ChapterChapterChapterChapter ---- IIIIIIII

Review of Literature

34

CHAPTER - II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. Review of related literature on the impact of mechanization on income of the farmers in India

Technology has a great impact on all aspects of economic life. It is

inevitable and essential for accelerated development of under-developed

countries. Infact, appropriate technology provides a valuable weapon in the

war against poverty by making better use of available resources. This

ultimately brings about prosperity for the entire population. In a nut-shell,

technology promotes efficiency and satisfies human wants from scarce

resources.

Technology is the body of knowledge, or the know-how, since the

emergence of Green Revolution the change that taken place in utilizing

technical knowledge is known as technological change. It is concerned with a

shift in production function which indicates the technical relations between

output and inputs.

In other words, it is the application of scientific discovery of production

and distribution which creates new products, new processes of manufacture and

changes in the methods of distribution. Technological change provides greater

output from resources of land, labour and capital. In this way technology

increases production with lower cost or better quality produce for the same

cost. Technology can be defined in two senses. In its narrow sense, it deals

35

with equipments and machines which are employed in production. In other

words, it involves reproducible tangible wealth which can be used a number of

times.

In a broader sense, technology includes not only reproducible tangible

wealth but also body of the knowledge, skills, ideas that help the development

and use of such machines and equipment. In the context of under-developed

agriculture, this broad definition is of great significance.

In short, technological change is expressed by capital, entrepreneurial

skill, marginal land technical skill, a trained labour force and better utilization

of labour, equipments and materials, improvement in the quality of resources,

products and methods of production and nationalization of production process.

Technological change in agriculture comprises of introduction of high

yielding variety of seeds, fertilizers, plant protection measures and irrigation.

These changes in agricultural sector enhance the productivity per unit of land

and bring about rapid increase in production.

Technological change in agriculture can be classified into two (i) Land-

augmenting technical change (ii) Labour-augmenting technical change. Land-

augmenting technical change involves change in biological techniques in crop

production. It includes mainly HYV of seeds fertilizers, irrigation and plant

protection measures.

Labour-augmenting technical change includes mechanical changes,

namely, rapid mechanization of agricultural operations, such as introduction of

36

traders combine harvestors. This change in agricultural technology in India is

regarded as “Green Revolution”. This is associated with the package of

agricultural inputs and new agricultural practices. The package approach which

includes, apart from HYV of seeds, fertilizers, inputs, weedicides, control over

water supply, tractors etc. are the major feature of new agricultural technology.

Indian agriculture has witnessed significant changes in production

technology through the introduction of high yielding varieties of crops,

especially wheat and intensive application of complementary modern inputs in

farming. The new momentum created by modern seeds and fertilizers was

considered the initiation of Green Revolution. Consequently, the consumption

of several agro-inputs like pesticides, growths regulating compounds and

weedicides have increased, besides the fertilizers all over the country. It is

accepted that consequent to the adoption of modern technology the farm

production has increased considerably.

Malya (1961)1 defines income as the total agricultural household

income of the family consisting of receipts from occupation, dairy enterprise,

rent received, interest on loans and remittance received, if any.

Shetty (1963)2 discusses the implication of technological advance in

plantation crops in India and concludes that despite some gains in yield per

acre of coffee, tea and rubber, cost per unit of output increases due to the

adoption of new technology. 1 Meenakshi Malya, “An Analysis of personal income Distribution in Rural Areas”, Indian Journal

of Agricultural Economics 16(3), P.187-196, 1961. 2 K.T. Shetty “Implication of Technological change in Commercial crops – A case study of

plantation crops in India”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(3), P.56-63, 1963.

37

Edwin Faris (1964)3 states that improvement of plant and animal

varieties, introduction of new type of insecticides and fertilizers, mechanization

in agriculture and effective use of many of the factors of production have been

esteemed as technological change.

National Council of Applied Economics Research (1964)4 preferred

the term ‘Motorization’ to Mechanization. Motorization according to it, would

mean substitution of tractors for animals as means of traction as against the

mechanization meaning substitution of machines for any kind of labour animal

as well as human.

Bradford and Johnson (1964)5 categorize farm expenses into four types:

i) Items which are wholly used within the year. These items include

seed, feed, fertilizers etc. This is sometimes called current expenses.

ii) Depreciation on properties.

iii) Decrease in inventories of operating capital, feed and supplies other

than feed.

iv) Uses of the labour services performed by the members of the family

other than the operator.

3 Edwin Faris, “Structural change and competitive relationship among buying and selling Firms”,

Journal of Farm Economics, 46(5), P. 1238-1245, 1964. 4 National council of applied Economic Research Agriculture and live stock in Rajasthan, Chapter V

– Page-44, Allied publishers, New Delhi, 1964. 5 Laurence A. Bradford and Glen L. Johnson “Farm management Analysis” (New York: John Willy

and Sons) (inc. London, 1964) 5.

38

Sarkar and Prahaladachar (1966)6 define technology as the

combination of various productive factors and technological progress implies

change in this input mix in such a way as to increase output per unit of

resources and reduce production cost per rupee of output.

Kahlon and Kaul (1968)7 have observed that the new strategy in

agriculture revolves around the cultivation of high yielding varieties which are

highly responsive to fertilizer and are at the same time more time resistant to

insect, pest and diseases.

Lavania and Dixit (1968)8 argue that the high yielding varieties yield

higher than the local varieties is too general an observation for any economic

analysis. The success of a programme of this nature should consider the net

gains of the farm fairly and not mere increase in the physical product. Their

study is intended to examine the economics of high yielding varieties of wheat,

maize, bajra and compare it with that of the local varieties in one of the blocks

of Aligary District.

Venkataram (1968)9 makes a comparison between local and hybrid

varieties of Jowar in their cost of cultivation, yield and returns and concludes

that cost of cultivation for hybrid Jowar is more than that of for local variety

6 K.K. Sarkar and M.Prahaladachar, “Mechanization as a Technological Change”, Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics, 21(1), P.171-182, 1966. 7 A.S. Kahlon and J.D. Kaul, “Comparative study of Economics of Hyv’s of wheat – Punjab State”.

Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.79-86, 1968. 8 G.S. Lavania and R.S. Dixit, “Economics of Hyv’s in package District, Aligarh,” Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.93-103, 1968. 9 J.V. Venkataram, “Economic Aspects of High yielding crops Hybrid Jowar” Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics 23(4), P.134-138, 1968.

39

due to increased needs of fertilizers and pesticides and yield of hybrid Jowar is

2½ times more than that of local variety.

Bhati (1969)10 shows that technological change mainly involves the use

of wonder seeds coupled with the use of fertilizers irrigation, pesticides and

other modern input.

