1 A HOLISTIC APPROACH FOR GRAIN MANAGEMENT TO

2 STRENGTHEN FOOD SECURITY OF THE NATION

3Introduction

4 The mandate of managers’ of economy is to provide sufficient

5food to majority of its population. It emerges as big challenge due to

6rapid increase in population. Increasing urbanization, climate

7change and land use for non-food crop production, intensify the

8concerns of increasing food demands. Although, the country has

9focused on improving their agricultural production and land use as

10the policies to cope with the rising demand for food, the aspect of

11post-harvest losses which is a critical issue required utmost

12attention (Kumar and Kalita, 2017).

13 Post-harvest losses reduce the amount of food which is both

14quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative losses are generally

15caused by factors, such as incidence of insect infestation, rodents,

16birds while, the qualitative loss is caused by reduction in nutritive

17value due to factors, such as attack of insect pest, physical changes

1
18in the grain etc. The literature on post-harvest losses has

19proliferated in recent past (Oerke, 2006; Dhaliwal et al., 2010;

20Elumalai Kannan, 2015; Kumar and Kalita, 2017; Sawicka Barbara

212019) reported these crop losses are substantially higher and it was

22due to pest and diseases during storage. A study conducted by

23World Bank (1999) on post-harvest losses of foodgrains in India,

24reported 15 to 25 million tonnes of post-harvest losses with the

25given total production of around 240 million tonnes in India and the

26same study also reported storage losses that are five times those of

27Indonesia, double those of Australia, and quadruple those of Canada.

28Further, this study is an attempt to estimate the losses at different

29stages, in which 7 to 10 per cent of the total grain production from

30farm to market level and 4 to 5 per cent at market and distribution

31level. Kumar and Kalita, 2017 conducted a study and also compare

32post-harvest losses at different stages and concluded that storage

33losses account maximum fraction of all postharvest losses for

34cereals in developing countries and negatively affect the people’s

2
35livelihood. This wasted gains loss would have the capacity to feed

36more than 10 crore people with taking into consideration the per

37capita cereal consumption requirement in India. Furthermore, most

38storage godowns with Food Corporation in India (FCI) are small-

39scale and low-quality structures. A another World Bank report

40(World Bank 2001) states that half of FCI’s grain stocks is at least

41two years’ old, 30 per cent between 2 and 4 years old, and major

42proportion of grain is as old as 16 years. As per the study conducted

43by Singh P K, 2010 the costly store management and lack of

44advanced techniques for storage result in an estimated loss of grains

45amounting to more than Rs 50,000 crore per year (Singh, 2010).

46Moreover, the procurement incidental charges per quintal of grain

47have increased from Rs 134 to 353 for wheat and from Rs 66 to 445

48for rice from year 2001-02 to 2019-20 in the nominal prices

49(Anonymous 2020). In a recent study Bathla et al., 2015 reported

50that handling and storage expenses have increased enormously over

51the period. Furthermore, it was inferred that the study conducted

3
52by Sinha et al., 2011 found bifurcation of FCI’s total expenses , in

53which the FCI’s per unit storage costs is 30 per cent higher; labour

54costs are almost four-times higher for rice and seven-times for

55wheat, interests payments are four-times higher for rice and two

56and a half-times for wheat due to longer storage periods (Sinha et al.

572011). Gulati et al., 2012 showed that the economic cost of

58procurement to FCI has been increasing over time with rising

59procurement levels - demonstrating that it suffers from

60diseconomies of scale with increasing levels of procurement.

61Consequent upon the rising economic cost, food subsidy has

62increased manifold from Rs1131.7 billion in 2014-15 to Rs1711.3

63billion in 2018-19 (Anonymous, 2020a). Among many, Khera

64(2011), Dreze (2006), Swaminathan (2003), Jha and Srinivasan

65(2001) and Gulati et al., 2012 have reiterated that rising food

66subsidy is a cause for concern. Thus, this study was planned to

67investigate the alternative approach to grain management in Punjab.

4
68 Rice and wheat undisputedly are the major staples in India and

69the Union Government has policy of effective public procurement of

70these two crops since mid-1960s. Consequently procurement has

71led to momentum in production of paddy and wheat crop over the

72last five decades. This fueled the Green Revolution in India in the

73late 1960s and made the nation self-sufficient in food production in

741978. Punjab is one of the major agrarian states in India, which

75comprises 4.1 million hectare of cultivable area and envisaged as a

76major centralized procurement state. Currently in 2018-19 it

77accounted for over 12 per cent of national rice production and over

7818 per cent of national wheat production and a significant portion

79(25.8% for rice and 37.5% for wheat) of grains to the central pool

80(www.fci.gov.in) Gone are the days when farmers stored their

81produce in their own storage structure and lately farmers directly

82transfer their produce from their farm to market rather than they

83bring their produce to grain yard and carry it to the grain market

84after a day or so. This practice not only helps to save the labour cost

5
85but also helps to save time. The post-harvest period of paddy and

86wheat crops has squeezed due to fast mechanization of agriculture

87particularly with the introduction of harvesting and threshing

88operations of paddy and wheat with combine harvesters in the state.

89Consequently there is congestion in the grain markets and it

90becomes difficult for public procurement agencies to lift the

91available lot of farm produce from the markets in time because the

92farmers tend to sell a sizeable proportion of their marketable

93surplus in the immediate post-harvest period. Besides, high

94moisture content during immediate storage in paddy and wheat

95enhances storage cost. So the current marketing season in Punjab

96dampens the sprite of the farmers, with mass rejection of produce,

97which failed to meet the moisture standards laid down by

98government agencies.

99 Therefore, to have smooth public procurement of wheat and

100paddy, an alternative is suggested in the form of introduction of

101staggered public procurement of produce. Presently, public

6
102procurement agencies storage structure does not have the sufficient

103storage capacity, thus, despite restructuring Central and State

104Warehousing Corporations, efforts can be made to reframe

105procurement policy, that would helpful to resolve the issue of crop

106losses during the storage. If a part of the cost which is borne by the

107nation from procurement to distribution of grain, pass on to the

108farmers for holding (storage) of grains in-terms of higher MSP or

109progressive increase in MSP. This will augment their (farmers)

110income and save the losses at the national level, benefits for the

111society at large by procurement of grains at intervals, may call it

112staggered public procurement approach. Staggered public

113procurement approach is considered as an alternative in which

114some statutory incentive should be given to the farmers inform of

115increase in the minimum support price on monthly basis, because a

116farmer has to bear the additional storage cost, storage losses and

117interest on the stock held by him. Now many research questions

118have been raised with this hypothesis of viability of staggered

7
119procurement approach. Therefore, this study was designed to help

120the unanswered research questions, which are still developing i.e

121whether this alternative can solve the problem of post-harvest

122losses during storage and glut supply in the market or it can be only

123remains in blueprint. Keeping in view all the aspects, the present

124investigation was designed to understand the unanswered

125questions. With this backdrop the present study was deliberate to

126investigate benefits and challenges of the staggered public

127procurement approach.

