Study No. 141 Publication No. 189

Adoption of Recommended Doses of

Fertilizers on Soil Test Basis by Farmers in

Uttar Pradesh

Prof. Ramendu Roy

2014

Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad

Allahabad-211002

1

Preface

Indian agriculture has undergone massive transformation in the post independence era during

the last 65 years. Agricultural production has increased more than four folds from 51 million

tonnes in 1950-51 to 245 million tonnes in 210-11 (India – 2013). Fertilizer consumption in

terms of nutrients has increased from 0.69 million tonne in 1950-51 to 27.8 million tonnes in

2011-12 (fertilizer statistics – 2013). Such a phenomenal increase is the result of combined

effect of advancement in farm technology and government policies to encourage agricultural

production. However, still there are variations in food-grains productivity on account of the

regional imbalances in the use of fertilizers. The level of fertilizer consumption is highly

varying within and between the states of India. The consumption of fertilizers has also varied

across the size-groups of farmers with the highest fertilizers consumption reported among the

small farmers.

Examining the conditions of agriculture in Uttar Pradesh the technology of fertilizer

consumption is very much agreeable in the context where holdings are small, fragmented and

having a high pressure of surplus working hands. The state of Uttar Pradesh is predominantly

an agricultural state. After green revolution alike Punjab and Haryana the farmers in Uttar

Pradesh have also began experiencing the benefits of fertilizer application particularly in

cultivation of food-grains and other crops. Also it is rightly said that if HYV seed is the

vehicle for green revolution then fertilizer is the fuel which has moved it forward. Chemical

fertilizer is today the kingpin of Indian agriculture. The fertilizer consumption has increased

considerably in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

The study reveals that the higher change / impact in yield of Paddy (Crop-I) was found on

small farmers in comparison of the other farms and in the yield of Wheat (Crop-II) it was

found to be higher on the medium farms in the area under the study. About the changes after

application of recommended doses of fertilizers on the reference crops it was found that in

2

paddy maximum changes in crop yield growth and soil texture and in wheat maximum

changes in yield, grain filling and soil texture had occurred.

The main constraints in the way of application of recommended doses of fertilizers by the

non-soil tested farmers was lack of money and the soil testing laboratories being situated at

the far off distances from their fields and lack of awareness about the recommended doses of

fertilizers was also reported by majority of sample farmers in the area under the study.

The study was undertaken under my overall supervision. The field survey, tabulation and

analysis of data were conducted by Sri. S.N. Shukla and Sri. Hasib Ahmad of the centre and

the supervision as well as drafting of report was done by Dr. Rajendra Singh Ex. Research

Officer of the centre. I am very much thankful to all the concerned officials of the state,

district, block, village and other levels as well as to the sample farmers who assisted and

cooperated in this study selflessly at various stages.

Any comments and suggestions for improvement in the report are solicited and will be

acknowledged thankfully.

Agro-Economic Research Centre

University of Allahabad

Allahabad (Ramendu Roy)

Prof. & Hony. Director

Dated: 16/12/2014

3

Credit

Prof. Ramendu Roy Overall Supervision

Dr. Rajendra Singh Supervision of the Analysis of Data and the Drafting

of

Ex. R.O. Report

Shri. S.N. Shukla Planning and Conducting of Field Survey, Tabulation &

Analysis of Data

Shri. Hasib Ahmad -Do-

Shri Ovesh Ahmad Typing of the Report

Smt M. R. Kesarwani Secretarial Services

Shri S.D. Singh -Do-

Shri H.C. Upadhyay Photocopying of the Report

Shri. Raju Kumar Support Service

4

Contents

Preface 1 – 2

Credit 3

Contents 4

List of Table 5 – 7

Chapter – I Introduction 8 – 24

Chapter – II Trends in Fertilizer Consumption in the state of Uttar

Pradesh

25 – 31

Chapter – III Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Households –

Soil Test Farmers:

32 – 48

Chapter – IV Details of Soil Testing and Recommended Doses of

Fertilizers

49 – 58

Chapter – V Adoption of recommended Doses of Fertilizer and Its

Constraints

59 – 74

Chapter – VI Impact of Adoption of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers 75 – 80

Chapter – VII Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Policy

Recommendations

81 – 91

Appendix – I 92 – 94 Appendices

Appendix – II 95 – 96

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 97 – 112

5

LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title of Tables Page No.

Chapter-1

Table-1.1 Sampling Design 21

Chapter-II

Table-2.1

Trends of Season-wise Fertilizer Consumption in Terms of Material

(Product) in Uttar Pradesh During 2009-10 to 2013-14

26

Table-2.2

Trends of Season-wise Fertilizer Consumption in Terms of Nutrients

in Uttar Pradesh During 2009-10 to 2013-14

27

Table-2.3

Trends of per Hectare Consumption of Fertilizers in Terms of

Nutrients to Gross Cropped Area in Uttar Pradesh During 2009-10

to 2013-14

28

Table-2.4

Trends of Fertilizers Consumption for Paddy (Kharif) in Terms of

Nutrients in Uttar Pradesh During 2009-10 to 2013-14

29

Table-2.5 Trends of Fertilizers Consumption for Wheat (Rabi) in Terms of

Nutrients in Uttar Pradesh During 2009-10 to 2013-14

30

Chapter-III

Table-3.1 Socio-economic Characteristics of Sample Households- Soil Tested

Farmers

33

Table-3.2 Socio-economic Characteristics of Sample Households- Non-Soil

Tested Farmers

35

Table-3.3 Operational Landholding of the Sample Households

(acres/household)- Soil Tested Farmers

36

Table-3.4 Operational Landholding of the Sample Households

(acres/household)- Non-Soil Tested Farmers

36

Table-3.5 Source-wise Irrigated area (% of net irrigated area)on the farms of

Soil Tested Farmers

37

Table-3.6 Source-wise Irrigated area (% of net irrigated area) on the farms of

Non-Soil Tested Farmers

38

Table-3.7 Cropping Pattern of the Sample Households (% of GCA)- Soil

Tested Farmers

38

6

Table-3.8 Cropping Pattern of the Sample Households (% of GCA)- Non-Soil

Tested Farmers

39

Table-3.9 Area Under HYV of Major Crops (% of GCA) 40

Table-3.10 Aggregate Value of Crop Output 41

Table-3.11 Distribution of Farm Assets 42

Table-3.12 Agricultural Credit Outstanding by the Sample Households

(Rs/household)- Soil Tested Farmers

43

Table-3.13 Agricultural Credit Outstanding by the Sample Households

(Rs/household)- Non-Soil Testing Farmers

44

Table-3.14 Purpose of Agricultural Loan Availed (% of farmers)- Soil Tested

Farmers

45

Table-3.15 Purpose of Agricultural Loan Availed (% of farmers)- Non-Soil

Tested Farmers

46

Table-3.16 Training Programmes Attended on Application of Chemical

Fertilizers by the Sample Farmers

47

Chapter-IV

Table-4.1 Distribution of Sample Soil Tested Farmers: Crop I (Paddy) 50

Table-4.2 Distribution of Sample Soil Tested Farmers: Crop II (Wheat) 51

Table-4.3 Sources of Information about Soil Testing by Sample Households

(% of farmers)- Soil Tested Farmers

52

Table-4.4 Reasons for Soil Testing by Sample Households (% of farmers)-

Soil Tested Farmers

53

Table-4.5 Reasons for Not Testing Soil during the Last Three Years (% of

Farmers)- Non-Soil Tested Farmers

54

Table-4.6 Status of Soil Health in terms of Nutrients on the Sample Soil

Tested Farms

(as reported in the soil health card)- Soil Tested Farmers

55

Table-4.7 Average Quantity of Recommended Dose of Fertilizers in terms of

materials (product) Given Based on Soil Test

(as reported in the health card)-Soil Tested Farmers

56

Table-4.8 Average Quantity of Split Doses of Fertilizers Recommended by

Stage of Crop Growth (Kg/acre)- Soil Tested Farmers

57

Chapter-V

Table-5.1 Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers on Reference

Crops- Soil Tested Farmers

60

Table-5.2 Constraints in Applying Recommended Doses of Fertilizers (% of

farmers) -Soil Tested Farmers

61

Table-5.3 Awareness and Sources of Information about Recommended Doses

of Fertilizers by Sample Households (% of farmers)- Non-Soil

Tested Farmers

62

Table-5.4 Actual Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by the Sample Farmers

during the Reference Year (2013-14) (Kg/acre)- Crop I (Paddy)

63

7

Table-5.5 Actual Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by the Sample Farmers

during the Reference Year (2013-14) (Kg/acre)- Crop II (Wheat)

64

Table-5.6 Actual Quantity of Split Doses of Fertilizers Applied by Stage of

Crop Growth during the Reference Year (Kg/acre)- Crop I (paddy)

65

Table-5.7 Actual Quantity of Split Doses of Fertilizers Applied by Stage of

Crop Growth during the Reference Year (Kg/acre)- Crop II (Wheat)

66

Table-5.8 Method of Application of Chemical Fertilizers (% of farmers)-Crop

I (Paddy)

67

Table-5.9 Method of Application of Chemical Fertilizers (% of farmers)-Crop

II (Wheat)

68

Table-5.10 Use of Organic Fertilizers by the Sample Farmers- Crop I (Paddy) 69

Table-5.11 Use of Organic Fertilizers by the Sample Farmers- Crop II (Wheat) 70

Table-5.12 Sources of Purchase of Fertilizers (% of farmers) 71

Table-5.13 Quantity of Fertilizer Purchased by the Sample Farmers (Per cent) 72

Table-5.14 Average Price of Fertilizers and Transport Cost Incurred (Rs/kg) 73

Chapter-VI

Table-6.1 Productivity of the Sample Crops during the Reference Year (2013-

14)

76

Table-6.2 Impact of Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers on

Crop Yield- Soil Tested Farmers

78

Table-6.3 Changes Observed after the Application of Recommended Doses of

Fertilizers on Reference Crops (% of farmers) by Soil Tested

Farmers

79

8

CHAPTER – I

Introduction

I.1. Background:-

In India farming was by and large of subsistence nature prior to the technological break-

through till the mid sixties. Now-a-days with the adoption of new technology in agriculture

the situation has changed a lot particularly with the introduction of modern inputs such as

fertilizers H.Y.V. seeds and the guaranteed prices for major farm products. The actual use

and the required amount of almost all the modern inputs are being observed with a

significance. These days it is well known that fertilizer is an important and essential farm

input for the bumper production of foodgrains. In this context technically it is worth to

mention that the use of 1 kg. of fertilizers nutrients adds 13 kgs. of foodgrains (Fertilizer

scene, 1987). Estimates based on targets of agricultural production and response ratio of crop

to fertilizer application it is considered that roughly one metric tonne of nitrogen will give 12

metric tonnes additional quantity of wheat and 1 metric tonne of phosphorus will add 7 M.T.

of wheat and 1 metric tonne of muriate of potash will give 5 M.T. of wheat. This equation

may not be universally true but it is the balanced use of fertilizers that yield the best results

and the effectiveness (Fertilizer statistics, 1990-91). Growth of agriculture is an indicator of

the health of the overall economy. When the farmer does well, the later is invariably in good

shape for instance in 1988-89 the growth rate of agriculture was about 20% when the G.D.P.

increased significantly by 10% per anum. More important is its rate in making India “self

sufficient” in foodgrains production (Fertilizer Marketing News 1993).

The situation is more alarming when we know that 16 percent of the total population of the

world live in India, while its total geographical area is only 2.4 percent of the total area of the

9

world. Hence, we have to use the modern inputs so efficiently so that we may feed our

teaming population adequately. Since there is only limited scope for increasing land area

under cultivation, it can be achieved only through improvements in farming practices and

application of yield increasing technology which necessitates use of modern inputs. The use

of chemical fertilizers is a critical ingredient in yield increasing technology for achieving the

production target of foodgrains.

Indian agriculture has under gone massive transformation in the post independence era during

the last 65 years. Agricultural production has increased more than four folds from 51 million

tonnes in 1950-51 to 245 million tonnes in 2010-11. (India – 2013) and fertilizer

consumption in terms of nutrients has increased from 0.69 million tonnes in 1950-51 to 27.8

million tonnes in 2011-12 (Fertilizer statistics 2013). Such a phenomenal increase is the result

of combined effect of advancement in farm technology and government policies to encourage

agricultural production. However, still there are variations in foodgrains productivity on

account of the regional imbalances in the use of fertilizers.

Chemical fertilizers are the important source of nutrients for plant growth. After the evolution

of fertilizer responsive high yielding varieties of crops, the total consumption of nitrogenous,

phosphatic and potassic fertilizers has increased from 1.1 million tonnes during 1966-67 to

27.8 million tonnes in the year 2011-12. The all India average consumption of fertilizers

increased from 6.9 kgs. per ha. of gross cropped area to 139.7 kgs. per ha. within the same

span of period (Fertilizer statistics, 2013). However, the level of fertilizers consumption is

highly varying in between the states. The fertilizers consumption has varied from 243 kgs.

per ha. in Punjab to 54 kgs. per ha. in Himanchal Pradesh during 2011-12. The consumption

10

of fertilizers has also varied across the size-groups of farmers with the highest fertilizers

consumption reported among the small farmers.

Examining the conditions of agriculture in Uttar Pradesh the technology of fertilizer

consumption is very much agreeable in the context where holdings are small, fragmented and

having a high pressure of surplus working hands. The state of Uttar Pradesh is predominantly

an agricultural state. After green revolution alike Punjab and Haryana, the farmers in Uttar

Pradesh have also began experiencing the benefits of fertilizer application particularly in

cultivation of foodgrains and other crops. But still the yields of foodgrains is very low due to

the less use of fertilizers as compared to the states of Punjab and Haryana where use of

fertilizers per ha. was maximum (Fertilizer News, 1993). It has been proved by progressive

farmers that 35 to 50 percent increase in the yields of foodgrains can be obtained by

systematic application of fertilizers. Further it is rightly said that if H.Y.V. seed is the vehicle

for green revolution then fertilizer is the fuel which has moved it forward. Chemical fertilizer

is today the kingpin of Indian Agriculture (Yojana, Nov. 1981).

As regards the trend of fertilizers consumption in terms of materials in Uttar Pradesh during

the last five years (2009-10 to 2013-14) it has been found that on the whole the total

consumption of fertilizers decreased from 9016.3 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to

8689.1 thousand tonnes in the year 2010-11 which increased to 9467.1 thousand tonnes till

the year 2012-13 and suddenly decreased to 7925.0 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14.

Thus, the trend in fertilizer consumption was mixed till 2013-14. Among the different

fertilizers materials urea was found to be consumed maximum which increased from 5747.2

thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 5805.4 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14. D.A.P.

was the next important fertilizer which was found to be consumed as 1647.5 thousand tonnes

in the year 2009-10 and decreased to 1364.5 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14. The other

fertilizers such as M.O.P., S.S.P., N.P.K. complexes and others were also found to be

consumed considerably in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

11

The trend of fertilizers consumption in terms of nutrients in the state of Uttar Pradesh shows

that Nitrogen (N) consumption was found to be increased from 2898.83 tonnes in the year

2009-10 to 2972.06 tonnes till the year 2013-14. The consumption of Phosphorous (P2O5)

was found to be decreased from 1039.17 tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 764.65 tonnes till the

year 2013-14. While the consumption of Potash (K2O) increased from 333.50 tonnes in the

year 2009-10 to 1047.70 tonnes till the year 2013-14. Thus, in terms of nutrients the

fertilizers consumption has increased considerably in case of N and K but in case of P2O5 it

has decreased in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

The trend of per hectare consumption of fertilizers in terms of nutrients in Uttar Pradesh

indicates that while the gross cropped area increased from 24295 thousand ha in the year

2009-10 to 25615 thousand ha till the year 2013-14, the consumption of total N.P.K.

increased from 175 kgs. per ha in the year 2009-10 to 182 kgs. per ha till the year 2012-13.

The consumption of Nitrogen (N) increased from 119 kgs. per ha in the year 2009-10 to 131

kgs. per ha till the year 2012-13. The consumption of Phosphorous (P2O5) increased from 43

kgs. per ha in 2009-10 to 46 kgs. per ha till 2012-13. While the consumption of Potash (K2O)

decreased from 13 kgs. per ha in 2009-10 to 5 kgs. per ha till 2012-13.

I.2. Review of Literature:-

This section of chapter – I deals with the available literature from various books, reports,

journals, bulletins, magazines and other published or unpublished works by various research

organizations, Agricultural Universities and other recognized institutions of the country.

Production of crops is the function of various inputs like land, labour, seeds, irrigation,

manures, fertilizers and plant protection measures etc. But the present research study is

particularly related with the use of most important input i.e. fertilizer and its impact on

productivity of crops, which are as follows:-

12

Minhas (1966), Kulkarni (1978) and Lal (1985) in their studies observed wide gap between

actual and recommended doses of fertilizer for different crops and different agro-climatic

conditions. Their studies also reveal that weather condition, formers attitude, price level of

fertilizers crops and credit availability, technical know how, availability of timely and

adequate quantity of fertilizers etc. affect the use of fertilizers and were the major constraints

in the consumption of recommended doses of fertilizers.

Wadia (1981), concluded in his study that increase in price of fertilizers affects the

consumption of fertilizer but the impact goes down with the lapse of time and other natural

factors like rainfall, incidence of pests and diseases, calamities like draught and floods, input

– output ratios, availability of credit supply for other inputs and extension policies of

government also play a vital role.

Singh C. (1984), in his study inferred that fertilizer recommendation should be based on

detailed economic analysis rather than recommending on uniform doses of fertilizers for the

crops because of crop yield responses to fertilizers vary from region to region and from year

to year, which results different marginal physical productivities of fertilizers as main input in

the production of a particular crop. These all lead differential optimal fertilizer requirement to

optimize the crop output in different regions.

Garg G.S. and others (1973), state that there was big gap between the supply and demand

for fertilizer due to incorrect assessment of growth in demand in the wake of green revolution

of indigenous fertilizers in the needed volume.

Dixit, R.S. and others (1984), in their study examined that cereal crops have been

continuously growing in acreage, while gram and other pulses have been loosing area under

cultivation. In the opinion of farmers basic risk and uncertainty, unsuitability of soils. Unfit

water available for irrigation and adverse effect of nitrogen application on Gram yield compel

13

the farmers not to allocate land resources in Gram. Price of gram is a weak factor to influence

the acreage under it.

Desai D.K. (1970) found that there was probable divergence between response coefficients

and optimum doses estimated from field trials. Hence, fertilizer desired is a quantum required

to produce a given amount of agricultural output and the recommended doses may turn-out to

be unrealistic.

Padma and others (1985), in their study supported the existence of a positive association

between size of farm and fertilizer use as well as literacy standard but it was not significant

for both the variables. However, literate farmers seem to use large doses of nitrogenous

fertilizers per acre.

Singh A. (1983), in his study inferred that fertilizer consumption is the function of area,

irrigated area, area under H.Y.Vs., credit and rainfall. The author found no significant

association with size of holding and fertilizer consumption.

Bhatnager and others (1986), in their study examined that the average response to N2

(20Kg.) varied between 1.24 to 3.04 qtls. per ha. in mustard crop. Although, the fertilizer N2

is beneficial to mustard crop farmers do not use fertilizers due to the dependency on rain

water.

Azad et. Al. (1971), gave details of fertilizer consumption and its relation with the total cost

of cultivation. The percentage of fertilizer consumption to total cost varied from 5 to 45 in

mustard 37 to 91 in wheat in Uttar Pradesh. This study indicates that M.V.P. of fertilizer was

much higher ranging from Rs. 4.15 in maize to Rs. 8.93 in mustard. The optimal level of

fertilizer were much higher than the actual level indicating a higher scope of fertilizer use.

14

Ashok Parikh and Steve Mosley (1986), in their, “study on fertilizers response in Haryana”

concluded that fertilizer consumption was much below the recommended. Target. One of the

explanations was that the fertilizer response functions based on simple fertilizer trial data or

model experimental data. The data (Target - 1971) consistently over estimated the

recommended fertilizer requirements.

R.K. Mohanty (1986) in his study on fertilizer use in Orissa found that steps have to be

taken to identify the causes for the inter district variations in the levels of per ha.

consumption of fertilizers and to reduce the inter district variations due consideration should

be given to the climate and other relevant factors in different districts of the state.

C. Ramaswamy, M. Chandrashekharan and R. Prabhakaran (1986) in their study on

fertilizer use sustaining rapid growth in rice region, concluded that tenancy seems to

influence fertilizer use the positive sign that owner operated farm apply more fertilizers than

tenants due to insecurity of tenancy. It is not surprising that tenant cultivators apply low

levels of fertilizers as they do not get adequate institutional credit to meet cultivation

expenses.

M.P. Azad, R.N. Yadav and Mangal Prasad (1986), in their study on “Maximization of

production and Farm Income by optimum use of fertilizer” found that the net farm income

can be raised by recollection of available funds on the farm and with the technique of

optimization of farm resources without any change in the cropping pattern, technology and

any additional investment on the main crop of the study area.

G. Subramaniyam and V. Nirmala (1991), in their study suggest that H.Y.Vs. seeds be

sown on a large scale and more and more area be brought under irrigation to boost fertilizer

consumption. For this massive investment on extension services, infrastructural facilities are

indispensable in a developing country like India.

15

Rao V.M. (1996), found that at farm level, the green revolution technology helped to

improved the livelihood pattern, nutrition and educations of children. However, technology

has brought some negative aspects as well. Since it proved successful in irrigated area, dry

land regions and crops grown therein were left out of the process and hence had created

regional disparity in rural income.

Murgai et. al. (2001) and Pinali and shah (2001), reported that technology has also altered

the cropping pattern which comprised of multiple crops every season to mono-cropping, for

example cultivation of only rice in some parts of South India. This practice puts the land and

other resources under severe strain resulting in depletion of soil nutrients decline in water

table, buildup of pest and diseases and micro nutrient deficiency.

I.3. Need of the Study:-

In a developing country like India the infrastructural facilities and extension services are

indispensable for boosting the consumption of modern inputs particularly fertilizers which is

indispensable under the conditions of secured irrigation and use of H.Y.V. seeds. The

introduction of modern technology mainly use of fertilizer in agriculture has caused the

upsurge of green revolution to a great success. It has raised the yield of important crops

along-with a significant increase in the net area sown and the intensity of cropping in all the

regions of the country but still the consumption of fertilizers has been found to be much

below the recommended requirements of the fertilizers. Some of agricultural scientists found

that the application of fertilizers is subject to diminishing return and the economic optimum

dose of fertilizer is smaller than the technical optimum dose. In many of the prevalent

systems of farming it is also not surprising that tenant cultivator generally apply small dose of

fertilizer as they do not get adequate institutional credit to meet the expenses of cultivation

keeping these facts into consideration this study will hallmark the importance of increasing

use of fertilizers in Indian farming.