Sharma (1969)11 divides the cost of production of farm crops into fixed

cost and variable cost. The fixed cost includes cash expenses on permanent

human and animal labour, depreciation on farm implements and machineries,

land revenue and cesses, rental value of land and interest on permanent

investment other than lend.

The variable cost covers wages paid to hired human labour, cost of seed

manures and fertilizers, irrigation charges betterment levy and miscellaneous

costs such as plant protection charges, cost of gunny bags and interest on

variable costs.

Shah and Agarwal (1970)12 conclude that with the introduction of new

technology, the income level of progressive farmers has considerably increased

in Uttar Pradesh. There is a significant difference in the income level of

progressive and less progressive farmers in the different size groups of

10 J.P. Bhati, “Adoption of improved seeds – prospects and problems”, Agricultural situation in India,

25(9), P.967-970, 1969. 11 A.C. Sharma, “Scale Economics in the production of Farm crops in the cotton Belt of Punjab”

Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 49(3) P.283, 1969. 12 S.L .Shaw and R.C. Agarwal, “Impact of New Technology on the level of Income and pattern of

income distribution and savings of farmers in Central U.P. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.110-121, 1970.

40

holdings and income inequalities have widened among the farmers due to the

adoption of new technology.

Garg et al. (1970)13 state that the adoption of HYV of crops have

helped in increasing income proportionate to the percentage of adoption in all

groups of farmers with the adoption of HYV, the additional income per hectare

has accounted for more than double the expenditure. It is also observed that

technology is neutral to the size of the farm and it tends to reduce the

disparities between the various groups of farms.

Kahlon (1970)14 observes that because of the divisible nature of the

farm technology, farm income of small farmers tends to rise although those of

the big farmers have risen faster.

Shaw and Singh (1970)15 have conducted a study relating to technology

and employment. They have observed that skilled labour is needed to perform

the technically exacting routines of machinery, water, soil and crop

management in the new technology. They compare a typical farm and a tractor

farm and conclude the employment. On the typical farm/acre is more than that

in the tractor farm which shows a decrease in employment due to

mechanization.

13 J.S. Garh, G.N. Singh and H.L. Srivastava, “Impact of Hyv of crops on patterns of income

distribution”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.115-121, 1970. 14 A.S. Kahlon, “New Farm Technology its implications in Agricultural Economics”. Indian Journal

of Agricultural Economics 25(4), P.1-11, 1970. 15 S.L. Singh and L.R. Singh, “The Impact of New Agricultural technology on Rural Employment in

North West U.P.” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.29-33, 1970.

41

Desai et al. (1970)16 have undertaken study to measure the impact of use

of improved seed and irrigation and to measure the change in participation of

family labour in farming due to introduction of new methods of farming. They

have worked out permanent, family and casual labour requirement for 5 crops

namely groundnut, bajra, wheat, Jowar and cotton for both hybrid and local

varieties and conclude that only improved varieties of wheat use less labour

and could give less family labour earning than those under local varieties.

Bardhan (1970)17 counter argues that the green revolution may not help

in raising agricultural employment.

Vyas et al. (1970)18 in their study to identify the size of holdings which

would enable an average farmer become viable in terms of certain desired level

of income by adopting high yielding varieties, conclude that for making non-

viable farms viable the level of efficiency at which the new technology is

adopted is more important than the extent of area brought under the new

technology.

Bainer (1970)19 observed that machines were more efficient in keeping

of the time lines of the field operations and decreasing the use of human and

animal energy.

16 D.R. Desai, G.A, Patel and R.J. Patel “Impact of Modern Farm technology on Rural Development

in Saurastra”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(3), P.33-39, 1970. 17 Pranab Bardhan, “Green Revolution and Agricultural Labourers” Economics Political Weekly

5(29,30&31), P.1239-1246, 1970. 18 V.S. Vyas – D.S. Tyagi and V.N. Misra, “Significance of the new strategy of agricultural

development for small farmers- A cross sectional study of two areas of Gujarat” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 25(1), P.115-116, 1970.

19 Bainer, S., “Mechanized crop production” Indian Journal of Agricultural News Digest 1(10,11), P.312-318, 1970.

42

Parnape (1970)20 indicated that mechanization will increase the

production and ultimately raise the standard of living and increase economic

welfare. He was of the opinion that mechanization would increase the real

purchasing power of the people and thus have a leverage effect in demand for

other products.

According to Singh et al. (1971)21 mechanization of agriculture means

the use of machines like tractors, water pumps, threshers, chaff cutters operated

by oil, battery or electricity in the place of similar implements operated

manually or by bullock power.

Dandekar and Rath (1971)22 viewed employment from the perspective

of income in that an adequate level of employment must be defined in terms of

its capacity to provide a minimum living to population.

Acharya (1972)23 concludes that use of fertilizers and insecticides

increases with the participation in the HYV programme and mechanization.

Secondly, bullock labour input increases with the HYV and decreases with

mechanization. Thirdly, participant farms have relatively larger area under

20 Parnape, R., “Experiment in the use of Large scale machinery” Journal of Farm Economics 14(2),

P.336-340, 1970. 21 K.B. Singh, B.B.P.S. Goel and V.V.R. Murthy, “Estimation of availability of bullock power in

certain tracts of India”. Agricultural situation in India, 25(7), P.483-487, 1971. 22 Dandekar V.M., and Rath, “Poverty in India” Economic and political Weekly, 6 (2), P.138, 1971. 23 S.S. Acharya, “Impact of Technological change on Farm Employment and Income distribution in

Agricuture” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Division of Agricultural Economics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 1972.

43

irrigation compared to non-participants and percentage of irrigated are and

fertilizers used is higher for small farmers compared to medium and larger

farms.

According to Vendattappa (1972)24, mechanization is a picture of

sophisticated machines increasingly engaged in the replacement of reduction of

human and animal power.

Patel and Patel (1972)25 viewed that any use of mechanized power in

the place of human or animal power for agricultural operation amounts to farm

mechanization.

Ramasamy (1972)26 defines new technology as the use of hybrid seeds

coupled with the use of chemical fertilizers, plant protection chemicals,

improved implements and machines and effective use of many of these factors

of production with high level of useful knowledge on the part of farm people.

Ramasamy (1972)27 concludes that the income gap between the

progressive and the less progressive farmers has widened consequent to the

adoption of new technology and the level of income increases with the intensity

of adoption of new technology.

24 Venkatappa, B., “Farm mechanization in India”, seminary series IX, problems of Farm

Mechanization, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, P.2-15, 1972. 25 S.M. Patel and K.V. Patel. “Progress of Farm Mechanization in India seminar series IX, problems

of Farm Mechanization. India society of Agricultural Economics, P.29-44, 1972. 26 C. Ramasamy, “Impact of New Technology on Income and pattern of Income Distribution among

farmers – A study in Palani Block, Madurai District, TamilNadu, unpublished M.Sc, (Agri,) thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics TamilNadu Agricultural University 1972.

