Processing technologies for undervalued grains in rural India: on target to help the poor?

Abstract

Finger millet (ragi) is increasingly recognized as a nutritious staple by Indian consumers and policy makers. Though previously regarded as a poor person’s crop, the benefits of enhanced ragi consumption may bypass the poor. Because home processing is arduous, small flour mills have been introduced to help. With geo-referenced survey data from a pilot area in the Kolli Hills region of Tamil Nadu, India, we examined determinants of mill use and use intensity employing a two stage multinomial selection model. Overall, we found that the mill technology was not pro-poor, in that poor people do not tend to use the mills more than wealthier people, or use them at higher rates. We identified the location of mills as being a key factor in preventing more use of mills by the poor. Therefore, to better serve the poor, external agencies would have to deliberately locate mills in poor communities. For this to be feasible, changes to make this technology work better with poor communities may be required, such as the use of less capital intensive technology such as hand- or pedal-power, rather than reliance on electrical power.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Our study area has a history of reduced dietary variety over the last 20 years (Huang et al. 2017). Changing consumer preferences due to greater public awareness and concern about the links between diet and obesity and related health problems are leading to a resurgence of millet consumption among urban consumers. Ragi is being promoted as a “nutri-cereal”: gluten free and high in calcium, fiber, minerals and amino acids. Several food processors are marketing breakfast products with ragi as a key ingredient (Shobana et al. 2013).

  2. 2.

    Rural consumers of ragi have strong preferences over the attributes of ragi flour and distinguish between processing alternatives that seem identical in terms of costs but produce flours that differ in attributes such as texture (Mal et al. 2010).

  3. 3.

    During the Green Revolution, federal and state government investments in irrigation infrastructure and fertilizer subsidies unleashed the productivity potential of dwarf varieties of rice and wheat. Productivity gains were primarily concentrated among irrigated rice and wheat producers in Punjab and Haryana States in Northwestern India, largely bypassing the millions of farmers who relied, and still rely, on rainfed agriculture (Rosegrant and Hazell 2000).

  4. 4.

    For crops in 2016–2017, the minimum support prices to be paid to farmers to produce crops were Rs 14.70 / kg for rice, Rs 14.50 / kg for wheat, and Rs 17.25 / kg for finger millet (Business Standard 2017). Targeted poor households were entitled to purchase set amounts of rice for Rs 3 / kg, wheat for Rs 2 / kg, and millet for Rs 1 / kg.

  5. 5.

    Based on data collected as part of our household survey in the study area.

  6. 6.

    We conducted a preliminary survey and found that, based on the frequency of customers who came to the mills, the average distances traveled to the mills, and the local population density, a random sample would not provide sufficient observations of adopters for our analysis. We therefore opted for this mixed sampling design. Standard errors of all econometric estimates were adjusted for the mixed sampling design using sampling weights, following Greene (2007).

  7. 7.

    In addition to the two mills established by the MSSRF, we identified seven privately operated mills that our sample households visited (see Fig. 2). The recent establishment of the private mills suggests that some entrepreneurs have overcome the barriers to entry into the milling market, without a publicly-funded intervention. Because only 10.7% of the households in our total sample processed ragi at one of the private mills, we do not expect that the presence of private mills affected the conclusions that can be drawn from our analysis of the SHG mills.

  8. 8.

    Block districts are local government subdivisions in Tamil Nadu, which are composed of several villages.

  9. 9.

    In our sample, a small fraction (9%) of households both buy and produce ragi flour from the mills. We subsumed this group into the mill-adopter category in our analyses.

  10. 10.

    Our measure of Adult Equivalent Household Size = (Number of Children Age 0 to 6) X 0.2 + (Number of Children Age 7 to 12) X 0.3 + (Number of Children Age 13 to 17) X 0.5 + Number of Adults Age 18 and Up; see Glewwe and van der Gaag (1990)

  11. 11.

