Abstract Resume

Jha, D., and Sarin, R. 1984. Fertilizer use in semi-arid tropical India. Research Bulletin no.9. Patancheru, A.P.502 324, India: International Crops Research Institute f orthe Semi-Arid Tropics.

Research over the last decade has shown that fertilizercan increase productivity of most dryland crops in India'ssemi-arid tropics (SAT). District and farm data wereemployed to analyze levels and determinants of fertiliz eruse within and across regions in this area.

Profitability of fertilizer application and assurance ofresponse were the major forces motivating fertilizer use inthe Indian SAT. Average fertilizer consumption was 57kg/ha in the irrigated and 18 kg/ha in the nonirrigated SATdistricts. Farmers owning irrigated and dryland plotsaccorded priority to higher-response crops in allocatin gtheir scarce irrigation and cash resources. A majority offarmers used fertilizer on nonirrigated cereal high-yielding varieties, and more than 80% of them growingsorghum and pearl millet hybrids under dryland condi-tions in the major producing districts applied fertilizer tothese crops. This suggests that it is unresponsiveness oftraditional crop varieties to fertilizer application—n ottheir low value—that inhibits fertilizer adoption.

Knowledge, represented by farmers' experience withfertilizer and education, was the most significant determ i-nant in explaining the variation in fertilizer use amongfarmers within the same region. Relatively few farmersknew about specific fertilizer recommendations for dry-land crops. Research and extension efforts are crucial f orgenerating and diffusing more and better-quality infor-mation on fertilizer use on dryland crops in India's SAT.

Jha, D. et Sarin, R. 1984. (Utilisation des engrais dans les zones tropicales semi-arides en Inde). Fertilizer use insemi-arid tropical India. Research Bulletin no.9. Patan-cheru, A.P. 502 324, India: International Crops Resear chInstitute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.

Les recherches effectuees au cours de la demiere decen -nie ont revele que I'utilisation des engrais pourrait s ensi-blement augmenter la productivite de la plupart descultures seches des zones tropicales semi-arides en Inde .Les donnees recueillies a I'echelle des districts ainsi quedans les champs paysans ont permis d'analyser les taux etles facteurs determinants de I'utilisation des engrai s entreles zones et a I'interieur meme de celles-ci.

Dans les zones tropicales semi-arides indiennes, c'estessentiellement la rentabilite de I'emploi d'engrais et lareponse assuree des cultures qui ont incite les paysan s a utiliser des engrais. La consommation moyenne enengrais a 6t6 de 57 kg/ha dans les zones semi-aridesirnguees et de 18 kg/ha dans les zones pluviales. Lespaysans disposant de parcelles irriguees et pluviale s ontaccorde la preference a des cultures a reponse pluselevee en ce qui concerne ('allocation de leurs ressourc esmaigres pecuniaires et en irrigation. La plupart des pa y-sans ont utilise des engrais sur des varietes cerealiere spluviales a haut rendement; ainsi, plus de 80% d'entre e uxsuivant la culture des hybrides dans les conditions secn esdans les regions principales du sorgho et du mil, ont eurecours a I'application des engrais.

Ceci donne a croire que, contrairement a leur faiblevaleur, c'est le manque de reponses a I'emploi des engra isdes varietes traditionnelles qui constitue I'obstacle princi-pal a I'adoption des engrais.

Les connaissances, representees par l'education despaysans ainsi que leur experience avec des engrais, on tconstitue le facteur determinant le plus important exp li-quant la variation de I'utilisation d'engrais parmi le s pay-sans d'une meme region. Relativement peu de paysansont ete sensibles aux preconisations particulieres d' em-ploi des engrais pour les cultures seches. Les travaux derecherche et de vulgarisation sont primordiaux dansl'elaboration et la diffusion de davantage d'informati onsde qualite superieure sur I'emploi des engrais sur lescultures seches dans les zones tropicales semi-arides enInde.

Fertilizer Use in Semi-Arid Tropical India

D. Jha and R. Sarin

I C R I S A T

Research Bulletin no. 9

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

ICRISAT Patancheru P.O.

Andhra Pradesh 5 0 2 3 2 4 , India

1984

About the Authors

Dayanatha Jha:prev ious ly V i s i t i n g Economist, Economics Program, ICRISAT Patan-cheru P.O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, I n d i a ;p r e s e n t l y Senior Fel low, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Food P o l i c y Re search I n -s t i t u t e , 1776 Massachussets Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.20036, USA.

Rakesh Sar in : p r e v i o u s l y Research Technic ian, Economi cs Program, ICRISATPatancheru P.O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, I n d i a ;p r e s e n t l y Economist, Na t i ona l Bank f o r A g r i c u l t u r e and RuralDevelopment, C-93, Subhas Marg, C-Scheme, Ja ipur 302 001, Rajas-than, I n d i a .

P u b l i c a t i o n E d i t o r : N. Raghavan

The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Crops Research I n s t i t u t e f o r the S emi-Arid Tropics is a n o n p r o f i t s c i e n t i f i c educat iona l i n s t i t u t e r e c e i v i n g s upport from donors throughthe Consu l ta t i ve Group on I n t e r n a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Research. Donors toICRISAT inc lude governments and agencies of A u s t r a l i a , Belgium, Canada, FederalRepublic of Germany, F in l and , France, I n d i a , I t a l y , Japan, Nether lands, N i g e r i a ,Norway, People's Republic of China, Sweden, Sw i t ze r l a nd , Uni ted Kingdom, UnitedStates of America, and of the f o l l o w i n g i n t e r n a t i o n a l and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s :Asian Development Bank, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Res earch Centre, I n t e r n a t i o n a lF e r t i l i z e r Development Center, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Fund f o r A g r i c u l t u r a l Development,The European Economic Community, The Ford Foundation , The Leverhulme T r u s t , TheOpec Fund f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development, The Popula t ion Counc i l , The Rocke fe l l e rFoundation, The World Bank, and the Uni ted Nations Dev elopment Programme.R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h i s p u b l i c a t i o n r e s t s w i t h ICRISAT.Where t rade names are used t h i s does not c o n s t i t u t e endorsement of ord i s c r i m i n a t i o n against any product by the I n s t i t u t e .

Correct c i t a t i o n : Jha, D., and Sa r i n , R. 1984. F e r t i l i z e r use in semi-ar idt r o p i c a l I n d i a . Research B u l l e t i n no.9. Patancheru, A .P. 502 324, I n d i a :I n t e r n a t i o n a l Crops Research I n s t i t u t e f o r the Semi-A rid T rop ics .

Contents

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter I . F e r t i l i z e r Consumpt ion i n S e m i - A r i d T r o p i c a l I n d i a :D i s t r i c t - L e v e l A n a l y s i s

Data and Methodo logyF e r t i l i z e r Consumpt ionGrowth i n F e r t i l i z e r UseC o n c l u s i o n s

i v

1

3

347

10

12

1213161820263133

35

353648

50

515564

65

656667

68

71

Chapter I I . F e r t i l i z e r Use on Farms

Data Source and Background of t h e Study AreasA d o p t i o n o f F e r t i l i z e r sL e v e l s and V a r i a b i l i t y o f F e r t i l i z e r UseA l l o c a t i o n o f F e r t i l i z e r s t o CropsRates o f F e r t i l i z e r A p p l i c a t i o nAgronomic Management o f F e r t i l i z e rUse of O r g a n i c ManuresC o n c l u s i o n s

Chapter I I I , F e r t i l i z e r Use on H i g h - Y i e l d i n g V a r i e t i e s o f Sorghumand P e a r l M i l l e t

Data Source and Methodo logyA d o p t i o n o f F e r t i l i z e r f o r Sorghum and P e a r l M i l l e tC o n c l u s i o n s

Chapter I V . D e t e r m i n a n t s o f F e r t i l i z e r Use

Data Source and ModelsR e s u l t sC o n c l u s i o n s

Chapter V. Summary and I m p l i c a t i o n s

SummaryI m p l i c a t i o n s f o r A g r i c u l t u r a l ResearchI m p l i c a t i o n s f o r E x t e n s i o n and Development Programs

Refe rences

Appendixes

AcknowledgementsThis repor t summarizes the r e s u l t s o f our e f f o r t s t o understand f e r t i l i z e r usein SAT I n d i a . Most of the m a t e r i a l presented here has been ta ken from oure a r l i e r r epo r t s ( l i s t e d below); we have attempted to conso l i da te the f i n d i n g s .

JHA, D. 1980. F e r t i l i z e r use and i t s determinants : a review w i t h s p e c i a lreference to semi-ar id t r o p i c a l I n d i a . ICRISAT Economics Program ProgressReport no. 11 (unpubl ished) .

JHA, D., RAHEJA, S.K., SARIN, R., and MEHROTRA, P.C. 1981. F e r t i l i z e r use i nsemi-ar id t r o p i c a l I n d i a : the case o f h igh y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s o f sorghumand p e a r l m i l l e t . ICRISAT Economics Program Progress Report no. 22(unpubl ished) .

JHA, D., and SARIN, R. 1980. F e r t i l i z e r consumption and growth i n semi -a r idt r o p i c a l I n d i a : a d i s t r i c t - l e v e l a n a l y s i s . ICRISAT Economics ProgramProgress Report no. 10 (unpub l ished) .

JHA, D., and SARIN, R. 1981. An a n a l y s i s of l e v e l s , p a t t e r n s and determinants off e r t i l i z e r use on farms i n se lec ted regions o f semi -ar id t r o p i c a l I n d i a .ICRISAT Economics Program Progress Report no. 25 (unpub l ished) .

The authors would l i k e to acknowledge g r a t e f u l l y the p r o f e s s i o n a l and moralsupport prov ided by a l l co l leagues in the Economics P rogram. James Ryan andMatth ias von Oppen, as Program Leaders, c a r r i e d the a d d i t i o n a l burden ofa d m i n i s t e r i n g the p r o j e c t . Mr. E. Jagadeesh was assoc ia te d w i t h us a l l throught h i s work. Mr. Sarwat Hussain and Mr. R.V. Raman d i d the t y p i n g work soadmirably , wh i l e Mr. R.S. A iyer l e n t l o g i s t i c suppor t .

Dr. J.S. Kanwar, D i r e c t o r of Research, ICRISAT, took a c t i v e i n t e r e s t in ourwork and helped us i n many ways. We are g r a t e f u l t o him. We thankDr. L.D. Swindale, D i r e c t o r General, ICRISAT, and Dr. O.P. Gautam, D i r e c t o rGeneral, I nd ian Counci l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Research (ICAR), f o r t h e i r support .A d d i t i o n a l l y , our thanks to Dr. H.K. J a i n , D i r e c t o r , I nd ian A g r i c u l t u r a lResearch I n s t i t u t e ( I A R I ) , New D e l h i , I n d i a , f o r p e r m i t t i n g the senior authorthe requ i red leave of absence to work on t h i s p r o j e c t . The a uthors would a lsol i k e t o thank J.G. Ryan, M. von Oppen, T.S. Walker, N.S. Jodha, R.D. Ghodake,and two anonymous re ferees f o r va luab le comments.

Dayanatha Jha

Rakesh Sar in

iv

IntroductionF e r t i l i z e r use i n I nd i an a g r i c u l t u r e i s r e l a t i v e l y recen t . P r i o r t o the 1940s,i t was n e g l i g i b l e and con f ined to commercial crops. The im pera t i ve need toincrease food p roduc t ion r a p i d l y , f i r s t r e a l i z e d i n the Grow More Pood Campaigndays (1942) and p e r s i s t i n g through the f o l l o w i n g years , l e d to a c t i v e s t a t ei n t e r v e n t i o n and gave a boost t o programs f o r ex tens ion of f e r t i l i z e r use onfood crops. However, i n 1965-66, desp i te n e a r l y two decades' e f f o r t , theaverage l e v e l of f e r t i l i z e r ( t o t a l p l a n t n u t r i e n t s ) use stood w e l l below 5 kg/haof cropped area.

The "new s t r a t e g y f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l development," i n i t i a t e d in themid-1960s, had h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s (HYV)* and f e r t i l i z e r s as i t s keycomponents. I t envisaged massive imports as w e l l as expa nsion of domesticf e r t i l i z e r - p r o d u c t i o n c a p a c i t y . I n the years t h a t f o l l o w e d , desp i te a s p e l l o fs tagna t i on in the e a r l y 1970s and the p r i c e h i ke in 1974 , the averageconsumption of f e r t i l i z e r s (NPK) per hectare of croppe d area rose s u b s t a n t i a l l y ,and c u r r e n t l y (1978-79) stands at about 30 kg/ha. Moreove r, food crops nowc la im a s i g n i f i c a n t share o f t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r s used i n the coun t ry .

The green r e v o l u t i o n and i t s e q u a l i z i n g impact focused a t t e n t i o n on thes p a t i a l and crop base of f e r t i l i z e r use i n the count ry . An a n a l y s i s cover ing286 d i s t r i c t s (Desai and Singh 1973) showed t h a t more than 80% of n i t r o g e n andphosphorus was consumed i n less than o n e - t h i r d of those d i s t r i c t s i n 1968-69,most of which had wel l -developed i r r i g a t i o n resources. At the other extreme,over 50% of the d i s t r i c t s consumed on ly 10% of the t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r used.

A number of s tud ies (Desai and Singh 1973, Desai et a l . 1973 , Desai 1969,and NCAER 1974) showed t h a t i r r i g a t e d crops overwhelmingly dominated f e r t i l i z e rconsumption. There was a lso evidence t h a t , among n o n i r r i g a t e d crops, on ly somecommercial crops such as c o t t o n , tobacco, c h i l l i e s , and groundnut rece ive somef e r t i l i z e r . The recent NCAER (Na t i ona l Counci l of App l ied Economic Research)survey (NCAER 1978) revealed t h a t among n o n i r r i g a t e d food crops, on ly the HYV ofsorghum and m i l l e t s — i n areas where they have adapted w e l l — a r e f e r t i l i z e d , butthe major f r a c t i o n o f r a i n f e d food-crop area goes l a r g e l y u n f e r t i l i z e d .

These f a c t s and other evidence on growing d i s p a r i t i e s be tween i r r i g a t e d andn o n i r r i g a t e d areas h i g h l i g h t e d the urgent need to d i r e c t developmental andresearch e f f o r t s to dry areas and n o n i r r i g a t e d cropping sys tems. Acco rd ing l y ,the e a r l y 1970s witnessed a s u b s t a n t i a l s t reng then ing of research on d ry landa g r i c u l t u r e , i n i t i a t i o n o f s p e c i a l programs f o r drought -prone areas, and l a r g e ra l l o c a t i o n of developmental resources f o r such areas.

Nearly t w o - t h i r d s o f I n d i a ' s cropped land f a l l s in the sem i-ar id zone, o fwhich l ess than o n e - t h i r d has wel l -developed i r r i g a t i o n resources. 1 The l a t t e r ,spread over the no r the rn Indo-Gangetic p l a i n s and the co as ta l areas of TamilNadu and Andhra Pradesh, form the hea r t l and of the green r e v o l u t i o n , w i t h h ighi n t e n s i t i e s of f e r t i l i z e r use (Desai and Singh 1973). The n o n i r r i g a t e dsemi-ar id t r o p i c s (SAT) cover nea r l y 42% of I nd i a ' s croppe d area and 65% of t h a tin the I nd i an SAT. These are spread mainly over Madhya P radesh, Maharashtra,G u j a r a t , eastern Rajasthan, c e n t r a l Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka. This vastr e g i o n , cha rac te r i zed by low output and h i g h l y unstab le a g r i c u l t u r a l systemssuppor t ing f a i r l y h igh p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t i e s (Bapna et a l . 1979), poses the

*This widely-accepted term and i t s a b b r e v i a t i o n are used i n t h i s b u l l e t i n t oinc lude both hybr ids and v a r i e t i e s o f s e l f - and c r o s s - p o l l i n a t e d crops,developed as improved c u l t i v a r s f o r farmers' use in the semi-ar id t r o p i c s .

1 . See Chapter I .

1

grea tes t cha l lenge. U n t i l r e c e n t l y , these were looked u pon as problem areasr e q u i r i n g r e l i e f and p r o t e c t i o n r a t h e r than as areas capa ble of making a p o s i t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o I n d i a ' s a g r i c u l t u r a l growth .

Research over the l a s t decade has revealed t h a t the p r o d u c t i v i t y of mostd ry land crops cou ld be r a i s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y through im proved s o i l and watermanagement, app rop r i a t e f e r t i l i z a t i o n and agronomic adjustments, and super io rv a r i e t i e s . 2 E f f i c i e n t s o i l f e r t i l i t y and mois ture management, coupled w i t happ rop r i a t e v a r i e t a l choice have been i d e n t i f i e d as th e key f a c t o r s . Successfult r a n s f e r of these improved techno log ies r equ i r es a c l e a r understanding ofe x i s t i n g d ry land farming systems, farmers' response to i n n o v a t i o n s , andt e c h n o l o g i c a l and socioeconomic f a c t o r s i n h i b i t i n g t he adopt ion and d i f f u s i o nprocess.

This monograph r e p o r t s the r e s u l t s of a p r o j e c t on f e r t i l i z e r use i nsemi -a r id t r o p i c a l I n d i a . As i n d i c a t e d above, f e r t i l i z e r c o n s t i t u t e s animportant component of the p rospec t i ve techno log ies f o r development of SATa g r i c u l t u r e . Most past s t u d i e s on f e r t i l i z e r use have focused on i r r i g a t e dareas and crops perhaps because, t r a d i t i o n a l l y , f e r t i l i z e r s have been used veryl i t t l e f o r n o n i r r i g a t e d crops. There i s some evidence t o show t h a t t h i s p a t t e r ni s changing and t h a t some f e r t i l i z e r s are being used f o r n o n i r r i g a t e d crops(other than h igh-va lue commercial c r o p s ) . I t i s impor t ant t o eva luate thesechanges to assess the t e c h n o l o g i c a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s in se mi -a r id a g r i c u l t u r e . Wea lso need to understand what f a c t o r s determine SAT farme rs' dec is ions onf e r t i l i z e r use. These issues are i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s r e p o r t .

A t t e n t i o n i s a l so focused o n the use o f f e r t i l i z e r s f o r h i g h - y i e l d i n gv a r i e t i e s o f sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t — t h e major ce rea l s grown on dry lands inSAT I n d i a . H i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s form the most impor tant component of thes t r a t e g y to improve food p roduc t i on in these areas. The spread of thesev a r i e t i e s has been low and s e l e c t i v e because of seve ra l t e c h n o l o g i c a l andsocioeconomic f a c t o r s . However, these are ou ts ide th e scope of t h i s enqu i rywhich seeks to p rov ide i n f o r m a t i o n on the ex ten t and l e v e l o f f e r t i l i z e r useobserved on farmers ' f i e l d s . Th is i n f o r m a t i o n is va lua b le in sorghum and p e a r lm i l l e t crop improvement and management research.

Two basic hypotheses run through the r e p o r t : f i r s t , t h a t farmers'dec is ions on f e r t i l i z e r a l l o c a t i o n are based main ly on the s i ze and c e r t a i n t y o fr e t u r n s from f e r t i l i z e r use, i n d i c a t e d i n the h i s t o r i c a l emphasis on i r r i g a t e dand h igh-va lue commercial crops; second, t h a t SAT far mers are not t r a d i t i o n a l l yaverse t o adopt ion of f e r t i l i z e r s . The p a t t e r n of low f e r t i l i z e r use i s seen t obe r e l a t e d more to the r e t u r n s expected than to a g r o c l i m a t i c , t e c h n o l o g i c a l , orother c o n s t r a i n t s .

Th is r e p o r t focuses s p e c i f i c a l l y on the f o l l o w i n g issue s:

1. How much f e r t i l i z e r i s c u r r e n t l y consumed i n i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e d SATregions o f the coun t r y .

2. What has been the growth p a t t e r n i n consumption of f e r t i l i z e r s i n theseareas.

3. How SAT farmers a l l o c a t e f e r t i l i z e r s between crops.

4. What are the f e r t i l i z a t i o n p r a c t i c e s of farmers i n terms of r a t e o fa p p l i c a t i o n , ex ten t of area f e r t i l i z e d , use o f organic manures, t i m i n g ofa p p l i c a t i o n , use o f d i f f e r e n t n u t r i e n t s , awareness, e t c .

2. ICRISAT 1981.

2

5. What are the major determinants of f e r t i l i z e r use i n SAT a g r i c u l t u r e .

Chapter I p rov ides an overview of f e r t i l i z e r consumpt ion in SAT I n d i a ,based on a n a l y s i s o f d i s t r i c t - l e v e l data . Chapter I I — t h e main p a r t o f t h i sr e p o r t — f o c u s e s on f e r t i l i z e r - u s e p a t t e r n s on farms i n t h ree a g r o c l i m a t i c zonesi n pen insu la r I n d i a ; i t i s based o n data c o l l e c t e d from s i x v i l l a g e s under theV i l l a g e - L e v e l Studies being conducted by ICRISAT s in ce 1975. Chapter I I Ipresents an a n a l y s i s o f data on f e r t i l i z e r use f o r h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s o fsorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t . This is based on f a r m - l e v e l dat a from 47 se lec tedd i s t r i c t s c o l l e c t e d b y the I nd ian A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s Research I n s t i t u t e ,New D e l h i . Chapter IV presents the r e s u l t s of regressi on-based models ondeterminants of f e r t i l i z e r use based on those two data s e t s . The maini m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l research, ex tens ion , a nd development programsa r i s i n g from these analyses are discussed i n the f i n a l chapter .

1. Fertilizer Consumption in Semi-Arid Tropical India: District-Level Analysis

This chapter prov ides an overview o f f e r t i l i z e r consum ption in semi-ar idt r o p i c a l (SAT) I n d i a , w i t h s p e c i f i c emphasis on:

1 . How much f e r t i l i z e r i s a c t u a l l y used i n the i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e dareas of SAT I n d i a .

2. Whether f e r t i l i z e r use i s u n i f o r m l y spread over the e n t i r e SAT reg ion .

3. What has been the p a t t e r n of growth i n f e r t i l i z e r consumption over the l a s tdecade: 1969-70 to 1978-79.

4. Whether the data f o r the 1970s i n d i c a t e any s lacken ing of demand f o rf e r t i l i z e r s i n the i r r i g a t e d SAT areas.

Data and MethodologyThis a n a l y s i s is based on d i s t r i c t - l e v e l data. The I n d i an SAT is spread over 10s t a t e s : Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhr a Pradesh, Tamil Nadu,U t t a r Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gu ja ra t . Based on normal annualr a i n f a l l , 192 d i s t r i c t s belonging t o these 10 s t a t e s have been c l a s s i f i e d as SATd i s t r i c t s . 3 Of these, 78 have wel l -developed i r r i g a t i o n and the r e s t arep r i m a r i l y n o n i r r i g a t e d .

Data on f e r t i l i z e r consumption i n these d i s t r i c t s were taken fromF e r t i l i z e r S t a t i s t i c s 1978-79, a n annual p u b l i c a t i o n o f the F e r t i l i z e rAssoc ia t i on o f I n d i a , New D e l h i . Current f e r t i l i z e r consumption est imates wereworked out by t a k i n g the average consumption of n i t r o g e n (N) , phosphorus (P 2 O5 ),and potash (K 2O) per hectare of cropped area in each of these d i s t r i c t s du r ing1977-78 and 1978-79. 4 The est imates are g iven in k i lograms. For the a n a l y s i s of

3. See Bapna e t a l . 1979 f o r d e t a i l s of t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

4. The use of oxide u n i t s was p r e f e r r e d because d i s t r i c t w i s e consumption datawere a v a i l a b l e c o n s i s t e n t l y i n these u n i t s . The term " f e r t i l i z e r " has beenused i n i t s n u t r i e n t conno ta t i on .

3

growth in f e r t i l i z e r use, consumption leve ls in the i n i t i a l per iod (average of1969-70 and 1970-71) and the current per iod (average of 1977-78 and 1978-79)were compared, and the increment (or change) expressed in annual terms as thel i near growth r a t e .

Fertilizer Consumption

Table 1 shows the average l eve l of f e r t i l i z e r (nu t r i en t ) consumption in kg/ha ofgross cropped area in the SAT as a whole, and in i r r i g a t e d and non i r r i ga tedzones. The average f e r t i l i ze r - consump t i on leve ls in the SAT d i s t r i c t s are a l i t t l e higher than the corresponding na t iona l averages, but the f i gu res for thei r r i g a t e d and non i r r i ga ted zones reveal the wide v a r i a t i o n in f e r t i l i z e rconsumption w i t h i n the SAT. The average l eve l of consumption of N+P2O5+K2O inthe i r r i g a t e d SAT d i s t r i c t s is over three times as high as in the .non i r r iga tedd i s t r i c t s . Among i n d i v i d u a l n u t r i e n t s , the gap is more pronounced in n i t rogenconsumption. As Table 1 shows, the average consumption r a t i o of N, P2O5 ,andK2O is less heav i ly biased towards n i t rogen in the non i r r i ga ted SAT d i s t r i c t s .

Table 1. Average 1 (1977-79)

F e r t i l i z e r

Nitrogen (N)

Phosphorus (P

Potash (K2O)

(N+P2O5+K2O)

Figures inK20.

205)

evel

I r r i <(78

of fer t i l i zer consumption in

gated SATd is t s )

40.0(6.8)

11.6(2.0)

5.9(1.0)

57.5

parentheses ind ica te

Non i r r iga ted SAT(114 d i s t s )

11.6(4.8)

4.5(1.9)

2.4(1.0)

18.5

consumption r a t i o

kg/ha

Total(192

of gross

L SATd is t s )

21.5

7.0

3.6

32.1

of N and P2O5

cropped area

A l l - I n d i a

18.9

5.9

3.2

28.0

in r e l a t i o n to

The tab le also shows tha t i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s are major consumers ofchemical f e r t i l i z e r s in SAT I n d i a . The pa t te rn is more c l e a r l y brought out inTable 2 which shows the propor t ion of aggregate f e r t i l i z e r consumption accountedfo r by i r r i g a t e d and non i r r i ga ted SAT zones over two d i f f e r e n t periods—1969-70to 1970-71, and 1977-78 to 1978-79.

The i r r i g a t e d SAT d i s t r i c t s cover only 23% of the na t iona l and about 35% ofthe SAT gross cropped area, but they have a 45% share in the na t iona l f e r t i l i z e rconsumption and 62% in the SAT. The non i r r i ga ted d i s t r i c t s , spread across 42%of the na t iona l and 65% of the SAT cropped area, account fo r a mere 27% of thena t iona l and 38% of the SAT f e r t i l i z e r consumption.

Corresponding f i gu res fo r 1969-71 show tha t the share of the i r r i g a t e dareas in t o t a l SAT consumption of the three nu t r i en t s was even h igher . Thisimpl ies tha t f e r t i l i z e r consumption in the non i r r i ga ted SAT areas has improvedover the decade. Both the tab les show tha t f e r t i l i z e r consumption in

4

non i r r i ga ted SAT areas is poor. This t rend is re la ted to the extremely lowf e r t i l i z a t i o n observed in most non i r r i ga ted crops (NCAER 1978). The tableses tab l i sh that i r r i g a t e d areas dominate f e r t i l i z e r consumption. This is why SATregions lead in aggregate f e r t i l i z e r consumption in the country , as shown in thel as t column of Table 2.

Table 2. Contribution of i r r i gaf e r t i l i z e r consumption

Par t i cu la rs

1. Number of d i s t r i c t s2. % of a l l - I n d i a cropped area

% of SAT cropped area3. % of a l l - I n d i a consumption:

Nitrogen (N)

Phosphorus (P2O5)

Potash (K20)

ted and nonirrigated SAT(1977-79 and 1969-71).

Tota l f e r t i l i z e r (N+P2O5+K2O)

4. % of t o t a l SAT consumption:Nitrogen (N)

Phosphorus (P2O5)

Potash (K20)

Tota l f e r t i l i z e r (N+P2O5+K2O)

na = not app l i cab le .

Period

1977-791969-71

1977-791969-71

1977-791969-71

1977-791969-71

1977-791969-71

1977-791969-71

1977-791969-71

1977-791969-71

I r r i g a t e dSAT

782335

4751

4347

4043

4549

6568

5861

5762

6266

zones to

Noni r r igatedSAT

1144265

2624

3231

3026

2726

3532

4239

4338

3834

aggregate

Tota lSAT

19265

7375

7578

7069

7275

na

na

na

na

The pa t te rn of concentrat ion in f e r t i l i z e r consumption in SAT d i s t r i c t s ispresented in Table 3. Section A of t h i s tab le shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n ofd i s t r i c t s in terms of l eve l of consumption of t o t a l p lant nu t r i en t s per hectareof gross cropped area. The wide v a r i a t i o n in f e r t i l i z e r consumption acrossd i s t r i c t s is obvious: near ly 42% of the t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r s consumed in the 192d i s t r i c t s is accounted for by 35 d i s t r i c t s in the "above 60 kg" c lass . At theother extreme, 49 d i s t r i c t s consume less than 10 kg/ha, and t h e i r share in thet o t a l f e r t i l i z e r consumption is only 4.7%. Figures fo r i r r i g a t e d andnon i r r i ga ted d i s t r i c t s br ing out t h i s d i s p a r i t y more c l e a r l y . In 32 out of the78 d i s t r i c t s in the i r r i g a t e d category, the average consumption l eve l exceeds 60kg/ha, and these d i s t r i c t s account fo r 38.6% of the t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r consumed inthe SAT; in only one d i s t r i c t is f e r t i l i z e r consumption less than 10 kg/ha. On

5

6

the other hand, in on ly three n o n i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s do consumption l e v e l sexceed 60 kg/ha, wh i l e in as many as 48, they are less than 10 kg. Thus, wh i lei n near l y 68% of the i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s f e r t i l i z e r consumption i s more than40 kg/ha, in over 89% of the n o n i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s , cons umption l e v e l s arebelow 40 kg/ha.

