NAAS Score: 4.

82
Indian Journal of Economics and Development (2018) 14(2), 288-294 www.naasindia.org

DOI: 10.5958/2322-0430.2018.00132.4 UGC Approved

Indexed in Clarivate Analytics (ESCI)
www.soed.in

Status and Determinants of Crop Insurance in Gujarat

*
Shiv Raj Singh , K.P. Thakar, and C. Soumya

Assistant Professors, Department of Agricultural Economics, C.P. College of Agriculture

S.D. Agricultural University, Sardarkrushinagar-385506 (Gujarat)
*
Corresponding author's email: shivagritech2007@gmail.com

Received: November 25, 2017 Manuscript Number: MS-17239 Revision Accepted: May 02, 2018
ABSTRACT
Agricultural insurance is one product by which farmers can stabilize farm income and guard against disastrous effect of losses due
to natural hazards. The farming community in India consists of about 121 million farmers of which only about 20 percent avail crop
loans from financial institutions out of which three-fourths of those are insured. In this context this study is focus on estimation of
crop insurance across the crops, magnitude and reasons for crop losses along with determinants of crop insurance and constraints
faced by the farmers in crop insurance. The findings of study point out that the share in crop insurance was highest in cotton
(24.14percent) crop followed by paddy (21.11percent) and groundnut (19.13percent). The value of loss in crops value was higher in
cotton (57.78percent) and groundnut (21.09percent) as compared to other crops. The study pointed out that most of the marginal
landholding farmers did not opt for crop insurance. The social forwardness (other than ST, SC and OBC) directly affects the use of
crop insurance. The irrigated land holding size negatively influenced the crop insurance use by the farmers. The farmers' whose
primary occupation was crop production opt for more crop insurance as compared to farmers with wages, salaries and off-farm
business. The higher crop value loss realization positively linked with the use of crop insurance at the farmer level. To achieve the
desired results from new Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)there is a need for crop insurance campaign to focus on
sensitizing the farmers about the realized crop losses in crop production, which are covered in PMFBY.

Keywords
Crop, insurance, Logit model.

JEL Codes
C25, G22, O13, O17.

INTRODUCTION whereas in Gujarat state, double-digit agriculture growth

Agricultural insurance is one product by which
farmers can stabilize farm income but also helps the
farmers to initiate production activity after a bad
agricultural year and guard against disastrous effect of
losses due to natural calamities. It cushions the shock of
crop losses by providing farmers with some amount of
protection. Insurance comes towards the end of risk
management process and is redistribution of cost of losses
of few among many, and cannot prevent economic loss.
The farming community in India consists of about 121
million farmers of which only about 20 percent avail crop
loans from financial institutions out of which only three-
fourths of those are insured (Raju & Chand, 2008). The
growth rate at country level in terms of farmers insured
and area insured showed 10.03 and 8.01 percent annual
growth over a period fifteen years (2000 to 2014),
was realized over the decade but farmers insured and area
insured growth showed negative growth (-2.12 and -1.63
percent respectively) over the fifteen years (2000 to
2014).Despite the higher mechanization in agriculture,
large-scale rural electrification, better irrigation
infrastructure, good extension programmes, sustainable
diversification, adoption of quality seed, large-scale
adoption of micro irrigation system and good market
infrastructure along with better road connectivity have
driven the higher agriculture growth in the Gujarat state
(Shah et al., 2009). Most of these factors supported the
high agriculture growth in the state simultaneously
overcoming the production risk. As in 70th NSSO survey
round namely ‘Situation Assessment Survey of
Agricultural Households’ collected most of the
information related to farming and farmers. The unit level

