Content uploaded by Jagdeep Singh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jagdeep Singh on Sep 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
ABSTRACT
Madhya Pradesh state is growing rapidly in the agricultural agriculture sector since last few years. The State is making a significant
contribution to the country's vegetable oil production. Soyabean crop is produced on a large scale. The objective of the study was to
examine the farm size and productivity relationship of soyabean cultivation in Madhya Pradesh empirically. In the present study,
unit-level secondary data published by DES were used. The results showed positive relationship between farm size and
productivity. Although agriculture is the primary source of livelihood for small farmers, although the size of the farm was small but
was looked after with the help of family members. Nevertheless, the use of high yielding variety seeds (HYV) and the use of modern
technology resulted in to direct relationship between farm size and productivity. Soybean productivity had a positive and significant
relationship with use of labour machinery, that chemical fertilizers, manure and pesticides. However, at the same time, it was found
that use of animal, seeds and irrigation machines had a significant negative relation with productivity.
Keywords
Agriculture, farm size, productivity, soyabean.
JEL Codes
O13, O47, Q10.
Jagdeep Singh , Nirmal Singh and Saira Banoo
1* 2 3
1 2
Assistant professor, Guru Nanak College, Budhlada-151 502 (Punjab), Research Scholar, BU, Bhopal-462 026
(Madhya Pradesh), and Research Scholar, DAVV, Indore-452 001(Madhya Pradesh)
3
*Corresponding author's email: manpreetjap55@gmail.com
Farm Size and Productivity Relationship in Soyabean Cultivation:
Empirical Evidence from Madhya Pradesh Agriculture
459
Indian Journal of Economics and Development
Volume 16 No. 3, 2020, 459-463
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35716/IJED/20077
Indexed in Clarivate Analytics (ESCI) of WoS
NAAS Score: 4.82
www.naasindia.org
UGC Approved
UGC-Care List Group II
Copyright ©2020 The Society of Economics and Development, except certain content provided by third parties.
Received: April 24, 2020 Revision Accepted: September 01, 2020
Manuscript Number: MS-20077
Revision Submitted: September 08, 2020
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is the backbone of Indian Economy. The
livelihood of rural population depends on agriculture.
According to the National Sample Survey, about 44
percent of the population of India engaged in the
agriculture sector. Before independence, the Agricultural
production was at a very lower level in terms of
production and productivity because of the poor farm
management practices, poor infrastructure, lake of use of
mode rn technology, including marketing . After
independence, agriculture progressed due to the use of
modern technology leading to the Green revolution in the
1960s. Punjab, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh took
the advantage of the Green revolution. Some of the states
did not get the gain from this, lagged in the growth
process.
Madhya Pradesh is one of the state which did not been
get advantage from green revolution. The high
dependency of the population on the sector makes it in as a
priority sector, due to which the government prefered the
sector, polic ymakers an d scienti sts (Chand &
Parappurathu, 2012; Ravallion & Datt, 1996; Datt &
Ravallion, 1998; Virmani, 2008). The sector is directly
linked to the overall development of food, nutrition
security, poverty and economics for the country.
Nevertheless, there was a huge difference in the growth
rate among states (Dreze, Sen & Hussain, 2006; Singh &
Kaur, 2018; Singh, Singh, Singh, Tomar & Sachdeva,
(2018);. Madhya Pradesh had 19 percent of the total land
area of the country and pro dominant of the agrarian
economy. In the past, the Madhya Pradesh was
performing well in agricultural growth. There was growth
rate of 9.5 percent in the agricultural sector during the
period 2005-06 to 2014-15. However, the period from
2009-10 to 2014-15 was excellent for the state as the
growth rate of the agriculture sector during these years
increased to 15.4 percent (Singh, Singh & Singh 2019).
Food production in Madhya Pradesh declined between
1960-61 and 2000-01, due to the decline in area under
foodgrains. The production of oilseeds, particularly of
soyabean, increased from 14.3 percent in 1961 to 27.9
percent in 2017. The crop made a considerable profit by
exporting it by the industrialists, and the government also
earned foreign exchange.
