Abstract
Of Reports
ON
Marketable Surplus and Post-Harvest Losses of Foodgrains in
I. Cereals: - 1. Paddy
2. Wheat
3. Jowar
4. Bajra
5. Maize
6. Barley
7. Ragi
II. Pulses: -
1. Red gram (Arhar)
2.
3. Green gram (Moong)
4. Black gram (Urad)
5. Lentil (Masoor)
2005
Govt. Of
Ministry of
Agriculture
Directorate of
Marketing and Inspection
Branch Head
Office
FORWORDS
The Directorate of Marketing &
Inspection (D.M.I.), ever since its inception in the year 1935 has been engaged
in conducting surveys on Marketing of Agricultural Commodities. In the recent
past, a nation wide survey was conducted for estimation of Marketable Surplus
and Post Harvest Losses of foodgrains on Paddy, Wheat, Jowar, Bajra, Maize,
Ragi, Barley amongst cereals and Arhar, Green gram, Black gram, Gram and Lentil
amongst Pulses for the period of three years i.e. 1996-97, 1997-98 and
1998-99. The study covered for 25
States, 100 selected districts and 15,000 cultivator houses holds in the
country with adoption of stratified multi stage random sampling design. The
survey generated valuable information on various aspects such as retention for
different purpose, Marketed Surplus and Marketable Surplus, Post Harvest Losses
at Producer’s level.
The information contained is extensively used in framing estimates of
“Net National Product” of agricultural sector, reflecting pattern on
consumption, expenditure, savings, capital formation, etc. and are required for
publication of “National Accounts Statistics”.
It is also used in long and short term supply and demand
projection. The data is also used for
assigning weights to different agricultural commodities for computation of “All
India Index Numbers of wholesale Prices”. The data also facilitate the strategy
for planning the procurement operations and formulating market development
programmes. Besides, it also serves as a reliable source for agricultural
marketing researchers and National and International organisations.
In view of the foregoing, efforts have been made to make available
abstract of the findings of reports on the aforesaid foodgrains which were
covered under study. The abstract has
been prepared by Shri M.P. Parashar, Marketing Officer and Shri P.G. Choudhari,
Senior Marketing Officer, under the supervision and guidance of Shri B.D.
Sherkar, Dy. Agricultural Marketing Adviser.
The whole task has been completed under the overall guidance of Shri
H.P. Singh, Jt. Agricultural Marketing Adviser, D.M.I., B.H.O.,
The Government of India should not be regarded as assuming
responsibility for any of the information/data contained in this
abstract/summary.
Date:
(P.K. Agarwal)
Agricultural Marketing Adviser to the Government of India
INDEX
S.No. Crop
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Paddy
in India
1.
The survey covered 100
districts selected from 25 states in accordance with the methodology approved
by the Technical Committee in consultation with the Indian Agriculture
Statistical Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500 selected
villages, 1209 villages were growing paddy.
In other words, 80 percent of the selected villages were paddy-growing
villages.
2.
The total area under paddy
was estimated at 43786.19 thousand hectares.
Out of this, an average of 26804.38 thousand hectares, nearly 61percent
was grown as irrigated. The State-wise distribution of area under paddy shows
that in states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana,
paddy was grown mainly as irrigated crop.
In other states, irrigation
potential seemed to have not been fully tapped.
3.
The coverage of the High Yielding Varieties was of the order of
33798.58 thousand hectares or 77.19 percent. This is a reflection of the successful efforts made by the Ministry of
Agriculture for promotion of High Yielding Varieties.
4.
The production of paddy was
estimated at 122270.29 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of irrigated
paddy was 92800.70 thousand tonnes or 75.89 percent. The contribution of High Yielding Varieties
in production was estimated at 104620.08 thousand Tonnes or 85.56 percent. This further signifies the need for
promotion of HYV to meet the competitive global marketing environment through
competitive efficiency.
5. The total requirement of paddy for farm-family consumption ((retention for consumption at farmer level and purchases)), was estimated at 41171.95 thousand tonnes, which accounted for 33.67percent of the estimated production.
6.
The estimates of retention
for various purposes and purchases of paddy to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under :
i) For farm-family consumption - 26.08 percent
ii) For consumption by permanent - 2.22 percent
labour and temporary labour.
iii) Estimated purchases for - 5.38 percent
Consumption.
iv) For seed purpose - 1.80 percent
v) For
animal feed -
0.18 percent
vi) For payment in cash and kind - 1.54 percent
7.
The total post harvest
losses of paddy at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing
floor, threshing and winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated
at 2.72 percent of the total production
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 51.97 percent. The
share of direct sales by the producers to consumers was 3.64 percent. The
co-operatives purchased only 3.90 percent. The share of FCI was mearly 9.73 percent.
It is a matter of introspection for the co-operative sector and FCI to evaluate their
role in marketing of paddy for the benefit of the farming community. It is also imperative to open up avenues
through marketing reforms for promoting direct sales by the producer to the target
group in order to enhance producer’s share in consumers rupee.
9.
Out of the total sales,
64.66 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to shift the focus of
development from the urban market centres (largely developed) to the rural
market centres.
10.
The earlier survey of
marketable surplus and post harvest losses of paddy conducted during the year
1972-73 revealed that estimated farm-family requirement was 53188.58 thousand
tonnes or 91.13percent of estimated production. Incidentally, it may be
mentioned that during the year, 1972-73, the country was facing the problem of
deficit.
11.
The 1972-73 survey showed
that the marketable surplus was 5176.42 thousand tonnes or 8.87percent of the
production. The present survey revealed
that the marketable surplus now stood at 67805.00 thousand tonnes or 55.46 percent
and the total farm-family requirement including the losses at farm accounted
for 54465.29 thousand tonnes or 44. 54 percent of the total production.
12.
The marketed surplus was
estimated at 63541.65 thousand metric tonnes or 51.97 percent. This meant that the carry over stocks with
the producers stood at 4265.35 thousand tonnes or 3.49 percent of the total
production.
13.
The present survey showed
that the farm-family requirement was 54465.29 thousand tonnes. During 1972-73 survey, it was observed to be
53188.58 thousand tonnes. Thus, farm-family
requirement seemed to be more or less static.
14.
The earlier surveys showed
that the average number of family members per household was 6.26, whereas the
present survey showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.45.
Table-1
Total Production, Marketed
Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Paddy
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. NO |
Name of
state |
Total production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh
|
16556.55 |
9935.30 |
60.01 |
10159.63 |
61.36 |
533.65 |
3.22 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
165.08 |
45.09 |
27.31 |
70.03 |
42.42 |
4.89 |
2.96 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
5788.36 |
2104.20 |
36.35 |
3365.92 |
58.15 |
225.51 |
3.90 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
9274.32 |
2867.67 |
30.92 |
2908.61 |
31.36 |
453.03 |
4.88 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
190.62 |
46.29 |
24.28 |
44.87 |
23.54 |
5.98 |
3.14 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
1267.56 |
772.08 |
60.91 |
940.93 |
74.23 |
61.60 |
4.86 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
4073.39 |
3518.78 |
86.38 |
3670.55 |
90.11 |
108.85 |
2.67 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh
|
145.99 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
-46.57 |
-31.90 |
2.70 |
1.85 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
688.01 |
262.43 |
38.14 |
270.12 |
39.26 |
14.58 |
2.12 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
4150.55 |
2131.05 |
51.34 |
2730.40 |
65.78 |
96.59 |
2.33 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
1067.72 |
427.24 |
40.01 |
484.04 |
45.33 |
8.85 |
0.83 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh
|
8560.11 |
4423.12 |
51.67 |
4911.15 |
57.37 |
119.04 |
1.39 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
3193.25 |
194.11 |
6.08 |
-553.74 |
-17.34 |
104.33 |
3.27 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
619.97 |
181.95 |
29.35 |
274.24 |
44.23 |
13.89 |
2.24 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
244.55 |
68.99 |
28.21 |
89.85 |
36.74 |
4.87 |
1.99 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
186.01 |
54.20 |
29.14 |
82.06 |
44.12 |
4.06 |
2.18 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
293.25 |
120.26 |
41.01 |
127.28 |
43.40 |
5.30 |
1.81 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
8869.51 |
3621.12 |
40.83 |
3423.83 |
38.60 |
302.86 |
3.41 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
10920.03 |
10052.36 |
92.05 |
10311.76 |
94.43 |
206.33 |
1.89 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
252.85 |
213.21 |
84.32 |
227.59 |
90.01 |
4.49 |
1.78 |
|
21 |
Sikkim
|
28.08 |
11.00 |
39.17 |
14.32 |
51.00 |
0.59 |
2.10 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
8235.36 |
3126.72 |
37.97 |
2382.84 |
28.93 |
260.79 |
3.17 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
922.32 |
344.56 |
37.36 |
340.26 |
36.89 |
40.88 |
4.43 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
16920.99 |
7640.82 |
45.16 |
8321.92 |
49.18 |
328.27 |
1.94 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
19655.86 |
11379.10 |
57.89 |
13253.12 |
67.43 |
407.63 |
2.07 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
122270.29 |
63541.65 |
51.97 |
67805.00 |
55.46 |
3319.57 |
2.71 |
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Wheat in India
1.