    The following variables were included in the IHDS index, but not in the wealth index used here: air conditioner, clock / watch, electric fan, chair / table, cot, credit card, footware, piped indoor water, separate kitchen, flush toilet, electricity, LPG, and Pucca roof. Variables included in our index that were not included in the IHDS index were radio, DVC player, and tape player.

  12. 12.

    Following our earlier discussion we defined the intensity of mill use as the natural logarithm of the quantity of ragi flour produced (kg) in one month per adult.

  13. 13.

    Selection implies for example that unobserved household characteristics such as information, tradition, motivation and preferences, can affect both a households’ choice of processing technology and the amount of ragi they process at the mill.

  14. 14.

    A standard approach to estimating the mill adoption model in equation 1 would be to treat the household’s decision as binary, by defining Ai = 1 if the household is a mill-adopter and 0 otherwise, and assuming a probit or logit specification. The regression model of intensity of mill use in equation 2 could then be estimated consistently using a Heckman (1979) selection model. However, this approach would ignore the full choice set of alternatives available to households for processing ragi. Moreover, the intensity equation (2) would not identify the sources of selection. Similarly, multinomial selection models (see Lee 1983; Dubin and McFadden 1984) are inappropriate in our context because even though they allow for selection from multiple sources, they restrict the sign of the different selection effects to be the same.

  15. 15.

    The geography variables were not related to the sampling design, as the coordinates for the centroid were calculated after the sampling was completed. They were constructed by taking the average of the easting and northing measures of the Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates from each household.

  16. 16.

    The marginal effects of covariates on the other choice categories (market-adopter and non-adopter) are available upon request.

  17. 17.

    Ideally we would have data on the literacy of all adult females, including those in charge of cooking. In the absence of these data, we assumed that the household head is the main decision-maker in household decisions and his/her literacy about nutrition is shared among household members. Given assortative matching in marriage markets (Becker 1973) it is possible that the measure captures common preferences and beliefs of members.

References

  1. Adesina, A. A., & Baidu-Forson, J. (1995). Farmers’ perception and adoption of new agricultural technology: Evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa. Agricultural Economics, 13, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Altieri, M., & Koohafkan, P. (2008). Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities. Penang, Malaysia: Third World Network. Retrieved 01 10, 2013, from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/Enduring_Farms.pdf

  3. Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., & Cattaneo, A. (2013). Adoption and Intensity of Adoption of Conservation Farming Practices in Zambia. Lusaka, Zambia: Indaba agricultural policy research institute and the agricultural development economics division of the food and agriculture organization of the UN . Retrieved august 15, 2013, From http://www.aec.msu.edu/agecon/fs2/zambia/index.htm

  4. Barungi, M., & Maonga, B. (2011). Adoption of soil management technologies by smallholder farmers in central and southern Malawi. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 13(3), 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bergamini, N., Padulosi, S., Ravi, S., & Yenagi, N. (2013). Case study 8 minor millets in India: A neglected crop goes mainstream. Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve. Nutrition and Health, 313.

  7. Borjas, G. J. (1987). Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. American Economic Review, 77(4), 531–553.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bourguignon, F., Fournier, M., & Gurgand, M. (2007). Selection bias correction based on the multinomial logit model: Monte-Carlo comparisons. Journal of Economic Surveys, 211, 174–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Business Standard (2017). Raise minimum support price for pulses, says CACP. April 7. https://www.businessstandard.com/article/markets/raise-minimum-support-price-for-pulses-says-cacp-117040601245_1.html. Accessed 31 Jan 2019.

