CHAPTER 2

CROPPING PATTERN AND CROPPING INTENSITY IN INDIAN AGRICULTURE

2.0

INTRODUCTION:

Since the early day's of

of

imbalance

mid-sixties
favour

in

cropping

caused

of

crops

'Green

pattern.

significant

like wheat

and

rates of

there are signs

Technological

shifts,

in

r i c e at

coarse cereals, pulses and oil seeds.

effect of differential

Revolution'

land

changes

utilisation,

the cost

of

area

of
in

under

This shift was the combined

technological

change among crops,

irrigation bias of new technology causing shift, of land away from

dry crops in favour
of

price

support

of irrigated crops and the associated policy

system as

Government for certain crops.

well

as

market

supply of

wheat

had

which

the

by

the

Distortions in cropping pattern were

reflected in relatively abundant

of

intervention

Government

the same crops

surplus

stocks)

and

(like
acute

shortage of others (like pulses and edible oils which had to be

imported at huge cost in terms of
cropping

pattern

conditions,

is

determined

technological,

foreign
by

exchange).

factors

infrastructural

Changes

in

like

agro-climatic

and

institutional

environment and profitability signals.

The single most important element in crop production strategy

in

the

post-green

technology.
varieties,

revolution

period

is

improved

agricultural

This technology is in the form of high yielding plant

intensive

cultivation,
18

greater

use

of

fertilizers,

1 nereased i r r i g a t i o n and better ter.hni qs for ploughing, harvesting

and plant protection.

High yielding varieties have been developed

for a number of crops but their impact on production,

productivity

and costs varies across crops and regions.

The
factors.

level
The

of

cropping

most

important

intensity

is

factor

the a v a i l a b i l i t y of

is

determined

by

several
vwtcr

from natur alCrai nf al 1 3 and or man -made re^ourcp-; C i rr 1 gat i orO .

However,
states

the
of

scope

India

for

year

are

round

severely

cropping

activities

constrained

by

distribution of rainfall.

So long as

this

relaxed,

irrigation

facilities,

by

multiple

cropping

appropriate
facilities
the

developing

crop

improves.
pattern

make water

farmers

is

available

throughout

the

reasonable to hypothesise that

tnter regional
be

due

to

irrigation
In

in

the

disparity

the

in

both

level

of

in

enhanced

It

a greater
of

part

level

in

of

of

selecting
Irrigation
farm to

therefore,

be

inter-state,

or

cropping intensity could

pattern

qualitatively

cropping

constraints is

when

would,

most

seasonal

controllable manner

year.

the

the

the

flexibility

also

disparity in the level

facilities,

general

The

natural

in

Intensity

of

development

and

quantitatively.

is

higher

of

in

the

regions with higher percentage of net sown area irrigated and with
higher int.ensity of land use by i rr igati onf G
T A/NI A3 .

However,

it

is f u t i l e to expect a one-to-one correspondence between irrigation

and croppi ng i ntonsity.

The
cropping

other

crucial

intensity

is

variable
the

that

determines

availability

19

of

the

level

labour.

of
The

characteristics

of

the

farms

according

to

holding

size

in

India

suggest that labour a v a i l a b i l i t y is an important determinant.

various farm management studies carried

out

as the average size of holding increases,

increases

but

not

percapita

will

increast?

in

in

goes
the

the

up

same

and

holdiny

size.

In

India

showed

that

the average family size

proportion.

population

in

The

As

density
other

result,

declines

words,

land

with

an

an

Inverse

relationship i s established between cropping intensity and holding

size.

With

modernization

relationship

is

labour-saving
Several
there

other

are

of

undergoing

mechanical

agriculture.

changes.

devices

Tracturization

have

altered

factors can also be l i s t e d ,

basically

three

factors

Currently

that

this

and

this

other

picture.

but generally speaking,

determine

the

level

of

croppi ng i ntpnsity.

Firstly, Supply of energy in the form of humsn labour, animal

labour

and

mechanical

form of rainfall
year,

and

or

thirdly

device;,,

secondly,

supply of

water

irrigatioil and i t s distribution gvci

the

physical

limits

imposed

by

in

the

the crop

the

adopted

cropping pattern on the duration of cropping a c t i v i t i e s during a

particular
changes

crop

in

pressure

cropping

on

mechanical
concentrate

year.

energy

The above discussion

pattern.
demand

Cropping
in

the

existing

literature

indicative of

intensity
form

and f e r t i l i z e r s and pesticides.

the

is

of

put

human,

more

bullock,

In this regard one can

available

cropping pattern and cropping intensity.

will

the

with

respect

to

One

of

the

interesting

study

in

this

regard

is

by

Mruthyunjaya and Praduman Kximar<19892. who extensively worked on

cropping pattern changes
changes

in

Jnput

in Indian agriculture,

use,

productivity.

to examine the

cost

of

production,

profitability and employment in crops. He identified and explained

the cropping pattern changes,
controlling

the

imbalance

in

by suggesting ways
the

cropping

and

pattei n

means

and

for

thereby

widening the base for crop production in India.

The changes in cropping pattern in various states in India

has been examined by collecting
yield

of

principal

crops.

data

The

on

area,

Directorate

production,

and

Economics

and

of

Statistics, Government of India carried over a survey in regular

intervals of five years, related to crop input,

output, cost of

cultivation of principal r. i ops in India.

The

main

findings

follows:area under

from

this

study

can

be

summarised

as

paddy and wheat has continuously increased in

many states at the cost of coarse cereals, millets, pulses, and in

some,

areas,

technological

rotton.
support,

The
price

reason

for

support,

this

giowth,

infrastructural

viz. ,
support

including markets and irrigation, subsistence requirements, lesser

price and yield risk, are well known.

The important cost to the

society as a part of this development is the serious influence on

cropping

pattern,

increased

instability in production,

regional

disparities,

increased

and resultoH in unplanned Imports of

cominudi ties.

81

To remedy the situation, the el emeriti of the gr fun revolution

strategy have to be reexamined.

The process,as

study,

the

should

include

breeding

disease,

discussed
pest,

flood resistance high yielding varieties of all

attention to coarse cereals,
is a

need for

areas)

and

fertilizer

use.

It

is

economic
also

facilities,

diversification,
policy

the

important

integrating

to

market

products

by

and

crops particularly

potential

potential

land development

drought

pulses and oil

exploit.ing the untapped

raising

irrigation

millets,

in t h i s

seeds.

There

Cmostly dry land

Ccreate
improve

experience

awareness)

of

management

of

and

product

and farming comprehensive price

products,

input

and

markets

Cincluding international3.

. B. DC1989J,

did

analytical

i r r i g a t i o n and cropping pattern.

crop

output

through

resource

from

Interest

in

more

this

the

subject

of

on

sources

of

He considered the improvement of

process

heavily

work

of

irrigated

more
to

investigation

shift

in

irrigation

1iyht-irrighted
is

heightened

u-ops.
by

the

harsh fact that i r r i g a t i o n endowment is much more- limited than the

endowment of arable land.

The

investigation

was

bar="i

on

data

in

respect

of

eleven

major i r r i g a t i o n projects for which information on crop yields and

i r r i g a t i o n requirements is available.
nearer

to the actual

the eighties,

This data base is some what

farm position prevailing in the f i r s t half of

in the canal

commands of the major

i r r i g a t i o n works.

The

main

observation

In

this

India the combination of sugar

that.

with

ground

productivity

is

differential

advantage

in

resources

like

extensively

water

eneryy

diesel

used

in

the

as

energy conservationangle of
combination merits in overall

sugar

grown

under

dry

wheat

cane

showed

of

that

north

vis-a-vis

energy

are

now

India,

the

paddy

or

the r e s u l t s showed that,

coarse grain,

conditions.

raises

their

wheat

pulses and oil

In

the

absence

in t h i s

seed;, are mainly

of

in igation,

yields of thii, crops are low and highly variable over time.
irrigation

the

signifledan

scarcity

in

Northern

irrigation,

power

water

cane

in

development planning.

Where as in deccan plateau,

water-short region,

the

electric

ground

of

sugar

Gi vcu

and

lifting

of

that,

paddy or

source

favor

also.

oil

are

cane verses

in

use

study

yields,

the

yield

and

income

the

While

gains

are

modest compared to i r r i g a t i o n yields of crops l i k e sugar cane etc.

In
the

case

kharif

higher

of

western

crops,

India

'guar*

and

the

ground

water productivity than for

the rabi

urupi,

wheat

has

results
nut

bajra,

indicated
revealed

that,

among

substantially

paddy and cotton.

perceptibly hiyh productivity of

Among
vatc?r

than gram.

The r e s u l t s relating to

Eastern

productivity of paddy i s much hiyhei

product.i vl ty

of

productivity per

wheat,
unit

of

is

India showed

well

potato is an a t t r a c t i v e proposition for

23

the

land

than that of wheat, but water

greater .

land as

that,

From
a=

the

p=-r

the rabi

view

unit

of

season.

point

of

irrigation

Another

interesting

Venhu3.tarama.nan. L.S
rates

in area,

and

yield

study

in

this

Prahladachar<1980>.
and output

of

He

context

analysed

major

crops

is

the

in

by

growth

six s t a t e s ,

viz., PunJabCincluding Haiyana), Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh. Bihar.

Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh for
and

examined

pattern

in

the
these

'decomposition
pattern

impact

states.

method*,

effects

of

on

growth
This

to

crop

the period 1950-51

rates

study

study

output

of

crops

also

the

area,

growth

in

to 1974-75

on

cropping

attempted,through
yield

these

and

cropping

states

in

the

period under the reference.

At FJ rst the rates; of <jr-c->wt.h In individual

to the changes in cropping pattern,
plausible explanation

for

crops: is related

then the attempts to offer a

the? macro s t a t e level

changes

in

the

cropping pattern witnessed in the six states during the reference

period.

Secondly,

it

^uyyeiled

method

of

meaiui ing

the

'

aggregate' change in the ci uppi uy pat turn of a i l a t e in teruts of

'substitution'
growth

rates

and
of

'expansion'

individual

effects

crops

with

this

study

by

comparing

the

the corresponding

area

growth

rate in gross cropped area.

The
relative
Punjab

main

findings

acreage
remained

under

of
food

stationary

grains
over

are

and

the

the

non-food

period

following:
grains

1950-75,

Trie

in

the

but

the

relative shares of wheat and rice among food grains and that of
cotton among non-food grains improved.
their

growth,

either

singly or

The favorable factors for

Jointly,

were the use of

HYVs,

fertilizers
share

of

and

food

particular,

irrigation.
grain

Unlike

crops

in

the

in

gross

increased considerably.

growing

disparity

in

in

cropped

Rajasthan
area,

This development

unmistakably r e f l e c t s the increase of

the

Punjab,

farming

the

bajra

in

in Rajasthan

subsistence agriculture and

conditions

between s t a t e s l i k e Punjab and Rajasthan.

and

farm

incomes

The main rhange?

in the

cropping pattern that occurred in Andhra Pradesh during the period

1930-75

were

the

improvements

in

maize and sugar caneCthe l a t t e r

shares

in

spread of
growth,

the

gross

irrigation

cropped
were

with f e r t i l i z e r and
examined

output

relative

two crops
area).

the main

shares

however

Yield

paddy,

occupied small

increase-

contributing

of

and/or

factors

the

for

area

and consequently fur the growth of output.

Ranade.C. CC1980>,

study

the

per

i r r i g a t i o n upon agr i cul t.ur al

the

hectare

major s t a t e s for

analysed effect of cropping pattern along

effect

of

across

54

these

factors

agroclimatir

production.

upon

This

ayi j.i_ul tur al

regions

covering

16

the pre-green revolution period from 1962 to 1965

and then for the post-green revolution period from 1970 to 1973.

The
Northern
shows

results
Punjab

that

even

of
and

this

study

Coastal

though

the

the former region C73.62 M5

the agricultural
in the l a t t e r
the same time,
Northern

Northern
percent

20303

the cropping

Tamilnadu

C126. 45

that,
Tamil

comparison
Nadu,

irrigated

land

for
was

between
1970-73,

higher

in

than in the l a t t e r re-gicm C61.66 >O ,

production per

regionCRs.

showed

hectare Cproductivity3
than

pattern
than

in

in

the

index

former
was

Northern

was higher

CPs.lO67>.

higher

in

At

Coastal

PunjabC119. 5D.

The

fertilizer use was less in Coastal Northern Tamil

Nadu than that

in Northern Punjab. In Orissa, although t.hp cropping pattern index

is higher

than that in Punjab,

the agricultural productivity is

much low and so are the fertilizer use and irrigation too.

In this study the reyression resul ts show that

cropping

pattern

productivity.

index,

This

the

result

high-yielding food

grain

higher

is

will

important

technology,

be
in

along

the

higher

agricultural

deriding

with

the

how

far

fertilizer

and

irrigation, needs to be pushed in comparison with growing more of

high value crops in order to Increase? agricultural productivity in
different regions.

It appears that marginal manipulations in the

cropping pattern in region can Increase agricultural productivity

significantly even if the use of fertilizer and irrigation remain
unchanged. The extension machinery can play a big role in tapping
the compsrati ve advantage of different, regions.

One of the pioneering study by Gulati. A and Sharma.. P.

critically examines various studies on cropping pattern changes,
direct

and

indirect

employment

Intensity of

different

crops as

well as their environmental effects etc. A cropping pattern which

is

oriented

towards

these

objectives

is

defined

=-.

d^-^ir^ble

cropping pattern.

The analysis suggests that studying cropping pattei n uhunges

purely from demand/supply point, of view could lead to adoption of
a

crop

mix

which

has

self-sufficiency in all

high

economic

cost.

Pursuit

of

commodities regardless of economic cost

ae

need to be reexamined.
that

direct

impact

of

On the employment front,

movement

of

cropping

the study admits

pattern

towards

more

labour using crops may be rather 1imitedCespecially in r e l a t i o n to

area

and

yield

s t r u c t u r e is

effectsi.

more

It

favorable

indicate

to

wheat,

that

domestic

rice,

oil

Impact

of

incentive

seeds

and

sugar

cane.

Mann. S. PCiQ89>.
programme

in

who

Indian
for

examined

agriculture

the

adoption

the

by using

logit

model

of

model

is the linear regression model

two

HYV wheat

Green

Revolution

models,

seeds

namely

and

the

the

second

to estimate the percentage of

land under HYV wheat for i t s users.

The

data

Additional

used

Rural

in

thi s

Income

survey

years

during

land,

the a v a i l a b i l i t y of

tractors

on

19R8-71.

hirft

in

the

seeds

of

wheat.

was

based

conducted

According

this

village

are

for

study.

land i r r i g a t e d ,

in a l l the t i i C i except fui

HYV

study

on
a

the
period

the

of

land

wheat,

in a l l estimates of the linear regression mod^l

estimates

of

the

with
linear

negative
regression

proportion

sign,
model,

farmers devoted higher percentage of their

i s observed from the empirical

in

results

variables

iriigated

significant,explaining

significant,

of

the adoption of

highly

was

three

proportion

highly significant

proportion
the

of

and the a v a U a h i l H y of

the 1AAP d i s t r i c t ; . f<_

The

NCAER's,

of

land

two

is

also

under

HYV

Land owned

of

the

three

indicating

that

small

lands to HYV wheat.

that

irrigation

is

It

one? of

tho most s i g n i f i c a n t factors affecting the adoption of HYV wwds.

Chadha.G. K
Green

and

Revolution

intensity

in

Sharma. R. KCt98B2,

has

any

Indian

relationship

agriculture.

relationship

separately for

spread

almost

over

reports

for

all

various

as

each

states.

states

with

The

of

the

The

has

examined
form

cropping

of

extensively

the

India,

agricultural

used

the

examines

districts

1970/71

been

size

study

318

whether

census

for

this

analysis.

As per

the results it

conclusive evidence
in a green
small
of

is

emerges

interesting to note that

in

favor

revolution areas such as

of

the inverse relationship

the Punjab and

farmers in these diiLricts have lost

higher

cropping

intensity.

This

their

study

cropping intensity on Irrigated as well

Among the- i n iyated jicab,

an almost

Haryana.

The

traditional

also

edge

examined

the

as on unirrigated ar&a.

a nu*J<_u i ty of disti i<_t;> suyye-s,ted an

inverse relationship, but t her e K a largp percentage of d i s t r i c t s

showing a positive or neutral relationship.
improved

irrigation

cropping
many

intensity

others,

the

on

correlation

base.

means

the

matter

small

of

farmers

over

that

an

labour

large

that

to

have

areas

of

large

farms,

persists

in

relationship

between

farm

]n spite of

impi uved

size

initiation

continue- to cultivate
part

assured

continues

intensity.

seems

irrigated

inverse

positive
It.

structure

of

and
to

Perhaps,

Indian
flexible

play

In some- d i s t r i c t s ,

and

facilities,
their

critical

round

will

for

of

irrigation

maiyinal

and

more intensively

summary

supply

role in

their family labour

28

In

while

disadvantage in

the

lands

higher

spite

improved

technological

agriculture.
year

promoted

an

of

it

appears

their

increasing

family

cropping

continue to play this

role in future as well.

Mahendra De-v. SC19892, has analysed the variations in cropping

intensity in Indian Agriculture.
were

to

examine

variations
the

in

early

the

factors

cropping

sixties

The main objectives of this study

influencing

Intensity

and

CtO

the

at

Ca3

different

temporal

the

time

regional

points

variations

in

since

cropping

Intensity far selected districts* in Andhra Pi jdculi, Ma!wrus.tra and

Tamil

Nadu.

The data used for

t h i s study Is

takt.-n

from National

pooled

cross-sect.ion

Sample Surveys.

The results

showed

that,

based

on

the

regression with the expl anatory varlablfi?; ] i kr? cropping intensity

on normal r a i n f a l l ,

percentage irrigation and tractorization.

results

the f i r s t

in

reveal

that

explaining

the

cropping intensity.
with

irrigation

two variables

inter-state

and

The

seem to be important

inter-regional

variations

in

With the introduction of intensity of l^nd use

CGI A/NT A
D

variable

in

place

of

tractorization,

irrigation variables became dominated in explaining inteiregional

variations

in

time-series

cropping

data

for

intensity.
selected

importance of irrigation.
with

irrigation

district.

on

The

districts

estimates
also

based

reveals

In particular the intensity of

cropping

intensity

differs

from

on
the

land use

district

to

This study suggests the policy side aspect also where in

the emphasis

on

the

agricultural

development

strategy

was more on raising the yield of any particular crop per

land rather than increasing the total
all crops grown in a year.

in

India

unit of

output per unit of land from

Another
examined
India.

interesting

study

inter-state

dispai ities,

the

The

main

objectives

inter-state

disparities

in

the

responsible

for

factors

study was

obtained

is

of

by

Sfxarma. J. LC19902,
in

this

study

agricultural
thcie

agricultural
are:

growth,

disparities.

from Stati stical

to

Abstract

of

growth

examine

and
The

who

to

the

identify

data

India,

in

for

the

covering

the period 1966-67 to 1987-88.

The main conclusions of this study are that,

is

the

basic

there exists
with

vast

higher

higher
Haryana
India,

factor

affecting

disparities

agricultural

svoi jge

size of

states,
havs

which

the

the

across

growth

holding
are

Highest

sti ucture
states

rates

except

the

center

proportion

of
in

ayi iculture

and

India.

The states

having

relatively

Pradesh.

Punjab and

were

Uttar

size of holding

of

agricultural

of

cultivated

yi owLh
aica

in

under

irrigation.

In Orissa. Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Kerala the use? of

fertilizers

were less;

states

which

production.

have

Further,

than

the national

recorded

low

average.

growth

rates

the irrigation f a c i l i t i e s

These were
in

food

the

gi /tins

were also lower

in

these s t a t e s compared to all-India level.

Regarding
Haryana

and

tractori nation
Uttar

Pradesh

the
have

tractoj i zation compared to othci

analysis
the

states.

showed

highest

that,

Punjab,

intensity

of

Trie growth iates> in food

grains production along with the cropping intensity in each s t a t e

indicate that the states with higher

agriculture growth rates were

also having higher intensity of cropping.

30

A look at the percentage

area

i r r i g a t e d and percent

area

under

high

yielding

varieties

of

cereals indicates that these two variables are closely linked.

2. 1

of

P R O F I L E S OF SFI FCTF.D STATFS: AND WHOI F TNDIA:

This section will

talk

about

^elfrrtpfi

and

ovpral 1

<?t ate=;

agricultural
depending

development,

upon

the

has

the gpneral

been

availability

profi l e < I ndl c a t o r s )

Tnrfia.

The

taking

place

of

pprfcirmsnce
in

resuurces.

eai_h

of

state

However,

the

r e l a t i v e index of development across the- s t a t e s is not uniform due

to various i n s t i t u t i o n a l
from

the

high

in

table
case

.1.1,

of

and whole of

and resource c o n s t r a i n t s .

the

Punjab,

India.

Next,

relative

which

has

comos

index

of

development

199,compared

Tamil

Nadu,

It has obsc-rved

to

is

other

very

states

Andhra Pradesh,

West

Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar comi s>t J ng of 135, QO, y / , 72 and
43 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

It

is

clear

indication

tremendous

development

relatively

higher

agriculturally
growth,

in

that,

agriculture

development

less

the

scene

index,

development

states

states

while
Tn

which
were

have

showing

compared

case

of

with

population

while the population is increasing at 2.14 % per annum in

a l l India l e v e l , with respect to s t a t e s , U. P showing 2.29 V>, Tamil

Nadu and Punjab noticing 1 . 4O % and 1 . 66 V. respectively.
also

clear

indication

that,

the

states

which

have

devp] opmenl index wore shewing \i?-j.-sm- population growth.

from

the

theories

agricultural

it

is

known

that

lesser

population

growth rioe^: lead to economic progress.

31

This is
higher
However,

with

more

Table 2.1.1
PROFILES OF SELECTED STATES AND WHOLE INTO AC 19933
States

A. P

Bihar

Punjab

T.Nadu

U. P

W. Bengal

ALL
Indij

Indicators

Unit

Relative Index
of d e v e l o p m e n t

Population
growth

Population
Density

99

43

2.17

P. 13

No's241.81

199

72

97

1. 4O

2. 29

2.22

4O2

429

472

1.86

496

135

767

1OO

2.14
274

Workers as X of
Total Pop.

47.O5 3 2 . 1 6

30.87

43.81

32.20 32.19

37.46

Workers I n Ag. &

Allied

70.38 81.10

56.07

61.51

7 2 . 9 2 55.71

66.92

Net Sown Area

as of r e p o r t i n g
Area

38.OO 4 4 . 4 3

83.39

43.65

57.78

46.3O

3 5 . 8 5 36.31

91.01

47.51

50.68 23.93

3.77

1.Ol

Gross I r r i g a t e d X
Area, X of Gross
Cropped Area
Average s i z e of
hoi ding

her

1.72

0.87

0.93

Fertilizer
Consumption

Kys

131

58

177

124

90

fiO.37

0.92

30.72

1.69

95

72

4502 5139

3576

Value of Output
Major crops
Per h e c t a r e

Rs

4392

3017

6856

6622

Percapital

Rs

799

3B8

2420

8O9

813

603

758

Percapital
Food g r a i n
production

Kgs

15O

118

827

124

220

152

173

P e r c a p i t a l Bank
Credit to AgriCul l u r e

Rs

338

110

599

365

159

SO

222

per h e c t a r e Bank Rs
Credit to Agriculture

1858

9O3

1696

2985

877

765

1O46

Source:

CMIE:

P r o f i l e s of D i s t r i c t s ,
32

November,

1993.