288
 Singh et al.: Status and determinants of crop insurance in Gujarat
data of this round allowed the researchers to study the
various dimensions of crop insurance at the state level.
This paper is focus on estimation of crop insurance across
the crops, magnitude and reasons for crop losses along
with determinants of crop insurance and constraints faced
by the farmers in crop insurance.
METHODOLOGY
Sampling Plan
The study was mainly based on the secondary data
available from National Sample Survey Organization
(NSSO) on Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural
Households in the year 2012-13 (visit-1). The survey was
conducted (rural sector) in two rounds, i.e. visit-1
(January–July 2013) and visit-2 (August-December
2013). This comprised detailed information on socio-
economic conditions, crop cultivation, animal husbandry,
access to basic and modern farming resources,
consumption expenditure and crop insurance.
This survey focussed on rural areas and the unit of
observation was rural farm households. The sampling
design used in the NSSO data is stratified multi-stage
random sampling with districts as strata, villages as first-
stage units and farm households as the second-stage units.
In this round 35,200 and 34,907 farm households were
surveyed at the all-India level in Visit-I and II
respectively. The survey covered 1,317 and 1,303 farm
households in Visit-I and II at Gujarat state level.
Analytical Tools
Both descriptive statistics and econometric methods
were employed for data analysis. The logit model was
used for binary response analysis. Given the binary
response of the variable under consideration (availed crop
insurance in the Kharif season), the econometric
specification followed a logistic regression. The logistic
regression a useful statistical modelling technique in
which the probability of a binary outcome is related to a
set of potential explanatory variables. The binary logistic
regression has been widely used to address decisions
involving binary choice in farm technology adoption
studies (Mburu et al., 2007; Kumar 2010; Suresh et al.
2007). For calculation of contribution of different factors
for crop insurance, it is assumed that the use of crop
insurance by farmers is a random phenomenon affected
by a set of factors that could explain the outcome. This
binary variable (availed crop insurance) was then
regressed onto a set of explanatory variables. Since the
dependent variable is binary, we cannot use least square
method to estimate the coefficients. Instead, one can use
maximum likelihood estimation technique to calculate
the coefficients. This study used logit model that allowed
us to calculate marginal contributions of different factors
on the use of crop insurance. To predict the dependent
variable, the farmers were classified into two groups,
those who use crop insurance (dependent variable as 1) or
not (dependent variable as 0).
The logit model used in this study is discussed as
following:
289
1
Pn =
e-
1+ zn
Where Pn is the probability that a farmer used the crop
insurance,
1
1- Pn =
1-
1+ e-zn
Where is 1- Pn the probability that a farmer did not use
the crop insurance.
The Odd's ratio
æPn özn
=
ç ÷ =e
1-
è Pn ø
Taking logarithm on both sides;
æP ö
ln çn ÷ =Zn =
a+
bn X n +
en
1-
è Pn ø
Where, á is the intercept, â the vector of response
coefficient, e the vector of random disturbance and Xn is
the set of explanatory variables.
The estimable equation is:
Crop insurance = â0 + â1 family size+ â2 socially
forward+ â3 land holding + â4 irrigated land holding + â5
income from wages and salary + â6 income from crop
production + â7 income from off-farm business + â8
income from livestock farming + â9 access to extension
agent + â10 access to Agricultural Science Centre + â11
total loss in Kharif crop value +en, where, crop insurance
is the crop insurance used by the farmers in the Kharif
season, while â1………… â11 are coefficients associated
with each explanatory variable and en is the error term.
Several factors are hypothesized to influence the farmer's
decision to use the crop insurance. The choice of these
explanatory variables is mainly based on the general
working hypothesis and partly on empirical findings from
the literature.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Status of Crop Insurance across the Different Crops
The share of different crops in the crop insurance
availed by the farmers are listed in Table 1. In the cereals,
the highest share was occupied by the paddy
(21.11percent) followed by maize (14.37 percent) and
jowar (4.46 percent), respectively and lowest by bajra
(0.56 percent). Tur held a highest share of 9.27 percent
among the pulses. In case of oilseeds, groundnut
contributed 19.13 percent and sesamum contributed 0.34
percent share in crop insurance, respectively. In cash
crops, the share was highest in cotton (24.14 percent) crop
while in castor it was only 0.98 percent.
 Indian J Econ Dev 14(2): 2018 (April-June)
Table 1. Share of different crops in crop insurance
Crop Percentage share of different
crops in crop insurance
Paddy 21.11
Jowar 4.46
Bajra 0.56
Maize 14.37
Wheat 1.14
Chillies 0.31
Tur (Arhar) 9.27
Other pulses 0.35
Groundnut 19.13
Sesamum 0.34
Castor seed 0.98
Cotton 24.14
Other fodder crops 3.84
