Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


V. INPUTS FOR SMALL-HOLDINGS: IMPACTS ON FOOD SECURITY AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION


Irrigation
Fertilizers and Pesticides
Implements and Machinery

Irrigation

For the various farm-size groups and for the three census years, Table 10 lists the proportion of net sown area that has benefit of irrigation, and lists also the multiple- cropping intensity. At each census date, irrigation coverage and cropping intensity were appreciably higher for small-holdings than for large farms. The proportion of land that was irrigated among the sub-marginal holdings increased from 35 per cent in 1971 to 43 per cent in 1991; corresponding figures for large farms were 16 per cent and 25 per cent; it is thus apparent that the proportionate increase in irrigation facility was substantially higher on large holdings (× 1.56, = 25/16) than on the sub-marginal ones (× 1.23). Aggregated over all farm-size groups, the percentage of net sown area that was irrigated progressed from 20 to 25 to 30 during 1971-1981-1991. During the 1990s, expansion of irrigation has been less rapid than during the 1970s and 1980s, and the rate of expansion continues to decline.

Table 10: Irrigation (areal extent) and cropping intensity: Various years and farm sizes

Farm size

Irrigation (% of net sown area)

Cropping intensity

1971

1981

1991

1971

1981

1991

Sub-marginal

35

40

43

134

135

147

Marginal

31

36

39

128

133

138

Small

26

31

33

122

125

130

Medium

24

27

31

119

125

128

Large

16

19

25

112

117

122

All farms

20

25

30

116

122

128

Source: Computed from Agricultural Census 1970-71, 1980-81 and 1990-91, GOI
Table 11: Percentage of irrigation area serviced from various sources: Various years and farm sizes

Farm size

Canal

Tank

Well

Tube-well

Other

1971

1991

1971

1991

1971

1991

1971

1991

1971

1991

Sub-marginal

39

35

18

11

19

9

16

36

8

9

Marginal

41

35

16

9

19

12

15

35

8

9

Small

42

34

14

8

21

18

16

33

8

8

Medium

41

33

12

6

22

21

18

32

7

7

Large

43

35

10

4

25

26

17

30

5

6

All farms

42

34

12

6

23

20

17

32

7

7

Source: Agricultural Census, 1970-71, and 1990-91, GOI
Table 11 summarizes - for the various farm-size categories - the sources of irrigation (as percentage of area serviced) at the census years 1971 and 1991. Changes between those two surveys can reveal what types of water sources were developed to generate the achieved increases in irrigation-water supply. Aggregated over all farm sizes, the preponderant change is the almost doubling in the proportion of water supplied by tube-wells; correspondingly, the proportion supplied by other sources (and notably by canals and tanks) decreased substantially. In absolute terms, more than three-fourths of the 1971-91 increase in irrigated area resulted from expansion of supplies from tube-wells and from other minor sources. Among farm-size categories, and at 1991, the proportion of land irrigated by canals or by tube-wells was roughly equal (30 - 35 %) for all categories. Irrigation from wells was about three times more prevalent on the largest than on the smallest holdings.

Table 12 lists - by farm-size group and for 1991 - the extents (absolute and proportional) of irrigated and of non-irrigated land. The small and the marginal (here subsuming the sub-marginal) holdings have a higher proportion of their land irrigated as compared to the medium- and large-size holdings. Thus, from a total of about 107 million hectare (Mha) of non-irrigated land, the marginal and small holdings together commanded about 34 per cent; but from a total of about 63 Mha of irrigated land those smaller holdings commanded almost 42 per cent. Conversely, while the large farms had a 42 per cent share of the non-irrigated land, they had a lesser share - only 35 per cent - of the irrigated land.

Table 12: Gross cropped area (million ha), and proportion (%), irrigated or non-irrigated: various farm-size categories, at 1991.

