Food security implies not only the availability of basic foods, but also the accessibility to those foods and to basic nutritional elements. For rural India, Table 20 lists the energy intake (at 1993-94) from various foods by households having various farm sizes. Cereals comprise the dominant source of dietary energy on all sizes of farms: 75 per cent to households on sub-marginal holdings and 64 per cent on the large-farm households. Aggregated over all farms, cereals provided 72 per cent of dietary energy, 68 per cent of protein, and 17 per cent of fats. Milk and pulses together contributed about 20 per cent of protein intake.
Table 20: Calories, protein, and fats in rural-households diets: 1993-94: Various farm-size categories
|
Item |
Sub-marginal |
Marginal |
Small |
Medium |
Large |
All farms |
|
|
Proportion (%) of calories, protein, and fat in total
food intake |
|||||||
|
Cereals
|
Calories |
75 |
72 |
67 |
65 |
64 |
72 |
|
Protein |
70 |
68 |
66 |
65 |
64 |
68 |
|
|
Fat |
18 |
17 |
16 |
15 |
15 |
17 |
|
|
Pulses
|
Calories |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
4 |
|
Protein |
10 |
10 |
11 |
11 |
12 |
10 |
|
|
Fat |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
|
Milk and products
|
Calories |
5 |
7 |
10 |
12 |
12 |
7 |
|
Protein |
7 |
10 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
10 |
|
|
Fat |
29 |
35 |
41 |
43 |
44 |
35 |
|
|
Fats, oils |
Calories |
5 |
5 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
|
Fat |
41 |
38 |
34 |
33 |
32 |
37 |
|
|
Meat, fish, eggs |
Calories |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Protein |
5 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
|
|
Fat |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Veg’t’ble
|
Calories |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
|
Protein |
5 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
|
|
Fat |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
Fruits |
Calories |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Fat |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
S’g’r, j’gry |
Calories |
4 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
|
Others
|
Calories |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Protein |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
|
Fat |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
|
|
Average intake per person of calories (kcal/day), protein
(gm/day), fat (gm/day) |
|||||||
|
|
Calories |
2096 |
2262 |
2442 |
2597 |
2695 |
2253 |
|
Protein |
59 |
65 |
72 |
77 |
81 |
64 |
|
|
Fat |
28 |
33 |
43 |
50 |
54 |
34 |
|
|
Proportion (%)of non-cereal in total intake |
|||||||
|
|
Calories |
25 |
28 |
33 |
35 |
36 |
28 |
|
Protein |
30 |
32 |
34 |
35 |
36 |
32 |
|
|
Fat |
82 |
83 |
84 |
85 |
85 |
83 |
|
Source: Computed from household data in the National Sample Survey (50th Round - 1993-94): All-India survey on consumer expenditure, employment, and unemployment.Diet diversity increased with farm size. The Simpson Index of diet diversity was 0.43 for sub-marginal holdings, and 0.56 for large farms: large-farm households thus acquired their food energy from more diverse sources - consuming more pulses, milk, edible oil, and sugar. Crucially, calorie intake per person per day decreased as farm size decreased: 2 695 kcal/person.day for large-farm households, but only 2 096 for sub-marginal holdings. Similarly, protein intake on large-farm households (81 gm/person.day) was substantially higher than for sub-marginal-farm households (59 gm/person.day); and correspondingly for fats (54 compared to only 28 gm/person.day).
For all farm-size categories except the sub-marginal, the caloric and nutritional intakes met the minimum requirements. However, within each farm-size category there is substantial variation in food-energy and nutritional intakes - reflecting variations in resource availability and purchasing power; thus among households farming small, marginal, or sub-marginal holdings there may be appreciable under-nourishment.
Aspects of under-nourishment - and of poverty - are featured in Table 21, which lists the proportions (at 1983 and 1993) of food energy derived from the household’s own farm. For all except the large farms (for which interpretation is difficult) under-nourishment decreased (at both 1993 and 1994) as the proportion of home-grown calories increased. Interpretations concerning poverty are more complex: provided the proportion of home- grown calories did not exceed 75 %, a higher proportion was associated with lesser poverty; however, households that perforce met from their own farm more than 75 % of their calorie needs were probably very poor, and lacked the resources wherewith to produce or to purchase the ingredients of a balanced diet.
