Changing face of Indian agriculture-Mechanization vs manual operations

How often we hear the bland statement that rural India is responsible for feeding a population estimated at 1.20 billion in India and 70% of India's population is engaged in agricultural and other rural based activities, being the residents of more than 5 lakh villages across the country. However what is not clear is whether so many people are really needed to produce the quantum of foods being harvested year in and year out? There was this situation during the early stage of growth of this country when the technological base of agriculture, especially use of mechanical implements was indeed very weak, with most operations in the field being carried by the labor available locally. Over the years India's technological base has expanded and there is indigenous manufacture of many mechanical implements liker tractors which can fill the places of many manual workers with much more efficiency and it is no wonder that many well to do farmers are shifting to mechanized cultivation at least partially in many parts of the country, especially in Punjab and Haryana. Probably part of the productivity achieved during the last few years can be attributed to this factor. If this is so one wonders what ever has happened to the displaced labor caused by such mechanization trend? 

There is a strong feeling that the frenetic pace at which migration of rural population into urban areas must have some thing to do with declining opportunities for gainful employment in the farmlands in the country because of perceptible transition from predominantly labor oriented operations to a machine based production regime seen all over the country, though it is more in some states and less in some others. One of the amazing phenomena associated with this transition is that it flies contrary to the theory that small land holdings that characterize the land holding pattern in the country does not lend itself to mechanized farming unlike that existing in western countries where farm sizes can be 1000 acres and above in most cases. Look at the land holding pattern in India which brings out the stark reality about the predominance of marginal farmers in the agricultural landscape of the country. Almost 63% of the landholders have, on an average holding size of less than an acre of land to till while about 19% are relatively better placed by farming on a piece of land about the size of 3 acres per family. On the other end of the spectrum, 1% of the farming population own on an average 35 acres of land.per person. Others fall in between with average size holding in the range of 5 acres to 35 acres. The million dollar question that begs for an answer is how far such a landscape is amenable to mechanized farming? 

No doubt Indian agriculture is going through a transformation with governments, both at the state and central levels pumping in enormous money for sustaining the livelihood of the farmers, especially the so called marginal farmers. Minimum Support Prices offered to more than two dozen commodities and many farmer welfare programs are able to provide sustenance to millions of farmers. But at the same time more farmer suicides are taking place with a monotonous regularity defying any logical explanation. Billions of rupees worth of loans are being written off every year with politicians competing with each other in announcing such write offs! If India can boast of food grain stocks that is capable of ensuring food security we have to thank our hard working farmers who toil under adverse conditions like frequent droughts and floods. But can this situation continue indefinitely and will the farmers continue to stick to their land if agricultural activity becomes a perennially losing avocation? Land fragmentation in India is inevitable under a government regime where inherited land holdings by successive generations get shrunken in size and obviously becoming more and more non-viable. These inherited land pieces are not easily salable due to severe restrictive policies of the state governments with financially capable entrepreneurs barred from buying agricultural land. A classical Catch 22 situation!   

A recent report by one of the agencies under Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) provides interesting information regarding the changing agricultural scenario in the country. According to this report, Indian farmers, in spite of enormous hurdles and limitations are increasingly using more and more power based mechanical devices replacing the human element to manage their lands. India is known for its bullock driven economy till a couple of decades ago with agriculture contributing substantially to the national GDP and man and the beast combination successfully brought about the green revolution in the last millennium achieving the much desired food self sufficiency. Even to day many agricultural and social experts are not willing to write off the poor oxen which was an integral part of the rural settings across the country. A 1000 animal village with 60% milking cows and the rest dry cows and oxen is being propagated by the government of India for the integrated development of a village which can sell its milk for generating income while the byproducts from the animals like cow dung can produce cooking gas as well as manure for the farms belonging to the villagers. How far such novel schemes will succeed in an era when people are exposed to the convenience inherent in mechanical implements based agriculture remains to be seen.    