Regarding
highest
Bihar,
and

the

density
U.P,

4O2

density

of

Tamil

Nadu,

per

Labour

India l e v e l ,

annum.

The

i.e

767

West

per

Bengal

square

force

is

increasing

at

with respect to s t a t e s ,

Bengal

participation

having

473.

the

429,

rate

of

Andhra Pradesh

of

wui kci i

in

India

agi i c u l t u i is
level

with 81.10 V. highest In Bihar, next U. P, A. P, Tamil

West

and

Punjab experiencing l e s s growth 30.87

a l l i e d a c t i v i t i e s c o n s i s t s 66.92 % in a l l

and

having

kilometer,

and Punjab comes next with 476,

noticed highest i . e 47.63 X.

>4

population.

population

respectively.

37.46 % in a l l

of

72.92

%.

7O.31V..

56.07

as

compared

Nadu,

V.

and

Punjab,

and

53.71

reporting

area,

is

respectively.

However,

the

46. 3O >i in a l l
%,

57.78 'A,

Bihar,

net

Nadu,

lowest

i.e

as

and

of

Andhra

38.00 'A in

Pradesh

38.00

%.

In

case
it

Bengal

in

case

respectively.

of

U. P,

Punjab

Meanwhile,
holding

is

it

is

differing

institutional

Nadu.

recorded

to

from

state

holding

In a l l

is

A. P

aix-a

India

to

level

36.31 >4. 35.85 '/.,

A. P.

and

West

of

gross

percentage

percent reported in West Bengal.

notice
to

that

India

33

level

the

another

s e t up existed in these s t a t e s .

average- ;(ze of

^,

Punjab

irrigated

Bihar.

highest

important
one

47.51

U.P,

where as

is 30.72 '/ in a l l

Tamil

i r r i g a t e d area as against lowest

gross

63.37

Bengal.

respectively.

of

as against 91 . Ol % in Punjab. 5O. 68 X,

23.93

W<=<st

in case of net sown a r e a ,

percentage of gross cropped area

and

total

as against to 83.39 V. in Punjab.

43.65 '/i and

showing highestC83. 39 5O
recorded

area

India level

44.43 %,

Tamil

sown

size
state

of
due

the
to

Contrary to this, the

1 <r

around

1 . R9,

and

hiO h * s t
0.92.

l n

s e

o f

Punjab

and O. 87 ln A. P,

3.77

Tamil

following

Nadu,

by

U. P.

1.73,

West

1.01,

Bengal,

0.93,

and Bihar

respectively.

Fertilizer

consumption also d i f f e r s from s t a t e to s t a t e ,

is a cause for

yield difference as

agricultural

production

consumption of
as

against

and

f e r t i l i z e r s at

highest

well

iii. lu-yionil

development.
all

consumption

of

next followed by 131, 124. 95, 9O,

177

imbalances

The

Inriia level

per

is around

kg/^he

which

noticed

in

hectare
7R kg/he,

in

Punjab,

and 58 in A.P. Tamil Nadu,

West

Bengal. U. P, and Bihar respectively.

Value

of

significant
is

output

per

hectare

under

major

difference from s t a t e to s t a t e .

Rs.3576,

wherfi

as

it

is

Rs.f585fi

in

crops

At

all

pun J ah,

wore
India

showing
level

Ps. fifiRP in

it

Tamil

Nadu, and Rs.5139. Rs. 4502, R's. 4392. Rs. 3017 in West Bengal. U. P,
A. P,
also

and Bihar.
differs

accounts

for

The Per

from

state

Rs. 758,

capita value of output

under

to

all

the

state.

highest

Rs.8O9, Rs.799, Rs.603, and Rs.

In

case

Rs.2420

of
is

in

major

crops

India,

Punjab,

which
Rs.813,

368 in U.P, Tamil Nadu, A. P,

West

Bengal and Bihar respectively.

Per

capita

India level

food

grain

production

is

as against 827 Kgs in Punjab,

around

173

and 220,

Ky>>

152.

in

ISO,

and 118 Kgs in U. P. West Bengal. A.P. Tamil Nadu and Bihar.
all

the

states

Bihar

is

showing

lowest

while comparing with highest in Punjab.

34

productionCper

all
134,

Among

capita),

Regarding.

financial

flows

Jn

India's

agricultural

t h e r e is v a r i a t i o n over t h e respert.lvp s t a t e s .
c r e d i t i s Rs.222 i n a l l

India l e v e l ,

sector

The perr cap) ta bank

h i g h e s t i . e Rs.599 i n Punjab.

RS.36S. Rs.338, Rs.lU9, Rs.110. and Rs.90 in Tamil Nadu. A.P. U. P.

Bihar,

and

credit

to

West

Bengal.

agriculture

highest in Tamil
Rs.903.
Bengal
bank

Rs.104R

in

Here Tamil

ayi-i t:iil t u r a l

this
al]

the

per

India,

hectare

where

as

followed by Rs. 1858,

and Rs.765 in A. P.

respectively.
in

to

Nadu i . e Rs.2985,

Rs.877,

credit

is

Contrary

Punjab,

Bihar,

as

U. P.

against

to

it

is

Rs.1696,
and West

Nadu n o t i c e d highest per

prodi ir-t.l on

bank

hectare

lowest

in

West Bengal.

2.2

FACTORS AFFECTING GROWTH PERFORMANCE IN SELECTED STATES AND

ALL INDIA:

There are several

Indian

agriculture

especially
Green

factors that influence growth performance in

ar.r osi;

from Green

Revolution

Revolution

itself

production process.

the

will

statp*.

This

ran

be

in

Indian

Agriculture.

demand

larger

amount

of

traced
Because

inputs

But all the s t a t e s which concerned are not in

a position to provide the necessary factors at larger extent.

to

this

reason

the

in

disparities

are

over

veiling

in

Due

different

states.

Sh.cu.-ma. J. LCI 9905, who did analytlL-sl work on facturf- affecting

agricultural growth, observed that, difference in average size of
holding,

intensity

of

cropping,

percentage

area

under

HYVs ,

percentage area irriyated to total cultivated area, f e r t i l i s e r use

35

per

hectare,

and

credit

availability

f a c t o r s which e x p l a i n regional

As

shown

hectare in
highest

in

all

India

of3.79,

intensity

of

table

and

cropping

the

average

which compares

O.94

the

some

important

disparities.

2.2.1,

level

are

being

differing

size
with

lowest
122

in
in

of

holding

1.62

Punjab having
West

all

Bengal.

India

the
The

level

as

comparing with s t a t e s , 185 V. in Punjab, 143 %. 12 %, 116 %, 116

Table . 2 . 1
FACTORS
AFFECTING
INDIA C l 9 8 3 X 8 4 ) .
Item

GROWTH

A. P

Bihar

PERFORMANCE

Punjab

U. P
1.01

0.99

3.79

1. O7

I n t e n s i t y of
cropplngCJO

116

16S

115

Percentage area 5 5 . 8
under HYVs of
cereals

57.1

93.5

Percentage area 22.9

irrigated to
total cultivated
area

28. 1

84.5

F e r t i l i s e r use 75.0
in Kg. per
cropped areafha")

35.9

I n t e n s i t y of
3.82
Tractors
CNo. per 1000 ha}

5.54

151.?:

57.76

SELECTED

T.Nadu

A v e r a g e * l * e of 1 . 8 7
hoi dingCha) 1981.
116

IN

STATES

W.Bengal

OF

All I n d i a

0.94

1.82

143

126

122

74.0

56.7

40.3

51.3

42.9

57.4

33.0

28.2

100. O

65.1

54.8

46.3

5.24

12.98

1.28

7.33

p e s t i c i d e s use
in kg/'ha

0.7

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.2

O. 3

Credit a v a l l a l.llity

147

50

307

245

99

54

113

Sour c e :

Shai ma. J . L: ( 1 O9OD

36

%,

and

115

>i

respectively.

In

U. P.

West

irrigation

seeds

of

one

performance

A. P.

Bihar,

in

the

facilities.

important

different

the s t a t e s it is

West

factor

which

under

93. S 'A in case of Punjab,

rus.pui.-Li vely.

irrigation

is

Nadu

up on
under

influenced

the

HYVs

growth

states.

and 40.3 'A in case- of Tamil

Bengal

Tamil

Percentage area

Percentage area under HYVs I s 51.3 V. at. A ] ]

SS. 8 y.,

and

I n t e n s i t y of cropping is always dependent

a v a i l a b i l i t y of
also

Bengal,

Contrary

around

38.2

74 >i,

Nadu,
to

'/i

37.1

Bihar,

this

in

India l e v e l , Among

the

all

%,

U. P,

56.7 %.

A. P,

and

peftculage

India

level

area
which

compares hi yho'st84. b '/. in Punjab, followed by 57.4 */i, 43.9 %. 33.6

%. 28.1 %.

and 33. 9 % in U.P.

Andhra Pradesh r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Tamil Nadu,

West Bengal,

Bihar,

and

The highest i r r i g a t e d area is, noticed

i n Punjab and 1owest Andhra Pradesh.

Regarding,

fertilizer

consumption,

all

46.3 Kyi per hectare where as in s t a t e s ,

next

1OO.O,

75.0,

65.1,

U.P,

West

Bengal

and

were

also

another

growth
The

level.

57.76

in

Bihar

important

performance

i n t e n s i t y of

54. 8,

and

level

1 Rl . ?. Kg/her-

and 35.9 kg/hecin Tamil

respectively.

factor

regional

t r a c t o r s per
Punjab,

India

which

disparities

In

10OO hectares

is

Whore as

it

is

13.98.

in Punjab,
Nadu,

Intensity
largely

recorded

of

A. P.

tractors

i nf 1 iipnrpd

different
7.33 in
5.54.

the

states.

all

India

5.S4,

3.83.

1.38 in U. P. Bihar. Tamil Nadu, A.P. and West Bengal i u^pectiv&ly.

Pesticide

consumption

Kg/hec

all

O.a,

in

and

0.P

India
in

was

level,

Punjab,

also

noticed

where as

U P,

0.7

FH hr .

ifispettively.

37

variation
in

A. P.

Tarn* 1

such

0. t>,

Nad-i,

as

O. 3,

Wf<=t

O. 3
O. 3,

Bengal

Credit

availability

agriculture
input
more

production,

burden

in

needed

in

recent

where

245,

Bengal ,

a vai 1 abi 1 i LyCpei

147,

to

tome

99.

hai.

is

Credit

54.

in

facing

substantial

the

across

present

The
in

much

burden.

as

and 5O in Tamil

ii^ULod

is

inputs

state,

respectively.
b_^.ii

factor

availability

across

differs

Bihar

i_^ipita3

farmer

process.

years

and

important

the

availability

highest in Punjab,
West

another

production

CapitalCcredit}

U. P.

is

Rs.3O7

Nadu,

highest

Punjab,

A.P.

credit

wht--r e

as

lowest In case of Bihar.

By considering the above said factors,

the

factors

which

Agriculture.
of

the

influencing

growth

performance

Along with the above said factors,

prime

factor

whl rh

agriculture, in recent years.

the unfavorable rainfall

influenced

in

Indian

Energy is also one

growth

performance

in

However, one should also be aware of

conditions in Indian ayiiculture.

failure of monsoons in almost every

2.3

one nw'st. be aware of

due to

a l t e r n a t i v e years.

AREA IRRIGATED BY DIFFERENT SOURCES IN INDIAN AGRICULTURE:

Irrigation
agriculture,
demand

where

large

irrigation

is

is

conditions.

aniuunt

for

the
of

of

The

irrigation

important

seeds

watci
a

area
This

the

HYVs

affected

continuously, time.
available

one

due

under

and

well

i c^uui cc-s.
lot

sub

are

section

38

recent

examine

how

modern

yoai s ,

unfavorable

irrigation
will

in

implemented,

In

to

analyse

changing from one source to another.

device

the

is

will
the

rainfall
changing

the

sources

irrigated

area

The

t*b] <

sources

in

Canals

terms

to

14990

3 4 . 2 > in

latter

around

15853

hectares

which

Irrigated

The

irrigated

thousand

Thousand

thousand

1900/61 ,

9170

area.

hectares
in

increased

been

in

to

area
in

In

1960/61,

in

later

percentage

to 3 6 . 3 V. in

4R4

under

1985/86,

1987/88.

not.i rpri 1 ?!OO thousand h s r l s r p s

c o n t i n u o u s l y ripr) ineci

by d i f f e r e n t

hectares

d e c l i n e d to 34.8 % in 1987/88 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

private ranals
has

to

th**

agriculture.

was

increased

declined

Illustrate

Indian

Government
which

R. 3. 1

1983/86,

The a r e a

under

1 PWO/F51 ,

which

t.hrm=*nr!

hectares

in

1987/-88, which is equal to 4 . 9 X in 196O/61 and 1 1 *A in 1987/88.

Table 2 . 3 . 1
AREA IRRIGATED BY SOURCES C1960/'61 TO 1987/^83
CThousand Hectares)
Year
1
QRO/fil
.X S ? U v r (_)X

197O/71

1QRO/R1

1 QR'S/Rfi

11972
C 3 8 . 53

14450
C37.33

15853
< 3 6 . fO

15548
ntfi.63

14990
C34.83

866
C2. 83

842
C 2 . 23

464
C1.23

479
C l . 13

484
C1.13

Tanks

4561
C 1 8 . 53
Tube W e l l s
135
CO. 63
Other W e l l s 71SS
C 2 9 . O3
Other
244O
sources
C 9 . 83

4112
C 1 3 . 23
4461
C14. 33
7426
C23. 93
2266
C7. 33

3182
C8. 23
9531
C24.63
8164
C21.13
2551
C6. 63

3049
C 7 . 23
11866
C 2 8 . 23
8676
C 2 0 . 63
26O9
C6. 23

2965
C7. 03
12275
C28. 93
8552
C2O. 13
2667
C6. 33

2806
C 6 . 53
13156
C 3 0 . 63
8661
C2O. 13
2951
C6. 93

Total
24661
CNet l r r i g a - C l O O 3
ted area.

31103
C1OO3

38720
C1003

42079
C1OO3

43486
C1OO3

43040
C1003

1 QRfi^fl'7

Source|
Government
canals

9170
C34.23

Private
canals

12OO
C 4 . 93

Source:

Indian Agriculture
of I n d i a .

I n Brief,

39

24th e d i t i o n ,

DESAg.

Govt,

The Area under

1960/61.

which

Tanks,

declined

was around 4361

to

28O6

thousand

thousand hectares
hectares

which equals to 18. S Ji in 1960/61, that has furthe;

in

in

1987/88.

declined to

6.5 >i in 1987/88. On the other hand the area irrigated under tube
wells

has

lncrpssed

tremendously from 13S thousand hectares

in

196O/61 to 1315B thousand her.tares. in 1987/88, which is equivalent

to 0.6 'A in 1960/61 to 30.6 54 in 1987/88.

Contrary to this the

area under other wells also increased notably from 7155 thousand
hectares in 1960/61 to 8661 thousand hoc-tart::, in 19H//88, which is
equal to in percentage terms 29.0 'A in 1960/61. and later declined
to 20.1
around

V. in 1987/88.

The area irrigated by other sources was

2440 thousand hectares

in

196O/61

and

2951

thousand

in

1987/88, in percentage terms it was 9.8 V. in 1960/61 and fall to

6.9 'A in 1987/88.

On the whole the total net irrigated area was

accounted nearly 246S1 thousand hectares in 1960/61. has increased

to 43O4O thousand hectares in 1987/88 respectively.

The

compound

growth

ralt'S

of

area

irrigated

by

different

sources, is shown in table 2.3.2. In case of Government canals the

area increased at the rate of 2. 7O 'A per annum in 197O/71 . which
further experienced negative growth rates of - 3.59 'A by 1987/88.
Where as the area under private canals experienced negative growth
rates i.e -3.21 'A in iy70/71, which showed further improvement in
1985/86 with 11.24 'A. and later declined to 1 . O5 'A in 1987/88.
Interestingly the area under

tanks

noticed negative growth rate

i.e -1 . O3 'A In 197O/71 to -5.36 '/. in 1987/88.

40

Th area
1970/71
other
in

to

wells

rates

veral 1

decline

It

wells

trend
at

the

area

under

i.e

-0.74

'A

rates

later

of

in
net

declined

Increased

of

The

growth

970/71.

tube

increased

1987/88.

growth

under

7.18

r a t e of

by

to

irrigated

r a t e of

V. in

sources

197O/71

the

the

1987/88.

0.37

other

at

at

area

rate

of

area

1970/71

was

-10.85

The

41.88 'A in

noticed

'A

was
1.31

to

in

1.28 V.

negative

1987/88.

around
'/

under

per

2.35

The
'A

in

annum

in

.987/88.

Table
COMPOUND
1987/88D

GROWTH

RATES

OF

ARFA

2.3.2

IRRIGATED

CThousand

BY

SOURCES C l 9 6 0 / 6 1

TO

Hectares)

Year
196O/61

1970/71

1980/81

1985/86

1986/87

1Q87/88

1.87

-1.92

-3.59

1 1.24

3.23

1.O5

O.85

-2.76

-5.36

3. 45

7.18

Source

2.70

1.9O

Private
canals

-3.21

-0.28

Tanks

-1.O3

-2.53

Tube Wei 1s

41.88

7.89

4. 48

0.37

0.95

1.22

- 1 . 43

1.28

-0.74

1.19

0.45

2.22

10. GS

2. 35

2.21

1.68

0.96

1.31

Government
canals

Other

Wells

Other
sources

Total
CNet i r r i g a ted a r e a .

Source:

Indian Agriculture in Brief,

of India.

41

24th edition,

DESAg.

Govt,

The above analysis 1 ndi cM *<; t h a t , the area under ranals has
been s l i g h t l y declining,

where as the area under

other wells was increasing d r a s t i c a l l y .

that,

the

pressure

Electricity
important

is

on

Energy

increasing

highlighting

at

feature

Indian a g r i c u l t u r e environment.
is increasing continuously,
the

Green

Revolution

agriculture.
fluctuating,

2.4

At

the

This is a clear indication

sources

faster
of

tube wells and

such

rate.

Indian

This

as

Diesel

and

is

one

of

the

system

and

irrigation

Due to t h i s , the demand for energy

especially from 1966 on wards,

Programme
same

time

was
the

implemented
area

under

in

rain

when
Indian

fed

was

due to unfavorable r a i n f a l l conditions.

ALL INDIA CULTIVATED AND TRRIGA1KD AREA- GROSS AND NLT WITH
CROPPING INTENSITY:

Land

utilisation

important

controversial

availability
identified

for

and

agricultural
issue

contribution

by different

since
to

purpose

is

one-

of

the

Independence,

due

to

its

growth.

As

the

Researchers,

agricultural

the area

under

agriculture

was continuously varying from time to time due to various reasons.

One of

the important

adoption

of

modern

factor

is

Rainfall

agricultural

influencing the cropped area under

to t h i s ,
cultivated

this,
and

the present
irrigated

section

ter.hnol ogy

42

which

cultivation.
will

area-gross

intensity.

fluctuations and second

look
and

has

been

In consideration
at

net

thp
with

nature

of

cropping

Table 2.4.1

i l l u s t r a t e the a l l

India cultivated and i r r i g a t e d

area with cropping i n t e n s i t y from 1966/O7 to 1991/92.

area sown

was

The gross

around 1573S5 thousand hectares

in 1965/67.

which

has been increased to 177O42 thousand hectares

in 1981/82,

later

declined s l i g h t l y in 1986/87.

further

increased to 181236 thousand

Table 2.4.1
AIL INDIA CULTIVATED AND TRRIGATFD AREA - GROSS AND NET- WITH
CROPPING INTENSITY.
Year j
Item'

1966/67

Area Sown
Gross

1573S5
C5
137232
C)
2O123
C)

1971/72

Net C * OOO
ha)
More t h a n
once
Area i r r i g a t e d
Gross
32683
C) C3.
Net C'OOO
26907
ha)
C)
More t h a n
5776
once
C)

165194
CO. 98)
140040
CO. 41)
25154
C4. 57)

1976/77

1981/82

16734O
CO-26)
13946O
CO.OO)
Z788O
C2. O8)

177042
C1.13)
142OO3
CO. 36)
35039
C 4.68)

1986/87

176656
C-O. 04)
14OO2O
C-0. 28)
36636
CO. 90)

1991/92

181236
CO. 51)
146235
CO. 87)
35OO1
C-0. 91)

38431
43552
29) C2. 53) C3.
31546
35147
C3.23)
C2.19)
6885
8405
C3.57)
C 4.07)

51554
55690
62171
43) C 1 . 56) C2. 22)
39924
42486
45320
C2.S8)
C1.25)
C1. 3O)
11630
13204
16485
C6. 71)
C2. 57)
C 4.54)

Gross a r e a
under HYVs

1886
C)

18173
C57.32)

33560
C13.05)

46493
C6.74)

56174
C3.85)

62385
C2. 12)

S h a r e o f GIA
to GSA

20.8
C)

23.3
C2.30)

26.0
C2.22)

29.1
C2.28)

31.5
C1.60)

34.3
C1.84)

1.3
5.8

-0.4
0.6

-2.3
0.4

2.6
3.3

-1.2
1.9

114.7
C)

118.0
CO.57)

120.0
CO.34)

124.7
CO.77)

126.2
CO. P4)

IncreaseC + ) /
Decrease
GSA
GIA
CX)
Cropping
Intensity

Source:

Fertilizer Statistics,

FAI,

1091,

2.8
2.0
123.9
C-O. 37)

1992 and 1903.

C). F i g u r e s in t h e b r a c k e t s i n d i c a t e s compound growth r a t e s .

43

hectares in 1991/83 respectively.

area was
142OO3

132232 thousand

thousand

hectares

Contrary to this the net sown

hectares
in

in

1981/82,

14OO2O thousand hectares in 1986/87.

thousand hectares in 1991/92.

hectares

in

and

which

slightly

raised

to

declined

to

further increased to 146235

The area sown more than once was

20123 thousand hectares in 1966/67.

thousand

1966/B7,

1986/87,

later

this
it

has gone up to 36636

has

declined

to

3SOO1

tobe

32633

thousand hectares in 1991/92 respectively.

However .

the

gross

area

irrigated

was

noticed

thousand hectares 1966/67, which has increased to 62171 thousand

hectares in 1991/92. Net area irrigated was around 269O7 thousand
hectares in 1966/67, which has later increased to 4S326 thousand
hectares in 1991/92.

On the other

hand,

the ai e?a irrigated more

than once was 5776 thousand hectares Jn

1966/67,

increased to 16485 thousand hectares in 1991/92.

which further
The gross area

under HYVs was around 1886 thousand hectares in 1966/67, latter it

Increased

to62385

increase in

area

thousand
under

hectares

HYVs

clearly

in

1991/92.

indicates

the

This

drastic

pressure

on

agricultural inputs iueh as Land, labour, fertilizer;., pesticides,

water, and machinery etc. This will leads to more demand on energy
resources in agriculture sector.

Interest!nyly the share of gross irrigated area to gross sown

area has been increased drastically i.e 2O. 8 'A in 1966/67, which
raised to 34.3 '/* in 1991/92.
contribution in agricultural
that,

thr>

ptM-caiiLiiyf

i nn-tvi>-:t<

This is showing a positive land

production.
tit-

44

Hift>..r>

As stated in the table

<if

yi-nrsv.

sown

area

and

gross

Irrigated

area

was

nearly

1.3

and

5.8

In

1Q66/67,

which

declined to 2.8 and 2.0 in 1991/93 respectively.