Table 21 (as also Table 13) indicates that rural hunger and poverty were appreciably less prevalent at 1993 than at 1983. This encouraging feature resulted from various pro-poor and pro-hungry programmes and investments - including investments in human and rural development, and in on-farm and non-farm activities to increase productivity and rural incomes. Nonetheless (as itemized in Appendix Table 1), the number of rural poor and hungry - each about 150 million at 1998 - is substantial; moreover, their number represents about three-fifths of India’s national total (rural and urban) of poor and hungry. From those 150 million, about 75 million depend on sub-marginal farm holdings (< 0.5 ha), and another 30 million on marginal holdings (0.5 - 1.0 ha). It is therefore appropriate that in national endeavours to eradicate poverty and hunger a priority target population should be the households of the sub-marginal-size farms and of the land-less agricultural labourers.
Farm households consume as well as produce food items. The households’ consumption patterns and purchasing decisions are based on household size and needs, on the extent to which the concerned items are produced on the household farm, and on the nature, quantity, and price for items that need to be purchased. The All-India surveys on consumer expenditure specify - for various foods and food groups - the extent to which households meet their food requirements from their own production.
The 1993-94 Survey (Table 22) indicates that in aggregate over all farm sizes, home-produced foods supplied about one-half of the households’ consumption of calories, proteins, and fats, and more than one-half of the cereals and milk products. However, for almost all listed items, the sub-marginal households produced proportionately less than the all-farms averages.
Table 21: Home-produced calories: Relationship to poverty and hunger: 1983 and 1993: Various farm-size categories: Rural India
|
Farm-size category |
Proportion (%) of consumed calories produced on own
holding |
Per cent of human population |
|||
|
Poor |
Under-nourished |
||||
|
1983 |
1993 |
1983 |
1993 |
||
|
Sub-marginal |
<25 |
52 |
38 |
49 |
36 |
|
25-50 |
44 |
35 |
34 |
33 |
|
|
50-75 |
41 |
29 |
28 |
29 |
|
|
>75 |
43 |
39 |
23 |
21 |
|
|
Marginal
|
<25 |
48 |
28 |
35 |
32 |
|
25-50 |
43 |
24 |
28 |
27 |
|
|
50-75 |
36 |
19 |
28 |
23 |
|
|
>75 |
41 |
29 |
23 |
18 |
|
|
Small
|
<25 |
44 |
21 |
28 |
25 |
|
25-50 |
36 |
13 |
26 |
16 |
|
|
50-75 |
33 |
13 |
25 |
18 |
|
|
>75 |
38 |
21 |
21 |
14 |
|
|
Medium
|
<25 |
40 |
11 |
23 |
15 |
|
25-50 |
27 |
10 |
22 |
17 |
|
|
50-75 |
24 |
11 |
20 |
13 |
|
|
>75 |
34 |
17 |
17 |
8 |
|
|
Large
|
<25 |
27 |
15 |
14 |
15 |
|
25-50 |
20 |
8 |
17 |
10 |
|
|
50-75 |
17 |
9 |
17 |
12 |
|
|
>75 |
27 |
17 |
15 |
10 |
|
Source: Computed from household data in the National Sample Survey (38th and 50th Rounds).Table 22 permits insight also into the extent of diversification of the farming systems: those farms that produce themselves proportionately more of their food and nutritional needs may be presumed to be agriculturally more diverse. Table 22 thus suggests that the larger farms are more diverse than the smaller ones. However, this suggestion would be contrary to the tentative conclusions drawn from tables 7, 8, and 9.
Farms of each size produce three-fourths or more of the milk and milk products that they consume. This perhaps constitutes a strength and asset that can be built upon. Recalling that households having sub-marginal- and marginal-size farms are net buyers of crop-derived foods, then interventions to strengthen the livestock component on such holdings could help increase both home-grown food supply and also income.