27 C. Ramasamy, “Impact of New Technology Income and pattern of income distribution among farmers – A case study in Palani Block Madurai District, TamilNadu” Unpublished (M.Sc) Agriculture thesis department of Agricultural Economics, TamilNadu, Coimbatore 1972.

44

Subba Rao (1972)28 observes the two striking features in the

relationship between credit and adoption of high yielding variety technology

(a) the high proportion of owned fund for financing current farm expenditure

on HYV and (b) the failure of the borrowers especially small farmers, to lift the

entire credit made available to them by the Co-operative Institutions especially

in Eastern India.

Ramasamy (1972)29 observed groups and farms having 20 percent or

more of total cropped area under high yielding varieties as progressive class

and the rest as less progressive.

Singh et al. (1972)30 classify high progressive farmers are those who are

possessing tractor and tube-well having at least 50 percent of their cropped area

under HYV of crops.

Progressive farmers are those who have their own tube wells and at least

25 percent of the area under HYV. Traditional farmers are those farmers who

have no improved farm implements but are having less than 25 percent of the

cropped area under high yielding varieties.

Parameshwara Rao (1972)31 states that farm mechanization means

application of mechanical power to perform agricultural operations and to

increases farm production and to raise the standard of living of the people

28 K. Subba Rao, “Institutional credit, uncertainty and adoption of Hyv technology: A comparison of

East Uttar Pradesh with West Utter Pradesh. 29 C. Ramasamy, “Impact of new technology on income and pattern of income distribution among

farmers – A study in palani block Madurai District. TamilNadu, Department of Agricultural Economics, TNAU, 1972, Unpubishe (M.Sc) Agri. Thesis, Coimbatore.

30 Ram Iqbal Singh, R. Kunwar and Shri Ram “Impact of new agricultural technology and Mechanization on Labour Employment”. Indian Journal of Agricultual Economics 27(4), P.210-214, 1972.

31 K. Parameshwara Rao, “Southern Economists, March 1982, Vol.20, No.21, Page.19.

45

working in agriculture. Mechanization is partial when only part of the farm

work is done by machine. It is complete when animal or human labour is

completely displaced by the power operated machines.

Nandal (1972)32 defined the term farm income as the value of the crops

and live-stock products sale of farm assets, receipts of rent, custom services

etc.

Sharma (1972)33 defined the gross income as the income from the crops

grown, the value of both main products and by products were considered in

estimating the gross income.

Farm income is the difference between receipts and expenses. It is what

the operator received for his own and family labour for the year and for the use

of the capital invested by them.

Rai et al. (1972)34 define income of agricultural house hold, to include

the total agricultural income, loan taken and non-agricultural income received

during the period under study.

Pandey et al. (1972)35 define income as the total of agricultural and

non-agricultural income consisting of those received from commercial

establishments, carpet weaving, and other trades.

32 Nandal D.S. “Investment pattern in Haryana State” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics

28(5), P.75, 1972. 33 Sharma, R., “Explanatory Notes on important erns relating to crop loan” Financing Agriculture,

4(1), P.29, 1972. 34 K.N. Rai, D.K.Groves and D.S.Nandal, “Investment and savings pattern in irrigated Zones of

Haryana state”. Indian Journal of agricultural Economics 27(4), P.75-82, 1972. 35 H.K. Pandey, Viswanath and P.P. Singh “Pattern of Income savings and investment in Agriculture

in Eastern U.P” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 27(4), P.51-55, 1972.

46

Kahlon (1972)36 estimates gross income of farm family by adding all he

incomes from farm non-farm sources and borrowings from institutional and

non-institutional sources.

Misra (1972)37 observed that per hectare decrease in human labour

employment varied from 6.67 percent in maize to 57.78 percent in wheat while

decreases in bullock labour varied from 64.71 percent in Maize to 90.48

percent in wheat.

Raj (1972)38 reported that tractorisation did not result in any significant

displacement of wage labour. The installation of pumps and tube-wells created

demand for casual labour in replacement of permanent farm workers but the

acquisition of tractors created demand for more permanent farm workers.

Moens (1973)39 explained that agriculture is characterized by small

holdings, low farm income and low labour cost. Mechanization will be

successful only through the development of appropriate machine to meet the

needs of the conditions prevailing in the country.

Rao (1973)40 argued that a blanket assumption of full employment norm

of 48 hours a week implies work of eight hours a day for six days of work

36 A.S. Kahlon, “Savings and Investment pattern of Farm families in Punjab”. Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics 27(4), P.19-28, 1972. 37 Misra S.P. “Impact of tractorisation – A study in a Tahsil of M.P. “Indian Journal of Agricultural

Economics page 237 31(2), 1972. 38 K.N. Raj, “Mechanization of Agriculture in India and Sri Lenka” International Labour Review

106(4), 315-334, 1972. 39 Moens, R., “An Economic analysis of Mechanization” Yojana 12(2), P.23-25, 1973. 40 Rao, S.K.”Measurement of Rural unemployment”. Economic and Political Weekly, 8(39) A 78-A

90, 1973.

47

which is perhaps not an universally full employment norm to assume as several

attached labourers do in fact worked more hours than that.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1973)41 defines farm

business income as the measure of earning of the farmer and his family for

management, risk, their labour and capital investment (Gross receipts minus

A1 / A2).

They also define farm labour income as what the farmer and his family

receive for management, risk and their physical labour that is gross income

minus cost B and Net Income (profit or loss) as gross income minus Cost C.

For the present study gross income is defined as the total value of the

main product and by product of the particular crops valued at the market price.

Net income is defined as the gross income less cost of cultivation of crops, live

stocks maintenance, maintenance cost of farm buildings and farm machinery

and equipments.

Bernard and Nix (1973)42 have classified costs in farming into fixed

cost and variable cost. Fixed cost represents farming expenses on an overhead

nature and does not change with the levels of output taxes, depreciation, cash

rent, interest payments form the fixed cost. Variable cost refers to the farming

expenses which change with output. It relates to the variable resources.

41 “Studies in Economics of Farm Management in Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu” Three year

combined Reports (1970-71 to 72-73) Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, New Delhi..

42 C.S. Bernard and J.S.Nix “Farm planning and control”. (Cambridge, Cambridge University press, 1973), 45.

48

Mosher (1974)43 by farm mechanization we mean introducing the use of

mechanical procedures into farm operation in an area where these procedures

have not previously been used. In the process both the machines themselves

and the institutional arrangements by which they are made available to and

used by farmers are included. Strictly speaking, the design and manufacture of

farm equipment is external to farm mechanization as such, but the suitability of

equipment for profitable use on farms in specific localities is so important to

the success of farm mechanization that design and manufacture can usefully be

included as part of farm mechanization itself.

