Abstract
The narrow dependence on paddy and wheat cultivation along with incentives such as free electricity and water has resulted in overuse of pumps and significant depletion of ground water resources in Punjab. Stagnating yields and soil degradation due to intensive cropping pose a significant threat to long-term agricultural productivity in the state. In this paper, we focus on the farmers’ decision-making process and identify policy changes that are required to incentivize farmers to cultivate a diverse portfolio of crops and reduce dependence on paddy and wheat. Using data from four representative districts of Punjab, we quantify the impact of introducing alternate crops on the farmers’ profitability. Our analysis shows that incorporating horticultural crops in the mix increases net expected returns from cultivation for all land size classes. We also find that including alternate crops reduces water usage by up to 30 % for most farmers, while increasing the labor and working capital requirements. We also examine risk factors—price, labor, credit and yield risk—that might be contributing to the status quo and suggest risk mitigation strategies to promote crop diversification.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in/StateCharacteristic.aspx, last accessed on Nov 30, 2015.
http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in/statesummarytype.aspx, last accessed on Nov 30, 2015.
http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/Cost_of_Cultivation.htm, last accessed on Nov 30, 2015.
http://agmarkweb.dacnet.nic.in/SA_Month_PriM.aspx, last accessed on Nov 30, 2015.
http://eands.dacnet.nic.in/Cost_of_Cultivation.htm, last accessed on Nov 30, 2015.
http://pbplanning.gov.in/pdf/Statistical%20abstract%202012.pdf, last accessed on Nov 30, 2015.
References
Aji S (2015) How Karnataka’s horticulture department is turning the farmer into an entrepreneur. In: Economic times, 29 November 2015. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/entrepreneurship/how-karnatakas-horticulture-department-is-turning-the-farmer-into-an-entrepreneur/articleshow/49963157.cms, last accessed on 30 Nov 2015
Clarke D, Mahul O, Rao KN, Verma N (2012) Weather based crop insurance in India. In: World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (5985)
Committee for Formulation of Agriculture Policy for Punjab State (2013) Agriculture Policy for Punjab. Government of Punjab. http://punjab.gov.in/documents/10191/20775/Agriculture+policy+of+punjab.pdf/9db4456f-55c5-4b55-882a-adf5811b2a53, last accessed on 30 Nov 2015
http://www.gktoday.in/apmc-act-2003/, last accessed on 18 Jan 2016
Maertens A, Barrett CB (2013) Measuring social networks’ effects on agricultural technology adoption. Am J Agric Econ 95(2):353–359
Maheshwar C, Chanakwa TS (2006) Post harvest losses due to gaps in cold chain in India—a solution. ActaHortic 712:777–784
Mohan R (2006) Agricultural credit in India: status, issues, and future agenda. Econ Polit Wkly 41(11):1013–1023
Narrod C, Roy D, Okello J, Avendaño B, Rich K, Thorat A (2009) Public–private partnerships and collective action in high value fruit and vegetable supply chains. Food Policy 34(1):8–15
Oweis T, Hachum A (2006) Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water productivity of dry farming systems in West Asia and North Africa. Agric Water Manag 80(1):57–73
Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value. Harv Bus Rev 89(1/2):62–77
Reardon T, Minten B (2011) The quiet revolution in India’s food supply chains. In: IFPRI discussion papers, 01115
Scherr SJ (1999) Soil degradation: a threat to developing-country food security by 2020? Intl Food Policy Res Inst 27
Senthilkumar K, Bindraban PS, Thiyagarajan TM, De Ridder N, Giller KE (2008) Modified rice cultivation in Tamil Nadu, India: yield gains and farmers’(lack of) acceptance. Agric Syst 98(2):82–94
Singh M (1997) Bonded migrant labour in Punjab agriculture. Econ Polit Wkly 32(11):518–519
Swinnen JF (ed) (2007) Global supply chains, standards and the poor: how the globalization of food systems and standards affects rural development and poverty. CABI Publishing, Wallingford
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Sukhmeet Singh (Associate Director), Arvinder Walia (Analyst), Jasmine Sharma (Researcher) at the Munjal Institute, ISB, Mohali, Gaurav Sadhwani (MBA student 2014) at ISB, Mohali, and Prashanth Hariharan Research Associate at ISB, Hyderabad, for their valuable support for data collection, analysis and other help.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1: Mathematical program to model the farmer’s crop-allocation decisions
where A i is the land allocated (in hectares) to crop i by the farmer; μ i is the expected net income per hectare from crop i; l i is the labor required (in man hours) per hectare of crop i; c i is the input cost (excluding human labor cost) per hectare of crop i; A 0 is the total land available for cultivation; L 0 is the total household labor available (in man hours); L is the total external labor (in man hours) hired by the farmer; ω is the wage rate (per man hour); C 0 is the total working capital available with the farmer.
