared to that for the country asa whole, Agriculture as a whole and foodgrains in particular, would therefore have low growth rates in six states. They would therefore be agriculturally depressed and perhaps food deficit regions. Punjab which now forms the food bowl for the rest of lndia may not fe6l the problem too acutely as it may have a lcdd ovr tho rest owing to the initial superior position, The remaining states may, however, prove to be problem areas.
Among the slow moving states
we

CHlprrn

Implications
Fertiliser Requiremmts To ascertain the quantity of the fertilisers that may be required for the year 2000 ,q,.o., we used two sets of data, viz., crop-wise use of fertilisers available from the fertiliser trials, and from the national demonstration plots. Fertiliser trials were carried out regarding the high yielding varieties. Since the high yielding varieties are now io use to a restricted extent, mainly for rvheat and paddy, and to some extent for bajra, jowar, maize and cotton, the informatiort regarding fertiliser use for such crolx as minot cereals, jute, sugarcane etc., could not be obtained from the fertiliser trials. While we have assumed for Scenario III that' high yielding varieties would dominate the scenario for the year 2000 e.o., nearly 44 per cent of the gross sown area which is unirrigated will still not be covered by high yielding varieties since high yielding varieties have not been evolved for them. Tlierefore, the fertiliser requirement figure worked out for foodgrains was adjdsted to give the aggregate estimate of requirement by using the present shar6 of non-foodgrains in the total fertiliser consumption. This procedure yielded the aggregate estimate 6i fertiliser demand under Scenario IIL As we do not have the time series regarding the crop-wise consumption of fertilisers for different states on irrigated and unirrigated lands, detailed estimates of the fertiliser demand could not be worked out for Scenarios I and IL However, assuming a linear relationship between fertiliser input and output of foodgrains, we worked backward to construct an estimate of aggregate demand for fertilisers under
Scenarios

and

II.

Demonstration plot data are available mainly for foodgrains. Data pertaining to non-foodgrain crops therefore had to tre obtained from other sources. Here again we relied on the simplis(ic assumption of a linear relationsbip between fertiliser input and

IMPLICATIONS

27

output. Using this assumption and using the farm management survey results {br non-foodgrain crops, we derived the fertiliser requirement per hectare for non-foodgrain crops. The details regarding the fertiliser use have been worked out at the individual state level for each crop separately. The total requirement. is

of N, P and K combined is, obviously, obtained for Scenario I which is based on conservative estimates of yields of crops. The assumption of the full utilisation of irrigation and yields on the basis of the high yielding varieties increase the requirement for fertilisers under Scenario III up to a level of 24.3 million tonnes. Scenario lI gives an intermediate figure of 15.8 million tonnes; The programming exercises yield the fertiliser requirement figure of about 28 million tonnes under the assumption of the attain-

based on an aggregation over crops and over states. The lowest requirement of fertilisers, i.e., 11.5 million tonnos

ment

of

Scenario

demonstration plot-yield levels-ercept VII.

for

the.

Whether the required quantity of fertilisers will be available or not will depend on whether the economy will be in a position to produce the required quantity within the country. Essentially, therefore, we ask whether enough investible resources will be released for fertiliser production. We, therefore, work out the investment requirement if the targeted level o[ fertiliser supply is

to be reached.

at this stage about the progress of fertilisers and fertiliser production. The use of, tritrogen increased at a compound rate of l7.l per cent during
We should remind ourselves

of the use

the 50s and this rate increased tq 20.3 per cent during 60s. Oyer this period, the consumption of fertilisers increased nearly eight. times. While production increased during this period; the gap between the local supply and the consumption of fertilisers widened. Production of fertilisers increased from 61 000 tonnes of nutrients per year to l,23l million tonnes of nutrients between,

l952and 1972 while imports increased from 48,000 tonnes of; nutrients to 0.97 million tonnes of nutrients. To meet tbe. demand that may obtain in the year 2000 1.o., the fertiliser, production may have to increase, at the lowest, by about l0 timcs and at the highest, by nearly 24 times. This is a mammoth
task.

'We can

work out the investment requirement for

fertiliqEr,

2S

AcRrcuLruRAL pRoDucrroN: 2000 a.n.

production in the year 2000 e,.o., in terms of the prices now prevailing. A few technological details are pertinent at this stage. After 1972, a water-shed in the history of oil, the international cost of fertitisers increased steeply. Urea prices increa' sed from $60.54 per tonne in 1972-7 3 to $321J0 per tonne i4 1975-76. In terms of rupees, the price increased a little less than six times. There has been a decline in the prices since then. Even when compared to 1972-73, prices prevailing in 1976-77, were nearly 133 per cent higher. Imports on any large scale for the year 2000 a.1., may involve a substantial drain on foreign exchange resources. A little more than 10 per cent of tbe imports of fertilisers required in the year 2000 a.o., may require nearly Rs. 43.2 crores worth of foreign exchange. For indigenous production, capital costs would be the Iowest for technology based on naturaL gas. Naphta and fuel oil follovr in that order, the highest cost will be for technology based on coal. On the basis of cost alone, therefore, natural gas technology will be preferable. Compared to natural gas, the coal based fertiliser production would require at least double the invest' ment per tonne. The supply of natural gas is, however, limited. The alternatives of naphta and fuel oil also do not provide a4 optimistic picture. According to one estimate, recoverabh oil resources are likely to be in the neighbourhood of l@'million tonles. We are currently importing annually, around 15 million tonnes of crude oil. The entire reserves, therefore, may be exhausted in less than seven years if imports are to be replaced by increase in domestic production. The oil resources may be required for use as fuel, since by the year 2000 e.o., the total requirement may be around 28 million tonnes of nutrients and fuel oil requirement per tonne of nutrient would be 1.06 tonne. The entire available potential even if used for fertiliser purposes may be used up in less than half a decade. Coal requirement per tonne of nitrogen, would be 4.4 tonnes annually, if the entire fertiliser supply required at the end of this contury is to be made from coal as a feed stock, the total coal supply to be diverted

for fertiliser production would be around 120 million tonnes. The known reserves of coal in India are estimated at around 82.77 billion tonues; 16.8 billion tonnes coking coal, 63.8 billion tonnes non-coking coal and approximately 2 bitlion tonnes of ligoite. Even if non.coking coal with ash content above 25 to 28

IMP'IIEATIONS

29

per cent is used, the resources may Iast for over 500 years. In other words, ample domestic supply of coal will be available. In the Five Year Plans, we find a support for a future that favours a shift in technology from other feed stock to coal.

If it is assumed that the

lies in the use of coal as

answer to our fertiliser requirement

feed stock, we

can now estimate the

cost. For simplicity, we

assume that the cost can be calculated

on the basis of the total nutrient requirements in nitrogen terms, We further assume that the nitrogen will be produced mainly in the form of urea. For urea production with a capecity ol 1500 tonnes per day, the cost will amount to Rs. 2200 million i[ coal is used as a fecd stock, against Rs. 1600 million for natural gas,

Rs. 1680 million

for

naphta and Rs. 2000 r,nillion

for fuel oil.

Assuming the capacity of 1500 tonnes per day, and 90 per cent utilisation of capacity, the plan would give 4,93,000 tonnes urea or 2,21,738 tonnes of nitrogen per year. Rs.2,200 million of investment for the factory would imply Rs. 9,921 investment per

tonne of nitrogen per year. The total investment for 28.07 million tonnes would amount to Rs. 27,779 crores. On the basis of the naphta feed stock, the total investment required would work out to Rs. 21,213 crores. Table No. 3. I gives the investment requiremelts on the coal and naphta basis f<jr alternative scenarios. As the table shows, the total requirement would be around Rs.28,000 crores, if coal is accepted as a feed stock. Viewed from any angle, it would seem that the requirement for investmetrt in the production of fertilisers would be more or less on the same scale as that of irrigation discussed later. On a liberal basis, from the size of the Plan 1978-83, around 30 per
cent may be claimed by irrigation and fertilisers together, leaving out pesticidcs, mechanisation, drainage and land improvementg. If crop production is allowed to grow without the fertiliser constraint (as under Scenario VII) then the total nutrient requirement will be 53.9 million tonnes (Scenario VII) and the investment cost will be around Rs. 53,573 crores, suggesting a sizeable increase.

Pattern of Fertiliser Consumptiol Substantially higher levels of yields that obtained on demonstration plots for foodgrains are the combined result of the use of high yielding variety strains and higher doses of fertilisers, along with optimum levels of other inputs, Scenarios V to VII use

30 these levels

AGRTcULTURAL pRoDucrroN 2000

r,o.

of outputs and inputs for foodgrains, whereae for Scenario IV cooservative yield estimates (based on simple tretrd fitting) are used and corresponding fertiliser levels have been derived, assuming linear output/input relationships. For non-foodgrains, a similar procedure was adopted with high yielding variety yiell

levels and FMS data giving fertiliser input to output ratio. Obviously we f,nd that the projeciions of per hectare use of fertilisers for foodgrains is about six times that for non-foodgrains (Table 3.2). We shall see later while anatysing the pattern of use of fertilisers per hectare over the states, that it is the dominance of foodgrain crops in the state's cropping pattern that determines the intensity of the use of fertilisers. Before we discuss the statervisb pattern, we shall make a few observations regarding trends in the crop-wise use of fertilisers per hectare.
Scenario

IV which reflects the

past trends

'bajra and wheat as the leading crops in fertiliser requirement, (Table 3.2). Scenarios V to VII with substantially higher intensity of fertilisers for foodgrain crops put the rice crop in a ldading position rather than wheat, except for Scenario VII where rice closely competes with wheat, jowar, bajra and maize. Intensive use of fertilisers along with considerable decline in the share of hnd undei foodgrains in Scenarios V and VI against the background of increased dominance of non-foodgrains, indicates a tendency of the saturation of natural resources for uon-foodgrains but a concentration ol fertiliser use for foodgrains. Scenario IV nearly resembles the current pattern of fertiliser use over the states (Table 3.6). Obviously Punjab (the old State) gets the highest rank; West Bengal, Orissa, Jammu and Kashmir and Bihar get the next four ranks in the consunption of nutrients. This is the consequence of a relatively higher percentage of land going to foodgrain crops among these states in Scenario IV. An approximately similar pattern is exhibited by the Scenario VII where again Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, punjab, West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir are the leading states (Tatle 3.?). Bihar;

in yields

shows

Orissa and Jammu and Kashmir retain their leading positions under Scenarios V and VI mainly due to higher share of food. grain crops in their cropping pattem in contrast to the overall declinein the percentage share of foodgrains in the all India cropping patterns under these soenarios. Andhra pradesh and Tamil Nadu also find place iu the group o[ thc first five (with

IMPTJCATIONS

3l

Andhra Pradesh holding third rank under Scenario V and Tamil Nadu, fifth rank in both Scenarios V and VII). This is mainly due to higher intensity of fertiliser use for foodgrains (i.e., about

400 kgs. per hectare qnde" Scenarios V and VI-Table 3.3). Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya pradesh and Karnataka lag
behind

the other states, rnainly due to a higher share of noafoodgrain crops such as groundnut, cotton and sugarcaae for which the intensity of fertiliser use is much lower than that for foodgrains on demonstration plots (Table 3,4). Rajasthan is
among the lowest five states because

fifteenth with the projected per hectare use of fertilisers being about '33 kgs. for foodgrains. pattern.of demand for fertiliser in

it

holds the lowest rank, i.e.,

diferent states in the year 2000 ,c.o., will be one ofthe ingrediants in the decision regarding location of the fertiliser olants,
Employment Level Whether in the year 2000 r.o., it will be possible to provide full employment {o workers in the rural areas is a legitimate question. The main objectives of rhe growth are: (l) that enou,rh

supplies of foodgrains should be available, and (2) those wio want to rvork should be in a position to get gainful employment. We have already examined supplies of food and other iarm oro_ ducts. We shall now examine the levels of employment in rural areas in the year 2000 l.o.

tion.

n^"u..,-t reliable information regarding the propor_ ::-d.J-?r tlorl ot the tamity workers that might eogage themselves in igri_

The proportion wofks out to 34.5 per cent, Itmaybe ^ mentioned that we include only the main workers. Females who primarily engage themselves in domestic work and provide help in agricultural work during peak seasons are exbluded. Since

this with the total rural population as projected by Ambannavar, we get the proportion of main workers io the totil rural popula,

To examine whether all the workers *il nnO employmet or not we have to first know the number of workers that will seek employment in agriculture. In other words, we have to project the supply of labour force. We have to match the suppiy with the demand that might be generated for labour. For projecting supplies, we have to make certain assumptions. Ambannavar,s work provides the total number of rural workers for the year 2000 ,c,.o. They include both males and females. Comparing

32

AGRTcULTURAL pRoDucrlodr:

2@

e.o.

cultural work as helpers during peak seasons, we have not taken them into account. However, to compensate for this omission, we have assumed that the female main workers would be avail, abte for work along with men for 273 days in a yearr. This is, however, a simplistic assumption, From the National Commission on Agriculture, we get the projection of rural popqlation to

which we apply the proportion derived from Ambannavar's work, and get 234.52 million persons as main workers in rural areas for the year 2000 l.o. In rural areas crop production, though major, is only one of the several economic activities. Animal husbandry, sheep raising, forestry, fishery, poultry and

village arts and crafts provide employment to rural workers. The Five Year Plan, 1978-83, gives projections for 1983-E4 regarding the break-up of rural workers engaged in crop production and otber activities. According to this Plan, of the total workers in the economy, 56.4 per cent may be engaged in agriculture and other allied activities in rural areas. Of them nearly 33.7 per cent will be engaged in activities other than crop production. It is assumed that between 1983 and tbe year 2000.1'p., the pro' portion of workers employed in crop production and otber activities in rural areas remains unchanged. This assumption would give us an upper-bound ol persons available for employment in crop production. We can reasonablj expect other activities to expand at a faster rate. As we have already seen, the calorie available per head would increase between l9?l and 2000 e.o., at a rate double that of the increase of foodgrains per head. In other words, sources other than foodgrains from which the calories will be derived would increase at a faster rate; Among them, animal products would have a larger share. This is subject to succesful solution of feed and fodder problem On the basis of the ratio between the workers engaged in crop production and in other allied activities in rural areas that might obtain in 1983, we esfimate the total number of main workers available for crop production to be 90.05 million. We wori( out the labour force requirement in terms of man-years,

each man-year (including women) consisting, of 273 man-days. From the programming exercises, we get on the basis of the

Draft Five Yeal Plan,

India, New Delhi.

1978-83,

Planning Commission, Govemment of

34

AGRIcULTURAL pRoDucrroN: 2000

a,oi

the year 2000 e.o. This may hit the animal drought power the hardest. Consequently fodder shortage also may encourage mechanisation. Once mechanisation starts it may lead to the substitution oflabour not only during the peak period but also. during the off periods. Since it is not possible for us to predict the pace of mechanisation, it is difficult to ascertain the gap, between the labour, demand and the supply. If mechanisation is modern increased agricultuial production within the next quarter of a ceotury is likely to generate an adequate demand for Iabour of humau energy.

Further, as already observed in regard io the projections for. animal products, there might be shortage of fodder supply in

Females, about.wbom we have no firm information, may provide the to the precise situation regarding employment.. -answer

open unemployment may show up for the main

workers.

relative domiriance of foodgrains versus the other crops i-s unlikely-, to change the per hectare _employment pattern. However, .thg

Prttern of Employment Now we analyse the crop-wise pattern and the regional pattem in Iabour employment. Since the per hectare labour input data was available for the national demonstration plots, w,e worked out the employment-patterns only for the programming scenarios i.e., for Scenarios IV to VII. As Scenario lV is based on the most yield estimates, and the yield levels as-, _conservative sumed under Scenarios V to VII are highly optirnisiic, the implied levels of employment (for all crops) under the lattlr are abouto 50 per cent to 100 per cent highei than that under the.former one (Refer Table 3.8). We could have compared the statewise estimates of demand generated for human labour with the potential labour supply in 2000 A.D. However, statewise projections of the population are not available to work out the , estimates of the potential labour force. Hence we shall restrict our alalysis to inter-regional and inter_crop comparisons, The relative position with regard to the per 'hectare employment averages for foodgrains and non_foodgrains does not differ much for alternative scenarios (Refer Table 3.9). fhe anerage . employment for non-foodgrain crops is highar than that for foodgrains by about l0 per cent in Scenario-s IV, VI, and VII. Both are nearly the same for Scenario V. Hence changes in the
,

,,

IMPLICATIONS

35

change in the percentage share of a crop like

rice-in

the case uf

which the intensity of the use of human labour is substantiatr$ higher than tbat for other crops with the assumption of tbc dJmonstration plot technology-would have a crucial impact on the average labour requirements per hectare. The employmeft level when we assume demonstration plot yields to prevail nearl! doubles as the average employment under Scenarios V to VII' is about 2@ per cent of that under Scenario IV, for foodgrains and non-foodgrains (Table 3' l0). However, the increase is not uniform for all the crops e.g., it is about 50 per cent more for wheat but 200 per cent more for rice. Forjute and sugarcane the levd of employment remained more or less unchanged (this may bc the effect of the absence of high-yielding varieties) whereas for 'i groundnut and cotton it changed substantially (Table 3'9)' I ' The per hectare employment levels for different states ard close to each other under the last three scenarios (Table 3.10). This is so because as indicated earlier, the relative' domir nance of foodgrains versus non-foodgrains would not produce a perceptible influence on the average employment levele' This i3
also dimonstrated by the more ot less similar ranks of states unddt

the last .three scenarios (Table 3.13). This is also true fof Scenario IV to some extent. The states holding leading positiogs

Orissa and Gujarat (Table 3.14). Among them; West Benga! Orissa and Bihar hold the first three ranks with respecf to per hectare employment even under the Scenario IV' This seems to be the obvious effect of the dominance of the riqe crop in the cropping patterns of Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Orissa and'Wedt Bengal. In the case of Gujarat, increased area under gottdn' *ould h.lp in raising the employment level under Scenarios V'to VII. Staies like Maharashtra, Jammu and Kashmirr Rajasthanl' Uttar Pradesh and Punjab will have the employment level -b91pw; the all India average' This ma;' be due to the dominance of1 wheat, maize and bajra versus the rice crop for Punjab; Uttar, Pradesh, Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir' For Maharaslrtra; this seems to be the result of a higher share of groundnut and' sugatcane in the cropping pattern.

ir

the last three scenarios are Tamil Nadu, Bihar, West Benga\

Irrigation
.