Singh and Ramanna (1974)44 observe that the adoption of improved

technology coupled with adequate credit facility dynamises the income

potential and offers the single best measure to solve the chronic problem of

under employment of family labour on small farms and for labour in

agricultural sector in general.

Mittal and Sacena (1974)45 define fixed costs as those which are

independent of the level of production whereas variable costs as those which

vary with the level of production.

43 A.T. Mosher, “Some policy issues and Research Needs” Experience in Farm Mechanization in

south East Asia. Edited by Herman south worth and Milton Barneth, page-335, 1974, published by the Agricultural Department Council, 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y.10020, Tanglin P.O.84, Singapore-10.

44 Shiv Karan Singh and R. Ramanna “The Role of Credit and technology in increasing income and employment on small and large farming in Western Region Hyderabad District, A.P. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 34(3), P.41-51.

45 J.P. Mittal and R.P.Saxena “A mathematical Expression for cost analysis of Farm Equipments”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 29(1), P.51, 1974.

49

Mittal and Singh (1975)46 defined mechanized farms as those farms

where farm operations such as ploughing, harrowing and threshing were done

by tractors.

According to the National Council of Applied Economics Research

(1975)47 Mechanization meant substitution of machines for any kind of labour,

animal as well as human.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1975)48 also a categorizes

costs into Cost A1, A2, B, C. Cost A, approximates the actual expenditure

incurred in kind and cash and it includes (a) Hired human labour (b) owned and

hired bullock and labour (c) seeds, (d) manures and fertilizers, (e) plant

protection chemicals (f) machine labour (g) land revenue, cess, water rates (h)

depreciation on implements, machinery and farm buildings (i) interest on

working capital.

Cost A2 is cost A1 plus rental value of leased in land. This applies only

for tenancy farms Cost B is Cost A2 plus interest on fixed capital excluding

land and rental value of owned land. Cost C is cost B plus imputed value of

family labour.

46 Mittal F.P. and Singh T.F., “Mathematical models for the cost analysis of tractor custom unit”.

Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 30(1) P.69, 1975. 47 National Council of Applied Economic Research, Agricultural Live-stock in Rajasthan, Chapter V,

Allied Publishers, Page.44, 1964. 48 Directorate of Economics and Statistics (1975), op cit.

50

Acharya (1976)49 divides farms into small farmers (below 5 acres),

medium (5-10 acres), and large farmers (above 10 acres). Besides he breaks the

farms into three mechanization levels.

a. Bullock-operated farms. All operations are performed with bullocks and

human labour. In other words they can be called as non-mechanized

farms.

b. Pump-oriented farms. Irrigation is done by electric or diesel pumpsets

and all other operations are carried out by bullock and human labour.

c. Tractor operated farms. Pumpsets are used for irrigation and other

operations are carried by tractors and bullocks.

Stout and Downing (1976)50 defined mechanization to encompass the

use of hand tools and animal drawn implements as well as motorized

equipments to reduce human efforts to perform certain operation that cannot be

accompanied by other means and to improve the quality of work.

Smith (1976)51 defined employment as a state in which a person

combined his/her physical and or mental efforts with other resources including

other human effort in a production process.

49 S.S. Acharaya, “Prospects for Agricultural labour in the context of New Agricultural technology in

Rajasthan Rural Labour in India. Edited by S.M. Pandey Page.30 1976. Sri.Ram centre for Industrial Relations and human Resources, 5, Sadhu Vasvani Marg, New Delhi-110 005.

50 Stout B.A. and C.M. Downing, “Agricultural Mechanization Policy”. International Labour Review 113(2), P.171-187, 1976.

51 Smith L.D., “The political economy of employment criterion in agriculture” Journal of Agricultural Economics 27(3), P.351-363, 1976.

51

Hayami and Herdt (1977)52 state that technological progress for a

commodity implies a downward shift in the cost function and hence a right

shift in supply function which with a downward sloping demand curve resulted

in a larger quantity at a lower cost.

Ketkar (1977)53 has found that the farmers in the traditional sector are

generally efficient, most of the inefficiency arising from the introduction of

new technology has resulted from excessive diversification in the cropping

production patterns.

The Government report (1977)54 on HYV in India shows that high

yielding varieties fail to approach their potential yields under field conditions

and frequently achieve yields below or barely matching those of the existing

local or local improved varieties.

Jain (1977)55 has formulated a criterion to measure technological

advancement on the basis of three indicators.

a. Percentage of area under HYV to total cropped area

b. Percentage of irrigated area to total cropped area

c. Fertilizer consumption per hectare in kilograms.

52 Yujiro Hayami and Robert W. Herdt, “Market price Effects of Technological change on Income

Distribution in semi subsistence Agriculture” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(2), P.245-246, 1977.

53 S.L. Ketkar, “Impact of New Technology on Indian Agriculture – A programming Approach” Dissertation Abstracts International 34(6), P.2874, 1977.

54 Government of India “The Hyvp in India 1970-75 part II” controller of publications, Delhi 1977. 55 Baboolal Jain, “Impact of technological changes in Human Labour employment and its

productivity in Agriculture in sehore block, sehore District, M.P.” Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics Banaras Hindu University, 1977.

52

Further, he has grouped farms having 20 percent or more of the gross

cropped area under HYV as adopters and farms sowing local varieties of crops

and having less than 20 percent area under HYV as non-adopters.

Mclnerney (1978)56 defines technology as a matrix of characteristics,

structures and processes, entwined with the system of human activity found in

rural areas and a change in technology means some alternations in this

complex.

Roy (1978)57 conducted a study on farm tractorisation productivity and

labour employment in order to find out the impact of tractorisation on

employment and concluded that the use of tractors has resulted in seven percent

more employment and 23 percentage higher output in wheat farms.

Sharma (1978)58 while studying the comparative statistics of labour

input per hectare on two types of farm organizations concluded that the labour

use was slightly higher (1.96%) in mechanized farms as compared to bullock

operated farms.

Singh (1979)59 in his study on the economics of tractor use in Punjab

has observed that the utilization of human labour in the case of medium and

large sized tractor farms was 18.85 and 33.03 percent less compared to bullock

farms.

56 John P. Mclnerney, “Technological Innovations in Rural Development, “The Technology of Rural

Development” (World Bank Staff Working paper No.295, 1978), 2. 57 Roy S.Farm tractorisation, productivity and labour employment – A case study of Indian Punjab –

Journal of Development studies. 14(2), 193-209, 1978. 58 Sharma A.C. “Farm mechanization in Punjab” Agricultural and Agro-Industries Journal 11 (5),

P.24, 1978. 59 Bhagat Singh, “Economics of Tractor use” Yojana 23(9), 19, 1979.