128Existing Public Procurement pattern in Punjab

129The following pattern has been tracked by the public sector in

130Punjab, in which paddy procurement starts on November 1 and that

131of wheat on April 1 in Punjab:

132

8
133The production of rice in India had increased from 88.53 million

134tonnes in 2003-04 to 112.91 million tonnes in 2017-18 (Annexure

135I). Similar trend was observed in Rice production in Punjab. If we

136look into the Punjab’ share in wheat production of India, it varied

137between 15 to 21 per cent during the same period, while, in rice

138production, it varied from about 10 per cent to about 13 per cent

139during the same period. The procurement share of Punjab was

140varied between 25 to 47 per cent for paddy and 34 to 75 per cent for

141wheat during the year 2013-04 to 2017-18. It is inferred from the

142previous trend that Punjab has significant contribution in

143procurement. Even though during the years of low rice and wheat

144procurement at the national level, Punjab performed better in this

145regard. The position of Punjab will supposed to be better in near

146future in terms of its contribution of paddy and wheat in India.

147Market arrival and prices of wheat and paddy in Punjab

148 Month-wise pattern of arrival of wheat in Punjab from 2010-11

149to 2018-19 is depicted in (Annexure II). It indicated that market

9
150arrival of wheat was about 103.96 lakh tones in 2010-11, which

151increased to about 120.7 lakh tonnes in 2014-15 but it declined to

152about 106 lakh tonnes in 2015-16 and thereafter and it further

153increase to about 128 lakh tonnes in 2018-19. If we critically look

154into the data, it was observed from month-wise pattern of the total

155market arrival and clearly revealed that more than 90 per cent of

156the wheat arrived during the month of April and May since 2010-11.

157The major reason for heavy arrival of wheat during April and May

158might be attributed to the large-scale use of combines for harvesting

159and threshing of the crop. The market arrival of wheat in the

160remaining ten months of the year had been negligible during the

161period 2010-11 to 2018-19. Likewise, the month-wise data of price

162of wheat were collected from secondary source and glance picture is

163presented in Annexure III. The results revealed that price of wheat

164during the harvest period is almost equal to but rest of the months

165over the years, there was a mixed scenario of the monthly prices.

166While look into the data, it was observed that in some years prices

10
167was substantially higher expect for two years. The factors behind

168the low prices in lean period might be depended upon the prevailing

169marketing forces. Overall, there was increasing trend with more or

170less difference from year 2010-11 to 2017-18. It can be understand

171by the example of the year 2012-13, in which the prices increased at

172a faster rate as compared to the year 2017-18 during the lean

173months of the year.

174 Paddy arrival increased from 95 lakh tonnes in year 1997-98

175to 173 lakh tonnes in year 2018-19 (Annexure IV). It was 156 lakh

176tonnes and 179 lakh tonnes during the year 2007-08 and 2018-19

177respectively. Due to increase in production of paddy in the recent

178years, the market arrival also increased. The maximum arrival of

179paddy was in the month of October and November for all the years

180on account of fast mechanization of agriculture in the state. About

18190 per cent of paddy area was harvested and threshed with

182combines in Punjab during the year 1999-2000 (Singh, 2002). The

183paddy prices were almost equal to the MSP on all the post-harvest

11
184monthsi.e September, October, November and December (Annexure

185V). In the lean months January to August, prices were lower than

186MSP during all the years. This happened as public procurement of

187paddy was in place only in the post-harvest period. During these

188months, the farmers sold paddy at MSP. So the paddy price was high

189in the post-harvest period due to public procurement. The miller

190provided the same or high price to the farmers during the post-

191harvest period. Therefore, the paddy price was determined mainly

192by the forces of demand and supply in the lean period. As already

193stated, in the absence of public procurement, the, market price in

194the lean period was low.

195Data Base

196 The study was conducted in the Punjab state. The primary as

197well as secondary data were collected to fulfill the objectives of the

198study. Keeping in view the objective of study, multi-stage random

199sampling technique was followed. In the first stage, three districts

200viz., Bathinda, Ludhiana and Hoshiarpur were selected. Ludhiana

12
201district was selected from the central zone, Bathinda district from

202South westernzone and Hoshiarpur district was selected from Semi-

203hilly zone i.e Kandi Zone. Further, one block from each district and

204two villages from each block were selected randomly. At third stage

205and last stage, from each village, 15 farmers were selected

206randomly. The farmers were categorized into, small, medium and

207large farm categories following the standard classification of farm

208size categories by Government of Punjab. The ultimate sample

209consisted of 90 farmers and information collected from the selected

210farmers pertained to the year 2019-20. Moreover, discussion with

211commission agents of APMC Market, officials of Punjab Mandi Board,

212FCI, PUNGRAIN and Post Harvest Technology Centre was conducted

213to observe the practicability of staggered public procurement

214approach in Punjab. Group discussion of economists at the

215Department of Economics and Sociology was also conducted to meet

216the same objective. The information was collected from the selected

217farmers regarding production, consumption and marketed surplus

13
218of paddy and wheat crops. The data were also collected from the

219selected farmers regarding sale pattern of the crops. The secondary

220data about monthly arrival and prices of paddy and wheat in the

221state were taken from Punjab Mandi Board, SAS Nagar. The

222information published in Statistical Abstract of Punjab, Agriculture

223Statistics at a Glance and Economic Survey has also been taken.

224Production, sale and storage of grains at farm level

225 To understand the socio economic features, magnitude and

226extent of marketable surplus, storage methods and farmers

227perception about stepwise procurement, primary survey was

228carried out. Table 1 presents the household characteristics of paddy

229and wheat growers in Punjab. The results revealed that 49 per cent

230of selected farmers were middle age group of 40 to 60 years. About

23143 per cent of the farmers were up to 40 years of age and about 8

232per cent were of 60 years and above.