Farm-size group

Gross cropped area (million ha)

Gross cropped area (percent share)

Irrigated

Non-irrigated

Irrigated

Non-irrigated

Marginal

13.0

16.4

20.6

15.3

Small

13.3

20.1

21.0

18.8

Medium

14.8

25.7

23.4

24.1

Large

22.1

44.7

35.0

41.8

Total

63.2

106.9

100.0

100.0

Source: Agricultural Census 1990-91, GOI

Note: The Marginal Group here subsumes the Sub-marginal Group, and thus includes all holdings smaller than 1.00 ha.

The proportionately higher availability of irrigated land among the smaller-size farms suggests that such farms are well-positioned to benefit from new agricultural technologies, and hence to raise their productivity and income, and to strengthen household and national food security.

Moreover, the non-irrigated (“rainfed”) lands not only have lesser productivity than the irrigated lands, but they also are the location for the (proportionately) greater concentrations of poor and hungry persons. It is thus highly relevant that the data of Table 13 suggest that even a small availability of irrigation (perhaps sufficient to irrigate one-fifth of the farm area) can help lessen rural hunger and poverty. Those data indicate that regardless of farm size or of irrigation availability there were substantial decreases in both poverty and under-nourishment during 1983 - 1993: these decreases derived from factors other than irrigation availability. Data from the more-recent (1993) survey suggest that (excepting possibly the largest and the sub-marginal farms) both poverty and (to a lesser extent) under-nourishment were progressively lessened as the availability of irrigation increased. For the large farms, irrigation was seemingly effective in lessening poverty, but its effect on under-nourishment is less certain; for the sub-marginal holdings, the data for the smallest (< 20 %) irrigation category are seemingly aberrant and defy any interpretation.

Table 13: Irrigation availability, and rural poverty and hunger: Various farm sizes, and at 1983 and 1993 (Rural India only)

Farm-size group

Irrigated area (per cent)

Percentage of population

Poor

Under-nourished

1983

1993

1983

1993

Sub-marginal

 

0

56

40

51

37

<20

61

27

34

20

20-50

54

36

34

29

50-80

50

36

35

28

>80

52

37

36

27

Marginal

 

0

49

32

37

31

<20

49

26

29

25

20-50

44

25

26

27

50-80

44

23

24

16

>80

41

22

25

15

Small

 

0

45

27

32

27

<20

43

22

27

22

20-50

41

20

21

22

50-80

36

18

17

13

>80

32

12

17

9

Medium

 

0

45

24

27

20

<20

34

18

21

17

20-50

29

15

18

11

50-80

27

9

14

8

>80

23

9

15

8

Large

 

0

35

18

20

12

<20

25

13

14

14

20-50

20

10

12

15

50-80

16

16

15

12

>80

13

8

11

7

Source: Computed from household data in the National Sample Survey (38th and 50th Rounds).
Nonetheless, it seems plausible that regardless of farm size the availability of any irrigation - particularly during water-short interludes occurring at critical growth stages - is undoubtedly helpful for farms that otherwise are rain-fed only. There is thus confirmation of the appropriateness of government programmes for watershed development and - where water is available - for water-conserving technologies such as drip and sprinkler irrigation.

Moreover, the Table-13 data suggest that provision of irrigation to currently non-irrigated areas will be more beneficial than the provision of additional water to lands that already are irrigated - and for which additional water may indeed bring environmental risk. This feature is germane to the development of effective water policies (with institutional supports) that will facilitate judicious and equitable allocation and distribution of water - and utilization of water resources - in such manner as to assist the currently non-irrigated small-holder ecozones and the poor and hungry persons dependent upon them.

Fertilizers and Pesticides

The increases in agricultural production and productivity during the Green Revolution resulted from the conjunctive use of modern cultivars, irrigation, and fertilizers and other agro-chemicals. For the agro-chemical inputs, a 1991-92 follow-up survey to the 1990-91 census indicates (Table 14) that 87 % of irrigated holdings - regardless of size - received manufactured fertilizer; of the non-irrigated farms 46 % - though somewhat less on the largest farms - received such fertilizers. Farm-yard manure applications were on average slightly more prevalent (35 %) on irrigated farms than on non-irrigated (29 %); however, with or without irrigation, applications were more prevalent on small-holdings than on larger farms. Conversely, pesticides usage increased with farm size - particularly for irrigated farms; and applications were much more prevalent on irrigated farms (39 % on average) than on non-irrigated (10 %).