The survey covered 100
districts, selected from 25 states, in accordance with the methodology approved
by the Technical Committee, in consultation with the Indian Agriculture
Statistical Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500 selected
villages, 1065 selected villages were growing wheat. In other words, 71 percent of the selected
villages were wheat-growing villages.
2.
The total area under wheat
was estimated at 26569.29 thousand hectares.
Out of this, an average of 22859.40 thousand hectares or nearly 86.04
percent was grown as irrigated. The State-wise distribution of area under wheat
shows that in states like Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, wheat was grown
mainly as irrigated crop. In other states, irrigation potential
seemed to have not been fully tapped.
3.
The coverage of the High Yielding Varieties was of the order of
23198.65 thousand hectares or 87.31 percent. This is a reflection of the successful efforts made by the Ministry of
Agriculture for promotion of High Yielding Varieties.
4.
The production of wheat was
estimated at 68495.89 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of
irrigated wheat was 63472.64 thousand tonnes or 92.67 percent. The contribution of High Yielding Varieties
in production was estimated at 62778.63 thousand Tonnes or 91.65 percent. This further signifies the need for
promotion of HYV to meet the competitive global marketing environment through
competitive efficiency.
5.
The total requirement of
wheat for farm-family consumption
(retention for consumption at farmer level and purchases) was estimated
at 20313.12 thousand tonnes, which accounted for 29.66 percent of the estimated
production.
6.
The estimates of retention
for various purposes and purchases of paddy to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under :
i) For
farm-family consumption - 27.49 percent
ii) For
consumption by permanent -
2.13 percent
labour and temporary labour.
iii) Estimated
purchases for Consumption. - 0.04 percent
iv) For seed
purpose -
3.35 percent
v) For
animal feed -
1.79 percent
vi) For payment in cash and kind - 1.88 percent
7.
The total post harvest
losses of wheat at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing
floor, threshing and winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated
at 1.79 percent of the total production
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 53.81 percent. The
share of direct sales by the producers to consumers was 14.56 percent. The co-operativeses purchased only 9.42 percent, The share of FCI
was merely 20.00 percent. It is a matter
of introspection for the co-operative sector and FCI to evaluate their role in
marketing of wheat for the benefit of the farming community. It is also imperative to open up avenues
through marketing reforms for promoting direct sales by the producer to the
target group in order to enhance producer’s share in consumers rupee.
9.
Out of the total sales,
70.73 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to
shift the focus of development from the urban market centres (largely
developed) to the rural market centres.
10.
The earlier survey of marketable
surplus & post harvest losses of wheat conducted during the year 1972-73
revealed that estimated farm-family requirement was 7525.83 thousand tonnes or
34.92 percent of estimated production. Incidentally, it may be mentioned that
during the year, the country was facing the problem of deficit.
11.
The 1972-73 survey showed
that the marketable surplus was 14028.57 thousand tonnes or 65.08 percent of
the production. The present survey
revealed that the marketable surplus now stood at 39288.34 thousand tonnes or
57.36 percent and the total farm-family requirement including the losses at
farm level accounted for 29207.55 thousand tonnes or 42.64 percent of the total
production.
12. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-2
Total
Production, Marketed
Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Wheat
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000
tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Total production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh
|
9.11 |
5.31 |
58.29 |
5.71 |
62.68 |
0.33 |
3.62 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
4.82 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.08 |
1.66 |
0.25 |
5.19 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
127.42 |
51.74 |
40.61 |
57.20 |
44.89 |
9.42 |
7.39 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
3737.15 |
672.91 |
18.01 |
831.35 |
22.25 |
154.95 |
4.15 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
1289.21 |
823.96 |
63.91 |
878.01 |
68.10 |
16.25 |
1.26 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
7781.35 |
5241.70 |
67.36 |
5454.36 |
70.10 |
215.78 |
2.77 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh
|
442.17 |
10.59 |
2.40 |
19.51 |
4.41 |
7.62 |
1.72 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
440.29 |
161.58 |
36.70 |
177.25 |
40.26 |
9.73 |
2.21 |
|
10 |
Karnataka |
130.93 |
112.59 |
85.99 |
118.30 |
90.35 |
5.07 |
3.87 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh
|
8555.23 |
5524.46 |
64.57 |
6052.26 |
70.74 |
102.40 |
1.20 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
1105.64 |
537.84 |
48.65 |
594.56 |
53.78 |
21.27 |
1.92 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
4.12 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.11 |
2.67 |
0.13 |
3.16 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
1.02 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.23 |
22.55 |
0.07 |
6.86 |
|
18 |
Orissa |
0.81 |
0.02 |
2.47 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.07 |
8.64 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
12800.92 |
9129.71 |
71.32 |
9824.13 |
76.75 |
228.51 |
1.79 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
7586.66 |
4181.96 |
55.12 |
4574.03 |
60.29 |
89.05 |
1.17 |
|
21 |
Sikkim
|
13.18 |
11.47 |
87.03 |
12.14 |
92.11 |
0.37 |
2.81 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
5.51 |
2.42 |
43.92 |
2.39 |
43.38 |
0.39 |
7.08 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
23666.58 |
10080.97 |
42.60 |
10347.95 |
43.72 |
318.19 |
1.34 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
793.77 |
310.08 |
39.06 |
338.77 |
42.68 |
42.60 |
5.37 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
68495.89 |
36859.31 |
53.81 |
39288.34 |
57.36 |
1222.45 |
1.79 |
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Jowar in India
1.
The survey covered 100
districts selected from 25 states in accordance with the methodology approved
by the Technical Committee in consultation with the Indian Agriculture
Statistical Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500 selected
villages, 460 villages were growing jowar.
In other words, 30.67 percent of the selected villages were
jowar-growing villages.
2. The total area under jowar was estimated at
10480.40 thousand hectares. Out of this,
an average of 1153.02 thousand hectares or nearly 11 percent was grown as
irrigated. The State-wise distribution of area under jowar shows that maximum
area was in the State of Maharashtra (5308.04 thousand hectares), followed by
Karnataka (1915.07 thousand hectares), Madhya Pradesh (872.13 thousand
hectares), Andhra Pradesh (714.00 thousand hectares), Rajasthan (572.45
thousand hectares), Uttar Pradesh (381.96 thousand hectares), Tamil Nadu
(380.13 thousand hectares), and Gujarat (279.00 thousand hectares). These
States account for 99.45 percent area under jowar. Maharashtra had the highest
12.32 percent of area under irrigation. In
other states, irrigation potential seemed to have not been fully tapped.
3. The coverage of the High Yielding Varieties
was of the order of 6636.33 thousand hectares or 63.32 percent. This is a reflection of the successful
efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture for promotion of High Yielding
Varieties.
4.
The production of jowar was
estimated at 10652.19 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of
irrigated jowar was 1383.80 thousand tonnes or 12.99 percent. The contribution
of High Yielding Varieties in production was estimated at 7924.37 thousand
Tonnes or 74.39 percent. This further signifies the need for promotion of HYV
to meet the competitive marketing environment.