Madhya Pradesh had high growth in the agriculture
sector. The debate started by Sen in 1962 on farm size and
productivity did not stop till yet, due to the evidences
provided more fascinating results. It is essential to point
out that the first attempt on the relationship between farm
size and productivity was pointed out by Sen (1962,
1964), who reported that there was an inverse relationship
between farm size and productivity. The inverse
relationship was derived based on size class data by
Hanumantha, in 1966. After this study, a lengthy debate
started. Some economists supported the results given by
Sen in their study (Bhalla,1979; Ghose, 1979; Chadha,
1978; Bharadwaj, 1974; Saini, 1971; Mazumdar, 1965)
while other economists did not agree with the results and
argued that as farm size increases, productivity also
increases (Deolalikar, 1981; Ahmad & Qureshi, 1999;
Saini,1980; Chattopadhyay and Rudra, 1976; Dasgupta,
1977; Rao,1966; Khan & Tripathy, 1972; Bhattacharya &
Saini, 1972, Chand, Prasanna & Singh, 2011).
Rao (1989) argued that small farmers not only put
more labour cost per unit but also used more labour
intensively and explained the difference in productivity
due to overuse of family labour and the qualitative
difference in the means of labour. In 1960, the role of land
reform and small farmers became important issues for the
political leader. The small farmers take tractors, etc. on
rent. However, its opp onen ts argue d that the
imperfections of the market and the small farmer's ability
to use these tools could only be to a certain extent. There is
a lot of variation in buying these tools in the market or
getting acquired by the corporate banks. Nevertheless,
after the Green Revolution, the difference between small
and large farmers increased significantly (Rao 1975,
Saini; 1980; Singh & Patel, 1973). In other words, after
the Green Revolution, the inverse relationship between
farm size and productivity changed and now there is direct
relationship between farm size and productivity. It was
noticed that as the size of the farm increases the total
production increases by the same proportion (Saini,
1980). As such the relationship between farm size and
productivity was unclear. The Madhya Pradesh state is
undergoing radical changes in the agriculture sector, and
most of the relation in the sector also changed. The present
study is trying to establish the relationship between farm
size and productivity of the soyabean crop. The study
concentrates on soybean crop because the Madhya
Pradesh was the biggest producer of this crop. The study
established the relationship between farm size and
productivity of soyabean. Furthermore, it identified the
determinants of soyabean yield.
METHODOLOGY
The present investgation was based on the secondary
data as well as the unit-level cost of cultivation survey
data taken from the Directorate of Economics and
Statistics and the Ministry of Agriculture. The data on
area, production and yield was collected from 1998 to 99
to 2017-18, because before 1998-99 the data available for
undivided Madhya Pradesh (Madhya Pradesh and
Chattishgarh). This study used unit-level cost of
cultivation data of 450 farmers (1628 plots in three years)
to establish the relationship and find out the determinants
of yield, so the data compiled for the (TE) 2016-17. The
data were analysed using growth rate analysis.
Growth Rate Analysi
The compound growth rate in the area, production
and yield for cotton were estimated for the selected time.
The compound growth rates were estimated using the
exponential model.
Y = ab t
Log Y = log a + t log b
CGR = (Antilog b-1) × 100
Where,
t = time period in year
Y = area/production/yield
A & b = Regression parameters and
CGR = Compound growth rate
To identify the relationship of inputs with the
soyabean yield, the multiple regression and the working
model was used.
Yield = + Lab + Aml + Mach + Seed +
soyabean 0 1 2 3 4
β β β β β
β β β β
5 6 7 8 μi
Seed+ Manure+ Insct + Irri +
Where
Lab = Labour use (hr/ha)
Aml = Animal use (hrs/ha)
Mach = Machine use (hr/ha)
Seed = Seed use (kg/ha)
Fert = Fertilizer use (kg/ha)
Manure = Manure use (q/ha)
Insct = Insecticide use ( /ha) and
Irri = Irrigation machine use (hr/ha)
Here presenting intercept and to were β β β
0 1 8
coefficients and µ presenting error term.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The area under soybean crop in India was 70 percent
in Madhya Pradesh in 1998-99 and about 65 percent of the
country's total soybean production in the same year. The
area share of Madhya Pradesh under soyabean crop was
reduced to 48.5 percent in 2017-18, and the share of
production decreased to 48.7 percent. The reason for
declining production was shifting of area towards other
crops due to the intake of high amount of nutrient from the
soil by soyabean, and after few years, the land turned
barren. It resulted in the high volatility recorded in crop
yield. The crop counted as rainfed crop and back to back
drought cames in the state. Such type of situations pushed
farmers to select alternative crop.