.t ..:! planks for aphieving 4 subrtaglb,lr ,6ne of the mbst important

,.' ".

''arr I

:li

t6.

AGRTcuLTURAL pRoDUcrroN:2O0O e.p.

has been somewhat slow. Projection on the basis ofthe past progress would, therefore, leave a gap between the potential and the actual achievement. The progress, therefore, will have to be stepped up. What is involved in accelerating the expansion of irrigation can be indicated broadly. The sources of irrigation are divided mainly into two categories: ground water and (2) surface lvater, with the latter being further sub-divided into two sub-cate. .' gories: (a) majorand medium, and (b) minor. The accompanying

progrcss in regard to crop production by the year 2000 .1.p., is the expansion of irrigation to the ultimate potential limit. Can this be done? The progress of irrigation in the past two decades

(l)

'

To achieve the full potential by 2000 A.D., the area under irrigation will have to expand at a compound rate of 3,47 per cent per annum. The detailed data given in Table 3.16 suggest that the major task ahead is regarding major and medium irrigation schemes to exploit surface water. Fifty seven million hectares out,of a total of 112 million. hectares are accounted by surface water, and major and medium irrigation schemes. Of this only less than half, i.e., 25.7 million hectares have been exploited so far, Of late, there has been some acceleration jn the rate of enpansion of the area under the major and medium schemes. Between 1973-74 and 1977-78,, in less than four years, the progress achieved was commendable, as the area under irrigation cxpanded at a compound rate of 4.66 per cent per year. To maintain such a high rate of expansion is a challenge. There has been also an acceleration in the rate of expansion of the area UlHcr i rrigation through the exploitation of ground water.

this total, the area under irrigation by 1977-78 works out to 52.8 million hectares or less than half. In the year I95l-52 when the planning process started, 22.6 million hectares were under itigation. In other words, during the period of 27 years from 1950-5t to 1977-78,30.2 million hectares were additionally covered by irrigation. Stated in terms of compound rates of growth, irrigation expanded per year at 3.2 per cent in the past.

tables (i.e., Table 3.15 and Table 3.16) give rhe details of the progress of irrigation in the past, i.e., from 1950-51 till l9?778, as well as the magnitude of the task ahead if the full potential is to be exploited by the year 2000 e.p. The total estimated potential of irrigation is around ll2 million hectares. Out of

IMPLICAT1ONS

37

Initially the expansion of irrigation through the exploitation of ground water was at a compound rate of 3.45 per cent per annum during the first l8 years from 1950-51 to 1968-69. The rate increased between 1968-69 and 1973-74 to 5.87 per cent but during the next four years the rate of expansion decelerated to 4.88 per cent per annum. Slow and fluctuating progress is especially noted regarding minor irrigation through exploitation of surface water. For the first 18 years, it expanded at the rate of only 0.48 per cent per annum. In the recent four years also, the rate of expansion has been 0.99 per cent per annum, How. ever, as a source of irrigation, surface water minor irrigation is
relatively less important. Two important problems to be faced in regard to the expansion of irrigation may be mentioned. Firstly, it is difrcult to maintain progress in ground water irrigation. For instance during the Fifth Five Year Plan it was estimated that 3 million hectares may go out of irrigation due to the drying up of tube-wells. Similar estimates are not available lor the Plan for 1978.83. During the Fitth Plan period, the net expansion of tube-well irrigation was targeted at 4.5 million hectares. Against this target, the actual achievement was 4.3 million hectares. What it implies is that the expansion of ground water irrigation would amount to a gross 7.3 million hectares. Secondly, the ground water expangion cannot be in isolation. Unless there is recharge, the rate of the drying up of ground water may increase over a period of time, Part of the surface water available for irrigation may have to be diverted for recharging of the ground water. 1'he expansion of irrigation involves costs. We can indicate a broad magnitude of the costs to be incurred in the next two
decades

or

so. During

the period 1974-75 and 1977-28 against

fore, would amount to Rs, i 7,941 crores. Regarding minor irrigation both ground and surface water, 4.7 million hectares were added. Tbe total addition to expenditure amountd to Rs. 1,517 crores. It consists of public outlays, institutional outlays and central assistance. The per hectare gosts f,er mingJ

the addition of 4.3 million hectares (Table 3.15), through major and medium irrigation projects, expenditure incurred amouoted to Rs. 2,466 crores. This works out to Rs. 5,735 per bectare, The potential yet to be tapped is 31.3 million hectares (Tablc 3.16). The total additional expenditure to be incurred, there-

138

AGRICULTURAL PR0DUCTIoN: 2OOO,I.O.

.irrigation works out to Rs. 3,533. To cover dn additiocal 2T.9 million hectares consisting of 20.7 million hectares of groqnd

water and 7.2 million hectares for surface irrigation (Table 3.16), the total additional costs to be incurred amounts to Rs.9,857 crores. The total additional costs for exploiting the entire potential of irrigation would thus amount to Rs. 27,798 i.crores or Rs, 28,000 crores approximately, at prices prevailing .during 1974-78.2 " The gestation period for major irrigation projects, which . have a large share in the potential to be tapped, is usually long, ..often stretching to a decade or more. Supply of irrigation water is only a beginning. To those who receive water for the first -time, a change in the farming system is involved. Beginning ,with field channels, trenches, drainage, which involve investment,
;.farmers have to undertake a change in the cropping pattern, ini,put levels; levels of finance and channels and methods of market':ing. There is, thus, besides construgtion gestation, a socioreconomic gestation period, before the full and efrcient use of .irrigation water is attained. The socio-economic gestation may

'account for low efficiency in water use. , The additional amount may have to be incurred at the most 'in four Five Year Plans, perhaps in three or two. In each Five
'.

. , I I . , . ': ..
1

Ifwe take the latest position as per Sixth Plan, both regarding the reduced area to be covered. Considering the progress up to 1979-80 and the actual costs for additional area brought under irrigation, under minor and major and medium schemes, the total additional expenditure at current costs would amount to Rs.31,904 crores. The price hike is rolatively greater than the reduction in thc potential area to be covered. The costs to be incurred by the individual investors with institutional credit support would be additional. We should also note the Sixth Plan visualises investment in command area development to be Rs.856.27 crores against investment of Rs. 8,448.36 crores on medium and major irigation. Thus about 10 per cent additional cost (assuming that area covered in the same) is to be incurred for emcient use of irrigation water.

For minor irrigation against

investment

in public sector of

Rs. 1,810.3 crores, Rs. 1,700 crores will be by way of institutional credit support. In other words, total costs wouid be twico as much as the 'cogt incurred by the siate, With the price hike built in thesixth Plan ,. "' of the additional cost on minor irrigation to be incurred are takn into jr 'account, the total costs would amount to Rs, 57,?95 crores, a stagger. r, . ing 6gure indeed.

IMPLICATIONS

39

Year Plan, therefore, nearly Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 14,000 crores may have to be incurred for irrigation. This may be compared with Rs, 3,881 crores spent during 1974-78. The total allocation to

irrigation in the Fifth Five Year Plan outlay amounted to a little above 10 per cent. In the Plan 1978-83, the provision for irrigation amounted to Rs. 8,975 crores. Since the total outlay in the public sector is estimated to increase from Rs. 39,322 crores for the Fifth Five Year Plan to Rs. 69,380 crores in the Plan for 1978-83, the percentage share of expenditure planned to .be incurred on irrigation would be around 14. Ifthe size of the
subsequent PIan increases in real terms, the share

of the expendi' ture on irrigation may not prove to be burdensome if it is to be

should, however, be mentioned that spread over. folr lrlans. while the total Plan expenditure lras been increased by 76 per cent, the estimated expenditure on irrigation has been increased by 128 per cetrt. This is a substantial increase. This is perhaps the sequel to the shift in emphasis on rutal development. If the potential ofirrigation is to be achieved by maintaing a consistent progress, the present emphasis may have to be oontinued for the following four quinquennia. If the irrigation potential is to be tapped fully in the next two or three Five Year Plans, the task will be stupendous. Irrigation expansion is not an engineering task, like machine erection at a spot, but the work has to cover a sprawling mass of land and millions of individual decisionmakers. The latter imposes expansion of irrigation.

It

stringent limit

on the rate of

Share of Agriculture in GDP A decline in the share of agriculture in GDP is consistent with the growth of an economv. With demand for agricultural

products not rising as last as that for other products, the contribution that agricuiture makes to the gross domesiic product would gradually decline. The decline may be steeper, in case the supply lags behind the demand for agricultural products. A t'aster rate of growth of agriculture than what is warranted by the rise in demand may result in agricultural surpluses on the one hand and the relatively higher share of agriculture in GDP on the other. The growth rates projected by us for agriculture under seven different scenarios would give different proportions of agriculture to the gross domestic product. The details are

40

AGRrcuLruRAL pRoDucrtoN: 2000 e.o.

jute. The

worked out in Table 3.17. The levels of the gross domestic product projected by the National Commission on Agriculture can be taken as a basis for comparison. A similar exercise by other scholars can also provide altemative bases. For comparison we accept as an alternative, projections given by the study of Basu of the Operation Research Group.s Basu gives upper and lower limits of gross domestic products for the year 2000 e.o. We obtain an approximate idea of the contribution of agriculture to the gross national product. We have firm information regarding the value of production for' major crops which, in our case, cover, besides foodgrains, cotton, sugarcane, gioundnut and

contribution

of

agriculture

to the gross domestic

product is to be measured in terms of value-added by the agricultural sector rather than the gross product. Since we do not have data on value-added, we use the value of the gross product for comparison with the gross domestic product. According to tbe available information for 1974-75, the total value of agricultural products was Rs. 30,517 crores. The crops not included in our estimate accounted for nearly one-fifth of the total crop production. As against this, we find that the value-added by the agricultural sector amounted to nearly 75 per cdnt of the total gross value of the crop output in the year 1974-75. In other words, gross value of crops included is approximately equal to the value added by the agricultural sector. If this relationship, wbich held for 1974-75, is assumed to obtain for the year 2000 A.D., the share of agriculture in the gross domestic product given in the table for the year 2000 .c..o., would closely resemble the share of value-added by agriculture in the gross domestic product. We find n 1974-75 the share ofnet value-added by agriculture in NDP was 47.0 per cent. Taking the estimate of the gross domestic product given by the National Commission on Agriculture, we find that all the three scenarios based on the projections (Scendrios I to III) give estimates of the share of agriculture in GDP to be relatively low ranging from 19 to 40 per cent. As against this, the programming scenarios (Scenarios V to VII) give shares of agriculture
e D.N. Basu, Macro-economic Framework 2000 A.D., in a Long-range P$pcctive for India, Operation Research Group, Baroda, 1975. (Mimeo).

IMPLICATIONS

4I

ranging from about 41 to 56 per cent. Scenario VII represents an ixtieme situation, namely that there would be no constraint regarding fertilisers and that the total production would be miximisid otr the basis of demonstratiof plots yield levels' If this scenario is excluded, we find the share of agriculture to be between 41 and 50 per cent. In other words, the importance of agriculture will continue to be more or less on the same level as
observed currently.

highest level estimate of the GDP. On the basis of Basu's highest estimate of gross domestic product, we find the share of agriculture to range flom 16 to 34 per cent for Scenarios I to For Scenario V which essentially also gives a projection scenario the share of agriculture would be around 23 per cent. we exclude In all other cases is above 35 per cent and Scenario VII, at the 'higher', it will be 43.34 per cent. While may be possible to meet the demand for under Scenario V most of the agricultural products with given constraint, it may also release some more land for producing green fodder and yet agriculture would still have a modest share in GDP, indicating a fair level of expansion of other sectors.

The National Commission on Agriculture gives a relatively lower estimate of the gross domestic product than that of Basu's

ilI.

it

if

it

Iinance for Agriculture Along with the increased

. .

use of high yielding varieties, fertiand such other inputs as tractors, the cost of current inputs for agriculture will rise steeply. In an expanding economy, providing working capital to cover the cutrent costs from within the enterprise becomes increasingly difficult. The greater the share of the purchased inputs to the value ofthe output, the greater will be the need for borrowed finance. Currently, (197 4-7 5) considering both cooperatives and commercial banks we find that the total institutional loans amount to nearly Rs. 1,445 crores. Together with loans from the Govcrnmsnt the loans during the year would amount to Rs. 1,927 crores. To this if we add indirect institutional loans, the total institu. tional loans for agriculture would amount to Rs. 2,517 orores. Of the total, the net yalue of output (direct loans, cooperatives

lisers, pesticides

42

AcRrcuLruRAL pRoDuctroN: 2000

l.n.

.and commercial banks only) will constitute around 9 per cent.a The total share of the institutional finance including that of the govertrment loans in the total borrowiirgs is arouud one-third (31.7 per cent).s Not all loans borrowed currentlv are necessarilv used to meet the cost of current inputs. Howeuer, the share of productive loans in the total, amounts to 49.71per cent. Familv expenditure accounts for an additional 37.g per cent.6 Thus

requlrement.

1.o., will be substantially higher. While crop production may increase 3.89 to 4.35 time the present level, the farm credit requirements may increase t 2 times or more of the present

medium term and long term investment. This is a substantial increasg and would require radical reorganisation of the institutional apparatus now engaged in the provieion of agricultural finance. . This is especially so when we keep in mind the fact tbat while current credit disbursement includes the use of credit for investment for the year 2000 A.D., our estimates are for current costs only. Forthe year 2000 A.D.,. the value of the .output of agricultural produce (major crops only) woulJ be Rs. I,06,046 and Rs. 1,29,396 crores, for Scenarios V and VI. The estimate of the cost of purchased inputs corresponding to these production levels would be Rs. 22,59i .ror", undRr.35J,l2 crores.T Compared to the current availability of credit (for the year 197 4-7 5) for about Rs. 2,51? crores from institutional and non-institutional sources the credit requirement for 20@

part of the finance represents family dxpenditure and

also

{
.
5

Rescrve

Bank

.r

' '
.

-that operating costs varies in r}re range of about +b to oo peiiint: we take 50 pe_r cen[ of the toral operating cosrs as th"'eiiiriti-t, -H;il, o, cr"o,r rquiremont for purchased inputs

tion plot da;ta for

rndebtedles-s -of Rural Householils anc aviiii'riillii oi i-risiiirii."ai . Finance, Table 4: Sbare ofcash pett igiioJf biifii"rii furpor", * Total Cash Debr of cultivators - statewisi (e, o"li,riJ lol, pl a5. - to It has been observed from the cost analysis- of the nationai demonstrare74.-7 5

Agriculrure (Col. ll Row l). Reservo Bank of India: All-India debt and Investment Sumey, lWl-72, fndebtedness of Rural Households and Availability of Institutional Finance, Table I : Cash Debt Owned to Different O"afi A*"i"i"". il", Cultivators- Statewise (As on June 30), p. 33. Bank of India: AIj-IndiaDebt and.Investment Survey, l97l_72. -Reserve

Statistical Statements, Statement 3--Net Domestic product at Factor Cost-By Industry of Origin, p. 16; Rs. 29,324 crores, Contribution of

of India: Reporr on Currenry and Finance, Vol. II,

rhe

shai6

-;f

f uiir,iT"iiiifru"t,

i"

totnt

Pnerren 4
.

Conclusions
How do we move from here into a future which is less than a quarter of a century away? By all indications, the demand for taken iogether with food and fodder' may outstrip ma;or

animal products. To derive a comfortable position regarding foodgrains alone, we have to make severely restrictive assumptions. We have to assume that people will consume food keep ing only their nutritional needs in mind and that the irrigation pJtential in the country would be fully exploited' For all we ' tnow, people may not give up their food preferences, ' and a sizemore than able proportion of the population may tend to consume Not being aware, some is required to meet nutritional needs' ruy .ltoot. sourees of nutrients which may have low nutrients content and high prefetence value' If the relation between ircome and food intake is not totally severed, which it will not for a large section of the population experiencing income increases from low levels, the consumption of food may outstrip the nutritional needs. Such a phenomenon is neither new nor unexpected. Upper income groups are observed, even in develop' ,ing ctuntries, to have a food intake level strictly determined by -Jritional needs. In such an eventuality, even the foodgrains supply available after irrigation which is extended to the maximum' possible limits may fall short of the demand for them' Hopes of a comfortable position of supplies of foodgrains are soon dispelled once we bring in just one more product, viz., milk- the main source of animal protein for vegetarain food' The available supply of feed, fodder and concentrates will not ensute us enough milk, let alone the need of the economy for animal power for work and young stock for the future replacement of
adults.

"rops, their suppiy. A somewhat comfortable position may obtain for regardini ioodgrains, especially cereals and cotton' but not

44

AcRTCULTURAL pRoDucrroN: 2000 e.o.

other efforts that make possible the realisation of demonstration yields and yields on fertiliser trial fields. Since uniform yields of crops over the entire country cannot be a reality, translated in terms of performance to be achieved by scientists, it would imply five more green revolutions of the type one now witnessed. so that the promise of dry farming technology in terms of additions to yields should be as attractive as that of the techni_ ques to be used on irrigated areas. Scientists are optimists about the potentialities of new discoveties. They observe that only one per cent of the solar energy available per hectare is used for plant growth. Any addition to this may usher a revolution in crop production. The abundant supply of nitrogen availabie in the air above the earth if 'milked' a little more, can bring about an equally promising production revolution. While none of the promises of science about the future of mankind can be denied, the hard realities of life have quite a sobering effect on flight of imagination regarding the future, The new discoveries are more likely to be achieved in developed economies where research effort and expenses are far more both in agriculture and in the fundamental sciences. One common experience therc, particularly regarding agriculture, is that to achieve a breakthrough in any new direc_ tion takes about 20 years after the efforts are initiated.r Thb effort now initiated may barely begin to bear fruit by the e;d of the century. A lag in transferring those new results to the Third World may be presumed to be half of that even under extreme assumptions. M.S. Swaminathan, a foremost agricul_ tural scientist, known to economists in the country has further identified.three more lags within the country: 1t; U"trn".n the scientific potentiality perceived and experiment results achieved, Q) between results achieved on experimental farms and on demonstration plots, and (3) between those on demonstration plots and the achievements

fully exploiting irrigation potential, preferably in the earty 90s, but should also plan for 28 million tonnes of fertilisers, and all

Scenarios III,, V and VI hold out promise for the future, They suggest that the policy-makers should not only prepare for

on

the farmers, fields.

