Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ISBN: 978-81-88708-90-1
(ii)
Contents
Foreword ............................................................................................................ (v)
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ (vii)
Executive Summary ........................................................................................... (ix)
1. Introduction ...................................................................................... 1-6
2. Trends in Production and Productivity of Oilseeds in India .............. 7-31
3. Sources of Growth and Input use in Oilseeds ................................. 32-55
4. Structure of Oilseeds Processing Sector of India ............................ 56-63
5. Demand Projections for Edible Oils in India .................................. 64-74
6. Trade Pattern and Tariff Policies in Edible Oils .............................. 75-89
7. Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................. 90-96
8. References ..................................................................................... 97-99
(iii)
Foreword
Oilseeds occupy an important position in the agricultural economy of India.
The country is the largest producer of oilseeds in the world and contributes 7
per cent of the global vegetable oils production with 14 per cent share in the
area. The growth in the domestic production of oilseeds has not been able to
keep pace with the growth in the demand in the country. Low and unstable
yields of most oilseed crops, and uncertainty in returns to investment, which
result from the continuing cultivation of oilseeds in rainfed, high risk production
environments, are the factors leading to this situation of wide demand-supply
gap.
The country now imports nearly half of the annual consumption of 168
million tonnes. The Technology Mission on Oilseeds (TMO) launched in 1986
was the first comprehensive intervention aiming self-sufficiency in edible oils
production through the spread of technology and provision of market support.
The Mission met with early success. However, increasing demand for edible
oils necessitated the imports in large quantities leading to a substantial drain on
foreign exchange. Edible oil imports increased from around 15 per cent of total
edible oils consumption in 1995-96 to nearly 53 per cent in 2009-10. The need
for addressing this deficit motivated a systematic study of the oilseeds economy
in order to formulate appropriate strategies to bridge the demand-supply gap.
This volume provides the current and future edible oils needs of the country
based on an in-depth analysis of current production trends and deficiencies,
yield potential, trade in oilseeds and edible oils. The performance of oilseeds
economy over the last three decades highlights the significance of policy and
technology. The report also investigates the role of technological inputs, policy
environment and pricing strategies in providing a direction for development of
the sector. The need for an efficient oilseed processing industry as well as
exploitation of non-conventional vegetable oils to bridge the demand-supply
gap is also discussed.
In view of the importance of this sector for ensuring inclusive growth and
the need to achieve self-sufficiency in oilseeds production, key challenges faced
by the edible oils sector and the strategy to address them are also spelled out.
Widening the scope of research and technology diffusion and institutional
options beyond the farm gate like enhancing efficiency of the processing industry
is the way forward in improving the performance of the oilseeds sector.
Improving local capacities for tackling regional differences in oilseeds
(v)
productivity as part of the technological and policy response will go a long way
in strengthening the oilseeds economy and raising overall productivity in the
disadvantaged regions. I am sure some of the suggestions made in the report on
the basis of diligent analysis will find practical use in research and policy
planning.
(H.S. Gupta)
Director
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
New Delhi 110 012
(vi)
Acknowledgements
The present project on the Oilseeds and Edible Oils Scenario in India was
sponsored by the Directorate of Vanaspati, Vegetable Oils and Fats, Ministry
of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. We
are grateful to the Ministry for providing financial support for undertaking this
research study. We are particularly grateful to Dr. Y. C. Nijhawan, Chief Directorcum-Edible Oil Commissioner, and Mrs. Rajni Agrawal, Deputy Director, for
their constant support during the course of the project.
The project involved an extensive survey of different states where edible
oilseeds are cultivated. Many scientists, farmers, oil millers and traders were
consulted to obtain the required information on different issues; we are thankful
to all of them. We are grateful to the officials and the field staff of various
organizations, particularly of Directorate of Oilseeds Research, Hyderabad,
Directorate of Rapeseed & Mustard Research, Bharatpur and Directorate of
Groundnut Research, Junagadh, for all the help and support provided by them
in the form of data, information and suggestions.
We place on record our thanks to the Director and Joint Director (Research),
IARI, New Delhi, for according permission to undertake this work. Thanks are
also due to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, for supporting the
study.
Special thanks are due to Dr. Alka Singh, Principal Scientist and Mr. Lijo
Thomas, Ph.D. Scholar of the Division of Agricultural Economics, IARI, New
Delhi, for the help provided at different stages of this study.
Mr. Gajab Singh and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, worked in this project as
Research Associates. Their sincere efforts and hard work helped us to complete
this project. We thank them sincerely for their assistance.
Authors
(vii)
(viii)
Executive Summary
India is the largest producer of oilseeds in the world and the oilseed sector
occupies an important position in the countrys economy. The country accounts
for 12-15 per cent of global oilseeds area, 6-7 per cent of vegetable oils
production, and 9-10 per cent of the total edible oils consumption. In terms of
acreage, production and economic value, oilseeds are second only to foodgrains.
Besides the nine major oilseeds cultivated in India, a number of minor oilseeds
of horticultural and forest origin, including coconut and oil-palm, are also grown.
In addition, substantial quantities of vegetable oils are obtained from rice bran
and cotton seed along with a small quantity from tobacco seed and corn. The
area and production under the nine oilseeds was 26.11 million ha and 24.88
Mt, respectively in 2009-10, whereas the total edible oil production in the country
stood at 6.17 Mt in 2009-10. As per the fourth advance estimates for 2010-11,
the production of total nine oilseed crops is 31.10 Mt, which is a quantum
jump over previous years production. Oilseeds area and output are concentrated
in the central and southern parts of India, mainly in the states of Madhya
Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Among different
oilseeds, groundnut, rapeseed-mustard and soybean account for about 80 per
cent of area and 87 per cent of production of oilseeds in the country (2010-11).
The domestic demand for vegetable oils and fats has been rising rapidly, at
the rate of 6 per cent per annum, but our domestic output has been increasing
at just about 2 per cent per annum. In India, the average yields of most oilseeds
are extremely low as compared to those other countries of the world. The
cultivation of oilseeds in India is in high risk regions where there are uncertain
returns on the investments. The study was formulated with the objectives of
ascertaining the present and future edible oil needs of the country, current
production scenario and associated constraints, yield position and trade in edible
oils and its impact on the oilseed economy.
The area, production and productivity of oilseeds grew at a compound
annual growth rate of 1.58 per cent, 3.05 per cent and 1.45 per cent, respectively,
during the period 1951-2009. Among the oilseed crops, the growth rate in area
and production was the highest for soybean (10.73 % and 12.73 %, respectively).
Castor, sunflower and rapeseed-mustard also exhibited a healthy growth rate in
production. There was a relative decline in the annual growth rate of area,
production and productivity of oilseeds during 1991-2000 as compared to 1981(ix)
1990. The area expansion in oilseeds during the past two decades was mainly
possible because of the replacement of non-remunerative crops like millets and
minor food crops and partly through increase in cropping intensity. Instability
in area, production and productivity of oilseeds has been estimated using
coefficients of variation. Maximum variability has been observed in the
production (54.81 %), followed by area (27.45 %) and productivity (28.65 %) of
oilseeds during the period 1950-2009. The production of the nine oilseeds
jumped from 9 Mt in 1980-81 to more than 28 Mt in 2008-09 with an annual
growth rate of 3.53 per cent per annum. During this period, area and productivity
of these nine oilseeds registered an annual growth rate of 1.46 per cent and
2.05 per cent per annum, respectively.
Among the major oilseed-producing states, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh
and Maharashtra have exhibited the healthy growth rates in the area, production
and productivity during 1980-2009. Only a few states like Haryana, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and West Bengal have increased the oilseeds
production through both area as well as productivity improvement. The area
under soybean has rapidly increased from 0.03 M ha in 1970 to 2.6 M ha in
1990 and to 9.39 M ha in 2009-10 with a production of 10.31 Mt and productivity
of 1098 kg/ha. The rate of growth in the production was estimated to be around
12 per cent at country level and increase in the production was mainly due to
significant expansion in area (16.71 %) during 1981-1990. Major expansion
took place in Madhya Pradesh accounting for 55.80 per cent of area under
soybean cultivation.
The area, production and productivity of rapeseed-mustard grew with a
compound annual growth rate of 1.88 per cent, 4.18 per cent and 2.26 per cent,
respectively during 1980-2009. The production, area and yield
of rapeseed-mustard seed experienced a significant growth from 1984-85 to
1996-97, primarily due to the increase in irrigated land and the availability of
high-yielding seeds in the country. This trend was partly reversed due to
intermittent drought conditions in some of the major oilseed producing states.
The output growth fell from 15.11 per cent during 1981-90 to 10.79 per cent in
2001-09. The country registered a moderate growth in the production (0.54 %)
as yield growth (1.21 %) was neutralized by the negative growth in area of
groundnut during 1981-09. The groundnut crop recorded a significant decline
in area and production during 1991-2000. This was mainly due to the gradual
replacement of the crop by cotton, soybean and sunflower. Gujarat was the
only state that exhibited impressive growth in the production of groundnut during
1991-2000, mainly because of yield growth.
In India, edible oil consumption has been growing steadily over the years.
From around 5 Mt in 1990-91, the aggregate consumption of edible oils has
gone up to 14 Mt in 2009-10. Groundnut, rapeseed-mustard, soybean and palm
(x)
oil account for around 60 per cent of the edible oils consumed in the country.
At the aggregate level, total and per capita consumption of edible oils has been
increasing over time. In rural and urban India consumption of all edible oils
per month increased from 0.37 kg and 0.56 kg respectively, in 1993-94 to 0.64
kg and 0.82 kg in 2009-10. This translates into an increase of 72 per cent and 46
per cent, respectively, among rural and urban households. The edible oils
requirement of the country has been projected at 16.34 Mt in 2016-17 and 20.36
Mt in 2020-21, i.e. at the end of 12th Plan and 13th Plan, respectively. Assuming
the business as usual scenario with no significant technological breakthroughs
and taking the yield level of 1026 kg/ha (triennium ending 2008-09) and a
compound annual rate of growth of 2.13 per cent in area and 2.44 per cent in
yield, which was observed during the previous decade, domestic edible oils
production is projected at 10.55 Mt in 2016-17 and 13.23 Mt in 2020-21. Given
the projected demand of 16.34 Mt, there will be a gap of 5.79 Mt in 2016-17
which will have to be met through imports. Any further improvement in the
yield growth shall reduce dependence on the imports.
The proportion of imports in total availability (domestic production plus
imports) of edible oils has increased from the meagre 3 per cent in 1970-71 to
about 56 per cent in 2009-10. Significant changes are evident in the quantum of
imports of edible oils with reference to the periods that mark the implementation
of the Technology Mission on Oilseeds (TMO) and the emergence of the new
trade regime after the establishment of the WTO. From a high quantum of
1944 thousand tonnes in 1987-88, imports came down to 114 thousand tonnes
in 1993-94. Imports started rising again after the establishment of the WTO
and the initiation of trade related reform measures. From around 347 thousand
tonnes in 1994-95, imports rose to 8034 thousand tonnes in 2009-10. Imports
of edible oils have serious implications for the domestic prices of edible oils as
imports are subject to international price volatility. Indias oil imports form a
big share in world trade, especially in palm oil and soybean oil. India has the
second position in import of palm oil (3.94 Mt) as well as soybean oil (10.18
Mt) contributing 13.25 per cent and 9.06 per cent, respectively, of the total
world trade. A comparison of applied and bound tariff rates shows that except
for soybean and rapeseed/mustard, India has considerable flexibility to reduce
imports by making them costly by raising tariffs. A comparison of the minimum
support price (MSP) with the farm harvest prices shows that the farm harvest
prices have been generally higher than the MSP for the three major oilseeds.
Hence, MSP has little relevance for oilseeds. Moreover, very little procurement
of oilseeds is done, the emphasis of the countrys food management system
being on paddy and wheat in which case the MSP has been adequate over the
years.
(xi)
The oilseed sector has tremendous potential for further growth. This study
has discussed the role of irrigation, seeds, efficient crop management and
technological interventions as the key sources of growth of oilseed production.
An important source of yield growth in oilseed crops has been the spread of
irrigation facilities. The percentage of area under irrigation in oilseed crops
stands at less than 30 per cent, which is very less as compared to area under
cereal crops. Among the three major oilseed crops, the area under irrigation is
high for rapeseed-mustard (72 %), whereas it is quite low in groundnut (20 %)
and soybean (2 %). Another source of growth in oilseed crops is the technological
component embedded in the low cost and no cost technologies developed for
efficient field management of the crop.
The yield gap analysis for major oilseed crops in India has been performed
using the Front-Line Demonstrations (FLD) data conducted under the All-India
Coordinated Research Projects on different oilseed crops. The yield gap between
onfarm demonstration and actual farm yield has failed to show appreciable
reduction over the past two decades. This gap for nine oilseed crops has declined
marginally from 34.8 per cent to 31.8 per cent during the past two decades. The
reduction in gap was more substantial (from 32.4 % to 21.3 %) for the three
major oilseed crops taken together, viz. rapeseed-mustard, groundnut and
soybean. However, the gap between potential yield of varieties and research
station yield has increased over time. This gap calls for a review of the production
technology developed for the individual crops to bridge this gap.
The lack of availability of quality seed material of improved cultivars is
another concern for oilseed cultivators. Out of the total of 670 varieties notified
for oilseed crops, only 264 varieties were present in the seed multiplication chain.
A few varieties constitute bulk of the breeder seed indent. The highly skewed
demands for specific varieties, which can be seen among all the oilseed crops,
present a challenge to the institutional mechanism for seed in oilseed crops.
A field survey was conducted in the Junagadh and Bharatpur districts for
groundnut and rapeseed-mustard, respectively to assess the field-level constraints
faced by the oilseed cultivators and processors. The low price of the produce
realized by the farmers was ranked as the most important constraint in the
production of groundnut. Constraint related to marketing and price of produce
was also ranked as most important by the rapeseed-mustard growers in Rajasthan.
The constraints highlighted by the rapeseed-mustard processors were the increase
in competition from imported edible oils due to low tariffs on imports and low
capacity utilization. The groundnut processors identified price competition with
MNCs, non-availability of raw material, non-availability of efficient processing
technology, existence of multi-layered marketing channel and non-availability
of timely credit as the major constraints being faced by them.
(xii)
The current status of oilseed crops has been analyzed for the past three
decades which highlights the role of policy, technology and their interactions
in shaping it. The role of technological inputs, policy environment and price
systems in giving direction to the oilseeds economy cannot be over-emphasized.
The potential sources of growth and their related constraints throw light on the
possible future directions in oilseeds economy for sustaining its growth.
Enlarging the scope of research and technology diffusion and institutional
intervention beyond the farm gate is the way forward in re-energizing the oilseed
crop sector. Special emphasis may be given to the following:
Implement market reforms and policies, such as contract farming and publicprivate partnership in production and processing, to ensure a competitive
market for oilseeds and edible oil along with adequate protective measures
to avoid unfair competition from the international markets.