233Table 1: Socio-economic profile of wheat and paddy growers in

234Punjab
235 (No of Farmers)
Age (Yrs) Small Medium Large Total
14
 <18 - 1 (1.11) 1 (1.11) 2 (2.22)
18-40 10 (11.11) 19 (21.11) 8 (8.89) 37 (41.11)
40-60 8 (8.89) 28 (31.11) 8 (8.89) 4448.89)
>60 1 (1.11) 5 (5.56) 1 (1.11) 7 (7.78)
Education
Illiterate - 6 (6.67) - 6 (6.67)
Primary 2 (2.22) 11 (12.22) 1 (1.11) 14 (15.56)
Matric 10 (11.11) 22 (24.44) 8 (8.89) 40 (44.44)
Secondary 7 (7.78) 12 (13.33) 5 (5.56) 24 (26.67)
Graduate - 2 (2.22) 3 (3.33) 5 (5.56)
Post Graduate - - 1 (1.11) 1 (1.11)
Family Size
0-3 - 7 (7.78) 1 (1.11) 8 (8.89)
3-6 13 (14.44) 26 (28.89) 10 (11.11) 4954.44)
>6 6 (6.67) 20 (22.22) 7 (7.78) 33 (36.67)
236Note: Figure in parentheses is percentage of their respective values
237 Regarding the educational level, the study revealed that only

238about 6 per cent of the farmers were illiterate, while the majority

239(64%) had education up to matric or 10+2 level. The number of

240graduate and post-graduate farmers was small. It was evident from

241the results that the largest proportion (54 %) of the sample farmers

242belonged to the small sized families having three to six members.

243Operational area of the sample farmers depicted in Table 2 showed

244that the overall average operational holding was 16.45 acres in

245which about 71 per cent had their own land and about 34 per cent

15
246was leased in. Only 6 per cent of the sample farmers had leased out

247their land in the study area.

248Table 2: Operational area of the sample farmers, Punjab, 2019-

24920
250 (in acres)
Owned Leased Leased Operational
Particular land in out Area
Small(Area) 2.41 0.16 - 2.57
Medium
(Area) 10.14 4.49 1.55 13.08
Large (Area) 26.08 14.94 0.00 41.03
Average 11.70 5.67 0.91 16.45
251 The area under principal crops cultivated by the sample

252farmers is shown in Annexure VI. On an average, farmers allocated

2538.70 acres (53 %) of the operational holding to paddy in kharif

254season. On the other hand, in rabi season, the maximum area was

255under wheat crop which was 13.23 acres consisting about (about 87

256%) of the operational holding. Cotton was the next important crop in

257kharif season. It occupied 4.19 acres (26 %) of operational holding

258of kharif season while in rabi season, Potato was another important

259crop in rabi season which was grown on 1.06 acres (about 7 % of

260rabi cropped area). Fodder occupied 5.01 and 4.64 per cent area in

16
261kharif and rabi season respectively. It indicates the relative

262importance of dairying in farm structure. Hence, it can be inferred

263that the cropping pattern was dominated by wheat in rabi and

264paddy in kharif season.

265 The data given in Table 3 indicated the marketed surplus of

266wheat and paddy during the 2019-20. The study revealed that the

267marketed surplus of wheat was 235.7 quintals per holding which

268was about 90 per cent of the production. The small farmers had

269about 70 per cent marketed surplus of wheat. The corresponding

270figures for medium and large farmers were about 89 and 92 per cent

271respectively. This analysis reveals that larger the size of wheat

272production, higher is the volume of marketed surplus and vice-

273versa. The selected farmers kept about 10 per cent of the produce

274for family consumption, seed, cattle feed, payment in kind to the

275labour and other miscellaneous uses. Family consumption was the

276highest among small farmers, which was 22 per cent of the

277production. In paddy crop, very small quantities were kept by the

17
278farmers for family consumption because rice is not a staple food for

279the Punjabi community.

280Table 3: Production, retention and sale pattern of wheat and

281paddy with selected farmers in Punjab, 2019-20
282 (Per farm/Qtls)
Particulars Small Medium Large Average
Wheat
Production 35.7 215.1 859.1 262.3
Family 7.9
10.4 (4.8) 21.5 (2.5) 11.3 (4.3)
Consumption (22.0)
Payment in kind
1.0 (2.7) 1.8 (0.8) 6.8 (0.8) 2.3 (0.9)
to Labour
Seed 0.5 (1.4) 2.5 (1.2) 12.1 (1.4) 3.4 (1.3)
Cattle Feed 1.2 (3.5) 4.6 (2.1) 18.5 (2.2) 5.8 (2.2)
Misc. Use 0.4 (1.2) 3.8 (1.8) 10.3 (1.2) 3.9 (1.5)
Total 11 23.1 26.6
69.3 (8.1)
Consumption (30.8) (10.7) (10.2)
24.7 192.1 789.9 235.7
Marketed Surplus (69.2) (89.3) (91.9) (89.8)
Paddy
Production 21.7 301.2 888.78 323.7
Family
- 1.2 (0.4) 4.6 (0.52) 1.4 (0.43)
Consumption
Payment in kind 0.03 0.02
- -
to Labour (0.01) (0.01)
0.75 2.04 0.77
-
Seed (0.25) (0.23) (0.24)
Cattle Feed - - - -
Misc. Use - - - -
Total 1.18 4.63 1.40
-
Consumption (0.65) (0.75) (0.67)
Marketed Surplus 21.7 299.35 882.16 321.53
18
 (100.0) (99.35) (99.25) (99.33)
283Note: Miscellaneous use includes payment in kind to purchase other

284things

285 Only medium and large farmers kept for family consumption

286with meager 0.5 per cent of the total production. The quantity kept

287for seed was negligible as almost all the farmers harvested and

288threshed their paddy crop with combines. In this mechanized farm

289operation, the percentage share of broken seeds is very high.

290Further, its seed requirements are also less in comparison to wheat

291(35 to 40 Kgs per acre), which is about 8 Kgs per acre. Therefore, the

292selected farmers did not keep large quantity of paddy for seed

293purpose. The selected farmers preferred to procure the seed of the

294paddy crop particularly from public seed agencies like Punjab

295Agricultural University (PAU), private seed companies, seed dealers

296etc. The study brought out that the marketed surplus of paddy was

297about 99 per cent of the production. Thus, there is always a rush to

298sell the produce after each harvest, causing a glut in the market.

299Overall, the marketed surplus, particularly of wheat and paddy, is

19
300high; and therefore, Punjab is known as the breadbasket of India

301with significant contribution to the national food pool.

302Table 4: Market participation by wheat and paddy growers by

303size farm in Punjab, 2019-20

Farm Marketed Marketed

Cate Surplus Surplus
gory (Wheat) (Paddy)
%
% % % %
shar Farmers’part
ag age ag age
e of icipation in
e to e to
Qty Qty oper regulated
to total to total
(qtl (qtl ated markets (%)
tot mark tot mark
) ) area
al eted al eted
Pr Surpl Pr Surpl
od. us od. us
Small 24. 69. 21. 10
2.5 1.8 4.5 68.4
7 3 7 0.0
Medi 192 89. 299 99.
19.0 24.9 23.1 81.1
um .1 3 .3 3
Large 789 91. 882 99.
78.5 73.3 72.4 100.0
.9 9 .2 3
Total 100 89. 100.0 120 99.
100.0 100.0 82.2
6.7 8 0 3.0 3
304

305 Table 4 indicates the market participation by wheat and paddy

306growers in Punjab. The marketed surplus of large farmers is the

307highest (71.2 % in case of wheat) and 73.3 % in case of paddy)

20
308followed by medium and large farmers. The marketed surplus in

309absolute term is related with the size of production.