16

Although many of the previous studies have revealed that there are lot of changes in the

relationship between the use of fertilizer and proportion of area fertilized under both irrigated

and un-irrigated conditions. In some of the areas it is observed that the over consumption of

fertilizers has created imbalance in the proper use of fertilizer nutrients and as such reduced

the fertility of the soil. It is also well known to all the concerned that due to deplorable

working conditions and low purchasing power of the majority of marginal, small and medium

farmers and the dual policies of the governments, the use of fertilizers is affected highly

particularly in agriculturally less developed regions. Thus, in the context of today’s modern

agriculture, the present study will enlighten the methods and ways economizing the

increasing use of fertilizers particularly on marginal and small farms. It will also provide

guidelines to the economists, planners and policy makers of fertilizer production and its use

for boosting-up the production in agriculture. Although this study is based on the agro-

climatic situations of Uttar Pradesh but is suggestive to other states of the country in the field

of using fertilizers in agriculture. Since, such systematic studies have not been undertaken so

far for assessing the effectiveness of the programme on crop-productivity, extent of soil

testing for nutrient deficiency and adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers by farmers

based on the soil tests. Therefore, there was the need of present study to examine the level of

adoption and constraints in the use of recommended doses of fertilizers and their impact on

crop productivity.

I.4. Objectives of the Study:-

The main objectives of this study were as follows:-

1. To examine the level of adoption and its constraints in the application of

recommended doses of fertilizers based on soil test reports by the farmers.

17

2. To analyze the impact of adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers on crop

productivity and income of farmers.

I.5. Data and Methodology:-

I.5.1. Data:-

This study was mainly based on primary data collected from the sample farmers of the state

of Uttar Pradesh for the year 2013-14. The list of soil tested farmers along-with non-soil

tested farmers as control were undertaken from the S.D.A. (State Department of Agriculture)

for the year 2012-13 to evaluate the extent of the adoption of recommended doses of

fertilizers by farmers in Uttar Pradesh. The major crops were Rice and Wheat on which the

data on all the aspects were collected.

I.5.2. Method of Study:-

This study was confined to the state of Uttar Pradesh as a whole. A multistage stratified

random sampling technique was used to choose the samples. For each of the two selected

major crops i.e. Rice and Wheat, two districts were selected based on the share of crop area

within the state. Such four districts were namely (1) Azamgarh and (2) Shahjahanpur for

Paddy and (3) Hardoi and (4) Unnao for Wheat. Thereafter, from each of these four districts

thus, selected two development blocks were selected on the same basis of the share in crop

area. Such 8 development blocks were namely (1) Lalganj and (2) Martinganj from

Azamgarh district, (1) Banda and (2) Puwayan from Shahjahanpur district, (1) Shahabad and

(2) Sursa from Hardoi district and (1) Fatehpur and (2) Purwa from Unnao district. From

these 8 blocks thus, selected, two villages from each selected block were chosen on the same

basis of the share in crop area for conducting the survey. Such 16 villages were namely (1)

Barauna, (2) Demai Magdumpur, (3) Sikarpur and (4) Bishambharpur from Azamgarh, (1)

Narenderpur, (2) Chanupur Pandai, (3) Raipur and (4) Jugharpur from Shahjahanpur, (1)

Mishripur, (2) Gohaniya, (3) Kasarawa and (4) Husiyapur from Hardoi and (1) Patti Hamid,

18

(2) Khwajipur, (3) Rama Amarpur and (4) Barkhera from Unnao district. Thereafter, the

ultimate samples of 60 soil tested farmers per crop from each selected district were selected

randomly according to probability proportion to their number after categorizing the list of soil

tested farmers into (1) Marginal farmers. (2) Small, (3) Medium and (4) Large farmers as per

their net operated area making the total soil tested farmers samples to 240. Also to see the

effect of recommended doses of fertilizer on crop productivity, 30 control (non-soil tested

farmers) sample farmers per crop from each selected districts were under taken randomly

from all categories of the same villages making a total of non-soil tested farmers samples to

120. Also adequate care was taken to select villages having common agro-climatic conditions

and the samples of all the social groups i.e. S.Cs. and S.Ts, O.B.Cs and others falling in the

area under study. The required data were collected through schedules and questionnaires by

survey method.

I.5.3.:- Sampling Design:-

I.5.3.1.:- Selection of Districts:-

Out of the total 75 districts falling in the state of Uttar Pradesh 4 districts, wherein two

districts each for Rice and Wheat crops separately were undertaken randomly on the basis of

share in crop area within the state. Such four districts were namely (1) Azamgarh and (2)

Shahjahanpur for Rice and (3) Hardoi and (4) Unnao for Wheat from the state of Uttar

Pradesh as a whole.

I.5.3.2.:- Selection of Development Blocks:-

From each of the four selected districts, two development blocks were selected on the same

basis of share in crop area. Such 8 blocks were namely (1) Lalganj and (2) Martinganj from

Azamgarh district, (1) Banda and (2) Puwayan from Shahjahanpur district, (1) Shahabad and

(2) Sursa from Hardoi district and (1) Fatehpur and (2) Purwa from Unnao district.

19

I.5.3.3.:- Selection of Villages:-

Two villages from each of the 8 selected blocks were chosen on the same basis of share in

crop area. Such 16 villages were namely (1) Barauna, (2) Demai Magdumpur, (3) Sikarpur

and (4) Bishambharpur from Azamgarh, (1) Narenderpur, (2) Chanupur Pandai, (3) Raipur

and (4) Jugharpur from Shahjahanpur, (1) Mishripur, (2) Gohaniya, (3) Kasarawa and (4)

Husiyapur from Hardoi and (1) Patti Hamid, (2) Khwajipur, (3) Rama Amarpur and (4)

Barkhera from Unnao district.

I.5.3.4.:- Selection of Ultimate Samples:-

60 soil tested sample farmers per crop from each selected district were chosen randomly

according to probability proportion to their numbers in (1) Marginal (2) Small, (3) Medium

and (4) Large categories of farmers as per their operated area making the total soil tested

farmers samples to 240. In addition to see the effect of recommended doses of fertilizers on

crop productivity, 30 non-soil tested samples farmers per crop from each selected district

were undertaken randomly from all the categories of same villages making a total non-soil

tested farmers samples to 120. The sampling design is given in Table-1-1.

I.5.4.:- Collection of Data:-

Since this study was mainly based on primary data, hence the primary data pertaining to all

the aspects of sample soil tested farmers as well as non-soil tested farmers such as their

operational land holdings irrigation resources cropping pattern farm assets, soil tests, soil

health, fertilizer purchased and consumed and agricultural loans including crop loans etc.

were collected through the specially prepared schedules and questionnaires contacting the

farmers directly by survey method for the reference year 2013-14.

20

I.5.5.:- Analysis of Data:-

Only a simple mathematical and statistical analysis of the data available was done to get the

result of this study by structuring 41 analytical tables on the whole for both the sample soil-

tested farmers and non-soil tested farmers from the state of Uttar Pradesh.

I.5.6.:- Reference Period:-

The reference period for this study was the agricultural year 2013-14.

I.6.:- Organization of the Report:-

Chapter-I: Introduction

1.1. Background

1.2. Review of Literature

1.3. Need for the Study

1.4. Objectives of the study

1.5. Data and Methodology

1.6. Organization of the Report

Chapter-II: Trend of Fertilizers Consumption in the state of Uttar Pradesh

2.1. Trends of Fertilizer Consumption by product in Uttar Pradesh (kg./ha.)

2.2. Trends of Crop-wise Fertilizer consumption by Nutrients (kg./ha.)

2.3. Summary of the Chapter-II

Chapter-III: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Farmers

3.1. Socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers.

3.2. Details of operational Land Holdings

3.3. Sources of Irrigation

3.4. Cropping Pattern, Area under H.Y.Vs and Value of out-put.

3.5. Farm Assets Owned

3.6. Details of Agricultural Credit availed

3.7. Training Programme attended

3.8. Summary of the Chapter-III

21

Table-1-1

Sampling Design

Samples Undertaken

Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Sl.

No.

Crops

Selected

Districts

Chosen

Blocks

Selected

Clusters of

Villages Under -

taken STF NSTF STF NSTF STF NSTF STF NSTF STF NSTF

Barauna 6 7 6 1 3 0 0 0 15 8 Lalganj

Demri

magdumpur 7 2 4 1 3 2 1 2 15 7

Sikarpur 13 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 15 7

Azamgarh

Martinganj

Vishambharpur 8 4 3 2 3 1 1 1 15 8

Narenderpur 8 6 1 1 4 0 2 0 15 7 Banda

Chandupur pandri 6 3 4 0 5 5 0 0 15 8

Raipur 7 2 4 1 4 4 0 0 15 7

1.

Paddy

Shajahanpur Puwayan

Jujharpur 8 6 3 1 3 0 1 1 15 8

Mishripur 4 3 4 5 6 0 1 0 15 8 Shahabad

Gohaniya 9 1 4 5 2 1 0 0 15 7

Kasarawa 9 5 5 0 0 2 1 0 15 7

Hardoi Sursa

Husiyapur 7 6 6 2 2 0 0 0 15 8

Patti hamid 13 5 1 1 1 1 0 1 15 8 Fatehpur84

Khwajiapur 12 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 15 7

Ramaamarpur 9 5 5 2 1 0 0 0 15 7

2.

Wheat

Unnao Purwa

Brakhera 12 7 2 1 1 0 0 0 15 8

2 4 8 16 138 72 56 26 39 17 7 5 240 120

N.B.: STF = Soil Tested Farmers

NSTF = Non-Soil Tested Farmers (Control)

22

Chapter-IV: Details of Soil Testing and Recommended Doses of Fertilizers

4.1. Background

4.2. Details of Soil Testing

4.3. Source of Information about soil testing by farmers

4.4. Reasons for soil testing by farmers

4.5. Reasons for not testing soils by non-soil tested farmers

4.6. Status of soil health on the sample soil test farms

4.7. Recommended doses of fertilizers on soil test basis

4.8. Summary of the Chapter-IV

Chapter-V: Adoption of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers and its Constraints

5.1. Background

5.2. Application of recommended doses of fertilizers by soil tested farmers

5.3. Constraints in applying recommended doses of fertilizers by soil tested farmers

5.4. Sources of information about recommended doses of fertilizers by non-soil tested

farmers

5.5. Application of actual quantity of fertilizers by sample farmers

5.6. Method of application of fertilizer by sample farmers.

5.7. Use of organic fertilizers by sample farmers

5.8. Details of fertilizers purchased by sample farmers.

5.9. Summary of the Chapter-V

Chapter-VI: Impact of adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers

6.1. Background

6.2. Productivity of reference crops among the sample farmers

6.3. Impact of application of recommended doses of fertilizers on reference crops

6.4. Summary of the Chapter-VI

Chapter-VII: Summary of Findings Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

7.1. Background

23

7.2. Summary of Findings

7.3. Conclusions

7.4. Policy Recommendations

Appendices: (1) Appendix – I

(2) Appendix – II

References

Fertilizer Association of India (1987) Fertilizer Scheme in India, Fertilizer News, F.A.I., New

Delhi, July, 1987, Page – 1

Fertilizer Association of India (1990 - 1991) Fertilizer Statistics, F.A.I., New Delhi, 1990-91,

pp. 11, 13-21.

Fertilizer Marketing News, (1990), Vol. 24, page. 2.

Fertilizer Association of India (2013), Fertilizer Statistics, F.A.I., New Delhi, 2013.

India, (2013), page 58.

Minhas (1966), “New Agricultural Strategy Analyzed” Yojana 1966, 10(1).

Kulkarni B. S. (1978), “Financing Fertilizer Demand for Jowar in Marthwada”, I.J.A.E.,

1978, 33(4), 134.

Lal J. And K. Singh (1985) “Economics and Adoption Constraints of Sugarcane Production

Technology”, Technical Bulletin, (16), I.I.S.R., Lucknow.

Wadia (1981), “Study of Demand for Phosphates Fertilizer”, fertilizer News, December,

1981, pp.-16-19.

Singh C. (1984), “Allocation of fertilizer among crops under Risk”, I.J.A.E., 1984, 39(1), 77.

Garg G.S. et., al. (1973), “Strategy of Fertilizer Policy in India”, I.J.A.E., 1973, 28(4), 152.

Dixit R.S. et., al. (1984), :Allocation of Fertilizers among crops under Risk”, I.J.A.E., 1984,

39(1).

Desai D.K. (1970), “Attitude of the Farmer still use less than the Recommended doses of

fertilizers”, I.J.A.E., 1970, Vol. (2).

Padma et. al. (1985), “Adoption of Modern Varieties of Fertilizer use on Rice in Eastern

Tarai of Nepal”, I.J.A.E., 1985, 30(3).

Singh, A. (1983), “Regional Disparity in Fertilizer Consumption in India”, Fertilizer

Marketing News, 1983, 14(9), 1 – 6.

Bhatnagar et. al. (1986), “Economic of Fertilizer application to Mustard, A.S.T., June, 1986,

138.

24

Azad et. al. (1971), “Benefit cost ratio and Productivity on Dry and Irrigated Farm in District

Unnao”, “A case study”. I.J.A.E., 1971, 27(4), 371.

Ashok Parikh and Steve Mosley (1986), “A Study on Fertilizers Response in Haryana”,

I.J.A.E., April – June 1986, Vol. 41(2).

R.K. Mohanty (1986), “A Study of Fertilizer use in Orissa District wise Analysis”, I.J.A.E.,

1986.

Ramaswamy C., Chandrashakharan M. and Prabhakaran R. (1986), “Attitude of Fertilizer use

Sustaining Rapid Growth in Fertilizer use in Rice Region”, I.J.A.E., 1986, Vol. 41(4).

Azad M.P., Yadav R.N. and Mangal Prasad (1986), “A Study of Maximisation of Production

and Farm Income by Optimum use of Fertilizers”, I.J.A.E., October – December

1986.

Subramaniyam G. And Nirmal V. (1991), “Micro Analysis of Fertilizer Demand in India”,

(Jan. – March, 1991), I.J.A.E., Vol. 46.

Rao V.M. (1996), “Agricultural Development with A Human Face: Experiences and

Prospects”, Economic and Political Weekly 1996, 31(26) : A. 50 – 62.

Murgai R.M. Ali and D. Byerlee (2001), “Productivity and Sustainability in Post Green

Revoluation Agriculture : the case of India and Pakistan Punjab”, The World Bank

Research Observe, 2001, 16(2): 199 – 218.

Pingali P.L. and Shah M. (2001), “Policy Redirections for Sustainable Resource use : The

Rice – Wheat Cropping System of the Indo-Gangentic Plains. In the Rice-Wheat

Cropping System of South Asia : Trends Constraints, Productivity and Policy, ed

P.K. Kataki, 2001, 103-18, New York, Food Products Press.

Fertilizer News, April, 1993, Vol.38, page -68.

Yojana, Nov., 1981, pp. 1 – 15.

25

Chapter-II

Trend in Fertilizers Consumption in the state of Uttar Pradesh

2.1.:- Trend in Fertilizers Consumption in Terms of Materials (Products) in the state

during 2009-10 to 2013-14.

The trend of season-wise fertilizers consumption in terms of materials (products) in Uttar

Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2013-14 worked-out in Table-2.1 indicates that in the state of

Uttar Pradesh as a whole the total consumption of the fertilizers decreased from 9016.3

thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 8689.1 thousand tonnes in the year 2010-11, which

increased to 9467.1 thousand tonnes till the year 2012-13 but thereafter suddenly decreased to

7925.0 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14. Thus, the trend of fertilizers consumption in

terms of materials during 2009-10 to 2013-14 in Uttar Pradesh was of a mixed nature. The

consumption of urea being consumed in larger quantity during Rabi season increased from

5747.9 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 5805.4 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14.

The consumption of D.A.P. which was also consumed in larger quantity during Rabi season

was found increasing from 1647.5 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 1975.6 thousand

tonnes till the year 2012-13 but thereafter it decreased to 1364.5 thousand tonnes in the year

2013-14. Thus, the consumption of urea and D.A.P. in Uttar Pradesh was found increasing till

the year 2013-14.

The consumption of M.O.P. was found decreasing from 342.6 thousand tonnes in the year

2009-10 to 109.5 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14. The consumption of S.S.P. was also

found decreasing from 330.6 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 267.4 thousand tonnes

till the year 2013-14. The consumption of N.P.K. complexes was found firstly increasing

from 916.7 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 1067.6 thousand tonnes till the year 2011-

12 but thereafter it suddenly decreased to 330.9 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14. Thus,

consumption of M.O.P., S.S.P. and N.P.K. complexes was found decreasing in Uttar Pradesh

during the years from 2010-11 to 2013-14, while the consumption of other fertilizers in Uttar

Pradesh was found increasing from 31.7 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 47.3

thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14. The related data are given in Table-2.1.

26

Table-2.1

Trend of Season-wise Fertilizers Consumption in Terms of Material (Product) in Uttar

Pradesh During 2009-10 to 2013-14 In (000, Tonnes)

Years Sl.

No.

Fertilizers

Materials

Consumed 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

1. Urea

Kharif 2275.7 2286.1 2595.1 2683.8 2710.8

Rabi 3072.2 3132.9 3155.8 3560.8 3094.6

Total 5747.2 5419.0 5750.9 6244.6 5805.4

2. DAP

Kharif 732.3 849.3 658.7 702.3 433.4

Rabi 915.2 892.5 1000.5 1273.3 931.1

Total 1647.5 1741.8 1659.2 1975.6 1364.5

3. MOP

Kharif 91.6 77.9 46.4 95.7 49.3

Rabi 251.0 114.2 133.9 32.8 60.2

Total 342.6 192.1 180.3 128.5 109.5

4. SSP

Kharif 162.9 157.8 220.1 264.9 150.4

Rabi 167.7 126.1 155.4 155.3 117.0

Total 330.6 283.9 375.5 420.2 267.4

5. Complexes

Kharif 208.0 495.5 593.9 373.3 78.8

Rabi 708.7 522.0 473.7 258.8 252.1

Total 916.7 1017.5 1067.6 632.1 330.9

6. Others

Kharif 13.2 15.8 26.4 34.8 21.7

Rabi 18.5 19.0 33.9 31.3 25.6

Total 31.7 34.8 60.3 66.1 47.3

Grand Total 9016.3 8689.1 9093.8 9467.1 7925.0

Source:- Office of Joint Director, Fertilizer, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

2.2.:- Trend of Season-wise Fertilizers Consumption in Terms of Nutrients in Uttar

Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2013-14.

The trend of season-wise consumption of fertilizers in terms of Nutrients in Uttar Pradesh

during 2009-10 to 2013-14 analyzed in Table-2.2 shows that on an overall the total

consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. was estimated to 4261.50 tonnes in the year

2009-10 which increased to 5088.40 tonnes till the 2010-11 but thereafter it decreased with

27

variations to 3842.05 tonnes till the year 2013-14 in Uttar Pradesh. The consumption of total

N.P.K. was comparatively much higher during the rabi season in the same span of 2009-10 to

2013-14 in Uttar Pradesh. Thus, consumption of fertilizers in terms of nutrients had a

declining trend in Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2013-14. On the other hand the

consumption of Nitrogen (N) increased from 2898.83 tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 3351.79

tonnes till the year 2012-13 which suddenly decreased to 2972.62 tonnes in the year 2013-14.

The consumption of Phosphorous (P2 O5) was found increasing from 1039.17 tonnes in the

year 2009-10 to 1253.45 tonnes till the year 2010-11 which decreased to 764.65 tonnes till

the year 2013-14. The consumption of Potash (K2O) also increased from 323.50 tonnes in the

year 2009-10 to 358.09 tonnes till the year 2010-11 but thereafter, it suddenly decreased to

104.77 tonnes till the year 2013-14. Thus, the consumption of fertilizers in terms of nutrients

had shown a declining trend in Uttar Pradesh. The related data are given in Table-2.2.

Table-2.2

Trend of Season-wise Fertilizers Consumption in Terms of Nutrients in Uttar Pradesh

During 2009-10 to 2013-14 (Tonnes of Nutrients)

Years Sl.

No.

Nutrients of

Fertilizers

Consumed 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

1. N (Nitrogens)

Kharif 1214.59 1796.80 1414.49 1440.53 1341.141

Rabi 1684.24 1680.06 1732.71 1911.26 1631.480

Total 2898.83 3476.86 3147.20 3351.79 2972.621

2. P2O5

(Phosphorous)

Kharif 418.40 699.35 491.55 485.29 245.011

Rabi 620.77 554.10 643.44 681.14 519.642

Total 1039.17 1253.45 1134.99 1166.43 764.653

3. K2O (Potash)

Kharif 74.97 225.40 68.08 83.51 37.921

Rabi 248.53 132.69 111.39 49.25 66.849

Total 323.50 358.09 179.47 132.76 104.771

4. Overall Total

Kharif 1707.96 2721.55 1992.11 2009.34 1624.073

Rabi 2553.54 2366.85 2487.54 2641.65 2217.972

Total 4261.50 5088.40 4479.65 4650.99 3842.045

Source:- Office of Joint Director, Fertilizer, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

28

2.3.:- Trend of Per Hectare Consumption of Fertilizers in Terms of Nutrients of Gross

Cropped Area in Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2013-14.

The trend of fertilizers in terms of nutrients on gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh during

2009-10to 2013-14 worked-out in Table-2.3 shows that the gross cropped area increased

from 24295 thousand ha in the year 2009-10 to 25615 thousand ha till the year 2013-14.

Thus, the gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh has increased considerably during the span of

2009-10 to 2013-14. The total consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. per hectare

increased from 175 kgs per ha in the year 2009-10 to 182 kgs. per ha till the year 2012-13 but

it decreased suddenly to 150 kgs per ha in the year 2013-14 in the state of Uttar Pradesh as a

whole. On the other hand the consumption of nitrogen (N) increased from 119 kgs. per ha in

2009-10 to 131 kgs. per ha till the year 2012-13 which decreased to 116 kgs. per ha in the

year 2013-14. The consumption of phosphorous (P2O5) increased from 43 kgs. per ha in

2009-10 to 46 kgs. per ha till 2012-13 but it decreased to 30 kgs. per ha in 2013-14. The

consumption of potash (K2O) decreased from 13 kgs. per ha in 2009-10 to 4 kgs. per ha till

the year 2013-14. The related data are given in Table-2.3.

Table-2.3

Trend of per Hectare Consumption of Fertilizers in Terms of Nutrients of Gross

Cropped Area in Uttar Pradesh During 2009-10 to 2013-14

(GCA in 000 hectares)

(Consumption in kgs./ha)

Years Sl.

No.

Nutrients of

Fertilizers

Consumed 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

1. GCA (Gross

Cropped Area)

24295 24895 24744 25615 25615

2. N (Nitrogen) 119 118 127 131 116

3. P2O5 (Phosphorous) 43 44 46 46 30

4. K2O (Potash) 13 11 8 5 4

Total (N+P+K) 175 173 181 182 150

Source:- Office of Joint Director, Fertilizer, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

29

2.4.:- Trend of Fertilizers Consumption for Paddy Kharif in Terms of Nutrients in

Uttar Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2013-14.