Table 14: Proportion (%) of land area receiving manufactured fertiliser, farm-yard manure, and pesticides (all crops, 1991-2): Irrigated and non-irrigated: Various farm sizes

Farm-size group

Manufactured fertiliser

Farm-yard manure

Pesticides

Irrigated

Non-irrig.

Irrigated

Non-irrig.

Irrigated

Non-irrig.

Marginal

86.8

45.2

40.4

34.0

24.7

8.3

Small

85.2

47.6

42.0

34.3

27.4

11.5

Medium

87.4

45.7

34.4

31.4

33.1

11.8

Large

87.3

37.8

26.9

23.9

38.6

10.3

All farms

86.8

42.7

34.6

29.2

32.1

10.6

Source: Input Survey 1991-92, GOI.

Note: The Marginal Group here subsumes the Sub-marginal Group, and thus includes all holdings smaller than 1.00 ha.

Table 15 specifies the rates of application of fertilizer nutrients and of farm-yard manure (each per hectare per year, for all crops) at 1991-2. Rates on irrigated farms (irrespective of farm size) were about 112 kg/ha.ann, and on non-irrigated farms between 20 - 40 kg/ha.ann - with application rate decreasing as farm-size increased. Farm-yard manure applications were on average nearly three times larger on irrigated than on non-irrigated lands; significantly, they were two-top-three times larger on marginal holdings than on large farms.

Table 15: Fertilizer nutrients and farmyard manure: Application rate (kg/ha.ann): All crops, 1991-2: Irrigated and non-irrigated: Various farm sizes

Farm size

Manufactured fertilizer

Farm-yard manure

Irrigated

Non-irrigated

Irrigated

Non-irrigated

Marginal

112.6

39.9

3 772

1 596

Small

109.3

36.5

3 162

1 220

Medium

114.2

31.6

2 248

955

Large

111.2

23.9

1 963

576

All farms

111.7

30.6

2 588

945

Source: Input Survey 1991-92, GOI.

Note: The Marginal Group here subsumes the Sub-marginal Group, and thus includes all holdings smaller than 1.00 ha.

The proportionate (all-India) allocations of fertilizers and manures among various crops (as at 1991/92) are recorded in Table 16. The largest allocations (by far) are to rice and wheat. Among farm-size groups, the small, marginal, and sub-marginal holdings (in aggregate) - and who (Table 1) command only 33 per cent of the net cropped area - nonetheless purchased and used (at 1991/92) as much as 42 per cent of the total of manufactured fertilizers and 54 per cent of all farm-yard manure. In contrast, the large- and medium-size holdings (in aggregate) - who command 67 per cent of the net cropped area - used only 58 per cent of the fertilizer and only 46 per cent of the farm-yard manure. Despite their constrained resources (including their constrained access to micro-credit) and their greater vulnerability to adverse happenings, the small-holding farmers - and contrary to some perceptions - use farm inputs to a proportionately greater extent than the large-holding farmers.

The small-holders’ preponderant utilization of farm-yard manure - in particular - has favourable implication for sustainable agriculture and sustainable natural-resource management. Recognizing also that small-holders allocate proportionately more of their resources to rice and wheat (India’s two main staples), their contribution to national grain production is correspondingly important. These findings and observations are highly relevant to national considerations - within the confines of international obligations - of policies for fertilizer prices and subsidies and for national food security and for the alleviation of rural poverty.