(xiii)
(xiv)
Chapter 1
Introduction
Importance of oilseeds and edible oils in national economy
of India
India is the largest producer of oilseeds in the world and oilseed sector occupies
an important position in the agricultural economy of the country. Oilseeds are
among the major crops that are grown in the country apart from cereals. In
terms of acreage, production and economic value, these crops are second only
to foodgrains. India is the fifth largest vegetable oil economy in the world, next
only to USA, China, Brazil and Argentina, and has an annual turnover of about
Rs 80000 crore. India accounts for 12-15 per cent of oilseeds area, 7-8 per cent
of oilseeds production, 6-7 per cent of vegetable oils production, 9-12 per cent
of vegetable oils import and 9-10 per cent of the edible oils consumption.
With its rich agro-ecological diversity, India is ideally suited for growing all
the major annual oilseed crops. Among the nine oilseed crops grown in the
country, seven are of edible oils (soybean, groundnut, rapeseed-mustard,
sunflower, sesame, safflower and niger) and two are of non-edible oils (castor
and linseed). India ranks first in the production of most of the minor oilseeds
(castor, niger, safflower and sesame). In the case of major oilseeds, India ranks
first in the production of groundnut, second in rapeseed-mustard, and fifth in
soybean. Oilseed crops contribute a significant proportion to the agricultural
GDP. In 2009-10 the area under nine oilseed crops was 26.11 M ha with
production of 24.88 Mt, and the total edible oils production in the country
stood at 6.17 Mt. Indias oilseed and edible oil sector is being increasingly
exposed to international markets and the influence of policy options like the
minimum support price and other market intervention policies have not been
able to generate the desired changes commensurating with the needs and target.
The productivity trends in annual edible oilseeds have shown considerable
variability in response to the prevailing policy environment and priority
considerations in India.
Following the constitution of Technology Mission on Oilseeds (TMO) in
1986, Indias oilseed production surpassed the target of 18 Mt, fixed for the
Seventh Five-Year Plan with an impressive annual growth rate of nearly 6 per
cent in the short-run. The subsequent achievement of near self-sufficiency in
edible oils during the early 1990s proved to be a temporary phenomenon as the
country began to depend heavily on imports from the later part of the decade to
1
meet its domestic edible oil requirement. Indias import bill for edible oils was
more than Rs 26,485 crore during 2009-10 (Agricultural Statistics at a Glance,
2010).
The quantity of edible oils imported also shows an increasing trend. Edible
oil-import increased from 4.9 Mt in 2007-08 to 8.1 Mt during 2009-10. The
continued dependence on imports to meet the edible oils demand acts as a
significant drain on foreign exchange reserves of the country. The lack of
domestic availability of edible oils has got implications for nutritional security
also. The per capita consumption of edible oils at 12.7 kilogram per annum is
well below the world average of 23.46 kg/ annum. Imports of edible oils were
liberalized during 1996-97. This policy of liberalization stemmed, as much from
the lack of self-sufficiency in domestic edible oil production as from the
commitments under the new multilateral trade regime under WTO.
Consequently, cropping patterns in the country also changed after liberalization
of edible oil imports in 1996-97.
A wide range of other minor oilseeds of horticultural and forest origin,
including in particular coconut and oil-palm, are also grown in the country. In
addition, substantial quantities of vegetable oils are also obtained from rice
bran and cotton seed along with a small quantity from tobacco seed and corn.
The oilseeds area and output are concentrated in the central and southern parts
of India, mainly in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Andhra
Pradesh and Karnataka. Among different annual oilseeds, groundnut, rapeseedmustard and soybean together account for about 80 per cent of oilseeds area
and 87 per cent of oilseeds production in the country (2008-09).
The demand for both edible and non-edible oils is increasing due to different
contributing factors like rising income, growing population and expanding
urbanization. As a result, there is an overall decline in the per capita availability
of edible oils. The domestic demand for vegetable oils and fats has been rising
rapidly at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, but our domestic output has been
increasing just by about 2 per cent per annum. The twin factors of rising demand
and declining per capita availability invariably lead to higher prices of edible
oils. Despite the premier position country holds in the global oilseed scenario,
the actual productivity of oilseeds is very low. The average yields of most oilseeds
in India are extremely low as compared to those prevailing in other countries
of the world. The average groundnut yield in India is 1.18 tonnes per hectare.
On the other hand in USA and China groundnut yield ranges between 3 and 4
tonnes per hectare. Similarly, in the case of rapeseed-mustard the average yields
in India are around 1 tonne per hectare, whereas in many other countries like
Germany and France, the average yields range between 3 and 4 tonnes per
hectare.
2
In India, the cultivation of oilseeds is in high risk regions where there are
uncertain returns on investments. They are mostly grown in dryland areas which
are characterized with scanty and uneven rainfall, poor soil health, etc. It has
resulted in a high degree of variation in production of oilseeds annually. The
previously-evolved varieties have failed to bring the desired effect in production
of oilseeds. Such poor performance is further aggravated by the lack of any
technological breakthrough in developing high-yielding varieties (HYVs) of
oilseeds. There is lack of supply of quality seeds due to constraints in their
large-scale production. Also, farmers are hesitant to adopt improved varieties
of seeds; it requires high doses of fertilizers and pesticides, which require high
investment. Thus, there is a kind of virtual stagnation in the yield levels of most
oilseed crops.
The present scenario calls for some urgent measures to be taken to step-up
oilseeds production on a sustainable basis since the growth in oilseeds production
has not kept pace with their increasing domestic demand. Exploiting the
emerging technologies and intensifying the use of land seem to be the feasible
options, when there are limited chances of area expansion. Introduction of
HYVs and development of genotypes will provide tailor-made vegetable oils
for the edible and industrial oils market. The post-WTO era, necessarily demands
adoption of a cohesive strategy to increase production of oilseeds in the country,
by both area expansion and productivity enhancement. To make the production
more lucrative, more value addition to oilseeds and oils is required. On-farm
demonstrations and adoption of improved technologies need to be embraced
to get higher recovery of oils and higher recovery of oil through efficient
processing methods. Also, oilseeds and their various products need lucrative
and improved domestic marketing. Despite liberalized trade in the Indian oilseed
economy, continuous policy intervention heralds production, trade and
processing of oilseeds in India. In order to make these crops economically
superior and cost-effective, yield-boosting technologies need to be developed.
Policy change is likely to play key role in achieving the desired growth and
composition of Indias oilseed and product trade.
The processing sector is integral to the oilseed sector. A vibrant and efficient
processing sector is a pre-requisite for the optimum growth and development of
oilseed economy. Indias oilseed processing sector has been plagued by a slew
of technological and policy issues culminating in the existence of a processing
sector low in efficiency and capacity utilization. If the oilseed cultivators have
to be linked in an economically viable and sustainable manner to the oilseed
value chain, the role of oilseed processing units cannot be underestimated. The
market intervention policies of the past have not only failed to produce the
desired results and effects, but have also created an atmosphere of uncertainty.
The absence of a cohesive policy on market interventions has hurt the interest
of oilseed cultivators and traders alike. Hence, an issue which requires serious
examination is the role and nature of market interventions as a tool for achieving
the pre-determined objectives. Similar to the case of market interventions is the
issue of external trade policies vogue for oilseeds and edible oils.
The fluctuating and counter directional policies with respect to imports
and exports have left the stakeholders unsure of the long-term strategies they
should opt and this ultimately hurts the interest of the nation. The outcome of
such market interventions and trade policies was distortion and introduction of
inefficiencies in the price discovery process and ultimately affecting the relative
price structure of oilseeds and their derivatives with respect to their competing
crops and produce. The impact of oilseed and edible oil import and export
policy on consumers, farmers and industry needs to be understood in this context.
The lack of understanding of the dynamics of various economic forces in
operation due to the policy shifts is an important issue as far as the oilseed
economy of the country is concerned.
Another issue of prominence in the oilseed economy of India is the potential
and means to optimally utilize this potential for augmenting the domestic edible
oil availability from the secondary sources. This requires policy interventions
in the form of price signals and other incentives. An area which requires critical
thinking and analysis is the role of non- traditional crops in the edible oil
economy of the country. In face of several constraints that exist in the spread of
non-traditional crops, it must be remembered that they can still play a significant
role provided an enabling policy framework is in place. Thus, augmenting edible
oil availability from the secondary and non-traditional sources can reduce
pressure on the traditional oilseed crops for technological breakthroughs at a
fast pace.
Managing price, income and production risks in oilseed cultivation is an
area where little attention has been paid in the past. This scenario needs to be
changed. There is a growing realization that successful management of the risk
elements in crop production and marketing is vital for the stakeholders to
continue cultivation of the oilseed crops. Forward looking policies on mitigation
5
To examine trade pattern and polices of edible oils and its impact on the
oilseed economy of the country.
Chapter 2
The area, production and productivity of oilseeds grew with the compound
annual growth rates of 1.58 per cent, 3.05 per cent and 1.45 per cent, respectively
during the period 1950-2009. Instability in area, production and productivity
of oilseeds has been computed using coefficients of variation. Maximum
variability has been observed in the case of production (54.81 %), followed by
productivity (28.65 %) and area (27.45 %) of oilseeds during the period 19502009.
The production of the nine oilseeds jumped from 9 Mt in 1980 to more
than 27 Mt in 2009 with an annual growth rate of 3.53 per cent per annum
(Table 1). During this period, area and productivity of the nine oilseeds registered
the annual growth rates of 1.46 per cent and 2.05 per cent per annum,
respectively. The growth rate in area expansion ranged from -5.27 per cent in
linseed to 10.73 per cent in soybean. The production growth rate ranged from
7
2.95
1.04
-1.80
-4.19
-3.49
-0.18
-4.91
0.77
2.13
-1.71
-4.97
-2.81
-1.81
1.28
5.67
4.96
2.84
-1.08
2000-01
to
2009-10
2.43
1.46**
-1.36**
-5.27**
-3.51**
1.48**
-1.66**
6.63**
10.73**
1.87**
-0.75**
1980-81
to
2009-10
4.02
4.69
3.15
-1.90
3.61
2.90
2.90
25.73
17.80
7.72
2.22
1980-81
to
1989-90
3.89
3.11
-2.52
-2.53
-3.96
5.21
-4.23
2.39
14.81
1.94
-0.35
1990-91
to
1999-00
2.08
4.62
-2.28
-4.62
-1.00
2.63
4.02
8.24
7.12
4.97
1.69
2000-01
to
2009-10
Production (Mt)
3.75
3.53**
-1.26**
-3.50**
-3.08**
5.00**
0.78*
7.64**
12.73**
4.25**
0.46
1980-81
to
2009-10
Coconut
3.00
1.98
$ #
Nine oilseeds
Niger
0.75
-4.99
3.27
2.25
-1.06
Linseed
Safflower@
Castor
Sesame
1.38
31.42
Sunflower
2.18
12.03
17.41
Soybean
-2.15
1990-91
to
1999-00
0.68
1980-81
to
1989-90
Area (M ha)
Rapeseed-mustard 1.77
Groundnut
Oilseed crop
0.99
2.66
2.38
3.24
0.34
4.00
4.00
-4.33
0.33
5.84
1.53
1980-81
to
1989-90
0.91
2.06
-0.73
1.74
-0.49
0.72
0.72
1.00
2.48
-0.23
1.84
1.30
2.44
-0.58
0.37
1.85
2.70
2.70
2.43
2.06
2.08
2.80
1.29
2.05**
0.10
1.86**
0.45
2.48**
2.48**
0.94**
1.81**
2.34**
1.21**
Table 1. Period-wise growth rates (%) in area, production and yield of different oilseed crops at all-India level: 1980-81 to 2009-10
-3.50 per cent in linseed to 12.73 per cent in soybean. Castor, sunflower and
rapeseed-mustard also exhibited a healthy growth rate in respective production.
The productivity growth rate ranged from 0.10 per cent in niger to 2.48 per cent
in both sesame and castor. Table 1 clearly indicates that most of the growth
rates in area, production and productivity were statistically significant during
the period 1980-2009. The area expansion was highest in soybean despite low
productivity, primarily due to the economic superiority of soybean over other
corps and its cultivation in fallow land. In order to understand the decadal
growth pattern in the oilseed sector, period-wise annual growth rates were
computed.
On overall basis, there was a decline in the annual growth rates of area,
production and productivity of oilseeds during 1991-2000 as compared to 19811990. The positive trend during the 1980s could be due to government initiatives
in the form of TMO as well as price and marketing support for oilseeds growers.
The reverse trend during the 1990s may be due to opening up of imports and
exports of agricultural commodities. As a result the total oilseed production
increased from 9 Mt to 18 Mt between 1980-81 and 1990-91. During this period,
soybean demonstrated the highest growth rate in area and production, viz. 17.41
per cent and 17.80 per cent, respectively. During 1990-2000, the pace of growth
in area, production and productivity of all the nine oilseeds fell to 1.04 per cent,
3.11 per cent and 2.66 per cent, respectively; this was mainly due to decrease in
oil prices relative to other crops and liberalization of edible oil imports in 199697. The government price support mechanism has continuously favoured wheat
and rice crops and not the oilseeds crops, which has led to lowered oilseed
cultivation. The area, production and productivity of coconut grew with the
compound annual growth rates of 2.43 per cent, 3.75 per cent and 1.29 per
cent, respectively during the period 1980-2009 (Refer Table 1).
9
11
Area (M ha)
5.97
-1.44
3.25
3.76
8.77
1.46
-2.71
1.47
Madhya Pradesh
Gujarat
Maharashtra
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Tamil Nadu
Other states
All-India
1.81
-3.19
-1.78
-1.30
-1.53
0.09
0.66
6.43
4.63
1.04
1.09
-4.51
3.51
0.10
4.70
2.55
1.04
6.25
2.36
-1.37
-2.02
1.70
0.87
1.68
1.13
4.55
4.92
1980-81
to
2008-09
3.57
1.91
3.70
9.63
6.51
3.80
-2.68
11.74
14.54
1980-81
to
1989-90
4.42
-3.37
2.64
-0.43
-2.49
3.17
5.23
9.66
6.19
1990-91
to
1999-00
3.11
8.02
-3.41
1.19
2.25
6.14
7.24
3.89
10.28
2000-01
to
2008-09
Production (Mt)
5.09
0.61
0.52
1.62
1.39
4.86
2.91
8.05
8.30
1980-81
to
2008-09
Source: Based on data of Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of India, New Delhi.
8.30
Rajasthan
State
2.06
4.76
2.21
0.78
2.66
0.54
-1.26
5.44
5.76
1980-81
to
1989-90
2.57
-0.19
4.49
0.88
-0.97
3.08
4.54
3.04
1.49
1990-91
to
1999-00
2.06
6.85
1.15
-2.24
2.14
1.38
4.58
2.83
3.79
2000-01
to
2008-09
2.67
2.01
2.59
-0.08
0.52
3.13
1.77
3.34
3.22
1980-81
to
2008-09
Table 2. Period-wise growth rates (%) in area, production and yield of nine oilseed crops for major oilseeds-producing states of
India: 1980-81 to 2008-09
edible oil and was introduced for cultivation around 1980s, until then it was
grown in small amounts in the hills of northern India. The technological
breakthrough, backed by policy support led to large shifts in crop patterns. All
India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) played a critical research &
development role in evolving suitable varieties of soybean and product utilization
as food for human and feed for cattle. As is evident from Table 3, soybean
production in the country recorded a positive growth rate during 1980-2009.