1 National Research Council: Agricultural production Efficiencyl

National Academy of Scientisrs, 1975.

@NCLUSIONS

45

While he has defined lags in terms of quantitative results of the output potential, part of the leakages may be attributed to time
lag in the transfer of knowledge from one end to the other. The time lag between research results, and demonstrations to the farmers' fields can be described as the extension gap. While ordinarily the period of extension gap may be seven years, with can be reduced to five years and under skillful organisation exceptional circumstances to three years. In the latter case, the attending risks may be heavy. Each new breakthrough brings with it new problems. Just as high-yielding varieties required the extension of the use of pesticides to deal with new crop diseases and pests, the new discoveries in the future may bring with them a set of problems which till they are solved, may limit the actual benefits of the discovery. The account just mentioned of possible obstacles to the progress of science has a lesson: For the next quarter of a century the progress of farm production will depend on the technology now in the pipeline. We shall therefore have to concentrate on taking the fullest benefit of it in order to avoid shortages of basic goods required by the economy. Other things follow from this

it

proposition. Ifthe technology does

not

achieve any major breakthrough

like solar energy or fixation of air nitrogen), the production of crops and milk will have to be obtained increased with the increased use of resources. While it may be possible to push irrigation to its farthest potential limit dnd match the production of fertilisers with rising demand for it by mining more coal to serve as a raw material for them, the costs involved in both may be considerable. And if the tempo of the technological change declines as the limits of the known potential of highyielding varieties are approached, the ratio of the additional production obtained by increased use of rcsources like irrigation and fertilisers may tend to decline. Evidence, though thin, has already started accumulating to show that the real costs of production after the first phase of the green revolution have started moving up. . At the end of the century food, fibre and oil, in all probability, may be more expensive (in real terms), even if the demand is matched by the increased output. There is yet another problem. Hopefulty the preponderance of the agricultural sector in the economy that we have now will

(of the type

46 be

AGRTcULTURAL pRoDucrtoN: 20 00 .c.p.

reduced. With the doubling of the population the labour in agriculture may increase at the most in that proportion. If the concentration of labour demand at peak periods continues, when operations like harvesting are under way, the available labour supply may prove inadequate to match the peak demand. Labour substitutes may have to be pressed into use at peak periods. Skill formation to permit the use of mechanical or electrical energy sources may not be difficult with the spread of education. But the output-energy ratio may tend to decline and the cost of production may be pushed upward. With the likelihood of a severe shortage of fodder for work animals, the energy use problem may.be further accentuated. If we add to the use of human labour and to other energy sources required for production, the energy required for post-harvest operations, including transport besides processing, may generate demand for energy supply that may complete with the demand of energy
outside agriculture.2 Whether the required level of output will be achieved is not the question to be answered with the increased use of resources onlv. Increasing agricultural production to nearly three and half times its level attained in l97t-72 would be a stupendous task. Vastly increased use of irrigation and fertilisers will involve tremendous

production risks which may be beyond the capacity of the marginal, small and evea some of the medium size farmers. A corresponding increase in the flow of finance into agriculture and a several times larger flow ofproducts than what obtains now into marketing channels would require aot reforming but transforming the financial and marketing organisations. A lag in either may act as an obstacle to the growth of production. What is at the 'end of the tunnel' when we reach the year 2000 ,c,.p., perhaps darkness or light? This can be known. better only as the future unfolds. Faith in human ingenuity to most challenges is no doubt the hope for a better future. If cxercise lays bare the problems to be faced and the challenges to be met we can hope that the will of the community to survive and prosper will devise adequate answers to the new challenges.

Reservs Bank of India: Report on Currency and Finance, Vol. l. Economic Review, 1975-76, Table IV-29: Institutional Finance for j iA,giicultural Development, p. 113, col. 5 (trotal Direct Financc).. , ,
.

CONCLUSIONS

47

If the past two decades have shown the unprecedented growth of agricultural production, further acceleration also may be possible. However, it will be necessary to put our shoulders to the wheel before science fulfils its promise of the march towards
new horizons. I It has not been possible for us to examine in all its aspects the problem of impact.of growth on poverty. A brief attempt
has been

will have to be adopted. Whether there is light at the end of the tunnel will depend not only on growth but also on substantial reduction in poverty.
measures

with varying rates of growth of agriculture as results are given in Appendix 'A'. Simple assumptions have been made mainly for convenience. Even this simple exercise throws up interestins observations. The major finding is that in year 2000 a.o] poverty will still persist though its extent will diminish. Unless per capita availability of calorie doubles, the extent of povertSr is likely to be substantial. Of course, the extent of poverty would also depend on the criterion adopted for measurement, viz., (l) Sukhatme criterion, and (2) average calorie requirement criterion. Irrespective of the criterion used poverty does persist. As pointed out in the appendix, a combination of policies involving direct intervention and policy of growth with built in equity'

made to sort out the level of poverty that would go

AprrNox-A

Projecting Poverty and Undernourishment:

We have not dealt with the extent of poverty that the nation

poverty level would involve projections regarding: (l) average income level, (2) changes in income distribution, (3) income elasticity of basic nutrients like calories (and protein) and (4) explicitly considering possible changes in tastes and preferences in general and changes in preferences among food items from low-valued to high-valued items. The last point in particular will have to be considered for low income groups. Since low income group would be volatile, many belonging to it now, going out of it with general income increase, one would have to considet preference changes for those whose income would rise but consumption of nutrient would not pari pasu, the reason being rapid change in their preferences. It is now widely admitted that preference change is not an independent phenomenon afecting individuals (or groups) in isolation. Overall changes in the economy e.g., improved transport, expansion of communication media and spreading out ofconsumer goods establishment, all would have effect on preferences. Consumers on the other hand would be more educated in the next quarter of a century (from 1975, the base year) and may therefore be more concious of nutrition needs. We should add to this bewildering gamut of economic forces, to price behaviour and its influence on consumption. To take account of all these forces in order to project fairly precisely poverty level, will be a complex task. An economy wide model will have to be employed. Ignoring these forces would involve, for any meaningful projection heroic assumption. Dangers. lie both ways. Objective of our study is to open up policy issues. We have

may face

in year

2000 1.o.,

in the main report. Projecting

PROJBCTING POVERTY AND

UNDERNOURISHMENT

'g

theiefore worked out alternative projections of production levels. ' Keeping the same objective in view, we have made simplistic" assurirptions and projected alternative levels of poverty (undcr nutrition) that would obtain along with varying rates of produc.
tron, expanslon.

'-

.l::

. ..i

that income distribution pattern would bs: unehanged. Over the period, incomes of different e)rireaditufo:-, groups would increase in the same propodion, Next we haw assumed unchanged income-expenditure relation, allocation of proportion of total expenditure to different items of consump. tion will remain unchanged. Pattern of food consumption too'' would continue to be the same as observed now only chadge permitted would be among grains, but then such a change'. would not affect outrient-intake level, unless the level of intaka* of total foodgrain is changed. As already stated tli50 late, restrictive assumptions.. Results obtained nevrthelbss
.

Assumptions We have assumed

interesting.

tearf Scenario

Kcal

With

1960

Wtth
Kcal per

2800, Expected

l*-,'

per

day per adult as the norm'

per adult

as per day per the'norm ddult bet'' t weeh: l97l & ' .: 2000 A.D.
(Per

day

ciease'in' KcaI' . ''

cet)

197

18.96 6.07

53.10 18.36 6.43

3',t.46

$cenario II
,,

2000 A.D.

44%

-do- IIt .-do- IV -do- V -do- VI .

"
.

4.50
10.91

94% r6%

6.67

7.64

25.65 28.48

tr%
21%

Note: The above table has been derived: by using, results,give_4,, ':.: ' :.-in Table 2.4, and calorie distributbn. far l9:1 *-. 124d
.:

linqu irterpolatiron.

..

"

:,'' :

;iil

gjjs-!o",s.

50
We have worked Scenarios II to

AcRTcuLTURAL pRoDucrroN: 2000 A.D.

Scenario I is projection of past trand, Sccnario VII is projection based on unconstrained supply of all vital inputs like fertilisers and improved seeds. These two being extremes-too conservative and too optimistic-they have
been dropped. There rages a continuous debate regarding nutritional needs. Two views prevail. One favours average calorie intake level, the other (mainly Sukhatme) favours 30 per cent below the average requirement level to be considered as the minimum calorie requirement. (It makes an allowance for variations in needs between and intra person at two standard deviation levels). We have projected extent ofpoverty level according to both. ' In year l97l according to Sukhatme (minimum calorie needs) criterion poverty level was about 19 percent. On the basis ofaverage calorie needs to serve as minimum the poverty level worked out to 53 per cent The difference is large and while former gives an optimistic picture, the latter makes a grim picture. Such wide differences persist in projections in fourth out of five scenarios. In Scenario III production of foodgrains would increase rapidly enough to permit nearly doubling of average intake of calories (94 per cent) with growth at such rapid rate poverty level would be low 4.5 per cent otr the basis of minimum calorie need criterion and 6.43 per cent oh the basis 'of average calorie need criterion, Scenario III assumes, it may be recalled, that the entire area under crops will be covered by high yielding varieties (mainly grains and cotton). This is a liberal assumption, It is not unrealistic however, if technological research keeps pace

VI.

out poierty

levels (head

courit method) for

with time.

IV gives the bighest level of poverty ll and 37 per two criteria. The latter prospect would seem frightening. Scenario IV departs from simple projection of past trends in two ways. Firstly, it assumes, full use of irrigation potential. The Scenario IV is based on linear programming exercise for which constraint of minimum nutritional needs is included. With this cons,traint, once calorie requirements for the population on an average are met with low cost food items, r*ources are shifted to liigh-valued crops. For other scbnarios ,level , of poverty varied oa the basis of avcrage calorie requirement criterion between l8 and 28 per cent.
Scenario

cent accor{ing to

PROJECTING FOVERTY AND

UNDERNOURISHMBNT

5I

With minimum calorie criterion it varied between 6 and 8 per cent..'Thesc levels obtain when per capita calorie intake increases by 27 to 44 per cent. Implications are many and impor' tant. Total eradication of poverty wodld seem to be a distant possibility. Even with doubling ofcalorie intake onan average i.e., reaching the level of 3184 Kcal per day per capita (3800 Kcal per adult per day) is a real high level, at which a large section will be well above the excessive intake level. But around 2000 Kcal intake per day per capita on an average wodld imply high level of poverty. Level of poverty will be manageable with Sukhatme criterion' If follows that narrowing of income inequality, income rising more rapidly for low income groupo will be a major plank to combat poverty problem. It would almost be inevitable. Only other effective remedy will be tow cost food supply, which is possible only if new technology is in real terms resource saving in a substantial measure. There are various policy options for narrowing income inequa' lity, Their acceptability and effectiveness would vary. We do not analyse their relative merits' Growth in which inequality reduction is built-in could be preferable. Sukhatme type povorty level is low and manageable. Direct measures including subvention could be employed as Employment Guarantee is one
such policy.

Perhaps a combination of both subvention and income inequality reduction would bc a better policy option since tbe former would benefit direcfly the abjectly poor, the latter would aid others to come above tlie poverty line. Thus year 2000 e.o.'
has mixed optimism

to ofer iu

regard

to growth with equity

and social justice.

"l

APPENDTX-B.:

wcre aggregated to get the production of individual crops.,: at'the all India level and then the total pfoduction of all;
cnops.

. Our exercise in the projection of the supplibs of agricultural commodities uses tbe disaggregate approach; Disaggregation is carried out at two levels. Firstly, we work out projections at the state level and then aggregate them to get all-India projectio,ns. Seeondly, we do not directly project production but its components such as the net sown area irrigated and. unirrigated, pro' portions of double sown arear on irrigated and unirrigated land.s, l shares of individual.crops in uriirrigated and irrigated area, and their yield levels. The estimates relating to these components.

'

Initially, we tried out four different forms of regressioas for projecting the individual components of production. They arcr. (l) linear (2) semi-log (3) log inverse arrd (4) double log. Repeatedly we found that the linear and semi-log forms gave statistically significant results. In most. cases the R2 value did not differ much for the two forms. (For details of the number and types

A.1). ,I{owever.,. projections on the semi-log basis (log Y:a-lbt) for a distant date would give a highly optimistic level if the value of , were positive. Since past behaviour does not provide substantial evidence in favour of the acceleration of growth in the future, we decided on the linear form for piojection purposes. We present seven different types of production-situations.

of

rcgressibns refer Table

They use alternative assumptions regarding the cropped area and the yield levels of crops. We rely mainly on the method of trend ftting for the projection of the cropped area. However, the ultimate irrigation potential as estimated by the Irrigation Commission for each state has been used as an alternative projection of the irrigated area. Apart from the Scenario I, all the other six

.METI{ODOLOGY

,,53

scenarios make use afea,

ofthb' alternative projection.of the irrigatod

-Projections of Gross Cropped Area and Area Uniler Crops

As indicated earlier, projections of the proportion of 'the crop'ped area sown more than once to irrigated'and unirrjgatod areas, are imposed on the projections. of the net irrigated and unirrigated area to yield gross cropped area, irrigated atid

'

unirrigated. We get an alternative projection replacing the

'

'trend'estimate of the .irrigated area by the 'ultimate. irrigation potcntial figure. The former projection forms the basis'of pro' 'jection under Scenario I, whereab Scenarios II to VII lse :the alterrrative proj:ction and thus assume th&t the.entire irrigatidn .potential will be fully exploited by the year 2000 a.o' '(For tlte "statewise projections ofgross irrigated and unirrigated area; .ltfdr -Tablc pattern which .confiii'ds

A.2).' To evolve the cropping

ihe trends in the area under crops, we project the shares of soitie major'crops, namely, :foirdgrains like rice, wheat, jowar, bajra,
rraize, rdgi and other cereals and non-foodgrains such as groundnut, sugarcane, cotton and jrite in irrigated anil unirrigated lands : at the state level. The crbps for which no perceptible trend of either increase or decrease is obserricd are allowed to maintrlin their present shares (i.e., avrage for the years 1969'10 to l97t?2) in agross sown area. Care has been taken that for some of the important casb crops like tea, coffee, rubber, fruits ad ,vegetableS, condiments and :spices, coconut.etc., projected areas

in 2000

The cropping patter.n so evolved was super-imposed on of the two alternative projections of irrigated aud unirrigaeach ted gross cropped area. They form the basis of production projeo' tions under scenalios I and trI respectively. Scenario III uses tb ,same cropping pattern as under Scenado II (For projected cropp ing patterns refer Table A.3). Scenarios IV to VII assume the potential of irrigated and rmirrigated land to be the sar'ne as that assumed under scenario II. "However, the cropping p*ttern under each of these Scenarios lrao been ev-qlved on the basis of linear program4ing exercises. It is quite possible that the optimum crdpping patterh under:the liriea5 priigramming exercise- maximising gross value or the-'net value of crop production may get dominated by a single 3ash

crop.

^r,,n.

will be atleast equal to'the current area under tht

54

AchrcuLTuRAL pRoDucrloN: 2000 e.o.

the highest gross value or net value. Therefore, it becomes necessary to avoid drastic chaages in the cropcrop which yields

ping pattern which imply extreme regional

specialisation.

Moreover, such excessive specialisation may not be technically

feasible and also not socially desirable.' Non-feasibility arises due to the unsuitability of weather conditions to non-traditional crops in the region. Wheat, for instance, cannot be grown in

with the minimum lirnits of a{ea for individual crops thus not turn out to be feasible because tbey were inconsistent with the fertiliser constraint due to higher doses of fertilisers used on demonstration plots.r Hence we reduced the minimum area limits of major foodgrains to 35 per cent of the
prescribed did
present percentage share

tbe kharif season in the regions traditionally growing the paddy crop in that season, though the former is more profitable than the latter. Regional preferences for foods also cannot be assumed to undergo drastic changes within a span of about two decades to adjust to a new cropprng pattern dominated by nontraditional crops. Hence, in order to avoid the excessive dominance of non-traditional crops, we introduced the minimum lower bounds of area for the major crops. Initially, wc attempted to retain 70 per ceat of the present share of the crop in the gross sown area. However, the linear programming solution

in the gross sown area in each average area under the crop in state. For non-foodgrains, the 1969-70 to 197l-72 has been taken as the lower bound of area. Apart from the lower bounds of area for major foodgrains

of crop

and non-foodgrains, we iatroduced in the linear programming exercises the land availability constraint for irrigated and uuirrigated lands separately. While specifying the maximum limit of the gross sown area for irrigated and unirrigated lands, we :Eubtracted from it the area which was kept reserved for the other important cash cropS like tea, coffee, coconut etc. As the land availability constraint was introduced in terms of the gross sown area, it was necessary to introduce an additional constraint for the maximum available net irrigated area in the kharif/rabi s&rson so that the land under perennial crops such as sugarcane

I
.

The total value offertilisers to be used on the minimum spocifed areas for major fooderains and non-foodgrains together qceeded tho maximum possible value of fertilisrs specifisd as about 4 percnt ofthe

GDP.

METHODOLOCY

55

together with other major irrigated kharif/rabi foodgrains, does aot exceed the specified net irrigated area in the season.

