Agricultural diversification is an important mechanism for economic growth. It depends, however, on there being opportunities for diversification and on farmers’ responsiveness to those opportunities. Agricultural diversification can be facilitated by technological breaks-through, by changes in consumer demand or in government policy or in trade arrangements, and by development of irrigation, roads, and other infrastructures. Conversely, it can be impeded by risks in markets and prices and in crop-management practices, by degradation of natural resources, and by conflicting socio-economic requirements - perhaps for employment generation, or for self-sufficiency or foreign-exchange-earning capacity in particular crops or livestock or fishery or forest products.
Table 7 quantifies the proportional changes between 1971 and 1991 in the land area allocated among various crops on farms of various sizes. These changes permit some interpretations of trends in crop intensification and farm-system diversification - however, since an appreciable fraction of these changes derived from the re-distributions (Table 2, final column) of land from larger to smaller farms, the interpretations concerning intensification and diversification are highly tentative. (Such interpretations are nonetheless attempted, recognizing that intensification and diversification have been expressly promoted by government policies and facilitated by improved technologies.).
Table 7: Area allocated among specific crops: Proportional (%) change 1971 to 1991 for farms in various size categories
|
Crop |
Sub-marginal |
Marginal |
Small |
Medium |
Large |
All |
|
Rice |
93 |
64 |
38 |
23 |
-16 |
21 |
|
Wheat |
141 |
110 |
83 |
48 |
- 3 |
35 |
|
Other cereals |
23 |
32 |
35 |
14 |
-38 |
-15 |
|
Pulses |
2 |
10 |
- |
-10 |
-38 |
-25 |
|
Oilseed |
160 |
112 |
121 |
103 |
19 |
54 |
|
Fruit/V’g’t’ble |
155 |
168 |
152 |
132 |
49 |
111 |
|
Sugarcane |
162 |
179 |
123 |
71 |
1 |
62 |
|
Cotton |
169 |
174 |
170 |
79 |
-28 |
4 |
|
Jute |
143 |
83 |
10 |
-10 |
-45 |
10 |
|
Fodder |
1615 |
1181 |
892 |
583 |
378 |
471 |
Source: Computed from Agricultural Census 1970-71 and 1990-91The implication of the numbers in Table 7 is best appreciated by comparing them with the corresponding proportionate increases in net cropped area (Table 2, final column: values respectively of + 81, + 65, + 49, + 28, and - 25 %, for sub-marginal, marginal, small, medium, and large farms). Thus for marginal farms, Table-7 entries exceeding + 65 % would indicate an intensification in the land allocation to the particular crop; correspondingly, values less than + 65 % would indicate a decreased land allocation. By this analysis, we thus determine that the small- and medium-size farms (in aggregate) increased their proportionate allocations to wheat, to oil-seeds, fruits/vegetables, sugarcane, cotton, and fodder; they decreased their allocations to rice, cereals other than rice and wheat, pulses and jute. On the marginal and sub-marginal farms (considered in aggregate), there were seemingly increased proportionate allocations to wheat, to oil-seeds, to fruits/vegetables, sugarcane, cotton, jute, and fodder; they decreased their allocations to cereals other than rice and wheat, and to pulses, and maintained (or increased very slightly) their allocations to rice. [We must here caution that it seems implausible that, for a particular farm-size category, all - or nearly all - entries could exceed their corresponding proportionate increase in net cropped area. It is nonetheless striking that for all farms - including the largest - there was during 1971-1991 a very considerably-increased allocation to fodder crops (facilitating a “livestock revolution”) and a nutritionally-worrisome decrease in allocations to pulses.]
The preceding caution notwithstanding, Table 7 might nonetheless permit (in addition to the foregoing consideration of intensification) some indication of trend in farm-system diversification. If, for each category of farm size, the number of crops for which the Table-7 entry is less than the Table- 2-final-column value is subtracted from the number of crops for which the Table-7 entry exceeds that Table- 2 value, then the net figure might serve as a proxy for the trend in on-farm diversity. For the categories sub-marginal, marginal, small, medium, and large, that net figure is respectively 6, 4, 2, 2, and 2: perhaps indicating that compared to the larger farms, the smallest ones have found it more necessary - or/and more profitable - to diversify.
Indeed, on small farms the cropping pattern is determined by household-food needs, and food crops thus occupy four-fifths of the cropped area (Jha, 2001). Also on the small farms, larger proportionate allocations (compared to larger farms) can be made to the labour-intensive crops (fruits, vegetables, sugarcane, cotton, jute). The National Sample Survey (48th Round) indicates that on small farms most of the fruit and vegetable area is in the homesteads. Similarly - though small farms can accommodate rather few animals per household - more of the aggregate (national) livestock herd is housed on the small farms than on the large ones. These features have implication for intensification and commercialisation of small-farm and rural enterprises.