Mean while the cropping i n t e n s i t y was around 114.7 in 19G6/67,

has

increased

1991/92.

to

136.2

in

Here the major

a v a i l a b i l i t y is

Contrary

1986/87,

indication

but

is

that

influencing the cropping

to

this,

the

compound

declined

to

123.9

fluctuations:

in

in

water

intensity.

growth

rates

were

showing

i n t e r e s t i n g features i . e gross sown area was increased at the? r a t e

of

0.98

% per

annum in

1971/72,

later

increased

at

the

r a t e of

1.13 'A in 1981/82.

The negative growth r a t e was showed in 1986/87

1 . e -0. O4 percent

per

r a t e of O. 41

X in 1971/72,

-0.28 in 1986/87.
the

rate

1976/77,

of

annum.

Net

area sown has

J ncreased at

the

but noticed negative growth r a t e s

i.e

The area sown more than once was increased at

4.57

'A

in

1971/72.

later

and increased to 4.68 *A per

declined

annum in

to

2. O8

1981/8P.

'A

in

Negative

growth r a t e was experienced i . e -O. 91 'A in 1991/92.

Gross and net i r r i g a t e d area raised at the r a t e of 3.29 'A and

3. S3 'A per

annum in 1971/72.

1.30 'A in J991/9S.

Later

it

has

declined

i . e 2.22 and

The- ar ii-i i y a t t J I U L than onti.

iiotired ."it

the r a t e of 3.57 "A per annum in 1971/72, was gone up to 6.75 V. in

1986/87,
under

later

declined

to

4.54

'A in

1991/92 respectively.

Area

HYVs seeds recorded at the r a t e of 57.32 'A in 1971/72,

further
1991/92.

increased
On

at

the other

decreasing
hand

rate

at

the share of

2.12
gross

V.

per

annum

irrigated

area

gross- sown area witnessed 2. 3O 'A growth por tinnum in 1971/Y.

45

has
in
to
T I.

was d r a s t i c a l l y declined to 1.84- 'A per annum in 1991/S2.

Cropping
1971/72.
has

Intensity

has

raised

at

l a t e r declined to O. 34 >; poi

been

increased

negative

growth

at

of

0.7

54

-O. 37

per

V.

the

rate

of

0.57

annum in 197C/77.
annum

was

in

in

Further

it

where

as

1981/82,

experienced

in

1991/92

respectl vely.

2.5

NET STATE

DOMESTIC

PRODUCTC FROM

AGRICULTURE)

AT

FACTOR

COST

BY INDUSTRY OF ORIGINCAT CURRENT P R I C E S } :

The

net

contribution

of

agriculture

economy is very much e s s e n t i a l

'A

of

the

rural

contributing
economic

population

nearly

growth

to

trace

'A

naturally

ay! 1 mil l u r e s e r l o r .
done

40

out

for

the

national

countries like India,

where 70

depending
of

the?

on

dopunJi.

up

role

of

to

agriculture

lullunal

In t h i s s e c t i o n ,
the

sector

on

sector,

income.
the

Countries

performance?

an a n a l y t i c a l

a g r i c u l t u r e sector

by

of

worV has been

to

increase

in

the yrowth performance in I n d i a .

The t a b l e 2.5.1

i l l u s t r a t e s t h e Net S t a t e Domestic Production

from a g r i c u l t u r e in a l l
1991/92.

Net

ttate

I n d i a and s e l e c t e d s t a t e s from 1966/67 to

domestic

Pradesh was recorded 103481

to S31S27 lakhs in 1991/92.
6.97 'A in 1991/92.

Where ab

lakhs

in

1900/67,

later

which

is

equal

to

6.23

product
lakhs

agriculture

1966/67,

which

in

is

Andhra

increased

as e q u i v a l e n t to 9.O6 % in 1966/67 to
in c a s e of

increased
'A

in

from

in

to

19E3B/B7

respecti vely.

46

Bih.ii'
7013S8
and

it

was. around 71SO0

lakhs

9.19

'A

in
in

1Q91/92.
1991/92

Table 2.5.1
NET STATE DOMESTIC PRODUCTCFROM AGRICUL.TURE5
INDUSTRY OF ORIGINCAT CURRENT PRICES)

AT FACTOR COST BY
CRs. lakhs)

1906/^7

States
Andhra
Pradesh

1971X72

Punjab
Tamil
Nadu
Uttar
Pradesh

C 4. 985

CB. 875
1311O9
C7.755
87710
C5.195

185363
C7.O35
213692
C8.115
158663
C6. O25

395427
C9. 335
3OO518
C7.095
227S/2
C 5 . 375

491737
C8. 1O5
643368
CIO.OO5
384912
C6. 245

531S27
C6. 975
7O1358
C9. 195
431251
C5. 655

75243
C 6. 585

1O5879
C6.265

138993
C5. 275

186830
C 4. 415

228686
C3. 375

3O12O7
C3. 955

22O142
C19. 275

252758 432212
C 14. 955 C 1 ft. 4O5

629722
C 14.855

983198 1 Oil 2 1 3
CIO.195 C13. 255

145324 223539
C8.595 C 8. 485
16913
26357
tlOO. 05 C1OO. 05

302120
617015
C7. 135
CIO. 165
42394
60721
C 1 0 0 . O5 C1OO.O5

West
Bengal

91900
C8. 045
11 421
All I n d i a
CRs. c r o r e s ? C100. 05
Source:

1991X92

1981/82

103481
C 9. 065
71500
C6. 235
568//

Bihar

1986/87

1976X77

150022

812275
CIO. 145
76313
C1OO.O5

H. L. Chandhok and P o l i c y Group: I n d i a n Data B a s e ,

Economy, Volume 1, 199O.
CSO, N a t i o n a l A c c o u n t s S t a t i s t i e s C N e w S e r i e s 5 , 1 9 9 2 .

Interestingly

in

case

of

Punjab,

it

was

56877

The

lakhs

in

1966/67, l a t e r gone up to 431251 lakhs in 1991X92. which is equal

to 4.78 '/. in 1966X67 to S. 63 V. in 1991/92. Tamil Nadu experienced
declininy trond in yi icultui t conti ibuUon i . *= Y1V.42 lakhs in
1666/67,

which has l a t e r increased to 3012O7 lakhs in 1991x92,

it

is equivalent to a declining share of 6.S8 '/. in 1966X67 to 3. 93 V.

in 1991x92 r e i p

Uttar

Pradesh

accounted

22014?:

lakhs

i n c r e a s e d t o 1O11213 l a k h s i n 1991X92,
1986X67,

later

declined

to

13. 25

47

V.

in

1966X67,

which

has

a n e q u i v a l e n t o f 1 9 . 2 7 5i i n
in

1991X92.

West

Bengal

experienced
further

notable

Increased

equivalent

to

contribution
was f u r t h e r

of 7.71

al 3

I.e

Rs.812375

'A

In

Rs.
lakhs

1966/^7

Tndla

919OO
in

to

level

In

1991X93,

10.14

I.e

lakhs

V.

in

Rs.11421

1066-^7,

which

Is

1991/92.

crores

in

has

almost
Overall

1966^67,

r a i s e d u p t o Rs. 76313 c r o r e s i n 1991/^92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

However,
prodnctCfrom

to

8.04
in

change

compound

growth

agricultured

V. per

rates

accounted

in

show

that,

Andhra

net

Pradesh

at

domestic
the

rate

annum in 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 , w h i c h h a s i n c r e a s e d at a d e c l i n i n g

T a b l e 2 . S. 2
COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF NET
STATE
DOMESTIC
PRODUCTCFROM
AGRICULTURE} AT FACTOR COST BY INDUSTRY OF ORIGINCAT CURRENT
PRTCES3
CRs. l a k h s )
States

1966/^7

1971/^2

1976/"77

1981X82

7.71

4. 32

14.51

6.14

1.57

12. 89

10.26

7. O6

16. 44

1.74

Punjab

9. OS

12.59

7.48

11. O8

2.30

Tamil
Nadu

7.07

5.59

6.09

4.12

5.66

Uttar
Pradesh

2.80

11.33

7.82

9.32

O.56

West
Bengal

9.60

8.89

6.21

15.34

5.65

0.65

9.28

9.97

7.45

4.6ft

Andhra
Pradesh
Bihar

All I n d i a
CRs. c r o r e s :)

Source:

1986/^7

1991^92

H. L. Chandhok and P o l i c y Group: Indian Data R*se,

Economy, Volume 1, 1 990.
CSO, National Accounts StatisticsCNew S e r i e s } , 1992.

48

The

r a t e i . e 1 . S7 V. in 1991/92.
around

13.89 f. per

annum in

Where

as

1971/72,

come down to 1.74 >J in 1991/92.

in

case of

Bihar,

slowly the growth

it

was

rate

has

On t h e other hand the growth r a t e s

are a l s o showing fluctuations in Punjab,

which witnessed 9. OS 54 in

1971/72. was l a t e r declined to 2. 7O 'A in 1991/92 respectively.

Tamil Nadu showed, 7. O7 % in 1971^72, was leveled at 5.66 V. in

1991/92.

Contrary to t h i s U. P showing v o l a t i l e growth performance

i.e

'A

rate

2.80
of

in

O. S6

growth

rates

growth

per

picture

is

annum in

1971/72,
V.

of

in

which

1991/92.

9.60 V, in

annum

in

1971/72,

On

increased

increased

Bengal

1971/72.

where the

has

later

West

1991/92.

q u i t e clear

has

has

which

the

decreasing

noticed

increased

other

overall

at

hand

growth

to 9.97 % in

Increased
at

the

was

5. 63

all

India

O. 65

1981/82,

'A

54 per

and

later

come down to 4.68 > in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

On

the

production
due

to

whole
from

several

irrigation,

it

was

observed

agriculture
i_iu;i5S.

It

is

showing

may

L>c-

unfavorable monsoons

and cropping i n t e n s i t y e t c .

that,

and

Uut,

the

net

state

flurttwt ions
to

chanyc.-^

ducll i.iny

domestic

over

uica

time
uadtr

in cropping p a t t e r n ,

It was observed t h a t , the year 1 Q9i /C)2

showed declining growth r a t e s not only in whole India but a l s o in

almost

all

agricultural

the

states.

This

can

be

growth and development.

46

further

examined

in

view

of

2.6

ECONOMICS OF CROPS CULTIVATION IN SELECTED STATES:

In

modern

agriculture,

showed that,

cost

compared to

before .

faster

rate,

agriculture,

especially

the

late

incurred in agriculture is

due

7O's

scenario

very much high as

The cost of production is Increasing at a

to

application

of

HYVs

which demands greater level

seeds

in

Indian

of agricultural

inputs.

An impressive study is by Mrxilhyunjaya and Praduman KumnrC1989J>,

who observed the cost of cultivation from crop to crop and with
respect to different s t a t e s over a period of time.
the time period from 1972 to 1983.
3. 6.1

illustrates

the

They have taken

Based on this study, the table

economics

of

crops

cultivation

under

selected crops ati-us;. the s t a t e s .

F i r s t l y , in
interesting

Andhu-a

picture,

Pradesh,
i.e

paddy

fertilizers

cu] t.1 vat 1 fin

demand

per

1 -

showing

hectare

noticed

around 96.OO Kg/hec, and yield accounts 37.O6 quintal per hectare,
where as the real cost of production, r a t e of profit, average net
Income,

labour

absorption,

and

irrigation

account.s

46.71

Rs/Quintal , 17. 80 '/i. 474 Rs/hecLare, 1OS1 man days/hectare, and

Rs. 54 per/hectare respectively. On the other hand Jowar consuming
negligible amount of f e r t i l i z e r s i . e 4.OO Y.qr, per hectare, yield
was 3.11 quintal/hectare, where as real
of

profit,

accounts.

average net income,

86.54 Rs/Q, 13.OO %.

labour

cost of production,
absorption and

rate

irrigation

67 Rs/he, 349 man days/he and 3

Rs/hec respectively.

5O

Table 2.6.1
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CROPS IN DIFFERENT STATES OF INDIA 1 9 7 2 / - 8 3 .
S t a t e Crop F e r t i l i z e r Y i e l d Real
Rate of
CN+P+IO
C(Xha3 cost of
;p r o f i t
JCg/"ha
X
Production
CRs^O)
A. P

Rice

9 6 . OO

37.06

46.71

17.80

474

1051

54

4.00

3.17

86.54

12. OO

67

349

S. cane 299.00

777.00

7O8.OO

35.30

3204

3278

617

12.72

171.89

15.1O

535

1049

44

22.00

21.47

58.49

4.00

85

786

13

Wheat

35.OO

20.70

79.18

19.20

528

66O

93

S. cane

32.00

4O9.OO

6.75

51.20

2595

865

63

Rice

144.00

47.67

33.64

69.20

2272

8O8

34O

Wheat

113.00

25.50

51.19

16.20

422

441

119

49.00

1O. 40

131.64

43.80

856

852

60

39.74

33. 2O

975

12O2

88

- 0.15 - 2 1 8

522

67

Jowar

C o t t o n 11O.OO
Bihar R i c e

PunJab

Cotton
Tamil R i c e
Nadu
Jowar

U. P

Avc-i age Labour

Irriga
net
Empt.
tion
income (Han d a y / '
Rsyha
haD

1O6.00

40.01

4.00

8.42

54.29

S.cane 237.00

683.OO

4.37

22.50

2O75

2739

623

6 . n u t S. OO

10.30

98.28

10.40

172

761

51

Cotton

7 2 . OO

8.69

18O.82

22.1O

7O6

1282

2O3

Rice

36. OO

21 .20

51 . 1Q

11 .60

y5i

me

66

Wheat

6 5 . OO

24.51

51 .82

11.40

692

610

171

S. c a n e

4 8 . OO

402. 00

4. 17

87.50

3479

1O97

2S0

21.OO

26.30

34.12

32. OO

628

591

1O

West R i c e
Bengal

Source: MruthyunJaya and Praduman KumarC19893.

51

In case of Sugar cane,

Kg/he

and

yield

production,

rate

the f e r t i l i z e r

recorded

r a t e of profit,

777. OO

average net

consumption was 299. CO

Q/he,

and

income,

real

labour

cost

of

absorption

and i r r i g a t i o n comes to 708. OO, 35.3O. 3204, 3278, and 617 Rs/he.
Cotton
Q/he,
net

crop

consuming

where as real

income,

11O.OO

Kgs/he

fertilizer

cost of production

labour

absorption,

and

and

rate of

irrigation

yield

3 2.72

prorit,

average

consists,

171.89,

IS. 10, S35, 1049, and 44 respectively.

Here

the

higher

rate

comes

to

profit,

profit,

of

yield

feature

fertilizers,
per

of

in sugar

as

hectare,

averayo net income,

also high
amounts

Interesting

cane.

fertilizers,

average net

that.

Sugar

comparing

real

labour

On

cost

real

labour

with
of

hand

cost

cane

other

demanding

crops,

production,

absorption,

the other

yield,

income,

is

of

next

rate

of

and i r r i g a t i o n are

Jowar

consumed,

production,

employment,

and

low

r a t e of

Irrigation.

It

was observed that labour employment can be improved by cultivating

more of

sugar

cane.

And

the s t a t e scenario is

showing

that,

for

farmers point of view sugar cane cultivation is more profitable

next comes to cotton,

rice,

With respect to Bihar,

and Jowar respectively.

in case of r i c e ,

f e r t i l i z e r consumption

noticed. 22. OO kg/he, and yield potential recorded 21.47 Q/he, and
real

cost

of

production,

labour absorption,
and 13 Rs/he.

of

profit,

and i r r i g a t i o n accounts.

Wheat

20.70 Q/he yield,

rate

is

average
58.49.

consuming 55.0 kg/he of

next comes to real

S2

net

4.OO.

income,
85,

fertilizers,

cost of production,

786,
and

r a t e of

profit,
equal

average
to

79.18.

net

income,

19.20.

labour

328.

O6O.

absorption,

and

93

and

Rs/he.

irrigation

However,

still

sugar cane is demanding much of f e r t i l i z e r s i . e 32. OO Kg/he,

yield

409.00

profit,

avuiage

consists,
that,

Q/he,

6.75,

also

net

with

real

income,

31.20,

labour

8395,

sugar cane st.J ] ]

cost

80S,

of

production,

absorption,

and

63

and

Rs/he.

It

and

rate

of

irrigation
was

noticed

demanding much of labour, next comes r i c e .

On the whole sugar cane noticed highest average net income,

which

also shows high rate of profit.

Punjab

witnessed,

144. 00

Kg/he

production,

and 47.67 Q/he of yield,

production,

r a t e of p r o f i t ,

and

irrigation

noticed

respectively.

Wheat

productivity

recorded

production,
and

irrigation

respectively.
fertilizers
to

this

income,
856,

25.50

of

noticing

labour

which

reasonable

rate

f ei-til i z e r s ,

level

and

comes

real

4 41,

demands

of

34O

of

force.

53

Rs/he
and

cost

of

labour absorption,

422,

10.40

employment,

Q/he

and

49.00
area,

profit,

and high

Kg/he

contrary

131.64,

level

119

average

Punjab scenario showed that,

Next comes to cotton,

rice

fertilizers

and i r r i g a t i o n consists,

and 60 Rs/hectare.

net income.

next

16.20.

production,

demanding large amount of

and

51. IS,
cotton,

labour absorption,

832,

area,

productivity accounted

cost

808,

average net Income,

to

Regarding,

and

real

counts

2272,

labour

113. 00 Kg/he of

Q/he

in

in addition t h i s real cost of

69.20.

consuming

r a t e of p r o f i t ,

fertilizers

average net Income,

33.64,

is

of

of

net

43.80,
r i c e is
average

which demanding less f e r t i l i z e r s

net

income,

by

demanding

more

Tamil Nadu's p i c t u r e I s quite c l e a r .

of

fertilizers

production,

and

yielding

r a t e of p r o f i t ,

and i r r i g a t i o n recorded,

40. Ol

Rice demands 1OO.OO Kg/he

CVhe.

next

average net income,

39.74,

33. 2O.

975,

real

cost

of

labour employment,

1RO2.

and 88 Rs/Tie .

Jowar demands l e s s amount of f e r t i l i z e r s i . e 4. OO Kg-^he, and yield

8.42 Q/he
r a t e of
and

next

real

profit

-218.

accounts

cost

of

due
52

to

several

Man

factors.

days/he

income,
2O75,

real

cost

labour

2739,

demanding

of

and

less

i-nc-nmo,

1O. 4O.

172.

and

of

623

production,
and

Rs/he

labour
761.

i.e

5.00

51

^nri

R^/h*.

average

net

level

average
that

is

net

This
of

analysis

labour

fertilizers,

income,

followed

by

and

crops

-0.15

absorption
67

Rs/he

22.10,

54

as

and

yield

7O6.

rice,

72. OO

t-o^l of

high

cotton,

average
QSH.28,

Kg/he

of

production,
and

and 203 Rs/he

cane
yield,

absorption

is

Q/he,

absorption,

1282,

sugar

nut

10.30

nr_>1 iced

net

22.50,

ground

r a t e of p r o f i t ,

labour

that,

labour

respect!vel y.

which

average
4.37,

Where

with i i_-al

income,

like

recorded

demands

account, i ng

high

profit,

JrrlrjM irji,

Cotton

shows

The

i.e

accounts

of

Kg/he

cost of pi oduction,

rrnpl uymcnt ,

and

rate

irrigation

i r r i g a t i o n c o n s i s t i n g of 180.82,

higher

Rs/Q.

and noticed 683.OO Q/he of

respectively.

fertilizers

profit,

respectively.

as

irrigation

f e r t i l i z e r s and y i e l d i n g 8.69 Q/he,

rate

Where

fertilizers

employment,

and next comes to r e a l

not

54.29

Sugar cane i s the important crop in the s t a t e ,

consuming 237.OO Kg/he of

And

accounts

and average net income noticed negative,

respectively.

yield.

production

is

demanding
wi t.h

high

and

irrigation,

and

ground

nut

With

respect

to

U. P.

the

rice

is

consuming

f e r t i l i z e r s and yield r a t e is El. SO Q/he,

of

production.

rate

of

profit,

3B. 00

Kg^ie

comes to the real

average

net

income,

of

cost

labour

employment, and i r r i g a t i o n accounts 51.19, 11. O, 252, 818, and O6

Rs/he.

In

Kg/he.

which accounted yield

cost

of

case

wheat

production,

employment,
171

of

and

Rs/he.

fertilizer

rate

of

irrigation

Regarding

rate

consumption

is24.51.

profit,

average

cane,

the

around

contrary to

recorded 51.82,

sugar

is

net

this

income,

11.4O,

692.

fertilizer

of

production,

employment,

yield,

more

In

profit,

U. P overall

fertilizers,

average

net

later comes to r i c e ,

West

of

average

and i r r i g a t i o n witnessed 4.17,

2S0 respectively.
demanding

rate

Bengal

income,

net

87.5O,

picture is

labour

And real

income,
3479,

labour

1O97,

that,

cane

noticed

as

sugar

labour

employment,

and

consumption

showing

where

real

610,

accounts 48.OO Kg/he and yield r a t e noticed 402.OO Q/he.

cost

63. OO

and

and

wheat
high

irrigation,

which showed similar trend as sugar cane.

picture

is

quite

clear

that

where

in

rice

demanding 21 . OO Kg/he of f e r t i l i z e r s having 26. 3O Q/he yield, next

comes
income,

to

real

cost

labour

of

production,

employment,

and

rate

of

irrigation

profit,

average

consists

of

net

34,12,

32.OO, 628, 591, and 1O Rs/he respectively.

In a l l
of

cultivation

application
tho

most a l l

of

the s t a t e s ,

sugar cane is showing higher

while

comparing

with

inputs

with more

operational

employment

high in case of

irrigation,
sugar

cane.

and

other

average

But

at

55

net

crops,

due

activities.
income

t h i s stage even

is

to

cost
high

However,
also

though

very
sugar

cane is much profitable than that of other crops,

aware of

the availability of

equipment.

For

water

resources,

that alternative crops

one should be

and

other

input

should be recommended in

order to remove the shortage problem?; in inputs and avoiding over

water

use.

which is scarce resource in recent years

in Indian

agriculture.

Due to changes in institutional

set up in Indian agriculture

like tradi t.i onal agriculture to modern agriculture, the cropping

pattern is changing over a period of time.

Incidentally in early

ypars, t.hs farmer conrpntrated on suh^i st.cnre crops, and later he

diverted towards commercial crops, where commercial crops are more
profitable than food crops.

Because of this problem India still

facing food scarcity, even though she is treated as agriculturally

self sufficient.

Changes
several

In cropping pattern laid a foundation stone

to the

controversial problems such as resource crunrh and input

scarcity in Indian agriculture.

At

this Juncture,

this section

talks about the nature of cropping pattern in whole India,

selected states.

And also emphasis cropping intensity,

and

which is

another chronic problem in Indian agr 1 cult.ure.

ft. 7

GENERAL FEATURES OF THE EXISTING PROBLEM:

In general the table .7.1

illustrate the nature of cropping

pattern in Indian agriculture, and later sections will talks about

particular

changes

occurred

in

selected

56

crops.

The

area

under

ric.

accounts

34056

thousand

hectares

In

196O/61.