The rate of growth in production is estimated to be around 12 per cent at allIndia level, whereas at the state level, it was 25.77 per cent for Maharashtra and
21.17 per cent for Rajasthan. The increase in production was mainly due to
significant expansion in area during 1981-1990, viz.16.71 per cent. Madhya
Pradesh recorded a significant decline in the yield rates of soybean in the same
period (-0.49 %). This was because of lesser use of improved seeds and bringing
of more marginal land under soybean cultivation. However, there was a positive
growth in yield rates in subsequent decades. There was a significant decline in
the growth rates of area (3 %) and production (6.91 %) during 2001-09 in
Rajasthan. The establishment of National Research Centre for soybean at
Indore, Madhya Pradesh and AICRP on soybean as well as the political and
financial support from the central and state governments together with private
sector investment in soybean utilization and marketing led to a rapid increase
in soybean cultivation. Thus, major expansion took place in Madhya Pradesh
accounting for 55.80 per cent of area under soybean cultivation. Madhya
Pradesh along with Maharashtra and Rajasthan account for more than 95 per
cent of the area under cultivation and production of soybean in the country.
Rapeseed-mustard
India ranks second both in the production (6.82 Mt) as well as in the area under
cultivation (6.27 M ha) of rapeseed-mustard in the world. Rapeseed-mustard is
a rabi crop predominantly grown in the states of Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh,
Madhya Pradesh and Haryana. These states together contribute 4.90 M ha of
the area and produce 5.60 Mt of rapeseed-mustard. It is mainly used as edible
oil and medicine for burning. Its use is limited for industrial purposes owing to
high cost. The area, production and productivity of rapeseed-mustard grew
with the compound annual growth rates of 1.88 per cent, 4.18 per cent and
2.26 per cent, respectively during 1980-2009 (Table 4). As is evident from Table
4, Rajasthan is the leading rapeseed-mustard producing state though its share
has declined in recent years. The production, area and yield of rapeseed-mustard
seed experienced a significant growth from 1985-1995, primarily due to the
increase in irrigated land and the availability of high-yielding seeds in the
country. This trend was partly reversed due to intermittent famine conditions
in some of the major rapeseed-mustard producing states, such as Rajasthan.
Both area and output fell from 12.98 per cent in 1981-90 to 5.79 per cent in
12
13
18.02
13.99
38.77
-5.25
16.71
10.54
23.32
17.96
-4.13
8.06
1.02
13.86
3.00
5.25
5.93
Area (M ha)
9.75
19.46
18.54
2.54
9.72
1980-81
to
2008-09
17.44
31.10
46.80
-2.01
19.56
1980-81
to
1989-90
12.84
29.72
20.64
-3.60
9.51
1990-91
to
1999-00
3.86
12.12
6.91
9.10
8.98
2000-01
to
2008-09
Production (M t)
11.29
25.77
21.17
3.74
11.67
1980-81
to
2008-09
-0.49
15.01
5.78
3.43
2.44
1980-81
to
1989-90
2.08
5.19
2.27
0.56
1.34
2.82
-1.53
3.80
3.66
2.88
1990-91 2000-01
to
to
1999-00 2008-09
1.40
5.28
2.22
1.16
1.77
1980-81
to
2008-09
Area (M ha)
-9.97
5.93
6.35
5.37
0.93
Haryana
Madhya Pradesh
Other states
India
5.79
2.18
-2.83
1.22
4.30
0.32
7.52
3.87
1.26
3.73
4.62
-2.17
1.88
0.92
3.98
3.31
-2.75
6.17
1980-81
to
2008-09
5.87
9.93
13.05
10.21
-5.12
15.11
1980-81
to
1989-90
1.94
-2.23
1.18
3.70
-0.12
5.14
1990-91
to
1999-00
6.24
3.20
3.12
6.87
-0.12
10.79
2000-01
to
2008-09
Production (Mt)
4.18
2.25
6.61
5.43
0.00
7.96
1980-81
to
2008-09
Source: Based on data of Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of India, New Delhi.
12.98
Uttar Pradesh
Rajasthan
State
4.89
4.33
6.30
4.04
5.39
1.88
1980-81
to
1989-90
-0.23
0.61
-0.04
-0.57
-0.44
-0.62
2.28
1.92
-0.59
2.14
2.09
3.04
1990-91 2000-01
to
to
1999-00 2008-09
2.26
1.32
2.53
2.05
2.82
1.69
1980-81
to
2008-09
Table 4. Period-wise growth rates (%) in area, production and yield of major rapeseed-mustard crop-producing states: 1980-81
to 2008-09
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Other states
India
State
Table 3. Period-wise growth rates (%) in area, production and yield of soybean crop-producing states: 1980-81 to 2008-09
1991-2000 and 15.11 per cent in 1981-90 to 5.14 per cent in 1991-2000,
respectively. The growth rate in production bounced back to 10.79 per cent in
2001-09 as growth in yields and the total area under cultivation increased to
3.04 per cent and 7.52 per cent, respectively.
Groundnut
India ranks first in acreage occupying 6.17 M ha of area under cultivation and
second in production of groundnut producing 7.29 Mt in the world, after China
(13.58 Mt). In India, groundnut is predominantly grown in the states of Gujarat,
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. In terms of area, Gujarat ranked
first with 31 per cent of area under cultivation during 2009-10, followed by
Andhra Pradesh (27.09 %), Karnataka (13.94 %) and Tamil Nadu (8.52 %).
Similarly, in production, Gujarat ranks first with 34.9 per cent, followed by
Andhra Pradesh (23.08 %), Tamil Nadu (14.31 %) and Karnataka (7.60 %).
These states account for around 80 per cent of area and production of groundnut
in the country. The country registered the negative annual growth rates of 0-.66
per cent in area, 0.54 per cent in production and 1.21 per cent in productivity of
groundnut during 1981-09 (Table 5). During the period 1981-90, among the
major groundnut-producing states, Gujarat was the only state which recorded a
significant decline in area, production and productivity, the respective growth
rates being -3.92 per cent, -5.62 per cent and -1.77 per cent. However, after
1990, there has been a consistent increase in area, production and productivity
of groundnut in Gujarat. Both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have shown a
decreasing trend in area and output of groundnut. The current productivity of
groundnut is more than a tonne per hectare. In India, the on-farm demonstrations
carried out jointly by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and
International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),
comparing local cultivators and local practices with improved cultivators and
improved production technology, have contributed to the increased productivity
of groundnut. The groundnut crop recorded a significant decline in area and
production during the period 1991-2000. The growth rates in area under
cultivation (-2.15 %), production (0-.35 %) and productivity (1.84 %) are lowest
during this decade, this was mainly due to the gradual replacement of groundnut
crop by cotton, soybean and sunflower. The droughts and insufficient monsoon
rains also affected the production and productivity of groundnut. Gujarat was
the only state that exhibited a marginal positive growth in area (0.15 %) and
impressive growth in production of groundnut during 1991-2000.
15
-3.92
4.55
1.64
4.08
-0.07
0.95
0.15
-2.52
-1.74
-1.04
-5.33
-2.15
0.16
-1.11
-4.45
-2.29
0.01
-1.06
Area (M ha)
-0.18
0.27
-2.02
0.24
-2.21
-0.66
1980-81
to
2008-09
-5.62
6.01
3.17
6.78
2.98
2.82
1980-81
to
1989-90
6.10
-3.26
2.52
-0.30
-5.54
-0.35
1990-91
to
1999-00
9.71
-0.33
-3.97
-5.64
2.55
1.67
2000-01
to
2008-09
Production (Mt)
Gujarat
Andhra Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Karnatak
Other states
India
State
2.15
0.11
0.50
0.02
-1.24
0.54
1980-81
to
2008-09
-1.77
1.40
1.51
2.59
3.05
1.85
1980-81
to
1989-90
5.94
-0.76
4.34
0.76
-0.22
1.84
9.54
0.78
0.50
-3.44
2.53
2.75
1990-91 2000-01
to
to
1999-00 2008-09
2.34
-0.17
2.58
-0.23
0.99
1.21
1980-81
to
2008-09
Table 5. Period-wise growth rates (%) in area, production and yield of major groundnut crop-producing states: 1980-81 to 2008-09
Table 6. Percentage change in area, production and yield of oilseed crops in selected
states of India: TE 1985-86 and 2008-09
State
Area
Production
Yield
Andhra Pradesh
16.89
51.90
28.61
Assam
-20.41
-13.64
7.82
Bihar
-41.67
4.88
79.77
Gujarat
14.32
119.01
94.22
Haryana
111.24
206.67
47.25
Karnataka
46.29
28.28
-13.66
Madhya Pradesh
131.62
350.38
94.42
Maharashtra
69.51
213.09
84.74
Odisha
-66.55
-75.32
-26.19
Punjab
-63.16
-51.92
33.26
Rajasthan
156.90
402.62
93.43
Tamil Nadu
-40.24
2.11
71.25
Uttar Pradesh
-42.95
-1.22
72.35
West Bengal
83.04
194.03
60.76
Others
-73.04
-76.94
-14.88
All India
43.14
124.92
57.05
mustard, while its respective shares in world area are 27 per cent, 20 per cent
and 10 per cent (Table 8). Though India occupies a premier position in the
global oilseeds scenario, its average yield for major oilseeds is 40-60 per cent
below the world average and has been growing at a slow pace (Table 9). Most
oilseeds are grown by small-scale, limited-resource farmers in areas that are
dependent on erratic monsoon rainfall, with only about 26-28 per cent of oilseed
area irrigated. Faced with considerable weather-related risks, oilseed producers
invest little on improved seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. Oilseed farmers also
face considerable price risk because the minimum support prices set for oilseeds
are typically either too low to influence the market prices or are not adequately
defended by government purchases. The productivity difference with the world
average is marked for all the major oilseed crops of the country (Table 9).
Table 7. Shift in cropping pattern in selected states of five most important crops
during TE 1985-86 to TE 2008-09
State
Year
(TE)
II
III
Rice
Jowar
Groundnut Cotton
2008-09
Rice
Groundnut Cotton
Gujarat
Haryana
Karnataka
1985-86
Groundnut Cotton
2008-09
Cotton
Bajra
IV
V
Bajra
Maize
Gram
Jowar
Wheat
Groundnut Wheat
Bajra
Rice
1985-86
Wheat
Bajra
Gram
Rice
Cotton
2008-09
Wheat
Rice
Bajra
Mustard
Cotton
1985-86
Jowar
Rice
Groundnut Cotton
Bajra
2008-09
Rice
Jowar
Sunflower
Maize
Groundnut
Rice
Wheat
Gram
Jowar
Soybean
2008-09
Soybean
Wheat
Gram
Rice
Maize
1985-86
Jowar
Cotton
Bajra
Rice
Wheat
2008-09
Jowar
Cotton
Soybean
Rice
Gram
1985-86
Bajra
Wheat
Gram
Mustard
Jowar
2008-09
Bajra
Mustard
Wheat
Gram
Maize
Maharashtra
Rajasthan
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
1985-86
Wheat
Rice
Gram
Mustard
Maize
2008-09
Wheat
Rice
Bajra
Maize
Mustard
1985-86
Rice
Jute
Wheat
Mustard
Sesame
2008-09
Rice
Jute
Mustard
Wheat
Sesame
Source: Based on data of Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of India, New Delhi.
Note: Oilseed crops are set in bold.
at the farmers field. In reality, however, a gap always prevails between what is
projected as the potential yield of any variety at research station and what is
obtained on organized farm trials and further what is harvested by the farmers
themselves. Technically, this is referred as yield gaps of different types. The
yield gap is defined as the difference between the maximum-attainable yield
and the farm-level yield. This may be further defined in the following ways.
Maximum attainable yield is the yield of a crop variety on the research farm
plot with no physical, biological or economic constraints and with the best known
management practices at a given time and in a given ecology. Attainable yield
is the maximum yield that a sample farmer can achieve by following most of
the technologies that are possible and known to the farmer and with the
maximum efforts. Attainable yield is obtained by the farmer with his experience
and knowledge. Farm-level yield is the average farmers yield in a given target
area at a given time and in a given ecology. Anticipated yield is the yield
anticipated by the farmers based on the actual efforts and technology followed
17
Table 8. Percentage share of India in area and production of oilseeds in Asia and
World: 2008-09
Oilseed crops
% Share to Asia
Area
% Share to World
Production
Area
Production
Soybean
47
38
10
Rapeseed-mustard
45
34
20
12
51
30
27
20
Sunflower seed
37
24
Sesame seed
41
30
24
19
Castor seed
78
84
58
73
Linseed
44
23
21
Safflower seed
71
65
46
35
Coconut
21
21
17
18
Source: FAOSTAT
India
World
average
Indian share in
world (%)
Highest productivity
Volume
Soybean
1.01
2.35
43.0
2.74
Country
U.S.A.
Sunflower
0.62
1.25
49.6
1.75
China, PR
Linseed
0.34
0.84
40.5
1.17
EU-27
Cottonseed
0.94
1.24
75.8
2.52
Australia
Rapeseed
0.96
1.71
56.1
3.00
EU-27
Castor seed
1.08
0.95
113.7
1.08
India
Groundnut
0.68
1.05
64.8
2.53
U.S.A.
Sesame seed
0.38
0.45
84.4
1.00
China, PR
Source: FAOSTAT
by the farmers best known to them. Observed/actual yield is the actual yield
realized by the farmer.
the difference between potential yield and actual yield. It can be decomposed
into two parts, viz. Yield Gap I and Yield Gap II. Yield gap I is the difference
between experimental stations average attainable maximum yield (at least two
different locations and varieties under cultivation) and on-farm experiments
average maximum yield. This yield gap arises from differences in environment
that cannot be managed in the farmers fields. Yield gap II, which is of primary
concern for the present study is the difference between yield attained in onfarm experiments and the average actual farm yield. This gap reflects the effects
of biological, soil and water, physiological, genetic and socio-economic
constraints. This gap exists because farmers use suboptimal doses of inputs and
cultural practices. It is manageable and narrowed by increasing efforts in research
and extension services, as well as by appropriate government intervention,
particularly in institutional issues. In practice, yield gaps are also classified
according to constraints, such as.
1. Agronomic gap: mainly due to biological and partly due to physical
constraints
2. Socio-economic gap: mainly due to socio-economic constraints
3. Institutional gap: mainly due to institutional constraints
4. Mixed gap: due to the above constraints. In this case, the socio-economic
and institutional constraints should be solved before the agronomic gaps
can be narrowed using improved technological packages.