As a supplement to the Table-7-derived analysis of farm-size influence on crop diversification, values and trends for the Simpson Index of diversity (for all farms, and separately for irrigated and non-irrigated farms) are presented in Tables 8 and 9. For all farms (whether irrigated or not, Table 8) and in all three censuses (1971, 1981, 1991), diversification is highest (19 - 21) on sub-marginal farms, and least (8 - 9) on the largest farms. [This finding confirms the tentative diversification-related conclusions from Table 7. Small-holder farmers can make frequent changes in crop choices in order to utilize their family labour and to increase their income.] Table 8 suggests that the availability of irrigation increases very considerably the options for diversification: thus, for all farm sizes (in aggregate) and for each census date, diversification index is much higher (at 22 - 23) for irrigated farms than for non-irrigated ones (8 - 9). For all farms (whether irrigated or not), the diversification index was effectively unchanged between 1971 and 1991 - this conclusion differs from that tentatively derived via Table 7; this Table-8 conclusion is the more-reliable. The importance of quantifying diversification (and its trend) is that encouragement of on-farm diversification is seen as a workable development strategy wherewith to address the objectives of output growth, employment generation, and natural-resources' sustainability.
Table 8: Simpson Index of cropping-pattern diversity: Various years and farm sizes: Irrigated and non-irrigated
|
Farm size |
Irrigated farms |
Non-irrigated farms |
All farms |
||||||
|
1971 |
1981 |
1991 |
1971 |
1981 |
1991 |
1971 |
1981 |
1991 |
|
|
Sub-marginal |
29 |
31 |
29 |
16 |
18 |
18 |
19 |
21 |
21 |
|
Marginal |
29 |
30 |
27 |
15 |
16 |
15 |
18 |
19 |
18 |
|
Small |
26 |
28 |
24 |
13 |
14 |
12 |
15 |
16 |
14 |
|
Medium |
24 |
23 |
21 |
11 |
11 |
10 |
12 |
12 |
11 |
|
Large |
19 |
20 |
19 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
|
All farms |
22 |
23 |
22 |
9 |
10 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
11 |
Source: Computed from cropping-pattern data, Agricultural Census 1970-1, 1980-1, 1990-1, GOI.Notwithstanding that Table 8 indicated minimal changes in the Simpson Index of Diversity during 1971-1991, there were during those two decades substantial changes in the actual crop choices that farmers made (albeit without changing the extent of their farm diversity). These changes are represented (Table 9) by the percentage of the farm area (for each category of farm size, and distinguishing between irrigated and non-irrigated and between decades 1971-81 and 1981-1991) for which changes of crops were made. Aggregated for all farm sizes, and averaging over the two decades, changes were more extensive - occurring on 16 - 17 per cent of the area - on irrigated lands: contrasting with only 9 - 10 per cent on non-irrigated lands. Compared to the Simpson Index (Table-8) tabulation, this Table-9 compilation indicates more strongly an effect of farm size, and also of irrigation. Thus, with irrigation, and within sub-marginal holdings, 27 per cent of the land area experienced crop changes during 1971-81 (compared to 13 per cent on large farms) - and 23 per cent during 1981-91 (whereas only 10 percent on large farms); however, without irrigation, farm size had minimal influence in either decade.
Table 9: Percentage of land (in various farm-size categories) on which crop-sequence was changed: 1971-1981 and 1981-1991: Irrigated and non-irrigated
|
Farm size |
Irrigated farms |
Non-irrigated farms |
All farms |
|||
|
1971-81 |
1981-91 |
1971-81 |
1981-91 |
1971-81 |
1981-91 |
|
|
Sub-marginal |
27 |
23 |
14 |
12 |
19 |
16 |
|
Marginal |
22 |
24 |
11 |
13 |
14 |
17 |
|
Small |
20 |
21 |
10 |
14 |
12 |
16 |
|
Medium |
18 |
16 |
10 |
10 |
11 |
11 |
|
Large |
13 |
10 |
15 |
16 |
11 |
13 |
|
All farms |
17 |
16 |
9 |
10 |
9 |
10 |
Source: Computed from cropping-pattern data, Agricultural Census 1970-1, 1980-1, 1990-1, GOI.Other data from the agricultural censuses, and various regional micro-scale studies, similarly demonstrate that smaller (< 2.0-ha) farms do practise diversified farming. On quite small holdings - often fragmented - farmers nation-wide allocate their land among seasonal crops, fruits, and vegetables, dairy cattle, and perhaps poultry to maximize their household-labour utilization and income.
It is recognized that agricultural diversification helps achieve food security and improved human nutrition and increased rural employment; it can also impact favourably on soil fertility and pest incidence. India’s agro-climatic regional planning has documented the zones of maximal opportunity for diversified agriculture on smaller farms. Planning (at local and regional scales) to utilize those opportunities - and to provide the supportive agro-processing and market and communications facilities - must involve farmers’ representatives and cooperatives, administrators, extensionists, researchers, inputs suppliers (public and private), and NGO's; it must address on-farm and non-farm features.