Source: The researchers' estimates based on NSSO unit level data (Visit-
1) onSituation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, 2012-13.
Assessment of Crop Losses across the Different Crops
As per study different crops observed `31670 million
loss in value of insured crops and `66105 million loss in
value of not insured crops. Overall, there was `97775
million loss of crops value. At all India level loss of crop
value was `921851 million. In Gujarat state, it was 10.61
percent at all India level. In Rabi season loss in crop value
experienced by the farmers at Gujarat and India was
`6420 and 285335 million. Loss in crop value at Gujarat
state level was 2.25 percent of all India figure. This shows
that in Kharif season farmers experienced higher losses
(15 times) as compared to Rabi season. Therefore, crop
insurance of Kharif season crops is more important to
minimize the monetary losses.
The value of crop losses across the different crops in
Kharif season is presented in Table 2. In cereals, the loss in
value of insured crops was highest in jowar (5.12 percent)
followed by bajra (0.14 percent) and wheat (0.04 percent).
The loss in value of not insured crops was highest in jowar
(5.34 percent) followed by paddy (3.94 percent) and bajra
(2.51 percent). In wheat and maize, loss in value of
insured crops was 1.51 and 0.31 percent. Other cereals
recorded 0.01 percent loss in value of insured crops. Loss
in crops value was also highest in jowar (5.27 percent)
followed by paddy (2.66 percent) and bajra (1.74
percent). In wheat, maize and other crops there was loss of
1.03, 0.21 and 0.01 percent, respectively. In horticultural
crops, only chillies (0.10 percent) experienced the loss in
value of insured crops. Loss in value of not insured crops
was highest in cumin seed (0.73 percent) followed by
sugarcane (0.41 percent), mangoes (0.20 percent) and
chillies (0.15 percent). Loss in crops value was highest in
cumin seed (0.49 percent) and lowest in chillies(0.14
percent), and mango (0.14 percent). In sugarcane, the loss
in crops value was 0.28 percent. In case of pulses, only in
urad, there was loss in value of insured crops. In gram, tur,
290
moong and other pulses there was no loss in value of
insured crops. In pulses, loss in value of not insured crops
was highest in gram (0.32 percent), followed by tur (0.29
percent), moong (0.22 percent) and urad (0.15 percent).
The loss in value of not insured crops was 0.01 percent in
the case of other pulses. In case of pulses, the loss in crops
value was highest in gram (0.22 percent). The loss in
crops value was 0.19, 0.15, and 0.15 percent in the case of
tur, urad and moong. In oilseeds, the loss in value of
insured crops was highest in groundnut (40.97 percent),
followed by castorseed (2.15 percent) and sesamum (0.41
percent). In case of oilseeds, the loss in value of not
insured crops was highest in groundnut (11.57 percent)
and lowest in castorseed (1.05 percent). In sesamum, the
loss in value of not insured crops was 1.22 percent and in
other oilseeds, it was 1.29 percent. In oilseeds, the loss in
crops value was highest in groundnut (21.09 percent)
followed by castorseed (1.41 percent), sesamum (0.96
percent) and other oilseeds (0.87 percent). In cash crops,
that is, cotton the loss in value of insured crops was 49.67
percent. The loss in value of not insured crops was 61.67
percent in cotton and 1.07 percent in guar. In cotton, the
loss in crops value was 57.78 and 0.72 percent in guar. In
all other crops, the loss in value of insured crops was 1.27
percent and loss in value of not insured crops was 6.03
percent. The loss in crops value was 4.49 percent in all
other crops.
Major Reasons for Crop Losses
The major reasons for crop losses are listed in Table 3.
Study pointed out that 79.26 percent of the crop losses
were due to inadequate rainfall or drought while 14.18
percent of the crop losses were due to disease or insect or
animal attack. Other natural causes like fire, lightning,
storm, cyclone, flood, earthquake etc accounted for the
5.12 percent of crop losses whereas 1.44 percent of the
crop losses were due to other reasons.
Major Constraints Faced by the Farmers for Using
Crop Insurance
The constraints faced by the farmers in the crop
insurance are listed in Table 4. The important constraint
faced by the farmers in the crop insurance is that
majority of the farmers were not aware of the crop
insurance scheme (36.15 percent). In crop insurance,
14.51 percent of farmers were not aware about facility
available and in the case of 14.14 percent farmers,
insurance facility was not available. It was observed that
13.37 percent of the farmers were not interested in crop
insurance and 13.23 percent of the farmers did not need
the crop insurance. Similarly, 2.65 percent of the farmers
didn't go for crop insurance because of the complex
procedures while 2.37 percent of the farmers were not
satisfied with the terms and conditions of the crop
insurance. Moreover, 2.06 percent of the farmers did not
opt for the crop insurance due to lack of resources for
premium payment and 1.04 percent of the farmers did
not want to do the crop insurance because of the delay in
claim payment.
 Singh et al.: Status and determinants of crop insurance in Gujarat