In India from 1998-99 to 2007-08, the area increased
by 3.95 percent. However, Madhya Pradesh grow only
0.65 percent. India's soyabean production was increased
by 5.36 percent during 1998-99 to 2007-08. Whereas in
Madhya Pradesh, it increased by 2.13 percent.
In the next ten years (2007-08 to 2017-18) the area
460
Indian J Econ Dev 16(3): 2020 (July-September)
under crop increased by 1.82 percent and production
increased marginally. However, during the same time, the
area in Madhya Pradesh increased by 0.10 percent, and
the growth rate of production was negative (-1.50). In
overall, the area under soyabean in Madhya Pradesh
increased by 1.76 percent and production by 2.99 percent.
The high growth in production increase in area was the
result of improvement in the yield.
The perusal of Table 2 showed the relationship
between farm size and productivity of the soyabean crop,
as the size of the farm increases, productivity also
increase. There was a clear positive relationship between
farm size and productivity in soyabean cultivation in
Madhya Pradesh. The marginal farmers reported as an
average yield of 1032 kg/ha. At the same time, the largest
farmers yield was 1133 kg/ha in Madhya Pradesh. So on
the basis of the results of this study, it was established that
the farm size and productivity of soyabean cultivation in
Madhya Pradesh were positively correlated. The positive
relationship was observed between farm size and
productively. It showed that as the farm size increased,
productivity also increased. Similar results were reported
by Deolalikar (1981); Ahmad & Qureshi (1999); Saini
(1980); Chattopadhyay and Rudra (1976); Dasgupta
Period All India Madhya Pradesh
Area Production Yield Area Production Yield
1998-99 to 2007-08 3.95 5.36 1.36 0.65 2.13 1.47
2008-09 to 2017-18 1.82 0.09 -1.69 0.10 -1.50 -1.59
1998-99 to 2017-18 3.84 4.26 0.41 1.76 2.99 1.21
Table 1. The growth rate of the area, production and yield of soyabean in India and Madhya Pradesh
Source: Authors estimation.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Year
Area_000ha
Yield_kgha
production_000tonns
Figure 1. Trends of area, production and yield of soyabean in Madhya Pradesh
Size group Yield (kg/ha)
Marginal 1032
Small 1057
Semi-Medium 1094
Medium 1122
Large 1133
Overall 1106
Table 2. Farm size group-wise average yield of soyabean
in Madhya Pradesh TE 2016-17
(1977); Rao (1975); Khan and Tripathy (1972);
Bhattacharya and Saini (1972); Singh et al. (2017); Singh,
Singh and Singh (2019).
The perusal of Table 3 exhibited the status of use of
inputs across the land size group in soyabean cultivation.
This table results showed that as the farm size increased,
the use of labour hours decreased, due to more labour
hours by marginal and small farmers for the soyabean
cultivation. On the other side, the larger farmers used
more machinery than marginal and small farmers and
observed that with increase in farm size the machines
461
Singh, Singh and Banoo: Farm size and productivity relationship in soyabean cultivation
Inputs Marginal Small Semi-Medium Medium Large Overall
Labour use (hr/ha) 295 268 245 233 224 241
Animal use (hr/ha) 10 9 9 5 4 6
Machine use (hr/ha) 10 10 10 12 13 12
Seed use (kg/ha) 89 88 88 88 87 88
Fertiliser use (kg/ha) 48 49 50 50 50 49
Manure use (q/ha) 10 8 8 6 6 7
Insecticide use ( /ha) 1531 1618 1822 1836 1874 1797
Irrigation machine use (hr/ha) 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1
Table 3. Input use across size group in soyabean cultivation in Madhya Pradesh TE 2016-17
Source: Authors estimation.
usage also increased. The larger farmers took credit to use
the machines. Small farms used 295 hours of labour per
hectare due to financial problems, whereas large farm size
farmer used only 224 hours per hectare.
The marginal and small farmers were more
dependent on use animal as an alternative to the
machinary. The results presented in Table 3 revealed that
there was no significant difference in the use of chemical
fertilizers. Manure use of small farm sizes was much more
than that of large farm sizes. The use of manure by large
farm size was minimized because the number of livestock
was not much differed between small and large farmers,
so larger farmers having less average per hectare
availability of farm yard manure. The use of pesticides
increased per hectare as the farm size increased.