Projections of Yields We have used four alternative levels of yields per hectare to work out the supply projections of different crops. Initially, we made use of the time series of the yields of individual crops in different states, in the years from 1954-55 toJ969-70 to project the yields for the year 2000 Lp., by fitting the alternative trerid functions. Scenario I uses these simple trend projections. They are the projections combined fot irrigated and unirrigated lands and are lurther used to get separate estimates.of yields per hectare on irrigated and unirrigated lands. This is done on the basis of the observed difrerential between irrigated and unirrigated yields for the year 19?0-71 for different crops at the state level. The pro' jections of irrigated and unirrigated yields, so worked out, were applied to the alternative projections of the gross sown.area with a wider base of irrigation assumed under Scenario II' The tbird and much higher level of yield projections envisages the use of high yielding varieties and the technology associa' ted with them, thus assuming rational farm practices and bettcr
';r.

pest control together with optimal water and fertilisor uge. These yield data have beeu borrowed from the annual report bf Sample Surveys for Assessment of High Yielding Varietbs Programme for 1970-71. For non-foodgrains like cotton, sugarcane and groundnut, we scrutinised the yield levels obtained for high yielding veriety strains at the various research statione in the country to determine tbe yield projections for 2000 e.u. The average yield levels of high yielding varieties thus determined for different foodgrains and non-foodgrains were used ro work out productioa projections under Scenario I[l. Scenario lV is basd on the linear programming exercise btrt. utilises the yield levels projected on. the basis of trend functions i.e., the yield levels assumed under Scenario ) lfabte e.f;,
the Scenarios, i.e., V to VII envisago a .substatrtial increase in the yield levels of crops-mainly of foodgrains-by assuming that the yield levels attained on the national demodstration plots in 1974-75 would be reached by the year 2000te.o. This is a bold assumption, though not totally unrealistic, as these demonstrations represent the new teclinology tried on farpers' Tho rest

of

56

AcRlduLfuRAL pnoDucTroN: 2000:t,o.

'feldsn i.d., technology in the pipeline, rather than technolqgy in the experimental $tage at agricultural research stations. Moreover, we do not use the simple average of yields obtained on demonstration plots; instead we use the weighted average of yields adjusted on .the basis of crop condition codes. The relevant data was extracted from the National l)emonstration Plot Diaries for the year 197+75. In the case of non.foodgrains ''.the average levels of the yields of high-yielding varieties us-ed . for Scenario III projections, were repeated for Scenarios V . to VII (For yield levels under alternative scenarios refer Table A.4).

.-

.$rop Production Activity Vectors Used in Llnear Programming Tbe Demonstration Plot Diaries include the table describing the per hectare output ard inputs such as fertilisers, pesticides, .human labour and total operating costs,2 thus directly providing tie .crop production activity vectors of individual crops in

differeot states. For non-foodgrains, the per hectare input

,coefficients were based on the Farm Management Survey (FMS)

'

data. Assuming linearity, the per hectare input coefrcients obtained from FMS reports were inflated by the multiple which .was the ratio of the projected yield per hectare (i.e., the average yield of high yielding varieties of the crop concerned) to the yield per hectare recorded through the FMS. The linear programming exercises include the activity vectors for major foodgrains such as rice, wheat, jowar, bajra, maize, . ragi, gram/pulses and for the four cash crops namely, groundnut/ . .oil seds, cotton, sugarcanc and jute. For each state crop pro^drrction activities on irrigaied and unirrigated lands are separately defined. The total number of such activities included in the exercise is 145 (Refer Table A.5 for specification of crop
Ilrduction activities). In each crop production activity input foeffigieat for land, fertilisers, pesticides, human tabour and " tolal operating costs are specified (Table 4.6). Firstly, ,wc dppcribe below the model used in the linear programming exer-

t
'

tioa, ce.

Tbo total operatiDg cost includes cost of all the current inputs such as feftilisers, pcsticides, green manures, irrigation charges, seCds, etc., and also the imputed costs of family labour and bullock labour but excludes such cosis as rental valus of land, interost on fxed capiral, deprecia-

METHODOLOCY
.

57

,:cisg (LrP. lvlodel) .and then discuss in gonstraints used in alternative exercises,

detail

the

' typer of

L.P. Nlodel

To maximise

145 E C;Xlto j:t

.t45 maximise. E -(Ci-ari) Xr

j=r

(I) fi)
(il)

subject to : M specified minimum value that Xr should take

t for

7-tb

crop.s M, represents the and thus they are the lower

bounds of Xi's.
nkz

I' ait Xi4A*

nkr

.K:1,...15

where n' to ntz,nz.to n2z, , ,. etc., represent the serial number of 't[re crop production activities for tbe state number 1,2, . . , . . "etci, respectively and .ll represants either maximuor available .irrigated/unirrigated gross cropped area in the statc depending ' upon whether'the vectors nh to nhz refer to irrigated/unirrigated '' crop production activity vectors. Xi refers to area underJ'-fh

J-

Constraints defining maximum availability of total net irigated land in the kharif/rabi season are of the foltowing type " described below for illustration. 0.5 (x,+ x) + x6+&+&o<il& (D ' Where X, and X, are the gross irrigated areas under first and 'Seeond foodgrain crop, Xuand X" are the irrigated areas under 'other non-foodgrain crops and Xro is the irrigated area undcr t sugircane.' -rVr ,(i) represents availability of net irrigated area tt
.- the kharifi

(lID

crop.

' I45 - (Iv) ) (ari*arr) Xi(Bt '. ,' j=l ., ': n'k2 (V) 2 C-r Xt2 Bz j-n'4
|
l'.lJ ^<

rabi

season.

X an; Xr(Bb'

''

:' t'Con"straint (I) w4s idtroduced only for maJor foodgrains and"non' i"'- goo6grai3s '4nd E)ot for sll 145'Xl's. "

58

AcRrcuLTuRAL pRoDucrloN: 2@0 e.o.

(

wber

the land input in crop a.l= I for all j,= 1, , . . t45. (2) a*: Value of fertilisers (in rupees) used per hectare of land forj-th crop, (3) att: Value of pesticides (in rupees)
the coefficients dI, represent

l)

production activity and

of land for

j-th

crop

(4) ao: Human labour (man-days)

(5)

a*: Total

for 7-th crop.

operating costs (in rupees) per hectare of

land for 7-th crops (6) Ci : fepresents the value of yield per hectare (in rupees) for 7-th crop. Constraints The programming.exercises includq two types of constraints. The first type of constraints are the constraints defined at the allIndia level and the others are those specified at the state level, Land being the location specific unit we define the land availability constraint lbr irrigated and unirrigated lands separately for each individual state. The constraints defined under (i), (ii) and _earlier are the land-constraints. The constraints (i) are intrqduced in order to take care bf climatic factors (such as heavy or scanty rainfall) which restrict the flexibility of the cropping pattem. They are also necessary in view of the fact that the_food habits and preferences of the people would not undergo drastic changes within two decade. By these constraints, we .. rserve for major foodgrains the percentage share which is 35 ,p9f 9elt of their present share in the cropping pattem, In the case of non-foodgrains the average area under tbc crops in 1969-70 to L97I-72 has been retained as the minimrm limit of area under that crop (i.e., lower bound for Xr). lr's under contsraint (ii) are determined after subtracting the areas reserved for other crops (by retaining their present percentage share in projected cropping pattern) from the projected gross cropped area. The crops for which irrigated and unirrigated land, thus reserved, are tea, coffee, rubber, fruits and vegetables, tobacco, condiments and spices and other minor crops including fodder
.

(iii)

crops. .,,.,T;!9. pp+ql".raints

sers, attaitrment

for,maliqum possible availability of fertiliof minimum level of foodgrain production, and

ME1HODOLOGY

59

manpower availability (i.e., constraints IV, V and VI,a respectively) are specified at the national level, This ensures spatial optimality of the cropping pattern through regional specialisation of crops within the scope provided by the exercise and also optimal utilisation of crucial inputs such as fertilisers,

Fooo-Srr-suFFrctENcy Cor.rsrnerNr In order to specify the crucial minimum limit of the availability of foodgrains we picked up the lower estimate of the demand projection for 2000 e..o., worked out by the National Commission on Agriculture.s Applying tbe 1974-j5 wholesale prices, this projection has been converted in terms of value. The total value of foodgrain production required in 2000 il.o, thas works out to Rs. 30,807.7 crores. This is the value of B, in constraint (v).
FenrnrsEns AverrlsrLrry CoNsrnlrNr It has been observed that the share of value of inputs purchased by the agricultural sector from other sectors in the toql gross domestic product is almost constant intertemporarily and cross sectionally. It is about 3 to 5 per cent.6 Keeping in view this observation we assume that the value of the maximum available fertilisers in 2000 ,r.o., would be about 4 per cent of the

GDP. The projection of GDP for 2000 ,t.o., given by the National Commission on Agriculture is Rs. 166,400 crores at the l97l-72 price level.? The same estimate at the 197 4-75
price level works out to be Rs. 256,322.56 crores, The 4 per cent share of the projected GDP (after deducting 0.006 per cent for the union territories) is Rs. 10,191,38 crores. This is the value of B, in constraint (iv).
MaNpownn Avlrr,esrr,rry CowsrnerNr Will tbe employment generated in the agricultural sector in

. ! '

Work force potentiality constraint has been defincd at the all.India levol mainly due to the non-availability of projections of population in the year 2000 A.o,, for individual states,
Roport for tle National Commissipn.pn Agriculturs, 1976,

part-mj

A. Simantov, "The dynamics of Growth and Agriculture',i ZEITST CHRIFT FUR NATIONALOKONOMIE, VoI. X>ivu/3, 1967.., . 1 Source: Report gf; the .National Commission on Agricut ure, 1976, Part III, Demand and Supply, p, 13.

60

AcRrcuLruRAL pRoDucrroN: 2000 A.b.

-iprojection for rural area i.e., 662.49 million persons out ofa total population of 935.35 million persons and applying to it the ratio-of main workers to total population in the rural area.8 The latter has been borrowed from Jaipal Ambannavar's study.e The estimate of manpower so worked out is 234.52 million : prson years i.e., 64024 million man-days (assuming the equiva'lenoe of one person a year with 273 man-days of 8 hours.l0 This estimate of B, represents the estimate of totai manpower which could be employed in the agricultural sector as a whole (i.e., in crop production activity relating to major crops and other crops, livestock production and in allied sectors like forestry, mining etc.) and also in the non-agricultural sector in the rural area.

2000.1.o., be sufficient to absorb the total potential labour force available than in the rural area? In order to arrive at some tentative judgement regarding this issue, we included the humau ;labour input coeffcient in each bfihe crop production activity (i.e., an;, i:1 . . . 145). Il. is the estimate of the potential workforce in rural area in theyear 2000 e,.o. This estimate has been worked out by using the National Commission's population

Rbport of.,the.National.Cornmhsion on Agriculiure, ?art IIL Dcmarid -::. ind Sirpply, P. 10, Table 10.2.. , Jaipil Ambann&var, 'Population' Secoad IndiaStudiee, 1975, p. 91. il! Drafr,. Fir|G ,,Year FIan, 1978-83, Vol. II, Govcrnmeaf of India, Plarning Commission, p. I17.

MEf,IIPPOT'

oGY

6t
Table
1949-50
1.1

GROWTH RATES OF GRAIN OUTPUT:

to

1975-76

Years
1949-50 1958-59

Annual growth,rates (per cent) Food Population

to l95l-52
3.70 2.00

(9 years)

to 1960-61 l96G6l to 1962-63

(8 years)
2.64 2.20

1968-69 1960-61

to 1970-71 to 1962-63

(13
1973-74 1963-64 1973-74

years)

2.11

', )'7

to 1975-76 to 1965-66 to
1975-76

(10 years)
r949-50

2.95 2.54
3.43

2.28

(15 years)
1964-65

2.tO

t96+65
(6 years) 1970-7r 196+6s
"2.28

(l l years)
t975-76

2.40

lDry-sl to l95l-52

(24 years)

2.64

1973-14 1949-50

to

1975-76

(26 years) t97s-76

Source; Minhas;

B;S.,

Bombay, Indian

Vol. 31, No.4, p. 10.

62

AcRTcULTURAL pRoDucrroN: 2000 e.o.

qE i:F
(L}

h
cd

E E EqF

a<9 l\ !:
\, .E c RI Gt -r
PL Fr
0.,

EffiFR H o-*
J J-.

\0

\o \o \o \o \o 6\ o\ o\ 6\ 6\

c.r an

V \o aa |.)\OC-oaO
6)

()

r-< O\ a) .=

oF

(\1 t\rn c- i OOant.ll-

Fl 6.

t*,

r\ c\ o, .a \c) (.- ol\ aa $ \C)

*HC\lalc.l

>l

=
/1

&3 fhX
v6

* N X.E
d !as dgvlE
l-l

a!

bI)
o)

I Er ?i,E F rc:r- (): o-o\o

E
+
li

s gF i-s-o
6R o\
q:'
O.

\o\o\o\o\o
ro) 3.)

\Ol-O\O- Q

b)

?\.
DO

,:aFt!tr

hO

z
Fl
G'

6.E
F{

An\q-':,.) ra,cOOo\FJ 6Pt:

ooooo\o;n @ f- ra) r.r xi \O r- 0O C|\ :i

(D

(l
!2

.- E .9 q9p
t\: xc!

Ef:ts E F E: E AE
.g

ID

C.l

NNSNd
\i

(l)

.)

F(;i o.o

{) 'i \o

o i rrr

!9

tf

A's
E ()
.F
bo

fF <=
6o\ .{i rr
c\ <f.OoOOrn r.t \O l- O !+ 6tr)O(.lo\ C{ral('\+O C.l c.l rif \6 O\

METHODOLOGY
Table 2.2 (Between 1969-70

69

COMPOUND RATES OF GROWTH* to 1971-72 and 2000 e.o.)

(Per cent per annum)

Scenario I II Scenario III Scenario IV Scenario V Scenario VI

Scenario Scenario

Area 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.64 -0.16 0.26

Yield

per

Production
1.76

hectare

1.27 1.74 3.56 1.78 4.04 4.27

2.5O
4.35

",,

2.45
3.87 4.63

The rates of growth relat to an aggrogate of foodgfains and the other four cash crops, narnely, cotton, sugarcane, oilseeds and jute.

6{,

AGRrcuLruRAL pRoDucrroN:

20S 4.o,

Table 2.3'

IRRIGATED AND UNIRR,IGATED,A,REA

('000 hectares)

Unirrigated
Avcrage for 28962 1967-68 to 1969-70 (20.87) 2400 t.o.
Scenar,io 109847

T'otal

l3 8809

(7e.t3)
127293

(r00.00)
19462:3

I II
III
IV

57330 (34.60)

(6s.40)

(i00.00).
255493

Scenario Scenario

114380

91il3
(44.33)

(5s.67)
114380 (5.5.67)

(r00.00)
\,

9lt13
(44.33)
90598

t.,, 205493.
(100.00)
2039.39

$cepario

I13341 (55.58)
81020

(41+2)
84438
(s 1.03)

(rQ0.q0),
165458

Scenario V Scenario

(48.e7)

(100.00)
184930

VI VII

100334

84596

Scenario

(s{.26) tt2999
(55.s0)

(45.74)
90598

(100.00)
203598

(44.s0)

(100.00)

METHOMLOCJ
Table 2.4

65

AVAII,ABILITY OF CALOT.IES AND PROTEINS FROM FOODGRAINS

(Per capita intake per day)
Year/Scenarios

Calories (Kcal)
1640.61

Protein (grams)
49.48 49.57

I97I
2MO A.D.
Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III Scenario IV Scenario V Scenario VI Scenario VII

1667.10 2365.00
3184.91 1903.50

68.10
89.07 56.01

2153.74 2017.94 398?.06

60.70
57.88

r09.23

l{ole: Availability has been worked out on the basis of

89.5 per cest of projected production aftcr making an allowance of 12.5 per ceat for seed and nastages.

66:

AGRrcuLruRAi pRoDucrroN: 2000 a,o.'/

OO\O,F-V)-riFOOcO

'\'. ...'

6s"rg9ssR;r\s\+
9c..tOO\d--..r<f\o g!r.-t..i r-J J +.,i,o vi r', .A (\ * c\l .a ra) C{ .n
a\ a\ "c.i

oqaoc.lcro\trtsF-\od.a $ !: c.i d .i r-. ...i c.r oi r* H c^r<. o *o\ i --cr

QqO-v)o\F.-..$oo

c.i

F'o$R=x*-gd
'iF:

ig$XgeseRhEg9*R9gn-oir-c.i c.l o.l

- .': q -:
oq

Yq9qqc.l+\oor-oo

'z
c.r A o6Y

'e{

9 9q
v.l

e.t c.t

\o ot F- oo

F$l6FS5;-S+
,'-N
oq v': v?

-.: \o oo oo \o .a

c] \"lc.t.+*os sE! +R*'oA-9.";O..i ; 6qF

.aa I : I . P--^;-djca)

it)

-';,
A|i.}.'\

C,,
9p

E,qG
.A

oo

k FoE?e i;iE 95 e 0t.6=-H

R!.r3

o
li

s$EgEEEiig" ;'FdFEiiU;;

dlbtHooor,bcYrlr' ':

67

.= ^/ '7? Z

ce

O(t!

B.:

oqqg ;'o\
=llllF.-ll.a\o =rrrr'l

tl

E>
H.Y

hoo '* c* rro

I

<=
)<v =4
a,l
I

za
-o
^.4 ^.t 9l:

E<
*l *J

lTo |lri

t*
I

r., \o rq o -j | || i| l\od lo l,.)o. o\ | 'ca

.?
r.)