The trend of fertilizers consumption for paddy kharif in terms of nutrients in Uttar Pradesh

during 2009-10 to 2013-14 analyzed in Table-2.4 indicates that the total N.P.K. consumption

in case of paddy kharif increased from 1189.76 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to

1908.62 thousand tonnes till the year 2010-11 and thereafter, it decreased to 1156.50

thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14. Thus, the consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K.

for paddy in Uttar Pradesh showed a declining trend during 2011-12 to 2013-14. The

consumption of Nitrogen (N) firstly increased from 846.08 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-

10 to 1260.10 thousand tonnes till the year 2010-11 but thereafter it decreased to 954.89

thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14 with variation in Uttar Pradesh. The consumption of

phosphorous (P2O5) also increased firstly from 291.46 thousand tonnes in 2009-10 to 490.45

thousand tonnes till the year 2010-11 but thereafter it gradually decreased to 174.59 thousand

tonnes till the year 2013-14. The consumption of potash (K2O) also firstly increased from

52.22 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 158.07 thousand tonnes till the year 2010-11

but thereafter it decreased to 27.02 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14. Thus, fertilizers

consumption for paddy in Uttar Pradesh had a declining trend till 2013-14. The related data

are given in Table-2.4.

Table-2.4

Trend of Fertilizers Consumption for Paddy (Kharif) in Terms of Nutrients in Uttar

Pradesh During 2009-10 to 2013-14

(In 000, Tonnes)

Years Sl.

No.

Fertilizers

Consumption in

Nutrients 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

1. N (Nitrogen) 846.08 1260.10 1009.10 1026.38 954.89

2. P2O5

(Phosphorous)

291.46 490.45 350.67 345.77 174.59

3. K2O (Potash) 52.22 158.07 48.57 59.50 27.02

Total (N+P+K) 1189.76 1908.62 1408.34 1431.65 1156.50

Source:- Office of Joint Director, Fertilizer, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

30

2.5.:- Trend of Fertilizers Consumption for Wheat (Rabi) in Terms of Nutrients in Uttar

Pradesh during 2009-10 to 2013-14.

The trend of fertilizers consumption for wheat (rabi) in terms of nutrients in Uttar Pradesh

during 2009-10 to 2013-14 worked-out in Table-2.5 indicates that the total consumption of

N.P.K. in Uttar Pradesh decreased from 1869.27 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to

1392.43 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14 with variations. Thus, consumption of

fertilizers in case of wheat declined gradually with variations. The consumption of Nitrogen

(N) also decreased from 1192.78 thousand tonnes in 2009-10 to 1024.24 thousand tonnes till

the year 2013-14 with variations till 2012-13. The consumption of phosphorous (P2O5) also

decreased from 483.08 thousand tonnes in 2009-10 to 326.23 thousand tonnes with variations

till the year 2013-14. The consumption of potash (K2O) decreased from 103.41 thousand

tonnes in 2009-10 to 41.96 thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14 gradually in Uttar Pradesh.

Thus, the consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. showed a declining trend in Uttar

Pradesh during the span of 2009-10 to 2013-14. The related data are given in Table-2.5.

Table-2.5

Trend of Fertilizers Consumption for Wheat (Rabi) in Terms of Nutrients in Uttar

Pradesh During 2009-10 to 2013-14 (In 000, Tonnes)

Years Sl.

No.

Fertilizers

Consumption in

Nutrients 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

1. N (Nitrogen) 1192.78 1108.17 1103.74 1217.47 1024.24

2. P2O5

(Phosphorous)

483.08 365.48 409.87 433.89 326.23

3. K2O (Potash) 193.41 87.52 70.96 31.37 41.96

Total (N+P+K) 1869.27 1561.17 1584.57 1682.73 1392.43

Source:- Office of Joint Director, Fertilizer, Krishi Bhawan, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

2.6.:- Summary of Chapter-II

The present Chapter-II reveals that the trend of fertilizers consumption in terms of materials

during 2009-10 to 2013-14 in Uttar Pradesh showed a mixed trend. The consumption of urea

and D.A.P. in whole Uttar Pradesh was found increasing till the year 2013-14. But the

consumption of M.O.P., S.S.P. and N.P.K. complexes was found decreasing in Uttar Pradesh

during the years from 2010-11 to 2013-14. The consumption of other fertilizers in Uttar

31

Pradesh was found increasing from 31.7 thousand tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 47.3

thousand tonnes till the year 2013-14.

The consumption of fertilizers in terms of nutrients had a declining trend in Uttar Pradesh

during 2009-10 to 2013-14. The consumption of N.P.K. in terms of nutrients had also shown

a declining trend in Uttar Pradesh during the years from 2011-12 to 2013-14.

The gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh has increased considerably during the span of 2009-

10 to 2013-14. While the total consumption of fertilizers in terms N.P.K. per hectare

increased from 175 kgs. per ha in 2009-10 to 182 kgs. per ha till the year 2012-13 but

decreased suddenly to 150 kgs. per ha in 2013-14 in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The

consumption of Nitrogen increased from 119 kgs per ha in 2009-10 to 131 kgs. per ha till

2012-13 which decreased to 116 kgs. per ha in 2013-14. The consumption of phosphorous

had shown similar trend. The consumption of Potash decreased from 13 kgs per ha in 2009-

10 to 4 kgs. per ha till the year 2013-14.

The consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. in case of Paddy in Uttar Pradesh showed a

declining trend during 2011-12 to 2013-14. The consumption of N (Nitrogen) decreased from

1260.10 thousand tonnes in 2011-12 to 954.89 thousand tonnes till 2013-14, phosphorous

(P2O5) decreased from 490.45 thousand tonnes in 2011-12 to 174.59 thousand tonnes till

2013-14 and Potash (K2O) from 158.07 thousand tonnes in 2010-11 to 27.02 thousand tonnes

till the year 2013-14.

The consumption of fertilizers in case of wheat has decreased gradually with variation during

2009-10 to 2013-14. The consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. for wheat in U.P. also

showed a declining trend during the span of 2009-10 to 2013-14.

32

Chapter-III

3.:- Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Households:

3.1.:- Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Households – Soil Tested

Farmers:

The socio-economic characteristics of sample households – Soil Tested farmers analyzed in

Table-3.1 indicates that out of the total sample soil tested farmers the maximum i.e. 58

percent were marginal farmers, 23 percent were small farmers, 16 percent were medium

farmers and only 3 percent were large farmers. The overall average age of the sample soil-

tested farmers was 48 years which varies between 47 years to 58 years. Thus, among the total

sample soil-tested farmers the majority of sample farmers were marginal and small and large

farmers were only a few in the area under study. The respondents were of matured age

between 47 to 58 years in the area under the study. The overall average years of education

was 9 years which varied from 9 years among marginal soil-tested farmers to 11 years in

large soil-tested farmers. This very well clarifies that on an average the respondents were

H.S. (Secondary) educated wherein the respondents from large soil tested farmers were

higher secondary educated on an average. 91 percent of respondents reported agriculture as

their main occupation on an average. Among marginal farmers 97 percent had reported

agriculture as their main occupation, among small farmers 86 percent, among medium

farmers 79 percent and among large farmers 71 percent had told agriculture as their main

occupation. Thus, agriculture was the main occupation of majority of the small soil tested

farmers. About the gender distribution of respondents it was found that on an average 95

percent of the sample soil tested farmers were males and only 5 percent were the females.

Female respondents were maximum from medium and marginal farmers, while among the

male respondents maximum were from the large and small farmers. The average family size

was of 7 members wherein the number of members varied from 6 in marginal farmers to 10

in large farmers. Average number of members per household engaged in agriculture was 2 in

almost all the categories of soil-tested farmers. Average years of experience in farming was

reported to 22 years and varied from 21 years in marginal category to 33 years in the category

of large farmers. On an average 21.67 percent of the farmers were the members of any

association wherein the percentage of memberships was minimum i.e. 8.69 percent in

marginal category against the maximum i.e. 57.14 percent in the category of large farmers.

Regarding the castes of soil tested farmers the maximum i.e. 44 percent were O.B.Cs., 29

33

percent were S.Cs., 27 percent were general castes and S.Ts. were nil in the area under the

study.

Table-3.1

Socio-economic Characteristics of Sample Households- Soil Tested Farmers

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Total

% of farmer households 58.00 23.00 16.00 3.00 100.00

Average age of respondent

(years)

47 50 47 58 48

Average years of respondent

education

9 9 10 11 9

Agriculture as main

occupation

(% of respondents)

97.00 86.00 79.00 71.00 91.00

Gender (% of respondents)

Male 94.00 96.00 92.00 100.00 95.00

Female 6.00 4.00 8.00 0.00 5.00

Average family size 6 8 7 10 7

Average number of Members

per household engaged in

agriculture

2 2 2 2 2

Average years of experience

in farming

21 25 20 33 22

% of farmers being a

member of any association

8.69 30.35 48.72 57.14 21.67

Caste (% of households)

SC 37.68 16.07 25.64 0 29.58

ST 0 0 0 0 0

OBC 42.76 57.14 30.77 28.57 43.75

General 19.56 26.79 43.59 41.43 26.67

3.2.:- Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Households Non-Soil Tested

Farmers:

The socio-economic characteristics of sample non-soil tested farmers worked-out in Table-

III-2 indicates that out of the total non-soil tested farmers also the maximum i.e. 60 percent of

the farmers were marginal, 22 percent were small, 14 percent were medium and only 4

percent were large farmers. Thus, among the non-soil tested farmers too, the majority were

marginal and small farmers in the area under the study. The average age of respondents was

52 years which varied from 47 years among marginal farmers to 59 years among the large

farmers. The average years of respondents education was 7 years which varied from 8 years

34

in marginal category to 9 years in large category. This evidently indicates that on an average

farmers were only middle (class VIII) educated wherein small, medium and large farmers

were secondary (Xth

class) educated in the area under the study. Agriculture was the main

occupation of 92 percent of farmers which varied from 89 percent among marginal farmers to

100 percent among large farmers. Thus, agriculture was the main occupation of the majority

of the sample farmers. The gender-wise distribution of the respondents indicates that on the

whole 95.83 percent of the respondents were males and only 4.17 percent were females.

Among the medium and large farmers there were 100 percent male respondents. Thus,

majority were male respondents in the area under study.

The average family size was of 9 members per household which varied from 6 in a household

of marginal farmer to 17 in a household of large farmer in the area under the study. Thus, it is

safely concluded that large farmers had larger family size. The average number of members

engaged in agriculture was 2 per household in the households of non-soil tested farmers too.

The average years of experience in farming was 21 years which varied from 20 years in case

of marginal farmers to 26 years in case of large farmers. On an average 19 percent of sample

farmers were the members of any association which varied from 8 percent in the category of

marginal farmers to 80 percent among the large farmers. Thus, larger farmers had larger

memberships of various associations. The analysis on distribution of castes among sample

farmers it was found that maximum i.e. 45 percent were O.B.Cs., 28 percent were S.Cs., 25

percent were general castes and the minimum i.e. 1.67 percent were S.Ts. in the area under

the study. The distribution among different categories of farmers shows that O.B.Cs. were

maximum in small and medium categories, S.Cs. were maximum in marginal and medium

categories and general were maximum in large category. The related data are given in Table-

3-2.

35

Table-3.2

Socio-economic Characteristics of Sample Households- Non-soil Tested Farmers

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Total

% of farmer households 60.00 22.00 14.00 4.00 100.00

Average age of

respondent (years)

47 48 52 59 52

Average years of

respondent education

8 10 10 9 7

Agriculture as main

occupation

(% of respondents)

89.00 96.00 94.00 100.00 92.00

Gender (% of

respondents)

Male 94.44 98.15 100.00 100.00 95.83

Female 5.56 3.85 0.00 0.00 4.17

Average family size 6 6 8 17 9

Average number of

members engaged in

agriculture

2 2 2 2 2

Average years of

experience in farming

20 21 23 26 21

% of farmers being a

member of any

association

8.00 19.00 47.00 80.00 19.00

Caste (% of

households)

SC 36.11 11.54 29.81 0.00 28.33

ST 2.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.67

OBC 40.28 53.85 52.94 40.00 45.00

General 20.83 34.61 17.65 60.00 25.00

3.3.:- Operational Land Holdings of the Sample Soil-Tested Farmers (Acres /

Household)

The operational land holdings of the sample soil-tested farmers worked-out in Table-3.3

indicates that on an overall the average owned land per household was estimated to 3.43 acres

which varied from 1.36 acres in marginal category to 15.23 acres in the large category. The

average leased-in land per household was only 0.05 acres which shows that practice of

leasing-in land was not common in the area under study. The area leased-out, area

uncultivated and fallow area was found nil. Thus, the net operated area per household on an

overall average was accounted as 3.48 acres wich varied from 1.36 acre among marginal

farmers to 15.23 acres among large farmers. The total operated area was reported to be

36

irrigated. Thus, there was 100 percent irrigation among soil-tested farmers. The related data

are given in Table-3.3.

Table-3.3

Operational Landholding of the Sample Households (acres/household)- Soil Tested

Farmers

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Owned land 1.36 3.91 7.23 15.23 3.43

Leased-in 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.05

Leased-out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uncultivated/Fallow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Net operated area 1.36 4.03 7.37 15.23 3.48

Net irrigated area 1.36 4.03 7.37 15.23 3.48

Net un-Irrigated area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.4.:- Operational Land Holdings of the Sample Non-Soil Tested Farmers (Acres /

Household)

The operational land holdings of the sample non-soil tested farmers worked-out in Table-3.4

indicates that on an overall the average owned land per household was estimated to 3.36 acres

which varied from 1.49 acres in marginal category to 12.75 acres per household in large

category. The average leased-in land per household was only 0.20 acre. Thus, practice of the

leasing-in land among the non-soil tested farmers too was not common in the area under

study. The area leased-out and uncultivated as well as area under fallows was found to be nil

in cases of non-soil tested farmers too. Thus, the net operated area per household was

accounted to 3.56 acres which varied from 1.49 acres in marginal category to 15.75 acres in

large category. The total operated area was found to be irrigated in cases of non-soil tested

farmers too. The related data are given in Table-3.4.

Table-3.4

Operational Landholding of the Sample Households (acres/household)- Non-soil Tested

Farmers

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Owned land 1.49 4.19 7.23 12.75 3.36

Leased-in 0.00 0.00 0.51 3.00 0.20

Leased-out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Uncultivated/Fallow 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Net operated area 1.49 4.19 7.74 15.75 3.36

Net irrigated area 1.49 4.19 7.74 15.75 3.36

Net un-Irrigated area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

37

3.5.:- Source of Irrigation (% of net irrigated area) on the farms of Soil-Tested Farmers

The source-wise irrigated area on the farms of soil tested farmers worked-out in Table-3.5

shows that on an overall average 78.71 percent area per farm was irrigated by bore-well

which varied from 82.73 percent in the category of marginal farmers to 53.11 percent in the

category of large farmers. Thus, bore-wells were used more by marginal and small farmers

than by the large farmers. In cases of canal the next source of irrigation on an average 21.29

percent area was irrigated by a farmer which varied from 17.27 percent in the category of

marginal farmers to 46.89 percent in the category of large farmers. Thus, larger farmers used

canal more for irrigation than marginal and small farmers. No other source of irrigation was

reported in the area under study. The related data are given in Table-3.5.

Table-3.5

Source of Irrigation (% of net irrigated area)on the farms of Soil Tested Farmers

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Open/ dug well 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bore well 82.73 86.30 79.23 53.11 78.71

Canal 17.27 13.70 20.77 46.89 21.29

Tank 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

River/Ponds and

Others 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

3.6.:- Source of Irrigation (% of net irrigated area) on the farms of Non-Soil Tested

Farmers

The source-wise irrigated area on the farms of non-soil tested farmers worked-out in Table-

3.6 shows that on an overall average 89.27 percent of the operated area was irrigated by bore-

well on a farm of non-soil tested farmer and only 14.31 percent of the operated area was

irrigated by canal in the area under the study. The irrigation by bore-well was used more on

the larger farms. While canal irrigation was used more by marginal and small farmers in the

area under the study. No other source of irrigation was used in the area of study by any

farmer. The related data are given in Table-3.6.

38

Table-3.6

Source of Irrigation (% of net irrigated area) on the farms of Non-Soil Tested Farmers

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Open/ dug well 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bore well 78.46 83.36 95.25 100.00 89.27

Canal 21.54 16.64 4.75 0.00 14.31

Tank 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

River/Ponds and

Others 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

3.7.:- Cropping Pattern of the Sample Households Among Soil-Tested Farmers (% of

G.C.A.)

The cropping pattern of the sample households among the soil-tested farmers analyzed in

Table-3.7 shows that out of the gross cropped area the maximum area i.e. 49.23 percent was

cropped under wheat in Rabi season, 45.85 percent under paddy in kharif season, 2.86

percent under other crops in kharif, 0.43 percent under other crops in rabi and 0.41 percent

area was cropped during summer (zaid). The area cropped under sugarcane as annual crop

was 1.22 percent in case of marginal farmers. Thus, marginal soil-tested farmers had cropped

maximum area under wheat in Rabi and paddy in kharif, other crops were cropped negligibly

in the area under study. Similar cropping pattern was followed by small, medium and large

farmers during the three seasons in the area under study. The area under sugarcane was

cropped in larger percentages by larger farmers in the area under the study. Thus, paddy and

wheat were the major crops grown by the soil-tested farmers in the area under the study. The

related data are given in Table-3.7.

Table-3.7

Cropping Pattern of the Sample Households (% of GCA)- Soil Tested Farmers

Season/crop Marginal Small Medium Large

Kharif

Paddy 45.85 43.10 39.39 41.90

Other 2.86 3.12 1.49 1.46

Rabi

Wheat 49.23 44.16 39.66 41.23

Other 0.43 1.93 1.23 2.13

Summer 0.41 0.00 2.58 0.00

Annual/perennial

Sugercane 1.22 7.69 15.65 13.28

GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

39

3.8.:- Cropping Pattern of the Sample Households Among Non-Soil Tested Farmers (%

of G.C.A.)

The cropping pattern of the sample households among the non-soil tested farmers analyzed in

Table-3.8 shows that out of gross cropped area the maximum i.e. 48.55 percent was cropped

under wheat only during Rabi season. During Kharif season 47.47 percent was cropped under

paddy and 1.07 percent was cropped under other crops. During summer season only 0.36

percent area was cropped on the whole in case of the marginal farmers. Under sugarcane as

annual crop 2.55 percent area of the gross cropped area was covered by marginal non-soil

tested farmers. Thus, marginal farmers have cropped paddy in kharif and wheat in rabi

covering maximum area of the gross cropped area. Similarly small, medium and large non-

soil tested farmers have covered maximum area under paddy in kharif and under wheat in

Rabi season. Larger farmers have covered few larger area under sugarcane as annual crop in

the area under the study. Thus, in case of non-soil tested farmers too, similar cropping pattern

was followed by all farmers in the area under study. The major crops on the farms of non-soil

tested farmers were paddy and wheat. The related data are given in Table-3.8

Table-3.8

Cropping Pattern of the Sample Households (% of GCA)- Non-soil Tested Farmers

Season/crop Marginal Small Medium Large

Kharif

Paddy 47.47 44.58 38.05 41.96

Other 1.07 0.94 1.92 1.79

Rabi

Wheat 48.55 44.91 39.16 41.96

Other 0.00 0.32 0.82 1.79

Summer 0.36 0.00 2.20 0.00

Annual/perennial

Sugercane 2.55 9.25 17.85 12.50

GCA 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

3.9.:- Area Under HYV of Major Crops (% of G.C.A.) on the Sample Farms

The area under HYV of the major crops on the sample soil-tested farms as well as non-soil

tested farms worked-out in Table-3.9 shows that on the farms of soil-tested farmers on an

overall average 28.11 percent of the area was reported under HYV of paddy crop and 43.71

percent of the area under HYV of wheat crop. The HYV area under paddy varied from 28.15

percent on a marginal farms to 35.92 percent on large farms of the soil-tested farmers. While

the HYV area under wheat varied from 39.65 percent on medium farms to 49.24 percent on

40

marginal farms. Thus, HYV paddy was cropped more on larger farms but HYV wheat

cropped more on the marginal and small farms of soil tested farmers. While on non-soil

tested farms on an overall average only 12.79 percent area was under HYV of paddy crop and

22.06 percent of area under HYV of wheat crop. The HYV area under paddy on non-soil

tested farmers varied from 7.65 percent on small farms to 23.24 percent on large farms.

While the HYV area under wheat varied from 17.55 percent on medium farms to 31.21

percent on large farms. Thus, the area under HYV was reported to be higher under wheat in

comparison of paddy because during kharif season the area was shifted from paddy to other

kharif crops. The related data are given in Table-3.9.

Table-3.9

Area Under HYV of Major Crops (% of GCA)

Crop name Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Average

Soil Tested Farmers

Paddy 28.15 24.52 28.14 35.92 28.11

Wheat 49.24 44.16 39.65 41.24 43.71

Non-Soil Tested Farmers

Paddy 13.70 7.65 12.38 23.24 12.79

Wheat 24.10 21.34 17.55 31.21 22.06

3.10.:- Aggregate Value of Crop Output

The aggregate value of crop output received and sold per household and per acre by the

sample farms analyzed in Table-3.10 indicates that on an overall average the value of output

per household from crops was accounted to Rs. 163663 in case of soil tested farmers which

was found increasing from Rs. 67885 in marginal households to Rs. 689280 in large

households. The per acre output from crops was Rs. 47051 on an average which was

maximum i.e. Rs. 52817 in medium households against the minimum i.e. Rs. 43443 in

marginal households. Thus, per household output from crops was highest in the households

of large farmers but per acre output from crops was highest on the medium soil tested farms

which clarifies that farms of medium soil tested farmers were more productive in the area

under study. Accordingly the value of output sold per household was accounted to Rs.

138217 on an average in case of soil tested farmers which increased from Rs. 51396 in

41

marginal households to Rs. 652839 in large households. The per acre value of output sold

was estimated to Rs. 39736 on an average in case of soil tested farmers which was highest i.e.

45352 on medium farms. Thus, medium farms were more income giving and profitable. As

regards the non-soil tested farmers the value of crop output received per household was

estimated to Rs. 150916 on an overall average which increased from Rs. 61557 in marginal

household to Rs. 593434 in the large households. The per acre value of output from crops

received on an average was estimated to Rs. 42442 which increased from Rs. 37678 in large

households to Rs. 46426 in medium households. The per acre value was higher on medium

farms against the lowest on large farms. Thus, it is evidently clear that medium non-soil

tested farmers were more productive in the area under study. Accordingly the value of output

from crops sold per household was estimated to Rs. 128761 on an overall average which

increased from Rs. 44953 in the marginal households to Rs. 548110 in the large households.

The per acre value of output sold was estimated to Rs. 36211 on average which increased

from Rs. 30122 in marginal households to Rs. 42657 in medium households. Thus, medium

farms found to be more income giving and profitable in case of non-soil tested farmers too.

The related data are given in Table-3.10.