I n c r e a s e d t o 41169 thousand h e c t a r e s i n 1986/87,

38944

thousand

hectares

in

1987/88,

as

which

was

l a t e r declined to

equivalent

to 22.3 V. in

1960/61 t o 2 3 . 3 V . i n 1986/87, l a t e r t h e s h a r e has d e c l i n e d t o 2 2 . 5

y. by 1987/88 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Where as
which

was

wheat

noticed,

Increased

to

12931

thousand

23372

T/he

hectares

in

in

1987/88,

196O/61,
which

is

e q u i v a l e n t t o p e r c e n t a g e I n c r e a s e from 8 . 5 V. i n 1960/61 to 1 3 . 5 VL
in 1987/88.
to 16523

Jowar accounted 18426 T/he i n 1960/61.

T/he

in

1987/88,

which

is

almost

equal

which d e c l i n e d
to

12. O V. in

Table 2.7.1
CROPPING PATTERN ACCORDING TO LAND USE STATISTICS, FROM 1960/151
TO 1 S 8 7 / 8 8 .
COOO" h e c t a r e s 3
Year
1960/61

Crop

1970/71

1980/81

1985/86

37381
f 22. 6)
18293
C11 . 05
16871
CIO. 25
7S52
C4. 65
7830
C4. 75
2S89

4O237
C23. 35
22225
C12. 85
16412
( 9 . 55
6789
C3. 95
7752
C4.55
2897
C 1 . 7")

41O99
Cf>3. 05
23094
C12. 95
16O97
C9. 05
7O94
C4. 05
7530
C4.25
3OO9
C 1 . 71

1986/87

1987/88

Rice
Wheat
Jo war
Groundnut
Cotton
Sugarcane

34O56
C 22. 3)
12931
C8. 55
18426
(.12. O5
6467
C4. 25
7610
C5. 03
2417
Cl.fi">

C 1 . fV)

1960/61 to 9.6 V* in 1987/88.

41 169
C23. 35
23315
C13. 25
16193
C9. 25
7009
C4. 05
7031
C4. 05
32O2
f 1 . 85

38944
C22. 55
23372
C13. 55
16523
C9. 65
7556
C4. 45
719O
C4.25
3391
C1.95

Rcyui Jiny yi ound nut the level h i s

Increased from 6467 T/he in 196O/61 to 7552 T/he in 197O/71 . l a t e r

57

declined to 7OO9 T/he in 1986/87, later gone up to 75S6 T/he in

1987/88 respectively. It is almost equal lo 4.S X in 1960/01, and
4.6. 4.O. and 4.4 K in 197O/71, 1086/87. and 1987/88 respectively.

Cotton crop has showed,

This accounts.

fluctuations over a period of time.

7610 T/he In 1960/B1 .

raised

to 783O T/he

in

1970/71. declined to 7190 T/he in 1987/88. which is nearly equal

to 5.0 "A In 1960/61,
respectively.

4.7 % and 4.2 % in 1 37-0/71

and 1987/88

In case of sugar cane it was 417 T/he in 1960/61

later increased to 3391 T/he in 1987/88. an equivalent of 1.6 V. in

1960/61 to 1.9 5* in 1987/88 respectively.

Considering compound growth rates,

as stated in table 2.7.2

area under rice accounted 0.94 V. per annum in 1970/71. was later
experienced

negative

growth

rate of - 5.40 % in 1987/88.

Wheat

Table 2.7.3
COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OK CROPPING PATTERN ACCORDING TO LAND USE
STATISTICS, FROM 1960/R1 TO 1 9 8 7 / 8 8 .
C000' h e c t a r e s )

Year
1960/61

1970/71

198O/81

1985/86

1986/87

1987/88

Crop 1
0.94

0. 74

O. 42

0.17

- 5.40

3.53

1.97

O. 77

0.96

0.24

-0.88

-0.28

-0.39

0.59

2. O4

Groundnut

1.56

-1.O6

0.88

-1.19

7.80

Cotton

O. 29

-0.10

-O. 58

-6.63

2.26

Sugarcane

O. 69

1.13

0.76

6.41

5.91

Rice
Wheat

Jowar

Source:

Indian Agriculture
of I n d i a .

in

Brief,

88

24th

edition,

DESAg.

Govt,

recorded 3. S3 %

per annum in 1970/71,

% per annum in 1987/88.

in 1670/71.

and a

has l a t e r declined at O. 24

Jowar experienced negative growth o f - 0 . 8 8

p o s i t i v e 2. O4 >{ in 1987/88.

Next is ground n u t ,

which noticed 1.56 % growth per annum in 197O/71,

7.80 X in 1987/88.
0.69 in 197O/71 .

and Increased at

Cotton and sugar cane have witnessed,

which further

O.29 and

noticed at 2.26 and S. 91

V. per

annum in 1987/88 respectively.

The
Jowar
cane

whole

slowly

scenario
declining,

increasing

at

showed f l u c t u a t i o n s
overall

2.8

is

showing

where

faster
over

agricultural

as

the

rate.

the

area

However,

a p e r i o d of

time,

area

under

rice

under

wheat

and

cotton

and

ground

and

sugar
nut

with changing s h a r e s in

production.

POTENTIAL YIELDS OF HYVS OF SEEDS: A COMPARATIVE PICTURE:

Yield

component

agriculture
adopted
ratio

has

is

scenario,

HYVS

different

of

been

where

So

that,

not

producing

c o m p a r a t i v e p i c t u r e of

of

actual
world's

actual

yield
yield

the countries

India

but

country

table

with

.8.1

HYVs of

In case of r i c e ,

Yield

respect

explaines
seeds

Indian

the potential

yields

where

S6O7

Kg/he.

to

59

Kg-^he.

the

in

4000-5810 Kg/he.

5807

to

to other

under

around

world

s t r u c t lire.

a l s o with r e s p e c t

y i e l d s of

is

the

o b s e r v e t h e y i e l d component

potential

at

in

modern

section

The

is

yield

in

to

countries.

Indian v a r i e t y comes
India's

all

concept

country

this

only in

important

differential

from

and some selected countries.

HYVs

the

almost

with

differing

crops.

agriculture

one

seeds

in s e l e c t e d c r o p s

of

that,

Contrary
China

is

as

this

the

the
the

largest

producer

of

rice,

and

Australia

accounting

abnormal

yield

8813

respectively.

Table 2.8.1
POTENTIAL YIELDS OF HYVs OF ^FKTIS: A COMPARATIVE PICTURE.

A c t u a l yieldCKg/hecD i n 1 9 9 2 / 9 3
P o t e n t i a l of
I n d i a , s World's Largest
World's highest
high yielding
yield
yield
producer
yield
Country
Indian variety
Country

Crop

Rice

4OOO - S810

2607

58O7

China

8813

Australia

Wheat 6OOO - 6800

3295

3295

China

7556

Ireland

Jowar 3OOO - 42O0

897

3704

USA

5O49

Italy

G. nut 2OOO - 3OOO

953

953

India

6833

Israel

Source:

CM1E:
1994.

With
around

Basic

respect

to

Wheat,

6OOO-68OO Kg/he,

be3SS5 Kg/^he.
Kg/he.

Statistics

Relating

potential

but

the

China is t h e l a r g e s t producer

w o r l d ' s higher

abnormal

Potential

of

3OOO-4KOO Kg/he,
actual

world

but

yield

producer

of

highest

yield

production.

Hyv.

wheat

HYVs

India

actual
of

the

Indian

Indian
yield

yield

wheat,

is

was

Economy,

variety

is

noticed

to

around

3B95

and I r e l a n d n o t i c e d

y i e l d producing country i . e 7S56 Kg/he.

Indian

Indian

the

producing

variety

yield

accounts
in

of

actual

Meanwhile t h e w o r l d ' s

to

3704
world.

country

not.ired

Jowar,
at

Kg/he.

897

in

the

USA

is

World

potential

falls

Kg/he

Interestingly,

With r e s p e c t to Ground n u t ,

60

of

the
Italy

under

where

as

largest
is

the

agriculture

of high y i e l d i n g

Indian

variety

actual
at

falls

under

y i e l d recorded at

953

Where

Kg/he,
as

and

Israel

analysis

033

India

is

that,

y i e l d and actual

There

are

several

Indian

agriculture.

by several

Kg/he.
the

accounted

indicating

potential

2000-3000

Kg/lie,

Actual

largest

highest

world

i.e

ther*

yield

with r e s p e t t

factors

which

Generally

Influence

the

yield

India's

witnessed

ground
Kg/he.

nut.
This

difference

between

to different,

crops.

yield

component

factors such as a v a i l a b i l i t y of water,

other i n p u t s ,

of

6833

rlsr

as

yield

producer

yield
a

where

mechanism
was

in

influenced

fertilizers,

and

e s p e c i a l l y a p p l i c a t i o n of inputs at e f f i c i e n t l e v e l ,

which a r e r e l a t e d to the farm management s k i l l s in production.

3.9

CROPPING

PATTERN

IN

INDIAN

AGRICULTURE

WITH

RESPECT

TO

SELECTED STATES:

Andhra

pradesh

production
last

in

two

period

recent

decades.

of

time.

pattern

in

1991/92

with

production,

2.O.I

noticed
years,

with

Cropping

This

selected
five

spectacular

pattern

section
states

year

wide

will
and

growth

variation
is

all

over

intervals.

and p r o d u c t i v i t y t y i e l d }

Alony
will

of

slowly

analyse

the

in

agriculture
crops

in

shifting

nature

India

from

with

of

over

the
a

cropping

1966^67

cropping

to

pattern,

a l s o bo analysed.

ANDHRA PRADESH:

The
2.9.1.1
hectares

nature

of

to 2 . 9 . 1 . 6 .
in

1966/^67,

cropping
Rice a r e a
which

pattern
in

A. P

is

Andhra P r a d e s h

increased

61

in

t o 39S1

sown

was

T/he

in

3O89
in

tables

Thousand

1991/91,

an

equivalent of 8.76 X in 1966/67 t o 9.27 'A in 1991/92.

area,

production and yield

13O2 Kg/he in 1966/67.

Kg/he

in

1991/93

was

noticed,

which l a t e r

resp*~t i vl y

Along with

4010 Thousand

tonns

Increased to 9465 T.t and 414

Tr.

production

i s

equivalent

13.17 y. in 1966/67 to 12. 85 'A in 1991/93 respectively.

Jowar noticed.
1991/92.
1991/92.
1O8O

2289 T/he in 1966/67.

which

is

equal

On the other

T. t

and

460

to

12.68

in

increased

to

626

recorded at 11.71

was declined to 1O7S T/he in

Vi

1966/67

production declined to 673 T. t

Kg/he

in

in

in

1966/67

respectively.

1991/92,

1991/92.

% in 1966/67.

to

Where as

to

8.54

hand production and productivity,

Kg/he

and

Out

where as

The

share

of

in

recorded
of

which

productivity
production

was later dec] i ned to 8. OS 'A in

1991/92 respectively.

Wheat

production

is

was 13 T/he in 1966/67.

is

equivalent

to

almost

negligible

the

state,

i.e

has declined to 8 T. he in 1991/93.

O. 1 O

2 T. t

in 1966/67.

Production was at

in

in

1966/67

to

later

O. O5

'A

increased

in

area
which

1991/93.

to 7 T. t

in

1991/92 respectively. This is equal to 0. O2 'A in 1966/67 tO O. 01 'A

in 1991/92.
later

Considering yield r a t e was a t ,

increased

to

827

Kg/he

in

recorded at 1O22 T/he in 1966/67.

of

fc In 19DC/67

to 31.63 'A in

noticed double the amount

as

-A

1O13

increased to 2233 T. he in 1991/92.

in

T. t

1966/67

in

to

19613/B7,

28.78

Ground

nut

in

However
was

to 2. 97

production

comparing with previous

'A

which

which is almost equal

1991/92.

62

was

which increased to 2495 T/he in

This has almost doubled the area of cultivation.

level

14. O0

nut

ground

1991/92.

to

Next,

this,

noticed

equal

1966/67,

1991/92,

production

iy

1991/93.

188 Kg/he in

years.

also
With

r#sp*ct to y i e l d recorded at 721

Kg/he In 1666/67,

which raised to

896 Kg/he In 1991/92 respectively.

Cotton

is

which was at
1991/92.

as

another

T/he in 1966/67,
equal

to

Production noticed.
almost equal

Important

4. O3

has
in

later

crop

in

increased

1966/67

to

the

9. 2O

in

1991/92.

144 T. t in 1S66/67 to 1314 T.t in 1991/92.

yields

took

place during

Kg/he in 1966/67 to 316 Kg/he in

recorded

state,

to 708 T/he in

to 2.73 V. in 1966/67 to 13.36 >i in 1991/92.

times i n c r e a s e in

which

commercial

1SS

T/he

in

1991/92.

1966/67,

this

period

Regarding

increased

to

was

A four

namely 76

sugar
203

cane,

T. he

in

1991/92, or 5. OO V. in 1966/67 to S. 36 in

Table 2 . 9 . 1 . 1
ANDHRA PRADESH : ARKA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS
CRice3, 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 t o 1 9 9 1 / 9 3 .

Year

1966/^7
1971X72
1976^77
1981X82
1986X87
1991X92

AreaC * OOO hec3

3O89
C 8. 763
3O41
C8. O53
3565
C9.263
3824
C9. 39)
3459
C8. 4O3
3921
C 9 . 273

ProductionC * OOOtons3

4010
C13. 173
4717
CIO.953
4930
C11.763
7868
C l 4 . 783
6592
CIO.893
9465
C1 2 . 853

Source: CMTE: Basic Statistics Relating to Tndian

1993 and 1994.

63

YieldfKg^ha3

1302
1551
1383
2058
19O6
2414

Economy,

1992,

Table

2.9.1.2

ANDHRA PRADESH t AREA, PRODUCTION,

C J o w a r ) , 19CS6SG7 t o 1 9 9 1 S 8 2 .

Year

1966/^37
1971X72
1976/"77
1981X82
1986X87
1991X92

AreaC'OOO hec5

2289
f 1 2 . 685
2S32
C15.O95
2O43
C 1 2 . 955
2214,
C13. 343
1O56
CIO. 385
1O75
C 8. 545

S o u r c e : CMIE:

AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS

ProductlonC * OOOtonsi

1080
C11. 715
114O
C1 4.. 765
1O65
CIO. 125
1334
CIO. 885
994,
CIO.825
673
C8.O55

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
1993 and 1994.

YieldCKg/^a5

461
450
521
603

eoo
626

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 1 . 3
ANDHRA PRADESH : AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS
tWheat5, 1 9 6 6 / ^ 7 t o 1991^92.

Year

1966^67
1971^72
1976/^-7
1981/^2
1986/^7
1991-^92

AreaC'OOO hec5

13
CO. 1O5
21
CO. 115
23
C0.115
17
C O. O85
12
CO. O55
8
CO. O55

Source: CMIE:

P r o d u c t l o n C *OOOtons5

2
CO. O25
11
CO. O4D
14
CO.O55
11
CO. O35
5
CO. O15
7
C 0 . Ol 5

B a s i c S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

64

YieldCCg>'ha5

188
512
594
669
4O3
827

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . S . I . 4
ANDHRA PRADESH : AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS
C Ground n u t 3 , 1 9 O 8 / 6 7 t o 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

1966/67
1971/72
1976/77
1981/82
1986/87
1991/92

AreaC'OOO hec3

1O22
C1 4 . OO3
1S33
C 2O. 413
1O51
C14.92)
1451
C19. 531
1571
C 22.5O3
2496
C28.783

Source:CMTE:

P r o d u c t i o n C * OOOt.ons)

1O13
C 2 2 . 975
1164
Cl8.833
583
f11.O83
1437
C19.893
1308
C 2 2 . 263
2235
C 3 1 . 633

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

Yl*ldCKg/ha3

721
759
555
991
833
896

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 1 . 5
ANDHRA PRADESH I AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIFI.D OF PRTNCTPAL CROPS
CCottorO, 1 9 6 6 / B 7 t o 1 9 0 1 / O 2 .

Year

1966/67
1971/72
1976/77
1981/82
1986/87
1991 / 9 2

AreaC'OOO hec3

316
C4.O33
335
C 4. 293
288
C4.183
473
C5. 873
411
1 S. 923
7O8
C 9. 203

Source:CMIEJ

ProductionC *OOOtons3

144
C2. 733
175
C2. 523
261
C 4.473
663
C8. 413
609
C8. 823
1314
Cl3. 363

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

65

YleldCKg/ha3

76
89
154
238
252
316

Economy,

1992,

Table . 9 . 1 . 6
ANDHRA PRADESH : AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS
( S u g a r c a n e ) , 1966^67 t o 1991 ^ 2 .

Year

AroaC'OOO hec)

1986/^7

8789
C9. 473
10571
C9. 313
1O281
C6. 723
14962
C 8. 033
1OK86
C5.533
14833
C 5. 953

US
C5. 003
119
C 4. 98)
146
C5. 093
180

1971^72
1976^77
1981/'82

C 5. 643
138
C4. 483
2O3
C5. 363

1986/^7
199192

S o u r c e : CMIE:

1991/92.
1966/67.
1966/67

Basic S t a t i s t i c s
1 9 9 3 and 1 9 9 4 .

Where

as

in

and i n c r e a s e d
to

from76588

5.9S

'A.

Kg/he

in

declined to 73211

in

case

76588
88761
7O366
83258
74645
73211

R e l a t i n g to Indian

of

production

to 14833 T. t

in

1991/95.

case

1966/67

In

to

88761

Economy,

it

was

1991/92.
of

or

yield

Kg/he

in

Kg/he in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

were showing v a r i a t i o n s over

several

YieldfKg/ha3

Pioduc 11 onC * OOOtons3

a period of time.

f a c t o r s such as s c a r c i t y of

water,

1992,

8789

T. t

in

from 9 . 4 7 'A i n
the

increase

1971/72,

is

which

Sugar cane y i e l d s

This may be? due to

fertilizers,

and

other

inputs.

.9.2

BIHAR:

Tn case of Bihar
rice

area

under

as I l l u s t r a t e d in t a b l e s 2 . 9 . 2 . 1

cultivation

at

5126

declined to 4792 T/he in 1991/92,

66

or

T/he

in

to 2 . 9 . 2 . 1 ,

1966/67,

later

it

in percentage termsl4.54 % in

1966/87 to 11.33 > in 1991/S2.

T. t

in

1966/87

equivalent

to

increased

13.84

respect to y i e l d ,

5*

in

as equal

4461

T. t

to

in

6. O8

V.

in

slowly declined to 931

under

Jowar,

almost

it was 4212

1991/92.

This

1991/92.

which was 878 Kg/he in 1966/67.

Area

which accounts.

to

1960/87

to 1126 Kg/he in 1980/81.

respectively.

Considering production,

later

Is

With

increased

Kg/he in 1991/92

negligible

in

the

state

1O T/he in 1966/67 i s down to 5 T.ho in 1991/92.

to O. O6 V. in 1966/67 to 0. O4 ^ in 1991/92.

Production

recorded at 6 T. t in 1966/87 to 3 T. t in 1991/92.

which was almost

equal to 0.O7 V. in 1966/67 to 0. O4 % in 1991/92.

In case of yield

it was 497 Kg/he in 1966/67,

198(3/87,

the

increased
1966/67

raised up to 885 Kg/he in

but declined to 4S3 Kg/ho in 1OQ1/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

However,
state,

and l a t t e r

wheat

area
to

under

1963

to

production
crop

T/he

8.54

'/l

accounted 9OO T. t

in

in

was

some

noticed

995

1991/92.
19Q1 /9S

what
T/he

which

is

impressive
in

in

1966/67,

equal

respectively.

to

The

in 1966/67 declined to 3566 T. t

in

the

latter

7. 75

% in

production
1991/92,

in

percentage terms the decline is f rom7. 9O V. in 1966/87 to 6.47 V. in

1991/92.
1816

Yield

Kg/he

froml08

in

T/be

rate

was

1991/92.
in

lnufiased
In

case

1966/67to

of

14b

1966/P7 to 3. R"* * In 1QP.1/9?*.

from

800

sugar

T/he

in

Double fold

Kg/he
cane

nearly

respectively.
to

48836

equal

to

4.3O

in

196D/67

the

1966/67

to

increase

is

4.67

in

1991/92.

or

I nrroam

in production

has taken place from 393S T. t in 13136/13/ to

which

in

to

/O/6 T. t in 1991/92,
2.84

>:

in

1991/92

Yield has been increased from 33475 Kg/he in 1966/67

Kg/he

in

1991/92.

The

improvement

in

the

yield

foundation stone to t h e double fold production in the s t a t e .

67

laid

Bihar : AREA, PRODUCTION,

1968/67 t o 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

1966x67
1971X72
1976X77
1981X82
1986X87
1991X92

AreaC> OOO hec3

Table 2 . 9 . 2 . 1
AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS f R i c e i ,

ProductlonC * OOOtons3

SI 26
C l 4 . 543
5411
C14.333
5310
C13. 793
5368
C13.193
5368
C13. O43
4792
Cl1.333

Source:CMIE:

4212
C l 3 . 843
5273
CIK. 243
4752
C11.343
4257
C7. 993
6O45
C9.983
4461
C6.O63

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

YieldCKgXha3

876
975
895
793
1126

931
Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 2 . 2
Bihar :
CJowar3,

Year

1966X67
1971X72
1976X77
1981X82
1986X87
1991X92

AREA,

PRODUCTION,

AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS

1966/67 to 1991/92.

AreaC * 000 hec3

10
CO. O63
5
C 0 . 033
11
C 0 . O73
11
CO.O73
6
CO. O43
5
CO. 043

P r o d u c t i o n C * OOOtons3

6
CO. 073
2
C O.O33
6
CO. O63
7
CO. O63
5
CO. 053
3
CO. 043

Source: CMIE: Basic Statistics Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.
68

YleldCKgXha3

497
365
5O9
636
885
453

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9. 2. 3
Bihar t AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CWheat5,
1966X67 to 1991 yea.

Year

1966X67
1971x72
1976X77
1981X82
1986^87
1991X92

AreaC'OOO hec5

995
C7. 755
1397
C 7. 305
1945
C9. 305
164O
C 7. 415
184O
C7. 955
1963
C 8. 545

Source: CMlEs

P r o d u t t l o n t *OOOtons5

Year

1966X67
1971X72
1976X77
1981X82
1986X87
1991X92

1785
1270
1343
1555
1816

Basic Statistics Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

AreaC'OOO hec5

1O8
C 4. 695
142
C5. 945
128
C4.475
124
C3. 885
112
C 3- 645
145
C3.835

Source: CMJEs

8OO

9OO
C7. 905
2494
(9.443
2470
C8. 515
22O2
C5. 885
2861
C6. 455
3566
C 6. 475

Table 2.9.2.4
Bihar
:
AREA,
PRODUCTION,
AND
YIELD
CSugarcane5, 1966X67 to 1991X92.

OF

ProductlonCO00tons5

3995
C 4. 305
4465
C3.935
4176
C 2 . 735
4180
C2. 235
3729
C2.005
7O76
C2. 845

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g t o I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

69

Yie]dCKgXha5

Economy,

1992,

PRINCIPAL

CROPS

YleldCKgXha5

33475
31468
32675
33822
33295
48836

Economy,

1992,

2. 9 . 3

PUNJAB:
The tables 2. 9. 3. 1 to P.. 9. 3. 5 explains the cropping pattern

in Punjab from 196O/O7 to 1991/92.