.'l

c\l

lJ

g tF

\? |
.<l

'1 =l oo | | I lO- oo lh | | | v^r lci

..|r-r^$oo-\os |.) c\l a- <t I a.t cY \o aas \p
(+a

n\?

n ra)
c-.1

O
r.)

oiv ()l
u)

z
.9*
ru ,x gr
CA

c..l \J o l-t

hSEKKFX;F a.t
bt)

S \T
@

:^

:cOH\OF--<too<t c..t(..t+--,.)x-v
F-OO-tr-F-\O\O(\..)

c\
o\

I^---tr\Oe{v-)

l..-

r
c.i <r

Lr

Ai
\J t,
>'.c !9

*.,

l: x.: +E tE la6 l' ld

l'\ ' 1 <d

oror a P--* o,i: =r r..ioi+".i liir.,c)cn

, I

F'

t'*

7
14

i I lFod .E: la = o 9'5 tq F. e rF{ C.e E'{=

- * a6

tB ? lo *

O\Ooo dc.;-; OO**

t$sflK I
* I E; r2X !? i,o.r
H_.=

9"io.e

q
E

eE.ggEgpEEg

68

AGRIcULTURAL pRoDUcTroN: 2000

l.p.

O\ca (tl o .. c,

>ri (l)e >c

(s

8.b
t< .-

3
9b0

(!;

lsfl -i: E .i'E a 5 E 5 ; H - ;; :EE iE gg

E;E; S E:.H + E ?; E F: EEEEE *:E =:p:=--H

o-o tr'tr E'3 ,.9.b*-b ! 5 9 'o "o;;i -6 i3 - o = F

E'EE EHEEg

$;EgE Erf E;rr g E"E tt5 liq !I E r ?= 5 tr

E
+j +,i

= XEHH&'frtfiFE * .+r 'l!

E::EEssEl iNTT H E E E
ti

Aggass*:E
ll J

UETHODOLOGY

69

+, tna
trl

i r

s lEg & l9s

]o

H+
I'H.6

O\ O,

oo
C'O

c.i c,i o

z^ cl Efr Alt,
^o

Er lE Fgl (J:l
=ol

oi

sqE o
\oo\o oo ei 'i
c.)

.7

sli .Y trl
a o,
loo
I

O\ rar

el s

'5 .d .=
' t*c.i

.J

.i
ral
1.)

d.bP.b
Fs- cd-

xdgb

A;A !a
.s! ?OD

.:H c.r J
t-r

*la

1,"

EI
)4

\oer$ o<f\o ,ri ci an

aa

c.i @

.F ln
lY
_c$

oo \o ..i

t-' .c->r-

al

gFqs

Eiitji .\e2

iEii E= *EFE'5.'r
R'ci tz EF

tr

t-.
(D

vorrr 'i bo
'rr F{E
.-J

\on \q -: e{ c{

v'l
<>

e7
qJ

qrcl .10.:p F

AAFa 5i"> ooB :E '56Es.E : =s ..=c(l

z
(J

!i et O q\cl vo c{o 50a rFq.9 d c

:'a

a..l

iEEE AEFAE.A egle.E g

8S
.i 3 HF f; ., .. .. .. E
E H

o i.Y

--l

o r

:i

F-9tr

"'F ,'o'F ghbsFo HxHsgA " I+ BRS H9 od iid e 4x db <dAA,; x

E()E

70

AGRrcuLrunAL PRoDUcrloN: 2000

i.S.

;tz li '*
'5

>,

l-s

> >

lbo
lEo
li.L{

lltlllll

&E
'rr
t-r

A:

*
=

, ll^ (, 9)i-

Pd;ol E-<l vcgl

'F

>, F.9

E = lF?. - 5tH
l

I l3R=3fr
, , coQ+.
@ v_t _\t

ernol

!? o ol;

(A

Y,: O l'-.1 F Z '='

trla
bI)

\o I rdx933p

U
7

O ,r, r ro cJ r | I I lF-* -arl

'1 * - e.l
-o

t I

,:i

*$ I I '9.U d b E=E
I

:.jEi gFHS
d= F.-

c=.9=

?X: c.rXH
.7

ioo

d-)W<

" g lFt | |

:irE ':ii?
X

o
{.)

,dz2 -e;(
F

'= l$e |
Fi
o{ >r
rFl u0 ot)
T'1

=Ficdd -3.3 5=Fb

|

E"f"-6
E -i li.c

a 7 F

bod

lillrlll

ii
0)

*>.9p8O ,#:.g

x;Fr f,e 6x

'n

!q)

F
bt)

7
trl

l-l

; Fc Y.Y

llrtlttl
q

x x.Y o .: .X E E
()

I : r r* .a oi, "i, F Ear4VM

:= /,1

x x *p. F 3 -oo to

d
(D

PsHx It
*

gF$5*

METH0DoLoGY;

, ...; ,. :. ' Table 2'9

2000

?1

SUPPLY POSITION OF ANIMAL FEEDS IN

l'o'

(Million tonnes)
Scenarios

Concentrates
20,93
631

,Dry fodder
237.5 258.2

., I

III Iv
V

II

'

2r"84
39.06 58.82
55.2'.1

268.8 s08.8

,\R

t432.8

209.9 '120.3 116.7 190.2

VI,
VIT.
Note:

38,63 57 Rl

..

964.s

s28.4

72

AcRtcuLruRAL pRoDucrroN: 2000 e.o.

{)

\qqq cn C)

ot(nat*

rtr

\o. c.l g FF.\e.l(.1 oO Ch rat 'r C.l Gl (^

s;gF
oO

v'| ,al s $

r rar *.f, oi.i\d\o m|.|rf,t1

\O \O (\,l \O

SRSH xr:o
oo

c.l

z
trt

6l

l
EI

l'

\o \o N \o tr t.- a{ c^l Or r.l an oO -elGlca a! o! (rl \ tadq,S O\ \9!O

('r,a tt.=

\o-\0 N \o t- F e.t c{ O\(.|(.t -(t.la{m \o \Q et \o

Fi al Gt.a

OOO\6 o\ ro a{ f-Oo\lr| e.l

o{
-a\

Fl

-l<

F !: c.i c-i r, *;.,i d r.r id O\!Qt.|oo

*c{N(o

\o \o c.t \o
c.i

.(j

sZ p<

^i t<

vt

z rrl

EI 6l 9l

{rl FI

olo

xl

gE xs
!\l

.x

$fr8 a;$S s-$S t

<t

!+SO\O

r.|q'|$$

rar

rr| =|.

$rufinEafrsi;;$p
,iS

o
o.

i
tsE c{ tr
dF

(.)

i+.qq qEqE +\o6oi +i3s q:f |/i oi+ s \0 |.rc\ $\oroo\'d oi + od,.;
o_islrs

90

oo

{)

=x
otl

,-l

ID

MBTTTODOLOCY
!r
Lr q)

'13

FFfOA e,Y oqq\qq El/tr.6.n 6_EtrE 99PX Zgd'='= ()Ocn

!{)gd
Yl.rlr

clt

c!

;\

FH.EF6 'bzE;.--

O\ O\ a- ol

,.iF+o
m+c4\O

E- o. ;ri o<d..:
,

c{ .a taOi-aO+ \o tal o\
c.,l

q) '; .9 = E.,c4 TF c 9 = = EE ti:'E " .i4 # *./ 9r:n

^^. !.n F:ed .:a d^

.tr H .E &
3 !
:.1

E
ts

n$.\q

RSFR 4 X'ts f- <) O\ r.t < ! I 'c'd'd # E r q*

nneqa

l*=FE> b .9EAFE9: ;? EESEIIry -,::A;;E E

^.-.(_9tH=

H
),!

rk

a
R
q.

p ^'ieeg 5 Fo: E.e.gtrr '=ie!

-^-.|'vr-r: -dhPcjdc,EF

!! ii

SEEK
r-OOcO

B$.!5 F *Eo3FEEgft F ft EE 3 Fp,*H'?g;S: : =a.E=::>

.q-

E 'e

ri^Ed*-H-9
o.EHEEi
,,O---,*-E-or-.'

:
,o rr

oi c'i ci ci F-Oo'\trt

E;:etsrFfH E? E o's.elo E
6., 'o F^ :'t I o .o'o
.=

nqqv?ral H=9.9t'ii O\ st oO
* \o r.l o\

. +e

'i* F* il#g!: i"6i''tiS8d dEi!

FRF <C .O

xtsssEq FoEF,FSSS
il il
o

-eEq;; F e e E: e: r q q'H b:$ff8 5: b Fb.;

.E;._E; .9E.9 6:os lt il

E
E

ll

ll

14

AcRlcuLluRAL pRoDUCrroNi 2000 A.D. Table 2.1I

SCENARIOS WITH HTGHEST AND LOWEST GROWTH RATES IN PRODUCTTON OF FOOD. GRAINS AND NON.FOODGRAI.NS
States

Scenarios with highest'

growth rate Andhra Pradesh

Assam

Scenarios with lowest growth rate

v v
VI VII'

(7.33)
(3.s 1)

Bihar Gujarat
Jammu & Kashmir

VII

Karnataka

Kerala
Maharashtra

(5.87) (3.81) (3.s4) (5.50)

IV IV IV IV
V

(s.2e)
(0.1e)

(3 75)
(0.55) (0.05)

& VII
VII VI VII YT VII

(4.1s)
(5.63)

Madhya Piadesh
Orissa Punjab (old state)

(6.37)
(7.16) (3.4e)

IV IV IV IV v:
V

(2.e3)
(2. r 3)

(3.04) (2.38) (2.s8)

Rajasthan

:(6.18)
(4.10)

(0.72)

Tamil Nadu

v
VII VI

IY IV
V

(r.2e)
(0.8s)
(

Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal

(4.e2) (2.57)
brackets

L68)

(0.02)

Note: The fgures

in

refer to the highest/lowest

growth rate9.

METIIODOLOGY

|f

c.l ..t+ro

rc.l
v\/\i/\/\-/

cn$

rr

F >

raH
bll ?.:

'6 o

z
.A

Ei o: Xo d
|Jr*

'6Ae :

?, ,q -:

()cd

dA F P"E a g.i.E 4

=:f

:rE*?gsH <;io;)>c.BFO<
.

t ,

<F -r L) 4,74A? ".r

(\

?z Fl.l

AO e6'A'5;6 =R

J4

E;}
e?
-. rr F
a.n

o.lc4

rr lJ

d
I

bo

-E(L)
= 1-\

f;a

E- v) au)

d
o)

tr<

U)

()

,iiE E *is E?E E-tI2*

(!l

E v'

EEe#s5a'EFH

<
(A

tr (A
-g .tr

:E

lrl

d
oo

d -Y rr .E

Eg Eg -EA

4t

E'o

sEsEigESS{

EE,E-:A;*.4'E F cd f cd=-C (B d'O

^!: E i: FTE cd F-cOr Y

(d

76

AGRrcuLruRAL pRoDucrroN: Z0g0,r.p.

=a

ao ,v E-?

.ES dx
liX

E ;? o lrdXZ7166

E!*.i: E+i:* <d cg

-:3 Ii:>'

,--'= E.E .r:!.,

SEt$Eh:EF; {gESf;dgSE!# 300gooog 3s

U
e.l
I

..cAa,Jd

Ji'oVE eHEorS 1:; ( i\,

()

60
l

t.q

.i

(D cd

t-r

tn

EttEf ,iss EEf;EESE Sg:*685c(F

A: i: d:! :

_q dt\JlrilJ(tl

E
d H

oo

h0

3ooe03g9g9
.!
ot}

,q
Q (u

^gEfrr :

z3#

i Ed Et;
=\l

!E

()
bo

EsisEEFE!E

o R

\)

METTI@OIOGY

77

asr9gt]
'Oa cDo
!dX hx .o-i"

* a! aa rif \./\-/\J\r/\./

ra)

-cad3t F*:E tt6ds 5>'6i> Ea3:$E

E (g-(g{)i: >' -=

i* *t Fg

in -t

':
-q

Ik

300033693s
v\1./\r/

lD
<d

Q
c.l c.i
ID
I

b0

E-6

3
F

.cl

{)

<.)

6:#EsEI#EEA
eO o9O
r. a 0()
bt) .{t)

aE.EEEE;E:9E

** *Ff

zE

B
b0

;EEsgt E*egzZe

(.)

bo

Heica$l.)

o
rt)

E E; tJ

5.D :? .:iiJ:i

-=
.r1

(ll

a
(t)

ll.

E ?e*F*
EFsSE

bo

$*!Es

78

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION:' 2OOO A.D:

-r

(\

a.l !f, lal d

C-.1

aq S tr|

Ea d oI) cdX !1 X 'o -i.

E P ii i= dsE d gP gi5g5EIFE
0.)

.d'gO E?.S

.o

()
c.l

ag

F
bo

c!

z
l-.

i-c g.c3 x -q- 'o .E g.s EZ ^ q

b0

sestt f;
ra) v'l

,9

q) 6I)

(/)

seESsEFi*E

soosoggggg
E: *
50

,Q
rD

()
(c

& sEa R'

E

-8 i:V

(D

.q

oo

is5$$EE!35

!)

79

Table'3.1

INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT FOR DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF FERTILISERS*

(Rs. crores) Requirement in Rs. per tonne of N.

Scenarios Scenario I Scenario III Scenario IV Scenario V Scenario VI Scenario VII ' *

as stock Rs. 9921 12798.1 27183.5 27778.8 28770.9 27778.8 53573.4

Using coal feed

Using naphta as a
feed stock 7576 9773.0
20'158.2 21212.8 21970.4 21212.8

40910.4

Based on Ph.D. thesis: 'Import Substitution and Economic Efrcieneyl A Case Study of the Indian Nitrogenous Ferti' lizer Industry', by Pillalamarri Leela, submitted to Andhra

University

in

1977

80

AGRIcULTURAL pRoDucrroN: 20@ e.o.

Tablo 3.2 PER HECTARE USE

OF NUTRIENTS IN 2ffi0 r.p.:

Alt India
(Kgs.) SCENARIOS

Crops

Iv
407.74

VI

VII
408.33

Rice 148.72 Jowar 48.38 Bajra 317.38 Maize 163.28 Wheat 243.60 Total cereals 197.'l I Grams/pulses . 43.52 Total pulses 44.86 Total foodgrains 115.74 Groundnut 3.14 Total oilseeds 3.14 Cotton 9.30 Jute 0.0 Sugarcane 92.10
Total

279.92 36r.75
343.94 376.95 379.69 79.20 86.62 284.58

279.92 430.09 275.63 358.63 316.27 432.23 376.9s 4r4.r4 363.43 416.44 285.62

404.rr

79.20 84.36

77.44

9t.32
376.33

6.87 6.87
15.20

0.0
195.60 50.28

non-foodgrains

30.69

10.77 10.77 52.31 0.0 70.36 39.7s

6.77
6.77 60.10

0.0

65:tl
40.2r

MEfHODOLOdV

8l

d oo ir.t f\ ci i .i :-,.; ro r.) d

v)

O r\ or o\ (}r o\ \o *.q ao t.r o\ F-Q c.l o !1 F..a|.|ooorO\c.lOO.a (t\.n o\ c- !+ + o.' o o \o wi.o' ro (rt \0 o \o + -i r- Fc\ aa Cn |.r (\t + C.l a.t an V - ra, Ca an ai C\l an ".;

rh

,i o{)
M

6>
U)

tO |'- v) oo !l \c) l.t \O aO + s .A \O <" c\r qio F- o\ oo O a\ o\ v1 t-, ra) o\ ra) v-t ral \ct c; \e a ^i c.i F oi '.o' + o + oi,.,.i sr +o C.l 6\\g-O\O\aOt-a.to.\-o\ca O, ca O\
.a s .a c{ .i ..r c{ ei c.l c.t d ..t a.l c.t
o.t

qr

rq i\
lr]

3>

c6

9tr5$93G3;3SSS$Sfr HESSHgiHhRXTeR$*

z 14
.F
:-)

t! a t-

d>
()
CA

ffi=st83SF*g3E86S ;s=RS;rSSSesFSSF _ot-C.tc.tFan+

C..t

Z
v)

-)

(A

s I 3 u SsEtF' d ds t;
EF*6

.=

tes5E55g$sFFEsEi

82

ACRICULTURAL PRODUCTION: 2OOO A.D.

.E

gF
* a
.t)

.o O . N , OOt''\o v1 ol s ..r lr+cnN a.l | I - l

cOOO$t--\O|,- Fctl c..l o r.) ta) o F- r- cl '.) oo - o\ r+ c.l - a{ .n c.l

z
O
si"

Fi \'

z z

rh

b> ()

rr, .n

r lt1 I O\..1 ci NF

F-$ c99

-Q$oQO\\O'rr.+ tc! Ic9\qdqv?qn('loa $ | OO I <. F F- F- C{ +

- !f, sf, i\ c.,t

c.l

ca;

oo

c.l

gt

-rq

JJr

n3 caF

I (t)

E>

flldlqil+SdFiN$Sdg

s,S F3;R88FX

()

a0
ID

trl
(r) Fr

z EI

z
t!
rrl
V)

F l-)

-l E> g () a

'!1

3.ffi | -i,.i
,q-

--: od.i (.1 lc.i lod-; d "d oi 6,.?) o ; b0

g,S36r:hBK

()
I

.=

(!)

(t)

{EGE}zsSS6ignSf=

E EE f; *_ v - * ! :gF^ i d{ 1; EESEH'. g i E * $E n:e; ?; E $e* S F

oo

:tt

METHODOLOGY

83

Table 3.5 PER HECTARE USE OF NUTRIENTS FOR FOODGRAINS AND NON-FOODGRAINS*
(Kgs.)
States

Scenario Scenario

tvv

Scenario

Scenario

vt
r59.71

vtI
391.31

Andbra Pradesh
Assam

131.38 .2s2.99

Bihar

Cujarat
Jammu

&

Kashmir

203.46 114.58 238.48

3r.27

Karnataka Kerala

193.78
115.85 264.47 369.21

Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa

55.06 40.14 66.30

Punjab (old state)

Rajasthan

164.54 441.07 145.16 252.32 89.70 208:82 92.89 115.68 258.06 168.66 121.67

r64.54
345.32 159.39 452.32 89.70

r64.54
545.35

r78.74
306.34

89.70
208.82 236.72 136.64

208.82
92,89

1r6.4'l 171.ffi
168.66

237:74
379.08

r78.57
168.76
136.91

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal

69.44 310.89

144.09

236.55
183.44 168.74 172.88

228.20 261.64
189.71

130.75

All India

135.30

t49.37

345.83 260.46

Non-foodgrains cover only four crops, namely, groundDut' cotton, sugarcane and jute.