PY IV
100
PY
Similarly, Yield gap II is the difference between the yield of improved variety
at the research station and at farmers field, i.e.
Yield gap II = IV FV
Gap II (%) =
where, PY=Potential yield claimed by breeders, IV=Yield at research station,
and FV= Yield at farmers field. IV and FV are taken from the Front-Line
Demonstration (FLD), a concept of field demonstration evolved by ICAR, with
the inception of Technology Mission on Oilseed (TMO) crops during mid-1980s
(1986). The major objective of FLD is to demonstrate the productivity potentials
and profitability of the latest and improved oilseed production technologies
under real farm conditions. In this study, an attempt was made to assess the
exploitable yield reservoir in case of different oilseeds using FLD data. In order
to remove the year-to-year variations, analysis was carried out by averaging the
data pertaining to the years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Besides, computation of yield
gap I and yield gap II for major and minor states, classification of states according
to their yield and yield gaps, respectively were also done. Different states are
classified into four categories:
1. High Potential, High Gap
2. High Potential, Low Gap
3. Low Potential, High Gap
4. Low Potential, Low Gap
The High-Potential, High-Gap states are those states which have high
potential yields and correspondingly high yield gaps. In order to examine the
change in yield gap position over a decade, gaps were also calculated with the
FLD data pertaining to the year 1999-2000.
20
Major
Minor
Base year
1999-00 to 2000-01
Current year
2007-08 to 2008-09
% Increase over
the base year
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Haryana
7.53
16.01
5.97
10.20
1.56
5.81
Madhya Pradesh
37.74
28.63
30.31
4.68
7.43
23.95
Rajasthan
11.78
10.02
15.77
12.51
-3.99
-2.49
Uttar Pradesh
17.30
22.31
56.65
17.71
-39.35
4.60
Bihar
20.85
23.78
22.11
47.84
-1.26
-24.06
Chhattisgarh
45.19
22.44
54.74
44.76
-9.55
-22.32
Gujarat
26.16
14.68
23.86
14.17
2.30
0.51
Jharkhand
29.78
33.86
45.57
49.37
-15.79
-15.51
Maharashtra
65.05
4.22
Odisha
8.35
63.33
33.58
56.57
-25.23
6.76
Punjab
18.11
19.37
20.93
7.40
-2.82
11.97
Uttarakhand
12.81
26.90
59.84
14.24
-47.03
12.66
21
Table 11. Classification of states according to potential yield and yield gap in
rapeseed-mustard
Rapeseed - mustard
Gap
High potential
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Low potential
Yield
gap
(%)
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
High gap
Bihar
Odisha
Jharkhandnd
Chhattisgarh
1246
1096
979
1063
45
57
49
45
Low gap
Rajasthan
Haryana
Gujarat
Punjab
Madhya
Pradesh
1853
2233
1751
1621
1881
13
10
14
7
5
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Maharashtra
-
1170
853
664
-
18
14
4
-
Groundnut
It was observed from the results of FLDs data with improved production
technologies that there exists a wide yield gap in groundnut under real farm
situations across groundnut-growing regions of the country. Analysis based on
FLD data showed that the yield gap II was 19.74 per cent at the national level,
ranging from 10.47 per cent in Tamil Nadu to 30.06 per cent in Gujarat. The
yield gap II was observed highest in Gujarat which accounts for the maximum
area under groundnut in the country. This may be due to the adoption of Btcotton by the resource-endowed farmers of the state. At the national level, yield
Table 12. Yield gap in groundnut-growing states
States
Base year
1999-00 to 2000-01
Gap-I
(%)
Major
Minor
Andhra Pradesh
Current year
2007-08 to 2008-09
% Increase over
the base year
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
50.32
19.10
Gujarat
22.83
13.93
22.92
30.46
-0.09
-16.53
Karnataka
25.76
25.43
37.89
28.18
-12.13
-2.75
Tamil Nadu
3.08
25.55
22.32
10.47
-19.24
15.08
Madhya Pradesh
7.64
33.08
7.64
33.08
Maharashtra
7.94
25.56
48.81
17.17
-40.87
8.39
Rajasthan
4.23
19.04
14.81
14.92
-10.58
4.12
22
gap II has decreased by about 5 per cent in one decade which does not seem to
be significant. Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu were identified as high-potentiallow-gap states, while Gujarat was recorded under the high-potential-high-gapstates.
Table 13. Classification of states according to potential yield and yield gap in
groundnut
Groundnut
Gap
High potential
Low potential
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
High gap
Gujarat
2151
30
Karnataka
1677
28
Low gap
Rajasthan
2377
15
Maharashtra
1712
17
Tamil Nadu
2209
10
19
Soybean
As indicated earlier, yield gap analyses enables us to quantify the extent of
additional soybean production that could be obtained with complete adoption
of improved technology. Soybean yields vary considerably across states. The
highest yields were recorded in the state of Madhya Pradesh (2122.50 kg/ha)
and the lowest in Karnataka (1531.75 kg/ha). The yields in other states were
between 1600 kg/ha and 2100 kg/ha. There is a considerable difference in district
yields within a state. For example, in some districts of Madhya Pradesh and
Rajasthan district yields were much higher than 1000 kg/ha, whereas in some
districts the yields were between 450 kg/ha and 1000 kg/ha. In other states, the
differences across districts were smaller. By considering the yield gap II, it was
found that soybean productivity could be improved by 23.16 per cent at the
national level. Across the major soybean growing states, productivity level can
be improved from 24.56 per cent in Madhya Pradesh, 21.41 per cent in
Maharashtra and 19.12 per cent in Rajasthan. Results indicated that yield gap
II in the case of soybean is constant over time at the national level. This confirms
our results of previous section which indicated that area and not the yield was
mainly responsible for the growth in production of soybean. This calls for an
effective transfer mechanism of improved soybean production technology to
the growers so that yield reservoir could be harnessed. Table 15 indicates that
Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttarakhand were classified under highpotential-low-gap states, whereas Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh were the
high-potential and high-gap showing states.
23
Major
Minor
Base year
1999-00 to 2000-01
Current year
2007-08 to 2008-09
% Increase over
the base year
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Madhya Pradesh
30.22
33.38
46.75
24.56
-16.53
8.82
Maharashtra
35.78
21.51
50.66
21.41
-14.88
0.10
Rajasthan
21.78
24.38
56.83
19.12
-35.05
5.26
Andhra Pradesh
29.49
6.24
43.72
16.54
-14.23
-10.30
Chhattisgarh
30.62
36.26
22.82
33.36
7.80
2.90
Himachal Pradesh
37.75
35.81
37.75
35.81
Jharkhand
29.65
0.00
29.65
Karnataka
32.00
18.50
52.87
26.96
-20.87
-8.46
Punjab
42.27
42.27
0.00
Tamil Nadu
41.20
17.38
41.20
17.38
Uttarakhand
11.24
23.34
47.63
18.58
-36.39
4.76
Table 15. Classification of states according to potential yield and yield gap in soybean
Soybean
Gap
High gap
Low gap
High potential
Low potential
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
Chhattisgarh
2122
33
Karnataka
1532
27
Madhya
Pradesh
1997
25
Andhra
Pradesh
1829
17
Rajasthan
1619
Maharastra
1850
21
Uttarakhand
1833
19
19
Sunflower
Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh are the major sunflowerproducing states that together occupy more than 80 per cent area as well as
production in the country. On the basis of FLD data, it was observed that there
existed a vast potential for increasing the existing level of production by adopting
improved technologies advocated for different agro-ecological situations. Yield
gap II in sunflower at the national level was observed as 25.62 per cent which
24
varied from 4.19 per cent in Maharashtra to 49.55 per cent in Chhattisgarh. On
the other hand, yield gap I in sunflower crop was 6.24 per cent at the national
level, ranging from 5.86 per cent in Karnataka to 46.90 per cent in Andhra
Pradesh. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu were identified in high-potential-highgap category, while Uttarakhand and Bihar states showed the high-potentialhigh-gap for the crop. With respect to decadal analysis in yield gap II, it was
noted that a significant increment was not achieved over the base year
(2000-01).
Table 16. Yield gap in sunflower-growing states
States
Base year
1999-00 to 2000-01
Gap-I
(%)
Major
Minor
Andhra Pradesh
Current year
2007-08 to 2008-09
% Increase over
the base year
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
16.37
46.90
11.43
-46.90
4.94
Karnataka
20.63
26.05
5.86
18.03
14.77
8.02
Maharashtra
24.87
25.70
15.87
4.19
9.00
21.51
Bihar
4.22
30.04
-25.82
Chhattisgarh
38.04
49.55
-11.51
Odisha
28.86
28.82
28.86
28.82
Punjab
50.00
50.00
West Bengal
25.78
38.37
-25.78
-38.37
Uttarakhand
25.87
-25.87
Tamil Nadu
25.21
21.18
4.03
Table 17. Classification of states according to potential yield and yield gaps in
sunflower
Sunflower
Gap
High gap
Low gap
High potential
Low potential
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
Uttarakhand
2157
26
Maharastra
1050
Bihar
1894
30
11
Karnataka
1506
18
Chhattishgarh
1114
562
Tamil Nadu
1459
21
West Bengal
1238
38
25
Safflower
Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh are the major
safflower-producing states in the country. The productivity of safflower in the
country has witnessed three-fold increase during past three decades. However,
it is still very low compared to the yield of improved verities at research stations,
as revealed by the FLD data conducted in different agro-ecological regions of
the country. The FLD data reveal that yield gap I was 36.68 per cent at the
national level which ranged from 21.29 per cent in Maharashtra to 48.74 per
cent in Madhya Pradesh. On the other hand, the yield gap II was recorded
35.01 per cent at the national level. Across the states, it was 26.74 per cent in
Karnataka to 43.72 per cent in Madhya Pradesh. In this case, Maharashtra was
classified as high-potential-low-gap state. No state was identified under highpotential-high-gap category.
Table 18. Yield gap in safflower-growing states
States
Major
Base year
1999-00 to 2000-01
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
38.04
46.06
42.58
-46.06
-4.54
20.63
26.05
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Minor
% Increase over
the base year
Gap-I
(%)
Chhattisgarh
Karnataka
Current year
2007-08 to 2008-09
30.64
26.74
-10.01
-0.69
48.74
43.72
-48.74
-43.72
24.87
25.70
21.29
26.98
3.58
-1.28
Andhra Pradesh
16.37
0.00
16.37
Bihar
4.22
0.00
4.22
Odisha
28.86
28.82
28.86
28.82
Punjab
50.00
0.00
50.00
Tamil Nadu
25.21
0.00
25.21
Table 19. Classification of states according to potential yield and yield gaps in safflower
Safflower
Gap
High potential
State
High gap
Low gap
Maharashtra
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
1416
Low potential
Yield
gap
(%)
26
26
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
Chhattisgarh
Madhya
Pradesh
917
871
42
43
Karnataka
97
27
Base year
1999-00 to 2000-01
Current year
2007-08 to 2008-09
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
29.86
0.00
29.86
Bihar
61.27
20.08
61.27
20.08
Gujarat
37.97
20.61
37.97
20.61
Kerala
7.36
58.28
8.59
56.80
-1.23
1.48
Madhya Pradesh
24.70
59.88
14.28
46.43
10.42
13.45
Maharashtra
39.38
33.76
24.89
43.18
14.49
-9.42
57.37
22.71
49.01
-22.71
8.36
48.00
44.10
34.86
24.56
13.14
19.54
Andhra Pradesh
Odisha
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
% Increase over
the base year
3.89
4.24
44.19
-4.24
-40.30
Uttar Pradesh
4.64
27.70
19.86
52.01
-15.22
-24.31
West Bengal
19.56
17.13
19.56
17.13
Minor oilseeds
In respect of other minor oilseeds, viz. castor, sesame, niger and linseed, a similar
analysis was done. At the national level, yield gap II was recorded as 31.89 per
cent, 39.51 per cent, 52.35 per cent and 37.51 per cent for castor, sesame, niger,
and linseed, respectively (Table 28). In the case of sesame, the lowest yield gap
II was observed in Rajasthan (24.56 %) and the highest was recorded in Kerala
(56.80 %). In castor, yield gap II ranging from 11.20 per cent in Andhra Pradesh
to 65.79 per cent in Chhattisgarh was observed. Across states, Niger crop showed
the yield gap II from 41.91 per cent in Uttar Pradesh to 57.14 per cent in Madhya
Pradesh. Linseed crop showed the gap II range from 19.31 per cent in Rajasthan
to 50.60 per cent in Uttar Pradesh.
Major oilseeds
In general, yield gap I has increased while yield gap II has decreased over time
in major oilseed crop (Table 28). Increase in yield gap I indicates improvement
over the technology frontiers. An effort to bridge the yield gaps not only increases
the oilseed yield and production, but also improves the efficiency of land and
labour use, reduces production costs and increases sustainability. Various factors
cause exploitable yield gaps in oilseeds, such as physical, biological, socioeconomic and institutional constraints which can be effectively improved through
participatory research and government attention.
