RDF Final 30-06-2017 ISEC Bangalore

ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED DOSES OF
FERTILISERS ON SOIL TEST BASIS BY FARMERS

IN INDIA
PROJECT LEADERS
RAMAPPA K B
ELUMALAI KANNAN
PROJECT TEAM
RAMYA, L. G
SHRIKANTHA. T. MULIMANI
BANGARAPPA
Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre

Institute for Social and Economic Change
Bangalore- 560 072
APRIL 2016
Prepared by
Dr. Ramappa, K.B, Principal Investigator
Dr. Elumalai Kannan, Principal Investigator
Research Team
Ramya, L. G, Research Associate
Shrikantha. T. Mulimani, Research Associate
Bangarappa, Research Associate
Draft report submitted in June 2017
Contact:
Dr. K.B. Ramappa, Associate Professor,
Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre (ADRTC)
ISEC, Bengaluru - 560 072
Ph: +91-80-23215468, Ext.215 (O)
Email: ramappa@isec.ac.in; ramskb@gmail.com
Citation: Ramappa K.B. (2017) and Elumalai K, Adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers
on soil test basis by farmers in India, Agriculture Development and Rural Transformation Centre
Report, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Karnataka
Design by:
ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED DOSES OF
FERTILISERS ON SOIL TEST BASIS BY FARMERS
IN INDIA
Draft Report
RAMAPPA K B
ELUMALAI KANNAN
Report submitted
to
Agro-Economic Research Division, Directorate of Economics & Statistics,
Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare,
Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi
June 2017
All India Study Coordinated by

Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre (ADRTC)
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE
Bengaluru - 560 072
PREFACE
India's food grains production has increased tremendously from 51 million tonnes in 1950-51 to
253.16 million tonnes in 2015-16. However, the current production is lower than the record
265.04 million tonnes (MT) in the 2013-14 crop year (July-June), but slightly better than 252.02
MT achieved last year. Wheat, rice, coarse cereals and pulses are part of the food grain basket. At
the same time, fertilizer consumption in terms of NPK nutrients has been increased from 0.02
million tonnes in 1950-51 to 38 million tonnes in 2014-15. On the consumption side, use of plant
nutrient per hectare of gross cropped area has registered a quantum increase from 0.49 Kg in
1951-52 to around 140 Kg in 2014-15.
There is a significant correlation between fertilizers usage and food grain production.
Notwithstanding, average intensity of fertilizer use in India is much lower than in other
developing countries. Further, there is disparity in fertilizer consumption pattern within and
across states. The variability in consumption of fertilisers may be due to different cultivation
methods, type of crops and subsidy on fertilisers. The consumption of fertilisers has also varied
across farm size groups with the highest amount of consumption recorded among small farmers.
There are concerns about the indiscriminate use of chemical fertilisers by farmers with a view to
increase the crop yields. This has led to deterioration of soil health, structure, wastage of
nutrients, destruction of soil microorganisms and scorching of plants at the extreme cases. Soil
test based nutrient management protects the soil health and productivity. The Integrated Nutrient
Management (INM) Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India entrusted this
study to Agro-Economic Research Centres/Units to analyse the constraints in the adoption of soil
testing and application of recommended doses of fertilisers through farmers' survey. The present
report discusses the issues related to adoption of soil testing and recommended doses of fertilizes
for paddy, wheat, maize, soybean, jute, groundnut and cotton crops across sampled states.
In the course of study, immense support was received from the officials of the State Department
of Agriculture, all participating states and the MoA & FW. In addition, our heartfelt thanks to all
the participating AERCs and their team for their support and active involvement in the study. We
sincerely thank all of them for their cooperation.
We would also like to thank Dr. I. Maruthi, Associate Professor and Head; Prof. Parmod Kumar,
ADRTC; Prof. M. G. Chandrakanth, Director, ISEC; Prof. R.S. Deshpande, Former Director,
ISEC and P. C. Bodh, Advisor, AER Division, MoA & FW; for their sustained support and
encouragement throughout this study.
Last but not the least, we thank all the sample farmers/ households, who have provided the
required primary data for this study, without their cooperation, the study would not have
completed. We thank for their invaluable support.
Authors
CONTENTS
List of Tables
Preface
Executive Summary
Chapter I Introduction 1-9
1.1 Background 1-3
1.2 Need for the Study 3-4
1.3 Specific objectives of the Study 4-4
1.4 Review of Literature 4-7
1.5 Data and Methodology 7-8
1.6 Organization of the Report 9-9
Chapter II Trends in Fertilizer Consumption 10-14
2.1 Fertilizer Consumption in India 10-11
2.2 Consumption ratio of fertilizers 11-11
Consumption of Plant Nutrients per Unit of Gross Cropped 12-12
2.3
Area(Kg/ Ha)
2.4 Factors Affecting Fertilizer Consumption 12-14
Chapter III Socio-economic Characteristics of Sample Households 15-81
3.1 Bihar 15-25
3.2 Gujarat 25-29
3.3 Karnataka 29-45
3.4 Madhya Pradesh 46-57
3.5 Uttar Pradesh 57-69
3.6 West Bengal 70-81
Farmer's Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of Fertilizer
Chapter IV Use and Soil Test Technology 82-112
4.1 Background 82-82
4.2 Sources of Fertilizer Purchase 82-83
4.3 Method of Application of Chemical Fertilizers 83-91
Actual Quantity of Fertilizer Applied by the Control and Soil- 91-96
4.4
tested farmers
4.5 Prices of Fertilizers and Cost incurred on purchase (Rs/kg) 96-99
Sources of Information on Soil Testing for Soil-Tested 99-101
4.6
Farmers
4.7 Details of Soil Testing 101-105
4.8 Reasons for Soil Testing as Reported by Soil-Tested Farmers 105-107
4.9 Reasons for not Testing Soil in the case of Control Farmers 108-111
4.10 Summary 111-112
Chapter V Adoption of Recommended Doses of Fertilisers 113-122

5.2 Recommended Doses of Fertilizers (RDFs) on Soil Test Basis 113-115
Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers by Soil 115-117
5.3
Tested Farmers
Difference in the Quantity of Actual and Recommended 117-119
5.4
Doses of Fertilizer Applied by the Soil Tested Farmers
Difference in the Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by Control 119-121
5.5
Farmers
5.6 Summary 121-122
Impact of Adoption of Recommended Doses of Fertilisers on
Chapter VI 123-130
Crop Productivity and Soil Health
Productivity of Reference Crops among the Sample 124-126
6.2
Households (with and without approach)
Impact of Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizer 126-126
6.3
application on Reference Crops (Before and After Approach)
6.4 Changes in Soil Characteristics Post the Adoption of RDFs 129-129
6.5 Summary 129-130
Chapter VII Summary, Conclusions And Policy Suggestions 131-140

7.2 Summary of Findings 133-138
7.3 Conclusions 139-139
7.4 Policy Suggestions 139-140
References 141-142
Page.
LIST OF TABLES
Table .No No
Table 1.1 Sample size, crop coverage and AERCs covered under study 9
Table 2.1 Fertilizer nutrient consumption in India 11
Page.
LIST OF TABLES
Table .No No
Table 2.2 Consumption ratios: NPK 12

Table 2.3 Consumption of plant nutrients per unit of gross cropped area in India 13
Socio-economic characteristics of sample households of reference crops
Table 3.1 16
paddy and wheat
Table 3.2 Size of operational landholdings in Bihar 17
Table 3.3 Sources of irrigation 17
Table 3.4 Cropping pattern of the sample households 18
Table 3.5 Area under HYV of major crops 20
Table 3.6 Aggregate value of crop output 21
Table 3.7 Distribution of farm assets 23
Table 3.8 Agricultural credit outstanding by the sample households 24
Table 3.9 Purpose of agricultural loan availed 25
Table 3.10 Socio-economic characteristics of selected farmers 26
Table 3.11 Size of operational landholdings 27
Table 3.12 Sources of irrigation 27
Table 3.13 Cropping pattern of the sample household 28

Table 3.15 Distributions of sample households by farm size category 30
Table 3.16 Socio-economic characteristics of sample households - paddy 31
Table 3.17 Socio-economic characteristics of sample households - maize 32
Table 3.18 Operational landholdings of the sample households - paddy 33
Table 3.19 Operational landholdings of the sample households - maize 34
Table 3.20 Source of irrigation in paddy 35
Table 3.21 Source of irrigation in maize 35
Table 3.22 Cropping pattern of the sample paddy households 37
Table 3.23 Cropping pattern of the sample maize households 38
Table 3.24 Area under HYVs of major crops 39
Table 3.25 Aggregate value of output paddy 40
Table 3.26 Aggregate value of output maize 41
Table 3.27 Distribution of farm assets paddy 42
Table 3.28 Distribution of farm assets maize 42
Table 3.29 Agricultural credit outstanding by paddy sample households 43
Table 3.30 Agricultural credit outstanding by maize sample households 44
Page.
LIST OF TABLES
Table .No No
Table 3.31 Purpose of agricultural loan availed - paddy farmers 45

Table 3.32 Purpose of agricultural loan availed - maize farmers 45
Socio-economic characteristics of sample households- soil-tested farmers
Table 3.33 of both paddy and maize 47
Table 3.34 Socio-economic characteristics of sample households- control farmers 48
Table 3.35 Operational landholding of the sample households - soil-tested farmers 49
Table 3.37 Source of irrigation- soil-tested farmers 50
Table 3.38 Source of irrigation- control farmers 51
Table 3.39 Cropping pattern of the sample households - soil-tested farmers 51
Table 3.40 Cropping pattern of the sample households - control farmers 51
Area under HYV of major crops in different size of farms- soil-tested
Table 3.41 farmers 52
Table 3.42 Area under HYV of major crops in different size of farms- control farmers 53
Table 3.43 Aggregate value of crop output- soil-tested farmers 53
Table 3.44 Aggregate value of crop output- control farmers 54
Table 3.45 Distribution of farm assets of sample respondents 54
Agricultural credit outstanding by the sample households- soil-
Table 3.46 tested farmers 56
Agricultural credit outstanding by the sample households- control
Table 3.48 Purpose of agricultural loan availed by the soil-tested farmers 57
Table 3.49 Purpose of agricultural loan availed by the control farmers 57
Socio-economic characteristics of sample households-soil-tested
Table 3.51 Socio-economic characteristics of non-soil test sample households 60
Operational landholding of the sample households of non soil-tested
Table 3.54 Source of irrigation on the farms of soil-tested farmers 62
Table 3.55 Source of irrigation on the farms of non soil-tested farmers 62
Table 3.56 Cropping pattern of the sample households- soil-tested farmers 63
Table 3.57 Cropping pattern of the sample households- non soil-tested farmers 64
Page.
LIST OF TABLES
Table .No No
Table 3.61 Agricultural credit outstanding by the soil-tested farmers 68
Table 3.62 Agricultural credit outstanding by the non-soil-tested farmers 68
Table 3.63 Purpose of agricultural loan availed by the soil-tested farmers 69
Table 3.64 Purpose of agricultural loan availed by the non-soil-tested farmers 69
Socio-economic characteristics of sample households of reference crops
Table 3.65 71
- paddy and jute
Table 3.66 Size of operational landholdings of the sample respondents 72
Table 3.67 Source of Irrigation 73
Table 3.68 Cropping pattern of the sample households 75
Table 3.72 Agricultural credit outstanding by the sample households 80
Table 3.73 Purpose of agricultural loan availed 81
Table 4.1 Sources of purchase fertilizer 83
Table 4.2 Crop-wise methods of urea fertilizer application 85
Table 4.3 Cop-wise methods of DAP fertilizer application 87
Table 4.4 Crop-wise method of SSP fertilizer application 88
Table 4.5 Crop-wise methods of potash fertilizer application 90
Table 4.6 Crop-wise methods of complex fertilizer application 91
Actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the control farmers to
Table 4.7 different crops across states 94
Actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the soil-tested farmers to
Table 4.8 different crops across states 95
Average Price of Fertilizers and Transport Cost (Soil-Tested
Table 4.9 farmers) 98
Table 4.10 Average Price of Fertilizers and Transport Cost (Control Farmers) 99
Table 4.11 Sources of information on soil testing 100
Table 4.12 Distribution of soil-tested farmers 104
Table 4.13 Reasons for soil testing across crops and states 107
Table 4.14 Reasons for not testing soils 110
Average quantity of recommended doses of fertilizer as given in soil
Table 5.1 test report (as reported in the SHC) 115
Application of recommended doses of fertilizers by soil-tested
Table 5.2 farmers in respect of reference crops - RDF application 117
Table 5.3 Differences between the actual quantity of fertilizers used and the 119
Page.
LIST OF TABLES
Table .No No
recommended doses of fertilizers on soil test basis by the soil-tested
farmers across crops & states
Differences between control farmers and soil-tested farmers in
Table 5.4 terms of fertilizer application for different crops across states 121
Table 6.1 Productivity of sample crops for the reference year 125
Impact of application of recommended doses of fertilizers on crop
Table 6.2 yield soil-test farmers 127
Changes Observed Post the Application of Recommended Doses of
Table 6.3 Fertilizers in respect of Reference Crops - Soil-tested Farmers 128
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fertilizers have been considered as an essential input in Indian agriculture for meeting the food
grain requirements of the growing population of the country. After understanding the direct
relationship between fertilizer use and production, the farming community started using
fertilizers in the agricultural production rather irrationally, which, in turn, led to a deterioration in
soil health, structure, wastage of nutrients, and destruction of soil micro-organisms and scorching
of plants in the extreme cases. A combination of factors such as an intensive cultivation of crops,
differential pricing of fertilizers and subsidy might have contributed to an excessive use of
fertilizers. Due to lack of awareness among the farmers regarding a balanced use of nutrients,
there are wide spread problems observed related to an indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers,
mismanagement of surface water and over exploitation of ground water. They generally apply
fertilizers according to their financial resources, the availability of water, the types of fertilizers
available and the expected financial returns.
The importance of an appropriate fertilizer usage in the agricultural sector is gaining

more prominence in the present techniques of cultivation, as it has become an important factor of
production. In the light of an increased degradation of natural resources due to intensive
cultivation and injudicious use of inputs, their sustainable management holds the key to ensuring
sustainable production. With this background, various state and central governments have
implemented several schemes and programmes as part of encouraging farmers to go for soil
testing at free of cost. Out of all these programmes, a centrally sponsored scheme recommended
by a Task Force on Balanced Use of Fertilizers, entitled 'National Project on Management of
Soil Health and Fertility (NPMSF)' is one of the prominent schemes being implemented in the
country, since 2008-09. Although these various programmes had been in operation across states
and the country, there were no systematic studies undertaken so far, to evaluate the effectiveness
of these efforts on crop productivity, extent of soil testing for nutrient deficiency and adoption of
recommended doses of fertilizers by farmers based on soil tests.
Therefore, the present study was undertaken as part of evaluating the effectiveness of
fertilizer programme on crop productivity, extent of soil testing for nutrient deficiency and
adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers by farmers based on soil tests. The specific
objectives covered by the study as follows;
1. To examine the level of adoption and the constraints involved with respect to the
recommended doses of fertilizers by farmers based on soil test reports.
2. To analyze the impact of adoption of the recommended doses of fertilizers on crop
productivity and income of farmers.
The present study relied on both the primary and secondary data collected from the farmers of
paddy, wheat, soybean, cotton, groundnut and maize crops, across Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Bihar states in India. From each state, two major
crops were selected based on their area share criterion. The reference period for the study was
2013-14. For each crop, two districts and taluks were selected based on the respective crop area
share. From each taluka, two clusters of villages comprising 3-4 villages per cluster were
selected for conducting the survey. From the list of soil-tested farmers, crop-wise farmers, who
had tested their soils for the respective crops, were selected randomly for assessing the
application of the recommended doses of fertilizers and their impact on crop production. The
survey also involved control (non soil-tested) farmers, for each crop from each district, selected
randomly from the chosen cluster for differentiating the effect of the application of the
recommended doses of fertilizers on crop productivity and returns. On an average, 126 soil-
tested farmers from each crop per state and 71 control farmers for each crop per state were
interviewed. An adequate representation was given to different farm size groups, classified based
on the operational land holdings.
The major findings of the study are as follows;

The consumption of total fertilizers has increased from 167 thousand tonnes in 2000-01
to 255 thousand tonnes by 2012-13. Out of N, P & K fertilizers, Nitrogen (N) show a
highest increase in use by farmers (59 thousand tonnes), followed by Phosphatic (P)
fertilizers (24.3 thousand tonnes) and Potassic (K) (4.95 thousand tonnes) over this
period.
A majority of the sample farmers have undergone schooling for less than 10 years, of
which more than 90 per cent of both the soil-tested and control farmers are dependent on
agriculture as their main occupation in the study area. Half of the family members of the
sample farmers are engaged in farming exclusively with an average farming experience
of more than 23 years.
The average size of own land works out to almost the same irrespective of crops
cultivated by the sample farmers. The average net operated area accounts for more in the
case of Karnataka followed by Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. Whereas, the cropping
intensity is found high in respect of Madhya Pradesh (198%), followed by Bihar and
Karnataka.
Excepting paddy farmers in Bihar and Karnataka, the rest of the farmers across crops and
the states are dependent on bore-wells as their major source of irrigation. Overall, in the
case of paddy, which is a water-intensive crop, the major sources of irrigation are found
to be canals (54%), followed by bore-wells (19%), rivers (18%), open or dug-wells (5%)
and tanks.
A majority of the farmers use HYVs in respect of almost all the selected crops in the
study area, however, the extent of usage of HYVs is found less in Bihar as compared to
other States.
Among all the States and crops, the value of output is found to be higher in the
case of soil-tested farmers as compared to control farmers. However, there is no
significant variation observed in the distribution of farm assets between control and soil-
tested farmers. However, there is a wide variation observed in terms of farm assets,
depending up on the size of land holdings.
A majority of the farmers are found to have availed of loans from institutional sources as
compared to non-institutional sources. The main purposes underlying agricultural loans
include purchase of livestock, land development, marriage and social ceremonies as also
for non- farm activities, at the aggregate.
Overall, it is understood that State Department of Agriculture is the major source of

information on soil testing among the sample farmers across the selected States, followed
by KVKs, friends, SAUs, private companies and neighbours.
A majority of the soil-tested farmers have reported that increase in crop yield, motivation
from demonstration or training or exposure visits with best farming practices, inclination
towards adoption of new technologies, and availing of benefits under subsidy scheme
were the major reasons for soil testing. Conversely, it is noticed that the lack of
knowledge on soil testing, the long distance between the field and soil testing
laboratories, and do not know how to take soil samples were the top three reasons for not
testing their soil systems.
It is observed that irrespective of the crops and states, none of the farmers has followed
RDFs prescribed in the SHC reports based on soil testing. However, it is also observed
that control farmers had applied higher quantities of fertilizers than the soil-tested
farmers, due to lack of knowledge on soil testing and its usefulness in agriculture.
The average cost of soil testing is found to be less than Rs. 100/- per sample across States
with the area coverage under soil test being maximum in the case of paddy crop. A
majority of the farmers have expressed their willingness to continue with the application
of RDFs.
Excepting the case of maize and groundnut crops, a majority of the farmers had applied
urea through broadcasting method, whereas, in the case of maize and groundnut, urea had
been applied through line application method.
With regard to purchase of fertilizers, a majority of the soil-tested as well as control

farmers had purchased from private fertilizer dealers, followed by co-operative societies,
company authorized dealers. Only a few farmers had opted for government agencies. The
average price of urea was relatively the same for both the control and soil-tested farmers.
Soil-tested farmers had applied comparatively lower quantities of fertilizers than control
farmers, which might be attributed their better level of awareness regarding over doses of
fertilizers and their adverse effects on soil and crop health through various government
programmes in the recent years.
Excepting the case of Uttar Pradesh, the quantities of NPK fertilizers applied are found to
be much more the RDFs in respect of paddy crop (77 kg/acre of urea, 41 kg/acre of DAP
and 16 kg/acre of potash). However, in Uttar Pradesh, the applied quantities of fertilizers
were less than the recommended doses, whereas in the case of wheat crop, the quantities
of fertilizer applied is found to be more in terms of DAP (13 kg/acre) and potash (3
kg/acre) in the case of Uttar Pradesh. Only, urea (7 kg/acre) is found to have been used
more in the case of Madhya Pradesh.
All the fertilizers applied were less than the RDFs in the case of maize farmers in
Karnataka. Contrastingly, all fertilizers applied were more than the RDFs with respect to
groundnut crop in Gujarat. Excepting urea, all the other fertilizers used were much less
than the RDFs in the case of jute crop in Madhya Pradesh. With regard to cotton crop in
Gujarat, the sample farmers had applied a higher quantity of urea (19 kg/acre) and nearly
two kg/acre less in terms of potash fertilizers. As regards soybean crop, only DAP had
been applied in a higher quantity (11 kg/acre) as compared to other fertilizers.
Although, none of the farmers had applied fertilizers as per the recommendations in the
SHCs, nearly 20 per cent of paddy, 35 per cent of wheat, 11 per cent of maize, 44 per cent
of soybean and 40 per cent each of groundnut and cotton soil-tested farmers have stated
that they had followed RDFs partially or fully. Out of which, a majority of the farmers
had expressed their willingness to continue with RDFs in their agricultural practices.
Across states, the proportion of farmers following RDFs, does not exceed 40 per cent in
respect of the crops.
Overall, it is observed that a partial or full adoption of RDFs has had a positive impact on
productivity as well as values, with regard to all reference crops, excepting the case of
jute crop. However, positive results have also been observed in the case of jute (before
and after approach).
From with and without approach, it is observed that, a highest increase in yield of
reference crops was in the case of soybean (16%), followed by groundnut (13%), cotton
(10%), wheat (9%), and paddy and maize (four per cent each). Similarly, the results of
before and after situations reveal that the aggregate increase in yield with respect to
maize was 28 per cent, followed by groundnut (24%), cotton (23%), paddy (15%), jute
(14%), soybean (10%) and wheat (6%).
Across states, a highest increase in paddy yield was observed in respect of Uttar Pradesh,
while it was Madhya Pradesh in the case of wheat (15%), as per with and without
approach. As regards before and after approach, the increase in yield was highest to the
tune of 28 per cent in the case of maize and 23 per cent in the case of paddy in the state of
Karnataka, whereas, the increase in yield of groundnut was 24 per cent in respect of
groundnut and 23 per cent in respect of cotton with regard to Gujarat state.
A majority of the farmers expressed that, there is an improvement in crop yield, soil
health, quality of produce, and also a decrease in the application of other inputs after the
adoption of RDFs based on soil test technology across all crops. Further, a few farmers
also have reported a lower incidence of pest and disease attacks after following the RDFs.
Major Policy Suggestions;

There is a greater awareness regarding soil testing among the farmers, however, soil
testing facilities are not easily accessible. Hence, there is a need for establishing Soil Test
Laboratories (STLs), preferably at the taluk/ block-level for equipping them with modern
facilities and staff as part of generating accurate and reliable results across the country.
The state government need to simplify the soil testing process and soil testing should be
done at free of cost for all farmers. More importantly, the SHCs should be disbursed
within a stipulated period, preferably, before the sowing season. Further, soil heath cards
should be laminated so as to protect them for a long time.
The concept of soil health and importance of maintaining soil fertility should be
incorporated in all the training programmes. Moreover, farmers should be educated in the
ways and means of enriching soil fertility through encouraging appropriate cultivation
practices such as crop rotation, mulching and minimum tillage.
There is a lack of awareness regarding the procedures of soil sampling and its benefits
among a majority of the sample farmers. Hence, there is a need for conducting regular
training programmes for capacity building of farmers on soil sample collection, benefits
of soil testing and important elements in the soil test report (SHC). An understanding of
these aspects is of utmost importance in the adoption RDFs.
As part of overcoming the adverse impacts an excessive use of chemical fertilizers on soil
health, the governments should promote and encourage farmers towards the production
and usage of organic fertilizers.
The role of State Department of Agriculture (SDA), SAUs and KVK scientists is very
much essential to agricultural extension activities, especially, their role is very much
needed in spreading awareness regarding soil test technology and adoption of RDFs
among the farming community.
NPMSF should be in a mission mode, as its augmentation can enrich the health of soil
systems and improve the economics of agricultural practices.
It is imperative to cover all small and marginal farmers under Soil Testing Programmes,
as part of enabling them to obtain higher yields and income.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In India, fertilizers have been considered as one of the essential inputs in Indian agriculture for
increasing agricultural production so as to meet the food grains requirements of an ever growing
population. For fulfilling basic the necessities like food, clothing and shelter in the face of an
increasing population, the existing limited resources have to be utilized. Further considering that
there is no significant scope for the expansion of agricultural land, it is important to introduce
modern agricultural practices with improved technologies so as to ensure an increased foodgrains
production.
It is a well established fact that fertilizer as an input. shares a direct relationship with food
grains production along with supporting factors like High Yielding Variety seeds (HYVs),
irrigation, climatic condition, access to credit, tenurial status, size of the product market and the
price they, command in input and output markets, etc. The importance of a judicious fertilizer
usage in agricultural production is gaining more prominence in the context of modern techniques
of cultivation, given its important role in increasing foodgrains production. The desired objective
of attaining self-sufficiency in food production is mostly guided by a scientific application of
fertilizers in terms of time and quantity. In general, fertilizer recommendations for crops are
given based on crop to be grown, crop variety, previous crop, soil texture, organic manure,
sources of irrigation and management practices. However, in relatively the application of site-
specific recommended doses of fertilizers by farmers is rarely observed. Farmers apply fertilizers
depending on their financial resources, availability of water, types of fertilizer available and the
expected financial returns.
It is important to note that there are 17 nutrients, which are essentially required by crop plants for
their normal growth and reproduction. Lack of one or more nutrients in soil may cause a
proportionate reduction in the crop yield despite an adequate presence of other nutrients. So it is
very important to supply all the nutrients required by crops at the right stages of their growth as
per recommended doses for increasing the productivity. The challenge in the crop nutrient
1
management is to balance the nutrients required by crops given the soil nutrient reserves and
external supply of nutrients through fertilizers. And soil test is the tool which determines soil,
nutrient content, composition and other characteristics such as acidity or pH level. A proper soil
test helps a judicious application of fertilizers as part of meeting the requirement of crops while
taking advantage of the nutrients already present in the soil. It also helps to determine lime
requirement and diagnosis of problematic soils.
With the advent of fertilizer-responsive crop varieties, the total consumption of nitrogen (N),
phosphatic (P) and potassium (K) fertilizers increased from about 1.1 million tonnes in 1966-67
to 27.80 million tonnes by 2011-12. However, due to vagaries of monsoon and other climatic
factors, the consumption of fertilisers shows fluctuation for the period from 2012-13 to 2014-15
and in fact, the consumption has decreased during this period (Lok Sabha, 2016). For rabi 2015-
16, the consumption of N and K shows a decline fell, while P that of some improvement (Satish
Chander, 2016). On the other side the all India average consumption of fertilizers has increased
from 6.9 kg/ha, of gross cropped area to 139.7 kg/ ha., over the same span of period (Fertilizer
statistics, 2014). On the other hand, the levels of consumption of fertilisers show substantial
variation both within and across states, from 284.69 kg/ha in Pondicherry to 6.4 kg/ha in
Nagaland during 2014-15 (Lok Sabha, 2016).
There are concerns voiced about an indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers by the farming
community with a view to increasing the crop yield, which, in turn, has led to a deterioration in
soil health, structure, wastage of nutrients, destruction of soil micro-organisms and scorching of
plants in the extreme cases. A combination of factors such as an intensive cultivation of crops,
differential pricing of fertilizers and subsidy might have contributed to an excessive use of
fertilizers. Due to lack of awareness among the farmers regarding a balanced use of nutrients,
there are wide spread problems observed related to an indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers,
mismanagement of surface water and over exploitation of ground water.
The excessive usage of chemical fertilizers in the last few decades has led to several problems in
terms of affecting soil health, nutrient flow and natural environment. Therefore there is a need
for promoting a balanced use of fertilisers for increasing productivity of crops and also for a
better absorption of nutrients by crops from the applied fertilizers. Soil testing is the tool, which
determines soil, nutrients content, composition and other characteristics such as acidity or pH
2
level. A proper soil test helps a judicious application of fertilizers as part of meeting the
requirements of crops, while taking advantage of the nutrients already present in the soil. It will
also helps determine lime requirement and diagnosis of problematic soils. Thus it is very
important to supply all the nutrients required by crops at the right stages of their growth based on
recommended doses for increasing the productivity. Therefore, the adoption of recommended
doses of fertilizers either as per the norms set by the State Agricultural Universities (SAU) or as
instructions given in the Soil Health Card (SHC) is essential. In this connection, various state and
the central government have implemented several schemes and programmes, as part of
encouraging farmers to go for the testing of their soil systems, at free of cost. Among all these
programmes, a centrally sponsored scheme recommended by a Task Force on Balanced Use of
Fertilizers, entitled National Project on Management of Soil Health and Fertility
(NPMSF)' is one of the prominent schemes being implemented in the country, since 2008-09.
The scheme includes three components i.e., strengthening of soil testing laboratories ((STLs),
promoting the use of an integrated nutrient management and strengthening of fertilizer quality
control laboratories across states.
1.2 Need for the study

In the light of an increased degradation of natural resources due to intensive cultivation and
injudicious use of inputs, their sustainable management holds the key to ensuring a sustainable
production. Due to lack of awareness among farmers, there are wide spread problems such as the
excessive use of chemical fertilizers, mismanagement of surface water and over exploitation of
ground water. The over use of chemical fertilizers in most parts of India in the last few decades
has led to several problems affecting soil health, nutrient flow and natural environment. Hence,
there is a need for promoting a balanced use of fertilizers for increasing productivity of crops and
also for a better absorption of nutrients by plants from the applied fertilizers through soil testing
technology. In turn, it helps reduce the cost of production and increase the income of the farming
community.
Although various programmes have been in operation across states and the country, there are no
systematic studies undertaken so far with a view to evaluating the effectiveness of these efforts
on crop productivity, extent of soil testing for nutrient deficiency and adoption of recommended
3
doses of fertilizers by farmers based on the soil tests. Therefore, the present study was
undertaken across six states in the country, mainly to examine the level of adoption and
constraints involved in the application of recommended doses of fertilizers with respect to
selected major crops (two crops each in selected states), their impact on crop productivity and
relevant institutional problems.
1.3 Specific Objectives of the study

The specific objectives of the study are as follows:
3. To examine the level of adoption and constraints involved with respect to the
recommended doses of fertilizers based on soil test reports by the farmers.
4. To analyse the impact of adoption of recommended doses of fertilisers on crop
1.4 Review of literature
This segment of the chapter presents a compendium of the literature available in the field of
fertilizer usage and soil testing methods, as part of unearthing the findings of various authors
from different perspectives and locating the research gaps for the proposed study. The usage of
fertilizers is mainly for enhancing crop productivity based on the recommendations of soil
laboratory officials. Farmers are encouraged to go for soil testing in order to find out the nutrient
contents and the suitability of land for a particular crop. Vast literature exists on the same lines
depicting the importance of fertilisers in enhancing soil health and thereby productivity.
Prasad and Sinha (1995), indicated a decline of 23, 44 and 16 per cent in the N, P and K,
respectively after six years at with no manures nor inorganic fertilizers applied. The application
of graded doses of fertilizers (50, 100 and 150% NPK) either in the presence or absence of FYM
showed an average increase of about 10 per cent in the nitrogen after 21 years of continuous rice-
wheat cultivation.
Rao V. M. (1996), found that at the farm level, the green revolution technology had helped
improve the livelihood pattern, nutrition and education of children. However, the technology
brought with it some negative aspects as well. Although it proved successful across irrigated
4
areas, dryland regions and crops grown therein were left out of the process leading to regional
disparities in rural income.
Gopal Reddy and Reddy (1998) found the available N, P and micronutrient contents in soils
being significantly influenced by the type and levels of manures applied in conjunction with
fertilizers. In all the types of manures, the treatment with a 100 per cent level of manure, which
was on par with 75 and 50 per cent level of manure showed higher available macro and
micronutrients at the end of two cropping cycles in the maize-soybean cropping system. This was
attributed to the direct addition and slow release of N, P and K by manures added to soil systems.
Sharma and Sharma (2000), observed that fertilizer use in India had increased from 69
thousand tonnes in 1950-51 to 16.2 million tonnes in 1997-98, at an annual growth rate of over
12 per cent, while food grains production from about 51 million tonnes to 192.2 million tonnes
during the same period, indicating at a direct relationship between fertilizer use and food grains
production.
Yaduvanshi (2001) reported that the application of inorganic fertilizers along or in combination
with green manure or FYM significantly enhanced the uptake of N by rice and wheat crops as
compared to N alone and control treatment. The mean increase in the uptake of N over control
with a 50 per cent recommended treatment and its combined use with green manuring and FYM
and a 100 per cent recommended treatment was 39.3, 78.1 and 77.3 kg per ha in the case of rice
and 36.8, 47.2 and 76.4 kg per ha in respect of wheat, respectively. Nitrogen uptake by rice from
green manuring or FYM or FYM with a 50 per cent recommended treatment was similar to that
from a 100 per cent recommended treatment. The uptake of P and K increased significantly with
the application of NPK and its combined use with green manuring and FYM.
Kumar and Thakur (2004), observed that the application of 150 per cent of recommended
fertilizer dose resulted in a higher uptake followed by recommended fertilizer + 10 ton per ha
FYM. In an experiment on maize crop, Karki et al (2005) found that N, P and K contents in grain
and straw of maize and their uptake were maximum with the recommended dose of fertilizers
which was on par with the recommended dose of fertilizer +10 tons per ha FYM treatment.
5
Laxminarayana and Patiram (2006) claimed that a balanced fertilizer application of N, P and
K nutrient recorded a higher yield response (29 %) in comparison to NP (24 %) and N alone (18
%) over control in rice. They also observed a highest uptake of N, P and K by grains and straw
(134.0, 58.4 and 109.2 kg per ha, respectively) with the application of NPK + green manure over
the rest of treatments. Incorporation of green manure enhanced the total uptake of N, P and K to
the tune of l31, 27 and 34 per cent, respectively over that of 100 per cent NPK treatment in rice.
Mann et al (2006) reported the available phosphorus content having increased after 35 years to
15.1, 38.4, 27.4 and 38.7 kg per ha from the initial value of 13.7 in 50, 100, 150 per cent NP and
100 per cent NPK + FYM treatments, respectively. A higher build up of available phosphorus
occurred because phosphorus use efficiency ranged from 16 to 32 per cent during this period
under the soybean-wheat cropping system.
Singh et al (2006), while studying the impact of integrated management of fertilizers, FYM and
GM on productivity of rice for two years, found that the application of recommended doses of
fertilizers along with FYM (5 tons per ha) and green manuring (2.1 tons per ha) gave a higher
yield of rice as compared to chemical fertilizers only.
Kumar et al (2008), based on a long-term field experiment on integrated management of FYM,