Appendix 2: Impact of alternate cropping decisions on expected income and labor use in Kharif season (See below)
District | Land size class | Change (compared to growing only paddy) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In net income (%) | In labor use (%) | Crops grown | |||||
Using only household labor | Using household plus hired labor | Using only household labor | Using household plus hired labor | Using only household labor | Using household plus hired labor | ||
Amritsar | Marginal | 314 | 314 | 289 | 289 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower |
Small | 314 | 314 | 289 | 289 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower | |
Medium | 251 | 294 | 230 | 289 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower | |
Large | 51 | 183 | 41 | 225 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower | |
Ferozpur | Marginal | 319 | 319 | 476 | 476 | Tomato | Tomato |
Small | 319 | 319 | 476 | 476 | Tomato | Tomato | |
Medium | 134 | 283 | 200 | 476 | Paddy, tomato | Tomato | |
Large | 10 | 83 | 15 | 151 | Paddy, tomato | Paddy, tomato | |
Ludhiana | Marginal | 348 | 348 | 289 | 289 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower |
Small | 348 | 348 | 289 | 289 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower | |
Medium | 260 | 318 | 212 | 289 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower | |
Large | 44 | 166 | 25 | 187 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower | |
Sangrur | Marginal | 186 | 186 | 289 | 289 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower |
Small | 186 | 186 | 289 | 289 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower | |
Medium | 142 | 171 | 220 | 289 | Paddy, cauliflower | Cauliflower | |
Large | 23 | 90 | 35 | 196 | Paddy, cauliflower | Paddy, cauliflower |
Appendix 3: Impact of alternate cropping decisions on expected income and labor use in Rabi season (See below)
District | Land size class | Change (compared to growing only wheat) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In net income (%) | In labor use (%) | Crops grown | |||||
Using only household labor | Using household plus hired labor | Using only household labor | Using household plus hired labor | Using only household labor | Using household plus hired labor | ||
Amritsar | Marginal | 443 | 443 | 736 | 736 | Onion | Onion |
Small | 443 | 443 | 736 | 736 | Onion | Onion | |
Medium | 423 | 439 | 702 | 736 | Onion, wheat | Onion | |
Large | 147 | 310 | 244 | 595 | Onion, wheat | Onion | |
Ferozpur | Marginal | 367 | 367 | 205 | 205 | Capsicum | Capsicum |
Small | 367 | 367 | 205 | 205 | Capsicum | Capsicum | |
Medium | 367 | 367 | 205 | 205 | Capsicum | Capsicum | |
Large | 283 | 311 | 150 | 170 | Capsicum | Capsicum | |
Ludhiana | Marginal | 255 | 255 | 736 | 736 | Onion | Onion |
Small | 255 | 255 | 736 | 736 | Onion | Onion | |
Medium | 229 | 247 | 659 | 736 | Onion, wheat | Onion | |
Large | 71 | 109 | 204 | 362 | Onion, wheat | Onion, wheat | |
Sangrur | Marginal | 291 | 291 | 736 | 736 | Onion | Onion |
Small | 291 | 291 | 736 | 736 | Onion | Onion | |
Medium | 268 | 285 | 679 | 736 | Onion, wheat | Onion | |
Large | 90 | 144 | 229 | 410 | Onion, wheat | Onion, wheat |
Appendix 4: Impact of alternate cropping decisions on expected income and labor use on Annual Basis (See below)
District | Land size class | Change (compared to growing only paddy or wheat) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In net income (%) | In labor use (%) | Crops grown | |||||
Using only household labor | Using household plus hired labor | Using only household labor | Using household plus hired labor | Using only household labor | Using household plus hired labor | ||
Amritsar | Marginal | 384 | 384 | 419 | 419 | Cauliflower, onion | Cauliflower, onion |
Small | 384 | 384 | 419 | 419 | Cauliflower, onion | Cauliflower, onion | |
Medium | 345 | 373 | 368 | 419 | Cauliflower, onion, wheat | Cauliflower, onion | |
Large | 103 | 252 | 100 | 333 | Cauliflower, onion, wheat | Cauliflower, onion | |
Ferozpur | Marginal | 333 | 333 | 391 | 391 | Tomato, capsicum | Tomato, capsicum |
Small | 333 | 333 | 391 | 391 | Tomato, capsicum | Tomato, capsicum | |
Medium | 202 | 308 | 202 | 391 | Paddy, tomato, capsicum | Tomato, capsicum | |
Large | 90 | 150 | 57 | 157 | Paddy, tomato, capsicum | Paddy, tomato, capsicum | |
Ludhiana | Marginal | 292 | 292 | 419 | 419 | Cauliflower, onion | Cauliflower, onion |
Small | 292 | 292 | 419 | 419 | Cauliflower, onion | Cauliflower, onion | |
Medium | 241 | 275 | 342 | 419 | Cauliflower, onion, wheat | Cauliflower, onion | |
Large | 60 | 131 | 77 | 238 | Cauliflower, onion, wheat | Cauliflower, onion, wheat | |
Sangrur | Marginal | 237 | 237 | 419 | 419 | Cauliflower, onion | Cauliflower, onion |
Small | 237 | 237 | 419 | 419 | Cauliflower, onion | Cauliflower, onion | |
Medium | 203 | 227 | 354 | 419 | Paddy, cauliflower, onion, wheat | Cauliflower, onion | |
Large | 56 | 117 | 92 | 258 | Paddy, cauliflower, onion, wheat | Paddy, cauliflower, onion, wheat |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chhatre, A., Devalkar, S. & Seshadri, S. Crop diversification and risk management in Indian agriculture. Decision 43, 167–179 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-016-0129-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-016-0129-1