Table 22: Proportion (%) of the household’s food items, calories, protein, and fats that are home-produced: 1993-94: Various farm-size categories: Rural India
|
Item |
Sub-marginal |
Marginal |
Small |
Medium |
Large |
All farms |
|
Cereals |
45 |
69 |
73 |
74 |
69 |
59 |
|
Pulses |
18 |
36 |
45 |
50 |
55 |
33 |
|
Milk + products |
75 |
83 |
87 |
90 |
91 |
83 |
|
Fats and oils |
7 |
16 |
21 |
20 |
15 |
14 |
|
Meat, fish, eggs |
15 |
21 |
22 |
19 |
15 |
18 |
|
Vegetables |
24 |
31 |
32 |
29 |
25 |
28 |
|
Fruits |
37 |
32 |
26 |
19 |
17 |
31 |
|
Sugar, jaggery |
2 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
|
Others |
18 |
30 |
28 |
29 |
28 |
25 |
|
Total calories |
41 |
60 |
64 |
65 |
61 |
53 |
|
Total protein |
42 |
62 |
67 |
69 |
67 |
55 |
|
Total fats |
36 |
50 |
57 |
58 |
57 |
47 |
Source: Computed from household data in the National Sample Survey (50th Round - 1993-94): All-India survey on consumer expenditure, employment, and unemployment.Among India's population (at 1998) of nearly one billion, 250 million are poor. Of those poor, about two-thirds (170 million) are rural dwellers (Singh, 2001: as compared to the Appendix-1 value of 150 million, this 170 million includes the rural land-less). Table 23 lists the proportion of poor persons in the various farm-size categories at various years during 1983-98. That proportion is highest for the sub-marginal category, and decreases as farm size increases. For the sub-marginal category, the proportion of poor at 1983 was 54 percent; this proportion decreased to 38 per cent (nonetheless representing 89 million persons) by 1993 as new technologies helped raise agricultural productivity. For all farm sizes, poverty incidence decreased during 1983-1998 at roughly 5 %/annum; however, this rate of decrease has been less in later years than in earlier ones.
Table 23: Poverty incidence in rural households: Various years 1983-1998; Various farm-size categories
|
Year |
Proportion (%) of poor persons |
|||||
|
Sub-marginal |
Marginal |
Small |
Medium |
Large |
All farms |
|
|
1983 |
54 |
46 |
41 |
35 |
25 |
42 |
|
1988 |
39 |
30 |
23 |
17 |
11 |
31 |
|
1993 |
38 |
27 |
19 |
14 |
13 |
29 |
|
1994 |
31 |
27 |
23 |
17 |
13 |
25 |
|
1995 |
25 |
21 |
18 |
17 |
15 |
21 |
|
1996 |
24 |
21 |
16 |
14 |
10 |
20 |
|
1998 |
28 |
23 |
18 |
15 |
10 |
22 |
|
Rate of decrease (%/ann) |
5.1 |
4.9 |
5.5 |
5.1 |
4.6 |
4.8 |
Source: Computed from household data in National Sample Surveys (Various Rounds - 1983-1998)Table 24 complements Table 23 in listing the corresponding incidence of under-nourishment (but for Years 1983, 1988, and 1993 only). The Table-24 data are based on a minimum (threshold) food-energy requirement for rural India of 1 800 kcal/person.day (representing 75 % of the Planning Commission’s poverty-line threshold of 2 400 kcal/person.day; for an average individual, an intake below this threshold is not sufficient to maintain health and body mass, nor to support light physical activity).
For all farm-size categories and for each year, the proportions (Table 24) of under-nourished are lower than the proportions of poor: the farm households are producers as well as consumers of some foods, and can thereby supply from their own produce much of their dietary-energy requirement. Under-nourishment was and is most prevalent among sub-marginal-farm households: 45 per cent in 1983, subsequently decreased by 1993 to 32 per cent (nonetheless representing 75 million persons). During 1983-1993 under-nourishment decreased at about 3 %/annum.
Table 24: Incidence of hunger in rural households: At 1983, 1988, and 1993; Various farm-size categories
|
Year |
Proportion (%) of under-nourished persons |
|||||
|
Sub-marginal |
Marginal |
Small |
Medium |
Large |
All farms |
|
|
1983 |
45 |
31 |
25 |
21 |
15 |
29 |
|
1988 |
29 |
21 |
16 |
14 |
10 |
23 |
|
1993 |
32 |
24 |
17 |
12 |
12 |
25 |
|
Rate of decrease (%/ann) |
3.3 |
2.5 |
3.8 |
5.4 |
2.2 |
1.5 |
Source: Computed from household data in National Sample Surveys (Various Rounds - 1983-1993)Table 25 lists for the various farm sizes and for Years 1983, 1988, and 1993 an estimation of intensity of hunger (or food deficit) for those arbitrarily defined as under- nourished. (Table 19 used the same survey data in relation to the livestock influence on hunger.) Intensity of hunger relates to mortality rate, life expectancy, and productivity at work (FAO, 2000). Thus, while the average food deficit (aggregate for all farm sizes) of the undernourished did decrease from 374 to 293 kcal/person.day during 1983-1993, those food-deficit values are so high as to cause concern.Note: Using a threshold energy intake of 1 800 kcal/person.day. (Text refers.)