84

AGRICITLTURAL

pRoDucrro{: 2@0
oo *+

.1.o.

rP
<h .=

cr

I - g!,.r,.r e

r- (., o\ \o - s
\11

Fbn

6>
ID

co I* C.t O\ Fi rn ci * .q cq O * 63, a. ra) \O d..t .n+

\O e.l |., O O\ ei q1 F- @

,P* a
rl
c.t

C.q

OrS\OC

c"r-

(\rC-r

c.l

z
Lr

2l

v-,

ll^l1*

l9-.-\o<F-di

R d

aDl 'otFr

ol

13

t.i
lA

> oo lto-

l3-st--c.l\'oc)
lo'."rOF-rr$ro< l\oO-t.)o\c.rNc.t
oo

-K.
-=
.r) rJ

ol ql

E rr

tq >

rll"ol- l=rF- loo

cn

I> lI

ts
'=l

I - r- - o S \O O
v-, ao

c{

..1

$ c{ v)

tr.

z
(A

t:
F

'd ^ x d

P 11- ..r * o0 LY> : lr |

ltr lo
I

<f

cct

: o' f- g : : - S ro

t&l

13> t:-c.rnS-.9=!e{g,o

an

l>

^3-r-=ihgIs-*=oogN
l_

v)

z
(D

-E-c6 -a.c*E

* f;
a

ct)

g tu : =E= ie ti E.Et$ Ee-E=rsEg*;E=+e

e -cs dq

!g#srgEs5F.gESg

METHODOLoCY

It
Table 3.7

THE STATES WITH FIRST FIVE AND LAST FIVE RANKS IN CONSUMPTION OF FERTILISERS PER HECTARE+
Scenario

IV

Scenario V

Scenario

Scenario

VI
Jammu &

Punjab (l)
West Bengal Orissa

Bihar
Orissa

(1) (2)

VII (l) Bihar (l)

(2) (3)
(4)

Kashmir

(2)
(3)

Bihar Kerala
Orissa

Andhra
Pradesh

(2)

Andhra (3)
Pradesh

Punjab

(3)
(4)

(old state)

Jammu and (4)

Jammu and

(4) (5)

wesi
Bengal

Kashmir

Kashinir
(5)

Bihar

Tamil Nadu

Tamil
Nadu
West Bengal Rajasthan

(5) Jammu (5)

& Kashmir

Uuar (11) Gujarat ( l1)

Pradesh

(11)

Uuar tirl
Pradesh

Pradesh rashtra Maha- (14) Madhya (14) rashtra Pradesh ( 15) Karna- (15) Assam
taka

(12) Rajasthan (12) Madhya (13) Maha- (13)

Rajasthan

Maharashtra

(12) Gujarat ( 12) (13) Assam (13) (14) Maharashtra

(

Madhya
Pradesh

(14) (15)

Karnataka

15) Karnataka

Fertiliser consumption relates to the foodgrain crops and the four cash crops. Note.' Figures in brackets refer to ranks.

86

AGRTcULTURAL pRoDucrroN: 2000

l.o.

Table 3.8

EMPLOYMENT IN CROP PRODUCTION IN

2OOO

A.D.:

ALL INDIA
(Million person years)
Scenarios

Crops

IV
36.36

VI
41.29

Foodgrains Non-foodgrains (oilseeds, cotton, jute,

sugarcane)

. 38.65

VII 'il.6s

15.96 59.86

36.56 56.52
92.04 110.3s

40.44

All crops*

t28.26

All crops figure is the adjusted figure for employment in production of other non'foodgrains not included in the
linear programming exercise.

METHODOLOGY

E7

Table 3.9

PER HECTARE EMPLOYMENT: ALL INDIA

(Man-daYs)
Scenarios 245.28 68.77 108.53
23'1.67 68.',t7

Rice Jowar Bajra

89.33 12.34 60.93

47.O9

245.53 I I l.3l
108.74.

101.69

Maize
Ragi Wheat

l 15.38
126.84 187.14 85.43 152.77

1r7.t3

2ll.6t
185.69

t12.63
82.95 46.94

Total cereals
Grams/pulses

Total foodgrains Total pulses Groundnut Total oilseeds Cottcn

Jute
Sugarcane

71.09
42.17 66.40 66.40 30.83 3E6.24 143.39 87.89

81.23

t75.r7 180.22 85.43 83.68 r47.49 167.56, 75.89 77.60

140.40 140.39 199.58 376.68 169"14
140.81

126.84

t40.74
t40.73
143'.74

t40.82
213'.41

393.28
133.91

388.01
178.21

Total non-foodgrains

150.96

t75.4t

180.I2

8f

AGh.rcuLtukAL pRobuCrroN: 2000 .q.o.

Table 3 10 PER HECTARE EMPLOYMENT FOR FOODGRAINS AND NON-FOODGRATNS (Unit: man-days)
Scenario
States

Scenario

IV
81.54 31.58

Scenario Scenario

V
158.64 166.17 231.84 158.32 E0.92 186.05 160.46 166.17

VII
153.64 166.17

Andhra Pradesh
Assarh

Bihar Gujarat
.Iammu and Kashmir

8s.97 72.52
?5.22 86.65

224.66
226.48 80.90 186.05 165.36 134.56

))') )<
229.57 86.82 186.05 165.36

Kamataka
Kerala

9t.74
56.10 38.83 144.21 68.28 30.06
132.41

Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Orissa

I65.36
134.56 94.46 198.53

I68.45
126.87 ))1 17 83.21 132.83

rr7.87
210.29
r

Punjab (old state)

Rajasthan

r00.88
66.65

Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh

West Bengal

r00.88 09.20

270.2r
129.29 170.68 151.92

248.04

30s.99

87.35

r43.09
221.68 r 62.88

l{)o1

265.i8
80.09

All India

264.67 t 71.88

METIIODOLoGY

89

Table 3.11

PER HECTARE EMPLOYMENT FOR NON-FOODGRAINS

(Unit:
States

man-days)

Scenario Scenario

IVV
.59

Scenario Scenario

VI

VII
l2A;22

Andhra Pradesh
Assam

105.02

I 35.1

133.45

Bihar Gujarat
Jammu and Kashmir Karnataka Kerala

l8l

266.70
158.17

72.34
43.87

197.78 226:00 258.72 255.74 207.11 2o7jl 129.48 t32.s4 126.4'1 125:83 199.78 199.09 222.85 222.8s 409.29 250.82 164.09 162.42 242.22 293.94
175.4t
'180.12

207.t|
129.48 94.16 15.98 90.68 55.51 195.75

Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra

ols+
50.84 15,98 104.83 33.50

0rissa
Punjab (old state)
Rajasthan

90.68

90.68

Tamil Nadu

85.l3
162.42 293.94
E7.89

Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal

tr6.t7
390.51 150.96

All India

90'

AGR|CULTURAL pRoDucrroN: 2000

l.p.

Table 3.12

PER HECTARE EMPLOYMENT FOR FOODGRAINS

(Unit:
States

man-days) Scenario

Scenario

Scenario

Scenario

v
196.29 186.60

VI

VII

Andhra Pradesh
Assam

Bihar Gujarat
Jammu and Kashmir KarDataka Kerala

Madhya Pradesh
Mqharashtra
Orissa

71.27 35.46 80.59 72.65 79.81 95.58 93.43 48.24 22.50 r 50.21

229.55
r

58.83
95.

l6

115.96 168.41

t4s.99
95.24 216.28 108.67 67.84 333.83 130.72

Punjab (old state)

Rajasthan

63.95
29.66 143.75 51.74 263.32

Tamil Nadu

Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal

|M,60
152.78

All India

77.09

208.19 159.18 186.60 186.60 237.08 222.20 112.7 4 | 54.35 95.16 207.11 I 15.96 207.11 168.41 r68.41 145.99 189.55 95.26 128.62 220.3t 240.t7 108.67 80.44 65.48 lt1.42 313.44 337.24 t26.43 148.40 144.60 262.t1 147.49 167.55

METHODOLOGT

9t
fH

t*
IH

(Dl ls L1> ta
lbD

OO

n an $ \O c'\ t- ci t'/.l
OO

e't F cn -

C'l

IE

lo e,, "l> otEr!l t- E $1" t.o t- YI lv) lar :t> l-r lcq ltl
I I

O\ F 6 (..l r.t \O

d N (a *

O $

t.A

g nlElLl ."l
\., t.Y

lH

t>
I

* I,sN

l-9*el'.|'aood

ol ur lf Fl> ol p l- s2 ''l
r'r l= l- l.:
l.h

o\ ]FN
l

g=ac.r\t*rn
FO\clC)-slooo\c{r4d\o..|.<

bl> \o ldrt
l> t

d lr.t Id
<d = Ii

m L. l:. t ls F al(tl

' Y l: I t5 E ls * lc ^l ztJ9 .i s(t

vr t.v 1.6 z -t .o 4l.t l\) .l(g ltU

">l > ;,^

t-

lc.tF'l
t Vt
Ca

lh l;

t'-'.
I

t> o\F-*O
l

) (\{ t'1 rntO--

an

l>
I

:f,'.)olH

+O\Ot,-.n(rl(\|.|-O\

o\

(ul 9I
I I
I

$rac{f-

g:--g-s:-,9
oO

l>

O\ tA \O

F-r.r's3.\9E-=
t9.i:-e

t gE s:F:q= E <<i6() E'2gi=6d&fl5

;H:E
!v-6t

E* t*
E
E

.9

EEg

Fe :

esEF

:6

oo
(t) q)

*2

AGhlcuLtuRAL FhobtrcrroN: 2000

l.n

!/

-e{..|$ \J

\-/

\-/

()

l|)
F]

z
p

U)

G?;{ ^{ .c lg x'5 zx; !AEiE E; gEE 5J:Eg r:l()Oco

Iar
e.;= i

=E '1: oo

Es
F
(D

z
.t)

.aaQ6
3.
rt)

- c'l .a {. 5()

v z

< -rI] .l&

Ill

f-{

V)

()

Zv _F

--

.g

<F F'-{zi <2

{)
rr)

e 6d,
.lF

=s.i

,EgsgI zzd,*
^^^/=\^ tal cO :r_ - e{
rc
7!

^r !{ Gv= (6 9 >'ij-o * E E.q

:r

'F9 .;}4

-c.t..|.+
e
:?(,!d !!

rb
q)

F .t) F F F
rA.

$ E F

.l'

rvH-\J

5d>s
-Na.t$

: E; gFE 'E =.t

E.Ef

X!

fi

\/vv\v\J

-e{.')+(n

(A

3 F
ID

Fr F

u,

EEEEg I50FX;l

3 z ^t,

o0.o

H? ;* *
=-+, or..la

-o'X E <dE d tr

F:>><

!(s<d:?

rl

!culomurctr

93

F9q-.
'n9Q8
R
OO

'-

'-

-Qg>

F';'E E {'.i o ;.;3

.1 .^.

c:PE e-

r $SE r= 'irr;'+ '*

tt. - ai I tar

'.dc'i.*

\O \O

6 EE ,, x
Eb

.-

.E

a)

: a.r OO 90

c.l

f_ \o F lr+t$\oo loo-: ao ld

9EE z < g \-/

F

,a

&.

; ,,1 =v

otr!

3E uEs
.Y O=
E

:o

<da

la a

E $-g

r"1 Q09 r09 | '.r :t <a I c.l

, tcn$ I oo .'i ..i

AE8 - gE
=() :rE

9- ts EUS

cd

\O C.l \O C\ Cl idHcl

v'!qqqq,

I
'.

F.-rfoo . O\oo-S --. ol e.l

ie
.t\ oo L6fE

rr-ts
e

tD

:d"6.4r- l\ F- vr Q..go"b-\ * rlo,o \' <d- r/) \O F. rS v.) \o c'rOr O\ O\ ,: o\ 6 6 C O\ O\,: r-rA-a-= Q-rEE

.]-o.s@od.-o\11 a L-rar \o t- F : rat\ol- F qr q)

E :

o Sd t=

94

AGRIcULTURAL pRoDucrroN: 2000

e.s.

, \o l\9 'F;

. s.ac I oo\oc I F " o -.1 5'o

(-.1

(\.l o\ I ta)

c.r -l r.i+o

rat t\

N ral I o

ca)

U
c.l

o
t-{

tg lEiS tl
,.\ \O (\ F I
tc)r.)oo c' vj F- F- F- d;

e.l

I I

ao

t\l

oFl oo ro

FEF o\!6 .o S :|:

bp" .i.sT FSro

r.l oJ-o\$OOos (.|\o l.- F-

6.b

c-,
F-

5 r.O.

-:a

9;E o5
5tr!?
d Or;.:

O\ 6\ ;EO\O\O\O\O\O\ _*v,

o\d {.6oi.i*o.d t\ vr {l.)\oFFFlr|

9A

. METIIODOLOGY

95

I
()

u
no E() 7t

()

il

tr9 6r),
Eq 5ts
^5 =.A

."i c{

\qn.a

'a)

F-

c{

(J

5.9o tr:o
''J

F-

rdX=
Sr
{)v

z \onF Hx
oZ
= i-\

srE (- 't
.ts cco 9'- t: ,^, X .]-

c{

.cs -

E=e8 E qR

$'HhF r-- .'1

c.!

c.l

-i i(

..1

l-

o\

3;E E O.o <t6l

o

e*E
iEF
Eg*g* 9 I8.9.e 6.;EE5

c.l

96

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION: 2OOO .I.O.

l,*

tr
o
o

(r)

lr tt<

tE

839Sfl$t-' \o o + .-i r.i .d

- c! ci e{ a.t +
.rr
c)

a V)

0)

g
o
q)

l!)

()

z
,-d

?9Y9,,?en .nO\oo\+c^t*O N at ,ar .o r \O t--

O ..t -

rat an

O\ t-

o0

bo

9< F-,

g
00

|-l

a)E5 'OOi)

6z
d,-tg o {X 7 el I Pv
Ru
&i^ ri El
v)
h F-.

.iU.H

h0

X;t

o I q)

E .= 2.2 92

=RSRf,83

*ffqs\qq

E .:1 ,-i !a

d'-

t<E !ac
as it.o0 05 f )* -:'i

e c.tv r< 5>

E,E
-s^'h ElJx

JFEsR
.' = Ic
rh

"J::.E:"xa cgx ii

!,

x o.o .E t' 'P v.oe

si sHg !A YEG

a*s$eas

f gsH
.:f (l):ad

8,rO 'E

o Yc

()

-H=:>5F

** tt

Zz? d ciA

bdid

H>E o -O. * ao

APPENDIX

98
60-o :-T.h .- B ':so0 r'n

z
tL

do;c lenpl,rtput Jo srBlJ?q rod plerl dorc lznprirrpur Jo erelceq red plsr^
?rJ?_

As-

i'o*f-ra) <
o\

!n lar

cl

F-

O\

lL

i+s 9B
e
Ao"a

doO\

ra) c.l ra) fO\

c.l e.l

r',4
trz

ol

peddoJc ssorS oorc l?npr^rpur

Jo eJsqs sSElueJJed

o j: qaA

rnO + P \o oo\ v-t

a\
o\

o\

^i.ia t1
NA

taz

ol ooJJ Iunpr^rpur

soJB poddoJc ssor8 a3?1u33Jad

eJsqs

Jo

T*s oB
I

* oo'

ra) O ra) f-

JH

zx o* . A&
<. lr

aD \'/

?rrE peddorJ elqnop tBlol Jo drqsuo!"lau

^ paletsrrr_r teu

BEJ?

qlJA\

| |!_L\
fl

s | .E d.a | | '{5

tOl

\o

E 9,4
r. HF

=29
6^ =tl F-

Er

v
petEbrrrl leu ol eeJE I E + peddorc elqnop pal"S .H | I -IJJI Io e;ElueJJeJ II F] i q -.:: ------i-----:l
-'

F-

o\ o\

tr.O a'1

\JE
>rr F-r .-

rar O (a) t-=i o o.' ro!\o

cl\
O\

BaJ" pelBSrJJr

z? <F -z
t4z FqA
\<Y

loN
aJ.lE elqE

_^\,
-Alllnc lou o] 1t\olluJ luerJncJo uoprodoJd
eeJ? olqA4lnc

o(s o,. '- tl

cs

(g r

,rt O * !o cit tat \o

rat O

or o\

9s

r"o

* oo.
(rlo v-r f* o <i, lr|e\o
;.i
q)

D>
(A

z?
-l

leN

ctr-O (|)E

F tr.l

q,E lusuodIIIoc

r-'
ol

ia

!')

a o'a !1 oIq r-& o.r 3

F-r

ils 5i6

tr o'a

99

l@

3c 9F
{)
d
(,)
'tF

9tfC2o.,.)ooo\l.)oo\or.)r.r

F"reE"5""Qqq.$"" o\ a{ tal a.r - e{ ci 6 o

C.l - + c-{
ra)

o ,H .S0 \,/ h
(A

ae o6
*.o c!2

(r| ..'l C- ..) NqlS^\\9r$=irv-,s1 ^, O. \f,

'\O
C-.1

-.:.i3$.r-1* .{ od rr sl- _ "](<'l.rq+ .! c.r <.

q"p F oo ,.i

{) ()

F9\oo99Nc.tv:'ar<tr.r
oo

rA3
\J:

r
te
c.l
I

.!p

qe \qR c.l t-N

c.l

{s s \O
,.,

?.E
Zcd tq !? (a4,
Fr

13e

i lo;
lsE lO d
th tvF
|() It to u) lp
lri

qieiE.a; :i tr)

am"5"q - - c.t ".i.+'- O .q 'a!en--

2 c.l
(D

t-.

t'l3 g
L

5{8"s"$A:HHHx (i c.t v-r cl o.t 6i 6.i' + c.i

cE|ve^ oi ^

()

5AE=FEssRRs F-citsvcl
cc
o\ q.i c.i od \d.i Crl
-

'A/

.d

rq

z
FJ

13e l9 B 16s
I

Sa"RsArsS c.ica o o\ o c.idFii-j

N*

F 7
tq

i.,ls E f-lo
<s

t}

F-r

< Irh .=

o,

c-lv .= F

sFs533snP*o KUq{-46RES$
(.i (\ e.l
i

i-i-:\d

l* s l5
<)
t-.1

t!'F

EV^S"G-.riFr"X=;Tg c^t F- oo 6
od
e.i'
!

ro9FP;P\eFr.,oo.o

ol d' ,.i +
q1 r

.-:E.cG

:tr !: !!?Eda'I-.o E F=-c = EBX.SEci:E4a'= S

s d d

(Dc.(uaq 'r.A

y ee *r-9 a; -cd d=

ro

E
<!

i{E,5EgnSS6d

l0l
e.l < r.t \o c\oo--o\ tf- ca O. vi. <)^ \t^ ..1 ca \o oo 'a) N c.t oo\

91P .= r.:
cc a) ei '. o .,6v) E OO {J 6.! .=!{ -(var 6g!

c\\or (foo$ooaa co i $*\t!+ .l 1

V-) t- rar V) c\ a.r =|. ..r -o\ *

OO

ral la, d O

(..1

x:3s

.9
(/) -

a
oo

r--

..,1 O\ .i O .a FO--CT O(r)a{.-r\9

hH.9 : bog
6'-: or-c

-i od+\d+ c\I c.l q

OO*\OtalO C-OO\-.4 sv\oaoao

brF
|

.d

ddc.ic.irj

\o

gd().n ,= ocgl '=> Yd.b

U
c.l
q)

!C .oo l... v_) a.l g\ O; O\ O\

rr-ll.O\Cl F- $ ; ..r Fc.l

-ts

-x:
FC)

l.t

(n f.it r.) * c! l- .i- O F- o r': \c) c..t C.l O ro 1J ci srl "f c..l \o-

d*9 a 2i
-v1 .E

+-38ile e.i di ad
-i
a.l

Qoo-or

cdl co

= '!s
'lYF

cE _()> g :: ., I

#F's 3sn39 J9J'- 2 a'aq\n" l:,: a

\r$=t(.ll.| r

-t

- b0=

=G uo bE9
|-l=

.qtr!EErc6'==-.)=

dzdS
!4FDF<

- 9?- !\r 6b :.(gqsc-

xs= a9g>
;! b13 \ h>!T CE

ro2
Table A.3

PROJECTED CROPPING PATTERN FOR

Average for the Crops
years
1969-:70

2OOO

A.D.