Characteristics of Farmers using and Not-using Crop
Insurance
Selected institutional and socio-economic
characteristics of farmers availed crop insurance and did
not avail crop insurance are presented in Table 5. Out of
the 3.93 million farmers engaged in farming, 30.28
percent farmers availed crop insurance during the study
period. Those farmers having higher landholding (2.38
ha) availed the insurance scheme, whereas farmers who
owned lower landholding (0.79 ha) did not avail crop
insurance. The social forwardness (other than ST, SC &
OBC) also directly affected the use of crop insurance. Out
of the 1.19 million farmers, 40.34 percent farmers availed
crop insurance scheme belonged to the socially forward
group. Only 11.68 percentage of the farmers belonged to
the socially forward group out of the 2.74 million farmers
who did not avail the crop insurance. Therefore, social
status of farmers helped them to avail crop insurance
facility. The average irrigated land holding in the farmers
who availed crop insurance was about 2.7 times more than

Table 2. Value of crop losses across the different crops (Kharif season)
(Percent)
Crops Loss in value of insured Loss in value of not Loss in crops value
crops insured crops
Cereals 5.30 13.62 10.92
Paddy 0.00 3.94 2.66
Jowar 5.12 5.34 5.27
Bajra 0.14 2.51 1.74
Maize 0.00 0.31 0.21
Wheat 0.04 1.51 1.03
Other cereals 0.00 0.01 0.01
Horticultural crops 0.10 1.49 1.05
Sugarcane 0.00 0.41 0.28
Chillies 0.10 0.15 0.14
Cumin seed 0.00 0.73 0.49
Mangoes 0.00 0.20 0.14
Pulses 0.13 0.99 0.71
Gram 0.00 0.32 0.22
Tur (Arhar) 0.00 0.29 0.19
Urad 0.13 0.15 0.15
Moong 0.00 0.22 0.15
Other pulses 0.00 0.01 0.00
Oilseeds 43.53 15.13 24.33
Groundnut 40.97 11.57 21.09
Castor seed 2.15 1.05 1.41
Sesamum 0.41 1.22 0.96
Other oilseed 0.00 1.29 0.87
Cash crops 49.67 62.74 58.50
Cotton 49.67 61.67 57.78
Guar 0.00 1.07 0.72
Other crops 1.27 6.03 4.49
Total value (`Million) 31670 66105 97775
Source: The researchers' estimates based on NSSO unit level data (visit-1) on Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, 2012-13.
Note: At all India level total loss (due to climatic factor) in value term was `921851 million. At Gujarat level, it was 10.61 percent of all India.