To f a c i l i t a t e comparison w i t h other analyses, Sect ion B of Table 3 showsthe d i s t r i b u t i o n i n terms o f f e r t i l i z e r consumption p er d i s t r i c t . S t a t i s t i c sf o r the country as a whole (FAI 1979) i n d i c a t e t h a t t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r(N+P2O5+K2O) consumption i n nea r l y 12% of the d i s t r i c t s i n the country exceeds30 000 tonnes, and these d i s t r i c t s account f o r over 42% of the n a t i o n a lconsumption. At the other extreme, 45% of the d i s t r i c t s consume less than 5000tonnes, and t h e i r share in the n a t i o n a l comsumption is ba re ly 8%. Data f o r a l lthe SAT d i s t r i c t s , presented i n Table 3, reveal a s i m i l a r v a r i a t i o n amongd i s t r i c t s . Figures f o r i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e d SAT d i s t r i c t s r e i n f o r c e thee a r l i e r conc lus ions. Most o f the h igh f e r t i l i z e r - c o n s u m i n g d i s t r i c t s belong tothe i r r i g a t e d category, wh i l e low f e r t i l i z e r - c o n s u m i n g d i s t r i c t s come under then o n i r r i g a t e d category. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of a l l SAT d i s t r i c t s conveys a morefavorab le impression when compared to the country as a whol e because of theblending o f these two c o n t r a s t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n s . De spite t h i s apparentc l u s t e r i n g , i t would be i n c o r r e c t t o i n f e r t h a t there i s no v a r i a t i o n amongd i s t r i c t s w i t h i n each category. For example, w i t h i n the n o n i r r i g a t e d SAT thereare 12 d i s t r i c t s where the consumption l e v e l exceeds 40 kg/ ha, and thesed i s t r i c t s account f o r 27.5% o f the f e r t i l i z e r consum ption i n the n o n i r r i g a t e dSAT; a s l i g h t l y higher share is claimed by 72 d i s t r i c t s cons uming less than 20kg/ha. Thus, even w i t h i n the n o n i r r i g a t e d category, f e r t i l i z e r consumptionva r i es s i g n i f i c a n t l y and concen t ra t ion tendencies p e r s i s t . We hypothesize t h a tt h i s is l a r g e l y determined by the extent of area under n o n i r r i g a t e d commercialcrops ( c o t t o n , groundnut, tobacco, c h i l l i e s , e t c . ) .

Figure 1 shows t h a t the d i s t r i c t s where f e r t i l i z e r consumption i s low areconcentrated in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Gu ja ra t . Asexpected, d i s t r i c t s where f e r t i l i z e r consumption i s h igh are concentrated i ncoas ta l Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, and i n the i r r i g a t e d p l a i n s of nor thernI n d i a . The map also shows t h a t f e r t i l i z e r consumption i s r e l a t i v e l y low i n thei r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s of southern U t t a r Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan.

Growth in Fertilizer Use

A d i s t r i c t w i s e ana l ys i s spanning the 1960s (Desai and Sing h 1973), revealedt h a t , by and l a r g e , the r a i n f e d areas d i d not c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y to growthin f e r t i l i z e r consumption. The increase in consumption w as a r e s u l t of thespread of f e r t i l i z e r use t o (1) almost a l l crops grown under i r r i g a t e dc o n d i t i o n s ; (2) h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y w heat; and (3) a fewcommercial crops l i k e c o t t o n , groundnut, and tobacco grown under n o n i r r i g a t e dc o n d i t i o n s . I t was a lso found t h a t growth i n f e r t i l i z e r cons umption wasconcentrated in a few d i s t r i c t s of the country . A recent resu rvey, based ondata t i l l 1977, showed t h a t , by and l a r g e , the same forces s t i l l cont inued t o beimportant (Desai 1978). This sec t i on examines these f i n d i n g s in the context ofSAT I n d i a w i t h s p e c i a l reference t o the 1970s ( u n t i l 1979).

Table 4 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of SAT d i s t r i c t s according t o the annualra te of change i n f e r t i l i z e r (N+P 2O5+K2O) consumption per hectare o f croppedarea between 1970 (average of 1969-70 and 1970-71) and 1978 (average of 1977-78and 1978-79). The t a b l e shows t h a t the annual increments i n f e r t i l i z e rconsumption v a r i e d w ide ly among d i s t r i c t s , imp ly ing l a rge d i v e r s i t y i n thegrowth performance o f SAT d i s t r i c t s . I t a lso br ings ou t the super iorperformance o f i r r i g a t e d SAT d i s t r i c t s . I n 83 d i s t r i c t s , f e r t i l i z e r consumptiongrew at more than 2 kg/ha per annum; 58 of those d i s t r i c t s were i n the

7

Less than 20 kg/ha

21-40 kg/ha

Above 40 kg/ha

I r r i ga ted d i s t r i c t s

Figure 1. Average level of fertilizer (N+P2O5+K2O) consumption (kg/ha of gross cropped area) in semi-arid tropical India (1976-77).

8

i r r i g a t e d SAT. At the other extreme, the increment rate was less than 1 kg/hain 71 d i s t r i c t s , 65 of which were non i r r i ga ted . This pat te rn holds forn i t rogen , but for phosphatic and potassic f e r t i l i z e r s , the i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t salso f igured prominently in the low-growth ca tegor ies , 5

The i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s have continued to perform wel l in terms of l eve l ofconsumption (Table 3) as we l l as growth in consumption of f e r t i l i z e r s . Thenon i r r iga ted d i s t r i c t s , w i th some exceptions, present a dismal p i c tu re w i th overone- th i rd of them showing less than 0.5 kg/ha per annum growth in f e r t i l i z e rconsumption. It was also noted (data not presented here) that in the i r r i g a t e dcategory, only 3 out of 78 d i s t r i c t s showed less than 0.5 kg/ha growth inn i t rogen consumption; 41 d i s t r i c t s showed less than 0.5 kg/ha growth inconsumption of phosphatic f e r t i l i z e r s ; and 64 d i s t r i c t s showed less than 0.5 kg/hagrowth in potassic f e r t i l i z e r consumption. This suggests that growth inni t rogen consumption is more s t rongly associated w i th i r r i g a t i o n (Jha 1980).

Table 4. Distr ibuf e r t i l i 2

Rate of increaseannum (kg/ha

of cropped

< 0.100.11 - 0.500.51 - 1.001.01 - 2.002.01 - 3.003.01 - 4.004.01 - 5.00

> 5.00

Tota l

t ion ofzer (N+P2

per

area)

SAT d is t r i c ts accO5+K2O) consumption

I r r i g a t e dSAT

213

1419141312

78

ording to rate of J (kg/ha per annum) durinc

Nonir r igatedSAT

733252414

632

114

increase ing 1970-78.

Tota lSAT

934283833201614

192

The rate of growth exceeded 4 kg/ha per annum in only f i v e non i r r iga tedd i s t r i c t s . In almost a l l these d i s t r i c t s , crops l i k e co t ton , groundnut,tobacco, and c h i l l i e s were found to be important. Thus, despite datainadequacies, the resu l t s broadly confirm the pat tern observed in the 1960s:(a) dominance of i r r i g a t e d crops and areas; and (b) importance of high-valuecrops in non i r r iga ted areas (Desai and Singh 1973).

We have also evaluated the content ion (Desai 1978) t h a t , by and la rge , thed i s t r i c t - l e v e l base susta in ing growth in f e r t i l i z e r consumption has remainedqu i te narrow over t ime, by comparing the performance of high-growth d i s t r i c t sduring the 1960s and the 1970s (Appendix I ) . This comparison provides clearevidence of a widening of the d i s t r i c t - l e v e l base supporting growth inf e r t i l i z e r consumption. It shows that 44 i r r i g a t e d and 26 non i r r iga tedd i s t r i c t s experienced high growth in n i t rogen consumption during the 1970s. Theincrease in n i t rogen consumption in 25 of the i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s and 5 of thenon i r r iga ted d i s t r i c t s was high in the 1960s as w e l l . S i m i l a r l y , in 29i r r i g a t e d and 21 non i r r iga ted d i s t r i c t s , the growth in consumption of phosphaticf e r t i l i z e r s was high during the 1970s; in 14 of these i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s and 8 of the non i r r i ga ted , growth in consumption was high during the 1960s a lso . This

5. For data, see Jha and Sar in (1960).

9

c lea r l y shows that new fe r t i l i ze r -consuming d i s t r i c t s have come to the f o r e ,p a r t i c u l a r l y in the non i r r iga ted SAT areas.

Compared wi th the 1960s, n i t rogen and phosphorus consumption in the 1970simproved in the SAT as a whole. The i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s contr ibutedsubs tan t i a l l y to t h i s development. In non i r r iga ted areas a l so , the percentageof d i s t r i c t s in the high to very-high growth category showed an increase, andthe percentage of d i s t r i c t s in the low to very-low growth category recorded onlya modest dec l ine . This suggests that i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s continue to providethe main base for growth in consumption of both nitrogenous and phosphaticf e r t i l i z e r s . Again, compared w i th the 1960s, many i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s sh i f t edfrom the low- to high-growth category in the 1970s. This was t rue of somenon i r r iga ted d i s t r i c t s as w e l l . However, near ly ha l f of these d i s t r i c t sremained in the low-growth categories during the 1970s.

There was no evidence of decelerat ion of growth in f e r t i l i z e r consumptionin the i r r i g a t e d areas. Appendix I, which shows the performance of high-growthd i s t r i c t s during the 1960s and 1970s, brings t h i s out c l e a r l y . I f d i s t r i c t ss h i f t i n g from h igh- to low-growth categories in that period are considered asind ica tors of slackening f e r t i l i z e r consumption, n i t rogen consumption did notslacken as no d i s t r i c t s s h i f t e d . However, w i th regard to phosphaticf e r t i l i z e r s , 4 d i s t r i c t s (2 each in i r r i g a t e d and non i r r iga ted categories) d ids h i f t to lower consumption l e v e l s .

The dominance of the i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s is c l ea r l y brought out in Table 5,which shows the con t r ibu t ion of i r r i g a t e d and non i r r iga ted SAT d i s t r i c t s to thet o t a l growth in f e r t i l i z e r consumption between 1970 and 1978.

Table 5. Contribution (%) of i r r igated and nonirrigated SA Tin f e r t i l i z e r consumption in SAT India (1970-78).

Percentage of

I r r i g a t e dF e r t i l i z e r d i s t r i c t s

Tota l f e r t i l i z e r (N+P2O5+K2O) 59Nitrogen 62Phosphorus 55Potash 53

d i s t r i

t o t a l

cts to growth

growth

Nonir r igatedd i s t r i c t s

41384447

The table shows that i r r i g a t e d areas contr ibuted the most to growth inaggregate f e r t i l i z e r consumption in the SAT. This is so because n i t rogenaccounts for a major part of t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r use, and most (62%) of the growthin n i t rogen consumption is accounted for by the i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s . As forgrowth in consumption of phosphatic and potassic f e r t i l i z e r s , the non i r r iga tedd i s t r i c t s have contr ibuted a r e l a t i v e l y larger share to the post-1970 growth.

Conclusions

A study of f e r t i l i z e r consumption and growth in SAT I nd ia , based ond i s t r i c t - l e v e l data, revealed that 78 i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s accounted for 62% ofthe t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r s consumed in the SAT. These d i s t r i c t s ' share of croppedarea in the SAT was only 35%. The i r r i g a t e d areas that show high f e r t i l i z e rconsumption were found to be located in the p la ins of northern I nd ia , and

10

coas ta l Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. On the other hand, n o n i r r i g a t e dd i s t r i c t s w i t h low f e r t i l i z e r consumption were spread across c e n t r a l and westernI n d i a . The average f e r t i l i z e r (N+P 2O+K2O) consumption was 57 kg/ha of croppedarea in the i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s and 18 kg/ha in the n o n i r r i g a t e d .

The i r r i g a t e d SAT d i s t r i c t s a lso showed improved growth i n t o t a l f e r t i l i z e rconsumption dur ing 1970-78. The n o n i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s wh ich d i d perform w e l lwere those in which n o n i r r i g a t e d commercial crops l i k e c o t t o n , groundnut,tobacco, and c h i l l i e s were impor tant .

A comparison of the growth performance of SAT d i s t r i c t s between 1960-68 and1970-78 revealed t h a t the i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s have cont inued t o prov ide the basef o r growth i n f e r t i l i z e r consumption dur ing the 1970s as w e l l . A lso , there wasno i n d i c a t i o n of a d e c e l e r a t i o n in growth. We found no evid ence f o r thecon ten t ion t h a t the s p a t i a l base s u s t a i n i n g growth i n f e r t i l i z e r , consumptioncont inues t o be narrow. On the c o n t r a r y , our ana l ys i s shows t h a t f e r t i l i z e r swere adopted i n new areas, p a r t i c u l a r l y n i t rogenous f e r t i l i z e r s i n n o n i r r i g a t e dd i s t r i c t s . This f i n d i n g has to be viewed against the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s :(a) increase i n i r r i g a t i o n i n these so -ca l l ed n o n i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s ( t h e l a t e s td i s t r i c t w i s e data on i r r i g a t i o n , which would he lp t o know the exact p o s i t i o n ,are not a v a i l a b l e ) 6 ; (b) the cropwise base f o r growth i n f e r t i l i z e r consumptioni n n o n i r r i g a t e d areas i s s t i l l narrow and remains conf ined t o a few commercialcrops; and (c) the absolute l e v e l of consumption of f e r t i l i z e r s cont inues to bebelow 10 kg/ha in near l y 42% of the n o n i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s . Thef e r t i l i z e r - c o n s u m p t i o n l e v e l s have, in f a c t , remaine d stagnant over the l a s tdecade in 40 out of 114 d i s t r i c t s .

A review of past work and t h i s ana l ys i s l ed to the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses:

1 . I r r i g a t e d areas w i t h i n SAT I n d i a cont inue t o c o n t r o l growth i n f e r t i l i z e rconsumption. Even as h i g h l y i r r i g a t e d areas reach t h e i r s a t u r a t i o n l e v e l ,ongoing i r r i g a t i o n development e f f o r t s would lead to spread o f f e r t i l i z e r uset o h i t h e r t o n o n i r r i g a t e d lands.

2. Farmers i n the h i g h l y unstable SAT s e t t i n g adopt f e r t i l i z e r s on ly whenre tu rns are r e l a t i v e l y assured (as on i r r i g a t e d lands) and/ or h igh enough (asin the case of h igh-value commercial c rops ) . But food-gra in crops, whichoccupy a bulk of the n o n i r r i g a t e d SAT cropped area, do not re sponds i g n i f i c a n t l y to f e r t i l i z a t i o n and besides, re tu rns on t hem are r e l a t i v e l ylow. While h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s of sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t s have broughtabout some change i n the s i t u a t i o n , i r r i g a t i o n cont inues t o be the key f a c t o r(NCAER 1978).

The d i s t r i c t - l e v e l ana l ys i s does not permit t e s t i n g of the se hypotheses,al though i t reveals the magnitude of the problem and br ings out the two basicm o t i v a t i n g f o r c e s — i r r i g a t i o n and market i n c e n t i v e s . Th e e f f e c t s oft e c h n o l o g i c a l change as a f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g f e r t i l i z e r use can best be tes tedw i t h data a t the farm l e v e l .

6. S t a t e - l e v e l data on the growth in i r r i g a t e d area over t h i s pe r iod suggestt h a t t h i s i s a s t rong p o s s i b i l i t y . And even i n the n o n i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s , a major p a r t of the f e r t i l i z e r s consumed oould be used on i r r i g a t e d crops grownon smal l areas.

11

II. Fertilizer Use on FarmsThe broad tendencies revealed by the d i s t r i c t - l e v e l a na l ys i s stem from dec is ionstaken by i n d i v i d u a l farmers. Hence, f o r a proper unders tanding of the p a t t e r no f f e r t i l i z e r use, i t i s necessary t o study i n d i v i d u a l farmer behavior. This i simportant because i t i s a t t h i s l e v e l t h a t responses t o p o l i c y and otherinvestment and t e c h n o l o g i c a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s a c t u a l l y ta ke p lace. This chapterprovides i n fo rma t ion on f e r t i l i z e r - u s e pa t t e rns and p r a c t i c e s observed on farmsin se lec ted regions of SAT I n d i a .

Decisions governing f e r t i l i z e r use are complex. F i r s t , the farmer has todecide whether to use f e r t i l i z e r s or no t , and t h e r e a f t e r decide which crop(s) tof e r t i l i z e and at what r a t e ( s ) . C a p i t a l r a t i o n i n g and other f a c t o r s o f t e nnecess i ta te dec i s ion on how much cropped area t o f e r t i l i z e . Then f o l l o wdec is ions regarding how t o use f e r t i l i z e r s , choice of f e r t i l i z e r , method ofa p p l i c a t i o n , balanced use of n u t r i e n t s , e t c . , a l l of wh ich have a bear ing on thet e c h n i c a l e f f i c i e n c y o f f e r t i l i z e r i n p u t . This chapter provides i n f o r m a t i o n onthese aspects. A q u a n t i t a t i v e ana l ys i s of the f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e thesedec is ions is attempted in Chapter IV, a l though even a s imple d e s c r i p t i o n ofcu r ren t p r a c t i c e s w i l l s u f f i c e t o prov ide some u s e f u l i n s i g h t s . The s p e c i f i caspects discussed in t h i s chapter are :

1 . Adoption o f f e r t i l i z e r s .2 . Average l e v e l s of f e r t i l i z e r use.3. A l l o c a t i o n of f e r t i l i z e r s between crops.4. Rates of a p p l i c a t i o n and ex tent of f e r t i l i z e r use.5. Agronomic management of f e r t i l i z e r i n p u t .6. Use of organic manures.

Data Source and Background of the Study AreasData f o r t h i s ana l ys i s come from ICRISAT V i l l a g e - L e v e l Studies being conductedsince 1975 in 6 v i l l a g e s 7 — 2 each in 3 major a g r o c l i m a t i c zones of pen insu larI n d i a .

In each of these v i l l a g e s , data from 40 households ( 10 each from land lessl a b o r , sma l l - , medium-, and la rge- fa rm categor ies) we re monitored by res iden ti n v e s t i g a t o r s . The s a l i e n t a g r o c l i m a t i c and farm-reso urce endowment fea tu res ofthe se lec ted v i l l a g e s are presented i n Appendix I I .

Region I (Sholapur) is cha rac te r i zed by low and unstable r a i n f a l l , and isdominated by postrainy-season cropping of mainly coars e cerea ls and pulses onmedium-deep V e r t i s o l s . Region I I (Akola) has s i m i l a r s o i l s , s t a b l e and somewhathigher r a i n f a l l , very l i t t l e i r r i g a t i o n , and f a i r l y h igh area undern o n i r r i g a t e d , commercial crops. Region I I I (Mahbubna gar) has red s o i l s , h ighi r r i g a t i o n , low r a i n f a l l , and r e l a t i v e l y smal ler ho ld ings . The cropping p a t t e r nis dominated by paddy.

Data on cropping p a t t e r n , f e r t i l i z e r use, and other re levan t aspects f o rthe sample households 8 f o r 3 years (1975-76 through 1977-78) were considered.In a d d i t i o n , s p e c i a l surveys were conducted in these v i l l a g e s du r ing 1979 and1980 to ob ta in a d d i t i o n a l data. The r e s u l t s , f ea tu red i n a subsequent s e c t i o no f t h i s paper, are presented f o r regions I and I I . For reg ion I I I , i n view o f

7. For d e t a i l s see Binswanger et a l . 1977.8. The 146 sample (farmer) households used in t h i s stud y were se lec ted on the

basis t h a t data on them were a v a i l a b l e f o r 3 years.

12

the subs tan t ia l d i f ferences in i r r i g a t i o n a v a i l a b i l i t y between Aurepalle andDokur v i l l a g e s , estimates for both the v i l l ages have been given separate ly. Thefour s i tuat ions—Sholapur , Akola, Aurepal le , and Dokur—represent a spectrum ofcontrasts w i t h i n the SAT environment, w i th Sholapur and Dokur depic t ing extremes i t u a t i o n s . A l l estimates presented in t h i s chapter are based on 3-yearaverages. In a l l t ab les , f e r t i l i z e r quan t i t i es have been expressed in terms ofnu t r ien ts—N, P2O5, and K2O—after appropriate conversion.

Adoption of Fertilizers

The f i r s t overt ind ica tor of acceptance of an innovat ion is i t s adopt ion. Theove ra l l l e ve l o f adoption o f f e r t i l i z e r s w i l l , t he re fo re , ind ica te the extent towhich f e r t i l i z e r use has been in tegrated in a given farming system. Table 6 provides data on the average propor t ion of sample farmers using f e r t i l i z e r sduring 1975-78.

Table 6. Proportion of farme

Par t i cu la rs

Percentage of farmersusing f e r t i l i z e r 1

Percentage of users among:Small farmersMedium farmersLarge farmers

Percentage of users i n :1975-761976-771977-78

rs using f e r t i l i z

Sholapur

29

143732

313124

1. Calculated by aggregating t o t a l numberperiod of 3 years ( i r respec t i ve ofd i f f e r e n t ) , expressed as percentage ofyears.

er in di f ferent

Akola

43

174565

404347

regions (1975-78).

Mahbubnagar

Aurepalle

38

02483

334141

of farmers using f e r t i l i z e rwhether they were the same

the t o t a l number of farmers

Dokur

80

795096

678389

over thefarmers orin those 3

The f i r s t row of the tab le shows that adoption of f e r t i l i z e r s was lowest inSholapur and highest in Dokur, w i th Akola and Aurepal le occupying intermediatepos i t i ons . The tab le also reveals that adoption was highest on large farms ina l l the three regions. These f ind ings ind ica te tha t superior product ionenvironment ( in the regional context) and higher socioeconomic status ( in thein te r fa rm context) aided higher f e r t i l i z e r adopt ion. In Dokur, the l eve l ofadoption was qu i te high even on small farms. In v i l l ages other than Aurepal le ,the percentage of i r r i g a b l e area was higher on small farms. Dif ferences ini r r i g a t i o n a v a i l a b i l i t y thus d id not appear to be important in expla in ingin te r fa rm size d i f ferences in adoption l e v e l s .

Over t ime, more farmers used f e r t i l i z e r s in 2 of the 3 regions. Theexception was Sholapur which suggests i t s specia l nature.

13

To explore the pa t te rn of adoption f u r t h e r , add i t i ona l data were co l l ec tedon when and on which crop the farmer s ta r ted using f e r t i l i z e r s . The r e s u l t s ,summarized in Figure 2, showed that f e r t i l i z e r use was a r e l a t i v e l y recentp rac t i ce in the Sholapur and Akola reg ions; none of the farmers surveyed inthese regions had used f e r t i l i z e r before 1964. In Akola, adoption off e r t i l i z e r s rap id l y increased from 1964, but in Sholapur the process has notbeen so f a s t . In Dokur in Mahbubnagar, more than ha l f the farmers had taken tof e r t i l i z e r s before 1959, and by 1978 every farmer in the v i l l a g e was using them.In Aurepa l le , f e r t i l i z e r use s ta r ted in the ear l y 1960s, but even by 1978 thecumulative percentage of f e r t i l i z e r users d id not go beyond 55. F e r t i l i z e r useis thus seen as an establ ished p rac t i ce in Dokur and Akola, whi le in thel o w - r a i n f a l l regions w i th l i t t l e i r r i g a t i o n (Sholapur and Aurepa l l e ) , theo v e r a l l adoption and ra te of d i f f u s i o n has been poor.

In both Aurepal le and Dokur, f e r t i l i z e r use s ta r ted w i t h paddy—well beforethe advent of the h i gh - y i e l d i ng v a r i e t i e s in the mid-1960s. In the Akolareg ion , f e r t i l i z e r s were f i r s t used on hybr id sorghum and cot ton crops. Thus,in these two reg ions, a v a i l a b i l i t y of i r r i g a t i o n and/or high-response cropsprompted adoption of f e r t i l i z e r s (Desai et a l . 1973). In Sholapur, farmerss ta r ted using f e r t i l i z e r s on a v a r i e t y of crops un l i ke in the other regionswhere app l i ca t i on was i n i t i a l l y r e s t r i c t e d to one or two crops. Some farmerss ta r ted w i th i r r i g a t e d crops l i k e paddy, wheat, maize, vegetables, or sugarcaneand some others chose high-response non i r r i ga ted crops l i k e hybr id sorghum orgroundnut.9 While the basic forces ( i r r i g a t i o n and high-response) wereapparent ly s i m i l a r , the Sholapur s i t u a t i o n suggested a longer phase ofexperimentat ion by farmers. This phenomenon has also been observed in anotherl o w - r a i n f a l l SAT d i s t r i c t , Be l la ry in Karnataka, where f e r t i l i z e r use is a recent p rac t i ce (Krishnaswamy and Patel 1973) .

The p i c t u r e , as presented above, r e f l e c t s the pa t te rn of f i r s t adopt ion,but does not provide in format ion on c o n t i n u i t y in farmers ' use of f e r t i l i z e r s .Scrut iny of data co l l ec ted from each i n d i v i d u a l farmer revealed tha t adoptionwas not a one-time dec is ion for a l l farmers. Table 7 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n off e r t i l i z e r users over the 3-year per iod1 0 in d i f f e r e n t categor ies .

Table 7. Distr ibut ion of

User category

1. Users in a l l 3 years2. Users in l a s t 2 years3. Users in the l a s t year4. Others

Tota l

f e r t i l i z e r users according to

Sholapur

269

1748

100

Percentage of

Akola

658

1017

100

pattern of use (1975-78).

f e r t i l i z e r users

Mahbubnagar

Aurepal le

578

1421

100

r

Dokur

6925

06

100

9. Even fo r these non i r r i ga ted crops, post rainy-season cropping impl ies assureds o i l moisture fo r adequate crop growth.

10. Three years are not enough fo r an analys is of t h i s type but the po in t wewant to make comes out qu i te c l e a r l y even w i th these data .

14

Figure 2. Adoption of fertilizer, over time, in Sholapur, Akola, and Mahbubnagar (two locations) regions.

15

F i r s t use dur ing the per iod

Cumulative % of f e r t i l i z e r users

Sholapur

Mahbubnagar

Aurepal le Dokur

Akola

The f i r s t two rows of Table 7 show the percentage of continuous users; andthe t h i r d row, the new adopters in 1977-78. In Dokur, 94% of the f e r t i l i z e rusers belonged to the "consis tent users" category; only 35% of the users inSholapur f e l l in t h i s c lass . Farmers who used f e r t i l i z e r s only in some year(s)have been categorized under the head "o thers" in the t a b l e . Nearly ha l f thef e r t i l i z e r users in Sholapur belonged to t h i s group.

Lack of i r r i g a t i o n and cap i ta l—no t lack of awareness or apprehensionsabout the p r o f i t a b i l i t y of f e r t i l i z e r use—were the main reasons fo r nonadoptionof f e r t i l i z e r s . Risk was another important f a c t o r .

The comprehensive NCAER survey on f e r t i l i z e r demand and a few other studieshave also i d e n t i f i e d i r r i g a t i o n and c r e d i t as the most important cons t ra in ts towide adoption of f e r t i l i z e r s (Maharaja 1975, NCAER 1978).

F e r t i l i z e r use is a we l l -es tab l i shed p rac t i ce in the i r r i g a t e d SAT areas(Desai and Singh 1973, Desai et a l . 1973, and Jha 1980). In areas w i thr e l a t i v e l y high and s tab le r a i n f a l l and subs tan t ia l area under h igh-va lue ,high-response crops, f e r t i l i z e r use s ta r ted in the mid-1960s and has grownrather rap id l y s ince . On the other hand, non i r r i ga ted SAT regions w i th lowr a i n f a l l showed low adoption l e v e l s , slow rate of d i f f u s i o n , and f e r t i l i z e r usewas not continuous from year to year.

Levels and Variability of Fertilizer Use

Table 8 shows the average app l i ca t i on rates and extent of area f e r t i l i z e d w i thd i f f e r e n t n u t r i e n t s .

Table 8. Average level of f e r t i l i z e r(1975-78).

Pa r t i cu l a r s

1. Average l eve l of (N+P2O5+K2O)use (kg/ha of gross cropped area)

2. Average rate of app l i ca t i on(kg/ha f e r t i l i z e d ) :

NP205K20

3. % of gross cropped areaf e r t i l i z e d :

NP205

K20

use on

Sholapur

2

281717

522

farms in

Akola

7

2513

8

181312

di f ferent regicns

Mahbubnagar

Aurepal le

12

532712

1710

3

Dokur

39

623416

452321

O v e r a l l , the i n t e n s i t y of f e r t i l i z e r use—indicated by the average l eve l off e r t i l i z e r (N+P2O5+K2O) consumption—was found to be very low in almost a l l

16

regions except Dokur, where it was about 40 kg/ha. These f igu res emphasize thelow l eve l of and high i n te r reg iona l v a r i a t i o n in f e r t i l i z e r use in SAT areas.Table 8 also reveals that consumption was low because of the very poor extent off e r t i l i z a t i o n : only a nominal f r a c t i o n of the cropped area was f e r t i l i z e d inSholapur; in Akola and Aurepal le a l so , the percentage of area f e r t i l i z e d w i thn i t rogen d id not exceed o n e - f i f t h of the cropped area. Even in the h igh lyi r r i g a t e d Dokur v i l l a g e , not a l l i r r i g a t e d land received f e r t i l i z e r .

In a l l the reg ions, adoption leve ls (Table 6) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y higherthan the percentage of areas f e r t i l i z e d despi te the fac t that farmers have beenusing f e r t i l i z e r s for 10 years or more. This ind icates low d i f f u s i o n off e r t i l i z e r use (even in h igh ly i r r i g a t e d areas) ; secondly, i t suggests thatfrom the po in t of view of f e r t i l i z e r promotion, a l t e r n a t i v e s t ra teg ies may berequired to ra ise the leve ls of these two determinants.

The actua l rates of app l i ca t i on (Table 8) were near ly twice as high inMahbubnagar as in the Sholapur and Akola reg ions. Akola and Aurepal le providean i n t e res t i ng comparison: the cropped area f e r t i l i z e d was near ly the same inbo th , but the rates of f e r t i l i z e r ( for N and P2O5 p a r t i c u l a r l y ) app l i ca t i on weremarkedly d i f f e r e n t .