(Per cent)
Scenarios

to
Rice

1971-'12

22.85
10.7
L

23.85

Jowar Bajra Maize

Ragi

10.51

7.54 3.52
1.55

7.70 3.95

Other cereals 4.42 10.96 Wheat

2.68
13.50 63.49 74.86

r.30

Total cereals 61.55

Grams/pulses 4.79

28.69 8.06 7.10 3.56 0.89 1.82 17.74 67.86

20.16 17.75 r4.83

20.44

3.54 4.37 3.91 8.88 8.17 2.03 3.73 1.85 s.t1 0.29 0.34 10.83
5.54 29.98

16.28
53.93

qie *t
27

Total pulses 13.54 7s.09 Total

foodgrains
4.40 Groundnut Total oilseeds 7.74 4.69 Cotton Jute
Sugarcane

3.54 3.44 |37 9.22

77.06

1.66

2.04

9.22 63.1s
11.82 13.03

14.60 44.59
10.92 12.42 1.62 8.03

1.83 l .01 t0.92 7.22

38.69

.77

50.

l2

57.34

0.47
1.58

5.07 4.06 6.44 5.18 3.93 3.88 0.31 0.23

2.40
.3.62
0.14 2.86
1.27

Tobacco

0.27

Fruits &
vegetables Condiments Tea Coffee

2.14
1.02

0.31 2.89

0.33 7.r7 0.22

3.27

3.',19 17.89

17.36 10.51 18.70 11.73 15.92 t2.12

1.69

11.17

0.28 4.03

0.25 3.61

0.33 5.93 0.22 3.28

0.22

1.35 0.10

0.08

Rubber Other crops

*,
6.66

o.tz 0.03 7.29 5.7 3

1.33 1.64 0.16 0.20 0.11 0.2r 0.09 0.11 7.29 8.98

1.46 1.33 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.t7 0.09 0.09 8.03 7.30

TOTAL

100.90 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

103

lo
o (.,
lr
tu u0

ItD F-

.lt -r .F * ',l {. OO d ct\ =t c.l \O r.) a.t rar N fr $ ;..tO\O;t )\c,\O+\O.:t1.| F- \c) l.) F o\.a \o * - F c\| ci t\

tx

-j

.-:'- c.i

-j

-lFj

t"
l
I

.do E.F s8 'i v,

;t,

ri:,i

.;t$

Fr.O r+ !+

ul( al)
I I

oO t.) , , \O c'^l .i@-:c{ S lei I l; l== lo\ -r.,(rlc,t .-lrc.i"Jr r\d --i

g;.e X-rgX
o-:9 _i.!)
H

-3F:

3sg 6.9 tr
c^l F- O - N a-.o O\cno<fc.t , \O . I- :- , - , @ do-{ I.n I l.+ lt(\.,1 'F r*--C{

t!) lq
(A

;;= q
L.Oil

Its

(J

-r<
J< p

d() a
*-e.I

8"fl3q8q$sR=&s^ J HCci

t.) <l'

<F

F\ r^ a.l F- + lr| O\

i;'r E.E E
.!: .. .o :()=
'Jr d

3 b :>o .1'g a
E

-6t

frr

a
'-l

9oR

i: .i. F-

<

9\oo'
:.1

isHgEHc$RE5FX _s

& 9,-

g;$ ,:E bOFh

=,4
=Q= !d-

FEF

sf3
HS5

C.l

|.| r.) o\

SSKFFRSFS^3$ - ,1.'i

4.)

q c.l..t

F-

o oF- \o oo

a=

ip; ;

bo

O)! 9 31)
lU

an

t,

:#E g'; g
.)

i.==

frEe EE8 o.99

EF{) -.= > cglcB
F.35

ss.F$pgEss-ssF

i*

104

ID

d
0)

a.l

sss .'iJ ' i:'- iB +.f ..i..i tHE r8S35R

dFqF ,R ,gsssn |

a
C) g

oo

="8**,31
o

3l-=B
I

E^/

(-)

{t)

$S"-+-I rE9 rH$g=H c.i.,i

+
".i

-f -l

-l -l

o
tu

"S

=l/ l.,< *4

(,

4e,
c)

6S$
oo
cn
(.)

rIa
h.l s.l

':Y

ta-)

o\ c..l He{

,F"S,pFsq3

ct

o
F
ao co
oo
c) c)

c.l -

qEE"qT AT T QI S* F a.l \o !;
c..l

.o c..l

tu

o\

* *

lt)

60
|D

>l

(-}

sgFgsss8EEss

!r-", =-Eft

3:8

!)

* *

105

Table A.5

SPECIFICATION OF CROP PRODUCTION ACTIVITIES

Sr. no.

of the activity

State

Crop
Paddy

Type of area Unirrigated

l.
2.
3.

Andhra Pradesh

Jowar
Pulses

4.
5.

Groundnut
Paddy

Irrigatcd

.1

6.
8.

Jowar
Baj ra

9.
10.

.
-

Ragi Wbeat
Pulses

I l.

Groundnut
Sugarcane

12.
I -t.

Bihar

14.
15. 16.

Paddy Maize Wheat Other Pulses

Jute
PaddY

Unirrigated

17.
18. 19.

Irrigated

Maize

20.
21.
22.

'
Gujarat

Wheat
Sugarcane

Paddy

Unirrigated

23. 24.

Jouar
Bajra
Pulses

25. 26.
27.
)9,

Groundnut Cotton
Paddy Jowar Bajra

Irrigatod

29.
30.

?t
32.
33.

Maize
Wheat

Cotton

106

Table A.5 (Contd.)

Sr. no.

of the activity
34.
35.

State

Crop
Sugarcane

Type of area

Gujarat
Jammu

Irrigated
Unirrigated

& Kashmir

Paddy

36.
38.
39.

Maize
Wheat
Pulses

40.

+t.
az.

Paddy Maize Wheat

Irrigated

Karnataka

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50.
51.

Paddy Jower

Unirrigated

,i
t,

Ragi
Pulses

Groundnut Cotton
Paddy

Irrigated

Jowar

Maize
Ragi Wheat
Pulses

52.
53.

54.
55. 56. 58. 59. 60. 61. ,,

Cotton Madhya Pradesh

Sugarcane

Paddy

Unirrigated

Jowar Wheat

Gram
Other pulses

62. 63. 64.

65.

Groundnut Cotton
tt

Paddy

Irrigated

Wheat
Pulses

66.
67. 69.

Cotton
Sugarcane

,,
,t

Maharashtra

Paddy

Unirrigated

l07
Table A.5 (Contd.)
Sr. no. of the

State
'

Crop Jowar Bajra

Pulses

Type of area Unirrigated

activitY
69.

Maharashtra

70. 71.
72.

I5.
NA

Groundnut Cotton
PaddY

Irrigated

76.
77.

78.
79.
80.
81.

Jowar Bajra Maize Wheat

Pulses

Cotton
'Paddy
Sugarcane

82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87.

88.

Unirrigated

lWheat

Other pulses
Paddy

Irrigated

Maize Wheat
Pulses Sugarcane

89. 90. 91. 92. 93.

Punjab (Old State)

'":]:

Paddy

Unirrigated

Bajra Maize Wheat

94.
95.

Gram Groundnut
Paddy

96. 97.
98. 99.
100. 101. 102. 103.

Irrigated

Bajra Maize Wheat

'
Rajashthan

Pulses

Cotton
'Sugarcane

Jowar

Unirrigated

108

Table A.5 (Contd.) Sr. no.

of the
activity
t04.
105. 106.

State Rajasthan

Crop Bajra

Type of area Unirrigated

Maize
Wheat Gram
?ulses Paddy

to7.
108. 109.

I10.
II

Irrigated

Bajra

t,

tl2.
l13.
114.

Maize
Wheat
Pulses

Cotton
Sugarcane

I 15.

I16. I18. I t9.

|7.
t20.

Tamil Nadu

Paddy

Unirrigated

Jowar
Ragi

l2l.
r22.
123.

0ther pulses Grouadnut

Cotton
Paddy

Irrigated

t24.
125. 126.

Jowar Ragi Groundnut

Sugarcane

"

t27.
128.

Uttar Pradesh

Paddy Bajra

Unirrigated

129.
130.

Maize
Wheat Gram

l3 t.
132.
133.

Other pulses
Paddy

r34.
135.
136.

Irrigated

Bajra

Maize
Wheat
Pulses Sugarcane

137.
138.

r09
Tablc A.5 (Contd.)
Sr, no, of the

Type of area
\tr/ect Ilenoal

activity
139. r40.
141.

Paddy

Unirrigated

Wheat
Pulses

r42.
143.

Jute Paddy

Irrigated

r44. 145.

Wheat
Sugarcane

r10

O*\COr+<f c..l r\ rar ao @O 0o c''{

c-ocF--c.) \O O F- \O ra),.o
oo

a.l

c.l

\ooFo\oH Ho\oc,or.) \o'-J+O-j-..: .'l o\ t tt *ra.n O $ l'.

<j' O \O O t.+OOOt.)c^ v) ,-i -j -J o o<i + crr C) .a (i Fr

3 t-r
t-.

l.| ()

-orar-c.t\o + .i ri F- c.i oo r.) c) an r.; o OO*a.l!+ ooc{

t-. F- F- r.l

\o

C, rn

,l

z
F F (t)

+e
r.)-OO\O-

3S
FO

vlq

,.iJod\o-.ia^t I- (?) \t o o\

R883;:

z
trl

x -'3
g 3F-g
gq..i
\o
\o-tr-r.)*\o

sceq6r

B8S8;fi g;hsh: O\oao

$

z 9O
ot! f;v)

qeeqqq

qqqqqs g-s+E$
F.N

E<
(A

ra) !t r+ O cl - ..r n"? \O-O\Oc'\$ \g} \O a.t F\oc.l*o +

ECqESn o\-(\loe{..; .A C\H:i

r.) t iF\ ;-

'btttt
G 9 a
d
()

c\|

ts

s
p,

t'

t"['t
--92

z
(J

G,-.
\-/(,? .r.O '-

bS

ti

S9EiH 9> F g g.riE fi

='J'!

d t

frEs8

Ei;

; ^^ $9 F. & e=;
;.-.HSsu ..85.9 !
:
E',
(.)
(E

9>,
!)

!-r (!

O
'11

d9oEsd ?E*T gE j'.r>>iqF

rr

(--

Ffigg.E 5oEsd

E
IA
tut

ssssfi

():O;E:ES

q)

(L)

os

ag

cE" as

111

FOt.|aoOO\ FO6$\OC.l e.i -.; F .{ + ,.; O f-t-'t) (\.l O <t rral lr| ai ooOOOl'-6 dOOOVr.) aoxOOc.l\o rar c.l c.l
<' C) t- f- f- 'al .{ON$c'l-r dJ+oo- O\ oo \O O\ \O ca sf t'c.l'

F..;vi+ooo' rra(..ls
r<r

F-O.4m..'el OOF-HFr.r \9 c>

-ca

t-

fi+tes

$-q:sg
qqEBxF

qceaqx taFra)\O-tt U

g t :K rar m
p8G83B
3
\

c{

F-F$sfi E;gss s-sdsS -g ;

seFeec $*sssH n F -g
n9a88 .d-o\cjd6i
\O r.t \o \OO\rt-c'l r.a a.l

g'xs d $,d *R
'.)O\OC)$t'-QQC)oo.. ,d -: -.: <j .d ; O \O ..i O\

'bt"itiB
(J

'b

ttttt

e ^^?# *, && .E Z"-EE rr(|)E()

6 .t1 a'A v
tt1

a-

;
<)

E a.3 E E-(.):=,i

9>, o.=

oF EEb!; S bF bE.E-E EE _ESSSEF

()

esEeH

YE J.ts
ts>l
o

^^s9 .g ;;EE
.'2 <d &d,trEv a -

I ?'.e x ,- !9 * I 5.=
=.=

t: giS9fifi
(!

ag

B -E.E E E

(A

os

R: Ea.

(tl

o v)

6c

E:

r12
OO O c}\ \O \O cl\O!+$\tc.l \ci-j.dd+-i o r.r -e{FF
ra)

e.l

-o\

o\
c\l

F,HTT:

:88S:S

fi-R:ilil
H
o.lO'i-Y a-$

E-$*8Q qqqq$h
.a= -oo lori C^^

qEqQEg

@ e.l

KSSHns

d';sxs 3 R-^R
3-e 3 - tsR ^!
qEEq8
'b,t
O

c., e\l

\gq

r+

<>

.^

.. .-i vt-

9
a
Lr
e.l

qqQ,88 F-: ISi *5 3

x-P
a,l

fl ts
$s

F-F86H 6:-K E8sue

n6;+

g*$3ni

ttt t
?.-' >\q

$-gP:i*
6
o
o

c,tt 'tt

i
9>. o.:
.o

E ?9$e H OccE
Ea#E;g"

rrEH

H ;i ii cr e,EU n.!3 t
tr o E:3 3 Er ()(gdrdrE vivv v

jSFS'A'?
(A
(.)

Fgt; E b9 H 9 EE
9i

E>

gg*i[
e'r>>EF
6F (Js
u'4

-a b'& rEEB Ea!E;$

=.1 H(B

6s

{) o

il3
*aooFrt-r.ir oo o\ rr ra tal C\l C{ t-r \rf, a'l

-O'-rN.oO ^Oo\o\o\O

oo.aoooo ralOFirar$O oi*ocdci,ri n O\ e{ ta, -o\r+cac.l F!r,

\oo\ooor.) O\OOl.lO\C.l

f*-H*+tarc.l .+ '.1 t, F\ Fr c.r c.t cta O\OOO+l.| OO(orf)$..1

+ioiododto oo \o
ei \ON o\o n9a r 9a ..dtI rf, \o aoQca
t e{ rar
(Yt o\

anOqOFrral

OO\oaF'.) -r r'l

d-j--id\ocjoo r-. oo 1.| <

c\ (n o\

o\

-o $

o\

I83s5s d'idod!?c.i

s:

fi8RS88
rf,
C.l

c*s3s5 \o.v
qqqEqE
$-goDF
R(?roo

'*z

38ssSs o' -.: 6i ct oi r-' H X-=E

Eq*RAF

l-n;e$ Ko\:
'bt8t t
H F

Eqasqq \o 'r t- (.) -. \o s gt--R

ra)

'D

t;l t st
c389 eaaaS
A*.s r.H r.! !i ., o +l
;\ r,

'.^ 4.
()

aa"Q. V- H; U &/ 15 g,EA9.

9r"
.a

C'

irEH

sce

afig3E
gE"
rhS

Ec
E

'g

th'
<) (.)

rt;
g.E
s
d

f;& e

fr

E3$3E3
q
(J

ss#f;F

a EE

u4

oo\ooooo \o o ra) o v-t

oO*ooOcnC- -r ca lC\| (a (A i t/.) c{ , tal

laO Cl 0O O\ O\ V1O<ftr-{-r F-.ic.ividFrn ctrn|f)r\ * c..l

rr)Or-t.)OO
* oo v-r rar + \o Ft O\ \o aO t'\oo e.ln

\OiC.loaF-!+

qqqqqq
$ 5.-r-G et
C..l O oO ca @ qqcl\oqoq c")

.{Oc.lao$c{ FaOooO(n$ ,.; J 6i + -;

s F=65 $

c..i

CO-r!+l,.)C

e.l

s
c-

S NS$

EBG88s

tal O * a.t .+.q9099!an la)

rn

-E"sg
U
o

g*gggp
qqessq F-H'gS s
\Oi<'-rt r+ c'\ <t O F(.l

eeeqqe 8-F3ilRc\ on \o
e8S83d od J F- cd ri
O\ l.r
.-r o\ o\ -,r
6l \ci
ral

o
-r

HQ r 4
S..l :.r|

bt
TD

g{'tt
c6 E& y,
l;,-..