53

Kahlon (1980)60 observed that the index of cropping intensity was

177.62 for the pure tractor farms as compared to 158.65 percent for the pure

bullock farms.

Renganathan (1981)61 defines technology as the use of hybrid seeds

along with chemical fertilizers, plant protection, chemicals, improved

implements and machines for higher productivity.

Ushaben (1981)62 concludes that the impact of high yielding seed

varieties on output and area in the case of wheat is remarkable. The adoption of

HYV’s has helped to accelerate growth rates of output and yield for Jowar

Bajra and total food grains.

She also observed that the adoption of HYV on large area has been

instrumental in stepping up the output group substantially.

Rao (1982)63 favours mechanization in agriculture and he places some

reasons for it.

a. To over come labour shortage during the peak periods and on draught

animals which have low productivity and high costs?

b. To increase the rate at which operations are performed by timely and

effective farm operations.

60 Kahlon, A.S. (1980), op cit P.55. 61 V.S. Renganathan, “Technology, productivity and Farm size in Rice production in Palayamkottai

Block, Tirunelveli District, Uupublised M.Sc.(Ag.) Thesis Department of Agricultural Economics, TamilNadu, Agricultural University, Coimbatore 1981.

62 Ushaben sharma, “Contribution of Hyv’s to cereal output, yield and area in Gujarat” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 36(1), P-79-81, 1981.

63 Parameshwara Raw, “Southern Economist” Vol.20, No.21, March 1, P.19, 1982.

54

c. To step up total production by using water pumps and adopting multiple

cropping.

d. To perform tasks that cannot be done effectively by traditional methods.

e. Many of the major crop operations in India are rigidly bound by the

season. Because of the labour during peak period is very high and hence

labour shortage is usually experienced. This necessitates the use of

mechanical appliances in our agriculture.

f. As better land preparation and also timeliness of agricultural operations

are crucial for higher production, we are forced to use tractors in

agriculture despite their adverse effects on employment.

g. Our traditional implements are crude, inefficient and inadequate. It is

highly uneconomical to complete agricultural operations using them.

They need to be replaced by improved agricultural machinery and

implements.

Bina Agarwal (1983)64 categorizes farms into (a) Tractor using and

exclusively bullock using. (b) Tractor owning and tractor hiring. (c) Tube-well

irrigated and exclusively canal irrigated – these contain both the tractor and the

bullock farms.

64 Bina Agarwal, “Mechanization in Indian Agriculture” Impact of alternative Techniques on farm

output and employment” page.165 1983. Allied publishers private Ltd., prarthana Flats, 1st Floor, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad- 380 009.

55

Bina Agarwal (1983)65 points out that the use of tractors and tube-wells

in comparison with the use of bullocks and canals respectively is associated

with higher cropping intensity. However, the advantage of tube-wells over

canals is found to be much greater than that of tractors over bullocks.

Among the tractor using farms, it is essentially those owning tractors

which account for the higher average cropping intensity; those depending

solely on hired tractors are not found to differ very much from bullock farms in

their level of cropping intensity.

Farmer in his study on the Green Revolution in Punjab indicated that

mechanization would prove a boon than a curse if alternative employment

could be arranged for the agricultural worker.66

Singh and Singh (1985)67 in their study on the impact of mechanization

on human and bullock labour use in two regions of Utter Pradesh have found

that the magnititude of labour displacement due to tractorisation decreased with

the increases in farm size.

Sidhu and Singh (1986)68 define Technological change as all the

available means which improve the efficiency of converting scarce resources

into products which satisfy human wants. It manifests itself in the use of new

65 Bina Agarwal (1983) “Cropping Intensity effects of Mechanization”. Mechanization in Indian

Agriculture. Allied publishers Private Limited, Ahmedabad. 66 Parmer B.S.(1970) “The Green Revolution what is means” Eastern Economist 54,1165-69. 67 Singh L.R. and Singh R.V., (1985) op Cit P.95. 68 D.S. Sidhu and Singh H.J. “Technological change in Indian Agricultural Development Since

Independence Edited by M.L.Dantwala and others, oxford & IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 1986.

56

inputs and knowledge leading to an upward shift of the production function in

the long-run.

Sisodia (1986)69 has conducted a study in Indore District with objectives

to find out levels of input and output in production of local and Mexican

wheats and to study the extent to which recommended practices are adopted

and to work out the input needs at the farm, village and district levels and to

define the problems which hinder the extension of new varieties.

69 J.S. Sisodia, “Some Economic Aspects of Hyvp of Indore District”, Indian Journal of Agricultural

Economics 23(4), P.103-113, 1986.

57

2.2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ON THE NEW AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTIVITY

Sangha (1964)70 defined productivity as the ratio between output and

input both measured in real terms. He also defined productivity as the ratio

between net output and number of workers or number of man hours. Capital

productivity as the ratio between net output and net capital employed and land

productivity as the ratio between net output and number of acres of land.

Billings and Singh (1970)71 came to the conclusion that mechanization

benefited society by reducing the cons of production.

Acharya (1974)72 viewed the agricultural productivity in terms of yield

per hectare of land cultivated.

Bhattacharjee (1972)73 viewed the term productivity as the output per

unit of input in farm business.

Inukai (1972)74 concluded that mechanization increased labour

productivity.

Motilal (1973)75 observed that the yield of bajra in tractorized (17.94

Qtls) farms were higher as against the bullock operated farms (16.37 Qtls.).

70 Keher Sangha, “Productivity and Economic growth” Bombay, Asia publishing house, P.10, 1964. 71 Martin H. Billings and Arjun Singh “Mechanization and Rural Employment with some

implications for Rural income Distribution”. Economic and Political Weekly 26, P.61-72, 1970. 72 S.K.Acharya, “Agriculture in mehalaya mizoram and mikir and north lachar hills artha vijnana,

16(1(, P.50-57, 1974. 73 J.P.Bhattacharjee, “A survey of Farm Mechanization in Ludhiana, IADP”, Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics 8 (209), 161, 1972. 74 Inukai “Employment technological change in Philippine Agriculture, International Labour

Review” 106, (2,3), P.111-139, 1972. 75 Motilas, G. “Farm and Factory Economic aspects of Tractorization”. 7(10), P.105, 1973.

58

Studies by Rao (1972)76 reaffirmed that mechanization increased

income adequately to justify the cost.

Many Researchers (1974)77 studied the impact of mechanization on the

productivity. Lawrence concluded that tractor mechanization could bring

substantial gains in production per acre.

Desai and Gopinath (1975)78 concluded that the output per hectare of

tractor farms was higher than that of non-tractor farms.