27
Table 21. Classification according to potential yield and yield gaps in sesame
Sesame
Gap
High potential
High gap
Low potential
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
Kerala
596
57
Madhya
Pradesh
517
46
Odisha
657
49
Maharastra
526
43
Tamil Nadu
814
44
Uttar Pradesh
561
52
Punjab
557
17
Karnataka
537
14
Rajasthan
456
25
Low gap
Andhra Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
Base year
1999-00 to 2000-01
Current year
2007-08 to 2008-09
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
21.99
36.71
46.44
11.20
-14.72
25.51
65.79
0.00
-65.79
Gujarat
Haryana
8.61
-
% Increase over
the base year
17.98
-8.61
-9.37
30.91
0.00
-30.91
39.75
30.79
-16.75
22.63
57.41
5.43
-16.76
18.91
-37.50
18.59
35.25
-29.44
18.41
Karnataka
36.67
53.42
Madhya Pradesh
46.08
40.65
Odisha
24.22
53.66
Rajasthan
27.85
25.60
17.88
25.12
2.25
0.48
Tamil Nadu
13.26
64.17
27.67
30.26
-50.91
33.91
28.71
0.00
-28.71
Maharashtra
Uttar Pradesh
37.50
62.11
28
Table 23. Classification of states according to potential yield and yield gaps in castor
Castor
Gap
High gap
Low gap
High potential
Low potential
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
Madhya
Pradesh
-
2160
57
Odisha
1445
35
Chhattisgarh
1448
65
2792
1881
25
29
Karnataka
Maharastra
1205
682
38
19
1942
3688
30
17
Tamil Nadu
Andhra Pradesh
1302
964
30
11
Rajasthan
Uttar
Pradesh
Haryana
Gujarat
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Base year
1999-00 to 2000-01
Current year
2007-08 to 2008-09
% Increase over
the base year
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
49.85
30.63
52.15
2.44
-
38.34
63.17
34.77
54.34
39.41
21.60
21.60
-
40.15
14.00
41.85
24.69
3.89
-
47.69
49.89
55.81
57.14
50.46
64.28
41.91
11.51
-63.17
0.00
-4.14
-2.19
-36.97
-21.60
-21.60
0.00
-9.35
13.28
-55.81
34.77
-2.80
-11.05
-42.68
21.60
-41.91
Table 25. Classification of states according to potential yield and yield gaps in niger
Niger
Gap
High potential
Low potential
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
High gap
Odisha
-
432
-
64
-
Madhya Pradesh
Jharkhand
378
387
54
56
Low gap
Maharastra
602
Rajasthan
2792
Uttar Pradesh 439
50
25
42
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
-
389
316
-
48
50
-
29
Base year
1999-00 to 2000-01
Current year
2007-08 to 2008-09
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Gap-I
(%)
Gap-II
(%)
Assam
52.33
30.76
-52.33
-30.76
Bihar
40.40
66.30
13.48
32.35
26.92
33.95
47.65
44.14
0.00
3.51
21.17
72.32
43.89
71.11
-22.72
1.21
38.49
0.00
-38.49
Madhya Pradesh
19.93
41.05
4.45
33.53
15.48
7.52
Maharashtra
44.46
31.40
13.59
39.34
30.87
-7.94
Odisha
33.72
65.60
33.72
65.60
Rajasthan
10.86
37.28
32.76
19.31
-21.90
17.97
Uttar Pradesh
15.89
46.40
21.45
50.60
-5.56
-4.20
West Bengal
6.48
46.40
31.93
23.99
-25.45
22.41
Chhattisgarh
Himachal Pradesh
Jharkhand
% Increase over
the base year
Table 27. Classification of states according to potential yield and yield gaps in linseed
Linseed
Gap
High potential
State
High gap
Low gap
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Low potential
Yield
gap
(%)
State
Potential
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield
gap
(%)
51
Maharastra
815
39
Chhattisgarh
692
44
Jharkhand
616
38
Himachal
Pradesh
734
71
Madhya
Pradesh
1051
34
Assam
686
31
Bihar
980
32
Rajasthan
1210
19
West Bengal
924
24
30
Oilseeds
1999-00 to 2000-01
2007-08 to 2009
Gap-I (%)
Gap-II (%)
Gap- I (%)
Gap-II (%)
Rapeseed-mustard
21.52
47.89
36.26
21.01
Groundnut
14.48
24.79
33.21
19.74
Soybean
31.24
24.64
46.74
23.16
Sunflower
28.27
6.24
25.62
Safflower
28.27
36.68
35.01
Sesame
10.51
33.19
19.09
39.51
Castor
5.88
32.89
15.77
31.89
Niger
18.40
44.06
39.89
52.35
Linseed
23.43
49.43
33.10
37.51
31
Chapter 3
45
42
60
53
19.6
72.1
24.9
6.3
8.3
53.6
Figure 1. Percentage area under irrigation for all annual oilseed crops: 1952-53 to 2007-08
Irrigation
The area under irrigation in oilseed crops has shown a steadily increasing trend
over the years. But, the increasing trend hides certain disturbing features. It
32
should be noted that the percentage of area under irrigation in oilseed crops
stands at less than 30 per cent of the area under oilseed crops. The percentage
area under irrigation in oilseed crops is very small when compared to that of
cereal crops. Among the three major oilseed crops, the area under irrigation is
high only for rapeseed-mustard (72 %), whereas it is quite low in the case of
groundnut (20 %) and soybean (2 %). The percentage area under irrigation for
other oilseed crops is also very low. Though oilseed crops in general require
relatively less amount of water, it should be noted that the potential for yield
increase even with protective irrigation for oilseed crops is very high. Yield
increases to the tune of 45 per cent, 42 per cent and 60 per cent have been
recorded in groundnut, rapeseed-mustard and sunflower, respectively due to
proper irrigation.
An important source of yield growth in oilseed crops has been the spread
of irrigation facilities. Oilseed crops are usually grown in marginal lands with
little or no irrigation facilities. They can give substantial increase in yield under
irrigated conditions. Given the uneven growth and differences between oilseed
crops in their respective area under irrigation and the potential for yield increase
under irrigation, it will be prudent to take measures to bring more oilseed area
under irrigation.
ecological health also. The estimated fertilizer-use and its contribution to nutrient
removal in oilseed crops during 2008-09 is presented in Table 1. The fertilizeruse efficiency for the major fertilizer groups has also been presented. The
fertilizer-use efficiency is as low as 30 per cent for phosphatic fertilizers in oilseed
crops. It can be seen that the contribution to the nutrient uptake by fertilizers is
less than 25 per cent for all the major fertilizer groups and as low as 5.8 per cent
for potasic fertilizers. All these indicate the low fertilizer-use efficiency prevailing
in oilseed cultivation.
Table 1. Estimated fertilizer use and its contribution to nutrient removal in oilseed
crops: 2008-09
Nutrient
Uptake
(000 tonne)
Fertilizer-use
(000 tonne)
Fertilizer-use
efficiency (%)
Contribution to uptake
Fertilizer (%) Others (%)
1591
588
50
18.5
81.5
P2O5
635
472
30
22.3
77.7
K2 O
1442
167
50
Total
3668
1227
5.8
94.2
14.5
85.5
chemical fertilizer which will deteriorate the quality of soil in the long-term.
Rhizobium, Azospirillum, Azotobacter and Phosphorus Solubilizing Bacteria
(PSB) are the commonly used biofertilisers in oilseed crops. It has been shown
that rhizobium seed treatment for groundnut and soybean save initial N
application and it fixes nitrogen by 20-25 kg/ha. Seed treatment with
Azospirillum and Azotobacter could save 20 to 30 kg N/ha in crops like
sesame, sunflower and safflower in both rainfed and irrigated conditions. The
current level of application of biofertilizers in oilseed crops is negligible in
most of the oilseed crops. With imbalanced fertilizer application on one side
and the marginal conditions of the soil where oilseed crops are mostly grown,
use of bio-fertilizers can be a good source of growth for oilseed productivity
in future.
Timely planting
was analysed as a part of the study and it was found that there are major issues
and concerns about the quality, timely availability and potential of the developed
varieties in the oilseed crops.
There are a number of notified varieties in each of the oilseed crop. They
are often notified for specific agro-climatic regions or for specific cropping
requirements or situations. The proliferation of the number of varieties does
not necessarily mean that all these varieties are being cultivated by the oilseed
farmers. Table 2 shows the number of notified varieties for each oilseed crop
and the number of varieties in the seed multiplication chain, a proxy for the
adoption of varieties in the farmers field. The data show that out of the total of
670 varieties notified in oilseed crops, only 264 varieties were present in the
seed multiplication chain. This shows that the majority of notified varieties are
either not being demanded by the farmers or are not available in the seed
multiplication chain due to one or the other reasons like non-availability of
nuclear seed. Another notable feature visible from Table 2 is that only a few
varieties constitute bulk of the breeder seed indent. In groundnut, even though
there are 163 notified varieties, only 4 varieties out of the 59 varieties present in
the seed multiplication chain, constitute 86 per cent of the breeder seed indent.
Table 2. Oilseed varieties notified in seed chain and seed replacement ratio (SRR):
2008-09
Crop
Groundnut
No. of varieties
notified
No. of varieties in
seed chain
SRR (%)
(2008-09)
163
59 (4/86)*
Rapeseed-mustard
138
65 (6/78)
36
Soybean
101
37 (2/81)
Sunflower
50
12 (5/70)
69
Sesame
69
29 (4/80)
Safflower
34
17 (3/62)
15
Niger
22
8 (4/90)
<1
Castor
39
12 (3/70)
50
Linseed
54
25 (5/73)
Total
670
264
Note: The figures within the brackets show number of varieties and their contribution to breeder
seed indent
The highly skewed demand for specific varieties, which can be seen among
all the oilseed crops presents a vigorous challenge to the institutional support
mechanism for seed dissemination in oilseed crops. The dynamics behind the
evolution and persistence of such skewed demand need to be understood for
36
each crop before evolving strategies to mitigate them. The presence of redundant
varieties should be identified and removed from the seed chain so that proper
variety reaches the farmer.
The number of varieties being notified in oilseed crop has shown a steady
increase over the decades. The strengthening of crop breeding programmes with
the mandate to develop varieties suitable for specific situations and regions seems
to be behind this trend. Against a total of 86 oilseed crop varieties notified
during 1970s, 223 oilseed crop varieties were notified during the first decade of
this millennium.
It can be seen from Table 3 that there exist mismatches between targeted
and actual breeder seed production. This further affects the links in seed chain
adversely. In groundnut and soybean, the actual production of breeder seed fell
short of the target, whereas in rapeseed-mustard the actual production surpassed
the targeted production of breeder seed during the year 2008-09. The need for
Table 3. Breeder seed target and production in oilseeds: 2008-09
Crop
Groundnut
Rapeseed-mustard
Soybean
Target (quintals)
Production (quintals)
22,897.00
9,065.10
82.09
132.23
17,177.93
13,803.47
Sunflower
18.10
79.88
Safflower
38.95
81.61
Castor
25.15
36.55
Linseed
42.68
84.82
Sesame
28.81
25.21
Niger
17.75
14.35
37
Rapeseed-mustard
Sunflower
Breeder seed
lifted (q)
(May, 2006)
Foundation seed
produced (q)
(2006-07)
Certified seed
produced (q)
(2007-08)
Certified seed to
be produced as
per norms (q)
17.64
1521
40456
176400 (23%*)
2.80
19
755
7000 (11%)
Linseed
20.26
84
1780
50650 (4%)
Safflower
18.26
561
17110
65736 (26%)
Castor
0.73
12
615
2628 (23%)
Sesame
5.89
66
1280
36812 (3%)
SRR/Seed
rate (kg/ha)
20/150
1800
3.516
30/5
90
0.002
Soybean (10)
20/80
1600
1.600
Sunflower (2)
100/5
100
0.010
Safflower (0.3)
20/10
0.001
Sesame (1.8)
20/5
18
0.002
Niger (0.4)
20/5
0.001
Castor (0.9)
100/5
45
0.002
Linseed (0.4)
20/40
32
0.013
Rapeseed-mustard (6)
seed chain as well like the increasing trend in breeder seed indent and production
for some of the oilseed crops. Such trends need to be sustained and seed chain
system should be strengthened for crops which are showing weakness in the
seed chain and seed delivery systems.
Production Constraints
The annual edible oilseed crops are diverse in their agro-climatic requirements
and crop management practices. The confluence of existing systems of input
supply, crop management practices and prevailing institutional conditions has
resulted in the current production scenario of oilseed crops where productivity
is low and input-use efficiency is well below the desired levels. The reason for
this situation is often classified as the production constraints in realizing higher
yield from oilseed crops. Each oilseed crop has its own specific set of production
constraints depending on the conditions under which production, processing
and marketing is carried out in that crop. There exist some common production
constraints also which are applicable across all the annual oilseed crops. They
include lack of availability of superior seed material to farmers at the correct
time, lack of price support policies and the poor linkage between research and
extension.
A good compilation of crop-specific production constraints spanning
technological and other aspects was done by Kumar et al. (2008). This is
reproduced below to understand how the sources of growth interact and how
the biotic and abiotic production constraints tend to differ for different oilseed
crops. This understanding is important for developing overall policy interventions
in the oilseed crop sector.
39
Rapeseed-mustard
High temperature during crop establishment (mid-September to earlyNovember), cold spell, fog and intermittent rains during crop growth cause
considerable yield losses by physiological disorder and appearance and
proliferation of white rust, downy mildew and Sclerotinia stem rot diseases
and aphid pest.
Groundnut
Soybean
Low seed replacement rate. It is only about 12 per cent at the present.
Lack of promotion for the utilization of soybean domestically for food and
feed uses.
Lack of forecasting system for aspects like weather, disease and pest
outbreaks and market.
Sunflower
Safflower
In traditional areas (Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh):
Most of the area is under rainfed conditions leading to acute moisture stress
41
It is grown either as mixed or intercrop with other rabi crops leading to poor
crop management
Late sowing of safflower after kharif crop enhances the aphid incidence
Castor
Linseed
Utera condition: In India nearly 25 per cent area lies under utera system of
cultivation of linseed. Very poor yield is being produced (1 q/ha) by the
farmers under this system due to lack of suitable varieties and production
and production management practices.
42
Linseed bud fly and alternaria blight: can cause up to 80 per cent loss in
yield. Due to lack of resistant donor, resistant varieties could not be
developed so far.
Farmers practices
Recommended technology
Gap (%)
Varieties
With reference to
recommended
variety gap is nill
Land
preparation
With reference to
recommended
practice gap
technology is 20
per cent
Seed rate
180 kg/ha
100-110 kg/ha
Higher rate
Fertilizers
does
Weeding
43
Table 6 Contd
S. No. Parameter
Farmers practices
Recommended technology
Gap (%)
Disease
Used chemical fungicide
Management for root rot, collar rot,
tikka disease
Insect-pest
Harvesting
10 September-10 October
10 September-10 October
No gap
Yield
1440-1800 kg/ha
analysis of technology gap in groundnut at the farmers level from the survey
conducted to ascertain yield gap in the Junagadh district, the farmers were found
to be aware of the varieties recommended by the scientists. Therefore, there
was no gap with reference to use of recommended varieties. Technology gap
was noted in adoption of new released varieties as the preference was mostly
with GG-20 even though it was the older variety. With respect to land
preparation, 20 per cent gap was computed. Regarding application of fertilizer,
farmers were not sure about the recommended dose. They applied the farm
yard mannure and other chemical fertilizers, without ensuring whether it was
sufficient or not. Technology gap was as high as 100 per cent in the case of
weed management and 50 per cent in disease management and insect-pests
management. At the micro-level, yield gap-I and gap-II were 22.92 per cent
and 24.70 per cent, respectively.
Table 7 shows the constraints experienced by groundnut farmers of the
Junagadh district. The major constraints experienced by farmers were inadequate
availability of fertilizers, problem of irrigation, aflatoxin problem in seed, and
non-availability of seed of government firm on time. The low price of the produce
realized by the farmers was ranked as the most severe constraint in the production
of groundnut. The faulty system of produce purchasing and price fixation system
prevailing in APMC was ranked second. The inadequate availability as well as
high price of seed was the third main constraint as felt by the farmers. Lack of
availability of adequate quantity of fertilizers in season was also reported.
44
Type of
constraint
1.
Seed
Description
2.
Fertilizer
3.
Irrigation
4.
Price
5.
Market
6.
Biological
(Genetical)
Credit
Overall
rank
I
II
III
I
II
VI
I
II
I
II
II
7.
Rank
II
III
II
IV
I
III
I
VII
Rapeseed-mustard
A primary survey was conducted among rapeseed-mustard growers in the
Bharatpur district of Rajasthan to assess the production constraints at farmers
fields. The constraints analysis covered the technology gap, varietal scenario
and other issues prevailing at farmers fields.