Table-3.10

Aggregate Value of Crop Output

Value of Output Received Value of Output Sold Particulars

Rs/household Rs/acre Rs/household Rs/acre

Soil Tested Farmers

Marginal 67885 43443 51396 32891

Small 177139 44009 151547 37651

Medium 388882 52817 333918 45352

Large 689280 45250 652839 42857

Overall 163663 47051 138217 39736

Non-Soil Tested Farmers

Marginal 61557 41248 44953 30122

Small 176907 42248 148434 35448

Medium 359474 46426 330289 42657

Large 593434 37678 548110 34801

Overall 150916 42442 128761 36211

42

3.11.:- Distribution of Farm Assets

The distribution of farm assets on the farms of soil tested farmers and non-soil tested farmers

worked-out in Table-3.11 shows that the total value of farm assets per household in case of

soil tested farmers was accounted to Rs. 451303 where in the number of assets were 14 in

total. The valuable assets were tractor with trolley, harrow and cultivator, electric and diesel

motors and threshers with the soil tested farmers, while in case of non-soil tested farmers the

total value of farm assets per household was accounted to Rs. 365642 and the number of

assets was 10 in total per household. The most valuable farm assets were tractors with

trolleys, harrow and cultivator, electric / diesel engines and threshers on the farms of non-soil

tested farmers also. Thus, farm assets owned by soil tested farmers were comparatively more

valuable than the farm assets owned by non-soil tested farmers in the area under the study.

The related data are contained in Table-3.11.

Table-3.11

Distribution of Farm Assets

Soil Tested Farmers Non-Soil Tested Farmers Particulars

Number/

household

Value/

household

(Rs)

Number/

household

Value/

Household

(Rs)

Tractor, trailer/trolley 1 337566 1 287250

Harrow and cultivator 1 28000 1 30000

Electric motor/ Diesel

Engine

1 26250 1 27313

Thresher 1 22768 1 9950

Planker 0 0 0 0

Manual/power sprayer 1 743 1 731

Fodder chopper 1 2650 1 2153

Bullock cart 1 23333 0 0

Drip/sprinkler system 0 0 0 0

Small tools (spade, hoe,

sickle etc.)

6 185 3 183

Animal shed/pump house 1 9808 1 8062

Others 0 0 0 0

Total 14 451303 10 365642

3.12.:- Agricultural Credit Outstanding by the Sample Soil Tested Farmers (in

Rs./Household)

The agricultural credit outstanding by the sample soil tested farmers worked-out in Table-

3.12 shows that on an overall average the agricultural credit outstanding per sample soil

43

tested farmers was estimated to Rs. 67357, while in case of marginal farmers it was Rs.

21000 per household in case of small farmers Rs. 36500 in case of medium farmers it was Rs.

73750 and in case of large farmers it was Rs. 156667 per household. Thus, it is clarified that

larger farmers had larger amount of outstanding agricultural credit on their part in

comparison of marginal and small farmers in the area under study. On the other hand the

agricultural credit by soil tested farmers was taken from commercial banks and RRBs where

in the maximum credit was taken from the commercial banks. From RRBs only a few of

marginal and medium farmers had used to take only small amount of credit in the area under

the study. The related data are contained in Table-3.12.

Table-3.12

Agricultural Credit Outstanding by the Sample Households (Rs/household)- Soil Tested

Farmers

Sources Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Average

Co-operative Credit

Societies

0 0 0 0 0

Land development banks 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial banks 12500 36500 88333 156667 83300

RRBs 26667 0 30000 0 27500

Money lenders 0 0 0 0 0

Fiends/Relatives 0 0 0 0 0

Traders/Commission

agents

0 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0 0

Total Credit Availed 21000 36500 73750 156667 67357

3.13.:- Agricultural Credit Outstanding by the Sample Non-Soil Tested Farmers (in

Rs./Household)

The agricultural credit outstanding by the sample non-soil tested farmers worked-out in

Table-3.13 shows that on an overall average the outstanding agricultural credit per household

was accounted to Rs. 42143 in cases of non-soil tested farmers which varied from Rs. 20000

per household in the marginal households Rs. 100000 per household in the large households

of sample non-soil tested farmers in the area under study. On the other hand it was found that

the agricultural credit was taken only from commercial banks and from RRBs by only a few

non-soil tested farmers wherein from the commercial banks on an overall average Rs. 58750

44

per household was taken as agricultural credit which was found varying from Rs. 40000 per

household in small households to Rs. 100000 per household in large households. As a result

only Rs. 58750 per household was accounted to be taken as agricultural credit from

Commercial Banks. Thus, it is obviously clear that non-soil tested farmers had also taken

agricultural credit only from commercial banks and RRBs wherein the larger amount was

found outstanding with the larger farmers in the area under the study. The related data are

given in Table-3.13.

Table-3.13

Agricultural Credit Outstanding by the Sample Households (Rs/household)- Non-Soil

Tested Farmers

Sources Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Average

Co-operative Credit

Societies

0 0 0 0 0

Land development banks 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial banks 0 40000 47500 100000 58750

RRBs 20000 20000 0 0 20000

Money lenders 0 0 0 0 0

Fiends/Relatives 0 0 0 0 0

Traders/Commission

agents

0 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0 0

Total Credit Availed 20000 30000 47500 100000 42143

3.14.:- Purpose of Agricultural Loan Availed by Soil Tested Farmers (% of Farmers)

The purpose of agricultural loan availed by soil tested farmers worked-out in Table-3.14

shows that on an overall average the percentage of the soil tested farmers who had availed to

take loan reported that 6.25 percent had taken loan for seasonal crop cultivation and 5.42

percent purchase of tractors and other implements only in the area under study. The seasonal

crop cultivation loan was taken maximum by 12.82 percent of medium farmers, 7.14 percent

of small farmers and 5.07 percent of marginal farmers. No large farmers had taken seasonal

45

crop loans in the area under study. The loan for the purchase of tractor and other implements

was found to be taken maximum i.e. 42.86 percent of large farmers, 7.69 percent of medium

farmers and minimum i.e. 2.90 percent of marginal farmers and 5.36 percent of the small

farmers in the area under the study. Thus, agricultural loans were availed only for the purpose

of seasonal crop loans and purchase of tractor and other implements in the area under study

wherein loan for tractors and implements was taken by maximum of larger farmers and crop

loans by maximum small and marginal farmers in the area under the study. The related data

are given in Table-3.14.

Table-3.14

Purpose of Agricultural Loan Availed (% of farmers)- Soil Tested Farmers

Purpose Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Average

Seasonal crop cultivation 7

(5.07)

4

(7.14)

5

(12.82)

0

(0.00)

15

(6.25)

Purchase of tractor and other

implements

4

(2.90)

3

(5.36)

3

(7.69)

3

(42.86)

13

(5.42)

Purchase of livestock 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Land development -- -- -- -- --

Consumption expenditure -- -- -- -- --

Marriage and social ceremonies -- -- -- -- --

Non-farm activities -- -- -- -- --

Other expenditures -- -- -- -- --

3.15.:- Purpose of Agricultural Loan Availed by Non-Soil Tested Farmers

The purpose of agricultural loan availed by non-soil tested farmers (in % of farmers) worked-

out in Table-3.15 shows that in cases of non-soil tested farmers also. The percentage of the

farmers who had availed loans for seasonal crop cultivation and purchase of tractor and other

implements in the area under study. The seasonal crop cultivation loan was taken maximum

i.e. 20.00 percent of large farmers and 19.23 percent of the small farmers and minimum i.e.

4.17 percent of marginal farmers and 5.88 percent of medium farmers in the area under study.

The loan for the purchase of tractor and other implements was taken maximum i.e. 20.00

46

percent of large farmers and 11.76 percent of medium farmers and minimum i.e. 7.69 percent

of small farmers. No marginal farmer had taken loan for the purchase of tractor and other

implements in the area under study. Thus, among the non-soil tested farmers too the

maximum of the large and small farmers had used to take loan for seasonal crop cultivation

and the maximum of large and medium farmers had taken loan for the purchase of tractor and

other implements in the area under study. The related data are contained in Table-3.15.

Table-3.15

Purpose of Agricultural Loan Availed (% of farmers)-Non-Soil Tested Farmers

Purpose Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Average

Seasonal crop cultivation 3

(4.17)

5

(19.23)

1

(5.88)

1

(20.00)

10

(8.33)

Purchase of tractor and other

implements

0

(0.00)

2

(7.69)

2

(11.76)

1

(20.00)

5

(4.17)

Purchase of livestock 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

Land development 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

Consumption expenditure 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

Marriage and social ceremonies 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

Non-farm activities 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

Other expenditures 0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

0

(0.00)

3.16.:- Training Programmes Attended on Application of Chemical Fertilizers by the

Sample Farmers

The training programmes attended on application of chemical fertilizers by sample farmers

worked-out in Table-3.16 shows that in case of soil tested farmers on an overall total 57

sample farmers had attended training wherein the maximum number of farmers attending

trainings were from the category of marginal and small households. The percentages of

farmers who attended the training programmes were found to be higher in the large

47

households (43 percent) and medium households (31 percent) against the lower in the small

households (21 percent) and (19 percent) in the marginal households in the area under study.

The average number of days of the training was reported to be 1 (one) only. The related data

are given in Table-3.16.

Table-3.16

Training Programmes Attended on Application of Chemical Fertilizers by the Sample

Farmers

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Soil Test Farmers

Number of farmers

attended training

30 12 12 3 57

% of farmers attended 24.00 21.00 31.00 43.00 24.00

Average number of days 1 1 1 1 1

Control Farmers

Average number of farmers

training attended

0 0 0 0 0

% of farmers attended 0 0 0 0 0

Average number of days 0 0 0 0 0

3.17.:- Summary of Chapter-3

Chapter-III reveals that the majority of sample soil tested farmers were marginal and small

and large farmers were only a few in the area under study. The respondents were of matured

age between 47 to 58 years and secondary educated. Agriculture was the main occupation of

the majority of sample farmers 95 percent were male respondents. The average family size

was of 7 members and members engaged in agriculture were 2 per family. The years of

experience in farming was 22 years. Maximum of soil tested farmers were O.B.Cs. and S.Cs.

Among non-soil tested farmers also the majority were marginal and small farmers. The

average age was 52 years non-soil tested farmers were middle (class VIII) educated and

agriculture was their main occupation. 98 percent were male respondents. The family size

was of 9 members. Large farmers had larger family. The number of members engaged in

farming was 2 per family in non-soil tested farmers. Among non-soil tested farmers also

maximum were O.B.Cs. The net operated area per household was 3.48 acres and the total was

irrigated. Among non-soil tested farmers it was 3.56 acres and total was irrigated. Leasing-in

land was not common. Bore-well was main source of irrigation followed by canal where in

48

large farmers used canal more. No other source of irrigation was there in the area under

study. Paddy and wheat were the major crops grown by both the soil tested farmers and non-

soil tested farmers. The area under HYV was reported to be higher under wheat in

comparison of paddy in the area under study. The output per household from crops was

highest in the households of large farmers but the per acre output from crops was highest on

the medium soil tested farms which clarifies that farms of the medium soil tested farmers was

more productive in the area under the study. Also the medium farms were more income

providing and profitable. In case of non-soil tested farmers too the medium farms were more

productive and more income providing and profitable in the area under study. The farm assets

owned by soil tested farmers were comparatively more valuable than the farm assets owned

by the non-soil tested farmers in the area under study.

About agricultural credit it is very well clarified that larger farmers had larger amount of

outstanding agricultural credit on their part in comparison of marginal and small farms. The

maximum number of soil tested farmers had taken agricultural credit from commercial banks

in the area under study. The non-soil tested farmers had also taken agricultural credit from the

commercial banks only and the larger amount of credit was outstanding with the larger

farmers in the area under study.

In case of soil tested farmers the agricultural loans availed only for seasonal crop loans and

purchase of tractor and other implements where-in the loans for tractor and implements was

taken by maximum of larger farmers and crop loans were taken by maximum of small and

marginal farmers. Among the non-soil tested farmers too the maximum number of small and

large farmers had used to take the seasonal crop loans and maximum of the large and medium

farmers had taken loan for the purchase of tractors and other implements in the area under

study.

Regarding training programmes the maximum number of training were attended in the

category of marginal and small households. The percentages of farmers who attended the

training programmes were higher in large and medium households. The average number of

days of the training was reported to be 1 (one day) only.

49

Chapter-IV

4.:- Details of Soil Testing and Recommended Doses of Fertilizers

4.1.:- Background

This chapter mainly deals with the distribution of sample soil tested farmers growing paddy

as major (crop-I) and wheat as major (crop-II), sources of information about soil testing by

sample soil tested farmers in percentages, reasons for soil testing by sample soil tested

farmers for paddy and wheat, reasons for not testing soils during the last three years by non-

soil tested farmers, status of soil health in terms of nutrients on the sample soil tested farms as

reported in the soil health cards of soil tested farmers in percentages and average quantity of

recommended doses and split doses at stages of growth of fertilizers given on the basis of soil

test as reported in the health cards of soil tested farmers which are discussed in the following

paragraphs:-

4.1.:- Distribution of Sample Soil Tested Farmers Growing Paddy (Crop-I)

The distribution of sample soil tested farmers growing paddy (crop-I) analyzed in Table-4.1

indicates that the percentage of farmers tested their soil in the last three years varied from the

maximum i.e. 52.50 percent in cases of marginal farmers to the minimum i.e. 4.17 percent in

cases of large farmers. Thus, it is safely concluded that marginal farmers tested their soil

more in comparison of the large farmers in the area under study. Small and medium farmers

tested their soil considerably. The average cost of soil testing was reported as Rs. 7 per soil

sample. The distance from soil testing lab to field varied from 27 kms in case of medium

farmers to 33 kms in case of marginal farmers. Thus, the average distance from the field to

lab was 31 kms in the area under study. On an average the number of soil sample taken per

plot was found to be 1.26 and the average number of plots considered for soil testing was also

reported to be 1.26. The average area covered under soil test was estimated as 3.22 acres

which varied from 1.44 acres on the marginal farms to 13.54 acres on the large farms. Thus,

the area covered under soil test increased with the increase in the size of farms. While the

area covered as percentage of net operated area was 81.40 percent on an average which

varied from 72.25 percent on medium farms to 96.86 percent on the marginal farms. No

50

sample farmer was reported to collect the soil sample himself and hence 100 percent of the

soil samples were collected by the departmental officials. The related data are contained in

Table-4.1.

Table-4.1

Distribution of Sample Soil Tested Farmers: Crop I (Paddy)

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Total

% of farmers tested their soil in the last

three years

52.50 22.50 20.83 4.17 100.00

Average cost of soil testing (Rs/soil

sample)

7 7 7 7 7

Average distance from field to soil

testing lab (kms)

33 31 27 29 31

Average number of soil samples taken

per plot

1.13 1.67 1.08 1.20 1.26

Average no. of plots considered for soil

testing

1.16 1.67 1.08 1.20 1.26

Average area covered under soil test

(acre)

1.44 3.35 5.19 13.54 3.22

Area covered as % of net operated area 96.86 81.92 72.25 81.72 81.40

% of farmers who collected samples

themselves

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

% of soil sample collected by the

department officials

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

4.2.:- Distribution of Sample Soil Tested Farmers Growing Wheat (Crop-II)

The distribution of sample soil tested farmers growing wheat (crop-II) analyzed in Table-4.2

indicates that in case of wheat growing farmers the percentage of farmers who tested their

soil in the last three years was found varying from the maximum i.e. 62.50 percent on

marginal farms to the minimum i.e. 1.66 percent on the large farms. Thus, in case of wheat

growing farmers too the maximum of marginal farmers had tested their soils in comparison of

minimum by large farmers. The average cost of soil testing in wheat growing farmers too was

reported to be Rs. 7 per soil sample. The average distance from the field to soil testing lab

was reported to 24.04 kms which varied from 5.5 kms in case of large farmers to 27.17 kms

in case of marginal farmers. The number of samples taken per plot was estimated to be 1.55

on an average and the average number of plots considered for soil testing was also reported to

be 1.55 per farm in the area under the study. The average area covered under soil test was

51

estimated as 2.38 acres per farmer which varied from 1.56 acres on marginal farms to 5.62

acres on large farms. On an average 75.56 percent of the net operated area was reported to be

covered under soil testing which varied from 36.84 percent on large farms to 91.64 percent

on marginal farms. Like paddy growers in case of wheat growers too none had collected the

soil samples himself and therefore, 100 percent of the soil samples were collected by

concerned departmental officials in the area under study. The related data are given in Table-

4.2.

Table-4.2

Distribution of Sample Soil Tested Farmers: Crop II (Wheat)

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Total

% of farmers tested their soil in the last

three years

62.50 24.17 11.67 1.66 100.00

Average cost of soil testing (Rs/sample) 7 7 7 7 7

Average distance from field to soil

testing lab (kms)

27.17 19.86 18.5 5.5 24.04

Average number of soil samples taken

per plot

1.24 1.96 2.29 2 1.55

Average no. of plots considered for soil

testing

1.24 1.96 2.29 2 1.55

Average area covered under soil test

(acre)

1.56 4.70 4.58 5.62 2.38

Area covered as % of net operated area 91.64 77.24 63.29 36.84 75.56

% of farmers who collected samples

themselves

-- -- -- -- --

% of soil sample collected by the

department officials

62.50 24.17 11.67 1.66 100.00

4.3.:- Sources of Information about Soil Testing Available to Sample Soil Tested

Farmers in Percentage

The sources of information about soil testing available to sample soil tested farmers in

percentages analyzed in Table-4.3 shows that in cases of both paddy as well as wheat

growing soil tested farmers the only and one source of information i.e. state agriculture

department was reported to be available to the needy sample farmers in the area under study.

Thus, it is clarified that 100 percent the sample soil tested farmers were made aware about

soil testing by the state agriculture department of the state of Uttar Pradesh. The related data

are given in Table-4.3.

52

Table-4.3

Sources of Information about Soil Testing by Sample Households (% of farmers)- Soil

Tested Farmers

Sources Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Crop I (Paddy)

SAUs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

KVKs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

State Agriculture

department

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Private

companies

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Friends/neighbors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Crop II (Wheat)

SAUs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

KVKs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

State Agriculture

department

100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Private

companies

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Friends/neighbors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 100 100 100 100 100

4.4.:- Reasons for Soil Testing by Sample Soil Tested Farmers in Percentage of Farmers

The reasons for soil testing by sample soil tested farmers in percentages of sample farmers

worked-out in Table-4.4 indicates that in case of soil tested farmers growing paddy almost all

the sample farmers told that they had got done the soil testing for the main reason to increase

the crop yield where-in about 15.00 percent of sample farmers reported it as most important

reason, 60.83 percent told it as important reason and 11.67 percent told it as least important

reason. While in cases of sample soil tested farmers growing wheat also the same reason i.e.

for increasing crop yield where in the maximum 75 percent of farmers told it most important

reason, 16.67 percent told it important reason and 8.33 percent told it least important reason.

Motivation from village demonstration with best farming practices was told to be another

important reason by 0.83 percent farmers in case paddy growers. In case of paddy another

reason was also told by 11.67 percent of paddy farmers where-in 2.50 percent of farmers told

it most important reason, 4.17 percent told it as important reason and 5.10 percent told it as

least important reason. The related data are given in Table-4.4.

53

Table-4.4

Reasons for Soil Testing by Sample Households (% of farmers)- Soil Tested Farmers

Crop I (Paddy) Crop II (Wheat)

Reasons Most

Impor

tant

Impor

tant

Least

Impor

tant

Total Most

Impor

tant

Impor

tant

Least

Impor

tant

Total

For availing

benefits under

subsidy schemes

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

For increasing

crop yield

15.00 60.83 11.67 87.50 75.00 16.67 8.33 100.00

Motivation from

village

demonstration/tra

ining/exposure

visits to places

with best farming

practices

-- 0.83 -- 0.83 -- -- -- --

Peer farmers'

group pressure

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Adopt new

technological

practices

2.50 4.17 5.00 11.67 -- -- -- --

4.5.:- Reasons for Not Testing Soil During the Last Three Years by Non-Soil Tested

Farmers in Percentages

The reasons for not testing soils during the last three years by the non-soil tested farmers

worked-out in Table-4.5 shows that in case of paddy among the farmers who do not know

how to take soil samples about 5.00 percent told it as most important reason, 25.00 percent

told it as important reason and 18.33 percent told it as least important reason. The paddy

growers who do not know whom to contact for details on soil testing about 15.00 percent of

farmers told it as important reason and 13.33 percent told it least important reason. The paddy

farmers who told that soil testing laboratories are located far away, about 8.33 percent of

farmers told it as most important reason, 8.33 percent told it as important reason and 5.00

percent told it as least important reason. Remaining few paddy farmers told that soil testing

was not required for their field as paddy (crop-I) gives good yield as least important reason.

In case of wheat among the farmers who do not know how to take soil samples, about 41.66

percent told it most important reason 11.66 percent told it as important reason and 3.33

54

percent told it as least important reason. About the wheat farmers who do not know whom to

contact for details on soil testing 28.33 percent told it as most important reason, 13.33 percent

told it as important reason and 1.67 percent told it as least important reason in the area under

the study. The related data are given in Table-4.5.

Table-4.5

Reasons for Not Testing Soil during the Last Three Years (% of Farmers)-Non-Soil

Tested Farmers

Crop I (Paddy) Crop II (Wheat)

Reasons Most

Impor

tant

Impor

tant

Least

Impor

tant

Total Most

Impor

tant

Impor

tant

Least

Impor

tant

Total

Do not know how to

take soil samples

5.00 25.00 18.33 48.33 41.66 11.66 3.33 56.67

Do not know whom to

contact for details on

testing

-- 15.00 13.33 28.33 28.33 13.33 1.67 43.33

Soil testing

laboratories are

located far away

8.33 8.33 5.00 21.67 -- -- -- --

Soil testing not

required for my field

as crop yield is good

-- -- 1.67 1.67 -- -- -- --

Others -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

4.6.:- Status of Soil Health in Terms of Nutrients on the Sample Soil Tested Farms (as

reported in the soil health cards) of the Soil Tested Farmers

The status of soil health in terms of nutrients on the sample soil tested farms (as reported in

the soil health cards) of the soil tested farmers worked-out in Table-4.6 shows that in case of

paddy 98.33 percent of the sample paddy farmers reported that their soil was low with

nitrogen and 1.67 percent of farmers told it medium with nitrogen. Also 92.50 percent of

farmers reported their soil as low with phosphorous and 6.67 percent told it medium with the

phosphorous. About the status of potash in their soil 97.50 percent of paddy farmers reported

that it was medium with potash and 2.50 percent of farmers told it low with potash. While in

case of wheat 81.67 percent of sample wheat farmers told their soil low with nitrogen 10.83

percent told it medium with nitrogen and 7.50 percent of the farmers told it high with

nitrogen. About the status of phosphorous in their soil 81.67 percent of wheat farmers

55

reported it medium with phosphorous, 17.50 percent told it low with phosphorous and only

0.83 percent of farmers told it high with phosphorous. About the status of potash in their soil

50.83 percent of the wheat farmers reported it medium with potash, 38.33 percent told it high

in potash, 10.00 percent told it low in potash and only 0.83 percent of farmers told it normal

in potash. Thus, the soil of paddy farmers was low with nitrogen and phosphorous and

medium with the potash. While the soil of wheat farmers was low with nitrogen medium with

phosphorous and medium as well as considerably high with potash as the wheat farmers

reported it . the related data are given in Table-4.6.