GM and crop residues with inorganic fertilizers in rice-wheat system, observed that long-term
application of crop residues and organic manures increased the organic carbon content in soils.
Further, it was found that a combined use of crop residues, organic amendments and chemical
fertilizers significantly increased the availability of N, P, K, S and micronutrients in soils over
chemical fertilizers alone.
Singh and Chahal (2009), studied the extent of adoption of various recommended production
technologies for wheat crop in respect of Punjab. The data was collected from farmers for three
years. The results reveal that nitrogen was being applied at more than the recommended level by
the farmers, while phosphorus at the recommended level and potash was not being applied by the
farmers to wheat crop in Punjab. The study brings out that there existed a number of gaps in the
adoption of recommended production technology for wheat crop, which needed to be properly
plugged to enhance productivity as well as net returns to wheat producers in the state of Punjab.
6
Kumar and Singh (2010) conducted an experiment on the long-term integrated nutrient
management under the rice-wheat cropping system as part of assessing the direct and residual
effect of green manures on crop yields with and without farmyard manure (FYM). The highest
grain and straw yields of rice and wheat were obtained with the application of 100 per cent NPK
along with 5 tons of FYM per ha each year.
Talape et al (2011) found a significant positive association between age, education, land
holding, socio-economic status, extension contact, innovativeness, availability of bio-fertilizers
and soil testing facility and the adoption of soil management practices.
Singh (2012) conducted a study to find out farmers attitude towards the adoption of
recommended technology as part of increasing productivity with respect to a selected dryland
area. A total of 150 farmers were randomly selected from C. D. Block Chaka in Allahabad
district of Uttar Pradesh. The results reveal that the reasons for non adoption of recommended
technology under dry land farming were lack of crop rotation technique, lack of mulching
technique, lack of adequate information, and lack of technical know-how followed in irrigation
and drainage, risk bearing capacity and lack of enthusiasm on the part of farmers.
Ram Fishman et al (2016) found an imbalanced application of chemical fertilizers in India as

being mainly responsible for low yields, poor soil health, pollution of water resources, and large
public expenditures on subsidies. The study conducted a randomized controlled trial in the Indian
state of Bihar as part of a preliminary evaluation of the effectiveness of the program being
currently implemented. The results indicate at no evidence of any impact of soil testing and
customized fertilizer recommendations on the actual fertilizer use or the willingness to pay for
lacking nutrients (elicited using a Becker-DeGroot-Marschak mechanism). Further, the study
noticed evidence that suggested the lack of confidence as the main factor inhibiting farmers
response.
1.5 Data and methodology
The present study relied upon the primary data collected from the sample farmers across six
selected states, namely Karnataka, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh and
Gujarat in India. The study excluded three states, namely, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Andhra
7
Pradesh due to the non-availability of their reports at the time of consolidation. The major crops
covered under the study included paddy, wheat, maize, jute, groundnut, cotton and soybean. As
paddy and wheat were the major crops grown across many states, these crops were repeated in
other states also. Accordingly, paddy was selected from states such as Bihar, Karnataka, Uttar
Pradesh and West Bengal, while wheat was selected from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya
Pradesh.
The reference period for the study was 2013-14. The list of farmers who had got their soils tested
was collected from the state Department of Agriculture for the year 2012-13 for assessing the
adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers. For each crop, two districts were selected, based
on the cropped area share within the state. From each district, two taluks/tehsils were selected
again, based on the same criterion. From the selected taluk, two clusters of villages comprising
3-4 villages per cluster were selected for conducting the survey. Soil samples of farmers who had
tested their soils for each crop were selected randomly from each district for assessing the
application of recommended doses of fertilizers and their impact on crop production. The cluster
approach was followed to ensure that an adequate number of soil-tested farmers were available
for the survey.
Further, an adequate care was taken to ensure that the selected villages felled under the same
agro-climatic conditions of the sample districts and that the selected villages shared certain
common characteristics such as soil type, irrigation and crop variety. The survey also involved an
equal number of control (without soil test) farmers for each crop from each district, selected
randomly from the chosen cluster for differentiating the effect of application of the
recommended doses of fertilizers on crop productivity and returns. The study was initially
planned to cover a total of 150 soil-tested farmers and 75 control farmers for each crop, however,
with a small change in the sampling pattern across states, the total number of soil-tested farmers
came to 1509 and control farmers to 856 from across the country. The state and crop-wise sample
farmers are given in Table 1.1. An adequate representation was given to different farm size
groups classified based on operational land holdings.
8
1.6 Organization of the report
The present report has been organized in seven chapters. The first chapter discusses the need for
undertaking the study, objectives and methodology employed. The second chapter concentrates
on the trends in fertilizer consumption in the country. The third chapter presents the socio-
economic characters of the respondent farmers, cropping pattern, farm assets and details of credit
availed. Fourth chapter deals with soil testing and recommended doses of fertilizers on soil test
basis, while the fifth chapter examines the adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers,
constraints experienced by farmers in following the recommendations and training programmes
attended by respondents. The impact of adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers has been
highlighted in the sixth chapter, followed by a summary and conclusions in the final chapter.
Table 1.1: Sample size, crop coverage and AERCs covered under the study
Sl. States Crops
Crops Total AERC/Us
No. Soil test Control
Rice 154 107 261 ADRTC, Bangalore
1 Karnataka Maize 155 109 264
Total 309 216 525
Soybean 120 60 180 AERC, Jabalpur
2 Madhya Pradesh Wheat 120 60 180
Total 240 120 360
Wheat 120 60 180 AERC, Allahabad
3 Uttar Pradesh Rice 120 60 180
Total 240 120 360
Cotton 120 80 200 AERC, Vallabh Vidya
4 Gujarat Groundnut 120 80 200
Nagar
Total 240 160 400
Rice 120 60 180 AERC, Bhagalpur
5 Bihar Wheat 120 60 180
Total 240 120 360
Rice 120 60 180 AERC, Santinikethan
6 West Bengal Jute 120 60 180
Total 240 120 360
Grand
1509 856 2365
total
Source: Authors creation
9
CHAPTER II
TRENDS IN FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION
India is the second largest consumer of fertilizers in the world after China. Indias green
revolution phase of the 1960s provided a greater impetus to the use of fertilizers with fertilizer-
responsive hybrids/ high yielding varieties and expansion of irrigation facilities resulting a
quantum jump in food production from 82.02 million tonnes in 1960 to 252.68 million tonnes in
2014-15 (MOA, 2016). This substantial increase in production and productivity of food grain
crops was achieved through the concerted efforts of five year plans. The conducive policies of
the Government have improved the availability and consumption of fertilizers in the country
over a period of time. The production of nitrogenous and phosphorous fertilizers together
increased from 0.85 million tonnes in 1960 to 38.67 million tonnes during 2014-15 (IFA, 2015).
The entire requirement of potash has been met through imports as there are no viable resources
of potash in India.
2.1 Fertilizer Consumption in India

There has been a steady increase in the consumption of fertilizers (NPK) over the years across
the country. The usage of chemical fertilizers in India in the last 50 years has grown nearly 170
times. For instance, states like Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, West
Bengal and Uttar Pradesh accounts for a very high average fertilizer consumption per hectare in
comparison to states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Orissa, Goa and other
north eastern states (FAO, 2006). The Government of India plays a significant role in terms of
consistently pursuing policies which are conducive to increasing the availability and
consumption of fertilizers at affordable prices in the country. However, the average intensity of
fertilizer usage in India at the national-level is much lower than in the other developing
countries, but there are many disparities observed in fertilizer consumption trends across
different regions of India.
Table 2.1 shows the growth in fertilizer consumption in India over time. The consumption of
total fertilizers shows an increase from 167 thousand tonnes in 2000-01 to 255 thousand tonnes
10
in 2012-13. A high availability has, however, been observed among states. On the other hand, of
the consumption of N, P & K, it is observed that Nitrogen (N) accounts for the highest use by
farmers (59 thousand tonnes), followed by Phosphatic (P) fertilizers (i.e., 24.3 thousand tonnes)
and Potassic (K) (i.e., 4.95 thousand tonnes) over the period from 2000-01 to 2012-13. The
primary reason behind a lower consumption of K is that the Indian soils are rich in potassium.
Table 2.1: Fertilizer nutrient consumption in India over time

(In 000 tonnes)
Consumption
Year
N P K Total
2000-01 109.2 42.2 15.67 167
2001-02 113.1 43.8 16.67 173.6
2002-03 104.7 40.2 16.01 160.9
2003-04 110.8 41.2 15.98 168
2004-05 117.1 46.2 20.61 184
2005-06 127.2 52 24.13 203.4
2006-07 137.7 55.4 23.35 216.5
2007-08 144.2 55.2 26.36 225.7
2008-09 150.9 65.1 33.13 249.1
2009-10 155.8 72.7 36.32 264.9
2010-11 165.6 80.5 35.14 281.2
2011-12 173 79.1 26.76 277.9
2012-13 168.2 66.5 20.62 255.4
2013-14 167.50 56.33 20.98 244.82
2014-15 169.45 60.98 25.32 255.79
2015-16 270.00*
Source: Lok sabha unstarred question No. 1623, dated 08/03/2016, Satish Chander, 2016
2.2 Consumption ratio of fertilizers
At the national level, NPK used in the ratio of 4:2:1, is considered as being an optimum ratio for
a balanced use of chemical nutrients. This ratio is mainly for food crops and among food crops,
mainly for rice and wheat. For cash crops, plantation and horticultural crops, however, the
optimum NPK ratio varies according to soil nutrient status and crop needs. The NPK ratio at the
national level over the years is shown in table 2.2. The consumption ratio of NPK has increased
from 7: 2.7: 1 in year 2000-01 to 8.2: 3.2: 1 in the year 2012-13. It can be observed from the
table that both nitrogen and phosphate consumption ratio has increased, whereas, potash
consumption has remained the same over the years.
11
2.3 Consumption of Plant Nutrients per Unit of Gross Cropped Area (Kg/ Ha)
The consumption of plant nutrients per unit of gross cropped area (GCA) is presented in Table
2.3. It can be observed from the table that the NPK consumption per hectare of GCA has
increased over the years in India, from 90.12 in 2000-01, to 128.34 in the year 2012-13.
Table: 2.2: Consumption ratios: NPK

Year N:P:K
2000-01 7.0 : 2.7 : 1
2001-02 6.8 : 2.6 : 1
2002-03 6.5 : 2.5 : 1
2003-04 6.9 : 2.6 : 1
2004-05 5.7 : 2.2 : 1
2005-06 5.3 : 2.2 : 1
2006-07 5.9 : 2.4 :1
2007-08 5.5 : 2.1 :1
2008-09 4.6 : 2.0 :1
2009-10 4.3 :2.0 :1
2010-11 4.7 :2.3 :1
2011-12 6.7 :3.1 :1
2012-13 8.2 :3.2 :1
2013-14 8.0:2.7:1
Ideal consumption Ratio 4:2:1
Source: Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 2916, date on 14.03.2013 & The Fertiliser Association of India. (15215)
& (16851)
2.5 Factors Affecting Fertilizer Consumption
The usage of fertilizers is affected by a number of factors like irrigation, high yielding variety
seeds, farm credit etc. The increased area under high yielding varieties has led to an increased
food grains production and these high yielding varieties respond more to the use of chemical
fertilizers. However, there exists a large gap between the actual and potential level of fertilizer
usage. an increased fertilizer use efficiency leads to a number of benefits and among them, the
important ones are economy in fertilizer usage, reduction in unit cost of production, prevention
of a fall in agricultural productivity, maintenance of eco friendly environment, efficient use of
other inputs such as irrigation water etc. In the context of developing countries the actual
12
fertilizer use is usually below the economic potential. In the production process, cultivators
demand for fertilizers generally depends on three factors, viz., (a) Decision on fertilizer
application; (b) Choice of crop (i.e., for which crop fertilizer should be applied); and (c) Rate of
application (per unit of cropped area). The first factor is basically a state of awareness and
knowledge of the farmer regarding fertilizer use for crops commonly grown. The other two
issues are generally governed by profitability of fertilizer use at the farm-level. The level of
fertilizer use increases with an increased response to the use of fertilizers. Further, the level of
fertilizer use is influenced by the price of fertilizer relative to the price of a given product. Agro-
climatic factors like rainfall and its distribution, irrigation and its quality, genetic characteristics
of seeds, fertility of the soil, proportion of area under fertilizer intensive crops (cropping pattern)
etc and technological factors like the method of application of fertilizers, time of application and
choice of fertilizer material also influence the usage of fertilizers. The institutional factors such
as access to credit and its cost for small farmers, in particular, farmers asset or liquidity, tenancy
system, markets for inputs and output, distribution of input and output, distribution of fertilizer
outlets, supply and distributional conditions for fertilizers influence the demand for and supply of
fertilizers.
Table 2.3: Consumption of plant nutrients per unit of gross cropped area in India over time
Year N P K Total
2000-01
58.92 22.74 8.46 90.12
2001-02 8.87
60.16 23.31 92.33
2002-03 9.21
60.23 23.11 92.55
2003-04
58.40 21.75 8.43 88.57
2004-05
61.30 24.20 10.78 96.27
2005-06
66.01 27.00 12.52 105.53
2006-07
71.59 28.81 12.14 112.54
2007-08
73.86 28.25 13.50 115.61
2008-09
77.26 33.31 16.96 127.53
2009-10
82.44 38.49 19.22 140.15
13
2010-11
83.22 40.46 17.66 141.34
2011-12
86.95 39.78 12.94 139.67
2012-13
84.54 33.44 10.36 128.34
Source : The Fertiliser Association of India. (15215) & (16851)
Desai (1990) argues strongly for non-price factors such as irrigation, diffusion of technology
relating to HYV, cropping pattern, supply and distribution of fertilizers and agricultural extension
services as the major determinants of fertilizer demand, rattier than propping up the price of
crops or lowering fertilizer prices through subsidies.
14
CHAPTER III
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS
This chapter presents the socio-economic characteristics of the sample households,

based on the information collected from them with respect to their operational land
holdings, net irrigated area, sources of irrigation, cropping pattern, area under high
yielding varieties, value of crop output and marketing, farm assets, agricultural credit
availed of and purpose, training programmes attended, etc., for the reference period.
Besides, a comparison of these socio-economic variables, with regard to soil-tested
farmers and control farmers has also been attempted as part of highlighting the relative
differences in their economic status especially considering that these characteristics play
an important role in the adoption process of any technology in the agricultural sector.
3.1. BIHAR
3.1.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Sample Respondents

Table 3.1 reveals the socio-economic characteristics of the sample households engaged in paddy
and wheat cultivation in Bihar. A total of 180 paddy and wheat farmers were interviewed for the
study. As can be observed from the table, the socio-economic characteristics of the farmers,
cultivating both the crops are almost similar. Overall, the average age of the sample respondents
works out to 52 years in the state. There is no substitution difference observed in the
educational levels of both the paddy and wheat farmers. (The average years of education
noticed to be 10 years.) Almost all the sample farmers from both the control and soil-tested
groups are dependent on agriculture. However, the number male respondents are higher
(98.33%) among the soil-tested farmers as compared to the control group (92%). The family
size (8), number of people engaged in agriculture (2), and average years of experience in
agriculture (25 years) are almost similar for these two groups. A higher proportion (23%) of
soil-tested farmers holds one or more farmer associations as compared to control farmers
(13%). Out of the total sample farmers, about 64 percent belong to the general categories
followed by OBC (28%) and SC (8%). However, no representation is found among ST category
in Bihar.
15
Table 3.1: Socio-economic characteristics of the sample households engaged in paddy and
wheat cultivation
Soil-tested Control
Particulars Overall
farmers farmers
Number of sample farmer households 240 120 360
Average age of respondents (years) 53 51 52
Average years of respondent education 11 9 10
Agriculture as the main occupation
(% of respondents) 99.50 100.00 99.75
Gender
Male (% of respondents) 92.50 98.33 94.44
Female (% of respondents) 7.50 1.66 5.55
Average family size 8 8 8
Average number of people engaged in agriculture 2 2 2
Average years of experience in farming 26 23 25
Percent of farmers being members of any of the
associations 23.33 12.50 19.73
Caste (% of households)
SC 6.25 10.83 8.05
OBC 29.58 34.17 27.78
General 64.16 55.00 64.16
Source: primary survey
3.1.2. Structure of Operational Landholdings

The size of operational landholdings in the state of Bihar is presented in Table 3.2. It is evident
from the table that, the aggregate net operational area of the sample farmers in Bihar works out
to 6.21 acre, which includes 5.99 acres of own land, 0.29 acre of leased-in, and 0.03 acre of
uncultivated land. However, a small proportion of agri land (0.04 acre) constitutes leased-out
land from among the sample farmers. Out of the net operated area (6.21 acres), (5.90 acres) of
land is covered under irrigation. Interestingly, there is no significant difference noticed in the
gross cropped area and cropping intensity with respect to paddy and wheat farmers. The
average gross cropped area works out to about 12.03 acres and the cropping intensity to about
193 percent, at the aggregate. Fascinatingly, the cropping intensity in respect of soil-tested
farmers is slightly higher (195%) than for the control farmers (190%), which may be due to the
presence of a higher irrigated area in the case of soil-tested farmers as compared to control
farmers.
16
Table 3.2: Size of Operational landholdings in Bihar
( Acre/ Household)
Soil-tested
Particulars Control farmers Overall
farmers
Own land 6.95 5.02 5.99
Leased-in 0.30 0.27 0.29
Leased-out 0.08 0 0.04
Uncultivated/Fallow 0.03 0.03 0.03
Net operated area 7.14 5.26 6.21
Net irrigated area 6.69 5.11 5.90
Net un-Irrigated area 0.48 0.19 0.33
Gross cropped area 14.01 10.04 12.03
Cropping intensity (%) 195.36 190.03 192.70
3.1.3. Sources of Irrigation

The different sources of irrigation are presented in Table 3.3. As the table reveals, bore wells
constitute the most prominent source of irrigation in the case of wheat farmers (48.54%), while
it is canal/s among paddy farmers (43.81%). In addition to canal/s, open/dug wells, rivers/ponds
and other sources such as tanks happened to be some of the minor sources of irrigation in the
case of both paddy and wheat farmers. However, no tank irrigation is found among the control
farmers cultivating wheat. Overall, bore wells are found to be the major source of irrigation
(49%), followed by canal irrigation (44%); however, the other sources such as open/dug wells,
rivers/ponds and tanks constitute a very less proportion of irrigation with their share being four
percent, three per cent and less than one percent, respectively, at the aggregate level.
Table 3.3: Sources of irrigation

(% of net irrigated area)
Particulars Soil-tested farmers Control farmers Overall
Open/ dug well/s 3.16 5.65 3.73
Bore well/s 49.58 46.51 48.54
Canal/s 42.66 45.93 43.81
Tank/s 1.25 0.00 0.95
River/Ponds and Others 3.33 1.90 2.96
Total 100 100 100
17
3.1.4 Cropping Pattern
The cropping pattern followed by the sample households is presented in Table 3.4, and it
reveals that, paddy constitutes the major crop, grown by both the soil-tested (49%) and controls
(42%) farmers in terms of gross cropped area for the Kharif season. Similarly, for the rabi
season, wheat crop accounts for 38 percent of the gross cropped area among soil-tested farmers
and 42 percent with regard to control farmers. Accordingly, the aggregated gross cropped area
is found to be highest in the case of paddy (45%) and wheat (40%) for both kharif and rabi
seasons, respectively. In addition to these major crops, a majority of the sample farmers also
grow other crops such as basmati rice, maize and vegetables in the kharif season, which
altogether account for less than five per cent of the gross cropped area, while in the rabi season,
about six per cent of the farmers grow oil seeds, pulses and vegetables. It is interesting to note
that maize is grown both in rabi and kharif seasons in the study areas. However, summer and
annual crops account for five percent of the total gross cropped area with respect to both the
soil-tested and control farmers.
Table 3.4: Cropping pattern followed by the sample households

(% of GCA)
Soil-tested Control
Season/crop Overall
farmers farmers
Kharif
Paddy 48.78 42.01 45.39
Basmati Rice 2.61 1.80 2.20
Maize 1.98 0.55 1.26
Total veg. 0.31 0.17 0.24
Rabi
Wheat 37.62 41.91 39.76
Total Oilseeds 2.11 2.45 2.28
Total Pulses 3.51 3.64 3.57
Rabi Maize 0.54 0.32 0.43
Summer
Moong 1.05 2.69 1.87
Fodder 0.31 0.73 0.52
Annual/perennial
Sugarcane 0.49 2.93 1.71
Orchard (Litchi, Mango) 0.69 0.80 0.74
GCA 100 100 100
18
3.1.5 Area under HYVs
The area under high yielding varieties is presented in Table 3.5. It can be observed that, paddy
and wheat are the major crops grown by both the soil-tested and control farmers in the study
area, with a majority of them have using HYVs irrespective of the season. Accordingly, their
share of gross cropped area is highest for these two crops only. However, the proportion of
gross cropped area under HYVs in respect of the paddy-soil-tested farmers is highest (19%) as
compared to control farmers (11%), whereas, the proportion is found to be more or less the
same (10%) with respect to control farmers with reference to both the seasons. the proportion of
gross cropped area mainly under HYV seeds amounts to 10 per cent for paddy during Kharif
season, maize, wheat, oilseeds, pulses, during rabi season and moong during summer. Control
groups farmers are also found to have grown the same crops using HYV seeds, except oilseeds.
(It is interesting to note that both the soil-tested farmers and controlled farmers surveyed in the
paddy and wheat growing areas have used HYV Kharif paddy and wheat (rabi) as the major
crops with a larger percentage shift in the gross cropped area (18.70, 10.50, 10.00, 11.12 and
8.50, 10.00, 5.10, 7.35) respectively.), while soil-tested farmers from wheat areas are found to
have used a slightly larger areas under HYV seeds for the crops, namely, rabi wheat and rabi
maize as compared to the controlled farmers (11.12%, 0.15% & 10%, 0.13%) respectively. A
similar picture is observed in the case of controlled farmers cultivating wheat with the addition
of summer moong grown accounting for 0.10 per cent of gross cropped area.
19
Table 3.5: Area under major HYV crops
(% of gross cropped area)
Crop name Paddy farmers Wheat farmers
Soil-tested farmers
Paddy 18.70 10.50
Maize 0.28 0.17
Rabi wheat 10.00 11.12
Oilseeds 0.58 0.50
Pulses 0.89 0.71
Rabi maize 0.13 0.15
Summer moong 0.12 0.08
Control Farmers
Paddy 8.50 10.00
Maize 0.09 0.00
Rabi wheat 5.10 7.35
Rabi pulses 0.42 0.36
Rabi maize 0.00 0.00
Summer moong 0.00 0.10
3.1.6 Value of Crop Output

The value of crop output is shown in Table 3.6. It provides a sufficient ground on the value of
output achieved by paddy and wheat growers from among the soil-tested farmers and controlled
farmers in terms of income (Rs./household and Rs./ acre) and value of output sold
(Rs/household and Rs./ acre). It shows that with respect to the value of output and value of
output sold by both soil-tested farmers and controlled farmers of paddy and wheat, large size
farm households have remained ahead (Rs. 1,95,580/Hh, Rs. 17,780/acre, Rs. 1,64, 062.50, Rs.
15,625; value of output sold Rs. 1,36,906, Rs. 12,446, Rs. 1,14,843.75, and Rs. 10,937.50)
respectively.
The surveyed households under STFs category of paddy area with different farm sizes and all
classes of farm Hhs (taken together) show higher values of output and values of output sold
both in terms of Rs./Hh and Rs./acre, relative to CFs (Rs. 1,10,195.94/Hh, Rs. 16,545.94/acre,
Rs. 1,64,062.50/Hh, Rs. 15,625/acre and Rs. 79,892.06 Hh, Rs. 11,995.80, Rs. 68,712.07/Hh
and Rs. 10,820.80/acre) respectively.
20
Table 3.6: Aggregate value of crop output
Particulars Paddy Wheat

Value of output Value of output sold Value of output Value of output sold
Rs/ household Rs/ acre Rs/ household Rs/ acre Rs/ household Rs/ acre Rs/ household Rs/ acre
Soil-tested farmers
Marginal 37500.00 15312.50 28125.00 11718.75 37835.00 16100.00 26862.85 11431.00
Small 74218.75 15625.00 51953.13 10937.50 81780.00 17400.00 57246.00 12180.00
Medium 148750.00 17500.00 104125.00 12250.00 193430.00 21025.00 145072.50 15768.75
Large 195580.00 17780.00 136906.00 12446.00 243.600.00 21750.00 182700.00 16312.50
Total 1,10,195.94 16,545.94 79,892.06 11,995.80 1,30,661.56 41,153.25 95.056.28 13,856.60
Control farmers
Marginal 33000.00 15000.00 23100.00 10500.00 37800.00 15750.00 28350.00 11812.50
Small 69552.00 15120.00 50077.44 10886.40 79207.83 16675.33 57821.72 12172.99
Medium 126554.40 15624.00 88588.08 10936.80 151380.00 17400.00 113535.00 13050.00
Large 164062.50 15625.00 114843.75 10937.50 195387.50 17762.50 136771.25 12433.75
Total 97,463.93 15,348.65 68,712.07 10,820.80 1,13,336.09 16,890.63 83,018.69 12,372.38
Having paid attention to the data in the table comprising the value of output, and value of output sold by the surveyed Hhs of wheat area, again it is evident
that large farm Hhs remain ahead of all other farm size groups, except CFs, whose value of output sold is found highest in the case of medium farmers (Rs.
13,050/acre). It is further noticed that farm size is directly related to the value of output, while value of output sold is positively related in the case of both
STFs and CFs meant for both the crops. It is also interesting to note that as regards farm class- wise values of output, and values of output sold (when
viewed in totality also), STFs are found to have realized greater values of output and values of output sold as well as compared to CFs (Rs. 1,30,661.56/Hh,
Rs. 41,153.25/acre, Rs. 1,13,336.09/Hh, Rs. 16,890.63 and Rs. 95.056.28/Hh, Rs. 13,856.60/acre, Rs. 83,018.69/Hh and Rs. 12,372.38/acre) respectively.
3.1.7 Distribution of Farm Assets

21

Distribution of farm assets of farm households of paddy and wheat growers is presented in Table 3.7. As far as the distribution of farm assets of the
surveyed farm Hhs of paddy and wheat areas is concerned, it is evident that STFs do own higher number of high priced farm implements/equipments
relative to CFs. STFs are well ahead in terms of possessing tractor/trolley, electric motor/diesel engine and manual/power sprayer as compared to CFs,
applicable to both paddy and wheat growing farm Hhs (0.42/Hh, 0.67/Hh, 0.33, for CFs these were 0.21, 0.22, 0.12 and for wheat STFs, these are 0.48/Hh,
0.58/Hh, 0.23 and in the case of CFs, 0.20/Hh, 0.20/Hh, 0.08/Hh) respectively. Threshers, fodder choppers, bullock carts, drip/sprinkler system, small tools
and animal shed/pump house like small implements/farm assets are owned/possessed by both the STFs and CFs of paddy area with no significant
difference in number/Hh. The numbers/Hh are 0.11, 0.74, 0.03, 0.07, 6.00 and 0.83 for STFs and 0.08, 0.83, 0.05. 0.04, 7.00 and 0.85 for CFs respectively
(table 3.13). In the case of surveyed farm Hhs of wheat area, except fodder chopper and animal shed/pump house (0.70) & 0.85) respectively, STFs are
distinctly in a better position than CFs with regard to the parameters of owning threshers, manual/power sprayers, bullock carts and others (0.25, 0.23, 0.03,
0.03 and for CFs, 0.13, 0.08, 0.00 and 0.00) respectively.
22
Table 3.7: Distribution of farm assets across the sample HHs
(Rs/household)
Paddy Wheat
Particulars Soil-tested Control Soil-tested Control
farmers farmers farmers farmers
Rs/ household Rs/ household Rs/ household Rs/ household
Tractor, trailer/ trolley 287763 236519 277950 195100
Harrow and cultivator 3667 2083 5208 2567
Electric motor/ Diesel
Engine 7500 1135 6708 2040
Thresher 2542 1708 3750 2000
Planker 0 0 0 0
Manual/power sprayer 833 629 747 250
Fodder chopper 2338 2917 2000 2450
Bullock cart 500 162 375 0
Drip/ sprinkler system 542 450 0 0
Small tools (spade, hoe,
sickle etc.) 1500 1712 1800 2106
Animal shed/pump house 8360 9457 9775 7360
Others 0 0 53 0
Total 315544 256773 308367 213873
NB: Others include: (i) sugarcane cultivator, (ii) rizer plough; Source: primary survey
23
The values of farm assets per household of the surveyed STFs and CFs in respect of both paddy and wheat areas have been estimated at Rs. 3,15,544.17,
Rs. 2,56,772.63, Rs. 3,08,366.63 and Rs. 2,13,872.67 respectively.
3.1.8 Details of Agricultural Credit Outstanding
The details of agriculture credit outstanding is presented in Table 3.8, shows that STFs have availed of agricultural credit mainly from commercial banks,
as also reported by both paddy and wheat growing households (Rs. 833.33 and Rs. 2166.67) respectively. For CFs of paddy and wheat crops, the most
instrumental sources of credit remained friends/relatives and commercial banks (Rs. 1783.33/Hh and Rs. 3,017/Hh) respectively, while CFs of paddy area
are found to have agricultural credit outstanding on the loan provided by moneylenders and friends and relatives (Rs. 833.33 and Rs. 1,783.33/Hh)
respectively and there at the same time, traders/commission agents happened to be credit sources for STFs of paddy growing areas only (Rs. 233.33/Hh).
In the case of sample farmers of wheat area, CFs are again found to have outstanding amounts from friends/relatives apart from commercial banks (Rs. 830
380/Hh), while the STFs are found with an outstanding amount of Rs. 416.67/Hh availed of by friends/relatives. As most of the CFs belong to both paddy
and wheat growing areas which are resource poor (RP) in comparison to STFs, CFs are found with a higher credit outstanding relative to STFs (Rs.
2,616.66, Rs. 3,847, as against to Rs. 1,883.33 and Rs. 2,583.34/Hh for STFs) respectively.
Table 3.8: Agricultural credit outstanding in respect of the sample households

(Rs/ household)
Sources Paddy Wheat
Soil-tested Control Soil-tested Control
Commercial banks 833 --- 2167 3017
Money lenders --- 833.33 --- ---
24
Friends/Relatives 816.67 1783.33 416.67 830.00
Traders/Commission agents 233.33 --- --- ---
Total 1883.33 2616.66 2583.34 3847.00
3.1.9 Agricultural Loans- purpose/s