The i n te r reg iona l v a r i a t i o n in the average parameters needs to beexpla ined. A de ta i l ed analys is fo l lows in Chapter IV. Table 9 provides data onthe in f luence of i r r i g a t i o n on f e r t i l i z e r use.

Table 9, I r r i ga t i on and

D i s t r i c t /v i l l a g e

SholapurAkolaHahbubnagar

Aurepal leDokur

fer

% of croppedarea

i r r i g a t e d

10-134-5

2160

r t i l i z e r use

% of t o t a lf e r t i l i z e r

(N+P2O5+K2O)used fo r

i r r i g a t e dcrops

7537

9799

(1975-78).

% of t o t a lf e r t i l i z e darea (wi thN) i r r i g a -

ted

5515

9198

Rate (kg/ha

I r r i g a t e d

N F205 K20

39 23 2365 32 18

60 32 1463 34 16

f e r t i l i z e d )

Noni r r iga ted

N P205 K20

14 11 1118 10 6

14 10 2 16 19 16

The tab le shows that i r r i g a t i o n played a dominant ro le in the Sholapur andMahbubnagar regions. I r r i g a t e d crops accounted for 75 to 99% of the t o t a lf e r t i l i z e r used. The Akola reg ion , which had r e l a t i v e l y higher r a i n f a l l ,provided an i n te res t i ng con t ras t . This region had l i t t l e i r r i g a t e d area ( lessthan 5%), yet more than one- th i rd of the t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r was used on i r r i g a t e dcrops. The data ind ica te that f e r t i l i z e r use in the l o w - r a i n f a l l areas of theSAT was confined to i r r i g a t e d lands. In r e l a t i v e l y higher (and more stable)r a i n f a l l areas, on the other hand, f e r t i l i z e r use was qu i te common under ra in fedcond i t i ons .

The rates of f e r t i l i z a t i o n under i r r i g a t e d condi t ions were remarkablys im i l a r in the Akola and Mahbubnagar regions (60-65 kg N, 32-34 kg P205, and14-18 kg K2O per f e r t i l i z e d hec ta re ) . The rates for non i r r iga ted crops werealso qu i te comparable across reg ions. The except ional case of Sholapur( i r r i g a t e d rates) needs to be noted. O v e r a l l , the v a r i a t i o n in the rates off e r t i l i z e r app l i ca t i on across regions was due so le l y to i r r i g a t i o n .

17

Fur ther a n a l y s i s revealed t h a t , a l though f e r t i l i z e r use was most oni r r i g a t e d lands, a s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n o f such la nd rece ived no f e r t i l i z e r a ta l l . 1 1 in the Mahbubnagar v i l l a g e s , 20-30% o f the i r r i g a t e d area remainedu n f e r t i l i z e d ; i n the Maharashtra d i s t r i c t s , i t was n e a r l y 60%. While lack o fc a p i t a l and/or n o n a v a i l a b i l i t y of f e r t i l i z e r cou ld have been respons ib le f o rt h i s s i t u a t i o n in Sholapur and Mahbubnagar, the Akola ca se was p u z z l i n g becausen o n i r r i g a t e d crops rece ived a l a r g e share o f the f e r t i l i z e r used i n t h i s area.The ex is tence o f a f a i r p r o p o r t i o n o f u n f e r t i l i z e d i r r i g a t e d land was a l soi n d i c a t e d by other data sources (Jha 1980). E x p l o i t a t i o n of t h i s s lack cou ldlead t o s i g n i f i c a n t p r o d u c t i v i t y gains i n SAT a g r i c u l t u r e . 1 2 I t a l so f o l l o w st h a t easing o f c o n s t r a i n t s would r e s u l t — a t l e a s t i n t he Sholapur andMahbubnagar s i t u a t i o n s — i n ex tens ion o f f e r t i l i z e r use, i n i t i a l l y t o h i t h e r t ou n f e r t i l i z e d i r r i g a t e d l a n d .

Allocation of Fertilizers to Crops

Several s tud ies have revealed t h a t farmers ' choice o f crops t o be f e r t i l i z e d i si n f l u e n c e d b y the r e l a t i v e p r o f i t a b i l i t y o f response s t o f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n(Desai 1969, Desai et a l . 1973, and Maharaja 1975). The dominance of i r r i g a t e dcrops ( i n a l o w - r a i n f a l l s i t u a t i o n ) , shown i n the preceding s e c t i o n , i s p a r t i a levidence i n support o f t h i s f i n d i n g . I n t h i s s e c t i o n , t he sub jec t i s pursuedf u r t h e r and a t t e n t i o n i s focused on a l l o c a t i o n of f e r t i l i z e r s among d i f f e r e n tcrops. The tendency noted above would imply t h a t r e l a t i v e l y moref e r t i l i z e r - r e s p o n s i v e crops would c l a im a l a r g e r share o f t o t a l n u t r i e n t s .Table 10 prov ides data on cropwise a l l o c a t i o n o f f e r t i l i z e r (N+P 2O5+K2O) i nd i f f e r e n t reg ions .

I n the Mahbubnagar v i l l a g e s , h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s o f paddyoverwhelmingly dominated the f e r t i l i z e r scene. Other crops t h a t rece ived somef e r t i l i z e r were groundnut, vegetab les , and castor ( i n A u r e p a l l e ) . No f e r t i l i z e rwas used f o r sorghum in e i t h e r Au repa l l e or Dokur, a l thoug h t h i s crop occupied a s i g n i f i c a n t area.

The p a t t e r n observed i n Sho lapur—another low r a i n f a l l r e g i o n — i si n t e r e s t i n g . The reg ion is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a h i g h l y subs i s tence -o r ien tedcropping p a t t e r n : l o c a l v a r i e t i e s of sorghum and pulses account f o r n e a r l y 85%of the gross cropped area. I n t h i s r e g i o n , crops l i k e suga rcane, vegetab les ,and paddy—grown on on ly about 5% of the cropped area—ac counted f o r about 60%o f the t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r used. I n sharp c o n t r a s t t o o ther reg ions , t r a d i t i o n a lv a r i e t i e s of sorghum a lso claimed a s i g n i f i c a n t share; i ndeed, sorghum consumedalmost the e n t i r e f e r t i l i z e r used i n the p o s t r a i n y seaso n.

The a l l o c a t i o n p a t t e r n was more d i ve rse in the Akola r e g i o n . A number ofcrops were f e r t i l i z e d ; c o t t o n , wheat, sorghum, and groundnut the most impor tantamong them. The h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s of wheat and sorghum were p r e f e r r e d .While wheat occupied on l y 2% of the gross cropped area, i t a ccounted f o r n e a r l yo n e - t h i r d o f the t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r used.

The o v e r a l l p a t t e r n , presented in Table 10, thus supporte d the view t h a thigh-response crops claimed p r i o r i t y i n the farmers ' f e r t i l i z e r - a l l o c a t i o n

11. See Jha and Sa r i n 1981, f o r data .12. Such an e f f o r t i s a l ready under way as p a r t of the i n t e n s i v e f e r t i l i z e r

promotion campaign i n se lec ted d i s t r i c t s having assure d i r r i g a t i o n but lowf e r t i l i z e r - c o n s u m p t i o n l e v e l s (Sohbati 1979).

18

19

d e c i s i o n s . I r r i g a t e d , h igh-va lue ce rea ls (paddy and wh eat), commercial crops( c o t t o n and groundnut ) , and h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s o f so rghum f i g u r e dprominen t l y i n t h i s regard. Such op t i ons appeared l i m i t e d i n the Sholapurr e g i o n , a l though farmers d i d use some f e r t i l i z e r f o r the l o c a l v a r i e t i e s . I tshould be noted t h a t i n t h i s case a l s o , f e r t i l i z e r use was conf ined t o the morec e r t a i n p o s t r a i n y season and a p p l i c a t i o n was r e s t r i c t e d to the improved v a r i e t y ,M 35-1, which responds w e l l t o i t .

F igure 3 shows the f e r t i l i z e r - a l l o c a t i o n p a t t e r n under i r r i g a t e d andn o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s sepa ra te l y i n the Akola and Sh olapur r e g i o n s . " I t wasfound t h a t crops l i k e sugarcane, paddy, wheat, and vegetables accounted f o r morethan 80% of the t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r used under i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s . Sorghum andgroundnut, grown in the p o s t r a i n y season, were the mai n n o n i r r i g a t e d cropsf e r t i l i z e d i n the Sholapur r e g i o n . 1 4 Co t ton , sorghum (HYV), and groundnut werethe impor tant crops in the Akola r e g i o n .

The f i n d i n g s thus conf i rmed t h a t both under i r r i g a t e d and r a i n f e dc o n d i t i o n s , f e r t i l i z e r use was concentrated on r e l a t i v e l y high-response crops.Where such op t i ons were l i m i t e d (as i n Sho lapur ) , some f e r t i l i z e r was used onlow-response crops; even in such cases, farmers chose th e more s t a b l epostra iny-season crop.

The crops consuming the most f e r t i l i z e r were found t o be those on whichf e r t i l i z e r was f i r s t used. Th is i m p l i e s t h a t i n s p i t e o f having usedf e r t i l i z e r s f o r 10 years or more, farmers have not extended f e r t i l i z e r use t oother crops, and t h a t the crop base f o r f e r t i l i z e r consumption cont inues t o benarrow. Other n o n i r r i g a t e d (and areawise impor tant ) cr ops such as m i l l e t s andpulses cont inue t o be grown w i t hou t any f e r t i l i z e r .

Considerable a t t e n t i o n was pa id to f e r t i l i z e r use un der r a i n f e d c o n d i t i o n si n the supplementary surveys. I n a l l the reg ions , farmers were convinced t h a tunder normal c i rcumstances, f e r t i l i z e r use on dry crops (even l o c a l v a r i e t i e s )was p r o f i t a b l e . I t was the lack o f c a p i t a l and the u n c e r t a i n t y abouts o i l - m o i s t u r e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t acted as a r e s t r a i n t on f e r t i l i z e r use in thel o w - r a i n f a l l reg ion (Sholapur and Mahbubnagar). This u nderscores the importanceo f i n s t i t u t i o n a l c r e d i t and o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l i nnova t ions ( v a r i e t i e s ,crop-management p r a c t i c e s ) , t h a t minimize the impact of adverse s o i l - m o i s t u r ec o n d i t i o n s du r i ng the growth pe r i od o f the crop.

Rates of Fertilizer Application

Choice o f crops to be f e r t i l i z e d i s f o l l o w e d by dec i s ions regard ing r a t e s o fa p p l i c a t i o n and the ex ten t of cropped area to be f e r t i l i z e d . Table 11 presentsdata on these aspects f o r crops t h a t consumed a s i g n i f i c a n t q u a n t i t y off e r t i l i z e r i n d i f f e r e n t reg ions .

In both the Mahbubnagar v i l l a g e s , more than 80% of the area under paddy wasf e r t i l i z e d a t the r a t e o f about 60-70 kg/ha N. The areas f e r t i l i z e d w i t h P 2O5and K 2O were lower a l though the ra tes were s i m i l a r (33-35 kg/ha P 2O5 and 15-17kg/ha K 2O) in the two v i l l a g e s . The areas f e r t i l i z e d and r a t e s f o r o therf e r t i l i z e d crops i n these v i l l a g e s (castor i n Aurepa l le an d groundnut i n Dokur)were much lower.

13. Estimates have not been presented f o r Aurepa l le and Dokur because f e r t i l i z e ruse under n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s was nominal in these v i l l a g e s (Table 9 ) .

14. The q u a n t i t y of f e r t i l i z e r used under n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s was verys m a l l .

20

2 1

22

I n Sholapur, sugarcane and vegetables were f e r t i l i z e d a t r e l a t i v e l y h igherl e v e l s . For a l l o ther f e r t i l i z e d c rops, the r a t e s o f n i t r o g e n a p p l i c a t i o n werein the range of 17-28 kg/ha. N i t rogen was a p p l i e d on on ly about 30% of croppedarea ( w i t h the marg ina l except ion o f paddy). The ex ten t o f areas f e r t i l i z e dw i t h P 2O5 and K 2O was very low. The t a b l e shows t h a t on ly a nominal f r a c t i o n o fthe area under l o c a l sorghum was f e r t i l i z e d . Table 10 shows a h igh percentagea l l o c a t i o n o f f e r t i l i z e r t o t h i s crop on ly because o f the h igh area under i t ,and the very low abso lu te l e v e l o f f e r t i l i z e r use i n t h i s r e g i o n . I t i s a l soi n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t the ra tes o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l o c a l and HYV of sorghumwere q u i t e s i m i l a r ; w i t h respect t o area f e r t i l i z e d , however, the HYV fa redb e t t e r .

The f e r t i l i z e r - u s e values were much higher i n the Akola r e g i o n . I n thecase of HYV of wheat and c o t t o n , more* than t h r e e - f o u r t h s of the cropped arearece ived n i t r o g e n and phosphorus, and more than 60% of th e area rece ived potash.I n t h i s r e g i o n , s i g n i f i c a n t l y h igher f e r t i l i z e r - u s e par ameters were observed f o rh i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s compared t o l o c a l v a r i e t i e s .

I n g e n e r a l , f e r t i l i z e r - u s e parameters f o r both h i g h - y i e l d i n g and l o c a lv a r i e t i e s were h igher f o r i r r i g a t e d crops. The n o n i r r i g a t e d - c r o p r a t e s ( f o rn i t r o g e n ) were most ly below 30 kg/ha; the HYV of c o t t o n in Akola was, however,an excep t i on .

On comparison, the a c t u a l r a t e s o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n weres i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than the recommended l e v e l s even i n th e h i g h l y i r r i g a t e dDokur v i l l a g e . Th is was t r u e o f almost a l l crops in o ther reg ions , and o f thecoun t ry as a whole (NCAER 1978). Inadequacy o f c a p i t a l and n o n a v a i l a b i l i t y o ff e r t i l i z e r s might be t o blame f o r t h i s . 1 5 under the circumstances, lower r a t e sof f e r t i l i z e r spread over a l a r g e r area appears a reason able s t r a t e g y . Th isf i n d i n g has an impor tant i m p l i c a t i o n : i t has been argued (Desai 1978) t h a t theh igh f e r t i l i z e r - c o n s u m i n g i r r i g a t e d areas may soon reac h t h e i r agronomicp o t e n t i a l f o r f e r t i l i z e r consumption and, consequent ly, cease t o generatef u r t h e r growth i n e f f e c t i v e demand f o r f e r t i l i z e r . On the c o n t r a r y our a n a l y s i ssuggests t h a t f e r t i l i z e r use can be increased cons ide r ab ly in i r r i g a t e d areas.

The supplementary survey i n d i c a t e d t h a t , even in Dokur, most farmers wereunaware of the recommended l e v e l s . In other areas, igno rance was pervas ive .This was revealed by the NCAER countrywide survey (NCAER 1978) as w e l l .

I n the Mahbubnagar reg ion (and f o r n o n i r r i g a t e d l o c a l v a r i e t i e s i n o therreg ions) use of potash was not recommended; ye t i t was b eing used. Thesupplementary survey revealed t h a t t h i s was because of pro blems of a v a i l a b i l i t y :i n most cases farmers had t o accept whatever f e r t i l i z e r (mixtures) was a v a i l a b l ein the market and, in seve ra l cases, they had to buy mix tu res c o n t a i n i n g potashas w e l l (Umrani 1979). Th is has impor tant i m p l i c a t i o n s from the p o i n t of viewo f f e r t i l i z e r - u s e e f f i c i e n c y and the working o f the f e r t i l i z e r d i s t r i b u t i o nsystem.

Going back t o Table 11 , i t i s apparent t h a t even where f e r t i l i z e r use wash i g h , the e n t i r e area under major f e r t i l i z e r - u s i n g crop s was not f e r t i l i z e d . Wehad commented on t h i s e a r l i e r in the contex t of the o v e r a l l data. Table 12shows the ex ten t of v a r i a t i o n in the use of n i t r o g e n over y ears as w e l l asacross farm s i zes f o r the most important f e r t i l i z e r - u s i n g crops i n d i f f e r e n treg ions .

15. Risks and n o n p r o f i t a b i l i t y of the recommended l e v e l s could a l so be impor tantreasons.

23

2 4

The tab le shows that in both the Mahbubnagar v i l l a g e s , almost the en t i r earea under HYV of paddy was covered over t ime. In the Akola and Sholapurregions, however, in teryear and i n te r s i ze va r ia t i ons in rates and areaf e r t i l i z e d were considerable. The tab le suggests tha t in h igh ly i r r i g a t e dareas, fu tu re growth in f e r t i l i z e r consumption would be through increases in therate of app l i ca t ion on i r r i g a t e d crops and through spread of f e r t i l i z e r use tonon i r r i ga ted crops. There was no i nd i ca t i on that the l a t t e r would spontaneouslyfo l low because, even a f te r more than 20 years of experience w i th f e r t i l i z e r ,farmers have not shown any w i l l ingness to extend i t s use to non i r r iga ted crops.It fo l lows that technologica l s t ra teg ies ( va r i e t i es and agronomic managementpract ices) tha t generate high response under l o w - r a i n f a l l (moisture) condi t ionsshould receive top p r i o r i t y in research for achieving rea l growth in thep r o d u c t i v i t y o f non i r r iga ted crops.

In Akola (and Sholapur) there was no systematic pa t te rn in the movement ofra tes , or area f e r t i l i z e d over years or farm-size groups. I t is important tostudy what fac to rs cause these v a r i a t i o n s .

F e r t i l i z e r use under ra in fed condi t ions was s i g n i f i c a n t only in the Akolareg ion . Table 13 presents data on rates of app l i ca t ion of d i f f e r e n t nu t r i en tsunder i r r i g a t e d and ra in fed condi t ions for sorghum (HYV), paddy, and cot ton(HYV) .

The tab le reveals one i n te res t i ng fea tu re : except for paddy, the i r r i g a t e drates of app l i ca t ion of n i t rogen were not very d i f f e r e n t from the correspondingnon i r r iga ted ra tes . With regard to phosphorus and potash, however, thei r r i g a t e d rates were h igher . It should be noted that t h i s d i s t r i c t has beeni d e n t i f i e d as an area of r e l a t i v e l y assured r a i n f a l l , w i th good scope forf e r t i l i z e r use under ra in fed condi t ions (Venkateswarlu 1979).

One other a s p e c t — f e r t i l i z e r use under so le - and mixed-croppingsituat ions—needs to be h igh l i gh ted . Mixed cropping or in tercropping is animportant p rac t i ce in semi-ar id ag r i cu l t u re (Jodha 1979) fo r several reasons.The gross cropped area devoted to mixed cropping was 37% in Sholapur, 78% inAurepa l le , and 20% in Dokur. Mixed crops accounted for only 16% of the t o t a lf e r t i l i z e r used in Sholapur, and 31% in Akola. In Aurepal le , the f i gu re wasneg l i g i b l e and in Dokur, f e r t i l i z e r was not used on mixed crops at a l l . Thus,i t appears that f e r t i l i z e r use was la rge ly confined to sole-crop s i t u a t i o n s ,p a r t i c u l a r l y in the low r a i n f a l l SAT regions. It has been shown (Jodha 1979)that mixed cropping is not fo l lowed on i r r i g a t e d lands. I f mixed cropping is

25

Table 13. Ratecondi

Crops

Sorghum HYV

Paddy Local

Cotton HYV

of f e r t i l i z e r application undertions for selected crops in Akola r

I r r i g a t e d /non i r r iga ted

I r r i g a t e dNoni r r igated

I r r i g a t e dNoni r r igated

I r r i g a t e dNonir r igated

Rate

N

2829

5933

4145

of

r i r r igatedregion.

app l i ca t ion

P2O5

2815

3321

2921

and noniri

(kg/ha f e r t i

igated

i l i zed)

K20

169

1815

2712

viewed as a s t r a t e g y to combat r i s k s , t h i s p a t t e r n is l o g i c a l : farmers who areconcerned w i t h p r o t e c t i n g themselves aga ins t t o t a l crop f a i l u r e (by r e s o r t i n g t omixed cropping) would not increase the r i s k o f c a p i t a l l os s by using f e r t i l i z e r .

The Akola s i t u a t i o n has been more c l o s e l y analyzed b ecause of ther e l a t i v e l y l a r g e r ex ten t o f i n t e r c r o p p i n g and h igher use o f f e r t i l i z e r undermixed cropping in t h i s r eg i on . Table 14 presents data on f e r t i l i z e r use undersole-cropped and mixed-cropping s i t u a t i o n s f o r sorghum, g roundnut, andc o t t o n — t h e th ree base crops which form a p a r t o f n e a r l y a l l the i n t e r c r o p p i n gschemes in the reg ion .

The t a b l e c l e a r l y shows t h a t f o r a l l the t h ree crops, the r a t e s o ff e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower under i n t e r c r o p p i n g s i t u a t i o n s .There i s some evidence (Sahrawat e t a l . 1979) t o show t h a t , a t h igher l e v e l s o ff e r t i l i z e r use, the response i s lower under i n t e r c r o p p i n g when compared t o theso le-crop s i t u a t i o n . Data on the percentage o f cropped are a f e r t i l i z e d i n d i c a t et h a t i n t e r c r o p p i n g systems w i t h groundnut and HYV of c o t t o n as base crops, weremore e x t e n s i v e l y f e r t i l i z e d than those based on sorghum or l o c a l v a r i e t i e s ofc o t t o n . Indeed, the ex ten t of area f e r t i l i z e d under i n t e r c r o p p i n g was h igherthan under the corresponding so le-crop s i t u a t i o n f o r these crops. The data a lsorevealed t h a t i n t e r c r o p s us ing high-response v a r i e t i e s ( sorghum and c o t t o n HYV)were more e x t e n s i v e l y f e r t i l i z e d .

These f i n d i n g s h i g h l i g h t two issues important f o r i n t e r c r o p p i n g research:f i r s t , t h a t new i n t e r c r o p p i n g systems f o r h i g h l y unstab le and l o w - r a i n f a l l areasmust be based on the r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t from the farmers' p o i n t of view, the twos t r a t e g i e s ( f e r t i l i z e r use and i n t e r c r o p p i n g ) are c o n t r a d i c t o r y — t h e l a t t e rreduces r i s k , the former increases i t ; second, i n o ther ( b e t t e r endowed) areas,a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r c r o p p i n g systems need to be based on r e l a t i v e l y lower ra tes off e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n .

Agronomic Management of Fertilizer

The evidence presented so f a r suggests t h a t farmers are awar e of the r e l a t i v eresponse of a crop to f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n and decide acco rd i ng l y . We nowpresent some f i n d i n g s t h a t i n d i c a t e how farmers manage t h e i r f e r t i l i z e r input i nterms o f choice o f f e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l , t i m i n g o f a p p l i c a t i o n , and use o fd i f f e r e n t p l a n t n u t r i e n t s . These are important determina nts o f the t e c h n i c a le f f i c i e n c y o f f e r t i l i z e r use. The i n f o r m a t i o n would he lp i d e n t i f y aspectsr e q u i r i n g more emphasis in extens ion programs.

Sources of p l a n t n u t r i e n t s . Data on f e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l s u sed by farmersrevealed t h a t i n a l l the reg ions , s t r a i g h t f e r t i l i z e r s — u r e a mos t l y—were themain source of n i t r o g e n , w h i l e f e r t i l i z e r mix tures prov ided phosphorus andpotash. I n Akola, f e r t i l i z e r mix tures prov ided a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher f r a c t i o no f n i t r o g e n . Supplementary surveys i n d i c a t e d t h a t sa le o f f e r t i l i z e r mix tures(prepared in the coopera t ive sec tor ) was o f t e n t i e d to coope rat ive loans. Ina l l cases, the so le use o f n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r prov ided f l e x i b i l i t y i nf e r t i l i z e r usage du r ing the crop-growth p e r i o d . Another important p o i n trevealed by the surveys was t h a t farmers were more or less co mpelled to acceptwhatever f e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l was a v a i l a b l e .

Balanced use of p l a n t n u t r i e n t s . Balanced use of p l a n t n u t r i e n t s is animportant determinant of f e r t i l i z e r - u s e e f f i c i e n c y . We examined the N:P 2O5 user a t i o s in d i f f e r e n t regions on the bas is o f aggregate co nsumption o f thesen u t r i e n t s . The r a t i o came t o 4:1 i n Sholapur, 2.6:1 i n Akola, 3.2:1 i nAurepa l l e , and 3.6:1 i n Dokur. Thus, i n a l l the reg ions , f e r t i l i z e r use wash e a v i l y biased towards n i t r o g e n . The s i t u a t i o n in Sholap ur and Dokur r e f l e c t e da r e l a t i v e l y g rea ter imbalance.

26

27

Table 15 looks at t h i s problem from the po in t of view of area f e r t i l i z e dwi th d i f f e r e n t n u t r i e n t s . I t shows that a l i t t l e more than one- th i rd of thet o t a l f e r t i l i z e d area received a l l the three major n u t r i e n t s in the l o w - r a i n f a l lregions of Sholapur and Mahbubnagar. Use of potash was not recommended fo r mostcrops in these regions. In Akola, where it was recommended for crops l i k e PYVof sorghum, co t t on , and wheat, 70% of the f e r t i l i z e d area received potassicf e r t i l i z e r s . The imbalance in the use of phosphorus was c l e a r . In a l l theregions except Akola, nearly 60-65% of the f e r t i l i z e d area d id not receive anyphosphatic f e r t i l i z e r . I t may be noted again tha t the f e r t i l i z e r c red i t po l i c yof the cooperatives has played an important par t in achieving a r e l a t i v e l y morebalanced f e r t i l i z e r - u s e pat te rn in Akola.

Table 15. Distr ibut ion ofnutrients (1975-

D i s t r i c t /v i l l a g e

Sholapur

Ako la

Mahbubnagar

A u r e p a l l e

Dokur

fen78) .

Percentage

N i t r o g e no n l y

63

26

58

65

bi l ized area

o f f e r t i l i z

Phosphoruso n l y

1

4

0

0

sed

according to use of

area

N+P2O5

2

0

6

0

r e c e i v i n g

N+P2O5+K2O

34

70

36

35

di f ferent

Tota lf e r t i l i z e d

area

100

100

100

100

The s o i l s of the regions studied are general ly not d e f i c i en t in potash;and w i th respect to phosphorus a l so , the response under dryland condi t ions hasbeen found to be low or nons ign i f i can t (Venkateswarlu 1979, Umrani 1979). Thismay be one reason for the observed imbalance. But we have seen that in Sholapurand Mahbubnagar reg ions, f e r t i l i z e r s were most used on i r r i g a t e d crops. Thisexp lanat ion, t he re fo re , would not ho ld . The SAT r e f l e c t s to an extent the trendin the country as a whole. However, the adverse long-term e f fec ts of imbalancein f e r t i l i z e r use are l i k e l y to emerge more s t rong ly on r e l a t i v e l y poorer s o i l sthat predominate the Indian SAT. This aspect needs ca re fu l monitor ing in viewof the e f f o r t s being made to promote f e r t i l i z e r use in such areas.

An imbalanced use pat te rn is usua l ly the ru le in the i n i t i a l phases off e r t i l i z e r adoption because farmers s t a r t w i th nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r (Desai eta l . 1973). What causes concern is the persistence of t h i s tendency—even a f te r15-20 years of experience—in areas which consume subs tan t ia l q u a n t i t i t e s off e r t i l i z e r . 1 6

Timing of f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n . Table 16 shows the f e r t i l i z a t i o n p rac t i ce offarmers in terms of t im ing of n i t rogen a p p l i c a t i o n . Use of phosphorus andpotash was confined to basal a p p l i c a t i o n .

16. In t h e i r study of the Guntur region—one of the most progressive d i s t r i c t sin the country from the po in t of view of f e r t i l i z e r use—Desai and othersfound a s im i la r pa t te rn (Desai et a l . 1973).

28

In Sholapur, Akola, and Aurepal le s ing le app l i ca t i on of n i t rogen (as basalor a s i n g l e , postsowing app l i ca t ion) was found to be the dominant p r a c t i c e . InDokur, a ma jo r i t y of f e r t i l i z e r Users appl ied n i t rogen more than once, asa v a i l a b i l i t y o f i r r i g a t i o n provided for greater f l e x i b i l i t y .

Postsowing app l i ca t i on of n i t rogen was considered more important inSholapur than in other regions. This suggests that farmers were re luc tant toinvest in f e r t i l i z e r at the time of sowing, p re fe r r i ng to fo l low a f l e x i b l epa t te rn which of fered some pro tec t ion against uncer ta in ty . That farmerspre fer red t h i s s t ra tegy in sp i te o f t he i r using f e r t i l i z e r mostly for i r r i g a t e dcrops, ind icates the i n h i b i t i n g impact of an unstable environment. This aspecthas been recognized by agrob io log ica l researchers w i th reference to non i r r iga tedcrops, and the current th ink ing is that use of n i t rogen should be f l e x i b l e andre la ted to the ava i lab le s o i l moisture (Venkateshwarlu 1979, Vi jayalakshmi 1979,and Umrani 1979).

Table 16. Timing of ni

D i s t r i c t /v i l l a g e

Sholapur

Akola

Mahbubnagar

Aurepal leDokur

Basala p p l i -ca t ion

(BA)only

33

65

4520

a = n e g l i g i b l e .

trogen application

Percentage of

BA + onea p p l i -ca t ion

7

9

2126

BA + twoa p p l i -

cat ions

0

a

412

(1975-76).

nitrogen users resorting to

BA + threea p p l i -

cat ions

0

a

06

Postbasal

Onea p p l i -cat ion

49

21

2720

app l i ca t ion only

Twoa p p l i -cat ions

10

4

312

Threea p p l i -cat ions

0

0

04

29

Further analys is of t iming of f e r t i l i z e r use. Data on monthly pat tern off e x t i l i z e r consumption in d i f f e r e n t regions revealed considerable v a r i a t i o n inthe seasonal pa t te rn of f e r t i l i z e r use. We hypothesized that these va r ia t ions(seasonal as we l l as in teryear) were induced mainly by va r ia t i ons in ther a i n f a l l p a t t e r n . This hypothesis was tested w i th respect to v a r i a t i o n inf o r t n i g h t l y consumption of nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r over June to November—theper iod of maximum r a i n f a l l . The simple model used involved regression ofcurrent and previous f o r t n i g h t ' s r a i n f a l l on current f o r t n i g h t l y consumption ofnitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r .