310Table 5: Pattern of Sale of wheat and paddy by the selected

311farmers in Punjab, 2019-20
312 (in quintals)
Farm Category Marketed Quantity sold in Quantity
Surplus post harvest sold in
period lean
period
Wheat
Small 24.7 24.0 (97.4) 0.7 (2.6)
Medium 192.1 184.9 (96.3) 7.2 (3.7)
Large 789.9 729.5 (92.4) 60.4 (7.6)
Average 235.7 224.7 (95.3) 11 (4.7)
Paddy
Small 100.0 99.9 (99.9) 0.1 (0.1)
Medium 99.6 98.0 (98.4) 1.6 (1.6)
Large 99.5 95.0 (95.5) 4.5 (4.5)
Average 99.6 97.5 (97.93) 2.1 (2.07)
313Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages of the marketed
314surplus
315 The later is again linked with the operational holding of large

316farmers. About 73 per cent of the total produce of wheat was sold by

317the large farmers, which was operated on the 72 per cent of the total

318operational area of sample farmers. Further, it was interesting to

319note that all the large farmers sold their produce in regulated

21
320markets. In case of paddy, none of the selected farmers sold their

321produce directly to the rice millers. The information regarding

322pattern of sale of wheat and paddy by the selected farmers during

323the year 2019-20 is shown in Table 5. The results indicated that 95

324per cent of the selected farmers sold immediately after harvest and

325the rest about five per cent in the lean period. In case of paddy crop,

326only 2 per cent of the sample farmers sold their produce in lean

327period. The farmers sold their produce immediately after harvest

328majorly due to satisfactory price realization. Further it was

329investigated that, the large farmers particularly sold their produce

330in lean period followed by medium and small farmers. It may be due

331to insufficient storage capacity and other economic reason of small

332farmers.

333Table 6: Sale pattern of wheat and paddy by the selected

334farmers in Punjab, 2019-20
335 (No. of farmers)
Smal Overal
Periods Medium Large
l l
Wheat
Immediate-
11 11 - 22
harvest period
22
 Post-harvest
6 18 3 27
period
Lean period 2 24 15 41
Paddy
Immediate-
18 8 - 26
harvest period
Post-harvest
1 28 14 43
period
Lean period - 17 4 21
336

337 This may happens due to their routine domestic expenditure of

338small farmers. It was observed during study that those farmers who

339sold in lean period, generally sold to the private traders. In addition,

340sale pattern were also collected from the farmers (Table 6). The

341results revealed that 77 per cent in paddy and 54 per cent in wheat

342of the total respondents sold their produce immediate and post-

343harvest period. Among the categories of the farmers, medium and

344large farmers prefer to sell their produce lean period. The reason

345(more production due to large holdings) of sale lean period is

346obvious but during the survey it was observed that the medium and

347large farmers have storage capacity. It indicates that the farmers can

348hold their produce. The data given in Table 7 indicated the types of

23
349storage structure used by various farmers during the year 2019-20.

350It is seen that metal bin was the most common storage structure

351followed by kothi and gunny bags in the study area. Further, it was

352observed that, in Ludhiana district, metal bin was the most common

353(about 97 per cent) but in Bathinda district, 70 per cent of the

354sample farmers were using metal bin.

355

24
356Table 7: Storage structure used by the sample farmers, 2019-20
357 (No of Farmers)
Gunny
Particular Metal Bin Kothi Bags Total
Small 14 (63.6) 7 (31.8) 1 (4.5) 22 (100)
Medium 48 (96) - 4 (8) 50 (100)
Large 16 (88.9) - - 18 (100)
Overall 78 (86.7) 7 (7.8) 5 (5.6) 90 (100)
358Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total number of

359farmers.

360 It may be due to better economic condition of the farmers in

361Ludhiana district as compared to the farmers in Bathinda district.

362During the study, It was also found that in Bathinda district, all the

363farmers, who has grown cotton crop has storage facility, even

364though the cotton crop needs more space; due to the higher volume

365as compared with other crops in kharif season. Across different farm

366categories, medium and large farmers had a better storage

367infrastructure as compared to the small farmers. It may be stated

368that storage structures were used by the sample farmers for paddy

25
369and cotton; same storage structure were used for rabi season for

370storage of wheat.

371Alternative for procurement of wheat in Punjab: Staggered

372Public Procurement Approach
373 Generally, paddy procurement starts on November 1 and that

374of wheat on April 1. But due to COVID-19 pandemic, this period is

375already be postponed upto April 15 by Government of Punjab and it

376may also extend further to till further notice during the year 2020.

377Apart from this, generally, we also face the problem of high moisture

378percentage in the wheat crop. Keeping the both issues in mind, the

379study proposed staggered procurement approach. According to this

380staggered procurement approach, the whole procurement of wheat

381process will be divided in three phases. The first phase will be the

382same, wherein the procurement may starts from April 15 and it will

383be upto May 05. The second phase in wheat crop can start from next

384day and the period starts from May 06 to May 31. This can be

385facilitated by incentivizing farmers to delay and stagger arrival of

386wheat in the mandies. This will reduce the burden of carryover cost

26
387to certain extent and avoid glut in the mandies. The third phase will

388be start from June 1 to June 30. During Phase III, the farmers will get

389higher incentive of Rs 25 per quintal than Phase II, in which the

390farmers will get Rs 100 per quintal with MSP. In this whole process,

391the approach may not increase the duration of procurement period

392as the total quantity of grain to be procured remains the same, but

393the period is increased that will lessen the pressure of procurement

394of the wheat crop. This proposed approach can be framed and

395debated from the larger perspective of saving grains from the losses

396which occurred in recent times. Similar policy measures made by

397the study Sidhu and Dhillion, 2020

398The details of the requirements for staggered public procurement

399approach for wheat have shown in figure 1:

400

27
401Fig 1: Schematic framework of staggered public procurement
402approach in Punjab

403Compensation demanded by the farmers for implementation of

404staggered public procurement approach

405 The implementation of any policy is mainly determined by

406various stakeholders. Therefore, it is important to study the

407perspective of the farmers regarding suitable price, bonus or

408compensation. Keeping in view the additional food subsidy to the

409government with an implantation of staggered public procurement

410approach, the study was further probed the issue of compensation

411or bonus demanded by the farmers in condition to sale their

412produce in steps. About 46 per cent of the respondent demanded in

413between the range of Rs 101 to 150 followed by 26 per cent (Rs 51

414to 100). Among all the categories of the farmers, large farmers

415demanded an amount which falls in the category of Rs 51 to 100.