The purposes behind agricultural loan availed of by the sample respondents are presented in Table 3.9. It is interesting to note that CFs have remained
much ahead in terms of availing of agricultural loans for seasonal crop cultivation, purchase of tractor and other implements, purchase of livestock and land
development (taken together) in respect of both paddy and wheat growing areas as compared to STFs with the percentage share of agricultural loans
working out to 70.00, 91.67, 57.77 and 72.50 respectively. On the other side, shares of loan for marriage and social ceremonies and non-farm activities
availed of by STFs are found to be higher than for CFs in the case of paddy farmers (24%, 18.23%, 20.00% and 10.00%) respectively. As regards, the farm
Hhs of wheat growing area also, the shares of loan availed of for marriage and social ceremonies and non-farm activities are found to be higher in the case
of STFs than in the case of CFs (19.17%, 8.33%, 3.33% and 5.00%) respectively.
What can possibly be inferred from the above discussion is that soil-tested farmers are able to receive a better income than control farmers through a
judicious application of manures and fertilizers depending on crop requirements necessity. Hence, soil-tested farmers have tended to spend more on non-
farm activities such as marriages and other social ceremonies.
Table 3.9: Purposes underlying agricultural loans availed of by the sample farmers HHs
(% of the total farmers)
Purpose Paddy Wheat
25
Seasonal crop cultivation --- --- 05.00 ---
Purchase of tractor and other --- --- 5.80 6.67
implements
Purchase of livestock 43.71 57.00 41.67 43.33
Land development 14.06 13.00 20.03 41.67
Consumption expenditure --- --- --- ---
Marriage and social ceremonies 24.00 20.00 19.17 3.33
Non-farm Activities 18.23 10.00 8.33 5.00
Other expenditures --- --- -- ---
3.2 GUJARAT
3.2.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Selected Farm HHs
The socio-economic characters of the selected sample households engaged in cotton and groundnut cultivation are presented in Table 3.10.
Overall, the average age of the selected farm households works out to 47 years with seven years of schooling (Table 3.10). The family size of
both the soil-tested and control farmers, averages six members of which half of them are engaged in agriculture with 27 years of experience
from among the soil-tested farmers and 24 years of experience from among the control farmers. Hence, agriculture forms the main
occupation of 99.5 percent of the sample households. The majority of the sample households belong to general caste (60%), followed by
other backward castes (36.5%). Interestingly, no Schedule Tribes are noticed in the state of Gujarat.
Table 3.10: Socio-economic characteristics of the selected farmers engaged in Cotton and Groundnut cultivation
Particulars Soil- Control Overall
tested farmers
26
farmers
Number of sample farm households 240 160 400
Average age of respondent (years) 49 44 47
Average years of respondents education 7 8 7
Agriculture as main occupation (in percent) 100.00 98.80 99.50
Gender
Male (in %) 95.80 99.40 22.80
Female (in %) 4.20 0.60 0.60
Average number of people engaged in agriculture 3 3 3
percent of farmers being members of any
association 26.80 23.50 24.50
Caste (in %)
SC 3.30 3.80 3.50
ST - - -
OBC 32.50 42.50 36.50
General 64.20 53.80 60.00
3.2.2 Details of Operational Landholdings

The details of the land holding pattern of the sample households a r e presented in Table 3.11. It is observed that, on an average, the soil-tested
farmers hold 8.45 acre/ household of net operated area in the state whereas; it is about 8.92 acre/household in the case of control farmers. However, the
overall, net operated area works out to 8.62 acre/household. Out of the net operated area, about 69 percent land is irrigated (5.87 acre/ household) in the
case of soil-tested farmers, while, it is 70 per cent (6.27 acre/household) in the case of control farmers. Relatively, the gross cropped area accounts for 12
27
acre/ household in the state. Accordingly, the cropping intensity works out to 144 per cent with respect to soil-tested farmers as compared to 136 per cent
with regard to control farmers. A very meagre proportion of land has been left uncultivated and leased-out across all the groups.
Table 3.11: Size of operational landholdings
( Acre/ Household)
Soil-tested
Particulars farmers Control farmers Overall
Own land 8.00 8.75 8.30
Leased-in 0.55 0.28 0.45
Leased-out 0.05 0.08 0.08
Net un-Irrigated area 5.87 6.27 5.99
3.2.3. Sources of Irrigation

The sources of irrigation accessible to the sample farm HHs are presented in Table 3.12. As can be observed from the table, of the different sources of
irrigation, open wells and dug wells constitutes the major sources of irrigation for the sample households, accounting for about 57.6 percent of the
total irrigated area, followed by bore wells (38.6% of the total irrigated area) respectively. Thus, groundwater is the main source of irrigation for the
selected sample households in the state. The canals, tanks, rivers/ponds and other water sources account for a meagre share in irrigating the crops of the
sample farmers.
Table 3.12: Sources of irrigation
28
(as % of net irrigated area)
Soil-tested Control
Particulars Overall
farmers farmers
Open/ dug well/s 56.80 58.70 57.60
Bore well/s 39.40 37.40 38.60
Canal/s 2.30 1.20 1.80
Tank/s 1.40 - 0.80
River/Ponds and Others 0.20 2.70 1.20
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
The cropping pattern followed by the sample respondents is presented in Table 3.13. Overall, cotton, groundnut and other oils seeds including a few spices
are the major crops grown in the state of Gujarat. The GCA of cotton group of farmers works out to a half time higher than that of groundnut group of
farmers. Among the Kharif crops grown by cotton farmers, cotton (41.7%), oilseeds such as castor (9.2%) and groundnut (3.8%), jowar (3.5%) in the other
categories, are the major crops. Among the Rabi crops grown by cotton farmers, wheat (11.7%), cumin (13.2%) among spices, are the major crops, on the
other hand, total summer crops account for about 8.1 per cent of the GCA of cotton growers.
29
Among the Kharif crops grown by groundnut farmers, groundnut (56.8%) and cotton (16.8) are the major crops. However, oilseeds are the major crop
during kharif (57%). Among the Rabi crops grown by groundnut farmers, wheat (5.7%), cumin (9%) and gram (3.60%) are the major crop, while total
summer crops account for only about 2.3 per cent of GCA of groundnut growers.
Table 3.13: Cropping pattern followed by the sample households

(as % of GCA)
Season/crop Cotton Groundnut Overall
Kharif
Cotton 41.70 16.80 29.25
Groundnut 3.80 56.80 30.30
Total oilseeds 9.20 57.00 33.10
Others 9.60 2.90 6.25
Rabi
Wheat 11.70 5.70 8.70
Total Pulses 3.20 3.60 3.40
Total spices 13.20 9.00 11.10
Total vegetable 1.40 1.00 1.20
Others 1.90 1.40 1.65
Summer
Total cereals 0.30 0.30 0.30
Total oilseeds 1.70 1.50 1.60
Others 6.20 0.80 3.50
GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00

30
The area under HYV crops under both the crop categories is much less, as is evident from Table 3.14. The HYV area under kharif groundnut, kharif cotton
and rabi is relatively better for both the soil-tested and control farmers. The HYV area under kharif groundnut, kharif cotton and wheat for soil-tested
farmers (groundnut) works out to 36.3 per cent, 21.3 per cent and 10 per cent, respectively. Thus, it is very important to note here that, despite a very low
seed replacement rate in respect of groundnut crop recorded at the state level (10 percent) during 2013-14, more than 45 percent of the selected groundnut
farmers (control group) are found to have replaced seeds of groundnut, which might be because of the progressive nature of the selected groundnut farmers
(control group).

(as % of gross cropped area)
Soil-tested farmers Control farmers
Crop name Cotton Groundnut Cotton Groundnut
Jowar 2.50 - 25.71 3.57
Groundnut 6.25 36.30 5.63 45.63
Castor 9.58 - - -
Cotton 35.00 21.30 6.25 1.25
Rabi Wheat 7.50 10.00 6.88 11.25
Rabi Cumin 14.17 0.83 10.00 5.63
Rabi Other Spices 3.75 1.67 - -
Summer Jowar 2.92 - 1.25 -
Rabi Onion - - 1.25 -
3.3 KARNATAKA
3.3.1 Distribution of the Sample Households
31
The distribution of sample households in Karnataka is presented in Table 3.15. Among the farmers, the marginal and small farmers together constitute
about 48.27 per cent and 53.04 per cent of the sample households respectively both in respect of paddy and maize crops in the state of Karnataka. Similarly,
the proportion is relatively the same for both the soil-tested farmers and control farmers across crops in the state. On the other side the large farmers form
second and third largest groups with respect to paddy and maize. Among the control farmers, more than half of them belong to marginal and small
categories across reference crops.
Table: 3.15: Distributions of the sample households by farm size

( as % of Households)
Paddy Maize
Farm size group Control Soil-tested Control Soil-tested
Total Total
Marginal 23.36 12.99 17.24 14.6 12.9 13.64
Small 29.91 31.82 31.03 42.2 37.4 39.39
Medium 19.63 27.27 24.14 22.9 28.3 26.14
Large 27.10 27.92 27.59 20.1 21.2 20.83
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100 100 100
3.3.2 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Households
Table 3.16 describes the socio-economic characteristics of sample households of paddy farmers. Of a total of 261 farmers selected under paddy crop for
assessing the extent of adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers and their impact on crop production and productivity. 107 were control and 154 soil-
tested farmers. The average age of the total sample farmers works out to 46.58 years, while it is relatively the same with regard to both the control and soil-
32
tested farmer, There is no significant difference observed in the educational status of both the control and soil-tested of the farmers, secondary school
education being the common in the total sample. Cent percent of the control farmers are dependent on agriculture as their main occupation whereas, while
for 94.81 percent soil-tested of the farmers agriculture is the main occupation. Overall, 96.93 percent of paddy farmers main occupation is agriculture.
Among the total paddy respondents, cent percent of control and 94.81 percent of soil-tested farmers are males. However, family size, number of people
engaged in agriculture and average years of experience in agriculture with regard to the two groups are almost similar in that the average family size is six,
three persons are engaged in agriculture, with 26 years of experience farming. About 21.50 percent of control farmers and 31.17 percent of soil-tested
farmers are members of one or more associations; however, this proportion is found to be 27.20 in respect of the total sample farmers. Out of the total
selected farmers, 48.66 percent belong to the general category, 26.44 percent to OBC category, 17.24 percent to ST and 7.66 percent to SC category.
Table: 3.16: Socio-economic characteristics of paddy growing sample households

Control Soil-Tested
Particulars Total
Farmers Farmers
No. of Sample Farmer Households 107 154 261
Average age of Respondents (Years) 47 46 47
Agriculture as main occupation ( percent of
100.00 94.81 96.93
respondents)
Gender
Female (% of respondents) - 5.84 3.45
Average of family size 7.00 6.00 6.00
Average number of people engaged in agriculture 3.00 3.00 3.00
Average years of experience in farming 27.00 26.00 26.00
21.50 31.17 27.20
association
33
SC 5.6 9.09 7.66
ST 16.82 17.53 17.24
OBC 24.29 27.92 26.44
General 53.27 45.45 48.66
Table 3.17 describes the socio-economic characteristics of maize growing sample households. It can be observed from the table that, out of the total
sample, 109 farmers are control farmers and 155 soil-tested farmers. The average age of the respondents from control group works out to 46 years whereas,
it is 44 years in the case of soil-tested farmers and the overall age of the respondents to 45 years. Secondary education is the average educational status
attained by the total sample with no significant difference observed across groups. About 99 percent of the farmers core occupation is agriculture in the
case of maize sample respondents, and is almost the same in both the control and soil-tested farmers. In total, 98 percent of the respondents are males, with
an average family size of eight persons, of which three persons are found to be engaged in farming, with an average experience of around 25 years.
Interestingly, soil-tested farmers are found with a relatively few years of experience as compared to the control farmers. There is a considerable difference
observed in the percentage of farmers being members of any association across groups; however, it is 27 percent among control and 18 percent with respect
to soil-tested farmers. Out of the total selected sample, a majority of the farmers belong to OBC (49%), followed by general (28%), ST (15%) and SC (7%)
categories.
Table: 3.17: Socio-economic characteristics of maize growing sample households

Control Soil-tested
Particulars Total
farmers farmers
No. of Sample Farmer Households 109 155 264
Average age of Respondents (Years) 46 44 45
34
Agriculture as main occupation (% of respondents) 99.08 98.06 98.57
Gender
Female (% of respondents) 1.83 1.29 1.56
Average of family size 8.17 7.03 7.50
Average number of people engaged in agriculture 3.40 3.18 3.28
Average years of experience in farming 26.32 23.68 24.72
26.60 18.18 21.39
association
SC 11.01 2.58 6.79
ST 18.35 12.26 15.30
OBC 44.04 54.84 49.44
General 26.61 30.32 28.46
3.3.3. Details of operational landholdings
Table 3.18 represents the landholding details of paddy growing farmers. It can be seen from the table that, control farmers own, on average 8.21 acres, in
addition to 0.94 acre of leased-in, 0.05 acre of leased-out and 0.08 acre of uncultivated land and therefore the net operational area of control farmers works
to almost nine acres per household; of which about seven acres are irrigated and two acres un-irrigated. On the other side, soil-tested farmers own 9.68
acres of land, 0.48 acre of leased-in, and 0.86 acre of leased-out land and hence the total operational area amounts to 9.29 acres per household of which,
7.85 acres are irrigated and the rest (1.44 acre) un-irrigated. There is no significant difference observed in the gross cropped area with respect to both the
control and soil-tested farmers, which works out to about 13.35 acres on an average out of the total sample. However, the cropping intensity for control
farmers is found to be slightly lower than for the soil-tested farmers with the average cropping intensity for the total sample being 146 per cent.
35
Table: 3.18: Operational landholdings of the sample households - paddy
( acre/ household)
Particulars Control farmers Soil-tested farmers Overall
Own Land 8.21 9.68 9.08
Leased-in 0.94 0.48 0.67
Leased-out 0.05 0.86 0.52
Net un-irrigated area 2.10 1.44 1.73
Table 3.19 gives the information on the landholding size of maize growing farmers. The total land owned by control farmers comes to 7.41 acres whereas,
for soil-tested farmers, it is eight acres. Control farmers posses leased-in land to the extent of 0.32 acre, leased-out of 0.05 acre, with the remaining 0.24
acre being fallow land. Therefore, on an average, control farmers hold a net operated area of about 7.5 acres, of which 4.18 acres are irrigated and 3.31
acres un-irrigated. In the case of soil-tested farmers, leased-in area amounts to 0.3 acre, leased out to 0.05 acre and a negligible uncultivated area of 0.04
acre. But the own land comes to 8 acres and accordingly, the net operational area works out to 8.22 acre per household. The overall gross cropped area in
the case of total maize sample works out to 9.21 acres with a cropping intensity of 121 per cent. There is no significant difference observed in cropping
intensity of both the soil-tested farmers and control farmers.
36
Table: 3.19: Operational landholdings of the sample households - maize
( acre/ household)
Own Land 7.47 8.02 7.79
Leased-in 0.32 0.28 0.30
Leased-out 0.05 0.04 0.05
Net un-irrigated area 3.31 3.27 3.29
3.3.4 Sources of Irrigation

Among the sources of irrigation, canal forms the major source of irrigation for the paddy sample households, followed by rivers/ponds and bore wells. The
reason behind canals being the major source of irrigation might be the presence of rivers such as Tungabhadra and Surekerehalla in the selected taluks of
Davanagere district, and Krishna and Tungabhadra in the selected taluks of Raichur district. Table 3.20 describes the pattern of irrigation sources for Paddy
farmers. There is no significant difference observed in the pattern of irrigation between the control and soil-tested farmers. The major source of irrigation
for the total sample HHs happens to be canal/s, accounting for about 53.52 per cent of the net irrigated area followed by rivers or ponds (19.65%), bore
wells (18.83%) and open or dug wells (4.69%), while streams account for a meagre share of 3.01 per cent among all the sources of irrigation for paddy
farmers.
37
The sources of irrigation for maize are completely different from those for paddy, in that the major source of irrigation is bore wells across both the control
and soil-tested farmers, accounting for 46 percent of the net irrigated area. Open/dug wells form the second major source of irrigation accounting for 26.15
percent of the net irrigated area, followed by canals (14.75%) and rivers/ponds (13.19%). There is no substantial difference noticed in terms of secondary
major sources of irrigation with regard to both the control and soil-tested farmers. with the proportion being 33.51 per cent of the net irrigated area in the
case of control farmers and 18.79 per cent with respect to soil-tested farmers. Subsequently, the third largest source of irrigation for control farmers
(13.45% of the net irrigated area) is canal/s, but it was the river/ponds (18.21% of the net irrigated area) in the case of soil-tested farmers. The sources of
irrigation in respect of maize crop are illustrated in Table 3.21.
Table: 3.20: Sources of irrigation for paddy

Open/dug wells 4.68 4.71 4.69
Bore wells 18.22 19.45 18.83
Canal 53.38 53.66 53.52
Rivers/ Ponds 21.00 18.31 19.65
Tank - 0.56 0.30
Others* 2.72 3.32 3.01
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Table: 3.21: Sources of irrigation for maize crop

Open/dug wells 33.51 18.79 26.15
Bore wells 44.87 46.95 45.91
38
Canal 13.45 16.04 14.75
Rivers/ Ponds 8.17 18.21 13.19
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
3.3.5 Cropping Pattern, Area under HYVs and Value of Output

The cropping pattern explains the sequence and spatial arrangement of crops for a given farm. The cropping pattern followed in a particular area depends
upon factors like the availability of irrigation, soil type, climatic conditions and market availability. Table 3.22 describes the cropping pattern followed by
the sample paddy farmers. Paddy is the predominant crop grown in the study area across all the three seasons, accounting for about 59 per cent of the total
GCA mainly because of the availability of canal irrigation in the study area. Other major crops grown in Kharif include maize and cotton, which account
for around 46 per cent and four per cent of the GCA, respectively. In the rabi season, a considerable area is brought under cotton, after paddy, by the soil-
tested farmers because of an assured irrigation from bore wells. In summer, soil-tested farmers cultivate sunflower over a very small area (0.43% of GCA)
after paddy, because of limited water availability from canal/s during this period. In addition, some of the perennial crops like areca nut, betel leave,
coconut and sugarcane also account for a considerable share (6.14%) in the total GCA. Nevertheless, as compared to control farmers, soil-tested farmers
have more area under areca nut (4.10% of GCA) while, control farmers have a larger area under betel leaves (2.14% of GCA), followed by sugarcane and
coconut.
Similarly, the cropping pattern followed by maize growing sample farmers is presented in Table 3.23. Maize dominated the existing cropping pattern
followed by both the control and soil-tested farmers in the study area, accounting for 58 per cent of the total GCA. This crop is also grown in all the three
seasons in the state. The percentage share of area under maize is found to be a little higher for control farmers in kharif, and soil-tested farmers in rabi.
Cotton and paddy are the other important crops grown during kharif across categories. In rabi and summer, other crops like ground nut, jowar, pulses and
39
vegetables are grown after maize and hence, it represents a tiny share in the GCA. Besides, sugarcane is the main annual crop grown in these districts,
because of canal accessibility to canal water from rivers like Krishna, Malaprabha, Ghataprabha in Belgaum district, and Tungabhadra and Surekerehalla in
Davanagere district. Other perennial crops grown in the study area include areca nut, pomegranate, betel leaves and banana.
In the recent years, Indian agriculture has witnessed technological breakthrough with the introduction of High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) which have the
ability to yield three to four times more than the traditional varieties with diverse claims being made over the success of high yielding variety programmes.
There is a strong belief that the growth in fertilizer use depends on proven yield increasing technologies. The association between HYVs and fertilizer
becomes clear whenever suitable varieties are available across both the irrigated and un-irrigated areas. Therefore, an attempt was made by with this study
to understand the extent diffusion of HYVs among the farmers.
The diffusion of HYVs in respect of particular crops among paddy and maize farmers has been presented in Table 3.24. Almost a cent percent diffusion is
observed in respect of maize, cotton and jowar among both the control and soil-tested groups of paddy and maize sample farmers. Further, more than 90
per cent diffusion of HYV technology is observed in the case of paddy and more than 40 per cent in the case of sugarcane.
Table: 3.22: Cropping pattern followed by paddy growing sample households

(as % of GCA)
Season/ crops Control Farmers Soil-Tested Farmers Overall
Kharif
Paddy 45.09 45.04 45.03
Cotton 5.09 3.67 4.22
Jowar 1.84 0.27 0.89
Ragi 0.59 0.05 0.26
Sunflower 0.74 0.33 0.49
Maize 10.73 8.18 9.16
40
Vegetables 0.62 0.26 0.59
Rabi
Paddy 15.12 14.51 14.72
Cotton 0.74 3.37 2.68
Maize - 0.45 0.27
Others* 0.74 0.10 0.35
Summer
Paddy 12.56 15.40 14.40
Sunflower 0.43 0.26
Annual/Perennial
Areca nut 2.14 4.10 3.37
Betel leaves 2.14 0.25 0.25
Coconut 0.96 0.49 0.67
Sugarcane 1.62 2.00 1.85
GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00
Others include: vegetables, fruits etc.; Source: primary survey
41
Table: 3.23: Cropping pattern followed by maize growing sample households
(as % of GCA)
Season/ Crops Control farmers Soil-tested farmers Overall
Kharif
Cotton 3.12 1.64 2.19
Jowar 0.39 1.32 0.97
Ragi 0.33 0.79 0.62
Maize 66.29 52.44 57.78
Sunflower 0.11 0.33 0.24
Paddy 0.74 1.02 1.86
Pulses 0.44 0.16 0.26
Vegetables 0.69 0.53 0.58
Others* 0.23 0.33 0.28
Rabi
Cotton 1.33 0.20 0.62
Groundnut 0.56 0.03 0.23
Jowar 0.89 0.33 0.54
Maize 6.18 8.47 7.62
Others* 0.28 1.48 1.02
Summer
Groundnut 0.13 0.08
Jowar 0.22 0.86 0.62
Others* 0.00 1.61 1.01
Annual/Perennial
Areca nut 0.56 0.00 2.17
Sugarcane 14.93 16.00 15.60
Others* 0.99 0.26 0.55
42
GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00
Improving farm income is the ultimate aim of any technology or any new practice that is introduced into the farming. Many farmers are coming below the
poverty line depend mainly from-farm income for their livelihood. Since from-farm income plays an important role in the rural livelihood, it is important to
identify the factors determining from-farm income of the farmers and to find solutions for improving their income levels and enhancing future agricultural
development. Farmers income is mainly influenced by factors like the size of land holding/s, crops grown, technologies adopted, and diversification of the
cropping pattern etc,.
Table: 3.24: Area under major HYV crops
Crops Paddy sample households Maize sample households
Control Farmers
Paddy 88.65 90.67
Maize 100.00 100.00
Cotton 100.00 100.00
Jowar 100.00 100.00
Sugarcane 44.56 40.49
Soil-Tested Farmers
Paddy 98.94 97.67
Maize 100.00 100.00
Cotton 100.00 100.00
Jowar 100.00 100.00
Sugarcane 51.45 42.11
43
Table 3.25 presents the aggregate value of output of paddy farmers in the study area. It is interesting to note from the table that, the soil-tested farmers
under paddy crop category have received better returns per acre (Rs. 48,433) over control farmers (Rs. 46,755). The average per acre value of output is
found highest (Rs. 50,676) for large farmers, followed by marginal farmers (Rs. 49,785) under soil-tested category, whereas, per acre value is found
marginal (Rs. 48,586) in the case of control farmers. Surprisingly, medium farmers coming under control group have registered better returns (Rs. 47,526/
acre) vis-a-vis their counterpart (Rs. 46,720/ acre). The reason behind the highest per acre income among marginal farmers could be attributed to factors
like intensive use of fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation and efficient management of the existing (small) area of operation, while the highest possible value of
output realised by large farmers per acre from among the soil-tested farmers might be attributed to a high income from annual or perennial crops like areca
nut and sugarcane grown by them. The value of output sold per acre seems to be more in the case of soil-tested farmers as compare to control farmers
which may be due to a balanced nutrient management through application of fertilizers as per the recommendations suggested in the soil health card, at the
time of soil test.
44
Table: 3.25: Aggregate value of output paddy
Particulars Value of output Value of output sold
Rs/ household Rs/ acre Rs/ household Rs/ acre
Control Farmers
Marginal 74823 48586 65663 42638
Small 170819 44484 165775 43171
Medium 373557 47526 303138 38567
Large 826111 37826 776590 35558
Total 595943 46755 329004 36678
Soil-Tested Farmers
Marginal 93198 49785 89249 47676
Small 186001 47245 169348 43015
Medium 344004 46720 308236 41862
Large 1050643 50676 841246 40576
Total 459374 48433 360483 38791
The information on the aggregate value of output of maize farmers is presented in Table 3.26. The cropping pattern followed by maize sample farmers
mainly constitutes 50 per cent of GCA of maize, cotton, ground nut, jowar and sugarcane with their major source of irrigation being bore wells. Similar to
the paddy farmers, the average aggregate value of output per acre amounts to much more (Rs. 41,564) for soil-tested farmers than for control farmers (Rs.
33,183). On the other hand, the value of output sold amounts to less (Rs. 38,723/ acre) in respect of soil-tested farmers as compared to control farmers (Rs.
40,053/ acre). Interestingly, even the value of output across farm size groups is found better for soil-tested farmers vis-a-vis their counterparts (control
farmers). Within both the groups, large farmers have registered a higher per acre income as compared to other categories due to their commercial cropping
pattern and huge landholdings.
45
Table: 3.26: Aggregate value of maize output across farmers groups
Value of output Value of output sold
Particulars
Rs/ household Rs/ acre Rs/ household Rs/ acre
Control Farmers
Marginal 47136 25872 45636 25049
Small 147626 37889 145514 37347
Medium 279526 33800 274006 33133
Large 642602 35173 607448 33248
Total 424522 33183 407240 40053
Soil-Tested Farmers
Marginal 56100 28836 54234 27876
Small 166486 41702 150422 37679
Medium 339986 45024 307826 40766
Large 1031125 50694 987965 48573
Total 401254 41564 366380 38723
3.3.6 Details of Farm Assets Holding

46
Tables 3.27 and 3.28 depict the distribution of farm assets with respect to paddy and maize growers. The ownership of farm machineries and implements
indicates the degree of mechanization in agricultural operations. It is interesting to note that there is no significant difference found in terms of
mechanization between control and soil-tested farmers with respect to both paddy and maize sample households, irrespective of whether soil test is done or
not. Almost half of the paddy respondents have tractors, whereas, the proportion is only 20 to 22 per cent in the case of maize farmers. Similarly, more than
40 per cent of the total respondents possess animal shed/pump houses. Interestingly, more of harrows and cultivators, drip/sprinkler systems, and bullock
carts are found with maize farmers as compared to paddy farmers. Relatively, an equal number of manual/ power sprayers are owned by all households.
Looking at the possession of modern and heavy equipments by all the sample households, it is clear that farmers are coming out of the traditional practices
into mechanization as part of overcoming the problem of labour shortage.
From the tables, it is also noticed that the current financial status of paddy farmers is much better (Rs. 2.49 lakh/household) than that of maize farmers
(Rs.1.04 lakh/household). Across different groups, soil-tested farmers hold more assets worth more than what control farmers hold in both the cases (maize
& paddy), which indicates that the level of mechanization is higher in the case of soil-tested farmers than in the case of control farmers.
Table 3.27: Distribution of farm assets paddy

Control Farmers Soil-tested Farmers
Particulars Number/ Value/ Number/ Value/
Household Household Household Household
Tractor, trailer/trolley 0.46 197000 0.45 158959
Harrow and cultivator 0.36 11141 0.37 10450
Electric motor/ Diesel Engine 0.31 10592 0.45 23357
Thresher 0.01 5607 0.01 9090
Planker 0.02 285 0.02 106
Manual/ power sprayer 0.31 632 0.49 1493
47
Fodder chopper 0.01 93 0.03 265
Bullock cart 0.13 4295 0.19 5238
Drip/ sprinkler system 0.05 7827 0.13 15796
Animal shed/ pump house 0.41 19327 0.43 24777
Total 2.07 256799 2.57 249531
Table 3.28: Distribution of farm assets maize
Control Farmers Soil-tested Farmers

Particulars Number/ Value/ Number/ Value/
Household Household Household Household
Thresher 0.04 1926 0.02 10644
Planker 0.05 495 0.05 245
Manual/ power sprayer 0.34 494 0.48 1295
Fodder chopper 0.01 64 0.04 690
Bullock cart 0.39 9940 0.36 11987
Drip/ sprinkler system 0.25 5215 0.26 11745
Animal shed/ pump house 0.48 14724 0.44 21403
Total 2.52 104290 2.78 136166
48
3.3.7 Details of Agricultural Credit Outstanding
Credit plays an important role in managing agricultural production. Availability and access to an adequate, timely and low-cost credit from institutional
sources is of great importance to the farming community. Because of lack of availability of credit from institutional sources, most farmers tend to depend
on non-institutional sources. The details of agricultural credit availed of present outstanding position and the purpose/s behind of loan availed of etc., of by
the sample households are presented in Tables 3.29 and 3.30.
Table 3.29: The status of Agricultural credit outstanding with respect to paddy sample households
(Rs/Household)
Control Farmers Soil-Tested Farmers
Sources % farmers Rs/ % farmers Rs/
availed of credit Household availed of credit Household
Co-operative Credit
46.73 70551 55.07 70473
Societies
Land Development Banks
3.74 122500 5.80 98375
(PCARDB)
Commercial Banks 26.17 122429 34.78 222041
RRBs 11.21 46308 16.67 151434
Money Lenders 9.35 115000 4.35 181666
Friends/Relatives 0.93 30000 0.72 60000
Traders/Commission
1.87 55000 2.17 150000
Agents
Total 561787 933991
Note: Soil-tested Farmers- 89.61%, availed of credit from different sources from among the total sample Control Farmers-85.04%, availed of credit from different sources from among
the total sample; Source: primary survey
49
It can be observed from Table 3.29 and Table 3.30 that, the cooperative credit societies, commercial banks and Regional Rural Banks (RRBs) are the major
institutional sources of finance for the farming community in the study area. About 80 per cent plus of the sample households are found to have availed of
loans for different agricultural purposes out of the total households selected for the study. As shown in the tables, the co-operative credit societies are the
major sources of credit for more than 47 per cent of the farmers in respect of both the control and soil-tested groups, followed by commercial banks and
RRBs. But, the amount of money borrowed from commercial banks is found to be more as compared to borrowing from other sources, which shows that,
though there is a good accessibility to credit from co-operative societies at attractive lower interest rates, it is not sufficient to meet the credit requirement
of the farmers. Therefore, farmers have tended to choose commercial banks for larger borrowings at a higher interest rates.
Interestingly, the outstanding credit amount is found to be higher (Rs. 9.21 lakh/household) for soil-tested farmers than for control farmers (Rs. 8.74
lakh/household) from amongst both paddy and maize growers. And about four to 17 per cent of the farmers also are found to have availed of loans from
moneylenders, although they charge huge interest rates, while about two per cent of the farmers are observed to have depended on their friends & relatives
for credit.
Table 3.30: The status of agricultural credit outstanding in respect of maize sample households
(Rs/ Household)
Control farmers Soil-tested farmers
Sources % farmers Rs/ % farmers Rs/
availed of credit Household availed of credit Household
Co-operative Credit
59.09 71413 59.54 90820
Societies
Land Development Banks
5.68 226000 9.16 125166
(PCARDB)
Commercial Banks 29.55 228269 39.69 249384
RRBs 11.36 146500 11.45 52400
50
Money Lenders 17.05 82333 5.34 178571
Friends/Relatives 1.14 20000 1.53 112500
Traders/Commission
1.14 100000 1.53 112500
Agents
Total 874516 921343
Note: Soil-tested Farmers- 80.73 percent availed of credit from different sources from among the total sample; Control Farmers-84.41 percent availed of credit from different sources
from among the total sample; Source: primary survey
The purposes for which agricultural loans were availed of by farmers are presented in Tables 3.31 and 3.32. It can be seen from Table 3.31 that nearly 95
per cent of paddy famers availed of loans for meeting crop production requirements. Some famers also are found to have availed of loans for purchase of
tractors and implements, as also for land developmental activities. In the case of maize farmers, nearly 85 per cent of them availed of loans for seasonal
crop cultivation. Purchase of tractors and other implements, followed by land developmental activities were the next immediate reasons behind availing of
loans from all available sources. As compared to paddy farmers, maize farmers are observed to have depended more on non-institutional sources for
purposes such as conducting marriage and social ceremonies. Interestingly, a few farmers also are observed to have taken loans for certain Non-
Agricultural Activities.
Table 3.31: Purposes underlying the availing of agricultural loans - paddy farmers
(as % of farmers)
Purpose Control farmers Soil-tested farmers
Seasonal Crop Cultivation 97.78 95.45
Purchase of Tractor and Other Implements 4.44 4.55
Purchase of livestock 1.11 0.65
Land development 1.11 5.84
51
Consumption Expenditure - -
Marriage and Social ceremonies - 0.65
Nonfarm Activities - -
Other expenditures - 10.39
Table 3.32: Purposes underlying the availing of agricultural loans - maize farmers
(as % of farmers)
Purpose Control farmers Soil-tested farmers
Seasonal Crop Cultivation 85.32 89.68
Purchase of Tractor and Other Implements 4.59 9.03
Purchase of livestock 0.92 0.65
Land development 3.67 3.23
Consumption Expenditure 0.92 0.65
Marriage and Social ceremonies 1.83 1.94
Nonfarm Activities - 1.29
Other expenditures 0.92 0.65
3.4. MADHYA PRADESH
52
3.4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the sample respondents
The socio-economic characteristics of the soil-tested and control farmers based on variables such as age, years of education, main
occupation, land holding size gender, average size of family, number of family members engaged in agriculture, experience in farming, caste,
etc., are presented in Tables 3.33 and 3.34, respectively. It is observed from the table that about 10, 23, 24 and 43 per cent of the soil-tested
farmers belong to marginal, small, medium and large farmer categories, respectively. A majority (91%) of the soil-tested farmers are males
with an average age of 46 years. On an average, soil-tested farmer HHs have six members each of which, two are engaged in agriculture with
an experience of 25 years in farming. Out of the total respondents, a majority of the soil-tested farmers belong to OBC category (61.3%),
followed by General (24.9 %) and SC categories (13.8%).
About 38.4 per cent of the soil-tested farmers are members of associations such as cooperative societies, self-help groups etc. All these socio
economic characteristics are found to be similar in respect of all the categories of farmers with minor variations, excepting proportion of
farmers being members of any association. As regards membership with any organization, a higher number of large farmers (51.5%) are
found to be the members of one or the other organization followed by medium (42.6%), small (32%) and marginal (28%) categories of
farmers.
Coming to the socio-economic characteristics of control farmers, about 10, 28, 36 and 27 percent are found to be from marginal, small,
medium and large size of land holdings, respectively. Further, all the respondents are males with agriculture as their main occupation (Table
3.34). The average age of the households is found to be 46 years, while the average family size and the number of family members engaged
in agriculture are found to be five and three, respectively.
53
On an average, control farmers have an experience of 24 years in agriculture and about 29 per cent of them are members of one or the other
association. Further, large member farmers (34.4%) are found to be members of any of the associations followed by marginal (16.7%), small
(33.3%) and medium (30.2%) farmers. Coming to the caste structure of control farmers, a majority of them are belong to OBC (61%),
followed by SC (19.6%), General (16.6%) and ST (2.7%) categories. The socio-economic characteristics are found to be similar across farm
size with minor variations.
Table 3.33: Socio-economic characteristics of the sample households- soil-tested farmers of both maize & soybean
Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
Percent of farmer households 10.40 22.50 24.20 42.90 100.00
Average age of respondents (years) 46 48 44 44 46
Average years of respondent
2 3 2 3 3
education
Agriculture as main occupation (%
100 100 100 99 100
of respondents)
Gender
Male (% of respondents) 88.00 88.90 91.40 97.10 91.30
Female (% of respondents) 12.00 11.10 8.60 2.90 8.70
Average of family size 6 6 6 7 6