F t = f (RAIN t , RAIN t2 , RAIN t - l f RAIN t - i 2 ) , where

F t = consumption of nitrogenous f e r t i l i z e r during f o r t n i g h t t expressed aspercentage of t o t a l n i t rogen used dur ing the year.

RAINt = r a i n f a l l in f o r t n i g h t t in mm.

RAIN t - 1 = r a i n f a l l in previous f o r t n i g h t in mm.

RAINt2, R A I N t - 1

2 = square terms.

Data fo r a l l the 3 years were pooled, and l i nea r regression fo r each regionestimated separate ly . These are presented in Table 17.

Table 17. Regressionsnitrogenous

P a r t i c u l a r s /var iab les

No. of observations

In tercept

RAIN t

RAIN t2

RAIN t - 1

R A I N t - 12

R2

1 . Figuress i g n i f i

i ncant

showing thef e r t i l i z e r s in

parenthesesat 10%, 5%

Sholapur

61

4.930

0.8E-31

(0.011)

0.7E-5(0.025)

0.1179*(1.761)

-0.5E-3(1.569)

0.055

influence of r a i n f a l l on consumption ofselected v i l lages (1975-78).

are t va lues;, and 1% probab:

Akola

59

6.962

0.0232(0.227)

-0.9E-4(0.220)

-0.0150(0.155)

-0.1E-4(0.038)

0.021

* , * * , andi l i t y l eve l s ,

Mahbubnagar

Aurepal le

33

3.055

0.0990***(3.850)

-0 .7E-3* * *(3.904)

-0.0067(0.244)

0.1E-3(0.663)

0.081

* * * ind ica te3, respec t i ve ly .

Dokur

33

3.221

-0.0144(0.404)

0.2E-4(0.192)

0.0977**(2.619)

-0 .3E-3**(2.194)

0.208

s t a t i s t i c a l l y

The estimated regressions explained a very small f r a c t i o n of the t o t a lv a r i a t i o n in the dependent v a r i a b l e , perhaps because of the omission of severalother var iab les l i k e cropping p a t t e r n , sowing dates, a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i r r i g a t i o n ,and a v a i l a b i l i t y of f e r t i l i z e r on t ime. I t was d i f f i c u l t to speci fy theseva r i ab les , and appropr iate data were not a v a i l a b l e .

However, the regressions d id ind ica te tha t v a r i a t i o n in r a i n f a l l in f luencedthe pa t te rn of f e r t i l i z e r use in A l f i s o l s . The farmers ' decis ions on the t imingof f e r t i l i z e r use were inf luenced by r a i n f a l l — t h e major determinant of s o i lmoisture in the ra iny season. This e f fec t was d i sce rn ib le in the l o w - r a i n f a l lregions of Mahbubnagar. The regression c o e f f i c i e n t s w i th regard to Ve r t i so l swere s t a t i s t i c a l l y nons ign i f i can t espec ia l l y for Akola, which has a higher andmore s tab le pa t te rn of r a i n f a l l . Regarding the 2-week lag e f f ec t of r a i n f a l l ,i t was found that r a i n f a l l dur ing the previous f o r t n i g h t tended to in f luencef e r t i l i z e r use in Dokur. In Aurepa l le , where the s o i l is of a l i g h t e r tex tu reand more shallow ( s i g n i f y i n g lower moisture-hold ing capac i t y ) , f e r t i l i z e r usefo l lowed ra ins a f t e r a shorter t ime l a g . In both Mahbubnagar and Sholapurreg ions, the quadrat ic terms of the r a i n f a l l va r iab le were negat ive . Thisimpl ied that w i th higher r a i n f a l l n i t rogen use increases but at a decreasingr a t e .

30

It may be reca l led tha t in the Sholapur and Nahbubnagar reg ions, f e r t i l i z e ruse was l a rge l y conf ined to i r r i g a t e d crops. Despite t h i s , the e f f ec t s ofr a i n f a l l were more c l e a r l y seen in these regions when compared w i th Akola, wheref e r t i l i z a t i o n of ra in fed crops was common. Farmers in the l o w - r a i n f a l l A l f i s o lregions of the SAT thus appeared to be responsive to changes in r a i n f a l l ,regardless o f the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f i r r i g a t i o n .

Use of Organic ManuresUse of organic manures as f e r t i l i z e r is a t r a d i t i o n a l p rac t i ce among farmers.Farmyard manure, cakes and other organic wastes, and sheep pennings were themater ia ls used for manuring in the selected v i l l a g e s . The use of farmyardmanure—the most important among these manures—was studied on the basis of datafo r 1975-76 and 1976-77. Table 18 ind ica tes how use of organic manures andf e r t i l i z e r s was in tegra ted and the percentage of cropped area that benef i tedfrom d i f f e r e n t manuring s t r a t e g i e s .

Table 18. Use

D i s t r i c t /v i l l a g e

Sholapur

Akola

Mahbubnagar

Aurepal leDokur

of organic manures

Manuringfrom any

source

12.1

41.7

35.345.3

and chemi

Percentage

Organicmanure

only

6.8

16.8

22.14.8

c a l

o f

f e r t i l

cropped

izers

area

on farms

rece iv ing

Chemicalf e r t i l i z e r s

only

4.6

19.9

7.428.6

(1975-77).

Organicmanure +

f e r t i l i z e r s

0.7

5.0

5.811.9

The f i r s t column of the tab le shows that even in a progressive v i l l a g e l i k eDokur, more than ha l f the cropped area d id not bene f i t from e i the r organic orinorganic f e r t i l i z a t i o n . Nearly 42-45% of the cropped area came under some kindof manuring in Akola and Dokur, whi le in the Sholapur reg ion , it was only 12%.The f e r t i l i z e d area in the Sholapur region was smal ler , perhaps because: (1) a higher percentage of area was set aside for n i t r o g e n - f i x i n g pulse crops; and(2) postrainy-season c u l t i v a t i o n was taken up a f te r monsoon f a l l o w i n g . Resultsat ICRISAT Center have shown that considerable n i t rogen is mineral ized dur ingthe fa l l ow ing pe r i od . This source is r ead i l y ava i lab le to crops growing inreceding s o i l moisture (Rego et a l . 1982).

The area rece iv ing both f e r t i l i z e r and manures cons t i tu ted a r e l a t i v e l ysmall p ropor t ion of the t o t a l area rece iv ing f e r t i l i z e r (column 3 + column 4) inthe Sholapur and Akola reg ions. This means that both manures and f e r t i l i z e r swere used as a l t e r n a t i v e f e r t i l i z a t i o n s t ra teg ies in these reg ions, and tha tt h e i r in tegra ted use was not common. The propor t ion of f e r t i l i z e d area alsorece iv ing organic manures was near ly 30% in Dokur and 44% in Aurepa l le .

31

Dokur was a spec ia l case because, in t h i s v i l l a g e , f e r t i l i z e d areas u b s t a n t i a l l y exceeded manured area, and only about 30% of the manured area wentu n f e r t i l i z e d . There was thus some i n d i c a t i o n tha t in the Mahbubnagar regionfarmers were consciously at tempt ing to i n teg ra te use of organic manures andf e r t i l i z e r s .

Table 19, which provides data on the use of organic manures on i r r i g a t e dand non i r r i ga ted l and , shows tha t in a l l the regions except Dokur, organicmanure was mostly used on non i r r i ga ted l and . It may be reca l led tha t f e r t i l i z e ruse was genera l ly concentrated on i r r i g a t e d land in Sholapur, Aurepa l le , andDokur. We have also shown (Table 18) tha t in Sholapur and Akola , farmers usedf e r t i l i z e r and manure as a l t e r n a t i v e s ( s u b s t i t u t e s ) • Table 19 expla ins tha tt h i s segmentation was l a r g e l y because of a l t e r n a t i v e s t ra teg ies adopted oni r r i g a t e d and non i r r i ga ted l and . The Dokur case is important in tha t i t showedtha t f e r t i l i z a t i o n of non i r r i ga ted land was t o t a l l y ignored. The use off e r t i l i z e r s and manures in combination on i r r i g a t e d land r e f l e c t e d a morebalanced land management bu t , in the process, more than 40% of the cropped landwent u n f e r t i l i z e d .

Table 1 9 . I r r i g a t

D i s t r i c t /v i l l a g e

Sho lapur

Ako la

Mahbubnagar

A u r e p a l l eDokur

ion and use of

Share ofi n t o t a l

organic

i r r i g a t e d lamanure used

34

2

3998

: manures (1975-

nd(%)

Rate o f

- 7 7 ) .

a p p l i c a t

I r r i g a t e d

3.8

4.0

10 .98.8

ion /manured ha ( t )

N o n i r r i g a t e d

2 .8

1.6

6 .82.0

Table 19 shows tha t the rates of f e r t i l i z e r app l i ca t i on were s i gn i f i can t l y -higher on i r r i g a t e d land in a l l the reg ions. The rates ranged from about 4 t / hain the Sholapur and Akola regions to 9-11 t / ha in Mahbubnagar. The rates fo rnon i r r i ga ted land lay in the region of 2-3 t / ha except in Aurepa l le , where i twas near ly 7 t / h a .

I t was d i f f i c u l t to accept tha t farmers would leave a s izab le f r a c t i o n oft h e i r c u l t i v a t e d land unmanured year a f t e r year . To inves t iga te t h i s , themanuring h i s t o r y of p l o t s tha t were manured dur ing any of the 3 years (1975-76through 1977-78) was examined. The r e s u l t s are summarized in Table 20.

The tab le shows t h a t , gene ra l l y , p l o t s were not manured every year. Inmost cases, manuring was done once in 3 years or more. This impl ied tha t in anygiven year, a maximum of one - th i rd of the cropped area would be manured. Butda ta , presented in Table 18, showed lower va lues, i nd i ca t i ng an even greatertime lag between manurlngs. Data covering more than 3 years would be necessaryto a r r i v e at the exact p i c t u r e . However, the frequency of use of organic manurer e f l e c t s the approach of farmers faced w i t h inadequate suppl ies of manure.

32

Table 20. Frequency

D i s t r i c t / v i l l a g e

Sholapur

Akola

Mahbubnagar

Aurepal leDokur

of use of organic

Once inyears or

78

69

6252

manures.

Propor

3more

t i o n of p l o t s manu

Twice in3 years

15

27

2626

red

A l l 3 years

7

4

1222

There was some evidence to show tha t in v i l l a g e s w i th higher i r r i g a t i o n(and on small farms where the l i ves tock : arable land r a t i o s were h i g h e r ) , someareas were f e r t i l i z e d more f requen t l y . In Mahbubnagar v i l l a g e s , where two cropswere of ten grown on i r r i g a t e d p l o t s , 38-48% of the p l o t s were manured every yearor every a l te rna te year.

Informat ion on the use of organic manures was a lso co l lec ted throughsupplementary surveys. The responses ind icated that a l l the farmers usedorganic manure and near ly every one of them f e l t tha t the e x i s t i n g suppl ies wereinadequate to cover the e n t i r e cropped land at des i rab le r a t e s . The des i rab lerates for non i r r i ga ted lands were expressed as 4-6 t / ha in the Sholapur andAkola reg ions, and 6-8 t / ha in the Mahbubnagar area. For i r r i g a t e d l and , thecorresponding values were 6-8 t /ha in the Sholapur and Akola reg ions, and 9-12t /ha in the Mahbubnagar area.

These f i nd ings ind ica te that farmers were aware of the value of manuring,but because of inadequate suppl ies had to reduce the rates of app l i ca t i on aswe l l as area f e r t i l i z e d and even forgo manuring of poorer s o i l s . In sp i t e oft h i s , a conscious attempt was made to manure the more i n tens i ve l y c u l t i v a t e dlands at higher rates and at greater frequency.

ConclusionsThe main focus of t h i s chapter was on understanding the f e r t i l i z a t i o n p rac t i cesof farmers in d i f f e r e n t agroc l imat ic regions of SAT I n d i a . The importantconclusions of the study are l i s t e d below:

1. The resu l t s convinc ing ly demonstrated that farmers took i n to account ther e l a t i v e p r o f i t a b i l i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r app l i ca t i on whi le making t h e i rf e r t i l i z e r - a l l o c a t i o n dec is ions . This obviously favored the i r r i g a t e d crops,the high-value commercial crops, and the h igh ly f e r t i l i z e r - r e s p o n s i v e andh igh -y i e l d i ng v a r i e t i e s of cereal crops. When c a p i t a l was scarce, thesecrops claimed a l l the f e r t i l i z e r , and the low-response, t r a d i t i o n a l v a r i e t i e sof crops, grown over a large area, went u n f e r t i l i z e d .

2. In the l o w - r a i n f a l l areas, f e r t i l i z e r use was confined to i r r i g a t e d crops:so i l -mo is tu re condi t ions on non i r r i ga ted land were too un re l i ab le to permitf e r t i l i z e r use. However, in areas w i th r e l a t i v e l y higher and more s tab le

33

r a i n f a l l and h igh m o i s t u r e - r e t e n t i v e s o i l s , n o n i r r i g a t e d crops were a l sof e r t i l i z e d t o a s i g n i f i c a n t e x t e n t , but u s u a l l y a t low r a t e s o f f e r t i l i z e ra p p l i c a t i o n .

3 . Even in the r e l a t i v e l y h igh f e r t i l i z e r - u s i n g areas ( i r r i g a t e d areas and thoser e c e i v i n g h igh r a i n f a l l ) , t he re was s t i l l p o t e n t i a l f o r i nc reas ing f e r t i l i z e ruse. The s lack was p a r t i c u l a r l y n o t i c e a b l e i n the f e r t i l i z e d areas. Suchareas cou ld cont inue t o support h igh demand f o r f e r t i l i z e r i n the f u t u r e .

4. The c o n t r a s t between Sholapur (or even Aurepa l le ) a nd Dokur can be used toe x t r a p o l a t e the l i k e l y impact o f development o f i r r i g a t i o n i n thel o w - r a i n f a l l SAT. This i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n has c r o p p i n g - p a t t e r n i m p l i c a t i o n swhich are w e l l known (Jodha 1979). I n terms of f e r t i l i z e r use, our a n a l y s i ssuggests t h a t t h i s would a l so lead t o c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f f e r t i l i z e r (andmanure) use on i r r i g a t e d crops. Th is is i n e v i t a b l e so long a s c a p i t a lc o n s t r a i n t s remain. The on ly f o r c e which can a l t e r t h i s cou rse o fdevelopment i s r a p i d advancement in the p roduc t i on technol ogy o f d ry crops.

5. There were a number of i n d i c a t i o n s suppor t i ng the r a t i o n a l i t y o f the farmer'sbehaviour: h i s dec is ions regard ing crops t o be f e r t i l i z e d , r a tes o ff e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n , and adjustments t o seasonal c o n d i t i o n s r e f l e c t e d t h i sphenomenon.

F i n a l l y , the enormous d i v e r s i t y o f a g r o c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s i n the I n d i a nSAT is ev ident even from the study of the th ree regions prese nted in t h i schapter . This makes any g e n e r a l i z a t i o n hazardous. What comes out c l e a r l y i sthe need to undertake a more d e t a i l e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the S AT environment andt o design t e c h n o l o g i c a l s t r a t e g i e s s u i t e d t o s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s .

34

III. Fertilizer Use on High-Yielding Varieties of Sorghum and Pearl Millet 17

Sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t are the two most important ce rea ls grown on dry lands inSAT I n d i a . These two have t r a d i t i o n a l l y formed pa r t of a h i g h l y uns tab le ,low-cost , and low-output farming system, and are cons idered in the market asr e l a t i v e l y i n f e r i o r food g ra ins (Jodha 1973). Unrem unerative response (Kanware t a l . 1973) and h igh l e v e l o f weather-induced i n s t a b i l i t y i n y i e l d (Bapna e ta l . 1979) have been hypothesized as the two main f a c t o r s respons ib le f o r poorperformance of these m i l l e t s so f a r as use of modern inpu ts l i k e f e r t i l i z e r i sconcerned.

This t r a d i t i o n a l p a t t e r n appears t o be changing i n the wake of thei n t r o d u c t i o n o f h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s and, desp i te the ra the r modestperformance of the HYV of sorghum and m i l l e t s , farmers have apparent ly s t a r t e dusing f e r t i l i z e r on these crops a lso (NCAER 1974, 1978). This t r end needsc a r e f u l mon i to r i ng not on ly in view o f i t s impact on the y i e l d o f these cropsbut a lso because t h i s may mark the beginning of i n t e n s i v e f e r t i l i z e r use underdry land c o n d i t i o n s — a phenomenon c r u c i a l t o f u t u r e gr owth i n p r o d u c t i v i t y andf e r t i l i z e r demand i n I n d i a (Desai 1978).

This chapter prov ides i n f o r m a t i o n on l e v e l s of f e r t i l i z e r use on HYV ofsorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t and the p a t t e r n of f e r t i l i z e r adopt ion and d i f f u s i o n i nd i f f e r e n t areas. The main o b j e c t i v e s are: (a) to deter mine the ex tent andl e v e l of f e r t i l i z e r use on HYV of sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t i n d i f f e r e n t areas,and (b) t o examine the t r end i n f e r t i l i z e r use and i t s d i f f u s i o n over t ime.

Data Source and MethodologyThe data f o r t h i s ana l ys i s comes from "Sample Surveys f o r Assessment ofH igh-Y ie ld ing V a r i e t i e s Programme." The surveys were c a r r i e d out by the Ind ianA g r i c u l t u r a l S t a t i s t i c s Research I n s t i t u t e ( IASRI) , New D e l h i , from 1969-70 to1973-74, and covered 88 d i s t r i c t s spread over 15 s t a t e s .

Two types of e n q u i r i e s were conducted under the p r o j e c t : Agronomic andAgroeconomic Enquiry, and Y i e l d Es t ima t ion Surveys. The Agronomic andAgroeconomic Enquiry was based on a sample of 320 c u l t i v a t o r households in eachd i s t r i c t and e l i c i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n on the area under the HYV o f the cropconcerned and the ex ten t of adopt ion of improved p r a c t i c e s . The Y i e l dEs t ima t ion Surveys measured the y i e l d l e v e l s of HYV a nd l o c a l v a r i e t i e s in eachd i s t r i c t w i t h crop-cuts on 80 f i e l d s f o r each o f the v a r i e t a l types.

Data on f e r t i l i z e r use on sorghum, p e a r l m i l l e t , and other crops ( r i c e orwheat) in the se lec ted d i s t r i c t s were taken from the p r o j e c t ' s annual repo r t f o r1973-74 (Raheja et a l . 1976) . 1 8 Sorghum crop was s tud ied i n 20 d i s t r i c t s du r ingthe r a i n y season, and in one d i s t r i c t du r i ng the p o s t r a i n y season. Pear l m i l l e twas s tud ied in 21 d i s t r i c t s du r ing the r a i n y season, and in 5 d i s t r i c t s du r ingthe p o s t r a i n y season. Almost a l l these d i s t r i c t s f a l l i n the I nd ian SAT.

To analyze the t r e n d in f e r t i l i z e r use over t ime , dat a f o r on ly those 8 d i s t r i c t s (4 each f o r sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t ) t h a t were covered con t inuous lyf o r 6-7 years up to 1976-77 were used.

17. This s e c t i o n is a condensed v e r s i o n of Jha et a l . 1 981.18. The coverage was s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced from 1974- 75 onwards which a lso

happened t o be the year when f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e s rose sha rp l y . Thesecons ide ra t i ons prompted the s e l e c t i o n o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r year f o r our study.

35

D e s c r i p t i o n of se lec ted d i s t r i c t s and spread of HYV of sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t .The survey on h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s of sorghum covered mo re than 3900c u l t i v a t o r households spread over 21 d i s t r i c t s in 4 s t a t e s . As can be seen fromAppendix I I I , the c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f c u l t i v a t o r households growing sorghum washigh in Maharashtra and Ka rna taka—the major sorghum-produ cing s t a t e s . Inalmost a l l the d i s t r i c t s se lec ted ( w i t h the except ion of Nanded, Wardha, andShimoga), sorghum was an impor tant crop. The sample f o r p e a r l m i l l e t was mored i f f u s e d , cover ing about 4700 c u l t i v a t o r s i n 26 d i s t r i c t s over 8 s t a t e s . I t maybe noted t h a t p e a r l m i l l e t was not a very impor tant cr op in 13 of the 26se lec ted d i s t r i c t s of Andhra Pradesh/ Tamil Nadu (except T i r u n e l v e l i ) , and somed i s t r i c t s o f Maharashtra. This has to be borne in mind w h i l e i n t e r p r e t i n g ther e s u l t s .

Appendix I I I a l so shows t h a t the se lec ted d i s t r i c t s covered a wide range ofs o i l and r a i n f a l l c o n d i t i o n s . Most sorghum-growing d i s t r i c t s had black or reds o i l s and, w i t h the except ion of Shimoga, had l ess than 1200 m m annual (normal)r a i n f a l l . I n t e r d i s t r i c t v a r i a t i o n i n r a i n f a l l and s o i l type was h igher i n thep e a r l m i l l e t producing d i s t r i c t s . The normal r a i n f a l l ranged from 219 mm/yr i nRohtak t o 1211 mm/yr i n Ching leput . Almost a l l the major s o i l types wererepresented.

The p e a r l m i l l e t hyb r ids had h igher coverage compared to sor ghum HYV(Appendix I I I ) . I n 8 d i s t r i c t s , more than 60% of the cropped area was coveredby hyb r ids (against 3 f o r sorghum), and in on ly 5 d i s t r i c t s (aga ins t 10 f o rsorghum), was the spread less than 20%. Even i f the 13 d i s t r i c t s where the cropwas unimportant were excluded, t h i s s u p e r i o r i t y h e l d .

I t was f u r t h e r observed t h a t i n n e a r l y h a l f the d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d , sorghumHYV were grown p r i m a r i l y under n o n i r r i g a t e d ( l ess than 20% a rea i r r i g a t e d )c o n d i t i o n s ; on the other hand, i n 16 out o f 26 d i s t r i c t s , more than 60% of thearea under p e a r l m i l l e t hyb r ids was i r r i g a t e d . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , in 12 (out o f 13)n o n t r a d i t i o n a l d i s t r i c t s , spread over the southern s t a t e s , the p e a r l m i l l e thyb r i ds were grown predominant ly under i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s . The remaining 13t r a d i t i o n a l p e a r l m i l l e t producing d i s t r i c t s ( i n G u j a r a t , Haryana, Rajasthan,Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra) presented an i n t e r e s t i n g c o n t r a s t : in 4 d i s t r i c t s , more than 60% of the h y b r i d area was i r r i g a t e d , i n 5 the hyb r i ds weregrown p r i m a r i l y under r a i n f e d c o n d i t i o n s . The d i s t r i c t s un der both ca tego r i eswere spread over a wide range of s o i l and c l i m a t i c c o n d i t i o n s .

In gene ra l , adopt ion of sorghum hyb r i ds was lower but more e x tens ive underr a i n f e d c o n d i t i o n s . The performance of the p e a r l m i l l e t hyb r ids depended moreh e a v i l y on the a v a i l a b i l i t y of i r r i g a t i o n (Bapna and Murty 1 976).

Adoption of Fertilizer for Sorghum and Pearl MilletObserved p a t t e r n s of f e r t i l i z e r use on a p a r t i c u l a r crop a r i s e from th reer e l a t e d d e c i s i o n s : (1) whether t o use f e r t i l i z e r or no t ; (2) what should bethe r a t e of a p p l i c a t i o n ; and (3) how much area to cover. These dec i s ions arei n f l u e n c e d by a host of t e c h n o l o g i c a l , socioeconomic, and p s y c h o l o g i c a lv a r i a b l e s . These i n f l u e n c e s are examined in Chapter IV. Her e, the observedest imates of these parameters are presented to p rov ide an i dea regard ing thes t a t u s of f e r t i l i z e r use on HYV of sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t .

Adopt ion o f f e r t i l i z e r . Table 21 shows the l e v e l o f adopt ion o f f e r t i l i z e r f o rHYV o f sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t i n d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s . 1 9 Considerable

19. These were ob ta ined from the d i s t r i b u t i o n of i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e dp l o t s f o r each d i s t r i c t i n the Y i e l d Es t ima t i on Survey. Because the datasources are d i f f e r e n t , one observes some i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s when comparingf e r t i l i z e r use under n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s (Table 1) an d percentage of HYVarea under i r r i g a t i o n (Appendix I I I ) . The d i f f e r e n c e s a r e , however, minor.

36

i n t e r d i s t r i c t v a r i a t i o n in the percentage of farmers using f e r t i l i z e r was noted.In genera l , adoption l eve l s appeared to be f a i r l y h igh : in 7 (out of 21)d i s t r i c t s under sorghum, and 9 (out of 22) d i s t r i c t s under pear l m i l l e t , morethan 80% of the farmers growing HYV used f e r t i l i z e r .

Table 21 . Adoption of f e r t i l i z e r for H d i s t r i <cts (1973-74).

Sorghum d i s t r i c t s

D i s t r i c t (State)

Jalgaon (Man)Ahmadnagar (Nah)Sangl i (Man)Aurangabad (Mah)Parbhani (Mah)Bhir (Mah)Satara (Mah)Osmanabad (Mah)Buldhana (Mah)Akola (Mah)Amravati (Mah)Nanded (Mah)Wardha (Mah)Nagpur (Mah)Mandsaur (MP)Belgaum (Kar)Be l la ry (Kar)Shimoga (Kar)Mysore (Kar)Anantapur (AP)Shimoga1 (Kar)Gujara t 2

%gr

of HYVrowers

usingf e r t i l -izer

9772722470148128747380358394478878965476

100NA

Source: Y ie ld Est imat ion Su

1, Postrainy-season2. This informat

d i s t r i c t s in < 3. T r a d i t i o n a l l y

ioncrop.was not

HYV of sorghum and pearl mi l le t

Pearl

% of usersf e r t i l i z i nnon-i r r i g a t e dHYV crop

9845818896

10085

1009898

100100100100100

7790967612

1NA

rvey data,

ava i lab le

g

D i s t r i c t (State)

Hissar3 (Har)Rohtak3 (Har)Ja ipur 3 (Raj)Jalgaon1 (Mah)Ahmadnagar3 (Mah)Sangli (Mah)Aurangabad3 (Mah)Parbhani (Mah)Bhi r 3 (Mah)Sholapur (Mah)Morena3 (MP)Guntur (AP)Ch i t to r (AP)Nel lore (AP)Coimbatore (TN)Madurai (TN)T i r u n e l v e l i 3 (TN)Chingleput (TN)Coimbatore1 (TN)Madurai1 (TN)Chingleput1 (TN)Be l l a r y 1 (Kar)

Raheja et a l . 1976.

in selected

m i l l e t d i s t r i c t s

% of HYVgrowersusingf e r t i l -izer

694350901718217412479441849388469481815050

100

% of usersf e r t i l i z i n gnon-i r r i g a t e dHYV crop

54475

10072

0100100

8840

1002101

30072062

for Banaskanta, Ka i ra , and RajkotG u j a r a t , and fo r T i r u n e l v e l i (postrainy)

importantNA = not a v a i l a b l e .

in Tamil Nadu.pear l m i l l e t producing d i s t r i c t s .

Data on the propor t ion of f e r t i l i z e r users who had taken to f e r t i l i z a t i o nof the non i r r i ga ted (HYV) crop are i n t e r e s t i n g . The tab le shows tha t f e r t i l i z e ruse under non i r r i ga ted condi t ions was a common and extensive p r a c t i c e ,p a r t i c u l a r l y for HYV of sorghum. In 16 out of 21 d i s t r i c t s , more than 80% ofthe f e r t i l i z e r adopters used f e r t i l i z e r fo r the non i r r iga ted HYV crop ofsorghum. For pear l m i l l e t hyb r ids , t h i s was t rue only of 5 out of 22 d i s t r i c t s ;

37

in as many as 12 d i s t r i c t s , less than 10% of the f e r t i l i z e r users resorted tot h i s p r a c t i c e . A ma jo r i t y of these were unimportant pear l m i l l e t producingd i s t r i c t s where, as shown e a r l i e r , the HYV were almost i nva r i ab l y grown underi r r i g a t e d cond i t i ons . In the major pear l m i l l e t producing d i s t r i c t s , f e r t i l i z e ruse on the non i r r i ga ted crops was common.

Levels of f e r t i l i z e r use. Table 22 shows the average l eve l of f e r t i l i z e ruse—measured as the ra te of p lant nu t r i en t s used per hectare of croppedarea—for h i gh -y i e l d i ng and t r a d i t i o n a l v a r i e t i e s of the two crops in d i f f e r e n td i s t r i c t s . Appendix IV provides in format ion on rates of app l i ca t i on ofi nd i v i dua l p lant nu t r i en t s per f e r t i l i z e d hectare , and the extent of croppedarea f e r t i l i z e d w i th these n u t r i e n t s .

Table 22. Average level ofand t rad i t iona ld i s t r i c t s .

Sorghum

D i s t r i c t (S ta te )

Ja lgaon (Mah)Ahmadnagar (Mah)S a n g l i (Mah)Aurangabad (Mah)Parbhan i (Mah)B h i r (Mah)Sa ta ra (Mah)Osmanabad (Mah)Budhana (Mah)Ako la (Mah)Amrava t i (Mah)Nanded (Mah)Wardha (Mah)Nagpur (Mah)Mandsaur (MP)Belgaum (Kar)B e l l a r y (Kar)Shimoga (Kar)Mysore (Kar)Anantapur (AP)Shimoga1 (Kar)

Source : Raheja e t

f e r t i l i z e r ( vari

d i s t r i c t s

Average

HYV

504530182918482368407119395984

11728752711

113

a l . 1976.