If ICAR findings are to be believed, Indian agriculture is going through a far reaching change mode beginning two decades ago. The share of human power available for carrying out the various operations in farming seems to have come down to less than 5% while draught animals' share also hovers around another 5%. More than 90% of the power is estimated to be drawn from mechanical sources like tractors and power tillers ( 47%); electric motors (27%) and diesel engines (16%). Compare this with the situation obtaining 40 years ago when 60% of the power was provided by humans and animals - 15% by farm workers and 45% by animals. These estimates are based on an average value of power that a human or a draught animal or any of the machines generate per unit of land. An average human being notionally capable of yielding about 0.15 kilowatt power per hectare of land worked while a tractor can give 30.21kW. .

It is true that overall farm mechanization in India has just reached about 40% which may be a low figure when compared to 95% levels prevalent in many developed countries. Thus 40% of farm operations for major crops are done by mechanical power sources and 60% is still being done by non- power sources like humans and bullocks.which generate only 10% of the total power available in farming. Naturally such over dependence on non-power sources has its own limitations in terms of efficiency. To day tractors are used mainly for initial land preparation by most farmers.while many use mechanical means for threshing and irrigation. Free supply of power for pump sets has helped those farmers having more than two acres of land while marginal farmers are denied this vital input free. Core operations like transplanting, weeding, fertilizer use etc are still done by farm workers. The small size of land holdings does not permit use of power driven tools for these operations. The use of power tillers and other farm machinery is facilitated by their easy availability on rental basis for a cluster of villages. 

Many social experts feel that such rapid mechanization trend can create a human problem because machines are bound to displace humans in the farm hinterlands of the country resulting in huge unemployment and under employment. However the national statistical figures available most recently tell a different story. According to the figures from the government there were 111 million cultivators and 75 million agricultural labourers in 1991 working to about 185 million people directly engaged in farming activities. Look at the latest figures and what a change has come about defying any rational explanation. As per the 2011 census there were 119 million cultivators and a whopping 144 million agricultural labourers, making a total of 263 million people working on land. If population increase during this period  is factored, as against a population increased of 43% during the last twenty years, the number of landless agricultural laborers registered an astonishing increase of 93%. The primary reason for this is that there is nowhere else where this army of under-employed people can find work, forcing them to crowd into agriculture or related rural work. It also pushes up migration to cities in search of jobs. 

The MNREGA, a novel initiative from the government to provide sustenance to persons not finding income generating activities, especially during the non-agricultural season in many rural areas has definitely helped to alleviate the situation to some extent. According to some estimates government had spent over 2 lakh crore rupees between 2007 and 2014 on this much touted welfare scheme though there is nothing much to show vis-a-vis permanent assets created, as per the original intention of the planners. Another paradox that is glaring is that there are not many takers for jobs offered under MNREGA with more than half the allocation remaining unspent for want of demand! Probably this program may have to be revisited for bringing about appropriate changes immediately to serve the purpose and create assets in the area of operation. 

If there are 144 million landless agricultural laborers hanging around the villages, largely under employed, what is the government going to do to prevent such a colossal waste of human resources year after year which is bound to go up if the present trend of agricultural mechanization continues at the current pace?  As there does not appear to be any clear policy orchestration still, are we going to see more and more people in the rural areas being pushed to poverty due to this?  In the light of the big push being given to the "Make in India" policy of the new government in the coming years, why not create massive industrial townships with adequate infrastructure for skill development in many rural areas with supporting family care facilities so that the vast population of under employed people, wasting most of their time, are absorbed by the industry on a regular basis? After all per in acre employment, agriculture cannot compete with industry and boosting manufacturing sector can be a sure way of utilizing the otherwise wasted man power. Reports from China indicate that large scale shifting of rural population to specially built smart towns and transferring the land to giant American agricultural companies with most modern technology and deep pockets are being attempted to expand the food production to meet future needs of a burgeoning population. This is not to suggest that we must ape China but the idea of rehabilitating rural population through such novel out of the box thinking is necessary to save the country from a potential melt down in our rural hinterlands causing turmoil all around.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Indian farmers-Between deep sea and the devil

India has been traditionally an agriculture oriented country with millions of farmers peacefully ploughing their land and growing a variety of crops as food as well as for cash generation. Though for centuries the bullock drawn ploughing "technology" has been in vogue, advent of tractors in a big way in the country made many farmers switch over to partially mechanized agriculture. But for millions of small farmers the bullock centric cultivation practice is still  inevitable as buying mechanized gadgets is unaffordable to them. Bullocks have a few advantages when it comes to rural environment though lately even these man-friendly beast is becoming exorbitantly costly to acquire and maintain. Why is that Indian farmers cannot modernize their agricultural practices in spite massive subsidization of this in the country?