Average number of people engaged
2 2 2 3 2
in agriculture
Average years of experience in
25 28 23 23 25
farming
Percent of farmers being member/s
32.00 42.60 27.60 51.50 38.40
of any association
54
SC 20.00 18.50 13.80 2.90 13.80
ST - - - - -
OBC 56.00 57.40 56.90 74.80 61.30

General 24.00 24.10 29.30 22.30 24.90
Table 3.34: Socio-economic characteristics of the sample households of maize & soybean - control farmers.
Percent of farmer households 10.00 27.50 35.80 26.70 100
Average years of respondent education 2 2 3 3 2
Agriculture as main occupation (% of
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
respondents)
Gender
Female (% of respondents) - - - - -
Average number of people engaged in
3 2 2 3 3
agriculture
Average years of experience in farming 23 25 25 23 24
Percent of farmers being members of 16.70 33.30 30.20 34.40 28.70
55
any association
SC 41.70 18.20 9.30 9.40 19.60
ST - 3.00 4.70 3.10 2.70
OBC 58.30 60.60 72.10 53.10 61.00
General - 18.20 14.00 34.40 16.60
3.4.2 Operational Land Holdings
The operational land holdings of the different categories of soil-tested and control farmers and cropping intensity are presented in Tables 3.35
and 3.36, respectively. It is observed from the table that, soil-tested farmers hold on an average 8.7 acres of land, including 1.3 (0.11%) and
0.3 acres (0.02%) of leased in and uncultivated/ fallow land. However, about 99 per cent of the net operated area is found utilized for
cultivation twice in a year and hence, the cropping intensity of the farm works out to 199 per cent. The average marginal, small, medium and
large soil-tested farmers are found operating 2.1, 3.9, 7.0 and 16.7 acres of land, of which, leased-in land seems to be very negligible.
However, the average cropping intensity amounts to for almost 200 per cent across all categories of farmers. Interestingly, leased-out land is
absent across all categories of farmers.
Table 3.35: Operational landholding size of the sample households - soil-tested farmers
( Acre/ Household)
Own land 2.10 3.90 7.00 16.70 7.40
Leased-in - 0.10 1.00 3.90 1.30
Uncultivated/Fallow - 0.30 0.60 0.10 0.30
Net operated area 2.10 4.00 8.00 20.60 8.70
Net irrigated area 2.10 3.90 7.70 19.40 8.30
56
Net un-Irrigated area - - 0.30 2.30 0.70
Gross cropped area 4.20 8.00 15.90 40.90 17.30
Cropping intensity (%) 200 200 199 198 199
Table 3.36: Operational landholding size of the sample households - control farmers
( Acre/ Household)
Own land 1.80 3.80 7 16.50 7.30
Leased-in - 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.30
Leased-out - - - - -
Uncultivated/Fallow - - - - -
Net operated area 1.80 4.10 7.40 17 7.50
Net irrigated area 1.80 4 7.30 15.90 7.20
Net un-Irrigated area - - 0.10 0.20 0.10
Gross cropped area 3.60 8.10 14.50 33.20 14.80
Cropping intensity (%) 200 199 197 196 198
With regard to control category farmers on an average, households operate 7.5 acres of land for cultivation of crops, of which, 0.3 acre is
leased-in. The average marginal, small, medium and large control farmers operate 1.8, 3.8, 7.0 and 16.5 acres of land, with zero, 0.2, 0.3 and
0.5 acres of leased-in land (Table 3.36). Relatively, the average cropping intensity of these farms amounts to around 200 per cent.
3.4.3 Sources of Irrigation

57
The details of sources of irrigation of sample respondents are presented in Tables 3.37 and 3.38. The major sources of irrigation for both the
soil-tested and control farmers in the study area include dug wells, bore wells, canal/s, rivers, ponds and others. A majority of the soil-tested
farmers are dependent on bore wells (49.8%) followed by open/dug wells (28%), canal (15%), river/ponds and others (7%) for irrigating
crops in the study area (Table 3.37).
Table 3.37: Sources of irrigation - soil-tested farmers

Open/ dug wells 16.30 30.00 40.30 25.80 28.10
Bore wells 63.50 53.00 37.00 45.70 49.80
Canal/s 12.50 9.90 15.90 20.30 14.70
Rivers/Ponds and Others 7.70 7.10 6.80 8.10 7.40
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
In the case of control farmers, a majority of them are dependent on bore wells (39.6%), followed by open/dug wells (35.8%), canals (21.1%)
and others (3.5%) (Table 3.38). These figures are found to be similar across different size class of farms with minor variations in respect of
soil-tested/control farmers.
58
Table 3.38: Sources of irrigation - control farmers
Open/ dug wells 32.60 44.80 30.50 35.30 35.80
Bore wells 48.80 28.70 40.00 40.70 39.60
Canal/s 18.60 22.60 22.80 20.60 21.10
River/Ponds and Others _ 3.90 6.70 3.40 3.50
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
The cropping pattern followed by soil-tested and control farmers are presented in Tables 3.39 and 3.40, respectively. As can be observed from
the table, soybean and wheat are the main crops grown in kharif and Rabi seasons by a majority of the soil-tested and control farmers in the
study area.
Table 3.39: Cropping pattern followed by the sample households - soil-tested farmers
(as % of GCA)
59
Kharif
Soybean 47.10 39.80 44.00 42.00 43.20
Paddy 2.90 10.20 5.80 7.70 6.70
Rabi
Wheat 46.20 43.50 43.70 38.60 43.00
Gram 3.80 4.60 4.10 9.30 5.50
Lentil - - 1.00 0.80 0.50
Summer
Other - 1.90 1.40 1.70 1.30
GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
They are found to have allocated approximately half of the gross cropped area to the cultivation of these crops. Across all categories of
farmers from both the soil-tested and control farmer groups, less than two percent of the gross cropped area is found to have been devoted to the
cultivation of vegetables etc., in summer.
Table 3.40: Cropping pattern followed by the sample households - control farmers
(as % of GCA)
Particular Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
Kharif
Soybean 38.40 43.500 45.20 48.2 43.80
Paddy 11.60 6.60 5.00 2.50 6.40
Rabi
Wheat 50.00 43.30 40.50 34.10 42.00
Gram - 4.30 6.80 11.70 5.70
Lentil - 0.80 - 0.90 0.40
Summer
60
Other - 1.50 2.50 2.60 1.70
GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
The area under High Yielding Varieties (HYV) of major crops across different farmers groups and the seed replacement rate of soil-tested
and control farmers are presented in Tables 3.41 and 3.42, respectively.
Table 3.41: Area under major HYV crops across different farm groups - soil-tested farmers
Soybean 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Paddy 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Wheat 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Gram 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Lentil - - 100.00 100.00 100.00
* Seed replacement rate (%): Soyben-19.37, Wheat-13.62, Paddy-11.05, Gram-4.91 and Lentil-0.73
Source: www.mpkrishi.org (compendium 2008-09)
It is observed from the table that, all respondents from both the soil-tested and control farmers groups are found to have used HYV seeds of
major crops, with the seed replacement rate of these crops varying between 0.73 percent with regard to lentil and 19.37 per cent in the case of
soybean.
61
Table 3.42: Area under major HYV crops across different farm size groups- control farmers
Soybean 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Paddy 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Wheat 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Gram - 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Lentil - 100.00 - 100.00 100.00
* Seed replacement rate (%): Soyben-19.37, Wheat-13.62, Paddy-11.05, Gram-4.91 and Lentil-0.73;
Source: www.mpkrishi.org (compendium 2008-09); Source: primary survey
3.4.6 Value of Crop Output
With regard to the details of value of output of major crops grown by the respondents, on an average, soil-tested farmers have received Rs.
10,094/acre and sold an output worth Rs. 8240/acre (81.6%) in the market (Table 3.43), while, an average control farmer has received
Rs.7688/acre and sold 78 per cent (Rs. 5997/ acre) of output in the market (Table 3.44).
Table 3.43: Aggregate value of crop output- soil-tested farmers.

Particular
Rs./ household Rs./ acre Rs./ household Rs./ acre
Marginal 19633 9439 14966 7195
Small 41574 10341 33995 8456
Medium 84082 10522 67056 8391
62
Large 207846 10072 183999 8916
Overall Average 88284 10094 75004 8240
Table 3.44: Aggregate value of crop output- control farmers

Particular
Rs./ household Rs./ acre Rs./ household Rs./ acre
Marginal 10357 5781 7384 4121
Small 39644 9767 29709 7319
Medium 52623 7144 42340 5748
Large 136744 8059 115356 6798
Overall Average 59842 7688 48697 5997
3.4.7 Farm Assets held by Sample Respondents

The distribution of farm assets across both the soil-tested and control farmers is presented in Table 3.45. The farm assets of these farmers
include number and value of tractor trolleys, animal shed/pump house, electric motor/ diesel engine, harrow and cultivator, thresher, bullock
cart, manual/ power sprayer, drip/sprinkler and small tools. The total value of these farm assets is found to be more for soil-tested farmers
(Rs.2, 24,399/ household) than for control farmers (Rs.1,31,663/ household).
Table 3.45: Distribution of farm assets across sample respondent HHs

Particulars Soil-Tested Farmers Control Farmers
63
Number/ Value/ Number/ Value/
household household household household
Thresher 0.20 11702 0.30 6392
Manual/power sprayer 1.20 2016 1.00 1029
Bullock cart 0.10 3542 0.20 3983
Drip/sprinkler system 0.10 1650 0.10 942
Small tools (spade, hoe, sickle etc.) 6.40 1561 5.60 1521
Animal shed/pump house 0.80 40083 0.90 26508
Others 0.30 3039 0.30 1725
Total 224399 131663
Amongst the different farm assets used by the sample households under both the soil-tested and control farmer groups, the value of tractor
trolley is found to be higher, followed by animal shed/pump house, electric motor/ diesel engine, harrow and cultivator, thresher, bullock cart,
manual/ power sprayer, drip/sprinkler and small tools (Table 3.45).
3.4.8 Agricultural Credit Outstanding

The agriculture credit outstanding in respect of soil-tested and control farmers with different sources of finance are presented in Tables 3.46
and 3.47 respectively. The Co-operative Credit Societies, Land Development Banks, Commercial Banks and Regional Rural Banks, Money
lenders, friends/ Relatives and Traders are the major sources of finance in the study area, in the order of their importance. It is observed from
64
the table that, on an average soil-tested farmers (Rs.79, 363/ household), are found with more outstanding credit as compared to control
farmers (Rs.36,887/ household). As per their importance and distribution of finance, the agricultural credit outstanding appears to be
maximum in the case of Co-operative Credit Societies, followed by Commercial Banks and Regional Rural Banks, Land Development Banks
and Others. Out of the total sample farmers, a majority of 73 and 66 per cent of the soil-tested and control farmers are found to have availed
of credit facilities from banks. The Co-operative Credit Societies followed by the Commercial banks, RRBs and other informative sources
are found to be the sources of credit for farmers.
65
Table 3.46: Agricultural credit outstanding in respect of the sample households - soil-tested farmers
(Rs/ Household)
Co-operative Credit 24000 20889 25948 36408 26811

Societies (36.00) (31.48) (34.48) (30.10) (32.08)
862 3883 1186
Land development banks - -
(1.72) (0.97) (0.83)
20800 13241 19741 50049 25958
Commercial banks
(20.00) (20.37) (17.24) (30.10) (23.75)
12000 12037 27414 32039 20872
RRBs
(4.00) (12.96) (12.07) (13.59) (12.08)
926 12069 5146 4535
Others -
(1.85) (6.90) (3.88) (4.17)
56800 47093 86034 127524 79363
Total
(64.00) (66.67) (72.41) (78.64) (72.92)
Figures in parentheses show the percentage of farmers who have availed of credit facilities. Source: primary survey
Table 3.47: Agricultural credit outstanding in respect of the sample households - control farmers
(Rs/ Household)
Co-operative Credit 14000 15296 15000 18515 15703
Societies (33.33) (30.30) (16.28) (37.50) (27.50)
3448 2913 1590
Land development banks - -
(2.33) (0.00) (0.83)
66
2000 8241 22414 17476 12533
Commercial banks
(25.00) (18.18) (20.93) (21.88) (20.83)
9483 3981 3366
RRBs - -
(13.95) (18.75) (13.33)
1852 12931 3696
Others - -
(3.03) (6.98) (3.33)
16000 25389 63276 39972 36887
Total
(58.33) (63.64) (60.47) (78.13) (65.83)
3.4.9 Purposes underlying Agricultural Loans Availed of
The purposes for which agricultural loans were availed of by the soil-tested and control farmers are presented in Tables 3.48 and 3.49, respectively. It is
observed from the Table that about 70 per cent of the soil-tested (Table 3.48) and 65 per cent of control farmers (Table 3.49) have availed of agricultural
loans for seasonal crop cultivation, followed by purchase of tractors and other implements.
Table 3.48: Purposes underlying agricultural loans availed of by the soil-tested farmers
(% of farmers)
Seasonal crop cultivation 64.00 65.00 660.00 70.00 66.00

Purchase of tractor and other implements - - 6.90 8.70 3.90
Purchase of livestock - 1.90 - - 0.50
Overall 64.00 66.90 72.90 78.70 70.40
67
Table 3.49: Purposes underlying agricultural loans availed of by the soil control farmers
(% farmers)
Seasonal crop cultivation 50.00 64.00 60.00 78.00 63.00
Purchase of tractor and other implements 8.00 - - - 2.00
Overall 58.00 64.00 60.00 78.00 65.00
3.5. UTTAR PRADESH
3.5.1. Socio-economic characteristics of the sample households
The socio-economic characteristics of the sample households related to soil-tested farmers analyzed in Table 3.50 indicates that out of the total sample of
soil-tested farmers, nearly 58 per cent are marginal, 23 per cent are small, 16 per cent are medium and only three per cent are large farmers.
The overall average age of the sample soil-tested farmers works out to around 48 years (varies between 47 and 58 years). On an average,
the respondents are H.S. (Secondary) educated (9 years of schooling). As per about 91 per cent of the respondents, agriculture is their main
occupation, but as per 97 per cent of the marginal farmers, 86 per cent of the small farmers, 79 per cent of the medium farmers and 71 per
cent of the large farmers, agriculture is their main occupation. Thus, agriculture constitutes the main occupation of a majority of the soil-
tested farmers. Out of the total sample, nearly 95 per cent are males, but numbers of female respondents are found among medium and
marginal farmers. On an average, the family size works out to seven members, with the average number of members engaged in agriculture
68
per HHs being two in respect of almost all the categories of soil-tested farmers with an experience of 22 years in farming. In addition, about
22 per cent of the farmers are members of one or the other association. In terms of category-wise distribution of the sample soil-tested
farmers, the maximum n u m b e r s a r e f o u n d u n d e r OBCs, followed by 29 per cent under SCs and 27 per cent under general castes
and STs.
Table 3.50: Socio-economic characteristics of the sample households-soil-tested farmers
Particulars Margin Small Medium Large Total
percent of farmer households 58.00 23.00 16.00 3.00 100.00
Average years of respondent education 9 9 10 11 9
Agriculture as main occupation
( % of respondents) 97.00 86.00 79.00 71.00 91.00
Gender
Female (% of respondents) 6.00 4.00 8.00 0.00 5.00
Average number of Members engaged
in agriculture/HHs 2 2 2 2 2
Average years of experience in farming 21 25 20 33 22
Percent of farmers being members of
any association 8.69 30.35 48.72 57.14 21.67
SC 37.68 16.07 25.64 0 29.58
ST 0 0 0 0 0
OBC 42.76 57.14 30.77 28.57 43.75
General 19.56 26.79 43.59 41.43 26.67
69
The socio-economic characteristics of control farmers are presented in Table 3.51. The table reveals that, out of the total control farmers, a majority
(60%) are marginal farmers, followed by small farmers (22 %), medium farmers (14 %) large farmers (only 4 %). The average age of these respondents
works out to 52 years with an average seven years of schooling (secondary education). Agriculture is the main occupation for about 92 per cent of the
control farmers. The gender-wise distribution of the respondents indicates that, on the whole, nearly 96 per cent of the respondents are males and
interestingly, in the case of medium and large farmers, cent per cent of the respondents are female only. On an average, the family size averages 9
members of which, two per household are engaged in agriculture with a farming experience of 21 years. About 19 per cent of them are members of any of
the associations. An analysis of the distribution of respondents based on their castes shows that a majority of them (45%) belong to OBCs, while 28 per
cent are SCs, 25 per cent are from general castes and the least (<2%) are STs. in the area under the study. The distribution across different categories of
farmers shows that OBCs are maximum in small and medium categories, SCs are maximum in numbers among marginal and medium categories and
others are maximum in numbers under general caste category belonging to large farmer category. The related details are given in Table 3.50.
70
Table 3.51: Socio-economic characteristics of the sample households- c o n t r o l farmers
Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Total
% of farmer households 60.00 22.00 14.00 4.00 100.00
Average age of respondent
(years) 47 48 52 59 52
Average years of respondent
education 8 10 10 9 7
Agriculture as main
occupation (% of respondents) 89.00 96.00 94.00 100.00 92.00
Gender
Female (% of respondents) 5.56 3.85 - - 4.17
Average number of members
engaged in agriculture 2 2 2 2 2
Average years of experience in
farming 20 21 23 26 21
% of farmers being members
of any association 8.00 19.00 47.00 80.00 19.00
SC 36.11 11.54 29.81 - 28.33
ST 2.78 - - - 1.67
OBC 40.28 53.85 52.94 40.00 45.00
71
General 20.83 34.61 17.65 60.00 25.00
3.5.2 Operational landholding size of the sample farmers

The operational land holdings of the sample soil-tested farmers are presented worked-out in Table 3.52. It is evident from the table that, on an average,
own land per household comes to 3.43 acres, while the average leased-in land per household works out to only 0.05 acre, which shows that the practice of
leasing-in land is not common in the area under study. On the other side the area leased-out, uncultivated and fallow land are found to be nil. Thus, while
the net operated area per household amounts to 3.48 acres, it varies from 1.36 acre in the case of marginal farmers to 15.23 acres with respect to large
farmers. The total operated area (100%) is reported to have been brought under irrigation by soil-tested farmers.
The operational landholdings of the sample non-soil-tested farmers are presented in Table 3.53. It is revealed from the table that, on an average, own land
per household comes to 3.36 acres, while the average leased-in land per household to 0.20 acre. Interestingly, the area leased-out and uncultivated area is
found to be nil. Thus, while the net operated area per household amounts to 3.56 acres, it varies which varied from 1.49 acres with regard to marginal
category of farmers to 15.75 acres in the case of large category of farmers.
Table: 3.52 Operational landholding of the sample households - soil-tested farmers

( Acre / household)
Own land 1.36 3.91 7.23 15.23 3.43
Leased-in - 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.05
72
Table 3.53: Operational landholdings of the sample households - non-soil-tested farmers

(Acre / Household)
Own land 1.49 4.19 7.23 12.75 3.36
Leased-in - - 0.51 3.00 0.20
3.5.3. Sources of irrigation for soil-tested farmers

The source-wise irrigated area in respect of soil-tested farmers is presented in Table 3.54. It is observed that, on an average, 78.71 per cent of the sample
area is irrigated by bore-wells varying from 82.73 per cent in the case of marginal farmer category to 53.11 per cent in the case of large farmer category.
Thus, bore-wells constitute the major source of irrigation for marginal and small farmers rather than for large farmers. Next to bore wells, canal
irrigation accounts for about 21.29 per cent of the sample area, where a majority of the large farmers (46.89%) depend upon this source as the major
sources of irrigation. There are no other sources of irrigation, as reported by the sample farmers in the study area.
Table 3.54: Source of irrigation for soil-tested farmers

Bore wells 82.73 86.30 79.23 53.11 78.71
Canal/s 17.27 13.70 20.77 46.89 21.29
73
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
The sources of irrigation for non-soil-tested farmers are shown in Ta b l e 3.55. It is noticed that, as in the case of soil-tested farmers, nearly 89 per cent
of the operated area of the non-soil-tested farmers also is dependent on bore wells, while the rest of the area (14%) is irrigated by canals in the study
area. As expected, a higher, proportion of area cultivated by large farmers is covered by bore well irrigation only, while canal irrigation is used more by
marginal and small farmers. No other sources of irrigation are reported by the sample farmers.
Table 3.55: Sources of irrigation for non-soil-tested farmers

Bore wells 78.46 83.36 95.25 100.00 89.27
Canal/s 21.54 16.64 4.75 - 14.31
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
3.5.4. Cropping pattern followed by the soil-tested farmers households
The cropping pattern followed by the sample households related to the soil-tested farmers is presented in Table 3.56. It can be observed from the table
that, a much of the gross cropped area (49%) is under wheat in rabi season, followed by 46 per cent of area under paddy in kharif season and the rest i.e.,
other pulses and vegetables. The area under sugarcane as an annual crop amounts to 1.22 per cent of GCA with respect to marginal farmers. A similar
cropping pattern is followed across categories of farmers in the area under study. The area under sugarcane appears to be highest among the large
74
category of farmers as compared to other categories. With this, we can conclude that paddy and wheat are the major crops grown by the soil-tested
farmers in the study area.
Table 3.56: Cropping pattern followed by the sample households- soil-tested farmers
(as % of GCA)
Season/crop Marginal Small Medium Large
Kharif
Paddy 45.85 43.10 39.39 41.90
Others 2.86 3.12 1.49 1.46
Rabi
Wheat 49.23 44.16 39.66 41.23
Others 0.43 1.93 1.23 2.13
Summer 0.41 - 2.58 -
Annual/perennial
Sugarcane 1.22 7.69 15.65 13.28
GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
The cropping pattern followed by the sample households in the case of non-soil-tested farmers is shown in Table 3.57. Like in the case of soil-tested
farmers, much of the gross cropped area (49%) is under wheat only, especially during rabi season, whereas, during kharif season a large proportion of
area (47%) is cultivated under paddy and a very meager proportion (about 1%) under other crops. On the other side, marginal farmers from among the
75
non-soil-tested farmers are found to have brought, about three per cent of the gross cropped area under sugarcane. Thus, marginal farmers grow more of
paddy in kharif and wheat in rabi. Similarly small, medium and large farmers under the group of non-soil-tested farmers have brought maximum area
under paddy in kharif and wheat in rabi season. As usual, larger farmers have covered a larger area under sugarcane in the study area.
Table 3.57: Cropping pattern followed by the sample households- non-soil-tested farmers
(As % of GCA)
Season/crop Marginal Small Medium Large
Kharif
Paddy 47.47 44.58 38.05 41.96
Others 1.07 0.94 1.92 1.79
Rabi
Wheat 48.55 44.91 39.16 41.96
Others 0.00 0.32 0.82 1.79
Summer 0.36 0.00 2.20 0.05
Annual/perennial
Sugarcane 2.55 9.25 17.85 12.50
GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
3.5.5. Area under major HYV crops

The area brought under major HYV crops by the sample soil-tested as well as non-soil-tested farmers is presented in Table 3.58. It is observed from the
table that, on an average, 28 per cent of the area has been brought under HYV paddy by the soil-tested farmers, whereas, this share is about 44 per cent in
the case of HYV wheat crop. The area under HYV paddy varies from 28.15 per cent in respect of marginal farmers to 35.92 per cent in the case of large
76
farmers coming under soil-tested category, while, the area under HYV wheat varies from 39.65 per cent in respect of medium farmers to 49.24 per cent
with respect to marginal farmers.
In the case of non-soil-tested farmers, the area under HYV paddy amounts to only 12.79 per cent of GCA whereas, it is 22.06 per cent with regard to
HYV wheat. Across categories of farmers and paddy crop, the proportion varies from 7.65 per cent for small farmers to 23.24 per cent in the case of
large farmers. Similarly, with regard to wheat, the proportion varies from 17.55 per cent in respect of medium farmers to 31.21 per cent in the case of
large farmers. Thus, the area under HYVs is reported to be higher for wheat crop as compared to paddy.

(as % of GCA)
Crop name Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
Soil-tested-Farmers
Paddy 28.15 24.52 28.14 35.92 28.11
Wheat 49.24 44.16 39.65 41.24 43.71
Non-Soil-tested farmers
Paddy 13.70 7.65 12.38 23.24 12.79
Wheat 24.10 21.34 17.55 31.21 22.06
3.5.6. Aggregate Value of Crop Output

The aggregate value of crop output realized by the sample farmers is illustrated in Table 3.59. It can be noticed from the table that on an average, the
value of output per household from crop production amounts to Rs. 1,63,663 in the case of soil-tested farmers. However, the output value varies from Rs.
77
67,885 in the case of marginal households to as high as Rs. 6,89,280 with regard to large farmers. The average per acre output value from crop
production amounts to Rs. 47,051, while it amounts to Rs. 52,817 (Maximum) in the case of medium households as against Rs. 43,443 (Minimum) with
regard to marginal households. Thus, per household output value from crop production is found highest with respect to large farmer households but,
when it comes to per unit area (acre), the output production is found highest in the case of medium farmers within the soil-tested farmer group, which
reiterates that medium soil-tested farmers are more productive than other farmer categories in the study area. Accordingly, while the average value of
output sold by per household amounts to Rs. 1,38,217 in the case of soil-tested farmers, it varies from Rs.51396 in the case of marginal households to
Rs. 6,52,839 in respect of large households. Interestingly, the per acre value of output sold works out to Rs. 39,736 overall, whereas, per acre output sold
seems to be highest (Rs.45,352) for medium farmers, and lowest (Rs. 32,891 per acre) in the case of marginal farmers. Thus, medium farmers earn
higher returns as compared to farmers belonging to other categories.
As regards non-soil-tested farmers, the value of crop output received per household amounts to Rs. 1,50,916 at the aggregate; however, it varies from Rs.
61,557 with respect to marginal households to Rs. 5,93,434 with regard to large households. The per acre value of output from crop production averages
to Rs. 42,442, while, varies from Rs. 37,678 (lowest) in the case of marginal farmers to Rs. 46,426 (highest) with regard to medium farmers. The per
acre value is found higher among medium farmers as against lowest in the case of large farmers. Thus, it is evidently clear that medium non-soil-tested
farmers are more productive in the area under study. Accordingly, the average value of crop output sold per household amounts to Rs. 1,28,761; however,
it varies from Rs. 44,953 in the case of marginal households to Rs. 5,48,110 with respect to large households. On the other hand, per acre value of output
sold works out to Rs. 36,211 at the aggregate, but it varies from Rs. 30,122 in respect of marginal households to Rs. 42,657 in the case of medium
households. Thus, medium farmers are found to be more efficient in generating a better income and profit across non-soil-tested farmers.
78
Value of Output Received Value of Output Sold
Particulars
Rs / Rs / Rs / Rs /
Household acre Household acre
Soil-tested Farmers
Marginal 67885 43443 51396 32891
Small 177139 44009 151547 37651
Medium 388882 52817 333918 45352
Large 689280 45250 652839 42857
Overall 163663 47051 138217 39736
Non-Soil-tested Farmers
Marginal 61557 41248 44953 30122
Small 176907 42248 148434 35448
Medium 359474 46426 330289 42657
Large 593434 37678 548110 34801
Overall 150916 42442 128761 36211
3.5.7. Distribution of Farm Assets

The distribution of farm assets across soil-tested farmers and non-soil-tested farmers is presented in Table 3.60. It is very clear from the table that, the
average value of farm assets per household in the case of soil-tested farmers works out to Rs. 4,51,303. The valuable assets possessed by farmers include
tractors with trolleys, harrows and cultivators, electric and diesel motors and threshers in the case of soil-tested group, while with regard to non-soil-
tested farmers, the average value of farm assets amounts to Rs. 3,65,642. The most valuable farm assets held by these farmers include tractors with
79
trolleys, harrows and cultivators, electric /diesel engines and threshers. Thus, it can be concluded that the farm assets owned by the soil-tested farmers
are comparatively more valuable than those held by non-soil-tested farmers.
Table 3.60: Distribution of farm assets

(Rs/ Household)
Soil-tested Farmers Non-Soil-tested Farmers
Particulars
Numbers / Value/ Numbers / Value/
household household household household
Tractor, trailer/ trolley 1 337566 1 287250
Engine 1 26250 1 27313
Thresher 1 22768 1 9950
Manual/ power sprayer 1 743 1 731
Fodder chopper 1 2650 1 2153
Bullock cart 1 23333 - -
Small tools (spade,
hoe, sickle etc.) 6 185 3 183
Animal shed/ pump
house 1 9808 1 8062
Total 14 451303 10 365642
3.5.8. Agricultural Credit-Outstanding

The agricultural credit outstanding in respect of the sample soil-tested farmers is shown in Table 3.61. Overall, the agricultural credit outstanding per
80
sample soil-tested farmer works out to Rs. 67,357, while it is as high as Rs. 1,56,667 per household in respect of large farmers, followed by Rs.73750
in the case of medium farmers, Rs.36500 with regard to small farmers and Rs.21000 per household as regards marginal farmers. Thus, it is understood
that larger farmers accounts for higher amount of outstanding credit in comparison to all other categories of farmers. On the other hand, a majority of
the sample soil-tested farmers are found to have availed of agricultural credit from commercial banks and RRBs only. Interestingly, none of the soil-
tested farmers have opted for informal sources for their credit requirements.
Table 3.61: Agricultural credit-outstanding in respect of soil-tested farmers