  10. Chatterjee, C., & Sheoran, G. (2007). Vulnerable groups in India. In Mumbai: The Centre for Enquiry into health and allied themes. India: Mumbai.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Diskin, P. (1994a). Understanding linkages among food availability, access, consumption, and nutrition in Africa: Empirical findings and issues from the literature. Washington, D.C.: Report to USAID/AFR/ARTS/FARA.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Diskin, P. (1994b). Management of the Drought and Post-Drought Recovery in Zambia: The effectiveness of maize market reforms and direct government assistance in ensuring food security. Draft Mimeo. In East Lansing. Michigan: Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dubin, J. A., & McFadden, D. L. (1984). An econometric analysis of residential electric appliance holdings and consumption. Econometrica, 52, 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Feder, G. (1980). Farm size, risk aversion and the adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Oxford Economic Papers, 32(2), 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Feder, G., & O'Mara, G. T. (1981). Farm size and the diffusion of green revolution technology. Economic Development and cultural change, 30(1), 59–76.

  16. Finnis, E. (2009). “Now it is an easy life”: women’s accounts of cassava, millets, and labor in South India. Culture and Agriculture, 31(2), 88–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Glewwe, P., & van der Gaag, J. (1990). Identifying the poor in developing countries: Do different definitions matter? World Development, 18(6), 803–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Goodhue, R., Klonsky, K., & Mohapatra, S. (2010). Can an education program be a substitute for a regulatory [rogram that bans pesticides? Evidence from a panel selection model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(4), 956–971.

  19. Google Inc. (2012). Google Earth (Version 6.2) . Available from http://www.google.com/earth/index.html.

  20. Greene, W. (2007). LIMDEP version 9.0/NLOGIT version 4.0 Econometric Modelling Guide. Plainview, New York: Econometric Software.

  21. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Holloway, G., Shankar, B., & Rahman, S. (2002). Bayesian spatial Probit estimation: A primer and an application to HYV rice adoption. Agricultural Economics, 27(3), 383–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang, T., Farmer, A. P., Goddard, E., Willows, N., & Subhan, F. (2017). An ethnographic exploration of perceptions of changes in dietary variety in the Kolli Hills, India. Food Security, 9(4), 759–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jayne, T., Tschirley, D., Staatz, J., Shaffer, J., Weber, M., & Chisvo, M. (1995). Market-Oriented Strategies to Improve Household Access to Food: Experience from Sub-Saharan Africa. MSU International Development Paper no. 15.

  25. Jukanti, A. K., Gowda, C. L. L., Rai, K. N., Manga, V. K., & Bhatt, R. K. (2016). Crops that feed the world 11. Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.): An important source of food security, nutrition and health in the arid and semi-arid tropics. Food Security, 8(2), 307–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Just, R., & Zilberman, D. (1983). Stochastic structure, farm size and technology adoption in developing agriculture. Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2), 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Katchova, A. L., & Miranda, M. J. (2004). Two-step econometric estimation of farm characteristics affecting marketing contract decisions. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(1), 88–102.

  28. Kumar, P., Kumar, A., Parappurathu, S., & Raju, S. S. (2011). Estimation of demand elasticitiy for food commodities in India. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lee, L. (1983). Generalized econometric models with selectivity. Econometrica, 51, 507–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mal, B., Padulosi, S., & Ravi, S. B. (2010). Minor millets in South Asia: learnings from IFAD-NUS Project in India and Nepal. Bioversity International, Maccarese, Rome, Italy and the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India, 185.

  31. McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. National Research Council. (1996). Finger Millet. In Lost Crops of Africa: Volume 1: Grains (pp. 39–57). National Academy of Sciences.

  33. Padulosi, S., Mal, B., Bala Ravi, S., Gowda, J., Gowda, K. T. K., Shanthakumar, G., Yenagi, N., & Dutta, M. (2009). Food security and climate change: role of plant genetic resources of minor millets. Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 22(1), 1.

  34. Padulosi, S., Amaya, K., Jäger, M., Gotor, E., Rojas, W., & Valdivia, R. (2014). A holistic approach to enhance the use of neglected and underutilized species: the case of Andean grains in Bolivia and Peru. Sustainability, 6(3), 1283–1312.

  35. Padulosi, S., Mal, B., King, O. I., & Gotor, E. (2015). Minor millets as a central element for sustainably enhanced incomes, empowerment, and nutrition in rural India. Sustainability, 7(7), 8904–8933.