Table 8. Technology gap in rapeseed-mustard prevailing at farmers level in Bharatpur district
S. No. Parameter
Farmers practices
Recommended technology
Gap (%)
Varieties
Rohini,
Pioneer,
NRC-2, RS-30, Pusa, T-59
Land
preparation
Complete
mismatch
between
recommended
& actual
practices
45
Contd
Table 8 Contd
S. No. Parameter
Farmers practices
Recommended technology
Gap (%)
Seed rate
4-6 kg/ha
4-5 kg/ha
No Gap
Over dose
Weeding
Disease
Primary stage infection
management removal of stem rot
infected part
Hand picking
Insect-pest
Harvesting
February to March
February to March
No gap
Yield
22 q/ha
No gap
which is suitable for that particular region. The land preparation was not found
satisfactory on the basis of the recommended practices. Farmers also applied
overdose of potash and just half of the nitrogenous fertilizer as compared to
the recommended dose. The technology gap in respect of disease management
was found to the extent of 100 per cent. Surprisingly, survey data showed that
yield at farmers field was comparable with yield at research station, indicating
the nil yield gap II. However, FLD data showed yield gap-I as 15.77 per cent
and the yield gap II as 12.52 per cent.
Table 9. Constraints experienced by rapeseed-mustard growers in Bharatpur district, Rajasthan
S.No.
Type of
constraint
Description
1.
Seed
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Price
III
I
II
I
II
I
II
IV
4.
I
II
3.
Overall
rank
2.
Rank
5.
Oil content
testing
6.
Market
7.
Credit
VI
II
VII
On overall basis, the constraint related to price of produce was ranked first
by the rapeseed-mustard growers mainly because of the fact that at the time of
harvesting, the price offered in the market did not commensurate with the
farmers investment and efforts and also the dynamics of price in the market
was very fragile which often forced the farmers to go for distress sale to meet
their livelihood requirements. The second ranked constraint as experienced by
the farmers, was also related to market. The constraint related to seed was
accorded third rank by the producers of rapeseed-mustard as, it was felt by
them that there was inadequate availability of hybrid seed, higher cost of seed
levied by the private firm, etc. Another constraint was related to the system of
testing of oil-content in the produce. It was expressed by the farmers that there
47
was no proper facility for fair testing of oil-content at the private firms. Moreover,
there was no public sector intervention on this aspect. Irrigation played a vital
role in the cultivation of rapeseed-mustard. As in the study area, there was no
government-arranged irrigation system, so farmers were heavily dependent on
tube-well irrigation system which again was power supply-dependent. The
present scenario of irrigation was, therefore, felt costly and irregular in want of
timely power supply. Further, the rapeseed-mustard growers were found
dependent more on private money-lenders and other sources as compared to
institutional credit. The time consuming and complicated process of obtaining
credit from financial institutions declined the growers interest; and they opt for
the private money-lenders for loan even if they charge exorbitant interest rate.
The development of a system for purchase of produce at farmers door step
was felt as the most important issue because most of the farmers were not able
to afford direct sale of their produce in the market.
A close look at the constraint analysis has indicated the broad contours for
oilseed crops as a whole. The outcome from the study gives a strong indication
that the pricing and market mechanism available for oilseed crop produce are
far from satisfactory as far as the primary producers are concerned. This
dissatisfaction with the market mechanism needs to be addressed to enthuse
the farmers towards higher production and productivity targets in oilseed crops.
Yield (kg/ha)
1985-86*
2002-03**
2003-04***
Groundnut
719
733
1364
Rapeseed-mustard
674
866
1151
Soybean
764
762
1210
Sunflower
374
531
496
Sesame
226
306
453
Safflower
382
483
367
Linseed
264
393
403
Niger
300
208
253
Castor
484
733
1094
Total
570
691
1067
efficiency need to be put to test and promising technologies among these need
to be promoted to provide a strong technological push for oilseed productivity
enhancement. Kumar et al. (2008) have identified some of the innovations which
can be used in oilseed crops and they are briefly discussed below.
Precision farming
Precision farming is the application of technologies and agronomic principles
to manage spatial and temporal variability associated with different aspects of
agricultural production for improving crop performance. Collected information
may be used to precisely evaluate the optimum sowing density and need of
fertilizers and other inputs, and to predict crop yields accurately. Some of the
49
that EM can improve soil quality, increase growth, yield and quality of crops,
and provide plant protection against diseases and pathogens. The use of effective
microorganisms in oilseed crops can be a viable source of productivity
enhancement. The use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and
other microbial inoculants offer a window for yield enhancement which needs
to be explored further. The potential use of anti-transparent and other plant
growth hormones in modifying the oilseed crop parameters influencing yield
needs to be exploited.
52
Crop
Groundnut
Rapeseed-mustard Short duration, high oilcontent, salinity tolerance, hightemperature tolerance, late sown, double row, drought tolerance,
foliar-disease resistance
Soybean
Castor
Wilt resistance
Safflower
Sesame
It was expected that oilseeds production in the areas covered by the project
would increase by about 30 per cent by the end of the project period. The
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (DAC) would be responsible for
the overall management of the oilseeds and oil economy, for maintaining the
consumer prices within the price band through a strategy approved by the
Empowered Committee. The NDDB would be responsible, under the
supervision of DAC, for building up a market intervention stock through imports
and procurement of domestic oilseeds/oils; and for this purpose NDDB was
allowed to import 20 per cent of the total sanctioned imports of edible oil in
any year or would be given a grant of Rs 20-30 crore, as may be necessary. In
January 1989, the Government announced an Integrated Policy on Oilseed
(IPO) with the following five important elements:
Review of PDS prices and issue prices to the vanaspati industry. Imported
oils would be supplied at a price not below the cost of production of domestic
oil. PDS oils would be released at reasonable prices without detrimental to
the legitimate interests of farmers;
The NDDB has made a significant impact in the oilseed sector. Some of the
areas of its impact are:
The role of institutions in the oilseed sector can be seen from the details
provided for the two institutional programmes. Strengthening of institutions
can play a facilitative role in the oilseed economy of the country.
55
Chapter 4
No. of
units
Annual installed
capacity (lakh Mt)
Average capacity
utilization (%)
1,50,000
(Approx)
450
(in terms of seeds)
15-25
810
350
(in terms of oil-bearing
material)
31
135
55
(in terms of oil)
45
310
38
(in terms of oil)
25
Independent refineries
615
45
(in terms of oil)
32
1060
138
(in terms of oil)
35
Vanaspati units
128
38
(in terms of vanaspati,
bakery shortening &
margarine)
35
Source: Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public
Distribution, Government of India.
Case Studies
Survey report of Bharatpur district (Rajasthan) on rapeseed-mustard
A survey was conducted in the district of Bharatpur in collaboration with the
Directorate of Rapeseed-Mustard Research, Bharatpur, Rajasthan to envisage
different parameters, viz. market research, survey of oil processors and constraint
analysis of rapeseed-mustard growers. The data were collected from farmers,
traders and oil millers with the help of checklist and semi-structured interview
schedule through individual and focused group discussions. The analysis of
data was done using descriptive statistics. The details of survey are presented in
the following sections.
57
Processing sector
There are 70 oil processing units in operation in the Bharatpur district of
Rajasthan. The processing units use traditional methods of processing for
rapeseed-mustard. The capacity of oil processing is given in Table 2.
Table 2. Capacity distribution and share of processing units in Bharatpur district
Sl. No.
Capacity (tonnes/day)
No. of units
Share, %
47
67.14
15
21.43
08
11.43
Total
70
100.00
Recently, Govt. of India has withdrawn the import duty on crude oils and
this has facilitated increase in import of edible oils, viz. palm oil.
market, which is ultimately affecting the small and medium oil processing
sectors.
No new oil mill/processing unit has been established in the Bharatpur district
during the past 5 years and the utilization capacity has been reduced to 20
per cent.
Market research
Bharatpur mandi is the biggest market of rapeseed-mustard in Rajasthan, which
is known as Bharatpur Nai Mandi. It is a regulated market with 150 licensed
traders. The total number of markets in Bharatpur district is nine. Each tahsil has
a market. Bharatpur tahsil and other nearest small mandies provide the adequate
amount of input to Bharatpur mandi. The peak marketing season is March to
June, when maximum business in respect of rapeseed-mustard takes place. The
demand and supply scenario of Bharatpur mandi based on survey is given below:
Table 3. Demand and supply scenario of Bharatpur Mandi, Bharatpur
Particulars
Season
Off-season
Availability of input
(demand)
4000-5000 bags*
Highest = 10000 bags
1500-2000 bags
Supply
4000-5000 bags
Highest = 10000 bags
1500-2000 bags
Rs 2400/q
Rs 2580/q
Price trend
*1 bag=85 kg
The demand and supply of mustard in Bharatpur mandi match each other
because whatever quantity of mustard arrives in the market, is sold on the same
day; the millers buy the total quantity of mustard, irrespective of peak season
or off-season. However, the price fluctuates, highest in off-season and lowest in
peak-season. The price fixation is another important component of the market.
Current price of Bharatpur mandi is 2580/q (2010). The market price is fixed
on auction basis by the executives of regulated market. The price is fixed on the
basis of oil percentage in the mustard seed. Generally, 42 per cent oil-content in
mustard is preferred. Rohini variety is highly popular among the millers as it
contains highest oil percentage. The farmers also prefer this variety as they get
higher price compared to other less oil-containing varieties. Presently, the market
price for 42 per cent oil-containing mustard seed is Rs 2580/q which is @ 61.42
per 1 per cent of oil. At this rate, farmers will get the price of their produce
depending on percentage of oil-content.
59
The transportation cost of mustard per bag is Rs 10-25 and each farmer has
to pay Rs 5 as the market charge. Millers pay sale tax @ 4 per cent and mandi
tax @ 2 per cent in Bharatpur mandi. The role of trader in the market is very
important. The traders of Bharatpur mandi directly collect the mustard seed
and pay the farmers in cash. They store the produce and supply to the millers.
The Bharatpur mandi of rapeseed-mustard has seasonal availability as 34004250 q/day and off-season availability of 1275-1700 q/day. Sometimes, rapeseedmustard is stored by traders in warehouses (1500- 2000 bags) for achieving higher
profit in a short period. In the case of prolonged storage, the oil-content of
mustard decreases.
Farmers opined that the market rate should be fixed based on essential
unsaturated fatty acid (linoleic and linolenic acids) content in mustard instead
of the existing practice. Farmers want intervention of Directorate of RapeseedMustard Research, Bharatpur, Rajasthan (ICAR) in sensitizing the district
administration as well as standardizing the method of ascertaining the linoleic
and linolenic acids content. They expressed their desire to formulate such a
plan so that their produce can be sold right at the village. Presently, farmers
carry the produce to the market and sell it to the traders.
Particulars
Figures
4
25
200
74,000
3000-4000
1000-1500
30
50
20
70-75
Constraints
Rank
II
III
Air and water pollution related taxes are paid by major industries
IV
61
Market research
Junagadh mandi known as Sardar Ballabh Bhai Patel Marketing Yard, is the
biggest market of groundnut in Gujarat. It is an APMC market in Junagadh. It
is a regulated market with 240 licensed traders and other than these, there are
700 such traders in the Junagadh tahsil. The peak season of market is October
to January, when maximum business in respect of groundnut takes place. Several
criteria for price fixation of groundnut are adopted by the traders. These included
size, colour, weight, variety and source of the produce. But, traders give more
preference to variety and area of production of groundnut while deciding the
price. The market price is fixed through open auction basis conducted by the
executives of regulated market. During the survey period (August, 2010), the
price of groundnut in Junagadh mandi was Rs 2575/q for big pod and Rs 2293/
q for small size groundnut. The variety GG-20 holds the largest share (80%) in
the market. The market price is disseminated to the groundnut growers through
local newspapers and Vayada Bajar news through television. The price trend in
the market recorded during survey is presented in Table 6.
Price analysis of the past three years indicated an increase of 28.57 per cent
and 42.86 per cent in the years 2008-09 and 2009-10, respectively over the base
year 2007-08. There are no taxes/charges paid by the farmers for availing the
facilities in the regulated market, but the auctioneer usually pays 50 paise per
hundred rupees. The unloading and weighing charge @ Rs 2.50 per 30 kg bag is
also paid by him. Further, commission agents or traders pay Rs 1 per 100 kg to
the APMC market as the market cess. The major constraints experienced by
the market personnel included inadequate storage shed, lack of modern oiltesting laboratory, non-availability of modern high capacity sorting and grading
62
Month
2008-09
October
440
485
November
436
440
2009-10
December
456
436
January
431
451
March
425
423
April
484
501
May
483
472
June
495
447
July
491
476
August
485
468
September
569
432
machine facility, etc. Besides, they suggested that access to internet facility for
the farmers for 24 hours will enable them to know the price fluctuations of
groundnut on every day basis.
Conclusions
An efficient oilseed processing industry is the basic pre-requisite for maximizing
economic returns to the oilseeds farmers and indeed to the society as well as for
providing a fair deal to the consumers. This was realized by the government in
the case of paddy and wheat, leading to the removal of all kinds of restrictions
on the scale, technology and location of milling units of these cereals. But,
unfortunately, several kinds of restrictions continue against the processing of
major oilseeds, including groundnut and mustard seed, in terms of scale and
technology. This has held down the efficiency of processing and exports, and
eventually has reduced the earnings of farmers. The time has come to do away
with all these restrictions. Better integration between the expelling and solvent
extraction sections of the industry can improve the overall efficiency of the
sector. The edible oil industry should take initiatives to increase oilseed
production by promoting contract farming in this sector.
63
Chapter 5
Domestic production
(000 tonne)
Import of
edible oils
(000 tonne)
Total
availability
of edible oils*
(000 tonne)
Imports as
percentage
of total
availability
86.00
2629.00
3.27
Edible
oilseeds
Edible
oils
1971-72
9080.00
2543.00
1975-76
10610.00
2922.00
67.00
2989.00
2.24
1980-81
9370.00
2560.00
1633.30
4193.30
38.95
1985-86
10830.00
2964.00
1036.40
4000.40
25.91
1990-91
18610.00
4877.00
525.80
5402.80
9.73
1995-96
22110.00
5668.00
1062.00
6730.00
15.78
2000-01
18440.00
4499.00
4267.90
8766.90
48.68
2005-06
27980.00
6906.00
4288.10
11194.10
38.31
2006-07
24290.00
5900.00
4269.40
10169.40
41.98
2007-08
29760.00
6964.00
4903.00
11867.00
41.32
2008-09
28160.00
6778.00
6714.00
13492.00
49.76
2009-10
24880.00
6170.00
8034.00
14204.00
56.56
64
Figure 1. Domestic production and import of edible oils in India: 1971-72 to 2009-10
Figure 2. Domestic production, imports and per-capita availability of edible oils in India
increase in demand for edible oils in the country, leading to a substantial increase
in the imports of edible oils over time. The proportion of imports in total
availability (domestic production plus imports) of edible oils has increased from
a meagre 3 per cent in 1970-71 to about 56 per cent in 2009-10.