Table-4.6

Status of Soil Health in terms of Nutrients on the Sample Soil Tested Farms

(as reported in the soil health card)- Soil Tested Farmers (in % of farmers)

Fertilizers Normal High Medium Low

Crop I (Paddy)

Nitrogen (N) 0.00 0.00 1.67 98.33

Phosphorus (P2O5) 0.83 0.00 6.67 92.50

Potassium (K2O) 0.00 0.00 97.50 2.50

Crop II (Wheat)

Nitrogen (N) 0.00 7.50 10.83 81.67

Phosphorus (P2O5) 0.00 0.83 81.67 17.50

Potassium (K2O) 0.83 38.33 50.83 10.00

4.7.:- Average Quantity of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers in Terms of Materials

(Products) Given on the Basis of Soil Test (as reported in the health cards) of the

Soil Tested Farmers

The average quantity of recommended doses of fertilizers in terms of materials (products)

given on the basis of soil test as reported in the health cards of the soil tested farmers

analyzed in Table-4.7 indicates that in case of paddy (crop-I) the recommended doses of urea

was 86.50 kgs. per acre, that of D.A.P. was 53.50 kgs. per acre, S.S.P. (Single Super

Phosphate) dose was not given in the health card and the dose of potash was recommended

as 40.30 kgs. per acre. In case of wheat (crop-II) the recommended doses of urea was 96.58

kgs. per acre, D.A.P. 30.39 kgs. per acre, dose of S.S.P. was not given in the health card and

the recommended dose of potash was 16.67 kgs. per acre. Thus, in case of wheat the dose of

urea was comparatively higher in the area under study. But in case of paddy the doses of

56

D.A.P. and potash were comparatively much higher than that of wheat in the area under the

study. The related data are given in Table-4.7.

Table-4.7

Average Quantity of Recommended Dose of Fertilizers in terms of materials (product)

Given Based on Soil Test

(as reported in the health card)-Soil Tested Farmers (in Kg/acre)

Crop Crop I (Paddy) Crop II (Wheat)

Urea 86.50 96.58

DAP 53.50 30.39

Single Super Phosphate -- --

Potash 40.30 16.67

4.8.:- Average Quantity of Split Doses of Fertilizers Recommended by Stage of Crop

Growth for Soil Tested Farmers in kgs. per acre

The average quantity of split doses of fertilizers recommended by stages of crop growth for

soil tested farmers in kgs. per acre worked-out in Table-4.8 shows that in case of paddy the

recommended doses of urea as basal application was 30.97 kgs. per acre, after intercultural

30.01 kgs. per acre, at the stage of vegetative growth 29.22 kgs. per acre and at the stage of

flowering 23.12 kgs. per acre D.A.P. was recommended only as basal application as 51.18

kgs. per acre, doses of S.S.P. was not included in the health cards. The recommended doses

of potash as basal application was as 37.20 kgs. per acre for paddy. In case of wheat (crop-II)

the recommended doses of urea as basal application was nil after intercultural dose of urea

was 53.46 kgs. per acre and at the flowering stage it was recommended as 43.76 kgs. per

acre. D.A.P. was recommended as basal application as 30.91 kgs. per acre and Potash was

also recommended as basal application at the rate of 14.76 kgs. per acre in case of wheat in

the area under study. Thus, urea, D.A.P. and potash were recommended in larger quantity in

case of paddy on the whole as compared to the urea, D.A.P. and S.S.P. recommended in case

of wheat on the whole in the area of study in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The related data are

contained in Table-4.8.

57

Table-4.8

Average Quantity of Split Doses of Fertilizers Recommended by Stage of Crop Growth

(Kg/acre)- Soil Tested Farmers (in Kg/acre)

Particulars Basal

application

After inter-

cultivation

(weeding, thinning

etc)

Vegetative

growth

Flowering Grain

formation

Crop I

(Paddy)

Urea 30.97 30.01 29.22 23.12 --

DAP 51.18 -- -- -- --

SSP -- -- -- -- --

Potash 37.20 -- -- -- --

Crop II

(Wheat)

Urea -- 53.46 -- 43.76 --

DAP 30.91 -- -- -- --

SSP -- -- -- -- --

Potash 14.76 -- -- -- --

4.9.:- Summary of Chapter-IV

This chapter reveals that marginal soil tested farmers had used to test their soils more in

comparison of the large soil tested farmers in the area under study. Small and medium

farmers had used to test soils considerably. The average cost of soil testing was reported as

Rs. 7 per soil sample. The distance from soil testing lab to field was found to be 31 kms. in

the area under study.

The area covered under the soil tests was found increasing with the increase in the size of

farms, while the area covered as percentage of net operated area was reported as 81.40

percent on an average. No sample farmer was reported to collect the soil sample himself and

hence 100 percent of the soil sample were collected by the officials of state agriculture

department in the area under study in case of paddy (crop-I) and wheat (crop-II) both.

Regarding sources of information about soil testing it was found that 100 percent of the soil

tested farmers were made aware about soil testing by the state agriculture department of Uttar

58

Pradesh. The main reason for soil testing as told by almost all the sample farmers was

increasing the crop yield in case of both paddy as well as wheat.

The main reasons for not testing soils during the last three years by the non-soil tested

farmers were the unawareness about soil testing and location of soil testing laboratories at far

off distances from the fields.

About the status of soil health in terms on nutrients on the sample soil tested farms it was

found that the soil of paddy (crop-I) farmers was low with nitrogen and phosphorous and

medium with the potash. The soils of wheat (crop-II) farmers was low with nitrogen, medium

with phosphorous and medium as well as considerably high with potash as the wheat farmers

reported it.

The average quantity of recommended doses of fertilizers in-terms of materials given on the

basis of soil test it was found that in case of wheat (crop-II) the dose of urea was

comparatively higher in the area under study. But in case of paddy (crop-I) the doses of

D.A.P. and potash were comparatively much higher than that of wheat in the area under

study. While the average quantity of split doses of fertilizers recommended by stages of crop

growth for soil tested farmers it was found that the urea, D.A.P. and Potash were

recommended in larger quantity in case of paddy on the whole as compared to the urea,

D.A.P. and S.S.P. recommended in case of wheat on the whole in area under study.

59

CHAPTER – V

5.: Adoption of recommended Doses of Fertilizer and Its Constraints

5.1. Background:-

This chapter mainly deals with the application of recommended doses of fertilizers on

reference crops by soil tested farmers, constraints in applying recommended doses of

fertilizers by soil tested farmers, awareness and sources of information about recommended

doses of fertilizers by sample non-soil tested farmers, actual quantity of fertilizers applied by

the sample farmers during the reference year in kgs. per acre for paddy (crop-I), actual

quantity of fertilizers applied by the sample farmers during the reference year in kgs. per acre

for wheat (crop-II), actual quantity of split doses of fertilizers applied by stages of crop

growth during the reference year for paddy (Crop-I), actual quantity of split doses of

fertilizers applied by stages of crop growth during the reference year in kgs. per acre for

wheat (Crop-II), method of application of chemical fertilizers by sample farmers for paddy

(Crop-I), method of application of chemical fertilizers sample farmers for wheat (Crop-II),

use of organic fertilizers by the sample farmers for paddy (Crop-I), use of organic fertilizers

by the sample farmers for wheat (Crop-II), source of purchase of fertilizers by sample

farmers quantity of fertilizers purchased by sample farmers and average price of fertilizers

and transport cost incurred in Rs. Per kg. which are discussed in the following paragraphs.:-

5.1. Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers on Reference Crops by the Soil

Tested Farmers

The application of recommended doses of fertilizers on reference crops by soil tested farmers

analyzed in Table-5.1 shows that in case of the reference crop-I (paddy) on an overall average

25 percent of sample soil tested farmers had applied recommended doses of fertilizers which

varied from 21 percent on marginal farms to 37 percent on small farms, on medium farms it

was 28 percent and on large farms it was nil as none had applied recommended doses of

fertilizers. Thus, small farmers had applied in maximum numbers the recommended doses of

fertilizers in the area under study. The average area covered under soil testing was 3 acres per

farm. Thus, the average area covered as percentage of net operated area was found as 21

60

percent which varied from 22 percent on marginal farms to 36 on small farms. Thus,

maximum area of the net operated area was covered under soil testing on the small farms.

The percentage of farmers willing to continue applying recommended doses of fertilizers was

25 percent on an average in the area under study in case of Paddy (crop-I) while in case of

wheat (crop-II) the average percentage of farmers who applied recommended doses of

fertilizers was 23 percent which varied from 21 percent small farms to 25 percent on

marginal farms. Thus, in case of wheat marginal farmers had used recommended doses of

fertilizers maximum in the area under study. The average area covered under the soil testing

was found as 2 acres per farm. The average area covered as percentage of net operated area

was 20 percent which varied from 16 percent on medium farms to 28 percent on marginal

farms. Thus, marginal farms had tested their soils maximum in area under the study. The

percentage of farmers willing to continue applying recommended doses of fertilizers was 23

percent on an average in case of wheat (crop-II). The related data are given in Table-5.1.

Table-5.1

Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers on Reference Crops- Soil Tested

Farmers

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Average

Crop I (Paddy)

% of farmers applied recommended

doses of fertilizers

21 37 28 -- 25

Average area (acre) 2 3 4 -- 3

Area covered as % of net operated

area

22 36 22 -- 21

Average number of seasons applied 1 1 1 -- 1

% of farmers willing to continue

applying recommended doses of

fertilizers

21 37 28 -- 25

Crop II (Wheat)

% of farmers applied recommended

doses of fertilizers

25 21 21 -- 23

Average area (acre) 2 2 2 -- 2

Area covered as % of net operated

area

28 16 16 -- 20

Average number of seasons applied 2 2 2 -- 2

% of farmers willing to continue

applying recommended doses of

fertilizers

25 21 21 -- 23

61

5.2. Constraints in Applying Recommended Doses of Fertilizers by Soil Tested Farmers

The constraints in applying recommended doses of fertilizers by soil tested farmers analyzed

in Table-5.2 shows that in case of paddy (crop-I) only 6.67 percent of soil tested farmers had

reported that adequate quantity of fertilizers was not available, 46.67 percent of farmers

reported that prices of fertilizers were high, 33.33 percent had complained that there was lack

of money to purchase fertilizers and 13.33 percent of farmers told it difficult to understand

and follow the recommended doses of fertilizers, while in case of wheat (crop-II) on an

average 38.05 percent of farmers told that prices of fertilizers were high, 45.65 percent told

about lack of money to purchase fertilizers and 16.30 percent of farmers told it difficult to

understand and follow the recommended doses of fertilizers in case of wheat (crop-II). The

related data are given in Table-5.2.

Table-5.2

Constraints in Applying Recommended Doses of Fertilizers (% of farmers)

-Soil Tested Farmers

Crop I (Paddy) Crop II (Wheat) Constraints

Most

Import

ant

Import

ant

Least

Import

ant

Overall Most

Import

ant

Import

ant

Least

Import

ant

Overall

Adequate quantity

of fertilisers not

available

-- 6.67 -- 6.67 -- -- -- --

Prices of fertilisers

are high

-- 46.67 -- 46.67 -- 38.05 -- 38.05

Lack of money to

purchase fertilisers

-- 33.33 -- 33.33 -- 45.65 -- 45.65

No technical

advice on method

and time of

fertiliser

application

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Difficult to

understand and

follow the

recommended

doses

--

13.33

--

13.33

--

16.30

--

16.30

Other -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

62

V.3. Awareness and Sources of Information about Recommended Doses of Fertilizers by

Sample Non-Soil Tested Farmers in Percentages

The awareness and sources of information about recommended doses of fertilizers by sample

non-soil tested farmers in percentages worked-out in Table-5.3 shows that in case of both

paddy as well as wheat crops the percentage of non-soil tested farmers was 100 percent about

the only and lonely source of information to make them aware about the recommended doses

of fertilizers i.e. State Department of Agriculture (S.A.D.) in the area under study. No other

sources was reported. The related data are given in Table-5.3.

Table-5.3

Awareness and Sources of Information about Recommended Doses of Fertilizers by

Sample Households (% of farmers)- Non-Soil Tested Farmers

Sources Marginal Small Medium Large Total

Crop I (Paddy)

% farmers aware 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source of information -- -- -- -- --

Department of agriculture 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Agricultural University -- -- -- -- --

Cooperatives/Growers'

Association

-- -- -- -- --

Private input dealers -- -- -- -- --

Fellow farmers -- -- -- -- --

NGO/Others -- -- -- -- --

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Crop II (Wheat)

% farmers aware 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Source of information -- -- -- -- --

Department of agriculture 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Agricultural University -- -- -- -- --

Cooperatives/Growers'

Association

-- -- -- -- --

Private input dealers -- -- -- -- --

Fellow farmers -- -- -- -- --

NGO/Others -- -- -- -- --

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

5.4. Actual Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by the sample Farmers During the Reference

Year (2013-14) in Kgs. Per Acre for Paddy (Crop-I)

The actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the sample farmers during the reference year

(2013-14) in kgs. per acre for paddy (crop-I) analyzed in Table-5.4 indicates that in cases of

sample soil tested farmers on an overall average the actual quantity of urea applied was

63

estimated to 83.44 kgs. per acre during the reference year 2013-14 which varied from 81.31

kgs. per acre on small farms to 87.06 kgs. per acre on marginal farms. D.A.P. was applied as

44.32 kgs. per acre on an average which varied from 43.57 kgs. per acre on small farms to

44.98 kgs. per farm on marginal farms. Potash was applied as 31.06 kgs. per acre on an

average which varied from 28.09 kgs. per acre on large farms to 37.55 kgs. per acre on

medium farms. Thus, urea as well as D.A.P. were applied in larger quantity on the marginal

farms than on all other farms, while potash was applied in larger quantity on medium farms

in comparison of other farms in cases of soil tested farmers growing paddy (crop-I).

On the other hand in cases of non-soil tested farmers growing paddy (crop-I) applied urea as

82.34 kgs. per acre on an average which varied from 64.00 kgs. per acre on large farms to

90.66 kgs. per acre on medium farms. D.A.P. was applied as 39.22 kgs. per acre on an

average which varied from 30.86 kgs. per acre on large farms to 45.33 kgs. per acre on

medium farms. While the potash was applied as 28.68 kgs. per acre on an average which

varied from 20.00 kgs. per acre on large farms to 29.97 kgs. per acre on medium farms. Thus,

in cases of non-soil tested farmers growing paddy (crop-I) urea, D.A.P. and potash were

applied in larger quantity on medium farms in comparison of the other farms in the area

under study. The related data are contained in Table-5.4.

Table-5.4

Actual Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by the Sample Farmers during the Reference

Year (2013-14) (Kg/acre)- Crop I (Paddy) (In kgs. per acre)

Fertilizers Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

average

Soil Tested Farmers

Urea 87.06 81.31 82.61 83.10 83.44

DAP 44.98 43.57 44.51 44.06 44.32

Single Super

Phosphate

-- -- -- -- --

Potash 32.25 31.98 37.55 28.09 31.06

Non-Soil Tested

Farmers

Urea 90.11 79.67 90.66 64.00 82.34

DAP 42.05 34.12 45.33 30.86 39.22

Single Super

Phosphate

-- -- -- -- --

Potash 28.46 28.57 29.97 20.00 28.68

64

5.5. Actual Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by the sample Farmers During the Reference

Year (2013-14) in Kgs. Per Acre for Wheat (Crop-II)

The actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the sample farmers during the reference year

(2013-14) in kgs. per acre for wheat (crop-II) analyzed in Table-5.5 indicates that in cases of

sample soil tested farmers growing wheat on an average urea was applied as 83.34 kgs. per

acre which varied from 66.07 kgs. per acre on large farms to 85.83 kgs. per acre on marginal

farms. D.A.P. was applied as 29.94 kgs. per acre on an average and varied from 20.54 kgs.

per acre on large farms to 34.89 kgs. per farm on marginal farms, while potash was applied as

13.51 kgs. per acre on an average and varied from 10.00 kgs. per acre on large farms to 16.50

kgs. per acre on marginal farms. Thus, urea, D.A.P. and potash were applied in larger

quantities on marginal farms than the other farms of soil test farmers growing wheat. While

in cases of control farmers urea was applied as 93.02 kgs. per acre on an average which

varied from 80.00 kgs. per acre on large farms to 111.58 kgs. per acre on medium farms.

D.A.P. was applied as 43.23 kgs. per acre on an average and varied from 38.07 kgs. per acre

on small farms to 57.83 kgs. per acre on medium farms. While potash was applied as 19.19

kgs. per acre on an average and varied from 14.12 kgs. per acre on small farms to 30.00 kgs.

per acre on marginal farms of non-soil tested farmers growing wheat (crop-II). Thus, in cases

of non-soil tested farmers urea and D.A.P. were applied in larger quantity on medium farms

in comparison of other farms, while potash was applied in larger quantity on marginal farms

than the other farms in the area under study. The related data are given in Table-5.5.

Table-5.5

Actual Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by the Sample Farmers during the Reference

Year (2013-14) (Kg/acre)- Crop II (Wheat) (In kgs. per acre)

Fertilizers Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

average

Soil Tested Farmers

Urea 85.83 82.66 82.61 66.07 83.34

DAP 34.89 27.91 25.54 20.54 29.94

Single Super

Phosphate

-- -- -- -- --

Potash 16.5 13.04 14.82 10.00 13.51

Non-Soil Tested

Farmers

Urea 92.52 89.37 111.58 80.00 93.02

DAP 43.39 38.07 57.89 40.00 43.23

Single Super

Phosphate

-- -- -- -- --

Potash 30.00 14.12 -- -- 19.19

65

5.6. Actual Quantity of Split Doses of Fertilizers Applied by Stages of Crop Growth

During Reference Year (2013-14) in Kgs. Per Acre for Paddy (Crop-I)

The actual quantity of split doses of fertilizers applied by stages of crop growth during

reference year (2013-14) in kgs. per acre for paddy (crop-I) analyzed in Table-5.6 indicates

that in cases of soil tested farmers on an average 85.34 kgs. per acre urea was applied during

2013-14 of which the maximum quantity of urea i.e. 34.35 kgs. was applied at the stage of

vegetative growth against the minimum i.e. 9.97 kgs. per acre at the stage of flowering of

paddy. D.A.P. was applied as 44.32 kgs. per acre at the stage of basal application and potash

as 31.06 kgs. per acre was applied as basal application. Thus, urea was applied maximum by

soil test farmers. In cases of control farmers too urea was applied maximum i.e. 33.24 kgs.

per acre at the stage of vegetative growth while on an average 82.34 kgs. per acre urea was

applied by non-soil tested paddy farmers. D.A.P. was applied as 39.22 kgs. per acre and

potash 28.68 kgs. per acre at the stage of basal application in the area under the study. The

related data are given in Table-5.6.

Table-5.6

Actual Quantity of Split Doses of Fertilizers Applied by Stage of Crop Growth during

the Reference Year (Kg/acre)- Crop I (paddy)

Particulars Basal

application

After inter-

cultivation

(weeding,

thinning etc)

Vegetative

growth

Flowering Grain

formation

Total

Soil Tested

Farmers

Urea 11.31 29.71 34.35 9.97 -- 85.34

DAP 44.32 -- -- -- -- 44.32

SSP -- -- -- -- -- --

Potash 31.06 -- -- -- -- 31.06

Non-Soil

Tested

Farmers

Urea 9.24 28.35 33.24 9.30 2.21 82.34

DAP 39.22 -- -- -- -- 39.22

SSP -- -- -- -- -- --

Potash 28.68 -- -- -- -- 28.68

66

5.7. Actual Quantity of Split Doses of Fertilizers Applied by Stages of Crop Growth

During Reference Year (2013-14) in Kgs. Per Acre for Wheat (Crop-II)

The actual quantity of split doses of fertilizers applied by stages of crop growth during

reference year (2013-14) in kgs. per acre for Wheat (crop-II) analyzed in Table-5.7 indicates

that in cases of soil tested farmers on an average 83.34 kgs of urea per acre was applied

during 2013-14 of which the maximum i.e. 42.06 kgs was applied ot the stage of after

interculture. D.A.P. was applied as 29.94 kgs. per acre and potash as 13.51 kgs. per acre as

basal application. While in cases of control farmers on an average urea was applied as 93.02

kgs. per acre of which the maximum i.e. 42.67 kgs. per acre was applied after inter culture

against the minimum i.e. 9.51 kgs. per acre at the stage of basal application. D.A.P. as 43.23

kgs. and potash as 19.19 kgs. per acre was applied as basal application in wheat by non-soil

tested farmers. Related data are given in Table-5.7.

Table-5.7

Actual Quantity of Split Doses of Fertilizers Applied by Stage of Crop Growth during

the Reference Year (Kg/acre)- Crop II (Wheat)

Particulars Basal

applicatio

n

After inter-

cultivation

(weeding,

thinning etc)

Vegetativ

e growth

Floweri

ng

Grain

format

ion

Total

Soil Tested

Farmers

Urea -- 42.06 -- 41.28 -- 83.34

DAP 29.94 -- -- -- -- 29.94

SSP -- -- -- -- -- --

Potash 13.51 -- -- -- -- 13.51

Non-Soil Tested

Farmers

Urea 9.51 42.67 -- 40.84 -- 93.02

DAP 43.23 -- -- -- -- 43.23

SSP -- -- -- -- -- --

Potash 19.19 -- -- -- -- 19.19

67

5.8. Method of Application of Chemical Fertilizers by Sample Farmers for Crop-I

(Paddy)

The method of application of chemical fertilizers by sample farmers for crop-I (paddy)

worked-out in Table-5.8 shows that in cases of soil tested farmers growing paddy (crop-I)

100 percent of the sample farmers reported that urea, D.A.P. and potash were applied by only

broadcasting method in paddy. Also 100 percent of the sample non-soil tested farmers

growing paddy had reported broadcasting method of all the chemical fertilizers i.e. urea,

D.A.P. and potash in the area of study. The related data are given in Table-5.8.

Table-5.8

Method of Application of Chemical Fertilizers (% of farmers)-Crop I (Paddy)

Method Urea DAP SSP Potash

Soil Tested Farmers

Broadcasting 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Dibbling -- -- -- --

Fertigation -- -- -- --

Line application -- -- -- --

Spraying -- -- -- --

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Non-Soil Tested

Farmers

Broadcasting 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Dibbling -- -- -- --

Fertigation -- -- -- --

Line application -- -- -- --

Spraying -- -- -- --

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

5.9. Method of Application of Chemical Fertilizers by Sample Farmers for Crop-II

(Wheat)

The method of application of chemical fertilizers by sample farmers for crop-II (wheat)

worked-out in Table-5.9 shows that in cases of soil tested farmers growing wheat as crop-II

was found that 100 percent of the sample farmers had applied broadcasting method of the

application of chemical fertilizers i.e. urea, D.A.P. and potash either they were soil tested

farmers or non-soil tested farmers in the area under study. No other method of the application

of chemical fertilizers was applied in case of wheat in the area under study. The related data

are given in Table-5.9.