416Table 8: Compensation demanded for holding produce of

417paddy and wheat by sample farmers’ in Punjab
418 (No of Farmers)
Compensatio Farmers Categories
n demanded Small Medium Large Overall
(Rs.) No Per No Per No Per No Per

28
 cent cent cent cent
≤50 0 0 2 4 5 27 7 8
51-100 5 22 9 18 10 55 24 26
101-150 10 45 30 60 2 11 42 46
≥150 7 31 9 18 1 5 17 19
Total 22 100 50 100 18 100 90 100
419

420Challenges in Staggered public procurement of wheat crop

421 There are number of practical issues towards the

422implementation of staggered public procurement in Punjab state.

423Firstly, involvement of the traders will increase and they may get

424benefit with the implementation of this scheme. Interstate trade

425enhancement is the next important challenge to be faced by the

426government. With this, the traders from Punjab would buy from

427those states, from where they will get prices lower than MSP and

428sell that produce in Punjab. In addition to this, it will also increase

429the storage cost of the farmers, as few of them are already getting

430prices more than MSP in lean period from private procurement

431agencies. Moreover, area under late sown varieties will be enhanced

432with delay procurement.

29
433 The following table shows the required funds for

434implementation of staggered procurement approach for wheat crop.

435Table 9: Sensitivity analysis for funds requirement for

436implementation of staggered procurement approach for wheat in

437Punjab

Particular Phase I Phase II Phase III

Marketable surplus (Million tonne) 6.43 3.858 2.572

MSP/MSP+ Additional Funds 1925 1925+100 1925+125

Additional fund Required (in Crore) 0 385.8 321.5

438Note 1: Phase I start from 15.04.2020 to 05.05.2020 followed by Phase
439II (06.05.2020 to 31.05.2020) and Phase III (01.06.2020 to
44030.06.2020)

441Note 2: Wheat yield has been taken from the sample farmers
442Note 3: To find estimate the additional funds to be required for
443staggered public procurement approach, the study assumed that 50
444per cent of total market arrival will be sold in Phase I followed by 30
445per cent in Phase II and 20 per cent in Phase III
446 To ensure the smooth procurement then the government

447 of required around Rs 386 crore for wheat crop in second

30
448 phase (Table 9). During this phase II, the government will

449 provide incentive of Rs 100 per quintal including MSP to

450 reduce the carryover cost and avoid glut in the market.

451 Similarly, the procurement season can also be extended upto

452 end June, then the government needs Rs 321.5 crore to

453 incentivize those farmers, who sold their produce in this phase.

454 There will be additional burden in phase I, as the whole

455 produce will be sold at MSP.

456Main observations during the survey

457 During survey, it was observed that majority of small

458 farmers sold their produce in post-harvest period so that they

459 can fulfil their routine domestic expenditure on food and non-

460 food items. Besides, they have to buy farm inputs for the next

461 crop season also. If the government wants to consider small

462 farmers, as it has 34 per cent share among total operational

463 holdings (Tale 10) and producing around 10 per cent of total

464 wheat production then the government needs to provide the

31
465 metal grain drums and other storage facilities to small and

466 other needy farmers for availing the benefits of increased

467 prices. During survey the majority of large farmers are in

468 favour of staggered procurement approach and these farmers

469 have 7 per cent share in total operational holdings and

470 currently they are producing 27 per cent of total production. It

471 was also observed that the large farmers can store 40 to 50 per

472 cent of their total production. This shows the farmers

473 particularly large farmers may participate who have storage

474 facility at home.

475Table 10: Number of operational holdings and their estimated

476production

Small Medium Large

Particular
(Upto 2 ha) (2 to 10 ha) (Above 10 ha)
No of operational
359.87 622.97 69.72
holdings
Yield (q ha) 52.15 51.18 49.68
Estimated Production
1.71 11.62 4.52
(in million tonne)
477Note 1: The total number of operational holdings in Punjab is 10.03

478lakh and we also have the farm category wise share in total net
32
479cultivated area. For estimating farm category-wise production, the
480same percentage was hypothesized for area under wheat crop.
481system in the state. By enhancing procurement time, an additional
482employment will be generated for labour. In addition to saving
483losses, the effective storage of wheat can motivate farmers to store
484their produce and obtain high prices instead of selling just after the
485harvest, when there is large supply of crop. The post-harvest losses
486have an adverse impact on the environment, as the land, water and
487energy i.e. main means of production used for the production of lost
488food are also cause additional CO2 emissions with food production,
489ultimately affecting the environment. The Food and Agriculture
490Organization (FAO) of United Nations estimates a CO 2 emission of
4913.3 Gton equivalents for food that was produced but not consumed
492(FAO, LEI 2015). The reduction in post-harvest losses will lead to
493reduce the carbon emission which will be a great contribution
494towards the socio- economic benefits of the society as a whole.
495Main Findings and Policy Suggestions

496 The broad findings indicate that marketed surplus of wheat

497was around 236 quintals per holding which was about 90 per cent of

498the production. Since the production of wheat in absolute terms is

499high with large farmers, their marketed surplus is also more as

33
500compared to that of the medium and small farmers. The results

501indicated that the selected farmers sold about 95 per cent of their

502marketed surplus in the post-harvest period and the rest about five

503per cent in the lean period in wheat crop. Further, among all the

504categories, the large farmers sold their produce in lean period

505followed by medium and small farmers. The most common storage

506structure used by the farmers is metal bin. It was observed from

507month-wise pattern of the total market arrival and clearly revealed

508that more than 90 per cent of the wheat arrived during the month of

509April and May since 2010-11; in the remaining ten months of the

510year had been negligible during the period 2010-11 to 2018-19.

511 On the other hand in paddy crop, the maximum arrival of

512paddy in the regulated markets of the state was in the month of

513October and November in all the years and paddy price was remains

514almost same as the MSP in the post-harvest months. In most of the

515years, paddy price was less than the MSP in the lean period (January

34
516to August). This happened because public procurement of paddy

517took place only in post-harvest period.

518 Staggered procurement approach can be started as a pilot

519project for wheat crop only. Paddy crop is bulky crop as compared

520to wheat; therefore, farmers cannot store it for long period at their

521houses. Moreover, the discussion with all the stakeholders

522concluded that paddy should be sold in post-harvest period, as the

523paddy crop has so many limitations to procure through staggered

524public procurement approach.

525 On the basis of findings of the study, the following approach is

526suggested for the procurement of the wheat in the state:

527Firstly, there can be an increase in MSP and procurement period in

528Rabi market season. For this step, the price of wheat can be

529enhanced after every one month (except first step). The

530procurement season can also be extended upto end June. These

531steps may avoid glut in the market by increasing the income of

532farmers in the state.

35
533 Keeping in view the scenario at the farm and market levels, it is

534feasible to have these new procurement strategies for smooth

535procurement of wheat crop in the Punjab state.