Motilal (1975)79 in his study on the economics of tractorization has

arrived at the conclusion that the net income in tractorised farms was 58.78

percent higher than that of bullock operated farms.

Gallen (1977)80 concluded that mechanization increased income as well

as employment and reduced the cost of production.

Sharma (1977)81 in his study on farm mechanization in Punjab

observed that farm mechanization has increased the yield by 7 percent without

adversely affecting the level of employment.

76 Hanumantha Rao, C.H., “Farm Mechanization in a labour abundant Economy” Economic and

Political Weekly 7, P.393-400, 1972. 77 Roger Lawrence “Some Economic aspect of Farm mechanization in Pakistan, USAID, 1970 as

cited in Planning Agriculture in low income countries”. A symposium Development study No.14, P.38, Chap.2, 1974.

78 Desai B.K and Gopinath C. “Impact of farm tractorization on productivity and employment” Indian Agricultural News Digest 4 (8,9), P.271-275, 1975.

79 Motilas, G. “Impact of farm tractorization on productivity and employment” Indian Agricultural News Digest 4 (8,9), P.271-275, 1975.

80 S.T.Gallen, “Economic policy opportunities and Results of mechanization in the Mountain area” World Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociaological Abstract No.122, P.14, 1977.

81 Sharma A.C. “Farm mechanization in Punjab” Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, 8 (2), P.62-64, 1977.

59

Agarwal and Kumar (1985)82 have observed that the introduction of

tractor has increased the income by 5301.15 (64.5%) over the bullock

cultivation under well irrigated conditions.

Sharma (1988)83 in his study on farm mechanization in Punjab

observed that the average returns on the tractor operated farms were 28.47

percent higher than the bullock operated farms. The higher income on tractor

holdings was described to shift in the cropping patterns in favour of more

remunerative enterprises, increased cropping intensity, higher expenditure on

the yield, increasing technology and better preparation of land, timely,

performance of operation and better placement of seeds and fertilizer.

Vanitha (2008)84 states that intensive cropping system are often based

on manual labour such as in traditional paddy rice and raised – bed agriculture,

or on highly mechanized systems based on purchased inputs. Intensive

agriculture is an essential component of habitat management because it limits

requirements for new areas of land. It can however, lead to degradation of

natural resources if not managed appropriately. Modern Agriculture includes

plant breeding, biotechnology and associated intellectual property rights, all of

which are potentially able to adversely affect the natural resource base,

particularly through declining biodiversity. High productivity is obtained in

mechanized monoculture which in turn is dependent on chemicals which may

82 Agarwal and Narinder Kumar, “World Agricultural Economics and Rural sociological Abstract,

P.39. 83 Sharms A.C., (1988), Op. cit. P.27. 84 K. Vanitha (2008), Development of Modern Agriculture, Agriculture under Globalization,

Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.103.

60

inadvertently destroy desirable flora and fauna. Intensive cropping systems are

suited to those environments where high yielding varieties, chemical inputs,

fertile soils and irrigation can be guaranteed.

61

2.3. PATTERN OF TRACTOR UTILIZATION

Anand (1960)85 defined it as the ratios of total cropped area to the

cultivated are (net sown area current fallows).

Fragmented holdings, satisfaction with bullock power, lack of capital

and credit and non-availability of credit at the appropriate time were the

reasons for not using tractors according to Kolte (1967).86

Human labour includes

(a) family labour and exchange for gratis labour

(b) hired labour (Casual and Permanent)

Sanghvi (1969)87 measured the human labour in man day units of eight

hour work by and adult man. For the purpose of standardizing the word units

different categories of labour, two women or three juvenile labourers each with

eight hours of work were reckoned as one man day unit.

Kahlon and Chawal (1969)88 Cropping intensity refers to the number

of crops raised n a particular area in a year expressed in percentage. It is a

measure of land use efficiency in the farms over a period of time.

85 O.P. Anand, “Some aspects of optimum benefits from utilization of irrigation potential of chambal

valley project” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 15(4), P.19-32, 1960. 86 Kolte R. “A study of different characteristics of Farmers having mechanized and non-mechnaized

farms and problems and factors associated with mechanization of farms”. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 6(1), P.27-28, 1967.

87 P. Sanghvi, “Surplus man power in Agriculture and Economic Development, Bombay, Asia publishing House, 1969, P.29.

88 A.S. Kahlon and Chawal (1969), “A study of Economic factors affecting cropping intensity in the Hissar District”, Journal of Research, 4(3), 467.

62

Patil (1970)89 reported that the size of holdings determined both the

purchasing power and economic use of tractors. He also is of the view that the

lack of suitable type of machines, high cost and inadequate facilities for the

sales and services were the causes for the slow phase of mechanization.

Khan (1970)90 identified the following factors which limited the use of

machines in a larger way they are: non-availability of tractors, lack of trained

personnel, lack of cheap fuel and lubricants, lack of necessary capital for

investments.

Selvaraj and Sundaresan (1972)91 argued that the financial handicaps,

small size of holdings, lack of servicing and training facilities were the

impediments in the process of mechanization.

Umakesan (1972)92 also standardizing the work units of farm labour by

equaling two women labour to one male labour. The same standards were used

in the present study as well.

Kanwar (1972)93 analysed that the both time and space sequence of

crops. It includes the identification of the most efficient crops of a region of

homogenous soil and climatic belt. The rotation in which the crop fits in and

89 Patil S.S. “Demand recession in India” Economic Times November 15, P.3, 1970. 90 Majid Hussain Khan, “Mechanization in West Pakistan World crops” Indian Journal of

Agricultural Economics 22(1), P.23-25, 1970. 91 Selvaraj P. and Sundaresan R. “Farm mechanization problems and possibilities in Farm

mechanization” Fact 6(3), P.34-35, 1972. 92 R. Umakesan, “A comparative study of tractor and non-tractor farms in coimbatore Taluk - An

Economics Appraisal”. Un-published M.Sc. Agri.Dissertation, Department of Agriculture college and Research Institute, Coimbatore, P.44, 1972.

93 J.S. Kanwar (1972), “Scope and concepts of cropping pattern in India Proceedings of the symposium on cropping patterns in India, P.15, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

63

the intensity of cropping. The cropping pattern of a farmer means the cropping

scheme as cropping intensity best suited to the farmer.

Mukhopadhya and Sarkar (1972)94 states that the crop pattern in

general is determined by regional and economic factors. The cropping pattern

existing in a region is a result of trial and error over many years. At the

individual farm level, the choice of crops and cropping sequence are

constrained by resource endowment besides farmers goal.

Singh and Patel (1973)95 viewed the bullock power as plough unit one

pair of bullock and one human labour for eight hours of work was used as

plough unit in days.

Marks (1975)96 argued that mechanization required more capital for

annual replacement. This in combination with high initial cost, severely limited

the use of tractors.