65
Table 2. Monthly expenditure on edible oils for major states and all-India: 2004-05
(Rs/capita)
State
Rural areas
Urban areas
Andhra Pradesh
28.00
31.97
Assam
26.58
38.62
Bihar
23.51
29.92
Chhattisgarh
19.85
34.40
Gujarat
43.57
57.82
Haryana
19.01
29.12
Jharkhand
22.40
36.70
Karnataka
23.00
29.97
Kerala
26.62
30.56
Madhya Pradesh
20.48
31.47
Maharashtra
33.90
44.15
Odisha
16.17
24.57
Punjab
33.66
38.56
Rajasthan
21.93
31.17
Tamil Nadu
24.14
31.71
Uttar Pradesh
28.68
34.96
West Bengal
27.44
40.67
All-India
25.72
36.37
Edible oil consumption in India has been growing steadily. From around 5
Mt in 1990-91, the aggregate consumption of edible oils has gone up to 14 Mt
in 2009-10. The per capita availability of edible oils including vanaspati has
increased from 4.10 kg/person/year in 1971 to 14.00 kg/person/year in 200910. Still the per capita availability of edible oils is quite low in India relative to
many other countries, especially developed countries. Between 1986 and 1993,
the per capita consumption of edible oils remained constant at about 6 kg/year.
But, with the introduction of measures aimed at liberalizing trade in 1994,
imports of edible oils increased leading to an increase in the per capita
consumption to around 10 kg/year. Groundnut, rapeseed- mustard, soybean
and palm oils together account for around 60 per cent of the edible oils consumed
in the country. The consumption pattern of edible oils shows wide variations
among different income groups as well as between urban and rural consumers
as per NSS household consumer expenditure survey.
05 showed that the overall decline was from 73 per cent to 55 per cent in the
rural India and from 64 per cent to 42 per cent in urban India during this period.
While the consumption of edible oils is generally increasing in the country, the
share of expenditure on edible oils in total consumption expenditure has shown
a declining trend in urban areas and a variable trend in the rural areas over
time.
Gujarat (Rs 43.57) and Maharashtra (Rs 33.90) have the highest average
monthly expenditure per person on edible oils in the rural areas. Odisha
(Rs 16.17) and Haryana (Rs 19.07) show the lowest average monthly expenditure
per person on edible oils in both rural and urban areas (Table 3). In terms of
Table 3. Percentage share of total monthly per capita expenditure on edible oils
consumption for major states and all-India: 2004-05
State
Andhra Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Gujarat
Haryana
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Odisha
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
West Bengal
All-India
Rural areas
Urban areas
4.78
4.89
5.64
4.67
7.31
2.20
5.27
4.52
2.63
4.66
5.97
4.05
3.98
3.71
4.01
4.43
4.88
4.60
3.14
3.65
4.30
3.47
5.18
2.55
3.72
2.9
2.37
3.48
3.84
3.24
2.91
3.23
2.94
3.57
3.62
3.46
27 round (1972-73)
nd
All-India (Rural)
All-India (Urban)
1.55
3.07
32 round (1977-78)
2.46
4.46
4.53
7.98
7.88
13.23
12.5
20.1
th
18.16
26.81
st
25.72
36.37
55 round (1999-2000)
61 round (2004-05)
27 round (1972-73)
nd
All-India (Rural)
All-India (Urban)
3.50
4.90
32 round (1977-78)
3.60
4.60
4.00
4.80
5.00
5.30
th
50 round (1993-94)
4.40
4.40
3.70
3.10
4.60
3.50
1993-94
1999-2000
2004-05
2009-10
Rural
Urban
Rural
Urban
Rural Urban
Rural Urban
Groundnut oil
0.120
0.240
0.120
0.230
0.070
0.160
0.054
Mustard oil
0.170
0.150
0.240
0.250
0.220
0.200
0.287
0.230
Vanaspati
0.030
0.060
0.040
0.060
0.030
0.050
0.036
0.036
0.050
0.110
0.090
0.170
0.140
0.250
0.243
0.408
0.370
0.560
0.500
0.720
0.480
0.660
0.636
0.818
0.126
Groundnut oil
Mustard oil*
Vanaspati
Rural
Urban
30.40 40.00
50.70 35.00
11.60 21.30
N.A.
N.A.
97.80
92.50
50.10 35.70
13.50 19.10
21.50
28.70
98.00
94.60
2004-05
51.10 37.60
13.70 16.00
31.90
41.50
98.00
94.50
1993-94
13.80 20.90
69
Rural Urban
half of what it was in 1993-94 (40 %). Among the rural households, it fell to 14
per cent in 2004-05 from 30 per cent in 1993-94.
Vanaspati
Others
Total
Andhra Pradesh
0.001
0.001
0.239
0.001
0.312
0.554
Assam
0.011
0.439
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.455
Bihar
0.033
0.385
0.001
0.001
0.420
Chhattisgarh
0.008
0.084
0.019
0.285
0.396
Gujarat
0.005
0.026
0.432
0.005
0.350
0.818
Haryana
0.169
0.173
0.002
0.034
0.378
Jharkhand
0.022
0.365
0.002
0.003
0.392
Karnataka
0.003
0.000
0.172
0.011
0.259
0.445
Kerala
0.003
0.000
0.006
0.283
0.128
0.420
Madhya Pradesh
0.017
0.126
0.010
0.001
0.270
0.424
Maharashtra
0.016
0.003
0.163
0.002
0.475
0.659
Odisha
0.009
0.195
0.005
0.000
0.075
0.284
Punjab
0.438
0.155
0.006
0.057
0.656
Rajasthan
0.005
0.215
0.035
0.000
0.164
0.419
Tamil Nadu
0.000
0.000
0.230
0.003
0.207
0.440
Uttar Pradesh
0.062
0.403
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.472
West Bengal
0.005
0.471
0.002
0.000
0.007
0.485
All-India
0.034
0.225
0.072
0.01
0.143
0.484
70
Table 9. Monthly per capita consumption of edible oils across states Urban India:
2004-05
(in kg)
State
Andhra Pradesh
0.001
0.002
0.244
0.003
0.370
0.620
Assam
0.028
0.568
0.001
0.052
0.649
Bihar
0.067
0.466
0.001
0.000
0.017
0.551
Chhattisgarh
0.013
0.104
0.105
0.001
0.419
0.642
Gujarat
0.019
0.031
0.639
0.005
0.364
1.058
Haryana
0.154
0.233
0.014
0.158
0.559
Jharkhand
0.086
0.481
0.006
0.000
0.065
0.638
Karnataka
0.002
0.000
0.231
0.005
0.315
0.553
Kerala
0.005
0.000
0.004
0.317
0.147
0.473
Madhya Pradesh
0.032
0.125
0.076
0.007
0.401
0.641
Maharashtra
0.026
0.020
0.359
0.004
0.385
0.794
Odisha
0.021
0.304
0.003
0.000
0.093
0.421
Punjab
0.377
0.209
0.025
0.131
0.742
Rajasthan
0.014
0.208
0.169
0.001
0.191
0.583
Tamil Nadu
0.002
0.000
0.143
0.003
0.405
0.553
Uttar Pradesh
0.096
0.405
0.002
0.000
0.055
0.558
West Bengal
0.011
0.601
0.005
0.000
0.075
0.692
All-India
0.049
0.196
0.157
0.011
0.249
0.662
while Kerala consumed a lot of coconut oil in rural areas. In Punjab, vanaspati
accounts for a major proportion of the total edible oils consumption in rural
areas.
The per capita monthly consumption of all types of edible oils was relatively
higher in urban areas than rural areas of the country. The maximum
consumption of all types of edible oils was once again observed in Gujarat
(1.058 kg), followed by Maharashtra (0.794 kg) and Punjab (0.742 kg). Kerala
was the only state where a significant quantity of coconut oil was consumed in
urban areas. Consumption of vanaspati in urban areas was relatively high in the
northern states of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, while consumption of
mustard oil was high in the eastern states of West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand
and Assam.
Interestingly, it is the other oils category comprising sunflower, soybean,
and other vegetable oils, whose consumption was high in most states. This
71
reflects the changing pattern of urban life-styles and greater concern for
consumption of healthier edible oils, particularly among the urban
consumers and outlines the need for diversification in oilseeds and edible
oils production.
The per capita demand for edible oils is projected to further increase to
12.70 kg/annum by 2016-17 and to 15.0 kg/annum by 2020-21. Based on these
projections and population projections, demand for edible oils is expected to
rise to 16.34 Mt in 2016-17 and 20.36 Mt in 2020-21, i.e. towards the end of 12th
and 13th plans, respectively.
For projecting the requirement of oilseeds, a norm of 28 per cent of gross
output was used for oil recovery rate from oilseeds, as per the suggestion of the
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, which also takes
into account seed, feed & wastage, and other secondary/industrial usages. The
oil recovery rate, however varies from 18 per cent in soybean, and 28 per cent in
groundnut to 33 per cent in rapeseed-mustard among major oilseeds.
In the literature, different approaches have been employed for the supply
projections. In this study, the supply projections have been worked out using
compound annual growth rates (CAGR) of area and productivity during the
previous decade after smoothing the time series data using moving average of
three years. During the previous decade, the area and yield of oilseeds grew
with a CAGR of 2.13 per cent and 2.44 per cent, respectively. Assuming a
business as usual (BAU) scenario with no significant technological
breakthroughs, taking the yield level of 1026 kg/ha (TE 2008-09), domestic
edible oils production is projected at 10.55 Mt in 2016-17 and 13.23 Mt in
2020-21. Realisable yield in national demonstration for all the major oilseeds
taken together with improved production technologies has been estimated in a
study as 1545 kg/ha. The optimistic scenario (OS) for supply projection of
edible oils by taking into account the potential yield worked out to be 13.43 Mt
in 2016-17 and 14.92 Mt in 2020-21. Given the projected demand of 16.34 Mt
and 20.36 Mt of edible oils, even under the optimistic scenario of supply
Table 10. Demand supply projections for edible oils in India
Particulars
2016-17
2020-21
16.34
20.36
12.70
15.00
14.16
14.94
31.05
34.50
Yield (tonnes/ha)
1.21
1.37
10.55
13.23
13.43
14.92
73
projection, there will be a gap of 2.91 Mt by the end of 12th plan and of 5.44 Mt
by 13th Plan, which will have to be met through imports.
The demand for edible oilseeds is projected to grow at 12.55 per cent per
year during 12th Plan on account of increase in population and economic growth.
This growth rate is more than two and half times of the growth rate experienced
in the domestic production of oilseeds during the previous decade. This clearly
indicates that the current level of oilseeds production and the prevailing trends
in production, productivity and other determinants of edible oils availability in
the country are way below the requirements. This scenario needs to be reversed
if the country has to achieve self-sufficiency in edible oils production and reduce
our dependence on imports of these oils. The major avenues for future increases
in oilseeds production are expected to come from enhancement in productivity
of oilseed crops. To realize this expectation, a proper mix of technologies and
strategies needs to be put in place. Given the difficulties involved in increasing
the area under oilseed crops, a combination of land-saving technologies involving
high-yielding varieties and hybrids, and an efficient crop management need to
be adopted.
74
Chapter 6
imports. Quantum and value of palm oil imports show a similar trend. After
showing a declining trend till 1997-98, the prices of imports of palm oil have
risen sharply. Import duties on edible oils were reduced to 15 per cent during
1998-99 and this may be one reason for the surge in imports during this year.
The high coefficients of variation indicate high degree of inter-year variability
in imports.
Compound annual growth rate and variability in value and quantum of
imports of major edible oils were computed for the period 1980-81 to 2009-10
and also for the periods 1980-81 to 1994-95 and 1995-96 to 2009-10. It is evident
from Tables 1 and 2 that for soybean oil and palm oil, which are the major
import items for India, imports have grown at a rapid rate. High values of
coefficients of variation for both these, as well as other oils, indicate high degree
of inter-year fluctuations in imports. The compound annual rate of growth for
coconut oil import is also very high, but this may be accounted for by the low
base year values as the quantum and value of import of coconut oil in the early1980s were very small.
Table 1. Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and coefficient of variation (CV)
of value of imports of edible oils
Edible oil
CAGR (%)
CV (%)
13.04
18.04
30.17
24.60
-13.09
119.99
132.26
104.18
175.48
176.19
-12.92
-3.90
2.88
-25.94
66.53
51.66
104.20
96.40
26.96
13.00
1.93
42.30
-23.71
66.08
70.46
92.20
107.48
193.19
1980-81 to 2009-10
Soybean oil
Palm oil
Sunflower seed, Safflower or Cottonseed oil *
Coconut oil
Rapeseed-mustard oil
1980-81 to 1994-95
Soybean oil
Palm oil
Sunflower seed, Safflower or Cottonseed oil
Coconut oil
Rapeseed-mustard oil
1995-96 to 2009-10
Soybean oil
Palm oil
Sunflower seed, Safflower or Cottonseed oil
Coconut oil
Rapeseed-mustard oil
*1993-94 to 2009-10
76
Table 2. Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) and coefficient of variation (CV)
of quantum of edible oils import
Crops
CAGR (%)
CV(%)
1980-81 to 2009-10
Soybean oil
Palm oil
Sunflower seed, Safflower or Cottonseed oil *
Coconut oil
Rapeseed-mustard oil
6.15
9.42
27.62
16.25
-19.54
88.86
90.65
87.58
140.31
132.56
1980-81 to 1994-95
Soybean oil
Palm oil
Sunflower seed, Safflower or Cottonseed oil
Coconut oil
Rapeseed-mustard oil
-23.19
-13.00
-5.57
-35.75
90.85
58.70
141.63
97.33
24.65
11.25
-3.35
38.59
-26.05
61.91
46.55
75.34
86.08
200.37
1995-96 to 2009-10
Soybean oil
Palm oil
Sunflower seed, Safflower or Cottonseed oil
Coconut oil
Rapeseed-mustard oil
*1993-94 to 2009-10
77
The exports of oil meals has increased substantially since 2000-01 as revealed
by the higher compound annual rate of growth during 2000-2010 relative to
earlier periods (Tables 3 and 4). The recent years present a promising trend in
oil meals exports with a compound annual rate of growth of 16 per cent in
quantum and 25 per cent in value of their exports. Based on the trend in recent
years (2004-10), the exports of oil meals from India were projected to 2016-17.
It is expected that India will be exporting 8.59 Mt of oil meals by the year 201617. The ratio of oil meals exports to total oilseeds production is also indicative
of the prospects for future exports. This ratio shows a generally increasing trend,
which is favourable for oil cakes exports.