536Reference

537Anonymous (2020) Economic Cost of rice and wheat in India, Food

538 Corporation in India (FCI), Ministry of Agriculture and

539 Farmers’ welfare, Government of India, New Delhi.

540Anonymous (2020b) Agriculture and Food Management, Chapter 7,

541 Volume 2, Economic Survey 2019-20: 193-217.

542BathlaaSeema, Bhattacharya Paramita and D’Souza Alwin (2015)

543 India’s National Food Security Act 2013: Food Distribution

544 through Revamped Public Distribution System or Food Stamps

545 and Cash Transfers?, Agricultural Economics Research Review,

546 28 (1): 1-17.

547Dhaliwal G S, Vikas Jindal and A K Dhawan (2010) Insect Pest

548 Problems and Crop Losses: Changing Trends, Indian Journal of

549 Ecology,37(1): 1-7.

36
550Dhillion B S and Sidhu R S (2020) Two-step procurement can boost

551 grain gains, The Tribune, January 20, 2020: (Retrieved from

552 https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/two-step-procurement-can-

553 boost-grain-gains-28947)

554Dreze, Jean (2006) Universalization with quality: ICDS in a rights

555 perspective. Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (34): 3706-

556 3515.

557Gulati Ashok, Gujral A J and Nandkumar T (2012) National Food

558 Security Bill: Challenges and Options. Discussion Paper No. 2.

559 Commission for Agriculture Costs and Prices, Ministry of

560 Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Government of India, New

561 Delhi.

562Jha, Shikha and Srinivasan, P.V. (2001) Taking the PDS to the poor:

563 Directions for further reforms. Economic andPolitical Weekly,

564 36 (39): 3779-3786.

565KannanElumalai, Kumar Pramodh, Vishnu Kedar and Abhraham

566 Hanna (2015) Assessment of Pre and Post harvest Losses of

37
567 Rice and Red Gram in Karnataka, Agricultural Situ ation in

568 India, 72(9): 101-05

569Khera, Reetika (2011) Revival of the public distribution system:

570 Evidence and explanations. Economic andPolitical Weekly, 46

571 (44-45): 36-50.

572Kumar Deepak and KalitaPrasanta (2017) Reducing Postharvest

573 Losses during Storage of Grain Crops to Strengthen Food

574 Security in Developing Countries, Foods, 6 (8): 1-22

575Oerke E C (2006) Crop Losses to Pests, Journal of Agricultural

576 Science, 144: 31-43.

577Sawicka Barbara (2019) Post-harvest Losses of Agricultural

578 Produce, Sustainable Development, 1:1-16 (DOI:

579 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69626-3_40-1)

580Shukla, B D and R T Patil, Overview of grain drying and storage

581 problems in India in World Bank (1999), Post-harvest

582 Management, Fight Hunger with FAO, India Grains, World Bank

583 Report, March 2002, 4(3).

38
584Singh PK (2010) A decentralized and holistic approach for grain

585 management in India. Current Science 99(9): 1179–1180.

586Sinha, P.M., Reddy, B. and Anshuman (2011) In-house Report. FICCI,

587 New Delhi (mimeo).

588Swaminathan, M.( 2003) The dangers of narrow targeting: An

589 assessment of the targeted public distribution system. In:

590 Towards a Food Secure India: Issues and Policies. Eds: S.M. Dev,

591 K.P. Kannan and N.Ramachandran. Institute for Human

592 Development, NewDelhi. pp. 388-405.

593World Bank (2001) “India: Improving Household Food and

594 Nutrition Security”, Rural Development Sector Unit, South Asia

595 Region.

39
596Annexure I
597Share of Punjab in production and procurement of paddy and wheat: 2003-04 to 2017-18
598 (million tonnes)
  Production Procurement
Year Wheat Rice Wheat Rice
Indi
  a Punjab India Punjab India Punjab India Punjab
2003- 72.1 14.49 9.66 8.94 8.66
88.53 15.801 22.828
04 6 (20.08) (10.91) (56.58) (37.94)
2004- 68.6 14.70 10.43 9.24 9.11
83.13 16.795 24.685
05 4 (21.41) (12.55) (55.02) (36.91)
2005- 69.3 14.48 10.21 9.01 8.86
91.79 14.787 27.657
06 5 (20.87) (11.12) (60.93) (32.04)
2006- 75.8 14.60 10.14 6.95 7.83
93.36 9.226 25.106
07 1 (19.25) (10.86) (75.33) (31.19)
2007- 78.5 15.72 10.49 6.78 7.98
96.69 11.128 28.736
08 7 (20.00) (10.84) (60.93) (27.77)
2008- 80.6 15.73 11.00 9.94 8.55
99.18 22.689 34.104
09 8 (19.5) (11.09) (43.81) (25.07)
2009- 15.17 11.24 10.73 9.28
80.8 89.09 25.382 32.034
10 (18.77) (12.61) (42.27) (28.97)
2010- 86.8 16.47 10.83 10.278 13.136
95.98 22.514 34.198
11 7 (18.96) (11.29) (45.65) (38.41)
2011- 94.8 17.98 10.53 11.094 11.926
105.3 28.335 35.041
12 8 (18.95) (10.00) (39.15) (34.03)
2012- 93.5 16.61 105.2 11.39 12.934 13.395
38.148 34.044
13 1 (17.77) 3 (10.82) (33.90) (39.35)
2013- 95.8 17.61 106.6 11.26 11.097 13.192
25.092 31.845
14 5 (18.37) 5 (10.56) (44.23) (41.43)
2014- 86.5 15.05 105.4 11.11 11.932 11.841
28.023 32.04
15 3 (17.39) 8 (10.53) (42.58) (36.96)
2015- 92.2 16.07 104.4 11.81 10.506 14.333
28.088 34.217
16 9 (17.41) 1 (11.31) (37.4) (41.89)
2016- 98.5 17.64 12.64 11.834 17.915
109.7 22.962 38.106
17 1 (17.9) (11.52) (51.54) (47.01)
2017- 17.83 112.9 13.38 11.834 17.972
99.7 30.824 38.184
18 (17.88) 1 (11.85) (38.39) (47.06)
599Note: Figures in parentheses are the percentage share of production and procurement of Punjab
600