1 . P o s t r a i n y - s e a s o n c r o p .2 . T r a d i t i o n a l l y i m p o r t a n t

r a t e

p e a r l

et ies

(kg /ha)

Loca l

190000002905012

2219

821

000

m i l l e t

(N+P2O5+K 2O) applicationof sorghum and pearl

P e a r l m i l l e t

on high-mi l le t in

d i s t r i c t s

Average

D i s t r i c t (S ta te )

Banaskanta 2 (Guj)K a i r a 2 (Guj)R a j k o t 2 (Guj)H i s s a r 2 (Har)Rohtak 2 (Har)J a i p u r 2 (Raj)J a l g a o n 2 (Mah)Ahmadnagar2 (Mah)S a n g l i (Mah)Aurangabad2 (Mah)Parbhan i (Mah)B h i r 2 (Mah)Sholapur (Mah)Morena2 (MP)Guntur (AP)C h i t t o o r (AP)N e l l o r e (AP)Coimbatore (TN)Madura i (TN)T i r u n e l v e l i 2 (TN)C h i n g l e p u t 2 (TN)Coimbatore 1 (TN)M a d u r a i 1 (TN)T i r u n e l v e l i 1 ' 2 (TN)C h i n g l e p u t 1 (TN)B e l l a r y 1 (Kar)

p r o d u c i n g d i s t r i c t s .

HYV

113239323928376628191212

88155

10759

14146828279191071

108

r a t e

yieldingselected

(kg /ha)

L o c a l

21616

517

414

512000

111005280

201100

The l eve l of t o t a l p lant nu t r i en t s (N+P2O5+K2O) used per hectare of croppedarea ind icates the average i n t e n s i t y of f e r t i l i z e r use. Table 22 shows howwidely t h i s var ies from d i s t r i c t to d i s t r i c t . The average l e v e l was found to be

38

l ess than 20 kg/ha of cropped area in 4 d i s t r i c t s growing HYV of sorghum and 7 d i s t r i c t s under p e a r l m i l l e t ; in 6 d i s t r i c t s under sorgh um and 9 growing p e a r lm i l l e t , the l e v e l s exceeded 60 kg/ha. I n gene ra l , d i s t r i c t s w i t h higheradopt ion of f e r t i l i z e r f o r sorghum (Table 21) a lso showed higher average l e v e lo f f e r t i l i z e r use ( r = +0.563) as d i d d i s t r i c t s w i t h h igher r a i n f a l l(r = +0.490). The c o r r e l a t i o n s of average ra tes w i t h percent age area under HYV

w i t h o r w i t hou t i r r i g a t i o n were p o s i t i v e but not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Forp e a r l m i l l e t h y b r i d s , the average r a t e o f a p p l i c a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l yassoc ia ted w i t h adopt ion (r = +0.605), and extent of HYV ar ea i r r i g a t e d(r = +0.448). With regard to the other v a r i a b l e s — c o v e r a g e under HYV andr a i n f a l l — t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s were not s i g n i f i c a n t . The f i n d i n g s suggest theimportance of r a i n f a l l ( f o r sorghum) and i r r i g a t i o n ( f o r p e a r l m i l l e t ) asdeterminants of f e r t i l i z e r use on these crops.

Table 22 a lso shows t h a t the l o c a l v a r i e t i e s of these crops w ere,g e n e r a l l y , e i t h e r not f e r t i l i z e d o r f e r t i l i z e d a t very low r a t e s . I n 15d i s t r i c t s growing sorghum and 19 p e a r l m i l l e t , the averag e r a t e was e i t h e r zeroor nominal ( l ess than 5 kg/ha).

C o r r e l a t i o n s were worked out between a c t u a l ra tes of a p p l i c a t i o n , ex ten t ofarea f e r t i l i z e d (Appendix V) , and some other v a r i a b l e s . These i n d i c a t e t h a t :

1. The a c t u a l r a tes of f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n (both N and P 205) f o r sorghum werenot assoc ia ted w i t h the spread of HYV, i r r i g a t e d area und er HYV, adopt ion off e r t i l i z e r , o r r a i n f a l l . For p e a r l m i l l e t , i r r i g a t e d are a under HYV wasp o s i t i v e l y assoc ia ted w i t h N r a t e s , and adopt ion w i t h P 2O5 r a t e s .

2. The percentage of area under sorghum f e r t i l i z e d w i t h N and P 2O5 wass i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h adopt ion and r a i n f a l l . For p e a r l m i l l e t ,spread of HYV, i r r i g a t e d area under HYV ( w i t h N), adopt ion of f e r t i l i z e r , andr a i n f a l l ( w i t h P 2O5) were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the a r e a - f e r t i l i z e dv a r i a b l e s .

3. The n i t r o g e n and phosphorus ra tes were not c o r r e l a t e d f o r sorghum, but theareas f e r t i l i z e d w i t h these n u t r i e n t s were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d . For p e a r lm i l l e t , both ra tes and areas f e r t i l i z e d w i t h n i t r o g e n and phosphorus werec o r r e l a t e d , and the r a t e and area f e r t i l i z e d w i t h the same n u t r i e n t was a lsop o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d .

These c o r r e l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t higher spread of HYV d i d no t imply h igherra tes of f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n . There was some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the f e r t i l i z e darea was higher in d i s t r i c t s w i t h a l a r g e r area under HYV. Sec ondly, h igherl e v e l of f e r t i l i z e r adopt ion was more s t r o n g l y assoc ia ted w i t h ex tent of areaf e r t i l i z e d . T h i r d l y , r a i n f a l l was s i g n i f i c a n t l y associa ted w i t h the ex ten t o farea f e r t i l i z e d . A l l these po in ted toward area f e r t i l i z e d being more v a r i a b l ethan r a t e o f a p p l i c a t i o n . F i n a l l y , the s i g n i f i c a n t a s s o c i a t i o n between areasf e r t i l i z e d w i t h n i t r o g e n and phosphorus suggested e f f o r t s toward more balanceduse of f e r t i l i z e r . This was more s t r o n g l y i n d i c a t e d i n the case of p e a r l m i l l e tf o r which both ra tes of a p p l i c a t i o n and area f e r t i l i z e d w i t h N and P 2O5 tendedto move t oge the r .

Pursuing the r e s u l t s f u r t h e r , d i s t r i c t est imates present ed i n Appendix I I Id i d not revea l any t r e n d i n broad s o i l types. As f o r v a r i e t a l d i f f e r e n c e s i nf e r t i l i z e r use, d i s t r i c t s growing p e a r l m i l l e t hyb r ids showed some i n t e r e s t i n gr e s u l t s . 2 0 HB 1 was the dominant h y b r i d in 5 d i s t r i c t s , HB 3 in 15, and H B 4 in

20. CSH 1 was the dominant sorghum h y b r i d in 19 of the 21 d i s t r i c t s s tud ied(Appendix I I I ) . There fore , i n t e r r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c u l t i v a r adopt ionwere not analyzed.

39

6 (Appendix I I I ) . In gene ra l , the d i s t r i c t s where HB 4 wa s the dominant h y b r i dshowed h igher f e r t i l i z e r - u s e values ( i n terms of r a tes as w e l l as percentage ofarea f e r t i l i z e d ) compared w i t h d i s t r i c t s in which HB 1 was the most w ide l y grownv a r i e t y . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h i s rank ing agreed w i t h exper ime nta l evidence on theresponse o f p e a r l m i l l e t hyb r ids t o f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n (Bapna and Murty1976). This lends support to the hypothesis t h a t farme rs are aware of ther e l a t i v e responses o f d i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s and t h a t t h i s aw areness a f f e c t s t h e i rf e r t i l i z e r - u s e d e c i s i o n s .

F e r t i l i z e r use under i r r i g a t e d and r a i n f e d c o n d i t i o n s . Appendix I I I shows t h a t ,i n severa l d i s t r i c t s the HYV were grown under i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s . From thep o i n t o f view o f SAT a g r i c u l t u r e i n gene ra l , t he re i s g rea te r i n t e r e s t i nmon i to r i ng the s i t u a t i o n f o r the p r i m a r i l y n o n i r r i g a t e d c rop which i sq u a n t i t a t i v e l y so impor tan t . Tables 23 and 24 g ive est imate s of a c t u a l r a tes ofa p p l i c a t i o n and percentage o f area f e r t i l i z e d w i t h each n u t r i e n t under i r r i g a t e dand n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s .

Consider ing sorghum f i r s t , (Table 25) , the modal c lasses f o r N, P 2O5, andK2O a p p l i c a t i o n were found t o be 41-60 kg, 31-40 kg, and 11-20 kg per f e r t i l i z e dha, r e s p e c t i v e l y under i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s . Under n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s ,these were 21-40 kg/ha, 21-30 kg/ha, and 11-20 kg/ha, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Thed i f f e r e n c e s between i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n s were not as sharpw i t h re ference t o N r a t e s , and more than h a l f the number o f d i s t r i c t s f e l l i nthe supramodal c lasses . The areas f e r t i l i z e d w i t h N, P 2O5, and K 2O were c l e a r l ylower under n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s , a l though w i t h respec t to t h i s parametera l so the d i s t i n c t i o n was not so sharp ly de f ined f o r n i t rog enous f e r t i l i z e r s ;the percentage o f area f e r t i l i z e d w i t h n i t r o g e n exceeded 8 0% in a s i g n i f i c a n tnumber of d i s t r i c t s even under n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s .

For p e a r l m i l l e t (Table 25) the modal c lasses f o r N, P 2O5, and K 2Oa p p l i c a t i o n were 41-60 kg, 21-30 kg, and less than 10 kg per f e r t i l i z e d ha underi r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s ; and 21-40 kg, l ess than 20 kg, and le ss than 10 kg perf e r t i l i z e d ha r e s p e c t i v e l y under r a i n f e d c o n d i t i o n s . I t was a lso noted t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t number of d i s t r i c t s belonged t o the supramodal c lasses f o r N andP2O5 a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e s . With respect t o area f e r t i l i z e d , the n o n i r r i g a t e dd i s t r i b u t i o n s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d r e l a t i v e l y lower va lues.

The conc lus ions , summarized in Table 25, c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e h igherf e r t i l i z e r - u s e parameters f o r n o n i r r i g a t e d sorghum when compared t o p e a r lm i l l e t . Under i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s , a l though the modal va lues f o r the twoc rops—presen ted i n Table 25—were s i m i l a r , the o v e r a l l d i s t r i b u t i o n i n d i c a t e d a somewhat higher l e v e l of n i t r o g e n use f o r p e a r l m i l l e t h y b r i d s . Comparison o ff e r t i l i z e d areas under i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s revealed t h a t theareas f e r t i l i z e d w i t h P 2O5 and K 2O recorded sharper dec l i nes when compared t oareas f e r t i l i z e d w i t h N. This f o l l o w s from the f a c t t h a t t he re is an element o ff l e x i b i l i t y where n i t r o g e n a p p l i c a t i o n i s concerned ( i t could be app l i ed d u r i n gpostsowing stages a l s o ) , w h i l e i n the case of P 2O5 and K 2O a p p l i c a t i o n i t i s notso.

The modal ra tes presented in Table 25 compared f a v o r a b l y w i t h thoserepor ted f o r d i f f e r e n t s t a t e s f o r 1975-76 (NCAER 1978). The 1969-71 est imatesf o r sorghum ( a l l - I n d i a ) a l so compared w i t h the modal c las ses obta ined in ane a r l i e r s tudy (NCAER 1974). While t h i s improves our conf idence i n theseest imates , the comparison a l so suggests t h a t r a tes o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n onthese crops d i d not record any s i g n i f i c a n t gains over 1969 -70 to 1975-76. Wes h a l l come back t o t h i s l a t e r .

S t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f these data accord ing t o major s o i l types revealed t h a t ,g e n e r a l l y , the ra tes o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r n o n i r r i g a t e d sorghum werehigher on black s o i l s than on red and l a t e r i t i c s o i l groups: medium black s o i l s

40

41

42

fared be t te r than shallow black s o i l s . For pear l m i l l e t , the non i r r i ga ted rateswere higher on a l l u v i a l , gray-brown, and black s o i l s when compared to mixed redand b lack , red and red , and l a t e r i t i c s o i l s . These trends are in l i n e w i th themois ture-ho ld ing capac i t ies o f d i f f e r e n t s o i l s .

Table 25. Modalarea

Crop

Sorghum

Pearl m i l l e t

. classes forf e r t i l i z e d :

F e r t i l i z e r

NP205K20

NP205K20

rate of feHYV of sor

r t i l i z e r application andghum and pearl m i l le t (1973-

Modal classes for ra teof app l i ca t i on

(kg/ha f e r t i l i z e d )

I r r i g a t e d

41 - 6031 - 4011 - 20

41 - 6021 - 30

< 10

Noni r r iga ted

21 - 4021 - 3011 - 20

21 - 40< 20< 10

percentage of-74) .

Modal classes for% of HYV area f e r t i l i z e d

I r r i g a t e d

> 80> 80

61 - 80

> 8061 - 8041 - 80

Noni r r iga ted

> 60< 40< 40

61 - 80< 10< 10

Summing up, the analys is of adoption leve ls and app l i ca t i on rates revealedt h a t : (a) a subs tan t ia l p ropor t ion of farmers growing HYV of sorghum and pear lm i l l e t used f e r t i l i z e r s on these crops. More important , they used f e r t i l i z e r sfor the ra in fed crops as w e l l ; (b) there was evidence to show that in somed i s t r i c t s at l e a s t , l o ca l v a r i e t i e s of these crops were also f e r t i l i z e d ; (c)high spread of the HYV d id not always lead to higher rates of f e r t i l i z e ra p p l i c a t i o n , but spread of HYV and extent of cropped area f e r t i l i z e d werep o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d . This impl ies that decisions on use of f e r t i l i z e r s andsuperior v a r i e t i e s were r e l a t e d , but decisions regarding rates of app l i ca t i onwere probably taken w i th other considerat ions in view; (d) the status of s o i lmoisture appeared to be important in f e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec is ions. Accord ing ly ,both r a i n f a l l and i r r i g a t i o n appeared to in f luence f e r t i l i z e r use; (e) therewas some evidence to suggest that farmers considered the r e l a t i v e responses ofd i f f e r e n t v a r i e t i e s in making t h e i r f e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec is ions; ( f ) the rate o fapp l i ca t i on as we l l as the area f e r t i l i z e d w i th d i f f e r e n t nu t r i en t s was lowerunder non i r r i ga ted condi t ions for both these crops. The modal rates ofapp l i ca t i on for n i t rogen were 40-60 kg per f e r t i l i z e d ha under i r r i g a t e d , and21-40 kg per f e r t i l i z e d ha under non i r r iga ted cond i t ions . The non i r r iga tedrates were somewhat higher for sorghum, and the i r r i g a t e d rates were higher forpear l m i l l e t . App l i ca t i on of phosphorus and potash was more widespread forsorghum. Under non i r r i ga ted cond i t ions , however, the extent of area f e r t i l i z e dwi th these nu t r i en t s was subs tan t i a l l y lower, p a r t i c u l a r l y in d i s t r i c t s growingpear l m i l l e t ; and (g) wide i n t e r d i s t r i c t v a r i a t i o n was not iced in thef e r t i l i z e r - u s e parameters for both these crops, underscoring the need forde ta i l ed study of the determinants of t h i s v a r i a t i o n and the adap tab i l i t y andresponse behavior of d i f f e r e n t HYV.

Trend in f e r t i l i z e r use. To understand the pa t te rn of d i f f u s i o n of f e r t i l i z e ruse and the f irmness of the estimates presented in the e a r l i e r sec t ions , thet rend in f e r t i l i z e r use over time was s tud ied . Data on f e r t i l i z e r - u s e

43

parameters f o r a continuous pe r iod of 6-7 years were a v a i l a b l e f o r on ly 8 d i s t r i c t s . Sorghum crop was covered i n Mandsaur, Akola, Shimoga (both r a i n y andp o s t r a i n y seasons); and p e a r l m i l l e t in J a i p u r , K a i r a , H iss ar , and Aurangabadd i s t r i c t s . F igure 4 shows the changes, over t ime , i n ra tes o f a p p l i c a t i o n perf e r t i l i z e d hectare and percentage o f areas f e r t i l i z e d w i t h n i t rogenousf e r t i l i z e r i n these d i s t r i c t s w i t h reference t o p e a r l m i l l e t , sorghum, andi r r i g a t e d r i c e (or whea t ) . 2 1 The f o l l o w i n g important tendencies are revealed:

1. In genera l , F igure 4 i n d i c a t e s no systemat ic t r end e i t h e r in the ra tes o ff e r t i l i z a t i o n or i n the percentage of areas f e r t i l i z e d f o r HYV of sorghum andp e a r l m i l l e t . The HYV of other i r r i g a t e d c e r e a l s , r i c e and wh eat, in thet r a d i t i o n a l areas of product ion—Shimoga, Mandsaur, and Hi ssar—showedgreater s t a b i l i t y , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h regard t o area f e r t i l i z e d . Looking a tthe p o s i t i o n in Shimoga, where HYV of sorghum are grown e i t h e r as i r r i g a t e dcrop (pos t ra i ny season) or under c o n d i t i o n s of h igh and s t a b l e r a i n f a l l( r a i n y season), the s t a b i l i z i n g i n f l u e n c e o f adequate moi sture a v a i l a b i l i t y

was c l e a r l y brought ou t : the ra tes were higher and the percen tage of areaf e r t i l i z e d was h igh and s t a b l e when compared w i t h the other twosorghum-growing d i s t r i c t s . But f o r p e a r l m i l l e t , t h i s exp lana t i on d i d notseem t o ho ld . H issar , a predominant ly i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t growing HYV, d i dnot revea l a h igh or s t a b l e p a t t e r n (Figure 4 ) . The number of d i s t r i c t s aretoo few to draw conc lus ions , but the Hissar case doe s suggest the need tolook f o r other v a r i a b l e s l i k e seasonal c o n d i t i o n s and pest and diseaseincidence f o r a f u l l e r understanding o f temporal v a r i a t i o n i n thef e r t i l i z e r - u s e parameters.

I n other d i s t r i c t s , f e r t i l i z e r use f o r both the ca tegor ies o f c r o p s —m i l l e t s and super io r ce rea ls—was f l u c t u a t i n g , a l though a s t a b l e (areaf e r t i l i z e d in Kaira) o r r i s i n g ( r a t e in Akola and Ja ipu r ) t re nd was observedf o r wheat i n some d i s t r i c t s . The spread of f e r t i l i z e r use t o crops l i k esorghum and m i l l e t s or even i r r i g a t e d crops in areas where th e i r r i g a t i o nsource and the environment were u n s t a b l e , 2 2 d i d not seem to f o l l o w thec l a s s i c a l sigmoid r o u t e . I t should be noted t h a t in more th an 10 years(beginning 1965-66), the coverage under f e r t i l i z e r has not reached 100% f o rsorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t i n most o f the n o n i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s producingthese crops. I t was observed (data not presented here) t h a t t he re wasconsiderable year- to-year v a r i a t i o n i n the p r o p o r t i o n o f f e r t i l i z e r usersa l s o . These f a c t o r s made f e r t i l i z e r - u s e parameters uns tab le . I t i shypothesized t h a t t h i s i n s t a b i l i t y was p r i m a r i l y caused b y v a r i a t i o n i nseasonal c o n d i t i o n s conducive t o f e r t i l i z e r use. This hyp othesis i s f u r t h e rexamined l a t e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n .

2. Figure 4 a lso shows t h a t the percentage of area f e r t i l i z e d v a r i e d r e l a t i v e l yless over t ime i n d i s t r i c t s where i t had a l ready a t t a i n e d h ig h l e v e l s (as i nShimoga f o r r a i n y and postrainy-season sorghum; and in Kai r a f o r p e a r lm i l l e t ) . These seem t o represent areas where f e r t i l i z e r has been accepted asan e s s e n t i a l component of the p roduc t ion technology f o r HY V. Severalf a c t o r s — a v a i l a b i l i t y o f adequate s o i l mo is tu re , b e t t e r a d a p t a b i l i t y ,

21. These data were not a v a i l a b l e separa te ly f o r i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e dcrops. Figure 4 is thus based on average va lues. One needs to note ,however, t h a t i n Mandsaur and Akola (sorghum) and Aurangabad ( p e a r l m i l l e t ) ,the HYV were grown p r i m a r i l y as r a i n f e d crop. In Shimoga (po strainy-seasonsorghum) and Hissar ( p e a r l m i l l e t ) , on the other hand, i r r i g a t e d HYV wasdominant. This does prov ide some scope f o r ana lyz ing i r r i g a t e d and r a i n f e dcrops.

22. I t may be noted t h a t in Akola, Aurangabad, and Ka i ra wheat c u l t i v a t i o n hason ly r e c e n t l y assumed importance.

44

Figure 4. Trend in use of nitrogenous fertilizers for HYV of sorghum, pearl millet, and wheat/rice in indicated districts (1970-71 to 1976-77).

45

Ako la , MaharashtraSorghum

Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh

Sorghum

Wheat

Sorghum

WheatSorghum

Shimoga, Karnataka ( p o s t r a i n y season)

Rice

Shimoga, Karnataka ( r a i n y season)

R1ceWheat

Sorghum

Wheat

Sorghum

Rice

Sorghum

Pearl m i l l e tJaipur, Rajasthan

Wheat

Pearl m i l l e t

Wheat

Pearl m i l l e t

Hissar, Haryana

Wheat

Pearl m i l l e tWheat

Pearl m i l l e t

Kaira, GujaratWheat

Pearl m i l l e t

Wheat

Pearl m i l l e t Wheat

Pearl m i l l e t

Pearlm i l l e t

Wheat

Aurangabad, Maharashtra

Sorghum

Sorghum

Rice

super ior response, and lower disease/pest i n c i d e n c e — c o u l d be responsib le f o rt h i s . Other d i s t r i c t s w i t h lower coverage (Mandsaur, A kola, Aurangabad,Hissar , and J a i p u r ) , represented r e l a t i v e l y unce r ta i n response s i t u a t i o n s i nthe sense t h a t both area f e r t i l i z e d and ra tes o f f e r t i l i z a t i o n f l u c t u a t e d ,o f t e n i n the same d i r e c t i o n ,

3. The tendency f o r the area f e r t i l i z e d t o become s t a b l e as i t reached a h ighl e v e l (as in most d i s t r i c t s f o r i r r i g a t e d rice/wheat HYV , and sorghum inShimoga; and f o r p e a r l m i l l e t in K a i r a ) , suggested the hypothesis t h a tdur ing i n i t i a l stages of adopt ion, the parameters of the area f e r t i l i z e d needto be examined. La te r , w i t h adopt ion becoming widesprea d, f l u c t u a t i o n s inf e r t i l i z e r use become rate-dominated,

4. Although Figure 4 shows s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r y e a r v a r i a t i o n s , data f o r 1973-74presented in the e a r l i e r s e c t i o n were t y p i c a l . Most o f the r a t e values shownin the f i g u r e ranged between 35 and 50 kg/ha, i r r i g a t e d pos trainy-seasonsorghum in Shimoga being an except ion . Since 1973-74, the r a t e has f a l l e ns i g n i f i c a n t l y on ly i n Mandsaur; i n other d i s t r i c t s , they have remained moreor less i n the same modal c l a s s . The area f e r t i l i z e d has, however, shown a s i g n i f i c a n t dec l i ne i n severa l d i s t r i c t s . Thus, wh i l e t he modal r a t eest imates presented i n Table 25 appear t o be f a i r l y f i r m , the same cannot besa id o f the a r e a - f e r t i l i z e d parameter.

5. The p o s i t i o n i n 1974-75 was of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t because f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e s hadincreased sharp ly t h a t year. F igure 4 shows t h a t the r a t e of f e r t i l i z e ra p p l i c a t i o n f o r sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t went down i n 4 d i s t r i c t s (Mandsaur,Akola, Aurangabad, and Hissar) and in 5 (Mandsaur, Au rangabad, Hissar , Ja ipurand Shimoga dur ing the r a i n y season), the area f e r t i l i z e d dec l ined comparedto the s i t u a t i o n in 1973-74. I t f o l l o w s t h a t both the param eters should beexamined to a r r i v e at a c o r r e c t p i c t u r e about the farme rs' response to p r i c echanges. Nevertheless, Shimoga ( f o r both r a i n y - and post rainy-seasonsorghum), Akola (sorghum), and Kai ra (pea r l m i l l e t ) st ood out as excep t iona ld i s t r i c t s , record ing increases in average l e v e l o f n i t r o g e n used per ha in1974-75. Further ana l ys i s revealed (data not presented here) t h a t in thesed i s t r i c t s , there was a s u b s t a n t i a l dec l i ne in area under h i g h - y i e l d i n gv a r i e t i e s , imply ing reduct ions i n t o t a l q u a n t i t y of f e r t i l i z e r used. Thus,adjustment to p r i c e and other changes seemed to have sev era l dimensions.

Some regress ion r e s u l t s . I t has been suggested e a r l i e r t h a t seasonal cond i t i ons( r a i n f a l l , occurrence o f pests/diseases, e t c ) could p lay a r o l e i n farmers'f e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec is ions f o r n o n i r r i g a t e d crops. An attempt was made t o studythe r e l a t i o n s h i p between f e r t i l i z e r use on HYV of sorghum and pea r l m i l l e t , andseasonal (June to August) r a i n f a l l on the basis of 4 yea rs' data (1970-71 to1973-74) f o r 17 d i s t r i c t s growing rainy-season sorghum, and 10 d i s t r i c t s growingrainy-season p e a r l m i l l e t . 2 3 The annual data f o r d i f f e r e n t years a lso providedi n f o r m a t i o n on borrowings f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes, and we have inc luded t h i sv a r i a b l e as an i n d i c a t o r o f c r e d i t a v a i l a b i l i t y in th e regress ion model. Thismodel thus hypothesized t h a t seasonal cond i t i ons and c a p i t a l were the maindeterminants of f e r t i l i z e r use on these crops.24

23. The choice of these d i s t r i c t s was e x c l u s i v e l y determi ned by coverage in a l lthe 4 years. The sorghum d i s t r i c t s were Belgaum, B e l l a r y , Mysore, Shimoga,Jalgaon, Satara, S a n g l i , Aurangabad, Parbhani, B i r , Nanded, Osmanabad,Buldhana, Akola, Amravat i , Wardha, and Nagpur. The p e a r l m i l l e t d i s t r i c t swere Guntur, N e l l o r e , C h i t t o o r , Jalgaon, Aurangabad, B h i r , Hissar , Rohtak,Ching leput , and Coimbatore,

24. Lagged output p r i c e was a lso t r i e d i n i t i a l l y and the r e s u l t s turned out t obe n o n s i g n i f i c a n t ; t h i s v a r i a b l e was dropped subsequen tly.

46

Six var iab les were used to ind icate the leve l of f e r t i l i z e r use: (a)percentage of farmers using f e r t i l i z e r (ADOPTION); (b) average rate ofapp l i ca t ion of N+P2O5+K2O in kg/ha of cropped area (AVNPK); (c) rate ofapp l i ca t i on of n i t rogen in kg per f e r t i l i z e d ha (NRATE); (d) rate ofapp l i ca t ion of phosphorus in kg per f e r t i l i z e d ha (PRATE); (e) percentage ofcropped area f e r t i l i z e d w i th n i t rogen (NAREA); and ( f) percentage of croppedarea f e r t i l i z e d w i th phosphorus (PAREA). The 2 independent var iab les regressedagainst each of these 6 dependent var iab les were: r a i n f a l l ( i n mm) during thegrowth per iod (June to August) (JUNAUGRF). For the adoption dec is ion , r a i n f a l lduring sowing and presowing period is relevant and, the re fo re , we onlyconsidered r a i n f a l l ( i n mm) during June-July in t h i s equat ion. The othervar iab le used (CREDIT) was average borrowings ( in rupees) per c u l t i v a t o r fora g r i c u l t u r a l purposes during the season.

Table 26. Effect of r a i n f a l l (duringuse for HYV

No. of No. ofd i s t r i c t s years

17 4

10 4

1. Results based onobtained by COMTAC

of sorghum and

Dependentvar iab le

ADOPTION

AVNPK

NRATE

PRATE

NAREA

PAREA

ADOPTION

AVNPK

NRATE

PRATE

NAREA

PAREA

growing period) . pearr l m i l l e t . 1

and credit on f e r t i l i z e r

Regression coe f f i c i en t s

Intercept

Rainy-season ;

26.140

29.368

39.967

25.109

42.334

33.383

Rainy-season

48.030

45.816

55.295

31.393

57.223

28.561

pooled t ime-ser ies and crosspackage ava i lab le :

Figures in parentheses are t - va lues ;s i g n i f i c a n t at 10, 5,

* ,and 1% p r o b a b i l i t y

from Computer

JUNAUGRF CREDIT

sorghum

0.033** 0.034***(2.180) (4.403)0.023** 0 .021**

(2.122) (2.230)0.003 -0.005

(0.362) (0.771)-0.003 0.016***(0.641) (3.612)0.028** 0.025**

(2.450) (2.523)0.023** 0.017*

(2.063) (1.746)

pear l m i l l e t

0.045* 0.033***(1.898) (3.729)0.025 -0.005

(0.940) (0.264)-0.014 -0.007(0.677) (0.513)-0.017 0.003(0.878) (0.209)0.027 0.018

(1.383) (1.370)0.039* -0.014

(1.934) (0.954)

-sec t ion data. EstimatesServices, ICRISAT.

* * , and * * *l e v e l s , respect

ind icate s t a t i s t i c a l l yi v e l y .

47

D i s t r i c t - l e v e l est imates on these v a r i a b l e s were a v a i l a b l e . In view o f thel i m i t e d number of years a v a i l a b l e f o r each d i s t r i c t , data f o r a l l sorghum andp e a r l m i l l e t growing d i s t r i c t s were pooled and regress ion s est imated f o r eachcrop, us ing the e r r o r components model (Wallace and Huss ain 1969, Barah 1976).These equations are presented in Table 26.