  36. Palaniswamy, S. (2018). Development of a millet dehuller (hand-operated) to reduce drudgery in processing and utilization of millet waste (hulls) in antioxidant extraction. MSc thesis, McGill University.

  37. Parmanand, A. V. (2015). Development and testing of pedal operated thresher for finger millet. International Journal of Agricultural Science and Research (IJASR), 5(3), 299–307.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Raghu, P., Swallow, B., Manaloor, V., Kalaiselvan, N., Mahana, R., Arunraj, R., et al. (2013). Alleviating Poverty and Malnutrition in Agro-biodiversity Hotspots: Baseline Report. University of Alberta / M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation.

  39. Rosegrant, M., & Hazell, P. (2000). Transforming the Rural Asian Economy: the Unfinished Revolution. Asian Development Bank, Manila, the Philippines.

  40. Rubey, L. (1993a). Consumer Maize Meal Preferences in Zimbabwe. USAID Report. Harare, Zimbabwe.

  41. Rubey, L. (1993b). Yellow Maize, Consumer Preferences and Food Security in Zimbabwe. Report to USAID/Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.

  42. Seetharam, A., Riley, K., & Harinarayana, G. (Eds.). (1989). Small millets in global agriculture. Proceedings of the First International Small Millets Workshop Bangalore, India. New Delhi, India: IDRC / IBH Publishing Co.

  43. Shobana, S., Krishnaswamy, K., Sudha, V., Malleshi, N. G., Anjana, R. M., Palaniappan, L., & Mohan, V. (2013). Finger millet (Ragi, Eleusine coracana L.): a review of its nutritional properties, processing, and plausible health benefits. In Advances in food and nutrition research (Vol. 69, pp. 1–39). Academic Press.

  44. Singh, P., & Raghuvanshi, R. (2012). Finger millet for food and nutritional security. African Journal of Food Science, 6(4), 77–84.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Singh, K. P., Poddar, R. R., Agrawal, K. N., Hota, S., & Singh, M. K. (2015). Development and evaluation of multi-millet thresher. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 7(2), 939–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sonalde, D., Dubey, A., Joshi, B., Sen, M., Sheriff, A., & Vanneman, R. (2008). India human development survey. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Staal, S., Baltenwick, I., Waithaka, M., deWolff, T., & Njoroge, L. (2002). Location and uptake: Integrated household and GIS analysis of technology adoption and land use, with application to smallholder dairy farms in Kenya. Agricultural Economics, 27(3), 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Stifel, D., & Minten, B. (2008). Isolation and agricultural productivity. Agricultural Economics, 39(1), 1–15.

  49. Sunding, D., & Zilberman, D. (2001). The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. In B. Gardner & G. Rausser (Eds.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics (Vol. I, pp. 207–261) Elsevier Science B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Vijaya Bhaskar, A. V., Nithya, D. J., Raju, S., & Bhavani, R. V. (2017). Establishing integrated agriculture-nutrition programmes to diversify household food and diets in rural India. Food Security, 9(5), 981–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Vic Adamowicz for his help in the sampling design of data collected for this study. We acknowledge important inputs into the implementation of the survey from the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation as well as financial support of the International Development Research Centre and Global Affairs Canada (formerly Department for Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development) through the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund (IDRC Project Number 106505-001). We thank the following individuals at MSSRF for their contributions to the overall study design and implementation of the surveys: Nita Selena, Oliver King, Siddick Abubacker, Kumar Natarajan, Bala Murugam, and P. Hariharasudhan. We also extend our appreciation to the anonymous reviewers and editors for their helpful comments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandeep Mohapatra.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller-Tait, E.J., Mohapatra, S., Luckert, M.K.(. et al. Processing technologies for undervalued grains in rural India: on target to help the poor?. Food Sec. 11, 151–166 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0881-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Mill use
  • India
  • Nutrition
  • Women
  • Adoption
  • Multiple-selection model