601

40
602

41
603Annexure II
604Month-wise pattern of market arrival of wheat in Punjab: 2010-11 to 2018-19
605 (Lakh tonnes)
Septe Januar Febru
Year April May June July August mber Oct Nov Dec y ary March Total
2010 93.66 9.14 0.23 0.04 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.28 0.06 0.05 0.18 103.96
-11 (90.1) (8.8) (0.2) (0.04) (0.07) (0.06) (0.06) (0.11) (0.27) (0.06) (0.05) (0.17) (100)
2011 61.16 50.1 0.51 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.04 112.36
-12 (54.4) (44.6) (0.5) (0.04) (0.05) (0.06) (0.08) (0.06) (0.08) (0.04) (0.08) (0.03) (100)
2012 62.58 66.18 0.28 1.05 0.04 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.07 130.54
-13 (47.9) (50.7) (0.2) (0.8) (0.03) (0.07) (0.05) (0.03) (0.06) (0.03) (0.02) (0.05) (100)
2013 81.52 29.95 0.45 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.28 112.53
-14 (72.4) (26.6) (0.4) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.03) (0.02) (0.05) (0.03) (0.04) (0.25) (100)
2014 46.49 72.86 0.63 0.48 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.02 0.03 120.7
-15 (38.5) (60.4) (0.5) (0.4) (0.04) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.05) (0.02) (0.02) (100)
2015 19.97 84.38 1.17 0.25 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.11 106.34
-16 (18.8) (79.4) (1.1) (0.23) (0.08) (0.07) (0.06) (0.05) (0.05) (0.07) (0.05) (0.1) (100)
2016 51.58 26.02 9.1 0.02 22.09 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 109.05
-17 (47.3) (23.9) (8.4) (0.02) (20.3) (0.03) (0.02) (0.05) (0.03) (0.03) (0.05) (0.01) (100)
2017 78.08 38.01 4.45 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.05 121.02
-18 (64.5) (31.4) (3.7) (0.06) (0.04) (0.07) (0.03) (0.05) (0.05) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04) (100)
2018 99.53 21.45 7.05 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.07 128.57
-19 (77.4) (16.7) (5.5) (0.09) (0.05) (0.06) (0.03) (0.02) (0.06) (0.02) (0.03) (0.06) (100)
606Source: Punjab Mandi Board, SAS Nagar
607Note: Figures within the parentheses indicate percentages to the total.

42
608Annexure III

609 Month-wise price of wheat in Punjab: 2010-11 to 2018-19

610 (Rs/quintal)

Apri Septembe Octobe Novembe Decembe Februar

Year May June July August January March
l r r r r y
1070 924 984 965 994 991 1068 1015 962 1082 1074
2010-11 1065
(0.5) (-13.2) (-7.6) (-9.4) (-6.7) (-6.9) (0.3) (-4.7) (-9.7) (1.6) (0.8)
1122 1113 1105 1008 975 1041 1150 1134 1020 1194 1275
2011-12 1115
(0.6) (-0.2) (-0.9) (-9.6) (-12.6) (-6.6) (3.1) (1.7) (-8.5) (7.1) (14.3)
1278 1265 1257 1267 1316 1308 1519 1563 1471 1462 1468
2012-13 1277
(0.1) (-0.9) (-1.6) (-0.8) (3.1) (2.4) (19) (22.4) (15.2) (14.5) (15)
1322 1365 1373 1369 1415 1783 1773 1824 1702 1447 1353
2013-14 1322
(0) (3.3) (3.9) (3.6) (7.0) (34.9) (34.1) (38) (28.7) (9.5) (2.3)
1377 1389 1618 1443 1465 1440 1479 1473 1362 1531 1518
2014-15 1383
(-0.4) (0.4) (17) (4.3) (5.9) (4.1) (6.9) (6.5) (-1.5) (10.7) (9.8)
1440 1447 1525 1519 1515 1481 1520 1518 1568 1588 1533
2015-16 1431
(0.6) (1.1) (6.6) (6.1) (5.9) (3.5) (6.2) (6.1) (9.6) (11) (7.1)
1525 1535 1558 1575 1580 1558 1852 1767 1701 1767 1734
2016-17 1522
(0.2) (0.9) (2.4) (3.5) (3.8) (2.4) (21.7) (16.1) (11.8) (16.1) (13.9)
1625 1633 1653 1656 1656 1672 1717 1726 1726 1729 1714
2017-18 1624
(0.1) (0.6) (1.8) (2) (2) (3) (5.7) (6.3) (6.3) (6.5) (5.5)
1735 1849 1773 1798 1913 1772 1793 1868 1893 1900 1810
2018-19 1734
(0.1) (6.6) (2.2) (3.7) (10.3) (2.2) (3.4) (7.7) (9.2) (9.6) (4.4)
611Note: Figures within the parentheses indicate percentage increase/decrease in price as compared to the price in the month of
612April of the respective years
613Source: agmarknet.com

614

43
615Annexure IV
616Month-wise pattern of market arrival of Paddy in Punjab: 1997-98 to 2018-19
617 (Lakh tonnes)
Septemb Octobe Novemb Decemb Januar Februar Marc Augus
Year April May June July Total
er r er er y y h t
10.6 66.94 16.31 1.05 0.12 0.18 0.01 0.01 _ _ _ 0.12 95.34
1997-98
(11.12) (70.21) (17.11) (1.1) (0.13) (0.19) (0.01) (0.01) (0.13) (100)
0.01
14.39 60.27 19.48 1.09 0.29 0.11 0.08 0.03 _ _ 0.29 96.04
1998-99 (0.01
(14.98) (62.76) (20.28) (1.13) (0.3) (0.11) (0.08) (0.03) (0.3) (100)
)
0.01 0.01 0.01 106.4
22.97 71.73 9.58 1 0.23 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.57
1999-00 (0.01 (0.01 (0.01 1
(21.59) (67.41) (9) (0.94) (0.22) (0.12) (0.12) (0.04) (0.54)
) ) ) (100)
0.02 0.03 0.03 116.1
12 87.99 13.86 1.01 0.32 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.36
2000-01 (0.02 (0.03 (0.03 2
(10.33) (75.78) (11.94) (0.87) (0.28) (0.2) (0.2) (0.03) (0.31)
) ) ) (100)
0.05 0.02 0.05 116.1
15.68 90.35 8.2 1.2 0.14 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.29
2001-02 (0.04 (0.02 (0.04 5
(13.5) (77.79) (7.06) (1.03) (0.12) (0.06) (0.06) (0.03) (0.25)
) ) ) (100)
0.01 0.01 0.01 129.8
9.65 105.74 12.94 0.79 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.56
2002-03 (0.01 (0.01 (0.01 1
(7.43) (81.46) (9.97) (0.61) (0.05) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.43)
) ) ) (100)
0.01 0.01 0.09 142.5
9.19 117.21 11.95 2.34 0.52 0.37 0.06 0.02 0.78
2003-04 (0.01 (0.01 (0.06 5
(6.45) (82.22) (8.38) (1.64) (0.36) (0.26) (0.04) (0.01) (0.55)
) ) ) (100)
0.02 0.03 0.08 154.7
14.06 119.46 17.86 1.85 0.16 0.06 0.07 0.03 1.03
2004-05 (0.01 (0.02 (0.05 1
(9.09) (77.22) (11.54) (1.2) (0.1) (0.04) (0.05) (0.02) (0.67)
) ) ) (100)
0.01 0.03 156.5
8.27 110.64 35.42 1.41 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.01 _ 0.56
2005-06 (0.01 (0.02 3
(5.28) (70.68) (22.63) (0.9) (0.07) (0.03) (0.01) (0.01) (0.36)
) ) (100)
0.02 0.07 136.1
11.57 104.41 18.38 0.92 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.01 _ 0.68
2006-07 (0.01 (0.05 4
(8.5) (76.69) (13.5) (0.68) (0.02) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.5)
) ) (100)
2007-08 13.15 104.61 21.51 2.11 0.11 0.04 0.09 _ _ _ _ _ 141.6
(9.29) (73.87) (15.19) (1.49) (0.08) (0.03) (0.06) 2