The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t f o r both the crops, the dec is ions on f e r t i l i z e ruse (ADOPTION) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d by the c r e d i t f a c t o r and seasonalc o n d i t i o n s du r ing the sowing p e r i o d . The average r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o nf o r sorghum was s i m i l a r l y i n f l u e n c e d . But the i n f l u e n c e of these v a r i a b l e s wasfound t o b e n o n s i g n i f i c a n t i n the p e a r l m i l l e t equa t ion . I t was a l so c l e a r t h a tthe percentage o f area f e r t i l i z e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h n i t r o g e n , was the mainv a r i a b l e responding t o r a i n f a l l and c r e d i t . The a c t u a l r a t e s o f a p p l i c a t i o n(NRATE, PRATE) were not found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by these v a r i a b l e s .The r e s u l t s came out less s t r o n g l y f o r p e a r l m i l l e t . I n 7 out o f 10 d i s t r i c t sinc luded in the a n a l y s i s o f t h i s c rop, the hybr ids were grow n under i r r i g a t e dc o n d i t i o n s (Appendix I I I ) , and t h i s h igh inc idence o f i r r i g a t i o n may havereduced the e f f e c t s o f r a i n f a l l . The r e s u l t s sugges t t h a t f e r t i l i z e r ex tens ionprograms f o r these crops should be backed w i t h adequate c r e d i t and be f l e x i b l eenough t o enable adjustment t o seasonal c o n d i t i o n s . I t i s app rop r i a te t h a tresearch recommendations on f e r t i l i z e r use should now emphasize the f l e x i b i l i t yelement (V i jaya lakshmi 1979, Singh 1979).

The a n a l y s i s o f t r e n d in f e r t i l i z e r use over t ime revealed t h a t , underi r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s , almost the e n t i r e area under HYV was f e r t i l i z e d . Underr a i n f e d c o n d i t i o n s , however, a s i g n i f i c a n t f r a c t i o n of th e HYV cont inued toremain u n f e r t i l i z e d even a f t e r 10 years. A l so , there was con siderablef l u c t u a t i o n from year to year. Apparen t ly , seasonal c o n d i t i o n s played animportant r o l e i n f e r t i l i z e r - u s e d e c i s i o n s — p a r t i c u l a r l y dec is ions regard ingwhether t o use f e r t i l i z e r and what p r o p o r t i o n o f the cropped area should becovered.

Conclusions

This ana l ys i s attempted t o show the s t a t u s o f f e r t i l i z e r use on HYV of sorghumand p e a r l m i l l e t , the two most important ce rea ls grown on dry lands of SAT I n d i a .For sorghum, data p e r t a i n i n g to 21 predominant ly SAT d i s t r i c t s , and 26 d i s t r i c t sf o r p e a r l m i l l e t were taken from the s tudy, Sample Surveys f o r Assessment ofH igh -Y ie ld ing V a r i e t i e s Programme. The surveys were made by the IASRI, dur ing1973-74 (Raheja e t a l . 1976).

Data on adopt ion o f f e r t i l i z e r , and the ex ten t and r a t e s o f f e r t i l i z a t i o nf o r the HYV of these crops negated two popular b e l i e f s : f i r s t , t h a t farmers i nthe SAT do not use f e r t i l i z e r s f o r these low-valued, i n f e r i o r c e r e a l s . The datac l e a r l y showed t h a t i n the m a j o r i t y of d i s t r i c t s s t u d i e d , a s u b s t a n t i a lp r o p o r t i o n o f farmers d i d use f e r t i l i z e r s f o r these crops; s econd, the dataa lso c o n t r a d i c t e d the b e l i e f t h a t n o n i r r i g a t e d m i l l e t s d o not rece ivef e r t i l i z e r . The r e s u l t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r sorghum, showed t h a t a m a j o r i t y offarmers i n most of the d i s t r i c t s used f e r t i l i z e r q u i t e e x t e n s i v e l y f o r then o n i r r i g a t e d HYV as w e l l . F e r t i l i z a t i o n o f p e a r l m i l l e t hyb r ids was foundlagg ing not because farmers were u n w i l l i n g t o use f e r t i l i z e r but because theadopt ion of these hyb r ids was con f ined l a r g e l y to i r r i g a t e d lands. However, onemust q u a l i f y the above i n f l u e n c e s : the spread of the HYV of th ese two crops hasnot been very h i g h , and the l o c a l v a r i e t i e s which cover mos t of the area arel a r g e l y u n f e r t i l i z e d . Hence, i t i s not the low value but the lack o f f e r t i l i z e r

48

responsiveness o f the t r a d i t i o n a l v a r i e t i e s which i s re spons ib le f o rn o n f e r t i l i z a t i o n o f these c r o p s . 2 5

As expected, f e r t i l i z e r use v a r i e d under i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e dc o n d i t i o n s , and cons iderable i n t e r d i s t r i c t v a r i a t i o n was no t i ced under boths i t u a t i o n s . The modal values f o r ra tes o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n (perf e r t i l i z e d hectare) were: 41-60 kg f o r N, 31-40 kg f o r P 2O5, and 11-20 kg f o rK2O. For i r r i g a t e d p e a r l m i l l e t hybr ids they were: 41-60 k g f o r N, 21-30 kgf o r P 205, and less than 10 kg f o r K 2O. The corresponding n o n i r r i g a t e d ra teswere: 21-40 kg f o r N, 21-30 kg f o r P 2O5, and 11-20 kg f o r K 2O i n the case ofsorghum, and 21-40 kg, l ess than 20 kg, and less than 10 k g r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o rthe p e a r l m i l l e t h y b r i d s . These and the data on the ex tent o f cropped areaf e r t i l i z e d showed b e t t e r values f o r sorghum under n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s . Butunder i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s , the p e a r l m i l l e t hybr ids had higher f e r t i l i z e r - u s ei n d i c a t o r s . Fur ther ana l ys i s o f data f o r e i g h t d i s t r i c t s over the pe r iod1970-71 to 1976-77, and evidence from other s tud ies i n d i c a t e t h a t a l though therewere i n t e r y e a r f l u c t u a t i o n s , the modal ra tes repor ted above were f a i r l y f i r mover t ime.

These f i n d i n g s have two important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r resea rch on these crops.F i r s t l y , these can be t r e a t e d as benchmark l e v e l s of e x i s t i n g f e r t i l i z a t i o np r a c t i c e s of farmers. A quest ion f r e q u e n t l y asked i s : what i s the f e r t i l i t yl e v e l against which new v a r i e t i e s , agronomic p r a c t i c e s , e t c . , should beevaluated? The quest ion i s important because, i n almost a l l cases, s i g n i f i c a n ti n t e r a c t i o n s take place between techniques and f e r t i l i t y l e v e l s . The est imatesgiven above are a u s e f u l guide. Secondly, our ana lys i s s hows t h a t the re areareas where f e r t i l i z e r use i s q u i t e h igh even under n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s .This imp l i es t h a t adap ta t ion pa t t e rns of HYV d i f f e r , and underscores the need todevelop more l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c and f e r t i l i z e r - r e s p o n s i v e v a r i e t i e s . Theargument i s p a r t i c u l a r l y re levan t in the case o f p e a r l m i l l e t , where lack o fadapta t ion to n o n i r r i g a t e d cond i t i ons appears to be a m ajor c o n s t r a i n t .

The other important f e a t u r e revealed by our ana lys i s is t h a t the modalra tes mentioned e a r l i e r were a t t a i n e d w i t h i n 4-5 years a f t e r the HYV werein t roduced . These have remained s tab le s ince. While t h i s provides yet anotherevidence of the r a p i d response of SAT farmers to i nnova t i o ns , the reasons f o rthe l e v e l s not r i s i n g over t ime needs to be examined. Only a d e t a i l e d ana l ys i sof the data on f e r t i l i z e r responsiveness of these crops w i l l p rov ide the answer.

Ana lys is o f the t r end in f e r t i l i z e r - u s e parameters sh owed t h a t these d i dnot f o l l o w any systemat ic p a t t e r n . Comparison of data f o r sorghum and m i l l e t sw i t h those f o r r ice/wheat provided some evidence of the s t a b i l i z i n g e f f e c t ofi r r i g a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y o n the a r e a - f e r t i l i z e d v a r i a b l e . This ana l ys i s a lsorevealed t h a t i t was important t o keep a l l the f e r t i l i z e r - u s eparamete rs—adop t ion , r a t e s , and area f e r t i l i z e d — i n pe rspect ive wh i le s tudy ingthe f e r t i l i z e r - u s e p a t t e r n . This i s an important methodol ogical p o i n t t h a t pasts tud ies have o f t e n ignored. I t should be noted t h a t , u n l i k e in the case o fi r r i g a t e d crops where once a farmer i s convinced of the advantages of f e r t i l i z e ruse u s u a l l y stays w i t h i t , the dec i s ion whether t o use f e r t i l i z e r o r not has t obe made every t ime f o r r a i n f e d crops. The data f o r i r r i g a t e d d i s t r i c t s growingp e a r l m i l l e t showed wider f l u c t u a t i o n s . We argued t h a t ap art from otherf a c t o r s , one needs to examine the occurrence of disea ses and pests in order tounderstand the f l u c t u a t i o n s f u l l y .

25. F i e l d experience of researchers (and our own data) sugge st t h a t farmers dosometimes apply n i t rogenous f e r t i l i z e r s i n smal l q u a n t i t i e s ( i f the weatherc o n d i t i o n s are favorab le) p r i m a r i l y to boost t h e i r sorg hum fodder y i e l d s(Dr. N.K. Sanghi, A l l I n d i a Co-ordinated Research Pro j ec t f o r Dryland A g r i -c u l t u r e [AICRPDA], Hyderabad—personal communication) . We need to take a c r i t i c a l look a t the f e r t i l i z e r - r e s p o n s e data from t h i s angle.

49

Data showing higher f e r t i l i z e r use on i r r i g a t e d sorghum, p e a r l m i l l e t , andother cerea ls in these d i s t r i c t s support the hypoth esis t h a t farmers in the SAT(as elsewhere) d o not l ag behind i n f e r t i l i z e r adopt ion i f the r e s u l t i n g gainswere h igh and s t a b l e . Raheja e t a l . (1976) revealed t h a t , i n gene ra l ,f e r t i l i z a t i o n l e v e l s were higher f o r the i r r i g a t e d super io r ce rea ls ( r i c e orwheat) than f o r m i l l e t s . This i n d i c a t e s t h a t the farmers accorded some p r i o r i t yto the h igher-va lue (and higher-response) crops w h i l e a l l o c a t i n g t h e i r scarcei r r i g a t i o n and l i q u i d c a p i t a l resources. I n terms o f f e r t i l i z e r use, t h e r e f o r e ,the SAT presents a h ie ra rchy of c o e x i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . To s t a r t w i t h , t he re arei r r i g a t e d (or n o n i r r i g a t e d ) h igh-value crops which c l a im h igh p r i o r i t y ; thenf o l l o w the i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e d HYV of crops l i k e sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e twhich respond b e t t e r t o f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n than t h e i r l o c a l coun te rpa r t s ;and, at the bottom, are the l a r g e number of n o n i r r i g a t e d food crops which r a r e l yf i g u r e i n f e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec is ions (Jha 1980).

This ana l ys i s suggests t h a t b a r r i e r s to f e r t i l i z e r u se on dry crops do nota r i s e from i r r a t i o n a l i t y . The t r a d i t i o n a l " re luc tan ce" can be e a s i l y exp la inedby the f a c t t h a t most l o c a l v a r i e t i e s of n o n i r r i g a t e d (food) crops show unstab leresponse t o f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n and the r e t u r n s are not remunerat ive. Thus,development o f reg iona l l y -adap ted and f e r t i l i z e r - r e s p o n s i v e v a r i e t i e s shouldcont inue t o rece ive the h ighest p r i o r i t y . Secondly, f e r t i l i z e r use underr a i n f e d cond i t i ons i s c r u c i a l l y dependent on season al ( r a i n f a l l ) c o n d i t i o n s . Assuch, the extens ion system must change from the t r a d i t i o n a l " f i x e d package ofp r a c t i c e s " t o a h i g h l y f l e x i b l e approach designed t o take maximum advantage ofrandom seasonal c o n d i t i o n s t h a t p lay such a c r u c i a l r o l e in SAT a g r i c u l t u r e .F i n a l l y , lack of adequate working c a p i t a l a l so hampers f e r t i l i z e r use. Thisemphasizes the importance of c r e d i t .

IV. Determinants of Fertilizer UseWe have gained some understanding of the major f a c t o r s t h a t determinef e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec i s i ons . I n t h i s chapter , the issue i s analyzed morer i g o r o u s l y . Drawing b a s i c a l l y from microeconomic f a c t o r demand theory , severa lresearchers have p o s t u l a t e d t h a t p h y s i c a l response t o f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n andp r i c e s (of inpu ts as w e l l as outputs) are the major determinants of f e r t i l i z e rdemand (Desai 1969, Desai and Me l lo r 1969, and Desai et a l . 1 973). Aggregat iveanalyses based on t ime -se r i es data u s u a l l y consider ( r e l a t i v e ) f e r t i l i z e r p r i c eand i r r i g a t i o n as the main determinants , the l a t t e r used as a proxy f o r a s h i f tin response f u n c t i o n (Desai 1969, Par ikh 1965, P a t i l 1978, and Rao 1973).M i c r o l e v e l s tud ies on i n t e r f a r m v a r i a t i o n i n f e r t i l i z e r use, on the other hand,emphasize the r o l e o f f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e the re sponse f u n c t i o n (because i ti s not poss ib le t o s p e c i f y any s i n g l e v a r i a b l e b y d i r e c t l y measuring f e r t i l i z e rp r o d u c t i v i t y on each f a rm) , f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e the adopt ion and d i f f u s i o nof f e r t i l i z e r , and f a c t o r s which act as c o n s t r a i n t s on the farmers ' capac i t y toi nves t in cash i n p u t s . Pr ices are u s u a l l y ignored bec ause c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l datado not g e n e r a l l y permi t e v a l u a t i o n o f p r i c e e f f e c t s .

We have hypothesized t h a t f e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec is ions o f farmers in a g ivenarea and at a g iven p o i n t in t ime are i n f l uenced by t h ree sets of f o r c e s : (a)the personal a t t r i b u t e s o f the farmers i n f l u e n c e t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towardf e r t i l i z e r s , t h e i r dec is ions regard ing adopt ion , and t h e i r awareness regard ingrecommended l e v e l s of a p p l i c a t i o n , e t c . Va r iab les l i k e educat ion , age, r i s kavers ion , and socioeconomic s t a t u s are important in t h i s con tex t ; (b) theresource endowments of the farmer determine h i s capac i t y t o buy and e f f e c t i v e l yu t i l i z e the f e r t i l i z e r i n p u t . Farm s i z e , labor f o r c e a v a i l a b l e , c a p i t a linvestment in farm, d i f f e r e n c e s in access to inpu t and output markets, etc., aresome re levan t v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s group; and (c) a number of agronomic andeconomic v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c e the response t o (and p r o f i t a b i l i t y o f ) f e r t i l i z e ra p p l i c a t i o n . Examples of such response v a r i a b l e s a re : choice of crops and

50

v a r i e t i e s , s o i l t ype , moisture c o n d i t i o n s , tenancy s t a t u s , and t i m e l i n e s s o fsowing.

I t i s obvious t h a t the a c t u a l e m p i r i c a l model used wou ld depend on thenature of data. For a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l study of i n t e r f a r m d i f f e r e n c e s inf e r t i l i z e r use w i t h i n a given area, on ly the f i r s t t h ree would be r e l e v a n t .Even here, the completeness of the model would depend o n the comprehensivenessof the data in terms of agronomic and p l o t - s p e c i f i c obse rvat ions. Aggregatet ime -se r i es s t u d i e s , on the other hand, depend mostly on macrolevel v a r i a b l e s .

I n the context of s p a t i a l v a r i a t i o n and temporal v a r i a b i l i t y , two moreforces become impor tan t : (d) the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g , i n c l u d i n g p r e v a i l i n gp r i c e regimes, market and c r e d i t ; and (e) a g r o c l i m a t i c f a c t o r s such as broads o i l t ype , cropping p a t t e r n s , r a i n f a l l , and other weather f a c t o r s .

Data Source and Models

Two data sets have been used f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s . The f i r s t comes from theICRISAT V i l l a g e - L e v e l Studies (Chapter I I ) .

The second data set p e r t a i n s to the IASRI study on asses sment ofh i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s (Chapter I I I ) . The choice of v a r i a b l e s used in the twoanalyses was d i c t a t e d by data a v a i l a b i l i t y . The model and v a r i a b l e s used inthese analyses are descr ibed in the f o l l o w i n g paragraph s.

Comprehensive farm- and p l o t - l e v e l data from 180 sampl e farmers werea v a i l a b l e from 1975 onwards. For t h i s a n a l y s i s , we ha ve used data from 146households over 3 years—1975-76 through 1977-78.

ICRISAT V i l l a g e - l e v e l Studies data. Two approaches were employed f o r ana lyz ingdeterminants o f f e r t i l i z e r demand. The f i r s t used f a rm- l eve l (aggregated overp l o t s ) data and sought t o i d e n t i f y major i n f l uences op era t ing a t t h i s l e v e l .The second made use of p l o t - l e v e l observa t ions , and enabled i n c l u s i o n of somep l o t - s p e c i f i c v a r i a b l e s a lso in the model. Table 27 pro vides the s p e c i f i c a t i o nand hypothesis p e r t a i n i n g to each v a r i a b l e used in the tw o analyses.

The f a r m - l e v e l regress ions were based on the f o l l o w i n g m odel:

AVNPK or = f(AGE, EDUCATION, EXPERNCE, RISKAVER,NRATE or FARMSIZE, IRRIGATE, HHSIZE, COMCROPS,NAREA NAREA, CREDIT, FRTPRICE, LUCK, RAIN,

RAINSQ, VDUMMY2, VDUMMY3, VDUMMY4,VDUMMY5, YRDUMMY1, YRDUMMY2).

The p l o t - l e v e l a n a l y s i s contained the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s :

AVNPK or = f(AGE, EDUCATON, EXPERNCE, RISKAVER,NRATE or NRATE, FARMSIZE, HHSIZE, SOILDMY1,NAREA SOILDMY2, IRRGDMY, PURECROP, OWNPLOT,

HYDMY, COMCROPS, CREDIT, FRTPRICE, LUCK,PRDPRICE, RAIN, RAINSQ, VDUMMYl,VDUMMY2, VDUMMY3, VDUMMY4, VDUMMY5,YRDUMMY1, YRDUMMY2).

I n the f a r m - l e v e l a n a l y s i s , on ly those farmers who used f e r t i l i z e r s wereinc luded . S i m i l a r l y , i n the p l o t - l e v e l a n a l y s i s , data f o r o n ly f e r t i l i z e d p l o t swere considered. L inear regress ion equations con ta i n i n g a l l the v a r i a b l e smentioned above were est imated using pooled data. Subs equently, equations were

51

a l s o e s t i m a t e d f o r each o f t he t h r e e r e g i o n s (Sho lapu r , A k o l a , and Mahbubnagar)s e p a r a t e l y .

52

Table 27. Def in i t ion ofand interplot

Expectedr e l a t i o n -

A b b r e v i a t i o n s h i p

Dependent v a r i a b l e s

1. AVNPK

2. NRATE

3. NAREA

E x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s

variables used in regression models explaining interfa rmdifferences in f e r t i l i z e r use.

A n a l y s i s

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

Farm

I . Persona l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

1 . AGE b < o

2. EDUCATION b > 0

3. EXPERNCE b > 0

4. RISKAVER b < o

11. Resource endowment

5. FARMSIZE b < o

6. IRRIGATE b > o

7. HHSIZE b > o

8. S0ILDMYl b > o

9. S0ILDMY2 b > o

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

V a r i a b l e s p e c i f i c a t i o n

T o t a l p l a n t n u t r i e n t s (N+P2O5+K2O) usedon t he fa rm or p l o t (kg /ha) .

Rate o f n i t r o g e n a p p l i c a t i o n (kg /haf e r t i l i z e d ) o n the fa rm o r p l o t .

Percent o f cropped area f e r t i l i z e d w i t hn i t r o g e n o u s f e r t i l i z e r s .

Age, i n y e a r s , o f t he head o f t he fa rmh o u s e h o l d .

Educa t i on o f t he head o f t he householdexpressed as score based on years off o r m a l e d u c a t i o n .

Number o f yea rs s i n c e i n i t i a l use o ff e r t i l i z e r s .

Score measur ing e x t e n t o f r i s k - a v e r s i o no f t he farmer (Binswanger 1980) . 1

and p l o t - r e l a t e d f a c t o r s

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

P l o t

P l o t

Operated area o f t h e fa rm i n h e c t a r e s .

Percent o f i r r i g a b l e a rea on t he f a r m .Dummy v a r i a b l e w i t h v a l u e 1 f o ri r r i g a t e d p l o t s .

Number of f a m i l y members.

Dummy g i v e n v a l u e 1 f o r p l o t s on deepb l a c k s o i l s . 2

Dummy g i v e n va l ue 1 f o r p l o t s onmedium-deep b lack s o i l s .

Con t i nued .

Table : 27 continued.

A b b r e v i a t i o n

10 .

1 1 .

1 2 .

I I I .

13 .

14 .

15 .

16 .

PURECROP

OWNPLOT

HYVDMY

Expectedr e l a t i o n -

s h i p

b > o

b < o

b > o

I n s t i t u t i o n a l fac t

COMCROPS

CREDIT

FRTPRICE

PROPRICE

I V . A g r o c l i m a t

17 .

18 .

19 .

20 .

2 1 .

22 .

23 .

RAIN

RAINSQ

VDUMMY1

VDUMMY2

VDUMMY3

VDUMMY4

VDUMMY5

b > o

b > o

b < o

b > o

A n a l y s i s

P l o t

P l o t

P l o t

o rs

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

Fa rm/p lo t

P l o t

i c f a c t o r s

b > o

b < 0

Fa rm /p lo t

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

F a r m / p l o t

V a r i a b l e s p e c i f i c a t i o n

Dummy g i ven va lue 1 if so le c rop was sownon the p l o t and 0 i f mixed c rops weresown.

Dummy g i v e n va lue 1 f o r l e a s e d - i n p l o t s ,and 0 f o r owned p l o t s .

Dummy g i ven va lue 1 f o r p l o t s sown w i t hh i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s and 0 i f sownw i t h t r a d i t i o n a l v a r i e t i e s .

Percent of area under commercia l c ropsi n t he f a r m . 3

T o t a l b o r r o w i n g s , i n rupees , o f t hefarmer d u r i n g the yea r . 4

P r i c e p a i d , i n rupees , per k g o f p l a n tn u t r i e n t by the fa rmer . 5

Lagged average v i l l a g e p r i c e , i n rupeesper 100 k g , of t he c rop grown on thep l o t .

R a i n f a l l , in mm, d u r i n g June to November(or June to August) i n t he v i l l a g e .

Square o f the above r a i n f a l l v a r i a b l e .

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r A u r e p a l l e v i l l a g e(Mahbubnagar).

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r Dokur v i l l a g e(Nahbubnagar)•

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r Kinkheda v i l l a g e( A k o l a ) .

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r Kanzara v i l l a g e( A k o l a ) .

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r Kalman v i l l a g e( S h o l a p u r ) .

Con t i nued .

53

Table 27 continued.

24. YRDUMMY1 Farm/plot Dummy var iab le fo r 1975-76.

25. YRDUMMY2 Farm/plot Dummy var iab le fo r 1976-77.

Source: Based on ICRISAT VLS data fo r the years 1975-76 to 77-78.

1 .

2 .

3 .

4 .

5 .

The r i sk -avers ion score fo r each farmer was der ived from the resu l t s of anexperiment invo lv ing a ser ies of gambling games. The r i sk -ave rs ion .c o e f f i c i e n t s so der ived were inf luenced by the outcome of the preceding game.In order to con t ro l t h i s , a variable—LUCK—was introduced as an explanatoryf a c t o r . This var iab le has no other s i g n i f i c a n c e .The s o i l types considered in the VLS were: deep b lack , medium b lack , mediumto shallow b lack , deep red , shallow red , g r a v e l l y , sa l ine or other problems o i l s , and o thers .The crops considered were sugarcane, vegetables, co t t on , groundnut, andcastor .This var iab le was def ined to include consumption loans. It was not poss ib leto sor t out a l l the loan t ransact ions. In order to minimize the chances ofconsumption loans enter ing i n to t h i s v a r i a b l e , a l l c red i t t ransact ions belowRs.50 were excluded. S t i l l , t h i s va r iab le is weakly s p e c i f i e d .Where only s t r a i gh t f e r t i l i z e r s were used, the ca l cu la t i on of p r i ce per kg ofnu t r i en t was easy. But where mixtures or complex f e r t i l i z e r s (contain ingmore than one nu t r i en t ) were used, the ca lcu la t ions were more invo lved . Insuch cases, pr ices of i nd i v i dua l nu t r i en t s were obtained by apport ion ing thet o t a l expenditure on f e r t i l i z e r s in terms of quan t i t i es of i n d i v i d u a lnu t r i en ts weighted by the pr ices of these nu t r i en t s in s t r a i g h t f e r t i l i z e r s .Average p r i ce per kg of t o t a l p lant nu t r i en t s (N+P2O5+K2O) was also obtainedby a s im i la r weight ing procedure. The appropr iate p r i ce va r iab le ( t o t a lp lant nu t r i en t or n i t rogen) was used for each dependent v a r i a b l e .

IASRI d a t a . The survey (see Chapter I I I f o r d e t a i l s ) covered 2 1 d i s t r i c t s f o rsorghum, and 2 6 d i s t r i c t s f o r p e a r l m i l l e t . P l o t w i s e da ta f o r each d i s t r i c tf rom t h e Y i e l d E s t i m a t i o n Survey f o r 1973-74 were used f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s . I neach d i s t r i c t , 80 f i e l d s ( p l o t s ) g rowing HYV were chosen f o r t h e c r o p - c u t t i n ge x p e r i m e n t s , and i n f o r m a t i o n was ga the red on t h e major i n p u t s used on eachp l o t . 2 6

The v a r i a b l e s used in t h i s a n a l y s i s a re g i v e n in Tab le 28 . As can be seen ,the main s e t o f v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o p l o t - s p e c i f i c c o n d i t i o n s , a l t h o u g hf a r m - s i z e and f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e were f a j r m - s p e c i f i c . The f o l l o w i n g r e g r e s s i o nmodel was e s t i m a t e d f o r each d i s t r i c t :

AVNPK or = f(SOILDMY, DRAINAGE, TIMLYSOWN, PREVCROP,NRATE or RAINFALL, FRTPRICE, FARMSIZE)PRATE

I t can be seen t h a t t h e two da ta s e t s w e r e , i n a sense , complementary . I twas hoped t h a t by i n t e g r a t i n g t he r e s u l t s o f t h e two a n a l y s e s , i t wou ld bep o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t he d e c i s i o n s o f f a rmers r e g a r d i n gf e r t i l i z e r u s e .

26 . S c r u t i n y o f da ta f o r each d i s t r i c t r e v e a l e d t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n o n f e r t i l i z e rp r i c e s was no t c o l l e c t e d f o r p l o t s where no f e r t i l i z e r s were u s e d . Sucho b s e r v a t i o n s were d e l e t e d f o r purposes o f t h i s a n a l y s i s . A l s o , n or e g r e s s i o n s were e s t i m a t e d f o r d i s t r i c t s where t h e number o f f e r t i l i z e dp l o t s was l e s s t han 2 0 .

54

Table 28. Defind i f f e

A b b r e v i a t i o n

i t i on of variables used in regression models explaining i nterplotrences in f e r t i l i z e r use: IASRI distr ictwise data.

Expectedr e l a t i o n -

s h i p

Dependent v a r i a b l e

1. AVNPK

2. NRATE

3. PRATE

E x p l a n a t o r y var

1. SOILDMY

2. DRAINAGE

3. TIMLYSON

4. PREVCROP

5. RAINFALL

6. FRTPRICE

7. FARMSIZE

i a b l e s 1

b>o

b<o

b>o

b<o

b>o

b<o

b<o

V a r i a b l e s p e c i f i c a t i o n

T o t a l p l a n t n u t r i e n t s (N+P2O5+K2O) used on p l o t(kg /ha f e r t i l i z e d ) .

Rate o f a p p l i c a t i o n o f n i t r o g e n (N) used on p l o t(kg /ha f e r t i l i z e d ) .

Rate of a p p l i c a t i o n of phosphorus (P2O5) used onp l o t (kg /ha f e r t i l i z e d ) .

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r h e a v i e r - t e x t u r e d s o i l .

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r p o o r l y - d r a i n e d or wa te r loggedp l o t s .

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r p l o t s sown at normal t i m e .

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r p l o t s sown w i t h commonly f e r t i l -i z e d or legume crops in t he p reced ing season.2

Dummy v a r i a b l e f o r adequacy o f r a i n f a l l d u r i n gthe c rop season.

P r i c e p a i d by t he f a r m e r , in rupees , per kg o fp l a n t n u t r i e n t . 3

Size o f t he o p e r a t i o n a l h o l d i n g o f t he farmer i nh e c t a r e s .

1 . V a r i a b l e s 1 , 2 , 3 , and 5 were q u a l i t a t i v e l y measured i n terms o f o p i n i o n o fthe farmer conce rned .

2 . T h i s dummy v a r i a b l e took the va lue u n i t y i f sugarcane, t o ba c c o , c o t t o n ,v e g e t a b l e s , h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s o f c e r e a l s , and groundnut or a legumecrop was grown in t he p reced ing season.

3. See f o o t n o t e 5, below Tab le 27 .

ResultsThe resu l t s obtained from farm- leve l analyses in ICRISAT V i l lage-Leve l Studiesare summarized in Table 29, and p l o t - l e v e l analyses in Table 30. Results ofd i s t r i c t w i s e regressions, estimated from IASRI data are summarized in Table 3 1 .The estimated regression equations have not been presented he re . 2 7 For b r e v i t y ,the resu l t s are discussed in terms of var iab les and only general tendencies areind i ca ted .