5.
The total requirement of jowar
for farm-family consumption (retention
for consumption at farmer level and purchases) was estimated at 5111.07
thousand tonnes, which accounted for 47.98 percent of the estimated production.
6.
The estimates of retention
for various purposes and purchases of jowar to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under :
i) For
farm-family consumption
- 34.20 percent
ii) For
consumption by permanent -
3.26 percent
labour
and temporary labour.
iii) Estimated
purchases for Consumption. - 10.84
percent
iv) For seed
purpose - 1.04
percent
v) For animal feed - 2.29
percent
vi) For payment in cash and kind - 1.61 percent
7.
The total post harvest
losses of jowar at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing floor,
threshing and winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated at
2.20 percent of the total production.
The 1974-75 survey had reported these to be 5.02 percent of the total
production of Jowar. This confirms
considerable improvement owing to technological developments.
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 39.72 percent. The
share of direct sales by the producers to consumers was 12.21 percent. The co-operativeses purchased only 1.80 percent, The share of FCI
was mearly 1.29 percent. It is a matter of introspection for the
co-operative sector and FCI to evaluate their role in marketing of jowar for
the benefit of the farming community. It
is also imperative to open up avenues through marketing reforms for promoting
direct sales by the producer to the target group in order to enhance producer’s
share in consumers rupee.
9.
Out of the total sales,
50.52 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to
shift the focus of development from the urban market centres (largely
developed) to the rural market centres.
10.
The earlier survey of
marketable surplus & post harvest losses of jowar conducted during the year
1974-75 revealed that estimated farm-family requirement was 4609.63 Thousand
tonnes or 66.16 percent of estimated production.
11.
The 1974-75 survey showed
that the marketable surplus was 2357.80 thousand tonnes or 33.14 percent of the
production. The present survey revealed
that the marketable surplus now stood at 3463.39 thousand tonnes or 32.51
percent and the total farm-family requirement including the losses at farm
level accounted for 7188.80 thousand tonnes or 67.49 percent of the total
production.
12.
The marketed surplus was
estimated at 4231.56 thousand tonnes or 39.72 percent. The 1974-75 survey
reported marketed surplus to be 2432.77 thousand tonnes or 34.92 percent of
total production of Jowar in the country.
13.
The present survey showed
that the farm-family requirement was 7188.80 thousand tonnes. During 1974-75 survey, it was observed to be
4609.63 thousand tonnes. Thus,
farm-family requirement seemed to have increased by 56 percent.
14 The earlier
surveys showed that the average number of family members per household was
6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-3
Total
Production, Marketed
Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Jowar
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh |
505.03 |
205.86 |
40.76 |
110.97 |
21.97 |
10.04 |
1.99 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
2.45 |
0.28 |
11.43 |
0.38 |
15.51 |
0.04 |
1.63 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
258.07 |
58.24 |
22.57 |
38.08 |
14.76 |
6.52 |
2.53 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
36.09 |
2.69 |
7.45 |
3.77 |
10.45 |
0.45 |
1.25 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
1577.63 |
433.40 |
27.47 |
219.29 |
13.90 |
36.50 |
2.31 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh |
794.44 |
363.69 |
45.78 |
282.84 |
35.60 |
16.62 |
2.09 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
6446.55 |
2738.17 |
42.47 |
2366.09 |
36.70 |
140.68 |
2.18 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
6.41 |
0.22 |
3.43 |
0.53 |
8.27 |
0.12 |
1.87 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
318.46 |
79.29 |
24.90 |
94.21 |
29.58 |
5.79 |
1.82 |
|
21 |
Sikkim
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
316.82 |
185.84 |
58.66 |
175.31 |
55.33 |
7.05 |
2.23 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
390.12 |
163.88 |
42.01 |
171.92 |
44.07 |
10.39 |
2.66 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
0.12 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
10652.19 |
4231.56 |
39.72 |
3463.39 |
32.51 |
234.20 |
2.20 |
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Bajra in India
1. The survey
covered 100 districts selected from 25 states in accordance with the
methodology approved by the Technical Committee in consultation with the Indian
Agricultural Statistics Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500selected
villages, 313 villages were growing Bajra.
In other words, 20.87 of the selected villages were Bajra growing
villages.
2.
The total
area under Bajra was estimated at 9761.44 thousand hectares. Out of this, an average of 2787.59 thousand
hectares or nearly 28.56 percent was grown as irrigated. The State-wise
distribution of area under Bajra showed that maximum area was in the State of
Rajasthan (4700.00 thousand hectares), followed by Maharashtra (1750.01
thousand hectares), Gujarat (1075.00 thousand hectares), Uttar Pradesh (850.00
thousand hectares), Haryana (574.97 thousand hectares), Karnataka (350.00
thousand hectares), Tamil Nadu (189.98 thousand hectares) and Madhya Pradesh
(140.00 thousand hectares). These states
together accounted for 99.69 percent of area under bajra.
Rajasthan had highest percent irrigated area i.e. 51.23 percent.
3.
The coverage of the High
Yielding Varieties was of the order of 7404.58 thousand hectares or 75.86
percent This is a reflection of the
successful efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture for promotion of High Yielding
Varieties.
4.
The production of Bajra was
estimated at 7948.85 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of
irrigated Bajra was 2760.47 thousand tonnes or 34.73 percent. The contribution
of High Yielding Varieties in production was estimated at 6475.78 thousand
Tonnes or 81.47. This further signifies the need for promotion of HYV.
5.
The total requirement of
Bajra for farm-family consumption (retention for consumption at farmer level
and purchases) was estimated at 2854.64 thousand tonnes, which accounted for
35.91 percent of the estimated production.
6. The estimates of retention for various
purposes and purchases of Bajra to meet the total requirement of farm-family
were as under:
i) For
farm-family consumption - 34.80 percent
ii) For
consumption by permanent - 1.11
percent
labour
and temporary labour.
ii) Estimated
purchases for -
0.02 percent
Consumption.
iv) For seed
purpose -
0.49 percent
v) For
animal feed -
4.90 percent
vi) For
payment in cash and kind -
1.19 percent
7. The total post harvest losses of Bajra at
producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing floor, threshing and
winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated at 1.89 percent of
the total production.
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 45.44 percent. In the total sale the share of direct sales
by the producers to consumers was 10.80 percent. The co-operativeses
purchased only 5.92
9.
percent, The share of FCI
was merely 0.38 percent. It is a matter of
introspection for the co-operative sector and FCI to evaluate their role in
marketing of Bajra for the benefit of the farming community.
10.
Out of the total sales,
43.45 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to
shift the focus of development from the urban market centres to the rural
market centres.
11.
The earlier survey of
marketable surplus & post harvest losses of Bajra conducted during the year
1974-75 revealed that estimated farm-family requirement was 1994.45 Thousand
tonnes or 63.69 percent of estimated production.
12.
The 1974-75 survey showed
that the marketable surplus was 1137.15 thousand tonnes or 36.31 percent of the
production. The present survey revealed
that the marketable surplus now stood at 3893.61 thousand tonnes or 48.98
percent and the total farm-family requirement including the losses at farm
level accounted for 4055.24 thousand tonnes or 51.02 percent of the total
production.
13.
The marketed surplus was
estimated at 3612.11 thousand tonnes i.e. 45.44 percent of the total
production.
14.
The present survey showed
that the farm-family requirement was 4055.24 thousand tonnes. During 1974-75 survey, it was observed to be
1994.45 thousand tonnes. Thus,
farm-family requirement seemed to have increased by 103 percent.
14. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-4
Total
Production, Marketed
Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Bajra
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh |
105.00 |
74.50 |
70.95 |
81.00 |
77.14 |
3.22 |
3.07 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
4.00 |
1.00 |
25.00 |
1.76 |
44.00 |
0.03 |
0.75 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
1399.99 |
457.93 |
32.71 |
508.50 |
36.32 |
31.32 |
2.24 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
660.00 |
196.19 |
29.73 |
216.37 |
32.78 |
13.61 |
2.06 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
4.89 |
1.28 |
26.18 |
1.36 |
27.81 |
0.17 |
3.48 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
200.00 |
47.08 |
23.54 |
55.20 |
34.60 |
6.09 |
3.05 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh |
140.00 |
75.96 |
54.26 |
78.88 |
56.34 |
4.05 |
2.89 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
1499.99 |
745.50 |
49.70 |
782.22 |
52.15 |
32.75 |
2.18 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
5.00 |
1.01 |
20.20 |
1.86 |
37.20 |
0.12 |
2.40 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
2499.99 |
1324.95 |
53.00 |
1429.24 |
57.17 |
34.05 |
1.36 |
|
21 |
Sikkim
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
229.99 |
89.96 |
39.11 |
98.56 |
42.85 |
5.16 |
2.24 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
1200.00 |
596.75 |
49.73 |
638.66 |
53.22 |
19.73 |
1.64 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
7948.85 |
3612.11 |
45.44 |
3893.61 |
48.98 |
150.30 |
1.89 |
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Maize in India
1. The survey covered 100 districts selected
from 25 states in accordance with the methodology approved by the Technical
Committee in consultation with the Indian Agriculture Statistical Research
Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100
selected districts, 1500 villages were selected. Out of 1500selected villages, 765 villages
were growing maize. In other words, 51
percent of the selected villages were maize-growing villages.
2.
The total area under maize
was estimated at 6200.15 thousand hectares.
Out of this, an average of 2156.38 thousand hectares or nearly 34.78
percent was grown as irrigated. The State-wise distribution of area under maize
showed that the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka and Rajasthan
accounted for the total area sown as irrigated crop.
3.
The coverage of the High Yielding Varieties was of the order of 3932.86
thousand hectares or 63.43 percent
This
is a reflection of the successful efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture
for promotion of High Yielding Varieties.
4.
The production of maize was
estimated at 10906.48 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of
irrigated maize was 5122.84 thousand tonnes or 46.97 percent. The contribution of High Yielding Varieties
in production was estimated at 8033.60 thousand tonnes or 73.66 percent. This
further signifies the need for promotion of HYV.
5.
The total requirement of
maize for farm-family consumption
(retention for consumption at farmer level and purchases) was estimated
at 3808.45 thousand tonnes, which accounted for 34.92 percent of the estimated
production.
6.
The estimates of retention
for various purposes and purchases of maize to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under :
i) For
farm-family consumption 33.25 percent
ii) For
consumption by permanent 1.61
percent
labour
and temporary labour.
iii) Estimated
purchases for 0.06
percent
Consumption.
iv) For
seed purpose
1.52 percent
v) For animal feed 2.85 percent
vi) For payment in cash and kind 2.16
percent
7.
The total post harvest
losses of maize at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing
floor, threshing and winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated
at 267 thousand tonnes or 2.45 percent of the total production
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 46.25 percent. The
share of direct sales by the producers to consumers was 7.23 percent. The co-operativeses purchased only 0.54 percent, The share of FCI
was merely 0.25 percent. It is a matter
of introspection for the co-operative sector and FCI to evaluate their role in
marketing of maize for the benefit of the farming community. It is also imperative to open up avenues
through marketing reforms for promoting direct sales by the producer to the target buyers for
obtaining remunerable prices.
9.
Out of the total sales,
67.82 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to
shift the focus of development from the urban market centres (largely developed)
to the rural market centres.
10.
The earlier survey of
marketable surplus & post harvest losses of maize conducted during the year
1972-73 revealed that estimated farm-family requirement was 3665.60 thousand
tonnes or 69.14 percent of estimated production. Incidentally, it may be mentioned
that during the year, the country was facing the problem of deficit.
11.
The 1972-73 survey showed
that the marketable surplus was 1636.00 thousand tonnes or 30.86 percent of the
production. The present survey revealed
that the marketable surplus now stood at 5271.93 thousand tonnes or 48.34
percent and the total farm-family requirement including the losses at farm
level accounted for 5634.55 thousand tonnes or 51.66 percent of the total
production.
12. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-5
Total
Production, Marketed
Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Maize
(Triennium ending
1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Total production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh
|
923.87 |
853.39 |
92.37 |
883.59 |
95.64 |
7.72 |
0.84 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
40.11 |
11.11 |
27.70 |
12.44 |
31.01 |
1.63 |
4.06 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
18.83 |
7.81 |
41.48 |
8.3 |
44.08 |
0.61 |
3.24 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
1508.99 |
417.42 |
27.66 |
436.5 |
28.93 |
57.25 |
3.79 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
645.29 |
295.98 |
45.87 |
314.93 |
48.80 |
19.45 |
3.01 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
32.96 |
12.85 |
38.99 |
13.83 |
41.96 |
0.65 |
1.97 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh
|
571.45 |
21.49 |
3.76 |
37.95 |
6.64 |
17.26 |
3.02 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
466.53 |
131.00 |
28.08 |
141.34 |
30.30 |
11.61 |
2.49 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
1563.79 |
1369.98 |
87.61 |
1404.17 |
89.79 |
35.01 |
2.24 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh
|
1051.36 |
275.44 |
26.20 |
301.39 |
28.67 |
29.98 |
2.85 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra |
333.07 |
174.14 |
52.28 |
179.46 |
53.88 |
7.93 |
2.38 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
14.98 |
5.07 |
33.85 |
5.39 |
35.98 |
0.51 |
3.40 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
25.00 |
7.31 |
29.24 |
8.8 |
35.2 |
0.86 |
3.44 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
14.63 |
3.64 |
24.88 |
4.16 |
28.43 |
0.43 |
2.94 |
|
17 |
Nagaland |
42.89 |
11.45 |
26.70 |
12.27 |
28.61 |
0.70 |
1.63 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
74.01 |
9.24 |
12.48 |
13.23 |
17.88 |
2.46 |
3.32 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
321.23 |
181.22 |
56.41 |
186.08 |
57.93 |
6.24 |
1.94 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
1101.04 |
288.68 |
26.22 |
308.36 |
28.01 |
30.58 |
2.78 |
|
21 |
Sikkim |
49.04 |
18.24 |
37.19 |
18.78 |
38.3 |
1.33 |
2.71 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
157.34 |
142.31 |
90.45 |
146.64 |
93.2 |
2.68 |
1.70 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
3.21 |
0.76 |
23.68 |
0.83 |
25.86 |
0.09 |
2.80 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
1839.46 |
760.47 |
41.34 |
786.49 |
42.76 |
31.06 |
1.69 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
107.40 |
45.53 |
42.39 |
46.99 |
43.75 |
1.48 |
1.38 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
10906.48 |
5044.53 |
46.25 |
5271.93 |
48.34 |
267.52 |
2.45 |
TOP
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Barley in India
1.
The survey covered 100
districts selected from 25 states in accordance with the methodology approved
by the Technical Committee in consultation with the Indian Agriculture
Statistical Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500selected
villages, 276 villages were growing Barley.
In other words, 18.40percent of the selected villages were Barley
growing villages.
2. The total area under Barley was estimated at
831.9684 thousand hectares. Out of this,
an average of 550.4618 thousand hectares or nearly 66.16 percent was grown as
irrigated. The State-wise distribution of area under Barley shows that maximum
area was in the State of Uttar Pradesh (354.3857 thousand hectares), followed
by Rajasthan (240.2277 thousand hectares), Madhya Pradesh (89.5634 thousand
hectares), Bihar (41.2492 thousand hectares), Haryana (39.8971 thousand
hectares), Punjab (39.8671 thousand
hectares, Himachal Pradesh (26.7783 thousand hectares). Punjab had the highest
percent of area under irrigation (100%).
3.
The coverage of the High
Yielding Varieties was of the order of 379.5377 thousand hectares or 45.62
percent. This is a reflection of the
efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture for promotion of High Yielding
Varieties.
4.
The production of Barley was
estimated at 1604.8024 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of
irrigated Barley was 1180.8499 thousand tonnes or 73.58 percent. The contribution of High Yielding Varieties
in production was estimated at 838.8050 thousand tonnes or 52.27 percent. This
further signifies the need for promotion of HYV to meet the competitive
marketing environment.