44
 (100)
0.01 0.01 138.8
0.01 52.15 73.52 11.37 1.36 0.4 _ _ _ 0.01
2015-16 (0.01 (0.01 4
(0.01) (37.56) (52.95) (8.19) (0.98) (0.29) (0)
) ) (100)
168.0
0.08 92.5 51.9 11.74 7.96 0.9 2.96 0.03 _ 0.01
2016-17 _ _ 9
(0.05) (55.03) (30.88) (6.99) (4.74) (0.53) (1.76) (0.02) (0)
(100)
0.02 0.02 0.02 179.5
0.58 105.25 55.14 15.47 2.13 0.55 0.33 0.02 0.02
2017-18 (0.01 (0.01 (0.01 4
(0.32) (58.62) (30.71) (8.62) (1.19) (0.31) (0.19) (0.01) (0.01)
) ) ) (100)
0.01 172.6
0.04 92.38 70.96 8.31 0.75 0.12 0.06 _ _ _
2018-19 (0.01 _ 5
(0.02) (53.51) (41.1) (4.81) (0.44) (0.07) (0.04)
) (100)
618Notes: Figures within the parentheses indicate percentages to the total, Missing years are due to non-availability of data
619Source: Punjab Mandi Board, SAS Nagar

45
 620Annexure V
621Month-wise price of paddy in Punjab: 1997-98 to 2018-19
622 (Rs/quintal)
Septe Octobe Novem Decem
Year January February March April May June July August
mber r ber ber
380
445 445 445 440 440 450 425 430 461 450
1997-98 445 (-
(0) (0) (0) (-1.12) (-1.12) (1.12) (-4.49) (-3.37) (3.6) (1.12)
14.61)
470 470 470 470 470 470 470 430 500 450 470
1998-99 470
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (-8.51) (6.38) (-4.26) (0)
445 450
520 520 520 500 500 490 525 515 415
1999-00 520 (- (-
(0) (0) (0) (-3.85) (-3.85) (-5.77) (0.96) (-0.96) (-20.19)
14.42) 13.46)
450 465 450
540 540 540 450 460 500 506 470
2000-01 540 (- (- (-
(0) (0) (0) (-16.67) (-14.81) (-7.41) (-6.3) (-12.96)
16.67) 13.89) 16.67)
412 415 475
560 560 560 425 450 520 525 660
2001-02 560 (- (- (-
(0) (0) (0) (-24.11) (-19.64) (-7.14) (-6.25) (17.86)
26.43) 25.89) 15.18)
430 450
580 580 580 525 540 550 560 560 460
2002-03 580 (- (-
(0) (0) (0) (-9.48) (-6.9) (-5.17) (-3.45) (-3.45) (-20.69)
25.86) 22.41)
500 500
580 580 580 500 500 580 530 525 540
2003-04 580 (- (-
(0) (0) (0) (-13.79) (-13.79) (0) (-8.62) (-9.48) (-6.9)
13.79) 13.79)
590 590 590 510 500 375 (- 580 (- 570 565 560 460
2004-05 590
(0) (0) (0) (-13.56) (-15.25) 36.44) 1.69) (-3.39) (-4.24) (-5.08) (-22.03)
600 600 601 600 600 601 600 600 600 573 625
2005-06 600
(0) (0) (0.17) (0) (0) (0.17) (0) (0) (0) (-4.5) (4.17)
650 650 650 620 624 650 700 645 611 704 680
2006-07 650
(0) (0) (0) (-4.62) (-4) (0) (7.69) (-0.77) (-6) (8.31) (4.62)
680 455 575 680 500
775 775 775 720 680 (- 500
2007-08 775 (- (- (- (- (-
(0) (0) (0) (-7.1) 12.26) (-35.48)
12.26) 41.29) 25.81) 12.26) 35.48)
2015-16 1565 1460 1590 2089 2077 1992 1954 1921 2161 2375 2427 2367
(-6.69) (1.63) (33.48) (32.73) (27.34) (24.85 (22.77 (38.08) (51.78 (55.09 (51.25)

46
 ) ) ) )
2692
1544 1761 2325 2615 2742 1906 2163 2034 2098 2400
2016-17 2067 (30.25
(-25.27) (-14.8) (12.51) (26.53) (32.68) (-7.79) (4.63) (-1.59) (1.51) (16.12)
)
3317 1858 1735 2923 3175
1728 2028 2599 3228 3359 3030
2017-18 2331 (42.27 (- (- (25.38 (36.19
(-25.88) (-13.02) (11.49) (38.47) (44.1) (29.95)
) 20.28) 25.58) ) )
1954 2108 3188 2648 2918 2783 1840 1840 1840 1840 1840
2018-19 1869
(4.56) (12.79) (70.58) (41.67) (56.12) (48.9) (-1.56) (-1.56) (-1.56) (-1.56) (-1.56)
623Note: Figures within the parentheses indicate percentage increase/decrease in price as compared to the price in the month of September of
624the respective years, Source: agmarknet.com and Punjab Mandi Board
625

47
626Annexure VI
627Cropping pattern among the sample farmers, Punjab, 2019-20
628 (in acres)
Crops Small Medium Large Overall
Kharif
Paddy 0.95 7.52 20.37 8.70
Cotton 0.75 3.09 11.06 4.19
Maize 0.68 1.07 2.89 1.35
Sugarcane - 0.30 5.06 1.19
Others 0.03 0.18 0.91 0.29
Kharif Fodder 0.16 0.94 0.75 0.73
Total Kharif Cropped Area 2.57 13.09 41.04 16.45
Rabi 
Wheat 2.00 11.42 31.67 13.23
Potato 0.32 0.52 3.42 1.06
Rabi Fodder 0.21 0.77 0.72 0.64
Total Rabi Cropped Area 2.52 12.70 35.80 14.93
Intermediate Crop
Peas 0.16 1.00 2.42 1.11
629*Others include area under poplar in kharif season and in rabi season, it includes vegetables like
630tomato
631

48