The continuing saga of farmers is best reflected by the unceasing episodes of suicides in the rural area and according to governments own data, more than 10% of suicides in the country happen in the rural areas by farmers. Why should a happy farmers, as being claimed by the government, takes his own life, leaving his kith and kin in his family as destitute? Human psychologists are of the view that human being commit suicides for either of the two reasons. First he is driven to suicide by his compromised self respect, fearful of the humiliation in the society. Alternately desperate economic situation where he is heavily burdened by loans with exorbitant interests from local loan sharks who have a way of extortion and blackmailing to extract his pound of flesh. In spite of many progressive measures successive governments have been taking to "pamper" to the farmers, as many citizens feel, the benefits of economic growth have not touched a large number of farmers coming under the category of marginal farmers. There is a feeling that these benefits have been cornered by well to do, rich farmers with political connections! 

Look at the land holding pattern in the country where 70% of the population is engaged in agricultural and allied activities. Those holding less than one hectare of land constitute 62 % of the population while others with 1-2 hectares make up another 19%. In other words 81% of the agriculturists own major part of the agricultural landscape of the country. Under such a situation what one can expect from these unfortunate brethren of ours who work the whole day to eke out an existence for him and his family while raising about 71 kg of wheat and 80 kg of rice to every Indian citizen! In this process what is he getting back? A decent livelihood? No way! While the counterpart of Indian farmer in Australia raises 10.8 tons of rice per hectare, he is not able to produce even 3.5 tons per hectare from his land. As for wheat Indian grower produces 2.8 tons per hectare while his counterpart in the Netherlands enjoy a harvest of 9 tons per hectare. Chinese farmer produces about 3 tons of Chickpeas from each hectare of his land whereas in India the average yield is a measly 0.9 ton per hectare. Why is this happening in our country which was a food bowl of the world for centuries? Who is responsible for this shameful and pitiable condition of our farmers?  

With majority of farmers owning less than an hectare, what type of economic viability one can expect from their operations? Modern farming technology cannot be applied unless farm sizes are at least 10 hectares and above and no subsidies can change this situation to any significant extent. Unproductive farm land cannot be sold as per the country's law even if the farmer wants to sell it off! There will be no buyer because of the restrictive clauses that the buyer must be a farmer and his income from non-agricultural activities must not be above Rs 2 lack per year! Is it not interesting as to how politicians and bureaucrats earning millions per year have active farms all over the country in violation of these rules? Another interesting or say nauseating rule is that scheduled caste owners of land cannot sell their land unless permitted by a babu in the government! Another restriction is that a farmer is barred from renting his land to another person even if he is not able to cultivate it economically. In China such renting out is freely allowed for the sake of increased production. Can the Indian farmer have salvation ever? No unless government brings about massive relaxation of these restrictions immediately. 

Cooperative farming is touted  as a possible route for land consolidation and application of modern technology in such cooperative farms but this has been tried previously and given up as impractical under Indian conditions! Why? If Tibetan refugees can convert the 5 acre land lots allotted to them into a 5000 acre cooperative farm and help the state to become the top producer of maize in the country, why not Indians do the same? Here again the problem lies with the land regulations which do not permit any formal linkages of land lots through a cooperative society! The only one crop that can still be managed with small holdings is sugarcane because of the high minimum support price government offers and high productivity in some of the sugar belts in the country. A hectare of land, with adequate irrigation can produce as much as 100 tons fetching an income of Rs 2.5 lakhs though the input costs are very high with sugar cane cultivation. Unfortunately these fortunate farmers in the sugar belt also suffer because of delayed payments by the sugar mill barons under one pretext or the other putting them in great economic hardships frequently. 