Singh and Singh (1975)97 viewed that mechanization required high level

of technical knowledge the lack of which retarded the growth in the use of

tractors.

94 A.M. Mukhopadhya and G.K.Sarkar (1972), “Economic Aspect of Cropping pattern”. Proceedings

of the symposium on cropping pattern in India, P.582, Indian council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

95 Rajivir Singh and R.K. Patel “Returns to scale, Farm size of productivity in Meerut District” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 28(2), P.48, 1973.

96 Marks R. “Impediments in the process of mechanization” Indian Journal of Extension Education 32(1), P.85-87, 1975.

97 Singh B.B. and Roshan Singh, “Mechanization of Farms in India” Seminar paper on Agricultural Mechanization, Anand, Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, 30(3), 1975.

64

Sharma and Sharma (1975)98 considered that the huge initial

investment as compared to the bullock power and implements hampered the

extensive use of tractors. Cheap farm credit might help in the process of

increased use of tractors.

Singh and Dhawan (1976)99 found that in tractor operated farms the

share of mechanical energy was as high as 94.83 per cent compared to that of

animal energy 0.91 per cent under the existing situation.

Radhakrishnan and Sridharan (1976)100 pointed out that the level and

pattern of energy consumption varied with different operations, depending on

the cropping pattern, sources of irrigation and size of farms.

Singh and Miglani (1976)101 found that the energy use per hectare

varied significantly between different types of soil-crop-climate complexes,

levels of technology and size categories of farm. Mechanical energy was

mainly used for irrigation, preparatory tillage and threshing purposes.

Misra et al. (1976)102 concluded that at the existing pattern of use in the

sample farms, the average working hours for tractor per year was 551.27

whereas the recommended level is 1000 hours.

98 Sharma V.K. and Sharma A.N. “Economic use of bullock power” Indian Agricultural News Digest

4 (8,9) P.265-267, 1975. 99 Shingh I.J. and Dhawan, K.C. “Energy requirement of different levels of technology in Punjab”

Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.243, 1976. 100 Radhakrishnan S.A. B. Sridharan, “A study on the Inter-Regional variation in Energy utilization in

Agriculture in TamilNadu” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.223, 1976. 101 Singh A.J. and Miglani S.S. “An Economic Analysis of Energy requirement in Punjab

Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.165, 1976. 102 Mishra D.K. Pandey R.N. and Pandey V.K. “Economic costs of Bullock and tractor power use in

Uttar Pradesh Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.193, 1976.

65

Rebello et al. (1976)103 viewed the bullock power in terms of plough

unit. A plough unit includes a pair of bullocks along with a man.

Namboodri and Padmanaban (1976)104 defined the term non-

tractorized farms as those farms where bullock technology was used for

operations.

Rao (1978)105 reported that the existence of holdings with fragments

distributed in many places rendered tractor farming unprofitable.

Aphiphan Pookpakdi (1992)106 Observe that Green Revolution made a

notable contribution to raising the production of rice and wheat by small-scale

farmers, particularly in Asia and the Pacific. The high-yielding varieties

(HYVs) of rice released in the 1960s increased the productivity of rice by about

70% and of wheat by 150%. The HYVs are responsive to very high

applications of fertilizer, and are efficient producers under intensive

management conditions (RAPA 1989).

One indirect effect of the Green Revolution was to reduce the output of

protein-rich grains and pulses which contributed greatly to ensuring a balanced

diet for the rural poor (FAO 1991b). These crops were no longer competitive

in terms of financial returns per hectare. The Green Revolution has also raised

103 N.S.P. Rebello. G.S.Chndrashekar, H.C.Shankaramurthy, K.S.Hiremath, “The impact of the

increase in the prices of inputs on the profitability and production o sugarcane and paddy in Mandy Districts of Karnataka, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.223, 1976.

104 Namboodri, N.V. and Padmanathan K., “Farm tractorization – A benefit –cost analysis”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 31(3), P.199, 1976.

105 Rao, “Rate of growth of power irrigation in Madras Agriculture” Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics 33(1), P.209-217, 1978.

106 Aphiphan Pookpakdi (1992) Sustainable Agriculture for Small-Scale Farmers: A Farming Systems Perspective Department of Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture Kasetsart University Bangkok 10900, Thailand, 1992-12-01.

66

several sustainability issues. Although the upward trend in yield has been

maintained over the past three decades, the rate of increase is slackening,

largely because of deteriorating soil fertility and the high incidence of pests and

diseases associated with monoculture. The social impact of the Green

Revolution has also sometimes been harmful. Since HYVS require high inputs

such as fertilizer, irrigation water and pesticides, as well as intensive

management, large landowners with plenty of capital were the main

beneficiaries. Attracted by the high returns which the new seeds made

possible, landowners tended to begin farming their land directly, sometimes

exacerbating the problems of landlessness and rural poverty.

Other types of technology which give high yields but have a negative

impact on the environment, such as heavy applications of pesticides,

monoculture, and extension of irrigation systems, have already been discussed.

We must question how long our natural resources can meet the need for an

increased output of agricultural commodities, before drastic degradation of the

resource occurs and productivity falls even below its present levels.

Bob Carlisle and Jonathan Wadsworth (2005)107 state that

Agricultural technology can affect smallholder income, labour opportunities for

the poor, food prices, environmental sustainability, and linkages with the rest of

the rural economy:

107 Bob Carlisle and Jonathan Wadsworth (2005), Central Research Department for International

Development (DFID) in collaboration with Rob Tripp of ODI, London.

67

• Agricultural technology has been a primary factor contributing to

increases in farm productivity in developing countries over the past half-

century. Although there is still widespread food insecurity, the situation

without current technology development would have been

unimaginable.

• New technology can provide additional rural employment, but there are

always countervailing pressures to reduce labour input and lower its

costs.

• Food prices are demonstrably lower because of technology, but the

distribution of benefits between consumers and producers depends on

the nature of the local economy and trade patterns.

The adoption of technology requires adequate incentives for producers.

Investments in labour or cash will not be made unless there are adequate

returns. One of the most important supporting factors is the adequacy of

markets for outputs and inputs.

Although there is much academic debate regarding the nature and

impact of technological change, the important issues for development

assistance agencies are related to other uncertainties. These include:

• identifying the most effective planning procedures for directing

agricultural technology to poverty reduction;

• establishing the role of agriculture in national development strategies;

• deciding the degree to which agricultural investments are appropriate for

marginal areas;

68

• identifying the correct mix of public, private and civil society support to

agricultural technology generation;

• and identifying the types of technology that warrant support.