(Rs/ Household)
Sources Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Commercial banks 12500 36500 88333 156667 83300
RRBs 26667 0 30000 0 27500
Total Credit Availed 21000 36500 73750 156667 67357
The agricultural credit outstanding in respect of non-soil-tested farmers is presented in Table 3.62. It is observed from the table that, the average
outstanding agricultural credit per household amounts to Rs. 42,143 at the aggregate; however, it varies in the range of Rs. 20,000 per household in the
case of marginal households to Rs.1,00,000 per household with regard to large households. On the other hand, as in the case of soil-tested farmers,
almost all the non-soil-tested farmers also have availed of agricultural credit only from institutional sources such as commercial banks and RRBs. The
average amount of credit availed of from the commercial banks a mo un ts to Rs.58,750 per household. With this, we can conclude that, like soil-test
farmers, non-soil-tested farmers have also taken major agricultural credit from commercial banks followed by RRBs with none of them opting for any
non-institutional sources.
Table 3.62: Agricultural credit outstanding in respect of the non-soil-tested farmers

81
(Rs/ Household)
Sources Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Commercial banks _ 40000 47500 100000 58750
RRBs 20000 20000 _ _ 20000
Total Credit Availed 20000 30000 47500 100000 42143

3.5.9. Purposes underlying Agricultural Loans Availed of

The purposes for agricultural loans were availed of by the soil-tested farmers are presented in Table 3.63. It is noticed from the table that, out of the
sample respondents availing loans, more than half of the respondents (54%) have availed of loans for seasonal crop cultivation purpose, followed by
purchase of tractors and other implements (46%) in the study area. Similarly, across categories of farmers, a majority have reported identical reasons for
availing of credit.
Table 3.63: Purposes underlying agricultural loans availed of by the soil-tested farmers
(% of farmers)
Purpose Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
Seasonal crop cultivation 7 4 5 15

(46.67) (26.67) (33.33) - (53.57)
Purchase of tractor and other 4 3 3 3 13
implements (30.76) (23.06) (23.06) (23.06) (46.42)
The purposes for which agricultural loans availed of by the non-soil-tested farmers are presented in Table 3.15. A look at the table reveals that, similar to
soil-testd farmers, non-soil-tested farmers also have availed of loans the seasonal crop cultivation and purchase of tractor and other implements. However,
82
farmers availing loans for seasonal crop cultivation accounts for 67 per cent from among the non soil-tested farmers, while the rest for 33 per cent for
purchase of tractor and other implements. Interestingly, none of the marginal farmers is found to have taken loan for purchase of tractor and other
implements, while, a majority (50%) of the small farmers have availed of loans for seasonal crop production only.
Table 3.64: Purposes underlying agricultural loans availed of by non-soil-tested farmers

(% of farmers)
Purpose Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
Seasonal crop cultivation 3 5 1 1 10

(30.00) (50.00) (10.00) (10.00) (66.67)
Purchase of tractor and other 2 2 1 5
-
implements (40.00) (40.00) (20.00) (33.33)
3.6 WEST BENGAL
3.3.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Selected Farmers
The socio-economic characteristics of the selected sample households related to paddy and jute farmers are presented in Table 3.65. The
average age of the soil-tested respondents of the selected farm households comes to 43.57 years with an education of nearly three years of
schooling. Agriculture forms the main occupation for 95 per cent of the respondents (Table 3.65). Similarly, in the case of control farmers,
the average age is 48 years with an education of nearly two years of schooling. Agriculture forms the main occupation for about 90.83 per
cent of the control respondents. However, overall, the average age is 46 years, with an education of about two years of schooling and
agriculture forms the main occupation for 92.91 per cent of the respondents.
83
It is also revealed from the table that, the family size of the soil-tested, control and overall farmers averages 5.38, 5.65 and 5.51 members
respectively with the average number of family members engaged in agriculture being two per household in respect of both the soil-tested
and control farmers. Overall, a majority of both the soil-tested and control sample household belong to the general category followed by
other backward castes; however, the proportion works out to 69.16 per cent and 74.16 per cent with respect to the general category and 20.41
per cent and 11.66 per cent as regards back ward classes. Nevertheless, overall, the sample households belong to the general caste category
(71.66%), followed by other backward castes (16.04%) in the study area.
84
Table 3.65: Socio-economic characteristics of the sample households with reference to paddy and jute crops
Particulars Soil-tested farmers Control farmers overall
Number of sample farm households 240 120 360

Average age of respondents (years) 44 48 46
Agriculture as main occupation (of
respondents) 95 90.83 92.91
Gender (% of respondents)
Male 99.58 100 99.79
Female 1 0 1
Average number of people engaged in
agriculture 2 2 2
percent of farmers (respondents) being
members of any association 45 32.5 38.75
SC 6.25 3.33 4.79
ST 8.33 10.83 9.58
OBC 20.41 11.66 16.04
General 69.16 74.16 71.66
3.3.2 Details of Operational Landholdings
85
The details of land holding pattern of the sample households a r e presented in Table 3.66. The average land owned by sample households works out
to 3.07 acres leased-in area to 0.62 acre, leased-out area to 0.61 acre and uncultivated area to 0.05 acre. Hence, the net operated area per household works
out to 3.58 acres per household, of which, net irrigated area was 3.17 acres and net un-irrigated area to 0.41 acre in the case of soil-tested paddy farmers.
However, the gross cropped area constitutes 5.86 acres/ household with a cropping intensity of 172 per cent. On the other hand for the soil-tested farmers in
the case of jute, the average owned land per household works out to 1.86 acre; leased-in, leased-out and uncultivated area to 0.38, 0.08 and 0.02 acre per
household, respectively. With this, the net operated area works out to 2.17 acres, of which, much of the area is under irrigation (2.16 acres) and the rest
(0.01 acre) un-irrigated. However, the gross cropped area per household constitutes 3.63 acres, with a cropping intensity of 184 per cent.
Similarly, among the control farmers of paddy, the average owned land per household comes to 2.14 acres, leased-in land to 0.29 acre, leased-out land to
0.06 acre & uncultivated land also to 0.06 acre. Accordingly the net operated land works out to 2.42 acres, of which, irrigated and un-irrigated land to 1.97
and 0.45 acre, respectively. The gross cropped area per household comes to was 3.72 acres with a cropping intensity of 159 per cent, which is much lower
as compared to soil-tested farmers. However, in the case of control farmers of jute, the average owned land per household amounts to 1.69 acre; leased-in
area to 0.49 acre; leased-out area to 0.14 acre; and uncultivated area to 0.02 acre. Hence, the net operated area works out to 2.05 acre per household of
which irrigated and un-irrigated land accounts for 2.04 and 0.01 acres, respectively. Nevertheless, the gross cropped area constitutes 2.93 acres with a
cropping intensity of 193 per cent.
Table 3.66: Size of operational landholdings of the sample respondents

( acre/ household)
Particulars
Paddy Jute Paddy Jute
Owned land 3.07 1.86 2.14 1.69
86
Leased-in 0.63 0.38 0.29 0.49
Leased-out 0.61 0.08 0.06 0.14
Uncultivated/Fallow 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.02
Net operated area 3.58 2.17 2.42 2.05
3.17 2.16 1.97 2.04

Net irrigated area
Net un-Irrigated area 0.41 0.01 0.45 0.01
Gross cropped area 5.86 3.63 3.72 2.93
Cropping intensity (%) 172 184 159 169
3.3.3. Sources of irrigation
The different sources of irrigation accessed by the sample respondents are presented in Table 3.67. It is observed from the table that, a majority of the soil-
tested paddy respondents are dependent on bore wells (62.12%) as their main source of irrigation, followed by canal/s (28.64%), while open/ dug wells and
rivers/ponds cover about 4.89 per cent and 4.35 per cent of the net cropped area, respectively. Similarly, with respect to jute also, the maximum area is
irrigated by bore wells (84.63%), followed by open / dug wells (8.97%). River/ponds cover about 5.86 per cent of the net cropped area, whereas, a meagre
proportion of the area also is irrigated by canal/s (0.54%).
The sources of irrigation in respect of control farmers of paddy appear to be same as in the case of soil-test farmers in that 67.01 per cent of the net cropped
area is irrigated by bore wells followed by canal/s (about 28.60 per cent, of the net cropped area) and the rest by all sources put together (less than five per
87
cent of the net cropped area). Similarly, with regard to jute, for control sample respondents, the primary source of irrigation is bore wells (85.22%),
followed by river/ponds and other sources (9.01%) and the remaining six per cent of the net cropped area is irrigated by open /dug wells (Table 3.67).
Table: 3.67: Sources of irrigation

Soil Test Control
Particulars
Open/ dug wells 4.89 8.97 0.85 5.77
Bore wells 62.12 84.63 67.01 85.22
Canal/s 28.64 0.54 28.60 -
Tanks - - 1.29 -
River/Ponds and Others 4.35 5.86 2.25 9.01
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
3.3.4 Cropping Pattern followed by the Sample Households
The details of cropping pattern followed by soil-tested paddy respondents are presented in Table 3.68. The agricultural year is divided into three seasons-
kharif, rabi and summer. In the kharif season, paddy is the major crop accounting for 54.63 per cent of the gross cropped area with a very small percentage
of the gross cropped area being devoted to vegetables, marigold and other crops. However, in the rabi season, potato is cultivated over 10.05 per cent of
the gross cropped area; mustard seed over 4.21 per cent of the gross cropped area with very small plots of land being devoted to other crops. Similarly, in
the summer season, boro paddy is cultivated over 24.10 per cent of the gross cropped area; sesame (Til) over 2.63 per cent of the gross cropped area with
0.18 per cent being devoted to other summer crops. The annual and perennial crops are cultivated over 1.13 per cent of the GCA and tuberose over 0.91 per
cent of the Gross cropped area.
88
However, in the case of jute soil-tested farmers, a major proportion of gross cropped area is dedicated to jute (22.77%) cultivation during kharif, followed
by paddy (20.96%) and other crops (4.57%). In rabi season, mustard accounts for nearly 11 per cent of the gross cropped area, wheat for about 10.06 per
cent and pulses for nearly four per cent, whereas in the summer, boro paddy occupies 7.21 per cent of the gross cropped area, followed by sesame (3.71%).
However, the share of total annual and perennial crops account for 7.35 per cent of the gross cropped area.
With respect to paddy control farmers, more than 57.90 per cent of the gross cropped area (GCA) is allotted to paddy crop alone during kharif season and
other crops such as vegetables account for 1.50 per cent. Similarly, in rabi season, potato and mustard are cultivated over 9.67 per cent and 5.38 per cent of
the gross cropped area, respectively. However, in the summer season, paddy is cultivated over 20.94 per cent of the gross cropped area and sesame over
4.07 per cent while the share of annual and perennial crops, in the GCA is very low among the paddy control farmers.
As regards jute control farmers, the major crop in kharif season is paddy, which occupies 23.02 per cent of the gross cropped area, followed by jute
(23.18%) and other crops (2.21%). During rabi season, mustard seed, wheat and boro paddy occupy relatively the same gross cropped area of nearly 10 per
cent each, while sesame constitutes about three per cent of the gross cropped area, while the share of all annual and perennial crops accounts for 8.12 per
cent of the gross cropped area.
Table: 3.68: Cropping pattern followed by the sample households
(as % of GCA)
Crops
Kharif
Paddy 54.63 20.96 57.90 23.02
Jute 0.00 22.77 0.00 23.18
Vegetables 0.57 2.27 0.99 1.02
89
Marigold 0.38 0.69 0.50 0.80
Other kharif crops 0.29 1.61 0.00 0.39
Rabi
Potato 10.05 2.00 9.67 1.02
Mustard Seed 4.21 11.00 5.38 9.55
Wheat 0.03 10.06 0.00 9.00
Tomato 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.38
Vegetables 0.12 2.35 0.05 4.51
Pulses 0.07 4.10 0.00 3.91
Other rabi crops 0.57 3.50 0.09 2.74
Summer
Paddy 24.10 7.21 20.94 9.19
Sesame 2.63 3.71 4.07 2.75
Other summer crops 0.18 0.40 0.00 0.41
Annual &Perennials
Sugarcane 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00
Tuberose 0.91 0.96 0.00 0.28
Vegetables 1.13 2.03 0.40 3.77
Other Annual & Perennials 0.01 3.90 0.00 4.07
GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
3.3.5. Area under major HYV Crops
The details of area under High Yielding Varieties (HYVs) of major crops are presented in Table 3.69. It is noticed from the table that, a majority of the soil-
tested paddy farmers use HYVs in the case of paddy. Within paddy, Aman paddy variety accounts for 99.48 per cent of the cropped area and boro Paddy for
90
about 86.36 per cent of the GCA in across different seasons. The potato producers also use HYVs to the tune of nearly 99.45 per cent of the cropped area.
Similarly, in the case of paddy control farmers, Aman paddy and boro paddy seeds of HYVs are used in almost all paddy growing areas, while in the case
of potato, HYVs are used over only 33.36 per cent of the cropped area.
With regard to soil-tested jute farmers, cent per cent of the cropped area is devoted to Aman Paddy and boro Paddy HYV seeds across different seasons,
whereas, the share amounts to 57.86 per cent in the case of jute, 42.33 per cent with respect to mustard seed and 86.31 per cent with regard to wheat. Like
in the case of soil-tested farmers of paddy, cent per cent of control farmers of jute use HYVs of both Aman Paddy and boro paddy. Further, in the case of
jute, HYVs are cultivated over 78.41 per cent of the cropped area and in the case of mustard seed, the proportion works out to 51.94 per cent of the GCA.
Table 3.69: Area under MAJOR HYV crops

(as % of cropped area)
Crops Paddy Jute
Soil-tested farmers
Aman Paddy 99.48 100.00
Potato 86.36 33.02
Mustard Seed 27.31 42.33
Boro Paddy 100.00 100.00
Jute - 57.86
Wheat 100.00 86.31
Controlled farmers
Aman Paddy 100.00 100.00
Potato 33.36 63.33
91
Mustard Seed 84.14 51.94
Boro Paddy 99.45 100.00
Jute - 78.41
Wheat - 74.72
92
3.3.6 Aggregate Value of Crop Output
The aggregate value of output and value of output sold details of both the soil-tested and control farmers across farm size categories are shown in Table
3.70. As paddy crop is cultivated more than once in West Bengal, the corresponding values for different seasons are considered to have been arrive at the
aggregate numbers. Hence, the output value is much higher for paddy than for jute crop.
In the case of soil-tested farmers of paddy, the average value of crop output amounts to Rs.1,29,087 per household, while, per acre amounts to Rs.28,111.
However, across categories of farmers, the value of output is found highest in the case of large farmers to the tune of Rs. 5,12,903 per household, whereas,
per acre value of output is found highest with regard to marginal farmers (Rs. 28,792/-). The second highest value of output per household is observed with
regard to medium farmers (Rs.2,52,737) while, per acre value of output is second highest for small farmers (Rs.27,822). In terms of value of output sold,
per acre output works out to Rs. 28,277, which is highest among large farmers, followed by marginal farmers (Rs. 14,319), medium farmers (Rs.14,180)
and small farmers (Rs.10,300). However, the average value of output sold per acre amounts to Rs.13,915. It is important to note that the paddy marketable
surplus depends upon farmers' sources of income, their consumption pattern etc.
On the other side, with regard to control farmers of paddy, the value of output per acre seems to be altogether different when compared to soil-tested
farmers of paddy. A highest value of output per acre is observed in the case of large farmers (Rs.31,385), followed by medium farmers (Rs.27,218),
marginal farmers (Rs.25,657) and small farmers (Rs.23,307). Similarly, the value of output sold per acre appears to be the same as in the case of value of
output per household. However, the value of output per acre is found to be relatively the same as in the case of soil-tested farmers excepting the case of
medium farmers, in that the value seems to be a little higher (Rs.20,046) as compared to soil-tested farmers. Interestingly, the value of output amounts to
Rs.25,348 per household, while the value of output sold per acre is found highest among control farmers (Rs.15,153) as compared soil-tested farmers
(Rs.13,915).
93
As regards jute, none of the large farmers is found to have grown jute both in the case of soil-tested and control farmers. The average value of output per
acre is observed to be Rs.23,850, while it is highest with respect to medium farmers (Rs.29,138), followed by small farmers (Rs.24,157) and marginal
farmers (Rs.23,372). Interestingly, the average value of output sold seems to be the same as the value of output per household which might be due to the
sale of the entire quantity of produce without keeping for their own consumption. In the case of control farmers of jute crop, both the values of output per
household (Rs.26,201) and per acre (Rs.25,847) are found to be highest as compared to soil-tested farmers. Like in the case of soil-tested farmers, the
entire quantity of jute is found to have been sold by control farmers excepting the category of small farmers, wherein a small portion appears to have been
kept for own consumption.

Paddy Jute
Value of Output
Value of Output Value of Output Sold Value of Output
Particulars Sold
Rs/ Rs/
Rs/ Hh Rs/ acre Rs/ Hh Rs/ acre Rs/ Hh Rs/ Hh
acre acre
Soil-tested farmers
Marginal 66047 28792 34324 14319 13579 23372 13579 23372
Small 132247 27822 69467 10300 32431 24157 32431 24157
Medium 252737 26810 167963 14180 54858 29138 54858 29138
Large 512903 25225 297740 28277 - - - -
Total 129087 28111 72483 13915 20199 23850 20199 23850
Control farmers
Marginal 47008 25657 21096 14632 12684 26855 12684 26855
Small 95724 23307 57077 14273 27741 24422 25395 23009
94
Medium 200882 27218 109618 20046 40000 24096 40000 24096
Large 627690 31385 467040 28891 - - - -
Total 77500 25348 42226 15153 16903 26201 16317 25847
Note: Hh - Household: Source: primary survey
3.3.7. Distribution of Farm Assets
The detail of distribution of farm assets across sample respondents is presented in Table 3.71. The average value of farm assets works out to be highest in
the case of soil-tested farmers (Rs.51,349) as compared to control farmers (Rs.44,790). Out of all the items, the value of tractor/ tiller/trolley is found
highest (Rs.30,142 & Rs.28,033), followed by animal shed/pump house (Rs.11,338 & Rs.8,833) and electric motor/ diesel engine (Rs.4,640 & Rs.2,571)
both in respect of soil-tested and control farmers. Similarly, in the case of jute crop, the total worth of assets is found to be highest in the cases of soil-
tested farmers (Rs.30,984) as against control farmers (Rs.18,121). In the same way, across different assets, tractor/ tiller/ trolley accounts for the maximum
value, followed by animal shed/pump house and electric motor/ diesel engine. Further, each household holds small tools like spade, hoe, sickle etc., with an
average value of less than Rs. 1000/-. Interestingly, the total asset value of paddy farmers is highest as compared to jute farmers in respect of both the soil-
tested and control farmers.
Table 3.71: Distribution of farm assets

(Rs/ Household)
Particulars Paddy Jute
95
Tractor, tiller/ trolley 30142 28033 15958 4167

Engine 4640 2571 5060 3775
Thresher 2488 1884 1057 892
Manual/power sprayer 630 462 539 779
Fodder chopper 23 5 0 7
Bullock cart 967 433 458 0
Small tools (spade, hoe,
sickle etc.)
454 507 879 635
Animal shed/pump house
11338 8833 7008 7867
Others 593 2000 0 0
Total 51349 44790 30984 18121
3.3.8. Details of Agricultural Credit-Outstanding
The details of agricultural credit availed of by the sample respondents are presented in Table 3.72. On an average, paddy soil-test farmers account for an
outstanding amount of Rs.25,208 per household control farmers (Rs 19,834). A major portion of the credit is found to have been availed of from
commercial banks by both the soil-tested and control farmers, with the outstanding sum amounting to Rs.18,901 and Rs.14,579, respectively. However, the
second highest outstanding amount availed of seems to be from the cooperative societies in the case of soil-tested farmers of paddy, while, it is from RRBs
among control farmers of paddy. Interestingly, a very few are found to have opted for informal sources of finance.
96
Similarly, in the case of jute crop, an average outstanding amount of Rs 23,9.3 availed of is found with regard to soil-tested farmers, while it is Rs.8,691
with respect to control farmers. However, a large proportion of the outstanding amount is found to have been obtained from commercial banks (Rs.12,079
and Rs.4,153) followed by cooperative banks (Rs.3,382 and Rs.2917) and RRBs (Rs.5,229 and Rs.350) by soil-tested and control farmers, respectively.
Nevertheless, a few jute farmers also are found to have depended upon money lenders and other non-formal sources for their credit requirements, which
needs to be addressed by the policy makers.
Table 3.72: Agricultural credit outstanding in respect of the sample households
(Rs/ Household)
Paddy Jute
Sources Soil-tested Control Soil-tested Control
Co-operative Credit Societies 3574 1796 3382 2917
Land development banks - - 142.67 -
Commercial banks 18901 14579 12079 4153
RRBs 2717 3075 5229 350
Money lenders - - 1047 -
Friends/Relatives - - - 1156.67
Traders/Commission agents - - 1817 -
Others - 383.33 207 -
Total 25208 19834 23903 8691
97
3.3.9 Purposes underlying Agricultural Loans Availed of
The details of the purposes for which agricultural loans were availed of by the sample respondents are presented in Table 3.73. It is revealed from the table
that, a majority of the farmers both in the case of paddy and jute have availed of loans for crop cultivation only. The proportion seems to be 36 per cent
among the soil-tested and 18 per cent in the case of control farmers of paddy, while, it is 31 per cent with respect to soil-tested farmers of jute and nearly 13
per cent as regards control farmers of jute. This apart, a few farmers also have availed of loans for purchase of tractors and other implements and land
developmental activities both in respect of paddy and jute. However, a few farmers of jute also have taken loans for organizing marriages and social
ceremonies.
Table 3.73: Purposes underlying agricultural loans availed of

(as % of total farmers)
Purpose Paddy Jute
Seasonal crop cultivation 36.11 18.33 31.11 12.78
Purchase of tractor and other 1.11 - - -
implements
Land development 0.56 - 2.78 -
Marriage and social ceremonies - - 0.56 0.56
Non-farm Activities - - 1.11 -
98
CHAPTER IV
FARMER'S KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDE AND PRACTICES OF FERTILIZER USE AND SOIL TEST TECHNOLOGY
4.1 Background
Soil analysis is a valuable tool for farm practice, as it determines inputs required for an efficient and economic production. The success of any soil analysis
depends on how scientifically soil samples are drawn because the results are only as good as the sample one chooses. A proper soil test can help ensure a
scientific application of fertilizers as part of meeting the crop requirements, apart from taking advantage of the nutrients already present in the soil systems.
This chapter provides a detailed analysis of the farmer's knowledge, attitude and practices of fertilizer use and soil test technology.
4.2 Sources of fertilizer purchase
The major sources of fertilizer purchase in the study area include private fertilizer shops/dealers, company authorized dealers, co-operative societies,
government agencies and others. The sources of fertilizer purchase by the soil-tested and control farmers in the study area are presented in Table 4.1. It is
revealed from the table that, at the aggregate, the major sources of fertilizer purchase for the soil-tested farmers in the order of importance were private
fertilizer shops/dealers (65%), co-operative societies (25%), company authorized dealers (7%) and government agencies (3%). Similarly, across sample
states, the private fertilizers shops/dealers were the major source of purchase of fertilizer in all the states, excepting Madhya Pradesh, where the co
operative societies (55%) are found to have played a major role in the purchase of fertilizers. These cooperative societies were also the second important
source of purchasing of fertilizers respect of Gujarat (46%), Karnataka (27%) and West Bengal (19%). However, company authorised dealers were active
in the state of Bihar, with nearly 38 per cent of the farmers purchasing all fertilizers from them. The government agencies are also found to have acted as
99
the third important source for purchase of fertilizers in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat (6% each). Similar to soil-test farmers, a majority of the
overall control farmers had purchased fertilizers from private fertilizer shops/ dealers (71%), followed by cooperative societies (22%), company authorised
dealers (6%) and government agencies (3%). A similar trend was noticed across states with respect to sources of fertilizer purchase.
Table 4.1: Sources of purchase fertilizer

Sources Source: Primary Data
Soil-Tested Farmers
States Company
Private fertilizer Co-operative Government 4.3. Method of Application of Chemical
authorized Others
shops/dealers societies agency
dealers Fertilizers
Karnataka 73.02 1.64 26.64 0.32 -
Uttar Pradesh 85.42 0.43 4.16 5.83 4.16
West Bengal 80.83 1.25 19.17 - - The efficiency of fertilizer utilization by crops is
Bihar 62.5 37.5 - - - mainly influenced by the method/s of fertilizer
Madhya 40.00 - 55.00 4.00 1.00
Pradesh application. The fertilizer application causes many
Gujarat 48.98 0.74 46.21 5.91 0.92 changes in the soil systems, including chemical
Overall 65.48 6.68 25.26 2.56 0.96
Control Farmers changes that can positively or negatively influence soil
Karnataka 78.70 0.99 24.99 0.46 0.00 fertility. A fraction of fertilizers applied to soils is
Uttar Pradesh 85.83 1.67 6.67 2.50 3.33
absorbed by crops and the rest of it either remains in
West Bengal 86.67 0.00 13.33 - -
Bihar 62.5 37.5 - - - the soil or is released in to the atmosphere through
Madhya 59.00 - 41.00 1.00 -
what is called nitrification process. A critical
Pradesh
Gujarat 51.14 2.00 39.14 12.86 2.57 information on the relative merits of different methods
Overall 70.63 6.11 22.17 3.01 0.94 of fertilizer application/ placement is essential. The
methods of fertilizer application adopted by both the control and soil-tested sample farmers are presented in Tables from 5.2 to 5.6 for different fertilizers.
100
As is evident from Table 4.2, excepting maize farmers in Karnataka and both groundnut and cotton farmers in Gujarat, almost all (100%) the farmers of
paddy, wheat, soybean and jute in respect of both the control and soil-tested categories, had followed the broadcasting method in the application of urea
fertilizer, whereas, in the case of control farmers, a majority (96%) of the maize farmers in Karnataka and about 81 per cent of groundnut farmers and 80
per cent of cotton farmers in Gujarat, had applied urea through line method of application. With the rest following dibbling or broadcasting methods.
Interestingly, one per cent of the maize farmers in Karnataka had applied urea by means of spraying. Similarly, a majority of the soil-tested farmers (94%
of maize farmers in Karnataka and 55% of groundnut and 78% of cotton farmers in Gujarat) had followed the line method application for urea. However,
27 per cent of groundnut farmers and 11 per cent of cotton farmers had applied urea through broadcasting method only. Further, 18 per cent of groundnut
farmers, six per cent of cotton and two per cent of maize farmers had followed dibbling method of fertilizer application. Interestingly, as reported by five
per cent of cotton farmers in Gujarat, they had applied urea through fertigation method. As in the case of control farmers, about one per cent of maize
farmers in Karnataka had applied urea through spraying.
Similar to urea, the method of application followed by farmers for DAP is presented in Table 4.3. The table reveals that cent per cent of the paddy farmers
from both the control and soil-tested categories had applied DAP by way of broadcasting across all the sample states, namely, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh,
West Bengal and Bihar. Whereas, in the case of wheat farmers from both the control and soil-test categories, all farmers in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh had
applied DAP through broadcasting method only, and 100 per cent of farmers in Madhya Pradesh had followed the line method of application. With regard
to maize farmers, a majority of the control (97%) and soil-tested (93%) had followed the line method of application in Karnataka. A similar practice was
noticed in respect of soybean farmers in Madhya Pradesh with a majority of the control (100%) farmers and 92 per cent of the soil-tested farmers, applying
DAP through the line method of application. With respect to jute crop, cent per cent of both the control and soil-tested farmers had applied DAP by way of
broadcasting only. However, a majority of the control farmers in the case of groundnut (49%) in Gujarat had opted for dibbling method of application,
followed by line application (47%), fertigation and broadcasting (nearly 2% each). On the contrary, a majority of the soil-tested farmers (62%) had applied
101
DAP through the line method of application, followed by dibbling (36%) and fertigation (1%) in the case of groundnut. As regards cotton in Gujarat, a
majority of the farmers had followed the line method of DAP application (62% of control and 57% of soil-tested farmers), followed by dibbling (27% of
the control and 42% of the soil-tested farmers).
Table 4.2: Crop-wise methods of urea fertilizer application

Control Farmers
Crops Methods
States Broadcasting Dibbling Fertigation Line Spraying
application
Karnataka 100.00 - - - -
Paddy Uttar Pradesh 100.00 - - - -
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Uttar Pradesh 100.00 - - - -
Wheat
Madhya Pradesh 100.00 - - - -
Maize Karnataka 0.92 1.83 - 96.33 0.92
Soybean Madhya Pradesh 100.00 - - - -
Jute West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Ground Gujarat 11.11 7.41 - 81.48 -
nut
Cotton Gujarat 10.00 8.75 1.25 80.00 -
Soil-Tested Farmers
Karnataka 100.00 - - - -
Paddy Uttar Pradesh 100.00 - - - -
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Wheat Bihar 100.00 - - - -
102
Madhya Pradesh 100.00 - - - -
Maize Karnataka 3.27 1.96 0.65 94.12 1.31
Ground Gujarat 27.27 18.18 - 54.55 -
nut
Cotton Gujarat 11.00 6.00 5.00 78.00 -
Source: Primary Data
The methods of SSP application followed by control and soil-tested farmers are shown in Table 4.4. It is evident from the table that, irrespective of farmer
categories (control or soil-tested), all the farmers in respect of paddy, wheat, soybean and jute had followed broadcasting method for SSP fertilizer
application. Interestingly, none of the maize farmers is found to have applied SSP both in the respect of control and soil-tested categories. With respect to
ground nut farmers in Gujarat, cent per cent of control and 67 per cent of soil-tested farmers had used the line method of application, however, 33 per cent
of soil-tested farmers had also applied SSP through dibbling method. In the case of cotton, more than half of the farmers (50% control and 64% of soil-test
farmers) had applied SSP through line method of application, followed by fertigation (17% control and 29% of soil-tested farmers) and dibbling (17%
control and 7% of soil-tested farmers) in Gujarat. In addition to this, 17 per cent of cotton farmers from control group had applied SSP through
broadcasting method.
103
Table 4.3: Cop-wise methods of DAP fertilizer application
Control Farmers
Crops Methods
States Broadcasting Dibbling Fertigation Line Spraying
application
Paddy Karnataka 100.00 - - - -
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Wheat Uttar Pradesh 100.00 - - - -
Madhya Pradesh - - - 100.00 -
Maize Karnataka 1.59 1.59 - 96.83 -
Soybean Madhya Pradesh - - - 100.00 -
Ground Gujarat 1.64 49.18 1.64 47.54 -
nut
Cotton Gujarat - 27.27 2.60 70.13 -
Soil-Tested Farmers
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Wheat
Maize Karnataka 2.73 2.73 0.91 92.73 -
Soybean Madhya Pradesh 8.00 - - 92.00 -
Ground Gujarat - 36.36 1.30 62.34 -
104
nut
Cotton Gujarat 0.91 41.82 - 57.27 -
105
Table 4.4: Crop-wise method of SSP fertilizer application
Control Farmers
Crop Methods
State Line
Broadcasting Dibbling Fertigation Spraying
application
Paddy Karnataka - - - - -
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Wheat Uttar Pradesh 100.00 - - - -
Madhya Pradesh - - - - -
Maize Karnataka - - - - -
Ground Gujarat - - - 100.00 -
nut
Cotton Gujarat 16.67 16.67 16.67 50.00 0.00
Soil-Tested Farmers
Paddy Karnataka - - - - -
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Wheat
Maize Karnataka - - - - -
106
Ground Gujarat - 33.33 0.00 66.67 -
nut
Cotton Gujarat - 7.14 28.57 64.29 -
With regard to potash, the details of fertilizer application methods followed by the control and soil-tested farmers are shown in Table 4.5. It is observed
from the table that, cent per cent of the farmers from both the control and soil-test groups had applied potash fertilizer through broadcasting method in
respect of paddy, soybean and jute. As regards wheat, none of the control farmer is found to have had applied potash in Madhya Pradesh, while cent per
cent of soil-tested farmers had applied potash through the line method of application. However, 100 per cent of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh farmers had
followed broadcasting method for potash application both in respect of the control and soil-tested categories. With reference to maize crop, a majority of
the farmers (94% of control and 91% of soil-tested farmers) in Karnataka had followed line method of application for potash, followed by broadcasting and
dibbling (3% each). Coming to groundnut farmers in Gujarat, a majority of control farmers (75%) had employed fertigation method in contrast to line
method of application (80%) in the case of soil-tested category and the rest followed broadcasting method. With regard to cotton, a majority (75% of
control with 76% of soil-tested farmers) had applied potash through line method of application, followed by dibbling (25% of control and 6% of soil-tested
farmers). About 18 per cent also had followed fertigation method for applying potash fertilizer in the case of cotton crop in Gujarat.
Table 4.6 reveals the methods of application of complex fertilizers followed by the control and soil-tested farmers. It is understood from the table that
complex fertilizers had not been applied to all the reference crops and across states. For instance, only in the states of Karnataka and West Bengal, complex
fertilizers had been applied by the control and soil-tested farmers in respect of paddy using broadcasting method, while none of the farmers from Uttar
Pradesh and Bihar had applied the same. No farmers from control and soil-tested categories found to have had applied complex fertilizers with regard to
wheat crop in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. A majority of the control farmers (95%) and soil-tested farmers (80%) had applied complex
fertilizers by means of line application, followed by dibbling (3% of control & 16% of soil-tested farmers) with the rest relying on broadcasting method. In
107
the case of soybean and jute, all farmers from control and soil-tested categories had used broadcasting method for applying complex fertilizers in Madhya
Pradesh and West Bengal, respectively. Nearly 58 per cent of the control farmers and half of the soil-tested farmers in Gujarat had employed dibbling
method for application of complex fertilizers, followed by line application method (42% of control and 47% of soil-tested farmers) and fertigation method
(3%). Correspondingly, a majority of control farmers (60%) in the case of cotton in Gujarat, had used dibbling method for application of complex
fertilizers, while 80 per cent of the soil-tested farmers had followed line method of application. On the contrary, 40 per cent of the control farmers also had
applied complex fertilizers by means of line method of application and seven per cent of the soil-tested farmers through dibbling method.
Table 4.5: Crop-wise methods of potash fertilizer application