One relevant question even a child in this country can ask is when are these farmers going to quit agriculture if the land they own does not bring adequate returns for them to lead a decent life with dignity? With more than 15000 farmers taking the painful route of committing suicide to escape from the harsh future faced by them and their families under the prevailing Indian conditions, what else can wake up the conscience of people and pressurize the government to address the situation on an emergency basis? More than 50% of the arable land in the country depends on rains for agriculture as irrigated water is restricted to only about 82 million hectares! Water scarcity is another challenge India is facing because of low progress in  irrigation projects and rapid drying of ground water resources. This can only aggravate the conditions of farmers in perennially drought hit areas in the country.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Life is precious-Why do people give it up?

Life is considered a precious gift from God by most people in the world though there are a few atheists who think there is nothing like a God. However as long as man is not able to revive a completely dead person back to normal life or create artificial life one has to admit the existence of an omnipotent force with powers beyond what human beings, in spite of vast scientific and technological prowess at their disposal, possess. There are occasional reports that some scientists are on the threshold of creating artificial life though it cannot be still considered satisfactory to sideline God yet. Probably in years to come man may succeed but one has to wait for that day before casting serious doubt about the existence of God. This is a controversial issue and people on both sides of the divide will have to respect each others' feelings.

If life is a precious thing why do people commit suicide so often knowing pretty well that they can never return back to life? One of the most accepted views is that suicide happens when the extreme mental condition of the person does not allow him to think seriously the mind boggling consequences of committing such an act and in many cases those who fail in their effort to take their life in the first attempt invariably give up unless there is serious mental derangement. According to WHO experts on a global basis, one suicide takes place every 40 seconds working out to an annual suicide rate of 8 lakh per year. It is interesting to see that suicide rate varies from country to country though low income and middle income countries report higher suicide rates. Thus no one country is immune to suicidal tendency whether rich or poor, whether in Asia, America, Africa or Europe. Another notable phenomenon is that those who choose death voluntarily are mostly illiterates! 

India is a country where suicide rates are considered high though there are others with almost double the rate in other continents. If one believes in the babu version of government of India there were only 134, 600 deaths due to suicide in India in the year 2012 but WHO where such deaths are systematically documented the real figure was 258, 075 out of which 99, 977 were women and 158, 098 men. Obviously there must be some suppression of data in India or the documentation system is faulty. Overall there is 21.1 suicides for every 1 lakh population. It is not a consolation that a poor country like Guyana has a suicide rate as high as 44.2 per one lakh population or for that matter Sri Lanka recorded 28.8 deaths or Nepal had a figure of 24.9 suicides per one lakh. What is appalling is that in Indian suicide rate is high when it comes to the age group of 15-29 years aggregating to 35.5 per lakh while among 30 to 49 years group the rate falls to 28 per lakh. 

Suicide by farmers is always sensational and the media loves to report them promptly accusing the governments for such happenings in the country. However farmer suicides are less than 10% of the national figure though self inflicted deaths in rural belt is mostly due to serious financial indebtedness and insurmountable difficulties to meet both the ends meet on account of drought and crop failure. Pesticide poisoning, hanging and self immolation account for most deaths in countries like India while firearms are extensively used in countries like the US where they are easily available in the market. Interestingly in most wealthy countries poverty or hunger is not the primary reason for self-inflicted death but it is the acute mental disorders that drive them to this extreme step. Koreans are an interesting case where suicide rates are as high as 28.9 to 38.5 per lakh. Though on the development scale South Koreans are far ahead with high per capita income, the suicide figure tells a different story. There the figure is almost 29 per lakh while in North Korea it is 38.5 per lakh. 

What about our neighbor China? It is a confusing picture there as there are no independent reports that can substantiate the official claims by the government, The claim that it has dramatically reduced suicide rate from 22.3 per lakh a decade ago to 9.8 per lakh, a reduction of about 58% cannot be verified but even if if it is partially true the achievement is really noteworthy. One of the reasons attributed to this phenomenon is the rapid, conscious and massive urbanization programs initiated by the communist government and many social welfare supports available to the citizens. This is understandable because suicides take place mostly in rural and semi-urban areas for which no credible explanation is still available.    