Technically - and impinging on national agricultural-extension policy - a crucial issue is to raise on-farm fertilizer-use efficiency such that crop-nutrients management is viable and profitable without need of subsidies. India has much knowledge and expertise pertaining to efficient fertilizer practices - including balanced (and soil-test-guided) and appropriately-timed and placed applications of major nutrients and (where needed) of micro-nutrients, soil amendments, and foliar-applied fertilizers. Location-specific application of this knowledge and expertise can be facilitated through coordinated action by the agricultural extension system, the fertilizer manufacturers and distributors, and the (private-sector) local dealers. The private-sector dealers are a major source of information to farmers; it is thus in the national interest that existing (public-sector) programmes of training for such dealers should be strengthened and expanded.

Table 16: Proportional allocation (%, to various crops and to various farm sizes) of fertilizer nutrients (N+P+K) and of farmyard manure: 1991-92: Irrigated and non-irrigated lands in aggregate

Crop or farm size

Allocation of manufactured nutrients (%)

Allocation of farm-yard manure (%)

Rice

35.1

46.7

Jowar

3.6

2.5

Bajra

1.4

3.1

Maize

2.6

3.5

Ragi

1.0

2.4

Wheat

19.3

16.2

Gram

0.6

0.3

Arhar

0.8

0.8

Sugarcane

5.5

3.5

Groundnut

4.7

5.6

Rape/mustard

1.5

1.0

Cotton

5.9

2.0

Jute

0.3

0.1

Farm-size group

Marginal

20.6

28.5

Small

21.1

25.1

Medium

24.2

21.8

Large

34.1

24.6

Source: Input Survey 1991-92, GOI.

Note: The Marginal Group here subsumes the Sub-marginal Group, and thus includes all holdings smaller than 1.00 ha.

Implements and Machinery

Farm implements, machinery, and draught animals (especially if owned by the farm household) can increase substantially on-farm resource-use efficiency and labour productivity. Table 17 specifies the numbers of ploughs, irrigation-pump sets, and tractors used (not necessarily owned) on holdings of various sizes at 1991-92; data are presented on the bases of per thousand holdings and per 1000 hectare of holdings. Predictably, the usage of implements/machines per holding was much higher on large holdings than on the marginal (including sub-marginal) and small holdings. Conversely, the usage per hectare was for each type of implement/machine substantially higher on smaller than on larger holdings - indicating that even the smallest holdings had effective access to tools and machinery. However, many of the smaller holdings depended on other households/farms for some of their mechanized operations.

Table 17. Implements and machinery used (at 1991-92) on farms of various sizes

Implement/Farm size

Marginal

Small

Medium

Large

All farms

Number per 1000 holdings

Plough

583

957

1193

1745

845

Pump-set

87

208

255

417

164

Tractor

25

38

47

113

38

Number per 1000 ha of holdings

Plough

1371

674

436

225

531

Pump-set

204

146

93

54

103

Tractor

58

27

17

15

24

Source: Input Survey 1991-92, GOI.

Notes: Use of equipment/machinery does not imply ownership.

The Marginal Group here subsumes the Sub-marginal Group, and thus includes all holdings smaller than 1.00 ha.

Draught power for mechanized operations may be provided by animals or by tractors. Table 18 summarizes the availability (at 1993-94) of draught animals on farms of various sizes. Two-thirds of sub-marginal-farm households did not own even one draught animal. Moreover, one-half of all households (when aggregated for all farm sizes) did not own a draught animal. However, among those households which had large or medium-size holdings but which are listed as having no draught animal, some may well have possessed one or more tractors. Some of those tractors may have been (and may still be) available by hire/contract to sub-marginal and to marginal farmers for land-preparation and other operations.

Thus, and recognizing that many draught operations rely on a yoked pair of animals, those sub-marginal and marginal holdings that own either one (only) or no draught animal merit special attention. Such holdings/farmers may depend on the owners of large or of medium-size holdings to undertake operations (notably land preparation) through hire arrangements - when the animals can be made available. Operations on the smaller holdings may thus be delayed pending such availability - with detriment to overall productivity. The strengthening of custom-hire services (public or private sector) - to optimize the use of temporarily-available draught animals and tractors and operators - might thus be a mechanism through which crop productivity could be raised both locally and nationally.