Rice area in Punjab noticed, an

increase from 3O3 T/he in 1966/67 to 3074 T.he in 1991/92, or O.86

y, in 1966/67 to 4.9O X in 1991/92. Nearly seventeen times increase
in production took place i . e from 414 T. t in 1966/67 to 67SS T. t
in 1991/92,
1991/92.
1278

in percentage terms 1.3 V, in 1966/67 to 9.12 % in

A three fold increase in yield was accounted where it was

Kg/he

respectively.

in
A

1963/87
notable

gone

upto

change

was

3238

Kg/ho

witnessed

in

in

1991/92

cropped

wheat

area, i . e 1692 T/he in 1966/67to 3233 T/he in 1991/92, as equal to

13.18 V. in 1966/67 to 14. O7 V. in 1991/92. A four times increase in
production took plac* i . e 3173 T. t

in

1966/67 to 1 ?29P) T. t

in

1991/92.

which was equal

to 27.85 V. in 1966/67 to 22.32 >i in

1991/92.

The yield was witnessed a three time increase from 1621

Kg/he in 1966/67ralsed up to 38O3 Kg/he in 1991/92 respectively.

Area under ground nut has declined d r a s t i c a l l y in the s t a t e .

It

was

2OO

T/he

in

1966/67

and

has

declined

to

12

T/he

in

1991/92, which is equal to 2.74 >S in 1966/67 to 0.14 % in 1991/92.

On the other hand production has declined from 211 T. t in 1966/67
to 12 T. t in 1991/92,

which in percentage terms is

4.78 V. in

1966/67 to O. 17 Y, in 1991/92.

Yield was accounted 990) Kg/he in

1966/67

and

to

overall

picture

marginally
in

the

raised
state

1O00

indicates

Kg/he
that,

in

1991/92.

the

ground

The
nut

production was d r a s t i c a l l y declining, where cereals l i k e wheat and

r i c e production increased at faster r a t e .

70

With r e s p e c t

to c o t t o n ,

which

accounts

was l a t e r gone up to O8O T. he in 19P,1/P,2,

8.58

V.

in

1991/92,

three

time

390

Or5.

increase

T/he

i t s y i e l d from 32O Kg/he

in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .
1966/67.

but

production
1991/92.

declined

increased

in

19O6/O7,

O5 V. in 19e/e7 to
in

production

place i . e 746 T. t in 196&VO7 to 2357 T. t in 1991/"9a.

hand i t doubled

in

taken

On t h e other

1966/O7 to 6O7 kg/he

The area under Sugar cane was 12O T/he in

to

109

from

T/he

4326

in

T. t

1991/92.
in

A two fold i n c r e a s e was noticed

1966/67

Contrary
to

in case of

to

6920

this,

T. t

in

productivity

i . e 32786 Kg/he in 1966/67 to 63486 Kg/he in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Punjab s AREA, PRODUCTION,

1986X07 to 1991/92.

Year
1966/67
1971/72
1976/77
1981 / 8 2
1986/87
1991/92

AreaC'OOO hec3

303
CO. 86}
450
C1. 193
674
C1.753
127O
C3. 125
1809
C 4. 393
2O74
C 4. 903

Source: CM1E:

Table 2.9.3.1
AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CRice3,

ProductionC * OOOtons}

404
C1.333
920
C2.143
1741
C 4.153
37S5
C7.O53
6O22
C9. 943
6755
C9. 173

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

71

Yi#ldf Kg/ha3

1276
2O44
2583
2957
3329
3257

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.3.2
Punjab l AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CWheat),
1966/67 to 1991/92.

Year

1966/67
1971/72
1976/77
1981/82
1986/87
1991/92

AreaC*OOO hec3

1692
C13.185
2335
C12.20)
2579
C12. 335
2917
C13. 173
3189
C l 3 . 793
3233
C14. 073

ProductionC'OOOtons3

3173
C27.8S3
5618
C 2 1 . 273
6272
C 2 1 . 623
8553
C22.843
9458
C 2 1 . 343
12295
C22.323

YlftldC Kg/ha3

1621
24OG
2432
2932
2966
3803

Source: CMIE: Basic Statistics Relating to Indian Economy,

1993 and 1994.

Punjab : AREA, PRODUCTION,

nut3, 1966/67 to 1991/92.

Year

1966/67
1971/72
1976/77
1981/82
1986/87
1991/9g

AreaC000 hec3

2OO
C2. 743
174
C2. 323
164
C2. 333
92
C1. 243
43
CO. 623
12
CO. 143

Source: CMIE:

1992,

Table 2.9.3.3
AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS (Ground

ProductionC *000tons3

211
C4. 783
183
C2.963
150
C2. 853
9O
C1.253
42
CO. 713
12
CO. 173

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

YleldCKg/ha3

990
1O52
915
978
977
lOOO

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.3.4

Punjab J AREA, PRODUCTION, AMD YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CCotton},

1966/87 t o 1991/82.
Year

1966/67
1971/72
1976/77
1981/82
1986/87
1991/92

Source :

AroaC * 000 hec3

396
1 5 . O53
475
C6. O93
537
C 8. 09}
683
C8. 485
567
C8. 16)
660
C8. 585
CMIE:

ProductionC'000Lons3

746
f 14.173
1029
f 1 4. 813
1138
C19. 493
1370
C16. 113
1691
C 2 4 . 493
2357
C23.963

1966/67
1971/72
1976/77
1981/82
1986/87
1991/92

320
368
347
316
507
6O7

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
1993 and 1994.

Table 2.9.3.5
Punjab :
AREA,
PRODUCTION,
AND YIELD
(Sugarcane), 1966/67 to 1991/92.

Year

YJ.cldCKg/ha3

Ai-eaC * OOO hec3

120
C5. 223
103
C 4. 373
113
C3. 943
1O6
C 3 . 323
97
C3.153
1O9
C 2 . 883

OK

ProductionC *000tons3

4326
C 4. 663
4O3O
C3. S53
6070
C3. 973
6120
C3. 283
611O
C 3 . 283
6920
C 2.783

Source: CMIEs Basic Statistics Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

73

Economy,

PRINCIPAL

19Q2,

CROPS

YieldCKg/ha3

32786
39126
S3717
b/736
5259O
63486

Economy,

1992,

2.9.4

TAMIL NADU:

Tamil Nadu scenario is quite different in comparison with

other states, as stated in tables .9.4.1 to 2.9.4.S. the area
under rice was 2346 T/he in 1966/67. has later declined marginally
to S293 T/he in 1991/92, or from 6.66 'A in 1966/67 to S. 42 V. in
1991/92. Where as production which was at 4002 T. t in 1966/67 has
increased to 5928 T. t in 1991/92.

equal to 13. IS 'A in 1966/67 to

8. OS 'A in 1991/9S. On the other hand yield recorded 1498 Kg/he in

1966/67. has gone up to 2S86 Kg/he in 1991/92 respectively. Jowar
noticed 731 T. he in 1966/67,

later declined to 578 T. he in

1991/92, equal to 4. OS 'A in 1966/67 to 4. 59 V. in 1991/92.

Production accounted, 521 T. t in 1966/67, has further raised to
703 T. t in 1991/92. Productivity per hectare increased from726
Kg/he in 1966/67 to 1216 Kg/he in 1991/92 respectively. Ground nut
area noticed an increase from 846 T. he in 1966/67 to 1O31 T. he in
1991/92.

However

the production has increased at 821

T. t in

1966/67 to 1320 T.t In 1991/92. On the other hand productivity per

hectare has witnessed 945 Ky/he in 1966/67, which raised up to
128O Kg/he in 1991/92.

Regarding cotton the cultivated area was around 325 T. he in

1966/67. which happened to decline to 264 T. he in 1991/9S, in
percentage terms it was 4.15 'A in 1966/67 to 3. 43 % in 1991/92.
Production recorded at 361 T.t in 1966/67 and increased to 437 T. t
in 1991/92 , an equivalent of 6.86 'A in 1966/67 to 4.4 'A in
1991/92. Productivity per hectare has witnessed improvement

74

Tablp. 2 . 9 . 4 . 1
Tamil Nadu I AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF
CRice3, 1966X67 to 1991X62.

AreaC'OOO hec3

Year

1966X67
1971^72
1976X77
1981X82
1986X87
1991X92

ProductionC"O00tons3

2346
C6.663
2691
C7. 133
2284
C5. 933
2467
C6. O63
19SS
C 4. 753
2293
C5. 423

Source:CMIE:

CROPS

YieldCKgXha3

4002
C13.153
53O2
C12. 313
4215
CIO. 063
5607
CIO.323
S333
C 8. 813
5928
C8.O53

Basic S t a t i s t i c s
1993 and 1 9 9 4 .

PRINCIPAL

1498
197O
1845
2273
2728
2586

Relating to Indian

Economy,

1992,

Tablf 2.9. 4.2

Tamil

Nadu

AREA,

PRODUCTION,

AND

YTF.LD

OF

PRTNCTPAL

CROPS

CJowar3,1966X67 to 1901X92.

Year
1966X67
1971X72
1976X77
1981X82
1986x87
1991X92

AreaC'OOO hec3
731
C 4. O53
717
C4.273
842
C5.343
669
C 4 . O33
730
C 4 . 583
578
C 4. 593

Source: CMIE:

ProductionC'000tons3
521
C5. 653
bis
C6. 673
793
C7.543
534
C4. 353
659
C7.173
703
C8. 413

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

75

YieldCKgXha3
726
718
942
798
9O3
1216

Economy,

1992,

Tamil Nadu :
CGround n u t ) ,

Year

1966/'67
1971X72
1976/V7
1981X82
1986X87
1991X92

Table 2 . 9 . 4 . 3
AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD
1966x67 to 1991/92.

AieaC * OOO hec3

846
C11.593
1117
C14. 873
890
C12. 643
1O13
C13. 643
897
C12. 853
1O31
C11. 893

OF

P r o d u c t i o n ^ "000tons3

821
C18. 613
1273
C20.603
785
114. 91 3
1238
C17.143
1093
C l 8 . 603
132O
Cl8.683

PRINCIPAL

CROPS

YleldCKgXha3

945
1140
882
1222
1219
128O

Source: CMIE: Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

Economy,

1992,

PRINCIPAL

CROPS

Table 2 . 9 . 4 . 4
Tamil Nadu : AREA, PRODUCTION,
C C o t t o r O , 1966X67 t o 1991X92.

Year

AreaC*OO0 hec3

1966X67
1971X72
1976X77
1981^82
1986-^87
1991^92

Source: CM1E:

325
C 4 . 153
313
C 4. 013
24-0
C3. 493
24O
C 2 . 983
238
C3. 433
264
C3. 433

AND

YIELD

OF

ProductionC * 000tons3

361
C6. 863
411
C 5 . 913
348
C5. 963
r78
C3. 533
278
C 4. 033
437
C4. 443

B a s i c S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

76

YieldCKg/ha3

167
223
247
197
199
281

Economy,

19O2,

T a b l e 2. 9. 4. S
Tamil Nadu : AREA, PRODUCTION,
CSugarcarwO, 1 0 0 0 / ^ 7 t o 1991S82.

AreaC * OOO hec3

Year

1971/^2
1976/V7
1981^82
1986/87
1991X92

S o u r c e : CHIE:

cane,

T/he

In

T. t

in

area

It

was

107

T/he

Contrary

recorded

1991/92,

inl991/92.

PRINCIPAL

77295
82274
9191O
1OO537
11O23O
1O1O22

an

Where a s

8O23

to

1966/67,

this

T. t

equivalent

Economy,

Kg/he i n 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .
in

in
of

productivity

CROPS

YieldCKg/twO

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
1993 and 1 9 9 4 .

19P1/OS.

production

OF

8023
C8.643
9626
C8.483
14246
C9. 313
2O2O8
CIO. 843
21605
C11. 613
23417
C 9.393

from 167 K g / h e i n 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 t o 261

Sugar

YIELD

P r o d u c l i o n C * OOOtons3

107
C 4 . 653
117
C 4 . 9CO
155
C5. 413
2O1
CO. 303
196
C6. 373
232
C6. 133

1966X67

AND

later

three

1966/67
8.64

per

in

hectare

With r e s p e c t
gone

time

and

1992,

up

to

increase

moved

1966/67
increased

upto
to

to
232
in

23417

9.39

V.

from 77295

Kg/he i n 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 t o 1O11O2 Kg/he i n 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

2.9.5

UTTAR PRADKSH:

On

the

agriculture
r i c e in

other
is

Uttar

hand

the

in

tables

shown
Pradesh

nature

of

2.9.5.1

accounted.

77

4224

cropping
to 2.9.5.6.

T/he

in

pattern
The

1966/67,

in

U. P

area

under

and

later

increased

to

5298

T/he

in

1991/92,

on

percentage

11.98 M in 1966/67 to 12.52 V. in 1991/92.

in production was
8104 T. t

accounted

in 1991/92,

12.36 V. in 1991/92.

namely

basis

it

was

A t r i p l e fold Increase

from 3<">l 2

T. t

In

19O6/67

to

In percentage term* 9 9O V. in 1 P66/67 to

However the yield potential

doubled from 720

Kg/he in 1965/67 to 1718 Kg/he in 1991/92.

Jowar
1986/67

to

area
S16

showed
T/he

in

1966/67 to 4.10 H in

declining

1991/92.

1991/92.

trend

which

is

i.e

from886

equal

to

Production also has

4.91

T/he

in

V.

in

declined

from

431 T. t in 1966/67 to 384 T. t in 1991/92. which is equal to 4.61 V.

In

1966/67

to

4. 59

in

1991/92.

Contrary

to

hectare showed variation over a period of time.

1966/67,

has increased to 88? Kg/he in 1981/82,

this,

yield

per

It wa:510 Kg/he in
later

declined to

745 Kg/tie by 1991/92 respectively.

A spectacular
noticed in U. P.

Increase

the cultivated

It was 4671 T/he in 1966/67.

8626 T/he in 1991/92. that is

in 1991/92.

In

from

area

of

wheat

was

which ha.:, gone up to

36.38 'A in 1966/67 to 36.34 X

Nearly a four time Increase in production accounted in

this p e r i o d . I t

was 5332 T.t in 1966/67 increased to 2O156 T.t

in

1991/92,

in percentage terms from46. 80 5i In 1966/67 to 3Fv 59 >i in

1991/92.

At the same ti me a two fold increase in yield took place

from 1169 Kg/he in 1966/67 to 2337 Kg/he in 1991/92 respectively.

The ground nut area has declined d r a s t i c a l l y from 391 T.he in

1966/157 to IBS T. ho in 1991/92, nqual to R. SP ' / I n 1 PfiP/67 to 1.63

78

in

1991/82.

Production

has

1966/67 to 113 T. t in 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .
1980/67

to

1.63

y.

in

also

which

1991/92.

later

On

increased

d e c l i n e d to 826 Kg/lie i n

1991/92

t o t a l l y n e g l e c t e d in Uttar
j . t> Be T/hf

In 1RRR/R7,

from 0 . 7 9 5s in

1966/67

declined

31

from

T. t

the

t o 973

in

Kg/he

declined

1966/67

this

hand

1991/92.
to

16

in

improvement

in

yield

toSSS Kg/he

Cotton

again

crop

was

observation

T/he in 1991/92,

or

Production a l s o has
T. t

in

s q u l v a l e n t of O. 59 5i i n 1966/67 to O. 1 6 % in 1 991 / 9 S .
y i e l d r a t e showed

the

1981/82,

period of

to 1 4

T. t

6 . 4 2 y. s h a r e in

other

respectively.

to 0 . 1 8 >S in

883

Kg/he in 1966/67

Pradesh over
later

from

which a c c o u n t e d f o r

s t r u c t u r e a l s o h a s d e c l i n e d from 711
i n 1971/72.

declined

1991/92,

an

Where as t h e

i . e 82 Kg/he in 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 t o 186 Kg/he

i n 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Tahle

2.9.5.1

Uttar P r a d e s h : AREA, PRODUCTION,

CRlce3, 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 t o 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

1966X67
1S71X72
1976x77
1981x82
1986X87
1991X92

AreaC'OOO hec3

4224
Cl1.983
4722
C12. 513
4653
112. 08)
S389
C13. 243
5542
C13.463
5298
C12. 523

AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS

ProductionC ' OOOtons3

3012
C 9. 903
3777
C8. 773
4<>91
(10.243
S898
C11. O83
75O9
C12.4O3
9104
Cl2.363

SourceiCMIE* Basic Statistics Relating to Indian

1 9 9 3 and 1994.

70

YieldCKgXha3

720
8OO
922
1095
1355
1718

Economy,

1992,

T a b l e R. O. 5. E
U t t a r P r a d e s h I AREA, PRODUCTION,
CJowar3, 196O/67 t o 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AraC ' OOO h*w.3

P r o d u c t ! o n e OOOtorvO

886
C 4 . 913
621
C 3 . 7O3
7O3
C4. 463
686
C 4 . 133
579
C 3 . 633
516
C 4 . 103

1966/7
1971/72
1976/77
1981S8Z
1986/87
1991 x'92

Source:CMIE:

AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS

431
C 4. 673
228
C2.253
484
C 4. 6O3
60S
( 4. 933
468
C5. 1O3
384
C 4 . 593

Basic S t a t i s t i c s
1993 and 1994.

Relating to Indian

YJeldf Kg/ha3

510
367
689
882
808
745

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.5.3
Uttar P r a d e s h : AREA, PRODUCTION,
CWheats, 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

1966/67
1971 / 7 2
1976/77
1981 / 8 2
1986/87
1991 / 9 2

AreaC'-OOO hec3

4671
C 36.383
6O46
1 3 1 . 593
6624
C 31 . 663
7772
C 3 5 . 103
84O5
C 36.343
8626

S o u r c e : CMIE:

AND YTFr.D OF PRINCIPAL CROPS

ProductionCOOOtons3

5332
C 4 6 . 8O3
755O
C 28.593
8940
C3O. 823
1274O
C34. O43
16236
C 3 6 . 633
KOI 56
C 36. 593

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
1 9 9 3 and 1 9 9 4 .

80

YieldCKgz-iuO

1169
1249
1350
1640
1932
2337

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 5 . 4
U t t a r P r a d e s h : AREA, PRODUCTION,
C Ground n u t 3 , 1966X67 to 1991X92.

Year

1966X67
1971X72
1976X77
1981X82
1986X87
1991^92

AreaC'OOO hec3

391
C5. 363
328
C 4 . 373
389
C S. 523
261
C3. 513
123
C1. 763
159
C 1 . 833

AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS

Produr.t.lonC * O00tons3

283
C6. d23
183
C2. 963
233
C4. 433
254
C3. 523
111
C1.893
115
C1.633

Sources CMIE: Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

YieldCKgXha3

711
558
599
973
9O2
826

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 5 . 5
U t t a r P r a d e s h : AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS
C C o t t o n 3 , 1966X67 t o 1901X92.

Year

1966X67
1971X72
1976X77
1981X82
1986X87
1991X92

AreaC *OOO hec3

62
CO. 793
56
CO. 723
23
CO. 333
30
C O. 373
22
C 0. 323
14
CO. 183

ProductionC'OOOtons3

31
CO. 593
27
CO. 393
14
CO. 243
22
C 0. 283
18
C O. 263
16
CO. 163

Source: CMIE: Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

81

YieldCKgXha3

82
82
104
125
139
186

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 5 . 6
Uttar Pradesh : AREA, PRODUCTION,
CSugarcane}, 1966/67 to 1991/92.

AreaC * OOO h e c )

Year

1 966X67

1976X77
1981X82
1986X87
1991X92

Source: CMTE:

34787
C37.48)
49354
C43. 46)
65216
C 42.62)
76440
C 41.02)
84736
f 45. 53)
108433
C 43.50)

1966/67
in

38739
44791
46271
5O498
57S88

cane area was

in 1966/67 to 1883 T/he in 1991/92.

place

35632

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

Notable i n c r e a s e in Suyar

% in

YlelrtfKgXha)

Prorluctlonf " OOOtons)

944
C 4 1 . O3)
1874,
C53. 31)
1456
C 50. 81 )
1652
C51.74)
1678
C54. 50)
1883
C49. 74)

1971X72

AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS

to

49.74

production

1991/92,

which

1991/92.

Almost

is

'A in

i.e

equal

to

T. t

37.48

noticed

in
%

in

three

fold

1966/67
1966/67

a double time i n c r e a s e in

yield

to

1992,

fromP.44

This is n e a r l y equal

1991/92.

347B7

F.conomy,

to 41. O3

increase
1O8433

to

43. SO

was

T/he

took

T. t

in

V.

in

noticed

from

35632 Kg/he in 1966/67 to 57E588 Kg/he in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

2.9.6

WEST BENGAL:

In case of
2.9.6.3
1966/67,

the

West
area

Bengal,
under

as

rice

and i n c r e a s e d to S681

illustrated
crop

in

accounted

T.ho in 1991/92.

82

tables
for
or

2.9.6.1

4233
equal

T/he

to
in

to 12.00

y, in 1966/67 to 14.21
Increase

in

^ in

production

11756 T. t in 1991/92.
d in 1991/92.

In

1891/92.

took

place

Contrary to t h i s
from

5O11

T. t

in

two fold

1966/67

to

This i s equal to 16. 46 V. in 1966/07 to 15.96

t h e same manner

yield

rate

increased

from 1076

Kg/he in 1966/67 to 2O69 Kg/he in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Area sown for

in 1966/67.
equal

which was

to O. S2 'A

production it
1991/92.

Wheat

was

In

noticed a marginal

269 T. t

With respect to y i e l d ,

in

1966/67,

to O. 61

1966-^7
1971/^2
1976^77
1981^82
1986^87

4233
C12. 003
4991
C13. 223
5205
C13. 52}
5210
C12. 80}
5376

c 1 3 . oe:>
1991^92

5681
C14. 215

raised

i . e 1O22 Kg/he in 1966/67.

Table

AreaC000 hec3

later

1991/92.

T/he

1991/92,
Tn

as

case of

to 53O T. t

in

% in 1966/67 to O.96 % in 1991/92.

West Bengal : AREA,

PRODUCTION,
CRice3, 1 9 6 6 / B 7 t o 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

from 267

s l i g h t l y r a i s e d to 269 T/he in

1 9B&/67 to 1.17 V* in

This is equal

change

2.9.6.1
AND

YIELD

OF

P r o d u c t ! onC * O00t.ons5

5011
C16. 463
6308
C15.ll)
5949
Cl 4.195
5833
CIO.953
8463
C13.983
11756
C15. 963

Source:CMTE: Basic Statistics Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

83

which has

PRINCIPAL

CROPS

YieldCKgXha3

1076
1304
1143
1120
1574
2O69

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.6.2
West B e n g a l AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL
CWheaO, 1986/137 t o 1 9 0 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AreaC'OOO hec3

P r o d u c t i o n C *OOOtons3

67
C O. 523
422
C2.2O3
515
C2. 463
214
CO. 97}
398
C1.723
269
Cl.175

1966/67
1971 /72
1976/77
1981/82
1986/87
1991/92

69
C O. 61 3
921
C3. 493
1O51
C3. 623
389
C 1 . O43
683
C1. 543
53O
CO. 963

Source: CM1E:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
1993 and 1994.

West Bengal

CROPS

YleldCKg/ha3

1022
2183
2041
1818
1716
197O

Euunuiuy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 6 . 3
AREA,

PRODUCTION,

AND YIELD OK PRINCIPAL CROPS

CSuyai i_an>K>, 1966/67 to 1 9O1 / 9 2 .

Year

1966/67
1971/72
1976/77
1981/82
1986/87
1 991/92

AreaC * OOO hec3

23
C1 . 003
34
C l . 423
3O
C 1. O53
23
C 0. 723
13
CO. 423
12
CO. 323

ProductionC'000tons3

1O71
C 1 . 153
1657
C 1.463
1812
C1.183
1411
CO. 763
757
CO. 413
859
CO. 343

SourcerCMIE: Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

84

YieldCKg/ha3

41O81
48735
6O4OO
61348
58231
70434

Economy,

1992,

increased

to

197O Kg/he

in

1991^92

respectively.