5.
The total requirement of
Barley for farm-family consumption (retention for consumption at farmer level
and purchases) was estimated at 171.1595 thousand tonnes, which accounted for
10.67 percent of the estimated production.
6.
The estimates of retention
for various purposes and purchases of Barley to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under :
i) For
farm-family consumption - 9.22 percent
ii) For
consumption by permanent -
1.14 percent
labour
and temporary labour.
iii) Estimated
purchases for - 0.30 percent
Consumption.
iv) For seed
purpose - 5.05 percent
v) For animal feed - 18.14 percent
vi) For payment in cash and kind - 0.11 percent
7.
The total post harvest
losses of Barley at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing
floor, threshing and winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated
at 2.16 percent of the total production
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 57.15 percent. The
share of direct sales by the producers to consumers was 3.64 percent and to
co-operatives, it was 7.26 percent. It is a matter of introspection for the
co-operative sector and FCI / Government Agencies to evaluate their role in
marketing of Barley for the benefit of the farming community.
9. Out of the total sales, 50.07 percent sales
were within villages. This clearly
established the need for development of infra-structure and facilities at the
village level to serve the interests of the farm households. It is also necessary to shift the focus of
development from the urban market centres to the rural market centres.
10.
The earlier survey of
marketable surplus and post harvest losses of Barley conducted during the year
1956-57 revealed that estimated marketable surplus was 28.00 percent.
11.
The present survey revealed
that the marketable surplus now stood at 946.6748 thousand tonnes or 58.99
percent and the total farm-family requirement including the losses at farm
level accounted for 658.1276 thousand tonnes or 41.01 percent of the total
production.
12.
The marketed surplus was
estimated at 917.1939 thousand tonnes or 57.15 percent.
13. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-6
Total
Production, Marketed
Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Barley
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
37.3082 |
19.0218 |
50.99 |
20.0395 |
53.71 |
1.2592 |
3.38 |
|
5 |
Goa |
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
94.6855 |
84.7167 |
89.47 |
87.4284 |
92.34 |
2.4377 |
2.57 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh |
34.4162 |
16.0080 |
46.51 |
16.4120 |
0.00 |
1.1441 |
3.32 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh |
111.8625 |
93.9562 |
83.99 |
97.0450 |
86.75 |
3.5824 |
3.20 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
122.4120 |
81.2489 |
66.37 |
83.4396 |
68.16 |
3.5038 |
2.86 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan |
460.5721 |
278.9085 |
60.56 |
288.8121 |
62.71 |
8.5288 |
1.85 |
|
21 |
Sikkim
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
743.5459 |
343.3338 |
46.18 |
353.4983 |
47.54 |
14.2863 |
1.92 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
1604.8024 |
917.1939 |
57.15 |
946.6748 |
58.99 |
34.7424 |
2.16 |
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Ragi in India
1.
The survey covered 100
districts, selected from 25 states, in accordance with the methodology approved
by the Technical Committee, in consultation with the Indian Agriculture
Statistical Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500 selected
villages, 279 villages were growing Ragi.
In other words, 18.60 percent of the selected villages were Ragi-growing
villages.
2.
The total area under Ragi
was estimated at 1587.15 thousand hectares.
Out of this, an average of 211.10 thousand hectares or nearly 13.30
percent was grown as irrigated. The State-wise distribution of area under Ragi,
shows that in states like Tamil Nadu and Gujarat, Ragi was grown mainly as
irrigated crop.
3.
The coverage of the High Yielding Varieties was of the order of 883.11
thousand hectares or 55.64 percent.
This
is a reflection of the successful efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture
for promotion of High Yielding Varieties.
4.
The production of Ragi was
estimated at 2282.84 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of
irrigated Ragi was 469.81 thousand tonnes or 20.58 percent. The contribution of High Yielding Varieties
in production was estimated at 1614.53 thousand tonnes or 70.73 percent. This
further signifies the need for promotion of HYV to meet the competitive global
marketing environment through competitive efficiency.
5. The total requirement of Ragi for farm-family consumption (retention for consumption at farmer level and purchases) was estimated at 1384.57 thousand tonnes, which accounted for 60.65 percent of the estimated production.
6.
The estimates of retention
for various purposes and purchases of Ragi to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under :
i) For
farm-family consumption - 57.04 percent
ii) For
consumption by permanent -
3.61 percent
labour and temporary labour.
iii) Estimated
purchases for Consumption. - 0.00 percent
iv) For seed
purpose -
2.49 percent
v) For
animal feed -
0.06 percent
vi) For payment in kind - 3.64 percent
7.
The total post-harvest
losses of Ragi at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing floor,
threshing and winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated at
3.81 percent of the total production
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 28.62 percent. The
share of direct sales by the producers to consumers was 5.39 percent. The co-operativeses purchased only 3.46 percent. The share of FCI
was nil. It is a matter of introspection for the co-operative sector and FCI to
evaluate their role in marketing of Ragi for the benefit of the farming
community. It is also imperative to open
up avenues through marketing reforms for promoting direct sales by the producer
to the target group in order to enhance producer’s share in consumers rupee.
9.
Out of the total sales,
57.97 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm households. It is also necessary to shift the focus of
development from the urban market centres (largely developed) to the rural
market centres.
10.
The present survey revealed
that the marketable surplus stood at 653.34 thousand tonnes or 28.62 percent
and the total farm-family requirement including the losses at farm level
accounted for 1612.70 thousand tonnes or 70.64 percent of the total production.
11.
The present survey revealed
that marketable surplus stood at 670.14 thousand tonnes or 29.36 percent and
the total farm-family requirement, including losses was 86.90 thousand tonnes
or 3.81 percent of the total production.
12. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-7
Total
Production, Marketed
Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Ragi
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Total production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh
|
134.64 |
84.05 |
62.43 |
84.75 |
62.95 |
5.15 |
3.83 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
69.88 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.46 |
0.66 |
4.06 |
5.81 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat |
20.79 |
3.52 |
16.93 |
3.72 |
17.89 |
0.87 |
4.18 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh
|
6.46 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.18 |
2.79 |
0.20 |
3.10 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
1315.97 |
426.05 |
32.38 |
433.50 |
32.94 |
50.37 |
3.83 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh
|
3.69 |
0.61 |
16.53 |
0.62 |
16.80 |
0.23 |
6.23 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
158.82 |
27.12 |
17.08 |
28.03 |
17.65 |
5.67 |
3.57 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
60.44 |
15.56 |
25.74 |
15.81 |
26.16 |
3.16 |
5.23 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
21 |
Sikkim
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
299.33 |
62.69 |
20.94 |
64.23 |
21.46 |
9.67 |
3.23 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
212.82 |
33.73 |
15.85 |
38.84 |
18.25 |
7.52 |
3.53 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
2282.84 |
653.34 |
28.62 |
670.14 |
29.36 |
86.90 |
3.81 |
TOP
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Red gram in India
1. The survey covered 100 districts selected
from 25 states in accordance with the methodology approved by the Technical
Committee in consultation with the Indian Agriculture Statistical Research
Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100
selected districts, 1500 villages were selected. Out of 1500 selected villages, 607 villages
were growing Red gram (Arhar). In other
words, 40.47 percent of the selected villages were Red gram-growing villages.
2. The total area under Red gram was estimated
at 3445.88 thousand hectares. Out of
this, an average of 581.49 thousand hectares or nearly 16.87 percent was grown
as irrigated. The State-wise distribution of area under Red gram shows that
maximum area was in the State of Maharashtra (1031.67 thousand hectares),
followed by Uttar Pradesh (471.00 thousand hectares), Karnataka (440.75
thousand hectares), Madhya Pradesh (393.75 thousand hectares), Gujarat (388.34
thousand hectares), Andhra Pradesh (333.99 thousand hectares), and Tamil Nadu
(95.47 thousand hectares). These States accounted for 95.33 percent of the area
under Red gram. Punjab had the entire area under irrigation.