Table 3. Major reasons for crop losses (Kharif season)

Causes of crop loss Percentage
Inadequate rainfall/drought 79.26
Disease/insect/animal 14.18
Other natural causes (Fire, lighting, storm, cyclone, flood, earthquake, etc.) 5.12
Others 1.44
Source: The researchers' estimates based on NSSO unit level data (visit-1) on Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, 2012-13.

291
 Indian J Econ Dev 14(2): 2018 (April-June)

the farmers who did not avail crop insurance. These
farmers' possess 1.04 ha irrigated land holding while it
was only 0.39 ha in case of farmers who did not avail crop
insurance. The farmers who used crop insurance had
about 3.4 times higher average income from crop
production (`12851 per month) than the farmers who did
not avail crop insurance. The farmers who did not avail
the crop insurance have `3806 per month income from
crop production. The income from wages and salaries was
Table 4. Constraints faced by the farmers in the crop
insurance
Reason for not insuring crops Percentage
Not aware
Not aware about availability of facility
Not interested
No need
Insurance facility not available
Lack of resources for premium payment
Not satisfied with terms and conditions
Complex procedures
Delay in claim payment
Others
Source: The researchers' estimates based on NSSO unit level data (visit-
1) on Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, 2012-13.
also an important characteristic that determined the use of
crop insurance. The farmers who had not availed crop
insurance earned about 1.8 times more income from
wages and salaries than the farmers who availed crop
insurance. The income from wages and salaries of farmers
who didn't use crop insurance was`2475 per month while
it was only `1382 per month in case of farmers who used
crop insurance. It shows that the farmers with higher
income from wages and salaries for their livelihood
security do not opt for crop insurance. In the case of
farmers who used crop insurance, the income from off-
farm business was about 1.26 times higher than the
farmers who have not taken crop insurance (`7582 per
month). The farmers who did not avail crop insurance
got`5992 per month income from off-farm business. The
36.15 farmers who used crop insurance got `4345 per month
14.51 income from livestock while the farmers who didn't use
13.37 crop insurance got`3615 per month. The loss in crop
13.23 value of Kharif season was an important characteristic
14.14 that affects the option for the crop insurance by farmers.
2.06 The farmers whose loss in crop value of Kharif season
2.37 was higher used the crop insurance. The farmers who
2.65 availed crop insurance lost `61979 as compared to the
1.04 farmers who did not avail crop insurance lost `6378 in
crop value in the Kharif season. The access with the
0.48
extension workers plays an important role in the usage of
crop insurance by the farmers. Out of the 1.19 million

Table 5. Selected institutional and socio-economic characteristics of farmers availing crop insurance
Characteristics Crop insurance availed Crop insurance not availed

Household characteristic
Farm household (million) 1.19 2.74
Family size (1 to 5) (million) 0.74 1.58
(62.18) (57.66)
Socially forward (million) 0.48 0.32
(40.34) (11.68)
Land characteristic
Average land holding (ha) 2.38 0.79
Average irrigated land holding (ha) 1.04 0.39
Livelihood characteristic(`per month)
Average income from crop production 12851 3806
Average income from wages and salaries 1382 2475
Average income from off-farm business 7582 5992
Average income from livestock farming 4345 3615
Loss in crop value of Kharif season (`) 61979 6378
Cosmopolitan characteristic
Accessed extension workers (No.) 88155 125281
(7.41) (4.57)
Accessed Agriculture Science Centre (No.) 40830 91843
(3.43) (3.35)
Source: The researchers' estimates based on NSSO unit level data (visit-1) on Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, 2012-13.
Figures in parentheses are percentages of farm household of respective category.