The

sugar cane was completely neglected in West Bengal.

in 1966/67,
almost

area

It was 23 T/he

t h a t was l a t e r declined to IS T. he in 1991/92.

equal

to

1 . OO

in

1966/67

to

production has a l s o declined from 1071

O. 32

V.

in

hand

yield

rate?

maintained

This is

1991/92.

The

T. t in 1966/67 to 659 T. t

in 1991/92, or froml.15 'A in 1966/67 to 0.34 % in 1991/92.

other

under

the

growth

from41081

On t h e

Kg. he-

in

1966/67 to 704,34 Kg/he in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

2.9.7

ALL INDIA:

The

tables

cropping

pattern

2.9.7.1
in

all

India

level

35K51

T/he in 1906/67,

1991/92.

scenario

to

2.9.7.6

India

from

showed

t.hat .

t.hp

area

to

the

nature

1991/92.

under

rice

of

The

all

accounted

increased to 423O8 T/he in

On the other hand production increased from 3O438 T. t in

Kg/he

1966/67,

has

respectively.

However,

wheat

1966/67,

has

Increased

to

increase

in

in

production

SS087 T. t in 1991/92.
witnessed

1966/67

which was l a t e r

1966/67 to 73664 T.t in 1991/92.

863

illustrates

from

887

Where as the yield r a t e recorded

increased
area

2298O

took

place

to

which
T. he
from

in

1741

Kg/he

noticed
1991/92.

11393

T. t

in

12838
A
in

1991/92
T. he

five

in

fold

1966/67

to

Where as a t h r e e time Increase in y i e l d was

Kg/he

in

1966/67

respectively.

85

to

2397

Kg/he

in

1991/92

A decline in area under Jowar was noticed from, 18054 T/he In

1066/67 to 1 2592 T/he In 1991/92. Contrary to this production
noticed fluctuations, i.e 9234 T. t in 1966/67. then raised to
12O62 T. t in 1981/82. but later declined to 8357 T. t in 1991/92.
On the other hand, yield level also noticed variations i.e 511
Kg/he in 1960/67. which raised up to 727 Kg/he in 1981/82, and
then declined to 576 Kg/he in 1986/87, but increased again to 664
Kg/he in 1991/9 respectively. In case of cotton, th area was
7836 T/he in 1966/67,

and declined to 769S T/he in 1991/93.

Interestingly, the production which was 5266 T. t in 1966/67. has

increased to 9836 T. t in 1991/92. This Increase in production took
place due to stable yield rate. Yield wai, recorded at 114 Kg/he in
1966/67. later gone up to 217 Kg/he in 1991/92 respectively.

Table 2.9.7.1
ALI. INDIA s
AREA,
PRODUCTION,
CRice), 1966/67 t o 1991/92.

Year

AreaC'OOO hec3

AND

YIELD

OF

P r o d u c t i o n C " OOOtons!)

PRINCIPAL

YieXdCKgXhaS

1966X67

35251

3O438

863

1071X72

37758

43068

1141

1976X77

38511

41917

1088

19R1XRS

4O7O8

53248

1308

1980X87

41167

60S57

1471

1991X92

423O8

73664

1741

Source:CMTE:

Ba^ic S t a t i s t i c s
1 9 9 3 and 1 9 9 4 .

Relating

86

to

Indian

CROPS

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.7. 2
ALL INDIA t AREA, PRODUCTION,
CWheat}, 1906X67 to 1901X92.

Year

AreaC'000 hec3

AND

YIELD

OF

ProductionC *000tons5

PRINCIPAL

YieldOCgXha!)

1 966/67

12838

11393

887

1971X72

19139

26410

1380

1976X77

2O922

29O1O

1387

1981X82

22144

37452

1691

1986X87

23131

44323

1916

1991X92

22980

5SO87

2397

S o u r c e : CMIE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
1993 and 1994.

CROPS

Economy,

1902,

PRINCIPAL

CROPS

Table 2.9.7.3
ALL INDIA : ARKA, PRODUCTION,
CJowar}, 1966X67 to 1991X92.

Year

AreaC* 000 hec)

AND

YIELD

OF

ProductionC *OOOtons3

Yi e l df Kg/ha}

1966/67

18O54

9224

511

1971 X72

16777

7722

460

1976X77

15772

10524

667

1981X82

16599

12O62

727

1986^87

15948

9185

576

1991X92

12592

8357

664

SourcezCMIE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
1993 and 1994.

87

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.7.4
ALL INDIA i
CGround n u O ,

Year

AREA,
PRODUCTION,
AND
1 966X67 to 1991 X92.

Areat'OOO Y\cr~>

YIELD

OF

P r o d u t t i o n t 'OOOtons)

PRINCIPAL

YioldfKgXha)

19CDX67

7299

4411

604

1971X72

7510

6181

823

1976X77

7043

5264

747

1981X82

7429

7223

972

1986X87

6982

5875

841

1991X92

8672

7066

815

S o u r c e : CM1E:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

CROPS

Economy,

1902,

PRINCIPAL

CROPS

Table 2.9.7.5
ALL INDIA : AREA, PRODUCTION,
CCottonD, 1966X67 to 1991X92.

Year

AreaC'OOO hecD

AND

YIELD

OF

P r o d u c t i o n C * OOOtoi^sD

YieldCKgXKaD

1966X67

7836

5266

114

1971X72

78OO

6950

151

1976X^7

O885

5839

144

1981^82

8O57

7884

166

19U6X87

6048

BOOS

167

1991X92

7695

9836

217

Source: CMIE:

B a s i c S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

88

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9. 7. O
ALL INDIA AREA, PRODUCTION,
C S u o a r c * n e 5 1966/67 t o 1991/92.

AreaC* OOO hec3

Year

AND

YIELD

OF

PRINCIPAL

ProductionCOOOtons)

YieldOCgXtuO

1966X67

23O1

92826

4O342

1971X72

2390

113570

47519

1976X77

2866

1S3007

53387

1981^82

3193

186358

58365

1986X87

3079

186090

60438

1991X92

3786

243256

65936

Source: CMIE:

Sugar

B a s i c S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

cane.

1966/67

to

experienced

3786

T/he

in

noticeable
1 991 /9ft.

growth
A

CROPS

Economy,

i.e

three

1992,

23O1

fold

T/he

in

increase

in

production has recorded from 92836 T.t in 1966/67 to 249256 T.t in

1991/82.

The

yield

structure

also

noticed

positive

trend

namely

from 4O342 Kg/he In 1966/6/to 6S836 kg/he in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

The
states

compound

showed

changing
2.9.1.12.

growth

interesting

cropping

pattern

In case of

yi-owth r a t e

I.e

of

different

picture.
in

A. P

is

Andhra Pradesh,

-O. 3S % In 1971/72,

r a t e of 2.54 % in 1991/92.
increased

rates

crops

grown

the
of

Compound

growth

rates

shown

in

tables

2.9.1.7

r i c e area

showed

and

On t h e other

1 ator

to

negative

i nc i <-.j;.r-d

at

hand production of

from 3. 3O >4 in 1971/72 to 7.50 'A in 1991/92.

80

in

therice

Where as

yield

level

period

has

Increased

negative

growth

from3. S8
rates

'A

were

1981/82. and 1986X87 respectively.

area was 2.03 'A in 1971/72,
V.

in

1991/S2.

Production

in

1971/72,

next

experienced.

The

growth

in

in

the

197S/77,

rate

of

jowar

has derreased by later negative -4.O6

showed

significant

fluctuations.

The

yield s t r u c t u r e accounted negative growth r a t e i . e -0.48 'A in the

bigining

but

1991/92.

Regarding wheat area shown has increased at r a t e of 10.O7

'A in

overall

1971/72,

later

ended

noticed

up

with

increase

negative growth

-8.34 'A in 1981/82 and 1980/87.

41.60 'A in 1971/72.

an

and l a t e r

14.87

'A per

annum in

1991/92.

22.14

'A per

annum in

1971/72.

of

rates

6.58

of

-5. O3

Production i ncreaspd at
increased at
Mean
with

while

rate

in

and

the r a t e

decreasing

yield

'A

r a t e of

noticed

some fluctuations

it

finally

increased at 14.84 >S per annum in 1991/92.

Ground nut

area increased at

1971/72 and 9.49 'A in 1991/92.

?.. 82 '/,. ppi1991/92.

annum In 1S71/7P,

a r a t e of

8.45 >S per

Production raised at
1 Fit tr

at

t.hi>

Yield r a t e which noticed 1.03 % per

annum in

the r a t e of

rate of

2.86 % in

annum in 1971/71.

has

increased to 6.19 'A per annum in 1991/92 respectively.

Cotton area

accounted at the r a t e of 1.24 'A per annum in 1971/72.

but l a t e r it

increased

at

rate

of

experienced 3.98 'A pc-i

1O.27

'A

annum in

in

1991/92.

1971/72.

and

increasing r a t e of 1O.65 'A per annum in 1991/92.

r a t e of growth of

yield was 3.21

'A per

The
later

production
increiitied

at

Contrary to t h i s ,

annum in 1971/72,

Increased at a r a t e of 3.89 'A per annum in 1991/92.

later

However, sugar

cane area witnessed 0.69 y. per annum in 1971/72. has a s u b s t a n t i a l

90

Table 2.9.1.7
ANDHRA PRADESH : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS C R l c e J , 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AreaC'OOO hecD

Product.lonC *OOOtons3

AND

YleldCKg/hjO

1966/^67
1971/72

- O. 3S

3 . 3O

3.58

1976/77

3 . S3

O. 88

- 2.28

1981/82

1.41

9. 8O

- 7.65

1986/87

- 1.98

- 3 . 48

- 1.52

1991/92

4.33

9.47

8.88

Source:CK1E: Basic Statistics Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

Table

Economy,

1992,

2.9.1.8

ANDHRA PRADESH : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,

yjKI.D OK PRINCIPAL CROPS C Jow;r3, 1OG6/B7 to 1OO1/92.

Year

AreatOOO hoc)

Product 1onC * OOOtons)

AND

YieldCKg/ha3

1966/67
19/1 / 7 2

2. O3

1976^77

- 4.19

1981/82

1.82

1.09
- 1.34
4.61

1986/-87

- 5 . O4

- 5.71

1991S92

- 4.O6

O. 32

Source: CMIE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

91

- O. 48
2.97
2.93
- O. O7
6.58

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 1 . 9
ANDHRA PRADESH : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CWheatD, 1 9 6 6 x 6 7 to 19O1XQ2.

Year

AreaC'OOO hec>

ProductionC *OOOtons)

AND

YleldCKgXha)

1966X67
1971/72

1O. 07

41.80

22.14

1976X77

O.93

4.10

3.O2

1981X82

- 5 . O3

- 3.28

2.41

1986X87

- 8.34

-1 4. 59

- 9.61

1991X92

O. OO

1 4. 87

14.84

SourcetCMTE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 1 . 1 0

ANDHRA PRADESH : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,

YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS ( G r o u n d n u t ) , 1966X67 to 1991X92.

Year

AreaCOOO hec)

Product, i onC * OOOtons)

AND

YleldCKgXha!)

1 966X67
1971X72
1976/77

8.45
-

7.27

2.82

1.03

-12. 22

- 6.O7

1981X82

6.66

19.77

12.27

1986X87

i.eo

1O. 94

- 3. 4O

1991X92

9.49

2.86

6.19

Source: CMIE:

B a s i c S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

92

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 1 . 1 1
ANDHRA PRADESH I COMPOUND GROWTH RATFS OF ARFA, PRODUCTION,
YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS f C o t t o n } , 1966X67 to 1991X92.

Year

AroaC* O00 hec)

ProductionC * OOOtons}

AND

YicldOCgXrwO

1966X67
1971/72

1.24

3.98

3.21

1976X77

- P.. 98

8.32

11.59

1981/82

10. 43

2O. SO

9.11

1966/97

- 2.77

- 1 . 69

1.15

1991X92

1O. 27

10.65

3.89

Source: CMIE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.
Table

Economy,

1992,

2.9.1.12

ANDHRA PRADESH : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,

YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS C S u g a r c a n e ) , 1 9 6 6 x 6 7 to 1991X92.

Year

AroaC *OOO hec}

Pi uduc 11 out ' OOOLoiiO

AND

YiclUCKgXfia?

1966/67
1971X72

O. 69

3.76

2.99

1976X77

4.17

- O. 5S

- 4. 54

1981X82

4.28

7.79

3.42

1980X87

- 5.18

- 7. 22

- 2.46

1991x92

6.15

5.73

- 0.61

Source:CM1E: Basic Statistics Relating to Indian Economy,

1993 and 1994.

93

1992,

rate

of

increase

of

6.15

V.

per

annum

jn

1991/92.

Production

noticed 3.76 V. per

annum in 1971/73,

and

the final

rate was 5.73 % per

annum in 1991/92.

But

the yield increased at

2.99 X in
-0.61

1971/73,

y- in

but

1991/92

the yield s t r u c t u r e ,
time period.The area

ended up with a

respectively.

year

growth

negative growth r a t e of

The overall

scenario

show that

was not maintained at a steady r a t e over

irrigated

under

specific

crops,

due

to

the
this

product. 1 on r a t e Is also fluctuating over t h i s time.

Area
2.9.2.8;

under

Rice in Bihar,

it was noticed a 1 . O9 V. per annum in 1971/72, and l a t e r

increased at a r a t e ofS. 41
hand

production

increased

at

"A per

was

4.60 % pc-i

rate?

decreasing

1991/92.

The

yield

rate

1971 /7ft,

and

later

Increased

1991/92.

Regarding Jowar,

i.e

as s t a t e d in the tables 2 . 9 . 2 . 5 to

annum in 1991/92.

annum in
rate

also

of

at

rate

later

negative

growth

2.16

of

negative growth

-12.98 V. in 1971/72,

recorded

3. OO

experienced

rates

rates

and

it

further

'A,

pe-i

annum

in

per

annum

in

annum

in

4.76

growth r a t e

negative -3.58 V. per annum in 1991/92.

also

1971/72,

On the other

'/.

per

were experienced

was

continued

to be

Production and yield was

namely

-19.73

and

-5.99

in

1971/72 to -9.71 and -9. OS in 191 /W rp;pH.ively.

Wheat
1971/72,

area has

later

it

increased at

Increased

at

a r a t e of
a

rate

of

Production has Increased at a r a t e of 22.61

further

increased

at

r a t e of

7.02 V. pel

annum in

2.92

1991/92.

V.

V> in 1971/72,

1O.O6 % in 1991/92.

94

in

even

which
though

there

are

some

negative

growth

rates

In

between.

However,

r a t e was i ncrwased at 17. Al V. per annum In 1971/7??,

at

a r a t e of 6.30 Ji per

sugar

cane

further

increased

raised

increased at

at

annum in 1991/92.

at

5. S3

rate

2.25 V. per

of

V.

7.12

per
'A

yield

1971/71,

rate

but l a t e r

showed

negative

in

later

of

and

Production

it
has

in the period it

annum in 1991/92.
rate

Area under

1971/72,

1991/92.

annum in 1971/72,

increased at a r a t e of 18.20 V. per

this,

in

later raised

respectively.

annum

yield

growth

Contrary to
at

-1 .23

in

it hsrome p o s i t i v e r a l e at 1^.67 V, p#r annum i n

1991/92 r e s p e c t i v o l y .

Table 2 . 9 . 2 . 5
BJhai : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
PRINCIPAL CROPS CRlceD, 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 to 1 0 9 1 / ^ 2 .

Year

Areat* OOO hec)

ProductlonC * OOOtons3

AND YIELD OF

YipldfKgXha^

1966X67
1971 X72

1.O9

4. 6O

2.16

1976X77

- 0.38

- 2. O6

- 1.7O

1981X82

0.22

-2.18

- 2.39

1988X87

O. OO

7.27

7.26

1991X92

5.41

3 . OO

4.76

Source: CMIE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

95

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.3.2.0
Bihar : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
PRINCIPAL CROPS CJowari), 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AreaCOOO hec3

AND YIELD OF

Yi e l dC K g / h a :>

ProductionC *OOOtons3

19O/7
1971/^2

-12.95

-19.73

- 5.99

1976/77

17. O8

?>4.58

6.88

1981 /82

0. OO

3.13

4.52

1986/87

-11.42

- 6.51

6.87

1991/92

- 3.58

-9.71

Source: CMIE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
1993 and 1994.
Table

- 9. O8

Economy,

2.9.2.7

Bihai : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,

PRINCIPAL CROPS CWheaO, 1 9 6 6 / ^ 7 to 1 9 0 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AreaC * OOO hec>

1992,

ProductionC *000tuns3

AND YIELD OF

YieldCKg/haD

1966/67
1971^72

7.02

22.61

17.41

1976/77

6.84

- O. 97

- 6.58

1981/^2

- 3.35

- 2.28

1.12

1986/^7

2.33

5.38

2.97

1991/^2

2.92

1O. O6

6.20

Source:CM1E: Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1OQ3 ;nill 1994.

96

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.2.8
Bihar : COMPOUND OKOWI'H RATES OK AkKA, PRODUCTION,
PRINCIPAL CROPS CSugarcaneS, 1 9 8 6 / ^ 7 to 1991X92.

AreaC * OOO hec)

Year

Product lonC * OOOt.onsD

AND YJEI.D OF

Y i e l d f ICg-^haD

19D6/ti7
1 971/V2

b. 63

P. f5

- 1 .23
-33.23

i 976^77

2.05

- 1.33

1981X82

- 0.63

O. O2

O. O2

1986^87

- 2. 01

2.26

B1 . 44

1991^92

7. 12

18. 2O

13.67

Source: CMTF:

Tile
i-atus
rate

of
of

B a s i r S t a t i s t ir<; RF-1 at 1 ng to Tnrliari

1993 and 1994.

tables

of

'A

4.83

2.9.3.6

L-i-opplny
growth

and.6. 04 X pe?r
17.89

per
>

in

pattern
rice

annum

annum
per

to .9.3.10

annum

Punjab

area

in

in

in

i.e,

19n/9r:.

1971 / 7 ,
in

inr.rMsftd at 9. 8fi 'A per

and

1 991/9S.
.innuin

54

per

in
-1 n

annum in 1971/^7S,

whi cli

annum I n 1 991 /"9S.

1971^72,
lUUl-'&a.

and

later

Central >

8.23

'A

per

as

On

the

annum

it

other

further

undci

in

positive
1971/7,

hand

at

to

Increased
tliia,,

at

rate

yield

rate

and ended up w i t h

wheat at-fDiiulod 6. 6S

i n c r e a s e d at

yield

97

rate

lui

at

r a t e of

Mean w h i l e p r o d u c t i o n increased at

it

growth

JriL.re^sed

increased

f n t.hrv b o y l n n l n r j ,
A; w

noticed

pi o d u c t i on

further

1992,

t h e compound

agriculture,

Where

a yruwth r a t e o f 3 . 79 '/. i n 1901 X93.

*< per

Illustrate

Frnnomy,

of

6.84

nulir.o<l

4.69

27.12 %

por

annum

i)-,:l.ivc

growth

r a t e of

8.22

V.

per

annum

in

1971/72

and

9.71

V.

in

1991/93

respectively.

The

ground

nut

recorded

negative

growth

rates.

-2.75

and

-17.94 'A per annum in 1971/Y2 and 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Production

has a l s o experienced negative growth r a t e s of -2.81 and -17.53 in
1971/72
positive

and

1991/9?;

respectively.

growth r a t e of

Where

as

yield,

showed

1 . 2 >S per annum in 1971/72, but l a t e r

it experienced negative growth r a t e s l i k e -0. O4 V. per

1991/92.

annum in

Regarding cotton, area sown increased at a r a t e of 3.76 '/

pen- annum \n 1O71/^7S.

which vras further

i nrreased t, a r a t e of

5.07 '/i per Annum in 1991/92. Product.ion noticed 6. 64 'A growth

per

Table 2 . 9 . 3 . 6
Punjab :

COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA,

PRINCIPAL CROPS C R i c e i ,

Year

AreaC OOO hecJ

PRODUCTION,

AND YIELD OF

1966/67 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

ProductlonC ' OOOtonsi

Yi el rIC Kg/ha)

1966/B7
1971/72

8.23

17.89

9.88

1976/77

17.34

13.61

4.79

1981/82

13. SI

16.62

2.74

1986/87

7.33

9.91

2. 4O

1991/92

6. O4

4.83

3.79

Source:CMIE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

98

Economy,

1992,

T M M P P.. 9. 3. 7

P u n J a b ! COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,

PRINCIPAL CROPS C W h e a t ) , 1966X67 t o 1 9 9 1 X 9 2 .

Year

ArftaC'OOO hec)

Pr odur.t.i onC * OOOt.onO

AND YIELD OF

YielcK Kg/ha3

1966/67
1971/72

6.65

1976/77

2. Ol

-14.42

1981/82

2 . 49

27. O9

3.81

1986/87

1.80

R.O3

O. 23

1991/92

4.69

6.84

9.71

S o u r c e : CMIE:

?:r. 1 f.

Basic S t a t i s t i c s
1993 and 1994.

R e l a t i n g to Indian

8.22
O. 22

Economy,

1992,

I ;ibl <- 2 . 9 . 3 . 8
Punjab : COMPOUND GROWTH RATFS OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
PRINCIPAL CROPS CGround n u t ) , 1966X67 to 1 9 9 1 ^ 9 2 .

Yi-ar

Ar-fiifOOO licvr)

P r o d u c t ii.ui( O O O t o i i ' - J

AND YTF.I.D OF

Yi r-1 iH K c | / h n " >

1066/a-i7
1971/^-2

- 2. 73

- 2.81

1976X77

1.18

3.90

- 2. 73

1981/^2

-10.92

9.71

1 . 34

1986/87

-14.11

-14.14

1991/^2

-1 7. 94

-17. SS

- O. O4

Source: CMIE:

B a i i c S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
ior3 and 1994.

99

1.22

0.02

EuuiKimy,

1992,

Table 2.9.3.9
P u n j a b : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD OF
PRINCIPAL CROPS C C o t t o r O , 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 to 1991X92.

Year

AreaC'OOO hec)

ProductlonC'OOOtons}

YlcldCKg/haD

1966/67
1971/72

3-70

6.64

2.84

1976/77

3.24

2. O3

- 1.17

1981/82

4.16

2.22

- 1.85

1986/87

- 3. 63

b. 89

9.92

1991/92

5.O7

7.35

2. 9O

Source:CM1E:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Indian
1993 and 1994.
Table

Economy,

2.9.3.10

P u n j a b : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,

PRINCIPAL CROPS t S u g a r c a n e S , 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 t o 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AreaC'OOO hec3

19O2,

ProductlonC'OOOtons5

AND YIELD OF

YieldC Kg/ha :>

1966/67
1971/72

- 3.01

- 1.41

3.60

1976/77

1.87

8.54

6.55

1981/82

- 1.27

O.16

1.45

1986/87

- 1.76

- 0.03

1.76

1991/92

S. 54

O. O5

0.55

Source: CMIE: Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n

1993 and 1994.
annum in 1971/72,

and l a t e r

annum in 1991/92.

On t h e o t h e r hand,

Economy,

i n c r e a s e d a t a r a t e of

100

1992,

7.35 'A per

y i e l d r a t e was 2.84 V. per

annum in 1971/"VS. and raised to 2. 9O *J r a t e per annum In 1991/93 .