3. The coverage of the High Yielding Varieties
was of the order of 1874.28 thousand hectares or 54.39 percent. This is a reflection of the successful
efforts made by the Ministry of Agriculture for promotion of High Yielding
Varieties.
4.
The production of Red gram
was estimated at 2277.52 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of
irrigated Red gram was 553.20 thousand tonnes or 24.29 percent. The contribution of High Yielding Varieties
in production was estimated at 1367.17 thousand tonnes or 60.02 percent. This
further signified the need for promotion of HYV.
5.
The total requirement of Red
gram for farm-family consumption (retention for consumption at farmer level and
purchases) was estimated at 739.55 thousand tonnes, which accounted for 32.47
percent of the estimated production.
6.
The estimates of retention
for various purposes and purchases of Red gram to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under :
i) For
farm-family consumption - 31.41 percent
ii) For
consumption by permanent -
0.84 percent
labour
and temporary labour.
iii) Estimated
purchases for - 0.22 percent
Consumption.
iv) For seed
purpose - 2.32 percent
v) For animal
feed - 0.09 percent
vi) For payment in
cash and kind - 0.81 percent
to permanent labour
vii) For payments
for other purposes- 4.15
percent
7.
The total post harvest
losses of Red gram at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing
floor, threshing and winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated
at 2.20 percent of the total production
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 1226.98 thousand tonnes or 53.87 percent of
production. The share of direct sales by
the producers to consumers was 3.06 percent. The co-operativeses
purchased only 3.58 percent, The share of FCI was merely 0.20 percent. It is a matter of introspection for the
co-operative sector and FCI to evaluate their role in marketing of Red gram for
the benefit of the farming community.
9.
Out of the total sales,
37.07 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to
shift the focus of development from the urban market centres to the rural
market centres.
10.
The earlier survey of
marketable surplus & post harvest losses of Red gram conducted during the
year 1956-57 revealed that estimated marketable surplus was 62.4 percent. The
production of Red gram was 1754.00 thousand tonnes and the marketable surplus
was 1094.426 thousand tonnes.
11.
The present survey revealed
that the marketable surplus now stood at 1334.18 thousand tonnes or 58.58
percent and the total farm-family requirement including the losses at farm
level accounted for 943.34 thousand tonnes or 41.42 percent of the total
production.
12. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-8
Total Production, Marketed
Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Red gram
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh |
94.73 |
57.79 |
61.00 |
61.95 |
65.40 |
2.53 |
2.67 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
0.36 |
0.14 |
38.89 |
0.17 |
47.22 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
4.40 |
1.42 |
32.27 |
1.71 |
38.86 |
0.13 |
2.95 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
63.67 |
23.36 |
36.69 |
26.66 |
41.87 |
2.05 |
3.22 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
328.03 |
244.74 |
74.61 |
257.09 |
78.37 |
7.47 |
2.28 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
41.90 |
26.88 |
64.15 |
28.83 |
68.81 |
0.83 |
1.98 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
162.25 |
60.79 |
37.47 |
66.99 |
41.29 |
4.40 |
2.71 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh |
292.83 |
146.44 |
50.01 |
164.89 |
56.31 |
5.42 |
1.85 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
613.49 |
306.30 |
49.93 |
337.30 |
54.98 |
12.71 |
2.07 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
1.10 |
0.61 |
55.45 |
0.71 |
64.55 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
68.02 |
27.05 |
39.77 |
31.07 |
45.68 |
1.86 |
2.73 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
8.95 |
7.53 |
84.13 |
7.95 |
88.83 |
0.18 |
2.01 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
27.23 |
17.54 |
64.41 |
18.69 |
68.64 |
0.69 |
2.53 |
|
21 |
Sikkim |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
73.45 |
34.95 |
47.58 |
38.19 |
51.99 |
2.00 |
2.72 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
0.59 |
0.11 |
18.64 |
0.14 |
23.73 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
496.52 |
271.33 |
54.65 |
291.84 |
58.78 |
9.87 |
1.99 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
2277.52 |
1226.98 |
53.87 |
1334.18 |
58.58 |
50.14 |
2.20 |
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Bengal gram in India
1.
The survey covered 100
districts selected from 25 states in accordance with the methodology approved
by the Technical Committee in consultation with the Indian Agriculture
Statistical Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500selected villages,
711 villages were growing Bengal gram.
In other words, 47.4 percent of the selected villages were Bengal gram
growing villages.
2.
The total area under Bengal
gram was estimated at 7451.66 thousand hectares. Out of this, an average of 3397.13 thousand
hectares or nearly 45.59 percent was grown as irrigated
3.
The coverage of the High
Yielding Varieties was of the order of 3449.11 thousand hectares or 46.29
percent.
4. The production of Bengal gram was estimated
at 6687.68 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of irrigated Bengal
gram was 3623.71 thousand tonnes or 54.18 percent. The contribution of High
Yielding Varieties in production was estimated at 3640.29 thousand Tonnes or
54.43 percent. This further signifies the need for promotion of HYV to meet the
competitive global marketing environment through competitive efficiency.
5. The total requirement of Bengal gram for
farm-family consumption (retention for consumption at farmer level and
purchases) was estimated at 1650.53 thousand tonnes, which accounted for 24.68
percent of the estimated production.
6. The estimates of retention for various
purposes and purchases of Bengal gram to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under:
i) For farm-family consumption- 21.50 percent
ii) For consumption by permanent - 2.68 percent
labour and temporary labour.
iii) Estimated
purchases for
0.50 percent
Consumption.
iv) For seed purpose 6.88 percent
v) For
animal feed 6.28 percent
vi) For
payment in cash and kind
1.83 percent
7.
The total post-harvest
losses of Bengal gram at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing
floor, threshing and winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated
at 3.74 percent of the total production
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 51.61 percent. The
share of direct sales by the producers to consumers was 9.11 percent. The
co-operatives purchased only 6.46 percent.
It is a matter of introspection for the co-operative sector to evaluate
its role in marketing of Bengal gram for the benefit of the farming
community. It is also imperative to open
up avenues through marketing reforms for promoting direct sales by the producer
to the target group in order to enhance producer’s share in consumers rupee.
9.
Out of the total sales,
69.35 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to
shift the focus of development from the urban market centres (largely
developed) to the rural market centres.
10.
The marketed surplus was
estimated at 3451.80 thousand tonnes or 51.61 percent and the farm- family
requirement was 3199.15 thousand tonnes or 47.84 percent.
11.
The present survey revealed
that marketable surplus stood at 3488.53 thousand tonnes or 52.16 percent and
the total farm-family requirement, including losses was 250.36 thousand tonnes
or 3.74 percent of the total production.
12. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-9
Total Production, Marketed Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Bengal gram
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Total production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh
|
103.28 |
63.89 |
61.86 |
64.56 |
62.51 |
3.79 |
3.67 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
94.06 |
41.61 |
44.24 |
42.33 |
45.00 |
3.44 |
3.66 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
91.67 |
51.01 |
55.65 |
51.62 |
56.31 |
3.32 |
3.62 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
347.98 |
201.41 |
57.88 |
204.10 |
58.65 |
13.64 |
3.92 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh
|
3.70 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
3.78 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
0.36 |
0.09 |
25.00 |
0.09 |
25.00 |
0.02 |
6.67 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
149.60 |
83.47 |
55.80 |
85.06 |
56.86 |
5.45 |
3.64 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh
|
2833.62 |
1387.58 |
48.97 |
1413.23 |
49.87 |
106.85 |
3.77 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
273.19 |
130.12 |
47.63 |
131.02 |
47.96 |
9.91 |
3.63 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
24.05 |
2.77 |
11.52 |
2.81 |
11.68 |
0.83 |
3.45 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
16.89 |
7.57 |
44.82 |
7.68 |
45.47 |
0.62 |
3.67 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
1888.78 |
1031.91 |
54.63 |
1028.72 |
54.46 |
70.09 |
3.71 |
|
21 |
Sikkim
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
4.32 |
2.61 |
60.42 |
2.67 |
61.81 |
0.17 |
3.94 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
842.06 |
439.45 |
52.19 |
446.16 |
52.98 |
31.60 |
3.75 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
14.12 |
8.31 |
58.85 |
8.49 |
60.13 |
0.48 |
3.40 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
6687.68 |
3451.80 |
51.61 |
3488.53 |
52.16 |
250.36 |
3.74 |
TOP
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Green gram in India
1.