27. See Jha and Sarin 1981 for VLS-based regressions and Jha et a l . 1981 forIASRI r e s u l t s .

55

56

57

58

Table 31. Variableshigh-yielddata. 1

D i s t r i c t ( S t a t e )

J a l g a o n (Mah)

Ahmadnagar (Mah)

Osmanabad (Mah)

Nagpur (Mah)

Be lgaum (Ka r )

A k o l a (Mah)

B u l d h a n a (Mah)

A m a r a v a t i (Mah)

B e l l a r y ( K a r )

S a t a r a (Mah)

Nanded (Mah)P a r b h a n i (Mah)

Mandsaur (MP)

A n a n t a p u r (AP)

S a n g l i (Mah)

Sh imoga ( K a r )

Sh imoga ( K a r ) 2

explaininging var iet i

Dependen tv a r i a b l e

AVNPKPRATEAVNPKNRATEAVNPKNRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATE

AVNPKNRATEPRATE

interes of

S O I L -DMY

(+)

(+)(+)(+)

(+)

(+)

(-)(-)(-)

(+)

(+)(+)

(-)(-)

(+)

(-)(-)

plot var iat ionsorghum and pea

DRAIN- T I M L Y -AGE SON

A . S o r g h u m d

(+)

(-) (+)

(+)

(+)(+)( + )

(+) (+)

(-)

(+)

(-)

(-)(-)

in f e r t i l i z e rr l mi l le t :

R A I N -FALL

use onIASRI, 1973-74

PREV-CROP

i s t r i c t s

(+)(+)

(-)(-)

(+)(+)(+)(+)

(-)

(+)(+)(+)

(-)(-)(+)

(+)(+)(+)

(+)

(+)(+)(+)

(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)

(+)

(+)

(-)

( -)

(+)

(-)

(+)

(+)(+)(+)

FRT-PRICE

(+)(+)(+)

(+)

(-)

(-)

(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)

(-)

(+)

(-)

(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)(-)

FARMSIZE

(-)

( + )

(-)(-)

(+)(+)

(+)(-)(-)

(+)(+)

C o n t i n u e d .

Table 31 continued.

D i s t r i c t ( S t a t e )

N e l l o r e (AP)

T i r u n e l v e l i (TN)

J a l g a o n (Mah)

C o i m b a t o r e (TN)

C h i n g l e p u t (TN)R o h t a k ( H a r )

M o r e n a (MP)

P a r b h a n i (Mah)

J a i p u r ( R a j )

G u n t u r (AP)

C h i t t o o r (AP)

H i s s a r ( H a r )B e l l a r y ( K a r ) 2

M a d u r a i ( T N ) 2

C o i m b a t o r e ( T N ) 2

1 . See J h a e t a l .2 . P o s t r a i n y - s e a s o n

D e p e n d e n tv a r i a b l e

AVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATENRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEAVNPKAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATEAVNPKNRATEPRATE

1 9 8 1 , f o r r ec r o p .

S O I L -DMY

( + )

(+)( + ) (+)

(+)( + ) ( + )

( + )

(+)

D R A I N -AGE

B . P e a r l

(-)(-)

(-)

g r e s s i o n s .

(+) i n d i c a t e s p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p .( - ) i n d i c a t e s n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p .

TIMLY-SON

m i l l e t

(+)

(+)

(+)(+)(+)

(+)(+)

(+)(-)

(-)(+)<+)

(+)(+)

- R A I N -FALL

d i s t r i c t

(-)(-)

(+)(+)(+)

(+)

(+)(+)

(-)(-)(-)

(+)( + ) (+)(-)(-)(-)

(-)

PREV-CROP

s

(-)(-)

(-)(-)(-)(+)

(+)

(-)

(-)

FRT-PRICE

(-)

(-)

(-)

(-)

(-)

(-)( —)

(+)

(-)

(-)

(-)

FARMSIZE

(+)(+)

(+)(+)(+)

(+)

(+)

Personal characteristics. Personal t ra i t s of the farmer assume particularsignificance in the context of use of modern inputs in farming. This set ofvariables could be considered on the VLS-based analysis. The plot- levelregressions (Table 30) provided better results in this regard. The resultsindicated that farmers with higher education and longer experience used higherlevels of f e r t i l i z e r . This effect was discernible in Akola and Mahbubnagarregions.These variables were not significant in any of the Sholapur equations.

59

Risk avers ion was another personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c conside red. In theSholapur r eg ion , the hypothesized e f f e c t was noted, and f e r t i l i z e r r a t e s werefound to be n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the degree of r i s k avers ion (Table 30) . Thep l o t - l e v e l equations f o r Mahbubnagar appeared i n c o n s i s t e n t . In the f a r m - l e v e lregressions (Table 29) , the e f f e c t of t h i s v a r i a b l e showed u p on thef e r t i l i z e d - a r e a v a r i a b l e in two out of fou r equat ions and a l so on the r a t e ofa p p l i c a t i o n o f n i t r o g e n i n the Sholapur r eg ion . I t thus ap pears t h a t i nr e l a t i v e l y unstable areas ( l i k e Sholapur ) , r i s k avers ion d i d deter f e r t i l i z e ruse. I n other areas, t h i s e f f e c t d i d not seem so impor tan t .

Resource endowment and p l o t - l e v e l f a c t o r s . The f a r m - l e v e l regress ions (Table29) showed t h a t the average l e v e l of f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n and the ex ten t ofcropped area f e r t i l i z e d were lower on l a r g e r farms. This e f f e c t was pronouncedin the Akola and Mahbubnagar reg ions . The regress ions in Table 30 showed a s i m i l a r i n f l u e n c e on the r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n on p ooled data b u t , i nthe r e g i o n a l equat ions f o r Mahbubnagar and Akola, t h i s v a r i a b l e was not found tobe s i g n i f i c a n t . I n the Sholapur r e g i o n , the re was some i n d i c a t i o n of a p o s i t i v er e l a t i o n s h i p between farm s i z e and r a t e of f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n .

In the equations f o r d i s t r i c t s growing sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t (Table 31 ) ,the r e s u l t s were not cons i s ten t w i t h regard to farm s i z e . In 1 8 equat ions, t h i sv a r i a b l e was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t , and in 13 i t had a p o s i t i v e s i g n . Thehypothesis t h a t farm s i ze has a negat ive i n f l u e n c e on f e r t i l i z e r use was basedon the l o g i c t h a t due to g rea ter pressure to employ land-aug menting p r a c t i c e s ,smal ler farms would have more i n p u t - i n t e n s i v e c u l t i v a t i o n . One must no te ,however, t h a t t h i s v a r i a b l e could a lso be i n t e r p r e t e d as a proxy f o rsocioeconomic s t a tus and the c a p i t a l p o s i t i o n of the farmer , both of which arel i k e l y t o b e p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o f e r t i l i z e r use. This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i sperhaps more app rop r i a te w i t h regard to the IASRI a n a l y s i s , because v a r i a b l e smeasuring these a t t r i b u t e s (such as educat ion and c r e d i t ) w ere not e x p l i c i t l yi nc luded . One thus needs to i n t e r p r e t the r e s u l t s p e r t a i n i n g to t h i s v a r i a b l ec a r e f u l l y . On the basis of the more complete ly s p e c i f i e d mod el used on theICRISAT VLS data , one can conclude t h a t the e f f e c t of farm s i z e was nega t i ve . A p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e could a lso a r i s e i n areas l i k e Sholapur where f e r t i l i z e r usewas a r e l a t i v e l y recent ly -adopted p r a c t i c e . During the i n i t i a l phase ofadopt ion such a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s more l i k e l y .

The household-size v a r i a b l e was considered in the VLS regr ess ions as ani n d i c a t o r o f h igher subsistence pressure, b e t t e r a v a i l a b i l i t y o f l a b o r , andb e t t e r access to and exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n — a l l hypothes ized to exer t a favo rab le i n f l u e n c e on f e r t i l i z e r use. The r e s u l t s (Tables 29 and 30) , however,were not c l e a r . Both farm- and p l o t - l e v e l regress ions reve aled a p o s i t i v ei n f l u e n c e o n ra tes o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n , but i n the a r e a - f e r t i l i z e dregress ions , the c o e f f i c i e n t s tu rned out to be negat ive in 2 out of 4 equat ions(Table 29) .

I r r i g a t i o n , as expected, was found to exerc ise a s t rong p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c eon f e r t i l i z e r use. I t s e f f e c t was more pronounced on f e r t i l i z a t i o n r a t e s i n thep l o t - l e v e l regress ions (Table 30) because t h i s v a r i a b l e w as s p e c i f i e d mored i r e c t l y i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . 2 8 The c o e f f i c i e n t s o f t h i s v a r i a b l e i n theMahbubnagar r a t e equat ions (Tables 29 and 30) were not s i g n i f i c a n t , probablybecause of the lack of v a r i a b i l i t y : almost a l l f e r t i l i z e d p l o t s were i r r i g a t e di n t h i s r e g i o n . Thus the r e s u l t s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t i r r i g a t i o n s t r o n g l yi n f l uenced dec is ions regard ing a c t u a l r a tes o f a p p l i c a t i o n , a l though i t s e f f e c t

28. In the f a r m - l e v e l a n a l y s i s , average i r r i g a t i o n a v a i l a b i l i t y on the farm wasconsidered, whereas i n the p l o t - l e v e l a n a l y s i s the s t a t u s o f t h i s v a r i a b l ei n the p l o t a c t u a l l y f e r t i l i z e d was s p e c i f i e d .

60

on f e r t i l i z e d area was a lso s i g n i f i c a n t (Table 29). I n t e r e s t i n g l y , thei r r i g a t e d ra tes were found to be higher in Akola also? Table 13 (Chapter I I )had not revealed t h i s tendency c l e a r l y .

Equa l ly i n t e r e s t i n g were the f i n d i n g s on the i n f l uence o f f a c t o r s d e p i c t i n gthe agronomic c o n d i t i o n s of the p l o t s a c t u a l l y being f e r t i l i z e d . There was ani n d i c a t i o n (Table 30) t h a t black s o i l s were f e r t i l i z e d at higher l e v e l s thanother s o i l t ypes . Th is t r end was noted i n the Akola and Mahbubnagar reg ions.The n i t r o g e n - r a t e equat ion in Sholapur, perhaps because of the preponderance ofblack s o i l s i n t h i s r e g i o n , c a r r i e d a n i n c o n s i s t e n t s i g n .

The IASRI a n a l y s i s looked at the impact of the t e x t u r a l s t a tu s of the s o i lon f e r t i l i z a t i o n r a t e s . This v a r i a b l e was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t in 26equat ions , and i n 19, i t had the hypothesized s igns . This i n d i c a t e d t h a t ,g e n e r a l l y , crops grown on h e a v i e r - t e x t u r e d p l o t s were f e r t i l i z e d a t higherr a t e s . I n some d i s t r i c t s (Satara, Anantapur, and Shimoga), a negat ive i n f l u e n c ewas observed. One would need more d e t a i l e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of the s o i lc o n d i t i o n s to e x p l a i n these apparent i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . In sum, the r e s u l t s o fboth the analyses i n d i c a t e d t h a t s o i l s (and p l o t s ) w i t h high erm o i s t u r e - r e t e n t i o n capac i t y were f e r t i l i z e d at higher r a t e s . This h i g h l i g h t sthe c r u c i a l importance o f s o i l - m o i s t u r e cond i t i ons in the context o ff e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec i s ions in the SAT.

An attempt was made t o t e s t the hypothesis t h a t farmers' dec is ions werealso i n f l uenced by the drainage c o n d i t i o n of the p l o t and t h a t poo r l y -d ra inedp l o t s were f e r t i l i z e d a t lower l e v e l s . This v a r i a b l e was not found t o bes i g n i f i c a n t in most o f the d i s t r i c t s (Table 31); even in the e i g h t equat ionswhere i t was found s i g n i f i c a n t , the signs were e r r a t i c . I t ma y be noted t h a t ,g e n e r a l l y , n e i t h e r sorghum nor p e a r l m i l l e t was grown on p l o t s prone towa te r l ogg ing , and t h i s might have been the reason f o r i n d i f f e r e n t response toquest ions on dra inage. The r e s u l t s do not permit any conclu sions regard ing thei n f l u e n c e o f t h i s v a r i a b l e .

The VLS regress ions (Table 30) d i d not show any i n f l u e n c e o f p l o t ownershipand h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s on f e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec i s ions . While the former canbe exp la ined by the very l i m i t e d number of leased- in f e r t i l i z e d p l o t s , thel a t t e r f i n d i n g was s u r p r i s i n g and went against the accepte d view. Theh i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s have been shown t o be more f e r t i l i z e r consuming (NCAER1978) i n a l l s t u d i e s . The data revealed t ha t t h i s dummy v a r i a b l e was h i g h l yc o r r e l a t e d w i t h i r r i g a t i o n and pure-crop v a r i a b l e s . These appeared t o capturethe i n f l u e n c e o f the v a r i e t y v a r i a b l e a l so .

Timel iness of sowing was a lso hypothesized to i n f l u e n c e f e r t i l i z e r usep o s i t i v e l y . Farmers were assumed to be aware t h a t l a t e sowi ng causes lowery i e l d s and, t h e r e f o r e , lowers the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f f e r t i l i z e r s . This v a r i a b l ewas s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t in 9 equations f o r sorghum an d in 14 f o r pea r lm i l l e t (Table 31) , and seemed t o p o s i t i v e l y i n f l u e n c e f e r t i l i z a t i o n r a t e s . Theevidence showed up r e l a t i v e l y more s t r o n g l y f o r p e a r l m i l l e t . I n the case ofsorghum, the s igns were i n c o n s i s t e n t in 4 out of 9 equat ions.

Previous f e r t i l i z a t i o n h i s t o r y of the p l o t was assumed t o have been takeni n t o account w h i l e making cu r ren t f e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec is io ns (IASRI a n a l y s i s ) . I twas hypothesized t h a t p l o t s f e r t i l i z e d in the prev ious seas on would rece iver e l a t i v e l y lower importance in the cu r ren t season. This v a r i a b l e a lso fa redr e l a t i v e l y b e t t e r i n the d i s t r i c t s growing p e a r l m i l l e t (Table 31) . Forsorghum, the r e s u l t s were mixed. Obviously, the ra the r weak ly -spec i f i ed natureof t h i s v a r i a b l e a f f e c t e d the r e s u l t s ob ta ined. Neverthele ss, the re was ani n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h i s v a r i a b l e entered the farmers' decisio n-making process.

61

We hypothesized t h a t the nature of crop grown (so le o r mixed) a lsoin f l uenced f e r t i l i z e r - u s e d e c i s i o n s , and t h a t mixed crops were f e r t i l i z e d a tlower ra tes as compared to so le crops (Table 14). The VLS regr ess ion r e s u l t ssupported t h i s hypothesis and in the pooled as w e l l as in th e Akola equat ions(Table 29) , t h i s v a r i a b l e was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t . I t may be r e c a l l e d t h a ti t was on ly i n Akola t h a t mixed crops claimed a s i g n i f i c a n t share o f the t o t a lf e r t i l i z e r used.

I n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r s . C r e d i t was hypothesized as a ma jor c o n s t r a i n t onf e r t i l i z e r use. This v a r i a b l e was considered in the VLS regress ions (Tables 29and 30). I t emerged s i g n i f i c a n t in on ly a few f a r m - l e v e l re gress ions (Table29); the p l o t - l e v e l ana l ys i s (Table 30) d i d not show t h i s v a r i a b l e t o bes i g n i f i c a n t in any case. The r e s u l t s thus d i d not revea l t h i s v a r i a b l e to beoverwhelmingly impor tan t . However, i t should be noted t h a t t h i s v a r i a b l e wass p e c i f i e d as the t o t a l borrowings of the farmer, i r r e s p e c t i v e of the use theyhave been put t o . This s p e c i f i c a t i o n might have l e d to the i n d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t sobtained f o r t h i s v a r i a b l e . I t may b e r e c a l l e d t h a t i n re gress ions e x p l a i n i n gi n t e r r e g i o n a l v a r i a t i o n i n f e r t i l i z e r adopt ion and us e on h i g h - y i e l d i n gv a r i e t i e s o f sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t (Chapter I I I , T able 26) , c r e d i t emerged a san important v a r i a b l e . In t h i s a n a l y s i s , c r e d i t was s p e c i f i e d as the a c t u a ll e v e l of borrowings f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l purposes. A number of s tud ies (NCAER 1978,Maharaja 1975, and Jha and Sar in 1981) have shown t h a t inad equacy of c a p i t a lp lays an important r e s t r i c t i v e r o l e i n adopt ion and use o f f e r t i l i z e r s .

The ex ten t of commerc ia l i za t ion was a l so hypothesized to p o s i t i v e l yi n f l u e n c e f e r t i l i z e r use. I n almost a l l the VLS equat ion s, the v a r i a b l e had thewrong s ign (Tables 29 and 30) . These r e s u l t s a l so stem med from poors p e c i f i c a t i o n . I t may be r e c a l l e d t h a t area under c ommercial crops such asc o t t o n , groundnut, c a s t o r , sugarcane, and vegetables was used to dep ic t t h i sv a r i a b l e . Sugarcane and vegetables were q u a n t i t a t i v e l y n o n s i g n i f i c a n t , and theres t were p r i m a r i l y r a i n f e d crops w i t h lower f e r t i l i z e r - u s e va lues. Thisv a r i a b l e thus appeared t o capture the e f f e c t s of i r r i g a t i o n (or lack of i t ) mores t r o n g l y than commerc ia l i za t i on .

Of the two p r i c e v a r i a b l e s considered, produce p r i c e d i d not emerge ass i g n i f i c a n t in any p l o t - l e v e l VLS regress ion (Table 30) . Since p l o t s growingd i f f e r e n t crops were pooled in t h i s a n a l y s i s , we expec ted a p o s i t i v e c o e f f i c i e n tf o r t h i s v a r i a b l e to support the hypothesis t h a t h igh-va lu e crops weref e r t i l i z e d a t h igher r a t e s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t was a poor proxy f o rp r o f i t a b i l i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n .

F e r t i l i z e r p r i c e , on the other hand, had the expected s ign in mostequations where i t was s i g n i f i c a n t (Tables 29, 30, and 31) . Exceptions were thef a r m - l e v e l VLS regress ions (Table 29) which showed t h i s v a r i a b l e to bep o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o average r a t e o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n . But i n t h i s casea l s o , the s igns were as expected f o r the n i t r o g e n r a t e equat ions. In the IASRIa n a l y s i s (Table 31) t h i s v a r i a b l e emerged s i g n i f i c a n t in 40 equations and thes igns were as expected in a l l but s i x of these equat ions. The f a c t t h a t we wereable to i d e n t i f y p r i c e e f f e c t s from c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l d ata sets suggested theex is tence o f i n t e r f a r m p r i c e d i f f e r e n t i a l s . We conside r i t a major c o n t r i b u t i o nbecause almost a l l s t u d i e s based on c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l dat a assume t h a t suchv a r i a t i o n s do not e x i s t and, a c c o r d i n g l y , do not inc lu de a p r i c e v a r i a b l e in themodel. I t should b e noted t h a t i n our s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , p r i c e v a r i a t i o n coulda r i s e from two sources (apart from a temporal element in the VLS d a t a ) :i n t e r f a r m d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r i c e s pa id f o r the same f e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l , and useof d i f f e r e n t f e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l s (mix tures or complex f e r t i l i z e r s ) which leadsto d i f f e r e n t p r i c e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l n u t r i e n t s , depending on the weights thesen u t r i e n t s c a r r y i n the t o t a l f e r t i l i z e r mix. S i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h i s

62

v a r i a b l e i m p l i e d t h a t farmers were aware o f t h i s s u b t l e p r i c e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o nphenomenon and responded r a t i o n a l l y t o changes i n r e a l p r i c e s of f e r t i l i z e rn u t r i e n t s . Th is f i n d i n g has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r r e t a i l t rad e i n f e r t i l i z e r s . W es h a l l come back t o t h i s l a t e r .

A g r o c l i m a t i c f a c t o r s . The most important r e s u l t under t h i s set o f v a r i a b l e sp e r t a i n e d to the i n f l u e n c e o f r a i n f a l l on f e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec i s i ons . The VLSf a r m - l e v e l regress ions (Table 29) revealed t h a t r a i n f a l l was an importantdeterminant of dec i s i ons regard ing ra tes as w e l l as ex tent of cropped areaf e r t i l i z e d . Because of l i m i t e d v a r i a t i o n of the dependent v a r i a b l e , ther e l a t i o n s h i p between a g r o c l i m a t i c changes and f e r t i l i z e r use was nots t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . These equations a lso i n d i c a t e d t h a t very h ighr a i n f a l l adverse ly a f f e c t e d n i t r o g e n use and t h a t the e f f e c t was more importantin the l o w - r a i n f a l l areas (Sholapur and Mahbubnagar).

A d i f f e r e n t approach was employed in the IASRI d i s t r i c t - l e v e l ana l ys i s t h a tused farmers' op in ions regard ing adequacy of r a i n f a l l as the exp lanatoryv a r i a b l e . The r e s u l t s (Table 31) i n d i c a t e d t h a t adequa cy of r a i n f a l l dur ing thecropping season p o s i t i v e l y i n f l uenced f e r t i l i z e r use on sorghum. Out of 19equat ions in which t h i s v a r i a b l e was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t , 14 c a r r i e d thehypothesized s i g n . Resul ts were i nconc lus i ve f o r p e a r l m i l l e t , perhaps becausep e a r l m i l l e t hyb r i ds were more f r e q u e n t l y grown under i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s . I tmay be r e c a l l e d t h a t a s i m i l a r phenomenon was observed ( Table 26) in regressionsbased on 4 years' data .

The s i g n i f i c a n c e of v i l l a g e and year dummies i n the VLS regressions (Tables29 and 30) emphasized the l o c a t i o n - and t ime-induced v a r i a b i l i t y in f e r t i l i z e ruse. Several f a c t o r s t h a t we could not spec i f y in our models could berespons ib le f o r t h i s . For example, seasonal occurren ce of pests and diseases,a v a i l a b i l i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r , access t o markets, and the f e r t i l i z e r - d i s t r i b u t i o nnetwork may a l l a f f e c t f e r t i l i z e r use. Some of these cannot be adequatelys p e c i f i e d i n m i c r o l e v e l models.

We w i l l now look a t i n t e r r e g i o n a l v a r i a b i l i t y . Here, the VLS a n a l y s i s i smore re l evan t s ince the necessary background data on the areas s tud ied area v a i l a b l e .

F e r t i l i z e r use was lowest in the Sholapur reg ion . The re gress ionsi n d i c a t e d t h a t f e r t i l i z e r u s e i n t h i s r e g i o n was p r i m a r i l y determined b y s o i lmo is tu re . I r r i g a t i o n and r a i n f a l l dur ing the growing pe r iod were the pr imarydeterminants . There was a lso an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the v a r i a b l e s , r i s k avers ionand e x p e r i e n c e , i n f l u e n c e d dec is ions regard ing ra te o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n .T h e s e r e s u l t s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e h i g h - r i s k e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z et h i s area.

I n Akola, f e r t i l i z e r use was h igher , and n o n i r r i g a t e d crops were a lsof e r t i l i z e d . I r r i g a t i o n , household s i z e , experience, f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e , andagronomic f a c t o r s l i k e s o i l type and cropping were f ound to be important in t h i sr e g i o n . F e r t i l i z e r use was i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to farm s i z e . I n t e r e s t i n g l y ,r a i n f a l l d i d not appear t o be a s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e i n an y equat ion f o r t h i sr e g i o n . I t may be r e c a l l e d t h a t t h i s reg ion received r e l a t i v e l y h igher and mores t a b l e r a i n f a l l than the other regions s t u d i e d .

I n Mahbubnagar, f e r t i l i z e r use was conf ined t o i r r i g a t e d crops. Farmerswho used more i r r i g a t i o n a l so used more f e r t i l i z e r . Education and experiencewere the important personal f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g f e r t i l i z e r use i n t h i s r eg ion .There were i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e , household s i z e , and r a i n f a l l were

63

a lso impor tan t . The farm- and p l o t - l e v e l regress ions gave c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t sf o r the r i s k - a v e r s i o n v a r i a b l e . 2 9

Conclusions

M u l t i p l e - r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s was used on ICRISAT V i l l a g e - L e v e l Studies data andon data obta ined from IASRI to i d e n t i f y major f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g f e r t i l i z e r - u s ed e c i s i o n s . The basic model employed hypothesized t h a t pers onal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,resource endowments, a c t u a l c u l t i v a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s , and i n s t i t u t i o n a l anda g r o c l i m a t i c f a c t o r s were the broad i n f l u e n c e s ope ra t i ng o n farmers ' dec i s ionsregard ing ra tes o f a p p l i c a t i o n and ex ten t o f cropped area f e r t i l i z e d .

The r e s u l t s of these analyses i n d i c a t e d t h a t s o i l mo is ture was the mostimportant determinant o f f e r t i l i z e r use in the semi -a r id t r o p i c s . Areas andfarms w i t h wel l -developed i r r i g a t i o n showed higher f e r t i l i z e r use. I n thel o w - r a i n f a l l areas, f e r t i l i z e r use was i n f l uenced by r a i n f a l l . The importanceo f extens ion o f i r r i g a t i o n i s obvious. Evidence on adjustments made by farmersto changes in seasonal r a i n f a l l has an impor tant i m p l i c a t i o n f o r ex tens ionprograms, p a r t i c u l a r l y in areas having low and unstab le r a i n f a l l . The genera lp r a c t i c e o f making a f i x e d , s i ng le - va lued recommendation regard ing f e r t i l i z e ruse i s c l e a r l y u n r e a l i s t i c . Farmers should be presented w i t h a more f l e x i b l epackage of recommendations t h a t would he lp them minimize t he chances of l a r g ec a p i t a l l oss in the event o f unfavorab le weather and ye t p rov ide f o r s t r a t e g i e st h a t w i l l enable them t o make t e c h n i c a l l y op t ima l dec is ions depending onseasonal c o n d i t i o n s as they u n f o l d . The r o l e of an e f f e c t i v e ex tens ion s e r v i c ewas a lso emphasized by the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the knowledge v a r i a b l e s in theregress ions .

Resul ts w i t h respect t o p l o t - s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e dt h a t the expected response to f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n was a n extremely importantdeterminant of f e r t i l i z e r use. The ra tes were found t o be higher on p l o t shaving b e t t e r m o i s t u r e - r e t e n t i o n c a p a c i t y , p l o t s growing so le r a t h e r than mixedcrops, and on p l o t s sown a t the r i g h t t ime . A l l these i n d i c a t e d t h a t farmers i nthe SAT are becoming conscious of the f i n e r p o i n t s of f e r t i l i z e r - u s e technology.The farmers were a lso found to make adjustments in respo nse to changes inseasonal r a i n f a l l c o n d i t i o n s . Th is r e f l e c t s t h e i r e n t e r p r i s e and s i g n i f i e s a r a t i o n a l approach i n a s i t u a t i o n where the s t a t u s of the most c r i t i c a lp roduc t ion i n p u t — s o i l m o i s t u r e — i s u n c e r t a i n .

Risk avers ion was found to be an important determinant of f e r t i l i z e r use inthe l o w - r a i n f a l l , unstab le reg ions . I n the other regions i t was not impor tan t .This suggested t h a t t h i s v a r i a b l e was not a u n i v e r s a l d e t e r r e n t t o f e r t i l i z e ruse i n the SAT. Where the environment i t s e l f was h i g h l y r i s k y , the v a r i a b l eassumed s i g n i f i c a n c e . Experience w i t h f e r t i l i z e r s , and e d u c a t i o n — b o t h

29. A separate a n a l y s i s was a lso c a r r i e d out t o model the dec i s i on on f e r t i l i z e radopt ion f o r the 144 households who were in the VLS s ample f o r 3 consecut ivecropping years from 1975-76 (Binswanger e t a l . 1982). I r r i g a t i o n i n t e n s i t yand household weal th were the most important cons ide ra t i ons i n f e r t i l i z e radopt ion . V i l l a g e dummies a l so e x h i b i t e d a s t rong e f f e c t on adopt ion .However, no personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c had a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n ti n f l u e n c e on the adopt ion d e c i s i o n . The weak impact of perso nalc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n f e r t i l i z e r adopt ion i s probably due i n p a r t t o thenecess i t y o f i r r i g a t i o n t o achieve a p o s i t i v e payof f from f e r t i l i z e r (on lyabout h a l f o f the households had access to i r r i g a t i o n ) • Tha t r i s k - a v e r s i o nhad no e f f e c t on f e r t i l i z e r adopt ion may be r e l a t e d t o the composi t ion ofthe d i f f e r e n t c o n s t i t u e n t s / elements used as f e r t i l i z e r . Even a farmer whoviews investment i n f e r t i l i z e r a s r i s k y could experiment w i t h i t o n a smal lp l o t f o r a minimal commitment of funds.

64

i n d i c a t o r s o f the l e v e l o f farmers' knowledge—were the ot her personalc h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which i n f l uenced f e r t i l i z e r use.

F e r t i l i z e r p r i c e s and c r e d i t emerged as important i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r si n f l u e n c i n g f e r t i l i z e r - u s e dec i s i ons . Several researche rs have emphasized thec o n s t r a i n t imposed by c a p i t a l s c a r c i t y . I n s t i t u t i o n a l f i n a n c i n g i s now beingaccorded a h igh p r i o r i t y in development programs. Evid ence on the s i g n i f i c a n c eo f the p r i c e v a r i a b l e suggested the presence o f c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l p r i c e v a r i a t i o ndesp i te f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e s being s t a t u t o r i l y f i x e d . I t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t thesea r i s e from t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs alone. We be l i eve t h a t i mper fec t ions in ther e t a i l t r ade (which r e s t r i c t access and l i m i t a v a i l a b i l i t y o f the r i g h t k ind o ff e r t i l i z e r m a t e r i a l s at the proper t ime) compel farmers t o purchase f e r t i l i z e ra t d i f f e r e n t p r i c e s depending on the f e r t i l i z e r mix a v a i l a b l e i n the market.Thus, from the p o i n t o f view o f p o l i c y , s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the p r i c e v a r i a b l ei n d i c a t e s the need f o r improvement i n the r e t a i l t rade o f f e r t i l i z e r s byinc reas ing the number of r e t a i l p o i n t s , t i m e l y a v a i l a b i l i t y of the r i g h t k indso f f e r t i l i z e r , f r e e access t o f e r t i l i z e r c r e d i t , e t c .