292
 Singh et al.: Status and determinants of crop insurance in Gujarat

farmers who availed crop insurance, 7.41 percent farmers
accessed the extension workers and 4.57 percent farmers
accessed the extension workers out of the 2.74 million
farmers who did not avail crop insurance. Whereas 3.43
percent farmers accessed Agriculture Science Centre out
of the 1.19 billion farmers who availed crop insurance
while 3.35 percent farmers accessed the Agriculture
Science Centre out of the 2.74 billion farmers who did not
avail crop insurance.
Factors Influencing the Use of Crop Insurance
It was noticed that the majority of the characteristics
helped in opting for the crop insurance were found to be
significant statistically (Table 6). There is significant
proportional relationship between both the socially
forward group and total land holding with the usage of
crop insurance. Both the social forwardness of the farmer
and total land holding positively influenced the usage of
crop insurance by the farmers. It implies that these two
variables significantly affect the decision of farmer to use
the crop insurance. A significant (at 10 percent level)
negative relationship was observed between the income
from wages and salaries and the usage of crop insurance
by the farmers. The irrigated land holding size negatively
influenced the usage of crop insurance by the farmers
which indicated that increase in the irrigated land holding
with decrease in the number of farmers who avail the crop
insurance since they will be less affected by the
inadequate rainfall or drought which is the major reason
for the crop losses (Table 3). The significant positive
relationship between the income from crop production
and usage of crop insurance by the farmers was observed.
The farmers who derived a high income from crop
production were more likely to use the crop insurance.
The positive relationship was observed between the total
loss in crop value and the crop insurance being availed by
the farmers, which was significant. If there was high loss
in crop value, farmers will avail crop insurance more to
cushion the shock of crop losses, hence, stabilizing their
farm income.
The perusal of Table 7 showed that there was a
marginal effect for the variables, presented elsewhere
with significant coefficients for availing the crop
insurance. These probabilities showed how the changes in
specific variables affected the probabilities of farmers
responding towards the crop insurance. The prediction
probability of model was 0.30 for availing the crop
insurance. The results indicated that the most influential
variable was the social status of the farmers. The second
influential variable was the irrigated land holding. The
results of marginal effect showed that with unit increase in
the land size, one could increase the crop insurance being
availed by 10.7 percent. The option for the crop insurance
was very much influenced by the total land holding. A
decrease in availing the crop insurance by 11.61 percent
was observed with a unit increase in the irrigated land
holding. If there was a unit increase in income from crop
production, then it would increase (dy/dx = 1.73e-06) the
crop insurance use by the farmers. The results indicated

Table 6. Binary logit model coefficient estimates for determining of farmers using crop insurance
Characteristics a Coefficients SE z-value p>z-value
Household characteristic
Family size 0.0148 0.0472 0.31 0.754
Socially forward group 0.8880 0.3463 2.56 0.010***
Land characteristic
Total land holding 0.5106 0.1525 3.35 0.001***
Irrigated land holding -0.5540 0.2120 -2.61 0.009***
Livelihood characteristic
Income from crop production 8.27e-06 2.84e-06 2.91 0.004***
Income from wages and salaries -9.70e-06 5.91e-06 -1.64 0.101*
Income from livestock farming 2.71e-07 2.26e-07 1.20 0.229
Income from off farm business 1.32e-06 2.38e-06 0.56 0.578
Total loss in Kharif crop value 8.70e-06 3.19e-06 2.72 0.006***
Cosmopolitan characteristic
Access to extension workers 0.1565 0.4510 0.35 0.729
Access to agriculture science centre 0.4932 0.6434 0.77 0.443
Constant -1.9743 0.3316 -5.95 0.000***
Source: The researchers' estimates based on NSSO unit level data (visit-1) on Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, 2012-13.
Number of observation = 1317, Wald ÷2 (11) = 71.21, p>÷2 = 0.0000, Pseudo R2 = 0.2256, Log pseudo likelihood = -1867419.2
Note: 0 not used crop insurance and 1 is used crop insurance.
***, and * Significant at 1, and 10 percent level.