The survey covered 100
districts selected from 25 states in accordance with the methodology approved
by the Technical Committee in consultation with the Indian Agriculture
Statistical Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500selected
villages, 577 villages were growing Green gram.
In other words, 38.47 percent of the selected villages were Green
gram-growing villages.
2.
The total area under Green
gram was estimated at 3056.95 thousand hectares. Out of this, an average of 614.93 thousand
hectares or nearly 20.12 percent was grown as irrigated. The State-wise
distribution of area under Green Gram shows that maximum area was in the State
of Maharashtra (645.71 thousand hectares), followed by Rajasthan (621.32
thousand hectares) Andhra Pradesh (510.05 thousand hectares), Karnataka (289.77
thousand hectares), Orissa (199.75 thousand hectares), Bihar (181.08 thousand
hectares), Gujarat (172.01 thousand hectares), Madhya Pradesh (130.09 thousand
hectares), Uttar Pradesh (114.65 thousand hectares) and Tamil Nadu (113.08
thousand hectares). These States account for 97.39 percent area under Green
Gram. Punjab and Haryana had the entire area under irrigation.
3. The coverage of the High Yielding Varieties
was of the order of 1630.38 thousand hectares or 53.33 percent. Punjab and
Haryana had cent percent area under HYV. This
is a reflection of the successful efforts made for promotion of High Yielding
Varieties.
4.
The production of Green gram
was estimated at 1163.22 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of
irrigated Green gram was 291.91 thousand tonnes or 25.09 percent. The contribution of High Yielding Varieties
in production was estimated at 717.59 thousand tonnes or 61.69 percent. This
further signifies the need for promotion of HYV.
5.
The total requirement of
Green gram for farm-family consumption (retention for consumption at farmer
level and purchases) was estimated at 307.10 thousand tonnes, which accounted
for 26.40 percent of the estimated production.
6. The estimates of retention for various
purposes and purchases of Green gram to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under:
i) For farm-family consumption - 25.06
percent
ii) For consumption by permanent - 1.29 percent
labour
and temporary labour.
iii) Estimated purchases for
- 0.05percent
Consumption.
iv) For seed purpose - 2.67 percent
v) For
animal feed - 0.13 percent
vi) For payment in cash and kind - 0.32 percent
to
permanent labourer
vii) For payment in cash and kind to - 5.92 percent
temporary
labourer
7. The total post harvest losses of Green gram
at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing floor, threshing and
winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated at 2.38 percent of
the total production
8. The total marketed surplus was estimated to
be 53.87 percent. The share of direct
sales by the producers to consumers was 7.30 percent. The co-operativeses purchased only 2.77 percent. It is a matter of introspection for the
co-operative sector and FCI/Government Agencies to evaluate their role in
marketing of Green gram for the benefit of the farming community. It is also imperative to open up avenues
through marketing reforms for promoting direct sales by the producer to the
target group in order to enhance producer’s share in consumers rupee.
9.
Out of the total sales,
46.44 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to
shift the focus of development from the urban market centres (largely
developed) to the rural market centres.
10.
The earlier survey of
marketable surplus & post harvest losses of Green gram conducted during the
year 1956-57 showed that estimated marketable surplus was 60.7 percent.
11.
The present survey revealed
that the marketable surplus now stood at 726.44 thousand tonnes or 62.45
percent and the total farm-family requirement including the losses at farm
level accounted for 436.78 thousand tonnes or 37.55 percent of the total
production.
12.
The marketed surplus was estimated
at 693.65 thousand tonnes or 59.63 percent.
13. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-10
Total Production, Marketed Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Green gram
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh |
185.70 |
116.98 |
62.99 |
125.30 |
67.47 |
4.73 |
2.55 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
0.80 |
0.25 |
31.25 |
0.31 |
38.75 |
0.02 |
2.50 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
2.76 |
0.90 |
32.61 |
1.01 |
36.59 |
0.06 |
2.17 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
102.31 |
36.73 |
35.90 |
37.33 |
36.49 |
3.05 |
2.98 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
89.74 |
61.19 |
68.19 |
64.18 |
71.52 |
1.93 |
2.15 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
7.01 |
5.16 |
73.61 |
5.33 |
76.03 |
0.11 |
1.57 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
0.77 |
0.26 |
33.77 |
0.30 |
38.96 |
0.02 |
2.60 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
71.77 |
28.80 |
40.13 |
31.01 |
43.21 |
2.12 |
2.95 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh |
41.61 |
23.41 |
56.26 |
24.22 |
58.21 |
0.90 |
2.16 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
244.31 |
129.77 |
53.12 |
136.66 |
55.94 |
5.85 |
2.39 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
45.42 |
16.23 |
35.73 |
17.31 |
38.11 |
1.31 |
2.88 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
35.50 |
21.17 |
59.63 |
21.88 |
61.63 |
0.80 |
2.25 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
222.66 |
176.74 |
79.38 |
183.13 |
82.25 |
3.91 |
1.76 |
|
21 |
Sikkim
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
38.41 |
26.56 |
69.15 |
27.58 |
71.80 |
1.19 |
3.10 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
0.73 |
0.17 |
23.29 |
0.19 |
26.03 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
73.72 |
49.33 |
66.92 |
50.70 |
68.77 |
1.70 |
2.31 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
1163.22 |
693.65 |
59.63 |
726.44 |
62.45 |
27.70 |
2.38 |
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Black gram in India
1.
The survey covered 100
districts selected from 25 states in accordance with the methodology approved
by the Technical Committee in consultation with the Indian Agricultural
Statistics Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500selected
villages, 513 villages were growing Black gram.
In other words, 34.20 percent of the selected villages were Black
gram-growing villages.
2. The total area under Black gram was
estimated at 2850.9162 thousand hectares.
Out of this, an average of 817.5933 thousand hectares or nearly 28.68
percent was grown as irrigated. The State-wise distribution of area under Black
gram shows that maximum area of 545.4000 thousand hectares (19.13 %) under
Black Gram is in the State of Maharashtra, followed by Madhya Pradesh –
518.2167 thousand hectares (18.18 %), Andhra Pradesh – 471.6667 thousand
hectares (16.54 %), Uttar Pradesh –
333.3402 thousand hectares (11.69%), Tamil Nadu – 191.8334 thousand hectares
(6.73 %), Rajasthan – 173.1339 thousand hectares (6.08 %), Orissa – 134.2875
thousand hectares (4.72%) respectively. Uttar Pradesh had the highest area
under irrigation. In other states, irrigation potential seemed to have not been
fully tapped.
3. The coverage of the High Yielding Varieties
was of the order of 1610.6319 thousand hectares or 56.50 percent. This is a reflection of the efforts made by
the Ministry of Agriculture for promotion of High Yielding Varieties.
4. The production of Black gram was estimated at
1329.9604 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of irrigated Black
gram was 425.7627 thousand tonnes or 32.01 percent. The contribution of High
Yielding Varieties in production was estimated at 878.0597 thousand tonnes or
66.02 percent. This further signifies the need for promotion of HYV to meet the
competitive marketing environment.
5. The total requirement of Black gram for
farm-family consumption (retention for consumption at farmer level and
purchases) was estimated at 306.7749 thousand tonnes, which accounted for 23.07
percent of the estimated production.