Table 25: Intensity of hunger in under-nourished rural households: At 1983, 1988, and 1993; Various farm-size categories
|
Year |
Food deficit (kcal/person.day) among those designated
as undernourished |
|||||
|
Sub-marginal |
Marginal |
Small |
Medium |
Large |
All farms |
|
|
1983 |
429 |
354 |
348 |
338 |
338 |
374 |
|
1988 |
332 |
315 |
356 |
361 |
372 |
332 |
|
1993 |
307 |
280 |
266 |
253 |
256 |
293 |
|
Rate of decrease (%/ann) |
3.3 |
2.3 |
2.6 |
2.8 |
2.7 |
2.4 |
Source: Computed from household data in National Sample Surveys (Various Rounds - 1983-1993)Relatedly, Table 26 lists, for various years during 1983-1998, the proportions (%) - among the five farm-size categories - of all rural farming households that are assessed as poor, or as under-nourished. (Table 26 thus complements Tables 23 and 24, which derive from the same surveys.) These Table-26 proportions may be interpreted in conjunction with the trends (Table 1) in the total numbers of farm households (poor and non-poor) at 1971 and 1991. Thus, interpolation within Table 1 suggests that at 1983 the sub-marginal category may have included about 37 per cent of all farm households, and at 1993 about 40 per cent. Table 26 indicates that at each of those years the sub-marginal category included a substantially higher proportion - about 49 per cent - of all under-nourished farm households; it indicates also that at 1983 the sub-marginal category included 42 per cent of all poor households, with that proportion having risen to about 50 per cent at 1993 and 1998. Thus - and perhaps not unexpectedly - the sub-marginal households are over-represented among the numbers of under-nourished and poor farm households. Correspondingly, the large- and the medium-size-farm households are under-represented.Note: Value in parentheses is percentage of dietary energy supplied by cereals.
Table 26: Proportions of all under-nourished and of all poor households within various farm size groups: 1983-1998: Rural India
|
Farm-size category |
Proportion (%) of all under- nourished farm households
in each farm-size category |
Proportion (%) of all poor farm households that are
in each farm-size category |
|||||
|
1983 |
1988 |
1993 |
1983 |
1988 |
1993 |
1998* |
|
|
Sub-marginal |
48.6 |
46.9 |
49.6 |
41.6 |
46.8 |
50.9 |
49.7 |
|
Marginal |
17.4 |
19.5 |
20.6 |
18.4 |
20.7 |
20.0 |
20.8 |
|
Small |
15.9 |
16.6 |
15.9 |
18.6 |
17.7 |
15.4 |
16.5 |
|
Medium |
11.2 |
11.0 |
8.3 |
13.3 |
9.9 |
8.4 |
9.2 |
|
Large |
6.9 |
6.0 |
5.6 |
8.2 |
4.9 |
5.3 |
3.9 |
|
All farms |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Source: Computed from household data in National Sample Surveys (38th, 43rd, 50th, and 54th Rounds): Consumer household expenditure based on sample estimates.The intensely hungry persons (Table 25) are clearly highly vulnerable. Many of them (Table 26) are likely to belong to sub-marginal-farm households. They must be accorded priority within food-security and poverty-alleviation programmes. Similarly, India’s responses to the World Food Summit Target (to decrease by one-half by 2015 the world total of hungry persons), and to the Prime Minister’s Challenge (to double food production and make India hunger-free by 2010), must include the raising of income and employment among sub-marginal-farm households. These households are net food buyers, and need cash wherewith to buy that portion of their food requirement that they cannot themselves produce. Their only cash-earning sources are the sale of their labour and such marketable products as they can generate through intensification and diversification of their on-farm activities.* Based on small sample.
Table 1 indicates that the average size of a sub-marginal holding (at 1971 and 1991) was 0.23 ha. A land-holding of 0.23 ha has an area equal to about one-half that of a field-hockey pitch. Can an area of 0.23 ha (or even of 0.5 ha) generate income in excess of the poverty-line value and also supply the minimum dietary energy requirement for the household? A definite answer is not yet available. However, the analyses of Tables 21 and 19 suggest that the ownership of some land (however little) or of a single animal confers to the sub-marginal-farm households an advantage (compared to land-less-labour households) in resisting hunger and poverty.
However, many other factors - of technology and of policy - determine the extent and intensity of hunger and poverty in rural India. Such factors include irrigation and other inputs supply, appropriate technologies for crops, livestock, and on-farm fisheries, integrated rural development programmes (with literacy-enhancement component), off-farm employment opportunities, and public distribution systems. States which have addressed these factors through integrated programmes - West Bengal, Kerala, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu - have successfully reduced poverty and food insecurity (Singh, 2001).