The continuous planting of one crop causes soil
damage due to development of harmful phaphoond such
as Rhizoctonia, Sclerotium, Fusarium, etc. Nowadays,
new pests started attacking this crop. It was reported that a
blue beetle previously attacked the cabbage crop. Now it
has started attacking the soyabean crop as well and
causeed considerable damage to the crop. The difference
in the use of irrigation machines in soyabean cultivation
in Madhya Pradesh was not so pronouced.
The productivity of soyabean is a dependent on
various inputs used. The effect of various inputs on
productivity was measured with reference to use of labour
(Hrs/ha), machinary (Hrs/ha), fertilizer (Kg/ha), manure
(q/ha), insecticide (Rs/ha) which was positively related
and statistically significant, which means that with an
increase these inputs productivity also increased. These
findings agreed with Singh, Singh, Singh, Tomar, &
Sachdeva, (2018).
Labour productivity increased with the increased use
of an hour, but, productivity decreased with the increasing
use of animals per hour. The productivity of an hour of the
machinary resulted in increases in production by 19.32
Kg/ha. However, the use of one kg/ha more seeds
decreased productivity by 17.42 kg/ha. Using one
kilogram of chemical fertilizer increased productivity by
4.29 kg. The use of homegrown farmyard manure
increased productivity by 3.83 kg. However, the
expenditure on pesticides was found to be positively
related with productivity, and rupee one increase on
pesticides increased yield by 0.11 kg/ha. The results of the
regression model suggested that there was an excellent
chance to increase the yield of soyabean in Madhya
Pradesh. The test of goodness of model fit also showed the
best fit model. The value of adjusted R showed about 23
2
percent variation in the yield was captured in this model.
CONCLUSIONS
Madhya Pradesh is growing rapidly in the
agricultural sector for the last two decades with the state
contributing about fifty percent of the Soyabean
production to the country's production. The study
Variable Estimated parameter
Intercept 1852.05***
(175.29)
Labour use (hr/ha) 0.69***
(0.16)
Animal use (hr/ha) -1.68**
(0.72)
Machine use (hr/ha) 19.32***
(1.59)
Seed use (kg/ha) -17.42***
(1.76)
Fertilizer use (kg/ha) 4.29***
(0.82)
Manure use (q/ha) 3.83***
(0.99)
Insecticide use ( /ha) 0.11***
(0.02)
Irrigation machine use (hr/ha) -23.72***
(2.77)
Adjusted R20.234
Number of observations 1628
Table 4. Estimation of determinants of the yield of
soyabean in Madhya Pradesh
Source: Authors estimation.
The figures in parenthesis are the standard error of the coefficient.
***, **, and * shows the significant at 1, 5 and 10 percent level.
462
Indian J Econ Dev 16(3): 2020 (July-September)
established that there is a direct relationship between the
productivity of soyabean crop and farm size. Small
farmers used more labours and animal than larger
farmers. The larger farmers depend more on machinery as
compared to marginal and small farmers. The results
revealed that there was non-significant difference in the
use of seeds, pesticides and irrigation machinery. These
inputs are used even more by large farmers because
finance was available in the market. Use of labour,
machinary, chemical fertilizers, manure and pesticides
had a positive impact on the productivity of soyabean
crops. That means productivity can be increased by
increasing the quantity of these inputs. However, the use
of animal labour, seeds and irrigation machines impacted
productivity adversely. The use of pesticides by the
farmers of this state is also taking place on a large scale. It
called for the concerted effort on the part of extension
agencies to educate the farmers about benefits of the
judicial use of the costly and scare input. It will go a long
way to curtail the cost of production and provide higher
returns to the soyaban growers.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, A., & Qureshi, S.K. (1999). Recent evidence on farm
size and land productivity: Implications for public policy.
Pakistan Development Review 38(4): 1135-1153
Bhalla, S. (1979). Farm size productivity and technical change
in Indian agriculture. In R.A. Berry, and W.R. Cline (Eds.)
Agrarian Structure and productivity in developing
countries (pp. 141-193). Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.
Bharadwaj, K. (1974). Production conditions in Indian
agriculture: A study based on farm management surveys.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press.
Bhattacharya, N., & Saini, G.R. (1972). Farm size and
productivity: A fresh look. Economic and Political Weekly,
7(26), A63-72.