6. The estimates of retention for various
purposes and purchases of Black gram to meet the total requirement of
farm-family were as under:
i) For farm-family consumption - 21.59 percent
ii) For
consumption by permanent - 1.38 percent
labour and temporary labour.
ii) Estimated
purchases for -
0.10 percent
Consumption.
v) For
seed purpose -
3.22 percent
v) For animal feed -
0.17 percent
vi) For payment in cash and kind - 0.37 percent
7. The total post harvest losses of Black gram
at producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing floor, threshing and
winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated at 2.46 percent of
the total production
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 63.49 percent. The
share of direct sales by the producers to consumers was 4.16 percent. The co-operativeses purchased only 0.60 percent. It is a matter of introspection for the
co-operative sector and Government agencies to evaluate their role in marketing
of Black gram for the benefit of the farming community. It is also imperative to open up avenues
through marketing reforms for promoting direct sales by the producer to the
target group in order to enhance producer’s share in consumers rupee.
9.
Out of the total sales,
43.54 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to
shift the focus of development from the urban market centres (largely
developed) to the rural market centres.
10.
The earlier survey of
marketable surplus & post harvest losses of Black gram conducted during the
year 1956-57 showed that estimated marketable surplus was 63.5 percent.
11.
The present survey revealed that the
marketable surplus now stood at 895.8294 thousand tonnes or 67.36 percent and
the total farm-family requirement including the losses at farm level accounted
for 434.1310 thousand tonnes or 32.64 percent of the total production.
12. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-11
Total Production, Marketed Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of Black gram
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh |
270.8156 |
191.7106 |
70.79 |
203.5978 |
75.18 |
6.3555 |
2.35 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
0.7231 |
0.4417 |
61.08 |
0.4678 |
64.69 |
0.0190 |
2.63 |
|
3 |
Assam
|
23.2105 |
10.8578 |
46.78 |
11.5768 |
49.88 |
0.6187 |
2.67 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
47.0060 |
21.4606 |
45.66 |
22.6962 |
48.28 |
1.2811 |
2.73 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
82.2630 |
58.5890 |
71.22 |
61.4723 |
74.73 |
2.0406 |
2.48 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
0.7289 |
0.4596 |
63.05 |
0.4991 |
68.47 |
0.0066 |
0.91 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh |
2.9543 |
0.8035 |
27.20 |
0.5956 |
20.16 |
0.0662 |
2.24 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
5.9889 |
3.1462 |
52.53 |
3.4269 |
57.22 |
0.1659 |
2.77 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
34.8032 |
22.3581 |
64.24 |
23.9857 |
68.92 |
0.9530 |
2.74 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
12 |
Madhya Pradesh |
182.8546 |
113.3249 |
61.98 |
122.0279 |
66.73 |
4.2119 |
2.30 |
|
13 |
Maharashtra
|
286.8967 |
184.2183 |
64.21 |
192.9698 |
67.26 |
7.1905 |
2.51 |
|
14 |
Manipur
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
15 |
Meghalaya
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
16 |
Mizoram
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
17 |
Nagaland
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
18 |
Orissa
|
40.6797 |
23.1672 |
56.95 |
25.0927 |
61.68 |
1.1137 |
2.74 |
|
19 |
Punjab
|
2.5096 |
1.4562 |
58.03 |
1.6064 |
64.01 |
0.0458 |
1.83 |
|
20 |
Rajasthan
|
74.0515 |
42.1160 |
56.87 |
44.9461 |
60.70 |
1.8035 |
2.44 |
|
21 |
Sikkim
|
0.0000 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
0.0000 |
0.00 |
|
22 |
Tamil Nadu
|
71.6027 |
48.7621 |
68.10 |
51.6085 |
72.08 |
2.1879 |
3.06 |
|
23 |
Tripura
|
0.7265 |
0.4223 |
58.13 |
0.4516 |
62.16 |
0.0199 |
2.74 |
|
24 |
Uttar Pradesh
|
151.9411 |
85.5943 |
56.33 |
91.2925 |
60.08 |
3.4500 |
2.27 |
|
25 |
West Bengal
|
50.2045 |
35.5527 |
70.82 |
37.5157 |
74.73 |
1.2380 |
2.47 |
|
26 |
ALL INDIA
|
1329.9604 |
844.4411 |
63.49 |
895.8294 |
67.36 |
32.7678 |
2.46 |
TOP
Marketable Surplus and Post Harvest Losses of Lentil in India
1.
The survey covered 100
districts, selected from 25 states, in accordance with the methodology approved
by the Technical Committee, in consultation with the Indian Agricultural
Statistics Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi. From 100 selected districts, 1500 villages
were selected. Out of 1500selected
villages, 410 villages were growing Lentil.
In other words, 27.33 percent of the selected villages were
Lentil-growing villages.
2. The total area under Lentil was estimated at 1290.71
thousand hectares. Out of this, an
average of 698.35 thousand hectares or nearly 54.11 percent was grown as
irrigated. The State-wise distribution of area under Lentil shows that in
states like Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Rajasthan,
Assam, Haryana and Maharashtra, Lentil was grown mainly as irrigated crop.
3. The coverage of the High Yielding Varieties
was of the order of 612.50 thousand hectares or 47.45 percent of the total area
under lentil.
4. The production of Lentil was estimated at
905.48 thousand tonnes, out of which the contribution of irrigated Lentil was
580.24 thousand tonnes or 64.08 percent.
The contribution of High Yielding Varieties in production was estimated
at 497.40 thousand tonnes or 54.93 percent. This further signifies the need for
promotion of HYV.
5. The total requirement of Lentil for
farm-family consumption (retention for consumption at farmer level and
purchases) was estimated at 291.10 thousand tonnes, which accounted for 32.15
percent of the estimated production.
6. The estimates of retention for various
purposes and purchases of Lentil to meet the total requirement of farm-family
were as under:
i) For
farm-family consumption - 31.37 percent
ii) For
consumption by permanent -
0.78 percent
labour
and temporary labour.
ii) Estimated
purchases for Consumption. - 0.00 percent
iv) For seed
purpose -
5.90 percent
v) For animal feed -
0.92 percent
vi) For
payment in kind -
3.76 percent
7. The total Post-Harvest losses of Lentil at
producers’ level (in transport from field to threshing floor, threshing and
winnowing, transportation and farm storage) were estimated at 7.14 percent of
the total production
8.
The total marketed surplus
was estimated to be 49.30 percent. The
share of direct sales by the producers to consumers was 1.43 percent. The co-operativeses purchased only 0.17 percent. It is a matter of introspection for the
co-operative sector to evaluate its role in marketing of Lentil for the benefit
of the farming community. It is also
imperative to open up avenues through marketing reforms for promoting direct
sales by the producer to the target group in order to enhance producer’s share
in consumers rupee.
9.
Out of the total sales,
27.22 percent sales were within villages.
This clearly established the need for development of infra-structure and
facilities at the village level to serve the interests of the farm
households. It is also necessary to
shift the focus of development from the urban market centres (largely
developed) to the rural market centres.
10.
The present survey revealed
that marketable surplus stood at 453.89 thousand tonnes or 50.13 percent and
the total farm-family requirement, including losses was 451.59 thousand tonnes
or 49.87 percent of the total production.
11. The
earlier surveys showed that the average number of family members per household
was 6.26, whereas the present survey showed that the average number of family
members per household was 6.45.
Table-12
Total
Production, Marketed
Surplus, Marketable Surplus and Total post-harvest losses of lentil
(Triennium ending 1998-99)
(in ‘000 tonnes)
|
S. No. |
Name of State |
Total production |
Marketed surplus |
Marketable surplus |
Total post-harvest losses |
|||
|
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
Qty. |
% |
|||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
2 |
Arunachal Pradesh
|
0.16 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.01 |
8.13 |
0.02 |
9.38 |
|
3 |
Assam |
12.92 |
1.31 |
10.14 |
1.43 |
11.07 |
1.26 |
9.75 |
|
4 |
Bihar
|
149.48 |
34.98 |
23.40 |
35.88 |
24.00 |
8.46 |
5.66 |
|
5 |
Goa
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
6 |
Gujarat
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
7 |
Haryana
|
11.49 |
5.14 |
44.73 |
5.22 |
45.43 |
0.73 |
6.35 |
|
8 |
Himachal Pradesh
|
1.73 |
0.04 |
2.31 |
0.06 |
3.47 |
0.16 |
9.25 |
|
9 |
Jammu and Kashmir
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
10 |
Karnataka
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
11 |
Kerala
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
||||