Because agricultural technology addresses multiple, and at times

conflicting, objectives, there is a need for careful planning. But there is a trade-

off between investment in micro-level technology screening, on the one hand,

and support to basic institutional capacities and political responsiveness, on the

other. The rhetoric of technological revolutions should be eschewed in favour

of consistent attention to building technological capacity in response to changes

in the rural economy. One of the most difficult choices is that facing the

appropriate level of (agricultural) support for poverty reduction in marginal

areas. An important challenge is marshalling sufficient (and coherent) support

for public research and extension in the face of severe constraints in

development budgets. Private sector technology generation (and technology

delivery) is of growing relevance to poverty reduction strategies, but it is

probably unreasonable to place high expectations on vastly expanded formal

public-private partnerships. Support to NGOs in agricultural technology

generation should focus on their role in building local institutions and

capacities; a strong rural civil society is essential for articulating technology

demand.

There are no easy rules for guiding investments in particular types of

technology, and pragmatic, case-by-case analysis and follow-up is required.

69

Much current rhetoric (e.g. related to biotechnology or low external input

agriculture) does little to promote responsible policies.

Among the most important policy challenges related to support for agricultural

technology are:

• the identification of an effective investment portfolio of technologies;

• structuring interchange among producers, consumers, public institutes

(national and international), civil society and the private sector to elicit

effective pro-poor demand;

• structuring assistance to recognise the long-term, incremental nature of

technology generation;

• locating technology policies in a wider policy arena; and

• setting and articulating clear policy goals that relate technology

generation to food price, labour, trade, and regional development.

There are a number of implications for the way that donor assistance to

agricultural technology is structured. The agencies need to develop in-house

capacity to monitor the processes and outcomes of agricultural technology

generation. This implies a commitment to developing institutional memory and

to coordinating central syntheses and guidance with country-level experience.

Policies in support of agricultural technology generation should place strong

emphasis on local institution building and should see that agriculture is

addressed in a coherent fashion in poverty planning. An understanding of the

multiple impacts and second-order effects of technology should inform the

70

policy process. Finally, donor agencies need to increase their collaboration and

co-ordination in support of technology generation.

Kumar (2008)108 pointed out that the globalization agreement on

Agriculture provides for new opportunities for increased international trade in

Agriculture, Globalization was felt that the disciplines of GATT, which

traditionally focused only on import access problems, should be extended to

measure affecting trade is agriculture, including domestic agricultural policies

and the subsidization of agricultural exports. It was felt necessary to reform

agricultural policies in order to achieve trade liberalization in agriculture. The

idea was to progressively reduce trade distorting subsidies, improve import

access and curb export subsidies in agriculture. Under the agreement on

Agriculture the main countries would have to reduce drastically subsidies

granted to the farm sector.

Vanitha and Anitha Rexalin (2008)109 states that agriculture is the

largest and most important sector of the Indian economy. But this sector

remains most backward and about 40 per cent of rural population remain below

the poverty line. Much of the rural population does not have access to common

infrastructure like connectivity, electricity, health and safe drinking water.

Complex characteristics of rural India include inaccessible terrain and

dispersed villages, sub optimal utilization of natural resources, lack of

108 Dr. S. Kumar (2008), Indian Agriculture and the Globalization, Agriculture under Globalization,

Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.10. 109 Vanitha and Anitha Rexalin (2008), Agriculture and Globalization, Agriculture under

Globalization, Dominant Publishers and Distributors, New Delhi – 2, p.55.

71

extension of adequate privileges are detrimental to the socio-economic

environment in India. Imbalance in socio-economic development and rural

urban divide can be removed if the infrastructure in rural areas is made

adequate, qualitative and a growth oriented business environment is created.

This in turn can generate employment opportunities.

Raja Mohammed (2009)110 views that Reduction and especially,

elimination of agrochemical require major changes in management to assure

adequate plant nutrients and to control crop pests. As it was done a few

decades ago, alternative sources of nutrients to maintain soil fertility include

manures. Sewage sludge and other organic wastes, and legumes in cropping

sequences. Rotation benefits are due to biologically fixed nitrogen and from

the interruption of weed, disease and insect cycles. A livestock enterprise may

be integrated with grain cropping to provide animal manures and to utilize

better the forages produced. Maximum benefits of pasture integration can be

realized when livestock, crops, animals and other farm resources are assembled

in mixed and rotational designs to optimize production efficiency, nutrient

cycling and crop protection.

Raja Mohammed (2010)111 stated that in India is making a substantial

surge in the GDP growth. We are contemplating a 10 per cent + increase with

euphoria. Among the major sectors, namely, agriculture, manufacturing and

110 Raja Mohammed (2009), Modern Agriculture and Sustainable Farming, Peninsular Economist,

Vol. XXI, No. 1, Pp.234-235. 111 Raja Mohammed (2010) Lack of Technology and Awareness, Southern Economist, Vol. 48, No.

24, April 15, 2010, Pp. 5-6.

72

services. The main GDP growth is due to manufacturing and services. In spite

of the meagre 2.1 per cent growth in agriculture, we are still able to achieve a

substantial increase in GDP largely because of manufacturing and services.

Apart from GDP growth, a populous nation like India which constitutes

about 1/6th of the human race – has to think seriously about food security for its

future. The food habits are also changing fast. In the past, the priority was to

feed million of poor people at least one square meal a day. Today, the

priorities are changing. More affluence, resulting out of the GDP growth, has

paved the way for more successful people to look for variety and quantum,

which has in turn increased the demand for supply of food.

We have to educate people to develop multiple skills in using

agricultural equipment. This will also help the work force to get better pay and

hence result in prosperity. Unfortunately from agriculture to manufacturing,

we have too many specialists in India and multi-skills are lacking.

In the field of dairying the first revolution in the 60’s has ensured the

survival of several millions of people. Today India stands ahead of any other

country producing 91 million tonnes of milk but productivity fares much below

any other country of repute. 5 million animals in France produce 24 million

tonnes of milk per annum and India produces 91 million tonnes with 70 million

animals. Not that we have to match France or Germany, but better productivity

is definitely possible with the existing setup by educating farmers, using better

73

tools and creating awareness of modernization and mechanization of even

small farms.

Ishwar C. Dhingra (2010)112 has points out that the improved strains of

seeds are essential for increasing agricultural production. Unless the farmer

has good seeds of suitable varieties, he cannot get the best out of other inputs,

such as irrigation, fertilizers, insecticides and machinery. With HYV seeds, it

becomes possible for him to take to intensive agriculture because of the

resultant high yield and good economic returns. When one seeds in retrospect,

it becomes clear that much of the stagnation that prevailed in India agriculture

till the mid – 1960’s could have been explained in terms of the availability of

poor and low-yielding variety seeds.

112 Ishwar C. Dhingra (2010), The Indian Economy, Environment and Policy, Sultan Chand and Sons,

Educational Publishers, New Delhi, Chap. 13, p.312.