'5't
G
,'

s{'tt
th^ )r'o:

()
(I)

a)

9J

,-. i6 .Y ii r=.X i

EEEH v

R e=69 n ,pllEB
v>r

F aa

^^

='!d

9>. o.E
(g

9ootr6.
3

ET:E g 3I Ea
SFSEE
s |a

HFEF

tr

eETTEE

IaS;!"
$

esr:
{., Q

!E$iEf
(tl

(A

c)

in_

,l

r5

\o

rOOoOOrt* r., O.+ (f \O Fod -j c.i o\o-; * c\il o H ol $ s

c..l

F-

$oFooF v1 o,r o.qo ci o<; -.' o -j ad ci $o\

ra,

v)s
F-

Fr N

\o

38R3SH oi -.i ,.i o oi r-'

C(1] dF-r*O OO

qeeqqe
--\\o..la\ t){' oor.) \o
c{

c.)

$ \o

O\OOTOF-c)HF-.aF\ojdod\pd \O C..l C{ S c.l {ar O\

a.l

r-

e.l

F O a.l a.r a.t a.l qq\.1 \vl t,-*tat<f,O l.tde.l$ Fr ta \O O tf

+C)aoo\+$ *Q$ooooci od Joi6i -.1 d (a e^l c\ i r.l art (\ sl lar el c.l

3*S6ge rar \o ,_r

v
.+
oo

{eIqEq
ol +

$8r8Fs

U
\0
ID

RJ.;ddKv) $l

+-.i-.;r-od AO F\O<f
an
c.l

R8c88p
F4 c{

.F

..q

8e:Qn x-=o$d -$ il
6
o

qqEqEe
al r.l

s-RosR C{ r)
a
na

'u't.'ttt
e ^^
a-\

'btt{.'tE
s p&,nY P ^a5& E ?;EU E"9E9$
9>.
(.) .=

&

ff &eE'e :B.?'e.9: frgs8

i'&

9>,

3s* s $ !E33Es
rit.S-

a5E E.E E 0)L(-J X

= 09v

eE
t{
ag

- c o

!s$$ss
H* ,is

(A

lt)

gE

v)

c,

r16
HO(\I ..r \O c|\ .qO(.tV-)*O \o --.i -i .j \o vi oo t+ O,\ <i ) \O O\ ao\ t'O\Oc)\O.'r6 ral AO O |,- c}\ \O-r*C|.\O\co\o\oo O\ e{ V)QaOr.)\OO
\O
\.o

c-

co

.<r

o \o

eeacqq O*HOeiF- v1 (> c{ ..t

c,l

c{
c.l e.l
a'Or ao

oi.idFiN\o Oraclao -1 s(\ F- Cat C.l

F- o \O H.O r.) tr)OF-v)O\ca

O O\ tar \o qenqan \O*.aO\.++

oO

o ..r ral

i (.1 : c'l *

\9 s

F*sgR$ o\=NO

c.l

F-

:88S:fi F-.iFr+rJF R R==;

ra)

484 ,qr o\.r (.| lOc.l

(o

; s :=
qeEq3

rf F
O
\o

=fOooc.t c.r oi \o O

o-i"do,-jod V1 OO ta) r
O\ \o t-*e{O

c.l ca
oo

6l
o\
tr-

p*R'H5
6-S3n5
=\oo
'c.

F-

a .o -aa
o\

f-i
I

fr \o f- O\ c- O\

qeEqes
5 li, ::., -t-' :.s a'b -q "t
-\ >io aacdErE \r, 4 sr \-/ th

ad

c\

5'{' t
&
(.)

t'
\/

e ^^ a4 F& E &&: a
(tl ./) ., Fl

q)vvS-

()

!,9?Eo

9>vx

Sgbb; t t-o or E ;5sFEE g

-..r

E$f E fl

v>:

-E b'996 --PA ,. a.= U ^, a3=.s :!tsEo'F E;Xji-oqPS! g8;J5

oY=5dcd

f,, i,

,' tr d

&& .'! e\-/

o*
bcd

Es o o c F x

EjjttEi :s. (9s

9ts

't.
tt)
C'.

p*
15 s*

(d
0,) (n

rt?.
o\

e{o\orrl\n\o \o (f F- \o .n oo oJ.jro6i-i c{ oa o\ t- oo oO \9
(?) (\

o\

\o

\OOi O c.r -': "1 \O !-r rat I i.r r.| .+ i N c.l (.to o CO\

-q-

S F '.H E8E8Ss g.-*-SS

F
'-'3
qO(Y'r\OO-i clq:"l-S

.d'-*ad6ioi c) ta, \O

KEESXS

<f

c.lc)c).ooo ChOf-\O0o(.) oiJ?i0o cjoiF c{ F $-iO *en

.+ o\

R-$peF
cn

c\ (b

F- t{ sfc3 sl

'4<)OOF-tal \qqqqe'! @--m|.}

oo r.}
c.l

m.

o\

r.t

;6

s8q \o*m

oo t;X

$e <.i di
c.l

T'

eeqeqe
co

c)
\o

F-FTAR !foo

c{ o\

38E S8 E,E I*E

88ESSs

<

hSRSh:
00
ral

p'ilEsx 'bt.ltt8
9 qt

o\

R'F=st
& \i

'ststtB
S
a.5' H ssAe
EaSEit"
6a

6'

t)
rd

A A p
o

: a.E'5 !. $ii8
R >l

E g aaF

?a

{sie

(.)

EianXO

9p

lr o ol

EFFE9T B $gE E -r (!) (|) :J OEEEES

9>. o.E
b(
-a)

.EsssfiF

Bfi3FE 5o o e 5 ?E EE tFf>>!AF

a)

.F q)

s$

v)

ID

lr

ds

8F

ri$
ct

OOol to\

.+F o\: lF-d(') I rFl

<\q

co

o\oNlalF-(n OOtFr6.n

t-

..i;Jcioio\ c.l c{ .a c\ co

rr)
a.l

ge t8P |rE -Y FjF

\O

ts-

r-

C.l

Foa\$.rtvl qq n q'-: oa ,-r o\ :t a.l \o .a t.)anF ao oo c{

at

S8RgH oi-jv;doiF
t-

\o

al <f,-i-9 -a?|
OO

o o c.l -i t- r.) o'\o\oo\tr|o J...ioi+oi- ra) oo (a \o oo qol\o s e{-tH\o.n \9 @ t c..l e.i \9 e.l H sl s

s o\

qq$qEi t<f ,-{ \o

g R.r-3 *
ao
ra) c..l

ieqqe*
\f, a (n

qqqEEs.
oo

o\

U
\o
a)

E-sgF I (\l <f

c\l

qqsE.qq : F \o

a.l- cn raF-o <l OO -C\

F-

o\

EeEsiA

il-ssR \oN6
C?,N

q4 e,t'3: | 8'N\O

cr

'st
G tl
ii
()

tt{'
G+
o
Q l-.

'bt{'t8
.,

d, vat^

$ eeTl"
Gl

* ?'9.33
li(|)Ev-

>'

v?

4., E

'E >. o.=

=.li

EgtsI;F :EiFEE
:i *

e?# E r.E" se f i.E" EFE396 A*E &; F 9r, gETSE F

\J=

EEER

arl .t

gx rE.g-3
o a

6'tr o o E 6.

HE jissf;F

an

.F lt)

$s

119

\t

\oOOao SO v-) cr'l o d*o<iaa l*o c.l I O\ + \o c..l t.-

ct

{e qq
g 3--K
<f arr
c.l

;r-,' oOs O\ O l.nF ra, \o

qEeqqq cl\+q)OO\F
n s
at F.' @elF,m s**O

o\

sEiqEq iJ-a.lc.lO
sEqeqq cn-cr.}Ot'-\Oco c..1
at'l
CO

teqEqe -H5Se
oo \o

ao

o\ F -'a) a.l

).?

I
I
o\ tr

38S888 c.i ,.i \o ,.; ^i -: 9S3 rat = s88+EB R'$$gH Kqeqdfr 3-:-fl8*H $ F
C.l

F-

s88sE H,B*dE
EsggEE eEQ,'nS tsF

':ir

]\ ;ir ;\ -BrStJBt :r\ ;r

H-s R;6 'ot.!'{'tE

t)
a
.tt g) tu

g
o

e aa-ag 8,,&&Z!? -" H:;

G^

A
()

i^fre9" EF= 5.F'

AEE.H
bE.E.E EE

eeEl 8
ft-g H
tr

Egbb; r
a

sf ;g ' oo -l!
a
(D

-a _o O

Oq-l!-

O.

O'

9i#tEt: G

EFiEg
:3

v)'

()

os

q)
CA

r?0

\o
a.l

\ooF.: q'q \O*.+ \+o\ <!. o t'\

l'.

\O *r ra)
<>
c.l

'!f.n f- t.| (o o\ ,-r O

aA

O\itarO6r\ C" 0Q a{ !lE-c' =

qqEsqH
..1

e.l

s=9 r.--Y
O\O

oo r+ (fl

88RF83 tli -,: F- .d .d

ooF-ooN<
O-tar\l)-x

^i H reea

s t\l

OO \9 v

E8E88n v; ld ct d
-.1

\O cl

F- r;.i Ht\

...i

nq-:qoqF-

rar = RNSIOl o\ al

GI

=-=H:H a I -F

ie{qq6
aa

G = -:

$3Frxg

N (\

;-gHss
fl c'l

ieRqqB

co

c.l

eeq\e 5-pHs d[==

qOOGltqOr r.l E c.. F\ ra, oo g\ + O\ O{ (n c{ i.r FO\ ra)

9
iu ..q (\.l

QgE$g oo-riOFr{
D

ce SL l.)

tc..t.

a]

q.?c\\

t;sd'Tt
C)

Dtt.i'tt
s
to

o
o

v
o
!t)

t ecg?
g5$iEE
Es

lr

agE Eef, r.=

b
o a

9>.

SeZa *8H8 o ?*''?Eg

o

aa99

@G

s I I Et o Acdd=o
6.

gr:
R

Fttr>!EF

(A

c)

1il
ooO-(
co (r)

a ''.9 g*E

F ral l*el \O I t'ri o\

oa O (l

rf

F4 ciqn taa(n I rir (')

-rlir Q rat

f-

sr.r
\o \o ra)

<tF - oo

F-

sAeQss {'gR9} .+--,ij :

+

s +

R8Sfinn d-i\o99oi..i

- -i oo ct\ r{ C t\

;esQia g_pKsr
* ra
c.l an

$EilESS
t
at s

s-HsEE r<r (\l

+EiSfln u*3=F{
K o * -+

:3=3II $s\ R
H=H;;E eqi ,48 rr)FF rat'SF. liat\
=l (A
<t

\t

*
U
\o

sQSs H-$KpS (o
SQFN
'sj\l)3rJ\::.' v s l3 r' B!
G &

c..l

l-

*-$sRR ra) .a^ >

o\

C.l

{qqqnq x-s;8K
(t\
c.t

a7)

'FAqsB

\g

o o
'E,

ifi Ae:? eBHE

Gn-

<>
o

.c E6ER

fi

9>, ,.- .i H
h(!

;;!E;
3SSSf;F 6S

igfag 8;;S
F

v>
r-. (ll o

szz_ Ea.EEYE EEEESE qEd A? b

EE sissf

I ^,: i'J g

6a

bE.E3 ,xs
E

ESrr;8

v)

'.)

rs

q)

122

Table A.7

AI-TERNATIVE CJ VALUES (BASED ON TREND PROJECTIONS OF YIELDS) USED IN LINEAR PROGRAMMING EXERCISE FOR SCENARTO IV
Sr. no.

of

crop produc-

Gross value of output per

hectare

Sr. no, of Gross value of crop producoutput per

tion activity

(i)
l.

tion activity

hectare

(cj)

(j)
31.

(ci)
3937.50 4053,22

.,

988.20 539.66
369.61

32.
33.

3. 4. 5. 6.

st24.64
4500.32 s91.40
763.8 8

2601.24 2593.33
1499.51 1336. l9
16
3

34.
35.

36.
J I,

12I8.60
1630.

9.'
lQ.
11.

8.

8.00

38.

856. t4 369.61 3 90 1,87

l?

39. 40.

41,
42.

12.
13.

. .' '

14,
1"5.

1045.r6 9l t.l9 2s87.70

2960.62 '2460.24

43.
44.. 45.

16.

17.
18, 19.

r472.63 1t97.58
27 56.70

46. 47.
48.

3718.05 945.27 1941.82 2610.89 1511.05 374.93 842.99 2569.31 s63.79

4075.05
27'81.55

49.
50. 51.

20. 21.
22.

23. 24. 25. 26" 27.

28.

29.
30.

4033 08 5407.50 'l 109.06 588.93 2262.36 778.14 3172.22 1944.85 3327.18 1562.14

52.
53.

54,
55. 56.

57,
58. 59. 60.

6000.00 1359.13 2851.20 842.99 1127.57 7 046.16 863.24 1009.70

I t32.23
1256.21

4670.r4

819.48

l??
Table A.7 (Contd,)

Sr. no. tion

of

Gross value hectare

of

Sr. no.

of

Gross value

crop produc- output per

(i)

activity

crop production activity

output

(ci)

(j)

per hectare
(ci)

of
: :

61. 62.
63. 64,

65.

66.
67. 68.

2472.33 639.24 1577.14 2001.15 1044.98 2204.28 3234,88 1359.31

407.7 2

95.

'

96, 97. 98, 99.

100. 101.

3507.84 . t . 3010.68 3 104.04 ; .104498 : , ; 559887 ..

| 5497.54 2r43.48

; I

69,

102. l0 3.
104. 105.

5645.20 . , .l

600.00
6

,.

70. 71. 12. 73.

74.
1<

461.71
7

30.6 6

99.7 6

2365.66 493.52 17 37.66

989.3 6

106. 107.
108. 109.

979. I I 1402.21

76.

424.56

I 10.

77. 78.

3420.00
1265.01
99.7 6 1298.7 4
7

l1t.
t2.
13. 14. 15. I 16.

1360.00 444.47 809.?6 526.97 1957.87 2259.42

543.39

79.
80. 81.

1560.14

82.
83. 84. 85. 86.

6519.04 1802.41
?8'12,33
103 5. 12

2356.64
2443.7 6

I r7. l 18.
I 19.
120

I r7.42
I 687.1 3
47 6.07 2972.85 3382.72 5790.38

2225.33

2189.60
403 0.8 8

87.
88.
E9.

t2t.
t22. 123.
124.

90.

t337.48 7046,16 1638.57

t47

'

2t89.73
1687.20 5078.62 7046.16
79 8.8 I

91. 92.
93.

4.0t

t2s.
126. 127.

2121.37
20 5 3.58
17 38.37

94.

t28.

t 1s8.38

irE
Table A.7 (Contd.)
Sr. rio.

crop

tion

(,

actlvity

produc.

of

Gross value

of

Sr. no.

output per
hectare

crop produc.

of

Gross value hectare

of

(ci)

(j)
138.

tion

activity

output per

(ci)

r29.
130.

l3l.
t32.
133. 134.

l3 5.
136.

r37.

r 1l 1.30 2383.03 1664.86 2257.t6 776.23 106?.03 l l14.73 2380,62 2257,16

5430.48

r39.
140.

2r93.63
4545.00

t4r.
142.

2510.49 233t.09
23 30.5 8
5 t 50,83 45 81.2 8

143. 144. 145.

References
Anbannavar,J.P.SecondlndiaStudies,Population'Bombay'Macmillan CompanY of India Ltd., 1975'
Maqro-economic Framework: 2000

i.* "*", ;;;;;;

A'D" in

Long-range
1975

ior India,

Operation Research Group' Baroda'

(Mimeo).

+ I

4"r"1"".6. etal. Nutritive Value -"iiiii,i"., Cr""t"t"""i

83 Vol.

Journal of Agricul: f"finfrur, S.S. Towards National Food Security' Indian - -rotnil'*ootoi"s, Vol. 31, No' 4, October'Dcsmtrl' 1976'

II' "i

of Indian Foods' National -Institute of 1974' inai"n council of Medical Research' Hvderabad' Plan' 1978Planning Commission' Draft Five Year Itdia,

National -

Team constituted by thE Problems and Prospects, Report ofthe Study Agriculture' National Commission on the, National Commission National Commission on Agriculture' Report of IIl, Demand and Supply' on Agri"ultot", 1976, Part

Commission

on egriculture' Ricc Developmsnt in India'

'

NationalResearchcouncil.AgriculturalProductionEfficiencyNational

prtli.i,-iiirit- itnai"
pJnfr, 1973

AcademY of Scienrists, 1975'

in ioot,Inalian statistical Institute' Planning Unit'

(Mimeo).

piifufu--ti, Leela. import Substitution and Economic Emciencv: of thc Indian Nirogenous Fertilizer.Industrv' Unoublished pfr. O. sis submitted to Andhra University' 1977' v fra. Second India Studies: Prospects for Food' Bombay' Mac' millan Company of India Ltd.' 1975' All-India Debt and Investment Survey' 1971'72' nir"*" Report Bank oflndia. Report on Currency and Finance Vol'

"ta IIAS1 Food and Agriculture Programme, Laxemberg' Austria'

iitii

Ferenc Raba. Food for all in a sustainable

world'

The

1981'

?;;;;

n*.

fn

n""t.tltdia.

Reserve on CurrencY and Finance Vol.

I"

nii., l'tii"ri' Relative

Si."niou, -

Ratcs of Growth in Aericultur and Industry' University of BombaY, 1967. """0 Roy. - Food Trends and Prospects in India' Allied S*A-"t*"

II'

rijg. \ilrroNALbKoNoMIE, vol. XXVrI/3, 1967' mvt"loa fnlutft*. Planning of Milk Production in India' Bombsy'
Orient Longmans, 1968.

Publishers, Nw Delhi, 1980. A. The Dynamics of Growth and Agriculture ZEITSCIIRIFT