Table 3. Trend in exports of oil meals from India: 2000-01 to 2009-10
Year
Oilseeds production
(Mt)
Ratio
(Exports/Production)
2000-01
2.42
18.44
0.13
2001-02
2.78
20.66
0.13
2002-03
1.78
14.84
0.12
2003-04
3.25
25.19
0.13
2004-05
3.60
24.35
0.15
2005-06
5.98
27.98
0.21
2006-07
6.44
24.29
0.27
2007-08
6.91
29.76
0.23
2008-09
6.74
27.72
0.24
2009-10
4.67
24.88
0.19
2016-17
(Projected value)
8.59
58.4
0.15
Value
Oilseeds
production
1980 - 1990
5.94
11.78
5.45
1990 -2000
5.17
20.04
2.25
2000 - 2010
13.70
20.91
5.14
2004 - 2010
16.34
24.62
0.81
1980 - 2010
7.06
16.81
4.27
78
The growth in Indian economy has also strengthened the demand for animal
products and consequently, for coarse grains and oil meals for animal and poultry
feed. The consumer-driven emergence of Indias livestock products sector and
the accompanying growth in demand for commercial feeds combined with the
increasing level of exports is a significant positive indicator of the future prospects
of Indias oilseeds sector.
Indias emergence as an important source of import demand sparked
expectations in the U.S. oilseed sector of a significant boost in edible oil sales to
India. Indias oil imports form a big share in world trade especially in palm and
soybean oil. It ranks among the top ten importers of palm and soybean oil.
Table 5 clearly shows that the India ranked second in import of soybean oil and
palm oil (1018 and 3943 thousand tonnes, respectively in TE 2008-09),
accounting for 9 per cent and 13 per cent of world imports.
Figure 2. Oil cake exports, quantity (Mt) and value (Rs crore): 1980-81 to 2008-09
Table 5. India and the world: Top ten importers of soybean oil and palm oil:
TE 2008-09
Soybean oil
Country
China
India
Iran
Bangladesh
Morocco
Algeria
Venezuela
Peru
Republic of Korea
South Africa
Country
Quantity
(000 tonnes)
% of
world total
2337.31
1018.00
576.46
421.98
377.25
364.47
333.28
322.64
317.13
298.27
20.79
9.06
5.13
3.75
3.36
3.24
2.97
2.87
2.82
2.65
Source: FAOSTAT
79
Palm oil
Quantity
(000 tonnes)
China
India
Pakistan
Netherlands
Bangladesh
Germany
United Kingdom
USA
Russian Federation
Malaysia
5278.70
3943.57
1712.54
1658.27
1055.94
832.23
804.75
682.59
645.59
603.62
% of
world total
17.74
13.25
5.75
5.57
3.55
2.80
2.70
2.29
2.17
2.03
Groundnut oil
Rapeseed-mustard oil
Soybean oil
1997-98
123.60
115.50
100.50
1998-99
150.20
179.60
134.80
1999-00
137.60
140.10
113.00
2000-01
129.10
112.10
86.70
2001-02
135.80
121.10
86.90
2002-03
166.60
147.30
122.70
2003-04
181.20
193.90
135.80
2004-05
173.80
177.10
138.10
2005-06
168.20
159.80
137.40
2006-07
189.80
165.70
132.40
2007-08
231.80
194.00
142.90
2008-09
227.60
232.50
153.40
2009-10
221.70
209.10
147.70
CV (%)
21.70
22.56
17.66
In order to assess how the prices of edible oils have fared relative to the
prices of other major food categories, a comparison was made between the
wholesale price indices of edible oils, cereals and pulses. While all the three
product categories show an upward trend, the WPI for edible oils has remained
below that of cereals and pulses during 1997-98 and 2009-10 (Table 7). Interyear variability in wholesale prices was lowest in the case of cereals (17.53 %),
followed by edible oils (18.43 %) and highest in pulses (26.01 %).
80
Table 7. Trend in wholesale price indices of edible oils, cereals and pulses: 1997-98
to 2009-10
Year
Edible oils
Cereals
Pulses
1997-98
113.50
138.40
145.90
1998-99
139.10
150.90
160.10
1999-00
122.10
177.80
166.10
2000-01
103.30
173.00
179.60
2001-02
112.90
170.10
189.20
2002-03
138.00
173.50
180.60
2003-04
157.90
176.30
176.60
2004-05
156.40
177.90
174.40
2005-06
146.00
185.80
194.90
2006-07
154.60
199.40
254.20
2007-08
175.10
211.70
243.10
2008-09
188.10
230.50
259.80
2009-10
177.30
261.70
334.30
CV (%)
18.43
17.53
26.01
Figure 3. Trend in wholesale price index of edible oils, cereals and pulses (Base year: 1993-94 = 100)
81
Figure 4. Trend in imports of soybean oil and palm oil by India: 1980-81 to 2009-10
The impact of imports on domestic prices is, among other factors, dependent
on the level of import prices. For the two major edible oils imported into India,
temporal changes in unit values of imports were analysed for two time periods,
namely, 1980-81 to 1994-95 and 1995-96 to 2009-10. For both soybean and
palm oils, the compound annual rates of growth in unit prices were higher in
the former than in the latter period (Table 8). To some extent, this may be on
account of the very low base values of imports. What is encouraging, however,
is that in the latter period, along with a decline in growth of unit values, there is
also a decline in the inter-year variability in unit values, as indicated by the
significant reduction in the coefficients of variation for both oils.
Table 8. Growth and variability in the unit import prices of soybean and palm oils
Edible oil
1995-96 to 2009-10
CARG
CV (%)
CARG
CV (%)
Soybean oil
5.60
62.50
1.85
21.20
Palm oil
10.45
57.09
8.52
22.32
Note: CARG: Compound annual rate of growth (%), CV: Coefficient of variation (%)
82
cent. The imports influence prices through changes in the level of supply. Besides
supply levels, the landed price of the edible oils also influences their domestic
prices. The rate at which the unit values were increasing per annum has come
down considerably during the period 1995-96 to 2009-10 for both soybean oil
and palm oil as compared to the period 1980-81 to 1994-95 (Table 8).
An attempt was made to assess the impact of changes in supply through
imports on prices. Using the price elasticity of demand for oilseeds of 0.55, as
estimated by Kumar (1998), the proportionate changes in quantity and the
corresponding proportionate changes in price were computed. Based on the
average share of imports in total availability of oilseeds during 1995-96 to 200910 of 36.69 per cent, it was assessed that if the price change is to be kept within
5 per cent, the share of imports in total availability should be 3.34 per cent.
Similarly, if the price change is to be kept within 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per
cent, 25 per cent and 30 per cent, then the share of imports in total supply
should, respectively be 6.67 per cent, 10.01 per cent, 13.34 per cent, 16.68 per
cent and 20.01 per cent. On the other side, considering the supply elasticity as
0.50, heavy imports have impacted production in the range of 20-25 per cent as
oilseeds became less remunerative to the producers. This underlines the
importance of enhancing the production of edible oils so that the imports are
reduced and the consequent impact on domestic prices is minimized.
Given the increasing imports of edible oils into India after the liberalization of
trade, there is a growing concern for the possible negative impacts of the liberalized
imports on the domestic oilseeds sector. After the liberalization of trade and the
emergence of the WTO, India abolished all quantitative restrictions on the imports
of agricultural products. The means available to the country now were only tariffs.
In order to protect the interests of the domestic producers, recourse can be made to
tariff rates, but these are again subject to certain limits. Table 9 shows the bound
and applied rates of tariff for edible oils imports in India.
Figure 6. Trend between wholesale price index and import of edible oils
84
Table 9. Bound and applied tariff rates in India on import of edible oils
Oil category
Final 2004
2005
2010
Crude oil
Soybean
45
34
45
45
Free
Palm
300
228
100
80
Free
Groundnut
300
228
100
85
Free
Sunflower
300
228
100
75
Free
Coconut
300
228
100
85/100
Free
Rapeseed- mustard
75
57
75
75
Free
Castor
100
76
100
85/100
Free
Soybean
45
34
45
45
7.5
RBD palmolein
300
228
100
90
7.5
Palm
300
228
100
90
7.5
Groundnut
300
228
100
85
7.5
Sunflower
300
228
100
85
7.5
Coconut
300
228
100
85
7.5
Rapeseed-mustard
75
57
75
75
7.5
Castor
100
76
100
100
7.5
Refined oil
A comparison of applied and bound tariff rates shows that except for soybean
and rapeseed-mustard, India has considerable flexibility to reduce imports by
making them costly by raising tariffs. In fact, raising the tariff up to the bound
rate would raise the cost of most of the imported edible oils above their domestic
prices and would reduce their imports to almost zero. The country has chosen
to levy lesser than the bound tariff in the larger interests of the consumers
and to keep a sort of balance between consumer and producer interests
(Chand et al., 2004).
Groundnut
Rapeseed-mustard
Soybean
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Madhya Pradesh
FHP
COP
MSP
FHP
COP
MSP
FHP
COP
1992-93
750
999
832
760
861
575
525
571
1993-94
800
1112
1090
810
1012
585
580
591
1994-95
860
1189
789
830
1134
596
650
664
1995-96
900
1326
1209
860
1068
645
680
693
1996-97
920
1266
998
890
1132
785
700
910
1997-98
980
1369
1027
940
1328
1084
750
969
817
1998-99
1040
1360
1097
1000
1250
828
795
843
849
1999-00
1155
1344
1586
1100
1224
905
845
860
838
2000-01
1220
1339
1998
1200
1424
964
865
970
1005
2001-02
1340
1338
914
1300
1285
900
885
961
948
2002-03
1375
1582
1652
1340
1749
1167
895
1311
1693
2003-04
1400
1661
1041
1600
1872
950
930
1472
1029
2004-05
1500
1682
1534
1700
1563
917
1000
1336
1080
2005-06
1520
1550
1286
1715
1499
1010
1010
1199
995
2006-07
1520
1627
1690
1715
1766
1003
1020
1283
1015
2007-08
1550
2055
1567
1800
2451
1333
1050
1958
1160
86
87
Chapter 7
Biotic threat
Groundnut
Mustard
Soybean
Sunflower
Castor
90
A detailed study of the oilseed processing sector which is critical for the
oilseed economy was conducted through surveys in the districts of Junagadh
and Bharatpur. The secondary data on this sector was also analysed as a part of
the study. Both the surveys and the secondary data indicated the persistence of
inefficiencies in the oilseed processing sector, irrespective of the oilseed crop.
The present study has revealed that these inefficiencies have persisted despite a
slew of measures intended to address the same.
The inefficient processing sector is a dead weight on the oilseed economy
as a whole since it is a vital link between the producer and the further actors in
the oilseed value chain. Any attempt to rejuvenate the edible oil economy should
address these serious lacunae first. Unless inefficiencies in the edible oil supply
chain are removed and the primary oilseed cultivators/producers are linked
with the final edible oil consumers through a network of efficient processing
and service channels, the problems of stakeholders at different points of the
supply chain cannot be mitigated.
A critical review of the relative prices and incomes from oilseed crops
compared with those of their major competing crops has revealed some
interesting features. It can be said that the oilseed crops were relatively nonremunerative compared to their competing crops during the period under review.
A comprehensive policy to promote oilseed crops should also contain
components aimed at making the relative profitability from oilseed cultivation
more attractive. The marketing support provided for oilseed crops is inadequate
and is available only for the selected oilseed crops in a limited area. A systematic
approach for providing adequate market support for oilseed producers will go a
long way in ensuring higher production of oilseed crops. A weak and inefficient
marketing system coupled with unfavourable and unstable import policy has
adversely affected the oilseed producers and processors alike.
The sequential and persistent policy of reduction in import tariffs for both
crude and refined edible oils has led to a surge in imports of relatively cheaper
edible oils like palm oil. The sudden shift from a protected oilseed economy
and the exposure to a highly competitive international edible oil market have
hurt the interests of oilseed cultivators rather than motivating them towards
adoption of more efficient production and competitive strategies. The producers
in the major edible oil exporting countries work under an inherently different
set of economic conditions and social endowments which are alien to our
domestic oilseed cultivators. Hence, the sudden withdrawal of protection and
rampant changes in policies shall do more harm than the intended benefits for
the oilseed economy as a whole. Given this plethora of issues, we should have
a clear understanding and consensus on the strategies to be implemented to
enhance productivity of oilseeds.
91
Area expansion in oilseed crops offers only a limited scope for substantial
production gains. Significant area gains can be realized under oilseed crops by
following the identified strategies for area expansion. This can be set as a target
and efforts may be directed towards realization of this target. The details of the
strategies to be adopted to realize expansion of area under oilseed crops have
been discussed at length in this report. The quintessence of the strategies
discussed is highlighted below.
The second component of the roadmap for oilseed sector is the enhancement
of oilseed crop productivity and promotion of new/minor crops like safflower,
sunflower, etc. The strategy to achieve this objective touches upon diverse sources
of productivity enhancement like use of improved agro-techniques and
improvements in inputuse efficiency. Effective technology dissemination to
the cultivators is crucial to the success of the strategy. The key components of
the productivity enhancement approach include
96
References
Acharya, S.S. (1993). Oilseeds and Pulses Price Policy and Production Performance,
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 48(3): 317-333.
Aggarwal, P.K., Hebbar, K.B., Venugopalan, M.V., Rani, S., Bala, A., Biswal, A. and
Wani, S.P. (2008). Quantification of Yield Gaps in Rain-fed Rice, Wheat, Cotton and
Mustard in India. Global Theme on Agro-ecosystems Report No. 43. International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh.
Agricultural Statistics at a Glance (2010). Directorate of Economics and Statistics,
Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of
India.
Bhatia, V.S., Singh, P., Wani, S.P., Rao, K. and Srinivas, K. (2006). Yield Gap Analysis of
Soybean, Groundnut, Pigeonpea and Chickpea in India Using Simulation Modeling. Global
Theme on Agro-ecosystems Report No. 31. International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh.
Chand, R. (2002). Trade Liberalisation, WTO and Indian Agriculture: Experience and Prospects,
Mittal Publications, New Delhi.
Chand, R., and Jha, D. (2001). Trade Liberalization, Agricultural Prices and Social
Welfare, Chapter 2 in Acharya, S.S. and Chaudhri, D.P. (Eds) Indian Agricultural
Policy at Crossroads, Rawat Publications, Jaipur and New Delhi.
Chand, R., Jha, D. and Mittal, S. (2004). WTO and Oilseeds Sector: Challenges of
Trade Liberalisation in Indias Oilseed Sector and WTO, Economic and Political
Weekly, 34(6): 533-537.
Chaudhary, S. (1997). Government Intervention and Trends in the Indian Oilseed Sector: An
Analysis of Alternative Policy Scenarios. Working paper 97-WP 179, USA: Centre for
Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University.
Damodaran, T. and Hegde, D. M. (2005). Oilseeds Situation: A Statistical Compendium.
Directorate Oilseeds Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Hyderabad.
Dohlman, E., Persaud, S., and Landes, R. (2003). Indias Edible Oil Sector: Imports Fill
Rising Demand, OCS-0903-01, Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic
Research Service, USDA.
FAOSTAT: 2010 http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome.
Gulati, A. (1990). Incentives for Oilseeds CultivarsImplecation and Efficiency, Journal
of the Indian School of Political Economy, 2 (2).
97
98
99