Control Farmers
Crop Methods
State Broadcasting Dibbling Fertigation Line Spraying
application
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Wheat
Maize Karnataka 3.12 3.13 - 93.75 -
Ground Gujarat 25.00 - 75.00 - -
nut
Cotton Gujarat - 25.00 - 75.00 -
Soil-Tested Farmers
108
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Bihar 100.00 - - - -
Wheat
Maize Karnataka 3.66 2.44 1.22 91.46 1.22
Ground Gujarat 20.00 - - 80.00 -
nut
Cotton Gujarat - 5.88 17.65 76.47 -
109
Table 4.6: Crop-wise methods of complex fertilizer application
Control Farmers
Crop Methods
State Broadcasting Dibbling Fertigation Line Spraying
application
Uttar Pradesh - - - - -
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar - - - - -
Bihar - - - - -
Wheat
Madhya - - - - -
Pradesh
Maize Karnataka 1.25 2.50 1.25 95.00 -
Madhya 100.00 - - - -
Soybean
Pradesh
Ground Gujarat - 58.33 - 41.67 -
nut
Cotton Gujarat - 60.00 - 40.00 -
Soil-Tested Farmers
West Bengal 100.00 - - - -
Bihar - - - - -
Bihar - - - - -
Wheat
Madhya - - - - -
Pradesh
Maize Karnataka 2.33 16.28 - 80.23 1.16
110
Madhya 100.00 - - - -
Soybean
Pradesh
Ground Gujarat - 50.00 2.94 47.06 -
nut
Cotton Gujarat 6.67 6.67 6.67 80.00 -
4.4 Actual Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by the Control and Soil-Tested Farmers
Many of the farmers usually do not apply the recommended doses of fertilizers and it is important to understand that the actual quantity of application of
fertilizers for making a comparison with the recommended doses of fertilizers. Usually, farmers follow fellow farmers when it comes to fertilizer
application. The study indicates that, if any farmer is able to obtain a higher yield by applying more of fertilizers, the neighbouring farmers, on coming to
know of this, start following the same, in the next crop cycle. The details of the actual quantity of fertilizers applied by control and sample farmers during
the reference year are presented in Tables 4.7 and 4.8, respectively.
It is understood from the tables that, the control farmers of paddy used higher quantities of fertilizers as compared to the soil tested farmers. At the same
time, the actual quantity of fertilizers applied appears to be higher than the recommended doses of fertilizers prescribed in the soil health cards. On an
average, these farmers used 140.00 kg/acre of urea, 94.00 kg/acre of DAP, 50.00 kg/acre of potash and 152.00 kg/acre of complex fertilizers, whereas, the
quantity of fertilizers applied by the soil tested farmers was 85.00 kg/acre of urea, 57.50 kg/acre of DAP, 25 kg/acre of potash and 67.00 kg/acre of
complex fertilizers, which was very low as compared to control farmers in Karnataka. Similarly, with regard to Bihar, the control farmers are found to have
used more of urea, DAP and potash i.e., 98.98 kg/acre of urea, 49.13 kg/acre of DAP, and 0.29 kg/acre of potash. The actual quantity of fertilizers applied
by the soil-tested farmers works out to 90.55 kg of urea/acre, 45.55 kg/acre of DAP and 3.14 kg/acre of potash. In the case of Uttar Pradesh, both paddy
control and soil tested farmers applied relatively the same quantities of fertilizers. The average quantity of fertilizers applied by Uttar Pradesh control
111
farmers included 82.34 kg/acre of urea, 39.22 kg/acre of DAP, and 28.68 kg/acre of potash, whereas, the soil tested farmers applied 83.44 kg/acre of urea,
44.32 kg/acre of DAP and 31.06 kg/acre of potash. Although, the recommended quantities of fertilizers were low in the case of West Bengal paddy farmers,
the actual quantities applied by the control farmers were at the rate of 38.49 kg/acre of urea, 37.54 kg/acre of DAP, 11.12 kg/acre of SSP, 28.86 kg/acre of
potash. In addition to this, they also applied 15.09 kg/acre of complex fertilizers, 0.55 kg/acre of micronutrients and 1.35 kg/acre of other fertilizers. In
contrast, the soil tested farmers applied 38.81 kg/acre of urea, 36.42 kg/acre of DAP, 7.34 kg/acre of SSP, 23.95 kg/acre of potash, 15.37 kg/acre of
complex fertilizers, 0.04kg/acre of micronutrients and 3.36 kg/acre of other fertilizers. With regard to Bihar, since the recommended doses of fertilizers
were not available, the actual quantity applied can be seen from Table 4.7. As usual, it was found that, relatively the same quantities of fertilizers had been
applied by farmers, however, it is found to be a little higher than the recommended doses. In fact, the average actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the
paddy control farmers included 99 kg/acre of urea and 49 kg/acre of DAP, whereas, the quantity applied by the soil tested farmers was 91 kg/acre of urea,
46 kg/acre of DAP and three kg/acre of potash.
With respect to wheat, on an average, Bihar control farmers, had applied 100 kg/acre of urea, 49 kg/acre of DAP and two kg/acre of potash, which is more
than the quantity applied by the soil tested farmers i.e., 91 kg/acre of urea, 51 kg per acre of DAP and 5 kg/acre of potash. However, It is difficult to say,
whether they had applied more than the recommended doses of fertilizers or not due to the non-availability of SHCs in the study area. In the case of Uttar
Pradesh, the control farmers had applied a higher quantity of fertilizers i.e., about 93 kg/acre of urea, 43 kg/acre of DAP and 19 kg/acre of potash, as
against 83 kg/acre of urea, 30 kg/acre of DAP and 14 kg/acre of potash applied by the soil tested farmers. This indicates that both the soil tested and control
farmers had applied lower doses of fertilizers vis-a-vis the recommended quantities. With regard to Madhya Pradesh, the control farmers had applied 100
kg/acre of urea, 50 kg/acre of DAP, six kg/acre of potash and one kg of zinc sulphate (ZnSO4) and interestingly the soil tested farmers had applied
relatively the same quantities of fertilizers. Overall, when compared to the recommended doses of fertilizers for wheat crop, the respective quantities of
fertilizers applied by the Bihar and Madhya Pradesh farmers were a little higher, while it was a little lower in the case of Uttar Pradesh.
112
Per acre quantity of fertilizers applied by maize control farmers in the case of Karnataka works out to 69 kg of urea, 28 kg of DAP, 13 kg of potash and 67
kg of complex fertilizers, whereas, the quantity of fertilizers applied by the soil tested farmers works out to 63 kg of urea, 36 kg of DAP, 18 kg of potash
and 28.00 kg of complex fertilizers. These quantities are a little lower than the recommended doses of fertilizers, as given in the SHCs. In contrast, jute
farmers had applied more than the recommended doses in the case of West Bengal, whereas, the control farmers had applied 53 kg of urea, 33 kg of DAP,
six kg of SSP and 14 kg of potash per acre and Relatively the same quantities had been by the soil tested farmers in West Bengal.
113
Table 4.7: Actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the control farmers to different crops across states
(Kg/Acre)
Crops States Urea DAP SSP Potash Complex micronutrients ZnSo4 Gypsum others
Bihar 98.98 49.13 - 0.29 - - - - -
Paddy Karnataka 140.00 94.00 - 50.00 152.00 - - - -
UP 82.34 39.22 - 28.68 - - - -
WB 38.49 37.54 11.12 28.86 15.09 0.55 - - 1.35
Bihar 99.73 48.78 1.13 2.26 - - - - -
Wheat UP 93.02 43.23 - 19.19 - - - - -
MP 100.00 50.00 - 6.00 - - 1 - -
Maize Karnataka 69.00 28.00 - 13.00 67.00 - - - -
Jute WB 53.05 33.45 6.41 13.96 36.12 - - - -
Groundnut Gujarat 19.10 35.50 3.30 7.70 4.00 - - - 2.40
Cotton Gujarat 71.20 45.70 3.20 2.40 2.40 - - - 0.90
Soybean MP 4.00 64.00 44.00 3.00 - - 1 1 -
Source: Primary data
114
Table 4.8: Actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the soil-tested farmers to different crops across states
(Kgs/Acre)
Soil-tested farmers
Crop State Urea DAP SSP Potash Complex micronutrients ZnSo4 Gypsum others
Bihar 90.55 45.55 - 3.14 - - - - -
Karnataka 85.00 57.50 - 25.00 67.00 - - - -
Paddy UP 83.44 44.32 - 31.06 - - - - -
WB 38.81 36.42 7.34 23.95 15.37 0.04 - - 3.36
Average of paddy 74.45 45.94 7.34 20.78 41.18 0.00 - - 0.84
Bihar 90.89 51.14 2.39 5.42 - - - - -
Wheat UP 83.34 29.94 - 13.51 - - - - -
MP 101.00 52.00 - 2.00 - - 1.00 - -
Average of wheat 91.74 44.36 2.39 6.97 - - 0.33 - -
Maize Karnataka 63.00 35.50 - 18.00 28.00 - - - -
Jute WB 52.20 30.24 2.82 14.40 33.02 - - - 0.18
Groundnut Gujarat 6.10 29.90 2.10 17.00 - 4.60 - - -
Cotton Gujarat 83.10 30.80 5.80 2.80 4.60 - - - 11.80
Soybean MP 14.00 34.00 45.00 6.00 - - 7.00 4 -
115
With respect to groundnut farmers in Gujarat, the control farmers had applied slightly higher
quantities of fertilizers as compared to soil tested farmers, excepting potash fertilizers. The
quantity applied by the control farmers was 19 kg of urea, 36 kg of DAP, three kg of SSP, eight
kg of potash and four kg of complex fertilizers per acre, whereas, the soil tested farmers had
applied six kg of urea, 30 kg of DAP, two kg of SSP, 17 kg of potash and five kg of
micronutrients per acre. Similarly, in the case of cotton, the quantity of urea fertilizer applied by
the soil tested farmers was marginally higher (83 kg/acre) as compared to control farmers (71
kg/acre) and vice versa in the case of DAP (46 kg/acre with respect to control farmers and 31
kg/acre as regards soil-tested farmers). The other fertilizers applied were smaller in quantities.
Interestingly, the actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the farmers was more than the
recommended doses in respect of both the cotton and groundnut crops.
Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh, the quantity of fertilizers applied by soybean control farmers
came to four kg of urea, 64 kg of DAP, 44 kg of SSP, three kg of potash and one kg each of zinc
sulphate and gypsum per acre, whereas, the soil-tested farmers had applied 14 kg of urea, 34 kg
of DAP, 45 kg of SSP, six kg of potash and seven kg of zinc sulphate and four kg of gypsum.
Although huge quantities of SSP and gypsum were recommended in the SHCs, both control and
soil tested farmers of soybean had applied lesser quantities of these fertilizers, however, soil
tested farmers had applied a higher quantity of DAP and lower quantity of urea in the study area.
4.5: Prices of Fertilizers and Cost incurred on purchase (Rs/kg)

The average price of fertilizers and transport cost incurred by the sample and control farmers in
the study area are presented in Tables 4.9 and 4.10. The prices of fertilizers and transportation
costs are found relatively the same, for both the control and soil-tested farmers within the
respective states, however, there exist slight variations across states. It is noticed from Table 4.9
that, on an average, the prices of urea ranged between four and seven rupees per kg across states
for soil-tested farmers with the highest price recorded being seven rupees with respect to
Karnataka and Bihar, while the least price of four rupees per kg in Madhya Pradesh.
116
Whereas, in the case of DAP fertilizers, there is a wide variation observed in the prices across
states. The prices ranged between 20 rupees and 26 rupees per kg across states with the least
price prevailing in Karnataka at Rs. 20/kg and the highest at Rs. 26/kg in Bihar. Similarly, SSP
price varied from rupees three per kg to rupees eight per kg. The average price of potash was Rs.
17 per kg at the aggregate, however, it ranged between rupees 16 and 17 per kg across states. The
average price of complex fertilizer prevailing in the states Karnataka, West Bengal and Gujarat
worked out at Rs. 23 per kg. The prices of bio-fertilizers varied across states from as low as
rupees two per kg to as high as rupees 32 per kg. Similar was the case with micro-nutrients with
prices ranging from Rs. 10 per kg to Rs. 41 per kg, while the average prices getting rounded off
to Rs. 22 per kg. In addition to all these fertilizers, mustard oil cake applied by the farmers in
West Bengal was sold at an average price of Rs. 20 per kg. On an average, soil-tested farmers
across states had incurred less than 50 paisa per kg for transportation from the point of purchase
to the field, while in the case of bio-fertilizers and micro-nutrients, the transportation cost was
still less. Across states, the transportation costs seem to be a little higher as compared to other
states.
A similar trend was noticed in the case of control farmers with the average prices of urea, DAP,
SSP, potash, complex, bio-fertilizers, micro-nutrients and mustard oil cake being rupees six, 23,
eight, 17, 22, 17, 40 and 22 per kg, respectively. As in the case of soil-tested farmers, the highest
price variation was noticed with respect to micro-nutrients and bio-fertilizers across states. The
complex & bio-fertilizers fertilizers had been used only in respect of Karnataka, West Bengal and
Gujarat farmers, while micro-nutrients had been applied by Bihar, West Bengal and Gujarat
farmers. The average transportation price per kg of fertilizer was less than 50 paisa across control
farmers and states, with the highest cost per kg being only in the state of Bihar. As usual, the
transportation costs low in the cases of bio-fertilizers and micro-nutrients.
117
Table 4.9: Average Price of Fertilizers and Transport Cost
(Rs/kg)
Soil-Tested Farmers
States
Fertilizers Price
Karnataka Uttar Madhya Bihar West Gujarat Overall
Pradesh Pradesh Bengal
Urea AP 7.00 6.62 4.00 7.29 07.13 6.20 6.20
TC 0.19 0.18 0.06 0.33 0.21 0.30 0.21
DAP AP 19.79 22.60 23.00 25.96 24.68 24.0 23.17
TC 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.41 0.25 0.20 0.23
SSP AP - - 3.00 3.26 08.00 8.40 3.60
TC - - 0.10 0.64 0.12 0.31 0.18
Potash AP 17.68 16.20 - 16.81 16.96 17.40 17.01
TC 0.22 0.20 0.14 0.61 0.31 0.18 0.27
Complex AP 21.49 - - - 23.62 23.80 22.97
TC 0.18 - - - 0.564 0.10 0.28
Bio AP 2.00 - - - 7.05 32.0 13.68
fertilisers TC 0.16 - 0.11 - 0.03 0.10 0.10
Micro AP - - 10.00 - 14.24 41.14 21.79
nutrients TC - - 0.39 - - 0.08 0.23
Mustard oil AP - - - - 20.15 - 20.15
cake TC - - - - 0.02 - 0.02
Others AP - - - - 20.50 27.80 24.15
TC - - - - - 0.05 0.05
Note: AP - Average Price & TC - Transport Costs; Source: Primary Data
118
Table 4.10: Average Price of Fertilizers and Transport Cost
(Rs/kg)
Control Farmers
States
Fertilizers Price Karnataka Uttar Madhya Bihar West Gujarat Overall
Pradesh Pradesh Bengal
Urea AP 6.9 6.64 4.00 6.83 07.39 6.26 6.39
TC 0.20 0.17 0.06 0.53 0.14 0.20 0.21
DAP AP 20.5 22.65 20 25.50 24.97 23.80 22.67
TC 0.20 0.21 0.43 0.41 - 0.18 0.23
SSP AP - - - 4.99 08.79 10.47 8.09
TC - - 0.28 0.59 0.04 0.35 0.19
Potash AP 18.42 16.21 - 14.52 17.14 16.79 16.61
TC 0.21 0.22 0.05 0.63 0.12 0.19 0.23
Complex AP 20.52 - - - 23.86 20.44 21.60
TC 0.19 - - - 0.022 0.20 0.20
Bio AP 2.50 - - - 12.50 35.50 16.83
fertilizers TC 0.59 - - 0.14 - 0.11 0.28
Micro AP - - - 4.00 68.50 46.50 39.66
nutrients TC - - - 0.22 - 0.21 0.21
Mustard AP - - - - 21.59 - 21.59
oil cake TC - - - - 0.22 - 0.22
Others AP - - - - 16.28 10.40 13.34
TC - - - - - 0.09 0.09
4.6 Sources of Information on Soil Testing for Soil-Tested Farmers

Soil testing is one of the important technologies adopted by farmers as a part of enhancing their
agricultural productivity. There exist a wide range of sources for the farming community
regarding soil testing and adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers which include State
Agricultural Universities (SAUs), KVKs, private companies, friends, neighbours and State
Department of Agriculture (SDA). The details of different sources of information on soil testing
as reported by the farmers across states and crops are presented in Table 4.11. It is observed
from the table that, State Department of Agriculture happens to be the major source of
information (93%) for paddy farmers across selected under the study. The range varies from 85
per cent in the case of Karnataka to 100 per cent with regard to Uttar Pradesh farmers. The other
sources such as friends, private companies, neighbours and KVKs represent a very meagre
proportion of less than four per cent each at the aggregate. Across states, for about nine per cent
119
of Bihar farmers, friends act as a second major source after SDA with the proportion being very
meagre in almost all states. Interestingly, for none of the farmers, State Agriculture University is
a source of information for soil testing.
Similarly, in the case of wheat crop, as per a majority (86%) of the farmers, State Department of
Agriculture is a major source of information for soil testing. Like in the case of paddy, the range
varies from 73 per cent to cent per cent in respect of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh,
respectively. The other sources such as friends, private companies and KVKs constitute 10 per
cent and eight per cent each, respectively, at the aggregate. Similar to paddy farmers, friends are
the second important source of information for farmers from Bihar with nearly 15 per cent of the
farmers getting information on soil testing, whereas, KVKs and private companies are found to
have disseminated information on soil testing to eight per cent of the farmers each in the case of
Madhya Pradesh alone. Regrettably, none of the wheat farmers has reported State Agriculture
Universities as one of the sources of information for soil testing.
Table 4.11: Sources of information on soil testing

Private Agril.
Crop State SAUs KVKs Friends Neighbours
companies dept
Bihar 0.00 0.83 0.00 9.17 0.00 90.00
Karnataka 0.00 1.63 4.07 0.81 8.13 85.37
Paddy UP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
WB 0.00 0.00 1.67 1.67 0.00 96.66
Average of paddy 0.00 1.23 2.87 3.88 2.03 93.00
Bihar 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.83 0.00 84.17
Wheat UP 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
MP 0.00 8.30 8.10 4.90 5.40 73.20
Average of wheat 0.00 8.30 8.10 10.36 1.80 85.79
Maize Karnataka 0.27 0.00 0.53 2.94 4.55 91.71
Jute WB 0.00 0.00 2.50 1.67 0.00 95.83
Groundnut Gujarat 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 95.00
Cotton Gujarat 7.50 2.50 0.00 8.30 0.00 95.00
soybean MP 0.00 16.10 0.50 5.70 8.20 69.60
With respect to maize crop in Karnataka, for about 92 per cent of the farmers, State Department
of Agriculture happens to be one of the major sources of information on soil testing followed by
neighbours, friends, private companies and SAUs. Excepting SDAs, all other sources engaged in
120
spreading awareness regarding soil testing account for eight per cent of the farmers in the state.
The role of KVKs seems to be nil in spreading awareness regarding soil testing among maize
farmers in the state. Similar is the situation in the case of jute farmers in West Bengal with 96 per
cent of the farmers reporting SDA as the major source of information followed by private
companies (2.5%) and friends (2%). The role of KVKs and SAUs seems to be almost nil in this
respect.
In the case of groundnut and cotton farmers from Gujarat, for about 95 per cent each of the
sample farmers, SDA is the major source of information on soil testing, while friends are the
other source of information on soil testing for about five per cent and eight per cent of the
groundnut and cotton farmers, respectively. However, in the case of cotton, for nearly eight per
cent and three per cent of the farmers, SAUs and KVKs also are found to have helped with
information on soil testing. With regard to soybean farmers in Madhya Pradesh, about 70 per
cent received information on soil testing from SDA, while 16 per cent from KVKs, eight per cent
from neighbours, six per cent from friends and less than one per cent from private companies.
However, no farmers have reported SAUs as their source of information on soil testing. Overall,
SDAs are the major sources of information on soil testing across states and crops.
4.7 Details of Soil Testing
A crop-wise distribution of soil tested farmers across the selected states is presented in Table
4.12. It is revealed from the table that, within the soil-tested farmer category, almost all (100%)
the sample farmers from Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal have tested their soil
systems in the last three years with regard to paddy crop, excepting Bihar state, where, although
soil samples had been drawn by the government officials, soil health cards were not distributed.
Another reason for not getting SHCs by Bihar farmers was the delay involved in the
implementation of NPMSHF program (December, 2013), as expressed by the officials of the
state. Nevertheless at the aggregate paddy, farmers who have tested their soil systems accounts
for 75 per cent in the study area. As discussed earlier, although government have taken steps to
test the soils of farmers' fields at free of cost as part of helping and encouraging the farming
community, they have spent, on an average, Rs.41/ sample with an exception of a maximum of
121
Rs. 75/ sample being incurred in the case of West Bengal. Interestingly, there was no cost
reported incurred by the farmers in Karnataka, while a minimum of seven rupees was reported
spent by the Uttar Pradesh farmers. The average distance from the field to soil testing
laboratories comes to 25 kms, however, the range varies from a minimum of 12 kms to a
maximum of 35 kms. On an average, two soil samples were taken per plot with an exception of
a highest of five samples per plot drawn in the case of Bihar state. Overall, one to two plots were
considered for drawing the soil samples over an average area of three acres, accounting for
nearly 54 per cent of the net operated area. Excepting the case of Uttar Pradesh, the area covered
as a proportion of net operated area is found to be less than half with the highest being in respect
of Uttar Pradesh (81%). Regarding the soil sample collection, around 69 per cent of the farmers
are found to have had collected soil samples by themselves and interestingly, cent per cent of the
West Bengal paddy farmers had collected soil samples on their own, whereas, the proportion
appears to be nil in the case of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. With this, it is understood that a majority
(88%) of the soil samples had been collected by the Department officials only, while nearly cent
per cent of the soil sample collection had been carried out in the states of Bihar and Uttar
Pradesh.
Similar to paddy, the per cent of wheat farmers testing their soil systems within the last three
years accounts for 67 per cent at the aggregate, which could be due to the delay involved in the
implementation of NPMSHF program in Bihar, whereas, cent per cent of Uttar Pradesh and
Madhya Pradesh farmers are reported to have tested their soil systems at least once in the last
three years. These wheat farmers have spent a very less amount of about six rupees at the
aggregate per sample for testing their samples. The average distance from the field to soil testing
laboratories comes to 23 kms and is relatively the same across all the sample states. On an
average, three soil samples were drawn per plot for soil testing. This higher average number of
soil samples per plot was due to higher samples drawn per plot in the case of Bihar state. The
number of plots considered for soil testing works out to one in the study area, which covering
about three acres and representing 65 per cent of the net operated area at the overall.
Interestingly, none of the farmers is found to have drawn soil samples on his which indicates that
cent per cent of the soil sample collection had been carried out by the Department officials only,
irrespective of the states.
122
With respect to maize crop in Karnataka, cent per cent of the sample farmers are found to have
tested their soil systems in the last three years and interestingly they did not incur any
expenditure for soil test as it was tested free of cost under the state government programme. The
average distance from the field to laboratory is found to be 35 kms, at the aggregate. On an
average, two soil samples were drawn from two plots for soil testing covering an average area of
nearly six acres, accounting for about 71 per cent of the net operated area. A minority (30%) of
the maize farmers had collected soil samples on their own, but a majority of the soil samples
(70%) had been collected by the Department officials only.
As regards jute crop in West Bengal, all the sample farmers are observed to have tested their soil
systems at least once in the last three years. However, they spent Rs.68/ sample for testing their
soil systems. The average distance from the field to soil testing laboratories is reported to be
nearly 34 kms. The number of soil samples taken per plot in the case of jute was one, while two
plots were considered for soil testing. On an average, the area covered under soil test was limited
to one acre, accounting for about 51 per cent of the net operated area. Curiously, cent per cent of
the jute farmers had collected soil samples on their own.
With regard to groundnut in Gujarat, almost all the sample farmers are found to have tested their
soils at least once in the last three years, with none of them spending a single rupee for soil
testing. The average distance from the field to soil testing laboratories works out to 44 kms. On
the other side, the number of soil samples taken per plot was as high as five samples over an area
of nearly six acres, representing 57 per cent of the net operated area. About 41 per cent of the
farmers collected their soil samples on their own and the rest by the Department officials.
Similarly, in the case of cotton crop in Gujarat, all the sample farmers are found to have tested
their soil systems in the last three years. However, the distance from the field to laboratories is
found to be as high as 130 kms. On an average, five soil samples had been drawn per plot as part
of the soil sample collection over an area of about four acres accounting for 67 per cent of the net
operated area. A majority (63%) of the soil samples had been drawn by the Department officials
in the case of cotton and the rest by the farmers themselves.
123
Table 4.12: Distribution of soil-tested farmers
% of % of
Avg.
Farmers Distance No. of Area farmers % of soil
cost of No. of plots Area
who from soil covered who samples
soil considered covered
Crop State tested field to samples under collected collected
testing for soil as % of
soil in STL taken soil test soil sample by dept
(Rs/soil testing NOA
the last 3 (kms) per plot (acre) by officials
sample
yr themselves
Bihar* - - 12 5 1 4 43.34 0.00 100.00
Karnataka 100.00 - 35 2 3 5 49.14 37.01 62.98
Paddy UP 100.00 7 31 1 1 3 81.40 0.00 100.00
WB 100.00 75 21 1 2 1 41.55 100 0.00
Average of paddy 75.00 41 25 2 2 3 53.85 68.50 87.66
Bihar* - - 25 5 1 4 59.33 0.00 100.00
Wheat UP 100.00 7 24 2 2 2 75.56 0.00 100.00
MP 100.00 5 21 1 1 4 59.33 0.00 100.00
Average of wheat 66.67 6 23 3 1 3 64.74 0.00 100.00
Maize Karnataka 100.00 - 34 2 2 6 71.04 30.32 69.67
Jute WB 100.00 68 34 1 2 1 50.72 100.0 0.00
Groundnut Gujarat 100.00 - 44 5 1 6 56.60 40.80 59.20
Cotton Gujarat 100.00 - 130 5 1 4 66.80 36.70 63.30
Soybean MP 100.00 27 65 1 1 6 17.00 36.50 63.50
Note: *Soil samples had been collected by the department officials under the soil test program NPMSHF, but soil health cards are yet to be distributed.
124
In the case of soybean in Madhya Pradesh, almost all the sample farmers are reported to have
tested their soil systems in the last three years spending on an average, Rs. 27 per sample for soil
testing. The average distance from the field to soil testing laboratories comes to 65 kms. Nearly
one sample per plot had been drawn for soil testing in the case of soybean over an average area
of six acres, accounting for merely 17 per cent of the net operated area. With regard to sample
collection, a majority (64%) of the soil samples had been drawn by the Department officials only.
4.8 Reasons for Soil Testing as reported by Soil-Tested Farmers