Chadha, G.K. (1978). Farm size and productivity re-visited:
Some notes from recent experience of Punjab. Economic
and Political Weekly, 13 .(39), A87-96
Chand, R., & Parappurathu, S. (2012). Temporal and spatial
variation in agriculture growth and its determinants.
Economic and Political Weekly 47, , 55-64
Chand, R., Prasanna, P.A.L, & Singh, A. (2011). Farm size and
productivity: Understanding the strengths of smallholders
and improving their livelihoods. Economic and Political
Weekly 46, (26/27), 5-11.
Chattopadhyay, M., & Rudra, A. (1976). Size-productivity
revisited. (39), A104-Economic and Political Weekly, 11
116.
Dasgupta, B. (1977). Agrarian change and the new technology
in India. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute.
Deolalikar, A.B. (1981). The inverse relationship between
productivity and size: A test using regional data from India.
American Journal of Agriculture Economics, 63(2), 275-
279.
Dreze, J., Sen, A.K., & Hussain, A. (2006). The political
economy of hunger. Oxford Publisher, India Paperbacks.
Ghose, A.K. (1979). Farm size and land productivity in Indian
agriculture: A reappraisal. The Journal of Development
Studies 16, (1), 27-49.
Khan, W., & Tripathy, R.N. (1972). Intensive agriculture and
modern inputs: Prospects of small farmers: A study in West
Godavari district. Hyderabad: National Institute of
Community Development.
Mazumdar, D. (1965). Size of farm and productivity: A problem
of Indian peasant agriculture. (126), 161-Economica, 32
173.
Rao, C.H.H. (1966). Alternative explanations of the inverse
relationship between farm size and output per acre in India.
Indian Economic Review 1, (2), 1-12.
Rao, C.H.H. (1975). Technological change and the distribution
of gains in Indian agriculture. Delhi: Macmillan.
Rao, C.H.H. (1989). Technological change in Indian
agriculture: Emerging trends and perspective. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 44 (4), 385-398.
Ravallion, M., & Datt, G. (1996). How important to India's poor
is the sectoral composition of economic growth? World
Bank Economic Review, 10(1), 1-25.
Saini, G.R. (1971).Holding size, productivity and some related
aspects of Indian agriculture. Economic and Political
Weekly 26, , A79-85.
Saini, G.R. (1980). Farm size productivity and some related
issues in India's agriculture: A review. Agricultural
Situation in India, 34(11), 777-783
Sen, A.K. (1962). An aspect of Indian agriculture. Economic
Weekly, 14, 243-246.
Sen, A.K. (1964). Size of holding and productivity. Economic
Weekly, 16(5/7), 323-326.
Singh, J., & Kaur, A.P. (2018). Tackling regional imbalances in
agriculture. , (4), 60-64.Kurukshetra 66
Singh, J., Dutta, T., Singh, J., & Singh, N. (2019). Farm size and
technical efficiency relationship in major cotton-producing
states: Empirical evidence from the cost of cultivation
survey data. , (11), 1314-1329.Restaurant Business 118
Singh, J., Singh, A., Singh, N., Tomar, T.S., & Sachdeva, H.
(2018). Growth trajectory and inter-regional agricultural
disparity: A study of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of
Economics and Development,14 (4), 464-472.
Singh, J., Singh, N., & Singh, A. (2018). Empirical evidence of
farm-size efficiency relationship of gram cultivation: A
case study of Madhya Pradesh. In Chanchal Kumar Buttan
and A.P. Singh (Eds.), Emerging trends, issues and
challenges in business economics (pp. 420-427). Bhopal:
Indra Publishing House.
Singh, J., Srivastava, S.K., & Balaji, S.N. (2019). Agricultural
growth trajectory in Madhya Pradesh: Is it sustainable.
International Journal of Social Science and Management
Studies 5, (1), 27-35.
Singh, J., Srivastava, S.K., Kaur, AP., Jain, R., Immaneulrj, K.,
& Kaur, P. (2017). Farm-size efficiency relationship in
Punjab agriculture: Evidences from cost of cultivation
survey. Indian Journal of Economics and Development,
13(2), 357-362.
Singh, R., & Patel, R.K. (1973). Returns to scale, farm size and
productivity in Meerut district. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics 28, (2), 43-48
Virmani, A. (2008). Growth and poverty: Policy implications
for lagging states. , (2), Economic and Political Weekly 43
54-62.
463
Singh, Singh and Banoo: Farm size and productivity relationship in soyabean cultivation