68

Table-5.9

Method of Application of Chemical Fertilizers (% of farmers)-Crop II (Wheat)

Method Urea DAP SSP Potash

Soil Tested Farmers

Broadcasting 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Dibbling -- -- -- --

Fertigation -- -- -- --

Line application -- -- -- --

Spraying -- -- -- --

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Non-Soil Tested

Farmers

Broadcasting 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Dibbling -- -- -- --

Fertigation -- -- -- --

Line application -- -- -- --

Spraying -- -- -- --

Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

5.10. Use of Organic Fertilizers by the Sample Farmers Growing Paddy (Crop-I)

The use of organic fertilizers by the sample farmers growing paddy (crop-I) worked-out in

Table-5.10 shows that in cases of soil tested farmers it was found that only Farm Yard

Manures (F.Y.M.) was used and no other organic manures or organic fertilizer, bio-fertilizers,

green manuring was used in paddy. The percentage of farmers applied F.Y.M. (Farm Yard

Manures) was 96.67 percent. The quantity applied was 295700 kgs. per acre. The price was

0.51 per kg. The area covered as percentage of net operated area was estimated to 87.00

percent on the farms of soil tested farmers. While in cases of non-soil tested farmers growing

paddy (crop-I) it was found that the percentage of farmers who applied Farm Yard Manures

(F.Y.M.) was 73.33 percent and the quantity of F.Y.M. applied was 121000 kgs. per acre.

The price per kg. was Re. 0.51, while the area covered as percentage of net cropped area was

82.00 percent in case of non-soil tested paddy growing farmers. The related data are given in

Table-5.10.

69

Table-5.10

Use of Organic Fertilizers by the Sample Farmers- Crop I (Paddy)

Particulars Farm yard

manure

Vermi-

compost/B

iogas

waste

Bio-

fertilizer

Green

manur

e

Other

organic

manur

e

Total

Soil Tested

Farmers

% farmers

applied

96.67 -- -- -- -- 96.67

Quantity

applied

(Kg/acre)

295700 -- -- -- -- 295700

Price (Rs/kg) 0.51 -- -- -- -- 0.51

Area covered

(% of net

cropped area)

87.00 -- -- -- -- 87.00

Non-Soil

Tested

Farmers

% farmers

applied

73.33 -- -- -- -- 73.33

Quantity

applied

(Kg/acre)

121000 -- -- -- -- 121000

Price (Rs/kg) 0.51 -- -- -- -- 0.51

Area covered

(% of net

cropped area)

82.20 -- -- -- -- 82.20

5.11. Use of Organic Fertilizers by the Sample Farmers Growing Wheat (Crop-II)

The use of organic fertilizers by the sample farmers growing wheat (crop-II) worked-out in

Table-5.11 shows that in cases of soil tested farmers growing wheat (crop-II) it was found

that only farm yard manure was used in wheat also and no other organic manures or organic

fertilizer or bio-fertilizer was used in wheat (crop-II). The quantity of F.Y.M. was applied as

819 kgs. per acre which was too scanty in quantity. The area covered as percentage of net

operated area was estimated as 75.75 percent and the price of F.Y.M. per kg. was reported to

be Re. 0.58 on an average, while in cases of non-soil tested farmers growing wheat it was

found that 78.33 percent of farmers had applied F.Y.M. and the quantity applied per acre was

found to be 57.62 kgs on an average. The area covered as percentage of net cropped area was

70

estimated to 36.49 percent and the price of F.Y.M. per kg. was found to be Re. 0.50 per kg.

Thus, non-soil tested farmers had used organic manures in much lesser quantity than that of

the soil tested farmers growing wheat as (crop-II) in the area under study. The related data are

given in Table-5.11.

Table-5.11

Use of Organic Fertilizers by the Sample Farmers- Crop II (Wheat)

Particulars Farm

yard

manure

Vermi-

compos

t/Bioga

s waste

Bio-

fertilizer

Green

manure

Other

organic

manure

Total

Soil Tested

Farmers

% farmers

applied

40.00 -- -- -- -- 40.00

Quantity applied

(Kg/acre)

819 -- -- -- -- 819

Area covered (%

of net cropped

area)

75.75 -- -- -- -- 75.75

Price (Rs/kg) 0.58 -- -- -- -- 0.58

Non-Soil Tested

Farmers

% farmers

applied

78.33 -- -- -- -- 78.33

Quantity applied

(Kg/acre)

57.62 -- -- -- -- 57.62

Area covered (%

of net cropped

area)

36.49 -- -- -- -- 36.49

Price (Rs/kg) 0.50 -- -- -- -- 0.50

5.12. Sources of Purchase of Fertilizers by Sample Farmers in Percentages

The sources of purchase of fertilizers worked-out in Table-5.12 shows that in case of soil

tested farmers on an overall average 85.42 percent of farmers had purchased fertilizers from

private fertilizer shops / dealers where in the minimum i.e. 42.86 percent of large farmers had

purchased from private dealers against the maximum i.e. 92.03 percent of the marginal

farmers. Thus, it is safely concluded that marginal and small farmers had purchased in

comparatively more numbers than that of larger farmers from private dealers, 0.43 percent

from company authorized dealers, 4.16 percent purchased from cooperative societies, 5.83

percent from Govt. Agencies and 4.16 percent from others on an average wherein the larger

71

farmers had purchased from cooperative societies and Govt. Agencies in comparatively larger

numbers than other farmers. The related data are given in Table-5.12.

Table-5.12

Sources of Purchase of Fertilizers (% of farmers)

Sources Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

average

Soil Tested Farmers

Private fertilizer shops/dealers 92.03 89.29 64.10 42.86 85.42

Company authorized dealers -- -- 2.56 -- 0.43

Co-operative societies 1.45 3.57 10.26 28.57 4.16

Government agency 5.07 1.78 10.26 28.57 5.83

Others 1.45 5.36 12.82 -- 4.16

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Non-Soil Tested Farmers

Private fertilizer shops/dealers 93.05 92.30 64.71 20.00 85.83

Company authorized dealers -- 3.85 -- 20.00 1.67

Co-operative societies 1.39 -- 23.53 60.00 6.67

Government agency 2.78 3.85 -- -- 2.50

Others 2.78 -- 11.76 -- 3.33

Total 100 100 100 100 100

5.13. Quantity of Fertilizers Purchased by Sample Farmers in Percentages

The quantity of fertilizers purchased by sample farmers in percentages worked-out in Table-

5.13 shows that among the soil tested farmers on an average 85.83 percent of farmers

purchased urea, D.A.P. and potash from private dealers, 0.43 percent from company

authorized dealers, 4.16 percent from cooperative societies, 5.83 percent from Govt. agencies

and 4.16 percent of farmers from the others in the area under study, while among the non-soil

tested farmers 85.83 percent of farmers purchased urea, D.A.P. and potash from private

dealers, 1.67 percent from company authorized dealers, 6.67 percent from co-operative

societies, 2.50 percent from Govt. agencies and 3.33 percent from others in the area under the

study. Thus, maximum of the soil tested as well as non-soil tested farmers had purchased

72

urea, D.A.P. and potash from the private fertilizers shops / dealers only in the area under the

study. The related data are given in Table-5.13.

Table-5.13

Quantity of Fertilizer Purchased by the Sample Farmers (Per cent)

Fertilizers Sources

Urea DAP SSP Potash Complex Bio-fert

Soil Tested Farmers

Private fertilizer shops/dealers 85.83 85.83 -- 85.83 -- --

Company authorized dealers 0.43 0.43 -- 0.43 -- --

Co-operative societies 4.16 4.16 -- 4.16 -- --

Government agency 5.83 5.83 -- 5.83 -- --

Others 4.16 4.16 -- 4.16 -- --

Total 100 100 -- 100 -- --

Non-Soil Tested Farmers

Private fertilizer shops/dealers 85.83 85.83 -- 85.83 -- --

Company authorized dealers 1.67 1.67 -- 1.67 -- --

Co-operative societies 6.67 6.67 -- 6.67 -- --

Government agency 2.50 2.50 -- 2.50 -- --

Others 3.33 3.33 -- 3.33 -- --

Total 100 100 -- 100 -- --

5.14. Average Price of Fertilizers and Transport Cost Incurred in Rs. Per Kg.

The average price of fertilizers and transport cost incurred in Rs. per kg. worked-out in

Table-5.14 shows that in cases of soil tested farmers the average price of urea was Rs. 6.62

per kg., D.A.P. Rs. 22.60 per kg. and potash Rs. 16.20 per kg. and the transport cost incurred

was Re. 0.18, Re. 0.20 and Re. 0.20 respectively in the area under study, while in cases of

non-soil tested farmers the average price of urea was Rs. 6.64 per kg., D.A.P. Rs. 22.65 and

potash Rs. 16.21 per kg. and the transport cost incurred was Re. 0.17, Re. 0.21 and Re. 0.22

respectively in the area under the study. Thus, the average prices of fertilizers and transport

cost incurred were more or less the same in cases of soil tested and non-soil tested farmers

both in the area under study. The related data are given in Table-5.14

73

Table-5.14

Average Price of Fertilizers and Transport Cost Incurred (Rs/kg)

Fertilizer type Soil Test farmers Control farmers

Average Price

(Rs.)

Transport cost

(Rs.)

Average Price

(Rs.)

Transport cost

(Rs.)

Urea 6.62 0.18 6.64 0.17

DAP 22.60 0.20 22.65 0.21

SSP -- -- -- --

Potash 16.20 0.20 16.21 0.22

Complex...... -- -- -- --

Bio-fertilizers -- -- -- --

5.15. Summary of Chapter-V

This chapter reveals that small farmers had applied recommended doses of fertilizers in

maximum numbers and they had covered the maximum area of the net operated area under

soil testing. Thus, marginal and small farmers had tested their soils maximum in the area

under study. The percentage of farmers willing to continue applying recommended doses of

fertilizers was 28 percent on an average in case of wheat (crop-II). The major constraints in

applying recommended doses of fertilizers were lack of money and high prices of fertilizers

in the area under study. About awareness and sources of information for recommended doses

of fertilizers 100 percent of farmers told that S.A.D. (state Agriculture Department) was the

only and lonely source of information in the area under study. As regards the actual quantity

of fertilizers applied by the sample farmers it was found that urea as well as D.A.P. were

applied in larger quantity on the marginal farms than the other farms. Potash was applied in

large quantity on medium farms in comparison of other farms in cases of soil tested farmers

growing paddy (crop-I). In case of non-soil tested farmers urea, D.A.P. and potash were

applied in larger quantity on medium farms in comparison of other farms. The actual quantity

of split doses of fertilizers applied by stages of crop growth in kgs. per acre it was found that

urea was applied in maximum quantity by the soil test as well as non-soil tested farmers

growing paddy and wheat crops.

Regarding method of application of fertilizers by sample farmers 100 percent of the farmers

reported that urea, D.A.P. and potash were applied only by broadcasting method of

application of chemical fertilizers in the area under study. No other method of application of

the chemical fertilizers was applied in cases of both paddy and wheat in the area under study.

74

About the use of organic fertilizers by the sample farmers it was found that only Farm Yard

Manures (F.Y.M.) was used by 100 percent of the sample farmers and no other organic

manure or organic fertilizer or bio-fertilizer or green manuring was used either in paddy or

wheat in the area under study. Non-soil tested farmers had used much lesser quantity of

organic manures.

The main sources of purchase of fertilizers by sample farmers were private fertilizers shops

and dealers from whom more than 85 percent of sample farmers had purchased fertilizers in

the area under study. Therefore, the maximum of soil tested farmers as well as non-soil tested

farmers had purchased urea, D.A.P. and potash from the private fertilizers shops and

fertilizers dealers in the area under study.

Regarding average price of the fertilizers and transport cost incurred it was found that the

average prices of fertilizers and transport costs incurred were more or less the same in case of

soil tested farmers and non-soil tested farmers both in the area under study.

75

Chapter-VI

6.:- Impact of Adoption of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers

6.1.:- Background

The present chapter mainly deals with productivity of the sample crops during the reference

year i.e. 2013-14 by the sample farmers, impact of the application of recommended doses of

fertilizers on the yield of reference crops by soil tested farmers and the changes observed

after the application of recommended doses of fertilizers on reference crops by soil tested

farmers in percentages which are discussed in the following paragraphs:-

6.2.:- Productivity of the Sample Reference Crops During the Reference Year (2013-

2014)

The productivity of the sample reference crops during the reference year (2013-14) analyzed

in Table-6.1 indicates that the average yield of paddy (Crop-I) by the marginal soil tested

farmers was estimated as 19.64 qtls. per acre against 18.50 qtls. per acre by the non-soil

tested farmers showing a percentage change of 6.16 percent in the yield by soil tested farmers

over non-soil tested farmers, on small farms the percentage difference in yield of paddy was

2.14 percent, on medium farms it was estimated as 9.48 and on large farms it was estimated

as 20.77 percent, while on an average the percentage difference in the yield of paddy was

estimated as 9.54 percent. Thus, the highest i.e. 20.77 percent difference in the yield of paddy

was found on large farms of soil tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmers in the area

under study against the lowest i.e. 2.14 percent on small farms.

The average yield of wheat (Crop-II) showed a percentage difference of 13.89 percent on

marginal farms by soil tested farmers over non-soil tested farmers, on small farms it was

estimated as 11.21 percent, on the medium farms it was 6.83 percent and on large farms it

was estimated as 15.13 percent, while on an overall average the percentage difference in the

yield of wheat (crop-II) was estimated as 12.57 percent by the soil tested farmers over the

non-soil tested farmers during the year 2013-14. Thus, the highest i.e. 15.13 percent

difference in the yield of wheat too was found on large farms of soil tested farmers over the

non-soil tested farmers against the lowest i.e. 6.83 percent difference on medium farms in the

area under study.

76

About average value of output in Rs. per acre on marginal farms from Paddy (crop-I) was

estimated as Rs. 20072 by soil tested farmers against Rs. 19672 by non-soil tested farmers

showing a percentage difference of 2.03 percent by soil tested farmers over non-soil tested

farmers, on small farms it was -0.35 percent, on medium farms it was 16.68 percent and on

large farms it was estimated as 19.21 percent. On an overall average the percentage

difference in the value of output from paddy was estimated as 9.40 percent by the soil tested

farmers over the non-soil tested farmers during the year 2013-14.

The average value of output in Rs. per acre on the marginal farms from wheat was estimated

as Rs. 23078 by the soil tested farmers against Rs. 20358 by the non-soil tested farmers

showing a percentage difference of 13.36 percent by the soil tested farmers over the non-soil

tested farmers, on small farms it was estimated as 10.07 percent, on medium farms as 8.35

percent and on large farms it was estimated as 18.68 percent, while on an overall average the

percentage difference in the value of output from wheat was estimated as 13.40 percent by

the soil tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmers during the year 2013-14. Thus, the

highest i.e. 18.68 percent difference in the value of output from wheat too was found on large

farms of soil tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmers against the lowest i.e. 8.35

percent difference on medium farms in the area under the study. The related data are given in

Table-6.1.

Table-6.1

Productivity of the Sample Crops during the Reference Year (2013-14)

Particulars Average yield (Quintal/acre) Average value of output (Rs/acre)

Soil tested

farmers

Non-Soil

Tested

farmers

%

difference

in yield

Soil

tested

farmers

Non-Soil

Tested

farmers

%

difference

in value of

output

Paddy

Marginal 19.64 18.50 6.16 20072 19672 2.03

Small 18.59 18.20 2.14 20029 20100 -0.35

Medium 19.97 18.50 9.48 20776 17806 16.68

Large 18.72 15.50 20.77 21434 17980 19.21

Total 19.40 17.71 9.54 20781 18995 9.40

Wheat

Marginal 17.63 15.48 13.89 23078 20358 13.36

Small 16.27 1463 11.21 21515 19547 10.07

Medium 17.36 16.25 6.83 23064 21287 8.35

Large 16.89 14.67 15.13 22633 19071 18.68

Total 17.10 15.19 12.57 22657 19980 13.40

77

6.3.:- Impact of the Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers on Crop Yields of

Soil-Tested Farmers

The impact of the application of recommended doses of fertilizers on crop yields of soil

tested farmers analyzed in Table-6.2 indicates that in cases of Paddy (Crop-I) the average

yield on marginal farms before the application of recommended doses of fertilizers was

estimated as 20.15 qtls. per acre against 20.71 qtls. per acre after the application of

recommended doses of fertilizers on Paddy (Crop-I). Thus, there was 2.78 percent change in

the yield of paddy after the application of recommended doses of fertilizers on marginal

farms, on small farms the percentage change in yield was 5.26 percent after application of

recommended doses of fertilizers, on the medium farms it was estimated as 5.17 percent and

on the large farms the recommended doses of fertilizers were not adopted as they applied

either high or low even then there was 2.60 percent change in the yield of paddy, while on an

average the percentage change in the yield of Paddy (Crop-I) was estimated as 4.19 percent

after the application of recommended doses of fertilizers in the area under study.

In case of Wheat (Crop-II) on the marginal farms the percentage change in the yield was

estimated as 3.94 percent, on small farms it was estimated as 2.82 percent, on medium farms

it was 3.98 percent and on large farms the farmers had applied either higher or lower doses

than recommended doses of fertilizers on wheat also, even then percentage change in the

yield was estimated as 2.75 percent, while on an average the percentage change in the yield

of wheat after the application of recommended doses of fertilizers was estimated as 3.65

percent in the area under study. Thus, the higher change / impact in yield of paddy (crop-I)

was found on small farms in comparison of other farms and in the yield of wheat (crop-II) it

was found to be higher on the medium farms in the area under study. The related data are

contained in Table-6.2.

78

Table-6.2

Impact of Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers on Crop Yield- Soil Tested

Farmers

Average yield (Quintal/acre) Particulars

Before After

% change in yield

Paddy

Marginal 20.15 20.71 2.78

Small 19.96 21.01 5.26

Medium 23.00 24.19 5.17

Large 20.02 20.54 2.60

Total 20.75 21.62 4.19

Wheat

Marginal 16.61 17.24 3.94

Small 15.93 16.38 2.82

Medium 16.33 16.98 3.98

Large 16.35 16.80 2.75

Total 16.43 17.03 3.65

6.4.:- Changes Observed After the Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers on

Reference Crops Grown by Soil-Tested Farmers in Percentages

The changes observed after the application of recommended doses of fertilizers on reference

crops grown by soil tested farmers in percentages analyzed in Table-6.3 indicates that the

extent of changes in Paddy (Crop-I) in respect of increase in crop yield as the most important

was 23.53 percent and as important it was 76.47 percent, improvement in soil texture as most

important was 50.00 percent and as important was also 50.00 percent and in respect of the

improvement in crop growth as most important it was 40.00 percent and as important it was

60.00 percent. Thus, in Paddy (Crop-I) the maximum number of soil tested farmers reported

as important changes in crop yield and crop growth and as most important changes in soil

texture in the area under study. In Wheat (Crop-II) in respect of increase in crop yield as most

important 41.67 percent and as important 58.33 percent of farmers had reported, for

improvement in soil texture 44.44 percent as most important and 55.56 percent as important

change, for improvement in crop growth as most important 33.33 percent and as important

66.67 percent and for the improvement in grain filling as important 100 percent of soil tested

farmers had reported in the area under study. Thus, in wheat (crop-II) the maximum number

of soil tested farmers as important changes had reported for improvement in crop growth and

79

grain filling and as most important changes the maximum number of farmers had reported for

improvement in soil texture in the area under study. The related data are given in Table-6.3.

Table-6.3

Changes Observed after the Application of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers on

Reference Crops (% of farmers) by Soil Tested Farmers

Extent of change in (Paddy) Extent of change in (Wheat) Particulars of

changes

observed Most

Importa

nt

Import

ant

Least

Impo

rtant

Total Most

Importa

nt

Importa

nt

Least

Impo

rtant

Total

Increase in crop

yield

23.53 76.47 -- 100.00 41.67 58.33 -- 100.00

Improvement in

soil texture

50.00 50.00 -- 100.00 44.44 55.56 -- 100.00

Improvement in

crop growth

40.00 60.00 -- 100.00 33.33 66.67 -- 100.00

Improvement in

grain filling

-- -- -- -- -- 100.00 -- 100.00

Less incidence

of pest and

diseases

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Decrease in

application of

other inputs like

seed, labour,

pesticide etc.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Others -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6.5.:- Summary of Chapter-VI

This chapter reveals that the highest i.e. 20.77 percentage difference in the yield of paddy was

found on large farms of soil tested farmers over the control farmers in the area under study

against the lowest i.e. 2.14 percent difference on the small farms. Also in the case of wheat

too the highest i.e. 15.13 percent difference in the yield was found on large farms of soil

tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmers against the lowest i.e. 6.83 percent difference

on the medium farms in the area under study.

About the average value of output from paddy on an overall average the percentage

difference in the value of output from paddy was estimated as 9.40 percent by the soil tested

farmers over the non-soil tested farmers during the year 2013-14. In case of wheat the highest

80

i.e. 18.68 percent difference in the value of output was found on large farms of soil tested

farmers over the non-soil tested farmers against the lowest i.e. 8.35 percent difference on

medium farms in the area under the study.

Regarding impact application of recommended doses of fertilizers on yield of soil tested

farmers it was found that there was 2.78 percent change in the yield of paddy after the

application of the recommended doses of fertilizers on the marginal farms against the higher

i.e. 5.26 percent change on small farms. On large farms none of the farmers had applied

recommended doses of fertilizers hence, the changes could not be worked-out. Thus, the

higher change / impact in the yield of paddy (crop-I) was found on the small farms in

comparison of the other farms and in the yield of wheat (crop-II) it was found to be higher on

the medium farms in the area under study.

About the change observed after the application of recommended doses of fertilizers on

reference crops it was found that in paddy (crop-I) the maximum number of soil tested

farmers reported as important change in crop yield and crop growth and as most important

changes in soil texture in the area under study. While in wheat (crop-II) the maximum

number of soil tested farmers as important changes had reported for improvement in crop

growth and grain filling and as most important changes the maximum number of farmers had

reported for improvement in soil texture in the area under the study.

81

CHAPTER – VII

7.: Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

7.1. Background:-

This chapter deals mainly with the summary of the findings in brief discussed in five

different chapters, conclusions derived from the main findings to cover the main objectives of

this study and the policy recommendations based on the main findings and conclusions

thereof which are discussed in the following paragraphs:-

7.2. Summary of the Findings:-

The present study reveals that the fertilizers consumption in terms of materials during 2009-

10 to 2013-14 in Uttar Pradesh shows a mixed trend wherein the consumption of urea and

D.A.P. in Uttar Pradesh was found increasing till 2013-14. The consumption of M.O.P.,

S.S.P. and N.P.K. complexes was found decreasing in Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11 to 2013-

14. The consumption of urea and D.A.P. increased from 31.7 thousand tonnes in 2009-10 to

47.3 thousand tonnes till 2013-14, while the consumption of fertilizers in terms of nutrients

had shown a declining trend till 2013-14.

The gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh has increased considerably during 2009-10 to 2013-

14. But the total consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. per ha increased from 175 kgs

in 2009-10 to 182 kgs till 2012-13 which decreased suddenly to 150 kgs in 2013-14. The

consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. for paddy in Uttar Pradesh showed a decling

trend during 2011-12 to 2013-14. Thus, fertilizers consumption for paddy in Uttar Pradesh

had a declining trend till 2013-14. While the consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. for

wheat declined gradually with variations and showed a declining trend during 2009-10 to

2013-14.

The majority of sample soil tested farmers were marginal and small farmers and the large

farmers were only a few in the area under the study. The respondents were of the matured age

82

between 47 to 58 years. On an average respondents were secondary educated, while large soil

tested farmers were higher secondary educated.

91 percent of respondents reported agriculture as their main occupation. Thus, agriculture

was the main occupation of the majority of the sample soil tested farmers. 95 percent of

sample soil tested farmers were males and only 5 percent were females. The average family

size was of 7 members and average number of members engaged in agriculture was 2 per

household among soil tested farmers. The average years of experience in farming was 22

years. The maximum i.e. 44 percent were O.B.Cs., 29 percent S.Cs., and 27 percent were

general castes among soil tested farmers.

Among non-soil tested farmers too, majority were marginal and small farmers. The average

age of respondents was 52 years on an average farmers were only middle (Class VIII)

educated. Agriculture was the main occupation of the majority (92 percent) of the farmers.

The majority of non-soil tested farmers were males.

The net operated area on an average was 3.48 acres and there was 100 percent irrigation

among soil tested farmers, while among the non-soil tested farmers the net operated area on

an average was 3.56 acres and there was 100 percent irrigation. Bore-wells were used more

by the marginal and small farmers, while large farmers used canal more for their irrigation

than the marginal and small farmers. No other source of irrigation was reported in the area

under study. Among the non-soil tested farmers too, bore-well was the main source of

irrigation. No other source of irrigation was there except bore-wells and canal.

About cropping pattern, marginal soil tested farmers had cropped maximum area under wheat

in Rabi and paddy in Kharif. Thus, paddy and wheat were the major crops grown by the soil

tested farmers. Among the non-soil tested farmers marginal farmers had cropped paddy in

kharif and wheat in Rabi. Thus, in case of non-soil tested farmers too, similar cropping

pattern was followed by all the farmers.

83

Among the soil tested farmers HYV paddy was cropped more on larger farms but HYV

wheat was cropped more on the marginal and small farms, while among the non-soil tested

farmers the area under HYV was reported to be higher under wheat in comparison of paddy.

The output from crops per household was highest on the large farms but per acre output from

crops was highest on the medium soil tested farms. Thus, medium soil tested farms were

more productive, more income giving and profitable. In case of non-soil tested farmers too,

medium farms were more productive. Thus, medium farms were more income giving and

profitable in case of non-soil tested farmers too.

The farm assets owned by soil tested farmers were comparatively more valuable than the

farm assets owned by non-soil tested farmers. About agricultural credit it was found that

larger farmers had larger amount of outstanding agricultural credit in comparison of marginal

and small farmers. The agricultural credit was taken more from the commercial banks and

RRBs by the soil tested farmers. Non-soil tested farmers had also taken agricultural credit

only from the commercial banks and RRBs wherein the equal amount was found outstanding

with the sample farmers.

Agricultural loans were availed only for the purposes of seasonal crop loans and purchase of

tractors and other implements wherein loans for tractors and implements was taken by large

farmers maximum and crop loans by small and marginal farmers maximum in case of soil

tested farmers. Among the non-soil tested farmers too, the maximum large and small farmers

had taken loans for seasonal crop cultivation and maximum large and medium farmers had

taken loans for the purchase of tractors and other implements.

Regarding training programmes the maximum numbers of training programmes were

attended by the marginal and small households. The percentages of farmers who attended the

training programmes were higher in large and medium households. The average number of

days of the training was reported to be one day (1) only.

84

Marginal farmers tested their soils more in comparison of the large farmers, while small and

medium farmers tested their soils considerably. The average cost of soil testing was reported

as Rs. 7 per soil sample. The average distance from the soil testing lab to field was 31 kms.

The area covered under soil test increased with the increase in the size of farms. On an

average 81.40 percent of the net operated area was covered under soil testing. 100 percent of

the soil samples were collected by Department of Agriculture.

100 percent of the soil test farmers were made aware of soil testing by the State Agriculture

Department. The main reason of soil testing was increasing the crop yield. The main reason

for not testing soils during the last three years by the non-soil tested farmers were the

unawareness about the soil testing and location of soil testing laboratories at far off distances

from the fields.

It was found that the soil of paddy was deficient in nitrogen and phosphorous and normal in

potash. The soil of wheat was deficient in nitrogen, normal in phosphorous and normal and

considerably high in potash as reported by wheat farmers.

As regards the recommended doses of fertilizers in terms of nutrients in wheat it was found

that the doses of urea was comparatively higher, while in paddy the doses of D.A.P. and

potash were comparatively much higher. The average quantity of split doses of fertilizers by

stages of crop growth it was found that the urea, D.A.P. and potash were recommended in

larger quantity in paddy as compared to the same in wheat.

Small farmers had applied maximum recommended doses of fertilizers and covered the

maximum area of net operated area under soil testing. Thus, small and marginal farmers had

tested their soils maximum in the area under study. The percentage of farmers willing to

continue applying recommended doses of fertilizers was 28 percent on an average in case of

wheat (Crop-II).

85

The major constraints in applying recommended doses of fertilizers were lack of money and

higher prices of fertilizers in the area under study.

About the awareness and sources of information for recommended doses of fertilizers 100

percent of the sample farmers had told that S.A.D. (state Agriculture Department) was the

only and lonely source of information in the area under study.

As regards the actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the sample farmers it was found that

urea and D.A.P. were applied in larger quantity on the marginal farms than on the other

farms. While potash was applied in larger quantity on medium farms in comparison of other

farms in case of soil tested farmers growing paddy (Crop-I).

While in cases of non-soil tested farmers urea, D.A.P. and potash were applied in larger

quantity on medium farms in comparison of other farms. The actual quantity of split doses of

fertilizers applied by stages of crop growth in kgs. per hectare it was found that urea was

applied in maximum quantity by soil tested farmers as well as non-soil tested farmers

growing paddy and wheat crops.

Regarding method of application of fertilizers by sample farmers 100 percent of the farmers

reported that urea, D.A.P. and potash were applied only by broadcasting method of the

application of chemical fertilizers. No other method of application of the chemical fertilizers

was applied in cases of both the paddy and wheat crops.

About the use of organic fertilizers by sample farmers it was found that only farm yard

manure (F.Y.M.) was used by 100 percent of the sample farmers and no other organic

manures or organic fertilizers or bio-fertilizers or green manuring was used either in paddy or

wheat. Non-soil tested farmers had used much lesser quantity of organic manures.

86

The main sources of purchase of fertilizers by sample farmers were private fertilizers shops

and dealers from where more than 85 percent of sample farmers had purchased fertilizers in

the area under study. Therefore, the maximum of soil tested farmers and non-soil tested

farmers had purchased urea, D.A.P. and potash from the private fertilizers shops and

fertilizers dealers in the area under study.

Regarding average price of fertilizers and transport cost incurred it was found that the

average prices of fertilizers and transport costs incurred were more or less the same in cases

of soil tested farmers and non-soil tested farmers both in the area under study.

The highest i.e. 21 percent difference in the yield of paddy was found on large farms of soil

tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmers against the lowest i.e. 2 percent difference on

the small farms. In case of wheat too the highest i.e. 15 percent difference in the yield was

found on large farms of the soil tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmers against the

lowest i.e. 7 percent difference on the medium farms.

About the average value of output from paddy on an average the percentage difference in the

value of output from paddy was estimated as 9.40 percent by the soil tested farmers over the

non-soil tested farmers during 2013-14. In case of wheat the highest i.e. 19 percent difference

in the value of output was found on large farms of soil tested farmers over the non-soil tested

farmers against the lowest i.e. 8 percent difference on medium farms in the area under study.

Regarding impact of application of recommended doses of fertilizers on yields of crops by

soil tested farmers it was found that there was 3 percent change in the yield of paddy after the

application of recommended doses of fertilizers on the marginal farms against the higher i.e.

5 percent change on the small farms. On large farms the sample farmers had not adopted

recommended doses of fertilizers as they applied either higher or lower doses even then the

percentage change was 2.60 percent. Thus, the higher change / impact in the yield of paddy

was found on the small farmers in comparison of the other farms and in the yield of wheat it

was found to be higher on the medium farms.

87

About the changes observed after the application of recommended doses of fertilizers on

reference crops it was found that in paddy the maximum numbers of soil tested farmers

reported as important changes in the crop yield and crop growth and as most important

changes in the soil texture. In wheat the maximum number of soil tested farmers as important

changes were for improvement in crop growth and grain filling and as most important

changes the maximum number of farmers had reported for improvement in soil texture in the

area under study.

7.3. Conclusions:-

Based on the main findings of the study the following conclusions have been drawn:-

Regarding fertilizers consumption in terms of materials during 2009-10 to 2013-14 there was

a mixed trend where in the consumption of urea and D.A.P. was found increasing till 2013-

14, while the consumption of M.O.P., S.S.P. and N.P.K. complexes was found decreasing

during the years 2010-11 to 2013-14 in Uttar Pradesh.

The fertilizers consumption in terms of nutrients for paddy in Uttar Pradesh had shown a

declining trend till 2013-14, while the consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. for wheat

declined gradually with variations and showed a declining trend during 2009-10 to 2013-14.

The majority of sample soil tested farmers were marginal and small farmers and the large

farmers were only a few in the area under study. The respondents were of the matured age

between 47 to 58 years. On an average respondent were secondary educated, while large soil

tested farmers were higher secondary educated. This clarifies that educational status of

farmers was poor.

Agriculture was the main occupation of the majority of the soil test farmers. The average

family size was of 7 members and 2 members per household were engaged in agriculture.

Among non-soil tested farmers pattern was similar. Among soil tested farmers the average

88

net operated area was 3.48 acres with 100 percent irrigation. Among non-soil tested farmers

the average net operated area was 3.56 acres with 100 percent irrigation. Bore-wells and

canals were the main sources of irrigation. Thus, it is safely concluded that farm size as well

as irrigational status on sample farms were similar.

Cropping pattern followed by the sample farmers was same where-in paddy and wheat were

major crops. HYV paddy was cropped more on large farms and HYV wheat was cropped

more on the marginal and small farms of soil tested farmers. Among non-soil tested farmers

HYV wheat was cropped more than HYV paddy. Thus, HYV paddy was not preferred by

marginal and small farmers in the area under study.

The per acre output from the crops was highest on medium farms of both soil tested farmers

and non-soil tested farmers. Therefore, medium farms were more productive, income giving

and profitable.

The farm assets owned by the soil tested farmers were comparatively more valuable than the

farm assets owned by the non-soil tested farmers. Larger farmers had larger amount of

outstanding agricultural credit taken more from the commercial banks and RRBs.

Agricultural loans were availed only for the purposes of seasonal crop loans and purchase of

tractors and other implements where-in loans for tractors and implements were taken

maximum by large farmers and crop loans by the marginal and small farmers.

Regarding training programmes it was found that maximum numbers of training programmes

was attended by marginal and small farmers but the percentages of farmers who attended the

trainings were higher in large and medium households. The number of training days was one

only. Therefore, training was not adequate.

89

The main reasons for not testing the soils during the last three years by the non-soil tested

farmers were the unawareness about the soil testing and locations of soil testing laboratories

at far off distances from the fields and lack of money.

It was found that the soil of paddy was deficient in nitrogen and phosphorous and normal in

potash. While the soil of wheat was deficient in nitrogen, normal in phosphorous and

considerably high in potash.

The percentage of farmers willing to continue applying the recommended doses of fertilizers

was only 28 percent on an average in wheat (crop-II).

The major constraints in applying the recommended doses of fertilizers were lack of money

and higher prices of fertilizers in the area under the study. Also 100 percent of the farmers

told that S.A.D (State Department of Agriculture) was the only and lonely source of

information.

Also 100 percent of the farmers reported that urea, D.A.P. and Potash were applied only by

the broadcasting method of application of chemical fertilizers and no other method was

applied in paddy and wheat both crops.

F.Y.M. (Farm Yard Manures) was used by 100 percent of the farmers and no other organic

manures or bio-fertilizers or green manuring was used either in paddy or in wheat. Non-soil

tested farmers had used much lesser quantity of organic manures.

The main sources of purchasing fertilizers by sample farmers were private fertilizers shops

and fertilizers dealers from whom more than 85 percent of farmers had purchased fertilizers.

The difference in the yields of both paddy and wheat was found higher on the farms of larger

soil tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmer and on the marginal and small farmers this

difference was lesser. Accordingly there was difference in output. The higher change / impact

90

in the yield of paddy was found on the small farms in comparison of other farms and in the

yield of wheat it was higher on medium farms.

The important changes were found in crop yield and crop growth and the most important

change in soil texture was reported in cases of both the reference crops in the area under

study.

7.4. Policy Recommendations:-

1. Since, the consumption of fertilizers in terms of materials as well as in-terms of

nutrients was found decreasing during the last five years continuously in Uttar

Pradesh, hence the adequate supply must be ascertained by the Government.

2. The educational status of farmers particularly marginal and small farmers must be

increased to encourage them towards the awareness about the recent developments in

agriculture in Uttar Pradesh.

3. The main occupation of the majority of farmers in Uttar Pradesh was reported as

agriculture where-in the number of farming family members engaged in agriculture

was too scanty. Therefore, agriculture in Uttar Pradesh must be made more diversified

and intensive to engage more number of farm family members in agriculture.

4. Since, HYV paddy was not preferred to be grown in Uttar Pradesh by majority of

farmers particularly marginal and small farmers who shifted considerable area to

other kharif crops. Therefore, other varieties of paddy must be prescribed in Uttar

Pradesh.

5. The per acre output from the reference crops was higher on medium farms only in

Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, marginal, small and large farmers must be facilitated more

to boost their output from the reference crops.

6. The status of farm assets on marginal and small farms was deplorably poor.

Therefore, poor farmers must be provided subsidies and facilitated to take loans for

purchasing tractors and implements.

91

7. Adequate training programmes pertaining to the application of methods for fertilizers

use, seeds procurements etc. must be conducted in remote areas of Uttar Pradesh.

8. For more reluctance and awareness about their soils the soil testing arrangement and

facilities must be achievable in remote rural areas of Uttar Pradesh to attract willing

farmers.

9. Higher prices of fertilizers were there in many areas of study. Therefore, there must

be any proper control measure on prices of fertilizers in rural areas of Uttar Pradesh.

10. Since, F.Y.M. (Farm Yard Manure) was the only organic manure used in the area

under study. Therefore, other organic manures, bio-fertilizers and green manuring

must be used in the rural areas of Uttar Pradesh.

11. To improve the soil texture of soils in Uttar Pradesh changes in the cropping pattern

was observed as an important factor in vast areas of Uttar Pradesh to boost the

production of food-grains and vegetables as complements of pulses in Uttar Pradesh.

92

Appendix – I

Comments:

“ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED DOSES OF FERTILIZERS ON SOIL TEST

BASIS BY FARMERS IN UTTAR PRADESH”

AERC, University of Allahabad, Allahabad-211002

Reviewer Comments:

1. Title of the draft report examined:

Adoption of Recommended Doses of Fertilizers on Soil Test Basis by Farmers in Uttar

Pradesh

2. Date of receipt of the Draft report: 20th

December, 2014

3. Date of dispatch of the comments: 16th

January 2015

4. Comments on the Objectives of the study:

All the objectives of the study have been addressed

5. Comments on the methodology

Common methodology proposed for the collection of field data and tabulation of results has

been followed. However, it is mentioned in the Data and Methodology (1.5.1) that the list of

soil testing farmers along with non-soil testing farmers as control were taken from State

Department of Agriculture. Hence, clarification on the list of non-soil testing farmers can be

provided in the report.

6. Comments on analysis, organization, presentation etc.

(i) In Chapter I, page no. 4 (third line), it is written as 'the consumption of P2O5 was

found to be increased from 1039.17 tonnes in the year 2009-10 to 7646.53 tonnes

till 2013-14', but the recent figure seems to be wrong and hence please, check the

same & authenticate with data source. In addition, the reasons for decrease in

potash consumption in the State over the years (from 13 kgs per ha in 2009 to 5

kgs per ha in 2012-13) can be explained with reasons for better understanding of

the situation.

(ii) The 11th

review of literature in the page 7 can be revised & corrected to draw

meaningful interferences.

(iii) The sampling Design (from 1.5.3.1 to 1.5.3.4) seems to be repeated in 1.5.2.

93

(iv) Throughout the report, words 'soil testing farmers' & 'non-soil testing farmers' can

be replaced with 'soil tested farmers' & 'non-soil tested farmers'.

(v) The references mentioned in the Chapter I can be formatted with any of the

formats used in scientific research papers.

(vi) In the title of the Chapter III heading, the words 'Soil Test Farmers' should be

removed.

(vii) In Chapter III, page no. 29, the interference of Table III-4 (third line) acres per

household in large category was typed as '15.75' instead of '12.75'. At the same

time, heading of the Table III-5 can be revised as "Sources of irrigation area (% of

net irrigated area) on the farms of Soil Test farmers".

(viii) Table III-7 (page no. 31, 4th

line) inferences percent under other crops in rabi was

mentioned as 0.13 instead of 0.43. Moreover, the explanations refers to the

marginal category of farmers & hence you need to mention the same.

(ix) Table III-9, it was observed that overall HYV usage in paddy seems to be less

(<28.5%) in case of soil tested farmers and more so in case of control farmers

(<13%) too, reasons for the same has to be drawn by the authors to support their

results.

(x) Table III-12 & Table III-13, the total column in the last row should be the total

credit availed from all the sources but it seems that average were recorded in place

of total. In addition, decimals may not be required in Table III-12.

(xi) Table III-14 & Table III-15, the total number of farmers availed loan out of the

total sample in both soil tested & control farmers were less than 25%. But in the

interpretation of purpose of agricultural loans availed (in both Tables), it was by

mistakenly interpreted as 100 percent of the farmers availed loans for seasonal

cultivation & purchase of tractors and other implements. It is better to indicate

percentages only instead of both absolute numbers & percent, otherwise a note

can be inserted below the table indicating the number in the parenthesis.

(xii) In Table III-16, particulars of first row in both soil tested farmers & control

farmers typed erroneously as 'Average number of farmers training attended'

instead of 'Average number of trainings attended'. Accordingly, the numbers given

in the row may be verified.

(xiii) In Table IV-4 & Table IV-5 (reasons for testing/not- testing soil), each reasons

can be worked out by having denominator as 'total sample' (including total

column). It may not be true that 100 percent of the respondents opining for all the

reasons. If that is being the case, please, verify the data before finalizing the

results. Follow the technique adopted in Table V-2, Table V-10 and Table V-11

for better understanding. Same method can be followed for Table VI-3.

94

(xiv) The data in Table IV-8 (Average quantity of split doses of fertilizers

recommended by stage of crop growth (Kg/acre)) is neither adding up to Table

IV-7 (recommended doses of fertilizers) nor Table V-7 (the actual quantity

applied). Furthermore, SSP was not recommended for Wheat in Table IV-7 but

14.76 kgs per ha was mentioned as basal application in Table IV-8. Therefore,

more clarifications on these issues may be required to explain these results.

(xv) In Table V-I, average number of seasons applied recommended doses of fertilizers

on both the crops was mentioned in decimals seems to be meaningless since

seasons can be mentioned in terms of 1, 2 or 3.

(xvi) In Table V-3, the '% farmers aware' was not filled for both crops.

(xvii) In Table V-6 among soil tested farmers, total (column) mentioned against Urea

row is worked out to be 85.34 but it is incorrectly mentioned as 83.44. In the

interpretation of the same Table (9th

line, page no. 58)... on an average 89.34 kgs

per acre urea was applied by control paddy farmers was wrongly mentioned

instead of 82.34 kgs per acre.

(xviii) In Table V-13, no one has purchased complex fertilizers & bio-fertilizers but the

total row shows '100 percent', which can be removed.

(xix) The productivity of the sample crops (both Paddy & Wheat) shown in Table VI-1

& Table VI-2 reveals that the % difference in yield was highest among large

farmers during the reference year 2013-14 even though they have not adopted or

applied the recommended doses of fertilizers. Therefore, reasons for the same can

be elicited in the report to support the results obtained.

(xx) Chapter VII can be revised after incorporating comments received for the report.

It is observed that the policy recommendations seems to be too general and hence

authors can be revise them with the help of results obtained from the study.

(xxi) Please, use numeric's instead of roman numbers for titles pertaining to tables,

figures, headings and subheadings.

(xxii) Authors should provide economic explanation of data presented in all the

chapters. It is suggested to copy edit the report before finalizing.

7. Overall view on acceptability of report

Authors are requested to incorporate all the comments and submit the final report for

consolidation.

95

Appendix – II

Point-wise Action Taken on Coordinators Comments

1. No action was required.

2. Draft report was submitted timely in December, 2014.

3. Comments on draft report was received on 19/02/2015.

4. No action was required.

5. Clarification on the list of non-soil tested farmers is already provided in 1.5.2, 1.5.3 and

1.5.4 of Chapter-I of the report.

6 (i). The figure 764.65 was misprinted as 7646.58 which is given in Table-2.2 on page 20

and the source is already authenticated. For the decrease in Potash consumption see

the Table-2.3 on page 21.

6 (ii). Review of Literature (No. 11) on page 7 is corrected.

6 (iii). The sampling design (from 1.5.3.1 to 1.5.3.4) is the break-up of sampling (1.5.3).

While 1.5.2 is Method of study in a clear-cut heading.

6 (iv). The words soil testing farmers and Non-soil testing farmers are replaced as suggested

with soil tested farmers and Non-soil tested farmers throughout the report.

6 (v). References have been formatted as it is given in scientific research paper as suggested.

6 (vi). Action taken on the comment.

6 (vii). Action taken on the comment.

6 (viii). Action taken, figure is corrected and it is for marginal farmers already mentioned

while completing the category fully.

6 (ix). Action taken on the comment and reason drawn is incorporated in the report

accordingly.

6 (x). Action taken on the comment, the last row is corrected as total credit availed and

decimals have been removed from Table-3.12

6 (xi). Action taken on the comments, corrections in both 3.14 and 3.15 tables have been

done and the same are incorporated in the narration.

6 (xii). Action taken on the comments, corrections in Table-3.16 have been done and

incorporated in the report accordingly.

6 (xiii). Action taken on the comment and corrections in table-4.4 and 4.5 have been done

and incorporated in the narration.