Reasons for soil testing by the soil-tested farmers across crops and states are presented in Table
4.13. It is revealed from the table that, there are multiple reasons behind adoption of soil test
technology with an equal importance. At the aggregate, a majority of the farmers across states
have stated that increasing crop yield was one of the major reasons (92%) for soil testing,
followed by adoption of new technological practices (40%), motivation from demonstration/
training/ exposure visit with best farming practices (36%), peer farmer group pressure (27%) and
availing of benefits under subsidy schemes (14%) in the case of paddy. However, the importance
remains the same as for as increasing crop yield is concerned, however, the degree of importance
varies across states in that motivation received from demonstration/ training/ exposure visit with
best farming practices was also an important reason for 86 per cent of Bihar paddy farmers as
well as 48 per cent of Karnataka farmers behind their opting for soil test. In addition to this,
about 69 per cent of Karnataka farmers also have expressed that peer farmer group pressure was
also an important reason behind going for soil testing. Similarly, for 84 per cent of Bihar farmers
and 48 per cent of Karnataka farmers, adoption of new technological practices was the other
reason for soil testing. Interestingly, for 17 per cent of the paddy farmers from West Bengal, 16
per cent from Bihar and 10 per cent of Karnataka, availing of benefits under subsidy schemes
was the reason for soil testing, an issue which needs a serious attention from the both state and
central governments.
In the case of wheat farmers also, for a majority (93%) of the farmers, increasing crop yield was
the major reason for soil testing, followed by motivation received from demonstration/ training/
exposure visits (84%), adoption of new technological practices (75%), availing of benefits under
subsidy schemes (49%) and peer farmer group pressure (38%). Looking into the observation
125
made by farmers across states, it becomes evident that increasing crop yield was the major
concern for soil testing by cent per cent each of the farmers of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and 80
per cent of Madhya Pradesh farmers. Similarly, for about 91 per cent of Bihar farmers,
motivation received from demonstration/training/exposure visit with best farming practices was
the reason behind soil testing with the proportion being 78 per cent in respect of Madhya Pradesh
farmers. On the other hand, for 92 per cent of Madhya Pradesh farmers, adoption of new
technological practices was also, an equally important reason for soil testing, as also for 58 per
cent of Bihar farmers. Interestingly, for more than half of Madhya Pradesh and 47 per cent of
Bihar farmers, availing of benefits under subsidy schemes was the main reason behind soil
testing. Peer farmer group pressure was also one of the reasons, as reported by 70 per cent of
Madhya Pradesh farmers.
With respect to maize crop in Karnataka, for about 89 per cent, 61 per cent, 44 per cent, 38 per
cent and six per cent of the farmers, increasing crop yield, peer farmer group pressure,
motivation from demonstration/training/exposure visit with best farming practices, adoption of
new technological practices and availing benefits under subsidy schemes were the reasons for
soil testing based on their degree of importance. With regard to jute farmers from West Bengal,
increasing crop yield was the most important reason as expressed by 66 per cent of the farmers.
The other reasons included reducing the cost of cultivation, understanding the actual situation of
land, increasing the crop quality etc., as the second important reason, as reported by 38 per cent
of the farmers. The rest of the reasons were cited by less than 15 per cent of the farmers.
In the state of Gujarat, for both groundnut and cotton farmers, increasing crop yield was the
major reason (>95%) for soil testing. However, adoption of new technological practices was the
second important reason for soil testing, as stated by 64 per cent of the groundnut farmers,
whereas motivation from demonstration/training/exposure visit with best farming practices was
the reason, as revealed by 56 per cent of the cotton farmers. On the other side, Peer group
pressure was the reason for soil testing, as reported by 11 per cent of the cotton farmers in
Gujarat.
126
Table 4.13: Reasons for soil testing across crops and states
Motivation from
demonstration /
Availing of Peer Adoption of
training /
benefits under Increasing crop farmer new
Crop State exposure visit Others
subsidy yield group technological
with best
scheme/s pressure practices
farming
practices
Bihar 15.83 100.00 85.83 10.00 84.20 -
Paddy Karnataka 9.74 91.56 48.05 68.83 48.05 -
UP 0.00 87.50 0.83 0.00 11.67 -
WB 16.70 88.30 10.00 0.80 16.70 18.30
Average of paddy 14.08 91.84 36.17 26.53 40.15 4.63
Bihar 46.67 100.00 90.83 5.00 57.50 -
Wheat UP 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -
MP 51.70 80.00 77.50 70.00 91.70 -
Average of wheat 49.20 93.33 84.16 37.50 74.59 -
Maize Karnataka 6.49 88.96 44.16 61.04 38.31 -
Jute WB 8.30 65.80 3.30 0.00 13.30 38.30
Groundnut Gujarat 1.70 98.30 25.80 2.50 64.20 -
Cotton Gujarat 10.00 95.00 55.80 10.80 54.20 --
soybean MP 75.80 93.30 85.00 70.00 80.80 -
127
With respect to soybean in Madhya Pradesh, increasing crop yield was one of the major reasons
for soil testing, as reported by 93 per cent of the farmers, followed by motivation from
demonstration/training/exposure visit with best farming practices (85%), adoption of new
technological practices (81%), availing of benefits under subsidy schemes (76%) and peer group
pressure (70%). Overall, increasing crop yield was the major reason behind soil testing for a
majority of farmers across different crops and states, followed by other positive aspects of soil
testing.
4.9 Reasons for Not Testing Soil in the case of Control Farmers
Reasons for not testing soil by the control farmers across crops and states are presented in Table
4.14. At the aggregate, more than half of the paddy farmers, have reported (56%) do not know
how to take soil samples as the main reason for not testing soil, followed by soil testing
laboratories are located far away from the field (49%) and do not know whom to contact for
details of soil testing (41%). Although they cited many other reasons, these three were the
important reasons for not opting for soil test technology. However, across sample states, A
majority Bihar farmers (92%) have reported soil testing laboratories are located far away from
the field as the important reason for not testing soil, followed by do not know how to take soil
samples (88%) and do not know whom to contact for details of soil testing (70%), whereas, in
respect of Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh, a majority of the farmers have expressed do not know
how to take soil samples (71% and 48%) and do not know whom to contact for details of soil
testing (28% and 35%) as the next-in-order-of importance reasons for not testing soil.
Interestingly, farmers from West Bengal have expressed other reasons (38%) such as yield levels
are good at their fields and, hence no need for soil testing, a fake health report had been
received earlier and reports were not distributed on time as the main reasons for not testing
their soil systems. Lack of experience was also the reason, as reported by four per cent of
Karnataka paddy farmers.
In the case of wheat, overall, for a majority (85%) of the farmers soil testing laboratories are
located far away from the field, soil testing not required for my field as crop yield is good
(75%), do not know how to take soil samples(69%), do not know whom to contact for details
of soil testing (60%) were the important reasons for not testing their soil systems in the order of
128
their importance. Across states, for Bihar farmers, soil testing laboratories are located far away
from the field (98%) was the important reason for not testing soil, followed by do not know
how to take soil samples(82%) and do not know whom to contact for details of soil testing
(63%). On the other side, with regard to Uttar Pradesh, for more than half of the farmers (57%),
do not know how to take soil samples followed by do not know whom to contact for details of
soil testing (43%) were the two main reasons for not testing their soil systems. Interestingly, for
farmers from Madhya Pradesh, no knowledge regarding soil testing facility (95%) the main
reason for not testing soil, followed by soil testing is not credible (83%) and soil testing not
required for my field as the crop yield is good (75%). In addition, for about 70-73 per cent of the
wheat farmers from Madhya Pradesh, do not know whom to contact for details of soil testing,
soil testing laboratories are located for away and do not know how to take soil samples were
the other reasons equally important for not testing their soils.
With respect to maize farmers in Karnataka, do not know how to take soil samples, do not
know whom to contact for details of testing and soil testing laboratories are located far away
were the important reasons, as reported by more than 50 per cent of the control farmers. Further,
about 16 per cent perceived soil testing not required for my field as crop yield is good and lack
of awareness regarding soil testing (11%) as the important reasons for not testing their soil
systems. In the case of jute, West Bengal farmers have reported bad experiences undergone by
the farmers who had tested their soils in terms of getting fake reports or delay in report
distribution as the major reasons for not testing their soil systems. The other reasons were cited
by less than 25 per cent each of the jute farmers.
129
Table 4.14: Reasons for not testing soils
Crops States A* B* C* D* E* F* G* H* I* J* K*
Bihar 88.30 70.00 91.67 - - - - - - - 15.67
Karnataka 70.90 71.03 50.47 21.50 1.57 - - - 3.93 - 1.20
Paddy Uttar
48.33 28.33 21.67 1.67 - - - - - - -
Pradesh
West
15.00 35.00 33.33 3.33 - - - - - - 38.33
Bengal
Average of paddy 55.63 41.09 49.28 8.33 0.38 - - - 1.00 - 13.88
Bihar 81.67 63.33 98.33 - - - - - - - 41.67
Wheat Uttar
56.67 43.33 - - - - - - - - -
Pradesh
Madhya
70.00 73.30 71.70 75.00 - - 83.30 95.00 - - -
Pradesh
Average of wheat 69.44 59.98 85.01 75.00 - - 20.88 23.75 - - 10.50
Maize Karnataka 72.45 64.22 49.54 15.60 6.14 - - - 11.06 - -
Jute WB 10.00 23.33 21.67 8.33 - - - - - - 41.67
Groundnut Gujarat 86.30 78.80 60.00 42.50 - 27.50 - - 81.30 32.50 11.30
Cotton Gujarat 76.30 72.50 61.30 47.50 - 27.50 - - 76.30 22.50 3.80
Soybean MP 55.00 75.00 63.30 65.00 - - 35.00 56.70 - - -
Note: A*: Do not know how to take soil samples; B*: Do not know whom to contact for details of testing; C*: Soil testing laboratories are located far away; D*:
Soil testing not required for my field as crop yield is good; E*: Lack of interest; F*: Dont trust experts recommendation; G*: Soil testing is not credible; H*:
No knowledge regarding soil testing facility; I*: Lack of awareness; J*: Trust fellow farmers suggestion not to go for soil test; K*: others
130
A majority of the farmers from Gujarat have stated more than five important reasons for not
testing their soil systems i.e., farmers growing groundnut and cotton crops. The important
reasons included do not know how to take soil samples (86%) followed by lack of awareness
regarding soil testing (81%), do not know whom to contact for details of soil testing (79%),
soil testing laboratories are located far away (60%), soil testing is not required for my filed as
the crop yield is good (43%), trusting fellow farmers suggestion not to opt for soil testing
(33%) etc., in the case of groundnut crop. Similarly, do not know how to take soil samples and
lack of awareness regarding soil testing were the prime reasons for not testing their soil systems
for 76 per cent each of the cotton farmers. The other reasons included do not know whom to
contact for details of soil testing (73%), soil testing laboratories are located far away (61%),
soil testing is not required for my filed as the crop yield is good (48%) and don't' trust experts
recommendation for not opting for soil test technology in the case of cotton farmers.
Finally, with regard to soybean farmers, the prime reasons for not going for soil testing included
do not know whom to contact for details of soil testing (75%), followed by soil testing is not
required for my filed as the crop yield is good (65%), soil testing laboratories are located far
away (63%), lack of awareness regarding soil testing (57%), do not know how to take soil
samples (55%) and soil testing is not credible (35%).
4.10 SUMMARY
The private fertilizer dealers (>75%) were the major source for purchasing of all fertilizers
followed by cooperative societies. whereas, in the case of Bihar, cooperative societies were the
major source for purchase of fertilizers. The prices of fertilizers were relatively the same for the
control and soil-test farmers across states. Irrespective of the control or soil-tested farmer
category, a majority of the paddy, wheat, soybean and jute farmers had applied all fertilizers
through broadcasting method, whereas a majority of the maize, groundnut and cotton farmers
had followed the line method of application. It is noticed that control farmers had applied higher
quantities of fertilizers vis-a-vis soil-tested farmers due to their lack of knowledge on soil testing
and its usefulness in agricultural production. The cost per unit of bio-fertilizers and micro-
nutrients was a little costlier when compared to other fertilizers. However, the transportation cost
131
from the point of purchase to the farmer's field came less than 50 paisa per kg across all farmers,
fertilizers and states, irrespective of control or soil-tested categories. Out of all states, the
transportation costs seemed to be highest in the state of Bihar as compared to other states.
Overall, it is clear from the results that the State Department of Agriculture (89.71%) is the major
source of information on soil testing for the farming community across states followed by
friends, KVKs, SAUs, private companies and neighbours. The distribution of SHCs was delayed
due to the late implementation of the central soil health card scheme in the state of Bihar.
Overall, increasing crop yield, adoption of new technological practices, motivation from
demonstration/ training/ exposure visit with best farming practices and availing benefits under
subsidy schemes were the major reasons ( in the order of importance) behind soil testing for a
majority of farmers across different crops and states, whereas, lack of knowledge on soil testing
facility, distance between the field to soil testing laboratory, do not know how to take soil
samples were the reasons for not testing soil systems by the control farmers.
132
CHAPTER V
ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED DOSES OF FERTILIZERS
5.1 Background
This chapter deals with the adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers on soil test basis by the
soil tested farmers and its related issues in the adoption of soil test technology. Hence, the details
are discussed under four sub-sections. The first and second sections presents the details related
to the application of recommended doses of fertilizers on soil test basis, while third and fourth
section represents differences in quantity of actual and recommended doses of fertilizers by both
the soil-tested and control farmers.
5.2 Recommended Doses of Fertilizers (RDFs) on Soil Test Basis

The main objective of soil test technology is to determine nutrient contents, composition and
other properties of soil systems such as pH level, Electric Conductivity (EC) etc., mainly to
promote Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) through a judicious use of chemical fertilizers
(for both micro and macro nutrients) in conjunction with organic manures and bio-fertilizers as
part of improving the overall soil health and its productivity. These characteristics are analyzed
through soil testing. Based on the soil characteristics, the fertilizer requirements of the next crop
are recommended as 'Recommended Doses of Fertilizers' (RDFs), taking into consideration, the
nutrients already present in the soil systems.
The average quantity of recommended dose of fertilizers given in soil test report is presented in
Table 5.1. Overall for paddy crop, the recommended doses of fertilizers were 54 kg/acre of urea,
46 kg/acre of DAP and 34 kg/acre of potassium as per the details, given in the SHC. However,
these recommendations vary from field to field and hence, the quantity also varies across states.
Across sample states, a higher quantity of urea was recommended in respect of Uttar Pradesh (87
kg/acre), followed by Karnataka (63 kg/acre) and West Bengal (13 kg/acre), whereas, DAP was
relatively the same in quantity in respect of both Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh i.e., at the rate of
50 kg/acre and less in the case of West Bengal (31 kg/acre). In terms of potash quantity, the range
values varied from 27 kg/acre in the case of West Bengal to 40 kg/acre with regard to Uttar
133
Pradesh. In addition to these NPK, SSP was also recommended for paddy in Karnataka at the
rate of 51 kg/acre. At the aggregate, it is very clear from the table that, the paddy fields of West
Bengal are good in terms of all nutrients as compared to other states. In contrast, none of the
sample states of paddy was recommended for sulphur, gypsum and zinc sulphate. The
recommendations for paddy were not seen followed in Bihar state due to delay in the distribution
of SHCs.
As regards wheat, the aggregate recommended doses of fertilizers included 95 kg/acre of urea,
41 kg/acre of DAP and 21 kg/acre of potassium, as per the SHC reports. In addition to these
NPK fertilizers, Zinc sulphate at the rate of 10 kg/acre was recommended only in the case of
Madhya Pradesh. Looking into the state-wise scenario, it is found that a higher quantity of urea
was recommended in respect of Uttar Pradesh (96 kg/acre) followed by Madhya Pradesh (93
kg/acre), whereas, a higher quantity of DAP was recommended in Madhya Pradesh (53 kg/acre),
followed by Uttar Pradesh (30 kg/acre). Similarly, a higher quantity of potash was recommended
in the case of Madhya Pradesh (24 kg/acre) as compared to Uttar Pradesh (16 kg/acre). The
recommendations were not seen, followed in Bihar state for wheat, as they didn't get SHCs on
time. SSP, sulphur, gypsum and zinc sulphate were not recommended in the case of wheat for
any of the states.
In the case of maize crop in Karnataka, the recommended doses of fertilizers included 83 kg/acre
of urea, 60 kg/acre of DAP, 35 kg/acre of SSP and 38 kg/acre of potash based on the information
available with SHCs of the respondents. With respect to West Bengal, the recommended quantity
of fertilizers for jute crop involved a higher quantity of SSP (55 kg/acre), followed by 35kg/acre
of urea and 27 kg/acre of potash. Interestingly, the quantity of DAP recommended for jute was
nil in the state of West Bengal. With regard to Gujarat state, all the macro nutrients (NPK) were
recommended in the case of groundnut at the rate of five kg/acre, 27 kg/acre and four kg/acre,
respectively. While, only urea and potash were recommended for cotton crop at the rate of 52
kg/acre and four kg/acre, as per the SHC reports available with the sample farmers. It is quite
interesting to see that, both macro and micro nutrients were recommended in the case of soybean
farmers in respect of Madhya Pradesh in that the recommendation included a highest quantity of
134
SSP (151 kg/acre), followed by DAP (53 kg/acre), 47 kg/acre of gypsum, 17 kg/ acre of urea, 13
kg/acre of potash and a negligible quantity of sulphur (8 kg/acre).
Table 5.1: Average quantity of recommended doses of fertilizer as given in soil test report
(as reported in the SHC)
(Kg/acre)
Crop State Urea DAP SSP potash Sulphur Gypsum ZnSo4*
Bihar - - - - - - -
Paddy Karnataka 63.32 53.16 51.42 34.25 - - -
UP 86.50 53.50 - 40.30 - - -
WB 13.20 31.19 - 26.72 - - -
Average of paddy 54.34 45.95 12.85 33.76 - - -
Bihar - - - - - - -
Wheat UP 96.58 30.39 - 16.67 - - -
MP 92.90 52.60 - 24.60 - - 10.10
Average of wheat 94.74 41.49 - 20.64 - - 10.10
Maize Karnataka 83.23 59.60 35.00 38.09 - - -
Jute WB 35.19 - 54.80 26.98 - - -
Groundnut Gujarat 5.30 27.10 - 4.00 - - -
Cotton Gujarat 52.30 - - 4.00 - - -
soybean MP 17.40 52.60 151.00 13.30 8.09 46.90 -
5.3 Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers by the Soil Tested Farmers
The application details of recommended doses of fertilizers by the soil-tested farmers are shown
in Table 5.2. It can be observed from the table that, although none of the farmers is found to have
had applied fertilizers as per the recommendations in the SHCs (as observed in the Chapter IV),
as per nearly 20 per cent of the overall soil tested farmers of paddy, they had applied
recommended doses of fertilizers over an average area of four acres, representing about 40 per
cent of the net operated area. Further, as expressed by them also this practice was followed since
last season with about 76 per cent of them showing their willingness to continue with the practice
of application of RDFs o crops. However, across sample states, about one fourth of the farmers
in Uttar Pradesh had applied RDFs over an area of three acres, covering about 21 per cent of the
net operated area. They have been following RDFs since the last season with 25 per cent of them
willing to continue with same practice hereafter. On the other side, in Karnataka, nearly 23 per
cent had applied RDFs over an average area of six acres, constituting 61 per cent of the net
operated area. Interestingly, 94 per cent of them were willing to continue this practice of
135
application of RDFs, although they had started this practice only since the last season. Coming
to West Bengal, only nine per cent of the farmers had applied RDFs over an small area of around
two acres representing 28 per cent of the net operated area, but what is interesting to note is that
cent per cent of them had been impressed with this technology besides being willing to continue
further, as expressed by them.
With respect to wheat, overall, as expressed 35 per cent of the soil-test farmers, they had applied
recommended dose of fertilizers over an average area of three acres, which is almost equivalent
to 36 per cent of the net operated area. It is important to note here that they have been following
these RDFs since the last one or two seasons, however, 32 per cent of them were willing to
continue with this practice. Looking across states, it is observed that about 46 per cent of the
farmers of Madhya Pradesh had applied RDFs over an average area of four acres, covering more
than half (52%) of the net operated area. As reported by them, they started applying RDFs since
the last season and with half of them being interested in continuing with this practice. On the
other side, 23 per cent of Uttar Pradesh farmers had applied RDFs over an average area of two
acres, covering about 20 per cent of the net operated area. Interestingly, they have been
practising this technology since the last two seasons with only 23 per cent of them being willing
to continue with this practice.
With regard to maize farmers in Karnataka, only 11 per cent of the farmers had applied RDFs
over an average area of nearly eight acres, representing 62 per cent of the net operated area since
the last season. However, 59 per cent of the farmers were found willing to continue the
application of RDFs. In the case of Madhya Pradesh, nearly 44 per cent of the soybean farmers
agreed that they had been practising the application of RDFs on soil test basis over an average
area of around four acres, which is almost equivalent to 58 per cent of the net operated area since
the last season. Further, about 40 per cent of them were willing to continue with this practice in
the next season too. With respect to Gujarat farmers of groundnut and cotton, according to 40
per cent of them, they had been practising the application of RDFs on soil-test basis over an
average area of nearly four acres, accounting a minute proportion of the net operated area
(<14%). Interestingly, groundnut farmers have been following this practice since the last season
with a majority (73%) of them willing to continue with the same in their agricultural practices,
136
whereas, in the case of cotton crop, farmers have been following these recommendations since
the last two seasons with half of them being willing to continue with their practice.
Table 5.2: Application of recommended doses of fertilizers by soil-tested farmers in respect

of reference crops - RDF application
Particulars
% of
% of farmers
Crops States farmers Average Area covered Average
willing to
who had area as % of net number of
continue
applied (acre) operated area seasons
applying RDFs
RDFs
Karnataka 23.38 5.62 60.50 1.22 94.44
Uttar Pradesh 25.00 3.00 21.00 1.00 25.00
Paddy
West Bengal 9.17 1.65 28.16 1.00 100.00
Overall 19.73 3.70 39.67 1.09 75.92
Uttar Pradesh 23.00 2.00 20.00 2.00 23.00
Wheat Madhya 46.10 3.70 52.37 1.00 41.90
Pradesh
Overall 34.55 2.85 36.18 1.5 32.45
Maize Karnataka 10.97 7.68 62.22 1.00 58.82
Soybean Madhya 43.90 5.40 58.19 1.00 40.20
Pradesh
Jute West Bengal 10.83 0.55 25.89 1.00 100.00
Ground Gujarat 40.30 4.30 13.80 1.00 72.50
nut
Cotton Gujarat 40.00 4.10 3.50 2.00 50.00
5.4 Differences in the Quantity of Actual & Recommended Doses of Fertilizers Applied by
the Soil-Tested Farmers
The differences in the actual quantities of fertilizers applied by the soil-tested farmers in
comparison to the recommended doses are shown in Table 5.3. It is observed from the table that,
due to delay involved in the distribution of SHCs, the farmers in Bihar, were not aware of the
recommended doses of fertilizers to be applied and hence, the difference in quantity applied is
shown as 'Nil' in the table for both paddy and wheat crops.
137
In the case of paddy crop, Karnataka and West Bengal farmers, are found to have had applied
higher quantities of urea (N) at the rate of 22 kg/acre and 26 kg/acre and DAP (P) at the rate of
four and five kg/acre, respectively as compared to the recommended doses of fertilizers to be
applied on soil test basis, whereas, farmers from Uttar Pradesh had applied slightly lesser
quantities (three kg of urea and nine kg of DAP/acre). On the other hand, a less of potash, had
been applied, i.e., nine kg/acre in Karnataka and UP while, three kg/acre in West Bengal. Further,
farmers in Karnataka also had applied 51 kg/acre of SSP unnecessarily, despite the fact that it
was not at all recommended in the SHC.
With regard to wheat, excepting slightly higher quantities of urea (eight kg/acre) applied by
farmers in Madhya Pradesh, all other fertilizers are found to, have been applied in lesser
quantities both in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, as compared to the recommended doses
prescribed in the SHCs. The extent of less quantity applied works out to 13 kg/acre of urea and
three kg/acre of potash in respect of UP and 23 kg/acre of potash in respect of MP. Relatively,
DAP application is found to be less than a kg/acre.
As regards maize crop, Karnataka farmers are found to have applied all nutrients (NPK) less than
the recommended doses based on soil test i.e., 20 kg of N, 24 kg of DAP, 35 kg of SSP and 20kg
of K per acre. With respect to jute, farmers in West Bengal had applied 17 kg/acre of a higher
quantity of urea than the recommended doses, but at the same time, they had applied 52 kg/acre
of SSP and 13 kg/acre of potash less than the recommended doses. Excepting potash in the case
of cotton crop, all other fertilizers had been applied in higher quantities than the recommended
doses by the farmers of groundnut and cotton in Gujarat. The increase in quantity applied was
13 kg of potash, three kg of DAP and nearly one kg of urea per acre with regard to groundnut,
while 31 kg/acre of urea in the case of cotton. In contrast, all the nutrients had been applied in
less quantities as compared to recommended doses by soybean farmers in Madhya Pradesh. The
less than recommended quantity was to the tune of nearly three kg of urea, 19 kg of DAP, 106 kg
of SSP and seven kg of potash per acre.
138
Overall, it was noticed that none of the farmers had followed the recommended doses of
fertilizers on soil test basis. In a majority cases, they had applied a higher quantity of fertilizers
than what was required for crop growth, thereby increase the cost of cultivation. In fact, the
application of recommended doses of fertilizers, helping reduce the cost of cultivation to the
farmers, increase crop productivity and maintain soil health condition. On the other hand, not
following the recommended doses of fertilizer application, increases the cost of cultivation,
reduces productivity and affects soil health condition in many ways, which ultimately, may lead
to barren land.
Table 5.3: Differences between the actual quantity of fertilizers used and the recommended
doses of fertilizers on soil test basis by the soil-tested farmers across crops & states
(Kgs/Acre)
Crops States Urea DAP SSP Potash
Bihar Nil Nil Nil Nil
Paddy Karnataka 21.68 4.34 51.42 -9.25

UP -3.06 -9.18 - -9.24
WB 25.61 5.23 - -2.77
Bihar Nil Nil Nil Nil
Wheat UP -13.24 -0.45 - -3.16
MP 8.1 -0.6 - -22.6
Maize Karnataka -20.23 -24.1 -35 -20.09
Jute WB 17.01 - -51.98 -12.58
Groundnut Gujarat 0.8 2.8 - 13
Cotton Gujarat 30.8 - - -1.2
Soybean MP -3.4 -18.6 -106 -7.3
5.5 Differences in the Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by Control Farmers
An effort was also made to see the differences in fertilizer application among control farmers in
comparison to the information available with the SHCs of the soil-tested farmers with the results
shown in Table 5.4. It can be noticed from the table that farmers had, more or less, followed a
similar pattern of application of fertilizers across different crops, regardless of whether they had
gone in for soil test or not. However, soil tested farmers are found to have had applied
comparatively lesser quantities of fertilizers vis-a-vis control farmers, which might be due to
139
their being better aware of over doses of fertilizers and their effect on soil and crop health
through various government programmes in the recent years.
As discussed earlier, since there were no SHCs available with the farmers from Bihar, we could
not compare fertilizer doses with the recommended doses and hence, the results are shown as 'nil'
in the table for both paddy and wheat crops. With respect to paddy crop, Karnataka and West
Bengal farmers, are found to have had applied much higher quantities of NPK fertilizers and vice
versa in the case of UP. The quantities of fertilizers applied by Karnataka farmers were too high
as compared to the SHC recommendations, however, the quantities applied were to the tune of
77 kg of urea, 41 kg of DAP and 16 kg of potash per acre, whereas, in the case of West Bengal,
the higher quantities applied, were to the tune of 25 kg of urea, six kg of DAP and two kg of
potash per acre. The SSP fertilizer had been applied by Karnataka farmers at the rate of 51 kg per
acre unnecessarily, much beyond what was required for crop growth. In contrast, UP farmers had
applied four kg of urea, 14 kg of DAP and 12 kg of potash much below comparison to SHC
recommendations.
In the case of wheat crop, UP farmers had applied 13 kg/acre of DAP and three kg/acre of
potash, more than the recommended doses, while MP farmers had applied seven kg/acre of urea
more than what was required for crop growth. However, with regard to other fertilizers, both the
farmers, in UP and MP had applied lesser quantities than the required doses. Out of all, the
quantity of potash applied was found to be 19 kg/acre less and the rest were less than 10 kg/acre
each.
With regard to maize crop, the quantities of NPK including SSP fertilizers applied were more
than 14 kg/acre each, while less than the recommended doses in the case of Karnataka. As
regards jute farmers in West Bengal, the quantity of urea applied was 18 kg per acre more than
the recommended dose, whereas, those of SSP and potash were 48 kg per acre and 13 kg per acre
less respectively. With respect to groundnut and cotton, Gujarat farmers had applied higher than
the recommended doses of fertilizers on soil test basis in terms of all nutrients, excepting potash
in respect of cotton crop. The higher quantities applied by groundnut farmers included 14 kg of
urea, eight kg of DAP and four kg of potash per acre, while cotton farmers had applied 19 kg per
140
acre more of urea, per acre. The soybean farmers in Madhya Pradesh had applied lesser
quantities of urea (13 kg/acre), potash (10 kg/acre) and SSP (107 kg/acre) and a higher quantity
of DAP (11kg/acre).
Table 5.4: Differences between control farmers and soil-tested farmers in terms of fertilizer
application for different crops across states
Crops States Urea DAP SSP Potash ZnSO4 Gypsum Others
Bihar Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil

Karnataka 76.68 40.84 51.42 15.75 - - -
Paddy
UP -4.16 -14.28 - -11.62 - - -
WB 25.29 6.35 - 2.14 - - 1.35
Bihar Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Wheat UP -3.56 12.84 - 2.52 - - -
MP 7.1 -2.6 - -18.6 -9.1 - -
Maize Karnataka -14.23 -31.6 -35 -25.09 - - -
Jute WB 17.86 - -48.39 -13.02 - - -
Groundnut Gujarat 13.8 8.4 - 3.7 - - -
Cotton Gujarat 18.9 - - -1.6 - - -
soybean MP -13.4 11.4 -107 -10.3 - 1 -
5.5 Summary
It is very clear from the field observations that irrespective of crops and states, none of the
farmers has followed the recommended doses of fertilizers, they had applied either higher or
lesser quantities of NPKs. However, for about 20 per cent of paddy, 35 per cent of wheat, 44 per
cent of soybean, 40 per cent each of groundnut and cotton farmers, and 11 per cent each of maize
and jute farmers, had stated that they followed RDFs with a majority of them being willing to
continue with RDFs in their future farm practices. For instance, all the nutrients had been applied
in less quantities as compared to recommended doses by soybean farmers in Madhya Pradesh,
while in the case of groundnut and cotton in Gujarat, excepting potash, all other fertilizers had
been applied in higher quantities than the recommended doses. Interestingly, the soil tested
141
farmers are found to have had applied comparatively lesser quantities of fertilizers vis-a-vis
control farmers, which might be due to their being better aware of over doses of fertilizers and
their effect on soil and crop health through various government programmes in the recent years.
142
CHAPTER VI
IMPACT OF ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED DOSES OF FERTILIZERS ON CROP

PRODUCTIVITY AND SOIL HEALH
6.1 Background
After the Green Revolution, the use of HYV seeds along with an external application of
fertilizers led to an increase in the production levels of food grains. Hence, a majority of the
farmers started applying higher dosages of fertilizers to their fields as part of increasing
agriculture production. However, the use of higher dosages of fertilizers in agriculture has led to
a speculative demand. In rural areas, the farmers have been using more of fertilizers than the
required quantities as a result of which there is a higher demand for fertilizers in the agricultural
sector on the one hand, and a deficiency of nitrogen, phosphorus and potash in the soil systems,
on the other. Also the micronutrient deficiencies are observed across various locations.
Therefore, there is a need for soil testing for rectifying the deficiencies and improving soil
fertility of the agricultural lands.
There are two ways of analyzing the impact of any technology: either by comparing the
productivity levels of the control and soil-test groups at a given point of time (With and Without
Approach), or comparing the differences in productivity within the same group, before and after
the adoption of technology (Before and After Approach). In this chapter, an attempt has been
made to examine the impact of RDFs on the productivity of crops (both main and by-products),
income and soil health aspects, using before and after as well as with and without approaches.
Here, the farmers have adopted the recommended doses of fertilizers (RDFs) fully or partially,
based on soil test report. The adoption of RDFs is believed to have benefited the farmers in terms
of an improvement in plant growth and yield. The use of RDFs is also found to be effective in
mobilizing micro and macro nutrients in soil and thereby improve soil fertility.
143
6.2 Productivity of Reference Crops among the Sample Households (With and Without
Approach)
Production of agricultural commodities mainly depends upon land, water, fertility of soil and
required fertilizer application. There exists a functional relationship between agricultural
production and fertilizer consumption. The fact is that, the use of RDFs could increase yield
levels. Considering that a large number of farmers are found to have not followed the RDFs as
prescribed in the SHCs, the results obtained by control farmers have also been compared as part
of understanding the usefulness of soil test technology. The productivity of reference crops for
the study period is presented in Table 6.1. Overall, in the case of paddy crop, the per cent
difference in terms of both yield and value was found to be 4.39 per cent and three per cent
higher with regard to soil-test farmers as compared to control farmers, respectively. However,
across sample states, although Bihar farmers have not received SHCs and had applied fertilizers
as usual, yield and value difference is found to be highest (nearly 13% each) in the state and
hence, these results may not be attributable to the soil test factor. In respect of other states, the
highest difference in yield and value is noticed in the case of Uttar Pradesh (about 9% each),
followed by West Bengal (nearly 8% each). Interestingly, the difference in yield and value is
found to be relatively the same across states. As regards Karnataka, the increase in yield is
positive to an extent of five per cent, but, the value seems to have decreased to the same extent.
Moreover, the yield of paddy is found better in the case of Karnataka (23 to 24 quintals/ acre) as
compared to other sample states, while lowest in the case of West Bengal (12-13 quintals/ acre).
With regard to wheat, the per cent difference in yield and value is found to be 9.26 per cent and
nearly 11 per cent more respectively, among soil-tested farmers over control farmers, at the
aggregate. However, across sample states, the highest positive difference in yield and value is
observed in the case of Madhya Pradesh (15% and 20%, respectively), followed by Uttar Pradesh
(13% each, respectively) among soil-tested farmers over control farmers. As discussed in the
case of paddy, Bihar figures cannot be generalized because of the absence of SHCs and adoption
of RDFs.
As regards other crops, the per cent difference in yield and value is found higher to an extent of
four per cent each in the case of maize crop with regard to soil-tested farmers as compared to
control farmers in the state of Karnataka. In the case of soybean crop in Madhya Pradesh,
144
positive difference in yield is observed to the extent of 16 per cent and in terms of value, the
difference amounts to 24 per cent for soil-tested farmers in comparison to control farmers, while
negative results have been observed in the case of jute farmers in West Bengal, in that yield and
value difference amounts to minus six per cent each for the soil-tested farmers relative to control
farmers. With respect to Gujarat farmers, a positive difference in both yield and value is noticed
in respect of soil-tested farmers of groundnut and cotton as against control farmers. The increase
in yield and value amounts to 13 per cent with regard to groundnut, whereas, the increase in
yield works out to 10 per cent and the increase in value to 25 per cent in the case of cotton crop.
Table 6.1: Productivity of sample crops for the reference year

Crops States Average yield (quintals/acre) Average Value (Rs./ acre)
%
%difference
STF CF STF CF difference
in yield
in value
Paddy Karnataka 24.63 23.38 5.35 32729 34482 -5.08
Uttar Pradesh 19.4 17.71 9.54 20781 18995 9.40
West Bengal 19.86 18.46 7.58 28880 26844 7.58
Bihar 13.61 12.08 12.66 17095 15136 12.94
Total 19.72 18.80 4.39 99484 95457 3.10
Bihar 13.25 11.75 11.32 19069 16897 12.85
Wheat Uttar Pradesh 17.10 15.19 12.57 22657 19980 13.40
Madhya
9.0 7.8 15.4 17487 14553
Pradesh 20.16
Total 13.11 11.58 9.26 59213 51430 10.54
Maize Karnataka 19.24 18.53 3.84 23158 24047 3.84
Madhya
Soy bean 4.3 3.7 16.2 12934 10400 24.4
Pradesh
Jute West Bengal 11.57
10.85 -6.25 24235 25850 -6.25
Ground Gujarat
8.2 7.3 13.3 26235 23119 13.5
nut
Cotton Gujarat 8.6 7.8 9.6 39974 31871 25.4
Note: *** significant at one per cent level, ** significant at 5 per cent level, and * significant at 10 per cent level.
Source: Primary date
Overall, it is observed that a partial or full adoption of RDFs has had a positive impact on both
productivity and values, with regard to reference crops across states. The decrease in jute yield
might be due to flaw in the management practices adopted by these farmers. Thus, the
implication is that, a mere adoption of RDFs may not yield positive results and that it also
145
depends upon many other aspects such as right time, favourable climate, water availability etc.
At the same time, the increase in yield may not be attributable to RDFs alone, as many other
factors might have contributed to the increase in yield. Among all the reference crops, a highest
increase in yield is noticed in the case of soybean (16%), followed by wheat (15%) in Madhya
Pradesh and groundnut (13%) in Gujarat.
6.3 Impact of Recommended Doses of Fertilizer Application on Reference Crops