Table 18: Proportion of holdings owning no, one, or more draught animals: 1993-94: Various farm-size categories

Farm-size category

Ownership of draught animals [as proportion (%) of holdings]

None

One

Two or more

Sub-marginal

64

11

25

Marginal

44

11

45

Small

36

11

59

Medium

30

11

59

Large

24

10

66

All farms

50

11

39

Source: Computed from household data in the National Sample Survey (50th Round - 1993-94): All-India survey on consumer expenditure, employment, and unemployment.
Table 19 explores (at 1993-94, and for various farm-size groups) the relation of livestock ownership to human poverty, intensity of hunger, and nutritionally-balanced diet. Poverty and hunger - particularly among the households farming sub-marginal- and marginal-sized holdings - were lessened appreciably by the ownership of a buffalo, but somewhat less by the ownership of a milch cow. For all sizes of holdings, the incidence of poverty and of under-nourishment were less by about one-half (compared to the no-livestock situation) on those holdings that owned a buffalo or of a buffalo and a cow. Similarly, and for all categories of farm size, the quality of diet was improved - to the extent of a one-tenth decrease in the dietary-energy dependence on cereals - by the ownership of a buffalo or of a buffalo and a cow.

The estimation of food deficit (or intensity of hunger) for those arbitrarily defined as under-nourished (Table 19) is correspondingly arbitrary and perhaps suspect. Nonetheless, it does appear that for all categories of holding the ownership of a buffalo lessens the estimated food deficit of under-nourished persons by about one-fifth. (The data, however, seem aberrant if not perverse in suggesting that the ownership of a cow, in addition to a buffalo, increases - appreciably - the intensity of hunger.)

Financially - and with significance for short-term poverty and hunger - inter-year fluctuation in income is lessened when livestock comprise part of the farm system. Thus, Kumar and Mittal (2000) suggest that livestock are in India favoured as an income-generating enterprise. Indeed, Birthal et al (1999) report that total factor productivity in the Indian livestock sector increased at 1.8 %/ann during 1981-1996 compared to only 1.0 %/ann in the crop sector. There is thus full justification to strengthen and expand - as a component of the public- and private-sector efforts to lessen poverty and hunger - ongoing programmes that support livestock production and enterprise. Priorities might be to increase efforts that address the identified constraints and knowledge gaps in livestock genetics, health, and nutrition.

Table 19: Livestock ownership: Relations to human poverty, hunger, and nutritional balance: Rural India: 1993-94: Various farm-size categories

Farm-size category

Livestock type

Per cent of human population

Food deficit of under-n’rish’d
(kcal/cap.d)

Cereals in energy intake (%)

Poor

Under-nourished

Sub-marginal

 

None

42

40

325

78

Cow

37

28

285

76

Buffalo

30

22

276

71

Cow and buffalo

30

21

286

70

Marginal

 

None

33

32

307

77

Cow

28

23

272

76

Buffalo

21

17

232

69

Cow and buffalo

20

15

275

69

Small

 

None

24

25

302

75

Cow

23

21

279

74

Buffalo

14

12

236

66

Cow and buffalo

14

13

227

67

Medium

 

None

22

15

271

71

Cow

22

17

265

73

Buffalo

11

10

204

64

Cow and buffalo

8

9

255

64

Large

 

None

24

17

243

71

Cow

24

19

284

71

Buffalo

9

10

183

66

Cow and buffalo

8

8

263

66

Source: Computed from household data in the National Sample Survey (50th Round - 1993-94).
Notably, the data of Table 19 highlight the contributions (at 1993-94) of buffalos in lessening rural poverty and hunger and in improving diets (through milk supply). Fortunately, in India (as throughout South Asia, and in contrast to East Asia) buffalo populations increased throughout the 1990s. However, even in India - where the buffalo population now approaches 100 million - efforts to improve buffalo stocks and productivity have been much less than would be justified by those Table-19 analyses. Increased attention to this national asset - particularly to the constraints in breeding and in reproduction - could be highly cost-effective, both economically and socially.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page