Sugar cane area showed a negative growth of
and

later

increased

1991/92- Production
1971/72,

later

it

annum in

1991/93.

1971/72.

and

at

showed
has

Yield

later

rate

of

negative

positive

rate

also

has

i t i n c r e a s e d at

- 3. O1

5. 54

Ji

growth
of

rate

per

of

growth
of

>: in 1971/72,
annum

-1.41
at

O. O5

growth

of

54
"A

3.60

a r a t e of 0. 35 'A per

in
in
per

V.

in

annum in

1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

As

shown

in

tables

2.9.4.6

to

2.9.4.10,

experienced p n s l t . i v p growth i n i l r p prorhir:* i n n .

annum

In

1971/7??,

-1.45

in

1971/72.

but

1Q91/92.

and l a t e r

later
Here

it

negative

jv-or1>n 11 . >i >

i n c r e a s e d at a

Table-

Tamil

Nadu

namply H. 78 "A per

growth

rate

I n . j i..,;...l

was
rft

noticed,

5.79

in

r a t e of around 4.94 % per

2.9.4.6

Tamil Nadu : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD

OF PRINCIPAL CROPS ( R i c e ) , 1966/67 to 1991 / 9 2 .

Year

Areat'OOO hue5

P r o r i i i r t i o n l ' OOOt ons.)

Yir-lriC K g / h a D

1966/67
1971X72

2.78

5.79

1976/77

- 3.23

- 4. 48

- 1.30

1981/82

1.5S

5.87

4.26

1986/87

- 4.55

- l.OO

3.72

1991/92

- 1.45

4.94

5.63

Source: CMIE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

101

5.63

Economy,

1992,

annum

in

1M1/S?;.

annum in m 7 1 / / " 2 ,

The-

rat.p

and l a t o j

of

growth

growths of -O. 39 % i n 1971/72,

Yield

in 1O71/V2,

Htivr-vpr ,

was

iinillai

Jowar

R. 63

'A

per

yi uwl], i . i t c of

arrnuiitnd n e g a t i v p

and mj^ln a negat.Wp growth rat.p of

Mean while p i o d u u t i o n showed ney-itivc growth

- 0 . 2 3 >4 in 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 ,
1991/92.

yield

it mui ntoi neJ <J

fi.fi? '/ in 1 PQ1 /9?. ffspm.-ll vt>]y.

-23.29 5i i n 1 993/9ft.

for

become p o s i t i v e at

0 . 3 6 'A in

r a t e a l s o n o t i c e d n e g a t i v e growth r a t e of

-O. 22 'A

latr?i

and was

it

later

wl t u o ^ f d

it

a positive-

gi owt.h

i ate

of

6. O8

b. 72

'A

'A

per annum.

Area
annum

in

under

yi uund

1UY1/72,

.uid

perannum in 1991/92.
'A in 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 .
19Q1/92.

and

increased

3..lr-.

It

at

the

rate

int.icr.ci

.,t

Production a l s o noticed a

it.

i n c r e a s e d at

rate? of

it

L-xpeilL'iiced

i n t n . ' a i t ' d at
noyativc

primitive

a i a t o of

yi owl h

at

T.R1

rate
^

pt*r

-O. Yi

anntm

ijlf

nf

3. O6 'A per

1.99 % poi

of

ol

4.18V.

annum in

annum i n 1971/V2,
annum.

in

per

growth r a t e of 9 . 1 7

Yield i a t e was r e a s o n a b l e at 3 . 8 2 >; per

and late-i

brae-time

nut

in

Cotton c r o p

]y71./"72,

1 9P1 /P2.

later

Whf^re

as

prorlurtion i n r . r p s ^ d at a rate- of ?!. BS '/. i n 1 O71 /77> anti R 24 *{ per

annum

in

1991/P.r:.

Yield

and it was 1 3 . 2 7 'i per

r s t p ws<:

annum i n 1991/92.

increased

at

rate

of 1 . 80 % per

increased

at

rate

of

not. lrf-d a growth r a t e of

4-. 13
3.71

"A

per

per

annum

growth r a t e of

in

1971/72,

- 1 . 7 3 ?4 per

annum

at

Area
in

5.95

under

1971/72,

annum

in

in

1971/72.

sugar
and

1991/92.

cane,

later

it,

Production

V* p*r annum In 1 Q71 / 7 2 . and l.RR '/!

pfir annum in 1 991 /<*=: r e s p e c t i v e l y .

1.26

positive

The r a t e of growth of y i e l d was

which

has

expi;i l u n - u J

annum in 1991/92.

102

negative-

TableTamil Nadu :

2.9. 4.7

COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA,

PRODUCTION,

ANT) YIELD

OK PRINCIPAL CROPS t JowarO, 1 9 R 6 / 6 7 to 1 Q 9 1 / 9 2 .

year

Ar eaC 000 h e O

Product!onC 'OOOtonO

YieldCKg/haD

1966/67
1 971 / 7 2

- O. 39

1976/77

0.23

- O. 22

3.27

9. O2

5.58

4.50

- 7. 6O

1986/87

1.76

4.30

2. 5O

1991/92

-83.29

O. 36

6.08

1981X82

Source:CMTE:

Ba*1r. S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

Table

3.26

Economy,

2.9.4.8

Tamil Nadu : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, FRODUC11OH,

OF PRINCIPAL CROPS ( G r o u n d n u t ) , 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AreaC'OOO hoc3

1992,

Product ionC ' OOOtons?

AND YIELD

YipldCKg/'ha")

1966/67
9.17

3.82

9.22

- 5 . OO

2.62

9.54

6.74

1986/B7

- 2.40

- 2 . 46

- 0. OG

1QU1/92

4.18

3.OG

1 .99

1971/72

5.72

1076/77

- 4. 44

1981/82

Source:CMIE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g t o I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

103

Fionomy,

1992,

T a b ! r- P. &. 4 . 9
Tamil Nadu : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF ARF.A, PRODUCTION,
OF PRTNCIPAI CROPS C Cot t o n ) , 19Tifi/fi7 to 1P.P.1 / 9 2 .

Year

ArpaC'OOO hec3

ProduLtlonl'000tons5

AND YIELD

YieldCKg/'hiO

1966/67
1971/72

- 0. 7 5

19/6/7/

- 5 . 17

2.63

5.95

3.27

2.07

1 9H1 /H2

O. OO

- 4. 39

1 986/87

- 0. 17

O . OO

0.20

8.24

13.27

3.81

1 991 / 9 2

Som-i.e: CM1E:

Basir: S t a t i s t i c s RelaLJny to Indian

1O93 and 1994.

4.42

Economy,

1002,

Table 2 . 9 . 4.10
Tamil Nadu : COMPOUND GROWTH RATFS OF ARF.A, PRODUCTION,
O F PRINCIPAL CROPS C S u g a i x a n e ) , 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 t o 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AreaC ' OOO heel)

ProductlonC"OOOtonsJ

AND YI F.LD

Yi e l dC Kg/ha :>

1966/B7
1971/72

1.80

3.71

1.26

1976-C77

5.79

8. i e

2.24

1981/82

5.34

7.24

1.81

0.50

1.35

1.86

4.73

38.21

35. 4O

198B/87
1991/9

Suui cu: CMJ K:

B;j=>.i c S t a t l s.t J us R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

104

Economy,

19O2,

Area

under

rice

in

Uttar

Pradesh,

as

Illustrated

in

tables

3.0. S. 7 to 2.9. S. 12. accounted a growth r a t e of O. 23 V. per annum

In 1971/72, and the growth r a t e in 1PP1 /PS was P. R */i per annum.
Contrary

to

1971/72,

the r a t e of

is

this

important

to

1971/72 and
negative

production

that

per

annum

in

increase in 1991/92 was8.06 Jt per

annum.

It

the

growth

in

yield

8.22 X. per

growth

rate

of

-6. 8B

growth

rate

-1.31

of

positive at a r a t e of

but

in

Jowar

area

and

ended

'/i 1 n 1991/92.

-11.96

at

>s

2.13 >i r a t e of

1971/72,

in

2.17 V* per

Increased

4.63

1991/92.

also witnessed negative growth r a t e

1971/72,

of

showed

annum in

negative growth r a t e of
negative

recorded

rate

of

which

has

annum in 1991/92.
the

up

with

Production noticed

1971/72,

in

witnessed

beginning

5.12 \ per

become

Yield r a t e
-6.39 54 in

annum

in

1991/92

respectively.

Compound
whoat

crop

in

growth
tht

rates

slat.R

of

area

not \ rod

production,

pn^l II VP

yi-owt h

and

yield

ratns

of

of5.30,

7.20. and 1. 33 V. per annum in 1971/-V2 respectively, and later the

area and production increased at a r a t e of 1.40 V. and 4.50 M per
annum,

where as yield increased at a r a t e of

1891/^2.

Ground

negative at
increased

at

nut

noticed

fluctuations

in the beginning of at
a

r a t e of

5.27 % per

in

8.27 JS per annum in

growth

rate

-3.45 '/* In 1971/7P.

annum

(n 1991/92.

namely

and l a t e r
Production

experienced negative yr owlh r a t e s of -8.33 5i in 1971/72, and later

a modest growth r a t e of
negative
1971/72,

through

out

the

O. 71

'A in 1991/92.

observation

period

and -1.74 in 1991/9R respectively.

105

The yield r a t e was

of

4.70

in

The c o t t o n crop witnessed negative growth

r a t e of

-2.Ol fc

per annum in 1971/72. and -2.89 V. per annum in 1991/92. Production

recorded

negative

laterthere

was

growth

no

negative r a t e of

change

O. 56 V. per

noticed

almost
area

in

of

-2.72

1991/92.

-O. O7 in 1971/T2.

r a t e of

yield. The

rate

annum in

was

in

Yield
later

1971/72,

rat*
it

in

fi.18

case of

increased

'A p*r

area,

annum

but

experienced

1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

p o s i t i v e growth
growth

but

'A.

at

Sugar

cane

production,

in

1971/72,

and
which

increased to 2.80 y. in 1991/92, production witnessed 7. 25 'A pc-r

annum in 1971/72, which r a i s e d at i n c r e a s i n g r a t e i . e ft. 21 V. per
annum in 1991/92.

A f i v e t.J mn i n c r e a s e

in y i e l d

took

place i . e

Tahle 2 . 9 . 5 . 7
U t t a r P r a d e s h : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CRiceD, 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AreaC* 000 heci

ProductionC'OOOtonsi

AND

YieldCKg/ha)

1966/67
1971/72

O. 23

4.63

2.13

1976/77

- O. 29

2.58

2.88

1981/82

2.98

6.57

3.50

1986/87

O. 56

4.95

4.35

1991/92

2.88

8.06

8.22

Source:CMIE: Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

106

Economy,

1992,

T a h l o ?.. 0. 5. 8
Ultar

Pradesh

COMPOUND

GROWTH

YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CJowar),

Year

Al eaC *000 hecD

RATES

OF

AREA,

PRODUCTION,

AND

1966-^67 to 1PP1/^K.

Pi oduutiont'OOOtunsJ

YicldCKg/hiaD

1966/67
1 971 /7et

- 6.86

1976/77

?. SI

1 981 /f*2

- 0. 49

4.56

S. O9

1966/T37

- 3. 34

- 'o. OO

- 1.74

1991/92

- 1. 31

2.17

5.12

Source: CMIE:

- 1 1 . 96

- 6.37

1fi. 7"5

13. 3O

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1093

JJUI

Economy,

1993,

1994.

Table 2 . 9 . 5 . 9
U t t a i Pi a d o s h : COMPOUND GkOV<] H k ' A l t S Ol A k L A , 1'kODUL I 1 OU,
Y1EIX) OF PRTNCTPA! CROPS ( Wheat } , 1 PRR/^!7 i.ft I P P l y ^ l K .

Year

AreaC * 000 hec3

ProduvtionC"OOOtonsD

AND

YieldCKg/haD

1966/7
1971/72

5.30

7.20

1.33

1976/'/'7

1.84

3. 4-4

1.57

1981-^82

3.25

7.36

3.97

1986/^B7

1.58

4.95

3.33

1991/^ia

1.40

4.50

8.27

Suuice:CMlE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relatiny
1 9 9 3 ami 1 9 9 4 .

107

to Indian

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.5.10
U t t a r P r a d e s h : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
YIELD OK PRINCIPAL CROPS C Ground n u t 3 , 1QB6X67 to 1O91 X9J>.

Year

AreaC OOO hec.5

ProductlonC * OOOtons}

AND

YleldtKgXha)

1966X67
1971 X72

-3.45

- 8.35

- 4. 7O

1976X77

3.47

4.95

7.35

1981X82

- 7.67

1.74

10.19

1986X87

- 1 3 . 97

-15.26

- 1.50

1991X93

5.27

O. 71

- 1.74

Source: CMTE:

B:ic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to I n d i a n
1993 and 1994.

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.5.11
U t t a r P r a d e s h : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
YIELD 'OK PRINCIPAL CROPS C C o t t o r O , 1O66X15/ to 10D1XQ2.

Year

AreaC*OOO hec)

Product.ionC 'OOOtonsi

AND

YleldfKgXha)

19B6X67
- O. O7

1971X72

- 2 . Ol

- 2.72

1976X77

- 1 6 . 30

-12.31

4.87

1981X82

5.46

9.46

3.75

1986X87

- 6. O2

1991y92

Source: CMIE:

2.89

- 3.93

2.15

O. OO

6.56

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

108

Rrc.nr.my,

1992,

Table 2.9.5.12
U t t a r P r a d e s h : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS ( S u g a r c a n e ) , 1 9 6 8 / 6 7 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Produfit.i onC OOOt.on^")

Year

AND

YifilrfCKg^haD

1966/67
1 971 /72

6.18

7.25

1.O9

1976/77

2.71

5.73

2.95

1981/"82

2.56

3.23

O. 65

J 986/87

0.31

2. OS

1.76

1991/^2

2.80

8.21

6.09

Source: CM1E:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

from a annual growth r a t e of

1 . 69 'A per

% per annum in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

rate has
tin.

i,.j!i;;_'

not. s h o w n a n e v e n g r o w t h
tiling

pi u d u t l i o n

ol^,o

Economy,

1992,

annum in 1971/V2 to 6.09

It was observed t h a t ,

r a t e over

notic.Jny

t h e p e r i o d of

fJ u c t u . t l . 1 i>sii,

yield

t.i me.

in

th"?

At
time

period.

Compound

shown

in

growth

tables

West Bengal

r t t?>

2.9.6.4

to

tif

c:ruppl ny

2.9.6.6.

Increased at a r a t e of

piitt.rMii

The

area

In

under

Wt^t

Rr-ngal

is

crop

in

rice

3. 35 V. per annum In 1971/72,

later it r a i s e d at a r a t e of 2.26 M 1n 1991/92.

Production noticed

a growth r a t e of S. 37 H per

and increased at a

rate of

5.82 ^ per

3.92 % pCv

annum in 1971/72,

annum in 1991/92.

annum in 1O71//2,

The Yield r a t e a l s o n o t i c e d

which i *iii.cd ^it

109

U. IS % i,

T a b l e 2 . 9 . B. 4
West B e n g a l : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA,
OF PRINCIPAL CROPS C R l c e } ,

Year

AreaC * OOO hec)

PRODUCTION,

AND YIELD

1966X67 to 1991X92.

ProdurtlonC * OOOtons)

YieldCKgXha:>

1966/^*7
1971X72

3.35

5.37

1976/77

O. 84

- 1.78

- R. OO

1981X82

0.02

- O. 39

- 0.41

1986X87

O. OO

7.73

7.O4

1991X92

2.26

5.82

5.15

Source: CMIE: Basic Statistics Relating to Indian

3.92

Economy,

1992,

1993 and 1994.

Table- 2.9.6.5
West B e n g a l : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CWheatD,
Year

AreaC OOO her")

AND YIELD

1966X67 to 1991X92.

Pror!irt 1 onf * OOOt.onc')

Yl *>1 <ir Ifg/^iai

1966X67
1971X72

44.91

67.91

16.39

1Q7GS77

4.O6

2.68

- 1.34

1981-^82

-16.11

-18. O2

- 2.29

1986/B7

13.21

11.92

- 1.15

1991/^2

- 6.O

Source:CMTE:

-4.38

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1S94.

110

5.35

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.6.6
West B e n g a l : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS f S u g a r c a n e ) , 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

AreaC'OOO hc)

Product i rnC * OOOt.onO

AND

YlelrirtCg/ha:)

196S/*7
1971/V2

8.13

9.12

3.48

1976S77

- P.. 47

1.8O

4.38

1981SBZ

-5.18

- 4.88

0.31

1 986/B7

- 1 0 . 78

-11 . 71

- 1.04

1991X92

4.24

6.46

5.82

SourcerCMIE: Ba:)r S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g t o TnrMan

1993 and 1994.

Economy,

negative yrowth r a t e of -6.61 'A per annum in 1991/93.

was at a r a t e of

1992,

Production

S7. 91 '/i in 1971/72, was l a t e r witnessed n e g a t i v e

growth r a t e of -4.38 % in 19PA/92.

Yield per h e c t a r e increased at

a r a t e of 16.39 V. per annum in 1971/72. and l a t e r it increased at

a r a t e of

S. 35 '/i per annum in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

sugar cane noticed a yrowth r a t e of

The area for

8.13 V, per annum in 1971/72,

which r a i s e d at a r a t e of 4.24 H per annum in 1991/9S.

Production

growth r a t e war. 9.13 '4. per annum in 1971/72, and it was 6.4 V. per
per annum in 1991/92.

Yield growth r a t e was 3.48 V. per annum i n

1971/72, and S. 82 Ji per annum in 1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

111

On

*11

2.9.7.12.

India

rice

increased at

level,

area

as

stated

increased

a r a t e of

at

in

1.39

1. OOV. per

the

V.

tables

in

annum in

1971/72.
1991/92.

growth r a t e was at 7.18 V. por annum in 19Y1/V2.

a r a t e of

4.57 ?*per

annum in 1991/92.

S. 74 'A in 1971/72.
annum in 1991/92.
in 1971/72.

later

it

Yield

increased

at

2.9.7.7
later

negative gi owth

it

Production

l a t e r int.rea.sed at
growth

rate

of

rate

was

4.83

V. per

Area under wheat Increased at a r a t e of

and l a t e r a

to

at

8.31 V.

wai recorded at -O.13 'A

por annum in 1PQ.1/9S.

Produrtion' not.i rpri a 18.31

in 1971/72,

it Increased at a r a t e of 4.44 V. in 1QQ1/Q3

was l a t e r

respectively.

growth

rate

Yield growth r a t e raised was9. 24 'A in 1971/72, which

increased at a r a t e of 4.S8 'A in 1991/92 respectively.

Jowar
growth

area,

rates

of

respectively.
-4.fi!=,

-1.46,

They

-1.87,

19Ql/9.

production,

later

and

and
-3.49,

continued

positive

yield

showed

almost

and

-2. O8

V.

the

growth

negative
of ft. 88

negative

in

1971/72

growth
'A

for

Ground nut crop area increased at. a r a t e of

rate

of

yield

in

O. 51 M per

annum in 1971/72, was l a t e r the growth r a t e w.-is4.43 'A pc.i

1991/92.
in

Production

1971/72,

later

accounted
increased

for
at

0.98 'A growth

rate

of

3.76

rate
'A

.nnnum in

per

per

annum

annum

in

1991/92. The Yield component noticed a growth r a t e of 6. 38 'A per

annum

in

1971/72,

'Oiipot:ti vely.

and

later

negative

of

-O. 63

in

1991/92

Coni-idoi iny aica under cotton a i><_-yiti. vc yi owth of

-0.09 "A per annum was noticed in 197O/71 , and an increased growth
rate of 2. O6 'A in 1991/92.
5.70 'A in 1971/72.

The r a t e of growth in production was at

and l a t e r it wui. at 7.33 '/. per annum in

112

Table 2.9.7.7
ALL INDIA t COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION, AND
YIELD OF PRINCIPAL CROPS C R i c e J , 1966/057 to 1991 9 2 .

Year

AreaC'OOO hec3

ProductionC * OOOtons)

YieldCKg/haJ

J986^67
1971/72

1.39

7.18

5.74

1976/"77

O. 39

- O. 54

- O. 94

1981/T32

1.11

4.90

3.75

1986/^7

O. 22

2.C0

2.37

1991^92

l.OO

4.57

4.83

Sources CMTE: Basic St.M.lsf.trs Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

Economy,

1992,

Table 2 . 9 . 7 . 8
ALL INDIA : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION, AND YIELD
OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CWheat?, 1 9 6 6 ^ 6 7 to 1 9 9 1 ^ 9 2 .

Year

AreaC000 hecD

ProductionC'OOOtons?

YleldCKgXha}

1966^67
1971/V2

8.31

18.31

9.24

1976/^-7

1.80

1.90

0.10

1981^82

2.96

5.24

4.04

1986^87

O. 88

3. 43

2.53

1991/^2

1.56

5. O5

4.56

Source: CMTE: Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Inrflan

1993 and 1994.

113

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9. 7. 9
ALL INDIA : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CJowarO, 19O6/B7 to 1 9 9 1 S E .

Year

AreaC'OOO hec)

ProductionC *000tons3

AND YIELD

Yi el dC Kg/ha :>

1966/87
1971/72

- 1. 4O

- 3.49

1976/77

- 1.33

6.39

7.71

1981/82

1.O3

2.77

1.74

1986/87

- 0.80

- 5. 3O

- 4.55

1991/92

- 0.34

6.92

9.75

Source: CMTE:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s Relating to Indian

1993 and 1994.

- 2. O8

Economy,

1992,

Table 2.9.7.1O
ALL INDIA : COMPOUND GROW I'll RAILS Ol AREA, PRODUCTION,
OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CGround n u t D , 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

A r e a C OOO hec)

Product.ionC 'OOOtonsD

AND YTELD

Yi *>1 df Kg/ha}

1966/67
1971/72

0.57

6.98

6.38

1976/77

- 1.27

- 3.16

- 1.92

1981/82

1.07

6.53

5.41

1986/87

- 1.23

- 4.05

- 2.85

1991/92

S. 70

5.95

3.73

SOUJ co: CM1E:

Basic S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n y t o Indian
1993 and 1994.

114

Eiruiiumy,

19O2,

Table 2.9.7.11
ALI. INDIA : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,
OF PRINCIPAL CROPS CCottorO, 1968/87 to 1991/92.

Year

AreaC'OOO hec5

ProductionC * OOOtons)

AND YIELD

YieldCKg/haD

1966/67
1 971 / 7 2

- O. 09

1976/77

- 2.46

-3.42

- 0.94

1981/82

3.19

6.19

2.88

1986/87

- 2.92

- 2.62

O. 35

1991/92

4.1O

7.90

12.01

Source: CMTE:

Basic S t a l l s t i e s Rel t 1 ng to Indian

1993 and 1994.

5. 7O

Table

S. 78

Economy,

2.9.7.12

ALI. INDIA : COMPOUND GROWTH RATES OF AREA, PRODUCTION,

OF PRINCIPAL CROPS ( S u g a r c a n e ) , 1 9 6 6 / S 7 to 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Year

Ar fiat* OOO hfr">

1992,

Productionf 'OOOtonO

AND YIELD

Y1*"ldf Kg/ha5

1966/67
1971/72

0.76

4.12

3.33

1976/77

3.70

6. 14

2.36

1981/82

2.19

4. O2

1.80

- O. O3

0.70

7.83

2.46

1986/87
1991/92

- O. 73
6. Ol

S o u r c e : CM1 E:

B a s i c S t a t i s t i c s R e l a t i n g to Tnrtian
1993 and 1994.