(Before and After Approach)
In this section, the results of before and after application of RDFs by the soil-tested farmers are
discussed in detail. Table 6.2 presents the impact of RDFs on the yield levels of reference crops
across states. It is observed from the table that there has been a significant change in yield levels
after the application of RDFs. The highest change in yield is observed in the case of overall
paddy (15%) post adoption of RDFs, however, across states, the highest per cent change in yield
levels is found in respect of Karnataka (23%), followed by West Bengal (8%) and Uttar Pradesh
(4%). With respect to wheat, the overall per cent change in yield levels post the application of
RDFs is found to be six per cent, however, across sample states, the highest change in yield
levels is noticed in the case of Madhya Pradesh (8%) and the lowest in respect of Uttar Pradesh
(4%). Similarly, with regard to maize in Karnataka, the per cent change in yield levels after the
adoption of RDFs is found to be as high as 28 per cent and highest among all reference crops
under the study. The change in yield levels is 10 per cent with regard to soybean crop in Madhya
Pradesh, followed by groundnut (24%) and cotton (23%) crops in Gujarat state post the
application of RDFs. At the aggregate, there seems to be a positive increase in the yield levels of
all the reference crops post the adoption of RDFs.
6.4 Changes in Soil Characteristics Post the Adoption of RDFs

The overall results from the tables (Tables 6.1 and 6.2) reveal that the soil test technology and the
application of fertilizers based on soil test have increased the productivity of crops. Hence,
farmers should try to adopt scientifically recommended agricultural practices for reaping better
returns on the one hand and reducing the overall cost of cultivation, on the other. Moreover,
several other changes can also be expected from the adoption of these technologies. A few of the
146
these changes observed in terms of soil health, post the application of RDFs, by the farmers are
presented in Table 6.3.
Table 6.2: Impact of application of recommended doses of fertilizers on crop yield
soil-test farmers
(Quintals / acre)
Yield
Crops States Before After % change
Karnataka 28.21 34.62 22.72
Uttar Pradesh 20.75 21.62 4.19
Paddy
West Bengal 16.78 18.15 8.16
Total 22.73 26.07 14.70
Wheat Uttar Pradesh 16.43 17.03 3.65
Madhya Pradesh 13.8 15.0 8.3
Total 15.11 16.01 5.95
Maize Karnataka 20.68 26.52 28.24
Soybean Madhya Pradesh 3.9 4.3 10.2
Jute West Bengal 10.11 11.57 14.44
Ground nut Gujarat 6.7 8.2 23.8
Cotton Gujarat 7.0 8.6 22.9
It is observed from the table that a majority of the overall soil-tested farmers of paddy found that
an increase in yield (64%), improvement in soil texture (40%) and crop growth (39%). However,
across sample states, cent per cent of the farmers in Uttar Pradesh and about 13 to 28 per cent of
farmers in Karnataka observed an increase in yield, improvement in soil texture and crop growth,
whereas, a majority of the farmers (82%) in West Bengal found an increase in crop yield only. In
addition, about six to 12 per cent of the farmers noticed an improvement in grain filling, less
incidence of pest and diseases, decrease in application of other inputs like seed, labour, pesticides
etc., at the aggregate.
In the case of wheat, a majority of the soil-tested farmers observed an improvement in grain
filling (97%), followed by an improvement in crop growth (94%), soil texture (91%) and an
increase in yield (88%), at the aggregate. Similar results were noticed across both Uttar Pradesh
and Madhya Pradesh states. However, about 86 per cent of wheat farmers in Madhya Pradesh
also experienced a low incidence of pest and diseases, followed by a decrease in the application
of other inputs (73%).
147
Table 6.3: Changes Observed Post the Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers in respect of Reference Crops - Soil-
tested Farmers
(% of Farmers)
Particulars
Decrease in the
Low
Increase Improvement Improvement Improvement application of
incidence
Crops States in crop in soil in crop in grain other inputs like Others
of pest and
yield texture growth filling seed, labour,
diseases
pesticide etc.
Karnataka 27.87 13.93 22.95 13.11 16.39 2.46 2.46
Uttar
100.00 100.00 100.00 - - - -
Paddy Pradesh
West
81.82 18.18 - 18.18 18.18 27.27 18.18
Bengal
Total 64 40 39 10.78 12.16 8.93 6.30
Uttar
100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 - - -
Pradesh
Wheat Madhya
75.0 82.5 88.3 94.8 85.8 73.3 -
Pradesh
Total 88 91 94 97.4 42.9 36.35 -
Maize Karnataka 30 15.71 25.71 12.86 14.29 1.43 -
Madhya
Soybean 89.2 83.3 82.5 95.8 87.5 81.7 -
Pradesh
Jute West
53.85 53.85 - 15.38 - 7.69 23.08
Bengal
Ground nut Gujarat 54.2 57.5 38.3 56.7 25.0 54.2 -
Cotton Gujarat 45.8 41.7 38.3 61.7 20.0 45.8 -
148
With regard to maize crop in Karnataka, a moderate per cent of farmers found an increase in crop
yield (30%), improvement in crop growth (26%), improvement in soil texture (16%), low
incidence of pest and diseases (14%) and improvement in grain filling (13%). On the contrary, a
majority (>82%) of the soybean farmers in Madhya Pradesh perceived an increase in crop yield,
improvement in crop growth, improvement in soil texture, low incidence of pest and diseases,
improvement in grain filling and a decrease in the application of other inputs like seed, labour,
pesticide etc. Similarly, more than half of the jute farmers in West Bengal also experienced an
increase in yield and an improvement in soil texture. However, about 15 per cent of them also
found an improvement in grain filling and a decrease in the application of other inputs like seed,
labour, pesticide etc (8%).
With respect to groundnut farmers in Gujarat, 50 to 57 per cent reported an increase in yield,
improvement in soil texture, an improvement in grain filling and a decrease in the application of
other inputs. Nevertheless, about 38 per cent of the farmers found an improvement in crop
growth and about 25 per cent observed a low incidence of pest and diseases. In the case of cotton
farmers in Gujarat, a majority (62%) experienced an improvement in grain filling, followed by
an increase in crop yield and a decrease in the application of other inputs like seed, labour,
pesticide etc (46% each), an improvement in soil texture (42%), improvement in crop growth
(38%) and a low incidence of pest and diseases (20%).
6.5 Summary
To sum up, the results indicate that there is a positive impact of the soil test technology and
adoption of RDFs on all reference crops, except in the case of jute crop in West Bengal, which
might be due to flaw in the management practices adopted by these farmers. Among all reference
crops, a highest increase in yield is noticed in the case of soybean (16%), followed by wheat
(15%) in Madhya Pradesh and groundnut (13%) as compared to control farmers. Relatively, the
same results are noticed in the case of before and after situation across reference crops including
jute. The difference in yield is highest in the case of maize (28%) in Karnataka, followed by
groundnut (24%) in Gujarat and cotton and paddy (23% each) in Karnataka and Gujarat. Further,
149
a majority of the farmers also have perceived an increase in yield, improvement in soil texture,
better crop growth, low incidence of pest and diseases, and a decrease in the application of other
inputs such as seed, labour, pesticide etc.
150
CHAPTER - VII
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY SUGGESTIONS
7.1 BACKGROUND
It has been a well established fact that fertilizers bear a direct relationship with food grains
production along with supporting factors like High Yielding Variety seeds (HYVs), irrigation,
climatic conditions, access to credit, tenure status, size of the product market and the price
they command in input and output markets, etc. The importance of an appropriate fertilizer
use in Indias agricultural sector is gaining prominence in the contemporary context, modern
techniques of cultivation play an important role in enhancing agricultural production.
Realizing the importance fertilizer use, Government of India placed a greater emphasis on
agricultural inputs such as chemical fertilizers, HYVs and irrigation during the green
revolution period. These initiatives resulted in the adoption of new technologies in
agriculture. Consequently, the country witnessed an increased crop productivity growth over
the period despite increasing land scarcity and rising land values.
The desired objective of attaining self-sufficiency in food production is mostly guided by a

proper application of fertilizers in terms of time and quantity. However, in view of excessive
or injudicious use of chemical fertilizers across most parts of India led to several problems
affecting soil health, nutrient flow and natural environment over time in the country. Further,
the intensive farming practices in the farming process have led to increased nutrient
deficiencies in soils, decline in water table, and decrease in organic matter content and
deterioration in soil health. Therefore, there is a need for promoting, among others, a
balanced use of fertilisers for increasing the productivity of crops as also for a better
absorption of nutrients by plants from fertilizers applied. The adoption of recommended
doses of fertilisers, either as per the State Agricultural Universities (SAU) norms or as those
given in the Soil Health Card (SHC), is essential. Soil testing service in India began in 1955-
56 with the soil testing laboratory at IARI as the hub to coordinate all the other soil testing
laboratories in the country.
151
Against this background, the Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) Division of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (MoA & FW) of the Government of India
entrusted a study to Agriculture Development and Rural Transformation Centre (ADRTC) of
the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, to study the effectiveness of the
fertilizer programme on crop productivity, extent of soil testing for nutrient deficiency and
adoption of recommended doses of fertilisers by farmers based on soil tests, as there were no
such efforts made by the researchers across the country. Accordingly, the present study
focussed on examining the levels of adoption and constraints involved in the application of
recommended doses of fertilisers, their impact on crop productivity and relevant institutional
problems with reference to seven states of the country for the reference crops viz., Paddy,
Wheat, Soybean, Cotton, Groundnut and Maize.
The specific objectives of the study are as follows:

1. To examine the levels of adoption and the constraints involved in the adoption of the
with respect to recommended doses of fertilizers by the farmers based on soil test
reports.
2. To analyse the impact of the application of recommended doses of fertilisers on crop

The present study was relied upon primary data collected from the selected states, namely
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Gujarat, Bihar and West Bengal in India
where the major crops of Paddy, Wheat, Soybean, Cotton, Groundnut and Maize are grown.
The reference period for the study was 2013-14. The list of farmers who had got their soil
systems tested was collected from the state Department of Agriculture for the year 2012-13 as
part of assessing the adoption of recommended doses of fertilisers. Two major crops (in terms
of area) were selected from each state. For each crop, some districts were selected based on
the crop area share within the state. Two taluks/ tehsils were selected again based on the crop
area share from each district. From the selected taluks, two clusters of villages comprising 3-
4 villages per cluster were selected for conducting the survey.
152
7.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
7.2.1 Trends in fertilizer consumption in India
The use of chemical fertilizers in India in the last 50 years has grown by nearly 170 times.
The role of Government of India has been significant in terms of consistently pursuing
policies conducive to an increased availability and consumption of fertilizers at affordable
prices in the country. The consumption of total fertilizers has increased from 167 thousand
tonnes in 2000-01 to 255 thousand tonnes in 2012-13. Out of N, P & K fertilizers, Nitrogen
(N) shows a highest increase in terms of consumption by farmers (59 thousand tonnes),
followed by Phosphatic (P) fertilizers (24.3 thousand tonnes) and Potassic (K) (4.95 thousand
tonnes) over the period 2000-01 to 2012-13. In terms of NPK consumption ratio, it has
increased from 7: 2.7: 1 in the year 2000-01 to 8.2: 3.2: 1 by the year 2012-13, whereas, the
consumption of NPK per hectare has increased to 128.34 in the year 2012-13 from 90.12
during 2000-01.
7.2.2 Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Sample HHs
The socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers are similar irrespective of the crops
cultivated. Similarly, there is no substantial difference in the educational levels across
different crop growers. The average age of the respondents ranges from 44 - 52 years. The
average years of schooling works out to less than 10 years and a majority (more than 90%) of
both the soil-tested and control farmers are dependent on agriculture as their main occupation
in the study area. The average family size of the respondents varies from six to eight
members across growers of different crops. Of which, half of them are engaged in farming
exclusively with an average farming experience of more than 23 years. It is interesting to note
that excepting Karnataka and West Bengal, nowhere Schedule Tribes figure among the
respondents of the study area. At the same time, it also noticed that a majority of the
respondents belong to the General caste category, excepting Madhya Pradesh and Uttar
Pradesh, where a majority constitute OBCs.
The average size of owned land is almost the same irrespective of the crops cultivated by the
sample farmers. However, in the case of paddy, farmers of Karnataka are found to have
owned a highest land holding of 9.08 acres as compared to other States. Similarly, the net
operated area is also found more with regard to Karnataka, followed by Madhya Pradesh and
Bihar. On the other hand, the average gross cropped area is more among the soil-tested
153
farmers in Madhya Pradesh (17.30 acres), while least among the control farmers of West
Bengal. Consequently, the cropping intensity amounts to more in respect of Madhya Pradesh
(198%), followed by Bihar (193%).
Excepting paddy farmers in Gujarat and Karnataka, the major sources of irrigation across
beneficiaries and crops are found to be bore-wells across the sample States. However, across
States, the proportion varies slightly. In the case of Uttar Pradesh, bore-wells account for
about 79 per cent of irrigation followed by canals. Whereas, in the case of Gujarat, the major
source of irrigation happens to be open or dug-wells (58%) followed by bore-wells (38.60%).
Of the crops, paddy seems to be the highest water consuming crop as compared to all other
crops selected in the study area. Accordingly, the major sources of irrigation for paddy crop
are observed to be canal irrigation (54%), followed by bore-wells (19%), river (18%), open or
dug-wells (5%) and the rest by tanks.
Overall, paddy is the major crop grown by both the soil-tested and control farmers
(>42% of GCA) in Kharif season especially in Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,
Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal States. Similarly, during rabi season, wheat is the
major crop for both soil-tested and control farmers (>38% of GCA) in Bihar,
Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Across all States, a negligible proportion of
GCA is under perennial crops such as fruit trees, plantation trees etc. A few specific
crops are also seen in other States like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal.
Soybean accounts for highest area (>43% of GCA) Madhya Pradesh during Kharif as
well as Rabi seasons among both the soil-tested and control farmers. Similarly, West
Bengal has its major area (>55% of GCA) under paddy during Kharif and Summer
(24% of GCA), while potato is cultivated in Rabi season (10% of GCA).
Correspondingly, Karnataka has a huge area under paddy during Kharif season as
well as Summer (>13% of GCA) in the case of both the soil-tested and control
farmers.
High Yielding paddy Varieties (HYVs) are used in almost all states with the share
being cent per cent in respect of Karnataka and West Bengal. Similarly, in the case of
wheat and soybean, almost all have used HYVs in Madhya Pradesh. All sample
farmers in Karnataka have adopted HYVs of maize, cotton and jowar. Nevertheless,
the extent of usage of HYVs is less in Bihar as compared to other States. It is noticed
154
that in respect of almost all the States and crops, the value of output is higher for
soil-tested farmers as compared to control farmers. The value of output in the case of
paddy soil-tested farmers is found to be Rs.16, 546/-, Rs.48,433/-, and Rs.28,111/-
per acre as against Rs. 15,349/-, Rs. 46,755/-, and Rs.25,348/- in respect of control
farmers in Bihar, Karnataka and West Bengal, respectively. The variation is relatively
same across HYV paddy crops, whereas, there is a wide variation observed in respect
of other crops. For instance, soil-tested wheat farmers in Bihar have received Rs.41,
153/- per acre of value of output while, the control farmers Rs.16,891/- only. The
States such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat have not estimated the
crop-wise value of output however, it is found that the soil-tested farmers have
received a better output value than control farmers.
Overall, the major farm assets possessed by farmers include machines like tractors and tillers,
while, the implements include trailers/ trolleys, harrows and cultivators, electric motors/
Diesel engines, threshers, plankers, manual/power sprayers, fodder choppers, bullock carts,
drip/ sprinkler irrigation systems, small tools like spade, hoe, sickle etc., animal shed/pump
house and Others. There is no significant variation observed in the distribution of farm assets
across control and soil-tested farmers. However, there is a wide variation noticed in farm
assets according to the size of land holdings.
A majority of the farmers are found to have availed of loans from institutional sources more
than from non-institutional sources. The main purposes of agricultural loans availed of by
farmers are found to be purchase of livestock, land development, marriage and social
ceremonies, and also for non- farm activities, at the aggregate. However, a majority of the
educated farmers (especially from Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh), have availed of loans
mainly for the seasonal crop production. The commercial banks, RRBs and Co-operative
Credit Societies have sanctioned more of crop loans, whereas, the Land Development Banks
(PCARDB) have sanctioned log-term loans for land developmental activities. The other non-
institutional and informal sources such as money lenders friends/ relatives and traders/
commission agents have advanced more of loans for non-farm activities and farmers personal
purposes. It is interesting to note that a majority of the farmers are paid their loans without
amount outstanding.
155
7.2.3 Farmer's Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of fertilizer use and soil test
technology
Overall, it is understood that State Department of Agriculture is the major source (90%) of
information on soil testing for the sample farmers in the selected States, followed by KVKs,
friends, SAUs, private companies and neighbours. It is noticed that the lack of knowledge on
soil testing, the long distance between fields and soil testing laboratories, and do not know
how to take soil samples are the top three reasons for not testing the soil systems, as revealed
by a majority of the farmers from Bihar, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Madhya
Pradesh States. A majority of the farmers had followed their fellow farmers when it came to
the application of fertilizers due to lack of technical support from the existing agencies. As a
result, there was a lack of interest among farmers about soil testing and application of
recommended doses of fertilizers. Conversely, a majority of soil-tested farmers have reported
the increase in crop yield, motivation gained from demonstration or training or exposure
visits with best farming practices, inclination towards adoption of new technologies, and
availing of benefits under subsidy scheme as the major reasons for soil testing.
Although, both the Central and State Governments have made several efforts such as free soil
testing and distribution of Soil Health Cards (SHCs), mainly as part of encouraging farmers
to opt for this technology and adopt recommended doses of fertilizers, a majority of farmers
have reported as having incurred some cost. The average cost of soil testing is found to be
less than Rs. 100/- per sample across States. However, it is found to be highest in the case of
West Bengal paddy Rs.75/ sample and jute-Rs. 68/ sample, and least in the case of wheat
farmers (Rs.5/ sample) Madhya Pradesh. The average distance from the field to soil testing
laboratory is 129 kms in Gujarat. The area coverage under soil test amounts to maximum in
the case of paddy crop. Overall, increasing crop yield was the major reason behind soil
testing for a majority of the farmers across different crops and states, followed by other
associated positive aspects of soil testing. Do not know how to take soil samples followed
by lack of awareness regarding soil testing, do not know whom to contact for details of soil
testing, soil testing laboratories are located far away, soil testing is not required for my
filed as the crop yield is good were the common reasons reported by the control farmers
across states and crops for not testing their soil systems.
Excepting maize and groundnut farmers, a majority of the farmers had applied urea through
broadcasting method, whereas, in the case of maize and groundnut, urea had also been
156
applied through line application. Moreover, only with regard to SSP, groundnut farmers had
applied through dibbling and line application. In respect of all other fertilizers, broadcasting
was the common method followed for fertilizer application. With regard to purchase of
fertilizers, a majority of the soil-tested as well as control farmers had purchased through
private fertilizer dealers followed by Co-operative societies, company authorised dealers with
only a few farmers opting for government agencies. The average price of urea is found to be
relatively the same (Rs. 7/- per kg) in the case of both control and soil-tested farmers.
Whereas, in the case of DAP, the price varied from Rs. 20 per kg to Rs. 23/- per kg. However,
the average cost of transportation amounted to around Rs. 11/- per bag.
7.2.4 Adoption of soil test technology

It is observed that a majority soil-tested farmers were not aware of recommended doses of
fertilizers and hence, had applied fertilizers as usual. However, it is noticed that only 20 per
cent of the paddy farmers had applied the recommended doses of fertilizers over 40 per cent
of the net operated area, while 76 per cent of them expressed their willingness to continue
with the application of RDFs. In the case of wheat, about 35 per cent of wheat farmers had
adopted RDFs over 36 per cent of the net operated area, however, 42 per cent of them were
willing to continue with the adoption of this technology. Similarly, among maize farmers,
only 11 per cent had applied RDFs over a larger net operated area (62%) with a majority
(59%) of them wanting to continue with this practice. Whereas, in the case of soybean
farmers in Madhya Pradesh, around 44 per cent of farmers had followed the RDFs, with only
40 per cent of them being interested in continuing the same. In the case of ground nut and
cotton, 40 per cent each of the respondents had applied RDFs, while a majority (73%) of
ground nut farmers expressed their interest in the application of RDFs and half of the cotton
growers were willing to continue with the practice in future.
Overall, a majority of the farmers coming under the soil-tested and control farmers categories
had applied more than the recommended doses of fertilizers in respect of paddy, wheat,
maize, jute, groundnut and cotton crops. A similar situation is noticed across crops and states
in this respect. On the contrary, soybean farmers had applied lower than the RDFs, especially
of SSP, Gypsum and potash. Overall, the applied quantity works out to less than the
recommended doses in the case of P nutrient, while more in respect of N & K nutrients
across crops & States. Interestingly, control farmers had applied more than the recommended
doses of fertilizers excepting cotton and jute crops, in Gujarat and West Bengal, respectively.
157
7.2.5 Impact of soil test technology
As regards the impact of adoption of RDFs, a majority of the farmers across crops are found
to have experienced a positive impact in terms of crop yield and value. The results with and
without approach reveal that the yield and returns were more in the case of soil-tested farmers
when compared to control farmers. The average increase in the yield of paddy was four per
cent with regard to soil-tested farmers as compared to control farmers, however, across states,
the difference ranged between eight and thirteen per cent with the highest being 10 per cent in
respect of Uttar Pradesh, followed by eight per cent in respect of West Bengal and five per
cent in respect of Karnataka. Correspondingly, with regard to wheat crop, the per cent change
in yield was nine per cent at the aggregate, with the highest being 15 per cent in the case of
Madhya Pradesh and 13 per cent in respect of Uttar Pradesh. Across crops, the highest
increase in yield was as high as 16 per cent in the case of soybean crop followed by
groundnut (13%) and cotton (10%). Only in the case of jute crop in Madhya Pradesh, the
yield was observed to be negative to an extent of six per cent. The impacts in terms of values
(returns) are found relatively the same in respect of almost all crops.
Similarly, the results of before and after situations reveal that the application of RDFs has
lead to a positive impact on the yield levels of different crops. The aggregate increase in yield
levels with respect to maize works out to 28 per cent, followed by groundnut (24%), cotton
(23%), paddy (15%), jute (14%), soybean (10%) and wheat (6%). However, the proportion of
increase is observed to have varied across states and crops, i.e., the increase in yield is found
highest (28 per cent) in the case of maize and 23 per cent in respect of paddy in the state of
Karnataka whereas, the increase in yield in the case of groundnut amounts to 24 per cent and
23 per cent in the case of cotton with regard to Gujarat state, while the highest yield of wheat
is noticed in respect of Madhya Pradesh (8%).
In addition to an increase in crop yield and returns, the other positive externalities of the soil
test technology and adoption of RDFs include an improvement in crop yield, soil health,
quality of produce, and a reduction in the application of other inputs such as seed, labour,
pesticide etc., as perceived by a majority of the sample farmers in the study area. A small
proportion of the farmers also has reported a low incidence of pest and disease attacks post
the adoption of RDFs.
158
7.3 CONCLUSIONS
The study is conducted mainly to assess the importance of soil test and application of
fertilisers based on the recommendations of soil test reports. Soil test based applications of
fertilisers have resulted in many benefits to the farmers in terms of reduction in the cost of
cultivation, increased returns and maintenance of soil productivity status etc.
The present study has succeeded in coming up with noteworthy findings. First and foremost,
the soil-tested farmers participating in extension activities have come to realize the
importance of soil test, which is reflected in the application of recommended doses of
fertilizers as well as adoption of HYVs of crops as a result of which there is an increase in
crop productivity and farm income of the soil-tested farmers as compared to their
counterparts (non soil-test farmers / control farmers). Thus it is worth highlighting that soil-
tested farmers have managed to obtain increased output and returns as compared to control
farmers, a testimony to the significance of soil testing.
Further, it is noticed that the lack of knowledge regarding soil testing, the long distance
between the field and soil testing laboratories, and do not know how to take soil samples are
the top three reasons for not testing their soil systems in the case of control farmers, which
need to be addressed by the policy makers in terms of encouraging them to adopt soil test
technology. More and more demonstrations need to be conducted at the village-level as part
of educating the fellow farmers and motivating them to go for soil testing.
7.4 POLICY SUGGESTIONS

(i) Although there exists a fair level of awareness regarding soil testing among the farming
community, soil testing facilities are not easily accessible. Hence, there is a need for
establishing Soil Test Laboratories (STLs), preferably at the taluk/ block-level to equip
them with modern facilities and staff as part of generating accurate and reliable results
across the country.
(ii) The state governments need to simplify the soil testing process and testing should be
done at free of cost for all farmers. More importantly, SHCs should be disbursed to
farmers within a stipulated period, preferably before the sowing season. Further, soil
heath cards should be printed with lamination so as to protect them for a long-time.
(iii) The concept of soil health and importance of maintaining soil fertility should be
incorporated in all training programmes. Moreover, farmers should be educated in the
159
ways and means of enriching soil fertility through encouraging appropriate cultivation
practices such as crop rotation, mulching and minimum tillage.
(iv) There is a lack of awareness regarding the procedures of soil sampling and the
associated benefits among a majority of the sample farmers. Hence, there is a need for
conducting regular training programmes as part of capacity building of farmers on soil
sample collection, benefits of soil testing and important elements in the soil test report
(SHC). An understanding of these aspects is of utmost importance when it comes to the
adoption of RDFs.
(v) To overcome the adverse impacts an excessive use of chemical fertilizers on soil health,
the governments should promote and encourage farmers towards the production and
usage of organic fertilizers.
(vi) The role of State Department of Agriculture (SDA), SAUs and KVK scientists is very
much essential in agricultural extension activities especially their role is very crucial in
spreading awareness regarding soil test technology and adoption of RDFs among the
farming community.
(vii)NPMSF should be in a mission mode, as its augmentation can enrich the health of soil
systems and improve the economics of agricultural practices.
(viii) It is imperative to cover all small and marginal farmers under Soil Testing
Programmes as part of enabling them to obtain higher yields and income.
(ix) In addition to extending soil testing facilities as part of promoting the adoption of
recommended doses of major nutrients (NPKs), the STLs should be upgraded for
testing 'secondary and micro-nutrients'. Although, they are required in small quantities,
for their contribution to crop productivity is enormous.
160
REFERENCES
Bhumbla D.R.B. and Makkar S.L. (1965) Soil testing pays dividend. Fertilizer News, Oct.,
1967.
Desai D.K. (1970), Attitude of the Farmer still use less than the Recommended doses of
fertilizers, I.J.A.E., 1970, Vol. (2).
Fertilizer Association of India (2013), Fertilizer Statistics, F.A.I., New Delhi, 2013.
Gopal Reddy B. and Reddy S. M. (1998) Available macronutrient status in soil as influenced
by integrated nutrient management in maize-soybean cropping system. Journal of
Research 27: 55-62.
Kumar A. and Thakur K.S. (2004) Effect of integrated nutrient management on promising
composite maize (Zea mays) varieties under rainfed mid hill conditions of Himachal
Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 74: 40-42.
Kumar B., Gupta R.K. and Bhandari A.L. (2008) Change after long-term application of
organic manure and crop residues under rice-wheat system. Journal of the Indian
Society of Soil Science, 58: 80-85.
Kumar V. and Singh A.P. (2010) Long-term effect of green manuring and farmyard manure
on yield and soil fertility status in soil-wheat cropping system. Journal of the Indian
Society of Soil Science, 58: 409-12.
Laxminarayana K. and Patiram (2006) Effect of integrated use of inorganic, biological and
organic manures on rice productivity and soil fertility in Ultisols of Mizoram.
Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 54: 213-20.
Lok Sabha (2016). Unstarred Question number, 1623, 8 March, 2016. Online access from
https://www.indiastat.com/table/agriculture/2/consumptionoffertilisers/206871/99760
4/data.aspx
Mann K.K., Brar B.S. and Dhillon N.S. (2006) Influence of long-term use of FYM and
inorganic fertilizers on nutrient availability in a Typic Ustochrept. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences, 76: 477-80.
Prasad B. and Sinha S.K. (1995) Nutrient regulating through crop residues management for
sustainable rice and wheat production in calcareous soil. Fertilizer News, 40: 15-25.
Rao V.M. (1996), Agricultural Development with A Human Face: Experiences and
Prospects, Economic and Political Weekly 1996, 31(26): A. 50 62.
Rastogi, B. K. and Annamalai V. (1981), A Study on the Adoption and Diffusion of
Recommended Technology in Dryland Agriculture, AICRPDA, Hyderabad.
161
Satish Chander (2016), 'Fertilizer Sector during 2015-16'. Accessed from
http://www.faidelhi.org/Frank%20notes/IJF-Sept-16.pdf
Sharma, V, P. and Sharma, P. (2000). Environmental Effects of Agricultural Trade
Liberalization in Indian Agriculture, Rural Prosperity and Agriculture Policies and
Strategies, pp. 419-456.
Singh, A. (1983), Regional Disparity in Fertilizer Consumption in India, Fertilizer
Marketing News, 1983, 14(9), 1 6.
Singh C. (1984), Allocation of fertilizer among crops under Risk, I.J.A.E., 1984, 39(1), 77.
Singh M. and Chahal S.S. (2009) A Study on the extent of adoption of various recommended
technologies in Wheat cultivation in Punjab. Agricultural Economics Research
Review (Conf. No.,) 29: 349-54.
Singh, M. (2012). Farmers attitude towards Adoption of Recommended Technology to
Increase Productivity under Dry Land Area. Indian Research Journal of Extension
Education, Special Issue, Vol. I, pp. 207-212.
Singh S., Singh R.N., Prasad J. and Singh B.P. (2006) Effect of integrated nutrient
management on yield and uptake of nutrients by rice and soil fertility in rainfed
uplands. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 54: 327-30.
Yaduvanshi N.P.S. (2001) Effect of five years of ricer-wheat cropping and NPK fertilizers
use with and without organic and green manures on soil properties and crop yields in
a reclaimed sodic soil. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 49: 714-19.
162

RDF Final 30-06-2017 ISEC Bangalore

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RDF Final 30-06-2017 ISEC Bangalore

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED DOSES OF

FERTILISERS ON SOIL TEST BASIS BY FARMERS

Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre

Draft report submitted in June 2017

All India Study Coordinated by

Chapter V Adoption of Recommended Doses of Fertilisers 113-122

5.1 Background 113-113

Chapter VII Summary, Conclusions And Policy Suggestions 131-140

7.1 Background 131-132

Table 2.2 Consumption ratios: NPK 12

Table 3.14 Area under HYV of major crops 29

Table 3.31 Purpose of agricultural loan availed - paddy farmers 45

The importance of an appropriate fertilizer usage in the agricultural sector is gaining

The major findings of the study are as follows;

Overall, it is understood that State Department of Agriculture is the major source of

With regard to purchase of fertilizers, a majority of the soil-tested as well as control

Major Policy Suggestions;

1.2 Need for the study

1.3 Specific Objectives of the study

1.4 Review of literature

Kumar et al (2008), based on a long-term field experiment on integrated management of FYM,

Ram Fishman et al (2016) found an imbalanced application of chemical fertilizers in India as

1.5 Data and methodology

TRENDS IN FERTILIZER CONSUMPTION

2.1 Fertilizer Consumption in India

Table 2.1: Fertilizer nutrient consumption in India over time

2.2 Consumption ratio of fertilizers

Table: 2.2: Consumption ratios: NPK

2.5 Factors Affecting Fertilizer Consumption

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS

This chapter presents the socio-economic characteristics of the sample households,

3.1.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Sample Respondents

3.1.2. Structure of Operational Landholdings

3.1.3. Sources of Irrigation

Table 3.3: Sources of irrigation

Table 3.4: Cropping pattern followed by the sample households

3.1.6 Value of Crop Output

Particulars Paddy Wheat

3.1.7 Distribution of Farm Assets

Source: primary survey

3.1.8 Details of Agricultural Credit Outstanding

Table 3.8: Agricultural credit outstanding in respect of the sample households

Source: primary survey

3.1.9 Agricultural Loans- purpose/s

3.2.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Selected Farm HHs

3.2.2 Details of Operational Landholdings

3.2.3. Sources of Irrigation

Table 3.12: Sources of irrigation

3.2.4 Cropping Pattern

Table 3.13: Cropping pattern followed by the sample households

3.2.5 Area under HYVs

Table 3.14: Area under major HYV crops

3.3.1 Distribution of the Sample Households

Table: 3.15: Distributions of the sample households by farm size

3.3.2 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Households

Table: 3.16: Socio-economic characteristics of paddy growing sample households

Table: 3.17: Socio-economic characteristics of maize growing sample households

3.3.3. Details of operational landholdings

3.3.4 Sources of Irrigation

Table: 3.20: Sources of irrigation for paddy

Table: 3.21: Sources of irrigation for maize crop

3.3.5 Cropping Pattern, Area under HYVs and Value of Output

Table: 3.22: Cropping pattern followed by paddy growing sample households

3.3.6 Details of Farm Assets Holding