In absolute numbers maximum suicides take place in India, about 2.6 lakh out of a global figure of 8 lakh (almost 33%) though country's population is less than 18% of world population. This may prompt critics to call India the suicide capital of the world. It is a poor reflection on the metal strength of the nation which boasts of 5000 years of glorious history, an ancient civilization and the epicenter of epics like Mahabharata and Ramayana,  In a land where Buddha and Mahavir Jain were born, peace within and around should have been a strong trait among their descendants. Also this is the land where Mahatma Gandhi, the Universal Apostle of nonviolence was born and attained martyrdom. If so why this depredation, deprivation, desperation and predisposition that drive people to destroy their own lives? Where has this country gone wrong in evolving such a destructive environment when people think of taking their own lives? Is there a spiritual bankruptcy or lack of self confidence or a sense of helplessness which is responsible for this situation? There is an urgent need for introspection among Indians vis-a-vis the factors that drive some of their fellow citizens towards self destruction so as to bring about radical self corrective measures.

   

V.H.POTTY

http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

FARMERS AS STAKEHOLDERS IN FOOD INDUSTRY?-A PIPE DREAM!

The reported remark by a minister in Tamil Nadu that his government "will" make farmers stake holders in food processing industry makes one laugh or cry depending on how knowledgeable one is regarding the pitiable condition of agriculture and the farmers in India. Concept wise the above statement is fantastic and will be a boon to the farmer if the government can make it work. Unfortunately the minister did not elaborate how this can be done! In a country where farmer suicides are rampant and agricultural productivity one of the lowest in the world, what is required is to strengthen the farming infrastructure in the country before talking about processing the crops into value added products.

Talking about the viability of farming in India, it is nothing but hypocrisy to imagine that all is well in the country because of government's huge subsidy doling and loan waiver schemes during election times. There are many agri varsities in the country which boast of a host technologies for boosting land productivity but only a few farmers get the benefits due to limited funds for extension activities. Added to this water availability is a big constraint and in allocating water resources, industry is invariably preferred over agriculture. The recent revelation that many irrigation projects built in Maharashtra for the benefit of farmers are diverting water to giant distilleries owned by local politicians, bears this out. Major crops depending on rains show variation in production year after year if rain fall is below normal. Under these circumstances how can any one think of integrated food production and processing systems?

If Amul dairy is a success in the case of live stock farming, it is largely due to linking of inputs like feeds, veterinary services and marketing under the aegis of that doyen late Dr FV Kurien. Why the country has not been able to replicate what Dr Kurien achieved during sixties, seventies and eighties of last millenium, is a point worth pondering over. Agriculture Market Produce Marketing Centers (APMC) are supposed to be providing decent prices to the crops brought by the farmers in a transparent manner but these centers are monopolized by mafia groups which manage to cheat the farmers by "ganging up" and through cartelization. Honest business in agri produce in the country is unthinkable under these conditions.

It was with grate fanfare that foreign investment policy was changed to accommodate international retailers in the Indian market. The "hope" was that these retailers will invest billions of rupees to establish the much needed infrastructure to procure, transport, preserve and market the perishable produce through out the country. Why would these players be doing what the government is supposed to do unless they have an agenda to recover their investments through under pricing of the agri corps procured from the farmers to sell the same to consumers at low prices? It does not make any sense to the ordinary intelligence of a citizen in this country!  

There is no evidence to show so far in any part of the world in support of the contention that entry of international retail chains has benefited the farmers. It is true that consumers get products at relatively cheaper rates and this has been attributed to the economy of large scale handling. In countries like USA the land holdings are of huge size and hardly a few thousand farmers have to be dealt with by the retail chains to source their materials. Added to this most farms in the USA receive government subsidies to compensate for low price realization in the market which enable them to sell their produce at lower prices. In contrast India has millions of farmers with average land holding less than an hectare in size and where the agri operations are costly. If these farmers are forced to sell their produce at low prices, they have no other alternative except committing suicide!