V. Summary and ImplicationsSummary

The s t r u c t u r a l p r o f i l e o f f e r t i l i z e r consumption i n the country i n d i c a t e s t h a tthe i r r i g a t e d lands c l a im most of the f e r t i l i z e r used i n the Ind ian SAT. Therei s some use of f e r t i l i z e r on d ry land crops i n areas r e c e i v i n g r e l a t i v e l y h ighr a i n f a l l , but i n the l o w - r a i n f a l l reg ions , f e r t i l i z e r use i s almost e n t i r e l yconf ined to i r r i g a t e d crops. I r r i g a t e d farming has pr ov ided the main source ofgrowth i n f e r t i l i z e r consumption throughout the 1960s and 1970s. This t r e n d i sl i k e l y t o cont inue because a considerable f r a c t i o n o f the i r r i g a t e d area i ss t i l l u n f e r t i l i z e d , and f u t u r e e f f o r t s toward i n t e n s i f i c a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r ew i l l obv ious ly i n v o l v e e x p l o i t a t i o n o f t h i s s lack .

I n areas where i r r i g a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s are meagre and c r e a t i o n of newi r r i g a t i o n p o t e n t i a l c o s t l y — t h e s i t u a t i o n i n most o f p en insu lar I n d i a — u s e o ff e r t i l i z e r s on n o n i r r i g a t e d lands depends on adequacy and s t a b i l i t y of r a i n f a l land the r e s u l t a n t s t a b i l i t y o f responses and f e r t i l i z e r responsiveness o fd i f f e r e n t crops. Areas and crops favourab ly endowed i n t h i s regard are l i k e l yt o show acce le ra ted growth i n f e r t i l i z e r consumption. These tendencies canc l e a r l y be i n f e r r e d from the analyses presented in the preceding chapters .

The d i s t i n c t i o n between i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e d s i t u a t i o n s i s c r u c i a l :the p roduc t ion p a t t e r n s , i n t e n s i t y o f inpu t use, and the problems are a l ld i f f e r e n t . I t i s perhaps more important t o recognize t h a t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i snot geographic. I r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e d p l o t s e x i s t s ide by s ide and eachfarmer u s u a l l y possesses both k inds . This i n t e g r a t i o n c a l l s f o r choices, noton ly w i t h regard t o f e r t i l i z e r but w i t h respect t o a l l i n p u t s . Farmers accordp r i o r i t y t o the h igher -va lue (and higher response) c rops i n a l l o c a t i n g t h e i rscarce i r r i g a t i o n and l i q u i d c a p i t a l resources.

P r o f i t a b i l i t y of f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n and assurance of response have beenthe major fo rces m o t i v a t i n g f e r t i l i z e r use in the Ind ian SAT. This leads toemphasis on i r r i g a t e d crops, commercial crops, and high -response v a r i e t i e s ofn o n i r r i g a t e d crops. T r a d i t i o n a l , low-response v a r i e t i e s o f cerea ls and pu lses ,which occupy a bulk of the cropped area, are u s u a l l y not f e r t i l i z e d . Theimportance of assured r e t u r n s can be appreciated fro m the f a c t t h a t farmers donot use f e r t i l i z e r under n o n i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n s in l o w - r a i n f a l l areas (wheres o i l - m o i s t u r e s t a t u s i s low and u n c e r t a i n ) ; even i n r e l a t i v e l y h i g h - r a i n f a l lareas, f e r t i l i z e r use i s higher o n s o i l s having r e l a t i v e l y h ighm o i s t u r e - r e t e n t i o n capac i t y . Farmers show t h e i r awareness of the s t a t u s of s o i l

65

moisture b y a d j u s t i n g t h e i r f e r t i l i z e r use according t o occ urrence o f r a i n f a l l .Hence, i n the h i g h l y (monsoon) unstab le reg ions l i k e Sholapur, they do notu s u a l l y apply f e r t i l i z e r t o r a i n f e d crops i n the r a i n y seaso n, but p r e f e r t ow a i t t i l l the s t a tus o f s o i l mois ture i s known w i t h r e l a t i v e c e r t a i n t y i n thep o s t r a i n y season.

These phenomena l a r g e l y e x p l a i n the observed adopt ion and d i f f u s i o n p a t t e r nof f e r t i l i z e r use in the I nd ian SAT. F e r t i l i z e r use in the n o n i r r i g a t e d SATcommenced i n earnest on ly a f t e r the mid-1960s, when f e r t i l i z e r - r e s p o n s i v ev a r i e t i e s became a v a i l a b l e . The pace of d i f f u s i o n has s ince been r a p i d i n areaswhere the c e r t a i n t y c o n d i t i o n s have been favou rab le ; i n o t h e r s , i t has beent a r d y and u n c e r t a i n , cha rac te r i zed by i n t e r m i t t e n t r a the r than cont inuous use.Moreover, these are the areas t h a t pose the most se r ious chal lenge f o ra g r i c u l t u r a l research.

The importance of f e r t i l i z e r responsiveness was c l e a r l y brought out by thea n a l y s i s f o r h i g h - y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s o f sorghum and p e a r l m i l l e t — t h e two majorfood -g ra in crops grown on the dry lands o f SAT I n d i a . Farmers do use f e r t i l i z e ron these low-value, n o n i r r i g a t e d crops a l s o , p rov ided the responses area t t r a c t i v e . I t i s lack o f f e r t i l i z e r - r e s p o n s i v e n e s s t h a t i s the major b a r r i e rfrom the t e c h n o l o g i c a l p o i n t o f view.

We have presented cons iderab le evidence to show t h a t farmers are consciouso f the t e c h n i c a l e f f i c i e n c y o f f e r t i l i z e r use. The i r f e r t i l i z e r use dec is ionsare i n f l uenced by f a c t o r s such as r e l a t i v e response to f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n ,t i m e l i n e s s o f sowing, s o i l t ype , and seasonal r a i n f a l l c o n d i t i o n s — a l l o f whichhave an important bear ing on the e f f i c i e n c y o f f e r t i l i z e r use. Th is i n d i c a t e sthe growing m a t u r i t y of SAT farmers. The evidence a l so shows t h a t t he re isscope f o r improvement i n t h i s regard, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t he context o f balanceduse of p l a n t n u t r i e n t s and t i m i n g o f f e r t i l i z e r a p p l i c a t i o n . These p r a c t i c e sshould b e emphasized i n the ex tens ion programs. I n t h i s c o n t e x t , i t i s a l sore levan t t o note t h a t r e l a t i v e l y few f e r t i l i z e r users r e a l l y know about s p e c i f i crecommendations regard ing f e r t i l i z e r use, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r n o n i r r i g a t e d crops.These weaknesses in the extens ion programs need to be remo ved. Our r e s u l t srevealed t h a t knowledge—represented by farmers 1 experience w i t h f e r t i l i z e r ande d u c a t i o n — i s an important determinant of f e r t i l i z e r use. Extension has a c r u c i a l r o l e t o p lay i n t h i s regard.

Risk avers ion is o f t e n be l i eved to be a reason f o r nonadopt ion or low l e v e lo f f e r t i l i z e r use. Our a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s v a r i a b l e i s impor tant on lyi n the r e l a t i v e l y low- and u n s t a b l e - r a i n f a l l areas, t h a t i s , areas where theinherent environmental r i s k i s h i g h .

C r e d i t and f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e s were i d e n t i f i e d as important i n s t i t u t i o n a lf a c t o r s . C a p i t a l r a t i o n i n g (coupled w i t h problems o f a v a i l a b i l i t y ) r e s t r i c t so u t l a y on f e r t i l i z e r s below optimum requirements, and t h i s i s mani fest in lowerspread of f e r t i l i z e r s in terms of area and crops covered (even on i r r i g a t e dlands) and in lower r a t e s o f a p p l i c a t i o n . I n our a n a l y s i s i n t e r f a r m v a r i a t i o ni n f e r t i l i z e r p r i c e s were mainly due t o imper fec t i ons i n thef e r t i l i z e r - d i s t r i b u t i o n system. The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t removal o f theseimper fec t ions w i l l r e s u l t i n higher f e r t i l i z e r use. These f i n d i n g s h i g h l i g h thow i n s t i t u t i o n a l improvements can promote f e r t i l i z e r us e and r a i s e cropp r o d u c t i v i t y .

Implications for Agricultural Research

1 . Research on s o i l - m o i s t u r e management must be accorded h igh p r i o r i t y .Adopt ion and use of modern i npu t s in SAT a g r i c u l t u r e depends on assurance ofr e t u r n s . Water i s the most important determinant o f s t a b i l i t y i n cropp r o d u c t i o n .

66

2. Resul ts f o r the l o w - r a i n f a l l regions revea l t h a t farmer s ad jus t n i t r o g e n useaccording to changing s o i l - m o i s t u r e c o n d i t i o n s , brought a bout by the q u a n t i t yand d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r a i n f a l l du r ing the crop-growth season. How moste f f i c i e n t l y t o achieve t h i s i s another quest ion which need s c a r e f u l research.

3. Emphasis on f e r t i l i z e r responsiveness must cont inue i n crop-improvementresearch. Pulses and o i l seeds deserve s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n i n t h i s regard.Th is a lso appears re levan t f o r p e a r l m i l l e t hybr ids under r a i n f e d c o n d i t i o n s .

4 . I t would be u s e f u l to c l a s s i f y the SAT according to adequa cy o f r a i n f a l l f o rr a i n fed - f a rm ing areas, and i n i t i a t e re levan t programs of r esearch f o r eachcategory. The Akola and Sholapur s i t u a t i o n s i l l u s t r a t e t h i s c l e a r l y . In thelow- and u n s t a b l e - r a i n f a l l reg ions , crop-improvement and agronomic researchshould aim at evo l v i ng technolog ies which prov ide h igh r e t u r n s under adverses o i l - m o i s t u r e c o n d i t i o n s . In f a c t , research programs shou ld be conf ined tosuch areas. The SAT p roduc t ion environment is h i g h l y d ive rs e and t h i sd i v e r s i t y must be r e f l e c t e d in the research s t r a t e g y .

5. Crop improvement and management research f o r n o n i r r i g a t e d crops should beevaluated a t r e l a t i v e l y lower f e r t i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s . Indee d, there i s a nurgent need to evaluate the f e r t i l i z e r - r e s p o n s e data f o r r a i n f e d crops toa s c e r t a i n whether the recommended l e v e l s are indeed op t ima l under a r i s k yenvironment.

Implications for Extension and Development Programs

1. Extension agencies have so f a r concentrated on i r r i g a t e d crops. Our r e s u l t si n d i c a t e t h a t p r o v i d i n g more i n f o r m a t i o n about improved d r y land a g r i c u l t u r ewould have s i g n i f i c a n t p a y o f f s .

2. No d i s t i n c t i o n other than l e v e l of a p p l i c a t i o n i s u s u a l l y made i nrecommendations regard ing f e r t i l i z e r use under i r r i g a t e d and n o n i r r i g a t e dc o n d i t i o n s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e the need f o r a f l e x i b l e r ecommendationpackage f o r r a i n f e d crops which would enable farmers to ad ju s t o p t i m a l l y tochanging seasonal c o n d i t i o n s . This aspect is w e l l accepted by researchworkers, but the ex tens ion agencies have not taken i t up in ea rnes t . Thiswould a lso c a l l f o r more dynamism i n the extension se rv ices and use o frapid-spread ex tens ion mass media t o o l s .

3. C r e d i t was i d e n t i f i e d as a very important c o n s t r a i n t , un derscor ing the needto s t rengthen and expand the i n s t i t u t i o n a l c r e d i t i n f r a s t r u c t u r e in the SAT.

4. Improvements in the f e r t i l i z e r - d i s t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r e and thef e r t i l i z e r - c r e d i t p o l i c i e s have an important bear ing on f e r t i l i z e r - u s edec is ions of the farmers. The need f o r an increase i n the number o f r e t a i lo u t l e t s and t i m e l y a v a i l a b i l i t y o f the r i g h t k inds o f f e r t i l i z e r i si n d i c a t e d . The f e r t i l i z e r - c r e d i t p o l i c y can p lay an impo rtant r o l e i nach iev ing balanced use of f e r t i l i z e r s . This aspect needs t o be s t u d i e d .

67

References

BAPNAr S.L., JHA, D., and JODHA, N.S. 1979. Agroeconomic f e a t u r e s o f semi -a r idt r o p i c a l I n d i a . Presented at the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Work shop on Socio-EconomicCons t ra in t s to Development of Semi-Arid T r o p i c a l A g r i c u l t u r e , 19-23 Feb1979, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, A.P., I n d i a .

BAPNA, S.L., and MURTY, B.R. 1976. Ba j ra p r o d u c t i o n : problems and prospects .New D e l h i , I n d i a : A l l i e d Pub l i she rs . 75 pp.

BARAH, B.C. 1976. Combining c ross -sec t i on and t ime s e r i e s data i n reg ress iona n a l y s i s . ICRISAT Economics Program r e p o r t (unpub l i she d) .

BINSWANGER, H.P. 1980. A t t i t u d e s towards r i s k : exper imenta l measurement i nr u r a l I n d i a . American Journa l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Econo mics 62(3):395-407.

BINSWANGER, H.P., JHA, D., BALARAMAIAH, T., and SILLE RS, DON, A. 1982. Theimpact o f a t t i t u d e s towards r i s k o n a g r i c u l t u r a l dec i s ions i n r u r a l I n d i a .ICRISAT Economics Program progress r e p o r t 42(unpub l ish ed) .

BINSWANGER, H.P., JODHA N.S., RYAN J.G., and von OPPE N M. 1977. Approach andhypotheses f o r the v i l l a g e l e v e l s t u d i e s of ICRISAT. ICRI SAT EconomicsProgram occasional paper 15(unpub l ished) .

DESAI, G.M. 1969. Growth of f e r t i l i z e r use i n I n d i a n a g r i c u l t u r e : past t rendsand f u t u r e demand. C o r n e l l I n t e r n a t i o n a l A g r i c u l t u r a l Development B u l l e t i n18. I t h a c a , New York, USA: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y .

DESAI, G.M. 1978. A c r i t i c a l review of f e r t i l i s e r consumption a f t e r 1974-75and prospects f o r f u t u r e growth. F e r t i l i s e r News 23(7):7-18.

DESAI, G.M., CHARY, P.N., and BANDHOPADHYAY, S.C. 1973. Dynamics of growth i nf e r t i l i z e r use a t m i c r o - l e v e l . Ahmedabad, G u j a r a t , I n d i a : I n d i a nI n s t i t u t e of Management, Centre f o r Management i n A g r i c u l t u r e .

DESAI, G.M., and MELLOR, J.W. 1969. Changing bas is o f demand f o r f e r t i l i s e r .Economic and P o l i t i c a l Weekly 4(39):A175-A187.

DESAI, G.M., and SINGH, G. 1973. Growth of f e r t i l i z e r use i n d i s t r i c t s o fI n d i a : performance and p o l i c y i m p l i c a t i o n s . Ahmedab ad, G u j a r a t , I n d i a :I n s t i t u t e of Management, Centre f o r Management i n A g r i c u l t u r e .

FAI ( F e r t i l i s e r A s s o c i a t i o n o f I n d i a ) . 1979. F e r t i l i z e r s t a t i s t i c s 1978-79.New D e l h i , I n d i a : FAI.

ICRISAT. 1981. Y i e l d gap a n a l y s i s : r e p o r t of the AICRPDA-IC RISAT WorkingGroup Meeting, 17-23 Feb 1980, ICRISAT, Patancheru, A.P ., I n d i a .

JHA, D. 1980. F e r t i l i z e r use and i t s determinants : a re view w i t h s p e c i a lre ference to semi -a r id t r o p i c a l I n d i a . ICRISAT Econ omics Program progressrepo r t 11(unpub l ished) .

JHA, D., RAHEJA, S.K., SARIN, R., and MEHROTRA, - P.C. 1981. F e r t i l i z e r use i nsemi-ar id t r o p i c a l I n d i a : the case o f h igh y i e l d i n g v a r i e t i e s o f sorghumand p e a r l m i l l e t . ICRISAT Economics Program progress r e p o r t22(unpubl ished) .

68

JHA, D., and SARIN, R. 1980. F e r t i l i z e r consumption and growth i n semi-ar idt r o p i c a l I n d i a : a d i s t r i c t - l e v e l a n a l y s i s . ICRISAT Economics Programprogress r e p o r t 10(unpubl ished) .

JHA, D., and SARIN, R. 1981. An a n a l y s i s of l e v e l s , p a t t e r n s and determinantso f f e r t i l i z e r use on farms in se lec ted regions o f semi-ar id t r o p i c a l I n d i a .ICRISAT Economics Program progress repor t 25(unpubl ish ed) .

JODHA, N.S. 1973. Prospects f o r coarse ce rea l s : permanent c o n s t r a i n t s ofjowar and b a j r a . Economic and P o l i t i c a l Weekly 8(52) :A145-A150.

JODHA, N.S. 1979. I n t e r c r o p p i n g i n t r a d i t i o n a l farming systems. ICRISATEconomics Program progress repo r t 3 (unpub l ished) .

JODHA, N.S. 1979. Some dimensions of t r a d i t i o n a l farming systems i n semi-ar idt r o p i c a l I n d i a . Pages 11-24 in Proceedings, I n t e r n a t i o n a l Workshop onSocioeconomic Cons t ra i n t s to Development o f Semi-Arid T r o p i c a l A g r i c u l t u r e ,19-23 Feb 1979, Hyderabad, A.P., I n d i a . Patancheru, A.P., I n d i a : ICRISAT.

JODHA, N.S., ASOKAN, M., and RYAN, J.G. 1977. V i l l a g e study methodology andresource endowments of se lec ted v i l l a g e s . ICRISAT Eco nomics Programoccas iona l paper 16(unpub l ished) .

KANWAR, J.S., DAS, M.N., SARDANA, M.G., and BAPAT, S.R. 1973. I s f e r t i l i s e ra p p l i c a t i o n s t o jowar , maize and b a j r a economical? F e r t i l i s e r News18(7):19-28.

KRISHNASWAMY, M.S., and PATEL, K.V. 1973. Status o f dry land a g r i c u l t u r e (Thetechnology o f d ry land a g r i c u l t u r e i n se lec ted v i l l a g e s o f B e l l a r y andPanchmahals d i s t r i c t s : 1970-71). V o l . 1 . CMA Monograph 39. Ahmedabad,G u j a r a t , I n d i a : I n d i a n I n s t i t u t e of Management, Centre f o r Management i nA g r i c u l t u r e .

MAHARAJA, M.H. 1975. Demand f o r f e r t i l i z e r s : an ana l ys i s of f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n gdemand and e s t i m a t i o n of f u t u r e demand (w i th spec ia l re ference to G u j a r a t ) .Baroda, G u j a r a t , I n d i a : Good Companions. 188 pp.

NCAER (Nat iona l Counci l of App l ied Economic Research). 1974. F e r t i l i z e r use onse lec ted crops i n I n d i a . New D e l h i , I n d i a : NCAER, and F e r t i l i s e rA s s o c i a t i o n o f I n d i a .

NCAER (Na t iona l Counci l o f App l ied Economic Research). 1978. I n t e r i m r e p o r t :f e r t i l i s e r demand survey. New D e l h i , I n d i a : NCAER.

PARIKH, A.K. 1965. Demand f o r n i t rogenous f e r t i l i z e r s : an econometric study.I nd ian Journa l of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics 20(3):13-19.

PATIL, A.S. 1978. An economic study of f e r t i l i z e r demand i n Ind iana g r i c u l t u r e . M.Sc. t h e s i s , I nd ian A g r i c u l t u r a l Researc h I n s t i t u t e , NewD e l h i , I n d i a .

RAHEJA, S.K., GOEL, B.B.P.S., BANERJI, A.K., MEHROTRA, P .C., RASTOGI, V.S., andGUPTA, S.S. 1976. Sample surveys f o r assessment of h igh y i e l d i n gv a r i e t i e s programme: annual repo r t 1973-74. New D e l h i , I n d i a : I n s t i t u t eo f A g r i c u l t u r a l Research S t a t i s t i c s .

RAO, M.S. 1973. P r o t e c t i o n to f e r t i l i z e r i n d u s t r y and i t s impact on Ind iana g r i c u l t u r e . Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago, Chica go, I l l i n o i s . ,USA.

69

REGO, I . J . , MORAGHAN, J.T., and SARDAR SINGH, 1982. Some aspects o f s o i ln i t r o g e n r e l a t i n g to double cropping of a deep V e r t i s o l in th e SAT.Presented at the 12th I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o i l Science Congress, 8-16 Feb 1982,New D e l h i , I n d i a .

SAHRAWAT, K.L., REGO, T.J., and BURFORD, J.R. 1979. Work experience i n r a i n f e dfarming systems a t ICRISAT w i t h s p e c i a l re ference t o f e r t i l i z e r use.Presented at the FAI Group Discussion on F e r t i l i z e r Use on Dr y lands, 17-18Aug 1979, F e r t i l i s e r Assoc ia t i on of I n d i a , New D e l h i , I n d i a .

SINGH, R.P. 1979. F e r t i l i z e r use i n dry lands o f Rajasthan and Haryana.Presented at the FAI Group Discussion on F e r t i l i z e r Use on Dr y lands, 17-18Aug 1979, F e r t i l i s e r Assoc ia t i on of I n d i a , New D e l h i , I n d i a .

SOHBATI, G.K. 1979. Role of f e r t i l i s e r i n d u s t r y i n f e r t i l i s e r promot ion.F e r t i l i s e r News 24(4):21-27.

UMRANI, N.K. 1979. Research achievements w i t h s p e c i a l re ference t o f e r t i l i z e ruse i n dry lands : suggest ions, f i e l d experience t o solve them i nMaharashtra. Presented at the FAI Group Discussion on F e r t i l i z e r Use onDrylands, 17-18 Aug 1979, F e r t i l i s e r A s s o c i a t i o n of I n d i a , New D e l h i ,I n d i a .

VENKATESWARLU, J. 1979. Dryland a g r i c u l t u r e - concepts and r e s u l t s i n prospectand re t rospec t w i t h s p e c i a l re ference to f e r t i l i z e r use. Pr esented a t theFAI Group Discussion on F e r t i l i s e r Use on Dry lands, 17-18 A ug 1979,F e r t i l i s e r Assoc ia t i on o f I n d i a , New D e l h i , I n d i a .

VIJAYALAKSHMI, K. 1979. Research achievements w i t h s p e c i a l re ference tof e r t i l i z e r use i n dry lands : Andhra Pradesh. Presented a t the FAI GroupDiscussion on F e r t i l i z e r Use on Drylands, 17-18 Aug 1979, F e r t i l i s e rAssoc ia t i on o f I n d i a , New D e l h i , I n d i a .

WALLACE, T.D., and HUSSAIN, A. 1969. The use of e r r o r components models i ncombining cross s e c t i o n w i t h t ime se r i es data . Econometri ca 37 ( l ) : 55 -72 .

70

Appendix I . R e l a t i v e p e r f o r

SATc a t e g o r y

N o n i r r i g a t e d

I r r i g a t e d

N o n i r r i g a t e d

I r r i g a t e d

*The g r o w t h < measured i n

rmance o f d i s t r i c t s reco rd ing h i g h * growth i n f e r t i l -izer consumption in the 1960s and 1970s .

Growth

1970s

HH

H

M

H

H

H

M

H

H

HML

H

H

HM

L

c a t e g o r i e st ) w e r e :

H igh (H)

MediumLow (L)

N o t e : The p o s i t i o n f o rS i n g h

i n :

1960s

HM

L

H

H

M

L

H

H

M

LHH

H

M

LH

H

Name o f t h e d i s t r i c t

NITROGEN

N a s i k , D h u l i a , J a l g a o n , K u r n o o l , and K a i r a .Ahmadnagar, S a t a r a , S a n g l i , K o l h a p u r , Myso re ,B e l l a r y , Be lgaum, R a i c h u r , Mahbubnagar, N a l g o n d a ,B a r o d a , Mehsana, S u r a t , and R a j k o t .Khammam, A l l a h a b a d , M i r z a p u r , S a b a r k a n t a , K h e r i ,B a h r a i c h , and H a r d o i .Gonda and B u l d h a n i .

G u n t u r , N izamabad, S . A r c o t , N . A r c o t ,C o i m b a t o r e , T i r u c h i r a p a l l i , M a d u r a i , Moradabad,R a e - B a r e i l y , T h a n j a v u r , E . G o d a v a r i , W. G o d a v a r i ,Mandya, G u r d a s p u r , A m r i t s a r , J u l l u n d e r , L u d h i a n a ,P a t i a l a , Amba la , K u r u k s h e t r a , M u z a f f a r n a g a r ,M e e r u t , B u l a n d s h a h r , G o r a k p u r , and D e o r i a .W a r a n g a l , K a r i m n a g a r , C h i n g l e p u t , A l i g a r h ,M a i n p u r i , Budaun, V a r a n a s i , K a p u r t h a l a ,S a h a r a n p u r , B i j n o r , and J a u n p u r .A g r a , B a r e i l y , Shah jahanpu r , Rampur, G h a z i p u r ,B a l l i a , Shimoga, and K a r n a l .Cuddapah, F a i z a b a d , B a s t i , H o s h i a r p u r , K r i s h n a ,and Ropar .

PHOSPHORUS

D h u l i a , J a l g a o n , Ahmadnagar, K o l h a p u r ,K u r n o o l , J u n a g a r h , R a j k o t , and A m r e l i .C h i t r a d u r g , B e l l a r y , Dharwar , Be lgaum, R a i c h u r ,Mahbubnagar , Na lgonda , S u r a t , and Bhavnagar .M y s o r e , Khammam, S a b a r k a n t a , and Hassan.N a s i k , B u l d h a n a , and S a t a r a .Poona and S a n g l i .

K r i s h n a , G u n t u r , Nizamabad, N . A r c o t ,C o i m b a t o r e , T h a n j a v u r , E . G o d a v a r i , W. G o d a v a r i ,Mandya, A m r i t s a r , K a p u r t h a l a , J u l l u n d e r , L u d h i a n a ,and G o r a k h p u r .W a r a n g a l , K a r i m n a g a r , M a d u r a i , A l i g a r h , E t a h ,F a r r u k h a b a d , V a r a n a s i , Shimoga, G u r d a s p u r ,H o s h i a r p u r , P a t i a l a , and K a r n a l .A g r a , M a i n p u r i , and G h a z i p u r .B u l a n d s h a h r , T i r u c h i r a p a l l i , Sa lem, S . A r c o t ,C h i n g l e p u t , M u z a f f a r n a g a r , and D e o r i a .B a s t i and M e e r u t .

( c l a s s i f i c a t i o n based o n annua l i nc remen t i n consump t i on

)

(M) :

t h e

301-750 101-300<300 <100

1960s was read f r o m maps 3 . 1 and 3 .2 in Desa i and( 1 9 7 3 ) . S i n c e t h e maps were n o t v e r y l e g i b l e / some m a r g i n a l e r r o r s

i n g r o w t h c a t e g o r: i e s f o r t h e 1960s a r e l i k e l y .

71

72

73

74

Appendix I V . Ac tua l ra tes o ff e r t i l i z e d )sorghum and

D i s t r i c t (S ta te )

Ja lgaon (Mah)Ahmadnagar (Mah)S a n g l i (Mah)Aurangabad (Mah)Parbhan i (Mah)B h i r (Mah)Sa ta ra (Mah)Osmanabad (Mah)Buldhana (Mah)Ako la (Mah)Amarava t i (Mah)Nanded (Mah)Wardha (Mah)Nagpur (Mah)Mandsaur (MP)Belgaum (Kar)B e l l a r y (Kar)Shimoga (Kar)Mysore (Kar)Anantapur (AP)Shimoga2 (Kar)

Banaskanta 2 (Guj)K a i r a 2 (Guj)R a j k o t 2 (Guj)H i s s a r 2 (Har)Rohtak 2 (Har)J a i p u r 2 (Raj)J a l g a o n 2 (Mah)Ahmadnagar2 (Mah)S a n g l i (Mah)Aurangabad 2 (Mah)Parbhan i (Mah)B h i r 1 (Mah)Sholapur (Mah)Morena2 (MP)Guntur (AP)C h i t t o o r (AP)N e l l o r e (AP)Coimbatore (TN)Madurai (TN)

andp e a r l

a p p l i c a t i o n o fex tentm i l l e t

Rate

Nkg /ha

A,

40726055472359293348423 1443563941338494757

f e r t i l i z e rof cropped areas fe

i n se lec ted d i s t r i c t s .

per f e r t i lha (HYV)

P 2 0 5kg /ha

i z e d

K2Okg /ha

. Sorghum d i s t r i c t s

27292527191927213327291518272427112436

035

B . P e a r l m i l l e t

503630464636326460292724285356754 19935

0423261

0172137

0191218

0382834224218

120

1512182 11316181722

415162924112332

033

d i s t r i c t s

0000008

280

181216

00

1633183318

n u t r i e n t sr t i l i zed fo r

(kg/haHYV of

% of a reaf e r t i l i z e d

N%

785339244324643888529047608181937290312497

23757765847074844736292227956298919074

P2O5%

63241915254 126328842722843797 160728917

095

01251

30

185428

0291621

0814854677457

(HYV)

K2O%

180

157

25252232562 1561434585456708517

074

000000

2080

161621

00

45464 16657

C o n t i n u e d .

75

Appendix IV cont inued.

D i s t r i c t (S ta te )

T i r u n e l v e l i 2 <TN)C h i n g l e p u t (TN)Co imba to re 1 (TN)M a d u r a i 1 (TN)T i r u n e l v e l i 1 , 2 (TN)C h i n g l e p u t 1 (TN)B e l l a r y 1 (Kar)

Source : Raheja e t a l .1 . P o s t r a i n y - s e a s o n c r

1976.op .

2 . T r a d i t i o n a l l y impo r t an t pear

Rate

Nkg/ha

74445218264864

per f e r t i l i z e dha (HYV)

P2O5kg/ha

283131

60

2630

K20kg/ha

282730

60

2426

: 1 m i l l e t p r o d u c i n g d i s t r i c t s .

f e r

N%

80918678408698

% of a reat i l i z e d

P2O5%

40755642

06383

(HYV)

K2O%

40715642

05779

76

I C R I S A T

INTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE SEMI-ARID TROPICS

ICRISAT Patancheru P.O.

Andhra Pradesh 5 0 2 3 2 4 , India