115

Economy,

1992,

1S91/S2.

The Y i e l d growth r a t e was at 5 . 7 6 V. p e r annum i n 1 9 7 1 / 7 3 .

and l a t e r

it

increased

The Area undei

iuyai

1071/72,

later-

it

1991/92.

Production

later

increased

at

rate

annum in

1991/S2.

cane r a i s e d at a i ite of O. 70 'i p<--i

annum in

recorded a

at

raised
a

rate

of

growth
at

of

5.38

5s per

r a t e of

4. R2 % por

annum in

4.12

per

annum

in

1971/72,

and

6.02

per

annum

in

1991/92.

The

Yield showed a growth r a t e of 3 . 3 3 54 p e r annum in 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 ,

and t h e

growth r a t e was 1.72 5S per annum in 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

2.10 INDEX NUMBERS OF AREA,

PRODUCTION,

AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL

CROPS:

Considering
selected

indexes

principal

of

crops are

area,

production,

very much

essential

performance of crops in Indian a g r i c u l t u r e .

with the indices of
regards, to

of

to identify

the

to 1991/92.

deal
With

r i c e crop, the ui ua index CAi was 95. in 19S6/E57, and

CP3

However,

yield

This section will

selected crops from 1966/87

lat.pr H. i nc.rc.vvsx'd o 11R 1

index

and

raised

from

yield index CY3,

\-.y 1fW1./C)?.

77.8

in

19O6/C7

whci t
to

; J ? , tht> production
157.3

in

raised from 81.7 in 19OG/67,

1991/92.

to 142.8 in

1991/92 respectively.

With
1906/07,

respect
to

to

156.7

in

wheat,

area

1991/92.

index

similarly

increased
the

raised from 63.2 in 1966/67 in P91 . 3 in 1991/92.

rate was at 78.1

in 1966/B7,

and l a t e r

116

from

80.9

production

in

index

The yield index

increased to 177.4 in

Tabl

. 1O. 1

ALL INDIA INDEX NUMBERS OF AREA, PRODUCTION AND YIELD OF PRINCIPAL

CROPS, FROM 19OC/7 TO 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .
C B a s e Year: 1 0 6 9 - 7 0 = 100 3

Source: H. L.

ChandhoJt and The Policy Group:

Economy, Vol.1, 1990.

1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

On

the

other

from 97.2 in 1966/67.

but

later

hand

Indian Data Bavo:

Jowar

area

declined to 91.3 in

production index for cotton was 93.S in 1966/67,

101.4

in

fluctuations
86.2 in

1991/92.
over

1966/67,

the

Interestingly
time

123. 7

in

period,
1976.-V7,

the
from

yield
1966/67

108.6

i nt:rfv;(ti ^C| 1 ?>o. 6 Jn 1 901 /P.S rmpect,! vely.

117

in

The

index r a i s e d
1991/92.

The

l a t e r improved to
index
to

showed

1991/92,

1986/87.

was

i.e

later

Area

indpx

of

104.7 in 1991/92.

ground

nut

raised

from

84.9

in

respectively.
94.2

in

doubled
this,

1S66/C7,

Meanwhile,

1966/67.
from

to

78.3

yield

!n

1PB8/B7

to

Production index was a l s o showed p o s i t i v e growth

from 83.4 in 1966/67 to 121.7 in 1991/92.

recorded

1OO.P

in

index

and
the

138.7

later
sugar

in

raised
cane

1991/92.

1966/67

improved

However,

to

area

125.6

in
in

in

index

Production

168.4

from83. 1

to

the y i e l d index

raised
index

1991/92.
1966/67.

1991/92
from

almost

Contrary
to

132.4

to
in

1391 /9P rpsppcl.J vfily. However , cotton arpa i nrli=v r*r-r>rrl*d 1 OO. 8 in
1S66/67.

it

production
from 94.1
index

later

declined

index showed

to

93.4

positive

in

trend

in 1966/67 to 131.4 in 1991/92.

witnessed

improvement

fiom

93.4

19P.1/9R.
i.e

the

Interestingly
Index

On the other
in

1966/67

increased
hand y i e l d

to

145.7

in

1991/92 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Compound
production,

growth

and

yield

rates

of

showed

rice

crop

interesting

index

picture.

The

of r i c e increased at a r a t e of 1.39 'A in 1971/72,

rate was 1.28 "A per annum in 1991/92.

w.r.t,
area

area,
index

the l a t e r growth

Prodm-t (on Index r a i s e d at a

rate of 7.P1 "A In 1971/72. and the growth r a t e ws-1 "SO */i per annum
in 1991/92.

However,

y i e l d index accounted 5.74 'A growth r a t e per

annum j n the? beginning of

of 0.48 'A per
rate of
1991/92.

8.31

1971/72,

which raided latoi

annum in 1991/9K. Wheat

'A

per

annum

in

1971/72

area
and

at a r a t e

index increased at
1.56

'A

per

annum

the
in

Notably production index recorded a hiyh yrowth r a t e of

18.29 *A in

1971/72,

19S1/RS r e s p e c t i v e l y .

but

the

rate

of

yi owth

was

The? y i e l d 1 nr1fv al;n raised

118

only3. 48 M in
at

rate

of

Table 2.1O. 2
COMPOUND

GROW IH

RAVES

OK

ALL

INDIA

1NDLX

PRODUCTION AND YTF.I.D OF PRINCIPAL CROPS,

C

Source: H. L.

to1 . O2

annum

pr-i

In 1971/72,

..niinin

1 ri

but

1 PQ.1 ,-Dr-:

this

OF

1 9 6 9 - 7 0 100 3

I n d i a n Data Base:

rate

of

11 - ) . l . i v . l ) .

.T.-iw..:

.-IIT.-A

but luLloi

yi owl h cif 1 . S7 V. prM

1991/93.

Production

yi owtli r a t e of

and

yield

-3.49 and

Indices

-2.04

per

also

The

decreased

1 . 41

;i i ,itp of

S< per

growth

evpr e?<=;*er) n e g a t i v e gr owth r a t e of

J inprovi->r1 .it

AREA,

FROM 1 9 6 6 / 6 7 TO 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Base Year:

Chandhok and The P o l i c y Group:

Economy, V o l . 1 , 1 99O.

9. P.S "A per

NUMULK^

1 ndi'-x

annum In 1971./72,

experienced

annum in 1971/72,

/itmum i n
negative
but l a t e r

the yrowth r a t e s were positive- at 1.72 'A and 2.12 'A per annum in
991 /92 r espect i vsly.

110

Area

Jndox fur

ground n u t ,

was O. 77 5i yrowtli

in 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 .

it was i n c r e a s e d to a growth r a t e of

in 1991/92.

Production

in 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 ,
10.91/9?:.

index noticed a

r a t e of

i ite per

1.71
growth

54 p e r annum
of

6 . 9 9 54

and gone up to a r a t e of growth of 1 . 42 54 per annum i n

The y i e l d

Index a l s o

Increased

annum i n 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 ,

luttfi

annum in 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

Regarding sugar

r a t e of O. 77 54 per
% in 1991/9?:.

the- r a t e of

at

r a t e of

6 . 3 9 54 per

i m.i c.v..i.- w.*_ o n l y 1.19 54 per

cane,

annum in 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 ,

a r e a i n d e x showed a growth

and t h e growth r a t e was

1.68

The product.1 on r a i s e d at. a r a t e of 4. O3 54 p e r annum

in 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 ,

even though t h i s r a t e h a s come down to 1 . 54*; per

in 1991/9?!.

The? yi rl d 1 nd^x r a i s m i at. 3 . 2 3 % pt-i

and

"A

a t l . 60

annum

rate

per

annum

in

1991/92

annum

.innum In 1 9 7 1 / 7 2

respectively.

The

area

J ndt?x under c u l l u n t'Xp?i i em . r>ri n f y d l i v c yruwlli j-iito of -O. OS 54 pt?r

annum i n

1971/72,

0.92 5j per

this

has

slightly

annum in 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .

m o b i l i t y at r a t e of S. 71

annum I n

of 1.06 54 per

2.11

to a

growth

The p r o d u c t i o n i n d e x showed

54 per

annum in 1 9 7 1 / 7 2 .

to 1 . 3O 54 per annum in 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 .
6.78 5j per

improved

1971/^2,

However,

but

it

rate

of

positive

and i t s d e c r e a s e d

y i e l d i ndox i nr:i o s s e d at

I n i i o.jvmi

at

Mprresslng

rate

annum in 1 9 9 1 / 9 2 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

INDEX NUMBERS OF NET AREA SOWN, CROPPING INTENSITY, CROPPING

PATTERN, AND PRODUCTIVITYC YTFXKM

I n d e x ' s o f n e t a r e a sown i n a l l
in

19G6/t37,

which

has,

raided

i n t e n s i t y i n d e x was 9 7 . O i n
iri 1 9 9 1 / 9 8 .

to

Tndia showed a n

3 12.4

1966/67,

in

and

1991/92.
it

later

i n d e x of 99.O
Tho

cropping

r a i s e d to 115.7

C r o p p i n y p a t t e i n i n d e x i n t i c a s e d f; OJII 9 8 . ij i n 19S6/G7

120

to

1.16.81

In

indicated

1BP1/P?.
rise

On

the

from81 . 5

other

in

hand

1966/57,

p r o d u c t ! vi t y

to

171.7

in

Index

1Q91/-92

respectively.

T a b l e R. 1 1 . 1
ALL INDIA INDEX NUMBERS OF NET AREA SOWN, CROPPING INTENSITY,
CROPPING PATTERN AND PRODUCTIVITY PER HECTARE OF THE NET AREA
SOWN.
C B a s e Y e a r : 1 9 G 9 - 7 O 1OO 3

Source: H. L.

Chandhok and The- P o l i c y Group:

Economy,

Considering

the

Vol.1,

I n d i a n Data

Base:

The

199O

compound

growth

rates,

the

net

area

sown

index lncrea-^od at a growth r a t e of O. 4 % per annum in 1971/72 to

1.47 '/i growth pF?r annum in 1 PP.1/PS. C.r opp i ng i n t e n s i t y index
raised

up

from

1-73 'A per

r a t e of
per

growth

annum in 1991/92.

O. DO >; per

annum

rate

in

1991/Q2

of

0.71

J4

per

annum

In

1971/72

Cropping p a t t e r n index had

annum in 1971/72 and it

respectively.

Mean

i s gone

while

up

121

growth

to 1.52 %

p r o d u c t i v i t y index

( y i e l d ) rai5id a t a r a t e of growth of fi. 1 8 ><; in 1P71/7R,

t-h r a t e of growth was 1.56 V. per

to

and l a t e r

annum in 1991/E) ros.pc.-ctively.

2.12

AVERAGE ANNUAL RAIN FALL IN INDIA AND SELECTED STATES!

Rain

factor

fall

In

is

one

ayrlcullure

performance

of

of

the

foremost

product Inn,

agriculture

over

Important

whi ch
period

decide*;
of

time.

several draught years noticed in Indian a g r i c u l t u r e ,

of

sufficient

rain

fall.

Often

Indian

agriculture

declining in cropping Intensity and yield

rainfall does have a control
years.

levels.

deterministic
the

growth

There

were

due to lack
experience
Nevertheless

on agriculture production in recent

The water level has been declining in icvpia]

stat.ps,

due

to unfavorable monsoon conditions, and over exploitation of water

for

wet crops such as r i c e ,

sugar

cane etc.

section dt?als with thc> nature of ijinf.')) ]

Thus,

the present

'.11 uM.ion In .'ill India

and selected s t a t e s from 1 966/67 to 1 991 /PJi? respectively.

Coni.1 dei 1 ny Andhra Pj-itdc-sh, the avui-agc rain f il 1 accounted

882 mm In 1966/C7. which h*s declined to 839 mm 1n 1 P.Q1 /92. Where
as Bihar expo lunced a r a i s e in rainfall from 805 nun in 1966/67 to
1O17 nun in

1991/92.

interesting.

Here the rainfall

nuii in 1991/92.

Contrary

to

this

Punjab

scenario

is

quite

fall from518 nun in 1966/67 to 418

Tamil Nadu t>xpei ienced di u>Uc decline in average.-

rainfall namely from 1155 mm in 1966/67 to 362 mm in 1991/92. On

the? other hand U. P situation was far better in the sense that, the
average

rainfall i ivrL-a-jod from Y99 mm in 19RP'T57 tr>1l5P mm in

1986/87.

but.

later

declined to 97S mm in 1991/;?.

West

Bengal

accounted 1D157 umi in 19SG.X7'. Lht--n u i i c d to 2i333 nun in 1O71/72,

but later declined to 1273 mm in 1976/77, and again raised to 2335
m
m In 1981/82, then declined to 15OS mm in 19P,i /9S respectively.

122

Table 2 . 1 2 . 1
Average Annual

Rainfall i n I n d i a ,

from 1966^57 to 1901X92.

CMi ] ] i m e t e r s 3 .

Source: S t a t i s t i c a l A b s t r a c t ol" I n d i a , Various i s s u e s 1966 to 1991,

A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i r s at Glance, 1992 and 1994.

O.Figures in the brackets indicates compound growth r a t e s .

All
all

India

India picture showed wide

level

the

average

flutt-uations

rainfall

was97i

in r a i n f a l l .

mm

in

1966/67,

At
it

raised to 1337 mm in 1971/72. l a t e r declined to 971 nuji in 1976/77,

then increased again to 1215 mm in 1981/82, and again declined to
8S3 mm in 1991/92.
f a l l

but

x i l u . i t . j t j n

also

cause

with

for

sectoi

c r i m p ! r.M.r-1 y

reipeut

declining

agriculture.
essential

I;,

The overall

to

p i c t u r e indicates that,

v i l . i t lit?

individual

output

over

Which implied that

not

n n ! ,

states.
period

in

This
of

to meet the necessary water

requirement

producing more food and non-food grains.

123

t j v : ! .=>! 1

ia

time

favorable r a i n f a l l

the r a i n

it.

the
in

I n d i a

prime
Indian

very much

in a g r i c u l t u r e

On
rainfall,
1971/72

the

hand

the

compound

growth

rates

of

showed t h a t t h e r e i s negative growth r a t e of

In

study-O. 1O
rainfall

other

Andhra
M

in

Pradesh,
1991/92.

and
Bihar

growth r a t e of 17.41

also

in

the

experienced

% pci

average

-1.87 ){ in

final

an

year

of

increasing

annum in 1971/72,

in

but l a t e r

it

was negative -4. 7O 'A per annum in 1991/93.

In Punjab,
1971/72.
1991/92.

but

the r a i n f a l l
it

has

growth r a t e was 4.55 "A per

declined

to

Contrary to t h i s Tamil

negative

growth

of

annum in
-8.73

in

N.jrin shewed -i1im,.t ncy.il.lve growth

rate throughout the study period of -a. 19 in 1971/Y2 and -15.50 'A
in

1991/92

respectively.

U.P

has

some

what

better

rainfall

experience of 9.78 V, per annum in 1971/72, to 4.40 'A pei

1981/82,

later

experienced

annum in 1991/92.

West

negative

bengal

growth

rate

of

the average

rainfall

annum in 1971/72.

1991/S2.

experienced

and

-3.31

experienced p o s i t i v e growth

beginning period of 8.73 'A per annum in 1971/T2,

negative growth of-6. 33 in

annum in

negative

a.

All

India

growth

growth

of

'A

per

In the-

but l a t e r i t was

sjtenario show t h a t

r*ite
-b. 75

of

6.61

"A

per

'A per

annum

in

1991/92 respectively.

2.13

PER CAPTTA WATER AVATLABTLTTY BY REGION:

Per

capita

xiynl.fi c a n t i y
availability

water
over

differs

availability

thefrom

p.-iioJ
one

by

UI.JLT
region

unfavorable monsoon and rainfall

rate.

184

different
-.t.nrjy.
to

rigt o n e ,
Pr-r-

another

capita
region

varied
water
due

to

This settion docils. with a.

b r i e f s c e n a r i o o f water a v a i l a b i l i t y per c a p i t a i n t h e world with

respect

to different regions.

In A f r i c a , t h e per c a p i t a water a v a i l a b i l i t y was 2 0 . 6 T. hr

in

1950. which has d e c l i n e d to S. 4 T. M 3 in 1980. which i s e x p e c t e d to

d e c l i n e f u r t h e r 1.e 5.1 T. M
3

by 2OOO AD.

Where as Asia which had

3

S. 6 T. M

in 19S0. has d e c l i n e d to B.I T. M

expected to d e c l i n e f u r t h e r to 3 . 3 T. M
Latin America, i t was 105.O T. M

in 198O, l a t e r w i l l I s

by 2OOO Years.

In cas.e of

I n 19SO. it d e c l i n e d to 4 8 . 8 T. M3

in 1980 and is expected to d e c l i n e f u r t h e r

to28. 3 T. M

by 2OOO

Table 2. 13.1
PERCAPITA WATER AVAILABILITY BY REGION, SELECTED COUNTRIES 19S0 TO
2000C 1000 m 3 3

Reglon

1950

Africa

20. 6
C3
9.6
C--3
10t>. 0
C--3
5.9
C--3
37.2
C3

Assia
L a t i n America
Europe
North America

I960

1980

1970

16.5
C-2. 19)
7.9
C-1.933
80.2
C-2.665
5.4
C-0.883
3O. 2
C-2. O63

12.7

CProjection}
2OOO

9. 4
C-2.9G3
5.1
C - 1 . 783
48.8
C-Z. 323
4. 4
C-1. 073
21.3
C-1.673

C - 2 . "583
6.1
C-2.353
61.7
C-2. 593
4.9
C-0.973
25.2
C-1.793

5. 1
C - 3 . Ol 3
3. 3
C-2. 153
28.3
C-2. 693
4. 1
C-0. 333
17.5
C - O . 983

Source: N. B. Ayibefelu 1992.

years.
T. M

However.
in

1950,

by2OOO A. D.
37.2

T. M

In

In Europe t.he p e r c a p i t a water a v a i l a b i l i t y was 5 . 9

but

it

Finally.

is

later

expected

to d e c l i n e to 4 . 1

North American e x p e r i e n c e was t h a t ,

1S3O.deel1ned

to

expected to d e c l i n e to 1 7 . 5 T. M

21.3

T. M

by 2OOO A. D.

123

in

198O,

and

T. M
it was
further

measure

of

growth r a t e a l l
growth

compound

over

experienced

growth

t h e world.

i.e

-2.19

2OOO

years,

Latin

5i in

America

indicate,

In case of Africa,
1Q8O

Asia a l s o a c c o u n t e d n e g a t i v e growth
to

rates

and

to

of

- 3 . Ol

negative

almost n e g a t i v e
V. to 2OOO

- 1 . 9 3 5i in

Europe

noticed

198O

A. D.

and

negative

-2.15
growth

r a t e s of - 2 . 6 6 % and -O. 88 V. 1 n 1 98O to - 2 . C9 'A and -O. 35 J4by2OOO

Years.

F i n a l l y Nor tli Ahieiici a l s o n o t i c e d

in 1980 and

2.14

n e g a t i v e gi owth o f - 2 . O6

- 0 . 9 8 by E000 Years r e s p e c t i v e l y .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:

In t h i s chapter the data rpi at,1 ncj t o the rroppi ng pattern and
cropping

i n t e n s i t y in Indian

analysed.

Along

selected

states,

irrigated

by

factors

economics

index numlx?) s

crops,

index

of

numbers

cropping p a t t e r n ,
percapital

this

different

agriculture,
HYVs,

with

water

and

ayi l c u l t u r e and
somr?

other

affecting

issues
growth

sources,

net

of

cultivation,

crops

area,
of

state

production,

net

area

productivity,

availability

:ielcn_ted

averagealso

yield

annual

from

yields

of

cropping

of
area

product

potential

and

was

profiles

performance,

domestic

sown,

were

like

iilates

of

principal
intensity,

rainfall,

analysed.

The

and
main

findings a r e l i s t e d as follows.

It is clear
development
development.
riftvel opment

in

indication t h a t ,
agriculture

index,
states.

while

scene

the s t a t e s which have tremendous

were

compared

Regarding

136

showing
wi t.h

factors

relatively

agriculturally
af f prt i ncj

higher
less
growth

performance,

observed t h a t ,

Intensity of cropping,
irrigated
and

to

total

credit

percentage area under

cultivated

availability

explain regional

di fffriMirt In averagp lze of holding,

are

disparities.

i r r i g a t i o n indicate:, that,
declining,

some

use

Important,

per

on

energy

faster

t-aso

of

sources

hectare,

factors

which

The analysis r e l a t i n g to source- wise

the area undc-i

d r a s t i c a l l y . Thl s

increasing

In

the

fertilizer

tiinal i. has boon s l i g h t l y

where as the area under tube wells and other

increasing
pressure

area,

HYVs, percentage area

is

such

clear
as

wells was

indication

diesel

and

that.

the

elect.ricity

is

rate.

nit

state

domestic

produt-llon

from

ayi'i till t ure,

the analysis was showed that fluctuations over time due to several
causes. It

may

unfavourable
cropping

be

due

monsoons

intensity

to
and

etc.

declining
changes

It

was

area

in

observed

under

cropping
that,

irrigation,
pattern,

the

ye;jr

and

1991/92

iliowod dtv 1 i nl J>y yi uwlli i jto^ not only in whole- India Lai ."ilso in
almost
Liopi

all

t.hp s t a t e s .

cultivation

sugarcane
with

is

other

operational

obi.fi ved

showing
crops,

The analysis with

that,

higher

due

activities.

to

in

cost

high

However,

of

respect

all

to economics of

;nc>^t

all

cultivation

application

of

the

while

comparing

inputs

the empl oyniont,

states,

with

irrigation,

more
and

avei age net Income i s also high In c:ar= of sinj.ircarie.

The

observations

with

respect

cropping i n t e n s i t y were identified

Jowar

slowly

declining,

where

that,

as

127

to

the

cropping
the

area

area

pattern

under

under

rice

wheat

and
and
and

sugarcanenut

Increasing

shovwd

fastei

fluctuations

shares In o v e r a l l
also

at

showed

over

agiicultural

fl uctuat I o n i

unfavourable rainfall

rate.
a

period

drastic

there

actual

is

yield

fatter i

which

clear

with

influence

to

&?nm a) ly the yield component

such

as

availability

especially

application

of

between

of

i n t e n s i t y was

1 line,

was

potential

in

Indian

fertilizers,

inputs

at

rjiji?

area.

to

The

indicate

yiold

There

Influenced

ground

rhangi ng

HYV seeds

rrop<;.

mcchjiilsni

water,

of

and

with

Croppiny

yields of

different

yield

time,

pp-i 1 od

difference

respect

cotton

decline in irrigated

data analysis relating to potential

that,

of

production.

uvei

and

However,

are

and

several

agriculture.

by several

factors

and

inputs,

efficient

other

level,

which

are

related to the farm management s k i l l s in production.

In case of rainfall

the analysis observed that,

sltuat.Jon completely volatile not only in overall

with respect
declining

output

Which implied
meet

the?

to

individual
over

that

states.

period

favourable

necessary

watoi

of

Thi s
time

rainfall

is

requirements

producing more food nd non-food grains.

the next chapter

will

Is
in

the

Tndian but also

prime-

Indian

cause

in

for

agriculture.

very much essential

agriculture

to

sector

Bas-ed on t.hpsn findings

demonstrate the nature of

factor

Indian agriculture with respect to selected s t a t e s .

128

the rainfall

shares in