Ideally farmers' cooperatives similar to Amul are the answer to make them richer and prosperous like milk producers. But the political class in the country does not allow this to happen because of the fertile ground provided by such societies for grooming politicians! In stead of pumping billions of rupees in the form of subsidies, Government must organize agri cooperatives with each panchayat playing an active role and building up the supply chain with appropriate infrastructure for storage, transportation and terminal markets. The practice of minimum support price must be given up once cooperative organizations start operation in a big way. These cooperatives can always decide what prices are reasonable and plow back the profits to its members. This is the only way to make the farmers stake holders in food industry.

If there are many cooperative dairies working successfully in the county, why such farmers cooperative also cannot work economically making the farmers partners in creating wealth across millions of villages across the country?Just like these dairies, agri cooperatives can build their own cold storage and low temperature transport infrastructure for safeguarding the quality of their produce before delivering the same to the market or set up their own processing facilities to create branded products that can be sold through the existing retail market system or their own retail outlets.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

INDUSTRY-FARMER ALLIANCE-NEED OF THE HOUR

Why is that the very name Pepsi or Coke evokes adverse reaction amongst many people in India, especially the intellectuals? Is it because they are multinationals with excessive focus on profit, ignoring the welfare of the local communities where their manufacturing centers produce multitude of products targeted at the middle class? High fat, high calorie products from these food giants have already been indicted partly for the gigantic obesity epidemic in the US and other rich countries and can this be the reason?

Look at the decade old war of words and insinuations between the Kerala Government and the Coca Cola regarding the social, health and economic damage caused by one of the cola bottling plants in that state and how silly it can be for the government to claim damage for using under ground water without which the bottled beverage cannot be made! Why the hell Coke was given license knowing well such a thing could happen? Why not take action against those Babus who overlooked the social aspect of the project at the evaluation stage? In contrast here is a case of PepsiCo receiving accolades in Mexico for its close social liaison with the local population, especially the farmers.

PepsiCo, Inc. the global rival of Coke, seems to have consciously courted a course that would endear them to people in Mexico, especially the farming community and where they have considerable commercial interest. Their Sun Flower cultivation program encourages the local farmers to grow sustainable version of Sun Flower with a 100% buy back guarantee, reducing the risk to the growers to a considerable extent. In partnership with the lending institutions PepsiCo offers to provide technical support and training to 850 farmers who will be using sustainable agricultural practices to meet PepsiCo's contract, estimated at $52 million over the next seven years. The investment is indicative of the new trend and growing demand from the snack food industry for higher quality vegetable oils and probably may provide income and security to the farmers and their families. The world's number two seller of nuts and seeds will be processing a majority of the sunflowers into a high-oleic, heart healthy oil to be incorporated into product lines from many regional brands.

While one can ignore the "adorable" words like sustainable agriculture, nutrition, food security etc used by the MNC to highlight their involvement, the fact still remains that the this global giant is at least sensitive about the issues on which they have to live up to the expectations of the civil society. It is also true that they are producing same junk foods and beverages like in other countries for which they will be taken to task one day or the other. All said and done this new sensitivity as being shown in Mexico must be perceptible in other countries like India also. Looking at the development of MNC food companies in India during the last few years, there certainly exists an awareness about the local needs vis-a-vis taste and flavor as evidenced by range of new products in the market specially designed for local palate that never exist in any other part of the world. Probably this approach to serve the needs of the consumer rather than attempt to change their food habits can be expected to stand in good stead for these MNCs in the coming years.

Of course there is the famous ITC program being run in some states in the northern part of India under the e-Choupal project which covers millions of farmers engaged in growing wheat through technical and other supports that help them to maximize returns on their crop. Of course ITC has an abiding interest to securing adequate supplies of high performance wheat which go in the manufacture of their branded atta through out the country. There is nothing wrong for the commercial and farmer interests coinciding for mutual benefit and such role models need to be replicated several fold in areas like pulses and oil seed production in which India is still not self reliant. If GOI is pro-active to promote, encourage and incentivize such PPP projects, India may really become the super economic power for which right now there is only a yearning, no concrete action.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com