293
 Indian J Econ Dev 14(2): 2018 (April-June)

Table 7. Marginal effects of explanatory variables on the probability of crop insurance used
Characteristics Marginal effect* SE Z p>z
Household characteristic
Family size 0.0031 0.0099 0.31 0.754
Socially forward group 0.2014 0.0822 2.45 0.014***
Land characteristic
Total land holding 0.1070 0.0323 3.32 0.001***
Irrigated land holding -0.1161 0.0444 -2.62 0.009***
Livelihood characteristic
Income from crop production 1.73e-06 5.92e-07 2.92 0.003***
Income from wages and salaries -2.03e-06 1.25e-06 -1.63 0.103*
Income from livestock farming 5.68e-06 4.81e-06 1.18 0.239
Income from off farm business 2.77e-07 4.95e-07 0.56 0.576
Total loss in Kharif crop value 1.82e-06 6.84e-07 2.66 0.008***
Cosmopolitan characteristic
Access to extension workers 0.0337 0.0991 0.34 0.734
Access to Agriculture Science Centre 0.1117 0.1545 0.72 0.470
Source: The researchers' estimates based on NSSO unit level data (visit-1) on Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households, 2012-13.
Note: (*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1
Marginal effects after logit y = Prob.(whether used crop insurance yes=1) (predict) = 0.30
***, and * Significant at 1, and 10 percent level.

that an increase (dy/dx = 1.82e-06) in crop insurance
availed by farmers would happen if there was a unit
increase in total loss in crop value. From the policy point
of view, the social status barriers could be overcome by
more awareness and accessibility of crop insurance as
around 50 percent farmers were not aware about crop
insurance or inaccessibility. The income from the crop
production should be increased and loss realization by the
farmers in crop production needs to be informed.
CONCLUSIONS
The share in crop insurance was highest in cotton
(24.14 percent) crop followed by paddy (21.11 percent)
and groundnut (19.13 percent).The value of loss in crops
value was higher in cotton (57.78 percent) and groundnut
(21.09 percent).The study pointed out that most of the
marginal landholding farmers did not opt for crop
insurance. The social forwardness (other than ST, SC and
OBC) directly affected the option for crop insurance. The
irrigated land holding size negatively influenced the crop
insurance use by the farmers. The farmers whose primary
occupation was crop production opted for crop insurance.
The average total income of those farmers was `26,160
per month in which the average income from crop
production was `12,851 per month. The farmers who
derive more income from wages and salaries and off-farm
business did not opt for crop insurance. The average
income of those farmers was `15,888 per month in which
the highest contribution (53.29 percent) from off-farm
income (wages and salaries and off-farm business) was
`8,467 per month. The higher crop value loss realization
positively linked with the use of crop insurance at the
farmer level. To achieve the desired results from new
Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) there is a
need for crop insurance campaign to focus on sensitizing
the farmers about the realized crop losses in crop
production, which are covered in PMFBY.
REFERENCES
Kumar, A. (2010). Milk marketing chains in Bihar: Implications
for dairy farmers and traders. Agricultural Economics
Research Review, 23, 469-477.
Mburu, L.M., Wakhungu, J.W., & Gitu, K.W. (2007).
Determinants of smallholder dairy farmers' adoption of
various milk marketing channels in Kenya highlands.
Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19(9),
Retrieved from http://www.lrrd.org/ lrrd19/9/
mbur19134.htm
Raju, S.S., & Chand, R. (2008). Agricultural insurance in India:
Problems and prospects. Working Paper No.8. ICAR-
National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy
Research, New Delhi.
Shah, T., Gulati, A., Hemant, P., Shreedhar, G., &Jain, R. C.
(2009). Secret of Gujarat's agrarian miracle after 2000.
Economic and Political Weekly, 44(52), 45-55.
Suresh, A., Gupta, D.C., Solanki, M.R., & Mann, J.S. (2007).
Reducing the risk in livestock production: Factors
influencing the adoption of vaccination against bovine
diseases. Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics, 62(3),
483-491.

294