96

6 (xiv). Action taken on the comment and correction have been done in Table-4.8 as per the

comments and also incorporated in the narration.

6 (xv). Action taken on the comment and corrections in Table-5.1 have been done as

suggested and incorporated in the report.

6 (xvi). Action taken on the comment and corrections in Table-5.3 have been done as per the

comment.

6 (xvii). Action taken on the comments and accordingly corrections have been done in

Table-5.6 and in the narration too.

6 (xviii). Action taken on the comment and correction has been done in the table-5.13 and

incorporated in the narration.

6 (xix). Action taken on the comments and corrections have been done in Table-6.1 and 6.2

and the valid reasons have been assigned to remove the confusion about the

percentage changes in yields of both the reference crops.

6 (xx). Action taken on the comment and chapter –VII has been revised accordingly. The

policy recommendations are based on the results of study only and not general.

6 (xxi). Action taken on the comment and changes have been done in the report accordingly.

6 (xxii). Action taken on the comment the authors have tried their level best to give the Agri.

Econo. explanation on the data of the choice of the coordinator and extend many

thanks for his valuable comments.

97

Study No. 141 Publication No. 189

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Adoption of Recommended Doses of

Fertilizers on Soil Test Basis by Farmers in

Uttar Pradesh

Prof. Ramendu Roy

98

2014

Agro-Economic Research Centre University of Allahabad

Allahabad-211002

99

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

Indian agriculture has under gone massive transformation in the post independence era during

the last 66 years. Agricultural production has increased more than four folds from 51 million

tones in 1950-51 to 245 million tones in 2010-11 (India – 2013). Fertilizer consumption in

terms nutrients has increased from 0.69 million tones in 1950-51 to 27.8 million tones in

2011-12 (Fertilizers Statistics 2013). Such a phenomenal increase is the result of combined

effect of advancement in farm. Technology and government policies to encourage

agricultural production. However, still there are variations in food-grains productivity on

account of the regional imbalances in the use of fertilizers. Because, chemical fertilizers are

the important source of nutrients of crops for plant growth. After the evolution of fertilizer

responsive high yielding varieties of crops the total consumption of nitrogenous phosphatic

and potashic fertilizers has increased from 1.1 million tones during 1966-67 to 27.8 million

tones in the year 2011-12. The all India average consumption of fertilizers increased from 6.9

kgs. per ha. of gross cropped area to 139.7 kgs. per ha. within the same span of period

(Fertilizer Statistics – 2013). However, the level of fertilizers consumption is highly varying

in between the states. The fertilizers consumption has varied from 243 kgs. per ha. in Punjab

to 54 kgs. per ha. in Himanchal Pradesh during 2011-12. The consumption of fertilizers has

also varied across the size-groups of farmers with the highest fertilizers consumption reported

among the small size-groups of farmers.

The state of Uttar Pradesh is predominantly an agricultural state. After green revaluation alike

Punjab and Haryana, the farmers in Uttar Pradesh have also been experiencing the benefits of

fertilizers application particularly in cultivation of food-grains and other crops. But still the

yields of food-grains are very low due to the less use of fertilizers as compared to the states of

Punjab and Haryana where use of fertilizers per ha. was maximum (Fertilizer News – 1993).

It has been proved by progressive farmers that 35 to 50 percent increase in the yields of

foodgrains can be obtained by systematic application of fertilizers. Further it is rightly said

that if H.Y.V. seed is the vehicle for green revaluation then fertilizer is the fuel which has

100

moved it forward. Chemical fertilizer is today the kingpin of Indian Agriculture (Yojana,

Nov. 1981).

The trend of fertilizers consumption in terms of nutrients in Uttar Pradesh shows that nitrogen

consumption increased from 2898.83 tonnes during 2009-10 to 2972.06 tonnes till the year

2013-14. The consumption of phosphorous decreased from 1039.17 tonnes in 2009-10 to

764.65 tonnes till 2013-14. While the consumption of potash increased from 333.50 tonnes in

2009-10 to 1047.70 tonnes till 2013-14. Thus, in terms of nutrients the fertilizers

consumption has increased considerably in case of N and K but in case of P2O5 it has

decreased.

The trend of per ha. consumption of fertilizers in terms of nutrients in Uttar Pradesh shows

that the consumption of total NPK increased from 175 kgs. per ha. in 2009-10 to 182 kgs. per

ha. till 2012-13. The consumption of nitrogen (N) increased from 119 kgs. per ha. in 2009-10

to 131 kgs. per ha. till 2012-13. The consumption of phosphorous (P2O5) increased from 43

kgs. per ha. in 2009-10 to 46 kgs. per ha. till 2012-13. While the consumption of potash

(P2O5) decreased from 13 kgs. per ha. in 2009-10 to 5 kgs. per ha. till the year 2012-13.

Therefore, there was the need of present study to examine the level of adoption and

constraints in the use of recommended doses of fertilizers and their impact on crop

productivity.

Main Objectives of the Study:-

The main objectives of this study were as follows:-

3. To examine the level of adoption and its constraints in the application of

recommended doses of fertilizers based on soil test reports by the farmers.

4. To analyze the impact of adoption of recommended doses of fertilizers on crop

productivity and income of farmers.

101

Research Methodology:-

This study was confined to the state of Uttar Pradesh as a whole. A multistage stratified

random sampling technique was used to choose the samples. For each of the two selected

major crops i.e. Rice and Wheat, two districts were selected based on the share of crop area

within the state. Such four districts were namely (1) Azamgarh and (2) Shahjahanpur for

Paddy and (3) Hardoi and (4) Unnao for Wheat. Thereafter, from each of these four districts

thus, selected two development blocks were selected on the same basis of the share in crop

area. Such 8 development blocks were namely (1) Lalganj and (2) Martinganj from

Azamgarh district, (1) Banda and (2) Puwayan from Shahjahanpur district, (1) Shahabad and

(2) Sursa from Hardoi district and (1) Fatehpur and (2) Purwa from Unnao district. From

these 8 blocks thus, selected, two villages from each selected block were chosen on the same

basis of the share in crop area for conducting the survey. Such 16 villages were namely (1)

Barauna, (2) Demai Magdumpur, (3) Sikarpur and (4) Bishambharpur from Azamgarh, (1)

Narenderpur, (2) Chanupur Pandai, (3) Raipur and (4) Jugharpur from Shahjahanpur, (1)

Mishripur, (2) Gohaniya, (3) Kasarawa and (4) Husiyapur from Hardoi and (1) Patti Hamid,

(2) Khwajipur, (3) Rama Amarpur and (4) Barkhera from Unnao district. Thereafter, the

ultimate samples of 60 soil tested farmers per crop from each selected district were selected

randomly according to probability proportion to their number after categorizing the list of soil

tested farmers into (1) Marginal farmers. (2) Small, (3) Medium and (4) Large farmers as per

their net operated area restricting the total soil tested farmers samples to 240. Also to see the

effect of recommended doses of fertilizer on crop productivity, 30 control (non-soil tested

farmers) sample farmers per crop from each selected district were under taken randomly from

all categories of the same villages restricting a total of non-soil tested farmers samples to 120.

Also adequate care was taken to select villages having common agro-climatic conditions and

the samples of all the social groups i.e. S.Cs. and S.Ts, O.B.Cs and others falling in the area

under study. The required data were collected through schedules and questionnaires by

survey method.

102

Summary of the Findings:-

The present study reveals that the fertilizers consumption in terms of materials during 2009-

10 to 2013-14 in Uttar Pradesh shows a mixed trend wherein the consumption of urea and

D.A.P. in Uttar Pradesh was found increasing till 2013-14. The consumption of M.O.P.,

S.S.P. and N.P.K. complexes was found decreasing in Uttar Pradesh during 2010-11 to 2013-

14. The consumption of urea and D.A.P. increased from 31.7 thousand tonnes in 2009-10 to

47.3 thousand tonnes till 2013-14, while the consumption of fertilizers in terms of nutrients

had shown a declining trend till 2013-14.

The gross cropped area in Uttar Pradesh has increased considerably during 2009-10 to 2013-

14. But the total consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. per ha increased from 175 kgs

in 2009-10 to 182 kgs till 2012-13 which decreased suddenly to 150 kgs in 2013-14. The

consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. for paddy in Uttar Pradesh showed a decling

trend during 2011-12 to 2013-14. Thus, fertilizers consumption for paddy in Uttar Pradesh

had a declining trend till 2013-14. While the consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. for

wheat declined gradually with variations and showed a declining trend during 2009-10 to

2013-14.

The majority of sample soil tested farmers were marginal and small farmers and the large

farmers were only a few in the area under the study. The respondents were of the matured age

between 47 to 58 years. On an average respondents were secondary educated, while large soil

tested farmers were higher secondary educated.

91 percent of respondents reported agriculture as their main occupation. Thus, agriculture

was the main occupation of the majority of the sample soil tested farmers. 95 percent of

sample soil tested farmers were males and only 5 percent were females. The average family

size was of 7 members and average number of members engaged in agriculture was 2 per

household among soil tested farmers. The average years of experience in farming was 22

103

years. The maximum i.e. 44 percent were O.B.Cs., 29 percent S.Cs., and 27 percent were

general castes among soil tested farmers.

Among non-soil tested farmers too majority were marginal and small farmers. The average

age of respondents was 52 years. On an average, farmers were only middle (Class VIII)

educated. Agriculture was the main occupation of the majority (92 percent) of the farmers.

The majority of non-soil tested farmers were males.

The net operated area on an average was 3.48 acres and there was 100 percent irrigation

among soil tested farmers, while among the non-soil tested farmers the net operated area on

an average was 3.56 acres and there was 100 percent irrigation. Bore-wells were used more

by the marginal and small farmers, while large farmers used canal more for their irrigation

than the marginal and small farmers. No other source of irrigation was reported in the area

under study. Among the non-soil tested farmers too bore-well was the main source of

irrigation. No other source of irrigation was there except bore-wells and canal.

About cropping pattern marginal soil tested farmers had cropped maximum area under wheat

in Rabi and paddy in Kharif. Thus, paddy and wheat were the major crops grown by the soil

tested farmers. Among the non-soil tested farmers marginal farmers had cropped paddy in

kharif and wheat in Rabi. Thus, in case of non-soil tested farmers too, similar cropping

pattern was followed by all the farmers.

Among the soil tested farmers HYV paddy was cropped more on larger farms but HYV

wheat was cropped more on the marginal and small farms, while among the non-soil tested

farmers the area under HYV was reported to be higher under wheat in comparison of paddy.

The output from crops per household was highest on the large farms but per acre output from

crops was highest on the medium soil tested farms. Thus, medium soil tested farms were

more productive, more income giving and profitable. In case of non-soil tested farmers too,

104

medium farms were more productive. Thus, medium farms were more income giving and

profitable in case of non-soil tested farmers too.

The farm assets owned by soil tested farmers were comparatively more valuable than the

farm assets owned by non-soil tested farmers. About agricultural credit it was found that

larger farmers had larger amount of outstanding agricultural credit in comparison of marginal

and small farmers. The agricultural credit was taken more from the commercial banks and

RRBs by the soil tested farmers. Non-soil tested farmers had also taken agricultural credit

only from the commercial banks and RRBs wherein the equal amount was found outstanding

with the sample farmers.

Agricultural loans were availed only for the purposes of seasonal crop loans and purchase of

tractors and other implements wherein loans for tractors and implements were taken by large

farmers maximum and crop loans by small and marginal farmers maximum in case of soil

tested farmers. Among the non-soil tested farmers too, the maximum large and small farmers

had taken loans for seasonal crop cultivation and maximum large and medium farmers had

taken loans for the purchase of tractors and other implements.

Regarding training programmes the maximum numbers of training programmes were

attended by the marginal and small households. The percentages of farmers who attended the

training programmes were higher in large and medium households. The average number of

days of the training was reported to be one day (1) only.

Marginal farmers tested their soils more in comparison of the large farmers, while small and

medium farmers tested their soils considerably. The average cost of soil testing was reported

as Rs. 7 per soil sample. The average distance from the soil testing lab to field was 31 kms.

The area covered under soil test increased with the increase in the size of farms. On an

average 81.40 percent of the net operated area was covered under soil testing. 100 percent of

the soil samples were collected by Department of Agriculture.

105

100 percent of the soil test farmers were made aware of soil testing by the State Agriculture

Department. The main reason of soil testing was increasing the crop yield. The main reasons

for not testing soils during the last three years by the non-soil tested farmers were the

unawareness about the soil testing and location of soil testing laboratories at far off distances

from the fields.

It was found that the soil of paddy was deficient in nitrogen and phosphorous and normal in

potash. The soil of wheat was deficient in nitrogen, normal in phosphorous and normal and

considerably high in potash as reported by wheat farmers.

As regards the recommended doses of fertilizers in terms of nutrients in wheat it was found

that the doses of urea was comparatively higher, while in paddy the doses of D.A.P. and

potash were comparatively much higher. The average quantity of split doses of fertilizers by

stages of crop growth it was found that the urea, D.A.P. and potash were recommended in

larger quantity in paddy as compared to the same in wheat.

Small farmers had applied maximum recommended doses of fertilizers and covered the

maximum area of net operated area under soil testing. Thus, small and marginal farmers had

tested their soils maximum in the area under study. The percentage of farmers willing to

continue applying recommended doses of fertilizers was 28 percent on an average in case of

wheat (Crop-II).

The major constraints in applying recommended doses of fertilizers were lack of money and

higher prices of fertilizers in the area under study.

106

About the awareness and sources of information for recommended doses of fertilizers 100

percent of the sample farmers had told that S.A.D. (state Agriculture Department) was the

only and lonely source of information in the area under study.

As regards the actual quantity of fertilizers applied by the sample farmers it was found that

urea and D.A.P. were applied in larger quantity on the marginal farms than on the other

farms. While potash was applied in larger quantity on medium farms in comparison of other

farms in case of soil tested farmers growing paddy (Crop-I).

While in cases of non-soil tested farmers urea, D.A.P. and potash were applied in larger

quantity on medium farms in comparison of other farms. The actual quantity of split doses of

fertilizers applied by stages of crop growth in kgs. per hectare it was found that urea was

applied in maximum quantity by soil tested farmers as well as non-soil tested farmers

growing paddy and wheat crops.

Regarding method of application of fertilizers by sample farmers 100 percent of the farmers

reported that urea, D.A.P. and potash were applied only by broadcasting method of the

application of chemical fertilizers. No other method of application of the chemical fertilizers

was applied in cases of both the paddy and wheat crops.

About the use of organic fertilizers by sample farmers it was found that only farm yard

manure (F.Y.M.) was used by 100 percent of the sample farmers and no other organic

manures or organic fertilizers or bio-fertilizers or green manuring was used either in paddy or

wheat. Non-soil tested farmers had used much lesser quantity of organic manures.

The main sources of purchase of fertilizers by sample farmers were private fertilizers shops

and dealers from where more than 85 percent of sample farmers had purchased fertilizers in

the area under study. Therefore, the maximum of soil tested farmers and non-soil tested

107

farmers had purchased urea, D.A.P. and potash from the private fertilizers shops and

fertilizers dealers in the area under study.

Regarding average prices of fertilizers and transport costs incurred, it was found that the

average prices of fertilizers and transport costs incurred were more or less the same in cases

of soil tested farmers and non-soil tested farmers both in the area under study.

The highest i.e. 21 percent difference in the yield of paddy was found on large farms of soil

tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmers against the lowest i.e. 2 percent difference on

the small farms. In case of wheat too, the highest i.e. 15 percent difference in the yield was

found on large farms of the soil tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmers against the

lowest i.e. 7 percent difference on the medium farms.

About the average value of output from paddy on an average the percentage difference in the

value of output from paddy was estimated as 9.40 percent by the soil tested farmers over the

non-soil tested farmers during 2013-14. In case of wheat the highest i.e. 19 percent difference

in the value of output was found on large farms of soil tested farmers over the non-soil tested

farmers against the lowest i.e. 8 percent difference on medium farms in the area under study.

Regarding impact of application of recommended doses of fertilizers on yields of crops by

soil tested farmers it was found that there was 3 percent change in the yield of paddy after the

application of recommended doses of fertilizers on the marginal farms against the higher i.e.

5 percent change on the small farms. On large farms the sample farmers had not adopted

recommended doses of fertilizers as they applied either higher or lower doses even then the

percentage change was 2.60 percent. Thus, the higher change / impact in the yield of paddy

was found on the small farmers in comparison of the other farms and in the yield of wheat it

was found to be higher on the medium farms.

108

About the changes observed after the application of recommended doses of fertilizers on

reference crops it was found that in paddy the maximum numbers of soil test farmers reported

as important changes in the crop yield and crop growth and as most important changes in the

soil texture. In wheat the maximum number of soil test farmers reported that the important

changes were for improvement in crop growth and grain filling and as most important

changes the maximum number of farmers had reported for improvement in soil texture in the

area under study.

Conclusions:-

Based on the main findings of the study the following conclusions have been drawn:-

Regarding fertilizer consumptions in terms of materials during 2009-10 to 2013-14 there was

a mixed trend where in the consumption of urea and D.A.P. was found increasing till 2013-

14, while the consumption of M.O.P., S.S.P. and N.P.K. complexes was found decreasing

during the years 2010-11 to 2013-14 in Uttar Pradesh.

The fertilizers consumption in terms of nutrients for paddy in Uttar Pradesh had shown a

declining trend till 2013-14, while the consumption of fertilizers in terms of N.P.K. for wheat

declined gradually with variations and showed a declining trend during 2009-10 to 2013-14.

The majority of sample soil tested farmers were marginal and small farmers and the large

farmers were only a few in the area under study. The respondents were of the matured age

between 47 to 58 years. On an average respondents were secondary educated, while large soil

tested farmers were higher secondary educated. This clarifies that educational status of

farmers was poor.

109

Agriculture was the main occupation of the majority of the soil test farmers. The average

family size was of 7 members and 2 members per household were engaged in agriculture.

Among non-soil tested farmers the pattern was similar. Among soil tested farmers the

average net operated area was 3.48 acres with 100 percent irrigation. Among non-soil tested

farmers the average net operated area was 3.56 acres with 100 percent irrigation. Bore-wells

and canals were the main sources of irrigation. Thus, it is safely concluded that farm size as

well as irrigational status on sample farms were similar.

Cropping pattern followed by the sample farmers was same where-in paddy and wheat were

major crops. HYV paddy was cropped more on large farms and HYV wheat was cropped

more on the marginal and small farms of soil tested farmers. Among non-soil tested farmers

HYV wheat was cropped more than HYV paddy. Thus, HYV paddy was not preferred by

marginal and small farmers in the area under study.

The per acre output from the crops was highest on medium farms of both soil tested farmers

and non-soil tested farmers. Therefore, medium farms were more productive, income giving

and profitable.

The farm assets owned by the soil tested farmers were comparatively more valuable than the

farm assets owned by the non-soil tested farmers. Larger farmers had larger amount of

outstanding agricultural credit taken more from the commercial banks and RRBs.

Agricultural loans were availed only for the purposes of seasonal crop loans and purchase of

tractors and other implements where-in loans for tractors and implements were taken

maximum by large farmers and crop loans by the marginal and small farmers.

Regarding training programmes it was found that maximum numbers of training programmes

were attended by marginal and small farmers but the percentages of farmers who attended the

110

trainings were higher in large and medium households. The number of training days was one

only. Therefore, training was not adequate.

The main reasons for not testing the soils during the last three years by the non-soil tested

farmers were the unawareness about the soil testing and locations of soil testing laboratories

at far off distances from the fields and lack of money.

It was found that the soil of paddy was deficient in nitrogen and phosphorous and normal in

potash. While the soil of wheat was deficient in nitrogen, normal in phosphorous and

considerably high in potash.

The percentage of farmers willing to continue applying the recommended doses of fertilizers

was only 28.33 percent on an average in wheat (crop-II).

The major constraints in applying the recommended doses of fertilizers were lack of money

and higher prices of fertilizers in the area under the study. Also 100 percent of the farmers

told that S.A.D (State Department of Agriculture) was the only and lonely source of

information.

Also 100 percent of the farmers reported that urea, D.A.P. and Potash were applied only by

the broadcasting method of application of chemical fertilizers and no other method was

applied in paddy and wheat both crops.

F.Y.M. (Farm Yard Manures) was used by 100 percent of the farmers and no other organic

manures or bio-fertilizers or green manuring was used either in paddy or in wheat. Non-soil

tested farmers had used much lesser quantity of organic manures.

111

The main sources of purchasing fertilizers by sample farmers were private fertilizers shops

and fertilizers dealers from whom more than 85 percent of farmers had purchased fertilizers.

The difference in the yields of both paddy and wheat was found higher on the farms of larger

soil tested farmers over the non-soil tested farmer and on the marginal and small farmers this

difference was lesser. Accordingly there was difference in output. The higher change / impact

in the yield of paddy was found on the small farms in comparison of other farms and in the

yield of wheat it was higher on medium farms.

The important changes were found in crop yield and crop growth and the most important

change in soil texture was reported in cases of both the reference crops in the area under

study.

Policy Recommendations:-

1. Since, the consumption of fertilizers in terms of materials as well as in-terms of

nutrients was found decreasing during the last five years continuously in Uttar

Pradesh, hence the adequate supply must be ascertained by the Government.

2. The educational status of farmers particularly marginal and small farmers must be

increased to encourage them towards the awareness about the recent developments in

agriculture in Uttar Pradesh.

3. The main occupation of the majority of farmers in Uttar Pradesh was reported as

agriculture where-in the number of farming family members engaged in agriculture

was too scanty. Therefore, agriculture in Uttar Pradesh must be made more diversified

and intensive to engage more number of farm family members in agriculture.

4. Since, HYV paddy was not preferred to be grown in Uttar Pradesh by majority of

farmers particularly marginal and small farmers who shifted considerable area to

112

other kharif crops. Therefore, other suitable varieties of paddy must be prescribed in

Uttar Pradesh.

5. The per acre output from the reference crops was higher on medium farms only in

Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, marginal, small and large farmers must be facilitated more

to boost their output from the reference crops.

6. The status of farm assets on marginal and small farms was deplorably poor.

Therefore, poor farmers must be provided subsidies and facilitated to take loans for

purchasing tractors and implements.

7. Adequate training programmes pertaining to the application of methods for fertilizers

use, seeds procurements etc. must be conducted in remote areas of Uttar Pradesh.

8. For more reluctance and awareness about their soils the soil testing arrangements and

facilities must be achievable in remote rural areas of Uttar Pradesh to attract willing

farmers.

9. Higher prices of fertilizers were there in many areas of study. Therefore, there must

be any proper control measure on prices of fertilizers in rural areas of Uttar Pradesh.

10. Since, F.Y.M. (Farm Yard Manure) was the only organic manure used in the area

under study. Therefore, other organic manures, bio-fertilizers and green manuring

must be used in the rural areas of Uttar Pradesh.

11. To improve the soil texture of soils in Uttar Pradesh changes in the cropping pattern

was observed as an important factor in vast areas of Uttar Pradesh to boost the

production of food-grains and vegetables as complements of pulses in Uttar Pradesh.